Does anyone know...?

[RJNorton]

I think Mary Surratt originally planned to use Booth's buggy for her April 11th trip to Surrattsville. But when Weichmann asked Booth about the buggy he was told it was already sold. Booth then gave Weichmann $10 to go rent another buggy.

[L Verge]

(09-10-2017 08:01 AM)JMadonna Wrote:  

(09-09-2017 06:47 PM)Dennis Urban Wrote:  He traveled a great deal by rail to various cities and also rented horses, so why the buggy?

The buggy was primarily used by Mary Surratt to pick up travelers (spies) at the rail station and travel between her house in the city and Surratsville. IMO it was to enhance confederate operations in Washington.

I don't ever remember seeing that reference, Jerry. What is your source?

[John Fazio]

Laurie. Dennis and Roger:

Are you intelligent and learned folks still hung up on the kidnapping myth? I can't believe it. Do you really believe that Booth thought he could deposit the "giant" (Lincoln) onto a stage, from a height of 12 feet, into the waiting arms of the "pygmy" (Arnold), from whence they and their gang of amateurs would spirit their captive through thousands of his supporters, armed National Detective Police and armed Union soldiers, and then show up on Davis's doorstep with Lincoln in handcuffs, without the knowledge and approval of Confederate leaders? Arnold himself described the scheme as suicidal and said he would have no part in it. Or do you suppose that Booth really believed he could take his target from his own carriage after his rag-tag bunch of no-accounts and misfits overcame Lincoln's armed cavalry escort of Ohioans and Pennsylvania "Bucktails"? And for what purpose? To hold him in Richmond pending the release of Confederate POW's, even though that had already been authorized by Grant in January, who had set a goal of 3,000 per week? And even if either of these ridiculous scenarios had a dust mite's worth of merit to them, what good could possibly have come to the Confederacy by the release of more POW's in March and April of 1865 when the war was, for all practical purposes, over, which no one knew better than the Confederate leadership?

Please read or re-read Chapter 12 of Decapitating the Union. Then reconsider. The days of mythology are over. Or should be.

John

[L Verge]

Excuse me, John, but please get off your grandstand. Yes, I still follow the precepts of those greats in the field who gave credence to at least Booth and others having what seems preposterous plans to those of us who study history with modern eyes. By the late-winter of 1865, desperation may very well have led to desperate plans.

[JMadonna]

(09-10-2017 11:23 AM)L Verge Wrote:  

(09-10-2017 08:01 AM)JMadonna Wrote:  

(09-09-2017 06:47 PM)Dennis Urban Wrote:  He traveled a great deal by rail to various cities and also rented horses, so why the buggy?

The buggy was primarily used by Mary Surratt to pick up travelers (spies) at the rail station and travel between her house in the city and Surratsville. IMO it was to enhance confederate operations in Washington.

I don't ever remember seeing that reference, Jerry. What is your source?

1865 events. Sarah Slater was picked up by buggy from the train station to the Surratt boarding house. Franklin Stringfellow was deposited by buggy to Surratt tavern. 1+1 = my opinion

[L Verge]

(09-10-2017 01:35 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  

(09-10-2017 11:23 AM)L Verge Wrote:  

(09-10-2017 08:01 AM)JMadonna Wrote:  

(09-09-2017 06:47 PM)Dennis Urban Wrote:  He traveled a great deal by rail to various cities and also rented horses, so why the buggy?

The buggy was primarily used by Mary Surratt to pick up travelers (spies) at the rail station and travel between her house in the city and Surratsville. IMO it was to enhance confederate operations in Washington.

I don't ever remember seeing that reference, Jerry. What is your source?

1865 events. Sarah Slater was picked up by buggy from the train station to the Surratt boarding house. Franklin Stringfellow was deposited by buggy to Surratt tavern. 1+1 = my opinion

Makes sense, but the boardinghouse and the train station was not that far apart - easy walking distance.

