Why did Mary move?

[Eva Elisabeth]

In Mr. Fazio's book, I came across a question I've had myself before - why did Mary Surratt move? The usual explanation is "for financial reasons", but I don't entirely understand what difference the move made. If I understand correctly, her husband had already rented rooms at the DC boardinghouse, so this was not a new "source". And I can hardly believe Lloyd paid as much for leasing the tavern as the Surratts made themselves with (in?) the tavern business. Plus I guess life in DC was more expensive even back then.

Can someone please explain? What do you think as for the "why the move" ?

[L Verge]

Surrattsville was much more isolated than what the surroundings today would indicate. The closest neighbor was about a quarter-mile away. As of November 1, 1864, her remaining slaves were freed with the new Maryland State Constitution. Both of her sons were away in their individual services to the Confederacy - leaving Mrs. Surratt and Anna alone much of the time in an area that was still subject to Union raids and marauders. Surrattsville just was not safe. D.C. provided more security and she would be close to the merchants along Pennsylvania Avenue where they had already done business as well as the city markets for fresh fruits, vegetables, and other goods. It was like having a 7-11 on every corner for a farmer's wife from Southern Maryland in 1864-65.

Anna was also a young woman in need of companionship her own age as well as a social life. She was 22 and of marriageable age. The pickings were much riper in D.C., especially for a lady who had been well-trained in womanly social skills (which she had been at the Martin sisters' school in Bryantown, where Anna excelled at her studies).

I doubt that there was much money to be had at the tavern after the regular customers had impoverished themselves supporting the Confederacy or had gone to war, not to return. They had lost any income from the post office, which was now in the hands of a genuine Union supporter. Crops were dwindling without a labor force, and somehow I cannot envision either Mary Surratt or Anna planting a new crop of tobacco within the coming six months. Plus, her husband had pretty much squandered at least half of the farm's acreage in bad dealings by the time of his death in 1862. The less land on a farm the less crops you can plant, and fewer crops mean smaller incomes.

At the time of his death, John Surratt owed about $3500 to debtors, including the Calvert family from whom he had purchased the property a decade before and never finished paying. He also had not paid Jeremiah Townshend, the man who built the home. There were also people who owed him money, but couldn't or wouldn't pay. In those days, a widow did not go pounding on doors demanding payment. Her meetings with Nothey were as close to that as it came. BTW: a descendant of John Nothey visited Surratt House about ten days ago. He's from Georgia, but knows only basic family history.

It is my understanding that the H Street home had been obtained free and clear via a weird deal back in 1853. Running a boardinghouse was one of the few respectable occupations for a woman in 1864. There certainly was no need for a boardinghouse in Surrattsville. Even prior to the war, the travelers' bedroom was pretty much a flop house arrangement. The boardinghouse was located where it was also very convenient for Mary to attend any and all services, if she so desired. In Surrattsville, the closest Catholic church was over five miles away. It takes me 15-20 minutes today to reach it by car.

Finally, John Lloyd had agreed to pay $500/year to rent the Surrattsville property. He never paid up due to circumstances that were to follow...

[Eva Elisabeth]

Thanks, Laurie!!

[Gene C]

(06-24-2015 08:04 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Anna was also a young woman in need of companionship her own age as well as a social life. She was 22 and of marriageable age. The pickings were much riper in D.C., especially for a lady who had been well-trained in womanly social skills (which she had been at the Martin sisters' school in Bryantown, where Anna excelled at her studies).

Like Weichmann, Rev. Wood, and John Wilkes Booth.

She does eventually marry a nice guy named William Tonry in 1869.
He works for the War Dept. At least he used to, he get's fired five days (?) after the wedding. http://civilwarwomenblog.com/anna-surratt/

Are there any pictures of Anna after 1865?
The blog mentions Anna is buried in an unmarked grave next to her mother. Is that correct? Seems to me that after all she had been through, she deserves a head stone.

[Susan Higginbotham]

I imagine also that having a pretty young daughter, Anna, at the tavern was becoming increasingly unpalatable for Mary. There was always the danger that a stranger arriving on the stagecoach might have seduction or worse on his mind, not to mention drunks leaving the bar. In the boardinghouse, Mary could at least pick and choose whom she rented to (not that this turned out really well either).

[RJNorton]

(06-25-2015 06:02 AM)Gene C Wrote:  Are there any pictures of Anna after 1865?

Cannot help with this, Gene. However, here some pictures of John Surratt at an older age with wife and daughter. Also, a photo of his son. Laurie sent these to me many years ago; they are property of the Surratt House Museum.

John Surratt and Wife

John Surratt and Daughter

The Surratts' son, Will

Photos may not be reproduced or downloaded without written permission from the Surratt House Museum.

[Susan Higginbotham]

Neat--never saw those!

[L Verge]

There is at least one photo of Anna that appeared in an article in the Baltimore Sun about fifty years ago. I'm not sure we have it digitized, but I'll see what I can do about sending it to Roger to post. It is a profile view with her hair pulled severely back into a bun, but she appears quite classy!

Anna, her husband, Isaac Surratt, and several of Anna's children are all in unmarked graves in the Surratt lot. The deed to that lot is still in the descendants' hands, so the lack of a grave stone for any of them lies with them. Since the office at Mt. Olivet has been asked by the family to no longer give information as to where the lot is located, it tells us once again how much the family prefers privacy. I'm a firm believer that the sins of the ancestors should not be visited on the descendants, but conversations on this forum as well as the national news currently show "that ain't happenin..." (IMO).

[RJNorton]

Many thanks to Laurie for sending this photo of Anna. Laurie feels the photo was taken in the 1880s or 1890s.

[L Verge]

(06-25-2015 12:04 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  Many thanks to Laurie for sending this photo of Anna. Laurie feels the photo was taken in the 1880s or 1890s.

I'd love to see that brooch up close because it might be made of hair (I have a similar one) and might have a photo in the center. I would like to think that Anna had such a piece fashioned from the lock of hair that we know was clipped off of her mother's corpse during the re-interment.

[Eva Elisabeth]

Thanks, Laurie, for sharing these fascinating photos!!!

---

I'd like to know which the earliest photo of JWB is, respectively see it?! In all photos I've seen of him he looks much older - mid 30s at least.

[LincolnToddFan]

My gosh those photos are mesmerizing. Thanks for sharing them Roger and Laurie!

[HerbS]

What would we do without Laurie?

[Jim Page]

(07-02-2015 06:43 AM)HerbS Wrote:  What would we do without Laurie?

Herb, I hope we never find out!

--Jim

[HerbS]

You are so right-on!