The assignment of Surratt to go to Elmira has made me wonder just exactly what was going on. There seems to be a lot of loose ends, to this escapade, that need some explanation. Let's give it s go.

The first mention, that I have ever seen, that got my interest was this letter written by General R. E. Lee. to President Davis, in Oct 1864. (It is one of the letters included in the "Cameron Papers". It is in someone's handwriting, and very difficult to read. Here goes.

Chaffins 25 Oct 1864.
Mr. President
Mr. Stringfellow has just handed me your note enclosing one from Mr. Stewart. (This is Mr Kensey Johns Stewart). Mr. Stewart said upon your advice he had come to consult with me upon a project he had in view, especially as to its morality. I gave him my opinion as far as I understood it and thought from what he said he had not determined to undertake it, but that it would depend upon an interview he would have with you. I know so little of Mr. Stewart that is his capacity for such an undertaking, that when Mr. Stringfellow first cams to me I told him, as I had written to General Fitz Lee, that I could give him no advice or recommendation as to his course, he must make up his own opinion as to what he should do. Col. E. G. Lee has just called on me on the same subject, having been referred to me by Mr. Stewart. As Mr. Stewart told me, what I very well knew, that his project must be kept a profound secret, I could neither explain it to Mr. Stringfellow of Col. Lee. even as far as he had unfolded it to me. In fact I have not a high opinion of Mr. Stewarts discretion, and could not advise any one to join him in his enterprize. I had inferred that his companions were to be taken from Canada, until I got a note from Gen. Fitz Lee, asking if he must send some half dozen of his men to see Mr. Stewart, To take a party of men from here seems to me to ensure failure and I could not recommend it. I suppose he would make up his mind as to what he would do and arrange his party in his own way. I have had nothing to do with it. I return Mr. Stewarts letter with great respect. Your obedient Servant . R. E. Lee.

That's about all I can manage for one evening, I will add more tomorrow and add some ideas of my own. Stand By! JFS

(08-21-2017 12:11 AM)SSlater Wrote:  Mr. Stewart said upon your advice he had come to consult with me upon a project he had in view, especially as to its morality.

Was this a reference to Dr. Luke Blackburn's yellow fever plot?

(08-22-2017 01:52 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(08-21-2017 12:11 AM)SSlater Wrote:  Mr. Stewart said upon your advice he had come to consult with me upon a project he had in view, especially as to its morality.

Was this a reference to Dr. Luke Blackburn's yellow fever plot?

IMO I think that the comment on "Morality" was to the idea that they were going to release prisoners of war, so that they could go back to war. Whatever the reference, I believe it would refer to the new plan.

The people running the show, were not very trustful of their compatriots. They squabbled all the time. Thompson was appointed by Pres. Davis and his second in command was appointed through the War Dept. Each thought he was the big boss. (I favor Thompson). I wonder who got the $20,000 that was intended for Stewart. That money WAS NOT LOST! One of the other grabbed it. I guess it was Thompson, because he eventually gave Stewart $500 to live on.
Thompson was very aware of Canada's stepped-up security ( they passed an "Alien Act" on 6 Feb. 1865" )

I'm trying to study what really happened. For one: E. G. Lee was nominated for the rank of General, but it was never confirmed. I think that he never raised the Amy that he was sent there to do.
In the back part of Harney's book he talks about the Army that Lee was to raise and attack the U.S. from Canada (with the help of Copperheads and Knights of Something or other.)

Take for example the Saint Albans Raid. That was supposed to be a Military Mission. I call it a money grab that made some Raiders rich.

Did you ever read a book called "Niagara on the Lake"? That's a post-war story about the Confederate higher-archy meeting in a town of that name and divided up Treasury money. (Including Davis).
Did you ever read about Davis getting sick near the end of the war and appointing Benjamin - to run the country- ? That shows up in many of his orders "the president has ordered me to have you do this or that. In one case he wrote orders for E.G. Lee to carry to Montreal and give to Thompson - he says "The President has ordered me to have you take the remainder of the Treasury to England and have it deposited in MY ACCOUNT, IN MY NAME . Nothing like taking care of your retirement, at the expense of all others.

This gives you an idea of a project I am working on, that involves the people remaining in Canada at the end of the war. (Including DAVIS)

Thanks, John. The reason I asked was because of the word "morality." Because Blackburn's idea apparently was to infect thousands of civilians with yellow fever I thought possibly it was a reference to that plan.

(08-23-2017 03:50 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Thanks, John. The reason I asked was because of the word "morality." Because Blackburn's idea apparently was to infect thousands of civilians with yellow fever I thought possibly it was a reference to that plan.

IMO

Judging from the date of the letter it wouldn't be Blackburn since he had already executed his idea. However, since it was just before the election I would guess it was part of the election chaos plan that the rebels in Canada had planned.

New York was not the only Northern city they planned to destroy on election day. Chicago, Boston and Cincinnati were also targeted.

