Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

L Verge · 09-16-2018, 06:56 PM

(09-14-2018 04:14 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:
(09-06-2018 04:52 AM)RJNorton Wrote:
(09-06-2018 12:14 AM)SSlater Wrote: Not everyone will see the same story exactly the same way.

Do I ever agree with that! Example: Read Bettie Trindal's Mary Surratt: An American Tragedy. Then read Kate Clifford Larson's The Assassin's Accomplice: Mary Surratt and the Plot to Kill Abraham Lincoln. Then ask yourself: are these two books actually about the same woman?

Larson seems determined to find Mary Surratt guilty, no matter what. For example, she dismisses the claim that Mrs. Surratt had poor vision because she notes that Surratt was able to read and sew. Yes, she could read and sew--because she was near-sighted. Even then, she could not read and sew with gas light but only in daylight. Several witnesses confirmed that Mrs. Surratt had difficulty recognizing people unless they were very close to her and in good light. Plus, she had only seen Payne briefly on a few occasions.

I watched one of Ms. Larson's presentations on YouTube. She suggested that Reverdy Johnson's failure to appear at the trial more than a few times indicated that he believed Mrs. Surratt was guilty. That's quite a reach. Johnson specified that his workload would not allow him to appear in court as often as he would like. Plus, the prosecutors and at least one of the judges had severely insulted him in court and had even questioned his moral fitness to act as counsel. Yet, Johnson wanted the court to delay Lloyd's testimony one day so he could cross-examine him, but the court refused. Johnson wrote part of the team's closing argument. Johnson was the one who directed his team to try to get a writ of habeus corpus. So to suggest that Johnson's limited appearances at the trial indicate that he believed Mary Surratt was guilty seems like a rather severe reach.

Mike - Did you perchance read what I posted (and quoted) re: Reverdy Johnson's comment regarding his intent to withdraw from the case should he suspect guilt?

KLarson · 09-17-2018, 12:00 PM

Mike,
I think you should read my book. When I started researching Mary Surratt's story, I believed that she was innocent and that I was going to prove it and save her! Oh, how naive I was! It took me only about two months of research to realize she was guilty of involvement with the plot. It took a couple more years of finding every primary source available, and reading all the books, to discover she was very much involved and that the trial's outcome - that she was guilty - was right. Along the way I became convinced of Mudd's guilt, too. Those years of research also showed me how many researchers, historians, and conspiracy theorists misrepresented primary sources, deliberately misquoted them, or completely ignored them because the sources did not fit with their theory. Many of the books you mentioned were written by people who shamelessly ignored the documentation or manipulated it and made fake news out of it.

Louis Weichmann was indeed afraid for his life, and so was John Lloyd. But the documentation supports his, and Lloyd's, testimony about Mary and the others. Not only did Weichmann reveal his uneasiness about what was going on in the Surratt boarding house to his supervisor, Maj. Daniel Gleason, but he also wrote to Father Menu about his suspicions, too. Booth intercepted and kept Menu's response asking for more information, so Weichmann never saw his letter. How curious that Menu knew Lou Weichmann was concerned about illegal activity in the house but later called Weichmann's testimony false. Menu was a Confederate sympathizer.. Too bad Weichmann did not learn that Booth had correspondence in his trunk that could have supported Weichmann's own defense. Mary Surratt sympathizers always claim that Lloyd and Weichmann lied on the stand. Why would Weichmann and Lloyd choose to discredit Mary when they already had half a dozen they could testify against? They did not have to implicate Mary to save themselves. Mary helped Booth in any and every way she could. She wanted Lincoln dead. She was a Confederate sympathizer. Period. She was guilty and died for her role. Why couldn't the defense find anyone to testify in Mary's defense? All the defense could drum up were a few priests who ended up testifying that they barely knew her. Others on this thread have also mentioned that later testimony revealed that Mary was involved - Atzerodt and Payne before they were hanged, Smoot years later. Her eyesight? Well, she recognized Payne well enough on earlier occasions to mention how handsome he was - even though she knew he first introduced himself as James Wood, a minister, then as Lewis Payne when he reappeared at her boarding house weeks later (when she did not seem to care who he was, only that he "was a great looking Baptist preacher!") And yes, thank you Laurie, Reverdy Johnson said in his opening statement that if he thought Mary was guilty he would not defend her. And he didn't.