[JMadonna]

True - but Sarah didn't walk

[John Fazio]

(09-10-2017 01:16 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Excuse me, John, but please get off your grandstand. Yes, I still follow the precepts of those greats in the field who gave credence to at least Booth and others having what seems preposterous plans to those of us who study history with modern eyes. By the late-winter of 1865, desperation may very well have led to desperate plans.

Laurie:

Yes, it is true that some fine minds, expert in the field, have been taken in by the ruse, no less than Booth's action team, except for Surratt, who surely knew Booth's true purpose. But that is because they did not view it as a separate issue, merely taking Booth at his word, as expressed in his diary and in the letter he left with his sister Asia, and then moving on to what seemed to them to be more contentious issues. But when one focuses on this issue and analyses it in all its particulars, one can come to no conclusion other than that kidnapping was a ruse to conceal his true purpose and to facilitate recruitment to his team. The scheme was, logistically, absolutely unworkable, which is what prompted Arnold to say (in 1865, not today, but in 1865) that he would not permit Booth to be his executioner. Granted that Booth was not very bright, he was not so stupid as to be blind to what was perfectly obvious to Arnold. How were they going to get Lincoln across the bridge, even if they had managed the all-but-impossible feat of getting him out of the box, out of the theater and into a carriage? Would they really have risked the ire of Davis, Benjamin, et al., and consequent imprisonment and possibly execution upon their arrival in Richmond or forced return to Washington? None of it adds up; none of it makes sense; except as a device to facilitate the true purpose, which was multiple assassinations. Weichmann came to the same conclusion. So did Commissioner Harris. So did Bingham. These are not people studying the issue through modern eyes; they were there in 1865. Moreover, the conclusion is completely consistent with Mrs. McClermont's testimony at the Surratt trial, with the fact that on at least three well-documented occasions Booth ordered Powell to murder Lincoln, with Atzerodt's confession of May 1, with the May 10, 1865, letter from the Union agent in Paris, quoting the Confederate agent "Johnston", with Powell's statements to Eckert about Federal prosecutors not having "the one-half of them" (conspirators) and his impression that others were to do to other Federal officeholders what he was to do to Seward, and with all the testimony re conversations between Secret Service operatives in Canada and the letters that came into the possession of the Bureau of Military Justice, all of which speak only of assassination.

Facts are stubborn things.

John

[L Verge]

How do you explain away the weapons and materiel stored at Surratt's tavern from March 17 until April 15? The Atzerodt statement about supplies sent to Mudd ahead of time? The details about the purchase of the boat as supplied years later by Smoot? The folklore (which you never should discount) that half of Southern Maryland knew about a planned kidnapping? The assistance of the Confederate underground in that area?

It may have been a hare-brained scheme from our perspective, but we were not in the center of things in the winter and spring of 1865. Booth was likely of the same mindset as our modern folks who think they can hop the White House fence and get to the President -- and some get pretty close.

[John Fazio]

(09-11-2017 11:37 AM)L Verge Wrote:  How do you explain away the weapons and materiel stored at Surratt's tavern from March 17 until April 15? The Atzerodt statement about supplies sent to Mudd ahead of time? The details about the purchase of the boat as supplied years later by Smoot? The folklore (which you never should discount) that half of Southern Maryland knew about a planned kidnapping? The assistance of the Confederate underground in that area?

It may have been a hare-brained scheme from our perspective, but we were not in the center of things in the winter and spring of 1865. Booth was likely of the same mindset as our modern folks who think they can hop the White House fence and get to the President -- and some get pretty close.

Laurie:

Good questions, which have good answers. Unfortunately, I'm on my way to the airport now to pick up my wife, who has been in Colorado for a few days. I'll respond when I return. (No, I am not secretly communicating with Wild Bill Richter for answers!)

[John Fazio]

(09-11-2017 11:37 AM)L Verge Wrote:  How do you explain away the weapons and materiel stored at Surratt's tavern from March 17 until April 15? The Atzerodt statement about supplies sent to Mudd ahead of time? The details about the purchase of the boat as supplied years later by Smoot? The folklore (which you never should discount) that half of Southern Maryland knew about a planned kidnapping? The assistance of the Confederate underground in that area?

