(09-21-2016 06:26 PM)ELCore Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 04:18 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  The sum of all of this is that the reader feels there was a very close relationship between Abraham Lincoln and William Coggeshall.

I think we are safe to conclude that, if most of these outlandish claims are false, then they are all false.

And... as I wrote that, the legal principle false in one, false in all came into my mind:

Quote:If you believe that any witness or party willfully or knowingly testified falsely to any material facts in the case, with intent to deceive you, you may give such weight to his or her testimony as you may deem it is entitled. You may believe some of it, or you may, in your discretion, disregard all of it.

I feel sure that, in his long legal career, Lincoln must have availed himself of this principle from time to time.

The one component of this report that bothers me - was the hiss. Grenades don't Hiss. A Hiss is generally generated by a slow burning powder - that is making many tiny explosions. If I accept this item to be a grenade, I have to assume it has failed. Supporting this assumption, - no one reported it exploding.

Since no one talked about it or reported the event, then maybe it never happened. BUT Coggeshall was a HERO to his grand-daughter and she let everyone know it, years later.

PS. I vote that this exchange of information be named AS "ONE OF THE BEST POSTS EVER". Except for this last item, I thank all of the members who contributed to this, for us to read. It is a gem!

I agree this is an interesting thread. I have several thoughts, ideas, and questions as I have read through. Due to time constraints at this moment, I will hold the majority of them for another post. But I did want to share a thought or two.

What does the group think of the possibility that the "grenade" was nothing more that a firework? There are many documented incidents of fireworks being used to celebrate Lincoln's arrival in various cities on his route as well as in the "illuminations" of the day.

It seems plausible to me that an errant firework or even one thrown by a reveler could have gone in the open window. Nothing that was truly meant to harm Lincoln. That would explain the hissing sound (as I understand fireworks of that time would do) and perhaps why no one else recorded the incident - no harm intended and just another firework among many "exploding" at the time. This is something that from a kernel of truth could have inadvertently morphed or been embellished over time into something like Mrs. Coggeshall apparently wrote.

Could this story be true? Possibly. When I look at a story like this, I ask myself would I include it as fact were I giving a lecture on the subject (Lincoln's inaugural train trip in this circumstance). The answer to this question for me would be NO at this time.

Why?: As of now, I would consider it being from a secondary source (because Mrs. Coggeshall's statement, as I know it, is gleaned from Koch's book, and the original letter's location does not seem to be known at this time and therefore can't be examined as a primary source), it is a second hand account (the reporter - Mrs. Coggeshall, from what I can gather, was not present during the "grenade" incident itself), the report was not given at a time contemporary to the incident/event (reported 47 years later), and there is no independent corroboration of the incident in question.

I guess that will give some insight into my method of evaluating or weighting sources. I don't feel the story can be dismissed outright or really even disproven at this time - but an inability to dismiss or disprove does not automatically mean something is true. I don't feel I can give the story much weight or credibility based on the information I currently have available.

Here's some 1900 info on the colonel:
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Appleto...iam_Turner

And here the respective passage from his “The Journeys of A. Lincoln as President-elect and as President Martyred” (1865):
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moa/ack8354....view=image

(09-22-2016 08:19 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Here's some 1900 info on the colonel:
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Appleto...iam_Turner

And here the respective passage from his “The Journeys of A. Lincoln as President-elect and as President Martyred” (1865):
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moa/ack8354....view=image

To add to what Eva posted, here is a link to download a pdf copy of Coggeshall's 1865 book.

https://archive.org/details/lincolnmemorialj00incogg

(09-22-2016 08:15 AM)STS Lincolnite Wrote:  I agree this is an interesting thread. I have several thoughts, ideas, and questions as I have read through. Due to time constraints at this moment, I will hold the majority of them for another post. But I did want to share a thought or two.

What does the group think of the possibility that the "grenade" was nothing more that a firework? There are many documented incidents of fireworks being used to celebrate Lincoln's arrival in various cities on his route as well as in the "illuminations" of the day.

It seems plausible to me that an errant firework or even one thrown by a reveler could have gone in the open window. Nothing that was truly meant to harm Lincoln. That would explain the hissing sound (as I understand fireworks of that time would do) and perhaps why no one else recorded the incident - no harm intended and just another firework among many "exploding" at the time. This is something that from a kernel of truth could have inadvertently morphed or been embellished over time into something like Mrs. Coggeshall apparently wrote.

