Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

SSlater · 11-09-2013, 12:42 AM

I do no have a copy of Surratt's trial. So, I need some help. I have a copy of one page of the "Elmira Morning Telegram" for April 22, 1917, which has a "50th year Anniversary of the Surratt Trial" article, in which they say "It was finally admitted by the prosecution that Surratt was in Elmira on the morning of the 13th." The newspaper then adds that " an effort was made by the prosecution to show that he made a rapid journey to Washington to arrive there for the assassination." which the defense then shredded that ploy to bits.
My question is: Did the prosecution really admit that, during the trial?

RJNorton · 11-09-2013, 05:16 AM

John (SSLATER), I cannot answer your question, but I do have one that is somewhat related. Did the prosecution knowingly use testimony they knew to be wrong? I am referring to Susan Jackson's testimony. According to Weichmann Susan Jackson confused April 4 with April 14. Her testimony regarding Surratt being at the boardinghouse on the night of April 14 is not credible. Did the prosecution know she was confused, yet still allow her to give this testimony?

*********************************

Q. Do you remember the Good Friday following that day, or any circumstances about that Good Friday in April?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know whether Mrs. Surratt went away that day?' A. Yes. She went down in the country on Good Friday, between 11 and 12 o'clock.
Q. In what did she go?
A. She went in a buggy.
Q. Did you see the man who went with her?
A. Mr. Weichmann.
Q. Did you see him?
A. Yes, sir. He boarded there at the same time.
Q. You would know him now, if you were to see him?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you see Mr. Weichmann when he came back with Mrs. Surratt?
A. Yes, sir; I saw him when he came back with Mrs. Surratt.
Q. About what time in the evening did Mrs. Surratt return?
A. As near as I can recollect, it was between 8 and 9 o'clock.
Q. After that, on that evening, will you tell us whether you saw the prisoner
here?
Witness. That one sitting over there? (pointing to the prisoner.)
Mr. Pierrepont. Yes.
A. Yes, sir; I have seen him in the dining-room.
Q. Who was with him?
A. His mother was with him.
Q. What did his mother say to you?
A. I do not know.
Q. Had you ever seen him before?
A. No, sir; I had never seen him before.
Q. How long had you lived in the house?
A. I had been there three weeks.
Q. What did his mother say?
A. She told me that was her son.
Q. What else did she say to him, or about him?
A. She did not say anything else. When I was gathering up some clothes to put in the wash, I asked if they were for Mr. Weichmann, and she said no, they were for her son.
Q. Did she say anything about who he looked like?
A. She asked me did he not look like his sister Annie.
Q. What did you say to that?
A. I said I did not know; I did not take good notice of him to see who he favored.
Q. Who was it that asked you if he did not look like his sister Annie?
A. Mrs. Surratt.
Q. Did you bring anything into the room you have spoken of where she was sitting with her son?
A. I had just brought a pot of tea into the room.
Q. Who was in the room when you brought in the pot of tea?
A. Not any one, except her son.
Q. Do you see any one now who she told you then was her son?
A. Yes, sir; I am looking at him now.
Q. State whether that is the one.
(The prisoner made to stand up.)
Q. After you took in the pot of tea, what did you do?
A. Just went out again.
Q. Did you return again?
A. No, sir; I did not return in the room any more.
Q. Will you tell us, as near as you can, about what time in the evening you
took in the pot of tea?
A. As near as I can come at it, she came home between 8 and 9 o'clock.
Well, when she came home and came to the dining-room, I carried in supper for
Mr. Weichmann, the man who boarded there. After he went out she called me and asked me for a second plate, cup, and saucer. I carried them to her.
Q. And then you found this man there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you know his sister Annie?
A. Yes, sir; she lived there.
Q. She was in the house?
A. Yes, sir.

John Fazio · 11-09-2013, 06:31 AM

(11-08-2013 09:59 PM)John Fazio Wrote:
(11-08-2013 06:11 PM)JMadonna Wrote:
(11-08-2013 02:29 PM)L Verge Wrote: Jerry,

I want you to put a cold compress on your forehead and sit down, but I am agreeing with you on this!

PSST.....by the same logic, I don't believe Benjamin knew either

Well it was a good feeling while it lasted wasn't it?

Jerry:

You have GOT to be kidding!!! Benjamin, the mastermind behind the Confederate year of terror (March, 1864, through April, 1865). Benjamin, without whose imprimatur, nothing was done by the Secret Service. Benjamin, in regular communication with the Canadian Cabinet, with Davis and with Surratt, the latter in regular communication with Booth. Benjamin, who ran for his life, even from Davis and his party, "anywhere, even if it takes me to the middle of China", because he knew he would not escape the hangman. Benjamin, who, after establishing a new career in England, never spoke about the war or of his role in it and never returned to the United States. That Benjamin! I repeat: You have got to be kidding.

John

Jerry:

I forgot one other "Benjamin": Benjamin, the number two man in the Confederate Government who burned almost all his records, orders, correspondence, etc., when he fled Richmond and who then burned what remained when he crossed the Savannah River heading for China. That Benjamin! You are kidding, aren't you?

