Does anyone know...?

[John Fazio]

(09-13-2017 04:44 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 03:34 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 10:58 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Agreed that we are beating a dead horse. I just don't think that anyone nowadays understands the Confederate network (and frustration) in Southern Maryland and the Northern Neck of Virginia. When I first started working at Surratt House, I met a gentleman who was writing a book on Lincoln. He told me that he was amazed at the animosity that still existed among old-timers in Maryland regarding Mr. Lincoln -- more than what he had encountered in the Deep South...

"I don't know anything about Dr. Garland and I don't know anyone who does. Reference to him is made on p. 278 of my book. It derives from an oral statement made by Arnold to James L. McPhail, Provost Marshal of Maryland, to the effect that Booth had corresponded with Drs. Mudd, Garland and Queen."

That reference is exactly what put Tidwell, Hall, and Gaddy on the trail of the elusive Dr. Garland over thirty years ago. Ed Steers worked closely with Hall while researching Blood on the Moon, so I suspect that's why he picked up on the reference also.

At the time, Mr. Hall asked me to use my St. Mary's County roots to see if we could identify Dr. Garland. I wish I still had my notes on the doctor, but I don't. I just remember that there was a Dr. Garland in St. Mary's County at the beginning of the war and that he went south to serve Davis. Would he have been part of the pipeline between the Southern Maryland planters and Richmond? Don't forget that the residents of St. Mary's were just as involved in the underground as those in Prince George's and Charles Counties and that river crossings occurred in that county also.

Laurie:

If Hall, Steers, et al., couldn't get their hands around Dr. Garland, I believe he will most likely remain an elusive figure for a long time.

As for Lincoln, we need to think of the alternative to Union victory to properly assess him, his motives and his methods. Imagine a major power on the North American continent that codified guarantees of slavery in its organic law, i.e. its constitution, and this at a time when all the major powers of the world (Great Britain, France and Russia), and most of the lesser powers, had already abolished the institution. Then imagine the effect of the precedent on the political future of the country. How long would it have been before a state or group of states which were part of the CSA decided that they didn't like what what was going on in Richmond and so pulled out. The Confederate government could hardly have objected inasmuch as they had fought a 4-year war to validate the right of secession. Then imagine the same process in what was left of the United States. How long would it have been before a state or group of states in the North decided that they too didn't like what was going on in the national capital and so pulled out and established a separate county or countries. How long would it have been before the entire country looked like modern-day Europe, with all the attendant fratricide that has characterized that continent prior to the Pax Americana. Few, in my judgment, saw the matter as clearly as Lincoln, which is why he resisted the demands of the abolitionists and the radicals in his own party for immediate abolition of slavery. He knew that to do that would mean loss of the border states and therefore the war and, for the foreseeable future, emancipation. Few besides Lincoln realized that sea changes, fundamental reworkings of the order of things, could only be achieved in the fullness of time, and so he acted accordingly. Yes, he sometimes had to resort to extra-judicial and even extra-constitutional means to assure a favorable result, but as all historians know, it is sometimes necessary to go outside the law to preserve it. That is why the more thoughtful among us, North and South, do not criticize Lincoln, but honor him

John

John - You are preaching to an old history teacher who used that exact same principle to illustrate to my students why a confederation was not an ideal situation for our country -- either at the end of the Revolutionary War or in the mid-19th century.

However, on this date in 2017, it is much easier to play Monday-morning-quarterback than it was for our ancestors who were dealing with some unconstitutional measures being put in place by Mr. Lincoln as well as federal invasions and interventions in states that had not left the Union.

BTW: I am not anti-Lincoln; I find him rather fascinating and, since I am a pragmatist, I understand some of his actions. Likewise, however, I understand the feelings of those who were chafing under his administration's policies and the screeching and wailing of some rabid abolitionists. I find myself chafing under the situation that is occurring today with the screechers and the wailers!

P.S. Have you read the several cogent articles cited by Eva, Darrell, and others about African society and the influence of European nations long before America became the scapegoat??

Laurie:

Your perceptions, or, more accurately, your understanding of the perceptions of both sides, is praiseworthy.

As Jesus said of the poor, "screechers and wailers" we will always have with us.

No, I haven't read the articles you refer to, but I'll check them out.

John

---

(09-14-2017 03:15 AM)Steve Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 10:58 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  Everyone:

A little clarification re Miss Porterfield. Please Google "Weik a new story of the Lincoln Assassination". Then hit "The Century Illustrated Monthly Magazine". This will take you to the 1913 issue. There, beginning on p. 559, you will find the article. Miss Porterfield was from Greencastle, Indiana. She happened to be in Washington at the time because her mother brought her there. On p. 561 there is the business about Booth asking her how to spell "tyrannis". Reck ("Last 24 Hours") mentions the incident (p. 105) and lists Weik's article as his source. I haven't checked, but it's a good bet that everyone who mentions this exchange between Miss Porterfield and Booth is using the same source--Weik's article. Her account squares well with everything else we know about April 14. It's an interesting read and I am inclined to credit it fairly well. I believe everyone knows that I do not reject tradition too easily. Everything has a root. I found no reference in her account to John Porterfield, the Secret Service agent in Canada.

John

I used the information from The Century article to track down her marriage record:



and then used that and the article to find her in

1860 census (transcription errors look at original image):
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MC7M-9BQ

1865 New York census:
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QVNJ-97LL

1855 marriage of her mother and stepfather (3rd record on the right):
https://www.nysoclib.org/sites/default/f...856-28.jpg

and then using the information from that marriage record to find her mother's first marriage record in 1842 in Davidson County, Tennessee:
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:KZ7P-PHZ

Miss Porterfield was Luella Porterfield born around 1847 to Robert Porterfield and Mary Figures. According to the 1860 census, she was born in Kentucky, although that's the only record mentioning her birthplace that I've found so far so that can't be confirmed. Her parents were from Tennessee.

According to this short bio of John Porterfield, the Confederate agent from Nashville Tennessee, he was born in 1819 and died in 1874:
https://books.google.com/books?id=fKqJFX...74&f=false

The Findagrave image of his tombstone:
https://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cg...d=31514052

According to several online trees (which I have yet to confirm) Luella's father, Robert Porterfield, and John Porterfield were brothers. If true, that would make her John Porterfield's niece.

Steve:

Fantastic work! Your are a master of your craft. Thank you.

John