L Verge · 09-17-2018, 01:08 PM

(09-17-2018 12:00 PM)KLarson Wrote: Mike,
I think you should read my book. When I started researching Mary Surratt's story, I believed that she was innocent and that I was going to prove it and save her! Oh, how naive I was! It took me only about two months of research to realize she was guilty of involvement with the plot. It took a couple more years of finding every primary source available, and reading all the books, to discover she was very much involved and that the trial's outcome - that she was guilty - was right. Along the way I became convinced of Mudd's guilt, too. Those years of research also showed me how many researchers, historians, and conspiracy theorists misrepresented primary sources, deliberately misquoted them, or completely ignored them because the sources did not fit with their theory. Many of the books you mentioned were written by people who shamelessly ignored the documentation or manipulated it and made fake news out of it.

Louis Weichmann was indeed afraid for his life, and so was John Lloyd. But the documentation supports his, and Lloyd's, testimony about Mary and the others. Not only did Weichmann reveal his uneasiness about what was going on in the Surratt boarding house to his supervisor, Maj. Daniel Gleason, but he also wrote to Father Menu about his suspicions, too. Booth intercepted and kept Menu's response asking for more information, so Weichmann never saw his letter. How curious that Menu knew Lou Weichmann was concerned about illegal activity in the house but later called Weichmann's testimony false. Menu was a Confederate sympathizer.. Too bad Weichmann did not learn that Booth had correspondence in his trunk that could have supported Weichmann's own defense. Mary Surratt sympathizers always claim that Lloyd and Weichmann lied on the stand. Why would Weichmann and Lloyd choose to discredit Mary when they already had half a dozen they could testify against? They did not have to implicate Mary to save themselves. Mary helped Booth in any and every way she could. She wanted Lincoln dead. She was a Confederate sympathizer. Period. She was guilty and died for her role. Why couldn't the defense find anyone to testify in Mary's defense? All the defense could drum up were a few priests who ended up testifying that they barely knew her. Others on this thread have also mentioned that later testimony revealed that Mary was involved - Atzerodt and Payne before they were hanged, Smoot years later. Her eyesight? Well, she recognized Payne well enough on earlier occasions to mention how handsome he was - even though she knew he first introduced himself as James Wood, a minister, then as Lewis Payne when he reappeared at her boarding house weeks later (when she did not seem to care who he was, only that he "was a great looking Baptist preacher!") And yes, thank you Laurie, Reverdy Johnson said in his opening statement that if he thought Mary was guilty he would not defend her. And he didn't.

As usual, Kate, an excellent rebuttal. This is what comes after years of intense research on various levels, folks.

Many years ago, I wrote a speech on Mary Surratt and entitled it "Did She or Didn't She?" After citing her upbringing in a slave-holding culture, her marriage into a slave-holding family, her faith in the Confederacy, and finally the various pieces of evidence against her, my conclusion boiled down to the simple definition of "conspiracy" in the 1865 Conspiracy Trial. Basically, when one enters into a conspiracy, one is liable for what any member of that conspiracy might do. To save one's self, one would have to stop the conspiracy personally or report all to the authorities.

There were enough actions taken by Mary, especially on April 14, to lead to suspicion of having knowledge of the conspiracy - at least of the kidnap plot. Having made no attempt to stop anything, she became a conspirator in the assassination in the eyes of the law. To me, her sentence was the logical conclusion to her case.

And, in my opinion, Dr. Mudd was spared (by one vote) because there was no evidence that he communicated with Booth between the failed kidnap plot in March and the early-morning hours of April 15, when the fugitives showed up at his door -- whereas Mrs. Surratt was doing errands for Booth only hours before he murdered Lincoln.

KLarson · (This post was last modified: 09-17-2018 02:00 PM by KLarson.)

Thank you, Laurie. I should have mentioned that since the 1970s - and in large part due to the Surratt Museum and you, Laurie - there have been many historians who have been diligent in uncovering the documentary record and making it available to everyone. Those early Lincoln Assassination folks were (and still are!) so passionate and dedicated, and they truly changed our limited understanding of the crime. I could not have written one word without you and the help and support of all of those researchers!

mikegriffith1 · (This post was last modified: 09-17-2018 07:02 PM by mikegriffith1.)

