Talk:Assassination of Abraham Lincoln

Popular Myth

Theres is some debate as to the authenticity of the claim that Booth caught his spur while jumping from the box and subsequently broke his leg. According to testimony from witnesses at the theater, the entire span between Booth jumping from the box until he was out the wings was about 8 seconds. The actor on stage who knew Booth testified that Booth came running right past him at a high speed. Finally, once outside, Booth must have been his broken leg in the stirrup and used it to pull him up on his horse. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duoraven (talk • contribs)

If there is a debate over this, please cite your source. He broke his fibula (the small bone in the lower leg). A broken fibula is painful, but it's not all that hard to walk or run on - especially when a wee bit excited or distracted. I've done it. Unlike the tibia (the large bone in the lower leg), it doesn't carry any significant weight. Rklawton 13:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Errors Etc

There are numerous inaccuracies in this article, at least according to the entry for John Wilkes Booth. That entry gives a full account of what happened to Booth after the assassination, including his last words and place of death. The 'list of coincidences' between JKF and Lincoln has been debunked many times - the target article even says as much. TarenCapel 07:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think ya meant "JFK".  :-) 24.6.66.193 (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

why [did] the soldiers that found booth set fire in the barn?

I guess it is wiser to try to break the door Nielswik_(talk) 17:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

He had a gun. --YankeeDoodle14 23:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent Changes

There have been some positive improvements made in this overhaul, but there are three things I would like to bring up. First, I think that an image should go at the top of the article simply because it looks best. Second, one of the heading's should not read "William and Frederick Seward", because several other people were also attacked. Third, many good references have been removed, and no explanation given. There should either be a valid reason stated, or they should be restored. --YankeeDoodle14 15:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way - either pay more attention or use spellcheck before making you edits. YankeeDoodle14

Methinks you meant "pay more attention or use spellcheck before making YOUR edits."  :-) 24.6.66.193 (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

This article has already been assessed as B-class. To obtain any higher rating, it needs to go through one of the formal review processes (such as the independent A-class review in the Military History WikiProject). However, I recommend that it first be subjected to a Peer Review, either through the WikiProject, or in the larger community, as this will probably result in better feedback. Carom 20:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do that. I still have work I'm planning to do on the article, but I have to find the time to do it. In the meantime hearing other opinions on the article would be helpful. --YankeeDoodle14 23:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete "Conspirator" Box?

Poll

Should that box just be removed and its information incorporated into the article, or should it stay? To see if there's a consensus. I'll leave this up for 24 hours or so before acting. -- YankeeDoodle14 00:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. YankeeDoodle14 00:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

Ok, since there are no objections I'll go ahead and get rid of it. YankeeDoodle14 01:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

24 hours it not enough. Polls usually stay for a week.--Panarjedde 19:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

What, are you watching my edits now? At any rate is there an official Wikipedia policy on this that I haven't heard about? As far as I know the guidelines say to be bold, so I was. YankeeDoodle14 22:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Five days or a week is appropriate. It gives folks a chance who don't hit this site every day. What's the rush? The "be bold" comment isn't policy. It's addressed to novice editors unsure of themselves and who need to start somewhere. It's not experienced editors who should know better. Rklawton 23:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, in the future I'll keep that in mind. YankeeDoodle14 23:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Myths

It is not clear in the "Myths" section which actually are myths and which are not. Are they all inaccurate? I'm fairly certain that's not the case. This could be clarified.XINOPH | TALK 19:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I originally renamed the section because I hadn't yet been able to check all of the "facts" listed, and because of the very PoV way in which they were written. Since then it appears as if other trivia has been added to the section. I'll try to take the time and figure out which ones are correct and not. YankeeDoodle14 23:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I am bothered that so much supportive and descriptive information has been removed...that many generalities have replaced specifics, and that numerous details and followups were removed. That said, whoever is changing this article should consult www.rjnorton@worldnet.att.net who has been researching this subject for over 24 years.Jimlipka 03:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Jimlipka

Paine and Powell

Please don't refer to Lewis Powell aka Lewis Paine as Paine and Powell alternately throughout the article. Once mention is made of his alias just stick to Powell it's confusing. Unless some later addition is made that he checked into a hotel under Paine or there is some other such necessary reason to mention his alias just limit it to the conspirators introduction. Quadzilla99 10:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Still Waters Run Deep

In the Original plot section, the play Still Waters Run Deep is mentioned as the play Lincoln was going to attend. The wiki-link is to the Bee Gees' song, obviously incorrect. My best guess is this play was the Tom Taylor play, the same Tom Taylor who wrote Our American Cousin the play Lincoln was watching when he was assassinated. That play has no article, and I can't find much info on it on the Web, so I don't know whether it's notable enough for one. What if anything should be done about disambiguating the song from the play? I can't see creating a disambig page in this case, but I'm unaware of a good top disambig message for cases in which there are no other articles on the topic. Any suggestions? If none, then the only thing to do is remove the link. I'll post this message at Talk:Still Waters Run Deep also. —Tox 08:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Tox, I fixed this link so that it does not point at the song anymore. However, I tend to agree that this play does not justify its own wiki article (doesn't pass the notability test), so eventually perhaps it should merely be unlinked. At least for now, readers won't be sent to the wrong article.Scott Mingus 12:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove trivia section?

While both of the remaining trivia bits remaining are sourced - the fact that Lincoln's son was saved by Booth's brother - or that the secret service was created a few months after Lincoln's death, for a purpose other than Presidential protection - seem irrelavent to this article. Should they simply be removed? If there are no objections I will take them down a week from now. YankeeDoodle14 03:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have never posted on a Talk page before, but I would suggest the bit about Booth's brother saving Lincoln's son remain up. Maybe this is commonly known among Americans, but I'm Canadian and had never heard it before. I thought it was quite interesting, and isn't that what trivia is -- stuff that's unimportant but often fascinating nevertheless? The secret service stuff seems a stretch and could probably go, but I would add here that Rathbone later went on to murder Harris. I know that's mentioned in their respective articles, but maybe it bears repeating here. Again, just one of those weird little side dramas to the main show. Cheers! Inkwell7 19:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold

This article is promising, but it has some points that need to be taken care of before attaining GA status:

• The lead asserts that the assassination was one of the last major events of the Civil War. This seems like editorializing, given that the article later states the Civil War had already ended.
• There is a section completely without citations.
• Just curious: in what ways has Booth's note to Johnson been interpreted? Don't tantalize the reader like that!
• The first paragraph of "Abraham Lincoln" needs rewriting; it has three sentences beginning with "The Lincolns".
• The "Impact" section seems very stubby, and doesn't really contain any information about the impact of the assassination on the country. It needs expansion.*I find the trivia note on the Secret Service to be a bit cryptic. Why *was* it established if not in response to the assassination, and what's the point of mentioning it if it wasn't related?

