[quote='L Verge' pid='46728' dateline='1429376743']

This question is for Tom Bogar: Did they have ushers at Ford's Theatre?

Laurie,

They did, but the ushers had all been sent home at the start of Act III, since their services were no longer needed (lucky them). They were:
Mr. Gildour, family circle usher
Alphonso J. Houck, Ford’s business partner and part owner,also bill poster
James R. O’Bryon, Chief usher of the dress circle
James H. St. Clair, pit/parquette usher
Henry Sauder, upstairs (third tier) doorkeeper
Edmund E. Schreiner, dress circle usher

Thanks, Tom. Another day of edumacation.

Mr. Fazio,

I do distinctly remember reading a while back that a messenger-was he from the State Department?-delivered a message to Lincoln which he read and put to the side. He decided that it didn't need his immediate attention.

Does anyone know what the message was? Was it located in the State Box when the other items(opera glasses, etc) were recovered?

I simply cannot wait to read your book. To say that it sounds fascinating is an understatement!

(04-22-2015 06:57 PM)LincolnToddFan Wrote:  Mr. Fazio,

I do distinctly remember reading a while back that a messenger-was he from the State Department?-delivered a message to Lincoln which he read and put to the side. He decided that it didn't need his immediate attention.

Does anyone know what the message was? Was it located in the State Box when the other items(opera glasses, etc) were recovered?

I simply cannot wait to read your book. To say that it sounds fascinating is an understatement!

LincolnToddfan:

The "messenger" was Simon P. Hanscom, editor of the Washington National Republican, and a favorite of Lincoln's. The notion that he personally delivered an envelope to Lincoln that night, in the presidential box, is another of the many enduring myths that distort the history of the assassination. Hanscom could not have been clearer, when he wrote of his experience that night, in his paper (National Republican, June 8, 1865; see also Bryan, 221; Reck, 92, 93):

"We went there for the purpose of delivering to the President a message, which we were requested to convey from the White House...upon reaching the door we found no other person belonging to the Presidential household than Mr. Charles Forbes, one of Mr. Lincoln's footmen and messengers...As the play was progressing, we requested Forbes to hand the dispatch to the President." (See also Bryan 178, 179)

To my knowledge, the message was never identified and the envelope never recovered.

John

I wonder if the missing dispatch could have been among the papers that dropped from the president's pockets as he was carried to the Petersen House. Captain Edwin E. Bedee picked up the papers and delivered them to Edwin Stanton the next morning. As far as I know what Stanton did with the papers is unknown.

Roger and John,Do you feel that the missing papers do further implicate Stanton in the Conspiracy Theory of Lincoln[speculation]?

IMO, I doubt it. The LOC's Dr. Oliver Orr's guesstimate was that "they are mixed in with thousands of other pieces of paper in the LOC and could be found only by a researcher with a great deal of time and patience." (from Reck's book)

Thanks Roger!That clears up my thoughts about the entire idea of Stanton being involved in the Conspiracy.

Just wanted to add that I am reading John Fazio's book, Decapitating the Union, every opportunity I get. Although I have read only about fifty pages, I recommend that everyone consider studying it. John is a lawyer, and it reflects in his writing, where he covers all angles as much as possible -- and in a very precise and organized manner. Of course, I'm prejudiced because he's covering much of the material that the triumvirate of Tidwell, Hall, and Gaddy did in Come Retribution concerning the possibility of Confederate high command involvement. That's a theory that I will never discard (because it just makes sense!).

I deeply admire the work of Mr. Fazio, and highly recommend his recent book “Decapitating the Union: Jefferson Davis, Judah Benjamin and the Plot to Assassinate Lincoln.” Great stuff and very well written! If you are not in the possession of this book, place it now on your bucket list, because this book certainly belongs to your bookshelf. I just read chapter 16 “The Enigmas of Charles Forbes” (thank you Roger for your advice), and special kudos for Mr. Fazio’s extraordinary effort to write almost 10 pages about Charles Forbes, still for me a “mystery man”.

