I'm curious. If Surratt was in Washington on the 14th, what was his role in the assassination?

If upon learning Grant was leaving on the afternoon train to New Jersey, is it possible Booth had Surratt follow Grant onto that train for an attempted assassination? Then upon failing his mission he abandons the conspiracy and makes his escape to Canada. That might explain why he was not at the Herndon House meeting and was not significantly involved with the activities that night.

I would think that if Surratt was in Washington Booth would have given him a prominent role in the conspiracy--probably one more prominent than Azterodt's assignment.

Some historians have speculated that Surratt was sent to take out Grant at some point along the general's route, but Booth did not learn of the Grants' departure until he saw them en route to the train station. He would have to have been in very quick contact with Surratt in order for him to get to the station, purchase tickets, and hop on board. I have wondered how thoroughly Grant's train was searched once he received word that the president had been shot. He had to be traveling with guards who would have acted quickly to protect the general.

There is still the evidence of the hotel registries, receipts from Elmira, and eyewitness accounts as well as railroad schedules and, if I remember correctly, reports of flooding along one of the rail lines that created scheduling problems. With everything happening so quickly after the fall of Richmond and Lee's surrender, I just don't see Surratt hanging around D.C. to see what Booth was going to attempt next.

(11-04-2013 05:08 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  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.

Roger:

It is one thing to say that Ste. Marie was unreliable and quite another to say that because he was such, and because he had his eye on money, his entire Affidavit is false. That is too much to swallow, especially because Surratt excoriated him in the Hiss interview, holding him responsible for his capture and imprisonment ("Through the contemptible treachery of a friend--so called -- a Canadian. I had shared my bread and butter, my blanket, and even my shirts with the man...") Note that he did not say that Ste. Marie's Affidavit was a pack of lies, but, instead, accused him of treachery. That means, not that he lied, but that he exposed the truth! That does not mean he told the whole truth and nothing but the truth (e.g. he gave two different versions of what Surratt told him re his location on 4-14), but nor does it mean that nothing he said was true. Again, the baby and the bathwater.

John

I agree, John. As I have said before, I do not know where John Surratt was on April 14. All I have said is that many books say he was in Elmira and simply dismiss the Washington evidence. Personally I think there is sufficient Washington evidence to take a good look at it. Obviously the trail of evidence leads either to Elmira or to Washington - I think we should look at both trails. What I wonder about is the prosecution's strategy at the trial. They spent a good deal of time and effort trying to prove to the jury Surratt was in Washington. Let's pretend they were successful. Would it have mattered? If Surratt were in Washington that night but committed no crime that was provable would that have made a huge difference in the way the jury voted? Certainly it would have in the 1865 trial; but would the same be true in 1867 with a civilian court? I guess what I am asking is did the prosecution really advance its case by spending so much time on Surratt's whereabouts on the 14th?

(11-05-2013 05:15 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  I agree, John. As I have said before, I do not know where John Surratt was on April 14. All I have said is that many books say he was in Elmira and simply dismiss the Washington evidence. Personally I think there is sufficient Washington evidence to take a good look at it. Obviously the trail of evidence leads either to Elmira or to Washington - I think we should look at both trails. What I wonder about is the prosecution's strategy at the trial. They spent a good deal of time and effort trying to prove to the jury Surratt was in Washington. Let's pretend they were successful. Would it have mattered? If Surratt were in Washington that night but committed no crime that was provable would that have made a huge difference in the way the jury voted? Certainly it would have in the 1865 trial; but would the same be true in 1867 with a civilian court? I guess what I am asking is did the prosecution really advance its case by spending so much time on Surratt's whereabouts on the 14th?

