Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

L Verge · 05-08-2016, 08:21 PM

Excellent summation, Anita.

As for the items left at the Surratt Tavern on March 18: They had been sent ahead to the tavern in a buggy with David Herold with the intention that he and the goods would meet up with the gang and the captured Lincoln on March 17. When the team didn't show, Herold went five miles south and spent the night at John Chandler Thompson's hotel in T.B.

The next morning, with no one showing up still, Herold started back towards D.C. He was met on the road between that village and Surrattsville by John, Jr. and Atzerodt. They decided that it was too risky to try and get those items - especially the carbines - back into the city, so the old Surratt home became the logical hiding place. They remained there until midnight of April 14/15.

I don't believe that the original intention was to hide them anywhere. The gang and Lincoln would meet up with Herold, and all would go happily down the road towards the Potomac River and cross over in the newly purchased boat.

Anita · (This post was last modified: 05-09-2016 12:39 PM by Anita.)

Thank you Laurie. I was confused about the items kept at the Surratt Tavern for the kidnapping and those for the assassination.

I also wanted to add to my previous post I believe that Booth shared his true plans with Mary late on April 14 because he wanted her to understand why it was now necessary to kill Lincoln. He had been drinking heavily and perhaps he was even trying to convince himself. He couldn't tell his mother or sister and Mary was the comforting woman's ear he needed in the final hour as he went off to an unknown fate.

Eva Elisabeth · (This post was last modified: 05-09-2016 01:07 PM by Eva Elisabeth.)

(05-08-2016 08:21 PM)L Verge Wrote: Excellent summation, Anita.

As for the items left at the Surratt Tavern on March 18: They had been sent ahead to the tavern in a buggy with David Herold with the intention that he and the goods would meet up with the gang and the captured Lincoln on March 17. When the team didn't show, Herold went five miles south and spent the night at John Chandler Thompson's hotel in T.B.

The next morning, with no one showing up still, Herold started back towards D.C. He was met on the road between that village and Surrattsville by John, Jr. and Atzerodt. They decided that it was too risky to try and get those items - especially the carbines - back into the city, so the old Surratt home became the logical hiding place. They remained there until midnight of April 14/15.

I don't believe that the original intention was to hide them anywhere. The gang and Lincoln would meet up with Herold, and all would go happily down the road towards the Potomac River and cross over in the newly purchased boat.

I've asked this before and as far as I remember received no reply - if the intention indeed was to kidnap Lincoln, this was AFAIK speculated/intended to happen using a carriage to transport him to Richmond, not on horseback (never read of this possibility/speculation). Why wouldn't they have had all the stuff in the carriage where it would have been available right away without the need of any interrupting of the flight? (This IMO indicates kidnapping had never been the actual goal.)

(I personally also feel Mary Surratt was much more eager to participate and oblige than her son.)

L Verge · 05-09-2016, 05:16 PM

(05-09-2016 01:05 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:
(05-08-2016 08:21 PM)L Verge Wrote: Excellent summation, Anita.

As for the items left at the Surratt Tavern on March 18: They had been sent ahead to the tavern in a buggy with David Herold with the intention that he and the goods would meet up with the gang and the captured Lincoln on March 17. When the team didn't show, Herold went five miles south and spent the night at John Chandler Thompson's hotel in T.B.

The next morning, with no one showing up still, Herold started back towards D.C. He was met on the road between that village and Surrattsville by John, Jr. and Atzerodt. They decided that it was too risky to try and get those items - especially the carbines - back into the city, so the old Surratt home became the logical hiding place. They remained there until midnight of April 14/15.

I don't believe that the original intention was to hide them anywhere. The gang and Lincoln would meet up with Herold, and all would go happily down the road towards the Potomac River and cross over in the newly purchased boat.
I've asked this before and as far as I remember received no reply - if the intention indeed was to kidnap Lincoln, this was AFAIK speculated/intended to happen using a carriage to transport him to Richmond, not on horseback (never read of this possibility/speculation). Why wouldn't they have had all the stuff in the carriage where it would have been available right away without the need of any interrupting of the flight? (This IMO indicates kidnapping had never been the actual goal.)

(I personally also feel Mary Surratt was much more eager to participate and oblige than her son.)

