WHO  GAVE  THE  SIGNAL  TO  SPRING  THE  TRAPS?

Today  this  version  of  the  execu3on  is  accepted  by  the  general  public  and  seems  to  answer  some  of  the  key  ques3ons  asked  over  the  years.  Who  gave  the  signal  to  spring  the  traps,  from  what  loca3on  was  it  given  and  how  was  the  signal  delivered?  

Many  researchers  and  writers  use  this  version,  or  a  varia3on  of  it,  in  their  own  work,  but  have  never  fully  accepted  it  as  being  100%  accurate.  So  why  is  this  the  case?

Considering  the  amount  of  available  photographic  and  first-­‐hand  eyewitness  accounts,  one  would  think  that  this  accepted  version  was  sound.  However,  for  over  a  century,  those  who  have  inves3gated  and  wriIen  about  the  event  have  ques3oned  its  validity  due  to  a  number  of  conflicts  between  the  evidence  that  is  available.

The  long-­‐standing  issue  is  that  the  first-­‐person  eyewitness  accounts  do  not  match  the  informa3on  found  in  the  photographic  images.  Over  the  years,  writers  have  aIempted  to  resolve  these  conflicts.  They  developed  compromises  and  crea3ve  solu3ons,  giving  the  appearance  that  the  evidence  could  work  together  in  harmony.  S3ll,  doubts  remained  and  these  solu3ons  only  explained  some,  but  not  all,  of  the  outstanding  issues  in  ques3on.

In  this  chapter  we  will  explore  the  evidence  in  conflict  and  explain  how  they  led  to  the  crea3ve  solu3on  we  accept  today  as  ‘historical  fact’.  

We  will  then  iden3fy  a  simple  assump3on  made  over  a  century  ago  that  has  restricted  people  from  discovering  the  real  truth  about  this  event.  

Finally,  we  will  propose  a  plausible  and  logical  explana3on  that  sa3sfies  all  the  conflicts,  and  therefore  answers  with  certainty,  the  ques3ons  of  who  gave  the  signal  to  spring  the  traps,  from  what  loca3on  was  it  given  from  and  by  what  method  was  it  delivered.

THE  CONFLICT  BETWEEN  EYEWITNESS  AND  PHOTOGRAPHIC  EVIDENCE

In  his  book  “They  Have  Killed  Papa  Dead!”  Anthony  Pitch  summed  up  the  challenge  faced  by  writers  since  the  turn  of  the  century  when  he  wrote,  “Accounts  differ  on  who  clapped  hands  or  otherwise  signaled  the  traps  to  be  sprung...”  He  then  goes  on  to  propose  the  following,  “It  was  either  HartranX,  an  army  infantry  captain,  or  the  hangman”.      

The  uncertainty  noted  in  Pitch’s  explana3on  echoes  the  sen3ments  of  many  writers  who  have  tried  to  solve  this  issue  in  their  own  books.  The  conflic3ng  evidence  comes  from  two  key  sources:  the  first  being  the  original  newspaper  and  first-­‐person  eyewitness  accounts  and  illustra3ons,  the  second  being  the  photographic  evidence  found  in  the  Alexander  Gardner  execu3on  photographs.

1)  THE  FIRST-­‐PERSON  EYEWITNESS  EVIDENCE  

Many  first-­‐person  eyewitness  accounts  of  the  execu3ons  were  recorded  in  newspapers,  private  leIers  and  by  various  other  wriIen  and  illustrated  means.  Although  some  versions  vary  in  detail  and  accuracy,  there  are  a  significant  number  of  them  that  report  similar  observa3ons.  If  we  accept  the  observa3ons  from  the  majority,  and  combine  them  with  the  recollec3ons  of  people  who  officially  par3cipated  in  the  hangings,  a  more  uniform  version  of  the  event  can  be  presented.  

The  following  is  a  sampling  of  transcribed  original  eyewitness  accounts.  Spelling  mistakes  have  not  been  corrected  and  are  presented  as  published.  

a)  Captain  Richard  AusCn  WaDs  from  “The  Trial  and  ExecuCon  of  the  Lincoln  Conspirators”  by  R.  A.  WaDs,  April  1914.

Captain  WaIs  was  a  member  of  General  HartranX’s  staff  during  the  trial  and  incarcera3on  of  the  Lincoln  conspirators.  He  was  present  on  the  scaffold  during  the  execu3ons.  

