(12-08-2016 11:23 AM)STS Lincolnite Wrote:  I am catching up late but this has been a very captivating thread!

With regards to Julia Grant...

I am curious as to how Julia might have defined “trouble”. It seems General Grant thought someone was aggressively trying to get a look at him - in an unfriendly way…as a result of his growing fame…not necessarily intending to do him or Julia bodily harm. As Roger posted earlier from Julia’s memoir “Mrs. Ruckner said, 'General, everyone wants to see you.' Grant replied, 'Yes, but I do not care for such glances. They are not friendly.' "

And although Julia recorded those 3 encounters, even though they were strange, I’m not sure any of those would have led her to believe at the time the “trouble” or “threat” was as severe as it turned out to be. Even if she did believe there was a more severe threat, I don’t know how she could have connected her encounters to the possibility of a real threat to others (i.e. Lincoln). The threat, if any, would appear directed at her and/or her husband only from what she knew and saw. Therefore, I’m not sure she would have felt the need to warn anyone because she and her husband were leaving town. She would presumably feel they were the targets and would be out of the way of those men and their potential “trouble”. I also wonder if she connected the 3 encounters and what they may have meant more in hindsight than she actually connected them at the time. Obviously, knowing the outcome of all that happened on April 14th would cause her to re-examine the events of the day through a different lens.

I would be interested to hear from someone who knows more than I about the social role of women in the mid 19th century chip in here. Would a woman at the time take it upon herself to take action and warn, or would she be expected to inform her husband and then let him decide as to how to proceed? Especially given the fact that her husband was the General in Chief. I may be wrong, but I can’t help but think, from what I know of the attitude of men toward women in the 19th century, that even if she had warned someone else in authority, she would have been dismissed as just being a “worrying hen” of a woman. I think at best they would have said they would "look into it" to placate her because she was Grant's wife. Of course, maybe I am being overly critical due to my perceptions of the attitudes of 19th century men toward women.

I think your assessment of a woman's "place" at that time is accurate, Scott. If Mrs. Grant was overly concerned, she would have alerted her husband or one of his close aides. I also agree that Julia "enlarged" the incident in hindsight years later - perhaps to show that her husband could have been a target also?

I've have never seen mention of a military escort accompanying the General and Julia to the train, but I would have to assume there was one. How did Booth manage to slip that close to the carriage?

(12-08-2016 01:02 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 11:23 AM)STS Lincolnite Wrote:  I am catching up late but this has been a very captivating thread!

With regards to Julia Grant...

I am curious as to how Julia might have defined “trouble”. It seems General Grant thought someone was aggressively trying to get a look at him - in an unfriendly way…as a result of his growing fame…not necessarily intending to do him or Julia bodily harm. As Roger posted earlier from Julia’s memoir “Mrs. Ruckner said, 'General, everyone wants to see you.' Grant replied, 'Yes, but I do not care for such glances. They are not friendl

And although Julia recorded those 3 encounters, even though they were strange, I’m not sure any of those would have led her to believe at the time the “trouble” or “threat” was as severe as it turned out to be. Even if she did believe there was a more severe threat, I don’t know how she could have connected her encounters to the possibility of a real threat to others (i.e. Lincoln). The threat, if any, would appear directed at her and/or her husband only from what she knew and saw. Therefore, I’m not sure she would have felt the need to warn anyone because she and her husband were leaving town. She would presumably feel they were the targets and would be out of the way of those men and their potential “trouble”. I also wonder if she connected the 3 encounters and what they may have meant more in hindsight than she actually connected them at the time. Obviously, knowing the outcome of all that happened on April 14th would cause her to re-examine the events of the day through a different lens.

I would be interested to hear from someone who knows more than I about the social role of women in the mid 19th century chip in here. Would a woman at the time take it upon herself to take action and warn, or would she be expected to inform her husband and then let him decide as to how to proceed? Especially given the fact that her husband was the General in Chief. I may be wrong, but I can’t help but think, from what I know of the attitude of men toward women in the 19th century, that even if she had warned someone else in authority, she would have been dismissed as just being a “worrying hen” of a woman. I think at best they would have said they would "look into it" to placate her because she was Grant's wife. Of course, maybe I am being overly critical due to my perceptions of the attitudes of 19th century men toward women.

I think your assessment of a woman's "place" at that time is accurate, Scott. If Mrs. Grant was overly concerned, she would have alerted her husband or one of his close aides. I also agree that Julia "enlarged" the incident in hindsight years later - perhaps to show that her husband could have been a target also?

