Below are some of the documented facts that most books on the Lincoln assassination either ignore or severely minimize.

* The military commission that tried and convicted eight alleged Booth conspirators relied heavily on fabricated evidence and false testimony, much of it coerced. Some of the “evidence” that the commission allowed would have been comical if the matter had not been so serious, and some of this evidence was mocked in the press at the time.

One of these items of phony evidence was a letter that implicated Confederate leaders in the Lincoln assassination. This letter supposedly floated in a harbor for days but emerged easily readable and with barely any signs of water contact.

Another item of dubious evidence was a scrap of paper that seemed to implicate Dr. Samuel Mudd. The scrap was supposedly found in a fireplace in a saloon weeks after the fact, having miraculously survived several fires in the fireplace.

More items of dubious evidence were two letters that a Mrs. Hudspeth claimed were left behind on a horse car by two mysterious strangers who were whispering to each other! One of the letters mentioned that “Abe must die.”

* One of the military commission’s chief witnesses was later proven to be an imposter and was convicted of perjury.

* The military commission suppressed all evidence that indicated that Booth did not seriously contemplate murdering Lincoln until the day of the assassination.

* According to a 1977 FBI analysis, 86 pages were removed from Booth’s diary after the War Department took possession of it.

* In the part of Booth’s diary that survived, Booth, among other things, denied being behind the attack on Secretary of State William Seward.

* The identification of Lewis Powell as William Seward’s attacker is usually portrayed as being ironclad and airtight, when in fact there are enormous discrepancies in the accounts of the witnesses who identified Powell as the attacker. For example, State Department messenger Emerick Hansell initially said that the man who attacked Seward was Seward’s mentally disturbed son Augustus. Seward’s wife initially said that she could not identify Lewis Powell as the man who attacked her husband. Another witness, George Robinson, initially said that the attacker was heavy-set with light hair and a mustache and beard (“whiskers”), whereas Powell was tall, thin, clean-shaven, and had dark hair.

* The War Department chose to ignore evidence that pointed to other suspects in the assassination conspiracy. In some cases, they had some of these suspects in custody, but they turned them loose with no explanation, even though they had more evidence against them than they did against some of the eight alleged conspirators who were tried and convicted.

* The military commission suppressed Booth’s November 1864 “manifesto,” partly because in that document Booth complained that he had received no help from the South. Booth gave the letter to his brother-in-law, John Clarke, in November 1864. Clarke opened it right after the assassination and immediately gave it to a U.S. Marshal, who in turn shared the letter with the Philadelphia Inquirer, which published the letter two days after the assassination. The War Department sprang into action. Military police confiscated the letter and arrested Clarke, and the letter was not published in any other newspaper and was never entered into evidence at the conspiracy trial.

* The military commission’s case against Edmun (Ned) Spangler was bogus and would have been rejected in a civilian trial, but the commission found him guilty of aiding Booth and sentenced him to six years in prison. The chief witness against Spangler was a fellow Ford’s Theater worker named Jacob Ritterspaugh. Lafayette Baker, a notorious thug assigned by Secretary of War Edwin Stanton to help with the conspiracy investigation, was overhead threatening Ritterspaugh with prolonged imprisonment if he did not lie about what Spangler said to him during the first few minutes after the shooting. The witnesses who saw a suspicious man in the back alley said the man had a mustache, but Spangler was never known to have a mustache. A number of witnesses testified that Spangler never left the stage area after the play started and that he remained there during the immediate aftermath of the shooting. Several witnesses cast serious doubt on Ritterspaugh’s story.

* Secretary of War Stanton failed to warn President Lincoln about a foreign assassination plot against Secretary of State Seward.

