Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Laurie Verge · 02-04-2013, 04:40 PM

I'll take that as a compliment, John. And regroup my forces for the next assault tomorrow. I'll be in class learning all about the changes of the new ADA regulations until the afternoon. I hope they are ready for me because I have my own thoughts as a disabled person!

Good thing I knew that you partake in a daily cocktail or else I would have thought that I was driving you to drink...

John E. · 02-04-2013, 06:23 PM

(02-04-2013 11:53 AM)RJNorton Wrote:
(02-04-2013 11:00 AM)John E. Wrote: Weren't the lights to be extinguished to aid the kidnapping and not the murder ?

Hi John. This is in Jerry Madonna's book. On p. 135 Jerry writes that Spangler was unable to turn out the gas lights because Jeannie Gourlay and William Withers were standing in a spot that blocked Spangler's access to the meter box. That miscue left the lights on as Booth was on the stage.

Thanks Roger. Interesting stuff from Jerry. I respectfully disagree in regards to Spangler turning off the lights. I don't think he was deeply involved in any plot.

Linda Anderson · 02-04-2013, 09:19 PM

(01-02-2013 02:37 PM)John Fazio Wrote:

(12-30-2012 11:50 AM)Linda Anderson Wrote: Seward's next door neighbor was Benjamin Ogle Tayloe who had strong ties to the Confederacy. According to an April 16, 1865 article in the Daily National Intelligencer, Tayloe's servant saw Powell ride up to Seward's house. There is no mention of anyone accompanying Powell.

"A servant boy of Mr. Ogle Tayloe, who resides next door to Mr. Seward, saw the assassin ride up to the door of the latter and fasten his horse to the lamp-post. A few minutes afterwards Major Seward came to the door and told the boy to cry 'Murder!' asserting, at the same time, that the murderer was still in the house."

According to the Daily National Republican dated April, 18, 1865, Tayloe's servant, Ben, gave a statement that he saw Powell run out of the house after Powell attacked Seward. I have not been able to find the paper's "extra of Saturday."

"Mr. Tayloe's servant, Ben, corrects his statement published in our extra of Saturday, in relation to what he saw and heard as he stood at Mr. Seward's door Friday night. It was Governor Seward's servant and not Major Seward, who came first to the door and gave the alarm. He preceeded the assassin in coming out of the house, and said to Mr. Tayloe's servant, 'A man is in the house murdering everybody; run for your life and cry murder!' This was done by Ben who ran to the corner of Madison Place and Pennsylvania Avenue, and returned immediately, followed by several unarmed soldiers. When nearly opposite Mr. Seward's house again, a man came out of it, with a dagger in his hand, mounted his horse, and set off at a deliberate pace towards the north, until he reached Sixteenth street, when he went off at full speed, and disappeared around the corner of Governor Morgan's house, on Fifteenth and I streets, going towards the east."

I wonder who gave the first cry of "murder," William H. Bell or the Tayloe's servant, Ben. Also, George Robinson testified in the John Surratt trial that Fanny Seward saw Powell "make a blow at her father. She then hallooed "murder," and ran out into the hall and cried out that there was someone there trying to kill her father. She came back into the room, and went to the window next to the avenue-next to where the provost officer's office then was-which I had shoved up some eight or ten inches, and which she shoved clear up, and then hallooed the same out there."

However, Fanny wrote in her diary, "I did not open any window and cry “murder” as the report of Robinson’s statement said, neither did I leave the room as then mentioned, but at the time I have stated."

In any case, it could have been more than one person crying "murder" that Alfred Cloughly or the orderlies in General Augur's office heard.

John Fazio · 02-04-2013, 10:32 PM

(02-03-2013 07:52 AM)JMadonna Wrote:
(02-02-2013 09:15 PM)John Fazio Wrote: As for Augur, I don't think he looked the other way; he reprimanded Cobb severely, but in the end nothing more serious than that was done because Augur, too, must have known that enforcement of the rule had eased and that the sentries had discretion in the matter. To a degree, the facts speak for themselves.

John,
There is no record that I know of where Auger reprimanded Cobb much less in a severe manner. Neither is there any example that I know of that sentries had discretion as to enforcing the orders.

On the contrary, it is a fact that Lincoln was writing a pass to someone right before he left for the theater.

If the facts speak for themselves it seems that you and I are hearing their story differently.

(02-02-2013 09:15 PM)John Fazio Wrote: My grandfather was born 3 years after the end of the C.W.

