This deposit came only a few days after Booth met Dr. Mudd? Could Dr. Mudd have lent (given?) Booth $1500?

I'm not sure that Mudd alone could have supplied that much money to JWB, but I bet that a contingency of Southern Maryland planters united could...

(10-04-2013 08:12 AM)JMadonna Wrote:  Indeed I have so many papers in my possession, which in the hands of the enemy would utterly ruin and destroy many of the prominent men in the North.

Don't know if I am interpreting that correctly, but my initial impression is that it sort of reminded me of the Neff-Baker ciphers.

There were at least eleven members of Congress involved in the plot, no less than twelve Army officers, three Naval officers and at least twenty four civilians, of which one was a governor of a loyal state. Five were bankers of great repute, three were nationally known newspapermen and eleven were industrialists of great repute and wealth.

(10-04-2013 10:11 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Don't know if I am interpreting that correctly, but my initial impression is that it sort of reminded me of the Neff-Baker ciphers.

Roger
You may have a point in that I can't find a source for the letter. I wonder if it came from the Neff-Baker ciphers

I have started following up on information provided in this thread. Since I have not read Dr. Merritt's testimony, I started with that. In CR, Tidwell says on Pg 3. "Dr. James B. Merritt and Charles A. Dunham, aka Sanford Conover, whose testimony was questionable at best and in many ways and in many instances outright perjury."
Pg 329. CR. "...look at the trial testimony of Sanford... Hyams... Dr. James B. Merritt..." Perjury rank perjury...
In The Incredible Plot of Judge Advocate General Joseph Holt" by James W. Thompson. "The stories told by two paid informers of the War Office, Richard Montgomery and Dr. James B. Merritt...their stories had never been given under oath or reduced to writing..."
In addition, I found in AB Pg 466 Note 2, " In reality, Booth was not related to Beall and had not attended U of VA with Beall. ... It is unlikely they ever knew each other at all".
I am trying to avoid questionable quotes in this search, even if they have been used so often that we are accepting them as fact.
I still don't know much about Merritt, but I will study him more. (He was born in Canada, which leads me to believe he hung-out with the Rebs up there. That is "IMO".

(10-05-2013 12:56 AM)SSlater Wrote:  In addition, I found in AB Pg 466 Note 2, " In reality, Booth was not related to Beall and had not attended U of VA with Beall. ... It is unlikely they ever knew each other at all".

Personally I think Mike Kauffman is right, but the stories do exist. One of them says that Booth was actually engaged to Beall's sister, Lily. Louise Littleton Davis writes this in More Tales of Tennessee.

http://books.google.com/books?id=rG5q7kT...22&f=false

Maybe the word "Tales" in the title of the book explains the falsehood of the claim that Booth was engaged to Beall's sister. Many long years ago, one of the early speakers at a Surratt Society meeting was Dr. Richard D. Mudd, and I remember being somewhat amazed that he was giving credence to the stories of Booth's and Beall's friendship. I remember James O. Hall saying later that his research had never turned up any connection. If Hall and Kauffman missed something, I would be very surprised.

I have also been keeping quiet since the name Dr. Merritt was mentioned because I was under the impression that Merritt was one of those who perjured himself in order to substantiate the government's claim that the conspiracy involved Confederate leaders. Conover, Montgomery, and Merritt botched things up so badly that no one knew what to believe. That makes anything emanating from them spurious throughout history. Has anyone checked Hanchett or Turner to see what they think about "the merits of Merritt?"

(10-05-2013 10:18 AM)L Verge Wrote:  I have also been keeping quiet since the name Dr. Merritt was mentioned because I was under the impression that Merritt was one of those who perjured himself in order to substantiate the government's claim that the conspiracy involved Confederate leaders. Conover, Montgomery, and Merritt botched things up so badly that no one knew what to believe. That makes anything emanating from them spurious throughout history. Has anyone checked Hanchett or Turner to see what they think about "the merits of Merritt?"

From the 1892 Book
HISTORY OF THE GREAT CONSPIRACY

TRIAL OF THE CONSPIRATORS BY A
MILITARY COMMISSION

AND A REVIEW OF THE TRIAL OF JOHN H. SURRATT

By T. M. HARRIS
Late Brigadier-General U. S. V. and Major-General by Brevet

A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION

Richard Montgomery succeeded fully in gaining the confidence of these Canada rebels is shown by the fact that they made him a medium of communication between themselves and the Richmond government. His character is further shown by the fact that when they paid him one hundred and fifty dollars for carrying despatches to Richmond he credited the government with it on his expense account. And that he acted faithfully in the discharge of his duties to his government is shown by the fact that he always submitted the despatches sent by him to the authorities at Washington, where copies of them were kept when they were allowed to pass. This is sufficient evidence that he was in a position to learn the facts to which he testified, and also presumptive evidence of the credibility of his statements. The force of his evidence could only have been broken by undoubted proof that he was a man that could not be believed under oath.

