O to W Vote

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

…although it has to be said that the Canadian election blows a massive hole in any attempt to paint Tumblety as a Fenian. In fact it pretty much sinks the proposition.

Regarding Tumblety and the Colonial Parliamentary elections in Montreal in 1857/58, I’m afraid you’ve got it wrong Lechmere.

At the time a large percentage of the Irish population of the city supported Thomas D’Arcy McGee’s run for a seat in the Colonial Parliament. McGee, after all, had been brought to Montréal by the leaders of the Irish community in order to create and edit an Irish/English language/Catholic newspaper, the New Era, and, when the time was right, to run for Parliament as the Irish candidate. By the time McGee, once an Irish rebel leader who was part of an armed uprising against British rule, had moved to Canada from the U.S. his politics had changed substantially.

He had seen the way Irish immigrants had been forced to live in the ghettos of Boston and New York. He, at first, counselled that the Irish should stay in Ireland. Once in Canada he felt that if the Irish had to leave Ireland than they should choose Canada over the U.S. This was seen as traitorous by Irish Americans since McGee was supporting the British Colonies of North America over “freedom” in America. In Fenian circles it was suggested that McGee be assassinated for his treason (he later was).

Tumblety’s claim that he was “about to receive a numerously signed address” to run against McGee and that he had “every hope…of ultimate success” might be seen as an anti-British, pro-Fenian ploy (and ploy it was, since Tumblety had absolutely no chance of defeating McGee, or even coming close). However, since McGee loved to skewer Tumblety in the pages of the New Era, it is also likely that Tumblety was merely trying to get back at his tormentor by suggesting he could beat McGee.

Lynn.

Hello Edward. Do we know for certain that Littlechild was not directly involved in the investigation?

For some reason it is little noted that Lindsay Clutterbuck, who, as a Special Branch Officer, was able to look through Special Branch files, found, among other things, a ledger titled “Criminal Investigation Dept., Chief Constables Office, SPECIAL.” Clutterbuck mentions that Special Branch was actively involved in the Ripper Investigation and gave some examples.

Clutterbuck, who had read Stewart Evans and Paul Gainey’s book on Tumblety, was able to state that their case (against Tumblety) was “not supported” in the files but that an outline could “be constructed of an intriguing story involving an extreme Irish nationalist who is suspected of being ‘Jack the Ripper,’ an alleged plot to assassinate the Secretary for Ireland, Balfour, and the activities of a private detective agency.”

So, it looks as if Tumblety was not a major concern to Special Branch, and, possibly, no concern at all.

Wolf.

[lynn cates]

Sir Charles

Hello Wolf. Thanks.

I would have been shocked had SB been completely out of the loop. After all, Sir Charles mused that a secret society was involved in the murders.

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

Tumblety’s abortive election campaign in 1857.

Legislative elections were held in Canada in December 1857.
Montreal was one seat that returned three members.
Canadian politics was complex.

The Liberals or Radicals were allied to the French speaking Parti Rouge. They tended to somewhat favour republicanism, and opposed the nascent moves towards unifying the provinces of Canada, but favoured local self determination.

On the other side of the divide were the Conservatives (confusingly called Liberal-Conservatives) who were allied with the French speaking Parti Bleu. They were more pro Imperialist and wanted to unite the Canadian provinces into a federation.

There were different communities of French speakers, English Irish and Scots.
In Montreal, because there were three seats up for grabs, the various parties endeavoured to put forward a slate of candidates to appeal to all sectors, to maximise their potential.

This was the result of the Election
Antoine-Aime Dorion – Rouge (French community) – 4,332 votes - Elected
Thomas D’Arcy McGee – Rouge (Irish community) – 4,301 votes - Elected
John Rose – Conservative (Scottish community) - 4,192 votes -Elected
Luther Holton – Liberal (English community) - 4,103 votes
Henry Starnes – Conservative (English community) - 4,028 votes
George-Etienne Cartier - Bleu (French community) - 3,670 votes

It as a close result that returned a split vote with two members elected for the Rouge-Liberal block and one from the Bleu-Conservative block.

