Was there an assassin on Grant's train?

[BettyO]

Here is the McClearmont testimony -

Reading your book, John - I must say that it is fascinating and I'm really enjoying it! You bring up some good points -

Here is the McClearmont testimony from the Surratt Trial: Vol I, pp. 365-366.

   

   

---

I have known about "Mrs. Condby's Boarding House and Restaurant" for awhile. I remember Mr. Hall talking about it - I looked it up in the 1864 DC City Directory and she did indeed keep a boarding house and restaurant.

It is my opinion that the "boys" either met at the Canterbury Music Hall on the night of the 14th - or rather, Mrs. Condby's - NOT the Herndon House.... Mr. Hall also seemed to think the same thing....

   

[Gene C]

Interesting. Thanks John and Betty.

All this reminds me of a favorite old saying.
"The more you know, the more you think the less you know, because you know that you don't know."

[John Fazio]

(05-27-2015 06:29 AM)BettyO Wrote:  Here is the McClearmont testimony -

Reading your book, John - I must say that it is fascinating and I'm really enjoying it! You bring up some good points -

Here is the McClearmont testimony from the Surratt Trial: Vol I, pp. 365-366.

---

I have known about "Mrs. Condby's Boarding House and Restaurant" for awhile. I remember Mr. Hall talking about it - I looked it up in the 1864 DC City Directory and she did indeed keep a boarding house and restaurant.

It is my opinion that the "boys" either met at the Canterbury Music Hall on the night of the 14th - or rather, Mrs. Condby's - NOT the Herndon House.... Mr. Hall also seemed to think the same thing....

Betty:

Thanks for the compliment. Coming from someone with your credentials on this subject, it is especially meaningful. And thank you too for mentioning Mrs. Condby's Boarding House and Restaurant. This is a detail that escaped my attention, but which I will now look into.

John

[RJNorton]

This is off the topic of this thread, but I commend both Betty and John for taking such a serious look at the location and time of that final meeting (and both of their efforts to figure it out). It's always been something I have wondered about since Powell checked out of the Herndon House several hours before the meeting apparently took place.

[John Fazio]

(05-27-2015 09:23 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  This is off the topic of this thread, but I commend both Betty and John for taking such a serious look at the location and time of that final meeting (and both of their efforts to figure it out). It's always been something I have wondered about since Powell checked out of the Herndon House several hours before the meeting apparently took place.

Roger:

Thank you. The meeting or meetings of the conspirators on the 14th, or, in any case, immediately preceding the night of the assassination and attempted assasinations, is one of the more intractable problems associated with the events of that day. There does not appear to be a satisfactory answer. I tried to get close to one by postulating two meetings that day, but could do no better than that.

John

[Pamela]

(05-23-2015 09:55 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  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

Whether John Surratt was in Washington or not is so interesting. I haven't gotten your book yet but it is on the top of my list, and what I am posting may already be covered in your book.

John Surratt's jacket/coat is a fascinating piece of evidence. It drew so much attention and was such a large part of his alibi for the 14th. A tailor testified to having made it for a man matching Surratt's description on April 9th. The men in the Elmira haberdashery testified to remembering a man they believed was John Surratt because of the unusual design of the coat, among other things. The jacket was what drew their attention. One man testified that Surratt came to the store on the 13th and the 14th, wearing the coat, to inquire about articles of clothing that they didn't have. Booth got to the National hotel on the 8th. On the 9th Surratt, or man matching his description, had a tailor in Canada make him the distinctive coat. The man matching Surratt's description paraded around Elmira in the coat on April 13th and 14th.

Also, on the 14th, after returning from Surrattsville, Mary Surratt showed Weichmann a letter from John, dated April 12th from Canada, that had been brought to the house by Annie Ward. According to Weichmann's recollection of the letter (which was never found), "...that he had bought a French pea jacket for which he had paid ten dollars in silver....". Weichmann thought he had been shown the letter for a purpose, which he was never able to fathom. He noted that in the letter Surratt referred to Weichmann's driving Mary to the country on the 11th in a "jesting manner", and Weichmann believed the only way John could have known of the trip was by telegraph.

So why did John mention a French pea jacket? The jacket worn in Elmira was nothing like a pea jacket. Did John lie about the type of jacket and if so, why? Or did he buy 2 jackets, or a jacket and a coat, and only mention the pea jacket? That seems like a lot of bulky clothing for a confederate spy/courier to travel with. Possibly Surratt was just on a clothes spending spree. Weichmann noted that when John returned from Richmond on April 3rd, he was wearing a new suit.

The Elmira alibi was aparently such a big deal for Surratt, that in the Hanson Hiss article, written more than two decades later, he vastly inflated the time he spent there, to weeks. He also claimed the reason he never revealed the name of the Union officer that he basically bribed to get inside the prison to sketch, was a matter of honor. Since we know that Surratt had no honor, that part of his story is "sketchy".

