Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

John Stanton · 02-01-2013, 02:34 PM

I am a loyal, long time, John Fazio fan. I read and save all that he says because some day I may need his work. If I cite his work , then you believe me. BUT, I hope I never meet him in court, and he is the prosecution.. He made an absolutely believable case out of nothing. No testimoney, no evidence, no witnesses -for or against, he even tells us when he is guessing, (when it is necessary). The jury has voted - Herold is guilty. This was no "off the cuff" article. I cannot imagine the amount of time spent researching.
THANKS, John. PS - get busy on more.

John Fazio · (This post was last modified: 02-01-2013 03:26 PM by John Fazio.)

(02-01-2013 02:08 PM)JMadonna Wrote:
(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.

Jerry:

I know that is your thesis, because, coincidentally, I just finished re-reading portions of your book. But does the reference to Booth and Herold having gone to the Kirkwood and having "seen" Johnson truly mean that they actually met him and did business with him, or might it mean only that they had observed him from a distance, presumably to confirm his residence there, size up his m.o., etc., in preparation for the kill? Granted that the fugitives made it across the bridge, nothing was said by Cobb about passes, nor do his statments and testimony lend themselves to a supposition that passes were a part of their tranactions. My conclusion about Cobb is that:

1. General Order No. 5 was not being strictly enforced, contra Kauffman; or

2. There was foul play, i.e. Cobb's passing them was pre-arranged and paid for.

The second possibility may have more to it than is commonly supposed, because entirely too many things went Booth's way that night. (Roscoe suggests the possibility.) It is hard to believe that Booth and Herold would have approached the bridge unless they were certain they would be passed, but with no mention or suggestion of passes, I look for another reason. (What would they have done if they had been turned back because of a strict application of General Order No. 5?) The presence of mounted Confederates in the area who gallopped through Union guards without giving a password may offer a clue. There are other clues.

John

(02-01-2013 02:34 PM)John Stanton Wrote: I am a loyal, long time, John Fazio fan. I read and save all that he says because some day I may need his work. If I cite his work , then you believe me. BUT, I hope I never meet him in court, and he is the prosecution.. He made an absolutely believable case out of nothing. No testimoney, no evidence, no witnesses -for or against, he even tells us when he is guessing, (when it is necessary). The jury has voted - Herold is guilty. This was no "off the cuff" article. I cannot imagine the amount of time spent researching.
THANKS, John. PS - get busy on more.

John:

We've never met (that I recall), but I know anyway that you are a great guy. Every man and woman needs a few of those in his or her life. Thank you very much for your kindness.

Please make my acqaintance at the Conference in March. I shall surely buy you a drink. I may even spring for a double.

John

JMadonna · 02-01-2013, 06:31 PM

(02-01-2013 01:32 PM)John Fazio Wrote: Jerry:

... But does the reference to Booth and Herold having gone to the Kirkwood and having "seen" Johnson truly mean that they actually met him and did business with him, or might it mean only that they had observed him from a distance, presumably to confirm his residence there, size up his m.o., etc., in preparation for the kill?

- It's possible but why didn't Booth go with Atzerodt his designated trigger man? Why did he later tell Atzerodt to get a pass from Johnson and tell how to go through his secretary? Because Booth already did so with Herold seems more likely to me.

(02-01-2013 01:32 PM)John Fazio Wrote: Granted that the fugitives made it across the bridge, nothing was said by Cobb about passes, nor do his statments and testimony lend themselves to a supposition that passes were a part of their tranactions. My conclusion about Cobb is that:

1. General Order No. 5 was not being strictly enforced, contra Kauffman; or

2. There was foul play, i.e. Cobb's passing them was pre-arranged and paid for.

The second possibility may have more to it than is commonly supposed, because entirely too many things went Booth's way that night. (Roscoe suggests the possibility.) It is hard to believe that Booth and Herold would have approached the bridge unless they were certain they would be passed, but with no mention or suggestion of passes, I look for another reason.

Agreed - too many things went right that night for it all to be a string of lucky coincidences. When things go wrong in government scapegoats are always found.As you once wrote its the grunts that pay the price not the higher-ups. Had Cobb taken a bribe he surely would have been found out and court-martialed. Yet he did not even get a reprimand.This tells me that they couldn't because he did everything by the book.

BtW - Do you have anything new coming out?

John Fazio · 02-02-2013, 03:34 AM

(02-01-2013 06:31 PM)JMadonna Wrote:
(02-01-2013 01:32 PM)John Fazio Wrote: Jerry:

... But does the reference to Booth and Herold having gone to the Kirkwood and having "seen" Johnson truly mean that they actually met him and did business with him, or might it mean only that they had observed him from a distance, presumably to confirm his residence there, size up his m.o., etc., in preparation for the kill?
- It's possible but why didn't Booth go with Atzerodt his designated trigger man? Why did he later tell Atzerodt to get a pass from Johnson and tell how to go through his secretary? Because Booth already did so with Herold seems more likely to me.

