Booth's Denial of Foreknowledge of the Attack on Seward

[mikegriffith1]

When Guttridge and Neff and Shelton pointed out that Booth denied involvement in the attack on Seward and even expressed “horror” over it in his diary, the denial rang true and made sense to me. Said Booth, “I have only heard what has been done (except what I did myself) and it fills me with horror.”

Surely if Booth had ordered the attack on Seward, he would have defended it just as strongly as he defended his shooting of Lincoln. If he had no qualms about admitting that he murdered Lincoln, he would have had no qualms about admitting that he ordered the attack on Seward.

Even according to the official version, Booth said nothing about taking any action against Seward. In fact, there is no record that Booth even spoke critically of Seward. Yet, we are asked to believe that on the spur of the moment, literally hours before the assassination, Booth not only decided to kill Lincoln but to have his accomplices kill Seward and Johnson.

As I have mentioned before, even when I knew little about the Lincoln assassination, the attack on Seward made no sense. Any Confederate-backed attack would have targeted Stanton, Wade, Butler, Sherman, Julian, Stevens, etc., not Lincoln, Johnson, and Seward.

Seward was known to support Lincoln’s soft, forgiving Reconstruction terms. Confederate leaders knew this quite well from the meeting at Hampton Roads when Seward and Lincoln met for several hours with CSA Vice President Alexander Stephens, CSA Assistant Secretary of War John Campbell, and CSA Senator Robert Hunter.

Booth’s denial of foreknowledge of the attack on Seward becomes even more intriguing when we consider the huge holes in the official story of the attack. One of the strongest points in Shelton’s book is his thorough and revealing analysis of the eyewitness testimony on the attack. Guttridge and Neff’s analysis is much shorter but brings up some important points about the glaring problems with the official version.

And notice that Booth felt no need to say anything about any abortive attack on Johnson or Grant, most likely because he never thought about attacking either man.

[L Verge]

There has been so much written over the years by good historians explaining the reasons for "Decapitating the Union" with attacks planned on Lincoln, Johnson, and Seward that I am not going to waste my last day of Christmas leave responding to yet another "analysis" by Mr. G. He can study on his own the line of succession in 1865 and what would happen if Lincoln and Johnson were both gone.

As far as Booth's "regretting" what had happened at the Seward household, I believe that he was referring to the severe injuries made to other people besides the Secretary of State.

[John Fazio]

Michael:

I hope to see you at the Annual Surratt Society Conference in Clinton this spring. I plan to address the subject of black flag warfare and its relevance to the events of April 14, 1865. The events are described with particularity and I do believe that some of your questions, at least, will be answered to your satisfaction.

John

[mikegriffith1]

(12-27-2018 03:48 PM)L Verge Wrote:  There has been so much written over the years by good historians explaining the reasons for "Decapitating the Union" with attacks planned on Lincoln, Johnson, and Seward that I am not going to waste my last day of Christmas leave responding to yet another "analysis" by Mr. G. He can study on his own the line of succession in 1865 and what would happen if Lincoln and Johnson were both gone.

Your "good historians" must not have known that the Radicals were bitterly opposed to Lincoln's lenient Reconstruction terms, that some Radicals viewed Lincoln's terms as treasonous, that Southern leaders were well aware that the Radicals wanted to impose a harsh and exploitative form of Reconstruction, and that Southern leaders much preferred Lincoln's terms, which terms Lincoln had been talking about for over a year.

The "decapitating the Union" theory is just so much nonsense. It would have made the weak-willed and unknown Lafayette Sabine Foster president. With zero name recognition and no political capital, Foster would have been putty in the Radicals' hands. Foster couldn't even win reelection in 1866.

Quote:As far as Booth's "regretting" what had happened at the Seward household, I believe that he was referring to the severe injuries made to other people besides the Secretary of State.

That's a novel interpretation. The logical, plain-sense interpretation is that he was referring to the attack on Seward. Otherwise, we would expect that he would have specified that he was referring only to what was done to the other people in the house.

