Otto Eisenschiml

Otto Eisenschiml

Otto Eisenschiml föddes i Österrike 1880. Efter att ha tagit en universitetsexamen i Wien emigrerade han till USA 1901. Han arbetade som kemist och blev så småningom president för Scientific Oil Compounding Company.

Eisenschiml tog ett stort intresse för mordet på president Abraham Lincoln. I hans bok, Varför mördades Lincoln? (1937) föreslog han att Edwin Stanton, krigssekreterare, hade konstruerat planen för att döda presidenten. Beviset för denna teori inkluderade anställning av John Parker för att skydda Lincoln, Stantons misslyckande med att stänga alla vägar från Washington, skjutningen av John Wilkes Booth, manipulering med Booths dagbok och sammanslutningens huva för att hindra dem från att prata.

Boken sålde bra men attackerades av professionella historiker. J. G. Hamilton beskrev det som "fyra hundra åttioåtta trista sidor med vandrande och frikopplade implikationer och insignaler."

Otto Eisenschiml dog 1963. Men bokens inflytande kvarstod och inspirerade boken av David Balsiger och Charles E. Sellier, Lincoln -konspirationen (1977) och filmen med samma namn.

Mannen som dog på Garretts gård fråntogs sina tillhörigheter innan han var död. De saker som togs från honom hade ingen större betydelse, med det enda undantaget från en dagbok där han hade skrivit några deklamerande beskrivningar av sina erfarenheter och känslor. Denna dagbok skulle därefter bli centrum för en eldig kontrovers, inte så mycket på grund av dess innehåll som för att den hade hållits gömd för allmänheten.

I två år låg den lilla volymen inlåst i krigskontorets arkiv. Under tiden hade Baker avskedats och skrivit sin bok, The Secret of Secret Service. Där hänvisades upprepade gånger till Booths dagbok, vilket skapade en sensation i alla kretsar. Kammarens rättsliga kommitté tog sedan på sessionen med alacrity och bad Baker ta ställning och upprepa sina uttalanden under ed. Där exploderade detektiven ytterligare en bomb: dagboken hade stympats sedan den hade tagits från kroppen på Garretts gård.

En annan bisarr egenskap i berättelsen om Booths strävan är att krigsdepartementet misslyckades med att åtala några människor som hade skyddat Booth och hjälpt honom i hans flykt. Återigen undrade representanthusskommittén, som diskuterade fördelningen av belöningar,. I en kungörelse av den 20 april hade Stanton förklarat att "Alla personer som hyser eller utsöndrar konspiratörer eller hjälper till att dölja eller fly, kommer att behandlas som medhjälpare i mordet på presidenten och kommer att bli föremål för rättegång inför en militärkommission, och dödsstraff.

När Johnson blev nationens verkställande direktör började de radikala ha synliga syner på massmord och avrättningar som skulle avfolkas i söder; för den nya presidenten hade uttryckt sitt hat mot förrädare i termer som var omåttliga och omisskännliga. Ändå gick veckan efter veckan, och förutom att de så kallade konspiratörerna och kapten Wirz, den tidigare kommendanten i Andersonville, hängde ut, inträffade inget våldsverk. Tvärtom, benådning följde benådning; och värre än så åtog sig presidenten att återupprätta statsregeringar i den riktning som Lincoln hade förespråkat. Först var de radikala förvirrade; sedan gav häpnad plats för ohämmad ilska.

Det var en man som tjänade mycket på Lincolns död; mannen som var hans krigssekreterare, Edwin M. Stanton. Brysk, oförskämd, grym, Stanton var utan tvekan den mest impopulära medlemmen i Lincolns administration; men presidenten, trots stark press, var ovillig att låta honom gå medan konflikten härjade; han tycktes tro att ingen annan kunde göra jobbet lika bra.

Efter att kriget var över verkade det dock bara som en tidsfråga när Lincoln skulle avyttra sig från en sekreterare som snabbt blev både ett personligt och ett politiskt ansvar för honom. Det var till hans fördel att ha presidenten ur vägen; det skulle innebära en fortsättning i ämbetet, ökad makt över en ny och förmodligen svag verkställande direktör och en rättvis utsikter att ersätta den senare vid nästa val.

Som krigssekreterare misslyckades Stanton i sin plikt att skydda presidentens liv efter att han var övertygad om att det fanns fara i luften. Han förnekade blankt Lincolns begäran om att bli skyddad av major Eckert och gav inte ett ordentligt substitut.

Det berodde troligen på Stantons ansträngningar att alla bevis på vårdslöshet från John F. Parkers sida var noggrant undertryckta. Han styrde jakten på Booth och lät den genomföras på ett sätt som, men för mördarens oavsiktliga skada, skulle ha möjliggjort hans flykt.

Själva jakten och efterföljande fångst av Booth tystades med ovanliga metoder och avlägsnades därefter från kontakt med allmänheten, antingen genom dödsstraff eller förvisning till en öde fästning. Andra fångar, med minst lika skuld, släppte straff.

Sannolikt som ett sådant åtal kan tyckas, skulle det inte ha någon chans att överleva ett lagligt angrepp. Det finns inte en poäng i denna sammanfattning än vad som kan bevisas; allt är hypotes. Omständighetsbevis är i bästa fall en farlig grund att bygga på.


Otto Eisenschiml, målsägande-appellant, v. Fawcett Publications, Inc., svarande-appellee, 246 F.2d 598 (7th Cir. 1957)

Elmer Gertz, Irwin S. Baskes, Chicago, Ill., För klaganden.

Don H. Reuben, Frank A. Olson, Howard Ellis, Keith Masters, Chicago, Ill., (Kirkland, Fleming, Green, Martin & Ellis, Chicago, Ill., Av advokat), för appellé.

Innan DUFFY, överdomare, och FINNEGAN och SCHNACKENBERG, kretsdomare.

Klagomålet häri innebär ett intrång i upphovsrätten. Count I påstår att svaranden kränkte målsägandens upphovsrättsskyddade bok "Varför blev Lincoln mördad?" (nedan kallad "Varför"). Den andra greven påstod att den tilltalade åsidosatte målsägandens upphovsrättsskyddade bok "In the Shadow of Lincolns Death" (nedan kallad "Shadow"). Målsägande begär en redovisning av vinster, skador och kostnader i enlighet med upphovsrättslagen, 17 U.S.C.A. & sektion 1 och följande.

Svaranden, Fawcett Publications, Inc., publicerar en tidning som heter "True". Klaganden hävdar att svaranden kränkte sin upphovsrätt genom att publicera i februari 1953, utgåvan av True, en artikel med titeln "America's Greatest Unsolved Murder" skriven av en Joseph John Millard. Orsaken hänvisades till en särskild mästare, även om det muntliga vittnesbördet från endast fem vittnen hördes av honom. Han övervägde också tre depositioner, inklusive Joseph Millards, och undersökte många utställningar.

Specialmästaren gjorde en rapport där han rekommenderade domstolen att döma svaranden och att målsäganden skulle beskattas alla kostnader inklusive betalning av advokatavgift. Han rapporterade att parterna hade deponerat tre tusen dollar för avgifter hos befälhavaren, och han begärde ytterligare ett bidrag på tre tusen dollar. Undantag lämnades in till rapporten. Tingsrätten lämnade in en kort promemoria och lade in ett beslut om åsidosättande av invändningar mot rapporten, där målsäganden förelades att betala specialmästaren ytterligare ett fyrtiofem hundra dollar och att ersätta svaranden med ett belopp på femton hundra dollar för summan som den hade deponerat hos Special Master. Domstolen förordnade också att målsäganden skulle betala advokatkostnader. De belopp som domstolen tillät var femton hundra dollar mer än vad specialmästaren hade begärt, men den senare har lämnat en delvis tillfredsställelse till femton hundra dollar.

Målsäganden har skrivit ett antal artiklar och böcker om inbördeskrigstiden. Han är en erkänd auktoritet inom inbördeskrigets historia och i synnerhet inom det smalare området för Lincolns mord. Hans forskning om detta ämne sträckte sig över en period av arton år, och käranden vittnade om att han spenderade $ 20.000,00 för att göra detta arbete. Millard vittnade om att ingen behörig myndighet skulle skriva om Lincolns mord utan att studera målsägandens verk. 1 Millard läste målsägandens "Varför" och "Skugga" minst två gånger innan han skrev sin artikel.

