The clemency plea was considered and passed by the necessary majority, though -- even if it only concerned her age and gender. The commission had to suspect a public backlash by carrying through with the execution of a woman.

I do agree that the Surratt boardinghouse had been under suspicion for quite some time. I asked Mr. Hall once why the authorities didn't shut it down earlier. He said that it was often easier to monitor things the way they were without playing Whack a Mole. The clandestine activity would just pop up some place else under someone else's leadership.

Remember that Union authorities had been keeping an eye on the Surratts since the beginning of the war when Mr. Surratt, Sr. was one of the most vocal secessionists in our county. I agree with Jim that they likely had things that they didn't even have to bring out in court, but I still think that she was intended as leverage to get the son who had known ties to Richmond directly. Remember that the Confederates were on trial at the same time.

(06-15-2015 06:26 PM)HerbS Wrote:  Jim,I agree with your opinion 100%.

Thanks, Herb! I have nothing other than what I've read to base my suspicions on regarding Mary Surratt's personality. But I've known a lot of people and I've studied them closely.

At one time, I thought Mrs. Surratt was a victim of circumstances and mainly guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I now think Mrs. Surratt was smart, if not brilliant, not one to let her gender keep her from a command role, one who nursed grudges, and prone to see those who disagreed with her as enemies.

--Jim

---

(06-15-2015 06:43 PM)L Verge Wrote:  I do agree that the Surratt boardinghouse had been under suspicion for quite some time. I asked Mr. Hall once why the authorities didn't shut it down earlier. He said that it was often easier to monitor things the way they were without playing Whack a Mole. The clandestine activity would just pop up some place else under someone else's leadership.

. . . I still think that she was intended as leverage to get the son who had known ties to Richmond directly. Remember that the Confederates were on trial at the same time.

Laurie, you're lucky to have known and worked with Mr. Hall. That the Surratt boardinghouse was under observation and that it wasn't shut down so the authorities could monitor things there is an astute observation.

As far as Mrs. Surratt being leverage, that is surely true. It seems to me that Mrs. Surratt and John, Jr., were both cold-blooded people. Anna Surratt seemed to be a different type.

(06-15-2015 01:47 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 01:47 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 01:07 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Did he ever comment on his mother's "innocence",

Hi Eva. In his Rockville, Maryland, lecture he said, "I have very little to say of Louis J. Weichmann. But I do pronounce him a base-born perjurer; a murderer of the meanest hue! Give me a man who can strike his victim dead, but save me from a man who, through perjury, will cause the death of an innocent person. Double murderer!!!! Hell possesses no worse fiend than a character of that kind. Away with such a character. I leave him in the pit of infamy, which he has dug for himself, a prey to the lights of his guilty conscience."

Thanks Roger - if this is all it seems to me his mother didn't matter much to him. As I
said, since he was the one to get her into all that and since it was "his thing" rather than his mother's, he IMO was more responsible for her hanging than Weichmann was. How easy to put all the blame on him. Plus on another thread the opinion prevailed that his surrender to the police would probably have saved her live.

I can only offer one thought as to how John felt about the execution of his mother. It was over and done with three years before his lectures; society was pretty much on Mary's side by that time - thinking that she didn't deserve to die. I'm going to hark back to Victorian culture once again to suggest that the less said about Mary Surratt and the whole family at that point, the better. Proper people did not discuss scandals in their own family.

As I have mentioned before, I have had great-grandchildren tell me that we at Surratt House know more about the subject than they. The subject was taboo. I have also been told that the same held true for the Mudd family until Dr. Richard Mudd decided to take up his grandfather's cause. Over the past twenty years or so, as more true historians delved into the case, we can see that his crusade may ultimately have backfired. Be careful - dig too deep and things tend to get Muddier (pardon the pun - just had to throw it in!), and the same holds true for other family and national scandals. Secretly, I hope some scandals are more widely exposed in the political world of 2016... Just had to throw that in also. I'm a slow learner at being politically correct.

Laurie wrote:
>>"Secretly, I hope some scandals are more widely exposed in the political world of 2016... "
Having worked with some of these people while I was a White House consultant, I could not agree more.

>>"I'm a slow learner at being politically correct."
GOOD!!!

Another question - if the Garretts had raised strong suspicions from the very beginning and had had the idea that the "Boyds" might have been the assassins of the president (who "had better not come this way" not to be gobbled up...), and on the first evening someone of the family had quietly slipped away to report to the police and the assassins had successfully been arrested - would they have gotten a portion of the reward? A major portion?

(06-15-2015 06:43 PM)L Verge Wrote:  I do agree that the Surratt boardinghouse had been under suspicion for quite some time. I asked Mr. Hall once why the authorities didn't shut it down earlier. He said that it was often easier to monitor things the way....