(02-01-2013 01:32 PM)John Fazio Wrote: Granted that the fugitives made it across the bridge, nothing was said by Cobb about passes, nor do his statments and testimony lend themselves to a supposition that passes were a part of their tranactions. My conclusion about Cobb is that:

1. General Order No. 5 was not being strictly enforced, contra Kauffman; or

2. There was foul play, i.e. Cobb's passing them was pre-arranged and paid for.

The second possibility may have more to it than is commonly supposed, because entirely too many things went Booth's way that night. (Roscoe suggests the possibility.) It is hard to believe that Booth and Herold would have approached the bridge unless they were certain they would be passed, but with no mention or suggestion of passes, I look for another reason.
Agreed - too many things went right that night for it all to be a string of lucky coincidences. When things go wrong in government scapegoats are always found.As you once wrote its the grunts that pay the price not the higher-ups. Had Cobb taken a bribe he surely would have been found out and court-martialed. Yet he did not even get a reprimand.This tells me that they couldn't because he did everything by the book.

BtW - Do you have anything new coming out?

Jerry:

Your reasoning re the passes is sound and I am going to take account of it in my writing. Nevertheless, I am troubled by the fact that neither Cobb nor Fletcher says or even hints at anything about passes in their statements and testimony at the trial. It seems to me that if Booth and Herold had passes, Cobb would simply have said so, thereby getting himself off the hook. The notion that he was covering for Johnson under Stanton's coaching is, in my opinion, most unlikely. I do not believe either man would have risked the slightest imputation of wrongdoing in the circumstances. Their skirts had to be completely clean. If Johnson gave the fugitives passes, he would have been much better served by simply acknowledging the fact and asserting that he did so in perfectly good faith, than to cover it up, risk exposure and the consequent wrath of the country and removal from office. In my opinion, undue influence on Cobb is the more likely of the two explanations for his behavior. Consider, in this connection, his premature death (or disappearance) a couple of years later, allegedly in Michigan. Pure speculation, of course, all the way around. But it is too much to believe that it was simply more good luck for Booth and Herold. Would they have ridden to the bridge with anything less than complete certainty that they would be pemitted to pass? What were they prepared to do if Cobb had rejected their bid for passage?

As to the future, I am in the final stages of a book on the assassination, tentatively titled Lincoln's Assassination: Toward a Consensus. The material that just appeared in the Courier is from the book.

John

JMadonna · 02-02-2013, 08:20 AM

(02-02-2013 03:34 AM)John Fazio Wrote: Jerry:
Your reasoning re the passes is sound and I am going to take account of it in my writing. Nevertheless, I am troubled by the fact that neither Cobb nor Fletcher says or even hints at anything about passes in their statements and testimony at the trial. It seems to me that if Booth and Herold had passes, Cobb would simply have said so, thereby getting himself off the hook. The notion that he was covering for Johnson under Stanton's coaching is, in my opinion, most unlikely. I do not believe either man would have risked the slightest imputation of wrongdoing in the circumstances.

John,
Thanks for the compliment, but the fact is that Cobb was coached as exhibited by the excerpt in the archives. He didn't lie on the stand but he was masterful in avoiding any mention of the criteria he used to pass Booth & Herold. He was still in the army and more on the hook to his superiors than he was in the court of public opinion.

(02-02-2013 03:34 AM)John Fazio Wrote: If Johnson gave the fugitives passes, he would have been much better served by simply acknowledging the fact and asserting that he did so in perfectly good faith, than to cover it up, risk exposure and the consequent wrath of the country and removal from office.

John, your opinion on this point is legally sound but not the way things are done in Washington. Acknowledging such an event would have killed Johnson's presidency immediately and probably continued the war. As it was, he got away with covering it up.

(02-02-2013 03:34 AM)John Fazio Wrote: As to the future, I am in the final stages of a book on the assassination, tentatively titled Lincoln's Assassination: Toward a Consensus. The material that just appeared in the Courier is from the book.

Can't wait to get a copy.
Jerry

RJNorton · 02-02-2013, 08:40 AM

(02-01-2013 02:34 PM)John Stanton Wrote: I am a loyal, long time, John Fazio fan. I read and save all that he says because some day I may need his work. If I cite his work , then you believe me. BUT, I hope I never meet him in court, and he is the prosecution.. He made an absolutely believable case out of nothing. No testimoney, no evidence, no witnesses -for or against, he even tells us when he is guessing, (when it is necessary). The jury has voted - Herold is guilty. This was no "off the cuff" article. I cannot imagine the amount of time spent researching.
THANKS, John. PS - get busy on more.

