+- Lincoln Discussion Symposium (https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium)
+-- Forum: Lincoln Discussion Symposium (/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Assassination (/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Surratt - "WHo" was he? (/thread-2584.html)
Surratt - "WHo" was he? - SSlater - 07-29-2015 03:07 PM
This is all conjecture now. But let's see where it goes.
Surratt has always been a enigma, to me. I never felt sure that He was "INTO" this scheme. He was there- but he wasn't there.
I read Surratt as being a bit of a Coward. Maybe, Coward, is not the right word. He liked sneaking around, doing his own thing. He never carried a rifle. (Or a Smooth-bore, either.) He never faced the enemy.He seems to have worked alone, better than "in a team."
IMO he knew of the impending assassination, but I don't know his exact assignment, if he had one. It seems that his contribution, was to provide a place to eat, to sleep, and to meet, for the others, but no more. He was usually off to the side. He was an observer, or a provider, but not a participant.
I don't have any additional information on his Mother, or how much did she "really, "really" knew. However, I'll bet she was more involved than her son was. When she got caught, he believed she would get a "slap on the wrist" - they would never hang her. After all they have never Hanged a woman - ever. He got a surprise!
Surratt was not a SPY. He was the "Confederate- Ups" Company.
He delivered mail and escorted ladies (Or "Females" if you choose).
I can tell you where Sarah was everyday of her life, but Surratt, I know nothing , and he walked away, to live happily ever after.
RE: Surratt - "WHo" was he? - RJNorton - 07-29-2015 04:19 PM
(07-29-2015 03:07 PM)SSlater Wrote: This is all conjecture now. But let's see where it goes.
Surratt has always been a enigma, to me. I never felt sure that He was "INTO" this scheme. He was there- but he wasn't there.
I read Surratt as being a bit of a Coward. Maybe, Coward, is not the right word. He liked sneaking around, doing his own thing. He never carried a rifle. (Or a Smooth-bore, either.) He never faced the enemy.He seems to have worked alone, better than "in a team."
IMO he knew of the impending assassination, but I don't know his exact assignment, if he had one. It seems that his contribution, was to provide a place to eat, to sleep, and to meet, for the others, but no more. He was usually off to the side. He was an observer, or a provider, but not a participant.
I don't have any additional information on his Mother, or how much did she "really, "really" knew. However, I'll bet she was more involved than her son was. When she got caught, he believed she would get a "slap on the wrist" - they would never hang her. After all they have never Hanged a woman - ever. He got a surprise!
Surratt was not a SPY. He was the "Confederate- Ups" Company.
He delivered mail and escorted ladies (Or "Females" if you choose).
I can tell you where Sarah was everyday of her life, but Surratt, I know nothing , and he walked away, to live happily ever after.
John, IMO this is a fascinating, thoughtful post. Often I see John Surratt referred to as Booth's "second in command." If I am reading your post correctly you are saying he really was not "second in command." Did Booth have a "second in command?" If it were not Surratt, who was it? Was there one? Why is Surratt often cast as "second in command?"
RE: Surratt - "WHo" was he? - L Verge - 07-29-2015 06:31 PM
I agree with Roger that this is a great bone for us to chew on! I am one of the guilty parties who has often referred to John Surratt as the "second in command" IN THE ORIGINAL PLOT TO KIDNAP (sorry, John Fazio, I think there was such a plot). However, I see him as a facilitator.
Once Dr. Mudd led Booth to Thomas Harbin, I think Harbin was the link between Booth and the Confederate underground and that Surratt was recruited because he was good at what he did (basically courier/escort duties) and had flown under the Union radar for nearly two years. Every member of Booth's merry, little band had specific skills, and none of them caused bells and whistles to go off in the authorities' heads prior to April 14.
After March 18, I think Surratt was pulled back into duty on the Secret Line because it was obvious that kidnapping wasn't going to work. He then gets assigned to work with Gen. E.G. Lee on getting POWs freed faster than what the Union's piddling little releases were accomplishing. At this point, wasn't Surratt also working with William Norris? Is Norris the one who assigns him to Lee's projects? After the war, John Surratt turned to Norris for financial assistance, so there had to be ties there somewhere.
Strictly my opinion, but I do believe that the assassination was a surprise to Surratt when he heard about it in New York. I also believe that he never thought a trail would lead to his mother - that the government was indeed using her as a decoy -- because he did not realize that Booth had continued to include Mary in the plans (knowingly or unknowingly in her case).
P.S. John, I love the comparison of John Surratt to a Confederate UPS man!
RE: Surratt - "WHo" was he? - SSlater - 07-29-2015 09:01 PM
(07-29-2015 06:31 PM)L Verge Wrote: I agree with Roger that this is a great bone for us to chew on! I am one of the guilty parties who has often referred to John Surratt as the "second in command" IN THE ORIGINAL PLOT TO KIDNAP (sorry, John Fazio, I think there was such a plot). However, I see him as a facilitator.Strangely - Surratt was the only one in the crowd who had any sense. Also. Surratt contributed immediately, the others were waiting to get paid. Then , where were they when they were needed. MAYBE, just maybe, Surratt was # uno. He got them to do the dirty work, while he watched from afar. He was smart enough to walk away CLEAN. good thinking!
Once Dr. Mudd led Booth to Thomas Harbin, I think Harbin was the link between Booth and the Confederate underground and that Surratt was recruited because he was good at what he did (basically courier/escort duties) and had flown under the Union radar for nearly two years. Every member of Booth's merry, little band had specific skills, and none of them caused bells and whistles to go off in the authorities' heads prior to April 14.