Could this story be true? Possibly. When I look at a story like this, I ask myself would I include it as fact were I giving a lecture on the subject (Lincoln's inaugural train trip in this circumstance). The answer to this question for me would be NO at this time.

Why?: As of now, I would consider it being from a secondary source (because Mrs. Coggeshall's statement, as I know it, is gleaned from Koch's book, and the original letter's location does not seem to be known at this time and therefore can't be examined as a primary source), it is a second hand account (the reporter - Mrs. Coggeshall, from what I can gather, was not present during the "grenade" incident itself), the report was not given at a time contemporary to the incident/event (reported 47 years later), and there is no independent corroboration of the incident in question.

I guess that will give some insight into my method of evaluating or weighting sources. I don't feel the story can be dismissed outright or really even disproven at this time - but an inability to dismiss or disprove does not automatically mean something is true. I don't feel I can give the story much weight or credibility based on the information I currently have available.

Excellent points, Scott.

---

My mind has gone totally blank! Did the Coggeshall incident supposedly happen as Lincoln was about to enter the special train at Harrisburg that was to speed him through to D.C.?

Wasn't that the same train that Pinkerton et al. had arranged for and sent Kate Warne along to "nurse" the "invalid" Mr. Lincoln? If so, was Coggeshall part of the Pinkerton Protection Squad that night?

Laurie, here is what Coggeshall's wife, Mary, wrote in 1908:

"Near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, the presidential party was to change railroad cars and the train would be switched off to proceed to Baltimore. Lincoln and Coggeshall were the last to go out to the other car. “As they neared the door, they heard a hissing sound and discovered a Hand Grenade just ready to explode. As Mr. Lincoln reached the door, Mr. Coggeshall grasped the shell and hurled it through the open window where it [had] been dropped into the car. As it struck beyond the tracks and exploded, no one was hurt. He sprang into the car where the president awaited him. They took a seat together and with a bound the car leaped forward. Neither spoke for some minutes. Then the President leaned forward and said ‘Did I not tell you I should go safely if you went with me.’”

Laurie, I think what you said correct, but there is no mention of Coggeshall in Pinkerton's Record Book. I checked Norma Cuthbert's book - no mention of Coggeshall there.

I think Mary Coggeshall also made a statement that was carried in newspapers. IF (not sure) I am reading her statement correctly, she then claimed the grenade (bomb) incident happened in Baltimore. This statement by her was in 1909. In her 1908 letter she had claimed it was in Harrisburg.

https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/119200827/

My eyes cannot make out the actual newspaper account, but there is text at the bottom in which Mary Coggeshall switches the location of the incident from Harrisburg to Baltimore (as I understand it). She also said her husband threw the bomb outside a window opposite where the crowd was standing.

A few quotes from this 1909 article:

"All these years the story has remained a secret with Mrs. Coggeshall, to whom it was told by her husband in secrecy. Lincoln told no one of it, neither in his family nor in his Cabinet. It comes to light now merely because Mrs. Coggeshall believes its telling can do no harm, and that it may be an interesting addition to the Lincoln literature of the month."

And -

"Mr. Coggeshall turned and saw what menaced them. He gave Lincoln a shove that sent him out onto the platform, grabbed the bomb and hurled it out of the window opposite to where the crowd was gathered and then hurried to the waiting train."

I vote for historical fiction....

(09-22-2016 06:08 PM)L Verge Wrote:  I vote for historical fiction....

So, a bomb of some sort exploded somewhere, near a crowd, and they kept it a secret.

I'm with you.

To all contributors:

A hard act to follow, but I'll try.

What kind of man was Coggeshall, based on the evidence we have? He is described as a journalist who worked for several newspapers, an author who wrote and published at least 8 books. He was the Ohio State Librarian for about 6 years. He was on both Governor Dennison's and Governor Cox's staffs. He owned a newspaper for about 3 years and edited and published the Daily Ohio State Journal in 1865. He was assigned to do Secret Service work in Virginia and in Columbus and Springfield, Ohio. Lincoln thought enough of him to ask him to accompany him to Washington on his journey there in 1861. Later, in May, 1866, Johnson thought enough of him to appoint him to the position of U.S. Minister to Ecuador, which appointment was approved by Congress. William Dennison, Jacob D. Cox, Salmon P. Chase and Senator John Sherman supported his appointment. Coggeshall was obviously a man of some substance, competence and character. He would not otherwise have compiled such a record. More specifically, he would not have compiled such a record had he been a man given to pomposity, braggadocio and/or mendacity, always the marks of an amateur. I mention all this as a way of showing that it is most improbable that such a man would have fabricated the story about his possibly having saved Lincoln's life in Harrisburg (or Baltimore).