They intended to kidnap Lincoln in his own carriage. Why take time and the chance that he would fight and escape while they stuffed all the things at his feet? They could have Herold ready and waiting to hop on the seat of his buggy and boogie down the road behind them -- sorta the rear gunner?

P.S. I appear to be the lone soldier who does not believe that Booth made the third trip to the boardinghouse that night. Susan, didn't you find where Nora identified who the caller was? I think Mr. Weichmann speculated a tad too much.

In my opinion, once Mrs. Surratt had done the last chore of delivering the field glasses and message to Lloyd, Booth didn't need her anymore and wouldn't waste time going the six blocks or so to check in with her. I'm not saying that he didn't clue her in during the mid-afternoon visit that the time had come -- for kidnapping or assassinating, we know not which. Show me proof, and I might bend.

Susan Higginbotham · 05-09-2016, 07:18 PM

(05-09-2016 05:16 PM)L Verge Wrote:
(05-09-2016 01:05 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:
(05-08-2016 08:21 PM)L Verge Wrote: Excellent summation, Anita.

As for the items left at the Surratt Tavern on March 18: They had been sent ahead to the tavern in a buggy with David Herold with the intention that he and the goods would meet up with the gang and the captured Lincoln on March 17. When the team didn't show, Herold went five miles south and spent the night at John Chandler Thompson's hotel in T.B.

The next morning, with no one showing up still, Herold started back towards D.C. He was met on the road between that village and Surrattsville by John, Jr. and Atzerodt. They decided that it was too risky to try and get those items - especially the carbines - back into the city, so the old Surratt home became the logical hiding place. They remained there until midnight of April 14/15.

I don't believe that the original intention was to hide them anywhere. The gang and Lincoln would meet up with Herold, and all would go happily down the road towards the Potomac River and cross over in the newly purchased boat.
I've asked this before and as far as I remember received no reply - if the intention indeed was to kidnap Lincoln, this was AFAIK speculated/intended to happen using a carriage to transport him to Richmond, not on horseback (never read of this possibility/speculation). Why wouldn't they have had all the stuff in the carriage where it would have been available right away without the need of any interrupting of the flight? (This IMO indicates kidnapping had never been the actual goal.)

(I personally also feel Mary Surratt was much more eager to participate and oblige than her son.)

They intended to kidnap Lincoln in his own carriage. Why take time and the chance that he would fight and escape while they stuffed all the things at his feet? They could have Herold ready and waiting to hop on the seat of his buggy and boogie down the road behind them -- sorta the rear gunner?

P.S. I appear to be the lone soldier who does not believe that Booth made the third trip to the boardinghouse that night. Susan, didn't you find where Nora identified who the caller was? I think Mr. Weichmann speculated a tad too much.

In my opinion, once Mrs. Surratt had done the last chore of delivering the field glasses and message to Lloyd, Booth didn't need her anymore and wouldn't waste time going the six blocks or so to check in with her. I'm not saying that he didn't clue her in during the mid-afternoon visit that the time had come -- for kidnapping or assassinating, we know not which. Show me proof, and I might bend.

I'm not convinced about the third visit either. I think Booth had enough to keep him busy in the hour before the assassination.

Olivia Jenkins testified at John Surratt's trial that a "gentleman named Scott, of the navy" brought her two papers on the evening of the assassination. Mary Surratt in her interrogation of April 28, asked who was at her house the night of the murder, replied, "No one except our own family. A gentleman I don't know called to leave some newspapers for a niece of mine. He did not come in & I don't think I saw him. The little servant girl took the papers."

My major issue with Weichmann's claim about Booth's evening visit is that he said nothing about it during his interrogations or during the conspiracy trial--even though he was asked at the trial about a visitor to the house that evening. He said then he did not know the identity of the visitor. He didn't even attempt to speculate that it was Booth.

Q. Who came to the house between the period of your return and three o’clock on Saturday morning when the detectives came? Anybody?
A. There was some one that rang the bell; but who the person was I do not know.
Q. Was the bell answered?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. By whom?
A. It was answered by Mrs. Surratt.
Q. Was there any one at the door?
A. Yes, sir: I heard steps going into the parlor, and immediately going out, going down the steps.
Q. How long was that after you had got back from Surrattsville?
A. It must have been about ten minutes. I was taking supper at the time.
Q. That was before ten o’clock, was it not?
A. Yes, sir: it was before ten o’clock.

