Recent Scholarship on the Lincoln Assassination

Home , David Herold, John Surratt, Otto Eisenschiml, Samuel Mudd, Thomas Eckert

RECENT SCHOLARSHIP ON THE LINCOLN ASSASSINATION

WILLIAM G. EIDSON Soon after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln the public was torn between two explanations. One view was that the assassination resulted from a simple conspiracy of John Wilkes Booth and his close associates. The other view was that the assassination was part of a grand conspiracy of Confederate leaders in Richmond and Canada. Booth, according to this theory, was merely the agent. Both viewpoints were popular, although apparently the public was more inclined to believe in a grand conspiracy. The government seemed to agree because on 2 May 1865 President Andrew Johnson issued a proclamation stating that the assassination was apparently "incited, concerted and procured" by Jefferson Davis and at least five Confederate agents in Canada.1 During the trial which followed, the prosecution produced witness after witness to "prove" the existence of a grand conspiracy. Within less than a year, however, problems with this viewpoint emerged. Further investigation proved that much of the evidence presented both at the trial and in later depositions had been falsified. Sanford Conover, a key government witness and a self-appointed correspondent for the New York Tribune, was arrested in the fall of 1866 and tried for perjury. Convicted and sentenced to ten years in prison, Conover admitted he had coached witnesses to lie about Confederate involvement in the assassination in order to take revenge against Jefferson Davis who, Conover claimed, had insulted his wife and caused him to be imprisoned for six months during the war. This confession and additional information discredited the grand conspiracy theory for all but a few diehards.2

WILLIAM G. EIDSON, PH.D., teaches history at Ball State University in Muneie, Indiana. 1 New York Herald, 4 May 1866. 2 William Hanchett, The Lincoln Murder Conspiraciee (Urbana: Univer-

220 The Fimson Club History Quarterly Vol. 62, No. 2, April, 1988 1988] The Lincoln Assassination 221

As a result, the public came to believe, if only by default, that the assassination was a simple conspiracy. Most also ac- cepted the idea that the conspiracy trial had been adequate and that the penalties imposed on the conspirators had been just except, perhaps, for the sentences given to Mary E. Surratt and Dr. Samuel A. Mudd. Thus the simple conspiracy viewpoint became dominant within a few years of the assassination and re- mained virtually unchallenged until the 1890s. The ten-volume biography of Abraham Lincoln published in 1890 by John G. Nicolay and John Hay discusses the assassination in these terms.3 The fii-st important book on the assassination, The Judicial Murder of Mary E. Surratt (1895) by lawyer and Democratic politician David M. DeWitt, deviated sharply from the predom- inant viewpoint. DeWitt was highly critical of using a military tribunal to try the eight accused civilians. The nine men chosen to sit in judgment had been in the war. They were asked to view impartially evidence against Southern sympathizers accused of killing the president. Under such conditions, DeWitt believes that a fair trial was impossible; the accused were doomed before the trial began.4 DeWitt was particularly critical of the three men he held most responsible for the trial: Secretary of State Edwin Stanton, Judge Advocate General Joseph Holt, and Special Judge Advo- cate John Bingham. He depicted Stanton as a man obsessed with the idea of a grand conspiracy even in the absence of evidence. Holt and Bingham were charged with persuading the soldiers to impose the death penalty On Mrs. Surratt. They argued that such

"sity of Illinois Press, 1983), 81; The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the OHicial Records of the Union and Confederate Armies (Ser. ]I; 8 vols.; Washington: Government Printing Office, 1894-1899), VIII, 974; Seymour J. Frank, "The Conspiracy to Implicate the Confederate Leaders in Lincoln's Assassination," The Mississippi Valley Historical Review 40 (1954l : 629-56. 3 See Hanchett, Lincoln Murder Conspiracies, chapter 4. 4 David Miller DeWitt, The Judicial Murder of Mary E. Sarratt (Balti- more, 1895), 24-26, 33. 222 The Filson Club History Quarterly [April a decision was necessary to flush out her son John Surratt. Furthermore, Holt and Bingham assured the tribunal that Presi- dent Johnson would never allow her to be hanged. Only by such deception, DeWitt argued, could they get the death penalty. Dewitt believed that the execution of Mary Surratt was the foulest act in the history of the United States.5 Although De- Witt's •vork suffered from basic methodological weaknesses and was obviously biased against the military trial, it had profound impact on the public,e Doubts were publicly expressed about some points in the prevailing theory. People questioned the use of the military trial and Stanton's role in it. DeWitt's influence has been so significant that it is generally agreed that only one writer on the assassination, the Austrian- born Otto Eisenschiml, has had a comparable impact. In 1937 Otto Eisenschiml's Why Was Lincoln Murdered? appeared. Like Nicolay, Hay, DeWitt, and all other writers on the assassination, Eisenschiml was not a historian. He was a chemist who claimed to apply scientific techniques to the study of the assassination. His conclusion was that the assassination was not a simple conspiracy planned and executed by Booth and his associates. In- stead, Eisenschiml implied that key Northern leaders were the masterminds behind the assassination. Eisenschiml's technique was to raise provocative questions, a list of which fills more than a page. Why did Grant not go to Ford's Theater with Lincoln? Why was police guard John F. Parker not punished? Why was the telegraph inter- rupted? Why was Booth buried so quickly? By raising these questions, Eisenschiml created unwarranted doubts even though in many cases he eventually admitted that the traditional answers were still correct. The questions Eisenschiml raised and the doubts he created

5 Ibid., 5-6, 26-27, 109-10, 257-58. 6 For an examination of DeWitt's methodological weaknesses see Thomas Reed Turner, Beware the People Weeping: Public Opinion and th8 Assas- sination of Abraham Lincoln (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1982), 1-2. 1988] The Lincoln Assassination 223 have had great influence on those who have since written on the subject and have attempted to answer the questions he raised. In some cases the results have bordered on the ridiculous. But ridiculous or not, some of these Eisenschiml-influenced works have significantly shaped popular opinion. This article will examine the major works written on the assassination daring the last few decades beginning in 1959. Amazingly, at least two-dozen works focusing entirely or ex- tensively on the subject have been published during this period. Some trends have become apparent. For one thing, it is primarily non-professional historians who write about the assassination. That was true in the past and has continued to be true until the 1980s. Professional historians have generally avoided the subject except to criticize the findings of the non-professionals. Prior to 1959 authors of the most notable books on the assassination were journalists, lawyers, editors, museum directors, and actors. That trend continued for the next two decades. In the 1960s and 1970s the major assassination books were written by novelists, journalists, and editors with an occasional work by a businessman, physician, or film- maker. A Second trend is that Otto Eisenschiml, his techniques, and his assumptions continue to have a profound influence on the Lincoln literature. This was true at least through 1977. One book obviously influenced by Eisenschiml is Theodore Roscoe's The Web of Conspiracy: The Complete Story of the Men Who Murdered Abraham Lincoln (1959). A novelist and writer of books about the United States Navy, Roscoe claims that the criminals responsible for Lincoln's murder escaped unpunished.7 Roscoe, like Eisenschiml, believes that Northern leaders were involved in the assassination and that Secretary of War Edwin Stanton was the chief villain, arguing that only his involvement

