No need to question this Lincoln conspirator’s guilt

[RJNorton]

Author Tony Pitch shares his opinion regarding Mary Surratt's guilt:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...story.html

[John Fazio]

(05-07-2016 11:04 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Author Tony Pitch shares his opinion regarding Mary Surratt's guilt:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...story.html

Roger:

Thanks for this.

Decapitating the Union contains an entire chapter on Mrs. Surratt (Chapter 5). It lays out the inculpatory and exculpatory evidence of the charges against her, analyzes the same and concludes that she was in fact guilty. There is much more evidence of her guilt than Herold's statement, though his statement does sum it up rather neatly. After reading the chapter, Laurie said she could have written it herself.

John

[Gene C]

Some people think that Mary Surratt was infatuated with Booth, and that caused her to make some poor decisions.

Which reminds me of a song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfSZARFUvnM

[L Verge]

(05-07-2016 08:30 PM)Gene C Wrote:  Some people think that Mary Surratt was infatuated with Booth, and that caused her to make some poor decisions.

Which reminds me of a song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfSZARFUvnM

Those of you who have read things I have written (including a chapter in the new Lincoln Assassination Riddle) know that I was raised in a family that believed Mrs. Surratt was guilty. I have issues as to whether or not she knew that the plan had changed to assassination, but I do believe vicarious liability ties her to the conspiracy.

However, I do not believe she was infatuated with Booth. She was faithful to the Confederate cause and protecting her son after the fact.

[RJNorton]

In all fairness to Mary...

I checked William Doster's book where he writes that David Herold told him, "That old lady is as deep in as any of us." Doster's very next sentence is, "This, however, was stoutly denied by Payne and Atzerodt, who constantly and repeatedly stated that Mrs. Surratt was entirely innocent of the conspiracy."

[John Fazio]

(05-07-2016 09:36 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(05-07-2016 08:30 PM)Gene C Wrote:  Some people think that Mary Surratt was infatuated with Booth, and that caused her to make some poor decisions.

Which reminds me of a song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfSZARFUvnM

Those of you who have read things I have written (including a chapter in the new Lincoln Assassination Riddle) know that I was raised in a family that believed Mrs. Surratt was guilty. I have issues as to whether or not she knew that the plan had changed to assassination, but I do believe vicarious liability ties her to the conspiracy.

However, I do not believe she was infatuated with Booth. She was faithful to the Confederate cause and protecting her son after the fact.

Laurie:

"I have issues as to whether or not she knew that the plan had changed to assassination..." I gather that you were not persuaded by my arguments last month. Do you suppose that she was described by Weichmann as "very nervous, agitated and restless" that Friday night, and by Smoot as "in a state of feverish excitement", because she anticipated a kidnapping? She knew that whatever was going to happen that night would happen at the theater. Do you believe that she believed that Booth could successfully kidnap Lincoln at the theater and get him to Surrattsville, with such certainty that she would tell Llloyd to have the "shooting irons" ready, that "there will be parties here tonight who will call for them"? Harris and Bingham mocked the whole idea of kidnapping, even causing everyone in the courtroom to burst out laughing (including Arnold himself) when Arnold's role was described to the Commissioners, namely to receive, bundle and carry away the 6' 4" Lincoln as he was lowered from the 12 foot box. What was deserving of mockery then is deserving of mockery now, which means that her certainty, and therefore Booth's certainty, that parties would be at Surattsville that night to call for the shooting irons, precludes a belief in kidnapping, which leaves no conclusion other than the fact that she knew Lincoln would be murdered that night. Now are you persuaded?

John

[Susan Higginbotham]

Being involved in a plot to kidnap the President of the United States would be enough to make most normal people nervous, agitated, and restless, I would think.

When I get a moment, I'll look at the transcript myself, but who was it who described Arnold's role? If it was Bingham and Harris, it behooved them, in order to make the case for guilt of murder, to make the mechanics of the proposed kidnapping sound as ridiculous as possible. And how do we know that Mary knew that whatever was planned for April 14 would necessarily happen at the theater? For all we know, Booth might have told her that he planned to abduct the President from his carriage on the way back to the White House.

I'm still inclined to believe Lewis Powell when he said that Mary might have known that something was going on, but not about the assassination.

