No need to question this Lincoln conspirator’s guilt

[John Fazio]

(05-08-2016 09:03 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  Being involved in a plot to kidnap the President of the United States would be enough to make most normal people nervous, agitated, and restless, I would think.

When I get a moment, I'll look at the transcript myself, but who was it who described Arnold's role? If it was Bingham and Harris, it behooved them, in order to make the case for guilt of murder, to make the mechanics of the proposed kidnapping sound as ridiculous as possible. And how do we know that Mary knew that whatever was planned for April 14 would necessarily happen at the theater? For all we know, Booth might have told her that he planned to abduct the President from his carriage on the way back to the White House.

I'm still inclined to believe Lewis Powell when he said that Mary might have known that something was going on, but not about the assassination.

EDIT: I think I did find the passage you were referring to about Arnold's role. Still, I'm not convinced that the absurdity of some of the logistics involved in a kidnapping makes it impossible that there ever was one planned.

Susan:

Thank you for your input.

Being involved in a plot to kidnap the President would be enough to make most normal people nervous, etc., true, but it would not provide sufficient certainty of success to send her to Surrattsville to tell Lloyd to have the shooting irons, whiskey, etc., and Booth's field glasses, ready for pickup by parties who would (not "might", but "would") call for them that night. That kind of certainty could only have been borne of a well laid plan to do "what was to be done", in Booth's classic wording to Jett, Ruggles and Bainbridge. Recall that the kidnapping plot was described by Arnold as "certain to fail". In support of that conclusion, recall that not only did Herold attest to the depth of her involvement and therefore guilt, but Atzerodt too, who said that she was the cause of his ruin. Recall, further, that John J. Tibbett testified (at the Surratt trial) that she had said she would give $1,000 ($14,000 in today's money) to anyone who would kill Lincoln. And recall, further, that Weichmann testified that she had said to them, as they watched the illumination of Washington from a height, that "I am afraid all this rejoicing will be turned into mourning, and all this glory into sadness". Does one ordinarily "mourn" for the kidnapped? Or for the dead?

As for her knowledge that the murder would take place at the theater, I agree that there is no direct evidence, but the circumstantial evidence is compelling. In addition to the material given above, consider that Booth met with her three times on the 14th, per Weichmann, and that she knew his escape route. If he told her his escape route, why would he not tell her where the murder was to take place? He knew well before the 14th that Lincoln would be at the theater that night, per Tidwell, Hall and Gaddy. Put all this evidence together and I believe it is a safe surmise that she knew Booth's true purpose, knew where it was to take place and knew his escape plans.

John