Roger:

Agreed all around. I don't know where he was either. Nobody does, with certainty. There are persuasive arguments both ways. I lean to Washington, but many others, who are fine thinkers and researchers (e.g. Laurie, Jampoler, Kauffman), lean to Elmira. You ask an excellent question, as to whether or not it would have mattered if the prosecution had successfully put him in Washington. From this distance, I would say "no", because of the composition of the jury (8 Southerners, 4 Northerners) and the requirement of unanimity for conviction, but at that time and place, Pierrepont, Carrington and their co-counsel obviously felt it would have, so that is the route they took. The bottom line is that he got away with murder, I am convinced, because I am convinced that he was not only a conspirator, but that he was its co-leader with the half-mad , hyperactive and dreadfully immature actor. That role is reflected in Ste. Marie's Affidavit, quoting him as saying "We have killed Lincoln, the n.....s friend."

John

---

(11-04-2013 06:32 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Some historians have speculated that Surratt was sent to take out Grant at some point along the general's route, but Booth did not learn of the Grants' departure until he saw them en route to the train station. He would have to have been in very quick contact with Surratt in order for him to get to the station, purchase tickets, and hop on board. I have wondered how thoroughly Grant's train was searched once he received word that the president had been shot. He had to be traveling with guards who would have acted quickly to protect the general.

There is still the evidence of the hotel registries, receipts from Elmira, and eyewitness accounts as well as railroad schedules and, if I remember correctly, reports of flooding along one of the rail lines that created scheduling problems. With everything happening so quickly after the fall of Richmond and Lee's surrender, I just don't see Surratt hanging around D.C. to see what Booth was going to attempt next.

Laurie:

I agree that the hotel registries (including the one that mysteriously disappeared), the receipts and the five witnesses present a major problem for the Surratt-in-Washington people, but I am still troubled by your last line, because it suggests that Booth and Surratt were not acting in concert, whereas, in my judgment, virtually all the evidence we have shows that they were, from the moment they met. Recall the boardinghouse meetings, Booth's close relationship with Surratt's mother, the Jack Cade affair, the Gautier's meeting, the Campbell Hospital episode, Surratt's closeness to Dr. Mudd, who in turn was close to Booth, and Surratt's presence at the St. Lawrence Hall (Powell's and Herold's too). Further, Surratt's activities as a courier for Benjamin must have been related to Booth's conspiracy. Did Surratt and Booth not go to New York after the Campbell Hospital "failure"? Did Surratt not stop in New York to see Booth on his way to Montreal? Did Booth not contact him when he was in Montreal? Did Surratt not telegraph Booth from Elmira? These were not separate and loose cannons; they were two barrels of the same shotgun.

John

One aspect of the Surratt location puzzle that I have never been able to wrap my mind around is not necessarily where he was at (I agree with Roger and John that there are very compelling arguments as to both DC and Elmira [aside: I deposed two people last week who live in Elmira and were down here in SC for vacation and I brought up my interest in the assassination and Elmira's connection to it. They just looked at me like I was a martian (the same look my wife gives me when I "bore" her with history information!) haha.]

Anyway, the issue I can't decide is whether Surratt was even still involved in the plot on April 14th. That may sound silly, but consider:

1. Booth makes no mention of Surratt in his "men who love their country more than their own lives" letter or in his diary (which I realize doesn't mention anyone else other than Herold.) If Surratt had stood up Booth or left the plot suddenly, Booth is not the type who would have made no mention of that. He would have been very angry it seems and done something to make sure that Surratt was implicated (e.g., the letter from Arnold he left in his hotel room.)

2. Azterodt's several confessions make no mention of Surratt having any active part of the assassinations. If Surratt were in D.C., why would he NOT be used in the plan? He was certainly more trustworthy than Atzerodt and would have been a better person to send to kill Johnson.

3. None of the meetings of the conspirators recounted by Powell and/or Atzerodt mention Surratt being among the group.

I think Surratt was initially included in the wanted posters simply because it became known that Booth was often seen at the Surratt boarding house and with Surratt, who was suspected (rightly) of being a CSA spy. It was just assumed that Surratt was involved as either Seward's attacker or some other role in the plot. This is not to say that Surratt was innocent, as he clearly was involved with the kidnapping plot. Rather, I see no evidence that he was involved with the assassination, and based on the (non) reaction of Booth and the statements of Powell and Atzerodt. This leads me to think that Surratt was not only out of town on April 14th, but that he was no EXPECTED (by Booth) to assist with the assassination, either because he was sent away on CSA business or (less probably due to Booth's anger issues) decided to part ways with Booth.

I would love to hear the thoughts of those of you on here who are much more versed in this than I am.

Heath

(11-06-2013 06:43 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  The bottom line is that he got away with murder, I am convinced, because I am convinced that he was not only a conspirator, but that he was its co-leader with the half-mad , hyperactive and dreadfully immature actor. That role is reflected in Ste. Marie's Affidavit, quoting him as saying "We have killed Lincoln, the n.....s friend."

John

C'mon on John, don't hold back, what do you really think?

It has been a while since I read the book, but what does Laurie's second favorite trial witness, Louis Weichmann have to say about this? As I recall he he believed Johnny Surratt was guilty, and it seems as much as he didn't want to, he believed Mary was guilty also. I do remember feeling a bit sorry for Weichmann, after I read his book.

On the other hand, there are some interesting articles about Louis in the Surratt Courier from Oct 1991. See the thread Louis Weichmann under Assassination. His life story would make interesting reading.

(11-06-2013 08:53 AM)Rhatkinson Wrote:  One aspect of the Surratt location puzzle that I have never been able to wrap my mind around is not necessarily where he was at (I agree with Roger and John that there are very compelling arguments as to both DC and Elmira [aside: I deposed two people last week who live in Elmira and were down here in SC for vacation and I brought up my interest in the assassination and Elmira's connection to it. They just looked at me like I was a martian (the same look my wife gives me when I "bore" her with history information!) haha.]

Anyway, the issue I can't decide is whether Surratt was even still involved in the plot on April 14th. That may sound silly, but consider:

1. Booth makes no mention of Surratt in his "men who love their country more than their own lives" letter or in his diary (which I realize doesn't mention anyone else other than Herold.) If Surratt had stood up Booth or left the plot suddenly, Booth is not the type who would have made no mention of that. He would have been very angry it seems and done something to make sure that Surratt was implicated (e.g., the letter from Arnold he left in his hotel room.)

2. Azterodt's several confessions make no mention of Surratt having any active part of the assassinations. If Surratt were in D.C., why would he NOT be used in the plan? He was certainly more trustworthy than Atzerodt and would have been a better person to send to kill Johnson.

3. None of the meetings of the conspirators recounted by Powell and/or Atzerodt mention Surratt being among the group.

I think Surratt was initially included in the wanted posters simply because it became known that Booth was often seen at the Surratt boarding house and with Surratt, who was suspected (rightly) of being a CSA spy. It was just assumed that Surratt was involved as either Seward's attacker or some other role in the plot. This is not to say that Surratt was innocent, as he clearly was involved with the kidnapping plot. Rather, I see no evidence that he was involved with the assassination, and based on the (non) reaction of Booth and the statements of Powell and Atzerodt. This leads me to think that Surratt was not only out of town on April 14th, but that he was no EXPECTED (by Booth) to assist with the assassination, either because he was sent away on CSA business or (less probably due to Booth's anger issues) decided to part ways with Booth.

I would love to hear the thoughts of those of you on here who are much more versed in this than I am.

Heath

Heath:

A few comments:

1. The response of the Martians in Elmira does not surprise me. Most people are too caught up with the business of making a living, massaging their egos, and surviving, to think about history.
It is unfortunate, but then what do I know about the Dixie Chicks, Jennifer Aniston, Shreck or Harry Potter?

2. I believe I said in another post that Surratt was not to leave Washington as the others were. He had a family there and may still have been of some value to the Confederacy. Booth, Atzerodt and Herold were bound for Virginia and a ship; Powell for Baltimore. Their identities could therefore be revealed in the Mathew's letter; not so with Surratt. Another purpose of the revelation may have been to guarantee their loyalty in case any of those named decided to blow the whistle. Further, Booth was careful not to mention anyone's name in his diary, other than Herold, who was with him and could therefore be safely identified, but only, as I recall, as "this poor boy who prays..." Even with Herold, did he not announce to his captors that he swore by the Almighty that he was innocent?

