(11-12-2013 05:24 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  [quote='Thomas Thorne' pid='26569' dateline='1384189775']
People have speculated that Booth via the fiendish legal knowledge of Judah Benjamin and/or George Sanders was aware of the provisions of the Presidential Succession Act of 1792. Yet we have no evidence that the conspirators ever targeted Lafayette Foster,President Pro Tempore of the US Senate. Foster was the only person in the presidential succession if both Lincoln and Johnson were killed. Does anyone know where Foster was that nite?

Hi Tom. Depending on whether one believes the word of John F. Coyle or not, Booth may also have been given incorrect information on the day of the assassination. I read somewhere Coyle was not considered a reliable source, but I've forgotten where I read that.

In Weichmann's book (p. 138) he says Booth had a noontime conversation with Coyle, part-owner and editor of the Washington Daily National Intelligencer. In the conversation Booth quizzed Coyle on the line of secession:

Booth: “Suppose Lincoln was killed, what would be the result?"
Coyle: “Johnson would succeed.”
Booth: “But if he was killed?”
Coyle: “Then Seward.”
Booth: “But suppose he was killed, then what?”
Coyle: “Then anarchy or whatever the Constitution provides.”

Coyle went on to say, “What nonsense, they don’t make Brutuses nowadays.”
Booth replied, “No, they do not.”

No specific mention of Foster's name in the conversation.

The above Booth-Coyle conversation, which allegedly took place in a restaurant, was published in the Washington Post and is also included in the article entitled "Why Seward?" by Michael Maione and James O. Hall in the Spring 1998 edition of the Lincoln Herald.
[/quote)

Roger:

Thank you for reminding me of that conversation, which I believe to be significant. Even if Booth were asking the questions only because he was curious of the political fallout from his planned multiple assassinations, rather than because he had been briefed by his handlers as to the real purpose of the same, it still demonstrates that he considered the ramifications in his planning and was therefore in some degree motivated by them. I will take it a step further and say that the conversation is probably more, rather than less, indicative of NOT having been clued by his superiors as to the real purpose of his work on the 14th, because if he had fully informed, what need had he of asking Coyle, whose answers were inaccurate anyway.

A good reason for not targeting Foster (assuming he was not targeted), is that his murder would have been proof positive to the government of the hand of Richmond and the lawyer Benjamin behind the assassination and the attempted assassinations. Why on earth, the reasoning would be, would a 26-year old actor want to kill the President Pro-Tempore of the Senate unless he knew of his importance as a successor to the presidency, which knowledge could only have come to him from Richmond wigs.

John

That is all very interesting, but in reality, Stanton was the second most powerful man in the Lincoln Administrations and government at the time.

(11-12-2013 09:48 AM)Gene C Wrote:  That is all very interesting, but in reality, Stanton was the second most powerful man in the Lincoln Administrations and government at the time.


Gene:

Probably true, but I do not get your point. Please advise. If you are asking why Stanton was not targeted, I have a very simple answer. The evidence is strong that he was.

John

Any attempt on Stanton seems to have been a very half-hearted attempt. Ring the door bell and if no one answers, or Stanton doesn't come to the door, give up.
Could Surratt have been assigned to kill Stanton?

(11-12-2013 10:10 AM)Gene C Wrote:  Any attempt on Stanton seems to have been a very half-hearted attempt. Ring the door bell and if no one answers, or Stanton doesn't come to the door, give up.
Could Surratt have been assigned to kill Stanton?

Gene:

There is more to the atempt on Stanton than that, as follows:

1. Montgomery, Dunham ("Conover") Merritt and Von Steinacker all mentioned him as an intended victim.
2. Davis, upon learning of the assassination of Lincoln, said "...and if the same had been done to...Secretary Stanton, the job would then be complete."
3. A may 15, 1865, anonymous report sent to Stanton advised him that there had been a conspiracy to murder him, the President and Seward.
4.Stanton aide, Britton Hill, reported that on the basis of his evidence, Stanton and Johnson were also to have been killed.
5. One of Baker's agents, D. V. Coldazer, said he learned in Boston, from one Goerge W. Wortman, a person of interest, that there was a plot to murder Lincoln, Seward, Stanton and Halleck.
6. David Homer Bates wrote of the "frustrated efforts to reach and kill...Secretary Stanton..."
7. Allan Pinkerton warned Stanton that on the basis of evidence he had, he (Stanton) was in danger.
8. Three witnesses at the trial--good, reliable witnesses, not fly-by-nights--put O'Laughlen at Stanton's home during the evening of April 13. There is corroborative evidence for this visit.
9. An anonymous letter sent to Booth on 4-10-65 said that an assassin had been assigned to each memer of Lincoln's Cabinet.
10. A cipher letter that came into the possession of Union intellience stated "The brute Stanton will meet his just deserts (sic) by a sure hand."
11. On the 14th, at night, a skulking figure was seen on Stanton's porch. He fled upon the approach of officers (variously described) coming to apprise the Secretary of the carnage at the Seward home. Stanton and his biographer, Flower, as well as his close friend, Hudson Taylor, credited a broken doorbell with saving his life.
12. Secretary of the Interior, John Usher, reported that a man was found at Stanton's home hiding behind a tree box, He too fled. This report received corroboration from one Edwin Bates, a patron at Ford's Theatre that night.

