booth literally wrote verbatim in his diary "I shouted Sic Semper before I fired. In jumping broke my leg. I passed all his pickets, rode sixty miles that night with the bone of my leg tearing the flesh at every jump." adrenaline is a hell of a thing he probably didn't even realize his leg was broken until he made it out of town so of course no one saw him limping and that's how he made it out so fast.
Being from the UK I'm totally fascinated by the pursuit of Booth. I love reading what happened and a lot of the minor details of Booth and Herald's interactions. I'm fascinated by Booth and a lot of the people back then,but I don't think I would have liked to have met him for what he believed in, and especially for what he did.
I'm a big Civil War buff I am Southern bread and Southern born they all live the history of it I have a degree in it and I love this part of you too I love anything to do with the Civil War and I love this report on John Wilkes Booth and keep bringing more of the good stuff on History because we don't get enough it's real history not in this country anymore I appreciate it
My grandpa waa born in 1858 and was in school in then rural Howard County, MD, when troops came searching for Booth. It would have been in the opposite direction of the actual route Boith took, but there was a chance Booth might head toward the family farm outside Belair, MD. Grandpa died in 1940.
Holding the Union together came at a cost, but what was it, or rather - what continues to be 'that cost' - a price that I dare say will not ever be paid - because it simply cannot be. The self same differences (more critically - their causes) that divided one culture from another did not change by the winning of the war, indeed - they are still in force to this very day. This alone begs a question. A question whose very answer owes more to an explanation than this four year conflict. Pulling dandelions in the yard with my father, he would always forcefully actually admonish me, - ' you must dig deep and be sure to remove all of it's roots, or it is certain to resurface'. I think this says it well enough.
Comment #2!!! I just wanna say...Booth ole buddy, you need to like just relax or something. Right? I mean like Federal Government? What could possibly go wrong?
Virginia Anglicans. Massachusetts Pilgrims, Rhode Island Puritans Pennsylvania Quakers and "Dutch". New York Dutch. Maryland Catholics. The colonies were ALL QUITE separate ethnic populations. This was the reason for Federation, rather than strong single nation. So NO, "norht and south did NOT "hate" one another. Appalachian shows Irish roots. The separate colonies burgeoning into heavy populations in pre-industrial period (the ""industrial revolution" did NOT begin until after coalition of United States) caused extreme desire to extend most large colonies west. This contravened British treaties with Indigenous nations, some of which, like Haudenosaunee- Ireokwa (Iroquois in French, who comparatively avoided the common cognitive bias I'll mention) Confederacy (which by the way strongly influenced thinker Ben Franklin, though he, being a quaker demeaned the various native cultures; one could say "hated" as imagining one individual or culture to be less than another tends to be without logic or reason other than self-interest bias and ingroup bias) who had sided with British in the 1750s asking for formal alliance to which Parliament responded, and England honorably kept. So, the US "revolutionary war" was one meant to violate established treaties. It succeeded, though in 1814 the USA had LOST the later war ( which had several causes, including the Napoleonic war in which both France and Britain blockaded US trade. It was the 1811 continuing invasion of Native tribal land _ remember WHAT Indiana originally MEANT - SEE the full history), and only received egalitarian treatment at the Treaty of Ghent due to the advice of a British Viscount whose name I have forgotten not being there, or British. He had pointed out that US and Britain would be involved in endless war, should Brits take back territory, and the British, had enough troubles, financial and military with Nappy, and their empire. So NO, No "north and south specifically "hated" each other. Black people still use the word "cracker" to refer to the ILLITERATE, hate-filled whip crackers who did the dirty work of making slave sweat and die. The landowners who made bank of vile tobacco leaves, cotton, and some crops like peanuts may have had opinions, and as in EVERY hierarchical culture, regarded every loss as one threatening their "honor", did not have the extreme number of offspring as did and do the illiterate crackers, whose offspring , like the illiterate muslims(for 1500 demonstrable years), or the illiterate of everywhere, do the "hating." Almost no Ashkenazi or Sephardic Jews lived in the USA during most of its colonial/national existence. Almost no eastern or southern europeans had migrated until the later 1800s, The Irish and German peasants (there was actually NOT a Germany yet until 1880s) were the early immigrants, arriving in reponse to teh call for immigration following the Louisiana Purchase. Native tribes were continually pushed west, until those who had learned horsemanship from those who first semi-tamed Coronado's escaped herds (Horses tend not to have mechanics who can fix their overwork problems, another issue, which I'll condense into Desert/Western/Plains tribes becoming opponents of expansion, who STILL suffer from the most oppression other than direct slavery in the USA) Texas was an interesting event, composed of disgruntled ("hating" US expats, INVITED by earliest Mexican government after 1821 to receive land grants in return for economically developing Texas, so far from Mexico's administrative center that it could NOT handle the vast Comanche raiding/trading Empire. Mexico did not have the slavery conducted by 1700s Spanish Catholic monks/priests - ANOTHER issue absent from "cracker history." Anyway, the profit to be made from slave culture in fertile east texas caused the US expats (who left because they hated the USA - See David Crockett's letter in Library of Congress for example) to decide to start their OWN "lone star' nation. It only partially worked in the 1830s, and when they heard of Mexico mobilizing a large force, ran to their former friends in US (that nation crackers so pretend to hate, whenever they don't crawl back to it. So, that occurred in 1845 or so, and encapsulated why TX was a slave state, and hates the USA so much. So, it is NOT "south vs. north" so much as slavers hating everyone disagreeing. There is so much more to the frictions, such as the BRITISH nobility cashing in on Free Range in the Plains, with their ILLITERATE "cowboy" slaves, that remains causal to THOSE states hating the USA (the Arizona golfers hating the USA are a retiree phenomenon, as is Florida to some GREAT extent. Trump is after all, an illiterate cracker who and whose father ALSO obtained wealth through Fraud, just as did the TX expats and the Brits who resisted the attempts of Plains state governments to create a society with land rights, taxes, and water rights. Water rights themselves have been abused profoundly, right up to Arab oil kings buying them up damaging environments on the other side of the WORLD from their own slavish societies. So much for inane n-s hate.