Joseph Millard har varit frilansande författare och författare i tjugofem år. Han har skrivit och sålt över tusen berättelser till populära medier. Han har studerat inbördeskrigstiden och har samlat ett inbördeskrigsbibliotek som innehåller många böcker, tidskrifter och tidningar. Vid tiden för avsättningen producerade han mer än hundra böcker från sitt bibliotek. Innan han skrev den påstådda kränkande artikeln hade han skrivit, och svaranden hade publicerat, två tidigare artiklar om inbördeskriget. Den första publicerades av True i december 1945 och hade titeln "Spionen som räddade unionen". Berättelsen gällde bedrifterna av en Felix Stidger, en kontraspionagent som avslöjade det farliga Copperhead Society som kallades "Knights of the Golden Circle". Det andra publicerades i juli 1947 -numret av True, och kallades "The Devil's Errand Boy". Denna berättelse gällde incidenter i livet för Lafayette Baker som var chef för Secret Service under inbördeskriget, och som var en engångs intim för krigssekreterare, Edwin M. Stanton.

Målsägandens bok "Varför mördades Lincoln?" är ett vetenskapligt verk, omfattande dokumenterat och fotnoterat. Det är en hårt täckt bok på fem hundra tre sidor uppdelad i tjugonio kapitel. Det gäller mordet på Abraham Lincoln och en efterföljande historia av de inblandade personerna. Hypotesen i arbetet är att krigssekreterare Stanton var inblandad eller åtminstone hade en skyldig kunskap om konspirationen. Tjugotvå tusen exemplar av detta verk såldes.

Målsägandens andra bok "In the Shadow of Lincoln's Death" är också en hårt täckt bok. Den är fyra hundra femton sidor lång och innehåller fjorton kapitel. Det kompletteras med omfattande beteckningar. En framstående recensent beskrev denna bok som en lång fotnot till det tidigare verket "Why Was Lincoln Murdered?". Trettiosexhundra exemplar av detta verk såldes.

Svarandes artikel "America's Greatest Unsolved Murder" innehåller cirka tjugo tusen ord. Det var den längsta artikeln och huvuddragen i februari 1953 -utgåvan av True. Författaren gav den ursprungligen titeln "History's Maddest Murder Case". Den innehöll inga fotnoter, bibliografi eller annan dokumentation.

Varken svaranden eller Millard har någonsin begärt eller fått tillstånd att använda material från målsägandens böcker. Ingenstans i den publicerade artikeln krediteras eller hänvisas till Eisenschiml. Den enda passagen i artikeln som skrevs av Millard var "Otto Eisenschiml, troligen världens ledande myndighet om mysterierna om Lincolns mord, har i en kortfattad mening behandlat Stantons diatribe till den respekt som den förtjänar * * *." Denna passage raderades dock från Millards manuskript av svaranden innan den publicerades i dess tidning.

Två expertvittnen vittnade och hade, som så ofta händer, diametralt motsatta åsikter. Dr Donald Riddle är chef för avdelningen för samhällsvetenskap vid University of Illinois, Chicago Undergraduate Division på Navy Pier, och undervisar i amerikansk historia. Han har skrivit böcker om Lincolns kongresskarriär. Han har gjort ett omfattande arbete med att studera och bestämma texthistorien i Nya testamentet som inkluderade jämförelse av de olika evangeliernas språk för att bestämma litterära relationer. Enligt Dr Riddles uppfattning är svarandes artikel en litterär kopiering av Eisenschiml -böckerna i fråga.

Dr Ernest Samuels är professor i engelska vid Northwestern University. Han har fungerat som redaktionell rådgivare i frågor om stil och stipendium för olika förlag. Han har skrivit en historisk biografi "The Life of Henry Adams." En av hans arbetsuppgifter vid universitetet har varit att sitta som en enmansdomstol när studenter anklagas för att ha kopierat sina engelska teman. Han tillbringade sjuttiofem till åttio timmar med att analysera de tre verken som här övervägs. Hans uppfattning var att Millards artikel var en oberoende litterär skapelse.

Målsäganden insisterar på att Millards artikel är en slavisk imitation, omskrivning och kopia av väsentliga delar av hans två upphovsrättsskyddade böcker, och att svaranden genom Millard väsentligt anslöt sig till sin forskning. Eisenschiml hävdar att Millards artikel innehåller väsentligen samma behandling av och språk om Stanton, Lincoln, The Grants, John F. Parker, O'Beirne, Miss Harris och Major Rathbone, John Fletcher och Atzerodt som i Eisenschiml -böckerna, och att namnet heter personer är huvudpersonerna i Millard -artikeln som i den kränkta delen av Eisenschiml -böckerna. Målsäganden hävdar att Millards artikel följer samma allmänna kontur eller mönster som målsägandens två böcker, och att han behandlar materialet däri på samma sätt som käranden.

Klaganden insisterar på att Millards artikel inte bara piratkopierade det underliggande temat för kärandens böcker, temat att krigssekreterare Stanton kan ha varit inblandad i mordet, att hinder avsiktligt placerades i vägen för Booths fångst och att det finns andra oförklarliga mysterier — men artikeln behandlar idéer, karaktärer, scener och händelser på samma sätt som käranden gör. Målsäganden anför vidare att Millards artikel är så parallell och simulerar målsägandens två böcker att artikeln faktiskt är en kondens av flera kapitel i Varför med delar tagna från Skugga plus några vanliga historiska data.

Bilaga 7 som mottogs av befälhavaren innehöll vad käranden påstod var sextiosex paralleller eller citat avsedda att visa kopiering och omskrivning av Millard av målsägandens två böcker. Begränsningen av utrymme tillåter inte mer än en kort illustration av citaten.

På sidan 56 av Varför käranden skrev: "I sina memoarer gick Grant över detta avsnitt snabbt och skickligt * * *." Millard, med hänvisning till samma sak, skrev "I sina memoarer gled Grant skickligt över händelsen * * *."

På sidan 73 av Varför, käranden skrev: " * * * LA Gobright, agent för Associated Press på Capitol * * var på väg att stänga sitt kontor * * * när han informerades om tragedin. Rusade till telegrafkontoret, skickade han en kort special * * * han rev över till Fords teater * * * och hade turen att hitta Booths derringer på golvet. " Millard skrev: "En LA Gobright från Associated Press höll precis på att stänga sitt Washington -kontor när den fruktansvärda nyheten kom. Han rusade ut och kopplade snabbt in sitt papper * * * Därifrån skyndade Gobright till Fords teater för mer information. Han var i blodsprutad låda när mannen vid namn Kent hittade avköraren på golvet. "

I Varför på sidan 120 citerade käranden från O'Beirne -dagboken. O'Beirne -pappren var i målsägandes exklusiva besittning. Millard citerade exakt samma avsnitt. Kommentarerna efter detta citat var följande: Målsägande sa: "Den där nära O'Beirne kom för att få sin man." Millard skrev: "Den närmaste O'Beirne kom då till att fånga." I Skugga, målsägande skrev på sidan 55: "Vad kan innebörden av detta? En döende man hör sitt namn nämnas. Han öppnar ögonen och agerar förvånad." Millard skrev: "Skulle en döende man bli förvånad över att höra sitt eget namn uttalas?"

På sidan 71 av Skugga, skrev käranden: "(Baker) log och sa" Jag tänkte ha hans kropp, död eller levande, eller en mycket bra ersättare för den "." Millard skrev: " * * * Baker, som flinade hårt, skulle snart säga till en vän:" Jag tänkte ha hans kropp, död eller levande, eller en mycket bra ersättare för den "."

I Varför, på sidan 29, hänvisar käranden till "Århundradets stora skopa * *." Millard hänvisar till samma ämne som "århundradets nyhetstakt * *."

