Was Stanton a murder target?

[loetar44]

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?

[John Fazio]

(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. Stewarts 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 Edwin.

Also strange is that in the proceedings of the conspiracy trial of May 16, Edwin 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 are 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?

Kees:

I believe you have a copy of my book, Decapitating the Union. If you do, please read, or re-read, pages 255 through 258, which relate to the attempt on Stanton on April 14. Some of your questions are answered there. After you have read this material, please get back to me with additional questions, which I will try to answer.

Thanks.

John

[Gene C]

Good question.
David Stanton has been mentioned before here
http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussio...id+stanton

[RJNorton]

This is a great question, Kees, and it is wonderful to see you posting again.

I do not know the answer to your question, but I'll give a couple of examples where Stanton is not mentioned.

On the day of the assassination Booth had a noontime conversation with John F. Coyle, part-owner and editor of the Washington Daily National Intelligencer. In the conversation Booth quizzed Coyle on the line of secession:

Booth: “Suppose Lincoln was killed, what would be the result?"
Coyle: “Johnson would succeed.”
Booth: “But if he was killed?”
Coyle: “Then Seward.”
Booth: “But suppose he was killed, then what?”
Coyle: “Then anarchy or whatever the Constitution provides.”

Coyle went on to say, “What nonsense, they don’t make Brutuses nowadays.”
Booth replied, “No, they do not.”

The above conversation was published in the Washington Post and is also included in the article entitled "Why Seward?" by Michael Maione and James O. Hall in the Spring 1998 edition of the Lincoln Herald.

No specific mention of Stanton if Coyle's memory were correct.

Messrs Maione and Hall do not mention Stanton at all in their article.

Also, offhand, I cannot think of any mention of Stanton in any of George Atzerodt's statements. I know Johnson was mentioned as a target, but I do not think Stanton was.

In his book John cites some excellent arguments that indeed Stanton most likely was targeted.

Good question, Kees!

[loetar44]

Thank you John, Gene and Roger.

John,
Yes, indeed I have a copy of your fascinating book, which I bought in 2015. But right now not at hand. I gave it to my brother to read and he has not returned it yet. He is now in Oxford, England and will return within two weeks. I will re-read the pages you mentioned and return to you with questions which surely will arise. I don’t exactly remember what you said about Stanton, but I think it was you who said that Stanton himself expected an assassination. He did not answer the door because the bell was not working. So, the "tall man with a high hat" went away. A slightly different account than Stewart’s. Was it you who wrote that Stanton himself told this story to a friend, a bookseller in D.C.? I know that you reject the simple conspiracy theory in favor of the theory that Booth worked with the Confederate government and its Secret Service and that Lincoln, Johnson, Grant, Seward, and Stanton all were targets. Retribution and Southern independence from a weak(ened) and chaotic Union might be the motive, right? Was the attempt on Stanton suppressed because the would-be assassin was never identified?

Gene,
Thank you for the link. Very interesting. And once again thank you for the mail you wrote me!

Roger,
I’m happy to post again. I’ve missed you all, believe me! It’s my opinion that there is little chance of finding out the answers on my questions, unless some long-lost paper(s) should surface in maybe someone’s attic (who knows). In the meantime, I find it more than great to discuss what possibly might have happened at this GREAT forum!

[PaigeBooth]

Although O'Laughlen did show up at Stanton's home the night before Lincoln's murder, it is unlikely he was there to assassinate him. Mr. and Mrs. Stanton had a party at their home that evening, which meant people were gathered inside and outside their home mingling and watching firework displays. So assasinating Stanton would have been extremely difficult and escape impossible.

[Eva Elisabeth]

(10-15-2016 01:09 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  This is a great question, Kees, and it is wonderful to see you posting again.

I second Roger, Kees.

[loetar44]

(10-15-2016 07:50 PM)PaigeBooth Wrote:  Although O'Laughlen did show up at Stanton's home the night before Lincoln's murder, it is unlikely he was there to assassinate him. Mr. and Mrs. Stanton had a party at their home that evening, which meant people were gathered inside and outside their home mingling and watching firework displays. So assasinating Stanton would have been extremely difficult and escape impossible.

You are right, assassinating Stanton that night would have been a great risk for the assassin, with escape hardly possible. But… the plans to assassinate Lincoln, Johnson, Seward and possible Stanton (and Grant) were made for April 14, not April 13. It might be possible that O’Laughlen was checking out Stanton’s house for his (possible) attack a day later. Can you agree with this scenario?

[PaigeBooth]

(10-16-2016 12:43 PM)loetar44 Wrote:  

(10-15-2016 07:50 PM)PaigeBooth Wrote:  Although O'Laughlen did show up at Stanton's home the night before Lincoln's murder, it is unlikely he was there to assassinate him. Mr. and Mrs. Stanton had a party at their home that evening, which meant people were gathered inside and outside their home mingling and watching firework displays. So assasinating Stanton would have been extremely difficult and escape impossible.

You are right, assassinating Stanton that night would have been a great risk for the assassin, with escape hardly possible. But… the plans to assassinate Lincoln, Johnson, Seward and possible Stanton (and Grant) were made for April 14, not April 13. It might be possible that O’Laughlen was checking out Stanton’s house for his (possible) attack a day later. Can you agree with this scenario?

Yes, that scenario is definitely possible. After all, Powell was seen examining Seward's home on both April 13th and 14th. However, if O'Laughlen was assigned by Booth to kill Stanton, he probably would have attended the meeting at the Herndon House on April 13th, which he did not.
O'Laughlen seemingly wanted to distance himself from the plot. He was asking for Stanton when he was at his home, so it has been said that he was there to tell about Booth's plans-- but that is only speculation.
Thanks for the great question!