Good luck with the improvements. MLilburne 08:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions, I'll try to work on working them into the article. YankeeDoodle14 18:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do the book references not have ISBNs?--Rmky87 22:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia:Footnotes doesn't state that they're mandatory. YankeeDoodle14 22:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice, though. Especially when you consider that "Abraham Lincoln: The War Years IV." was impossible to find on Google. And I've never heard of putting book titles in quotes. Which style is that (nonsarcastically speaking)?--Rmky87 02:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The War Years IV is not the actual title, IV is the volume number of the 4 books in that series. The style I've used so far has been The Chicago Manual of Style, which is why ISBNs have not been used. They might be helpful, but it would require alot of work to add them now that there are so many to go through. YankeeDoodle14 04:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah.--Rmky87 02:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've been a bit busy, I will try to reassess the article as soon as possible. Or if some other GA reviewer wants to jump in and pass or fail in the mean time, I will not be offended. MLilburne 12:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The article has definitely improved considerably. I'm still concerned, however, about a couple of things. First, I'm not sure that you can call the assassination one of the last events of the Civil War given that it happened after (unless my chronology is wrong) the surrender at Appomattox. I see what you're getting at, but different language needs to be used. Second, the section on "Impact" still doesn't live up to the standard of the rest of the article either in detail or in prose style. Did the assassination have an impact beyond causing people to mourn Lincoln personally? I imagine that it did, and the article implies that it did, but no further details are given.

Take another couple of days and see what you can do. Let me know if you have any questions. MLilburne 18:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

While I'll try to work on the Impact section, I disagree with you about the Civil War being over at that point. Johnston did not surrender his army to Sherman until the 26 of April, Jefferson Davis would not be captured until May 10, and the Confederacy was not formally disolved until June 23. All that said I think it's fair to place the Lincoln Assassination during the Civil War. YankeeDoodle14 22:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Has this situation been resolved, the article has been on hold well over the week limit. Homestarmy 16:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

War Over

In modern times, a war is over as soon as one side goes through the surrendor process. In historical times it could take some time for news of the end of the war to reach all potential participants. I believe the Battle of New Orleans, whose victory helped Andrew Jackson become a later US President, was actually fought after The War of 1812 was officially over. I think there is a need for some terminology like "in the aftermath" of a war, to address the time period when the war is officially over, but not all combatants know it, or acknowledge it. User:AlMac|^(talk) 21:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Virginia versus Brutus?

I have no special knowledge about neither Booth nor the assination attempt but I must confess I laughed when I read the last part of "He raised himself up and, holding a knife over his head, yelled, "Sic semper tyrannis,"[12], the Virginia state motto". It just seemed strange to me to suppose the 'intermediary' attribution here, i.e. that he was shouting the Virginia state motto rather than repeating Brutus' alleged words to Caesar. Given his background it would seem more reasonable to say that he was paraphrasing Brutus, since a) he was from Maryland not Virginia, b) he was classically trained (Shakespeare) and c) the historic parallel. Obviously he can be quoting both at the same time - I just think this is more immediately relevant.

As far as I know that quote doesn't date from either the play Julius Caesar or from the actual assassination of Caesar. YankeeDoodle14 04:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln and Modern Medicine

There was an article in US News and World Report last month detailing how doctors at John Hopkins said that, with Lincoln's wound, he would have survived with twentieth century medical care, although he would most likely have lost the ability to communicate. Does this citation belong somewhere in the article? Chemguy2 22:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If you can find the references and fit it in with the rest of the article it would be a good improvement. YankeeDoodle14 04:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible involvement of the international bankers

This section is drawn largely from one website that has a strong political agenda. It hardly deserves any mention because of its POV agenda, and CLEARLY does not need to comprise over one-third of the article. One of the predominant quotes is by Gerry McGeer, whose ideas are described in his Wikipedia article as follows: "The conspiracy theories he articulated about international bankers had anti-semitic overtones. ... He testified before the government that Lincoln was assassinated by international bankers opposed to the introduction of 'Greenbacks.' McGeer's ... flamboyant, aggressive, and eccentric style and theories alienated the powerbrokers in his own party." If this conspiracy had any merit it would already have been a predominant theme in other sources that discuss the Lincoln assassination. Lincoln has been dead 142 years, and I think it's safe to say that no credible authority on Lincoln subscribes to such a theory. If so, the other sources need to be added.

If this turns into an edit war with frequent reversions by the same editor, I will not hesitate to take this to Wikipedia mediation and formal arbitration if necessary. I am confident that the vast majority of Wikipedians would see this section as purely POV, if not political extremism. Ward3001 22:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%. Tom (North Shoreman) 23:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who understands economics will tell you that what is written there is factual. There were many billions in profits at stake for the bankers. The American School was declaring war on the British school. This was indeed a very big issue at the time, but history is written by the winners. That's why you haven't heard much in the mainstream circles about this economic battle that went on.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.230.118 (talk • contribs)

If anyone who understands economics will tell us it's factual, then by all means please post citations to the many reputable sources that you imply exist. Ward3001 02:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"then by all means please post citations to the many reputable sources that you imply exist" Here you go, hope this helps you understand the monetary issue better:

“What, it may be asked, will be the value of gold to them- the people of the United States- if they neither require it for internal circulation, which they think can be managed as well by paper, nor for payment of foreign liabilities, from which, under our hypothesis, they will be comparatively free? If this mischievous financial policy [Greenbacks], which has its origin in the North American Republic, shall become endurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.”

--Editorial in the London Times by Lord Goschen, director of the Bank of England, 1865.

“Right after the Civil War there was considerable talk about reviving Lincoln’s brief experiment with the Constitutional monetary system. Had not the European money-trust intervened, it would have no doubt become an established institution.”

-W. Cleon Skousen, noted auther, political commentator, and FBI Special Agent from 1936-51.

“We have [ended slavery in the US] and brought all laborers to a common level, but not so much by the elevation of former slaves as by reducing the whole working population, white and black, to a condition of serfdom. While boasting of our noble deeds, we are careful to conceal the ugly fact that by our iniquitous money system we have nationalized a system of oppression which, though more refined, is not less cruel than the old system of chattel slavery.”

-Horace Greeley, Presidential candidate in 1872 and founder of the New York Tribune newspaper.

"What shall be the permanent system of finance in the nation, which, when adopted, shall exist as long as the Republic shall last? Shall it be a system, where the power to issue the money and control its volume shall be delegated to an irresponsible banking monopoly, or shall it be a system, where the people govern themselves upon finance, as they do in war, peace and the domestic relations? This is a very great question, because the finances of a country relate to the moral and physical welfare of every soul, that lives under the flag, and every hour that they live. It takes hold, not only of the physical condition of man, but also upon the spiritual and intellectual conditions, etc…I wish to illustrate briefly the bank monopoly by a couple of bills, which I hold in my hand. This one dollar bill is a greenback, and this one a national bank bill. Now, these two bills represent the second edition of William H. Seward’s ‘ Irrepressible conflict,’ that is still going on in this country; the irrepressible conflict between the people and the people’s money on the one side, and corporations and corporation money on the other. I say the conflict is irrepressible, for one or the other must go...

Now, this greenback bill is the money of the Constitution. I say that, because the Supreme Court of the US has decided that a greenback is constitutional money; not because it was issued in the time of war, but they have decided it to be constitutional, upon the broad pedestal of the Constitution itself. It is, then, the money of the Constitution. It is [also] the money of the Constitution in a far dearer sense…because…it saved the Constitution, when the storm and tempest were howling about her.”

-Representiative/General James B. Weaver, November 5, 1882. He finished 3rd in the Presidential Election of 1880.

“For over a quarter of a century I have been actively engaged engaged in business, as a manufacturer, and have naturally been led to enquire into the laws which govern the production and distribution of wealth…The unequal distribution of the products of labor which is constantly going on in the land, greatly to the disadvantage of society, is due to the manner in which money is instituted; and the questions arise, in what respect is money improperly instituted, and what is the remedy? If it had not been for the experience furnished by the Civil War, the…American people would doubtless have continued to struggle on, in entire ignorance of the fact that it is possible to establish a monetary system…that would distribute the products of labor in entire harmony with the laws of trade, and far more equitably than could possibly be done through the instrumentality of bank currency...

