Found this interesting tidbit in the American Commercial Advertiser (Baltimore) April 24, 1865 -

   

Outside of Mike Kauffman's American Brutus, have never seen this anywhere else before. Wonder how this information was gathered, other than someone SAW or heard JWB's mare fall?

In the June 1990 edition of Blue & Gray magazine, Mike Kauffman writes as follows:

"During his escape Booth told about a dozen people he had broken his leg when his horse stumbled and fell on him. He even said this to some people (such as John Lloyd) who knew about the assassination."

If Mr. Kauffman is correct, and a dozen people heard the story, then could this account in the American Commercial Advertiser have been based on what one (or more) of them said to authorities? And then one of the authorities talked to a reporter?

(Kudos, Betty. You started the 1,000th thread in this category!)

Betty and Roger:

Interesting, but pretty thin, wouldn't you agree? The fall, if such there was, may have merely aggravated an existing fracture, the one that occurred when he made his awkward fall to the stage. I believe that it is just as likely that there was no fall and that he used the story as a cover for his fractured fibula, instructing Herold to do the same, inasmuch as he realized that the two of them would be needing the help of a lot of people to help with their escape and it just wouldn't do to tell them he had broken his leg when he landed awkwardly on the stage at Ford's after he had assassinated the President of the United States. The subject is covered in detail in Chapter 22 of Decapitating. The evidence that the fracture occurred from the fall to the stage is very strong and is supported by the great majority of assassination historians, Kauffman and Good excepted.

John

I would imagine that this horse fall story was leaked by someone who knew what Dr. Mudd had said about Booth's claim that he fell from his horse and fractured his leg and came to him for help. Has anyone ever researched how many reporters were privy to statements coming out of the War Department on what was being gleaned from their investigations?

I am on John's side as far as the theory of where the original fracture occurred. As I have stated to many a person, we will never know for certain where and how the injury was sustained -- and (to quote a recent "politican,") 'What difference does it make?' in the big picture. We can only suggest that the injury slowed him down and that his stopping at Mudd's implicated the good doctor.

My theories on the subject are just as valid (at least to me!) as any other published historian: Mudd was already implicated in the conspiracy and would likely have been under eventual investigation anyhow; the fugitives intended to go to his house anyhow because it was a logical first stop; there was no guarantee that they could have crossed into Virginia any quicker than when they did - broken leg or no broken leg.

Personally, I feel it is rather sad that the one thing American Brutus is remembered the most for is Mike's claim of the broken leg occurring when Booth's horse fell on him. There is so much valuable information in the rest of that book (especially the multitude of meaty notes) that should take precedence over this one theory.

I'll disagree with you John.
It's just as likely, perhaps more likely, that Booth's horse fell when running/trotting down a dirt road at night compared to Booth jumping over the rail of the theater box.

Ever tried running in the dark?
It's not so easy for the horse either.

I'm sure Booth would love to embellish his story by telling southern sympathizers that he broke his leg when Rathbone grabbed him as he was trying to escape after shooting Lincoln. Makes it sound a little more daring.
Saying a horse fell on you lacks a certain flair and flamboyance.

Personally I have no idea, I imagine he changed his story based upon who he was talking to. He would say broken while escaping Ford's to a Confederate sympathizer, Broken when a horse fell on him to a Union supporter.

(12-21-2016 03:36 PM)Gene C Wrote:  I'll disagree with you John.
It's just as likely, perhaps more likely, that Booth's horse fell when running/trotting down a dirt road at night compared to Booth jumping over the rail of the theater box.

Ever tried running in the dark?
It's not so easy for the horse either.

I'm sure Booth would love to embellish his story by telling southern sympathizers that he broke his leg when Rathbone grabbed him as he was trying to escape after shooting Lincoln. Makes it sound a little more daring.
Saying a horse fell on you lacks a certain flair and flamboyance.

Personally I have no idea, I imagine he changed his story based upon who he was talking to. He would say broken while escaping Ford's to a Confederate sympathizer, Broken when a horse fell on him to a Union supporter.

