(07-19-2015 07:35 AM)Rosieo Wrote:  

(07-18-2015 08:01 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  

(07-18-2015 07:07 PM)Rosieo Wrote:  This post quoted above was me putting in a good if speculative word for Mrs. Lincoln's ability to cooperate and exchange info.... I wrote it because I believe Mr. Lincoln would pick a wife with a good brain and a good heart.

And I think he did (which I have frequently stated in the past along with corrobating evidence). I don't see why Mrs. Lincoln's desire not to further investigate the assassination should be (have been!) contradictionary to this - what would it have changed or bettered about her life to know who the messenger was compared to the pain such memories caused her? The assassin was dead by that time, despite nothing would have brought her husband back to life, and Mary had partly died with him, too. Being in great, paralyzing emotional pain and depression IMO doesn't mean not to be endowed with a good brain and heart. (Did I understand correctly - you wrote this just to say something nice about Mr. Lincoln's "wedding choice"?)
However, I just read on p.168 in "Lincoln's Sons" that "Robert frequently visited the box at Ford's and sat there trying to figure out how it would have been if he said yes instead of no when his father asked him to go". This was new to me, unfortunately R. P. Randall's books are not footnoted. Does anyone know where this originally comes from?

I was thinking Mrs. Lincoln should have been asked whether she sent a messenger to Mrs. Grant regarding theatre plans. I think she would have cooperated if she was made to understand she was being asked a question dealing with the investigation of the potential assassination of Grant. This would-be assassin was not dead. This would-be assassin was not Booth nor people on trial. I am not saying I know she was asked. I think she should have been. I think she is written off as impossible to deal with and I cannot believe she was. Who can say that being asked to help would not have been good for Mrs. Lincoln? Smart women like to be respected.

I could be wrong, but I don't think Mrs. Grant mentioned the soup incident (publicly, at least) except in her memoir, which wasn't published until 1975.

My main curiosity here is the identity of the messenger. Just who was it? John Fazio is convinced it was David Herold (sent by Booth). Some Lincoln authors seem to think it was a legitimate but poorly dressed courier sent by Mary Lincoln. Is it possible that it could be another person sent by Booth (or another Confederate operative)? Not Herold, though. Could it have been the "mystery man" who followed Grant onto the train with intent to assassinate? And later sent the letter to Grant?

I think it was possibly Herold. He was dressed in a cordory coat when captured. Of course many men had cordory jackets.... JMO....

(07-19-2015 09:01 AM)Rosieo Wrote:  

(07-19-2015 08:15 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  My main curiosity here is the identity of the messenger. Just who was it? John Fazio is convinced it was David Herold (sent by Booth). Some Lincoln authors seem to think it was a legitimate but poorly dressed courier sent by Mary Lincoln. Is it possible that it could be another person sent by Booth (or another Confederate operative)? Not Herold, though. Could it have been the "mystery man" who followed Grant onto the train with intent to assassinate? And later sent the letter to Grant?

Maybe there is information on who Mrs. Lincoln traditionally used as messengers? This info could give us a clue if, for instance, it turns out she used a specific person or perhaps a soldier or even a black man. What office in the White House would employ people Mrs. Lincoln would use as messengers? Who took the message to Ford's Theatre that the President would attend "Our American Cousin"? Do we know?

Roger:

This is a response to the above post as well as the one that appeared two or three days ago in which you questioned the identify of the messenger.

To begin with, no apology is necessary. Secondly, in my opinion too much is being made of the identity of the messenger. It almost had to be Herold, because everything fits. Listen to Julia: "...a man dressed in light-colored corduroy coat and trousers and with rather a shabby hat of the same color...I remarked his dress...not liking... the looks of the messenger...thinking (it) savored of discourtesy..."-- a perfect description of Herold's customary dress as reflected even in famous photos of him. Further, Booth would want to nail down Grant's attendance at the theater that night if possible. After all, he is contemplating a major event in world history--the decapitation of the United States government; he will therefore leave no stone unturned and as little to chance as possible. Further, Mrs. Lincoln would almost certainly NOT send a shabbily dressed man to deliver a message to Mrs. Grant.

You say no other book speaks of the lunch at Willard's. Probably because Julia's Memoirs (to my knowledge the only source) were not published until 1975, but also because many have simply overlooked it or, if not overlooked, not given it its due weight. Both Julia and Ulysses state that the man who rode past them when they were in the carriage was the same man who was at the luncheon, Julia in her Memoirs (without qualification) and Ulysses in his conversation with Ward Hill Lamon (Recollections...p. 279). Further, Julia also said that "I thought I recognized in one of (the four attendees at the luncheon) the messenger of the morning". Who else would Booth be having lunch with? We know that there were only 4 of the action team left for killing by the 14th and we know there were 4 men at the luncheon, one of whom was Booth and the other of whom was the "messenger". It is therefore beyond a reasonable doubt that the messenger was Herold and the 4 were Booth, Herold, Powell and Atzerodt. Amen. As for further witnesses, it was an event of significance only to Julia, the 4r attendees and historians. Waiters, etc., couldn't have cared less and doubtless took no notice of any of it. Even if one or more later commented on it, it is not the kind of comment that would find its way into the history books; far more important things that this were disregarded or fell through the cracks, such as the statements of Susannah Hamm.

