Questions Regarding Mary Surratt

[MaddieM]

(04-10-2013 07:03 PM)KateH. Wrote:  [/size][/font]Hello everyone,

I am currently enrolled in a public speaking class and will be giving a persuasive speech on April 17th. During the speech, I will try and persuade my fellow classmates that Mary Surratt did not deserve to die for various reasons. I have some ideas but need validation for a few of the points. I thought this would be a good place to get some expert help and maybe even a few quotes I have a few questions that I'll post here as I get deeper into the speech, but I will start with these two.

1. By the time John Wilkes Booth made the decision to kill Lincoln, Johnson, and Seward, is there evidence that the group had already split and the meetings had moved out of the boardinghouse? I know Mrs. Surratt delivered the field glasses but had actual meetings in the house ceased? Wasn’t John Surratt gone by the time kidnapping became murder?

2. Is there any evidence or documentation to show that Mary Surratt's eyesight was failing by April of 1865? I want to put that as one of the causes for her not immediately recognizing Powell but need some sort of evidence to support the claim.

Thank you all for the help

I think Mary Surratt knew exactly who Powell was. She may well have had poor eyesight, but someone is not just a face. There was his height for starters, unusual at the best of times, and doubly so in that era I should imagine. She'd taken a good enough look at him to appreciate his looks, so must have known it was him in spite of the dim lighting. Surely, she'd not just seen him in daylight?

I think she basically just gave a knee jerk reaction in her denial of him, not realising how deeply this would implicate both of them. I don't think she cared if she implicated him, but perhaps didn't realise how far she'd condemn herself. That's what fear and guilt does... takes away your common sense and anticipatory thinking.

Basically, she bottled it.

[Gene C]

Well said.

[Craig Hipkins]

(04-11-2013 01:15 PM)Laurie Verge Wrote:  Thank you. You would have either loved me or hated me. I'm not sure there was any in-between. I just know that I ended up with some large classes because kids who couldn't behave in other classes got put in mind. That's where I developed my dry, subtle sense of humor -- otherwise known as sarcasm, which can stop an 8th grader dead in his tracks.

Laurie,

I need to send my 9 year old son to stay with you for a while!

Craig

[L Verge]

Sorry, I'm busy keeping a twelve year old grandson on the straight and narrow. So far it's working -- he just got straight A's again (we were a little worried about social studies). The only things I'm trying to work on now are a smart mouth - unfortunately inherited from me - and his slowness in getting chores and homework done.

Thanks for the trust you would place in me, however.

[Dennis Urban]

While this thread has not been added to for a while, based on recent reading I have a question and a comment.

1. Has the clear identity of the roughly 9 PM visitor to Mary at the boarding house on April 14 ever been established? Did anyone other than Weichmann say it was Booth? Other theories have been offered by other authors but I've not read anything definitively.

2. I am intrigued by the Gonzaga wheelbarrow story. It was the ring of truth to it. I wonder why Fr. Wiget was able to retrieve the wheelbarrow on his April 15 visit to Mary if the house was being watched by the authorities (although maybe not yet). Humorously, if Powell knew the wheelbarrow was in the back yard and he referenced it when he showed up to dig the gutter, some truth to that story of his may have been established. Most of that story comes from a Surratt Courier issue (VII-33) per Paul Warren's book on Gonzaga College. I'd love to read that account.

[RJNorton]

(07-27-2016 09:27 AM)Dennis Urban Wrote:  1. Has the clear identity of the roughly 9 PM visitor to Mary at the boarding house on April 14 ever been established? Did anyone other than Weichmann say it was Booth? Other theories have been offered by other authors but I've not read anything definitively.

Hi Dennis. Weichmann writes that when the detectives left on the morning of the 15th Anna Surratt cried out, "Oh, Ma! Mr. Weichmann is right; just think of that man (John W. Booth) having been here an hour before the assassination. I am afraid it will bring suspicion upon us."

At the trial Weichmann denied knowledge of who the visitor was. In his book, however, he clearly indicates it was Booth.

Dennis, I have stated in previous discussions that I feel the visitor was definitely Booth.

However, I must admit my opinion may be in the minority on this forum.

Years ago I wasn't clear on this visitor being JWB, but Kate Larson's book made me feel it was Booth. It just seems logical to me that Mary was given an errand to do, and JWB would want to check to see if she succeeded. Plus her behavior after the visitor departed (as described by Weichmann and Smoot) makes me think it was indeed Booth she just saw.

This is just my personal opinion. Unless new information is uncovered I do not think we can know 100% for certain who the visitor was. The answer to this mystery may be lost to history.
I think authors who say Booth was the 9 P.M. visitor depend on Weichmann as their source. For example, Art Loux includes the Booth 9 P.M. visit in his book but says his source is Weichmann.

