(07-28-2015 02:54 PM)L Verge Wrote:  I sure hope Linda can scan and put those online because you have me totally confused as to why I have never heard or read of Demond before. His statement(s) would certainly have been picked up by someone else over the years unless they were just found recently in someone's attic. I have checked indices in the best books, The Evidence tome, trial transcripts, and cannot find any reference to him. I asked Joan Chaconas, who proofed your book and wrote the foreword, and she told me that she had questioned you about the same thing because she had never heard of him either.

Laurie,

The only accounts I know from Demond are his correspondences with Finis Bates in the early 1900's in which he claims many things and his statements change in order to fit Bates' narrative. I'm hoping John is using letters that are more period and a bit more consistent. I previously questioned John's usage of Demond's accounts here: http://boothiebarn.com/2014/09/14/john-w...ment-14868

Thanks, Dave. Terry Alford was here this morning in conjunction with the second teachers' institute sponsored this month by Ford's Theatre. He had emailed me about some things just after I posted about Demond here, so I put the question to him about this man. Here's his response (after I apologized for missing Demond's name in the index for Fortune's Fool).

"The letters are prob from Barbee Papers at Georgetown or the Bates Papers there. One or the other has Demond letters.
Old-age stuff, very confused if I remember correctly."

The reference in the book is only to Demond's statement about Booth fleeing after the assassination (pg. 273). I asked about Demond's reference to the wee small hours of the night of April 13-14. Terry said he did not put it in his book because he did not believe it. If the only source is Bates, I would be extremely wary also. Even Barbee has some spurious ideas - such as Booth and Herold never stopped at the tavern here.

---

(07-27-2015 05:23 PM)Lincoln Wonk Wrote:  Did anyone see this article on Tom Mudd in the Guardian. I think the statement from Tom about history being pliable is interesting. What do you all think?

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/...onspirator

As far as history being pliable, judging by the ways the assassination story has been bent, twisted, broken, etc. over the years, I tend to agree with Tom. In my opinion, however, his family is responsible for a lot of that "flexibility" when it pertains to Dr. Sam.

Revisionist historians will also prefer to manipulate history to suit current trends. Some of the "new" interpretations can be good and some not so good. Sticking to proven facts is always best.

[i][i][i][i][i][i][i]

(07-28-2015 04:04 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Thanks, Dave. Terry Alford was here this morning in conjunction with the second teachers' institute sponsored this month by Ford's Theatre. He had emailed me about some things just after I posted about Demond here, so I put the question to him about this man. Here's his response (after I apologized for missing Demond's name in the index for Fortune's Fool).

"The letters are prob from Barbee Papers at Georgetown or the Bates Papers there. One or the other has Demond letters.
Old-age stuff, very confused if I remember correctly."

The reference in the book is only to Demond's statement about Booth fleeing after the assassination (pg. 273). I asked about Demond's reference to the wee small hours of the night of April 13-14. Terry said he did not put it in his book because he did not believe it. If the only source is Bates, I would be extremely wary also. Even Barbee has some spurious ideas - such as Booth and Herold never stopped at the tavern here.

---

(07-27-2015 05:23 PM)Lincoln Wonk Wrote:  Did anyone see this article on Tom Mudd in the Guardian. I think the statement from Tom about history being pliable is interesting. What do you all think?

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/...onspirator

As far as history being pliable, judging by the ways the assassination story has been bent, twisted, broken, etc. over the years, I tend to agree with Tom. In my opinion, however, his family is responsible for a lot of that "flexibility" when it pertains to Dr. Sam.

Revisionist historians will also prefer to manipulate history to suit current trends. Some of the "new" interpretations can be good and some not so good. Sticking to proven facts is always best.

Laurie, Dave, et al.:

I too hope that Linda can post them, for everyone's benefit. If not, I will be happy to send copies to anyone asking for them, at no cost. Just let me know.

