Who, if anyone, stood behind John Wilkes Booth when he shot President Abraham Lincoln in 1865 has been argued ever since, in five different explanations.
These are the five competing explanations of who was behind the shooting of President Abraham Lincoln at Ford's Theatre in Washington, D.C., on 14 April 1865 [1].
First, the actor John Wilkes Booth, who fired the shot, and his own small group, a 'simple conspiracy', as George Bryan (1940), an editor and historian who argues the Booth-group account, and William Hanchett (1983), a historian who argues the Booth-group account in a book that sets out to refute the conspiracy theories, describe it. Second, the government of the Confederacy, the Southern states that broke away and fought the Civil War, and its agents in Canada, as Andrew Johnson, who became President when Lincoln died, charged in May 1865, and as William Tidwell and David Gaddy, career intelligence officers, and James O. Hall, whom their publisher calls one of the leading authorities on the assassination, argued in their 1988 book Come Retribution. Third, Edwin Stanton, Lincoln's Secretary of War (the cabinet member in charge of the Army), and other Northern leaders, as Otto Eisenschiml, a chemist and writer on the assassination who argues the Stanton thesis, argued in 1937, and Theodore Roscoe, a novelist and writer on the U.S. Navy who argues the same thesis, in 1959. Fourth, the Jesuit order of Catholic priests, as Charles Chiniquy, a former Catholic priest who wrote against the Church, argued in 1886, or a secret society, the Knights of the Golden Circle, a charge Bryan records without naming who made it. Fifth, bankers: the Rothschild banking family, as A. Cherep-Spiridovich argued in a 1926 book published by the Anti-Bolshevist Publishing Association in New York, or international bankers, as the Canadian lawyer Gerald McGeer argued in 1935 and the 1996 film The Money Masters repeated.
First account. Booth's group began in late 1864 as a plot to kidnap Lincoln, and Booth's own diary says 'For six months we had worked to capture'; the 1865 military trial sentenced four members to hang. The same court also claimed that Jefferson Davis, the Confederate President, had 'incited and encouraged' the plotters, though he was not charged, so the trial record points both to the group and beyond it. Second account. Booth met Confederate agents in Montreal, Canada, and secured $1,500 in backing through them; an official Confederate government code matching one found in the Richmond, Virginia, office of Judah P. Benjamin, the Confederate Secretary of State, was in Booth's hotel trunk; and Benjamin paid a member of Booth's group, John Surratt, $200 to carry dispatches to Canada. Against it: key witnesses at the 1865 trial were later shown to have lied under oath; Jay Solomon and Jane Singer, in a 2023 Tablet Magazine article on Benjamin as a Southern Jewish leader, found no concrete evidence that Benjamin or Davis knew of the murder plan; and the U.S. Army's history office, writing about the War Department of 1865, says little evidence shows the Confederacy was fully aware of Booth's plans. For it again: John Fazio, a writer who argues the Confederate account, accepts the perjury but asks why it was committed, and the authors of Come Retribution argue a Confederate Secret Service plan, which a review reprinted by their own publisher says they assert without proving. Third account. Eckert: Stanton refused to spare his assistant, Major Thomas Eckert, whom Lincoln asked to take to the theatre; Eckert is himself one of the men the telegraph charge below points to. George Bryan, an editor and historian who argues the Booth-group account, writes that Eckert would have gone as a guest, not a guard; David Homer Bates, who managed the War Department telegraph office under Stanton, thought Eckert, who knew of the earlier kidnapping plot, might have stopped Booth. Bates also writes that Stanton urged General Ulysses S. Grant not to go to the theatre and to talk Lincoln out of going. The telegraph: Eisenschiml asks why the telegraph was interrupted that night; the charge, as Bryan states it, is that 'government experts' under Stanton or Eckert tampered with the commercial telegraph lines, and an earlier account said twenty-two 'conspirators' cut twenty-two wires from the War Department at 10.20 p.m. Eckert, whom the charge names alongside Stanton, testified in 1867 that at the time he thought the wires had been cut, and that no one looked into the cause; he also testified that only the commercial lines failed, for about two hours, not the War Department's own City Point line. The guard: Eisenschiml asks why John Parker, the police officer guarding Lincoln, was not punished for leaving his post. The record behind the question: Bryan writes that Parker's record was such that he 'ought never to have been assigned to this post', that he had been ordered removed from the police in 1864 and was then reinstated, and that the charge against him after the shooting was dropped after a closed hearing whose records do not survive. The answer: Bryan writes that Parker answered to the President's household and the police, not to Stanton. Why the police board dropped the charge is not explained in any record on file. The diary: Lafayette Baker, the Union intelligence officer who handed Booth's diary to Stanton, said in 1867 that 16 or 18 pages had been cut out after that, while admitting his memory was 'quite indistinct'; Everton Conger, the officer who carried it, said some pages were already missing; Joseph Holt, the Army's Judge Advocate General (its