Re.: ."...if we accept it as fact that Coggeshall did not fabricate the story..." - Mr. Fazio, we don't know what is fact. Roger repeatedly asked you for another independent (not one whose source is the colonel) witness' confirming account, but all you have offered so far are mind games, no facts, to my understanding. On the other hand there are lots of questionable points regarding how such could have been performed, and how without drawing the attention an explosion usually would.

(09-23-2016 06:11 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 01:05 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 12:09 PM)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 11:53 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 11:00 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...

Laurie:

I assure you that his being an Ohioan has nothing to do with it. I do not relate too much to my home state, but I do relate to being an American, though not always with pride, not when I contemplate some of the serious mistakes we have made as a country, such as the near annihilation of Native Americans; the enslavement of an entire race of people for 76 years, followed by 11 years of wholesale murder and property destruction, otherwise known as Reconstruction, and almost another century of Jim Crow disenfranchisement and subjugation of these same people; and instigation of war against our southern neighbor for no reason other than territorial aggrandizement.

I respect your opinion re Coggeshall, needless to say, but I do have a couple of questions for you: Let us assume that the story of his possibly saving Lincoln's life on the journey from Springfield to Washington is a hoax. In your opinion, what is its source, i.e. who fabricated the story---Coggeshall, Mary or Freda--and why? The Romans used to ask "cui bono", meaning "who benefits" from an act, and one still sees the term occasionally in legal discourse.
Cui bono, with respect to the Coggeshall story? Who benefited and how?

John

(09-23-2016 11:03 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Re.: ."...if we accept it as fact that Coggeshall did not fabricate the story..." - Mr. Fazio, we don't know what is fact. Roger repeatedly asked you for another independent (not one whose source is the colonel) witness' confirming account, but all you have offered so far are mind games, no facts, to my understanding. On the other hand there are lots of questionable points regarding how such could have been performed, and how without drawing the attention an explosion usually would.

Eva:

What is a mind game?

I believe I have responded to all of Roger's messages. If I had another source for the story, I would have cited it long ago. Of course we don't know if the story is a fact. If we knew, none of this discussion would have occurred. It is precisely because we don't know, that we have tried to distill the truth from what we do know. Many people, places and things that are deemed historical have only one source. Mary's presence at the Crucifixion is found only in the Gospel of John. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke do not mention her. Was she there?

John

I do not understand why Coggeshall mentions none of the claims in Lincoln memorial: The journeys of Abraham Lincoln: from Springfield to Washington, 1861, as president elect; and from Washington to Springfield, 1865, as president martyred; comprising an account of public ceremonies on the entire route, and full details of both journeys.

I am not talking simply about the story of saving Lincoln's life - I am talking about all the other claims such as being a bodyguard for Lincoln, attending Cabinet meetings, being present for the Gettysburg Address, having a private meeting with Lincoln on April 14, 1865, etc. From what I can tell the book could simply have been written using sources such as the newspapers of the day, and not necessarily by a person who actually was present for the events. For example, in the chapter on the assassination, he does not say he met with Lincoln on that day.

I am not sure if this link has already been posted, but there is an article here that contains information and claims regarding Coggeshall:

http://secure.uslegalforms.com.phoebe.li...nBodyguard

Please excuse if that link has already been posted.

Personally, I have doubts Coggeshall ever rode either the inaugural train or the funeral train.
Lincoln was surrounded by friends on the inaugural train - why in the world would Lincoln approach a man he had never met before and say, "Come with me to Washington and I shall go safely?"

The article I linked to says, "Coggeshall wrote an account of Lincoln’s stop in Columbus for the Ohio State Journal but did not mention the invitation to accompany him to Washington." If Lincoln really invited Coggeshall to board the train and go to Washington why would Coggeshall not mention it? If it really happened would he not be proud of it and include in the report?

My personal opinion is that it never happened.

(09-23-2016 11:26 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  I assure you that his being an Ohioan has nothing to do with it. I do not relate too much to my home state, but I do relate to being an American, though not always with pride, not when I contemplate some of the serious mistakes we have made as a country, such as the near annihilation of Native Americans; the enslavement of an entire race of people for 76 years, followed by 11 years of wholesale murder and property destruction, otherwise known as Reconstruction, and almost another century of Jim Crow disenfranchisement and subjugation of these same people; and instigation of war against our southern neighbor for no reason other than territorial aggrandizement.

I respect your opinion re Coggeshall, needless to say, but I do have a couple of questions for you: Let us assume that the story of his possibly saving Lincoln's life on the journey from Springfield to Washington is a hoax. In your opinion, what is its source, i.e. who fabricated the story---Coggeshall, Mary or Freda--and why? The Romans used to ask "cui bono", meaning "who benefits" from an act, and one still sees the term occasionally in legal discourse.
Cui bono, with respect to the Coggeshall story? Who benefited and how?