7 Theodore Roscoe, The Web of Conspiracy: The Complete Story of the Men Who Murdered Abraham Lincoln (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1959), vii. 224 The Filson Club History Quarterly [April can explain his actions. Stanton knew of Booth's abduction plans as early as January 1865 and yet the government took no action to stop him or even to watch the Surratt house. Stanton re- fused Lincoln's request that Major Thomas Eckert, Stanton's assistant, accompany him to Ford's Theater. Stanton's failure to block Booth's escape route and his decision to delay naming him as the assassin for several hours are "inexplicable" unless the secretary was guilty of complicity,s "If the fantasia which permitted Booth's escape was unintentional," Roscoe contends, "one must attribute to War Secretary Stanton a head of almost solid bone, a plethora of unadulterated stupidity." The author does not, however, believe he was stupid.• For the most part The Web of Conspiracy follows the Eisen- schiml thesis and recounts in elaborate detail most of the same mysterious circumstances and unexplained incidents. There are some points, however, on which the novelist deviates from his predecessor. For instance Roscoe believes that Dr. Samuel Mudd was not as innocent as Eisenschiml and others would have us believe. That Booth was trying to disguise who he was when he first reached Mudd's residence is possible, but Roscoe finds it highly implausible that Booth would have continued such a mas- querade once safely upstairs in Mudd's home. Dr. Mudd must have recognized the fugitive. Indeed, Mudd's whole account of what happened is seen as "a confusing and garbled story." Roscoe concludes that Dr. Mudd probably knew about the abduction plot and that his denials of secessionist sympathy were disingenuous. Certainly he was an "accessory after the fact" in abetting the flight of Booth and David E. Herold.10 Neither Eisenschiml nor Roscoe believes Mary Surratt was involved in the plot. Roscoe, however, maintains that she knew of the abduction (not assassination) plans and may even have been an active secret agent for the Confederacy.11

8 Ibid., 15, 19-22, 27, 183, 191494. 9 Ibid., 195. l0 Ibid., 173-78, 474. 11 Ibid., 481. 1988] The Lincoln Assassination 225

Roscoe also differs with Eisenschiml on who shot Booth in Richard Garrett's barn. Neither believes Boston Corbett was the man even though Corbett claimed that he did. Eisenschiml im- plies that the shot was fired by Lieutenant Colonel Everton J. Conger who acted upon instruction from someone higher up in the government. Roscoe believes Lieutenant Edward P. Doherty fired the shot. Doherty was in command of the cavalrymen on the scene and received more reward money than anyone else. Roscoe's scenario is as follows: Doherty yanked Herold out of the barn door and quickly swung the young man around. Using Herold as a shield, the lieutenant plunged into the lighted barn forcing Booth's accomplice ahead of him and fired a shot at the surprised actor.12

Actions by the government to cover up the truth abound in The Web of Conspiracy. Perhaps the biggest cover-up was the government's attempt to keep the records of the assassination and trial inaccessible. Roscoe claims that the United States War Department kept the records locked in files marked "secret" for many years. Not until the mid 1930s were these materials placed in the public domain where they were first used by Otto Eisenschiml. 13 William Hanchett refutes Roscoe on these points. Hanchett states that the idea that the assassination papers were classified secret, an assertion often found in books published after 1959, apparently originated with Roscoe. Hanchett claims that the papers were never classified at all and gives examples of writers who used them before Eisenschiml. They were ac- cessioned by the National Archives in 1941 not in the 1930s as Roscoe indicates,z4

Eisenschiml's influence did not stop with Roscoe's book. In 1965 Vaughan Shelton dedicated Mask for Treason: The Lincoln Murder Trial to him. According to Shelton, the chief villain was not Stanton but Chief of Detectives Lafayette C. Baker. Baker

12 Ibid., 398-99. 13 Ibid., vii. 14 Hanchett, Lincoln Murder Cons•4racies, 193-94. 226 The Filson Club Histo•j Quarterly [April was the mastermind behind the plot. •5 Shelton believes that Baker had exploited the Civil War crisis to attain a powerful position in the federal government. Peace, however, would bring an abrupt and inevitable end to his power; Lincoln's lenient policy of reconciliation would cause Baker's fortunes to decline. He knew that others in government whose lofty positions were equally endangered by Lincoln's policies favored his assassination. They might not collaborate in the deed, but they would give it their tacit approval, is Baker learned of Booth's scheme to kidnap Lincoln through John Surratt. Surratt was a double agent whose contact in the North was Baker who watched Booth's movements and decided that he would never execute his plans successfully. With Baker's approval, Surratt brought in Lewis Powell, a former Confederate infantryman and Mosby raider, to get the action started. Powell did not think that Booth was capable of kidnapping Lincoln. Powell and Baker then hatched a plot to have Booth murder Lincoln instead. They agreed that Booth was so well known he would quickly be identified as the assassin, and plans were made to liquidate him immediately after the crime. That would end the case. 17 According to Shelton, Powell planned the details of the assassination and enlisted the aid of two persons formerly connected with the kidnapping plot--Mary Surratt and David Herold. Mrs. Surratt agreed to help mold Booth's mind to the idea that Lincoln was the cause of all the nation's woes and that his death would be a blessing applauded by millions. Herold was to kill Booth after the assassination by poisoning him. 18 Shelton claims that Baker told Stanton of the plot. Stanton professed to doubt the rumor but understood the implications of Baker's message and said he would not interfere. Baker knew

15 Vaughan Shelton, Mask o] Treason: The Lincoln Murder Trial (Har- risburg, Pennsylvania, 1965), 43-52. 16 Ibid., 401. 17 Ibid., 401-402. 18 Ibid., 402. 1988] The Lincoln Assassination 227

