https://baltimorepostexaminer.com/was-jo...2020/04/29

(04-30-2020 09:37 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  https://baltimorepostexaminer.com/was-jo...2020/04/29

Roger:

Many thanks for bringing this article to our attention. Permit to say two things:

1. First of all, I would like to publicly express my deepest sorrow upon the passing of Laurie. Truly, she was the captain of this ship. She was knowledgeable, brilliant, insightful and reliable. She could always be counted on to bring us back to common sense when we strayed from it. She will be greatly missed. We are now, as it were, adrift without a captain. But let us carry on as best we can.
2. The author of the article, in my judgment, gave a pretty good summation of my book, except for his use of the word "patsy". We need to distinguish between a patsy and a conspirator. A patsy, properly defined, is someone who is taken advantage of and manipulated to accomplish a foul deed. I'm not even sure Oswald used the word correctly inasmuch as he had just said, seconds before, that "I don't know what this is all about", i.e. I am innocent. If he's innocent, then he has not been taken advantage of and he is not being manipulated, because he didn't do anything wrong. Booth, by contrast, was a knowing and willing agent of the Confederate Secret Service. He was knowingly and willingly being primed to carry out multiple assassinations and he was at all times aware of it. He was nobody's patsy; he was a committed agent assigned to do a deed and he fully intended to do it. With luck, he succeeded in accomplishing his specific assignment, but with his co-conspirators, it was a case of "whatever could go wrong, did go wrong". Let me say, too, that the writer's reference to a kidnapping scheme that evolved into an assassination scheme is, as you have heard me say many times before, simply erroneous. He is not to be faulted for this, however, because it is the conventional wisdom that, over a period of 155 years, has acquired a life of its own, in the same way that conclusions that Herold accompanied Powell to the Seward home and Atzerodt went into the bar at the Kirkwood to bolster his courage have acquired lives of their own even though there isn't a scrap of evidence to support either conclusion. Please read, or re-read, Chapter 12 of my book, which I believe, and I will add that many others do too, blows the kidnapping theory out of the water. See specifically pp. 129-137, wherein I set forth 26 reasons for concluding that Booth never intended to kidnap anyone, that it was all a ruse to conceal his more sinister purpose and goal.

John

(04-30-2020 11:08 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  because it is the conventional wisdom that, over a period of 155 years, has acquired a life of its own, in the same way that conclusions that Herold accompanied Powell to the Seward home

I believe Dave Taylor once traced the original mention of Herold being at Seward's to George Alfred Townsend's (GATH's) Katy of Catoctin in 1886. Other authors, such as David Dewitt in 1909, said the same thing. This trend has continued to the present day. Virtually all authors have David Herold accompanying Lewis Powell to Seward's. Yet, as John mentions, it seems we have absolutely no eyewitnesses or solid evidence that this happened.

Some authors have implied that Powell didn't know his directions, and Herold was needed to guide him to Seward's. Yet George Robinson, a male nurse at Seward's, apparently saw Powell "scouting" the Seward residence on the mornings of the 13th and 14th. There is no mention of Herold. And, as Laurie often mentioned, we know Herold was on a scouting mission "in the country" on April 13th. So it would seem Powell could find the Seward residence without assistance.

When Powell knocked at the door and William Bell opened it, did he see Herold in the street with the horses? It was dark, and maybe this would not be possible, but Bell never said he saw Herold.

(04-30-2020 11:47 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(04-30-2020 11:08 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  because it is the conventional wisdom that, over a period of 155 years, has acquired a life of its own, in the same way that conclusions that Herold accompanied Powell to the Seward home

I believe Dave Taylor once traced the original mention of Herold being at Seward's to George Alfred Townsend's (GATH's) Katy of Catoctin in 1886. Other authors, such as David Dewitt in 1909, said the same thing. This trend has continued to the present day. Virtually all authors have David Herold accompanying Lewis Powell to Seward's. Yet, as John mentions, it seems we have absolutely no eyewitnesses or solid evidence that this happened.

Some authors have implied that Powell didn't know his directions, and Herold was needed to guide him to Seward's. Yet George Robinson, a male nurse at Seward's, apparently saw Powell "scouting" the Seward residence on the mornings of the 13th and 14th. There is no mention of Herold. And, as Laurie often mentioned, we know Herold was on a scouting mission "in the country" on April 13th. So it would seem Powell could find the Seward residence without assistance.

When Powell knocked at the door and William Bell opened it, did he see Herold in the street with the horses? It was dark, and maybe this would not be possible, but Bell never said he saw Herold.

Roger:

Thank you for your response.

On pp. 85-91 of my book, I give 24 reasons to support the conclusion that Herold did not accompany Powell to the Seward residence and 21 reasons to support the conclusion that he did something else that night.

