Herold and Surratt

[John Fazio]

(11-07-2013 03:20 PM)wsanto Wrote:  

(11-07-2013 11:34 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  Excellent! The next question is: What time did Grant's train leave? (Let me add that though I am interested in this line of thought, I am doubtful that Surratt was Grant's pursuer. The letter received by Grant shortly thereafter, in which the writer identified himself as the would-be assassin and expressed his thanks to God that he had not been successful, does not sound like Surratt, whom other evidence indicates was a cold-blooded killer.)

John

John,

What evidence do you have that leads you to believe Surratt was a "cold-blooded killer"? Did he ever kill anyone?

Assassinating Grant in the company of his wife on a moving train or at a busy train station with no real planning would have been pretty much a suicide mission. I assume Grant was heavily guarded after news of the assassination in Washington reached them making it even more difficult at this point for a prospective assassin.

It is easy to see how it failed if there was a prospective assassin assigned to Grant. Even the most cold-blooded of killers would have likely aborted a mission so full of risk.

WSanto:

Thank you for your question and comments.

According to Dr. Lewis J. A. McMillan, the doctor aboard the Peruvian, in whose charge Surratt was placed by Catholic clergyman who had been protecting Surratt in Canada from April, 1865 (for reasons that are not known to this day, though I have a good theory), Surratt told him a great deal about his work with the Confederate Secret Service. The Peruvian was taking them to Europe from Quebec City. Among other things, McMillan said that Surratt, under the influence of alcohol and feeling safe outside of American jurisdiction (if a bit paranoid about some passengers), told him that he, Sarah Slater and others who were making their way to Richmond between 3-25 anad 3-31, 1865, murdered in cold blood a half dozen or so emaciated Union POW's who had escaped their captors. He also said that Surratt admitted that he and his companions murdered Union seamen who were approaching their craft on the Potomac for the purpose of accepting their surrender, to which Surratt and his companions had previously agreed to, thereby successfully escaping capture. He also said that Surratt admitted to summary execution of a Union telegrapher, caught in the act of telegraphing, somewhere in Virginia. In addition, he said to McMillan that "If you knew all the things I have done, it would make you stare (or gape)", or something to that effect. I believe we may safely surmise that Surratt's admissions to McMillan are the tip of the iceberg. Recall, too, that he allegedly told Ste. Marie that "We have killed Lincoln, the n-----s friend" and that if he met Weichman when he returned to the States, he would kill him. That's enough evidence for me.

John

---

(11-06-2013 10:53 PM)SSlater Wrote:  I wish I could argue convincingly. By saying that I admit I can't.

We are all handicapped, because everything we read about assassination has been provided to us by the people who lived in 1865, who were as uninformed as we are today. They were either trying to distance themselves from Booth, or were trying to convict the assassins friends - as directed by the government. We believe Atzerodt, when his remarks seem to "prove" our position and then laugh at the poor soul when his remarks are contrary to what we want to believe. The same can be said about Weichmann and all the others. (Our Posts are too small to write in detail about all of them.

Then there is the tendency to use good information, erroneously, to make a point. See: Did Surratt and Booth not go to NY after the Campbell Hospital "failure"?NO, they did not.
Booth went to NY, and Surratt went to Richmond. See: Did Surratt not stop in NY to see Booth? Yes he did, but Booth was not there. See: Did not Surratt send a telegram to Booth from Elmira? OOPS! Surratt is in ELMIRA. Fact: Booth and Surratt never met again,in their lifetime, after the "failure".

My conclusion is: If Surratt was still a member of the assassination team, he would have made himself available, and would have been effective.

SSlater:

Sorry I have not responded sooner. Paperhanging with one arm again.

In my judgment, one cannot say categorically (as you did) that Surratt did not go to N.Y. after the Campbell Hospital "failure". Booth went to N.Y., yes: we agree on that. Powell too, after a stopover in Baltimore, though you did not mention him. We also know that Preston Parr was there. We also know that Surratt did not leave for Richmond until 3-25, i.e giving him about 8 days within which to go to New York and return to Washington, though we also know that Booth telegraphed him, in Washington, on the 23rd. Even with that, he still had from the 18th to the 23rd to go to N.Y. and return. Further, and most significantly, he was telegraphed on the 19th from N.Y.by fellow agent Roderick Watson, as follows:

I would like to see you on important business. If you can spare the time to come to New York. Please telegraph me immediately on the reception of this, whether you can come on or not & much oblige.

Inasmuch as Surratt did not leave for Richmond until the 25th and inasmcuh as his fellow conspirators, Booth and Powell, as well as Parr, were either in or on their way to N.Y., I would say that the probabilities are that Surratt joined them for the pow-wow. I realize I have the burden of proof on the affirmative, but I have at least made a case. What evidence do you have that he stayed in Washington from 3-18 through 3-25?

I Have already said that Booth wasn't in N.Y. (he was in Boston, performing) when Surratt stopped to see him on 4-5. That is unimportant. What is important is that he wanted to see him en route to Montreal, thus demonstrating that the two were still acting in concert, which was my only point.

I never said that Surratt was NOT in Elmira. That wasn't the issue; the issue is what he ultimately did in response to Booth's telegram to get back to Washington because their plans had changed. What is most important is not whether he was in Elmira or not, but the fact that he did, by his own admission, telegraph Booth to determine whether or not he had already left for Washington. All of this demonstrates continuing concerted action consistent with the decapitation plot. Your categorical statement that they never met again after 3-17 cannot be given as truth, but only as opinion. My opinion is that if they didn't meet, it wasn't for want of trying, and, further, that meeting was not necessary to the conspiracy; communication was, and there was that.

John