(11-21-2012 06:51 PM)Ashley Norman Wrote:  Ok, I understand that but doesnt that of defeat the purpose of execution to have them sit? I can understand the heat aspect. thought thinking aloud on that one . I think it was nice that they had Mary sit but it;s just seem ironic to have her sitting on the gallows. just an awkward thought,

They don't want them to pass out from the heat right before they hang them. That would be bad form.

I think it was just being treated humanely, Ashley. Their fate was sealed as enemies of the Government. Everyone knew where they were going - to the gallows. Think of how Powell earned the respect of his guards and was actually told by his executioner - "I want you to die quick". It was a done deal and no malice was required. Sort of like the Geneva Convention rules, they were treated (for the most part) humanely. Allowed to bathe, have visitors, consult with spiritual advisers, etc. Just like those executed today who are allowed to chose their last meal, make a final statement, etc.

They were seated while the execution order was read. They were then made to stand and be hooded for the actual hanging.

And Christian Rath gave the "seat of honor" to Mrs. Surratt. The executioner and staff (just soldiers assigned to do their duty) conducted themselves with great decorum. They did themselves proud. The immediate aftermath sounds like it might have gone just a bit sideways with cutting down (I believe) Atzerodt with a big thud. And cutting the lock of hair from Mrs. Surratt while Rath wasn't looking (er, Laurie). Overall the execution was carried out efficiently and with no problems.

Lemonade and cake anyone?

Note: The "(er, Laurie)" is in reference to my disbelief concerning hairs from Mrs. Surratt's head that are now being offered in various circles with the claim that they were cut while her body was being cleared of the ropes in order to be placed in the pine boxes next to the gallows.

Laurie believes Christian Rath's claim that only he touched the dead Mrs. Surratt. Despite being the executioner, I believe that Rath was an honorable man and did what he said he did. Surratt House has been offered so many locks of Mary's hair over the past ten years or so (at a hefty price), that I am very jaded on the subject.

The only hair that we have provenance for relative to Mary Surratt is the lock that was given to Anna in 1869 at the re-interment at Mt. Olivet. The museum has on display a delicate hair bracelet that belonged to Anna and was donated to us by a great-grandchild. We would love to speculate that it contains that lock of hair, but the family doesn't know and neither do we.

(11-22-2012 12:59 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Note: The "(er, Laurie)" is in reference to my disbelief concerning hairs from Mrs. Surratt's head that are now being offered in various circles with the claim that they were cut while her body was being cleared of the ropes in order to be placed in the pine boxes next to the gallows.

Laurie believes Christian Rath's claim that only he touched the dead Mrs. Surratt. Despite being the executioner, I believe that Rath was an honorable man and did what he said he did. Surratt House has been offered so many locks of Mary's hair over the past ten years or so (at a hefty price), that I am very jaded on the subject.

The only hair that we have provenance for relative to Mary Surratt is the lock that was given to Anna in 1869 at the re-interment at Mt. Olivet. The museum has on display a delicate hair bracelet that belonged to Anna and was donated to us by a great-grandchild. We would love to speculate that it contains that lock of hair, but the family doesn't know and neither do we.

We could compare hair!!

Or do DNA!!!

The production of hair jewelry, during the 19th century at least, involved waxing individual strands to form a thicker thread. Would that process create comparison problems? Not to mention the fact that our bracelet will be handled with white gloves for visual inspection only. Surratt family artifacts and heirlooms are too hard to come by.

(11-21-2012 06:56 PM)Gene C Wrote:  

(11-21-2012 06:51 PM)Ashley Norman Wrote:  Ok, I understand that but doesnt that of defeat the purpose of execution to have them sit? I can understand the heat aspect. thought thinking aloud on that one . I think it was nice that they had Mary sit but it;s just seem ironic to have her sitting on the gallows. just an awkward thought,

They don't want them to pass out from the heat right before they hang them. That would be bad form.

oh ok that makews sence now got it.
Thanks

(11-22-2012 03:59 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Or do DNA!!!

The production of hair jewelry, during the 19th century at least, involved waxing individual strands to form a thicker thread. Would that process create comparison problems? Not to mention the fact that our bracelet will be handled with white gloves for visual inspection only. Surratt family artifacts and heirlooms are too hard to come by.

Microscope?

(11-22-2012 03:59 PM)L Verge Wrote:  The production of hair jewelry, during the 19th century at least, involved waxing individual strands to form a thicker thread.

Mustache wax?

Could be. I never remember seeing the type of wax specified.

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer (July 8, 1865), the bodies were placed in the pine boxes WITH the hoods ON.

In fact, according to Rath, only officers were permitted to touch her or her corpse. I don't believe anyone clipped any hair from her that day.

(11-06-2012 05:25 PM)Gene C Wrote:  I count about 23 people up on that scafold. OSHA woud have had a field day with that!
(Sorry, it's the insurance person in me)

Hello Gene, Didn't think about it until you brought it up. I also am an insurance agent and OSHA would have a field day with the amount of people on the scafold and also the scafold itself! But as far as the chairs on the scafold I do remember reading some where that the chairs were one in the same and used for both the portrait and hanging.