After finishing reading, the first person I was thinking of was strange enough: Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. It was Doyle who once let his fictional character of detective Sherlock Holmes say: “Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing. It may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different.” Even after reading Fazio’s points of view, it once again struck me that there is no direct evidence about the exact whereabouts of Charles Forbes at certain moments of the evening of April 14, 1865, only indirect (circumstantial) evidence. I think Mr. Fazio is aware of this, because he writes: “it is reasonable to suppose....”, “we may safely conclude..., “he was probably thinking”...”, “it can only have been Forbes ....”, “another possibility is that ...”, “one possible answer is ....”.

Don’t get me wrong, but in my opinion the most detailed report comes from James P. Ferguson, who owned a restaurant (the Greenback Saloon) next to Ford’s Theatre. He went to the play hoping to see General Grant. When the presidential party arrived without Grant, Ferguson supposed that Grant would arrive later, and therefore he kept looking at the box. He had conversed with Booth earlier in the day and recognized Booth (Ferguson stated that he met Booth quite frequently) when he entered the second-level balcony. Here is the description: “He walked down around the upper row of the dress circle next to the wall. He stopped about two or three steps before he went to the door, then entered the private box, took off his hat and held it in his left hand. He had a black slouch hat which was a hat he often wore; stooped down and cast his eyes about over the dress circle and the orchestra, stepped one step down, put his knee against the door and opened it.” Ferguson, was sitting exactly opposite and could see the door shut after Booth had stepped in. It struck Ferguson that Booth went into that box and while he was wondering whether he was going to shake hands he heard the shot. Ferguson makes no mention of Forbes near (or “guarding”) the door.

(04-23-2015 10:37 AM)loetar44 Wrote:  I deeply admire the work of Mr. Fazio, and highly recommend his recent book “Decapitating the Union: Jefferson Davis, Judah Benjamin and the Plot to Assassinate Lincoln.” Great stuff and very well written! If you are not in the possession of this book, place it now on your bucket list, because this book certainly belongs to your bookshelf. I just read chapter 16 “The Enigmas of Charles Forbes” (thank you Roger for your advice), and special kudos for Mr. Fazio’s extraordinary effort to write almost 10 pages about Charles Forbes, still for me a “mystery man”.

After finishing reading, the first person I was thinking of was strange enough: Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. It was Doyle who once let his fictional character of detective Sherlock Holmes say: “Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing. It may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different.” Even after reading Fazio’s points of view, it once again struck me that there is no direct evidence about the exact whereabouts of Charles Forbes at certain moments of the evening of April 14, 1865, only indirect (circumstantial) evidence. I think Mr. Fazio is aware of this, because he writes: “it is reasonable to suppose....”, “we may safely conclude..., “he was probably thinking”...”, “it can only have been Forbes ....”, “another possibility is that ...”, “one possible answer is ....”.

Don’t get me wrong, but in my opinion the most detailed report comes from James P. Ferguson, who owned a restaurant (the Greenback Saloon) next to Ford’s Theatre. He went to the play hoping to see General Grant. When the presidential party arrived without Grant, Ferguson supposed that Grant would arrive later, and therefore he kept looking at the box. He had conversed with Booth earlier in the day and recognized Booth (Ferguson stated that he met Booth quite frequently) when he entered the second-level balcony. Here is the description: “He walked down around the upper row of the dress circle next to the wall. He stopped about two or three steps before he went to the door, then entered the private box, took off his hat and held it in his left hand. He had a black slouch hat which was a hat he often wore; stooped down and cast his eyes about over the dress circle and the orchestra, stepped one step down, put his knee against the door and opened it.” Ferguson, was sitting exactly opposite and could see the door shut after Booth had stepped in. It struck Ferguson that Booth went into that box and while he was wondering whether he was going to shake hands he heard the shot. Ferguson makes no mention of Forbes near (or “guarding”) the door.