Well you got me there but only by 8 years. I broke the family tradition of fathering children into my fifties.

Jerry:

Here are three references:

1. The war being at a close, the restrictions were not so exacting at this bridge, and the sentinels were at liberty to judge the proper persons to pass over. (Osborn H. Oldroyd, about 1902)

2. Nobody expected an enemy asssault on the Navy Yard. So wartime restrictions had been somewhat relaxed, and an occasional after-dark traveler who could prove legitimate business had been allowed to cross the span. (Theodore Roscoe, about 1959)

3. However, it appears the rules had been relaxed following General Lee's surrender five days earlier. The threat to the city, if there was one, came from individuals entering the city, not leaving it. (Ed Steers, about 2006)

and here are four references to the reprimand of Cobb:

1. Steers, Encyclopedia, p. 144; Blood, p. 136 ("reprimanded"; "dressed down")

2. Tidwell, Hall and Gaddy, p. 443 ("a tongue lashing")

3. Roscoe, p. 139 ("severely censured")

4. Chaconas, "Crossing the Navy Yard Bridge", Surratt Courier, June, 1996 ("blessed out")

Thank you for considering the same.

John

John Fazio · 02-05-2013, 05:56 AM

(02-03-2013 02:31 PM)L Verge Wrote: John,

Thanks for somewhat holding up my end of the bridge fight. BTW, my grandfather was born in 1868 also and my grandmother in 1874. She lived to be 91 and is the one who instilled the love of history in me. It was easy to listen to her because she had lived so much of what I was learning in school.

As for the testing of the bridge. Mrs. Surratt and Weichmann made it over the bridge during daylight hours on both April 11 and April 14. However, we know on the 11th that she was a little concerned about sentries that were posted at night. She inquired of a man along the road as to when they were pulled in, and I believe the answer was 8 pm.

On the 14th, she was late arriving at the tavern, and Lloyd was even later. She was starting to get a bit antsy about making it back before the bridge closed. I believe it was around 6 pm when they finally headed back to D.C. According to my calculations, that would put her at the bridge about 8 pm. When you stop and think about everything that some of us suspicion went on at the boardinghouse in the next few hours, it was a bee hive! Dinner, start to church, turn back because of weather, talk with Smoot, and other things that I don't agree with...

Next thought: Sorry to bore you once again with the Herold/Huntt story, but I contend that Herold was sent into Southern Maryland sometime on April 12, after Booth made the final decision to strike after hearing the Lincoln speech on April 11. Davey never seemed to have a problem getting out of the city, but he did spend the night with my great-grandparents on April 13. Was it because he had gotten so wet during the rainstorm, or was it because he knew there would be problems getting back into the city? He was gone from the Huntts' by 6 am and had breakfast at his own home - according to a sister.

Since truck farmers from Southern Maryland would be arriving at the bridge early in order to set up at the various markets, could we assume that the bridge would open for traffic about 6 am? And, I agree with the idea that the authorities were more worried about people coming into the city than those leaving - especially when there was no indication that anything was wrong. Fletcher's problem was that he needed to get back into the city. Booth and Herold had no intentions of doing so.

Laurie:

Bore me with the Herold-Huntt story? You must be joking. Surely the most interesting history of all is that which comes from the horse's mouth. You were most certainly privileged to sit at the feet of your grandmother, who had it at her fingertips, who knew those who lived it, in the flesh, or who lived it herself. I never sat at the feet of a grandparent, but I did listen to my father tell me that his father shot a tiger one night in Somaliland or Ethiopia in the late 1800's when Italy was beating up on the natives there. So that's something. My guess is that the tiger was something less than a tiger, but grew into one, and with ever-increasing ferocity, with each passing year and each telling of the story. Someone once told me, when I was quite young, that my father went out west as a young man and lassoed rattlesnakes. But when I asked him about it, he said he never saw a rattlesnake, that he got sick on Mexican food in Arizona, vomited and came home. So much for popular history.

John

JMadonna · 02-05-2013, 09:21 AM

(02-04-2013 10:32 PM)John Fazio Wrote:
(02-03-2013 07:52 AM)JMadonna Wrote: John,
There is no record that I know of where Auger reprimanded Cobb much less in a severe manner. Neither is there any example that I know of that sentries had discretion as to enforcing the orders.