John

SSlater · 11-09-2013, 11:24 PM

John F. I have been reading your stuff on Google for years, so I appreciate your dialog on Surratt's whereabouts, but I differ from you on the "8 DAYS". Mar18 to 25. On Mar 19, Watson wrote to Surratt in D.C., thus he believed Surratt to be in D.C., clearly, he was not in New York. We don't know if Surratt replied to him, via telegraph - as requested, and told him that Booth was in NY and would attend to the work needing to be done. (Escort Sarah? - that I believe.) Booth and Surratt were both in D.C. on the 25th, but there is no record of them meeting face-to-face. (Booth went to his hotel, and Surratt picked up Sarah, but where???) From that point on they were inseparable well into April. I can't believe that Surratt would have gone to NY in that time period. So, Booth might have seen Surratt on Mar. 19 and maybe Mar25, but that's all. That wouldn't have been enough time to develop a New Plot. The continuance of the original "team" is extremely "Iffy". I will grant you the thought that - there is the possibility that Surratt part may have been to report the new "Assassination Plan" to the authorities in Canada for their approval, but he did not have an active part in the plan, because he had other duties for the Confederacy, (with Sarah and/or Elmira) and could not make it back to D.C. on time. Question: Was the date of the Assassination a set date, or could it have been "when possible"? and it came sooner that expected, so Surratt wasn't available. Watcha' Think?

John Fazio · 11-10-2013, 03:39 AM

(11-07-2013 04:08 PM)irshgrl500 Wrote:
(11-07-2013 12:47 PM)RJNorton Wrote:
(11-07-2013 10:34 AM)John Fazio Wrote: What time did Grant's train leave?

John

John, I used Jim Bishop's book for the 6 P.M. in my post. Yes, I realize Bishop did not footnote his book, but here is the time schedule included in The Day Lincoln Was Shot:

6 P.M. Leave Washington City
7:25 P.M Arrive Baltimore
12:00 P.M. Arrive Philadelphia
Change Trains
6:00 A.M. Leave Philadelphia
7:00 A.M. Arrive Burlington

I may be a bit behind but wasn't there an unsent telegram, which Surratt intended to send on 4/15, Saturday, from the lobby of Brainard House, in Elmira, NY? Ok, which also means, he could have been in D.C., the night before; the night of the shooting.

Irish girl :

I am not familiar with that. Who was he to send it to, if known? For what purpose, if known?

Here is a significant tidbit, frequently overlooked in the debate about Surratt's role in the assassination and his whereabouts on 4-14: Ste. Marie gave two accounts of Surratt's whereabouts, one in his Affidavit and one on the stand in the trial. In the latter he said that Surratt told him when they were in Italy that he was in Washington on 4-14 and that he left the city, by train, disguised as an Englishman, the following morning, and that he experienced much difficulty in doing so. The defense deemed this testimony so watery that they didn't even bother to cross-examine him. It is generally supposed, therefore, that the account is false and that the Affidavit, therefore, which put him in "New York" (presumably Elmira, New York state), is true. But, most interestingly, Surratt did not say to Ste. Marie that he was in New York admiring the scenery and calmly patronizing haberdashers and tailors; he said he was there "prepared to fly". It will not do of historians to accept the first part of his statement, but reject the second. The latter has as much claim to truth as the former. I conclude, therefore, that even if he WAS in Elmira, "prepared to fly" means that he was a part of the conspiracy to murder the President and knew very well what was coming (i.e. knew very well that Booth would assassinate the President during the evening of the 14th) and that what was coming, when it came, would be his cue to "fly". And "fly", of course, is precisely what he did, whether one accepts Macmillan's evidence, the Rockville lecture or the Hanson Hiss interviews. The law considers flight to be the criminal's unstated confession of guilt. Remaining in hiding while his mother was being tried and hanged is further evidence of deep complicity in the crime. There is, of course, much more.

On another matter: Is that a picture of you in your icon?

John

JMadonna · (This post was last modified: 11-10-2013 08:42 AM by JMadonna.)

(11-09-2013 06:31 AM)John Fazio Wrote: Jerry:

You have GOT to be kidding!!! Benjamin, the mastermind behind the Confederate year of terror (March, 1864, through April, 1865). Benjamin, without whose imprimatur, nothing was done by the Secret Service. Benjamin, in regular communication with the Canadian Cabinet, with Davis and with Surratt, the latter in regular communication with Booth. Benjamin, who ran for his life, even from Davis and his party, "anywhere, even if it takes me to the middle of China", because he knew he would not escape the hangman. Benjamin, who, after establishing a new career in England, never spoke about the war or of his role in it and never returned to the United States. That Benjamin! I repeat: You have got to be kidding.

John

John,
In the lengthy letter I sent you from Thompson to Benjamin dated 12/8/1864, Thompson begins by saying; “Sir: Several times I have attempted to send you communications, I have no assurance that any one of them have been received. I have relaxed no effort to carry out the objects the Government had in view of sending me here”….

