Kees, I agree about Forbes and his account being a mystery. T. S. Good comments in "We Saw Lincoln Shot" (p.102): "It is impossible to determine his [Forbes'] exact location at the time of the shot."

Re: "It...establishes that he was charged with guarding the presidential party" - IF anyone was actually charged, wasn't it most likely Parker?

Thanks to all who shared their assessment on Mr. Fazio's book - like Toia, "I simply cannot wait to read your book. To say that it sounds fascinating is an understatement"!!!

(04-23-2015 08:33 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Kees, I agree about Forbes and his account being a mystery. T. S. Good comments in "We Saw Lincoln Shot" (p.102): "It is impossible to determine his [Forbes'] exact location at the time of the shot."

Re: "It...establishes that he was charged with guarding the presidential party" - IF anyone was actually charged, wasn't it most likely Parker?

Thanks to all who shared their assessment on Mr. Fazio's book - like Toia, "I simply cannot wait to read your book. To say that it sounds fascinating is an understatement"!!!

Eva:

Parker was most certainly charged with guarding the presidential party. He was the armed guard, armed with a .38 caliber revolver, like all the special policemen from the Metropolitan Police Department who were assigned to protect the President. His responsibility as the armed guard is spelled out in detail by other armed guards, namely Crook, Pendel and McElfresh. It is also established by Buckingham. It is also established by Richards and Forbes, who preferred charges against him for his failure to guard the presidential party. Forbes was not an armed guard. He was not even a guard, but he served as one, in some degree, even though it was not his duty as such and he was therefore unarmed, because he could and apparently did control traffic into and out of the presidential box. I should not have said that he was charged with "guarding the president". I should have said "attending to" the President.

John

I have a question about President Lincoln's security at Ford's Theatre. In some books I have read that it was normal procedure for Lincoln to attend performances with no security at all. But William H. Crook (one of the detail of White House guards) writes:

"It was the custom for the guard who accompanied the President to the theatre to remain in the little passageway outside the box – that passageway through which Booth entered. Mr. Buckingham, who was the doorkeeper at Ford’s Theatre, remembers that a chair was placed there for the guard on the evening of the 14th. Whether Parker occupied it at all I do not know – Mr. Buckingham is of the impression that he did. If he did, he left it almost immediately; for he confessed to me the next day that he went to a seat at the front of the first gallery, so that he could see the play. The door of the President’s box was shut; probably Mr. Lincoln never knew that the guard had left his post."

Was Crook right? Was it normal for a guard to be sitting in the passageway whenever Lincoln and party occupied that box?

(04-23-2015 07:50 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  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

IMO history is not “what you think” of the past, but “what happened” in the past. And if it cannot be retrieved, or completely known or understood you have to deal with that. It’s my opinion that the past cannot be fully known and if you fill in the gaps with “possibilities” or "probabilities", or things that “might” be happened, you are presenting history that will defeats itself. History is an academic discipline, not a popular pastime or a form of entertainment.

For me history is the study of the human past as it is described in e.g. written documents. I call that “documentary evidence”, belonging to any evidence in the form of documents.

Charles Forbes was never questioned about that night (to say he was questioned in private is speculation) and he was never heard at the subsequent conspiracy trial. He never said in a written document that he was at the moment of the murder in the dress circle or the doorkeeper. So there is no documentary evidence existing that Forbes was sitting in the dress circle or "guarding" the outer door. I respect documentary evidence better than the evidence furnished by eyewitnesses, about which there is always a certain amount of suspicion re. eyewitness accounts.

The man Booth handed his card has NEVER been identified. I know he is widely believed (since the 1980s) to have been Charles Forbes, but others say that Forbes by then had left to have a drink at Taltavull’s. What Booth took from his pocket is also a guess and that it was a falsified pass is speculation.

John,thanks for your fantastic research!My eyes are open towards purchasing your book.