“The  traps  were  held  in  posi1on  by  heavy  braces  beneath.  Capt.  Rath  gave  a  signal,  the  two  braces  were  knocked  from  under  ...  and  the  four  simultaneously,  dropped  to  death  and  eternity”.    

**************8 9

Many  people  are  familiar  with  the  final  moments  of  the  Lincoln  conspirators’  execu3ons  through  documentaries,  films,  books  and  ar3cles.  The  story  is  usually  the  same  and  follows  a  script  similar  to  the  one  below:  

“Execu1oner  Chris1an  Rath,  dressed  in  white  coat  and  hat,  stood  on  the  gallows  amongst  a  throng  of  officers,  soldiers  and  clergymen.  The  four  prisoners  were  made  to  stand,  then  bound,  fiDed  with  nooses  and  hooded.  Rath  mo1oned  everyone  to  step  back  behind  the  break  line  of  the  traps,  leaving  just  the  four  conspirators  in  place  to  await  their  fates.  He  clapped  his  hands  three  1mes.  On  hearing  the  third  clap,  soldiers  below  the  plaHorm  knocked  out  ver1cal  props  suppor1ng  the  traps  above,  allowing  them,  and  the  condemned  to  fall.  The  prisoners  reached  the  end  of  their  ropes  and  the  deed  was  done”.

e)  Daily  Morning  Chronicle,  July  8,  1865

“It  was  twenty-­‐five  minutes  a1er  one  o’clock.  Scarcely  had  Atzerodt  finished  speaking  when  an  officer  in  front  of  the  plaBorm  gently  clapped  his  hands  three  Cmes.  At  the  very  instant  when  he  had  done,  the  lever  was  pulled,  the  large  blocks  supporCng  the  uprights  were  knocked  out,  the  trap  doors  fell  with  a  dull,  sluggish  sound,  upon  their  well-­‐greased  hinges”.

**************

f)  George  A.  Townsend,  New  York  World,  “The  Life,  Crime  and  Capture  of  

John  Wilkes  Booth”,  July  7,  1865  

“An  instant  this  conCnued,  while  an  officer  on  the  plot  before,  moConed  back  the  assistants,  and  then  with  a  forward  thrust  of  his  hand,  signaled  the  execuConers”.  

**************

g)  Frank  Leslie’s  Illustrated  Newspaper,  July  22,  1865

“At  25  minutes  past  one  o’clock  the  officers  in  charge  of  the  scaffold  made  some  preconcerted  moCons  to  the  aKendant  soldiers  to  step  back  from  the  drop,  and  then  with  a  moCon  of  his  hand  the  drop  fell,  and  the  bodies  of  the  criminals  were  suspended  in  the  air”.1

**************

h)  Boston  Daily  AdverQser,  July  8,  1865

“At  twenty  five  minutes  past  one,  the  signal  was  given  by  General  Hartran1  through  Captain  Rath,  the  drops  were  knocked  suddenly  away...and  fell”.

**************

b)  NaQonal  Intelligencer,  July  8,  1865

“It  was  now  twenty-­‐one  minutes  a1er  one  o’clock.  The  prisoners  had  all  been  securely  bound;  the  fatal  nooses  had  been  adjusted;  the  white  caps  had  been  placed  over  the  heads  of  the  condemned;  Captain  Serath,  of  the  17th  Michigan  Infantry,  who  had  charge  of  the  detail  for  the  execuCon,  waved  the  crowd  back  from  the  prisoners;  he  clapped  his  hands  three  Cmes;  four  soldiers,  Wm.  Coxwell,  Daniel  Sharpe,  George  F.  Taylor,  and  Joseph  HazleK,  all  of  company  F,  14th  V.R.C.,  knocked  the  supports  from  under  the  drops,  and  four  human  beings  were  le1  dangling  between  heaven  and  earth”.  

[Note:  The  actual  names  of  the  four  soldiers  were  William  Coxshall,  Daniel  Shoup  or  Shoupe,  George  F.  Taylor  and  Joseph  HazleG  or  HasleG].

