Wilkes Booth Came To Washington

[Eva Elisabeth]

No, I don't see JWB settling for a life of anonymity in the event of an escape either. On the fateful evening, didn't he tell someone in Taltavul's tavern that he would be the most famous man in America soon?

Even in exile, he would have wanted it known by all that it was he, JWB, who had "put through" the tyrant Lincoln.

I believe so, too.

[Eva Elisabeth]

Way in the back of my mind I seem to recall it might have been William Withers who may have made this claim. Did Withers ever say he was in Taltavul's at the same time Booth was drinking in there?

Page 111 in Tom Bogar's "Backstage" reads: "Leaving the bar, Booth had turned to Brink: "Go in and make up. Ted, old fellow, I'm going to have my name hung in a place where my father's never was." The source is an interview with Kittie Brink of Feb.12, 1929.

I couldn't find the wording you posted in "American Brutus" (but am sure I saw this wording in at least one of my books). In this one (which I don't have) it is footnoted, but I cannot open the respectivel page. Maybe someone has the book and could check: https://books.google.de/books?id=-8KZAj6...CBsQ6AEwBg

---

In "We saw Lincoln Shot - 100 Eyewitness Accounts" is an interview with Kittie Brink of Feb.12, 1935 (perhaps the same and one is wrong about the year? See p.187) reading: "I recall something my husband told me during rehearsal that morning that puzzled me. He had been talking to Booth and said, 'Something will take place tonight that will make the name of Booth live forever.'"

---

Roger, you were right about Withers. Please see p.79 in W. E. Reck's "Last 24 Hours": William Withers...claimed that he had a drink with Booth about 7.30 and heard the actor make a startling prediction. 'During the conversation...I laughingly remarked that Booth would never be as great as his father...he replied, 'When I leave the stage I will be the most talked about man in America.'" Source: Wither's statement for the government, American Press Association article by J. W. Lawrence, 1912, Lewis Warren Lincoln Library.

[RJNorton]

Thank you, Eva! I would be curious as to the year of Withers' statement - I cannot tell from Reck's footnote. It looks like it was distributed in 1912, but I can't tell what year Withers said this. Tom Bogar, among others, has pointed out the embellishments/inaccuracies in Withers' statements that came years after the assassination.

[Eva Elisabeth]

I had that in mind, too, about Wither's later embellishments. But "Wither's statement for the government" - could that be his trial testimony? There are two transcripts on pp.77/78 in the "100 Eyewitness Accounts" (I don't know if this is his complete testimony), and in one of May 31, 1865, he stated "I did not see Booth during the day."

---

T. Good also considers Kitty Brink's account "not entirely accurate". Nevertheless these are two accounts by different persons claiming Booth announcing his future fame, which IMO would suit his personality. I wonder if a) both embellished, b) one told the truth or embellished and the other "copied" and transformed the true/embellished "story", or c)both (Withers and Brink) embellished? Your opinion(s)?

[RJNorton]

Norman Gasbarro states, "Years later, when not under oath, Withers would embellish the story of that night adding that he did see Spangler and it was his [Withers’] quick action that prevented Spangler from dimming the theatre lights. He added the story of the knife wounds that he claimed bothered him when the weather changed. And, he concocted a conversation he supposedly had with Booth while having a drink with him earlier in the day."

http://civilwar.gratzpa.org/2012/08/the-...n-witness/

[Eva Elisabeth]

How reliable do you consider Kittie Brink's account?

[STS Lincolnite]

As far as the year of Withers' statement this is something that Richard Sloan might know or have a reference to. He has done quite a bit of research on Withers.

In regards to Kittie Brink, my Great Great Grand Aunt met and talked with her in the early nineteen hundreds about John Mathews. At that time she said Kittie was senile and would fade in and out. So, depending on when she was interviewed, I would suspect she is a bit of a grab bag... accurate about some things and not so much about others but hard to tell which is which. If she said the same thing in more than one account that would probably indicate more consistent lucidity and more accuracy in so far as what she thought was the truth (ie what her husband told her).

[RJNorton]

Thanks, Eva and Scott. I think I shall keep Booth's alleged Star Saloon comment in the apocryphal category until something really solid can be discovered.

[Eva Elisabeth]

This seems a similarly "provoking" book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0878053484...1426374425
Has anyone read it (which I am sure of...)? What is your feedback/opinion? Thanks for any input!

[Gene C]

They are both good, but Come Retribution is not light reading. It has been several years since I read either one. Come Retribution is very detailed, and for me, the details were frequently not that interesting. I recall a lot of info regarding confederate troop movements in Virginia - Potomac River area.
April 65 was easier reading

[Wild Bill]

To read Come Retribution, concentrate on the introduction, The Logic Trail. It outlines the whole book and it was what I used to write Last Confederate Heroes.

Remember a lot of the middle section has to do with being up the Doctors' Line spy network, not the assassination per se. I found it easy to read and interesting, but I am a kind of a nut.

[RJNorton]

Thanks, Bill. I have had it on my shelves for over 20 years but never just sat down and read it cover to cover. I just used it as a reference. What you say helps.

[Eva Elisabeth]

Thanks for your comments, Gene and Bill - as always very helpful!