* When Lincoln asked Stanton on the night of the assassination if he could have Major Thomas Eckert as a guard, Stanton falsely told him that Eckert had to perform important duties that night and could not be spared. We know about this thanks to David Homer Bates, who was the manager of the War Department’s telegraph office from 1861-1866. Bates’ information is especially revealing because Bates admired Stanton and had no idea that Stanton was lying when he said that Eckert could not be spared that night. Bates merely stated that Lincoln asked Stanton to let him take Eckert as his guard that night, and that Stanton said that Eckert had important duties that night and could not leave. Bates took Stanton at his word and had no clue that he was lying.

* Not a single person along the manhunt trail from Washington to Garrett’s farm—including the guard at the Navy Yard Bridge, Dr. Mudd, and Samuel Cox—positively identified David Herold as the person who rode with Booth.

* The Garretts said they saw the man named Boyd writing in a small black book. Traditionalists have claimed that this is further evidence that Boyd was really Booth and that the Garretts saw Booth writing in his diary. However, Booth’s diary was red, and his last entry was two days before the Garretts said they saw Boyd writing in his black book.

* The War Department claimed that Detective John Lee found evidence in George Atzerodt’s hotel room that linked him to Booth and David Herold. This evidence consisted of a knife, a revolver, a map of Virginia, and a coat belonging to David Herold that had Booth’s bankbook in it. But the hotel clerk who accompanied Lee to the room said he only saw Lee find a revolver.

It boggles the mind to think that Booth would have trusted a person like Herold with his bankbook. It is also hard to imagine that even Herold would have left his coat in plain view if he knew it contained Booth’s bankbook. Why would Herold have bothered to hide the gun and knife but leave in plain view his coat that supposedly contained such damning evidence?

* Nearly all books on the Lincoln case repeat the claim that the initials JWB were seen on the body that was examined and autopsied on the USS Montauk. But when one looks at the evidence behind this claim, one sees that it is highly suspect and problematic. Of all the people on the Montauk who gave statements that day about what they had seen, only one, National Hotel clerk Charles Dawson, claimed to have seen the initials. The autopsy doctors did not mention seeing them, nor did Dr. May, nor did any of the other witnesses who gave statements that day.

* Out of all the witnesses who saw the body on the Montauk that day, not one of them mentioned seeing any of the accident-caused scars that Booth was known to have.

* The body on the Montauk bore so little resemblance to Booth that Major Eckert did not want any photos taken of the body.

* Dr. May and Lawrence Gardner said that the corpse’s face was heavily freckled (“very much freckled”), but Booth had no freckles. Traditionalists have no credible, science-based explanation for how a dead body could magically sprout freckles on its face. Livormortis does not cause freckling but rather causes dark discoloration of the skin in large patches or over large areas, and only in those areas that were closest to the ground when the discoloration occurred. There is no known case in the history of forensic science of livormortis causing freckles to appear on a person’s face after death.

* The body examined at Weaver’s funeral home in 1869 only had one filled tooth, whereas Booth was known to have had two fillings, and the hair on the body’s head was 10-12 inches longer than Booth’s hair, which is important because hair only grows a fraction of an inch, if at all, after death.

* Forensic science tells us that the bullet that struck the neck of the man autopsied on the Montauk—the man who was shot in Garrett’s barn—must have been a rifle bullet, not a pistol bullet as the War Department claimed. This means that Sergeant Boston Corbett could not have been the one who shot the man in Garrett’s barn. When Dr. Barnes first specified what kind of bullet struck the neck, he said it was a rifle bullet.

* The military commission’s chief witness against the eight accused Booth conspirators, Louis Weichmann, was discredited at the John Surratt trial in 1867. Several witnesses stated that they heard Weichmann being threatened if he did not say what the authorities wanted him to say or that Weichmann told them this was the case. Many of Weichmann’s claims were proven to be problematic, and some of them were proven to be impossible.

* The military commission claimed that John Surratt was in Washington on the day of the assassination, but Surratt’s attorneys at his 1867 trial presented powerful evidence that he was in New York that day. Even some traditionalist scholars now concede that Surratt was in New York that day.

