Yesterday, I rec'd an email from a woman questioning the provenance of the Booth spurs that are on display at Ford's Theatre and at the Naval Academy in Annapolis. Our research librarian quickly went to the James O. Hall files and produced the following reply (which, honestly, does not give a conclusive answer:

Our cornerstone collection of materials compiled by James O. Hall has a file devoted to the subject of spurs attributed to Booth. His note on the front of the file sums up his conclusion: “There are too many Booth spurs in the several references. So this file is more to satisfy my curiosity. I have no idea what happened to the spur said to have been found on the stage of Ford’s, or whether it was indeed Booth’s.”

Some details-
• How many spurs are there?
o A legitimate spur, location not confirmed at present, reported on by the NY Daily Tribune on April 17, 1865, and in the possession of Washington Superintendent of Police, A.C. Richards, who notified the government he would turn it over when needed (see document on microfilm reel M-599, reel 2, frame 0797, National Archives (our library has this microfilm also). Where did it end up??? It appears to have been in the government’s possession at the time of the trial and again listed in 1942, only to “disappear” again (see note below re Exhibit 21).
o The Ford’s Spur- The one on display at Ford’s (Left side spur)- supposedly bought by Oldroyd from the Mudds (Mrs. Dr. S.A. Mudd, precisely)- but as Ms. Anderson at Ford’s tells us, this story lacks documentation.
o The Ream’s Spur- The one at the Naval Academy with confirmed provenance- broken in 2 pieces and picked up at Ford’s by a Union solider who welded them together poorly, and given to the museum by a collateral descendent in honor of a vet killed in Korea. This is likely the spur from when Booth became entangled with the Treasury Guards flag at Ford’s (so the story goes).
o The spur brought back from the Garrett place by EJ Conger (See Poore, Vol. I, pp318-319; and Trial of John H. Surratt, Vol. I, p 314- we have both volumes here at our library)-

• So it seems there are several places he may have lost a spur- at Fords, at Mudd’s, and at Garrett’s.
• The file contains a photo of the Ream’s spur at the US Naval Academy, take on 9/23/1973 by John C. Brennan outside of the display case and sent to Mr. Hall.
• The file contains photocopies of pictures of the Ford’s spur- I’m sure the link provided by Ms. Anderson is a better picture than that.
• It is worth noting that at the trial of the conspirators, exhibit #21 is listed as a “brass spur.” It is not included on the list of exhibit/ trial items turned over to Ford’s Theater (referred to as the Lincoln Museum) on Feb 5, 1940. Mr. Hall made the observation that the spur disappears from the 1908 War Dept listing of Booth items in its possession, and then reappears in the 1942 listing. Hall made the conclusions that the original spur was lost or misplaced by 1908 and the one listed in 1942 was the one purchased by Oldroyd.

The core of the trouble comes down to too many spurs with too little proven provenance. Also at issue is that the Ford’s and Ream’s spurs (as you note) are so dissimilar that they would not be worn together at the same time. The question was even raised as to whether or not Booth would have worn one or two spurs that evening. Mr. Hall’s file is not terribly thick (1/4 inch or so) but does contain some pretty interesting details about his search for the spur truth and correspondence along the way (going all the way back to 1946, believe it or not!).

The following is the reply that we rec'd from Laura Anderson, Curator at Ford's Theatre, regarding the spur on display there:

The spur came to us as part of the Osborn Oldroyd collection of Lincolnia that was purchased by the federal government in 1926 and eventually handed over to the National Park Service in 1933. When the Oldroyd estate was settled, the executors unfortunately separated out most of his correspondence and papers from what they considered Lincoln objects. The papers were either dispersed to various repositories or sadly disposed of. The government ended up with what the executors considered the Lincoln objects.

As a result, we have very little documentation for how Mr. Oldroyd acquired his collection. Of the objects that have some documentation, it is a mix of good and poor provenance. We do not have any documentation for the spur. I am not familiar with the provenance of the spur at the Naval Academy Museum. Hopefully they have better documentation. If not, I suspect this will never be truly proven. There were so many people claiming to have items associated with the assassination that it is wise to be skeptical of all claims without a really reliable chain of custody from a reputable source.

A photo of the Ford's Theatre National Historic Site spur can be found on the Library of Congress website:

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/h...010630750/

So the Booth spur is spurious?

