Here is some more pertinent reading. http://www.seacoastnh.com History-matters/the-elusive-trail-of -Lucy-Hale. 4 pages. (They misspelled Lucy's mother's maiden name on each page) and the text is carefully worded to avoid confirmation of any of the text. (It's odd that so many competent authors can come up with the same information, over many many years - and they all deny that they know who they are writing about.)

Thank you all for participating in this study.

John (The Lawyer one) All the reports on the capture of Harney, claim that he was captured AFTER Lee's surrender.

I put myself on record that I believe that the "woman" who accompanied Booth was Lucy Hale. As J. O. Hall said "there it must rest" (or something very similar.)

(02-08-2017 10:16 PM)SSlater Wrote:  Here is some more pertinent reading. http://www.seacoastnh.com History-matters/the-elusive-trail-of -Lucy-Hale. 4 pages. (They misspelled Lucy's mother's maiden name on each page) and the text is carefully worded to avoid confirmation of any of the text. (It's odd that so many competent authors can come up with the same information, over many many years - and they all deny that they know who they are writing about.)

Thank you all for participating in this study.

John (The Lawyer one) All the reports on the capture of Harney, claim that he was captured AFTER Lee's surrender.

I put myself on record that I believe that the "woman" who accompanied Booth was Lucy Hale. As J. O. Hall said "there it must rest" (or something very similar.)

John:

That is, of course, possible. There are, in fact, three possibilities. 1)The reports to which you refer are mistaken. (How many reports are there? What are their sources? How reliable are they?) 2) Harney's capture may have been later on the same day that Lee surrendered (the 9th). 3) Crawford's account is correct.

Crawford was a Ranger. He was there in the flesh. His book (Mosby and His Men) was published in 1867 and was therefore probably written in 1865 or 1866, almost contemporaneously with the events it describes. On p. 357 of his book he identifies the relevant date as April 9. On p. 359 of the book, he describes the capture of Harney, which he says was "irretrievable", an allusion, obviously, to the importance of his mission. Crawford, of course, does not reveal the mission, but by characterizing the capture as "irretrievable", he effectively tells us that he knew what it was. We may be sure that if he knew, others also knew, including, without question, Mosby himself.

I am willing to be persuaded that the capture took place on a day other than April 9, but the evidence will have be pretty strong to overcome Crawford. Steers, as I recall, places the capture on the 8th.

John

(02-09-2017 04:07 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  Steers, as I recall, places the capture on the 8th.

Here is what I found in these 7 books:

April 8 - Lincoln Assassination Encyclopedia

April 9 - Decapitating the Union

April 10 - Blood on the Moon

April 10 - Come Retribution

April 10 - April '65

April 10 - Lincoln and Booth

April 10 - Assassin's Accomplice

Here is the direct link to the article SSlater mentioned.
http://www.seacoastnh.com/History/Histor...lucy-hale/

Here is the search for Lucy Hale, in the Seacoast NH site. While it is an interesting website, IMO the articles repeat rumor and speculation, as if they are trying to give them some credibility. Take what you read with a grain of salt. Such as item #19 on this list. Facts mixed in with rumor and speculation make for tabloid journalism. The site is fun, interesting to read, and promotes the area.
http://www.seacoastnh.com/search/?search...ucy%20hale

(02-09-2017 06:55 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 04:07 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  Steers, as I recall, places the capture on the 8th.

Here is what I found in these 7 books:

April 8 - Lincoln Assassination Encyclopedia

April 9 - Decapitating the Union

April 10 - Blood on the Moon

April 10 - Come Retribution

April 10 - April '65

April 10 - Lincoln and Booth

April 10 - Assassin's Accomplice

Roger:

Nice work.

The preponderance of sources suggests the 10th as the proper date. I am inclined to accept this, despite the fact that historical error has a way of acquiring a life of its own, as an early erroneous source continues to be followed by later sources. An example of this is the account of the Lincolns' carriage stopping on its way to the theater to pick up Clara Harris and Henry Rathbone, despite the conclusive evidence that all four of them left together and directly from the White House. What swayed me, therefore, was not so much the preponderance of sources, but this:

https://ehistory.osu.edu/books/official-...s/097/0700


which seems to put the matter beyond doubt. I can explain Carpenter's eyewitness account in terms of ambiguity. On one page he gives the date of operations as April 9 and then a couple of pages later he describes the capture of Harney, but he does not unambiguously state that the capture took place on the 9th. Apparently, he moved into a description of the Rangers' activity on the 10th without distinguishing the dates. As for Booth and Surratt, McMillan testified that Surratt told him he was in Montreal at "the beginning of the week" of the assassination. That might mean Sunday, the 9th, or Monday, the 10th. He said, further, that Surratt told him he received a "letter" at this time advising him that their plans had changed and that he was to return to Washington forthwith. But he does not actually say that the "letter" was received on the 9th, the 10th or the 11th. It could have been any of those days. The source cited above states clearly that the capture took place on the morning of the 10th. It is therefore a safe surmise that word of it was communicated to Booth on the same day or, at the latest, the following day (the 11th) and that his "letter" (by which either he or McMillan must have meant a telegram) arrived on either of those days in consequence of what had happened at Burke's Station. Moving the capture from the 9th to the 10th, therefore, does not disturb the integrity of the connection between the failure of the Harney mission and the activation of the contingency plan for Booth to try to approximate the intended results of the mission.

John

FWIW - just noticed that 2017 has the same calendar dates as 1865

(02-11-2017 10:31 AM)JMadonna Wrote:  FWIW - just noticed that 2017 has the same calendar dates as 1865

Yep, and Surratt House will have a bus out on the escape route chasing the fugitives by 7:30 am on April 15 - just as Stanton was likely placing the coins on Mr. Lincoln's eyelids in 1865.

That's one of the things I like about you, you're proactive.

Some random thoughts.
I guess I will have to be the one who sticks the pin in the balloon and starts the thinking that maybe Lucy Hale was not the beauty that we have been to believe.
First off - the pictures of Lucy that are available, Two different pictures are a fine view of her ears. Is there anyone present that has cut these pictures out and put them in his wallet? Or on the mirror in the bathroom? (Not in this neighborhood.) In my estimation she looks rather chunky and needs a diet.
I think that the story of Lucy Hale spending a night in the Hotel with the popular - handsome - stage actor - in Newport, was actually written and published by John P. Hale, in order to drum up some interest in his daughter.
She was "so Beautiful" that while she was overseas, she had to fight-off "Titled- Million-airs". Royal Princes, and other such desirable suitors. (_... ...)
She didn't find anyone to marry her until she was in her thirties. Even then it was more years before she managed an off-spring.
This is why we have no evidence that Lucy was a real "Doll" (or was with Booth in Newport.) When it came for a denial from Booth, he was dangling, and couldn't defend his good name.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know that Senator John P. Hale was recalled from Spain for conducting illegal activities ? He was importing goods and selling them without paying import taxes. Lucy is OK she married another Senator.

Lucy seemed to attract plenty of men, however. In addition to Booth I have read that these men also had feelings for her:

1. Robert Lincoln
2. John Hay
3. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

According to an article by Dr. Blaine Houmes of this forum, Robert and his Harvard friend, F. P. Anderson, gave Lucy Hale (and her friend, Miss Colby) a book entitled The Battle of Bunker Hill, or The Temple of Liberty; An Historic Poem in Four Cantos.

I believe I have also read that Robert sent her flowers from the White House conservatory.

However, IMO, the story that Lucy and Robert were studying Spanish together (in the White House) on the day of the assassination is probably apocryphal.

Gentlemen, keep in mind that the view of "feminine beauty" in the 19th Century was vastly different from that in the 20th-21st Century. The ideal of beauty was to be plump (sometimes VERY plump which appears to us today as right-down fat!) with snow white skin (for Caucasian ladies), a clean well-scrubbed face and not a hair out of place. Plumpness was desired because it indicated that the lady was well-to-do, did not have to work and had plenty of food to eat. A well bred lady had no need for makeup; rouge, ect. which was associated with "fast ladies" and/or prostitutes. To appear well groomed, ladies oiled or pomaded their hair just like gentlemen. They also used a curling product called "bandolin" which apparently made it easy to curl with a hot curling iron if so desired. One could also crimp their hair with hair crimpers. Some ladies even ate arsenic in order to obtain a white skin (aside from death!) White skin also indicated that the lady did not have to work outside.

Women who were thin were regarded as not having enough to eat and who had to work for a living. One who was an early proponent of thinness was Empress Elizabeth (Sissi) of Austria. She advocated being fashion model thin and also was an advocate of dieting.