I've have never seen mention of a military escort accompanying the General and Julia to the train, but I would have to assume there was one. How did Booth manage to slip that close to the carriage?

Laurie. I do not know what the plans were - every time Grant went somewhere, but I have read that when Grant left Washington on the 14th, to visit his children, and arrived in Philadelphia (The end of the line for that Railroad) he was met by an Army delegation, complete with several Ambulances, to take the Grant party (I'm sure he had Aides traveling with him) to the Delaware River and put them on a boat to get him to Camden and onto the next train. Every one had to do this.
This indicates to me that when "The Commander in Chief" moved about, even on other than Official Business, there was someone nearby watching out for his comfort and safety.
In my day, in the military and my work in the Pentagon, that entourage was called "brownoses". (Pardon my French)

Over two years ago Kees made a very informative post which discusses part of the topic at hand here.

(12-08-2016 05:59 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:33 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  When she saw him again at the luncheon, she might just have thought that the White House messenger was having lunch with a few friends, even if one of them was behaving weirdly. She was not likely to conclude that he was part of a conspiracy to murder someone simply because he was first at her door and then in the dining room.

True...but then why would the "White House messenger's" friend harass their carriage as they were headed to the train station? I would think not one, not two, but now three weird incidents over a span of a few hours should have alerted her to trouble brewing.

Roger:

Well, as I said, she was probably made uncomfortable by her experiences with Booth that day, but they simply weren't enough for her to imagine that they were part of a gigantic plot to decapitate the U.S. government, with special attention to its Chief Executive. Her focus at the time was Burlington and a visit with her kids and she just wasn't thinking too seriously about anything else. I doubt that many in her circumstances would have done it differently, especially taking into consideration the fact that she had an intense dislike for Mary Lincoln. Another consideration was the fact that the war was over and everyone assumed, therefore, that the danger of assassination had passed. Everyone, that is, except Lincoln and those closest to him, like Lamon and Stanton, who tried to protect him, but failed.

John

(12-08-2016 11:23 AM)STS Lincolnite Wrote:  I am catching up late but this has been a very captivating thread!

With regards to Julia Grant...

I am curious as to how Julia might have defined “trouble”. It seems General Grant thought someone was aggressively trying to get a look at him - in an unfriendly way…as a result of his growing fame…not necessarily intending to do him or Julia bodily harm. As Roger posted earlier from Julia’s memoir “Mrs. Ruckner said, 'General, everyone wants to see you.' Grant replied, 'Yes, but I do not care for such glances. They are not friendly.' "

And although Julia recorded those 3 encounters, even though they were strange, I’m not sure any of those would have led her to believe at the time the “trouble” or “threat” was as severe as it turned out to be. Even if she did believe there was a more severe threat, I don’t know how she could have connected her encounters to the possibility of a real threat to others (i.e. Lincoln). The threat, if any, would appear directed at her and/or her husband only from what she knew and saw. Therefore, I’m not sure she would have felt the need to warn anyone because she and her husband were leaving town. She would presumably feel they were the targets and would be out of the way of those men and their potential “trouble”. I also wonder if she connected the 3 encounters and what they may have meant more in hindsight than she actually connected them at the time. Obviously, knowing the outcome of all that happened on April 14th would cause her to re-examine the events of the day through a different lens.

I would be interested to hear from someone who knows more than I about the social role of women in the mid 19th century chip in here. Would a woman at the time take it upon herself to take action and warn, or would she be expected to inform her husband and then let him decide as to how to proceed? Especially given the fact that her husband was the General in Chief. I may be wrong, but I can’t help but think, from what I know of the attitude of men toward women in the 19th century, that even if she had warned someone else in authority, she would have been dismissed as just being a “worrying hen” of a woman. I think at best they would have said they would "look into it" to placate her because she was Grant's wife. Of course, maybe I am being overly critical due to my perceptions of the attitudes of 19th century men toward women.

Lincolnite:

I agree with your well reasoned analysis. The fact that I agree with it is proof positive that it is well reasoned.