“In spite of hostile legislation [by the Senate] and the existence of the National Banks, [Greenbacks only as a partial legal tender] have proved immensely superior to the specie basis or bank currency system, which cursed the country for over half a century prior to the Civil War, and which the bullionists and bankers are now seeking to re-establish. The people have been brought to the verge of bankruptcy by the machinations of the Money Power, and the interests of the nation demand that a full legal tender money system be now given a fair trial. This end can only be accomplished at the polls. The bullionists and bankers, and their tools, are already in the field, manipulating party conventions and caucuses all over the country, to carry out their designs. The masses must organize against them, throw party prejudice aside, and vote for no man…who is not known to be honestly in sympathy with the people’s cause, and in favor of full legal tender money…”

--William A. Berkey, American business and manufacturing leader, May 20, 1876. During this time period, the nation was closely divided into Democratic and Republican factions, preventing the people from uniting in their views.

“An inextinguishable desire to do what I can, in this the 85th year of my age, impels me to call and fix the attention of the American people on the appalling causes, that have so effectually paralyzed the varied industries of our country…The great oppression you feel today is produced by Debt and its unfailing attendant, interest or usury…

The whole question of the currency and money arises from the necessity of trade, or exchanges among men in the products of their industry, and the causes and methods, that make these exchanges fair, just, and beneficial to all concerned, or a means of tyranny and injustice, and an occasion for the exercise of greed and selfishness…

When we look into the history of the past for the real cause of those periodical panics, that have brought financial ruin on so many of our people, we find, that on all those occasions, as in the present paralyzed condition…the main difficulty has originated in the unfortunate financial policy, adopted by the General Government. A policy, that is producing for our people what the policy of the British Government has brought about for the people of that country, where the real estate of the whole of England has, in a comparatively short period, been transferred from 165,000 of the past, to 30,000 landowners of the present. And this, where the most rapid increase of wealth, perhaps, in the world, is also attended with the worst and most unequal distribution; and where, instead of a diffused happiness and universal prosperity, the rich grow richer, and the poor poorer, by constant vacillations in the measures of value…

The remedy seems to me to be very plain: First.—We must put this whole power of coining money or issuing currency, as Thomas Jefferson says, ‘where, by the Constitution, it properly belongs’ —entirely in the hands of our Government. That Government is a republic; hence it is under the control of the people. Corporations and States have hitherto, in some form or other, divided this power with the Government. Hence come the embarrassments and the fluctuations, as may be easily shown.

--Peter Cooper, July 12, 1875. Founder of Cooper Union College, and US Presidential Candidate in 1876. He was also Vice-President of the New York Board of Currency and learned finance from Albert Gallatin, the US Secretary of the Treasury from 1801-14.

“That banking should be subordinate to trade and to its necessities does not seem to have occurred to writers on this subject, and yet this is its true and proper position. A rational banking system would be adjustable and subservient to the needs of commerce, but our present system is quite the reverse… It is strange that the one system which, above all others, requires the co-operation of all the members of society for its very existence, should have been so overlooked by the organisers of co-operative societies…The control of the medium of exchange has been left in the hands of private institutions which exist and are conducted entirely for personal gain, although their stock-in-trade is furnished wholly by the community...Far greater benefits are to be derived by co-operative societies adding the function of banking to their businesses—that is, the function of issuing paper money against wealth as here suggested in the form of a mutual bank [as the Pennsylvania Colony did]…

The dangers of a paper currency will be pointed out… Those who make use of these illustrations forget that the disasters resulting from such paper-money experiments have been due to promises or attempts to redeem such paper in specie, in seeking to maintain a parity between the paper and gold or silver, or in issuing it without any basis of wealth. The money of a mutual bank requires no redemption, as it is issued against wealth itself. The wealth is to be redeemed by the return of the notes. Moreover, there would be no demand to maintain paper at any fixed ratio with any single commodity. The existence of baseless credit money [fractional reserve banking] is due almost entirely to the ‘gold standard’ theory and the laws restricting the issuance of sound currency. The baneful effects of this credit money [fractional reserve banking] are far greater and more pernicious than all the paper that was ever issued…

Governments might, with equal justice [to the gold standard], enact laws making oil the only illuminant, wood the only fuel, and steel the only material for shipbuilding.”

-Arthur Kitson, in his 1903 book “The Money Problem.” He was an industrialist and invented the Kitson lamp.

"And now, my friends, let me come to the paramount issue. If they ask us why it is that we say more on the money question than we say upon the tariff question, I reply that, if protection has slain its thousands, the gold standard has slain its tens of thousands. If they ask us why we do not embody in our platform all the things that we believe in, we reply that when we have restored the money of the Constitution all other necessary reform will be possible, but that until this is done there is no other reform that can be accomplished…"

--William Jennings Bryan, Democratic Presidential Candidate, July 8, 1896, giving his famous “Cross of Gold” speech.

“In all great bond issues the interest is always greater than the principal. All the great public works cost more than twice as much on that account. Under the present system of doing business we simply add from 120% to 150% to the stated cost.”

“But here is the point: If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it is capable of issuing a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money broker collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%. Whereas the currency, the honest sort provided by the Constitution, pays nobody but those who contribute in some useful way. It is absurd to say our country can issue bonds and cannot issue currency. Both are promises to pay but one fattens the usurer and the other helps the people.”

“If the currency issued by the people were no good, then the bonds would be no good either. It is a terrible situation when the Government, to insure the National wealth, must go in debt and submit to ruinous interest charges at the hands of men who control the fictitious value of gold.”

-Thomas Edison, December 6th, 1921 as quoted in the New York Times. He was the inventor of the light bulb.

We should all know that the Civil War was really caused by economics. I quote Lincoln's chief economic advisior, Henry Carey, who in March 1865 said "It is to British free trade, as I have shown, that we stand indebted to for the present struggle." He said the seperation was caused by "the wealthy capitalists of England." I'm not making this up. I am verbatim quoting Lincoln's chief economic advisor! Please take the time to check for yourself http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?sid=932372736069d66b3b26927f407796bf&c=moa&idno=AEU5158.0001.001&view=toc, it is from the University of Michigan, a very reputable source.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.230.118 (talk • contribs)

The fact that it is a book in the University of Michigan library does not make it reputable. Ward3001 02:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you questioning the credibility of the source? Because I can assure you it's exactly how Carey wrote it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.230.118 (talk) 08:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The sources provided are ALL valid and reputable. The documentary script, which is linked from the article, is from a documentary entitled "The Money Masters." Nobel-prize winning economist Milton Friedman said of that documentary and its argument: "You deserve a great deal of credit for carrying through so thoroughly on your own conception."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.230.118 (talk • contribs)

Sources?? Basically there is only one very POV source. Ward3001 02:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Gerry McGeer was not anti-Semetic. He was a monetary reformer. He nearly got British Columbia to secede because of the monetary issue. For some reason people confuse criticism of the banking laws to be anti-semetic. Don't know how that happened but it ends up being a great defense mechanism for the bankers. Read the full Vancouver Sun article from May 2, 1934 here http://www.heritech.com/pridger/lincoln/mcgeer/lincoln.htm

This is NOT a wacko conspiracy theory. It is obvious from the given facts that control of the currency, and billion in profits, were at stake here. Lincoln was going to take it away from the banks. You don't have to be an idiot to see the biggest of all motives here. Once again: history is written by the winners. That doesn't mean that we should reject evidence that appears obscure on the surface.

