(03-22-2017 05:26 AM)loetar44 Wrote:  And how reliable is the testimony of Augustus Bissell, who also did not know Surratt but saw him on April 14th in the Brainard House in Elmira.

I thought the prosecution was able to impeach Dr. Bissell's testimony by showing that he wasn't in Elmira on the 14th and brought some of his neighbors to the stand who claimed he wasn't trustworthy. Or is my memory wrong on this point?

Everyone:

I trust I am not the only one who saw the reference to Surratt that appeared in the account of the events of April 14 by "Miss Porterfield". This is the account that was made public by Jesse W. Weik in The Century Magazine, Vol. 85, No. 4, February, 1913, reprinted in the most recent issue (Vol. XXXI 2017) of the Journal of the Lincoln Assassination, published by Autograph Press (Frederick Hatch). On p. 6 of the latter source, Miss Porterfield is quoted as saying that on the morning of the 13th she met Booth on Pennsylvania Avenue, apparently by chance, and that part of their conversation involved his asking her how one spelled "tyrannis", with two n's or two r's. In addition, she said she inquired of Booth why he had demonstrated such "a violent display of feeling" with respect to the celebrations then going on in Washington because of the fall of Richmond, and that Booth had said in response that "his irritation was due to having been rudely awakened from sleep that morning by a man--I think he called him Surratt--who wanted to borrow his horse to ride to Georgetown..." She also mentions that she was at Ford's on the fateful night and that she saw Booth there, standing near the wall of the auditorium, and that "the sweep of his gaze (indicated) that he was looking for some face in the audience". And she also states, categorically, that Booth's second declamation, which followed "instantly" after "sic semper tyrannis" was "The South is avenged". I mention this because there has always been some uncertainty about what Booth said after "sic semper tyrannis", which was clearly heard and attested to by so many in the audience that night that there can be no doubt about it. None of this is, of course, conclusive, but all of it supports the contentions that Surratt was in Washington on April 14, that he had co-conspirators in the theater prepared to help him if he needed it and that his second declamation after descending to the stage was "The South is avenged".

John

(10-10-2017 04:13 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  Everyone:

I trust I am not the only one who saw the reference to Surratt that appeared in the account of the events of April 14 by "Miss Porterfield". This is the account that was made public by Jesse W. Weik in The Century Magazine, Vol. 85, No. 4, February, 1913, reprinted in the most recent issue (Vol. XXXI 2017) of the Journal of the Lincoln Assassination, published by Autograph Press (Frederick Hatch). On p. 6 of the latter source, Miss Porterfield is quoted as saying that on the morning of the 13th she met Booth on Pennsylvania Avenue, apparently by chance, and that part of their conversation involved his asking her how one spelled "tyrannis", with two n's or two r's. In addition, she said she inquired of Booth why he had demonstrated such "a violent display of feeling" with respect to the celebrations then going on in Washington because of the fall of Richmond, and that Booth had said in response that "his irritation was due to having been rudely awakened from sleep that morning by a man--I think he called him Surratt--who wanted to borrow his horse to ride to Georgetown..." She also mentions that she was at Ford's on the fateful night and that she saw Booth there, standing near the wall of the auditorium, and that "the sweep of his gaze (indicated) that he was looking for some face in the audience". And she also states, categorically, that Booth's second declamation, which followed "instantly" after "sic semper tyrannis" was "The South is avenged". I mention this because there has always been some uncertainty about what Booth said after "sic semper tyrannis", which was clearly heard and attested to by so many in the audience that night that there can be no doubt about it. None of this is, of course, conclusive, but all of it supports the contentions that Surratt was in Washington on April 14, that he had co-conspirators in the theater prepared to help him if he needed it and that his second declamation after descending to the stage was "The South is avenged".

