Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

John Fazio · 06-20-2015, 11:21 AM

(06-10-2015 09:28 PM)Pamela Wrote:
(05-23-2015 10:55 PM)John Fazio Wrote: Roger and Bill:

I come to this a little late, but let me weigh in.

It is not necessary to postulate that Booth found Harney in the Old Capitol Prison through informants, though that is of course possible. He would have had a hard time communicating with him there, assuming he could even get to see him. The far greater likelihood, in my opinion, is that he was informed of the failure of Harney's mission and the capture of Harney at Burke Station by telegraph and ordered to proceed with the contingency plan, which Surratt had most likely received in Richmond when he was there in late March and early April, returning to Washington on April 3 and leaving for Montreal the next morning, stopping first in New York to see Booth (who was in Boston). Thus it was that Booth advised Surratt in Montreal, on the 10th (Harney was captured on the 9th, per Crawford) that their plans had changed and that in consequence thereof he was to return to Washington forthwith, which he did, or at least began to do, "immediately", or so he told McMillan. In these circumstances, it doesn't make a lot of sense that he would stop in Elmira and blithely patronize tailors and haberdashers. In my opinion, Booth did not "decide to do his (Harney's) job for him"; he had already been instructed to approximate Harney's intended results if Harney's mission failed. I agree that at least Lincoln, Johnson, Seward, Stanton and Grant were targeted. Many others may also have been targeted (as many as 15, per the Confederate agent "Johnston"), but the evidence for these is weak.

It is unlikely that Surratt was on the train with Grant, but it is nearly certain that someone was and that the someone's assignment was to assassinate Grant. Remember that there were many more involved in the conspiracy than Booth and his action team. Remember that Powell said to Eckert that "All I can say about this is that you (Federal prosecutors) do not have the one-half of them" and that it was his "impression" that others had been assigned to make such disposition with respect to other Federal officeholders as he was to make of Seward. What this tells us is that would-be assassins were in motion that night other than Booth and his team, such as it was, and that whoever was assigned to kill Grant was almost certainly outside of Booth's immediate team.

I regard the letter to Grant as genuine (there is nothing self-serving about it) and so, apparently, did Grant and Julia. It appears in all of Grant's biographies, in Julia's Memoirs and in a conversation Grant had with Lamon in 1880. Further, Josiah Bunting III claimed that Julia actually heard the scuffling on the platform. Further, the reference to a locked car door in the letter squares perfectly with Grant's expressed recollection. It is nearly impossible that Surratt--the cold-blooded killer of Union POW's and Union agents on the Potomac, whose deeds, if known by McMillan, he said, would make him "stare" or "gape"-- would have authored such a letter, which is very persuasive evidence that Surratt was not on the train. Who would Booth have assigned to do the job? Why do we automatically assume that Booth did the assigning? Booth was himself being handled, an assignee as well as an assignor. Why wouldn't one of his handlers, or in any case someone other than he, someone in a position of greater authority, have made the assignment?

Where was Surratt on the 14th? I believe the greater likelihood is that he was in Washington, but it is still an open question. One must at least consider the possibility that he made use of a double. There is, in fact, reference to a Surratt "personator" in the literature. If there were such, and he made use of him, it would explain everything. In any case, it is not necessary to determine where he was to exclude him as the would-be assassin of Grant.

All of the foregoing, and much more, is in my book, "Decapitating the Union". The more copies one orders, the cheaper they are. In fact, if one orders 100,000 or more copies, one gets them for nothing.

John

Whether John Surratt was in Washington or not is so interesting. I haven't gotten your book yet but it is on the top of my list, and what I am posting may already be covered in your book.

John Surratt's jacket/coat is a fascinating piece of evidence. It drew so much attention and was such a large part of his alibi for the 14th. A tailor testified to having made it for a man matching Surratt's description on April 9th. The men in the Elmira haberdashery testified to remembering a man they believed was John Surratt because of the unusual design of the coat, among other things. The jacket was what drew their attention. One man testified that Surratt came to the store on the 13th and the 14th, wearing the coat, to inquire about articles of clothing that they didn't have. Booth got to the National hotel on the 8th. On the 9th Surratt, or man matching his description, had a tailor in Canada make him the distinctive coat. The man matching Surratt's description paraded around Elmira in the coat on April 13th and 14th.

Also, on the 14th, after returning from Surrattsville, Mary Surratt showed Weichmann a letter from John, dated April 12th from Canada, that had been brought to the house by Annie Ward. According to Weichmann's recollection of the letter (which was never found), "...that he had bought a French pea jacket for which he had paid ten dollars in silver....". Weichmann thought he had been shown the letter for a purpose, which he was never able to fathom. He noted that in the letter Surratt referred to Weichmann's driving Mary to the country on the 11th in a "jesting manner", and Weichmann believed the only way John could have known of the trip was by telegraph.

