Was Stanton a murder target?

[Wild Bill]

It has been a 15 years since I wrote Last Confederate Heroes, but I still think that this is one place that Fazio comes closer than anyone else to surmising the truth, regardless of how difficult that truth seems hard to find. Some things just fit or smell right and O'Laughlen killing Stanton is one of those things to me.

[John Fazio]

Everyone:

1. Paige, Knox's testimony is indeed unequivocal. So is Stanton's. (If he was not the Secretary's son, he was surely a relative. The Secretary's son is given as Edwin (Lamson), Jr., who would have been 23 in 1865, which is about right for him to be "David Stanton". Why he is called David at the trial is anyone's guess. Curiously, the elder Stanton and Mary (his first wife) had a second child, Lucy, who died in her second year, but one of those named by Knox as being in Stanton's home on the 13th is "Miss Lucy Stanton". Perhaps she was Edwin Jr.'s daughter or a niece.) And so is John C. Hatter's. But you are mistaken in your belief that Stanton was not targeted. See below.

2. Dave, in my judgment, the identity of the intruder remains unknown, though I believe, with Paige, that it was most likely O'Laughlen, despite the alibi. What is not doubtful, to me, is O'Laughlen's continuing complicity through the 14th. We know he was summoned to Washington personally by Booth, who went to Baltimore for that purpose on the morning of the 13th. We know, too, that O'Laughlen dutifully obeyed Booth, arriving in Washington at 5:30 pm on the same day. We know, further, that he went to the National that evening and met with Booth and that he went there again the following morning and almost certainly met with him again. Note that this summoning and these meetings all happened immediately before the assassination and attempted assassinations. I believe it is safe to conclude, therefore, that they were related to the assassination and attempted assassinations. In the evening of the 14th, we both know where O'Laughlen is alleged to have been--far from Stanton's home, but in the same way that his alibi for his whereabouts the previous evening may have been contrived, so too may his alibi for the 14th have been contrived. But it is altogether possible, too, that Booth had made as much use of O'Laughlen as he planned to do and made provision for another or others to take care of Stanton, just as he made provision for another to take care of Grant. See pp.333-336 of Decapitating for candidates. As for whether or not Stanton was a target, see my earlier entries and see below.
3. Brtmchl, if O'Laughlen was at Stanton's home on the 13th, it wasn't just to see Grant, but to obtain information preparatory to the assassinations planned for the next night. There is no evidence that O'Laughlen was assigned to kill Grant. Booth told Powell, Herold and Atzerodt at the Herndon House that he would take care of Grant. O'Laughlen could not have been aboard Grant's train for the purpose of assassinating him, but someone was, because Atzerodt said so. We don't know who was at Stanton's door, but O'Laughlen is more than a possibility. Atzerodt was elsewhere.
4. SSlater, Stanton had nothing to do with the assassination. That theory, first put forth by Eisenschiml and supported by Roscoe, has been now thoroughly discredited by many historians. See, e.g. Chapter 6 of Hanchett's The Lincoln Murder Conspiracies.
5. Roger, you surprise me. You ignore all the evidence given above in my previous entries, as well as other evidence adduced in Decapitating, relative to the targeting of Stanton. You also ignore all the evidence of "others" involved in the conspiracy to decapitate the government. See pp. 255-258 and 333-336 of Decapitating, especially paragraphs 1 through 12 on pp. 333,334. It was my good fortune to talk to Mike Kauffman personally and I have, of course, read American Brutus. I came away from both experiences with the distinct impression that he was as nice a guy as one could hope to meet, but that he did not fully appreciate the breadth of the conspiracy against the government, in the same way that Tidwell, Hall and Gaddy, Hanchett, Winkler and others have. He even favors Dr. Mudd's innocence. See Steers's work on that subject. It was not necessary for Booth to even meet with O'Laughlen, much less to assign Stanton's assassination to him, at the Friday night Herndon House meeting; either he already had his assignment (he had met with him twice within the previous 24 hours) or the matter was taken care of by "others" in the same way that the assassination of Grant was taken care of by "others".
6. Wild Bill, we agree again. Now if I can just persuade you that the Confederacy represented Maeterlinck's 10,000 men guarding the past*, you and I can ride off into the sunset together with our .44's.

