Shane Mage
"Thunderbolt steers all things." Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 64
>http://www.snopes.com/errata/linckenn.htm
>
>Legend: A number of amazing coincidences can be found between the
>assassinations of Abraham
> Lincoln and John F. Kennedy.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Example:
>
> Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846.
> John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946.
>
> Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860.
> John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.
>
> The names Lincoln and Kennedy each contain seven letters.
>
> Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.
>
> Both wives lost their children while living in the White House.
>
> Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.
>
> Both were shot in the head.
>
> Lincoln's secretary, Kennedy, warned him not to go to the theatre.
>
> Kennedy's secretary, Lincoln, warned him not to go to Dallas.
>
> Both were assassinated by Southerners.
>
> Both were succeeded by Southerners.
>
> Both successors were named Johnson.
>
> Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808.
> Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908.
>
> John Wilkes Booth was born in 1839.
> Lee Harvey Oswald was born in 1939.
>
> Both assassins were known by their three names.
>
> Both names are comprised of fifteen letters
>
> Booth ran from the theater and was caught in a warehouse.
> Oswald ran from a warehouse and was caught in a theater.
>
> Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their trials.
>
> Origins: Not long after the assassination of President John F.
>Kennedy in 1963, the above list of
> amazing coincidences appeared, and it has been widely and continuously
>reprinted and circulated ever
> since. Despite the seemingly impressive surface appearance, several of
>these entries are either
> misleading or factually incorrect, and the rest are mere superficial
>coincidences that fail to touch upon
> the substantial differences and dissimilarities that underlie them.
>
> Let's examine them one at a time:
>
> Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846.
> John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946.
>
> This statement is literally true: both Lincoln and Kennedy were first
>elected to Congress one hundred
> years apart. Aside from that minor coincidence, however, their
>political careers bore little resemblance to
> each other.
>
> Lincoln was an Illinois state legislator who, outside of his election
>to a single term in the House of
> Representatives, failed in his every attempt to gain national political
>office until he was elected President
> in 1860, including an unsuccessful bid for the Senate in 1854, a
>unsuccessful bid to become the
> Republican vice-presidential candidate in 1856, and another
>unsuccessful bid for a Senate seat in 1858.
>
> Kennedy, on the other hand, enjoyed an unbroken string of political
>successes at the national level
> when he entered the political arena after World War II. He was elected
>to the House of Representatives
> in 1946, re-elected in 1948, re-elected again in 1950, won a Senate
>seat in 1952, was re-elected to the
> Senate in 1958, and was elected President in 1960.
>
> Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860.
> John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.
>
> It's hardly surprising that two men who (as noted above) both achieved
>their first political successes at
> the national level a hundred years apart would also ascend to the
>Presidency a hundred years apart.
> This "coincidence" is even less surprising when we consider that
>presidential elections are held only
> once every four years. Lincoln couldn't possibly have been elected
>President in 1857 or 1858 or 1859 or
> 1861 or 1862 or 1863, because no presidential elections were held in
>those years. Likewise, Kennedy
> couldn't possibly have been elected President in the non-election years
>of 1957, 1958, 1959, 1961,
> 1962, or 1963. So, even though both men were politically active at the
>national level during eight-year
> spans when they might have been elected President, circumstances
>dictated that the only years during
> those spans when they both could have been elected were exactly one
>hundred years apart.
>
> Also unmentioned here is the fact that Lincoln was re-elected to a
>second term as President, but
> Kennedy was killed before the completion of his first term.
>
> The names Lincoln and Kennedy each contain seven letters.
>
> Surely this is the most trivial of coincidences, especially considering
>that the two men's first names
> contain different numbers of letters, and that Kennedy had a middle
>name (Fitzgerald) while Lincoln had
> none.
>
> We're supposed to be amazed at minor happenstances such as the two
>men's being elected exactly one
> hundred years apart or having the same number of letters in their last
>names, but we're supposed to
> think nothing of the numerous non-coincidences: Lincoln was born in
>1809; Kennedy was born in 1917.
> Lincoln died in 1865; Kennedy died in 1963. Lincoln was 56 years old at
>the time of his death; Kennedy
> was 46 years old at the time of his death. No striking coincidences or
>convenient hundred-year
> differences in any of those facts. Even when we consider that, absent
>all other factors, the two men had
> a one in twelve chance of dying in the same month, we find no
>coincidence there: Lincoln was killed in
> April; Kennedy was killed in November.
>
> Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.
>
> This is one of the statements that is so misleadingly worded (or
>downright inaccurate) that it doesn't
> really merit inclusion even on a list of mere superficial similarities.
>
>
> First of all, saying that Lincoln and Kennedy were both "particularly
>concerned with civil rights" is like
> saying that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt were both
>"particularly concerned with war," or that
> Herbert Hoover and Ronald Reagan were both "particularly concerned with
>economics." Neither Lincoln
> nor Kennedy evinced a "particular interest" in civil rights, and to all
>appearances, both would willingly
> have maintained the racial status quo had events beyond their control
>not forced their hands.
>
> Although Lincoln was personally opposed to slavery, his primary concern
>with the issue was how its
> divisiveness affected the United States, not the liberation of the
>black man. Had the Union been able to
> survive half slave and half free without erupting into war, Lincoln's
>stated position was that he would
> have allowed the institution of slavery to remain intact and die a slow
>death. And whatever Lincoln's
> personal feelings about the equality of blacks, he didn't espouse
>support for their "civil rights" because
> he believed that white society would never accept them as equals.
>Lincoln's only real expression of "civil
> rights" was his support for the idea of relocating free blacks to
>Liberia so they could live apart from
> whites in a separate society. Even Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation
>was issued as an exigency of
> war, not as measure intended to permanently end slavery in the USA, and
>constitutional amendments
> ending slavery and guaranteeing citizens of all races the right to vote
>were not enacted until after
> Lincoln's death.
>
> In Kennedy's case, it was only after racial crises such as the
>University of Mississippi's refusal to admit
> a black student (James Meredith) to attend class and the bombing of the
>16th Street Baptist Church in
> Birmingham, Alabama, that he belatedly moved to promote civil rights
>legislation. Even then, his lack of
> support in Congress (and, ultimately, his assassination) meant that the
>task of passing civil rights
> legislation (such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights
>Act of 1965) fell to his successor,
> Lyndon Johnson.
>
> Both wives lost their children while living in the White House.
>
> Another statement that, while literally true, is misleading and masks
>much more substantial
> dissimilarities.
>
> The circumstances and nature of the deaths alluded to here are
>completely different, and the way the
> statement is phrased ("Both wives lost their children") implies that
>both women suffered the misfortune
> of a stillbirth or the death of an infant, something that is true only
>of Mrs. Kennedy.
>
> All of Lincoln's children were born before he entered the White House,
>and the Lincolns actually lost two
> children, not just one (although only one died during Lincoln's tenure
>as President). Edward Lincoln
> died of tuberculosis in 1850, just before his fourth birthday, and the
>Lincolns' eleven-year-old son Willie
> succumbed to typhoid at the end of their first year in the White House.
>
>
> The Kennedys, on the other hand, were the rare Presidential couple
>still young enough to be bearing
> children after entering the White House, and a premature child born to
>Mrs. Kennedy in 1963 died two
> days later.
>
> Other differences: The Lincolns had four children, all boys, only one
>of whom lived past his teens. The
> Kennedys had three children, two boys and a girl, two of whom have
>survived well into adulthood.
>
> Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.
>
> Another non-surprise. Absent all other factors, the odds were already
>one in seven that both killings
> would have occurred on the same day of the week. Add to that the
>obvious notions that the best chance
> the average person has to shoot a President is at a public function and
>that most public functions are
> held on weekends, and it becomes even more likely that a President
>would be killed on a Friday,
> Saturday, or Sunday. (Indeed, an earlier plot by Booth to kidnap
>Lincoln while the latter was attending a
> play at the Campbell Hospital was slated for March 17, also a Friday.)
>
> Both were shot in the head.
>
> This "coincidence" is just plain dumb. The only two types of shots
>which reasonably assure a dead
> victim are chest shots and head shots, so two assassinations committed
>by head shots aren't the least
> bit coincidental, especially considering that since both Lincoln and
>Kennedy were shot from behind and
> while seated, their assassins had no other practical choice of target.
>And the "coincidence" here is even
> less surprising when we consider the differences: Lincoln was killed
>indoors with a small handgun at
> point blank range; Kennedy was shot outdoors with a rifle from several
>hundred feet away.
>
> Lincoln's secretary, Kennedy, warned him not to go to Ford's
>Theatre.
> Kennedy's secretary, Lincoln, warned him not to go to Dallas.
>
> This is one of those coincidences that isn't a coincidence at all --
>it's simply wrong. John Kennedy did
> have a secretary named Evelyn Lincoln (who may or may not have warned
>him about going to Dallas),
> but one searches in vain to find a Lincoln secretary named Kennedy.
>(Lincoln's White House secretaries
> were John G. Nicolay and John Hay.)
>
> The more important point is that since Presidents are frequent
>recipients of assassination threats, they
> rarely make any public appearances without somebody's warning them of
>potential danger. Only on the
> extemely rare occasions when a tragedy actually occurs do we later take
>note of the warnings; in all
> other cases the failed "prophecies" are quickly forgotten. (Lincoln
>received "an unusual number of letters
> about plots to kidnap or assassinate him," said to have numbered at
>least eighty, yet none of those plots
> were enacted.) Nor does anyone think to mention other attempts at
>kidnap or assassination that were
> not preceded by any recorded warnings to the victims. (Lincoln was shot
>at on at least one other
> occasion.)
>
> Yes, Lincoln was warned not to go to Ford's Theatre by persons
>concerned for his safety, just as he had
> been warned not to visit Richmond a week earlier, and just as he had
>been warned not to attend his
> own inauguration in 1861. Obviously, only one of the myriad of warnings
>he received throughout his
> four years in office was on the mark. Likewise, Kennedy was warned not
>to visit San Antonio the day
> before his trip to Dallas (and undoubtedly before a host of other
>appearances as well), but only the last
> warning he allegedly received is considered significant, because it
>coincidentally happened to come true.
> As Jeane Dixon and other "psychics" have demonstrated, if you make
>enough predictions, one of them
> is eventually bound to come true -- just as a stopped clock is also
>right twice a day.
>
> Both were assassinated by Southerners.
>
> A dubious use of the term "Southerner." Although John Wilkes Booth was
>undeniably a Southern
> sympathizer, he was born in Maryland, which (along with Delaware) was
>the northernmost of the border
> slave states and remained part of the Union throughout the Civil War.
>Additionally, Booth spent a good
> deal of his life in the North and "thought of himself as a Northerner
>who understood the South."
>
> Oswald was nominally a Southerner by virtue of his having been born in
>New Orleans; he spent his
> youth being shuttled between Lousiana, Texas, and New York before
>finally joining the Marines. But
> Oswald's "Southerness" is of no real import, because, unlike Booth,
>Oswald was not motivated by a
> regional affiliation.
>
> Both were succeeded by Southerners.
>
> Both Lincoln and Kennedy were "succeeded by Southerners" because both
>had Southerners as
> vice-president, another fact hardly surprising considering the
>circumstances. Lincoln was a Northern
> Republican running for re-election while the country was in the midst
>of a civil war and needed a
> Southerner and a Democrat to balance the ticket, hence his choice of
>Tennessean Andrew Johnson.
> Kennedy, represented New England and therefore needed a
>vice-presidential candidate who could
> appeal to the populous Southern and Western regions, hence his choice
>of a Southwesterner, Texan
> Lyndon Johnson.
>
> The identification of Andrew Johnson as a "Southerner" is also a bit
>problematic here. Although
> Johnson was born in North Carolina and spent his adult life in
>Tennessee (both slave states), Johnson
> was also the only Southern senator who refused to follow his state when
>it seceded, and he remained
> loyal to the Union.
>
> Both successors were named Johnson.
>
> Given the high frequency of "Johnson" (literally "son of John") as a
>surname in both Lincoln's and
> Kennedy's time, this "coincidence" should be no real surprise to
>anyone.
>
> Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808.
> Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908.
>
> Another hundred-year coincidence that is hardly surprising, since
>nearly all American politicians have
> attained high office (President or Vice-President) while in the 50-70
>age range (and Andrew Johnson and
> Lyndon Johnson were, obviously, contemporaries of Lincoln and Kennedy,
>respectively). Perhaps it's
> time to point out that there's nothing "coincidental" about events
>merely because they somehow involve
> the number 100. If we sifted through all the Lincoln/Kennedy data, we
>could produce multiple instances
> of events involving the number 17 or 49 or 116, but nobody would
>consider those "coincidences"
> because they don't yield nice round numbers that have any significance
>to us, even though they're all
> just as "coincidental" as the number 100.
>
> And once again, let's consider all the differences between the two
>Johnsons, such as that one hailed
> from North Carolina while the other was from Texas, or that one
>supported slavery while the other
> championed civil rights, or that one was never elected President in his
>own right while the other won
> the biggest presidential landslide in history, or that one was
>impeached while the other wasn't, or that
> one became President at the end of a war while the other became
>President at the beginning of a war.
>
> John Wilkes Booth was born in 1839.
> Lee Harvey Oswald was born in 1939.
>
> Another coincidence that is no coincidence because it's plain wrong:
>Booth was born in 1838, not 1839.
>
> Both assassins were known by their three names.
>
> Another "coincidence" of dubious veracity. John Wilkes Booth was often
>billed as "J. Wilkes Booth" or
> simply "John Wilkes" (primarily to distinguish himself from his father
>and brother -- both named Junius
> -- and his brother Edwin, all three of whom were also actors), and as a
>prominent actor, his name was
> already familiar to the general public at the time of Lincoln's
>assassination. Lee Oswald was generally
> referred to as "Lee" (not "Lee Harvey") before Kennedy's assassination
>and was unknown to the general
> public until his arrest; the common usage of his full name only came
>about after the assassination
> because his habitual employment of false names (including several
>variations on his real name) and his
> possession of forged identification cards made it difficult for the
>Dallas police to identify him.
>
> Both names are comprised of fifteen letters
>
> Coincidence? None of their first, middle, or last names have the same
>number of letters. And why
> should it be significant that both assassins had the same number of
>letters in their full names when the
> same wasn't true of Abraham Lincoln and John Fitzgerald Kennedy, or of
>Andrew Johnson and Lyndon
> Baines Johnson?
>
> Once again, perhaps we should focus on the substantive differences
>between the two men: Booth was
> born into a prominent family and, like his father, was a well-known,
>popular, gregarious actor. Oswald
> was born (and lived most of his life) in near poverty-level
>circumstances, never knew his father (who died
> two months before Oswald was born) and was an obscure, moody malcontent
>who never had any close
> friends or a steady job. Oswald was married with two children; Booth
>had neither wife nor offspring.
> Oswald enlisted in the Marines, but Booth kept a promise to his mother
>not to join the Confederate
> army.
>
> Booth ran from the theater and was caught in a warehouse.
> Oswald ran from a warehouse and was caught in a theater.
>
> Another "coincidence" that is both inaccurate and superficial.
>
> Booth shot Lincoln in a theatre of the type where live stage shows are
>held, then fled across state lines
> before being trapped and killed in a barn used for storage (not a
>"warehouse") several days later.
>
> Oswald shot Kennedy from (not in) a textbook warehouse, then remained
>in Dallas and was caught and
> taken alive in a movie theater a little over an hour later.
>
> Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their trials.
>
> Another superficial similarity with much more significant underlying
>differences, and a potentially
> dubious use of the word "assassinated."
>
> After Booth shot Lincoln, he fled the scene and eventually (with
>co-conspirator, David Herold) crossed
> the Potomac from Maryland into Virginia, eluding capture for a total of
>eleven days before federal troops
> finally discovered him to be hiding on a farm belonging to Richard
>Garrett and surrounded the barn in
> which he and Herold were sleeping. The two men were ordered to
>surrender: Herold complied, but when
> Booth failed to drop his weapon and come out, the barn was set ablaze.
>A trooper named Boston
> Corbett, who was watching Booth through a gap in the barn's siding,
>shot the assassin. Whether
> Corbett can be said to have "assassinated" Booth is problematic -- the
>deeply religious Corbett
> sometimes claimed that he had shot Booth because "Providence directed"
>him to do it or because he "did
> not want Booth to be roasted alive," but he also testified that he shot
>Booth because he "saw [Booth] in
> the act of stooping or springing and concluded he was going to use his
>weapons."
>
> Oswald left the warehouse from which he shot Kennedy and was arrested
>in a movie theater a little over
> an hour later by police officers who had no idea who he was. (Oswald
>was initially arrested only for the
> murder of Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit, whom he shot while in
>flight; his connection to the Kennedy
> assassination was not established until later.) Oswald was captured
>alive and remained in custody for
> two days before being gunned down by Jack Ruby, a private citizen.
>
> Other differences: Booth was shot in the back in the neck and lived for
>another three hours; Oswald
> was shot in the abdomen and was DOA at Dallas Memorial Hospital.
>
> A month before Lincoln was assassinated he was in Monroe,
>Maryland.
> A month before Kennedy was assassinated he was in Marilyn Monroe.
>
> This is a latter-day addition to the list and nothing more than a bit
>of salacious humor. Even as a
> humorous coincidence it fails the test, as Marilyn Monroe died well
>over a year before Kennedy's
> assassination.
>
>
>
> So what are we to make of all this? How do we account for all these
>coincidences, no matter how
> superficial they may be, and why do so many people find this list so
>compelling?
>
> The coincidences are easily explained as the simple product of mere
>chance. It's not difficult to find
> patterns and similarities between any two marginally-related sets of
>data, and coincidences similar in
> number and kind can be (and have been) found between many different
>pairs of Presidents. Our
> tendency to seek out patterns wherever we can stems from our desire to
>make sense of our world; to
> maintain a feeling that our universe is orderly and can be understood.
>In this specific case two of our
> most beloved Presidents were murdered for reasons that make little or
>no sense to many of us, and by
> finding patterns in their deaths we also hope to find a larger cosmic
>"something" that seemingly provides
> some reassuring (if indefinite) rhyme or reason why these great men
>were prematurely snatched from
> our mortal sphere.
>
> Last updated: 12 June 1999
>
>
> The URL for this page is
>http://www.snopes.com/errata/linckenn.htm
> Please use this URL in all links or
>references to this page