Loetar44:

I welcome you as an honorable member in good standing of The Lovers of Truth, of which I am the President, which organization, you have no doubt heard, works tirelessly to follow the evidence (eyewitness, material and circumstantial), wherever it takes us, and to overcome the limitations of perception, interpretation, language, bias and prejudice, pitfalls which have ensnared the members of the Society of Ossified Curmudgeons, with whom we wage a never-ending struggle.

I admire your reference to James P.Ferguson's report, because it has been problematic for the Lovers of Truth, and also because it challenges one of its members to adduce additional evidence in support of his position, which I am happy to do as soon as I get back from the Post Office. In the meantime, please give some thought to how we Lovers of Truth reconcile Ferguson's account with the accounts of those who were much closer to the outer door than Ferguson, namely McGowan, Crawford, Leale and Booth himself (through Herold). Consider, too, the statements of those who surely spoke to Forbes when the dust had settled, or to others who had spoken to Forbes, like Nicolay and Stoddard.

Until later.

John

(04-23-2015 12:46 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  I welcome you as an honorable member in good standing of The Lovers of Truth, of which I am the President, which organization, you have no doubt heard, works tirelessly to follow the evidence (eyewitness, material and circumstantial), wherever it takes us, and to overcome the limitations of perception, interpretation, language, bias and prejudice, pitfalls which have ensnared the members of the Society of Ossified Curmudgeons, with whom we wage a never-ending struggle.

Thank you for your reply. Very much appreciated. I think I do not disappoint you by saying that I too am a "Lover of Truth", and I am a "Lover of Peace", so I am a "Lover of Truth and Peace". I hope you don't see me as a Curmudgeon, a grumpy old man. IMO Curmudgeons are falsely seen as grumpy old men along the lines of Walter Matthau or Andy Rooney. The truth is that a Curmudgeon can be any gender or any age. Curmudgeons are supremely independent thinkers, very wise, and often have excellent qualities.

(04-23-2015 12:46 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 10:37 AM)loetar44 Wrote:  I deeply admire the work of Mr. Fazio, and highly recommend his recent book “Decapitating the Union: Jefferson Davis, Judah Benjamin and the Plot to Assassinate Lincoln.” Great stuff and very well written! If you are not in the possession of this book, place it now on your bucket list, because this book certainly belongs to your bookshelf. I just read chapter 16 “The Enigmas of Charles Forbes” (thank you Roger for your advice), and special kudos for Mr. Fazio’s extraordinary effort to write almost 10 pages about Charles Forbes, still for me a “mystery man”.

After finishing reading, the first person I was thinking of was strange enough: Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. It was Doyle who once let his fictional character of detective Sherlock Holmes say: “Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing. It may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different.” Even after reading Fazio’s points of view, it once again struck me that there is no direct evidence about the exact whereabouts of Charles Forbes at certain moments of the evening of April 14, 1865, only indirect (circumstantial) evidence. I think Mr. Fazio is aware of this, because he writes: “it is reasonable to suppose....”, “we may safely conclude..., “he was probably thinking”...”, “it can only have been Forbes ....”, “another possibility is that ...”, “one possible answer is ....”.

Don’t get me wrong, but in my opinion the most detailed report comes from James P. Ferguson, who owned a restaurant (the Greenback Saloon) next to Ford’s Theatre. He went to the play hoping to see General Grant. When the presidential party arrived without Grant, Ferguson supposed that Grant would arrive later, and therefore he kept looking at the box. He had conversed with Booth earlier in the day and recognized Booth (Ferguson stated that he met Booth quite frequently) when he entered the second-level balcony. Here is the description: “He walked down around the upper row of the dress circle next to the wall. He stopped about two or three steps before he went to the door, then entered the private box, took off his hat and held it in his left hand. He had a black slouch hat which was a hat he often wore; stooped down and cast his eyes about over the dress circle and the orchestra, stepped one step down, put his knee against the door and opened it.” Ferguson, was sitting exactly opposite and could see the door shut after Booth had stepped in. It struck Ferguson that Booth went into that box and while he was wondering whether he was going to shake hands he heard the shot. Ferguson makes no mention of Forbes near (or “guarding”) the door.

