(02-18-2013 12:24 PM)L Verge Wrote:  John - Surratt skedaddled across the border from Elmira once the news of the assassination was learned. Personally, I believe that young Surratt had been pulled out of Washington under the command of Gen. E.G. Lee weeks before the murder and was not aware that Booth was now bent on assassination.

Since we're mentioning the name Wood - and no, my request does not necessarily coincide with Lewis Powell - but I really want someone to speculate on whether or not Fernando Wood, the Mayor of New York, was a good Lincoln man. There's just something about him that I don't like -- and I'm too lazy to do any research on him.

(02-18-2013 12:28 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  That book really has some material that catches the eye. The author implies there were two separate conspiracies that night, and Seward was the victim of a separate conspiracy from the one which targeted Lincoln. Shelton says that Seward himself "had knowledge of and passive interest in the assassination of Lincoln." Shelton feels Seward was most likely the "Brutus" in the Neff/Baker ciphers.

(02-23-2013 10:16 AM)DanielC Wrote:  John I have always been on the fence with this issue, you make excellent points. Of all the conspirators IMO (and I maybe wrong) his relationship and whom he trusted the most was Surratt. I find it hard to believe the topic of murder would no have come up between the two, or there would not have been a plan "B" if the "Kidnapping" had failed. If JWB had survived and had his day of reckoning at the gallows, and Surratt had surrendered to take his mothers spot, I think justice would have been better served.
[/quote)

Dan:

"Better served", perhaps, but that is not to say that justice was not served, because Mary Surratt was, IMO, also guilty. But, yes, John Surratt got away with murder and, yes, Booth would have been a treasure trove of information if he had lived.

John

---

[quote='Laurie Verge' pid='13798' dateline='1361633842']
I must have missed John's post on 2/18. In response, there is no doubt in my mind that John Surratt was #2 man in the kidnap scheme and may well have known that Plan B to kill Lincoln was always a possibility. The point I was making was that Surratt was under the command of the Confederacy, especially during the month of April and especially with Gen. Edwin Lee using him in part of the plan to transfer Confederate gold into Canada. I have always thought the prison camp at Elmira was a ruse. I suspect that there were some Copperheads in northwestern New York that Surratt was in touch with instead.

Anyhow, my point is that - no matter what Surratt knew and when - his obligation was to the Confederacy, not John Wilkes Booth at that point.

Also, I mentioned Fernando Wood because I consider him a very shifty person who shows up early in the Lincoln presidency as the president-elect came through New York. He and the Senator from Texas (whose name I can't think of) who stayed in Congress long enough to cause waves both deserve some study, IMO.

(02-23-2013 03:16 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  In his December 6, 1870, lecture John Surratt said, "It may be well to remark here that this scheme of abduction was concocted without the knowledge or the assistance of the Confederate government in any shape or form. Booth and I often consulted together as to whether it would not be well to acquaint the authorities in Richmond with our plan, as we were sadly in want of money, our expenses being very heavy. In fact the question arose among us as to whether, after getting Mr. Lincoln, if we succeeded in our plan, the Confederate authorities would not surrender us to the United States again, because of doing this thing without their knowledge or consent. But we never acquainted them with the plan, and they never had anything in the wide world to do with it. In fact, we were jealous of our undertaking and wanted no outside help. I have not made this statement to defend the officers of the Confederate government. They are perfectly able to defend themselves."

In 1902 Samuel Arnold said, "There was never any connection between Booth and the Confederate authorities." He went on to say, "No officials of the Confederate government had any knowledge in regard to it, although it was attempted to be shown by the military commission that they had, through many witnesses."

Were they both lying?

(02-24-2013 01:09 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  [quote='RJNorton' pid='13819' dateline='1361650573']
In his December 6, 1870, lecture John Surratt said, "It may be well to remark here that this scheme of abduction was concocted without the knowledge or the assistance of the Confederate government in any shape or form. Booth and I often consulted together as to whether it would not be well to acquaint the authorities in Richmond with our plan, as we were sadly in want of money, our expenses being very heavy. In fact the question arose among us as to whether, after getting Mr. Lincoln, if we succeeded in our plan, the Confederate authorities would not surrender us to the United States again, because of doing this thing without their knowledge or consent. But we never acquainted them with the plan, and they never had anything in the wide world to do with it. In fact, we were jealous of our undertaking and wanted no outside help. I have not made this statement to defend the officers of the Confederate government. They are perfectly able to defend themselves."