The Rouge-Liberals fielded a Frenchman, and Irishman and an Englishman.
The Bleu-Conservatives fielded a Frenchman, a Scotsman and an Englishman

One of the unsuccessful Conservatives – Henry Starnes – was listed in Tumblety’s 1866 book ‘A few passages in the Life of Francis Tumblety’ as giving him his endorsement.
Another Bleu – Lewis Drummond – was elected for the Shefford seat, which was an English speaking enclave. Drummond was to get his nose pushed out of joint soon after and he defected to the Liberals. Drummond represented Tumblety in a legal case earlier in 1857.

D’Arcy Magee started off as a radical Irish Nationalist but gradually changed. In 1857 he was still regarded as a pro Irish firebrand. He only moved to Canada in 1857 where his experiences gradually changed his views.
He served on a Conservative cabinet in 1863 and in 1867 was actually elected on the Conservative ticket. In revenge for his moderation he was assassinated by a Fenian in April 1868.
However it is important to remember that in 1857 he was still seen as a staunch defender of the Irish.
Tumblety said he was going to oppose him.

The only conceivable interest that could have been behind Tumblety’s abortive candidature was the Conservative one. They wanted a balanced ticket to draw Irish votes away from Magee, who had just turned up there. In the past the Conservatives had succeeded in attracting Irish votes in Montreal.
The Conservatives in 1857 were very hostile to Magee.
Tumblety had demonstrable connections to a Conservative candidate who was defeated by Magee – Starnes.
Independent candidates were very rare.

It is fairly obvious that Tumblety was proposed to represent the Irish interest on behalf of the Conservatives. No other explanation makes sense.

[Lechmere]

That Dunham stuff knocks away another plank.

[Lechmere]

There’s an added detail that I think clinches Tumblety’s abortive Conservative status in 1857.
Of the six candidates standing for Montreal, the most prominent came last – George Etienne Cartier. He was the leader of the Parti Bleu. In 1857 he was elected for the Vercheres district , a seat he had occupied since 1848. Why did he also stand in Montreal? His candidacy cannot have been that serious as, despite his prominence he came last, with the biggest gap separating him from the rest of the field. It points to Cartier being a make weight due to another candidate withdrawing.
Also Starnes was actually half French, so his candidacy would have satisfied the French community already. The Tory slate just lacked an Irishman.

[mklhawley]

Hi Wolf,

Finally a debate with someone who thinks and doesn't just craft an agenda. Even in our heated battles, I've never questioned your quest for truth. I just think you're wrong in this case. Back to battle.

Hi Mike.

I apologise to everyone at the start for the length of this.



Of course. There was an article on Tumblety and Dunham by Carman Cumming (the world authority on Charles Dunham) in 2006 and Tim Riordan’s ground breaking book on Tumblety in 2009. Sadly, after that there has been no objective and/or unbiased look at the subject worth reading.

Riordan's book is far from ground breaking. Prior to his writing it, he was spouting off anti-Tumblety beliefs, therefore, he wrote with bias. I've found numerous errors, and it was easy to do. When he recorded mere history, he did well. When it was something about minimizing his candidacy as a Ripper suspect, I searched and found errors. I've published some. Roger Palmer has done so, as well.

Case in point: your above post. Anyone who has actually read Cumming (once again, he’s the world authority on Charles Dunham) knows what Cumming’s views are concerning Dunham’s credibility:
“[he was a] spy, forger, reptile journalist, and dirty tricks artist” and that he had “a career in the black arts of propaganda and false information.”

I've read it, too, and what you're doing is cherry picking.


“A good deal of that material [research on Dunham] is still open to interpretation, but some striking patterns emerge. The most significant indicate that Dunham , for an extended period of the war, systematically and ingeniously faked stories damaging Confederates and Northern Peace Democrats. Circumstantial evidence suggests as well that many of these projects, and in his intrigues in the South and in Canada, he may have worked in collusion with someone at Washington. This in turn would imply a cover-up at the time of his assassination testimony – a careful silence by one or more officials who knew his murky background but said nothing. A rival theory is that he was all along a loose cannon, a capricious troublemaker with enormous ego, imagination, and gall, but the weight of the evidence suggest other-wise. At the least, it is certain that by the time of his assassination testimony, several Washington officials knew parts of his shady background and kept silent.
…Considering the genius of his lies, it is no surprise that researchers have come up with conflicting views of the man.