chief lawyer), who kept it, thought Booth may have torn them out; and Stanton, the man the theory accuses, wrote that pages appeared cut out but no one could tell when or by whom. Prior knowledge and naming Booth: Theodore Roscoe, a novelist and writer on the U.S. Navy who argues the Stanton thesis, wrote in 1959 that Stanton knew of the kidnapping plans by January 1865 and delayed naming Booth for hours, which he called 'inexplicable' unless Stanton was guilty; Bryan answers that newspaper dispatches from Washington were naming Booth by 1.30 that morning, and that when a clerk, Captain Gleason, heard of a kidnapping plan in February 1865, he and an officer he told thought it nonsense and the authorities who heard of it were 'rather incredulous'. Fourth account. Chiniquy, whose book Fifty Years in the Church of Rome warned of Vatican plots to take control of the United States, set out to 'prove' that Lincoln 'was assassinated by the priests and the Jesuits of Rome', saying he drew on twenty years of research and on the printed testimony of the 1865 trial and of John Surratt's 1867 trial; the rest of his argument is not among the sources gathered. In 1866 Henri de Ste. Marie, the man who informed on John Surratt in Rome, stated that he believed Surratt was 'protected by the clergy' and that the murder was 'the result of a deep-laid plot'. Bryan, who argues the Booth-group account, answers that only four of the ten people tried were Catholic and that Booth was confirmed in the Episcopal Church, and notes that Catholics or former Catholics were foremost in blaming the Catholic hierarchy. For the Knights of the Golden Circle, Bryan lists 'the allotted deputy of the Knights of the Golden Circle' among the ways Booth has been described, and records that the theatre owner John T. Ford said Edman Spangler, a backstage worker at Ford's Theatre whom the government counted among those responsible, was a member of the 'American Order', which Bryan takes to mean the society's successor; the writings of those who make this charge, and any fuller answer to it, are not among the sources. Neither side quotes a document tying either group to the killing. Fifth account. Cherep-Spiridovich wrote that the Rothschilds 'ordered the murder of Lincoln', called Booth a Jew, and relied on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a text ruled a forgery at a trial in Bern, Switzerland, in 1935. McGeer told a Canadian parliamentary committee on banking, and wrote in 1935, that international bankers hired Booth, resting on 1865 trial testimony about Confederate agents in Canada. The record the claim points to: bank committees from New York, Boston and Philadelphia opposed the 1862 bill for the government's new paper money, the legal tender notes; August Belmont, the Rothschilds' agent in New York, chaired the Democratic Party and in 1864 opened its convention calling for Lincoln's defeat; the banker Jay Cooke made large profits from Treasury business; Booth kept a bank account in Montreal; and Fazio says Booth also opened one at Jay Cooke's Washington office. The record against it: other bankers wrote in favour of the paper-money bill, which passed the House 93 to 54; Belmont wrote to the Rothschilds in 1861 that the North would never allow the Union to split; the 1865 prosecution traced the Confederate agents' money in Canada to Confederate government drafts on London; Bryan, Fazio and Dave Taylor, a writer who runs tours on the case, all say witnesses McGeer relied on lied under oath; and a letter about the 'money power' that The Money Masters quotes as Lincoln's, dated 21 November 1864, is listed as spurious in the standard edition of his writings; Cherep-Spiridovich had used a similar 'money power' line in 1926. Cherep-Spiridovich's 1926 book, The Secret World Government or The Hidden Hand, blames a hidden hand of Rothschild and Jewish bankers for a long run of historical events; it is the one claimant text here that uses the word 'Zionist', and it applies that word to events after the first Zionist Congress of 1897, while its Lincoln passage names the Rothschilds. The 1866 congressional report on the perjured witnesses, which McGeer and his critics read differently, is one record that would settle part of the question.
All five accounts remain disputed. For the first, the trial record points to Booth's group, and the same court also pointed past it to Davis. For the second, Booth's Confederate contacts and money in Montreal and Benjamin's payment to Surratt are documented, and so are the lies told by trial witnesses in 1865 and exposed afterwards. For the third, Stanton's refusal to spare Eckert, the telegraph outage and the four conflicting accounts of the diary pages are documented, and each has another explanation on record, from Eckert's own testimony to Bryan's account of who supervised Parker. For the fourth, Chiniquy's charge and Ste. Marie's 1866 statement are documented, and so is Bryan's count of only four Catholics among the ten tried. For the fifth, some bankers' fight against the 1862 paper-money bill, Belmont's campaign against Lincoln and Cooke's profits are documented, and so are other bankers' support for the bill, Belmont's 1861 letter for the Union, and the tracing of the Canada money to Confederate drafts. What stays open: how much the Confederate government knew; whether Stanton or other Northern leaders had any part; who removed the diary pages and when; and whether any church, secret society or financier had anything to do with Booth.
[Report #200] Who was behind the Lincoln assassination: five accounts, none picked.
