Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Gene C · 11-26-2013, 08:30 PM

Very good Laurie! But when you mentioned you did the video, I knew it would be good.

J. Beckert · 11-26-2013, 08:37 PM

It was good, but it gave me a strange hankerin' for crabcakes...

Anita · 11-26-2013, 08:49 PM

Thanks Laurie for the productive and informative rainy day research. And what a great video on Mary Surratt. So nice to see you! You are a star!!

I agree with Roger that the D.C. Police officers assigned to Lincoln were to act as bodyguards. I remember reading somewhere that Ford knew Lincoln would bring a bodyguard "...Finally, late in the war, in November 1864, four Washington policemen were detailed to the White House to act as personal bodyguards to the President. Lincoln tolerated them reluctantly and insisted they remain as inconspicuous as possible."...The President's bodyguard for the evening was Patrolman John F. Parker of the Washington Police, a man who proved himself unfit for protective duty. He was supposed to remain on guard in the corridor outside of the Presidential box during the entire performance of the play." Appendix 7 Warren Commission Report.

I don't believe Stanton had anything to do with the assassination. If Stanton did drop charges against Parker it's because he didn't want it to be covered by the press. If it ended up in the papers it could damage confidence in law enforcement. The government needed to appear strong in light of the chaos of the assassination and the mess left behind by the war. I think he wanted to make sure all the blame for the assassination pointed clearly to a Southern conspiracy.

Eva Elisabeth · 11-26-2013, 10:47 PM

W. E. Reck writes: "The other reference to Parker is found in the police log for April 14-15, stating that at 6 A.M. he had brought Lizzie Williams on charge of suspicion. (She was not held.)" Are any more details known about this?

L Verge · (This post was last modified: 11-27-2013 09:44 AM by L Verge.)

I think Lizzie was brought in on prostitution charges. BTW, Reck's book is very well done - and he was a very nice gentleman to work with.

(11-26-2013 08:37 PM)J. Beckert Wrote: It was good, but it gave me a strange hankerin' for crabcakes...

Joseph - You and your crabcakes! Capt. Billy's is closed for the season since they depend on fresh catches. They should be open again on weekends in time for our conference.

Rick - Southern Maryland crabcakes may be what finally tips this Yankee to the Southern side...

J. Beckert · 11-27-2013, 10:01 AM

(11-27-2013 09:40 AM)L Verge Wrote: Joseph - You and your crabcakes! Capt. Billy's is closed for the season since they depend on fresh catches. They should be open again on weekends in time for our conference.

Rick - Southern Maryland crabcakes may be what finally tips this Yankee to the Southern side...

Great! (She took the bait!)

Gene C · 10-04-2014, 10:30 AM

In reading "Backstage With Booth" by Michael R Hurwitz, I am not sure how much liberty he takes in writing this book, as there are no footnotes. He wrote the following;

"Parker, the assigned guard, took his seat outside in the assigned corridor, but became engaged with the action on stage and left his post several times to view the play. Mrs. Lincoln had slipped him some money, so it wasn't long until Parker abandoned his duties and made off for Taltavul's Tavern for some refreshments. By nine-thirty, the Presidential party was alone and unguarded" (page 123)

I don't remember having ever read that Mrs. Lincoln slipped Parker some money. Has anyone ever heard of that before?

L Verge · 10-04-2014, 01:16 PM

I only remember that being in Michael Hurwitz's book, which (IMO) needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Michael is very nice and very talented. He does great one-man shows on various historical characters. He performed as Mark Twain at one of the Surratt functions a few years ago.

Like our Tom, he is very much into the theater end of things, and his book - as he explained it to me - was designed to show the backstage efforts of theater employees at that time. Sort of a perspective from the viewpoint of men like Spangler. However, I also feel that he had to pull that thing about Mary slipping Parker money out of some source. I can't believe that he would pull it out of thin air.

RJNorton · 10-04-2014, 01:33 PM

If true it would seem to conflict with Elizabeth Keckly's account of Mary blaming Parker for her husband's assassination. Why would she blame him if she gave him the money to go next door for a drink?

As far as the chair goes, William H. Crook wrote that the Ford's doorkeeper, John Buckingham, maintained that a chair had been placed in the passageway behind the State Box for Parker to sit in.

Jim Garrett · 10-11-2014, 08:23 AM

That's an interesting tidbit about MTL giving Parker money. I've never heard that either. If she did, it certainly would not preclude her from putting some blame on Parker. I don't think MTL would have been able emotionally to accept any blame.