In 1902 Samuel Arnold said, "There was never any connection between Booth and the Confederate authorities." He went on to say, "No officials of the Confederate government had any knowledge in regard to it, although it was attempted to be shown by the military commission that they had, through many witnesses."

Were they both lying?

(02-24-2013 01:09 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(02-23-2013 03:16 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  In his December 6, 1870, lecture John Surratt said, "It may be well to remark here that this scheme of abduction was concocted without the knowledge or the assistance of the Confederate government in any shape or form. Booth and I often consulted together as to whether it would not be well to acquaint the authorities in Richmond with our plan, as we were sadly in want of money, our expenses being very heavy. In fact the question arose among us as to whether, after getting Mr. Lincoln, if we succeeded in our plan, the Confederate authorities would not surrender us to the United States again, because of doing this thing without their knowledge or consent. But we never acquainted them with the plan, and they never had anything in the wide world to do with it. In fact, we were jealous of our undertaking and wanted no outside help. I have not made this statement to defend the officers of the Confederate government. They are perfectly able to defend themselves."

In 1902 Samuel Arnold said, "There was never any connection between Booth and the Confederate authorities." He went on to say, "No officials of the Confederate government had any knowledge in regard to it, although it was attempted to be shown by the military commission that they had, through many witnesses."

Were they both lying?

Roger:

In my opinion, Laurie is partially right. She is right about Surratt, because he was a colossal liar. The first duty of a secret service agent is to conceal the identities of his or her fellow agents, especially his or her superiors, and if such identities are already known, to protect them from capture and prosecution. That is all Surratt was doing in his lecture.

But Arnold was not lying; he just didn't know. Booth, you probably know, was very good at keeping his operations compartmentalized. His grunts, therefore (i.e. Arnold, O'Laughlen, Herold and Atzerodt, were told only as much as they needed to know. They were therefore not privy to the full extent of the conspiracy.

There is these kinds of unsolicited exonerations an element of disingenuousness. Who asked Surratt about the Confederate Government? No one; he volunteered the information. That alone makes it suspect. It was the same with Booth in his famous "To Whom It May Concern letter, in which he signed off with "A Confederate doing his duty on his own responsibility." Again, who asked him? Methinks he protests too much. Why would he volunteer such a statement otherwise than with an ulterior motive, i.e. to shield his superiors?

---

(02-24-2013 01:09 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(02-23-2013 03:16 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  In his December 6, 1870, lecture John Surratt said, "It may be well to remark here that this scheme of abduction was concocted without the knowledge or the assistance of the Confederate government in any shape or form. Booth and I often consulted together as to whether it would not be well to acquaint the authorities in Richmond with our plan, as we were sadly in want of money, our expenses being very heavy. In fact the question arose among us as to whether, after getting Mr. Lincoln, if we succeeded in our plan, the Confederate authorities would not surrender us to the United States again, because of doing this thing without their knowledge or consent. But we never acquainted them with the plan, and they never had anything in the wide world to do with it. In fact, we were jealous of our undertaking and wanted no outside help. I have not made this statement to defend the officers of the Confederate government. They are perfectly able to defend themselves."

In 1902 Samuel Arnold said, "There was never any connection between Booth and the Confederate authorities." He went on to say, "No officials of the Confederate government had any knowledge in regard to it, although it was attempted to be shown by the military commission that they had, through many witnesses."

Were they both lying?

Roger:

In my opinion, Laurie is partially right. She is right about Surratt, because he was a colossal liar. The first duty of a secret service agent is to conceal the identities of his or her fellow agents, especially his or her superiors, and if such identities are already known, to protect them from capture and prosecution. That is all Surratt was doing in his lecture.

But Arnold was not lying; he just didn't know. Booth, you probably know, was very good at keeping his operations compartmentalized. His grunts, therefore (i.e. Arnold, O'Laughlen, Herold and Atzerodt, were told only as much as they needed to know. They were therefore not privy to the full extent of the conspiracy.