(04-24-2015 04:32 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  I have a question about President Lincoln's security at Ford's Theatre. In some books I have read that it was normal procedure for Lincoln to attend performances with no security at all. But William H. Crook (one of the detail of White House guards) writes:

"It was the custom for the guard who accompanied the President to the theatre to remain in the little passageway outside the box – that passageway through which Booth entered. Mr. Buckingham, who was the doorkeeper at Ford’s Theatre, remembers that a chair was placed there for the guard on the evening of the 14th. Whether Parker occupied it at all I do not know – Mr. Buckingham is of the impression that he did. If he did, he left it almost immediately; for he confessed to me the next day that he went to a seat at the front of the first gallery, so that he could see the play. The door of the President’s box was shut; probably Mr. Lincoln never knew that the guard had left his post."

Was Crook right? Was it normal for a guard to be sitting in the passageway whenever Lincoln and party occupied that box?

Roger:

The statement you quote above is affirmed by similar statements made by Crook in the same source (Through Five Administrations)and in his other work (Memories).It is also affirmed by Tom Pendel, George McElfresh, A. C. Richards, Charles Forbes and Mary Todd Lincoln. It is also accepted as fact by Roscoe, Eisenschiml, Bryan, Clark and Brooks, among others, including me. See pages 152-158 of the book.

John

---

(04-24-2015 05:26 AM)HerbS Wrote:  John,thanks for your fantastic research!My eyes are open towards purchasing your book.

Herb:

Thanks. I will be most interested in your commentary when you are finished with it. Perhaps you can write a review for Amazon. Something modest like "Tour de force!!!!" "Fantastico!!!" (Italian for "fantastic") "Mama Mia!!!" (Italian for, well "Mama Mia"). Well, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I thought I would just try a few.

John



John

(04-24-2015 06:14 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  Roger:

The statement you quote above is affirmed by similar statements made by Crook in the same source (Through Five Administrations)and in his other work (Memories).It is also affirmed by Tom Pendel, George McElfresh, A. C. Richards, Charles Forbes and Mary Todd Lincoln. It is also accepted as fact by Roscoe, Eisenschiml, Bryan, Clark and Brooks, among others, including me. See pages 152-158 of the book.

Thanks, John. I just read the pages you cited. In previous threads I have argued that Parker was indeed there to protect the President and not simply to escort him to and from the box. I am aware several prominent historians do not view it this way, but I personally agree with your assessment. Maybe I missed it in those pages, but do you feel the door to box #8 was left open? I think Mike Kauffman and others have stated that Booth entered the State Box through an open door #8 and not a closed door #7. The reason I ask about this is that from Parker's standpoint I think it would make sense to leave the door to box #8 open. Not only could he at least hear the play better, but I would think it would get very hot and stuffy in the passageway if the entry door was closed as well as the doors to both box #7 and #8. (For me it would be claustrophobic to have all 3 doors closed.) I would think Parker would get some air if the door to box #8 were left open. Of course we don't know how long he remained in the seat Buckingham said was placed there; probably not long, as you logically indicate.

IMO history is not “what you think” of the past, but “what happened” in the past. And if it cannot be retrieved, or completely known or understood you have to deal with that. It’s my opinion that the past cannot be fully known and if you fill in the gaps with “possibilities” or "probabilities", or things that “might” be happened, you are presenting history that will defeats itself. History is an academic discipline, not a popular pastime or a form of entertainment.

For me history is the study of the human past as it is described in e.g. written documents. I call that “documentary evidence”, belonging to any evidence in the form of documents.

Thank you, Kees, for those two paragraphs. They should be posted on every history classroom wall!

I still tend to agree with the Kauffman explanation of Parker being assigned to escort the presidential party to the theater, not to protect them once inside. I double-checked Mike's conclusions and was reminded that he had said in American Brutus that the question of protection was not brought up in 1865, and that no one expressed surprise at Lincoln being unguarded. It was not until Garfield's assassination that the idea of security was brought up and people began thinking back to the situation with Lincoln. That's when other so-called "body guards" began to reminisce.

Mike also points out that Mrs. Lincoln held Forbes responsible, and Forbes then filed a formal complaint against Parker, holding him responsible for leaving his post. His citations on this are pretty strong -- including that Parker was "assigned to the White House on detached service to the commissioner of public buildings and was paid out of the Interior Department budget to protect the building and its furnishings - not the president."