[AussieMick]

I think it is always going to be the case with any significant event, especially involving government personnel, that there will be factors/issues which do not quite align with the official version. Then add in the fact that people will always have differing memories, and some will have their own reasons for twisting the truth. The result is that historians and researchers can have a field day forensically analysing what happened at a specific time. When it comes to discussing the ‘why’ something happened … well, the potential is limitless.
Most auditors know that the most suspicious accounting calculations are those that end with nice round figures (indeed there are mathematical formulae which can be used to pinpoint series of numbers which involve contrived numbers). My point being that if a historical event had every witness and participant agreeing as to what happened, with total precision, and with no unexplained inconsistency, then I’d be very suspicious and think “Why is this so neat and tidy?”
In my opinion, the fact that official details of historical events do contain inconsistencies and unexplained factors makes it essential that historians and researchers do their work so that people can make up their own minds. But the corollary is that those analysts need to be of high integrity and scrupulous as to what they identify as to what is ‘inconsistent’ or unexplained.
A major problem is that authors can see a market for historical texts. Books that delve into the well-known inconsistencies would be quite thin if those were the only the issues discussed. There will always be a temptation to dwell on, or even introduce, other issues which are based upon (for example) the words of one witness. And then to imagine what the participants were thinking and even to surmise as to ‘why’ a person did not do, or mention, specific issues.

(This is not the same as discussing what a person was referring to when, for example, they spoke about the severe injuries which flowed from the attack on Seward.)

All of this places an enormous responsibility on all researchers and historians, before publishing, to look back at their work and consider whether they have acted with integrity. If they want their work to be worthwhile and valued by those who come after, then they ought to ask themselves, “What would an intelligent independent reader think of that?”
The impetus for me writing the above was Mike’s final paragraph in post #1. I am not accusing him of lacking integrity. My aim is to encourage him to use his passion and focus on the real and accepted inconsistencies.

The paragraph reads as follows ... "And notice that Booth felt no need to say anything about any abortive attack on Johnson or Grant, most likely because he never thought about attacking either man."

[GustD45]

Mike may see glaring inconsistencies in the official record, but after all the statements were taken from witnesses and victims and conspirators it became clear that J.W. Booth's targets were Lincoln, Johnson, and Seward. Decapitating the Union government doesn't seem so far fetched when we consider that Lafayette Foster could call a special election which would have delayed the end of the war as there would be no one to negotiate with or sign a treaty.

[Rob Wick]

Several years ago, while on another discussion forum, I wrote the following brief paper on Lafayette Foster. It was written in a few hours, and I make no claims that it is comprehensive. Like anything, it could be subject to revision. However, I think it shows that Foster might not have folded to the Radicals as quickly as some suggest.

It should also be noted that Foster was a vocal opponent of the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War.

Best
Rob

[RJNorton]

The conversation below is included in the article entitled "Why Seward?" by Michael Maione and James O. Hall in the Spring 1998 edition of the Lincoln Herald.

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


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.”

[John Fazio]

Mike:

If you show up on April 6, I do believe I will persuade you that the "Decapitating the Union" theory, far from being "nonsense", is supported by evidence that is fairly described as clear and convincing to overwhelming. "The goal was to leave the government entirely without a head" (because, by killing not only Lincoln, but also Johnson, Stanton, Seward, Chase and Grant) "there was no provision in the Constitution of the United States by which, if these men were removed, they could elect another President".---Jacob Thompson, head of the Confederate Secret Service's Canadian contingent, the so-called Canadian Cabinet.

The foregoing is only a snippet.

John

[Dave Taylor]

(12-27-2018 05:00 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  

(12-27-2018 03:48 PM)L Verge Wrote:  As far as Booth's "regretting" what had happened at the Seward household, I believe that he was referring to the severe injuries made to other people besides the Secretary of State.

That's a novel interpretation. The logical, plain-sense interpretation is that he was referring to the attack on Seward. Otherwise, we would expect that he would have specified that he was referring only to what was done to the other people in the house.

From David Herold’s statement to Assistant Judge Advocate John Bingham aboard the ironclad warship, Montauk, April 27, 1865:

“We then heard there was a $10,000 reward offered for Booth, and that Secretary Seward was killed. That was on Monday, and I was told so by a negro, who said that Secretary Seward and two of his sons had been killed. Booth then made the remark that he was very sorry for the sons, but he only wished to God Seward had been killed…”

[L Verge]

Thank you all for your attempts to enlighten Mr. G. I doubt that your efforts will be successful, but perhaps others can learn from your knowledge.

