John Surratt

[John Fazio]

(08-04-2013 10:00 PM)SSlater Wrote:  

(08-04-2013 08:30 AM)HerbS Wrote:  John,How do you want me to take that Churchill comment? There is no doubt that many people know more than I do.

You didn't give the Churchill Comment. My reply was an effort to make light of the comment. Do you believe that "you, SSlater, and others" are difficult to talk to?
I hoped for a laugh. It shows what a poor writer I am.

SSlater:

You are certainly not a poor writer. I DID think your comments were funny; I just haven't had a chance to respond. I have not found it difficult to respond to contributors, but I do sense that others know more than I do sometimes. For example, I did not know that Surratt put off travel until Monday because the trains didn't run on Sundays. But maybe it's a moot point anyway, because I have serious doubts about Surratt's being where he said he was. His three versions of his doings between 4-9 and 4-18 (McMillan; Rockville lecture and Hanson Hiss interview) all tell radically different stories. I think there is a very good possibility that he stopped in Elmira only to set up his alibi with friends he had made there on a previous trip (and to whom he had given a lot of "Uncle Sam's gold"), and then went on to Washington, pursuant to Booth's instruction in the "letter" he received from Booth in the beginning of the week (4-9 0r 4-10). Asked by McMillan what his response to the letter was, he said that he left for Washington immediately. Why then would he not only STOP in Elmira, but stay there? What happened to Washington? I even hold open the possibility that he used a look-alike to set up his alibi in Elmira. His identification by the 5 witnesses who put him there was very tenuous.

John

---

(08-02-2013 05:51 PM)Rhatkinson Wrote:  Thanks, John. Great post. I have always felt that Spangler was the forgotten victim of the assassination. I agree completely with you that he was innocent.

While I agree with you that Herrold was not with Powell at Seward's, why do you think Atzerodt wasn't with Herrold when he crossed the bridge if they were together at the Kirkwood? Why do you believe that the attack on Johnson was unsuccessful? He was clearly in his room. No means to escape?

If Surratt was in DC, what do you think his role was? I assume you don't believe that he backed out of the plot once it turned to assassination if you believe the kidnapping plot was a ruse? If it was a ruse, what do you make of Davey being in TB and being informed by Surratt and Atzerodt of the failure in March? Why would he be there if there was no plot?

What are your thoughts on when Mudd knew Booth had killed Lincoln? I am decidedly in the Dr. Steers camp regarding Mudd; however, Cox, Jr. and others believed that Mudd did not know of the killing until he went to Bryantown. I have always wondered why Booth and Herold would brag about killing Lincoln to a relative stranger like Lloyd, but then keep mum about it to an associate like Mudd. Perhaps the reaction they got from Lloyd made them realize it was best to keep quiet? It has never added up to me.

Who do you believe was Capt. Wood's source that Booth broke his leg at Ford's. I have always guessed it to be Swann, who later recanted due to the danger it caused him to speak up against Cox. It was bad enough that Cox let Booth inside his home, but if Cox knew that Booth broke his leg at Ford's, it would mean that he knew Booth was the assassin when he helped him (which I'm sure was true, but would have sent Cox to the gallows in all probability.)

Heath

Heath:

I believe the evidence we have indicates that Atzerodt was asked by Booth to be at the bridge, but that Booth had little faith that he would comply, consistent with his little faith that Atzerodt would accomplish anything, so little was he regarded by Booth. Furthermore, he knew that as long as Herold met him, he could get along without Atzerodt's navigational skills. Sure enough, at some point Atzerodt, quaking in his boots as soon as he heard about the assassination, decided there was more safety for him on a relative's farm near Baltimore than there was in following Booth and Herold, whom he knew would berate him for his failure re Johnson. That Atzerodt was originally supposed to be with Booth and Herold is confirmed by Smoot in his little 1908 pamphlet, who said Confederate agents were waiting for the three of them. Powell was going to Baltimore.

We don't really know why the attack on Johnson was unsuccessful, but based on the evidence, good possibilities are that he was asleep and did not respond to knocking, as Farwell found out when he went there after the assassination. Also, security in the area may have thwarted the attempt. Herold's inability to access the weapons in Atzerodt's room was another factor. Remember that they had to kill him with a knife, because the report of a firearm would have prevented their escape. I do believe that Atzerodt went there to have a go at it if conditions were favorable, and they weren't. Why else would he stick his head in the lion's mouth at killing time? He did not sit in a bar trying to boost his courage, per the conventional wisdom. He had just had a drink with Fletcher at the Union and would very soon have another at the Pennsylvania. Whatever thwarted Atzerodt, re Johnson, also thwarted Herold, whom Booth had assigned when Atzerodt faltered, assigning Azerodt only as a back-up for Herold.

Surratt could have done any number of things in Washington. It may have been he on Grant's train. He didn't back out of anything. He and Booth were the leaders of the plot, which h e admitted to Ste. Marie. Why did he stop in New York to see Booth on his way to Montreal on 4-5? Why did Booth contact him on 4-9 or 4-10 in Montreal, advising him that their plans had changed and to get back to Washington immediately?

Herold deposited guns, tools, etc., at the tavern (Atzerodt and Surratt joined him) for future use. Such use was not necessarily tied to kidnapping and, ultimately, had nothing to do with kidnapping.

I believe Mudd knew all along what Booth was really up to. He was not a grunt. He was one of the mail line, always in touch with Richmond and with others who were in touch with Richmond. We fool ourselves if we believe that Secret Service people, North and South, made fine distinctions between killing and not killing. After Wistar-Dahlgren-Kilpatrick, the gloves were off. Booth and Mudd played their charade for Frankie's sake.

It was only Booth, the egotist, who told Lloyd whom he felt "we" had killed. Herold said nothing about it until he was talking to the three Confederate soldiers at Port Conway.

I don't know who told Wood about Booth's broken leg, but recall that there were about 1,700 people in the theater and that a lot of them recorded that Booth had broken a leg ("limped", "bull frog", etc.) I believe he broke it when he fell to the stage. The horse business was a cover story. The evidence is strong. He knew a lot of people had witnessed it, which is why he would not lie in his diary, which would have destroyed his credibility.

Cox and most of the mail line knew what was coming. The only reason they were not prosecuted was that the War Department, the prosecutors and the country were exhausted by the conspirators' trial and had no wish to repeat it with new defendants. Nor did they want to confront the jurisdictional issue again.

John