Edwin M. Stanton — Secretary of War, 1865

[Report #200] WHO. 'EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War.' (upload.wikimedia.org) 14 APRIL 1865. Lincoln asked him for Major Thomas Eckert: '"Well, Stanton," Lincoln proceeded, "I have seen Eckert break five pokers, one after the other, over his arm, and I’m thinking he would be the kind of man to go with me this evening. May I take him?" Stanton, resolved not to countenance Lincoln’s theatergoing, answered that Eckert could not be spared.' (archive.org) On his own invitation: 'About three o’clock Mrs. Stanton was at the War Department, conferring with the Secretary, who instructed her to send regrets. He had often been asked to the theater by Lincoln, he said, but had consistently refused because he thought Mr. Lincoln himself should not go.' (archive.org) Bryan reports: 'David Bates asserts that Stanton had personally requested Grant not to attend' (archive.org). Bates’s own words: 'Stan- ton realized the seriousness of the situation, and told Grant of his fears, urging him not to go to the theater and, if possible, to dissuade Lincoln from going.' (archive.org) Held. 15 APRIL DISPATCHES. At 1.30 a.m. to Major General Dix: 'This evening, about 9.30 P. M., at Ford’s Theatre, the President, while sitting in his private box with Mrs. Lincoln, Miss Harris, and Major Eathbone, was shot by an assassin, who suddenly entered the box and approached behind the President.' (upload.wikimedia.org) 'General Grant and wife were advertised to be at the theatre this evening, but started to Burlington at 6 P. M.' (upload.wikimedia.org) At 3 a.m. 'the Secretary of War telegraphed to Major General Dix, of New York, that "investigation strongly indicates J. Wilkes Booth as the assassin of the President.' (upload.wikimedia.org) Later: 'Abraham Lincoln died this morning at twenty-two minutes after 7 o’clock.' (upload.wikimedia.org) That afternoon he wired Lafayette Baker: 'Come here immediately and see if you can find the murderers of the President.' (archive.org) THE EISENSCHIML THESIS, POINT BY POINT (strongest support and strongest answer for each; all held). The earliest form, per the Army guide: 'in the immediate aftermath of the assassination claims were made in the North by newspapers, politicians, and some citizens that prominent figures such as Vice President Johnson or Secretary Stanton had something to do with Lincoln’s death' (history.army.mil). 'in his 1937 book Why Was Lincoln Murdered?, Otto Eisenschiml argued that Stanton was behind the Lincoln assassination, a theory which has come to be known as the Eisenschiml Thesis.' (history.army.mil) Eidson: 'He was a chemist who claimed to apply scientific techniques to the study of the assassination.' (filsonhistorical.org) His questions, as Eidson lists them: 'Why did Grant not go to Ford’s Theater with Lincoln? Why was police guard John F. Parker not punished? Why was the telegraph interrupted? Why was Booth buried so quickly?' (filsonhistorical.org) Theodore Roscoe (1959), whose book 'follows the Eisenschiml thesis' (filsonhistorical.org), adds 'his decision to delay naming him as the assassin for several hours' (filsonhistorical.org). (a) ECKERT. FOR THE THESIS: David Homer Bates ('BY DAVID HOMER BATES MANAGER OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT TELEGRAPH OFFICE, AND CIPHER-OPERATOR, 1861-1866' (archive.org)), 1907: 'Stanton, still unwilling to encourage the thea ter project, said that he had some important work for Eckert that evening, and could not spare him.' (archive.org) Bryan’s version: 'Stanton, resolved not to countenance Lincoln’s theatergoing, answered that Eckert could not be spared.' (archive.org) Bates: 'It is idle to conjecture what might have been the result if the alert and vigorous Eckert had accompanied Lincoln to Ford’s Theater that night. Had he done so the probabilities are that in view of Eckert ’s previous knowledge of the plot to kidnap or kill the President, Booth might have been prevented from firing the fatal shot, and Lincoln spared to finish his great work.' (archive.org) AGAINST: Bates, same book: 'Stan- ton realized the seriousness of the situation, and told Grant of his fears, urging him not to go to the theater and, if possible, to dissuade Lincoln from going.' (archive.org) Bryan: 'Eckert, had he gone, would have been a guest as would the others—not a sentry or a detective.' (archive.org) Both held. (b) THE TELEGRAPH. WHAT THE THESIS SAYS: Eisenschiml asks 'Why was the telegraph interrupted?' (filsonhistorical.org) The charge, as Bryan states it in order to answer it: 'The notion that "government experts," under the direction of Stanton or Major Eckert or both of them, tampered with commer-cial telegraph lines' (archive.org); an earlier form, as Bryan reports it: 'at exactly twenty minutes after ten on the night of April 14th twenty-two "conspirators" severed twenty-two wires leading from the War Department to forts and outposts.' (archive.org) Eisenschiml’s own wording on what the outage shows is not among the sources gathered. FOR THE THESIS: Major Thomas Eckert, whom the charge names alongside