Frederick Charles Lincoln

Transcription

Tom Mills: Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the William G. McGowan theater at the National Archives. It’s wonderful to see you all here on a beautiful spring night. My name is Tom Mills. I’m the Assistant Archivist for Regional Record Services for the National Archives. My office operates 17 record centers in 13 regional archives around the country from Atlanta to Anchorage, Boston to San Francisco, and points in between. It’s another way that the National Archives serves all the citizens of our country and makes records accessible for public accountability, protecting individual rights, and making sure that we preserve our national memory. One unique responsibility of our office is to lead our – that is the National Archives’ – collaboration with eight affiliated archives of the National Archives. An affiliated archives is an educational or archival institution that has physical custody of selected National Archives records. The records, though, actually legally belong to the National Archives. The eight affiliated archives are taking care of them for us. And one of those affiliated archives is the Pennsylvania State Archives, which gets to the topic of our discussion tonight. The Pennsylvania State Archives preserves the letterbook and related records relating to General John Frederick Hartranft, who was responsible, of course, for the prisoners charged with complicity in the Lincoln assassination. It’s the Hartranft letterbook, in effect the diary that he kept, that launched the publication project that forms the basis of tonight’s conversation. Here with us tonight are the coeditors of the new book Harold Holzer, closest to me, and Edward Steers, Jr. in the middle. The coeditors of the recently published by LSU press, The Lincoln Assassination Conspirators: Their Confinement and Execution, as Recorded in the Letterbook of John Frederick Hartranft. Let me take a moment to introduce our distinguished scholars. More information is available in the brochure. Let me hit a few highlights. Harold Holzer is the cochairman of the US Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission and the author, coauthor, or editor of 33 books on Lincoln and the Civil War era. Could be more. I knew that. 34, going on 35. Hard to keep up. In 2008 Harold was awarded the National Humanities Medal given by the president for work that expands and deepens our nation’s understanding of the humanities. His award-winning books include Lincoln at Cooper Union, which won a 2005 Lincoln Prize, the most prestigious in the field, and Lincoln President-Elect, just released this last fall. His program, Lincoln Seen and Heard with actor Sam Waterston has been nationally broadcast on a variety of public channels. Our second distinguished scholar is Edward Steers, Jr., a leading authority on the Lincoln assassination. Ed has published 11 books including the critically acclaimed Blood on the Moon: The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln and Lincoln Lessons: Reflections on America's Greatest Leader. In recognition of his book Blood on the Moon he has appeared in 7 television productions on the History Channel, Discovery, and PBS dealing with Lincoln’s assassination. The book was also featured by Robert Novak on CNN’s Crossfire in conjunction with the case of Dr. Samuel Mudd. For the book we’ll be discussing tonight, Ed was the lead researcher as well as coeditor with Harold Holzer. Joining us to moderate the discussion is our friend Michael Beschloss, well-known to those of us at the National Archives and also vice president of the National Archives Foundation Board. Michael, of course, is an award-winning historian and the author of 8 books including Presidential Courage and The Conquerors: Roosevelt, Truman and the Destruction of Hitler's Germany. At some point, Newsweek called Michael Beschloss, “the nation’s leading presidential historian.” He holds two honorary doctorates and is the recipient of the Order of Lincoln and the Harry S. Truman Public Service Award. In addition he won an Emmy Award in 2005 for his work on the Discovery Channel series Decisions That Shook the World. So please welcome our distinguished scholars tonight. And I’ll turn it over to Michael Beschloss. Michael Beschloss: Thank you very much, Tom. And thank you all very much for being here tonight, especially because I can now go home tonight and tell my wife I’m not the only person in Washington who would come to an event like this on a Friday night. I feel in very good company. And we all thank you very much for being here. The thing that occurs to me most of all about this wonderful book which – as Ed reminds me, is $24.95 at fine book stores everywhere. Available also online. One of the things that historians – or actually two of them – think about is that even decades or centuries after an important historical event, we sometimes come across a crucial historical source that can change our understanding of that. And I can’t think of a better example than what we’re talking about tonight. Here we are this many years after Lincoln’s assassination and we’ve begun to change our views of the way that these prisoners were treated after that occurred. And the other thing that’s going to lead to my first question is we always like to think that a past historical event that we study will shed some light about a current controversy. And I think this is an even better example of that, because it strikes me that when General Hartranft was dealing with these problems – how do you treat these prisoners who were vilified in most areas of the United States, or at least the northern areas of the United States and some of the south – it was almost roughly – and this is not anywhere near an exact parallel, but it was as if we had captured Osama Bin Laden after 9/11 with a few of the other 9/11 conspirators and we were going to put them in a prison somewhere. How do you treat them with the public extremely angry and very eager for revenge? So the obvious question is – especially this week people will have been talking about whether America has done the right thing with Guantanamo and the way we’ve treated some of the other prisoners and detainees. Why don’t we start with Harold. What do you think the experience of General Hartranft shows us about the kind of questions we’re dealing with now? Harold Holzer: I think most of all it shows that there’s never a final answer to the question that you just posed. What might have seemed like inordinately humane treatment by a rather understanding, compassionate, though tough-minded supervisor of a prison – meaning allowing exercise, removing padded hoods from most of the prisoners at a certain time, making sure that Mrs. Surratt drank her tea and got off her little hunger strike binge or her inability to eat – could have been seen as coddling at the time. And now looking back at some padded hoods and balls and chains seems inhumane. So the answer is that there’s no answer, but it’s an issue that calls out for constant analysis and reinvigorated discussion. Because our