(12-12-2016 08:35 PM)SSlater Wrote:  

(10-15-2016 09:26 AM)loetar44 Wrote:  It's been a long time since we met, but here I am again. Hope you all doing well !

I was reading William M. Stewart's book “The Reminiscences of Senator William M. Stewart, of Nevada”, published in 1908 (I think Stewart’s autobiography is seldom read today). In Chapter 20 he wrote that on the night of April 14, 1865 he was visiting his friend Sen. John Conness of California at the latter’s home on 13th Street. Sen. Charles Sumner of Massachusetts soon joined them. After another 15 or 20 minutes, a servant dashed in, saying that Seward had just been murdered. The three men hurried the short distance to Seward’s house and learned that Seward was still alive, although seriously injured. They immediately ran across Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House and there they learned that Lincoln had been shot. Conness feared that there was a conspiracy to murder the entire cabinet and ordered two soldiers who were on guard at the WH to go to Stanton’s house to protect him. William Stewart wrote, “As the soldiers approached his [Stanton’s] house they saw a man on his steps, who had just rung the bell. Seeing them he took fright and ran away and was never afterward heard of. When the soldiers ran up the steps, Stanton himself came to the door in response to the ring. Had the soldiers arrived a few minutes later, I have no doubt that Stanton would also have been one of the victims of the plot.”

So my question is: was Stanton indeed a murder target? Was Stanton’s visitor a conspirator or someone else, maybe an innocent visitor with no bad intentions? Almost all accounts of that night mention no attempt on Stanton’s life. But I wonder, Edwin Stanton was such a major figure in the Lincoln administration that it looks to me no surprise that he might have been indeed a target.

I’ve looked for other accounts and I only have found the well-known account of a certain David Stanton at the Lincoln conspiracy. On May 15, 1865 this David Stanton testified he had seen Michael O’Laughlen at the Stanton home on the night of April 13. Major Kilburn Cox and Sergeant John C. Hatter testified the same. I wonder, might it be possible that O’Laughlen was Stanton’s visitor on the night of the murder? We know that O’Laughlen was on April 13 in D.C. with a few friends to observe the citywide celebration of Gen. Lee’s surrender four days earlier.

There is something strange with David Stanton. Who was he? Several books and articles say that David Stanton was Edwin Stanton's son. E.g. Roy Chamlee writes (p. 271 of his book) about the “Testimony by David Stanton, SON of the Secretary of War…”and “YOUNG Stanton testified …”, but Edwin Stanton did not have a young son named David! His only two sons who survived in 1865 were Edwin Lamson Stanton (1842-1877) and Lewis Hutchinson Stanton (1860-1938). No David.

Also strange is that in the proceedings of the conspiracy trial of May 16, David Stanton is suddenly called Daniel: “… Mr. DANIEL Stanton, who was present, was permitted to amend the record of his own testimony delivered on the previous day.”

Was David/Daniel a nephew instead of a son? The only nephew with the name David is the 20 years old David Stanton TAPPAN, son of Stanton’s sister Oella. Was David/Daniel Stanton related to the Stantons? Or do we have here a coincidence of names? But if he was not related, why was he then in Stanton’s house?

I’m struggling with two things:
(1) are there only two accounts, some 40 years apart, suggesting that Stanton may have been a target (Stewart’s Chapter 20 and David / Daniel Stanton’s testimony).
(2) who is David / Daniel Stanton?

Who can help me out?

Who Was David Stanton? I think I have him for you. I offer David Erasmus Stanton. Born 11 Sep. 1842. in Holliday's Cove, VA (now W. VA.) Died 8 Dec. 1867, His father was Dr. Erasmus Darwin Stanton and his Mother Nancy ( Hooker) Stanton.
Dr. Erasmus Stanton was Edwin McMasters Stanton brother. So, David Stanton was Edwin's nephew. It appears that the two families were "Close", and David lived in Edwin's family in the 1850.
If you attempt further research be aware of the errors showing in Erasmus' name. Sometimes it is Erasmus Darwin, sometimes he is Darwin Erasmus, or Darwin Edgar.

