+- Lincoln Discussion Symposium (https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium)
+-- Forum: Lincoln Discussion Symposium (/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Assassination (/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Was there an assassin on Grant's train? (/thread-2471.html)
Was there an assassin on Grant's train? - RJNorton - 05-23-2015 04:26 AM
(05-21-2015 11:11 AM)Wild Bill Wrote: Richmond sent powderman Thomas Harney to blow up the White house. But Harney was captured just outside Washington. He was to be led into the Whitehouse basement by Booth and his compatriots. Now Booth wondered where Harney was, found him in the Old Capitol Prison though informants, and decided to do Harney’s job for him. Explosives were beyond the ken of Booth and his men so they reverted to normal weapons—revolvers, knives. The targets were Lincoln (Booth), Johnson (Atzerodt), Seward (Powell), Stanton (Olaughlen), and Grant (Surratt). So Booth and his cohorts carried out a MILITARY OPERATION to nullify the C3I of the Union Forces in the field. At the time only Lee’s army had surrendered, and his was the smallest force in the field for the Confederacy.
I found what Bill said about John Surratt most interesting as we have debated John Surratt's whereabouts on the 14th in other threads. We have also debated whether or not Grant was targeted for assassination. If Bill is right then John Surratt was in Washington (not Elmira), found out from Booth that Grant had changed plans (about the theater invitation), and then boarded the Grants' train with the intent of assassination (but did not succeed).
(For years I have gone back and forth regarding Surratt's whereabouts on the 14th)
In Beware the People Weeping Thomas Turner writes that Grant's son, Jesse, said that "his mother received a letter from someone claiming he was supposed to assassinate Grant, but had failed and been glad of it ever since. The general himself referred to a similar letter he received after the assassination, but he could not determine if it was genuine or not."
In her memoirs Julia Grant included the text of the anonymous letter her husband received shortly after the Lincoln assassination:
'General Grant, thank God, as I do, that you still live. It was your life that fell to my lot, and I followed you on the [railroad] cars. Your car door was locked, and thus you escaped me, thank God.'
Could John Surratt have sent these letters? If Surratt were in Elmira, who would Booth have assigned to kill Grant on the train? O'Laughlen?
Was there an assassin on Grant's train with the assignment to kill him?
RE: Was there an assassin on Grant's train? - Wild Bill - 05-23-2015 07:20 AM
Uh, oh. I see that I shot off my mouth, a constant problem, and stepped right into the 70 cent spread (you know, the stuff that coats the dirt floor in horse and mule corrals), again. And Roger caught it, again.
For those of you who care, my argument that John H. Surratt, Jr., was on Grant's train is presented in my book, Confederate Freedom Fighter, which can be got from the Surratt Society book store. It's a cheap read.
I write, to the disgust of many, something I call historical fiction. Fiction is a genre in which 10% or more of the book is made up. I maintain that I just barely go over that line and about 85-90% of what I write is non-fiction, real history. I invite the reader to check me out by including either footnotes or chapter notes, telling you where I got my material.
I also look at the standard materials in a different manner that traditional authors of the Lincoln Assassination. This often results in turning the usual accounts on their heads. For example, when Mudd's neighbors testify at the trial of the conspirators how horrified they were to hear of Lincoln's assassination through Mudd, I write it exactly the opposite. What do you think 3 Southern, pro-Confederates are going to say to each other out in the middle of Southern, slaveholding Maryland miles from any Yankee witnesses?
So, in Confederate Freedom Fighter, I took the usually dismissed account of a federal detective that he followed Surratt up Pennsylvania Avenue on April 14, that other saw Surratt in Charley Woods' barbershop with Booth, and that a stable owner helped him get to Grant's train in time to board, telling federal investigators he was merely picking up rental horses, a common practice among liveries in Washington. Then the numbers of armed soldiers caused Surratt to remember his training for the priesthood and reconsider his mission. He continued on to Canada, meeting Sarah Slater en route (a la John Stanton). I once asked Andrew Jampoler about this possibility and he refused to talk to me about it, seeing me as a nut (there's that word again). He's probably right.
RE: Was there an assassin on Grant's train? - JMadonna - 05-23-2015 09:29 PM
I postulated that the man on the train following Grant was Donaldson, the man that Atzerodt identified. p.124-125
RE: Was there an assassin on Grant's train? - John Fazio - 05-23-2015 09:55 PM
Roger and Bill:
I come to this a little late, but let me weigh in.
