Talk:Lewis Powell (conspirator)/Archive 1

Spelling
Is it spelled "Payne" or "Paine"? Bibliomaniac15 02:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Non Encyclopaedic Nonsense
Removed nonsense that his youth, and "physical attractivenees" in photographs, created unique deal of attention towards him, while in custody. No need for citation. Dr. Dan 02:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Complete inconsistancy with Mary Surratt page
On the Mary Surratt page, they say that "The conspirators dropped about five or six feet, which killed Herold and Atzerodt instantly, but failed to kill Powell and Surratt, who both slowly strangled to death over five minutes."

However, this page claims that:

"Mary Surratt died instantly with a broken neck. David Herold gave a brief shudder and urinated. George Atzerodt, whose neck did not break upon impact, also shuddered for several minutes before dying"

Please get the facts Wikipedia! This in unacceptable! Thegargoylevine (talk) 06:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Lincoln conspirators execution2.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Lincoln conspirators execution2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 7, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-07-07. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks!  howcheng  {chat} 08:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved to Lewis Powell (conspirator). Favonian (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Lewis Powell (assassin) → Lewis Powell (Lincoln conspirator) – Title does not adhere to a WP:NPOV, in this case because it is not a factual or accurate description. Powell made an assassination attempt, as described in the article. By failing to make a kill he failed to become an assassin. Due to an existing disambig page for Lewis Powell and Lewis Powell (attempted assassin) being too long, I motion for Lewis Powell (Lincoln conspirator) to be the new title, as is the case with Samuel Arnold (Lincoln conspirator).  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;chat] 17:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Questions. Two things: which is he more notable for, conspiring to murder Lincoln or his attempted assassination of the Secretary of State; and is one not an assassin if they are unsuccessful at it? Jenks24 (talk) 12:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you a "killer" if you try to murder someone but fail? No.. you're an "attempted" murderer. But I don't think "attempted assassin" makes for a great search description. Given Abe Lincoln's high profile, I suspect he's better known an a conspirator in his assassination by J.W.Booth, it is what he was hanged for.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;chat] 12:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thanks for the explanation. I'm going with weak support because I agree that the proposed title is better than the current one, but I have this nagging feeling that there must be a better dab available (sorry to be vague). Jenks24 (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename to Lewis Powell (conspirator) per WP:PRECISION. I support the nominator's concerns about the inaccuracy of the present dab, but the nom's proposed new dab is unnecessarily long. Lewis Powell (conspirator) is shorter, whilst still being unambiguous. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That was my original suggestion until I noticed Samuel Arnold (Lincoln conspirator), and thought it better to use a similar dab.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;chat] 17:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The example you gave was also overlong per WP:PRECISION, so I have moved that article to Samuel Arnold (conspirator). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

