Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

RJNorton · 12-05-2016, 04:23 PM

(12-04-2016 12:36 AM)John Fazio Wrote: The fact is that Ford does not say how early in the morning in was when he saw Booth at the theater. It could have been very early, say 9:00 or something like that.

John, I wonder about this for the following reason. According to p. 194 of Art Loux's book, Booth went to Taltavull's Saloon after leaving Ford's. My question would be: would a tavern be open early in the morning? Does anyone know when Taltavull's opened for business? I do not know the answer, but unless someone can say differently, I would not think the tavern would be open early in the morning. I may be wrong on that - just do not know for certain.

In all honesty, and this comes from the heart, I feel totally inadequate disagreeing with the likes of Mike Kauffman, Bill Richter, and John Fazio. All I can say is I am still unconvinced that Booth went to Baltimore on the 13th. Kees, I agree with what you have said.

L Verge · 12-05-2016, 04:40 PM

(12-05-2016 04:23 PM)RJNorton Wrote:
(12-04-2016 12:36 AM)John Fazio Wrote: The fact is that Ford does not say how early in the morning in was when he saw Booth at the theater. It could have been very early, say 9:00 or something like that.

John, I wonder about this for the following reason. According to p. 194 of Art Loux's book, Booth went to Taltavull's Saloon after leaving Ford's. My question would be: would a tavern be open early in the morning? Does anyone know when Taltavull's opened for business? I do not know the answer, but unless someone can say differently, I would not think the tavern would be open early in the morning. I may be wrong on that - just do not know for certain.

In all honesty, and this comes from the heart, I feel totally inadequate disagreeing with the likes of Mike Kauffman, Bill Richter, and John Fazio. All I can say is I am still unconvinced that Booth went to Baltimore on the 13th. Kees, I agree with what you have said.

I am just guessing on this, but taverns might serve small meals also and be open earlier OR open by 10 am because drinking was a way of life for many men of the day - and I do not mean that in the "alcoholic" sense.

Roger, I am with you and Kees on this also.

John F. - didn't you cite a reference of two men being detained at the bridge early on April 14th morning and surmised that it was Booth and Herold? Did Booth hop off the train, run to the city limits to meet Herold in order for this to happen? One of Herold's sisters said that David was home in time for breakfast that morning, and Mr. & Mrs. Huntt's story has him leaving T.B. before the family awakened. How does that square with the detainment at the bridge?

Personally, I think Michael O'Laughlen came to D.C. with his friends to see the merriment, took time to say "Hello" to friend Booth, and did not join in any conspiracy after March.

loetar44 · (This post was last modified: 12-06-2016 06:39 AM by loetar44.)

I fully agree with Roger and Laurie! Booth could not be in Baltimore on the 13th, unless he travelled with the speed of light...

Gene C · (This post was last modified: 12-08-2016 08:47 AM by Gene C.)

I am shocked, yes shocked, that no one has advanced the theory that Booth was in Baltimore on the day in question while his look alike, and secret War Department employee, James William Boyd was in Washington.

How quickly we discount everything in Balsiger and Seller's book "The Lincoln Conspiracy", which led to Ray Neff's book, "Dark Union, which led to Rick Stelnick and "Dixie Reckoning" just because there were a few errors in The Lincoln Conspiracy.

Wake up deep and dark conspiracy theorist and shake off the shackles of contrived evidence and testimony, and foregone conclusions. Venture into the swirling fog of speculation, the world of assumption and reasonable doubt to unravel the threads of this tightly woven tapestry of misdirection, deceit, blackmail, intrigue, and double dealing. Cool

Then again, I could be wrong

John Fazio · 12-06-2016, 12:45 PM

Friends:

We have here another conundrum in connection with the assassination. There are many: Surratt's whereabouts on the 14th comes to mind. I grant that Booth's trip to Baltimore on the 13th, though not impossible, is problematic. Not only is there difficulty reconciling "Justice's" sighting in Baltimore with Ford's and Hess's testimony, there is more than difficulty--there is flagrant inconsistency--between their testimony and Frederick Demond's letters, which place Booth and Herold on the Maryland side of the Navy Yard Bridge on the morning of the 14th (which is consistent with Laurie's ancestors putting Herold in Maryland on the night of the 13th-14th and the fact that it is known that Booth did not sleep in his room at the National that night) and which also state that Booth and Herold were incarcerated in the Block House until 2:00 or 3:00 pm, because they had refused to give Demond their names. To thicken the stew, there is the account given in the April 18, 1865, New York Times of Booth conversing with an acquaintance on the sidewalk next to the Kirkwood House on the 14th and then being joined by "a boy", who must have been Herold, who said to him "Yes, he (i.e. Johnson) is in his room." To thicken it still more, there is Julia Grant's account of a "White House messenger" who came to her suite in Willard's about mid-day, whom she later identified as probably Herold (and who fits the description), and of four men, one of whom was certainly Booth, another Herold and the other two most likely Powell and Atzerodt, in the dining room of Willard's, eavesdropping on her conversation with Mrs. Rawlins and her daughter. And let us not forget Booth's conversation with Mathew's on the Avenue between 4:00 and 5:00 pm and his stop-off at Deery's at about 4:00 pm for a bottle of brandy.

The suggestion has been made that perhaps the conspirators, or at least some of them, made use of look-alikes (e.g. James William Boyd), which would explain a lot, including why 5 witnesses put Surratt in Elmira, N.Y., on the 14th and 13 or 14 put him in Washington. There is actually evidence for this (see Chamberlin's letter to Stanton on p. 1226 of The Lincoln Assassination, but it is weak.

I cannot possibly reconcile all these divergent accounts (and probably some I am leaving out) of Booth's and Herold's whereabouts on the 14th (or Atzerodt's and Powell's either); I doubt that anyone can. For this reason, it is probably best if we do not even try. Let us, instead, stick to what we do know, or that is at least most probable, and which is not dependent upon their whereabouts. That is to say: O'Laughlen came to Washington on the 13th from Baltimore with three friends; that he went to the National that night and saw Booth, or so he said to one of his friends; that he went again to the National the following morning and most likely saw Booth again, despite his denial, because the circumstantial evidence favors it; that someone came to the Stanton home on the night of the 13th apparently ill-motivated; that the someone was identified, convincingly, as O'Laughlen at the trial by three persons who were at Stanton's home that night; and that Atzerodt stated that the intruder was O'Laughlen and that his alibi was bogus. It is not reasonable to conclude from this that O'Laughlen made two trips to the National, within, perhaps, 15 hours, inconveniencing his friends in the process, for the purpose of making idle social calls on Booth. It is more reasonable to conclude that the visits were related to the assassination and that O'Laughlen was, to that extent at least, still in the game , a fact corroborated by Atzerodt's statement. And this is true whether Booth went to Baltimore or not. Telegram? Possible. But it would have been sheer madness for Booth to put in a telegram the kinds of things he wanted to discuss with O'Laughlen--toxic, in the extreme. Somehow, whether it was by personal visit, a written communication, an oral message, whatever, Booth advised O'Laughlen that he needed him in Washington for a service that was related to the conspiracy. In response thereto, O'Laughlen came and did what was asked of him.

John

L Verge · 12-06-2016, 01:08 PM

I hope I didn't make this up, but isn't there a mention somewhere of Booth and O'Laughlen having a money issue? Did Booth owe Michael money or vice versa? Could the two visits in D.C. be in relation to this and not the conspiracy? One visit to ask for the money and the second to get it...?

RJNorton · 12-06-2016, 01:59 PM

(12-06-2016 12:45 PM)John Fazio Wrote: To thicken it still more, there is Julia Grant's account of a "White House messenger" who came to her suite in Willard's about mid-day, whom she later identified as probably Herold (and who fits the description), and of four men, one of whom was certainly Booth, another Herold and the other two most likely Powell and Atzerodt, in the dining room of Willard's, eavesdropping on her conversation with Mrs. Rawlins and her daughter.

Perhaps this is too far out, but I wonder if Julia Grant could conceivably have saved Abraham Lincoln's life on April 14, 1865.

1. A strange "messenger" (probably Herold) comes to her door at the Willard Hotel. He is wearing a shabby hat. Julia does not like the looks of him. She is suspicious of him - something about him does not seem right. The "messenger" says he's been sent by Mary Lincoln to tell the Grants they will be picked up at 8 to go to Ford's that night. Julia tells the "messenger" that the Grants will not be going and to convey this information to Mary Lincoln.

