(08-04-2013 09:00 PM)SSlater Wrote:  

(08-04-2013 07:30 AM)HerbS Wrote:  John,How do you want me to take that Churchill comment? There is no doubt that many people know more than I do.

You didn't give the Churchill Comment. My reply was an effort to make light of the comment. Do you believe that "you, SSlater, and others" are difficult to talk to?
I hoped for a laugh. It shows what a poor writer I am.

SSlater:

You are certainly not a poor writer. I DID think your comments were funny; I just haven't had a chance to respond. I have not found it difficult to respond to contributors, but I do sense that others know more than I do sometimes. For example, I did not know that Surratt put off travel until Monday because the trains didn't run on Sundays. But maybe it's a moot point anyway, because I have serious doubts about Surratt's being where he said he was. His three versions of his doings between 4-9 and 4-18 (McMillan; Rockville lecture and Hanson Hiss interview) all tell radically different stories. I think there is a very good possibility that he stopped in Elmira only to set up his alibi with friends he had made there on a previous trip (and to whom he had given a lot of "Uncle Sam's gold"), and then went on to Washington, pursuant to Booth's instruction in the "letter" he received from Booth in the beginning of the week (4-9 0r 4-10). Asked by McMillan what his response to the letter was, he said that he left for Washington immediately. Why then would he not only STOP in Elmira, but stay there? What happened to Washington? I even hold open the possibility that he used a look-alike to set up his alibi in Elmira. His identification by the 5 witnesses who put him there was very tenuous.

John

---

(08-02-2013 04:51 PM)Rhatkinson Wrote:  Thanks, John. Great post. I have always felt that Spangler was the forgotten victim of the assassination. I agree completely with you that he was innocent.

While I agree with you that Herrold was not with Powell at Seward's, why do you think Atzerodt wasn't with Herrold when he crossed the bridge if they were together at the Kirkwood? Why do you believe that the attack on Johnson was unsuccessful? He was clearly in his room. No means to escape?

If Surratt was in DC, what do you think his role was? I assume you don't believe that he backed out of the plot once it turned to assassination if you believe the kidnapping plot was a ruse? If it was a ruse, what do you make of Davey being in TB and being informed by Surratt and Atzerodt of the failure in March? Why would he be there if there was no plot?

What are your thoughts on when Mudd knew Booth had killed Lincoln? I am decidedly in the Dr. Steers camp regarding Mudd; however, Cox, Jr. and others believed that Mudd did not know of the killing until he went to Bryantown. I have always wondered why Booth and Herold would brag about killing Lincoln to a relative stranger like Lloyd, but then keep mum about it to an associate like Mudd. Perhaps the reaction they got from Lloyd made them realize it was best to keep quiet? It has never added up to me.

Who do you believe was Capt. Wood's source that Booth broke his leg at Ford's. I have always guessed it to be Swann, who later recanted due to the danger it caused him to speak up against Cox. It was bad enough that Cox let Booth inside his home, but if Cox knew that Booth broke his leg at Ford's, it would mean that he knew Booth was the assassin when he helped him (which I'm sure was true, but would have sent Cox to the gallows in all probability.)

Heath

Heath:

I believe the evidence we have indicates that Atzerodt was asked by Booth to be at the bridge, but that Booth had little faith that he would comply, consistent with his little faith that Atzerodt would accomplish anything, so little was he regarded by Booth. Furthermore, he knew that as long as Herold met him, he could get along without Atzerodt's navigational skills. Sure enough, at some point Atzerodt, quaking in his boots as soon as he heard about the assassination, decided there was more safety for him on a relative's farm near Baltimore than there was in following Booth and Herold, whom he knew would berate him for his failure re Johnson. That Atzerodt was originally supposed to be with Booth and Herold is confirmed by Smoot in his little 1908 pamphlet, who said Confederate agents were waiting for the three of them. Powell was going to Baltimore.