På sidan 419 tum Varför, sa käranden: "Fru Lincoln, rädd och distraherad, hade fallit till golvet i ett svagt tillstånd. Ett plötsligt ilska besatte Stanton. Brutalt gav han order om att ta 'den kvinnan' ut ur rummet och inte låta henne komma tillbaka. " Millard skrev: "När fru Lincoln, halvgal av sorg och chock, svimmade vid åsynen av sin man, viftade Stanton med armarna och tjatade:" Ta ut kvinnan härifrån. Ta ut henne och låt henne inte komma tillbaka ! '"

Föremål i karriären hos den upplösta polisen, John Parker, som var Lincolns livvakt den ödesdigra natten, samlades av målsägande från privata papper från en provostmarschall vid namn O'Beirne, och från gamla och spridda register och arkiv i Washington, DC polisavdelning. Millard kunde inte ha granskat O'Beirne -filerna eftersom de fanns i målsägandens ägo. Det erkänns att Millard inte undersökte polisens handlingar i Washington.

Parker -historien är en viktig del av Millards artikel. När Carl Sandburg skrev "Abraham Lincoln, krigsåren" begärde han och fick tillstånd från målsäganden att införliva Parkers berättelse i sitt arbete. I sin förord ​​i volym I skrev han: "Otto Eisenschimls liberala undersökningar om de sista scenerna i Lincolns liv är ett tydligt bidrag * *"

Millard hävdar att han fick en del av Parkers berättelse från Sandburgs arbete. Det finns dock vissa delar som används av Millard som inte användes av Sandburg. Händelsen av de gnällande änderna på gatubilen incidenten med Parker som skjuter en pistol genom ett fönster i ett hus med ill berömmelse och incidenten med Parker som blev hårt sparkad och skadad av en man han försökte gripa, som alla ingick i Millards artikel, ingick inte i Sandburg -verket. Denna information kom från målsägandens böcker eftersom Millard inte undersökte de ursprungliga polisregistren och att de inte hade förekommit i någon annan bok eller artikel före den tiden.

I sitt vittnesmål erkände Millard fritt att en del av materialet och idéerna som han använde i sin artikel kom från målsägandens Varför eller Skugga. Följande är illustrationer av ett antal av hans svar: "Det, tror jag, stod i kö till mig av Dr. Eisenschimls bok" "Åh, jag fick en del av det från Eisenschiml -böckerna" "Tanken var onekligen inspirerad av Dr. Eisenschiml "" Idén, tror jag, är en inspiration av Dr. Eisenschiml "" Idén, jag tror, ​​jag kan positivt konstatera, var Dr. Eisenschimls "" Materialet, tror jag, kom från Dr. Eisenschiml. "

Millards uppmärksamhet uppmärksammades på en del av hans manuskript och han ombads att jämföra samma med delar av målsägandens Varför. Han vittnade: "Det chockar mig bara lite. Jag fick inte medvetet språket från Dr. Eisenschiml, oavsett om jag omedvetet kunde säga det. * * * Det är inte en kopia, men det finns en likhet där och en ganska chockerande en till mig. "

Det är uppenbart att Millard åtminstone till viss del använde det material som härrörde från kärandes forskning. I Toksvig v. Bruce Publishing Co., 7 Cir., 181 F.2d 664, 667, sade denna domstol: "Frågan är inte om Hubbard kunde ha fått samma information genom att gå till samma källor, utan snarare gick hon till samma källor och göra sin egen oberoende forskning? Med andra ord är testet om den som åtalats för överträdelsen har gjort en oberoende produktion, eller gjort en väsentlig och orättvis användning av klagandens arbete. Nutt mot National Institute, Inc ., 2 Cir., 31 F.2d 236, 237. "

Men befälhavaren och tingsrätten fann att vilken användning Millard än kan ha gjort av målsägandens arbete inte kan genomföras "eftersom det var en obetydlig användning, en rättvis användning eller användning av icke-upphovsrättsligt skyddat material." Mästaren och domstolen fann också att Millards verk "är en oberoende litterär skapelse baserad på oberoende forskning." Tingsrätten sa: "Inte bara Millards svurna ord utan alla omständigheter tyder tydligt på att han inte kopierade från målsägaren."

Regel 53 (e) (2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., föreskriver: "I en talan som ska prövas utan en jury ska domstolen acceptera befälhavarens konstateranden om de inte är felaktigt." I Ferroline Corp. mot General Aniline & Film Corp., 7 Cir., 207 F.2d 912, på sidan 920 sa denna domstol: "En befäls resultat är bindande för tingsrätten om det inte är klart felaktigt. * * * Tröskelfrågan här är då densamma som den var i domstolen nedan, — huruvida befälhavarens konstateranden i sak rent juridiskt var felaktiga. * * * Varken tingsrätten eller denna kan vägra att erkänna resultaten 'bara på grund av en skillnad i personlig övertalning * * * eller ett missnöje med det uppnådda resultatet.'

Mästaren fann att Millard inte kopierade utan att han arbetade självständigt. Vi håller med om att en stor del av Millards artikel berodde på hans självständiga arbete. Men det är också uppenbart, som tidigare angivits, att ett antal utdrag från målsägandens verk användes i Millards artikel. " * * * en överträdelse är inte begränsad till bokstavlig och exakt upprepning eller reproduktion, den omfattar också de olika sätten där frågan om något arbete kan antas, imiteras, överföras eller reproduceras, med mer eller mindre färgbara ändringar för att dölja piratkopiering . Omskrivning är kopiering och en överträdelse, om den bärs i tillräcklig omfattning. " 18 C.J.S. Copyright and Literary Property & sekt 94, sid. 217. Denna domstol citerade med godkännande från Ball on Law of Copyrights i Toksvig v. Bruce Publishing Co., 181 F.2d 664, på sidan 667: "Frågan om intrång i upphovsrätten handlar inte om kvantitet utan om kvalitet och värde."

Idéer som sådana skyddas inte av upphovsrätten. Holmes v. Hurst, 174 U.S. 82, 19 S. Ct. 606, 43 L. Ed. 904 Kalem Co. v. Harper Brothers, 222 U.S. 55, 32 S. Ct. 20, 56 L. Ed. 92. Men uttryckssättet som används av författaren kan skyddas. Dymow v. Bolton, 2 Cir., 11 F.2d 690. Föreningen, arrangemanget och kombinationen av idéer och tankar och deras uttrycksform kan göra en särskild litterär komposition som har rätt till skydd. Holmes v. Hurst, 174 U.S. 82, 19 S. Ct. 606, 43 L. Ed. 904 Chicago Record-Herald Co. v. Tribune Association, 7 Cir., 275 F. 797.

Frågan som står framför oss är om Millard gjorde en rejäl kopia av kärandens böcker? Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 218, 74 S. Ct. 460, 98 L. Ed. 630. Vi måste komma ihåg att kopiering inte nödvändigtvis är en bokstavlig eller exakt upprepning eller reproduktion. Svaret är inte helt fritt från tvivel. Vi har emellertid kommit fram till, med tanke på mästarens fynd och resultaten i tingsrättens promemorianyttrande, att Millard inte väsentligen kopierade målsägandens böcker, och med andra ord, vi drar slutsatsen att resultaten av fakta i detta avseende var uppenbarligen inte felaktiga.

Oavsett vad vi kan tycka om Millards etik när vi använder olika delar av målsägandens verk med endast en knapp kreditreferens eller svarandens etik vid publicering av artikeln efter att först ha eliminerat kreditreferensen, drar vi slutsatsen, med tanke på resultaten vi måste håll det fanns inte en tillräcklig kopiering för att uppgå till en överträdelse.

Befälhavaren fann att sådan användning som Millard gjorde av kärandens böcker var en rimlig användning. I så fall var sådan användning en icke-kränkande användning. Frågan om en rimlig användning uppstår vanligtvis i samband med vetenskapliga eller andra verk som behandlar ett gemensamt ämne. 18 C.J.S. Copyright and Literary Property & sekt 104, sid. 223. I historiska skrifter som händelserna omedelbart före och efter president Lincolns mord skrev käranden och Millard nödvändigtvis om samma personligheter under en mycket begränsad tid. Det kan förväntas att det skulle ge en viss likhet mellan behandlingen. Hur som helst är frågan om rättvis användning en faktafråga. Mathews Conveyer Co. v. Palmer-Bee Co., 6 Cir., 135 F.2d 73, 85. Vi kan inte säga att mästarens fynd i detta avseende helt klart är felaktigt.

