Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Gene C · (This post was last modified: 10-28-2016 06:54 AM by Gene C.)

John, as for evidence that Stanton wasn't a target, I have none.
If Stanton was a target, why did they completely miss him?
My theory of - who wants to be a martyr for a lost cause, makes as much sense as anything else.
Why would so many of those involved in 'decapitating the union' never act? What happened to all those "suspicious people" hanging around Stanton's home that all the eye witnesses supposedly saw?
In this huge conspiracy, only a confused, misguided, down on his luck, star struck, 21 year old, did anything.

On this grand conspiracy theory, it's a lot like everything else. Lots of talkers, few doers.

Then again, you could be right.
Smile

BettyO · (This post was last modified: 10-28-2016 06:56 AM by BettyO.)

I've read Thomas Jones' book many years ago - but never noticed the statement that John mentions (on page 46 of Thomas Jones' book) "Payne and Atzerodt, acting under Booth's instructions, were to dispatch Secretaries Seward and Stantion...." (my emphasis) - I think that this could be the result of Jone's faulty memory perhaps? Never heard of either Powell nor Atzerodt going after Stanton - and most certainly can't see Atzerodt going after both Johnson and Stanton. He just didn't have it in him as is evident of his drinking bender that night....

As for Powell's statement to Eckert - never heard of Powell mentioning Stanton in that either.

John Fazio · 10-28-2016, 07:07 AM

(10-28-2016 04:06 AM)RJNorton Wrote:
(10-27-2016 08:07 PM)John Fazio Wrote: Neither does it square with Powell's statements to Eckert.

John, maybe I do not understand what you are saying, so please excuse if I am. But are you saying Powell told Eckert that Stanton was an intended target of Booth's? I do not remember reading this in Bates' book. Where might I read about this?

Roger:

Powell said to Eckert, after his capture: "All I can say about this is that you (meaning Federal prosecutors) do not have the one-half of them". Inasmuch as they had nine, that places the number of conspirators, at an absolute minimum, at 19. That squares well with Herold's telling Bingham that Booth told him there were 35 involved in the conspiracy. It also squares well with Chester's telling the Commissioners that Booth told him there were 50 to 100 involved in the conspiracy. Powell also said to Eckert that it was his impression that arrangements had been made with others for the same disposition as he was to make of Seward. Even allowing for exaggeration, especially in what Booth said to Chester, it is clear that there was no shortage of assassins, which squares well with the T.I.O.S. letter, which states that one had been assigned for each member of Lincoln's cabinet. It is also consistent with the other items of evidence referred to in earlier entries. Remember, too, that Booth's band of street louts and amateurs was only one part of the underground mosaic, most likely a back-up team for Harney, another would-be assassin. That would explain why Booth contacted Surratt the day after the failure of the Harney mission on April 9, advising him that their plans had changed and that he was to get back to Washington immediately.

John

Gene C · 10-28-2016, 08:18 AM

Booth told Powell.
Booth told Herold.
Booth told Chester.
Booth was a BS'er.

I don't give as much credibility to some of your sources as you do.
Other than that, you've made some interesting and thought provoking observations.

loetar44 · (This post was last modified: 10-28-2016 04:07 PM by loetar44.)

John and others,

John, you said: “If you are still unconvinced, then I say, with all due respect and modesty, that the burden of proof has shifted to you. That is to say: please present your evidence that Stanton was NOT targeted.” And you said that your nine items “are not ‘proofs’; they are 'evidence'.” What's the difference between ‘evidence’ and ‘proof’? I've noticed that the word ‘evidence’ is often used in English as if it meant ‘proof’. IMO ‘proof’ only really exists in math. In the real world almost nothing can be truly proven. Evidence lends support to a hypothesis (or eventually theory), but those conclusions are always open to change. ‘Evidence’ may be used to form a theory and ‘proof’ shows the theory to be a fact. Right?

Of course I can’t prove (and nobody can) that Stanton was NOT a murder target. And the same goes for the opposite, Stanton WAS a murder target. There is ALWAYS place for doubt. In all modesty and be assured that I highly respect your opinions, but it seems to me that you present your case like there is no room for doubt, that your evidence is conclusive but evidence isn't. Evidence is more of a suggestion. What to say about the 9 items in your posting and in your book? There is room for doubt re. each item. And I could not say it better than SSlater and Gene C.