So why did John mention a French pea jacket? The jacket worn in Elmira was nothing like a pea jacket. Did John lie about the type of jacket and if so, why? Or did he buy 2 jackets, or a jacket and a coat, and only mention the pea jacket? That seems like a lot of bulky clothing for a confederate spy/courier to travel with. Possibly Surratt was just on a clothes spending spree. Weichmann noted that when John returned from Richmond on April 3rd, he was wearing a new suit.

The Elmira alibi was aparently such a big deal for Surratt, that in the Hanson Hiss article, written more than two decades later, he vastly inflated the time he spent there, to weeks. He also claimed the reason he never revealed the name of the Union officer that he basically bribed to get inside the prison to sketch, was a matter of honor. Since we know that Surratt had no honor, that part of his story is "sketchy".

As for who was on Grant's train, maybe it was Surratt. Surratt was full of derring do, like Booth (at least on stage), he was partners with Booth and judging from Booth's behavior toward the Grants on the 14th, Grant's murder was tremendously important. As for the letter, Surratt could have had someone else write the letter. It would make it look like someone else attempted the assassination. That was a trick he used with Weichmann more than once.

Pamela:

Thanks for your input.

Pending the discovery of new evidence, it is, in my opinion, impossible to know where Surratt was on the 14th. He gave three different versions as to where he was, when he learned of the assassination and what he did in response thereto (McMillan, Rockville lecture and Hanson Hiss interview). I find it extraordinary and unbelievable that he would, in response to an order from Booth to return to Washington forthwith (from Montreal) because their plans had changed, go instead to Elmira, case out the prison for a possible breakout even though the war was over on April 9 (for all practical purposes) and even though Grant had been exchanging 3,000 prisoners a week since January, soak up the lower New York scenery (while the Confederacy continued to collapse), blithely patronize haberdashers and tailors, and then decide to return to Baltimore "to find out the particulars of the tragedy", but go first to Canandaigua (the opposite direction from Baltimore) because he couldn't get a train from Elmira. The whole story smells. See pp. 46-48 of my book.

John

L Verge · (This post was last modified: 06-20-2015 11:51 AM by L Verge.)

(06-20-2015 11:21 AM)John Fazio Wrote:
(06-10-2015 09:28 PM)Pamela Wrote:
(05-23-2015 10:55 PM)John Fazio Wrote: Roger and Bill:

I come to this a little late, but let me weigh in.

It is not necessary to postulate that Booth found Harney in the Old Capitol Prison through informants, though that is of course possible. He would have had a hard time communicating with him there, assuming he could even get to see him. The far greater likelihood, in my opinion, is that he was informed of the failure of Harney's mission and the capture of Harney at Burke Station by telegraph and ordered to proceed with the contingency plan, which Surratt had most likely received in Richmond when he was there in late March and early April, returning to Washington on April 3 and leaving for Montreal the next morning, stopping first in New York to see Booth (who was in Boston). Thus it was that Booth advised Surratt in Montreal, on the 10th (Harney was captured on the 9th, per Crawford) that their plans had changed and that in consequence thereof he was to return to Washington forthwith, which he did, or at least began to do, "immediately", or so he told McMillan. In these circumstances, it doesn't make a lot of sense that he would stop in Elmira and blithely patronize tailors and haberdashers. In my opinion, Booth did not "decide to do his (Harney's) job for him"; he had already been instructed to approximate Harney's intended results if Harney's mission failed. I agree that at least Lincoln, Johnson, Seward, Stanton and Grant were targeted. Many others may also have been targeted (as many as 15, per the Confederate agent "Johnston"), but the evidence for these is weak.

It is unlikely that Surratt was on the train with Grant, but it is nearly certain that someone was and that the someone's assignment was to assassinate Grant. Remember that there were many more involved in the conspiracy than Booth and his action team. Remember that Powell said to Eckert that "All I can say about this is that you (Federal prosecutors) do not have the one-half of them" and that it was his "impression" that others had been assigned to make such disposition with respect to other Federal officeholders as he was to make of Seward. What this tells us is that would-be assassins were in motion that night other than Booth and his team, such as it was, and that whoever was assigned to kill Grant was almost certainly outside of Booth's immediate team.

I regard the letter to Grant as genuine (there is nothing self-serving about it) and so, apparently, did Grant and Julia. It appears in all of Grant's biographies, in Julia's Memoirs and in a conversation Grant had with Lamon in 1880. Further, Josiah Bunting III claimed that Julia actually heard the scuffling on the platform. Further, the reference to a locked car door in the letter squares perfectly with Grant's expressed recollection. It is nearly impossible that Surratt--the cold-blooded killer of Union POW's and Union agents on the Potomac, whose deeds, if known by McMillan, he said, would make him "stare" or "gape"-- would have authored such a letter, which is very persuasive evidence that Surratt was not on the train. Who would Booth have assigned to do the job? Why do we automatically assume that Booth did the assigning? Booth was himself being handled, an assignee as well as an assignor. Why wouldn't one of his handlers, or in any case someone other than he, someone in a position of greater authority, have made the assignment?

