Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

John Fazio · (This post was last modified: 02-27-2013 03:01 PM by John Fazio.)

(02-24-2013 02:09 AM)John Fazio Wrote:
(02-23-2013 04:16 PM)RJNorton Wrote: In his December 6, 1870, lecture John Surratt said, "It may be well to remark here that this scheme of abduction was concocted without the knowledge or the assistance of the Confederate government in any shape or form. Booth and I often consulted together as to whether it would not be well to acquaint the authorities in Richmond with our plan, as we were sadly in want of money, our expenses being very heavy. In fact the question arose among us as to whether, after getting Mr. Lincoln, if we succeeded in our plan, the Confederate authorities would not surrender us to the United States again, because of doing this thing without their knowledge or consent. But we never acquainted them with the plan, and they never had anything in the wide world to do with it. In fact, we were jealous of our undertaking and wanted no outside help. I have not made this statement to defend the officers of the Confederate government. They are perfectly able to defend themselves."

In 1902 Samuel Arnold said, "There was never any connection between Booth and the Confederate authorities." He went on to say, "No officials of the Confederate government had any knowledge in regard to it, although it was attempted to be shown by the military commission that they had, through many witnesses."

Were they both lying?

Roger:

In my opinion, Laurie is partially right. She is right about Surratt, because he was a colossal liar. The first duty of a secret service agent is to conceal the identities of his or her fellow agents, especially his or her superiors, and if such identities are already known, to protect them from capture and prosecution. That is all Surratt was doing in his lecture.

But Arnold was not lying; he just didn't know. Booth, you probably know, was very good at keeping his operations compartmentalized. His grunts, therefore (i.e. Arnold, O'Laughlen, Herold and Atzerodt, were told only as much as they needed to know. They were therefore not privy to the full extent of the conspiracy.

There is these kinds of unsolicited exonerations an element of disingenuousness. Who asked Surratt about the Confederate Government? No one; he volunteered the information. That alone makes it suspect. It was the same with Booth in his famous "To Whom It May Concern letter, in which he signed off with "A Confederate doing his duty on his own responsibility." Again, who asked him? Methinks he protests too much. Why would he volunteer such a statement otherwise than with an ulterior motive, i.e. to shield his superiors?

(02-24-2013 02:09 AM)John Fazio Wrote:
(02-23-2013 04:16 PM)RJNorton Wrote: In his December 6, 1870, lecture John Surratt said, "It may be well to remark here that this scheme of abduction was concocted without the knowledge or the assistance of the Confederate government in any shape or form. Booth and I often consulted together as to whether it would not be well to acquaint the authorities in Richmond with our plan, as we were sadly in want of money, our expenses being very heavy. In fact the question arose among us as to whether, after getting Mr. Lincoln, if we succeeded in our plan, the Confederate authorities would not surrender us to the United States again, because of doing this thing without their knowledge or consent. But we never acquainted them with the plan, and they never had anything in the wide world to do with it. In fact, we were jealous of our undertaking and wanted no outside help. I have not made this statement to defend the officers of the Confederate government. They are perfectly able to defend themselves."

In 1902 Samuel Arnold said, "There was never any connection between Booth and the Confederate authorities." He went on to say, "No officials of the Confederate government had any knowledge in regard to it, although it was attempted to be shown by the military commission that they had, through many witnesses."

Were they both lying?

Roger:

In my opinion, Laurie is partially right. She is right about Surratt, because he was a colossal liar. The first duty of a secret service agent is to conceal the identities of his or her fellow agents, especially his or her superiors, and if such identities are already known, to protect them from capture and prosecution. That is all Surratt was doing in his lecture.

But Arnold was not lying; he just didn't know. Booth, you probably know, was very good at keeping his operations compartmentalized. His grunts, therefore (i.e. Arnold, O'Laughlen, Herold and Atzerodt, were told only as much as they needed to know. They were therefore not privy to the full extent of the conspiracy.

There is in these kinds of unsolicited exonerations an element of disingenuousness. Who asked Surratt about the Confederate Government? No one; he volunteered the information. That alone makes it suspect. It was the same with Booth in his famous "To Whom It May Concern letter, in which he signed off with "A Confederate doing his duty on his own responsibility." Again, who asked him? Methinks he protests too much. Why would he volunteer such a statement otherwise than with an ulterior motive, i.e. to shield his superiors?

