In my youth, I embraced the idea that Stanton was behind it and that there was a grander conspiracy afoot. As they say, Roger, with age comes wisdom, or maybe not. Anyway, the more I have read and researched, the more convinced I become that there is no way Stanton was involved. He was too much of a Unionist. AL had built Stanton. While Stanton may have originally underestimated the simple prarie, lawyer, he quickly realized what an incredibly gifted politician and leader he was. One trait they shared was that neither man cared who they riled. Both would kick the hornets nest. The difference was that AL could pick go back, pick up the nest, put it back, and not get stung. Maybe not every time. Stanton grew to have great admiration for AL. He understood the risks AL took putting him in a War Secretary. Next to Robert Lincoln, Stanton was probably the most moved in the death room. While Stanton appears to not have been able to handle death well in general, I think that Stanton felt that he and AL were a team and as colse a friend as he would have.

There was a Stanton lead conspiracy, one of silence. It represented, in Stanton's words "A Threat to the Republic".

.... shameless plug.

I think it's important to remember that had Balsiger and Sellier not come out with the movie and book of The Lincoln Conspiracies during the Watergate era, it's likely that Eisenschiml's theory was well on its way to a quiet death. Most people at the time were willing to believe just about anything of the government, and so it became possible to accept that high government officials could be capable of such actions.

There's an interesting book written by Michael Shermer called Why People Believe Weird Things which attempts to uncover why silly things seem to gain traction while more reasonable explanations don't. It's the old saying "If you see hoof prints, don't think zebras."

Best
Rob

Some time ago, I wrote an article about what was going on, on April 14th. I had some incidents where Stanton did what Lincoln wanted, when Stanton wanted the same thing, but when it didn't suit Stanton'd adgenda, he would defie Lincoln and do something entirely different. I need to hunt that story down. Stanton did not "adore" Lincoln. At times he felt he knew more than the Boss. I forget the exact details -but I will find them. They may have been real buddies, and it didn't make any difference. (Let me look around.)

Amen, John Stanton. I cannot but agree with your feelings on the Lincoln-Stanton relationship. But I have to admit, this is a gut reaction from the 1960s and I cannot prove it. Hope you can find "the exact details."

Anyone who has read my "THE MYSTERY OF APRIL 14TH" does not have to read this - you already know. No.1. Just after the fall of Richmond, Lincoln met with Confederate Judge John Campbell and they agreed that the Virginia Legislature should meet, in order to withdraw Confederate Troops from the field. Stanton opposed this, because it might gain an Official Status for the legislature. Stanton then issued orders to disobey Lincoln's instructions.He then later convinced Lincoln to withdraw his orders. That takes guts!.
No.2. On April 14th, Jacob Thompson was seen in Portland , Maine. The resident Provost Marshal wired Wash. "what should he do?". When Stanton got the msg in Wash., he said ARREST HIM!. (and expected a return Msg to go out immediately.) Then following protocal, he sent Charles A. Dana to Lincoln with the wire from Portland. When Dana returned, Stanton wanted to know Lincoln's reaction. Lincoln's words were "When you have an elephant by the hind leg, and he is trying to run away, it's best to let him run." Stanton instructed Dana not to send anything to Portland. He was planning to arrest Thompson, but he didn't want Lincoln to know it. There is more to this story, but I picked this out to show his contempt of Lincoln, when it suited his purpose.

Politics as usual - even in the 1860s...

John,
I disagree with your conclusions on the examples you cited. Lincoln made a decision on the first example but Stanton (the better lawyer) found Lincoln's logic faulty. To save Lincoln from making a political mistake he did not follow the order until he could talk with him. That is guts but its also displays loyalty. This happened more than once between the two men but when Lincoln overruled him Stanton always complied.

The second example shows this dynamic. Stanton acted within his powers and gave Lincoln a heads up. When Lincoln disagreed he complied.

Good debate! In the second example, Stanton did not comply with "Lincoln's plan", as a result - Lincoln was dead.
Lincoln wanted Eckert to accompany him to the theater, but Stanton needed Eckert as a telegraph operator, so , Stanton said that he needed him for a very important project (- to arrest Thompson). But he couldn't tell Lincoln that - he was being devious. In the mean time, Thompson escaped back into Canada. Stanton's plan fell apart -Thompson was gone, so he and Eckert went home to their families.
My whole point is that he acted contrary to his chief, in order to accomplish a personal plan, which he was DIRECTED to abandon.
Lincoln and Stanton spent the afternoon together in the War Dept. Wouldn't it have been "faultless logic" to discuss the issue with your boss? No,he purpously developed a scheme, and withheld the details from Lincoln, knowing that Lincoln would disapprove it.
Lincoln's "faulty logic" was shared with a "trusted" Judge. How faulty could it have been? Stanton did not merely delay the Order, he issued his own order not to comply". Lincoln's, thoughts were to get the Troops under control and not allow pockets of the war to continue. JOHN

