Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Thomas Thorne · (This post was last modified: 03-01-2015 07:52 PM by Thomas Thorne.)

I believe Lincoln's actions would have been governed by whether or not he was actually kidnapped and how many Union soldiers and others were killed or wounded in the process of preventing his abduction or rescuing him.

I can not conceive of Lincoln signing Mary Surratt's death warrant but I don't believe he would have actually pardoned her if that is construed to mean he would have quashed a guilty verdict.

The suggestion that John Surratt's fate at a 1865 military trial would have been the same as Arnold et al who played no active role in the events of 4/14/65 or who were aware of them overlooks the government's strenuous attempts to link him to the drama at Ford's in the 1867 trial.

The government from the very start billed him as Booth's Number 2. His only competitor in this category was Mom. The judge who per Roger deemed Mary as #2 was IMHO quite right. I don't believe Mary would have received a harsher sentence then John and John's guilt would have made it psychologically difficult for the judges to impose a death sentence on her.

The suggestion that Mary passed on a message to John NOT to surrender in an attempt to save her is quite striking and I agree with it. I wish I had thought of it. Smile

Tom

L Verge · 03-01-2015, 08:37 PM

Tom,

I understand your reasoning as far as young John; but since there is nothing to show that he had any contact with Booth (or knowledge of the change of course) for at least ten days prior to the murder, I don't see how he can be judged differently from Arnold. If John (or his Confederate controllers) had prior knowledge to the assassination, wouldn't he - as #2 man - have stayed at least in the vicinity of D.C. to see that it was done?

As for Mary getting word to her son to stay in hiding, the screenwriter for The Conspirator movie insinuated as much and hinted that the message was sent via Catholic advisers. Sounds logical to me.

I have also pondered why Pius IX and his team allowed Surratt to be extradited to stand trial if there was a possibility of his being executed. Wasn't/isn't there an honored tenet of the church to grant sanctuary to people who might be put to death? Did the U.S. agree to not seek the death penalty if Surratt were sent back? Or, since Pius was having a tad bit of trouble in his own land, did he blink on the sanctuary clause in order to gain support from the U.S. -- or at least a U.S. warship to get him out of Dodge if the situation came to that?

I have read Andrew Jampoler's excellent book on Surratt and hope to find time to read a new one by Michael Schein. I was also privileged to know Fr. Alfred Isacsson and to have him speak several times at Surratt House. However, the legalese of John's flight, capture, escape, capture, trials, etc. just goes right over my head.

HerbS · 03-02-2015, 07:12 AM

I agree with Tom's legalese,and Laurie's assesment of the Catholic Church[Pope] at that time in history.Who knows what kind of deal was struck between the"Church"and the US.government?All I know is that John Surratt"walked",and was free as a bird to make some money off his ability to spread his"BS".

STS Lincolnite · 03-02-2015, 09:20 AM

(03-01-2015 08:37 PM)L Verge Wrote: I have read Andrew Jampoler's excellent book on Surratt and hope to find time to read a new one by Michael Schein. I was also privileged to know Fr. Alfred Isacsson and to have him speak several times at Surratt House. However, the legalese of John's flight, capture, escape, capture, trials, etc. just goes right over my head.

Laurie,

I was interested to see that you felt that Mr. Jampoler's book was worthwhile. I had looked at finding a copy in the past, but chose not to pursue that course as the reviews were less than favorable overall.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Last-Lincoln-C...1591144086

As you felt the book was good, I will certainly reconsider getting (or at least reading) this book. That being said, I will probably wait until the release of Mr. Schein's new book on John Surratt which is scheduled for April.

L Verge · 03-02-2015, 09:34 AM

I suspect that Michael's book will be an easier read - although I think he is a lawyer, and you know me and my thick skull when it comes to legalese! Andy's love is anything naval history, so a great deal of his book was devoted to detailing any ship that was involved in Surratt's escape and capture. He did a very good job, however, of tying world events into the search for Surratt - so I just got used to skipping over the construction details on ships and sticking to the story line.