There are indeed few references to Demond in the literature, though, as you have learned, Terry does mention him in "Fortune's Fool". His statement that they are from the Barbee or Bates Papers may or may not be accurate. All I know is that I obtained them from the E. H. Swaim Papers at Georgetown University, right around the corner from you. Though you know that I have the highest regard for Terry, who has helped me on more than one occasion, I believe his characterization of the letters as "old-age stuff, very confused" does not do them justice. I do not understand what you mean by Demond's reference to the "wee small hours of the night of April 13-14", nor Terry's saying he didn't include it in his book because he didn't believe it. Believe what? I find no such reference in Demond's letters, unless you are referring to his saying that he saw Booth and Herold on the Maryland side of the bridge in the morning of April 14, not in the wee hours, but in the morning. He doesn't say what time it was, but we may be sure it was after 7:00 because that is the hour the gate was opened after being closed at 9:00 the previous evening, according to Demond. In his Statement, which accompanies his letter of June 12, 1916, he is explicit in his reference to seeing the men in the morning and to their also being seen by Drake, Demond's companion; one of General Auger's aides; an orderly from Lt. Dana; and Demond's superior, Corporal Sullivan. This reference receives support from a reference Demond makes in his letter of Sept. 16, 1911, to the sentries on the Maryland side thinking it strange to see Booth and Herold come back across the bridge after 10:30 pm "for it was our Guard that had kept them Prisoners in Block House until Orders came to let them go". Why should this be doubted.? What reason would Demond have to fabricate this?

In my judgment, Demond's letters and Statement are a treasure trove. It is true that there are a couple of inconsistencies in the same, but we should expect that from someone recalling events of 46 and 51 years ago. Furthermore, there are only one or two inconsistences and they are far outweighed by the consistencies, the latter in many ways telling us more than Cobb and Fletcher told us and in any case being sufficient to give us a fundamentally accurate picture of what happened at the bridge, a picture that leaves no doubt that the crossings of the fugitives were accomplished by treason.

Again I say to anyone doubting the essentials of Demond's accounts, please show me evidence that contradicts the same. In truth, I have only two problems with Demond: His saying in one letter that the Maryland side detail did not have an order re a password and countersign and his saying in another letter that they did have such an order; and his recollection that the fugitives were released between 2:00 and 3:00 in the afternoon, which cannot be accurate, because we know they were in Willard's before that time, per Julia, Ulysses and Mathews. Re the last named, here is what he said in a letter to the "National Intelligencer", published on July 18, 1867: "At that moment I observed General Grant riding by in an open carriage, carrying also his baggage. Seeing this, I called Mr. Booth's attention to him, and said, 'Why Johnny, there goes Grant. I thought he was to be coming to the theatre this evening with the President.' 'Where?' he exclaimed. I pointed to the carriage; he looked toward it, grasped my hand tightly, and galloped down the avenue after the carriage..." This account squares perfectly with Julia's account and with Ulysses's account. So why should it be doubted? Again I say to those who doubt it: Please show me evidence wihich contradicts it.

Thank you.

John

Demond is mentioned in something I saw in the upstairs research center before the JOH library was built back in 1999 or 2000. I cited it as a letter from Douglas Truran to the Surratt Society, July 6, 1992. It was in a vertical file and was a copy of the original. It had to do with Booth arriving in the Uniontown side of the Navy Yard Bridge. It referred to a guard of a couple of men or more who ordered Booth to slow down as he came to their end of the bridge. They were also in the 3d Mass Heavy Arty and referred to Lt. Dana. The letter-writer, Truman, was quite agitated that no one had heard of this as had he. I mention it in Last Confed Heroes, one volume edition, 437, referring to one of the guards as Demond. I assume that the Demond you all are interested is the same soldier? I have no idea where that letter has gone to over the last 15 years, but it is somewhere in the new JOH library, I assume.

I could have sworn that one of your very early postings on Demond mentioned Booth and Herold being detained very early in the morning of the 14th. Pardon me if I misread it. Also, I checked Terry's chapter notes, and he does credit the Swaim Papers as being the source for Demond information. There is a note that the original was in a letter to a George Demond written on April 21, 1865, but reprinted in the Boston Traveler nearly 100 years later on April 14, 1964. Who is good at finding old articles from fifty years ago?

I have found my copy of the Truman Letter and a reply from JOH (a miracle in itself, given the state of my files). The Demond letter is in the Swaim Collection at Georgetown U as stated above. Hall lists the guard on both sides of the bridge, under Sgt Cobb. On the Uniontown side are listed Cpl This Sullivan in command, Pvt Frederick A Demond, and Pvt George Drake, with Pvt Jacob Johnson to relieve one of them shortly..