You ask if it is possible that Mary told Grant on their carriage ride on the 13th that a courier would call on them the following day re pick-up time, etc. Yes, it is possible, but almost certainly didn't happen, because it doesn't square with Grant's accounts, which are themselves inconsistent. In his Memoirs he states that he declined Lincoln's invitation because he was through with the day's work and wanted to visit the children in Burlington, saying nothing about input from Julia (p. 750). But to Lamon, in 1880, he said that while he was with the President he received a note from Julia telling him that she wanted to visit her daughter in Burlington that night (p. 278). He added that "Some incident of a trivial character had influenced this determination...", by which he certainly had reference to the spectacle at City Point in which Julia had witnessed the humiliation of Mrs. Ord, besides which she had her own issues with Mary. Like many others, she flat-out didn't like her. Grant added that "I therefore made my excuses to the President..." It all fits with what Julia told Herold in her hotel suite.

Lastly, the messenger who delivered news of the Lincolns' attendance at Ford's on the 14th, at about 10:30 that morning, was most likely Forbes.

Conclusion: The messenger was Herold; the attendees were the 4 conspirators still active; Mary almost certainly said nothing to Grant on the 13th about sending a courier to Willard's; and Forbes, the official White House messenger and footman, most likely delivered the message to Ford's Thetare on the 14th.

Thank you.

John

(07-19-2015 10:07 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  As for further witnesses, it was an event of significance only to Julia, the 4r attendees and historians. Waiters, etc., couldn't have cared less and doubtless took no notice of any of it.

Hi John. Possibly I am the only one who is surprised that such a lunch table was only noticed by Julia Grant. Maybe I am wrong, but I thought the Willard was an upscale hotel. I cannot remember where I read it, but I thought I once read that Atzerodt "stood out" at the Kirkwood House because of his shabby dress. In other words, clothes that "fit in" at the Pennsylvania House were "noticed" at the Kirkwood House. So, we have a foursome...one of the most famous actors in the USA, two shabbily dressed men (Herold and Atzerodt), and Powell (maybe Betty can comment on how he was dressed) eating lunch at the Willard Hotel on the day of the assassination, and only one person made mental note of this group? I trust and respect your judgment, John, but I must admit to some surprise that we don't have more folks who commented about this particular lunch table.

Quote:So, we have a foursome...one of the most famous actors in the USA, two shabbily dressed men (Herold and Atzerodt), and Powell (maybe Betty can comment on how he was dressed) eating lunch at the Willard Hotel on the day of the assassination, and only one person made mental note of this group?

Powell was more or less dressed rather nicely, so much so that even Seward noticed his attacker's dress. Accordingly, on the night of the assassination when Powell barged into his room, Seward was half asleep and on waking, first glimpsed Powell's arm extended towards him, thinking "What an elegant overcoat that is." [Cincinnati Daily Gazette, Feb. 6, 1866.] The overcoat was a mixture of pink and gray tweed-like woolen material. Underneath, he was wearing a dark gray frock coat with matching vest trimmed with velvet. His pants were black (I've seen some comments upon his capture of the pants having been cashmere.) He wore a white linen shirt and collar and probably a tie (Weichmann said that he wore a black silk necktie.) He wore fine leather boots, according to one of the arresting officers. So apparently Powell would have "fit in" in a fine dining establishment. William Bell said that he appeared to be "finely dressed" when he appeared at Seward's door that night.

Herold's coat, upon his capture, was corduroy.

   

Herold's Corduroy Coat and Checked Trousers

   

Powell's Tweed Overcoat

   

Powell's Suit (Trousers are NOT the ones he wore assassination night - they are Navy Trousers)

   

Atzerodt's Tie

   

Atzerodt's Suit

   

Two questions: How old was Mrs. Grant when she wrote her memoirs? You know I'm questioning her recollections if they were written even ten years after the assassination. Also, given the critical nature of what she had to say, it certainly seems strange that she did not mention either the luncheon or the messenger details to anyone in authority (i.e. her husband) to have it thoroughly investigated after the assassination. How did the messenger get the Grants' room number without a hotel employee giving it to someone? If she had mentioned it on April 15, 1865, or a few days after that, there should have been a trail for investigators to follow.

