Herold and Surratt

[John Fazio]

(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.

They addressed the issue of Surratt never speaking out to refute the article also. None of the Surratt family ever made statements concerning the many troubles they had seen. I have never seen any comment from Isaac Surratt; Mrs. Surratt's own mother outlived her by thirteen years and never went to visit her daughter in prison or commented on her situation; even years later when Hancock was being proposed for high office, Anna agreed to an interview and then became a complete wreck and her husband stepped in. Keeping dirty laundry out of public view was a very strong Victorian trait. Even to this day, the descendants are very low-key. I have been told by great- and great-great grandchildren that we know more about the history of 1865 than they do. It was just not talked about. As for the veracity and ethics of some investigative reporters -- let's not go there... Just because Surratt made no comment about the Hiss article does not make him guilty of what Hiss implied.

I think we also need to remember that John Surratt's lecture series came to a screeching halt after he was pretty much threatened (via tax invasion) by the federal authorities. I would assume that the threat would carry over into giving newspaper interviews that would be "heard round the world."

One last thought re: David Miller DeWitt. I can't stand his writing style and thought I would have a breakdown before I could finish his book. However, in his defense of what you said above, he was writing during all the turmoil and did not have the luxury of Monday-morning quarterbacking the case of Mrs. Surratt that we have today. I would no more judge Mrs. Surratt innocent today than fly, but I might have in 1865.

Laurie:

I have not read the Lange and DeWitt article, but I will say, without having read it, that the kinds of errors to which you (and they) refer are almost always made by newspaper people; they are famous for getting things wrong. Recall that Sherman hated them for that reason. Consider, too, that Hiss, in 1898, did not have the benefit of tape recording the interviews; he had to take it all down in long hand and then transcribe and record it. It is virtually inevitable, with such methodology, that he would get some things wrong, either from Surratt directly and/or in the writing of his comments and/or in the transcription and recording process. It is even possible that the newspapers themselves made errors in printing his material. In my judgment, such errors do not invalidate the interviews nor their content. In their essentials, they must be what Surratt said. Despite your comments re the family, it is simply incredible that Surratt would have allowed Hiss's articles to go unchallenged if they were fraudulent or even if they were not fraudulent but substantially inaccurate. Also incredible is the belief that Hiss could have gotten away with such a fraud or that he would have even risked the possibility of exposure.

As for Surratt's being dissuaded from giving interviews because of his Rockville experience, consider that the latter was in 1870 and the interviews in 1898. Whatever may have motivated him to keep his mouth shut and stay out of print in 1870 surely had no effect 28 years later.

I believe there is a tendency on the part of historians to be too analytical and too quick to reject evidence and tradition. The result is that they frequently throw the baby out with the bathwater. As a good example of this, I would cite the Jesus Myth people, those who believe that Jesus never existed, when the evidence is overwhelming that he did exist.

John

---

(11-03-2013 11:22 AM)L Verge Wrote:  John S.

You and I are on the same page. By April 14, Surratt had distanced himself from Booth and was taking orders from Edwin Lee.

Laurie:

If that is true, why did Surratt stop in New York City on or about April 5 on his way to Montreal, only to find out that he was performing in Boston; why did Booth telegraph him in Montreal, advising him that their plans had changed; why did he promptly, in response to that telegram, leave Montreal for, he said, Elmira; and why did he telegraph Booth from Elmira and inquire as to whether or not Booth had left for Washington? To hold that Surratt had severed his ties with Booth, one has to reject almost entirely the testimony of McMillan, who did not pursue Surratt, but was given unsolicited charge of him on the Peruvian by priests who had been protecting him. One also has to reject virtually all of Ste. Marie's Affidavit. A tall order.

John

---

(10-10-2013 06:59 AM)Jim Garrett Wrote:  Do you think the government might have trying to lead witnesses to say they saw Surratt or someone who looked like Surratt?

Jim:

No. The four prosecutors were men of impeccable reputations. I cannot believe they would knowingly use perjured testimony or suborn perjury.

John