How I see John Surratt.

[SSlater]

John Surratt was a patriotic individual. He wanted a "Confederacy", so he worked for them and their goals, but he never carried a gun.

He served his country well - by Spying. He participated in various attempt to capture Lincoln and carry him south - to free Confederate prisoners. I'm not faulting him, I only want to recognize a TRAIT.

When all that was left but to kill - he disappeared.

He knew where Booth was, and what his plan was, so he avoided him.
He continued to Serve - but it was with Sarah Slater. They traveled back and forth to Canada, never seeming to accomplish anything until the went to Elmira. (Was E. G. Lee Helping him?) . Surratt was everywhere except where Booth was ON PURPOSE!.

That TRAIT was so strong he couldn't help his mother. So, he got out of this country. I believe he felt that his mother was innocent and would be released, with at worst - a slap on the wrist, NOT HANGED.

I doubt that Surratt had the temperament to PULL THE TRIGGER.

Amen!

[RJNorton]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, John. Do you have an opinion on the possible validity of what Dr. Lewis McMillan testified to during John Surratt's trial (regarding the shooting of escaped Union soldiers)?

[SSlater]

(08-19-2018 01:17 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  Thanks for sharing your thoughts, John. Do you have an opinion on the possible validity of what Dr. Lewis McMillan testified to during John Surratt's trial (regarding the shooting of escaped Union soldiers)?

I have never read the official verbiage pertaining to the execution of the "captured escaped prisoners", so I don't know who said what. I am aware that Sarah Slater, as well as several others, were present at the same "murdering of the prisoners in COLD BLOOD."
Sarah may have been the one who said it is legal to "Kill them."
Sarah lived in a town that had a large prison. I feel certain they got authorization to do just that, if they were accosted by escaped prisoners.
In the case discussed here, I doubt the either Sarah or John could have, or did, "Execute" the escapees.
I would not be surprised to learn that the prisoners also knew of those orders. So it is truly NOT "in Cold Blood".
I wonder if those same orders are applicable, today.

[RJNorton]

(08-20-2018 12:19 AM)SSlater Wrote:  I have never read the official verbiage pertaining to the execution of the "captured escaped prisoners", so I don't know who said what.

John, here is the testimony from the John Surratt trial transcript. I do not know the trustworthiness of Dr. McMillan (who was testifying as to what John Surratt told him aboard the Peruvian):

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Witness proceeded — that he met the woman in New York; he came on to Washington with her; from Washington he started on the way to Richmond with her and four or five others; that after a great deal of trouble they managed to cross the Potomac; that after they got south of Fredericksburg they were driven on a platform-car drawn, or pushed, by negroes. As they were drawn along they saw some men coming towards them — five or six if I recollect right. They ascertained that these men were Union prisoners, or Union soldiers from southern prisons; they were, he said, nearly starved to death; that this woman who was with them said, "Let's shoot the damned Yankee soldiers." She had hardly said the word when they all drew their revolvers and shot them, and went right along, paying no more attention to them.

By the District Attorney:
Q. How many?
A. Five or six; I could not say certainly; it was not more than six.

By Mr. Pierrepont:

Q. Did he say what they did with the dead bodies?
A. No; he said they went along.
Q. Did be tell you the name of this woman?

A. He did, but I forget at this distance of time. I could not positively state who she was.

Q. Would you know the name if you were to hear it?
A. I would not like to say now what name it was.
Q. Do you know the letter of the alphabet it commenced with?
A. I could not say.
Q Was the name Mrs. Slater?

A. It sounds like it, but I would not be positive that it is. The woman's name was very conspicuous in Montreal during the trial of the St. Albans raiders.

[L Verge]

I have a very hard time trusting most of the testimony given by Dr. Lewis Joseph Archibald McMillan. Just as the feds had tried to taint testimony in the 1865 trial, I suspect they did the same with young John's trial. They still were out to get the Confederacy, so they had no qualms throwing in perjured testimony.

The best modern source that I know on John Surratt, Jr. is John Surratt: Rebel, Lincoln Conspirator, Fugitive by Frederick Hatch (2016 by McFarland). Fred is a very detail-oriented researcher, but his final text is easy to follow despite the details. I take much the same stand on McMillan that he does -- things just don't stand to reason.