Does this sound like Benjamin was the man ‘without whose imprimatur, nothing was done by the Secret Service’?
Thompson goes on to inform him of all the operations carried out by his group since April ’64 and their failures. It seems obvious that Thompson was given a list of objectives by Davis and he was responsible for the methods to carry them out.
Thompson does mention that a note from Benjamin through Lt. Headley did reach him re-enforcing the goal of freeing prisoners but Thompson apologizes telling him that they had to abandon that goal due to a lack of Copperhead support. Wouldn’t the ‘mastermind behind the Confederate year of terror’ be aware of this long before December?

The reason for Thompson’s long report was that he was getting fired. On December 30, General Edwin G. Lee arrived in Canada to hand Thompson the following directive from Benjamin:

'From reports which reach us from trustworthy sources, we are satisfied that so close an espionage is kept upon you that your services have been deprived of the value which is attached to your residence in Canada. The President thinks that it is better that you return to the Confederacy.'

But as you know, Thompson did not return to the Confederacy. He stayed in Montreal. However, Benjamin communicated only with Lee from then on.

When Surratt returned to Montreal he had an order for Lee to make certain that Thompson gave him control of the money. Lee had the authority to demand it so there was no need for a letter from Benjamin to Thompson. Yet, Surratt also delivered a letter to Thompson, which from all indications seemed to give the green light to assassinating Lincoln. It is pretty safe to assume that the authorization had to come from Davis alone.

Lee was completely blindsided by the assassination. He wrote in his diary; ‘News of Lincoln’s death came this morning, exciting universal shock of…” He then crossed out ‘shock of’ and substituted ‘horror and amazement’.

If the head of the Canadian Confederate operations was horrified you can imagine how the ‘mastermind’ must have felt.

John Fazio · (This post was last modified: 11-11-2013 12:34 AM by John Fazio.)

(11-10-2013 08:38 AM)JMadonna Wrote:
(11-09-2013 06:31 AM)John Fazio Wrote: Jerry:

You have GOT to be kidding!!! Benjamin, the mastermind behind the Confederate year of terror (March, 1864, through April, 1865). Benjamin, without whose imprimatur, nothing was done by the Secret Service. Benjamin, in regular communication with the Canadian Cabinet, with Davis and with Surratt, the latter in regular communication with Booth. Benjamin, who ran for his life, even from Davis and his party, "anywhere, even if it takes me to the middle of China", because he knew he would not escape the hangman. Benjamin, who, after establishing a new career in England, never spoke about the war or of his role in it and never returned to the United States. That Benjamin! I repeat: You have got to be kidding.

John

John,
In the lengthy letter I sent you from Thompson to Benjamin dated 12/8/1864, Thompson begins by saying; “Sir: Several times I have attempted to send you communications, I have no assurance that any one of them have been received. I have relaxed no effort to carry out the objects the Government had in view of sending me here”….

Does this sound like Benjamin was the man ‘without whose imprimatur, nothing was done by the Secret Service’?
Thompson goes on to inform him of all the operations carried out by his group since April ’64 and their failures. It seems obvious that Thompson was given a list of objectives by Davis and he was responsible for the methods to carry them out.
Thompson does mention that a note from Benjamin through Lt. Headley did reach him re-enforcing the goal of freeing prisoners but Thompson apologizes telling him that they had to abandon that goal due to a lack of Copperhead support. Wouldn’t the ‘mastermind behind the Confederate year of terror’ be aware of this long before December?

The reason for Thompson’s long report was that he was getting fired. On December 30, General Edwin G. Lee arrived in Canada to hand Thompson the following directive from Benjamin:

'From reports which reach us from trustworthy sources, we are satisfied that so close an espionage is kept upon you that your services have been deprived of the value which is attached to your residence in Canada. The President thinks that it is better that you return to the Confederacy.'

But as you know, Thompson did not return to the Confederacy. He stayed in Montreal. However, Benjamin communicated only with Lee from then on.

When Surratt returned to Montreal he had an order for Lee to make certain that Thompson gave him control of the money. Lee had the authority to demand it so there was no need for a letter from Benjamin to Thompson. Yet, Surratt also delivered a letter to Thompson, which from all indications seemed to give the green light to assassinating Lincoln. It is pretty safe to assume that the authorization had to come from Davis alone.

Lee was completely blindsided by the assassination. He wrote in his diary; ‘News of Lincoln’s death came this morning, exciting universal shock of…” He then crossed out ‘shock of’ and substituted ‘horror and amazement’.

If the head of the Canadian Confederate operations was horrified you can imagine how the ‘mastermind’ must have felt.