(09-17-2018 12:00 PM)KLarson Wrote: Mike,
I think you should read my book. When I started researching Mary Surratt's story, I believed that she was innocent and that I was going to prove it and save her! Oh, how naive I was! It took me only about two months of research to realize she was guilty of involvement with the plot. It took a couple more years of finding every primary source available, and reading all the books, to discover she was very much involved and that the trial's outcome - that she was guilty - was right. Along the way I became convinced of Mudd's guilt, too. Those years of research also showed me how many researchers, historians, and conspiracy theorists misrepresented primary sources, deliberately misquoted them, or completely ignored them because the sources did not fit with their theory. Many of the books you mentioned were written by people who shamelessly ignored the documentation or manipulated it and made fake news out of it.

Louis Weichmann was indeed afraid for his life, and so was John Lloyd. But the documentation supports his, and Lloyd's, testimony about Mary and the others. Not only did Weichmann reveal his uneasiness about what was going on in the Surratt boarding house to his supervisor, Maj. Daniel Gleason, but he also wrote to Father Menu about his suspicions, too. Booth intercepted and kept Menu's response asking for more information, so Weichmann never saw his letter. How curious that Menu knew Lou Weichmann was concerned about illegal activity in the house but later called Weichmann's testimony false. Menu was a Confederate sympathizer.. Too bad Weichmann did not learn that Booth had correspondence in his trunk that could have supported Weichmann's own defense. Mary Surratt sympathizers always claim that Lloyd and Weichmann lied on the stand. Why would Weichmann and Lloyd choose to discredit Mary when they already had half a dozen they could testify against? They did not have to implicate Mary to save themselves. Mary helped Booth in any and every way she could. She wanted Lincoln dead. She was a Confederate sympathizer. Period. She was guilty and died for her role. Why couldn't the defense find anyone to testify in Mary's defense? All the defense could drum up were a few priests who ended up testifying that they barely knew her. Others on this thread have also mentioned that later testimony revealed that Mary was involved - Atzerodt and Payne before they were hanged, Smoot years later. Her eyesight? Well, she recognized Payne well enough on earlier occasions to mention how handsome he was - even though she knew he first introduced himself as James Wood, a minister, then as Lewis Payne when he reappeared at her boarding house weeks later (when she did not seem to care who he was, only that he "was a great looking Baptist preacher!") And yes, thank you Laurie, Reverdy Johnson said in his opening statement that if he thought Mary was guilty he would not defend her. And he didn't.

Let's start with the last point first: It seems clear that Reverdy Johnson was saying that he would not have agreed to be her attorney at all if he believed she was guilty. Reverdy Johnson did in fact defend Mary Surratt. He did not appear in court very often, for the reasons I already mentioned, but he monitored the trial, requested via his team that the court delay Lloyd's testimony one day so that he (Johnson) could cross-examine him, wrote part of the closing arguments, and directed his team to request a writ of habeas corpus. So it is simply incorrect to say that he did not defend her.

Weichmann: Weichmann was first interviewed for hours by the Metropolitan Police, and after all this, the police saw no need to go back and get Mary Surratt. It was only when the military got involved, two days later, that Mary was arrested. Weichmann himself told at least two people privately that he was threatened with death if he did not implicate Mary Surratt. Additionally, Weichmann's testimony is loaded, absolutely loaded with contradictions, incredible recollections, and problematic statements. As just one example, he gave four different dates, separated by near three weeks, for the fabled attempt to abduct Lincoln on his way to the soldiers home--if the defense had known about Payne's dated oath of allegiance, they could have severely impeached Weichmann on this point, but the prosecution never introduced Payne's oath into evidence.

Mary Surratt was not the only one in the house who did not recognize Payne that night. His appearance was very different that night from how he had looked on the few occasions she had seen him previously. As for the witnesses who testified about Mary's poor eyesight, you can accuse them of lying, but they did say that she had trouble recognizing people unless they were right next to her, which is just what we would expect from someone who was severely near-sighted. Until I had my eye surgery, I was markedly near-sighted, and there were many times when I failed to recognize co-workers when I walked right by them, much to my embarrassment.

I find it interesting that Mary Surratt had two days to flee but no made no effort to leave. In fact, she carried on as usual after the police first showed up at her door hours after the assassination. When the military showed up and arrested her, she was shocked and frightened. She was doubtless aware of the mad frenzy of vengeance that had gripped the North. It was no secret that the Army often did not play by the rules of law when they decided to arrest people.