After the trial, however, Weichmann told Benn Pitmann that Booth had visited the boardinghouse shortly before the assassination. Only after the executions did he make this public, along with his claims that Mary had told him she was expecting a visitor, that Mary had been glad to know about the pickets being withdrawn, that Mary made the remark about rejoicing being turned into mourning, that Mary said she expected the house to be searched, and that Anna Surratt exclaimed that Booth had been at the boardinghouse an hour before the assassination.

I believe that most of Weichmann's testimony was truthful, but I suspect that after the trial, and especially after the executions, consumed with guilt, he needed to justify his actions to himself and may well have adjusted his memory accordingly--quite possibly unconsciously. Memory can perform remarkable gymnastics, particularly under stress.

John Fazio · 05-10-2016, 01:58 AM

(05-09-2016 07:18 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:
(05-09-2016 05:16 PM)L Verge Wrote:
(05-09-2016 01:05 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:
(05-08-2016 08:21 PM)L Verge Wrote: Excellent summation, Anita.

As for the items left at the Surratt Tavern on March 18: They had been sent ahead to the tavern in a buggy with David Herold with the intention that he and the goods would meet up with the gang and the captured Lincoln on March 17. When the team didn't show, Herold went five miles south and spent the night at John Chandler Thompson's hotel in T.B.

The next morning, with no one showing up still, Herold started back towards D.C. He was met on the road between that village and Surrattsville by John, Jr. and Atzerodt. They decided that it was too risky to try and get those items - especially the carbines - back into the city, so the old Surratt home became the logical hiding place. They remained there until midnight of April 14/15.

I don't believe that the original intention was to hide them anywhere. The gang and Lincoln would meet up with Herold, and all would go happily down the road towards the Potomac River and cross over in the newly purchased boat.
I've asked this before and as far as I remember received no reply - if the intention indeed was to kidnap Lincoln, this was AFAIK speculated/intended to happen using a carriage to transport him to Richmond, not on horseback (never read of this possibility/speculation). Why wouldn't they have had all the stuff in the carriage where it would have been available right away without the need of any interrupting of the flight? (This IMO indicates kidnapping had never been the actual goal.)

(I personally also feel Mary Surratt was much more eager to participate and oblige than her son.)

They intended to kidnap Lincoln in his own carriage. Why take time and the chance that he would fight and escape while they stuffed all the things at his feet? They could have Herold ready and waiting to hop on the seat of his buggy and boogie down the road behind them -- sorta the rear gunner?

P.S. I appear to be the lone soldier who does not believe that Booth made the third trip to the boardinghouse that night. Susan, didn't you find where Nora identified who the caller was? I think Mr. Weichmann speculated a tad too much.

In my opinion, once Mrs. Surratt had done the last chore of delivering the field glasses and message to Lloyd, Booth didn't need her anymore and wouldn't waste time going the six blocks or so to check in with her. I'm not saying that he didn't clue her in during the mid-afternoon visit that the time had come -- for kidnapping or assassinating, we know not which. Show me proof, and I might bend.

I'm not convinced about the third visit either. I think Booth had enough to keep him busy in the hour before the assassination.

Olivia Jenkins testified at John Surratt's trial that a "gentleman named Scott, of the navy" brought her two papers on the evening of the assassination. Mary Surratt in her interrogation of April 28, asked who was at her house the night of the murder, replied, "No one except our own family. A gentleman I don't know called to leave some newspapers for a niece of mine. He did not come in & I don't think I saw him. The little servant girl took the papers."

My major issue with Weichmann's claim about Booth's evening visit is that he said nothing about it during his interrogations or during the conspiracy trial--even though he was asked at the trial about a visitor to the house that evening. He said then he did not know the identity of the visitor. He didn't even attempt to speculate that it was Booth.

Q. Who came to the house between the period of your return and three o’clock on Saturday morning when the detectives came? Anybody?
A. There was some one that rang the bell; but who the person was I do not know.
Q. Was the bell answered?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. By whom?
A. It was answered by Mrs. Surratt.
Q. Was there any one at the door?
A. Yes, sir: I heard steps going into the parlor, and immediately going out, going down the steps.
Q. How long was that after you had got back from Surrattsville?
A. It must have been about ten minutes. I was taking supper at the time.
Q. That was before ten o’clock, was it not?
A. Yes, sir: it was before ten o’clock.