Further, if we accept it as fact that Coggeshall did not fabricate the story, then in order for the story to be false, it follows that it was invented by Coggeshall's wife, Mary, in her 1908 writing. We do not know anything about Mary, so anything is possible. But I submit that it is most improbable that a widow, in her old age, would write to her daughter, Prockie, and totally fabricate an event that occurred 47 years earlier and that involved her deceased husband and Prockie's deceased father. The letter, incidentally, may be read in its entirety , and in its original longhand, on pages 39 to 49 of Freda Koch's book.

So, to this point, I submit that it is most improbable that Coggeshall himself or Mary invented the story. But there is still one other possibility that needs to be addressed, and it is that the author of the book, Freda Postle Koch, made the whole thing up, even to forging the longhand letter on pages 39-49 of her book; that Coggeshall never told such a story and that Mary never wrote about it. I submit that the possibility of that being true is so remote that we may safely dismiss it out of hand, because virtually no one would write and self-publish a biography of a man based entirely on hot air, not when there is so much corroborating evidence of the short life of William T. Coggeshall, when the biography contains Mary's letter in longhand and when the author includes numerous references to the subject's writings (see pages 55 to 98 of the book).

So now we have it as most improbable that Coggeshall himself invented the story or that his widow invented it in a letter to her daughter 47 years later, and all but certain that a descendant did not invent it in 1985 in a biography based, she said, on "papers...folders...booklets...," including Mary's letter and Coggeshall's books and diaries. I submit that with these "most improbables" and near certainty, we have no choice but to conclude that at least the core of the story is true. Details as to the nature of the explosive device, whether or not Coggeshall shoved Lincoln onto a platform, and even the city in which the incident occurred, are just the kinds of minutia that almost always lose their cohesion in tellings and re-tellings of historic events and for that reason should not trouble us unduly. (It is probable that no two accounts of an historic event are identical in every detail, especially when we include antecedents and results, and the more tellings there are of an event, the more inconsistency there will be.) Likewise with difficulties associated with the absence of accounts of the incident in other writings and the near absence of references to Coggeshall himself in the writings of others, at least in such writings as have survived. I have already said that the first is likely explained by Coggeshall's request for secrecy and Lincoln's acceptance of it and the latter by the fact that Coggeshall was frequently away from Washington and not a major player anyway. He was in Columbus when he received word of Lincoln's assassination.

A final comment is worth making. In Lincoln Memorial, Coggeshall wrote: "The President-elect, with a confidential friend, took a special train from Harrisburg to Philadelphia, and early on the morning of the 23rd of February, reached Washington". In Freda Koch's copy of the article, which appeared in the Ohio State Journal, Columbus, Ohio, 1865, the initials "W.T.C." are written in Coggeshall's handwriting in the margin, beside the words "with a confidential friend", thus indicating that Coggeshall was that friend, unless we prefer to conclude that he was merely piling on a little schmaltz to add credibility to his fabricated story or that Freda was piling on the schmaltz. That is not my preference.

One can get a better handle on this issue by reading just the Introduction and pages 1-98 of the book. Further, as of January, 2009, the author's husband was alive, in his 90's and living in Redington Shores, Florida.

John

Just one question: If you were to present your case before the court (either trial by jury or decision of the judge), would Freda's book be accepted as accurate without a reasonable doubt?

(09-23-2016 10:00 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Just one question: If you were to present your case before the court (either trial by jury or decision of the judge), would Freda's book be accepted as accurate without a reasonable doubt?

Laurie:

The standard of proof required to prevail in a civil case is "the preponderance of evidence". "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard in a criminal case. This being a civil matter, it is necessary to show only that the evidence of authenticity is shown (or not shown) by a preponderance of evidence. I believe Freda Koch's book, together with other evidence relating to Coggeshall's life that we have, does that. That is to say that based on this totality of evidence, I believe most juries and judges would find for authenticity rather than hoax. Whether or not the evidence shows authenticity beyond a reasonable doubt is therefore a purely academic question. In my judgment it does, but reasonable minds can differ.

