Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

John Fazio · (This post was last modified: 02-06-2013 03:12 AM by John Fazio.)

(02-04-2013 09:19 PM)Linda Anderson Wrote:
(01-02-2013 02:37 PM)John Fazio Wrote:

(12-30-2012 11:50 AM)Linda Anderson Wrote: Seward's next door neighbor was Benjamin Ogle Tayloe who had strong ties to the Confederacy. According to an April 16, 1865 article in the Daily National Intelligencer, Tayloe's servant saw Powell ride up to Seward's house. There is no mention of anyone accompanying Powell.

"A servant boy of Mr. Ogle Tayloe, who resides next door to Mr. Seward, saw the assassin ride up to the door of the latter and fasten his horse to the lamp-post. A few minutes afterwards Major Seward came to the door and told the boy to cry 'Murder!' asserting, at the same time, that the murderer was still in the house."

According to the Daily National Republican dated April, 18, 1865, Tayloe's servant, Ben, gave a statement that he saw Powell run out of the house after Powell attacked Seward. I have not been able to find the paper's "extra of Saturday."

"Mr. Tayloe's servant, Ben, corrects his statement published in our extra of Saturday, in relation to what he saw and heard as he stood at Mr. Seward's door Friday night. It was Governor Seward's servant and not Major Seward, who came first to the door and gave the alarm. He preceeded the assassin in coming out of the house, and said to Mr. Tayloe's servant, 'A man is in the house murdering everybody; run for your life and cry murder!' This was done by Ben who ran to the corner of Madison Place and Pennsylvania Avenue, and returned immediately, followed by several unarmed soldiers. When nearly opposite Mr. Seward's house again, a man came out of it, with a dagger in his hand, mounted his horse, and set off at a deliberate pace towards the north, until he reached Sixteenth street, when he went off at full speed, and disappeared around the corner of Governor Morgan's house, on Fifteenth and I streets, going towards the east."

I wonder who gave the first cry of "murder," William H. Bell or the Tayloe's servant, Ben. Also, George Robinson testified in the John Surratt trial that Fanny Seward saw Powell "make a blow at her father. She then hallooed "murder," and ran out into the hall and cried out that there was someone there trying to kill her father. She came back into the room, and went to the window next to the avenue-next to where the provost officer's office then was-which I had shoved up some eight or ten inches, and which she shoved clear up, and then hallooed the same out there."

However, Fanny wrote in her diary, "I did not open any window and cry “murder” as the report of Robinson’s statement said, neither did I leave the room as then mentioned, but at the time I have stated."

In any case, it could have been more than one person crying "murder" that Alfred Cloughly or the orderlies in General Augur's office heard.

Linda and her respondent:

Very valuableinformation. Thank you.

John

(02-05-2013 04:02 PM)Laurie Verge Wrote:
(02-05-2013 05:56 AM)John Fazio Wrote:
(02-03-2013 02:31 PM)L Verge Wrote: John,

Thanks for somewhat holding up my end of the bridge fight. BTW, my grandfather was born in 1868 also and my grandmother in 1874. She lived to be 91 and is the one who instilled the love of history in me. It was easy to listen to her because she had lived so much of what I was learning in school.

As for the testing of the bridge. Mrs. Surratt and Weichmann made it over the bridge during daylight hours on both April 11 and April 14. However, we know on the 11th that she was a little concerned about sentries that were posted at night. She inquired of a man along the road as to when they were pulled in, and I believe the answer was 8 pm.

On the 14th, she was late arriving at the tavern, and Lloyd was even later. She was starting to get a bit antsy about making it back before the bridge closed. I believe it was around 6 pm when they finally headed back to D.C. According to my calculations, that would put her at the bridge about 8 pm. When you stop and think about everything that some of us suspicion went on at the boardinghouse in the next few hours, it was a bee hive! Dinner, start to church, turn back because of weather, talk with Smoot, and other things that I don't agree with...