Where was Surratt on the 14th? I believe the greater likelihood is that he was in Washington, but it is still an open question. One must at least consider the possibility that he made use of a double. There is, in fact, reference to a Surratt "personator" in the literature. If there were such, and he made use of him, it would explain everything. In any case, it is not necessary to determine where he was to exclude him as the would-be assassin of Grant.

All of the foregoing, and much more, is in my book, "Decapitating the Union". The more copies one orders, the cheaper they are. In fact, if one orders 100,000 or more copies, one gets them for nothing.

John

Whether John Surratt was in Washington or not is so interesting. I haven't gotten your book yet but it is on the top of my list, and what I am posting may already be covered in your book.

John Surratt's jacket/coat is a fascinating piece of evidence. It drew so much attention and was such a large part of his alibi for the 14th. A tailor testified to having made it for a man matching Surratt's description on April 9th. The men in the Elmira haberdashery testified to remembering a man they believed was John Surratt because of the unusual design of the coat, among other things. The jacket was what drew their attention. One man testified that Surratt came to the store on the 13th and the 14th, wearing the coat, to inquire about articles of clothing that they didn't have. Booth got to the National hotel on the 8th. On the 9th Surratt, or man matching his description, had a tailor in Canada make him the distinctive coat. The man matching Surratt's description paraded around Elmira in the coat on April 13th and 14th.

Also, on the 14th, after returning from Surrattsville, Mary Surratt showed Weichmann a letter from John, dated April 12th from Canada, that had been brought to the house by Annie Ward. According to Weichmann's recollection of the letter (which was never found), "...that he had bought a French pea jacket for which he had paid ten dollars in silver....". Weichmann thought he had been shown the letter for a purpose, which he was never able to fathom. He noted that in the letter Surratt referred to Weichmann's driving Mary to the country on the 11th in a "jesting manner", and Weichmann believed the only way John could have known of the trip was by telegraph.

So why did John mention a French pea jacket? The jacket worn in Elmira was nothing like a pea jacket. Did John lie about the type of jacket and if so, why? Or did he buy 2 jackets, or a jacket and a coat, and only mention the pea jacket? That seems like a lot of bulky clothing for a confederate spy/courier to travel with. Possibly Surratt was just on a clothes spending spree. Weichmann noted that when John returned from Richmond on April 3rd, he was wearing a new suit.

The Elmira alibi was aparently such a big deal for Surratt, that in the Hanson Hiss article, written more than two decades later, he vastly inflated the time he spent there, to weeks. He also claimed the reason he never revealed the name of the Union officer that he basically bribed to get inside the prison to sketch, was a matter of honor. Since we know that Surratt had no honor, that part of his story is "sketchy".

As for who was on Grant's train, maybe it was Surratt. Surratt was full of derring do, like Booth (at least on stage), he was partners with Booth and judging from Booth's behavior toward the Grants on the 14th, Grant's murder was tremendously important. As for the letter, Surratt could have had someone else write the letter. It would make it look like someone else attempted the assassination. That was a trick he used with Weichmann more than once.

Pamela:

Thanks for your input.

Pending the discovery of new evidence, it is, in my opinion, impossible to know where Surratt was on the 14th. He gave three different versions as to where he was, when he learned of the assassination and what he did in response thereto (McMillan, Rockville lecture and Hanson Hiss interview). I find it extraordinary and unbelievable that he would, in response to an order from Booth to return to Washington forthwith (from Montreal) because their plans had changed, go instead to Elmira, case out the prison for a possible breakout even though the war was over on April 9 (for all practical purposes) and even though Grant had been exchanging 3,000 prisoners a week since January, soak up the lower New York scenery (while the Confederacy continued to collapse), blithely patronize haberdashers and tailors, and then decide to return to Baltimore "to find out the particulars of the tragedy", but go first to Canandaigua (the opposite direction from Baltimore) because he couldn't get a train from Elmira. The whole story smells. See pp. 46-48 of my book.

John

With the war a failure in the "official Confederacy," is it possible that Surratt was in Elmira trying to free the prisoners (with the help of the strong Copperhead movement) in order to get them to safety, medical help, and a possible continuation of the Northwest Conspiracy plans via the extra manpower as well as the anticipation of some of the "escaping" Confederate gold making it into support of the plot also? [Wow, one of my best run-on sentences!]

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.

HerbS · 06-20-2015, 11:58 AM

Rich,everyone has their own opinion! However,I do not agree with you!

Rick Smith · (This post was last modified: 06-20-2015 12:44 PM by Rick Smith.)

(06-20-2015 11:58 AM)HerbS Wrote: Rich,everyone has their own opinion! However,I do not agree with you!

herb,

Certainly it is your prerogative to disagree, and it is Rick, not Rich.

