There was a man in Montreal known as Col. Steele who was one of Sander's gang. Wonder if there is a link there.

(10-10-2013 05:54 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  This is fascinating, Betty! I know the government tried very hard to show John Surratt was in Washington on the 14th. So my first question would be why French Queen was not called as a prosecution witness at Surratt's trial in 1867.

Roger:

Probably because the prosecution (Carrington, Wilson, Pierrepont and Riddle) already had 14 witnesses putting Surratt in Washington on April 14, and 15 witnesses would have given the appearance of overkill. ("Methinks the lady dost protest too much.")

John

---

Friends:

The business about Surratt's whereabouts on April 14 is difficult and complicated. Aware that even such lights as Jampoler, Steers and Kauffman accept his claim, supported by the testimony of five witnesses from Elmira (though there was some uncertainty in the testimony of all but one), that he was there rather than in Washington, there are still at least seven good reasons for believing he was in Washington, namely:

1. Fourteen prosecution witnesses put him there. Did they all lie? Did the prosecutors knowingly use perjured testimony?
2. Mrs. Surratt told Smoot to come back to the boarding house on Friday when he "would most likely see John and the boys."
3. B. F. Queen said he saw Surratt with Herold at about 4:30 pm on horseback, as has already been mentioned above in this post.
4. Weichmann believed the letter from John that was postmarked April 12, Montreal, was a fraud, designed to put him somewhere he wasn't.
5. Atzerodt, in his July 6 confession, said Booth told him a few days before the murder that Surratt was in Washinton and also told him on 4-14 that Surratt was there and that he had just seen him and that he expected him to help in the box. The latter reference squares with Rhodes's testimony in 1867, but I have other reasons for doubting Rhodes.
6. Susan Mahoney Jackson said she overheard, in the boarding house, reference made to Surratt being in the theater the night of the asassination.
7. Surratt's meanderings from April 6 through 20 are a matter of great uncertainty. His three versions (per McMillan, Rockville lecture and Hanson Hiss interview) are radically different from each other as to where he was, what he did, who he was with, when and under what circumstances he learned of the assassination and what he did in response to it. That can only mean that the accounts are full of lies. It is entirely possibile that he had a look-alike establish his alibi in Elmira.

In retrospect, the prosecution would have been better off if they had tried to convict him under the conspiracy laws, rather than waste so much time and energy trying to put him in Washington. By so doing, they were forced to throw away their best witness: Ste. Marie, because in his Affidavit from Italy, he said that Surratt had told him he was in N.Y. on the 14th, "prepared to fly".

John

John F.

Quite a few historians over the years have branded the Hanson Hiss article a fraud, including Clara Laughlin in The Death of Lincoln. Clara was a close friend of John Surratt's daughter and gave credence only to what Surratt had said in his Rockville Lecture. What is your opinion on the veracity of the Hiss article?

(11-01-2013 09:57 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 05:54 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  This is fascinating, Betty! I know the government tried very hard to show John Surratt was in Washington on the 14th. So my first question would be why French Queen was not called as a prosecution witness at Surratt's trial in 1867.

Roger:

Probably because the prosecution (Carrington, Wilson, Pierrepont and Riddle) already had 14 witnesses putting Surratt in Washington on April 14, and 15 witnesses would have given the appearance of overkill. ("Methinks the lady dost protest too much.")

John

---

Friends:

The business about Surratt's whereabouts on April 14 is difficult and complicated. Aware that even such lights as Jampoler, Steers and Kauffman accept his claim, supported by the testimony of five witnesses from Elmira (though there was some uncertainty in the testimony of all but one), that he was there rather than in Washington, there are still at least seven good reasons for believing he was in Washington, namely:

1. Fourteen prosecution witnesses put him there. Did they all lie? Did the prosecutors knowingly use perjured testimony?
2. Mrs. Surratt told Smoot to come back to the boarding house on Friday when he "would most likely see John and the boys."
3. B. F. Queen said he saw Surratt with Herold at about 4:30 pm on horseback, as has already been mentioned above in this post.
4. Weichmann believed the letter from John that was postmarked April 12, Montreal, was a fraud, designed to put him somewhere he wasn't.
5. Atzerodt, in his July 6 confession, said Booth told him a few days before the murder that Surratt was in Washinton and also told him on 4-14 that Surratt was there and that he had just seen him and that he expected him to help in the box. The latter reference squares with Rhodes's testimony in 1867, but I have other reasons for doubting Rhodes.
6. Susan Mahoney Jackson said she overheard, in the boarding house, reference made to Surratt being in the theater the night of the asassination.
7. Surratt's meanderings from April 6 through 20 are a matter of great uncertainty. His three versions (per McMillan, Rockville lecture and Hanson Hiss interview) are radically different from each other as to where he was, what he did, who he was with, when and under what circumstances he learned of the assassination and what he did in response to it. That can only mean that the accounts are full of lies. It is entirely possibile that he had a look-alike establish his alibi in Elmira.

