(09-12-2017 04:00 PM)Gene C Wrote:  John, would you consider Miss Porterfield a reliable witness?
Did she testify at Surratt's trial?

Gene:

I know nothing about her. I checked the witnesses in the Surratt trial and she is not listed. The only thing that gives her some credibility is her statement that Booth asked her how to spell tyrannis. This is significant because someone else said that Booth asked her the same question, and that he added: "two 'r's' or two 'n's' ? ". I cannot lay my hands on that reference right now. I, of course, cannot vouch for her credibility, but if one person says something happened, it is better, historically, than if no person says something happened. In other words, her story is not much to go on, but it is better than nothing. If someone can contradict any part of her story, let them do so.

John

(09-12-2017 03:22 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 02:09 PM)Wild Bill Wrote:  John:

Conversely, a bona fide kidnapping scheme is contrary to the evidence, totally irrational, completely unworkable and without any genuine purpose, the business about Confederate POW's having already been undercut by Grant, as pointed out by Arnold to Booth at the Gautier's meeting.

I will admit that the end of no POW exchange has always bothered me as to the efficacy of kidnapping. I think that it also challenges the notion that Surratt was up at Elmira and not in DC on the 14th.

Bill

Wild Bill:

Re Surratt's whereabouts on April 14, a tidbit came my way in the latest issue of the [i]Journal of the Lincoln Assassination, Fred Hatch's wonderful little publication. In it, there is an article by Jesse W. Weik, taken from the February, 1913, issue of The Century Magazine, in which the author quotes a Miss Porterfield, who claimed to be an acquaintance of Booth's and also that she had witnessed the assassination. She claimed, too, that on April 13 she had a conversation with Booth, in which he expressed his anguish as to the turn of events and also asked her, incidentally, how to spell "tyrannis". Asked why he was in such a state of mind, he told her that he was irritated because he "had been rudely awakened from sleep that morning by a man--I think he called him Surratt--who wanted to borrow his horse to ride to Georgetown..." (See p. 6 of the Journal). That ties in pretty well with the 13 or 14 witnesses at Surratt's trial who claimed that they had seen him in Washington during the relevant period. It also ties in with one of Atzerodt's statements in which he said that Booth told him that Surratt was in town and that he had just seen him. The case for Surratt being in Washington, while still not conclusive, is strengthened by this article.

John[/i]

Did she mention any relationship to John Porterfield?

(09-12-2017 06:59 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(09-11-2017 11:00 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(09-11-2017 11:37 AM)L Verge Wrote:  How do you explain away the weapons and materiel stored at Surratt's tavern from March 17 until April 15? The Atzerodt statement about supplies sent to Mudd ahead of time? The details about the purchase of the boat as supplied years later by Smoot? The folklore (which you never should discount) that half of Southern Maryland knew about a planned kidnapping? The assistance of the Confederate underground in that area?

It may have been a hare-brained scheme from our perspective, but we were not in the center of things in the winter and spring of 1865. Booth was likely of the same mindset as our modern folks who think they can hop the White House fence and get to the President -- and some get pretty close.

Laurie:

We all know that Booth made preparations for his escape. Thus it was that he was given letters of introduction, in Canada, to Dr. Queen, Marshall George P. Kane, Dr. Garland (most likely) and Dr. Mudd, meeting the latter several times before the assassination. And thus it was that he spent some days in November and December, 1864, in Charles County, meeting, at least, with Queen, Mudd and Thomas Harbin. Accordingly, there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that the carbines, cartridges and rope that Surratt, Herold and Atzerodt left at the tavern could have been used, or were intended to be used, only in connection with kidnapping Lincoln. They could just as easily have been needed and used by Booth and whomever he planned to have with him, or might have with him, on the escape, sans Lincoln. Similarly, the provisions and liquor Booth sent to Dr. Mudd, per Atzerodt, could have been used as easily by Booth and his co-conspirators for purposes of their escape as they could have been used incident to a kidnapping of the president. Likewise with the boat. The escapees would need a boat to get across the river. Booth could not know with certainty how many would be with him when the time came for action, so he made arrangements, through Atzerodt, Surratt and Harbin, for a fishing skiff that would accommodate a substantial number. He never used the boat anyway and its size may well have had something to do with it. There were, after all, only two fugitives.