morals change. Michael Beschloss: For those who haven’t read the book yet, tell us – there’s some people who felt that the treatment was much too humane and some people who felt it was much too rough. Give us a sense of the case for each side. The people who were saying the treatment was not humane. Would you rather do that, Ed? Edward Steers, Jr.: Sure. Michael Beschloss: If you were someone arguing that these people were treated terribly and not in accordance with American tradition, if you’re making that argument what would you say? Edward Steers, Jr.: Well it was both. It started out what appeared to be very inhumane. I mean, these people were put in solitary confinement, hooded, shackled. The rules of the prison that Stanton drafted and insisted that everyone adhere to very strictly was there would be absolutely no communication with these people at all except in the case of medical necessity or, as it says in the rule, a call of nature. It reminds me a little bit – similarities to the Nuremberg Trials. Every cell had a sentinel posted at it to be relieved every two hours. No sentinel to serve more than once. And as I said, all communication was strictly prohibited unless under written order from Stanton over his signature. Now as time progressed, they started to become lax and let up on the prisoners. I think it reflected Stanton’s paranoia. Even as late as May 1st, when they were getting ready to go to trial, there were some including Stanton that this cabal wasn’t over yet. That there would be an attempt to free these prisoners. Michael Beschloss: That there were other conspirators who were lying in wait. Edward Steers, Jr.: Absolutely. He ordered an entire regiment to surround the arsenal every day, to be replaced by a new regiment every day. No regiment meant to serve more than one day. This required over sixty regiments that had to be used throughout the trial of the assassination. So security was extremely rigid. No utensils were given to the conspirators. They had to eat with their hands. And if it involved liquid like coffee or soup it was given in a bowl, and then the bowl was removed immediately. But as I said, as time went by, conditions began to change. Hartranft began to make requests and Stanton virtually granted every one of the requests. Michael Beschloss: Okay, now why did he make the requests and why were they granted? Edward Steers, Jr.: Well I think Hartranft felt personally that the conditions were much too harsh, number one. The prisoners really did begin to show deterioration mentally. I mean they’re in a cell that’s 7-3½ feet by 7 feet high, and they’re hooded except when they ate. And then of course when the trial started the hoods were removed when they took them into the courtroom. Other than that they were really in total solitary confinement, and obviously this began to work on the minds of some of them. One of the rules required a twice a day medical examination by the post doctor, Dr. George Loring Porter, and he too felt that the treatment was much too harsh. So the requests were made to remove the hoods, which was eventually granted. To give them reading material. To allow them to exercise by walking in the yard. A dramatic change towards the end. And again I think this reflected Stanton’s relief of paranoia. He was now convinced that there wasn’t going to be an attempt. Michael Beschloss: What convinced him? Just the passage of time? Edward Steers, Jr.: The passage of time, I think, convinced him. And so he relented. Plus the fact that – remember, even though Johnson became president, Stanton was still basically running the country. He was calling all the shots. And so he had his hands full with the military and the army, and he was satisfied to turn everything over to Joseph Holt, who was the Judge Advocate General. And you can see midway through this trial where Holt takes over. Michael Beschloss: When they were thinking of precedents for how to treat these prisoners, what did they look to in American history? Edward Steers, Jr.: I don’t think there were any precedents. Harold Holzer: There were no precedents. Michael Beschloss: So there was nothing that was at all parallel? Harold Holzer: Well the murder of a president was unprecedented. Michael Beschloss: But a great federal crime? Harold Holzer: Well it was determined early – and this of course is where we have the useful or tantalizing parallels about now – the decision was made that it was going to be tried by a military tribunal, which is what puts all this in motion. The argument being that the victim was the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces in time of war. An argument could be made that peace had been restored and that a civil trial was in order. And the reason for a military tribunal is to impose law where the civil courts are not functioning. That was ironically the rule that Lincoln used in imposing military justice during the war. Michael Beschloss: And actually at this trial, wasn’t it used as a precedent later on by FDR when he had a military tribunal that led to the execution of some German spies over here, I think in ’42. Harold Holzer: Yep. Edward Steers, Jr.: Ex parte Quirin. The Nazi saboteurs that landed in this country – and by the way, that was upheld by the Supreme Court. Michael Beschloss: Interesting. When you got into the source, maybe you knew about it and some of the things that were in it – but what was the biggest surprise? Harold Holzer: I think the biggest surprise for me was the unrelenting, routine formality that Hartranft imposed on his work. Michael Beschloss: Let me stop you for a second. For those that have not read the book and don’t know it, why don’t you give us a little bit of a sense of who he was? Harold Holzer: Alright. Well he was an attorney. Actually he was admitted to the bar about two weeks before Abraham Lincoln’s election to the presidency. He was a democrat in politics, and he was a very prompt volunteer. Michael Beschloss: Where was he from? Harold Holzer: Pennsylvania. Raised a regiment, took a regiment to Bull Run, and did not do well in that first encounter to say the least. There were reports that he could not control his men – that his men, as they say, showed their backs to the enemy and fled. Of course it was hard to tell because the entire Union Army was fleeing. It was really hard to pick on Hartranft’s people. But his military career suffered, and it took him a long time to reestablish it. He did better in the west and he had some good moments. He actually won a battle very, very late in the war. I think it was about three days before Appomattox. He captured some fort town in Virginia. But he had a good military record. He was brevetted as a brigadier general and then he changed in politics in 1864. He supported Lincoln over General McClellan, as did many military men. We know that 80% of soldiers whose votes were counted separately, voted for Abraham Lincoln even though McClellan was something of a hero to them. He was chosen for this task, working and reporting directly to Winfield Scott Hancock who, interestingly – I just have to