**************

c)  NY  Tribune,  July  8,  1865

“At  this  juncture  the  nooses  and  white  caps  having  all  been  adjusted,  Capt.  Rath,  Assistant  Provost-­‐Marshal,  having  immediate  charge  of  the  execuCon,  stepped  in  front  of  the  scaffold,  on  the  ground,  and  moConed  to  all  of  the  aKendants  on  the  scaffold  to  move  back  off  the  drops,  which  they  did,  the  proper  ones  sCll  reaching  forward  and  supporCng  their  charges  respecCvely  on  the  drops.

Immediately  on  this  movement  being  accomplished,  Captain  Rath  also  gave  the  signal  for  the  props  to  be  knocked  from  under,  which  was  done  by  a  swinging  scantlin  for  each  shoved  longitudinally;  and  the  four  conspirators,  having  fallen  about  five  feet  each,  were  le1  dangling  spasmodically  in  the  air”.

**************  

d)  William  Coxshall  from  the  “Milwaukee  Free  Press  Sunday  Magazine”,  February  1,  1914

Private  William  Coxshall  was  one  of  the  four  men  assigned  the  task  of  springing  the  traps  beneath  the  scaffold.

“Col.  Rath  came  down  the  steps  and  took  his  place  in  front  of  the  scaffold,  where  we  could  see  him.  I  and  my  companion  were  at  our  posts  at  the  end  of  the  Cmbers.  All  was  ready.  

The  colonel  raised  his  hands.  Three  Cmes  he  brought  them  together  in  a  noiseless  handclap.  At  the  third  clap,  we  swung  against  the  supports  with  all  our  might.  

The  drops  fell”.

**************10 11

A  detail  from  Frank  Leslie’s  Illustrated  Newspaper   on   July   22,   1865   shows  an   officer   standing   in   front   of   the  scaffold   just   aXer   the   traps   have  been  sprung.  

When  all  these  eyewitness  accounts  are  summarized,  the  answers  to  the  key  ques7ons  noted  earlier  now  look  like  this:

  Q.  Who  gave  the  signal  to  spring  the  traps?     A.  Captain  or  Colonel  Chris7an  Rath,  General  HartranA  through  Captain  Rath  or  an     officer.     NOTE:  General  John  F.  HartranA  was  an  officer  and  Chris7an  Rath  was  both  the  hangman     and  an  officer  who  held  the  rank  of  Captain  at  the  7me  of  the  execu7ons.  He  was  later     promoted  to  Colonel.  

  Q.  From  what  loca7on  was  the  signal  given?   A.  In  front  of  the  scaffold,  on  the  ground  (otherwise  described  as  ‘on  the  plot  before’).     NOTE:  Not  one  eyewitness  account  actually  states  that  the  person  who  gave  the  signal     did  so  from  up  on  the  gallows  plaSorm.

  Q.  How  was  the  signal  delivered?   A.  Three  claps  of  the  hands  (gentle  or  noiseless)  or  a  forward  thrust.     NOTE:  Other  newspaper  accounts  not  men7oned  here  also  indicated  a  mo7on  or  wave     of  the  hand  was  used.  

2)  THE  PHOTOGRAPHIC  EVIDENCE  

A  picture  is  worth  a  thousand  words.  But  what  happens  when  the  informa7on  found  in  that  picture  doesn’t  match  the  1000+  words  printed  from  eyewitness  accounts  of  the  event?  Uncertainty  ensues!

Alexander  Gardner’s  photograph  called  The  Drop  shows  two  key  elements  relevant  to  this  subject.  The  first  is  that  an  officer  in  uniform  stands  in  front  of  the  scaffold  (lower  leA)  just  as  the  eyewitnesses  reported.  The  second  is  that  Chris7an  Rath,  dressed  in  white  coat  and  hat,  is  s7ll  seen  standing  on  the  scaffold  rather  than  in  front  of  it.  

How  is  this  possible?  Rath  could  not  have  been  in  two  places  at  once.  Why  do  the  eyewitness  accounts  and  the  informa7on  taken  from  this  photograph  differ  so  dras7cally?  Were  the  eyewitnesses  confused  or  wrong?  Perhaps  the  newspapers  mistakenly  named  Rath  as  the  person  in  front  of  the  scaffold  when  it  might  have  been  General  HartranA  or  another  officer.  If  so,  then  one  would  think  that  his  own  staff  would  have  known  the  difference.  But  both  Wa^s  and  Coxshall  name  Rath,  and  not  HartranA,  as  the  man  who  gave  the  signal.  Were  their  recollec7ons  also  flawed  by  perhaps  failing  memories  due  to  their  age  at  the  7me  of  their  statements?  The  answer  to  all  these  ques7ons  is  simple:  “When  in  doubt,  make  something  up”.