Lloyd: Honestly, I don't see how anyone can take his testimony seriously. Leaving aside the fact that he was drunk, leaving aside the fact that he admitted at the John Surratt trial that he was threatened with death if he didn't give a "fuller" statement (i.e., one that implicated Mary Surratt), leaving aside the goofy nature of his story (that at first he couldn't figure out what Mary was talking about but then she came out and said to get the "shooting irons" ready--really?), I find it very odd that the binoculars ("field glasses") that Lloyd said Mary gave him on the 14th disappeared. Where are they? How could a crucial piece of material evidence go "missing"?

L Verge · (This post was last modified: 09-17-2018 08:03 PM by L Verge.)

I'm not going to split hairs with you, Mike. Been doing that with a lot of conspiracy theorists for the last sixty years or so, and I'm tired. I'm just going to stand by my point of what constituted "conspiracy" in the eyes of the military court.

However, Mary Surratt had spent the past four years running a safe house for Confederate agents in Surrattsville and continued the practice in her H Street home. In Surrattsville especially, she, like most of her Southern Maryland compatriots, were used to facing Union patrols and the like and knew how to do it with composure. Perhaps that is why she didn't flee the city? I consider myself a "tough old broad," and I think Mary was also. Circumstances had taught her to be a survivor.

Years ago, one of her descendants told me a family story about a Union patrol barging into the tavern and home searching for her son or any other Confederate they might catch. They searched every room and closet in the house - except for the most logical place, a fairly large closet under the main staircase. As they were preparing to leave empty-handed, Mary demanded that they search that one last closet also. She said she would report them to their superiors if they did not. IMO, that took hutzpa!

As for Lloyd's inebriated state on April 14, I think that has been exaggerated. He managed to make a ten-mile drive home without a co-pilot, wing man, or GPS. He also was sober enough to unload barrels of seafood from his wagon, and he certainly was capable enough to make necessary repairs to the Surratt buggy so that Weichmann and his landlady could make the twelve-or-so-mile trek back to H Street. He also was able to retrieve the carbines as Mary said and laid them out upstairs for easy grabbing.

Finally, the Metropolitan Police Force in 1865 was not made up of skilled officers, detectives, or even patrolmen. The best men were serving in the Union forces, and the police got the leftovers who needed a job. As for evidence disappearing, James O. Hall and Mike Kauffman would be the first to tell you how careless the investigations, gathering of evidence, and the care of crucial items were in those days. During World War II, Mr. Hall was introduced to the Lincoln case as part of his training in the field of military investigations. He recognized quickly how sloppy that case had been handled , and that got him intrigued and addicted. Back in civilian life, he became an investigator for the Department of Labor and was posted to D.C. and its treasure troves of historical documents. He always admonished us novices to try to think like a regular guy of 1865, who has not been exposed to years of Law & Order...

RJNorton · 09-18-2018, 05:12 AM

(09-17-2018 12:00 PM)KLarson Wrote: Mary helped Booth in any and every way she could. She wanted Lincoln dead. She was a Confederate sympathizer. Period. She was guilty and died for her role.

Based on what I have read, Laurie and Kate are totally correct regarding Mary's wartime sentiments. Mike, at the John Surratt trial, a witness named John T. Tibbett stated, "I heard her (Mary Surratt) say she would give any one $1,000 if they would kill Lincoln." Do you think Tibbett created his story?

Gene C · 09-18-2018, 06:14 AM

It seems that both sides of the discussion agree that Weichmann and Lloyd were afraid for their life. Were they afraid of the US Government or Confederate sympathizers, or maybe both
If we are going to believe in a government or big business conspiracy to kill Lincoln and other high ranking officials, killing Weichmann or especially Lloyd, because of what they know and might testify to, would not have been that difficult considering the resources still available to either group.

For those of you more familiar with Lloyd's and Weichmann's testimony, could Mary have been convicted (perhaps given a less severe sentence) without either one's testimony?
Is there any written record of Mary's statements while under questioning regarding the assassination?
What about Anna's statements?

L Verge · (This post was last modified: 09-18-2018 09:25 AM by L Verge.)

