What Was The Role of David Herold

[John Fazio]

(02-18-2013 01:24 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.

Laurie:

With great respect, Surratt returned to Washington from Richmond on or about April 3 and then left almost immediately for Montreal, arriving there and checking into the St. Lawrence Hall on April 6. How then can it be possible that Edwin Lee pulled him out of Washington "weeks before the murder"? Further, all the evidence we have supports the view that Surratt and Booth were working hand in glove with the conspiracy at least since December of 1864 and probably before inasmuch as both were with the Secret Service. We know, further, that Booth contacted Surratt while he was in Montreal, on or about April 10, two days after Harney was arrested, advising him that their "plans have changed" and ordering him back to Washington. How, then, can it be said he didn't know about the assassination plot? That position is also contrary to Ste. Marie's Affidavit. I hope to persuade you that Booth and Surratt always intended assassination, that "kidnapping" was merely a cover for their plot, and that Surratt was as much a part of the scheme as Booth was. Recall that Booth urged Powell to kill Lincoln on at least three occasions prior to April 14? How then can it be seriously believed that he intended only to kidnap him?

As for Fernando Wood, he was anti-Lincoln, anti-black, a friend of rich and powerful Copperheads, such as August Belmont, and even went as far as to urge the secession of the City of New York from the State of New York. He was, therefore, a troublemaker. Union and Emancipation owe him nothing.

John

---

(02-18-2013 01:28 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.

Roger:

I read Shelton's book. He, together with Guttridge and Neff, and some would say Eisenschiml, are on the outer fringes. I accept none of their theories. Further, I observe that Ed Steers, a no-nonsense historian, is also disdainful of their works. There may be a nugget here and there, but overall, I believe they have lost their way.

John

[DanielC]

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.

[Laurie Verge]

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.

[John Fazio]

(02-23-2013 11:16 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.

Laurie:

",,,his obligation was to the Confederacy, not John Wilkes Booth at that point". That assumes that Booth's obligation was not to the Confederacy; that Booth was effectively on his own, without direction from Richmond. I cannot accept that. I believe the evidence is strong that he was being handled by Richmond and Confederate agents closer to him than Richmond (e.g. the mail line, Harbin, Stringfellow, et al.). Consider only Arnold's reference to Richmond in the letter found in Booth's room; Chester's statement that Booth told him he was low on funds and would have to go to Richmond to get more; Booth's 10 days in Montreal, meeting with top Confederate agents there; Surratt's many meetings with Benjamin and also with Booth; and Ste. Marie's Affidavit. Consider, too, the numerous references to "others" in the conspiracy by Atzerodt, Powell and Arnold.

I see you are still making references to "kidnapping". I hope to disabuse you of this myth.

I remain, Madam, your most obedient and humble servant,

John

[Laurie Verge]

Humble servant: I will continue to disagree with you about the kidnap plot - based largely on your own points about Arnold's (and possibly O'Laughlen's) reaction to Booth at Gautier's and the number of people possibly involved. It only takes one person to be an assassin.

I will also clarify my position that, after the fall of Richmond and the skedaddle of the Confederate hierarchy, I consider Booth a loose cannon without direction from the CSA from early April onward. It's all in the timing.

This does not eliminate the possibility, however, that members of the Secret Line in Southern Maryland and the Northern Neck did offer assistance in his escape when called upon or upon having received word along the grapevine (started by Herold or Mudd) that they were to assist the fugitives.

[RJNorton]

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?

[L Verge]

In my opinion, yes. They were both ex-Confederates and would maintain the "honor" of their leaders until the end. Surratt went on to later seek economic support from one of his CSA "handlers," William Norris.

[John Fazio]

(02-23-2013 04:16 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 02:09 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

[John Fazio]

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

(02-23-2013 04:16 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 02:09 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(02-23-2013 04:16 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 02:29 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(02-24-2013 02:09 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 02:09 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

Roger:

Here's another thought. Arnold, Herold, Atzerodt and Powell all spoke of "others" who were in the conspiracy, but who were not part of Booth's immediate action team. Chester and Mathews did too. Recall, also, the evidence of "others' who were involved on the night of the assassination, namely the whistlers; the horsemen who galloped through Union pickets after they refused to give the password (see p. 41 in Kauffman); and the blase' horseman who showed no interest in news about the assassination and attempted assasination on the road near Glenwood Cemetery (see p. 73-74 in Kauffman). Are we to believe that all these others were also unknown to Confederate authorities? And I haven't even begun to talk about the mail line, Ficklin, Stringfellow, Harbin, Parr, et al. Was Richmond ignorant of them too?