John, you have probably seen these, but just in the possibility you have not, there are more fascinating John Fazio assassination-related articles online here.

DanielC · 02-02-2013, 08:44 AM

Great job John, I really enjoyed your article. I'm of the opinion that Herold was more of a point person on the night of the assasination. Where he was.? I don't know. One thing stood out to me though. Lloyd's testomony that Booth had told him "I am pretty certain that we have assasinated the President, and Secretary Seward". Does he make this statement based on whom he assigned to murder Seward? Was Herold there and reported what he had "heard", or did Herold hear the news skedaddling out of town?

Best,

Dan

Gene C · 02-02-2013, 08:45 AM

Was Cobb the only guard at the bridge, or just the only one that confronted anyone trying to pass over, and how many guards on the other side?
How long was the bridge?

BettyO · 02-02-2013, 08:50 AM

Great question, Genel

I'm sure that Cobb was not the only soldier on the bridge - there were probably at least 2-3 others. Anyone have any answers as to the length of the Long Bridge?

John Fazio · 02-02-2013, 09:08 AM

(02-02-2013 08:20 AM)JMadonna Wrote:
(02-02-2013 03:34 AM)John Fazio Wrote: Jerry:
Your reasoning re the passes is sound and I am going to take account of it in my writing. Nevertheless, I am troubled by the fact that neither Cobb nor Fletcher says or even hints at anything about passes in their statements and testimony at the trial. It seems to me that if Booth and Herold had passes, Cobb would simply have said so, thereby getting himself off the hook. The notion that he was covering for Johnson under Stanton's coaching is, in my opinion, most unlikely. I do not believe either man would have risked the slightest imputation of wrongdoing in the circumstances.
John,
Thanks for the compliment, but the fact is that Cobb was coached as exhibited by the excerpt in the archives. He didn't lie on the stand but he was masterful in avoiding any mention of the criteria he used to pass Booth & Herold. He was still in the army and more on the hook to his superiors than he was in the court of public opinion.

(02-02-2013 03:34 AM)John Fazio Wrote: If Johnson gave the fugitives passes, he would have been much better served by simply acknowledging the fact and asserting that he did so in perfectly good faith, than to cover it up, risk exposure and the consequent wrath of the country and removal from office.

John, your opinion on this point is legally sound but not the way things are done in Washington. Acknowledging such an event would have killed Johnson's presidency immediately and probably continued the war. As it was, he got away with covering it up.

(02-02-2013 03:34 AM)John Fazio Wrote: As to the future, I am in the final stages of a book on the assassination, tentatively titled Lincoln's Assassination: Toward a Consensus. The material that just appeared in the Courier is from the book.

Can't wait to get a copy.
Jerry

Jerry:

Please identify, with particularity, the "excerpt in the archives" to which you refer. Is it in your book? In The Lincoln Assassination: The Evidence? Thank you in advance, because if the except will solve the "Mysteries of Silas T. Cobb" (a chapter title), I shall be very grateful to you.

John

L Verge · (This post was last modified: 02-02-2013 03:25 PM by L Verge.)

Booth and Herold did not cross the Long Bridge out of Washington. That would have taken them immediately into Union-held Virginia. They crossed on the opposite side of town - the Navy Yard Bridge. The location of that bridge has changed at least twice in my lifetime, but the route of the first one can clearly be seen on the Anacostia side of the river and leading straight to the dock areas of the Navy Yard. I am not good at judging distances, but I would guess that the original bridge was less than a quarter-mile.

The photo of it taken about the time of the Civil War is frequently shown in assassination books. Cobb was not the only soldier on duty that night, but he appears to be the watch commander at that point. Jerry already knows I have doubts about his theories, but I would like to add that the security had surely become less "secure" with all the celebrations going on. Also, the Navy Yard Bridge was the main entrance into the city for the truck farmers from Southern Maryland who came every day to sell their wares at the city's markets. Therefore, the guards were used to frequent traffic both ways on that bridge at various times of the day and night.

John Fazio · 02-02-2013, 11:54 AM

(02-02-2013 10:56 AM)L Verge Wrote: Booth and Herold did not cross the Long Bridge out of Washington. That would have taken them immediately into Union-held Virginia. They crossed on the opposite side of town - the Navy Yard Bridge. The location of that bridge has changed at least twice in my lifetime, but the route of the first one can clearly be seen on the Anacostia side of the river and leading straight to the dock areas of the Navy Yard. I am not good at judging distances, but I would guess that the original bridge was less than a quarter-mile.

