Soon after I began to seriously study the Civil War, I began to form doubts about the traditional version of Lincoln's assassination. Even as a relative novice, I could not bring myself to buy the idea that any Confederate or Southern sympathizer would want to kill Lincoln, the one man who stood the best chance of preventing the Radical Republicans from imposing harsh reconstruction on the South. It just didn't make any sense.

On the other hand, since I was very critical of Lincoln and viewed him as being almost a tyrant, I didn't really care about his death, and so I didn't have much interest in reading about his assassination.

A few years into my research, I stumbled across Otto Eisenschiml's book Why Was Lincoln Murdered? I thought, "Now, this makes sense. If anyone had a motive to kill Lincoln and had proven themselves capable of such treachery, it was the Radicals."

I also read Eisenschiml's book In the Shadow of Lincoln's Death. I found this book hard to get through because I still held a harsh view of Lincoln and thus did not really care about the trial of Mary Surratt or whether or not Booth escaped. Eisenschiml seemed to make a good case that Booth did not escape but died in the barn. Besides, the idea that Booth escaped struck me as irrelevant and unbelievable.

About two years ago, as I began studying George McClellan, George Thomas, John Crittenden, and Stephen Douglas, my views on Lincoln began to change. I found J. G. Randall's research on Lincoln particularly enlightening and persuasive.

Then, about two months ago, my interest in Lincoln's assassination was rekindled when I watched, out of sheer boredom one day, a short documentary on Nathan Orlowek's efforts to have the body in Booth's grave and the alleged Booth spinal fragment subjected to scientific testing.

After that, I began to read everything I could find on Lincoln's death and on Booth. I read a couple of books on Booth and numerous online articles about Lincoln's assassination. I also read two books on the case of Mary Surratt. Just today I finished reading Dr. Robert Arnold's book The Conspiracy Between John Wilkes Booth and the Union Army to Assassination Abraham Lincoln. And I'm in the process of reading Roscoe's The Web of Conspiracy.

I'm still undecided about some aspects of Lincoln's assassination, but I now believe that Stanton and other War Department/Army officials were involved, that Booth was not shot in Garrett's barn, that the assassination was not a spur-of-the-moment act (as Booth claimed in his diary) but had been planned weeks in advance, that Mary Surratt was innocent, that John Surratt was not involved in Lincoln's murder, that O'Laughlen was innocent, that Dr. Mudd was not part of the assassination plot, that one of the people who jumped onto the stage after Booth shot Lincoln--Major Stewart--was there to ensure that Booth got to his horse in the alley, and that Andrew Johnson was bullied, or tricked, by Stanton into going along with a military tribunal and not pardoning Mary Surratt.

(08-16-2018 03:12 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Soon after I began to seriously study the Civil War, I began to form doubts about the traditional version of Lincoln's assassination. Even as a relative novice, I could not bring myself to buy the idea that any Confederate or Southern sympathizer would want to kill Lincoln, the one man who stood the best chance of preventing the Radical Republicans from imposing harsh reconstruction on the South. It just didn't make any sense.

On the other hand, since I was very critical of Lincoln and viewed him as being almost a tyrant, I didn't really care about his death, and so I didn't have much interest in reading about his assassination.

A few years into my research, I stumbled across Otto Eisenschiml's book Why Was Lincoln Murdered? I thought, "Now, this makes sense. If anyone had a motive to kill Lincoln and had proven themselves capable of such treachery, it was the Radicals."

I also read Eisenschiml's book In the Shadow of Lincoln's Death. I found this book hard to get through because I still held a harsh view of Lincoln and thus did not really care about the trial of Mary Surratt or whether or not Booth escaped. Eisenschiml seemed to make a good case that Booth did not escape but died in the barn. Besides, the idea that Booth escaped struck me as irrelevant and unbelievable.

About two years ago, as I began studying George McClellan, George Thomas, John Crittenden, and Stephen Douglas, my views on Lincoln began to change. I found J. G. Randall's research on Lincoln particularly enlightening and persuasive.

Then, about two months ago, my interest in Lincoln's assassination was rekindled when I watched, out of sheer boredom one day, a short documentary on Nathan Orlowek's efforts to have the body in Booth's grave and the alleged Booth spinal fragment subjected to scientific testing.

