Something to thhink about.

[SSlater]

Here's what I learned this week.
1. A man admits that he took a message to Booth, ordering him not to kill Lincoln.
2. Atzerodt tells us that Booth told him that there is another plan to get the President sure, and Booth is not part of that plan. Booth's plan is terminated.
3. Another man leaves Richmond, for the express purpose of "Blowing up the White House."
4 But this man gets captured, he is jailed, his plan is dead.
5.Booth is aware of that capture and formulates a NEW PLAN. There is no mention of the plan until Friday, when Booth shoots Lincoln.
6 Is Mary Surratt guilty of murder?

[John Fazio]

(07-03-2016 10:42 PM)SSlater Wrote:  Here's what I learned this week.
1. A man admits that he took a message to Booth, ordering him not to kill Lincoln.
2. Atzerodt tells us that Booth told him that there is another plan to get the President sure, and Booth is not part of that plan. Booth's plan is terminated.
3. Another man leaves Richmond, for the express purpose of "Blowing up the White House."
4 But this man gets captured, he is jailed, his plan is dead.
5.Booth is aware of that capture and formulates a NEW PLAN. There is no mention of the plan until Friday, when Booth shoots Lincoln.
6 Is Mary Surratt guilty of murder?

Slater:

A few questions:

1. What is the source or sources of your information?
2. Who was the man? To whom did he acknowledge that he took the message to Booth? Why did he acknowledge it? Whom did he represent? From whom did he receive the order?
3. When did he take the message to Booth? Was the message written or oral, if you know? Where was Booth at the time he received the message?
4. If there was such an order delivered to Booth, it means there was a prior order to Booth to kill Lincoln, which this order then countermanded, does it not?
5. Was Booth's plan "terminated" or merely put on hold, to be reactivated in the event of a stated contingency?
6. Upon capture of the other man, why would Booth formulate a new plan? Why would he not simply reactivate the old plan, i.e. the plan previously put on hold but not terminated? And if he reactivated the old plan, is it not true that he is still operating pursuant to someone else's order, i.e. the order that was in effect prior to its being countermanded? This, incidentally, is consistent with the evidence that Booth communicated with Surratt in Montreal on the first day of the week (the 10th) advising him to return to Washington forthwith because their plans had changed.
7. When you say there was no mention of the plan until Friday, who would have mentioned it if it had been mentioned? To whom would it have been mentioned if it had been mentioned? At what time of the day was in mentioned on Friday? Or was it mentioned to different people at different times?
8. You have not previously mentioned her, but, yes, if she were part of Booth's conspiracy and someone died, unlawfully, incident to it. I know of a case in which a group of men robbed a bank. One of the men remained in the getaway car and was not with the others who were in the bank robbing it. The police arrived and there was an exchange of gunfire with the robbers in the bank only. One of the policemen's bullets accidentally hit and killed an innocent bystander. The man sitting in the getaway car, who was never in the bank and who did not participate in the gunplay, was convicted of first degree murder.

Thank you for your answers to these questions. Upon receipt of the same, I will follow up.

John

[SSlater]

(07-03-2016 11:51 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(07-03-2016 10:42 PM)SSlater Wrote:  Here's what I learned this week.
1. A man admits that he took a message to Booth, ordering him not to kill Lincoln.
2. Atzerodt tells us that Booth told him that there is another plan to get the President sure, and Booth is not part of that plan. Booth's plan is terminated.
3. Another man leaves Richmond, for the express purpose of "Blowing up the White House."
4 But this man gets captured, he is jailed, his plan is dead.
5.Booth is aware of that capture and formulates a NEW PLAN. There is no mention of the plan until Friday, when Booth shoots Lincoln.
6 Is Mary Surratt guilty of murder?

