Many popular stories retelling the assassination and identification of John Wilkes Booth in April 1865 include a vignette of a mysterious woman boarding the ship holding the assassin's body in order weep over and grieve the actor's death. We place this incident in the doubtful things folder.
Usually the story has a veiled woman dressed in black boarding the USS Montauk accompanied by prominent dignitaries. When seeing the body of Booth, she throws herself upon him to weep her loss. She unsuccessfully attempts to snip a lock of Booth's jet black hair as the officers aboard the ship have strict orders to prevent any molestation of the body.
An example of this genre comes from Steven Hager
Before Hale departed for Spain, however, Booth’s body was brought back to Washington. A mysterious veiled woman came to view the corpse, threw herself upon it in tears, and snipped a lock of hair as a keepsake. (Apparently, this was popular at the time as Mary Todd Lincoln did the same thing after Lincoln died.) The lock was confiscated and destroyed as Stanton had strict orders against releasing any body parts. It’s now assumed that woman with the scissors was [Lucy] Hale.
Unfortunately, Hager, like most others, fails to cite any references for this incident. It might be true, and then again it might not be. There is a paucity of evidence to corroborate it.
For evidence, rigorous historians like contemporary first hand witnesses, which for many events is quite rare. Fortunately in this instance, we can trace a version of this story to Lafayette Baker who wrote of it in his memoirs, History of the United States Secret Service, published in 1867.
Baker wrote as follows on pages 507-8
I had not had my clothes off for nearly two weeks, and was granted leave of absence from the vessel, on whose deck was lying the corpse of the assassin, covered with two blankets sewed together like a sack, completely concealing it. Upon my return, I was greatly surprised and indignant, to find persons of high position, and some of secession proclivities, around the dead body, the coarse shroud parted at the seam, and a lady at that moment cutting off a lock of the black, curled, and beautiful hair. I seized the fair hands, and, after a refusal to give me the relic, forcibly took it and then cleared the deck, to the amazement and displeasure of some of the party.
There are a number of points to observe concerning this narrative. I don't really believe that he had not had a change of clothes in two weeks, nor do I believe that the brigadier general required the granting of a leave of absence, but these are minor points which I shall let pass.
What is more interesting is that no date or time is provided for this incident, something I would expect of a "history." Even more arresting is that this heavily guarded ship would have allowed just anyone to access the body, even persons of "high position," especially considering that among them were those favorable to the secessionists who were the object of Lincoln's and Stanton's vengeance for four bloody years.
After all, it was Stanton's stated goal to prevent the body from becoming an icon or rallying point for Southerners. Note that it required his and the Secretary of Navy Gideon Welles' authorizations to view the body, as we quote from the Navy Medicine article referenced below:
'You will permit Surgeon General Barnes and his assistant, accompanied by Judge Advocate Genl Holt, Hon Jolin A. Bingham,· Special Judge Advocate, Major Eckert, Wm G. Moore, clerk of the War Department, Col. L.C. Baker, Lieut. Baker, Lieut. Col. Conger, Chase Dawson, J.L. Smithh, Gardiner [sic) (photographer) + assistant, to go on board the Montauk, and see the body of John Wilkes Booth.'
Even more astounding is that Stanton authorized Baker's boarding of the ship. Please note that these men were very high ranking officers who still required the Secretary of War and Secretary of Navy to enter the ship to see the cadaver. How then would others, of their own accord, board the ship at their wills and leisures?
So if Baker required authorization, how was anyone else going to board?
Baker does not identify the "persons of high position" which is something he would have surely known, for we are dealing with the first J Edgar Hoover. Baker was the spy par excellence, keeping vast files on people high and low. Stanton had a very sophisticated spy network operating North and South. There is no way that Baker would not have known the identity of these men and woman.
For now, I only feel comfortable assuming that the aforementioned men boarded the ship - without female accompaniment. And yet there is a loophole to his assumption as we note below.
More tellingly, Baker fails to identify the star of the gathering, the woman. He does not describe her adorned in black or a veil as others do; nor does he mention her sobbing or throwing herself on Booth's body. Of course he may have missed all of that drama, having walked in on the last act - on the open deck where the body was guarded.