In retrospect, the prosecution would have been better off if they had tried to convict him under the conspiracy laws, rather than waste so much time and energy trying to put him in Washington. By so doing, they were forced to throw away their best witness: Ste. Marie, because in his Affidavit from Italy, he said that Surratt had told him he was in N.Y. on the 14th, "prepared to fly".

John

John,

Thanks for your outline on Surratt.

This is exactly what Bill Richter posits in his 2007 book, "Confederate Freedom Fighter, The Story of John H. Surratt & The plots Against Lincoln."

It is well worth the reading.

Rick

(11-01-2013 11:31 AM)L Verge Wrote:  John F.

Quite a few historians over the years have branded the Hanson Hiss article a fraud, including Clara Laughlin in The Death of Lincoln. Clara was a close friend of John Surratt's daughter and gave credence only to what Surratt had said in his Rockville Lecture. What is your opinion on the veracity of the Hiss article?

Laurie:

I always assumed that the Hanson Hiss interviews are genuine. It seems incredible to me that what was reported at great length in the Washington Post and in the Boston Post was in fact a total fabrication, a figment of Hiss's imagination. Likewise incredible is the supposition that Hiss could engineer such a gigantic fraud successfully, i.e. without someone, somewhere, exposing it as such, as well as the supposition that he would risk such a career-destroying gambit. It is most significant, too, that Surratt never denied the authenticity of Hiss's accounts of the interviews, a point made by Mike Kauffman, who holds for authenticity. I observe that Jampoler hedges a little on the issue, but does not state categorically that he believes the whole thing bogus. As for Laughlin, she is in the same category as DeWitt, i.e. early assassination authors (not to say historians) who argued forcefully for the single conspiracy theory, both in 1909, and who therefore would naturally question anything that suggested there was more to 4-14 than a half-crazed actor and a few grunts. As far as I am concerned, neither author can be relied upon. Indeed, DeWitt even believed Mrs. Surratt to be innocent, a wholly untenable position in my opinion, which says something about his knowledge of the subject and his research methodology. Furthermore, even if all we had were McMillan and Rockville, we still have major inconsistencies between Surratt's accounts of his whereabouts and activities between 4-12 and 4-20. In my judgment, Surratt's chosen calling demanded that he master the art of marketing falsehoods. He did. Everything we know about him attests to it.

John

I have been on the fence about the Hanson Hiss article for many years. I took it for granted as being accurate until two former members of the Surratt Society - both lawyers and members of MENSA - dissected it in an article for the Courier. Have you read the piece by James E.T. Lange and Kathryn DeWitt? One of their chief points is the amount of silly, factual errors that were in the interview, even down to incorrect biographical data (even incorrect age for Surratt) on a man with whom Hiss was supposedly face-to-face. There's a great deal of inconsistent information given in the interview.

They addressed the issue of Surratt never speaking out to refute the article also. None of the Surratt family ever made statements concerning the many troubles they had seen. I have never seen any comment from Isaac Surratt; Mrs. Surratt's own mother outlived her by thirteen years and never went to visit her daughter in prison or commented on her situation; even years later when Hancock was being proposed for high office, Anna agreed to an interview and then became a complete wreck and her husband stepped in. Keeping dirty laundry out of public view was a very strong Victorian trait. Even to this day, the descendants are very low-key. I have been told by great- and great-great grandchildren that we know more about the history of 1865 than they do. It was just not talked about. As for the veracity and ethics of some investigative reporters -- let's not go there... Just because Surratt made no comment about the Hiss article does not make him guilty of what Hiss implied.

I think we also need to remember that John Surratt's lecture series came to a screeching halt after he was pretty much threatened (via tax invasion) by the federal authorities. I would assume that the threat would carry over into giving newspaper interviews that would be "heard round the world."

