John,I too have a law degree,and I agree with your theories on the assasination of Lincoln.I have found that people lie for"self-preservation",and they are good at it!The sad thing is that they tend to believe thier own lies!

Mr. Fazio,

Thank you for your lengthy response. I understand and fully respect that you see history in another way I do. It made me think about the words of our Dutch historian Pieter (Peter) Geyl (1887-1966), who said: “History is an argument without end.” This is one of my favorite quotations because it seems so true. There is no way we can see all sides of history no matter how many different books we read or stories we hear. There is no universally agreed definition of history. I agree with you that history will always have an element of speculation, because history will always be "a construct of the mind" and will always be an interpretation by an individual (from behind a desk) of what occurred. Ask four persons about the same event some hours afterward, and you're likely to get four different recounts of what happened. However it’s my opinion the job of the historian is to cut through the fog of perception and come as close to the truth as possible. That’s why (in my opinion) a historian has to focus on the events. At the most basic level he seeks to answer the question "What exactly happened?", based on what is known from (in the first place) documents. If you, by contrast, fill in gaps with assumptions, probabilities and possibilities, than you can draw other conclusions from the same evidence. In fact (in my opinion) you are than fictionalizing history, not describing the (known) "truth"; in other words writing historical fiction. I realize that both are close relatives and that for a lot of people history is seen as fact, as well as fict. A lot of people will not have any problems with “historicizing fiction” and “fictionalizing history”, but there is a difference. I once read that when we finish reading a history book we think: "So that's what happened!", and when we finish a work of historical fiction we think: "So that's what it (more or less) was like!". The last feeling was mine after reading your chapter 16. We are people, and people are often bound to disagree, because they are people, but that historians who have been trained for many years in historical methods cannot agree on issues of historical interpretation (small disagreements aside) is a riddle for me. I’m not a historian and wonder what Roger have to say in this.

I mentioned the 1980s, because (with no change in evidence) Forbes was never mentioned before and after the 1980s he suddenly was. Do we better understand the events in Ford’s Theatre after 1980, or became it a popular myth after publication of William Hanchett’s “The Lincoln Murder Conspiracies” (1983)?

Kees

Re: "You say history is 'what happened'...It is not 'what happened'; it is a RECORD of what happened'", etc. (either side) - this reminds me of this question:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree...n_a_forest
So, is history the falling/fallen tree, or the recorded sound? Is history the fact - if it is the record, what if the record is a fake? (I'd go for the fact.)

(04-25-2015 10:09 AM)loetar44 Wrote:  I mentioned the 1980s, because (with no change in evidence) Forbes was never mentioned before and after the 1980s he suddenly was.

Hi Kees. Maybe I am not understanding correctly what you are saying. Are you saying no authors mentioned Forbes' presence prior to 1980? Otto Eisenschiml, in his 1937 Why Was Lincoln Murdered, discusses Forbes' presence at Ford's in chapter 4.

(04-25-2015 11:28 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Re: "You say history is 'what happened'...It is not 'what happened'; it is a RECORD of what happened'", etc. (either side) - this reminds me of this question:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree...n_a_forest
So, is history the falling/fallen tree, or the recorded sound? Is history the fact - if it is the record, what if the record is a fake? (I'd go for the fact.)

Interesting to think about "what is history?". A few thoughts/ideas that jumped to mind for me.

1) History is motivated/driven the urge to know (with reasonable certainty) the answer to a question (or perhaps questions) related to the past.

2) History is the presence and accumulation of evidence.

3) History is the evaluation, qualification, and contextualization of the evidence. This helps to better understand which is and then use, the best evidence available.

4) History is the interpretation of the best available evidence. This gives meaning and depth to the "cold" nature of evidence.

5) History is sharing, discussing, and re-examining ideas/interpretations/evidence (new or old).

This is not necessarily a complete list, just what popped into my head immediately. To try to totally define history as only one or two of the points above (or more that others may add) leaves an incomplete/inadequate picture.

As an historian, I realize that my thoughts/ideas/interpretations may not be shared by others but I hope I can inform as I am informed by the thoughts/ideas/interpretations of others. I find that in history, as in life, there are very few if any absolutes. If the only thing we will accept in the study of history are absolutes we will be sorely disappointed.

History is a dish with many ingredients and though that dish may be palatable, it is not wholly satisfying when one or more ingredients are left out.