I am not familiar with Gath's reference in Katy of Catoctin, so I cannot address its validity. I observe that it was made 23 years after the fact, but that fact alone does not render it invalid. Neither does the age of DeWitt's claim render it invalid, but it seems likely that by that time (43 years after the fact) the process whereby the assertion takes on a life of its own was well underway.

John

I checked, and here is the reference Dave found in Katy of Catoctin (which is actually a novel):

"Little Herold was to guide Payne to Mr. Seward's door, and then show him, by an upper bridge over the Eastern Branch, the road to meet Booth at Surratt's."

Apparently that is the earliest reference, and many subsequent authors took it as fact.

Mike Kauffman has a different version of Herold/Powell at Seward's than any other author I've seen. In American Brutus, Mr. Kauffman writes: (pp.224-225)

"Lewis Powell and David Herold had already gone to Lafayette Park. The Park superintendent always called out the time as he locked the gate, and as soon as that happened, Powell would approach the Sewards' house. He would knock on the door, and then tell the servant he had medicine to give the secretary. It seemed an excellent plan, but at the last minute a complication arose: one of Seward's doctors was still in the house. Now Powell had to either come up with a new cover story or delay his attack. Since nothing came to mind, he sent Herold galloping away to tell the others to hold off."

I am curious if anyone knows Mike Kauffman's source for this as I've never come across this version in any other book.

(04-30-2020 01:56 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  I checked, and here is the reference Dave found in Katy of Catoctin (which is actually a novel):

"Little Herold was to guide Payne to Mr. Seward's door, and then show him, by an upper bridge over the Eastern Branch, the road to meet Booth at Surratt's."

Apparently that is the earliest reference, and many subsequent authors took it as fact.

Mike Kauffman has a different version of Herold/Powell at Seward's than any other author I've seen. In American Brutus, Mr. Kauffman writes: (pp.224-225)

"Lewis Powell and David Herold had already gone to Lafayette Park. The Park superintendent always called out the time as he locked the gate, and as soon as that happened, Powell would approach the Sewards' house. He would knock on the door, and then tell the servant he had medicine to give the secretary. It seemed an excellent plan, but at the last minute a complication arose: one of Seward's doctors was still in the house. Now Powell had to either come up with a new cover story or delay his attack. Since nothing came to mind, he sent Herold galloping away to tell the others to hold off."

I am curious if anyone knows Mike Kauffman's source for this as I've never come across this version in any other book.

Roger:

Dave deserves credit for even finding the reference, but that fact aside, it seems to me that it is weak. It is made 23 years after the fact. It is made in a work of fiction, not non-fiction. There is, apparently, no reference to its source. It seems to me that we need either an original source or something close to one to establish, to a reasonable degree of certainty, whether or not Herold accompanied Powell on the fateful night. As I have said, the arguments against the conclusion that he did, and in favor of the conclusion that he was elsewhere, appear to me to overwhelm the unsubstantiated ipse dixit statements that he accompanied Powell and then bolted when he heard a scream from the house or when things got too hot for him for some other reason. It is worth adding, however, that even if one wanted to accept Mike's scenario, Herold wasn't there. That much of his scenario squares with my own.

John

As for Mike Kauffman's account, three things: 1) He gives no source for it; 2) To my knowledge, it does not appear anywhere else; 3) How would Powell have determined that there was still a doctor in the house unless he first made an attempt to enter the house (and maybe not even then), but none of the accounts of what happened that night at the Seward residence mentions a prior attempt by Powell to access the house. For these three reasons I must reject Mike's account. Please see pp.85-91 of my book for persuasive arguments as to what Herold did that night.

John

(04-30-2020 03:54 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  As I have said, the arguments against the conclusion that he did, and in favor of the conclusion that he was elsewhere, appear to me to overwhelm the unsubstantiated ipse dixit statements that he accompanied Powell and then bolted when he heard a scream from the house or when things got too hot for him for some other reason

I totally agree with you.

I read the article which I feel merits a longer response than I'm able to right now. But there's one thing I wanted to comment on right away. The article author gets Lee Harvey Oswald's last words wrong. Oswald's ironic last words were something to the effect of "Nobody's gonna shoot at me"

Sources:

https://books.google.com/books?id=s8xwDQ...ld&f=false

and

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa...-1.1514569

After reading the article it seems to me that the author's intent in writing is more about trying to justify his own beliefs in conspiracies relating to deaths of JFK, RFK, and MLK than in exploring John's book or Booth's confederate connections. Even after reading John's book

(And if the article author is somehow reading this post, Sirhan Sirhan was caught at the scene as he was firing his gun and in 1989 gave this interview to David Frost and Bill O'Reily where he freely admitted his crime:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ma_RpEcm7NY

So if the article author can use the word "patsy", he's out of touch with reality.)