One last thought re: David Miller DeWitt. I can't stand his writing style and thought I would have a breakdown before I could finish his book. However, in his defense of what you said above, he was writing during all the turmoil and did not have the luxury of Monday-morning quarterbacking the case of Mrs. Surratt that we have today. I would no more judge Mrs. Surratt innocent today than fly, but I might have in 1865.

Sadly, I do not have a copy of what each "witness" saw. But, even if I had them all, I would not bet a cent on - the government witnesses were accurate.
So, I look outside the court proceedings, for any witnesses. For example: E. G. Lee wrote in his diary that he sent Surratt to Elmira. I have no reason to believe he lied. More - L. C. Baker wrote that his detectives followed Surratt from Elmira back to Canada. The Railroad Conductor identified Surratt on the train. ( This is the story of "The Little man", who I believe was Slater) They remained together from March 25 to April 18th (+/-) until they arrived back in Canada and signed-in at the SLH.
None of these people had anything to gain from a lie. (The government's witnesses were all paid.) Did you ever hear the story about the man who was in an accident and called his Lawyer. The Lawyer instructed him to keep his mouth shut and he would have 2 eyewitnesses over there in 5 minutes.
What would Lee, Baker, and The Elmira citizens have to gain from a lie?
Booth and Surratt did not meet with one another - EVER, after the failed abduction attempt. Would they have discussed an assassination, in a telegram?
There is some suspicion that Lee was attempting to form an Army, in Canada, and he wanted the soldiers that were in Elmira prison. So, he had a reason for Surratt to go to Elmira. The trip was not some Boondoggle, to hide Surratt. I'll have to dig out that plan to form an Army and attack down through the mid-west, to meet up with the existing Confederate Columns. I think it was in that "Benjamin" book on the St. Albans Raiders trial. (When I can find time.)

John S.

You and I are on the same page. By April 14, Surratt had distanced himself from Booth and was taking orders from Edwin Lee.

(11-01-2013 03:06 PM)Rick Smith Wrote:  

(11-01-2013 09:57 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 05:54 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  This is fascinating, Betty! I know the government tried very hard to show John Surratt was in Washington on the 14th. So my first question would be why French Queen was not called as a prosecution witness at Surratt's trial in 1867.

Roger:

Probably because the prosecution (Carrington, Wilson, Pierrepont and Riddle) already had 14 witnesses putting Surratt in Washington on April 14, and 15 witnesses would have given the appearance of overkill. ("Methinks the lady dost protest too much.")

John

---

Friends:

The business about Surratt's whereabouts on April 14 is difficult and complicated. Aware that even such lights as Jampoler, Steers and Kauffman accept his claim, supported by the testimony of five witnesses from Elmira (though there was some uncertainty in the testimony of all but one), that he was there rather than in Washington, there are still at least seven good reasons for believing he was in Washington, namely:

1. Fourteen prosecution witnesses put him there. Did they all lie? Did the prosecutors knowingly use perjured testimony?
2. Mrs. Surratt told Smoot to come back to the boarding house on Friday when he "would most likely see John and the boys."
3. B. F. Queen said he saw Surratt with Herold at about 4:30 pm on horseback, as has already been mentioned above in this post.
4. Weichmann believed the letter from John that was postmarked April 12, Montreal, was a fraud, designed to put him somewhere he wasn't.
5. Atzerodt, in his July 6 confession, said Booth told him a few days before the murder that Surratt was in Washinton and also told him on 4-14 that Surratt was there and that he had just seen him and that he expected him to help in the box. The latter reference squares with Rhodes's testimony in 1867, but I have other reasons for doubting Rhodes.
6. Susan Mahoney Jackson said she overheard, in the boarding house, reference made to Surratt being in the theater the night of the asassination.
7. Surratt's meanderings from April 6 through 20 are a matter of great uncertainty. His three versions (per McMillan, Rockville lecture and Hanson Hiss interview) are radically different from each other as to where he was, what he did, who he was with, when and under what circumstances he learned of the assassination and what he did in response to it. That can only mean that the accounts are full of lies. It is entirely possibile that he had a look-alike establish his alibi in Elmira.

In retrospect, the prosecution would have been better off if they had tried to convict him under the conspiracy laws, rather than waste so much time and energy trying to put him in Washington. By so doing, they were forced to throw away their best witness: Ste. Marie, because in his Affidavit from Italy, he said that Surratt had told him he was in N.Y. on the 14th, "prepared to fly".

