John Surratt

[Rhatkinson]

Very interesting. Thanks for posting (and thanks for your kind offer before, John.) I can only assume that the "London" person/s that Surratt references is Benjamin?

On the location of Surratt on the night of the assassination, I am inclined to believe that he was in DC because of the evidence discussed here, AND because I believe that if someone as integral as Surratt had abandoned Booth's plot when it turned to assassination, Booth would have made mention of the betrayal in his diary. However, it is most certainly not absolute in my mind. A couple of points that I cannot reconcile :

1. If Surratt was part of the assassination plot, why was he (a seasoned CSA agent) not assigned the Johnson killing over Atzerodt (and perhaps Herold), someone Booth knew to be shaky?

2. Why did Booth not sign Surratt's name to the "To Whom it May Concern" letter where he included Herold, Atzerodt, and Paine [Powell]?

[John Fazio]

(08-06-2013 06:59 PM)GARY POPOLO Wrote:  I have read a number of posts questioning where John Surratt was at the time of the assassination. After all was said and done he was found not guilty and walked away a free man. What troubles me is how after all the facts were presented about Dr. Mudd and how he had a huge part in helping Booth medically, allowing him and David to stay in his home and then helping in his escape by giving him names and places he could go to help him escape to Virginia gets nothing but a small jail term and then is pardoned while others who had almost no connection to Booth were given maximum punishment or death. Hard to believe he was able to get off so easy. Not to mention he was a major confederate spy! Maybe I am missing something here. Any help? Best Gary

Gary:

Dr. Mudd was indeed lucky. Here are some particulars as to how lucky he was:

1. The Commission applied the conspiracy laws at the time very loosely. Had they applied them strictly, he would have been on the scaffold too. But it is a good thing they did not, because if they had done so Spangler, a completely innocent man, would have been executed too.
2. The commissioners never found out about the doctor's December 18 meeting with Booth and Harbin.
3. The commisioners never learned of Atzerodt's May 1 confession, in which he expressly implicated Dr. Mudd.
4. The commissioners never learned that Dr. Mudd intentionally misled Federal troops who were pursuing the fugitives, Booth and Herold, by telling them they were headed for Parson Wilmer's home rather than Samuel Cox's home.

Even with these breaks, he came within one vote of being hanged. But it is not accurate to say he received a "small jail term"; he received a sentence of life imprisonment. He was pardoned by Johnson after almost 4 years of imprisonment in hell on earth (Dry Tortugas) because he played a major role in fighting the yellow fever epidemic that struck the islands in August, 1867, and which would have killed him too (as it did his predecessor doctors), but for the ministrations of Spangler, who somehow escaped the scourge. O'Laughlen died from the disease; Arnold contracted it, but, like Dr. Mudd, survived. After the epidemic was over, the other prisoners petitioned the government to release Dr. Mudd because of his work with the epidemic. Johnson granted their wish not only because of the doctor's service on the islands, but also because he knew that Dr. Mudd, as well as Arnold and Spangler, had refused to implicate Johnson to the impeachment committee's representative (Gleason), who was sent there to obtain statements from the three (O'Laughlen was dead) implicating Johnson in the assassination, in return for their freedom. They refused, because they knew Johnson to be innocent, and Johnson was, of course, moved by their integrity. That is why he pardond Arnold and Spangler too, one month after he pardoned Dr. Mudd.

I hope this helps.

John

---

(08-06-2013 11:08 PM)SSlater Wrote:  John Fazio take note. Here is an interesting twist that may amuse you. First, it is important to know that John Surratt was charged only with the murder of the president. No other charges. The Philadelphia Press also published a comment wherein they said that "if the charge had been 'conspiring", they (the Jury) would have convicted him immediately." That's pretty much the same as you said. Had you been there, Johnny Boy would have had his neck stretched. Would that have been good or bad? (Vote here:_______). The eye-witnesses from Elmira were wise enough to provide hard copies of sales slips, all having the "proper" date of sale. That beats a "sworn" statement any day. That reminds me of a joke I heard years ago, about a Lawyer who advised his client "Don't say a word, and I'll have 2 eyewitnesses over there in 5 minutes."

As for his trial, there was an awful lot of legal maneuvering after the hung jury. As I recall, the government was preparing a new charge of treason, but the Judge discovered that the Statute of Limitations had run on that charge, and so that charge too was dismissed. When finally rid of all legal entanglements, he took a vacation for six months to South America. I wonder where this son of a dead boardinghouse keeper got the money for that. I wonder where the astronomical sums necessary to maintain his six month defense came from. Jampoler said his defense counsel, three of the top lawyers in the country, did it pro bono. Maybe.


