My Journey on Lincoln's Assassination

[Steve]

(11-29-2018 05:58 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  Roger, I'm writing this with the understanding that it's been well over 20 years since I did any deep research into Eisenschiml via his papers in the ALPLM in Springfield.

**************************************

One final note on the man that my Civil War history professor termed "Crazy Otto." For good or ill, and I stand firmly in the "for ill" camp, Eisenschiml played a major role in the study of Lincoln's assassination. If you look at the number of popular magazines and newspapers (and even some academic, peer-reviewed journals) that agreed to carry his work, his influence was felt far and wide throughout the country. One cannot discount Eisenschiml with just a wave of the hand. One certainly can discount his conclusions, or lack thereof, and see that he was a charlatan more interested in lining his wallet than in promoting good and valuable history. But one ignores him at their own peril. He is someone who deserves a biography although it must be built on the work of Bill Hanchett who once told me he couldn't stomach writing such a book. It angered him too much.

Rob,
Do you recall ever coming across any information on Eisenschiml's father's time in the U.S. while researching him a couple of decades ago? I ask because Otto claimed his father had been a Civil War veteran but that doesn't appear to be true as far as I can tell.

[Rob Wick]

Steve,

I'm sorry but I didn't. My interest at the time was in trying to figure out why Eisenschiml thought it likely that Everton Conger killed Booth instead of Boston Corbett. I know that Eisenschiml's father's service is often given as one of the reasons Otto became interested in history, but I can provide nothing that might be considered helpful.

By the way, just out of curiosity, what makes you think he didn't serve?

Best
Rob

[Steve]

Otto Eisenschiml claimed that his father, Alexander, had been an officer in the 55th Illinois.

According to 1899 State Department correspondence regarding Otto's parents' naturalization status, the father flipped his name and used Alexander as his surname in the U.S. -

           

which is confirmed by Alexander's 1871 passport application for his return to Austria:

   

There was no Eisenschiml (or its variants) that served in the Union army. There also wasn't anybody with the surname Alexander (let alone just officers) in the 55th Illinois. Eisenschiml wrote histories of Shiloh and the Illinois 55th:

https://archive.org/details/journalofill...i/page/192

It strikes me as kind of an odd thing for an historian to miss, at least a halfway good one specifically writing a history of the unit.

Now this doesn't discount the possibility that he served under the surname "Alexander" in some other unit during the war, but I have yet to find evidence of that. Although an enlistment under the name Alexander would be easier to miss.

Alexander was living in Treasure City, Nevada as a butcher during the 1870 census. I suspect he was the "E. Alexander" 28 year old merchant born in Bohemia and living in Greenwood, El Dorado County, California in the 1860 census. So right now, my guess is that he was likely living in California when the Civil War started.

[Rob Wick]

Steve,

For some reason, when I try to open the documents you provide the system tells me I'm not logged in. After trying to log in again, I get the same message. Roger, is it possible you might be able to email them to me?

It's interesting that Eisenschiml's father doesn't appear in the roster of the unit. That's something, even before the internet, that could have been easily checked simply by finding the Illinois Adjutant General's reports. Giving Eisenschiml the benefit of the doubt and assuming that either his father's name was accidentally written down as someone else or somehow didn't make the roster (seemingly impossible, especially for an officer) would be my first choices. My great-grandfather joined the Union Third Kentucky Cavalry and yet I couldn't find him because they misspelled his name rather severely. Have you checked with the National Archives to see whether Otto's father ever applied for a pension or if his compiled service record is available?

That Otto would have lied about this, given his general lack of character, is not out of the realm of the possible, but given what I know about finding Civil War soldiers, I would need to see more proof.

Good luck!

Best
Rob

[RJNorton]

Rob, when you are logged in see if these links work for you:

http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussio...p?aid=2976

http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussio...p?aid=2977

http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussio...p?aid=2978

http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussio...p?aid=2979

[Rob Wick]

Thanks Roger, I was able to read them just fine.