[Dennis Urban]

(07-27-2016 09:55 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 09:27 AM)Dennis Urban Wrote:  1. Has the clear identity of the roughly 9 PM visitor to Mary at the boarding house on April 14 ever been established? Did anyone other than Weichmann say it was Booth? Other theories have been offered by other authors but I've not read anything definitively.

Hi Dennis. Weichmann writes that when the detectives left on the morning of the 15th Anna Surratt cried out, "Oh, Ma! Mr. Weichmann is right; just think of that man (John W. Booth) having been here an hour before the assassination. I am afraid it will bring suspicion upon us."

At the trial Weichmann denied knowledge of who the visitor was. In his book, however, he clearly indicates it was Booth.

Dennis, I have stated in previous discussions that I feel the visitor was definitely Booth.

However, I must admit my opinion may be in the minority on this forum.

Years ago I wasn't clear on this visitor being JWB, but Kate Larson's book made me feel it was Booth. It just seems logical to me that Mary was given an errand to do, and JWB would want to check to see if she succeeded. Plus her behavior after the visitor departed (as described by Weichmann and Smoot) makes me think it was indeed Booth she just saw.

This is just my personal opinion. Unless new information is uncovered I do not think we can know 100% for certain who the visitor was. The answer to this mystery may be lost to history.
I think authors who say Booth was the 9 P.M. visitor depend on Weichmann as their source. For example, Art Loux includes the Booth 9 P.M. visit in his book but says his source is Weichmann.

Roger, I agree with what you wrote and Larson credits Weichmann as her source in her footnotes. The issue becomes clouded because Larson goes on to explain on the same page (88) that Richard Smoot came looking for John Surratt that same evening about 9:30 pm. Larson quotes Smoot as the source two footnotes later. It does not seem reasonable that the Surratt home had 2 visitors the same evening a few minutes apart. Weichmann apparently did not get a positive ID on the visitor and we have only Smoot's story without backup from any of the residents. If untrue, for what purpose would Smoot make up such a story? Earlier in Larson's book (page 80-81), she writes about Smoot visiting Mary on Wednesday morning seeking payment for his boat. Mary told him to come back Friday when John would be back in the city per John's letter from Montreal. Again the footnote references Smoot's book. What was Smoot doing while in the city for another two and a half days waiting to call on John on Friday? As you suggest, we may never know definitively but this sure is intriguing to me.

[SSlater]

(04-10-2013 07:03 PM)KateH. Wrote:  [/size][/font]Hello everyone,

I am currently enrolled in a public speaking class and will be giving a persuasive speech on April 17th. During the speech, I will try and persuade my fellow classmates that Mary Surratt did not deserve to die for various reasons. I have some ideas but need validation for a few of the points. I thought this would be a good place to get some expert help and maybe even a few quotes I have a few questions that I'll post here as I get deeper into the speech, but I will start with these two.

1. By the time John Wilkes Booth made the decision to kill Lincoln, Johnson, and Seward, is there evidence that the group had already split and the meetings had moved out of the boardinghouse? I know Mrs. Surratt delivered the field glasses but had actual meetings in the house ceased? Wasn’t John Surratt gone by the time kidnapping became murder?

2. Is there any evidence or documentation to show that Mary Surratt's eyesight was failing by April of 1865? I want to put that as one of the causes for her not immediately recognizing Powell but need some sort of evidence to support the claim.

Thank you all for the help

Kate. Let's face it. You are getting the same answers today, as you would have gotten in 1865. (I don't know!)

[BettyO]

Quote:I am intrigued by the Gonzaga wheelbarrow story. It was the ring of truth to it. I wonder why Fr. Wiget was able to retrieve the wheelbarrow on his April 15 visit to Mary if the house was being watched by the authorities (although maybe not yet). Humorously, if Powell knew the wheelbarrow was in the back yard and he referenced it when he showed up to dig the gutter, some truth to that story of his may have been established. Dodgy Most of that story comes from a Surratt Courier issue (VII-33) per Paul Warren's book on Gonzaga College. I'd love to read that account.

The wheelbarrow story is news to me....never heard of this. Of course, a lot of speculation about Powell's arrival exists - including recent film liberties, the most humourful and glaring of which is the version portrayed in Redford's The Conspirator where Powell arrives via the back door with a shovel instead of a pick axe over his shoulder, wearing a hat while appearing with his shirt unbuttoned down to his belly button! Most suspicious attire in the 19th Century at that!

[Susan Higginbotham]

Paul Warren has a photograph of the wheelbarrow in his book (or perhaps a reconstruction of it; my copy is in storage). Fascinating little book, by the way.