John

There is a lot to comment on here, but I'll stick with the last paragraph. "who fabricated the story,... and why."
Just because we don't know the why, doesn't diminish the fact that the story doesn't seem plausible, and for many of us who have commented on, very likely never happened.
An attempt on Lincoln's life, by a bomb that does explode, with witnesses to see or hear it - but the only mention of it is by a widow, 47 years after it happened, and she did not personally witness the act. It was at least 40 years after she could have even heard the story (if she heard it from her husband) that she writes about it.

So who fabricated the story? If (and I think it's at least a medium sized "if"), Mary fabricated the story, why? An old and faded, mixed up memory? How about an attempt to leave her children and grand children a heroic image of their father, something they could be proud of, because they never got much chance to know him?

Maybe William Coggeshall fabricated the story. He wanted his wife and children to be proud of him, so he fabricates the story. He seems to have been away from home a lot, so this story helps justify his absence. We will probably never know.

The why or the motive is nice to know, (why did Booth shoot Lincoln?) but so many times, the why doesn't change the facts.
For now, I'm convinced the event never happened.

The question Qui bono? assumes in this case that (1) we know, or can determine, the motivations of people who are, in most (all?) instances, long dead, and (2) their motivations were rational and comprehensible. I've lived in the world long enough to have learned, among other things, that many people lie with abandon for no apparent reason whatever, though in some cases I think it is just for the private, personal satisfaction of putting something over on others.

(09-24-2016 03:36 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  . Many people, places and things that are deemed historical have only one source. Mary's presence at the Crucifixion is found only in the Gospel of John. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke do not mention her. Was she there?

John

We are talking apples and oranges here. The gospels are about Jesus, not Mary. All four gospels tell in different detail about the crucifixion. They are not identical because they are written by different men for a different audience and purpose.

The Coggeshall story was written/recorded by only one person for a different purpose and audience.

(09-24-2016 11:06 AM)Gene C Wrote:  

(09-24-2016 03:36 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  . Many people, places and things that are deemed historical have only one source. Mary's presence at the Crucifixion is found only in the Gospel of John. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke do not mention her. Was she there?

John

We are talking apples and oranges here. The gospels are about Jesus, not Mary. All four gospels tell in different detail about the crucifixion. They are not identical because they are written by different men for a different audience and purpose.

The Coggeshall story was written/recorded by only one person for a different purpose and audience.

Gene:

What you say about multiple authorship of the Gospels is true, but it does not alter the fact that there is only one source in the entire world that places Mary at the Crucifixion, which was my only point. Yet it is deemed so historical that Michaelangelo sculpted one of the world's masterpieces of art using the scene as his subject (Pieta).

John

(09-23-2016 11:26 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 06:11 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 01:05 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 12:09 PM)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 11:53 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 11:00 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...

Laurie:

I assure you that his being an Ohioan has nothing to do with it. I do not relate too much to my home state, but I do relate to being an American, though not always with pride, not when I contemplate some of the serious mistakes we have made as a country, such as the near annihilation of Native Americans; the enslavement of an entire race of people for 76 years, followed by 11 years of wholesale murder and property destruction, otherwise known as Reconstruction, and almost another century of Jim Crow disenfranchisement and subjugation of these same people; and instigation of war against our southern neighbor for no reason other than territorial aggrandizement.

I respect your opinion re Coggeshall, needless to say, but I do have a couple of questions for you: Let us assume that the story of his possibly saving Lincoln's life on the journey from Springfield to Washington is a hoax. In your opinion, what is its source, i.e. who fabricated the story---Coggeshall, Mary or Freda--and why? The Romans used to ask "cui bono", meaning "who benefits" from an act, and one still sees the term occasionally in legal discourse.
Cui bono, with respect to the Coggeshall story? Who benefited and how?

John

My personal opinion is that this is a Coggeshall family story composed of bits and pieces of things that happened around Lincoln and his times as well as the gentleman adding a little spice to the stories as he related them to his wife (and maybe the older children). Sort of a play on, "What did you do in the war, Daddy?"

Forty years later, Mrs. Coggeshall added her versions in relating the story to Freda, and here we are in the next century trying to make sense out of it without clear evidence.

William Coggeshall didn't benefit, neither did his wife, and neither did Freda - unless the book earned her great royalties. We are benefiting right now because trying to make you "see the light" is forcing quite a few of us to do some research as well as inductive and deductive reasoning. All is not lost - just confused.

In some ways, this reminds me of my family's story about David Herold spending the night of April 13, 1865, with my great-grandparents. I can only point to the nightshirt left behind as evidence and tell the public that that is my family's story as to what happened. I do that quite a bit, and it happened to be the way that I met James O. Hall. I think he was happier meeting me because I happened to know where every building was located in T.B. in 1865! He had not be able to pinpoint the T.B. Hotel...