John

I am home on leave while my chariot is getting a tune-up, so I have poked around online for more information on Herr Coggeshall. Some interesting statements: Wikipedia (which lists a number of sources) refers to him as the "self-appointed" bodyguard of Lincoln on Feb. 13, 1861, in Cincinnatti. At that time, he's listed as a reporter for the Ohio State Journal en route to D.C. for the Inauguration and part of Lincoln's guard (an early Brian Williams-Hillary Clinton style of reporting while embedded?). No mention of his heroics. It goes on to say that he often served Lincoln as a bodyguard in D.C. -- John, didn't you report that he wasn't in D.C. that much?

Coggeshall also claimed to be on the dais with Lincoln at Gettysburg and to have met with him "privately" (did Hay know that?) on April 14, 1865. He was supposedly part of the guard on the funeral train.

Other elements of Coggeshall's life are interesting, if true. He is said to have accompanied Gen. Lajos (Louis) Kossuth on his speaking tours in the U.S. in the 1850s. From 1854-56, he edited and published (by default when the head of the paper resigned) The Genius of the West, a literary magazine. He soon sold it because he needed cash and he had secured the job of State Librarian for Ohio.

His diplomatic posting as Ambassador to Ecuador came about because he lobbied strongly for it. He had contracted tuberculosis and wanted a less stressful job and a healthier environment. It appears that President Andrew Johnson had other things to worry about and granted him the appointment. Off he went to Ecuador with his 15-year-old daughter, Jesse. He died a year later, and Jesse was caught in Ecuador with red tape. She actually did the ambassador's work for four months before she contracted yellow fever and died.

Other than his newspaper work, I found only one publication that he is credited with having authored. The brief histories of the Ohio State Library System that I found do not even mention him.

CORRECTION: Just found three other publications - Poets and Poetry of the West, Stories of Frontier Adventure, and Protective Policy in Literature

I am surprised he didn't take "Girlie" and the rest of the family with him.

If I wanted less stress and a healthier environment, I'd go to Enid, OK or maybe Tucson and hang around with Wild Bill before I went to Ecuador.

(09-23-2016 11:09 AM)L Verge Wrote:  I am home on leave while my chariot is getting a tune-up, so I have poked around online for more information on Herr Coggeshall. Some interesting statements: Wikipedia (which lists a number of sources) refers to him as the "self-appointed" bodyguard of Lincoln on Feb. 13, 1861, in Cincinnatti. At that time, he's listed as a reporter for the Ohio State Journal en route to D.C. for the Inauguration and part of Lincoln's guard (an early Brian Williams-Hillary Clinton style of reporting while embedded?). No mention of his heroics. It goes on to say that he often served Lincoln as a bodyguard in D.C. -- John, didn't you report that he wasn't in D.C. that much?

Coggeshall also claimed to be on the dais with Lincoln at Gettysburg and to have met with him "privately" (did Hay know that?) on April 14, 1865. He was supposedly part of the guard on the funeral train.

Other elements of Coggeshall's life are interesting, if true. He is said to have accompanied Gen. Lajos (Louis) Kossuth on his speaking tours in the U.S. in the 1850s. From 1854-56, he edited and published (by default when the head of the paper resigned) The Genius of the West, a literary magazine. He soon sold it because he needed cash and he had secured the job of State Librarian for Ohio.

His diplomatic posting as Ambassador to Ecuador came about because he lobbied strongly for it. He had contracted tuberculosis and wanted a less stressful job and a healthier environment. It appears that President Andrew Johnson had other things to worry about and granted him the appointment. Off he went to Ecuador with his 15-year-old daughter, Jesse. He died a year later, and Jesse was caught in Ecuador with red tape. She actually did the ambassador's work for four months before she contracted yellow fever and died.

Other than his newspaper work, I found only one publication that he is credited with having authored. The brief histories of the Ohio State Library System that I found do not even mention him.

CORRECTION: Just found three other publications - Poets and Poetry of the West, Stories of Frontier Adventure, and Protective Policy in Literature

Laurie:

Eva's citations above are valuable. The first lists seven books (not eight--my mistake) written by Coggeshall:

1. Signs of the Times (1851)
2. Easy Warren and His Contemporaries (1854)
3. Oakshaw, Or the Victim of Avarice (1855)
4. Home Hits and Hints (1859)
5. Poets and Poetry of the West (1860)
6. Stories of Frontier Adventure (1863)
7. The Journeys of A. Lincoln as President-Elect and as President Martyred (1865)

Protective Policy in Literature, if bona fide, would be eight.

in addition to contributions to periodical literature.

Your information is also valuable. I do not know how much time he spent in Washington. I surmise only that it wasn't too much inasmuch as he is said to have been assigned secret service missions in Virginia and Ohio.

