It Didn't Happen the Way You Think (by Robert Lockwood Mills)

[Rob Wick]

Given that about 85 percent of the 400-plus books I own on Lincoln were bought used, I have a great interest in studying the secondary market. I have yet to figure out exactly how someone thinks they can get as much as $1,000 for a book that others are selling for .99. Before the internet, I assume that people just thought that no one could compare prices. After the web, I wish I knew.

Just a couple of stories about books I've looked for. In 1926, the Lincoln scholar James G. Randall published Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln. In order to get the book published, Randall had to pay Appleton, who then agreed to use all the resources of the company to sell it as if they had published it normally. Only 2000 copies were printed, most of which went to libraries, making them rather scarce. I could never find one for less than $300. Needless to say, I never bought it. Now it's available to download from Internet Archive. Even the updated 1952 edition was rare. I paid $75 for it at a bookstore in Champaign-Urbana, which is, coincidentally, where Randall taught.

The other book I was looking for was about a Florida architect that Tarbell wrote the foreword to. In the 1920s Tarbell did a series of articles for McCall's on Florida and became interested in this person's work. The book was available for $1,000. I decided to try to get it via interlibrary loan. Come to find out there was an edition published by Dover for $8 new. Guess which one I went with?

Then there was the time I got Sandburg's four-volume Abraham Lincoln: The War Years for $17. The seller didn't know what he had.

Best
Rob

[Susan Higginbotham]

For a long time I was looking for They Knew Lincoln, but I never could find it at a price I could afford. Then it was reissued, and of course, I bought the reissue. It would be interesting to know how much the first edition sells for now.

[Rob Wick]

https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDet...1-_-title7

http://alincolnbookshop.com/product/wash...ln-1st-ed/

Best
Rob

[Susan Higginbotham]

(12-18-2018 08:32 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDet...1-_-title7

http://alincolnbookshop.com/product/wash...ln-1st-ed/

Best
Rob

Thanks! Guess I'll settle for my paperback edition!

[mikegriffith1]

(12-18-2018 08:35 AM)davg2000 Wrote:  

(12-17-2018 04:39 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  

(12-16-2018 12:11 PM)davg2000 Wrote:  Yes, $794.77 for a used paperback copy of Mills's book, from a third-party seller. No reference to it at all on Barnes and Noble's website. Mills’s book may be “careful, sober, and thorough,” but apparently not enough people have agreed with Mr. Griffith in twenty-four years to sustain the book’s existence in print. And, at that price, I’m afraid I will not be getting this book for Christmas. Tsk.

Yeah, why take the risk of reading something that will challenge your position? No need for that, right? Who needs to read both sides of an issue anyway? Just read what you know agrees with your view, and nothing else. Stay in your safe space, your echo chamber.

By the way, the book sold out its printing. And the reason it is so expensive is precisely because there are so few second-hand copies left, which indicates that when the book hit the used-book market, many copies were bought and not many are left. Used-book sellers usually do not set high prices on used books that are not considered valuable. If they do and there are no takers, the price starts to drop. That hasn't happened with Mills' book yet.

If I were you, Mike, and owned this gem which I paid $50 (!) for, I'd contact several used book sellers and let them know what I had. I see a chance to make money. By the way, I just checked, and I see that Amazon now says that the book is "currently unavailable." I'd get on this. Opportunity here.

I don't need the money. I'd rather have the book. There's still one copy left on abebooks.com--last week there were four copies left. So three copies have been sold in the last six days or so.

I doubt the book will persuade most of the folks here, because that would require being open to persuasion. On the other hand, every customer review of the book on Amazon is favorable.

[L Verge]

(12-19-2018 03:35 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 08:35 AM)davg2000 Wrote:  

(12-17-2018 04:39 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  

(12-16-2018 12:11 PM)davg2000 Wrote:  Yes, $794.77 for a used paperback copy of Mills's book, from a third-party seller. No reference to it at all on Barnes and Noble's website. Mills’s book may be “careful, sober, and thorough,” but apparently not enough people have agreed with Mr. Griffith in twenty-four years to sustain the book’s existence in print. And, at that price, I’m afraid I will not be getting this book for Christmas. Tsk.

Yeah, why take the risk of reading something that will challenge your position? No need for that, right? Who needs to read both sides of an issue anyway? Just read what you know agrees with your view, and nothing else. Stay in your safe space, your echo chamber.

By the way, the book sold out its printing. And the reason it is so expensive is precisely because there are so few second-hand copies left, which indicates that when the book hit the used-book market, many copies were bought and not many are left. Used-book sellers usually do not set high prices on used books that are not considered valuable. If they do and there are no takers, the price starts to drop. That hasn't happened with Mills' book yet.