After March 18, I think Surratt was pulled back into duty on the Secret Line because it was obvious that kidnapping wasn't going to work. He then gets assigned to work with Gen. E.G. Lee on getting POWs freed faster than what the Union's piddling little releases were accomplishing. At this point, wasn't Surratt also working with William Norris? Is Norris the one who assigns him to Lee's projects? After the war, John Surratt turned to Norris for financial assistance, so there had to be ties there somewhere.
Strictly my opinion, but I do believe that the assassination was a surprise to Surratt when he heard about it in New York. I also believe that he never thought a trail would lead to his mother - that the government was indeed using her as a decoy -- because he did not realize that Booth had continued to include Mary in the plans (knowingly or unknowingly in her case).
P.S. John, I love the comparison of John Surratt to a Confederate UPS man!
PS, Being the Confederate -Ups man, would have been a promotion.
RE: Surratt - "WHo" was he? - Jim Garrett - 07-31-2015 07:44 AM
If I remember correctly, A.C. Richards wrote Weichmann that he felt that Mrs. Surratt was more involved than she was portrayed, maybe being second in command in a grand scheme. Was John following her directions, and did she safeguard him?
RE: Surratt - "WHo" was he? - Craig Hipkins - 08-07-2015 05:50 AM
Interesting. It is my opinion that Booth did not have a second in command. He was a narcissist and usually people with that affliction do not care about the niceties and advantages of a military structure. Surratt appears on the surface to be Booth's second only because he was intelligent. The other players in Booth's plot (at least on the surface) appeared to be either dim witted, cowardly, or just plain unmotivated. Surrratt was of a higher caliber in the cranial capacity department.
RE: Surratt - "WHo" was he? - BettyO - 08-07-2015 06:40 AM
Quote:Interesting. It is my opinion that Booth did not have a second in command. He was a narcissist and usually people with that affliction do not care about the niceties and advantages of a military structure. Surratt appears on the surface to be Booth's second only because he was intelligent. The other players in Booth's plot (at least on the surface) appeared to be either dim witted, cowardly, or just plain unmotivated. Surrratt was of a higher caliber in the cranial capacity department.
Interest observations - however, I do not think that the others were "dim-witted", cowardly or unmotivated." Surratt may have been intelligent - but he had qualifications (advanced education) above the others involved. However, Davey Herold was also well educated but more than a trifle immature for his age - and he was older than both Surratt and Powell by at least 2 years. Surratt and Powell were approximately one week apart in age almost to the day, but Surratt had educational advantages which Powell did not. Powell was not dim witted; as a matter of fact, Dr. Gillette and others were impressed with his mental capacities. Mosby wouldn't have looked at him if he had been of low intelligence. I think Powell was more or less not as well educated and felt it keenly. He complained of his education to boarders at the Branson House and was always reading while boarding there. He also played chess, so he couldn't have been but so dumb. Cowardly he most certainly was not.
Atzerodt was a foreigner and rather uneducated as well. This led to assessments that he was dull-witted. Unmotivated? I think not as well. Herold was certainly loyal to Booth as he stuck by him and could have abandoned his co-hort at any time. Powell, I believe, was more or less utterly devoted to the Confederate Cause. Atzerodt, who knows! I think he was motivated by money - as more or less they all could have been. Powell had told Gillette that he "expected a promotion."
Surratt was wily and was smart enough to know when to get out.
RE: Surratt - "WHo" was he? - Jim Garrett - 08-07-2015 06:41 AM
Most unfortunate that John Surratt left no manuscript.
RE: Surratt - "WHo" was he? - L Verge - 08-07-2015 08:08 AM
I agree with Betty's assessment of the gang's "brain power." Since we never knew any of the conspirators, we can only rely on their statements (in the case of some), the trial transcripts, and - unfortunately - the reporters of the time and succeeding generations of authors who have to put their spin on things to get published.
Also, many people of our times have no concept as to what that time period was like and how to interpret the actions of our ancestors in general. Couple that with misleading interpretations given from 1865 to present by the war's "winners," and we dare not judge too harshly.
RE: Surratt - "WHo" was he? - SSlater - 08-09-2015 09:55 PM
I doubt that Booth had a "second in command". He was the Boss, and it would be done HIS WAY! He called meetings, and made changes, even if Surratt didn't attend. To me, the most noticeable exception, was Surratt did not have an assignment. Surratt was not even given a "Back-up" or a "Fill-in" assignment. Booth, Powell and Atzerodt, carried weapons, none of the others did. I can see a justifiable reassignment of Herold to Powell.
I think that Atzerodt got a "killing" assignment late, late, late in the scheme, when the others back-out. Up to then he was expected to lead the escape, that's all.
If this had been a "Gung-ho" mob, there's no telling how many assassinations there would have been that night. (At least 7 or 8)(And we are not counting the "wounded" at Seward's.
RE: Surratt - "WHo" was he? - Craig Hipkins - 08-15-2015 11:47 AM
I didn't mean to say by my statement that the other conspirators had nothing to offer in the plot. Booth was a calculating individual who carefully chose the conspirators for what assets they could bring to the table. The reason that I believe Surratt was of a higher caliber in the brain department is that he could manipulate in the way of Booth. For instance, he was able to use an abundance of connections in his escape to Canada and Europe after the assassination. Some might suggest cowardice, but I would say he was being pragmatic and well knew the state of mind that took hold of the public after Lincoln's death. It was a matter of self preservation. I don't see any of the other conspirators being able to do this. Each one of them was chosen by Booth based on their merits. Atzerodt for his skill as a boatman, Powell for his sheer size and strength and Herold for his knowledge of the land.
RE: Surratt - "WHo" was he? - L Verge - 08-15-2015 05:28 PM
Exactly my thoughts that I have preached for lo these many years. Thanks for reinforcements, Craig.