Surratt Society Meeting and "Conference" 2021

[Dennis Urban]

Re: Ulke Brothers deathbed photograph. While one photo was shown in the presentation, many folks are unaware that TWO images were taken that morning by the brothers who were boarders at the Petersen house. Both images are widely available on the internet. Comparison of the two images shows that the chair beside the bed is obviously in different positions. However there are other minor "adjustments" to the scene showing that to some extent the images were staged and that the camera was slightly repositioned; none of which affects the incredible significance of these images. The fact that these images were taken indicates the sense of history that Jules and Henry recognized that morning.

[Rob Wick]

Quote:I apologize to Scott if he clearly answered this question in his excellent talk. What surprises me is that there is even a debate on this. All 3 primary sources (John Hay, Dr. Charles Sabin Taft, and James Tanner who were present at the death scene) agree on Stanton saying "ages." No one who was present when Lincoln died claimed Stanton said "angels." So why is there a debate? In many instances what we know of the details of the Lincoln assassination saga is due to only one primary source, but in this case we actually have 3. So can someone clearly enunciate why the 3 primary sources are questioned?

Scott mentioned the names of many authors who use "ages" and many of whom use "angels." But somehow I missed the root cause of the debate.

Roger,

Adam Gopnik wrote about that in the New Yorker. While his article is far too long to copy exactly here, this is what he says about the question, which he first approached after reading Swanson's Manhunt.

For those interested in reading the entire article, here is the link.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/...s-and-ages

The relevant portion:
But what did Edwin Stanton really say at Lincoln’s deathbed? Swanson’s endnotes lead one to Jay Winik’s endnotes in his book on the end of the Civil War, “April 1865.” I called Winik, an author and historian, and he said, a little ruefully, that his insertion of “angels” into the text had been “the element most open to misinterpretation” in his ambitious and far-ranging volume. His endnote leads one, eventually, to “Twenty Days,” by Dorothy and Philip Kunhardt, Jr., a well-made book of photographs from the eighteen-sixties, which in turn leads the reader directly to the ur-source of the angels. The unorthodox, heretical account of Stanton’s words is actually much easier to “source” than the canonic and orthodox and familiar one: it comes from a stenographic record made in the bedroom that night by a young man named James Tanner.

Tanner was a corporal who had had both legs amputated after the Second Battle of Bull Run—he walked on peg legs—and lived in the house next door to the boarding house, Petersen’s, where Lincoln was taken. Sometime that night, as Stanton was beginning to interrogate witnesses to the shooting, one of his generals appeared on the steps of the Petersen house and called out for someone who could write shorthand. Tanner heard him, and hobbled down to take dictation. He spent the rest of the night beside the dying President.

The scene in the famous “rubber room,” as Holzer has called it—in the endless prints and other popular images, the walls of the room expand constantly outward, pressed by the number of dignitaries who had to be included—was uglier than even the more faithful imagery shows. Lincoln’s head wound was bleeding throughout the night, and the doctors had to remember to cover up the blood with fresh towels when Mrs. Lincoln, fallen into a grief from which she never really recovered, wandered in. Lincoln was laid diagonally across the too short bed, knees up, and naked underneath the mustard plasters that had been placed on his chest.

Stanton took charge, dictating messages and taking evidence, with Tanner pressed into service as his secretary. At last, at seven-twenty-two in the morning, Tanner writes:

The Reverend Dr. Gurley stepped forward and lifting his hands began “Our Father and our God” and I snatched pencil and notebook from my pocket, but my haste defeated my purpose. My pencil point (I had but one) caught in my coat and broke, and the world lost the prayer, a prayer that was only interrupted by the sobs of Stanton as he buried his face in the bedclothes. As “Thy will be done, Amen” in subdued and tremulous tones floated through the little chamber, Mr. Stanton raised his head, the tears streaming down his face. A more agonized expression I never saw on a human countenance as he sobbed out the words: “He belongs to the angels now.”

Note, though, that while Tanner presumably heard all this, he didn’t actually claim (as is sometimes implied in the pro-angels literature) to have recorded it in situ, what with the broken pencil. Still, his account, the ur-source of the “angels” quote, sounds fairly solid.

Best
Rob

[RJNorton]

Thank you, Rob. It's amazing how different reminiscences of the death scene were. In 1909 Dr. Leale described it as follows:

"The protracted struggle ceased at twenty minutes past seven o'clock on the morning of April 15, 1865, and I announced that the President was dead.

Immediately after death the few remaining in the room knelt around the bed while the Rev. Dr. Gurley delivered one of the most impressive prayers ever uttered, that our Heavenly Father look down in pity upon the bereaved family and preserve our afflicted and sorrow-stricken country.

Then I gently smoothed the President's contracted facial muscles, took two coins from my pocket, placed them over his eyelids and drew a white sheet over the martyr's face. I had been the means, in God's hand, of prolonging the life of President Abraham Lincoln for nine hours.

Every necessary act of love, devotion, skill and loyalty had been rendered during his helpless hours to the President of the United States, the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, to the beloved of millions of people throughout the world.

Many reported, anxious in any way to be of service. I accepted their offers to the extent of abundantly filling every want. Of all the people I have met in different parts of the world, I have found that as a class, good Americans are not to be excelled when occasions demand, in strength, endurance, calmness, good judgment, ardent loyal devotion and self-sacrificing love."

No mention at all of Stanton sobbing or saying anything. No mention at all of Tanner. The same goes for Welles' diary. No mention whatsoever of Stanton's quote.

[Gene C]

Thanks Rob for the link to the New Yorker article by Adam Gopnik.

There is a word that I am unfamiliar with - "ur-source"
Still, his account, the ur-source of the “angels” quote, sounds fairly solid. (last sentence of your post - a quote from the New Yorker article)
I wasn't sure if it was a typo and should be un-source, but Wiktionary (the only source I could find that defined the word) defines it as "an original source"

It was an interesting article, but the article spent to much time on how Lincoln spoke and phrased things. After all, it's Stanton's quote.
if you don't want to read the full article, just jump to the end.

" In the brief moment given to each visitor to look inside (the Peterson House), I wished for a machine that would be able to re-create every breath of air, every vibration that ever took place in a room. And then I knew that we probably would not have understood any better had we been standing there than we do now. Stanton was weeping, Lincoln had just died, the room was overwhelmed, whatever he said was broken by a sob—the sob, in a sense, is the story. History is not an agreed-on fiction but what gets made in a crowded room; what is said isn’t what’s heard, and what is heard isn’t what gets repeated. .....
The past is so often unknowable not because it is befogged now but because it was befogged then, too, back when it was still the present. If we had been there listening, we still might not have been able to determine exactly what Stanton said. All we know for sure is that everyone was weeping, and the room was full. ♦"

[RJNorton]

Many thanks to Steve Williams for sending this article. Regarding the article Steve writes, "It's from page 12 of the April 16, 1905 edition of the Washington Post and is an account given by James Tanner about the night of Lincoln's assassination. He definitely uses the word "ages."

[RJNorton]

There is even debate over who placed coins over Abraham Lincoln's eyes after he died. In his 1909 address Dr. Leale stated, "Then I gently smoothed the President's contracted facial muscles, took two coins from my pocket, placed them over his eyelids and drew a white sheet over the martyr's face."

However, Colonel George V. Rutherford stated he placed the coins, and the Chicago History Museum has an affidavit.

https://images.chicagohistory.org/asset/29269/

I have also seen at least one source (cannot remember where) that said it was Dr. Joseph Barnes who did it. And Dr. Ed Steers, in Blood on the Moon, mentions two more claimants: Colonel Thomas McCurdy Vincent and Maunsell Field.

[STS Lincolnite]

Sorry, I'm a little late in responding. Have been busy since Saturday.

Firstly, let me thank everyone for your kind words about my talk. I enjoyed giving it really appreciate being invited to speak. It was a pleasure to know that many friends were able to join in and watch/listen. Always a privilege to be on "the ticket" with Ed Steers.

For the record, I have more research that was not presented in the talk. I winnowed down what I presented in the interest of time so I tried to focus on the main question that seems to get asked which is "Did Stanton say ages or angels?"