Notice the Dunham quote Cumming used to best encompass him:

“I do not believe in fighting the Devil with fair play and honesty, and claim the right to use his own weapons.” - Charles A. Dunham



He certainly did lie, but it was for a purpose. In the past you conflicted with what Cummings states. In April 2012, you stated,

“Since Dunham was a pathological liar, petty criminal, confidence man, forger, thief and reptile journalist (i.e. one who's newspaper stories are made up of lies) he's hardly the type of source any unbiased and objective observer would rely on.” (Casebook thread - How do Suspects Compare?, post 86)


According to New Health Guide, A pathological liar lies compulsively and impulsively, almost without thinking about the consequences of his action. He lies regularly on a spontaneous basis even if he gains no benefit from it, or even if he traps himself into it. A pathological liar cannot control his impulse to lie and it is usually a self-defeating trait.

Time and time again Cumming talks about his brilliant skill of deception. For example, he states, “Considering the genius of his lies, it is no surprise that researchers have come up with conflicting views of the man."


He clearly contradicts your belief.


The rest of your examples are mere cherry picking of a very complicated biography, but Cumming himself admits an incomplete understanding of Dunham. However, you claim he's a pathological liar.

Finally, Cumming sums up Dunham’s Tumblety tale this way:
“So while the truth of his Tumblety story remains clouded, there can be no doubt whatever of the complexity of Dunham’s lies. Each part of his Tumblety story will therefore have to be tested, piece by piece, against other available evidence.”

Here's what Cumming also states about Tumblety:

“The Chameleon’s later life is for the most part hidden… His later public ventures (except for the strange 1888 column on Dr. Tumblety) seem to have been confined mainly to attempts to tap into rich estates.”

Cumming, himself, admits the Tumblety column was out of Dunham's character later in life. I merely suggest, he's telling the truth, since that's what he did later in life, no longer baiting anyone as he did in the past.

As I have pointed out, time and time and time again, this has already been done by people like myself and Tim Riordan and everything, let me repeat that, EVERYTHING that Dunham has to say about Tumblety and his time in Washington has proved to be either wrong, a lie, or no source other than Dunham can be found.

You're again aligning yourself up with a person who created a wreck of a biography. I demonstrated that Riordan was wrong in his handling of Washington. I will deal with this bunk next week when I get back from my trip.

Sincerely,
Mike

[mklhawley]

That Dunham stuff knocks away another plank.

Not done, Ed.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Lechmere.

One thing we Canadians really love is when non-Canadians take an interest in our history, especially when they take the time and effort to do a little reading and then give us their thoughts. This goes double for a Canadian like myself who has a great interest in Canadian history and especially, as just one example, the life and times of Thomas D’Arcy McGee, one of my personal heroes, so I thank you for your post. However, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and there are a few problems with what you have written.

This was the result of the Election
Antoine-Aime Dorion – Rouge (French community) – 4,332 votes - Elected
Thomas D’Arcy McGee – Rouge (Irish community) – 4,301 votes - Elected
John Rose – Conservative (Scottish community) - 4,192 votes -Elected
Luther Holton – Liberal (English community) - 4,103 votes
Henry Starnes – Conservative (English community) - 4,028 votes
George-Etienne Cartier – Bleu (French community) - 3,670 votes

The actual final count stood as:

Elected –
Dorion – 4565
Rose – 4463
McGee – 4402
Defeated –
Starnes – 4337
Holton – 4289
Cartier – 3967

As you can see slightly less than 600 votes separated Dorian and Cartier, and McGee beat out Starnes by only 65 votes. It was an exceedingly close election.

It was a close result that returned a split vote with two members elected for the Rouge-Liberal block and one from the Bleu-Conservative block.

