I actually differ from Roger and Betty in that I don't think Mrs. Surratt was officially under arrest (meaning charges had been made) until she was at headquarters and Bell, the Seward doorman, identified Powell as the assailant of the Secretary of State. I think that's when she was sent to the clinker.

I also think that's when Weichmann started putting two and two together as to what had been going on for the past four months or so -- and became very cooperative with the authorities (in order to gain Brownie points?). As for Lloyd, I think he told the truth throughout because he was so far on the fringes, he didn't know enough about what was going on to concoct a good lie!

Tom and Roger, thanks for the compliment (I think) about my battle gear. Remember that I said I was being devil's advocate. That was one of the techniques that teacher training drilled into me in order to get students to think for themselves.

That said, I do believe that there was enough evidence (albeit circumstantial by our standards) to charge, try, and execute Mrs. Surratt according to the laws of war and conspiracy and the temper of the times. I just think the government made her more guilty than she likely was. Of course (and pardon me here, Bob Summers), I also think Dr. Mudd should have received the death penalty for starting the whole thing of getting the Surratts involved!

BTW: Kate Larson became a good friend while researching her book Assassin's Accomplice and was brave enough to hit the subject of Mary's guilt head-on, instead of dancing around the issue like so many historians before her. Bettie Trindal's American Tragedy set the stage for a totally innocent woman, and Kate turned the tables in the opposite direction. Most authors over the years have chosen to wiggle out of giving a real opinion.

Shortly after her book came out, Kate was kind enough to tell me that she had almost given up writing the book because she thought she was the only one who thought that Mary got what was due her - until she happened to read a speech that I gave in 2003 for the Surratt conference. I titled the talk, Mary Surratt: Did She or Didn't She? My conclusion was that She Did (at least enough to supply the rope to the government for hanging...).

Thanks for any comments and thoughts on the following mind-game:

If Mary Surratt was male, not female - would her ("his") possible innocence be discussed the same way? Would we see and judge the deliveries and her ("his") question to the old farmer about the soldiers guarding the road differently?

Absolutely!

I feel that Mary being a female,helped draw attention to her and her plight! I also think that it backfired in her and Booth's face,as well as all of the other conspirators!

(03-06-2015 08:23 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Thanks for any comments and thoughts on the following mind-game:

If Mary Surratt was male, not female - would her ("his") possible innocence be discussed the same way? Would we see and judge the deliveries and her ("his") question to the old farmer about the soldiers guarding the road differently?

Excellent Eva! I can honestly say that taking everything into account, especially the later statements of Father Wiggan I would personally still say NO. I can't help it, irrational though I am certain I sound at times. My heart and mind will not accept that a devout believer would blaspheme literally at the door of his/her Maker.

One of the many things that has always troubled me about the character of JWB was his utter willingness to let people far less guilty than himself twist in the wind, to reach back to an old Watergate era saying. He received some newspapers in the days immediately after the shooting while he was hiding in the swamp with Herold. He had to know about the arrests of Mrs. Surratt and the others. Yet nothing in his diary writings about them, not even the Widow Surratt?

I realize that there is little he could have said that would have helped Powell or Davy...both were toast after April 14 1865. But Atzerodt had strenuously objected to being involved in a murder plot(even though he foolishly missed a crucial opportunity to save Lincoln's and perhaps his own and Mrs. Surratt's lives by not going to the authorities that night as Roger pointed out.)

(03-06-2015 10:38 PM)LincolnToddFan Wrote:  ...especially the later statements of Father Wiggan...

I either forgot or don't know at all - what were these statements? (Maybe someone else knows, too...?)

(03-06-2015 10:38 PM)LincolnToddFan Wrote:  My heart and mind will not accept that a devout believer would blaspheme literally at the door of his/her Maker.

Toia, does "blaspheme literally" refer to the statements you had in mind above, or to participation in assassination (as being a sin)? Would abduction have been acceptable from the religious (Catholic) point of view in your opinion?

---

Basically an excellent point, Toia, that a respective entry in Booth's diary would have relieved Mary and George A., but didn't Stanton hold it back for two years?

Hi Eva. Toia can correct me if I am wrong, but she may be referring to this statement.

Roger, this is what I see following the link - will I have to the entire book to learn the statements?
   
(...and I cannot open any page inside the book.)

Eva, I do not know. I do not have a mobile device; I only have a desktop computer. Hopefully, someone else can help you on this.

Thanks for the evidence Roger.This shows that John Surratt was in Elmira,and nows supports my theory that he was in Canandaigua,NY after Elmira.My question is,how did he know about Canandaigua,and who conspired to help him escape?We now have a historical"can of worms".Also,I feel that everyone is innocent in the eyes of a devout priest!Especially when you are in his own"flock"!

Herb, do you get to read the statement when you click on the link? Not just the screenshot I posted?
Since the version on my screen is not a mobile view but the full version it might be a country issue...(like with some YouTube videos - "sorry, not available in your country".) WHAT A PITY - I am so curious now what she said, this would be so interesting to learn. (If it's just one or two pages, perhaps someone could - please, please, please - post a screenshot???)

Eva, I am posting the entire article:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

THE SURRATT CASE,

A True Statement of Facts concerning this Notable

Case.

By Rev. J. A. Walter. Read before the United States
Catholic Historical Society, May 25th, 1891.

Among the open letters of last April number of the
"Century," I find one referring to the priest who attended
Mrs. Mary E. Surratt. As I am the priest alluded to in this
article, I must positively deny that I prohibited Mrs. Surratt
from asserting her innocence. I thought of answering this
letter at once, but as I had an article prepared years ago on
the Surratt case, in which I had determined to make public
my statement of this notable case, I deemed it best to defer
the answer till the present time.

The object of this article is to make manifest the truth
in this case and thus vindicate the innocence of Mary E.
Surratt.

It may be asked, why this delay of twenty-five years?
The answer is a simple one. It takes time for people to lay
aside prejudices, so that they may form a just judgment on
a question of this character. The whole country was con-
vulsed with horror at the assassination of its Chief Ruler,
and the people had run mad with excitement. Time alone
could quiet the deep feeling embittered against every one
who might have been suspected of having anything to do
with the crime. Amidst all this excitement, I had deter-
mined in my own mind to wait twenty-five years before I
would give to the public a clear and full statement

The public mind has had time to quiet down and men
can now calmly listen to reason. Very few persons at this
date believe that Mary E. Surratt knew anything about the
plot to assassinate the President

Now as to the facts of the case— President Lincoln was
assassinated at Ford's Theatre, Tenth near F Street, North-
west, on the 14th of April (Good Friday) about 10 o'clock P.
M. John Wilkes Booth was his murderer. It was, in my
opinion, the act of an insane man and no friend to the South.
This I said on the next day to several friends, stating that
it was my firm belief that it was the work of a madman, and
was concocted within the past twenty-four hours. I felt
convinced that if the parties had reflected on what they pro-
posed doing, the act would never have been consummated.

