Was Stanton a murder target?

[loetar44]

John,

I agree with you John. O'Laughlen would have told his lawyers. BUT, don't forget, that there is a big risk for him to do that. He would certainly have ended at the gallows, if he told that he knew Booth's plan to kill Lincoln c.s. and that he had NOT warned the authorities. It was healthier for him to "shut up". So he told nothing, saving his neck. It's a real possibility, isn't?

Roger,

Good question. How do we know that Booth indeed went to Baltimore on April13th, 1865. Curious what John have to say about this.

[Susan Higginbotham]

(11-06-2016 08:31 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  Kees:

The scenario you set forth--O'Laughlen trying to persuade Booth to call it quits-- is certainly possible, but I believe it to be less likely than the scenario in which he is still part of Booth's plans. If O'Laughlen tried to talk Booth out of proceeding with his plans, he would have told his lawyer this, would he not? In that case, his lawyer would have made that argument to the Commission, but there is no evidence that he did. His lawyer addressed only his client's whereabouts on the 13th and 14th, trying in this way to demonstrate that his client was not guilty of what he was charged with in the indictment and specifications. Your belief that O'Laughlen was not Booth's subordinate is off the mark. Please read the evidence against him in Pitman, especially Booth's letters to him dated March 13 and March 27 ("Don't fear to neglect your business. You had better come at once"; "Get word to Sam. Come on, with or without him, Wednesday morning. We sell that day sure. Don't fail". These orders are consistent with his going to the National on the 13th and 14th of April. He would not have gone unless he felt obligated to go.

There is persuasive evidence that all three of them already knew what was expected of them that night. That was certainly true of Arnold, who later told his captors that he had been given his assignment in the morning. The meeting was held merely to clarify roles and to tie up loose ends. Because push had finally come to shove, Atzerodt objected, but he put his head into the lion's mouth anyway. O'Laughlen and Arnold were always kept separate from the others, except at Gautier's and Campbell Hospital. Booth most likely gave O'Laughlen his assignment(s) in Baltimore. There was therefore no reason for him to attend the Herndon House meeting.

John

I'm confused--are you saying that Arnold confessed to being given an assignment on the 14th?

[John Fazio]

(11-06-2016 09:52 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  

(11-06-2016 08:31 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  Kees:

The scenario you set forth--O'Laughlen trying to persuade Booth to call it quits-- is certainly possible, but I believe it to be less likely than the scenario in which he is still part of Booth's plans. If O'Laughlen tried to talk Booth out of proceeding with his plans, he would have told his lawyer this, would he not? In that case, his lawyer would have made that argument to the Commission, but there is no evidence that he did. His lawyer addressed only his client's whereabouts on the 13th and 14th, trying in this way to demonstrate that his client was not guilty of what he was charged with in the indictment and specifications. Your belief that O'Laughlen was not Booth's subordinate is off the mark. Please read the evidence against him in Pitman, especially Booth's letters to him dated March 13 and March 27 ("Don't fear to neglect your business. You had better come at once"; "Get word to Sam. Come on, with or without him, Wednesday morning. We sell that day sure. Don't fail". These orders are consistent with his going to the National on the 13th and 14th of April. He would not have gone unless he felt obligated to go.

There is persuasive evidence that all three of them already knew what was expected of them that night. That was certainly true of Arnold, who later told his captors that he had been given his assignment in the morning. The meeting was held merely to clarify roles and to tie up loose ends. Because push had finally come to shove, Atzerodt objected, but he put his head into the lion's mouth anyway. O'Laughlen and Arnold were always kept separate from the others, except at Gautier's and Campbell Hospital. Booth most likely gave O'Laughlen his assignment(s) in Baltimore. There was therefore no reason for him to attend the Herndon House meeting.

John

I'm confused--are you saying that Arnold confessed to being given an assignment on the 14th?

Susan:

Sorry, I erred. I did not mean Arnold; I meant Powell.

John

[John Fazio]

(11-06-2016 11:42 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  How do we even know Booth traveled to Baltimore on April 13th?

I do not see it mentioned in Art Loux's book. (Maybe it's there and I am missing it?)

Mike Kauffman writes, "Someone calling himself "Justice" reported seeing Booth talking to O'Laughlen in Baltimore, and said that O'Laughlen was supposed to accompany Booth to Washington that day. The story has the ring of truth; and makes O'Laughlen's trip to Washington appear less coincidental."

So is this letter from someone named "Justice" the only tangible evidence Booth went to Baltimore on April 13th? Is there more than "a ring of truth" to the alleged trip?