The social role of women in the mid-19th century is probably not relevant. Human nature is immutable. People behave very similarly in similar circumstances, everywhere and for all time. "I am I and my circumstances", said the famous Spanish philosopher Jose Ortega y Gasset. Truer words were never spoken. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

John

(12-07-2016 11:04 AM)loetar44 Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 01:45 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  Friends:

We have here another conundrum in connection with the assassination. There are many: Surratt's whereabouts on the 14th comes to mind. I grant that Booth's trip to Baltimore on the 13th, though not impossible, is problematic. Not only is there difficulty reconciling "Justice's" sighting in Baltimore with Ford's and Hess's testimony, there is more than difficulty--there is flagrant inconsistency--between their testimony and Frederick Demond's letters, which place Booth and Herold on the Maryland side of the Navy Yard Bridge on the morning of the 14th (which is consistent with Laurie's ancestors putting Herold in Maryland on the night of the 13th-14th and the fact that it is known that Booth did not sleep in his room at the National that night) and which also state that Booth and Herold were incarcerated in the Block House until 2:00 or 3:00 pm, because they had refused to give Demond their names. To thicken the stew, there is the account given in the April 18, 1865, New York Times of Booth conversing with an acquaintance on the sidewalk next to the Kirkwood House on the 14th and then being joined by "a boy", who must have been Herold, who said to him "Yes, he (i.e. Johnson) is in his room." To thicken it still more, there is Julia Grant's account of a "White House messenger" who came to her suite in Willard's about mid-day, whom she later identified as probably Herold (and who fits the description), and of four men, one of whom was certainly Booth, another Herold and the other two most likely Powell and Atzerodt, in the dining room of Willard's, eavesdropping on her conversation with Mrs. Rawlins and her daughter. And let us not forget Booth's conversation with Mathew's on the Avenue between 4:00 and 5:00 pm and his stop-off at Deery's at about 4:00 pm for a bottle of brandy.

The suggestion has been made that perhaps the conspirators, or at least some of them, made use of look-alikes (e.g. James William Boyd), which would explain a lot, including why 5 witnesses put Surratt in Elmira, N.Y., on the 14th and 13 or 14 put him in Washington. There is actually evidence for this (see Chamberlin's letter to Stanton on p. 1226 of The Lincoln Assassination, but it is weak.

I cannot possibly reconcile all these divergent accounts (and probably some I am leaving out) of Booth's and Herold's whereabouts on the 14th (or Atzerodt's and Powell's either); I doubt that anyone can. For this reason, it is probably best if we do not even try. Let us, instead, stick to what we do know, or that is at least most probable, and which is not dependent upon their whereabouts. That is to say: O'Laughlen came to Washington on the 13th from Baltimore with three friends; that he went to the National that night and saw Booth, or so he said to one of his friends; that he went again to the National the following morning and most likely saw Booth again, despite his denial, because the circumstantial evidence favors it; that someone came to the Stanton home on the night of the 13th apparently ill-motivated; that the someone was identified, convincingly, as O'Laughlen at the trial by three persons who were at Stanton's home that night; and that Atzerodt stated that the intruder was O'Laughlen and that his alibi was bogus. It is not reasonable to conclude from this that O'Laughlen made two trips to the National, within, perhaps, 15 hours, inconveniencing his friends in the process, for the purpose of making idle social calls on Booth. It is more reasonable to conclude that the visits were related to the assassination and that O'Laughlen was, to that extent at least, still in the game , a fact corroborated by Atzerodt's statement. And this is true whether Booth went to Baltimore or not. Telegram? Possible. But it would have been sheer madness for Booth to put in a telegram the kinds of things he wanted to discuss with O'Laughlen--toxic, in the extreme. Somehow, whether it was by personal visit, a written communication, an oral message, whatever, Booth advised O'Laughlen that he needed him in Washington for a service that was related to the conspiracy. In response thereto, O'Laughlen came and did what was asked of him.

John

John,

I admire the manner you are defending your theory, but am pleased that you now give more room to the fact that Booth’s trip on the 13th to Baltimore is (in your words) problematic i.e. may not have been undertaken. Nobody knows the exact truth and a lot of questions will remain unanswered, I fear forever.

For me another question still remain. Did O’Laughlen actually see Booth in the National in the evening of the 13th and in the morning of the 14th? HE TOLD HENDERSON AND/OR EARLY HE DID ON THE 13TH. HE DENIED SEEING HIM ON THE 14TH, BUT HE WAS GONE FOR AN HOUR AND 45 MINUTES, SO THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE FAVORS A MEETING.