A Clayton · 12-01-2014, 09:35 AM

(11-26-2013 02:20 PM)L Verge Wrote: It is a dreary, rainy, and cold day in Southern Maryland - and the phones aren't ringing very much at Surratt House. Therefore, I decided to do a little follow-up on the issue of Presidential/White House guard John F. Parker with information taken from a 1982 article that James O. Hall did for the Surratt Courier.

Parker was born in 1830 in Winchester, Virginia. His father was a butcher, but later became a police officer in Winchester. Young Parker first came to D.C. in the early-1850s to work as a carpenter and also married Mary America Maus in the city in 1855. By the 1860 Census, they were the parents of three children - all girls.

When the war began, Parker enlisted in a unit of the D.C. Volunteers (Metropolitan Rifles) and served his three-month enlistment and was honorably discharged in July of 1861. His wife applied for a widow's pension in 1890, but was turned down because bookkeeping errors during the war did not prove his service -- mainly because there were three John Parkers on the rolls of the D.C. militia units. Mrs. Parker did not list the correct unit when she applied. The dates of service that she gave, however, matched a John Parker of Capt. Kelly's Company.

The D.C. police force in 1861 was pitiful. It was really composed of auxiliary guards employed by municipal corporations and paid out of federal funds. It included quite a few Southern sympathizers and also became overwhelmed by the influx of soldiers and camp followers. A law was passed in August of 1861 to establish the Metropolitan Police Force of the District of Columbia. William B. Webb was the first police superintendent and the first recruits were inducted on September 11, 1861. It is not certain when Parker was inducted, but the 1862 city directory - which was compiled in late-1861 -- shows him as "police."

His difficulties with the department began in 1862. The details are sparse because his personnel file has been missing from the Federal Records Center in Maryland since May 28, 1940, when they were sent to Campbell Photo Service for photostats to be made. What Mr. Hall was able to find was a list of ten charges filed against him between November 11, 1862 and July 22, 1868. A summary of the various charges through November of 1865 was prepared by T.A. Lazenby, secretary of the Board of Police. At that point, Parker had been charged six times -- two reprimands and four charges dismissed.

Mr. Hall found records for four other White House-assigned police in 1864-65, and their records were dismal also, ranging from mistreating prisoners, violent language to citizens, intoxication on duty, brawling in the station, refusal to assist other officers, and discharging firearms in public places. Better men of the city were, of course, serving in the military.

In 1864, it was Ward Hill Lamon, U.S. Marshal for the District of Columbia, who finally asked for a detail of officers to be stationed in the White House. On November 3, 1864, Sgt. Cronin and Patrolmen Donn, Pendel, and Smith reported to "Marshal Lammond" at the "President's House." The detail never exceeded five men at any one time. The following men were added after the original four: Lewis, Crook, McElfresh, Hurdle, Shelton, Parker, and Hopkins. Parker's name does not show up on the list prior to the end of February 1865.

The records for March and April of 1865 are missing (surprise...), but on March 22, 1865, the new superintendent, A.C. Richards wrote the famous letter attempting to get some of his officers out of the draft. Parker evidently appealed to Mrs. Lincoln to keep his job, and this resulted in the April 3, 1865, note signed by the First Lady, verifying that Parker was "a member of the Metropolitan Police detailed for duty at the Executive Mansion by order of of, Mrs. Lincoln" (her signature, but text written by someone else).

On April 14, 1865, Parker had the bad luck of being assigned to the Lincolns' trip to Ford's Theatre. No document has been found specifying his particular duty. We have two variations of his duty as stated in ghost-written books by Officers Pendel and Crook. Pendel said that Parker went on ahead of Lincoln to the theatre "...to see him safe inside." Crook said, however, that Parker "...accompanied the President to the theatre on the night of the 14th..."

Mr. Hall found only two contemporary documents that relate directly to Parker being at Ford's that night. The coachman, Francis Burns, stated that he took a drink with "the footman" and "the special police officer" (but did not name them). He had to mean Forbes and Parker, however. Superintendent Richards filed a formal charge against Parker alleging "neglect of duty," and listed himself and Charles Forbes as witnesses. The specification reads: "In this, that Parker was detailed to attend and protect the President, Mr. Lincoln, that, while the President was at Ford's Theatre on the night of the 14 of April last, said Parker allowed a man to enter the President's private box and shoot the President." This was filed on May 1, 1865, and tried before the board on May 3, 1865. The case was dismissed on June 2, 1865. We know this much only because of the summary written by the previously mentioned board secretary, T.A. Lazenby.