skip to this because I find it a wonderful irony – in 1880 Hartranft was actually a contender for the presidency of the United States. That’s how famous he became. And he received something like 70 votes at the Republican convention. Hancock wound up as the candidate on the democrats in that election. Michael Beschloss: How much of that was based on Hartranft’s performance there? Harold Holzer: Well he became active in Philadelphia politics and Pennsylvania politics. Ended his career as collector of the port of Philadelphia. Which was a very, very good political post to have. No disparagement intended, because this was the way of the political world. The collectors of the ports got a percentage of the imports, not just a salary. They were among the highest paid government officials in the United States. The collector of the port of New York really did well. I don’t know how well the Philadelphia one did. So this was a man of order, a man of honor, a man who wanted things to be right, a man who remembered that he was once accused militarily of not controlling the situation. That’s how I read the psychology. We didn’t put the psychology in the book. And then he comes to this job and he takes it seriously and he files – and you started by asking about the surprise. He maintains the tone of being honored to report. Ed and I wanted at one point to call this book I Have the Honor to Report. And we knew that nobody would get it but us, but we like that. Every report, every dispatch – Michael Beschloss: Authors have some rights. Edward Steers, Jr.: Very few. Michael Beschloss: As the title demonstrates. Harold Holzer: – he had the honor to report. So he was a fascinating guy. Right. He was a man of order and principle and honor. Michael Beschloss: And tell about his superiors a little bit and what that relationship was. Edward Steers, Jr.: His superiors? Well I just wanted to add a footnote to that. His role as military governor, which is akin to being a warden, was used against him politically each time that he ran. That these prisoners were made to suffer inhumanely. Particularly Mary Surratt who became a cause celeb – the first woman ever executed by the United States government. Michael Beschloss: And tell about why it was a cause celeb. Edward Steers, Jr.: Well because most people felt that she was innocent and that she was being railroaded by this illegal military tribunal which lacked jurisdiction. Harold Holzer: And by an ungrateful son who didn’t show up to save her life. Edward Steers, Jr.: Who was hiding in Canada at the time saving his own skin, presumably. The idea was that if John Surratt would have given himself up and returned to Washington, the mother would have been freed. So that the government was really holding her and trying her to get to John Surratt. Which would not have been a bad strategy, because John Surratt clearly was one of the two key conspirators in that cabal to kidnap Lincoln which later turned to assassination. Michael Beschloss: Might mention the Surratt house, which is only a few blocks from here, is now a Chinese restaurant. Harold Holzer: The boarding house, yes. Michael Beschloss: So just in case anyone wants dinner after this, that’d be a very appropriate place to go. Edward Steers, Jr.: I think it’s still called the Wok and Roll. Michael Beschloss: Is it? Harold Holzer: Ed has always made the point to all the doubters who doubt guilt, complicity, and I think he makes a very good case in his other books. If you plot an illegal act, and the illegal act results in death even if the illegal act blossoms into something else, you are culpable for the original illegal act. Edward Steers, Jr.: That’s conspiracy law in the United States. You can’t get around it. Harold Holzer: And that’s why Mary Surratt – well we’re not going to condemn her again, but that’s why she was convicted and that’s why – well Andrew Johnson’s rational was – what was his wonderful line? “She kept the nest that hatched the egg.” What is that line? It’s a great line. Neither of us remembers it, but it was a great line. Michael Beschloss: “Where the poisonous egg was hatched”? Edward Steers, Jr.: “The rotten egg.” I’ll also had that Hartranft had an excellent military record. He was a very good fighting general. He was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. Harold Holzer: Yeah, but 25 years after the war. Edward Steers, Jr.: That’s true. As was almost half the Union Army. They were awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. But to his credit there was a review board that took place many, many years later to reevaluate those awards. And the majority were taken back, but he was allowed to keep his. And I don’t know if that was because of politics, and he was such a strong politician or not. But there’s no doubt he was a good fighting general. And I think that’s one of the reasons Stanton picked him as the military governor. He knew it was an onerous job. Harold Holzer: Although Stanton didn’t like him. Stanton was highly critical of Hartranft. Edward Steers, Jr.: What happened was his regiment was a 90 day regiment, and the regiment’s time was up the night before Bull Run. So it just packed up and walked off the battlefield. Harold Holzer: They weren’t fleeing, they were going home. Edward Steers, Jr.: They were just going home. And no amount of persuasion on Hartranft’s part could persuade them. So Hartranft then volunteered to serve on the staff of another general there, and did so quite well. And that was the reason he was given the congressional Medal of Honor. Michael Beschloss: And what did Stanton want from Hartranft? Basically he gave him this responsibility. You know, it wasn’t explicitly stated. But what did he want him to do and not do? Edward Steers, Jr.: He wanted him to adhere very strictly to those 28 rules that Stanton had written out. Rules that governed everything. Michael Beschloss: Tell a little about that. Edward Steers, Jr.: Well it obviously broke up into the security of the prison and the arsenal and the security and care of the prisoners. It went into such detail as to how the prisoners were to be washed. They were put in every other cell, so each cell was separated by an empty cell. That was also to preclude their trying to communicate with one another. He had a fetish about that. That was another reason for the hoods. Michael Beschloss: Stanton did or Hartranft did? Edward Steers, Jr.: Stanton. And he had written out these rules that they were to be taken into the vacant cell next to their cell, stripped, allowed to wash, and given clean clothes. They did this each week they were there. As to eating, as I indicated before, no utensils were to be given to them of any sort. They were to be served in a bowl, bowls removed. No communication. One thing I found interesting was that Stanton – and this shows that Stanton was a stickler as a lawyer – he was very concerned about attorney-client privilege. And he specified that the prisoners could communicate with their lawyers, but they had to do so in sight but out of hearing of a sentinel. And they took great care to make