John

I don't know much about the Journal of the Lincoln Assassination, but here's a link to The Century article for anybody who's interested:

https://books.google.com/books?id=U3oAAA...on&f=false

and also here's a link to part of a recent thread that briefly discussed Miss Porterfield's account:

http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussio...age-3.html

While Porterfield is believable in her account, one has to take into account the impact of the passage of time on her memory from the time of the assassination until her account was written down for Weik "about twenty years" prior to it being published in the magazine, a roughly three decade lag between the event and the account. Since Porterfield lived in New York state at the time (and was only visiting Washington) and then sometime later moved to the Midwest, it's understandable why she wasn't known to authorities at the time of the trials. But she said "I think he called him Surratt" indicating she was unsure about who Booth mentioned and possibly influenced in her memory by the subsequent John Surratt trial.

Although not related to Lincoln history, this recent article in the Journal of the American Revolution about certain Founders misremembering when the Declaration of Independence was signed illustrates the same phenomenon:

https://allthingsliberty.com/2017/10/dec...s-history/

Lastly, John, what are your thoughts on my previous question about the reliability of Dr. Augustus Bissell's testimony in the John Surratt trial? I ask because I recall reading that Bissell had some type of notorious criminal record after the trial.

(10-10-2017 05:03 PM)Steve Wrote:  

(10-10-2017 04:13 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  Everyone:

I trust I am not the only one who saw the reference to Surratt that appeared in the account of the events of April 14 by "Miss Porterfield". This is the account that was made public by Jesse W. Weik in The Century Magazine, Vol. 85, No. 4, February, 1913, reprinted in the most recent issue (Vol. XXXI 2017) of the Journal of the Lincoln Assassination, published by Autograph Press (Frederick Hatch). On p. 6 of the latter source, Miss Porterfield is quoted as saying that on the morning of the 13th she met Booth on Pennsylvania Avenue, apparently by chance, and that part of their conversation involved his asking her how one spelled "tyrannis", with two n's or two r's. In addition, she said she inquired of Booth why he had demonstrated such "a violent display of feeling" with respect to the celebrations then going on in Washington because of the fall of Richmond, and that Booth had said in response that "his irritation was due to having been rudely awakened from sleep that morning by a man--I think he called him Surratt--who wanted to borrow his horse to ride to Georgetown..." She also mentions that she was at Ford's on the fateful night and that she saw Booth there, standing near the wall of the auditorium, and that "the sweep of his gaze (indicated) that he was looking for some face in the audience". And she also states, categorically, that Booth's second declamation, which followed "instantly" after "sic semper tyrannis" was "The South is avenged". I mention this because there has always been some uncertainty about what Booth said after "sic semper tyrannis", which was clearly heard and attested to by so many in the audience that night that there can be no doubt about it. None of this is, of course, conclusive, but all of it supports the contentions that Surratt was in Washington on April 14, that he had co-conspirators in the theater prepared to help him if he needed it and that his second declamation after descending to the stage was "The South is avenged".

John

I don't know much about the Journal of the Lincoln Assassination, but here's a link to The Century article for anybody who's interested:

https://books.google.com/books?id=U3oAAA...on&f=false

and also here's a link to part of a recent thread that briefly discussed Miss Porterfield's account:

http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussio...age-3.html

While Porterfield is believable in her account, one has to take into account the impact of the passage of time on her memory from the time of the assassination until her account was written down for Weik "about twenty years" prior to it being published in the magazine, a roughly three decade lag between the event and the account. Since Porterfield lived in New York state at the time (and was only visiting Washington) and then sometime later moved to the Midwest, it's understandable why she wasn't known to authorities at the time of the trials. But she said "I think he called him Surratt" indicating she was unsure about who Booth mentioned and possibly influenced in her memory by the subsequent John Surratt trial.

