Interesting Day at the Old Surratt Hacienda

[RJNorton]

(07-19-2016 11:12 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  Guy Moore has "about 1817" in his book about Mary.

Thanks, Susan. I found another place, too. On p. 217 of Hans Trefousse 's Historical Dictionary of Reconstruction the author gives her birth year as 1817.

And the "encyclopedia" here says about her:

Surratt, Mary E. (c. 1820–1865)

"American woman hanged, despite little evidence of guilt, for involvement in Lincoln's assassination. Name variations: Mrs. Surratt; also seen as Mary Seurat. Born Mary Eugenia Jenkins near Waterloo, Prince George's County, Maryland, around 1820 (some sources cite 1817, others 1823);"

[L Verge]

(07-19-2016 11:33 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(07-19-2016 11:12 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  Guy Moore has "about 1817" in his book about Mary.

Thanks, Susan. I found another place, too. On p. 217 of Hans Trefousse 's Historical Dictionary of Reconstruction the author gives her birth year as 1817.

And the "encyclopedia" here says about her:

Surratt, Mary E. (c. 1820–1865)

"American woman hanged, despite little evidence of guilt, for involvement in Lincoln's assassination. Name variations: Mrs. Surratt; also seen as Mary Seurat. Born Mary Eugenia Jenkins near Waterloo, Prince George's County, Maryland, around 1820 (some sources cite 1817, others 1823);"

At least the encyclopedia was careful enough to insert "c." in front of 1820, to hedge their guess.

I also am sad to report that I googled Guy Moore and found that he died in November of last year:

NIH Communicator Moore Mourned

Guy W. Moore, 93, who retired in 1979 as chief of the News Branch in the Office of the Director, died on Nov. 13.

Moore came to NIH in 1960 as deputy director of the information office in the Division of General Medical Sciences after having served as the first information officer of the Medical Research and Development Command of the Army’s Office of the Surgeon General. Following his retirement from NIH, he wrote The NIH: How It Works, published by Science and Health Publications in 1980.

Moore was born in Retta, Okla. He earned both his B.A. (radio-journalism, 1950) and his M.A. (history, 1952) from the University of Oklahoma.

His master’s thesis, slightly recast, was published by the University of Oklahoma Press in 1954 as The Case of Mrs. Surratt. The book was an account of the controversial trial and execution of Mary Surratt for her alleged involvement in the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln.

Moore entered the U.S. Civil Service in 1944 in military intelligence with the Army Signal Corps. After World War II, he was stationed in the American embassy in Montevideo, Uruguay. After returning to Washington, D.C., in 1946, he married Hazel Avenell Cartwright of Arlington, Va., in 1948. She died in 1986.

A longtime astronomer, Moore was a member of the Northern Virginia Astronomy Club and contributed his observations to Sky and Telescope. Also an avid birdwatcher, he belonged to the Northern Virginia Bird Club and participated in the National Audubon Society’s annual bird count for many years.

This write-up reminded me that James O. Hall was also a native of Oklahoma and that both had experience with military intelligence during WWII.

[Susan Higginbotham]

I'm sorry to hear that. I enjoyed his account in one of the older Surratt Couriers of researching Mary in the early days.

[wpbinzel]

(07-18-2016 02:42 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Well, history is ruined again. One of the Surratt volunteers saw this production the other day and gave a very disgusted review of it to me on the phone. Now I know why one of the actors commented to me that he didn't like the way history was being screwed up.

According to my source, everything is screwed up! They could not even get Mary Surratt's birthdate correct (1817 instead of the correct 1823). It only got worse from there with lots of "artistic license" and enough profanity to keep modern critics happy.

Bill and Lisa Binzel will be seeing it this week while it is still in D.C. I'll let him give you the scoop. The bad thing is that I understand the attendance has been great. I sure hope some are inspired to visit Surratt House in order to learn the real history.

As Laurie noted, last evening, Lisa and I went to see The Trial of Mrs. Surratt. (Laurie will be happy to hear that they used 1823 as the year of Mrs. Surratt's birth, so at least they fixed that problem.)

When it comes to Mary Surratt, I believe that people are entitled to make up their own minds on her guilt or innocence; but that does not mean they are entitled to make up their own "facts." The Trial of Mrs. Surratt is not historically factual. It is advocacy. And just in case you miss the first four tirades against the use of a military tribunal to try the Lincoln assassination conspirators, it is repeated at least two more times. The “Director’s Note” in the playbill provided a preview of what was to come: “[W]hat is certain is that this American citizen was not given a fair trial and had she had one, her outcome would have been extremely different.” [emphasis in the original] The play makes no effort or allowance for a different perspective or point of view.

There are too many historical inaccuracies to recount them all. When used by virtue of artistic license for the sake of the story or when necessary to move the production along, I am inclined to overlook them. However, this play has too many “unforced errors.” For starters, Joseph Holt is portrayed as a complete imbecile; Secretary of War Stanton (the play’s villain) blackmails Louis Weichmann into testifying against Mrs. Surratt by threatening to leak details of Weichmann’s sexual relationship with John Wilkes Booth to the press; (there are also repeated implications that Booth and John Surratt were lovers as well, but it was lost on me why that was relevant to the story or the production); Booth’s “diary” is withheld from evidence in the trial because it only named Herold, Paine and Atzerodt as co-conspirators, and does not mention any of the others on trial, most notably, Mrs. Surratt; Mrs. Surratt is in chains; the prison guards amuse themselves by savagely beating Ned Spangler; etc. You get the idea.

