Thomas F. Harney

[Gene C]

(11-14-2014 05:50 PM)KateH. Wrote:  There were witnesses at the trial who testified to the childlike demeanor of David Herold. But making a statement inside a courtroom does not make the statement true

To conclude, there is also strong evidence that David Herold did not have the mentality of an 11 year old. Instead, that ploy was used to exhibit the reason why execution would not be a fitting punishment in such a case. While that tactic failed to sway the opinions of jury, it seems to have swayed the opinions of historians ever since the hangman's noose tightened around Mr. Herold's neck.

I'm not so sure. I believe these witnesses thought Herold was a few bricks shy of a full load. They met him and talked with him. I don't think Herold had the mentality of an 11 year old, but I can believe he was immature for his age, a Booth groupie who got caught up in knowing a celebrity and enjoyed being seen with him. He didn't have the sense that Arnold & O'Laughlen had to get out of the conspiracy. Booth probably had a stronger influence on him than he did the others. Any attention Booth gave him would make him feel important, as his father had died in Oct, of 64'. I imagine Herold was also interrogated pretty hard, and it's no wonder his story may have been inconsistent, he was scared to death.

And John, do you think the number of people involved in the grand conspiracy may be like a lot of copperhead subversive activities. Lot's of people show up at the meetings and talk big in front of their friends, but none really will do anything. (Kind of like church - the old 80/20 rule. It's the same 20% of the people who do 80% of the work.)

[HerbS]

Maybe-They were all more cunning than we give them credit for!

[Wild Bill]

I agree with Herb.

[L Verge]

(11-14-2014 07:02 PM)Dave Taylor Wrote:  Very well put, Kate.

To me, the most poignant example of Herold's true intelligence lies in the poem he wrote for Willie Jett. It's clear from his own writing that Herold was a well educated and thoughtful man - the exact opposite of what the defense tried to portray him as in their effort to save his life.

Far too often in the literature today the complex characters of the conspirators are misrepresented as one dimensional taglines. "Atzerodt was nothing but a drunk, Herold had the intelligence of an 11 year-old, Powell was a heartless soldier" All of these representations are not only incorrect but also damaging to the study of our history. If we boil down these multifaceted men and women into single (and erroneous) bullet points, we lesson the impact of Lincoln's death. The whole story then loses the very important context which makes it so interesting to study. The true conspiracy of Booth's plot does not stem from any hypothetical outside influence, but rather from the complex internal and external interactions between his core conspirators and their own personal belief systems and values. No one was a pawn in this. They were all complex individuals who acted the way they did based on their unique personal histories. When we subjugate the identities of the conspirators to cliched taglines, we prevent ourselves from getting a complete and accurate view of story.

Kate and Dave - Your combined responses to this topic are wonderfully stated and show once again that historians need to get behind the facade of standard suppositions about their subjects and find out their real backgrounds, education, personalities, etc. In this case, they also really need to judge the tactics and techniques that legal counsel would use to try and defend them in a seemingly hopeless situation.

I have spent the past fifty or so years telling people that each of the conspirators had something that Booth (and his operatives) needed. Atzerodt had spent four years crossing the Potomac River without a Union patrol catching him. Powell had the skills that had impressed Mosby and could provide the brawn needed to subdue whoever was in the Seward household and get to his target. And, Herold knew the terrain over which they would need to travel -- and more importantly, he knew the people of that area. Who was friendly? Who do we avoid? Who can I trick with my "trifling boy" routine?

My family was obviously known to Herold and friendly with him. Our side of the story is that Herold was not an incompetent; he was emotionally immature. We said that being raised as the only boy in a household of sisters could do that to a boy! I have also known quite a few young men who used the "class clown" technique to gain friendship with the "in crowd." Some later descriptions from classmates at the Rittenhouse Academy and Georgetown College testify to that aspect.

If I were the defense lawyer for any of the conspirators, I would be pulling the "mental" card for each and every one of them. That tactic was the one that might convince the court to spare a life. Remember that even Dr. Mudd was being judged by one general (Lew Wallace?) on the bumps on his head indicating poor character. Those tactics are what made it into the court transcripts and hence into the history books. Few people want to take the time to read between the lines and go in search of true character traits. "Will the real David Herold please stand up." Remember that old line from some TV show of the 1950s?

---

"I imagine Herold was also interrogated pretty hard, and it's no wonder his story may have been inconsistent, he was scared to death."