What is the "vile" epithet based on exactly, apart from Surratt being a Southerner and working against the Union? Emotion, feelings, worship of Mr. Lincoln?

Laurie has posited one view as to Surratt being labeled as vile and I agree with her assessment.

Rick

My apologies, Herb; I did not capitalize the "H" in your name at the beginning of my last post. Forgive me, I am not a very good typist.

Gene C · (This post was last modified: 06-21-2015 06:30 AM by 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.

John Fazio · 06-20-2015, 01:24 PM

Rick, Herb, Laurie, Pamela, et al:

I perceive a gauntlet thrown at my feet on the subject of John Surratt's character or lack thereof. I accept the challenge. Pray, a respite to compose a brief, aka an unsheathed rapier.

John

John Fazio · 06-21-2015, 05:52 PM

Rick, Gene, Herb, Laurie, Pamela, Eva, et al.:

Some might think of Surratt as vile simply because he saw justice in rupturing the Union for the purpose of preserving human bondage, but let us pass over that one inasmuch as he was far from alone in so finding. Instead, let us speak of deeds in which he had relatively less company.

1. He masqueraded as a legitimate United States postmaster in Surrattsville, after his father died, while at the same time using the facility as a Confederate safe house and doing double duty as a Confederate courier.
2. He was co-leader, with Booth, of a conspiracy against the United States government. He was so identified not by his enemies, but by his co-conspirators, after their arrest and incarceration. The conspiracy resulted in the kidnapping of no one, but the assassination of the President and the attempted assassination of at least four other federal officeholders. Let that serve to indicate his true intentions.
3. With Harbin's help, he recruited Atzerodt into the conspiracy and then abandoned him, after the assassination, to the hangman.
4. With Parr's help, he recruited Powell into the conspiracy and then abandoned him too, after the assassination, to the hangman.
5. He participated in the Jack Cade affair, lying to his employer and even dragging his mother along to lie to his employer, so that he could participate.
6. He participated in the Gautier's Restaurant meeting, at which a well-oiled Booth clearly implied that murder was in the cards. By his silence, he approved the same. In failing utterly to stand with Arnold against Booth, he demonstrated where his first loyalty lay and his true intentions.
7. He participated in the Campbell Hospital fiasco, following which he had a hand in depositing guns, ammunition and tools at the Surrattsville Tavern for later use. The only use made of the guns (one of them) was by Booth and Herold, after the assassination. Let that serve to indicate his true intentions.
8. He may have attempted to assassinate Lincoln in March, 1865, aboard the River Queen at City Point, Va. William Crook and Tad Lincoln both thought Surratt was the man who tried to access Lincoln at that time and place, with purpose, in Crook's opinion, to assassinate him.
9. He arranged with Smoot for a boat to be used to cross the Potomac. Only Booth and Herold crossed the Potomac. Let that serve to indicate his true intentions.
10. He went to the home of James L. Walker Murray in Richmond, with Booth, in March, 1865, for the purpose of securing funds for their conspiracy, a conspiracy that resulted in the assassination and attempted assassination of at least five federal officeholders.
11. He knew all about the assassination plan and even admitted to Ste. Marie, in Italy, that "We killed Lincoln, the *****'s friend".
12. He admitted to McMillan that he and his party, including Sarah Slater, murdered in cold blood about a half dozen emaciated Union POW's whom they encountered during their last trip to Richmond in late March, 1865. Laurie doubts this, calling it "braggadocio", but Laurie, respectfully, people do not brag about killing defenseless POW's in cold blood; they brag about heroic deeds, about overcoming long odds, about triumphing despite adversity. This is the opposite of that.
13. He and his party executed in cold blood a Union telegrapher caught in the act of telegraphing.
14. He and his party treacherously fired into a Union gunboat, killing some of its occupants, after they had agreed to surrender to the officers on board the gunboat.
15. He gave three radically different accounts of his meanderings after arriving in Montreal on April 6--where he went; where, when and how he learned of the assassination and what he did in response thereto.
16. He told McMillan, waving a gun for emphasis, that he hoped to God he lived long enough to serve Andrew Johnson the same way Abraham Lincoln had been served.
17. He told McMillan that if he, McMillan, knew all the things he had done, it would make him stare or gape or words to that effect.
18. Putting his own skin first, he fled the country after the assassination, first to Canada, then to Europe, leaving his co-conspirators to the hangman and four years in hell and leaving his own mother to the hangman, whom he could surely have saved if he had returned to Washington. Powell regarded his desertion of his mother as "detestable".
19. After he was freed, because of a hung jury, he peddled his story in the form of a Rockville lecture, in 1870, for a fee of course.
20. He threatened to kill Weichmann, one of the Prosecution's two star witnesses, who was lauded by numerous others because of his steadfastness and courage.
21. He expressed no regret or remorse over the events of April 14, 1865.
22. He lied about his escape in Italy (the "leap" into a 100-foot ravine) to flatter his ego, rather than admit that he had escaped by crawling through a sewer with the connivance of a dozen Zouave comrades.