Lee says "To take a party of men from here seems to me to ensure failure and I could not recommend it." combined with the fact that Stringfellow worked out of Washington indicates to me that Davis meant to include Washington on election day.

The route to the Soldiers Home was still open - the "morality" of the plot could well refer to assassination rather than kidnapping which Lee wanted no part of.

I think I understand Kensey Johns Stewart's Morality problem. He was an Episcopal Clergyman. Would leading a military group conflict with his religious teachings? (He married R.E.L.'s 1st cousin -Hannah Lee)

It does appear that the south wanted to re[ease any and all the Rebel prisoners, in the late days of the Civil War. They actually tried Camp Douglas and the Prison on Johnson Island. (Jacob Thompson was in charge of that attempt. - and flopped!.)

Kensey Johns Stewart must have been a complete misfit. R. E. Lee and Jeff Davis agreed that he did not appear capable - based on the fact he was more Clergyman than Commanding Officer. Yet there were many Clergyman/Soldier in the Army. Thomas N. Conrad and his schoolmate/assistant were Divinity School Graduates and there were others. Conrad played it to the hilt. He dressed completely as a
Priest when he visited Union Camps. He even dressed up some ladies as Catholic Nuns and took them to Canada.

We are led to believe that it was Thompson who sent Surratt to Elmira. I am willing to bet E.G.Lee was the one who sent him. (I wonder if Thompson knew that??? Are you aware that E.G. was trying to raise an Army ? His promotion to General depended on that.)

I wonder what Surratt's report would have been. He had to cut his investigation short, because the war ended before he could report.

There is a story about his return trip tp Canada in Baker's History of the U.S. Secret Service. The Baker Detective recognized Surratt but he didn't know "The Little Man traveling with him" (Sarah).
P.S. They (Surratt and the little man signed in at the St. Lawrence Hall, together - on April 18, 1865 (J. Harrison and A. Renaud)

(08-27-2017 08:28 PM)SSlater Wrote:  We are led to believe that it was Thompson who sent Surratt to Elmira. I am willing to bet E.G.Lee was the one who sent him. (I wonder if Thompson knew that??? Are you aware that E.G. was trying to raise an Army ? His promotion to General depended on that.)

John, you are correct. It was Lee.

Michael Shein writes:

"At his trial for the murder of Abraham Lincoln, Surratt presented an Offer of Proof, outlining the proposed testimony of General Edwin G. Lee, after General Lee’s testimony about Surratt’s whereabouts was ruled inadmissible. General Lee offered to testify that on April 12, 1865 he dispatched Surratt on a secret surveillance mission:

. . . to visit Elmira [N.Y.] with the intent to ascertain the position and condition of the Confederate prisoners confined at or near said town of Elmira & to make sketches of the stationing of the guards, and of the approaches to said prison, [unreadable] the numbers of the forces stationed there . . .. "

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/159100

(08-27-2017 08:28 PM)SSlater Wrote:  It does appear that the south wanted to re[ease any and all the Rebel prisoners, in the late days of the Civil War. They actually tried Camp Douglas and the Prison on Johnson Island. (Jacob Thompson was in charge of that attempt. - and flopped!.)

Kensey Johns Stewart must have been a complete misfit. R. E. Lee and Jeff Davis agreed that he did not appear capable - based on the fact he was more Clergyman than Commanding Officer. Yet there were many Clergyman/Soldier in the Army. Thomas N. Conrad and his schoolmate/assistant were Divinity School Graduates and there were others. Conrad played it to the hilt. He dressed completely as a
Priest when he visited Union Camps. He even dressed up some ladies as Catholic Nuns and took them to Canada.

We are led to believe that it was Thompson who sent Surratt to Elmira. I am willing to bet E.G.Lee was the one who sent him. (I wonder if Thompson knew that??? Are you aware that E.G. was trying to raise an Army ? His promotion to General depended on that.)

I wonder what Surratt's report would have been. He had to cut his investigation short, because the war ended before he could report.

There is a story about his return trip tp Canada in Baker's History of the U.S. Secret Service. The Baker Detective recognized Surratt but he didn't know "The Little Man traveling with him" (Sarah).
P.S. They (Surratt and the little man signed in at the St. Lawrence Hall, together - on April 18, 1865 (J. Harrison and A. Renaud)

"John Harrison" registered at the same time as a T. F. Hendrickson (at least that's how the name is transcribed; I have difficulty reading it) and a Miss H. C. Slater (or possibly Seaton); the latter couple were given rooms 113 and 114. A. Reynaud appears on other entries but not the one for April 18.

(08-28-2017 07:56 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  

(08-27-2017 08:28 PM)SSlater Wrote:  It does appear that the south wanted to re[ease any and all the Rebel prisoners, in the late days of the Civil War. They actually tried Camp Douglas and the Prison on Johnson Island. (Jacob Thompson was in charge of that attempt. - and flopped!.)

