- "Mary Surratt and the Plot To Kill Abraham Lincoln," by Kate Clifford Larson.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0465024416...8&sr=&qid=

Well-written, well-researched, and very informative - IMO it is nearly impossible to believe in Mary Surratt's innocence after reading this book, even the author changed her view in the course of her research:
"She states that even though she went into the project believing in Mrs. Surratt’s innocence, she finished the project feeling very strongly that not only was Mrs. Surratt guilty of the charges, but she was even more involved than what the military tribunal uncovered."
http://thecivilwarproject.com/book-and-m...ccomplice/
(The review nails what I think of the book - much better than I could word it.)

I second you, Eva. This book really made a lasting impression on me, and it's the reason for the views on Mary Surratt which I have stated in other threads. I was relatively neutral on Mary Surratt before reading this. Kate, the author, is a member here, and she will sure appreciate what you said, Eva.

I feel that Kate C.Larson is correct about Mary Surrat's guilt,also!

Hi Eva! I am sooo happy that you have finally read the Larson book, and are able to form your own conclusions.


"....My husband, who listened to most of the audio book with me, asked me the question “If Lincoln had managed to live, do you think he would have hung Mary Surratt?”

“No,” I answered. “Lincoln was well known for finding ways to pardon anyone he could from a sentence of death, much to the frustration of military officers and government officials. In fact, I think he would have had trouble letting any of the conspirators hang with the exception of Lewis Powell, as he physically attacked William Seward and several others in the household. Obviously if Booth had survived that was another figure he likely would have let hang. But the others I think he would have sentenced to strictly jail time, if that.”

We listened to several hours of the book, and as we arrived home I asked him a question: “Replace Mary Surratt with her husband. If her husband had done the things Mary did, would people had been so upset at him being hanged?”

We looked at each other, knowing the answer. “Most definitely not, and it would be a non-issue today.”


Those comments from the reviewer could have come from my own mouth.

Toia, the comparison you just made over what history would have dwelt on if Mary's husband had been alive to do the deeds that she was accused of hits in the same vein as a discussion that some of us have over and over again with each other and the public: DR MUDD HAS BECOME A HOUSEHOLD WORD AMONG PEOPLE WITH ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE LINCOLN ASSASSINATION. HE FAILED TO HANG BY ONE VOTE. MRS. SURRATT DID HANG, DESPITE A CLEMENCY PLEA -- THE FIRST WOMAN TO BE EXECUTED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. AND YET, IN THE ANNALS OF HISTORY, SHE IS FAIRLY OBSCURE COMPARED TO THE GOOD DOCTOR. WHY?

My personal opinion is sort of multi-sided. First, Mudd was a doctor, and until the dawn of malpractice suits, doctors were looked upon with a higher degree of respect. Second, he lived through his ordeal and "inspired" his youngest daughter to write of his tribulations. Therefore, he got wider and faster publicity. But most importantly (at least to me), he got one of the best manipulators of the press on his side when his grandson took up the cause in the 1920s and went on a national and international crusade to "Free Dr. Mudd" -- no matter the fate of historical fact. It was not until near the end of the 20th century that historians started to analyze the case of the not-so-innocent Dr. Mudd and report his transgressions.

On the other hand, the Surratt family went quietly underground after the debacle of the trial and later attempts at speechifying by John, Jr. If one of the later generations of Surratts or Tonrys had started a "Remove Mrs. Surratt from the Gallows" campaign, perhaps Mary's name would be more widely recognized today. We would probably still understand how she got embroiled in and trapped by the maneuverings of Mr. Booth, but it would help history to realize that she was so representative of the women of the Civil War era, who left their chimney corners because of the war and never went back again. We have Kate Larson (and the late-Bettie Trindal) to thank for producing good histories of Mary Surratt -- each on a different side of the fence. Their writings sure beat the Victorian prose of David Miller DeWitt -- do I have his three names in proper order???

Yes Laurie, you got the name order correct. His proper name is(was)David Miller DeWitt.

I was one of the ones swayed to initial belief in the innocence of the "simple country doctor" Mudd by the efforts of his grandson when I was a kid in the late 70's. He was a very persuasive old gentleman.

Then only a few weeks ago it was Eva and yourself who got me to thinking...would defenders of Mary Surratt be so tenacious if it had been her husband who was hanged instead? GREAT question. You might also ask if I would be so quick to accept her innocence if she had not been(on the surface at least) so convincingly religious.

And if I am honest my answer in both cases would be no...probably not.

