(07-20-2015 06:24 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 01:45 PM)Rosieo Wrote:  

I read this thread when I joined up a few days back and saw it stopped when discussion got heated. I considered whether to post here, to reopen the thread, for that reason but figured I might give it a try.I would feel bad if the thread stopped again and I would regret reopening it.
I dont like to see people get upset. That is, Ms. L. seems upset.... Something here about these Marylanders is really personal to her, I am starting to think. She cares about them.
John is taking a clobbering, so to speak, due to lack of supporters but pushes on. As a journalist who covered lots of court stuff I understand John's style. He is tenacious. Well, so what? Our society needs lawyers. Lawyers are known to accomplish good stuff. Let him argue his points. He gives food for thought.
The topic is really interesting. I have some of my own research underway on it. With luck, I'll have something.

Rosemary,

It's time we got acquainted. Please call me Laurie. I had prepared an in-depth reply as a way of introduction, but when I hit post, it flew into outer space never to be retrieved again. And, I can assure you that it was not a nasty response to your concern about me being upset. Here's a much briefer explanation as to why I am so darn persnickety about the Lincoln assassination story.

I have been addicted to it since I was about ten years old and was helping my mother clean out the attic of our home (ca. 1840) that my great-grandparents had moved into in 1862, and the family never moved out. In an old wicker basket, my mother pulled out an old nightshirt and told me the story of David Herold leaving it behind on the morning of April 14, 1865, after spending the night with the Huntts on the 13th. From that point on, the Lincoln assassination story took over my life.

I graduated with honors in the fields of history and education and went on to teach history and government for nearly a decade. I left to marry a vice principal and to raise my own child instead of raising other people's.

In 1975, a good friend, Joan Chaconas (also a Lincoln and assassination scholar) asked me to join her in becoming a volunteer guide at the Surratt House Museum, which had just been restored and would be opening to the public on May 1, 1976. We joined about twenty others and began training. We quickly realized that few of the others - as well as the trainer -- knew very little about the history that had caused the house to be saved and restored.

After weeks of listening to lectures about 19th-century antiques, I raised my hand one day and asked when we were going to get to the history. You could have heard a pin drop. I then gave a synopsis of that history. At the next session, the trainer challenged me to give a tour like I thought it should be developed. There were no furnishings at that time, so I had to wing it. Ten years of teaching, however, had cured me of being afraid when I knew that I was well-acquainted with a subject.

All through the tour, the trainer was taking notes. At the end, we found out that she was taking notes about the history of the house because she did not know much assassination history. Her goal was to have the museum be literally an antiques' showcase for the 19th century. From that point on, the county historian stood behind Joan and me, and a structured, well-researched tour program was developed (with much help from the dean of assassination studies James O. Hall)

I spent eight years as a volunteer docent before accepting the part-time position of site manager in 1983. In 1985, I became the first full-time museum director; and Joan was made my assistant in 1988. From that point on, we have worked our tail feathers off developing our programs, adding a restored kitchen wing to the historic house, acquiring additional acreage and creating a much-needed visitors' center and the highly respected James O. Hall Research Center.

Over the years, I have been privileged to work with students (grade six through PhDs), researchers, authors, media, TV films, magazine articles, and the producers and director of The Conspirator movie, which premiered in 2010. I have rubbed elbows with the greats in the assassination field: Bill Tidwell, James O. Hall, Dave Gaddy, Bill Hanchett, Terry Alford, Mike Kauffman, Ed Steers, Betty Ownsbey, Bill Richter, Rick Smith, Elizabeth Leonard, Kate Clifford Larson, Bettie Trindal, Tom Bogar, Caleb Stephens, Rich Smyth and Jim Garrett, Nora Titone, John Elliott, Barry Cauchon, AND John Fazio. I know I'm name-dropping, and I apologize if I have left anyone out.

As for John, I have known him for 4-5 years and appreciate the years of research and hard work that has gone into Decapitating the Union. Just because I don't agree with his style of presenting his thoughts doesn't negate what I think he has done -- I agree with a good portion of his conclusions. He asked me to write the foreword for his book, but I refuse any such offers and usually refuse to do reviews of other people's work also. We can fight like husband and wife and still respect each other. So many of us on this forum are the same way.

What does upset me are those who profess to be historians and then manage to screw everything up or not consider all sides of the story. Personally, I think there are too many in the field (from authors through media on down) who spout ideas without knowledge to back them up. The attitude and wrong information of many today are doing a great disservice to our nation's heritage. My grandmother had a sixth grade education and could talk circles around some of the so-called historians today.

As for my allegiance to my home state of Maryland: As most people know, Maryland was one of four border states during the Civil War. In my opinion, Maryland and one other - Missouri - bore more of the brunt of war than some of the Confederate and most of the Union states. I won't bore others, but please take the time to read about the State of Maryland during the Civil War. You might begin to understand why I want my native state's history told correctly.

I have now lost about 80% of our posters, I bet, but I hope this gives you a good idea of where I'm coming from. Please don't be afraid to express your opinions on this forum. Good, solid opinions, citations, questions, and comments are what keep us going.

And be assured that John Fazio and I are friends (I think I jut heard John drop to the floor in a faint!), and I invited him to be a speaker at the 2016 Surratt conference in April. When he or anyone gets me mad enough to really retaliate, I will do it in private conversation with that person.

---

I cringe at the modern term for the President that the press in most mediums seem to have adopted -- POTUS. The other day, I saw the Supreme Court reduced to SCOTUS (now that's getting into dangerous territory in my opinion). I even get mad that the title of President is no longer capitalized unless followed by the man's name.

Maybe we need Aretha Franklin to give a lesson in RESPECT. Of course, maybe it's a question of earning it...

---

(07-20-2015 06:24 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 01:45 PM)Rosieo Wrote:  

I read this thread when I joined up a few days back and saw it stopped when discussion got heated. I considered whether to post here, to reopen the thread, for that reason but figured I might give it a try.I would feel bad if the thread stopped again and I would regret reopening it.
I dont like to see people get upset. That is, Ms. L. seems upset.... Something here about these Marylanders is really personal to her, I am starting to think. She cares about them.
John is taking a clobbering, so to speak, due to lack of supporters but pushes on. As a journalist who covered lots of court stuff I understand John's style. He is tenacious. Well, so what? Our society needs lawyers. Lawyers are known to accomplish good stuff. Let him argue his points. He gives food for thought.
The topic is really interesting. I have some of my own research underway on it. With luck, I'll have something.