Jerry:

Here are three references:

1. The war being at a close, the restrictions were not so exacting at this bridge, and the sentinels were at liberty to judge the proper persons to pass over. (Osborn H. Oldroyd, about 1902)

2. Nobody expected an enemy asssault on the Navy Yard. So wartime restrictions had been somewhat relaxed, and an occasional after-dark traveler who could prove legitimate business had been allowed to cross the span. (Theodore Roscoe, about 1959)

3. However, it appears the rules had been relaxed following General Lee's surrender five days earlier. The threat to the city, if there was one, came from individuals entering the city, not leaving it. (Ed Steers, about 2006)

and here are four references to the reprimand of Cobb:

1. Steers, Encyclopedia, p. 144; Blood, p. 136 ("reprimanded"; "dressed down")

2. Tidwell, Hall and Gaddy, p. 443 ("a tongue lashing")

3. Roscoe, p. 139 ("severely censured")

4. Chaconas, "Crossing the Navy Yard Bridge", Surratt Courier, June, 1996 ("blessed out")

Thank you for considering the same.

John

John,
Thank you for answer. But do these references have any roots in the historical record or are the authors repeating a previous author's speculation?
Jerry

John Fazio · 02-05-2013, 10:11 AM

(02-05-2013 09:21 AM)JMadonna Wrote:
(02-04-2013 10:32 PM)John Fazio Wrote:
(02-03-2013 07:52 AM)JMadonna Wrote: John,
There is no record that I know of where Auger reprimanded Cobb much less in a severe manner. Neither is there any example that I know of that sentries had discretion as to enforcing the orders.

Jerry:

Here are three references:

1. The war being at a close, the restrictions were not so exacting at this bridge, and the sentinels were at liberty to judge the proper persons to pass over. (Osborn H. Oldroyd, about 1902)

2. Nobody expected an enemy asssault on the Navy Yard. So wartime restrictions had been somewhat relaxed, and an occasional after-dark traveler who could prove legitimate business had been allowed to cross the span. (Theodore Roscoe, about 1959)

3. However, it appears the rules had been relaxed following General Lee's surrender five days earlier. The threat to the city, if there was one, came from individuals entering the city, not leaving it. (Ed Steers, about 2006)

and here are four references to the reprimand of Cobb:

1. Steers, Encyclopedia, p. 144; Blood, p. 136 ("reprimanded"; "dressed down")

2. Tidwell, Hall and Gaddy, p. 443 ("a tongue lashing")

3. Roscoe, p. 139 ("severely censured")

4. Chaconas, "Crossing the Navy Yard Bridge", Surratt Courier, June, 1996 ("blessed out")

Thank you for considering the same.

John

John,
Thank you for answer. But do these references have any roots in the historical record or are the authors repeating a previous author's speculation?
Jerry

Jerry:

A very good question, and one I have often asked myself in connection with other assertions by various authors. I don't know. I suppose one would be hard pressed to find a contemporaneous record wherein someone made reference to the fact that Cobb, or other sentries, were passing people after 9:00 with little or no regard for legalities. But there may be such.

As for the "severe reprimand", Joan Chaconas is, first of all, a first rate scholar, and, secondly, she worked closely with Bill Hall on the article, the Dean of assassination historians. Steers, Roscoe and Oldroyd are not slouches either.I would have to say that she and they, therefore, represent at least a prima-facie case on the issue, subject to compelling rebuttal evidence, which I find nowhere. Much as I enjoyed your book, and read, and continue to re-read portions of it, assiduously, I do not believe there is evidence that Booth and Herold had passes. I believe what evidence there is points in the opposite direction. Lincoln did not issue a pass on the evening of the assassination; he issued a note saying passes were not necessary. He did issue a pass the previous day, but that was probably his way of assuring passage with no possibility of impediment.

Thank you for staying with me on this. Your input is very valuable to my writing.

John

JMadonna · 02-05-2013, 01:24 PM

(02-05-2013 10:11 AM)John Fazio Wrote: Jerry:

A very good question, and one I have often asked myself in connection with other assertions by various authors. I don't know. I suppose one would be hard pressed to find a contemporaneous record wherein someone made reference to the fact that Cobb, or other sentries, were passing people after 9:00 with little or no regard for legalities. But there may be such.

