What Was The Role of David Herold

[BettyO]

Personally, I think that Herold was the point man.

[RJNorton]

I will be curious how Jerry Madonna feels about the second half of John's article. I believe Jerry is firm in his belief that Herold was out to kill Johnson but failed because the weapons were locked in Atzerodt's room.

[BettyO]

Personally, I don't see Herold capable of killing anyone. Although loyal, I don't think he had the makings of doing murder - for a proposed "patriotic" stance or not. He was seemingly too immature and frivolous. I think he liked the "glory" aspect of being involved with JWB and the plot in general. He was not dumb, but found that being associated with these fellows elevated his ego.

Powell may have been the youngest, but he was also trained as a soldier and was somewhat more mature although younger in years than Herold.

[John Fazio]

(01-31-2013 03:08 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(12-29-2012 06:06 PM)L Verge Wrote:  An assassination topic that seems to have no clear answer is: What was the role of David Herold on the night of April 14, 1865? Was he to chaperone Lewis Powell? Keep an eye on Atzerodt? Guide Booth?

Members of the Surratt Society will be treated to an extensive article on this subject in the upcoming February issue of the Courier. The author is John Fazio, who I believe is a member of this forum. Mr. Fazio is a lawyer and lays out the scenario and his thoughts in gunshot blasts.

Anyone want to chime in here on his/her opinions and then compare them in about a month when the Courier goes out to members? Did Herold accompany Powell? Did he desert Powell? Was he a point man to see that others carried through and report to Booth? Thoughts???

Kudos to John Fazio for his excellent article. This is an extremely difficult topic due to a scarcity of real evidence. I do not ever recall reading an article like this that tries to nail down what Herold did and did not do in Washington on April 14th in this sort of detail. I think John did an amazing job.

---

(02-01-2013 09:05 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(01-31-2013 03:08 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(12-29-2012 06:06 PM)L Verge Wrote:  An assassination topic that seems to have no clear answer is: What was the role of David Herold on the night of April 14, 1865? Was he to chaperone Lewis Powell? Keep an eye on Atzerodt? Guide Booth?

Members of the Surratt Society will be treated to an extensive article on this subject in the upcoming February issue of the Courier. The author is John Fazio, who I believe is a member of this forum. Mr. Fazio is a lawyer and lays out the scenario and his thoughts in gunshot blasts.

Anyone want to chime in here on his/her opinions and then compare them in about a month when the Courier goes out to members? Did Herold accompany Powell? Did he desert Powell? Was he a point man to see that others carried through and report to Booth? Thoughts???

Kudos to John Fazio for his excellent article. This is an extremely difficult topic due to a scarcity of real evidence. I do not ever recall reading an article like this that tries to nail down what Herold did and did not do in Washington on April 14th in this sort of detail. I think John did an amazing job.

Laurie:

Many thanks to you and to everyone for their comments re the article in February's Courier. Everyone likes recognition and it is especially meaningful when it comes from ones colleagues and peers. Churchill once said that the three hardest things in the world are trying to climb a wall that is leaning toward you; trying to kiss a girl who is leaning away from you; and trying to speak (or write) to a group that knows more about your subject than you do. I had that feeling when I was writing the article.

Incidentally, as to where Roscoe got the 35 figure attributed to Herold (number of conspirators), unless I am overlooking something here, I do believe the figure came from Herold himself in his statement of April 27, 1865. Please see page 674, near the top, in The Lincoln Assassination: The Evidence.

Thanks again and thank you for this terrific resource.

John

---

(02-01-2013 07:22 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  I will be curious how Jerry Madonna feels about the second half of John's article. I believe Jerry is firm in his belief that Herold was out to kill Johnson but failed because the weapons were locked in Atzerodt's room.

Roger:

I agree with Jerry as to Herold making an attempt on Johnson, but I do believe that inability to access Atzerodt's room was only one reason. Others were fear of confronting Johnson, especially if he had to do the job with a Bowie; inability to use a firearm without making escape almost impossibile; difficulty in waking Johnson (remember Farwell's experience); and possibly security or other people in the vicinity of the door to Johnson's room. Remember, too, that Fletcher saw Atzerodt go into the Kirkwood, after having a drink with him, and come out again after 5 or 6 minutes. No one knows what Atzerodt did during that time. The conventional wisdom is that he went into the bar and drank. I doubt it. He had just had a drink with Fletcher and as soon as he left the Kirkwood would have another, by his own admission. If he wanted another drink, he would just have stayed with Fletcher. I believe, rather, that he too may have entertained a notion of taking out Johnson, despite his previous refusals, if only to get back into Booth's and Herold's good graces, but encountered the same kinds of problems Herold did and for that reason took off. It is even possibile that the two of them met in the hotel and made a collective decision to hightail it because the conditions were not favorable. That would explain why Booth knew that Johnson had not been killed. Remember, lastly, that Johnson was definitely targeted, because if Johnson was not to die, there was no longer any reason for Seward to die. (The 1792 statute.)