Rosemary,

It's time we got acquainted. Please call me Laurie. I had prepared an in-depth reply as a way of introduction, but when I hit post, it flew into outer space never to be retrieved again. And, I can assure you that it was not a nasty response to your concern about me being upset. Here's a much briefer explanation as to why I am so darn persnickety about the Lincoln assassination story.

I have been addicted to it since I was about ten years old and was helping my mother clean out the attic of our home (ca. 1840) that my great-grandparents had moved into in 1862, and the family never moved out. In an old wicker basket, my mother pulled out an old nightshirt and told me the story of David Herold leaving it behind on the morning of April 14, 1865, after spending the night with the Huntts on the 13th. From that point on, the Lincoln assassination story took over my life.

I graduated with honors in the fields of history and education and went on to teach history and government for nearly a decade. I left to marry a vice principal and to raise my own child instead of raising other people's.

In 1975, a good friend, Joan Chaconas (also a Lincoln and assassination scholar) asked me to join her in becoming a volunteer guide at the Surratt House Museum, which had just been restored and would be opening to the public on May 1, 1976. We joined about twenty others and began training. We quickly realized that few of the others - as well as the trainer -- knew very little about the history that had caused the house to be saved and restored.

After weeks of listening to lectures about 19th-century antiques, I raised my hand one day and asked when we were going to get to the history. You could have heard a pin drop. I then gave a synopsis of that history. At the next session, the trainer challenged me to give a tour like I thought it should be developed. There were no furnishings at that time, so I had to wing it. Ten years of teaching, however, had cured me of being afraid when I knew that I was well-acquainted with a subject.

All through the tour, the trainer was taking notes. At the end, we found out that she was taking notes about the history of the house because she did not know much assassination history. Her goal was to have the museum be literally an antiques' showcase for the 19th century. From that point on, the county historian stood behind Joan and me, and a structured, well-researched tour program was developed (with much help from the dean of assassination studies James O. Hall)

I spent eight years as a volunteer docent before accepting the part-time position of site manager in 1983. In 1985, I became the first full-time museum director; and Joan was made my assistant in 1988. From that point on, we have worked our tail feathers off developing our programs, adding a restored kitchen wing to the historic house, acquiring additional acreage and creating a much-needed visitors' center and the highly respected James O. Hall Research Center.

Over the years, I have been privileged to work with students (grade six through PhDs), researchers, authors, media, TV films, magazine articles, and the producers and director of The Conspirator movie, which premiered in 2010. I have rubbed elbows with the greats in the assassination field: Bill Tidwell, James O. Hall, Dave Gaddy, Bill Hanchett, Terry Alford, Mike Kauffman, Ed Steers, Betty Ownsbey, Bill Richter, Rick Smith, Elizabeth Leonard, Kate Clifford Larson, Bettie Trindal, Tom Bogar, Caleb Stephens, Rich Smyth and Jim Garrett, Nora Titone, John Elliott, Barry Cauchon, AND John Fazio. I know I'm name-dropping, and I apologize if I have left anyone out.

As for John, I have known him for 4-5 years and appreciate the years of research and hard work that has gone into Decapitating the Union. Just because I don't agree with his style of presenting his thoughts doesn't negate what I think he has done -- I agree with a good portion of his conclusions. He asked me to write the foreword for his book, but I refuse any such offers and usually refuse to do reviews of other people's work also. We can fight like husband and wife and still respect each other. So many of us on this forum are the same way.

What does upset me are those who profess to be historians and then manage to screw everything up or not consider all sides of the story. Personally, I think there are too many in the field (from authors through media on down) who spout ideas without knowledge to back them up. The attitude and wrong information of many today are doing a great disservice to our nation's heritage. My grandmother had a sixth grade education and could talk circles around some of the so-called historians today.

As for my allegiance to my home state of Maryland: As most people know, Maryland was one of four border states during the Civil War. In my opinion, Maryland and one other - Missouri - bore more of the brunt of war than some of the Confederate and most of the Union states. I won't bore others, but please take the time to read about the State of Maryland during the Civil War. You might begin to understand why I want my native state's history told correctly.

I have now lost about 80% of our posters, I bet, but I hope this gives you a good idea of where I'm coming from. Please don't be afraid to express your opinions on this forum. Good, solid opinions, citations, questions, and comments are what keep us going.

And be assured that John Fazio and I are friends (I think I jut heard John drop to the floor in a faint!), and I invited him to be a speaker at the 2016 Surratt conference in April. When he or anyone gets me mad enough to really retaliate, I will do it in private conversation with that person.

---

I cringe at the modern term for the President that the press in most mediums seem to have adopted -- POTUS. The other day, I saw the Supreme Court reduced to SCOTUS (now that's getting into dangerous territory in my opinion). I even get mad that the title of President is no longer capitalized unless followed by the man's name.

Maybe we need Aretha Franklin to give a lesson in RESPECT. Of course, maybe it's a question of earning it...

As for the term "boy," I believe it might have several connotations at the time of the Civil War: Children as young as 10-12 could often earn some money by offering to run messages for people, but I don't know if the First Lady (though I believe her generous, especially to children) would have used them. The term - even as I was growing up - denoted someone of inferior class. And #3, it did refer to a man of color no matter his age.

Laurie:

Well, I somehow managed to pick myself up off the floor and am therefore ready to respond.

If "I believe you attempt to deceive by false appearance" doesn't cross the line, it comes uncomfortably close. The Pope would never say such a thing, and I do not believe you really believe it. I practiced law for 50 years, not 30, and if those years have taught me nothing else, they taught me that truth is worth striving for, because with it comes justice. With falsehood, there is no justice, only advantage.