ACCOUNT 1. BOOTH AND HIS GROUP (THE CASE OF THE 1865 TRIAL). WHAT CONFIRMS: 'When Booth brought the conspirators together in late 1864, they sought at first not to kill Lincoln but only to kidnap him.' (
history.army.mil) The diary of Booth, as printed by George S. Bryan: 'For six months we had worked to capture.' (
archive.org) 'The commission found Atzerodt, Herold, Powell, and Surratt guilty of conspiracy to commit murder and sentenced them to hang until dead.' (
history.army.mil) WHAT CONTRADICTS OR COMPLICATES: the court record reached past the group: 'Interestingly, Confederate President Jefferson Davis became linked to the Lincoln assassination conspiracy during John Surratt’s trial.' (
history.army.mil) 'Although Davis was not charged in the trial of the conspirators, many believed he had ordered the assassination.' (
history.army.mil) 'The court claimed that Davis "incited and encouraged" the conspirators to kill the president' (
history.army.mil); defense counsel 'insisted that their clients’ involvement was limited only to the earlier kidnapping plot' (
history.army.mil); John Surratt, tried in 1867: 'Surratt’s hearing ended in a mistrial because the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict.' (
history.army.mil) WHO ARGUED IT: George S. Bryan (1940), described on his book jacket as 'well known as an editor and historian' (
archive.org); William Eidson (1988) on the early writers: '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); William Hanchett (1983), per William Eidson (1988): 'Hanchett describes Booth’s actions in the form of a simple conspiracy' (
filsonhistorical.org); and 'The public then came to accept the belief that the assassination had been a simple conspiracy organized by Booth.' (
filsonhistorical.org) WHAT IS MISSING (HELD): the diary leaves Lafayette Baker said were cut out ('he believed that at one place six-teen or eighteen leaves had been cut out since the book was handed over to the Secretary.' (
archive.org)); Everton Conger, who carried the diary, said some were already out: 'A few leaves were missing then: "There were some out and I think the same."' (
archive.org).
ACCOUNT 2. THE CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT AND ITS AGENTS IN CANADA. WHO ARGUED IT: President Andrew Johnson, 2 May 1865: 'the atrocious murder of the late President, Abraham Lincoln, and the attempted assassination of the Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, were incited, concerted, and procured by and between Jefferson Davis, late of Richmond, Va., and Jacob Thompson, Clement C. Clay, Beverley Tucker, George N. Sanders, William C. Cleary, and other rebels and traitors against the Government of the United States harbored in Canada' (
presidency.ucsb.edu); 'the War Department, under Secretary of War Stanton, certainly saw the assassination as a Confederate plot' (
history.army.mil); in 1988, 'Come Retribution. The Confederate Secret Service and the Assassination of Lincoln. By William A. Tidwell, James O. Hall, and David Winfred Gaddy.' (
upress.state.ms.us) WHAT CONFIRMS: 'Through these Canada-based agents, Booth secured $1,500 in financial backing as well as introductions to Confederate sympathizers' (
history.army.mil); 'A cipher code was in Booth’s trunk at the National Hotel —one of the official Confederate ciphers, identical with that found by Assistant Secretary Dana at Richmond in the office of J. P. Benjamin, Confederate Secretary of State.' (
archive.org) John Surratt 'carried foreign dispatches to Confederate Secretary of State Judah P. Benjamin in Richmond, Virginia.' (
history.army.mil) WHAT CONTRADICTS: 'The level of connection between Booth and official Confederate channels is still a matter of debate.' (
history.army.mil) 'Although Booth met with Confederate agents in Montreal, Canada, months before the Lincoln assassination, little evidence has been found to prove that the Confederacy was fully aware of Booth’s plans to kidnap or kill Lincoln.' (
history.army.mil) 'According to many Confederates, as well as John Surratt and Samuel Arnold, the Confederate government knew little to nothing of the conspiracy.' (
history.army.mil) Bryan, who argues the Booth-and-group account, on the trial witnesses: 'one Charles A. Dunham, alias Sandford Conover' (
archive.org), 'Dunham’s testimony as a whole was found to be an imposture, and any part of it is suspect.' (
archive.org) Eidson (1988): '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.' (
filsonhistorical.org) The Army guide: 'theories concerning Davis’s role in Lincoln’s assassination continue to this day.' (
history.army.mil) For the Confederate account against the perjury point, John C. Fazio (2008): 'All three (Montgomery, Merritt and Dunham) were later shown to have perjured themselves, but one has to ask, why?' (
clevelandcivilwarroundtable.com) The 1988 book Come Retribution, as its publisher states it: 'With John Wilkes Booth as its agent, the Confederate Secret Service devised a plan of retribution—to seize President Lincoln, hold him hostage, and bring the war-weary North to capitulation.' (
upress.state.ms.us) A review the publisher reprints: 'The authors, former intelligence officers, assert, without proving, that the Confederacy had a well-conceived plan to kill Lincoln and end the war."' (
upress.state.ms.us) WHAT IS MISSING (HELD): the text of Come Retribution, not opened (Oct 2026); the Confederate secret-service papers the October 2026 report says were burned, not found (Oct 2026); would settle: the surviving Confederate State Department and Canadian-agent records.