2. Shortly thereafter, at lunch, Julia again sees this strange "messenger" (probably Herold). He is sitting with four men, one of whom is dark and pale (probably Booth). The dark, pale man seemed very intent on what Julia was saying to her companions. He played with his soup spoon. He looked like he would eat his soup, but over and over never lifted the spoon more than half-way - never ate the soup at all. Julia thought the man acted crazy.

3. As the Grants were riding in a carriage to the train station the dark, pale man (Booth) again appears. In her memoirs, Julia Grant wrote, "Afterwards, as General Grant and I rode to the depot, this same dark, pale man rode past us at a sweeping gallop on a dark horse - black, I think. He rode twenty yards ahead of us, wheeled and returned, and as he passed us both going and returning, he thrust his face quite near the General's and glared in a disagreeable manner.' Mrs. Ruckner said, 'General, everyone wants to see you.' Grant replied, 'Yes, but I do not care for such glances. They are not friendly.' "

I realize Julia Grant did not want to go to the White House because she had turned down the theater invitation, but I wonder if she could have overcome her feelings about Mary Lincoln.

I wonder if she could put these 3 strange events together. "Why would the strange messenger be eating lunch with the strange man now harassing our carriage?"

I wonder if she could have ordered the carriage driver to go to the White House so she could tell Abraham Lincoln, "Something's up. Danger lurks. Stay home tonight."

John Fazio · 12-06-2016, 03:19 PM

(12-06-2016 01:08 PM)L Verge Wrote: I hope I didn't make this up, but isn't there a mention somewhere of Booth and O'Laughlen having a money issue? Did Booth owe Michael money or vice versa? Could the two visits in D.C. be in relation to this and not the conspiracy? One visit to ask for the money and the second to get it...?

Laurie:

The visits on the 13th and 14th were not related to collection of money. Yes, Booth owed O'Laughlen $500, but he, O'Laughlen, had come to Washington with Arnold on March 31 for the purpose of collecting the $500 and did so. See pp. 108 and 112 of Decapitating.

John

John Fazio · 12-06-2016, 07:51 PM

(12-06-2016 01:59 PM)RJNorton Wrote:
(12-06-2016 12:45 PM)John Fazio Wrote: To thicken it still more, there is Julia Grant's account of a "White House messenger" who came to her suite in Willard's about mid-day, whom she later identified as probably Herold (and who fits the description), and of four men, one of whom was certainly Booth, another Herold and the other two most likely Powell and Atzerodt, in the dining room of Willard's, eavesdropping on her conversation with Mrs. Rawlins and her daughter.

Perhaps this is too far out, but I wonder if Julia Grant could conceivably have saved Abraham Lincoln's life on April 14, 1865.

Roger:

Yes, she could have, but it was extremely unlikely that she would do so. To begin with, it is expecting too much of human nature to suppose that Julia would abort her trip to Burlington to visit her children and head, instead, for the White House, on the basis of mere suspicion. Secondly, and more importantly, Julia disliked Mary Lincoln, as did many others in Washington (e.g. Mrs. Stanton), and had no wish to spend an evening with her in a theater box. Third, she had recently witnessed Mary making a complete fool of herself at City Point in connection with General Ord and his wife and was for this reason, and perhaps for a more personal affront, very unkindly disposed toward her at the time. In a conversation with Lamon in 1880, Grant said that while he was with Lincoln on the 14th, and right after telling the President that he would try to accommodate him as far as the theater invitation was concerned, he received a note from Julia stating that she wanted to go to Burlington that evening. Grant was known not to so much as flinch when a grenade exploded nearby, but he would do a lot more than flinch in response to a wish expressed by Julia; he would not deny her. Grant adds that "Some incident of a trivial character had influenced this determination..." (i.e. Julia's expressed wish not to attend the theater, but to go to Burlington). In her Memoirs, Julia mentions sending the note to Grant right after she had received the invitation to attend the theater that night from the "messenger", i.e. Herold. The bottom line is that Julia was bound and determined from very early in the day that she was going to Burlington, had made that desire known to Grant, and would therefore not be deterred by Booth's shenanigans that day, which did not, in any case, appear to portend anything particularly sinister.