John

[RJNorton]

What I want to know is if Johnson was ALONE in his room! I know Farwell had trouble "rousing" Johnson...hmm....

[John Fazio]

(01-31-2013 03:08 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(12-29-2012 06:06 PM)L Verge Wrote:  An assassination topic that seems to have no clear answer is: What was the role of David Herold on the night of April 14, 1865? Was he to chaperone Lewis Powell? Keep an eye on Atzerodt? Guide Booth?

Members of the Surratt Society will be treated to an extensive article on this subject in the upcoming February issue of the Courier. The author is John Fazio, who I believe is a member of this forum. Mr. Fazio is a lawyer and lays out the scenario and his thoughts in gunshot blasts.

Anyone want to chime in here on his/her opinions and then compare them in about a month when the Courier goes out to members? Did Herold accompany Powell? Did he desert Powell? Was he a point man to see that others carried through and report to Booth? Thoughts???

Kudos to John Fazio for his excellent article. This is an extremely difficult topic due to a scarcity of real evidence. I do not ever recall reading an article like this that tries to nail down what Herold did and did not do in Washington on April 14th in this sort of detail. I think John did an amazing job.

Roger:

Many thanks for your comments. Coming from someone as knowledgeable of this subject as you are is an accolade.

John

---

(01-31-2013 10:38 PM)Hess1865 Wrote:  That was a great article about Herold in the Courier!!!

Mr. Hess:

Thank you for your comment. It is most gratifying to receive praise from those who know more about one's subject than the writer does.

John

[Laurie Verge]

My apologies, John, for doubting Herold as the source of the statement about "35 others in Washington." I went back through my copy of Herold's statement in From War Department Files and found it.

---

(02-01-2013 09:43 AM)Laurie Verge Wrote:  My apologies, John, for doubting Herold as the source of the statement about "35 others in Washington." I went back through my copy of Herold's statement in From War Department Files and found it.

PS: I also agree with Betty - I just don't see Herold having an "assassin's" bone in his body.

[John Fazio]

(02-01-2013 09:34 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  What I want to know is if Johnson was ALONE in his room! I know Farwell had trouble "rousing" Johnson...hmm....

Roger:

I too have heard the suggestion made that he was not alone and even that Booth may have arranged company for him in exchange for a pass to Richmond. The story goes that they had shared a woman or women years earlier in Tennessee when Booth was playing down there (Nashville, I believe). I seriously doubt all of this. To begin with Farwell said nothing about company, though we would not expect him to, so we won't attach too much importance to that. More importantly, Johnson was such a heavy drinker, and most probably had a few that night before retiring, that I doubt that he would have been in a condition to accomodate company, physically or emotionally. Alcohol has diminishing returns where matters amorous are concerned. At 57 he was probably slowing down anyway even if he were sober. (That should kick up some dust.) Third, I doubt that he would risk scandal. He was already under a heavy cloud because of the spectacle he made of himself on Inauguration Day. Lastly, it was about 10:30, past a good hour for a 57-year old to retire, alone.

John

[RJNorton]

John, agreed. I have my doubts, too, but I think it's possible. I do feel that Booth sending Johnson "a present" would have (to Booth's way of thinking) been a method of (in theory anyway) making certain Johnson was home when the assassin came a calling. Jerry feels Ella Starr was the "chosen one."

[J. Beckert]

It also follows the line of thinking that he didn't care who he implicated. She'd be in quite a jam if she was caught in the room if this was pulled off.

[John Fazio]

(02-01-2013 09:43 AM)Laurie Verge Wrote:  My apologies, John, for doubting Herold as the source of the statement about "35 others in Washington." I went back through my copy of Herold's statement in From War Department Files and found it.

---

(02-01-2013 09:43 AM)Laurie Verge Wrote:  My apologies, John, for doubting Herold as the source of the statement about "35 others in Washington." I went back through my copy of Herold's statement in From War Department Files and found it.

PS: I also agree with Betty - I just don't see Herold having an "assassin's" bone in his body.


Laurie:

No apology is necessary.

As for Betty's comment, I can understand it, and your agreement with it, but remember two things:

1. Booth apparently thought he could do it, inasmuch as he told Atzerodt that he, Herold, had more "courage " or "pluck" and "he will do it" and inasmuch as Booth assigned Herold the job when Atzerodt refused to do it, or so said Atzerodt.

2. He did not do it, which confirms your judgment and Betty's. I believe he went to the Kirkwood for a go at it if conditions were favorable, but when he found they weren't, he took off happily. I believe we have all been in a position when we were expected to do something that we didn't really want to do, and so we proceed with only half a heart, and as soon as the first plausible reason for avoiding it arises, we leap at it so that we don't have to do what we don't want to do and now have an excuse for not doing it.