Kensey Johns Stewart must have been a complete misfit. R. E. Lee and Jeff Davis agreed that he did not appear capable - based on the fact he was more Clergyman than Commanding Officer. Yet there were many Clergyman/Soldier in the Army. Thomas N. Conrad and his schoolmate/assistant were Divinity School Graduates and there were others. Conrad played it to the hilt. He dressed completely as a
Priest when he visited Union Camps. He even dressed up some ladies as Catholic Nuns and took them to Canada.

We are led to believe that it was Thompson who sent Surratt to Elmira. I am willing to bet E.G.Lee was the one who sent him. (I wonder if Thompson knew that??? Are you aware that E.G. was trying to raise an Army ? His promotion to General depended on that.)

I wonder what Surratt's report would have been. He had to cut his investigation short, because the war ended before he could report.

There is a story about his return trip tp Canada in Baker's History of the U.S. Secret Service. The Baker Detective recognized Surratt but he didn't know "The Little Man traveling with him" (Sarah).
P.S. They (Surratt and the little man signed in at the St. Lawrence Hall, together - on April 18, 1865 (J. Harrison and A. Renaud)

"John Harrison" registered at the same time as a T. F. Hendrickson (at least that's how the name is transcribed; I have difficulty reading it) and a Miss H. C. Slater (or possibly Seaton); the latter couple were given rooms 113 and 114. A. Reynaud appears on other entries but not the one for April 18.

Thanx Susan. I got careless. Also notice in Para. 2, I made another mistake. It was Rev. Cameron who escorted the 2 Nuns to Canada, not Conrad. My whole point in posting was to offer this "proof" that Surratt was on this mission to Elmira, on Orders from a General Officer - from early April to late April (1865) and not in Washington.

(08-28-2017 09:38 PM)SSlater Wrote:  My whole point in posting was to offer this "proof" that Surratt was on this mission to Elmira, on Orders from a General Officer - from early April to late April (1865) and not in Washington.

From what I can tell the judge in the John Surratt trial rejected the admission of Lee's orders into the trial record. Does anyone know why these orders were deemed inadmissible?

Wild guess--Lee's orders would have shown Surratt to be in DC on April 14.

I am trying to stretch my brain back about thirty years to remember things that Mr. Hall shared with me while working with a descendant of Genl. E.G. Lee on a book that she later published. I really don't remember that there was any doubt in either of their minds that John Surratt had been transferred to the control of the Genl. and that he was in Elmira at the time of the assassination.

SUSAN AND LAURIE. I have a problem. The copy of the Saint Lawrence Hall Register available on the computer is a TYPED COPY. The original copy was HANDWRITTEN.
The Typed Copy was prepared a few years ago by someone who wanted a shorter copy with only "important" names. Sarah didn't make the cut. I remember that in the original copy the same person signed both names, because the "tail" of the signature curled up and back over the name - to cross the T's. (I reason that someone
"saved" them a room , by reserving the rooms. (The Clerk?. Rev. Cameron? Who?) I am looking for my copy, but it is in storage. Meanwhile, I have asked the Librarian at the Surratt House if they have a Handwritten copy. I am on the list for research, but it my be awhile. ALSO, She may not be able to reply, because their copy is split and sometimes fails. (I remember that I tried to get a copy, but the machine wouldn't print.) SO! please stand by while we work this out, because SARAH WAS WITH SURRATT ON THAT TRIP.

The book that I referred to above is entitled This Awful Drama: Gen. Edwin Gray Lee, C.S.A. and His Family by Alexandra Lee Levin - 1987.

Other than that, I recommend Fred Hatch's latest book that has been out for about a year - John Surratt: Rebel, Lincoln Conspirator, Fugitive. It is very detailed about all the comings and goings of young Surratt and is heavy with citations, bibliography, etc. Gen. E.G. Lee is mentioned numerous times. From what I gathered through a brief search of Fred's references to Gen. Lee,

-- Gen. Lee and his wife arrived in Montreal and checked into the St. Lawrence Hall on March 6, 1865 - two days before Surratt arrived.
-- Lee had a letter from Judah Benjamin to Jacob Thompson, basically telling Thompson that his cover has been blown and that he is to hand over his duties to Gen. Lee.
-- Thompson didn't react fast enough, so another urgent message came ordering Thompson to pretty much "get out of Dodge." Thompson really was upset at this point.
-- He replied on April 9, refusing to turn over $30,000 that he would keep to secure his safety.
-- Thompson and a William Cleary finally departed on April 11, bound for Halifax and thus to Europe.
-- Gen. Lee summoned Surratt to infiltrate the Elmira prison camp, and Surratt arrived in the town on April 12, registering at the Brainard Hotel.
-- On April 13, Surratt bribed a guard at the prison and gained entry in order to make drawings of the camp's layout.

Gen. Lee kept a diary. Has anyone read it?

Roger - in reference to your post that the judge would not allow Lee's orders to be admitted in the 1867 trial, I can't find any mention of that in Fred's book. However, he does show how the prosecution objected to nearly everything that the defense brought up in examining Lee as a witness and that those objections were sustained -- therefore, very little information came from the General, himself.