Loetar44:

I welcome you as an honorable member in good standing of The Lovers of Truth, of which I am the President, which organization, you have no doubt heard, works tirelessly to follow the evidence (eyewitness, material and circumstantial), wherever it takes us, and to overcome the limitations of perception, interpretation, language, bias and prejudice, pitfalls which have ensnared the members of the Society of Ossified Curmudgeons, with whom we wage a never-ending struggle.

I admire your reference to James P.Ferguson's report, because it has been problematic for the Lovers of Truth, and also because it challenges one of its members to adduce additional evidence in support of his position, which I am happy to do as soon as I get back from the Post Office. In the meantime, please give some thought to how we Lovers of Truth reconcile Ferguson's account with the accounts of those who were much closer to the outer door than Ferguson, namely McGowan, Crawford, Leale and Booth himself (through Herold). Consider, too, the statements of those who surely spoke to Forbes when the dust had settled, or to others who had spoken to Forbes, like Nicolay and Stoddard.

Until later.

John

I'm back

Recognizing that eyewitness testimony is likely to be all over the board, as it is with respect to what happened in front of the outer door of the presidential box at Ford's Theatre between 10 and 10:30 on April 14, 1865, we have no alternative but to find truth in the preponderance of the evidence. On the one hand we have James Ferguson saying Booth walked right in, with no mention of Forbes or anyone else to contend with, much less that he actually contended with him. On the other hand we have Stoddard, Lincoln' Assistant Secretary, writing that Booth presented a card to "one of the President's messengers" at the end of the inner passage, adding that either Booth or the card stated that Mr. Lincoln had sent for him. Nicolay, the President's Secretary (with Hay) later wrote that Booth showed "a card to the servant in attendance". Both of those accounts, coming as they do from White House personnel, probably came from Forbes himself--who else? It is only reasonable that someone in the White House would have questioned Forbes pretty closely after the dust had settled. Further, we have already seen that Dr. Leale, who was only 40 or so feet away, said that Booth engaged "a man" and that the man put up some resistance before finally allowing Booth to pass. This accords well with Booth's saying, in his diary, that he was stopped, but pushed on. Further, McGowan, who was almost on top of the scene, said that Booth handed a writing to the "President's messenger". Further, another eyewitness, Koontz, said that Booth told "Lincoln's servant at the door" that Lincoln had sent for him. Further, in June, 1865, a Harper's Magazine article stated that Booth was stopped by the "sentinel", but was permitted to pass when Booth told him that the President wished to see him. Gath told essentially the same story in the New York World. Observe that the last four accounts all include the element that Booth told the person at the door that Lincoln wished to see him, which is consistent with Leale's, Stoddard's and Nicolay's accounts as well as with Josiah Gilbert Holland's 1866 biography as well as Abraham Lincoln's remarks to Col. Charles Halpine concerning the ease with which he could be accessed by means of a "pass". So why did Ferguson say what he said? Probably because he wanted to sound authoritative (he later wrote a book titled "I Saw Lincoln Shot"), for monetary gain, and/or because he witnessed only part of what happened in front of the door (after all, a play was being performed), the part that followed the tete a tete between Booth and Forbes. The preponderance of the evidence (Including Hanscom's newspaper article, previously referred to) favors the conclusion that there was someone at the door, that the someone was Forbes and that he engaged Booth, though too briefly and weakly, before he was persuaded by Booth's documentation to permit him to pass, does it not? What documentation? How about a carte de visite and an authorization signed by Lincoln? Can't get much better than that.