The photo of it taken about the time of the Civil War is frequently shown in assassination books. Cobb was not the only soldier on duty that night, but he appears to be the watch commander at that point. Jerry already knows I have doubts about his theories, but I would like to add that the security had surely become less "secure" with all the celebrations going on. Also, the Navy Yard Bridge was the main entrance into the city for the truck farmers from Southern Maryland who came everyday to sell their wares at the city's markets. Therefore, the guards were use to frequent traffic both ways on that bridge at various times of the day and night.

Laurie:

Thank you for your input.

According to my reading, one source has it that there were two men in the guardhouse (Cobb and one other) and another source has it that there were three altogether, with none but Cobb named. Cobb was definitely the ranking officer because, among other reasons for so holding, he indicates in his statements and testimony that one of his comrades stopped Booth and that he then went out to recognize Booth.

The preponderance of the evidence, as you suggest, is that the enforcement of General Order No. 5 had been relaxed. Cobb and his comrade(s) were most likely in a celebratory and devil-may-care mood, as were most Washingtonians, with the end of the war in sight, a successful end for the Union. (They may even have been a bit tipsy; one way to relieve the boredom of the sunset to 1:00 a.m. shift.) Many historians favor the view that enforcement of the General Order was relaxed after Lee's surrender. Kauffman suggests otherwise in a note in Arnold's memoirs, citing XXII Corps records, which suggest strict enforcement. But there is strict enforcement and there is strict enforcement, and the facts appear to speak for themselves, i.e. Booth and Herold were passed and Cobb received only a verbal dressing down for his permitting the same --no arrest, no investigation, no court martial, no discharge from the service. That suggests that his superiors, including Stanton and the new President, thought of his acts as mere lapses of judgment and indiscretions. Accordingly, I believe Kauffman, for whom I otherwise have the greatest respect, is mistaken about this.

As for Jerry's fundamental thesis re Johnson and Stanton and the cover-up re passes, I have problems with it too. I have asked him for "excerpts from the archives", which he believes suppport his view.

If Jerry is mistaken, we still need a plausible reason for Cobb's passing the fugitives other than their dumb luck. I cannot accept that they approached the bridge, with a roiling city behind them that was ready to devour them, with anything less than complete certainty that they would cross the river.

John

J. Beckert · 02-02-2013, 01:52 PM

This is very interesting, but Booth had no guarantee he was going to get into the box without violence. Why would he have to be certain he would be guaranteed to cross the bridge without treating Cobb the way he reacted to Rathbone or even worse? He was armed and left behind one man that was shot and two who were viciously stabbed. If Cobb denied him permission to cross, I don't see him wheeling his horse around in disgust.

John Fazio · 02-02-2013, 02:21 PM

(02-02-2013 01:52 PM)J. Beckert Wrote: This is very interesting, but Booth had no guarantee he was going to get into the box without violence. Why would he have to be certain he would be guaranteed to cross the bridge without treating Cobb the way he reacted to Rathbone or even worse? He was armed and left behind one man that was shot and two who were viciously stabbed. If Cobb denied him permission to cross, I don't see him wheeling his horse around in disgust.

Mr. Beckert:

A very astute observation and one that I had given little thought to before; not enough thought. Thank you very much for this insight. Do you believe Herold would have resorted to violence too? There were two or three men on duty that night. For that reason, Booth might have had his hands full if Cobb had said "no passage". Still, with his life in the balance, he might have done what he could. His readiness to fall back on violence and a forced passage does not preclude the possibility that there were others in the area prepared to assure his passage if it were denied him by the sentry. In support of your view is the exclamation made at the Gautier's Restaurant meeting by Booth in response to Arnold's objection on the grounds that the sentry at the river crossing would block their passage. Booth said, please recall: "Shoot the sentry!"

John C. Fazio (please call me John)

L Verge · 02-02-2013, 03:39 PM

Am I the only one who thinks that Booth had three choices if stopped at the bridge? 1. Fight his way through by possibly shooting at the guard(s) and spurring his already quick horse into action. 2. Turn around quietly and lose himself in the turmoil of what was going on behind him. 3. Allow himself to be taken prisoner (if it really came to that) and play the role of "national hero" to the hilt.

There is also the possibility that Booth and Herold could have headed for the Bennings Bridge, just like Powell did. They obviously thought that people could cross there or they would have told Powell differently. It would have thrown them a number of miles off their planned course, but it would still lead them into Southern Maryland. Has anyone ever researched as to whether or not Bennings was guarded and, if so, did any sentries report a lone rider turning around about the time that Powell would have approached them?

Finally, as for Herold, if he had not been so loyal to Booth, when stopped at the Navy Yard Bridge, he should have just turned around and headed home. After all, he lived just a block from the bridge - and he had yet to be linked to the murder. Although Fletcher knew that Herold was on his rented horse, he very likely did not know that the horse or Davey had done anything as serious as assisting in an assassination.