John

John,

Thanks for your outline on Surratt.

This is exactly what Bill Richter posits in his 2007 book, "Confederate Freedom Fighter, The Story of John H. Surratt & The plots Against Lincoln."

It is well worth the reading.

Rick

Rick:

Thanks for your response.

I have not read this book, but I read two of Bill's other offerings: The Last Confederated Heroes and Sic Semper Tyrannus . I could tell from these books that Bill favors the Surratt-in-Washington theory as opposed to the Elmira theory.

John

Betty O.
As to "French Queen". There was a Benjamin French Queen, Clerk, in D.C. in 1865 at 604 8th East.
In other years he is shown as Benjamin F. Queen, Clerk, - same address. Also living at this address was: Margaret Queen, Wid. of John R., T. (Thomas) Boyd Queen, Salesman, and Andrew Forrest Queen, Clerk. I found that Forrest worked for Stanton in the Ordnance Dept. I didn't find where the others worked.
That enough?

(11-02-2013 07:13 PM)L Verge Wrote:  I have been on the fence about the Hanson Hiss article for many years. I took it for granted as being accurate until two former members of the Surratt Society - both lawyers and members of MENSA - dissected it in an article for the Courier. Have you read the piece by James E.T. Lange and Kathryn DeWitt? One of their chief points is the amount of silly, factual errors that were in the interview, even down to incorrect biographical data (even incorrect age for Surratt) on a man with whom Hiss was supposedly face-to-face. There's a great deal of inconsistent information given in the interview.

They addressed the issue of Surratt never speaking out to refute the article also. None of the Surratt family ever made statements concerning the many troubles they had seen. I have never seen any comment from Isaac Surratt; Mrs. Surratt's own mother outlived her by thirteen years and never went to visit her daughter in prison or commented on her situation; even years later when Hancock was being proposed for high office, Anna agreed to an interview and then became a complete wreck and her husband stepped in. Keeping dirty laundry out of public view was a very strong Victorian trait. Even to this day, the descendants are very low-key. I have been told by great- and great-great grandchildren that we know more about the history of 1865 than they do. It was just not talked about. As for the veracity and ethics of some investigative reporters -- let's not go there... Just because Surratt made no comment about the Hiss article does not make him guilty of what Hiss implied.

I think we also need to remember that John Surratt's lecture series came to a screeching halt after he was pretty much threatened (via tax invasion) by the federal authorities. I would assume that the threat would carry over into giving newspaper interviews that would be "heard round the world."

One last thought re: David Miller DeWitt. I can't stand his writing style and thought I would have a breakdown before I could finish his book. However, in his defense of what you said above, he was writing during all the turmoil and did not have the luxury of Monday-morning quarterbacking the case of Mrs. Surratt that we have today. I would no more judge Mrs. Surratt innocent today than fly, but I might have in 1865.

Laurie:

I have not read the Lange and DeWitt article, but I will say, without having read it, that the kinds of errors to which you (and they) refer are almost always made by newspaper people; they are famous for getting things wrong. Recall that Sherman hated them for that reason. Consider, too, that Hiss, in 1898, did not have the benefit of tape recording the interviews; he had to take it all down in long hand and then transcribe and record it. It is virtually inevitable, with such methodology, that he would get some things wrong, either from Surratt directly and/or in the writing of his comments and/or in the transcription and recording process. It is even possible that the newspapers themselves made errors in printing his material. In my judgment, such errors do not invalidate the interviews nor their content. In their essentials, they must be what Surratt said. Despite your comments re the family, it is simply incredible that Surratt would have allowed Hiss's articles to go unchallenged if they were fraudulent or even if they were not fraudulent but substantially inaccurate. Also incredible is the belief that Hiss could have gotten away with such a fraud or that he would have even risked the possibility of exposure.

As for Surratt's being dissuaded from giving interviews because of his Rockville experience, consider that the latter was in 1870 and the interviews in 1898. Whatever may have motivated him to keep his mouth shut and stay out of print in 1870 surely had no effect 28 years later.

I believe there is a tendency on the part of historians to be too analytical and too quick to reject evidence and tradition. The result is that they frequently throw the baby out with the bathwater. As a good example of this, I would cite the Jesus Myth people, those who believe that Jesus never existed, when the evidence is overwhelming that he did exist.

