I thought the prison break was to cause confusion in the area while Confederate papers and gold slipped through the lines to Canada?

Hello Everyone:

Allow me a few words! You every-where permit freedom of speech. You must not deny me now. (Sound familiar?)

A few comments, by way of catch-up. If I omit anyone or neglect to address their comments, please forgive; it is not intentional. Everything that follows is my opinion, unless otherwise stated.

Jerry and Laurie: I do not believe Harney, a seasoned veteran of the Torpedo Bureau who had a long record of wreaking havoc on the Union war effort, was to be managed in Washington by a 26-year old actor who knew nothing of politics or military science. Laurie's opinion re other handlers is on the money. Stringfellow, Ficklin and Conrad are good possibilities, but truly, we just do not know. The city was crawling with Confederates. Recall the Confederate agent Johnston, who said he knew within a half hour of his arrival in the city that there was to be an attack that night. Consider, further, all the whistles that were heard in and around Ford's right after the assassination. It is known that whistles were the favored mode of communication by Mosby's officers. Further, I hope to have an opportunity of convincing you that "Booth's kidnapping plan" was an elaborate myth, carefully contrived to conceal the real and more sinister goal of the conspiracy. Booth's conspiracy was the contingency plan in the event of the failure of the Harney mission, not the other way around. Why else would he notify Surratt, after 4-9, the date of Harney's capture, that "our plans have changed" and to return to Washington forthwith. Who or what changed them?

Roger: You have felt that the plot to blow up the White House began with Benjamin and Davis. You could not be more right! If it did not originate with them, they certainly authorized it. The notion that Harney's mission was a rogue operation is as puerile as the notion that Booth and his team, Mosby and his Rangers, the "New York crowd" and the other conspiracy in Washington mentioned by Surratt in his lecture, as well as Stringfellow, Ficklin, Conrad, et al., were rogue operations. There were no rogue operations. Everything was controlled by Richmond and Montreal.

John Stanton: You are almost completely right with your scenario! My only reservation: Take Surratt's Elmira sojourn with lots of salt. With the Confederacy collapsing and Booth's imperative in his ear, the idea that he would dally there for a purpose already being accomplished, i.e. release of Confederate POW's, is more than suspicious. Gen. E. Lee testified at the Surratt trial and did NOT say he had instructed Surratt to go to Elmira. The key to Surratt's location on 4-14, in addition to the many other reasons for believing he was in Washington rather than Elmira, may lie in his Hanson Hiss interview. There he told of going to Elmira at an earlier date, and not from Montreal pursuant to instruction from Gen. E. Lee, but from Richmond pursuant to instruction from Gen. Wilder. He said that he was in Elmira for "several weeks", not a couple of days in April, and that he had so much of Uncle Sam's gold on him, furnished to him by Richmond, that he made hosts of friends there and "it was a blessed good thing that I did, for it saved my life at my trial". Think about that statement in connection with the fact that at his trial he had only 4 witnesses for his alibi (to the Prosecution's 14), only one of whom was unequivocal. Further, he said he learned of Lincoln's assassination, not in Elmira or St. Alban's, per his other tales, but on his way from Elmira to Albany.

Jerry: The Northwest Conspiracy failed largely because of Union intelligence and counter-measures, but also because the Copperhead organizations were ineffective, as ineffective, in Thomas Hine's words, as children. Bill also made this point.

Bill: You are right: The POW's in Elmira could not have formed an army, and this should tell us something about the Elmira diversion, i.e. could Gen. E. Lee have been ignorant of that fact?

Laurie: I have read Jampoler and I am thus aware of his conclusion re Surratt's whereabouts on 4-14, an opinion shared, incidentally by Mike Kauffman. I am unconvinced. There are many persuasive arguments putting him in Washington, in addition to the material given above. Recall that Ste. Marie testified at Surratt's trial that Surratt told him he left Washington the night of 4-14 or the morning of 4-15 in disguise. I grant that Ste. Marie is not a good witness (his Italian Affidavit is contrary); still, it is another stone on the scale.

Let me take this opportunity to thank all of you for your contributions. They have increased my knowledge of the subject greatly and have helped me with my book, which is now finished, but for abridgment mandated by the publisher.

John

Great comments John!
- Intriguing isn't it?

I'd like to comment more, but I've got to get back to work

(07-30-2013 09:24 AM)Gene C Wrote:  Great comments John!
- Intriguing isn't it?

