+- Lincoln Discussion Symposium (https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium)
+-- Forum: Lincoln Discussion Symposium (/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Assassination (/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Herold and Surratt (/thread-1218.html)
RE: Herold and Surratt - RJNorton - 11-07-2013 12:47 PM
(11-07-2013 10:34 AM)John Fazio Wrote: What time did Grant's train leave?
John
John, I used Jim Bishop's book for the 6 P.M. in my post. Yes, I realize Bishop did not footnote his book, but here is the time schedule included in The Day Lincoln Was Shot:
6 P.M. Leave Washington City
7:25 P.M Arrive Baltimore
12:00 P.M. Arrive Philadelphia
Change Trains
6:00 A.M. Leave Philadelphia
7:00 A.M. Arrive Burlington
RE: Herold and Surratt - wsanto - 11-07-2013 02:20 PM
(11-07-2013 10:34 AM)John Fazio Wrote: Excellent! The next question is: What time did Grant's train leave? (Let me add that though I am interested in this line of thought, I am doubtful that Surratt was Grant's pursuer. The letter received by Grant shortly thereafter, in which the writer identified himself as the would-be assassin and expressed his thanks to God that he had not been successful, does not sound like Surratt, whom other evidence indicates was a cold-blooded killer.)John,
John
What evidence do you have that leads you to believe Surratt was a "cold-blooded killer"? Did he ever kill anyone?
Assassinating Grant in the company of his wife on a moving train or at a busy train station with no real planning would have been pretty much a suicide mission. I assume Grant was heavily guarded after news of the assassination in Washington reached them making it even more difficult at this point for a prospective assassin.
It is easy to see how it failed if there was a prospective assassin assigned to Grant. Even the most cold-blooded of killers would have likely aborted a mission so full of risk.
RE: Herold and Surratt - irshgrl500 - 11-07-2013 04:08 PM
(11-07-2013 12:47 PM)RJNorton Wrote:(11-07-2013 10:34 AM)John Fazio Wrote: What time did Grant's train leave?
John
John, I used Jim Bishop's book for the 6 P.M. in my post. Yes, I realize Bishop did not footnote his book, but here is the time schedule included in The Day Lincoln Was Shot:
6 P.M. Leave Washington City
7:25 P.M Arrive Baltimore
12:00 P.M. Arrive Philadelphia
Change Trains
6:00 A.M. Leave Philadelphia
7:00 A.M. Arrive Burlington
I may be a bit behind but wasn't there an unsent telegram, which Surratt intended to send on 4/15, Saturday, from the lobby of Brainard House, in Elmira, NY? Ok, which also means, he could have been in D.C., the night before; the night of the shooting.
RE: Herold and Surratt - L Verge - 11-07-2013 04:57 PM
Not according to the railroad schedules that Mr. Hall and John Stanton have researched.
I'd like to read this assessment--where can it be found? Thanks.
Go to his book, American Brutus, last chapter entitled Coda, pgs. 387-390.
RE: Herold and Surratt - SSlater - 11-07-2013 06:54 PM
Train Schedules. The train schedule that I provided in another Post was the schedule for Spies to reach Montreal - beginning in the AM. The schedule discussed here would have been for a late afternoon departure. (I do not know the exact time Grant left D.C.) I have a schedules that shows trains leaving at 14:00 and 16:30. (No more after that, that would put you in Philly the same day) These are B&O Trains. In Baltimore you transfer to P. W. & B (Philadelphia, Wilmington and Philadelphia RR) . The transfer through Baltimore, is by horses attached to the cars. Then starts lay-overs, river crossings (by ferry boats,) and not exactly the same routes. The two trains eventually become one train and arrives Philly at 22:01. (That's time is to be laughed at. "Schedules" are not to be taken seriously. From all that I can read, the schedule is approximate, but is NEVER early.
From Grant's book, I read that the Army met his train and provided Ambulances for his use in getting to the Delaware River. I can make a SWAG, that the Army arranged for him to cross the river, immediately. (I was not aware that he remained in Philly overnight. I was of the opinion that he reached his children that night.)
Also consider, that the Train Schedules may have become scrambled, when the Assassination news was announced, and not one of us is correct. In summary, I can't confront the schedule given by Jim Bishop
RE: Herold and Surratt - John Fazio - 11-08-2013 11:28 AM
(11-07-2013 02:20 PM)wsanto Wrote:(11-07-2013 10:34 AM)John Fazio Wrote: Excellent! The next question is: What time did Grant's train leave? (Let me add that though I am interested in this line of thought, I am doubtful that Surratt was Grant's pursuer. The letter received by Grant shortly thereafter, in which the writer identified himself as the would-be assassin and expressed his thanks to God that he had not been successful, does not sound like Surratt, whom other evidence indicates was a cold-blooded killer.)John,
John
What evidence do you have that leads you to believe Surratt was a "cold-blooded killer"? Did he ever kill anyone?