EDIT: I think I did find the passage you were referring to about Arnold's role. Still, I'm not convinced that the absurdity of some of the logistics involved in a kidnapping makes it impossible that there ever was one planned.

[RJNorton]

(05-08-2016 08:03 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  When I get a moment, I'll look at the transcript myself, but who was it who described Arnold's role?

I am not sure about the trial, but it's in Arnold's confession in Edwards and Steers:

"Then commenced the plan. Each had his part to perform. First I was to rush in the box and seize the President whilst Atzerodt “alias” Port Tobacco and J. Wilkes Booth were to handcuff him and lower him on the stage whilst Mosby was to catch him and hold him until we all got down. Surratt and unknown to be on the other side of Bridge to facilitate escape, afterwards changed to Mosby and Booth to catch him in box throw him down to me on stage, O’Laughlen and unknown to put gas out."

This is online here.

[Gene C]

Booth is able to get others involved in his plot with promises of money, fame and glory.
So what is Mary's motivation? What motivates a 43 year old widowed woman?
Could it be, even in part, the attention of a young, famous, good looking gentleman who trusts her and seems to take her into his confidence?

Is she so dedicated to the southern cause that she puts it ahead of her own family, especially Anna?
Is she so confident that she believes her involvement will never be discovered, or that it is inconsequential to the federal government?
Is she oblivious to the consequences to herself, her son, and to Anna of her involvement with Booth, even seeing Booth on the day of the murder and doing his bidding?

I think it has been mentioned that one of the reasons Mary moves to Washington is for Anna's benefit, and Mary at 43 is not over the hill.
Now that Lee has surrendered, the war is basically over. Is her patriotism to the "lost cause" what drives her, or is it something else? My previous post was half made in jest, but what causes Mary to through caution to the wind; now?
When is old enough to know better suppose to kick in?

[L Verge]

(05-08-2016 04:17 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(05-07-2016 09:36 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(05-07-2016 08:30 PM)Gene C Wrote:  Some people think that Mary Surratt was infatuated with Booth, and that caused her to make some poor decisions.

Which reminds me of a song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfSZARFUvnM

Those of you who have read things I have written (including a chapter in the new Lincoln Assassination Riddle) know that I was raised in a family that believed Mrs. Surratt was guilty. I have issues as to whether or not she knew that the plan had changed to assassination, but I do believe vicarious liability ties her to the conspiracy.

However, I do not believe she was infatuated with Booth. She was faithful to the Confederate cause and protecting her son after the fact.

Laurie:

"I have issues as to whether or not she knew that the plan had changed to assassination..." I gather that you were not persuaded by my arguments last month. Do you suppose that she was described by Weichmann as "very nervous, agitated and restless" that Friday night, and by Smoot as "in a state of feverish excitement", because she anticipated a kidnapping? She knew that whatever was going to happen that night would happen at the theater. Do you believe that she believed that Booth could successfully kidnap Lincoln at the theater and get him to Surrattsville, with such certainty that she would tell Llloyd to have the "shooting irons" ready, that "there will be parties here tonight who will call for them"? Harris and Bingham mocked the whole idea of kidnapping, even causing everyone in the courtroom to burst out laughing (including Arnold himself) when Arnold's role was described to the Commissioners, namely to receive, bundle and carry away the 6' 4" Lincoln as he was lowered from the 12 foot box. What was deserving of mockery then is deserving of mockery now, which means that her certainty, and therefore Booth's certainty, that parties would be at Surattsville that night to call for the shooting irons, precludes a belief in kidnapping, which leaves no conclusion other than the fact that she knew Lincoln would be murdered that night. Now are you persuaded?

John

Have I missed something in fifty years? Where is the evidence that she knew something was going to happen at the theater that night??? At the theater is the key point. Are we being asked yet again to "assume" that Booth told her of his exact plans?

---

(05-08-2016 08:38 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(05-08-2016 08:03 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  When I get a moment, I'll look at the transcript myself, but who was it who described Arnold's role?

I am not sure about the trial, but it's in Arnold's confession in Edwards and Steers:

"Then commenced the plan. Each had his part to perform. First I was to rush in the box and seize the President whilst Atzerodt “alias” Port Tobacco and J. Wilkes Booth were to handcuff him and lower him on the stage whilst Mosby was to catch him and hold him until we all got down. Surratt and unknown to be on the other side of Bridge to facilitate escape, afterwards changed to Mosby and Booth to catch him in box throw him down to me on stage, O’Laughlen and unknown to put gas out."