There is in these kinds of unsolicited exonerations an element of disingenuousness. Who asked Surratt about the Confederate Government? No one; he volunteered the information. That alone makes it suspect. It was the same with Booth in his famous "To Whom It May Concern letter, in which he signed off with "A Confederate doing his duty on his own responsibility." Again, who asked him? Methinks he protests too much. Why would he volunteer such a statement otherwise than with an ulterior motive, i.e. to shield his superiors?

There is more to this issue that I would like to share with you in another message. This one is giving me problems with my computer. Later.

John

Roger:

I wanted to continue the thought. Arnold, Atzerodt and Powell all made statements indicating that as far as they knew, the Confederate Government was not privy to Booth's conspirarcy. In the first two cases, we may be sure they were ignorant of the breadth of the conspiracy. In Powell's case, and in Surratt's too, we may be sure they were protecting fellow conspirators, especially their superiors in Richmond., which is the first and most important duty of Secret Service agents. Recall that Surratt met regularly with Benjamin, and probably with Davis and Seddon and Breckenridge too. Recall that Powell spoke to Gillette about making numerous trips to Baltimore where he met with wealthy Copperheads (though he did not identify them as such), in their mansions, VIP's who financed him and told him how much glory he would earn from the Southern people for what he was doing. Booth had rubbed elbows with all of them --ten days in Canada with the Canadian Cabinet; trips to New York, Boston (the Parker House meeting), Philadelphia and Baltimore; regular meetings with Surratt who had regular meetings with Benjamin. How couold they not have known of what he was doing? Are we to believe that his action team, the New York crowd, Mosby's Rangers, Harney and his crowd and the other conspiracy that was afoot in Washington, which Surratt mentioned in his lecture, were all running around, doing their own thing, presuming to know how best to serve and save the Confederacy, but completely oblivious to the political and military implications of their schemes, all without the knowledge, approval and control of the highest levels of the Confederate government? It is completley absurd.

Thomas Nelson Conrad also exonerated the Confederate Government from knowledge of his and other "kidnapping schemes" (A Confederate Spy, p. 69). These exonerations are simnply too many and too gratuitous to be true. They are cover; they are not real.

John

---

(02-27-2013 01:29 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(02-24-2013 01:09 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  [quote='RJNorton' pid='13819' dateline='1361650573']
In his December 6, 1870, lecture John Surratt said, "It may be well to remark here that this scheme of abduction was concocted without the knowledge or the assistance of the Confederate government in any shape or form. Booth and I often consulted together as to whether it would not be well to acquaint the authorities in Richmond with our plan, as we were sadly in want of money, our expenses being very heavy. In fact the question arose among us as to whether, after getting Mr. Lincoln, if we succeeded in our plan, the Confederate authorities would not surrender us to the United States again, because of doing this thing without their knowledge or consent. But we never acquainted them with the plan, and they never had anything in the wide world to do with it. In fact, we were jealous of our undertaking and wanted no outside help. I have not made this statement to defend the officers of the Confederate government. They are perfectly able to defend themselves."

In 1902 Samuel Arnold said, "There was never any connection between Booth and the Confederate authorities." He went on to say, "No officials of the Confederate government had any knowledge in regard to it, although it was attempted to be shown by the military commission that they had, through many witnesses."

Were they both lying?

Roger:

In my opinion, Laurie is partially right. She is right about Surratt, because he was a colossal liar. The first duty of a secret service agent is to conceal the identities of his or her fellow agents, especially his or her superiors, and if such identities are already known, to protect them from capture and prosecution. That is all Surratt was doing in his lecture.

But Arnold was not lying; he just didn't know. Booth, you probably know, was very good at keeping his operations compartmentalized. His grunts, therefore (i.e. Arnold, O'Laughlen, Herold and Atzerodt, were told only as much as they needed to know. They were therefore not privy to the full extent of the conspiracy.

There is these kinds of unsolicited exonerations an element of disingenuousness. Who asked Surratt about the Confederate Government? No one; he volunteered the information. That alone makes it suspect. It was the same with Booth in his famous "To Whom It May Concern letter, in which he signed off with "A Confederate doing his duty on his own responsibility." Again, who asked him? Methinks he protests too much. Why would he volunteer such a statement otherwise than with an ulterior motive, i.e. to shield his superiors?