John

1. A strange "messenger" (probably Herold) comes to her door at the Willard Hotel. He is wearing a shabby hat. Julia does not like the looks of him. She is suspicious of him - something about him does not seem right. The "messenger" says he's been sent by Mary Lincoln to tell the Grants they will be picked up at 8 to go to Ford's that night. Julia tells the "messenger" that the Grants will not be going and to convey this information to Mary Lincoln.

2. Shortly thereafter, at lunch, Julia again sees this strange "messenger" (probably Herold). He is sitting with four men, one of whom is dark and pale (probably Booth). The dark, pale man seemed very intent on what Julia was saying to her companions. He played with his soup spoon. He looked like he would eat his soup, but over and over never lifted the spoon more than half-way - never ate the soup at all. Julia thought the man acted crazy.

3. As the Grants were riding in a carriage to the train station the dark, pale man (Booth) again appears. In her memoirs, Julia Grant wrote, "Afterwards, as General Grant and I rode to the depot, this same dark, pale man rode past us at a sweeping gallop on a dark horse - black, I think. He rode twenty yards ahead of us, wheeled and returned, and as he passed us both going and returning, he thrust his face quite near the General's and glared in a disagreeable manner.' Mrs. Ruckner said, 'General, everyone wants to see you.' Grant replied, 'Yes, but I do not care for such glances. They are not friendly.' "

I realize Julia Grant did not want to go to the White House because she had turned down the theater invitation, but I wonder if she could have overcome her feelings about Mary Lincoln.

I wonder if she could put these 3 strange events together. "Why would the strange messenger be eating lunch with the strange man now harassing our carriage?"

I wonder if she could have ordered the carriage driver to go to the White House so she could tell Abraham Lincoln, "Something's up. Danger lurks. Stay home tonight."

RJNorton · 12-07-2016, 05:02 AM

Thanks, John. Your reply is excellent - much appreciated.

Still, however, I wonder why she didn't take things more seriously. She must have wondered why this mysterious "White House messenger" was eating lunch with a man whose behavior was making her extremely unsettled. It would have taken only a few minutes for the Grants' carriage to make a quick stop at the White House. Julia could have even remained in the carriage as Ulysses made a quick trip inside to say to Mary Lincoln, "Did you send a messenger to the Willard Hotel? If not, I am concerned for your safety. Something's up."

I wonder if Booth realized that he potentially could have raised a red flag by sending Herold to Julia Grant's room.

loetar44 · (This post was last modified: 12-07-2016 10:37 AM by loetar44.)

(12-06-2016 12:45 PM)John Fazio Wrote: Friends:

We have here another conundrum in connection with the assassination. There are many: Surratt's whereabouts on the 14th comes to mind. I grant that Booth's trip to Baltimore on the 13th, though not impossible, is problematic. Not only is there difficulty reconciling "Justice's" sighting in Baltimore with Ford's and Hess's testimony, there is more than difficulty--there is flagrant inconsistency--between their testimony and Frederick Demond's letters, which place Booth and Herold on the Maryland side of the Navy Yard Bridge on the morning of the 14th (which is consistent with Laurie's ancestors putting Herold in Maryland on the night of the 13th-14th and the fact that it is known that Booth did not sleep in his room at the National that night) and which also state that Booth and Herold were incarcerated in the Block House until 2:00 or 3:00 pm, because they had refused to give Demond their names. To thicken the stew, there is the account given in the April 18, 1865, New York Times of Booth conversing with an acquaintance on the sidewalk next to the Kirkwood House on the 14th and then being joined by "a boy", who must have been Herold, who said to him "Yes, he (i.e. Johnson) is in his room." To thicken it still more, there is Julia Grant's account of a "White House messenger" who came to her suite in Willard's about mid-day, whom she later identified as probably Herold (and who fits the description), and of four men, one of whom was certainly Booth, another Herold and the other two most likely Powell and Atzerodt, in the dining room of Willard's, eavesdropping on her conversation with Mrs. Rawlins and her daughter. And let us not forget Booth's conversation with Mathew's on the Avenue between 4:00 and 5:00 pm and his stop-off at Deery's at about 4:00 pm for a bottle of brandy.

The suggestion has been made that perhaps the conspirators, or at least some of them, made use of look-alikes (e.g. James William Boyd), which would explain a lot, including why 5 witnesses put Surratt in Elmira, N.Y., on the 14th and 13 or 14 put him in Washington. There is actually evidence for this (see Chamberlin's letter to Stanton on p. 1226 of The Lincoln Assassination, but it is weak.

