Was there an assassin on Grant's train?

[John Fazio]

Herb, Wild Bill, Pamela, Laurie, Gene, et al.:

A few brief comments.

Herb, thank you; we are always on the same page.

Gene, Jack Cade was the name of a play that ostensibly provided an opportunity for Booth's team to abduct Lincoln. Campbell Hospital allegedly provided another opportunity. Both came to nothing. McMillan's testimony was never impeached. Circumstantial evidence corroborates some of it. His reliability as a witness is a subjective judgment.

Bill, inasmuch as we come to the same conclusions as to decapitation by multiple assassinations, I will pass over everything relating to that conclusion. I will say, however, that the right of secession was not the cause of the war. I can agree in the abstract that a state has a right to secede (I once prepared a list of 15 arguments supporting the right of secession), but for what purpose? The purpose trumps the right. In this case, the purpose was to preserve the institution of slavery, which had political, social, economic and cultural dimensions, but which was nevetheless the root cause of the war. If the seceding states had had a noble purpose, other nations, indeed the entire world, would have rallied to their side and they would then have been all but unassailable. But what in fact happened? Not one country in the world formally recognized the Confederacy! Not one. To defend the Southern cause, then, is not to defend the right of secession, but to defend slavery. You may be comfortable with that position, but I am not. BTW: You previously argued that Surratt was in Washington on the 14th. Have you changed your mind? Arnold a coward? He simply recognized that Booth's "kidnapping" idea was a ruse and wanted a chance for his life. Weichmann another coward? Then Lloyd too. So now we have two men willing to sell their souls to the Devil and send an innocent woman to the gallows. Not likely. All vile in war? Not really. There were noble warriors on both sides, e.g. John Brown Gordon and Oliver Otis Howard.

Pamela, thanks for your valuable input.

Laurie, there is nothing self-serving in McMillan's testimony, nor is there anything in it suggesting that the POW's were a threat to Surratt's party, nor is there any reason for Surratt to have told McMillan about the incident other than its being true. Killing emaciated POW's in cold blood cannot be justified. Period. Sheridan's and Hunter's deeds in the Valley were appalling. I wrote about the same at great length, but publishers made me take it all out in the interest of brevity. Sherman's burning of Atlanta, his March to the Sea and his burning of Columbia were also appalling. A hung jury was the reason Surratt went free, coupled with the expiration of a statute of limitations. There is no intentional, knowing falsehood in my book. I will be disappointed if you do not finish it. There are so many unknowns about the story that speculation is unavoidable. I did not use the word "vile" in this thread; I used it only in my book. I do not feel I have a prosecutorial approach; I strive for truth using three tools: evidence (eyewitness, material and circumstantial), reason and an understanding of human nature. Rose Greenhow drowned in 1864 before anyone had a chance to prosecute her, but I do not believe she would have been executed anyway, because she was never tied to an assassination attempt.

Gene, thanks for "understanding" my "medieval" prose.

John