3. In one of his confessions, Atzerodt DOES say that Booth told him that Surratt was in Washington a few days before the 14th and that on the 14th he was staying at the Herndon House and that he, Booth, had just seen him and that he was expected to help in the box. I grant, however, that none of what Booth said has the ring of truth to it. It seems more likely that he was simply trying to boost Atzerodt's courage.

4. Powell, too, mentions Surratt, but negatively, berating him for deserting his mother. But deserting his mother AFTER the assassination does not preclude his having had a hand in it.

5. I repeat: It was not necessary for Surratt to have been in Washington to have assisted in the conspiracy to decapitate the government.

6. I repeat: There never was a bona fide kidnapping plot (in which judgment I am joined by Bingham, Harris and Weichmann, et al.), though some of Booth's dupes thought there was. It was a very effective ruse to cover the more sinister plot to decapitate the government. Surratt surely knew the truth. Powell too. The others bought into the baloney about kiddnapping.

I hope this helps.

John

---

(11-06-2013 09:41 AM)Gene C Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 06:43 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  The bottom line is that he got away with murder, I am convinced, because I am convinced that he was not only a conspirator, but that he was its co-leader with the half-mad , hyperactive and dreadfully immature actor. That role is reflected in Ste. Marie's Affidavit, quoting him as saying "We have killed Lincoln, the n.....s friend."

John

C'mon on John, don't hold back, what do you really think?

It has been a while since I read the book, but what does Laurie's second favorite trial witness, Louis Weichmann have to say about this? As I recall he he believed Johnny Surratt was guilty, and it seems as much as he didn't want to, he believed Mary was guilty also. I do remember feeling a bit sorry for Weichmann, after I read his book.

On the other hand, there are some interesting articles about Louis in the Surratt Courier from Oct 1991. See the thread Louis Weichmann under Assassination. His life story would make interesting reading.

Gene:

I would have to re-read Weichmann to be sure, but my recollection is that he believed John and his mother were both guilty. I will say, however, that he is frequently misrepresented as having been responsible for Mary's conviction. Not so; he actually spoke well of her. It was not his testimony that sank Mary; it was Lloyd's.

John

I wish I could argue convincingly. By saying that I admit I can't.

We are all handicapped, because everything we read about assassination has been provided to us by the people who lived in 1865, who were as uninformed as we are today. They were either trying to distance themselves from Booth, or were trying to convict the assassins friends - as directed by the government. We believe Atzerodt, when his remarks seem to "prove" our position and then laugh at the poor soul when his remarks are contrary to what we want to believe. The same can be said about Weichmann and all the others. (Our Posts are too small to write in detail about all of them.

Then there is the tendency to use good information, erroneously, to make a point. See: Did Surratt and Booth not go to NY after the Campbell Hospital "failure"?NO, they did not.
Booth went to NY, and Surratt went to Richmond. See: Did Surratt not stop in NY to see Booth? Yes he did, but Booth was not there. See: Did not Surratt send a telegram to Booth from Elmira? OOPS! Surratt is in ELMIRA. Fact: Booth and Surratt never met again,in their lifetime, after the "failure".

My conclusion is: If Surratt was still a member of the assassination team, he would have made himself available, and would have been effective.

I agree with the previous posts. It seems to me that if Surratt was in Washington and involved with the assassination he would have been given a prominent role; one more prominent than Atzerodt.

If he wasn't sent after Grant he would have been at the Herndon House meeting and would probably have been assigned the assassination of Johnson.

I'm curious if any of the prosecution's 14 witnesses identified him in Washington after Grant's train left town.

(11-07-2013 08:19 AM)wsanto Wrote:  I'm curious if any of the prosecution's 14 witnesses identified him in Washington after Grant's train left town.

Bill, I believe the witnesses who testified they saw Surratt in Washington at 6 P.M. or later were Joseph Dye, Robert Cooper, Frank Heaton, Walter Coleman, George Cushing, and Susan Jackson.