sure that took place, that all sentinels were moved out of hearing so that the lawyers could converse with the clients out of earshot. And I thought that was kind of interesting. Such things as no smoking anywhere on the arsenal ground. Even outside the walls he had prohibited smoking. But later on, again as an indication of how he had relaxed the rules, he allowed the prisoners to each be given a trough of tobacco at every dinner meal. Harold Holzer: Mrs. Surratt was particularly happy about that. She got her sewing things. Edward Steers, Jr.: She did get her sewing things. She was allowed to be moved to a separate room, and her daughter was allowed to stay with her and care for her. The room was the previous deputy warden’s room that had joined the courtroom. And so she was allowed to essentially live in this room with the door open so that she was within sight and hearing of the courtroom while the trial took place. So this idea of these prisoners being brutalized and that it was inhumane treatment just simply doesn’t wash. Harold Holzer: I like the idea – one of the things that was revealed in the letters was that Hartranft also allowed them – and this is something you don’t think about, they were confined for months – he allowed them to get haircuts. Stanton would have objected to the utensil being anywhere in their vicinity for awhile, but Hartranft – again, as Ed points out – made a series of bold but very orderly requests for amelioration of these very strict rules. And over a period of time they were all granted. As far as we know nothing was not granted. Another thing that was surprising was that Hartranft, as Ed pointed out with the new regiment every day, had to keep order in the vicinity of the prison. And every once in awhile somebody else had to get thrown into the prison like the drunken guy who was yelling, “Kiss my ass, Abraham Lincoln,” during the trial. He was so disruptive that Hartranft had him put in a cell. So every once in awhile there were extra members of the prison population added to the mix. Edward Steers, Jr.: But he warned that guy twice. On the third time he arrested him. Michael Beschloss: How much of this was a political issue at the time? How much was there in the newspapers, for instance? These prisoners are being treated too nicely or treated too badly. Was it ever mentioned on the floor of Congress? Harold Holzer: I think that you have to get to the national mood at that time. That’s where you have to take the pulse of treatment and reaction to the treatment. And 9/11 might have been similar in the evocation of emotional mood in the country that was overwhelming. But in America in the spring and summer of 1865 it was conflicting emotions. It was deep sorrow, at least in the north. And it was concurrently a thirst for revenge. Always informed by a hunger for knowledge, a hunger for information with the same intensity with which we watch 24-hour news when events are breaking. These people bought the pictorial newspapers to see the prisoners. They bought carte de visite photographs of John Wilkes Booth to put in family albums. Not as a sign of votive fascination with Booth or affection, but because he was a person in the news whose visage they wanted to look at. The Lincoln family owned a carte de visite of John Wilkes Booth, as astonishing as that might seem. So all of these technological aides to interest are evolving in sophistication and frequency as this happens. In this atmosphere I don’t think there was a great deal of sympathy for the prisoners. I think that Hartranft was actually fairly gutsy along the way to ask for some easing of these rules – what we would consider Abdu Grabe-like inhumane rules. But I don’t think there was a sentiment to relax them. Ed describes it as Stanton’s paranoia, but there was a sense of national paranoia, too. That they were guerillas and zealots who were not going to let the war end. Michael Beschloss: Or even that there might be some southerners who might try to get into the prison and release them. Harold Holzer: Well for awhile Jefferson Davis was at liberty, so that’s another issue. Michael Beschloss: On the cover of the book is one of the most famous photographs of American history. Why don’t you maybe tell us, Ed, what this is, what it’s of, and how it came about? Edward Steers, Jr.: It’s a picture of the hanging. There were eight conspirators that were tried that were charged with Lincoln’s murder. All eight were found guilty, four were sentenced to be hanged, three were sentenced to life in prison, and one to six months. The trial ended on June 29th, the board of judges deliberated on the 30th and issued the sentences to be carried out on July 7th, one week later. And so this is a photograph of the four after the two traps fell. And they’re hanging there. Alexander Gardner was selected by Stanton. I can’t tell you why he selected Alexander Gardner, although Gardner was one of the most famous photographers in Washington. Michael Beschloss: Who was he working for at that point? Edward Steers, Jr.: Himself, at that point. But he was a protégé of Mathew Brady and had learned all of his techniques under Brady and then branched out on his own. Michael Beschloss: Why would he have been chosen instead of Brady, for instance? Edward Steers, Jr.: Don’t know. Harold Holzer: Well Brady wouldn’t have been chosen for a very simple reason: he was what we would say today as legally blind. You could choose his studio, but Brady was a showman at that point. He wasn’t a photographer. He couldn’t focus the camera. So once Gardner split off and O’Sullivan split off and other guys started their own studios, they were the best technocrats out there. It’s a very interesting thing because Stanton found out that there was a photograph taken of Abraham Lincoln lying in state in his coffin in city hall by a very distinguished, award-winning – Michael Beschloss: You have to mention which city hall this is. Edward Steers, Jr.: New York. Michael Beschloss: For Harold there's only one city hall. Harold Holzer: There are others? City hall of New York. Michael Beschloss: We from Chicago, this is exactly the way we expect New Yorkers to behave. Harold Holzer: Yeah, Chicago people behave really well. Anyway we won’t do this rivalry. Michael Beschloss: Very clean politics and great governors. Harold Holzer: When Stanton found out – and this was taken by a very distinguished photographer named Jeremiah Gurney – really Brady’s peer. When he found out that the photograph was taken he had it confiscated. He had all the copies destroyed but one. Michael Beschloss: Of the picture of Lincoln? Harold Holzer: Of the picture of Lincoln lying in state. And yet he encouraged – commissioned this. It was not done to be a keepsake on its own. It was given directly to Harper’s Weekly, Frank Leslie’s illustrated newspaper. And there it was for all the world to see as a woodcut engraving. And there is the lesson for all would-be terrorists: This is your end. This is what will happen to you. You will be at the end of a rope. That’s why it was done. Michael Beschloss: And what happened