I wonder if timing had something to do with this. Mary Coggeshall's letter to her daughter was written in 1908, and her newspaper interview (where she changed the location of the grenade incident to Baltimore) was in 1909. This was the time of the centennial celebrations of Lincoln's birth. Throughout parts of the country, towns and cities were having parades, concerts, school programs, speeches, etc. Newspapers were filled with articles about Abraham Lincoln. Possibly all the Lincoln-related talk at the time gave Mary Coggeshall the inspiration to embellish/create the role her long deceased husband played in Abraham Lincoln's life.

(09-24-2016 11:22 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(09-24-2016 11:06 AM)Gene C Wrote:  

(09-24-2016 03:36 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  . Many people, places and things that are deemed historical have only one source. Mary's presence at the Crucifixion is found only in the Gospel of John. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke do not mention her. Was she there?

John

We are talking apples and oranges here. The gospels are about Jesus, not Mary. All four gospels tell in different detail about the crucifixion. They are not identical because they are written by different men for a different audience and purpose.

The Coggeshall story was written/recorded by only one person for a different purpose and audience.

Gene:

What you say about multiple authorship of the Gospels is true, but it does not alter the fact that there is only one source in the entire world that places Mary at the Crucifixion, which was my only point. Yet it is deemed so historical that Michaelangelo sculpted one of the world's masterpieces of art using the scene as his subject (Pieta).

John

Can't agree more WITH GENE! You may be right casting doubts about Mary's whereabouts, and as I don't doubt the Colonel was aboard the train I doubt the only-one-source explosion. And Michelangelo didn't even sculpt it...

---

PS: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H6G2s6LNQQY

(09-25-2016 04:36 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  

(09-24-2016 11:22 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(09-24-2016 11:06 AM)Gene C Wrote:  

(09-24-2016 03:36 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  . Many people, places and things that are deemed historical have only one source. Mary's presence at the Crucifixion is found only in the Gospel of John. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke do not mention her. Was she there?

John

We are talking apples and oranges here. The gospels are about Jesus, not Mary. All four gospels tell in different detail about the crucifixion. They are not identical because they are written by different men for a different audience and purpose.

The Coggeshall story was written/recorded by only one person for a different purpose and audience.

Gene:

What you say about multiple authorship of the Gospels is true, but it does not alter the fact that there is only one source in the entire world that places Mary at the Crucifixion, which was my only point. Yet it is deemed so historical that Michaelangelo sculpted one of the world's masterpieces of art using the scene as his subject (Pieta).

John

Can't agree more WITH GENE! You may be right casting doubts about Mary's whereabouts, and as I don't doubt the Colonel was aboard the train I doubt the only-one-source explosion. And Michelangelo didn't even sculpt it...

---

PS: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H6G2s6LNQQY

Eva:

What is it in Gene's comment that you cannot agree more with? I said there is only one source for Mary's presence at the Crucifixion, in the entire world, which is true, and Gene did not contradict that.

Your YouTube was entertaining, but it did not tell me what a mind game is. So I still don't know what it is. Attaching a nondescript and pejorative label to an analysis of circumstantial evidence does not diminish the analysis, nor the evidence. It is your prerogative to disagree with the analysis, of course, but in that case, please tell us who you believe is responsible for the fabrication and why this person fabricated the story.

John

---

(09-25-2016 06:31 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(09-25-2016 04:36 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  

(09-24-2016 11:22 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(09-24-2016 11:06 AM)Gene C Wrote:  

(09-24-2016 03:36 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  . Many people, places and things that are deemed historical have only one source. Mary's presence at the Crucifixion is found only in the Gospel of John. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke do not mention her. Was she there?

John

We are talking apples and oranges here. The gospels are about Jesus, not Mary. All four gospels tell in different detail about the crucifixion. They are not identical because they are written by different men for a different audience and purpose.

The Coggeshall story was written/recorded by only one person for a different purpose and audience.

Gene:

What you say about multiple authorship of the Gospels is true, but it does not alter the fact that there is only one source in the entire world that places Mary at the Crucifixion, which was my only point. Yet it is deemed so historical that Michaelangelo sculpted one of the world's masterpieces of art using the scene as his subject (Pieta).

John

Can't agree more WITH GENE! You may be right casting doubts about Mary's whereabouts, and as I don't doubt the Colonel was aboard the train I doubt the only-one-source explosion. And Michelangelo didn't even sculpt it...

---

PS: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H6G2s6LNQQY

Eva:

What is it in Gene's comment that you cannot agree more with? I said there is only one source for Mary's presence at the Crucifixion, in the entire world, which is true, and Gene did not contradict that.