The theory clearly has weight, as Otto von Bismarck, Carey, and McGeer all talked of a war with the capitalists of England. I submit that it should go back up.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.230.118 (talk • contribs)

The topic of the article is the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Once you wade through your lengthy comments above, you are still left with a single fringe source (a Canadian politician) attempting to link Booth and an international banking conspiracy. Until some actual Civil War historians or Lincoln biographers take this source seriously enough to address, this "theory" has no place in a Wikipedia article. Tom (North Shoreman) 12:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree. There is NO evidence in ANY of the sources that bankers were behind the assasination. All you presented were the political opinions of Lord Goschen, W. Cleon Skousen, Horace Greely, General James B. Weaver, William A. Berkey, Peter Cooper, Arthur Kitson, William Jennings Bryan, and Thomas Edison about monetary policy, none of whom had anything to do with the assassination. You're still left with one POV website as the basis for the conspiracy theory. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox for extreme speculation. Ward3001 14:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I've presented three different sources. One is an interview with Otto von Bismarck on page 216 of the March 1921 issue of La Vielle France. One is McGeer's secret service records obtained from Booth's trial. Another is Henry Carey openly saying that he wants to stip the banks of their powers.

You can also read the book "Lincoln: Money Martyred" by Dr. R.E. Search. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.230.118 (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Do either Bismarck or Carey state that an international banking conspiracy was behind Lincoln's assassination? No. And even if they did, that is not the opinion of any credible historian. You are still left with one extremist Canadian politician who was rejected by his own party. This is the point that you don't seem to understand (or you aren't willing to acknowledge): No credible source said that international bankers were behind Lincoln's assassination. As has been said before, this article is about Lincoln's assassination, not political figures' opinions about monetary policy. Ward3001 20:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually Bismarck DID state it. As did Dr. R.E. Search, who wrote an entire book about it, as did Gerry McGeer, who also wrote a book about it http://www.heritech.com/yamaguchy/mcgeer/conq_05.html. That's three people right there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.230.118 (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Bismarck did or did not say anything about Lincoln's assassination, he was not an historian, nor did he have the insight that has developed during the 110 years since his death. I think you and I have discussed this issue enough, as you have provided no substantive citations from credible historians that international bankers were behind the assassination. Unless you do so, I don't intend to keep going back and forth with you. Right now the weight of the discussion is against including information about this conspiracy in the article. Wikipedia policy requires that other Wikipedians be given ample opportunity to express their opinions. I will continue to watch this Talk page, but I will not make any additional response to your comments unless you add anything with more substance. Ward3001 21:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd weigh in regarding Gerry McGeer. As noted above, he was not a historian, nor was he an economist. He wrote to John Maynard Keynes: "I have no pretension of being an economist. If I am anything at all in my own country, I suppose I would be classed as that thoroughly detestable type of being, a politician." He also described "money power" as a cabal that "rule the world from a secret and invisible kingdom. They sit behind closed doors on international banks manipulating the affairs of nations, developing wars and revolutions whenever it suits their purposes." Given this, he argued that money power was financing Communists in Canada to make the country ungovernable, therefore creating a climate in which a dictatorship would be established as an emergency measure, and thus prevent McGeer from being elected in the upcoming federal election (1935). I'd say that makes him a conspiracy theorist of the worst type. No, he wasn't an anti-semite (nor does his article say he was, btw, I reverted your change), but he was a fellow traveller by way of his belief of an international cabal of bankers secretly ruling the world and through associations with groups like the British Israelites and the Oxford Group. His ideas were also guided by the Bible, particularly the New Testament, which he pitted against the "age-old craft of usury." It's not much of a leap from there to imagine "Money Power" as being Jewish, as anti-semites are wont to do.

By no stretch of the imagination did he nearly get "British Columbia to secede because of the monetary issue." That's patent nonsense. Maybe you're thinking of William Aberhart in Alberta, another monetary reformer, but one McGeer vociferously disagreed with. McGeer's party put up with him because he was a vote-getter. Both provincially and federally, the Liberals humored him about his monetary ideas, and then once elected, relegated him to the back benches and didn't implement his monetary ideas. Why did international banker conspiracy theories resonate around the time of McGeer wrote his book? Because it was the depression. People enjoyed hearing vitriol lobbed at bankers after they lost their life-savings, jobs, or worse. Obviously the economic system had fallen short of its promises and reform was needed, which meant there was no status quo to fall back on or to ground debate, and so hair-brained theories abounded in what reform would look like. Fascism and Communism were some other options on the table. All this to say that Gerry McGeer is only a primary source for historians, and not a secondary source for anything, at least not a reliable one. Synthesizing his and other historical figures' ideas for a Wikipedia article is original research. Your conclusions may be correct, but "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Get your research published, then it can be used as a source here. bobanny 03:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Since there was only one source added, a website that has been challenged by multiple editors, more verifable sources should be added if the content is to be reincluded. Publications in print would be useful, as would an author with a background as a historian. - However as another editor pointed out, the differing views of many cannot be synthesized into a single theory in the article, as that would certianly be original research.

As consensus seems to have been reached in support of reverting the edits, I am removing the RFChist tag. Feel free to put it back if additional consensus is needed. Brando130 17:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

this would likely fall under a fringe theory WP:FRINGE that doesnt mean it can't be added but should be under a title of 'conspiracy theories'. --Neon white 00:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

At one point, the article says it's most likely that Booth sustained his leg injury when his horse tripped, after escaping the theater, but later it says that he most likely sustained his injuries on the leap to the stage from the presidential box. I've tagged the article as contradicting itself, so that someone with more familiarity to the subject than I can fix it. -- Djdickmutt 16:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Secret Service

I remember hearing that Lincoln statrted the Secret Service a short time before his assassination on the History Channel. The Secret Service's original duty was to find and eliminate counterfeiters that were causing runaway inflation. After Lincoln's assassination, however, it adopted the role of the president's protecter. This is inconsistent with what is said on the page here about the Secret Service, and I was wondering why I thought I heard something different. I'm sure our article here is backed by evidence. Do you all know why I might have heard this story, and, if so, is it worth putting in the Abraham Lincoln assassination article? Thanks- Kanogul ^(talk) 18:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln was assassinated on the History Channel?!?! Just kidding. To address your issue, the Secret Service's website says that it was created on July 5, 1865, which would have been three months after Lincoln was assassinated. I'm not sure what reference to the Secret Service on this page you're referring to, but if it's the one about McGeer's Secret Service records, remember that is a reference to a fringe conspiracy theory with lots of distorted "facts". Ward3001 (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Watery bandage

I found this term in the article but could not find more information about what a "watery bandage" is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bliz (talk • contribs) 14:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Lincoln's Chair at Ford Theater

I took this picture today at The Henry Ford Museum of the chair Abraham Lincoln was shot in at Ford's Theater. I thought it might be a good addition to this article and wanted to get feedback on it. Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lincoln_chair.jpg Jmanigold (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading the picture. I think it would make a nice addition. Ward3001 (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

As an experienced editor, I helped this user (a personal friend) upload, tag properly, etc. I think this would make a great addition to this article, but my opinion might be seen as biased and I accept that. Tanthalas39 (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed. I have made minor corrections and have included several points below that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. Please address them within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN.

