Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

L Verge · (This post was last modified: 02-28-2015 04:24 PM by L Verge.)

(02-28-2015 04:02 PM)RJNorton Wrote:
(02-28-2015 03:48 PM)L Verge Wrote: I have debated this for over fifty years, and I personally believe that Mrs. Surratt would have still been executed because she (like the three men who hanged) were still involved with Booth up to within mere hours of the assassination. On the other hand, her son would fall in the category of Arnold, O'Laughlen, and Mudd who had no dealings with Booth (supposedly) once the kidnap was aborted. Following that "selection criteria," young Surratt would have been eligible for prison.

Laurie, I agree. But I wonder how this might have effected Andrew Johnson's "knowledge" of the clemency petition. I wonder if he would have approved hanging for the mother when the son was getting life. IMO he might have commuted her sentence so both mother and son would get life. Does this make sense?

It makes sense, but maybe there would not be a clemency plea to consider. Maybe they both would have hanged. Or, remember the clemency plea had nothing to do with the question of guilt or innocence - just age and gender - so maybe Mrs. Surratt would still have had a chance for prison. What would each of you have done if you were on the military court and faced with a judgment call in the case of Mary Surratt?

HerbS · 02-28-2015, 06:42 PM

I would have used Mary as bait to lure John home.Then,I would have hanged them together to show the public what happens to people who conspire to assassinate the President of the US!

Thomas Thorne · 02-28-2015, 08:35 PM

If John Surratt had been convicted and given Life, I don't think the military commission would have sentenced Mary to death. Given Johnson's idiotic statement attributing the evils of the war to the insufficient supply of hanged females, I can't presume he would have commuted a death sentence for her if John was spared the gallows. .

Perhaps he would have subsequently blamed Holt for not telling him the Surratts were related.
Tom

LincolnToddFan · (This post was last modified: 03-01-2015 01:59 AM by LincolnToddFan.)

(02-28-2015 04:02 PM)RJNorton Wrote:
(02-28-2015 03:48 PM)L Verge Wrote: I have debated this for over fifty years, and I personally believe that Mrs. Surratt would have still been executed because she (like the three men who hanged) were still involved with Booth up to within mere hours of the assassination. On the other hand, her son would fall in the category of Arnold, O'Laughlen, and Mudd who had no dealings with Booth (supposedly) once the kidnap was aborted. Following that "selection criteria," young Surratt would have been eligible for prison.

Laurie, I agree. But I wonder how this might have effected Andrew Johnson's "knowledge" of the clemency petition. I wonder if he would have approved hanging for the mother when the son was getting life. IMO he might have commuted her sentence so both mother and son would get life. Does this make sense?

Roger to the rescue again! Wink

That makes perfect sense, and I wonder the same thing. A mother and child reunion on the gallows might have been too much for even Stanton and Johnson to stomach. Would one death sentence have cancelled the other out?

Or would John have received the same sentence as Spangler and Laughlin as Laurie theorized? Because if so, that might have made it more tricky to hang his mother.

Eva Elisabeth · (This post was last modified: 03-01-2015 07:18 AM by Eva Elisabeth.)

I think Laurie mentioned two important "legal" aspects - "her son would fall in the category of Arnold, O'Laughlen, and Mudd who had no dealings with Booth (supposedly) once the kidnap was aborted" (I think Mary Surratt did not fall in this category) and "the clemency plea had nothing to do with the question of guilt or innocence - just age and gender", so I think her son wouldn't have been hanged and she wouldn't (necessarily) have been spared her fate. (This is doesn't represent my personal decision but what I think the commission might have decided on the basis of the applicable law and the prevailing "mood" at the time.)

HerbS · 03-01-2015, 07:14 AM

A big thanks to everyone so far for trying to clear up the water.We all must remember that A.Johnson would have done anything to look good in the eyes of the public.He was a"slick"opportunist and a snake.All we have to do is take a look at his record[biography-by Castel].1-His nomination by Lincoln.2-His"Swing around the cirlcle" episodes.3-Etc,etc,etc.