On the 13th O’Laughlen (he was accompanied then by Bernard Early) was only 5 minutes at the desk in the lobby and did not see Booth. THAT'S NOT WHAT BOOTH SAID. It is likely Booth walked at that moment in the city to see the Grand Illumination. He may have spent time with Lucy Hale or Ellen Starr YES, MEN ARE KNOWN TO HAVE TESTOSTERONE FITS AT STRANGE TIMES and at 2 a.m. he wrote a short note to his mother (it's not known where he wrote this note). PROBABLY IN MARYLAND I think it is fair to say that he was not at the National. AGREED

On the morning of the 14th O’Laughlen (now accompanied by Early, Murphy and Henderson) was 1 ¾ hour in the National, but nobody knows who he saw there. He went for Booth (so told Henderson), but Booth was out. We know that because Booth's room was unoccupied, his bed not used (Walter Burton’s statement). THAT DOESN'T MEAN HE WASN'T IN OR ABOUT THE HOTEL Demond's letters place Booth and Herold on the Maryland side of the Navy Yard Bridge on the night of the 13th-14th NOT ON THE NIGHT; ONLY IN THE MORNING OF THE 14TH and both were incarcerated in the Block House until noon NOT NOON; UNTIL 2:00 OR 3:00 April 14th, because they had refused to give Demond their names. Carrie Bean is the first who saw Booth appr. this time in the breakfast room of the National. She knew him and she responded to his bow of recognition. A DOPPELGANGER?

That are the facts. And all facts are pointing in one direction: O’Laughlen went for a perhaps social visit (after all they were friends) NOT SENSIBILE but did not see Booth in the National. CONTRARY TO HENDERSON'S TESTIMONY If the Baltimore trip is problematic, O'Laughlen's meeting(s) with Booth in the National surely are too!

DISAGREE.

(12-10-2016 02:25 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  We have here another conundrum in connection with the assassination.

John

When you go the doctor to get your flu and pneumonia shot, be sure to get one for the conundrums.
(blue mass pills don't help)

(12-10-2016 02:25 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  Demond's letters place Booth and Herold on the Maryland side of the Navy Yard Bridge on the night of the 13th-14th NOT ON THE NIGHT; ONLY IN THE MORNING OF THE 14TH and both were incarcerated in the Block House until noon NOT NOON; UNTIL 2:00 OR 3:00 April 14th, because they had refused to give Demond their names. Carrie Bean is the first who saw Booth appr. this time in the breakfast room of the National. She knew him and she responded to his bow of recognition. A DOPPELGANGER?

John,
In all honesty I have always had great problems with any “doppelganger-theory”.

And, I have real doubts concerning the “sighting” of Booth and Herold in the morning of April 14, 1865 at the Navy Yard (Eastern Branch) Bridge, more doubts than I have with Booth’s “sighting” in the breakfast room of the National.

This is what Lieutenant David Dana said in the Boston Daily Globe (Dec. 12, 1897, pg 36) in the article “He Almost Saved Lincoln”:

“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 a hour or two they gave their names as Booth and Harold [sic].” … “Booth and Harold [sic] were released as soon as the orders reached the guard, and they proceeded at once to Washington, reaching there about 6.30 in the afternoon. I had a guard at each end of the bridge on the eastern branch of the Potomac, and one of the guards knew Booth, and recognized him as he rode into the city, and as he came out after the assassination, and had it been known that he had killed Lincoln escape would have been impossible.”

If this statement is true, or near the truth, then Booth was back in DC at about 6.30 in the afternoon of April 14, 1865, just ca. 3½ hours before he murdered Lincoln. But Booth was seen that day (April 14) in DC a lot of times BEFORE 6.30 pm. Do we conclude here: "Was it Booth or a “doppelganger”?

Please note:
- Had O’Lauglen (twice?) a meeting with Booth in the National? Or with Booth’s doppelganger?
- Who greeted Carrie Bean in the breakfast room? A doppelganger?
- Charles Wood trimmed Booth’s hair and dressed it. Or was it a doppelganger?
- Who was in Grover’s Theatre, Booth or a doppelganger?
- Who spoke (round noon?) with John F. Coyle? A doppelganger?
- Who was in Mary Surratts pension? A doppelganger?
- Who spoke with Henry Clay Ford? A doppelganger?
- Who rented the bay mare at James W. Pumphrey? A doppelganger?
- Who visited Paine / Powell ca. 2 pm in the Herndon House? A doppelganger?
- Who was at de Kirkwood House? A doppelganger?
- Who gave John Mathews the letter for The National Intelligencer? A doppelganger?
- Who glanced unfriendly into Gen. Grant’s carriage at appr. 5 pm? A doppelganger?
- Who was in the Greenback Saloon and Taltavull's Star Saloon? A doppelganger?

