Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

loetar44 · 03-14-2017, 02:12 PM

How John Surratt fled out of Washington DC according to “John Surratt. The Conspirator. A Correct Account and Highly Interesting Narrative”, published by Barclay & Co. , Philadelphia, p. 24

John Surratt knew that he was a marked man, and concealed himself all day after his mother's arrest in a wretched hovel in the outskirts of Washington, which had been shunned, even by the homeless beggar, since its last occupant had died of small-pox, and when night came, hid his features with a handkerchief bound over his forehead, he presented himself at the residence of a certain priest, who had been one of his college classmates. The clergyman opened the door in person, as he was going out, but shrunk back when he saw the well known figure. " You will not betray me," gasped Surratt. "On my soul, I did not raise my hand against any one." "No matter, whether guilty or innocent, you have sought my hospitality, and I shall not betray you, but you must leave Washington.'' "Such is my intention, and I am well furnished with gold and greenbacks, but a disguise is absolutely necessary." "Go up stairs, lock yourself in the first room you see, and do not open it till you hear my knock; I shall return as speedily as possible." Left to himself, Surratt entered the apartment and gazed on the books, plain furniture, and few pictures ; all breathed peace and repose. Here was a man, who devoted himself to the good of others, while he, besought was insupportable, and to while away the time, a book was selected from the shelves on the wall. The volume chanced to be Hood's Poems, and it opened at the graphic description of Eugene Aram's crime, and his conversation with his pupil. Surratt threw the volume aside, and walked to and fro, till he heard the welcome rap, and his friend entered. " I returned as soon as I could ?" "You have no time to lose ?" "You must escape or your life will be forfeited?" "But how, every one knows me in Washington." "You must assume a clerical dress, and green spectacles. In that wardrobe you will find all that you require." Surratt hastily threw aside the suit, in which he was then clad, and donning the habiliments in the wardrobe, would easily have been taken for a catholic priest. A breviary and green spectacles completed the transformation; the coat was worn. "I thank you a thousand times," said Surratt. '' I have not forgotten the service you rendered me. Farewell, may God prosper you, be silent and quiet; above all avoid the society of priests, they will be sure to detect you, if you have done evil. May God forgive you, if you are innocent he will surely deliver you from all snares." "But," said Surratt, "I have taken your clothes and spectacles ; allow me—" "Not a cent, not a cent," said the priest, hurriedly. A close embrace, and they parted perhaps never to meet again. The door was locked, as soon as it closed on his departing guest; and the priest then taking the clothes left by Surratt, tore them to shreads and cast them singly into a large fire kindled for the purpose. Then filling a pipe with strong tobacco, its fumes soon overpowered the scent of burning wool, and every trace of his visitor thus disappeared. "If I have been wrong," said the good man to himself, "may our blessed Saviour pardon me; perhaps John is not guilty, and it is not for us to judge each other." Surratt, when he found himself again in the street, proceeded at once to the railroad station, and took a ticket for Baltimore, where he was compelled to remain till ten o'clock the following day: he did not leave the depot where he obtained some slight refreshment, till he took his seat in the cars for Philadelphia, where thoroughly exhausted, he repaired at once to an obscure hotel in the northern part of the city, and paying for a room in advance, threw himself on the bed, and was soon wrapped in a deep slumber.

Gene C · 03-14-2017, 03:49 PM

Interesting...thanks for posting.
Is there some significance to the green spectacles?

brtmchl · **RE: Where was John Surratt on April 14, 1865 ?**

http://www.nytimes.com/1865/05/16/news/t...wanted=all

According to this account of Dye's testomony he identified Spangler as "the rough looking one' of the two men with Booth and identifies "the smallest one" as the man who called out the time.

