Was Stanton a murder target?

[John Fazio]

(10-27-2016 04:44 PM)SSlater Wrote:  

(10-27-2016 02:07 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  Kees:

You want "a greater degree of believability" that Stanton was targeted. How much more do you need than this:

1. He was mentioned as an intended victim in conversations between Confederate operatives in Canada.
2. When Davis learned of the assassination, he said: "If the same had been done to Secretary Stanton, the job would then be complete."
3. On May 15, 1865, an anonymous report was sent to Stanton advising him that that there had been a conspiracy to murder him, the president and Seward.
4. The "T.I.O.S. letter sent to Booth on April 10, 1865, at the National, stated that there was an assassin assigned to each member of Lincoln's cabinet.
5. A cipher letter that came into the possession of Union intelligence stated that "The brute Stanton will also meet his deserts (sic) by a sure hand".
6. Thomas A. Jones, head of the Confederate Secret Service in Maryland, wrote, in an 1893 book, that Stanton was an intended victim.
7. The May 10, 1865, letter from the Union agent in Paris quoted the Confederate agent "Johnston" as saying that if everything had been "carried out as was arranged previously, some 15 of the Yankee leaders would have been now quietly resting where they should have gone 4 years (ago)". Do you really believe the 15 did not include Stanton?
8. Suspicious persons were reported at or about Stanton's home on the night of the assassination by the New York Times, Stanton himself, Orville Hickman Browning, Senator William Stewart, Secretary of the Interior John Usher and Stanton's friend Hudson Taylor.
9. In my opinion, the evidence that an attempt was made on the night of April 14, 1865, to decapitate the United States government is
overwhelming. Can you imagine that such an attempt would not include the Secretary of War, especially because the evidence is clear and convincing that his subordinate, Ulysses S. Grant, was targeted?

If you are still unconvinced, then I say, with all due respect and modesty, that the burden of proof has shifted to you. That is to say: please present your evidence that Stanton was NOT targeted.

John

John F. from John F. Unfortunately, More is not always better.
I will be truthful and will challenge your "PROOFS" academically.
#1. ...mentioned as an intended target in Canada. Was that a casual conversation? A wish? or a suggestion?
#2. if Davis questioned the oversight, was anyone punished? Who is in the Dog House?
#3. "an anonymous report" - this is exactly the type "fact" that we are fighting. I bet there were hundreds of reports, going both ways.
after the fact. (People wishing that their pesky neighbors were included.)
#4. "an assassin was assigned", I wonder if he knew he got the assignment?
#5. That's enough. Any more would be excessive.
Not one of these items would meet YOUR STANDARDS of proof.
I believe exactly as you are saying - Stanton was a target! But your list does not make your point. I cannot believe that Stanton was not targeted, same for Grant - and maybe more. We know how they missed Grant, maybe they realized that Stanton was not in the chain of succession to the Presidency, and would not HONOR him with an assassination attempt.
I wish I could add more to what you believe, it's just not there.

SSlater:

They are not "proofs"; they are evidence. I did not say, nor imply, that more was better, but taken together the nine items make a stronger case than any one of them does individually.

I will interpret your failure to object to Items 5 through 9 as a waiver of objection. As for the objections you do make, they are not well taken. You can only get so much juice from fruit, after which you have nothing but a waste product.

1. You may read the numerous references on pp. 25-38 of Pitman.
2. Davis did not question an oversight; he merely expressed regret that Stanton and Johnson hadn't met the same fate as Lincoln. It is unlikely that anyone was "punished" or in a "dog house", but if someone was in any way called to account for a failure, it is not something we would have heard about.
3. Anonymity does not preclude veracity. It was a dangerous time. People were being killed in great numbers. It is therefore perfectly understandable that writers and informers would wish to conceal their identities, and many did. See pp. 369, 370 of Decapitating for an example.
4. Why would an assignee not know he had received an assignment? What good would it do an assignor to assign a task to an assignee and then fail to advise him of the assignment?

John

---

(10-27-2016 08:18 PM)Gene C Wrote:  There was a lot of paranoia going on at that time, with conspiracy rumors (some true) all over the place.

I agree with SSlater, so I'll pick up where he left off.
6. Thomas Jones isn't the model of honesty that many seem to make of him. He had a biased sense of virtue and values. He also wanted to sell his book.
Stanton may have been on the "hit list", but he wasn't high enough on the list.
7. The letter you mentioned is hearsay. I am a bit surprised you even offer that as an arguable point.
8. There were suspicious people everywhere in Washington in 1865.
9. What does killing Grant accomplish?

I can agree that Stanton should have been a target, but in my opinion he wasn't. At that point in time, now that the war was over, a severe shortage of dedicated confederate martyrs and assassins to go around.

Gene:

6. What do we really know about Thomas Jones's honesty? One could make that objection about anyone anytime anywhere. I doubt that this sentence in Jones's 140-page book sold many copies of his book:
"...when the evening of that fatal Good Friday arrived, the plans for the intended quadruple murder were all arranged. Payne and Atzerodt, acting under Booth's instructions, were to dispatch Secretaries Seward and Stanton, while Booth himself undertook the President and General Grant, who was expected to accompany him to Ford's Theatre." Stanton was not high enough on the list? After the President, the Vice President and the Secretary of State, there was none higher.
7. The letter is only hearsay if a foundation could not be laid for it. But no matter, we are not in court with strict rules of evidence. The authenticity of the letter has never been questioned. It is powerful evidence; it practically makes the case for decapitation all by itself. It also establishes intimate knowledge of Booth by the Confederate underground.
8. So what? They weren't all at or about Stanton's home. But some were, which is all we need to know.
9. Together with the assassination of Stanton, the assassination of Grant cripples the military. It is also sweet retribution for all the grief he gave the Confederacy, not only in the west, but also when he went head to head against Lee from May, 1864, through Appomattox.


If it is your opinion that Stanton was not targeted, what evidence for that conclusion do you offer? A severe shortage of assassins? "Johnston" didn't think so. Neither does it square with Powell's statements to Eckert.

John