John Brophy once said that there was an abortive attempt to kidnap Lincoln when he passed over the Anacostia Bridge in his carriage on his tour of the military hospital. This was in January 1865.

Eisenschiml speaks in his “In the shadow of Lincoln’s death” that there was an abortive attempt in January 1865, by saying that Atzerodt did not want to carry New York cotton broker Eddy Martin across the Potomac because he expected to transport a “more important party” over the river (this was about Jan 7, 1865 and Jan 16 he was still waiting to cross the river, when he was introduced to John Surratt at Brawner's Hotel in Port Tobacco) . Secondly, John Surratt left his employ (Adams Express Co.) abruptly (he didn’t even draw his pay) on January 14. The kidnap was abandoned because the roads were impassable by extreme mild winter weather and the kidnaping party could not afford the risk of becoming mired before crossing the Potomac.

David Balsiger and Charles E. Sellier Jr. speak in "The Lincoln Conspiracy" about 7 or 8 attempts (!), with January 18, 1865 the first attempt. That there were 6 or 7 attempts more I think is an exaggeration, as Mark E. Neely, Jr. said in 1978 in a book review that the book is amateurish and full of forgeries, fabrications and fantasies (Indiana Magazine of History, Volume 74, Issue 2, pp 165-166).

That there was an aborted attempt on January 18, 1865 I’ve seen in more (internet) articles. Lincoln wanted to attend Jack Cade’s "The Kentish Revolution", but because of extremely bad weather he did not go to the theater.

Terry Alford mentions in “Fortune's Fool” an abortive plan by Booth and his gang to kidnap Lincoln in January 1865, in which John Surratt, Harbin and Atzerodt participated among others. I did not read the book, but saw Susan’s posting #6: http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussio...-2320.html
in the John Brophy thread.

We know that there was an abandoned kidnap on March 17, 1865, but was there an aborted attempt mid-January 1865? That is the question I want to discuss. I tend to believe that there was NOT such an attempt. I have 5 points.

1) In Booth’s head there were different plans to kidnap Lincoln. Originally he planned to seize Lincoln as he rode out to visit a hospital across the Anacostia bridge. Another plan was to capture Lincoln as he rode to and from his summer residence at the Soldiers’ Home. Another plan was to abduct him while he rode to a theatrical performance. And there was a plan to seize Lincoln during one of his nocturnal walks between the White House and the War Department telegraph office. And last but not least there was the plan to snatch Lincoln from his box at Ford’s or Grover’s Theatre. Mid-January 1865, none of these plans materialized already in the plan that had to be followed. None of the conspirators knew their exact job until March 15 (Gautier’s Restaurant).

2) To succeed Booth had to plot and plan the kidnapping very carefully. Maybe if one of his plans was executed with boldness and speed, it could succeed. But the risk was high. Careful preparations had to be made and mid-January 1865 Booth was in the middle of this process, but there was still a lot to do. The kidnaping party could not afford the risk of a failure. No ad-hoc decisions, but a coordinated forethought plan was necessary.

3) The group of conspirators was mid-January 1865 still very small, too small to guarantee a flawless execution of the abduction plan. Booth had only recruited at that moment Arnold, O’Laughlen (both in August 1864), John Surratt (on or about January 2) and Atzerodt (on or about January 14). He also needed a man in the theater and wanted Samuel Chester, who refused to participate in “a plan that could not fail”. Harbin and Dr. Mudd were partially “in” and only had promised to assist in transporting Lincoln along the illegal smuggling route in Maryland.

4) Mid-January 1865 the logistics were inadequate. On January 12 the trunk with weapons had just arrived in D.C. Booth had only two horses (the one-eyed and the brown bay) and one buggy in a stable in D.C. On January 16 a large boat was bought, which was then turned over to George Atzerodt and hidden on King's Creek.

5) Sure, mid-January 1865 there was a lack of protection concerning Lincoln, but he was not totally unprotected. The President's safety on his trips was since January 1865 entrusted to the cavalry and the Union Light Guard and since November 1864 four man were drafted from the ranks of the Metropolitan police force to protect Lincoln. Lincoln's seizure in “open field” had become a lesser option. And if there was an abduction mid-January planned, than this was in "open field". The plan to abduct Lincoln in a theater was born in or around March 1865 (if I'm right).