The testimony of Capt. Theodore McGowan during the Conspiracy Trial has gotten a lot of mileage (some of it courtesy of Eisenschiml's famous "conclusions"). Eisenschiml said that McGowan saw Booth hand his card to Parker. That's not what McGowan said in his statement of May 15. He stated under oath that the man who entered the box selected a card and "...then showed it to the President's messenger." Just a few minutes before Booth, Simon Hanscom, editor of the Washington National Republican had been to the box to deliver a document. He wrote in his newspaper that he found only the "footman and messenger" at the door to the box - and he identified the man by name, Charles Forbes.

So, the question boils down to whether or not Parker had been instructed to guard the President throughout the play. If so, he was guilty of "neglect of duty." If his duty was a lesser one of getting Lincoln into and out of the theatre, negligence would be improper. Parker remained on White House duty until May 10, when he was returned to street duty in the 5th Precinct. On July 22, 1868, he was charged with gross neglect of duty and was apparently tried and charges dismissed -- this record is missing also. Entry 57 in RG 351 in the National Archives show that he was absent without leave on August 13, 1868. His police trail ends there.

Parker went back to his trade as a carpenter and was employed at the Navy Yard. City directories through 1890 describe him variously as a carpenter, a ship's carpenter, and as a machinist. He died in Washington on June 28, 1890. The death certificate lists the cause as pneumonia, complicated by asthma and exhaustion. He was buried beside four of his children in Glenwood Cemetery. In 1904, his wife joined them in the unmarked plot.

I was wrong earlier in saying that he had no descendants. As of 1982, there were Parker descendants in the D.C. area, but they did/do not carry the Parker name and have no pictures of him nor family records.

Thanks for this post; I'm new to the forum, and John Parker is someone I have been researching for years; I have sent you a private email with a question regarding a different post regarding Parker. I had also found the information that you have posted, which is well researched. Also, I, too, had contacted the U.S. Archives, the legal repository for MPDC records, and was also told that his personnel records and Trial Board records regarding him were missing. I know that there are, and have been specific directives and documentation for transferring government records, including Metropolitan Police Records, to the U.S. Archives for retention, and I have done those transfers in the past.

The point of my research is Parker's actual vice presumed responsibilities that evening, his record as a MPDC Police officer, his use of alcohol as it related to that evening, as well as standing orders regarding what happened when the President dismissed his guards from duty, when they were away from the White House.

There is a lot of personal opinion, not based in fact, regarding Parker's responsibilities and actions, starting with William Crook, who was not present and not a first hand witness that evening, and who never seemed to give an interview to a newspaper without saying he could have prevented the assassination had he been on duty, even though he did not know - that he ever related - what Parker's specific orders, responsibilities, and duties were that evening, and whether Parker had been dismissed by the President once they arrived, or even if it were Parker's duty to remain with the President, vice just deliver the President to the theatre. My point regarding Parker's being held responsible is that repetition of an opinion presented as fact, starting with Crook's opinions in interviews, repeated, even now in print into the twenty-first century, does not make it fact, only repeated opinion - mostly from Crook's interviews.

As a matter of information, were you aware that there were two MPDC Officers named John Parker during that period. Both lived in the 3rd Ward; the instant John Parker worked in the 3rd Ward, and the other in the 2nd Ward.

One more question regarding Ford's Theatre, if you know. I have contacted Ford's Theatre, without response, to find out if the Theatre had a "Necessary" or "Closet" for use by patrons or actors at that time. I've seen a drawing of the theatre, but it didn't show one, or an area that could have been used for one. Do you know the answer.

Thanks and best regards, Anne

RJNorton · 12-01-2014, 09:56 AM

Hi Anne and welcome to the forum!

Regarding your last question...I also was curious about that. In 2011 I wrote the theater and received the following response:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Mr. Norton:

The Ford's Theatre which was owned and operated by the Ford Brothers in 1865 would not have had indoor restrooms as we know of restrooms today.

Indoor plumbing as we know it today did not exist at that time. The 1963 booklet you noted may have been in reference to the planned building of new restrooms for the theatre just prior to the restoration of the building's interior back to a working theatre. The referenced renovations began in 1964 and was completed in January of 1968.

Also, noted in the "National Park Service Historic Structure's Report" of Ford's Theatre (circa 1963), it does not give any indication that any indoor bathrooms/restrooms existed back then. What would have existed at that time just outside behind the theatre were small "outhouses." Finally, the floor you mentioned above Taltavull's (commonly referred to as the Star Saloon) was used by the Ford Brothers as a lounge area as John Ford lived in a room above that floor next door to the theatre.