We don't really know why the attack on Johnson was unsuccessful, but based on the evidence, good possibilities are that he was asleep and did not respond to knocking, as Farwell found out when he went there after the assassination. Also, security in the area may have thwarted the attempt. Herold's inability to access the weapons in Atzerodt's room was another factor. Remember that they had to kill him with a knife, because the report of a firearm would have prevented their escape. I do believe that Atzerodt went there to have a go at it if conditions were favorable, and they weren't. Why else would he stick his head in the lion's mouth at killing time? He did not sit in a bar trying to boost his courage, per the conventional wisdom. He had just had a drink with Fletcher at the Union and would very soon have another at the Pennsylvania. Whatever thwarted Atzerodt, re Johnson, also thwarted Herold, whom Booth had assigned when Atzerodt faltered, assigning Azerodt only as a back-up for Herold.

Surratt could have done any number of things in Washington. It may have been he on Grant's train. He didn't back out of anything. He and Booth were the leaders of the plot, which h e admitted to Ste. Marie. Why did he stop in New York to see Booth on his way to Montreal on 4-5? Why did Booth contact him on 4-9 or 4-10 in Montreal, advising him that their plans had changed and to get back to Washington immediately?

Herold deposited guns, tools, etc., at the tavern (Atzerodt and Surratt joined him) for future use. Such use was not necessarily tied to kidnapping and, ultimately, had nothing to do with kidnapping.

I believe Mudd knew all along what Booth was really up to. He was not a grunt. He was one of the mail line, always in touch with Richmond and with others who were in touch with Richmond. We fool ourselves if we believe that Secret Service people, North and South, made fine distinctions between killing and not killing. After Wistar-Dahlgren-Kilpatrick, the gloves were off. Booth and Mudd played their charade for Frankie's sake.

It was only Booth, the egotist, who told Lloyd whom he felt "we" had killed. Herold said nothing about it until he was talking to the three Confederate soldiers at Port Conway.

I don't know who told Wood about Booth's broken leg, but recall that there were about 1,700 people in the theater and that a lot of them recorded that Booth had broken a leg ("limped", "bull frog", etc.) I believe he broke it when he fell to the stage. The horse business was a cover story. The evidence is strong. He knew a lot of people had witnessed it, which is why he would not lie in his diary, which would have destroyed his credibility.

Cox and most of the mail line knew what was coming. The only reason they were not prosecuted was that the War Department, the prosecutors and the country were exhausted by the conspirators' trial and had no wish to repeat it with new defendants. Nor did they want to confront the jurisdictional issue again.

John

To me the most interesting aspect of the "John Surratt whereabouts" argument is that both opinions have solid supporting evidence. Was he in Elmira or Washington? I do not know. I think one of the better arguments he was in Washington is the fact that Atzerodt's July 6 statement seems to correspond with the testimony of Sergeant Joseph Dye. At the John Surratt trial Dye testified he saw Booth with two men in front of Ford's shortly before the assassination. Was Surratt one of these men? Dye said yes.

By Mr. Pierrepont:

Q. Did you see that man distinctly?
A. I did.

Q. Very distinctly?
A. I did very distinctly.

Q. Do you see him now?
A. I do.

Q. Can you tell us where he is?
A. I can.

Q. Tell us where he is.
A. He sits there, (pointing to the prisoner.)

Q. Is that the man?
A. It is. I have seen his face often since, while I have been sleeping —it was so exceedingly pale. He hurried up towards H street again, and that is the last I have seen of him until lately.

Q. You say he was the prisoner at the bar?
A. Yes, sir, and I say that I have seen him since, while I have been sleeping.

Q. Did it make a very strong impression from what occurred at the time?
A. It did, sir.

Q. What did Booth do then?
A. He walked directly into the theatre.


Was Dye mistaken? I do not know. I do know additional testimony was brought in at the trial which indicated that the group in front of the theater included neither Booth or Surratt.

There are two items that have not been discussed in this back-and-forth about where Surratt was on April 14, and both of these continue to be spurious in the minds of many researchers: What are your opinions on the so-called "Pilgrim Interview" which appeared in The Times of Baltimore in 1885, and also of the Hanson Hiss article published in the April 3, 1898, Washington Post?