This paragraph is for John: I have now finished the chapters related to Booth and young Surratt, and your prosecuting attorney tendencies are seriously showing! You are tough on them, which I expected, but the lawyer language is starting to show as you encourage the jury (the readers) to believe things to be true that have not been clearly proven. Don't take offense, please, because it's kind of an interesting approach; and I'm picturing you in 19th-century garb as JAG Joseph Holt...

Quote:IMO history is not “what you think” of the past, but “what happened” in the past. And if it cannot be retrieved, or completely known or understood you have to deal with that. It’s my opinion that the past cannot be fully known and if you fill in the gaps with “possibilities” or "probabilities", or things that “might” be happened, you are presenting history that will defeats itself. History is an academic discipline, not a popular pastime or a form of entertainment.

For me history is the study of the human past as it is described in e.g. written documents. I call that “documentary evidence”, belonging to any evidence in the form of documents.

My sentiments exactly. Thank you for saying it! A lot of people create interesting theories about unknown gaps in history, but in the end theories are just theories, not facts.

(04-24-2015 10:25 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Mike also points out that Mrs. Lincoln held Forbes responsible,

Laurie, this was totally new to me when I first saw it in AB. Offhand I do not recall seeing that in other books. It's on p. 393 of AB but there is no footnote. I do wonder where Mike got that.

If you have the Kunhardts' Looking For Lincoln, please see p. 89. On August 5, 1865, there is a very nice letter Mary wrote to Forbes. It starts out "My friend Charles." In response to a letter from him she invites Forbes to move to Chicago (where she was living at that time). She says she would be pleased if he would do so. She tells him about "dear little Taddie" and Robert. And she closes the letter "Write soon - Your friend as ever, Mary T. Lincoln."

What I have seen most often in books is Mary's blaming of Parker which was reported by Elizabeth Keckly. From Mrs. Keckly:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Soon after the assassination Parker was the guard assigned to protect Mrs. Lincoln one night. She (Mary) yelled at him, "So you are on guard tonight - on guard in the White House after helping to murder the president." Parker replied, "Pardon me, but I did not help to murder the president... I could never stoop to murder - much less to the murder of so good and great a man as the president." Mrs. Lincoln indicated she didn't believe him. Parker then continued, "I did wrong, I admit, and have bitterly repented... I did not believe any one would try to kill so good a man in such a public place, and the belief made me careless. I was attracted by the play, and did not see the assassin enter the box." Mrs. Lincoln told him she would always believe he was guilty and with a wave of her hand, she motioned for him to leave the room.

Maybe the accusation made against Parker by the First Lady came after Forbes filed the complaint against the police officer to deflect the blame from himself? That could account for Mrs. Lincoln speaking nicely of Forbes by August of 1865. Just a guess...

(04-23-2015 04:04 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  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.

Hi Roger!

This is honestly the first I have EVER read that items fell from dying AL's pockets onto Tenth Street as he was being carried to Petersen's. I always thought his pockets had been emptied inside the boarding house!

(04-24-2015 04:39 PM)LincolnToddFan Wrote:  Hi Roger!

This is honestly the first I have EVER read that items fell from dying AL's pockets onto Tenth Street as he was being carried to Petersen's. I always thought his pockets had been emptied inside the boarding house!

Hi Toia. Do you possibly have A. Lincoln: His Last 24 Hours by W. Emerson Reck? This is a wonderful book IMO. If so, please see pp. 165-167.

I do indeed have it. I've not picked it up to read in about 6-7 years...so I must have forgotten that fascinating detail Roger!

(04-24-2015 05:08 AM)loetar44 Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 07:50 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  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

IMO history is not “what you think” of the past, but “what happened” in the past. And if it cannot be retrieved, or completely known or understood you have to deal with that. It’s my opinion that the past cannot be fully known and if you fill in the gaps with “possibilities” or "probabilities", or things that “might” be happened, you are presenting history that will defeats itself. History is an academic discipline, not a popular pastime or a form of entertainment.

For me history is the study of the human past as it is described in e.g. written documents. I call that “documentary evidence”, belonging to any evidence in the form of documents.