Very interesting about the spurs. I don't believe I ever heard/read that he lost a spur at Ford's. If he did, he probably did not or could not replace it as he made his escape. When he died at Garrett's with his one boot on it probably contained a spur. I can understand the other spur being left at Mudd's on the one boot. I doubt if he had loose spurs on his person or if Davey had any extras. Maybe the number of spurs can match the number of people who said they were at Ford's on April 14th. They would fill a modern football stadium.

Ok, excuse my ignorance ... I'm sure one of you cowboys/cowgirls knows ... what effect does it have to ride with just one spur? Or would a person prefer to remove the remaining spur and ride totally spurless ... if there is such a word.

(01-25-2018 06:31 AM)AussieMick Wrote:  Ok, excuse my ignorance ... I'm sure one of you cowboys/cowgirls knows ... what effect does it have to ride with just one spur? Or would a person prefer to remove the remaining spur and ride totally spurless ... if there is such a word.

In this case not much. If he used the spur it would have been in Baptist Alley only and from what I've read the horse needed little encouragement to leave the scene. I agree with Gene on this point.

I'm sure one of you cowboys/cowgirls knows ... what effect does it have to ride with just one spur?

I was hoping that either Wild Bill or Rick Smith would pick up on this and comment. Bill is an Arizona cowboy and retired farrier, and Rick's family raised Thoroughbreds and rode to the hounds. He's an expert horseman. Know-nothing me just assumed that riders who wore spurs always had them on both boots.

A spur is used for more than speed--it also helps control a mount. In the old days, cowboys general spurred a horse for turning by hitting the steed in the opposite shoulder of a turn. So the horse turned away from the spur. Often the horse was trained in front of a prickly per cactus patch. It inly took one misfire to remind the horse to turn there after. A kick in the ribs was the "go" sign. Cowboys use a spur with a small rowel, and Mexican vaqueros use a big rowel. Rowels also were useful in a bar fight of you could get your opponent on the ground first. There are specialty spurs for bull riding and bronc riding in rodeos. The shank is tilted toward the horse or bull and the more you spur the more points you get.

Cavalrymen generally spurred the flanks of the horse for speed or to turn the horse around the spur. These spurs were nothing more than a immoveable ball on the end of the shank.

(01-25-2018 09:40 AM)L Verge Wrote:  I'm sure one of you cowboys/cowgirls knows ... what effect does it have to ride with just one spur?

I was hoping that either Wild Bill or Rick Smith would pick up on this and comment. Bill is an Arizona cowboy and retired farrier, and Rick's family raised Thoroughbreds and rode to the hounds. He's an expert horseman. Know-nothing me just assumed that riders who wore spurs always had them on both boots.

Laurie,

I don't know anyone who rode wearing only one spur. The spurs I wore in the hunt field were of a style called Prince of Wales spurs; silver, short, & blunt. Spurs are used not only to goad a horse to move faster, but also to get his attention, much as a riding crop is used for the same purpose. I have another pair very much like the Prince of Wales, but they have a small, blunted rowel. I never used these, as I preferred the others. Seems to me that using / wearing only one spur would present two problems. First, that you would look odd, since even in the hunt field you want to be dressed appropriately and second, goading with one spur would be limiting, since spurs are also used to help give direction, not only to signal a need to move faster.

Rick

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

Rick sent me this image. He writes, "It is of one of my spurs on my boot. The Prince of Wales spur is just like this, but with a blunt end."

I think it's very reasonable to believe that Booth lost both a hat and a spur at Ford's. While Ford's spur may be dubious, the lost hat is well documented (and long gone), but the spur story has some meat on it.



Contemporary reports say Booth's spur made "a rent in the baize green carpet" of the stage. This Brady photo shows what is most likely this damage.

Although dubious as well, an EBay auction recently offered some items from the purported collection of the Lafayette Baker family. Included was a red handkerchief (Terry Alford stated Mrs. Quesenberry wrapped his food in a red handkerchief) and a spur identical to the one Ford's purports was Booth's.

   

It's a stretch, but stranger things have surfaced. Do your own math, folks...

After I posed the subject of the spurious spurs, Rick visited me on Friday at work. Unfortunately, I was running out the door for an appointment, but I did manage to ask him a question about one detail that was bothering me. I thought I knew the answer, but Rick confirmed it.