After that, I began to read everything I could find on Lincoln's death and on Booth. I read a couple of books on Booth and numerous online articles about Lincoln's assassination. I also read two books on the case of Mary Surratt. Just today I finished reading Dr. Robert Arnold's book The Conspiracy Between John Wilkes Booth and the Union Army to Assassination Abraham Lincoln. And I'm in the process of reading Roscoe's The Web of Conspiracy.

I'm still undecided about some aspects of Lincoln's assassination, but I now believe that Stanton and other War Department/Army officials were involved, that Booth was not shot in Garrett's barn, that the assassination was not a spur-of-the-moment act (as Booth claimed in his diary) but had been planned weeks in advance, that Mary Surratt was innocent, that John Surratt was not involved in Lincoln's murder, that O'Laughlen was innocent, that Dr. Mudd was not part of the assassination plot, that one of the people who jumped onto the stage after Booth shot Lincoln--Major Stewart--was there to ensure that Booth got to his horse in the alley, and that Andrew Johnson was bullied, or tricked, by Stanton into going along with a military tribunal and not pardoning Mary Surratt.

Mike:

In my opinion, most of your conclusions are erroneous. My views, which are based on having read all or part of about 125 books on the assassination and attempted Assassinations on April 14, 1865, and countless articles and newspapers, are contained in my book Decapitating the Union: Jefferson Davis, Judah Benjamin and the Plot to Assassinate Lincoln, which is the product of five years of research and writing and which I hope you will add to your reading list. Briefly, and addressing each of your conclusions in order, they are:

1. Stanton was not involved. That is a thoroughly discredited theory. Even Eisenschiml acknowledged that there was not enough evidence to draw that conclusion.
2. Other War Department/Army Officials MAY have been involved, especially as regards the crossing of the Navy Yard Bridge by Booth and Herold, but there is no proof of the same and the evidence is weak.
3. Booth was shot to death in Garrett's barn by Boston Corbett, though he probably would have killed himself if Corbett hadn't beat him to it. He had previously said he would.
4. You are correct in concluding that the assassination was not a spur of the moment act, but had been planned for weeks, perhaps months, in advance,
5. Mary Surratt was almost certainly part of the assassination plot;
6. John Surratt was most certainly involved in Lincoln's murder;
7. Dr. Mudd was almost certainly part of the assassination plot;
8. Michael O'Laughlen was not innocent. He was part of the conspiracy and therefore, under the laws of conspiracy, should have received the same sentence that Mary Surratt, David Herold, George Atzerodt and Lewis Powell did. He was lucky to escape with his life, but his luck ran out in Ft. Jefferson, where he died of yellow fever.
9. Joseph Stewart was not in Ford's Theater to assure Booth's escape; he was just an overweight and shady lawyer with a bad reputation who lied to the Commissioners, probably for financial gain. He didn't get anywhere near Booth when he finally stepped into the alley;
10. Andrew Johnson was not bullied or tricked by Stanton; the Military Commission was created by Johnson pursuant to his Attorney General's ruling (James Speed). The failure to pardon Mary Surratt, pursuant to the vote of the Commissioners, was a matter between Johnson and Joseph Holt only; Stanton had nothing to do with it.


If you read my book you will find good arguments in support of all these conclusions. Then if you wish to discuss them with me, I am all ears.

John

Hi Mike, nice to hear your ideas.
There is no such thing as a " WRONG CONCLUSION".
You drew a conclusion, based on what you read and believe. Not everyone will see the same story exactly the same way. That's the fun of it, but you are not wrong.
Every time I read a new book, I can say "I didn't know that!", because that author told me how he sees the details. When I read another view point, I say the same thing. Will I ever say "that's the right story", probably not, (and go read another version of the same subject.)
Some day you will say " NOW I know " and be happy with that, until another author has his say.
You are not wrong to draw your own conclusions, keep reading, and tell us about how you see it.

(09-05-2018 11:14 PM)SSlater Wrote:  Not everyone will see the same story exactly the same way.

Do I ever agree with that! Example: Read Bettie Trindal's Mary Surratt: An American Tragedy. Then read Kate Clifford Larson's The Assassin's Accomplice: Mary Surratt and the Plot to Kill Abraham Lincoln. Then ask yourself: are these two books actually about the same woman?