It is not necessary to postulate that Booth found Harney in the Old Capitol Prison through informants, though that is of course possible. He would have had a hard time communicating with him there, assuming he could even get to see him. The far greater likelihood, in my opinion, is that he was informed of the failure of Harney's mission and the capture of Harney at Burke Station by telegraph and ordered to proceed with the contingency plan, which Surratt had most likely received in Richmond when he was there in late March and early April, returning to Washington on April 3 and leaving for Montreal the next morning, stopping first in New York to see Booth (who was in Boston). Thus it was that Booth advised Surratt in Montreal, on the 10th (Harney was captured on the 9th, per Crawford) that their plans had changed and that in consequence thereof he was to return to Washington forthwith, which he did, or at least began to do, "immediately", or so he told McMillan. In these circumstances, it doesn't make a lot of sense that he would stop in Elmira and blithely patronize tailors and haberdashers. In my opinion, Booth did not "decide to do his (Harney's) job for him"; he had already been instructed to approximate Harney's intended results if Harney's mission failed. I agree that at least Lincoln, Johnson, Seward, Stanton and Grant were targeted. Many others may also have been targeted (as many as 15, per the Confederate agent "Johnston"), but the evidence for these is weak.
It is unlikely that Surratt was on the train with Grant, but it is nearly certain that someone was and that the someone's assignment was to assassinate Grant. Remember that there were many more involved in the conspiracy than Booth and his action team. Remember that Powell said to Eckert that "All I can say about this is that you (Federal prosecutors) do not have the one-half of them" and that it was his "impression" that others had been assigned to make such disposition with respect to other Federal officeholders as he was to make of Seward. What this tells us is that would-be assassins were in motion that night other than Booth and his team, such as it was, and that whoever was assigned to kill Grant was almost certainly outside of Booth's immediate team.
I regard the letter to Grant as genuine (there is nothing self-serving about it) and so, apparently, did Grant and Julia. It appears in all of Grant's biographies, in Julia's Memoirs and in a conversation Grant had with Lamon in 1880. Further, Josiah Bunting III claimed that Julia actually heard the scuffling on the platform. Further, the reference to a locked car door in the letter squares perfectly with Grant's expressed recollection. It is nearly impossible that Surratt--the cold-blooded killer of Union POW's and Union agents on the Potomac, whose deeds, if known by McMillan, he said, would make him "stare" or "gape"-- would have authored such a letter, which is very persuasive evidence that Surratt was not on the train. Who would Booth have assigned to do the job? Why do we automatically assume that Booth did the assigning? Booth was himself being handled, an assignee as well as an assignor. Why wouldn't one of his handlers, or in any case someone other than he, someone in a position of greater authority, have made the assignment?
Where was Surratt on the 14th? I believe the greater likelihood is that he was in Washington, but it is still an open question. One must at least consider the possibility that he made use of a double. There is, in fact, reference to a Surratt "personator" in the literature. If there were such, and he made use of him, it would explain everything. In any case, it is not necessary to determine where he was to exclude him as the would-be assassin of Grant.
All of the foregoing, and much more, is in my book, "Decapitating the Union". The more copies one orders, the cheaper they are. In fact, if one orders 100,000 or more copies, one gets them for nothing.
John
RE: Was there an assassin on Grant's train? - Rick Smith - 05-24-2015 04:25 PM
John,
You state the following in your post:
"The far greater likelihood, in my opinion, is that he was informed of the failure of Harney's mission and the capture of Harney at Burke Station by telegraph and ordered to proceed with the contingency plan, which Surratt had most likely received in Richmond when he was there in late March and early April . . ."
I like what you are saying here, as it more than suggests that Booth's plan was not his own; that he was recruited to do a job and was under orders, which is what I believe, but who was telegraphing Booth to instruct him to proceed with the contingency plan?
Rick
RE: Was there an assassin on Grant's train? - John Fazio - 05-26-2015 02:22 AM
(05-24-2015 04:25 PM)Rick Smith Wrote: John,
You state the following in your post:
"The far greater likelihood, in my opinion, is that he was informed of the failure of Harney's mission and the capture of Harney at Burke Station by telegraph and ordered to proceed with the contingency plan, which Surratt had most likely received in Richmond when he was there in late March and early April . . ."
I like what you are saying here, as it more than suggests that Booth's plan was not his own; that he was recruited to do a job and was under orders, which is what I believe, but who was telegraphing Booth to instruct him to proceed with the contingency plan?
Rick
Rick:
Sorry for not getting to this sooner. I just saw it.