L Verge · (This post was last modified: 03-01-2015 08:46 AM by L Verge.)

(03-01-2015 04:55 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote: I think Laurie mentioned two important "legal" aspects - "her son would fall in the category of Arnold, O'Laughlen, and Mudd who had no dealings with Booth (supposedly) once the kidnap was aborted" (I think Mary Surratt did not fall in this category) and "the clemency plea had nothing to do with the question of guilt or innocence - just age and gender", so I think her son wouldn't have been hanged and she wouldn't (necessarily) have been spared her fate. (This is doesn't represent my personal decision but what I think the commission might have decided on the basis of the applicable law and the prevailing "mood" at the time.)

James O. Hall once said (off the record) that he felt that Mrs. Surratt knew exactly what was going on, but that the government failed to adequately prove it - which should have resulted in imprisonment for her.

This is probably a very silly question - and please take in mind that I know very little about Andrew Johnson other than his fights with the Radicals. However, I always hear him accused of being a racist (a 20th-century term) who fought against enfranchisement for the blacks, etc. Why wouldn't those feelings have made him more inclined to grant clemency to Mrs. Surratt, a woman whose life was being threatened for exactly the same views?

I have also read that Johnson's "legacy" did not become much maligned until the 20th century. True or false?

RJNorton · 03-01-2015, 09:38 AM

(03-01-2015 07:58 AM)L Verge Wrote: Why wouldn't those feelings have made him more inclined to grant clemency to Mrs. Surratt

Long ago, and I have definitely forgotten the name, but I believe I read that years after the trial one of the members of the Military Commission expressed his belief that Mary Surratt was the second most guilty of those tried (only after John Wilkes Booth in terms of overall guilt). Possibly this opinion was privately conveyed to Johnson, and he simply became convinced she was so guilty he simply had to let the execution go through?

Gene C · 03-01-2015, 09:52 AM

IMO, whether he saw the clemency provision or not, politically for Johnson at the time, he made the right decision.

It was how he responded to the criticism of this decision that became one of the many factors that contributed to his political difficulties and overall lack of likeability.

HerbS · (This post was last modified: 03-01-2015 02:41 PM by HerbS.)

(03-01-2015 07:58 AM)L Verge Wrote:
(03-01-2015 04:55 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote: I think Laurie mentioned two important "legal" aspects - "her son would fall in the category of Arnold, O'Laughlen, and Mudd who had no dealings with Booth (supposedly) once the kidnap was aborted" (I think Mary Surratt did not fall in this category) and "the clemency plea had nothing to do with the question of guilt or innocence - just age and gender", so I think her son wouldn't have been hanged and she wouldn't (necessarily) have been spared her fate. (This is doesn't represent my personal decision but what I think the commission might have decided on the basis of the applicable law and the prevailing "mood" at the time.*****Andrew Johnson was history's punching bag!

James O. Hall once said (off the record) that he felt that Mrs. Surratt knew exactly what was going on, but that the government failed to adequately prove it - which should have resulted in imprisonment for her.

This is probably a very silly question - and please take in mind that I know very little about Andrew Johnson other than his fights with the Radicals. However, I always hear him accused of being a racist (a 20th-century term) who fought against enfranchisement for the blacks, etc. Why wouldn't those feelings have made him more inclined to grant clemency to Mrs. Surratt, a woman whose life was being threatened for exactly the same views?

I have also read that Johnson's "legacy" did not become much maligned until the 20th century. True or false?

Andrew Johnson was history's punching bag,and rightfully so!

LincolnToddFan · (This post was last modified: 03-01-2015 03:18 PM by LincolnToddFan.)