A  good  example  of  how  at  least  one  man  took  it  upon  himself  to  adjust  the  facts  and  propose  a  more  logical  solu7on  to  this  dilemma  can  be  found  in  the  case  of  Osborn  H.  Oldroyd.  

THE  OSBORN  H.  OLDROYD  SOLUTION

In  the  spring  of  1901,  Osborn  H.  Oldroyd  was  wri7ng  a  book  called  “The  Assassina7on  of  Abraham  Lincoln:  Flight,  Pursuit,  Capture,  and  Punishment  of  the  Conspirators”.  

To  obtain  accurate,  first-­‐hand  informa7on,  Oldroyd  wrote  to  Chris7an  Rath  several  7mes  in  hopes  of  geeng  the  hangman  to  share  his  recollec7ons  of  the  execu7ons.  Rath  eventually  replied  in  a  two-­‐page  le^er  dated  July  27,  1901.  

In  an  excerpt  from  this  le^er,  Rath  states  that  he  “made  the  nooses,  placed  them  on  the  Beam.  Saw  them  adjusted  on  the  culprits  then  stepid  in  front  of  the  gallows  and  gave  the  signal  to  the  men  under  the  gallows  to  spring  the  props!”  

With  Rath’s  le^er  in  hand,  Oldroyd  completed  his  book  and  published  it  later  in  1901.  However,  faced  with  the  same  eviden7al  conflict  between  Rath’s  own  words  and  the  Gardner  photographs,  Oldroyd  made  a  slight  change  to  the  le^er’s  content.  Indica7ng  that  the  revised  quote  was  s7ll  a^ributed  to  Rath,  Oldroyd  wrote  the  following:“I  made  the  nooses  and  placed  them  on  the  beam,  saw  them  adjusted  on  the  vicAms,  then  stepped  aside  and  gave  the  signal  to  the  men  underneath  the  gallows  to  spring  the  traps!”2

By  switching  “stepid  in  front  of  the  gallows”  to  “stepped  aside”,  Oldroyd  changed  the  en7re  understanding  of  that  historical  moment.  His  version  puts  Rath  on  the  plaSorm  rather  than  in  front  of  it,  clapping  his  hands  three  7mes,  thus  sending  an  audible  signal  to  the  men  below  the  scaffold  who  could  not  see  him.      

12 13

he  image  The  Drop  captures  the  moment  just  aAer  the  traps  have  been  sprung.  The  bodies  of  the  four  conspirators,  along  with  the  props  and  striking  beams,  are  s7ll  in  mo7on.  Less  than  2  to  3  seconds  have  elapsed  since  the  drops  fell.  

Other  writers  soon  followed  Oldroyd’s  lead,  welcoming  this  logical  explana8on.  They  ra8onalized  that  if  Rath  himself  claimed  to  be  on  the  pla>orm  then  the  rest  of  the  eyewitness  accounts  must  have  clearly  been  wrong.  It  is  this  version  that  is  most  oBen  accepted  as  historically  correct  today.

3)  THE  MISLEADING  ASSUMPTION

Some8mes  history  is  based  more  on  assump8on  than  fact.  If  an  appropriate  amount  of  8me  passes,  and  the  assump8on  is  repeated  oBen  enough,  it  can  become  accepted  history.  In  this  case,  if  you  accept  that  the  first-­‐person  eyewitness  accounts  are  correct  and  that  Rath  stood  in  front  of  the  scaffold  to  give  the  signal,  then  how  could  he  have  been  up  on  the  pla>orm  in  the  photograph  called  The  Drop?

The  answer  is  simple.  An  assump8on  was  made  long  ago  which  convinced  people  that  the  man  dressed  in  the  white  coat  and  hat  was  Chris8an  Rath.  This  belief  was  not  based  on  fact,  but  rather  on  a  large  and  inaccurate  assump8on.  None  of  the  first-­‐person  eyewitness  accounts  collected  to  date  ever  men8on  that  anyone,  including  Chris8an  Rath,  wore  white.  It  was  an  assump8on  that  now  proves  to  be  false.  