OR:

were Booth (and Herold) on the Navy Yard Bridge NOT Booth (and Herold) because the men were doppelgangers?

It’s most unbelievable that the streets of DC in April 1865 were lined with (unwitting) clones!

You mentioned Capt. James William Boyd as a possible look-alike of Booth. He was certainly NOT. He had reddish hair and had freckles.

Of course some people resemble one another, but it’s absurd to use this as an argument in a believable research. The overall chance of finding someone who looks like Booth is really very small. There where someone else sees a spooky resemblance, another person certainly will not even notice a fleeting similarity. So, I don’t like such highly subjective interpretations. We are like snowflakes. No two are the same, even if at first glance they all look small, white and spiky.

Let’s not talk about “doppelgangers”. Science suggests that doppelgangers should not exist. Mathematically speaking, the number of variables in any face is so large that it would be virtually impossible to meet someone who is identical to a known person.

Why are conspiracy theories always filled with look-alikes and doppelgangers?

This reminds me of a song

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIs0oopoMhY

Speaking of doppelgangers... I posted something last night that has not yet appeared, so maybe I forgot to hit the right button. First, I agreed with John Stanton that the Mrs. Howell mentioned in a previous post was likely Gus Howell (of trial fame!).

I then referred to insignificant research that I did years ago on the Illuminati (after reading Dan Brown's novels). On a blog entitled theforbiddenknowledge there was a reference to the Rothchilds. In that, Booth is linked to that famous family as well as Augustus Belmont (sound familiar?).

Some of the notes I jotted down referred to the B'nai B'rith organization being a pivotal player in the British Freemasonry plot to destroy our Union. Mention was made of a D.C. lawyer named Simon Wolf, a member of the D.C. Order of B'nai B'rith and a look-alike to Booth, whom he had met with in Cleveland. The site also claimed that Wolf and Booth drank together at Willard's on the morning of the assassination. Booth supposedly told Wolf that Lucy had rejected his proposal.

The blog also tied in Confederate General Albert Pike (big in Freemasonry) as a member of the Illuminati; claimed that the Knights of the Golden Circle were funded by the Scottish Rite; and that August Belmont was involved with the Confederacy, having married the daughter of John Slidell (Trent Affair).

Have fun with all that...

(12-10-2016 03:41 PM)loetar44 Wrote:  

(12-10-2016 02:25 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  Demond's letters place Booth and Herold on the Maryland side of the Navy Yard Bridge on the night of the 13th-14th NOT ON THE NIGHT; ONLY IN THE MORNING OF THE 14TH and both were incarcerated in the Block House until noon NOT NOON; UNTIL 2:00 OR 3:00 April 14th, because they had refused to give Demond their names. Carrie Bean is the first who saw Booth appr. this time in the breakfast room of the National. She knew him and she responded to his bow of recognition. A DOPPELGANGER?

John,
In all honesty I have always had great problems with any “doppelganger-theory”.

And, I have real doubts concerning the “sighting” of Booth and Herold in the morning of April 14, 1865 at the Navy Yard (Eastern Branch) Bridge, more doubts than I have with Booth’s “sighting” in the breakfast room of the National.

This is what Lieutenant David Dana said in the Boston Daily Globe (Dec. 12, 1897, pg 36) in the article “He Almost Saved Lincoln”:

“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 a hour or two they gave their names as Booth and Harold [sic].” … “Booth and Harold [sic] were released as soon as the orders reached the guard, and they proceeded at once to Washington, reaching there about 6.30 in the afternoon. I had a guard at each end of the bridge on the eastern branch of the Potomac, and one of the guards knew Booth, and recognized him as he rode into the city, and as he came out after the assassination, and had it been known that he had killed Lincoln escape would have been impossible.”

If this statement is true, or near the truth, then Booth was back in DC at about 6.30 in the afternoon of April 14, 1865, just ca. 3½ hours before he murdered Lincoln. But Booth was seen that day (April 14) in DC a lot of times BEFORE 6.30 pm. Do we conclude here: "Was it Booth or a “doppelganger”?