The first that attracted my notice was one elegantly-dressed gentleman that came out of the passage and commenced conversing with a rough-looking party; when there was another joined them, and the three conversed together after they had conversed awhile and it was drawing near the end of the second act, he well-dressed one, who appeared to be the leader, said: "I think he will come out now," referring I suppose to the President........ several gentlemen came down, and went in and had a drink in the saloon below there. After they went up, the best-dressed gentleman stepped into the saloon, and waited long enough to take a drink. He came out in a style as though he was becoming intoxicated. He stopped up and whispered to the roughest-looking one of the three, and went into the passage that leads from the stage to the street; then the smallest one stepped up just as the well-dressed one appeared again and called out the time. He started up street and remained awhile, and came down again and called the time again; then I began to think there was something wrong. Presently he went up and called the time again louder than before; I think it was ten minutes after ten..........Then he started at a fast walk up the street. The best-dressed one then went inside the theatre. I started for a saloon, and had just time to get down to it and order oysters, when a man came running in and said the President was shot.........

Do you recognize the well-dressed man from the photograph? I now show you a photograph of Booth. A. -- That is the man. His moustache was heavier, and his beard longer, though.

Q. -- I wish you to give, if you can, a more particular description of this rough-looking man. What was his size? What gave him the ruffianly appearance you speak of? Was it his dress? A. -- He was not as well dressed as the rest of them.
Q. -- Was he shabbily or dirtily dressed? A. -- His clothes were more worn and shabby.
Q. -- Was he a stout man? A. -- Yes, rather.
Q. -- Which way did he go? A. -- He remained at the passage while the other one started up the street.
Q. -- The time was announced to these other men three times, was it? A. -- Yes.
Q. -- Did he immediately go into the theatre after announcing the time the last occasion? A. -- Yes.
Q. -- Will you look at these persons and see whether you recognize any of them as the persons you saw on that occasion? A. -- If that man (pointed to Spangler) had a moustache, he has just the appearance exactly of the rough-looking man standing at the end of the passage; it was rather dark back there, and I could not see him distinctly, but he had a moustache.
Cross:
Q. -- About how tall do you think the man with the slouch clothes is? A. -- He was about five feet eight or nine inches.
By the Court -- Q. -- I understand you to say that the prisoner, Spangler, was the man? A. -- I say that was the countenance, with a moustache; that is the very face.
By Mr. Ewing -- Q. -- Have you seen the man since the assassination of the President before? A. -- Yes, in the Old Capitol Prison.
Q. -- In the presence of what person? A. -- Of the proprietor of the theatre, Sergeant Cooper and another person.
Q. -- Did it seem to you then that was the man? A. -- All but the moustache.

Q. -- Do you think you recognize either of the other persons here as among the three you have mentioned? A. -- No. The third one was a very neat gentleman, well dressed, and with a moustache.
Q. -- Do you not see him here? A. -- No.
Q. -- How was he in regard to size? A. -- Not very large; about five feet six inches high.
Q. -- Do you remember now the color of his clothes? A. -- His coat was a kind of a dead color; his hat was black.

Reed testified that Surratt wore "a round-crowned hat" and his "country suit" as "drab." Reed discribed the man he identified as Surratt as being "a light-complexioned man; his hair was rather singular like; it is not red or brown, but rather sandy; and as "rather delicate; he would not weigh over 140 pounds; he walks a little stooped."

Joseph Dye testified that the third man "wore one of those fashionable hats they wear in Washington -- round top and stiff brim" and "His coat was a kind of a dead color." He also call the man the "the smallest one" and later as "Not very large; about five feet six inches high. " he also calls him a "very neat gentleman, well dressed, and with a moustache."

James Humphrey describes Surratt as "sandy hair and a light goatee; his eyes were sunken; he was thin featured."

Charles Woods says "I shaved him clean all round the face, with the exception of where his moustache was. He had a slight
mustache at the time." and "the clothes he had on were rather light. I
cannot remember the particular kind of clothes, whether woollen, linen, or cotton."