Next thought: Sorry to bore you once again with the Herold/Huntt story, but I contend that Herold was sent into Southern Maryland sometime on April 12, after Booth made the final decision to strike after hearing the Lincoln speech on April 11. Davey never seemed to have a problem getting out of the city, but he did spend the night with my great-grandparents on April 13. Was it because he had gotten so wet during the rainstorm, or was it because he knew there would be problems getting back into the city? He was gone from the Huntts' by 6 am and had breakfast at his own home - according to a sister.

Since truck farmers from Southern Maryland would be arriving at the bridge early in order to set up at the various markets, could we assume that the bridge would open for traffic about 6 am? And, I agree with the idea that the authorities were more worried about people coming into the city than those leaving - especially when there was no indication that anything was wrong. Fletcher's problem was that he needed to get back into the city. Booth and Herold had no intentions of doing so.

Laurie:

Bore me with the Herold-Huntt story? You must be joking. Surely the most interesting history of all is that which comes from the horse's mouth. You were most certainly privileged to sit at the feet of your grandmother, who had it at her fingertips, who knew those who lived it, in the flesh, or who lived it herself. I never sat at the feet of a grandparent, but I did listen to my father tell me that his father shot a tiger one night in Somaliland or Ethiopia in the late 1800's when Italy was beating up on the natives there. So that's something. My guess is that the tiger was something less than a tiger, but grew into one, and with ever-increasing ferocity, with each passing year and each telling of the story. Someone once told me, when I was quite young, that my father went out west as a young man and lassoed rattlesnakes. But when I asked him about it, he said he never saw a rattlesnake, that he got sick on Mexican food in Arizona, vomited and came home. So much for popular history.

John

Did you just say that you are not bored with my family's story, but that you don't believe a word of it?

Just my opinion, John, but I think you are over-reaching in an effort to have a comeback for me! I haven't read your chapters that you sent me yet (finding time to earn my paycheck is getting in my way); but from these postings, I'm starting to get the feeling that you are going to attempt to re-write the whole story?? Now the kidnap plot is just a ruse? I'm starting to need an Excedrin.

Laurie:

Truly, I am not over-reaching, nor am I re-writing the whole story. Sorry if I give that impression. But it remains true that Booth never intended to kidnap anyone. It was his cover story for recruiting members of his action team, in the same way that the "oil business" was his cover story for their source of funds. The evidence for this is, in my opinion, clear and convincing. Thomas Nelson Conrad (who probably intended to assassinate Lincoln himself) even wrote that "a child would know there was nothing to be gained by kidnapping the President". Davis vetoed what he later said was the only real kidnapping plot that was brought to him for approval (the Walker Taylor plot). Grant had resumed prisoner exchange in January, 1865, and was exchanging 3,000 POW's a week. That fact prompted Arnold to tell Booth he was crazy to proceed. But he did proceed, because "kidnapping" the Presdient to hold him for ransom of Confederate POW's was not his true purpose. Does anyone suppose he would show up in Richmond with Lincoln in handcuffs and say "Look what I have brought you, President Davis?" What would Davis have done with him? Does anyone suppose the Federal Government would have negotiated with a Confederate Government that held Lincoln against his will? A kidnapping would have destroyed all possibility of recognition by a foreign country. &c.

Hold the Excedrin.

I remain, your most obedient and humble servant,

John

Linda Anderson · (This post was last modified: 02-06-2013 07:49 AM by Linda Anderson.)

You are welcome, John. I am also my own respondent!

I originally wrote, "According to the Daily National Republican dated April, 18, 1865, Tayloe's servant, Ben, gave a statement that he saw Powell run out of the house after Powell attacked Seward. I have not been able to find the paper's "extra of Saturday."

The National Intelligencer of April 16 and 17 ran an article called "The Assault on Gov. Seward" which I think is the same article that was in the Daily National Republican extra of Saturday, April 15. It makes the same mistake as the April 15 Daily National Republican in stating that it was Major Seward, not William H. Bell, who came out of the house while Powell was still there and told the Tayloes' servant Ben to cry "murder."