The tip of the iceberg. some would consider "vile" an understatement.

John

HerbS · 06-22-2015, 07:40 AM

John,I agree with your opinion of John Surratt 100%!

Gene C · 06-22-2015, 12:41 PM

John, a long list. The more I learn, the more questions I have.

Some of the items you mentioned I don't know much about. Can you tell us a little more, and I only need a brief answer and perhaps a reference on where I can read more?

Who is #5, Jack Cade?
What was the Campbell Hospital Fiasco in #7
I know McMillan, #12-17, (who testified at Surratt's trail), is mentioned in Weichmann and Jampoler's book. Are Surratts comments to him confirmed by any other witness? Are there other sources to verify McMillan's statements?
Do we know anything about McMillan's reputation? Was he a reliable witness? (I have my doubts)

A question for Rick Smith, or anyone else. I don't know much about John Surratt. What little I have read (and maybe I missed it) doesn't show him in a favorable light. Has any one written anything that shows some of his outstanding qualities, specific examples of his behavior or actions that might show another and better side of him? I would like more than a general letter of reference or comment from a priest he knew years before the war.

Please take your time answering. This is an area of Lincoln's assassination that I don't know much about, and am a bit confused by what I think I know.

Pamela · 06-22-2015, 03:16 PM

(06-22-2015 12:41 PM)Gene C Wrote: John, a long list. The more I learn, the more questions I have.

Some of the items you mentioned I don't know much about. Can you tell us a little more, and I only need a brief answer and perhaps a reference on where I can read more?

Who is #5, Jack Cade?
What was the Campbell Hospital Fiasco in #7
I know McMillan, #12-17, (who testified at Surratt's trail), is mentioned in Weichmann and Jampoler's book. Are Surratts comments to him confirmed by any other witness? Are there other sources to verify McMillan's statements?
Do we know anything about McMillan's reputation? Was he a reliable witness? (I have my doubts)

A question for Rick Smith, or anyone else. I don't know much about John Surratt. What little I have read (and maybe I missed it) doesn't show him in a favorable light. Has any one written anything that shows some of his outstanding qualities, specific examples of his behavior or actions that might show another and better side of him? I would like more than a general letter of reference or comment from a priest he knew years before the war.

Please take your time answering. This is an area of Lincoln's assassination that I don't know much about, and am a bit confused by what I think I know.

After the legal system finished with him, and he got away with the many things listed by John, he married and raised a large family. He held down a responsible job. The only public nod (that I know of) to his past infamy was his self serving version of history, absolving himself of all responsibility in the conspiracy, and slandering Weichmann in the Hanson Hiss interview. So, I guess that's a backhanded compliment.

Wild Bill · 06-22-2015, 04:33 PM

Well, I cannot match John Fazio in his writing style, not being much on semi-medieval wording, and having no law degree, as I am nothing but a worn-out cowboy and horseshoer who has been run over, stomped, and kicked by too many horses and mules, and still uses “ain’t,” “cain’t,” “it don’t.” Leastways, I was out in the corral looking for Fazio’s thrown gauntlet, but found instead that what we out West call “the 70 cent spread” seems to have covered it up pretty thoroughly. As with most things Fazio writes, his assertions read more like a law brief (“Let that serve to indicate his true intentions”) than a balanced look at history, and thus proceeds to obfuscate the mullings of the jury in favor of his client, Yankee justice in starting the Civil War and Southern stupidity in losing it. Whoops! I left out “alleged.”

Fazio blithely overlooks (“let us pass over”) that the War might have had other causes. These include that the war was a just cause rom the Rebels point of view, it rested upon the principles of 1776 (Declaration of independence), 1787 (the Constitution), 1798 (the Kentucky and Virginia Resolves), not to mention the Yankees’ threat of secession in 1814 at the end of the War of 1812 (at the Hartford Convention—damn that Andrew Jackson in winning the Battle of New Orleans!), 1832 (Nullification), and Popular Sovereignty in the territories approved by the Dred Scott Decision in the 1850s.

What really happened here is that the Yankees’ forefathers compromised on the slavery issue in 1787 to gain the first real common market in history since the Hanseatic League, and their Civil War era heirs could no longer abide the deal and tried to change it by legislation and, failing in that, by a successful war.

To have the temerity to think of the War in any other way is foreign to what we all have been taught from our youths, but why not, as suggested by historian William Hanchett, “Lincoln’s Assassination as a Military Necessity,” look on the war another way? After all, a lot of what Lincoln did in winning the war was looked upon as military necessity in the North.

I hate outlines, they smack too much of yellow lawyers’ pads and law briefs not history, but Fazio loves them, so I will go over Fazio’s presentation, point by point.
1. [John Surratt] masqueraded as a legitimate United States postmaster in Surrattsville, after his father died, while at the same time using the facility as a Confederate safe house and doing double duty as a Confederate courier.