Demond in his letter (also enclosed in the Hall Letter) mentions using the passwords TB and TB Road and the fact that they were never used again after that night. Fletcher was stopped from crossing and coming back that night because he did not have those passwords. There were two passwords in case the guard was suspicious of whoever gave the first the second countersign was asked for.

Bill - That account is probably still in the library, but I just remember it referring to Booth leaving the city that night, not coming in on the morning of the 14th. The name Demond did not stick in my mind because that little report that Booth was told to slow down I considered rather inconsequential. Didn't that soldier also make some reference that he would have shot Booth that night if he had known what had happened?

The only thing that made my ears perk up on this forum is the reference to Booth coming into the city early in the morning of the 14th. I also think that the bridge might have opened earlier than 7 am for the truck farmers coming in to set up their wares at Central Market. I can't remember if Polk Gardiner and friend were coming into D.C. or leaving when Booth and Herold passed them that night? (Just looked it up in the trial testimony - they were entering the city that night and had stopped on Good Hope Hill when Booth came by. They had cleared the hill by the time they encountered Herold.) Enough of my useless information.

I agree, the material I looked at only referred to Booth leaving and not coming into the city. One soldier on the Uniontown side of the bridge threatened to shoot Booth if he did not slow down and walk his horse. There was some regret that they had not been more vigilant with Booth and Herold, but the two fugitives followed protocol, which was provided to Booth by Mary Surratt after she and Weichmann returned from Surrattsville. I assume that Weichmann got the passwords at the War Dept.?

"which was provided to Booth by Mary Surratt after she and Weichmann returned from Surrattsville. I assume that Weichmann got the passwords at the War Dept.?"

Nice trick slipping that reference to Mrs. Surratt in thinking we wouldn't notice -- now prove it. As for your assumption that Weichmann obtained the passwords at his place of employment, I'm cool with that (just watch out for Pamela).

Wasn't it possible for the passwords to change several times a day?

"Nice trick", "think we wouldn't notice?" You are such a suspicious, conspiracy-minded woman when it comes to me. If we are making assumptions on Mary possibly passing the passwords to Booth, see Larson, Assassins' Accomplice, 88, describing Booth's last possible visit to the Surratt Townhouse, at 9pm April 14. I believe that she surmises that from Weichmann's tale ala Risvold. Or you can go by my interpretation of Booth and Harold's visit for his pistols and a hat after the assassination from Smoot's account, LCH, 422-25, that caused such an explosion in a thread some time back. What do you think Booth and Mary would talk about April 14? The weather?

You have given me good reason to be suspicious of some of your ideas, but trust me, you are several pegs down on my list of people to watch out for.

Unless I hear it from the ghosts of Mary Surratt and/or John Wilkes Booth, I will never believe that Booth visited the boardinghouse at any time after sundown on April 14. I have no doubts that Mary was working with Booth to some degree, but I see no reason for further contact an hour before the assassination. The field glasses being in Surrattsville was no big deal; Booth and Herold could certainly wake Lloyd up if need be; they could talk their way past pickets just like they did at the bridge.

Once Booth pushed his own "Go" button, he didn't need to discuss anything with Mary Surratt -- and he certainly was not going to abort the assassination over something that she might tell him an hour or so before the "appointed hour."

I'm confused. Am I understanding this exchange to mean that Booth had a password provided to him by Mary Surratt? If so, why would Cobb not mention Booth's use of a password in his trial testimony? It would be to his advantage to say that he waved Booth through due to his use of a password rather than falling for his story about not knowing the rule that people weren't supposed to pass after nine.

---

(07-29-2015 02:31 PM)L Verge Wrote:  I could have sworn that one of your very early postings on Demond mentioned Booth and Herold being detained very early in the morning of the 14th. Pardon me if I misread it. Also, I checked Terry's chapter notes, and he does credit the Swaim Papers as being the source for Demond information. There is a note that the original was in a letter to a George Demond written on April 21, 1865, but reprinted in the Boston Traveler nearly 100 years later on April 14, 1964. Who is good at finding old articles from fifty years ago?

Here is the 1964 article.

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1964/...d-by-guard

There are only two sources (that I know of) that espouse the idea that there was any sort of password/sign countersign. They are Finis Bates and Frederick Demond.