Assassinating Grant in the company of his wife on a moving train or at a busy train station with no real planning would have been pretty much a suicide mission. I assume Grant was heavily guarded after news of the assassination in Washington reached them making it even more difficult at this point for a prospective assassin.
It is easy to see how it failed if there was a prospective assassin assigned to Grant. Even the most cold-blooded of killers would have likely aborted a mission so full of risk.
WSanto:
Thank you for your question and comments.
According to Dr. Lewis J. A. McMillan, the doctor aboard the Peruvian, in whose charge Surratt was placed by Catholic clergyman who had been protecting Surratt in Canada from April, 1865 (for reasons that are not known to this day, though I have a good theory), Surratt told him a great deal about his work with the Confederate Secret Service. The Peruvian was taking them to Europe from Quebec City. Among other things, McMillan said that Surratt, under the influence of alcohol and feeling safe outside of American jurisdiction (if a bit paranoid about some passengers), told him that he, Sarah Slater and others who were making their way to Richmond between 3-25 anad 3-31, 1865, murdered in cold blood a half dozen or so emaciated Union POW's who had escaped their captors. He also said that Surratt admitted that he and his companions murdered Union seamen who were approaching their craft on the Potomac for the purpose of accepting their surrender, to which Surratt and his companions had previously agreed to, thereby successfully escaping capture. He also said that Surratt admitted to summary execution of a Union telegrapher, caught in the act of telegraphing, somewhere in Virginia. In addition, he said to McMillan that "If you knew all the things I have done, it would make you stare (or gape)", or something to that effect. I believe we may safely surmise that Surratt's admissions to McMillan are the tip of the iceberg. Recall, too, that he allegedly told Ste. Marie that "We have killed Lincoln, the n-----s friend" and that if he met Weichman when he returned to the States, he would kill him. That's enough evidence for me.
John
(11-06-2013 09:53 PM)SSlater Wrote: I wish I could argue convincingly. By saying that I admit I can't.
We are all handicapped, because everything we read about assassination has been provided to us by the people who lived in 1865, who were as uninformed as we are today. They were either trying to distance themselves from Booth, or were trying to convict the assassins friends - as directed by the government. We believe Atzerodt, when his remarks seem to "prove" our position and then laugh at the poor soul when his remarks are contrary to what we want to believe. The same can be said about Weichmann and all the others. (Our Posts are too small to write in detail about all of them.
Then there is the tendency to use good information, erroneously, to make a point. See: Did Surratt and Booth not go to NY after the Campbell Hospital "failure"?NO, they did not.
Booth went to NY, and Surratt went to Richmond. See: Did Surratt not stop in NY to see Booth? Yes he did, but Booth was not there. See: Did not Surratt send a telegram to Booth from Elmira? OOPS! Surratt is in ELMIRA. Fact: Booth and Surratt never met again,in their lifetime, after the "failure".
My conclusion is: If Surratt was still a member of the assassination team, he would have made himself available, and would have been effective.
SSlater:
Sorry I have not responded sooner. Paperhanging with one arm again.
In my judgment, one cannot say categorically (as you did) that Surratt did not go to N.Y. after the Campbell Hospital "failure". Booth went to N.Y., yes: we agree on that. Powell too, after a stopover in Baltimore, though you did not mention him. We also know that Preston Parr was there. We also know that Surratt did not leave for Richmond until 3-25, i.e giving him about 8 days within which to go to New York and return to Washington, though we also know that Booth telegraphed him, in Washington, on the 23rd. Even with that, he still had from the 18th to the 23rd to go to N.Y. and return. Further, and most significantly, he was telegraphed on the 19th from N.Y.by fellow agent Roderick Watson, as follows:
I would like to see you on important business. If you can spare the time to come to New York. Please telegraph me immediately on the reception of this, whether you can come on or not & much oblige.
Inasmuch as Surratt did not leave for Richmond until the 25th and inasmcuh as his fellow conspirators, Booth and Powell, as well as Parr, were either in or on their way to N.Y., I would say that the probabilities are that Surratt joined them for the pow-wow. I realize I have the burden of proof on the affirmative, but I have at least made a case. What evidence do you have that he stayed in Washington from 3-18 through 3-25?