I have learned not to reject evidence or tradition too easily.

John

---

(11-09-2013 12:42 AM)SSlater Wrote:  I do no have a copy of Surratt's trial. So, I need some help. I have a copy of one page of the "Elmira Morning Telegram" for April 22, 1917, which has a "50th year Anniversary of the Surratt Trial" article, in which they say "It was finally admitted by the prosecution that Surratt was in Elmira on the morning of the 13th." The newspaper then adds that " an effort was made by the prosecution to show that he made a rapid journey to Washington to arrive there for the assassination." which the defense then shredded that ploy to bits.
My question is: Did the prosecution really admit that, during the trial?

SSlater:

By implication, if not expressly, inasmuch as they tried to show, by railroad schedules and such, that he could have made it to Washington from Elmira in time for the assassination.

John

---

(11-11-2013 12:09 PM)Thomas Thorne Wrote:  If John Surratt, JWB's deputy, was in Washington on 4/14/65. what role did he play in the assassination and what do the number of people directly involved in the assassination and their choice of of targets reveal about the attackers ?

Some people have asserted that Booth assigned Surratt the job of killing l Grant on the train that night. When did Booth discover that Grant would not be coming to the theater and what is the evidence that Surratt was on the General's train?

We all know that JWB assigned himself the task of killing Lincoln. As a Julius Caesar buff he appreciated that Brutus was not the lone stabber. It is surprising that Booth did not believe that the presence of a vigorous 42 year old soldier who might be armed and worse might be accompanied by one or more aides might require more than one assassin.

If we believe that George Atzerodt expressed a reluctance to kill, Surratt was the obvious choice to kill Andrew Johnson.

People have speculated that Booth via the fiendish legal knowledge of Judah Benjamin and/or George Sanders was aware of the provisions of the Presidential Succession Act of 1792. Yet we have no evidence that the conspirators ever targeted Lafayette Foster,President Pro Tempore of the US Senate. Foster was the only person in the presidential succession if both Lincoln and Johnson were killed. Does anyone know where Foster was that nite?

Lewis Powell assaulted Frederick Seward because the latter tried to bar him from entering his father's room. We also know that Booth expressed regret over the extent of the carnage in the Seward household in which four people in addition to Secretary of State Seward were attacked. Both Booth and Powell were unaware that killing Frederick Seward was from the perspective of preventing the Secretary of State from calling for a presidential election just as important as killing his father. Frederick was Acting Secretary of State and by law the duties of Secretary of State devolved upon him during the period of his father's disability. No one has to my knowledge ever alleged the conspirators sought to kill Frederick Seward . Anther job for John Surratt.

Another person the conspirators did not target was William Hunter, the chief clerk of the Department of State on 4/14/65. Several months ago the State Department had an article-since removed - by its official historian giving a brief biography of Hunter- asserting that by law he became acting secretary of state with the full legal powers of secretary of state upon the disability of both Sewards. I have seen documents of his performing the legal ministerial functions of the Secretary of State such as officially informing the diplomatic corps of the death of Lincoln and the accession of Johnson to the presidency.

There were lots of things that John Surratt in the service of the general Confederate conspiracy could have done on 4/14/65. As the whole affair seems to have too few people ,who lacked the knowledge often attributed to them, that such a conspiracy could have deployed, we must acquit both John Surratt and the Confederate government of killing Lincoln .
Tom
PS My earlier post on this topic never got to the board.

Tom:

There is too much evidence against Surratt and the Confederate Government and its Secret Service, including the Canadian Cabinet, implicating them in the assassination and attempted assassinations, to acquit them.

Surratt could have been on the train, or on Stanton's doorstep, or in Elmira. I do not know. I do know, as well as I know my name, that Surratt and the Confederate Government, etc., are not innocent of the great crime. If he was in Washington, I don't know what he did. But Booth did tell Atzerodt that he expected Booth to help him in the box, which fits with Rhodes's testimony at the 1867 trial, namely that he saw Surratt in the box doing carpentry during the day. I do not know of any evidence putting Surratt on the train. Johnson was already provided for ---Herold, with Atzerodt as back-up. I believe I have responded to everything else elsewhere. I know nothing about Hunter.