*At every crossroads on the path that leads to the future, tradition has placed 10,000 men to guard the past.--Maurice Maeterlinck (1862-1949).

John

[Wild Bill]

John,

Before we do any riding off into the sunset with Gene Autry, you need to read Horses, Hitches and Rocky Trails by Joe Back--and sing Rudolf the Red-Nosed Reindeer

Bill

[loetar44]

John and others,

Great discussion!

John, David Stanton was certainly not a son of Secretary Stanton. He had a son from his first wife (Edwin Lamson, born Aug 12, 1842; 22 years old in April 1865), and he had a surviving son from his second wife (Lewis Hutchinson, born Jan. 12 1860, too young in April 1865). Was David Stanton a nephew? E(rasmus) Darwin Stanton was Stanton’s only brother, born July 17, 1816. He committed suicide on Sept.23, 1846. He was married with Nancy Hooker and had a son David Erasmus Stanton, born in 1842 (22 or 23 years old in April 1865) and two daughters: Lucy D. Stanton (born in 1845, 19 or 20 years old in April 1865) and Mary Darwin Stanton (born in 1846, married John Hugh Ely). John, I think you are right by saying that David “was surely a relative”. He was (I think) the 22/23 year old David E. (“young David”). And "Miss Lucy Stanton", who was in Stanton's home on the 13th was David’s sister. Both were children of Stanton’s brother Darwin. Riddle solved??? When Darwin committed suicide David was 3 or 4 years old, Lucy was ca. 1 and Mary just born, or posthumous. I don’t know if David, Lucy and Mary grew up in the household of Secretary Stanton. If the answer is “yes” (and I suspect that), than it declares that David was seen as Secretary Stanton’s son!

I agree with you, John, that people (routinely) undervalue circumstantial evidence and overvalue direct evidence. There were 3 eyewitnesses who saw O’Laughlen in or near Stanton’s house. There were 8 eyewitnesses who testified he was not. Eyewitness identifications (direct evidence) are based on what the respective eyewitness claims to have seen, or heard, or felt with his own senses, and the only question here is whether you believe the witness or not. Can you agree with me, that both (O’Laughlen was at Stanton’s house vs. he was not at Stanton’s house) can’t be true at the same time? IMO, there is certainly doubt that O’Laughlen was there on the evening of April 13th. Further, I think that Dave’s point, by saying that O’Laughlin on April 14th “was recovering from a hangover”, is at least “breeding ground” for doubt. We have confessions (direct evidence) and I second Roger by saying that in none of the confessions is said that Stanton was a murder target. Atzerodt certainly would have told that in his last confession. My point, there is reasonable doubt and nobody can prove beyond reasonable doubt from all the evidence we have (direct and circumstantial) that O’Laughlen was commissioned to kill Stanton. John, if I understand you correctly (please correct me if I’m wrong), you don’t ask for the highest standard of proof concerning O’Laughlen, and you are satisfied with evidence in the favor that Stanton was a murder target than that Stanton was not a murder target. And if I’ve understand you correctly, you prefer evidence that establishes a high probability that Stanton was a target is true. That is a choice, but for me I want a greater degree of believability.

Let me give you an example. When John F. Kennedy was murdered, Joseph Milteer was seen standing on Houston Steet, just seconds before Kennedy was fatally shot. Milteer was a political activist in far-right, racist circles from Quitman, Georgia. One piece of evidence offered to support his presence there is a blow-up from a photo by James Altgens. Yes, there was a "Milteer" figure, but was it Milteer? In short: proven is that the spectator wasn't Milteer, he was an unidentified look-alike. He resembled Milteer in age and general facial configuration. He had eyeglasses similar in general style to those of Milteer. But he did not resemble Milteer in upper lip thickness; he was also partially bald and most significantly, Milteer's height was 64 inches and the unknown spectator was 6 inches shorter. Still there are people who say that Milteer was there…

   

Was O’Laughlen (or another man) on the evening of April 14 on Stanton’s porch and/or behind the tree-box? Again the JFK assassination. If all suspect figures who were seen on Daley Plaza (connected with CIA, mafia, Castro, LBJ, teamsters, freemasons, etc, etc.) at the time of the murder, the Plaza was fully overcrowded. I want to say: I don’t put heavy weight on eyewitnesses. Human memory is fragile and malleable. Honest, well-meaning people often misremember or misreport what they have seen (perhaps caused by stress?).