***CHRISTIAN  RATH  WAS  NOT  THE  MAN  IN  WHITE***  

HOW  WAS  THE  ASSUMPTION  CREATED?

At  some  point  aBer  the  Gardner  photographs  became  publicly  available,  an  assump8on  was  made  that  the  man  in  the  white  coat  was  the  execu8oner.  It  was  a  logical  mistake.  In  one  image,  the  man  in  white  is  seen  ac8vely  par8cipa8ng  in  the  execu8ons,  placing  the  noose  around  the  neck  of  David  Herold.  

As  well,  he  is  dressed  differently  from  the  rest  of  the  execu8on  party.  The  wriOen  history  of  execu8on  oBen  describes  execu8oners  as  having  been  dressed  in  black,  white  or  other  colors  that  differen8ated  them  from  all  other  par8cipants.  

According  to  the  Evening  Star,  July  8,  1865,  a  short  conversa8on  took  place  on  the  scaffold  between  Captain  Rath  and  Lewis  Powell  while  the  noose  was  readjusted  to  beOer  fit  Powell's  neck.  Rath  is  supposed  to  have  said,  "I  want  you  to  die  quick"  (in  hopes  that  Powell  would  not  suffer),  to  which  Powell  replied  with  his  last  words,  "You  know  best,  Captain.  Thank  you.  Goodbye".    

It  is  only  natural  for  one’s  mind  to  make  connec8ons  between  Rath  adjus8ng  Powell’s  noose  and  the  man  in  the  white  coat  pu_ng  the  rope  around  Herold’s  neck.  As  Rath  was  the  execu8oner,  it  would  also  make  sense  that  he  wore  an  ou>it  that  dis8nguished  him  from  all  others.  

These  misguided  clues  bolstered  the  belief  that  the  man  in  white  was  Chris8an  Rath,  the  execu8oner.  Ci8zens  of  the  late  19th  century  had  no  reason  to  believe  otherwise.  And  so  the  assump8on  was  given  birth  and  accepted  as  fact.  Then  in  1901,  Oldroyd’s  falsified  statement  allowed  others  to  further  ra8onalize  and  explain  away  the  discrepancies  that  began  to  surface  by  then.  Despite  the  conflicts  in  evidence,  the  man  in  white  became  the  icon  of  the  Lincoln  conspirators’  execu8ons.14 15

The   image   of   the   man   in   white   preparing   the  noose  around  Herold’s  neck  helped  to  bolster  the  assump8on   the   this   person   was   Chris8an   Rath,  the   execu8oner.   An   assump8on   that   has  proven  to  be  incorrect.  

The  Rath  leOer  is  courtesy  of  the  University  of  Chicago  Library,  Special  Collec8ons  Research  Center.  Richard  Sloan,  the  former  President  of  the  Lincoln  Group  of  New  York  (1977-­‐81)  discovered  this  document,  publishing  his  findings  in  the  March  1988  SurraO  Courier  under  the  8tle  “Account  of  the  Execu8on”.

4)  NEW  DETAILS  FROM  THE  ALEXANDER  GARDNER  PHOTOGRAPHS  

Knowing  that  Captain  Rath  was  not  the  man  in  white,  then  where  was  he?  A  closer  look  at  the  Alexander  Gardner  photographs  helps  to  find  the  answer.

General  Hartran>  and  his  staff  were  photographed  by  Gardner  inside  the  penitenBary  yard.  It  was  likely  taken  a  short  Bme  a>er  the  conspirators  had  been  hanged  and  buried.  The  wooden  chairs  that  four  of  the  officers  are  seated  in  are  the  same  ones  that  were  used  by  the  conspirators  on  the  gallows.

ChrisBan  Rath,  who  is  seen  at  the  far  right  hand  side  of  the  group,  is  dressed  in  his  full  ceremonial  uniform.  As  well,  he  sports  a  long  beard  and  mustache  and  his  hair  is  trimmed  cleanly  around  his  ears.  Rath’s  dark  blue  kepi  (hat)  rests  on  his  le>  knee.  On  his  right,  just  visible  behind  his  beard,  is  his  dark  collar.  Finally,  on  his  le>  hip  Rath  wears  a  large  sheathed  sword  or  saber.  It  has  a  disBncBve  curve  that  is  unique  when  compared  to  the  swords  of  the  other  officers.  

