Assassination Trivia

[L Verge]

(11-09-2017 01:18 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  You nailed it, Steve. Kudos.

I am quoting from the April 2004 Surratt Courier:

"Speaking of houses, we are often asked what happened to the home and farm at Surrattsville after the death of Mary Surratt. Burdened with debts, the children were forced into a court-ordered sale in 1869. The March 13, 1869, edition of the Daily National Intelligencer carried a brief notice:

SALE OF SURRATTSVILLE

This property, which, by reason of its connection with the conspiracy trial and the fate of its unhappy owner, has become quite historic, was disposed of at private sale, on the 10th instant, by C.C. Magruder and Daniel Clarke, Esqs, trustees, to Robert W. Hunter, Esq., of Piscataway district, for the sum of $3,500. The tract contained about one-hundred sixty-one and a half acres, with a fine dwelling and out-buildings upon it - Prince Georgian.

When the Surratts purchased the property in 1852, it consisted of 287-1/2 acres. As Mr. Surratt's debts increased so did the sale of his land in the following ten years until his death in 1862. Also, shortly after the sale, Mr. Hunter requested that the title to the land be transferred to his wife -- who had the money...

[L Verge]

I'm not posting this as a question, but just a trivial tidbit that Richard Sloan passed on to me today. Some of us old-timers might remember the famous dance hall in NYC called Roseland. Reportedly, it was built on the site of Dr. Charles Leale's first home in the city.

Speaking of Leale, one of the speakers at the Surratt conference in April will be talking on the life of Leale after his experiences on the night of the assassination. Our conference packets went in the mail a few days ago to all Surratt Society members, but the conference is always open to non-members. If you would like a packet sent to you, please email me your name and address at laurie.verge@pgparks.com

[RJNorton]

This is a (my) personal opinion trivia question. There may be many right answers, but I am looking for just one name.

Surprising to me, John Surratt left a name out of his Rockville lecture. Whom am I thinking of?

[Susan Higginbotham]

(01-23-2018 09:48 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  This is a (my) personal opinion trivia question. There may be many right answers, but I am looking for just one name.

Surprising to me, John Surratt left a name out of his Rockville lecture. Whom am I thinking of?

His mother? He mentions her, but not by name.

[RJNorton]

Thanks, Susan. Certainly what you said is right, but there is a specific reason why one (male) name stands out in my mind for not being mentioned a single time. And the answer does relate to his mother.

[Susan Higginbotham]

Lloyd?

[RJNorton]

Yes, Susan! You read my mind.

Most of the assassination books I have read indicate the reason Mary Surratt was hanged was primarily due to the testimonies of Louis Weichmann and John Lloyd. And many authors, if they had to pick the more important one, would point to the damning testimony of John Lloyd.

Yet here is part of what John Surratt said about Weichmann in his lecture:

"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."

However, Surratt never mentions John Lloyd. Not once. Not a single negative word about him. Yet Lloyd's testimony is looked upon as equal to, if not more important, than Weichmann's (when it comes to John Surratt's mother being executed).

Can anyone explain this? Why does John Surratt totally spare John Lloyd in his lecture? Is it because Lloyd was actually one of the co-conspirators with Booth? Is it because Lloyd was part of the Confederate underground and had information that was never revealed, and Surratt didn't want to "rouse" Lloyd publicly?

Does anyone have ideas on this?

[Susan Higginbotham]

I would guess (a) Surratt could not refute Lloyd's testimony and/or (b) given Lloyd's geographical proximity to Surratt, the latter didn't want to make an enemy of his former tenant.

[Anita]

(01-23-2018 01:22 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  Yes, Susan! You read my mind.

However, Surratt never mentions John Lloyd. Not once. Not a single negative word about him. Yet Lloyd's testimony is looked upon as equal to, if not more important, than Weichmann's (when it comes to John Surratt's mother being executed).

Can anyone explain this? Why does John Surratt totally spare John Lloyd in his lecture? Is it because Lloyd was actually one of the co-conspirators with Booth? Is it because Lloyd was part of the Confederate underground and had information that was never revealed, and Surratt didn't want to "rouse" Lloyd publicly?

Does anyone have ideas on this?

Could it be because he was part of the Confederate underground and supporter of the cause that John Surratt saw him coerced by the government to testify? Weichmann on the other hand met Surratt at college and he became a friend to the Surratt family. Weichmann then betrayed that friendship using intimate knowlege gained by being a boarder to betray his mother and the family.

Did Anna Surratt and her brother John remain close after his trial?

[RJNorton]

(01-23-2018 04:25 PM)Anita Wrote:  Could it be because he was part of the Confederate underground and supporter of the cause that John Surratt saw him coerced by the government to testify?

Anita, I tend to believe Lloyd was a member or supporter of the Confederate underground. I believe Mary's property in Surrattsville was a Confederate safe house, and in 1864 I doubt she would have leased this property to someone other than a person whom she already knew was a Confederate supporter.

[RJNorton]

Who is this lady?

[Eva Elisabeth]

Was she Catholic? (Somehow linked to one of the Surratts?)

[RJNorton]

Eva, I do not know if she were Catholic. There is no connection to the Surratts as far as I know.

Hint #1: She ate at least one meal with John Wilkes Booth.

[Susan Higginbotham]

Carrie Bean?

[RJNorton]

Excellent, Susan!! Yes, it is Carrie Bean. Michael Kauffman writes that she ate breakfast with Booth on April 14, 1865; but I've also read that they simply greeted each other at breakfast that morning.

Jenny wrote about Carrie Bean here.

Picture credit: Jenny.