The Case For Mrs. Surratt

[Gene C]

Written by Helen Jones Campbell in 1943.
I've had this book for over 20 years and have never read it until now.

A very one sided book, in favor of Mrs. Surratt. According to this writer, Mrs. Surratt was as innocent as a dove, and everyone on the union side was as guilty as sin. Stanton, Johnson, the Military Commission, Weichman, were downright sinister, cowards, and a long list of other negative adjectives.

A work of historical? fiction, it is easy to follow, but I just got tired of it. It's so opinionated in Mrs. Surratt's innocence, it's difficult to tell how much, and which details are true or not. Not long into the book, I quit noting the questionable passages and gave up, and just kept reading. It's not one I will read again, or refer back to.

Other than that....

You can find it on Amazon,
https://www.amazon.com/case-Surratt-Hele...s+campbell

[RJNorton]

On April 11, 1865, Mary Surratt made a trip to Surrattsville. She traveled with Louis Weichmann, one of her boarders. During the trip, they met John Lloyd on the road. According to Lloyd, Mrs. Surratt told him the "shooting irons" would be needed soon.

Three days later, on the day of the assassination, Mrs. Surratt made another trip to Surrattsville. Again Weichmann accompanied her in a buggy. This time, according to Lloyd, she delivered Booth's field glasses and reminded him to ready the weapons hidden at the tavern he leased from her. Lloyd testified Mary "told me to have those shooting-irons ready that night, there would be some parties who would call for them."

Does Helen Jones Campbell mention any of this? Does the author feel John Lloyd fabricated his statements about what Mary Surratt said to him?

[Gene C]

A big deal was made about the field glasses, and the testimony regarding them. She indicates this incident was nit picked to death at the trail, and she repeated what was suppose to be some of the witnesses testimony regarding it.
I don't remember the author commenting "having the shooting irons ready". Much attention was made that LLoyd and Weichmann were forced to fabricated their statements, and just about everyone knew it. A lot of attention given to the harsh treatment given Mrs. Surratt during her arrest and trial.

After about two thirds through the book, I got so tired of it, I just read to finish it, I didn't pay that close attention. It was just more of the same. Mrs. Surratt is innocent, and anyone involved with the arrest, her prosecution and trial were the bad guys. I consider this historical fiction, I don't think the author intended for it to be viewed that way.

[L Verge]

(09-27-2016 10:34 AM)Gene C Wrote:  A big deal was made about the field glasses, and the testimony regarding them. She indicates this incident was nit picked to death at the trail, and she repeated what was suppose to be some of the witnesses testimony regarding it.
I don't remember the author commenting "having the shooting irons ready". Much attention was made that LLoyd and Weichmann were forced to fabricated their statements, and just about everyone knew it. A lot of attention given to the harsh treatment given Mrs. Surratt during her arrest and trial.

After about two thirds through the book, I got so tired of it, I just read to finish it, I didn't pay that close attention. It was just more of the same. Mrs. Surratt is innocent, and anyone involved with the arrest, her prosecution and trial were the bad guys. I consider this historical fiction, I don't think the author intended for it to be viewed that way.

The delivery of those field glasses and the message to have things ready that night were crucial to Mary Surratt's fate. That's what probably made the difference between imprisonment and execution. Her doing Booth's bidding just hours before the assassination (if Lloyd is to be believed - I think he spoke the truth) sent her to the gallows. Naturally, supporters of Mrs. Surratt would dispute and try to disprove that incident.

[STS Lincolnite]

(09-27-2016 02:47 PM)L Verge Wrote:  The delivery of those field glasses and the message to have things ready that night were crucial to Mary Surratt's fate. That's what probably made the difference between imprisonment and execution. Her doing Booth's bidding just hours before the assassination (if Lloyd is to be believed - I think he spoke the truth) sent her to the gallows. Naturally, supporters of Mrs. Surratt would dispute and try to disprove that incident.