Jerry:

Unless I am missing something, it does not appear to me that you said anything that is in derogation of anything I said. Much of what you said relates to time lapses in communication, which, given the technology of the time, and the need to avoid easily compromised means of communication, such as the telegraph, is perfectly understandable. The Thompson letter you refer to, for example, was sent on Dec. 4 and was not received by Benjamin until February 13. But this does not in any way diminish Benjamin's authority; it simply means that some of his orders would not be executed as soon as he would have liked them to be and that he would sometimes have to authorize his subordinates to take independent action in lieu of orders from him. OK. So what? He's still the major domo where terror is concerned if and when he chooses to exercise authority and if and when he can and does make his wishes known. You can be absolutely sure that before terror plots of any significance were carried out, they were first approved by Benjamin, at least, and sometimes Davis. That would include the raids on Calais and St. Albans; the Northwest Conspiracy; the burning of New York; the spreading of pestilence in the North (Dr. Blackburn's scheme and Hyams's testimony); the voyage of the CSS Tallahassee; the Boatburner's work on inland waterways; the explosion at City Point; and John Yeats Beall's attempt to free prisoners from Johnson's Island and to derail trains from Buffalo; among other acts of terror.

Why was it necessary for Richmond to authorize the Canadian Cabinet to kill Lincoln, inasmuch as Booth was in Washington? Why not get the order to Booth directly? My surmise, and it is only that, is that the Canadian Cabinet had to be authorized because there was much more to April 14 than Booth and his team, who appear to have had responsibility for killing only five government officeholders. The Cabinet had to coordinate a broader program, namely decapitation of probably ten others, including every member of Lincoln's Cabinet.

As for General Lee's "horror and amazement", I have a section in the book devoted to "gratuitous exculpations", "portentous comments" and "florid denials".

John

(11-09-2013 11:24 PM)SSlater Wrote: John F. I have been reading your stuff on Google for years, so I appreciate your dialog on Surratt's whereabouts, but I differ from you on the "8 DAYS". Mar18 to 25. On Mar 19, Watson wrote to Surratt in D.C., thus he believed Surratt to be in D.C., clearly, he was not in New York. We don't know if Surratt replied to him, via telegraph - as requested, and told him that Booth was in NY and would attend to the work needing to be done. (Escort Sarah? - that I believe.) Booth and Surratt were both in D.C. on the 25th, but there is no record of them meeting face-to-face. (Booth went to his hotel, and Surratt picked up Sarah, but where???) From that point on they were inseparable well into April. I can't believe that Surratt would have gone to NY in that time period. So, Booth might have seen Surratt on Mar. 19 and maybe Mar25, but that's all. That wouldn't have been enough time to develop a New Plot. The continuance of the original "team" is extremely "Iffy". I will grant you the thought that - there is the possibility that Surratt part may have been to report the new "Assassination Plan" to the authorities in Canada for their approval, but he did not have an active part in the plan, because he had other duties for the Confederacy, (with Sarah and/or Elmira) and could not make it back to D.C. on time. Question: Was the date of the Assassination a set date, or could it have been "when possible"? and it came sooner that expected, so Surratt wasn't available. Watcha' Think?

SSlater:

Thank you for your response.

I cannot say with certainty that Surratt met with Booth after 3-17; I can say only that the evidence we have makes it probable. Booth did not leave for NY until 3-21. So he and Surratt were in Washington through that date. Would you not suppose that they saw each other during that period (3-18 through 3-21)? Knowing that Booth left for NY on 3-21 and that Powell was already there, as well as Parr and "the NY crowd", and having received a telegram on the 19th from Roderick Watson soliciting his presence there, would you not suppose that he would join all of them there at that time, giving him plenty of time to go and return to Washington, with Booth, on the 25th? And being in the same city on the 25th, would you not suppose that they saw each other there, probably at the boardinghouse, which is probably where Sarah Slater went upon arrival.

In my opinion, there was no "new assassination plan". It was ALWAYS an assassination plan, after the Wistar and Dahlgren-Kilpatrick Raids. It was only a matter of engineering it. According to Ms. Hamm (or Hann), the idea of murdering Lincoln in a theater was hatched in Richmond weeks before it was carried out. There was no real kidnapping plot; that was the ruse and cover to conceal the real purpose, which was decapitation. A kidnapped Lincoln would have done them no good at all, and Davis even said so! What would they have done in the face of Northern stonewalling? Take off his arms? Pull out his fingernails? Decapitation was their last and only hope. In my opinion, you are well advised to jettison all the nonsense about kidnapping and concentrate on what really happened and what was really tried.

John

John Fazio · 11-11-2013, 08:50 AM

(11-08-2013 01:21 PM)L Verge Wrote: All I can say is "show me the proof." Right now, I think you are speculating (as did Mike on a number of points - despite his tremendous research). I also think you are giving John Surratt too much credit in classifying him as "one of the Confederacy's top agents." Skilled courier, yes - agent, no.

Laurie:

I partially agree about Surratt's status as a "top agent". Still, he took over from his father as postmaster when the latter died, running, with his mother, the Confederate safe house in Surrattsville and, from November, 1864, the safe house in Washington. Further, he was a full-fledged agent from at least 1863, knew Herold for years and was a regular at Dr. Mudd's, where he became acquainted with other mail line operatives and truly "top agents", as the doctor's slaves attested to at the trial. Further, he met Benjamin on a fairly regular basis and, if we are to believe Weichmann, met Davis too. Further, he met with all the biggies in Canada, at least, and maybe in New York (at Belmont's mansion?) and was Booth's right hand. I would say, therefore, that if he was not a "top" agent, he wasn't far behind.