Some of the books that document these facts are Theodore Roscoe’s book The Web of Conspiracy, Dr. Robert Arnold’s book The Conspiracy Between John Wilkes Booth and the Union Army to Assassinate Abraham Lincoln, Leonard Guttridge and Ray Neff’s book Dark Union, Dan Thomas’s books The Reason Lincoln Had to Die and The Reason Booth Had to Die, Thomas Bogar’s book Backstage at the Lincoln Assassination, and David Dewitt’s book The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln and Its Expiation.

I suggest you write a better or the best (evidenced) book then instead of doing all the talking.
BTW, I miss a documented reply to the questions put to you here:
http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussio...age-8.html

(11-27-2018 08:10 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  I suggest you write a better or the best (evidenced) book then instead of doing all the talking.
BTW, I miss a documented reply to the questions put to you here:
http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussio...age-8.html

Those questions were rather silly and displayed a surprisingly poor grasp of the case. I just now responded to some of them.

And I take it you're not going to bother trying to substantively address any of the facts I mentioned?

Mike,

I've addressed, in my own way, as many of the questions that I can bear to ...

* The military commission that tried and convicted eight alleged Booth conspirators relied heavily on fabricated evidence and false testimony, much of it coerced.

relied heavily ? thats your opinion? also 'fabricated evidence and false testimony' that's your opinion?

(the examples you gave , letter found in water, and Mudd's letter in fireplace, Mrs Hudspeth .... were these relied on heavily as evidence? ... many fireplaces do not actually have fires ... its quite possible in late April that a fire was not lit).


* One of the military commission’s chief witnesses was later proven to be an imposter and was convicted of perjury.


Name? Are you saying his evidence at the commission was worthless ?


* The military commission suppressed all evidence that indicated that Booth did not seriously contemplate murdering Lincoln until the day of the assassination.
What evidence? Who knows what he was contemplating and when?


* According to a 1977 FBI analysis, 86 pages were removed from Booth’s diary after the War Department took possession of it.

If you're going to be considered worthwhile you need to give links to these type of documents. How do they know 86 ( or 87 or 23 or 12 or ....) pages were removed?

* In the part of Booth’s diary that survived, Booth, among other things, denied being behind the attack on Secretary of State William Seward.


Oh, well ... if Booth says that he was not behind the attack then that's an end to the matter !!!


(Nothing about Col. Clarence Cobb?)

Mike Griffith wrote: "* According to a 1977 FBI analysis, 86 pages were removed from Booth’s diary after the War Department took possession of it."

Mike, I had read the FBI archives on its 1977 examination of the diary before, and I recently re-read it. Where did you find reference to this finding; specifically that the pages were removed after the War Department took possession of it? I could not find it in the FBI archives.

One of the biggest ignored facts is that Lincoln and the Radicals were far apart on Reconstruction and that the Radicals bitterly opposed Lincoln’s lenient, forgiving approach. This ignored fact is accompanied by the Big Lie myth that shortly before Lincoln died, he moved close to the Radical position on Reconstruction and therefore no Radicals had any motive to assassinate him. Incredible as it may seem, this myth is based almost entirely on Attorney General James Speed’s claim that at the April 14 cabinet meeting, held less than 14 hours before he was shot, Lincoln “never seemed so near” the Radical view on Reconstruction.

Now, of course, this was the same James Speed who issued the obscene legal opinion that it was perfectly constitutional to try the alleged Booth conspirators in a military court, even though civilian courts were open and operating, and he based this erroneous opinion on the unproven—and later debunked—claim that Booth and his gang had acted on orders and with backing from Confederate leaders, including Jefferson Davis himself.