John E. · 02-06-2013, 08:06 AM

Hi John,

I believe there was a kidnapping plot at one time. However, I think Booth abandoned that idea much earlier than he let on to the others.

Killing Lincoln didn't require that much help. If Booth wanted to accomplish that feat, he could have done so and probably gotten away with it. Why muddy the waters by getting so many others involved?

I haven't read your other work just yet, but do you also believe Booth intended to have Seward and Johnson killed as well ? Was Grant in the mix too? If so, perhaps that's why Booth tried to recruit others.

Kidnapping Lincoln may have had positive rewards at one time. An exchange for more troops or a favorable end to the war.

*Killing Lincoln alone was an end game with nothing to gain but revenge and the Union's wrath.

*Killing Lincoln, Seward and Johnson may have provided some tactical and strategic gains, but it was a hail-Mary attempt.

JMadonna · (This post was last modified: 02-06-2013 08:34 AM by JMadonna.)

(02-06-2013 02:47 AM)John Fazio Wrote: Laurie:

Truly, I am not over-reaching, nor am I re-writing the whole story. Sorry if I give that impression. But it remains true that Booth never intended to kidnap anyone. It was his cover story for recruiting members of his action team, in the same way that the "oil business" was his cover story for their source of funds. The evidence for this is, in my opinion, clear and convincing. Thomas Nelson Conrad (who probably intended to assassinate Lincoln himself) even wrote that "a child would know there was nothing to be gained by kidnapping the President". Davis vetoed what he later said was the only real kidnapping plot that was brought to him for approval (the Walker Taylor plot). Grant had resumed prisoner exchange in January, 1865, and was exchanging 3,000 POW's a week. That fact prompted Arnold to tell Booth he was crazy to proceed. But he did proceed, because "kidnapping" the Presdient to hold him for ransom of Confederate POW's was not his true purpose. Does anyone suppose he would show up in Richmond with Lincoln in handcuffs and say "Look what I have brought you, President Davis?" What would Davis have done with him? Does anyone suppose the Federal Government would have negotiated with a Confederate Government that held Lincoln against his will? A kidnapping would have destroyed all possibility of recognition by a foreign country. &c.

John

John, you're going to really stir up the pot with that theisis. I like it.
But, if that was his true purpose - Why did he wait until April to strike? Do you think he was not 'authorized' to do so until later? Was Davis waiting for the end of the peace talks?

Jerry

John Fazio · 02-07-2013, 08:29 PM

(02-06-2013 08:06 AM)John E. Wrote: Hi John,

I believe there was a kidnapping plot at one time. However, I think Booth abandoned that idea much earlier than he let on to the others.

Killing Lincoln didn't require that much help. If Booth wanted to accomplish that feat, he could have done so and probably gotten away with it. Why muddy the waters by getting so many others involved?

I haven't read your other work just yet, but do you also believe Booth intended to have Seward and Johnson killed as well ? Was Grant in the mix too? If so, perhaps that's why Booth tried to recruit others.

Kidnapping Lincoln may have had positive rewards at one time. An exchange for more troops or a favorable end to the war.

*Killing Lincoln alone was an end game with nothing to gain but revenge and the Union's wrath.

*Killing Lincoln, Seward and Johnson may have provided some tactical and strategic gains, but it was a hail-Mary attempt.

John:

I do not believe there was evr a kidnapping plot, at least not one organized by Booth, and probably no others either. Kidnapping was a bad idea. The Confederate leadership knew that.

He muddied the waters and involved others because he planned to kill many more than Lincoln, namely Johnson, Seward, Stanton and Grant, at least, and there is even evidence (though it is not strong) that Chase, Welles, Speed and Sherman were targeted.