Laurie,

I agree with you on both counts. I think that Mrs. Surratt’s delivery of the package and passing along the message were critical in the determination of her final fate. I also believe Lloyd was telling the truth. This fact is bolstered (in my eyes anyway) by a passage from Atzerodt’s May 1, 1865 statement:

“Booth told me that Mrs. Surratt went to Surrattsville to get out the guns (Two Carbines) which had been taken to that place by Herold. This was Friday. The carriage was hired at Howard's.”

This statement was given prior to Loyd’s testimony at the trial and it would seem to independently corroborate Lloyd’s story. Atzerdot’s statement in full was pretty rambling but I think it was the truth as he knew it.

Of course Atzerdot’s statement was not available to Ms. Campbell when she was writing her book, but from what Gene articulated, I doubt it would have changed her point of view regarding Mrs. Surratt.

[L Verge]

I am 99% sure that Atzerodt's "so called" lost confession was published in a newspaper long before Joan Chaconas found the original in Doster family papers. In the recesses of my mind, I recall a CW reenactor showing me a copy of the paper that he had bought from a dealer. This would have been in the late-1970s because I got out of reenacting in the early-1980s.

I want to say that it was in a Baltimore News American sometime in the late-1860s or early-1870s. I hope my senility is not confusing it with the premature death report of Samuel Arnold!

If the confession was published well over 100 years ago, Mrs. Campbell might very well have had access to it. Another reason to check her papers at William and Mary.

[L Verge]

Okay, I'm outsmarting senility so far! The following is excerpted from The Maryland State Archives/Biographical Series. It pertains to Thomas Harbin, but the 1865 and then 1869 printings of Atzerodt's confession are attested to:

"Thomas Harbin was a Confederate Spy who was involved in the plot to kidnap President Lincoln. Harbin reported directly to Jefferson Davis and used the alias Thomas Wilson during his time as a spy for the Confederates. The Baltimore American published the confession of George Atzerodt on July 9, 1865. Atzerodt admitted to Tom Harbin's involvement in the conspiracy to kidnap the president. In 1869 the newspaper published a more in depth version of Atzerodt's confession, listing Harbin as a co-conspirator. Harbin was never charged with the crime."

Joan Chaconas did find the original, but the details had been published a century earlier. The only hitch might be that there was more than one confession. We need to see that July 9, 1865, news article -- and I am lousy at finding old newspaper articles. Where are our modern Baker Street Irregulars who now depend on the computer age?

[STS Lincolnite]

Laurie,

I had always thought that Atzerodt gave two "confessions". The first on May 1 (of which Joan found the original document) and the second to a Reverend Butler in early July, after he had been convicted. It had always been my impression that the items that had been published were related to the confession he gave to Butler. I guess I had no real reason for assuming that other than the timing of publication that I was aware of and the fact that I knew the other one (original anyway) was brought to light in the 1970s. In revisiting based on your posts, I really can't say for sure which "confession" informed the early published accounts. I will try to hunt down the newspaper article when I have some time and see if there is any clarification as to where the information came from.

[Susan Higginbotham]

I couldn't find the July 9, 1865, Baltimore American online, but the Washington Star and other papers picked up the story the next day.

I find it interesting that Smoot is named here.

http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/s...nge&page=1

[Gene C]

Thanks for posting that.

I found it interesting that there is an article about the Mary Harris trial in the far right column. This has been mentioned briefly on the forum.
From what I understand, Mary was engaged, she felt her intended deserted her and married someone else. She traveled from her home in Iowa-? to Washington, and shot him at work. Years later she married her defense attorney who was considerably older than she was, who also was one of John Surratt's attorneys.

http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussio...is#pid1118
check post #14 and following.

Here is a little more, if your interested. It appears not everyone agreed with the verdict (I found through Google "Mary Harris Trial")
http://www.nytimes.com/1865/07/20/news/t...trial.html

[wpbinzel]

(09-27-2016 10:34 AM)Gene C Wrote:  A lot of attention given to the harsh treatment given Mrs. Surratt during her arrest and trial.

I question the accounts of "harsh treatment given Mrs. Surratt." While the conditions of her confinement were quite crude, they were crude for all prisoners of that era. I am inclined to believe that she was at least treated better than her male counterparts.