Anyway, back to Speed’s claim about what Lincoln said at the April 14 cabinet meeting. Interior Secretary John Usher and Navy Secretary Gideon Welles remembered Lincoln’s statements at that meeting very differently from how Speed did. Smith recalled that Lincoln expressed “charity for all” on Reconstruction. Gideon Welles gave us a detailed account of the meeting, which is 180 degrees different from Speed’s claim:

The President said he proposed to bring forward that subject, although he had not had time as yet to give much attention to the details of the paper which the Secretary of War had given him only the day before; but that it was substantially, in its general scope, the plan which we had sometimes talked over in Cabinet meetings. We should probably make some modifications, prescribe further details; there were some suggestions which he should wish to make, and he desired all to bring their minds to the question, for no greater or more important one could come before us, or any future Cabinet. He thought it providential that this great rebellion was crushed just as Congress had adjourned, and there were none of the disturbing elements of that body to hinder and embarrass us. If we were wise and discreet, we should reanimate the States and get their governments in successful operation, with order prevailing and the Union reestablished, before Congress came together in December. This he thought important. We could do better; accomplish more without than with them. There were men in Congress who, if their motives were good, were nevertheless impracticable, and who possessed feelings of hate and vindictiveness in which he did not sympathize and could not participate.

He hoped there would be no persecution, no bloody work, after the war was over.
None need expect he would take any part in hanging or killing those men, even the worst of them. Frighten them out of the country, open the gates, let down the bars, scare them off, said he, throwing up his hands as if scaring sheep. Enough lives have been sacrificed. We must extinguish our resentments if we expect harmony and union. There was too much of a desire on the part of some of our very good friends to be masters, to interfere with and dictate to those States, to treat the people not as fellow-citizens; there was too little respect for their rights. He did not sympathize in these feelings. . . .

He impressed upon each and all the importance of deliberating upon and carefully considering the subject before us, remarking that this was the great question pending, and that we must now begin to act in the interest of peace. He again declared his thankfulness that Congress was not in session to embarrass us.

The President was assassinated that evening, and I am not aware that he exchanged a word with any one after the Cabinet meeting of that day on the subject of a resumption of the national authority in the States where it had been suspended, or of reestablishing the Union. (“Lincoln and Johnson: Their Plan of Reconstruction and the Resumption of National Authority,” The Galaxy Magazine, April 1872, pp. 526-527)

Of course, we also know that, just hours after Lincoln died, some Radicals expressed the view that Lincoln's death was a "godsend" to the country, that his views on Reconstruction had been unacceptable, and that they hoped/expected that Andrew Johnson would support imposing harsh reunification terms on the South. I discuss this fact at length in "Unwanted Evidence: William Hanchett, the Neff-Guttridge Documents, and Evidence that Lincoln Was Killed by a Radical Republican Plot," http://miketgriffith.com/files/unwanted.pdf

(11-30-2018 06:11 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  One of the biggest ignored facts is that Lincoln and the Radicals were far apart on Reconstruction and that the Radicals bitterly opposed Lincoln’s lenient, forgiving approach. This ignored fact is accompanied by the Big Lie myth that shortly before Lincoln died, he moved close to the Radical position on Reconstruction and thereefore no Radicals had any motive to assassinate him. Incredible as it may seem, this myth is based almost entirely on Attorney General James Speed’s claim that at the April 14 cabinet meeting, held less than 14 hours before he was shot, Lincoln “never seemed so near” the Radical view on Reconstruction.

Now, of course, this was the same James Speed who issued the obscene legal opinion that it was perfectly constitutional to try the alleged Booth conspirators in a military court, even though civilian courts were open and operating, and he based this erroneous opinion on the unproven—and later debunked—claim that Booth and his gang had acted on orders and with backing from Confederate leaders, including Jefferson Davis himself.

