Thomas F. Harney

[John Fazio]

(11-20-2014 06:06 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 04:47 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  8. Three witnesses at the trial testified that O'Laughlen was at Stanton's home on the night of the 13th. Their testimony was corroborated by Atzerodt in one of his confessions.

I realize the discussion has moved on to another topic. However, John, I do have a question when you have time. I am still trying to decide if I believe O'Laughlen really was the "stranger" who showed up at the Stantons' reception. I have an open mind. I am familiar with some of Atzerodt's statements/confessions, but I was unaware of the one you mentioned. I did a search and finally found it here. It was in the July 10, 1865, New York Times after being in the previous day's Baltimore American.

The article has a lot of information including Atzerodt's account of the kidnap plot.

The part where O'Laughlen is mentioned with regard to Stanton's house is at the end.

I am curious as to the source. No name is given that I see - all that is said is that the information regarding what Atzerodt said "was prepared by one who has Known him since his arrest." My question is how much credence can we place in a source where no name is given? Do you have more information on who the source was or how this information was obtained by the paper? Many thanks for any input.

Roger:

Certainty is rarely achievable. Possibilities are infinite. We must, therefore, content ourselves with PROBABILITIES. Does the July 10 Times article comport with other sources re the conspiracy? Yes. "Hurline" is obviously Harbin. Atzerodt (Atz) knew the lay of the land. He knew Herold. Surratt went several times to Port Tobacco (P.T.). He sent Atz to Washington, where he was known as P.T. He was poorly regarded. "Geteers" is obviously Gautiers. Everyone mentioned was there, plus Powell. "Seventh-street read (road)" is obviously the Campbell Hospital mess. Herold left with the carbines for P.T. "Branner" is obviously Brawner. The plan "failed" because Lincoln didn't show. Everyone scattered to Baltimore, New York, etc. Everything else is similarly consistent. Why then should we doubt the veracity of the last sentence in the article when everything else squares? The confession was made right before Atz's execution. What reason did he have to lie? It was reported to the Times right after the execution. What reason did its reporter have to lie? Couple this with the degree of certainty of the I.D. at Stanton's (I was standing a step above him, looking directly into his face, which was illuminated by the light, etc.), the fact that Booth went to Baltimore the morning of the 13th to summon O'Laughlen and then returned to Washington, the fact that O'Laughlen went from Baltimore to Washington that afternoon, arrived at 5:30 and went immediately to see Booth, and then went to see him again the following morning, and what is the PROBABILITY? IMO it is that O'Laughlen was at Stanton's on Thursday night, but that another man or men attempted to murder the Secretary on Friday night, just as another man rode on Grant's train to Burlington for the purpose of killing him and still other men probably made still other attempts (per "Johnston" and "T.I.O.S.) that were only weakly recorded or not recorded at all.

John