The Rouge-Liberals fielded a Frenchman, and Irishman and an Englishman.
The Bleu-Conservatives fielded a Frenchman, a Scotsman and an Englishman.

Independent candidates were very rare.

I wouldn’t say that independents were “very rare.” In the 1857 election, of the 65 seats in Canada East, 7 (10 percent) were won by independents. One of those was Thomas D’Arcy McGee who ran, was elected and took his seat as an independent.

Stating that “two members elected for the Rouge-Liberal block,” (ie Dorion and McGee) and that “The Rouge-Liberals fielded a Frenchman, and Irishman and an Englishman,” (Dorion, McGee and Holton) is wrong. As part of his election strategy McGee did eventually join with Dorion and Holton in an opposition alliance but that was in order to better fight against the Liberal Conservatives/Bleus block and the alliance ended on voting day.

However, the governing Liberal Conservatives/ Bleus coalition did, as you stated, put up Rose, Starnes and Cartier as their slate of candidates. 3 candidates for the 3 Montreal seats. No need for Tumblety.

There’s an added detail that I think clinches Tumblety’s abortive Conservative status in 1857.
Of the six candidates standing for Montreal, the most prominent came last – George Etienne Cartier. He was the leader of the Parti Bleu. In 1857 he was elected for the Vercheres district , a seat he had occupied since 1848. Why did he also stand in Montreal? His candidacy cannot have been that serious as, despite his prominence he came last, with the biggest gap separating him from the rest of the field. It points to Cartier being a make weight due to another candidate withdrawing.
Also Starnes was actually half French, so his candidacy would have satisfied the French community already. The Tory slate just lacked an Irishman.

Vercheres was only just across the St. Lawrence river from Montreal and, in fact, today it is part of Montreal. Cartier moved across the river in order to oppose the Rouges leader Dorion and to appeal to the French voters of Montreal. Starnes had very little support from the French, his mother not withstanding, and he couldn’t hope to defeat Dorion so Cartier attempted it. He failed, of course, and had to return to Vercheres to gain a seat in Parliament (something he found humiliating).

Cartier lost because, although they were returned to power in the 1857 election, there was a great deal of disaffection in Canada East over the policies and performance of the ruling Liberal Conservative/Bleus coalition. In fact, the coalition briefly lost power in July of 1858 before political manoeuvring (the notorious “Double Shuffle,”) by the Macdonald/Cartier government grabbed it quickly back again.

The only conceivable interest that could have been behind Tumblety’s abortive candidature was the Conservative one. They wanted a balanced ticket to draw Irish votes away from Magee, who had just turned up there. In the past the Conservatives had succeeded in attracting Irish votes in Montreal.

It is fairly obvious that Tumblety was proposed to represent the Irish interest on behalf of the Conservatives. No other explanation makes sense.

It was very unlikely that the Liberal Conservative/Bleus coalition could run any candidate that would be elected by the Irish voters of Montreal, especially against McGee (who was hand picked by the leaders of the Irish community and purposely brought to Montreal for that purpose). There was just too much hatred by the Irish of the right wing Liberal Conservative party. It was, after all, the party of the powerful anti Irish, anti Catholic Orange Order. Tensions were high in this very period and Catholic Irishmen were being beaten and even murdered by Orangemen who then got off scott free. St. Patrick Day parades had to be cancelled in Montreal and Toronto due to violence and the fear of violence. The question of catholic schools, which the coalition was against, in some cases rabidly so, was also high on a list of grievances which the Irish Catholics of Montreal held against the Macdonald/Cartier government. Still, the Irish only made up about a quarter of Montreal’s population in 1857 and seats could be had with the right French and Anglo candidates.