Vi anser att tingsrättens tilldelning av advokatkostnader är ett missbruk av skönsmässig bedömning och helt obefogat. Det var sant att befälhavaren och tingsrätten ansåg att målsägandens ärende var helt utan meriter. Vi har emellertid angett vår uppfattning om det motsatta. Vi har påpekat att en mycket nära fråga var inblandad och vi anser att målsäganden inte bör bedömas advokatkostnader för att försöka skydda upphovsrätten på sina böcker. Bestämmelsen i domen som kräver att målsäganden ska betala advokatkostnader måste elimineras. Official Aviation Guide, Inc., v. American Aviation Associates, Inc., 7 Cir., 162 F.2d 541.

Kritik måste också riktas mot rekordets storlek inför Mästaren. Trots upprepade invändningar från målsäganden blev rättegångstiden onödigt lång.

I regel 16 (c) i denna domstol, 28 USCA, föreskrivs: " * * * Det förväntas att parterna inte kommer att ägna sig åt onödig eller repetitiv utskrift, med tanke på att protokollet alltid är tillgängligt för domstolen för referens eller brott mot denna regel kan bestraffas genom förnekande eller tilldelning av kostnader. " Målsägandens bilaga innehöll 505 sidor. Svaranden lämnade in en separat bilaga som innehöll 798 sidor. Svarandes bilaga innehöll mycket onödigt och upprepat vittnesbörd. Svaranden får i sin kostnadsräkning inkludera utskrift av endast 400 sidor av sin separata bilaga.

Ändrad som ovan angetts är domen

SCHNACKENBERG, kretsdomare (delvis enig och delvis motsatt).

Jag instämmer i domaren DUFFY: s yttrande i den mån den ogillar bedömningen av advokats arvode mot målsäganden.

I den mån yttrandet upprätthåller tingsrättens bedömning och bedömning av sakens meriter, avvisar jag. Även av de fakta som anges i majoritetsuttalandet framgår det att befälhavarens och tingsrättens slutsatser klart är felaktiga. Regel 53 (e) (2), federala regler för civilrättsliga förfaranden. En granskning av alla bevis i protokollet övertygar mig om Millards transparenta och chockerande piratkopiering av målsägandes publikationer. För den felaktiga och klart konstaterade överträdelsen skulle jag bevilja denna forskare och författare lättnad.

I sin artikel "The Devil's Errand Boy" hänvisade Millard till målsäganden enligt följande: "Herr Otto Eisenschiml från Chicago, den enastående myndigheten vid Abraham Lincolns död, har ägnat en livstid intensiv forskning åt ämnet. Hans två böcker —` Varför blev Lincoln mördad 'och' In the Shadow of Lincoln's Death '— är packade med sina egna sensationella upptäckter. Ändå känner han att ytan knappt har repats. "


Häxor, vevar och mördare: konspiration i amerikansk historia

Edwin Stanton har en lång historia med Lincoln, eftersom de båda var advokater som växte upp. Stanton, var en av de mindre favoriterna i Lincoln ’s skåp, men han hade starka avsikter att ändra unionens form efter Lincoln ’s död. Eisenschiml erbjöd bevis på Stantons inblandning genom att säga, “Stanton hade ett motiv: han var orolig för att Lincoln ’s måttliga förslag för södra återuppbyggnad skulle släppa de tidigare konfedererade staterna för lätt för blodbadet de initierade ” (Eisenschiml), Stanton ville göra mer än att låta södern vara lätt, och när en nation var i sorg ville de lägga skulden på södern. Ironiskt nog var Stanton en mycket mäktig man, så kunde han ha hjälpt Booth att fly och leda fackföreningsarmén på manjakt på fel person? Eisenschiml föreslog att Stanton hade överdriven makt, att stänga av broarna i Washington på mordkvällen tillsammans med makten att kontrollera telegraferna. I Eisenschimls bok säger han att Stanton stängde alla broar från staden, förutom en Navy Yard Bridge – som Booth tog som sin flyktväg. Stanton ska också ha beordrat att fackliga soldater ska döda Booth istället för att arrestera honom. Och slutligen noterade utredarna 15 sidor som rivits ur Booths dagbok, avsiktligt slits ut av Stanton ”, (Eisenschiml), för att bevisa att Stanton hade kontroll över natten i ett försök att bli av med alla bevis som skulle vara emot honom i domstolen. Stanton visste vad han gjorde och visste hur han skulle dölja sin röra, eftersom han var advokat innan han blev en del av Lincoln ’s skåp.
  • Få länk
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • E-post
  • Andra appar

Kommentarer

Jag tror att du kan göra en teori av vad som helst om du gräver tillräckligt djupt i det. Jag säger inte att hans teori inte är en möjlighet, men hur mycket tid tror du att han ägnade åt att leta efter någon detalj under den här natten som kunde ha bidragit till ett annat motiv eller en annan historia? Det är svårt att ta hans teori som sund när det finns människor som var närvarande som inte offentligt uttalade sig om någon form av möjlig & quotfoul play. tappat en idol av honom. Jag tror att om det skulle hända någon, är förklaringen de får inte tillräckligt med stängning för dem. Han hittade förmodligen sin nedläggning genom att ifrågasätta de handlingar som ledde till Lincolns död och följderna som följde.


Lincoln Assassination Conspiracies

Många är bekanta med minst en bra JFK -attentatskonspiration, men färre är medvetna om de påstådda tomterna med Lincoln -mordet. Hans mord, som ägde rum för 150 år sedan den 14 april, föranledde ett antal mycket olika konspirationsteorier.

Varje teori som fick mer än en handfull trogna anhängare var tvungen att hålla med om det överväldigande beviset på att John Wilkes Booth, den berömda skådespelaren och Konfedererade sympatisören, var mördaren. Utöver den punkten började saker och ting ta olika banor, och Booths påstådda medkonspiratorer varierade från det lite troliga till det fascinerande bisarra.

En vice presidentkonspiration

Det är helt naturligt att en vice president vill bli president, och det finns ett snabbt och enkelt sätt att uppnå det målet. Andrew Johnson, som blev president efter Lincolns död, var ett omedelbart mål för konspirationsteoretiker, enligt William Hanchett, författare till Lincoln Murder Conspiracies.

En pirrande detalj är att Booth på eftermiddagen före mordet besökte hotellet där Johnson bodde. Han träffade inte Johnson, men lämnade ett kort som sa: "Vill du inte störa dig är du hemma?"

Lincolns änka, Mary Todd Lincoln, skrev i ett brev till en vän att hon: ”egen intensiv elände, har förstärkts av samma tanke - den där, den där eländiga olagliga Johnson, hade kännedom om [hennes] mans död - varför, var det kortet av Booth's, hittad i hans låda? "

Hon tillade att hon var "djupt imponerad, med den upprörande tanken, att [Johnson] hade förståelse för konspiratörerna ... Johnson, hade någon hand i allt detta."

Even before the assassination, it was no secret that Mary Todd Lincoln disliked ‘that miserable inebriate Johnson,’ who had been disgracefully drunk at Lincoln’s Second Inaugural on March 4, 1865. Her dislike, combined with the trauma of her husband’s murder and Johnson’s benefiting from it, easily could have distorted her viewpoint.

However, some members of Congress did express suspicion that Johnson had been involved, and in 1867 a special committee was formed to investigate his possible role. This committee did not find enough to incriminate Johnson, and it’s very possible that the congressional “suspicion” was just an attempt to remove him from office.

It is commonly accepted that there was a plot to kill Vice President Johnson along with President Lincoln. However, Johnson’s would-be assassin, George Atzerodt, lost his courage and, instead of killing the Vice President, got drunk and wandered the streets of D.C.

Did Johnson arrange this abortive attempt on his life, just to make himself look like an intended victim instead of a conspirator? Some thought so.

The Cotton Investor Conspiracy

There is evidence that, during the Civil War, Lincoln violated the official Union trade blockade by allowing a select group of Northerners to invest in Southern cotton. The President did this to “head off national bankruptcy and finance the Union war effort,” according to Leonard Guttridge and Ray Neff, authors of the Lincoln conspiracy book, Dark Union.

When Lincoln began to waver in his unofficial position on allowing trade with the Confederates, there were investors who stood to lose a lot of money – perhaps enough to kill over.