(03-01-2015 07:58 AM)L Verge Wrote:
(03-01-2015 04:55 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote: I think Laurie mentioned two important "legal" aspects - "her son would fall in the category of Arnold, O'Laughlen, and Mudd who had no dealings with Booth (supposedly) once the kidnap was aborted" (I think Mary Surratt did not fall in this category) and "the clemency plea had nothing to do with the question of guilt or innocence - just age and gender", so I think her son wouldn't have been hanged and she wouldn't (necessarily) have been spared her fate. (This is doesn't represent my personal decision but what I think the commission might have decided on the basis of the applicable law and the prevailing "mood" at the time.)

James O. Hall once said (off the record) that he felt that Mrs. Surratt knew exactly what was going on, but that the government failed to adequately prove it - which should have resulted in imprisonment for her.

This is probably a very silly question - and please take in mind that I know very little about Andrew Johnson other than his fights with the Radicals. However, I always hear him accused of being a racist (a 20th-century term) who fought against enfranchisement for the blacks, etc. I have also read that Johnson's "legacy" did not become much Why wouldn't those feelings have made him more inclined to grant clemency to Mrs. Surratt, a woman whose life was being threatened for exactly the same views?

maligned until the 20th century. True or false?

Hi Laurie. Mrs. Surratt was not tried and executed for her views on race. It's true that President Johnson shared those views and most other (White) Americans did as well. She lost her life -ostensibly-for being guilty of conspiracy to murder the duly elected President of the U.S., but what Johnson found more odious and unforgivable was that she was a hated "Rebel". In his eyes she and the conspirators and in fact the entire Confederacy supported the cause(disunion) of the wealthy, pseudo aristocratic class of people that AJ hated with a passion that was truly intense. That's why she had to die in his eyes.

My belief is that she felt right up to the hour of the shooting that the kidnap plot against AL had been revived and was on for that night. I don't think she knew that at that point she was assisting the men in a murder conspiracy. Booth involved her and duped and manipulated her because she was useful to him and she was willing to help. I don't think she was ever told that the plan had switched to murder. And when she did realize what she had involved herself in later, she was panicked. That's why she denied knowing Lewis Paine that night, which is what incriminated her in the first place.

In reading the transcripts of the trial I came across nothing...no smoking gun as it were-that convinced me that Mary knew on the night of April 14th that an assassination-NOT a kidnapping- was in the works.

Eva Elisabeth · 03-01-2015, 03:37 PM

(03-01-2015 02:59 PM)LincolnToddFan Wrote: My belief is that she felt right up to the hour of the shooting that the kidnap plot against AL had been revived and was on for that night. I don't think she knew that at that point she was assisting the men in a murder conspiracy. Booth involved her and duped and manipulated her because she was useful to him and she was willing to help. I don't think she was ever told that the plan had switched to murder.

I have always understood death penalty would also (most likely?) have been imposed in case of a plot and it's execution to kidnap the president. My question: What sentence would JWB and the four executed conspirators have gotten for at first successful kidnapping instead of murder? In other words - would kidnapping (and thus her possible belief this plan was still pursued) actually have saved Mary Surratt? (She must have been aware that it was a very serious crime to abduct the president and men have been hung for less.)

LincolnToddFan · (This post was last modified: 03-01-2015 04:04 PM by LincolnToddFan.)

Good point Eva, and this is something that Dr. Steers pointed out in his classic "Blood On The Moon" book about the conspiracy and murder. Even the kidnap plot would have been enough to send them all to the gallows.

But I am not even certain that Lincoln would have allowed anyone to hang for a failed kidnap plot against him during the war, and certainly not a woman. No proof of course, just a hunch.

