+- Lincoln Discussion Symposium (https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium)
+-- Forum: Lincoln Discussion Symposium (/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Assassination (/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Mary Surratt's Denial of Lewis Powell (/thread-193.html)
Mary Surratt's Denial of Lewis Powell - MaddieM - 08-08-2012 10:05 AM
I hope I have this in the right section, forgive me if I don't.
The night that Lewis Powell turned up at Mary Surratt's Boarding house masquerading as a labourer, I've always wondered why she denied knowing him so emphatically! Was she covering her own back? Trying to protect him? Bit of both? It seems an odd thing to do. Surely, she would realise the situation and admit hiring him? Or did she think he'd been picked up at random and was trying to deny knowledge of him to protect him? He seemed mighty protective of her. Did she betray him, or try to protect him?
RE: Mary Surratt's Denial of Lewis Powell - BettyO - 08-08-2012 10:28 AM
(08-08-2012 10:05 AM)MaddieM Wrote: I hope I have this in the right section, forgive me if I don't.
The night that Lewis Powell turned up at Mary Surratt's Boarding house masquerading as a labourer, I've always wondered why she denied knowing him so emphatically! Was she covering her own back? Trying to protect him? Bit of both? It seems an odd thing to do. Surely, she would realise the situation and admit hiring him? Or did she think he'd been picked up at random and was trying to deny knowledge of him to protect him? He seemed mighty protective of her. Did she betray him, or try to protect him?
I think that yes, emphatically that Mrs Surratt KNEW who Lew Powell was. She knew the boy's voice as well as his appearance (who could forget those eyes!) At any rate, I'd bet dimes to donuts that she knew him and denied knowing him as she knew that he had been involved in the kidnap plot which in a round about way would tie him in with the assassination. So, yes, she denied knowing him. Lew felt very badly about going back to her house and more than likely incriminating her. He was remorseful about all that had transpired from the attack on Seward including Mrs. Surratt's possible incrimination from his involvement in the kidnap plot. She was a woman and he, as a gentleman, held women in high esteem and regard. I also think that he saw her as a possible "mother figure." He would therefore not want to think that he had any hand in her doom.
RE: Mary Surratt's Denial of Lewis Powell - LincolnMan - 08-08-2012 10:31 AM
I don't know for sure-Betty and Laurie help us out! My impression is that she wasn't protecting him but herself-and perhaps her daughter? I think she instantly realized the situation was very serious. Kate? Others?
RE: Mary Surratt's Denial of Lewis Powell - BettyO - 08-08-2012 10:32 AM
(08-08-2012 10:31 AM)LincolnMan Wrote: I don't know for sure-Betty and Laurie help us out! My impression is that she wasn't protecting him but herself-and perhaps her daughter? I think she instantly realized the situation was very serious. Kate? Others?
Agreed, Bill! Mrs Surratt was protecting her name, her daughter AND her son!! To heck with Powell; she certainly wasn't concerned with him, even though he was a "kid" the same age as her son....
RE: Mary Surratt's Denial of Lewis Powell - Linda Anderson - 08-08-2012 11:10 AM
Mrs. Surratt would have been horrified to see Powell at her door. She must have panicked and thought the best thing to do would be to deny knowing him. Of course, that came back to haunt her since others testified that Powell had been a boarder in her house. Then she claimed bad eyesight.
RE: Mary Surratt's Denial of Lewis Powell - LincolnMan - 08-08-2012 11:32 AM
Betty: yes, that's what I thought. Who wouldn't be terrified-with the authorities presenting at the house-at that hour-under such horrible circumstances!
RE: Mary Surratt's Denial of Lewis Powell - Laurie Verge - 08-08-2012 12:13 PM
I agree completely with the other statements. Mrs. Surratt was doing and saying anything that would protect her family. At that point, self-preservation (the first law of nature) kicked in.
