Herb,
Please expound on your,"My Letter to Lincoln Theory".

Jerry,In Anthony Pitch's book,he found a "Letter to Lincoln"in the J.Holt Collection.The letter-2-21-1865 warning Lincoln of assassination in March.Postmarked Dansville,NY-Sender unknown.I thought the handwriting looked familar and had 3 hand writing experts[RIT-XEROX-ARCHIVIST AT ROCHESTER'S MUSEUM]we all agreed that it was Surratt's[compared to his other handwriting items] I sent the theory to Tom Turner,he was intrigued by it and had it published in "The Lincoln Herald"-The main part of the theory is that Surratt sent the letter as a change of heart and a warning!

Do you have a copy of the letter?
What are the other parts of your theory?

Ray Neff and Len Guttridge followed that trail for awhile. At first, they had Dansville confused with a small crossroads in Maryland, about three miles or so from T.B., of the same name (now extinct). Guttridge contacted me about thirty years ago and was flabbergasted that I knew of the Maryland village.

It was practically next door to Andrew Jackson Gwynn's plantation, Pleasant Springs. Gwynn was in the Confederacy in a variety of positions so far as I can tell, so I can see where they might have confused the Maryland village near him with what turned out later to be Dansville, NY.

Dansville,NY and "The Letter to Lincoln" are in "They Have Killed Papa Dead".Yes-I do have copies of the letter.

(11-13-2012 09:53 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 08:56 AM)Jim Garrett Wrote:  The theatre is small and the box is very visible from the opposite side of the stage. Booth entered throught the back door. He would have a pretty clear view of the box from the wings and been able to determine how many people were in the box.

Thanks, Jim. I had been thinking of John Buckingham's statement. If memory serves me, I think Buckingham said Booth was outside/inside about 5 times before entering the theater for the final time. Then, after all of that, Booth started humming a tune and climbing the stairs. I was just wondering if Booth were trying to figure out how many folks were in the State Box with all his outside/inside movements in the c.10:07 P.M. time frame.

I feel like Colombo. The one shot derringer continues to bother me. Not that it was not sufficient to accomplish the goal. It surely was. If JWB was trying to observe who was in the State Box and could clearly see another couple it seems almost ill prepared to undertake the action with limited hardware. And even if he did not know - even in the midst of confusion after firing the shot - there was also the possibility that someone in the audience who may have been armed could have reacted. Perhaps it was the element of surprise and the timing of the portion of the play and limited actors on stage at that moment that he felt comfortable with. Even if I was counting upon someone to assist with the lighting in the theatre - at least for my own insurance - I would feel a lot more secure if I was carrying/using more than a single shot weapon and a knife. But then again - it was 1865.

Perhaps I am over thinking.

(11-13-2012 09:38 PM)Peter Taltavul Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 09:53 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 08:56 AM)Jim Garrett Wrote:  The theatre is small and the box is very visible from the opposite side of the stage. Booth entered throught the back door. He would have a pretty clear view of the box from the wings and been able to determine how many people were in the box.

Thanks, Jim. I had been thinking of John Buckingham's statement. If memory serves me, I think Buckingham said Booth was outside/inside about 5 times before entering the theater for the final time. Then, after all of that, Booth started humming a tune and climbing the stairs. I was just wondering if Booth were trying to figure out how many folks were in the State Box with all his outside/inside movements in the c.10:07 P.M. time frame.

I feel like Colombo. The one shot derringer continues to bother me. Not that it was not sufficient to accomplish the goal. It surely was. If JWB was trying to observe who was in the State Box and could clearly see another couple it seems almost ill prepared to undertake the action with limited hardware. And even if he did not know - even in the midst of confusion after firing the shot - there was also the possibility that someone in the audience who may have been armed could have reacted. Perhaps it was the element of surprise and the timing of the portion of the play and limited actors on stage at that moment that he felt comfortable with. Even if I was counting upon someone to assist with the lighting in the theatre - at least for my own insurance - I would feel a lot more secure if I was carrying/using more than a single shot weapon and a knife. But then again - it was 1865.

Perhaps I am over thinking.

