+- Lincoln Discussion Symposium (https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium)
+-- Forum: Lincoln Discussion Symposium (/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Books - over 15,000 to discuss (/forum-6.html)
+--- Thread: Otto Eisenschiml (/thread-3706.html)
Otto Eisenschiml - DannyW - 04-19-2018 02:27 AM
I just recently downloaded Otto Eisenschiml’s book Why was Lincoln Murdered on archive.org.
I have never read it & know it’s highly controversial. Can someone give me the gist of the book- the good & bad!
Thanks so much!
RE: Otto Eisenschiml - RJNorton - 04-19-2018 04:04 AM
Danny, the book espoused the hypothesis that Secretary of War Edwin Stanton was directly involved in Lincoln's death. It alleged that Stanton was against Lincoln's mild Reconstruction policies and wanted him out of office so a more radical Reconstruction policy could be employed. On the day of the assassination Ulysses S. Grant was expected to attend Our American Cousin with the Lincolns. Eisenschiml argued that had Grant attended, the military guards who protected him would never have allowed Booth to enter the State Box at Ford's Theatre. Eisenschiml further argued that Grant's refusal of the Lincolns' theater invitation was due to an order by Stanton to change his plans for the evening. Eisenschiml's theory was that Grant's absence left Lincoln vulnerable. Stanton was also alleged to have known that conspirators were meeting at the Surratt boardinghouse, and that he refused to release from duty the powerful Major Thomas T. Eckert after Lincoln asked for him as a bodyguard (stating that Eckert had vital work to do at the War Department's Telegraph Office). Eisenschiml continued from there to make a case against Stanton by examining an entire series of events following Booth's shot. Nearly every move Stanton made is seen as suspicious and containing an ulterior motive. Among these behaviors and events were not alerting the security at the Navy Yard Bridge (over which Booth escaped), the mysterious alleged interruption of telegraph communications, secretly arranging to have Booth killed before being brought to trial, and the suppression of evidence by removing pages from Booth's diary. Eisenschiml also noted the unreliability of John Parker who accompanied the Lincoln party inside the theater.
Although many historians dismiss Eisenschiml's book, I personally find the book interesting (although I do not believe the author's conclusion). Eisenschiml does ask some good questions. For example, what did happen to the missing pages in Booth's diary? No one knows with 100% certainty.
Danny, this post just reflects my personal opinion. Maybe others will see things differently.
RE: Otto Eisenschiml - Wild Bill - 04-19-2018 06:20 AM
Good summary. I just have to say that I have deep in my soul the feeling that Stanton was in on the assassination as Eisenschiml asserts but he has had a job done on him (Eisenschmil) by historians to clear his (Stanton's) name. But then I do not see Radical Republicans like Stanton and his ilk too kindly and never have or will.
RE: Otto Eisenschiml - brtmchl - 04-19-2018 11:32 AM
I do not subscribe to Eisenschmil's theory regarding Stanton. While Lincoln and Stanton may have been rivals at one point, by my understanding they grew to be close friends.
“Not everyone knows, as I do, how close you stood to our lost leader, how he loved you and trusted you, and how vain were all the efforts to shake that trust and confidence, not lightly given and never withdrawn,” wrote John Hay to Stanton after Lincoln's death. William Hanchett, Out of the Wilderness, p. 88.
“By the war’s end, few men were on such intimate terms with Lincoln as the Secretary of War. Few men could write the President such chatty, personal letters as those Stanton dispatched while Lincoln visited the Virginia front in 1865,” wrote Lincoln biographer Stephen B. Oates. Stephen B. Oates, Abraham Lincoln: The Man Behind the Myths
Stanton tried to resign shortly after the Confederate surrender at Appomattox in April 1865, but his resignation was rejected by President Lincoln. “‘Stanton,’ you cannot go. Reconstruction is more difficult and dangerous than construction or destruction. You have been our main reliance; you must help us through the final act. The bag is filled. It must be tied and tied securely. Some knots slip; yours do not. You understand the situation better than anybody else, and it is my wish and the country’s that you remain.'” - Fletcher Pratt, Stanton: Lincoln’s Secretary of War, p. 411.
David E Long wrote, “Stanton would become furious and fly into fits of rage at Lincoln time and time again. Thus many fail to consider the friendship of these two men…they were simply two professional politicians who tolerated one another in order to achieve a common goal. It seriously underestimates the respect and affection they actually felt toward one another.” According to Long: “Their common devotion to the cause of the Union, and their relentless determination to preserve it, created a bond that did not take the form of backslapping humor and thigh-pounding stories amidst relaxed banter that Lincoln shared with William H. Seward. But their hours and days spent together at the Soldiers’ Home, the relationship of their children, the tears that flowed from the eyes of the stolid Stanton when Lincoln took his last breath." -David E. Long, “A Time for Lincoln,” Lincoln Lore, Spring 2006, p. 16.
Stanton had a continuing concern for the President’s safety and the inadequacy of his security arrangements. He tried to keep President Lincoln from going to the theater on April 14, 1865. After Mr. Lincoln died, Stanton announced: “Now he belongs to the ages.” He immediately organized the response to Lincoln’s assassination, the pursuit of assassin John Wilkes Booth, and the prosecution of the assassination conspirators.
RE: Otto Eisenschiml - Gene C - 04-19-2018 11:36 AM
I never did quite agree with Otto's reasoning that Stanton was in on the assassination.
To me, Stanton's actions following the assassination were more in the line with mourning and retribution than a cover up.
Does Booth's note to Dr. Stuart, thanking him for his hospitality, still exist?
If so, was it ever determined if it was written on a page torn from Booth's diary?
Could it be one of the missing pages?
RE: Otto Eisenschiml - Susan Higginbotham - 04-19-2018 12:58 PM
The fact that Mary Lincoln praised Stanton after his death--"How nobly, he served his country, in its darkest hours--history can well affirm"--speaks volumes to me. If there were any reason to suspect Stanton's involvement in her husband's death, surely Mary would have suspected it.
RE: Otto Eisenschiml - JMadonna - 04-19-2018 03:58 PM
She certainly thought Andrew Johnson was involved ( I agree with her)
Eisenschiml was a master of setting up straw dog arguments and asking the readers rhetorical questions to view things his way.
RE: Otto Eisenschiml - richard petersen - 04-21-2018 07:01 PM
for me an excellent resource is " The Lincoln Murder Conspiracies" by William Hanchett in which he devotes a chapter on this so called grand conspiracy. The last sentence in the chapter, "Mendel's table would never have been completed if scientists had yielded to the temptation of filling in the gaps by distorting the evidence"
It is a good read
RE: Otto Eisenschiml - DannyW - 04-22-2018 10:23 PM
Thank you all for your valuable responses. Everyone here are all so helpful! I really appreciate it!