RE: Mary Surratt's Denial of Lewis Powell - MaddieM - 08-08-2012 05:14 PM
(08-08-2012 10:32 AM)BettyO Wrote:(08-08-2012 10:31 AM)LincolnMan Wrote: I don't know for sure-Betty and Laurie help us out! My impression is that she wasn't protecting him but herself-and perhaps her daughter? I think she instantly realized the situation was very serious. Kate? Others?
Agreed, Bill! Mrs Surratt was protecting her name, her daughter AND her son!! To heck with Powell; she certainly wasn't concerned with him, even though he was a "kid" the same age as her son....
And yet.. from what I've read, it was this denial that incriminated her. Would she have been so damned if she'd admitted knowing him? I guess she panicked, like you would. The reason for the panic being of course, her guilt.
RE: Mary Surratt's Denial of Lewis Powell - BettyO - 08-08-2012 05:29 PM
(08-08-2012 05:14 PM)MaddieM Wrote:(08-08-2012 10:32 AM)BettyO Wrote:(08-08-2012 10:31 AM)LincolnMan Wrote: I don't know for sure-Betty and Laurie help us out! My impression is that she wasn't protecting him but herself-and perhaps her daughter? I think she instantly realized the situation was very serious. Kate? Others?
Agreed, Bill! Mrs Surratt was protecting her name, her daughter AND her son!! To heck with Powell; she certainly wasn't concerned with him, even though he was a "kid" the same age as her son....
And yet.. from what I've read, it was this denial that incriminated her. Would she have been so damned if she'd admitted knowing him? I guess she panicked, like you would. The reason for the panic being of course, her guilt.
I think that had she admitted knowing him (and she DID know him) she assumed that she would be drawn deeper into the accusations - and she was after all anyway! When Lew was thrown from his horse, he knew that he had a "safe place" to go to; i.e. Mrs. Surratt's "safe house" in an attempt to secure a hat and perhaps a hot meal, warm bed and clean clothing to make his escape by rail to Baltimore and the security of the Branson Boarding House (also a safe house) the next morning. At least Lew had the presence and gentility in making a futile attempt to clear her name. Was she involved? Certainly! But she was not going to recognize this boy in any manner once the assassination had occurred.
The real question could also be would Lew have succeeded in escaping HAD she taken pity on the boy and aided him? Had not the detectives been there that night, do you think she would have taken him in? What do you think would have happened in this scenario?
RE: Mary Surratt's Denial of Lewis Powell - MaddieM - 08-08-2012 05:55 PM
(08-08-2012 05:29 PM)BettyO Wrote:(08-08-2012 05:14 PM)MaddieM Wrote:(08-08-2012 10:32 AM)BettyO Wrote:(08-08-2012 10:31 AM)LincolnMan Wrote: I don't know for sure-Betty and Laurie help us out! My impression is that she wasn't protecting him but herself-and perhaps her daughter? I think she instantly realized the situation was very serious. Kate? Others?
Agreed, Bill! Mrs Surratt was protecting her name, her daughter AND her son!! To heck with Powell; she certainly wasn't concerned with him, even though he was a "kid" the same age as her son....
And yet.. from what I've read, it was this denial that incriminated her. Would she have been so damned if she'd admitted knowing him? I guess she panicked, like you would. The reason for the panic being of course, her guilt.
I think that had she admitted knowing him (and she DID know him) she assumed that she would be drawn deeper into the accusations - and she was after all anyway! When Lew was thrown from his horse, he knew that he had a "safe place" to go to; i.e. Mrs. Surratt's "safe house" in an attempt to secure a hat and perhaps a hot meal, warm bed and clean clothing to make his escape by rail to Baltimore and the security of the Branson Boarding House (also a safe house) the next morning. At least Lew had the presence and gentility in making a futile attempt to clear her name. Was she involved? Certainly! But she was not going to recognize this boy in any manner once the assassination had occurred.
The real question could also be would Lew have succeeded in escaping HAD she taken pity on the boy and aided him? Had not the detectives been there that night, do you think she would have taken him in? What do you think would have happened in this scenario?