John

John, it must be difficult sifting through all the evidence and testimony as to who is telling the truth. A key part of the plan is to sew the seeds of confusion and paranoia.

(11-08-2013 11:26 PM)Gene C Wrote:  John, I've got to agree with you. Why else would Booth go to Canada, but to get the approval and cooperation of the Confederate Secret Service.

Question, we know who some of the ringleaders of the Secret Service were in Canada. Who were the head guy's of the Secret Service in Richmond? Why is Benjamin in Canada instead of Richmond, is it for better access to foreign dignitaries?

Gene:

I am not sure. Rains comes to mind as the head of the Torpedo Bureau, but I am not sure about the others, apart from Thomas Harney, about whom it was said that wherever he went, Union casualties were the result. Major agents included Thomas Nelson Conrad, "Wat" Bowie, Benjamin Franklin Stringfellow and Thomas Harbin, among others, And then there was always Mosby, who worked closely with the Secret Service. Davis, Benjamin and Seddon made all the major decisions, but Seddon retired from public life and was replaced by Breckenridge on or about February 1, 1865.

Sorry I cannot be more helpful.

John

(11-12-2013 03:58 PM)Gene C Wrote:  John, it must be difficult sifting through all the evidence and testimony as to who is telling the truth. A key part of the plan is to sew the seeds of confusion and paranoia.

Gene:

True. The best we can do is read as much as we can, talk to as many knowledgeable people as we can, try to separate the wheat from the chaf and not throw the baby out with the bathwater (how many more cliches would you like?) and then make and defend our judgments and conclusions. I should add that we should never be afraid to change our minds about anything, especially if you are crossing swords with me, because I have never been known to be wrong about anything. I always say: I am not perfect, but I'm close.

John

(11-13-2013 11:11 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  I should add that we should never be afraid to change our minds about anything, especially if you are crossing swords with me, because I have never been known to be wrong about anything. I always say: I am not perfect, but I'm close.

John

That explains where I slipped up

(11-13-2013 11:39 AM)Gene C Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 11:11 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  I should add that we should never be afraid to change our minds about anything, especially if you are crossing swords with me, because I have never been known to be wrong about anything. I always say: I am not perfect, but I'm close.

John

That explains where I slipped up

Gene:

Thanks for having a sense of humor. Sometimes I believe I would rather laugh, and make others laugh, than eat. Unfortunately, sometimes my feeble attempts at humor fall flatter than a pancake.

John

I've really enjoyed reading this thread. It's loaded with information, and very cool that Betty found another witness for John Surratt's presence in DC on April 14th, which I'm on the fence about, although leaning toward his being in Elmira. I'd like to add some information about Surratt's activities following the failed kidnapping on March 17th, according to Louis Weichmann in Chapter 12 of his book. On March 18th Booth gave Surratt two passes for The Apostate "countersigned with his own name". Surratt invited Weichmann to the play and he went. Atzerodt, Holohan and Davey Herold were also at the theater. Just the day before when Surratt returned from the failed kidnapping, he had leveled his revolver at Weichmann. Weichmann was so unnerved from what he experienced and suspected that he sought out Gleason (who wasn't at his boarding house) to talk to, and then wrote a letter to Father Menu in which he mentioned his suspicions.
After the play, Herold and Atzerodt had a beer with Booth, Surratt sent Weichmann to bring them back to a restaurant, which he did, and joined them for a drink. Atzerodt, Herold, Holohan and Surratt all went to Kloman's saloon.
On March 20th Surratt met Weichmann on his way home from work and Weichmann accompanied him to the post office where he witnessed Surratt obtaining a letter addressed to him under the name of James Sturdy. Surratt showed him the signature "Wood" on the letter. Surratt admitted to him that Wood was Payne/Powell. March 23 Mrs Holohan delivered a telegram to Weichmann at work from "J. Booth" which contained a cryptic message for Surratt, and misspelled Weichmann's name. The message was, "Tell John to telegraph number and street at once." Weichmann gave the telegram to Surratt when he returned home and asked what it meant. Surratt's response was "Don't be so damned inquisitive." That evening Surratt asked Weichmann to take a walk with him and they stopped at the Herndon House where Surratt confirmed the reservation for Powell for March 27th. Weichmann didn't find out that the reservation was for Powell until a few days later when he asked Atzerodt. On March 25th Surratt, his mother and Mrs Slater left the city in a carriage early in the morning, around 8 AM. Surratt wrote a letter to Brooke Stabler dated March 26th explaining the return of the carriage and mentioning that he should only let Booth use his horses. Apparently Surratt's involvement with the conspiracy and Booth continued after the failed kidnapping.