John Fazio and SSlater , I agree with you 100%

(I knew that would make your day - )

The opinions and views expressed in this post are the posters own and may not reflect or express the official policy or position of the Lincoln Discussion Symposium management

Mike - I became interested in the Lincoln conspiracy at age 10 and remain an addict of it 65 years later! I have also made my living off of it since 1983, when I became director of Surratt House Museum. I had been volunteer there for 8 years previously. I also have an extensive personal library on the subject as well as access to the large holdings in the James O. Hall Research Center at the museum.

That said, after all of this, I still have moments of questioning some things that I read. I have been mentored by the best in the field, and they too question things and then look for documentation. To me, the key is RESEARCH (using primary sources, if possible), DOCUMENT, and CONCLUDE, based on the documentation.

I notice that you seem to be reading mainly books that are speculative. Have you read Blood on the Moon by Ed Steers (of this forum), American Brutus by Michael Kauffman, or John's Decapitating the Union? If not, they should be at the top of your list of books worth reading. I also agree with John regarding the "errors" in books you have read.

It's great that you are going to read Web of Conspiracy. Despite its having been written many years ago, I still like the book -- despite points that Roscoe made that have now been disproven.

When I first read Eisenschiml's "Why Was Lincoln Murdered", I came away fairly believing Stanton was involved in a plot. Eisenschiml did some nice reasearch. But upon more or less sober reflection, and with additional and later analysis (most of it here, by people who really know more about Lincoln than anyone you will find, God Bless you all!) I've come to the same conclusions so aptly stated above.

I never believed Booth escaped Garrett's Farm. He was the most hunted man in America, with more hunters arriving every hour and an impenetrable noose was being drawn around him. All conspiracy stories aside, Boston Corbett was the Jack Ruby of his day.

Now Weichman's involvement - I still can't figure out.

One thing that most authors don't tell you is that the War Department had copies generated of Booth's photograph and distributed them to the patrols. You can bet that the 16th NY had a copy since they were sent out specifically to the Caroline County area.

When the dying Booth was dragged out of the barn, that photo was put next to his face and everyone could see. One of the Garretts later spoke about there being no doubt that it was Booth.

As for Weichmann, my opinion is that he followed the first rule of nature - self-preservation. Like his landlady, he had to be pretty dense not to know that something strange was going on, but he kept quiet except for the one time of reporting to a superior.

He was also an employee of the gov't. in the division that maintained records of Confederates in POW camps. How convenient when at least two plots to free those prisoners were being hatched (Hines in charge of the Northwest plan and I believe Bradley Johnson of Maryland considering Point Lookout in Southern Maryland). Wouldn't it be nice to know numbers of prisoners involved, number of guards and troops to contend with, etc.?

When the kidnapping was aborted and young Surratt was sent to Elmira (which had a POW camp...), Weichmann lost his only "in" of the group. When the assassination occurred, he had to be running scared and would likely do anything to cooperate with the Feds and save his own skin. Personally, I bet that 75% or more of Americans today would do the same thing.

Mike: your study is healthy. And probably won’t end. You will be frustrated with conflicting information about things from various sources. You may reach a point where you think you have it figured out only to realize maybe you don’t. Your opinions are welcome here. We are all learners on this subject. Study on!

(09-05-2018 07:30 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  Mike:

In my opinion, most of your conclusions are erroneous. My views, which are based on having read all or part of about 125 books on the assassination and attempted Assassinations on April 14, 1865, and countless articles and newspapers, are contained in my book Decapitating the Union: Jefferson Davis, Judah Benjamin and the Plot to Assassinate Lincoln, which is the product of five years of research and writing and which I hope you will add to your reading list. Briefly, and addressing each of your conclusions in order, they are:

1. Stanton was not involved. That is a thoroughly discredited theory. Even Eisenschiml acknowledged that there was not enough evidence to draw that conclusion.
2. Other War Department/Army Officials MAY have been involved, especially as regards the crossing of the Navy Yard Bridge by Booth and Herold, but there is no proof of the same and the evidence is weak.
3. Booth was shot to death in Garrett's barn by Boston Corbett, though he probably would have killed himself if Corbett hadn't beat him to it. He had previously said he would.
4. You are correct in concluding that the assassination was not a spur of the moment act, but had been planned for weeks, perhaps months, in advance,
5. Mary Surratt was almost certainly part of the assassination plot;
6. John Surratt was most certainly involved in Lincoln's murder;
7. Dr. Mudd was almost certainly part of the assassination plot;
8. Michael O'Laughlen was not innocent. He was part of the conspiracy and therefore, under the laws of conspiracy, should have received the same sentence that Mary Surratt, David Herold, George Atzerodt and Lewis Powell did. He was lucky to escape with his life, but his luck ran out in Ft. Jefferson, where he died of yellow fever.
9. Joseph Stewart was not in Ford's Theater to assure Booth's escape; he was just an overweight and shady lawyer with a bad reputation who lied to the Commissioners, probably for financial gain. He didn't get anywhere near Booth when he finally stepped into the alley;
10. Andrew Johnson was not bullied or tricked by Stanton; the Military Commission was created by Johnson pursuant to his Attorney General's ruling (James Speed). The failure to pardon Mary Surratt, pursuant to the vote of the Commissioners, was a matter between Johnson and Joseph Holt only; Stanton had nothing to do with it.

If you read my book you will find good arguments in support of all these conclusions. Then if you wish to discuss them with me, I am all ears.

John

John,

I do not believe that the theory of Stanton's involvement has been discredited. On the contrary, I believe that later document discoveries and additional research have strengthened the case for Stanton's involvement.

Eisenschiml never ceased to believe that Stanton was involved. He specified that he did not believe there was enough direct evidence of Stanton's guilt but that there was considerable circumstantial evidence of his guilt.

I find it very hard to imagine how any genuine Southerner could have believed that killing Lincoln, Johnson, and Seward would in any way help the South. I can believe that a greedy and immoral Southerner would take money to commit such horrendous crimes, in spite of the calamity they would surely bring on the South, but I cannot believe that anyone who was ideologically committed to the South would have been so utterly delusional as to think that killing the three biggest opponents of Radical Reconstruction would somehow help the South.

I think the claim that the Radicals and Lincoln were not very far apart on Reconstruction is demonstrably false. Just hours after Lincoln's death, a number of Radicals gathered in Washington and agreed that Lincoln’s murder was a “godsend to the country.” Let me quote what Rep. George Julian, a leading Radical in the House, said about the meeting:

Quote:I spent most of the afternoon in a political caucus, held for the purpose of considering the necessity for a new Cabinet and a line of policy less conciliatory than that of Mr. Lincoln; and while everybody was shocked at his murder, the feeling was nearly universal that the accession of Johnson to the Presidency would prove a godsend to the country. Aside from Mr. Lincoln's known policy of tenderness to the Rebels, which now so jarred upon the feelings of the hour, his well-known views on the subject of reconstruction were as distasteful as possible to radical Republicans. In his last public utterance, only three days before his death, he had declared his adherence to the plan of reconstruction announced by him in December, 1863, which in the following year so stirred the ire of Wade and Winter Davis as an attempt of the Executive to usurp the powers of Congress. (Political Recollections 1840-1872, Chicago: Jansen, McClurg & Company, 1884, pp. 255-256, emphasis added)

Historian Claude Bowers, who later served as President Franklin Roosevelt’s ambassador to Spain, discussed this meeting and how it was reported in the New York Tribune at the time:

Quote:That afternoon, within eight hours of Lincoln's death, a caucus of the Radicals was conferring on plans to rid the Government of the Lincoln influence. One of the participants, “who liked the radical tone,” was "intolerably disgusted" with the "profanity and obscenity.” There, among others, sat Ben Wade, Zack Chandler, and Wilkeson, correspondent of the New York Tribune, who proposed to put Greeley “on the war path.” In the discussion as reported, “the hostility for Lincoln's policy of conciliation and contempt for his weakness" was “undisguised,” and “the universal sentiment among radical men” was that "his death is a Godsend to our cause.” Moving with revolutionary celerity, these practical men had agreed to urge on Johnson the reconstruction of his Cabinet “to get rid of the last vestige of Lincolnism,” and Ben Butler was chosen for Secretary of State! (The Tragic Era: The Revolution After Lincoln, Cambridge, MA: The Riverside Press, 1920, p. 6, emphasis added)