Stanton would see the political advantages to be reaped from Lincoln's death. As is commonly known, Stanton virtually ordered Lincoln not to go to Foid's Theater. Shelton sees this as negative psychology that Stanton knew would make Lincoln determined to go. ]9 In the author's viewpoint the plot would have worked except for two unforeseen circumstances. First, someone in the know, probably Assistant Secretary of War Thomas Eckert, saw an opportunity to eliminate two obstacles at the same time so the plot was broadened to include Secretary of State William Seward. This killing was to be timed to make it look like the work of the same man who shot Lincoln. But the timing was too close and the double crime suggested the involvement of more than one assailant.2° The second unforeseen circumstance was that because Booth was a brandy drinker, he did not take a lethal dose of the whiskey Herold gave him.21 Shelton points out that Baker knew exactly where to send six detectives to look for the fleeing Booth. He ordered them into lower Maryland because he knew Booth's escape route and about where he should die from the arsenic poisoning. The only time Baker was really mystified was when the detectives failed to find Booth. Baker, Stanton, and Eckert then became alarmed that Booth would be captured alive and would start talking.22 It was sheer luck, Shelton writes, that the army officers picked up Booth's trail when they did. He maintains that Corbett did indeed shoot Booth, but in any case Baker had given instructions that he was not to be brought back to Washington alive.2a The conspiracy trial was Baker's solution to the public hysteria that followed Lincoln's death and the attack on Seward. It was ordered by Stanton but was engineered by Baker. The eight hand-

19 Ibid. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid., 403. 22 Ibid., 292, 403. 23 Ibid., 403. 228 The Filson Cheb History Quarterly [April picked accomplices were arraigned, tried, and sentenced with maximum publicity in the shortest possible time.24 Shelton has based his ideas primarily on conjecture rather than evidence. He could write an acceptable mystery novel for then he would not be tied to the facts. However, Mask for Treason is not supposed to be fiction. One year after the Shelton book, John Cottrell's Anatomy of an Assassination was published. In his introduction newspaperman Cottrell says he has endeavored to present the facts as objectively as possible without aiming to prove any particular theory. Though he is not totally successful in this intention, his biases are minimal during the first two- thirds of the book. All objectivity ceases, however, once CottreU begins to discuss the trial of the conspirators. Following the position espoused by David DeWitt and Otto Eisenschiml, Cottrell finds nothing of value in the military tribunal. Calling the whole affair a farce, the author maintains that a military trial "promised the accused far severer punishment than they might have received in a civil court." He is also critical of Stanton's role, claiming that he was determined to have the accused condemned and executed as swift- ly as possible. Sthnton had no intention of allowing the conspirators to undergo a long, drawn-out trial by jury in a civil court- room.25 The author claims that Mrs. Surratt was the primary target of the government attack. For some strange reason, the authorities were determined to convict her; no defendant in the conspiracy trial was prosecuted" more vigorously. Obviously, someone wanted her silenced, but who was that someone ? Cottren says the finger of suspicion points directly at Stanton.26 Cottrell also asserts that the military commission was much too biased to deliver a fair verdict. Having expressed his dislike of the military trial, Cottrell then turns to the subject of a possible betrayal of Lincoln by Stanton. The book presents an easy-

24 Ibid. 25 John Cottrell, Anatomy of an Assassination (London, 1966), 160-64. 26 Ibid., 169, 182. 1988] The Lincoln Assassination 229

Abraham Lincoln in 1863 The Filson Club to-grasp summary of the main charges against Stanton, charges that would imply Stanton was guilty. But it is to Cottren's credit that after discussing these charges for twenty pages, he admits that the case against Stanton was based on sheer speculation until a ciphered message, allegedly written by Stanton's Chief of Detectives Lafayette Baker, was discovered. This mes- , i

,,-L] : ;I -Ij::: IIiii' q:! lil III ill, 11,12,: ;LLYli]i:' ":1; rLl,,:!,, •1i1,[•,

:h•:1 ,',.]j[d :lii•[• •"'lli ,rl ..:L• L•L:ii]l'. T]•;: il : :., I ,:tl'•'il'-

.l'qi lii•: I[ "1 •ii :lJ IlL: li•'•' .']3J•'Lb< l•q '..'.111:2 I:.l!.: h•'

:1,:111 I: ih; 1!i,' ,;I :,' ,]}! I •]•1 b:'z !:1 qi ',,•; - !,:1-•,I ,,]] - i,:t •] ]:,i,';J

I;•lim :111 if u ,;,:,'1 I Ill, ".i-','. :•lJ'•'<];:'. '.'.ri11•1] •,?. bLt;Li:ll,,ll -:

'1 •li•: ,I ] I,,q ,,, I i,:: I .i I.['. i'1 ,. ]]•1[,'! . '.'. I: ,!i•, ,,' L'I,,]. 'l'h [- liil'4- 230 The Filso• Club History Quarterly [April sage, written in code in the margins of an 1866 edition of Col- burn's United Service Magazine, strongly suggests that Stanton engineered the assassination as part of a vast, well-financed plot to seize control of the federal government and that Lafayette Baker was poisoned to ensure his silence. Baker claims in the secret message that at least eleven members of Congress, fifteen military officers, and twenty-four civilians (including one gov- ernor, five bankers, three newspapermen, and eleven prominent industrialists) were involved in the plot.zT It appeared that Cottrell would use the Baker message as the final piece of evidence needed to "prove" Stanton's involvement. But he did not, probably because so many authorities questioned the authenticity of the message or that any such code from Baker could be believed. Instead Cottrell spent his last chapter showing that though Stanton was an unsavory character capable of be- traying a colleague, Baker was even less virtuous. A member of a House Investigating Committee once said it was doubtful whether Baker had ever told the truth even by accident. So Cottrell laments that no person, not even such a tyrant as Edwin Stanton, should be condemned solely on the word of Baker.28 Cottrell believes that Stanton was guilty of gross negligence in not providing Lincoln with adequate protection, of displaying extreme self-interest in the way he exploited the crime of the century to his own advantage, and of covering up details of the crime and the ensuing investigation when they adversely reflected on his handling of the situation. Yet Cottrell concludes that "the case against Stanton, supported by a vast but flimsy web of circumstantial evidence, must therefore remain unproven ; without concrete evidence to support the charge, there is more than reasonable doubt that he either engineered or consciously encouraged the murder of the President.''• In 1974 The Riddle of Dr. Mudd, written by novelist Samuel

27 Ibid., 185-210. 28 Ibid., 232, 240-41. 29 Ibid., 242-43. 1988] The Lincoln Assassination 231

Carter, III, was published. Unfortunately the book presents little that is new to the Mudd case and certainly does not solve the riddle. Carter maintains that Dr. Mudd was innocent of any connection with the plots. Although Mudd had knowledge of many key figures in the Maryland underground, he had no direct connection with it except one time when he sheltered his brother-in-law and two friends who had been threatened with arrest in September 1861. Carter even claims.that Mudd voted for Lincoln in 1864.30