As for who was on Grant's train, maybe it was Surratt. Surratt was full of derring do, like Booth (at least on stage), he was partners with Booth and judging from Booth's behavior toward the Grants on the 14th, Grant's murder was tremendously important. As for the letter, Surratt could have had someone else write the letter. It would make it look like someone else attempted the assassination. That was a trick he used with Weichmann more than once.

[RJNorton]

(06-10-2015 08:28 PM)Pamela Wrote:  As for who was on Grant's train, maybe it was Surratt. Surratt was full of derring do, like Booth (at least on stage), he was partners with Booth and judging from Booth's behavior toward the Grants on the 14th, Grant's murder was tremendously important. As for the letter, Surratt could have had someone else write the letter. It would make it look like someone else attempted the assassination. That was a trick he used with Weichmann more than once.

Pam, besides Bill Richter, Jerry Madonna, and John Fazio, another writer who touched upon the subject of an assassin (possibly being) on Grant's train is Dr. William Hanchett. In the Lincoln Murder Conspiracies he writes:

"Booth had learned of Grant's change of plans during the afternoon of April 14, and it is possible he sent a man after the general on his train. Between Baltimore and Philadelphia someone tried to force his way into the locked car in which Grant was traveling, but the train crew restrained him, and he disappeared."

[HerbS]

I tend to think that John Surratt was slick enough to have used a"double",but,I also feel he was in Canandaigua,NY and moved on to Montreal!

[Pamela]

Here is a description of Surratt's coat worn in Elmira, from closing arguments in his trial, p 1200: "They all testify to the peculiar kind of coat known as a Garibaldi jacket. You saw the pattern of it exhibited in court, buttoned round the throat, and plaited in the back and in the breast, with a belt around the waist--a coat a like unto which there is none in this room, and probably none in use in the city of Washington....We bring here from Canada the tailor who swears that he made this identical coat for this man in Canada, on the 9th of April, 1865. He swears that he made it for Surratt, and we find Surratt in that coat in Elmira. He then returns to Canada, and they prove by the agent of the hotel, and the clerk who kept the register that when he came there he had on that identical coat."

I'm reading the Elmira portion of the trial now, but I tend to skip around alot. I'm not sure, but the prosecution seemed to imply that the man in the coat was a tailor (and maybe the tailor who made the coat) and not Surratt, but the witnesses from the haberdashery wouldn't admit to saying so to a Mr. Roberts who was sent to investigate.

Would a Confederate spy want to draw attention to himself with such a unique coat that he was remembered by everyone because of that coat? And why did he write in his letter dated the 12th that he bought a pea jacket?

[Thomas Thorne]

[quote='Wild Bill' pid='48087' dateline='1432659734']


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.
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.
[/quote

One of the mysteries of the "Come Retribution" thesis is how if Harney and his explosives were captured and we postulate "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." we have no evidence this included Union military or civilian authorities. They would not have had to rely on the inventions of Charles Dunham and friends and dubious ancient intimacies of JWB with sundry Virginia commands to prove the General Conspiracy.

The Come Retributionists must deal with the shock of Mrs Clement Clay being told that Northern political elites as early as June 1865 dismissed the notion of Confederate involvement. What evidence do we have of the Union officer who was supposedly aware of the Harney plot ever communicated this knowledge to his superiors after the assassination knowing they believed Jefferson Davis complicit in the crime and would welcome any and all evidence of guilt?

Tom

[Pamela]

P. 1254 of the John Surratt trial, in closing arguments, the prosecutor described Surratt's use of a decoy to appear to be him, when he left Porterfield's house:

"He fled to the house of a man named Porterfield and there for a few days remained in concealment. Then two carriages came up, and dresses were prepared so as to have each man dressed exactly alike; and in the nighttime, when all was darkness,one man got into the carriage and drove one way, whilst the second one got into the other carriage and drove in a different direction."

[Pamela]

I'm reading Decapitating the Union now and it is a great read. John does a great job of putting forth all of the versions of various incidents that are part of the assassination story, even minor details, like the way the Lincolns and Clara Harris and her fiancé travelled to the theater. He analyzes which version is likely correct in light of all known information and details that are available to historians. It's good to bring clarity to a story that often gets pretty muddy with many slightly or greatly different versions. And I like that he described John Surratt as a "vile man"! No sugar coating of the characters.

[HerbS]

Pamela,I agree with your opinion 100%!

[Rick Smith]

I would take exception with John Fazio's description of John Surratt as a "vile man."

Why was he vile? Because he was working against the Union and Old Abe? For most, I suppose that is all it takes.

I think "vile" is way off the mark.

[RJNorton]

(06-19-2015 05:47 PM)Pamela Wrote:  ......like the way the Lincolns and Clara Harris and her fiancé travelled to the theater.

Pam, I never even thought about this (other than the way Jim Bishop describes it) until a few years ago when I read John Fazio's article here. For folks who are curious but don't have the book please see the article on that page titled "How Did the Presidential Party Get to the Theater?"