John Surratt

[John Fazio]

Hello Everyone:

Allow me a few words! You every-where permit freedom of speech. You must not deny me now. (Sound familiar?)

A few comments, by way of catch-up. If I omit anyone or neglect to address their comments, please forgive; it is not intentional. Everything that follows is my opinion, unless otherwise stated.

Jerry and Laurie: I do not believe Harney, a seasoned veteran of the Torpedo Bureau who had a long record of wreaking havoc on the Union war effort, was to be managed in Washington by a 26-year old actor who knew nothing of politics or military science. Laurie's opinion re other handlers is on the money. Stringfellow, Ficklin and Conrad are good possibilities, but truly, we just do not know. The city was crawling with Confederates. Recall the Confederate agent Johnston, who said he knew within a half hour of his arrival in the city that there was to be an attack that night. Consider, further, all the whistles that were heard in and around Ford's right after the assassination. It is known that whistles were the favored mode of communication by Mosby's officers. Further, I hope to have an opportunity of convincing you that "Booth's kidnapping plan" was an elaborate myth, carefully contrived to conceal the real and more sinister goal of the conspiracy. Booth's conspiracy was the contingency plan in the event of the failure of the Harney mission, not the other way around. Why else would he notify Surratt, after 4-9, the date of Harney's capture, that "our plans have changed" and to return to Washington forthwith. Who or what changed them?

Roger: You have felt that the plot to blow up the White House began with Benjamin and Davis. You could not be more right! If it did not originate with them, they certainly authorized it. The notion that Harney's mission was a rogue operation is as puerile as the notion that Booth and his team, Mosby and his Rangers, the "New York crowd" and the other conspiracy in Washington mentioned by Surratt in his lecture, as well as Stringfellow, Ficklin, Conrad, et al., were rogue operations. There were no rogue operations. Everything was controlled by Richmond and Montreal.

John Stanton: You are almost completely right with your scenario! My only reservation: Take Surratt's Elmira sojourn with lots of salt. With the Confederacy collapsing and Booth's imperative in his ear, the idea that he would dally there for a purpose already being accomplished, i.e. release of Confederate POW's, is more than suspicious. Gen. E. Lee testified at the Surratt trial and did NOT say he had instructed Surratt to go to Elmira. The key to Surratt's location on 4-14, in addition to the many other reasons for believing he was in Washington rather than Elmira, may lie in his Hanson Hiss interview. There he told of going to Elmira at an earlier date, and not from Montreal pursuant to instruction from Gen. E. Lee, but from Richmond pursuant to instruction from Gen. Wilder. He said that he was in Elmira for "several weeks", not a couple of days in April, and that he had so much of Uncle Sam's gold on him, furnished to him by Richmond, that he made hosts of friends there and "it was a blessed good thing that I did, for it saved my life at my trial". Think about that statement in connection with the fact that at his trial he had only 4 witnesses for his alibi (to the Prosecution's 14), only one of whom was unequivocal. Further, he said he learned of Lincoln's assassination, not in Elmira or St. Alban's, per his other tales, but on his way from Elmira to Albany.

Jerry: The Northwest Conspiracy failed largely because of Union intelligence and counter-measures, but also because the Copperhead organizations were ineffective, as ineffective, in Thomas Hine's words, as children. Bill also made this point.

Bill: You are right: The POW's in Elmira could not have formed an army, and this should tell us something about the Elmira diversion, i.e. could Gen. E. Lee have been ignorant of that fact?

Laurie: I have read Jampoler and I am thus aware of his conclusion re Surratt's whereabouts on 4-14, an opinion shared, incidentally by Mike Kauffman. I am unconvinced. There are many persuasive arguments putting him in Washington, in addition to the material given above. Recall that Ste. Marie testified at Surratt's trial that Surratt told him he left Washington the night of 4-14 or the morning of 4-15 in disguise. I grant that Ste. Marie is not a good witness (his Italian Affidavit is contrary); still, it is another stone on the scale.

Let me take this opportunity to thank all of you for your contributions. They have increased my knowledge of the subject greatly and have helped me with my book, which is now finished, but for abridgment mandated by the publisher.

John