Why are we assuming that David Herold had to be the one that was shabbily dressed? David's father had left the family very well-off when he died shortly before this. They had always been a well-respected family in society, and David had been sent to good schools that catered to the upper classes. Even the various men from Southern Maryland that he name-drops during his statement were upper middle-class landowners. He certainly was not on the same poverty level as Atzerodt (although we know Atzerodt was not the messenger due to no mention of language).

If my family's story is true that he spent the night of April 13 in our home, his clothes would have been wet when he arrived there since the purpose of his stopping was (supposedly) to get out of the rain. His sister said that he arrived home in D.C. in time for breakfast - which is consistent with him having left our house before the family (with a two-month-old infant) arose. Surely he would have changed clothes once he got home and surely those clothes were not shabby.

In my opinion, this little tidbit of one lady's recollections is not worth the time and effort of digging any deeper...

Quote:Why are we assuming that David Herold had to be the one that was shabbily dressed? David's father had left the family very well-off when he died shortly before this. They had always been a well-respected family in society, and David had been sent to good schools that catered to the upper classes. Even the various men from Southern Maryland that he name-drops during his statement were upper middle-class landowners. He certainly was not on the same poverty level as Atzerodt (although we know Atzerodt was not the messenger due to no mention of language).

I think that the corduroy coat and checked pants were more or less rather "natty"....after being on the run for several weeks; sleeping outside, etc. I would assume that this would account for the rather ragged look. Herold did state that his vest was traded for a Confederate one inasmuch as he had torn his.

(07-19-2015 03:13 PM)Rosieo Wrote:  

(07-19-2015 02:37 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Two questions: How old was Mrs. Grant when she wrote her memoirs? You know I'm questioning her recollections if they were written even ten years after the assassination. Also, given the critical nature of what she had to say, it certainly seems strange that she did not mention either the luncheon or the messenger details to anyone in authority (i.e. her husband) to have it thoroughly investigated after the assassination. How did the messenger get the Grants' room number without a hotel employee giving it to someone? If she had mentioned it on April 15, 1865, or a few days after that, there should have been a trail for investigators to follow.

Why are we assuming that David Herold had to be the one that was shabbily dressed? David's father had left the family very well-off when he died shortly before this. They had always been a well-respected family in society, and David had been sent to good schools that catered to the upper classes. Even the various men from Southern Maryland that he name-drops during his statement were upper middle-class landowners. He certainly was not on the same poverty level as Atzerodt (although we know Atzerodt was not the messenger due to no mention of language).

If my family's story is true that he spent the night of April 13 in our home, his clothes would have been wet when he arrived there since the purpose of his stopping was (supposedly) to get out of the rain. His sister said that he arrived home in D.C. in time for breakfast - which is consistent with him having left our house before the family (with a two-month-old infant) arose. Surely he would have changed clothes once he got home and surely those clothes were not shabby.

In my opinion, this little tidbit of one lady's recollections is not worth the time and effort of digging any deeper...

*Ms. L, are you questioning an old lady's memories ?! I bet Grant checked it out at the time, based on all the Uly loves Julia stuff I've heard/read.

*It is Herold who stayed with your family? (We used to have family legend that guy who killed McKinley was IN our family but turns out great grandpa knew him probably as co worker at brush factory - You have more interesting ancestor assassin contact than my folks as Leon C. was a nutter and no one ever said he was well dressed)

*I am always amazed to see how H. and A. were wearing what looks like suits at hanging.

*How come Booth did not sign name of Surratt on letter he wanted published morning after the assassination? If he was going for Grant, is it thought by researchers that he had different handler than Booth?

It is thought by THIS researcher that Booth knew Surratt was no longer involved, that he was no longer in D.C., that he was a trusted Confederate agent, and that his current "handler" was Gen. E.G. Lee who had him involved in transferring Confederate gold and prisoners of war into Canada.

(07-19-2015 11:16 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(07-19-2015 10:07 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  As for further witnesses, it was an event of significance only to Julia, the 4r attendees and historians. Waiters, etc., couldn't have cared less and doubtless took no notice of any of it.

Hi John. Possibly I am the only one who is surprised that such a lunch table was only noticed by Julia Grant. Maybe I am wrong, but I thought the Willard was an upscale hotel. I cannot remember where I read it, but I thought I once read that Atzerodt "stood out" at the Kirkwood House because of his shabby dress. In other words, clothes that "fit in" at the Pennsylvania House were "noticed" at the Kirkwood House. So, we have a foursome...one of the most famous actors in the USA, two shabbily dressed men (Herold and Atzerodt), and Powell (maybe Betty can comment on how he was dressed) eating lunch at the Willard Hotel on the day of the assassination, and only one person made mental note of this group? I trust and respect your judgment, John, but I must admit to some surprise that we don't have more folks who commented about this particular lunch table.