This is online here.

Those were the plans for the original scheme to kidnap as well as a similar one to hijack the presidential carriage. Was Mrs. Surratt ever told about the true (and sudden) plan to murder on April 14?

---

(05-08-2016 08:51 AM)Gene C Wrote:  Booth is able to get others involved in his plot with promises of money, fame and glory.
So what is Mary's motivation? What motivates a 43 year old widowed woman?
Could it be, even in part, the attention of a young, famous, good looking gentleman who trusts her and seems to take her into his confidence?

Is she so dedicated to the southern cause that she puts it ahead of her own family, especially Anna?
Is she so confident that she believes her involvement will never be discovered, or that it is inconsequential to the federal government?
Is she oblivious to the consequences to herself, her son, and to Anna of her involvement with Booth, even seeing Booth on the day of the murder and doing his bidding?

I think it has been mentioned that one of the reasons Mary moves to Washington is for Anna's benefit, and Mary at 43 is not over the hill.
Now that Lee has surrendered, the war is basically over. Is her patriotism to the "lost cause" what drives her, or is it something else? My previous post was half made in jest, but what causes Mary to through caution to the wind; now?
When is old enough to know better suppose to kick in?

First, Mary was only 41 when Booth entered her life (b. May or June of 1823). She was badly in debt (since hubby's death in 1862); she had one of the wealthiest families in Maryland snapping at her heels to be paid for their land (dating back to the negotiations in 1852); she had the carpenter who built Surratt House in 1852 dogging her to complete the payments to him; she had numerous merchants and others seeking payment for debts owed them.

Maryland life as she knew it was going down the tubes very quickly with the abolishing of slavery, making her original source of income (tobacco farming) in danger. She had no real male help to work the farm. Two women alone at a crossroads with Union patrols still raiding the countryside and contraband in the area as well as an infamous guerrilla Boyle made Surrattsville dangerous - as well as lonely for Anna, who was missing the better side of life as she entered her 20s. There was a perfectly good townhouse - bought and paid for in 1853 - waiting in D.C. Turning it into a boardinghouse would be a perfectly acceptable way to earn money and be safe at the same time.

She was a mother whose two sons were deeply involved with the Confederacy - one that she had not heard from throughout the war and another that she could not depend on because of his Confederate duties. She was also known to have given aid to a variety of young Southern agents in the hopes that the South might rally.

Was she pleased to have a well-known gentleman enter her doors? Probably, but more from the standpoint at first of her having an eligible daughter, and it was her beloved son who introduced Booth to her. Wouldn't she help a friend of her son - especially after she learned that the son was in trouble? Reporting Booth would also turn her son in to the authorities.

I'm sorry, but that old canard about Mary being infatuated with Booth and willing to do his bidding just doesn't cut it with me. I guess my Southern upbringing and the knowledge of how much the Civil War changed the life for many a woman makes me more inclined to see a more duty-bound side of Mary Surratt.

[RJNorton]

(05-08-2016 10:21 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Was Mrs. Surratt ever told about the true (and sudden) plan to murder on April 14?

Laurie, I will give my opinion. For me it comes down to whether or not Booth made a 3rd visit to the boardinghouse on April 14th. This would have been about 9 or 9:15 P.M. (prior to Smoot's visit about 9:30). IMO if Booth indeed stopped by the boardinghouse on his way to Ford's, then I think it's possible he told Mary the "final plan." If it can be shown that Booth did not make a 3rd boardinghouse visit, then I am more likely to believe she may not have known what was about to go down. (Of course it's not impossible that Booth told her his plan earlier in the day.)

Laurie, I know you have expressed doubts (in previous discussions) about Booth making a 3rd boardinghouse visit on April 14th, so I will certainly understand if you disagree with my opinion. I just think that if he did indeed make a 3rd visit, then the likelihood of Mary knowing the plan had changed to assassination is increased.

[John Fazio]

(05-08-2016 08:03 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  Being involved in a plot to kidnap the President of the United States would be enough to make most normal people nervous, agitated, and restless, I would think.