What would have been the positive rewards? No one in the Federal Government would have negotiated with Richmond. What leverage did they then have? Would they have killed him? Mutilated him? Obviously not.

It WAS a hail-Mary, yes, but a hail-Mary is better than no pass at all.

John

Philip G · 02-10-2013, 09:18 AM

Great article by Mr. Fazio!! Forgive me if someone mentioned or asked this already, but if Herold was near or in the theatre say from around 9:00 PM for some time maybe 30 minutes, do we know of anyone who saw him there or nearby??

Phil

RJNorton · 02-10-2013, 09:27 AM

Hi Phil. I will have to check this, but I have a very vague memory there was testimony at the John Surratt trial in which an eyewitness (Dye?) stated he saw Booth with others in front of or to the side of the theater. Anyone recall for certain? I do not think Herold was mentioned by name, though. Possibly I am confused on this testimony; hopefully someone can straighten me out if so.

John Fazio · 02-10-2013, 10:42 AM

(02-10-2013 09:18 AM)Philip G Wrote: Great article by Mr. Fazio!! Forgive me if someone mentioned or asked this already, but if Herold was near or in the theatre say from around 9:00 PM for some time maybe 30 minutes, do we know of anyone who saw him there or nearby??

Phil

Philip: Thank you for the compliment.

I cannot say with certainty that someone saw him, but someone may have and, further, there is good circumstantial evidence putting him there:

Consider:

1. As Roger already pointed out, Sgt. Dye testified at the trial of the conspirators (Pit., p. 72) that he saw Booth conversing with a "ruffian looking fellow" ( a good description of Herold that fairly well fits Fletcher's that night) on the sidewalk in front of Ford's Theatre that night (as well as with a better dressed man).

2. Dye testified again in John Surratt's trial (Vol. 1, p. 131).

3. In Atzerodt's July 6 confession, he said that after 9:00 p.m., Herold left him to go for Booth. (Weichmann, p. 387)

4. Harrison Reed's report that, according to his information, Herold had confessed to Marshall Murray of New York that his place was at Ford's Theatre and as soon as the President was shot, he ran to the Kirkwood to Atzerodt's room.

5.The person seen to mount a horse, which had been standing next to the theater, and then gallop away, by the party who resided at 333 F Street, may have been Herold. The person seen standing on the sidewalk next to the solitary horse adjacent to the theater may also have been Herold. See p. 13 of the article. These whistles, incidentally, were the known mode of communication of Mosby's Rangers, some of whom were known to have infiltrated Washington that night, probably in Union uniforms. Coggeshall puts some of them in the theater (p. 27). Does anyone suppose they came to be entertained by a worn out English comedy?

John

RJNorton · 02-10-2013, 12:47 PM

I wonder why Francis P. Burke was not called as a witness at the conspiracy trial. I would think he might have seen what was going on outside the theater during the performance (except for the period of time he was drinking in Taltavul's).

John Fazio · 02-10-2013, 02:04 PM

(02-10-2013 12:47 PM)RJNorton Wrote: I wonder why Francis P. Burke was not called as a witness at the conspiracy trial. I would think he might have seen what was going on outside the theater during the performance (except for the period of time he was drinking in Taltavul's).

Roger:

A good question, and one that would apply as well to Charles Forbes (the footman-messenger) and John F. Parker (Lincoln's armed guard). The answer I give is that these were small fry who, at worst, had committed errors of judgment, and that at the time, Stanton and his department were after the big fellows, convinced, as they were, that Davis, Benjamin, Seddon and the Canadian Cabinet were all behind the assassination. Holt never stopped believing it, despite his disappointing experience with Charles Dunham, alias you name it, Montgomery and Merritt. Tidwell, Hall and Gaddy believe these were all set-up men, manipulated by George Sanders, to shift the blame away from Davis, et al. With Benjamin, it didn't matter; he was long gone to England, never to return.