After the trial, however, Weichmann told Benn Pitmann that Booth had visited the boardinghouse shortly before the assassination. Only after the executions did he make this public, along with his claims that Mary had told him she was expecting a visitor, that Mary had been glad to know about the pickets being withdrawn, that Mary made the remark about rejoicing being turned into mourning, that Mary said she expected the house to be searched, and that Anna Surratt exclaimed that Booth had been at the boardinghouse an hour before the assassination.

I believe that most of Weichmann's testimony was truthful, but I suspect that after the trial, and especially after the executions, consumed with guilt, he needed to justify his actions to himself and may well have adjusted his memory accordingly--quite possibly unconsciously. Memory can perform remarkable gymnastics, particularly under stress.

Laurie, Eva, Susan:

"This IMO indicates kidnapping had never been the actual goal."

This statement puts me in mind of Mike Kauffman's query "Was this new scheme just a blind for assassination?" (American Brutus, p. 181)and my response thereto: "Of course!" It also puts me in mind of Weichmann's statement, namely:

But did Booth...intend to confine himself to this...scheme of capturing the President? Did he not have in view at this very time (December 1864--January 1865) an ulterior and more deadly plan--the assassination of Abraham Lincoln?...In the light of all these facts, what now becomes of the allegation that Booth did not conceive the desire to murder the President until after he learned of his intended visit to the theater on the night of the 14th of April? It would probably be nearer the truth to say that murder was in his heart all the time and that he was merely watching his opportunity to do the deed and...escape. (Weichmann, pp. 62, 63, 94, 95)

Kauffman's and Weichmann's judgments are, of course, echoed by those of Harris and Bingham and conform precisely to the testimony of Mrs. McDermont at Surratt's trial.

The stew gets thicker and thicker.

John

RJNorton · 05-10-2016, 04:00 AM

(05-09-2016 07:18 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote: I believe that most of Weichmann's testimony was truthful, but I suspect that after the trial, and especially after the executions, consumed with guilt, he needed to justify his actions to himself and may well have adjusted his memory accordingly--quite possibly unconsciously. Memory can perform remarkable gymnastics, particularly under stress.

Susan, do you also believe Weichmann possibly "created" or "embellished" the story about Mary's curiosity regarding the pickets along the road to Surrattsville?

Susan Higginbotham · (This post was last modified: 05-10-2016 11:08 AM by Susan Higginbotham.)

(05-10-2016 04:00 AM)RJNorton Wrote:
(05-09-2016 07:18 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote: I believe that most of Weichmann's testimony was truthful, but I suspect that after the trial, and especially after the executions, consumed with guilt, he needed to justify his actions to himself and may well have adjusted his memory accordingly--quite possibly unconsciously. Memory can perform remarkable gymnastics, particularly under stress.

Susan, do you also believe Weichmann possibly "created" or "embellished" the story about Mary's curiosity regarding the pickets along the road to Surrattsville?

I think it's possible, although I do believe also that Mary knew of the proposed kidnapping. I'm just not convinced Booth had told her that his plans had changed to assassination (and to me the most compelling evidence that there had been a change are Booth's own words in his pocket diary).

(05-10-2016 01:58 AM)John Fazio Wrote:
(05-09-2016 07:18 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:
(05-09-2016 05:16 PM)L Verge Wrote:
(05-09-2016 01:05 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:
(05-08-2016 08:21 PM)L Verge Wrote: Excellent summation, Anita.

As for the items left at the Surratt Tavern on March 18: They had been sent ahead to the tavern in a buggy with David Herold with the intention that he and the goods would meet up with the gang and the captured Lincoln on March 17. When the team didn't show, Herold went five miles south and spent the night at John Chandler Thompson's hotel in T.B.

The next morning, with no one showing up still, Herold started back towards D.C. He was met on the road between that village and Surrattsville by John, Jr. and Atzerodt. They decided that it was too risky to try and get those items - especially the carbines - back into the city, so the old Surratt home became the logical hiding place. They remained there until midnight of April 14/15.