“Masqueraded?” He was postmaster in addition to his tasks for the Confederate underground. That is vile only if one is a Union man in the 21st century. That’s how spies operate, John, during wartime or peacetime.

2. He was co-leader, with Booth, of a conspiracy against the United States government. He was so identified not by his enemies, but by his co-conspirators, after their arrest and incarceration. The conspiracy resulted in the kidnapping of no one, but the assassination of the President and the attempted assassination of at least four other federal officeholders. Let that serve to indicate his true intentions.

You need to read David W. Gaddy’s “Under a Southern Rose: Of A Time When CIA meant Confederate Intelligence Activities,” where he describes the military implications of Surratt’s activities and the Confederate military Campaign of 1865. This is also in THG, Come Retribution and Tidwell’s book, April ‘65

3. With Harbin's help, he recruited Atzerodt into the conspiracy and then abandoned him, after the assassination, to the hangman.

Surratt did not leave Atzerodt. He was not in DC when the assassination happened.

4. With Parr's help, he recruited Powell into the conspiracy and then abandoned him too, after the assassination, to the hangman.

My understanding is that Powell was recruited by Judah P Benjamon and again Surratt was not there to abandon Powell. Both Powell and Atzeodt were big boys, fully capable of assuming responsibility for their actions.

5. He participated in the Jack Cade affair, lying to his employer and even dragging his mother along to lie to his employer, so that he could participate.

You really expect John or his mother to go up to the Adams Express company boss and say “let me have time off to go capture Lincoln?” Note the word capture here. It was a military operation not a civilian crime. (Gaddy again)

6. He participated in the Gautier's Restaurant meeting, at which a well-oiled Booth clearly implied that murder was in the cards. By his silence, he approved the same. In failing utterly to stand with Arnold against Booth, he demonstrated where his first loyalty lay and his true intentions.

Look at it from Booth and the others’ point of view, including Surratt, Arnold was a coward, not the hero you make him out to be.

7. He participated in the Campbell Hospital fiasco, following which he had a hand in depositing guns, ammunition and tools at the Surrattsville Tavern for later use. The only use made of the guns (one of them) was by Booth and Herold, after the assassination. Let that serve to indicate his true intentions.

What was he supposed to do with such guns, etc., had them over to the Federals with an apology?

8. He may have attempted to assassinate Lincoln in March, 1865, aboard the River Queen at City Point, Va. William Crook and Tad Lincoln both thought Surratt was the man who tried to access Lincoln at that time and place, with purpose, in Crook's opinion, to assassinate him.

Purely hearsay.

9. He arranged with Smoot for a boat to be used to cross the Potomac. Only Booth and Herold crossed the Potomac. Let that serve to indicate his true intentions.

It was not Booth and Herold’s fault that only they crossed the Potomac using instead Thomas A Jones’ boat

10. He went to the home of James L. Walker Murray in Richmond, with Booth, in March 1865, for the purpose of securing funds for their conspiracy, a conspiracy that resulted in the assassination and attempted assassination of at least five federal officeholders.

Military expeditions are expensive. You expect them to act without adequate funds?

11. He knew all about the assassination plan and even admitted to Ste. Marie, in Italy, that "We killed Lincoln, the *****'s friend".

So what? A lot of people North and South wanted to see Lincoln neutralized.

12. He admitted to McMillan that he and his party, including Sarah Slater, murdered in cold blood about a half dozen emaciated Union POW's whom they encountered during their last trip to Richmond in late March, 1865. Laurie doubts this, calling it "braggadocio", but Laurie, respectfully, people do not brag about killing defenseless POW's in cold blood; they brag about heroic deeds, about overcoming long odds, about triumphing despite adversity. This is the opposite of that.

“Encountered?” The Surratt party was assaulted by Union POWs escaped from a Reb prison. They were supposed to succor the enemy while they were on a mission? You are a lawyer. Have you not heard such confession without remorse before? Remember that this was the enemy.

13. He and his party executed in cold blood a Union telegrapher caught in the act of telegraphing.

As I remember the story, the Union telegrapher was a spy and hanged for that.

14. He and his party treacherously fired into a Union gunboat, killing some of its occupants, after they had agreed to surrender to the officers on board the gunboat.

Never assume that the enemy has surrendered rather than dragged you in on a sucker ploy. This dodge is as old as warfare.

15. He gave three radically different accounts of his meanderings after arriving in Montreal on April 6--where he went; where, when and how he learned of the assassination and what he did in response thereto.

You expect him to confess to the truth?

16. He told McMillan, waving a gun for emphasis, that he hoped to God he lived long enough to serve Andrew Johnson the same way Abraham Lincoln had been served.

A lot of people, including many Radical Republicans, would have given their all to have had such an opportunity.