I'd like to comment more, but I've got to get back to work

Gene:

Thanks for your comments. Let us hear more from you as soon as it is convenient for you.

John

John,

That was an excellent post. You have raised several fascinating points and I wonder if you would be so kind as to post your thoughts on what you believe to be the true story of the assassination? It would be a great book actually, but I would very much enjoy your synopsis on the issues of what you believe to be the truth concerning Booth's plan, his backing in Richmond, Surratt's location on 4/14, and the prior knowledge of CSA informants on the night that Lincoln was killed.

Thanks,
Heath

(07-30-2013 02:40 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  Laurie: I have read Jampoler and I am thus aware of his conclusion re Surratt's whereabouts on 4-14, an opinion shared, incidentally by Mike Kauffman. I am unconvinced. There are many persuasive arguments putting him in Washington, in addition to the material given above. Recall that Ste. Marie testified at Surratt's trial that Surratt told him he left Washington the night of 4-14 or the morning of 4-15 in disguise. I grant that Ste. Marie is not a good witness (his Italian Affidavit is contrary); still, it is another stone on the scale.

John, as you may recall from previous discussions, I am of the belief that John Surratt's whereabouts on April 14 are worthy of discussion. His being in Elmira is not an open and shut case IMO. I realize this is a minority opinion. Personally I agree with you that the arguments Surratt was in Washington that fateful night should not be ignored.

My question regards Mr. Jampoler. You imply he says Surratt was in Elmira. Is that quote in the book somewhere? The reason I ask is because on p. 204 of his book he writes, "Passing 140 years later, the answer to the key question - where Surratt was the night Lincoln was shot - is not more certain than it was in 1867...." To me it seems that Mr. Jampoler is leaving it as an open question. What do you think?

There is a good possibility that John Surratt was in Washington DC on April 14, and the much belittled government case against him shows how. It is illustrated in my Confederate Freedom Fighter available at the Surratt Museum bookstore (shameless plug, I know)

John,How do you explain John Surratt talking about being in Canandaigua,NY and going to Easter Mass there? I have his signature[John Harrison] three days later on the St.Lawrence Hotel ledger- Montreal.[Canadian National Archives].In his trial papers he talks about being in Elmira,NY-Onto-Canandaigua,NY-then he contemplates going to Rochester,NY and taking a boat to Coburg,Canada.But,instead he takes a train from Canandaigua-to Albany,NY and on to Montreal.However,no one can find the hotel ledgers from Elmira or Canandaigua,NY.

(07-30-2013 07:13 PM)Rhatkinson Wrote:  John,

That was an excellent post. You have raised several fascinating points and I wonder if you would be so kind as to post your thoughts on what you believe to be the true story of the assassination? It would be a great book actually, but I would very much enjoy your synopsis on the issues of what you believe to be the truth concerning Booth's plan, his backing in Richmond, Surratt's location on 4/14, and the prior knowledge of CSA informants on the night that Lincoln was killed.

Thanks,
Heath

Heath:

Thank you for your comments. My views of the assassination are, of course, fully developed in my book, but I will be happy to put the same in a few paragraphs, per your request, as soon as I can get the wallpaper up with the only arm I have that is useable and at the same time scratch this terrible itch I have (in the wrong place!). Please give me a little time. Thanks.

John

I have to work on "Surratts trip to Elmira", did, in fact, happen. I have given my opinion in other postings. I need to provide some of the reading that influenced my conclusions. One item was the plan developed by the Confederate Commissioners in Canada, to create a "New Army", using the prisoners available in Elmira. I am embarrassed, that I can not remember where I read a detailed description of this plan. I think it was in the Benjamin account of the St Albans raid and the trial, which, unfortunately, I do not own. Please accept what I say, until I can provide the cites.

This is complicated. The plan, created in Canada, was to organize a "New Army" to enter the U.S. from Canada and fight its way south to join up with an existing Command. The big need for the prisoners developed when the "thousands" of Copperheads failed to show up ready to fight. Such an Army would draw thousands of troops away from in front of Gen. R. E. Lee. The New Army would be led by B. Gen. E. G. Lee. I feel safe in saying this, based on the orders received by E. G. Lee when he was relieved of command of the "Valley District Reserves Forces". Lee wrote on the back of the orders "Furlough and Med. Certif. given to avert suspicion of my real business in Canada". Why else would the South send a Brig. Gen. to head up a unit that was currently in disfavor with the host Country? We have been led to believe that Lee was to replace Thompson. I seriously doubt that. Thompson did not leave immediately, in fact they worked together until the war ended. Thompson did not turn over the millions of dollars he held, to Lee. (Thompson eventually sent the money to England, to be placed in the personal account of Judah Benjamin, - as directed by Benjamin.)