I don't think she would. I think she would have sent him packing, told him to go. She may have allowed him clothing and food, but would have gotten him out of there that night. As has been pointed out, she needed to save her own skin, and most people in dire straits, will do this. So can one blame her? The sad thing about Powell was his obvious vulnerability. I wonder at his naivete at returning to that boarding house? Research on him proves he was good at 'foraging', he'd spent all those years roughing it in the army. Wouldn't that mean he might have had more chance hiding out and surviving, traveling at night etc, until he made it out of the city? Everything that happened that night seemed foolhardy and not planned out with any precision or contingency planning. I wonder if any emotional blackmail took place regarding Powell. Perhaps I'm giving him too much kudos, but he seemed far from stupid, from what I've read. So he would have to have been naive.
RE: Mary Surratt's Denial of Lewis Powell - L Verge - 08-08-2012 06:38 PM
I think Powell was exhausted, perhaps physically hurt from his fall, confused, and wanting comfort by the time he got back to the boardinghouse. He probably realized that the jig was up, maybe he was contrite about what he had done, and he needed help and guidance. There comes a time when even the strongest people cave in. He must have also thought that in the past two days, the authorities had already checked out the boardinghouse IF they had gotten wind of the Surratt/Booth tie-in. Maybe he thought they wouldn't be back since they had found out Johnny was out of the city.
Even if the authorities had not been there, however, I think Mrs. Surratt would have allowed Lewis time to wash up, grab some food and meager supplies, and then hustled him on his way.
RE: Mary Surratt's Denial of Lewis Powell - MaddieM - 08-08-2012 06:51 PM
the more i read about this, the more it seems that you just can't avoid your destiny. Powell most likely thought he couldn't go home, not after what he'd done. Perhaps he had a death wish? Perhaps part of him knew he'd get caught, and perhaps he wanted to. He seemed pretty fatalistic in the prison. Of all of them, at least outwardly, he seemed to have accepted his fate...or at least railed the least against it.
The very first time I saw that famous photo of him on board the monitor staring into the camera lens, I hadn't a clue who he was, or his part in history, but what stood out was his expression, the look in his eyes. None of the other photos of the others held the same look. The article accompanying it told of Powell being a brutal, mindless killer, and I just thought, not this one. there's more to him than meets the eye. So I dug deeper, and indeed that is the case. In that photo he looks 'out of time' that is, not of that time but more of our time. He could be dressed by Diesel or All Saints. And so that photo is kind of iconic. I'll bet he'd have laughed his cotton socks off to think that his face is all over Ebay and You Tube and that 140 odd years after his death, he'd still be fluttering hearts.
RE: Mary Surratt's Denial of Lewis Powell - Linda Anderson - 08-08-2012 06:59 PM
U.S. News and World Report's "Secrets of the Civil War" has a full page devoted to Gardner's portrait of Powell staring into the camera while he was imprisoned on the monitor.
RE: Mary Surratt's Denial of Lewis Powell - BettyO - 08-08-2012 07:03 PM
(08-08-2012 06:38 PM)L Verge Wrote: I think Powell was exhausted, perhaps physically hurt from his fall, confused, and wanting comfort by the time he got back to the boardinghouse. He probably realized that the jig was up, maybe he was contrite about what he had done, and he needed help and guidance. There comes a time when even the strongest people cave in. He must have also thought that in the past two days, the authorities had already checked out the boardinghouse IF they had gotten wind of the Surratt/Booth tie-in. Maybe he thought they wouldn't be back since they had found out Johnny was out of the city.
Even if the authorities had not been there, however, I think Mrs. Surratt would have allowed Lewis time to wash up, grab some food and meager supplies, and then hustled him on his way.
I totally agree, Laurie!