Representative Julian made other comments that make it clear that the Radicals were not happy with Lincoln’s Reconstruction policy. He noted that the day after the Radical meeting on April 15, Senator Benjamin Wade and other Radicals on the Committee on the Conduct of the War met with President Andrew Johnson, and that Senator Wade expressed his confidence that with Johnson as president “there will be no problem now in running the government!”:

Quote:On the following day, in pursuance of a previous engagement, the Committee on the Conduct of the War met the President at his quarters in the Treasury Department. He received us with decided cordiality, and Mr. Wade said to him: ''Johnson, we have faith in you. By the gods, there will be no trouble now in running the government!" (Political Recollections 1840-1872, p. 257)

So clearly Senator Wade, one of the most vicious of the Radicals, believed that if Lincoln had not been murdered, there would have been “trouble” in “running the government.”

In commenting on Lincoln’s funeral, Representative Julian stated that Lincoln’s last statements on Reconstruction had been “far from assuring or satisfactory”:

Quote:The outpouring of the people at Mr. Lincoln's funeral was wholly unprecedented, and every possible arrangement was made by which they could manifest their grief for their murdered President; but their solicitude for the state of the country was too profound to be intermitted. What policy was now to be pursued? Mr. Lincoln's latest utterances had been far from assuring or satisfactory. (Political Recollections 1840-1872, p. 258)

“Far from assuring or satisfactory.” Thus, according to Julian, Lincoln’s last statements on Reconstruction were “far” from the Radicals’ views on the matter. The Radicals and Lincoln were not moving toward each other on Reconstruction. When he died, they were “far” apart on the subject.

Right now I think the case against Mary Surratt and Dr. Mudd is very weak and based largely on perjury and incorrect inferences. However, I have not completely made up my mind about Mrs. Surratt and Mudd. I see some evidence that Mrs. Surratt and Mudd might have been involved in the kidnapping plot.

I think Dr. Robert Arnold makes a good case that Corbett could not have shot the man in the barn.

If the body brought to the USS Montauk had been Booth's, several autopsy photographs would have been taken, instead of just one photo that soon disappeared. People who knew Booth well were readily available to ID the body, but they were never summoned, even though some of them were on the ship. The people who ID'd the body as Booth did so from the "general appearance." When Dr. May saw the body, his first response was that it looked nothing like Booth and that he could not believe it was his body. The later ID, the one done when the body was moved, was done when the flesh had mostly decayed and when the Booth family had every incentive to keep Booth dead in the eyes of the world.

O'Laughlen had ample witnesses to document just about every minute of his activities that night and that he went nowhere near Stanton's house or any other high government official's house.

I believe that there is strong evidence that Lloyd and Weichmann lied repeatedly. Interestingly, both men later confided to a few people that they only said what they said because they were threatened with death. Weichmann, however, recovered from his bout of honesty and went on to write a book that repeated his false testimony.

I believe that Johnson most certainly was bullied and intimidated by Stanton in the immediate aftermath of the assassination. But I also believe that Johnson came to realize what a disgrace the military trial had been and that he came to see Stanton for what he was, especially when the same conman whom Holt and Bingham had used at the trial later conspired with two Radicals in the House to falsely implicate Johnson in Lincoln's murder.

(09-07-2018 02:48 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  I believe that there is strong evidence that Lloyd and Weichmann lied repeatedly. Interestingly, both men later confided to a few people that they only said what they said because they were threatened with death. Weichmann, however, recovered from his bout of honesty and went on to write a book that repeated his false testimony.

Some of this is new to me.
Please, what is the strong evidence that Lloyd and Weichmann lied repeatedly.
Who were the few people they confided to about the threats of death?
What and where (it's a big book) is the false testimony Weichmann repeated in his book?

Thanks.

While I disagree with much of your above dissertation, it is very well presented. Thank you. I believe you had me - and probably others - convinced that you are just a novice in studying the assassination story. Obviously, you have done much more reading than what you have let on. Very good.

Now, I shall turn the forum's podium over to John Fazio and others to have their say...