Let's be clear, Finis Bates was the first person to claim that there was a sign and countersign at the Navy Yard bridge. He claimed to have received this realization from John St. Helen aka "John Wilkes Booth". According to St. Helen, he was told by Vice President Johnson to use the sign "T.B." and "T.B. Road" in order to get over the Navy Yard bridge without incident. This is the story that Bates includes in his book. As we all know, John St. Helen was not John Wilkes Booth and therefore the entire story was fictional. Either St. Helen or Bates, is lying.

Bates, the crafty man that he is, doubles down on the fictional password scenario however. He attempts to prove its legitimacy by providing two statements. One of them is a newspaper article from 1897 from David Dana. Dana commanded the troops of the 13th NY Cavalry and stationed his men at Bryantown. It was to Dana that George Mudd, reported the arrival of two strangers to his cousin, Dr. Samuel Mudd's, farm. Sadly, Dana sat on this information for some time before sending men out to investigate. Therefore Dana would have had a good, and true, story to tell in 1897. However, in addition to painting himself in a far more heroic light, Dana's 1897 account also added a new, and suspect, story.

According to Dana in 1897:

Quote: "On Friday, April 14, 1865, two men appeared before the guard on the road leading into Washington from the east. Refusing to give their names or state their business, they were arrested and put in the guard tent, whence they were to be sent to headquarters. This was about 1 o'clock in the afternoon. In an hour or two they gave their names as Booth and Herold."

While it is thought that David Herold was in Southern Maryland on the night of April 13th, and therefore would be making his way back into D.C. on the morning of the 14th, it is well established that Booth was in Washington, D.C. all day on April 14th until his escape. David Dana is once again either embellishing his story or the passage of thirty two years has caused understandable errors in his memory.

But here's my favorite part. Not only does Bates spend an entire chapter of his book supporting and attempting to convince us all that David Dana is supporting the claims made by John St. Helen, but, in the very next chapter, Bates is attempting to prove that David Dana had prior knowledge of Lincoln's assassination. Bates writes, "In this connection I challenge to the conduct of Gen. Dana, as we left him at Bryantown resting under the seeming shadows of treacherous conduct..." It is important to note that David Dana died in 1906, and that Bates published his book one year later, in 1907. It's easier to libel a dead man who can't defend himself.

Thus far however, all Bates has "proven" is that John St. Helen's story meshes with part of Dana's dated narrative. Dana, however, makes NO mention of any password or countersign. Bates claims this is because Dana was party to the assassination plot and therefore withheld admitting this piece. In order to "prove" St. Helen's password story, Bates relies on Demond.

In 1897, after reading Dana's account in the newspaper, Frederick Demond, wrote the General a letter. In the letter Demond recounts how he was stationed as a guard on the Uniontown side of the Navy Yard bridge. Silas Cobb, you'll remember was on the Washington side and was the one who allowed Booth and then Herold to pass. Demond was on the Maryland side of the bridge.

Demond wrote to Dana, in part:

Quote:"I was present the night that Booth and Herold crossed after Booth had shot the President, but was not on post. I stood in the door of the block house when Booth rode up and heard him ask the guard if anyone had gone through lately. I heard the guard on the post answer him, 'No' and ask him what he was doing out there this time of night?

He made some kind of answer about going to see some one who lived out on the T. B. road. I did not pay much attention at this time to what they were talking about. I helped open the gate and he rode through.

A short time after this Herold rode over the bridge and asked if there had been anyone through mounted on a bay horse. Upon being told that there had, he muttered something about being a pretty man not to wait for him.

Well, we opened the gate and let him through and he rode off in a hurry. About twenty minutes later, I should say, we heard a great uproar across the bridge and in a short time got word of the assassination. If we had only known it sooner neither one of them would have passed us, as I would have shot them as quickly as I would a mad dog. But it was too late ; they were out of sight and hearing by
that time."

Finally, Bates has a straw to grasp at and boy does he. Bates immediately misconstrues Demond's phrase that Booth, "...made some kind of answer about going to see some one who lived out on the T. B. road." into iron clad validation that Booth said T.B. and T.B. Road as a password and countersign. But that is not what Demond says. Demond is only stating that, 32 years later, he believes he recalls hearing Booth mention something about visiting someone in T.B. All of this is while Demond is standing in the block house door and listening to one of the other guards question Booth. This hardly equals the sign and countersign scenario that Bates claimed he got from St. Helen. Still, with something to go on, Bates re-purposes the letter to fit his narrative.