There is more to this issue that I would like to share with you in another message. This one is giving me problems with my computer. Later.

John

Roger:

I wanted to continue the thought. Arnold, Atzerodt and Powell all made statements indicating that as far as they knew, the Confederate Government was not privy to Booth's conspirarcy. In the first two cases, we may be sure they were ignorant of the breadth of the conspiracy. In Powell's case, and in Surratt's too, we may be sure they were protecting fellow conspirators, especially their superiors in Richmond., which is the first and most important duty of Secret Service agents. Recall that Surratt met regularly with Benjamin, and probably with Davis and Seddon and Breckenridge too. Recall that Powell spoke to Gillette about making numerous trips to Baltimore where he met with wealthy Copperheads (though he did not identify them as such), in their mansions, VIP's who financed him and told him how much glory he would earn from the Southern people for what he was doing. Booth had rubbed elbows with all of them --ten days in Canada with the Canadian Cabinet; trips to New York, Boston (the Parker House meeting), Philadelphia and Baltimore; regular meetings with Surratt who had regular meetings with Benjamin. How couold they not have known of what he was doing? Are we to believe that his action team, the New York crowd, Mosby's Rangers, Harney and his crowd and the other conspiracy that was afoot in Washington, which Surratt mentioned in his lecture, were all running around, doing their own thing, presuming to know how best to serve and save the Confederacy, but completely oblivious to the political and military implications of their schemes, all without the knowledge, approval and control of the highest levels of the Confederate government? It is completley absurd.

Thomas Nelson Conrad also exonerated the Confederate Government from knowledge of his and other "kidnapping schemes" (A Confederate Spy, p. 69). These exonerations are simnply too many and too gratuitous to be true. They are cover; they are not real.

John

(02-27-2013 02:29 PM)John Fazio Wrote:
(02-24-2013 02:09 AM)John Fazio Wrote: [quote='RJNorton' pid='13819' dateline='1361650573']
In his December 6, 1870, lecture John Surratt said, "It may be well to remark here that this scheme of abduction was concocted without the knowledge or the assistance of the Confederate government in any shape or form. Booth and I often consulted together as to whether it would not be well to acquaint the authorities in Richmond with our plan, as we were sadly in want of money, our expenses being very heavy. In fact the question arose among us as to whether, after getting Mr. Lincoln, if we succeeded in our plan, the Confederate authorities would not surrender us to the United States again, because of doing this thing without their knowledge or consent. But we never acquainted them with the plan, and they never had anything in the wide world to do with it. In fact, we were jealous of our undertaking and wanted no outside help. I have not made this statement to defend the officers of the Confederate government. They are perfectly able to defend themselves."

In 1902 Samuel Arnold said, "There was never any connection between Booth and the Confederate authorities." He went on to say, "No officials of the Confederate government had any knowledge in regard to it, although it was attempted to be shown by the military commission that they had, through many witnesses."

Were they both lying?

Roger:

In my opinion, Laurie is partially right. She is right about Surratt, because he was a colossal liar. The first duty of a secret service agent is to conceal the identities of his or her fellow agents, especially his or her superiors, and if such identities are already known, to protect them from capture and prosecution. That is all Surratt was doing in his lecture.

But Arnold was not lying; he just didn't know. Booth, you probably know, was very good at keeping his operations compartmentalized. His grunts, therefore (i.e. Arnold, O'Laughlen, Herold and Atzerodt, were told only as much as they needed to know. They were therefore not privy to the full extent of the conspiracy.

There is these kinds of unsolicited exonerations an element of disingenuousness. Who asked Surratt about the Confederate Government? No one; he volunteered the information. That alone makes it suspect. It was the same with Booth in his famous "To Whom It May Concern letter, in which he signed off with "A Confederate doing his duty on his own responsibility." Again, who asked him? Methinks he protests too much. Why would he volunteer such a statement otherwise than with an ulterior motive, i.e. to shield his superiors?

