Aiken

[Christine]

So, it wouldn't be too far out of the realm for this Union flag to have belonged to a Confederate officer. You all probably wonder what I'm getting at; can't say right now w/o permission of the person in question, but I'm trying to determine if Frederick could have owned a flag a collector purchased at auction. Like looking for a needle in a haystack!

Anyway, the puzzle is certainly fascinating. Just when I let out a sigh of satisfaction, hit save, and think I'm done with Aiken, something new pops up to drag me back in

Now, a question for Kate (and everybody else, too) - if you had known all this info about Frederick before you wrote your book, might it have changed your opinion about Mary's choice for her attorney? I can't help but wonder if simply having Frederick Aiken, with all the questions surrounding him about his loyalty to the Union as her attorney darker cast a shadow upon her in the eyes of the Tribunal. A shadow which was impossible for her to overcome. Or was she so deep in the shadows that nothing could have saved her?

If she had Thomas Ewing (undeniably Union but with strong Democratic ties) as her attorney, might the verdict have been different? Or at least the sentence?

[Laurie Verge]

I'm going to jump in first. Under the laws of conspiracy, I think the court would still have found Mary guilty, based on the fact that she was in almost constant communication with Booth up until the end. I believe that the only reason Ewing was able to save Mudd from hanging is keyed to the same issue. There was nothing to prove that Mudd was in contact with Booth between the failed kidnap scheme and six hours after the assassination. Ewing succeeded in convincing one judge to spare Mudd from hanging also.

Mrs. Surratt had a lot of things going against her.

[Gene C]

I'll agree with Laurie about Mary.
Considering the times, defending anyone in this group would almost have been looked upon as treasonous. They were probably lucky to get the quality of legal representation that they got. The were all considered "guilty untill proven innocent".

I've always wondered, how did Thomas Jones slip through the net?
(if you answer, start a new thread)

[Laurie Verge]

My personal opinion on Jones is that he was a good liar. The only thing that they tried to catch him on was the fact that the fugitives had used his boat. His reply to that was basically, "You're arresting me because someone stole my boat?"

[KLarson]

I believe that no one could have saved Mary except for, and this is a big maybe,
Revered Johnson. But he left her fate in Aiken and Campbell's hands. He really abandoned her. Now that we know they were not junior partners in Johnson's practice, it is really curious that Mary chose them. All of those who hanged were part of the conspiracy during the days leading up to the assassination. No one will quibble about the guilt of the other three who hanged with Mary, and Mudd seemingly had not seen Booth for months until he showed up at his door after the murder. Mary was helpful right up to the assassination.
So, Aiken's loyalty matters of course, and The mystery certainly makes him more interesting. And if Mary chose him because of his questionable loyalty, it only confirms her own sympathies, which I don't think anyone's questions. Aiken's skill as an attorney matters more, but as I said, I can't be convinced completely that even Reverdy Johnson could have saved her.

[L Verge]

James O. Hall always felt that Mary had little say in who defended her. There is one line in the trial testimony that indicates that her boarder, John Holohan, had known Aiken previously. Mr. Holohan had been charged with domestic abuse, and Aiken may have been his legal counsel in that case. I don't think Mr. Hall ever found proof, however.

He also surmised that that is how the Holohans came to board with Mrs. Surratt. The Catholic church arranged for the family to be under the roof of a good Catholic/Christian lady. Do we see a touch of irony here?

[HerbS]

Christine,I agree with you 100%.But,he is such a Historical Enigma to me!

[Lindsey]

I'm not sure those poor lawyers had a chance in heck, no matter who they were to help their clients. Davey had Frederick Stone who certainly had plenty of experience, but I would think Mary took some comfort in Aiken's democratic views. Or maybe not...maybe she hoped for a Yankee lawyer so that the judges might be more lenient?...

[HerbS]

Lindsey,Your valued opinion has opened my eyes!

[jonathan]

I don't have a lot of time here, but I've just re-read American Brutus, and a couple of things come to mind.

Concerning Aiken, Kauffman paints him as quite the rookie/green attorney. Sounds like he was kind of learning as he went, though he certainly was hamstrung in what he was and was not allowed to say and do. Also, judging from a comment attributed to Lew Wallace, maybe it wasn't as hopeless as it seems for the defendants and their attorneys. From page 367 of AB…


"After hearing the defense arguments, Lew Wallace wrote his wife, 'I have passed a few words with my associate members, and think we can agree in a couple of hours at farthest. Three, if not four, of the eight will be acquitted--that is, if we voted today.' But they did not vote that day, and the prosecution still had a few more cards to play."

There are a few paragraphs of explanation following this, but I found it interesting that the defendants, or at least some of them, did have a chance at least to avoid prison.

Also, I get the feeling that the defendants for the most part had to take what they could get in terms of attorneys. It's not as if they were given a lot of time to make arrangements and prepare their defense.

[Laurie Verge]

To the best of my knowledge, no one had done any research on Frederick Aiken until Christine Christensen did her stupendous work. Therefore, I don't know that any author could make a fair judgment of Aiken's skills except for acknowledging that he and the other lawyers were up against insurmountable odds.

IMO, Aiken certainly had the verbal skills to express himself well and did so - albeit with florid Victorian prose that we find boring today. The major drawback was that the military commission and the public already had made up their minds as to guilt; it just came down to degrees of guilt.

[HerbS]

Aiken got most of his legal experience from his father-in-law.That's like"student teaching" for your Mother!

[Christine]

I'd love to find evidence of Aiken's legal education. . .

I found more Aiken relatives; more great grandchildren of another of Frederick's cousins. This cousin lived with Frederick's family after his own family moved to Maine when he was a young child, and his parents sent him back to Vermont to be educated.

I have received lots of "Oh MY Gosh! This is so cool!!!" and most sentences punctuated with multiple exclamation points. To say that they are thrilled to be introduced to Frederick Aiken is a vast understatement. I feel like Santa Clause. I'll let you all know if they have any histories or pictures hidden in their attics!

So, you can add a few more to those being introduced to the Mary Surratt story. Thanks, Freddie!

[Christine]

I just hit a goldmine - Civil War letters from a William James Fisher, Union, who was serving in the same places as Aiken during the Peninsula Campaign!

One letter is from Fairfax Court House and mentions General McDowell, dated March 15, 1862. I have a letter from Aiken to General McDowell, Fairfax CH March 12, 1862, just three days before Fisher's letter home.

Fisher also writes about Yorktown - where Aiken served with William F Smith and wrote an account which was published in a Vermont newspaper.

It is amazing to read these letters and get a glimpse into what it must have been like for those serving there - the weather, the conditions, their thoughts. Like a step back into history.

http://www.williamjamesfisher.com/catego...ters/1862/

[HerbS]

Christine,You really did hit a goldmine! They are some of the best"Letters Home"that I have read! The letters make it come to life! Once again,Excellent Job!