Dr. Mudd readily admitted he knew Booth from a November 1864 visit Booth made to the Bryantown area in Maryland, osten- sibly to buy land. Yet in the report the doctor filled out for the police after the assassination, he made no mention of ever seeing Booth again. Carter admitted that Mudd did meet Booth again on 23 December in Washington and introduced him to John Sur- ratt, but Mudd was not trying to deny the meeting in his report. Mudd merely forgot the meeting when he hastily wrote out his multi-paged deposition.31 Carter accepts the notion that Mudd did not recognize Booth while treating his broken leg. Booth wore a false beard, had a shawl around his head, spoke little, and tried not to be recognized. After all, he was an actor skilled in the art of dissimulation,s2

The author is critical of the military trial, claiming such a trial assured verdicts of guilty. The beribboned and decorated officers would give the verdict dignity and a semblance of authority. Stanton wanted none of the delays and appeals that might come from having a civil trial. The defense lawyers had little time to locate witnesses and prepare briefs. They did not even know what the specific charges were until the second session of the court. This was to be a court of conviction, not a court of justice, according to Carter, but he is wrong when he claims that

30 Samuel Carter, III, The Riddle of Dr. Mudd (New York: G. P. Put- ham's Sons, 1974), 62-63, 70. 31 Ibid., 74-75, 146, 177, 184. 32 Ibid., 121-28. 232 The Filson Club History Quarterly [April such a trial was without precedent in peace-time.33 Similar trials were not uncommon, and some were being held at the same time as the conspiracy trial.34 The next book in the Eisenschiml tradition is Larry Starkey's Wilkes Booth Came to Washington (1976). Stating that it was more important to raise questions than to find answers, Starkey maintains that the assassination was a grand conspiracy masterminded by Confederate commissioners in Canada. Jacob Thomp- son, former senator from Mississippi and secretary of the in- terior under James Buchanan; Clement C. Clay, former senator from Alabama; and J. P. Holcombe, professor of law at the University of Virginia were sent by Jefferson Davis to Canada where they established headquarters in the Queen's Hotel in Montreal by the end of May 1864. They were bent on carrying out various schemes such as freeing and arming Confederate prisoners in northern prison camps and instigating raids along the U.S.-Canadian border.3s Matters did not go well for the Confederate agents, however. Within a year they had seen their well-financed mission which enjoyed tacit Canadian sufferance, lose favor and become dan- gerous. They were particularly angered by the execution of a young Confederate aristocrat for engaging in border hostilities. The agents blamed Seward and Lincoln for allowing the young man to be executed despite considerable Southern pleading. There was serious talk that the young man's needless death must be avenged.36 As the cabal in Canada began going to pieces in the spring of 1865, the agents became increasingly dependent uponcouriers for information and direction. John Surratt was such a courier. In fact, according to Starkey, it was Surratt who arrived in Montreal with news that the Davis government had fled Rich-

33 Ibid., 164-65, 172. 34 Turner, Beware the People Weeping, 138-39. 35 Larry Starkey, Wilkes Booth Came to Washington (New York: Ran- dom House, 1976), 8-13, 20-21. 36 Ibid., 76-79. 1988] The Lincoln Assassination 233 mond. Davis called for renewed guerrilla warfare, something the agents in Canada had been doing since the previous spring.3• Starkey believes the plot was hatched while Surratt was in Canada. It is not clear whether they wanted to kill Lincoln and Seward out of revenge for the execution of their young friend and because of the way the war was going or whether they thought their action, originating in Canada, might eventually end in war between the United States and Great Britain.• Starkey claims all the evidence suggests that Surratt, either alone or with others, originated the idea while in Canada some- time between 7 April and 12 April. It was a hurried, desperate plot. The idea was to have Booth use his name to get close enough to Lincoln for the killing and to have Powell kill Seward at the same time. The commissioners knew of Booth's plans to kidnap Lincoln first through Surratt and then from Booth's visit to Montreal in October. On 12 April, Surratt left Canada with instructions to persuade Booth to kill Lincoln and Powell to kill Seward.• Central to Starkey's argument was Booth's planned escape route. According to Starkey, Booth was trying to draw attention of the authorities to the room at the Kirkwood Hotel occupied by fellow-conspirator George Atzerodt. The clues planted there would lead the pursuers into lower Maryland and south to Vir- ginia while the assassin actually escaped in a different direction. Booth, riding a small bay horse, gave his own name as he crossed the bridge into Maryland so authorities would know which way he went. Herold soon followed using a false name and riding a large gray horse. Starkey believes the two men were to exchange horses at the Surratt Tavern. Herold, who knew the area well, would ride the small bay and lead the pursuers on a merry chase. Meanwhile, Booth, on the larger horse, was to ride hard toward Baltimore where he would catch a train that would take

37 Ibid., 80-80. 38 Ibid., 79, 182-83. 39 Ibid., 182-83. 234 The Filson Club History Quarterly [April him to Canada. Booth's broken leg, however, made such an escape impossible.4o Starkey confesses that in doing research for this book, he grew to like Booth although he detested the shot he fired. Starkey's admiration shows clearly, sometimes excessively. He is correct in disagreeing with those who dismiss Booth as a madman with no acting talent, but he goes too far in trying to correct this im- pression. It is not realistic to write that "John Wilkes Booth had come to be ranked among the titans of the American Theater" or than John Wilkes Booth was "the most celebrated actor in America."41 Once again as with so many other works on the assassination, Starkey attempts to weave a plot, to make everything fit neatly into a mold whether or not the evidence warrants such an ar- rangement. Starkey does not bother with footnotes so the reader does not know his sources. No one questions that Confederate agents were in Canada, but Starkey fails to provide evidence that they had any connection with the assassination plot. That Booth planned to escape to Canada is an interesting conjecture, but, unfortunately for Starkey's reputation, evidence to support such an idea is lacking. Starkey believes that asking questions is important; but when answers are presented, they must come from the evidence rather than from speculation. Not all assassination books written during the last two decades were in the Eisenschiml tradition. Three notable exceptions are: Robert H. Fowler, Album of the Lincoln Murder: Illustrat- ing How It Was Planned, Committed and Avenged; Louis J. Weichmann, A True Histo•y of the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln and of the Conspiracy of 1865 edited by Floyd E. Ris- vold; and John K. Lattimer, Kennedy and Lincoln: Medical and Ballistic Comparisons of Their Assassinations. Robert Fowler, editor of The Civil War Times Illustrated, with

40 Ibid., 100-101,120-27. 41 Ibid., xi, 6, 51, 44. 1988] The Lincoln Assassinatiou 235 help from special research consultant Colonel Julian E. Raymond, devoted one full issue of his journal to Lincoln's assassination. Published in book form in 1965, this brief account is a straight- forward narration that serves those readers who know little about the events and who are willing to spend an hour or two to learn the basic information quite adequately.