(08-05-2013 01:53 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  To me the most interesting aspect of the "John Surratt whereabouts" argument is that both opinions have solid supporting evidence. Was he in Elmira or Washington? I do not know. I think one of the better arguments he was in Washington is the fact that Atzerodt's July 6 statement seems to correspond with the testimony of Sergeant Joseph Dye. At the John Surratt trial Dye testified he saw Booth with two men in front of Ford's shortly before the assassination. Was Surratt one of these men? Dye said yes.

By Mr. Pierrepont:

Q. Did you see that man distinctly?
A. I did.

Q. Very distinctly?
A. I did very distinctly.

Q. Do you see him now?
A. I do.

Q. Can you tell us where he is?
A. I can.

Q. Tell us where he is.
A. He sits there, (pointing to the prisoner.)

Q. Is that the man?
A. It is. I have seen his face often since, while I have been sleeping —it was so exceedingly pale. He hurried up towards H street again, and that is the last I have seen of him until lately.

Q. You say he was the prisoner at the bar?
A. Yes, sir, and I say that I have seen him since, while I have been sleeping.

Q. Did it make a very strong impression from what occurred at the time?
A. It did, sir.

Q. What did Booth do then?
A. He walked directly into the theatre.


Was Dye mistaken? I do not know. I do know additional testimony was brought in at the trial which indicated that the group in front of the theater included neither Booth or Surratt.

OK, that was some of the testimony before the Jury. Check this out:
Alfred Isacsson, tells us in his writings "The Travels, Arrest and Trial of John Surratt" by using a quote from the Philadelphia Press, "The Jury voted 8 to 4 for acquittal, because the JURY WAS NOT CONVINCED THAT JOHN SURRATT WAS IN WASHINGTON AT THE TIME OF THE ASSASSINATION.". That Jury SAW and HEARD all the testimony, and rejected the claim that Surratt was in Washington and participated in the assassination. That rejection - alone- freed Surratt.

Good point. Andy Jampoler makes the same argument in The Last Lincoln Conspirator; I believe he feels the jury was more impressed with the credibility of the defense witnesses. Before I retired I was on a jury back in Illinois. We heard eyewitness testimony that was totally conflicting with other eyewitness testimony. But some eyewitnesses were more believable and persuasive than others. Apparently the jury didn't find Dye and the other prosecution witnesses (such as the barber) credible.

(08-05-2013 10:22 PM)SSlater Wrote:  

(08-05-2013 01:53 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  To me the most interesting aspect of the "John Surratt whereabouts" argument is that both opinions have solid supporting evidence. Was he in Elmira or Washington? I do not know. I think one of the better arguments he was in Washington is the fact that Atzerodt's July 6 statement seems to correspond with the testimony of Sergeant Joseph Dye. At the John Surratt trial Dye testified he saw Booth with two men in front of Ford's shortly before the assassination. Was Surratt one of these men? Dye said yes.

By Mr. Pierrepont:

Q. Did you see that man distinctly?
A. I did.

Q. Very distinctly?
A. I did very distinctly.

Q. Do you see him now?
A. I do.

Q. Can you tell us where he is?
A. I can.

Q. Tell us where he is.
A. He sits there, (pointing to the prisoner.)

Q. Is that the man?
A. It is. I have seen his face often since, while I have been sleeping —it was so exceedingly pale. He hurried up towards H street again, and that is the last I have seen of him until lately.

Q. You say he was the prisoner at the bar?
A. Yes, sir, and I say that I have seen him since, while I have been sleeping.

Q. Did it make a very strong impression from what occurred at the time?
A. It did, sir.

Q. What did Booth do then?
A. He walked directly into the theatre.


Was Dye mistaken? I do not know. I do know additional testimony was brought in at the trial which indicated that the group in front of the theater included neither Booth or Surratt.

OK, that was some of the testimony before the Jury. Check this out:
Alfred Isacsson, tells us in his writings "The Travels, Arrest and Trial of John Surratt" by using a quote from the Philadelphia Press, "The Jury voted 8 to 4 for acquittal, because the JURY WAS NOT CONVINCED THAT JOHN SURRATT WAS IN WASHINGTON AT THE TIME OF THE ASSASSINATION.". That Jury SAW and HEARD all the testimony, and rejected the claim that Surratt was in Washington and participated in the assassination. That rejection - alone- freed Surratt.

