49 pages • 1 hour read
James L. SwansonA modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
The narrative in Manhunt: The Twelve-Day Chase for Lincoln’s Killer follows two parallel timelines. One documents the actions of John Wilkes Booth and his coconspirators as they make their assassination attempts and later seek to evade authorities. The other documents the challenges and setbacks for the official response to the crisis as government, military, and police authorities attempt to track down the assassins and coconspirators. Challenges and setbacks for the official response to the crisis is manifold and demonstrates the logistical and technological challenges to be surmounted in the 19th century when attempting to locate the men on the run.
The official response to the crisis was spearheaded by Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton. After Lincoln was fatally wounded but before he passed, Stanton set up a field office in the Petersen boardinghouse to coordinate a search for Booth and his coconspirators as well as to prepare the succession. As portrayed by Swanson, this pressing responsibility meant that Stanton was largely obligated to set aside any emotional response, excepting a moment of weeping over Lincoln’s body after the president passed away. Swanson provides excerpts of the monumental number of telegraphs Stanton sent and received with which he contacted military and police authorities to share information about the assassination and requested assistance. This resulted in a speedy response by police authorities, such as an early search of the Surratt boardinghouse and Booth’s hotel room, which provided important clues in the investigation.
Despite Stanton’s quick actions, Swanson notes that the authority’s response was hindered by the difficulty in assessing the quality of tips. As in any high-profile case, even in contemporary times, many of the tips that the officials received were false. For example, there were “false reports […] that Booth was dressing as a woman” (257). Even the tip that ultimately leads to Booth’s arrest was incorrect; it was suggested he had crossed the Potomac April 14 when in reality he crossed several days later. Given the volume of information coming in, sometimes good information was overlooked, as when George Mudd reports to Lieutenant Dana that “two suspicious strangers” had visited his cousin Sam Mudd’s farmhouse the evening of April 14 (186). Dana ignores this lead in favor of others he found more credible, only circling back to it weeks later, after Booth and Herold had moved on.
The lack of discipline and the ad-hoc nature of the official response also created errors and challenges. For instance, detectives like Detective Pinkerton and Colonel Lafayette Baker sought to attach themselves to the investigation to get a part of the fame and publicity. In a more troubling instance, despite orders to take Booth alive so he could be interrogated, tried, and sentenced, Boston Corbett took it upon himself to shoot and ultimately kill Booth when Booth is cornered in the Garrett farmhouse. The official assessment noted that Corbett “had not been ordered to hold [his] fire” (340), a grave oversight by commanding officers. As a result, the full extent of Booth’s plans and motivations, including whether he had the support of Confederate leadership, remains a mystery.
Author James Swanson includes contemporaneous and contemporary understanding and memorialization of the Lincoln assassination and the search for Booth throughout Manhunt: The Twelve-Day Chase for Lincoln’s Killer. This shows the evolving popular reception of the assassination throughout history. To describe the contemporaneous response, Swanson relies on 19th-century newspaper reports and other popular media such as songs and merchandise. To assess modern interpretations of the events, Swanson describes contemporary sites of memorial such as the Ford’s Theatre Museum. While the popular response is largely characterized by mourning for Lincoln and resentment of Booth, this was and is not uniform, particularly in the American South.
At the moment of Lincoln’s assassination, people in Washington held vigil outside of the Petersen boardinghouse, a demonstration of the popular support he had. Later, mass media in the form of newspapers, a relatively new phenomenon at the time of the Lincoln assassination, became a key part of the public response. To capture what people would have known at the time, Swanson reproduces and references contemporaneous newspaper coverage throughout the text. For example, he notes that “within days, newspaper woodcuts immortalized [Joseph B.] Stewart as the solitary audience member who thought of chasing Booth” (62). He also reproduces breathless headlines such as “MURDER OF President Lincoln / ATTEMPT TO ASSASSINATE THE SECRETARY OF STATE” (141). Booth himself is devastated to learn that the newspapers are reporting that he is a traitor instead of voicing support for his actions. Swanson also notes that the newspaper reporting at the time was not entirely reliable. In their haste to generate news to satiate the frantic and worried public, they “published reams of unsubstantiated gossip” (142).