Your belief that Booth was recruited to do a job and was under orders is, IMO, on the money. His initial recruitment probably came in New Orleans in 1863, which is why he and some of his team were talking about murdering Lincoln in April, 1864, according to Mrs. McClermont, who testified in Surratt's trial. In any case, the Parker House meeting with 4 Confederate agents in Boston in July, 1864, is when things went into high gear. The fact that he began to assemble his team in early August, shortly after the meeting, cannot have been a coincidence; surely the Boston meeting was related to the recruitment.
It was Ste. Marie's opinion that Surratt received the contingency plan when he was in Richmond shortly before leaving for Washington, New York and Montreal in early April. As to who telegraphed Booth, I believe we can only answer that question in general terms, i.e. we cannot identify an individual. The failure of Harney's mission had to be immediately known to enough people who were involved in it (Mosby's Rangers, Boyle, Summers, Baylor and, of course, Davis and Benjamin) for one of them to telegraph, or to arrange for the telegraphing of, Booth, instructing him to activate the contingency plan. Why else would Booth immediately contact Surratt in Montreal on the 10th (per McMillan, also mentioned by Weichmann) and tell him to return to Washington immediately because their plans had changed. Who or what besides the failure of the Harney mission would have changed them? It seems quite solid to me. Remember that most prosecutors believe circumstantial evidence to be better than eyewitness and material evidence.
John
RE: Was there an assassin on Grant's train? - Gene C - 05-26-2015 06:39 AM
I am under the impression Ste. Marie has a credibility problem.
Excuse me, there is so much to try to remember, who (Surratt?) or what (hotel registry?) is the source for the Boston meeting, and do we know who else was there?
Who is Mrs. McClermont?
RE: Was there an assassin on Grant's train? - RJNorton - 05-26-2015 06:51 AM
I recall we once discussed whether Booth went to Boston (1) to meet with Confederate agents or (2) to see Isabel Sumner.
RE: Was there an assassin on Grant's train? - Gene C - 05-26-2015 07:12 AM
Here's one of the places we talked about it, and it answered my first question
http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-550.html?highlight=Isabel+Sumner
RE: Was there an assassin on Grant's train? - Rick Smith - 05-26-2015 07:21 AM
(05-26-2015 02:22 AM)John Fazio Wrote:(05-24-2015 04:25 PM)Rick Smith Wrote: John,
You state the following in your post:
"The far greater likelihood, in my opinion, is that he was informed of the failure of Harney's mission and the capture of Harney at Burke Station by telegraph and ordered to proceed with the contingency plan, which Surratt had most likely received in Richmond when he was there in late March and early April . . ."
I like what you are saying here, as it more than suggests that Booth's plan was not his own; that he was recruited to do a job and was under orders, which is what I believe, but who was telegraphing Booth to instruct him to proceed with the contingency plan?
Rick
Rick:
Sorry for not getting to this sooner. I just saw it.
Your belief that Booth was recruited to do a job and was under orders is, IMO, on the money. His initial recruitment probably came in New Orleans in 1863, which is why he and some of his team were talking about murdering Lincoln in April, 1864, according to Mrs. McClermont, who testified in Surratt's trial. In any case, the Parker House meeting with 4 Confederate agents in Boston in July, 1864, is when things went into high gear. The fact that he began to assemble his team in early August, shortly after the meeting, cannot have been a coincidence; surely the Boston meeting was related to the recruitment.
It was Ste. Marie's opinion that Surratt received the contingency plan when he was in Richmond shortly before leaving for Washington, New York and Montreal in early April. As to who telegraphed Booth, I believe we can only answer that question in general terms, i.e. we cannot identify an individual. The failure of Harney's mission had to be immediately known to enough people who were involved in it (Mosby's Rangers, Boyle, Summers, Baylor and, of course, Davis and Benjamin) for one of them to telegraph, or to arrange for the telegraphing of, Booth, instructing him to activate the contingency plan. Why else would Booth immediately contact Surratt in Montreal on the 10th (per McMillan, also mentioned by Weichmann) and tell him to return to Washington immediately because their plans had changed. Who or what besides the failure of the Harney mission would have changed them? It seems quite solid to me. Remember that most prosecutors believe circumstantial evidence to be better than eyewitness and material evidence.
John
John,
Thanks for your response. There is so much more here than meets the eye. It is obvious that the cast of actors in this drama was vast and that we will never know all who participated. As an aside, I suppose that telegraphic messages could be relayed by tapping into lines with a small, portable handset apparatus. I believe that Thomas Harbin's teammate, Joseph Baden, was a telegrapher.