Stanton, under oath, 30 May 1867, as Bryan transcribes it: 'Q. Was there any interruption of the lines that night? A. Yes, sir. Q. What was it? A. It was my impression at the time [that] they were cut, but we got circuit again very early the next morning.' (archive.org) 'Q. Was there an investigation into what was the real cause of the difficulty? A. No, sir. It did not at the time seem to be sufficiently important, as the interruption only continued about two hours.' (archive.org) AGAINST: Eckert, same testimony: 'The interruption was only of a portion of the lines between Washington and Baltimore. We worked our City Point line all the time.' (archive.org) 'It was only the Commercial lines that were interrupted; it was in the Commercial office and not in the War Department office.' (archive.org) Bryan’s own judgment: 'The notion that "government experts," under the direction of Stanton or Major Eckert or both of them, tampered with commer-cial telegraph lines, is utterly frivolous.' (archive.org) Both held; the 1867 printed testimony itself, cited by the Army guide ('Testimony of Thomas T. Eckert, 30 May 1867, before the U.S. Cong., House of Representatives, Judiciary Committee, Impeachment Investigation, 39th Cong., 2d sess., and 40th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1867), p. 674.' (history.army.mil)), was not retrieved. (c) THE GUARD, JOHN F. PARKER. WHAT THE THESIS SAYS: Eisenschiml asks 'Why was police guard John F. Parker not punished?' (filsonhistorical.org) (his own reasoning is not among the sources gathered). FOR THE THESIS: Bryan, from police records, on Parker’s assignment: 'The vacancy thus made was filled by Parker, whose record was such that he ought never to have been assigned to this post.' (archive.org) 'judgment was that he be dismissed from the force. Nevertheless he was reinstated— apparently after Superintendent Richards took office on Decem-ber 1st, 1864.' (archive.org) On the charge after 14 April: 'All we know now is that the trial was in camera, after the usual manner of such procedure, and that the complaint was dis-missed on June 2nd, 1865.' (archive.org) The National Park Service: 'and no transcripts of the hearing survive.' (nps.gov) AGAINST: Bryan: 'Both Parker and Forbes belonged to the President’s immediate house-hold, with which Edwin M. Stanton had nothing to do. For Parker’s appointment to the special guard the head of the Met-ropolitan Police was directly responsible.' (archive.org) The Army guide: 'Lincoln’s assigned bodyguard for the evening, a policeman named John Frederick Parker, had left the theater to get a drink at a nearby tavern with Lincoln’s valet, Charles Forbes, and coachman Francis P. Burke. It is uncertain whether Parker returned to the theater' (history.army.mil) Both held. (d) BOOTH’S DIARY. Lafayette Baker, 'the high-ranking Union intelligence officer, Col. Lafayette C. Baker,' (history.army.mil) before the House Judiciary Committee, February 1867, as Bryan reports it: 'Moreover, he believed that at one place six-teen or eighteen leaves had been cut out since the book was handed over to the Secretary. He admitted that he had had the book in his possession but "a very short time" and that his "recol-lection" was "quite indistinct."' (archive.org) Baker’s own 1867 book on the diary: 'The diary kept by Booth after the murder of the Presi- dent, to which I referred in connection with the giving of the personal effects of Booth to the Secretary of War,' (archive.org) Everton Conger, one of Baker’s 'two of my detective officers—Colonel Conger and Lieutenant Baker' (archive.org), who carried the diary on 26 April 1865, testifying 13 May 1867: 'A few leaves were missing then: "There were some out and I think the same."' (archive.org) Joseph Holt, 'Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Joseph Holt' (history.army.mil), who held it, 2 April 1867: 'I think it not unlikely that the missing leaves contained current entries in regard to his personal matters which he did not choose to have exposed, and that he had torn them out himself; or there is another theory which may possibly have been the correct one; they may have contained entries which compromised his friends and co-conspirators, and he for that reason tore them out.' (archive.org) Stanton, in writing to President Johnson, 14 May 1867: 'Immediately preceding the entries some pages appeared to have been cut out, but there was nothing indicating what had been written thereon or whether anything had been written, nor when or by whom they had been cut out.' (archive.org) Four accounts, each from a person who had custody of the diary; each held. Who removed the leaves, and when: not found (Oct 2026); would settle: the missing leaves themselves. A later claim: '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, congressional diaries, secret coded messages, and missing diary pages.' (filsonhistorical.org) Eidson on it: 'They even admitted that in certain instances they had not been allowed to see the originals but had been supplied with transcripts.' (filsonhistorical.org) (e) ROSCOE’S POINTS: PRIOR KNOWLEDGE AND NAMING