Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

L Verge · 09-17-2015, 04:13 PM

Anyone have an answer?

I am trying to determine if the attorneys for Mary Surratt were present at the execution. The reference sources I have do not address the issue. Barry Cauchon tells me that only one newspaper, the Constitutional Union of July 7 reported that they entered the prison yard ahead of Mary Surratt. To his knowledge, no other news report had them at the scene. He also said the Evening Star reported them as leaving Mary in the morning. Thus he believes they were not present at the execution. I, too, suspect this to be the case.

Susan Higginbotham · (This post was last modified: 09-17-2015 07:35 PM by Susan Higginbotham.)

I don't know of anything that says they were there. On the other hand, Doster said he was there watching from a window, and I don't think the newspapers reported his presence either, so perhaps Mary's attorneys stayed as well.

Edited: Here's Clampitt's account of the trial and executions. He describes the hangings, but whether as an eyewitness or from what he learned secondhand I can't tell.

https://archive.org/stream/jstor-2510088...5/mode/2up

Dennis Urban · 09-18-2015, 11:28 AM

In reading Clampitt's account of the execution (for the first time) as posted by Ms. Higginbotham a couple of things struck me. It seems reasonable that Clampitt and Aiken would have remained with Gen Hancock at the "eastern extremity of the building" until the last possible moment hoping to receive news of a reprieve at the same time Hancock would receive it. The eastern extremity of the building has the outside door as it does today but did not, at the time, have windows close to that door looking into the south yard of the penitentiary. Two ground and upper floor windows looked into the yard but one would have had to walk west in the building to look through these windows and they were probably within rooms off a hallway. If Hancock viewed the execution, it it reasonable that Aiken and Clampitt would have still been with him. If Clampitt could not bear to see the execution, it is likely that even though he wrote his account fifteen years after the fact, he would have mentioned that. Clampitt mentions that Hancock "took no part in the execution" but that does not mean he didn't observe it. As the ranking officer present, if he walked into the yard before the execution, all eyes from the gallows platform would have looked towards him expecting some news. Therefore I suspect Hancock remained within the building and if he observed the execution it would have been from inside; either with or without Aiken and Clampitt. This conjecture does not answer the question I posed to Laurie but further clouds what may never be known definitively. Interestingly, Clampitt's account has Mary Surratt entering the yard last while most other accounts have her entering first. The mystery continues.

Jim Garrett · (This post was last modified: 09-18-2015 02:44 PM by Jim Garrett.)

Welcome aboard the good ship Norton. Always nice to have new members with an acute interest in adding to the forum.

That is to our new member, Dennis

RJNorton · 09-18-2015, 06:04 PM

Welcome to the forum, Dennis! Today I wrote Barry C. about this, and he sent me a couple of quotes (which I think he sent you, too):

The Constitutional Union of July 7 reported: "At one o'clock preparations commenced for the execution, Gen. Hancock, with an aid and Mrs. Surratt's counsel Messrs. Aiken & Clampitt, came out a side door, and in a moment out came Mrs. Surratt, led or supported by Col. McCall and a sergeant..."

The Evening Star of July 7 reported: "Her lawyers, Messr's Aiken and Clampitt, took leave of her in the morning."

Until more evidence is found Barry leans toward the lawyers not being present during the hangings (as Laurie noted above).

Dennis Urban · 09-18-2015, 06:22 PM

Yes, I wrote to Barry C then to Laurie who suggested this site and posted my question. Aiken worked for the Constitutional Union at one time but I don't know whether before or after the trial. As a consummate CW researcher myself I agree that more evidence is needed before one can say with authority one way or the other but the speculation is intriguing.
Thanks for the welcome Jim & Roger. Hugely informative site! I love it.

L Verge · 09-18-2015, 07:19 PM

I think Aiken worked for that newspaper right before going into law practice with Clampitt. I think Christine mentions it in her article that I sent. Her email bounced back to me, so I may have to resort to snail mail.

Dennis Urban · 09-18-2015, 09:20 PM

Laurie, the article did come through to me via your email. It does indicate Aiken worked for the CU after completing his military service but did not mention a time frame. According to the article, the firm of Aiken & Clampitt was announced on December 6, 1864 so it was after his military service. Thus they had only been together several months before they were hired for the Surratt case. Per Christine's article, Aiken had quite a troubled legal career. Perhaps that is why he turned to journalism so often.

John Fazio · 09-20-2015, 07:16 AM

Laurie, et al.:

I come to the opposite conclusion from that of our good friend Barry Cauchon, because:

