A Historical Debating Point
27 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I can't judge this MGM short, part of a series narrated by Carey Wilson about odd little historical mysteries, but I can fill you in on it. And this is a type of timely review, as a new Harrison Ford movie, MANHUNT, will be opening in the next six or seven months based on the events that somewhat involve this short subject.

I have touched upon Lincoln's Assassination recently in an episode of ONE STEP BEYOND that I reviewed about so-called paranormal events tied to the murder. But there are plenty of details in the assassination of the 16th President that are still subject for controversy. Who backed John Wilkes Booth: the Confederate Government or power-hungry men in the North, such as Secretary of War Edward M. Stanton and Secret Service Chief Lafayette Baker. Or was Booth simply an egomaniac out of control?

One of the mysteries that has arisen is the issue of who exactly was killed in the early morning hours of April 26, 1865 in Garrett's Tobacco Barn (not warehouse, by the way - that Booth - Oswald "coincidence" list is full of lies and half-truths) in Bowling Green, Virginia. Officially it was John Wilkes Booth, tracked down there by Federal troops. He is cornered with David Herold, who surrenders. Booth refuses to do so, and either shot himself, or was shot by one of the troops who had set fire to the barn (the most likely culprit being a religious zealot named Sergeant Boston Corbett). Booth takes several hours to die, supposedly saying "Useless, useless" as his arms are raised by the others while he cannot do so himself, and finally saying, "Tell mother I died for my country!" (meaning the South).

Most historians have generally accepted this as what happened, although identification of Booth's body was poorly done (eventually the identification was based on a stab wound he got on his neck a few years earlier at the hands of a young woman). The final identification was not done until 1869, when the remains were turned over to Edwin Booth and the family - the remains were put in the family grave in Baltimore where they have remained (no, there is no tombstone marking his grave).

But there is a popular, legendary story that Booth escaped from Garrett farm, and another man named Boyd (who was one of Colonel John Mosby's Confederate raiders)was with Herold in the barn when the Federal troops showed up. It was Boyd who was killed, and for reasons ranging from covering up the Northern co-conspirators behind Booth, to covering up a major blunder, to just greed over the huge reward offered for Booth dead or alive, he was called "John Wilkes Booth". This would explain the haphazard identification used by Federal authorities in identifying Wilkes Booth and in handing the body over to his family until it was a bunch of bones.

The real Booth fled into the wide hinterlands of the U.S. Some said he became a popular minister practicing in Atlanta (Edwin Booth went to see this man, who did look and sound like his brother, in the 1880s - they had a long talk afterward, but Edwin said it wasn't Wilkes). Some spoke of a mysterious man named John St. Helens (for "St. Helena"?) who said he was Booth in the 1880s. Later a man named David E. George (for David E. Herold and George Atzerold, two conspirators who were hanged for the assassination on July 7, 1865?) claimed that he was Booth. He committed suicide in Enid, Oklahoma in 1903, and a lawyer named Finis Bates had the body preserved by a taxidermist, with it's hair and mustache combed like Booth's, and toured around the South and Midwest for decades as the real Booth.

What is the truth? I tend to think the man in the barn was the assassin, but people like to believe what they fancy. And they always will.

Postscript: On Monday, December 10, 2007 TCM network showed this short subject just before showing John Ford's THE PRISONER OF SHARK ISLAND about Dr. Mudd (Warner Baxter). It is a well acted and produced episode, but the defects of it's presentation is that it is insinuating Booth was David E. George, including bringing forth private "new evidence" to reinforce that point. Of course the new "evidence" is basically a hearsay comment, and unprovable. Still it's entertaining enough for it's purposes.
9 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed