Was Stanton a murder target?

[Wild Bill]

Thanks, John Fazio.

Now as to presidential succession, Lafayette Foster was in line next after Johnson. But I am really not sure it matters much. Foster was recognized as a weak man. I would swear that I read that his weakness was looked on by the plotters as one of the main reasons they looked forward to his taking over the US Govt. He would be too slow to act. But they reckoned without Stanton. There was or would have been a natural power vacuum after Lincoln's death and into such a gap the powerful flow. So one way or the other, barring his own death, Stanton was in the direct line of succession through his own forceful personality and the fact that the pursuit was largely a military operation and he was Sec'y of War. Johnson was it too ill to do much until the end of May 1865, when he introduced his own plans of Reconstruction. But this was after the trial executions of the conspirators, most of which he was satisfied to let others, i.e., Yankees, handle.

[RJNorton]

(10-17-2016 06:45 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  a. The April 10, 1865, letter to Booth, signed T.I.O.S, states that one assassin had been assigned for each member of Lincoln's cabinet.

In Frank Flowers' book on Stanton the conversation between Booth and Coyle is reported somewhat differently than in the article by Messrs Hall and Maione. This is the way the conversation goes in Flowers' book:

Booth: "Coyle, what would happen if Lincoln were removed?"

Coyle: "You would have Andrew Johnson, not so good a man as Lincoln, for president."

Booth: "What if Andrew Johnson, too, were dead?"

Coyle: "The president of the Senate would succeed as president."

Booth: "What if Lincoln, his Cabinet, and all the constitutional successors were out of the way."

Coyle: "You would have anarchy - but what are you talking about? There are no Brutuses in these days."

Booth: "That's so; no Brutuses in these days."

If Flowers is correct on the conversation - I just wonder if Booth incorrectly thought the line of succession included the entire Cabinet, with Seward and Stanton at the head of the list. (?)

[STS Lincolnite]

Some additional thoughts.

To some degree, I think the actual legislated line of presidential succession, was irrelevant. It only mattered what Booth and his action team or other potential assassins ("the NY group"?) believed was the line of succession. Roger your idea of how that conversation might have influenced Booth's thought process and then actions is a good one. This belief as to a line of succession is part of what would drive their potential targets with respect to that process and attempting to decapitate the govt as John F and others have discussed. Also, I would think that Stanton, in charge of the war department (not to mention the manner in which he did his job) would make him a potential target regardless of the fact that he was not technically in the line presidential succession. Same with Seward. Many in the South (and probably North too) reviled him and may still have seen him as pulling Lincoln's strings thereby wanted him gone as well. As Bill stated, in the absence of Lincoln and Johnson, Stanton (and I think Seward too) would have been the two to have potentially stepped up to fill a power vacuum and thereby, functionally, been part of the Presidential succession though not technically so.

An additional thought on Seward. When looking into the line of presidential succession for some lectures I gave, there were a few fuzzy areas related to the acting president and the election of a new President as articulated in the Presidential Succession Act of 1792. If I remember correctly the Secretary of State had some role in the election process for the new President (the Senate President Pro Tem was only “acting President” until a new President could be elected.) It was put forward by one author (can't remember which one) that it was the role of the Secretary of State to call the electors together in order to elect the new president when President and VP were not able to function in the role of President and then to certify the election results in such a case. I don’t recall that is explicitly stated in the Act, and I don't know if that is accurate, but I imagine without direct clarity there could be many interpretations of how that election process would or should go. Had Booth and team been successful in eliminating all their targets, with Seward dead, there would be a question as to how the election of the new President would be handled. Certainly any debate over interpretation of the succession, how to move forward to restore the executive branch of the government, how to actually administer the executive office, how to direct the war effort, and the inevitable political power grab would take time and would be a nightmare. The government would likely have been paralyzed (at least for some time) and the so-called "Constitutional crisis" as we have heard for a long time would probably have come to pass.

[Gene C]

(10-17-2016 03:28 PM)STS Lincolnite Wrote:  Some additional thoughts.

To some degree, I think the actual legislated line of presidential succession, was irrelevant.

Remember what Al Haig (Secretary of State) said when President Reagan was shot?
"As of now, I am in control here, in the White House, pending return of the Vice President and in close touch with him. If something came up, I would check with him, of course."
At least that was how the press at the time made it sound.

You can bet that Stanton, who took control immediately after Lincoln was shot, would take control if the Vice President had also been killed for as long as needed. All in all, Stanton rose to the occasion following Lincoln's assassination, and while his actions today may have seemed overly harsh, it was probably necessary or perceived as necessary at the time. We're still one country.

[L Verge]

James O. Hall was the first to explain this situation to me regarding succession to the presidency as established under the 1792 act.

Section 9 declared that, in the event of the removal, resignation, death, or inability of both the President and Vice President, the President pro tempore of the United States Senate was next in line of succession after the Vice President, followed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

If both the President and Vice President were removed, resigned, or died, section 10 required there to be a presidential election in December of the year in which section 9 was invoked (or in December of the next year, if there was less than two months to go until December and the presidential term was not about to expire).

Section 10 appears to be the key, and Secretary of State Seward would be the one responsible for gathering the electors and arranging an emergency election. Mr. Hall's contention was that that was the reason for Seward being next on the hit list. Mike Kauffman used to cite Seward's tyrannical abolitionist beliefs as another reason for Booth to target him -- part of the Come Retribution cipher symbolism.

[John Fazio]

(10-17-2016 06:21 PM)L Verge Wrote:  James O. Hall was the first to explain this situation to me regarding succession to the presidency as established under the 1792 act.

Section 9 declared that, in the event of the removal, resignation, death, or inability of both the President and Vice President, the President pro tempore of the United States Senate was next in line of succession after the Vice President, followed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

If both the President and Vice President were removed, resigned, or died, section 10 required there to be a presidential election in December of the year in which section 9 was invoked (or in December of the next year, if there was less than two months to go until December and the presidential term was not about to expire).

Section 10 appears to be the key, and Secretary of State Seward would be the one responsible for gathering the electors and arranging an emergency election. Mr. Hall's contention was that that was the reason for Seward being next on the hit list. Mike Kauffman used to cite Seward's tyrannical abolitionist beliefs as another reason for Booth to target him -- part of the Come Retribution cipher symbolism.

Laurie:

I concur with both James Hall and Mike Kauffman, to which I would add that Seward was also, and most especially, loathed by the Southern leadership because he had frustrated (mostly through the agency of Charles Francis Adams, the American Minister to Great Britain) every attempt they made to gain foreign recognition of the Confederacy. They had sent three representatives to Europe for this express purpose--William Yancy, Pierre Rost and Dudley Mann--and all three of them failed. The failure was laid at Seward's feet.

John

[loetar44]

John,
I’ve read and reread the pages you mentioned. You say in your book: “The evidence for an attempt on Stanton can fairly be said to be moderately strong, neither very strong nor weak”. In my opinion, it is better to say that the circumstantial evidence is moderately strong, cause all allegations that Stanton was a murder target are based on circumstantial evidence (some is stronger or weaker than others) and hearsay. Where is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Stanton was a murder target? In my opinion you have built your case through prima facie evidences (indications). It is up to the individual reader to weigh the importance of each piece you mention, and then come to a conclusion. For me the burden of proof is always quite high. In my mind there still exists reasonable doubt. On the other hand, you did a marvelous job and kudos for that! But it takes more to convince a Dutchman, exempli gratia:

(1) How reliable are Montgomery, Dunham, Merritt and Henry Von Steinacker and others? For example, Dunham was a mysterious figure, aka Sanford Conover. Carman Cumming wrote in his book "Devil's Game: The Civil War Intrigues of Charles A. Dunham", that he was "astonishingly clever and a prolific fraud", "an enormously inventive, imaginative, daring scoundrel", a “storyteller”. Was his account that Lincoln, Johnson, Stanton, Seward, Chase and Grant all were Confederate targets "to leave the government entirely without a head", true or one of his fanciful tales? And what about Henry von Steinacker (real name Hans von Winklestein), a convicted deserter from the U.S. army, a horse-thief who had been court-martialed by the Confederates after he had fled to them for protection, who maybe bought his release by false statements? Is such a man a reliable source?

(2) How sure, without any doubt, is it that O’Laughlen was in Stanton’s home at the night of April 13? Or did Stanton, Cox and Hatter only see a man with a black moustache, who resembled O’Laughlen, cause Walter Cox came at the trial with 9 other witnesses, all of whom stated that O'Laughlen was that night between 9.00 and 10.30 p.m. with friends wandering through the city, to see the Grand Illumination. An airtight alibi?

BTW John, you say in your book that David Stanton was “the war secretary’s son”. How sure are you about that?

(3) Why are the accounts concerning a figure on Stanton’s porch, and (another?) figure hiding behind a tree box (in my opinion) inconclusive, unconvincing? Well, spoken is about a “skulking figure”, a figure “muffled in a cloak”, etc. The figure(s) fled upon approach of officers coming to warn Stanton. In another account they fled upon approach of two employees of the Department, or when a messenger arrived to bring Stanton the news about the assassination of Seward. No man was ever identified or arrested. In my opinion it is more “early rumor” pointing to a possible assassin, more than it is (raw) evidence. Other rumors (?): “a man was heard by (Attorney General) Speed walking on his back porch” and “a person took cover at the Kirkwood House where the vice president was staying” ("They Have Killed Papa Dead!" by Door Anthony Pitch)

(4) Hudson Taylor credited a broken doorbell which saved Stanton’s life. Stanton himself spoke about that broken doorbell (“If the door bell had rung it would have been answered and the man admitted, and I no doubt would have been attacked, but the bell-wire was broken a day or two before …”). In my opinion a strange story. Why would an assassin leave because a doorbell was broken if he was assigned to murder Stanton? But also remember the following story, described by Thomas Goodridge in “The Darkest Dawn: Lincoln, Booth, and the Great American Tragedy” (p. 106): “Edwin Stanton had already locked his door for the night … the secretary of war was weary and preparing for bed. When he was nearly undressed, Stanton heard his wife Ellen go downstairs to answer the door. A moment later, she yelled out in a terror-filled voice, “Mr. Seward is murdered.” Please note: “to answer the door”. How was that possible when the doorbell was broken? Have we to assume that the messenger knocked on the door? Goodrich is also saying in his book “Stanton found his hallway filling with people, when he came downstairs. And note “was weary and preparing for bed”. Stanton himself said: “I was tired out and went home early, and was in the back room playing with the children when the man (i.e. the would-be assassin) came to my steps”.

All those various accounts make the story that Stanton was also marked for assassination more and more unconvincing to me.

[Dave Taylor]

(10-19-2016 10:07 AM)loetar44 Wrote:  (2) How sure, without any doubt, is it that O’Laughlen was in Stanton’s home at the night of April 13? Or did Stanton, Cox and Hatter only see a man with a black moustache, who resembled O’Laughlen, because Walter Cox came at the trial with 9 other witnesses, all of whom stated that O'Laughlen was that night between 9.00 and 10.30 p.m. with friends wandering through the city, to see the Grand Illumination. An airtight alibi?

Thank you, Kees. I haven't had an opportunity to do any research on it lately, but in viewing this thread I was surprised that the general consensus was that O'Laughlen was a part of Booth's assassination plot. In the back of my mind I kept thinking that that there was no real evidence that placed O'Laughlen at Stanton's. Yes, the government found witnesses to "identify" O'Laughlen, but I thought for sure that O'Laughlen's defense came up with far more credible witnesses that proved that he wasn't anywhere near Stanton.

I'm not saying that Stanton was never considered a target by John Wilkes Booth, he very well may have been, but on April 14th, O'Laughlen was not doing Booth's bidding, he was recovering from a hangover.

[Linda Anderson]

This is from Fanny Seward's diary:

"Mr. Stanton came. I think it must have been he - but perhaps it was some one earlier, that answered Mother's inquiry as to whether any thing later had been heard from the President - 'Yes - He is dead.' He died at 7:15- & we heard of it within two hours. While Mr. Stanton was there by the bed Mother said very gently to Father, 'Henry - the President is gone.' He received the news calmly, but seemed to know the meaning of the words. He was not able to talk much of the time - and communicated, as he had done before the last injury - by means of a white slate & pencil - but - owing to his exhausted state, & to his broken arm, it was almost impossible for him to write so that it could be read. I remember that Mother said - in talking with the Secretary of War, 'Are you safe Mr. Stanton,' as if apprehensive of danger to him- 'Not any more than any one else' (or, the others,) he replied.

[John Fazio]

(10-19-2016 10:07 AM)loetar44 Wrote:  John,
I’ve read and reread the pages you mentioned. You say in your book: “The evidence for an attempt on Stanton can fairly be said to be moderately strong, neither very strong nor weak”. In my opinion, it is better to say that the circumstantial evidence is moderately strong, cause all allegations that Stanton was a murder target are based on circumstantial evidence (some is stronger or weaker than others) and hearsay. Where is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Stanton was a murder target? In my opinion you have built your case through prima facie evidences (indications). It is up to the individual reader to weigh the importance of each piece you mention, and then come to a conclusion. For me the burden of proof is always quite high. In my mind there still exists reasonable doubt. On the other hand, you did a marvelous job and kudos for that! But it takes more to convince a Dutchman, exempli gratia:

(1) How reliable are Montgomery, Dunham, Merritt and Henry Von Steinacker and others? For example, Dunham was a mysterious figure, aka Sanford Conover. Carman Cumming wrote in his book "Devil's Game: The Civil War Intrigues of Charles A. Dunham", that he was "astonishingly clever and a prolific fraud", "an enormously inventive, imaginative, daring scoundrel", a “storyteller”. Was his account that Lincoln, Johnson, Stanton, Seward, Chase and Grant all were Confederate targets "to leave the government entirely without a head", true or one of his fanciful tales? And what about Henry von Steinacker (real name Hans von Winklestein), a convicted deserter from the U.S. army, a horse-thief who had been court-martialed by the Confederates after he had fled to them for protection, who maybe bought his release by false statements? Is such a man a reliable source?

(2) How sure, without any doubt, is it that O’Laughlen was in Stanton’s home at the night of April 13? Or did Stanton, Cox and Hatter only see a man with a black moustache, who resembled O’Laughlen, cause Walter Cox came at the trial with 9 other witnesses, all of whom stated that O'Laughlen was that night between 9.00 and 10.30 p.m. with friends wandering through the city, to see the Grand Illumination. An airtight alibi?

BTW John, you say in your book that David Stanton was “the war secretary’s son”. How sure are you about that?

(3) Why are the accounts concerning a figure on Stanton’s porch, and (another?) figure hiding behind a tree box (in my opinion) inconclusive, unconvincing? Well, spoken is about a “skulking figure”, a figure “muffled in a cloak”, etc. The figure(s) fled upon approach of officers coming to warn Stanton. In another account they fled upon approach of two employees of the Department, or when a messenger arrived to bring Stanton the news about the assassination of Seward. No man was ever identified or arrested. In my opinion it is more “early rumor” pointing to a possible assassin, more than it is (raw) evidence. Other rumors (?): “a man was heard by (Attorney General) Speed walking on his back porch” and “a person took cover at the Kirkwood House where the vice president was staying” ("They Have Killed Papa Dead!" by Door Anthony Pitch)

(4) Hudson Taylor credited a broken doorbell which saved Stanton’s life. Stanton himself spoke about that broken doorbell (“If the door bell had rung it would have been answered and the man admitted, and I no doubt would have been attacked, but the bell-wire was broken a day or two before …”). In my opinion a strange story. Why would an assassin leave because a doorbell was broken if he was assigned to murder Stanton? But also remember the following story, described by Thomas Goodridge in “The Darkest Dawn: Lincoln, Booth, and the Great American Tragedy” (p. 106): “Edwin Stanton had already locked his door for the night … the secretary of war was weary and preparing for bed. When he was nearly undressed, Stanton heard his wife Ellen go downstairs to answer the door. A moment later, she yelled out in a terror-filled voice, “Mr. Seward is murdered.” Please note: “to answer the door”. How was that possible when the doorbell was broken? Have we to assume that the messenger knocked on the door? Goodrich is also saying in his book “Stanton found his hallway filling with people, when he came downstairs. And note “was weary and preparing for bed”. Stanton himself said: “I was tired out and went home early, and was in the back room playing with the children when the man (i.e. the would-be assassin) came to my steps”.

All those various accounts make the story that Stanton was also marked for assassination more and more unconvincing to me.

Kees:

Thanks for reading my book. That gives you standing to contest its conclusions.

Do not denigrate circumstantial evidence; most prosecutors prefer it to eyewitness and material evidence, which are more easily attacked.

There is some doubt about Stanton's being a target, but, in my opinion, it is not reasonable. If, as you say, I have established a prima-facie case, then the burden of proof shifts to those who hold that he was not a target. The conversations between Confederate Secret Service operatives in Canada, in which he is named as an intended victim (it is a stretch to hold that all four witnesses lied as to this issue--for what purpose?); Davis's express wish that Stanton (and Johnson too) had been a victim; the T.I.O.S. letter; the letter from the Union agent in Paris; and Thomas A. Jones's 1893 book; coupled with the numerous other items of evidence given in my book, make a very persuasive case that he was targeted. And does it not, after all, fit with what Confederate leaders were trying to accomplish that night--the decapitation of the Federal government? Can you imagine a decapitation scenario that would not have included Stanton? So, Dutchman, my friend (I was in your country two years ago--Amsterdam, The Hague, Delft, etc.--loved it), get with the program.

Montgomery, Dunham and Merritt are OK on this issue. Their perjury was planted for exposure, thereby effecting the exoneration of Davis, et al., but naming Stanton as an intended target was without rational motive and is not anything that could be disproved. It therefore served no rational purpose for them. They planted perjury that could be disproved, and easily. The logic supporting legitimate perjury is absurd, as you know from reading my book.

"Leave the government without a head" had currency, if not from Thompson, then from someone, even if it was just Dunham, who was thick with all the Canadian contingent. It is perfectly consistent with all the other evidence we have on the issue.

Von Steinacker? Again, something of a scoundrel, but no reason to lie on this issue.

There were eight witnesses supporting O'Laughlen's alibi, not nine, and some reported merely seeing him, not being with him. This preponderance in numbers (compared to the three witnesses who put him at Stanton's home) counted heavily with the Commission. But remember that there is inconsistency in their testimony as to time and place. Further, to say that they are better witnesses than the three who put him in Stanton's home doesn't make a lot of sense. They were all friends of O'Laughlen's or well known to him, rather common folk, whereas the three were all professionals. I don't know if David Stanton was the Secretary's son. He is said to be such, by Chamlee, among others. Perhaps it was a name thing, of no substance, like Payne, or Paine, and Powell, and so many other irregularities of names and spellings, etc. Further, the three were categorical in their judgment, per the trial testimony (read Pitman, pp. 226, 227). Hatter said he was looking "right in his face", right in front of him, in bright light. Still further, recall Atzerodt's final confession in which he said that "an alibi was tried to be made out" but that no one who knew anything about O'Laughlen doubted that he was at Stanton's. It also fits with O'Laughlen's meeting with Booth on the morning of the 13th and the morning of the 14th. Are such meetings consistent with a theory that he was no longer part of Booth's conspiracy? I don't think so. Bottom line: I don't know whether the intruder was O'Laughlen or not, but I believe that the chances that it was he are as good as the chances that it was not.

As for the difference in accounts re the skulking figure, the man behind the tree box, the broken door bell, etc., when was the last time you heard of a half dozen people reporting an event with perfect consistency? What did I say earlier about the fallibility of eyewitness testimony?

John

[brtmchl]

(10-17-2016 12:15 PM)PaigeBooth Wrote:  I do agree that this is one of the many mysteries surrounding Lincoln's murder that we many never fully understand.
I agree with Mr. Fazio in that the intruder was most likely O'Laughlen. I am satisfied with the evidence proving that O'Laughlen was identified as the man at Stanton's home on April 13th.
Most notably, at the trial, Major Knox was asked if he saw any of the prisoners at Stanton's home. Knox said "Yes" and (seemingly without hesitation) pointed to O'Laughlen and identified him as the man who came to Stanton's home. Knox was in his early twenties at the time and, therefore, of sharp memory to positively identify O'Laughlen.

I was always under the impression that O'Laughlen was stalking Grant the night of the 13th.

I have always believed that Grant was his assignment, although I have never believed he had the nerve to go through with it.

I also believe that Kauffman hinted the O'Laughlen may have been aboard Grant's train the day of the assassination.

This is the first I have read about a stranger at Stanton's door the night of the assassination. If O'Laughlin WAS on Grant's train, who was at Stanton's door step?

Arnold? Atzerodt in a drunken stupor?

[PaigeBooth]

(10-24-2016 07:54 PM)brtmchl Wrote:  

(10-17-2016 12:15 PM)PaigeBooth Wrote:  I do agree that this is one of the many mysteries surrounding Lincoln's murder that we many never fully understand.
I agree with Mr. Fazio in that the intruder was most likely O'Laughlen. I am satisfied with the evidence proving that O'Laughlen was identified as the man at Stanton's home on April 13th.
Most notably, at the trial, Major Knox was asked if he saw any of the prisoners at Stanton's home. Knox said "Yes" and (seemingly without hesitation) pointed to O'Laughlen and identified him as the man who came to Stanton's home. Knox was in his early twenties at the time and, therefore, of sharp memory to positively identify O'Laughlen.

I was always under the impression that O'Laughlen was stalking Grant the night of the 13th.

I have always believed that Grant was his assignment, although I have never believed he had the nerve to go through with it.

I also believe that Kauffman hinted the O'Laughlen may have been aboard Grant's train the day of the assassination.

This is the first I have read about a stranger at Stanton's door the night of the assassination. If O'Laughlin WAS on Grant's train, who was at Stanton's door step?

Arnold? Atzerodt in a drunken stupor?

Great questions! There were so many rumors going around after Lincoln's murder that it was probably difficult (if not impossible) for people to know what was true, and what was false. Many of these rumors said that Grant had been killed on his train. Although this was false, many were in fear for Grant's life the night Lincoln was shot, and Grant was advised to keep a look out for anyone who so much as came near him on his way back to Washington. When news came of Lincoln's murder, O'Laughlen was drinking at a saloon in Washington.
As far as who the person was at Stanton's home the night of April 13th, I strongly believe it was O'Laughlen. O'Laughlen, who was present at Stanton's home that evening, spoke with Major Knox, who was a guest that evening. Knox later testified to his encounter with O'Laughlen at the trial; making his testimony very reliable.
When Knox took the stand at the trial, he was asked if he saw among the prisoners any person he saw the night of April 13th at Stanton's home. Knox replied yes, and pointed directly at O'Laughlen.

[SSlater]

The Stanton situation was a problem of various sorts. I haven't read much recently, but I do recall that he was suspected of having a role in the assassination, because he apparently was not targeted. I am throwing this in to have you tell me how that view was overturned. (I am currently engrossed in Hogan - somehow, that story doesn't make sense to me.)

[RJNorton]

I have always felt there is a lot to be learned from the various statements/confessions of George Atzerodt. But nowhere does he ever mention that Edwin Stanton was a target of Booth's. Atzerodt even talks about the "final meeting," but no mention at all that Stanton was to be killed, too. At this point, I am less than convinced that Stanton's assassination was a goal of JWB.

In American Brutus, Mike Kauffman writes, "There was nothing elaborate about the plan. Booth would assassinate the president, and Powell would kill Secretary of State Seward. Herold and Atzerodt were to go back to the Kirkwood House and kill Vice-President Johnson. The attacks would be timed to coincide, and they could all meet up afterward on the road to Nanjemoy. Powell, if he chose, could 'skedaddle' in a different direction."

No mention of Stanton as a target.

[PaigeBooth]

In addition to Major Knox's testimony there was also another witness, John Hatter, who testified to having spoken with O'Laughlen at Stanton's home on April 13th.

I do not believe Stanton was ever a murder target. In fact, I find it likely that O'Laughlen wasn't even there to see Stanton in particular. It seems to me as though O'Laughlen wanted something, but not any specific person because:

O'Laughlen visited Stanton's home twice on the night of April 13th. During his first visit, he asked to speak with General Grant. During his second visit, he asked to speak with Stanton. It was during this second visit that he spoke with Major Knox and inquired about Stanton. And during O'Laughlen's first visit, which occurred earlier that evening, around 9pm, he spoke with John Hatter. Hatter too, later testified at the trial that O'Laughlen asked him if General Grant was in, and Hatter told O'Laughlen that this was not the time to see Grant.

We may never know exactly what O'Laughlen wanted to accomplish that night at Stanton's home. But it does appear clear that he did not have a preference as to whether he spoke to Grant or Stanton.