I checked Samuel Arnold's memoirs (Mike Kauffman's book) regarding this general time period, and he writes:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


"On two occasions most favorable opportunities presented themselves, which if Booth had energetically moved in the premises or had any desire other than attempting it at the Theatre, I am perfectly confident, it would have proved successful beyond a doubt. These were occasions before I had become acquainted with the fact, that others than Surratt and ourselves already spoken of, were connected in the Enterprise. The President passed over the Eastern Branch Bridge, accompanied only by his coachman and a single guest within the carriage. To what point he went beyond is not known, his movements having been overlooked, only so far as to ascertain the fact, that he had passed over the river.

Information was immediately conveyed to Booth of this occurrence; he paid but slight attention to it, on account, as he said, of the pressure of business at the time and thus the only and the most favorable opportunity was permitted to pass by, without, it may be truthfully spoken, the slightest notice being taken thereof by him. It became morally impossible under these circumstances to feel like continuing in the affair when inaction and inattention were becoming the ruling elements, delay, tending to cause our positions daily to become more insecure.

The month of January had passed, and as yet nothing had been accomplished. February ushered itself in only to be a repetition of former month, as Booth through riotous living and dissipation was compelled to visit the City of New York for the purpose of replenishing his squandered means. His absence continued nearly the entire month, caused from the great difficulty experienced in borrowing money."

I like all that you say - all good solid logic - all good solid facts, but you omit some consideration of the influence from the "New York Crowd". Do we agree that the "New York Crowd" was the Impetus behind the abduction plans? So, I am not suggesting any changes , only more ideas.

My approach leans heavily toward the idea that there never was an intent to kill Lincoln. However, any plan conceived, had to assure Lincoln's absolute safety. Secondly, the abduction party, had to be assured complete safety. In January, Davis was opposed to any plan that would threaten Lincoln's life. It was not until late February, after the two Union Cavalry raids on Richmond, changed his thinking on Safety.

I believe that the basic reason for the abduction attempts, was to extend the war. Even the proposed Ransom was intended to extend the war. The "New York Crowd" was safe and sassy, away from the killing and destruction and making more money than any one of us could imagine. Everyone was trading cotton - all with Lincoln's knowledge. There were people in the White House - trading cotton.

Booth had been hired by the New York Crowd, to get the job done, but everything he proposed had to be approved by them. I imagine there were many plans suggested, but either failed or were withdrawn for lack of approval. Trying to abduct a President, and run him south without rumpling his shirt collar (an exaggeration) needs some special considerations.

I think the plan to blow up the White House came from an entirely different source, in the South. Booth dutifully reported the plan to the New York Crowd. I can't guess at their "Take". Maybe they said OK, but that plan failed when Harney was captured.

Now, Booth took full charge of his crew and his own plan. He had his own planning, his own disregard of "Safety", of the Ransom and all else. He would kill Lincoln according to his own satisfaction.

In my opinion, the killing came as a complete surprise to EVERYONE
to the "Conspirators" , to the escape route personnel, to the Southern Government, and many more, like Mosby, the Army, Conrad et, al.

Gentlemen:

It often happens that subjects are introduced in this thread about which I know little or nothing. In this cse, however, Kees, you have hit upon a subject about which I am quite familiar. In fact, there is an entire chapter in "Decapitating the Union" on the subject of kidnapping (Chapter 12). I urge you to read it if you have not already done so.

Suffice it to say here that you, I, thousands, of historians, writers, researchers, teachers, students and enthusaists, and hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, who have read their works, in the last 150 years, have all been had. We have all been bamboozled by John Wilkes Booth and the men who handled him, directed him and financed him, because the truth is that Booth never intended to kidnap anyone, that assassination was always his purpose and goal, and that kidnapping was nothing more than a ruse, concocted most likely by the Secret Service, to cover Booth's true purpose and to facilitate the recruitment of an action team, men who would sign on for kidnapping, but not for murder. The evidence for these conclusions is, in my judgment, clear and convincing, in some cases absolutely conclusive. The Jack Cade affair and the Campbell hospital episode do not consitute bona fide kidnapping attempts. Whatever they were, and there is much doubt and confusion as to the particulars, we may be sure that Booth had his own purposes and that they weren't about kidnapping anyone.

The material given by Roger, from Arnold's Memoirs, is very telling. Take it to its logical conclusion, and, while you are at it, consider that the highest levels of the Confederate leadership unquestionably knew all about Booth, his action team and what they were doing and not doing; that they also knew that a kidnapped Lincoln could do them no good at all; and that they did nothing to stop Booth. What is the only conclusion you can draw from those facts?

John

Do you really believe that there is really only "One Conclusion" that can be drawn from the facts available to us? Maybe! But that is the purpose of this forum, we want the opinion of others.