I have one retort to that: Booth was still on the skittish mare at the time of the supposed fall. Since she had to be held all the time, was Booth able to control her by holding onto the reins as he and she got back up? Seems to me that he would have to let go - even briefly at some point - in order to extricate himself from under her and that the heavy animal would make a break for it and disappear.

This topic has been discussed to death over the years on this forum. I think we all have concluded that we don't know what happened - we can only theorize and agree or disagree with what Mike eventually put in print.

I must confess I just read an article that indicates horses usually have better night vision than their riders (it must be all those carrots)
http://equusmagazine.com/article/nightvi...91003-8169

Somewhere I read (and I know one of you fine folks will remember without me having to go through several guesses on sources) that the impact of Booth's boot and likely his spur actually tore the heavy canvas-like covering of the stage boards. Seems to me such an impact and sudden stop or change of direction would generate enough torque to break either of the lower leg bones. Then, too, his horse may actually have taken a spill leaving town. The horse spill story would be a much more easily believed and easily contrived story to those whom Booth encountered along his journey. I choose to believe the break occurred on the stage unless more indisputable evidence ever is revealed.

A very Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and Happy Holidays to all forum members. This forum truly is a gift that keeps on giving.

(12-21-2016 08:33 AM)BettyO Wrote:  Found this interesting tidbit in the American Commercial Advertiser (Baltimore) April 24, 1865 -



Outside of Mike Kauffman's American Brutus, have never seen this anywhere else before. Wonder how this information was gathered, other than someone SAW or heard JWB's mare fall?

I find it interesting to read this "idea". This reporter had to have something to say about the Assassination, after all he gets paid when he says something. He hedges his report with "it is NEARLY certain" and "it is BELIEVED", that gets him off the hook and not accountable, if it is proven wrong at a later time.
Having said that, there is nothing wrong with posting it here. I do agree that the leg was broken but I don't know how.

"New report" Just in today. Booth broke his leg when he used his spur with too much enthusiasm, galloping up Sloper Hill.

Merry Christmas, everyone. Ho Ho Ho.

Everyone:

Booth could tell Herold, John Lloyd, Dr. Mudd and anyone else who would listen that he broke his leg when his horse fell on him or he was thrown from the horse or whatever, but there was one person he could not tell that story, not if he wished to preserve his credibility, which was absolutely critical to him. That person, of course, was his diary. He could peddle his cover story to everyone else, because they had not witnessed his awkward fall to the stage ("striking on his heels & falling backward"), his erratic walk across the stage ("like the hopping of a bull frog"), his mad exit from the back door of the theater ("hopped out of the theater") and his mounting of his bay mare ("after having some difficulty in mounting"). But he could not lie to his diary, because too many people in the theater had witnessed these things and they and everyone they spoke to after the event would therefore have known he was lying, thereby casting doubt on everything else he had written, which would have been a disaster for him. To his diary, therefore, he told the truth, namely "In jumping broke my leg".

John

I have to agree with Laurie and John in this....I had never read in any newspaper (and I have hundreds upon hundreds I've collected over 40 years....)

Unless, as he wrote in the diary, "in jumping, broke my leg", he meant that he attempted to jump the mare over a fence, ditch, etc....which, seems unlikely as he was riding the roads, not over cross-country -

Thanks, John.

(12-22-2016 07:13 AM)BettyO Wrote:  I have to agree with Laurie and John in this....I had never read in any newspaper (and I have hundreds upon hundreds I've collected over 40 years....)

Unless, as he wrote in the diary, "in jumping, broke my leg", he meant that he attempted to jump the mare over a fence, ditch, etc....which, seems unlikely as he was riding the roads, not over cross-country -

Thanks, John.