BOOTH. FOR THE THESIS: Theodore Roscoe (1959), per Eidson: '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.' (filsonhistorical.org) '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,' (filsonhistorical.org) AGAINST, PRIOR KNOWLEDGE: Bryan, on 'Captain Gleason, a fellow clerk in the office of the commissary-general of prisoners,' (archive.org) and the boarder Louis Weichmann: 'Gleason went further, declaring that as early as February 20th Weichmann had told him of a plan to abduct Lincoln and the Cabinet.' (archive.org) 'This sounded to Gleason like nonsense.' (archive.org) 'So it did to Lieut. Josiah W. Sharp, Gleason’s roommate and an assistant provost marshal' (archive.org) 'Weichmann later said that he had told an enrolling officer named McDavitt and Mc-Davitt had notified the authorities, who were rather incredulous.' (archive.org) AGAINST, NAMING BOOTH: Bryan: 'It has likewise been insinuated that Stanton, for no clearly defined reason, tried to keep John Booth’s name out of Saturday' (archive.org) 'morning’s papers. If he did, he signally failed.' (archive.org) 'The fourteenth (one-thirty, Saturday morning) was: "The mass of evidence to-night is that J. Wilkes Booth committed the crime."' (archive.org) Both held; Roscoe’s own book was not read. (f) THE QUICK BURIAL: a document for or against: not found (Oct 2026; held). (g) THE SHOT AT THE BARN. Conger to Sergeant Boston Corbett: '"Why in hell did you shoot without orders?"' (archive.org) Corbett: '"I aimed at his body," he said; "I did not want to kill him.' (archive.org) Both held. READINGS OF THE WHOLE THESIS, EACH FROM A PARTY. Eidson: 'By raising these questions, Eisenschiml created unwarranted doubts even though in many cases he eventually admitted that the traditional answers were still correct.' (filsonhistorical.org) Eidson reporting William Hanchett (1983), whose book is subtitled in part 'the first complete examination and refutation of the many theories, hypotheses, and speculations' (history.army.mil): 'Although influential, the Eisenschiml thesis has no merit according to Hanchett who maintains that when scrutinized point by point it collapses completely.' (filsonhistorical.org) 'Hanchett describes Booth’s actions in the form of a simple conspiracy' (filsonhistorical.org) Roscoe, per Eidson, argues 'that only his involvement' (filsonhistorical.org) 'can explain his actions.' (filsonhistorical.org) John Cottrell (1966), per Eidson: 'the case against Stanton, supported by a vast but flimsy web of circumstantial evidence, must therefore remain unproven' (filsonhistorical.org) Bryan: 'of a blood-guilty Stanton there is no real evidence whatever.' (archive.org) The Army guide: 'that prominent figures such as Vice President Johnson or Secretary Stanton had something to do with Lincoln’s death, although these rumors failed to gain much traction.' (history.army.mil). NOT EXAMINED. The Army guide names the thesis ('Even into the twentieth century, some writers asserted that Secretary Stanton was involved in the assassination. For example, in his 1937 book Why Was Lincoln Murdered?, Otto Eisenschiml argued that Stanton was behind the Lincoln assassination, a theory which has come to be known as the Eisenschiml Thesis.' (history.army.mil)) and sends readers elsewhere: 'For more information on Lincoln assassination conspiracy theories please refer to William Hanchett,' (history.army.mil) It does not take up the telegraph, Eckert or diary points. The 1867 House inquiry it mentions was into Johnson: 'This led to a congressional special committee investigation of President Johnson in 1867, which ultimately cleared him of these accusations.' (history.army.mil) HELD. Eisenschiml’s own 1937 book and Hanchett’s 1983 book, not read (Oct 2026); the 1867 House Judiciary Committee testimony in its own printing; the police board’s minutes on Parker; any document in which Stanton orders or approves harm to Lincoln. Would settle: those texts and the War Department telegram books for 14-15 April 1865. SOURCE GRADING. George S. Bryan, 'CARRICK & EVANS, INC. NEW YORK COPYRIGHT, 1940, BY GEORGE S. BRYAN' (archive.org) / argues the Booth-and-group explanation; '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.' (filsonhistorical.org) / named byline; transcribes the 1867 testimony. U.S. Army Center of Military History guide (2020) / an Army office writing on its own War Department of 1865, headed by Stanton / government secondary. William Eidson (1988) / review that follows Hanchett’s refutation / scholarly journal. David Homer Bates (1907) / worked under Stanton and Eckert / eyewitness memoir. Stanton’s and Holt’s 1867 statements / each on his own custody of the diary / primary, as transcribed by Bryan. Otto Eisenschiml (1937) and Theodore Roscoe (1959) / authors arguing the thesis / claimants, known here through Eidson and the Army guide. THE OCTOBER 2026 RESEARCH REPORT SAID Stanton refused ’insisting that Eckert had urgent military dispatches to handle’; its source has Stanton say only that 'Eckert could not be spared' (archive.org), and it was Eckert who 'said the work was urgent' (archive.org).