Fowler believes that the assassination was planned and executed by Booth and associates apparently with the approval of the Confederate agents in Canada. He also states that there was at least one other assassination gang operating at the same time. Unfortunately for the reader, this gang is not identified or mentioned again,a Fowler acknowledges some admiration for the writings of Eisenschiml, Roscoe, and Shelton, although he believes Shelton tried to answer too many questions. But on one fundamental issue he differs with these writers. Fowler has no doubt that the man killed in Garrett's barn was John Wilkes Booth. He does question who shot Booth, seriously doubting that it was Corbett since Booth apparently was shot with a pistol and Corbett should have been armed only with a carbineA3

Louis J. Weichmann, clerk in the War Department and author of A True Histo•31 of the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, was a central figure in the conspiracy trial. As a boarder in the Surratt house, he gave crucial testimony in the trial that helped convict the conspirators. Everyone agrees that Weichmann's testimony was crucial. Many believe that he was involved in the plot. At least' he has been viewed as a Southern sympathizer who may have used his position in the War Department to pass on information about Southern prisoners to John Surratt. The government apparently exploited Weichmann's involvement by threatening him with execution if he did not inform on the conspirators.

42 Robert H. Fowler, Album of the Lincoln Murder: Illustrating How It Was Planned, Committed and Avenged (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 1965), 7, 10. 43 Ibid.. 49. 236 The Filson Club History Quarterly [April

During the 1890s while living in Anderson, Indiana, Welch- mann wrote his history of the assassination. He had spent all his years since the conspiracy trial trying to defend himself and his book was an attempted vindication. It was completed before his death in 1902, but neither he nor his family published it, although the eventual editor Floyd Risvold says it is clear that Weichmann intended it for publication. So although written in the 1890s, the work was published for the first time in 1975.44 As should be expected, Weichmann defended himself at every point. According to Weichmann there was no conspiracy on the part of the Confederacy to kidnap or execute Lincoln nor was the Roman Catholic Church involved as some have alleged. Weichmann also maintained that Stanton had nothing to do with the plots. In this volume, John Wilkes Booth is presented as the author of the whole scheme, both the plot to abduct and the plan to assassinate Lincoln. Booth and Booth alone prepared the plans, secured the accomplices, and furnished the necessary funds.45 Much has been made of Weichmann's testimony against Mary Surratt. She had apparently treated him almost as if he were her own son while he boarded at her house. Weichmann's testimony against her has thus been seen by some as a kind of matri- cide, and it was for this testimony that he was condemned. It is no surprise then that Weichmann devotes many pages to defend- ing his statements about Mrs. Surratt. He claims that the evidence against her was stronger than that against George Atzer- odt, Samuel Arnold, Michael O'Laughlin, Samuel Mudd, or Edman Spangler. The evidence exists from the date of John Sur- ratt's meeting with Booth and Mudd on 23 December to her arrest on 17 April. The visits of Booth, Atzeredt, Lewis.Paine, Herold, and Mudd to her home were important but would have counted for little had it not been for her actions on the day of

44 Louis J. Weichmann, A True History of the Assassination o[ Abraham Lincoln and of the Conspiracy of 1865, edited by Floyd E. Risvold (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1975), xv-xviii. 45 Ibid., 8-10. 1988] The Lincoln Assassination 237 the murder. Those actions convinced Weichmann that she was guilty. Weichmann saw Mrs. Surratt ancl Booth in conversation that afternoon. Immediately thereafter with the field glasses Booth handed her, Mrs. Surratt had Weichmann drive her to Surrattsville where she gave them to John Lloyd, the proprietor of a tavern there and told him to have the two "shooting irons" ready for someone to pick up later that night.46 The published work is presented for the most part as Weich- mann wrote it. Except for an editor's introduction, there is not much evidence of editing. One can appreciate Risvold's desire not to tamper with the manuscript, but more annotation would have improved it. Points presented by Weichmann which proved to be questionable or highly controversial should have been dis- cussed by the editor. John K. Lattimer's Kennedy and Lincoln: Medical and Ballistic Comparisons of Their Assassinations was published in 1980. Lattimer is a physician who chaired the Department of Urology of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia Univer- sity. He served as a military surgeon during World War II. Lattimer believes that Lincoln could not possibly have survived his wound even in modern times, and he finds it remarkable that he lived nine hours. If by some miracle Lincoln had lived, Latti- mer says he most certainly would have been a "decerebrate vegetable."47 According to Dr. Samuel Mudd's report, Booth's broken bone was a simple fracture. Lattimer accepts that report as true, which indicates that the bone would not have been tearing at the flesh as Booth claimed. Booth had a tendency to exaggerate in the diary. In addition to the comment about his leg, Booth also indicated he had ridden sixty miles that first night while in reality, he rode only thirty miles.48

46 Ibid., 4, 165-71. 263-65. 47 John K. Lattimer, Kennedy and Lincoln: Medical and Ballistic Com- parisons o/ Their Assassinations (New York: Harcourt Brace Javanovich, 1980), 47. "48 Ibid., 52-55. 238 The Filson Club History Quarterly [April

¢D

¢D irl" i I i I I• I i I ' i I I I I iI iI• I • I Illl i I iI I Ill • I ' i i I 'i' Ii I ill i ' r i i ,IFI i;'[• " i I4

I , } i, i ,•:• 1988] The Lincoln Assassination 239

Lattimer is convinced that Booth must have broken the fibula (the smaller bone in the lower leg) even though Mudd called it the tibia (the larger bone in the lower leg). If the tibia had been broken, Lattimer says Booth would have been unable to walk at all, much less climb onto a horse or walk a few steps without his crutch as he did in Garrett's barn.49 Lattimer also rejects the idea that Booth committed suicide. Booth would not have shot himself where he did and would not have been gripping the pistol so hard. The autopsy surgeon would have reported a large smoke-blackened area on Booth's skin had the wound been self- inflicted.50 The author is puzzled by the physicians' confusion over the stopping place of the bullet that killed Lincoln. Assistant Sur- geon Dr. J. Janvier Woodward, who did the autopsy, and Dr. Robert K. Stone, Lincoln's family physician, say that the bullet lodged above Lincoln's left eye. But Surgeon General Dr. Joseph K. Barnes claims it loclged above the right eye. Dr. Charles S. Taft, the second doctor to reach the president's box, •vrote that the bullet was above the left eye and on another occasion said it was above the right eye. Thus the actuallocation of the bullet is left in doubt by the conflicting.accounts of the four men who attended the autopsy. But Lattimer does not find anything sin- ister or devious in this confusion. He explains that the doctors had been awake continuously for over thirty hours and were under great stress.5• One other point of interest is made by Lattimer. It is often stated that Seward was wearing an elaborate collar or brace to hold his broken jaw in place when he was attacked. Indeed it is sometimes written that this brace saved Seward's life by de- flecting the knife blows. Lattimer can find no evidence of such a collar or brace. Seward's physician, Dr. Thomas B. Gunning, put on a complicated device after the stabbing. Lattimer says that

