My Journey on Lincoln's Assassination

[John Fazio]

Mike, Laurie, Roger, et al.:

Please forgive my tardiness in responding; I have been, as always, quite busy.

1. Mike, in response to your statement that you do not believe that the theory of Stanton's involvement has been discredited, please consider, in addition to Laurie's comment re Robert Todd's wedding invitation, p. 323 of Decapitating the Union, and especially William Hanchett's summary . See also pp. 255-258 of Decapitating for evidence of an assassination attempt on Stanton.
2. In response to your statement about finding it hard to imagine how any genuine Southerner could have believed that killing Lincoln, Johnson and Seward could in any way help the South, let me say that I hardly know where to begin to answer you. To begin with, you omitted to include Stanton and Grant as targets, despite much evidence in support thereof (see pp. 255-260 of Decapitating), and, for that matter, as many as 10 other Union leaders as targets, if the May 10, 1965, letter from the Union agent in Paris is to be believed, and there is no reason it should not be (see p. 260 of Decapitating). Secondly, there is a ton of evidence of previous assassination attempts against Lincoln, some definitely and others most likely carried out by Southerners, including the infected shirt plot, which was engineered by three of Davis's appointees in Canada, namely James Holcombe, Clement Clay and Jacob Thompson, to say nothing of all the poisoned foodstuffs that were sent to Lincoln from the South after his election but before he left Springfield. Third, you assume that belligerents in war act rationally. They do not. They are motivated by the strongest motivator of human behavior, stronger even than the motivation to acquire wealth (which is second), namely REVENGE. See pp. 328-333 of Decapitating for Confederate motives to eliminate Lincoln, Johnson, Seward, Stanton and Grant, and perhaps others. You underestimate the lengths to which those who have fought 4 long and hard years to avert a catastrophe will go to prevent that catastrophe from happening. What was the catastrophe: 1) The loss of their political independence; 2) The loss of their lifestyle and culture; 3) The loss of their wealth and property; 4) The social disruption attendant upon the integration of 4 million suddenly free blacks into a society of 5.5. million whites; and 5) The possible "mongrelization" of their race. You also underestimate the lengths to which such people would go to have their revenge against those whom they considered responsible for the impending catastrophe and for the despoliation of their land and people
3. You say "I think the claim that the Radicals and Lincoln were not very far apart on Reconstruction is demonstrably false." I could not agree more. Whoever said such a thing? All of your quotes are well taken, to which I would add Nicolay's statement that "(The) extreme Radicals...were naturally shocked by the murder, but they did not, among themselves, conceal their gratification that (Lincoln) was no longer in the way." That statement, incidentally, suggests strongly that at least some in the North (namely the Radicals and those whose interests they represented) were motivated by something other than Union and Emancipation. At the same time, it must be said that their use of the word "Godsend" argues against their complicity in the attempted decapitation or even, more specifically, the murder of Lincoln. "Godsends" are unexpected happenstances; they are not the result of plotting and scheming and therefore are not evidence of Radical complicity in the Great Crime.
4. Your doubts about the guilt of Mary Surratt and Dr. Mudd are, in my opinion, without merit. See Chapters 5 and 11 of Decapitating and see also Ed Steers's book His Name is Still Mudd and Kate Larson's book The Assassin's Accomplice. Your supposition that Surratt or Dr. Mudd "might have been involved in the kidnapping plot", again, is without merit, for the simple reason that THERE WAS NO BONA FIDE KIDNAPPING PLOT (see Chapter 12 of Decapitating).
5. I am not familiar with Dr. Robert Arnold's arguments re Corbett. I will have a look at them, but I will say now that he has an uphill climb with me, because I believe the evidence favoring Corbett's killing of Booth is somewhere between very strong and conclusive.
6. As for the identity of the corpse taken from the Garrett farm, see pp. 287, 288 of Decapitating.
7. The evidence of O'Laughlen's presence at the Stanton mansion on the evening of April 13 is inconclusive. I favor his being there despite the preponderance of witnesses who supported his alibi. See pp. 113-117 and 256-258 of Decapitating..
8. As for Lloyd and Weichmann, see pp. 298-300 of Decapitating I favor the veracity of their testimony, especially Weichmann's, who affirmed his truthfulness on his deathbed.
9. As for Stanton bullying Johnson, I would have to see evidence of the same.
10. The trial was not, in my opinion, a disgrace, nor was it a "farce", as some have said. It was, rather, "an enormous undertaking at an enormously difficult time under enormously difficult circumstances. It was carried out by conscientious and well-meaning men, competent, but nevertheless frail, like all of us. In the end, and despite their frailty, they acquitted themselves quite well, because, except in Spangler's case, justice was served...Getting something right seven out of eight times isn't bad."

Thank you.

John