Roger:

With respect, think the issue of commentary on the luncheon is a tempest in a teapot. What should someone have said and who would have thought it important? E.g.: "I am a waiter at Willard's and during the noon hour of April 14 I saw four strange looking fellows dining there. I also saw Mrs. Grant with Mrs. Rawlins and some kids, who were also dining there. The four weirdos might have been eavesdropping on Mrs. Grant and her party. I think one of the wierdos was John Wilkes Booth, the actor, because I have seen him on stage." Response of government agent investigating the case: "Yeah. So what? Why do you think that's important? The President is dead, we know Booth did it and we know he is on the lam, so why should the luncheon at Willard's yesterday be of any interest to us?

Bottom line: What happened in Willard's dining room on the 14th was unlikely to engender comment by anyone who was there except Julia, and even if it did, I doubt that anyone cared about it, because it had no relevance to anything anymore and for that reason went unrecorded.

John

Once again,BettyO and Roger come to our rescue!

(07-19-2015 02:37 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Two questions: How old was Mrs. Grant when she wrote her memoirs? You know I'm questioning her recollections if they were written even ten years after the assassination. Also, given the critical nature of what she had to say, it certainly seems strange that she did not mention either the luncheon or the messenger details to anyone in authority (i.e. her husband) to have it thoroughly investigated after the assassination. How did the messenger get the Grants' room number without a hotel employee giving it to someone? If she had mentioned it on April 15, 1865, or a few days after that, there should have been a trail for investigators to follow.

Why are we assuming that David Herold had to be the one that was shabbily dressed? David's father had left the family very well-off when he died shortly before this. They had always been a well-respected family in society, and David had been sent to good schools that catered to the upper classes. Even the various men from Southern Maryland that he name-drops during his statement were upper middle-class landowners. He certainly was not on the same poverty level as Atzerodt (although we know Atzerodt was not the messenger due to no mention of language).

If my family's story is true that he spent the night of April 13 in our home, his clothes would have been wet when he arrived there since the purpose of his stopping was (supposedly) to get out of the rain. His sister said that he arrived home in D.C. in time for breakfast - which is consistent with him having left our house before the family (with a two-month-old infant) arose. Surely he would have changed clothes once he got home and surely those clothes were not shabby.

In my opinion, this little tidbit of one lady's recollections is not worth the time and effort of digging any deeper...

Laurie:

Your family's history is almost certainly accurate, because we know that Herold and Booth were both at the Navy Yard Bridge on the morning of the 14th, per Frederick Demond, one of the sentries on the Maryland side of the bridge.

I do not know how old Julia was when she wrote her Memoirs, but I would not question her statements about the messenger and the luncheon. Her description of the episode involving the messenger is clear and categorical. She had no motivation whatsoever to invent this episode. Furthermore, she DID tell her husband about the luncheon, as evidenced by his conversation with Lamon. Further, Booth's galloping sweep past their carriage is attested to by both Julia, Ulysses and Mathews. It was during this sweep that she said to her husband that the rider was the same man, the rude eavesdropper, she had seen at the luncheon, whom Ulysses identified as Booth.

Finding out the Grants' suite number would have been no problem for anyone intent on accessing the suite, and as for Herold''s dress, his frumpiness is a matter of record. He may or may not have changed clothes after a rain; I don't think matters.

I must confess, however , to having uncovered an inconsistency in the record, and I have no opinion yet as to how to resolve it. I have almost no doubt that Herold was the messenger and that he, Booth and the other two were at the luncheon. Add to that his sister's statement that he arrived home in D.C. in time for breakfast and everything fits. What doesn't fit is Demond's saying in one of his letters to Bates that when Booth and Herold refused to give him their names on the morning of the 14th, he held them in the block house and that they were not released until 2:00 or 3:00 in the afternoon. Something is wrong.

John

(07-19-2015 02:37 PM)L Verge Wrote:  How old was Mrs. Grant when she wrote her memoirs?

If this book is correct she was about 60 at the time.

It says here that she avoided both reading and writing due to strabismus. Thus, she dictated her memoirs.

Thanks for these links, Roger, very interesting!

My opinion - she embellished a bit to provide more "drama" to the reader, also time expands memory, and people tend to believe these expanded versions. Like a proud hobby angler's caught fish gets bigger and bigger over the time.
Why didn't she tell of this incident instantly? Even if not for the purpose of investigation, but in letter or orally to friends. I would think most people wouldn't have kept such a "thrilling" account by themselves for decades. Despite I would think her eyesight might have made it difficult to identify those strangers later.