When I get a moment, I'll look at the transcript myself, but who was it who described Arnold's role? If it was Bingham and Harris, it behooved them, in order to make the case for guilt of murder, to make the mechanics of the proposed kidnapping sound as ridiculous as possible. And how do we know that Mary knew that whatever was planned for April 14 would necessarily happen at the theater? For all we know, Booth might have told her that he planned to abduct the President from his carriage on the way back to the White House.

I'm still inclined to believe Lewis Powell when he said that Mary might have known that something was going on, but not about the assassination.

EDIT: I think I did find the passage you were referring to about Arnold's role. Still, I'm not convinced that the absurdity of some of the logistics involved in a kidnapping makes it impossible that there ever was one planned.

Susan:

Thank you for your input.

Being involved in a plot to kidnap the President would be enough to make most normal people nervous, etc., true, but it would not provide sufficient certainty of success to send her to Surrattsville to tell Lloyd to have the shooting irons, whiskey, etc., and Booth's field glasses, ready for pickup by parties who would (not "might", but "would") call for them that night. That kind of certainty could only have been borne of a well laid plan to do "what was to be done", in Booth's classic wording to Jett, Ruggles and Bainbridge. Recall that the kidnapping plot was described by Arnold as "certain to fail". In support of that conclusion, recall that not only did Herold attest to the depth of her involvement and therefore guilt, but Atzerodt too, who said that she was the cause of his ruin. Recall, further, that John J. Tibbett testified (at the Surratt trial) that she had said she would give $1,000 ($14,000 in today's money) to anyone who would kill Lincoln. And recall, further, that Weichmann testified that she had said to them, as they watched the illumination of Washington from a height, that "I am afraid all this rejoicing will be turned into mourning, and all this glory into sadness". Does one ordinarily "mourn" for the kidnapped? Or for the dead?

As for her knowledge that the murder would take place at the theater, I agree that there is no direct evidence, but the circumstantial evidence is compelling. In addition to the material given above, consider that Booth met with her three times on the 14th, per Weichmann, and that she knew his escape route. If he told her his escape route, why would he not tell her where the murder was to take place? He knew well before the 14th that Lincoln would be at the theater that night, per Tidwell, Hall and Gaddy. Put all this evidence together and I believe it is a safe surmise that she knew Booth's true purpose, knew where it was to take place and knew his escape plans.

John

[Gene C]

Thanks Laure for your info about Mary's circumstances.

I tend to agree with John's last sentence above. A visit to the Surratt Tavern and two maybe three visits by Booth on the day of the assassination is beyond coincidence.

[L Verge]

(05-08-2016 02:23 PM)Gene C Wrote:  Thanks Laure for your info about Mary's circumstances.

I tend to agree with John's last sentence above. A visit to the Surratt Tavern and two maybe three visits by Booth on the day of the assassination is beyond coincidence.

I still believe Mary Surratt to be guilty, Gene. I just don't think that she assisted Booth because she had the hots for him., which is what you were asking. I also question if some of her "guilt" was based on circumstantial evidence (by our standards). Mr. Hall once told me that he thought she was guilty, but that the government did not adequately prove it.

[Anita]

Here's my opinion on Mary Surratt's involvement.

John Surratt was out of town. Booth solicited Mary's help in the kidnapping plot and didn't confided his true plan to assassinate Lincoln until the last minute, sometime on April 14th, most likely at the 9 PM meeting. He was well aware of her total loyalty to the Confederacy. He knew how devastated she was after Lee's surrender and her hatred of Lincoln. He wanted her to know that all was not lost and he would save the day by killing Lincoln himself. He wanted her blessings and was working up his courage for what he was about to do. Booth's disclosure took her anxiety and nervousness to a new level. I don't believe Mary was infatuated with Booth but certainly captivated by his charismatic personality and believed he could pull off the kidnapping. The murder plot took her by surprise and the consequences of her and her son's involvement to a new level. " Less than seven hours later, as the President lay dying and Booth having fled, investigators paid an initial visit to the Surratt home. When the investigators left, Surratt reportedly exclaimed to her daughter, "Anna, come what will, I am resigned. I think J. Wilkes Booth was only an instrument in the hands of the Almighty to punish this proud and licentious people." [Weichmann affidavit, 8/11/1865]"

Question. Why did Booth need to hide weapons, maps and field glasses at the Surratt tavern? Couldn't they have been kept on his and the other conspirators horses?