Mary E. Surratt, whose name has been associated with
this awful tragedy, was a quiet amiable lady. She had re-
moved from the country a few months previous to the murder
of the President, resided on H near Sixth Street, Northwest,
and was in St. Patrick's parish. I was not acquainted with
her and never spoke to her until the eve of her execution.
I received a letter from her dated Sunday, April 23rd, 1865,
asking me to come and see her. She was then in Carroll
Prison. I went on Tuesday morning, April 25th, but she
had been removed to the Penitentiary, and I was told by
those in authority at Carroll Prison that no one would be
allowed to see her. On Wednesday, July 5th, 1865, I learned
that the trial was over. On Thursday at 10 o'clock A, M., I
went to the War Department and asked Col. Hardie for a
pass to visit Mrs, Surratt, who had requested me to visit her
when in Carroll Prison some three months previous. Col,
Hardie told me that Secretary Stanton was not in and asked
me if I was in a hurry about it ; I told him I was not. He
then replied that he would let me have a pass in a few hours.
When I returned home, and whilst at dinner, an orderly
came with a pass signed by Col. Hardie. I gave the usual
receipt for the same, and going to the door with the orderly
I remarked to him that I had read all the evidence of this
trial, and, as regards Mrs. Surratt, there was not evidence
enough to hang a cat ; besides, you cannot make me believe
that a Catholic woman would go to Communion on Holy
Thursday and be guilty of murder on Good Friday. Short-
ly after the orderly had left, Mr. John F. Callan and Mr. Hollohan, a boarder at Mrs. Surratt's house, called and in-
formed ipe that the execution of Mrs, Surratt was to take
place next day. To act so hastily in a matter of this kind
was certainly strange on the part of the Government. Whilst
talking to these two gentlemen, Col. Hardie came in and
seemed much excited ; I requested him to walk into the
parlor, leaving the two gentlemen standing in the hall. He
then said to me "Father Walter, the remarks you made to
that young man," meaning the orderly who brought me the
pass, " have made a deep impression on him ; I was afraid
that the pass I sent you would not answer, so I have brought
you one from Sec. Stanton, but I want you to promise me
that you will not say anything about the innocence of Mrs.
Surratt." I replied coolly and deliberately "You wish me to
promise that I shall say nothing in regard to the innocence
of Mrs. Surratt. Do you know the relation existing between
a pastor and his flock ? I will defend the character of the
poorest woman in my parish at the risk of my life. Thank
God I do not know what fear is, I fear neither man nor
devil, but God alone. You wish to seal my lips ; I wish you
to understand that I was bom a freeman and will die one.
I know where all this comes from, it comes from your Sec-
retary of War, whom a Congressman in my breakfast room
two weeks ago, called a brute. Of course I cannot let Mrs.
Surratt die without the sacraments, so if I must say yes, I
say yes." He then gave me the pass signed by Secretary
Stanton. This was about 2,30 P. M., Thursday, July, 1865.
That afternoon I went to see Mrs. Surratt to make arrange-
ments to give her Communion next morning. I also called
to see the President, having Annie, Mrs. Surratt's daughter
with me. On entering the gate at the President's house I
met Hon. Thomas Florence, ex-member of Congress from
Pennsylvania. He remarked, "Father Walter, you and I are
on the same errand of mercy. The President must not allow
this woman to be hanged." We went into the Executive
Mansion and up stairs to a room next to the one occupied by
the President, Andrew Johnson. There I met Col. Mussey
Secretary of the President, Preston King and one other
person. I requested Col. Mussey to go in and ask the Presi-
dent if he would see me. He returned and said the President
would not see me. Again, at my request, Col. Mussey went
in telling the President that I would not detain him five
minutes. This was denied me. I made another attempt,
and told (^ol. Mussey to say to the President that I did not
ask for pardon or commutation of sentence, but asked ten
days reprieve to prepare Mrs. Surratt for eternity. This
reasonable request was also refused. Annie, Mrs. Surratt's
daughter, was in like manner refused an interview with
President Johnson. The President sent me word to go to
Judge Holt. I went with Annie to see this man, but it was
perfectly useless. He had no more feeling for the poor
daughter than a piece of stone ; he referred her to the
President. The poor child, with eyes streaming with tears,
was left without any s)sympathy from this cold, heartless man.
I said to her "Come Annie, it is battledoor and shuttlecock,
the President sends you to Holt and Holt sends you to the
President." This was Thursday afternoon, the day before
the execution. On the following morning I went at seven
o'clock, carrying with me the Holy Communion which I gave
to Mrs. Surratt in her cell. I remained with her until the
time of her execution, which was about 2.30 P. M. I can
never forget the scene witnessed on that sad occasion. Poor
Mrs, Surratt had been sick for several weeks and was quite
feeble, she was lying on a mattrass laid on the bare brick
floor of her cell. Certainly this was not the way in which to
treat the vilest convict just before execution. While I was
trying to comfort this poor good soul, her daughter had just
returned from another unsuccessful attempt to see the Presi-
dent ; she addressed her mother in these words : " Mother
are you resigned? Her mother replied, "Yes, my child."
Again she spofce "Father speak to mother and ask her if she
is resigned." Her mother replied, "Annie, my child, this is
no place for you, go to your room." Without a word this
dear child, with broken sobs, left the cell and retired to one
of the rooms in the Penitentiary, Shortly before the hour
of her execution, Mrs. Surratt was brought out of her cell
and was sitting on a chair at the doorway. It was at this
time that she made clearly and distinctly the solemn dec-
laration of her innocence. She said to me in the presence
of several officers "Father I wish to say something," "Well
what is it my child ?'* "That 1 am innocent" were her exact
words. My reply was, "You may say so if you wish, but it
will do no good." These words were uttered whilst she
stood on the verge of eternity, and were the last confession
of an innocent woman.

When the time arrived for the execution, she was carried
to the scaffold by two soldiers, because she was too weak
even to stand on her feet. On the scaffold she asked them not
to let her fall. All the religious services had been per-
formed in her cell, so as to save her from being too much
exposed to the public gaze. At the signal the trap fell ; I
looked over the platform and saw that she had died without
a struggle. I went immediately to see Annie and try to give
her some consolation. When I told her that it was all over
she gave way to her intense feelings, but one word was suf-
ficient to calm her.

