Why (not), Mary?

[Eva Elisabeth]

(08-20-2015 08:26 PM)Donna McCreary Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 04:47 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 02:09 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  I wondered if the name was made a taboo to repress memories.

I think that is a good point, Eva. I don't think there is any mention of the Booth name in her letters. She did once mention the word "Surratt" in an 1867 letter to David Davis. She mentioned to Davis that Robert and Tad were in Washington for the John Surratt trial.

Also, I think I read that Johnson wrote her a sympathy note early in 1866. Mary threw it in her trash; someone found it there.

In a letter dated March 15, 1866 written to Sally Orne, Mary wrote:
"My own intense misery, has been augmented by the same thought - that, that miserable inebriate Johnson had cognizance of my husband's death -- Why, was that card of Booth's, found in his box, some acquaintance certainly existed -- I have been deeply impressed, with the harrowing thought, that he had an understanding withe the conspirators & they, knew their man. Did not Booth say, "There is one thing, he would not tell. . . . "

Thanks, Donna - if I've ever read the entire letter, only the "miserable inebriate Johnson" having cognizance stuck to my memory, not her further explanations and mentioning of Booth. So it seems she did undertake some deeper thinking about the background!

---

(08-21-2015 04:01 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Donna, thank you for referencing Mary's mention of Booth in that letter to Sally Orne.

Toia, in a November 15, 1865, letter to Francis Carpenter, Mary wrote:

"In the evening his mind was fixed upon having some relaxation and bent on the theatre. Yet I firmly believe that, if he had remained, at the W. H. on that night of darkness, when the fiends prevailed, he would have been cut to pieces - Those fiends, had too long contemplated, this inhuman murder, to have allowed, him, to escape."

I don't know if I am comprehending that correctly, but to me it sounds like Mary was convinced Abraham would have been attacked in the White House that night had the couple not gone to the theater.

Thanks, Roger - very interesting. I agree, it sounds as if she was convinced her husband couldn't have escaped his fate that night. I wonder if it comforted her to some degree - or if she wanted to believe this to not feel guilty as the theater was originally her idea?