I don't believe that the original intention was to hide them anywhere. The gang and Lincoln would meet up with Herold, and all would go happily down the road towards the Potomac River and cross over in the newly purchased boat.
I've asked this before and as far as I remember received no reply - if the intention indeed was to kidnap Lincoln, this was AFAIK speculated/intended to happen using a carriage to transport him to Richmond, not on horseback (never read of this possibility/speculation). Why wouldn't they have had all the stuff in the carriage where it would have been available right away without the need of any interrupting of the flight? (This IMO indicates kidnapping had never been the actual goal.)

(I personally also feel Mary Surratt was much more eager to participate and oblige than her son.)

They intended to kidnap Lincoln in his own carriage. Why take time and the chance that he would fight and escape while they stuffed all the things at his feet? They could have Herold ready and waiting to hop on the seat of his buggy and boogie down the road behind them -- sorta the rear gunner?

P.S. I appear to be the lone soldier who does not believe that Booth made the third trip to the boardinghouse that night. Susan, didn't you find where Nora identified who the caller was? I think Mr. Weichmann speculated a tad too much.

In my opinion, once Mrs. Surratt had done the last chore of delivering the field glasses and message to Lloyd, Booth didn't need her anymore and wouldn't waste time going the six blocks or so to check in with her. I'm not saying that he didn't clue her in during the mid-afternoon visit that the time had come -- for kidnapping or assassinating, we know not which. Show me proof, and I might bend.

I'm not convinced about the third visit either. I think Booth had enough to keep him busy in the hour before the assassination.

Olivia Jenkins testified at John Surratt's trial that a "gentleman named Scott, of the navy" brought her two papers on the evening of the assassination. Mary Surratt in her interrogation of April 28, asked who was at her house the night of the murder, replied, "No one except our own family. A gentleman I don't know called to leave some newspapers for a niece of mine. He did not come in & I don't think I saw him. The little servant girl took the papers."

My major issue with Weichmann's claim about Booth's evening visit is that he said nothing about it during his interrogations or during the conspiracy trial--even though he was asked at the trial about a visitor to the house that evening. He said then he did not know the identity of the visitor. He didn't even attempt to speculate that it was Booth.

Q. Who came to the house between the period of your return and three o’clock on Saturday morning when the detectives came? Anybody?
A. There was some one that rang the bell; but who the person was I do not know.
Q. Was the bell answered?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. By whom?
A. It was answered by Mrs. Surratt.
Q. Was there any one at the door?
A. Yes, sir: I heard steps going into the parlor, and immediately going out, going down the steps.
Q. How long was that after you had got back from Surrattsville?
A. It must have been about ten minutes. I was taking supper at the time.
Q. That was before ten o’clock, was it not?
A. Yes, sir: it was before ten o’clock.

After the trial, however, Weichmann told Benn Pitmann that Booth had visited the boardinghouse shortly before the assassination. Only after the executions did he make this public, along with his claims that Mary had told him she was expecting a visitor, that Mary had been glad to know about the pickets being withdrawn, that Mary made the remark about rejoicing being turned into mourning, that Mary said she expected the house to be searched, and that Anna Surratt exclaimed that Booth had been at the boardinghouse an hour before the assassination.

I believe that most of Weichmann's testimony was truthful, but I suspect that after the trial, and especially after the executions, consumed with guilt, he needed to justify his actions to himself and may well have adjusted his memory accordingly--quite possibly unconsciously. Memory can perform remarkable gymnastics, particularly under stress.

Laurie, Eva, Susan:

"This IMO indicates kidnapping had never been the actual goal."

This statement puts me in mind of Mike Kauffman's query "Was this new scheme just a blind for assassination?" (American Brutus, p. 181)and my response thereto: "Of course!" It also puts me in mind of Weichmann's statement, namely:

But did Booth...intend to confine himself to this...scheme of capturing the President? Did he not have in view at this very time (December 1864--January 1865) an ulterior and more deadly plan--the assassination of Abraham Lincoln?...In the light of all these facts, what now becomes of the allegation that Booth did not conceive the desire to murder the President until after he learned of his intended visit to the theater on the night of the 14th of April? It would probably be nearer the truth to say that murder was in his heart all the time and that he was merely watching his opportunity to do the deed and...escape. (Weichmann, pp. 62, 63, 94, 95)

Kauffman's and Weichmann's judgments are, of course, echoed by those of Harris and Bingham and conform precisely to the testimony of Mrs. McDermont at Surratt's trial.