If I were you, Mike, and owned this gem which I paid $50 (!) for, I'd contact several used book sellers and let them know what I had. I see a chance to make money. By the way, I just checked, and I see that Amazon now says that the book is "currently unavailable." I'd get on this. Opportunity here.

I don't need the money. I'd rather have the book. There's still one copy left on abebooks.com--last week there were four copies left. So three copies have been sold in the last six days or so.

I doubt the book will persuade most of the folks here, because that would require being open to persuasion. On the other hand, every customer review of the book on Amazon is favorable.

I will not belabor this except to say that you need some lessons on how to trick the public into thinking something is very scarce and worth a high price on the secondary market. Wait, on second thought, you might already know how to scam folks, based on your assessments of some books and theories.

You also need to know how anyone and everyone can become a reviewer - especially friends of the author...

[mikegriffith1]

(12-16-2018 10:51 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(12-16-2018 09:33 AM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Mills mentions facts that I have not seen discussed in any other book.

Do you feel John Mathews' letter never existed?

I take it you mean the letter that John Mathews belatedly claimed that Booth gave him to deliver to the National Intelligencer.

Well, let me ask you some of the questions that occur to me about this issue:

* Do you believe that Booth would have entrusted such a letter—his statement to the nation to explain and justify his deed—to a man he had recently declared to be “a coward,” “very much frightened,” and “not fit to live”?

* Do you believe that Booth would have given Mathews this letter during a chance meeting on Pennsylvania Avenue, while Booth was “coming down the avenue,” in broad daylight and in front of who-knows-how-many witnesses, as Mathews claimed? Does that ring true to you?

* Do you find it believable that Mathews testified at the 1867 Johnson impeachment hearing that he could remember the last paragraph and the signature block of the alleged three-page letter?

* Do you find it believable that in 1881 Mathews claimed that with a journalist’s help he was able to “reconstruct from memory” the contents of the letter, whereas he told the Johnson impeachment committee that he could only remember the last paragraph and the signature block?

* Do you not view as very problematic Mathews’ claims (1) that two years after the fact, he remembered the last paragraph and the signature block of the letter, and (2) that 14 years after the fact, he was able to “reconstruct from memory” the entire letter with the help of a journalist, given the fact that Mathews told the Johnson impeachment committee that he only read the letter twice and that he was quite nervous while he was reading it?

* Do you find it odd that Mathews’ 1881 reconstructed-from-memory version of the alleged letter is virtually identical to the letter that Booth left with his sister in the fall of 1864, and that that letter had been widely published by then? (See, for example, Right or Wrong, God Judge Me, p. 151).

* Do you believe Mathews’ story about meeting David Herold on a street the afternoon of the assassination/a week before the assassination? (Mathews’ wording is unclear about when the meeting supposedly occurred. He told this story to explain why he remembered that the name “Herold” was in the signature block of the letter. See his testimony here: https://books.google.com/books?id=FWdHAQ...q&f=true.)

Again, these are just some of the questions that have occurred to me about this alleged letter. John Chandler Griffin raises some good questions about it as well (Lincoln’s Execution, pp. 242-244).

[RJNorton]

I do not know if the letter really existed. I just don't have strong feelings one way or the other.

Long ago I read Mills' arguments on this, and I feel that he makes sense on some of his points. Why didn't Booth simply mail the letter himself? That makes sense to me; Mathews said it was sealed and stamped. Mathews' memory of the letter...it got longer as the years went by... is certainly suspect/unbelievable. However, I do not agree that Mathews made up the story due to Stanton's intimidation (or other men in government). I do not agree with what Mills says on that issue.

Booth seems to make reference to it in his diary; I feel this may be an argument that the letter existed as Mathews claimed. Booth uses the word "left" not "mailed."

If Mathews created the story, I have no clear answer why he did so. The assassination story has many uncertainties (which is one reason why so many people are interested in the topic), and this is one of them. I do not have all the answers, but I do not think Stanton had anything to do with the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. I do not think Mathews fabricated the story at the urging of Stanton or other government officials. If Mathews did indeed create the story, I feel he must have had other reasons for doing so; I don't think he was threatened by the government to make up the story to clear the government itself of being behind the assassination.

Mathews is the sole source for the story of the letter. The vast majority of Lincoln assassination books accept his account, but I do not think we can ever know with absolute certainty whether or not his story of receiving the letter is true or false. I cannot agree with Mills when he writes, "It never happened." I just do not have that strong of an opinion either way. However, I do agree that the 1881 recollection is impossible to believe (obviously copied from Booth's 1864 letter). When I walk into a room I sometimes forget why I did so, let alone remembering the wording of a letter from 16 years ago.