That is an extremely curious situation. After my earlier post I reviewed what Hanchett wrote and he seemingly accepts Eisenschiml's story about his father at face value. But given that Otto was born in Austria and had no first-hand memory of his father's battle service, it seems to me the possibility is far likelier that the senior Eisenschiml might not be telling the truth, or extending it somewhat.

Consider the following. In 1962 Eisenschiml was the main speaker at the annual meeting of the Illinois State Historical Society and he spoke on the battle of Shiloh. Yet, except for the introductory paragraph which was obviously written by the editor of the journal, Eisenschiml doesn't mention his father. In his 1946 book The Story of Shiloh, Eisenschiml mentions his father in passing in the introduction, while most of the introduction is a paean to DeLong Rice, the superintendent of the battlefield at the time Eisenschiml visited.

I think the father embellished his role and Otto accepted it without question as many sons would.

Best
Rob

[mikegriffith1]

Weichmann’s lies regarding Mary Surratt were not his only lies at the military trial. Dr. Samuel Mudd’s defense team, led by Thomas Ewing, found numerous witnesses who debunked Weichmann’s claims about Mudd’s “meeting” with Booth at the National Hotel. Weichmann said the “meeting” occurred on January 15, 1865, but the defense produced five witnesses who confirmed that Mudd did not leave the vicinity of his house from December 24 until late March 1865.

Realizing that Weichmann’s story had been badly damaged by those five witnesses, the prosecution magically found a witness who gave a genuinely silly account that put Dr. Mudd in Washington on March 3, which was designed to refute the five witnesses who said that Mudd was not in Washington from December 24 to late March. The witness, Marcus Norton, said that while he was preparing his legal papers to argue a case before the Supreme Court on the morning of March 3, Dr. Mudd, whom he had never seen before, suddenly entered his room, said he was looking for “Mr. Booth’s room,” and then left! Really?! Anyway, this move ended up royally back-firing on the prosecution, because the defense produced eight witnesses who contradicted Morton's belated tale. Ewing said the following about this farce:

After the evidence for the defense above referred to had been introduced, refuting and completely overwhelming Weichmann's testimony and all inferences as to Dr. Mudd's complicity with Booth, which might be drawn from it, a new accuser was introduced against him on the same point, in the person of Marcus P. Norton, who said that at half-past 10 o'clock on the morning of the 3rd of March, as he was preparing his papers to go to the Supreme Court to argue a motion in a patent case there pending (which motion the record of the Court shows he did argue on that day), a stranger abruptly entered his room and as abruptly retired, saying he was looking for Mr. Booth's room; and though witness never saw Dr. Mudd before or since, until the day of his testifying, he says that stranger is the prisoner at the bar. He could not tell any article of the stranger's clothing except a black flat. . . .

Fortunately for the accused, the 1st day of March was Ash Wednesday--the first day of Lent--a religious holiday of note and observance in the community of Catholics among whom he lived. Fortunately for him, too, his sister Mary was taken ill on that day, and required his medical attendance (at her father's house, on the farm adjoining his own, thirty miles from Washington) each day, from the 2d to the 7th of March, inclusive.

By the aid of these two circumstances we have been able to show, by Thomas Davis, that the accused was at home at work on the 28th of February the day before Ash Wednesday; by Dr. Blanford, Frank Washington and Betty Washington, that he was there at work at home on the 1st of March; by Mary, Fanny, Emily and Henry L. Mudd, Betty and Frank Washington and Thomas Davis, that he was there on the 2d, 3d, 4th and 5th of March, at various hours of each day. At or within two hours of the time when Norton says he saw the accused enter the room at the National (half past 10 A. M., 3d of March), Mary, Emily; Fanny and Henry L. Mudd, Frank and Betty Washington, Thomas and John Davis, all testify most emphatically to having seen him at his house, on his farm, or at his father's house adjacent to his own--six hours' ride from Washington!