Slater:

A few questions:

1. What is the source or sources of your information?
2. Who was the man? To whom did he acknowledge that he took the message to Booth? Why did he acknowledge it? Whom did he represent? From whom did he receive the order?
3. When did he take the message to Booth? Was the message written or oral, if you know? Where was Booth at the time he received the message?
4. If there was such an order delivered to Booth, it means there was a prior order to Booth to kill Lincoln, which this order then countermanded, does it not?
5. Was Booth's plan "terminated" or merely put on hold, to be reactivated in the event of a stated contingency?
6. Upon capture of the other man, why would Booth formulate a new plan? Why would he not simply reactivate the old plan, i.e. the plan previously put on hold but not terminated? And if he reactivated the old plan, is it not true that he is still operating pursuant to someone else's order, i.e. the order that was in effect prior to its being countermanded? This, incidentally, is consistent with the evidence that Booth communicated with Surratt in Montreal on the first day of the week (the 10th) advising him to return to Washington forthwith because their plans had changed.
7. When you say there was no mention of the plan until Friday, who would have mentioned it if it had been mentioned? To whom would it have been mentioned if it had been mentioned? At what time of the day was in mentioned on Friday? Or was it mentioned to different people at different times?
8. You have not previously mentioned her, but, yes, if she were part of Booth's conspiracy and someone died, unlawfully, incident to it. I know of a case in which a group of men robbed a bank. One of the men remained in the getaway car and was not with the others who were in the bank robbing it. The police arrived and there was an exchange of gunfire with the robbers in the bank only. One of the policemen's bullets accidentally hit and killed an innocent bystander. The man sitting in the getaway car, who was never in the bank and who did not participate in the gunplay, was convicted of first degree murder.

Thank you for your answers to these questions. Upon receipt of the same, I will follow up.

John

I can't answer all these questions, (If I could, I'd write a book) regardless, what I said is true.

[John Fazio]

(07-04-2016 12:59 PM)SSlater Wrote:  

(07-03-2016 11:51 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(07-03-2016 10:42 PM)SSlater Wrote:  Here's what I learned this week.
1. A man admits that he took a message to Booth, ordering him not to kill Lincoln.
2. Atzerodt tells us that Booth told him that there is another plan to get the President sure, and Booth is not part of that plan. Booth's plan is terminated.
3. Another man leaves Richmond, for the express purpose of "Blowing up the White House."
4 But this man gets captured, he is jailed, his plan is dead.
5.Booth is aware of that capture and formulates a NEW PLAN. There is no mention of the plan until Friday, when Booth shoots Lincoln.
6 Is Mary Surratt guilty of murder?

Slater:

A few questions:

1. What is the source or sources of your information?
2. Who was the man? To whom did he acknowledge that he took the message to Booth? Why did he acknowledge it? Whom did he represent? From whom did he receive the order?
3. When did he take the message to Booth? Was the message written or oral, if you know? Where was Booth at the time he received the message?
4. If there was such an order delivered to Booth, it means there was a prior order to Booth to kill Lincoln, which this order then countermanded, does it not?
5. Was Booth's plan "terminated" or merely put on hold, to be reactivated in the event of a stated contingency?
6. Upon capture of the other man, why would Booth formulate a new plan? Why would he not simply reactivate the old plan, i.e. the plan previously put on hold but not terminated? And if he reactivated the old plan, is it not true that he is still operating pursuant to someone else's order, i.e. the order that was in effect prior to its being countermanded? This, incidentally, is consistent with the evidence that Booth communicated with Surratt in Montreal on the first day of the week (the 10th) advising him to return to Washington forthwith because their plans had changed.
7. When you say there was no mention of the plan until Friday, who would have mentioned it if it had been mentioned? To whom would it have been mentioned if it had been mentioned? At what time of the day was in mentioned on Friday? Or was it mentioned to different people at different times?
8. You have not previously mentioned her, but, yes, if she were part of Booth's conspiracy and someone died, unlawfully, incident to it. I know of a case in which a group of men robbed a bank. One of the men remained in the getaway car and was not with the others who were in the bank robbing it. The police arrived and there was an exchange of gunfire with the robbers in the bank only. One of the policemen's bullets accidentally hit and killed an innocent bystander. The man sitting in the getaway car, who was never in the bank and who did not participate in the gunplay, was convicted of first degree murder.

