Booth's Escape Route

[RJNorton]

(01-22-2013 02:54 PM)Gene C Wrote:  And why is Stanton not a target? He has more to do with military management than Seward.

Good question, Gene. One theory on this was offered by Michael Maione and James O Hall in an article entitled "Why Seward?" in the Spring 1998 edition of the Lincoln Herald.

If Andrew Johnson had also been assassinated as Booth planned, Senate President Pro Tempore Lafayette S. Foster of Connecticut would have become acting president pending an election of a new president. The process of electing a new president could only be set in motion by the secretary of state; thus Booth felt Seward's assassination would throw the Union government into "electoral chaos." A Presidential Succession law passed on March 1, 1792, was still in effect in 1865. It provided that the president pro tempore of the Senate was third in line to the presidency and the Speaker of the House was fourth. This law didn't make any succession provisions beyond the Speaker.

In Weichmann's book (p. 138) he says Booth had a noontime conversation with John F. Coyle, part-owner and editor of the Washington Daily National Intelligencer. In the conversation Booth quizzed Coyle on the line of secession:

Booth: “Suppose Lincoln was killed, what would be the result?"
Coyle: “Johnson would succeed.”
Booth: “But if he was killed?”
Coyle: “Then Seward.”
Booth: “But suppose he was killed, then what?”
Coyle: “Then anarchy or whatever the Constitution provides.”

Coyle went on to say, “What nonsense, they don’t make Brutuses nowadays.”
Booth replied, “No, they do not.”

The above conversation, which allegedly took place in a restaurant, was published in the Washington Post and is also included in the article by Mr. Maione and Mr. Hall. It’s also reported on p. 277 of Frank A. Flower’s biography of Edwin Stanton.

Personally, I do not know if Coyle's memory is reliable or not.

If it's true, then Coyle gave Booth some incorrect information, stating that Seward was third in line to the presidency.