Virtually since the moment of her arrest, criticism arose over the "harsh" treatment she endured on the orders of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. Stories circulated that Mrs. Surratt was manacled in irons; held in inhuman and unsanitary conditions; denied medical attention; and denied even the most basics of comforts. Many of those accusations have survived to this day. However, there are at least three letters that question whether they were or are justified.

The first is Stanton's letter of June 19, 1865, to Major General Winfield Scott Hancock (who was in charge of all matters relating to the Lincoln assassination conspirators), which authorized him "to make any arrangement that can be done for the comfort of Mrs. Surratt consistent with her secure detention and also to allow her to be furnished with any food or necessaries she may divine that shall be approved by the Surgeon in Charge. Such changes or additions to her furniture as may add to her comfort are also authorized having due regard to the security of the prison and her safe custody."

The second letter was written in September 1873. A story appeared in the newspapers that Mrs. Surratt was held in irons throughout her trial. The editor of the Washington Daily Morning Chronicle asked Mrs. Surratt's defense lawyer, Frederick A. Aiken, if the accusation was true. Aiken responded: "Without reference to any other fact, or to any of the details in the case of that most unfortunate lady, I have to say in reply that at no time during her unlawful trial was Mrs. Surratt manacled, either on her wrists or her ankles, while in the presence of the court. I not only speak from my own absolute knowledge, but from Mrs. Surratt’s oft-repeated statements to me that she was not manacled."

The third letter is more telling. It was written by Mrs. Surratt’s 22 year-old daughter, Anna, and addressed to General John F. Hartranft (who commanded the military prison at the Washington arsenal, where the conspirators were held during the trial). Anna was allowed to visit her mother frequently and even stay and comfort her during the closing weeks of the trial. In her letter of July 9, 1865, Anna asked for the return of some of Mrs. Surratt's personal effects and mentions Powell's "confession" of her innocence. Most notable is how the letter concludes. Written a mere two days after her mother's execution, Anna wrote: "Remember me to the officers who had charge of Ma and I shall always think kindly of you." Perhaps it was just Victorian etiquette, but it seems unlikely that a young woman would want to be "remembered" to her mother's abusive captors.

[L Verge]

(09-29-2016 04:30 PM)wpbinzel Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 10:34 AM)Gene C Wrote:  A lot of attention given to the harsh treatment given Mrs. Surratt during her arrest and trial.

I question the accounts of "harsh treatment given Mrs. Surratt." While the conditions of her confinement were quite crude, they were crude for all prisoners of that era. I am inclined to believe that she was at least treated better than her male counterparts.

Virtually since the moment of her arrest, criticism arose over the "harsh" treatment she endured on the orders of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. Stories circulated that Mrs. Surratt was manacled in irons; held in inhuman and unsanitary conditions; denied medical attention; and denied even the most basics of comforts. Many of those accusations have survived to this day. However, there are at least three letters that question whether they were or are justified.

The first is Stanton's letter of June 19, 1865, to Major General Winfield Scott Hancock (who was in charge of all matters relating to the Lincoln assassination conspirators), which authorized him "to make any arrangement that can be done for the comfort of Mrs. Surratt consistent with her secure detention and also to allow her to be furnished with any food or necessaries she may divine that shall be approved by the Surgeon in Charge. Such changes or additions to her furniture as may add to her comfort are also authorized having due regard to the security of the prison and her safe custody."

The second letter was written in September 1873. A story appeared in the newspapers that Mrs. Surratt was held in irons throughout her trial. The editor of the Washington Daily Morning Chronicle asked Mrs. Surratt's defense lawyer, Frederick A. Aiken, if the accusation was true. Aiken responded: "Without reference to any other fact, or to any of the details in the case of that most unfortunate lady, I have to say in reply that at no time during her unlawful trial was Mrs. Surratt manacled, either on her wrists or her ankles, while in the presence of the court. I not only speak from my own absolute knowledge, but from Mrs. Surratt’s oft-repeated statements to me that she was not manacled."

