John Surratt, Jr.

[wpbinzel]

Laurie referenced Sheridan's wire to Stanton in October 1865 with regard to Isaac Surratt. The full text may be of interest to those who have not seen it:

Rec’d 3 pm
In Cipher

Hd Qrs Div of the Gulf
New Orleans Oct 18th 1865

Hon Edwin Stanton
Sec’y of War

Genl Steele communicated the following intelligence –

Isaac Surratt another son of Mrs. Surratt left Monterey Mexico some three or four weeks ago to assassinate the President. This resolution was taken after he heard of the execution of his mother, and the rebels of that place made up a purse for him. The young man was very frantic when he left Monterey some four weeks ago traveling toward the Rio Grande by horseback.

Isaac Surratt is about 32 years of age, olive complexion, five feet nine or ten inches in height, full beard, dark eyes, black curly hair and good looking – was a member of Duff’s Regt of Cavalry.

PH Sheridan
MGenl

[Pamela]

I've been checking out past threads and found this very interesting one. I thought it would be a good place to put something I found when a reread Weichmann's book and read more carefully some parts I only skimmed over the first time. This is news to me although maybe most of you know about this. He wrote a critique of a paper written by Reverend J. A. Walker 25 years after the trial. Among his comments was this, p.326; "Finally Father Walker informs us that John H. Surratt, during the trial of the conspirators, sent a person to Washington, furnished him the means, and was ready to give himself up in the defense of his mother. This friend saw the counsel of his mother. They advised the friend to return and tell John H. Surratt to remain in Canada, for there was no danger that his mother could be convicted.

This part of the reverend gentleman's statement, I believe to be measurably true. I myself was approached by Frederick Aiken of Mrs. Surratt's counsel, at one time during the trial and informed by him that John H. Surratt would return to the United States, if certain stipulations, which I do not fully remember, could be secured from the Government. One of these stipulations, however, was that he should be used as a witness against Jefferson Davis.

When the trial of the conspirators was over, I wrote to the Judge Advocate General, Judge Holt, about the proposition to have Surratt returned, but was assured by him that he had heard nothing of it."

JS referred to this incident in his Rockville lecture. It make me think that MS told her lawyers to give a false message back to her son because she was afraid for him if he returned, even if he got assurances from the government. Otherwise, it's hard to imagine that Aiken would have said there was no chance of a conviction, and also Holt said he was never contacted.

[Susan Higginbotham]

I believe Mary very likely did discourage John, through her lawyers, from returning.

[RJNorton]

Hi Pam. I still don't understand what John Surratt could have done/said that would have effected the government's case/witnesses against his mother. There was very specific April 14th evidence against her that John's presence at trial could not change. I guess I don't understand why John Surratt might consider giving himself up in the defense of his mother. IMO what Susan says seems logical.

[historybuff]

I agree, RJ, but that does not change the fact that it made John appear guiltier due to his flight.
And the evidence against Mary is compelling despite her demurrals. So if Mary did discourage John from returning, perhaps through her lawyers, it is part of a "web", implicating the two of them more.

[Pamela]

Why did Aiken convey this info to Louis? As counsel to MS he was bound to confidentiality so it's not likely that he made the decision to talk to him. So was it MS's or JS's request? Did JS want Louis to know that he hadn't abandoned his mother completely as a matter of pride? Or did MS want Louis to know that about her son and Louis's (former)friend?

[RJNorton]

(03-23-2015 08:40 AM)historybuff Wrote:  And the evidence against Mary is compelling despite her demurrals.

Mercine, welcome to the forum! I am one of those who was "on the fence" until I read Kate Larson's book. Now that I have read that book I agree totally with what you said.

[L Verge]

I have spent fifty years of my life trying to figure out the bonds between mother and son and who would blink first. I truly do not believe that Mary Surratt ever considered the fact that she would be found guilty (much less be sentenced to death) by the military tribunal. She was willing to do prison to keep her son safe, and I think she would have (and did) gone to the gallows to protect him.

On the other hand, I believe that John felt the same way - his mother would not hang and might even escape prison based on her gender and her age. There may have been one other underlying factor. The Catholic Church. Throughout its history, has it not always been a sanctuary for anyone seeking its help? The Vatican had to agree to extradition, which was highly unlikely if a death sentence would be imposed on the person being extradited. Couldn't John assume that the Vatican would refuse to turn him over to the U.S. and that there was not enough evidence to hang his mother? In essence, the church was deciding their fate?

If any woman had been hanged by the U.S. previous to 1865, I think both John and Mary would have had reason to be wary about her escaping the gallows. But, to try and place bets and your life on a first-time case is pretty gutsy.

P.S. I also believe the point made in the Killing Lincoln movie of a few years ago that Fr. Jacob A. Walter may well have been a go-between for communication between the U.S. and the Vatican. After all of this, he certainly was an advocate/defender of Mrs. Surratt and the Catholic Church, as was the teacher from Gonzaga, John Brophy.

[Pamela]

Interesting...and I'm glad you mentioned John Brophy. I've re-read John's Rockville lecture. Originally I assumed it was largely fictional self serving story telling, but now I think he included some fascinating details. From his lecture:

" Things continued in this way for some time, until I could stand the suspense no longer. I determined to send a messenger to Washington for that purpose, and secured the services of an intelligent and educated gentleman. I started him off immediately, I paying all expenses. I gave him a letter to a friend of mine in Washington, with instructions to say to him to put himself in communication with the counsel for the defense, and to make a correct report to me as to how the case stood; if there was any danger; and also, to communicate with me if my presence was necessary, and inform me without delay; with an urgent request that he would see and inquire for himself how matters stood. He left me, and God alone knows the suspense and anxiety of my mind during the days of his absence. I imagined and thought all kinds of things; yet I was powerless to act. At last he returned, and so bright and cheerful was his countenance that I confess one-half of my fears were dispelled. He represented everything as progressing well, and brought me the message from the gentleman in Washington to whom I had sent him:

'Be under no apprehension as to any serious consequences. Remain perfectly quiet, as any action on your part would only tend to make matters worse. If you can be of any service to us, we will let you know; but keep quiet.'

These were the instructions I received from my friend in Washington, in whom I felt the utmost reliance, and who I thought would never deceive me."

Who was this friend? John Brophy? Brophy was John's friend from seminary college who knew Louis Weichmann as well. If Mary asked Brophy to lie to her son about the trial that could explain why Brophy went to such extreme lengths to prevent the inevitable, her execution. Not only did Brophy care about Mary, but he assured his friend (John) that her life wasn't in danger, and John acted or didn't take action based on what Brophy conveyed to him. Brophy, if it was him, was put in a horrible situation by the Surratts. John used Brophy's position as a trusted friend to get information to relieve his anxiety while he was being hidden by Catholic priests in Canada. Mary used Brophy to deceive her son so John wouldn't endanger himself. Brophy made a desperate attempt to neutralize Weichmann's testimony with his affidavit that was printed in all the newspapers, but when push came to shove, he did not want to testify under oath about his allegations.