L Verge · **RE: Where was John Surratt on April 14, 1865 ?**

(03-14-2017 02:12 PM)loetar44 Wrote: How John Surratt fled out of Washington DC according to “John Surratt. The Conspirator. A Correct Account and Highly Interesting Narrative”, published by Barclay & Co. , Philadelphia, p. 24

John Surratt knew that he was a marked man, and concealed himself all day after his mother's arrest in a wretched hovel in the outskirts of Washington, which had been shunned, even by the homeless beggar, since its last occupant had died of small-pox, and when night came, hid his features with a handkerchief bound over his forehead, he presented himself at the residence of a certain priest, who had been one of his college classmates. The clergyman opened the door in person, as he was going out, but shrunk back when he saw the well known figure. " You will not betray me," gasped Surratt. "On my soul, I did not raise my hand against any one." "No matter, whether guilty or innocent, you have sought my hospitality, and I shall not betray you, but you must leave Washington.'' "Such is my intention, and I am well furnished with gold and greenbacks, but a disguise is absolutely necessary." "Go up stairs, lock yourself in the first room you see, and do not open it till you hear my knock; I shall return as speedily as possible." Left to himself, Surratt entered the apartment and gazed on the books, plain furniture, and few pictures ; all breathed peace and repose. Here was a man, who devoted himself to the good of others, while he, besought was insupportable, and to while away the time, a book was selected from the shelves on the wall. The volume chanced to be Hood's Poems, and it opened at the graphic description of Eugene Aram's crime, and his conversation with his pupil. Surratt threw the volume aside, and walked to and fro, till he heard the welcome rap, and his friend entered. " I returned as soon as I could ?" "You have no time to lose ?" "You must escape or your life will be forfeited?" "But how, every one knows me in Washington." "You must assume a clerical dress, and green spectacles. In that wardrobe you will find all that you require." Surratt hastily threw aside the suit, in which he was then clad, and donning the habiliments in the wardrobe, would easily have been taken for a catholic priest. A breviary and green spectacles completed the transformation; the coat was worn. "I thank you a thousand times," said Surratt. '' I have not forgotten the service you rendered me. Farewell, may God prosper you, be silent and quiet; above all avoid the society of priests, they will be sure to detect you, if you have done evil. May God forgive you, if you are innocent he will surely deliver you from all snares." "But," said Surratt, "I have taken your clothes and spectacles ; allow me—" "Not a cent, not a cent," said the priest, hurriedly. A close embrace, and they parted perhaps never to meet again. The door was locked, as soon as it closed on his departing guest; and the priest then taking the clothes left by Surratt, tore them to shreads and cast them singly into a large fire kindled for the purpose. Then filling a pipe with strong tobacco, its fumes soon overpowered the scent of burning wool, and every trace of his visitor thus disappeared. "If I have been wrong," said the good man to himself, "may our blessed Saviour pardon me; perhaps John is not guilty, and it is not for us to judge each other." Surratt, when he found himself again in the street, proceeded at once to the railroad station, and took a ticket for Baltimore, where he was compelled to remain till ten o'clock the following day: he did not leave the depot where he obtained some slight refreshment, till he took his seat in the cars for Philadelphia, where thoroughly exhausted, he repaired at once to an obscure hotel in the northern part of the city, and paying for a room in advance, threw himself on the bed, and was soon wrapped in a deep slumber.

So far as I know, all of those quick and easy publications done by Barclay & Co. (and others) were composed strictly to earn money, with no first-person interviews, gathering of facts, etc. -- but lots of creative journalism to entice public interest. That's what Victorian-era journalism was all about.

Certainly no self-respecting priest would divulge any confession or betray a man seeking sanctuary. It is a rather subtle way that the writers brought in the subject of Catholic involvement in the crime at a time when the Catholics were being maligned. Also, writers could easily speculate on what Surratt might have done along the primary rail routes since such routes were few and far between. I first read this years ago when we sold it in the gift shop and thought at that time that it would make a good made-for-television script.

The most telling error to me is that this account has Surratt visiting this priest the day after his mother's arrest. His mother was arrested on April 17, so this would mean that Surratt was still around DC (albeit hiding) until April 18. Even if I thought he was in DC, I would seriously doubt that he waited around three more days.