JUDAH P. BENJAMIN, CONFEDERATE SECRETARY OF STATE. FOR A LINK: Assistant Secretary Charles Dana, sworn at the 1865 trial: 'On the 6th of April I went into the office of Mr. Benjamin, the rebel Secretaiy of State. On the shelf, among Mr. Benja- min’s books and other things, I found this secret cipher key.' (
archive.org) Bryan: 'Papers taken from the trunk included a cipher code that was discovered to be identical with one picked up by Assistant Secretary Dana at Richmond on April 6th in the abandoned suite of J. P. Benjamin, Confederate Secretary of State.' (
archive.org) The Army guide: 'According to a lecture given by Surratt in 1870, after the failed attempt to capture Lincoln on 17 March 1865, he carried foreign dispatches to Confederate Secretary of State Judah P. Benjamin in Richmond, Virginia.' (
history.army.mil) 'Benjamin paid Surratt $200 and requested that he take the' (
history.army.mil) 'dispatches to Canada.' (
history.army.mil) Fazio: 'that Surratt left Richmond on April 1, after meeting with Benjamin and perhaps Davis, returned to his mother’s boarding house in Washington with a substantial sum of money on April 3' (
clevelandcivilwarroundtable.com); and 'In February, 1865, the Confederate government changed its enciphering key from “Complete Victory” to “Come Retribution,” which strongly suggests that the highest levels of that government recognized that there would be no victory and had therefore made a decision to seek revenge against those Federal office-holders' (
clevelandcivilwarroundtable.com) Bryan, from Orville Browning’s diary: 'William H. Seward (so Orville Browning recorded) thought Judah P. Benjamin, Confederate Secretary of State, had encouraged and subsidized Booth.' (
archive.org) Jay Solomon and Jane Singer, Tablet ('by Jay Solomon and Jane Singer June 23, 2023' (
web.archive.org)): 'Benjamin’s agents robbed banks, attempted to burn down Manhattan hotels and devised ways to conduct chemical warfare in Washington.' (
web.archive.org) 'He also engaged in financial warfare: using Northern bankers to try and devalue the U.S. dollar through the export of gold.' (
web.archive.org) AGAINST A LINK: the same Tablet authors: 'No concrete evidence has emerged in the historical record that conclusively proves Benjamin or Davis had any knowledge of Booth’s murderous plans.' (
web.archive.org) Bryan, who argues the Booth-and-group account and wrote before Come Retribution: 'nothing has at any time been pro-duced from Benjamin’s archives or elsewhere to suggest that the two men had so much as conferred or that Benjamin had sup-plied funds for any undertaking.' (
archive.org) The Army guide (above): little evidence that the Confederacy was fully aware of Booth’s plans. Both held; would settle: Benjamin’s papers or Confederate secret-service accounts for March-April 1865.
ACCOUNT 3. STANTON AND NORTHERN LEADERS (THE EISENSCHIML THESIS, 1937). WHO ARGUED IT: '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) 'Eisenschiml implied that key Northern leaders were the masterminds behind 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) Followed by Theodore Roscoe (1959), 'A novelist and writer of books about the United States Navy,' (
filsonhistorical.org): 'Stanton refused Lincoln’s request that Major Thomas Eckert, Stanton’s assistant, accompany him to Ford’s Theater.' (
filsonhistorical.org) Earlier, in 1865-67, suspicion in the North ran to Johnson as well: 'Some Radical Republicans in Congress like Ohio Congressman James M. Ashley, distrustful of Johnson, asserted that Johnson had a hand in the murder of Lincoln' (
history.army.mil)
(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) WHAT IS MISSING (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.
ACCOUNT 4. JESUITS; THE KNIGHTS OF THE GOLDEN CIRCLE. JESUITS. FOR: Charles Chiniquy, whose book was, per Wikipedia, 'an extensive autobiographical account of his life and thoughts as a priest in the Catholic Church' (
en.wikipedia.org); 'He warned of plots by the Vatican to take control of the United States by importing Catholic immigrants' (
en.wikipedia.org). Fifty Years in the Church of Rome (1886): 'twenty years of constant and most difficult researches, I come fearlessly, to-day, before the American people,' (
archive.org) 'In the book of the testimonies given in the prosecution of the assassin of Lincoln, published by Ben. Pitman, and in the two volumes of the trial of John Surratt in 1867, we have the' (
archive.org) The rest of his argument is not among the sources gathered (Oct 2026). His thesis: 'to say and prove that the President, Abraham Lincoln, was assassinated by the priests and the Jesuits of Rome.' (
archive.org) An 1866 statement, as Bryan prints it: 'Papers in the Department of State reveal that Henri de Ste. Marie, the member of the Pontifical Zouaves who informed against Sur-ratt, stated at Rome, July 10th, 1866:' (
archive.org) 'I believe he [Surratt] is protected by the clergy, and that the murder is the result of a deep-laid plot, not only against the life of President Lincoln, but against the existence of the republic,' (
archive.org) Bryan: 'Strangely enough, Catholics or ex-Catholics have been foremost in ascribing Lincoln’s murder to the Roman Catholic hierarchy.' (