I have to admit, however, that there is just something in me that does not want to retain John Surratt's history through all his travels and trials. I'm not one of those who is still holding him guilty of deserting his mother, but I can't get past the basics of his escape, and his trial confuses the heck out of me!

RJNorton · 03-02-2015, 03:35 PM

(03-01-2015 02:59 PM)LincolnToddFan Wrote: My belief is that she felt right up to the hour of the shooting that the kidnap plot against AL had been revived and was on for that night. I don't think she knew that at that point she was assisting the men in a murder conspiracy. Booth involved her and duped and manipulated her because she was useful to him and she was willing to help. I don't think she was ever told that the plan had switched to murder.

(03-01-2015 04:01 PM)L Verge Wrote: Personally, I agree that Mary did not know that the plans had changed to murder.

Toia and Laurie, until I read Kate Larson's book I would have agreed 100% with both of you. Now if someone asks me if she knew of Booth's change of plan I would say, "I don't know, but I am open to the possibility." My question is, I guess, a geography question as I do not know the area well.

It seems to me that Mary Surratt gave out two messages on April 14th. She told Smoot that his boat was going to be used that night. The boat was connected to the kidnap/capture plot as I understand it.

But she also took Booth's field glasses to Surrattsville, and Lloyd testified that she "told me to have those shooting-irons ready that night, there would be some parties who would call for them." (On April 11, according to Lloyd, Mrs. Surratt told him the "shooting irons" would be needed soon.) Additionally, on April 14th, she asked about pickets on the road and was apparently relieved to know they were usually called in by 8. It would seem she knew Booth would be traveling the road that night.

I am not sure this post is coming out as clear as I would like. I guess what I am asking is are the two routes the same --> the one to be used for the kidnapping and the one used to escape Washington after the assassination? In other words is it possible for Mary to think it was a still a kidnapping, the boat would be used, and also the group would be stopping to pick up weapons and field glasses at Lloyd's?

Geographically, does that make sense? (the boat being used plus the stop at Lloyd's)
Was stopping at Lloyd's also geographically part of the kidnap/capture escape route?

I apologize if the post is not clear; we had a family crisis yesterday which led to a sleepless night.

HerbS · 03-02-2015, 04:16 PM

Roger,if this helps,I agree with you 100%-Herb

Gene C · 03-02-2015, 05:28 PM

(03-02-2015 03:35 PM)RJNorton Wrote: I apologize if the post is not clear; we had a family crisis yesterday which led to a sleepless night.

Friends, let's hope it's not to serious, but let's keep Roger and his family in our thoughts and prayers.

And Herb too.

Eva Elisabeth · (This post was last modified: 03-02-2015 07:34 PM by Eva Elisabeth.)

If Mary believed the kidnapping plot was going on - how would JWB have explained to her why she would have had to bring the "equipment" down? Since a carriage was intended to be used to carry out this plan why not storing the field glasses etc. inside? (Is this a very stupid question? It's past midnight here, so have mercy in case...)

HerbS · 03-02-2015, 06:41 PM

Great question Eva-Thanks Gene!

L Verge · 03-02-2015, 07:19 PM

(03-02-2015 03:35 PM)RJNorton Wrote:
(03-01-2015 02:59 PM)LincolnToddFan Wrote: My belief is that she felt right up to the hour of the shooting that the kidnap plot against AL had been revived and was on for that night. I don't think she knew that at that point she was assisting the men in a murder conspiracy. Booth involved her and duped and manipulated her because she was useful to him and she was willing to help. I don't think she was ever told that the plan had switched to murder.

(03-01-2015 04:01 PM)L Verge Wrote: Personally, I agree that Mary did not know that the plans had changed to murder.

Toia and Laurie, until I read Kate Larson's book I would have agreed 100% with both of you. Now if someone asks me if she knew of Booth's change of plan I would say, "I don't know, but I am open to the possibility." My question is, I guess, a geography question as I do not know the area well.

It seems to me that Mary Surratt gave out two messages on April 14th. She told Smoot that his boat was going to be used that night. The boat was connected to the kidnap/capture plot as I understand it.