You asked for proof. I hope to present enough to persuade you.

John

Thomas Thorne · (This post was last modified: 11-11-2013 12:18 PM by Thomas Thorne.)

If John Surratt, JWB's deputy, was in Washington on 4/14/65. what role did he play in the assassination and what do the number of people directly involved in the assassination and their choice of of targets reveal about the attackers ?

Some people have asserted that Booth assigned Surratt the job of killing l Grant on the train that night. When did Booth discover that Grant would not be coming to the theater and what is the evidence that Surratt was on the General's train?

We all know that JWB assigned himself the task of killing Lincoln. As a Julius Caesar buff he appreciated that Brutus was not the lone stabber. It is surprising that Booth did not believe that the presence of a vigorous 42 year old soldier who might be armed and worse might be accompanied by one or more aides might require more than one assassin.

If we believe that George Atzerodt expressed a reluctance to kill, Surratt was the obvious choice to kill Andrew Johnson.

People have speculated that Booth via the fiendish legal knowledge of Judah Benjamin and/or George Sanders was aware of the provisions of the Presidential Succession Act of 1792. Yet we have no evidence that the conspirators ever targeted Lafayette Foster,President Pro Tempore of the US Senate. Foster was the only person in the presidential succession if both Lincoln and Johnson were killed. Does anyone know where Foster was that nite?

Lewis Powell assaulted Frederick Seward because the latter tried to bar him from entering his father's room. We also know that Booth expressed regret over the extent of the carnage in the Seward household in which four people in addition to Secretary of State Seward were attacked. Both Booth and Powell were unaware that killing Frederick Seward was from the perspective of preventing the Secretary of State from calling for a presidential election just as important as killing his father. Frederick was Acting Secretary of State and by law the duties of Secretary of State devolved upon him during the period of his father's disability. No one has to my knowledge ever alleged the conspirators sought to kill Frederick Seward . Anther job for John Surratt.

Another person the conspirators did not target was William Hunter, the chief clerk of the Department of State on 4/14/65. Several months ago the State Department had an article-since removed - by its official historian giving a brief biography of Hunter- asserting that by law he became acting secretary of state with the full legal powers of secretary of state upon the disability of both Sewards. I have seen documents of his performing the legal ministerial functions of the Secretary of State such as officially informing the diplomatic corps of the death of Lincoln and the accession of Johnson to the presidency.

There were lots of things that John Surratt in the service of the general Confederate conspiracy could have done on 4/14/65. As the whole affair seems to have too few people ,who lacked the knowledge often attributed to them, that such a conspiracy could have deployed, we must acquit both John Surratt and the Confederate government of killing Lincoln .
Tom
PS My earlier post on this topic never got to the board.

wsanto · (This post was last modified: 11-11-2013 02:00 PM by wsanto.)

(11-11-2013 12:09 PM)Thomas Thorne Wrote: If John Surratt, JWB's deputy, was in Washington on 4/14/65. what role did he play in the assassination and what do the number of people directly involved in the assassination and their choice of of targets reveal about the attackers ?

Some people have asserted that Booth assigned Surratt the job of killing l Grant on the train that night. When did Booth discover that Grant would not be coming to the theater and what is the evidence that Surratt was on the General's train?

We all know that JWB assigned himself the task of killing Lincoln. As a Julius Caesar buff he appreciated that Brutus was not the lone stabber. It is surprising that Booth did not believe that the presence of a vigorous 42 year old soldier who might be armed and worse might be accompanied by one or more aides might require more than one assassin.

If we believe that George Atzerodt expressed a reluctance to kill, Surratt was the obvious choice to kill Andrew Johnson.

People have speculated that Booth via the fiendish legal knowledge of Judah Benjamin and/or George Sanders was aware of the provisions of the Presidential Succession Act of 1792. Yet we have no evidence that the conspirators ever targeted Lafayette Foster,President Pro Tempore of the US Senate. Foster was the only person in the presidential succession if both Lincoln and Johnson were killed. Does anyone know where Foster was that nite?

Lewis Powell assaulted Frederick Seward because the latter tried to bar him from entering his father's room. We also know that Booth expressed regret over the extent of the carnage in the Seward household in which four people in addition to Secretary of State Seward were attacked. Both Booth and Powell were unaware that killing Frederick Seward was from the perspective of preventing the Secretary of State from calling for a presidential election just as important as killing his father. Frederick was Acting Secretary of State and by law the duties of Secretary of State devolved upon him during the period of his father's disability. No one has to my knowledge ever alleged the conspirators sought to kill Frederick Seward . Anther job for John Surratt.

Another person the conspirators did not target was William Hunter, the chief clerk of the Department of State on 4/14/65. Several months ago the State Department had an article-since removed - by its official historian giving a brief biography of Hunter- asserting that by law he became acting secretary of state with the full legal powers of secretary of state upon the disability of both Sewards. I have seen documents of his performing the legal ministerial functions of the Secretary of State such as officially informing the diplomatic corps of the death of Lincoln and the accession of Johnson to the presidency.