Roger:

You ask a good question. I can only say that I followed Mike Kauffman on this, citing p. 213 of American Brutus. Mike cited the letter from "Justice" as his authority and gives its provenance on p. 444. Interestingly, two other letters from "Justice" appear in Edwards and Steers The Lincoln Assassination, but the relevant one does not. Loux appears to have missed this item. His book is a fine one, but he cannot be expected to have recorded every detail. He has O'Laughlen visiting Booth at the National between 4:00 and 5:00 pm, for example, whereas my information is that the train did not arrive until 5:30 and that the men took a drink at Ruhlman's before O'Laughlen made his visit. In any case, why would Justice say he saw Booth talking with O'Laughlen in Baltimore that day if he didn't? Further, the fact that O'Laughlen came to Washington at this time and made two trips to the National to see Booth support the veracity of Justice's letter. I disagree with Kauffman's implication that O'Laughlen went to Washington to talk Booth out of his plans. That strikes me as wholly inconsistent with everything else we know about this episode. Which is the more reasonable conclusion: that he went to the National to persuade Booth not to kill Lincoln, did not succeed, so returned the following morning to give it another go; or, that he came to Washington for the purpose of helping Booth in some way, went to see him on the 13th to confirm his assignment, carried it out that night, and returned to see him the following morning to report the results of his assignment?

John

[loetar44]

In the morning of Thursday April 13, 1865 Booth takes the train to Baltimore, hoping to reenlist O’Laughlen. He returned before O’Laughlen to DC. We know O’Laughlen took the train of 3.30 pm, so Booth took the train back before 3.30 pm. We know from C. Dwight Hess that he had last seen Booth (in Grover’s) on Thursday April 13, early in the afternoon. If Booth travelled to Baltimore (2 hours travel time), returned to D.C. (again 2 hours travel time), spoke with O’Laughlen (maybe more than 1 hour), had breakfast and lunch, could he than have arranged a meeting with Hess early in the afternoon?

Just found at
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s...clnk&gl=nl

for April 13, 1865:

(1) "Booth goes to Baltimore to try to get Michael O’Laughlen back into the conspiracy. O’Laughlen refuses and Booth goes back to Washington. O’Laughlen follows him to try to talk him out of it."

and

(2) "That evening there is a massive “illumination” (firewords, gas fires, etc) in Washington. O’Laughlen wanders through it with friends who don’t know about the conspiracy (it’s unclear from Kauffman if he ever made contact with Booth)."

[RJNorton]

I still wonder about the Baltimore trip - was there really time to do it? On the morning of April 13th Art Loux has Booth going to Ford's in the morning to pick up his mail.

Art writes, "When Booth stopped at Ford's Theatre to pick up his mail, he told actor E. A. Emerson that when Lincoln had visited the White House of the Confederacy, he had 'squirted tobacco juice all over the place. Somebody ought to kill the old scoundrel.' Harry Ford observed Booth alone on the gallery steps. Booth next stopped at Taltavull's saloon next to the theatre."

Art then goes on to discuss the afternoon visit to Grover's.

Harry Clay Ford said:

"Saw him (Booth) on Thursday morning in front of the theater. I did not see anyone with him then. He was there alone. He was standing, walking, and sitting about there on the gallery steps. He did not have any political conversation with me. I asked him how much money he could lend me for a year. He asked me how much I wanted. I told him I wanted to raise one, two, or three thousand dollars, as much as he could let me have. He did not give me any answer at all. He appeared to be perfectly sober. I think he said, 'I will see about it.' In the conversation that we had the next day, I cannot recall particularly what he said. I only saw him about 5 or 10 minutes that day."

This is from Harry Clay Ford's statement of April 20, 1865.

[loetar44]

John,

I wonder what you think about the trip of O’Laughlen to Baltimore on the morning of April 13, 1865. Like Roger I think there was probably no sufficient time to do it. Your whole theory re. O’Laughlen seems to be based on this trip. You said that Booth most likely gave O'Laughlen his assignment(s) in Baltimore on April 13. We know that Booth was in Ford’s Theatre and in Taltavull’s saloon that Thursday morning. And (early?) in the afternoon in Grover’s. A return trip from DC to Baltimore lasted those day ca. 4 to 5 hours, I think. And what do we know about “Justice” (for me still an enigmatic figure). I would appreciate your comments on this. Thanks.

[loetar44]

I have been waiting for John F’s response on Booth’s trip to Baltimore (on April 13, 1865 ) for almost 10 days now. I know he’s busy, because he wrote me in a private mail on Nov. 16:

“I owe you an answer yet re Booth’s trip to Baltimore. I have been so busy lately that, believe it or not, I have not found time to address the matter. But I will”.