Charles Forbes was never questioned about that night (to say he was questioned in private is speculation) and he was never heard at the subsequent conspiracy trial. He never said in a written document that he was at the moment of the murder in the dress circle or the doorkeeper. So there is no documentary evidence existing that Forbes was sitting in the dress circle or "guarding" the outer door. I respect documentary evidence better than the evidence furnished by eyewitnesses, about which there is always a certain amount of suspicion re. eyewitness accounts.

The man Booth handed his card has NEVER been identified. I know he is widely believed (since the 1980s) to have been Charles Forbes, but others say that Forbes by then had left to have a drink at Taltavull’s. What Booth took from his pocket is also a guess and that it was a falsified pass is speculation.

Leotar44

Sorry for not responding sooner. I have too many balloons in the air.

You say history is "what happened". Respectfully, I disagree. It is not "what happened"; it is a RECORD of what happened". Most of history is not known and never will be, because only a very small part of our lives is recorded, and then only with some degree of inaccuracy. Listen to Walt Whitman on the Civil War, a statement which can easily be applied to anything else in life:

The real war will never get in the books...Its interior history will never be written---its...minutia of deeds and passions will never even be suggested...Think how much, and of importance, will be--how much, civic and military, has already been buried in the grave, in eternal darkness.

"And if it cannot be retrieved, or completely known or understood, you have to deal with that." I am not sure what having to deal with that means, but I AM sure that nothing can be completely known or understood if we include in an event all its antecedent determinants and all its effects and results. Your conclusion must therefore be in error, because your premise is in error.

"It's my opinion that the past cannot be fully known... if you fill in the gaps with "possibilities" or "probabilities" or with things that "might" have happened..." I expressly stated that we should not content ourselves with possibilities or with things that might have happened, because anything is possible. But I also expressly stated that inasmuch as certainty is most often not obtainable, we must content ourselves with probabilities. We do so not because we love them, but because they are all we have. By accepting them, therefore, we do not diminish history as an academic discipline; we affirm it as such, as long as we recognize them (probabilities) to be what they are and nothing more.

"For me history is the study of the human past as it is described in... written documents." That statement exactly contradicts your earlier statement that "In my opinion history is "what happened" in the past, because, as I previously said, very little of "what happened in the past" is recorded in a document. To insist on documentation to confirm history, therefore, is to consign almost all of "what happened" to "eternal darkness".

"Charles Forbes was never questioned about that night..." Do you have a document to support that categorical conclusion? Of course not. Then why should it be asserted as history? Eyewitness testimony, circumstantial evidence and reason, as well as an understanding of human nature, dictate an opposite conclusion. It is logical and reasonable to suppose that he would have been questioned by someone in the government or in the White House, e.g. by Lincoln's secretaries and/or family members. If he was never questioned, how does one account for John Nicolay's writing (in 1902) that "Showing a card to the servant in attendance, he was allowed to enter..." Nicolay, of course, was a White House insider. And how does one account for another White House insider, William Stoddard, writing in 1884, saying that "One of the President's "messengers" was at the end of an inner passage leading to the box-door, for the purpose of preventing undue intrusions. To him Booth presented a card, stating that Mr. Lincoln had sent for him." Both of those statements are corroborated by McGowan's testimony given at the trial of the conspirators in 1865. Recall that McGowan was 5 feet from Booth and Forbes. It is also corroborated by Dr. Leale's statements, given in 1867. It is also corroborated by Booth's diary and Davy Herold's statement of April 27, 1865. It seems to me that the statements made and written by Nicolay, Stoddard, McGowan, Dr. Leale, Booth and Herold, not since the 1980's, but between 1865 and 1902 (to say nothing of partial corroboration from Todd, Koontz, Harper's Magazine and Gath), lift the issue out of the darkness and into the realm of probability, which is all we are ever likely to have and which we should therefore be grateful to have. It seems reasonably obvious to me that Ferguson and Crawford, whose pegs the naysayers hang their hat on, were in some degree distracted, probably by the play, and did not witness the exchange between Booth and Forbes and therefore did not record it, though conflation with Booth's earlier entry remains a remote possibility.

As for what Booth showed Forbes, I did not claim that my belief in the forged authorization is history; merely that, in my judgment, it fits the totality of the circumstances better than any other explanation and is supported by the four oblique references to which I allude in the book.

John