I came to two conclusions: O'Laughlen was not ordered to kill Stanton, and Stanton was not a murder target. That said, a new question: was "evidence"restructured to bring it in line with another version of events? Or, was O'Laughlen drawn into the plot as a fall guy? (by Stanton to cover up his own involvement?). Just a thought.

[RJNorton]

I admit that I really don't know O'Laughlen that well - I have trouble getting a real feel for him.

In his lecture, John Surratt spoke of the gathering at Gautier's Restaurant. Surratt said:

"Arising at last and bringing his fist upon the table he (Booth) said, "Well, gentlemen, if the worst comes to the worst, I shall know what to do."

Some hard words and even threats then passed between him and some of the party. Four of us then arose, one saying, "If I understand you to intimate anything more than the capture of Mr. Lincoln I for one will bid you goodbye."

I assume Arnold was the one who said this, but IMO, O'Laughlen was one of the other three who arose. IMO, O'Laughlen was a guy who was in on it for a potential kidnapping (John, I know your opinion of the kidnapping), but not as an assassin.

As I said, I really have trouble getting a grasp on O'Laughlen, but I have trouble viewing him as an assassin.

At the conspiracy trial, if I recall correctly, O'Laughlen was found not guilty of lying in wait for Grant.

[Gene C]

(10-26-2016 09:38 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  As I said, I really have trouble getting a grasp on O'Laughlen, but I have trouble viewing him as an assassin.

Evidently, so did the commission, or they'd have hung him.
They could easily have made room for one more on the gallows.

Didn't he voluntarily surrender to the authorities?
And Surratt's speech , which Roger quoted, was made three years after O'Laughlen had died. Surratt could have easily implicated him deeper in the assassination plot.

[Wild Bill]

Loetar 44 makes the point to Fazio that has frustrated historians over the ages: "And if I’ve understand you correctly, you prefer evidence that establishes a high probability that Stanton was a target is true. That is a choice, but for me I want a greater degree of believability."

Tragically, this is one reason why we have differing historical interpretations. We simply do not know. Or in the case of me and Fazio, one comes at from a Southern viewpoint that other from a Northern one. Was it O'Laughlin on Stanton's porch? John Fazio and I, through different routes, say our research indicates that it was. Others, maybe a majority of us bloggers, seem to indicate they stand with Loetar 44.

I found this to be a problem in all of the information about the Lincoln Assassination. To the disgust of many Surratt Society critics, I solved this by writing the Last Confederate Heroes as an historical novel, that I think is more history than novel. I decided to fill in the gaps according to my inclinations of what Booth and the others were all about. I do not know where I picked the solution up. I want to say from old-time "Boothie" Constance Head, but I cannot find reference to this (another assumption on my part, huh?) Maybe it was McKinley Kantor's Andersonville, I don't know.

This is the circumstantial evidence that Fazio referred to and which carries a lot of weight in many court cases. There is a certain logic to events. It is not always true, but I dare say that it is often right on the money. As for those who see it differently from me, I have no problem with you and your beliefs or demands for a more correct story. This is why we have people like John Stanton who has traced down the roles of Sarah Slater and others. I thank him and I use his and other's ideas with attribution (I footnote or use chapter notes in my historical novels, a la William Safire's Freedom) for allowing me to be lazier than necessary in my writings.

[PaigeBooth]

Mr. Fazio,

Thank you for all the information. I appreciate all of these thoughts and details and will most certainly take them into consideration regarding this issue. Also, you make an interesting point concerning O'Laughlen wanting to obtain information for the assassination the following night-- Thanks for sharing that.
However, while I will evaluate all the points that you have made, for now, I must side with Michael Kauffman on this. And I agree with you; I have had the honor of getting to know Mr. Kauffman over this past year. He is so kind and during my communication with Mr. Kauffman throughout this year, he and I have exchanged many thoughts.
As of now, for me, O'Laughlen's actions on April 13th do not warrant me to believe he was targeting Stanton.
Once again, I do agree with you in that the visitor to Stanton's home was most likely O'Laughlen. I am glad that we are able to have such an interesting discussion about this particular aspect of the assassination. I truly enjoy learning other's thoughts and opinions because they allow me to think about things in a different perspective.
Again, thanks for all the information.