17. He told McMillan that if he, McMillan, knew all the things he had done, it would make him stare or gape or words to that effect.

I bet you and I could lay claim to the same.

18. Putting his own skin first, he fled the country after the assassination, first to Canada, then to Europe, leaving his co-conspirators to the hangman and four years in hell and leaving his own mother to the hangman, whom he could surely have saved if he had returned to Washington. Powell regarded his desertion of his mother as "detestable".

Admittedly this looks bad for the evil Surratt. But let’s face up to the fact that had he surrendered both he and his mother probably would have hanged. Just how much Surratt knew hidden away in Quebec Province is debatable. He also was assured that no one would hang his mother. The US had never hanged a woman before. He reckoned without Joseph Holt and Edwin Stanton.

19. After he was freed, because of a hung jury, he peddled his story in the form of a Rockville lecture, in 1870, for a fee of course.

The American way, even in the 19th century.

20. He threatened to kill Weichmann, one of the Prosecution's two star witnesses, who was lauded by numerous others because of his steadfastness and courage.

Weichmann was yellow and turned in the conspirators to save his own hide.

21. He expressed no regret or remorse over the events of April 14, 1865.

He had none. He had done his best to defeat the North and lost.

22. He lied about his escape in Italy (the "leap" into a 100-foot ravine) to flatter his ego, rather than admit that he had escaped by crawling through a sewer with the connivance of a dozen Zouave comrades.

Oh, come on. Have you never told a tall tale before? Or at least heard one? It is an American art form.

If this is but the tip of your iceberg, you might ought to look at the part underwater. I think it may have melted. John Surratt is vile only in the same way all warfare is vile. As General WT Sherman allegedly said, “War is Hell.”

L Verge · (This post was last modified: 06-22-2015 06:35 PM by L Verge.)

Last night, I had posted what I thought was a good (and very brief) response to John's too lengthy "dissing" of John Surratt, as well as what I hoped would be a conciliatory end to this thread. However, when I pushed the button to post, I got the response that the thread was locked. I cannot retrieve my eloquent thoughts from last night. However, I just read the first few paragraphs from Wild Bill above and decided that he had done a much more historically correct reply.

My opening sentence was to the effect, John, that you had missed one vital point in your assessment of John Surratt's behavior. You forgot to mention that there was a war going on. Despite the fact that Mr. Lincoln did not want to declare the CSA a separate country, those who were fighting for that cause believed it to be and knew who their enemy was. John Surratt, IF HE INDEED COMMITTED MURDER OF THOSE MEN, did so in the belief that he was supporting his effort in winning the war. What makes him any more "vile" (or "evil" - same spelling, have you noticed?) than Generals Sheridan and Sherman of the U.S. forces or the marauders that they allowed to function in their battle areas? What makes John Surratt more vile than John Brown and his actions in Bleeding Kansas? We were not even at war when he committed atrocities or plotted to continue slavery's annihilation via violence in Harpers Ferry and onward.

One other point: You quoted me as saying that Surratt was showing braggadocio. If you will re-read what I actually said, you will find that I stated that I do not believe that the killing of Union soldiers by Surratt and Slater even existed. I doubt that Surratt ever claimed it did unless in braggadocio. If I am not mistaken, that claim was made by others - who could likely have been perjuring themselves to please the government, such as Charles Dunham and others had done at the 1865 Conspiracy Trial. BTW: Surratt's freedom did not come via hung jury.

Finally, your lengthy and pontifical format used in describing the evils committed by Surratt reminded me of why I have had to lay down your book for awhile. It is too exhausting for me to read! Congratulations to those who claim to have read it because it is very difficult to ascertain where truth, falsehood, and speculation are separate. I agree with a great deal of your comments and research, but I found myself having to stop and re-read portions (even going back to previous chapters) in order to understand other points that you were making, and I did not agree with the outcome in all cases.

I think like a teacher, and you think like a lawyer; and I cannot condemn you for that. However, your prosecutorial approach to so many things smacks of Law and Order instead of unbiased historical methods of research. That has frustrated me into not wanting to continue reading.

To be honest, I have never considered myself a Confederate, even though I am intensely proud of my Southern heritage. Being so closely in touch with James O. Hall for so many years taught me to judge things on their merit, not on my feelings. What's the song from the 60s about "seeing things from both sides now?" (Gene, that's your specialty). I wish that we could reach a consensus on this forum to consider historical things from all sides and not to create further dissension through words and innuendo. John was not the first one to use the term "vile" on this forum, but it is that type of verbiage that does little to really help us understand our history. The Civil War will be alive and well in all of us as long as we allow ourselves to take sides.

I'm very glad that I did not live during the Civil War, especially here in Maryland. On one side of my family, the two brothers fought on opposite sides with both surviving the war, but never speaking to one another again. On the other side of the family, the patriarch impoverished himself paying substitutes to take his sons' places in the draft, but neither son went South. Though slave holders, the family did not believe in secession. I sometimes wonder what my thoughts would have been...