I want to add:
1) O’Laughlen was seen in or near Stanton’s house on April 13, by 3 witnesses. 8 witnesses saw him at the same time at other places in D.C. Why assume (I use the word deliberately) that the accounts of the 3 are more reliable than the accounts of the other 8?
2) A mysterious figure was seen on Stanton’s porch and behind the tree-box on April 14. Why assume that it was a would-be assassin or even O’Laughlen? I find it hard to believe. Some say that O’Laughlen was also seen in the train to assassinate Gen. Grant at the same evening. Could it be, one man (O’Laughlen) seen at three places at the same time (Stanton’s house, in DC with a hangover, in Grant’s train)? That is at least no solid reasoning.
3) Yes, O’Laughlen was in the National Hotel on April 13 and 14, but why assume that he spoke with Booth and it was there that he got the assignment to kill Stanton? The first time he was only 5 minutes in the Hotel, but stay at the desk and did not see Booth (he was out). The second time he was circa 1 hour in the hotel, but Early (who was with O’Laughlen and stayed outside) never saw Booth. It’s even the question if Booth was in the hotel. On the morning of April 14 (according to desk clerk Walter Burton) Herold ran into the hall, looking for Booth. Both went to Booth’s room and found the room empty, and the bed still made. Burton’s account was 44 years after the event, maybe he was mistaken. Was Booth somewhere in the city, did he see the grand illumination and was he with Lucy Hale? Speculations of course. It is also speculation that O’Laughlen spoke with Booth in his room. It is unknown that O’Lauglen found Booth there. Why assume that he did?
4) Secretary of the Interior John Usher indeed said (wrote) “A man was heard by (Attorney General) Speed walking on his back porch, and was found at Stanton’s hid between a tree box who ran away”. Why assume that Usher saw that man? He wrote it a day AFTER Lincoln’s death and could have read it in The New York Times, which wrote on April 16 “Two gentlemen who went to the Secretary of War to apprize him of the attack on Mr. Lincoln met at the residence of the former a man muffled in a cloak, who, when accosted by them, hastened away”. Hudson Taylor gave his account on March 21, 1866, almost 2 years after the fact. Stanton himself was silent for almost 30 years. Stewart came with his account in 1908.
5) Stanton’s doorbell. Why assume that de bell was broken? James B. Morrow (a source for Eisenschiml) declared that a man named Sterling went to Stanton's home, to tell him the news of the murder. Stanton’s son then immediately came to the door, when the doorbell rang.
6) A lot of witnesses (Confederate operatives in Canada) were unreliable in the past, why assume that they are now fully reliable? Why did they say what they said? Well, if discovered (even the slightest suspicion), anyone involved in a plot like to decapitate the Union would face execution, or long prison terms at least.

I leave it with these 6 points. What I want to say is that you never must contaminate your evidence by what you think or what your (subjective) feelings are saying to you. Be objective. You have to concentrate on what you know for certain. Atzerodt’s confessions, certainly his last, is more near the truth than e.g. Jones book.

To decapitate the United States government is not easy. You need a widespread, incredibly complex and brilliantly planned conspiracy that involved a lot of people. Most theories fail to apply the principle of Occam’s razor, which say that simpler theories should be preferred to more complex theories. In other words Occam’s Razor predicts that the correct theory (or hypothesis) is the one that makes the fewest assumptions. The theory that is the truth is almost always the one that is the least complicated. Strip away the complexities and you are close to the correct answer. That Stanton was a murder target is in my opinion such a complexity. The simple story is that Lincoln (Booth), Seward (Powell) and Johnson (Atzerodt and Herold) were the targets.

SSlater · 10-29-2016, 01:30 AM

(10-28-2016 08:38 AM)loetar44 Wrote: John and others,

John, you said: “If you are still unconvinced, then I say, with all due respect and modesty, that the burden of proof has shifted to you. That is to say: please present your evidence that Stanton was NOT targeted.” And you said that your nine items “are not ‘proofs’; they are 'evidence'.” What's the difference between ‘evidence’ and ‘proof’? I've noticed that the word ‘evidence’ is often used in English as if it meant ‘proof’. IMO ‘proof’ only really exists in math. In the real world almost nothing can be truly proven. Evidence lends support to a hypothesis (or eventually theory), but those conclusions are always open to change. ‘Evidence’ may be used to form a theory and ‘proof’ shows the theory to be a fact. Right?