As I read back through this thread (chipping away as I have time), I will address some of the questions/comments posed and comment as seems relevant.

[STS Lincolnite]

(04-18-2021 12:04 PM)Steve Wrote:  With all this talk of "Ages" v. "Angels", I think this article may be of interest:

http://www.richardwfox.com/phrase

(Contrary to what this article says I don't think there was a reporter from the New Herald present at Lincoln's, but otherwise I think it's a good read.)

The article Steve posted a link to was based on one of the same title that Fox originally wrote as a post on the ALPLM blog (called “Out of the Top Hat”) on August 2, 2010. I mentioned it (or at least that Fox had addressed the question) briefly in my talk. Both versions of the article (there are only a few differences) are succinct and worth a read. My conclusions on this question mirror Fox’s. The credible, primary source evidence I have yet found for “ages” is weak. The credible, primary source evidence I have yet found for “angels” is non-existent.

Like Steve, for various reasons, I don’t think there was a “New York Herald reporter, pencil in hand” in attendance.

---

(04-19-2021 04:21 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  I apologize to Scott if he clearly answered this question in his excellent talk. What surprises me is that there is even a debate on this. All 3 primary sources (John Hay, Dr. Charles Sabin Taft, and James Tanner who were present at the death scene) agree on Stanton saying "ages." No one who was present when Lincoln died claimed Stanton said "angels." So why is there a debate? In many instances what we know of the details of the Lincoln assassination saga is due to only one primary source, but in this case we actually have 3. So can someone clearly enunciate why the 3 primary sources are questioned?

Scott mentioned the names of many authors who use "ages" and many of whom use "angels." But somehow I missed the root cause of the debate.

Why is there a debate about ages or angels?

That is a good question. Part of the reason is related to those witnesses.

First, there are earlier accounts from both Tanner and Taft that do not mention Stanton having said anything. The first published for Tanner where he mentions Stanton having said something that I can find is 1905 (40 years after the fact). His first account (which does not mention Stanton’s words) was a letter on 17 April 1865. The first published account I can find from Taft where he mentions Stanton’s words is 1893 (28 years after the fact). An earlier account he gave and was published, 22 April 1865, does not mention Stanton having said anything. Of course just because they didn’t MENTION Stanton having said something doesn’t mean he didn’t say anything. It may only mean they didn’t think it important enough to mention at the time. Who knows?

The above being the case, for me, the majority reason there is a debate is because the book Twenty Days (a secondary source) by Dorothy Meserve Kunhardt and Philip Kunhardt Jr. associated Tanner to “angels” and some subsequent writers picked it up, took it as fact, and ran with it.

Tanner is really the key here. He is generally considered a reliable source and both “ages” and “angels” have been attributed to him. At least in the modern writings (late 20th, early 21st century) the pro-angels argument is fundamentally based on Tanner’s supposed account. The problem is, most of those who assign “angels” to him lead back to Twenty Days where he is supposedly quoted. But of course, there is no citations in that book. And, as I put forward in my talk I have not found any primary sources that connect Tanner with “angels.” There are in fact numerous primary sources to connect Tanner to “ages.” Part of the pro-angels argument also centers around the fact that Stanton was religious and so “angels” seems more in line with that. But without using a foundation of Tanner’s having used “angels” along with the similar phrase construction to Hay and Taft, for me, that rationale falls apart.

[RJNorton]

(04-20-2021 02:51 PM)STS Lincolnite Wrote:  First, there are earlier accounts from both Tanner and Taft that do not mention Stanton having said anything. The first published for Tanner where he mentions Stanton having said something that I can find is 1905 (40 years after the fact). His first account (which does not mention Stanton’s words) was a letter on 17 April 1865. The first published account I can find from Taft where he mentions Stanton’s words is 1893 (28 years after the fact).

Scott, thank you very much for your replies! The fact that Taft and Tanner waited until 1893 (Taft) and 1905 (Tanner) actually makes me wonder if both men "remembered" Stanton saying something only after seeing what was said in Hay and Nicolay's biography. It just seems strange to me that it's not in either man's 1865 accounts.