The stew gets thicker and thicker.

John

Do you mean Mrs. McClermont? If she was correct in giving a date between April 12-14, 1864, a year before the assassination, the man she overheard seems unlikely to have been Booth, who according to Arthur Loux's book was either en route from New Orleans to Boston or in Boston during this time. I also don't see anything in "Lincoln Day by Day" indicating that Lincoln was traveling to and from the Soldiers'Home at this time in 1864. I think Mrs. McClermont must have had her dates confused; perhaps she overheard the conversation in question in March 1865.

Also, if she's correct in identifying Atzerodt and Herold as Booth's companions, the April 1864 date doesn't work, as it's my understanding that it was John Surratt, whom Booth didn't meet until December 1864, who brought Atzerodt into the conspiracy.

https://books.google.com/books?id=r3IDAA...nt&f=false

L Verge · 05-10-2016, 09:48 AM

I don't think many of us would disagree with Kauffman's statement that Booth had thoughts of Plan B/assassination from perhaps the beginning. That was the opinion of James O. Hall also from the time that Mike and most of us met him in the mid-1970s. That does not negate, however, that the original scheme was to capture. By April 3, 1865, I think Booth's thoughts turned to murder. He just needed the right time and opportunity.

RJNorton · 05-10-2016, 11:50 AM

(05-10-2016 09:48 AM)L Verge Wrote: That does not negate, however, that the original scheme was to capture. By April 3, 1865, I think Booth's thoughts turned to murder. He just needed the right time and opportunity.

I agree.

Related to this is why I question why on April 14th Mary Surratt would think Booth still planned a kidnapping. IMO she knew more than a kidnapping was about to occur. But I do not think we can ever know for certain what she knew or thought.

BettyO · 05-10-2016, 12:58 PM

I, too concur - agreed!

Quote:But I do not think we can ever know for certain what she knew or thought.

...and that is the charm of the whole shebang!

Gene C · 05-10-2016, 04:22 PM

I'll try to get in contact with Nettie Colburn Maynard this evening and see what she has to say.
Angel

John Fazio · 05-13-2016, 01:30 AM

(05-10-2016 08:00 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:
(05-10-2016 04:00 AM)RJNorton Wrote:
(05-09-2016 07:18 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote: I believe that most of Weichmann's testimony was truthful, but I suspect that after the trial, and especially after the executions, consumed with guilt, he needed to justify his actions to himself and may well have adjusted his memory accordingly--quite possibly unconsciously. Memory can perform remarkable gymnastics, particularly under stress.

Susan, do you also believe Weichmann possibly "created" or "embellished" the story about Mary's curiosity regarding the pickets along the road to Surrattsville?

I think it's possible, although I do believe also that Mary knew of the proposed kidnapping. I'm just not convinced Booth had told her that his plans had changed to assassination (and to me the most compelling evidence that there had been a change are Booth's own words in his pocket diary).

(05-10-2016 01:58 AM)John Fazio Wrote:
(05-09-2016 07:18 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:
(05-09-2016 05:16 PM)L Verge Wrote:
(05-09-2016 01:05 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote: I've asked this before and as far as I remember received no reply - if the intention indeed was to kidnap Lincoln, this was AFAIK speculated/intended to happen using a carriage to transport him to Richmond, not on horseback (never read of this possibility/speculation). Why wouldn't they have had all the stuff in the carriage where it would have been available right away without the need of any interrupting of the flight? (This IMO indicates kidnapping had never been the actual goal.)

(I personally also feel Mary Surratt was much more eager to participate and oblige than her son.)

They intended to kidnap Lincoln in his own carriage. Why take time and the chance that he would fight and escape while they stuffed all the things at his feet? They could have Herold ready and waiting to hop on the seat of his buggy and boogie down the road behind them -- sorta the rear gunner?

P.S. I appear to be the lone soldier who does not believe that Booth made the third trip to the boardinghouse that night. Susan, didn't you find where Nora identified who the caller was? I think Mr. Weichmann speculated a tad too much.

In my opinion, once Mrs. Surratt had done the last chore of delivering the field glasses and message to Lloyd, Booth didn't need her anymore and wouldn't waste time going the six blocks or so to check in with her. I'm not saying that he didn't clue her in during the mid-afternoon visit that the time had come -- for kidnapping or assassinating, we know not which. Show me proof, and I might bend.