Pamela · 06-22-2015, 05:45 PM

Wild Bill, I just want to counter your statement about Weichmann being yellow. Not one of the convicted conspirators said Weichmann was a conspirator, not even on the eve of their execution, or for those whose penalty was prison, none of them said Weichmann was in on the crime, until the day they died. Atzerodt gave multiple confessions and named everyone he could think of, but not Weichmann. If anyone would have known he was involved at least one of them would.

L Verge · (This post was last modified: 06-22-2015 06:13 PM by L Verge.)

(06-22-2015 12:41 PM)Gene C Wrote: John, a long list. The more I learn, the more questions I have.

Some of the items you mentioned I don't know much about. Can you tell us a little more, and I only need a brief answer and perhaps a reference on where I can read more?

Who is #5, Jack Cade?
What was the Campbell Hospital Fiasco in #7
I know McMillan, #12-17, (who testified at Surratt's trail), is mentioned in Weichmann and Jampoler's book. Are Surratts comments to him confirmed by any other witness? Are there other sources to verify McMillan's statements?
Do we know anything about McMillan's reputation? Was he a reliable witness? (I have my doubts)

A question for Rick Smith, or anyone else. I don't know much about John Surratt. What little I have read (and maybe I missed it) doesn't show him in a favorable light. Has any one written anything that shows some of his outstanding qualities, specific examples of his behavior or actions that might show another and better side of him? I would like more than a general letter of reference or comment from a priest he knew years before the war.

Please take your time answering. This is an area of Lincoln's assassination that I don't know much about, and am a bit confused by what I think I know.

Very good questions, Gene. That's exactly what a good historian should be asking. I will let others who made mention of Cade and McMillan answer you first to see if they are objective.

As far as John's behavior before the Civil War, he was likely an impressionable young man who was influenced by a very vocal father and other members of the slave holding community in Southern Maryland. John had just turned 16 when the war began. He was at school in northern Maryland under the tutelage of the Catholic Church, which also supported slavery in Maryland. Upon his father's death in the summer of 1862, he dropped out of school to assist at the farm and post office, where he was again surrounded by Southern sympathizers, Secret Line agents for the CSA, and also frequent Union patrols that destroyed and looted the neighborhoods.

Yes, he became a courier for the Confederacy - unlike his older brother who had left home on Inauguration Day in 1861 to serve the cause. I have always considered the possibility that John chose the underground movement because it would keep him somewhat in touch with his mother and sister even while he was on assignments.

His mother was also still keeping up the safehouse tradition of assisting Southern agents that his father had established. There is a third-quarter Confederate report listing Surratt Tavern as one of the safehouses in 1864 (two years after Mr. Surratt's death). One thing instantly catches the eye when reading the report. It lists the various safe areas from the Potomac River through Charles County and on to D.C. In every instance except one, a town is listed. When the stops get to Surrattsville, it is the tavern that is specifically noted.

When young Surratt became involved with Booth, he deeded over his share in the Surratt lands to his mother. Mrs. Surratt had inherited nothing from her husband because he did not leave a will. In those days, widows did not inherit without a will saying it was okay - children did. John knew that if he were captured during his service as a courier, the U.S. government would seize the family lands. As badly in debt as their father had left the family, John was still trying to protect his mother and sister (at least in my mind).

I still do not believe that John or his advisers within the underground and the church thought that the government would execute his mother. As Andy Johnson said, "....women had not been punished for their deeds in this war" (or words to that effect). Rose Greenhow's actions had contributed to military defeats, but she was not condemned to death.

After the three-ring circus that comprised John's trial, if he had been deemed so terrible with strong evidence used against him, he should not have had a hung jury nor should another indictment have failed, leading to "nolle process." Did I spell that correctly? The U.S. government goofed big time, in my estimation, by ignoring his arrest for two years as well as allowing that judicial circus - if John was such a "vile" person.

Finally, his trip to South America, his abbreviated attempt at lecturing, his selling of his photographs, etc. were likely a means to obtain some sort of income - even if it meant relocating to South America along with a good number of Confederates (whose descendants are still there).

One last thought: He married the second cousin of Francis Scott Key. Both the Scotts and the Keys were well-respected families in Maryland from its early days. If they had judged John Surratt as such a horrible person, Mary Victorine would not have been allowed to marry him. Families had that much influence in those days.

Gene C · 06-22-2015, 06:22 PM

That was interesting Bill.
As far as John's writing style, neither one of us including the "worn-out cowboy and horseshoer who has been run over, stomped, and kicked by too many horses and mules, and still uses “ain’t,” “cain’t,” “it don’t.”, had much difficulty in understanding his points, even if they aren't fully agreed with.
I noticed you were able to throw in a couple of $5 words yourself.

As always, whether I agree with you or not, you make the discussion interesting and leave me with something to think about.