Anyway, back to Speed’s claim about what Lincoln said at the April 14 cabinet meeting. Interior Secretary Caleb Smith and Navy Secretary Gideon Welles remembered Lincoln’s statements at that meeting very differently from how Speed did. Smith recalled that Lincoln expressed “charity for all” on Reconstruction. Gideon Welles gave us a detailed account of the meeting, which is 180 degrees different from Speed’s claim:

The President said he proposed to bring forward that subject, although he had not had time as yet to give much attention to the details of the paper which the Secretary of War had given him only the day before; but that it was substantially, in its general scope, the plan which we had sometimes talked over in Cabinet meetings. We should probably make some modifications, prescribe further details; there were some suggestions which he should wish to make, and he desired all to bring their minds to the question, for no greater or more important one could come before us, or any future Cabinet. He thought it providential that this great rebellion was crushed just as Congress had adjourned, and there were none of the disturbing elements of that body to hinder Sand embarrass us. If we were wise and discreet, we should reanimate the States and get their governments in successful operation, with order prevailing and the Union reestablished, before Congress came together in December. This he thought important. We could do better; accomplish more without than with them. There were men in Congress who, if their motives were good, were nevertheless impracticable, and who possessed feelings of hate and vindictiveness in which he did not sympathize and could not participate.

He hoped there would be no persecution, no bloody work, after the war was over.
None need expect he would take any part in hanging or killing those men, even the worst of them. Frighten them out of the country, open the gates, let down the bars, scare them off, said he, throwing up his hands as if scaring sheep. Enough lives have been sacrificed. We must extinguish our resentments if we expect harmony and union. There was too much of a desire on the part of some of our very good friends to be masters, to interfere with and dictate to those States, to treat the people not as fellow-citizens; there was too little respect for their rights. He did not sympathize in these feelings. . . .

He impressed upon each and all the importance of deliberating upon and carefully considering the subject before us, remarking that this was the great question pending, and that we must now begin to act in the interest of peace. He again declared his thankfulness that Congress was not in session to embarrass us.

The President was assassinated that evening, and I am not aware that he exchanged a word with any one after the Cabinet meeting of that day on the subject of a resumption of the national authority in the States where it had been suspended, or of reestablishing the Union. (“Lincoln and Johnson: Their Plan of Reconstruction and the Resumption of National Authority,” The Galaxy Magazine, April 1872, pp. 526-527)

Of course, we also know that, just hours after Lincoln died, some Radicals expressed the view that Lincoln's death was a "godsend" to the country, that his views on Reconstruction had been unacceptable, and that they hoped/expected that Andrew Johnson would support imposing harsh reunification terms on the South. I discuss this fact at length in "Unwanted Evidence: William Hanchett, the Neff-Guttridge Documents, and Evidence that Lincoln Was Killed by a Radical Republican Plot," http://miketgriffith.com/files/unwanted.pdf

It's unfortunately unknowable how Lincoln would've approached Reconstruction policy. Although, he did seem to favor giving voting rights and educating former slaves. On those issues he seems closer to the Radical Republicans than Pres. Johnson was. But whatever Lincoln's Reconstruction policy would've been, it would likely have evolved in response to events in the South. I find it hard to believe that Lincoln would've approved of the 1865-1866 "Black Codes" and their broad vagrancy laws that allowed them to arrest former slaves for minor offenses and sentence them to involuntary labor which Pres. Johnson didn't seem to have a problem with.

Mike, have you ever personally looked at the Neff-Guttridge Collection at Indian State University Library?

(11-29-2018 11:11 AM)Warren Wrote:  Mike Griffith wrote: "* According to a 1977 FBI analysis, 86 pages were removed from Booth’s diary after the War Department took possession of it."

Mike, I had read the FBI archives on its 1977 examination of the diary before, and I recently re-read it. Where did you find reference to this finding; specifically that the pages were removed after the War Department took possession of it? I could not find it in the FBI archives.

Mike, could you answer Warren's question?

(11-30-2018 07:15 PM)Steve Wrote:  

(11-29-2018 11:11 AM)Warren Wrote:  Mike Griffith wrote: "* According to a 1977 FBI analysis, 86 pages were removed from Booth’s diary after the War Department took possession of it."

Mike, I had read the FBI archives on its 1977 examination of the diary before, and I recently re-read it. Where did you find reference to this finding; specifically that the pages were removed after the War Department took possession of it? I could not find it in the FBI archives.

Mike, could you answer Warren's question?

And also answer Gene's?

(11-30-2018 07:01 PM)Steve Wrote:  It's unfortunately unknowable how Lincoln would've approached Reconstruction policy.

Huh? He laid out his Reconstruction policy several times. You might want to read Welles' article. It's available online:

https://archive.org/details/lincolnjohnsonth00well

(11-30-2018 07:01 PM)Steve Wrote:  Although, he did seem to favor giving voting rights and educating former slaves. On those issues he seems closer to the Radical Republicans than Pres. Johnson was.

Lincoln was nowhere near the Radicals on black suffrage in the South. He wanted suffrage limited to educated blacks and those who had served in the Army, and even then he made it clear that this matter should be left up to the reconstructed states. Again, you might want to read Welles' article, because Welles discusses this issue.

There are several other good sources on this, but Welles' article is available online. Another good online source is Albert Mordell's compilation Civil War Reconstruction: Selected Essays By Gideon Welles:

https://archive.org/stream/gideonwelles0...p_djvu.txt

Yet another good online source is Dr. Richard Current's long article "Lincoln's Plan for Reconstruction":

https://www.americanheritage.com/content...nstruction

(11-30-2018 07:01 PM)Steve Wrote:  But whatever Lincoln's Reconstruction policy would've been, it would likely have evolved in response to events in the South. I find it hard to believe that Lincoln would've approved of the 1865-1866 "Black Codes" and their broad vagrancy laws that allowed them to arrest former slaves for minor offenses and sentence them to involuntary labor which Pres. Johnson didn't seem to have a problem with.

One, Lincoln made it clear that he would leave such matters up to the reconstructed states.

Two, those black codes, as many scholars have detailed, were patterned after Northern black codes. I agree that some of the black codes were too harsh, but even the worst ones were similar to the ones in Indiana and Illinois. If you doubt this, you might start your research by reading Dr. C. Vann Woodward's famous study The Strange Career of Jim Crow:

https://www.amazon.com/Strange-Career-Ji...0195146905

Finally, someone asked for evidence that the 86 pages were removed after the War Department got the diary. Anyone who asks this question and who claims they have read the 1977 FBI report either did not really read the FBI report or did not understand it. The report details the intricate editing, cutting, and reconstituting that was done to the diary to remove the 86 pages. This would have required many hours of work and access to the needed materials. If someone has a scenario for how Conger or Lafayette Baker had the time and materials to do this editing between the time Conger said he "found" the diary and the time Baker turned it over to Stanton, I'd like to hear it.

(12-01-2018 08:07 AM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  

(11-30-2018 07:01 PM)Steve Wrote:  It's unfortunately unknowable how Lincoln would've approached Reconstruction policy.

Huh? He laid out his Reconstruction policy several times. You might want to read Welles' article. It's available online:

https://archive.org/details/lincolnjohnsonth00well

(11-30-2018 07:01 PM)Steve Wrote:  Although, he did seem to favor giving voting rights and educating former slaves. On those issues he seems closer to the Radical Republicans than Pres. Johnson was.

Lincoln was nowhere near the Radicals on black suffrage in the South. He wanted suffrage limited to educated blacks and those who had served in the Army, and even then he made it clear that this matter should be left up to the reconstructed states. Again, you might want to read Welles' article, because Welles discusses this issue.

There are several other good sources on this, but Welles' article is available online. Another good online source is Albert Mordell's compilation Civil War Reconstruction: Selected Essays By Gideon Welles:

https://archive.org/stream/gideonwelles0...p_djvu.txt

Yet another good online source is Dr. Richard Current's long article "Lincoln's Plan for Reconstruction":

https://www.americanheritage.com/content...nstruction

(11-30-2018 07:01 PM)Steve Wrote:  But whatever Lincoln's Reconstruction policy would've been, it would likely have evolved in response to events in the South. I find it hard to believe that Lincoln would've approved of the 1865-1866 "Black Codes" and their broad vagrancy laws that allowed them to arrest former slaves for minor offenses and sentence them to involuntary labor which Pres. Johnson didn't seem to have a problem with.

