Post Reply 
Mary Surratt's Denial of Lewis Powell
08-08-2012, 08:03 PM (This post was last modified: 08-08-2012 08:30 PM by BettyO.)
Post: #14
RE: Mary Surratt's Denial of Lewis Powell
(08-08-2012 07:38 PM)L Verge Wrote:  I think Powell was exhausted, perhaps physically hurt from his fall, confused, and wanting comfort by the time he got back to the boardinghouse. He probably realized that the jig was up, maybe he was contrite about what he had done, and he needed help and guidance. There comes a time when even the strongest people cave in. He must have also thought that in the past two days, the authorities had already checked out the boardinghouse IF they had gotten wind of the Surratt/Booth tie-in. Maybe he thought they wouldn't be back since they had found out Johnny was out of the city.

Even if the authorities had not been there, however, I think Mrs. Surratt would have allowed Lewis time to wash up, grab some food and meager supplies, and then hustled him on his way.

I totally agree, Laurie!

(08-08-2012 06:55 PM)MaddieM Wrote:  
(08-08-2012 06:29 PM)BettyO Wrote:  
(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?

I don't think she would. I think she would have sent him packing, told him to go. She may have allowed him clothing and food, but would have gotten him out of there that night. As has been pointed out, she needed to save her own skin, and most people in dire straits, will do this. So can one blame her? The sad thing about Powell was his obvious vulnerability. I wonder at his naivete at returning to that boarding house? Research on him proves he was good at 'foraging', he'd spent all those years roughing it in the army. Wouldn't that mean he might have had more chance hiding out and surviving, traveling at night etc, until he made it out of the city? Everything that happened that night seemed foolhardy and not planned out with any precision or contingency planning. I wonder if any emotional blackmail took place regarding Powell. Perhaps I'm giving him too much kudos, but he seemed far from stupid, from what I've read. So he would have to have been naive.

I, like Laurie believe that the boy was injured (possible concussion since he told Gillette that he was knocked out from being thrown when his horse fell with him; he did have facial injuries - black eye and busted lip.) He needed cover and he needed it quickly. Yes, he could have foraged it out in the open. But he more than likely knew that Federal soldiers were going to be out scouring the countryside looking for himself, Booth or anyone else involved. His plan was to skedaddle and skedaddle quickly - a key Mosby maneuver. He apparently knew or thought that Mrs. Surratt would take him in. He needed to get cleaned up, get a warm meal and most importantly, acquire a hat! For a Victorian gentleman to go about without a hat was the same as if he were to go about without his pants on! He would be conspicuous - extremely conspicuous; hence, the "made up stocking cap" made out of his undershirt sleeve. He could not have ridden on a train (and he had more than enough train fare - $25.00) in such a getup. He needed to look respectable to distract attention away from himself. He saw Mrs. Surratt as the key. Unfortunately for him, he did not think that detectives would be there when he called. Hence her denial of him. So, naive - yes, probably so. He was very young and he was a country boy to boot - not a city sophisticate. But stupid? No. He could think pretty cleverly when dead on his feet.

"The Past is a foreign country...they do things differently there" - L. P. Hartley
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Messages In This Thread
RE: Mary Surratt's Denial of Lewis Powell - BettyO - 08-08-2012 08:03 PM

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)