(07-03-2016 08:24 PM)wpbinzel Wrote:  

(07-02-2016 10:03 PM)SSlater Wrote:  2. Also, "Lincoln in the Telegraph Office". by Bill Binzel. I have no criticism of the Story, but I would like to invite you to a story I wrote 20 years ago, that explains why Stanton and Eckert acted the way they did. That's when Lincoln is said to have remarked "When you have an elephant by the hind leg, and he wants to run, it's best to let him go." (Referring to Thompson, coming from Canada)
Laurie, can you find a date for that, Please. I think it is an important part of that day.

John, I certainly would welcome any views or perspectives that you (and others) have.

I agree with your comment about the importance of Lincoln's quote ("When you have got an elephant by the hind leg, and he's trying to run away, it's best to let him run.") as insight into Lincoln's thinking on what to do about the Confederate leaders. However, the source of that quote is Charles Dana and not David H. Bates. Dana recounted his meeting with Lincoln at the White House (and not at the War Department) late in the afternoon on April 14. (See Charles A. Dana, Recollections of the Civil War (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1898), P. 274.) I view Dana as being credible. (While Dana's writings alone don't disprove Bates' version, they don't provide it any substantiation. Bates' version did not appear in print until 9 years after Dana's book was published.)

My essay was called "Lincoln, Stanton, Eckert" (and published a lot less than 20 years ago. I'll spare you the full piece.)
Early on he 14th of April, the War Department received a telegram from the Provost Marshal in Portland Maine, saying that Jacob Thompson was in Portland, what should he do?
Stanton saw the msg first and said "Arrest Him", and passed the msg to Dana, and in turn, to Lincoln. Lincoln said "no!" and gave us
his "elephant Quote".
Stanton was furious. Thompson was a prize, Why let him go? Stanton decided keep Thompson, but had to do it without Lincoln knowing it.
Stanton believed that the Provost Marshal hold Thompson until he was told otherwise.
Lincoln then asked Eckert to accompany him to Ford's. Eckert's answer was that he had work to do for Stanton.
When Lincoln left the Office, Stanton and Eckert began their secret plan - except, because the provost Marshal did not receive an immediate reply, he released Thompson, who scrambled back to Canada.
BY then, Stanton realized that he had lost his chance to lock Thompson up, so he sent Eckert home (It was too late to change the plans that Lincoln had settled on.)
My original piece had all the footnotes, and copies of messages, and sources - that support, etc. of all that is said here. I also found reports of what Thompson was doing all this Time. (He had been to Washington - trying to see Lincoln - he was using the code name "Kate Thompson".(his wife's name).

(07-06-2016 02:13 PM)SSlater Wrote:  [quote='wpbinzel' pid='59857' dateline='1467595469']
[quote='SSlater' pid='59832' dateline='1467515008']

Early on he 14th of April, the War Department received a telegram from the Provost Marshal in Portland Maine, saying that Jacob Thompson was in Portland, what should he do?
Stanton saw the msg first and said "Arrest Him", and passed the msg to Dana, and in turn, to Lincoln. Lincoln said "no!" and gave us
his "elephant Quote".
Stanton was furious. Thompson was a prize, Why let him go? Stanton decided keep Thompson, but had to do it without Lincoln knowing it.
Stanton believed that the Provost Marshal hold Thompson until he was told otherwise.
Lincoln then asked Eckert to accompany him to Ford's. Eckert's answer was that he had work to do for Stanton.
When Lincoln left the Office, Stanton and Eckert began their secret plan - except, because the provost Marshal did not receive an immediate reply, he released Thompson, who scrambled back to Canada.
BY then, Stanton realized that he had lost his chance to lock Thompson up, so he sent Eckert home (It was too late to change the plans that Lincoln had settled on.)
My original piece had all the footnotes, and copies of messages, and sources - that support, etc. of all that is said here. I also found reports of what Thompson was doing all this Time. (He had been to Washington - trying to see Lincoln - he was using the code name "Kate Thompson".(his wife's name).

John -

If you can find the original text of your article, I would be most interested in seeing the footnotes and sources. If you send me a private message, I would be happy to send you my email address.