Am I not also correct that, in the event of the loss of Lincoln, Johnson, and Seward, there would be no one to call for the special election of a President? Wasn't that a duty of the Secretary of State?

[mikegriffith1]

Of course, another serious problem with the "decapitation" theory is that with Stanton left alive, the government would have been anything but decapitated, as shown by the fact that Stanton became the de facto president in the immediate aftermath of Lincoln's death. Even weeks later, Stanton was still practically running the executive branch. Only gradually did Andrew Johnson begin to assert his authority, and when he finally challenged Stanton and demanded his resignation, Stanton refused to resign and the Radicals began planning their effort to remove Johnson from office.

Stanton was loathed in the South and among Northern Democrats, and even among some conservative Republicans. Confederate leaders were well aware of the Northern Democrats' complaint that Stanton repeatedly pressured Lincoln into making bad decisions on the choice of generals and on the conduct of the war. This was an issue in the 1864 election. Democrats blamed Lincoln for succumbing to Stanton's pressure to take actions that sabotaged McClellan's Peninsula Campaign (such as withholding an entire corps from McClellan's army after he had begun to engage the Confederates at Yorktown and forcing him to put part of his army on the other side of the Chickahominy River, which invited Lee's first attack in the Seven Days Battles). Democrats also accused Stanton of withholding supplies from McClellan's army after Antietam and of pressuring Lincoln into removing McClellan from command for no valid reason after Antietam.

Another reason that Southerners and Northern Democrats intensely disliked Stanton was his egregious violation of the civil rights of war opponents and war critics through such men as Lafayette Baker.

Fortunately, I had spent years studying the Civil War before I became interested in the Lincoln assassination. So when I read the military commission's claims about an alleged Confederate conspiracy, I knew they made no sense. As I've said before, and as others have noted, any genuine Confederate conspiracy would not have targeted Lincoln and Seward but would have targeted Stanton, Stevens, and Wade, for starters.

I presume everyone is aware that most historians--not just a majority, but most--reject the Confederate conspiracy theory. Even George Alfred Townsend, an ardent Unionist and long-time student of the Lincoln case, acknowledged that there was not a shred of credible evidence to support the claim that Confederate leaders were behind Lincoln's assassination.

Defenders of the official version have accepted the neo-Radical myth that Lincoln and the Radicals were not far apart on Reconstruction by the time Lincoln was killed. "Therefore," they say, "the Radicals had no reason to want Lincoln dead." The definitive refutation of this demonstrably false tale about Lincoln's plan for Reconstruction is William C. Harris's landmark and high acclaimed book With Charity for All: Lincoln and the Restoration of the Union (University of Kentucky Press, 1997). Harris methodically debunks what little evidence neo-Radical historians have presented to support their claim, and he presents persuasive evidence that Lincoln's Reconstruction terms were far different from those of the Radicals.

[John Fazio]

(12-28-2018 12:26 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Thank you all for your attempts to enlighten Mr. G. I doubt that your efforts will be successful, but perhaps others can learn from your knowledge.

Am I not also correct that, in the event of the loss of Lincoln, Johnson, and Seward, there would be no one to call for the special election of a President? Wasn't that a duty of the Secretary of State?

Laurie:

Yes, according to the provisions of the Presidential Succession Statute of 1792. The supposition was that with the Secretary of State also dead, there would be such terrible infighting in the Congress for the selection of a new Secretary of State and control of the Electoral College, that the wheels of government would grind to a halt. And with the Secretary of War and the Lieutenant-General of the Armies also dead, the wheels of the military would also grind to a halt. That is why it was necessary to take out all five of the leaders. Evidence for the attempts on Stanton and Grant is strong, not airtight, but strong. Booth himself announced to his team (what was left of it) that he would take care of both Lincoln and Grant. And Stanton is mentioned as an intended victim in conversations between Confederate Secret Service operatives in Canada and also in an 1893 book written by Thomas A. Jones.

John

[John Fazio]

(12-28-2018 12:46 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Of course, another serious problem with the "decapitation" theory is that with Stanton left alive, the government would have been anything but decapitated, as shown by the fact that Stanton became the de facto president in the immediate aftermath of Lincoln's death. Even weeks later, Stanton was still practically running the executive branch. Only gradually did Andrew Johnson begin to assert his authority, and when he finally challenged Stanton and demanded his resignation, Stanton refused to resign and the Radicals began planning their effort to remove Johnson from office.