I Have already said that Booth wasn't in N.Y. (he was in Boston, performing) when Surratt stopped to see him on 4-5. That is unimportant. What is important is that he wanted to see him en route to Montreal, thus demonstrating that the two were still acting in concert, which was my only point.
I never said that Surratt was NOT in Elmira. That wasn't the issue; the issue is what he ultimately did in response to Booth's telegram to get back to Washington because their plans had changed. What is most important is not whether he was in Elmira or not, but the fact that he did, by his own admission, telegraph Booth to determine whether or not he had already left for Washington. All of this demonstrates continuing concerted action consistent with the decapitation plot. Your categorical statement that they never met again after 3-17 cannot be given as truth, but only as opinion. My opinion is that if they didn't meet, it wasn't for want of trying, and, further, that meeting was not necessary to the conspiracy; communication was, and there was that.
John
RE: Herold and Surratt - wsanto - 11-08-2013 12:11 PM
Thanks John.
I had not been aware of most of those accounts of which Surratt had apparently bragged. I wonder if they are really true? Is there any cooberating evidence?
Again, if he was sent after Grant, it would still have been very risky to attempt assassination on a moving train if he was contemplating any type of escape. And it would be too late once the train arrived in Philadelphia.
I don't see another scenario that has Surratt in Washington, being involved in the assassination plot but not attending the Herdon House meeting and not being assigned another major role (killing Johnson or Stanton)-- especially if he hade the bona fides of being a "cold-blooded killer".
I'm guessing he was most probably either in Elmira or on that train with Grant. Leaning toward Elmira.
Thanks--Bill C
RE: Herold and Surratt - John Fazio - 11-08-2013 12:39 PM
(11-07-2013 11:54 AM)L Verge Wrote: I believe that John Surratt left the "employ" of Booth after the aborted kidnapping on March 17 (which I know you don't believe ever existed). I believe that from that point on, Surratt was under the direction of Judah Benjamin and Gen. Edwin Lee in carrying messages - and maybe materials - between Richmond and Montreal that would assist in secreting Confederate assets and/or continuing warfare along the Northwest border with Canada. I do not believe that Surratt was in D.C. at the time of the assassination - having remained north after his escort duties with Sarah.
I know you think I'm following the company line, but I truly believe what past great researchers have published. Sorry - I'm one old dog that is not going to learn new tricks unless swatted over the head with a rolled up newspaper filled with primary source materials...
Laurie:
No, I DO believe the Campbell Hospital episode happened, but I DO NOT believe that Booth's real purpose was to kidnap Lincoln, nor did Arnold and nor does Kauffman. The former said that the episode was so demented and foolhardy that "we (note the "we"--he wasn't alone in the view) concluded that it was done to try the nerve of his (Booth's) associates", and the latter said that: "This incident has gone down in history as a failed attempt to kidnap Abraham Lincoln. To Booth, however, it was anything but a failure. ...In all likelihood, he staged the event to make it work for him. He really had no reason to think that Lincoln was planning to go to Campbell Hospital."
Surratt may have been under the direction of Benjamin and Lee after 3-17, but that fact, if a fact, does not exclude him from Booth's conspiracy. He may still have gone to N.Y before 3-25, meeting with the "crowd" who Atzerodt said threatened "to get him (Lincoln) quick" and "get the Presdt. certain". He was still summoned there by Roderick Watson. He still went to N.Y. on 4-5 and tried to see Booth. When McMillan asked him what he did in response to Booth's telegram advising him that their plans had changed and that he was to return to Washington forthwith, he answered: "I left for Washington immediately". Furthermore, Benjamin's and Lee's direction must surely have had something to do with Booth's conspiracy, inasmuch as the Confederate Government knew all about the conspiracy, the evidence for which is overwhelming. With the Confederacy crumbling and a full-blown plot to decapitate (up to 15, per Confederate agent "Johnston") in motion, is it believable that one of the Confederacy's top agents (Surratt) was soaking up scenery in New York state and blithely patronizing haberdashers ?
John
RE: Herold and Surratt - L Verge - 11-08-2013 01:21 PM
All I can say is "show me the proof." Right now, I think you are speculating (as did Mike on a number of points - despite his tremendous research). I also think you are giving John Surratt too much credit in classifying him as "one of the Confederacy's top agents." Skilled courier, yes - agent, no.
RE: Herold and Surratt - JMadonna - 11-08-2013 02:09 PM
(11-08-2013 11:28 AM)John Fazio Wrote:
(11-06-2013 09:53 PM)SSlater Wrote: My conclusion is: If Surratt was still a member of the assassination team, he would have made himself available, and would have been effective.