SSlater:

Yes, but remember that there was a strong regional bias in the jury's verdict. The four who voted for conviction were all Northerners. Seven of the eight who voted for acquittal came from Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia. Only one was a Northerner, and he was from New York. His vote was attributed to "New York City's close commercial ties with the cotton-growing South...and the influence of anti-war, anti-abolition Copperheads in the city..." In my judgment, the prosecution made a tactical error in trying so hard to prove that Surratt was in Washington on 4-14. They should, instead, have tried to convict him under the conspiracy laws by showing that he was a part of Booth's conspiracy, whatever its goal was, which should not have been that hard to do. Had they done that, they would have been able to introduce Ste. Marie's Italian Affidavit, wherein Surratt admitted his complicity in the conspiracy to kill Lincoln. But because the Affidavit said that Surratt had told Ste. Marie that he was "in New York prepared to fly when the deed was done", the prosecution could not introduce it. They sacrificed the best evidence they had because in their judgment the price of introducing it was too high. But it is a price they would not have had to pay if they had not put all their eggs in the Surratt-in-Washington-on-April 14 basket.

John

---

(08-05-2013 02:18 PM)L Verge Wrote:  There are two items that have not been discussed in this back-and-forth about where Surratt was on April 14, and both of these continue to be spurious in the minds of many researchers: What are your opinions on the so-called "Pilgrim Interview" which appeared in The Times of Baltimore in 1885, and also of the Hanson Hiss article published in the April 3, 1898, Washington Post?

Laurie:

I did mention the Hanson Hiss interview. As for its veracity, please consider the response of Weichmann and Police Superintendent A. C. Richards in "Pursued By His Foes", which appeared first in the April 18, 1898, Washington Post, but which is also reprinted on pp. 452-454 of Weichmann's True History.

As for the "Pilgrim Interview", I am not familiar with it. Can you please familiarize me with it? If you have a copy, can you send it without inconvenience or expense to yourself? If not, I will try to obtain it. I see that it is in the Special Collections of Georgetown University, from where I recently obtained letters relating to the bridge crossing. That place is a goldmine of information.

John

Could anyone post the Ste. Marie affidavit? I don't believe that I have ever read it.

There is a lot of correspondence with reference to Sainte Marie here.

John,

If you have the first volume of our three-volume set of past articles from the Surratt Courier, the Pilgrim article is in it, starting on pg. 53. There is a footnote stating that (in 1981), the microfilm containing the interview was obtained from the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission in Harrisburg, PA, and was the only source known to exist.

Let me know if you need us to supply a copy. It's about ten pages at 15-cents/page for members + $1 postage.

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

(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,

If memory serves, Dr. Mudd was spared the gallows by only one vote, so it wasn't as if he was deemed innocent. Much of the involvement we now know that Mudd had was, at great expense in legal fees spent by Mudd's family, concealed from the commission. The only person who, I believe, got shafted was Spangler. His is truly a sad story. The rest deserved what they got in my view.

Heath

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

(08-06-2013 07:53 AM)Rhatkinson Wrote:  Could anyone post the Ste. Marie affidavit? I don't believe that I have ever read it.

Please post a snail mail address and I will send you a hard copy. I don't know how to get it on the computer and it is too long to compose in full.

John

(08-06-2013 07:53 AM)Rhatkinson Wrote:  Could anyone post the Ste. Marie affidavit? I don't believe that I have ever read it.

It is on line here.
http://books.google.com/books?id=OKmNQrT...ie&f=false

Joe

Many thanks, Joe!

Wow, Surratt has some interesting things to say about Weichmann!! Offhand, I don't recall the charge of Weichmann stealing dispatches was in Surratt's lecture. That was new to me. I could be wrong - I am going to re-read the lecture.

I stand corrected. In the lecture Surratt says Weichmann "had furnished information for the Confederate government, besides allowing me access to the government records after office hours."