49 Ibid., 88. 50 Ibid., 77-80. 51 Ibid., 35-40. 240 The Filson Club Histo•T Quarterly [April at the time of the attackSeward was using a back brace which had metallic elements in it. The knife apparently struck it caus- ing the sparks sometimes mentioned by those present)2 Although the Fowler, Weichmann, and Lattimer books were not in the Eisenschiml tradition, his influence has continued. One more book and film, read and seen by thousands, was to appear forty years after Eisenschiml's first volume. What one historian described as "the most unfortunate work ever undertaken on the assassination" appeared in 1977 under the title, The Lincoln Conspiracy; written by David Balsiger and Charles E. Sellier, Jr., the book also appeared in 1977 as a film by the same title.53 Balsiger and Sellier see the events surrounding the assassination as a massive cover-up effort by government officials. The authors believe there were four plots. One was a plan by Mary- land planters including Dr. Samuel Mudd. Another plot involved the Richmond government and Confederate agents in Canada. A third plan developed within the government in Washington and involved numerous prominent Republican leaders, including Sec- reLary of War Stanton. The fourth plot included northern finan- ciers and speculators such as Jay Cooke, Henry Cooke, and Thur- low Weed.s4 Each of these groups enlisted the services of John Wilkes Booth. The young actor and his band of helpers made several unsuccessful attempts to abduct Lincoln, eight according to Balsiger and Sellier. Eventually the Radical 'Republican plotters recognized that Booth was incapable of successfully kidnapping Lincoln and replaced him with Captain James W. Boyd, a former captain in the Confederate secret service. Booth, extremely angry about this change, assassinated Lincoln before Boyd's plans could come to fruition.55 According to Balsiger and Sellier, Booth linked

52 Ibid., 102. 53 Turner, Beware the People Weeping, 13; David Balsiger and Charles E. Sellier, Jr., The Lincoln Conspiracy (Los Angeles: Schick Sunn Classic Books, 1977). 54 Balsiger and Sellier, Conspiracy, 7, 38-62. 55 Ibid., 71-89, 98-109, 182. 1988] The Lincoln Assazsina$ion 241 up with Ed Henson not David Herold after the assassination; the two of them escaped to the North and eventually to England. Henson was a drug smuggler and friend of Booth. Thus it was was not Booth who was killed in Garrett's barn.• The authors indicate that Herold and Boyd were forced by the government to pursue the fleeing Booth. It was Boyd and Herold who were trapped in Garrett's barn, and Boyd was killed there. The soldiers on the spot did not realize they had the wrong man. When it became obvious to certain detectives and officials that the dead man was not Booth, the government, and especially Stanton, tried to cover up the mistake. People who knew Booth only slightly were pressed into identifying the body which was thereafter buried quickly to prevent others from discovering the secretY Secretary of War Stanton and Chief of Detectives Baker were singled out for blame for their roles in the cover-up. They also masterminded the trial of the "conspirators" in such a way that guilty verdicts could be assured and punishment meted out quickly. Neither Stanton nor Baker trusted the other and eventually, according to Balsiger and Sellier, Baker was poisoned with arsenic to prevent him from revealing what he knew.58 Most of the conclusions in The Lincoln Conspiracy are not ori- ginal. They have been given in previous books. What makes The Lincoln Conspiracy noteworthy is that the authors claim to have discovered numerous collections of previously lost, unpublished historical documents such as secret service documents, congres- sional diaries, secret coded messages, and missing diary pages. This new evidence, according to Balsiger and Sellier, answers many questions about the cover-up,s9 Historians were amazed, skeptical, and perhaps even jealous that a writer and a film producer located more new evidence in

56 Ibid., 175-76, 296-97. 57 Ibid., 200-204, 232-42, 247-51. 58 Ibid., 257-67, 291, 295-96. 59 Ibid., 7-8. 242 The Filson Club History Quarterly [April one year than scholars had been able to find in more than one hundred years of searching. Naturally, historians wanted to examine these new sources, but they have been prevented from doing so. For a variety of reasons, Balsiger and Sellier maintained that the various owners of this new material would not allow other people to examine the documents. They even admitted that in certain instances they had not been allowed to see the originals but had been supplied with transcripts. It is an understatement to say that such actions have made historians extremely skeptical of this "new evidence.''60 Unable to examine the authenticity of the newly discovered documents, scholars have tried other methods to check the accuracy of The Lincoln Conspiracy. For instance, several writers for Civil W•r Times Illustrated searched for any information on Captain James W. Boyd, since his death at Garrett's farm is pivotal to the conclusions reached by Balsiger and Sellier. What they discovered leaves no doub• that Boyd did not die in Garrett's barn.61 And so the scholars are unconvinced by the claims of Balsiger and Sellier. As one critic wrote, "Vir- tually all the startling claims in this film [and in the book] are based upon documents which, if not outright forgeries, are so highly suspect as to make them unadmissable as evidence in any serious investigation."• The publication of The Lincoln Conspiracy produced a new trend in Lincoln assassination historiography. It triggered grow- ing involvement by professional historians. The book and the film so incensed intelligent readers that professional historians could no longer ignore the subject. Thus beginning in 1978 historians finally turned their attention to the issue. In 1978 the Abraham Lincoln Association invited Harold Hyman to speak to them about the Balsiger and Sellier work. Hyman's address was published later under the interesting title,

60 Ibid., 68. 61 William C. Davis, "Behind the Lines: Caveat Emptor," Civil War Times Illustrated 16 (1977) : 35; William C. Davis, "Behind the Lines: 'The Lincoln Conspiracy'--Hoax?" Civil War Times Illustrated 16 (1977): 47- 48. 62 Davis, "Behind the Lines: Caveat Emptor," 36-37. 1988] The Lincoln Assassination 243

With Malice Toward Some: Scholarship (or Something Less) on the Lincoln Murder. Hyman reflected the opinion of many historians when he described the book as "trash and fiction" and a "rip-off.''• Professor ttyman notes that errors in footnotes abound and that there is considerable confusion over fac- tual information. But he saved his most caustic comments for the sources, ttyman questions the documentation which other people have been unable to examine. Hyman claims Balsiger would not allow him to come at his own expense to Balsiger's Los Angeles or Salt Lake City offices to examine the sources. Apparently, Balsiger stated he was contractually bound to afford access only to his publisher's own historical consultants.• Hy- man notes that nearly half of the footnotes in this book were either to unreliable printed sources or to unverifiable sources. No one can see Balsiger's sources in order to verify them, and Balsiger himself has seen some of them only in transcript form.• Hyman's address was only a brief commentary, not a full-scale work. In the 1980s, however, two historians, Thomas Reed Turner and William Hanchett, published full-length treatises on the assassination. While acknowledging that the historiography of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln is voluminous, Thomas Reed Turner asserts that historians have been so involved with interpretation that they have given inadequate attention to understanding the unfolding events. Turner sees a need for a complete re-examination of Lincoln's assassination and the conspiracy trials which will attempt to discover what really happened and how and why people reacted the way they did. Such a study would allow us to see where scholars have been faithful to events and where they have distorted them. Such a study would also permit a testing of the various conspiracy theories to see