John

John Fazio · 02-11-2013, 04:22 AM

(02-06-2013 08:20 AM)JMadonna Wrote:
(02-06-2013 02:47 AM)John Fazio Wrote: Laurie:

Truly, I am not over-reaching, nor am I re-writing the whole story. Sorry if I give that impression. But it remains true that Booth never intended to kidnap anyone. It was his cover story for recruiting members of his action team, in the same way that the "oil business" was his cover story for their source of funds. The evidence for this is, in my opinion, clear and convincing. Thomas Nelson Conrad (who probably intended to assassinate Lincoln himself) even wrote that "a child would know there was nothing to be gained by kidnapping the President". Davis vetoed what he later said was the only real kidnapping plot that was brought to him for approval (the Walker Taylor plot). Grant had resumed prisoner exchange in January, 1865, and was exchanging 3,000 POW's a week. That fact prompted Arnold to tell Booth he was crazy to proceed. But he did proceed, because "kidnapping" the Presdient to hold him for ransom of Confederate POW's was not his true purpose. Does anyone suppose he would show up in Richmond with Lincoln in handcuffs and say "Look what I have brought you, President Davis?" What would Davis have done with him? Does anyone suppose the Federal Government would have negotiated with a Confederate Government that held Lincoln against his will? A kidnapping would have destroyed all possibility of recognition by a foreign country. &c.

John

John, you're going to really stir up the pot with that theisis. I like it.
But, if that was his true purpose - Why did he wait until April to strike? Do you think he was not 'authorized' to do so until later? Was Davis waiting for the end of the peace talks?

Jerry

Jerry:

Sorry for the delay. This one got by me.

I believe he waited until April because his handlers told him to. He was always under orders from Richmond. The plan was multiple assassinations by Thomas F. Harney, the explosives expert from the Torpedo Bureau, who was going to blow up a wing of the White House with Lincoln in it, together with as many other Federal office-holders as they could lure there with a pretense of having a celebration or "serenade", per Atzerodt's May 1 confession and Ripley's Memoir. When Harney was captured on the 8th at Burke's Station (a loss described by one of Baylor's men as "irretrievable" or "irreplaceable"), the contingency plan took effect. The contingency plan was Booth and his action team. It was weak, yes, but the Confederacy had to make do with what it had, and by then it didn't have much left. Recall that Booth contacted Surratt, in Montreal, on April 10, two days after Harney was captured, telling him to return to Washington forthwith because their "plans had changed". Recall, too, that pursuant to that message, Surratt left Montreal on the 12th. He claims he went to Elmira to check out a prison there, pursuant to instructions from General Edwin Lee, who was by this time running the Canadian Cabinet, Jacob Thompson having been relieved. Why would he do that with the war all but over and Grant exchanging 3,000 prisoners a week? Fourteen witnesses at his trial put him in Washington on the 14th; four put him in Elmira.

The only thing Davis was waiting for was word as to the success or failure of Booth's effort to decapitate the government, because it was their last hope. He received that word as he was making his way south, in Charlotte. He is reported to have smiled upon reading the telegram and then to have said: "If it were to be done, it were better if it were well done. And if the same thing had happened to Stanton and to Andy Johnson, the beast, the job would have been complete." Curious how he already knew that the plot had succeeded only as to Lincoln and possibly Seward, who is not mentioned, but not as to Stanton and Johnson.

John

RJNorton · 02-11-2013, 04:48 AM

John, do I understand you correctly....you feel John Surratt was in Washington, not Elmira, on April 14, 1865?

John Fazio · 02-11-2013, 09:23 AM

(02-11-2013 04:48 AM)RJNorton Wrote: John, do I understand you correctly....you feel John Surratt was in Washington, not Elmira, on April 14, 1865?

Roger:

I feel the chances are as good as not. I am aware that Jampoler and other major historians accept the Elmira story and that the jury in Surratt's civil trial apparently felt his four witnesses were more credible than the prosecutions 14. Nevertheless, there are compelling arguments putting him in Washington:

1. Fourteen witnesses are not to be so blithely dismissed.

2. What purpose would have been served by casing out the Elmira prison, with the war almost over and Grant exchanging 3,000 prisoners a week?