(02-24-2013 02:09 AM)John Fazio Wrote: [quote='RJNorton' pid='13819' dateline='1361650573']
In his December 6, 1870, lecture John Surratt said, "It may be well to remark here that this scheme of abduction was concocted without the knowledge or the assistance of the Confederate government in any shape or form. Booth and I often consulted together as to whether it would not be well to acquaint the authorities in Richmond with our plan, as we were sadly in want of money, our expenses being very heavy. In fact the question arose among us as to whether, after getting Mr. Lincoln, if we succeeded in our plan, the Confederate authorities would not surrender us to the United States again, because of doing this thing without their knowledge or consent. But we never acquainted them with the plan, and they never had anything in the wide world to do with it. In fact, we were jealous of our undertaking and wanted no outside help. I have not made this statement to defend the officers of the Confederate government. They are perfectly able to defend themselves."

In 1902 Samuel Arnold said, "There was never any connection between Booth and the Confederate authorities." He went on to say, "No officials of the Confederate government had any knowledge in regard to it, although it was attempted to be shown by the military commission that they had, through many witnesses."

Were they both lying?

Roger:

In my opinion, Laurie is partially right. She is right about Surratt, because he was a colossal liar. The first duty of a secret service agent is to conceal the identities of his or her fellow agents, especially his or her superiors, and if such identities are already known, to protect them from capture and prosecution. That is all Surratt was doing in his lecture.

But Arnold was not lying; he just didn't know. Booth, you probably know, was very good at keeping his operations compartmentalized. His grunts, therefore (i.e. Arnold, O'Laughlen, Herold and Atzerodt, were told only as much as they needed to know. They were therefore not privy to the full extent of the conspiracy.

There is in these kinds of unsolicited exonerations an element of disingenuousness. Who asked Surratt about the Confederate Government? No one; he volunteered the information. That alone makes it suspect. It was the same with Booth in his famous "To Whom It May Concern letter, in which he signed off with "A Confederate doing his duty on his own responsibility." Again, who asked him? Methinks he protests too much. Why would he volunteer such a statement otherwise than with an ulterior motive, i.e. to shield his superiors?

There is more to this issue that I would like to share with you in another message. This one is giving me problems with my computer. Later.

John

Roger:

I wanted to continue the thought. Arnold, Atzerodt and Powell all made statements indicating that as far as they knew, the Confederate Government was not privy to Booth's conspirarcy. In the first two cases, we may be sure they were ignorant of the breadth of the conspiracy. In Powell's case, and in Surratt's too, we may be sure they were protecting fellow conspirators, especially their superiors in Richmond., which is the first and most important duty of Secret Service agents. Recall that Surratt met regularly with Benjamin, and probably with Davis and Seddon and Breckenridge too. Recall that Powell spoke to Gillette about making numerous trips to Baltimore where he met with wealthy Copperheads (though he did not identify them as such), in their mansions, VIP's who financed him and told him how much glory he would earn from the Southern people for what he was doing. Booth had rubbed elbows with all of them --ten days in Canada with the Canadian Cabinet; trips to New York, Boston (the Parker House meeting), Philadelphia and Baltimore; regular meetings with Surratt who had regular meetings with Benjamin. How couold they not have known of what he was doing? Are we to believe that his action team, the New York crowd, Mosby's Rangers, Harney and his crowd and the other conspiracy that was afoot in Washington, which Surratt mentioned in his lecture, were all running around, doing their own thing, presuming to know how best to serve and save the Confederacy, but completely oblivious to the political and military implications of their schemes, all without the knowledge, approval and control of the highest levels of the Confederate government? It is completley absurd.

Thomas Nelson Conrad also exonerated the Confederate Government from knowledge of his and other "kidnapping schemes" (A Confederate Spy, p. 69). These exonerations are simnply too many and too gratuitous to be true. They are cover; they are not real.

John

Roger:

Here's another thought. Arnold, Herold, Atzerodt and Powell all spoke of "others" who were in the conspiracy, but who were not part of Booth's immediate action team. Chester and Mathews did too. Recall, also, the evidence of "others' who were involved on the night of the assassination, namely the whistlers; the horsemen who galloped through Union pickets after they refused to give the password (see p. 41 in Kauffman); and the blase' horseman who showed no interest in news about the assassination and attempted assasination on the road near Glenwood Cemetery (see p. 73-74 in Kauffman). Are we to believe that all these others were also unknown to Confederate authorities? And I haven't even begun to talk about the mail line, Ficklin, Stringfellow, Harbin, Parr, et al. Was Richmond ignorant of them too?

John