Thank you for your answers to these questions. Upon receipt of the same, I will follow up.

John

I can't answer all these questions, (If I could, I'd write a book) regardless, what I said is true.

Slater:

Thanks for your response.

No problem with the questions and answers, but please let me know the source of your information. That alone would be a big help.

John

[SSlater]

I would like to withdraw my recent reply to questions raised as a result of my post. I'm going to "support" each of my 5 Statements. The 6th one remains for you to answer.
Statement #1

---

(My computer is acting up. It's trying to hush me! as I was saying....
Statement #1 A Guy named Leonard T. Hogan stood up in 1900 (35 years after the fact), and admitted to all assembled, that he carried orders to Booth that he was not to shoot Lincoln. 116 years later, I learned about his efforts. That's all I know. I have no reason to doubt this statement.
Hogan's participation in this episode, further confirms that "Someone" in Richmond, knew all about Booth's plans, and were dissatisfied with his with his failures and delays - he couldn't produce. Their new plan, that included Boyle, Mosby, Company H, the Torpedo Bureau, etc. shows that their support was in the new plan and that there would never be a need to go back to a resumption of Booth's willy-nilly plans.
I'll work on Hogan and his input to this event.

Statement #2 Do I need to show all of Atzerodt's Statement here? "Booth never said until the last night (Friday) that he intended to kill the President." "Herold came to the Kirkwood, same evening for me to go to see Booth. I went with Herold & saw Booth. He then said he was going to kill the President. and Wood, the Sec. of State. I did not believe him. This occurred about 7 1/2 oclock."
If this statement is unacceptable - then I have to ignore the part that says Booth "met a party in New York who would get the Pres. certain."

Statement #3 & 4 Do you question Harney's Mission, to "Blow up the White House"? (Atzerodt called it the "KIRK HOUSE".)

Statement #5 Do we agree that Harney was Captured? If not I can provide Prison records of his stay in Old Capitol Prison and Elmira ( with the others captured at the same time ) with pertinent dates shown clearly.

I was doing my best to be brief. The rest of the Post is ridicules.

[Wild Bill]

Have either of you read Rick Stelnick's Dixie Reckoning? You ought to. I think he has several of these questions or themes answered in his manuscript. I believe it is available as a PDF

---

Actually everyone interested in this thread ought to read it

[Gene C]

As I recall from previous posts, Mr Stelnick refers or references sources that can not be verified.
Bill, you knew Rick, did you get to see or read any of his original resources? Do you know what happened to his papers & research after his death.

I think Laurie has also commented on this manuscript

Perhaps I am to critical as I have not read his manuscript. Is this suppose to be a work of historical fiction?
https://www.amazon.com/DIXIE-RECKONING-R...+reckoning

[L Verge]

When I was threatened by Mr. Stelnick, I shipped everything he had sent me - including his unfinished mss - back to him. However, I firmly believe that he believed his information to be true and accurate, based on items held privately by other people who supposedly entrusted him to read them. The person who had directed Rick to these items was a man named Bernard Stein, who was then deceased. The items were supposedly held in the hands of a descendant of one of the men supposedly involved in the scheming in 1864-65, Philip Hanson, who has been mentioned on this forum before.

Pardon my continuing use of the word "supposedly," but it is necessary for me to use it in dealing with this subject. Stelnick and his work were mysteries to me. I kept wanting to shout, "Show me the proof!"

I asked Jane Singer, an expert in the spy game, to contact that descendant. During the first phone call, this person agreed to share information with Jane. When Jane contacted her again, she clammed up and claimed to know nothing. Someone had gotten to her -- probably Mr. Stelnick. I believe it was shortly after that that Stelnick disappeared. I contacted the firm that had agreed to publish his work, and they were as baffled as we were as to what was going on. We later learned that Rick had passed away. Bill probably knows much more than I do. Let's just say that I would not discredit the whole thing.