Cartier was French, the well known leader of the Bleus and an accomplished politician. John Rose was a close friend of John A. Macdonald and was a prominent lawyer who had just been made Solicitor General of Canada East. Henry Starnes was a prominent banker with a great deal of financial backing who was a close friend of Dr. Henry Howard, the head of Montreal’s Irish St. Patrick’s Society, and McGee’s campaign manager. These are the type of men chosen to campaign for the Liberal Conservative/Bleus coalition in Montreal in the election of 1857, not a 24 to 27 year old quack “doctor” who had been in Montreal for only 3 months and who had already been arrested for attempting to perform an abortion on a Montreal prostitute. An uneducated carpet bagger (before the term existed) who had been loudly ridiculed by McGee’s newspaper and denounced by the powerful Catholic church, in the form of Bishop Bourget. Your explanation makes no sense.

Wolf.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Mike.

Riordan's book is far from ground breaking. Prior to his writing it, he was spouting off anti-Tumblety beliefs, therefore, he wrote with bias. I've found numerous errors, and it was easy to do. When he recorded mere history, he did well. When it was something about minimizing his candidacy as a Ripper suspect, I searched and found errors. I've published some. Roger Palmer has done so, as well.

I think you will find that not many people will agree with you there. Tim’s thorough work, although not without its errors, is the book to read if you want a comprehensive look at the life of the quack doctor. Yes, it’s not a suspect book and Tim does show that much of what was first assumed to have been evidence against Tumblety was in fact wrong so I understand why you have so much disregard for it. However, I’m surprised that you find writing with bias so disagreeable. You certainly seem to have no problem writing with bias yourself and both you and Mr. Palmer probably shouldn’t throw the first stone.

I've read it, too, and what you're doing is cherry picking.

Which you attempt to prove by, well, cherry picking your rebuttal.

The rest of your examples are mere cherry picking of a very complicated biography…

Actually Mike the majority of the quotes I posted didn’t come from Cumming’s book on Dunham. Most of them came from Cumming’s Ripperologist article in which he, the world expert on Dunham, looks at Dunham’s article on Tumblety. You can cherry pick anything you want out of Cumming’s biography but very little of it is actually relevant to the Dunham/Tumblety question. With the Ripperologist article, however, Cumming focuses solely on Dunham’s trustworthiness as it applies to his New York World article on Tumblety. There is no “devil’s tools to fight the devil” here. It offers a clear and concise focus, by an unbiased expert, on the very thing that we have been discussing here and it neatly shows why you and your biased opinions are wrong. That Dunham’s words viz Tumblety should not be taken as truth.

Cumming himself admits an incomplete understanding of Dunham. However, you claim he's a pathological liar.

Yes, in the past I have used the terms pathological and compulsive liar to describe Dunham. That’s because Dunham’s whole life is based on lies and he made his living by lying, which is something that you refuse to even acknowledge. You give examples, cherry picked from Cumming, and state that Dunham only lied when he had a purpose. Let’s look at that, shall we?

In his younger days Dunham started out as a lawyer but soon found that he could make a better living by forgery, con games and scams. He and a group of conmen friends would run inheritance scams whereby they would steal money from grieving families and line their own pockets. He, therefore, made his living from his lies. This was all told fairly clearly in Cumming’s book and seems to completely disagree with your own theory. Inexplicably you made no mention of this in your article about Dunham. Instead you summed up Dunham’s early criminal activity by stating “Certain shady adventures to have been guided by a financial motive.” You really dropped the ball on that one.

At the start of the American Civil War the north was desperate for men and a call went out for regiments to be formed. Dunham announced in the New York newspapers that he was raising a regiment to be called the Cameron Legion with himself as its Colonel. In reality the raising of this regiment was an attempt to defraud the U. S. Government at a time of war. Its listed officers were either criminal cronies of Dunham’s or, like “Major Sandford Dockstader,” fake names. Although he claimed on several occasions to have raised over six hundred men, the actual number by October, 1861, was just 56 men. The figure was greatly inflated because Dunham repeatedly attempted to defraud the government for supposed expenses incurred in signing up men for his regiment (apparently the whole reason for saying he was raising a regiment). Eventually the State of New York annexed the handful of men of the Cameron Legion and added them to the 59th Regiment.