[brtmchl]

(10-25-2016 11:31 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  Everyone:

1. Paige, Knox's testimony is indeed unequivocal. So is Stanton's. (If he was not the Secretary's son, he was surely a relative. The Secretary's son is given as Edwin (Lamson), Jr., who would have been 23 in 1865, which is about right for him to be "David Stanton". Why he is called David at the trial is anyone's guess. Curiously, the elder Stanton and Mary (his first wife) had a second child, Lucy, who died in her second year, but one of those named by Knox as being in Stanton's home on the 13th is "Miss Lucy Stanton". Perhaps she was Edwin Jr.'s daughter or a niece.) And so is John C. Hatter's. But you are mistaken in your belief that Stanton was not targeted. See below.

2. Dave, in my judgment, the identity of the intruder remains unknown, though I believe, with Paige, that it was most likely O'Laughlen, despite the alibi. What is not doubtful, to me, is O'Laughlen's continuing complicity through the 14th. We know he was summoned to Washington personally by Booth, who went to Baltimore for that purpose on the morning of the 13th. We know, too, that O'Laughlen dutifully obeyed Booth, arriving in Washington at 5:30 pm on the same day. We know, further, that he went to the National that evening and met with Booth and that he went there again the following morning and almost certainly met with him again. Note that this summoning and these meetings all happened immediately before the assassination and attempted assassinations. I believe it is safe to conclude, therefore, that they were related to the assassination and attempted assassinations. In the evening of the 14th, we both know where O'Laughlen is alleged to have been--far from Stanton's home, but in the same way that his alibi for his whereabouts the previous evening may have been contrived, so too may his alibi for the 14th have been contrived. But it is altogether possible, too, that Booth had made as much use of O'Laughlen as he planned to do and made provision for another or others to take care of Stanton, just as he made provision for another to take care of Grant. See pp.333-336 of Decapitating for candidates. As for whether or not Stanton was a target, see my earlier entries and see below.
3. Brtmchl, if O'Laughlen was at Stanton's home on the 13th, it wasn't just to see Grant, but to obtain information preparatory to the assassinations planned for the next night. There is no evidence that O'Laughlen was assigned to kill Grant. Booth told Powell, Herold and Atzerodt at the Herndon House that he would take care of Grant. O'Laughlen could not have been aboard Grant's train for the purpose of assassinating him, but someone was, because Atzerodt said so. We don't know who was at Stanton's door, but O'Laughlen is more than a possibility. Atzerodt was elsewhere.
4. SSlater, Stanton had nothing to do with the assassination. That theory, first put forth by Eisenschiml and supported by Roscoe, has been now thoroughly discredited by many historians. See, e.g. Chapter 6 of Hanchett's The Lincoln Murder Conspiracies.
5. Roger, you surprise me. You ignore all the evidence given above in my previous entries, as well as other evidence adduced in Decapitating, relative to the targeting of Stanton. You also ignore all the evidence of "others" involved in the conspiracy to decapitate the government. See pp. 255-258 and 333-336 of Decapitating, especially paragraphs 1 through 12 on pp. 333,334. It was my good fortune to talk to Mike Kauffman personally and I have, of course, read American Brutus. I came away from both experiences with the distinct impression that he was as nice a guy as one could hope to meet, but that he did not fully appreciate the breadth of the conspiracy against the government, in the same way that Tidwell, Hall and Gaddy, Hanchett, Winkler and others have. He even favors Dr. Mudd's innocence. See Steers's work on that subject. It was not necessary for Booth to even meet with O'Laughlen, much less to assign Stanton's assassination to him, at the Friday night Herndon House meeting; either he already had his assignment (he had met with him twice within the previous 24 hours) or the matter was taken care of by "others" in the same way that the assassination of Grant was taken care of by "others".
6. Wild Bill, we agree again. Now if I can just persuade you that the Confederacy represented Maeterlinck's 10,000 men guarding the past*, you and I can ride off into the sunset together with our .44's.

*At every crossroads on the path that leads to the future, tradition has placed 10,000 men to guard the past.--Maurice Maeterlinck (1862-1949).

John

Thanks John.

" if O'Laughlen was at Stanton's home on the 13th, it wasn't just to see Grant, but to obtain information preparatory to the assassinations planned for the next night."