But she also took Booth's field glasses to Surrattsville, and Lloyd testified that she "told me to have those shooting-irons ready that night, there would be some parties who would call for them." (On April 11, according to Lloyd, Mrs. Surratt told him the "shooting irons" would be needed soon.) Additionally, on April 14th, she asked about pickets on the road and was apparently relieved to know they were usually called in by 8. It would seem she knew Booth would be traveling the road that night.

I am not sure this post is coming out as clear as I would like. I guess what I am asking is are the two routes the same --> the one to be used for the kidnapping and the one used to escape Washington after the assassination? In other words is it possible for Mary to think it was a still a kidnapping, the boat would be used, and also the group would be stopping to pick up weapons and field glasses at Lloyd's?

Geographically, does that make sense? (the boat being used plus the stop at Lloyd's)
Was stopping at Lloyd's also geographically part of the kidnap/capture escape route?

I apologize if the post is not clear; we had a family crisis yesterday which led to a sleepless night.

It is my opinion that the same route was to be used in both schemes. It was the most logical one, and it hit or came close to many of the most important areas of support.

Most people who visit Surratt House look at the electric map and ask why Booth didn't take the short cut and hop across the Long Bridge into what is today the great metropolis of Northern Virginia. That's easy - it had been under Union control since near the beginning of the war.

Then they suggest that the gang could have cut through the more frontier area of Montgomery County, north of the city, and used a route that Jubal Early had thought would work when he invaded the environs in 1864. Or, they could have headed west into the Shenandoah Valley -- and death and destruction that had been left behind by Phil Sheridan (whose men were still in the area, I believe).

Escapees head for friendly faces, helpful people, or at least populations that know how to keep their mouths shut. Southern Maryland had proven itself capable of all that for four years. What is the easiest way to get to that area and a less patrolled section of the Potomac River? Down the New Cut Road (also called the T.B. Road, then Maryland Route 5, and now Brandywine Road). Less obstacles on that road also, like deep streams to cross, more swampland if entering Charles County farther down. It was also a road made more passable by farmers entering and exiting the city from Southern Maryland daily.

That road had just been cut through in 1850, and became the first direct route out of D.C. into the southern counties of the state - the area that was the center of its economics (plus Baltimore City). It was the stagecoach route. It was the land of tobacco planters, aristocracy, tenant farmers, Confederate operatives, blockade runners. A land of people who would assist with kidnapping a hated President and chuckle under their breath if the plan turned to murder. We call it pay-back...

All of the public relations routines had been established while planning the kidnap. Now Booth decides on very short notice that the plot would change. No time to create another route or any better route, so stick with what you have.

That's my opinion, and I also believe that is why David Herold was in Southern Maryland on April 13 (and probably the afternoon of April 12) and ended up at my great-grandparents' home. He was sent as the Paul Revere of the Lincoln assassination to spread the word to key personnel that something big was coming down fast and hard and to be ready for it.

LincolnToddFan · (This post was last modified: 03-02-2015 07:59 PM by LincolnToddFan.)

(03-01-2015 04:01 PM)L Verge Wrote:
(03-01-2015 02:59 PM)LincolnToddFan Wrote:
(03-01-2015 07:58 AM)L Verge Wrote:
(03-01-2015 04:55 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote: I think Laurie mentioned two important "legal" aspects - "her son would fall in the category of Arnold, O'Laughlen, and Mudd who had no dealings with Booth (supposedly) once the kidnap was aborted" (I think Mary Surratt did not fall in this category) and "the clemency plea had nothing to do with the question of guilt or innocence - just age and gender", so I think her son wouldn't have been hanged and she wouldn't (necessarily) have been spared her fate. (This is doesn't represent my personal decision but what I think the commission might have decided on the basis of the applicable law and the prevailing "mood" at the time.)

James O. Hall once said (off the record) that he felt that Mrs. Surratt knew exactly what was going on, but that the government failed to adequately prove it - which should have resulted in imprisonment for her.