[STS Lincolnite]

(04-19-2021 09:41 AM)Rob Wick Wrote:  Roger,

Adam Gopnik wrote about that in the New Yorker. While his article is far too long to copy exactly here, this is what he says about the question, which he first approached after reading Swanson's Manhunt.

For those interested in reading the entire article, here is the link.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/...s-and-ages

Best
Rob

Rob, I definitely spent time on what Gopnik has written in my talk. But for those that didn’t hear it, I will share some thoughts related to the portion of the article you excerpted (see his previous post for the excerpt).

In the excerpt you provided, Gopnik states “Tanner writes:” then goes on with what are supposedly Tanner’s words. That selection is taken directly, word for word, from…Twenty Days – as I have mentioned before, a secondary source. Gopnik’s follow up assessment that the quote “sounds fairly solid” really doesn’t carry much weight when it is taken from a secondary source without a credible, primary source to back it up. I will also note that like a few of the other published works I mentioned in my talk, neither Gopnik’s New Yorker article or his book (Angels and Ages), that addresses in part this topic, have any source citations.

---

Roger, re: Dr. Leale's 1909 account:

Dr. Leale’s 1909 account is kind of a mess. It definitely differs from and is more expansive than accounts he provided in 1865 and 1867. His role becomes somewhat larger in the 1909 account.

For anyone interested in reading about an 1865 Leale account, an article on the topic can be found here:
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/262986...w=fulltext

[wpbinzel]

Historic speculation on my part, but the noteworthy event in the immediate aftermath of the morning April 15, 1865, was the death of President Lincoln -- and not what was said at his bedside or by whom. That came later. Until Hay and Nicolay were published in 1890 in The Century Magazine, no one made mention of what was OR WAS NOT said upon Lincoln's death. The fact that three eye witnesses -- Hay, Leale, and Tanner (who, as Scott pointed out, must be considered as primary sources) all were in agreement (or at very least did not dispute) -- Hay's recollection, puts me firmly in the camp that Stanton likely said something and that something was "ages." In short, I agree with Scott's well researched, well documented, and well presented conclusion that Stanton spoke and said "ages." While there is no mention on the part of other witnesses of Stanton saying anything or what he said, silence on that point does not rise to level of evidence contradicting that there was a comment or what was said. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I believe that Stanton spoke and used the word "ages."

[STS Lincolnite]

(04-20-2021 04:23 PM)wpbinzel Wrote:  Historic speculation on my part, but the noteworthy event in the immediate aftermath of the morning April 15, 1865, was the death of President Lincoln -- and not what was said at his bedside or by whom. That came later. Until Hay and Nicolay were published in 1890 in The Century Magazine, no one made mention of what was OR WAS NOT said upon Lincoln's death. The fact that three eye witnesses -- Hay, Leale, and Tanner (who, as Scott pointed out, must be considered as primary sources) all were in agreement (or at very least did not dispute) -- Hay's recollection, puts me firmly in the camp that Stanton likely said something and that something was "ages." In short, I agree with Scott's well researched, well documented, and well presented conclusion that Stanton spoke and said "ages." While there is no mention on the part of other witnesses of Stanton saying anything or what he said, silence on that point does not rise to level of evidence contradicting that there was a comment or what was said. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I believe that Stanton spoke and used the word "ages."

Hmmm....Bill, you will want to read my article.

You bring up some very important points in your post. There is even some wording you use that is coincidently very similar to something I have written in my article. That being said, there are some things above I certainly agree with and some things that I might dispute. I couldn't give EVERYTHING away in my talk!

For the time being I will leave you, and everyone else, in suspense!!

[Steve]

(04-20-2021 11:37 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  There is even debate over who placed coins over Abraham Lincoln's eyes after he died. In his 1909 address Dr. Leale stated, "Then I gently smoothed the President's contracted facial muscles, took two coins from my pocket, placed them over his eyelids and drew a white sheet over the martyr's face."

