Booth's Denial of Foreknowledge of the Attack on Seward

[John Fazio]

(12-28-2018 12:26 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Thank you all for your attempts to enlighten Mr. G. I doubt that your efforts will be successful, but perhaps others can learn from your knowledge.

Am I not also correct that, in the event of the loss of Lincoln, Johnson, and Seward, there would be no one to call for the special election of a President? Wasn't that a duty of the Secretary of State?

Laurie:

Yes, according to the provisions of the Presidential Succession Statute of 1792. The supposition was that with the Secretary of State also dead, there would be such terrible infighting in the Congress for the selection of a new Secretary of State and control of the Electoral College, that the wheels of government would grind to a halt. And with the Secretary of War and the Lieutenant-General of the Armies also dead, the wheels of the military would also grind to a halt. That is why it was necessary to take out all five of the leaders. Evidence for the attempts on Stanton and Grant is strong, not airtight, but strong. Booth himself announced to his team (what was left of it) that he would take care of both Lincoln and Grant. And Stanton is mentioned as an intended victim in conversations between Confederate Secret Service operatives in Canada and also in an 1893 book written by Thomas A. Jones.

John