There are many "conclusions" already "concluded" by many authors before us and we read them, then formulate our own conclusion. I don't agree that "billions of historians, writers, etc. etc. - for 150 years " have all been wrong. Which historian provided information to you, that no one else has read?

Maybe, we will stumble into an agreeable conclusion some day, and we can close down this forum and all go home - but we aren't there yet.

(02-01-2016 01:21 PM)SSlater Wrote:  Do you really believe that there is really only "One Conclusion" that can be drawn from the facts available to us? Maybe! But that is the purpose of this forum, we want the opinion of others.

There are many "conclusions" already "concluded" by many authors before us and we read them, then formulate our own conclusion. I don't agree that "billions of historians, writers, etc. etc. - for 150 years " have all been wrong. Which historian provided information to you, that no one else has read?

Maybe, we will stumble into an agreeable conclusion some day, and we can close down this forum and all go home - but we aren't there yet.

SSlater:

I did not say there was only one conclusion that could be drawn "from the facts available to us", but I did say that there was only one conclusion that could be drawn from the three-premise syllogism that I gave.

Nor did I say "billions of historians...etc."; I said "thousands of historians...etc. and hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, who have read their works in the last 150 years...etc."

Even the masters go astray occasionally. Edison thought direct current was the wave of the future; Einstein thought nuclear power would never be controlled; Ezra Pound thought Hitler and Mussolini were statesmen instead of the buffoons and bloody tyrants they were.

John

(01-31-2016 09:36 PM)SSlater Wrote:  Booth had been hired by the New York Crowd, to get the job done, but everything he proposed had to be approved by them. I imagine there were many plans suggested, but either failed or were withdrawn for lack of approval. Trying to abduct a President, and run him south without rumpling his shirt collar (an exaggeration) needs some special considerations.

I think the plan to blow up the White House came from an entirely different source, in the South. Booth dutifully reported the plan to the New York Crowd. I can't guess at their "Take". Maybe they said OK, but that plan failed when Harney was captured.

Now, Booth took full charge of his crew and his own plan. He had his own planning, his own disregard of "Safety", of the Ransom and all else. He would kill Lincoln according to his own satisfaction.

Although I have not read Dixie Reckoning I believe the late Rick Stelnick's theory was that Booth was not assigned to kill Lincoln. Rather Lincoln was to be kidnapped by Booth on Easter Sunday. The New York crowd was shocked and angered that Booth acted on his own and killed Lincoln two days before the kidnap was to take place. If memory serves me I think Mr. Stelnick felt Booth was escaping Washington as much from fear of what the New York crowd would do to him as what the federal government would do.

I believe that you are correct as to Stelnick, Roger.

---

And so is John Stanton (Sarah Slater) correct

Your Honor. I apologize - I misquoted you. You are right, You said "Thousands" of Historians. It was "Billions" of readers -that were wrong. I guess I am one of the Billions. I only know what I have read. Edison and Einstein were wrong -wow! Thank you for including me in their company. (Think were I might go from here.)
Maybe I would understand your position, if I read your book. I'll borrow a copy.

Booth wanted revenge and the assassination grew out of a kidnapping plot. The murder decision came only after the collapse of the Confederate capital and the surrender of General Lee. At that point, kidnapping Lincoln made no sense. It's Terry Alford's conclusion. He put more than 20 years of research into Fortune’s Fool. Why not to take his conclusion (so deeply researched and persuasively argued) seriously. I'm reading his book right now. I don't believe that his conclusion will soon go down in the history books as the biggest fallacy ever brought forth, with equal disbelief as to the "Earth is flat" concept.

[i]

(02-01-2016 02:52 PM)SSlater Wrote:  Your Honor. I apologize - I misquoted you. You are right, You said "Thousands" of Historians. It was "Billions" of readers -that were wrong. I guess I am one of the Billions. I only know what I have read. Edison and Einstein were wrong -wow! Thank you for including me in their company. (Think were I might go from here.)
Maybe I would understand your position, if I read your book. I'll borrow a copy.

SSlater:

I am sorry to have to beat this almost-dead horse, but I do want us to get it right. I did not say that billions were "wrong", I said that "thousands of historians, writers, researchers...etc...and hundreds of millions, perhaps billions" who have read their works, have been "had" and "bamboozled", i.e. misled. Of course, I included myself. Many of the billions, if there have been that number, or in any case many of whatever the number, have, I am sure, seen through the flim-flam, in the same way that many, like Tidwell, Hall, Gaddy, Winkler, et al., saw through the flim-flam of the single conspiracy theory.