The "original" source that I have found on what you describe above is Dana's account, which differs from what you describe; to wit:

"On the afternoon of the 14th of April--it was Good Friday--I got a telegram from the provost marshal in Portland, Me., saying: 'I have positive information that Jacob Thompson will pass through Portland to-night, in order to take a steamer for England. What are your orders?' . . . I took the telegram and went down and read it to Mr. Stanton. His order was prompt: 'Arrest him!' But as I was going out the door he called to me and said: 'No wait; better go over and see the President.'
"At the White House all the work of the day was over, and I went into the President's business room without meeting any one. Opening the door, there seemed to be no one there, but as I was turning to go out, Mr. Lincoln called to me from a little side room where he was washing his hands.
"'Halloo, Dana!' said he. 'What is it? What's up?'
"Then I read him the telegram from Portland.
"'What does Stanton say?' he asked.
"'He says arrest him, but that I should refer the question to you.'
"'Well,' said the President slowly, wiping his hands, 'no, I rather think not. When you have got an elephant by the hind leg, and he's trying to run away, it is best to let him run.'
"With that direction, I returned to the War Department.
"'Well, what says he?' asked Stanton.
"'He says that when you have got an elephant by the hind leg, and he is trying to run away, it is best to let him run.'
"'Oh, stuff!' said Stanton."
-- Dana, Recollections, pp. 273-4.

If there is a different version/source of that story, I certainly would be interested in reading it. Thanks.

(07-06-2016 08:16 PM)wpbinzel Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 02:13 PM)SSlater Wrote:  [quote='wpbinzel' pid='59857' dateline='1467595469']
[quote='SSlater' pid='59832' dateline='1467515008']

Early on he 14th of April, the War Department received a telegram from the Provost Marshal in Portland Maine, saying that Jacob Thompson was in Portland, what should he do?
Stanton saw the msg first and said "Arrest Him", and passed the msg to Dana, and in turn, to Lincoln. Lincoln said "no!" and gave us
his "elephant Quote".
Stanton was furious. Thompson was a prize, Why let him go? Stanton decided keep Thompson, but had to do it without Lincoln knowing it.
Stanton believed that the Provost Marshal hold Thompson until he was told otherwise.
Lincoln then asked Eckert to accompany him to Ford's. Eckert's answer was that he had work to do for Stanton.
When Lincoln left the Office, Stanton and Eckert began their secret plan - except, because the provost Marshal did not receive an immediate reply, he released Thompson, who scrambled back to Canada.
BY then, Stanton realized that he had lost his chance to lock Thompson up, so he sent Eckert home (It was too late to change the plans that Lincoln had settled on.)
My original piece had all the footnotes, and copies of messages, and sources - that support, etc. of all that is said here. I also found reports of what Thompson was doing all this Time. (He had been to Washington - trying to see Lincoln - he was using the code name "Kate Thompson".(his wife's name).

John -

If you can find the original text of your article, I would be most interested in seeing the footnotes and sources. If you send me a private message, I would be happy to send you my email address.

The "original" source that I have found on what you describe above is Dana's account, which differs from what you describe; to wit:

"On the afternoon of the 14th of April--it was Good Friday--I got a telegram from the provost marshal in Portland, Me., saying: 'I have positive information that Jacob Thompson will pass through Portland to-night, in order to take a steamer for England. What are your orders?' . . . I took the telegram and went down and read it to Mr. Stanton. His order was prompt: 'Arrest him!' But as I was going out the door he called to me and said: 'No wait; better go over and see the President.'
"At the White House all the work of the day was over, and I went into the President's business room without meeting any one. Opening the door, there seemed to be no one there, but as I was turning to go out, Mr. Lincoln called to me from a little side room where he was washing his hands.
"'Halloo, Dana!' said he. 'What is it? What's up?'
"Then I read him the telegram from Portland.
"'What does Stanton say?' he asked.
"'He says arrest him, but that I should refer the question to you.'
"'Well,' said the President slowly, wiping his hands, 'no, I rather think not. When you have got an elephant by the hind leg, and he's trying to run away, it is best to let him run.'
"With that direction, I returned to the War Department.
"'Well, what says he?' asked Stanton.
"'He says that when you have got an elephant by the hind leg, and he is trying to run away, it is best to let him run.'
"'Oh, stuff!' said Stanton."
-- Dana, Recollections, pp. 273-4.