Of course I can’t prove (and nobody can) that Stanton was NOT a murder target. And the same goes for the opposite, Stanton WAS a murder target. There is ALWAYS place for doubt. In all modesty and be assured that I highly respect your opinions, but it seems to me that you present your case like there is no room for doubt, that your evidence is conclusive but evidence isn't. Evidence is more of a suggestion. What to say about the 9 items in your posting and in your book? There is room for doubt re. each item. And I could not say it better than SSlater and Gene C.

I want to add:
1) O’Laughlen was seen in or near Stanton’s house on April 13, by 3 witnesses. 8 witnesses saw him at the same time at other places in D.C. Why assume (I use the word deliberately) that the accounts of the 3 are more reliable than the accounts of the other 8?
2) A mysterious figure was seen on Stanton’s porch and behind the tree-box on April 14. Why assume that it was a would-be assassin or even O’Laughlen? I find it hard to believe. Some say that O’Laughlen was also seen in the train to assassinate Gen. Grant at the same evening. Could it be, one man (O’Laughlen) seen at three places at the same time (Stanton’s house, in DC with a hangover, in Grant’s train)? That is at least no solid reasoning.
3) Yes, O’Laughlen was in the National Hotel on April 13 and 14, but why assume that he spoke with Booth and it was there that he got the assignment to kill Stanton? The first time he was only 5 minutes in the Hotel, but stay at the desk and did not see Booth (he was out). The second time he was circa 1 hour in the hotel, but Early (who was with O’Laughlen and stayed outside) never saw Booth. It’s even the question if Booth was in the hotel. On the morning of April 14 (according to desk clerk Walter Burton) Herold ran into the hall, looking for Booth. Both went to Booth’s room and found the room empty, and the bed still made. Burton’s account was 44 years after the event, maybe he was mistaken. Was Booth somewhere in the city, did he see the grand illumination and was he with Lucy Hale? Speculations of course. It is also speculation that O’Laughlen spoke with Booth in his room. It is unknown that O’Lauglen found Booth there. Why assume that he did?
4) Secretary of the Interior John Usher indeed said (wrote) “A man was heard by (Attorney General) Speed walking on his back porch, and was found at Stanton’s hid between a tree box who ran away”. Why assume that Usher saw that man? He wrote it a day AFTER Lincoln’s death and could have read it in The New York Times, which wrote on April 16 “Two gentlemen who went to the Secretary of War to apprize him of the attack on Mr. Lincoln met at the residence of the former a man muffled in a cloak, who, when accosted by them, hastened away”. Hudson Taylor gave his account on March 21, 1866, almost 2 years after the fact. Stanton himself was silent for almost 30 years. Stewart came with his account in 1908.
5) Stanton’s doorbell. Why assume that de bell was broken? James B. Morrow (a source for Eisenschiml) declared that a man named Sterling went to Stanton's home, to tell him the news of the murder. Stanton’s son then immediately came to the door, when the doorbell rang.
6) A lot of witnesses (Confederate operatives in Canada) were unreliable in the past, why assume that they are now fully reliable? Why did they say what they said? Well, if discovered (even the slightest suspicion), anyone involved in a plot like to decapitate the Union would face execution, or long prison terms at least.

I leave it with these 6 points. What I want to say is that you never must contaminate your evidence by what you think or what your (subjective) feelings are saying to you. Be objective. You have to concentrate on what you know for certain. Atzerodt’s confessions, certainly his last, is more near the truth than e.g. Jones book.

To decapitate the United States government is not easy. You need a widespread, incredibly complex and brilliantly planned conspiracy that involved a lot of people. Most theories fail to apply the principle of Occam’s razor, which say that simpler theories should be preferred to more complex theories. In other words Occam’s Razor predicts that the correct theory (or hypothesis) is the one that makes the fewest assumptions. The theory that is the truth is almost always the one that is the least complicated. Strip away the complexities and you are close to the correct answer. That Stanton was a murder target is in my opinion such a complexity. The simple story is that Lincoln (Booth), Seward (Powell) and Johnson (Atzerodt and Herold) were the targets.

WOW !!!!!!. So well said!!!

John Fazio · (This post was last modified: 10-29-2016 09:07 AM by John Fazio.)

(10-28-2016 08:18 AM)Gene C Wrote: Booth told Powell.
Booth told Herold.
Booth told Chester.
Booth was a BS'er.

I don't give as much credibility to some of your sources as you do.
Other than that, you've made some interesting and thought provoking observations.

Gene:

Of course he was a B.S.er. So is everyone else in some degree. That's why we look for corroboration. It is also why we must sometimes be content with probabilities.

John

(10-28-2016 08:38 AM)loetar44 Wrote: John and others,

John, you said: “If you are still unconvinced, then I say, with all due respect and modesty, that the burden of proof has shifted to you. That is to say: please present your evidence that Stanton was NOT targeted.” And you said that your nine items “are not ‘proofs’; they are 'evidence'.” What's the difference between ‘evidence’ and ‘proof’ EVIDENCE IS PROBATIVE; PROOF IS CONCLUSIVE.? I've noticed that the word ‘evidence’ is often used in English as if it meant ‘proof’. IMO ‘proof’ only really exists in math. In the real world almost nothing can be truly proven. Evidence lends support to a hypothesis (or eventually theory), but those conclusions are always open to change. ‘Evidence’ may be used to form a theory and ‘proof’ shows the theory to be a fact. Right? ESSENTIALLY.

Of course I can’t prove (and nobody can) that Stanton was NOT a murder target. I DID NOT ASK YOU TO PROVE IT; I ASKED ONLY TO SEE YOUR EVIDENCE. And the same goes for the opposite, Stanton WAS a murder target. There is ALWAYS place for doubt. In all modesty and be assured that I highly respect your opinions, but it seems to me that you present your case like there is no room for doubt, NONSENSE. I HAVE SAID REPEATEDLY THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE INTRUDER ON THE 13TH IS NOT KNOWN AND PROBABLY NEVER WILL BE KNOWN, BUT THAT I LEAN TOWARD ITS BEING O'LAUGHLEN BECAUSE OF THE CATEGORICAL IDENTIFICATION OF HIM IN THE COURTROOM BY THREE CREDIBLE WITNESSES, BECAUSE OF HIS TWO MEETINGS WITH BOOTH THE EVENING OF THE 13TH AND THE MORNING OF THE 14TH AND BECAUSE OF ATZERODT'S CONFESSION, IN WHICH HE SAID THAT NO ONE WHO KNEW O'LAUGHLEN DOUBTED THAT HE WAS AT STANTON'S HOME ON THE 13TH that your evidence is conclusive but evidence isn't. Evidence is more of a suggestion. What to say about the 9 items in your posting and in your book? There is room for doubt re. each item. THIS IS A MEANINGLESS STATEMENT, BECAUSE THERE IS ALWAYS ROOM FOR DOUBT ABOUT ALMOST EVERYTHING And I could not say it better than SSlater and Gene C.

I want to add:
1) O’Laughlen was seen in or near Stanton’s house on April 13, by 3 witnesses. 8 witnesses saw him at the same time at other places in D.C. Why assume (I use the word deliberately) that the accounts of the 3 are more reliable than the accounts of the other 8? I DON'T ASSUME IT, BUT YOU ARE IGNORING ATZERODT'S CONFESSION.
2) A mysterious figure was seen on Stanton’s porch and behind the tree-box on April 14. Why assume that it was a would-be assassin or even O’Laughlen? I find it hard to believe. IT'S NOT HARD TO BELIEVE. THERE IS MULTIPLE ATTESTATION AND IT IS CORROBORATED BY OTHER EVIDENCE OF ATTEMPTED DECAPITATION. IF THE INTRUDERS WERE NOT ILL-INTENTIONED, WHY DID THEY RUN AWAY? Some say that O’Laughlen was also seen in the train to assassinate Gen. Grant at the same evening. I NEVER HEARD THIS SAID BY ANYONE Could it be, one man (O’Laughlen) seen at three places at the same time (Stanton’s house, in DC with a hangover, in Grant’s train)? NO ONE HAS MADE THAT ALLEGATION That is at least no solid reasoning.
3) Yes, O’Laughlen was in the National Hotel on April 13 and 14, but why assume that he spoke with Booth HENDERSON SAID O'LAUGHLEN MET WITH BOOTH IN THE EVENING OF THE 13TH; THERE IS NO DIRECT TESTIMONY THAT HE MET WITH HIM ON THE MORNING OF THE 14TH, BUT THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS STRONG THAT HE DID. SEE PITMAN PP. 224, 225, 230. and it was there that he got the assignment to kill Stanton? I DID NOT SAY HE RECEIVED SUCH AN ASSIGNMENT The first time he was only 5 minutes in the Hotel, but stay at the desk and did not see Booth (he was out). NOT TRUE. RE-CHECK YOUR SOURCE.The second time he was circa 1 hour in the hotel, but Early (who was with O’Laughlen and stayed outside) never saw Booth. I DID NOT SAY EARLY SAW BOOTH. O'LAUGHLEN WAS GONE FROM HIS FRIENDS FOR AT LEAST ONE AND THREE-QUARTERS HOURS. WHERE WAS HE IF NOT WITH BOOTH? It’s even the question if Booth was in the hotel. NOT REALLY.On the morning of April 14 (according to desk clerk Walter Burton) Herold ran into the hall, looking for Booth. Both went to Booth’s room and found the room empty, and the bed still made. Burton’s account was 44 years after the event, maybe he was mistaken. Was Booth somewhere in the city, did he see the grand illumination and was he with Lucy Hale? Speculations of course. It is also speculation that O’Laughlen spoke with Booth in his room. It is unknown that O’Lauglen found Booth there. Why assume that he did? SEE ABOVE.
4) Secretary of the Interior John Usher indeed said (wrote) “A man was heard by (Attorney General) Speed walking on his back porch, and was found at Stanton’s hid between a tree box who ran away”. Why assume that Usher saw that man? IF HE SAID IT, AN ASSUMPTION THAT HE SAW HIM IS SOMEWHAT BETTER THAN ONE THAT HE DID NOT SEE HIM He wrote it a day AFTER Lincoln’s death and could have read it in The New York Times, "COULD HAVES" ARE INFINITE. THEY AREN'T VERY HELPFUL which wrote on April 16 “Two gentlemen who went to the Secretary of War to apprize him of the attack on Mr. Lincoln met at the residence of the former a man muffled in a cloak, who, when accosted by them, hastened away”. Hudson Taylor gave his account on March 21, 1866, almost 2 years after the fact. Stanton himself was silent for almost 30 years. Stewart came with his account in 1908.
5) Stanton’s doorbell. Why assume that de bell was broken? THERE IS MULTIPLE ATTESTATION. STANTON'S BIOGRAPHER STATES CATEGORICALLY THAT THE BROKEN DOORBELL SAVED HIS LIFE James B. Morrow (a source for Eisenschiml) declared that a man named Sterling went to Stanton's home, to tell him the news of the murder. Stanton’s son then immediately came to the door, when the doorbell rang. THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE FAVORS THE OPPOSITE CONCLUSION.
6) A lot of witnesses (Confederate operatives in Canada) were unreliable in the past, why assume that they are now fully reliable? WHY ASSUME THAT THEY ARE NOT? THEIR RELIABILITY RESTS IN PART ON THEIR MOTIVATION OR LACK OF IT Why did they say what they said? THEIR TESTIMONY MAKES A PRIMA-FACIE CASE. IF YOU QUESTION IT, PRESENT YOUR EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS IT. Well, if discovered (even the slightest suspicion), anyone involved in a plot like to decapitate the Union would face execution, or long prison terms at least. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT.

I leave it with these 6 points. What I want to say is that you never must contaminate your evidence by what you think or what your (subjective) feelings are saying to you. Be objective. You have to concentrate on what you know for certain. ALMOST NOTHING IS KNOWN FOR CERTAIN. YOU ARE CONTRADICTING YOURSELF: YOU ASK HERE FOR CERTAINTY, BUT EARLIER ASSERT AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT EVERYTHING IS IN DOUBT Atzerodt’s confessions, certainly his last, is more near the truth than e.g. Jones book. REMEMBER THAT IT WAS ATZERODT'S CONFESSION THAT IMPLICATED O'LAUGHLEN. IF YOU QUESTION JONES'S BOOK, PRESENT YOUR EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS IT.