The third letter is more telling. It was written by Mrs. Surratt’s 22 year-old daughter, Anna, and addressed to General John F. Hartranft (who commanded the military prison at the Washington arsenal, where the conspirators were held during the trial). Anna was allowed to visit her mother frequently and even stay and comfort her during the closing weeks of the trial. In her letter of July 9, 1865, Anna asked for the return of some of Mrs. Surratt's personal effects and mentions Powell's "confession" of her innocence. Most notable is how the letter concludes. Written a mere two days after her mother's execution, Anna wrote: "Remember me to the officers who had charge of Ma and I shall always think kindly of you." Perhaps it was just Victorian etiquette, but it seems unlikely that a young woman would want to be "remembered" to her mother's abusive captors.

Thank you for posting that, Bill, because you are "spot on" as those across the pond might say! Betty Ownsbey and Nancy Griffith discovered Gen. Hartranft's Day Book in the library at Gettysburg College back in the 1980s. In that, there are references to a rocking chair being brought in for her, food from Hartranft's own table being sent to her (butter is one thing I remember), etc.

My suspicion is that the officials tread lightly with the treatment of the lady since they had no guarantee that she would be executed. If she lived, the press might make a field day of statements she could give about intolerable treatment. If you are anti-Stanton, you might still say that he was heavy-handed -- but only behind the scenes?

[RJNorton]

(09-29-2016 04:30 PM)wpbinzel Wrote:  In her letter of July 9, 1865, Anna asked for the return of some of Mrs. Surratt's personal effects and mentions Powell's "confession" of her innocence.

Bill, long ago I read a book in which the author gave his personal opinion on why this happened. I cannot recall the book. But the author maintained that Powell was telling the truth as he saw it. The writer felt Booth never told Powell the degree of Mary's involvement and knowledge of the plotting. So Powell truly believed she was a totally innocent woman.

[wpbinzel]

(09-30-2016 04:53 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(09-29-2016 04:30 PM)wpbinzel Wrote:  In her letter of July 9, 1865, Anna asked for the return of some of Mrs. Surratt's personal effects and mentions Powell's "confession" of her innocence.

Bill, long ago I read a book in which the author gave his personal opinion on why this happened. I cannot recall the book. But the author maintained that Powell was telling the truth as he saw it. The writer felt Booth never told Powell the degree of Mary's involvement and knowledge of the plotting. So Powell truly believed she was a totally innocent woman.

Roger, the authors of Come Retribution note that Booth compartmentalized various aspects of the conspiracy and that the other participants only knew what (and who) they needed to know. Booth did that quite well, as we know that there were more people involved than those ultimately tried (e.g., Thomas Harbin).

With regard to Powell, my view is that Powell felt that his ill-timed arrival on her doorstep on April 17th doomed Mrs. Surratt and his "confession" was an attempt to save her. I do not believe that Powell was telling the truth "as he saw it." We don't know how much Powell knew of Mrs. Surratt's involvement, but he certainly knew enough to make his way to her house to seek sanctuary. For that reason alone, Powell's protestations of her innocence ring hollow with me.

---

In the event that it is of interest, here is the full text of Anna Surratt's letter:


Washington D.C.
July 9, 1865

Genl. Hartranft

Genl. Hancock told Mr. Holohan that you had some things that belonged to my poor Ma, which, with my consent you would deliver to him. Don’t forget to send the pillow upon which her head rested and her prayer beads, if you can find them—these things are dear to me.

Someone told me that you wrote to the President stating that the prisoner Payne had confessed to you the morning of the Execution that Ma was entirely innocent of the President’s assassination and had no knowledge of it. Moreover, that he did not think she had any knowledge of the assassination plot, and that you believed that Payne had confessed the truth. I would like to know if you did it because I wish to remember and thank those who did Ma the least act of kindness. I was spurned and treated with the utmost contempt by everyone at the White House.

Remember me to the officers who had charge of Ma and I shall always think kindly of you.

Yours Respectfully—
Anna Surratt

Source: Edward Steers, Jr. and Harold Holzer, The Lincoln Assassination Conspirators, Their Confinement and Execution, as Recorded in the Letterbook of John Frederick Hartranft (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2009), p. 55.

[Gene C]

According to the author, nothing was going to save Mrs. Surratt.