Wasn't the plan originally for the 13th? Booth met with other conspirators at the Herndon House to go over the details in which he stated that he will use his fame to access one of the parties that Lincoln would be attending and kill him.

Turned out Lincoln never went out that evening.

Was Booth also canvassing parties in search of Lincoln but never thought that he would be at the Sec of War's home? Was O'Laughlen AND Booth present at Stanton's? Could Booth have been misidentified as O'Laughlen?

Knox identified a man dressed in black clothes with a slouch hat.

I'm not suggesting that anyone is wrong. And that the person at Stanton's home wasn't O'Laughlen. I recall, but cannot remember where, that O'Laughlen was wrongly identified as Booth somewhere.

Either way, I would think that Stanton would be a target. All that hate. Why NOT target the Sec of War? At least as a secondary target. A target of opportunity.

Booth could have easily met with O'Laughlin separate from the others. Bernard Early testified that he and O'Laughlen were to meet Booth on the 14th and waited forty five minutes before leaving without seeing Booth.

[Gene C]

We have discussed briefly David Stanton here
http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussio...n#pid30024

[John Fazio]

Kees:

You want "a greater degree of believability" that Stanton was targeted. How much more do you need than this:

1. He was mentioned as an intended victim in conversations between Confederate operatives in Canada.
2. When Davis learned of the assassination, he said: "If the same had been done to Secretary Stanton, the job would then be complete."
3. On May 15, 1865, an anonymous report was sent to Stanton advising him that that there had been a conspiracy to murder him, the president and Seward.
4. The "T.I.O.S. letter sent to Booth on April 10, 1865, at the National, stated that there was an assassin assigned to each member of Lincoln's cabinet.
5. A cipher letter that came into the possession of Union intelligence stated that "The brute Stanton will also meet his deserts (sic) by a sure hand".
6. Thomas A. Jones, head of the Confederate Secret Service in Maryland, wrote, in an 1893 book, that Stanton was an intended victim.
7. The May 10, 1865, letter from the Union agent in Paris quoted the Confederate agent "Johnston" as saying that if everything had been "carried out as was arranged previously, some 15 of the Yankee leaders would have been now quietly resting where they should have gone 4 years (ago)". Do you really believe the 15 did not include Stanton?
8. Suspicious persons were reported at or about Stanton's home on the night of the assassination by the New York Times, Stanton himself, Orville Hickman Browning, Senator William Stewart, Secretary of the Interior John Usher and Stanton's friend Hudson Taylor.
9. In my opinion, the evidence that an attempt was made on the night of April 14, 1865, to decapitate the United States government is
overwhelming. Can you imagine that such an attempt would not include the Secretary of War, especially because the evidence is clear and convincing that his subordinate, Ulysses S. Grant, was targeted?

If you are still unconvinced, then I say, with all due respect and modesty, that the burden of proof has shifted to you. That is to say: please present your evidence that Stanton was NOT targeted.

John

[SSlater]

(10-27-2016 01:07 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  Kees:

You want "a greater degree of believability" that Stanton was targeted. How much more do you need than this:

1. He was mentioned as an intended victim in conversations between Confederate operatives in Canada.
2. When Davis learned of the assassination, he said: "If the same had been done to Secretary Stanton, the job would then be complete."
3. On May 15, 1865, an anonymous report was sent to Stanton advising him that that there had been a conspiracy to murder him, the president and Seward.
4. The "T.I.O.S. letter sent to Booth on April 10, 1865, at the National, stated that there was an assassin assigned to each member of Lincoln's cabinet.
5. A cipher letter that came into the possession of Union intelligence stated that "The brute Stanton will also meet his deserts (sic) by a sure hand".
6. Thomas A. Jones, head of the Confederate Secret Service in Maryland, wrote, in an 1893 book, that Stanton was an intended victim.
7. The May 10, 1865, letter from the Union agent in Paris quoted the Confederate agent "Johnston" as saying that if everything had been "carried out as was arranged previously, some 15 of the Yankee leaders would have been now quietly resting where they should have gone 4 years (ago)". Do you really believe the 15 did not include Stanton?
8. Suspicious persons were reported at or about Stanton's home on the night of the assassination by the New York Times, Stanton himself, Orville Hickman Browning, Senator William Stewart, Secretary of the Interior John Usher and Stanton's friend Hudson Taylor.
9. In my opinion, the evidence that an attempt was made on the night of April 14, 1865, to decapitate the United States government is
overwhelming. Can you imagine that such an attempt would not include the Secretary of War, especially because the evidence is clear and convincing that his subordinate, Ulysses S. Grant, was targeted?