If there is a different version/source of that story, I certainly would be interested in reading it. Thanks.

I have recently moved from "my home" to a one bedroom apt. So, all my books, notes, folders, etc. are in storage. If I say I will search, It will be some time before I could unpack boxes, and repack them, May I suggest that you contact the Librarian at the Research Center, and ask for a print of the proper Courier. It is filed under Lincoln-Stanton- Eckert (or another combination of these three names.)
Are you interested in Thompson's version of the same Story? He knew nothing about what was happening in the War Department. But he confirms his part in the fiasco.
The part that interested me the most was Stanton's explicit action that deceived Lincoln, which led me to believe there may be more, and there was. I can't remember what I called that. You know what - I'll bet Laurie knows. I hate to make you wait, but I have no choice. I will do it if necessary.

When I first started looking at Lincoln in the Telegraph Office on April 14, 1865, it was in an effort to try to understand and explain the reported actions and statements of President Lincoln, Secretary of War Stanton, and Chief of the Military Telegraph Corps Eckert on that day. By profession, I am an attorney. Consequently, before I attempted to explain the “why,” I questioned the “what.” Because Bates’ version of events (i.e., that Lincoln wanted Eckert to accompany him to Ford’s Theater because of his physicality, and that Stanton and Eckert refused Lincoln’s request) has been so widely published, I assumed that there was some substantiation of it, and I set out to find it. However, all references that I found led back to Bates’ account as the source. When I parsed through Bates’ story, I found that it was inconsistent with all other contemporary sources that I reviewed. Nor is it consistent with the known character and other actions of Lincoln or Stanton. I have found no evidence that supports Bates’ version of events of that day. That is the point of my article.

I am interested in Thompson’s account, and to better understand where you find fault with Stanton’s actions. However, to be clear, in his account of the events of April 14th, Bates made no reference to Jacob Thompson, so I would suggest that any discussion of Thompson’s activities, or Stanton’s or Lincoln’s reaction to them, is not relevant in the consideration of Bates’ veracity. (The source of the information about Thompson, Stanton and Lincoln is Charles Dana, and in his telling of it, there is nothing to support Bates’ version of events.)

If there is evidence to support Bates’ version of events, I certainly am open to it and would welcome the opportunity to see it.

Bill,

The Courier issue to which John refers is July 2010, and the article is entitled The Mystery of April 14, 1865: Lincoln, Stanton, and Eckert. I have asked our librarian to send you a copy.

(07-07-2016 04:02 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Bill,

The Courier issue to which John refers is July 2010, and the article is entitled The Mystery of April 14, 1865: Lincoln, Stanton, and Eckert. I have asked our librarian to send you a copy.

Many thanks, Laurie! I look forward to reading the article. (My "archive" of Couriers only goes back to August 2011 (plus the compilations), so I do not have it. I appreciate it!)

(07-06-2016 11:45 AM)L Verge Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 10:32 AM)Rick Smith Wrote:  The article regarding McVeigh being a Booth devotee seemed to be equating McVeigh's actions with Booth's.

McVeigh indiscriminately murdered hundreds of people, including women and children.

Booth focused on 3 specific targets.

I think the point of the McVeigh article was to indicate how frustration with governmental actions (either by one person or a "ruling" group) can lead to such destructive reactions.

Correct, Laurie. Booth wouldn't think of doing what McVeigh did. Both hated the federal government but expressed it in completely different ways. McVeigh's Sic Semper Tyrannis t-shirt is typical of the way many are displaying their disgust with government today.

(07-02-2016 07:29 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(07-02-2016 06:35 PM)Carolyn Mitchell Wrote:  

(07-02-2016 08:10 AM)L Verge Wrote:  

(07-01-2016 05:51 PM)Carolyn Mitchell Wrote:  

(07-01-2016 05:00 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

Yes I received the July issue today.

The June issue should have arrived in a large white envelope along with your membership card and a copy of our glossy calendar of events (which has an absolutely gorgeous photo of Surratt House in the early morning sunlight).