[RJNorton]

Dennis, another author who seems to accept Weichmann's version is Tony Pitch. Tony writes in his book:

"Before riding over to Ford's Theatre, Booth made another stop at Mrs. Surratt's house. The boarders were having supper in the street-level dining room when they heard the booted thuds of someone climbing the outside steps. The doorbell rang and Mrs. Surratt answered it. By the sound of the footsteps the residents knew she had taken the person into the parlor above the dining room. About five minutes later the diners heard the visitor leave. Only at breakfast would the man's identity be exposed, when according to Weichmann, Anna Surratt declared, "Think of that man Booth having called at this house not more than an hour and a half before the assassination."

Tony Pitch's endnote for this says: Louis Weichmann undated statement, M599, reel 3.

[L Verge]

(07-27-2016 03:01 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  Paul Warren has a photograph of the wheelbarrow in his book (or perhaps a reconstruction of it; my copy is in storage). Fascinating little book, by the way.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...03531.html

We sell the little book at Surratt House.

---

(07-27-2016 01:14 PM)SSlater Wrote:  

(04-10-2013 07:03 PM)KateH. Wrote:  [/size][/font]Hello everyone,

I am currently enrolled in a public speaking class and will be giving a persuasive speech on April 17th. During the speech, I will try and persuade my fellow classmates that Mary Surratt did not deserve to die for various reasons. I have some ideas but need validation for a few of the points. I thought this would be a good place to get some expert help and maybe even a few quotes I have a few questions that I'll post here as I get deeper into the speech, but I will start with these two.

1. By the time John Wilkes Booth made the decision to kill Lincoln, Johnson, and Seward, is there evidence that the group had already split and the meetings had moved out of the boardinghouse? I know Mrs. Surratt delivered the field glasses but had actual meetings in the house ceased? Wasn’t John Surratt gone by the time kidnapping became murder?

2. Is there any evidence or documentation to show that Mary Surratt's eyesight was failing by April of 1865? I want to put that as one of the causes for her not immediately recognizing Powell but need some sort of evidence to support the claim.

Thank you all for the help

Kate. Let's face it. You are getting the same answers today, as you would have gotten in 1865. (I don't know!)

Since Kate posted this in 2013, she has developed her own well-thought-out and researched answers. They became the crux of her excellent presentation at the Surratt Conference this past April.

[Dennis Urban]

Susan, the photo on the back cover is a recreation of what the Gonzaga Development Office assumed the wheelbarrow looked like according to the author. Neat sepia image. I seem to recall hearing the wheelbarrow story around my old high school, Archbishop John Carroll (Class of 1965) located on Harewood Road just east of the Soldiers Home and near where Corcoran had his Harewood estate. A nice quick read and well researched with all the Gonzaga connections. Fr. Wiget is also identified as a "mean Rebel" according to the very biased Weichmann. However, let's not resurrect the Jesuits and the papacy into the conspiracy.

[KateH.]

(07-27-2016 03:59 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 03:01 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  Paul Warren has a photograph of the wheelbarrow in his book (or perhaps a reconstruction of it; my copy is in storage). Fascinating little book, by the way.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...03531.html

We sell the little book at Surratt House.

---

(07-27-2016 01:14 PM)SSlater Wrote:  

(04-10-2013 07:03 PM)KateH. Wrote:  [/size][/font]Hello everyone,

I am currently enrolled in a public speaking class and will be giving a persuasive speech on April 17th. During the speech, I will try and persuade my fellow classmates that Mary Surratt did not deserve to die for various reasons. I have some ideas but need validation for a few of the points. I thought this would be a good place to get some expert help and maybe even a few quotes I have a few questions that I'll post here as I get deeper into the speech, but I will start with these two.

1. By the time John Wilkes Booth made the decision to kill Lincoln, Johnson, and Seward, is there evidence that the group had already split and the meetings had moved out of the boardinghouse? I know Mrs. Surratt delivered the field glasses but had actual meetings in the house ceased? Wasn’t John Surratt gone by the time kidnapping became murder?

2. Is there any evidence or documentation to show that Mary Surratt's eyesight was failing by April of 1865? I want to put that as one of the causes for her not immediately recognizing Powell but need some sort of evidence to support the claim.

Thank you all for the help

Kate. Let's face it. You are getting the same answers today, as you would have gotten in 1865. (I don't know!)

Since Kate posted this in 2013, she has developed her own well-thought-out and researched answers. They became the crux of her excellent presentation at the Surratt Conference this past April.

Thank you, Laurie.

I can't believe the initial post is three years old. So much has happened since then, including the improvement of that speech and the expanding of my knowledge and opinions on the subject. It was also nice having a time limit longer than ten minutes at the conference