63 Harold M. Hyman, With Malice Toward Some: Scholarship (or Some- thing Less) on the Lincoln Murder (Springfield, Ill.: Abraham Lincoln Association, 1978), 11. 64 Ibid., 13-14. 65 Ibid., 12, 14. 244 The Filson Club History Quarterly [April if there is any truth in them or whether they are the products of overactive imaginations.• Using elaborate documentation, Turner reaches conclusions that are at odds with most of the conspiracy interpretations presented by twentieth-century writers. For instance, Turner de- fends Stanton and the actions of the government immediately following the assassination. Instead of Stanton being criminally slow in reacting to the assassination events, as some have maintained, Turner asserts that Stanton was the one man who actually did take charge of the situation, while others around him were immobilized. Stanton was not to blame for stirring up the sentiment that the South was behind the murder. Newspaper editors, northern politicians, and especially northern ministers had much more influence in proposing that idea than Stanton. Stanton's grief for the slain Lincoln was genuine, though he did make some mistakes. Yet charges that Stanton failed to protect Lin- coln, incited needless grief and apprehension, and aroused the nation to a frenzied pitch are "patently absurd.''6• Critics have condemned the conspiracy trials as too biased because they were held in a military rather than a civil court, but Turner does not agree. He points out that trying civilians by military tribunal was fairly common practice during the Civil War. In fact, several other military trials of civilians were being conducted at the same time as the conspiracy trials. The decision to try the cases before a military tribunal was no indica- tion of extraordinary viciousness on the part of the government. Many contemporaries in retrospect concluded that the military court may have been the fairest court possible. How would a civil court have secured a jury in a case that had received so much publicity ? Besides a military tribunal seemed logical since Lincoln was killed as Commander in Chief within the military lines of Washington. The author does mention contemporary opposition to trying civilians in military courts and to the military trial of

66 Turner, Beware the People Weeping, xi-xii. 67 Ibid., 55-64. 1988] The Lincoln Assassination 245 the conspirators in particular. Because of this opposition Turner believes having a military trial was probably a mistake, but it did not significantly affect the verdict rendered. Given the in- flamed conditions in 1865, he maintains that a civil trial would have dealt with the conspirators in a similar manner.• Turner also attempts to clear up some of the confusion surrounding the treatment of Mary Surratt. There have been many attempts to vindicate Mrs. Surratt, but Turner shows that such efforts have been made almost entirely by later writers. To contemporaries, the evidence produced seemed strongly to indicate her guilt. Even the opposition press, on the whole, agreed with this conclusion. The opposition that arose in 1865 was not, as many writers have claimed, because any substantial number of people believed she was innocent but rather because there ex- isted a great sentiment against hanging a woman. The majority of those urging clemency for Mrs. Surratt considered her guilty.69 Turner is obviously concerned that writers have devoted so little attention to the atmosphere in which these events occurred. The assassination of Lincoln, the author suggests, caused the nation to feel betrayed. It was as if the prodigal son had been about to be welcomed home when suddenly it was discovered he was not penitent but had suddenly plunged a dagger in his father's back. The surrender of Lee's troops brought to the North hope of conciliation and a feeling of celebration. Booth's pistol left them with a feeling of despair which rapidly turned to anger and thoughts of revenge3c One year after the Turner book appeared, William Hanchett's The Lincoln Murder Conspiracies was published. Professor Han- chett's account does not attempt to retell the story of the assassination. Rather it seeks to bring that assassination into sharper focus by placing it in relationship to the bitter disputes that were responsible for it and tracing the formulation and influ-

68 Ibid., 138-54. 69 Ibid., 166, 170. 70 Ibid., 22, 24. 246 The Filson Club History Quarterly [April ence of the various interpretations which have clouded our vision through the years.71 In keeping with these purposes, Hanchett first tries to make clear to the reader that Lincoln was the object of far more hatred than love. Lincoln received hate mail and death threats through- out his years in Washington, but the winding down of the war and his decision to free and arm the slaves produced many more potential kidnappers and assassins.72 Hanchett describes Booth's actions in the form of a simple conspiracy, but the reaction of many officials and citizens was that the assassination had been part of a grand conspiracy on the part of the Richmond government and Confederate agents in Canada. That should not be surprising. "What is surprising," wrote Hanchett, "is that so many people, even Republicans, rejected the grand conspiracy theory from the beginning.''Ts For a generation after 1865 Americans tended to view Lin- coln's assassination from partisan points of view. Democrats blamed Stanton for the unfounded charges against Davis and the other Confederate leaders, for railroading the conspirators to prison and the gallows, and for the murder of Mrs. Surratt. Many Republicans defended the military trial on the grounds that the Commander in Chief had been killed in time of war, maintained that Mrs. Surratt was probably guilty, and recalled the incitements of the Democratic press to just such a crime as Booth's.74 Eventually as those who testified of Confederate involvement in the assassination were found to have perjured themselves and as no additional evidence connected the Confederates with the crime, the grand conspiracy theory collapsed. The public then came to accept the belief that the assassination had been a simple conspiracy organized by Booth. That was the viewpoint expressed

71 Hanchett, Lincoln Murder Conspiracies, 6. 72 Ibid., 7, 21, 33. 73 Ibid., 90. 74 Ibid., 92. 1988] The Lincoln Assassination 247 by Nicolay and Hay in their ten-volume history. As Hanchett sees it, their treatment was a kind of codification of the dominant viewpoint that prevailed since the late 1860s which stated that the assassination was a simple conspiracy, defended the verdict of the military commission, and took Holt's side in the controversy over the clemency position.75 Although not agreeing on all particulars, works by Osborn H. Oldoyd, David M. DeWitt, Clara Laughlin, Lloyd Lewis, and George Bryan during the first forty years of the twentieth century agree that the assassination was a simple conspiracy. Laughlin believed the military trial was as fair as a trial could be under those circumstances, but DeWitt referred to the military trial as judicial murder. DeWitt was also highly critical of Stanton but no more so than was Lloyd Lewis. In the widely read Myths after Lincoln, Lewis portrays Stanton as power-mad and panic-stricken. Stanton knew the assassination was a simple conspiracy, but for political purposes he proclaimed it was a grand conspiracy.•6 So, according to Hanchett, by the end of the nineteenth century and for the first third of the twentieth century, the simple conspiracy theory of the assassination had replaced the grand conspiracy theory, and Booth alone was held responsible for Lincoln's death. As Lincoln's reputation rose to the level of a national deity, Booth's reputation sank. By the end of the century he was viewed as a common ruffian about whom nothing good could be said. The general public thought of him as an American Judas. Turn of the century writers such as Nicolay, Hay, DeWitt, and Oldroyd explained the assassination by empha- sizing his personality defects. He was full of malice and hatred ; he struck to avenge the South, and he vainly sought notoriety,r7