Recall, too, Booth's remark to Ruggles, Bainbridge and Jett that "In the plot to kill, Paine alone was implicated...not even Herold knowing what was to be done. Atzerodt knew nothing of the intended assassination." Does this not show, rather conclusively, that Booth was always duping most of his action team with the malarkey about kidnapping, a duping that was made more convincing by deposits of weapons, materials, etc., here and there and arrangements made for a boat that was never used? It all fits rather well in my opinion. Conversely, a bona fide kidnapping scheme is contrary to the evidence, totally irrational, completely unworkable and without any genuine purpose, the business about Confederate POW's having already been undercut by Grant, as pointed out by Arnold to Booth at the Gautier's meeting.

John

John - We are going to have to agree to disagree because I will never understand your logic in this and you will never understand the Maryland situation and the feelings of its people at that time. And please remember that the kidnap plot goes back to the fall of 1864 and earlier, if you consider other plans that never materialized - not just a month before the assassination.

Somewhere in the back of my mind, I remember a discussion many years ago that releasing the POWs, either through ransom or via Confederate raids both north and south, was a military consideration to divide Union forces as well as to form a pincher (is that the proper military term?) maneuver emanating in Canada and aimed at northern targets - a similar tactic to the failed incendiary attempts in NYC. The Copperhead movement in northwestern New York State was supposed to be involved also. I have always wondered if "the New York crowd" was a reference to them, not the wheeler/dealers in NYC.

One question: I don't remember you mentioning Dr. Garland in your book; did I miss something? Were you able to identify Dr. Garland, because Tidwell, Hall, and Gaddy were very anxious to find out who he was (if he existed at all). The closest we could come was a Dr. Garland who went south to become one of Davis's physicians. Tell me more about Dr. Garland and your sources for him.

Laurie:

I don't know anything about Dr. Garland and I don't know anyone who does. Reference to him is made on p. 278 of my book. It derives from an oral statement made by Arnold to James L. McPhail, Provost Marshal of Maryland, to the effect that Booth had corresponded with Drs. Mudd, Garland and Queen. McPhail included this statement in a note he attached to a written statement made by Arnold, which written statement McPhail gave to Stanton. My reference for this is Steers's Blood on the Moon, pp. 172, 173. It appears that the written statement did not mention Garland; only Queen and Mudd. That conclusion derives from the fact that Eaton Horner, one of McPhail's detectives, testified at the conspiracy trial and said that Arnold had stated that Booth had a letter of introduction to Dr. Mudd and Dr. Queen. Steers's reference is to "Statement of Sam Arnold, RG 94, M-619, reel 458, frames 0305-0312; and Baltimore American, "Statement of Arnold on His Arrest," January 19, 1869, p.1, col.1". Steers adds that "The Dr. Garland mentioned in the note has not been identified." My guess is that Dr. Garland was either a man of little or no importance or was so powerful and influential that he managed to cover his tracks better than the other two doctors. Because no reference to him crops up anywhere else, I favor the first explanation. It may well have been nothing more than a name Arnold heard from Booth and so he threw it into the stew verbally, but didn't think it important enough to put in the written statement.

As for the folklore in lower Maryland about kidnapping, if word of it was so widespread, that would mean, of course, that Union intelligence knew of it too. That, in turn, would mean that it really wasn't planned, because the last thing the Confederate leadership would do would be to plan a kidnapping the knowledge of which was all over lower Maryland. A bona fide kidnapping plan would be such a super-secret thing that it would be known to almost no one, i.e. only to a very select few operatives charged with the responsibility of engineering it. In other words, widespread "knowledge" of a kidnapping plot is evidence of its non-existence, not its existence.

As for the assistance of the Confederate underground in that area, it came into play only to assist Booth and Herold escape. Tidwell, Hall and Gaddy said: "When Jones mentioned Thomas Harbin and Joseph Baden in his book, he revealed something of the clandestine apparatus working to effect Booth's escape. The word had already gone across the river to those on the other side that Booth was still free and would be sent across as soon as possible. Be ready." (CR, p. 451) Further, on p. 458, they make reference to "how closely the Confederate clandestine machinery was following Booth's movements through King George County." It strains credulity to suppose that all this help was spontaneous. It is far more likely that the greater number of mail line operatives knew what was coming and were prepared for it.

I believe we have beaten this one enough. We're a couple of old oaks: not likely to bend much.

With great respect, John

Everyone:

A little clarification re Miss Porterfield. Please Google "Weik a new story of the Lincoln Assassination". Then hit "The Century Illustrated Monthly Magazine". This will take you to the 1913 issue. There, beginning on p. 559, you will find the article. Miss Porterfield was from Greencastle, Indiana. She happened to be in Washington at the time because her mother brought her there. On p. 561 there is the business about Booth asking her how to spell "tyrannis". Reck ("Last 24 Hours") mentions the incident (p. 105) and lists Weik's article as his source. I haven't checked, but it's a good bet that everyone who mentions this exchange between Miss Porterfield and Booth is using the same source--Weik's article. Her account squares well with everything else we know about April 14. It's an interesting read and I am inclined to credit it fairly well. I believe everyone knows that I do not reject tradition too easily. Everything has a root. I found no reference in her account to John Porterfield, the Secret Service agent in Canada.