The following issues all need inline citations. The statements may be questioned by a reader for their verifiability, or may be a quote that always need inline citations directly after the statement.

1. "Furious at the prospect, Booth changed to a plan for assassination."
2. "President Lincoln had also been nervous due to dreams which concerned his own death."
3. "Those were the last words ever spoken by Abraham Lincoln." This is probably common sense, but could use a reference just in case.
4. "While on the run, Booth would claim that he had broken his leg when his horse— a high-spirited mare—tripped and rolled over on him"
5. "Before running outside, Powell exclaimed, "I'm mad! I'm mad!" and untied his horse from the tree where Herold left it and rode away."
6. "The fact that they were tried by a military tribunal provoked criticism from both Edward Bates and Gideon Welles, who believed that a civil court should have presided."
7. "The trial lasted for about seven weeks, with 366 witnesses testifying."

Other issues:

1. Expand the lead more to better summarize the article. It should touch on each of the sections within the article, so for example, make sure to include information about the sentencing/executions of the conspirators. See WP:LEAD for more guidelines.
2. Image:John w booth.jpg — This image needs the license tag it is using to be replaced at Wikimedia Commons as stated on the image's page.
3. "John Wilkes Booth's initial plot was to kidnap Lincoln and take him south, to hold him hostage and force his government to resume its earlier policy of exchanging prisoners." Mention when this was supposed to have taken place/was thought of. A few days before the assassination; a few months?
4. Expand the information about the plot to assassinate Lincoln, including more information about the preparations for doing it, how he found fellow conspirators, etc.
5. "Atzerodt wanted nothing to do with it, saying he had signed up for a kidnapping, not a killing. Booth told him he was too far in to back out." Reword these two sentences, it doesn't sound encyclopedic.
6. "This message has been interpreted in many different ways throughout the years." This is said, and then only one theory is given. Mention another if possible.
7. "He entered a narrow hallway between Lincoln's box and the theatre's balcony, and barricaded the door." What did he barricade the door with?
8. "The Lincoln Memorial was opened in 1922." Expand on the Lincoln memorial with a few more sentences about it.
9. Include information about the international reaction about the assassination. Were some for the assassination/against it? Again, include any relevant information you think that is notable.
10. In the article there is no mention of Lincoln's final few hours before death. Add a section including information about the doctors who worked on his body, the moving of his body to the William Petersen house, and his eventual death (along with any other relevant information you think necessary for inclusion). Some information is briefly mentioned in the intro, but not in the article itself.
11. This isn't necessary for GA, but consider adding a "further reading" list of several notable books about the assassination. This will help readers to continue their research on the topic if interested.

Overall, the article was an interesting read and it's great there are a lot of free images. Many of these should be easy and quick to fix, while some of the expansions may take a little while. If the above issues are addressed, I believe the article will meet the broad and verifiable requirements of the GA criteria. Consider using reliable websites for adding citations for the above statements if books are not readily available. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. I will leave messages on the talk pages of the main contributors to the article along with related WikiProjects/task forces so that the workload can be shared. This article documents an important event in American history, and the above changes will definitely improve the article for the many readers that probably look at this page each day. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps review: failed

Since none of the issues I raised were addressed, I have delisted the article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. If the issues are fixed, consider renominating the article at WP:GAN. If you disagree with this review, you can seek an alternate opinion at Good article reassessment. If you have any questions let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Joshua Godboldt?

I did a Google search for this man, "proven despite extraordinary evidence to the contrary" to be the true assassin of Abe Lincoln an found precisely three hits. Two of which point to the same blog. At this point, I've deleted the unsourced sentence. I guess you have to be a BETTER man than Abe Lincoln to not have your Wiki biography vandalized in such a manner... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.66.165 (talk) 07:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Motive?

I was wandering wikipedia read this article; I have two questions which the article did not answer:

1. Motive. Booth evidently thought Lincoln was a tyrant. Could his rationale and the background be elaborated upon more?

2. The narrative of the assassination goes from Booth barricading a door in the hallway and picks things up again with him jumping onto the stage. There is very little information about the critical intervening time period except that the Major fought with Booth at some point during this period. Rearden9 (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this picture adds a bit to the article, but it was removed

Apotheosis. I think the picture here adds a bit to the article -- showing graphicly how Lincoln was treated after his death as someone almost to be adored like a saint. I don't see a particularly good spot in the article for this picture (a fuller treatment of the public reaction after Lincoln's death would be worthwhile on this page), so including a picture in the vast white space in the references section seems like a minor improvement to the article. Ward3001 disagrees. I'd like to see reasons why removing the picture improves the article. -- Noroton (talk) 03:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that it adds anything. Discussion of the public reaction might be appropriate, but metaphorical illustration with art is not encyclopedic. The article is not about artistic interpretation. It is about the facts of the Lincoln assassination.

Beyond the issue of whether it should be included, it was placed quite inappropriately. Images are only to be used to illustrate discussion in the text of the article. They are not to stand alone with no supporting discussion. There is no text discussing any issue in the References section, nor should there be. Please see WP:MOS and WP:MOSBIO. Ward3001 (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

1. metaphorical illustration with art is not encyclopedic I don't know what you mean by this. Please explain. What is "metaphorical" here? Why do you say the image is not encyclopedic? 2. Images are only to be used to illustrate discussion in the text of the article. I followed your link to WP:MOS and found nothing there that says that. At WP:LAYOUT#Images, there is this passage: Images should ideally be spread evenly within the article, and relevant to the sections they are located in. This vaguely implies that it might not be "ideal" to put a picture in a reference section, but it seems doubtful that putting pics in ref sections was what editors had in mind when that passage was added to the layout guideline, and this might well be the common-sense exception. I've certainly put many pics in reference sections, and I can't find anything wrong with it. 3. They are not to stand alone with no supporting discussion. Again, please provide a specific passage in a policy or guideline. -- Noroton (talk) 04:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The image depicts Lincoln and Washington in the afterlife. On a factual level, it is speculation by one artist. No part of the article is about the afterlife or whether Lincoln and Washington met in the afterlife. On that level, therefore, it is irrelevant to the facts pertaining to Lincoln's assassination. It is appropriate for an article or section of another article about artistic illustration (as you have done at Cultural depictions of Abraham Lincoln), but not here. Just because an image portrays Lincoln does not mean it applies equally to every article related to Lincoln. If your argument is that it illustrates the public outpouring of affection toward Lincoln after his death, then you have made a metaphorical leap (not to mention original research) of symbolizing with art the facts of how the public reacted. At that level it is metaphorical, and this is not an article on metaphor or art; it is an article on the assassination Lincoln. I could use your rationale and add almost any image related to Lincoln but unrelated to the facts of the article. For example, I could add an image of Lincoln in his boyhood and argue that it is relevant to his assassination as a symbol because subsequent to his death stories of his boyhood contributed to his status as an iconic American hero. That's quite a strain of logic, as is adding Apotheosis to "symbolize" the public's affection toward Lincoln
As for your request for "a specific passage", you yourself provided one passage that makes a point about both relevance and placement: "relevant to the sections they are located in". What is the relevance of Apotheosis to the References section of the article? Does it illustrate something about the references? Here's another statement from Wikipedia policies on images: "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significantly relative to the article's topic." The important words there are "significantly relative". Not just marginally relative or symbolically relative, but significantly relative. Apotheosis is, at best, only marginally relevant to the facts discussed in the article. Ward3001 (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand your position (please just correct me if I'm wrong):

1. You're saying the public reaction to the assassination of Lincoln is irrelevant to the article? Actually, I found a passage about that in the article. That passage could be significantly increased without undue WP:WEIGHT.