P.S. Gene mentioned the green spectacles. No doubt, they were referring to the "sunglasses" of the day, mostly issued to soldiers whose eyes had been damaged during battle.

brtmchl · 03-14-2017, 06:59 PM

“On Monday when I was leaving Canandaigua I bought some New York papers. In looking them over, my eye lit on the following paragraph which I have never forgot, and don’t think I ever will. It runs thus: ‘The assassin of Secretary Seward is said to be John H. Surratt, a notorious secessionist of Southern Maryland. His name, with that of J. Wilkes Booth, will forever lead the infamous role of assassins.’ I could scarcely believe my senses. I gazed upon my name, the letters of which seemed to sometimes grow as large as mountains and dwindle away to nothing. So much for my former connection with him I thought. After fully realizing the state of the case, I concluded to change my course and go direct to Canada." - John Surratt

The New York Times reported:
President Lincoln Shot by an Assassin.; The Deed Done at Ford's Theatre Last Night. THE ACT OF A DESPERATE REBEL The President Still Alive at Last Accounts. No Hopes Entertained of His Recovery. Attempted Assassination of Secretary Seward. DETAILS OF THE DREADFUL TRAGEDY.
Published: April 15, 1865
WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, April 15 -- 1:30 A.M.

The New York Herold also carried the story on Sat the 15th

How could Surratt have avoided the news until Monday? If he had heard, how could he have not known that he would have been implicated for his association with Booth?

I do find this thread very interesting even though I still lean toward Elmira.

RJNorton · 03-15-2017, 05:32 AM

In Lincoln's Assassins: A Complete Account of Their Capture, Trial, and Punishment by Roy Chamlee the author writes:

"Surratt told his lawyers that he had stayed at the Brainard House in Elmira on April 13 and April 14. But when the lawyers searched for the crucial register, it could not be found. Their exhaustive efforts lasted several weeks. They questioned everyone connected with the hotel, but no one could find the register. Every other guest book before and after the missing one was available."

Any theories on what happened to the register that could have proven Surratt really was in Elmira?

L Verge · **RE: Where was John Surratt on April 14, 1865 ?**

(03-15-2017 05:32 AM)RJNorton Wrote: In Lincoln's Assassins: A Complete Account of Their Capture, Trial, and Punishment by Roy Chamlee the author writes:

"Surratt told his lawyers that he had stayed at the Brainard House in Elmira on April 13 and April 14. But when the lawyers searched for the crucial register, it could not be found. Their exhaustive efforts lasted several weeks. They questioned everyone connected with the hotel, but no one could find the register. Every other guest book before and after the missing one was available."

Any theories on what happened to the register that could have proven Surratt really was in Elmira?

Elmira was Copperhead country, so I suspect that the Brainard was a safe house and that "someone" in their employee deep-sixed it. Or, we might want to consider that the federal authorities had confiscated it so that there would be no proof that Surratt was there - thus damaging his testimony.

Gene C · 03-15-2017, 09:29 AM

The Brainerd House, later known as the Rathbun Hotel, was torn down in the 1940's.

Here is a little info about the Hotel, and a photo of what it may have looked like back in its day
http://www.shs58.org/mike_paul/rathbun.html

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-paiElrN08zg/UI...athbun.jpg

If Surratt was sent to Elmira to scout out the prison there, it doesn't look like it would not have been to difficult a task.
http://www.elmiracivilwarprisoncamp.com/index.html

SSlater · 03-15-2017, 10:19 PM

I have been researching John Surratt, to see if he is possible guilty, -as seen by the general populous, at that time. I have been surprised by almost everything I read. One of my sources was published by Alfred Isacsson ( who was a member of the Surratt Society - who was a Catholic Priest - and who I corresponded with ( awhile back). The publication is a Dec 1957 issue of the Maryland Historical Magazine.
He was said to have access to Church Records, that we don't even know about.) (Useful? I don't know)
Since I am avoiding my main topic, let me dance around with some stuff that will clue you to the "different" thing he touched on. How often have we read that Surratt had 1 boat hidden in Kings Creek ?
Isaccson says that Surratt bought "3 boats for $125.00, each large enough to hold 15 people and hid them in Kings Creek". He is quoting
a pamphlet written by Smoot in 1908. That made ne sit up straight. I never heard of more than 1 in waiting.
Eventually, Iascsson gets around to the question "Was Surratt in Elmira or Washington? Yes or No? He discusses the testimony of several "witnesses" who saw him in Washington. Then continues to show that None of the witnesses appeared to have ever seen or met John Surratt, before they supposedly saw him in Washington on this occasion.
I don't know if it is true or not, but I conclude that he was telling us that anyone who could make some money with their testimony - would say anything that would bring a return.[i]
Whoever it was that took the Brainard House Register, didn't do a complete job. There were Cash Books available from the clothing stores, showing convicting dates and times.
IMO - It is obvious to me that the U. S. Government would not prosecute them for providing information that supported their plan, whether or not it was a lie. The U. S. Gov. went to extremely evil tactics to extract Surratt from The Vatican, from Italy, from Egypt, etc. for trial.
With all that skullduggery, being made "legal" - how can we make a decision as to where Surratt was? was he in Elmira (Probably !) Washington? ( NAW! )