We have shown, too, by Mary Mudd, that the accused has always worn a lead-colored hit whenever she has seen him this year, and that she has seen him almost daily; and by Henry Mudd, Dr. Blanford and Mary Mudd, that neither he nor his father owns a rockaway.

Now, Norton either saw the accused enter his room on the morning of the 3d of March, or not at all, for his evidence, clinched as to the date by the record of the Supreme Court, excludes the supposition that he could have been mistaken as to the day. Nor can these eight witnesses for the defense be mistaken as to the day, for the incidents by which they recollect Mudd's presence fix the time in their memories exactly. With all this evidence before the Court, it cannot hesitate to hold the alibi established beyond all cavil. (“Argument on the Law and Evidence in the Case of Dr. Samuel A. Mudd, Part 2: Mudd’s Alleged Connections with the Booth Conspiracy Before the Assassination,” http://miketgriffith.com/files/mudd_defense_2.htm


Perhaps because Ewing did such a good job of destroying the case against Dr. Mudd, even the military tribunal’s corrupt “judges” could not bring themselves to sentence Dr. Mudd to death. But, rather than doing the right thing and issuing a verdict of not guilty, they found him guilty but sentenced him to life in prison instead of death. How nice of them. This is another good example of just what a farce and mockery of justice the military trial was.

[L Verge]

Dr. Mudd and his descendants should thank their lucky stars that the Mudd family had the ability to retain Thomas Ewing as his defense attorney. No doubt that he was a good lawyer, but he was also a Union military officer with good political connections that had been established by his father and other family members before the war. Despite this, Dr. Sam failed to hang by one vote. His fate seemed to depend on the defense showing that he had no contact with Booth from the time of the aborted kidnap in mid-March to the moment that the assassin and Herold came to his door early on April 15. BTW, Mr. Griffith - when I clicked on the link to your site that you provided above, I got only the 404 response.

Again, I would urge folks interested in details on both sides of the issue to read Dr. Steers's book on His Name Is Still Mudd as well as some good ones that date back well into the 20th century -- The Union vs. Dr. Mudd by Higdon and The Riddle of Dr. Mudd by Samuel Carter III. I can tell you from personal experience that Dr. Mudd's granddaughter, Louise Mudd Arehart (who saved the Mudd home and turned it into a museum based on the innocence of grandpa) hated Samuel Carter III!

Steers also edited The Trial, which contains not only the Pitman version of the trial transcript, but also detailed chapters on the major characters - each written by different scholars/authors in the field. Another excellent book along the same lines (individual chapters on individual defendants by individual scholars) is The Lincoln Assassination Riddle, compiled by Judge Frank Williams and Lincoln author Michael Burkhimer.

[RJNorton]

(12-02-2018 01:21 PM)L Verge Wrote:  BTW, Mr. Griffith - when I clicked on the link to your site that you provided above, I got only the 404 response.

Laurie, I just edited Mike's post, and it should work now.

[L Verge]

Going back to the original purpose of this entire thread (one gentleman's pursuit to prove that Booth escaped), I think those of you who really care about the issue might appreciate a synopsis of the 1995 petition to exhume Booth's body and subsequent verdict and appeal. I was recently reminded of it while working with a journalist from the Travel Channel and subsequently, purely by chance, contacted by the lawyer for Green Mount Cemetery, Francis J. Gorman, with whom I worked 23 years ago when he represented Green Mount in court. Frank is now writing a book on that court case. The following can serve as a teaser for the upcoming book:

https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/cgi/v...context=lf

[mikegriffith1]

Someone said that Corbett did not disobey orders when he fired at Booth. But Conger certainly believed Corbett had disobeyed orders. He put him under arrest and hauled him before Stanton. But, oddly enough, rather than being furious at losing the chance to interrogate Booth and put him on trial, Stanton brushed aside Corbett's alleged action with the comment that the rebel was dead and so the "patriot" should go free.