"I mentioned the 1980s, because (with no change in evidence) Forbes was never mentioned before and after the 1980s he suddenly was. Do we better understand the events in Ford’s Theatre after 1980, or became it a popular myth after publication of William Hanchett’s “The Lincoln Murder Conspiracies” (1983)?" Kees, above:

Those of you who know me well know that I must step in here with my own comment about Forbes appearing on the scene after 1980 and Bill Hanchett's book (and marking of Forbes's grave). Bill Hanchett is a friend - though now in declining years - and he and James O. Hall were very close friends with Bill flying East a number of times to stay with and do research with Mr. Hall's files.

Bill told me that several of his previous conclusions got dumped after working with Mr. Hall. The main one was Bill's first tendency to place blame on Stanton. (As an aside, Nora Titone was a research assistant for Doris Kearns Goodwin and told me that Ms. Goodwin's anti-Stanton stance changed after visiting with Mr. Hall also.).

The point that I'm trying to make is that perhaps Forbes appears in the spotlight after the more thorough research of James O. Hall and others turned the spotlight on the activities of Forbes that night. This reminds me of the debating juries who keep asking for transcripts so that they can re-read what has transpired in court. They are honestly trying to get to the facts - and that's what historians (professional and amateur) should be doing.

(04-25-2015 01:48 PM)L Verge Wrote:  The point that I'm trying to make is that perhaps Forbes appears in the spotlight after the more thorough research of James O. Hall and others turned the spotlight on the activities of Forbes that night. This reminds me of the debating juries who keep asking for transcripts so that they can re-read what has transpired in court. They are honestly trying to get to the facts - and that's what historians (professional and amateur) should be doing.

I agree with this 100%. Re-examination of "the same evidence" is critical. That re-examination (in some cases possibly from a new perspective or even paired with other previously unconsidered evidence) may lead to a new interpretation and provide a more plausible/clearer or at least a just as plausible alternate conclusion.

I didn't realize that Forbes was the driver of the carriage when it overturned and threw Mrs. Lincoln to the ground near Campbell Hospital.

I realize that I am not much of an historian, but I think that Kees hit the nail on the head when it comes to what history is. I like to see history as three things: What really happened to our best knowledge or what Leopold von Ranke described as history as it really happened, i.e., Geschicte wie es eigenlich gewesen ist (always changing hence the arguments among historians and buffs each generation, generally known as historiography), What fiction writers use as a pattern for their popular works (which I like to call historicals), and What other writers use as a pattern for they really do not know but suspect happened (which I like to call historical fiction). I see my writing on Booth as the latter, much to the disgust and/or disbelief of many.

And, deep in my heart, I still believe that Edwin Stanton and the Radical Republicans were behind Lincoln's assassination, despite my public writings and assertions in favor of Tidwell, Hall, and Gaddy.

(04-25-2015 01:30 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 10:09 AM)loetar44 Wrote:  I mentioned the 1980s, because (with no change in evidence) Forbes was never mentioned before and after the 1980s he suddenly was.

Hi Kees. Maybe I am not understanding correctly what you are saying. Are you saying no authors mentioned Forbes' presence prior to 1980? Otto Eisenschiml, in his 1937 Why Was Lincoln Murdered, discusses Forbes' presence at Ford's in chapter 4.

Hi Roger,
What I wanted to say is that Forbes' role in the whole assassination story was “changed” after the 1980’s. Of course I do not doubt Forbes’ presence in or near Ford’s (think of Taltavull’s bar) at the moment of the assassination and that he was in the carriage that rode the Lincolns to Ford’s Theatre.

However, what I ment to say is that the consensus of opinion, which prevailed from the late 19th century until the 1980’s, was that Lincoln was “unprotected” because “Parker had left his post”. In the 1980’s this consensus was “destroyed”. Suddenly Forbes was in the Dress Circle and watched the outer door. Why this change in views? Even Jim Bishop’s “The Day Lincoln Was Shot” (1955, a huge bestseller and a great assassination account) omits reference to Forbes.

The first book on the assassination written by an academic historian was (as far as I know) Hatchett’s book in 1983 (or was it the second ?) and since Hatchett’s work was published historians, both academic and nonacademic, began to see Forbes as the man who allowed Booth to enter the presidential box. That’s why I wonder: do we now have a better understanding of events in Ford’s as a result of the post-1980 historical research of trained academic historians, while (in my thoughts) the evidence has not substantially changed.