But enough with that and back to John's book and Booth. I think a better analogy to the historical writing in regards to Booth's Confederate connections might be the Alger Hiss espionage case rather than those other assassinations. There's plenty of evidence but a lot of people just don't want to accept it. So if you think about it in a way, Louis Weichmann is a lot like Whittaker Chambers.

Also to John's point about the kidnapping plot. I tend to agree with John that I do think Booth intended to kill Lincoln and not kidnap him. But it's also apparent that some/most of the other conspirators believed it was a kidnapping attempt (the 17 Mar. 1865 hospital attempt). Though I do think the weight of the evidence points to Booth wanting to kill Lincoln from the beginning, I think one should be careful not to say we "know" that to be true with a certainty at least with the evidence we have. Also if the March attempt had gone through and Lincoln had died; the other conspirators who thought it would be a kidnapping, I guess they might be called "patsies" if they had gotten caught and Booth escaped.

Also Booth supposedly got the information that Lincoln had been invited to the performance of Still Waters Run Deep at Campbell Hospital in March 1865 from fellow actor E. L. Davenport. Does anybody know the original source where Davenport says that (or somebody who said Davenport told them that before he died)? Is there any other independent evidence Lincoln had been invited to the performance?

(05-04-2020 03:41 PM)Steve Wrote:  But enough with that and back to John's book and Booth. I think a better analogy to the historical writing in regards to Booth's Confederate connections might be the Alger Hiss espionage case rather than those other assassinations. There's plenty of evidence but a lot of people just don't want to accept it. So if you think about it in a way, Louis Weichmann is a lot like Whittaker Chambers.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who saw some similarities with Whittacker Chambers
https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussi...h#pid76270
Post #5

(05-04-2020 03:41 PM)Steve Wrote:  Also Booth supposedly got the information that Lincoln had been invited to the performance of Still Waters Run Deep at Campbell Hospital in March 1865 from fellow actor E. L. Davenport. Does anybody know the original source where Davenport says that (or somebody who said Davenport told them that before he died)?

Steve, I looked through a lot of books, and the earliest mention of this that I could find is in The Mad Booths of Maryland by Stanley Kimmel (1940).

Kimmel writes:

In the company performing at the Soldiers' Home was the actor-manager E. L. Davenport who was well acquainted with Wilkes. During an intermission in the play, Davenport went to the rear of the theatre where there was a garden. Wilkes suddenly appeared attired in boots and spurs, which seemed odd to Davenport, but he was otherwise elegantly dressed. He was somewhat excited, but, on seeing Davenport, said, "Hello, Ned; who is in the house?" Davenport mentioned several well-known names, and Wilkes inquired, "Did the old man come?" - meaning Lincoln. Told that the President was not there, he turned on his heel to go.

"It seems to me that you are in a great hurry," said Davenport.

"Yes, I am trying a new horse and he is rather restive," replied Wilkes, and disappeared.

There is no footnote for this; thus I do not know Kimmel's source. I thought maybe it was in Samuel Arnold's memoirs, but (unless I missed it) I do not see Davenport mentioned in that source.

Today received Mr. Fazio's book.
Only have read the acknowledgements: Laurie Verge, of the Surratt Society, who,among assassination aficionados, is only slightly less known than the pope etc.
Roger J. Norton, who created and maintains at least three websites... It is Roger's style to help everyone at the drop of the hat.

Laurie we miss you.
Roger, thank you for this website.

Thank you, Richard. I have received many messages regarding Laurie's passing. I do not have the words to explain how much she is missed.

Many thanks to Steve for sending this article. Steve writes, "I found the original newspaper article about the performance of Still Waters Run Deep at the hospital which Booth and the conspirators targeted on 17 March 1865. It was a December 1881 interview, not of E. L. Davenport, but fellow actor John Mathews who was also in that performance. Davenport was with Mathews when Booth told them he would be attending the performance at the hospital. It seems that the bit about Booth coming into the theater and talking with Davenport about breaking in a new horse was a later writer's imagination. Mathews says he only found out later that Booth was disappointed that Lincoln wasn't there.

The interview is part of a larger article written by reporter Frank A. Burr that appeared in the Philadelphia Press. Unfortunately, issues of the Press as late as 1881 aren't in any of the newspaper archive databases that I checked. So I've included a reprint of the article which appeared in the 07 Dec. 1881 Washington Evening Star on page 6. The article looks like it's too big to post to the forum, so I've included a clipping of the relevant part from the Louisville (KY) Courier Journal of 07 Dec. The version of the article that appeared in the 05 Dec. edition of the Boston Herald gives the original article dateline as 03 Dec. 1881. (Unfortunately, the Herald scans of the article are of poorer quality)."

Does anyone know to whom in Baltimore Booth sent his trunk? Could it have been David Preston Parr?