---

(02-24-2013 01:09 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  [quote='RJNorton' pid='13819' dateline='1361650573']
In his December 6, 1870, lecture John Surratt said, "It may be well to remark here that this scheme of abduction was concocted without the knowledge or the assistance of the Confederate government in any shape or form. Booth and I often consulted together as to whether it would not be well to acquaint the authorities in Richmond with our plan, as we were sadly in want of money, our expenses being very heavy. In fact the question arose among us as to whether, after getting Mr. Lincoln, if we succeeded in our plan, the Confederate authorities would not surrender us to the United States again, because of doing this thing without their knowledge or consent. But we never acquainted them with the plan, and they never had anything in the wide world to do with it. In fact, we were jealous of our undertaking and wanted no outside help. I have not made this statement to defend the officers of the Confederate government. They are perfectly able to defend themselves."

In 1902 Samuel Arnold said, "There was never any connection between Booth and the Confederate authorities." He went on to say, "No officials of the Confederate government had any knowledge in regard to it, although it was attempted to be shown by the military commission that they had, through many witnesses."

Were they both lying?

Roger:

In my opinion, Laurie is partially right. She is right about Surratt, because he was a colossal liar. The first duty of a secret service agent is to conceal the identities of his or her fellow agents, especially his or her superiors, and if such identities are already known, to protect them from capture and prosecution. That is all Surratt was doing in his lecture.

But Arnold was not lying; he just didn't know. Booth, you probably know, was very good at keeping his operations compartmentalized. His grunts, therefore (i.e. Arnold, O'Laughlen, Herold and Atzerodt, were told only as much as they needed to know. They were therefore not privy to the full extent of the conspiracy.

There is in these kinds of unsolicited exonerations an element of disingenuousness. Who asked Surratt about the Confederate Government? No one; he volunteered the information. That alone makes it suspect. It was the same with Booth in his famous "To Whom It May Concern letter, in which he signed off with "A Confederate doing his duty on his own responsibility." Again, who asked him? Methinks he protests too much. Why would he volunteer such a statement otherwise than with an ulterior motive, i.e. to shield his superiors?

There is more to this issue that I would like to share with you in another message. This one is giving me problems with my computer. Later.

John

Roger:

I wanted to continue the thought. Arnold, Atzerodt and Powell all made statements indicating that as far as they knew, the Confederate Government was not privy to Booth's conspirarcy. In the first two cases, we may be sure they were ignorant of the breadth of the conspiracy. In Powell's case, and in Surratt's too, we may be sure they were protecting fellow conspirators, especially their superiors in Richmond., which is the first and most important duty of Secret Service agents. Recall that Surratt met regularly with Benjamin, and probably with Davis and Seddon and Breckenridge too. Recall that Powell spoke to Gillette about making numerous trips to Baltimore where he met with wealthy Copperheads (though he did not identify them as such), in their mansions, VIP's who financed him and told him how much glory he would earn from the Southern people for what he was doing. Booth had rubbed elbows with all of them --ten days in Canada with the Canadian Cabinet; trips to New York, Boston (the Parker House meeting), Philadelphia and Baltimore; regular meetings with Surratt who had regular meetings with Benjamin. How couold they not have known of what he was doing? Are we to believe that his action team, the New York crowd, Mosby's Rangers, Harney and his crowd and the other conspiracy that was afoot in Washington, which Surratt mentioned in his lecture, were all running around, doing their own thing, presuming to know how best to serve and save the Confederacy, but completely oblivious to the political and military implications of their schemes, all without the knowledge, approval and control of the highest levels of the Confederate government? It is completley absurd.

Thomas Nelson Conrad also exonerated the Confederate Government from knowledge of his and other "kidnapping schemes" (A Confederate Spy, p. 69). These exonerations are simnply too many and too gratuitous to be true. They are cover; they are not real.

John

Quote:And I haven't even begun to talk about the mail line, Ficklin, Stringfellow, Harbin, Parr, et al. Was Richmond ignorant of them too?

(02-27-2013 05:04 PM)BettyO Wrote:  

Quote:And I haven't even begun to talk about the mail line, Ficklin, Stringfellow, Harbin, Parr, et al. Was Richmond ignorant of them too?

Powell also told Gillette that the head of the house where he boarded in Baltimore, i.e. Branson, was also "in on the kidnap plot." I have recently uncovered information regarding Mr. Branson which will surprise folk - it surprised me..... I'll bring this up at the Conference - so be there or be square!