John


Does anyone know if the prosecution was changing the charges in preparation for the proposed new trial?

SSlater:

For most of my life I was opposed to capital punishment. In recent years I have changed my view. I now feel that some crimes are so heinous, that death as punishment is not inappropriate, though I would enforce the scintilla rule, i.e. if there is even a scintilla of doubt (as opposed to reasonable doubt), an accused should not be executed. This will reduce to almost zero the number of innocents who have been executed ("It is better that 100 guilty men should go free than that one innocent man should suffer." --Blackstone) Therefore, I believe the death penalty for Surratt would have been appropriate. His participation in Booth's conspiracy to decapitate the government was only one of his crimes. He also participated in the murder in cold blood of a half dozen or so emacited and starving Union POW's who had escaped from a Confederate prison and were making their way to their lines. He also treacherously fired into a boatload of Union soldiers who were coming to accept a surrender that he had previsouly agreed to, killing some and then escaping. He aslo cooly executed a Union telegrapher caught in the act of telegraphing. He told McMillan, "If you knew all the things I have done, it would make you stare (or gape), or something similar to that. As it was, he outlived practically everyone else in the drama, not dying until 1916, at the age of 72, and being given a High Requiem Mass by the Church, for some reason.

[L Verge]

I have to agree with you, John. If his mother and George Atzerodt were considered guilty enough to hang, then he certainly should have been executed also. The only thing that might have saved him would have been proving that he had no contact with Booth after the failed kidnapping (which you don't believe in) until after the crime had been committed. That seems to be what saved Dr. Mudd (especially) and others.

[SSlater]

John. I agree with your evaluation of who should be executed. A person Murdered and a person Executed are two entirely different things. Let me ask, is your reference to the 6 or 7 escaped prisoners the same incident where Sarah Slater asked "Shall we kill them?" - and did. I can't fault her, or the others involved here, Slater lived in a Prisoner-of-War town (Salisbury, N.C.) and I'm certain that it had been drilled into the citizens of Salisbury, that if you see escaped prisoners - shoot them. By merely asking about their fate, she was giving them a trial. Was this a time to kill? Was it within the rules? Was there any other choice? etc. I can not condemn her, or Surratt, or whomever pulled the trigger. I need more evidence. As for the telegrapher, what was he saying on he wire. Was he calling in artillery fire? Was he signaling an attack? etc. Those were instantaneous decisions, fully justified. Yes, there are situations where Killings are in order.
But don't mix "executions/killings" and "murders". There is a time when "it is your duty".
There is more to all of this, than we can solve in a internet exchange.
My explanation for a "High Mass" is - Surratt had been a seminarian. That was a "Special Club" that got special considerations - even when trying to escape from prosecution. (Know what I mean?). "High" mass, "Low" mass - no difference, when it comes to the effect of prayers. It's supposed to be an Honor -especially for the family. In my grade school days - we thought of it as "a thicker asbestos suit". (Know what I mean?)

[L Verge]

Sister Anna said that Johnny was not in the seminary in the sense that we now take that. During the 19th-century and probably earlier, the word seminary referred to a school for one gender only and did not mean full religious training for the priesthood. There could be all-girls seminaries also. Weichmann was at St. Charles for the religious preparation, however.

Since Surratt was not convicted of any crime, why wouldn't he be allowed the high mass? Perhaps the church was also making sure that he had the proper service which his mother was denied. Her re-interment at Mt. Olivet was graveside commital only, I believe. Neither the lady nor her corpse went inside a church after Good Friday.

[John Fazio]

(08-07-2013 08:35 AM)Rhatkinson Wrote:  Very interesting. Thanks for posting (and thanks for your kind offer before, John.) I can only assume that the "London" person/s that Surratt references is Benjamin?

On the location of Surratt on the night of the assassination, I am inclined to believe that he was in DC because of the evidence discussed here, AND because I believe that if someone as integral as Surratt had abandoned Booth's plot when it turned to assassination, Booth would have made mention of the betrayal in his diary. However, it is most certainly not absolute in my mind. A couple of points that I cannot reconcile :

1. If Surratt was part of the assassination plot, why was he (a seasoned CSA agent) not assigned the Johnson killing over Atzerodt (and perhaps Herold), someone Booth knew to be shaky?

2. Why did Booth not sign Surratt's name to the "To Whom it May Concern" letter where he included Herold, Atzerodt, and Paine [Powell]?