John

Agreed that we are beating a dead horse. I just don't think that anyone nowadays understands the Confederate network (and frustration) in Southern Maryland and the Northern Neck of Virginia. When I first started working at Surratt House, I met a gentleman who was writing a book on Lincoln. He told me that he was amazed at the animosity that still existed among old-timers in Maryland regarding Mr. Lincoln -- more than what he had encountered in the Deep South...

"I don't know anything about Dr. Garland and I don't know anyone who does. Reference to him is made on p. 278 of my book. It derives from an oral statement made by Arnold to James L. McPhail, Provost Marshal of Maryland, to the effect that Booth had corresponded with Drs. Mudd, Garland and Queen."

That reference is exactly what put Tidwell, Hall, and Gaddy on the trail of the elusive Dr. Garland over thirty years ago. Ed Steers worked closely with Hall while researching Blood on the Moon, so I suspect that's why he picked up on the reference also.

At the time, Mr. Hall asked me to use my St. Mary's County roots to see if we could identify Dr. Garland. I wish I still had my notes on the doctor, but I don't. I just remember that there was a Dr. Garland in St. Mary's County at the beginning of the war and that he went south to serve Davis. Would he have been part of the pipeline between the Southern Maryland planters and Richmond? Don't forget that the residents of St. Mary's were just as involved in the underground as those in Prince George's and Charles Counties and that river crossings occurred in that county also.

(09-13-2017 09:58 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  Everyone:

A little clarification re Miss Porterfield. Please Google "Weik a new story of the Lincoln Assassination". Then hit "The Century Illustrated Monthly Magazine". This will take you to the 1913 issue. There, beginning on p. 559, you will find the article.

a direct link
https://books.google.com/books?id=U3oAAA...on&f=false

Weik worked closely with William Herndon, Lincoln's law partner, in Herdon's classic biography "Herndon's Lincoln".

(the entire volume of Century Illustrated looks like it has some interesting articles)

(09-13-2017 09:58 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Agreed that we are beating a dead horse. I just don't think that anyone nowadays understands the Confederate network (and frustration) in Southern Maryland and the Northern Neck of Virginia. When I first started working at Surratt House, I met a gentleman who was writing a book on Lincoln. He told me that he was amazed at the animosity that still existed among old-timers in Maryland regarding Mr. Lincoln -- more than what he had encountered in the Deep South...

"I don't know anything about Dr. Garland and I don't know anyone who does. Reference to him is made on p. 278 of my book. It derives from an oral statement made by Arnold to James L. McPhail, Provost Marshal of Maryland, to the effect that Booth had corresponded with Drs. Mudd, Garland and Queen."

That reference is exactly what put Tidwell, Hall, and Gaddy on the trail of the elusive Dr. Garland over thirty years ago. Ed Steers worked closely with Hall while researching Blood on the Moon, so I suspect that's why he picked up on the reference also.

At the time, Mr. Hall asked me to use my St. Mary's County roots to see if we could identify Dr. Garland. I wish I still had my notes on the doctor, but I don't. I just remember that there was a Dr. Garland in St. Mary's County at the beginning of the war and that he went south to serve Davis. Would he have been part of the pipeline between the Southern Maryland planters and Richmond? Don't forget that the residents of St. Mary's were just as involved in the underground as those in Prince George's and Charles Counties and that river crossings occurred in that county also.

Laurie:

If Hall, Steers, et al., couldn't get their hands around Dr. Garland, I believe he will most likely remain an elusive figure for a long time.