In the immediate aftermath of Booth’s capture, various participants sought to capitalize on their role in history through lecture tours and memoirs, such as Luther Byron Baker, who led the cavalry regiment that ultimately caught him. A small museum was set up by “Washington eccentric” Osborn H. Oldroyd in the Petersen boardinghouse. There were poems, songs, and a market for memorabilia and mementos like photos of Booth’s killer Boston Corbett. Swanson likewise documents the modern memorials such as the recreation of Ford’s Theatre. He describes the museum as somewhat uncanny in its focus on John Wilkes Booth.
Despite the overwhelming support for Lincoln over Booth, support for the Confederacy both in the 19th century and in modern times persists. Swanson describes how Lucinda Holloway, a relative of the Garrett’s, kept a lock of Booth’s hair, “a private, romantic keepsake of the luminous, dying star” (344). In the late 19th century, when Thomas Jones passed away, “the Southern papers remarked on his ‘zeal,’ ‘fidelity,’ ‘courage,’ and […] ‘honor’” (245). The interment of would-be assassin Powell’s skull in 1999 with military honors in Florida is a mark of how this favorable assessment of the Confederacy and Booth’s actions is still present in the modern day.
James Swanson takes care to illustrate the potential for individuals to make choices that radically change the outcome of history. The most obvious example of this is John Wilkes Booth’s decision to assassinate President Lincoln and George Atzerodt’s decision not to assassinate Vice President Johnson. However, Swanson’s narrative also identifies moments where actors lack individual agency in historical events, as when General Grant decides not to go to the theater with Lincoln or when Secretary Seward’s daughter gives away his location.
As described by Swanson, Booth made his decision to assassinate, rather than kidnap, President Lincoln independently. Using his wealth and fame, he had cultivated a network of Confederate supporters that was seemingly independent from Confederate leadership. As the leader of this network, he unilaterally informed his coconspirators that the plan would be enacted that night. Once the decision was made, he went through with his plan and killed the president. If at any point Booth had acted differently, Lincoln may not have died and Reconstruction following the Civil War may have gone very differently. Instead, acting on his own agency, Booth changed the course of history. Atzerodt’s likewise independent decision not to assassinate Vice President Johnson mitigated the damage caused by Booth to the Union. Although he had the means, motive, and opportunity, Atzerodt ultimately decided not to go through with it. This meant that there was a clear line of succession following the death of Lincoln, sparing the republic from a crisis of leadership at a critical moment toward the end of the Civil War. In applying his individual agency, Atzerodt likewise shaped the course of history.
In contrast, Swanson notes how not all actors have the same level of agency. In some cases, history is shaped by coincidental or random events. For instance, General Grant, the commander of the Union forces, had originally planned to attend the theater with President Lincoln on the night of April 14, 1865. Indeed, Booth’s plan originally included the assassination of this military leader. However, for whatever reason, he decided to leave Washington, DC, that evening and did not attend the play. “The sight of the Grants [leaving town] must have disappointed Booth” (18), writes Swanson, but Booth does not attempt to pursue them further. By chance, Grant’s life was spared. By contrast, Fanny Seward’s mistaken acknowledgement to Powell that her father, Secretary Seward, was in the bedroom with her led to Powell’s determination to attack the ailing man. She had no control over the situation but changed the course of history.
By James L. Swanson
Books on U.S. History
View Collection
Inspiring Biographies
View Collection
Memorial Day Reads
View Collection
Military Reads
View Collection
Nation & Nationalism
View Collection
New York Times Best Sellers
View Collection
Politics & Government
View Collection
Popular Book Club Picks
View Collection
The Best of "Best Book" Lists
View Collection
True Crime & Legal
View Collection
War
View Collection