Again, this seems to totally disagree with your theory and, again, this was all laid out in Cumming’s book. However, once again, you inexplicably down play this sorry episode. While some people might think that a criminal attempt to defraud the Government at a time of war might lead to a firing squad you, in your Dunham article, state that Dunham had merely “[tried] to raise a New York regiment.” This begins to look like a disturbing trend.

At the end of the war Dunham started his so called “School for Perjury” in order to attempt to send certain high ranking Confederate officials to the gallows. Once again Dunham used his criminal pals, including his own wife and his sister-in-law, to set up an elaborate scheme to use lies, deception and perjury to hang men. The whole thing blew up in his face when the lies were discovered and Dunham was arrested, tried and convicted and sent to prison for perjury (ten years at hard labour). At his sentencing, the judge stated “Had you been tried before me for the perjuries you committed at the assassination trial I would have sentenced you to death.”

From his jail cell Dunham claimed that he could provide (false) information to the enemies of the President of the United States, Johnson, that would bring down the President. But only if they could get him a pardon. What do you say about all of this? “The result was Dunham being convicted for perjury and getting prison time. This seems to have been another case of fighting the devil with the devil’s own weapons.” No mention of the actual seriousness of Dunham’s lies, or of his attempt to bring down the President of the United States with his lies in order to get himself out of jail, something Cumming calls “one of the most astonishing [plays] of an astonishing life.”

Dunham’s later life is obscured. He was, reportedly, connected to the (probably forged) Pickett Papers and other Republican Party attempts at destroying the southern Democrats. He probably wrote the false biography of Loreta Velazquez. He definitely returned to his early life’s inheritance scams as seen by the Hesdra inheritance fight. His Tumblety article(s), checked with the known facts and found to be full of lies, came out. All lies and activities based on lies. All designed to put money in his pockets through the use of deception. Much like his worthless Tumblety article.

Wolf.

[Lechmere]

Wolf
I personally doubt that Tumblety was genuinely asked to stand for election in Montreal. It was almost certainly a flight of fancy but based on a degree of reality.
He certainly mixed in political circles as seen by his legal representation in 1857.
He had run ins, with D’Arcy McGee and his claim was that he was going to stand against him.
Political labels were vague in those days. D’Arcy McGee clearly stood as part of the Liberal/Rouge slate, even if technically he was an independent.
Genuine unattached independents were rare, particularly in a multi member seat.
The faction that D’Arcy McGgee opposed in 1857 was the Conservative-Bleu coalition.
Given that Tumblety specifically claimed a connection to the defeated Conservative candidate Starnes it only makes sense that his claim to be offered a seat was linked to the Conservatives.
(Although I suspect his claim to know anybody was unlikely to be reciprocated in the opposite direction).
Cartier stood for election in two seats in 1857 - Vercheres and Montreal. He was elected unopposed for Vercheres.
I would suggest the likely scenario was that at one point there was uncertainty about who was going to fill the extra Montreal berth for the Conservatives and Tumblety suggested himself or was half-jokingly suggested by someone else or was suggested by a flatterer. I doubt it was at all serious.
The Tories won in Montreal in 1844 partly because they won over the Irish vote. So there was a history of the Irish voting Conservative in that city.
D’Arcy McGee went over to the Conservatives in 1863 without compromising, in his eyes, his pro-Irish sentiments.
So I don’t think it was black and white so far as the Conservatives and the Irish were concerned.
It seems clear that Tumblety fraternised with the Montreal Conservatives, so it surely makes sense that he flattered himself that he could have been a contender on their behalf.
(I got my voting figures from Cartier’s biography).

I don’t think it makes any sort of sense to suggest that Tumblety’s abortive electoral enterprise was as a genuine Irish independent. It would have been a very foolhardy thing to even consider attempting without any backing.
The reason Tumblety advertised his abortive electoral outing was surely to give him credibility and stature – which again I would suggest implies that it would have been through a connection to the party of Government.

[GUT]

I suspect that someone may have said to Francis "You should go into politics" and for a narcissist like he seems to have been would have blown that into an invite to run for Prime Minister.