in 1952? The photograph was rediscovered. Harold Holzer: By my friend Ron Wheatfeld. A young man who was given an assignment to work as an intern in the Illinois State Historical Society. Edward Steers, Jr.: Fourteen years old. Harold Holzer: Fourteen. I was eleven. I was jealous. He was fourteen. He was a young man and he found the existing photograph of Lincoln lying in state in the Nicolay Papers. Nicolay, Lincoln’s private secretary and future biographer had obtained the one surviving copy. And that was my inspiration to do Lincoln research. Ron Wheatfeld. I thought, “There must be more pictures like that out there to be discovered. Time’s running out for me. Edward Steers, Jr.: And as Harold has said, there were actually a lot of counterfeit versions of this. Harold Holzer: Well there probably were. There’s a very accurate lithograph that was published in Indianapolis that I’m certain was based either on a sketch or a photograph. Lincoln was also sketched in his coffin by several artists in New York City. Some of those sketches survive, as do the Currier and Ives lithographs which are based on live sketches. So there was a certain freedom about it in those days. Michael Beschloss: There were death masks. It was a different culture. Harold Holzer: There were death photographs. People specialized in death photography. They would hoist up bodies with slings and take pictures. Michael Beschloss: And even if you had a child who died or a baby. Harold Holzer: Absolutely. Edward Steers, Jr.: Michael, I wanted to come back to – Michael Beschloss: Having taken the conversation in this gentile direction. Ed, rescue us. Edward Steers, Jr.: To what surprised us. Because this really did surprise me, although it may seem minor. I looked at the number of visitors that visited the prisoners. And I was particularly interested, of course, in Dr. Mudd because of my interest in Mudd. And we all know from The Prisoner of Shark Island or from The Ordeal of Dr. Mudd or any other productions you’ve seen how Mrs. Mudd was so tenacious in his defense – getting him his two lawyers, visiting him in prison, supporting him in the courtroom. She never visited him once while he was in prison. Nor did she visit the courtroom during any of the days of trial. Which kind of surprised me. I mean I had expected just the opposite. Michael Beschloss: And why do you speculate this was so? Edward Steers, Jr.: I have no idea. Michael Beschloss: She was up with John Surratt in Canada, I assume. Harold Holzer: He probably told her, “Don’t come.” I’m just guessing. But why? Edward Steers, Jr.: I don’t know. There were 55 visits to the prison by 25 different people, most of them lawyers of course. The most visitors were Davy Herold’s sisters. He had seven sisters. And they visited him routinely and were allowed to bring him food. They brought him strawberries and cream and butter and crackers. And all of that was approved by Stanton. But there were no visits to Dr. Mudd at all except by his two lawyers. Harold Holzer: Or Lewis Powell. Just the attorneys, but no personal visitors. Edward Steers, Jr.: Right, Powell had none either. Powell had no friends or relatives or anyone in the city. He was from Florida. He was a real loner. Mary Surratt of course did have visitors – close members of the family. John Brophy. Harold Holzer: And they had clergy. Edward Steers, Jr.: And then of course at the end of the touching scene where Hartranft goes into each cell around midnight before the hanging and asks who they would like to have come attend them, which minister they would like to attend them in their cell before the hanging and on the scaffold. And they all chose their particular ministers who did come and attend them. Harold Holzer: By the way, one thing about the photographs on the cover of the book. That was your cue, Michael. Just one more cue to hold up the cover. Michael Beschloss: Oh sorry. $24.95. Harold Holzer: The reason I’m telling you is it’s one of an original series of photographs that Gardner exposed. He took a series. First the empty scaffold, then the prisoners being brought up. Then they’re waiting and Mrs. Surratt is sitting in a chair. People are holding umbrellas because it’s sunny, even though they’re about to die. Gartner also got Hartranft and his staff to sit for a photograph, probably on that day. And as my friend Ed Steers pointed out – this should be my job to point out, but Ed pointed it out. I’m giving you full credit, especially if it’s wrong. Edward Steers, Jr.: Thank you. Harold Holzer: He had Hartranft and staff sit in the very chairs that were up on the scaffold a few minutes later to accommodate the prisoners. And it’s a little eerie that that photograph is in there too. Everything for the photographers. Make way for the photographers. Michael Beschloss: Now if I were Brian Lamb I would ask you who you dedicated the book to, but there’s no dedication so I can’t ask. Edward Steers, Jr.: Well that brings up the point of discovery. Michael Beschloss: The point of? Edward Steers, Jr.: Discovery. How we discovered this. Michael Beschloss: How you discovered the source. Edward Steers, Jr.: The letterbook. Michael Beschloss: In fact I was going to ask. Edward Steers, Jr.: Oh good, I’m so glad. Michael Beschloss: It’s a little out of sequence, but – this is lively and unrehearsed. Edward Steers, Jr.: No, I just love this. Because having my entire professional career being in science as a molecular biologist, I know that serendipity plays a major role on a routine basis. And while we know that Hartranft took his letterbook home with him, and obviously it remained with the family and descended in the family, along with some of his other papers it was donated to Gettysburg College. But people in the assassination field thought that the letterbook was lost. We knew it existed but we thought it was long lost. And people had searched for it and simply could not find it. Then one day Betty Ownsbey who was researching her book on Lewis Powell titled Alias Paine. She and her sidekick Nancy Griffin went up to Gettysburg College to find out what they had on Hartranft up there that might pertain to Powell. Powell was in the battle of Gettysburg, and he was captured and wounded. And so he was in the hospital there briefly. It wasn’t a serious wound. And afterwards he worked in the hospital as a nurse attendant until he escaped and made his way to Baltimore. So Betty and Nancy went up there to see what existed in the way of Hartranft, and the librarian brought out this stack of papers and plopped them down on the table. And they started to go through them, and out came the letterbook. Well they knew instantly what it was, and as Betty describes it to me, she jumps up and runs out of the building to a pay phone and calls James Earl Hall, who was the dean of assassination scholars. And within two hours, Hall was at Gettysburg reading the letterbook. And by that night we all knew about it, because it made the telephone circuit all the way around. Betty and Nancy are here in the front row. Stand up. [Applause] Edward Steers, Jr.: It’s just one more