Where was John Surratt on April 14, 1865 ?

[loetar44]

(03-17-2017 12:46 PM)L Verge Wrote:  In parting, let me just say that one detail that convinced me that Surratt was not in DC at the time of the assassination is the description that two Elmira residents gave of John Surratt's "Canadian style" coat.

I suppose that John Surratt's "Canadian style" coat was his Garibaldi-jacket, made by Montreal tailor John J. Reeves. Reeves has sworn that he made a Garibaldi-jacket for Surratt between April 8th and 9th, and yes, Surratt was seen in that jacket in Elmira. When he returned to Canada on April 18th Surratt has on that coat, which was seen by the agent of the hotel and the clerk who kept the register.

But does that prove beyond any doubt that Surratt was NOT in DC? If Surratt was in DC on the 14th, then he arrived early in the morning of that day. A Garibaldi-jacket was NOT in use in the city of Washington in 1865, so why wear it when you want to be “unseen” ?

---

(03-18-2017 01:20 AM)SSlater Wrote:  I think there were valid reasons to get Surratt away from the "action". The biggest one was - Surratt was not a KILLER. He avoided army service on either side. He claims somewhere that he "promised mommy that I wouldn't join the Army."

I don’t believe that Surratt was not a killer! He surely WAS! Remember that he related to Dr. McMillan on the Peruvian the particulars of his trip to Richmond late in March, 1865, accompanied by Sarah Slater. Thomas Harris wrote in “Assassination of Lincoln: a History of the Great Conspiracy” (1892) the following: “Surratt related to the doctor the difficulty they had in crossing the Potomac. They were hailed by a gun-boat, and called upon to surrender. They said they would do so, but waited for the small boat that had been sent to bring them in to come alongside, when they suddenly arose, poured a volley into the crew of the small boat, and then, in the confusion that ensued, made their escape. There were twelve or fifteen crossing with him at the time, and all were armed with revolvers. Having gotten within the Confederate lines south of Fredericksburg, they were being pushed along by negroes on a hand-car when they met five or six forlorn, half-starved Union soldiers, who had made their escape from a rebel prison and were striking for freedom. At the suggestion of this wicked woman they shot them down, and passed on, leaving them lying on the ground.”

So, Surratt had no problems with killing. That he avoided army service and promised his mother that he would not join the army, was IMO not that he didn't have the "Killer Instinct", but that his mother feared that he would have a “too great risk” of being wounded or killed.

---

(03-18-2017 05:06 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  This is pure speculation on my part as I lean to Surratt being in Elmira, but I am also impressed by some of the Washington arguments.

IMO, history is always speculation as it is written by people. Maybe it’s better to say that all history is subjective. According to me it’s always very difficult to abstract, to analyse things and to make sense of everything. If you decide that some things are events, you always give an subjective interpretation. I really think that objectivity does not exist, not alone in history, but in all things. Okay, history is all about facts, but what is a fact? What a fact is for you, belongs in the world of subjectivity to another. Even the way history is told is subjective.

That said, I believed the Elmira scenario, but now, I more and more tend to believe the Washington scenario. The presence of Surratt in Washington City on the day of the assassination is acceptable for me by the testimonies of Charles Wood, Sergeant Dye, David Reed and Susan Ann Jackson. Speculation, subjective or not, I can’t fully ignore these witnesses.