This all occurred too late in the effort to extend the war. While the Commissioners were working to create this "New Army", the armies in the South were surrendering en masse. Thompson brought his wife to Canada and they left quietly and "toured the Continent" for several years. Lee stayed on and told us of his activities during the summer months, in his diary.

In summary: E. G. Lee was sent to raise an Army - the promised troops failed to show - Lee went for the experienced troops in prison- Surratt investigated that possibility. (I've never heard of any report of his findings). The war ended before any more could be done .

We can not dispute, L. C. Baker's writings, in "The History of the Secret Service", that Surratt was reported by his detectives, to have been observed traveling from Elmira to Montreal, in the correct time frame. Would he have lied? I haven't.

P.S. Have you ever seen my story about "The Little Man" traveling with Surratt?

---

Let's look at the possibility that Surratt did travel from Elmira to Washington, and be there for the Assassination.

IMO, the prosecution looked at the published Time Schedule, and proved that he could have made the trip. Since they were prepared to argue this point, they must have believed - he was in Elmira.

No one proved that he was on any of the various trains - none went straight through. I have never read that these trains were noted for their punctuality, my information leans to the contrary. If one train was late - that's OK, because the connecting train was late also. The only problem here, is he would have been late for the assassination, and that was on time.

(07-31-2013 10:30 PM)SSlater Wrote:  Let's look at the possibility that Surratt did travel from Elmira to Washington, and be there for the Assassination.

Hi John. Please accept my aging memory. I think Laurie once said that Mr. Hall and Mr. Brennan had studied the train schedules and determined it was impossible. Thus, they concluded John Surratt was indeed in Elmira as he said he was. Hopefully, Laurie will see this and respond. Also, do you think government operatives might have removed the ledger pages from the Brainard House in an attempt to disprove Surratt's story?

Roger is correct; Mr. Hall did extensive research on train schedules, etc. and determined that it was not possible for Surratt to travel that distance in the length of time he had.

Larry Starkey, Wilkes Booth Came to Washington, 120-27, believed otherwise looking at train schedules, too.

(07-30-2013 02:40 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  Jerry and Laurie: I do not believe Harney, a seasoned veteran of the Torpedo Bureau who had a long record of wreaking havoc on the Union war effort, was to be managed in Washington by a 26-year old actor who knew nothing of politics or military science. Laurie's opinion re other handlers is on the money. Stringfellow, Ficklin and Conrad are good possibilities, but truly, we just do not know. The city was crawling with Confederates. Recall the Confederate agent Johnston, who said he knew within a half hour of his arrival in the city that there was to be an attack that night. Consider, further, all the whistles that were heard in and around Ford's right after the assassination. It is known that whistles were the favored mode of communication by Mosby's officers. Further, I hope to have an opportunity of convincing you that "Booth's kidnapping plan" was an elaborate myth, carefully contrived to conceal the real and more sinister goal of the conspiracy. Booth's conspiracy was the contingency plan in the event of the failure of the Harney mission, not the other way around. Why else would he notify Surratt, after 4-9, the date of Harney's capture, that "our plans have changed" and to return to Washington forthwith. Who or what changed them?

John,
Good thoughts as always.
It seems to me that Harney's control agent would probably have been Stringfellow since he was sent specifically by Davis on a "special mission". However, Stringfellow's cover was blown the week before and he was fleeing northward. Did Davis know this when he sent Harney or not? No one knows. If he didn't maybe that was the message Booth was trying to send to Surratt. Maybe the capture of Harney on the same day of the message was coincidental. Maybe Booth was trying to relay the fact there was no controlling agent and he decided to step in after getting no response from Surratt.

A lot of maybes but there was a lot of confusion at the time.
I'm not aware of Ficklin - can you fill us in?

Bill - did you go over the odometer on the number of posts you've sent or are you trying to keep a low profile?

(08-01-2013 08:54 AM)Wild Bill Wrote:  Larry Starkey, Wilkes Booth Came to Washington, 120-27, believed otherwise looking at train schedules, too.

I've never read this. Can you and others give me some feedback under the book section please?