why is he listed as an assassin?
I am deeply bothered as to why Lewis is listed here as an assassin. He never succeeded in assassinating anyone. Seward didn't die from his wounds. Although he was convicted, he never technically assassinated anyone. His listing should be changed to Conspirator. Fdnybrat (talk) 04:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Mary Suratt page states that she denied knowing Lewis Paine (Powell) When I studied this years ago I read that Lewis was infact a boarder in her Boarding House. This article says Paine defended her as innocent. In my studies, there was a connection between her brother and William Stanton, who had every reason to want Lincoln out of the way. I have always felt that she might actually be the most guilty of the group. Suecoon December 1, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suecoon (talk • contribs) 21:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting connection with the Stanton family there. But Edwin M. Stanton's wiki page does not mention anyone by the name of William, and Mary Surratt's page does not mention anything about a brother. Any details would be welcome. Valetude (talk) 10:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Stanton's siblings are very well-documented. They are:  Erasmus Stanton (brother), Lucretia Stanton (sister), Lucy Stanton (sister), Oella Stanton (sister), Theophilus Stanton (brother), and Pamphila Stanton (sister). Lucretia died at the age of two. Lucy lived just a single day.  Oella was married to Benjamin Tappan III. Pamphilia married Christopher Walcot. Edwin M. Stanton had no brother named William, and no brother-in-law named William. - Tim1965 (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Mary Surratt's 'innocence'
Do we have any clue as to why Powell was the only person who proclaimed Surratt's innocence? Everyone else says she was a chronic liar and guilty as hell. Valetude (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say "everyone else". The public was greatly split on whether Surratt was innocent, and members of the military tribunal believed that, while she was technically guilty, there were extenuating circumstances that warranted clemency. (Johnson refused to give it.) There were some in the military at the time who felt she should never have been charged, and some newspapers pointed out that the evidence against her was flimsy. I've read nothing that gives any justification for Powell's claim.  But my own sense is that Powell had to declare Surratt innocent.  First, it made his appearance there seem less guilty. (If she's guilty, then his appearance at the boarding house means he's part of the plot.  If she's innocent, his appearance there may be interpreted differently.)  Second, Powell may have believed that he could sever himself from the conspiracy and simply be charged with attempted murder of Seward. Third, Powell may indeed have felt moral pangs at having essentially put Surratt on the gallows. He was a deeply religious person, and so was she.  It's all WP:ORIGINAL, as there's nothing out there which gives a reason for Powell's claim of Surratt's innocence. - Tim1965 (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There is also the problem that Surratt, even if guilty, would more likely have been guilty only of knowing about a plot to merely kidnap Lincoln, as Booth's diary makes clear that this was the plan until very late, after which everyone realized it was unworkable. When the plan changed to assassination of government officials, did everybody bother to tell Surratt about it, even if she had been in on the original plan? That would have been a very nice point for the defense to bring up (as conspiracy to kidnap would not have been a capital crime), except that the defense had no access to the Booth diary, as it was being suppressed by the prosecution. That alone makes the government's hands unclean, and enough to get the entire case thrown out on any kind of fair appeal. But you know what they say: military justice is to justice as military music is to music. All of the worst applications of the death sentence in US history have been at the hands of military tribunals-- not only Surratt, but the mass hanging of 38 Native Americans in the Dakota War of 1862, the mass hanging of 13 African American troops at the "Houston riot" of 1917, and so on. Note that the victims of such stuff don't ever seem to be groups of rich old white guys. S  B Harris 03:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Talk pages are not for debates about the subject matter. But, if you read the Mary Surratt page, you will see that the law at the time lumped those with knowledge of the crime in with those who actually committed the crime. Surratt's only defense (and that of George Atzerodt, who did not commit any act of violence) would have been to turn in the conspirators before any crime was committed. She did not. Even to this day, it is no defense to say "I participated in a conspiracy intended to kidnap, not kill." - Tim1965 (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Once or twice?
In this article (Lewis Powell (conspirator)) it states that during his execution There are numerous sources that indicate that this occurred not once but twice; among them: For the sake of historical accuracy, I would like to change this to read: or
 * Powell's body swung about wildly, and once [emphasis added] he brought his legs up so that he was almost in a sitting position.[192]
 * http://carl-leonard.com/2013/04/on-this-day-in-1865-not-only-was-president-abraham-lincoln-assassinated-but-this-man-unsuccessfully-attempted-to-assassinate-united-states-secretary-of-state-william-seward-now-we-know-em/   and
 * http://homebrewedmojo.blogspot.com/2014_07_01_archive.html
 * Powell's body swung about wildly, and twice he brought his legs up so that he was almost in a sitting position.
 * Powell's body swung about wildly, and once or twice he brought his legs up so that he was almost in a sitting position.

of course with the appropriate citations. Is there anyone who would object to my making this correction? If so then please indicate why you would object.