As a 21-year Army veteran, I was very surprised and intrigued to learn that when Conger, Baker, and Doherty supposedly tried to determine who had shot the man in the barn, they didn't conduct the long-recognized and effective procedure of checking the chambers and barrels of the soldiers' weapons; instead, they merely asked each man if he had fired the shot. When they asked Corbett, he said he'd fired the shot, yet, amazingly, they didn't confirm this by checking the chamber and barrel of his weapon.

I can tell you right now that Conger, Baker, and Doherty's failure to conduct this quick, standard, and effective procedure raises a big red flag for me and indicates that they were not really trying to find out who had fired the shot.

I suspect that if they had checked the chambers and barrels of the soldiers' weapons, they would have discovered what Conger probably already knew, namely, that none of the soldiers fired the shot. This would have proven either that some outsider snuck up within sniper range and shot the man in the barn or that Conger, Baker, or Doherty fired the shot.

[Gene C]

Wow, that's amazing, that's almost unbelievable that no one on site ever mentioned something like that happened.

[AussieMick]

I'd agree that there is now an "effective procedure of checking the chambers and barrels of the soldiers' weapons" after an unauthorized shot (for example during target/shooting practice or following an accidental shooting).

Can this be said to be a 'long-recognized ' procedure? Yes (IMO), I'd agree. It is now. But was it a long-recognized procedure in 1865? Perhaps Mike can give us some confirmation.

As to what occurred after Booth (or whoever) was shot in the barn, I always assumed that an officer shouted something like "What ??? Who the *#%& !!! fired ???" and Corbett said that it was he.

But now, Mike tells me that "Conger, Baker, and Doherty" ... "merely asked each man if he had fired the shot". Mike , please tell us where you found that information about the questioning of "each man" by Conger, Baker, and Doherty.

[Rob Wick]

Quote: But Conger certainly believed Corbett had disobeyed orders. He put him under arrest and hauled him before Stanton.

Hogwash. There were no orders to bring Booth back alive. And exactly how do you explain Conger's first words that Booth shot himself? Corbett was never placed under arrest either. Show the paperwork. I'm sure you can find it in the Potter papers.

[L Verge]

(01-14-2019 11:36 AM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Someone said that Corbett did not disobey orders when he fired at Booth. But Conger certainly believed Corbett had disobeyed orders. He put him under arrest and hauled him before Stanton. But, oddly enough, rather than being furious at losing the chance to interrogate Booth and put him on trial, Stanton brushed aside Corbett's alleged action with the comment that the rebel was dead and so the "patriot" should go free.

As a 21-year Army veteran, I was very surprised and intrigued to learn that when Conger, Baker, and Doherty supposedly tried to determine who had shot the man in the barn, they didn't conduct the long-recognized and effective procedure of checking the chambers and barrels of the soldiers' weapons; instead, they merely asked each man if he had fired the shot. When they asked Corbett, he said he'd fired the shot, yet, amazingly, they didn't confirm this by checking the chamber and barrel of his weapon.

I can tell you right now that Conger, Baker, and Doherty's failure to conduct this quick, standard, and effective procedure raises a big red flag for me and indicates that they were not really trying to find out who had fired the shot.

I suspect that if they had checked the chambers and barrels of the soldiers' weapons, they would have discovered what Conger probably already knew, namely, that none of the soldiers fired the shot. This would have proven either that some outsider snuck up within sniper range and shot the man in the barn or that Conger, Baker, or Doherty fired the shot.

Once again, cite your source(s) please. BTW: One of the first things I learned after being introduced to the real experts in the Lincoln assassination field was that there were no orders to take Booth alive. A friend in the law enforcement field later described that that is a ridiculous order in any case because the officers or troops conducting the manhunt are placed in harm's way because they will fail to return fire and then become a target themselves.