I never said that Surratt was NOT in Elmira. That wasn't the issue; the issue is what he ultimately did in response to Booth's telegram to get back to Washington because their plans had changed. What is most important is not whether he was in Elmira or not, but the fact that he did, by his own admission, telegraph Booth to determine whether or not he had already left for Washington. All of this demonstrates continuing concerted action consistent with the decapitation plot. Your categorical statement that they never met again after 3-17 cannot be given as truth, but only as opinion. My opinion is that if they didn't meet, it wasn't for want of trying, and, further, that meeting was not necessary to the conspiracy; communication was, and there was that.
John
IMO - Surratt was never a part of an assassination scheme. I believe he was the messenger who gave Thompson to OK to kill Lincoln but never knew what was in the letter. His job was to give the communication to Thompson and had no need to know what the letter contained.
Booth 's kidnapping scheme was dead when he learned that Lincoln now had a bounty on his head. It's the reason why he told Surratt ' plans had changed'. The new plot became a race which is why Booth told Atzerodt that the NY crowds would get him, if he didn't.
I don't believe Surratt knew of Booth's new plan so I agree with SSlater's logic in that he had no reason to be in Washington.
RE: Herold and Surratt - L Verge - 11-08-2013 02:29 PM
Jerry,
I want you to put a cold compress on your forehead and sit down, but I am agreeing with you on this!
RE: Herold and Surratt - Gene C - 11-08-2013 06:07 PM
(11-08-2013 11:28 AM)John Fazio Wrote: Among other things, McMillan said that Surratt, under the influence of alcohol and feeling safe outside of American jurisdiction (if a bit paranoid about some passengers), told him that he, Sarah Slater and others who were making their way to Richmond between 3-25 anad 3-31, 1865, murdered in cold blood a half dozen or so emaciated Union POW's who had escaped their captors. He also said that Surratt admitted that he and his companions murdered Union seamen who were approaching their craft on the Potomac for the purpose of accepting their surrender, to which Surratt and his companions had previously agreed to, thereby successfully escaping capture. He also said that Surratt admitted to summary execution of a Union telegrapher, caught in the act of telegraphing, somewhere in Virginia. In addition, he said to McMillan that "If you knew all the things I have done, it would make you stare (or gape)", or something to that effect. I believe we may safely surmise that Surratt's admissions to McMillan are the tip of the iceberg. Recall, too, that he allegedly told Ste. Marie that "We have killed Lincoln, the n-----s friend" and that if he met Weichman when he returned to the States, he would kill him. That's enough evidence for me.
John
This would add some credence to the fact that Weichmann feared retaliation from Surratt or other southern spy, even in his latter years.
RE: Herold and Surratt - JMadonna - 11-08-2013 06:11 PM
(11-08-2013 02:29 PM)L Verge Wrote: Jerry,
I want you to put a cold compress on your forehead and sit down, but I am agreeing with you on this!
PSST.....by the same logic, I don't believe Benjamin knew either
Well it was a good feeling while it lasted wasn't it?
RE: Herold and Surratt - John Fazio - 11-08-2013 09:59 PM
(11-08-2013 06:11 PM)JMadonna Wrote:(11-08-2013 02:29 PM)L Verge Wrote: Jerry,
I want you to put a cold compress on your forehead and sit down, but I am agreeing with you on this!
PSST.....by the same logic, I don't believe Benjamin knew either
Well it was a good feeling while it lasted wasn't it?
Jerry:
You have GOT to be kidding!!! Benjamin, the mastermind behind the Confederate year of terror (March, 1864, through April, 1865). Benjamin, without whose imprimatur, nothing was done by the Secret Service. Benjamin, in regular communication with the Canadian Cabinet, with Davis and with Surratt, the latter in regular communication with Booth. Benjamin, who ran for his life, even from Davis and his party, "anywhere, even if it takes me to the middle of China", because he knew he would not escape the hangman. Benjamin, who, after establishing a new career in England, never spoke about the war or of his role in it and never returned to the United States. That Benjamin! I repeat: You have got to be kidding.
John
RE: Herold and Surratt - Gene C - 11-08-2013 11:26 PM
John, I've got to agree with you. Why else would Booth go to Canada, but to get the approval and cooperation of the Confederate Secret Service.
Question, we know who some of the ringleaders of the Secret Service were in Canada. Who were the head guy's of the Secret Service in Richmond? Why is Benjamin in Canada instead of Richmond, is it for better access to foreign dignitaries?