[Lechmere]

Yes I suspect something like that was the case.
You often get criminal or let's say dodgy types palling up to mainstream political parties as they think the association gives them credibility and a sense of worthiness and public spiritedness. It makes them feel better about themselves. I known people who do it nowadays - claiming they have been offered to fight council seats for the Conservatives for example, and reluctantly and bashfully refusing.

[mklhawley]

Hi Wolf,

I just got back and have noticed your reply. Brilliant work, but there's more to it. I re-read Cumming's Devil's Game again. Carmen Cummings comments about Dunham returning from the Confederate South after being jailed,


In 1863 when he was “captured” in the South (or went there to defect), he claimed to be a Northern colonel who wanted to change his coat, and he actually talked his way to the office of the Confederate secretary of war, where he secured approval of a plan to raise a rebel regiment in Maryland. Arrested again a few days later after more suspicious conduct, he was held for three months in the notorious prison “Castle Thunder” and was then sent back North by truce boat, still insisting on his Southern loyalty. But on arrival in the North, his first known contacts were with Colonel Baker, the secret-police officer, and President Lincoln himself. (p. 29)


Who would get an audience with the head of the Union’s espionage program and the President of the United States is you weren’t anything other than a double agent?


Let me repeat that.


Who would get an audience with the head of the Union’s espionage program and the President of the United States is you weren’t anything other than a double agent?


Far from being a completely untrustworthy pathological liar.


Something Cummings did not discuss… Edwin C. Fishel of the Washington Post, in The Secret War for the Union, writes about Colonel Baker,

The service of these agents during the chaotic weeks when an army was being assembled at Washington and the existence of William Parson's group of agents have hitherto been unknown. However, one agent who went into action in this period has been far from obscure. This was Lafayette C. Baker, a red-bearded, lean man of thirty-four years, a native of upstate New York, lately a San Francisco vigilante. Baker was to become famous, and infamous, as the government's chief detective. He entered the service in February, possibly as one of Colonel Stone's detectives; in July he performed one of his very few ventures in military espionage…

…At first Baker was a civilian employee, then a colonel, finally a brigadier general. Though working initially for General Scott, he was nominally subordinate to Secretary of State Seward. When Stanton became secretary of war he brought Baker into the War Department, where his status was first that of "Special Agent" and then "Special Provost-Marshal." He reported to the "Special Judge Advocate," Major (later Lieutenant Colonel) Levi C. Turner, a lawyer associate of Stanton's who did not allow his inferior rank to soften the orders he gave Colonel (or General) Baker.

Baker was employed as a spy at the exact time Dunham went to Washington, seemingly to lead a regiment as a Colonel (this was when Dunham met Tumblety). The regiment did not happen, but Baker’s fellow New Yorker, Dunham apparently began his Civil War spy business.

Just as I pointed out earlier, Cumming stated that his 1888 Tumblety interview was out of character for the older Dunham. Cumming merely assumed Dunham was up to his old purposeful lying tricks from decades earlier, but that is now out of character! Or, Dunham remembered Tumblety and believed Tumblety had it in him to be JTR.

Wolf, you say everything in Dunham’s report was a pack of lies, but Cumming disagrees. He states,

“It may contain some truth about his Washington visits, however, or at least about the persona he cultivated late in life.” (p.51)


So, which part does Cumming believe was the truth? The anatomical collection,


“Tumblety’s congenital lying and strange lifestyle (including a collection of odd medical specimens) would get him into trouble. After being run out of Canada, where he claimed to …” (p.50)


Even with all of this, I want to repeat that Tumblety had every reason to own an anatomical collection, since this was the way to convince the General's officer's that he was a legit physician, since he didn't have a diploma to do that. Also, it was out of Dunham's later in life persona (as Cumming admits) to go public like in the old days.

Thanks Wolf.

Mike

[mklhawley]

It won't let me edit again. I meant:

Who would get an audience with the head of the Union’s espionage program and the President of the United States if you weren’t anything other than a double agent?

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Mike.