I'm not convinced about the third visit either. I think Booth had enough to keep him busy in the hour before the assassination.

Olivia Jenkins testified at John Surratt's trial that a "gentleman named Scott, of the navy" brought her two papers on the evening of the assassination. Mary Surratt in her interrogation of April 28, asked who was at her house the night of the murder, replied, "No one except our own family. A gentleman I don't know called to leave some newspapers for a niece of mine. He did not come in & I don't think I saw him. The little servant girl took the papers."

My major issue with Weichmann's claim about Booth's evening visit is that he said nothing about it during his interrogations or during the conspiracy trial--even though he was asked at the trial about a visitor to the house that evening. He said then he did not know the identity of the visitor. He didn't even attempt to speculate that it was Booth.

Q. Who came to the house between the period of your return and three o’clock on Saturday morning when the detectives came? Anybody?
A. There was some one that rang the bell; but who the person was I do not know.
Q. Was the bell answered?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. By whom?
A. It was answered by Mrs. Surratt.
Q. Was there any one at the door?
A. Yes, sir: I heard steps going into the parlor, and immediately going out, going down the steps.
Q. How long was that after you had got back from Surrattsville?
A. It must have been about ten minutes. I was taking supper at the time.
Q. That was before ten o’clock, was it not?
A. Yes, sir: it was before ten o’clock.

After the trial, however, Weichmann told Benn Pitmann that Booth had visited the boardinghouse shortly before the assassination. Only after the executions did he make this public, along with his claims that Mary had told him she was expecting a visitor, that Mary had been glad to know about the pickets being withdrawn, that Mary made the remark about rejoicing being turned into mourning, that Mary said she expected the house to be searched, and that Anna Surratt exclaimed that Booth had been at the boardinghouse an hour before the assassination.

I believe that most of Weichmann's testimony was truthful, but I suspect that after the trial, and especially after the executions, consumed with guilt, he needed to justify his actions to himself and may well have adjusted his memory accordingly--quite possibly unconsciously. Memory can perform remarkable gymnastics, particularly under stress.

Laurie, Eva, Susan:

"This IMO indicates kidnapping had never been the actual goal."

This statement puts me in mind of Mike Kauffman's query "Was this new scheme just a blind for assassination?" (American Brutus, p. 181)and my response thereto: "Of course!" It also puts me in mind of Weichmann's statement, namely:

But did Booth...intend to confine himself to this...scheme of capturing the President? Did he not have in view at this very time (December 1864--January 1865) an ulterior and more deadly plan--the assassination of Abraham Lincoln?...In the light of all these facts, what now becomes of the allegation that Booth did not conceive the desire to murder the President until after he learned of his intended visit to the theater on the night of the 14th of April? It would probably be nearer the truth to say that murder was in his heart all the time and that he was merely watching his opportunity to do the deed and...escape. (Weichmann, pp. 62, 63, 94, 95)

Kauffman's and Weichmann's judgments are, of course, echoed by those of Harris and Bingham and conform precisely to the testimony of Mrs. McDermont at Surratt's trial.

The stew gets thicker and thicker.

John

Do you mean Mrs. McClermont? If she was correct in giving a date between April 12-14, 1864, a year before the assassination, the man she overheard seems unlikely to have been Booth, who according to Arthur Loux's book was either en route from New Orleans to Boston or in Boston during this time. I also don't see anything in "Lincoln Day by Day" indicating that Lincoln was traveling to and from the Soldiers'Home at this time in 1864. I think Mrs. McClermont must have had her dates confused; perhaps she overheard the conversation in question in March 1865.

Also, if she's correct in identifying Atzerodt and Herold as Booth's companions, the April 1864 date doesn't work, as it's my understanding that it was John Surratt, whom Booth didn't meet until December 1864, who brought Atzerodt into the conspiracy.

https://books.google.com/books?id=r3IDAA...nt&f=false

Susan:

Some good points. Yes, McClermont, of course. Sorry for the mistake.