RJNorton · 03-16-2017, 04:13 AM

(03-15-2017 10:19 PM)SSlater Wrote: Then continues to show that None of the witnesses appeared to have ever seen or met John Surratt, before they supposedly saw him in Washington on this occasion.

John, at least one of the government witnesses claimed to have seen John Surratt on previous occasions. His name was David C. Reed. When asked if he saw Surratt in Washington on the 14th he responded by saying, "I think I did." Here is a part of his testimony:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

David C. Reed sworn and examined.
By Mr. Pierrepont:

Q. In what city do you live?

A. In Washington city.

Q. How many years have you lived here?

A. About thirty years.

Q. Do you know the prisoner at the bar by sight ? (prisoner made to stand
up.)

A. I do.

Q. How long have you known him by sight?

A. Since quite a boy.

Q. Since you or he was quite a boy?

A. Since he was quite a boy.

Q. Were you in the city of Washington on the day of the murder of the President?

A. I was.

Q. Did you see the prisoner at the bar on that day in Washington?

A. I think I did.

Q. Where did you see him?

A. I saw him on Pennsylvania avenue just below the National Hotel. I
was standing as he passed just in front of where Mr. Steer keeps the sewing-machine store.

Q. Which way was he going?

A. From towards the Capitol.

Q. About what time of the day of the 14th was it?

A. It was about half past two, as near as I can recollect — between two and half past two.

Q. Had you had a nodding acquaintance with him at all?

A. I had; I knew him, and I suppose he knew me. There was no intimate acquaintance at all. I recognized him when I met him.

Q. As he passed did you recognize him, or he you?

(Question objected to by Mr. Bradley as leading.)

Q. As he passed, state what occurred.

A. There was a recognition; whether it was by him or me first, I am unable to say.

Q. State whether it was by both.

A. I could not state positively whether I nodded first or he did; we both nodded.

brtmchl · 03-16-2017, 08:56 AM

I do suppose the man yelling the time could have been working at the Theatre, yelling the time to usher the crowd that had left that the next act was about to begin. Now the lights just flicker. It has been stated so in countering Dye's testimony.
I'm sure Booth speaking with this man could have been just conversation. After all, Booth would have known everyone employed at Ford's.

This explanation isn't nearly as entertaining though.

loetar44 · **RE: Where was John Surratt on April 14, 1865 ?**

If John Surratt was in Washington D.C. on April 14, and he left the town in the early morning of April 15, was it then possible that he could travel (unseen) to Montreal, Canada where he arrived on April 18, at 2 p.m. I’m wrestling with the so called “handkerchief incident”.

Charles H. Blinn, the night watchman at the Vermont Central Railroad office at Burlington, Vermont found a handkerchief under the bench where a “Canadian returning home” and looking sick, had rested on his way to St. Albans, Vermont. The name “John H. Surratt” was written in its corner. Blinn positively identified Surratt at his trial. If Blinn’s story is at all true, I have three questions:

(1) Conventional wisdom is that Surratt first took the train from Canandaigua, New York to Albany, New York (roughly 180 miles) and afterwards traveled via St. Albans, Vermont (roughly 130 miles) and then to Montreal (roughly 50 miles), arriving there at 2.00 am on April 18. However Blinn said that Surratt arrived at Burlington by taking the ferry across Lake Champlain. In Burlington he took the train to St. Albans). How was his exact route? And if it is true that Surratt came from Washington D.C. how was his route in this case to Burlington?

