[/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

One of the big fallacies of this whole study is that the gang ever met all together at the boardinghouse. There is absolutely no evidence to support that the plan was hatched there or that group meetings were held there. Booth would come and go; Atzerodt boarded there for a very short time; Powell was there under different guises; only Gore Vidal has ever claimed that Herold visited the house; and there has never been anything to tie Arnold or O'Laughlen to the house.

To my knowledge, the closest that there came to being a meeting there was immediately after the aborted kidnap plot when Surratt, Powell, and Booth all high-tailed it back to H Street. And, the only documented general meeting that I am aware of is the one at Gautier's Restaurant that got out of hand.

There is brief testimony regarding Mrs. Surratt's poor eyesight from Honora Fitzpatrick and the slave, Aunt Rachel. Anna may have testified to it also. It was mainly about difficulty seeing how to thread a needle and sew and also one time when Mrs. Surratt looked out the window and saw a man approaching that she was sure was her youngest child, but was really a visiting priest.

I can send you a copy of a speech that I gave back in 2003 and have never revised if you think it would help. I tried to swing both ways with her guilt and/or innocence; but I must admit that I lean more towards Kate Larson's assessments as to guilt. E-mail me your regular address if you want a copy - laurie.verge@pgparks.com.

I would love to see your speech, thank you I'll send you an email.

I just found that speech the other day. I had it packed away since I read it, but I remember how informative it was, especially with the input of your ancestors who knew the Jenkins family. You should post that here. It was the first thing I'd ever read specifically about Mary Surratt and I found it very informative.

I think you'll like it, Kate and I think it may sway your opinion if you're leaning towards Mary being innocent.

(04-10-2013, 08:21 PM)L Verge Wrote: I tried to swing both ways with her guilt and/or innocence;

You wouldn't expect this kind of humor out of a sweet little lady like Laurie. Kinda brings a tear to your eye

As a person with bad eyesight with glasses I have some expertise with the problems associated with this condition.

Mrs. Surratt's defenders have used her eyesight to excuse her failure to recognize LTP on the nite of 4/17. Yet she did not routinely wear glasses. The foyer was well lit and Mary was familiar with LTP's voice. A person with bad eyesight might fail to recognize a person they know, might misidentify the person they saw as someone else or might seek to search her memory to recall apparent strangers who claimed they knew her. The emotions triggered in these situations would be bewilderment and embarrassment.

I don't know how well Washington area night and street lights were during this era but a person who had the visual problems attributed to Mrs Surratt would have had to be careful climbing up and down stairs at night. No witness ever mentioned this.

No one can say that Mary Surratt's spectacular reaction to seeing Lewis Powell conveyed bewilderment or embarrassment. She lost her composure which was so remarkable during her subsequent interrogations.
Tom

I think Mary Surratt was guilty of aiding JWB. Pure and simple. I think people tend to mix up her sentencing with her level of guilt and have misplaced sympathies because of it. Very few people in 1865 had issues with the court finding her guilty. They had bigger issues with a woman being executed.

She was guilty, lied to save her butt and it didn't work. It wouldn't be the first time someone portrayed themselves as a pious, innocent bystander to avoid being executed. Happens all the time.

I think her son John knew she was guilty. If he returned, he MAY have given the government an out as far as her execution but it isn't for certain. He may have been executed right along with her and we'd be discussing the first Mother/Son tandem to be executed by the Federal government.

I, agree John. Mary was NOT the sainted innocent that she has been made out to be. I feel strongly myself that she was involved - she may not have known just how serious the situation was, but she was involved. I believe that she felt she was doing nothing more than Belle Boyd, Rose O'Neal Greenhow or even the Branson ladies (whom she didn't know, I'm sure.) She was getting deeply embroiled but didn't realize how deep she was getting in. Her son was involved - so she was, too. She was not about to devulge where her son was to authorities. As to Lew Powell, even if her eyesight was bad and Lew was somewhat disguised, I'm sure she recognized his voice. He had staid at her house for 3 days, been entertained in her parlor and dined at her table. Previous to his stay in March, he had visited one night in February; asking for her son, John, and staid again, one night. She denied knowing him because she knew what he was involved in and hoped by the denial to distract from her own guilt.

Additionally, Betty, didn't she also visit Powell at the Herndon House?

Mary Surratt did visit Powell at the Herndon House - not something that was done in the Victorian era. For a lady to visit a viral young man alone in his bedroom simply was not done - no matter how old the lady or how young the gentleman - unless he was her son or brother.

I believe the government proved it's case against Mary beyond any reasonable doubt. She actively participated in aiding and abetting Booth the day of the assassination and her observed behavior that evening was evidence that she had knowledge of Booth's plan to assassinate Lincoln.

In my opinion, her denial about knowing Powell had nothing to do with her eyesight.

There were lots of people who aided and abetted Booth, but regarding the men hung, all of them had detailed knowledge of the assassination attempt on Lincoln's life that night, and could have prevented it. This seems to me to be the defining issue as to who was sentenced to prison, and who was hung.

Evidently the authorities believed they had the evidence and proof to put Mrs Surratt in that last category.

First - Gene, whatever gave you the idea that I'm a sweet little lady?

That said, I agree with all of the above statements. I find it very difficult to support Mary's innocence, as Kate will see in my paper. In my opinion, all of the evidence boils down to the issue of conspiracy -- once you become part of a conspiracy, you are liable for what any member of that conspiracy might do. The simple fact that she had so much contact with Booth and Powell, the only true assassins, and that she was doing Booth's errands up to within hours of the assassination is pretty damning evidence.

And Gene's correct in that the ones who were hanged were the ones in contact with Booth to the very end. I think that was the swaying factor in Mudd's decision also. That one judge who voted not to hang him could not see a link until after the deed was done. I wonder what would have happened if Herold had blabbed and said, "I went to give things to Dr. Mudd on April 13..."?

(04-11-2013, 10:29 AM)L Verge Wrote: I think that was the swaying factor in Mudd's decision also.

You just have a way with words. I just love your dry, subtle sense of humor. I wish I'd had you for a teacher when I was in school.

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.