We hope this information is helpful in clarifying and answering your inquiry.

We thank you for your interest in Ford's Theatre National Historic Site.

Eric Martin
Education Coordinator
FOTH

A Clayton · 12-01-2014, 10:12 AM

(12-01-2014 09:56 AM)RJNorton Wrote: Hi Anne and welcome to the forum!

Regarding your last question...I also was curious about that. In 2011 I wrote the theater and received the following response:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Mr. Norton:

The Ford's Theatre which was owned and operated by the Ford Brothers in 1865 would not have had indoor restrooms as we know of restrooms today.

Indoor plumbing as we know it today did not exist at that time. The 1963 booklet you noted may have been in reference to the planned building of new restrooms for the theatre just prior to the restoration of the building's interior back to a working theatre. The referenced renovations began in 1964 and was completed in January of 1968.

Also, noted in the "National Park Service Historic Structure's Report" of Ford's Theatre (circa 1963), it does not give any indication that any indoor bathrooms/restrooms existed back then. What would have existed at that time just outside behind the theatre were small "outhouses." Finally, the floor you mentioned above Taltavull's (commonly referred to as the Star Saloon) was used by the Ford Brothers as a lounge area as John Ford lived in a room above that floor next door to the theatre.

We hope this information is helpful in clarifying and answering your inquiry.

We thank you for your interest in Ford's Theatre National Historic Site.

Eric Martin
Education Coordinator
FOTH

Thanks for the response - I thought that might have been the case, since I couldn't find any records regarding indoor plumbing during that era.
Best regards, Anne

L Verge · 12-01-2014, 03:57 PM

Welcome aboard, Anne. Let me make a quick response to the question about restrooms. In the 1963 Restoration of Ford's Theatre booklet cited above, page 51, cites the following under "South Addition:" 'The south addition was a three-story brick building built by Ford in 1863 as an extension of his theatre. A combined restaurant and bar, known as Peter Taltavul's "Star Saloon" occupied the first floor. The second floor, which was used as a cloakroom and lounge of the dress circle was connected to the theatre by a double doorway. Larger windows o this floor of the building provided additional light and ventilation for what was considered to be a spacious lounge. Rest rooms were most probably at the rear for the convenience of dress circle patrons...'"

As for any more specifics on John Parker's assignment that night, may I wish you all the luck in the world trying to pin that down. Frankly, if two of the greatest Lincoln assassination researchers in the world (James O. Hall and Michael W. Kauffman) couldn't pin it down, I fear they are lost - or so far underground that it will take a miracle to get them released.

Now, before someone goes off on a tangent and decides that my last sentence must indicate a great conspiracy, let me say that the records were supposedly still with the Metro Police until sometime in the 1960s, at which time some tidy supervisor suggested that the files needed to be cleaned out. I have been told by two separate sources that they ended up in the circular file. However, one source (who was then serving as the department's historian) told me that the Parker file and others supposedly were seen in the trash by someone who saved them for his own collection. When I last spoke with the historian (who now has another job), the "owner" was still alive. He did not know - or would not divulge - who the owner was.

Linda Anderson · 12-01-2014, 05:35 PM

(12-01-2014 09:56 AM)RJNorton Wrote: Hi Anne and welcome to the forum!

Regarding your last question...I also was curious about that. In 2011 I wrote the theater and received the following response:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Mr. Norton:

The Ford's Theatre which was owned and operated by the Ford Brothers in 1865 would not have had indoor restrooms as we know of restrooms today.

Indoor plumbing as we know it today did not exist at that time. The 1963 booklet you noted may have been in reference to the planned building of new restrooms for the theatre just prior to the restoration of the building's interior back to a working theatre. The referenced renovations began in 1964 and was completed in January of 1968.

Also, noted in the "National Park Service Historic Structure's Report" of Ford's Theatre (circa 1963), it does not give any indication that any indoor bathrooms/restrooms existed back then. What would have existed at that time just outside behind the theatre were small "outhouses." Finally, the floor you mentioned above Taltavull's (commonly referred to as the Star Saloon) was used by the Ford Brothers as a lounge area as John Ford lived in a room above that floor next door to the theatre.

We hope this information is helpful in clarifying and answering your inquiry.

We thank you for your interest in Ford's Theatre National Historic Site.

Eric Martin
Education Coordinator
FOTH

I don't know about Ford's Theater but Anna Seward wrote to her mother-in-law Frances on Feb. 28 , 1861 that the Old Clubhouse had three parlors and a bathroom on the second floor and a dressing room with a bath and a water closet on the third floor.