beautiful example of how you can’t plan for any of these things and how serendipity plays such a marvelous role in research. Which makes it so exciting. There’s two other things in the Lincoln assassination that happened the same way. One being the “To whom it may concern” letter that Booth wrote which was long thought lost but showed up in a strange place in the archives. Michael Beschloss: For those who don’t know what that was, remind us? Edward Steers, Jr.: Well John Wilkes Booth, before the assassination, wrote out a very lengthy letter and addressed it, “To whom it may concern.” And it’s a rambling letter justifying what he’s doing and why he’s doing it for all of posterity. The letter he gave to his sister in Philadelphia, and after the assassination she remembered she had it and got it out of the safe and gave it to her husband. Who surprisingly turned it over to a reporter from the Philadelphia Inquirer, who published it in the next day’s paper. But the letter itself disappeared. So much so that sometime in the 1980’s there were researchers who felt that it was a fabricated letter. That Booth never wrote it. That it was made up. But once again James Earl Hall in searching through the archives found it out of place, filed where it should not have been filed. And the third thing was the lost confession of George Atzerodt. While he was in prison his brother-in-law and provost marshal visited him at his request and he gave a seven page confession. And when the provost marshal and his brother-in-law who was assistant provost marshal left, instead of turning the confession over to the prosecution they turned it over to the defense attorney. Who of course deep sixed it. And it didn’t surface until 1977 in the attorney’s papers in his home. But it was a wonderful discovery because it identifies Mary Surratt as knowing all about it and being involved. Harold Holzer: Miachel I know you’re probably going to ask the audience to pitch in in a minute. Michael Beschloss: Right. I’ve got two more questions so I hope people will have questions when I’m done. Harold Holzer: I just wanted to echo what Ed said about the happenstance of discovery. But also the heroic work that it sometimes takes for archives to be built and maintained. And may I do my quick acknowledgements? There are three separate parts of the room, but V. Chapman- Smith, my old friend from Albany, now headquartered in Philadelphia, is the one person who wanted so much to have the Hartranft papers published and available for a wider audience. V. is right there. V., you should wave. [Applause] Harold Holzer: My friend Budge Weidman who was a volunteer at the National Archives has done more to preserve the history of African-American involvement in the Civil War than anybody I know. She’s there. [Applause] Harold Holzer: And if you think maintaining archives in the 20th and 21st century is easy, read the history of the Archivist of the United States and what he has done to make sure that future generations will have access that he had to fight for. So Allen Weinstein is a hero too. [Applause] Michael Beschloss: Very good. Harold Holzer: End of promotion. Michael Beschloss: And if the chairman of the Mary Surratt Anti-Defamation League will also stand up. Harold Holzer: I think she’s here. Michael Beschloss: Right. I’ve got two more, and then I hope you all have questions and comments. The issue of whether Hartranft wanted Mary Surratt pardoned. There are people on both sides of the issue. How do you feel about it? Harold Holzer: I think he was very careful not to venture an opinion, but to simply convey that there were people who wanted her pardoned. His communication could not be clearer. He’s doing his duty again in conveying a sentiment that someone else had expressed. And I don’t think he ever voiced any public regret about the outcome. So that’s my feeling, anyway. Edward Steers, Jr.: I agree completely. Michael Beschloss: So the scholars that have written this, it’s more speculation than anything based on a source they’ve got. Harold Holzer: Based on excerpting that letter. Michael Beschloss: And the final thing, just to sum up before we come to the audience is: if you had to tell us how this does change what we knew about this episode before. You know, how has this moved the ball down the field? Edward Steers, Jr.: Well every time I think about this and the assassination, I’m reminded of a statement made by Will Rogers, the great American humorist. I once said that to a group of young people a couple of weeks ago and was shocked to find out that they didn’t know who Will Rogers was. Michael Beschloss: There are a lot more famous people they don’t know of. Edward Steers, Jr.: But this group, I know, knows Will Rogers. Will Rogers said, “It ain’t what we don’t know about history that’s the problem. It’s what we know that ain’t so.” And no other words could be truer when applied to the Lincoln assassination. It is littered with myths and hoaxes all the way from Mary Surratt and Dr. Mudd being innocent to John Wilkes Booth escaping to Stanton being behind Lincoln’s murder to the inhumane treatment – how the prisoners were tortured throughout the trial and abused. So once again, I think it helps to set the record straight and give us a much truer picture of history. But I realize, however, that that’s not really going to go away. It’s like Dr. Mudd. I’ve come to realize, after everything I’ve written and done on Dr. Mudd I’ve come to realize he will remain an American folk hero as far as the general public is concerned. And that’s just life. And this book probably will convince many people – those who read it. But for the general public I’m sure they’ll still think these people were greatly abused. Michael Beschloss: Well where does the general public get its information about this? Edward Steers, Jr.: The media, for the most part. Harold Holzer: Don’t forget you had Roger Mudd and the entire Mudd family including a very sympathetic centenarian. Michael Beschloss: Rodger was central to the claim that Mudd was innocent. Edward Steers, Jr.: Yes, he was. Harold Holzer: He fought this battle for years. And for a perfectly dreadful movie with Warner Baxter which has been aired on Turner Classic Movies about 3,000 times. You get the sense that he was the hero who was not only railroaded, but who cured the entire Florida coastline of yellow fever and therefore was a hero. So it’s a very hard myth to kill. Ed is being too pessimistic. I think people are coming around to understand in many ways. There are myths about every presidential murder that are very hard to put the stake in. But if you’re asking how this ball rolled down the field and what it shows I think it comes back to how you started this. Sometimes very fortunate things happen in American history. Even though it seems like a minor episode with minor characters, very often America lucks out and has the right person in the right place at the right time. And Hartranft was – in his methodical, humane, tough manner, he was the perfect person to administer justice. And in a way, because it was done so successfully