archive.org) AGAINST: Bryan, who argues the Booth-and-group account: 'The writings of Chiniquy and Burke McCarty’s "The Suppressed Truth about the Assassination of Lincoln" have expanded on this theme to no purpose, and can be regarded as nothing more than literary oddities.' (
archive.org) 'It is not true that all, or nearly all, of the ten persons brought to trial were Roman Catholics; only four were of the Catholic faith: Mrs. Surratt, John H. Surratt, Michael O’Laughlin, and Dr. Samuel A. Mudd.' (
archive.org) 'Booth was confirmed in the Protestant Episcopal Church' (
archive.org). KNIGHTS OF THE GOLDEN CIRCLE. Bryan lists, among descriptions given of Booth, 'the allotted deputy of the Knights of the Golden Circle' (
archive.org); the theater owner John T. Ford, of Edman Spangler: '"In Baltimore," stated John T. Ford, "he was known to be a member of the American Order"—by which presumably was meant the Order of American Knights, successor to the Knights of the Golden Circle.' (
archive.org) The writings of those who argue the Golden Circle account are not on file (Oct 2026); no rebuttal beyond Bryan’s general one is on file either. WHAT IS MISSING (HELD): no payment record, order or letter tying Jesuits or the Golden Circle to Booth was found (Oct 2026); would settle: such a document. Spangler, per the Army guide: 'asked Ned Spangler to hold his horse. Spangler, who had duties backstage,' (
history.army.mil) and he is among 'Those who the U.S. government ultimately considered to be responsible for the assassination included John Wilkes Booth, Mary E. J. Surratt, George A. Atzerodt, David E. Herold, Lewis T. Powell, John H. Surratt Jr., Dr. Samuel A. Mudd, Samuel B. Arnold, Michael O’Laughlen Jr., and Edman "Ned" Spangler.' (
history.army.mil)
ACCOUNT 5. THE MONEY-POWER CLAIM (BANKERS / ROTHSCHILD / ’ZIONIST’).
THE WORD ’ZIONIST’. A claimant naming Zionists as behind the 1865 killing: not found (Oct 2026; held). The nearest, A. Cherep-Spiridovich, in 'THE SECRET WORLD GOVERNMENT OR THE HIDDEN HAND The Unrevealed In History 100 Historical Mysteries Explained (1926)' (
archive.org), names the Rothschilds: 'Thus the plot of James and Lionel Rothschilds — to divide the United States — fell flat. They ordered the murder of Lincoln and Alexander II.' (
archive.org) His word Zionist attaches to later events: 'Facts confirm that events following 1897 (the Zionist Con- gress at Bale) were the result of the above "Jewish fight".' (
archive.org) The word is used of a president’s killing in a 1963 intercepted message about Kennedy: 'the Zionists murdered the courageous President' (
nsa.gov). Dates, as context: 'In 1890, Birnbaum coined the terms " Zionist " and "Zionism"' (
jewishvirtuallibrary.org); 'The Congress took place in the concert hall of the Basel Municipal Casino on August 29, 1897.' (
jewishvirtuallibrary.org).
THE CLAIM AT FULL STRENGTH. (1) THE GREENBACKS. Cherep-Spiridovich’s account: 'The Rothschilds’ agents inspired the American banks to offer to Lincoln a loan of $150 million. But before they had taken much of the loan, the banks broke down and suspended specie pay- ments in Dec. 1861. They wished to blackmail Lincoln and de- manded the "shaving" of government paper to the extent of 33%, an extortion which was refused. A bill drafted for the Gov- ernment issue of $150 million^ which should be full legal tender for every debt in the United States, passed the House of Re- presentatives Feb. 25, 1862, and was hailed with delight by the entire country.’ But the Wall Street bankers were furious.' (
archive.org) The record of the fight, compiled by the bill’s author, Elbridge G. Spaulding: 'Mr. James Gallatin, of New Yrork, made the principal speeeli against legal tender, and on behalf of himself and the Bank Committees from New York, Boston, and Philadelphia, and members from Boards of Trade associated with them, submitted the following plan for raising money to carry on the war' (
archive.org) In the House debate, Representative George Pendleton: 'These notes are to be made lawful money and a legal tender in discharge of all’pecuniary obligations, either by the Govern- ment or individuals, a character which has never been given to any note of the United States, or any note of the Bank of the United States by any law ever passed. Not only, sir, was such a law never passed, but such a law was never voted on, never proposed, never introduced, never recom- mended by any department of the Government ; the measure was never seriously entertained in debate in either branch of Congress."' (
archive.org) (2) AUGUST BELMONT, ROTHSCHILD AGENT AND DEMOCRATIC CHAIRMAN. The Rothschild Archive: 'Using his own initiative he set up an office in New York and began to act as the Rothschild agent there.' (
rothschildarchive.org) 'Belmont rented a small room at 78 Wall Street and on instruction from the Rothschilds began to purchase stock on their behalf, handling bills and trading in commodities, as well as handling the various government and railway loans the Rothschilds made in the USA.' (