To the merits. I don't believe we should be too concerned about the fact that many assassination historians do not mention the luncheon incident. The main source for it (Julia's Memoirs) was not published until 1975. It may have been missed by some and perhaps some simply didn't feel it was important enough to include in their writings. I once mentioned Booths' dry run to a nationally famous assassination historian, whom I will not identify, and he said he had never heard of it. I told him that Clara Harris spoke of it in her statement and that she expressly identified the intruder as Booth. He said he had never read her statement. There are still historians out there who believe that the name of the Lincolns' coachman was Francis Burns ; that Mary Surratt was innocent; that Dr. Mudd was innocent; that Herold waited for Powell outside the Seward Mansion, but then bolted when he heard screams; that Booth leaped directly to the stage from a height of 12 feet; that John Surratt escaped from his captors in Italy by leaping into a 100-ft. ravine and miraculously landing safely on a 4-ft. outcropping of rock 35 feet below the rim, or was it 23 feet, or was it 12 feet; and that Atzerodt spent his 5 minutes in the Kirkwood in the bar trying to boost his courage with alcohol. All false, or almost certainly false, or, in Atzerodt's case, without a scintilla of evidence to support it.

Your questions are all in the nature of possibilities, conjecture and speculation, but possibilities, conjecture and speculation are infinite and therefore idle. I will therefore not even address the business of relevance, hearsay, reports, Julia's vision, eavesdropping from the lobby, accessing Ulysses himself, witnesses to Booth's gallop-by, cavalry escorts and identification of Powell. Let us stick to the evidence we have, namely:

1. In her Memoirs, Julia, without any motivation to lie, said that she received a caller, about mid-day, at her suite in Willard's. She commented on his dress as not being up to her standard or expectation. The caller identified himself as a messenger from Mrs. Lincoln. After he concluded hs business and left, she said that "I have thought since that this man was one of the band of conspirators in that night's sad tragedy, and that he was not sent by Mrs. Lincoln at all. I am PERFECTLY SURE (my emphasis) that he, with three others, one of them Booth himself, sat opposite me and my party at luncheon that day...I was at late luncheon with Mrs. Rawlins and her little girl and my Jesse when these men came in and sat opposite to us. They all four came in together. I thought I recognized in one of them the messenger of the morning, and one, a dark, pale man, played with his soup spoon ...(and) seemed very intent on what we and the children were saying...Afterwards, as General Grant and I rode to the depot, this same dark, pale man rode past us at a sweeping gallop..."
2. In a conversation with Ward Hill Lamon in 1880, Grant said that "As we were driving along Pennsylvania Avenue, a horseman rode rapidly past us at a gallop...Mrs. Grant remarked to me: 'That is the very man who sat near us at lunch to-day with some others, and tried to overhear our conversation'...For myself I thought it was only idle curiosity, but learned afterward that the horseman was Booth. It seemed that I was also to have been attacked, and Mrs. Grant's sudden determination to leave Washington deranged the plan."
3. We know that the rider who galloped past the Grants was Booth, because John Mathews testified about the same incident in John Surratt's trial in 1867 and identified Booth. Working backward, then, i.e. the rider was definitely Booth and Julia definitely identified him as being the very same person at the luncheon, we must conclude that Booth was at the luncheon and, further, that if he was at the luncheon, his three companions were almost certainly the same three that he was with at various times throughout the day, namely Atzerodt, Herold and Powell, a conclusion that receives support from the fact that Julia stated that she thought that one of the foursome was the messenger who had called on her.
4. Both incidents, i.e. the luncheon and the gallop-by, are related by the historian William S. McFeely in his biography of Grant. Surely, if he did not believe the accounts, he would not have included them in his book. Though I have checked only one other biography of Grant, I am confident that the accounts will be found in other biographies of him.

In my judgment, the foregoing constitutes a prima-facie case for the authenticity of the accounts. If you or anyone else feels that they are fanciful, please present your evidence, not possibilities, conjecture or speculation, but evidence. If you or anyone else has such evidence, I am all eyes and ears. The only evidence I have found that presents a problem is one of Demond's letters, in which he states that he had Booth and Herold in a block house until 2:00 or 3:00 pm on the 14th. The letter was written in 1916, i.e. 51 years after the fact, and this fact, together with the fact that Demond has some glaring inconsistencies in his letters, leads me to believe that he is conflating incidents or is otherwise mistaken. The weight of the evidence certainly favors Julia, Ulysses, Mathews and Lamon.

As for Herold's dress, the photos of him that have survived show him to be casually and perhaps carelessly dressed, as befits someone who spent as much time in the outdoors as he. We shouldn't make too much of this. It is a subjective judgment. His curduroy coat and trousers and his hat were not what Julia was used to. She therefore commented on the same. It means little or nothing in the overall scheme of things.

Stay well. We need you.

John

Quote:I am against the death penalty, but Herold, Booth, and the rest, they were criminals. They chose to take big chances. They ought not be romanticized.

No one is romanticizing anyone that I know of. We, as scholars, (and yes, there is that word again!) simply like to investigate, study and analyze these folk. I wouldn't call them criminals; political zealots, perhaps. The fact that they were southern, with southern beliefs did not make them criminal. They simply saw "their" country attacked and disagreed with the political stance of the day. Victorian Americans were totally different from today's mindset - and today's mindset doesn't belong in Victorian heads.

Money was the primary motivator for most of the convicted conspirators when it came to the plots against Lincoln.

How do we know that, Pamela?

(07-21-2015 11:05 AM)Rosieo Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 06:24 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 01:45 PM)Rosieo Wrote:  

I read this thread when I joined up a few days back and saw it stopped when discussion got heated. I considered whether to post here, to reopen the thread, for that reason but figured I might give it a try.I would feel bad if the thread stopped again and I would regret reopening it.
I dont like to see people get upset. That is, Ms. L. seems upset.... Something here about these Marylanders is really personal to her, I am starting to think. She cares about them.
John is taking a clobbering, so to speak, due to lack of supporters but pushes on. As a journalist who covered lots of court stuff I understand John's style. He is tenacious. Well, so what? Our society needs lawyers. Lawyers are known to accomplish good stuff. Let him argue his points. He gives food for thought.
The topic is really interesting. I have some of my own research underway on it. With luck, I'll have something.

Rosemary,

It's time we got acquainted. Please call me Laurie. I had prepared an in-depth reply as a way of introduction, but when I hit post, it flew into outer space never to be retrieved again. And, I can assure you that it was not a nasty response to your concern about me being upset. Here's a much briefer explanation as to why I am so darn persnickety about the Lincoln assassination story.