BTW: This will be viewed as strictly feminine logic, but Edwin Stanton was invited to Robert Todd Lincoln's wedding. If there had been any hint that Stanton was involved in his father's death, do you think Robert or Mary Harlan (a Senator's daughter) would have done so?

(09-07-2018 02:48 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  I see some evidence that Mrs. Surratt and Mudd might have been involved in the kidnapping plot.

Mary Surratt was convicted even though some evidence against her was not known until after the trial (many years later). Here are three examples:

1. In his "lost confession,' George Atzerodt wrote, "Booth told me that Mrs. Surratt went to Surrattsville to get out the guns (Two Carbines) which had been taken to that place by Herold. This was Friday."

2. Mary Surratt was convicted by the court without hearing the following story which Weichmann did not testify to at the trial but waited until afterwards to make public: when he was taking her to Surrattsville on the day of the assassination, Weichmann and Mary were traveling along the same road Booth would use later that night to escape from Washington. Weichmann and Mary were in the buggy when they saw some soldiers along the roadside. Mary stopped the buggy and asked an old farmer why the soldiers were there. She was told that they were pickets. Mary then asked if they remained on guard all night. The farmer said that they were usually called in at about 8 in the evening. Mary replied, "I am glad to know that." Weichmann and Mary then continued on. (story from page 166 of Weichmann's book). It seems to me that Weichmann did not make this story up. (I realize that is debatable; just my opinion.) On the face of it, it would appear to me that Mary knew Booth was going to act that night and that she wanted to make sure the road would be clear after 10:30 P.M. when Booth would be riding hard to her tavern at Surrattsville to pick up the carbines and field glasses stored there. This would explain her "I am glad to know that" statement when hearing the pickets would be long gone before Booth rode by.

3. Richard Smoot did not testify but wrote that he visited the boardinghouse at about 9:30 the night of the assassination. He talked to Mary Surratt, and was given strong indication that something was going to happen that night. Nervously, she told him not to be seen at her house again. It sure appears from Smoot's book that Mary knew Booth was going to act that night (kidnapping or assassination? I am sure she knew of the kidnapping plot but may not have known about the assassination plan). See Smoot's The Unwritten History of the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln.

Mike, Laurie, Roger, et al.:

Please forgive my tardiness in responding; I have been, as always, quite busy.