rothschildarchive.org) Belmont himself, 1872: 'With my present action terminate my official functions as Chairman of the National Democratic Committee — an office which, by the confidence of my constituency and the courtesy of my colleagues, I have held for twelve consecutive years.' (
archive.org) His speech opening the Democratic convention against Lincoln, 29 August 1864: 'Four years of misrule by a sectional, fanatical, and corrupt party, have brought our country to the very verge of ruin. The past and present are sufficient warnings of the disastrous consequences which would befall us if Mr. Lincoln’s re-election should be made possible by our want of patriotism and unity.' (
archive.org) Elliott Ashkenazi: 'the United States Treasury Department at first chose the Rothschild interests, who had experience in government loans, to perform the task despite their lukewarm support for Lincoln during the war and their connections with August Belmont, chairman of the Democratic Party, Lincoln’s political opponents.' (
immigrantentrepreneurship.org) (3) JAY COOKE’S PROFITS. Cooke to Treasury Secretary Salmon Chase, 1861: 'We would wish to make our business mostly out of the Treasury operations and we feel sure that we could by having a proper understanding with yourself greatly help you in the management of your vast' (
archive.org) 'The net profits of the Washington house for 1864 were $241,400.43. The partners di- vided $230,000 among them, Jay Cooke receiving $76,-' (
archive.org) David Balsiger and Charles E. Sellier Jr. (1977), per Eidson: 'The fourth plot included northern financiers and speculators such as Jay Cooke, Henry Cooke, and Thurlow Weed.' (
filsonhistorical.org) (4) BOOTH’S MONEY. The 1865 trial record ('COMPILED AND ARRANGED BY BENN PITMAN' (
archive.org)): 'a bank-book of J. Wilkes Booth, showing a credit of $455, with the Ontario Bank, Montreal,' (
archive.org) Fazio: 'He returned from Montreal on November 9 and opened an account at the Washington office of Jay Cooke & Co., Bankers, into which he deposited $1,500.' (
clevelandcivilwarroundtable.com) The so-called Baker cipher, per Eidson: 'Baker claims in the secret message that at least eleven members of Congress, fifteen military officers, and twenty-four civilians (including one governor, five bankers, three newspapermen, and eleven prominent industrialists) were involved in the plot.' (
filsonhistorical.org) (5) THE CLAIMANTS. Gerald McGeer of Vancouver, 'Gerald G. McGeer, a popular and well-respected Canadian attorney' (
scrapsfromtheloft.com) (so The Money Masters), The Conquest of Poverty ('First Edition 1935' (
archive.org)): 'Who else, outside of the international bankers, fits this description? There is no other group to which Thompson’s language to Montgomery can refer, for no other group of wealthy people had any interest in Lincoln’s assassination.' (
archive.org) His words, recorded as his: 'The "secret foes" of the nation were the. money dealers, the members of the age-old craft of usury, whose prototypes were responsible for the crucifixion of Christ' (
archive.org) He rests on 'The record of the trial as printed by Peterson & Bros' (
archive.org), 'which apparently was not published in the original public records of the trial.' (
archive.org) and on the 1866 committee: 'the Committee found the evidence of Richard Montgomery to be fully confirmed' (
archive.org). Cherep-Spiridovich (1926), his words about a people recorded as his: 'a Jew • John Wilkes Booth, obviously an agent ef the Hidden Hand, murdered the patriotic President.' (
archive.org) 'And Israel went anew to grab the riches of the World. I fear that Jewish Banks with their craftiness and tortuous tricks will entirely control the exuberant riches of America' (
archive.org) His source for that Bismarck line: 'Bismarck knew the truth and revealed it in 1876 to a German, Conrad Siem, who published it ("La Vieille France," N- 216, March, 1921).' (
archive.org) His reliance: 'The "Protocols" open all the doors and explain all the mysteries and the plan of our deadlv foes.' (
archive.org) The Money Masters ('The Money Masters is a 1996 documentary film' (
scrapsfromtheloft.com)), quoting a letter it attributes to Lincoln: 'On November 21, 1864, he wrote a friend the following: “The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy.”' (
scrapsfromtheloft.com) Cherep-Spiridovich used a line in the same vein in 1926: '’the Money power prolongs its reign by working on the preju- dices’ (Lincoln)' (
archive.org) 'McGeer had obtained evidence deleted from the public record, provided to him by Secret Service agents, from the trial of John Wilkes Booth, after Booth’s death. McGeer said it showed that Booth was a mercenary working for the international bankers.' (
scrapsfromtheloft.com) Its Bismarck: 'I fear that foreign bankers with their craftiness and tortuous tricks will entirely control the exuberant riches of America, and use it systematically to corrupt modern civilization. They will not hesitate to plunge the whole of Christendom into wars and chaos in order that the earth should become their inheritance.' (
scrapsfromtheloft.com)
THE REBUTTAL. (1) THE GREENBACKS. Spaulding: 'numerous letters were received by Mr. Spanieling from bankers, and other prominent citizens, in opposition to any such scheme, but at the same time expressing themselves in favor of the legal tender bill and urging its imme- diate passage.' (