The Eisenschiml Theory

Otto Eisenschiml, born in Austria in 1880, was a trained chemist and oil tycoon who developed a fixation on the Lincoln assassination. Following nine years of research, he published Why was Lincoln Murdered? – a book which argued that Lincoln’s murder was orchestrated by his own Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton. The book sold very well, whether or not its readers fully believed the contents.

Eisenschiml contended that Stanton covertly teamed up with a small group of people looking to profit by taking over Southern territory. He claimed that Stanton, who headed the manhunt after Lincoln’s killing, purposely left open an escape route for Booth, whom he then ordered killed before the assassin could go to trial (and possibly reveal Stanton’s involvement).

Though Stanton and Lincoln had their political disagreements, there also was a good deal of respect between these two men, and most historians contend that Eisenschiml’s theory is groundless.

Killed by Resentful Northerners

Shortly before his death, Lincoln was aggravating many Northern politicians with a Reconstruction policy which they regarded as being far too lenient and forgiving. Well over 300,000 Union lives had been sacrificed to defeat the Confederacy, and now Lincoln was allowing Confederate officials to return to positions of considerable power.

Ben Wade, a senator from Ohio, said about Lincoln before he was shot: “By God, the sooner he is assassinated the better.” Though such a remark does not make Wade a conspirator, it does reflect a sentiment that some politicians of the North had toward Lincoln and his Reconstruction policies.

A Catholic Conspiracy

When, some 19 months after the assassination, Booth co-conspirator John Surratt, Jr. was tracked down by American officials in Alexandria, Egypt, it was revealed that he had served in the Papal Zouaves, a now-defunct army that had fought on behalf of the pope.

His mother, Mary Surratt – in whose boardinghouse the Lincoln murder plot was engineered – was a Catholic, and there were rumors that Booth himself recently had converted to Catholicism. These details, combined with sensationalist, inaccurate reporting that all the arrested conspirators were Catholic, led many to proclaim that Lincoln’s murder was the work of a Catholic conspiracy, one possibly leading all the way to the Vatican.

Ensuing decades would see a succession of works, some authored by discontented ex-priests, arguing that the Catholic Church had Lincoln assassinated because they wanted to destabilize an American democracy which they felt was a threat to their power.

The grand Catholic conspiracy theory was enduring. As recently as 1963, Emmett McLoughlin, a former Franciscan priest, wrote An Inquiry in the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, a book which implicated the Vatican for Lincoln’s murder.

Of course, the same year McLoughlin’s book saw publication, JFK was assassinated, and a whole new world of intrigues and conspiracy theories came to the national forefront.


OTTO EISENSCHIML., 01/01/1942-12/31/1945

The bulk of the Barbee Papers concerns his research, accomplished primarily between the years 1928-1958. The Papers are organized according to provenance into seven series, out-lining his historical interests. The series are: I: Abraham Lincoln II: Death of Lincoln III: Lincoln and Booth IV: John Wilkes Booth V: Conspirators VI: Rose O'Neil Greenhow and VII: American History. Because of the inter-relatedness of topics, the same subject files may be found in a number of series. An alphabetical index to subjects is appended to the finding aid and should be consulted. The Papers are largely subject-oriented. File headings as they appear in the folder descriptions are either in large case to indicate subject files or in small case to indicate correspondence files.

The Papers contain correspondence, manuscripts, transcribed material, photocopies of documents, newspaper clippings, printed material, and photographs. Transcribed material, photocopies of documents, and newspaper clippings represent an enormous amount of research through published and unpublished sources. Barbee was able to gain access to a great deal of material still in private hands, the continued existence of which is uncertain. It is interesting to note that Barbee was one of the scholars to read through the Lincoln Papers when they were opened to the public. Through his studies, he not only concerned himself with major historical figures, but identified many less central characters and spent a great deal of time in reconstructing their societal context.

Correspondence contains fascinating discussions of history, shared with a wide variety of individuals, in addition to including specific research inquiries in search of source material. Because of the years in which Barbee conducted his research, he was fortunate in being able to correspond with close relatives of historical figures from the Civil War era, such as Mrs. Lee D. Marie, grand-daughter of Rose O'Neil Greenhow. Barbee's large correspondence with historians includes letters from Paul M. Angle, Charles Beard, Samuel Ashe, Matthew Page Andrews, Frank Maloy Anderson, Ray P. Basler, Otto Eisenschiml, Lyon G. Tyler, Philip Van Doren Stern, Henry Steele Commager, Emmanuel Hetz, Archibald Henderson, and Albert J. Beveridge, among others. Other correspondents include Bennet Cerf, General Merritte W. Ireland, Stephen Early, Nicholas Murray Butler, Claude G. Bowers, Cordell Hull, Adlai Stevenson, Patrick Hurley, William Jennings Bryan and Lyndon B. Johnson. Other material of note includes original correspondence concerning the estate of Rose O'N. Greenhow. Included are letters between A.M. Waddell of Wilmington, North Carolina and Richard Savage, dated 1866-1869. The question of the Greenhow estate is particularly interesting since she was found after her death with large amounts of gold, presumably for the Confederacy. Also included in the Greenhow series are three photographs of - Greenhow, including a carte-de-visite taken in London shortly before her death, a memorial card after her death, and a da- guerreotype, date unknown.

Size: 25.0 linear feet 17 boxes Dates: 1886-1956 (terminal) 1928-1956 (bulk)


