Herold and Surratt

[Pamela]

I just never read of Mary ever sending a telegraph and Booth did it a lot, but I guess she could have. Is there any reason really to think it was something she wouldn't or couldn't do, or would prefer not to do herself? So without any more information, Mary sending the telegraph has to be considered. Maybe even Annie Ward since she was willing to receive and deliver letters from John to his mother as well as reserve the room at the Herndon House for Lewis Powell, I guess at John's request. Although, maybe Booth gave her that assignment. She was chummy enough with Booth to play a little deception game with him against Weichmann on April 10th involving a letter from John Surratt. I got the idea that Booth changed his plans at least by the time he, or he got (was it Atzerodt or Spangler?) someone to sell his carriage. I'm not sure of the exact date of that, but obviously after the failed kidnapping, at least the failed attempt that we know about, because Brophy mentioned 3 attempts, and I guess he was told that by Surratt unless he just made it up.

On P.131, A True History, Weichmann related a conversation with Booth at the boarding house on April 10th. At one point (the inquisitive!) Weichmann asked Booth why he was not playing. "He answered he was done playing; that the only play he cared to present was Venice Preserved. I had never read the play. Years after, however, when I did read it, I found that the whole gist of the play was to assassinate the officers of the Venetian Cabinet in order to save Venice."

I wondered about how easily Weichmann could take off work, too. I don't recall an explanation for that. He had been working there for about a year and maybe there was a policy for taking a day off if needed? Another slightly curious event was that Mary Surratt went to Surrattsville on April 1 which was a Saturday, in a rented buggy. Weichmann left after breakfast and found her gone when he returned in the afternoon. She returned that day with her brother and he never knew if she took herself or found somebody else to take her.

It's kind of amazing how many factors muddy up the picture of where Surratt was on the 14th. Was Booth telling the truth to Herold and Atzerodt or manipulating them to strengthen their resolve? And then there is the statement that Betty found about a witness seeing Herold with Surratt on the 14th. P. 173, A True History, Weichmann thought there was a purpose in Mary's showing him the letter from John on the evening of the 14th but didn't speculate as to what it could be. Did she know that John had returned from Canada and wanted Weichmann to be sure to say, if asked, that he was in Canada, which is what happened? And why did the letter disappear?

[RJNorton]

(05-12-2015 10:28 AM)Pamela Wrote:  It's kind of amazing how many factors muddy up the picture of where Surratt was on the 14th. Was Booth telling the truth to Herold and Atzerodt or manipulating them to strengthen their resolve? And then there is the statement that Betty found about a witness seeing Herold with Surratt on the 14th. P. 173, A True History, Weichmann thought there was a purpose in Mary's showing him the letter from John on the evening of the 14th but didn't speculate as to what it could be. Did she know that John had returned from Canada and wanted Weichmann to be sure to say, if asked, that he was in Canada, which is what happened? And why did the letter disappear?

Pam, if you are wondering if the letter were a ruse I am wondering that, too. If the letter were real why wouldn't he send it straight to his mother at the boardinghouse? Perhaps the letter was a ruse to make it appear Surratt was somewhere he was not (Montreal). And if the letter were real how could Mary lose it in only 3 days; on April 17 she was asked to show the letter to the detectives, and she could not produce it. Strange that it disappeared (as you mentioned). This was (allegedly) a letter from a family member; hard to understand that she could lose it so quickly.

[Susan Higginbotham]

(05-12-2015 09:20 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Very interesting, Pam. If not Booth, is it possible Mary herself sent him the telegram? I find the April 11th trip very interesting. Many books imply that Booth made the decision to assassinate Lincoln on the night of the 11th after hearing Lincoln's final speech. But, Mary and Louis Weichmann were already on the road at 9 A.M. that morning on their way to Surrattsville. During this trip, according to Lloyd, Mrs. Surratt told him the "shooting irons" would be needed soon. So I am thinking Booth may have already changed plans before Lincoln's speech. (?) It also seems that Weichmann could take off work almost at will as she had asked him the night of the 10th if he could take her the next day. He said "yes." Did he call in sick?

I believe that the 11th had been declared a holiday for government workers.

[Pamela]

What comes to mind was that there was something phony about the missing letter and Mary knew it would not stand up to close scrutiny if it came to that. Weichmann said he saw the letter so he would have recognized the handwriting unless it was a good forgery and maybe he never held it and looked at it closely. I don't believe it was lost by some accident. Would Mary have wanted detectives to see a real letter that would give weight to John's being somewhere other than DC on the 14th? It had that effect on Weichmann. I'm thinking Mary was much more involved in the conspiracy than I used to.