Although not related to Lincoln history, this recent article in the Journal of the American Revolution about certain Founders misremembering when the Declaration of Independence was signed illustrates the same phenomenon:

https://allthingsliberty.com/2017/10/dec...s-history/

Lastly, John, what are your thoughts on my previous question about the reliability of Dr. Augustus Bissell's testimony in the John Surratt trial? I ask because I recall reading that Bissell had some type of notorious criminal record after the trial.

Steve:

You have made some telling points about the reliability of Miss Porterfield's account. It does seem odd that Booth would give her the name of the someone who woke him up too early that day for the purpose of borrowing a horse. Odd, but not so much as to reject it. As for Bissell, his testimony goes on for 28 pages of the trial transcript. I don't have an opinion as to its reliability inasmuch as I have not read all of the 28 pages and I know nothing about his subsequent criminal record. I can only say that I am suspicious of the alibi because there is so much contrary evidence that puts Surratt in Washington. Why would he dally in Elmira after receiving instructions from Booth to return to Washington forthwith because their plans had changed. "Their" plans fits with his stopping in New York to see Booth on his way to Montreal. It also fits with his telling Ste. Marie "We" killed Lincoln, the n-----'s friend." It also fits with a lot of other evidence demonstrating common enterprise. Alibis are easily fabricated by designing people. Recall O'Laughlen's alibi, which seemed pretty good, but which Atzerodt said was false.

John

John, in your book you say (regarding John Surratt), "What he did not escape was the judgment of his co-conspirators, who condemned him, and for good reason: though he was unquestionably the co-leader of the conspiracy with Booth, he left everyone and everything behind to save his skin. This included his mother, whom he could surely have saved if he had returned to Washington."

I am wondering what you feel he could have done to save his mother. I assume he would have been arrested and put on trial with the others. As I understand it, defendants' declarations were not allowed in that trial, so he could not speak to the court in support of his mother. Wouldn't the same vicarious liability have applied to both mother and son? Would the charges against Mary have been different if John were also on trial?

(Although I directed this question to John, I would also be curious what others think might have happened had John Surratt returned to Washington rather remain in Canada. If anyone has thoughts, please post. Thanks.)

(10-11-2017 01:35 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  John, in your book you say (regarding John Surratt), "What he did not escape was the judgment of his co-conspirators, who condemned him, and for good reason: though he was unquestionably the co-leader of the conspiracy with Booth, he left everyone and everything behind to save his skin. This included his mother, whom he could surely have saved if he had returned to Washington."

I am wondering what you feel he could have done to save his mother. I assume he would have been arrested and put on trial with the others. As I understand it, defendants' declarations were not allowed in that trial, so he could not speak to the court in support of his mother. Wouldn't the same vicarious liability have applied to both mother and son? Would the charges against Mary have been different if John were also on trial?

(Although I directed this question to John, I would also be curious what others think might have happened had John Surratt returned to Washington rather remain in Canada. If anyone has thoughts, please post. Thanks.)

I think he would have hanged right along with his mother, and that is what I have told many visitors to the museum who have asked my opinion.

JHS would hanged along with the others--I agree with Laurie

I am in agreement that John Surratt would hang along with the others. I wonder though, had John Surratt been on trial would there have been a more lenient judgement for Mary? Not to say that she would not have been found guilty, but perhaps she may have avoided the noose.

(10-11-2017 04:35 PM)brtmchl Wrote:  I am in agreement that John Surratt would hang along with the others. I wonder though, had John Surratt been on trial would there have been a more lenient judgement for Mary? Not to say that she would not have been found guilty, but perhaps she may have avoided the noose.

I'd like to think that the clemency plea may have worked if John took the fall (literally), but that plea was based on age and sex - not guilt or innocence. I doubt that she would have avoided jail, and I think six months or less would have seen the press announcing that Mary Surratt was dead.

On p. 6 of the latter source, Miss Porterfield is quoted as saying that on the morning of the 13th she met Booth on Pennsylvania Avenue, apparently by chance, and that part of their conversation involved his asking her how one spelled "tyrannis", with two n's or two r's.