I had left my carriage within the walls of the Peniten-
tiary when I first came before the execution, but when I
went to look for it, it was not to be found. I asked General
Hartranft, ex-Governor of Pennsylvania, who had charge of
the execution, to let me have a conveyance in order to take
Annie, Mrs. Surratt's daughter, home. He immediately or-
dered an ambulai^ce, and with Annie and a friend, I left the
enclosure. I found my carriage outside and transferred
Annie with her friend to it and then drove to Mrs. Surratt's
house on H Street near Sixth Northwest. I would here state
that General Hancock was simply commander of tne Military
Division comprising the District of Columbia, and General
Hartranft was the officer in charge and^superintended every-
thing. Shortly after the execution of Mrs, Surratt, an article
appeared in the New York Tribune accusing Secretary Stan-
ton of refusing me a pass to visit Mrs, Surratt, unless I
would promise to say nothing regarding her innocence. It
seems that at this time Horace Greeley and Secretary Stanton were not on good terms. Mr. Forney, Editor of the
Philadelphia Press and Washington Chronicle, denied the
charge that Secretary Stanton had refused me a pass on
terms as stated above. Two reporters of the Tribune called
on me to ascertain the truth of the matter ; I told them
what had occurred between Col. Hardie and myself in re-
lation to the pass. Of course they drew their own con-
clusions from what I told them. I said to them that I
wished to have nothing to do with the quarrel. The next
day they published verbatim what had passed between Col.
Hardie and myself. Col. Hardie thought proper to write
an article in the "National Intelligencer," calling me some
harsh names and saying I was not a proper . person to have
attended Mrs. Surratt. I paid no attention to this article,
but attended to my duties just as if nothing had happened.
Some friends met me on Pennsylvania Avenue on the morn-
ing of the publication and asked me what I was going to do
about the article. I simply told them that I would do
nothing ; if Horace Greeley and Col. Forney chose to quar-
rel in their newspaper, they might just fight it out among
themselves. Evidently someone at the War Department
must have been alarmed, for Major General Hancock was
telegraphed to go and see Archbishop Spalding, so as to
prevent me from asserting the innocence of Mrs. Surratt.
I received a telegram from the Archbishop's Secretary,
asking me to keep quiet and saying that the Archbishop
would write me a letter by the evening mail. The letter
came. It was no order, but simply a request that I should
keep quiet in regard to the innocence of Mrs. Surratt. My
answer was, that what he requested was hard to comply with,
but I would try to do so. Archbishop Spalding told General
Hancock that he also believed Mrs. Surratt was an innocent
woman. At the present time I think there are few persons
in this country who are not of the same opinion. Let any
one quietly and calmly sift the evidence given in this trial
and the same conclusion will be reached. Let us examine
this evidence.

Mrs. Surratt's guilt could only be in consequence of her son John H. Surratt's guilt She was concerned in the con-
spiracy to murder President Lincoln only in as much as he
was one of the conspirators. Now, John H. Surratt had
nothing whatever to do with the conspiracy to murder
President Lincoln ; in fact, he knew nothing about it. He
came to Washington on the 4th of April, took supper at
home, changed his clothes and left for Elmira the next
morning. The testimony of Susan Jackson, Mrs. Surratt's
servant, was correct as to facts, but she mistook the date, say-
ing it was April 14th. It was ten days previous to the 14th
of April. It is strange that the hotel register in Elmira
could not be found : someone had made away with it.
Whoever it was, he did not know that John H. Surratt had
telegraphed to New York to know where Booth was. I saw
the Telegraph register in Mr. Bradley's office on which his
name, John Harrison, the name he assumed, appears on the
date April 14th. If he were one of the conspirators, he cer-
tainly ought to know where the chief conspirator, Booth,[was,
and it was his business to have been on hand in Washington
and not in Elmira, New York, some 400 miles distant.
When he read the account of the assassination of President
Lincoln on the morning of April 15th, he was utterly as-
tounded when he saw his name in connection with the plot
and supposed it must have been done by some parties of
whom he had no knowledge. He immediately left for
Canada and remained concealed there several months. He
has been accused of deserting his poor mother. This is not
true. He sent a person to Washington, furnished him the
means, and was ready to give himself up in her defense.
This friend saw the counsel of his mother. They advised
the friend to return and tell John H. Surratt to remain in
Canada, for there was no danger that his mother would be
convicted. Everyone knows that had he qovoq to Washing-
ton, he would have been placed in the dock with the other
prisoners and condemned with them. Prudence and common
sense demanded the course he followed. Now John H.
Surratt being in Elmira, how was he to be transported these
400 miles so as to be in Washington in time for the assassination of the President? Mr. DuBarry, Master of Transpor-
tation of the Northern Central Railroad, proved that there
were no trains running on that day by which he could
possibly have reached Washington.