One, Lincoln made it clear that he would leave such matters up to the reconstructed states.

Two, those black codes, as many scholars have detailed, were patterned after Northern black codes. I agree that some of the black codes were too harsh, but even the worst ones were similar to the ones in Indiana and Illinois. If you doubt this, you might start your research by reading Dr. C. Vann Woodward's famous study The Strange Career of Jim Crow:

https://www.amazon.com/Strange-Career-Ji...0195146905

Finally, someone asked for evidence that the 86 pages were removed after the War Department got the diary. Anyone who asks this question and who claims they have read the 1977 FBI report either did not really read the FBI report or did not understand it. The report details the intricate editing, cutting, and reconstituting that was done to the diary to remove the 86 pages. This would have required many hours of work and access to the needed materials. If someone has a scenario for how Conger or Lafayette Baker had the time and materials to do this editing between the time Conger said he "found" the diary and the time Baker turned it over to Stanton, I'd like to hear it.

You, sir, are dead wrong in your last paragraph. The FBI did not find any indication that the diary was tampered with by the War Department. Quite a few Surratt members were privy to that investigation and report because of our close ties with the instigator - James O. Hall.

If I remember correctly, Ed Steers's book on Lincoln Hoaxes et al gives good coverage to this as well as the continuing saga of Neff, Balsiger and Sellier. You will enjoy also reading about the Deep Throat escapades with Joseph Lynch.

I urge everyone reading this to remember that the "diary" was really not a journal. It was an appointment book that Booth and most actors carried to write down their dates for performances, rehearsals, meetings, etc. -- the SmartPhone of the day.

That little book had been with Booth since 1864, and there would be very little chance of determining when pages were removed because of being full and outdated, because Booth needed to send a quick note (as in the later Stuart incident), etc. One gentleman on a Surratt bus tour over the Booth escape route even suggested that pages were used for hygienic purposes while Booth and Herold were on the run with few opportunities to find an outhouse...

As for Lincoln's Reconstruction policies, Wild Bill gave an excellent talk on this two years ago at our Surratt conference. The title was "My Policy is to Have No Policy." It was so detailed that I asked Bill to turn it into a booklet for sale in our museum. It may have sold out by this time.

(12-01-2018 11:36 AM)L Verge Wrote:  You, sir, are dead wrong in your last paragraph. The FBI did not find any indication that the diary was tampered with by the War Department. Quite a few Surratt members were privy to that investigation and report because of our close ties with the instigator - James O. Hall.

If I remember correctly, Ed Steers's book on Lincoln Hoaxes et al gives good coverage to this as well as the continuing saga of Neff, Balsiger and Sellier. You will enjoy also reading about the Deep Throat escapades with Joseph Lynch.

That little book had been with Booth since 1864, and there would be very little chance of determining when pages were removed because of being full and outdated, because Booth needed to send a quick note (as in the later Stuart incident), etc. One gentleman on a Surratt bus tour over the Booth escape route even suggested that pages were used for hygienic purposes while Booth and Herold were on the run with few opportunities to find an outhouse...

I'm sorry, but you simply do not know what you are talking about. The FBI lab experts found massive evidence of tampering. I have to wonder how on earth you could claim otherwise. It seems obvious that you have only read only read one side of the story and appear unwilling to read the other side.

You could start by reading Dan Thomas's chapter on the FBI report in The Reason Booth Had to Die. Thomas provides long quotes from the FBI report that discuss the extensive and complicated editing that was done to the diary. (I agree that the term "diary" is a bit of a misnomer, and that it was more of a notebook.)