I have been addicted to it since I was about ten years old and was helping my mother clean out the attic of our home (ca. 1840) that my great-grandparents had moved into in 1862, and the family never moved out. In an old wicker basket, my mother pulled out an old nightshirt and told me the story of David Herold leaving it behind on the morning of April 14, 1865, after spending the night with the Huntts on the 13th. From that point on, the Lincoln assassination story took over my life.

I graduated with honors in the fields of history and education and went on to teach history and government for nearly a decade. I left to marry a vice principal and to raise my own child instead of raising other people's.

In 1975, a good friend, Joan Chaconas (also a Lincoln and assassination scholar) asked me to join her in becoming a volunteer guide at the Surratt House Museum, which had just been restored and would be opening to the public on May 1, 1976. We joined about twenty others and began training. We quickly realized that few of the others - as well as the trainer -- knew very little about the history that had caused the house to be saved and restored.

After weeks of listening to lectures about 19th-century antiques, I raised my hand one day and asked when we were going to get to the history. You could have heard a pin drop. I then gave a synopsis of that history. At the next session, the trainer challenged me to give a tour like I thought it should be developed. There were no furnishings at that time, so I had to wing it. Ten years of teaching, however, had cured me of being afraid when I knew that I was well-acquainted with a subject.

All through the tour, the trainer was taking notes. At the end, we found out that she was taking notes about the history of the house because she did not know much assassination history. Her goal was to have the museum be literally an antiques' showcase for the 19th century. From that point on, the county historian stood behind Joan and me, and a structured, well-researched tour program was developed (with much help from the dean of assassination studies James O. Hall)

I spent eight years as a volunteer docent before accepting the part-time position of site manager in 1983. In 1985, I became the first full-time museum director; and Joan was made my assistant in 1988. From that point on, we have worked our tail feathers off developing our programs, adding a restored kitchen wing to the historic house, acquiring additional acreage and creating a much-needed visitors' center and the highly respected James O. Hall Research Center.

Over the years, I have been privileged to work with students (grade six through PhDs), researchers, authors, media, TV films, magazine articles, and the producers and director of The Conspirator movie, which premiered in 2010. I have rubbed elbows with the greats in the assassination field: Bill Tidwell, James O. Hall, Dave Gaddy, Bill Hanchett, Terry Alford, Mike Kauffman, Ed Steers, Betty Ownsbey, Bill Richter, Rick Smith, Elizabeth Leonard, Kate Clifford Larson, Bettie Trindal, Tom Bogar, Caleb Stephens, Rich Smyth and Jim Garrett, Nora Titone, John Elliott, Barry Cauchon, AND John Fazio. I know I'm name-dropping, and I apologize if I have left anyone out.

As for John, I have known him for 4-5 years and appreciate the years of research and hard work that has gone into Decapitating the Union. Just because I don't agree with his style of presenting his thoughts doesn't negate what I think he has done -- I agree with a good portion of his conclusions. He asked me to write the foreword for his book, but I refuse any such offers and usually refuse to do reviews of other people's work also. We can fight like husband and wife and still respect each other. So many of us on this forum are the same way.

What does upset me are those who profess to be historians and then manage to screw everything up or not consider all sides of the story. Personally, I think there are too many in the field (from authors through media on down) who spout ideas without knowledge to back them up. The attitude and wrong information of many today are doing a great disservice to our nation's heritage. My grandmother had a sixth grade education and could talk circles around some of the so-called historians today.

As for my allegiance to my home state of Maryland: As most people know, Maryland was one of four border states during the Civil War. In my opinion, Maryland and one other - Missouri - bore more of the brunt of war than some of the Confederate and most of the Union states. I won't bore others, but please take the time to read about the State of Maryland during the Civil War. You might begin to understand why I want my native state's history told correctly.

I have now lost about 80% of our posters, I bet, but I hope this gives you a good idea of where I'm coming from. Please don't be afraid to express your opinions on this forum. Good, solid opinions, citations, questions, and comments are what keep us going.

And be assured that John Fazio and I are friends (I think I jut heard John drop to the floor in a faint!), and I invited him to be a speaker at the 2016 Surratt conference in April. When he or anyone gets me mad enough to really retaliate, I will do it in private conversation with that person.

---

I cringe at the modern term for the President that the press in most mediums seem to have adopted -- POTUS. The other day, I saw the Supreme Court reduced to SCOTUS (now that's getting into dangerous territory in my opinion). I even get mad that the title of President is no longer capitalized unless followed by the man's name.

Maybe we need Aretha Franklin to give a lesson in RESPECT. Of course, maybe it's a question of earning it...

---

(07-20-2015 06:24 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 01:45 PM)Rosieo Wrote:  

I read this thread when I joined up a few days back and saw it stopped when discussion got heated. I considered whether to post here, to reopen the thread, for that reason but figured I might give it a try.I would feel bad if the thread stopped again and I would regret reopening it.
I dont like to see people get upset. That is, Ms. L. seems upset.... Something here about these Marylanders is really personal to her, I am starting to think. She cares about them.
John is taking a clobbering, so to speak, due to lack of supporters but pushes on. As a journalist who covered lots of court stuff I understand John's style. He is tenacious. Well, so what? Our society needs lawyers. Lawyers are known to accomplish good stuff. Let him argue his points. He gives food for thought.
The topic is really interesting. I have some of my own research underway on it. With luck, I'll have something.

Rosemary,

It's time we got acquainted. Please call me Laurie. I had prepared an in-depth reply as a way of introduction, but when I hit post, it flew into outer space never to be retrieved again. And, I can assure you that it was not a nasty response to your concern about me being upset. Here's a much briefer explanation as to why I am so darn persnickety about the Lincoln assassination story.

I have been addicted to it since I was about ten years old and was helping my mother clean out the attic of our home (ca. 1840) that my great-grandparents had moved into in 1862, and the family never moved out. In an old wicker basket, my mother pulled out an old nightshirt and told me the story of David Herold leaving it behind on the morning of April 14, 1865, after spending the night with the Huntts on the 13th. From that point on, the Lincoln assassination story took over my life.

I graduated with honors in the fields of history and education and went on to teach history and government for nearly a decade. I left to marry a vice principal and to raise my own child instead of raising other people's.

In 1975, a good friend, Joan Chaconas (also a Lincoln and assassination scholar) asked me to join her in becoming a volunteer guide at the Surratt House Museum, which had just been restored and would be opening to the public on May 1, 1976. We joined about twenty others and began training. We quickly realized that few of the others - as well as the trainer -- knew very little about the history that had caused the house to be saved and restored.

