Mary Surratt's Denial of Lewis Powell

[BettyO]

(08-08-2012 06:14 PM)MaddieM Wrote:  

(08-08-2012 11:32 AM)BettyO Wrote:  

(08-08-2012 11:31 AM)LincolnMan Wrote:  I don't know for sure-Betty and Laurie help us out! My impression is that she wasn't protecting him but herself-and perhaps her daughter? I think she instantly realized the situation was very serious. Kate? Others?

Agreed, Bill! Mrs Surratt was protecting her name, her daughter AND her son!! To heck with Powell; she certainly wasn't concerned with him, even though he was a "kid" the same age as her son....

And yet.. from what I've read, it was this denial that incriminated her. Would she have been so damned if she'd admitted knowing him? I guess she panicked, like you would. The reason for the panic being of course, her guilt.

I think that had she admitted knowing him (and she DID know him) she assumed that she would be drawn deeper into the accusations - and she was after all anyway! When Lew was thrown from his horse, he knew that he had a "safe place" to go to; i.e. Mrs. Surratt's "safe house" in an attempt to secure a hat and perhaps a hot meal, warm bed and clean clothing to make his escape by rail to Baltimore and the security of the Branson Boarding House (also a safe house) the next morning. At least Lew had the presence and gentility in making a futile attempt to clear her name. Was she involved? Certainly! But she was not going to recognize this boy in any manner once the assassination had occurred.

The real question could also be would Lew have succeeded in escaping HAD she taken pity on the boy and aided him? Had not the detectives been there that night, do you think she would have taken him in? What do you think would have happened in this scenario?