Was there an assassin on Grant's train?

[John Fazio]

(05-24-2015 04:25 PM)Rick Smith Wrote:  John,

You state the following in your post:

"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 . . ."

I like what you are saying here, as it more than suggests that Booth's plan was not his own; that he was recruited to do a job and was under orders, which is what I believe, but who was telegraphing Booth to instruct him to proceed with the contingency plan?

Rick

Rick:

Sorry for not getting to this sooner. I just saw it.

Your belief that Booth was recruited to do a job and was under orders is, IMO, on the money. His initial recruitment probably came in New Orleans in 1863, which is why he and some of his team were talking about murdering Lincoln in April, 1864, according to Mrs. McClermont, who testified in Surratt's trial. In any case, the Parker House meeting with 4 Confederate agents in Boston in July, 1864, is when things went into high gear. The fact that he began to assemble his team in early August, shortly after the meeting, cannot have been a coincidence; surely the Boston meeting was related to the recruitment.

It was Ste. Marie's opinion that Surratt received the contingency plan when he was in Richmond shortly before leaving for Washington, New York and Montreal in early April. As to who telegraphed Booth, I believe we can only answer that question in general terms, i.e. we cannot identify an individual. The failure of Harney's mission had to be immediately known to enough people who were involved in it (Mosby's Rangers, Boyle, Summers, Baylor and, of course, Davis and Benjamin) for one of them to telegraph, or to arrange for the telegraphing of, Booth, instructing him to activate the contingency plan. Why else would Booth immediately contact Surratt in Montreal on the 10th (per McMillan, also mentioned by Weichmann) and tell him to return to Washington immediately because their plans had changed. Who or what besides the failure of the Harney mission would have changed them? It seems quite solid to me. Remember that most prosecutors believe circumstantial evidence to be better than eyewitness and material evidence.

John