Herold and Surratt

[John Fazio]

(11-06-2013 09:53 AM)Rhatkinson Wrote:  One aspect of the Surratt location puzzle that I have never been able to wrap my mind around is not necessarily where he was at (I agree with Roger and John that there are very compelling arguments as to both DC and Elmira [aside: I deposed two people last week who live in Elmira and were down here in SC for vacation and I brought up my interest in the assassination and Elmira's connection to it. They just looked at me like I was a martian (the same look my wife gives me when I "bore" her with history information!) haha.]

Anyway, the issue I can't decide is whether Surratt was even still involved in the plot on April 14th. That may sound silly, but consider:

1. Booth makes no mention of Surratt in his "men who love their country more than their own lives" letter or in his diary (which I realize doesn't mention anyone else other than Herold.) If Surratt had stood up Booth or left the plot suddenly, Booth is not the type who would have made no mention of that. He would have been very angry it seems and done something to make sure that Surratt was implicated (e.g., the letter from Arnold he left in his hotel room.)

2. Azterodt's several confessions make no mention of Surratt having any active part of the assassinations. If Surratt were in D.C., why would he NOT be used in the plan? He was certainly more trustworthy than Atzerodt and would have been a better person to send to kill Johnson.

3. None of the meetings of the conspirators recounted by Powell and/or Atzerodt mention Surratt being among the group.

I think Surratt was initially included in the wanted posters simply because it became known that Booth was often seen at the Surratt boarding house and with Surratt, who was suspected (rightly) of being a CSA spy. It was just assumed that Surratt was involved as either Seward's attacker or some other role in the plot. This is not to say that Surratt was innocent, as he clearly was involved with the kidnapping plot. Rather, I see no evidence that he was involved with the assassination, and based on the (non) reaction of Booth and the statements of Powell and Atzerodt. This leads me to think that Surratt was not only out of town on April 14th, but that he was no EXPECTED (by Booth) to assist with the assassination, either because he was sent away on CSA business or (less probably due to Booth's anger issues) decided to part ways with Booth.

I would love to hear the thoughts of those of you on here who are much more versed in this than I am.

Heath

Heath:

A few comments:

1. The response of the Martians in Elmira does not surprise me. Most people are too caught up with the business of making a living, massaging their egos, and surviving, to think about history.
It is unfortunate, but then what do I know about the Dixie Chicks, Jennifer Aniston, Shreck or Harry Potter?

2. I believe I said in another post that Surratt was not to leave Washington as the others were. He had a family there and may still have been of some value to the Confederacy. Booth, Atzerodt and Herold were bound for Virginia and a ship; Powell for Baltimore. Their identities could therefore be revealed in the Mathew's letter; not so with Surratt. Another purpose of the revelation may have been to guarantee their loyalty in case any of those named decided to blow the whistle. Further, Booth was careful not to mention anyone's name in his diary, other than Herold, who was with him and could therefore be safely identified, but only, as I recall, as "this poor boy who prays..." Even with Herold, did he not announce to his captors that he swore by the Almighty that he was innocent?

3. In one of his confessions, Atzerodt DOES say that Booth told him that Surratt was in Washington a few days before the 14th and that on the 14th he was staying at the Herndon House and that he, Booth, had just seen him and that he was expected to help in the box. I grant, however, that none of what Booth said has the ring of truth to it. It seems more likely that he was simply trying to boost Atzerodt's courage.

4. Powell, too, mentions Surratt, but negatively, berating him for deserting his mother. But deserting his mother AFTER the assassination does not preclude his having had a hand in it.

5. I repeat: It was not necessary for Surratt to have been in Washington to have assisted in the conspiracy to decapitate the government.

6. I repeat: There never was a bona fide kidnapping plot (in which judgment I am joined by Bingham, Harris and Weichmann, et al.), though some of Booth's dupes thought there was. It was a very effective ruse to cover the more sinister plot to decapitate the government. Surratt surely knew the truth. Powell too. The others bought into the baloney about kiddnapping.

I hope this helps.

John

---

(11-06-2013 10:41 AM)Gene C Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 07:43 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  The bottom line is that he got away with murder, I am convinced, because I am convinced that he was not only a conspirator, but that he was its co-leader with the half-mad , hyperactive and dreadfully immature actor. That role is reflected in Ste. Marie's Affidavit, quoting him as saying "We have killed Lincoln, the n.....s friend."

John

C'mon on John, don't hold back, what do you really think?

It has been a while since I read the book, but what does Laurie's second favorite trial witness, Louis Weichmann have to say about this? As I recall he he believed Johnny Surratt was guilty, and it seems as much as he didn't want to, he believed Mary was guilty also. I do remember feeling a bit sorry for Weichmann, after I read his book.

On the other hand, there are some interesting articles about Louis in the Surratt Courier from Oct 1991. See the thread Louis Weichmann under Assassination. His life story would make interesting reading.

Gene:

I would have to re-read Weichmann to be sure, but my recollection is that he believed John and his mother were both guilty. I will say, however, that he is frequently misrepresented as having been responsible for Mary's conviction. Not so; he actually spoke well of her. It was not his testimony that sank Mary; it was Lloyd's.

John