To decapitate the United States government is not easy. You need a widespread, incredibly complex and brilliantly planned conspiracy that involved a lot of people. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT "INCREDIBLY" AND "BRILLIANTLY", BUT I DO BELIEVE IT INVOLVED MANY OPERATIVES AND ASSASSINS AND WAS PLANNED ABOUT AS WELL AS IT COULD BE, GIVEN THE TIME, THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE MATERIAL THE CONFEDERACY HAD TO WORK WITH Most theories fail to apply the principle of Occam’s razor, which say that simpler theories should be preferred to more complex theories. In other words Occam’s Razor predicts that the correct theory (or hypothesis) is the one that makes the fewest assumptions. The theory that is the truth is almost always the one that is the least complicated. Strip away the complexities and you are close to the correct answer. That Stanton was a murder target is in my opinion such a complexity. The simple story is that Lincoln (Booth), Seward (Powell) and Johnson (Atzerodt and Herold) were the targets. YOU HAVE CARELESSLY IGNORED ALL THE EVIDENCE I HAVE PRESENTED FOR THE OPPOSITE CONCLUSION. AGAIN I SAY, IF YOU DON'T LIKE MY CONCLUSION, PRESENT YOUR EVIDENCE AGAINST IT. NOT PROOF; EVIDENCE. I WILL ADD THAT POSTULATING THE ATTEMPTED DECAPITATION OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT BY MULTIPLE ASSASSINATIONS ORCHESTRATED BY THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF THE CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT AND ITS SECRET SERVICE, IS A MUCH SIMPLER AND MORE BELIEVABLE EXPLANATION (AND THEREFORE MORE IN KEEPING WITH OCCAM'S RAZOR) OF WHAT HAPPENED ON THE NIGHT OF APRIL 14 THAN A THEORY THAT A 26-YEAR OLD ACTOR, UNSCHOOLED IN THE LAW, KNOWING NOTHING ABOUT POLITICS OR THE MILITARY, AND NEVER BEFORE HAVING KILLED ANYONE IN HIS LIFE, PLANNED, IN ONE NIGHT, THE ASSASSINATION OF AT LEAST FIVE OF THE MOST POWERFUL AND IMPORTANT MEN IN THE COUNTRY, AND ALL AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME ON THE SAME NIGHT IN THE SAME CITY.

John

John Fazio · 10-29-2016, 10:17 AM

(10-28-2016 06:55 AM)BettyO Wrote: I've read Thomas Jones' book many years ago - but never noticed the statement that John mentions (on page 46 of Thomas Jones' book) "Payne and Atzerodt, acting under Booth's instructions, were to dispatch Secretaries Seward and Stantion...." (my emphasis) - I think that this could be the result of Jone's faulty memory perhaps? Never heard of either Powell nor Atzerodt going after Stanton - and most certainly can't see Atzerodt going after both Johnson and Stanton. He just didn't have it in him as is evident of his drinking bender that night....

As for Powell's statement to Eckert - never heard of Powell mentioning Stanton in that either.

Betty:

As I said to Kees, "could be"s are infinite.

We may be sure that neither Powell nor Atzerodt went after Stanton. Jone's is merely relating what he believed the assignments were, not that they were actually carried out. In fact, a little later in his book he says that, for reasons unknown to him, the attempt on Stanton was not made. I do not accept that, of course, but it illustrates how his "facts", after 28 years, were fuzzy and do not comport with other evidence. The conspiracy was compartmentalized. No one could have know all of its component parts.

It is not necessary for Powell to expressly mention Stanton (he doesn't expressly mention any other intended victim) to realize that Stanton was contemplated in the statement Powell made to Eckert that it was his impression that arrangements had been made with others for the same disposition as he was to make of Seward.

John

SSlater · 10-30-2016, 11:15 PM

Since we are reviewing the complicity of all the people that we knew were involved, lets think about who were included in "the Half" that got away. (The ones who we never talk about.)
Examples: The New York Crowd, and the Canada Confederates. They are the real Criminals. They conceived the idea, approved it, paid for it, and profited the most, and walked away. If they didn't approve of what was to be done - it never would have been done. The ones that were caught were only "lackies".
I would like to know more about "The Action Group" who came to Washington, to meet with Booth, and approved the new plan (and Booth discussed it with his Action Group.) After that it went to Richmond for more approvals and the assignment of Harney to the program. Were the "Cotton Traders" in on the approval committee?
In my mind, we should be looking for clues that would identify "the Half that got away". (PS. Ward Hill Lamon was a "Cotton Dealer", I have to hunt to find where I read that. That doesn't make him BAD.
It was a "Public Program", and many participated.)

loetar44 · (This post was last modified: 10-31-2016 04:47 PM by loetar44.)