John:

Thanks for the clarification. A very nice piece of work.

John

(12-12-2016 08:38 AM)Dave Taylor Wrote:  

(12-11-2016 02:11 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  Kees:

Easy boy, I wasn't serious about the doppelganger; I was merely trying to highlight the flagrant inconsistency between Demond's letters (especially the one of June 12, 1916) and everything we know from other sources about the movements of Booth and Herold on April 14. Demond, and, later, as you point out, Dana, seem certain of the identity of the two men at the bridge, differing only on time of arrival and time of release. I frankly do not know how to reconcile the accounts. I doubt that anyone is intentionally lying (for what purpose?),so there must be another explanation. If you can offer one, other than the doppelganger theory, I am all ears.

John

As we have discussed before, Frederick Demond and David Dana are NOT reliable sources due to the huge discrepancies in their later accounts and the heavy influence of Finis Bates on both of them. In this way, there is NO reliable evidence that places John Wilkes Booth in Maryland on the morning of April 14th. See this thread: http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussio...l#pid50430 and David Dana's error filled account: https://boothiebarn.files.wordpress.com/...rticle.pdf

Dave (and Laurie too, since you commented):

Thank you for the references, which I have read.

Sorry for not responding to this sooner. Since I have been retired, I find myself busier than when I was working.

In my opinion, we cannot simply throw Demond's and Dana's writings out the window and pretend they do not exist. Even without corroboration, it strains credulity to believe that Demond would falsely state that "On the morning of the 14th of April as Drake and myself (were) sitting down on a log by the side of the road two men came along. They started to go by. When I asked them where (they) were going they said only looking around...I asked them for their names but they would not (tell) me. Well if you won't we shall hold you until we get orders to let you go...but I think that you...are that actor that I have seen your photo of. He then said that I was right and that his companion was Herold...About 2 or 3 o'clock, an orderly from Headquarters came across the Bridge and gave Corporal Sullivan an order to let the men go. We did so." He has no reason to say any of this this if it, or something very much like it, did not happen. Forget Bates. He is merely the addressee; he is not the one relating what had happened at the bridge on the 14th. Only Demond's statements are relevant. But it strains credulity to the breaking point to reject not only Demond's statement, but also the statement of Dana, which is substantially the same and therefore corroborates Demond's statement and is in turn corroborated by it. Dana said (on Dec. 12, 1897) that "On Friday April 14, 1865, two men appeared before the guard on the road leading into Washington from the east. Refusing to give their names or state their business, they were arrested and put in the guard tent....This was about 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon. In an hour or two they gave their names as Booth and Herold. At 4:00 pm I received an order from General Auger to release all persons held by the guards. Booth and Herold were released as soon as the orders reached the guard, and they proceeded at once to Washington, reaching there about 6:30 in the afternoon. Clearly, the statements of both men attest to the same incident and clearly, therefore, something like this happened.

The question is: How do we square these statements with everything else we know about the movements of Booth and Herold that day, which I will not detail, other than to say that Ford could not have been mistaken about the identity of Booth when he showed up at the theater about noon. Which, then, is the more reasonable conclusion: That both Demond and Dana fabricated the story out of whole cloth,for no apparent reason, advantage or benefit, or that, in fact, part of the conspiracy, which was widespread and involved more than just Booth's immediate action team (about which, more in another response), involved placing two men who resembled Booth and Herold at the bridge in the morning for the purpose of establishing an alibi for the two men if the same were needed, just as Surratt may well have done in Elmira? The fact that the two men refused, initially, to identify themselves, which almost guaranteed that they would be detained, which was their purpose, is probative of the greater likelihood of this explanation compared to the total fabrication theory. The possibility that the real Booth and Herold showed up at the bridge on another date, and that the visit may have been conflated by Demond and Dana, exists, but strikes me as not as likely as the alibi theory. The alibi theory may seem far-fetched to you, but surely it is not as far-fetched as concluding that two independent sources, who attest to fundamentally the same incident, were both lying for no apparent purpose, advantage or benefit.