First, McMillan was the surgeon on the ship (S.S. Peruvian) that took Surratt from Quebec to Liverpool (with a brief stop in Londonderry, Ireland). Supposedly the doctor had been asked to look out for "Mr. McCarty" several days earlier by one of Surratt's Catholic protectors in Canada, Fr. LaPierre, before Surratt and McMillan traveled down the St. Lawrence River in order to transfer to the Peruvian and head across the Atlantic. Why would a young man like Surratt, who had been so good at undercover work for two years, blow it now by sharing some very dangerous information -- supposedly even disclosing that he had been financed by the Confederacy's Secretary of State and that he was currently carrying tens of thousands of dollars with him? Why in the world would a fugitive with a price on his head tell anyone that? Pretty dumb, and Surratt was no dummy.

As for hard-hearted Sarah Slater, I cannot see her as a blatant murderess. I doubt that she even knew what most of the dispatches were that she had carried during the war (except maybe the ones that saved the St. Albans Raiders). As McMillan describes the so-called murder of the Yankees, I question why Surratt and Slater would even need to shoot them. What reason, other than a lust for blood, would cause undercover agents to shoot folks who were on foot and likely unarmed while the agents are onboard a moving platform rail car? And, the car was being propelled by a team of black men who would certainly be inclined to tell the first people they saw about such a murder.

Personally, I feel that McMillan had had two years of reading all details published in regards to a variety of aspects about the assassination and then was coached by the prosecution yet again as to what to say in order to get the one remaining "conspirator" punished. That's my version, and I'm sticking to it.

To end this epistle, I'm quoting from Fred's book, especially from a letter that Henry J. Wilding, the Vice Consul for the U.S. in Liverpool wrote in a letter to Seward on September 27, 1865, announcing Surratt was in Liverpool:

"Sir: Yesterday, information was given me that Surratt, one of the persons implicated in the conspiracy to murder Mr. Lincoln, was in Liverpool, or expected there within a day or two. I took the affidavit of the person who gave me the information, and transmitted it to Mr. Adams, and I herewith transmit a copy:

[McMillan] "described himself as a passenger, but I have ascertained that he is the ship's surgeon. He expects a letter or a visit from Surratt in a day or two, and has promised to acquaint me with his, Surratt's, location.

"Should there really be anything in it, and a warrant be obtained for Surratt's apprehension, we should scarcely get him delivered up without other evidence that we can obtain here, we should have to ask his remand until you could send us the necessary evidence.

"Very respectfully, I am, Sir, your obedient servant. Signature

Fred follows up by noting Wilding's expression of doubt regarding McMillan's trustworthiness. The word "remand" that he uses in the letter means to have a suspect arrested to await trial. Wilding obviously thought that the doctor's affidavit was not sufficient to satisfy the British authorities. U.S. authorities obviously thought the same because William Hunter, acting for the recovering Seward, replied that they agreed not to arrest Surratt at that time.

[Steve]

(08-20-2018 03:31 PM)L Verge Wrote:  I have a very hard time trusting most of the testimony given by Dr. Lewis Joseph Archibald McMillan. Just as the feds had tried to taint testimony in the 1865 trial, I suspect they did the same with young John's trial. They still were out to get the Confederacy, so they had no qualms throwing in perjured testimony.

The best modern source that I know on John Surratt, Jr. is John Surratt: Rebel, Lincoln Conspirator, Fugitive by Frederick Hatch (2016 by McFarland). Fred is a very detail-oriented researcher, but his final text is easy to follow despite the details. I take much the same stand on McMillan that he does -- things just don't stand to reason.

First, McMillan was the surgeon on the ship (S.S. Peruvian) that took Surratt from Quebec to Liverpool (with a brief stop in Londonderry, Ireland). Supposedly the doctor had been asked to look out for "Mr. McCarty" several days earlier by one of Surratt's Catholic protectors in Canada, Fr. LaPierre, before Surratt and McMillan traveled down the St. Lawrence River in order to transfer to the Peruvian and head across the Atlantic. Why would a young man like Surratt, who had been so good at undercover work for two years, blow it now by sharing some very dangerous information -- supposedly even disclosing that he had been financed by the Confederacy's Secretary of State and that he was currently carrying tens of thousands of dollars with him? Why in the world would a fugitive with a price on his head tell anyone that? Pretty dumb, and Surratt was no dummy.

As for hard-hearted Sarah Slater, I cannot see her as a blatant murderess. I doubt that she even knew what most of the dispatches were that she had carried during the war (except maybe the ones that saved the St. Albans Raiders). As McMillan describes the so-called murder of the Yankees, I question why Surratt and Slater would even need to shoot them. What reason, other than a lust for blood, would cause undercover agents to shoot folks who were on foot and likely unarmed while the agents are onboard a moving platform rail car? And, the car was being propelled by a team of black men who would certainly be inclined to tell the first people they saw about such a murder.