John,
I’m afraid I still disagree, with respect and consideration. Our discussion will definitely NOT say that I don’t like your conclusions or that I don’t respect you. Be assured of the opposite. No doubt about it. Your book ("Decapitating the Union") is absolutely fabulous and one of my favorite books on my Lincoln shelve. I always recommend your book to others. You present sufficiently strong evidence and you defend your conclusions in a very strong way. I appreciate that. However, in all honesty, the way I see it, whether it is prima facie evidence, or not, one should never neglect rebutting evidence, or give rebutting evidence a lot less attention, or treat evidence in your favor as a proven fact, or give more credit to sources that support your theory.

That said, I would first like to straighten my comment about O’Laughlen in Grant’s train heading to Burlington. I know you never said that O’Laughlen was in that train. I once read that there is a theory which said that, but don’t remember where I read it and in what context exactly. Let's drop it.

What I ment with “… what you know for certain”, are facts like: Booth was in the presidential box in Ford’s Theatre, Booth shot Lincoln, Booth killed the President with a gun, not a knife, Seward was attacked by Powell, O’Laughlin was in DC with three friends and was in the National on April 13 and 14, etc. things like this. There is no doubt about these facts. This are things we know for certain.

You said “Could haves are infinite”. Yes! So, it is actually simpler than things which do have an end. Because when something has an end, we have to define where that end is.

This brings me again to Occam’s Razor. Let me explain again. Occam’s Razor is a principle which says that an event with minimal assumptions is simpler and the simplest explanation is (usually) the best. It’s a variant of the KISS- principle (Keep It Simple Stu***). The principle also says, that if you notice upon further investigation that you have not the simplest explanation: change your theory!

I don’t believe that the theory that the Confederate Government and its Secret Service conspired against the Union is a “simple” or the “simplest theory”. Conspiracy always tend to be very complex, while murder is usually surprisingly simple. But this is NOT Occam’s Razor! The term “razor” refers to "shaving away" unnecessary assumptions. What remains is a simpler theory closer to the truth.

Can I throw my two cents in? Another example. What is closer to the truth? Did O’Laughlin meet Booth on Friday morning about 9:00 am on April 14, 1865 in the National or not? John I use your text from “Decapitating”, p. 113.

Theory A:
1) fact #1: O’Laughlen, in company with Early, Murphy and Henderson, stopped at the National
2) fact #2: O’Laughlen said he wanted to see Booth again
3) fact #3: Henderson testified that O’Laughlen told him he did’nt see Booth
4) fact #4: Early testified that he, Murphy and Henderson waited about three quarters of an hour
5) fact #5: They got tired of waiting and sent some cards up to Booth’s room summoning O’Laughlen
6) fact #6: The cards were returned with the message that there was no one in the room.
7) fact #7: The three men then left the hotel and went to a restaurant
8) fact #8: They were joined about an hour later by O’Laughlen
9) fact #9: O’Laughlen told later to Henderson that Booth wasn’t in
10) assumption #1: Booth was in (the greater likelihood is, that Booth was in)
11) assumption #2: O’Laughlen met with him
12) assumption #3: somewhere in the hotel if not in Booth’s room
13) assumption #4: he [O’laughlen] told his friends he did not meet with him [Booth] because he wished to distance himself from Booth
14) assumption #5: probably because he did not like what he heard from Booth
15) assumption #6: It is a reasonable to assume that Booth gave him [O’Laughlen] instructions on Thursday evening
16) assumption #7: having to do with reconnoitering Stanton’s home (either personally or by surrogate)
17) assumption #8: [O’Laughlen] returned to the National on Friday morning to apprise Booth of the results of the effort
18) assumption #9: the second visit must have been related to the first

Theory B:
1) fact #1: O’Laughlen, in company with Early, Murphy and Henderson, stopped at the National
2) fact #2: O’Laughlen said he wanted to see Booth again
3) fact #3: Henderson testified that O’Laughlen told him he did’nt see Booth
4) fact #4: Early testified that he, Murphy and Henderson waited about three quarters of an hour
5) fact #5: They got tired of waiting and sent some cards up to Booth’s room summoning O’Laughlen
6) fact #6: The cards were returned with the message that there was no one in the room.
7) fact #7: The three men then left the hotel and went to a restaurant
8) fact #8: They were joined about an hour later by O’Laughlen
9) fact #9: O’Laughlen told later to Henderson that Booth wasn’t in
Source for the following items: Clara E. Laughlin's “The Death of Lincoln: The Story of Booth's Plot, His Deed, and the Penalty.”
10) fact #10: Friday morning early Mr. [Walter] Burton, the night-clerk of the National, going off duty, met Davy Herold in the hall. "Going to see Booth?" he asked the boy. Davy said he was.
11) fact #11: "Well, I don't think he's in," said Burton …. Davy went to 228 and knocked, but got no response
12) fact #12: when the room was opened it was found to have been unoccupied.
13) fact #13: Nobody knows where Booth was that evening of the 13th, or that night. He was not at the National after Thursday noon
14) assumption #1: Booth was not in the National on Friday morning
15) assumption #2: O’Laughlen did not meet Booth in the National on Friday morning
16) assumption #3: O’Laughlen met someone else in the National