The Grassy Knoll PROF. NEAMAN'S HISTORY 210: HISTORICAL METHODS

Alex McMullen
Historical Methods
18 May 2010
Professor Neaman
Otto’s Labyrinth: Debunking a Lincoln Assassination Conspiracy Theory
Abraham Lincoln has always been a president of great intrigue. He is widely considered to be one of the greatest, if not the best president, to ever lead the United States of America. There are literally hundreds of books, documentaries and movies that have been made about him. The reason for this is in part because he lived an extraordinary life, and also because he himself was a bit of an enigma, with many hidden facets to his personality.
In the time since his death, much has been discovered, and even more has been speculated about the man. His death marked a major moment and turning point in the history of this country. After it happened, it appeared to be fairly straightforward, but as time went on, more details and inconsistencies have emerged. This had led to a variety of claims and allegations trying to expose the “truth”. Out of all the conspiracy theories available, one stands out above the rest. Otto Eisenschiml presented a theory in his book Why Was Lincoln Murdered? When deconstructed, his basic premise is that Secretary of War Edwin Stanton orchestrated the assassination and manipulated the events following to attempt to gain control of the U.S. government. After thorough examination, his theory is implausible, inaccurate, nor does it contain any truth at all. He relies on character assassination and large assumptions to make his point. The biggest fault is that he creates the story himself, as opposed to following the story the facts present. A true revisionist of history must have their theory fit the facts, not twist the facts to fit their theory, and this is the first and biggest mistake the author makes in his argument. While he does indeed ask thought provoking questions about peculiarities, he fails to give realistic or probable conclusions to be drawn from them.
Before dissecting his theory, it is necessary to expand upon the author himself, and his motives for writing a piece of literature such as this. Otto Eisenschiml was born June 16, 1880 and raised in Vienna, Austria. He graduated from the University of Vienna with advanced degrees in Chemistry. Even though he was brought up in Austria, he was an American citizen by birth (Hanchett 159). His father had immigrated to America, and fought in the Civil War. He then returned to Austria, where he married and had a son, Otto. The younger Eisenschiml recalls his father telling tales and being fascinated by General Grant and President Lincoln, and always told his son of his American life.
Otto came to the United States after graduating in 1901. He settled in Pittsburgh and later lived in Chicago for most of his life. He quickly became a successful scientist, and turned a significant profit in the process. Eisenschiml began working as a consultant for businesses who had chemical problems. His biggest claim to fame was he invented a way to keep the transparent address window on envelopes from getting cloudy. He invented many other little chemical fixes and products, and became increasingly successful as the years wore on. He worked his way up to become the President of the Scientific Oil Compounding Company, a company that became the largest distributor of tools and materials used in manufacturing. After only a few years, he became incredibly wealthy.
He was not satisfied with all the riches he had though, he wanted something that money couldn’t buy- fame. Chemists had created all these new inventions and improvements that were being utilized in everyday life, yet they largely remained anonymous to the public’s eye. Eisenschiml knew this, as he personally experienced it. That is a large reason why he left the science field after he accumulated his wealth. He went from chemist to businessman, “my choice might have been different, had chemists been regarded with more respect, and had the financial returns been anywhere near adequate” (Hanchett 160). This quote sums up his life pretty accurately, and also gives the basis for his motives to write his book.
Eisenschiml was always fascinated by American history, spurred by his father, and he pursued its study as a personal hobby his whole life. On business trips he would often stop at famous war sites, like Custer’s Massacre. He came up with the goal to visit every battlefield in America before he died. He actually published a number of books about American History, not just his book about Lincoln’s murder.
When examining his reasons for writing a conspiracy theory, it becomes evidently clear there is more to it. He wanted the recognition he couldn’t get as a scientist, which clearly bothered him. He also was driven by money. He really only did his science for profit. Writing a book proposing something like this would solve all those major issues. He would gain widespread notoriety and also make a considerable amount of money. This held true to form, as the book became a best seller when released. He gained his popularity as everyone read the book, even though most people disagreed and were outraged by the book, they still read it all the same. As it was a bestseller, it made a sizeable profit for him. In essence, he found something he was knowledgeable, and could write about, and used it to gain the two things he really wanted most from this life. He was trying to achieve the American dream of working the way to top, and somehow he did it.
He to choose to unravel the conspiracy by using the scientific method he had used his whole life as a chemist. His entire theory is based on questioning, which is the first step towards any discovery in the field of science. In his book, he poses questions, which are followed by his theses, which are really a hypothesis in this case. He proceeds to try to answer all these questions by using this method, which he claims is objective. Eisenschiml used Russian scientist Dimitri Mendeleyev to explain his process, “if all the known elements were arranged in order..there are little gaps in between, and that these gaps could be filled in by the discovery of new elements”. He believed he had uncovered new information that filled in these gaps. That is the basic set up for conspiracy theory of the assassination of U.S. President Abraham Lincoln.
Most experts agree on the simple facts of what happened. The arguments begin when examining why they happened the way they did. It is impossible to understand the theory without first looking at what actions were taken, who was involved, and the events that occurred because of them. The Civil war had just come to its conclusion at the Appomattox courthouse on April 9, 1865. The masses were tired, but finally everyone could go home and relax now that the war was over. A lot of the country still hated Lincoln though. Obviously the Confederates despised him, but people living in the Union also were upset with him. Thousands of men had died to preserve Lincoln’s precious Union, and people struggled with letting that go. There was a lot of tension in the air following the conclusion of the war. Questions began arising, like how to rebuild the country that had been so devastated and torn apart by war? What would happen to the Confederate States? Who would be punished? Var går vi härifrån? Unfortunately, Lincoln wouldn’t live long enough to see his vision.
The story of the assassination begins on the evening of Good Friday, April 14, 1865. President Lincoln and his wife Mary Todd Lincoln planned to attend a play with the Grants at Ford’s Theater. At the last second, General Grant and his wife decided to cancel, but Lincoln went forward as planned. He was accompanied by an officer, General Rathbone and his fiancée. Lincoln was escorted by John Parker, a regular bodyguard for the President. He sat in the Presidential box with his company, and began watching Our American Cousin, a popular comedy play at the time. During the intermission, the bodyguard, John Parker, left and went to the tavern. It is unclear whether he ever returned.
Meanwhile, John Wilkes Booth took the action he had been so diligently planning for weeks. He was an actor, a Confederate sympathizer, and a lot of evidence has been presented proving he was likely mentally unstable. Originally, the plot was to kidnap Lincoln, but time and time again his plans fell through. He finally resorted to trying to kill the President. He would succeed. Booth knew the play well, and timed his entrance to coincide with a moment of laughter at the play in order to muffle the gunshot. Around 10:15 PM, he entered the box and shot President Lincoln in the head. A struggle ensued between Major Rathbone, who was stabbed in the arm by Booth. Booth eventually would break free from the Major, and jumped down from the box. His spur caught on the flag below the box, and he actually fractured his leg on the drop down. He then famously ran on stage, and yelled “Sic Semper Tyrannus!”, or “thus to tyrants!” He escaped out of the back, where he had a horse waiting for him. He escaped out of Washington D.C. that night, and met up with a fellow conspirator, David Herold.
Lincoln would die at a home across the street early the next morning. Secretary of War Edwin Stanton arrived at the house immediately that same night and began taking action. He mobilized troops, gathered intelligence, and began the search for Booth. The troops were under strict orders not to kill the conspirators. It would take two weeks before they would be located by Union troops. Booth and Herold were hiding out in a farm owned by Richard Garrett. Troops surrounded the barn, and told them to come out.
Herold gave up and came out, but Booth refused to leave. In response, the troops set the barn on fire. Booth attempted to fight his way out. A chaotic situation ensued as a Union soldier named Boston Corbett, snuck up to the barn and shot Booth. The bullet hit him in the neck, paralyzing him. Troops pulled his body out of the barn and him up against a nearby tree. Troops gave him water, and sat there with him for two hours until he died.
Herold and seven others were later rounded up as co-conspirators, some involved with the Lincoln assassination, and others involved a failed effort to kill Secretary of State Seward. There was a subsequent trial, carried out and led by Secretary of War Stanton. Four of them were sentenced to death and hanged, 4 others were given a life sentence in prison. Interestingly, one of those hanged was Mary Surratt, who was the first woman in the history of the United States to be hanged.
Andrew Johnson took control as President of the United States following Lincoln’s death. The nation now mourned Lincoln as a hero and a martyr. It has become accepted by historians that Booth and his co-conspirators acted alone. There was not a master conspiracy or grand scheme. Time passed, and a few theories were brought up, but nothing really substantial. Otto Eisenschiml wrote his book in 1937, and it was the first theory to really get anyone’s attention, and set up the premise for a lot of other revisionists later.
His book is over 400 pages, and he presents a number of arguments. I am going to discuss and disprove his main arguments. He believes that certain oddities and inconsistencies are evident in the assassination and the subsequent roundup and trial. He feels that they all converge, and point to Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. His theory is that Stanton masterminded a scheme to try and take over the U.S. government, and intervened in a series of events that took place. He uses a question and hypothesis format to explain his points. His “scientific method” doesn’t help him make his argument though, as it all fails to add up to his very bold conclusion about Stanton.
The author’s first argument is examining why General Grant did not attend the play with Lincoln that night. On the night of the play, Secretary of War Stanton supposedly gave General Grant an “implied order” not to attend the play with the President. This information is according to a secretary who was present at this meeting, who was later interviewed by Eisenschiml. His point was that he didn’t want Lincoln to have a man capable of really protecting him by his side, and it would draw less attention to Lincoln and his box if Grant wasn’t there (Eisenschiml 58).
In actuality, there was no implied order. First of all, that secretary was interviewed 42 years after the event, so it is questionable how well he actually recollected this event. Second, the author had twisted what the secretary, named David Bates, really said. The facts reveal that Stanton knew about a potential threat to the president, and feared for the President’s safety. He wanted to dissuade Lincoln from going by having Grant cancel. Grant was just following orders. Stanton was not trying to set things up for Booth and his attempt (Hanchett 165).