Please note:
- Had O’Lauglen (twice?) a meeting with Booth in the National? Or with Booth’s doppelganger?
- Who greeted Carrie Bean in the breakfast room? A doppelganger?
- Charles Wood trimmed Booth’s hair and dressed it. Or was it a doppelganger?
- Who was in Grover’s Theatre, Booth or a doppelganger?
- Who spoke (round noon?) with John F. Coyle? A doppelganger?
- Who was in Mary Surratts pension? A doppelganger?
- Who spoke with Henry Clay Ford? A doppelganger?
- Who rented the bay mare at James W. Pumphrey? A doppelganger?
- Who visited Paine / Powell ca. 2 pm in the Herndon House? A doppelganger?
- Who was at de Kirkwood House? A doppelganger?
- Who gave John Mathews the letter for The National Intelligencer? A doppelganger?
- Who glanced unfriendly into Gen. Grant’s carriage at appr. 5 pm? A doppelganger?
- Who was in the Greenback Saloon and Taltavull's Star Saloon? A doppelganger?

OR:

were Booth (and Herold) on the Navy Yard Bridge NOT Booth (and Herold) because the men were doppelgangers?

It’s most unbelievable that the streets of DC in April 1865 were lined with (unwitting) clones!

You mentioned Capt. James William Boyd as a possible look-alike of Booth. He was certainly NOT. He had reddish hair and had freckles.

Of course some people resemble one another, but it’s absurd to use this as an argument in a believable research. The overall chance of finding someone who looks like Booth is really very small. There where someone else sees a spooky resemblance, another person certainly will not even notice a fleeting similarity. So, I don’t like such highly subjective interpretations. We are like snowflakes. No two are the same, even if at first glance they all look small, white and spiky.

Let’s not talk about “doppelgangers”. Science suggests that doppelgangers should not exist. Mathematically speaking, the number of variables in any face is so large that it would be virtually impossible to meet someone who is identical to a known person.

Why are conspiracy theories always filled with look-alikes and doppelgangers?

Kees:

Easy boy, I wasn't serious about the doppelganger; I was merely trying to highlight the flagrant inconsistency between Demond's letters (especially the one of June 12, 1916) and everything we know from other sources about the movements of Booth and Herold on April 14. Demond, and, later, as you point out, Dana, seem certain of the identity of the two men at the bridge, differing only on time of arrival and time of release. I frankly do not know how to reconcile the accounts. I doubt that anyone is intentionally lying (for what purpose?),so there must be another explanation. If you can offer one, other than the doppelganger theory, I am all ears.

John

---

(12-10-2016 09:34 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Speaking of doppelgangers... I posted something last night that has not yet appeared, so maybe I forgot to hit the right button. First, I agreed with John Stanton that the Mrs. Howell mentioned in a previous post was likely Gus Howell (of trial fame!).

I then referred to insignificant research that I did years ago on the Illuminati (after reading Dan Brown's novels). On a blog entitled theforbiddenknowledge there was a reference to the Rothchilds. In that, Booth is linked to that famous family as well as Augustus Belmont (sound familiar?).

Some of the notes I jotted down referred to the B'nai B'rith organization being a pivotal player in the British Freemasonry plot to destroy our Union. Mention was made of a D.C. lawyer named Simon Wolf, a member of the D.C. Order of B'nai B'rith and a look-alike to Booth, whom he had met with in Cleveland. The site also claimed that Wolf and Booth drank together at Willard's on the morning of the assassination. Booth supposedly told Wolf that Lucy had rejected his proposal.

The blog also tied in Confederate General Albert Pike (big in Freemasonry) as a member of the Illuminati; claimed that the Knights of the Golden Circle were funded by the Scottish Rite; and that August Belmont was involved with the Confederacy, having married the daughter of John Slidell (Trent Affair).

Have fun with all that...

Laurie:

This is largely Greek to me, which is not to say that there is no merit to any of it. The only thing I can say with some degree of comfort is that August Belmont was a very wealthy and powerful Copperhead, perhaps the most prominent of the bunch, that his Fifth Avenue mansion in New York was used as a meeting place for Copperheads, that Booth is known to have attended at least one of those meetings, that if he attended one, he almost certainly attended more than one, that Arnold said that Booth often went to New York for more money, which fits with the Belmont connection, as does Atzerodt's reference to "the New York crowd", that there was a reference in Surratt's trial to meetings of conspirators in a New York mansion or mansions, and that McClellan's, Wood's and Belmont's presence in Europe at the time of the assassination is suspicious.

