The Flimsy Case Against Mary Surratt

[mikegriffith1]

(01-10-2019 07:45 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  Please see Chapter 5 of Decapitating the Union for a completely objective and dispassionate presentation of the evidence in the case against Mrs. Surratt, a consideration of the evidence, and a conclusion based upon the same. Also considered are the opinions of others relative to the conclusion and to her fate. If you find fault with any of it, I would like to hear about it, together with evidence and authority to support your claims. John

There is no way to even begin making a case against Mary Surratt without Weichmann and Lloyd, both of whom would get utterly demolished on cross-examination in a modern trial. If a modern jury were to hear the case and were made aware of the pressure that was applied to Weichmann and Lloyd--not to mention the many contradictions and belated claims in Weichmann's story, Lloyd's drunken state, and the evidence of the real reason Mary went to Surrattsville on those two days--they would return a "not guilty" verdict in a matter of minutes.

The whole premise of "decapitation" is untenable. With Stanton still in control of the War Department and the Radical leadership in Congress intact, there would have been no decapitation with Lincoln, Johnson, and Seward gone. Instead, the Radicals' grip on the government would have been greatly strengthened. There would have been a figurehead-like successor to Lincoln in the White House (Lafayette Foster of Connecticut), a man who was relatively unknown and had no national constituency. Stanton, Stevens, Wade, Wilson, Julian, etc., would have run over him.

The Confederate conspiracy theory is rejected by most scholars, as William Marvel, author of Lincoln's Autocrat: The Life of Edwin Stanton, notes:

Stanton wanted his department to assemble the evidence against Davis and try him before a military commission. He was especially keen to tie Davis to Lincoln's assassination. But he failed, perhaps because (as most but not all scholars today believe) the Confederate leaders had nothing to do with the assassination, or perhaps because the War Department's investigation was inadequate. (pp. 454-455)

Even Lafayette Baker and his army of perjury collectors could not come up with a credible case against Davis and other Confederate leaders.

Finally, as someone who has studied George McClellan for years and written many articles about him, the idea that McClellan would have remained silent about a plot against Lincoln is utterly ludicrous. Anyone who has seriously studied McClellan knows that his Christian faith and his devotion to the rule of law would have led him to immediately sound the alarm if he had so much as heard the faintest hint of a plot to kidnap or murder Lincoln. (Anyone who has studied McClellan also knows how many times Stanton and other Radicals pressured Lincoln into making bad decisions regarding McClellan's army and operations.)

Answering Some Criticisms of General George B. McClellan
http://miketgriffith.com/files/answers1.htm