Interesting Day at the Old Surratt Hacienda

[Gene C]

---

As for Helen Jones Campbell, let's not bad-mouth her completely. I can honestly say that she is one of the most frustrating authors on the subject, but I cannot discredit her. I can fuss about her not including sources and not giving assurance that some of her anecdotes and historical references did happen. However, for every frustration in that direction, there are also redeeming features where her text is dead-on correct.

In the good old days, I would be traveling to William & Mary to peruse her papers - if the library there ever catalogued them. Bettie Trindal tried to use them and got turned away.

Oddly enough, I am just started reading The Case For Mrs. Surratt.

Mrs. Campbell writes in a manner that is easy to read and flows well.
I've picked up a slight prejudice against Stanton, Weichmann, Lloyd, Baker, and even Lincoln. She does make you pity poor Mrs. Surratt. I probably should go back and note the inaccuracies and distortions of the facts, but it is an older book written in the 1940's. It does seem to lean a bit towards Mrs. Surratt's innocence.

More when I finish reading it.

[MaddieM]

Where's my twin Payne in this production? I could win an award if I portrayed him.

Thomas, your first audition involves going to Laurie's house first thing in the morning to dig a gutter. (or any other manual labor chores she wants done)
Second audition involves running down a busy street yelling "I'm mad, I'm mad"
Third audition involves falling of a horse and spending the night in a grave yard.
Fourth audition involves a romantic scene with a MUCH older woman (don't worry, she should still have some of her teeth left)

This made me laugh...

[Susan Higginbotham]

I will let Kate explain her self-researched and written script -- or better yet, Gene, why not come to the conference yourself to hear it? I know you would really enjoy it.

As for Helen Jones Campbell, let's not bad-mouth her completely. I can honestly say that she is one of the most frustrating authors on the subject, but I cannot discredit her. I can fuss about her not including sources and not giving assurance that some of her anecdotes and historical references did happen. However, for every frustration in that direction, there are also redeeming features where her text is dead-on correct.

In the good old days, I would be traveling to William & Mary to peruse her papers - if the library there ever catalogued them. Bettie Trindal tried to use them and got turned away.

I've always thought of her books as historical fiction. They certainly have all of the apparatus of historical fiction--imagined incidents, dialogue, etc. Did she market them as nonfiction?

I would love to have a look at her papers. William and Mary was very helpful when I asked for some papers in their collection last year, so perhaps they've become more accommodating.

[L Verge]

I will let Kate explain her self-researched and written script -- or better yet, Gene, why not come to the conference yourself to hear it? I know you would really enjoy it.

As for Helen Jones Campbell, let's not bad-mouth her completely. I can honestly say that she is one of the most frustrating authors on the subject, but I cannot discredit her. I can fuss about her not including sources and not giving assurance that some of her anecdotes and historical references did happen. However, for every frustration in that direction, there are also redeeming features where her text is dead-on correct.

In the good old days, I would be traveling to William & Mary to peruse her papers - if the library there ever catalogued them. Bettie Trindal tried to use them and got turned away.

I've always thought of her books as historical fiction. They certainly have all of the apparatus of historical fiction--imagined incidents, dialogue, etc. Did she market them as nonfiction?

I would love to have a look at her papers. William and Mary was very helpful when I asked for some papers in their collection last year, so perhaps they've become more accommodating.

I may have shared some "suspicions" about why Campbell's papers were not available for awhile (the claim was that they had not been catalogued). Mrs. Campbell was a native of the Yorktown/Williamsburg area and was well-versed in the socio-political life (i.e. gossip) of that region, especially during the time that the Rockefellers were footing the bills for the restoration of the colonial capital.

I was told years ago that she first wrote a book on Yorktown and spilled some beans. She was also one of the first docents at Colonial Williamsburg and knew some inside secrets. The person who told me this suspected that the Campbell Papers contained materials on these things as well as the Surratt research and that the College didn't want these unearthed and didn't have enough staff and time to do a quick search to find "incriminating evidence."

Many years have passed (even since Bettie Trindal made her initial plea to see the papers) and certainly the old-timers are no longer on the scene to react to egg on their faces. In defense of that protection, however, there is a southern code of honor that is struggling to survive - don't speak ill of your forefathers...

I suspect that William and Mary will now allow access to the Campbell material. I would just like to know who/what her sources were and if there are any pieces of legitimate history that she found that we don't know about. Nearly a century has passed since she began her research. Did she get to talk to people alive then who shared information that we don't know about?