John

(12-11-2016 03:11 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  Kees:

Easy boy, I wasn't serious about the doppelganger; I was merely trying to highlight the flagrant inconsistency between Demond's letters (especially the one of June 12, 1916) and everything we know from other sources about the movements of Booth and Herold on April 14. Demond, and, later, as you point out, Dana, seem certain of the identity of the two men at the bridge, differing only on time of arrival and time of release. I frankly do not know how to reconcile the accounts. I doubt that anyone is intentionally lying (for what purpose?),so there must be another explanation. If you can offer one, other than the doppelganger theory, I am all ears.

John

As we have discussed before, Frederick Demond and David Dana are NOT reliable sources due to the huge discrepancies in their later accounts and the heavy influence of Finis Bates on both of them. In this way, there is NO reliable evidence that places John Wilkes Booth in Maryland on the morning of April 14th. See this thread: http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussio...l#pid50430 and David Dana's error filled account: https://boothiebarn.files.wordpress.com/...rticle.pdf

(12-12-2016 09:38 AM)Dave Taylor Wrote:  

(12-11-2016 03:11 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  Kees:

Easy boy, I wasn't serious about the doppelganger; I was merely trying to highlight the flagrant inconsistency between Demond's letters (especially the one of June 12, 1916) and everything we know from other sources about the movements of Booth and Herold on April 14. Demond, and, later, as you point out, Dana, seem certain of the identity of the two men at the bridge, differing only on time of arrival and time of release. I frankly do not know how to reconcile the accounts. I doubt that anyone is intentionally lying (for what purpose?),so there must be another explanation. If you can offer one, other than the doppelganger theory, I am all ears.

John

As we have discussed before, Frederick Demond and David Dana are NOT reliable sources due to the huge discrepancies in their later accounts and the heavy influence of Finis Bates on both of them. In this way, there is NO reliable evidence that places John Wilkes Booth in Maryland on the morning of April 14th. See this thread: http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussio...l#pid50430 and David Dana's error filled account: https://boothiebarn.files.wordpress.com/...rticle.pdf

I place no faith in Demond because one of Herold's sisters said that her brother was at home in D.C. in time for breakfast. This is consistent with the Huntt story that he left their home before they got up (when does the rooster crow in April?).
Even leaving as late as 7 am, Herold would have reached D.C. by 9 am if no further stops were made.

(10-15-2016 10:26 AM)loetar44 Wrote:  It's been a long time since we met, but here I am again. Hope you all doing well !

I was reading William M. Stewart's book “The Reminiscences of Senator William M. Stewart, of Nevada”, published in 1908 (I think Stewart’s autobiography is seldom read today). In Chapter 20 he wrote that on the night of April 14, 1865 he was visiting his friend Sen. John Conness of California at the latter’s home on 13th Street. Sen. Charles Sumner of Massachusetts soon joined them. After another 15 or 20 minutes, a servant dashed in, saying that Seward had just been murdered. The three men hurried the short distance to Seward’s house and learned that Seward was still alive, although seriously injured. They immediately ran across Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House and there they learned that Lincoln had been shot. Conness feared that there was a conspiracy to murder the entire cabinet and ordered two soldiers who were on guard at the WH to go to Stanton’s house to protect him. William Stewart wrote, “As the soldiers approached his [Stanton’s] house they saw a man on his steps, who had just rung the bell. Seeing them he took fright and ran away and was never afterward heard of. When the soldiers ran up the steps, Stanton himself came to the door in response to the ring. Had the soldiers arrived a few minutes later, I have no doubt that Stanton would also have been one of the victims of the plot.”

So my question is: was Stanton indeed a murder target? Was Stanton’s visitor a conspirator or someone else, maybe an innocent visitor with no bad intentions? Almost all accounts of that night mention no attempt on Stanton’s life. But I wonder, Edwin Stanton was such a major figure in the Lincoln administration that it looks to me no surprise that he might have been indeed a target.

I’ve looked for other accounts and I only have found the well-known account of a certain David Stanton at the Lincoln conspiracy. On May 15, 1865 this David Stanton testified he had seen Michael O’Laughlen at the Stanton home on the night of April 13. Major Kilburn Cox and Sergeant John C. Hatter testified the same. I wonder, might it be possible that O’Laughlen was Stanton’s visitor on the night of the murder? We know that O’Laughlen was on April 13 in D.C. with a few friends to observe the citywide celebration of Gen. Lee’s surrender four days earlier.