In the end, I was not sure what was the point of the production. It if was to rail against the use of military tribunals with loosely-based historical figures, then it succeeded. If it was intended to portray historical events, then it seriously missed the mark. My biggest concern with the production is the disservice it does to those in the audience who may be exposed to the subject for the first time. Making up one’s mind based on made-up “facts” is always hazardous.

[L Verge]

I'm glad to see that at least the date of birth was corrected. Last Thursday, the director brought two more ladies to tour the house, and I did nicely mention my volunteer's disappointment with the amount of historical errors in the play -- especially the fact that they didn't even get her birthdate correct.

They told me the play was written over twenty years ago and that his main (I suspect only) source for research was Guy Moore's The Case of Mrs. Surratt. I'm glad to see that they at least changed the date.

[Eva Elisabeth]

Great review, Bill, very professional, and I'm glad to learn I don't seem to miss anything...

[KateH.]

A few "Wanderers," as the group members call themselves, visited the Mudd House and told us docents that they were not familiar with Manhunt or American Brutus. They mentioned how the show is "surreal" many times (that word, which should never be placed next to the word "historic," was also included on the advertisements). When one of the actors told me he was staying up the road from Mt. Olivet Cemetery, I mentioned how he was then also up the road from Congressional Cemetery. He proceeded to tell me he had never heard of such a place and asked who was buried there.

There will always be pieces like this that have more artistic value than factual value (and critics who appreciate that and give good reviews-the play has been nominated for some award at the festival). Unfortunately, all this makes the so-called "facts" seem even more legitimate and means that people who only know bits of the story or have only heard certain names in passing will come away with wrong information or believe there can only ever be one correct opinion. Be prepared to get some interesting questions (why did John Wilkes Booth carry around pictures of ladies?) on future tours.

[L Verge]

I guess my forty-one years at Surratt House are wearing me down, but I'm becoming very jaded and impatient with artistes of various medias who have stretched artistic license and history to the breaking point. It is especially frustrating when there have been so many good books written since the 1980s as well as decent sites online. It is better to work with documentaries than with those more avant garde theater groups, but the final product is not always what you hope it will be.

My first experience with a TV production crew was in 1979 with the old In Search Of program where Robert Stack promised to tell real history. In this case, it was the Booth "escaped" theory. Great group to work with and very amenable to getting things right (or at least not totally screwed up!). We had them here for over a week because the Dr. Mudd House refused to let them on the property, so scenes from the sofa to the bedroom were filmed here with the production people providing all the furniture and props.

Since then, we have worked with probably 8-10 other TV, movie, stage, and other assorted programs. All have been nice groups to deal with, but some of the outcomes have been not so nice. To me, it seems that directors and playwrights do not want to bend their script for historical accuracy. If they could only hear the vast majority of our visitors who come off tour here saying how great it is to hear "what really happened."

Some of my disgust was assuaged, however, when I got to shake hands with Robert Redford at the premiere of The Conspirator five years ago!

[RJNorton]

Of the eight people on trial I think the majority of assassination authors feel Ned Spangler was the most likely person to be innocent. However, (to quote Bill) "the prison guards amuse themselves by savagely beating Ned Spangler." What am I missing?

[Eva Elisabeth]

(07-22-2016 12:54 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  Of the eight people on trial I think the majority of assassination authors feel Ned Spangler was the most likely person to be innocent. However, (to quote Bill) "the prison guards amuse themselves by savagely beating Ned Spangler." What am I missing?

The sordid abyss of some humans' souls.

[KateH.]

(07-22-2016 12:54 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  Of the eight people on trial I think the majority of assassination authors feel Ned Spangler was the most likely person to be innocent. However, (to quote Bill) "the prison guards amuse themselves by savagely beating Ned Spangler." What am I missing?

It's difficult to beat up Herold, Powell, Atzerodt, Arnold, O'Laughlen, or Mudd when they're not actually in the story. Poor Spangler getting screwed by process of elimination.

(Correct me if I'm wrong about who is featured).

[Gene C]

(07-22-2016 12:54 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  What am I missing?

You are not missing anything. They did it for ratings, or sales. They are not interested in the truth. Homosexuality, over use of police force and brutality, sells better to a liberal public.
They ignore the truth all the time. Check out this short scene from the x-files.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lSzL1DqQn0

But according to the actual FBI file, it was Agent Scully who was dragged into the woods and disappeared, not Queequeg (who was actually a border collie and wasn't harmed at all)
But it makes for a better story if the cute little dog disappears instead of the can't act FBI agent.
Go figure.

Fido

(say Roger, if I get my own membership to the forum, do I have to use a photo of Gene as my icon?)

[RJNorton]

(07-22-2016 02:04 PM)Gene C Wrote:  (say Roger, if I get my own membership to the forum, do I have to use a photo of Gene as my icon?)

Fido, I think you are doing just fine posting through Gene's account. You are one handsome dog!

Fido

[BettyO]

Quote:I guess my forty-one years at Surratt House are wearing me down, but I'm becoming very jaded and impatient with artistes of various medias who have stretched artistic license and history to the breaking point. It is especially frustrating when there have been so many good books written since the 1980s as well as decent sites online. It is better to work with documentaries than with those more avant garde theater groups, but the final product is not always what you hope it will be.

I have to agree with Laurie - I, too would much more work with documentaries which don't take historical liberty (if at all!) I loved working the producers, directors and actors of NGC's Killing Lincoln - they were totally interested in getting the story right! I have a confession to make: I have written a synopsis for a one-man stage play about Powell and I have had some interest expressed in it. However, I think I'm a lousy play writer. More later on this.....

[Eva Elisabeth]

Betty, that sounds great!