Dr. James B. Merritt was a native of Canada by accident, having been born there whilst his parents were there on a visit, but had been all his life a citizen of the State of New York. He went to Canada in the spring of 1864, and practiced his profession at Windsor and Dumfries. He passed amongst the rebels in Canada as a sympathizer of the Southern cause, and was accepted by them as a good rebel, and was fully taken into their confidences. They talked freely to him, and revealed their plans to him without hesitation or reserve. His testimony, as we have seen, is very specific, and relates to facts of the greatest importance. He testified that his sympathies had always been with his government, and that his object in dissembling in his intercourse with the Canada rebels was to be able to impart information to the United States government when he deemed it of sufficient importance to justify or require its communication.

That he did thus voluntarily, and without compensation, furnish valuable information to the government was shown. He had thus communicated to the Provost Marshal at Detroit the plot to burn New York City. It was also shown that he had made an effort to communicate the knowledge he had obtained, after the meeting of the 6th of April, at which John H. Surratt delivered to Thompson the despatches he had brought from Richmond, as to the parties starting from Canada to Washington to assist in the work of assassination. There was sufficient evidence of his loyalty and usefulness to the government, and his credibility was not assailed. He was a self-constituted secret service man, working without compensation, and so entitled to all the more honor.

- Apparently the commission still believed these men some 35 years afterward. Sanders definitely led a smear campaign but Harris was closer to the evidence than the newspapers. Who you gonna believe? and Why? ..... Would probably make a good book.

Just remember that T.M. Harris is the same Commission member who later wrote that the Catholics were behind the assassination...

If we discarded everyone who in 1860 that would be considered prejudiced in 2013 we'd have no recorded history whatsoever. However, I'd be interested in knowing if he said that before or after his 1892 book.

(10-05-2013 08:39 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Just remember that T.M. Harris is the same Commission member who later wrote that the Catholics were behind the assassination...

Harris was sure convinced Mary Surratt was guilty. Harris writes, "On the trial of John H. Surratt, John F. Tibbetts testified that in 1863 he was carrying the mail from Washington to Charlotte Hall, and that he stopped at Surrattsville to deliver the mail at that office. On one occasion, whilst waiting for the mail there, he heard Mrs. Surratt say that she would give one thousand dollars to any one that would kill Lincoln. He also testified that when there was a Union victory he heard her son say in her presence that, "The d — d Northern army and the leader thereof ought to be sent to hell."

I know we have debated this is in the past - some of us feel Mary just knew about the kidnapping and not the murder - others feel she did know about Booth's plan for assassination. If Tibbetts is telling the truth, then I think I lean toward believing Booth told her exactly what was going to happen on April 14th.

Some of you may have read a copy of a speech I did years ago on whether or not I thought Mrs. Surratt was guilty. One of my opening sentences referred again to a family story. I was told by my grandmother (who was backed up by my uncle who heard it from my great-grandmother Huntt) that Mrs. Surratt would come to T.B. for services at the blacksmith shop once the shop at Surrattsville ceased to function. Mr. Huntt knew Mrs. Surratt and said that she was not the proper Victorian lady that her defenders portrayed her as.

His comments almost mirrored that of the above John Tibbetts. He said that she joined in gentlemen's conversations and cursed and damned the "black-hearted Lincoln," even to the point of wishing that someone would shoot him. She also offered a thousand dollars to anyone who would get him. This offer from a woman whose dead husband had left her with $3500 of unpaid bills. Did she know of a source for the money?

You also told me of a woman who (I believe) owned a boardinghouse in Washington close to Mary's who stated she and Mary both would have shot Lincoln if his carriage passed their homes. Who was that Laurie?

I believe that came from an ancestor of Louise Oertly, a longtime docent at Surratt House and current president of the Surratt Society. That lady also stated that she had seen Booth and John Surratt behind the boardinghouse shooting at targets.

Ironically, on the other side of Louise's family, she is related to Abraham Lincoln!

Supposedly Philip Whitlock (who was a native Richmonder with the Richmond Grays) was also shooting out back with them. Whitlock later became a successful tobacco magnate. His granddaughter was a great friend of my grandmother. My mother fondly remembers the Whitlock family who were visitors to their home when she was a girl.

Whitlock's experiences with the Surratts, however, dates before Booth enters their life. He was visiting Surrattsville at the time after sneaking across the lines to buy needed items in D.C. to take back to the Confederacy to sell.