Prior to the excerpt we quote, Baker describes Stanton's strict orders concerning the care and guarding of the body. No one, even of high rank, would dare to board the floating prison, unannounced, for a viewing of the body of Booth. With Stanton's mindset, they would have been arrested. This story is the height of absurdity, which is why I reject it as nothing more than Baker's vivid imagination.
That takes us to the point of Baker's character. He was not known as someone who indulged in the truth. Don Thomas wrote of the disgraced spy thusly:
Lafayette Baker was a man without scruples, a notorious liar, and had no loyalty to anything other than money and himself.
Then there is this gem from the House Minority written in 1867 about Baker
“Although examined on oath, time and again, and on various occasions, it is doubtful whether he [Baker] has in any one thing told the truth even by accident,”
It is foolhardy to put any stock in anything Baker wrote in his memoirs. As such, I find it difficult to believe that this incident happened at all, especially given the dearth of any other accounts to corroborate it. Should they materialize, I might modify my opinion.
We now arrive at the timelines to see if Baker's story makes sense. From a previous Chronicle, we discovered that Booth's body arrived on the Montauk at 1:45 AM April 27, 1865. You may recall that US Marine Henry Landes documented it in his diary, and stood guard over the body:
No inspection. Stood guard over him [Booth] from 6 to 8. Over the partner [David Herold] from 12 to 2.
There is no other entry describing a cadre of secessionist sympathizers though he later notes a gaggle of visitors as "Full of visitors, officers and citizens." A female visitor would surely have caught his attention.
The window of opportunity to see Booth's corpse prior to the autopsy and decapitation was quite small. The Surgeon General begins his autopsy before noon. Quoting from the same Navy Medicine article
Shortly before noon, Joseph K. Barnes, Surgeon General of the Army, had come on board -and without informing any officers who he was, or seeming to pay the slightest respect to Military etiquette ... walks up to the corpse and commences to cut adrift the wrappings.
So the only window of opportunity for Baker's alleged event was after sunrise and before noon. That means that an impromptu embassy of people would have had to assemble in record time, including the woman, because someone woke them in the wee dark hours of the morning, before telephones, to tell them that Booth's corpse had arrived, and rush over to the Montauk to view Booth's body. In other words, state secrets were shared with southern sympathizers.
Landes also records that Booth's decapitated body was removed from the ship after the autopsy at 2 PM. This means that it was on the Montauk for about 12 hours.
This incident reported by Baker did not happen.
Now why is this story important? It is used to affirm that Booth was indeed dead; that he did not escape from Garrett's farm. Lucy Hale, his fiancé, came to the boat to weep, thus confirming that Booth died. Unfortunately, it sounds more like a Dickensian melodrama than fictional history. Shadowy, unnamed characters are the stuff of fiction.
Until substantive material emerges from credible sources, this story has to be relegated to the doubtful things of Washington.
References
L. C. Baker, History of the United States Secret Service, 1867, Philadelphia, L. C. Baker, 704pp, (accessed: https://books.google.com/books?id=ZxpCAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA524&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false)
Don Thomas, The Cover-Up of Booth's Diary Confession, The Lincoln Conspiracy Cover-Up, nd, 11pp (accessed: https://reasonlincoln.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Website__History-or-Hype.pdf)
Steven Hager, Lucy Hale is a key to the Lincoln assassination [sic], The Tin Whistle, September 29, 2014, (accessed: https://stevenhager.net/2014/09/29/lucy-hale-is-a-key-to-the-lincoln-assassination/, 10/13/2020)
Leonard F Guttridge, Identification and Autopsy of John Wilkes Booth: Reexamining the Evidence, January-February 1993, Navy Medicine, pp 17-26, (accessed: https://library.indstate.edu/rbsc/neff/PDFs/guttridge_identification.pdf, 10/16/2020)
Dave McGowan, WHY EVERYTHING YOU THINK YOU KNOW ABOUT THE LINCOLN ASSASSINATION IS WRONG, PART XII, Center for an Informed America, March 13, 2015, (accessed: http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/why-everything-you-think-you-know-about-the-lincoln-assassination-is-wrong-part-xii/, 10/16/2020)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please provide constructive or informative comments.