1. The movie had one of her counsel at the execution, on the grounds, observing the hanging. I do not recall which one, but the movie makers were likely advised by consultants that at least one of the two was there.
2. Consistent with 1., Clampitt says, in his account, that "on arrival at the arsenal, we (i.e. both lawyers) went immediately to the cell where Mary Surratt was confined..." It seems unlikely that both lawyers would be there, but that only one would be on the grounds at the time of the hanging.
3. It is true that Clampitt follows this up with "I" met General Hancock at the eastern end of the building...", but his use of the singular pronoun here rather than the plural does not necessarily mean that Aiken left the premises. It may mean nothing more than that Aiken took a position elsewhere to witness the execution or that he was temporarily detained for some reason.
4. Clampitt's detailed description of the hangings has all the earmarks of an eyewitness, especially his statement that his pen wasn't smart enough to record the event. Had he not been present, he most likely would have said so and acknowledged that his information came from another source.
5. The Constitutional Union's account supports the view that both attorneys were present. "General Hancock with an aid(e) and Mrs. Surratt's counsel Messrs. Aiken and Clampitt came out a side door..." cannot reasonably be interpreted in any other way.
6. The Evening Star's statement that her lawyers took leave of her in the morning means only what it says: they said their goodbyes to her then; they had their last face-to-face communication with her then. It in no way precludes their being on the grounds witnessing the execution.
7. Clampitt's statement that General Hancock took no part in the execution means only what it says, especially because he follows it up with "General Hartranft had been specially designated by the President...as Special Provost-Marshal-General to execute the mandates of the Commission". That is to say that Hartranft would oversee the proceedings, not Hancock. That in no way precludes Hancock being on or near the grounds as a witness.

I conclude that the evidence is clear and convincing, even if not conclusive, that Hancock and both attorneys witnessed the execution.

John

L Verge · 09-20-2015, 12:36 PM

Thanks for your thoughts, John. Again, this is possibly an unanswereable question.

While we have your attention, the debate over Louis Weichmann in another thread brought up the question as to whether or not Weichmann and Lloyd became state's witnesses against Mary Surratt. I believe that Mr. Hall said that they had turned for the prosecution. You said the same in Decapitating, but then Pamela says you made a mistake that needed correcting. There should be evidence somewhere that would settle the question.

John Fazio · 09-21-2015, 11:24 AM

(09-20-2015 12:36 PM)L Verge Wrote: Thanks for your thoughts, John. Again, this is possibly an unanswereable question.

While we have your attention, the debate over Louis Weichmann in another thread brought up the question as to whether or not Weichmann and Lloyd became state's witnesses against Mary Surratt. I believe that Mr. Hall said that they had turned for the prosecution. You said the same in Decapitating, but then Pamela says you made a mistake that needed correcting. There should be evidence somewhere that would settle the question.

Laurie:

Pamela is right; I misspoke when I wrote that Weichman turned state's evidence. To do so one must either be charged as a co-conspirator or co-defendant or at least be suspected of such. The persons testified against must have been co-conspirators or co-defendants or suspected to be such. When the witness agrees to testify for the prosecution, he or she acknowledges that he or she was part of the conspiracy or otherwise in league with those he or she is testifying against. As we know, Weichmann never acknowedged that he was part of Booth's conspiracy and, to our knowledge, he was never actually accused of being such by Federal prosecutors. Likewise for Lloyd.

John

L Verge · 09-21-2015, 12:53 PM

On page 331 of American Brutus, Michael Kauffman states: "Lou Weichmann returned from Canada on April 28, and the following day, Stanton committed him to the Carroll Annex. It was no secret that Weichmann was turning state's evidence, and his fellow prisoners hated him for it. There was something unseemly about a man who would testify against a woman... But Weichmann was under tremendous pressure to cooperate, and the incentives often sounded like threats." Kauffman cites the James R. Ford Papers previously mentioned on this thread.

With both Hall and Kauffman stating that Weichmann turned state's evidence, it seems to me that deeper digging is called for (but it ain't gonna be me to do the digging!).

barryssentials · (This post was last modified: 09-21-2015 05:26 PM by barryssentials.)

Damn you crazy ex-lawyer...turned successful author. You are always so logical in your thinking and approach when picking apart a good argument. LOL. Keep it up.

I miss you my friend and was so glad to see you weigh in on this.

You know me. I won't commit to a firm belief on a topic until I have more than one solid source to compare. To assist me in this endeavor could you help me with something. Regarding Clampitt's description of the execution, I have looked high and low in my files and for some reason, that particular piece of research has gone 'poof'. I'd like to re-read it again if you have a copy you could send me.

I may free up by end of the week and would like to take another look at this and my other files and see if I can find a connection to help with Dennis Urban's question.

Laurie, Roger and Jim, so glad to touch base with you again here. I always leave it way too long. Shame on me.

Have a great day.

Barry

Wild Bill · 09-21-2015, 05:51 PM

The Feds put all the witnesses in the Old Cap or Carroll Annex to be sure no one fled the proceedings. They did not have to turn state's evidence as none were charged. Imprisonment also helped remind them that they could be charged if they did not cooperate. I believe that habeas corpus was still suspended?

L Verge · 09-21-2015, 06:55 PM

(09-21-2015 05:25 PM)barryssentials Wrote: Damn you crazy ex-lawyer...turned successful author. You are always so logical in your thinking and approach when picking apart a good argument. LOL. Keep it up.

I miss you my friend and was so glad to see you weigh in on this.

You know me. I won't commit to a firm belief on a topic until I have more than one solid source to compare. To assist me in this endeavor could you help me with something. Regarding Clampitt's description of the execution, I have looked high and low in my files and for some reason, that particular piece of research has gone 'poof'. I'd like to re-read it again if you have a copy you could send me.

I may free up by end of the week and would like to take another look at this and my other files and see if I can find a connection to help with Dennis Urban's question.

Laurie, Roger and Jim, so glad to touch base with you again here. I always leave it way too long. Shame on me.

Have a great day.

Barry

Hey Barry & Hi Christine -- See Susan Higginbotham's Post #2 on this thread. I think that's the Clampitt description you are referring to.