After weeks of listening to lectures about 19th-century antiques, I raised my hand one day and asked when we were going to get to the history. You could have heard a pin drop. I then gave a synopsis of that history. At the next session, the trainer challenged me to give a tour like I thought it should be developed. There were no furnishings at that time, so I had to wing it. Ten years of teaching, however, had cured me of being afraid when I knew that I was well-acquainted with a subject.

All through the tour, the trainer was taking notes. At the end, we found out that she was taking notes about the history of the house because she did not know much assassination history. Her goal was to have the museum be literally an antiques' showcase for the 19th century. From that point on, the county historian stood behind Joan and me, and a structured, well-researched tour program was developed (with much help from the dean of assassination studies James O. Hall)

I spent eight years as a volunteer docent before accepting the part-time position of site manager in 1983. In 1985, I became the first full-time museum director; and Joan was made my assistant in 1988. From that point on, we have worked our tail feathers off developing our programs, adding a restored kitchen wing to the historic house, acquiring additional acreage and creating a much-needed visitors' center and the highly respected James O. Hall Research Center.

Over the years, I have been privileged to work with students (grade six through PhDs), researchers, authors, media, TV films, magazine articles, and the producers and director of The Conspirator movie, which premiered in 2010. I have rubbed elbows with the greats in the assassination field: Bill Tidwell, James O. Hall, Dave Gaddy, Bill Hanchett, Terry Alford, Mike Kauffman, Ed Steers, Betty Ownsbey, Bill Richter, Rick Smith, Elizabeth Leonard, Kate Clifford Larson, Bettie Trindal, Tom Bogar, Caleb Stephens, Rich Smyth and Jim Garrett, Nora Titone, John Elliott, Barry Cauchon, AND John Fazio. I know I'm name-dropping, and I apologize if I have left anyone out.

As for John, I have known him for 4-5 years and appreciate the years of research and hard work that has gone into Decapitating the Union. Just because I don't agree with his style of presenting his thoughts doesn't negate what I think he has done -- I agree with a good portion of his conclusions. He asked me to write the foreword for his book, but I refuse any such offers and usually refuse to do reviews of other people's work also. We can fight like husband and wife and still respect each other. So many of us on this forum are the same way.

What does upset me are those who profess to be historians and then manage to screw everything up or not consider all sides of the story. Personally, I think there are too many in the field (from authors through media on down) who spout ideas without knowledge to back them up. The attitude and wrong information of many today are doing a great disservice to our nation's heritage. My grandmother had a sixth grade education and could talk circles around some of the so-called historians today.

As for my allegiance to my home state of Maryland: As most people know, Maryland was one of four border states during the Civil War. In my opinion, Maryland and one other - Missouri - bore more of the brunt of war than some of the Confederate and most of the Union states. I won't bore others, but please take the time to read about the State of Maryland during the Civil War. You might begin to understand why I want my native state's history told correctly.

I have now lost about 80% of our posters, I bet, but I hope this gives you a good idea of where I'm coming from. Please don't be afraid to express your opinions on this forum. Good, solid opinions, citations, questions, and comments are what keep us going.

And be assured that John Fazio and I are friends (I think I jut heard John drop to the floor in a faint!), and I invited him to be a speaker at the 2016 Surratt conference in April. When he or anyone gets me mad enough to really retaliate, I will do it in private conversation with that person.

---

I cringe at the modern term for the President that the press in most mediums seem to have adopted -- POTUS. The other day, I saw the Supreme Court reduced to SCOTUS (now that's getting into dangerous territory in my opinion). I even get mad that the title of President is no longer capitalized unless followed by the man's name.

Maybe we need Aretha Franklin to give a lesson in RESPECT. Of course, maybe it's a question of earning it...

As for the term "boy," I believe it might have several connotations at the time of the Civil War: Children as young as 10-12 could often earn some money by offering to run messages for people, but I don't know if the First Lady (though I believe her generous, especially to children) would have used them. The term - even as I was growing up - denoted someone of inferior class. And #3, it did refer to a man of color no matter his age.

Laurie, I am glad the Union won. I am against the death penalty, but Herold, Booth, and the rest, they were criminals. They chose to take big chances. They ought not be romanticized.

Who in the hell said anything about romanticizing the conspirators? I resent the fact that you are trying to put me in the category of some old Southern lady who still believes in moonlight and magnolias!

It might interest you to know that I have letters (primary source - originals) from my great-grandfather Huntt to his fiancee written from Baltimore in April of 1861, describing the Baltimore Riots. He ends with a sentence that basically says that he will love her forever -- unless he finds out she is a secessionist! I also have ancestors who fought on both sides.

We're not analyzing a Civil War romance novel here. We are trying to understand our country's history from all angles.

I know that for various reasons--don't know about we. Doster, counsel for Atzerodt, "....Surratt knew Atzerodt, and under the influence of the great promises of a fortune, the prisoner( Atzerodt) consented to furnish the boat and do the ferrying over." From the Sam (Arnold) letter to Booth, "...I am, as you well know, in need. I am, you may say, in rags, whereas today, I ought to be well clothed. I do not feel right stalking about with means, and more from appearances a beggar...." (If "with means" is what he intended to say, was Sam saying that he had been guaranteed big money but it hadn't materialized yet?

Samuel Chester was promised large sums of money to participate in the plot, which he refused. "He told me he had a big speculation on hand and asked me to go in with him....he told me he was speculating in farms in Lower Maryland and Virginia, still telling me that he was sure to coin money....he was in a large conspiracy to capture the heads of the Government....I asked him if that was the speculation he wished me to go into. He said it was....He said there was plenty of money in the affair and if I joined, I would never again want for money.

Dr. Mudd lost a lot of money when he lost his slaves, as did Mary, and so much of their secesh sympathies were motivated by money. The confederacy's success would have meant money in the bank for them with their "property" restored to them. Although John wasn't convicted, he talked about throwing large sums of money around Elmira.

Also, to Laurie, according to Wikipedia, 2/3 of the soldiers in the civil war from Maryland, fought for the Union.

"Also, to Laurie, according to Wikipedia, 2/3 of the soldiers in the civil war from Maryland, fought for the Union."