If you are still unconvinced, then I say, with all due respect and modesty, that the burden of proof has shifted to you. That is to say: please present your evidence that Stanton was NOT targeted.

John

John F. from John F. Unfortunately, More is not always better.
I will be truthful and will challenge your "PROOFS" academically.
#1. ...mentioned as an intended target in Canada. Was that a casual conversation? A wish? or a suggestion?
#2. if Davis questioned the oversight, was anyone punished? Who is in the Dog House?
#3. "an anonymous report" - this is exactly the type "fact" that we are fighting. I bet there were hundreds of reports, going both ways.
after the fact. (People wishing that their pesky neighbors were included.)
#4. "an assassin was assigned", I wonder if he knew he got the assignment?
#5. That's enough. Any more would be excessive.
Not one of these items would meet YOUR STANDARDS of proof.
I believe exactly as you are saying - Stanton was a target! But your list does not make your point. I cannot believe that Stanton was not targeted, same for Grant - and maybe more. We know how they missed Grant, maybe they realized that Stanton was not in the chain of succession to the Presidency, and would not HONOR him with an assassination attempt.
I wish I could add more to what you believe, it's just not there.

[Gene C]

There was a lot of paranoia going on at that time, with conspiracy rumors (some true) all over the place.

I agree with SSlater, so I'll pick up where he left off.
6. Thomas Jones isn't the model of honesty that many seem to make of him. He had a biased sense of virtue and values. He also wanted to sell his book.
Stanton may have been on the "hit list", but he wasn't high enough on the list.
7. The letter you mentioned is hearsay. I am a bit surprised you even offer that as an arguable point.
8. There were suspicious people everywhere in Washington in 1865.
9. What does killing Grant accomplish?

I can agree that Stanton should have been a target, but in my opinion he wasn't. At that point in time, now that the war was over, a severe shortage of dedicated confederate martyrs and assassins to go around.

[John Fazio]

(10-27-2016 03:44 PM)SSlater Wrote:  

(10-27-2016 01:07 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  Kees:

You want "a greater degree of believability" that Stanton was targeted. How much more do you need than this:

1. He was mentioned as an intended victim in conversations between Confederate operatives in Canada.
2. When Davis learned of the assassination, he said: "If the same had been done to Secretary Stanton, the job would then be complete."
3. On May 15, 1865, an anonymous report was sent to Stanton advising him that that there had been a conspiracy to murder him, the president and Seward.
4. The "T.I.O.S. letter sent to Booth on April 10, 1865, at the National, stated that there was an assassin assigned to each member of Lincoln's cabinet.
5. A cipher letter that came into the possession of Union intelligence stated that "The brute Stanton will also meet his deserts (sic) by a sure hand".
6. Thomas A. Jones, head of the Confederate Secret Service in Maryland, wrote, in an 1893 book, that Stanton was an intended victim.
7. The May 10, 1865, letter from the Union agent in Paris quoted the Confederate agent "Johnston" as saying that if everything had been "carried out as was arranged previously, some 15 of the Yankee leaders would have been now quietly resting where they should have gone 4 years (ago)". Do you really believe the 15 did not include Stanton?
8. Suspicious persons were reported at or about Stanton's home on the night of the assassination by the New York Times, Stanton himself, Orville Hickman Browning, Senator William Stewart, Secretary of the Interior John Usher and Stanton's friend Hudson Taylor.
9. In my opinion, the evidence that an attempt was made on the night of April 14, 1865, to decapitate the United States government is
overwhelming. Can you imagine that such an attempt would not include the Secretary of War, especially because the evidence is clear and convincing that his subordinate, Ulysses S. Grant, was targeted?

If you are still unconvinced, then I say, with all due respect and modesty, that the burden of proof has shifted to you. That is to say: please present your evidence that Stanton was NOT targeted.