RhAtkinson:

You have asked a couple of excellent questions and I am not sure I have good answers for you, without more thought. Here are a couple of possible ones:

1. According to Atzerodt, Booth assigned Herold the job of killing Johnson, with Atzerodt as a back-up only (told to his minister before his execution). According to Herold, Atzerodt was assigned the job, but Booth had little confidence that he would accomplish anything (Boston Advertiser, July 8, 1865). The likelihood is that he double-teamed them, per Atzerodt, because he did not have a lot of confidence in either of them. Surratt may have been assigned to kill Grant when Booth learned, at Willard's, that the Grants were leaving town for New Jersey. If we are to believe Atzerodt, he wasn't told until 8:00 pm at the Herndon House that he was expected to kill Johnson. That would suggest that Booth had Surratt in mind for the job until the Grant exigency arose. It is always possible, too, that Surratt was not in Washington, but in New York "prepared to fly as soon as the deed was done" (per Ste. Marie's Affidavit, which he changed in his testimony at the trial). But in that case, the next question is: Why? Why, with everything happening in Washington and the Confederacy collapsing, would he be blithely patronizing haberdashers and tailors in Elmira, incident to casing out the prison there for a possible breakout, when prisoner exchange was already being carried out, and had been carried out since January, and the war was all but over?

2. Surratt and Booth were the leaders of the conspiracy. The others were merely hatchet-men and grunts, not in the same category. Booth was confident of the success of his plot (and there is a lot of evidence for this) and visualized the escape of Atzerodt, Herold and Powell. In his mind, therefore, he could afford to reveal their identities because no harm would come to them; they would be gone. But Surratt was not to escape with them; he may have had additional work to do for the Confederacy and would stay behind for that purpose, and even if he didn't, his mother and sister would need him at home. His identity as a participant in the plot could therefore not be revealed.

John

---

(08-07-2013 08:35 AM)Rhatkinson Wrote:  Very interesting. Thanks for posting (and thanks for your kind offer before, John.) I can only assume that the "London" person/s that Surratt references is Benjamin?

On the location of Surratt on the night of the assassination, I am inclined to believe that he was in DC because of the evidence discussed here, AND because I believe that if someone as integral as Surratt had abandoned Booth's plot when it turned to assassination, Booth would have made mention of the betrayal in his diary. However, it is most certainly not absolute in my mind. A couple of points that I cannot reconcile :

1. If Surratt was part of the assassination plot, why was he (a seasoned CSA agent) not assigned the Johnson killing over Atzerodt (and perhaps Herold), someone Booth knew to be shaky?

2. Why did Booth not sign Surratt's name to the "To Whom it May Concern" letter where he included Herold, Atzerodt, and Paine [Powell]?

RhAtkinson:

I forgot to add something that is worth mentioning in connection with Surratt's alleged presence in New York State at assassination time:

He said that when he heard of the assassination, he resolved to go to Baltimore immediately to find out as much about the "tragedy" as he could (Does anyone believe that?). When he learned that there was no train south from Elmira on that day, he decided to go to Canandaigua. Canandaigua is in the Finger Lakes region of New York, a good distance north and west of Elmira, whereas Baltimore is a good distance south and east of Elmira. Why on earth would he go to Canandaigua, the opposite direction from his alleged destination??? What was he doing there? Going to Baltimore by way of Canandaigua is like going to Buenos Aires by way of Alaska. It simply makes no sense. Couple that with the fact that all this traipsing and meandering about was directly contrary to Booth's directive, which he revealed to McMillan, and we are driven with ever greater conviction to the conclusion that he was, in fact, in Washington, having contrived, somehow, an alibi in Elmira.

John

[RJNorton]

I am assuming we are talking about the letter Booth gave to Mathews on April 14, 1865, and not the "To Whom It May Concern" letter from 1864. Although I don't agree with Robert Lockwood Mills' arguments that the "Mathews letter" never existed, I would not put too much importance in Surratt's name not being in the list of names Mathews "remembered." How much faith can we put in Mathews' memory of the names at the end of the letter? Mathews' memory concerning the letter's contents changed so much in subsequent years that personally I cannot really take the letter very seriously. IMO.

[BettyO]

I have to agree with you, John. If his mother and George Atzerodt were considered guilty enough to hang, then he certainly should have been executed also. The only thing that might have saved him would have been proving that he had no contact with Booth after the failed kidnapping (which you don't believe in) until after the crime had been committed. That seems to be what saved Dr. Mudd (especially) and others.