Please don't put words in my mouth. Where did I say that? Please quote my words where I said that. I said that a metaphorical depiction of the public's reaction is inappropriate because this article is not about metaphorical interpretation of the facts related to the public's reaction. Ward3001 (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

2. You're saying that since any image must be relevant to the section it appears in, no image could ever be put in a reference section unless, somehow, the image was relevant to the references for the article? The WP:LAYOUT section I quoted uses the word "ideally" for a reason. There is no prohibition.

OK, if a consensus emerges to include the image (which has not yet happened), go ahead and put it there and see how long it stays. If there is a consensus to include it, I'll leave it in that location but I can almost promise you that it will be moved. I've seen it happen with even less objection to relevance than this. I have never, ever seen an image in a Reference section because there is no image that is relevant to a Reference section. Ward3001 (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

3. You're saying an artist depicting Lincoln in heaven is meant to be a factual statement rather than an artistic expression of an artist? And it's meant to be a factual statement about Lincoln and Washington meeting in the afterlife? Even if it were, Wikipedia allows us to report on the opinions of others. See WP:NPOV.

Again, don't put words in my mouth. I have no problem with reporting a well-sourced opinion, but it is your opinion that Apotheosis symbolizes what the public felt, and that's unsourced, original research. Ward3001 (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

4. You're saying that if we include the picture because it provides an example of the public reaction to Lincoln's death, whether or not we say that in the article space, we are engaging in WP:NOR? I think we're engaging in editorial judgment.

Yes I'm saying it is original research (see my comment above), your original research. I have no idea what you mean by "we're engaging in editorial judgment". We're engaging in expressing your opinion. Ward3001 (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

5. You're saying we can only include artwork in an article if the article itself is about art? Let me ask you, do you think that's a common practice in Wikipedia? I dont believe it is. I think contrary examples abound.

Putting words in my mouth again. Give me a quote of my words that says "we can only include artwork in an article if the article itself is about art". I said an editor (without support from a reliable source) cannot make an interpretation of what an artistic creation represents, especially in an article that is not about art. Ward3001 (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

We often have coverage of the contemporary and historical reaction to a subject in the article about that subject. It is often thought of as an important element of the subject. It seems to me that the public reaction to Lincoln's death, immediately afterward and over time, is an important aspect of this subject. As a matter of fact, as I look over the article again, I find this passage in the "Abraham Lincoln assassination#Aftermath section:

"public reaction to Lincoln's death, immediately afterward and over time, is an important aspect of this subject": I agree with that. I don't agree with your imposing your point of view that the image represents the public's reaction. That is the primary point that you (so far) fail to understand. Ward3001 (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

he was mourned around the country. As a result of his assassination, there were attacks in many cities against those who expressed support for Booth.[65] On the Easter Sunday after Lincoln's death, clergymen around the country praised him (Lincoln) in their sermons.[66]

There are already pictures enough in that section, but there is no policy/guideline-based reason for not including this picture in the references section. It's common sense that if the picture itself is not bad for any other reasons, the article is improved and the readers are served better if we have the picture in a spot where there would otherwise just be a lot of white space. It isn't as if the article is too long. Please reconsider. -- Noroton (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)minor change in 1st sentence of last paragraph -- Noroton (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

"there is no policy/guideline-based reason for not including this picture in the references section": As I said, if a consensus emerges to include the image, try it there and see how long it stays there. Ward3001 (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Plan to add verifiable text

In the not too distant future, I plan to add some verifiable text related to the subject of this article. I also plan to provide ample references for the added text. It has been pointed out to me that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. Please let me know if there are any problems with adding veriafiable text. Enjoy! Mkpumphrey (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to challenge anything, but I think for the sake of other editors, it might help if you include the text here. Then people can express an informed opinion, if they have one. "Verifiable text" is a little vague. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I do intend to provide the text for comment prior to adding it to the article. However, could you first provide me with the link to the Wikipedia guidelines specifying what type of information is typically important enough to include in an encyclopedia of this type. I would greatly appreciate the assistance. I would not want to waste time with the salesman who sold the assassin those slippery shoes. Thank you so much. Mkpumphrey (talk) 01:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I can only speculate that what you intend to add is "Booth had purchased the horse from the stables of James Pumphrey earlier that day and had been warned by Pumphrey that the horse was skittish and needed to be held" since you have not provided the text, so I'm not quite sure how to select a guideline. General guidelines about notability include WP:N (and a variety of links to more details on that page) and Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Arguments. Those guidelines, as with many of Wikipedia's guidelines, are somewhat subject to interpretation. In cases where editors disagree about how to interpret a guideline, WP:CON generally applies; it is more than a guideline; it is a policy. Also, the statement "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability" is considered a minimum threshold. Verifiability, although necessary, is not necessarily sufficient. But I think the most important thing is for you to present the information here that you wish to add, then give it a few days to see if there are responses. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 01:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Previous statement retracted and I no longer intend to add anything. (I do not feel anything written was out of line. I just want to add materials within the stated guidelines and be left alone to do so. But the following user makes a good point.) Mkpumphrey (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Mkpumphrey (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I would ask that everyone reads WP:Civil or at least refresh our memories as such. Although your discussion has not gotten out of hand by most standards, I just wanted to give a friendly reminder to all who are involved. There is nothing worse than getting steamed about other editors editing policies and we sometimes forget that this may be the virtual world, but there are real people on the other side of our screens as well as real people in our own lives who need our attention too. Taking a few days or even just a few hours away may help cool emotions.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I am once again planning to add material. I have looked at other articles to place this information and this article is really the best place. In short, under the "Conspirators' trial" section I plan to add the names of various persons rounded up as possibly being being part of the plot. The list includes the owner of Ford's theater and several others ... even the poor guy who rented a horse to John Wilkes Booth only to have the assassin later shoot the horse in a swamp.