I just got back and have noticed your reply. Brilliant work, but there's more to it. I re-read Cumming's Devil's Game again. Carmen Cummings comments about Dunham returning from the Confederate South after being jailed,

In 1863 when he was “captured” in the South (or went there to defect), he claimed to be a Northern colonel who wanted to change his coat, and he actually talked his way to the office of the Confederate secretary of war, where he secured approval of a plan to raise a rebel regiment in Maryland. Arrested again a few days later after more suspicious conduct, he was held for three months in the notorious prison “Castle Thunder” and was then sent back North by truce boat, still insisting on his Southern loyalty. But on arrival in the North, his first known contacts were with Colonel Baker, the secret-police officer, and President Lincoln himself. (p. 29)

Who would get an audience with the head of the Union’s espionage program and the President of the United States is you weren’t anything other than a double agent?

Let me repeat that.

Who would get an audience with the head of the Union’s espionage program and the President of the United States is you weren’t anything other than a double agent?

Far from being a completely untrustworthy pathological liar.

I notice that you have used this very same argument (including the quote from Cumming’s book) in the past. Unfortunately there are problems with it.

First of all, this quote doesn’t appear on page 29 but on page 9. A small error. However,
more importantly, you have stated (twice) that Dunham had “an audience with the head of the Union’s espionage program and the President of the United States” after his return from the South. I suppose you have taken Cumming’s use of the word “contacts” to mean actual face to face meetings. You are wrong.

Let me repeat that, you are wrong.

In actual fact Dunham only wrote letters to Baker and President Lincoln. He might have met with Baker, because he stated that he had information to give him about John H. Sherman, an actual northern spy who was held in the same prison in the South, but there is no record that he actually ever did. He certainly had no “audience” with Lincoln as you have stated. The White House merely forwarded his letter, about leading a far fetched military raid on Richmond in order to capture Davis, to the War Department. It apparently wasn’t taken very seriously.

Just as I pointed out earlier, Cumming stated that his 1888 Tumblety interview was out of character for the older Dunham. Cumming merely assumed Dunham was up to his old purposeful lying tricks from decades earlier, but that is now out of character! Or, Dunham remembered Tumblety and believed Tumblety had it in him to be JTR.

Yes. Oddly nowhere does Cumming actually states this. Nowhere does he suggest, even, that lies and forgery where “out of character” for an older Dunham. This is your own idea which you use to try and bolster your own worthless (according to Cumming and the available evidence) theory. In his Ripperologist article Cumming says:

“After his [Dunham’s] release [from Federal prison for perjury], Dunham’s life becomes almost as shadowy as Tumblety’s. He did do legal work in New Jersey before his death there in 1900, but again, his status is uncertain and his work seemed focused on efforts to tap into large estates [i.e. steal inheritance money from wealthy estates]. His account of Tumblety in the New York World – which reads more like a written article than an interview [i.e. that Dunham wrote the entire thing] – must, therefore, remain in the highly doubtful category.”

Wolf, you say everything in Dunham’s report was a pack of lies, but Cumming disagrees. He states,
“It may contain some truth about his Washington visits, however, or at least about the persona he cultivated late in life.” (p.51)

So, which part does Cumming believe was the truth? The anatomical collection,

“Tumblety’s congenital lying and strange lifestyle (including a collection of odd medical specimens) would get him into trouble. After being run out of Canada, where he claimed to …” (p.50)

The above comes from Cumming’s 2004 book Devil’s Game. The book is an in depth biography of the life of Charles A. Dunham. One tiny portion of that biography deals with Dunham’s 1888 New York World article on Tumblety. Cumming’s information on Tumblety comes from Stewart Evans and Paul Gainey’s 1996 book Jack the Ripper; First American Serial Killer in which they state that Tumblety had an anatomical collection. In 2006 Cumming wrote an article for Ripperologist magazine which deals specifically with Dunham’s Tumblety article. This article offers Cumming’s latest word, thoughts and opinions on Dunham and Tumblety and have, therefore, superseded his 2004 book. You, therefore, are citing, and clinging to, out of date opinions. Cumming no longer believes that there is any evidence beyond Dunham’s lies proving that Tumblety owned an anatomical collection.

Wolf.