As for Lincoln, we need to think of the alternative to Union victory to properly assess him, his motives and his methods. Imagine a major power on the North American continent that codified guarantees of slavery in its organic law, i.e. its constitution, and this at a time when all the major powers of the world (Great Britain, France and Russia), and most of the lesser powers, had already abolished the institution. Then imagine the effect of the precedent on the political future of the country. How long would it have been before a state or group of states which were part of the CSA decided that they didn't like what what was going on in Richmond and so pulled out. The Confederate government could hardly have objected inasmuch as they had fought a 4-year war to validate the right of secession. Then imagine the same process in what was left of the United States. How long would it have been before a state or group of states in the North decided that they too didn't like what was going on in the national capital and so pulled out and established a separate county or countries. How long would it have been before the entire country looked like modern-day Europe, with all the attendant fratricide that has characterized that continent prior to the Pax Americana. Few, in my judgment, saw the matter as clearly as Lincoln, which is why he resisted the demands of the abolitionists and the radicals in his own party for immediate abolition of slavery. He knew that to do that would mean loss of the border states and therefore the war and, for the foreseeable future, emancipation. Few besides Lincoln realized that sea changes, fundamental reworkings of the order of things, could only be achieved in the fullness of time, and so he acted accordingly. Yes, he sometimes had to resort to extra-judicial and even extra-constitutional means to assure a favorable result, but as all historians know, it is sometimes necessary to go outside the law to preserve it. That is why the more thoughtful among us, North and South, do not criticize Lincoln, but honor him

John

(09-13-2017 02:34 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 09:58 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Agreed that we are beating a dead horse. I just don't think that anyone nowadays understands the Confederate network (and frustration) in Southern Maryland and the Northern Neck of Virginia. When I first started working at Surratt House, I met a gentleman who was writing a book on Lincoln. He told me that he was amazed at the animosity that still existed among old-timers in Maryland regarding Mr. Lincoln -- more than what he had encountered in the Deep South...

"I don't know anything about Dr. Garland and I don't know anyone who does. Reference to him is made on p. 278 of my book. It derives from an oral statement made by Arnold to James L. McPhail, Provost Marshal of Maryland, to the effect that Booth had corresponded with Drs. Mudd, Garland and Queen."

That reference is exactly what put Tidwell, Hall, and Gaddy on the trail of the elusive Dr. Garland over thirty years ago. Ed Steers worked closely with Hall while researching Blood on the Moon, so I suspect that's why he picked up on the reference also.

At the time, Mr. Hall asked me to use my St. Mary's County roots to see if we could identify Dr. Garland. I wish I still had my notes on the doctor, but I don't. I just remember that there was a Dr. Garland in St. Mary's County at the beginning of the war and that he went south to serve Davis. Would he have been part of the pipeline between the Southern Maryland planters and Richmond? Don't forget that the residents of St. Mary's were just as involved in the underground as those in Prince George's and Charles Counties and that river crossings occurred in that county also.

Laurie:

If Hall, Steers, et al., couldn't get their hands around Dr. Garland, I believe he will most likely remain an elusive figure for a long time.

As for Lincoln, we need to think of the alternative to Union victory to properly assess him, his motives and his methods. Imagine a major power on the North American continent that codified guarantees of slavery in its organic law, i.e. its constitution, and this at a time when all the major powers of the world (Great Britain, France and Russia), and most of the lesser powers, had already abolished the institution. Then imagine the effect of the precedent on the political future of the country. How long would it have been before a state or group of states which were part of the CSA decided that they didn't like what what was going on in Richmond and so pulled out. The Confederate government could hardly have objected inasmuch as they had fought a 4-year war to validate the right of secession. Then imagine the same process in what was left of the United States. How long would it have been before a state or group of states in the North decided that they too didn't like what was going on in the national capital and so pulled out and established a separate county or countries. How long would it have been before the entire country looked like modern-day Europe, with all the attendant fratricide that has characterized that continent prior to the Pax Americana. Few, in my judgment, saw the matter as clearly as Lincoln, which is why he resisted the demands of the abolitionists and the radicals in his own party for immediate abolition of slavery. He knew that to do that would mean loss of the border states and therefore the war and, for the foreseeable future, emancipation. Few besides Lincoln realized that sea changes, fundamental reworkings of the order of things, could only be achieved in the fullness of time, and so he acted accordingly. Yes, he sometimes had to resort to extra-judicial and even extra-constitutional means to assure a favorable result, but as all historians know, it is sometimes necessary to go outside the law to preserve it. That is why the more thoughtful among us, North and South, do not criticize Lincoln, but honor him

John

John - You are preaching to an old history teacher who used that exact same principle to illustrate to my students why a confederation was not an ideal situation for our country -- either at the end of the Revolutionary War or in the mid-19th century.

However, on this date in 2017, it is much easier to play Monday-morning-quarterback than it was for our ancestors who were dealing with some unconstitutional measures being put in place by Mr. Lincoln as well as federal invasions and interventions in states that had not left the Union.

BTW: I am not anti-Lincoln; I find him rather fascinating and, since I am a pragmatist, I understand some of his actions. Likewise, however, I understand the feelings of those who were chafing under his administration's policies and the screeching and wailing of some rabid abolitionists. I find myself chafing under the situation that is occurring today with the screechers and the wailers!

P.S. Have you read the several cogent articles cited by Eva, Darrell, and others about African society and the influence of European nations long before America became the scapegoat??

(09-13-2017 09:58 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  Everyone:

A little clarification re Miss Porterfield. Please Google "Weik a new story of the Lincoln Assassination". Then hit "The Century Illustrated Monthly Magazine". This will take you to the 1913 issue. There, beginning on p. 559, you will find the article. Miss Porterfield was from Greencastle, Indiana. She happened to be in Washington at the time because her mother brought her there. On p. 561 there is the business about Booth asking her how to spell "tyrannis". Reck ("Last 24 Hours") mentions the incident (p. 105) and lists Weik's article as his source. I haven't checked, but it's a good bet that everyone who mentions this exchange between Miss Porterfield and Booth is using the same source--Weik's article. Her account squares well with everything else we know about April 14. It's an interesting read and I am inclined to credit it fairly well. I believe everyone knows that I do not reject tradition too easily. Everything has a root. I found no reference in her account to John Porterfield, the Secret Service agent in Canada.

John

I used the information from The Century article to track down her marriage record:

   

and then used that and the article to find her in

1860 census (transcription errors look at original image):
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MC7M-9BQ

1865 New York census:
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QVNJ-97LL

1855 marriage of her mother and stepfather (3rd record on the right):
https://www.nysoclib.org/sites/default/f...856-28.jpg

and then using the information from that marriage record to find her mother's first marriage record in 1842 in Davidson County, Tennessee:
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:KZ7P-PHZ

Miss Porterfield was Luella Porterfield born around 1847 to Robert Porterfield and Mary Figures. According to the 1860 census, she was born in Kentucky, although that's the only record mentioning her birthplace that I've found so far so that can't be confirmed. Her parents were from Tennessee.

According to this short bio of John Porterfield, the Confederate agent from Nashville Tennessee, he was born in 1819 and died in 1874:
https://books.google.com/books?id=fKqJFX...74&f=false

The Findagrave image of his tombstone:
https://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cg...d=31514052

According to several online trees (which I have yet to confirm) Luella's father, Robert Porterfield, and John Porterfield were brothers. If true, that would make her John Porterfield's niece.

(09-13-2017 03:44 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 02:34 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 09:58 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Agreed that we are beating a dead horse. I just don't think that anyone nowadays understands the Confederate network (and frustration) in Southern Maryland and the Northern Neck of Virginia. When I first started working at Surratt House, I met a gentleman who was writing a book on Lincoln. He told me that he was amazed at the animosity that still existed among old-timers in Maryland regarding Mr. Lincoln -- more than what he had encountered in the Deep South...

"I don't know anything about Dr. Garland and I don't know anyone who does. Reference to him is made on p. 278 of my book. It derives from an oral statement made by Arnold to James L. McPhail, Provost Marshal of Maryland, to the effect that Booth had corresponded with Drs. Mudd, Garland and Queen."

That reference is exactly what put Tidwell, Hall, and Gaddy on the trail of the elusive Dr. Garland over thirty years ago. Ed Steers worked closely with Hall while researching Blood on the Moon, so I suspect that's why he picked up on the reference also.

At the time, Mr. Hall asked me to use my St. Mary's County roots to see if we could identify Dr. Garland. I wish I still had my notes on the doctor, but I don't. I just remember that there was a Dr. Garland in St. Mary's County at the beginning of the war and that he went south to serve Davis. Would he have been part of the pipeline between the Southern Maryland planters and Richmond? Don't forget that the residents of St. Mary's were just as involved in the underground as those in Prince George's and Charles Counties and that river crossings occurred in that county also.

Laurie:

If Hall, Steers, et al., couldn't get their hands around Dr. Garland, I believe he will most likely remain an elusive figure for a long time.