[L Verge]

I do believe that this is one of those situations that keeps us fascinated in finding the truth as to how extensive the plot was and who was involved. However, I do not believe that we will ever confirm that it was Mike O'Laughlen who reportedly went to Stanton's home -- and even if he did, will we be able to confirm what his intentions were? I believe that it was Mike Kauffman who first suggested that O'Laughlen went there to warn the Secretary. That's as good a guess as any, unless descendants of the O'Laughlen's can pull a magic letter or document out of an old trunk...

[John Fazio]

Everyone:

In my opinion:

1. It is likely that the intruder at the Stanton home on April 13 was O'Laughlen. Laurie is right: His identity is not known and probably never will be, but the evidence we do have makes it probable that it was O'Laughlen, and probabilities are very often all we have. He saw Booth that morning shortly after his arrival in Washington, or in any case he went to the National, where Booth was staying. He saw him again on the morning of the 14th. This suggests, strongly, that he was still cooperating with Booth, that he received an assignment from him on the 13th and that he reported to Booth the results of his assignment on the 14th, which fits with his being at Stanton's home on the night of the 13th. Three witnesses at the trial identified the intruder as O'Laughlen, one "pretty certain" and two without qualification. In Atzerodt's last confession he said "...although an alibi was tried to be made out, there is no doubt in the minds of those who know all the circumstances of O'Laughlen but that he did visit Secretary Stanton's home as charged in the testimony before the Commission".

2. It really doesn't matter who the intruder was. The point is that someone was there to obtain information that would facilitate the planned assassination the following night, most likely the layout of the home and the likely whereabouts of Stanton and Grant the following night. We know that Booth was in contact with conspirators other than members of his action team, because Powell said so (to Gillette).

3. We may be nearly certain that an attempt was made on Stanton on the 14th. There are many reasons for so concluding and they are given on pp. 255-258 of Decapitating, but one really needs to know no more than this:

a. The April 10, 1865, letter to Booth, signed T.I.O.S, states that one assassin had been assigned for each member of Lincoln's cabinet.
b. The May 10, 1865, letter from the Union agent in Paris states that the Confederate agent "Johnston" had stated in his letter that if everything had gone according to plan, 15 Yankees would be dead.
c. Powell told Eckert that it was his impression that arrangements had been made for the same disposition of other Federal office-holders as he was to make of Seward.
d. Stanton was mentioned as an intended victim by Confederate Secret Service operatives in Canada and also by Thomas A. Jones in his 1893 book.

4. Roger, the fact that Stanton is not mentioned in the Booth-Coyle conversation is of little if any relevance inasmuch as the Secretary of War does not figure in presidential succession.

5. Paige, you are right: Whoever was at Stanton's home of the 13th was not there to assassinate anyone; that was being reserved for the following night. However, inasmuch as O'Laughlen met with Booth twice before the Herndon House meeting, his presence at that meeting would not have been necessary. We know that Booth compartmentalized his conspiracy to a degree. O'Laughlen's absence may have been part of that process. O'Laughlen and Arnold had always been kept apart from the others, except for the Gautier's meeting and the Campbell Hospital episode. That is not to say that the skulking figure seen on Stanton's porch or the man seen behind the tree box on Stanton's property was O'Laughlen, but it is to say that one of them could have been O'Laughlen and that his absence from the Herndon House meeting does not preclude it.

5. As Laurie said, this is one of the enduring mysteries. But I do not believe it is quite as much of a mystery as some others, such as, for example, John Surratt's location on the 14th.

John

[Wild Bill]

OMG, I have to agree with Fazio once again. That ought to foul up everything!

[John Fazio]

(10-17-2016 08:57 AM)Wild Bill Wrote:  OMG, I have to agree with Fazio once again. That ought to foul up everything!

Wild Bill:

It does not surprise me that you agree with me again. I have already said that I have read you books and find myself in agreement with you on almost everything pertaining to the war and the period except for the question as to which side was fundamentally right and which fundamentally wrong. This isn't a bad record, because there are some with whom I disagree on quite a number of issues. I have asked my friend Dave Taylor, for example, with whom I disagree on the issue of kidnapping, for example, to give me his arguments. I have promised to consider them carefully before rejecting them. I give all challengers the same courtesy.

John

[loetar44]

The Presidential Succession Act of 1792 (in effect in 1865), Section 9 declared that, in the event of the removal, resignation, death, or inability of both the President and Vice President, the President pro tempore of the United States Senate was next in line of succession after the Vice President, followed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. So, if Atzerodt had assassinated Andrew Johnson, President pro tempore of the Senate Lafayette S. Foster would have become Acting President, until new elections were held in December 1865 (as required in Section 10). Foster was elected President pro tempore of the Senate six weeks before Lincoln was assassinated. John is correct Stanton was not in the line of presidential succession. Even Seward was not in that line. So, Coyle was wrong.

[PaigeBooth]

I do agree that this is one of the many mysteries surrounding Lincoln's murder that we many never fully understand.
I agree with Mr. Fazio in that the intruder was most likely O'Laughlen. I am satisfied with the evidence proving that O'Laughlen was identified as the man at Stanton's home on April 13th.
Most notably, at the trial, Major Knox was asked if he saw any of the prisoners at Stanton's home. Knox said "Yes" and (seemingly without hesitation) pointed to O'Laughlen and identified him as the man who came to Stanton's home. Knox was in his early twenties at the time and, therefore, of sharp memory to positively identify O'Laughlen.