Where was John Surratt on April 14, 1865 ?

[John Fazio]

(10-10-2017 05:03 PM)Steve Wrote:  

(10-10-2017 04:13 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  Everyone:

I trust I am not the only one who saw the reference to Surratt that appeared in the account of the events of April 14 by "Miss Porterfield". This is the account that was made public by Jesse W. Weik in The Century Magazine, Vol. 85, No. 4, February, 1913, reprinted in the most recent issue (Vol. XXXI 2017) of the Journal of the Lincoln Assassination, published by Autograph Press (Frederick Hatch). On p. 6 of the latter source, Miss Porterfield is quoted as saying that on the morning of the 13th she met Booth on Pennsylvania Avenue, apparently by chance, and that part of their conversation involved his asking her how one spelled "tyrannis", with two n's or two r's. In addition, she said she inquired of Booth why he had demonstrated such "a violent display of feeling" with respect to the celebrations then going on in Washington because of the fall of Richmond, and that Booth had said in response that "his irritation was due to having been rudely awakened from sleep that morning by a man--I think he called him Surratt--who wanted to borrow his horse to ride to Georgetown..." She also mentions that she was at Ford's on the fateful night and that she saw Booth there, standing near the wall of the auditorium, and that "the sweep of his gaze (indicated) that he was looking for some face in the audience". And she also states, categorically, that Booth's second declamation, which followed "instantly" after "sic semper tyrannis" was "The South is avenged". I mention this because there has always been some uncertainty about what Booth said after "sic semper tyrannis", which was clearly heard and attested to by so many in the audience that night that there can be no doubt about it. None of this is, of course, conclusive, but all of it supports the contentions that Surratt was in Washington on April 14, that he had co-conspirators in the theater prepared to help him if he needed it and that his second declamation after descending to the stage was "The South is avenged".

John

I don't know much about the Journal of the Lincoln Assassination, but here's a link to The Century article for anybody who's interested:

https://books.google.com/books?id=U3oAAA...on&f=false

and also here's a link to part of a recent thread that briefly discussed Miss Porterfield's account:

http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussio...age-3.html

While Porterfield is believable in her account, one has to take into account the impact of the passage of time on her memory from the time of the assassination until her account was written down for Weik "about twenty years" prior to it being published in the magazine, a roughly three decade lag between the event and the account. Since Porterfield lived in New York state at the time (and was only visiting Washington) and then sometime later moved to the Midwest, it's understandable why she wasn't known to authorities at the time of the trials. But she said "I think he called him Surratt" indicating she was unsure about who Booth mentioned and possibly influenced in her memory by the subsequent John Surratt trial.

Although not related to Lincoln history, this recent article in the Journal of the American Revolution about certain Founders misremembering when the Declaration of Independence was signed illustrates the same phenomenon:

https://allthingsliberty.com/2017/10/dec...s-history/

Lastly, John, what are your thoughts on my previous question about the reliability of Dr. Augustus Bissell's testimony in the John Surratt trial? I ask because I recall reading that Bissell had some type of notorious criminal record after the trial.

Steve:

You have made some telling points about the reliability of Miss Porterfield's account. It does seem odd that Booth would give her the name of the someone who woke him up too early that day for the purpose of borrowing a horse. Odd, but not so much as to reject it. As for Bissell, his testimony goes on for 28 pages of the trial transcript. I don't have an opinion as to its reliability inasmuch as I have not read all of the 28 pages and I know nothing about his subsequent criminal record. I can only say that I am suspicious of the alibi because there is so much contrary evidence that puts Surratt in Washington. Why would he dally in Elmira after receiving instructions from Booth to return to Washington forthwith because their plans had changed. "Their" plans fits with his stopping in New York to see Booth on his way to Montreal. It also fits with his telling Ste. Marie "We" killed Lincoln, the n-----'s friend." It also fits with a lot of other evidence demonstrating common enterprise. Alibis are easily fabricated by designing people. Recall O'Laughlen's alibi, which seemed pretty good, but which Atzerodt said was false.

John