This is probably a very silly question - and please take in mind that I know very little about Andrew Johnson other than his fights with the Radicals. However, I always hear him accused of being a racist (a 20th-century term) who fought against enfranchisement for the blacks, etc. I have also read that Johnson's "legacy" did not become much Why wouldn't those feelings have made him more inclined to grant clemency to Mrs. Surratt, a woman whose life was being threatened for exactly the same views?

maligned until the 20th century. True or false?

Hi Laurie. Mrs. Surratt was not tried and executed for her views on race. It's true that President Johnson shared those views and most other (White) Americans did as well. She lost her life -ostensibly-for being guilty of conspiracy to murder the duly elected President of the U.S., but what Johnson found more odious and unforgivable was that she was a hated "Rebel". In his eyes she and the conspirators and in fact the entire Confederacy supported the cause(disunion) of the wealthy, pseudo aristocratic class of people that AJ hated with a passion that was truly intense. That's why she had to die in his eyes.

My belief is that she felt right up to the hour of the shooting that the kidnap plot against AL had been revived and was on for that night. I don't think she knew that at that point she was assisting the men in a murder conspiracy. Booth involved her and duped and manipulated her because she was useful to him and she was willing to help. I don't think she was ever told that the plan had switched to murder. And when she did realize what she had involved herself in later, she was panicked. That's why she denied knowing Lewis Paine that night, which is what incriminated her in the first place.

In reading the transcripts of the trial I came across nothing...no smoking gun as it were-that convinced me that Mary knew on the night of April 14th that an assassination-NOT a kidnapping- was in the works.

Personally, I agree that Mary did not know that the plans had changed to murder. However, I also understand how the laws of conspiracy made her guilty of the crime under vicarious liability.

As for Johnson's views on the "elite" Southern aristocracy, no one could ever accuse the Surratt family of being part of that element of society. They were modest, middle-class folk at the best of times by Southern Maryland standards.

PS: I also suspect that a secondary charge could have been applied by the tribunal if they could have done so legally -- a charge that the conspirators were also guilty of being secessionists and Confederates. In my mind, the case was not just about the murder of the president... And, I am not saying that to be snippy. I truly believe that it was the mindset in much of the land at that time that these "losers" (representing the Confederacy) had to become a lesson to others.

I would like to be able to disagree with that last part but I cannot because you are, unfortunately, right on the money. The executions were motivated by not only justice, but revenge. Johnson pretty much underscored that sentiment when he justified the hanging of Mrs. Surratt by saying that she owned the "nest that hatched the egg".

And no, the Surratt family was not part of the slave owning elite of the Confederacy, but they did sympathize and side with them. Johnson, a poor Southerner, really knew how to hold a grudge. He was a very proud, bitter man. Have you ever read his notorious, inebriated speech on Inauguration Day March 04, 1865?? He spent a great deal of it frothing against the planter class in the South. The wealth and power of his "betters", along with their desire to break apart the U.S. by secession, was what he held against them. Not their views on slavery and race.

HerbS · 03-03-2015, 07:10 AM

Great job Todd Lincoln Fan-I think at times,we should all try to agree to agree about Mary Surratt and her motives!

Gene C · 03-03-2015, 08:08 AM

It would be interesting to know Mary's motives. Surely she was aware her son was a courier for the south, and that some of her overnight guest were couriers/spies too. How involved was she before the family moved to Washington? Did she become more involved in order to help keep an eye on her son's activities? Would she have ever become involved if it weren't for John? Or did he become involved because of her example?

Are there any notes or transcripts of the police interviews with Anna? Did Anna play any role in her brothers trial?

RJNorton · 03-03-2015, 08:59 AM

Gene, this is not a complete answer your question, but Kate Larson writes that Weichmann felt "She (Mary Surratt) was, however, 'devoted body and soul to the cause of the South.' Weichmann would later claim, somewhat dramatically, that he had never met a woman 'who so earnestly and...so conscientiously, defended and justified the Southern cause as she."

Weichmann met Mary Surratt in 1863 when John Surratt invited Louis to spend a weekend in Surrattsville.

Kate Larson, for one, feels Mary was extremely knowledgeable of all that was going on around her place in Surrattsville. She writes that federal officers were aware of the Surratt family's activities and were watching them closely.