As I have understood, prior to the 1980's, books about the Lincoln assassination all had been written by journalists or nonprofessionally trained historians, whose research usually did not extend beyond secondary sources (my thoughts). According to me, the sources are still secondary. So why that change?

(04-25-2015 07:04 AM)HerbS Wrote:  John,I too have a law degree,and I agree with your theories on the assasination of Lincoln.I have found that people lie for"self-preservation",and they are good at it!The sad thing is that they tend to believe thier own lies!

Herb:

Thanks. You and I are almost always on the same page. As for lying and believing, same page again. Let me add that the lying comes first, recognized as a lie but felt to be necessary to meet a felt need; the believing comes later, the brain's way of erasing the guilt that comes from lying. Elephants rule. (Jonathan Haidt)

John

---

(04-24-2015 09:34 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(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.

Roger:

In my view the Box 8 door was slightly ajar. The evidence does not support a conclusion that it was wide open, nor that it was closed. It is likely that Booth himself left it slightly ajar when he made his dry run, thereby making things easier for himself when he made his decisive strike. See pages 197, 198 of the book.

John

---

(04-24-2015 09:34 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(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.

Roger:

Please see my response on p. 7. There is so much traffic on this thread that it is getting confusing.

John


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.

The waters are now very muddy now that we have more to prove[information vs fact] about the Conspiracy!

(04-24-2015 10:25 AM)L Verge Wrote:  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...

Laurie:

As for Kees's first two paragraphs, I have already addressed them directly in a reply to him.

As for Parker's responsibilities, we are not on the same page, Mike Kauffman notwithstanding. Parker and the other special policemen were BODYguards, not property guards, which is why they carried .38's. Other special policemen, including Crook (three quotes), Pendel and McElfresh, were unequivocal in their description of Parker's duties, and theirs, as far as protecting the President was concerned. Crook could not have been clearer: "(The) officers (i.e. Parker, et al.) (were) expected to protect the President on his expeditions to and from the War Department, or while he was at anyplace of amusement, and to patrol the corridor outside his room while he slept." Further, Richards and Forbes preferred charges against Parker for dereliction of duty. Surely they would not have done so if Parker had not been charged with the responsibility of protecting the President. That Parker walked after a Police Board hearing cannot be attributed to a question as to his responsibility, because without a transcript, we simply have no way of knowing, with certainty, why he was not convicted of the specification with which he was charged and which Richards and Forbes signed on to. Better reasons are given on pages 167-169 of the book. One does not need a Colt .38 to protect furniture, chandeliers, pillars, windows and balconies. See pages 152-154 and 167-169 of the book.

Please refer me to Mike's authority for Mrs. Lincoln holding Forbes responsible. I have never seen such authority. If it exists, it pretty much refutes Kees's skepticism about Forbes being at the outer door. If it doesn't exist, then we must conclude that she held Parker, not Forbes, responsible, which squares with Elizabeth Keckley's book wherein she described Mary's outburst and accusation against Parker.

As for my treatment of Booth and Surratt, you will probably be surprised to hear that in my 49-year legal career, I was never a prosecutor. I did not do a lot of criminal defense work, but I did do some. If I am harsh with these two it is, in my judgment, because the evidence leads me there, but I would very much like to have your opinions as to where you feel I have gone astray in Chapters 3 and 4.

John

When (and if) I finish the book, John, I will be giving my impressions. I do not wish to review it (which my comments on your treatment of Booth and Surratt should not be construed as) until I see the whole picture.

You had to know, however, that I would object to a one-sided portrayal of the conspirators. While I certainly do not condone the Lincoln assassination, I think I understand why the tumultuous 1850s and 1860s made good men do bad things. I get the impression from those chapters that you see them as evil to the core -- not just dedicated to a political/social cause as I see them and millions of others who fought in the Civil War.

As part of your research, did you ever contact Mike Kauffman to see what his proof is for conclusions on Parker and Forbes?

(04-25-2015 06:13 PM)L Verge Wrote:  When (and if) I finish the book, John, I will be giving my impressions. I do not wish to review it (which my comments on your treatment of Booth and Surratt should not be construed as) until I see the whole picture.