There were lots of things that John Surratt in the service of the general Confederate conspiracy could have done on 4/14/65. As the whole affair seems to have too few people ,who lacked the knowledge often attributed to them, that such a conspiracy could have deployed, we must acquit both John Surratt and the Confederate government of killing Lincoln .
Tom
PS My earlier post on this topic never got to the board.

Tom,

You make a good argument but there seems to be so much evidence that the CSA was involved to some degree.

I'm guessing Surratt was not in Washington on the 14th and was not truly involved with the assassination directly.

But---if he were, I see no other explanation for him not being at the Herndon House meeting unless he was, at the last minute, taken from his original assignment and sent after Grant.

Perhaps he was assigned to help Booth in the box when it was still believed Grant would be there. Or maybe he was goinng to take care of Johnson before things changed and Booth sent him to the train station after Grant. Who knows? There is no evidence.

Apparently Grant's train left at 6:00PM (or later if running late). According to secondary sources, Booth saw the Grants leaving town at around 4:00PM outside of the Willard Hotel while talking to Mathews. If his next move was to find Surratt and send him after Grant he had two hours to get him there. Possible I guess. Of course he would have to wait until that night on the train to pull the trigger as to not set off alarms in Washington and keep Lincoln on course for his appointment at Ford's.

Perhaps the change in plan helps explain Atzerodt being promoted to the role of assassin at the Herndon House meeting.

Anyway, it's all speculation. He was probably in Elmira the whole time.

Bill C

JMadonna · 11-11-2013, 03:21 PM

(11-11-2013 12:09 PM)Thomas Thorne Wrote: Yet we have no evidence that the conspirators ever targeted Lafayette Foster,President Pro Tempore of the US Senate. Foster was the only person in the presidential succession if both Lincoln and Johnson were killed. Does anyone know where Foster was that nite?

Another person the conspirators did not target was William Hunter, the chief clerk of the Department of State on 4/14/65. Several months ago the State Department had an article-since removed - by its official historian giving a brief biography of Hunter- asserting that by law he became acting secretary of state with the full legal powers of secretary of state upon the disability of both Sewards. I have seen documents of his performing the legal ministerial functions of the Secretary of State such as officially informing the diplomatic corps of the death of Lincoln and the accession of Johnson to the presidency.

Tom,

It's hard to find a good hit-man when you need one.

Nobody cared about Lafayette Foster. He made a career out of offending no one which is why he was President Pro Tempore of the Senate. He'd have tried to appease all sides and make no decisions on reconstruction. A perfect stooge for the south.

Secondly, it didn't matter who became 'acting secretary of state'. The constitution is the highest law and it specifically says secretary of state. There would have definitely been a political fight on the issue giving the south more time.

L Verge · 11-11-2013, 06:25 PM

John F. - John Surratt was little help to his mother at running anything in Surrattsville because he soon was involved in Confederate courier duties. That is the chief reason why she pulled up stakes and moved into D.C., not just because her slaves were emancipated on November 1, 1864. She and Anna needed male protection. Once in the H Street home, she received little help from him either.

I will also be interested in finding out your definition of "top agent" vs. "courier." Thomas Nelson Conrad, Wat Bowie, and others are agents to me. I don't consider Surratt in their league. As for Dr. Mudd's slaves testifying that Surratt was around St. Catherine's with other top agents, I will have to re-read their testimony because I sure don't remember them saying anything other than those men occasionally were sent food in the woods behind the house.

I don't even think Dr. Mudd was a top agent in the Confederate espionage system. I think of him as a mail carrier, an early member of the slave patrol, and someone who would contribute funds to a Southern Maryland planter plot against Lincoln and direct Booth to the right people. I don't think anyone has even been able to offer evidence that he was in the Doctor's Line.

Thomas Thorne · (This post was last modified: 11-11-2013 11:52 PM by Thomas Thorne.)

the Constitution directs how officials who will exercise substantial authority under the laws are to be selected. Under the Appointments Clause, Art, II, sec. 2, cl. 2, the President is vested with the authority (and duty) to appoint all officers of the United States, subject to Senate confirmation. The President may also, under certain circumstances, fill vacancies in such offices through recess appointments which expire at the end of the next session of the Congress in which they were issued. Art. II, sec. 2, cl. 3.

Over the years, Congress has established a legislative scheme to protect the Senate's constitutional role in the confirmation process against presidential evasion. The Vacancies Act traces its legislative origin to a 1795 enactment limiting the time a temporary assignee could hold office to six months.1 All subsequent vacancies legislation contained some time limitation on temporary occupancy. Congress has also enacted provisions requiring that filling of vacancies by recess appointments be promptly followed by submissions of presidential nominations for such positions,2 and prohibiting the payment of salary of recess appointees who had been rejected by a vote of the Senate.3