These  elements  will  help  to  idenBfy  Rath  in  the  following  photos.  Where  poor  focus  is  an  issue,  the  appearance  of  this  unique,  curved  sheath  will  allow  us  to  build  a  plausible  argument  that  the  man  might  be  Rath.  But  to  be  absolutely  sure,  a  posiBve  idenBficaBon  is  sBll  required.  That  evidence  is  found  in  only  one  of  Alexander  Gardner’s  photographs,  Adjus'ng  the  Ropes.  

     

     

     

16 17

In   the   photograph   Reading   the   Death  Warrant,  it  is  likely  that  the  same  officer  is   seen   here   too.   His   curved   saber  sheath  is  visible  just  above  his  ankle.

In  the  photograph  The   Drop,   the   officer  stands  in  the  lower  le>  hand  area  of  the  image,   exactly   where   first-­‐hand  eyewitness   accounts   and   illustraBons  place  him.  

In  the  photograph  Arrival  at  Scaffold,  an  officer   can  be   seen  walking   behind  the  scaffold.  On  his  le>  hip  he  wears  a   large  curved  saber  sheath.

Due  to  the  poor  focus  of  these  images,  conclusive  iden6fica6on  of  Rath  is  not  possible,  but  s6ll  plausible.  Rath  likely  spent  much  of  his  6me  on  the  ground  pacing  around  the  scaffold  and  ensuring  that  his  team  of  prop  knockers  was  ready.    

Rath  made  his  way  back  up  onto  the  scaffold  to  supervise  the  final  prepara6on  of  the  prisoners  when  they  were  bound,  noosed  and  hooded.  

A@er  supervising  Atzerodt  and  Herold  being  prepared  for  execu6on,  Rath  walked  over  to  Lewis  Powell,  a  man  he  had  grown  to  respect  during  their  6me  together  at  the  peniten6ary.  Rath  whispered  those  hopeful  words  of  encouragement  to  Powell,  “I  hope  you  die  quick”!    

He  then  descended  the  stairs,  walked  to  the  front  of  the  gallows  and  waited  for  the  last  of  the  prepara6ons  to  be  completed.  Rath  then  mo6oned  for  everyone  to  step  back  off  of  the  traps.  As  soon  as  this  was  confirmed,  he  wasted  no  6me  giving  the  final  signal  to  the  men  below  the  scaffold  to  spring  the  traps.

     

For  almost  a  century  and  a  half,  Rath  has  hidden  in  plain  sight.  The  idea  of  the  man  in  white  being  the  execu6oner  blinded  us  all  from  seeing  him.  But  now  that  you  know  where  to  look  to  find  him,  your  eyes  cannot  help  but  locate  him  quickly.  In  doing  so,  the  man  in  white,  that  iconic  figure  who  grabbed  our  aNen6on  in  these  photos  for  so  many  years,  now  just  fades  into  the  shadows.  Rath  has  been  found!

WHO  WAS  THE  MAN  IN  WHITE?

When  the  nooses  were  placed  around  the  necks  of  the  four  conspirators,  several  of  the  hangmen  were  known  by  name.  Lieutenant  Colonel  William  H.  H.  McCall,  assisted  by  Colonel  L.  A.  Dodd,  prepared  Mary  SurraN  for  hanging.  John  H.  Roberts,  a  detec6ve  with  LafayeNe  Baker’s  Secret  Service,  placed  the  noose  over  the  head  of  Lewis  Powell.  The  hangmen  for  David  Herold  and  George  Atzerodt  have  not  been  posi6vely  iden6fied  to  date,  but  both  were  detec6ves  of  LafayeNe  Baker’s  Secret  Service  as  well.  The  man  in  white  is  one  of  those  detec6ves  and  although  his  iden6ty  is  s6ll  to  be  confirmed,  several  clues  help  point  in  the  right  direc6on.18 19

In  the  photograph,  Adjus&ng  the  Nooses,  Chris6an  Rath  is  seen  directly  to  the  right  of  the  man  in  white.  Rath  is  looking  down  at  a  man  crouched  behind  David  Herold  as  the  man  binds  Herold’s  legs.  

Chris6an  Rath  in  his  dress  ceremonial  uniform  worn  during  the  execu6ons.  His  dark  blue  hat  and  collar  are  visible  as  is  his  beard  and  cleanly  trimmed  hair  around  his  ears.