I wanted to know how spurs are attached to the boot, and the answer that Rick gave was via a strap. It seems to me that, unless that strap was severely worn out, it would have been difficult for either the floor cloth or the flag to have caused that spur to come off at Ford's Theatre -- unless the metal spur itself broke. I suspect that the dandy Mr. Booth never wore things that were defective - especially knowing what his travels would be like in the near future.

Without being able to prove a thing, my gut instinct is to say that the best provenance for the two spurs leads to the one that Oldroyd bought from Mrs. Dr. Mudd (then a widow and if it had been taken off the boot before the troops confiscated the boot in 1865)) and the one retrieved at Garrett's farm. However, the fact that the spur at the Naval Academy has been broken and repaired (when and by whom?) does lend credence to the break occurring when Booth landed wrong on the stage - and contributed to his broken leg???

Or, if we believe that the leg was broken when Booth's horse fell somewhere outside the city, could the weight of that horse or the angle of the fall have also broken or dislodged the spur? There's too much to speculate on once again, and that's what keeps the assassination story alive.

(01-28-2018 12:38 PM)L Verge Wrote:  However, the fact that the spur at the Naval Academy has been broken and repaired (when and by whom?) does lend credence to the break occurring when Booth landed wrong on the stage - and contributed to his broken leg???

I don't see how a broken spur combined with a myth makes the Naval Academy's spur anything more than just a story. Following the trail of evidence, this spur has no beginning. Somebody probably broke it, tried to repair it to make it useful and failing that found some sucker and sold him a piece of junk and a story.

Further to the issue of when Booth broke his leg ... I would have expected more in the audience to have commented upon the clumsy landing and collapse, a pause, and for there to be a yell of pain or at least a gasp of pain (yes, I know there'd be lots of screaming and shouting but nevertheless his Sic Semper Tyrannis was heard). I can understand the possibility that he'd have adrenaline pumping when he rushed across the stage. But I do have my credibility strained when he arrived at his horse. Simply climbing on would have surely required quite an amount of pressure going on that leg. (Of course, he could have assistance.)
This means that people were standing around whilst a hobbling (armed) killer push his way through a crowd, manage to climb on a waiting horse, and gallop (?) away with one spur.

(01-28-2018 03:21 PM)AussieMick Wrote:  Further to the issue of when Booth broke his leg ... I would have expected more in the audience to have commented upon the clumsy landing and collapse, a pause, and for there to be a yell of pain or at least a gasp of pain (yes, I know there'd be lots of screaming and shouting but nevertheless his Sic Semper Tyrannis was heard). I can understand the possibility that he'd have adrenaline pumping when he rushed across the stage. But I do have my credibility strained when he arrived at his horse. Simply climbing on would have surely required quite an amount of pressure going on that leg. (Of course, he could have assistance.)
This means that people were standing around whilst a hobbling (armed) killer push his way through a crowd, manage to climb on a waiting horse, and gallop (?) away with one spur.

Like the way you think Mick. You'll find all our arguments over that question here:

Lincoln Discussion Symposium / Lincoln Discussion Symposium / Assassination v / Breaking a leg

Feel free to comment on it. Laurie loves discussing this topic.

AussieMick - Love you, m'dear, but as an old-time believer in the original version of Booth breaking his leg in his leap over the balustrade at Ford's, my hackles (whatever they are?) arise whenever the subject comes up. We have covered this subject ad nauseum on this forum, and I hope that Roger can point you to the numerous comments made over the past five years. They should explain the delay in the surprised audience's reaction, the true severity of Booth's injury, and how he could mount that horse

From my perspective, I have dealt with the controversy for over 25 years, ever since Mike Kauffman started mentioning his theory while narrating the Surratt Society's Booth escape route tours. To me, it is a subject that will never have a conclusive answer and. as I have frequently told visitors to the museum, - including busloads of Smithsonian tours each year - where and how Booth broke his leg is really not germane to the story of the assassination. The murderous deed was done, and we can prove that. That deed is what had a lasting effect on American history.

Besides Booth (and maybe Herold who chose to stick with his pal), only Dr. Mudd was perhaps affected by the broken leg. People who know me also know that I think the fugitives were heading to Mudd's house anyhow - having alerted the doctor the day before that the strike was coming very soon and to prepare the underground forces. Mudd's house was to be a layover during daylight hours on April 15, whether Booth broke his leg or not. That's my theory, and I'm sticking to it just like Mike and others stick to their theory on the broken leg.

Thanks. As I was writing my post I thought ... surely this (broken leg) has been discussed before. So, I was right ... as I usually am.