I cannot possibly reconcile all these divergent accounts (and probably some I am leaving out) of Booth's and Herold's whereabouts on the 14th (or Atzerodt's and Powell's either); I doubt that anyone can. For this reason, it is probably best if we do not even try. Let us, instead, stick to what we do know, or that is at least most probable, and which is not dependent upon their whereabouts. That is to say: O'Laughlen came to Washington on the 13th from Baltimore with three friends; that he went to the National that night and saw Booth, or so he said to one of his friends; that he went again to the National the following morning and most likely saw Booth again, despite his denial, because the circumstantial evidence favors it; that someone came to the Stanton home on the night of the 13th apparently ill-motivated; that the someone was identified, convincingly, as O'Laughlen at the trial by three persons who were at Stanton's home that night; and that Atzerodt stated that the intruder was O'Laughlen and that his alibi was bogus. It is not reasonable to conclude from this that O'Laughlen made two trips to the National, within, perhaps, 15 hours, inconveniencing his friends in the process, for the purpose of making idle social calls on Booth. It is more reasonable to conclude that the visits were related to the assassination and that O'Laughlen was, to that extent at least, still in the game , a fact corroborated by Atzerodt's statement. And this is true whether Booth went to Baltimore or not. Telegram? Possible. But it would have been sheer madness for Booth to put in a telegram the kinds of things he wanted to discuss with O'Laughlen--toxic, in the extreme. Somehow, whether it was by personal visit, a written communication, an oral message, whatever, Booth advised O'Laughlen that he needed him in Washington for a service that was related to the conspiracy. In response thereto, O'Laughlen came and did what was asked of him.

John

John,

I admire the manner you are defending your theory, but am pleased that you now give more room to the fact that Booth’s trip on the 13th to Baltimore is (in your words) problematic i.e. may not have been undertaken. Nobody knows the exact truth and a lot of questions will remain unanswered, I fear forever.

For me another question still remain. Did O’Laughlen actually see Booth in the National in the evening of the 13th and in the morning of the 14th?

On the 13th O’Laughlen (he was accompanied then by Bernard Early) was only 5 minutes at the desk in the lobby and did not see Booth. It is likely Booth walked at that moment in the city to see the Grand Illumination. He may have spent time with Lucy Hale or Ellen Starr and at 2 a.m. he wrote a short note to his mother (it's not known where he wrote this note). I think it is fair to say that he was not at the National.

On the morning of the 14th O’Laughlen (now accompanied by Early, Murphy and Henderson) was 1 ¾ hour in the National, but nobody knows who he saw there. He went for Booth (so told Henderson), but Booth was out. We know that because Booth's room was unoccupied, his bed not used (Walter Burton’s statement). Demond's letters place Booth and Herold on the Maryland side of the Navy Yard Bridge on the night of the 13th-14th and both were incarcerated in the Block House until noon April 14th, because they had refused to give Demond their names. Carrie Bean is the first who saw Booth appr. this time in the breakfast room of the National. She knew him and she responded to his bow of recognition.

That are the facts. And all facts are pointing in one direction: O’Laughlen went for a perhaps social visit (after all they were friends) but did not see Booth in the National. If the Baltimore trip is problematic, O'Laughlen's meeting(s) with Booth in the National surely are too!

RJNorton · 12-07-2016, 03:02 PM

(11-02-2016 06:11 PM)loetar44 Wrote: MY COMMENT:
1. IF MCLAUGHLIN (“MAC”) = O’LAUGHLEN, THAN THERE IS A CONFLICT IN TIME. AT CA. 9 AM O'LAUGHLEN ENTERED THE UNION HOTEL AND STAYED THERE FOR 1 ¾ HOUR.
2. CHARLES WOOD DID NOT SEE O’LAUGHLEN BEFORE, ONLY KNEW HIM FROM A PHOTO , AND DECLARED “I should think it was him.” IMO, NO POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION.

I am still trying to figure out if the McLaughlin in Charles Wood's testimony is O'Laughlen. Kees, I agree it was not a positive identification, but the similarity in names seems reasonably apparent to me. Although Wood says he had seen a photo of O'Laughlen, I cannot tell from the testimony if he was shown one during the trial itself. The fact that Wood remembered McLaughlin's conversation had to do with Baltimore makes me think it could have been O'Laughlen. (Although I am of the opinion that Surratt was in Elmira on the 14th I find this barber's testimony quite interesting - I do not know how valid his memory was concerning whose hair he cut that day.)