Colonel  Lafaye+e  C.  Baker,  the  first  chief  of  the  Secret  Service,  assigned  four  detec<ves  to  the  Arsenal  Peniten<ary  to  keep  a  watchful  eye  on  the  conspirators  while  on  trial.  Fearing  that  a+empts  would  be  made  by  Confederate  sympathizers  to  rescue  the  prisoners,  the  detec<ves  remained  there  un<l  the  execu<ons  were  carried  out.  

According  to  Jacob  Mogelever’s  “Death  to  Traitors”  the  names  of  the  four  detec<ves  were  M.  Traill,  John  H.  Roberts,  John  B.  Hubbard  and  Charles  E.  Fellows.  At  least  three  of  these  detec<ves  escorted  the  condemned  from  their  cells,  up  onto  the  scaffold  and  then  acted  as  hangmen  for  the  male  prisoners.  

T.B.  Peterson,  repor<ng  in  the  July  8,  1865  Philadelphia  Inquirer,  described  the  march  to  the  gallows  in  a  sec<on  called  The  Solemn  Procession.  He  noted  that  three  members  of  Colonel  Baker’s  detec<ve  force  escorted  the  prisoners  up  onto  the  scaffold.  

Lafaye+e  Baker’s  Secret  Service  detec<ves  are  also  men<oned  in  “The  Trial  and  Execu<on  of  the  Lincoln  Conspirators”  by  R.  A.  Wa+s.  “The  ropes,  fastened  to  a  cross  beam  above,  dangled  in  front  of  each.  The  noose  was  quickly  adjusted  upon  each  by  a  secret  service  officer…”

The  Indiana  Democrat  from  May  11,  1876  reported  that  ‘Each  hangman  placed  the  noose  around  each  of  their  necks’.  Detec<ve  John  H.  Roberts  was  iden<fied  as  the  hangman  for  Lewis  Powell.  

 

So  although  a  name  cannot  be  assigned  to  the  man  in  white  at  this  <me,  the  evidence  strongly  suggests  that  he  was  a  detec<ve  from  Lafaye+e  Baker’s  Secret  Service  and  that  his  name  was  likely  M.  Traill,  John  B.  Hubbard  or  Charles  E.  Fellows.  For  certain,  we  know  that  his  name  was  not  Chris<an  Rath.

SUMMARY

Perhaps  one  day  the  historians,  writers,  film  makers  and  most  importantly,  the  general  public,  will  accept  this  revised  version  of  history.  Who  gave  the  signal  to  spring  the  traps,  from  what  loca<on  was  it  given  from  and  by  what  method  was  it  delivered  can  now  be  answered  with  confidence.  If  so,  the  new  version  will  probably  read  something  like  this:  

“ExecuFoner  ChrisFan  Rath,  in  full  dress  uniform,  stood  on  the  ground,  in  front  of  the  gallows.  He  moFoned  the  aJendants  on  the  gallows  to  step  back  behind  the  break  line,  leaving  just  the  four  conspirators  in  place  to  await  their  fates.  A  subtle  signal  from  General  HartranM  to  Rath  gave  him  the  official  approval  to  proceed.  Now  facing  the  prop  knockers  below  the  scaffold,  Rath  brought  his  hands  together  in  three  silent  claps.  On  the  third  clap,  he  accentuated  the  moFon  with  a  thrust  of  his  hand  to  ensure  that  his  signal  was  clearly  understood.  The  soldiers  immediately  knocked  out  the  posts  supporFng  the  traps  and  condemned  above,  and  all  fell  in  unison.  The  prisoners  reached  the  end  of  their  ropes  and  the  deed  was  done”.    END

1.  During  the  Civil  War,  it  was  common  prac<ce  for  newspapers  to  plagiarize  from  one  another.  Frank  Leslie’s  Illustrated  Newspaper  published  on  July  22,  1865  copied  their  account  from  the  N.Y.  Times  of  July  8,  1865.  

2.  Oldroyd,  Osborn  H.,  The  Assassina<on  of  Abraham  Lincoln:  Flight,  Pursuit,  Capture,  and  Punishment  of  the  Conspirators”.          Chapter  X:  The  Execu<on.  Page  205.  20 21