It may have been a hare-brained scheme from our perspective, but we were not in the center of things in the winter and spring of 1865. Booth was likely of the same mindset as our modern folks who think they can hop the White House fence and get to the President -- and some get pretty close.

Laurie:

We all know that Booth made preparations for his escape. Thus it was that he was given letters of introduction, in Canada, to Dr. Queen, Marshall George P. Kane, Dr. Garland (most likely) and Dr. Mudd, meeting the latter several times before the assassination. And thus it was that he spent some days in November and December, 1864, in Charles County, meeting, at least, with Queen, Mudd and Thomas Harbin. Accordingly, there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that the carbines, cartridges and rope that Surratt, Herold and Atzerodt left at the tavern could have been used, or were intended to be used, only in connection with kidnapping Lincoln. They could just as easily have been needed and used by Booth and whomever he planned to have with him, or might have with him, on the escape, sans Lincoln. Similarly, the provisions and liquor Booth sent to Dr. Mudd, per Atzerodt, could have been used as easily by Booth and his co-conspirators for purposes of their escape as they could have been used incident to a kidnapping of the president. Likewise with the boat. The escapees would need a boat to get across the river. Booth could not know with certainty how many would be with him when the time came for action, so he made arrangements, through Atzerodt, Surratt and Harbin, for a fishing skiff that would accommodate a substantial number. He never used the boat anyway and its size may well have had something to do with it. There were, after all, only two fugitives.

Recall, too, Booth's remark to Ruggles, Bainbridge and Jett that "In the plot to kill, Paine alone was implicated...not even Herold knowing what was to be done. Atzerodt knew nothing of the intended assassination." Does this not show, rather conclusively, that Booth was always duping most of his action team with the malarkey about kidnapping, a duping that was made more convincing by deposits of weapons, materials, etc., here and there and arrangements made for a boat that was never used? It all fits rather well in my opinion. Conversely, a bona fide kidnapping scheme is contrary to the evidence, totally irrational, completely unworkable and without any genuine purpose, the business about Confederate POW's having already been undercut by Grant, as pointed out by Arnold to Booth at the Gautier's meeting.

John

[Wild Bill]

John:

Conversely, a bona fide kidnapping scheme is contrary to the evidence, totally irrational, completely unworkable and without any genuine purpose, the business about Confederate POW's having already been undercut by Grant, as pointed out by Arnold to Booth at the Gautier's meeting.

I will admit that the end of no POW exchange has always bothered me as to the efficacy of kidnapping. I think that it also challenges the notion that Surratt was up at Elmira and not in DC on the 14th.

Bill

[John Fazio]

(09-12-2017 02:09 PM)Wild Bill Wrote:  John:

Conversely, a bona fide kidnapping scheme is contrary to the evidence, totally irrational, completely unworkable and without any genuine purpose, the business about Confederate POW's having already been undercut by Grant, as pointed out by Arnold to Booth at the Gautier's meeting.

I will admit that the end of no POW exchange has always bothered me as to the efficacy of kidnapping. I think that it also challenges the notion that Surratt was up at Elmira and not in DC on the 14th.

Bill

Wild Bill:

Re Surratt's whereabouts on April 14, a tidbit came my way in the latest issue of the [i]Journal of the Lincoln Assassination, Fred Hatch's wonderful little publication. In it, there is an article by Jesse W. Weik, taken from the February, 1913, issue of The Century Magazine, in which the author quotes a Miss Porterfield, who claimed to be an acquaintance of Booth's and also that she had witnessed the assassination. She claimed, too, that on April 13 she had a conversation with Booth, in which he expressed his anguish as to the turn of events and also asked her, incidentally, how to spell "tyrannis". Asked why he was in such a state of mind, he told her that he was irritated because he "had been rudely awakened from sleep that morning by a man--I think he called him Surratt--who wanted to borrow his horse to ride to Georgetown..." (See p. 6 of the Journal). That ties in pretty well with the 13 or 14 witnesses at Surratt's trial who claimed that they had seen him in Washington during the relevant period. It also ties in with one of Atzerodt's statements in which he said that Booth told him that Surratt was in town and that he had just seen him. The case for Surratt being in Washington, while still not conclusive, is strengthened by this article.