Personally, I feel that McMillan had had two years of reading all details published in regards to a variety of aspects about the assassination and then was coached by the prosecution yet again as to what to say in order to get the one remaining "conspirator" punished. That's my version, and I'm sticking to it.

To end this epistle, I'm quoting from Fred's book, especially from a letter that Henry J. Wilding, the Vice Consul for the U.S. in Liverpool wrote in a letter to Seward on September 27, 1865, announcing Surratt was in Liverpool:

"Sir: Yesterday, information was given me that Surratt, one of the persons implicated in the conspiracy to murder Mr. Lincoln, was in Liverpool, or expected there within a day or two. I took the affidavit of the person who gave me the information, and transmitted it to Mr. Adams, and I herewith transmit a copy:

[McMillan] "described himself as a passenger, but I have ascertained that he is the ship's surgeon. He expects a letter or a visit from Surratt in a day or two, and has promised to acquaint me with his, Surratt's, location.

"Should there really be anything in it, and a warrant be obtained for Surratt's apprehension, we should scarcely get him delivered up without other evidence that we can obtain here, we should have to ask his remand until you could send us the necessary evidence.

"Very respectfully, I am, Sir, your obedient servant. Signature

Fred follows up by noting Wilding's expression of doubt regarding McMillan's trustworthiness. The word "remand" that he uses in the letter means to have a suspect arrested to await trial. Wilding obviously thought that the doctor's affidavit was not sufficient to satisfy the British authorities. U.S. authorities obviously thought the same because William Hunter, acting for the recovering Seward, replied that they agreed not to arrest Surratt at that time.

Is there any biographical information on Dr. Louis McMillan? All I can find is his 1834 baptism record from Rigauld, Quebec and an 1871 census record of him living in Rigauld with a wife named Mary-Louise and two daughters, Maud and Bertha, under the age of 3. If we know more about his life and whereabouts we can see if there were questions about his honesty/character raised later in his life.

Oh and it looks like McMillan ran for (but lost) a seat in the Quebec Assembly in 1892:

https://archive.org/stream/cihm_07902#page/n17

(There's a brief biography of his opponent on Wikipedia if anybody cares:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rufus_Nelson_England
)

[Gene C]

All of this talk about Surratt's trial just seems to add justification for the military trial for the Lincoln Conspirators.

[L Verge]

(08-20-2018 05:44 PM)Gene C Wrote:  All of this talk about Surratt's trial just seems to add justification for the military trial for the Lincoln Conspirators.

I agree, Gene, but by that time the Milligan decision was in place. Also, two years later it was still hard to find an unbiased civilian jury. The one time that the jury did vote, the outcome was 8-4 for acquittal. Take a guess at how many Southern sympathizers were on the jury...

Many people say/think that that decision ended everything since it was a "hung jury," but actually the prosecution attempted one more time to get an indictment and failed. The end result of the case against Surratt was actually nolle proces, and I hope I spelled that correctly, meaning that no other charge would be brought against him.

The lawyers among us can explain all the things that the government did or didn't do that led to Surratt going free. It's quite a circus.

[RJNorton]

Steve came across another alleged interview with John Surratt. Steve writes, "I found another purported Surratt interview. This one from 1901 and takes the form of an interview of an anonymous "friend" of Surratt who met him in Elmira on April 14, 1865. This unnamed friend supposedly had just interviewed Surratt and was then repeating his interview verbatim to the reporter. This interview is obviously a hoax; one would think Surratt's friend in Elmira would've bothered to testify in his trial or even give a personal account of their meeting that fateful day in Elmira in this article. The article originally appeared on page 20 of the 13 October 1901 issue of the Brooklyn Daily Eagle. However, the layout of the article in the Eagle wouldn't be legible on the forum, so I'm sending a reprint of the article from the 21 Oct. 1901 Springfield Republican."

As always, thanks Steve!

[HerbS]

John Surratt was very slick and a snake[in my opinion]! I can prove that he was in Canandaigua,NY and he went to Easter Mass there-then onto Montreal and the ST.Lawrence Hotel!My question is-who helped him?

[Steve]

(08-21-2018 11:12 AM)HerbS Wrote:  John Surratt was very slick and a snake[in my opinion]! I can prove that he was in Canandaigua,NY and he went to Easter Mass there-then onto Montreal and the ST.Lawrence Hotel!My question is-who helped him?

Herb, are there any photos/images of the Webster House register that Surratt signed (which includes the signatures of the people who signed before and after him)? According to newspaper accounts in the 1950's, the register was supposedly taken to a government archive after the Surratt trial, but I can't seem to locate it now. But surely (hopefully), somebody would've made an image of it?