Remember the term "divided state?" It divided along the lines of which counties could support slavery and which didn't find it economically feasible because of agrarian conditions. From Baltimore south, the Confederates gained support. The rest of the state supported the Union -- or really didn't think they had a dog in the fight...

Have you also considered that the Union draft had a lot to do with increasing the Maryland participation in the Union army?

You might research and find that a number of Marylanders wanted to stay in the Union, but maintain slavery in 1860. I believe the name of their candidate (who won the state, I think) was John Bell, who ran under the Constitutional Union party.

---

(07-21-2015 02:54 PM)L Verge Wrote:  "Also, to Laurie, according to Wikipedia, 2/3 of the soldiers in the civil war from Maryland, fought for the Union."

Remember the term "divided state?" It divided along the lines of which counties could support slavery and which didn't find it economically feasible because of agrarian conditions. From Baltimore south, the Confederates gained support. The rest of the state supported the Union -- or really didn't think they had a dog in the fight...

Have you also considered that the Union draft had a lot to do with increasing the Maryland participation in the Union army?

You might research and find that a number of Marylanders wanted to stay in the Union, but maintain slavery in 1860. I believe the name of their candidate (who won the state, I think) was John Bell, who ran under the Constitutional Union party.

Forgot to mention that Bell lost to the Southern Democrat, John Breckinridge, by only about 500 votes - indicating to me that there were still a good amount of Marylanders who supported the Union, just not the Republicans who won through the quirks of the Electoral College.

---

Notice to other readers: I am going to ignore the fact that John is ignoring the possibilities, conjecture, speculation, etc. flags that I threw up and continuing to cite examples that I feel are negated by the great time span that elapsed before these came to light. Two bull-heads only end up wearing each other out.

He and I will continue to spar with each other, I am quite sure, but I am signing off at present. I am still waiting, however, for Herold photos taken other than as a schoolboy and as a prisoner on the monitor that show him to be a lousy dresser.

Quote:I am still waiting, however, for Herold photos taken other than as a schoolboy and as a prisoner on the monitor that show him to be a lousy dresser.

Sorry I couldn't resist.....

But Davey apparently DID like the "Grunge" look....Here he is standing outside of Willards.....

   

All joking aside, this article from the August 29, 1865 Evening Star proclaims that Herold was quite the "Dandy" and always dressed very well; i.e. in a "Natty" fashion.....

   

Wow, Betty! We have a new discovery!!!!

(07-22-2015 04:51 AM)BettyO Wrote:  

Quote:I am still waiting, however, for Herold photos taken other than as a schoolboy and as a prisoner on the monitor that show him to be a lousy dresser.

Sorry I couldn't resist.....

But Davey apparently DID like the "Grunge" look....Here he is standing outside of Willards.....



All joking aside, this article from the August 29, 1865 Evening Star proclaims that Herold was quite the "Dandy" and always dressed very well; i.e. in a "Natty" fashion.....

Betty:

Nice work, but even "the wretched, dirty, slouching figure" is relevant. Quite likely he showed up at Julia's suite looking very much like the photo of him that is so often seen, looking away from the camera with a slightly bemused look, with his bow tie, his vest buttons undone, exposing his white shirt beneath, his not-very-stylish hat and, most importantly, his corduroy jacket, badly worn and frayed. It may even have been worse, if Laurie is right about his having been caught in the rain. In any case, Julia was used to spit and polish Union officers, in resplendent uniforms, with epaulets, braids, brass buttons, etc., and women in stylish dresses, gowns, etc. Herold, who, let us remember, spent most of his time in the outdoors, would thus present a striking contrast to these, which caused her too "remark" his dress, which she felt "savored of discourtesy". It seems to fit pretty well.

John

The"grunge look" is always in style somewhere by some people!

(07-21-2015 02:41 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 11:05 AM)Rosieo Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 06:24 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 01:45 PM)Rosieo Wrote:  

I read this thread when I joined up a few days back and saw it stopped when discussion got heated. I considered whether to post here, to reopen the thread, for that reason but figured I might give it a try.I would feel bad if the thread stopped again and I would regret reopening it.
I dont like to see people get upset. That is, Ms. L. seems upset.... Something here about these Marylanders is really personal to her, I am starting to think. She cares about them.
John is taking a clobbering, so to speak, due to lack of supporters but pushes on. As a journalist who covered lots of court stuff I understand John's style. He is tenacious. Well, so what? Our society needs lawyers. Lawyers are known to accomplish good stuff. Let him argue his points. He gives food for thought.
The topic is really interesting. I have some of my own research underway on it. With luck, I'll have something.

Rosemary,

It's time we got acquainted. Please call me Laurie. I had prepared an in-depth reply as a way of introduction, but when I hit post, it flew into outer space never to be retrieved again. And, I can assure you that it was not a nasty response to your concern about me being upset. Here's a much briefer explanation as to why I am so darn persnickety about the Lincoln assassination story.

I have been addicted to it since I was about ten years old and was helping my mother clean out the attic of our home (ca. 1840) that my great-grandparents had moved into in 1862, and the family never moved out. In an old wicker basket, my mother pulled out an old nightshirt and told me the story of David Herold leaving it behind on the morning of April 14, 1865, after spending the night with the Huntts on the 13th. From that point on, the Lincoln assassination story took over my life.

I graduated with honors in the fields of history and education and went on to teach history and government for nearly a decade. I left to marry a vice principal and to raise my own child instead of raising other people's.

In 1975, a good friend, Joan Chaconas (also a Lincoln and assassination scholar) asked me to join her in becoming a volunteer guide at the Surratt House Museum, which had just been restored and would be opening to the public on May 1, 1976. We joined about twenty others and began training. We quickly realized that few of the others - as well as the trainer -- knew very little about the history that had caused the house to be saved and restored.

After weeks of listening to lectures about 19th-century antiques, I raised my hand one day and asked when we were going to get to the history. You could have heard a pin drop. I then gave a synopsis of that history. At the next session, the trainer challenged me to give a tour like I thought it should be developed. There were no furnishings at that time, so I had to wing it. Ten years of teaching, however, had cured me of being afraid when I knew that I was well-acquainted with a subject.