As for the "severe reprimand", Joan Chaconas is, first of all, a first rate scholar, and, secondly, she worked closely with Bill Hall on the article, the Dean of assassination historians. Steers, Roscoe and Oldroyd are not slouches either.I would have to say that she and they, therefore, represent at least a prima-facie case on the issue, subject to compelling rebuttal evidence, which I find nowhere. Much as I enjoyed your book, and read, and continue to re-read portions of it, assiduously, I do not believe there is evidence that Booth and Herold had passes. I believe what evidence there is points in the opposite direction. Lincoln did not issue a pass on the evening of the assassination; he issued a note saying passes were not necessary. He did issue a pass the previous day, but that was probably his way of assuring passage with no possibility of impediment.

Thank you for staying with me on this. Your input is very valuable to my writing.

John,
I am not trying to convince you that I'm correct. I've laid out my case in my book and the readers can believe it or not. I can do no more.

As I 've said before, speculation is necessary on this issue, it's just a question of which is closer to the truth. So many respected scholars have gone down the negligence path that they've ended up quoting each other and obsured the original evidence to back their claim.

I'm sure you'll put together the best scenario that fits the evidence you've uncovered. Good Luck and keep me informed on the pub date. I've learned other things since I published my book so if I can help in any way just let me know.

jerry

John Fazio · (This post was last modified: 02-05-2013 03:43 PM by John Fazio.)

(02-05-2013 01:24 PM)JMadonna Wrote:
(02-05-2013 10:11 AM)John Fazio Wrote: Jerry:

A very good question, and one I have often asked myself in connection with other assertions by various authors. I don't know. I suppose one would be hard pressed to find a contemporaneous record wherein someone made reference to the fact that Cobb, or other sentries, were passing people after 9:00 with little or no regard for legalities. But there may be such.

As for the "severe reprimand", Joan Chaconas is, first of all, a first rate scholar, and, secondly, she worked closely with Bill Hall on the article, the Dean of assassination historians. Steers, Roscoe and Oldroyd are not slouches either.I would have to say that she and they, therefore, represent at least a prima-facie case on the issue, subject to compelling rebuttal evidence, which I find nowhere. Much as I enjoyed your book, and read, and continue to re-read portions of it, assiduously, I do not believe there is evidence that Booth and Herold had passes. I believe what evidence there is points in the opposite direction. Lincoln did not issue a pass on the evening of the assassination; he issued a note saying passes were not necessary. He did issue a pass the previous day, but that was probably his way of assuring passage with no possibility of impediment.

Thank you for staying with me on this. Your input is very valuable to my writing.

John,
I am not trying to convince you that I'm correct. I've laid out my case in my book and the readers can believe it or not. I can do no more.

As I 've said before, speculation is necessary on this issue, it's just a question of which is closer to the truth. So many respected scholars have gone down the negligence path that they've ended up quoting each other and obsured the original evidence to back their claim.

I'm sure you'll put together the best scenario that fits the evidence you've uncovered. Good Luck and keep me informed on the pub date. I've learned other things since I published my book so if I can help in any way just let me know.

jerry

Jerry:

Thanks. I will certainly do that.

Incidentally, I meant to say James Hall (James O. Hall), not Bill Hall, but I'm sure you knew that.

John

(02-04-2013 04:02 PM)Laurie Verge Wrote: Then why didn't Herold just drop those items off on March 17, when he first got to the tavern instead of waiting around and then heading five miles south to T.B. to spend the night? And why did Surratt and Atzerodt come looking for him on March 18?

Herold was so well known in that area that he could have dropped those carbines off any place. Southern Marylanders had been receiving and forwarding contraband weapons for four years.

Your turn...

Laurie:

It sounds like you are splitting an irrelevant hair. How much does it matter if Herold dropped the carbines, etc., off directly, or went to T.B. first, then returned to the tavern and dropped them off? As for spending the night in T.B., there are a million reasons one would prefer to sleep in one place rather than another. (Maybe he had a woman in T.B.; that's a good reason, as any man will attest to.) The point is that he dropped them off at a place that had always been safe for Confederates, a place that he and Booth and perhaps Atzerodt could easily reach on the 14th for the purpose of retrieving them, not with Lincoln in handcuffs, but with Lincoln dead. And that (minus Atzerodt) is exactly what they did.

They probably came looking for him on the 18th because neither they nor Booth wanted to lose Atzerodt, because they needed him, which they were in danger of doing after the turmoil and acrimony of the Gautier's Restaurant meeting of the 15th, after which everyone split.

John

Laurie Verge · (This post was last modified: 02-05-2013 04:14 PM by Laurie Verge.)

