Why was Booth admitted into the presidential box?

[John Fazio]

(04-26-2015 11:52 AM)L Verge Wrote:  "If one begins with a false premise, one must come to a false conclusion."

But I always thought that a good researcher (whether in scientific fields or history and others), would change conclusions once they found their premise didn't hold water....?

John, This old oak is more like the Willow Oak that bends and sways a bit in the breeze. It has allowed me to survive for forty years at Surratt House. I respect your work, especially the efforts you have gone through in doing research. I have told people for forty years that I am not a researcher. I thrive on the work of others that educates me and causes me to think. It is from their work, and now yours, that I draw conclusions.

We used to tease (and depend on) John C. Brennan about being the Lincoln assassination grapevine. He was a great researcher, but he also loved to spread the word about new finds, new people joining our group, new books, etc. as well as offering encouragement - and criticism - from time to time. I want to be just like him when I grow up.

I am pretty sure that your book is going to create quite a stir and, hopefully, get more people reading and thinking -- even those who think they already know it all. If it comes closer to making people reexamine the Judah Benjamin angle, even better.

Laurie:

Thanks. I expect it to kick up some dust too. But that's OK; as it says in the Intro, when has anything worthwhile ever been accomplished without dust, feathers flying, etc. I like to quote Maurice Maeterlinck: "At every crossroads on the path that leads to the future, tradition has placed 10,000 men to guard the past." Something like that. So true. I know that "Come Retribution" caused a lot of controversy. And poor James McPherson: All he said was that the authenticity of the Dahlgren Papers was "contestable" and the heavens opened up on him. I happen to believe, with Wittenberg, that they are authentic, but that the offensive orders didn't come from Lincoln, but from Stanton, which explains why Stanton ordered them to be returned to him after Richmond fell and why they then disappeared.

John

---

(04-26-2015 05:25 PM)loetar44 Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 04:25 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  If you still doubt that it was Forbes at the door, in spite of the foregoing, then you may as well doubt everything else about the history of the event. There are those, after all, who believe that Stanton or Lafayette Baker or the Vatican masterminded the conspiracy, that Booth wasn't really killed in the barn, that Surratt was a double agent working for Baker, and so on ad nauseam. If you require 100% certainty for your conclusions, you will have very few conclusions.

John

John,

Thank you so much. I really enjoyed our discussion and I have to confess that I’m leaning to your views more and more. Your book is a goldmine of information and surely belongs on every book shelve of any Lincoln addict. I’ve learned a lot, but, sorry, I’m still not 100% convinced. You have not changed my opinion on history, but yours is very interesting. Our conversation made me aware of additional aspects, which I appreciate very much. Thank you for a great “course”. Your remark "If you require 100% certainty for your conclusions, you will have very few conclusions", is a great one to keep in mind always!


Kees

Thank you Kees. Your "leaning" puts me in mind of the following poem:

It is clear you needed weaning
In my direction now you're leaning
Few things in life are keener
Than to be a damned good weaner

What would be wrong with your using your second sentence above, plus the next four words, followed by an ellipsis, as a review for Amazon. The Amazon entry for the book has space for five reviews. That would be a fine review. You can say anything else you care to, in place of or in addition to the suggested material, as long as you don't tell the world what you REALY think of the book and its author.

I'm a kidder. Love to laugh and make others laugh.

John

By the way. My wife and I were in the Netherlands a couple of years ago, principally Amsterdam, the Hague, Delft, etc. We loved the country. "Nightwatch" at the Art Museum in Amsterdam was probably the high point. I am amazed that a country that is 25% under water became one of the most dominant economic powers in the world, fought the mighty British navy to a draw and spread its influence everywhere. It surely says something about the tenacity of her people, of which I have recently been treated to an example.

---

(04-26-2015 05:50 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  I just want to thank all contributors for a highly interesting and enjoyable discussion, thrilling like a soccer World Cup final. And I am looking forward to read Mr. Fazio's book to make up my opinion!

Eva:

Thank you.

John

---

(04-26-2015 06:50 PM)RobertLC Wrote:  I agree with EE, this has been a great discussion.

However, at this point in time, I also agree with Roger. I have not read any other eyewitness accounts of the assassination that noted Booth making an earlier visit to the State Box. There are, of course, accounts of his entry immediately prior to the shot. But I’m unaware of any other accounts of Booth making an earlier inspection.

How did everyone miss that? Even Clara Harris makes no mention of it in her letter of April 29, 1865, that Tim Good included in his book.

I’m not saying it didn’t happen. I’ve just not seen any corroborating evidence to support it.

My thanks to everyone who has contributed. Really interesting!

Bob

Bob:

It is not unusual for evidence to be without corroboration. We then accept it or reject it according to other criteria: its believability, its relevance, the credibility of the witness, the witness's demeanor, etc. In this case, I accept Clara's statement re the dry run because she had no motivation whatsoever to fabricate it. Being a senator's daughter and the choice of a man like Rathbone to be his wife, I assume she was a woman of character and integrity. There is nothing self-serving about her description of the intrusion.

John