Was there an assassin on Grant's train?

[Gene C]

(06-20-2015 11:46 AM)L Verge Wrote:  As for Surratt's claim to having killed Union men, I have never believed that. Even if he said it, I feel that it is braggadocio on his part.

---

(06-20-2015 09:01 AM)Rick Smith Wrote:  I would take exception with John Fazio's description of John Surratt as a "vile man."

Why was he vile? Because he was working against the Union and Old Abe? For most, I suppose that is all it takes.

I think "vile" is way off the mark.

Rick (and others) - of course, you know that I agree with you as far as considering John Surratt "vile." He supported the Confederate cause, so that naturally made/makes him evil in the eyes of many people now as well as then. I have posted elsewhere on this forum that I have never believed that story about he and Sarah Slater disposing of those poor Union prisoners. I think it was part of young John's braggadocio.

Whether killing (disposing) of a surrendered and unarmed prisoner, or not doing it but bragging that you did, it fits the definition of a "vile" action.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vile
If he would do it again given the opportunity (in my opinion and as I understand the meaning of the word) makes him a "vile" person. In this case it doesn't really matter which side of the war he was on.