A successful kidnapping that resulted in their apprehension and conviction. Possibly yes. But even again...I am not 100% sure. And I don't believe for a minute that AL would not have pardoned Surratt.(Mary)

L Verge · 03-01-2015, 04:01 PM

(03-01-2015 02:59 PM)LincolnToddFan Wrote:
(03-01-2015 07:58 AM)L Verge Wrote:
(03-01-2015 04:55 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote: I think Laurie mentioned two important "legal" aspects - "her son would fall in the category of Arnold, O'Laughlen, and Mudd who had no dealings with Booth (supposedly) once the kidnap was aborted" (I think Mary Surratt did not fall in this category) and "the clemency plea had nothing to do with the question of guilt or innocence - just age and gender", so I think her son wouldn't have been hanged and she wouldn't (necessarily) have been spared her fate. (This is doesn't represent my personal decision but what I think the commission might have decided on the basis of the applicable law and the prevailing "mood" at the time.)

James O. Hall once said (off the record) that he felt that Mrs. Surratt knew exactly what was going on, but that the government failed to adequately prove it - which should have resulted in imprisonment for her.

This is probably a very silly question - and please take in mind that I know very little about Andrew Johnson other than his fights with the Radicals. However, I always hear him accused of being a racist (a 20th-century term) who fought against enfranchisement for the blacks, etc. I have also read that Johnson's "legacy" did not become much Why wouldn't those feelings have made him more inclined to grant clemency to Mrs. Surratt, a woman whose life was being threatened for exactly the same views?

maligned until the 20th century. True or false?

Hi Laurie. Mrs. Surratt was not tried and executed for her views on race. It's true that President Johnson shared those views and most other (White) Americans did as well. She lost her life -ostensibly-for being guilty of conspiracy to murder the duly elected President of the U.S., but what Johnson found more odious and unforgivable was that she was a hated "Rebel". In his eyes she and the conspirators and in fact the entire Confederacy supported the cause(disunion) of the wealthy, pseudo aristocratic class of people that AJ hated with a passion that was truly intense. That's why she had to die in his eyes.

My belief is that she felt right up to the hour of the shooting that the kidnap plot against AL had been revived and was on for that night. I don't think she knew that at that point she was assisting the men in a murder conspiracy. Booth involved her and duped and manipulated her because she was useful to him and she was willing to help. I don't think she was ever told that the plan had switched to murder. And when she did realize what she had involved herself in later, she was panicked. That's why she denied knowing Lewis Paine that night, which is what incriminated her in the first place.

In reading the transcripts of the trial I came across nothing...no smoking gun as it were-that convinced me that Mary knew on the night of April 14th that an assassination-NOT a kidnapping- was in the works.

Personally, I agree that Mary did not know that the plans had changed to murder. However, I also understand how the laws of conspiracy made her guilty of the crime under vicarious liability.

As for Johnson's views on the "elite" Southern aristocracy, no one could ever accuse the Surratt family of being part of that element of society. They were modest, middle-class folk at the best of times by Southern Maryland standards.

PS: I also suspect that a secondary charge could have been applied by the tribunal if they could have done so legally -- a charge that the conspirators were also guilty of being secessionists and Confederates. In my mind, the case was not just about the murder of the president... And, I am not saying that to be snippy. I truly believe that it was the mindset in much of the land at that time that these "losers" (representing the Confederacy) had to become a lesson to others.

Eva Elisabeth · (This post was last modified: 03-01-2015 04:09 PM by Eva Elisabeth.)

(03-01-2015 04:01 PM)LincolnToddFan Wrote: Good point Eva, and this is something that Dr. Steers pointed out in his classic "Blood On The Moon" book about the conspiracy and murder. Even the kidnap plot would have been enough to send them all to the gallows.

But I am not even certain that Lincoln would have allowed anyone to hang for a failed kidnap plot against him during the war, and certainly not a woman. No proof of course, just a hunch.

A successful kidnapping that resulted in their apprehension and conviction. Possibly yes. But even again...I am not 100% sure. And I don't believe for a minute that AL would not have pardoned Surratt.(Mary)

The argumentation in "Blood On The Moon" was exactly what I had in mind...Toia, you make an excellent point about Lincoln probably pardoning Mary Surratt! I agree, he might have done this. But would Mary Surratt have expected he would do so? (Very risky game!)