As you have probably already figured out, I agree with John Stanton and Bill on these last two posts. Maybe it's from too many years of seeing researchers trying to make full coats out of scraps of material -- and it usually leads to the Eisenschiml brand of history. If you can't find proof of something, phrase your text in the form of a question and leave the onus on the reader to draw conclusions.

Most of you know by now that James O. Hall was my mentor, and I had over thirty wonderful years of watching him track down leads and information. I also had the same pleasure with Bill Tidwell, Dave Gaddy, Mike Kauffman, Bill Hanchett, Ed Steers, Andy Jampoler, and others. One that I wish I had known was George Bryan, who authored The Great American Myth (even though he depended more on secondary sources than primary). I believe that it is still one of the best books written about the assassination.

When you have outstanding researchers like this all coming up with the same conclusions after years and mountains of research, you can't just toss out that "bath water." I believe that Occum's Razor applies here: When you sort through numerous trustworthy sources and the bulk of the evidence leads to one conclusion, that is likely the one that is true (or words to that effect).

(11-07-2013 09:08 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(11-07-2013 08:19 AM)wsanto Wrote:  I'm curious if any of the prosecution's 14 witnesses identified him in Washington after Grant's train left town.

Bill, I believe the witnesses who testified they saw Surratt in Washington at 6 P.M. or later were Joseph Dye, Robert Cooper, Frank Heaton, Walter Coleman, George Cushing, and Susan Jackson.

Roger:

Excellent! The next question is: What time did Grant's train leave? (Let me add that though I am interested in this line of thought, I am doubtful that Surratt was Grant's pursuer. The letter received by Grant shortly thereafter, in which the writer identified himself as the would-be assassin and expressed his thanks to God that he had not been successful, does not sound like Surratt, whom other evidence indicates was a cold-blooded killer.)

John


John

---

(11-07-2013 09:26 AM)L Verge Wrote:  As you have probably already figured out, I agree with John Stanton and Bill on these last two posts. Maybe it's from too many years of seeing researchers trying to make full coats out of scraps of material -- and it usually leads to the Eisenschiml brand of history. If you can't find proof of something, phrase your text in the form of a question and leave the onus on the reader to draw conclusions.

Most of you know by now that James O. Hall was my mentor, and I had over thirty wonderful years of watching him track down leads and information. I also had the same pleasure with Bill Tidwell, Dave Gaddy, Mike Kauffman, Bill Hanchett, Ed Steers, Andy Jampoler, and others. One that I wish I had known was George Bryan, who authored The Great American Myth (even though he depended more on secondary sources than primary). I believe that it is still one of the best books written about the assassination.

When you have outstanding researchers like this all coming up with the same conclusions after years and mountains of research, you can't just toss out that "bath water." I believe that Occum's Razor applies here: When you sort through numerous trustworthy sources and the bulk of the evidence leads to one conclusion, that is likely the one that is true (or words to that effect).

Laurie:

No one can quarrel with your credentials. Familiarity with all those lights is impressive and enviable. Further, I agree with your assessments of Eisenschiml and Bryan. The latter's book has indeed stood the test of time. I agree, further, as to the wisdom of Occam's Razor (As between competing assumptions, the one with the fewest assumptions, i.e. the simplist one, is the best answer). I use it a lot. However, inasmuch as many positions have been taken on this post, it is unclear to me exactly what your conclusions are. Please state the same in a couple of sentences.

Thank you.

John

I believe that John Surratt left the "employ" of Booth after the aborted kidnapping on March 17 (which I know you don't believe ever existed). I believe that from that point on, Surratt was under the direction of Judah Benjamin and Gen. Edwin Lee in carrying messages - and maybe materials - between Richmond and Montreal that would assist in secreting Confederate assets and/or continuing warfare along the Northwest border with Canada. I do not believe that Surratt was in D.C. at the time of the assassination - having remained north after his escort duties with Sarah.

I know you think I'm following the company line, but I truly believe what past great researchers have published. Sorry - I'm one old dog that is not going to learn new tricks unless swatted over the head with a rolled up newspaper filled with primary source materials...

(11-04-2013 03:09 PM)L Verge Wrote:  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'd like to read this assessment--where can it be found? Thanks.