I can believe he lobbied for the position in Ecuador, but Koch also records, without citation, that his candidacy was supported by Postmaster General, formerly Governor, William Dennison, Governor Jacob D. Cox, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase and U.S. Senator John Sherman (p. 102)

John

(09-23-2016 12:05 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 11:09 AM)L Verge Wrote:  I am home on leave while my chariot is getting a tune-up, so I have poked around online for more information on Herr Coggeshall. Some interesting statements: Wikipedia (which lists a number of sources) refers to him as the "self-appointed" bodyguard of Lincoln on Feb. 13, 1861, in Cincinnatti. At that time, he's listed as a reporter for the Ohio State Journal en route to D.C. for the Inauguration and part of Lincoln's guard (an early Brian Williams-Hillary Clinton style of reporting while embedded?). No mention of his heroics. It goes on to say that he often served Lincoln as a bodyguard in D.C. -- John, didn't you report that he wasn't in D.C. that much?

Coggeshall also claimed to be on the dais with Lincoln at Gettysburg and to have met with him "privately" (did Hay know that?) on April 14, 1865. He was supposedly part of the guard on the funeral train.

Other elements of Coggeshall's life are interesting, if true. He is said to have accompanied Gen. Lajos (Louis) Kossuth on his speaking tours in the U.S. in the 1850s. From 1854-56, he edited and published (by default when the head of the paper resigned) The Genius of the West, a literary magazine. He soon sold it because he needed cash and he had secured the job of State Librarian for Ohio.

His diplomatic posting as Ambassador to Ecuador came about because he lobbied strongly for it. He had contracted tuberculosis and wanted a less stressful job and a healthier environment. It appears that President Andrew Johnson had other things to worry about and granted him the appointment. Off he went to Ecuador with his 15-year-old daughter, Jesse. He died a year later, and Jesse was caught in Ecuador with red tape. She actually did the ambassador's work for four months before she contracted yellow fever and died.

Other than his newspaper work, I found only one publication that he is credited with having authored. The brief histories of the Ohio State Library System that I found do not even mention him.

CORRECTION: Just found three other publications - Poets and Poetry of the West, Stories of Frontier Adventure, and Protective Policy in Literature

Laurie:

Eva's citations above are valuable. The first lists seven books (not eight--my mistake) written by Coggeshall:

1. Signs of the Times (1851)
2. Easy Warren and His Contemporaries (1854)
3. Oakshaw, Or the Victim of Avarice (1855)
4. Home Hits and Hints (1859)
5. Poets and Poetry of the West (1860)
6. Stories of Frontier Adventure (1863)
7. The Journeys of A. Lincoln as President-Elect and as President Martyred (1865)

Protective Policy in Literature, if bona fide, would be eight.

in addition to contributions to periodical literature.

Your information is also valuable. I do not know how much time he spent in Washington. I surmise only that it wasn't too much inasmuch as he is said to have been assigned secret service missions in Virginia and Ohio.

I can believe he lobbied for the position in Ecuador, but Koch also records, without citation, that his candidacy was supported by Postmaster General, formerly Governor, William Dennison, Governor Jacob D. Cox, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase and U.S. Senator John Sherman (p. 102)

John

How important a post was Ecuador in 1866? Maybe he got the appointment because it was the only one open and he was the only one who wanted it? And, we all know how political appointments work in D.C. circles.

If true, the story that his 15-year-old daughter served in his capacity for four months after his death speaks volumes.

As for his writings, those titles seem more literary to me -- even semi-journalistic? Has anyone ever heard of them or know their subject matter?

I appreciate your support of a fellow Ohioan, John, but I just don't see a worthy piece of documented history in the Coggeshall story.

---

(09-23-2016 10:53 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 10:00 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Just one question: If you were to present your case before the court (either trial by jury or decision of the judge), would Freda's book be accepted as accurate without a reasonable doubt?

Laurie:

The standard of proof required to prevail in a civil case is "the preponderance of evidence". "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard in a criminal case. This being a civil matter, it is necessary to show only that the evidence of authenticity is shown (or not shown) by a preponderance of evidence. I believe Freda Koch's book, together with other evidence relating to Coggeshall's life that we have, does that. That is to say that based on this totality of evidence, I believe most juries and judges would find for authenticity rather than hoax. Whether or not the evidence shows authenticity beyond a reasonable doubt is therefore a purely academic question. In my judgment it does, but reasonable minds can differ.

John

I guess the law thinks in different terms than historians as to what is meant by preponderance...