Herold and Surratt

[John Fazio]

(11-12-2013 05:24 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  [quote='Thomas Thorne' pid='26569' dateline='1384189775']
People have speculated that Booth via the fiendish legal knowledge of Judah Benjamin and/or George Sanders was aware of the provisions of the Presidential Succession Act of 1792. Yet we have no evidence that the conspirators ever targeted Lafayette Foster,President Pro Tempore of the US Senate. Foster was the only person in the presidential succession if both Lincoln and Johnson were killed. Does anyone know where Foster was that nite?

Hi Tom. Depending on whether one believes the word of John F. Coyle or not, Booth may also have been given incorrect information on the day of the assassination. I read somewhere Coyle was not considered a reliable source, but I've forgotten where I read that.

In Weichmann's book (p. 138) he says Booth had a noontime conversation with 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.”

No specific mention of Foster's name in the conversation.

The above Booth-Coyle conversation, which allegedly took place in a restaurant, was published in the Washington Post and is also included in the article entitled "Why Seward?" by Michael Maione and James O. Hall in the Spring 1998 edition of the Lincoln Herald.
[/quote)

Roger:

Thank you for reminding me of that conversation, which I believe to be significant. Even if Booth were asking the questions only because he was curious of the political fallout from his planned multiple assassinations, rather than because he had been briefed by his handlers as to the real purpose of the same, it still demonstrates that he considered the ramifications in his planning and was therefore in some degree motivated by them. I will take it a step further and say that the conversation is probably more, rather than less, indicative of NOT having been clued by his superiors as to the real purpose of his work on the 14th, because if he had fully informed, what need had he of asking Coyle, whose answers were inaccurate anyway.

A good reason for not targeting Foster (assuming he was not targeted), is that his murder would have been proof positive to the government of the hand of Richmond and the lawyer Benjamin behind the assassination and the attempted assassinations. Why on earth, the reasoning would be, would a 26-year old actor want to kill the President Pro-Tempore of the Senate unless he knew of his importance as a successor to the presidency, which knowledge could only have come to him from Richmond wigs.

John