Richard27182 (talk) 13:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd disagree with the change you propose. First, two of the sources you mentioned (carl-leonard.com and homebrewedmoho.blogspot.com) are not considered reliable sources under WP:RELIABLE. The third source, WorldEBookLibrary.com, is just an earlier, unsourced version of this Wikipedia page.  (See version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lewis_Powell_%28conspirator%29&oldid=617372849, dated 17:25, July 17, 2014). I think a change is in order if you can find reliable sources. But none of the three so far identified meet that standard of Wikipedia's. - Tim1965 (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello.
 * &emsp;I'll take your word for it that the sites "carl-leonard.com" and "homebrewedmoho.blogspot.com" are not considered reliable sources.  (You've been around Wikipedia a lot longer than I have, so I'll defer to your judgement on that.)  Your writing that "WorldEBookLibrary.com" is just an earlier unsourced version of the Wikipedia page we're discussing aroused my curiosity, so I did some research.  And it turns out that the Wikipedia article did at one time indicate that Payne/Powell twice lifted his legs into a sitting position.  (In those versions, the claim was unsourced.)  That changed when you did a major edit on the article in August 2014; a source was added and the number of leg lifts was changed from two to one.  But please carefully look at the source.  It does not indicate that Powell lifted his legs only once; on the contrary it strongly implies that he did it a second time.
 * ............ [emphasis added] ....... New York Herald; July 8, 1865
 * At the very least I believe that should justify removing the word "once," if not replacing it with "twice."
 * &emsp;In addition, I have located a published source which specifically states that he assumed the sitting position twice: Powers Behind JFK Assassination - Expanded Edition;  by Randolph Polasek;  page 25
 * (This link works on my tablet; it may work on your platform.)
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=VcplAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA25
 * I feel this is sufficient referencing to justify having the article indicate that he brought his legs up "twice."  Or at least changing "once" to "once or twice." At the very very least, the "once" should be removed.
 * &emsp;Please share your opinion.
 * Richard27182 (talk) 10:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd write it as "Sources differ as to whether he raised his legs into a sitting position once or twice", and then add the existing source and your source at the end of the sentence. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello . I think we're basically seeing eye-to-eye on this.  The only exception is I'd really rather not say that the sources "differ" because I really don't think they actually contradict each other.  Would you be OK with saying something like:
 * " ..........and once or twice he brought his legs up so that he was almost in a sitting position."
 * and then have the two references (the original and the one I mentioned in my previous message)? I'm OK with that if you are.
 * Richard27182 (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The current sentence about the legs has one existing citation ("Execution". New York Herald. July 8, 1865). Add your Polasek reference to the end of the same sentence.  I think your suggested text is fine. - Tim1965 (talk) 09:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi . I'm glad we found an approach we both like.  And I've made the changes you suggested.  I appreciate your having helped me to improve the article.  Thank you.
 * Richard27182 (talk) 05:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors
Hi. This has absolutely nothing to do with what we discussed about the number of Lewis Powell's leg lifts. (That's why I started this new section.)  Anyway while reviewing the article (before I made any changes) I noticed that there were some "" errors that appear in the references. Something to do with "FOOTNOTELeonard2004." They first appear with the August 2014 edits. I thought you might want to take a look at it. (And thank you again for your help with the previous matter.) Richard27182 (talk) 05:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed that. Those errors sneak in when an editor (me! guilty!) cut and paste citations. The single-foot-note (SFN) template citing multiple pages looks like  . But if an editor pastes this to reference a single page, it looks like  . But if the editor forgets to turn "pages" to "page", then that reference error occurs.  (It also causes a problem when an editor forgets to turn "page" to "pages").  It's a matter of going through and correcting the problem. Problem fixed!! - Tim1965 (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi . &emsp;Thank you for fixing those reference errors; the reference section looks much better now.  Also thank you for modifying my reference (Polasek) to use a more advanced (and more professional looking) format.  I had used the simple format simply because that's the only way I know how to do it.  (I'm relatively new to Wikipedia; I've only been editing for less than six months.)  I hope to someday understand (and use) more complex referencing formats. &emsp;Anyway between modifying the information about Powell, and adding the additional reference and correcting the old reference errors, I think the article has been significantly improved. Richard27182 (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I loved loved loved the old way of doing references. But I've learned in the past year that articles don't get to Good Article status unless they use the more advanced citation system.  So, I've reluctantly started using it.  I'm going back and doing some of the better articles I've worked on and redoing the citation system, just in case they become GA candidates. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi . &emsp;I hate to admit it but I don't know what Good Article status is.  As an editor of less than six months experience, I'm still pretty much a novice, especially in certain areas.  Could you tell me (or provide a link) explaining? &emsp;My wiki coding skills are about average; but my reference citing abilities are still limited.  I can reference just about anything well enough to get by, but often not in the optimum or preferred way.  The referencing tools I'm currently familiar with are pretty much limited to:
 * and
 * When I look at some of the complex referencing other editors use, I just feel overwhelmed.  If I would like to increase my repertoire of referencing tools but want to do so gradually, one step at a time, what would be the one or two techniques you would recommend I start with?  I very much appreciate your help.
 * Richard27182 (talk) 08:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Richard27182 (talk) 08:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Lewis Powell in color??
&emsp;The artificial color in the photo adds nothing to the article. If anything it actually detracts from it by looking weird and out of place. The subject of the article and photo lived in the mid 1800's. They did not take color photos at that time, and having the photo appear in color will be distracting (and possibly even confusing) to the reader. &emsp;The original black and white photo would probably benefit from being cropped similar to the colorized version. If anyone wishes to contribute to the article by improving the photo, I would suggest cropping the original black and white photo (and keeping it black and white.) Richard27182 (talk) 09:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Useful links
You guys linked to "mule" but you can't link to Seward, Lincoln or numerous other topics that might actually be useful for the reader? This is a HUGE pet peeve of mine about Wikipedia. 174.108.61.203 (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You're wrong: Lincoln and Seward are linked to in the infobox. I dare you to find a "useful" link in the article that isn't appropriately linked. - Tim1965 (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Frederick Seward attack inconsistencies
In this article it is claimed that Powell fired at F. Seward's chest. In the pages on both F. Seward and George Robinson it is stated the gun was pointed at Seward's head. No citations are given anywhere. John Decker NZ (talk) 03:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The "Jameson 2013 p. 64" cite clearly says chest. Per WP:MOS, rather than citing every sentence where the same citation is used for each preceding claim, I put the citation at the end of the claims. I've added one for clarification. Wikipedia clearly provides for what to do when published, neutral, reliable sources conflict:  Add both claims to the article (with inline citations), and note the conflict either in the main body of the text or in a footnote.  I heartily encourage you to do so. Be bold! - Tim1965 (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

