Was Stanton a murder target?

[John Fazio]

(10-19-2016 11:07 AM)loetar44 Wrote:  John,
I’ve read and reread the pages you mentioned. You say in your book: “The evidence for an attempt on Stanton can fairly be said to be moderately strong, neither very strong nor weak”. In my opinion, it is better to say that the circumstantial evidence is moderately strong, cause all allegations that Stanton was a murder target are based on circumstantial evidence (some is stronger or weaker than others) and hearsay. Where is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Stanton was a murder target? In my opinion you have built your case through prima facie evidences (indications). It is up to the individual reader to weigh the importance of each piece you mention, and then come to a conclusion. For me the burden of proof is always quite high. In my mind there still exists reasonable doubt. On the other hand, you did a marvelous job and kudos for that! But it takes more to convince a Dutchman, exempli gratia:

(1) How reliable are Montgomery, Dunham, Merritt and Henry Von Steinacker and others? For example, Dunham was a mysterious figure, aka Sanford Conover. Carman Cumming wrote in his book "Devil's Game: The Civil War Intrigues of Charles A. Dunham", that he was "astonishingly clever and a prolific fraud", "an enormously inventive, imaginative, daring scoundrel", a “storyteller”. Was his account that Lincoln, Johnson, Stanton, Seward, Chase and Grant all were Confederate targets "to leave the government entirely without a head", true or one of his fanciful tales? And what about Henry von Steinacker (real name Hans von Winklestein), a convicted deserter from the U.S. army, a horse-thief who had been court-martialed by the Confederates after he had fled to them for protection, who maybe bought his release by false statements? Is such a man a reliable source?

(2) How sure, without any doubt, is it that O’Laughlen was in Stanton’s home at the night of April 13? Or did Stanton, Cox and Hatter only see a man with a black moustache, who resembled O’Laughlen, cause Walter Cox came at the trial with 9 other witnesses, all of whom stated that O'Laughlen was that night between 9.00 and 10.30 p.m. with friends wandering through the city, to see the Grand Illumination. An airtight alibi?

BTW John, you say in your book that David Stanton was “the war secretary’s son”. How sure are you about that?

(3) Why are the accounts concerning a figure on Stanton’s porch, and (another?) figure hiding behind a tree box (in my opinion) inconclusive, unconvincing? Well, spoken is about a “skulking figure”, a figure “muffled in a cloak”, etc. The figure(s) fled upon approach of officers coming to warn Stanton. In another account they fled upon approach of two employees of the Department, or when a messenger arrived to bring Stanton the news about the assassination of Seward. No man was ever identified or arrested. In my opinion it is more “early rumor” pointing to a possible assassin, more than it is (raw) evidence. Other rumors (?): “a man was heard by (Attorney General) Speed walking on his back porch” and “a person took cover at the Kirkwood House where the vice president was staying” ("They Have Killed Papa Dead!" by Door Anthony Pitch)

(4) Hudson Taylor credited a broken doorbell which saved Stanton’s life. Stanton himself spoke about that broken doorbell (“If the door bell had rung it would have been answered and the man admitted, and I no doubt would have been attacked, but the bell-wire was broken a day or two before …”). In my opinion a strange story. Why would an assassin leave because a doorbell was broken if he was assigned to murder Stanton? But also remember the following story, described by Thomas Goodridge in “The Darkest Dawn: Lincoln, Booth, and the Great American Tragedy” (p. 106): “Edwin Stanton had already locked his door for the night … the secretary of war was weary and preparing for bed. When he was nearly undressed, Stanton heard his wife Ellen go downstairs to answer the door. A moment later, she yelled out in a terror-filled voice, “Mr. Seward is murdered.” Please note: “to answer the door”. How was that possible when the doorbell was broken? Have we to assume that the messenger knocked on the door? Goodrich is also saying in his book “Stanton found his hallway filling with people, when he came downstairs. And note “was weary and preparing for bed”. Stanton himself said: “I was tired out and went home early, and was in the back room playing with the children when the man (i.e. the would-be assassin) came to my steps”.

All those various accounts make the story that Stanton was also marked for assassination more and more unconvincing to me.

Kees:

Thanks for reading my book. That gives you standing to contest its conclusions.

Do not denigrate circumstantial evidence; most prosecutors prefer it to eyewitness and material evidence, which are more easily attacked.

There is some doubt about Stanton's being a target, but, in my opinion, it is not reasonable. If, as you say, I have established a prima-facie case, then the burden of proof shifts to those who hold that he was not a target. The conversations between Confederate Secret Service operatives in Canada, in which he is named as an intended victim (it is a stretch to hold that all four witnesses lied as to this issue--for what purpose?); Davis's express wish that Stanton (and Johnson too) had been a victim; the T.I.O.S. letter; the letter from the Union agent in Paris; and Thomas A. Jones's 1893 book; coupled with the numerous other items of evidence given in my book, make a very persuasive case that he was targeted. And does it not, after all, fit with what Confederate leaders were trying to accomplish that night--the decapitation of the Federal government? Can you imagine a decapitation scenario that would not have included Stanton? So, Dutchman, my friend (I was in your country two years ago--Amsterdam, The Hague, Delft, etc.--loved it), get with the program.

Montgomery, Dunham and Merritt are OK on this issue. Their perjury was planted for exposure, thereby effecting the exoneration of Davis, et al., but naming Stanton as an intended target was without rational motive and is not anything that could be disproved. It therefore served no rational purpose for them. They planted perjury that could be disproved, and easily. The logic supporting legitimate perjury is absurd, as you know from reading my book.

"Leave the government without a head" had currency, if not from Thompson, then from someone, even if it was just Dunham, who was thick with all the Canadian contingent. It is perfectly consistent with all the other evidence we have on the issue.

Von Steinacker? Again, something of a scoundrel, but no reason to lie on this issue.

There were eight witnesses supporting O'Laughlen's alibi, not nine, and some reported merely seeing him, not being with him. This preponderance in numbers (compared to the three witnesses who put him at Stanton's home) counted heavily with the Commission. But remember that there is inconsistency in their testimony as to time and place. Further, to say that they are better witnesses than the three who put him in Stanton's home doesn't make a lot of sense. They were all friends of O'Laughlen's or well known to him, rather common folk, whereas the three were all professionals. I don't know if David Stanton was the Secretary's son. He is said to be such, by Chamlee, among others. Perhaps it was a name thing, of no substance, like Payne, or Paine, and Powell, and so many other irregularities of names and spellings, etc. Further, the three were categorical in their judgment, per the trial testimony (read Pitman, pp. 226, 227). Hatter said he was looking "right in his face", right in front of him, in bright light. Still further, recall Atzerodt's final confession in which he said that "an alibi was tried to be made out" but that no one who knew anything about O'Laughlen doubted that he was at Stanton's. It also fits with O'Laughlen's meeting with Booth on the morning of the 13th and the morning of the 14th. Are such meetings consistent with a theory that he was no longer part of Booth's conspiracy? I don't think so. Bottom line: I don't know whether the intruder was O'Laughlen or not, but I believe that the chances that it was he are as good as the chances that it was not.

As for the difference in accounts re the skulking figure, the man behind the tree box, the broken door bell, etc., when was the last time you heard of a half dozen people reporting an event with perfect consistency? What did I say earlier about the fallibility of eyewitness testimony?

John