Stanton was loathed in the South and among Northern Democrats, and even among some conservative Republicans. Confederate leaders were well aware of the Northern Democrats' complaint that Stanton repeatedly pressured Lincoln into making bad decisions on the choice of generals and on the conduct of the war. This was an issue in the 1864 election. Democrats blamed Lincoln for succumbing to Stanton's pressure to take actions that sabotaged McClellan's Peninsula Campaign (such as withholding an entire corps from McClellan's army after he had begun to engage the Confederates at Yorktown and forcing him to put part of his army on the other side of the Chickahominy River, which invited Lee's first attack in the Seven Days Battles). Democrats also accused Stanton of withholding supplies from McClellan's army after Antietam and of pressuring Lincoln into removing McClellan from command for no valid reason after Antietam.

Another reason that Southerners and Northern Democrats intensely disliked Stanton was his egregious violation of the civil rights of war opponents and war critics through such men as Lafayette Baker.

Fortunately, I had spent years studying the Civil War before I became interested in the Lincoln assassination. So when I read the military commission's claims about an alleged Confederate conspiracy, I knew they made no sense. As I've said before, and as others have noted, any genuine Confederate conspiracy would not have targeted Lincoln and Seward but would have targeted Stanton, Stevens, and Wade, for starters.

I presume everyone is aware that most historians--not just a majority, but most--reject the Confederate conspiracy theory. Even George Alfred Townsend, an ardent Unionist and long-time student of the Lincoln case, acknowledged that there was not a shred of credible evidence to support the claim that Confederate leaders were behind Lincoln's assassination.

Defenders of the official version have accepted the neo-Radical myth that Lincoln and the Radicals were not far apart on Reconstruction by the time Lincoln was killed. "Therefore," they say, "the Radicals had no reason to want Lincoln dead." The definitive refutation of this demonstrably false tale about Lincoln's plan for Reconstruction is William C. Harris's landmark and high acclaimed book With Charity for All: Lincoln and the Restoration of the Union (University of Kentucky Press, 1997). Harris methodically debunks what little evidence neo-Radical historians have presented to support their claim, and he presents persuasive evidence that Lincoln's Reconstruction terms were far different from those of the Radicals.

Mike:

"Not a shred of credible evidence to support the claim that Confederate leaders were behind Lincoln's assassination". Statements like that give me great comfort, because they tell me that opponents of the thesis of Confederate complicity do not do their homework. If they did, they would know that as early as the summer of 1864, if not earlier, the Confederate government, through the agency of Davis's appointees in Canada--Holcombe, Thompson and Clay--were trying to assassinate Lincoln with shirts that were "infected" with yellow fever. This evidence has been in front of our eyes for 153 years, in the testimony of Godfrey Hyams at the trial of the conspirators. Do you suppose that a Confederate government that was trying to kill Lincoln in the summer of '64, in the wake of the Wistar and Dahlgren-Kilpatrick Raids on Richmond, when the Confederacy was still in the game and when assassination fever in Richmond was merely a "frenzy", changed its collective mind in the spring of '65, when revenge for the raids had not yet been taken, when the Confederacy had all but expired and when assassination fever in Richmond was "white hot"?

The foregoing is merely another snippet.

John

[L Verge]

Like you, John, I hope that Mr. G. will register for at least the six sessions of the Surratt conference in April. I believe that Judge Prindle's assessment of Booth's ties to the Confederacy, Barry Sheehy's talk on what was really going on in Montreal, Ed Steers's judgments on the trickery of Ray Neff and Len Guttridge, Dave Goetz's research on Mosby's ties to the conspiracy, Richard Willing's thoughts on the court's trials and tribulations on finding out "who done it," and finally the clean-up hitter, John Fazio, reminding us of what happens when you get on a government's last nerve and black flag warfare comes into play might enlighten Doubting Thomas.

BTW: Did y'all notice that he switched topics after being taken down over his Seward analysis. Do we see a trend that just keeps growing here? "Oops, my bad! Let's move on to something else to speculate on..."