The reference document I plan to use is: Twenty Days, by Dorothy Meserve Kunhardt and Philip B. Kunhardt, ISBN 1-55521-975-6. Comments? Mkpumphrey (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I plan to incorporate information from the following text ... which is from Twenty Days, page 186. "Though from the start Booth was known for certain to be the murderer, in the wild turmoil of the crime's aftermath scores of suspected accomplices were arrested and thrown into prison. When these were finally winnowed to the eight prisoners -- seven men and a woman -- considered guilty enough to try in court, Stanton invented an unusual and spectacular torture for them. He ordered eight heavy canvas hoods made, padded one-inch thick with cotton, with one small hole for eating, no opening for eyes or ears. Stanton ordered that the bags be worn by the seven men day and night as a preventive to conversation. Hood number eight was never used on Mrs. Surratt, the owner of the boarding house where the conspirators had laid their plans, Stanton knew the furor of indignation that would cause. A ball of extra cotton padding covered the eyes so that there was painful pressure on the closed lids. No baths or washing of any kind were allowed, and during the hot breathless weeks of the trial the prisoners' faces became more swollen and bloated by the day, and even the prison doctor began to fear for the conspirators' sanity inside those heavy hoods laced so tight around their necks. But Stanton would not allow them to be removed, nor the rigid wrist irons, nor the anklets, each of which was connected to an iron ball weighing seventy-five pounds." (There is more ... ) Mkpumphrey (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(More ... from page 187 ... ) "The winnowing process had been a slow one, for the Old Capitol Prison and wooden annex, Carroll Prison, were bulging with suspects ordered locked up by Stanton. Louis J. Weichmann, a boarder in Mrs. Surratt's house, was one of those apprehended. Weeks before, he had informed the War Department of the kidnaping plot but Stanton paid no heed. John T. Ford, the owner of the theatre, who had been in Richmond, was imprisoned for forty days. The other two Ford brothers who had been in Washington were also arrested and jailed. All the people who were discovered to have had the slightest contact with Booth or Herold on their flight into Maryland and Virginia were put behind bars -- James Pumphrey, the Washington livery stable owner from whom Booth had hired his horse; John M. Lloyd, the drunken innkeeper who had rented Mrs. Surratt's Maryland tavern in December when she had moved thirteen miles north to open a Washington boarding house and who had given Booth and Herold carbines and rope and whiskey at midnight; known Confederate sympathizers Samuel Cox (see Rich Hill, Maryland (historic site)) and Thomas A. Jones, whose slaves set the government on Booth and Herold's tracks, though it was not known that they had harbored the guilty pair for the better part of a week; one Dr. Richard Stewart, who had given them a meal but refused to have them sleep in his house; a Mrs. [Elizabeth] Quesenberry, aho had also fed them on their flight; three young Confederate soldiers, [Absolom R.] Bainbridge, [William] Jett, and [Mortimer B.] Ruggles, who had helped the murderer and Herold across the Rappahannock River and let them ride with them on their horses the few miles south to the Garrett farm." Mkpumphrey (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(From page 188) "As the government dragnet reached out further and further, a Washington policeman arrested and brought back from Philadelphia a Portuguese sea captain named Celestina on information that he was deeply implicated in the assassination. Wilkes Booth's brother, the great Junius Brutus Booth, who was fulfilling an engagement in Cincinatti, was arrested and hurried by train to the Old Capitol Prison. Francis Tumblety, the herb doctor, who was believed to be the leader in the yellow fever plot, and had been attending the Springfield funeral of "my dear friend President Lincoln" with as sad a face as the other mourners, was captured in St. Louis and brought back to Carroll Prison. Suspicion was at such a high pitch in washington that even a woman who received a pass to visit a friend in Old Capitol Prison was indignant and frantic to find herself led to a cell when she was ready to end her call." Mkpumphrey (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Added [First Names] (above) based on Manhunt: The 12-Day Chase for Lincoln's Killer by James L. Swanson. Mkpumphrey (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Under the "Conspirators' trial" heading I plan to add the following: "In the turmoil that followed the assassination, scores of suspected accomplices were arrested and thrown into prison. All the people who were discovered to have had anything to do with the assassination or anyone with the slightest contact with Booth or Herold on their flight were put behind bars. Among the imprisoned was Louis J. Weichmann, a boarder in Mrs. Surratt's house. Weeks before, he had informed the War Department of the kidnaping plot. John T. Ford was imprisoned for forty days. Ford was the owner of the theatre and he had been in Richmond at the time of the assassination. The two other Ford brothers were in Washington and were also arrested and jailed. James Pumphrey was jailed. He was the Washington livery stable owner from whom Booth had hired his horse. John M. Lloyd was jailed. He was the drunken innkeeper who had rented Mrs. Surratt's Maryland tavern in December when she had moved thirteen miles north to open a Washington boarding house. Before they fled, Lloyd had given Booth and Herold carbines, rope, and whiskey. Samuel Cox and Thomas A. Jones were jailed. Both were known Confederate sympathizers and harbored the guilty pair for the better part of a week. Dr. Richard Stewart was jailed. Stewart had given Booth and Herold a meal but refused to have them sleep in his house. Mrs. Elizabeth Quesenberry was jailed. She too had fed Booth and Herold on their flight. Absolom R. Bainbridge, William Jett, and Mortimer B. Ruggles were jailed. All three were young Confederate soldiers who helped Booth and Herold across the Rappahannock River. They then let the two ride with them on their horses the few miles south to the Garrett farm. All the above and more were rounded up, imprisoned, and released. Ultimately, the suspects were narrowed down to eight prisoners -- seven men and a woman." Reference: Twenty Days, by Dorothy Meserve Kunhardt and Philip B. Kunhardt, ISBN 1-55521-975-6. Comments? Mkpumphrey (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, I am done. Text has been added and referenced. Mkpumphrey (talk) 13:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, there is always this obituary from The Evening Star, Washington, D.C., March 16, 1906, page 9

"James W. Pumphrey, long a prominent and active businessman of Washington, died this morning at 8:50 o'clock at his residence 477 C Street after a short illness. Mr. Pumphrey was a native of Washington, born here September 12, 1832, and lived here all his life. He was connected with the livery business for many years and an important incident in his career for which he was in no way responsible, was the circumstance that from his stables on C Street, N.W., John Wilkes Booth rented a horse prior to the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln and on which he afterward escaped into Maryland where he met his death. The spurs which John Wilkes Booth wore on this expedition were borrowed from Mr. Pumphrey, although the latter had no knowledge of the purpose for which the assassin intended to employ them. For some time after this tragic event, Mr. Pumphrey was under surveillance and was not relieved until after the trial and conviction of the parties who were accused of association with John Wilkes Booth in the assassination. At the end of these trying times, Mr. Pumphrey who had already been acquitted by the courts was also acquitted in popular estimation and continued for many years in his original business. He was active, energetic and very charitable in each and every walk of life. He had during life many friends which he continued to hold until his end."

"While Mr. Pumphrey was identified in a striking manner with the great closing tragedy of the Civil War, he always held, and his views were believed, that the idea of assassination arose in the mind of Booth alone, and that all of the others who were accused of participation in that sad event were influenced by that peculiar and erratic character. He exhibited the deepest sympathy for Mrs. Surratt whom he regarded as wholly innocent of participation and it is said he sat mounted on his horse for hours waiting in the hope of having the privilege of carrying President Andrew Johnson's reprieve to Mrs. Surratt then imprisoned and afterward executed at the arsenal in this city."

"Mr. Pumphrey often told his friends that his only connection with the Lincoln conspiracy was that he lost his horse. Booth had taken from the Pumphrey Stables the horse which was afterward killed by Harold, Booth's companion after escaping into Maryland to avoid detection and capture. Mr. Pumphrey was for some time under arrest, in common with almost everybody that knew anything about or had any possible connection with this incident of American history but as stated he was at the time and has since been absolved of all connection with that lamentable affair." Mkpumphrey (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

"Pointless detail" or useful information

Vidor has converted a bulleted list with some brief explanation to running text with much of the detail deleted, here. I disagree with the change for two reasons. The detail is interesting, useful, and well-sourced. And the bulleted list is a superior format for clarity of presentation. Ward3001 (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• And you are wrong on both counts. The bulleted list is ugly. The detail, for that matter, is pointless and boring. The article is not improved by noting that someone who gave Booth and Herold a meal was thrown in jail for a while. And if you MUST have this detail in the article, that is the wrong place to put it. If you want to talk about some lady that gave them food or the three soldiers that were on the ferry with them, you should put that information in the section on Booth and Herold's flight. That section, should you wish it, could be expanded and divided into subsections--"Booth and Herold arrive at the Mudd House", "Hideout by the river", "Caught at Garrett Farm". Vidor (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "wrong". I simply have a different opinion from your opinion. Please tone down the rhetoric and wait to see if a consensus emerges here. Ward3001 (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