As for Lincoln, we need to think of the alternative to Union victory to properly assess him, his motives and his methods. Imagine a major power on the North American continent that codified guarantees of slavery in its organic law, i.e. its constitution, and this at a time when all the major powers of the world (Great Britain, France and Russia), and most of the lesser powers, had already abolished the institution. Then imagine the effect of the precedent on the political future of the country. How long would it have been before a state or group of states which were part of the CSA decided that they didn't like what what was going on in Richmond and so pulled out. The Confederate government could hardly have objected inasmuch as they had fought a 4-year war to validate the right of secession. Then imagine the same process in what was left of the United States. How long would it have been before a state or group of states in the North decided that they too didn't like what was going on in the national capital and so pulled out and established a separate county or countries. How long would it have been before the entire country looked like modern-day Europe, with all the attendant fratricide that has characterized that continent prior to the Pax Americana. Few, in my judgment, saw the matter as clearly as Lincoln, which is why he resisted the demands of the abolitionists and the radicals in his own party for immediate abolition of slavery. He knew that to do that would mean loss of the border states and therefore the war and, for the foreseeable future, emancipation. Few besides Lincoln realized that sea changes, fundamental reworkings of the order of things, could only be achieved in the fullness of time, and so he acted accordingly. Yes, he sometimes had to resort to extra-judicial and even extra-constitutional means to assure a favorable result, but as all historians know, it is sometimes necessary to go outside the law to preserve it. That is why the more thoughtful among us, North and South, do not criticize Lincoln, but honor him

John

John - You are preaching to an old history teacher who used that exact same principle to illustrate to my students why a confederation was not an ideal situation for our country -- either at the end of the Revolutionary War or in the mid-19th century.

However, on this date in 2017, it is much easier to play Monday-morning-quarterback than it was for our ancestors who were dealing with some unconstitutional measures being put in place by Mr. Lincoln as well as federal invasions and interventions in states that had not left the Union.

BTW: I am not anti-Lincoln; I find him rather fascinating and, since I am a pragmatist, I understand some of his actions. Likewise, however, I understand the feelings of those who were chafing under his administration's policies and the screeching and wailing of some rabid abolitionists. I find myself chafing under the situation that is occurring today with the screechers and the wailers!

P.S. Have you read the several cogent articles cited by Eva, Darrell, and others about African society and the influence of European nations long before America became the scapegoat??

Laurie:

Your perceptions, or, more accurately, your understanding of the perceptions of both sides, is praiseworthy.

As Jesus said of the poor, "screechers and wailers" we will always have with us.

No, I haven't read the articles you refer to, but I'll check them out.

John

---

(09-14-2017 02:15 AM)Steve Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 09:58 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  Everyone:

A little clarification re Miss Porterfield. Please Google "Weik a new story of the Lincoln Assassination". Then hit "The Century Illustrated Monthly Magazine". This will take you to the 1913 issue. There, beginning on p. 559, you will find the article. Miss Porterfield was from Greencastle, Indiana. She happened to be in Washington at the time because her mother brought her there. On p. 561 there is the business about Booth asking her how to spell "tyrannis". Reck ("Last 24 Hours") mentions the incident (p. 105) and lists Weik's article as his source. I haven't checked, but it's a good bet that everyone who mentions this exchange between Miss Porterfield and Booth is using the same source--Weik's article. Her account squares well with everything else we know about April 14. It's an interesting read and I am inclined to credit it fairly well. I believe everyone knows that I do not reject tradition too easily. Everything has a root. I found no reference in her account to John Porterfield, the Secret Service agent in Canada.

John

I used the information from The Century article to track down her marriage record:



and then used that and the article to find her in

1860 census (transcription errors look at original image):
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MC7M-9BQ

1865 New York census:
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QVNJ-97LL

1855 marriage of her mother and stepfather (3rd record on the right):
https://www.nysoclib.org/sites/default/f...856-28.jpg

and then using the information from that marriage record to find her mother's first marriage record in 1842 in Davidson County, Tennessee:
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:KZ7P-PHZ

Miss Porterfield was Luella Porterfield born around 1847 to Robert Porterfield and Mary Figures. According to the 1860 census, she was born in Kentucky, although that's the only record mentioning her birthplace that I've found so far so that can't be confirmed. Her parents were from Tennessee.

According to this short bio of John Porterfield, the Confederate agent from Nashville Tennessee, he was born in 1819 and died in 1874:
https://books.google.com/books?id=fKqJFX...74&f=false

The Findagrave image of his tombstone:
https://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cg...d=31514052

According to several online trees (which I have yet to confirm) Luella's father, Robert Porterfield, and John Porterfield were brothers. If true, that would make her John Porterfield's niece.

Steve:

Fantastic work! Your are a master of your craft. Thank you.

John

(09-13-2017 09:58 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Agreed that we are beating a dead horse. I just don't think that anyone nowadays understands the Confederate network (and frustration) in Southern Maryland and the Northern Neck of Virginia. When I first started working at Surratt House, I met a gentleman who was writing a book on Lincoln. He told me that he was amazed at the animosity that still existed among old-timers in Maryland regarding Mr. Lincoln -- more than what he had encountered in the Deep South...