John[/i]

[Gene C]

John, would you consider Miss Porterfield a reliable witness?
Did she testify at Surratt's trial?

[L Verge]

(09-11-2017 11:00 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(09-11-2017 11:37 AM)L Verge Wrote:  How do you explain away the weapons and materiel stored at Surratt's tavern from March 17 until April 15? The Atzerodt statement about supplies sent to Mudd ahead of time? The details about the purchase of the boat as supplied years later by Smoot? The folklore (which you never should discount) that half of Southern Maryland knew about a planned kidnapping? The assistance of the Confederate underground in that area?

It may have been a hare-brained scheme from our perspective, but we were not in the center of things in the winter and spring of 1865. Booth was likely of the same mindset as our modern folks who think they can hop the White House fence and get to the President -- and some get pretty close.

Laurie:

We all know that Booth made preparations for his escape. Thus it was that he was given letters of introduction, in Canada, to Dr. Queen, Marshall George P. Kane, Dr. Garland (most likely) and Dr. Mudd, meeting the latter several times before the assassination. And thus it was that he spent some days in November and December, 1864, in Charles County, meeting, at least, with Queen, Mudd and Thomas Harbin. Accordingly, there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that the carbines, cartridges and rope that Surratt, Herold and Atzerodt left at the tavern could have been used, or were intended to be used, only in connection with kidnapping Lincoln. They could just as easily have been needed and used by Booth and whomever he planned to have with him, or might have with him, on the escape, sans Lincoln. Similarly, the provisions and liquor Booth sent to Dr. Mudd, per Atzerodt, could have been used as easily by Booth and his co-conspirators for purposes of their escape as they could have been used incident to a kidnapping of the president. Likewise with the boat. The escapees would need a boat to get across the river. Booth could not know with certainty how many would be with him when the time came for action, so he made arrangements, through Atzerodt, Surratt and Harbin, for a fishing skiff that would accommodate a substantial number. He never used the boat anyway and its size may well have had something to do with it. There were, after all, only two fugitives.

Recall, too, Booth's remark to Ruggles, Bainbridge and Jett that "In the plot to kill, Paine alone was implicated...not even Herold knowing what was to be done. Atzerodt knew nothing of the intended assassination." Does this not show, rather conclusively, that Booth was always duping most of his action team with the malarkey about kidnapping, a duping that was made more convincing by deposits of weapons, materials, etc., here and there and arrangements made for a boat that was never used? It all fits rather well in my opinion. Conversely, a bona fide kidnapping scheme is contrary to the evidence, totally irrational, completely unworkable and without any genuine purpose, the business about Confederate POW's having already been undercut by Grant, as pointed out by Arnold to Booth at the Gautier's meeting.

John

John - We are going to have to agree to disagree because I will never understand your logic in this and you will never understand the Maryland situation and the feelings of its people at that time. And please remember that the kidnap plot goes back to the fall of 1864 and earlier, if you consider other plans that never materialized - not just a month before the assassination.

Somewhere in the back of my mind, I remember a discussion many years ago that releasing the POWs, either through ransom or via Confederate raids both north and south, was a military consideration to divide Union forces as well as to form a pincher (is that the proper military term?) maneuver emanating in Canada and aimed at northern targets - a similar tactic to the failed incendiary attempts in NYC. The Copperhead movement in northwestern New York State was supposed to be involved also. I have always wondered if "the New York crowd" was a reference to them, not the wheeler/dealers in NYC.

One question: I don't remember you mentioning Dr. Garland in your book; did I miss something? Were you able to identify Dr. Garland, because Tidwell, Hall, and Gaddy were very anxious to find out who he was (if he existed at all). The closest we could come was a Dr. Garland who went south to become one of Davis's physicians. Tell me more about Dr. Garland and your sources for him.