we got back to civil justice because we went through this episode. Michael Beschloss: And maybe people didn’t realize the magnitude of the accomplishment because it did happen. Harold Holzer: Absolutely. And because he lived a long time and had a different life, you know? He only lived to 59, but he had another career. And people wanted to put this behind them. Don’t forget when John Surratt came back to the United States, he not only went through two trials – well, he didn’t come back, he was captured – he was a papal guard actually. Captured, came back, stood trial, I think it was a hung jury and he was acquitted. And he wound up where my story usually begins. He wound up speaking about the assassination plot at Cooper Union in New York. So life takes funny twists. You better hope that the right guy is in the right place at the right time. Organic. Michael Beschloss: Right, absolutely. We hope that you all have questions. We’ve got two microphones, one here and one here. And anyone who does, if you don’t mind just going over to the aisles so that you can be heard. Yes sir? Audience Member: Ed this is for you. You made an interesting comparison to Hartranft and Gilbert at Nuremburg. We know when the saboteurs were captured, Roosevelt goes and looks up the records for the military tribunal to set them up again. We know Carnahan gets called out of retirement when we had the Taliban fighters. Could you find any evidence that the Stanton rules were researched at all in our current crisis as far as setting up treatment of prisoners and/or Hartranft’s interpretation of the rules? Edward Steers, Jr.: If I understand what you’re asking, not as far as treatment of the prisoners. But I did receive a call from the Justice Department wanting to know the particulars about the military tribunal. And Attorney General James Speed’s ruling that it had legal jurisdiction and the reasons why it had legal jurisdictions, and the subsequent cases during World War II of Ex parte Quirin and Nazi saboteurs, and in ’46 the military trial of General Yamashita, the Tiger of Malaya. They were very much interested in that and wanted to know as much details as possible. But as far as I know they never made any inquiries as to treatment of the prisoners. Audience Member: Thank you. Audience Member: There’s a matter which has been much speculated about with regard to the Lincoln conspiracy, and I would steer this question to Mr. Steers. What are your speculations concerning on the one hand the conspiracy against Lincoln, and on the other the Dahlgren Raid. Edward Steers, Jr.: Oh yes. Well for those of you that don’t know, Dahlgren was a Union cavalry officer who mounted a raid on Richmond in March of 1864. The idea was to hit Richmond from the north and the south at the same time. Let me back up. Richmond was very lightly protected and guarded. Lee had drawn off almost all of the good combat troops, leaving behind a home guard, if you will. And so it was felt that it would be relatively easy to free the Union prisoners on James Island. Particularly since Lincoln had gotten word that they were going to be moved further south to Andersonville. So this raid was mounted and it didn’t work out. It was aborted. But in the process Dahlgren was shot and killed, and the Confederates found on his body certain papers. And among those paper were instructions to enter the city of Richmond, find Jefferson Davis, kill him, and burn the city. Now a great controversy has broken out over that, and lasts even to this day, as to whether those papers are legitimate or whether they were forged. I think the majority of historians now come down on the side that they were legitimate. The question is was this a rogue operation on Dahlgren’s part or did Lincoln know about – he certainly knew about the raid, but did he know about this part in which Dahlgren’s orders to his men said, “Enter the city, find Jefferson Davis and his cabinet, kill them, and burn the city.” Obviously a violation of the laws of war. The idea among some historians is that the Confederacy decided that the gloves were now off. And if Lincoln could order the assassination of Jefferson Davis, Jefferson Davis could order the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. And that the Dahlgren Raid was really behind the plots to kill Lincoln. And it’s still debated amongst assassination historians. They majority of them don’t accept it, but there is a significant core that believe that Lincoln’s assassination goes all the way to the desk of Jefferson Davis, that he knew about it, he knew about the steps that were being taken, and had approved them. And that the Dahlgren Raid was the basis for this. That’s it in a nutshell. Harold Holzer: The only thing I would add is that Abraham Lincoln did not think he was engaged in a war. He very rarely uses that term. It’s not a legitimate war, they’re not legitimate combatants. And his argument about – I know that’s not the question that this gentleman asked or what you addressed, but you have to keep in mind Lincoln’s view which he believed to be legitimate. Remember that when the emancipation is issued in 1862 and he’s given a lot of praise in newspapers for finally doing it, he says, “I’m getting all the praise a vain man could wish, but breath alone kills no rebels.” He was into destruction and killing to end the insurrection and the rebellion, and he didn’t see an equivalence. Audience Member: Good evening, gentlemen. Michael Beschloss: Good evening. Audience Member: I’d like to ask a two-part question, if you will, and special greetings to Mr. Holzer. I’ve been struck by the balance between your quote of Will Rogers and the continuing thread that you wove through the dialog tonight about discovery. And I’d like to ask what advice you might have for those of us who consider ourselves to be organic or self-taught scholars about entering this constant stream of discovery, rediscovery, facts which fall into us and fall out of us again. As we begin to try to embrace the wide body of knowledge on this subject, what advice might you give organic scholars? And the other part of the question is where does assumptive dialog play into those things which we do not know? Harold Holzer: Neither Ed nor I was formally trained as a historian. We’re not, I guess – two formal academics. We’re self-taught, gifted amateurs at best. I don’t know, we’ve done a lot – Edward Steers, Jr.: We’re certainly self-taught. Harold Holzer: The answer is – the lesson to be learned from 14-year-old Ron Wheatfeld on to the work that we do – is that you have to be relentless. You have to engage with professionals. I mean obviously we’re professionals now. Engage, discuss, find out what’s missing, look. And technology makes it much easier today. It gives you a lot of clues, but it also gives you false senses of discovery. Don’t rely on anything that you see on the world wide web unless you want to know who some obscure person is that you’ve heard written about, which was very useful to me. I’ll tell you one quick story. There’s a moment in Abraham Lincoln’s visit to New York City as