I agree with you Laurie as well. Surratt and Booth were the brains behind the conspiracy. Surratt probably knew more about the inner workings and what went on behind the scenes than either Powell and Herold. Atzerodt was just the flotsam which followed in it's wake. His fatal mistake was NOT alerting authorities as to what was going on. Therefore, Surratt was more than guilty enough to swing. By 1867, the "witch hunt" fervor of the initial conspiracy had waned and that also was vital to his pending release after trial and capture. It's said that he burned papers and documents later in his life. It's a shame that he didn't focus his attention on a memoir which could be published after his death, as damning as that more or less would have been.

[Jim Garrett]

But which Surratt? Jim Page had thrown out there that maybe Mary was more involved than almost everyone gave her credit for. Andrew Johnson said, "she kept the nest that hatched the egg". What did he mean? Was she just the innkeeper, or was she the mother hen? Police Superintendent believed she was the number 2 person in the conspiracy. Was John doing his mother's business?

[L Verge]

I am still sticking by Mr. Hall's research that Surratt was in New York and stayed there until after hearing of the assassination. I think we are all pretty much in agreement that, even though Booth had thought about murder all along, it likely did not become his action plan until the evening of April 11. After that, there were a lot of things to take care of, such as sending Herold into Southern Maryland to alert the secret line. Atzerodt would logically be the last to know of a change in the plans since he was definitely the most unstable of the group.

I don't feel that Surratt's and Gen. Edwin Lee's assignment was to bust the prisoners out of Elmira in order to form a new army. I think they needed an assessment of how many were prisoners that would possibly need to be absorbed into Canada for care and treatment.

That said, Surratt was hundreds of miles away in New York on Confederate business; things were happening fast; Booth was counting on the Confederacy to come through for him; Booth had been friends with Andrew Johnson before the war, so he had some trust in him to support mild reconstruction (if assassination failed); Seward was an easier target and a more hated man in the South than Johnson.

What does that boil down to in my mind? Surratt was in New York, and not really needed; so why depend on him getting back to D.C.?

[Thomas Thorne]

If John Surratt was in DC on 4/14/65 what precisely was his task in the assassination?

One witness claimed he acted as JWB's human pocket watch at Ford's calling out the time. But certainly Booth would have access to a real pocket watch and would have assigned JHS a far more substantial role.

No one has offered any evidence that Surratt was the person who supposedly tried to break into Grant's train compartment. If I were JWB I would deemed JHS a more reliable assassin than George Atzerodt ,a point which others have made.

Until we find John Surratt's historical footprints in Washington on 4/14/65 we can't say he was there.
Tom

[J. Beckert]

John Buckingham stated Booth asked him the time and he told him there was a clock in the lobby.

[GARY POPOLO]

John, Thank you for clearing a few things up for me. One thing that is for sure is that Spanger did receive a bad deal for his none part in the events of the assassination. I was aware of Dr. Mudd being sent to Dry Tortugas and his helping saving the lives of the men infected with yellow fever. What I did not know was that the commission did not know about the meeting Dr. Mudd had with Booth and Harbin on the 18th. of December. Or that the commission never know about Atzerodts confession implicating Dr. Mudd. Hard to believe that so much information could be lost or missed placed in such an important case. As too whether Surratt was in DC on the night of the assassination I agree with you that if Surratt was present and Booth would have chosen him over Atzerod or Herold to take care of killing Johnson. That to me would be a no brainer for Booth. I also believe that Booth would have included Surratts name in his To Whom It May Concern letter. Booth took much care in making sure that everyone involved had their name placed at different locations. I don't believe he was giving Surratt a pass. Just one last note of interest and correct me if I am wrong. I think I read were Spanger once released from jail spent the remainer of his life living with Dr. Mudd. Interesting! Thank you again John. Best Gary

[Jim Garrett]

The clock in the lobby at Ford's today is suppose to be the original clock. It keeps time perfectly,,,,,,,,twice a day.

[L Verge]

That lost confession was likely pocketed by Atzerodt's attorney because it revealed too much. However, it was printed in at least one newspaper at the time (I'll have to check on the date). It was also resurrected at the John Surratt trial - and evidently went back to Doster in whose hands it was then passed down to later generations.

As for Spangler and Mudd, I don't believe that Spangler went immediately to live with the Mudds. He eventually did, however, and the family found him literally up a tree on their property, having been chased there by the family's dogs. He was converted to Catholicism on his death bed and buried in the Mudd family's church's graveyard - old St. Peter's Catholic Cemetery about a mile from their home. The Surratt Society and the Dr. Mudd Society marked his grave back in the 1980s.