(2) When exactly was the handkerchief incident? At the trial Blinn testified as follows:
Q. [by Mr. Pierrepont] You have before testified to a man lying upon a settee, and to your picking up a handkerchief in that spot after he got up. What night of the week was that ?
A. Monday night, the 17th.
However: in the article "How I lost one hundred thousand dollars" in “Overland Monthly”, Januari 1912, Blinn described the incident and says: “The station in which I was employed was at the wharf, and not at the regular passenger depot. The ice in Lake Champlain broke up about the middle of April. On the 16th the first steamer of the season arrived. The landing was made at about two o’clock in the morning. When the gang-plank was run out, one solitary passenger came ashore and walked into the station. Etc.” This man was identified by Blinn as John Surratt. (https://archive.org/download/howilostone...0blin.pdf)
And in “John Surratt: Rebel, Lincoln Conspirator, Fugitive”, by Frederick Hatch, p. 92, I read: “Charles H. Blinn said he found the handkerchief on the morning of April 18, and that the man who left it was travelling with another man”.
So we have three dates: April 16, 17 and 18. April 18 seems to me a mistake, because we know that Surratt signed his name at the St. Lawrence Hall on April 18 and left the hotel the same day, not leaving a destination.

(3) Detective Daniel R.P. Bigley, accompanying McDevitt, Weichmann and Holohan to Montreal testified that the handkerchief was found at St. Albans, not at Burlington. How is that possible?

Gene C · **RE: Where was John Surratt on April 14, 1865 ?**

How common was it to have your name written on a hankerchief back then?
Especially if you are a confederate operative?

Houmes · **RE: Where was John Surratt on April 14, 1865 ?**

(03-16-2017 12:39 PM)Gene C Wrote: How common was it to have your name written on a hankerchief back then?
Especially if you are a confederate operative?

Quite common in Victorian times. Mary Todd Lincoln had several handkerchiefs and tea napkins embroidered with her initials in both simple and complex designs. Years later, Lincoln Isham (one of President Lincoln's grandsons) when short of cash would periodically travel to Chicago and visit the noted Lincoln scholar and dealer Ralph Newman to sell Lincoln artifacts. These included handkerchiefs with her initials. Newman told me that it took him a few years to catch on to the fact that the handkerchiefs were fakes, hand embroidered by a Chicago seamstress under employ by Mr. Isham.

(03-16-2017 01:10 PM)Houmes Wrote:
(03-16-2017 12:39 PM)Gene C Wrote: How common was it to have your name written on a hankerchief back then?
Especially if you are a confederate operative?

Quite common in Victorian times. Mary Todd Lincoln had several handkerchiefs and tea napkins embroidered with her initials in both simple and complex designs. Years later, Lincoln Isham (one of President Lincoln's grandsons) when short of cash would periodically travel to Chicago and visit the noted Lincoln scholar and dealer Ralph Newman to sell Lincoln artifacts. These included handkerchiefs with her initials. Newman told me that it took him a few years to catch on to the fact that the handkerchiefs were fakes, hand embroidered by a Chicago seamstress under employ by Mr. Isham.

Whoops, sorry. Lincoln Isham was a great grandson of Abraham Lincoln, and grandson of Robert Todd Lincoln.

L Verge · 03-16-2017, 01:20 PM

We have a John Surratt handkerchief on display here at Surratt House, embroidered with "Surratt." It came with good provenance from a family who knew Surratt when he was teaching in Montgomery County, Maryland.

There was often a practical reason for having your name on a variety of clothing items. Many families sent their clothes out to a washer woman nearby. This was the way of identifying whose clothes belonged where. The nightshirt on display here had John Surratt's name written in the neckband (before great-grandma ripped it out years later when it became frayed). That name was in indelible ink, according to my grandmother who saw the neckband dropped into the kitchen stove to burn sometime in the early-1880s.