3. If one receives a message to return to Washington because "our plans have changed", why does one go to Elmira in response thereto?

4. Ste. Marie was inconsistent. In one version of his story, he said that Surratt told him he was in Washington; in another, in "New York".

5. The jury split almost exactly along regional lines: 8 Southerners; four Northerners (7 to 5 for acquittal). That's why it was hung and why Surratt was dismissed. A more objective jury would surely have convicted him. Too bad: he was a vile man and guilty as sin, no less than O.J. It was a major miscarriage of justice. I wonder who paid his three lawyers for months of prep and trial time, hundreds of witnesses, etc., plus his post-release six-month vacation to South America.

It is one of the enduring mysteries of the assassination story. I have no clear answer, which means I do not accept the Elmira story as history--yet.

John

RJNorton · 02-11-2013, 09:49 AM

I have brought this question up before. I do not know where John Surratt was, but like you, I feel the Washington evidence should at least be looked at. In addition to what you said:

1. In George Atzerodt's confession of July 6 he wrote, "Booth told me that Surratt was in the Herndon House on the night of the murder, the 14th of April, we were not all together at the Herndon House. Booth told me that Surratt was to help at the box, that he expected others in the box. I saw Surratt a few moments ago." This would seem to jive with Dye's testimony that John Surratt was standing in front of Ford's Theatre right before the assassination. In 1867, Dye testified that John Surratt had been in front of the theater and that his thin, pale face had so impressed him that he afterwards saw it in his dreams.

2. On Wednesday, April 12, Mary Surratt told Richard Smoot that John would likely be in town on the 14th.

3. The ledger pages for the Brainard Hotel in Elmira for the dates "John Harrison" was allegedly there are mysteriously missing.

All I am saying is that I don't think we can say with 100% certainty that Surratt was in Elmira. I just think the Washington evidence is certainly worthy of attention.

John Fazio · 02-11-2013, 01:35 PM

(02-11-2013 09:49 AM)RJNorton Wrote: I have brought this question up before. I do not know where John Surratt was, but like you, I feel the Washington evidence should at least be looked at. In addition to what you said:

1. In George Atzerodt's confession of July 6 he wrote, "Booth told me that Surratt was in the Herndon House on the night of the murder, the 14th of April, we were not all together at the Herndon House. Booth told me that Surratt was to help at the box, that he expected others in the box. I saw Surratt a few moments ago." This would seem to jive with Dye's testimony that John Surratt was standing in front of Ford's Theatre right before the assassination. In 1867, Dye testified that John Surratt had been in front of the theater and that his thin, pale face had so impressed him that he afterwards saw it in his dreams.

2. On Wednesday, April 12, Mary Surratt told Richard Smoot that John would likely be in town on the 14th.

3. The ledger pages for the Brainard Hotel in Elmira for the dates "John Harrison" was allegedly there are mysteriously missing.

All I am saying is that I don't think we can say with 100% certainty that Surratt was in Elmira. I just think the Washington evidence is certainly worthy of attention.

Roger:

Excellent points.

As for what Booth told Atzerodt, he may, of course, have been trying to boost his courage, which was obviously deserting him. but there is no way of knowing for sure. Recall that Herold said he hadn't seen Surratt for a month and that Atzerodt, elsewhere (April 25 confession), said he hadn't seen Surratt for a week.

Dye had problems with parts of his testimony on cross-exam, but I believe the part relating to Surratt held up pretty well.

Smoot's statement is strong.

The missing pages from the register was an item that the defense in Surratt's trial tried to turn in their favor, i.e. suggesting that it showed Surratt was in Elmira and that the pages were probably destroyed by prosecution agents.

It's a tough nut to crack. One can argue plausibly either way, which is why I am an agnostic on the subject.

John