"I don't know anything about Dr. Garland and I don't know anyone who does. Reference to him is made on p. 278 of my book. It derives from an oral statement made by Arnold to James L. McPhail, Provost Marshal of Maryland, to the effect that Booth had corresponded with Drs. Mudd, Garland and Queen."

That reference is exactly what put Tidwell, Hall, and Gaddy on the trail of the elusive Dr. Garland over thirty years ago. Ed Steers worked closely with Hall while researching Blood on the Moon, so I suspect that's why he picked up on the reference also.

At the time, Mr. Hall asked me to use my St. Mary's County roots to see if we could identify Dr. Garland. I wish I still had my notes on the doctor, but I don't. I just remember that there was a Dr. Garland in St. Mary's County at the beginning of the war and that he went south to serve Davis. Would he have been part of the pipeline between the Southern Maryland planters and Richmond? Don't forget that the residents of St. Mary's were just as involved in the underground as those in Prince George's and Charles Counties and that river crossings occurred in that county also.

Have you considered the possibility that Arnold misremembered Garland's last name? Maybe it was actually a similar surname that was more common in the area, like Gardiner.

(09-14-2017 05:09 PM)Steve Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 09:58 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Agreed that we are beating a dead horse. I just don't think that anyone nowadays understands the Confederate network (and frustration) in Southern Maryland and the Northern Neck of Virginia. When I first started working at Surratt House, I met a gentleman who was writing a book on Lincoln. He told me that he was amazed at the animosity that still existed among old-timers in Maryland regarding Mr. Lincoln -- more than what he had encountered in the Deep South...

"I don't know anything about Dr. Garland and I don't know anyone who does. Reference to him is made on p. 278 of my book. It derives from an oral statement made by Arnold to James L. McPhail, Provost Marshal of Maryland, to the effect that Booth had corresponded with Drs. Mudd, Garland and Queen."

That reference is exactly what put Tidwell, Hall, and Gaddy on the trail of the elusive Dr. Garland over thirty years ago. Ed Steers worked closely with Hall while researching Blood on the Moon, so I suspect that's why he picked up on the reference also.

At the time, Mr. Hall asked me to use my St. Mary's County roots to see if we could identify Dr. Garland. I wish I still had my notes on the doctor, but I don't. I just remember that there was a Dr. Garland in St. Mary's County at the beginning of the war and that he went south to serve Davis. Would he have been part of the pipeline between the Southern Maryland planters and Richmond? Don't forget that the residents of St. Mary's were just as involved in the underground as those in Prince George's and Charles Counties and that river crossings occurred in that county also.

Have you considered the possibility that Arnold misremembered Garland's last name? Maybe it was actually a similar surname that was more common in the area, like Gardiner.

I did find a reference to a Dr. Garland; I just don't remember where thirty-plus years later. Your suggestion is a logical one -- Gardiners, however, were/are more prevalent in Charles County instead of St. Mary's.

John, here is John Surratt's version of the kidnapping plot. What parts do you think are true (if any), and what parts do you think are false?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"After some difficulty everything was amicably arranged and we separated at 5 o'clock in the morning. Days, weeks and months passed by without an opportunity presenting itself for us to attempt the capture. We seldom saw one another owing to the many rumors afloat that a conspiracy of some kind was being concocted in Washington. We had all the arrangements perfected from Washington for the purpose. Boats were in readiness to carry us across the river. One day we received information that the President would visit the Seventh Street Hospital for the purpose of being present at an entertainment to be given for the benefit of the wounded soldiers. The report only reached us about three quarters of an hour before the time appointed, but so perfect was our communication that we were instantly in our saddles on the way to the hospital. This was between one and two o'clock in the afternoon. It was our intention to seize the carriage, which was drawn by a splendid pair of horses, and to have one of our men mount the box and drive direct for southern Maryland via Benning's bridge. We felt confident that all the cavalry in the city could never overhaul us. We were all mounted on swift horses, besides having a thorough knowledge of the country, it was determined to abandon the carriage after passing the city limits. Upon the suddenness of the blow and the celerity of our movements we depended for success. By the time the alarm could have been given and horses saddled, we would have been on our way through southern Maryland towards the Potomac River. To our great disappointment, however, the President was not there but one of the government officials - Mr. [Salmon P.] Chase, if I mistake not. We did not disturb him, as we wanted a bigger chase than he could have afforded us. It was certainly a bitter disappointment, but yet I think a most fortunate one for us. It was our last attempt. We soon after this became convinced that we could not remain much longer undiscovered, and that we must abandon our enterprise. Accordingly, a separation finally took place, and I never saw any of the party except one, and that was when I was on my way from Richmond to Canada on business of quite a different nature - about which, presently. Such is the story of our abduction plot."