Over thirty years ago, James O. Hall handed me a stack of the conspirators' statements made to the authorities and told me to transcribe them into a booklet form that we could sell at the Surratt House to raise money. I spent hours at my kitchen table on an old electric typewriter deciphering 1865 handwriting and typing up the pages. I learned two things while doing the task: 1. Mrs. Surratt sure knew how to handle herself under interrogation (like she knew it would come some day), and 2. David Herold seemed to be playing with his interrogators.

When I told Mr. Hall my feelings, he grinned that "all-knowing grin" of his and told me that he thought the exact same thing. In the case of Herold, he was impressed with how - under harsh circumstances and after so long on the run - well Herold conducted himself. He was almost leading the authorities on a goose chase with words. At one point, Mr. Hall and I agreed that it was almost as if Herold had been prepared for what to say -- and we even compared the interrogation to an Abbott and Costello routine! Hopefully, some of you are old enough to remember those wonderful skits...

[Gene C]

Good comments. I'm just not to sure, but you've read more on this and know more about it than I do.

Did Surratt House ever sell the booklet, and are there any left?

[RJNorton]

Gene, I bought my copy from Surratt House. The introduction was written by Laurie in 1980.

[Jim Garrett]

Thank you Laurie for the transcription service. The book of statements was one of the first publications I boght from the Surratt Society many years ago. Maybe Herold and Atzerodt were dumb like a fox.

[RJNorton]

IMO David Herold's statement alone is worth the cost of the booklet. He reminds me of our cat. If the cat does something (such as knock the remote on the floor), and Vicki and I then enter the room, the cat has a look of total innocence on his face. When Herold was asked what he knew of the conspiracy he replied:

"I do not know of any. I had no idea that there was any such thing in view, by any party at all. I know nothing at all of it. I never knew any party in existence that had the slightest idea of injuring the President or any of the Cabinet."

[John Fazio]

(11-14-2014 09:54 PM)Gene C Wrote:  [quote='KateH.' pid='40569' dateline='1416005418']
There were witnesses at the trial who testified to the childlike demeanor of David Herold. But making a statement inside a courtroom does not make the statement true

To conclude, there is also strong evidence that David Herold did not have the mentality of an 11 year old. Instead, that ploy was used to exhibit the reason why execution would not be a fitting punishment in such a case. While that tactic failed to sway the opinions of jury, it seems to have swayed the opinions of historians ever since the hangman's noose tightened around Mr. Herold's neck.
[/quot

I'm not so sure. I believe these witnesses thought Herold was a few bricks shy of a full load. They met him and talked with him. I don't think Herold had the mentality of an 11 year old, but I can believe he was immature for his age, a Booth groupie who got caught up in knowing a celebrity and enjoyed being seen with him. He didn't have the sense that Arnold & O'Laughlen had to get out of the conspiracy. Booth probably had a stronger influence on him than he did the others. Any attention Booth gave him would make him feel important, as his father had died in Oct, of 64'. I imagine Herold was also interrogated pretty hard, and it's no wonder his story may have been inconsistent, he was scared to death.

And John, do you think the number of people involved in the grand conspiracy may be like a lot of copperhead subversive activities. Lot's of people show up at the meetings and talk big in front of their friends, but none really will do anything. (Kind of like church - the old 80/20 rule. It's the same 20% of the people who do 80% of the work.)

Gene:

In response to your question, yes, I do believe that some of the operatives were more bluster than action. But perhaps more importantly is the sheer difficulty of engineering multiple assassinations. So much has to go right for success. An assassin must first be certain of the victim's whereabouts at the appointed time (recall, in this connection, Grant's sudden and unexpect exit from the city) ; he (or she) has to be at the right place at the right time; he has to take account of others, e.g. unanticipated company or crowds, security personnel, etc.; he may have to have help from confederates or a back-up plan; he has to be properly armed; he has to have an escape plan in place, etc. Remember Murphy's Law. And remember that everything that could have gone wrong with the other assassins DID go wrong. Powell did not succeed in killing Seward; indeed, his revolver misfired, a 1 in 100 chance! Atzerodt and Herold encountered an insurmountable problem at the Kirkwood (probably security or a somnolent Johnson). Stanton's would-be assassin encountered a broken doorbell and messengers from Ford's Theatre, causing him to bolt from the Secretary's porch. Grant's assassin (on the train) was stymied by a locked car door and an alert brakeman and didn't have his heart in it anyway, as evidenced by the letter he sent Grant a couple of days later. Further, recall that even Booth would have been dead meat if Rathbone's grip on his jacket had been a little stronger. Still further, the Confederates were at the end of their tether; they simply did not have many quality hit-men left, which is one reason they had to make do with a bunch of amateurs like Booth and his team, the back-up for Harney and his team. It is no surprise, therefore, that the attempted Friday Night Massacre had limited success. With a little good luck (a tougher, more determined Forbes; Parker in the passageway, where he was supposed to be), they might have had no success.