I suspect you might be relying partly on the public statements of Directory Kelley to the effect that the FBI forensic experts found no signs of invisible writing or textual alteration. Go read the report itself and you'll see that Kelley either purposely misrepresented his lab's findings or he was simply passing on erroneous information that was fed to him by his staff. Kelley failed to mention the complicated editing and manipulation that was done to the diary.

If you can't bring yourself to read Thomas's detailed chapter on the FBI lab report, go read the FBI lab report itself, which starts on page 24 of the PDF copy at archive.org, and pay special attention to the section titled "Result of examination," which starts on page 25:

https://ia800306.us.archive.org/30/items...booth4.pdf

(12-01-2018 11:36 AM)L Verge Wrote:  As for Lincoln's Reconstruction policies, Wild Bill gave an excellent talk on this two years ago at our Surratt conference. The title was "My Policy is to Have No Policy." It was so detailed that I asked Bill to turn it into a booklet for sale in our museum. It may have sold out by this time.

Huh???? Again, you simply do not know what in the world you are talking about. Lincoln's policy was to have no policy?! Perhaps "Wild Bill" was referring to Lincoln's policy during the secession crisis, because that's when Lincoln made that comment ("my policy is to have no policy").

Lincoln laid out his Reconstruction policy in great detail, down to what percentage of the population had to declare their loyalty for the state to be readmitted. Recall that Lincoln established the Reconstruction policy for Louisiana, which came under Federal control long before the war ended. His terms for Louisiana's readmission to the Union are there for all to read. Or, if you want a thorough summary, read historian Richard Current's detailed article on Lincoln's Reconstruction policy, which article I cited in my previous reply.

Lincoln spoke on Reconstruction twice in the four days before he was shot, once in his April 11 speech (in which he replied to Salmon Chase's letter on Reconstruction) and again to his cabinet on the morning of April 14.

I notice you simply ignored the quote I provided from Gideon Welles' extensive account of Lincoln's comments on Reconstruction at the April 14 cabinet meeting. And, as mentioned, we know from the Radicals' own mouths, from statements that they made starting just hours after Lincoln died, that they viewed Lincoln's lenient, forgiving terms as throwing away the Union victory and as practically rewarding rebellion and treason.

(12-01-2018 04:21 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  The FBI lab experts found massive evidence of tampering.

In the diary Booth wrote:

"Though I have a greater desire and almost a mind to return to Washington, and in a measure clear my name - which I feel I can do."

I feel one interpretation of this could be that Booth was feeling that in Washington he could reveal the names of the conspiracy's higher ups in return for a reduced sentence (turn state's evidence).

If the diary were really tampered with why didn't Stanton expunge these words of Booth's if he (Stanton) were really the one who recruited Booth to assassinate the President?

(12-01-2018 04:21 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  I'm sorry, but you simply do not know what you are talking about. The FBI lab experts found massive evidence of tampering. I have to wonder how on earth you could claim otherwise. It seems obvious that you have only read only read one side of the story and appear unwilling to read the other side.

If you can't bring yourself to read Thomas's detailed chapter on the FBI lab report, go read the FBI lab report itself, which starts on page 24 of the PDF copy at archive.org, and pay special attention to the section titled "Result of examination," which starts on page 25:

https://ia800306.us.archive.org/30/items...booth4.pdf

Mike, thank you for posting the link to the FBI report on Booth's diary. I've read the pages you mention. They mention the missing pages torn out of the book are not in sequence.
NOWHERE IN THE FBI REPORT ON THE PAGES YOU MENTIONED DOES IT MENTION WHO OR WHEN THE PAGES WERE REMOVED.

On the bottom of the 27th page of the report
"As a result of the complete examination of the diary, no invisible writings, no unusual obliterations or alterations or any characteristics of question were found."

If you consider the missing pages as tampering, no one disagrees with that. But to attempt to say who or when the pages were removed and why, is pure speculation and the FBI report is silent regarding that.