This reminded me of what Louis Weichmann maintained in his book. He wrote that his friends kept asking him why he didn't simply move out of a house in which something wrong was going on. Weichmann wrote that his reasoning was as follows:

"No, in the hour of danger the true soldier does not desert his post, but rather stays and watches the movements of his enemies. I was a sworn officer of the Government, and held a remunerative position under it; so did my father in the United States arsenal in Philadelphia, and I was bound by every consideration of honor to remain where I was, and if anything came up again to renew my suspicions to report it at once to the War Department."

I would think if the authorities had shut down the boardinghouse earlier, it would have saved Mary Surratt's life (but not necessarily the president's).

Laurie,you are a very precise and tremendous historian! I think that is a positive trait to have!

(06-16-2015 06:55 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  I would think if the authorities had shut down the boardinghouse earlier, it would have saved Mary Surratt's life (but not necessarily the president's).

I doubt that the authorities had any idea of the true depth of what was going on at the boardinghouse except for the comings and goings of a few, what they considered, low level operatives during the final months when the destruction of the Confederacy was pretty much assured.

This kind of activity had been going on in other homes in the capital city for four years. The authorities were distrusted enough without developing the image of going around shutting down poor widow ladies' homes and source of income.

As for your other question about the Garretts, they never got paid for the government's burning of their barn. And, they had supported the Confederacy during the war. I don't think they would have been eligible for any reward money. Willie Jett is the one who led the troops to Booth (admittedly under duress), and he never got a portion of the reward - nor did Betty Rollins, whose interest in Jett's love life led to the soldiers getting his assistance.

If I remember correctly, what John Ford received didn't cover his loss either.

Rollins was also quite helpful in the capture, wasn't he? Did any civilian get a share of the reward at all?

Many long years ago, there was an article in the Surratt Courier listing who received what as far as the reward money was concerned. If I remember correctly, only the military received portions of it. The brain is fading, however. And yes, I believe that Mr. Rollins was the one who identified Jett, Ruggles, and Bainbridge as being the ones on board the ferry with Booth and Herold. His wife then provided the information on where Jett might be found.

I wonder what would have happened without Rollins' cooperation? Would the manhunt have taken some more days than it did?

(06-13-2015 08:26 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Paige - I think you are quite right that ending up back on the Maryland shore after the first attempt at crossing the Potomac and then delaying for another 24+ hours before attempting to cross again to Virginia wasted valuable time. However, we can't know what caused the delay -- Booth's pain, perhaps Herold's fatigue from rowing (he complained about his hands being blistered from rowing), conditions not optimal out on the river, other factors... . We do know that Harbin and Baden, prime movers in the Secret Line were already across and waiting at Mrs. Quesenberry's to contact them, so the underground from Maryland was doing their part to assist the fugitives. P.S. I'm not too sure that the building that still exists at Indiantown Farm is original to 1865, or that it was ever a slave cabin.

Tom - You will have to debate some historians who believe that Herold was not with Powell at the Seward House as well as others who think Herold went with Powell, but did not stay so that he could go kill Johnson or at least be on time to meet Booth at the bridge. Also, David did not run off with Powell's horse. The horse was waiting patiently when Powell emerged from the house with cries of "Murder, murder!" echoing from William Bell, the Sewards' man servant. Once Powell mounted the horse, however, the animal became reluctant to be the get-away vehicle.

Laurie,

I know this is a late reply but William Tidwell in his "Booth crosses the Potomac: An Exercise in Historical Research" after considering tides, wind conditions, the placement of the Potomac Flotilla, and descriptions given by both Herold and Jones on the conditions on the river that night, believed that the crossing was first attempted on the 21st, not the 20th.

Joe

Since we are speculating....By the time Booth reaches Quesenberry's or Dr. Stuart's , how bad was his leg? Is it possible the doctor may have treated or someone along the line gave him some herbal or home grown remedy to help with pain or infection.

Seems by the second day at Garrett's he's hopping around pretty good.
If you've ever seen an old tobacco barn, many of these are not built real tight. Doesn't require a lot of effort to knock a few boards out and slip out. IF Booth had heard the cavalry coming (and they made a fair amount of noise, including barking dogs), it would be possible for him to slip away and hide in the woods undetected. IF there was a third person in the barn, and he was killed instead of Booth, who at the scene that knows better is going to tell the cavalry, oops you got the wrong guy, and acknowledge there was a third person who got away? Everyone would have kept there mouth shut, not volunteering any information, especially after the way the elder Mr. Garrett was treated. While we're at it, Booth may have had two crutches, and in the rush to get out of the barn and in the dark, he left one in the barn. The third person picked up Booth's crutch and diary, that Booth left behind in his hurry to get away, and no one ever said anything about it. While we're at it, the shot man never regains conciousness, or he tries to speak but can't. His final words were all made up. But then again, maybe not.

Thank you, Balsiger and Sellier