archive.org) The House vote: 'Bill passed ; yeas 93, nays 54, 95—96' (
archive.org) (2) BELMONT AND THE ROTHSCHILDS. Belmont to Lionel de Rothschild, 18 June 1861: 'there is a firm and unalterable determina- tion not to allow a separation of this Union, whatever blood and treasure it may cost to conquer a peace and a reconstruction of the confederacy.' (
archive.org) The Treasury chose the Rothschilds for its bonds after the war (Ashkenazi, above); of the Seligman house: 'In 1862 he sold bonds authorized by Congress with his brother-in-law Max Stettheimer, who had moved to Frankfurt at Joseph’s suggestion, but not in any large amount.' (
immigrantentrepreneurship.org) (3) COOKE. 'He had been paid the one-half of one per cent, definitely promised him for his services, com- missions of sub-agents and advertising expenses in con- nection with the first $10,000,000, but it was impossible to persuade the Secretary to agree to the payment of three-eighths upon later amounts.' (
archive.org) (4) BOOTH’S MONEY. The Montreal banker at the trial: 'J. Wilkes Booth, the actor, had a small account at our bank.' (
archive.org) The prosecution on where the Confederate agents’ money came from: 'The funds at Thompson’s disposal, as the banker testifies, were exclusively raised by drafts of the Secretary of the Treasury of the Confederate States upon London, deposited in their bank to the credit of Thompson.' (
archive.org) The Baker cipher: '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.' (
filsonhistorical.org) (5) McGEER AND HIS WITNESSES. Bryan, who argues the Booth-and-group account, records the claim: 'The press made known that G. G. McGeer of Vancouver assured a Canadian parliamentary committee on banking that interna-tional bankers, desiring establishment of the gold standard, hired Booth to put Lincoln out of the way.' (
archive.org) and indexes it as 'Bankers, international, said to have backed Booth to murder Lincoln, 385' (
archive.org) under 'baseless stories that he was agent for some interest, 385-8' (
archive.org). On the witnesses: 'This attempt was unfortunately bolstered by the testi-mony of one Richard Montgomery, a perjurer, and of his associate, one Charles A. Dunham, alias Sandford Conover, alias James Wat-son Wallace, a rank perjurer and an instructor in perjury, con-victed of perjury by the Criminal Court of the District of Colum-bia.' (
archive.org) Dave Taylor ('Posted on December 17, 2024 by Dave Taylor' (
lincolnconspirators.com)): 'In 1866, James Merritt would testify before a congressional committee and admit that his testimony had been false. Conover had paid both Merritt and Richard Montgomery to commit perjury.' (
lincolnconspirators.com) Fazio, who argues the Confederate account: 'All three (Montgomery, Merritt and Dunham) were later shown to have perjured themselves, but one has to ask, why?' (
clevelandcivilwarroundtable.com) McGeer’s and Taylor’s readings of the 1866 committee both held. (6) THE ’MONEY POWER’ LETTER. The index of the standard Collected Works of Lincoln: 'Corporations Enthroned, spurious, Hertz, II, 954-55' (
quod.lib.umich.edu) David Mikkelson, Snopes, 2002: 'These words did not originate with Abraham Lincoln, however — they appear in none of his collected writings or speeches, and they did not surface until more than twenty years after his death (and were immediately denounced as a "bold, unflushing forgery" by John Nicolay, Lincoln’s private secretary).' (
snopes.com) Merrill Peterson, as quoted there: 'Here, for instance, was the oft-heard warning against "corporations enthroned" by the war,' (
snopes.com) Earliest printing listed by Wikiquote: 'November 21, 1864, as cited in ’’Lincoln’s Words on Living Questions: A Collection of All the Recorded Utterances of Abraham Lincoln Bearing Upon the Questions of Today’’ (1900), p. 133' (
en.wikiquote.org) McGeer on his own ’Lincoln’ passage: 'In the following synopsis, I have scrupulously maintained Lincoln’s ideas.' (
archive.org) 'except where the change has been necessary to extend Lincoln’s conclusions to bank credit' (
archive.org); The Money Masters credits to '—Abraham Lincoln' (
scrapsfromtheloft.com) the sentence 'Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity.' (
scrapsfromtheloft.com), which stands in McGeer’s synopsis: 'Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to Money Power.' (
archive.org) (7) THE BISMARCK LINE: 1926 ’Jewish Banks’, 1996 ’foreign bankers’ (both above). (8) BOOTH’S FAITH. Bryan: 'Booth was confirmed in the Protestant Episcopal Church and at the last was buried accord-ing to its rites.' (
archive.org) (9) THE PROTOCOLS. The moketchups.com record: 'ruled a forgery at the Berne Trial 1935' (
moketchups.com). (10) THE ADL, an advocacy organization against antisemitism ('Antisemitism Uncovered: Myth – Jews Have Too Much Power' (
antisemitism.adl.org)), records the claim: 'In America, the Rothschilds have been blamed for instigating the Civil War, plotting to assassinate Abraham Lincoln (and later John F. Kennedy) and controlling the economy.' (
antisemitism.adl.org).