[HerbS]

Yes-I do have photos of the Webster House and the ledger was taken by the government! I do have proof that he went to Easter Sunday mass at ST.Mary's church! I was on the local Ontario County museum board-thus-I did quite a bit of research on John Surratt!

[SSlater]

(08-21-2018 04:43 PM)Steve Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 11:12 AM)HerbS Wrote:  John Surratt was very slick and a snake[in my opinion]! I can prove that he was in Canandaigua,NY and he went to Easter Mass there-then onto Montreal and the ST.Lawrence Hotel!My question is-who helped him?

Herb, are there any photos/images of the Webster House register that Surratt signed (which includes the signatures of the people who signed before and after him)? According to newspaper accounts in the 1950's, the register was supposedly taken to a government archive after the Surratt trial, but I can't seem to locate it now. But surely (hopefully), somebody would've made an image of it?

Steve. You asked -"Who helped him?." Allow me a "studied-guess".
It was Gen. E. G. Lee. Lee was sent to Canada very late in the war. Why? The South wanted someone with authority up there, a military man, to run that end of the line. At this late date, the plans for Lincoln had changed , and they sent Harney to "Blow up the White House". (You know how that worked out). Surratt and Slater had no part it that plan, so, he "put them on the shelf" - without telling them why. As you know, nothing was ever done with Surratt's and Slater's study of Elmira. (That was a "don't bother me now" assignment, I'm busy.)
Another thought, along that same line. Were Surratt and Slater (two of the top Confederate Agents.) were sent on a "mission". to draw Union Agents out of Montreal, and away from the "White House" plan?

[L Verge]

(08-22-2018 03:47 PM)SSlater Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 04:43 PM)Steve Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 11:12 AM)HerbS Wrote:  John Surratt was very slick and a snake[in my opinion]! I can prove that he was in Canandaigua,NY and he went to Easter Mass there-then onto Montreal and the ST.Lawrence Hotel!My question is-who helped him?

Herb, are there any photos/images of the Webster House register that Surratt signed (which includes the signatures of the people who signed before and after him)? According to newspaper accounts in the 1950's, the register was supposedly taken to a government archive after the Surratt trial, but I can't seem to locate it now. But surely (hopefully), somebody would've made an image of it?

Steve. You asked -"Who helped him?." Allow me a "studied-guess".
It was Gen. E. G. Lee. Lee was sent to Canada very late in the war. Why? The South wanted someone with authority up there, a military man, to run that end of the line. At this late date, the plans for Lincoln had changed , and they sent Harney to "Blow up the White House". (You know how that worked out). Surratt and Slater had no part it that plan, so, he "put them on the shelf" - without telling them why. As you know, nothing was ever done with Surratt's and Slater's study of Elmira. (That was a "don't bother me now" assignment, I'm busy.)
Another thought, along that same line. Were Surratt and Slater (two of the top Confederate Agents.) were sent on a "mission". to draw Union Agents out of Montreal, and away from the "White House" plan?

I agree with you, John, that Gen. E.G. Lee became Surratt's handler and direct supervisor in Canada. As for the surveillance of the POW camp at Hellmira, do you think that the ultimate plan might have been to stage a prison break that would draw the feds out of Canada and take the heat off the Confederate agents operating out of Montreal? What about utilizing that break to recruit the many Copperheads in upper New York and across the Northwest to continue the fight?

After the assassination, Surratt got a great deal of support from the Catholic Church - which is not unusual, since most old-line denominations would offer sanctuary, especially if the death penalty was on the table if the fugitive were apprehended.

[Steve]

According to his Rockville lecture:

http://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln55.html

Surratt said he wrote a telegram to Booth in New York on the 15th:

I telegraphed Booth thus:
"J.W.B., in New York:
"If you are in New York telegraph me.
"John Harrison, Elmira, N.Y."

Is there any independent evidence for Surratt sending this telegram, apart from his speech?

Also, if Surratt was in Elmira as he said and he did send the telegram, and if he didn't know about the assassination beforehand what would make him think that Booth was in New York and would be at the address he sent the telegram to if there was a manhunt after him?

This reminds me of the "Etta letter" which also implied Booth would be in New York:

http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussio...ge-12.html

If Surratt really did send the telegram could it have been part of a preplanned part of the assassination plan. If Surratt was out of Washington whenever an opportunity for the assassination presented itself, he would send a telegram in a sort of distraction, that along with other false leads like the "Etta letter", would hopefully make authorities look for Booth in New York while he headed in the opposite direction?