However, Colonel George V. Rutherford stated he placed the coins, and the Chicago History Museum has an affidavit.

https://images.chicagohistory.org/asset/29269/

I have also seen at least one source (cannot remember where) that said it was Dr. Joseph Barnes who did it. And Dr. Ed Steers, in Blood on the Moon, mentions two more claimants: Colonel Thomas McCurdy Vincent and Maunsell Field.

Here's a link to Col. Vincent' 1894 account:

https://books.google.com/books?id=gZ1YAA...dy&f=false

[Steve]

A letter published on page 1 of the April 17, 1865 edition of the New York Times has some information on the coins on the eyes situation (the relevant part is bolded):

On Friday evening, April 14, 1865, I was reading the evening paper in the reading-room of Willard's Hotel, at about 10 1/2 o'clock, when I was startled by the report that an attempt had been made a few minutes before to assassinate the President at Ford's Theatre. At first I could scarcely credit it, but in a few minutes the statement was confirmed by a number of people who came in separately, all telling the same story. About fifteen minutes previously I had parted with Mr. MELLER, of the Treasury Department, and he had retired to his room. Immediately on receiving this intelligence I notified him of it, and we together proceeded to the scene of the alleged assassination. We found not only considerable crowds on the streets leading to the theatre, but a very large one in front of the theatre, and of the house directly opposite, where the President had been carried after the attempt upon his life. With some difficulty I obtained ingress to the house. I was at once informed by Miss HARRIS, daughter of Senator HARRIS, that the President was dying, which statement was confirmed by three or four other persons whom I met in the hall; but I was desired not to communicate his condition to Mrs. LINCOLN, who was in the front parlor. I went into this parlor, where I found Mrs. LINCOLN, no other lady being present, except Miss HARRIS, as already mentioned. She at once recognized me, and begged me to run for Dr. STONE, or some other medical man. She was not weeping, but appeared hysterical, and exclaimed in rapid succession, over and over again: "Oh! why didn't he kill me? why didn't he kill me?" I was starting from the house to go for Dr. STONE, when I met at the door, Major ECKERT, of the War Department, who informed me he was going directly to STONE's house, STONE having already been sent for, but not having yet arrived. I then determined to go for Dr. HALL, whose precise residence I did not know. Upon inquiring of the crowd, I was told it was over FRANK TAYLOR's bookstore, on the avenue. This proved to be a mistake, and I was compelled to return to his actual residence on the avenue, above Ninth-street. I found the doctor at home and dressed, and he at once consented to accompany me. Arrived in the neighborhood of the house. I had great difficulty in passing the guard, and only succeeded at last in having the doctor introduced, admission being refused to myself. I returned to Willard's, it now being about 2 o'clock in the morning, and remained there until between 3 and 4 o'clock, when I again went to the house where the President was lying, in company with Mr. ANDREWS, late Surveyor of the port of New-York. I obtained ingress this time without any difficulty, and was enabled to take Mr. ANDREWS in with me. I proceeded at once to the room in which the President was lying, which was a bedroom in an extension, on the first or parlor floor of the house. The room is small, and is ornamented with prints -- a very familiar one of LANDSEER's, a white horse, being prominent directly over the bed. The bed was a double one, and I found the President lying diagonally across it, with his head at the outside. The pillows were saturated with blood, and there was considerable blood upon the floor immediately under him. There was a patchwork coverlet thrown over the President, which was only so far removed, from time to time, as to enable the physicians in attendance to feel the arteries of the neck or the heart, and be appeared to have been divested of all clothing. His eyes were closed and injected with blood, both the lids and the portion surrounding the eyes being as black as if they had been bruised by violence. He was breathing regularly, but with effort, and did not seem to be struggling or suffering.

The persons present in the room were the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, the Postmaster-General, the Attorney-General, the Secretary of the Treasury, (who, however, remained only till about 5 o'clock,) the Secretary of the Interior, the Assistant-Secretary of the Interior, myself, Gen. AUGER, Geo. HALLECK, Gen. MEIGS, and, during the last moments, Capt. ROBERT LINCOLN and Maj. JOHN HAY. On the foot of the bed sat Dr. STONE; above him, and directly opposite the President's face, an army surgeon, to me a stranger; another army surgeon was standing, frequently holding the pulse, and another gentleman, not in uniform, but whom I understood to be also an army surgeon, stood a good deal of the time leaning over the head-board of the bed.