Again ; a handkerchief of John H. Surratt's was found
in a car going North after the 14th of April, and this fact
was adduced as evidence that he was escaping from Wash-
ington on his way to Canada. This handkerchief was lost
by Mr. Hollohan, who boarded at Mrs. Surratt's, and it had
by mistake, been placed in his bureau drawer. He was on
his way to Canada with Detective McDevitt to try to find
Surratt and lost it out of his pocket.

Again ; two soldiers going down H Street and passing
Mrs. Surratt's house, swore that Mrs. Surratt put her head
out of the window and asked what was the matter. But
during the trial of John H. Surratt it was in evidence that
Mrs. Frederica Lambert, and not Mrs. Surratt, was the lady
who talked to these soldiers. Mrs. Surratt's house was on
H Street, between Sixth and Seventh, Mrs. Lambert's resi-
dence was on the same street but a square below. Both
houses had high porches, hence the mistake.

At the trial of Mrs. Surratt, Mrs. Lambert was not
aware of this evidence being given in the trial, but read it
in the papers when John H. Surratt's trial was going on.
She mentioned this fact to her son, who is a very worthy
lawyer of Washington. He advised het not to say anything
about it, but she insisted that it was her duty to make known
the facts to the lawyers, Br^adley and Merrick, who were de-
fending John H. Surratt. This she did, and her evidence
will be found in his trial.

Again ; John T. Ford testified that no one knew that
the President was to be at the theatre before twelve o'clock
yet Mrs. Surratt had ordered a carriage at ten o'clock (two
hours previous) to take her to Surrattsville. She went down
toere to attend some business in connection with her hus-
band's estate. She was coming out of the house about two
o'clock in the afternoon when she met Booth, who requested
her to take two packages wrapped in newspaper, one containing a bottle of whiskey and the other a spy-glass, and
give them to Mr. Lloyd at Surrattsville. She went down to
this place, did not see Lloyd, but gave the packages to his
sister-in-law. What this poor lady did anyone would have
done, without suspecting that any harm was intended : she
thought she was simply doing an act of kindness and
nothing more. The fact of her ordering her carriage at ten
o'clock shows that it had no connection whatever with the
assassination of the President.

Every trivial circumstance was brought forward as posi-
tive evidence of guilt, when there was not the slightest
ground for such a conclusion. I am convinced that if Presi-
dent Johnson had given me a hearing on the day preceding
the execution, he would not only have saved the life of an
innocent woman, but would have prevented a blot that will
forever remain as a stigma on the Government of these
United States.

This would have given ample time to examine the evi-
dence on which she was convicted and this examination
would have proved her innocence.

J. A. WALTER.

It seems clear to me that the one element modern historians forget is that the Lincoln Assassination was not a civil case. The actions against the person of Mr. Lincoln were acts of war during a time of war, for some reason an easy thing for 21st century readers, researchers and historians to forget. We were a nation at war with itself when the event occurred. Even so, as Bill Richter likes to quote, "Killing a man is murder, unless you do it to the sound of trumpets."

In any case, I have no doubt that Stanton would have hanged mother and son on the same gallows with much hand rubbing satisfaction.

Maybe we would be further ahead had Wilkes Booth busted a cap into the back of Stanton's head.

(03-07-2015 09:02 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Herb, do you get to read the statement when you click on the link? Not just the screenshot I posted?
Since the version on my screen is not a mobile view but the full version it might be a country issue...(like with some YouTube videos - "sorry, not available in your country".) WHAT A PITY - I am so curious now what she said, this would be so interesting to learn. (If it's just one or two pages, perhaps someone could - please, please, please - post a screenshot???)

****YES-I read the statement! I still feel that Mary Surratt was GUILTY-Herb Swingle

Ouch. I think Stanton provided the strong leadership and direction the country needed immediately following Lincoln's assassination. I can't think of a better person to be in control at that time. It certainly wasn't Johnson.