1. Mike, in response to your statement that you do not believe that the theory of Stanton's involvement has been discredited, please consider, in addition to Laurie's comment re Robert Todd's wedding invitation, p. 323 of Decapitating the Union, and especially William Hanchett's summary . See also pp. 255-258 of Decapitating for evidence of an assassination attempt on Stanton.
2. In response to your statement about finding it hard to imagine how any genuine Southerner could have believed that killing Lincoln, Johnson and Seward could in any way help the South, let me say that I hardly know where to begin to answer you. To begin with, you omitted to include Stanton and Grant as targets, despite much evidence in support thereof (see pp. 255-260 of Decapitating), and, for that matter, as many as 10 other Union leaders as targets, if the May 10, 1965, letter from the Union agent in Paris is to be believed, and there is no reason it should not be (see p. 260 of Decapitating). Secondly, there is a ton of evidence of previous assassination attempts against Lincoln, some definitely and others most likely carried out by Southerners, including the infected shirt plot, which was engineered by three of Davis's appointees in Canada, namely James Holcombe, Clement Clay and Jacob Thompson, to say nothing of all the poisoned foodstuffs that were sent to Lincoln from the South after his election but before he left Springfield. Third, you assume that belligerents in war act rationally. They do not. They are motivated by the strongest motivator of human behavior, stronger even than the motivation to acquire wealth (which is second), namely REVENGE. See pp. 328-333 of Decapitating for Confederate motives to eliminate Lincoln, Johnson, Seward, Stanton and Grant, and perhaps others. You underestimate the lengths to which those who have fought 4 long and hard years to avert a catastrophe will go to prevent that catastrophe from happening. What was the catastrophe: 1) The loss of their political independence; 2) The loss of their lifestyle and culture; 3) The loss of their wealth and property; 4) The social disruption attendant upon the integration of 4 million suddenly free blacks into a society of 5.5. million whites; and 5) The possible "mongrelization" of their race. You also underestimate the lengths to which such people would go to have their revenge against those whom they considered responsible for the impending catastrophe and for the despoliation of their land and people
3. You say "I think the claim that the Radicals and Lincoln were not very far apart on Reconstruction is demonstrably false." I could not agree more. Whoever said such a thing? All of your quotes are well taken, to which I would add Nicolay's statement that "(The) extreme Radicals...were naturally shocked by the murder, but they did not, among themselves, conceal their gratification that (Lincoln) was no longer in the way." That statement, incidentally, suggests strongly that at least some in the North (namely the Radicals and those whose interests they represented) were motivated by something other than Union and Emancipation. At the same time, it must be said that their use of the word "Godsend" argues against their complicity in the attempted decapitation or even, more specifically, the murder of Lincoln. "Godsends" are unexpected happenstances; they are not the result of plotting and scheming and therefore are not evidence of Radical complicity in the Great Crime.
4. Your doubts about the guilt of Mary Surratt and Dr. Mudd are, in my opinion, without merit. See Chapters 5 and 11 of Decapitating and see also Ed Steers's book His Name is Still Mudd and Kate Larson's book The Assassin's Accomplice. Your supposition that Surratt or Dr. Mudd "might have been involved in the kidnapping plot", again, is without merit, for the simple reason that THERE WAS NO BONA FIDE KIDNAPPING PLOT (see Chapter 12 of Decapitating).
5. I am not familiar with Dr. Robert Arnold's arguments re Corbett. I will have a look at them, but I will say now that he has an uphill climb with me, because I believe the evidence favoring Corbett's killing of Booth is somewhere between very strong and conclusive.
6. As for the identity of the corpse taken from the Garrett farm, see pp. 287, 288 of Decapitating.
7. The evidence of O'Laughlen's presence at the Stanton mansion on the evening of April 13 is inconclusive. I favor his being there despite the preponderance of witnesses who supported his alibi. See pp. 113-117 and 256-258 of Decapitating..
8. As for Lloyd and Weichmann, see pp. 298-300 of Decapitating I favor the veracity of their testimony, especially Weichmann's, who affirmed his truthfulness on his deathbed.
9. As for Stanton bullying Johnson, I would have to see evidence of the same.
10. The trial was not, in my opinion, a disgrace, nor was it a "farce", as some have said. It was, rather, "an enormous undertaking at an enormously difficult time under enormously difficult circumstances. It was carried out by conscientious and well-meaning men, competent, but nevertheless frail, like all of us. In the end, and despite their frailty, they acquitted themselves quite well, because, except in Spangler's case, justice was served...Getting something right seven out of eight times isn't bad."

Thank you.

John

(09-06-2018 03:52 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(09-05-2018 11:14 PM)SSlater Wrote:  Not everyone will see the same story exactly the same way.

Do I ever agree with that! Example: Read Bettie Trindal's Mary Surratt: An American Tragedy. Then read Kate Clifford Larson's The Assassin's Accomplice: Mary Surratt and the Plot to Kill Abraham Lincoln. Then ask yourself: are these two books actually about the same woman?

Larson seems determined to find Mary Surratt guilty, no matter what. For example, she dismisses the claim that Mrs. Surratt had poor vision because she notes that Surratt was able to read and sew. Yes, she could read and sew--because she was near-sighted. Even then, she could not read and sew with gas light but only in daylight. Several witnesses confirmed that Mrs. Surratt had difficulty recognizing people unless they were very close to her and in good light. Plus, she had only seen Payne briefly on a few occasions.

I watched one of Ms. Larson's presentations on YouTube. She suggested that Reverdy Johnson's failure to appear at the trial more than a few times indicated that he believed Mrs. Surratt was guilty. That's quite a reach. Johnson specified that his workload would not allow him to appear in court as often as he would like. Plus, the prosecutors and at least one of the judges had severely insulted him in court and had even questioned his moral fitness to act as counsel. Yet, Johnson wanted the court to delay Lloyd's testimony one day so he could cross-examine him, but the court refused. Johnson wrote part of the team's closing argument. Johnson was the one who directed his team to try to get a writ of habeus corpus. So to suggest that Johnson's limited appearances at the trial indicate that he believed Mary Surratt was guilty seems like a rather severe reach.