Your YouTube was entertaining, but it did not tell me what a mind game is. So I still don't know what it is. Attaching a nondescript and pejorative label to an analysis of circumstantial evidence does not diminish the analysis, nor the evidence. It is your prerogative to disagree with the analysis, of course, but in that case, please tell us who you believe is responsible for the fabrication and why this person fabricated the story.

John

P.S. Who do you believe sculpted Pieta, if not Michaelangelo, who, as far as I know, is credited by the entire art world, and then some, as its creator.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/63602/15-...elos-pieta

---

(09-24-2016 02:04 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 11:26 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 06:11 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 01:05 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 12:09 PM)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 11:53 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 11:00 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...

Laurie:

I assure you that his being an Ohioan has nothing to do with it. I do not relate too much to my home state, but I do relate to being an American, though not always with pride, not when I contemplate some of the serious mistakes we have made as a country, such as the near annihilation of Native Americans; the enslavement of an entire race of people for 76 years, followed by 11 years of wholesale murder and property destruction, otherwise known as Reconstruction, and almost another century of Jim Crow disenfranchisement and subjugation of these same people; and instigation of war against our southern neighbor for no reason other than territorial aggrandizement.

I respect your opinion re Coggeshall, needless to say, but I do have a couple of questions for you: Let us assume that the story of his possibly saving Lincoln's life on the journey from Springfield to Washington is a hoax. In your opinion, what is its source, i.e. who fabricated the story---Coggeshall, Mary or Freda--and why? The Romans used to ask "cui bono", meaning "who benefits" from an act, and one still sees the term occasionally in legal discourse.
Cui bono, with respect to the Coggeshall story? Who benefited and how?

John

My personal opinion is that this is a Coggeshall family story composed of bits and pieces of things that happened around Lincoln and his times as well as the gentleman adding a little spice to the stories as he related them to his wife (and maybe the older children). Sort of a play on, "What did you do in the war, Daddy?"

Forty years later, Mrs. Coggeshall added her versions in relating the story to Freda, and here we are in the next century trying to make sense out of it without clear evidence.

William Coggeshall didn't benefit, neither did his wife, and neither did Freda - unless the book earned her great royalties. We are benefiting right now because trying to make you "see the light" is forcing quite a few of us to do some research as well as inductive and deductive reasoning. All is not lost - just confused.

In some ways, this reminds me of my family's story about David Herold spending the night of April 13, 1865, with my great-grandparents. I can only point to the nightshirt left behind as evidence and tell the public that that is my family's story as to what happened. I do that quite a bit, and it happened to be the way that I met James O. Hall. I think he was happier meeting me because I happened to know where every building was located in T.B. in 1865! He had not be able to pinpoint the T.B. Hotel...

Laurie:

I am going to try to locate the Coggeshall papers by following a lead I have, namely a friend of Freda Koch's. It is even possible that her husband is still alive. I will try to find out. Lastly, I plan to contact people who I know have access to databases that may turn up some independent references to Coggeshall. Stay tuned.

Your family history of David Herold's whereabouts on April 13 is fascinating. It accords well with Demond's placing him, with Booth, on the Maryland side of the Navy Yard Bridge on the morning of the 14th. There are, however, problems with placing Booth there, but that's another story. Did I tell you I found a reference in the April 18th New York Times to "a boy" coming out of the National on the 14th and saying to Booth, who was standing on the sidewalk, "He's in." My belief is that the "boy" is Herold, and this brief reference goes a long way toward solving the mystery of the card that was left in Browning's mailbox at the Kirkwood. But that too is another story.

John

P.S. I meant to say "coming out of the Kirkwood", not the National.

This thread is becoming hard to follow due to all the quoting, and re-quoting, and re-re-quoting...

Hopefully we can "trim back" a little to make the thread easier to follow.

Thank you to all.

Mr Fazio,
Please excuse my briefness due to a busy day and time.

Re.: "What is it in Gene's comment that you cannot agree more with? I said there is only one source for Mary's presence at the Crucifixion, in the entire world, which is true, and Gene did not contradict that."

No, he didn't, and I wouldn't either. I agree with the gospels have multiple independent witnesses, which this "tale" is lacking.

Re.: "Your YouTube was entertaining, but it did not tell me what a mind game is. So I still don't know what it is."

I'm sorry, I thought the term self-explaining. E.g. making up argumentative "if"-chains and subsequent conclusions that base on a hypothesis in the beginning. I actually (unsuccessfully) deletedthe link right after posting, but obviously deleting didn't work.

Re.: "...please tell us who you believe is responsible for the fabrication and why this person fabricated the story."

E.g. it could have been the Colonel felt a need to impress his wife with some heroic deeds. He wouldn't have been the first one, and not the first one in the Lincoln saga.