Decapitation of the Union

[John Fazio]

(10-03-2015 12:36 PM)MajGenl.Meade Wrote:  

(10-03-2015 10:40 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  Everyone:

I will address Major General Meade's comments later ("acquaintance", indeed!!), but for now I will repeat what Weichmann (a good source) has to say on the subject of the inscription:

In (August) Booth was playing a theatrical engagement at Meadville, Pennsylvania. He registered at the McHenry House...When (the performance) was over, Booth retired alone to his room. The following morning he left the city. When the servant...entered the room which had been occupied by the actor, an inscription was found on one of the windowpanes. It was written in a large, bold hand and was as follows: ABE LINCOLN departed...etc."...The signature of Booth entered August 13, 1864, was cut from the hotel register, and was pasted on the glass under the inscription...All the circumstances in relation to (the framed glass) and of the visit of Booth to Meadville at that time are certified to by Miss McHenry (the daughter of the proprietor) and other residents of Meadville...The handwriting on the windowpane when compared with the signature of Booth on the hotel register is found to be identically the same, and this fact is further verified and strengthened by a comparison with Booth's handwriting in his diary. There is not the slightest doubt that the writing on the pane of glass is that of Booth...

Sounds pretty good to me, especially when coupled with evidence of attempted poisoning of the President, probably with the complicity of the druggist's clerk whose name was Herold and whose place of employment was known to serve the Executive Mansion.

John

I claimed too much??? :-)

The problem with Weichmann's story is of course that it is complete and utter hearsay, written at a considerable time after the event. He did not relate what he himself had seen and known at the time (August 1864) but repeats a story he heard at a later date. As such, it is no more valuable than any "interwebs" repetition of a story, spurious or not. The test perhaps is, does the "writing" using a diamond against glass, truly match the "hand" writing of JWB? If so, does it match the "hand" of an unknown number of other's writings?

Meade:

It is not advisable to dismiss "hearsay" evidence so blithely. In some degree, 99% of the evidence we have is hearsay. Only that from the horse's mouth, i.e. the perpetrator of the deed, is not, and even here we have problems, sometimes very serious problems, of credibility, as every historian knows.

Weichmann wrote more, but I left it out in the interest of brevity. I'll quote him now, especially because you appear to make comparisons of handwriting the "test". Please add this to the material previously quoted.

The glass was removed from the window and encased in a wooden frame. A piece of velvet was placed behind it and thus the handwriting was made more distinct....Miss Mary McHenry, daughter of the proprietor of the McHenry House, presented the framed glass to the War Department after the assassination...It is still in the possession of that bureau of the government. (Citing Century Magazine , April 1896)

Weichmann's account appears to be contradicted by the evidence that Booth was elsewhere on August 13. But that is not an absolute. It often happens that a person will make a quick trip here or there for any number of reasons, which digression goes largely unnoticed and unrecorded. It is common knowledge that Booth had oil interests in the Meadville area and in fact spent almost the entire month of September in nearby Franklin. It is quite reasonable to suppose, therefore, that he had an engagement in Meadville. There is substantial agreement that following his early August meeting with Arnold and O'Laughlen at Barnums' in Baltimore, Booth took off to settle his affairs elsewhere. Loux has him in New York for the rest of the month. Steers is in substantial agreement. Alford has him informing Arnold and O'Laughlen that he was going "north" to wind up his business and personal affairs, not exactly consistent with Loux and Steers. Arnold says that "a few days (after their meeting) (Booth) started for his home in the North for the purpose of settling and arranging all his claims, etc., and to dispose of his property and possessions satisfactorily to himself, thence intending visiting Canada..." The point is that none of this absolutely precludes a trip to Meadville on August 13 to discharge an obligation, i.e. a performance. Observe that he stayed only one night. Observe, further, that even Chamlee states that Booth "visited the region (i.e. Meadville) at that time". Observe, further, that once he hit the main line of the PRR from Pittsburgh to New York, he would be in the latter city in a matter of hours. My considered judgment is that the evidence re this issue does not allow us to make a definitive judgment, one that rises to at least the level of a probability, and that this issue, too, therefore, is and will remain one of the enduring mysteries of the period.

John