HELD (ACCOUNT 5). Not found (Oct 2026), with what would settle each: a claimant using the word Zionist for the 1865 killing; any 1865 record naming a Rothschild bank, a Jewish body, a Zionist body or any financier as funder or planner (would settle: a payment record, order or letter); the Jay Cooke & Co. account Fazio describes, absent from the 1865 trial record searched (would settle: the bank’s ledger); the 1866 House Judiciary Committee report on Montgomery, Merritt and Conover (it decides between McGeer’s and Taylor’s readings); McGeer’s 1934 statement to the Canadian banking committee; La Vieille France No. 216, March 1921, or any Bismarck-era record of his words; the ’Hazard Circular’ Cherep-Spiridovich reprints, with no original found; John Nicolay’s own words on the ’money power’ letter; Rothschild lending to either side in the war (would settle: the Rothschild ledgers). Any wording above about a people or a faith is recorded only as the words of the person quoted.
SOURCE GRADING (publisher / interest / tier). George S. Bryan, 'CARRICK & EVANS, INC. NEW YORK COPYRIGHT, 1940, BY GEORGE S. BRYAN' (
archive.org) / argues the Booth-and-group explanation (Eidson classes him with the simple-conspiracy writers) / named byline; transcribes the 1867 House testimony. U.S. Army Center of Military History guide, 'THE LINCOLN ASSASSINATION by Joseph A. Beard and Shane D. Makowicki Center of Military History United States Army Washington, D.C., 2020' (
history.army.mil) / an Army office writing on its own War Department of 1865, whose Secretary is the subject of Account 3; argues a Booth-led plot with Confederate links / government secondary. Dave Taylor, LincolnConspirators.com: 'My name is Dave Taylor, and I am a former elementary school teacher.' (
lincolnconspirators.com) 'In 2025, however, I launched my own business, Lincoln Assassination Tours , to resurrect them.' (
lincolnconspirators.com) / runs a tour business on the subject; argues the Booth-and-group account / named byline (blog). William G. Eidson, 'WILLIAM G. EIDSON, PH.D., teaches history at Ball State University in Muneie, Indiana.' (
filsonhistorical.org) / historiographic review that follows Hanchett’s refutation / named byline, scholarly journal. Tidwell, Hall and Gaddy, Come Retribution, University Press of Mississippi: 'Investigating the assassination from their perspective as career intelligence officers, William A. Tidwell and David Winfred Gaddy, joined by James O. Hall, one of the leading authorities on the assassination, find and follow the clues' (
upress.state.ms.us) / authors argue the Confederate Secret Service account / named byline; publisher’s page. ADL: advocacy organization against antisemitism / advocacy / secondary; gives no 1865 record. Gerald McGeer, The Conquest of Poverty (1935) / argues the banker account and monetary reform / claimant. A. Cherep-Spiridovich, 'The Anti-Bolshevist Publishing Association' (
archive.org), New York / argues a Rothschild ’Hidden Hand’ and relies on the Protocols / claimant. The Money Masters (1996 film; transcript on scrapsfromtheloft.com) / argues the international-banker account / claimant. John C. Fazio, Cleveland Civil War Roundtable / argues Confederate-government complicity / claimant, named byline. David Homer Bates (1907) / War Department insider who worked under Stanton and Eckert / eyewitness memoir, 42 years later. E. G. Spaulding (1869) / author of the Legal Tender Act on his own measure / participant’s compilation. August Belmont’s letters (1890) / his own self-selected papers / primary. Oberholtzer’s Jay Cooke (1907) / written from papers supplied by Cooke’s family / authorized biography. Benn Pitman’s trial record (1865) / the government’s record of its own prosecution / primary. The Rothschild Archive / the family firm’s own archive / institutional, interested. Elliott Ashkenazi (German Historical Institute) / none stated / named byline. moketchups.com export / the site’s own record, built from its earlier reports / secondary. Charles Chiniquy (1886) / a former priest arguing against the Catholic Church, per Wikipedia / claimant. Henri de Ste. Marie (1866) / the informer against Surratt / witness statement, as Bryan prints it. Otto Eisenschiml (1937), chemist, and Theodore Roscoe (1959), novelist / authors arguing the Stanton thesis / claimants, known here through Eidson and the Army guide. William Hanchett (1983), historian / author arguing a refutation of the conspiracy theses / named byline, known here through Eidson. Tablet Magazine, Jay Solomon and Jane Singer / magazine article on Benjamin as a Southern Jewish leader; publisher’s stake not stated on the page / named byline. Snopes / fact-check site / named byline. Wikiquote / open wiki / lowest tier. Jewish Virtual Library / American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise / secondary.
STANDING. All five accounts held. None picked.
THE OCTOBER 2026 RESEARCH REPORT SAID "telegraph wires were grounded" and that John Surratt was "extradited with the cooperation of the Papal authorities"; its source (Bryan) gives the report by Eckert of crossed wires in the batteries, and has Surratt, after escaping the papal guard, handed over at Alexandria, Egypt, "without objection by the Egyptian gov-ernment".