Curious as to why he would ask such a question, unless he included it in his letter to the editor that was burned. Also, Booth was playing the role of a 'tar baby' implicating everyone he could which may be the reason he implicated Surratt in the conversation.

Everyone:

I agree with those who say that if Surratt had come to Washington, he would have been tried and convicted with the rest. I disagree, however, with those who hold that the Federal government would then have hanged both John and his mother for complicity. It is not necessary for John to have declared his mother's innocence from the witness chair. His declaration would have been made in statements he made incident to interrogations that would obviously have been carried out, just as they were with all the other defendants. In these circumstances, it is hard for me to believe that the War Department would have insisted upon her execution as well as his. His would have been quite enough for Stanton. She would then have received an abbreviated sentence, such as Spangler did, or, perhaps, clemency. By declaring her innocence, he would have effectively sacrificed himself for her, a sacrifice that the War Department, in my opinion, would have been only too happy to accept. Though I believe she was guilty, the evidence against her was problematic, resting almost entirely upon the testimony of Lloyd and, to a lesser extent, Weichmann. This fact and her gender were sufficient reasons for 5 of the 9 commissioners to recommend clemency to Johnson, which recommendation he either never saw or rejected, depending on whom you believe. I believe Holt. Imagine how much stronger the case for clemency would have been if her son had taken his place on the gallows with the other three (Powell, Atzerodt and Herold).

John

Why can't we accept Gen. E. G. Lee's statements that he sent Surratt to Elmira, on a spy mission, and that Surratt was in Elmira on April 14, 1865? It seems that we accept the word of known liars and "unsure" egotists without hesitation. There must be additional information that I can't find. Help!

(10-13-2017 11:17 PM)SSlater Wrote:  Why can't we accept Gen. E. G. Lee's statements that he sent Surratt to Elmira, on a spy mission, and that Surratt was in Elmira on April 14, 1865? It seems that we accept the word of known liars and "unsure" egotists without hesitation. There must be additional information that I can't find. Help!

John, do you have Michael Shein's book on John Surratt? If so, please see pp. 276-277. The major point (as I see it) of what Shein writes is that, in the John Surratt trial, Judge George P. Fisher made the decision to exclude Lee's testimony "that Surratt was in Elmira to surveil the prison."

I asked this once before - why did Judge Fisher reject the admission of Lee's orders into the trial record? Was there something suspicious about them that the judge deemed inadmissible? Was the judge skeptical of the Elmira story?

There must be some reason why Lee was never allowed to substantiate in court that Surratt was in Elmira.

I'm not a lawyer but Lee's testimony "that Surratt was in Elmira to surveil the prison" does not mean he was actually there. I believe that would be dismissed as hearsay.

(10-14-2017 04:28 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(10-13-2017 11:17 PM)SSlater Wrote:  Why can't we accept Gen. E. G. Lee's statements that he sent Surratt to Elmira, on a spy mission, and that Surratt was in Elmira on April 14, 1865? It seems that we accept the word of known liars and "unsure" egotists without hesitation. There must be additional information that I can't find. Help!

John, do you have Michael Shein's book on John Surratt? If so, please see pp. 276-277. The major point (as I see it) of what Shein writes is that, in the John Surratt trial, Judge George P. Fisher made the decision to exclude Lee's testimony "that Surratt was in Elmira to surveil the prison."

I asked this once before - why did Judge Fisher reject the admission of Lee's orders into the trial record? Was there something suspicious about them that the judge deemed inadmissible? Was the judge skeptical of the Elmira story?

There must be some reason why Lee was never allowed to substantiate in court that Surratt was in Elmira.

Could Judge Fisher have wanted Surratt convicted, so he did not want official orders that would have declared Surratt was in Elmira on April 14 to be admitted into testimony?

Remember the animosity that went on between the judge and Surratt's lawyer? Geez, guys, stop chewing on a rancid bone!