a reception. New York City. At a hotel. Michael Beschloss: I’ve heard of it. Harold Holzer: And someone says, “There’s a special guest here. Tom Hire is here.” And Lincoln says, “I hope he doesn’t hit me.” Well I didn’t know who Tom Hire was, and that’s an easy thing to find out on the web. He was the undefeated heavyweight champion of the world, and Lincoln knew who he was. He was a famous boxer. I didn’t know. But don’t rely on anything else you see. Keep at it. This sounds childish, but it isn’t. And Lincoln had it right when a young law student asked him, “How do you become a lawyer?” And Lincoln said, “Read the books and then study them. Work is the main thing.” And it’s just a relentless quest. And Michael, I’m sure has his own stories. Michael Beschloss: I would agree with all of the above. The authors will be signing in one moment. Can I ask one final question to both of you? A little bit off subject, but not a bad way to wrap up. Harold Holzer: I think there’s one person there. Michael Beschloss: Oh is there? Oh I’m sorry I didn’t see you. I still will ask my question but please feel free to go. Audience Member: Thank you. My question is for all three panel members, I guess specifically for Mr. Steers. It’s two questions. One – in light of the fact that there was no Miranda at the time – no Miranda rights – and in light of the fact that here was Gideon v. Wainwright, the Sixth Amendment right to council that was really emphasized, why is it that – from what I’ve read from your books – that there was very little interrogation, in light of today’s methods? Very little interrogation that’s recorded. The trial was copiously recorded, but there was very little interrogation by investigators. As you mentioned, there was the confession. But people like Davy Herold who was actually caught with Booth and Mr. Powell who certainly had strong evidence against him as far as the attempt on Secretary Seward’s life – there was very little information about statements that they had made. One. And two - in light of Confederate Secretary Benjamin’s flight to London and his long life as an attorney and barrister there, I was wondering if there was any information that you ever found as to what he has written about, what he knew possibly of an actual higher conspiracy. Thank you. Edward Steers, Jr.: Well second question first. No, there’s nothing that comes out of Benjamin. Interestingly enough there’s little that comes out of any of these people afterwards. A few of them that were peripherally involved wrote books, but no. As to your first question, I have to say you’re not correct there. They were interrogated extensively and it was recorded. We have all of their statements. Davy Herold gave a very lengthy statement. Interestingly enough, and importantly, there was a system of shorthand that existed in those days developed by a man named Isaac Pittman. And his brother had opened up a phonographic institute in this country. So there were a lot of people that used this shorthand. And in our court system in the United States, we started using it in 1850. So the entire trial is recorded verbatim very accurately, but so are all of the interrogations. Dr. Mudd twice, Davy Herold once, Mary Surratt very lengthy interrogation recorded, Lewis Powell, George Atzerodt. And then George Atzerodt’s lost confession in which he gave a very lengthy statement. Even Edmund Spangler. So no, there’s a lot of information that these people gave and they were all recorded verbatim. We can feel reasonably sure of that. And I wanted to say something along those lines to the gentleman over here. Nothing is ever as it seems. That’s a little motto I have over my computer. Above everything else that Harold mentioned and Michael seconded, you have to have access. If you don’t have access there’s very little you can do. And up until recently, for instance, there are four major files that exist – I was going to bring them out and set them here – for the Lincoln assassination. The trial transcript recorded verbatim. The evidence file which all of the police, military, detectives, and investigators gathered in order to prosecute the case. 5007 documents. Now the trial and the evidence documents are housed in the National Archives and in 1965 were photocopied, so they’re available in microfilm. 16 reels of microfilm has all of this material in it, but that means you have to get the 16. Either come here and use it, get the 16 reels, or purchase them. And they’re quite expensive. And get a microfilm reader and sit at home and do it. That puts a tremendous limitation on people that might want to begin to get into this. Well fortunately now they’ve all been collated, annotated, and published in book form. So you now can get the four major record groups that exist on the Lincoln assassination, the total material – the trial, the evidence, the rewards file, and the Hartranft book closes the ring. This is the final piece that gives you the entire Lincoln assassination primary material. And what’s so exciting about this is now every one of you, for a modest price, can get the entire – Michael Beschloss: $24.95? Harold Holzer: The other book you neglected to say is inordinately expensive and should just be borrowed. Edward Steers, Jr.: It is inordinately expensive. The evidence file lists at $125, but you can get it for $85-90. Michael Beschloss: It’s easier to carry around, too. Edward Steers, Jr.: But the important thing is you’ve got the entire Lincoln assassination primary source materials from A to Z. You can go home, sit in your den, and start at the beginning like we did and go through it. And I’m convinced you’re going to find things that we didn’t find. You’re going to come at it from a different perspective. And we’re all interested to see what happens now over the next few years now that this material is so readily available to everyone. But you have to have access. That’s the single most important thing. You can be the smartest investigator in the world, but if you don’t have access it doesn’t do you any good. Michael Beschloss: One final brief question, and a brief answer from each of you I hope. Given the unanswered lingering questions about the Lincoln assassination and its aftermath, if you could get a source that either doesn’t exist or has been lost, what would you love to have? Harold Holzer: Me? The missing pages of John Wilkes Booth’s diary, if they were really missing. Edward Steers, Jr.: Well I’ve got good news for you. I have them and I’ll give them to you. Michael Beschloss: Are federal marshals present? Edward Steers, Jr.: What I want are the papers of the Confederate secret service in Montreal, Canada where Booth went at the very beginning of putting his plot together. He got together with two notorious agents up there, George Sanders and Patrick Charles Martin. And I would love to be able to get a hold of their papers and correspondence that these people went over in October of 1864, because I think we would find a very direct link. Michael Beschloss: Right, well one only hopes. Thank you all. The authors will be signing outside. Thank you.