For several hours the breathing above described continued regularly, and apparently without pain or consciousness. But about 7 o'clock a change occurred, and the breathing, which had been continuous, was interrupted at intervals. These intervals became more frequent and of longer duration, and the breathing more feeble. Several times the interval was so long that we thought him dead, and the surgeon applied his finger to the pulse, evidently to ascertain if such was the fact. But it was not till 22 minutes past 7 o'clock in the morning that the flame flickered out. There was no apparent suffering, no convulsive action, no rattling of the throat, none of the ordinary premonitory symptoms of death. Death in this case was a mere cessation of breathing.

The fact had not been ascertained one minute when Dr. GURLEY offered up a prayer. The few persons in the room were all profoundly effected. The President's eyes after death were not, particularly the right one, entirely closed. I closed them myself with my fingers, and one of the surgeons brought pennies and placed them on the eyes, and subsequently substituted for them silver half-dollars. In a very short time the jaw commenced slightly falling, although the body was still warm. I called attention to this, and had it immediately tied up with a pocket handkerchief. The expression immediately after death was purely negative, but in fifteen minutes here came over the mouth, the nostrils, and the chin, a smile that seemed almost an effort of life. I had never seen upon the President's face an expression more genial and pleasing. The body grew cold very gradually, and I left the room before it had entirely stiffened. Curtains had been previously drawn down by the Secretary of War.

Immediately after the decease, a meeting was held of the members of the Cabinet present, in the back parlor, adjacent to the room in which the President died, to which meeting I, of course, was not admitted. About fifteen minutes before the decease, Mrs. LINCOLN came into the room, and threw herself upon her dying husband's body. She was allowed to remain there only a few minutes, when she was removed in a sobbing condition, in which, indeed, she had been during all the time she was present.

After completing his prayer in the chamber of death. Dr. GURLEY went into the front parlor, where Mrs. LINCOLN was, with Mrs. and Miss KINNEY and her son ROBERT, Gen. TODD, of Dacotah, (a cousin of hers,) and Gen. FARNSWORTH, of Illinois. Here another prayer was offered up, during which I remained in the hall. The prayer was continually interrupted by Mrs. LINCOLN's sobs. Soon after its conclusion, I went into the parlor, and found her in a chair, supported by her son ROBERT. Presently her carriage came up, and she was removed to it. She was in a state of tolerable composure at that time, until she reached the door, when, glancing at the theatre opposite, she repeated three or four times: "That dreadful house! -- that dreadful house!"

Before I myself left, a guard had been stationed at the door of the room in which the remains of the late President were lying. Mrs. LINCOLN had been communicated with, to ascertain whether she desired the body to be embalmed or not, and the Secretary of War had issued various orders, necessary in consequence of what had occurred.

I left the house about 8:30 o'clock in the morning, and shortly after met Mr. Chief Justice CHASE, on his way there. He was extremely agitated, as, indeed, I myself had been all through the night. I afterward learned that, at the Cabinet meeting referred to, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney-General were appointed a committee to wait on the Vice-President, which they did, and he was sworn into office early in the morning by the Chief-Justice.

MAUNSELL B. FIELD.

WASHINGTON, April 16.


Field doesn't say he placed coins on Lincoln's eyes, just that he shut the President's eyelids prior to a surgeon placing two copper pennies over Lincoln's eyes which were subsequently replaced with two silver half-dollars.

[RJNorton]

Very interesting, Steve. If I am keeping track correctly that makes 5 people in the room whose 1865 accounts do not include Stanton saying anything about ages or angels (Leale, Tanner, Welles, Taft, Field). Maybe Scott has found more. (Scott, I wish I had recorded your talk for reference, but it was my first Zoom conference ever, and I didn't really know how to use the software's capabilities.)

In the Hay-Nicolay biography I believe Hay writes that there was total silence in the room after the President passed. And the silence was broken by Stanton saying "Now he belongs to the ages." I continue to be surprised that none of the 1865 accounts say anything about this.