It's sometimes easier to get forgiveness than permission

(11-04-2012 08:45 PM)John Stanton Wrote:  Good debate! In the second example, Stanton did not comply with "Lincoln's plan", as a result - Lincoln was dead.
Lincoln wanted Eckert to accompany him to the theater, but Stanton needed Eckert as a telegraph operator, so , Stanton said that he needed him for a very important project (- to arrest Thompson). But he couldn't tell Lincoln that - he was being devious. In the mean time, Thompson escaped back into Canada. Stanton's plan fell apart -Thompson was gone, so he and Eckert went home to their families.
My whole point is that he acted contrary to his chief, in order to accomplish a personal plan, which he was DIRECTED to abandon.
Lincoln and Stanton spent the afternoon together in the War Dept. Wouldn't it have been "faultless logic" to discuss the issue with your boss? No,he purpously developed a scheme, and withheld the details from Lincoln, knowing that Lincoln would disapprove it.
Lincoln's "faulty logic" was shared with a "trusted" Judge. How faulty could it have been? Stanton did not merely delay the Order, he issued his own order not to comply". Lincoln's, thoughts were to get the Troops under control and not allow pockets of the war to continue. JOHN

John,
While it is true that Stanton ordered Thompson's arrest AFTER Lincoln's death, you have to admit that circumstances changed dramatically in those few hours which justified the order. There is NO evidence that Eckert was involved in a scheme to go behind Lincoln's back.

As for a 'trusted' judge may I remind you he was a Confederate judge and he was advocating a plan that would have run counter to the political plan of the North for reconstruction. Stanton was doing his job. Lincoln was straying into Stanton's authority without consulting him. Lincoln saw the error of the order and after proper consultation - rescinded it.

Something about this debate bothers me. First, Reconstruction was a political problem. During the Civil War Lincoln issued at least two Reconstrution plans, one in 1862 that envisioned a 50 year period of gradual emancipation and another that allowed the process to be begun by 10% of the population of a seceded state. Congress had responded to these by ignoring the first and issuing the Wade-Davis Bill proposing that Reconstruction begin with 50% of the seceded state's population agreeing to rejoin the Union. Lincoln pocket vetoed the Wade-Davis Bill, but admitted that he would not stand in the way of any state that wished to use it over any of his proposals. It was in this same state of mind that he agreed with John Campbell to get Virginia started in Reconstruction. Stanton favored the Congressional approach and stymied Lincoln's off the cuff agreement with Campbell. None of these proposals were set in concrete, not Lincoln's at least 3 suggestions, all confirmed in his April 11 speech that so infuriated John Wilkes Booth that he asked Lewis Powell to shoot the presider off the White House balcony. But in reality we do not know, despite those historians who say otherwise, what Lincoln's real plan of Reconstruction was. He was a realist here--he knew that he would have to agree with Congress. It was Congress that would determine when reconstruction had been completed because it had the right to recognize legal state government by seating their representatives and senators (Luther v. Borden, ca. 1849).

Now John Campbell was not a Confederate judge. He was a former associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1850s. He was in the Confederate Department of War. I don't think he ever served on the bench in the Confederacy, but I am open to correction here. He had great influence as a part of the Confederate government and was greatly respected in Virginia and the South. He was a good man for Lincoln to negotiate with on a provisional basis because both me thought getting one state back into the union would be a good example to the others. But it was not Stanton's prerogative to disagree with his boss on policy. He got away with it because Lincoln was a very self-sacrificing president when it came to other's egos--of which Stanton smugly had much. What this shows is that Lincoln was open to any plan that would heal the nation and not set in his ways. Stanton would pull this same stuff under Johnson. He had done this during the war with Lincoln, too. He was a Radical Republican spy in both presidents' cabinets. He drafted an emancipation policy in 1862 and then had his boss Sec of War Cameron issue it and then attacked Cameron for doing it and then accepted his job. Stanton knew that he knew the bast for the country and bad mouthed Lincoln behind lincoln's back when Lincoln saw otherwise. But he could run the war department as could no other--ruthlessly. Lincoln decided to use that talent and ignore Stanton's character faults.

I now yield to those who know more than I and apologize for interfering with the normal flow of things. Enough history as I see it. Back to mules and horses!

Bill, I avoid all thought of Reconstruction as best I can because I found early on that it was the most confusing and dismal part of the overall Civil War studies. However, your assessment of the game playing above makes good sense. The little bit that I have retained from studying the events leading up to The Tragic Era is that Lincoln and Stanton were the ultimate politicians, who played off of each other's strengths. I would have loved to have seen Reconstruction under those two.

As an aside, your knowledge of horses and mules can certainly apply to most politicians because they tend to act like runaway horses and stubborn mules a lot -- with a few jackasses thrown into the mix. Sorry, my years of disillusionment are showing...

Bill,
I disagree with your statement "it was not Stanton's prerogative to disagree with his boss on policy". As a cabinet member it certainly was within the scope of his job, although Lincoln had the last say.

He can disagree off the record but if he cannot carry out his boss' policies, an honest man resigns. Stanton was anything but honest.