The Vacancies Act,6 originally passed in 1868,7 was intended to prevent the President from delaying sending forth nominations for advice and consent positions which could thereby evade the Senate's confirmation prerogative, and to provide the exclusive means for temporarily filling vacancies in covered positions unless Congress explicitly provided a superseding mechanism. Only two options were available under the statute: either a first assistant or a presidential designee who had previously received Senate confirmation could serve for a strictly defined and limited period. Prior to 1988, the limitation period was 30 days. In that year it was increased to 120 days. An unbroken line of Attorneys General and Office of Legal Counsel opinions from 1880 through 1977 reflected the understanding that there could be only one limited period of occupancy per vacancy (a first assistant's and a presidential designee's service could not be piggybacked) and that a pending nomination did not toll the limitation period.8 These opinions held that once the time period was exhausted, the office had to remain vacant and the powers and duties of the office could not be lawfully exercised. The Act was understood by the DOJ to apply in this rigid manner whether bureau chiefs or the heads of cabinet departments were involved. The only recourse of a President to fill a position in the event the Vacancies Act was unavailable was the nomination process or a recess appointment...

The President now has three options when an advice and consent position in any executive agency becomes vacant as a result of the death, resignation or other inability to perform the functions and duties of the office. Under new Section 3345 the President may allow the first assistant to such officer to assume the functions and duties of the office; or he may direct a current officer in any agency who has been subject to Senate confirmation to perform those tasks; or he may select any officer or employee of the subject agency who has been with that agency for at least 90 of the 365 days preceding the vacancy and is at least at the minimum GS-15 grade level. However, a person may not temporarily serve if that person did not, in the previous 365 days, serve as a first assistant, or was first assistant for less than 90 days, and the President submits a nomination of that person to the Senate. Section 3345 (b) (1).

The above is an inelegantly copied abstracted legal article from the Federalist Society in 1999 about filling cabinet vacancies. Under the constitution Pres. Johnson or Foster could during a congressional recess as existed between March and December 1865 have appointed anyone to be Secretary of State under the recess provision of the constitution. Pres. Johnson opted to use the statutory mechanism provided by Congress-which Lincoln had also employed to appoint Asst Secretary Frederick Seward-to make Chief Clerk William Hunter Acting Secretary of State.

Obviously neither Frederick Seward or William Hunter lacked the political clout of William H. Seward. But if required either could have legally issued a call for a presidential election.

It is fun to point out that the idea that the conspirators sought to prevent a "lawful election" did not originate in the pages of the Surratt Courier in Jan 1987 by John Brennan but as Mr. Brennan noted was included as a specification in US v Herold. Pl see the Steers edition of Pittman p.19. Curiously in a trial in which U.S. Grant had to testify that the military department of Washington did have the "fortified and intrenched lines" so crucial in justifying a military trial, I can't find anything in Pittman to suggest the prosecution brought up the election prevention specification in their case. The prosecution would have to prove the conspirators were aware of the 1792 and related acts and sought to target all 5 persons I have named.
Tom

John Fazio · 11-12-2013, 05:18 AM

(11-11-2013 11:30 PM)Thomas Thorne Wrote: the Constitution directs how officials who will exercise substantial authority under the laws are to be selected. Under the Appointments Clause, Art, II, sec. 2, cl. 2, the President is vested with the authority (and duty) to appoint all officers of the United States, subject to Senate confirmation. The President may also, under certain circumstances, fill vacancies in such offices through recess appointments which expire at the end of the next session of the Congress in which they were issued. Art. II, sec. 2, cl. 3.

Over the years, Congress has established a legislative scheme to protect the Senate's constitutional role in the confirmation process against presidential evasion. The Vacancies Act traces its legislative origin to a 1795 enactment limiting the time a temporary assignee could hold office to six months.1 All subsequent vacancies legislation contained some time limitation on temporary occupancy. Congress has also enacted provisions requiring that filling of vacancies by recess appointments be promptly followed by submissions of presidential nominations for such positions,2 and prohibiting the payment of salary of recess appointees who had been rejected by a vote of the Senate.3

The Vacancies Act,6 originally passed in 1868,7 was intended to prevent the President from delaying sending forth nominations for advice and consent positions which could thereby evade the Senate's confirmation prerogative, and to provide the exclusive means for temporarily filling vacancies in covered positions unless Congress explicitly provided a superseding mechanism. Only two options were available under the statute: either a first assistant or a presidential designee who had previously received Senate confirmation could serve for a strictly defined and limited period. Prior to 1988, the limitation period was 30 days. In that year it was increased to 120 days. An unbroken line of Attorneys General and Office of Legal Counsel opinions from 1880 through 1977 reflected the understanding that there could be only one limited period of occupancy per vacancy (a first assistant's and a presidential designee's service could not be piggybacked) and that a pending nomination did not toll the limitation period.8 These opinions held that once the time period was exhausted, the office had to remain vacant and the powers and duties of the office could not be lawfully exercised. The Act was understood by the DOJ to apply in this rigid manner whether bureau chiefs or the heads of cabinet departments were involved. The only recourse of a President to fill a position in the event the Vacancies Act was unavailable was the nomination process or a recess appointment...