Likely knowing that his proof here is a little thin, Bates then reaches out to Demond, hoping to sway him into saying what he wants. Those correspondences, are the ones that Mr. Fazio has and the ones I would very much like to see. It's clear that in 1897, Demond did not attest to any password or countersign, merely that Booth said he was going to T.B. (which he did, by the way). It seems likely that, with repeated pushes from Bates to remember things his way, Demond eventually acquiesced to Bates' story. I'm sure the letters fulfill Dr. Alford's impression of, "Old-age stuff, very confused".

I would also like to point out that Bates was not above paying people to say what he wanted them to say. Two of John Wilkes Booth's nieces were close to destitute in the early 1900's and Bates paid both Blanche DeBar Booth and Marion Booth Douglass handsomely for their sworn testimonies to his theories. Perhaps Bates helped Demond's memory along with a few bucks? Who knows.

Ultimately, the whole password/countersign scenario comes from Finis Bates, which should be enough to dismiss it entirely. But even if the taint of Bates doesn't send you running, none of the statements attesting to it come from before the year 1897. That means the few accounts saying there was a password and countersign were all first recorded 32 (or more) years after the event they claim took place! Human memory is a frail and fluid thing. Even ignoring the assumed memory loss that comes with aging, our minds are constantly altering our memories. Studies have shown that, among many things, imagining an event having taken place can create a false memory of it actually occurring, the manner in which you are asked about an event can change the way you remember it, and the more often you recall something the more the memory changes. We need to be objective and neurologically analytical of all accounts that are dated so far from the events they describe as there has been more time for the above named "memory tricks" to have occurred. While we know that eyewitness accounts of traumatic events, like Lincoln being shot at Ford's, also produces it's own set of memory problems. Still, logically and neurologically, memories recalled from long periods of time are inherently less accurate and therefore less credible.

Silas Cobb and John T. Fletcher both gave statements in April of 1865, and neither one described any password or countersign. But better than that, in 1865, even Frederick Demond made no mention of a password or countersign.

I looked up the newspaper article that Laurie mentions that was published in 1964. The article recounts the discovery and publication of a letter by Frederick Demond, by his great niece. In the letter, written on April 21, 1865, from Frederick Demond to his brother George, states:

Quote:"The night that the President was shot, I was on guard about 11 o'clock. They came over the bridge two men on horses and they told us the President was shot.

The next day we found out that the very same men that told us that he was shot was the very same man that shot hime. If we had known it a half hour sooner we would have got the reward, which is 40,000 dollars. It was too bad that we had not have known it sooner. If we have we could have stopped them.

I saw Booth myself when he crossed the bridge and if I ever see him again, you better believe that I will stop him."

There is no mention of a password, no mention of a countersign, no mention of T.B. Instead, Demond, in a somewhat confusing way, implies that it was either Booth or Herold that announced to the guards that Lincoln had been assassinated. No one else (as far as I know) ever claimed that. While interesting, it still does not support Demond's later yielding to Bates. One would think Demond would mention to his brother (and to the authorities at the time) that Booth said he was headed down to T.B. This information would have been very useful to those hunting Booth. Perhaps the lack of it in his 1865 letter demonstrates that, years later, his memory added the part about T.B. after having learned it was the way that Booth went.

I apologize for the length of this post. In my eyes, there is no credible evidence to support Finis Bates' theory that John Wilkes Booth used a password to cross the Navy Yard bridge. The evidence that supports this idea are statements by Frederick Demond purposefully misconstrued by Bates in order to fit his theory that the assassination of Lincoln was enacted by Vice President Johnson and that John Wilkes Booth escaped his death at the Garrett farm.

(07-29-2015 07:13 PM)Dave Taylor Wrote:  There are only two sources (that I know of) that espouse the idea that there was any sort of password/sign countersign. They are Finis Bates and Frederick Demond.

Let's be clear, Finis Bates was the first person to claim that there was a sign and countersign at the Navy Yard bridge. He claimed to have received this realization from John St. Helen aka "John Wilkes Booth". According to St. Helen, he was told by Vice President Johnson to use the sign "T.B." and "T.B. Road" in order to get over the Navy Yard bridge without incident. This is the story that Bates includes in his book. As we all know, John St. Helen was not John Wilkes Booth and therefore the entire story was fictional. Either St. Helen or Bates, is lying.