The second issue that Eisenschiml brings up was the choice of John Parker as Lincoln’s escort for that night. Parker had a bit of a rough history, as he was a drunk and had made a few mistakes on prior assignments. He was chosen to guard Lincoln that night despite protests from the President himself. Lincoln asked to be guarded instead by a Sergeant Eckert. The author questions why Stanton would leave Parker in charge of Lincoln. Eckert told Lincoln he couldn’t work that night because he had another assignment, but sources say that Eckert actually didn’t do anything else that night, he just went home. The author believes Stanton told Eckert to refuse to escort Lincoln, and leave Parker in charge. He wanted both of those things all to make it easier for Booth to complete his task.
Again, the idea behind why this happened is skewed. Stanton did not want Lincoln to attend this play. But, Lincoln felt obligated because they had announced in the newspapers that General Grant and President Lincoln would be in attendance. The President didn’t want to go to the play either, but felt personally obligated to attend because he didn’t want to let the people down. Furthermore, when Grant cancelled, he believed he must go to avoid a sort of double no-show at the event. Stanton was upset by this, and was set on trying to dissuade him from going by giving him Parker and not Eckert for protection. It is also the reason he asked General Grant not to attend. Grant never wanted to attend the play, so as soon as it was okay for him to bail out, he did. So while it appears at first glance that Stanton made a few curious decisions, there are reasonable explanations for them. Also, this is not enough evidence to connect him directly to the assassination. Just because he made a few errors in judgment does not mean that he was trying to get Lincoln killed on purpose.
Eisenschiml’s next argument involves the getaway. After Stanton received word of the shooting, he rushed to the house where the doctors were working on Lincoln. Stanton then immediately ordered the blocking of every route out of Washington D.C. except one. Every bridge and exit was covered except one path that led to Port Tobacco, Maryland (Eishenschiml 96). John Wilkes Booth, of course, took that route to make his initial escape. Eisenschiml believes this is not a coincidence, but was in fact planned by Stanton. First of all, there were no troops or telegraph posts in that area, so there was no way to blockade the route in time to catch him. Secondly, Stanton did order troops to station themselves in the near vicinity, and ordered them to watch for the assassin. In a way, one could say that Stanton actually did about as much as he could from his position.
Eisenschiml also claims that the road leading to Port Tobacco was the obvious choice for Booth to take, and that Stanton should have known this. He argues that Stanton failing to block this clear choice for a route in turn implicates him somehow. The author fails to take into account the pressure and intensity of the situation. The American President has just been shot dead, there is a panicked search trying to find out who killed Lincoln, and where is he. Stanton probably wasn’t thinking with an entirely clear mind. Also, it is easy to say he would take that route after the fact. Hindsight is 20-20, and in this situation it is necessary to consider the fact that Stanton probably couldn’t look at the situation with an entirely level head. Also, there is no way for him to know that Booth would take that route. What also detracts from the author’s claim is that this would mean Stanton and Booth had contact with each other, and had set up the proper pieces in place with this elaborate plan. Nowhere in his book, not a single page, does he ever even infer that these two knew each other or had met in their entire lives. The fact that he tries to make it plausible that these two worked together, which they would have to complete this, has no validity. There is no record of these two men ever having any contact.
He then goes on to make a few smaller arguments, each one getting pettier than the next until it becomes almost absurd. The author claims that Stanton didn’t immediately release information about Booth to the public, and that again, this implicates him because it meant he wanted Booth to get away cleanly. In truth, it was because Stanton didn’t want the wrong information getting released if it turned out it wasn’t him. There was a play going on, the scene in the box was chaos, and the man jumped down and then ran away. It wasn’t as if it was obviously John Wilkes Booth. They had to investigate it further to confirm it was him. If Stanton were to make a mistake and send people after the wrong man, then he would look incompetent. The delay was only three hours before he released that the killer was in fact Booth. It really is just opinion as to whether or not that was too slow. Eisenschiml believes that he waited in order to give Booth enough time, but again, there is no real proof of this. Throughout the assassination and the aftermath, Stanton had a large censorship of the press. Although this was and is a major event in U.S. history, Stanton tried to control the exposure to the best of his ability. Throughout this time, there were “remarkably few lurid reports in the press, a fact for which Stanton deserves either the credit of the blame” (Hanchett 175). Stanton did not want to make a mistake, so he made sure the information was correct. This explanation is far better, and has more backing than saying he was giving Booth time to escape.
Another main point was that Booth was shot, not captured. The soldiers at the Garrett’s barn were on strict orders not to kill Booth, but to take him alive. Eisenschiml believers Stanton secretly gave someone the order to shoot Booth in order to “silence him” (Eisenschiml 160). The author fails to make a sustainable claim here as well. It is questionable who exactly shot Booth, but he doesn’t give an answer. He puzzles over who could have done it, but that doesn’t mean that it was a conspiracy. Again, this was an intense situation, there were lots of soldiers, the house was burning down, and the man who had just killed the President was inside. Eisenschiml claims that no one ever saw Sergeant Corbett actually shoot Booth. Maybe that is true, but there also isn’t anyone who says he could not have taken the shot. Corbett took credit for the shot, was never punished, and it was generally accepted. So while he may be asking a good question-Who shot John Wilkes Booth? He doesn’t give any real answer as to why he thinks that it matters, or why it is relevant to his overarching belief that Stanton started this. If Stanton wanted Booth silenced, then whoever killed Booth did a bad job, because he laid there against a tree outside the barn for nearly two hours. The soldiers let Booth talk during that time, and he did. Slowly, Booth died out a few hours later. It is unfair to say that there was any skullduggery that directly involved Stanton in this case.
The last detail that Eisenschiml tries to make is borderline ridiculous. During the capture, sentencing and hanging of the 8 co-conspirators, they were forced to wear shackles and hoods. According to Eisenschiml, the shackles made it impossible for the prisoners to write and communicate. The hoods prevented them from verbally communicating. In the eyes of Eisenschiml, this was done to make sure the prisoners could not talk or share what they knew. He believes this was done by Stanton to silence those who were not killed, but were capable of implicating him and his plot. Stanton did not design the shackles himself, but signed off on them. The restraints were unique in that they made the left hand move the same way as the right, making it impossible to write on paper.
Again, this idea doesn’t hold up under close scrutiny. The prisoners were questioned numerous times when first captured and throughout the investigation. They were able to speak during the investigations and also at the trials, where they had proper legal representation. They were given ample time to talk, and expose Stanton if they wanted to. Eisenschiml claims also that the hoods were designed so that they could not speak. Even if this is true, which it is not confirmed, that does not explain June 10, 1865. The hoods were ordered to be permanently removed due to the extreme heat that day. The prisoners had an opportunity to speak then. Those prisoners that got a life sentence were sent to a prison far away, which Eisenschiml believes was another way to silence them. Again, this is wrong. The prisoners, while in a far away location, could have said something to the guards or other prisoners, or even the crew aboard the transport ship.
The last section of Eisenschiml’s book deals with Stanton himself. He examines his character and beliefs. He notes that Stanton never got along with Lincoln, and they frequently argued over political decisions. He then takes a lot of quotes from Stanton, and makes a few outrageous claims. The first is that Stanton tried to deliberately elongate the Civil War. He believed Stanton thought if the war continued, then the army would only get larger. Stanton believed that when a war ended, they would take the man directly in charge of that large army and make him the supreme ruler. Eisenschiml uses questionable sources, and twists Stanton’s quotes so they are out of context. There is no true proof that Stanton did anything to try to make the war last any longer. It is a ridiculous allegation. Of course, this would explain why he would try and get Lincoln out of office, so that he could make his power play and take over the government. His biggest flaw is just that there is no evidence of this. The author takes a few random words Stanton said and plays with them until they fit his aim. He has based this whole last section of the book entirely on painting Stanton as this bad guy, a man of questionable morals and attitudes. That is not the way to revise history. To say he was a bad guy and that is why he must have done it is not a credible response. Eisenschiml fails here yet again.
Eisenschiml examines a number of possibly intriguing events and actions taken before, during, and after the assassination of President Lincoln. Unfortunately, he fails to draw any realistic or reasonable conclusions from this. Instead, he tries to concoct some ridiculous conspiracy. Essentially his book is a twisted maze that has no exit. As the reader gets deeper and deeper into his points and details, they only get more lost. He has created a labyrinth, and he himself has lost his way in the middle of it. He brings up interesting topics for discussion or revision, but just does not follow through on presenting accurate answers. His method is questionable, and it does not provide any real evidence for any of his arguments. He did have personal motives to write this story, and they can’t be forgotten.
There are people who do believe Eisenschiml’s theory, and it isn’t too difficult to understand why. This event was a huge tragedy, one of the biggest in our nation’s brief history. People wanted an answer. Booth being crazy and acting alone just simply wasn’t enough for a lot of people. The other major assassination in U.S. history, that of John F. Kennedy, has also sparked a huge outburst of conspiracy theories. I think that they partly emerge because of the magnitude of their importance, but also because people struggle to comprehend these events. They want there to be some elaborate reason and cause, when the reality is that it often is the simplest answer. Also, especially in America, there is a sense of individualism that drives everyone to have unique viewpoints and beliefs. One of the foundations of our country is that people are allowed to have those ideas, and share them. Thus, conspiracy theories arise and become popular.
There are numerous other theories out there regarding a plot behind the Lincoln assassination. One involves the kidnapping of all major officials to save the Confederacy. Another one incorporated the Catholic Church, who was believed to be getting revenge against Lincoln for a case he tried while still just a lawyer in Illinois. This topic is interesting to revisionists and historians because there are little inconsistencies in the facts, and certain choices and decisions that do not make a lot of sense. But, for now, until more information is discovered and revealed, there is just this labyrinth. There is this maze, this web, with no clear way out, no up or down, and no exit.