(02-05-2013 05:56 AM)John Fazio Wrote:
(02-03-2013 02:31 PM)L Verge Wrote: John,

Thanks for somewhat holding up my end of the bridge fight. BTW, my grandfather was born in 1868 also and my grandmother in 1874. She lived to be 91 and is the one who instilled the love of history in me. It was easy to listen to her because she had lived so much of what I was learning in school.

As for the testing of the bridge. Mrs. Surratt and Weichmann made it over the bridge during daylight hours on both April 11 and April 14. However, we know on the 11th that she was a little concerned about sentries that were posted at night. She inquired of a man along the road as to when they were pulled in, and I believe the answer was 8 pm.

On the 14th, she was late arriving at the tavern, and Lloyd was even later. She was starting to get a bit antsy about making it back before the bridge closed. I believe it was around 6 pm when they finally headed back to D.C. According to my calculations, that would put her at the bridge about 8 pm. When you stop and think about everything that some of us suspicion went on at the boardinghouse in the next few hours, it was a bee hive! Dinner, start to church, turn back because of weather, talk with Smoot, and other things that I don't agree with...

Next thought: Sorry to bore you once again with the Herold/Huntt story, but I contend that Herold was sent into Southern Maryland sometime on April 12, after Booth made the final decision to strike after hearing the Lincoln speech on April 11. Davey never seemed to have a problem getting out of the city, but he did spend the night with my great-grandparents on April 13. Was it because he had gotten so wet during the rainstorm, or was it because he knew there would be problems getting back into the city? He was gone from the Huntts' by 6 am and had breakfast at his own home - according to a sister.

Since truck farmers from Southern Maryland would be arriving at the bridge early in order to set up at the various markets, could we assume that the bridge would open for traffic about 6 am? And, I agree with the idea that the authorities were more worried about people coming into the city than those leaving - especially when there was no indication that anything was wrong. Fletcher's problem was that he needed to get back into the city. Booth and Herold had no intentions of doing so.

Laurie:

Bore me with the Herold-Huntt story? You must be joking. Surely the most interesting history of all is that which comes from the horse's mouth. You were most certainly privileged to sit at the feet of your grandmother, who had it at her fingertips, who knew those who lived it, in the flesh, or who lived it herself. I never sat at the feet of a grandparent, but I did listen to my father tell me that his father shot a tiger one night in Somaliland or Ethiopia in the late 1800's when Italy was beating up on the natives there. So that's something. My guess is that the tiger was something less than a tiger, but grew into one, and with ever-increasing ferocity, with each passing year and each telling of the story. Someone once told me, when I was quite young, that my father went out west as a young man and lassoed rattlesnakes. But when I asked him about it, he said he never saw a rattlesnake, that he got sick on Mexican food in Arizona, vomited and came home. So much for popular history.

John

Did you just say that you are not bored with my family's story, but that you don't believe a word of it?

Just my opinion, John, but I think you are over-reaching in an effort to have a comeback for me! I haven't read your chapters that you sent me yet (finding time to earn my paycheck is getting in my way); but from these postings, I'm starting to get the feeling that you are going to attempt to re-write the whole story?? Now the kidnap plot is just a ruse? I'm starting to need an Excedrin.

John Fazio · 02-05-2013, 04:21 PM

(02-05-2013 04:02 PM)Laurie Verge Wrote:
(02-05-2013 05:56 AM)John Fazio Wrote:
(02-03-2013 02:31 PM)L Verge Wrote: John,

Thanks for somewhat holding up my end of the bridge fight. BTW, my grandfather was born in 1868 also and my grandmother in 1874. She lived to be 91 and is the one who instilled the love of history in me. It was easy to listen to her because she had lived so much of what I was learning in school.

As for the testing of the bridge. Mrs. Surratt and Weichmann made it over the bridge during daylight hours on both April 11 and April 14. However, we know on the 11th that she was a little concerned about sentries that were posted at night. She inquired of a man along the road as to when they were pulled in, and I believe the answer was 8 pm.

On the 14th, she was late arriving at the tavern, and Lloyd was even later. She was starting to get a bit antsy about making it back before the bridge closed. I believe it was around 6 pm when they finally headed back to D.C. According to my calculations, that would put her at the bridge about 8 pm. When you stop and think about everything that some of us suspicion went on at the boardinghouse in the next few hours, it was a bee hive! Dinner, start to church, turn back because of weather, talk with Smoot, and other things that I don't agree with...

