Dear Ms. Protopapas,
From my book:

He was relieved from “regimental command, or other military duty, and ordered to proceed to Washington, but not in arrest,” Oct. 2, 1863, in response to the following mysterious order from Secretary of War Stanton to Maj. Gen. Meade, “Information received at this Department indicates that Colonel Percy Wyndham should not be permitted to have a command or come within the lines of your army at present.” The information referred to may have been allegations that Wyndham was connected with a plot to kidnap Lincoln and his Cabinet.

The speculation as to the reason for Stanton’s order is based on correspondence with the late Lincoln- assassination scholar James O. Hall, citing an article in the July 29, 1867 issue (p. 2) of the Philadelphia Inquirer. This source is listed in the book with my references for the Wyndham sketch.

Quoting from the newspaper article (of which I only have excerpts), which appeared at the time of the trial of John H. Surratt, “The parties mentioned, proceeding in their accounts, assert that it is very probable Surratt was engaged in the attempt to abduct Lincoln, as that scheme had first been started in 1863, as a legitimate piece of warfare. At that early date, Percy Wyndham, commanding at and around Washington, it is alleged, was to have delivered Mr. Lincoln and Cabinet to General Lee’s headquarters, and would, they say, have done so had he not been removed before the time fixed for carrying out the project.”

In my opinion the allegations of Wyndham’s involvement in the Lincoln conspiracy, although providing a convenient explanation for his treatment by the War Department, are just speculation and impossible to prove.

Best Wishes,
Roger D. Hunt

Please let me know if you hear from Roger. I have something totally unrelated to ask him, so any contact information you can pass along will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

Eric

However, I did make known to the publisher’s representative that I could not imagine a serious author making such a comment without at least some credible source as a reference. Even if it is Mr. Hunt’s subjective opinion – and that may well be the case – only the terminally paranoid arrive at conclusions absent ANY foundation! Ergo, I hope to ‘pressure’ (however gently) Mr. Hunt into responding. If he does, perhaps we can get a bit more information to go on than a devastating opinion that was simply ‘tossed off’.