Bates, the crafty man that he is, doubles down on the fictional password scenario however. He attempts to prove its legitimacy by providing two statements. One of them is a newspaper article from 1897 from David Dana. Dana commanded the troops of the 13th NY Cavalry and stationed his men at Bryantown. It was to Dana that George Mudd, reported the arrival of two strangers to his cousin, Dr. Samuel Mudd's, farm. Sadly, Dana sat on this information for some time before sending men out to investigate. Therefore Dana would have had a good, and true, story to tell in 1897. However, in addition to painting himself in a far more heroic light, Dana's 1897 account also added a new, and suspect, story.

According to Dana in 1897:

Quote: "On Friday, April 14, 1865, two men appeared before the guard on the road leading into Washington from the east. Refusing to give their names or state their business, they were arrested and put in the guard tent, whence they were to be sent to headquarters. This was about 1 o'clock in the afternoon. In an hour or two they gave their names as Booth and Herold."

While it is thought that David Herold was in Southern Maryland on the night of April 13th, and therefore would be making his way back into D.C. on the morning of the 14th, it is well established that Booth was in Washington, D.C. all day on April 14th until his escape. David Dana is once again either embellishing his story or the passage of thirty two years has caused understandable errors in his memory.

But here's my favorite part. Not only does Bates spend an entire chapter of his book supporting and attempting to convince us all that David Dana is supporting the claims made by John St. Helen, but, in the very next chapter, Bates is attempting to prove that David Dana had prior knowledge of Lincoln's assassination. Bates writes, "In this connection I challenge to the conduct of Gen. Dana, as we left him at Bryantown resting under the seeming shadows of treacherous conduct..." It is important to note that David Dana died in 1906, and that Bates published his book one year later, in 1907. It's easier to libel a dead man who can't defend himself.

Thus far however, all Bates has "proven" is that John St. Helen's story meshes with part of Dana's dated narrative. Dana, however, makes NO mention of any password or countersign. Bates claims this is because Dana was party to the assassination plot and therefore withheld admitting this piece. In order to "prove" St. Helen's password story, Bates relies on Demond.

A few years back while researching the files of Fred Black at Oakland University, I was allowed to photocopy all of his files dealing with the Enid mummy. It quickly became apparent that Finis Bates played fast and loose with the facts, browbeat Blanche DeBar Booth into signing an affidavit she later repudiated, and wrote his book ascribing facts supplied by various individuals which were not in the letters they returned to answer his query letters sent to them. I have copies of three letters from December 28, 1897, January 17, 1898, and February 17, 1898, from Gen. Dana to Bates diplomatically correcting him on his interpretation of the assassination and pursuit of Booth. None of the letters mention crossing the bridge, and focus instead on the tintype of the alleged John St. Helen and which leg Booth broke. The actor Joseph Jefferson replied to Bates in a letter dated 1903, advising him the tintype looked nothing like John Wilkes Booth, yet Finis Bates did not include Jefferson's letter in his book and on the contrary stated Jefferson had dramatically claimed the image was Booth.

Finis Bates was a scoundrel.

(07-29-2015 02:15 PM)Wild Bill Wrote:  Demond is mentioned in something I saw in the upstairs research center before the JOH library was built back in 1999 or 2000. I cited it as a letter from Douglas Truran to the Surratt Society, July 6, 1992. It was in a vertical file and was a copy of the original. It had to do with Booth arriving in the Uniontown side of the Navy Yard Bridge. It referred to a guard of a couple of men or more who ordered Booth to slow down as he came to their end of the bridge. They were also in the 3d Mass Heavy Arty and referred to Lt. Dana. The letter-writer, Truman, was quite agitated that no one had heard of this as had he. I mention it in Last Confed Heroes, one volume edition, 437, referring to one of the guards as Demond. I assume that the Demond you all are interested is the same soldier? I have no idea where that letter has gone to over the last 15 years, but it is somewhere in the new JOH library, I assume.

Wild Bill:

Your assumption is correct.

John

---

(07-29-2015 02:31 PM)L Verge Wrote:  I could have sworn that one of your very early postings on Demond mentioned Booth and Herold being detained very early in the morning of the 14th. Pardon me if I misread it. Also, I checked Terry's chapter notes, and he does credit the Swaim Papers as being the source for Demond information. There is a note that the original was in a letter to a George Demond written on April 21, 1865, but reprinted in the Boston Traveler nearly 100 years later on April 14, 1964. Who is good at finding old articles from fifty years ago?