Eisenschiml, Otto. Why Was Lincoln Murdered. Boston: Little, Brown and, 1937. Print.
Hanchett, William. “Ch. 6 Eisenschiml’s Grand Conspiracy.” The Lincoln Murder Conspiracies: Being an Account of the Hatred Felt by Many Americans for President Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War and the First Complete Examination and Refutation of the Many Theories, Hypotheses, and Speculations Put Forward since 1865 concerning Those Presumed to Have Aided, Abetted, Controlled, or Directed the Murderous Act of John Wilkes Booth in Ford’s Theater the Night of April 14. Urbana: University of Illinois, 1986. Print.


Additional information

Michael Burlingame, Lincoln and the Civil War, 1st ed.

In Lincoln and the Civil War Michael Burlingame explores the experiences and qualities that made Abraham Lincoln one of America’s most revered leaders. This volume provides an illuminating overview of the entirety of the Civil War and Lincoln’s administration, focusing on the ways in which Lincoln’s unique combination of psychological maturity, steely determination, and political wisdom &hellip Continue reading Michael Burlingame, Lincoln and the Civil War, 1st ed. & rarr

Philip Kunhardt Jr. & Family Members, Lincoln: An Illustrated Biography, dj

A Beautiful Gift. Richly Illustrated

Edwin Stanton, Autograph Letter, Signed

Stanton Answers and Inquiry About a Naval Deserter

Abraham Lincoln, Modern Photograph, O-77, albumen toned

The Gettysburg Lincoln,New Smaller Format!

New Acquisitions

Libbie Custer Burnishes Her Husband’s Legend

An Almost Impossible to Find Pamphlet!

Possibly Purchased By a New Hampshire Congressman During the 1860 …


In 1901, he emigrated to the United States and took a job as an industrial chemistry He rose through the ranks to become president of the Scientific Oil Compounding Company. Foreign much of his life, Eisenschiml lived in Chicago, Illinois. He invented a window envelope made from one piece of paper. Later he developed a test to detect the presence of fish oil contaminants in vegetable oil. Eisenschiml was well published within the chemical and oil industries, authoring several articles in trade journals and magazines on various technical aspects of the business. He became a student of American history, with a particular fascination for the Abraham Lincoln assassination. He began researching the murder in 1928, but was not satisfied with the prevailing account that John Wilkes Booth was the mastermind of the plot. In 1937, his signature work,, was published to mixed reviews and a national furor. The resulting publicity resulted in good sales volumes. In it, he postulated that the Secretary of War, Edwin M. Stanton had plotted to kill Lincoln due to marked political and personal differences. He used circumstantial evidence to build his case, including Stanton"s hiring of a bodyguard named John Parker to protect the president (Parker was temporarily absent when assassin Booth entered the presidential box at Ford"s Theater). Eisenschiml also speculated that Stanton had deliberately left one key bridge across the Anacostia River open, the same bridge Booth actually used to escape, and that he ordered Booth to be shot and killed by the Union Army. Another controversial suggestion was that Stanton tore several incriminating pages from Booth"s diary. The book sparked other books and conspiracy theories, as well as some films. His theories have become popularly known as the "Eisenschiml Thesis," but have generally been discredited by leading historians. Otto Eisenschiml"s first book on the assassination inspired the 1942 Broadway play Yours, A. Lincoln. His theory, or one derived from it, was mentioned by the fictional detective Steve Crosetti in an episode of Homicide: Life on the Street. Edward Hyam"s book, Killing Number Murder, which studied a number of assassinations, accepted this theory, with the added error of supposing Secretaries Seward and Stanton to be next in line after the Vice President. Eisenschiml"s book is also referenced in the 2007 Disney film National Treasure: Book of Secrets, when it is mentioned by a precocious child during a scene at the White House Easter egg roll. Similar to the book, the film"s premise was partially inspired by pages missing from John Wilkes Booth"s diary.


OTTO EISENSCHIML., 01/01/1928-12/31/1956

The bulk of the Barbee Papers concerns his research, accomplished primarily between the years 1928-1958. The Papers are organized according to provenance into seven series, out-lining his historical interests. The series are: I: Abraham Lincoln II: Death of Lincoln III: Lincoln and Booth IV: John Wilkes Booth V: Conspirators VI: Rose O'Neil Greenhow and VII: American History. Because of the inter-relatedness of topics, the same subject files may be found in a number of series. An alphabetical index to subjects is appended to the finding aid and should be consulted. The Papers are largely subject-oriented. File headings as they appear in the folder descriptions are either in large case to indicate subject files or in small case to indicate correspondence files.

The Papers contain correspondence, manuscripts, transcribed material, photocopies of documents, newspaper clippings, printed material, and photographs. Transcribed material, photocopies of documents, and newspaper clippings represent an enormous amount of research through published and unpublished sources. Barbee was able to gain access to a great deal of material still in private hands, the continued existence of which is uncertain. It is interesting to note that Barbee was one of the scholars to read through the Lincoln Papers when they were opened to the public. Through his studies, he not only concerned himself with major historical figures, but identified many less central characters and spent a great deal of time in reconstructing their societal context.

Correspondence contains fascinating discussions of history, shared with a wide variety of individuals, in addition to including specific research inquiries in search of source material. Because of the years in which Barbee conducted his research, he was fortunate in being able to correspond with close relatives of historical figures from the Civil War era, such as Mrs. Lee D. Marie, grand-daughter of Rose O'Neil Greenhow. Barbee's large correspondence with historians includes letters from Paul M. Angle, Charles Beard, Samuel Ashe, Matthew Page Andrews, Frank Maloy Anderson, Ray P. Basler, Otto Eisenschiml, Lyon G. Tyler, Philip Van Doren Stern, Henry Steele Commager, Emmanuel Hetz, Archibald Henderson, and Albert J. Beveridge, among others. Other correspondents include Bennet Cerf, General Merritte W. Ireland, Stephen Early, Nicholas Murray Butler, Claude G. Bowers, Cordell Hull, Adlai Stevenson, Patrick Hurley, William Jennings Bryan and Lyndon B. Johnson. Other material of note includes original correspondence concerning the estate of Rose O'N. Greenhow. Included are letters between A.M. Waddell of Wilmington, North Carolina and Richard Savage, dated 1866-1869. The question of the Greenhow estate is particularly interesting since she was found after her death with large amounts of gold, presumably for the Confederacy. Also included in the Greenhow series are three photographs of - Greenhow, including a carte-de-visite taken in London shortly before her death, a memorial card after her death, and a da- guerreotype, date unknown.

Size: 25.0 linear feet 17 boxes Dates: 1886-1956 (terminal) 1928-1956 (bulk)


The University of Iowa Libraries

Alternate Extent Statement: Photographs in Series I, Box 6.

Tillgång: This collection is open for research.

Use: Copyright restrictions may apply please consult Special Collections staff for further information.

Acquisition: This collection was donated by Ralph G. Newman in 1975.

Preferred Citation: Otto Eisenschiml Papers, The University of Iowa Libraries, Iowa City, Iowa.

Repository: University of Iowa Special Collections
Adress: Special Collections Department
University of Iowa Libraries
Iowa City, IA 52242
Telefon: 319-335-5921
Curator: Greg Prickman
E-post: [email protected]
Website: http://www.lib.uiowa.edu/sc

Personal correspondence and biographical material, typescripts, galleys, and published versions of Eisenschiml's articles, reviews, and other major works, chiefly about Abraham Lincoln, the Lincoln assassination, and the Civil War reviews of Eisenschiml's works correspondence, legal briefs, petitions, and other records relating to Eisenschiml's suit against Fawcett Publications, Inc . and research materials including 19th and 20th century newspaper clippings, Civil War related publications, illustrations and prints.


Titta på videon: RBL UNIVERSE: DEEP-EX-SENSE ПЛАСТМАССОВЫЙ МИР VS OTTO ИВАНУШКИ INT. 18. BPM