John

John, I am now 100% confused unless I am misunderstanding something. I thought you were convinced Booth went to Baltimore on the 14th to talk O'Laughlen into coming to Washington.

(12-16-2016 05:12 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  John, I am now 100% confused unless I am misunderstanding something. I thought you were convinced Booth went to Baltimore on the 14th to talk O'Laughlen into coming to Washington.

Roger:

That was on the 13th. On the 14th he is reported to have:

1. Written to his mother at 2:00 am (no one knows where);
2. Had breakfast at the National;
3. Gone to the boarding house at least three times;
4. Gone to the theater to pick up his mail at about noon, sat and read a letter and chatted with Harry Ford.
5. Reserved a horse at Pumphrey's Stable;
6. Had lunch at Willard's with three men, probably Herold, Powell and Atzerodt, and eavesdropped on Julia Grant;
7. Picked up his rented horse at Pumphrey's;
8. Talked with John Mathew's on Pennsylvania Avenue about 4:00;
9. Made a ride-by past the Grants' carriage and then doubled back for a second ride-by;
10. Returned to Willard's to determine where the Grants were going;
11. Some time during the day, sent Herold, with a card, up to Johnson's room at the Kirkwood, and then, upon being advised by Herold that Johnson was in, visited his room to determine his whereabouts that evening, but was rebuffed by Johnson, who said he was too busy to see him, whereupon, being personally piqued, he left the card in Browning's box for the purpose of implicating Johnson;
12. Stabled his rented horse behind the theater;
13. Met with Herold, Atzerodt and Powell at the Herndon House, for about an hour, from 8 to 9 pm.
14. Taken his horse to the theater at about 9:30.
15. Taken a drink at the Star.
16. Shot the President at about 10:30.

John

Thanks, John. My bad. I got the dates confused in my rapidly-aging brain.

John, I see you left out Booth's alleged mid-day conversation with John F. Coyle concerning Presidential succession. In fact the vast majority of assassination authors leave this out, I believe. Is this because many experts feel the whole thing may be apocryphal?

John,

do I understand you well enough, by saying that you don’t exclude “doppelgangers” in connection with Lincoln’s assassination? Is this a flip-flop or was it always your opinion that “doppelgangers” were involved?

Kees

(12-17-2016 03:41 PM)loetar44 Wrote:  John,

do I understand you well enough, by saying that you don’t exclude “doppelgangers” in connection with Lincoln’s assassination? Is this a flip-flop or was it always your opinion that “doppelgangers” were involved?

Kees

Kees:

That is true: I do not exclude doppelgangers as a possible explanation for apparent conflicts in the record. But I believe that postulating them is a stretch and should be done only as a last resort. I frankly do not know how to reconcile Demond's and Dana's accounts of what happened at the bridge on the 14th with everything else we know about Booth's and Herold's movements on that day. The only explanation thus far offered is that both Demond and Dana, quite separately and at different times, told essentially the same story (differing only as to time), and that the story is a total fabrication. I find that very hard to believe, harder than believing that Booth may have arranged for a couple of look-alikes to establish an alibi for him if he needed it. I grant that both explanations are far-fetched; it is a question of which is the more far-fetched, or is there still another explanation for the glaring inconsistency?

John

(12-17-2016 04:30 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(12-17-2016 03:41 PM)loetar44 Wrote:  John,

do I understand you well enough, by saying that you don’t exclude “doppelgangers” in connection with Lincoln’s assassination? Is this a flip-flop or was it always your opinion that “doppelgangers” were involved?

Kees

Kees:

That is true: I do not exclude doppelgangers as a possible explanation for apparent conflicts in the record. But I believe that postulating them is a stretch and should be done only as a last resort. I frankly do not know how to reconcile Demond's and Dana's accounts of what happened at the bridge on the 14th with everything else we know about Booth's and Herold's movements on that day. The only explanation thus far offered is that both Demond and Dana, quite separately and at different times, told essentially the same story (differing only as to time), and that the story is a total fabrication. I find that very hard to believe, harder than believing that Booth may have arranged for a couple of look-alikes to establish an alibi for him if he needed it. I grant that both explanations are far-fetched; it is a question of which is the more far-fetched, or is there still another explanation for the glaring inconsistency?