You had to know, however, that I would object to a one-sided portrayal of the conspirators. While I certainly do not condone the Lincoln assassination, I think I understand why the tumultuous 1850s and 1860s made good men do bad things. I get the impression from those chapters that you see them as evil to the core -- not just dedicated to a political/social cause as I see them and millions of others who fought in the Civil War.

As part of your research, did you eve contact Mike Kauffman to see what his proof is for conclusions on Parker and Forbes.



Laurie:

If one begins with a false premise, one must come to a false conclusion. The premise that Booth and Surratt were "good men" is false. It is true that "good men" sometimes do bad things, but most often bad things are done by bad men. The word "good" is used so often and freely that it ceases to have meaning. An occasional act of goodness does not make a man good. Al Capone provided free soup to the poor during the Depression. He was still evil. Pontius Pilate freed a political prisoner every Passover. He was still evil. In my judgment, Booth and Surratt are beyond redemption. The evidence for that is abundant and conclusive, and I am far from the only to think so, then and now. As for the others, I expressed sympathy for all of them, despite their villainy and their incredibly bad judgment. They too were victims. Spangler was completely innocent. As for the "cause", no less a man than John Mosby acknowledged that he fought for "my country" not because it was right, but because the South was his country, and "one should fight for his country, right or wrong".

You and I are a couple of old oaks who aren't likely to bend much. We should spend more time congratulating each other for making it into old age than debating academic questions.

As for Mike Kauffman, I met with him and asked him to review parts of my manuscript. He declined, citing what for him was a good reason. Of course, I did read American Brutus. My feeling about his work is that even the masters go astray occasionally. Conversely, one can sometimes find a nugget in the most unlikely of places.

John

---

[quote='L Verge' pid='47064' dateline='1429989471']
I didn't realize that Forbes was the driver of the carriage when it overturned and threw Mrs. Lincoln to the ground near Campbell Hospital.

Laurie:

Nor did I. That is surely one of the very few things we didn't know about the subject.

John

---

(04-25-2015 10:09 AM)loetar44 Wrote:  Mr. Fazio,

Thank you for your lengthy response. I understand and fully respect that you see history in another way I do. It made me think about the words of our Dutch historian Pieter (Peter) Geyl (1887-1966), who said: “History is an argument without end.” This is one of my favorite quotations because it seems so true. There is no way we can see all sides of history no matter how many different books we read or stories we hear. There is no universally agreed definition of history. I agree with you that history will always have an element of speculation, because history will always be "a construct of the mind" and will always be an interpretation by an individual (from behind a desk) of what occurred. Ask four persons about the same event some hours afterward, and you're likely to get four different recounts of what happened. However it’s my opinion the job of the historian is to cut through the fog of perception and come as close to the truth as possible. That’s why (in my opinion) a historian has to focus on the events. At the most basic level he seeks to answer the question "What exactly happened?", based on what is known from (in the first place) documents. If you, by contrast, fill in gaps with assumptions, probabilities and possibilities, than you can draw other conclusions from the same evidence. In fact (in my opinion) you are than fictionalizing history, not describing the (known) "truth"; in other words writing historical fiction. I realize that both are close relatives and that for a lot of people history is seen as fact, as well as fict. A lot of people will not have any problems with “historicizing fiction” and “fictionalizing history”, but there is a difference. I once read that when we finish reading a history book we think: "So that's what happened!", and when we finish a work of historical fiction we think: "So that's what it (more or less) was like!". The last feeling was mine after reading your chapter 16. We are people, and people are often bound to disagree, because they are people, but that historians who have been trained for many years in historical methods cannot agree on issues of historical interpretation (small disagreements aside) is a riddle for me. I’m not a historian and wonder what Roger have to say in this.

I mentioned the 1980s, because (with no change in evidence) Forbes was never mentioned before and after the 1980s he suddenly was. Do we better understand the events in Ford’s Theatre after 1980, or became it a popular myth after publication of William Hanchett’s “The Lincoln Murder Conspiracies” (1983)?

Kees

Kees:

"...Forbes was never mentioned before...the 1980s..." But I have already shown that he was mentioned, expressly, by name, by Hanscom in his newspaper on June 8, 1865, and impliedly, as the President's "messenger", "usher", "servant", "servant at the door" or "sentinel", by McGowan, Dr. Leale, Dr. Todd, Koontz, Harper's Magazine, Booth himself (through Herold), Gath, Stoddard and Nicolay, all between 1865 and 1902.

John