John

[HerbS]

John-You are on a roll.As a coach,and a teacher of history,I never believed in any-woulda-coulda- should haves.

[John Fazio]

(11-15-2014 05:02 PM)HerbS Wrote:  John-You are on a roll.As a coach,and a teacher of history,I never believed in any-woulda-coulda- should haves.

Herb:

There's a wonderful book titled "What If", by Robert Cowley. It is a compilation of essays by historians as to how history would have been very different had this or that circumstance been otherwise. You can get it for a penny, plus shipping, from Amazon. No wonder all the bookstores are going out of business.

John

[L Verge]

(11-15-2014 02:42 PM)Gene C Wrote:  Good comments. I'm just not to sure, but you've read more on this and know more about it than I do.

Did Surratt House ever sell the booklet, and are there any left?

We still sell the booklet. It's entitled From War Department Files, and I think the cost is still $10. However, go to surrattmuseum.org, click on the Gift Shop tab, and then click to see the items that we will sell via mail order. It's listed with the assassination titles and will show the price. You just need to add $3 postage.

[HerbS]

Thanks-John

[Gene C]

Thanks John & Laurie

[John Fazio]

(11-15-2014 07:44 PM)Gene C Wrote:  Thanks John & Laurie

Friends:

Occam's Razor: The simplest solution is the best one. I perceive that some feel a need to rehabilitate the conspirators, to portray them not as heroes (that would be a bridge too far), but at least as "complex" and "multifaceted" individuals (a hat tip to my good friend and everyone's favorite gadabout, Dave Taylor) with some good qualities, including character and intelligence. THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT IT. Please do not confuse skills with character and intelligence. Yes, John Surratt was a master courier; his mother a fine boardinghouse keeper; Atzerodt a river rat; Herold a pharmacist's assistant, animal tracker and navigator; Powell "the boldest of the bold and the rashest of the reckless", a "stray knight from the Black Forest"; O'Laughlen an engraver; and Dr. Mudd a healer. But none had character or intelligence, not even the doctor.

Surratt told more lies than can be counted. His accounts (Rockville lecture, Hanson Hiss interview and statements to McMillan and Ste. Marie) are replete with inconsistencies. He committed atrocities against Union soldiers and fled the country and left his mother to the hangman rather than face his accusers. He burned his memoirs.

Mary lied whenever it suited her, despite being a "fine Christian lady" (recognition of Powell; whereabouts of her son's letter; to her son's employer).

Atzerodt was a poor and illiterate carriage painter whose appearance was repulsive (he wore the same coat for three months), who had a terrible self image and the respect of no one. Mrs. Surratt referred to him as a "stick" and told her son he couldn't stay at her house. It was said he abused his common law wife. He was easy prey for Booth.

Powell incarnadined the Seward home and came within an inch of murdering William and Frederick. The real Lewis Payne said he had the reputation of having killed a great many men. Doster said he seemed dull, "his mind...of the lowest order...and his moral faculties equally low."

In addition to all the testimony at the trial attesting to his being a dimwit, Herold was said by Powell to be a "blab". Nearly everyone who met him said he was extremely loquacious, talked nonsense and was noisy. His sister said he was "easily led off, very yielding...easily imposed upon." His deviousness before his interrogators should not be confused with intelligence. It doesn't take brains to lie.

Arnold was said to be "wild in his habits and always hard up for money". His memoirs are self-serving in the extreme and do not even record the death of his friend and fellow conspirator, O'Laughlen. It is worth saying, too, that it was HE who said that all of Booth's action team were a low order of men who stayed with Booth only because of the money they were receiving from him. More easy prey for Booth.

O'Laughlen was little more than his brother's assistant in the feed and hay business, a dandy and a carouser. Another easy prey for Booth.

Dr. Mudd justified slavery and abused his slaves, even to shooting one of them. This fine Christian church-goer said his Oath of Allegiance wasn't worth a chew of tobacco. Further, he "lied about virtually every critical piece of information the authorities were seeking in their effort to capture Booth." (Steers) Even his counsel (Stone) said "His prevarications were painful."

Conclusion: There is nothing to rehabilitate. Let us just recognize them for what they were and move on.

John