John

---

(02-01-2013 10:11 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  John, agreed. I have my doubts, too, but I think it's possible. I do feel that Booth sending Johnson "a present" would have (to Booth's way of thinking) been a method of (in theory anyway) making certain Johnson was home when the assassin came a calling. Jerry feels Ella Starr was the "chosen one."

Roger:

A good point and one that, frankly, I had overlooked.

John

[John Fazio]

Ms. Ownsbey:

If Herold was the point man, who was going to kill Johnson, with Booth on the President, Powell on Seward and Atzerodt refusing to kill, as confirmed by Powell? The confirmation is mentioned in your book, which I read with great interest. Anything is posssible, of course, but I view the "point man" theory as weak. I believe it is more believable that Booth, Powell and Herold were assigned to kill, the latter because Atzerodt refused, and that Powell was to go to Baltimore and the other three were to ride off together and leave the country, per Smoot. Booth probably knew that Atzerodt wouldn't follow them, or thought it highly unlikely (or perhaps he planned to dump him when he was sure he had Herold to guide him), because a witness at the trial (I don't have it in front of me) testified that Lloyd said that Mrs. Surrat told him that two men (not three) would show up that night to call for the shooting irons. And two did.

John C. Fazio (please call me John)

[JMadonna]

John,
I've read a number of articles by you and needless to say I'm a big fan.

On your reply to Roger you said:
"More importantly, Johnson was such a heavy drinker, and most probably had a few that night before retiring, that I doubt that he would have been in a condition to accomodate company, physically or emotionally. Alcohol has diminishing returns where matters amorous are concerned. At 57 he was probably slowing down anyway even if he were sober. (That should kick up some dust.) Third, I doubt that he would risk scandal. He was already under a heavy cloud because of the spectacle he made of himself on Inauguration Day. Lastly, it was about 10:30, past a good hour for a 57-year old to retire, alone."

If Johnson was a smart politician (which he was not) he would have avoided alcohol at all costs because of the inauguration spectacle, obviously he didn't. Secondly, who really cares who the VP sleeps with? It was well known that madams regularly went in and out of the WH when he became President so he really didn't care about discretion. Thirdly, Johnson was a well known night owl. It was more unusual for him to retire before midnight especially since all of Washington was celebrating the end of the war on that particular night.

[John Fazio]

(02-01-2013 01:01 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  John,
I've read a number of articles by you and needless to say I'm a big fan.

On your reply to Roger you said:
"More importantly, Johnson was such a heavy drinker, and most probably had a few that night before retiring, that I doubt that he would have been in a condition to accomodate company, physically or emotionally. Alcohol has diminishing returns where matters amorous are concerned. At 57 he was probably slowing down anyway even if he were sober. (That should kick up some dust.) Third, I doubt that he would risk scandal. He was already under a heavy cloud because of the spectacle he made of himself on Inauguration Day. Lastly, it was about 10:30, past a good hour for a 57-year old to retire, alone."

If Johnson was a smart politician (which he was not) he would have avoided alcohol at all costs because of the inauguration spectacle, obviously he didn't. Secondly, who really cares who the VP sleeps with? It was well known that madams regularly went in and out of the WH when he became President so he really didn't care about discretion. Thirdly, Johnson was a well known night owl. It was more unusual for him to retire before midnight especially since all of Washington was celebrating the end of the war on that particular night.

Jerry:

Thanks for your response and for your compliment.

You are right to say that most people would not have given a hoot who he slept with, but the suggestion has been made that if he were with someone that night, she was a plant to keep him bound to the room so that an assassin would find him at home. That is the proposition I have some difficulty with.

You may be right about the hour he chose to retire. This is obviously beyond anyone's knowing, because there is no evidence one way or the other.

If we start with the knowledge that Johnson was targeted (because without him dead, there is no reason to kill Seward, and also because of Jefferson Davis's remark upon hearing of Lincoln's death, i.e. "...if the same would have happened to Andy Johnson, the beast, the job would have been complete.."), it follows that he could in no way have been complicit in the crime. Accepting sexual favors in exchange for a pass to Richmond is dangerously close to complicity. I believe the evidence for that is quite weak.

John

[JMadonna]

(02-01-2013 01:32 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  [quote='JMadonna' pid='12201' dateline='1359741713']

If we start with the knowledge that Johnson was targeted (because without him dead, there is no reason to kill Seward, and also because of Jefferson Davis's remark upon hearing of Lincoln's death, i.e. "...if the same would have happened to Andy Johnson, the beast, the job would have been complete.."), it follows that he could in no way have been complicit in the crime. Accepting sexual favors in exchange for a pass to Richmond is dangerously close to complicity. I believe the evidence for that is quite weak.

John

I definitely agree. Johnson knew nothing of Booth's plot but Atzerodt said that Booth and Herold had seen Johnson a few days before. For what reason he doesn't say. IMO to get passes since they were able to cross the bridge.
Accepting sexual favors for political favors is a second currency in Washington and has been for a long time.