Some folks referred to him as Crazy John Mathews. Who knows - maybe there was good reason for it.

[mikegriffith1]

(12-20-2018 04:38 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  I do not know if the letter really existed. I just don't have strong feelings one way or the other.

Long ago I read Mills' arguments on this, and I feel that he makes sense on some of his points. Why didn't Booth simply mail the letter himself? That makes sense to me; Mathews said it was sealed and stamped. Mathews' memory of the letter...it got longer as the years went by... is certainly suspect/unbelievable. However, I do not agree that Mathews made up the story due to Stanton's intimidation (or other men in government). I do not agree with what Mills says on that issue.

Booth seems to make reference to it in his diary; I feel this may be an argument that the letter existed as Mathews claimed. Booth uses the word "left" not "mailed."

If Mathews created the story, I have no clear answer why he did so. The assassination story has many uncertainties (which is one reason why so many people are interested in the topic), and this is one of them. I do not have all the answers, but I do not think Stanton had anything to do with the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. I do not think Mathews fabricated the story at the urging of Stanton or other government officials. If Mathews did indeed create the story, I feel he must have had other reasons for doing so; I don't think he was threatened by the government to make up the story to clear the government itself of being behind the assassination.

Mathews is the sole source for the story of the letter. The vast majority of Lincoln assassination books accept his account, but I do not think we can ever know with absolute certainty whether or not his story of receiving the letter is true or false. I cannot agree with Mills when he writes, "It never happened." I just do not have that strong of an opinion either way. However, I do agree that the 1881 recollection is impossible to believe (obviously copied from Booth's 1864 letter). When I walk into a room I sometimes forget why I did so, let alone remembering the wording of a letter from 16 years ago.

Some folks referred to him as Crazy John Mathews. Who knows - maybe there was good reason for it.

I can see a plausible scenario for Stanton coercing Mathews to invent this story. Mathews didn't come forward with this story until he was called to testify before the Johnson impeachment committee, two years after the assassination. This was at a time when some members of Congress were raising questions about the military commission's verdicts and sentences.

Mathews, as a longtime friend of Booth's, was vulnerable to coercion. Stanton and/or others in the War Department acting at Stanton's behest, could have coerced Mathews into claiming that he received Booth's letter and that it was also signed in the name of Herold and Atzerodt, and this could have been intended to support the commission's execution of those two conspirators, as if to say, "You see, even in Booth's letter, he congratulated Herold and Atzerodt as faithful conspirators in his murderous plot, so the commission was right to execute them."

[Gene C]

I can see an implausible scenario along the same lines.

[mikegriffith1]

(12-21-2018 08:05 AM)Gene C Wrote:  I can see an implausible scenario along the same lines.

Yes, of course. Then perhaps you'd like to take a stab at answering the questions I posed about Mathews' belated story?

Some other questions come to mind:

* Why did Mathews decide to tell this story at the Johnson impeachment hearings, two years after the murder?

* Why didn't the letter supposedly mention either of the Surratts?

* Why didn't the letter supposedly mention O'Laughlen and Arnold?

* Why did the letter supposedly use the alias of Lewis Payne for Lewis Powell? Why wouldn't Booth have used the man's real name?

* Given Atzerodt's objections to and hesitancy about Booth's murder plan, why would Booth have described him as being as devoted as he was to his cause?

[Gene C]

(12-20-2018 07:31 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  I can see a plausible scenario for Stanton coercing Mathews to invent this story.

The connection you mention between Stanton and Mathews is implausible to me.
Not only that, you have not presented any facts to suggest your scenario is plausible, just a couple of "could haves".
The "invented story" is your scenario of Stanton coercing Mathews. It's fantasy. You are grasping at straws.

I see no purpose in answering your leading questions regarding a letter you fail to acknowledge whether you believe existed or not.

[L Verge]

Well, let me ask you some of the questions that occur to me about this issue:

* Do you believe that Booth would have entrusted such a letter—his statement to the nation to explain and justify his deed—to a man he had recently declared to be “a coward,” “very much frightened,” and “not fit to live”?

MIKE KAUFFMAN HAS CONSISTENTLY MADE A PLAUSIBLE CASE FOR BOOTH BEING MANIPULATIVE ENOUGH TO PLACE EACH OF HIS CABAL IN "INCRIMINATING" SITUATIONS ALONG THE WAY IN ORDER TO ENSURE THEIR COOPERATION. I THINK HE DID JUST THAT WITH MATHEWS. HE ALSO DID NOT MAIL THAT LETTER TO THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER HIMSELF BECAUSE HE DID NOT WANT IT ALREADY IN THE MAIL IN CASE HE WAS NOT ABLE TO ACHIEVE HIS PLANNED ASSASSINATION.