The June courier had an article on Juneteenth and also the passing of the new Maryland state constitution on November 1, 1864. Does that sound familiar? We can send a copy of that also, if you did not receive the package.

I received the June issue but nothing else came with it.

Sorry. A staffer will be fussed at, and I will rectify getting your card to you on Tuesday when I return to the office.

Hi Laurie,
Finally received the membership card. Thank you!

In this month's Courier, there is "A Clarification" regarding "the county-by-county vote of Marylanders regarding the state constitution of 1864 that abolished slavery in the state."

Looking over the numbers, I had some questions???

........................ For (new constitution) .....................Against
State Totals ........27,541 ..................................... 29,536
Soldier Vote.........2,633 ........................................ 263
Grand Total ........30,174 ........................................ 29,799

According to the 1860 census, the total urban population for Baltimore was 212,000

In Baltimore City the vote was 9,779 for and 2,053 against
In Baltimore County the vote was 2,001 for and 1,869 against

Baltimore was considered a southern city with an attempt to assassinate Lincoln on his way to Washington.
The mayor was very pro southern. The city was considered a hot bed for secessionist activity.

So why did the vote for a new state constitution that abolished slavery win in a landslide vote in an area supposedly full of confederate sympathizers? If not for the "for" vote of Baltimore, the new state constitution would not have passed.

(07-18-2016 07:09 PM)Gene C Wrote:  In this month's Courier, there is "A Clarification" regarding "the county-by-county vote of Marylanders regarding the state constitution of 1864 that abolished slavery in the state."

Looking over the numbers, I had some questions???

........................ For (new constitution) .....................Against
State Totals ........27,541 ..................................... 29,536
Soldier Vote.........2,633 ........................................ 263
Grand Total ........30,174 ........................................ 29,799

According to the 1860 census, the total urban population for Baltimore was 212,000

In Baltimore City the vote was 9,779 for and 2,053 against
In Baltimore County the vote was 2,001 for and 1,869 against

Baltimore was considered a southern city with an attempt to assassinate Lincoln on his way to Washington.
The mayor was very pro southern. The city was considered a hot bed for secessionist activity.

So why did the vote for a new state constitution that abolished slavery win in a landslide vote in an area supposedly full of confederate sympathizers? If not for the "for" vote of Baltimore, the new state constitution would not have passed.

I'm sure that others on this forum have better answers than I on this, Gene, but off the top of my head, I can think of several things:

1. Citizens of Baltimore had gone through very strict martial law for three years and knew when to give up. Also, as a port of trade with Europe, the war was costing them profits.
2. A good portion of the soldiers' votes may have been cast by Baltimoreans.
3. Baltimore City had been and was still a center of trade and industry that depended on a free work force. Although they could not vote, many in that force were already free blacks that were needed at those jobs.
4. The Baltimore American newspaper in that city was heavily abolitionist.
5. The pro-slavery voters in the rest of the state could not overcome the heavy population in Baltimore and the subsequent soldiers' votes.

By the way, GREAT question!

This month in the Surratt Courier, our own Laurie Verge takes you on a visit to the Lincoln White House, including sources cited from Noah Brooks. Jane Singer draws the comparisons between Asia Booth Clarke and Jennifer, sister of Oklahoma City bomber Tim McVeigh. Also, it's that renewing time of the year. Renew you Surratt Society memberships to experience free museum admission and invites to events such as the conference and annual meeting at Belle Grove. The Surratt Courier: If you don't get it, you don't get it.

I much enjoyed the WH article, Laurie!

(07-27-2016 04:49 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  I much enjoyed the WH article, Laurie!

I really enjoyed writing it and learned so much about the great house as well as the Lincolns.

(07-27-2016 04:49 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  I much enjoyed the WH article, Laurie!

Laurie, I second Eva, and I am glad you mentioned Tad's antics with the goats!

(07-28-2016 02:19 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 04:49 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  I much enjoyed the WH article, Laurie!

Laurie, I second Eva, and I am glad you mentioned Tad's antics with the goats!

Wouldn't you have loved to see the expressions on some of the staid Victorians faces when Tad and his goats made their appearances?