John

---

(11-03-2013 11:22 AM)L Verge Wrote:  John S.

You and I are on the same page. By April 14, Surratt had distanced himself from Booth and was taking orders from Edwin Lee.

Laurie:

If that is true, why did Surratt stop in New York City on or about April 5 on his way to Montreal, only to find out that he was performing in Boston; why did Booth telegraph him in Montreal, advising him that their plans had changed; why did he promptly, in response to that telegram, leave Montreal for, he said, Elmira; and why did he telegraph Booth from Elmira and inquire as to whether or not Booth had left for Washington? To hold that Surratt had severed his ties with Booth, one has to reject almost entirely the testimony of McMillan, who did not pursue Surratt, but was given unsolicited charge of him on the Peruvian by priests who had been protecting him. One also has to reject virtually all of Ste. Marie's Affidavit. A tall order.

John

---

(10-10-2013 06:59 AM)Jim Garrett Wrote:  Do you think the government might have trying to lead witnesses to say they saw Surratt or someone who looked like Surratt?

Jim:

No. The four prosecutors were men of impeccable reputations. I cannot believe they would knowingly use perjured testimony or suborn perjury.

John

In his book Andy Jampoler says there were major problems with Henri Beaumont de Sainte-Marie's character as a person. Nevertheless, for what it's worth (if anything), here is part of Sainte-Marie's testimony at the John Surratt trial:

*****************************************************

Q. Did the prisoner tell you at this time anything about his disguise? if so what?

A Yes, sir; I asked the prisoner how he got out of Washington; if he
had a hard time in escaping. He told me he had a very hard time.

Q. How did he say he got out from Washington?

A. He told me he left that night.

Q. What night?

A. The night of the assassination, or the next morning, I am not positive.

Q. What was the disguise, if any, he told you he had?

A. He told me he was so disguised that nobody could take him for an American; that he looked like an Englishman; that he had a scarf over his shoulders. He did not mention any other disguise that I remember.

John F.

Lange and DeWitt listed nine specific historical errors contained in the Hanson Hiss article - one so egregious as having Surratt taking orders from a Gen. Wilder. One might possibly assume that that is a typo and should actually read "Winder," however, it refers to Surratt's orders to go to Elmira. At that time, Gen. Winder had been dead for several months.

These two lawyers also have a good answer to your question as to why Surratt did not refute the article. "If the article was a fraud, why didn't Surratt denounce it as such? In order to denounce, you have to speak. Your denunciation will be questioned, and you will be asked to explain what is true and what is false. This is no way to keep silent." I think we can agree that keeping silent - especially nearly thirty years later and after everything the whole Surratt family had gone through was a prudent thing to do.

Have you also consulted the writings of Fr. Alfred Isacsson, whose research on John Surratt went as far as delving into the Vatican Archives? His timeline of Surratt's travels is excellent and also stresses his movements in Elmira from April 13 through April 15 then into Canandaigua, where he registered at the Webster House under the name of John Harrison. On April 17, he read in the papers that he was wanted for the attack on Seward and fled to Canada, where authorities placed him in the care of John Porterfield, a Confederate agent.

---

One more thing pertaining to Ste. Marie: What is the difference between how an Englishman looks and how an American looks? Shawls do not make the difference.

(11-04-2013 12:03 PM)L Verge Wrote:  One more thing pertaining to Ste. Marie: What is the difference between how an Englishman looks and how an American looks? Shawls do not make the difference.

Andy Jampoler describes Sainte Marie as "a blowhard and storyteller. His résumé at the age of 33 was already decorated with so many whorls of fiction and fantasy that it is difficult to trust anything he said."

That has been pretty much the assessment of Ste. Marie from other researchers that I have known. He smelled money, and he was going to get it.

---

"No. The four prosecutors were men of impeccable reputations. I cannot believe they would knowingly use perjured testimony or suborn perjury.

John"

You might want to read Mike Kauffman's assessment of the Surratt trial and the behavior of the prosecutors - and the behind-the-scenes maneuvering of Holt.

I think you once told me that you were a prosecuting attorney, so I can understand your defense of them; but for me, the whole subject of legalities when it comes to any of the circumstances surrounding the 1865 Conspiracy Trial and the subsequent Surratt trial is very shaky. I'm almost finished Tom Bogar's book on the theater personnel affected by the crime, and the discussion of the way each case was handled is enough to make your jaws clench.