* Do you believe that Booth would have given Mathews this letter during a chance meeting on Pennsylvania Avenue, while Booth was “coming down the avenue,” in broad daylight and in front of who-knows-how-many witnesses, as Mathews claimed? Does that ring true to you?

OF COURSE I'M SILLY, BUT YES, I CAN SEE THIS HAPPENING IN A DAY WHERE NO ONE SNAPPED INSTANT PHOTOS OR THOUGHT A THING ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON NOW THAT THE WAR WAS ALMOST OVER. I BET MANY OF US TODAY HAVE SEEN SUCH A TRANSFER OF PAPER (SOME CONTAINING DRUGS) OCCURRING AROUND US WITHOUT THINKING A THING ABOUT IT AS WE TOOK CARE OF OUR OWN BUSINESS.

* Do you find it believable that Mathews testified at the 1867 Johnson impeachment hearing that he could remember the last paragraph and the signature block of the alleged three-page letter?

YES, I BELIEVE THAT ALSO BECAUSE MATHEWS WAS A PROFESSIONAL ACTOR IN 1865 AND TRAINED TO BE A QUICK STUDY OF LINES AND CHANGES IN LINES AT THE LAST MOMENT BEFORE BEING SHOVED ON STAGE. I ALSO BELIEVE THAT PARAGRAPH WOULD BE ETCHED INTO HIS MEMORY BECAUSE OF WHAT HAD JUST OCCURRED.

* Do you find it believable that in 1881 Mathews claimed that with a journalist’s help he was able to “reconstruct from memory” the contents of the letter, whereas he told the Johnson impeachment committee that he could only remember the last paragraph and the signature block?

NO, THIS PART I DO NOT BELIEVE TO BE TRUE. I CONCUR WITH JAMES O. HALL AND EDWARD STEERS THAT HE WAS PROMPTED BY ACCESS TO THE "TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN" LETTER. I HAVE NOT TAKEN TIME TO CHECK ON HOW RHODEHAMEL AND TAPER INTERPRET IT IN RIGHT OR WRONG.

* Do you not view as very problematic Mathews’ claims (1) that two years after the fact, he remembered the last paragraph and the signature block of the letter, and (2) that 14 years after the fact, he was able to “reconstruct from memory” the entire letter with the help of a journalist, given the fact that Mathews told the Johnson impeachment committee that he only read the letter twice and that he was quite nervous while he was reading it?

NO NEED TO RESPOND TO THIS ONE BECAUSE YOU ARE JUST REPEATING WHAT YOU HAD ALREADY QUESTIONED.

* Do you find it odd that Mathews’ 1881 reconstructed-from-memory version of the alleged letter is virtually identical to the letter that Booth left with his sister in the fall of 1864, and that that letter had been widely published by then? (See, for example, Right or Wrong, God Judge Me, p. 151).

ANSWERED ABOVE

* Do you believe Mathews’ story about meeting David Herold on a street the afternoon of the assassination/a week before the assassination? (Mathews’ wording is unclear about when the meeting supposedly occurred. He told this story to explain why he remembered that the name “Herold” was in the signature block of the letter. See his testimony here: https://books.google.com/books?id=FWdHAQ...q&f=true.)

I BELIEVE HIS RECOGNITION OF THOSE THREE CONSPIRATORS' NAMES FOR THE REASON GIVEN IS VERY LIKELY TRUE. AND, NOTE THAT THE NAMES WERE ONLY THOSE WHO HAD REMAINED WITH BOOTH TO THE POINT OF HIS WRITING OF THIS LETTER TO THE NEWSPAPER. SINCE THERE WAS NO MENTION OF THE TWO SURRATTS, ARNOLD, AND O'LAUGHLEN, ISN'T IT REASONABLE AND LOGICAL TO ASSUME THAT BOOTH DID NOT COUNT ON THEIR SUPPORT AND DID NOT CONSIDER THEM PATRIOTS?

[GustD45]

Gee Laurie don't hold back tell us how you really feel.

[L Verge]

(12-21-2018 01:14 PM)GustD45 Wrote:  Gee Laurie don't hold back tell us how you really feel.

Roger would kick me out if I did that... BTW: I used all capitals in my replies in order to distinguish where my answers began. I was not intending to appear rude, since there are now rules of etiquette regarding using capitals, exclamation points, etc. I was famous for that -- but I also hate emoticons.