1 victim
It is stated at the start (under killings) that there was one victim. Who? John Decker NZ (talk) 03:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, shame I can't delete this.. I presume the victim was Lincoln. I initially assumed the reference to mean that Powell had killed someone. I now presume the victim reference is to the conspiracy, not the conspirator himself. John Decker NZ (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You are correct in your presumption. If you dislike this, raise the issue on the infobox's Talk page and begin the debate about whether and how to change it. - Tim1965 (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Kidnapping inconsistency (?)
John Surratt's page says "On March 17, 1865, Surratt and Booth, along with their comrades, waited in ambush for Lincoln's carriage to leave the Campbell General Hospital and return to Washington. However, Lincoln had changed his mind and remained in Washington."

Powell's page says "When Booth arrived at the Soldier's Home, he learned that Lincoln had decided to address a group of Indiana soldiers at a downtown hotel instead.[55] Powell and the other conspirators never left the tavern." - John Decker NZ (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Please note that the claim on the Surratt page is uncited. My tendency would be to rely on the Powell page (which has clear citations to both claims), and go raise this issue on the Surratt page. Better yet: Find some sources yourself that talk about what happened, and add the information and citations to both the Powell and Surratt pages. - Tim1965 (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Link needed
Link needed for George F Robinson's wiki page John Decker NZ (talk) 03:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Be bold! Go add the link yourself, if there is one. - Tim1965 (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Very useful John Decker NZ (talk) 10:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Fine, done it. John Decker NZ (talk) 10:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Grotesquely overdetailed
I realize someone's but a lot of effort into this article, but the overall effect is that it's grotesquely overdetailed to the point of being almost completely unreadable. For example:


 * Construction of the gallows near the northeast corner of the Arsenal courtyard began immediately on July 5 after the execution order was signed. They were 12 feet (3.7 m) high and the platform was about 20 square feet (1.9 m2) in size. Captain Christian Rath, who oversaw the preparations for the executions, made the nooses. He tested the nooses that night by tying them to a tree limb and a bag of buckshot, then tossing the bag to the ground (the ropes held). Government officials decided to have the dead buried on site at the Arsenal, to avoid despoilation of the graves or their transformation into a Confederate shrine. Superstitious civilian workers did not want to dig the graves, so Rath asked for volunteers among the soldiers at the Arsenal and received more help than he needed. The graves, which lay against the east wall of the Arsenal, were 4 feet (1.2 m) deep, 7 feet (2.1 m) long, and 3 feet (0.91 m) wide.

Really? The height of the gallows? Who made the nooses and tested the ropes? (Using buckshot, in case you were wondering.) The dimensions of the graves?

Are you wondering about what happened to the bodies (not just Powell's, but all of them)? You're in luck!

"The name of each person was written on a piece of paper by acting Assistant Adjutant R.A. Watts" – is including the name of the Acting Assistant Adjutant who wrote the names on the bits of paper some kind of joke? It's unreal.  E Eng  03:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lewis Powell (conspirator). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101207092603/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lincolnconspiracy/herald78.html to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lincolnconspiracy/herald78.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

excessive citations
There are a number of sentences in this article that are not just cited once, not just twice, not even thrice, but more than that, which is really overkill. Please trim some of these where possible. Thanks. — howcheng  {chat} 00:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Reinstating the albumen print
For unknown reasons the restored albumen print of the execution had been replaced with one of Alexander Gardner's glass plate negatives. The albumen print is a featured picture at Wikipedia and deserved discussion prior to replacement. More to the point, with regard to Lewis Powell in particular that image speaks to a minor disagreement among historians about the conspirators' execution.

The matter at issue was which conspirator survived longest.

There were two ways to die by hanging, one easier than the other. The more humane of the two was by severing the spine. Experienced executioners were expected to place the noose for that purpose. The other way was strangulation. Written accounts assert that Lewis Powell shook the noose out of position after the hangman had set it. Other written accounts claim that Powell struggled several minutes while he was hanging. The only surviving photograph that was taken nearest the moment when the execution was carried out is this albumen print, recorded in the Library of Congress image files as "the drop."

Historians parsing the written accounts have debated whether Lewis Powell or George Atzerodt survived the longest.

It's a delicate line to tread in this regard, but this digitally restored FP (and its source file) address that debate in ways no glass plate negative could hope to.

Mid-nineteenth century photographic technology was a tradeoff between high resolution/slow exposure glass plate negatives, or lower resolution/faster exposure albumen prints.

For that reason Gardner, the official photographer of the execution, kept two cameras ready: one for glass plate negatives and a separate one for faster albumen photography.

This was as close as the tech of the era could get to what we now think of as *the action shot.*

So the key thing, looking in at full resolution, is that in this albumen print Lewis Powell's motion blur minimizes on his center of gravity.

For all three of the other conspirators, that motion blur minimizes on the scaffold itself.

This suggests that at the moment the photograph was taken, Powell was the only one of the four still alive.

One treads lightly on such matters as an encyclopedia editor, since of course Wikipedia is a republisher of information rather than a publisher.

Yet I happen to be the editor of this image (on a new account for archaic password reasons), and happened to notice that this FP image had been supplanted even at the biography where it was most germane.

WP software does not make it obvious when an image has passed FP, or for what reasons.

While it was a delicate matter a decade ago to disclose the full scope of reasons why this image deserved to be featured, it seems best to leave readers to surmise for themselves--either through the restored image itself of through the linked source images--what the merits are about that (entirely text-based) debate. Durova 2 (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)