In her testimony, Mrs. McClermont placed the incident between April 12 and 15, 1864, "as near as I can recollect". Her uncertainty makes it at least possible that the incident occurred some days earlier than the 12th. According to Art Loux, Booth was en route from New Orleans to Boston from the 9th through the 12th and was actually in Boston from April 13 through June 2. Assuming Loux's schedule is accurate, a stop in Washington by Booth some time between April 10 and 12, when he was en route from New Orleans to Boston, is a possibility. She did say that Booth was "very genteely dressed", which fits the man and the circumstances. The timelines are thin, I agree, but it is nevertheless possible that the man she saw in Washington some time in April, 1864, was in fact Booth.

As for Herold and Atzerodt, there is every possibility that some of the conspirators knew each other and knew Booth earlier than is generally supposed. Surratt is known to have been doing Secret Service work as early as 1862. Weichmann places Herold in the Surratt home in 1863. Booth is known to have been smuggling medicines into the Confederacy in that year and Herold is known to have been a druggist's assistant during that year. It is thus likely that this was the nexus of their initial meeting. Atzerodt is more problematic, but the fact is that he was all over the board as to when he joined the conspiracy: some time between Christmas, 1864, and March 31, 1865. He would naturally wish to put as much distance between Booth and himself as possible. One way to do that would be to place their initial meeting closer to April 14 rather than earlier. Thus the suggestion of March 31, which is ridiculous because we know he was at the Gautier's Restaurant meeting on March 15. The truth is that we don't really know when Atzerodt became involved. As a river rat and outdoorsman, he may very well have known Herold, a similar type, at a very early date, long before Surratt and Harbin officially brought him aboard, and this fact may have placed him with Herold and Booth earlier than is generally believed. The conventional wisdom about the nature of Booth's conspiracy, who participated in it, and when, may be inaccurate, as is the conventional wisdom about so many other parts of the assassination story.

There does not appear to have been any motivation for Mrs. McClermont to have fabricated her testimony out of whole cloth. Further, we may be certain that Surratt's prosecutors (Pierrepont, Carrington, Wilson and Riddle), men of impeccable reputation, would not knowingly have used false testimony. Further, it is most significant that Surratt's lawyers (Bradley, Sr., Bradley, Jr. and Merrick), some of the best defense lawyers in the country, did not even bother to cross-examine Mrs. McClermont. Surely, if her testimony could have been shown to have been false, in any detail, as to whom she saw, when she saw them and what she heard, they would not have failed to do so. Their silence, therefore, must be construed as an affirmation of the testimony.

The Lincolns made use of the Soldiers' Home in the summer throughout his term of office and this was a well known fact.

I conclude that though there are difficulties with Mrs. McClermont's testimony, the greater likelihood is that it is true.

John

Gene C · 05-13-2016, 05:22 AM

(05-13-2016 01:30 AM)John Fazio Wrote: The Lincolns made use of the Soldiers' Home in the summer throughout his term of office and this was a well known fact.

According to Ed Steer's book "Lincoln, A Pictorial History", Stanton and his family also spent summer(s) at the Soldiers Home. It's not to big a stretch to think that on occasion, they may have traveled to or from work together. A tempting target for Booth and his gang, especially if Lincoln & Stanton had no military escort. (To me it is unlikely they would not have a military escort, but we know on at least one occasion, Lincoln made part or all of the commute alone)

John Fazio · 05-13-2016, 06:58 AM

(05-13-2016 05:22 AM)Gene C Wrote:
(05-13-2016 01:30 AM)John Fazio Wrote: The Lincolns made use of the Soldiers' Home in the summer throughout his term of office and this was a well known fact.

According to Ed Steer's book "Lincoln, A Pictorial History", Stanton and his family also spent summer(s) at the Soldiers Home. It's not to big a stretch to think that on occasion, they may have traveled to or from work together. A tempting target for Booth and his gang, especially if Lincoln & Stanton had no military escort. (To me it is unlikely they would not have a military escort, but we know on at least one occasion, Lincoln made part or all of the commute alone)

Gene:

Thanks.

Apparently Lincoln often rode to the Soldiers' Home alone, or with Stanton, because we read that after he was shot at in August, 1864, he never thereafter rode to the Soldiers' Home alone, but always in a carriage accompanied by a cavalry escort. (Holzer; Tidwell, Hall and Gaddy)

If orders were given to decapitate the Federal government, with particular attention to its president, after the failed Wistar and Dahlgren-Kilpatrick Raids against Richmond, as I believe they were, then April, 1864, is a perfectly plausible time for an attempt on Lincoln.

John