I like the way you think. This thread has really taken on a life of it's own. I think Booth had it unbelieveably well thought out for the short time that he had to put the assassination together, (11:00am to 8:00pm). I don't think he wanted the gas lights turned down. Heck, He probably would have wanted them turned up if he could, so everyone could see him. I think JWB had the timing down perfect. He knew an audience and he knew human nature. To jump up and leap over the orchestra pit, would have been very difficult. Heck, The orchestra pit had.....the orchestra in it. While the act was certainly a bad, bad decision, the execution (no pun intended) was carried out with great precision. Damn, he pulled it off. The only upside, here we are, almost 150 years later, and it still draws the most interest of any other event in our history.

You're not over thinking, Peter. We're in the minority here, but I'd bet a paycheck that Booth had at least one of those revolvers on him. Some folks describe them as too bulky (2 pounds?), but going into Yankee Central with a single shot pistol and a knife to kill the President seems ludicrous to me. I think Booth was smarter than that.

As someone who used to carry a gun for a living, the idea Booth was worried about "carrying an arsenal" as it's been described, is ridiculous to me. I was 20# heavier in uniform with the very constrictive vest on and all the equipment belted around my waist and I jumped over guard rails and chased the bad guys many times. Booth was young, athletic and that two pound pistol may have meant the difference between success and failure (death). I'm not buying it.

Why shoot President Lincoln with a deringer, if you have a pistol?

Why use a revolver if you have both and the smaller Deringer worked? And if the Deringer didn't work, he'd have the revolver. I just don't buy the idea that Booth trusted this small window of opportunity to a one shot pistol. It makes no sense to me. If you carry a gun and need to use it, you should really carry two - just in case.

Did Booth carry two deringers? And if the deringer didn't work, would he have time to pull out the revolver?
But I do agree with you, if I were Booth, I would want more than a single shot deringer with me.

(11-13-2012 09:54 PM)J. Beckert Wrote:  I was 20# heavier in uniform with the very constrictive vest on and all the equipment belted around my waist and I jumped over guard rails and chased the bad guys many times.

How was your gun secured around your waist? Did it have a top flap to secure the gun in the holster or was it open like Booth's? If it was Booth's open design I doubt that it would have stayed secure in the holster after a 10 foot drop.

Even assuming that all of the eyewitnesses missed the holstered gun around Booth's waist when he hit the stage, why didn't he draw it in his escape? Why go dashing off swinging a knife if you had a gun to keep pursuers at bay?

Answer - he had no revolver at the time.

My gun was in a holster and secured with a leather strap and a metal snap. How do we know Booth's gun was even in a holster at the time? We don't. I always carried another gun in my pocket. No one can say with any certainty that he absolutely didn't have another gun. Just because the knife served his purpose doesn't mean he wasn't prepared for worse than he encountered in his flight. Hawk ran off stage and Withers was caught off guard. No real threats there.

The eyewitnesses couldn't even agree on what he said. I can't see anyone taking notice of what was under his coat.

(11-14-2012 09:54 AM)J. Beckert Wrote:  How do we know Booth's gun was even in a holster at the time? We don't. I always carried another gun in my pocket. No one can say with any certainty that he absolutely didn't have another gun.

True, no one can say that he didn't have a gun in his pocket, but logic dictates that if he was wearing a holster the gun would be there. Why carry an empty holster to a crime scene? If he did have an empty holster - logic dictates that the gun would be in his hand rather than his pocket. Why not use the revolver and keep the derringer in your pocket?

We don't know if he had a holster on at Ford's. That was observed by one of the Garrett's, I believe. The Deringer was discarded. A small "throw away" if you will. My point is I think he used the Deringer because of it's small size and after it was fired, it was useless - ditch it and move on. A revolver, considerably larger, would still have 4 or 5 rounds left. Why discard a loaded gun?
There would be so much left to chance in pinning all the hopes of his plan on a one shot pistol. Something as simple as losing the cap when he cocked the hammer would render that gun useless at the very instant it was needed. This makes me wonder about Powell. Did he have a holster on at Seward's? Those revolvers could easily be held in a coat pocket where it would be very accessible. More so than under a coat in a holster. The gun fits in your hand. It's just not that big where it would be a burden to carry.