(02-16-2017 11:29 PM)SSlater Wrote:  Some random thoughts.
I guess I will have to be the one who sticks the pin in the balloon and starts the thinking that maybe Lucy Hale was not the beauty that we have been to believe.
First off - the pictures of Lucy that are available, Two different pictures are a fine view of her ears. Is there anyone present that has cut these pictures out and put them in his wallet? Or on the mirror in the bathroom? (Not in this neighborhood.) In my estimation she looks rather chunky and needs a diet.
I think that the story of Lucy Hale spending a night in the Hotel with the popular - handsome - stage actor - in Newport, was actually written and published by John P. Hale, in order to drum up some interest in his daughter.
She was "so Beautiful" that while she was overseas, she had to fight-off "Titled- Million-airs". Royal Princes, and other such desirable suitors. (_... ...)
She didn't find anyone to marry her until she was in her thirties. Even then it was more years before she managed an off-spring.
This is why we have no evidence that Lucy was a real "Doll" (or was with Booth in Newport.) When it came for a denial from Booth, he was dangling, and couldn't defend his good name.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know that Senator John P. Hale was recalled from Spain for conducting illegal activities ? He was importing goods and selling them without paying import taxes. Lucy is OK she married another Senator.

Is there a contemporary account of Lucy's being the lady at Newport? As far as I know, the assertion doesn't appear into well into the 20th century. And respectable suitors of the type Senator Hale wanted for his daughter would not be attracted by a story that Lucy had checked into a hotel with an actor who was also a presidential assassin.

(02-17-2017 07:34 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  Is there a contemporary account of Lucy's being the lady at Newport?

That is a great question, Susan! I am not an expert on this topic, but I have never seen one.

(02-18-2017 05:17 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  [quote='Susan Higginbotham' pid='64165' dateline='1487378049']
Is there a contemporary account of Lucy's being the lady at Newport?

That is a great question, Susan! I am not an expert on this topic, but I have never seen one. IMO, it probably was a different person with Booth.

We have discussed Bill O'Reilly's novel previously on the forum. He sure accepts the other person as being Lucy. I thought I'd share with the forum what he has to say:

"Perhaps, with all of Booth's subterfuge, it is not surprising that their lovers' getaway to Newport is turning into a fiasco.

Booth checked them into the Aquidneck House hotel, simply signing the register as 'J. W. Booth and Lady.' He made no attempt whatsoever to pretend they are already married. It's as if the couple is daring the innkeeper to question their propriety. There is no question that Booth is spoiling for a fight. He is sick of what he sees as the gross imbalance between the poverty of the war-torn South and the prosperity of the North. Other than the uniformed soldiers milling about the railway platforms, he saw no evidence, during the train ride from Washington to Newport, via Boston, that the war had touched the North in any way.

After checking into the hotel, he and Lucy walk the waterfront all morning. He wants to tell her about his plans, but the conspiracy is so vast and so deep that he would be a fool to sabotage it with a careless outburst. Instead, he rambles on about the fate of the Confederacy and about Lincoln, the despot. He's shared his pro-southern leanings with Lucy in the past, but never to this extent. He rants endlessly about the fall of Richmond and the injustice of Lincoln having his way. Lucy knows her politics well, and she argues right back, until at some point in their walk along the picturesque harbor, with its sailboats and magnificent seaside homes, it becomes clear that they will never reach a common ground.

Toward evening, they stop their fighting and walk back to the Aquidneck House. Despite John Wilkes Booth's many infidelities, Lucy Hale is the love of his life. She is the only anchor that might keep him from committing a heinous crime, effectively throwing his life away in the process. In her eyes he sees a happy future replete with marriage, children, and increased prosperity as he refocuses on his career. They can travel the world together, mingling with high society wherever they go, thanks to her father's considerable connections. All he has to do is to choose that love over his insane desire to harm the president.

Booth tells the desk clerk that Lucy isn't feeling well and that they will take their evening meal in the bedroom. Upstairs, there is ample time for lovemaking before their food is delivered. But the acts of intimacy that made this trip such an exotic idea have been undone by the news about Richmond. They will never make love again after tonight, and both of them sense it. Rather than spend the night together, Booth and Lucy pack their bags and catch the evening train back to Boston, where she leaves him to be with friends.

Booth is actually relieved. He has made his choice. Now no one stands in his way."

I'm sorry, but typical O'Reilly style. In this case, his writing takes on the characteristics of a poorly researched historical novel. However, he makes more money writing than I do... I will cover my tail feathers and say that I do agree with some of his political commentary (but not with his rudeness).