Next thought: Sorry to bore you once again with the Herold/Huntt story, but I contend that Herold was sent into Southern Maryland sometime on April 12, after Booth made the final decision to strike after hearing the Lincoln speech on April 11. Davey never seemed to have a problem getting out of the city, but he did spend the night with my great-grandparents on April 13. Was it because he had gotten so wet during the rainstorm, or was it because he knew there would be problems getting back into the city? He was gone from the Huntts' by 6 am and had breakfast at his own home - according to a sister.

Since truck farmers from Southern Maryland would be arriving at the bridge early in order to set up at the various markets, could we assume that the bridge would open for traffic about 6 am? And, I agree with the idea that the authorities were more worried about people coming into the city than those leaving - especially when there was no indication that anything was wrong. Fletcher's problem was that he needed to get back into the city. Booth and Herold had no intentions of doing so.

Laurie:

Bore me with the Herold-Huntt story? You must be joking. Surely the most interesting history of all is that which comes from the horse's mouth. You were most certainly privileged to sit at the feet of your grandmother, who had it at her fingertips, who knew those who lived it, in the flesh, or who lived it herself. I never sat at the feet of a grandparent, but I did listen to my father tell me that his father shot a tiger one night in Somaliland or Ethiopia in the late 1800's when Italy was beating up on the natives there. So that's something. My guess is that the tiger was something less than a tiger, but grew into one, and with ever-increasing ferocity, with each passing year and each telling of the story. Someone once told me, when I was quite young, that my father went out west as a young man and lassoed rattlesnakes. But when I asked him about it, he said he never saw a rattlesnake, that he got sick on Mexican food in Arizona, vomited and came home. So much for popular history.

John

Did you just say that you are not bored with my family's story, but that you don't believe a word of it?

Laurie:

Certainly not. Whatever gave you that idea? On the contrary, I am far more inclined to believe something that comes from you via your family (mostly your grandmother, I assume) than from just about any other source. In fact, what you just told me about Herold spending the night with your great-grandparents because he might have felt he would not be able to cross the river to get back into the city has already found its way into my book (in The Mysteries of Silas T. Cobb). (You will, of course, be given a proper attribution.)

But I do urge you to abandon the kidnapping myth that has persisted into our own time. Please read the material I sent to you on the subject.

John

Gene C · 02-05-2013, 07:33 PM

There is a story that President Lincoln, on the way to the soldiers home (?) was shot at and ended up with a hole put in his top hat. Is that story true, and when did it happen?

Was Booth in the Washington DC area at the time?

J. Beckert · 02-05-2013, 07:36 PM

True story, Gene.

http://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln86.html

I think Booth was north at the time. He was laid up sick in August for a few weeks in Edwin's N.Y. home.

DanielC · 02-05-2013, 09:51 PM

If Herold was given the task of assasinating Johnson why would he show up at the Kirkwood unarmed? Would Booth and Herold really wait for Atzerodt at the bridge? Here is someone who basically intimated to them he wanted no part of killing. Why a third wheel on the way south. Yes he had knowledge of that area, and the waterways, but was it anymore then Herold?

John Fazio · 02-05-2013, 10:16 PM

(02-05-2013 09:51 PM)DanielC Wrote: If Herold was given the task of assasinating Johnson why would he show up at the Kirkwood unarmed? Would Booth and Herold really wait for Atzerodt at the bridge? Here is someone who basically intimated to them he wanted no part of killing. Why a third wheel on the way south. Yes he had knowledge of that area, and the waterways, but was it anymore then Herold?

Daniel:

In my view, Herold asked Atzerodt for the key to his room because he wanted to access the weapons he had deposited there earlier in the day. Atzerodt said he refused. That, apparently, did not deter Herold from trying to gain entry to the room anyway when he went to the Kirkwood. There is evidence that someone, presumably Herold, did that. He may have wanted those weapons for the attempt on Johnson or he may have wanted them to help him in his escape. It is unlikely that he planned to use a revolver to assassinate Johnson, because that would have made escape almost impossible. But we do know there was at least one Bowie in the room and we do know, too, per Atzerodt, that Herold had a letter he planned to use to gain access to Johnson.

They didn't wait for him at the bridge, but they thought there was at least a possibility he would follow them inasmuch as that appears to have been the final understanding between them before the Herndon House meeting broke up (about 9:00 pm). Atzerodt was to get his horse, go to the bridge and "help them on the road". Booth probably kept Atzerodt as a back-up guide in case Herold, for whatever reason, did not make it over the bridge and meet with him.

John