[RJNorton]

On Sunday, I received an email at home from one of my weekend staff members alerting me to the probability that a theatrical production company would be at Surratt House at 8 am on Wednesday (today) to take photos of the exterior and grounds.  I responded to the email address that I was given and welcomed them.

I did not hear back, but when I arrived at work this morning, there were at least 16 actors and actresses in period garb on the lawn.  They are putting the final touches on a production based on Mary Surratt and the Lincoln assassination and were using our house and grounds for publicity purposes - posters, videos, still shots, and more.  I greeted everyone from Mary and Anna Surratt, Nora Fitzpatrick, Louis Weichmann, John Matthews, JAG Holt, and Aunt Rachel Hawkins.

The actor playing Matthews had never seen a picture of Booth's friend.  We grabbed Tom Bogar's wonderful book and showed him Matthews.The gentleman playing Frederick Aiken did not know much of the lawyer's history because there is very little published on him except for the outstanding work done by Christine Christensen.  I quickly located a copy of the Surratt Courier that carried the lengthy bio of Aiken and made a young actor very happy.

The young man playing Weichmann is having a hard time deciphering that figure's personality and is trying to determine whether to portray him as firm and upright or scared and vindictive.  Aunt Rachel told me that she found reference to the former slave living to be 125.  I have my doubts, but she promised to send me the citation.  The last info we had on Rachel was from an Evening Star interview back in 1892.  She was an invalid confined to bed at that time.  From what we can determine, Rachel and Mary Surratt were about the same age.  That would make Rachel about 75 in 1892.  Living another fifty years seems rather unlikely.

I was very impressed with how much reading most of the young people had done on the subject and on their respective characters.  Several were perturbed that the playwright had inserted some wrong history, and they were being forced to repeat it.  For a change, I kept my opinions to myself...

They remained on site until about 2 pm, in costume most of the time, except for when they took a Subway lunch break in our picnic area.  Our temperatures and humidity were in the 80s today, so they got a good feel for what our ancestors endured.

When they left, they were headed to Georgetown to find some cobbled stone streets to work with.  I suspect some Georgetown bars were making beer money off of them by 4 pm.

Tomorrow, they head back to home base in NYC.  I don't have the title of this play yet, but they promised to keep us updated.  They will be back in D.C. in July for a trial performance at the Atlas Theatre.  Then it's back to New York for an off-Broadway showing.  They call themselves The Wandering Theatre Company, so watch for them.  I also passed along some email addresses for some of our scholars that I thought might be of help on short notice if needed.

Many thanks to Steve for sending this information.  Steve writes, "I have a newspaper article to post to the forum. It's from page 8 of the 21 Dec. 1892 edition of the Evening Star (DC). It's an interview of Rachel Hawkins who was a former slave of Mary Surratt. During the Conspiracy Trial she testified under the name Rachel Semus (which might be an error and supposed to be "Cephas" -- as in the Aramaic name for the Apostle Peter) and under the Hawkins surname a couple of years later during the Surratt trial. Please note I read about the article on Dave Taylor's site and thought it would be a good candidate to post to the Forum.

[J. Beckert]

Very nice reminiscence of Laurie, Roger and also a period insight into Booth and Mary's character that contrasts the belief that slaves were routinely treated badly and beaten.

[RJNorton]

Thank you to Steve for sending this information.  Steve writes, "I have something to post to the Forum. It's Rachel Hawkins' testimony during the John Surratt trial, it's more extensive than the testimony she gave at the Conspirators' Trial.

       I should note that in her testimony she clarifies that Seavers (recorded as "Semus" in the Conspirators' Trial record and apparently "Cephas" elsewhere according to the Surratt Museum) is her married name. That she was married to a man named Tom Seavers and they split up (or he left her) after being freed. She seems to have taken up the Hawkins surname after that."

[Steve]

Just a note the last page (696) accidentially got posted in the middle, so if you're reading the pages from top to bottom the testimony of John Clarvoe interrupts Rachel's testimony.

It's interesting that nearly 3 decades later that Rachel misremembers seeing Booth with Mary Surratt instead of, presumably, Weichmann. Did she harbor some private doubts about Mary's innocence and project that unto unreliable memory? I guess we'll never know and it's not really possible evidence of Mary's guilt anyway?

It's too bad about Bill's passing, I would have loved to hear his thoughts about Rachel, the Surratts, and her accounts.

[RJNorton]

Just a note the last page (696) accidentially got posted in the middle, so if you're reading the pages from top to bottom the testimony of John Clarvoe interrupts Rachel's testimony.

 
I corrected it, Steve.  My bad.

[Steve]

Thanks Roger!