There is something strange with David Stanton. Who was he? Several books and articles say that David Stanton was Edwin Stanton's son. E.g. Roy Chamlee writes (p. 271 of his book) about the “Testimony by David Stanton, SON of the Secretary of War…”and “YOUNG Stanton testified …”, but Edwin Stanton did not have a young son named David! His only two sons who survived in 1865 were Edwin Lamson Stanton (1842-1877) and Lewis Hutchinson Stanton (1860-1938). No David.

Also strange is that in the proceedings of the conspiracy trial of May 16, David Stanton is suddenly called Daniel: “… Mr. DANIEL Stanton, who was present, was permitted to amend the record of his own testimony delivered on the previous day.”

Was David/Daniel a nephew instead of a son? The only nephew with the name David is the 20 years old David Stanton TAPPAN, son of Stanton’s sister Oella. Was David/Daniel Stanton related to the Stantons? Or do we have here a coincidence of names? But if he was not related, why was he then in Stanton’s house?

I’m struggling with two things:
(1) are there only two accounts, some 40 years apart, suggesting that Stanton may have been a target (Stewart’s Chapter 20 and David / Daniel Stanton’s testimony).
(2) who is David / Daniel Stanton?

Who can help me out?

Who Was David Stanton? I think I have him for you. I offer David Erasmus Stanton. Born 11 Sep. 1842. in Holliday's Cove, VA (now W. VA.) Died 8 Dec. 1867, His father was Dr. Erasmus Darwin Stanton and his Mother Nancy ( Hooker) Stanton.
Dr. Erasmus Stanton was Edwin McMasters Stanton brother. So, David Stanton was Edwin's nephew. It appears that the two families were "Close", and David lived in Edwin's family in the 1850.
If you attempt further research be aware of the errors showing in Erasmus' name. Sometimes it is Erasmus Darwin, sometimes he is Darwin Erasmus, or Darwin Edgar.

(12-12-2016 09:35 PM)SSlater Wrote:  [quote='loetar44' pid='61708' dateline='1476541613']

Who Was David Stanton? I think I have him for you. I offer David Erasmus Stanton. Born 11 Sep. 1842. in Holliday's Cove, VA (now W. VA.) Died 8 Dec. 1867, His father was Dr. Erasmus Darwin Stanton and his Mother Nancy ( Hooker) Stanton.
Dr. Erasmus Stanton was Edwin McMasters Stanton brother. So, David Stanton was Edwin's nephew. It appears that the two families were "Close", and David lived in Edwin's family in the 1850.
If you attempt further research be aware of the errors showing in Erasmus' name. Sometimes it is Erasmus Darwin, sometimes he is Darwin Erasmus, or Darwin Edgar.

Thank you SSlater. I came to the same conclusion. See my post #34 in this thread, in answer to John F.'s remarks.

I wrote:

John, David Stanton was certainly not a son of Secretary Stanton. He had a son from his first wife (Edwin Lamson, born Aug 12, 1842; 22 years old in April 1865), and he had a surviving son from his second wife (Lewis Hutchinson, born Jan. 12 1860, too young in April 1865). Was David Stanton a nephew? E(rasmus) Darwin Stanton was Stanton’s only brother, born July 17, 1816. He committed suicide on Sept.23, 1846. He was married with Nancy Hooker and had a son David Erasmus Stanton, born in 1842 (22 or 23 years old in April 1865) and two daughters: Lucy D. Stanton (born in 1845, 19 or 20 years old in April 1865) and Mary Darwin Stanton (born in 1846, married John Hugh Ely). John, I think you are right by saying that David “was surely a relative”. He was (I think) the 22/23 year old David E. (“young David”). And "Miss Lucy Stanton", who was in Stanton's home on the 13th was David’s sister. Both were children of Stanton’s brother Darwin. Riddle solved??? When Darwin committed suicide David was 3 or 4 years old, Lucy was ca. 1 and Mary just born, or posthumous. I don’t know if David, Lucy and Mary grew up in the household of Secretary Stanton. If the answer is “yes” (and I suspect that), than it declares that David was seen as Secretary Stanton’s son!"

Thanks again for confirming this.

BTW. You say David was born Sep 11, 1842, so he was 22 years 7 months old in April 1865; indeed "young David"! Do you (or anyone else) know the exact birth dates of his sisters Lucy and Mary?