John

(04-23-2015 03:11 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  I'm back

Recognizing that eyewitness testimony is likely to be all over the board, as it is with respect to what happened in front of the outer door of the presidential box at Ford's Theatre between 10 and 10:30 on April 14, 1865, we have no alternative but to find truth in the preponderance of the evidence. On the one hand we have James Ferguson saying Booth walked right in, with no mention of Forbes or anyone else to contend with, much less that he actually contended with him. On the other hand we have Stoddard, Lincoln' Assistant Secretary, writing that Booth presented a card to "one of the President's messengers" at the end of the inner passage, adding that either Booth or the card stated that Mr. Lincoln had sent for him. Nicolay, the President's Secretary (with Hay) later wrote that Booth showed "a card to the servant in attendance". Both of those accounts, coming as they do from White House personnel, probably came from Forbes himself--who else? It is only reasonable that someone in the White House would have questioned Forbes pretty closely after the dust had settled. Further, we have already seen that Dr. Leale, who was only 40 or so feet away, said that Booth engaged "a man" and that the man put up some resistance before finally allowing Booth to pass. This accords well with Booth's saying, in his diary, that he was stopped, but pushed on. Further, McGowan, who was almost on top of the scene, said that Booth handed a writing to the "President's messenger". Further, another eyewitness, Koontz, said that Booth told "Lincoln's servant at the door" that Lincoln had sent for him. Further, in June, 1865, a Harper's Magazine article stated that Booth was stopped by the "sentinel", but was permitted to pass when Booth told him that the President wished to see him. Gath told essentially the same story in the New York World. Observe that the last four accounts all include the element that Booth told the person at the door that Lincoln wished to see him, which is consistent with Leale's, Stoddard's and Nicolay's accounts as well as with Josiah Gilbert Holland's 1866 biography as well as Abraham Lincoln's remarks to Col. Charles Halpine concerning the ease with which he could be accessed by means of a "pass". So why did Ferguson say what he said? Probably because he wanted to sound authoritative (he later wrote a book titled "I Saw Lincoln Shot"), for monetary gain, and/or because he witnessed only part of what happened in front of the door (after all, a play was being performed), the part that followed the tete a tete between Booth and Forbes. The preponderance of the evidence (Including Hanscom's newspaper article, previously referred to) favors the conclusion that there was someone at the door, that the someone was Forbes and that he engaged Booth, though too briefly and weakly, before he was persuaded by Booth's documentation to permit him to pass, does it not? What documentation? How about a carte de visite and an authorization signed by Lincoln? Can't get much better than that.

John

Once again thank you for your response. What you said is what you said in Chapter 16. And you are very convincing! Eyewitness accounts are most important. Of course I know that every eyewitness to an event is direct evidence, but I also know that eyewitnesses are often unreliable for many reasons (this also goes for Ferguson). People may lie, or, more often, they may not see things as clearly as they believe, especially if an event occurs quickly or at a time of high stress. Moreover, people tend to see things in a way that matches their expectations. Memory can change over time, and people tend to fill in gaps in their memory without realizing it. People are often susceptible to suggestion. That said, it's my true believe that the whole Forbes-story is speculation (which doesn’t make it untrue), because there is no documentary evidence. I'm a mathematician and contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive.

(04-23-2015 03:32 PM)loetar44 Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 03:11 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  I'm back