(09-14-2017 06:05 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 05:09 PM)Steve Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 09:58 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Agreed that we are beating a dead horse. I just don't think that anyone nowadays understands the Confederate network (and frustration) in Southern Maryland and the Northern Neck of Virginia. When I first started working at Surratt House, I met a gentleman who was writing a book on Lincoln. He told me that he was amazed at the animosity that still existed among old-timers in Maryland regarding Mr. Lincoln -- more than what he had encountered in the Deep South...

"I don't know anything about Dr. Garland and I don't know anyone who does. Reference to him is made on p. 278 of my book. It derives from an oral statement made by Arnold to James L. McPhail, Provost Marshal of Maryland, to the effect that Booth had corresponded with Drs. Mudd, Garland and Queen."

That reference is exactly what put Tidwell, Hall, and Gaddy on the trail of the elusive Dr. Garland over thirty years ago. Ed Steers worked closely with Hall while researching Blood on the Moon, so I suspect that's why he picked up on the reference also.

At the time, Mr. Hall asked me to use my St. Mary's County roots to see if we could identify Dr. Garland. I wish I still had my notes on the doctor, but I don't. I just remember that there was a Dr. Garland in St. Mary's County at the beginning of the war and that he went south to serve Davis. Would he have been part of the pipeline between the Southern Maryland planters and Richmond? Don't forget that the residents of St. Mary's were just as involved in the underground as those in Prince George's and Charles Counties and that river crossings occurred in that county also.

Have you considered the possibility that Arnold misremembered Garland's last name? Maybe it was actually a similar surname that was more common in the area, like Gardiner.

I did find a reference to a Dr. Garland; I just don't remember where thirty-plus years later. Your suggestion is a logical one -- Gardiners, however, were/are more prevalent in Charles County instead of St. Mary's.

I found a Dr. Garland who has a link to St. Mary's County, although pretty tenuous and his biography doesn't seem like it matches what I've read of Arnold's description. Also he lived in Washington DC at the time, so I'm not sure why Booth would meet him in Maryland.

Dr. John Belfield Garland was an assistant surgeon at Stanton Military Hospital in Washington:

https://books.google.com/books?id=ulg9AQ...on&f=false

and

https://books.google.com/books?id=MVtXAA...22&f=false

Garland's parents were married in St. Mary Co. Maryland, although he grew up in Richmond:

https://books.google.com/books?id=55I38F...22&f=false

and transcription of the 1802 St. Mary's Co. Maryland marriage of his parents, Peter Rust Garland and Winifred Belfield:
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:F4NB-VHZ

I'm pretty skeptical this is the same person (especially since he's working at a Union hospital), but I thought I'd post it anyway to see what your thoughts are. Even if it's not the same person, maybe he's somehow related to the right Dr. Garland.

I think my memory is coming back regarding the supposed "Dr. Garland" who went south to serve as a doctor to Jefferson Davis -- and I owe everyone an apology. The Dr. Garland was actually Dr. AYP Garnett. From genealogytrails.com/main/jeffersondavis.html

"Jefferson Davis was lucky in that one of his Washington physicians was so pro-Southern in his sympathies that he felt it advisable for him to spend the war period in Richmond. There among his other services for the Confederacy was the care of the health of President Davis and his family.

"A.Y.P. Garnett
A".Y.P. Garnett was born Sept. 19, 1819, and died July 11, 1888. He was the son of Muscoe Garnett; was born on the Rappannock River in Essex County, Virginia. He graduated in medicine from the Medical Department of the University of Pennsylvania in 1841. On June 13, 1848, he married Mary E. Wise, a daughter of Henry A. Wise, governor of Virginia. He settled near Washington. D.C. where he enjoyed a large practice in the families of men prominent in public life, including the family of Senator Davis. In 1851 he had some service in connection with the U. S. Navy.
He removed from Washington to Richmond in 1861 and returned to Washington in 1865.
In Richmond he was personal physician to Jefferson Davis and served in two military hospitals. Later, he was president of the American Medical Association. He died at Rehobeth Beach, Delaware, of heart disease. Washington sketches of physicians teem with fine references to Dr. Garnett."

I now vaguely remember searching for Garland in the records of the St. Mary's County Historical Society and finding reference to the Peter Garland that Steve mentioned above. However, I could never make the connection with a later generation being in Southern Maryland and in a position to conspire with the original kidnapping or later murder of Lincoln -- even though many Southern Maryland planters would gladly have joined forces in the conspiracy, I'm sure.

Would like to know where Dr. Garnett lived while in the DC area.