Someday, when I have retired and have absolutely nothing to do except confuse myself, I will download Dixie Reckoning and read it page by page, cover to cover, and try to understand everything. From what I did read, I found his theme very plausible. However, it was so crammed with unnecessary details, references, etc. that I would rather have had a root canal than try to decipher all the hidden meanings and innuendos. When I became afraid of the man, I called it quits.

[SSlater]

I do not understand what is going on. Did I do something wrong?

I readily admit that I never read Stelnick. I remember clearly, about the time he was active. and posting often, and when he got nasty with Laurie. Do you think I would buy his book ?- no way! I find it difficult to change from that position.

Everything in the post was discussed this week,, in this forum. There are concepts that still need further clarification - but that where I hope to get.

I'd prefer to drop the subject, rather than use Stelnick for an answer, or to continue in this unacceptable manner.

[ELCore]

(07-04-2016 03:11 PM)SSlater Wrote:  Statement #1 A Guy named Leonard T. Hogan stood up in 1900 (35 years after the fact), and admitted to all assembled, that he carried orders to Booth that he was not to shoot Lincoln. 116 years later, I learned about his efforts. That's all I know. I have no reason to doubt this statement.

Isn't that backwards? Doesn't one need reason to believe the statement rather than reason to doubt it?

[John Fazio]

(07-04-2016 07:57 PM)SSlater Wrote:  I do not understand what is going on. Did I do something wrong?

I readily admit that I never read Stelnick. I remember clearly, about the time he was active. and posting often, and when he got nasty with Laurie. Do you think I would buy his book ?- no way! I find it difficult to change from that position.

Everything in the post was discussed this week,, in this forum. There are concepts that still need further clarification - but that where I hope to get.

I'd prefer to drop the subject, rather than use Stelnick for an answer, or to continue in this unacceptable manner.

Slater:

I don't think you did anything wrong. You merely told of an account that had come to your attention, which might have some truth to it, though I'm not sure what you found to be "ridiculous".

I read the April 16, 1987, article from the Orlando Sentinel, which appears to deal with the same account. While we have to acknowledge the possibility of veracity, historians do not deal in possibilities, but probabilities. With that as the standard, the account must be rejected, principally because its source is so tenuous. It came from a 70-year old retired postmaster (Sears)who obtained much of his information from one Stratford St. Clair Story, one of the alleged special agent's sons. It was repeated in a 1931 biography of one H. H. Duncan written by Duncan's brother-in-law Edwin Peet. So we have at least five sources of information --Story (the alleged agent), his son Stratford, Sears, Duncan and Peet. The likelihood of error creeping into the account, from so many retellings, is therefore quite high.

Furthermore, the substance of the story (apart from its pedigree) is inconsistent with other information we have. Powell's role as a spy with Story is unlikely, as is the alleged meeting of the two of them with Booth in Barnum's. The evidence is strong, rather, that Powell, a Mosby Ranger, was dispatched to join Booth's conspiracy on March 14 and met Booth and the other conspirators at Gautier's on the 15th. Richard's said he was "behind" the presidential box, but then "jumped through the front of the box to get to Booth"? Was he an acrobat? Nowhere else--not even from Richards himself--is there anything like this story. He failed to stop Booth but found his Bowie knife on the floor of the box. Nonsense; Booth still had his knife when he crossed the stage.

The only part of the story that has some plausibility is Hogan's delivering a verbal order to Booth not to kill Lincoln, because I believe strongly that Booth was already under orders to do so. But if it happened, it happened before the Harney mission, not on the night of the assassination, as alleged in the article. In my view, the failure of the Harney mission was Booth's green light to execute the contingency plan and to notify Surratt to return to Washington forthwith. That scenario has some meat to it; the rest is too weak to take seriously.

John