(08-08-2012 05:55 PM)MaddieM Wrote:(08-08-2012 05:29 PM)BettyO Wrote:(08-08-2012 05:14 PM)MaddieM Wrote:(08-08-2012 10:32 AM)BettyO Wrote:(08-08-2012 10:31 AM)LincolnMan Wrote: I don't know for sure-Betty and Laurie help us out! My impression is that she wasn't protecting him but herself-and perhaps her daughter? I think she instantly realized the situation was very serious. Kate? Others?
Agreed, Bill! Mrs Surratt was protecting her name, her daughter AND her son!! To heck with Powell; she certainly wasn't concerned with him, even though he was a "kid" the same age as her son....
And yet.. from what I've read, it was this denial that incriminated her. Would she have been so damned if she'd admitted knowing him? I guess she panicked, like you would. The reason for the panic being of course, her guilt.
I think that had she admitted knowing him (and she DID know him) she assumed that she would be drawn deeper into the accusations - and she was after all anyway! When Lew was thrown from his horse, he knew that he had a "safe place" to go to; i.e. Mrs. Surratt's "safe house" in an attempt to secure a hat and perhaps a hot meal, warm bed and clean clothing to make his escape by rail to Baltimore and the security of the Branson Boarding House (also a safe house) the next morning. At least Lew had the presence and gentility in making a futile attempt to clear her name. Was she involved? Certainly! But she was not going to recognize this boy in any manner once the assassination had occurred.
The real question could also be would Lew have succeeded in escaping HAD she taken pity on the boy and aided him? Had not the detectives been there that night, do you think she would have taken him in? What do you think would have happened in this scenario?
I don't think she would. I think she would have sent him packing, told him to go. She may have allowed him clothing and food, but would have gotten him out of there that night. As has been pointed out, she needed to save her own skin, and most people in dire straits, will do this. So can one blame her? The sad thing about Powell was his obvious vulnerability. I wonder at his naivete at returning to that boarding house? Research on him proves he was good at 'foraging', he'd spent all those years roughing it in the army. Wouldn't that mean he might have had more chance hiding out and surviving, traveling at night etc, until he made it out of the city? Everything that happened that night seemed foolhardy and not planned out with any precision or contingency planning. I wonder if any emotional blackmail took place regarding Powell. Perhaps I'm giving him too much kudos, but he seemed far from stupid, from what I've read. So he would have to have been naive.
I, like Laurie believe that the boy was injured (possible concussion since he told Gillette that he was knocked out from being thrown when his horse fell with him; he did have facial injuries - black eye and busted lip.) He needed cover and he needed it quickly. Yes, he could have foraged it out in the open. But he more than likely knew that Federal soldiers were going to be out scouring the countryside looking for himself, Booth or anyone else involved. His plan was to skedaddle and skedaddle quickly - a key Mosby maneuver. He apparently knew or thought that Mrs. Surratt would take him in. He needed to get cleaned up, get a warm meal and most importantly, acquire a hat! For a Victorian gentleman to go about without a hat was the same as if he were to go about without his pants on! He would be conspicuous - extremely conspicuous; hence, the "made up stocking cap" made out of his undershirt sleeve. He could not have ridden on a train (and he had more than enough train fare - $25.00) in such a getup. He needed to look respectable to distract attention away from himself. He saw Mrs. Surratt as the key. Unfortunately for him, he did not think that detectives would be there when he called. Hence her denial of him. So, naive - yes, probably so. He was very young and he was a country boy to boot - not a city sophisticate. But stupid? No. He could think pretty cleverly when dead on his feet.
RE: Mary Surratt's Denial of Lewis Powell - KLarson - 08-08-2012 07:57 PM
I agree with Betty. I believe Surratt would have sent Powell on his way as quickly as possible.
I believe that Mary completely mishandled Powell's arrival at her house. She could have played along with his ruse. Pretending to not know Powell - and sticking to that story - totally ruined everything for her. In her defense, however, she really had no idea if Powell would betray her or not. She had met him a few times but was not as intimate with him as she was with Booth and Weichmann. Look what Weichmann did! So, Mary misplayed the whole thing, and she got caught. But she was already in a very deadly position anyway.