John

[Gene C]

Is it possible Booth spoke of "others" in an effort to encourage those who might be waivering in their dedication to his cause, by making the number of conspiritors larger than it really was?

As for these unknown "others" on the fringe who are seen acting strangely, in most notorious crimes there are usually eyewitnesses who see things that never were, and see suspicion in ordinary activities. Kooky witness come out of the woodwork to report strange things they've seen.
(Either that or I've wasted years of watching TV cop shows.)

[BettyO]

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!

[RJNorton]

John, thank you for all your comments. I'll limit this to just one question. You mentioned the Parker House meeting. Can you say for certain that this trip was not simply to see Isabel Sumner? What do you think? Do we really know with certainty that JWB met with Confederate operatives there?

[Jim Garrett]

(02-27-2013 06:04 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!

BE THERE!!!!

[Art Loux]

[quote='John Fazio' pid='13852' dateline='1361686198']

John, I have been reading through this interesting thread and wanted to respond to a few items. Here goes.

You wrote: "I submit that the foregoing evidence suggests that Wood or Woods may not be the same person as Powell and that he (Wood or Woods) was also involved in the assassination and attempted assassinations that night."
Response: See Atzerodt Statement to McPhail, May 1, 1865: "James Wood sometimes called Mosby boarded with Mrs. Murray an Irish woman on the corner of 9 & F St. . . . He was a little over six feet, black hair, smooth round face, gray coat black pants, & spring coat . . . Mosby was Wood'’s nickname - did not know him by any other name than mentioned."

Conclusion: Powell, Wood/Woods, Mosby were all the same person.

You wrote: "In his confession of April 25, Atzerodt said that after Booth returned from New York (i.e. after the Gautier's Restaurant meeting and the Campbell Hospital episode), he took Atzerodt to a lady's house near the Patent Office..."introduced me to a young man he called James Wood. . . ."

Response: Yes, the timing of Atzerodt meeting Powell is off as written. Atzerodt spoke with a thick accent which was difficult to understand. What he said was written down by his various interviewers which added another layer of obfuscation. It is obvious from the May 1, 1865 statement that Atzerodt knew Wood/Mosby/Powell before or coincident to the Gautier’s' meeting.

You wrote: "Later in his April 25 confession, Atzerodt said that "I went up to Woods in the Navy Yard about 12 o'clock after the assassination. . ." This "Woods" could hardly have been Powell. . ."

Response: This mysterious statement can be demystified by reference to Atzerodt'’s other confessions. In his confession which appeared in the Baltimore American of January 18, 1869 Atzerodt described riding around after he left the Kirkwood House at 10:15 (est.): "I rode down the avenue and the cavalry were dashing by me. This was the first I heard of the murder. I then went up Eighth Street and left the horse at the stables opposite the Franklin House, and then went to the Herndon House. I then took a car and went towards the Navy Yard. This was about 11 o’clock, and I met two young men named Briscoe and Spates. After walking some distance I took a car to Sixth and Pennsylvania Avenue."

Conclusion: The statement "I went up to Woods in the Navy Yard about 12 o’clock after the assassination . . ." is garbled. In light of the Baltimore American confession it might be edited to read, "I went up to Wood’'s [meaning the Herndon House], and then took a car to the Navy Yard."

[BettyO]

Thanks, Art!

Powell had so many aliases and nicknames that I don't know how the kid kept track of them all!

He also wrote to John Surratt under the assumed name of "Wood" from the Revere House in NY. According to Weichmann, the letter was addressed to "James Sturdy" i.e. Surratt.

I have recently found out that the ledgers for the Revere House may still exist -- I'm currently checking that out as well. If so, Powell used either "Wood" (more than likely) or one of his other aliases "James Hall." (No connection to the 'late/great' historian of the same name!) I'm checking into this as we speak....

I'm firmly convinced that Powell/Paine/Wood/Hall/Kincheloe/Ferguson" with the nicknames of "Doc" and "Longfellow" were one and the same person.