Recognizing that eyewitness testimony is likely to be all over the board, as it is with respect to what happened in front of the outer door of the presidential box at Ford's Theatre between 10 and 10:30 on April 14, 1865, we have no alternative but to find truth in the preponderance of the evidence. On the one hand we have James Ferguson saying Booth walked right in, with no mention of Forbes or anyone else to contend with, much less that he actually contended with him. On the other hand we have Stoddard, Lincoln' Assistant Secretary, writing that Booth presented a card to "one of the President's messengers" at the end of the inner passage, adding that either Booth or the card stated that Mr. Lincoln had sent for him. Nicolay, the President's Secretary (with Hay) later wrote that Booth showed "a card to the servant in attendance". Both of those accounts, coming as they do from White House personnel, probably came from Forbes himself--who else? It is only reasonable that someone in the White House would have questioned Forbes pretty closely after the dust had settled. Further, we have already seen that Dr. Leale, who was only 40 or so feet away, said that Booth engaged "a man" and that the man put up some resistance before finally allowing Booth to pass. This accords well with Booth's saying, in his diary, that he was stopped, but pushed on. Further, McGowan, who was almost on top of the scene, said that Booth handed a writing to the "President's messenger". Further, another eyewitness, Koontz, said that Booth told "Lincoln's servant at the door" that Lincoln had sent for him. Further, in June, 1865, a Harper's Magazine article stated that Booth was stopped by the "sentinel", but was permitted to pass when Booth told him that the President wished to see him. Gath told essentially the same story in the New York World. Observe that the last four accounts all include the element that Booth told the person at the door that Lincoln wished to see him, which is consistent with Leale's, Stoddard's and Nicolay's accounts as well as with Josiah Gilbert Holland's 1866 biography as well as Abraham Lincoln's remarks to Col. Charles Halpine concerning the ease with which he could be accessed by means of a "pass". So why did Ferguson say what he said? Probably because he wanted to sound authoritative (he later wrote a book titled "I Saw Lincoln Shot"), for monetary gain, and/or because he witnessed only part of what happened in front of the door (after all, a play was being performed), the part that followed the tete a tete between Booth and Forbes. The preponderance of the evidence (Including Hanscom's newspaper article, previously referred to) favors the conclusion that there was someone at the door, that the someone was Forbes and that he engaged Booth, though too briefly and weakly, before he was persuaded by Booth's documentation to permit him to pass, does it not? What documentation? How about a carte de visite and an authorization signed by Lincoln? Can't get much better than that.

John

Once again thank you for your response. What you said is what you said in Chapter 16. And you are very convincing! Eyewitness accounts are most important. Of course I know that every eyewitness to an event is direct evidence, but I also know that eyewitnesses are often unreliable for many reasons (this also goes for Ferguson). People may lie, or, more often, they may not see things as clearly as they believe, especially if an event occurs quickly or at a time of high stress. Moreover, people tend to see things in a way that matches their expectations. Memory can change over time, and people tend to fill in gaps in their memory without realizing it. People are often susceptible to suggestion. That said, it's my true believe that the whole Forbes-story is speculation (which doesn’t make it untrue), because there is no documentary evidence. I'm a mathematician and contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive.

Leotar44:

What documentary evidence do you refer to? What, in the nature of documentary or material evidence, do you suppose could exist? Would it satisfy you? We have Forbes's Affidavit, which, though it does not place him outside the presidential box (a clearly false statement, contradicted by everyone and everything else), at least establishes that he was charged with guarding the presidential party, which would, at the least, put him in the vicinity of the outer door. I think it is hazardous to rely on only one species of evidence, especially if other species exist. I quite agree with you about the fallibility of eyewitness testimony, which is why I and most prosecutors favor circumstantial evidence. It may be stronger than you realize.

In what way is the "whole Forbes story" speculation? Is not everything we believe about history in some degree speculation? History is not "what happened"; it is a record of what happened, and records are always in some degree deficient, because their creators are in some degree deficient. Anything is possible. Booth may have had a double that night. Maybe it wasn't Booth who was killed in the barn. Maybe Surratt had a double, which might explain why 5 people said he was in Elmira on the 14th and 14 said he was in Washington. Maybe O'Laughlen had a double, which might explain why 3 people said he was at Stanton's home on the 13th and 7 said he was with them carousing.

Let me offer a possibility as to why Ferguson (and Crawford) failed to mention Forbes. Booth had earlier made a dry run into the box (per Clara Harris, affirmed by Brooks). He almost certainly chose a moment when Forbes wasn't around (in the box, in the bathroom, who knows). Perhaps Ferguson and Crawford witnessed that entry and conflated it with the second entry. As I said: anything is possible, which is why we, as historians, cannot content ourselves with possibilities, but must insist on at least probabilities, inasmuch as certainty is virtually unobtainable. The probabilities re Forbes are as I have stated them.

John