I know there are more who are curious to know John’s insights. So, this is just a friendly reminder that this forum is waiting for his reply.

[loetar44]

I’m disappointed.

John F. promised an answer on Booth’s trip to Baltimore on April 13, 1865. However, I’ve never heard from him again about this subject. Maybe he has NO answer. I think we now can conclude that Booth was never in Baltimore on that date. He never instructed O’Laughlen to come over to DC, O’Laughlen never saw Booth in the National and Stanton was never his target. If “Justice” is John F's only source, there is NO source, because you always need at least two independent sources (sort of peer-review) to draw a conclusion or to form an opinion. Further, I can’t imagine that John F. is just 'cherry-picking' [selecting arguments to fit a desired theory].

[John Fazio]

(12-03-2016 06:38 AM)loetar44 Wrote:  I’m disappointed.

John F. promised an answer on Booth’s trip to Baltimore on April 13, 1865. However, I’ve never heard from him again about this subject. Maybe he has NO answer. I think we now can conclude that Booth was never in Baltimore on that date. He never instructed O’Laughlen to come over to DC, O’Laughlen never saw Booth in the National and Stanton was never his target. If “Justice” is John F's only source, there is NO source, because you always need at least two independent sources (sort of peer-review) to draw a conclusion or to form an opinion. Further, I can’t imagine that John F. is just 'cherry-picking' [selecting arguments to fit a desired theory].

Kees:

And you have every right to be. Mea maxima culpa. I have been a one-armed paperhanger lately. I'll try to get to this today.

John

[John Fazio]

Kees:

You are trying to get too much mileage out of Ford and Hess. Even if Booth did not make the trip to Baltimore on the 13th, that would not vitiate O'Laughlen's trips to the National on Thursday evening and Friday morning, because these trips are attested to by his companions in their trial testimony. But do not exclude the Baltimore trip so easily. The fact is that Ford does not say how early in the morning in was when he saw Booth at the theater. It could have been very early, say 9:00 or something like that. Nor does Hess say how late in the afternoon he saw Booth at Grover's (contrary to one of your entries). It could have been quite late, say 5:00 or something like that. If these outside estimates are in fact true, then Booth could indeed have made the trip to Baltimore and back between the sightings, thus validating "Justice's" sighting and his letter recording the same. I don't have the schedules, obviously, but it is a safe bet that there were quite a number of trains making the round-trip between Washington and Baltimore in those days. Another possibility is that Booth made the trip on the 12th and that Justice erred with respect to the date. His letter is dated May 6, i.e. 23 days after the event it describes. An error of this kind is quite possible. Significantly, perhaps, Kauffman says that Justice's letter has "the ring of truth and makes O'Laughlen's trip to Washington appear less coincidental".

Pending evidence to the contrary, I will continue to believe that Booth was probably in Baltimore on the 12th or 13th, more likely the latter, that he persuaded O'Laughlen to come to Washington to help him in some way, that he came, that he visited Booth at the National on the 13th and 14th, that both visits were related to the assassination, and that the intruder at Stanton's home on the night of the 13th was most likely O'Laughlen or, possibly, a surrogate. Ford's and Hess's testimony does not contradict this scenario, though it does make it something less than certain.

John

[Wild Bill]

Still agreeing with John Fazio (God help me!)

[RJNorton]

If Booth wanted O'Laughlen to come to Washington why not just send a telegram? Why the personal visit? Didn't Booth send a telegram (dated "New York") to John Surratt and ask him to come to Washington?

[Gene C]

It's like dating. It's harder for the other person to say "NO"! when you ask them in person.

[loetar44]

John,

Just read your remarks. What I understand is that there is (still) no hard evidence re. Booth’s trip to Baltimore on April 13 and that there is only one “mystery source” (“Justice”). One source is no source. Only by manipulating the time by saying that Booth was early in the morning at Ford's and that he spoke with Hess late in the afternoon would create a possibility. But what if those times are different (i.e. late in the morning, early afternoon respectively)? Why to change April 13, to April 12? To manipulate time intervals is not the way to do reliable research. Further, Roger made a very good point and is right. Booth did send telegrams to O’Laughlen in the past. Remember the March 13, 1865 telegram: "Don't fear to neglect your business. You better come at once". And if O’Laughlen was indeed ordered to come to DC by Booth personally, why did he then travel with James B. Henderson , Edward Murphy and Bernard T. Early? Isn’t that strange? It would be more appropriate / logical that he traveled discretely to DC, after all, they stood on the threshold to murder the president.