All through the tour, the trainer was taking notes. At the end, we found out that she was taking notes about the history of the house because she did not know much assassination history. Her goal was to have the museum be literally an antiques' showcase for the 19th century. From that point on, the county historian stood behind Joan and me, and a structured, well-researched tour program was developed (with much help from the dean of assassination studies James O. Hall)

I spent eight years as a volunteer docent before accepting the part-time position of site manager in 1983. In 1985, I became the first full-time museum director; and Joan was made my assistant in 1988. From that point on, we have worked our tail feathers off developing our programs, adding a restored kitchen wing to the historic house, acquiring additional acreage and creating a much-needed visitors' center and the highly respected James O. Hall Research Center.

Over the years, I have been privileged to work with students (grade six through PhDs), researchers, authors, media, TV films, magazine articles, and the producers and director of The Conspirator movie, which premiered in 2010. I have rubbed elbows with the greats in the assassination field: Bill Tidwell, James O. Hall, Dave Gaddy, Bill Hanchett, Terry Alford, Mike Kauffman, Ed Steers, Betty Ownsbey, Bill Richter, Rick Smith, Elizabeth Leonard, Kate Clifford Larson, Bettie Trindal, Tom Bogar, Caleb Stephens, Rich Smyth and Jim Garrett, Nora Titone, John Elliott, Barry Cauchon, AND John Fazio. I know I'm name-dropping, and I apologize if I have left anyone out.

As for John, I have known him for 4-5 years and appreciate the years of research and hard work that has gone into Decapitating the Union. Just because I don't agree with his style of presenting his thoughts doesn't negate what I think he has done -- I agree with a good portion of his conclusions. He asked me to write the foreword for his book, but I refuse any such offers and usually refuse to do reviews of other people's work also. We can fight like husband and wife and still respect each other. So many of us on this forum are the same way.

What does upset me are those who profess to be historians and then manage to screw everything up or not consider all sides of the story. Personally, I think there are too many in the field (from authors through media on down) who spout ideas without knowledge to back them up. The attitude and wrong information of many today are doing a great disservice to our nation's heritage. My grandmother had a sixth grade education and could talk circles around some of the so-called historians today.

As for my allegiance to my home state of Maryland: As most people know, Maryland was one of four border states during the Civil War. In my opinion, Maryland and one other - Missouri - bore more of the brunt of war than some of the Confederate and most of the Union states. I won't bore others, but please take the time to read about the State of Maryland during the Civil War. You might begin to understand why I want my native state's history told correctly.

I have now lost about 80% of our posters, I bet, but I hope this gives you a good idea of where I'm coming from. Please don't be afraid to express your opinions on this forum. Good, solid opinions, citations, questions, and comments are what keep us going.

And be assured that John Fazio and I are friends (I think I jut heard John drop to the floor in a faint!), and I invited him to be a speaker at the 2016 Surratt conference in April. When he or anyone gets me mad enough to really retaliate, I will do it in private conversation with that person.

---

I cringe at the modern term for the President that the press in most mediums seem to have adopted -- POTUS. The other day, I saw the Supreme Court reduced to SCOTUS (now that's getting into dangerous territory in my opinion). I even get mad that the title of President is no longer capitalized unless followed by the man's name.

Maybe we need Aretha Franklin to give a lesson in RESPECT. Of course, maybe it's a question of earning it...

---

(07-20-2015 06:24 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 01:45 PM)Rosieo Wrote:  

I read this thread when I joined up a few days back and saw it stopped when discussion got heated. I considered whether to post here, to reopen the thread, for that reason but figured I might give it a try.I would feel bad if the thread stopped again and I would regret reopening it.
I dont like to see people get upset. That is, Ms. L. seems upset.... Something here about these Marylanders is really personal to her, I am starting to think. She cares about them.
John is taking a clobbering, so to speak, due to lack of supporters but pushes on. As a journalist who covered lots of court stuff I understand John's style. He is tenacious. Well, so what? Our society needs lawyers. Lawyers are known to accomplish good stuff. Let him argue his points. He gives food for thought.
The topic is really interesting. I have some of my own research underway on it. With luck, I'll have something.

Rosemary,

It's time we got acquainted. Please call me Laurie. I had prepared an in-depth reply as a way of introduction, but when I hit post, it flew into outer space never to be retrieved again. And, I can assure you that it was not a nasty response to your concern about me being upset. Here's a much briefer explanation as to why I am so darn persnickety about the Lincoln assassination story.

I have been addicted to it since I was about ten years old and was helping my mother clean out the attic of our home (ca. 1840) that my great-grandparents had moved into in 1862, and the family never moved out. In an old wicker basket, my mother pulled out an old nightshirt and told me the story of David Herold leaving it behind on the morning of April 14, 1865, after spending the night with the Huntts on the 13th. From that point on, the Lincoln assassination story took over my life.

I graduated with honors in the fields of history and education and went on to teach history and government for nearly a decade. I left to marry a vice principal and to raise my own child instead of raising other people's.

In 1975, a good friend, Joan Chaconas (also a Lincoln and assassination scholar) asked me to join her in becoming a volunteer guide at the Surratt House Museum, which had just been restored and would be opening to the public on May 1, 1976. We joined about twenty others and began training. We quickly realized that few of the others - as well as the trainer -- knew very little about the history that had caused the house to be saved and restored.

After weeks of listening to lectures about 19th-century antiques, I raised my hand one day and asked when we were going to get to the history. You could have heard a pin drop. I then gave a synopsis of that history. At the next session, the trainer challenged me to give a tour like I thought it should be developed. There were no furnishings at that time, so I had to wing it. Ten years of teaching, however, had cured me of being afraid when I knew that I was well-acquainted with a subject.

All through the tour, the trainer was taking notes. At the end, we found out that she was taking notes about the history of the house because she did not know much assassination history. Her goal was to have the museum be literally an antiques' showcase for the 19th century. From that point on, the county historian stood behind Joan and me, and a structured, well-researched tour program was developed (with much help from the dean of assassination studies James O. Hall)

I spent eight years as a volunteer docent before accepting the part-time position of site manager in 1983. In 1985, I became the first full-time museum director; and Joan was made my assistant in 1988. From that point on, we have worked our tail feathers off developing our programs, adding a restored kitchen wing to the historic house, acquiring additional acreage and creating a much-needed visitors' center and the highly respected James O. Hall Research Center.