P.175, "I went to Mrs. Surratt's door and knocked. 'Here, Mrs. Surratt, said I, are the detectives who have come to search the house.' 'For God's sake! Let them come in! I expected the house to be searched, ' answered she." Weichmann also related that Mary already knew of the assassination from A.C. Richards and Sergeants Dye and Cooper, who passed by the house.

Weichmann expanded on the missing letter on P.178, "There was a purpose in withholding it. Had the letter and envelope been produced it would have settled the fact as to whether it was written by John Surratt in Canada on the 12th of April, or elsewhere and dated back. At any rate, it was read to me, at suppertime, as I verily believe, for the purpose of deception, and, if that was the intention, it succeeded admirably, for it controlled the subsequent movements of the detectives and myself, and was the means of carrying us to Canada in pursuit of Surratt." Maybe Weichmann never saw the handwriting at all, since he said it was read to him.

---

It just occurred to me, who knows how many telegraphs Annie Ward might have sent and received for the conspiracy, since she handled letters more than once. Could she have received a telegraph from John identifying his location on April 12th, and then Mary decided to concoct a letter with the same information so as to avoid the inconvenient details behind the telegraph that otherwise would have alarmed the "inquisitive" Mr. Weichmann and brought Annie Ward into the conspirators circle as far as detectives were concerned?

[Wild Bill]

If you would like to see a book that goes with the idea that Surratt was in Washington DC on the 14th, it is my "Confederate Freedom Fighter" available in the Surratt Society book order pages. Of course I am generally considered an idiot so be careful!

[Pamela]

(05-12-2015 02:02 PM)Wild Bill Wrote:  If you would like to see a book that goes with the idea that Surratt was in Washington DC on the 14th, it is my "Confederate Freedom Fighter" available in the Surratt Society book order pages. Of course I am generally considered an idiot so be careful!

I will and I'm used to idiots, being one myself quite often :-)

So, if we go with the theory that the John Surratt letter read to Weichmann on the 14th never existed (and is it possible to check records of any telegraphs to Annie Ward?), then why did Mary do it and who else at supper was aware of her little fraud? Anna didn't like it when Ward and Booth played their deception on Louis a few days prior, so maybe she was intended to be deceived also, and maybe everyone at the table, in case detectives questioned them. I guess Mary's eyesight was in good shape that night since she had no problem reading the letter. Everyone already knew that John had gone to Canada and there was a letter from him on April 10th. But maybe that date gave him too much time to get back and participate in the attacks. But if Mary knew he wasn't back, then there would be proof of his whereabouts. Maybe she didn't want to take any chances or maybe she knew he was back. Ultimately, the missing letter didn't make her look good, but she may have thought as a woman, she was golden.

[RJNorton]

I am continuing to read John Fazio's new book. I thought what he has to say about John Surratt's whereabouts was interesting. I'll quote a small portion. After looking at all the available evidence, statements, etc. John Fazio writes, "...it is impossible to know where he (John Surratt) was and what he did from approximately April 9 through April 18. There are so many contradictions, inconsistencies and irregularities in his accounts that one is almost forced to deduce that, in fact, confusion was his purpose, then and for all time."

[HerbS]

I still feel that John Surratt was in Canandaigua,NY after the assassination of Lincoln.There is evidence that he did attened Easter Sunday Mass[St.Mary's Catholic Church]before he went on to Montreal.Booth was also spotted at a cottage on Canandaigua Lake a few years before the assassination.Booth did some oil well business in Pa.,which is not to far from Canandaigua,NY!

[Pamela]

Quote:

Quote:I am continuing to read John Fazio's new book. I thought what he has to say about John Surratt's whereabouts was interesting. I'll quote a small portion. After looking at all the available evidence, statements, etc. John Fazio writes, "...it is impossible to know where he (John Surratt) was and what he did from approximately April 9 through April 18. There are so many contradictions, inconsistencies and irregularities in his accounts that one is almost forced to deduce that, in fact, confusion was his purpose, then and for all time."

Weichmann, Holohan, and detectives arrived in Montreal on April 20th and checked the hotel register for St. Lawrence Hall, and found that Surratt arrived there on April 6th, left on April 12th for the US, returned on the 18th, and left the same evening without a forward address or destination mentioned. Is there some doubt about that information?

Also, was Hanson Hiss a real person or a pseudonym used by Surratt? I found an article by Hanson Hiss in the Maryland Historical Society that he wrote about jousting. The HH article was so ridiculously self serving and fictional, it just seems it was Surratt from start to finish trying to reinvent himself for history. A.C Richards thought Surratt wrote the article.