IMO, because theory A has a lot more assumptions than theory B, theory B is a simpler theory and more in keeping with Occam’s Razor, and therefore closer to the truth. I don’t say that it is proven that O’Laughlen did not meet Booth in the National, it “could be” that he indeed met him. I only say that it is CLOSER TO THE TRUTH that O’Laughlen did not met Booth in the National.

BTW: we have no trace of Booth until about noon on Friday (“it was fully 11 am”), when he entered the breakfast-room at the National and was seen by Miss Carrie Bean. John T. Ford said in an interview on April 29, 1865: “He was the last man at breakfast that day; one lady only [Carrie Bean] was in the room, finishing her morning meal. She knew him [Booth] and responded to his bow of recognition.”

John, a question to you, why did you not mention Walter Burton and Carrie Bean in your book? They are not in the index. Or did I miss something?

Back to “Was Stanton a murder target?”. It “could be”, but in line with Occam’s Razor it is still in my opinion closer to the truth he was not. I realize that conspiracy theories are almost impossible to disprove, because one always can find some way to rationalize away evidence that contradicts the opposite belief.

Kees

Gene C · 10-31-2016, 07:10 AM

Has anyone in the New York Crowd ever been definitely identified, like we know who was a part of the Canadian Confederates?

I've heard names suggested by Ray Neff and Rick Stelnick, but I don't recall any mentioned by more "traditional" historians.

RJNorton · 10-31-2016, 08:50 AM

(10-31-2016 07:10 AM)Gene C Wrote: Has anyone in the New York Crowd ever been definitely identified, like we know who was a part of the Canadian Confederates?

I've heard names suggested by Ray Neff and Rick Stelnick, but I don't recall any mentioned by more "traditional" historians.

Gene, I think several mention Roderick D. Watson.

Gene C · (This post was last modified: 10-31-2016 09:52 AM by Gene C.)

Thanks Roger.
I did a quick Google search on Watson and found some references to him by Ed Steers in Blood on The Moon, Mr. Steers references Come Retribution.
Wild Bill mentions him in his book Historical Dictionary of the Civil War. Brendon Eagon Jr. mentions Mr. Watson in his book, Murder At Ford's Theater.
The sections of those three books that mention Roderick Watson you can read on line. Again, I found the links on the first two pages of a Google search for " Roderick D Watson ".

What his actual involvement was, or may have been, is not quite clear to me.
But that's the way it frequently is with clandestine activities

RJNorton · 10-31-2016, 11:33 AM

Gene, there's a letter from Watson to John Surratt in The Lincoln Assassination: The Evidence.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Envelope: Postmark New York __ 19, Address; Mr. John H. Surratt, Washington, D.C.
New York, March 19, 1865
Mr. J.H. Surratt

Dear Sir,

I would like to see you on important business, if you can spare the time to come on to New York. Please telegraph me immediately on the reception of this, whether you can come or not & oblige.

Yours Etc.
R.D. Watson

P.S. Address care Dumill etc.
178 1/2 Water St.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

SOURCE: https://watson1693.files.wordpress.com/2...ture-1.png

Gene C · (This post was last modified: 10-31-2016 07:39 PM by Gene C.)

Thanks Roger,

After consulting my Nancy Drew Detective Manual and handwriting analysis kit (it was my sister's), I have come to the conclusion that it was written by a person with a determined mind, of moderate intelligence, with the objective of saying a lot without saying much of anything. He was probably right handed, walked with a limp, with thinning hair. He was of Average height and weight, give or take 6 inches and fifty pounds. Spoke with a southern Maryland drawl, and enjoyed fresh oysters. He had a suspicious nature, and was also somewhat paranoid. He possibly, could have been, indecisive by nature - maybe.
Based upon the writing style, I'd say it was likely written in New York sometime in March of 1865.

I need a larger handwriting sample to tell you more.
Cool

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/044844...0448445689