75 Ibid., 100, 102. 76 Clara Laughlin, The Death of Lincoln: The Story of Booth's Plof, His Deed, a•td the Penalty (New York, 1909), 179; DeWitt, Judicial Murder o] Mary E. Surratt, see title; Lloyd D. Lewis, Myths after Lincoln (New York, 1929), 57-59, 73, 122-26, 206-17, 247. 77 Hanchett, Lincoln Murder Conzpiracies, 135-36. 248 The Filson Club History Quarterly [April

A: decade or two later Clara Laughlin and Francis Wilson tried to restore some of Booth's tarnished image. Captivated by Booth's personality as his friends had been, they reasoned that Booth had been misled and misinformed and that, made desperate by the failure of his plans and by the impending Confederate defeat, he suffered an attack of mental imbalance and committed an out- of-character crime. To Laughlin and Wilson, Booth was a good- humored, high-minded, kind, and generous man3s Hanehett says Lloyd Lewis tried to halt this trend toward viewing Booth more favorably. In Myths after Lincoln Lewis reaffirms Booth's position as the evil genius of American history and refers to the young actor as the American Judas. Lewis, however, could not reverse the trend. Writers such as Philip Van Doren Stern and Stanley Kimmel offered psychological explanations of his actions. Stern has Booth hating his own father. Booth shot Lincoln, Father Abraham, because he identified him with his own father. Kimmel believes Booth was losing his voice. He thus turned to political action, not out of conviction, but out of psychological necessity. He shot Lincoln because he was losing his voice and could think of no other way to become famousY9 Hanchett obviously sees the publication of Otto Eisenschiml's Why Was Lincoln Murdered? in 1937 as a watershed for assassination historiography and manifests a special dislike for the work because of the enormous and erroneous impact it has had on the understanding of the assassination. It was Eisenschiml's example that encouraged writers to shape evidence into grotesque explanations for routine events. The author claims that Eisenschiml's falsifications and perversions of scientific objectivity have erected a formidable barrier against

78 Laughlin, Death of Lincoln, 5, 1O-ll, 151-53; Francis Wilson, John Wilkes Booth: Fact and Fiction of Lincoln's Assassination "(Boston, 1929), 19, 35, 142-43, 308. 79 Lewis, Myths after Lincoln, 151; Philip Van Doren Stern, The Man Who Killed Lincoln: The Story of John Wilkes Booth and His Part in the Assassination (New York, 1939), 93-97; Stanley Kirnmel, Th6 Mad Booths of Maryland (2nd ed. rev.; New York: Dover Publications, 1969), 168, 185. 1988] The Lincoln Assassination 249 an understanding of Lincoln's assassination. In fact, Hanchett believes that there is perhaps no event in their history about which the American people have been so shockingly misinformed.So In particular, Hanchett is disturbed that Stanton has been so much maligned. This destruction of Stanton's reputation may have begun with DeWitt, but it was Eisenschiml who did the most harm. Eisenschiml's Stanton, the logical outgrowth and ultimate extension of a whole generation of revisionist wrath and resentment, was villainous indeed. He was not only the possible mastermind of a Radical Republican grand conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln, but he was also a leader of an earlier conspiracy to prolong the Civil War and make himself the su- preme power in the United States. Although influential, the Eisenschiml thesis has no merit according to Hanchett who maintains that when scrutinized point by point it collapses completely. Hanchett wonders how Eisenschiml, professing scientific objectivity all the while, could present his work as honest scholarship.S1 Hanchett comments on writers who have obviously been influenced by Eisenschiml, such as Philip Van Doren Stern, Theo- dore Roscoe, and Vaughan Shelton. He also saves some pungent comments for The Lincoln Conspiracy. Balsiger and Senler pre- dicted that their work would provide a triumphant vindication of the Eisenschiml thesis. Instead, Hanchett says, it may have finished it off for good. This book was not just a fraud based on twisted reasoning but was a fraud based on apparent hoaxes.• Although no significant work based on the Eisenschiml thesis has appeared since The Lincoln Conspiracy, it is highly unlikely that the thesis is dead. What is much more possible, and can be hoped for, is that future books dependent on Eisenschiml will be more careful with their sources and more scholarly in their con-

80 Hanchett, Lincoln Murde• Conspi•'acies, 209. 81 Ibid., 181. 82 Ibid., 228. 250 The Filso• Club History Quarterly [April clusions. Let us also hope that now that a few professional historians have written on the Lincoln assassination, more will do so in the future.

APPENDIX

THE KENTUCKY DELEGATION TO THE FUNERAL OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN

L Win. Kaye 22. Jas. R. Page, State Tres. 2. Dr. L. B. Todd 23. Col. W. T. Scott, Com. Gen. 3. Dr. D. R. Haggard 24. Jas. E. Slaughter 4. Eld. D. P. Henderson, Chaplain 25. W. D. Smith 5. Dr. I. W. Scott, Surg. Gen. 26. W. H. Goddard 6. Col. A. G. Hodges, A.D.C. & 27. E. F. Avery Asst. Mar. 28. A. J. Ballard 7. J. C. Nauts 29. Isaac Russell 8. R. L. Post 30. Maj. Hammond 9. W. B. Eelknap 31. W. T. Samuels, State Auditor 10. Arthur Peter 32. E. N. Woodruff 11. John D. Orrill 33. C. C. Hull 12. S. G. Sudduth, Q. M. Gen. 34. T. C. Coleman 13. Gov. T. E. Bramlett 35. A. B. Semple 14. D. W. Lindsey, Adjt. Gem 36. Capt. G. W. Womack 15. Rev. C. Van Santvoord 37. Capt. Herbert 16. J. H. Speer 38. Maj. Gen. Palmer 17. R. C. Gwathmey 39. Capt. H. Howland 18. Rev. T. C. Carver 40. Capt. E. B. Harlan 19. B. M. Patten 41. W. B. Gurley 20. W. R. Kinney, Atty. Gen. 42. M. Redding 21. Col. Win. E. Grainger, A.D.C.