Over the years, I have been privileged to work with students (grade six through PhDs), researchers, authors, media, TV films, magazine articles, and the producers and director of The Conspirator movie, which premiered in 2010. I have rubbed elbows with the greats in the assassination field: Bill Tidwell, James O. Hall, Dave Gaddy, Bill Hanchett, Terry Alford, Mike Kauffman, Ed Steers, Betty Ownsbey, Bill Richter, Rick Smith, Elizabeth Leonard, Kate Clifford Larson, Bettie Trindal, Tom Bogar, Caleb Stephens, Rich Smyth and Jim Garrett, Nora Titone, John Elliott, Barry Cauchon, AND John Fazio. I know I'm name-dropping, and I apologize if I have left anyone out.

As for John, I have known him for 4-5 years and appreciate the years of research and hard work that has gone into Decapitating the Union. Just because I don't agree with his style of presenting his thoughts doesn't negate what I think he has done -- I agree with a good portion of his conclusions. He asked me to write the foreword for his book, but I refuse any such offers and usually refuse to do reviews of other people's work also. We can fight like husband and wife and still respect each other. So many of us on this forum are the same way.

What does upset me are those who profess to be historians and then manage to screw everything up or not consider all sides of the story. Personally, I think there are too many in the field (from authors through media on down) who spout ideas without knowledge to back them up. The attitude and wrong information of many today are doing a great disservice to our nation's heritage. My grandmother had a sixth grade education and could talk circles around some of the so-called historians today.

As for my allegiance to my home state of Maryland: As most people know, Maryland was one of four border states during the Civil War. In my opinion, Maryland and one other - Missouri - bore more of the brunt of war than some of the Confederate and most of the Union states. I won't bore others, but please take the time to read about the State of Maryland during the Civil War. You might begin to understand why I want my native state's history told correctly.

I have now lost about 80% of our posters, I bet, but I hope this gives you a good idea of where I'm coming from. Please don't be afraid to express your opinions on this forum. Good, solid opinions, citations, questions, and comments are what keep us going.

And be assured that John Fazio and I are friends (I think I jut heard John drop to the floor in a faint!), and I invited him to be a speaker at the 2016 Surratt conference in April. When he or anyone gets me mad enough to really retaliate, I will do it in private conversation with that person.

---

I cringe at the modern term for the President that the press in most mediums seem to have adopted -- POTUS. The other day, I saw the Supreme Court reduced to SCOTUS (now that's getting into dangerous territory in my opinion). I even get mad that the title of President is no longer capitalized unless followed by the man's name.

Maybe we need Aretha Franklin to give a lesson in RESPECT. Of course, maybe it's a question of earning it...

As for the term "boy," I believe it might have several connotations at the time of the Civil War: Children as young as 10-12 could often earn some money by offering to run messages for people, but I don't know if the First Lady (though I believe her generous, especially to children) would have used them. The term - even as I was growing up - denoted someone of inferior class. And #3, it did refer to a man of color no matter his age.

Laurie, I am glad the Union won. I am against the death penalty, but Herold, Booth, and the rest, they were criminals. They chose to take big chances. They ought not be romanticized.

Who in the hell said anything about romanticizing the conspirators? I resent the fact that you are trying to put me in the category of some old Southern lady who still believes in moonlight and magnolias!

It might interest you to know that I have letters (primary source - originals) from my great-grandfather Huntt to his fiancee written from Baltimore in April of 1861, describing the Baltimore Riots. He ends with a sentence that basically says that he will love her forever -- unless he finds out she is a secessionist! I also have ancestors who fought on both sides.

We're not analyzing a Civil War romance novel here. We are trying to understand our country's history from all angles.

Laurie:

I would love to see those letters. Can you make copies available to me? I will be happy to pay all copying and shipping costs. Thanks.

John

---

(07-21-2015 01:10 PM)BettyO Wrote:  

Quote:I am against the death penalty, but Herold, Booth, and the rest, they were criminals. They chose to take big chances. They ought not be romanticized.

No one is romanticizing anyone that I know of. We, as scholars, (and yes, there is that word again!) simply like to investigate, study and analyze these folk. I wouldn't call them criminals; political zealots, perhaps. The fact that they were southern, with southern beliefs did not make them criminal. They simply saw "their" country attacked and disagreed with the political stance of the day. Victorian Americans were totally different from today's mindset - and today's mindset doesn't belong in Victorian heads.

Betty:

I realize "criminals" is a strong word, but they were involved in a conspiracy to harm Federal officeholders, by kidnapping them (as some believed) or murdering them (as others believed). They were therefore violating the laws of the country and of the states in which they lived (conspiracy; attemted kidnapping; attempted murder), which violations, in some circumstances, were capital offenses. What else, then, can we call them? Isn't someone who violates criminal laws a criminal?

John

(07-19-2015 06:25 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  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

John, I have been thinking about your comment for several days. I think you may be oversimplifiying the situation. Evidently that waiter was paying more attention than anyone thought at first.

How many of you knew the conversation Booth was having with his fellow conspirators (that drew Julia Grant's attention) would be recorded by this waiter in a diary and found 100 years later and became the lyrics of a hit song in the 1960's? As far as I can tell it's verbatim, except for one word at the .16 second mark, changed for artistic license.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omovUmbbAgo

(07-21-2015 01:50 PM)BettyO Wrote:  How do we know that, Pamela?

Betty:

If you are suggesting that ideology had a lot to do with their motivation, I agree. But I also agree with Pamela that money played a major part in the matter too. See pages 133 and 134 of my book. See also page 328, which contains Arnold's statement that:

"The men by whom he (Booth) had been surrounded and who had associated themselves with him were, to a great extent, ignorant men. They clung to him for the bountty they were receiving at Booth's hand."

John

(07-22-2015 09:57 AM)Gene C Wrote:  

(07-19-2015 06:25 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  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

John, I have been thinking about your comment for several days. I think you may be oversimplifiying the situation. Evidently that waiter was paying more attention than anyone thought at first.

How many of you knew the conversation Booth was having with his fellow conspirators (that drew Julia Grant's attention) would be recorded by this waiter in a diary and found 100 years later and became the lyrics of a hit song in the 1960's? As far as I can tell it's verbatim, except for one word at the .16 second mark, changed for artistic license.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omovUmbbAgo

Gene:

LOL. And I always thought that song was written for constipated mathematicians.

John