[L Verge]

Back in the late-1970s or early-1980s, John C. Brennan wanted to know who Hanson Hiss was also. I remember that he wrote an article for the Surratt Courier (a two-parter, I believe), but I don't remember what his conclusion was. I'm at home, and the books are at work, but I think Mr. Brennan's article(s) are in Volume I of the three volumes that we have published to date on the best assassination articles from the Courier. Volume I is entitled In Pursuit Of... if anyone has it handy.

I also plead guilty to having once been shown railroad itineraries that had been researched by James O. Hall, leading him to conclude that Surratt could not have gotten back and forth in the time space that would have put him in D.C. on the 14th. I can't quote from them off the top of my head, however. There is also mention somewhere of Surratt being under the "command" of Gen. E.G. Lee at that point and would be following his dictates, not Booth's. They were likely more involved in getting some of the Confederate treasury into Canada.

[HerbS]

John Fazio's book is a tremendous read! I have copies of John Surratt's[John Harrison] signature on the St. Lawrence Hotel's[Montreal] ledger on-4-18-1865.I would be more than happy to provide copies for you.I also have had handwriting experts compare John Surratt's signature on the ledger to his other pieces of signatures,and it matches! I think he hadmany alias's in his slick escapes to freedom.

[Susan Higginbotham]

There are newspaper reports from 1907 that a Hanson Hiss, identified as a Cincinnati newspaper reporter, died. One report claims he was a suicide, the other claims that he died of exposure. He was 35 at the time of his death, and one report states that he was a Johns Hopkins graduate with family in Baltimore. That seems to make him a likely candidate to be the person who wrote about John Surratt.

Doing some more checking, this Hanson Hiss (whose full name was Phillip Hanson Hiss) was indeed from a prominent Baltimore family. Here's a link to his tombstone at Greenmount:

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi...54&df=all&

[RJNorton]

(11-02-2013 07:13 PM)L Verge Wrote:  I have been on the fence about the Hanson Hiss article for many years. I took it for granted as being accurate until two former members of the Surratt Society - both lawyers and members of MENSA - dissected it in an article for the Courier. Have you read the piece by James E.T. Lange and Kathryn DeWitt? One of their chief points is the amount of silly, factual errors that were in the interview, even down to incorrect biographical data (even incorrect age for Surratt) on a man with whom Hiss was supposedly face-to-face. There's a great deal of inconsistent information given in the interview.

(11-04-2013 12:03 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Lange and DeWitt listed nine specific historical errors contained in the Hanson Hiss article - one so egregious as having Surratt taking orders from a Gen. Wilder. One might possibly assume that that is a typo and should actually read "Winder," however, it refers to Surratt's orders to go to Elmira. At that time, Gen. Winder had been dead for several months.

Laurie, this is just my take, but I took a look at the 9 errors they found, and IMO they are not enough to make the entire article a fraud as the two authors indicate in their title "Hanson Hiss Article A Fraud." IMO Hiss didn't "create" the interviews; rather he simply reported what Surratt said (which included many untruths). I would think John Surratt would have publicly said the articles were bogus if these interviews with Hiss never really took place at all. Just my opinion.

[L Verge]

I had forgotten that Jim and Kathryn had written an article also on the Hiss interview. I wish I could remember what Mr. Brennan wrote. When I am able to drag myself back to work, I'll try to track it down - after I tackle the mountain of emails that I'm sure have risen over the past week. I love that system of communication, but hate it when you have to catch up!

[Pamela]

"There are newspaper reports from 1907 that a Hanson Hiss, identified as a Cincinnati newspaper reporter, died. One report claims he was a suicide, the other claims that he died of exposure. He was 35 at the time of his death, and one report states that he was a Johns Hopkins graduate with family in Baltimore. That seems to make him a likely candidate to be the person who wrote about John Surratt.

Doing some more checking, this Hanson Hiss (whose full name was Phillip Hanson Hiss) was indeed from a prominent Baltimore family. Here's a link to his tombstone at Greenmount:

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi...54&df=al"

Very odd. What about the report that he was murdered with a fractured skull and signs of a struggle after reporting on gamblers? Around the time his name is attached to the Surratt interview he was writing for a sports magazine about jousting and fox hunting.

The Hiss article on Surratt, which I believe was a three part series, is really just a monologue with an introduction. There are no question and answers. And the writing in the introduction sounds somewhat like Surratt with braggadocio and grandiosity. "...the first voluntary statement of anyone who had aught to do with Wilkes Booth." And have I missed something? (I'm sure I've missed a lot) When did Surratt become a Captain? Both A. C. Richards and Weichmann wrote responses to the article which were printed in the Washington Post soon after. Their responses were at odds with Surratt's claims, but I'm not aware that Hiss defended his interview, or attempted to interview Richards or Weichmann, despite his assertion that his story had "considerable historical significance".