Rick
RE: Was there an assassin on Grant's train? - Wild Bill - 05-26-2015 12:02 PM
I am willing to go along with Fazio's assertion that John Surratt gave the plan to use Harney to Booth, and possibly revealed a follow-up if Harney failed to get into DC, but the rest of it I dunno.
Booth and his men could get into the White House basement and had done so several times. So Harney's plan would work, providing nothing happened to thwart it. But Harney was intercepted, probably accidentally, by elements of the 8th Illinois Cavalry at Burke's Station outside DC and the mule carrying 50 lbs of black powder in two kegs got roughed up in the fight and half of the load was scattered along the road. The existence of such a cargo would have gone around the military and civilian population of DC in a flash and become the talk of the town. Booth surely would have heard of the incident. I tend to agree with THG, Come Retribution, that there is nothing more dangerous than an agent behind enemy lines wondering what to do if the plan is falling apart and no one speaking to him from command.
Telegraphy was high tech for the 1860s and not many knew its mysteries unless one had worked on the railroads before the war. I know we had to learn Morse Code when I was a Boy Scout (in the days before the controversy over gay scoutmasters--ours was a defense attorney, and believe me, we needed him!), but I can testify that sending and receiving a message at full speed is no easy task to master. There could have been a telegrapher with Mosby's men, but I bet not. This was a flying column, not a headquarters unit--one with a telegrapher or a portable handset, a box to send a message and a 10-12 foot pole to access a line. A real telegraphic unit usually travelled by wagon in the Civil War, not like Joseph bayed with a minimum of equipment.
RE: Was there an assassin on Grant's train? - Gene C - 05-26-2015 12:31 PM
(05-26-2015 12:02 PM)Wild Bill Wrote: Booth and his men could get into the White House basement and had done so several times.
I didn't know that. What did they do, or try to do in the basement?
Do you know where I can read more about this?
RE: Was there an assassin on Grant's train? - Wild Bill - 05-26-2015 03:26 PM
Gene, That is my interpretation of George Atzerodt's to confessions. It is in Last Confederate Heroes, 518-22, 688. You are free to disagree with me, no offense.
RE: Was there an assassin on Grant's train? - L Verge - 05-26-2015 06:55 PM
I think Bill may be elaborating on some information that I was in on back when the White House historian, William Seale, had just finished his tome on the history of that grand old mansion. The Come Retribution gang was working on their book and were delighted to find out that I had once had some conversations with Mr. Seale. They were working on the theory that Confederate agents could gain access to the building, but needed to know how.
On their behalf, I contacted Mr. Seale and put all parties in touch with each other. Mr. Seale had an immediate answer. The sewer lines into the White House at that time were large enough for a man of general height to stand upright in them. I don't believe that anyone could prove that agents did use this means, but it was possible.
RE: Was there an assassin on Grant's train? - John Fazio - 05-27-2015 02:31 AM
(05-26-2015 06:39 AM)Gene C Wrote: I am under the impression Ste. Marie has a credibility problem.
Excuse me, there is so much to try to remember, who (Surratt?) or what (hotel registry?) is the source for the Boston meeting, and do we know who else was there?
Who is Mrs. McClermont?
Gene:
1. Ste. Marie does have a credibility problem. One must weigh his statements carefully and consider form, substance, motive, context and corroboration or lack thereof in assessing them. In this case, he was merely giving an opinion, not reporting something he had seen and/or heard. We may accept his opinion, then, for what it is worth as an opinion, taking into account that he based it on what he had learned from Surratt directly.
2. The Parker House meeting is covered in some detail by Roscoe (p. 502) and Tidwell, Hall and Gaddy (pp. 262, 263), both of whom rely heavily on the letter of May 30, 1865, from Cordial Crane to Stanton, a copy of which is in the National Archives and may be found on pp. 401 and 402 of The Lincoln Assassination (Edwards and Steers).
3. Mrs. McClermont is a women we should all know about. She did not testify at the trial of the conspirators, but she did testify at John Surratt's trial. She stated under oath that she heard Booth, Herold and Atzerodt discussing the murder of Lincoln as early as April, 1864. Her testimony was never impeached and is critical to understanding that the business of kidnapping was always a ruse to conceal the far more sinister plan to assassinate. Coupled with much other evidence of this fact, her testimony is very valuable. You may read it in my book at pp. 136 and 137 or in the original source, The Trial of John H. Surratt, Vol. I, pp. 365 and 366.
Thanks. I hope this helps.
John