John

Thanks for your answer John. There's so much food for thought. It seems that the more one reads, the less one knows. The starting point of a (new) theory.
Just a thought of mine:

Was Booth’s “look alike” on the bridge deliberately NO conspirator? After all, it was a lot more safe for Booth, if only a few others knew of his plans.

John Wilkes Booth was a famous actor. As actor, he used routinely stand-ins, because he lived in the time of live theater and if he was incapacitated by illness, for example, he needed a stand-in to perform the role, because “the show must go on”, always. The stand-in then acted as John Wilkes Booth, the public was unaware of the change. Was there an (anonymous ?) actor, a look alike, who was Booth’s stand-in on the bridge? And was there a stand-in for Herold too? If so they might have handled not as part of a huge complot, but only to supplement income. It was an easy task to appear on the bridge for both. It was easy to "act" there as Booth and Herold. I remember that I once read that stand-ins for actors also ran errands to supplement income.

(12-17-2016 09:29 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  John, I see you left out Booth's alleged mid-day conversation with John F. Coyle concerning Presidential succession. In fact the vast majority of assassination authors leave this out, I believe. Is this because many experts feel the whole thing may be apocryphal?

Roger:

I am familiar with the conversation between Booth and Coyle. It was an oversight on my part not to include it in Decapitating. I thought I had included it, but I checked and found that I am mistaken. I regret the error. I do not believe it is thought to be apocryphal. Several publishers insisted that I shorten the original manuscript. It may be the case that this conversation was excised for that reason. I do not remember.

John

(12-17-2016 05:31 PM)loetar44 Wrote:  

(12-17-2016 04:30 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(12-17-2016 03:41 PM)loetar44 Wrote:  John,

do I understand you well enough, by saying that you don’t exclude “doppelgangers” in connection with Lincoln’s assassination? Is this a flip-flop or was it always your opinion that “doppelgangers” were involved?

Kees

Kees:

That is true: I do not exclude doppelgangers as a possible explanation for apparent conflicts in the record. But I believe that postulating them is a stretch and should be done only as a last resort. I frankly do not know how to reconcile Demond's and Dana's accounts of what happened at the bridge on the 14th with everything else we know about Booth's and Herold's movements on that day. The only explanation thus far offered is that both Demond and Dana, quite separately and at different times, told essentially the same story (differing only as to time), and that the story is a total fabrication. I find that very hard to believe, harder than believing that Booth may have arranged for a couple of look-alikes to establish an alibi for him if he needed it. I grant that both explanations are far-fetched; it is a question of which is the more far-fetched, or is there still another explanation for the glaring inconsistency?

John

Thanks for your answer John. There's so much food for thought. It seems that the more one reads, the less one knows. The starting point of a (new) theory.
Just a thought of mine:

Was Booth’s “look alike” on the bridge deliberately NO conspirator? After all, it was a lot more safe for Booth, if only a few others knew of his plans.

John Wilkes Booth was a famous actor. As actor, he used routinely stand-ins, because he lived in the time of live theater and if he was incapacitated by illness, for example, he needed a stand-in to perform the role, because “the show must go on”, always. The stand-in then acted as John Wilkes Booth, the public was unaware of the change. Was there an (anonymous ?) actor, a look alike, who was Booth’s stand-in on the bridge? And was there a stand-in for Herold too? If so they might have handled not as part of a huge complot, but only to supplement income. It was an easy task to appear on the bridge for both. It was easy to "act" there as Booth and Herold. I remember that I once read that stand-ins for actors also ran errands to supplement income.

Kees:

You emailed me a week or so ago. My computer crashed and I lost a lot of emails, including yours. Please send it again. Thanks.

John