I have some more to add tomorrow since I'm falling asleep now, but I'll say that because of the timeline, it must have been Mary Surratt who stole Father Menu's letter to Weichmann and gave it to Booth.

Booth returned to DC on the evening of March 25 after leaving Baltimore in a rush, according to Sam Arnold in his letter to Booth. Sam expressed, among other things, anger and confusion towards Booth for leaving so hurriedly, before Sam could meet with him. Was Booth trying to get back to DC before Surratt left?

The Father Menu letter written to Weichmann was dated March 27 and sent from Ellicott, MD, so it likely arrived at the Surratt house one or two days later, while John was in Richmond. Since Mary was willing to steal Weichmann's letter, she must have read it before giving it to Booth. Weichmann was aware of visits by Booth to the house on April 1 and April 10, described in Chapter 13 of his book. On April 10, Booth read a letter written by Surratt to his family, apparently received and delivered to Mary by Annie Ward. Booth and Ward tried to deceive Weichmann as to it's contents. Weichmann didn't say whether Mary was in the room when that occurred, but presumably she was. Anna showed the letter to Louis after Ward and Booth left.

It seems from all these events, and later telegrams and Surratt's visit to Booth's home in NY, that Surratt and Booth were conspiring continuously up to the assassination. The Surratts took a page out of Booth's book by trying to compromise Weichmann as a potential witness against them by making him a witness to events that he didn't understand but that could make him appear to be involved (like the Herndon House visit with John).

(05-10-2015 11:39 PM)Pamela Wrote:  Booth returned to DC on the evening of March 25 after leaving Baltimore in a rush, according to Sam Arnold in his letter to Booth. The Father Menu letter written to Weichmann was dated March 27 and sent from Ellicott, MD, so it likely arrived at the Surratt house one or two days later, while John was in Richmond. Since Mary was willing to steal Weichmann's letter, she must have read it before giving it to Booth. Weichmann was aware of visits by Booth to the house on April 1 and April 10, described in Chapter 13 of his book. On April 10, Booth read a letter written by Surratt to his family, apparently received and delivered to Mary by Annie Ward. Booth and Ward tried to deceive Weichmann as to it's contents. Weichmann didn't say whether Mary was in the room when that occurred, but presumably she was. Anna showed the letter to Louis after Ward and Booth left.

It seems from all these events, and later telegrams and Surratt's visit to Booth's home in NY, that Surratt and Booth were conspiring continuously up to the assassination. The Surratts took a page out of Booth's book by trying to compromise Weichmann as a potential witness against them by making him a witness to events that he didn't understand but that could make him appear to be involved (like the Herndon House visit with John).

Thanks, Pam, and also thanks to Susan who posted the Father Menu letter here.

P.173 in Weichmann's book, he described the letter from John Surratt sent from Montreal and delivered to the house by Annie Ward. Weichmann said he believed Mary Surratt purposely showed it to him at that time, which was in the evening after they returned from the Surratt tavern on April 14th. "A queer circumstance connected with it was that the writer referred to me as having driven his mother into the country on the previous Tuesday, April 11. This he did in a jesting manner. Now, the hotel register of St. Lawrence Hall showed that John Harrison Surratt, under the assumed name of John Harrison, arrived there on the 6th of April 1865, left on the 12th for the United States, and returned on the 18th. Now, how could he be in Canada on the 12th of April know about the drive to Surrattsville on the 11th unless he had been informed to that effect by telegraph? (my emphasis) That is another of the unexplained circumstances that has always been an enigma to me."

If that information was sent to Surratt by telegraph, then the sender was likely Booth to inform him that his mother had advanced the conspiracy by telling Lloyd to make the "shooting irons" available in the near future.

Very interesting, Pam. If not Booth, is it possible Mary herself sent him the telegram? I find the April 11th trip very interesting. Many books imply that Booth made the decision to assassinate Lincoln on the night of the 11th after hearing Lincoln's final speech. But, Mary and Louis Weichmann were already on the road at 9 A.M. that morning on their way to Surrattsville. During this trip, according to Lloyd, Mrs. Surratt told him the "shooting irons" would be needed soon. So I am thinking Booth may have already changed plans before Lincoln's speech. (?) It also seems that Weichmann could take off work almost at will as she had asked him the night of the 10th if he could take her the next day. He said "yes." Did he call in sick?

Booth's "activities" involving John Surratt at this time are very interesting. According to Kate Larson's book JWB told both David Herold and George Atzerodt that John Surratt was in Washington on the 14th. The assumption is that both Herold and Atzerodt thought Surratt was in town to assist with the plot.