The President now has three options when an advice and consent position in any executive agency becomes vacant as a result of the death, resignation or other inability to perform the functions and duties of the office. Under new Section 3345 the President may allow the first assistant to such officer to assume the functions and duties of the office; or he may direct a current officer in any agency who has been subject to Senate confirmation to perform those tasks; or he may select any officer or employee of the subject agency who has been with that agency for at least 90 of the 365 days preceding the vacancy and is at least at the minimum GS-15 grade level. However, a person may not temporarily serve if that person did not, in the previous 365 days, serve as a first assistant, or was first assistant for less than 90 days, and the President submits a nomination of that person to the Senate. Section 3345 (b) (1).

The above is an inelegantly copied abstracted legal article from the Federalist Society in 1999 about filling cabinet vacancies. Under the constitution Pres. Johnson or Foster could during a congressional recess as existed between March and December 1865 have appointed anyone to be Secretary of State under the recess provision of the constitution. Pres. Johnson opted to use the statutory mechanism provided by Congress-which Lincoln had also employed to appoint Asst Secretary Frederick Seward-to make Chief Clerk William Hunter Acting Secretary of State.

Obviously neither Frederick Seward or William Hunter lacked the political clout of William H. Seward. But if required either could have legally issued a call for a presidential election.

It is fun to point out that the idea that the conspirators sought to prevent a "lawful election" did not originate in the pages of the Surratt Courier in Jan 1987 by John Brennan but as Mr. Brennan noted was included as a specification in US v Herold. Pl see the Steers edition of Pittman p.19. Curiously in a trial in which U.S. Grant had to testify that the military department of Washington did have the "fortified and intrenched lines" so crucial in justifying a military trial, I can't find anything in Pittman to suggest the prosecution brought up the election prevention specification in their case. The prosecution would have to prove the conspirators were aware of the 1792 and related acts and sought to target all 5 persons I have named.
Tom

Tom:

The prosecution would have had a very difficult time proving that the defendants, or any of them, knew of even the existence of the 1792 statute, much less its provisions, inasmuch as none of them could testify under the then-current law. But it was not necessary that they do so to convict the defendants. Convictions were had under the conspiracy laws where overt wrongdoing could not be shown (e.g. O'Laughlen, where the Commissioners gave greater weight to the seven defense witnesses than to the three prosecution witnesses). Still, it is significant that Holt inserted into the Specification reference to preventing a lawful election of President and Vice-President of the United States as one of the purposes of the conspirators, because it showed that even then, long before Tidwell, Hall and Gaddy's seminal works, Stanton and Holt (and doubtless many others) were on to the real authorship of the events of April 14 and the purposes and intentions of the authors. Holt later wrote at length about it in his Vindication. That the conspirators were ignorant of the statute was, of course, immaterial. Theirs was just to do and die, not to wonder why. All they did was follow the leader, who also happened to be the paymaster, after the fashion of grunts and hatchet men everywhere and always. Only Arnold had the courage to face the leader down, once, only to revert to his old oily self with his last letter to Booth (the "Sam" letter). It was not even necessary for Booth to have known of the statute and the purposes of Benjamin, et al., and the likelihood is that the 26-year old actor, unschooled in the law, did NOT know of the same. So what? He didn't need the statute to fuel his fire; it burned spontaneously.

The fact that others, such as Foster and Frederick Seward, could have filled the shoes of the departed, briefly or otherwise, strikes me as not very important in the overall scheme of things. The purpose was to create chaos in the United States Government and its military, and chaos is precisely what there would have been if the decapitation has been more successful than it was, and no one knew this better than Confederate leaders.

John

RJNorton · 11-12-2013, 05:24 AM

(11-11-2013 12:09 PM)Thomas Thorne Wrote: People have speculated that Booth via the fiendish legal knowledge of Judah Benjamin and/or George Sanders was aware of the provisions of the Presidential Succession Act of 1792. Yet we have no evidence that the conspirators ever targeted Lafayette Foster,President Pro Tempore of the US Senate. Foster was the only person in the presidential succession if both Lincoln and Johnson were killed. Does anyone know where Foster was that nite?

Hi Tom. Depending on whether one believes the word of John F. Coyle or not, Booth may also have been given incorrect information on the day of the assassination. I read somewhere Coyle was not considered a reliable source, but I've forgotten where I read that.

In Weichmann's book (p. 138) he says Booth had a noontime conversation with Coyle, part-owner and editor of the Washington Daily National Intelligencer. In the conversation Booth quizzed Coyle on the line of secession:

Booth: “Suppose Lincoln was killed, what would be the result?"
Coyle: “Johnson would succeed.”
Booth: “But if he was killed?”
Coyle: “Then Seward.”
Booth: “But suppose he was killed, then what?”
Coyle: “Then anarchy or whatever the Constitution provides.”

Coyle went on to say, “What nonsense, they don’t make Brutuses nowadays.”
Booth replied, “No, they do not.”

No specific mention of Foster's name in the conversation.

The above Booth-Coyle conversation, which allegedly took place in a restaurant, was published in the Washington Post and is also included in the article entitled "Why Seward?" by Michael Maione and James O. Hall in the Spring 1998 edition of the Lincoln Herald.