FYI on Stringfellow

[John Fazio]

(06-08-2017 01:29 PM)SSlater Wrote:  John, RJ, Steve. Great info and ideas, Thanx

I don't have any more to work with than you do, and our conclusions are similar. I will go a little further. to wit.
It appears that Stringfellow's assignment was to work out the details of the "Blow up the White House" scheme. His contact in the White House could provide a layout of the building and describe Lincoln's daily work habits. This would dictate where to place the explosive and the size of the explosive needed. In essence - it could be done.

There are many piece-meal scraps of info from others, at this same time, that indicates there were more people involved - such as the trips to New York, bits on more people "approving", or just "looking".
Booth was part of this planning and knew the schedule. So, when Harney was captured, Booth knew "it had to be done - NOW!" to get it done in the time-frame set in Richmond, so he acted.

Steve The "Copy" of the letter may not have include ALLthat was in the original, and needed to be destroyed, rather than force a new inquisition. (There was a reason the letter was destroyed).

John, et al.:

Your conclusion that Stringfellow's mission in Washington was related to the Harney mission to blow up a wing of the White House is, I believe, a good one and one, frankly, that I had not thought of before. The person close to Lincoln whom he was in contact with, and to whom he made a proposition, therefore, could hardly have been Parker. That ties in well with my own conclusion re Parker. The person, as you suggest, was most likely someone who could help him with White House logistics. That accords well with Atzerodt's May 1 confession, in which he speaks of the New York crowd's knowledge of an entrance to the White House which could be used to mine it.

The letter indicates that Stringfellow left Richmond on March 1 and arrived in Washington on March 5, using the cover of a "dentistry student". He speaks of Johnson, who was also staying at the Kirkwood, and, of course, of Lincoln. This suggests that these two, at least, were the focus of his mission, Grant being at City Point at the time. Stringfellow left Washington on April 1, which, significantly, is most likely the same day that Harney left Richmond, bound for his rendezvous with Mosby and then on to Washington. Stringfellow speaks of leaving the city "with the aid of a person whose name is linked in the history of these last dark days " and adds that he went some 12 miles the first evening. Good surmises are that his helper was Booth, who also left Washington on April 1, for Boston, with a possible stop in New York, and that the 12 miles took him to the Surratt Tavern.

Your conclusion that Booth acted only when he learned of the failure of the Harney mission is, I believe, on the money. I would add only that in my opinion Booth did not take action of his own volition, but only pursuant to instruction from his handlers, who regarded Booth and his acolytes as a contingency team that would act in the event of the failure of the Harney mission. It ties in perfectly with the telegram Booth sent to Surratt, in Montreal, on April 10, advising him that their plans had changed and instructing him to return to Washington forthwith. Surratt told McMillan that in response to this communication, he left Montreal immediately. Where he went, however, as we all know, is problematic. Booth's instruction certainly suggests that he would go to Washington directly, but there is much to suggest that he went to Elmira to soak up the lower New York scenery and blithely patronize haberdashers and such, at a time when the future of the Confederacy was hanging by a thread. It is illogical, of course, but most historians nevertheless favor Elmira rather than Washington. Wild Bill isn't one of them. I am on the fence, leaning, however, in Wild Bill's direction.

John