Betty:

Here's the context of Booth's admission to his diary:

I walked with a firm step through a thousand of his friends (i.e. the audience), was stopped (i.e. by Forbes), but pushed on (i.e. he got past Forbes with a writing, probably a forged authorization). A Colonel was at his side (i.e. Rathbone. That he assigns rank suggests that Rathbone was in uniform, but there is no proof of this.). I shouted sic semper (he left off the last word because he wasn't sure of its spelling) before I fired. In jumping broke my leg. I passed all his pickets (probably a reference to the guards on both sides of the Navy Yard Bridge), rode sixty miles that night (perhaps, if he initially rode away from Dr. Mudd's farm and then doubled back to it, for which there is some evidence), with the bone of my leg tearing the flesh at every jump (not literally tearing, but figuratively, because Dr. Mudd described the broken fibula as a relatively minor injury, which would account for how he was able to make his way across the stage and out of the theater, mount his horse and ride furiously, at least initially, toward Soper's Hill. He could afford to exaggerate the distance he rode and the pain he felt because there were no witnesses to either (apart from Herold) as there were to what had happened in the theater.)

John

(12-22-2016 08:14 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  (perhaps, if he initially rode away from Dr. Mudd's farm and then doubled back to it, for which there is some evidence),

John, I am curious. You say "some evidence." To what do you refer? Many thanks.

Thanks, John.

We've been over this before, as Laurie said -

The pain and severity of JWB's injury was probably due to the style of riding in the 19th Century.

In the 19th Century, men rode with a straighter leg, with most of the seat and balance being utilized by the pressure of the thighs, lower leg (calf) and feet in the stirrups. See the photo of Allen Pinkerton on horseback; notice how straight his leg is - most of the pressure/weight is in the stirrups.

   

One jumped fences leaning back in the saddle with straight legs and pressure in the stirrups.

This changed in the early 20th Century when the knee was bent more and emphasis on the seat/balance was placed on the thighs and knees -

   

I've ridden all my life (lived in a saddle as a kid.)

JWB would have experienced severe pain with pressure on the broken/fractured ankle/leg focused primarily on the foot and calf of the injured leg in the stirrup.

(12-22-2016 09:04 AM)BettyO Wrote:  Thanks, John.

We've been over this before, as Laurie said -

The pain and severity of JWB's injury was probably due to the style of riding in the 19th Century.

In the 19th Century, men rode with a straighter leg, with most of the seat and balance being utilized by the pressure of the thighs, lower leg (calf) and feet in the stirrups. See the photo of Allen Pinkerton on horseback; notice how straight his leg is - most of the pressure/weight is in the stirrups.



One jumped fences leaning back in the saddle with straight legs and pressure in the stirrups.

This changed in the early 20th Century when the knee was bent more and emphasis on the seat/balance was placed on the thighs and knees -



I've ridden all my life (lived in a saddle as a kid.)

JWB would have experienced severe pain with pressure on the broken/fractured ankle/leg focused primarily on the foot and calf of the injured leg in the stirrup.

Betty:

Excellent analysis. It explains much. Thank you for the information, which was previously unknown to me.

John

---

(12-22-2016 08:38 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(12-22-2016 08:14 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  (perhaps, if he initially rode away from Dr. Mudd's farm and then doubled back to it, for which there is some evidence),

John, I am curious. You say "some evidence." To what do you refer? Many thanks.

Roger:

Booth and Herold reached the tavern at about midnight, some 10 miles or so from the bridge. They left within five minutes. They did not arrive at Dr. Mudd's farm until 4:00 a.m., some 15 or so miles away. Four hours to do 15 miles? On July 10, 1865, Thomas Ewing, Dr. Mudd's counsel, appealed to President Johnson for a "remission" of Dr. Mudd's sentence. In support of the appeal, Ewing claimed that Herold's lawyer, Frederick Stone, told him that Herold had tried to dissuade Booth from going to Dr. Mudd's farm, which was very far from his planned route, but that Booth insisted that his leg had to have professional attention. If this is true, it might explain, at least partially, Booth's reference in his diary to having ridden 60 miles that night instead of the approximately 25 from the bridge to Dr. Mudd's farm, i.e. they may have ridden beyond the farm and then doubled back to it. (See also Steers and Holzer, The Lincoln Assassination Conspirators, pp. 42 and 101.) I hasten to add, however, that such a scenario ignores Atzerodt's May 1 confession, in which he stated that Dr. Mudd "knew all about it" and that "liquors and provisions" had been sent to him for pick-up by the fugitives when they made their way south. (See Steers, The Trial, p. cv).

John