Kees posted Wood's testimony here.

John Fazio · 12-08-2016, 02:33 AM

(12-07-2016 05:02 AM)RJNorton Wrote: Thanks, John. Your reply is excellent - much appreciated.

Still, however, I wonder why she didn't take things more seriously. She must have wondered why this mysterious "White House messenger" was eating lunch with a man whose behavior was making her extremely unsettled. It would have taken only a few minutes for the Grants' carriage to make a quick stop at the White House. Julia could have even remained in the carriage as Ulysses made a quick trip inside to say to Mary Lincoln, "Did you send a messenger to the Willard Hotel? If not, I am concerned for your safety. Something's up."

I wonder if Booth realized that he potentially could have raised a red flag by sending Herold to Julia Grant's room.

Roger:

I do believe Booth was risking some degree of exposure to send Herold to Julia Grant's room, but he obviously felt it was a risk worth taking, inasmuch as he was planning to decapitate the government that night and it was important for him, therefore, to line up his ducks. The risk would have been minimal and doubtless that fact figured into his plans. Remember that Julia couldn't simply pick up a phone. She would have had to go to the White House or send someone, and that would have been inconvenient for her. Furthermore, she did not have sufficient reason to doubt that the "messenger from the White House" was in fact a "messenger from the White House". When she saw him again at the luncheon, she might just have thought that the White House messenger was having lunch with a few friends, even if one of them was behaving weirdly. She was not likely to conclude that he was part of a conspiracy to murder someone simply because he was first at her door and then in the dining room.

John

RJNorton · 12-08-2016, 04:59 AM

(12-08-2016 02:33 AM)John Fazio Wrote: When she saw him again at the luncheon, she might just have thought that the White House messenger was having lunch with a few friends, even if one of them was behaving weirdly. She was not likely to conclude that he was part of a conspiracy to murder someone simply because he was first at her door and then in the dining room.

True...but then why would the "White House messenger's" friend harass their carriage as they were headed to the train station? I would think not one, not two, but now three weird incidents over a span of a few hours should have alerted her to trouble brewing.

STS Lincolnite · (This post was last modified: 12-08-2016 11:33 AM by STS Lincolnite.)

I am catching up late but this has been a very captivating thread!

With regards to Julia Grant...

I am curious as to how Julia might have defined “trouble”. It seems General Grant thought someone was aggressively trying to get a look at him - in an unfriendly way…as a result of his growing fame…not necessarily intending to do him or Julia bodily harm. As Roger posted earlier from Julia’s memoir “Mrs. Ruckner said, 'General, everyone wants to see you.' Grant replied, 'Yes, but I do not care for such glances. They are not friendly.' "

And although Julia recorded those 3 encounters, even though they were strange, I’m not sure any of those would have led her to believe at the time the “trouble” or “threat” was as severe as it turned out to be. Even if she did believe there was a more severe threat, I don’t know how she could have connected her encounters to the possibility of a real threat to others (i.e. Lincoln). The threat, if any, would appear directed at her and/or her husband only from what she knew and saw. Therefore, I’m not sure she would have felt the need to warn anyone because she and her husband were leaving town. She would presumably feel they were the targets and would be out of the way of those men and their potential “trouble”. I also wonder if she connected the 3 encounters and what they may have meant more in hindsight than she actually connected them at the time. Obviously, knowing the outcome of all that happened on April 14th would cause her to re-examine the events of the day through a different lens.

I would be interested to hear from someone who knows more than I about the social role of women in the mid 19th century chip in here. Would a woman at the time take it upon herself to take action and warn, or would she be expected to inform her husband and then let him decide as to how to proceed? Especially given the fact that her husband was the General in Chief. I may be wrong, but I can’t help but think, from what I know of the attitude of men toward women in the 19th century, that even if she had warned someone else in authority, she would have been dismissed as just being a “worrying hen” of a woman. I think at best they would have said they would "look into it" to placate her because she was Grant's wife. Of course, maybe I am being overly critical due to my perceptions of the attitudes of 19th century men toward women.