I have always felt that Mary Surratt and Dr.Mudd were gulity from the get go!

Yes indeed, Herb...you are not wishy washy like me. I keep going back and forth!

I have said this before, but I felt Mary Surratt was bamfoozled by Booth and generally unknowing about what was going on UNTIL James O. Hall sucked me into transcribing her statements (and those of other conspirators) into a booklet that we sell in the gift shop -- From War Department Files. That transcription was done in the old days on one of those contraptions known as a typewriter. It was done on my kitchen table in between my being a mother and housewife.

The more I typed out Mary's statement, the more I came to realize that she had to know what was going on - at least a good portion of it. I was also struck by how strong and haughty she was during her interrogations. This was no shrinking violet, Victorian woman. In my mind, her answers were carefully rehearsed - as if she knew that moment would come and she would be ready for those Union fiends...

It is ok to be somewhat on the fence.It means that your opinion is well thought out,before you give your opinion!

(04-04-2015 11:48 AM)L Verge Wrote:  I have said this before, but I felt Mary Surratt was bamfoozled by Booth and generally unknowing about what was going on UNTIL James O. Hall sucked me into transcribing her statements (and those of other conspirators) into a booklet that we sell in the gift shop -- From War Department Files. That transcription was done in the old days on one of those contraptions known as a typewriter. It was done on my kitchen table in between my being a mother and housewife.

The more I typed out Mary's statement, the more I came to realize that she had to know what was going on - at least a good portion of it. I was also struck by how strong and haughty she was during her interrogations. This was no shrinking violet, Victorian woman. In my mind, her answers were carefully rehearsed - as if she knew that moment would come and she would be ready for those Union fiends...

Perhaps she also felt confident that no matter how far deep into the conspiracy she got she would not pay the ultimate price. Frankly her confidence was not without reason. The Federal Gov't had never executed a woman. Maybe the persuasive and charming Booth reassured her of this.

It was a fatal miscalculation, if that is indeed what happened.

One of the key pieces of evidence that suggests Mary Surratt's complicity in the murder is her agitation when she saw Powell when he turned up at 541 H St when the federal officers were there. I believe she was primarily agitated because JWB had told her of Powell's assignment to kill Seward. If she thought that, LTP's return to her house, capture and certain identification as Seward's assailant would put her in extreme jeopardy.

The counter argument would be Booth did not tell her of Powell's assignment. Could Mrs. Surratt have deduced that Powell was Seward's assailant merely by reading the Washington newspaper accounts of the assassination and the Seward attack from Apr 15-Apr 17? Was Powell's physique and physical characteristics unique among JWB"s entourage?

I tried to resolve this issue without success by reading the Library of Congress "Chronicling America" digital newspaper website. Searching via keywords "Seward" and "William Seward" the Washington newspapers contained in this database had hardly any coverage of the attack on Seward for the days in question.

I am still looking.
Tom

Was Seward really attacked?Great research-Thomas Thorne.Lincoln Todd Fan-I think that you have insight into Mary Surratt's guilt.

(04-04-2015 11:26 PM)Thomas Thorne Wrote:  One of the key pieces of evidence that suggests Mary Surratt's complicity in the murder is her agitation when she saw Powell when he turned up at 541 H St when the federal officers were there. I believe she was primarily agitated because JWB had told her of Powell's assignment to kill Seward. If she thought that, LTP's return to her house, capture and certain identification as Seward's assailant would put her in extreme jeopardy.

The counter argument would be Booth did not tell her of Powell's assignment. Could Mrs. Surratt have deduced that Powell was Seward's assailant merely by reading the Washington newspaper accounts of the assassination and the Seward attack from Apr 15-Apr 17? Was Powell's physique and physical characteristics unique among JWB"s entourage?

I tried to resolve this issue without success by reading the Library of Congress "Chronicling America" digital newspaper website. Searching via keywords "Seward" and "William Seward" the Washington newspapers contained in this database had hardly any coverage of the attack on Seward for the days in question.

I am still looking.
Tom

That's what I always thought, Tom. Like most other Washingtonians and other Americans she was absorbed in the coverage of the bloody and shocking events of Apr 14-15th. She darn well knew who Powell was and she recognized the description of him in the papers. He had, after all, been her boarder.

It's recently occurred to me that JWB might have assured her that he would leave evidence behind to absolve her of guilt in the crime...letters to the papers, some manifesto that he would arrange for the authorities to get their hands on.

I have always felt that Mary Surratt knew who Powell was!