John

John F. from John F. Unfortunately, More is not always better.
I will be truthful and will challenge your "PROOFS" academically.
#1. ...mentioned as an intended target in Canada. Was that a casual conversation? A wish? or a suggestion?
#2. if Davis questioned the oversight, was anyone punished? Who is in the Dog House?
#3. "an anonymous report" - this is exactly the type "fact" that we are fighting. I bet there were hundreds of reports, going both ways.
after the fact. (People wishing that their pesky neighbors were included.)
#4. "an assassin was assigned", I wonder if he knew he got the assignment?
#5. That's enough. Any more would be excessive.
Not one of these items would meet YOUR STANDARDS of proof.
I believe exactly as you are saying - Stanton was a target! But your list does not make your point. I cannot believe that Stanton was not targeted, same for Grant - and maybe more. We know how they missed Grant, maybe they realized that Stanton was not in the chain of succession to the Presidency, and would not HONOR him with an assassination attempt.
I wish I could add more to what you believe, it's just not there.

SSlater:

They are not "proofs"; they are evidence. I did not say, nor imply, that more was better, but taken together the nine items make a stronger case than any one of them does individually.

I will interpret your failure to object to Items 5 through 9 as a waiver of objection. As for the objections you do make, they are not well taken. You can only get so much juice from fruit, after which you have nothing but a waste product.

1. You may read the numerous references on pp. 25-38 of Pitman.
2. Davis did not question an oversight; he merely expressed regret that Stanton and Johnson hadn't met the same fate as Lincoln. It is unlikely that anyone was "punished" or in a "dog house", but if someone was in any way called to account for a failure, it is not something we would have heard about.
3. Anonymity does not preclude veracity. It was a dangerous time. People were being killed in great numbers. It is therefore perfectly understandable that writers and informers would wish to conceal their identities, and many did. See pp. 369, 370 of Decapitating for an example.
4. Why would an assignee not know he had received an assignment? What good would it do an assignor to assign a task to an assignee and then fail to advise him of the assignment?

John

---

(10-27-2016 07:18 PM)Gene C Wrote:  There was a lot of paranoia going on at that time, with conspiracy rumors (some true) all over the place.

I agree with SSlater, so I'll pick up where he left off.
6. Thomas Jones isn't the model of honesty that many seem to make of him. He had a biased sense of virtue and values. He also wanted to sell his book.
Stanton may have been on the "hit list", but he wasn't high enough on the list.
7. The letter you mentioned is hearsay. I am a bit surprised you even offer that as an arguable point.
8. There were suspicious people everywhere in Washington in 1865.
9. What does killing Grant accomplish?

I can agree that Stanton should have been a target, but in my opinion he wasn't. At that point in time, now that the war was over, a severe shortage of dedicated confederate martyrs and assassins to go around.

Gene:

6. What do we really know about Thomas Jones's honesty? One could make that objection about anyone anytime anywhere. I doubt that this sentence in Jones's 140-page book sold many copies of his book:
"...when the evening of that fatal Good Friday arrived, the plans for the intended quadruple murder were all arranged. Payne and Atzerodt, acting under Booth's instructions, were to dispatch Secretaries Seward and Stanton, while Booth himself undertook the President and General Grant, who was expected to accompany him to Ford's Theatre." Stanton was not high enough on the list? After the President, the Vice President and the Secretary of State, there was none higher.
7. The letter is only hearsay if a foundation could not be laid for it. But no matter, we are not in court with strict rules of evidence. The authenticity of the letter has never been questioned. It is powerful evidence; it practically makes the case for decapitation all by itself. It also establishes intimate knowledge of Booth by the Confederate underground.
8. So what? They weren't all at or about Stanton's home. But some were, which is all we need to know.
9. Together with the assassination of Stanton, the assassination of Grant cripples the military. It is also sweet retribution for all the grief he gave the Confederacy, not only in the west, but also when he went head to head against Lee from May, 1864, through Appomattox.


If it is your opinion that Stanton was not targeted, what evidence for that conclusion do you offer? A severe shortage of assassins? "Johnston" didn't think so. Neither does it square with Powell's statements to Eckert.

John

[RJNorton]

(10-27-2016 08:07 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  Neither does it square with Powell's statements to Eckert.

John, maybe I do not understand what you are saying, so please excuse if I am. But are you saying Powell told Eckert that Stanton was an intended target of Booth's? I do not remember reading this in Bates' book. Where might I read about this?