List is ugly, pointless, boring. Includes minute details about the events of Booth's flight that add little to the article and add absolutely nothing to that section. If we must have it--and not everything in Swanson's book should be here too--it should be in the proper section, the section on the flight. Vidor (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, let's wait to see if there are other opinions on both of the issues. There's no need to repeat the same arguments again. Ward3001 (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Have to say I agree with Ward3001 here. Information seems better in the 'Conspirators' trial' section and I prefer the bulleted approach. Normally I'd say running text was better but I think a list aids readability in this case. I've not contributed much to the article (I've just got it watched so I can help with the repeated vandalism) so this is an impartial opinion - no offence meant Vidor, it's clear that you're very knowledgable on the subject and have done far more than me to make this a decent atricle. Cavie78 (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Why should it be in the 'conspirator's trial' section? They were not conspirators, and they were not tried. Vidor (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The section may or may not need to be retitled. But it can still (and should) exist as a separate section. By the way, I'll add that I also am fairly impartial here as almost all of my edits on the article have been reversion of vandalism. Ward3001 (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

(Unindenting) Or, far better, the information could be deleted or moved. I ask again why material on Booth escape and flight is not in the section on Booth's escape and flight. Vidor (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You've made point about deleting or moving quite clearly (several times). Let's see if others agree or disagree. Ward3001 (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Okey doke. So there's no need to ask again why material that is not about the conspirators and not about the trial is parked in the "Conspirators' trial" section? Vidor (talk)

I think everyone who reads this understands what you are saying. Making the same argument over and over does nothing to change consensus. Let the consensus process play out. Beating us over the head with your argument accomplishes nothing. Ward3001 (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

"Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs." Vidor (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

For the benefit of others who read the immediately preceding article linked above, it is a stylistic guideline, not a Wikipedia policy. Ward3001 (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Manual of Style....This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article." Vidor (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly; determining a common sense exception is precisely the reason we are having this discussion. Ward3001 (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason I'm having this discussion is to show that the article as I edited it is more in keeping with Wikipedia's style guide. Vidor (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

We know. Ward3001 (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, this is why the information belongs where it is: "scores of suspected accomplices were arrested and thrown into prison" The focus of the information is that they were arrested and tried for having the slightest contact with Booth and/or Herold not the 'help' they gave. Hope that makes sense! Cavie78 (talk) 09:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Rathbone

Does anyone know whether the statement that was in the article "Major Henry Rathbone saw Booth enter the box, and asked him his business" is not consistent with the Swanson source? If it is in Swanson, the statement should not be entirely deleted, although it may need to be modified to discuss a conflicting source if one exists. Ward3001 (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

As I told you on my talk page, I cannot access Swanson's book until I go home this evening but the assertion that Rathbone and Booth exchanged words is factually incorrect. Steers is a source that is available on the Internet via Google Books, as I told you. If you would like further evidence, you may go here, access the book "We Saw Lincoln Shot" via Google Books, and go to Henry Rathbone's deposition. Specifically, page 42, when he specifically describes the moment of the shooting and does not mention chatting with Booth. As I told you on my talk page I believe you are confusing Rathbone with Lincoln's valet, who did in fact take Booth's card and grant him entry into the box. Vidor (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah ha. I can access the book via Amazon Online Reader. Booth enters the door on page 42 and Swanson describes the events that follow thereafter, interspersed with speculation on what might have happened if Booth had missed and whatnot. No mention of Booth and Rathbone chatting. Vidor (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I see the completely incorrect assertion that Rathbone saw Booth enter the box and talked to him was reinserted into the article. This is unfortunate. Vidor (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

For yet another source, see American Brutus: John Wilkes Booth and the Lincoln Conspiracies, page 10: "Rathbone had not seen Booth enter the box." Vidor (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The standard account of the sequence of events in the shooting makes it seem unlikely Booth would have been yacking with Rathbone and then shot Lincoln in the back of the head. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I left the anon editor who added it a level one warning about adding unsourced information. Ward3001 (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Unit conversion

Under the topic "Aftermath" one can read:

"...as his body was transported 1,700 miles (2,700 km) through New York..." (My emphasis)

1,700 miles is not 2,700 km, infact it's a bit more: 2 735,8848 km. As the length in miles is noted with three decimal digits (I don't know what it's called in English) I suggest that the length in km is rounded down to 2,73 km. Please share your thoughts regarding this. /Tense (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I found what I was talking about: Significant_figures. If 1,700 miles is rounded it is correct to say that 1,700 miles is 2,700 km. /Tense (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Lincoln Assination Conspiracy Theories

I was watching the American Experience PBS show on Lincoln's assassination last night (I guess it is timely, being the day before Good Friday). I was somewhat surprised by the details about Booth's recording notes in a diary while he was hiding during the aftermath. I went to look for those notes and found that they had been released as a book. Interestingly, I found several web pages and books which recount conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination much like the theories surrounding JFK's. I came to wikipedia to look at a bit more info on Lincoln assassination conspiracy theories and was surprised to see that there was no mention of them at all in this article. This is quite surprising since there is work on this subject. Not only that, coverage of assassination conspiracy theories does have Wikipedia precedent: there is a section of the JFK assassination article regarding conspiracy theories as well as an entire article devoted solely to that subject.

Having skimmed through this talk page, I noted the arguments about the banker conspiracy above and am in no way taking the point of view that this should be significantly recounted in this article without more solid sources. However, it seems to me that to omit the fact that there are conspiracy theories surrounding Lincoln's assassination persisting to this day that are akin to those of JFK's is historically short sighted and does a disservice to this article. To omit that they exist is de facto POV because it only gives air to the "official" textbook explanation of the assassination (for the danger in that, I encourage you to read Lies My Teacher Told Me). Missing from this article are even the theories that were contemporaneous to the assassination such as the Grand Confederate Theory

I am not suggesting that there needs to be significant detail concerning these theories in this page but they should be mentioned as a jumping off point. A jumping off point, for example, for an article on Lincoln Assassination Conspiracy Theories like the one for JFK's or perhaps for some present or future historian to see that these theories exist and uncover something that allows us to more fully understand or even rewrite history? In addition to that, these theories exist for a reason. As Robert Dallek pointed out at the end of his book on JFK, An Unfinished Life, the result of people being so nonplussed that a persona so much larger than life could be felled by a single man is the generation of conspiracy theories as a collective coping mechanism. The parallel to Lincoln's assassination needs not be drawn.

I am suggesting that a separate section be created regarding conspiracy theories. Interested in comments as I'm not going to start editing the page and finding references if it is just going to be reverted. Vargob (talk) 02:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to bring to the attention of those more qualified than I of some deleterious changes to the article...

Since I not American, or an expert in American history, I feel myself unqualified to re-edit this article, but it appears that the name "Phil Matthews" has been bulk replaced over the correct name "John Wilkes Booth" in the article, and thus damaged the meaning and links associated.

Thanks!

Mike

Mikec2048 (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, the change made by the IP vandal was reverted. --J.Mundo (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Article Title

Shouldn't the article be titled "Abraham Lincoln's Assassination" or "The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln"? I don't like how "Abraham Lincoln assassination" functions grammatically... JRNorbergé (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)