Laurie:

I do not have that letter. If you can make a copy available to me, I shall be grateful (either the 1865 original or the 1964 reprint).

John

---

(07-29-2015 02:53 PM)Wild Bill Wrote:  I have found my copy of the Truman Letter and a reply from JOH (a miracle in itself, given the state of my files). The Demond letter is in the Swaim Collection at Georgetown U as stated above. Hall lists the guard on both sides of the bridge, under Sgt Cobb. On the Uniontown side are listed Cpl This Sullivan in command, Pvt Frederick A Demond, and Pvt George Drake, with Pvt Jacob Johnson to relieve one of them shortly..

Demond in his letter (also enclosed in the Hall Letter) mentions using the passwords TB and TB Road and the fact that they were never used again after that night. Fletcher was stopped from crossing and coming back that night because he did not have those passwords. There were two passwords in case the guard was suspicious of whoever gave the first the second countersign was asked for.

Wild Bill:

Everything you say here is consistent with my understanding except the business about Fletcher. In neither the statements nor the trial testimony of Fletcher and Cobb is anything said about a password or countersign. Cobb offered two reasons for Fletcher's failure to cross: He (Cobb) did not deem his business in Maryland sufficient to pass him; and, passage was authorized by him (Cobb), but refused by Fletcher when Cobb told him he could not return. The first reason is B.S. and casts a cloud of suspicion on Cobb. We know this because Fletcher's statement and trial testimony are consistent only with the second reason. Queries: 1) Why did Cobb try to pass off the story about turning Fletcher back because of the nature of his business? 2) Why did Cobb tell Fletcher he could not return inasmuch as the Washington-side detail would have nothing to say about his return once he had been passed by the Maryland-side detail, in the same way that the Maryland-side detail would have nothing to say about the passage of anyone cleared by the Washington-side detail, which was the rule, per Demond. The answer to both of these queries suggests that passage had more to do with design than chance. One thing is paramount and must therefore always be kept in mind: Booth and Herold (and Atzerodt if he had elected to follow them) would not approach the bridge without being absolutely certain that they would be passed. The business of "talking" their way across is nonsense; it is not consistent with the evidence, with reason or with human nature.
If you were making an escape after just committing regicide, knowing that the penalty if you are caught is, first, torture to reveal your secrets, and then death, would you leave the [i]sine qua non[/i] of crossing a river to chance? To even a particle of chance? No way.

John

---

(07-29-2015 03:07 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Bill - That account is probably still in the library, but I just remember it referring to Booth leaving the city that night, not coming in on the morning of the 14th. The name Demond did not stick in my mind because that little report that Booth was told to slow down I considered rather inconsequential. Didn't that soldier also make some reference that he would have shot Booth that night if he had known what had happened?

The only thing that made my ears perk up on this forum is the reference to Booth coming into the city early in the morning of the 14th. I also think that the bridge might have opened earlier than 7 am for the truck farmers coming in to set up their wares at Central Market. I can't remember if Polk Gardiner and friend were coming into D.C. or leaving when Booth and Herold passed them that night? (Just looked it up in the trial testimony - they were entering the city that night and had stopped on Good Hope Hill when Booth came by. They had cleared the hill by the time they encountered Herold.) Enough of my useless information.

Laurie:

Your information is most certainly not useless. It is possible that Booth and Herold arrived earlier than 7:00 (gate opening time), but most unlikely. They more likely slept in for a while, got up, had breakfast, etc., before making their way into Washington from Maryland. Demond is unambiguous: He and Drake were sitting on a log doing nothing in particular when the two conspirators showed up. Asked their business, they said they were not doing anything in particular, just looking around. Demond told them they could not cross and then asked them to identify themselves. They refused to do so and were thus placed in the Block House. An aide of Gen. Augur came by and after talking with Booth told Demond and Drake that Booth and Herold were "alright". Drake refused to accept that, saying he took orders only from Dana. The aide rode off to confer with Dana. Later an orderly sent by Dana ordered Sullivan, Demond's superior, to release the two, It was done. The whole thing smells of treason and a likely candidate for it is not Augur but Dana. But there is no proof, only circumstantial evidence.

John