John

(01-31-2016 05:16 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  I checked Samuel Arnold's memoirs (Mike Kauffman's book) regarding this general time period, and he writes:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


"On two occasions most favorable opportunities presented themselves, which if Booth had energetically moved in the premises or had any desire other than attempting it at the Theatre, I am perfectly confident, it would have proved successful beyond a doubt. These were occasions before I had become acquainted with the fact, that others than Surratt and ourselves already spoken of, were connected in the Enterprise. The President passed over the Eastern Branch Bridge, accompanied only by his coachman and a single guest within the carriage. To what point he went beyond is not known, his movements having been overlooked, only so far as to ascertain the fact, that he had passed over the river.

Information was immediately conveyed to Booth of this occurrence; he paid but slight attention to it, on account, as he said, of the pressure of business at the time and thus the only and the most favorable opportunity was permitted to pass by, without, it may be truthfully spoken, the slightest notice being taken thereof by him. It became morally impossible under these circumstances to feel like continuing in the affair when inaction and inattention were becoming the ruling elements, delay, tending to cause our positions daily to become more insecure.

The month of January had passed, and as yet nothing had been accomplished. February ushered itself in only to be a repetition of former month, as Booth through riotous living and dissipation was compelled to visit the City of New York for the purpose of replenishing his squandered means. His absence continued nearly the entire month, caused from the great difficulty experienced in borrowing money."

Thanks Roger for this info. For some strange reason I missed this mail, otherwise I had reacted sooner. Arnold writes "On two occasions most favorable opportunities presented themselves..." Is he also writing about the March 17 failed attempt? I'm for two reasons curious. (1) was March 17 really an aborted attempt (it's my opinion it really was, no doubt about that) and (2) had Arnold a particular task or (as we know he had after the meeting at Gautier's his doubts to stay in the group) had he already left for Baltimore? I try to remember where I read it, but if my memory is right only Booth, Atzerodt, Powell and John Surratt rode out from Surratts boarding house to Campbell hospital and Herold went to T.B. / Surrattsville. Where were Arnold and O'Laughlen?

Kees, I don't think he is referring to March 17th in that section I posted. He is dealing with the earlier time frame in 1865. He deals with March 17th in another section of the memoirs. Here's what he said:

"On March 17, 1865, about 2 o'clock, Booth and Herold met O'Laughlin and myself. Booth stated that he was told that the President was going to attend a theatrical performance out on Seventh street, at a soldiers' encampment or hospital at the outer edge of the city. Booth had previously sent a small, black box, containing two carbines, a monkey wrench, ammunition and four pieces of rope, by the porter of the National Hotel to our room at Mrs. Van Tynes. Not wishing it to remain in our room, O'Laughlin sent the box to an acquaintance of his in Washington. This box was sent to our room in the early part of March, 1865, I think, and was removed In about a week or 10 days.

After Booth and Herold met O'Laughlin and myself and made arrangements to go out to the performance on Seventh street, Booth, Herold and O'Laughlin went for the box containing the two carbines, etc. The understanding was that Herold was to take the box with Booth's horse and buggy to either Surrattsvllle or T. B., and there meet us, in case- the abduction was successful. This was the last time I saw Herold until our trial.

O'Laughlin returned and we took our dinner at the Franklin Hotel, as usual. After dinner we met Booth and accompanied him to the livery stable near the Patent Office, at which place Booth obtained horses for us. O'Laughlin and I then rode to our room on D street and made all our necessary arrangements, each arming himself. O'Laughlin and I then rode out to where the performance was to take place. We stopped at a restaurant at the foot of the hill to await the arrival of the other parties. They not arriving as soon as we expected, we remounted our horses and rode out the road about a mile. We then returned and stopped at the same restaurant. While in there Atzerodt came in, having just arrived with Payne. A short time after Booth and Surratt came in and we drank together. Booth had made inquiries at the encampment where the performance was to be held, and learned that the President was not there. After telling us this we separated, O'Laughlin and myself riding back to the city together. Surratt and Booth rode out the road towards the country. O'Laughlin and I left our horses back of the National Hotel, at a livery stable.

Conspiracy Abandoned.

About 8 o'clock I met Booth and Surratt near the stable. This was the last time I ever saw Surratt, and I never saw Payne after we parted in our ride into the city until the day of our trial. O'Laughlin and I left Washington on March 20 and went to Baltimore. Booth went to New York, and thus I thought the whole affair abandoned. I then told my family I had ceased business in Washington, and had severed my connection with Booth."

Thanks Roger !

I read a 1911 news article where there was to be an attempt on inauguration day if the opportunity presented itself. But I believe this was just speculation that the author made it sound like fact. (Fake News)