(09-18-2018 05:12 AM)RJNorton Wrote:
(09-17-2018 12:00 PM)KLarson Wrote: Mary helped Booth in any and every way she could. She wanted Lincoln dead. She was a Confederate sympathizer. Period. She was guilty and died for her role.

Based on what I have read, Laurie and Kate are totally correct regarding Mary's wartime sentiments. Mike, at the John Surratt trial, a witness named John T. Tibbett stated, "I heard her (Mary Surratt) say she would give any one $1,000 if they would kill Lincoln." Do you think Tibbett created his story?

If Tibbet (I think it was really spelled Tippet) fabricated his story, then my great-grandfather Huntt created one just like it. My grandmother (born in 1874) said that he often spoke of Mrs. Surratt visiting T.B. and cursing and damning the "black-hearted Lincoln" and offering money to anyone who would kill him. Since the lady was already in deep debt, I wonder where that money would come from?

I have posted this before, but when Mr. Huntt offered his sympathies to Mrs. Surratt's younger brother, James Archibald Jenkins, he was told that "she got just what she deserved. She knew what she was doing."

(09-18-2018 06:14 AM)Gene C Wrote: It seems that both sides of the discussion agree that Weichmann and Lloyd were afraid for their life. Were they afraid of the US Government or Confederate sympathizers, or maybe both
If we are going to believe in a government or big business conspiracy to kill Lincoln and other high ranking officials, killing Weichmann or especially Lloyd, because of what they know and might testify to, would not have been that difficult considering the resources still available to either group.

For those of you more familiar with Lloyd's and Weichmann's testimony, could Mary have been convicted (perhaps given a less severe sentence) without either one's testimony?
Is there any written record of Mary's statements while under questioning regarding the assassination?
What about Anna's statements?

I think Weichmann and Lloyd both had every right to be afraid of the War Department's wrath. I don't think the Confederacy was in any position to threaten them, but Lloyd had to come back to Southern Maryland and Surrattsville neighbors after his ordeal - and that meant dealing with folks who had supported the Confederacy and, in many cases, the underground agents - just like Mrs. Surratt had.

We know that Lloyd did come back to the tavern and home, but public opinion was against him. He was a native of Charles County, which was heavily pro-Confederate, so he didn't run there. Instead, he moved to Washington City.

As to Mary's and Anna's statements: In 1980, Mr. Hall handed me copies of original, handwritten papers from the War Department files and asked me to transcribe them and put them in booklet form for sale in the Surratt Museum's shop. It was during my transcribing Mary's that I became completely convinced that she was a part of the conspiracy. She was just too calm in her statements and even haughty at times. It seemed that she fully anticipated what her interrogators were going to ask and was prepared.

As for Anna, her statement is straightforward answers to the officials based on her brother's activities and the goings-on at the boardinghouse.

That 1980 booklet is still sold at our museum ($20 + $4 postage). Entitled From War Department Files: Statements Made by the Alleged Lincoln Conspirators under Examination, 1865, it contains the statements of Herold, Arnold, Spangler, Mudd (2), Atzerodt, Anna Surratt, and two from Mary Surratt (April 17 and April 28, 1865). All were taken from National Archives files M-599.

Finally, as to who put the final nail in Mrs. Surratt's coffin, I vote for Lloyd when he testified to her late-afternoon visit to the tavern on April 14 and her instructions to him to have the shooting irons ready for parties that would call that night...and, the rifles were ready.

Gene C · 09-18-2018, 10:13 AM

Thanks Laurie, that is exactly what I wanted to know.

That booklet has been added to my Christmas Wish List.
(only 98 days till Christmas, avoid the crowds and the traffic, deal with knowledgeable staff. Shop at the Surratt House Museum Store.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVYZViTvxok

Steve · 09-18-2018, 12:40 PM

Laurie, about how many pages does the booklet have?

L Verge · 09-18-2018, 02:19 PM

62, not including a Dedication page, table of contents, and an Introduction.

mikegriffith1 · (This post was last modified: 09-19-2018 09:09 PM by mikegriffith1.)

A couple of other points about Weichmann:

* Weichmann claimed that he saw Mrs. Surratt talking with Booth at her house a short time after 2:30. Weichmann said that he arrived at the stable at about 2:30 to get a buggy to take Mrs. Surratt to Surrattsville. Weichmann said that just before they left the city, presumably after he returned with the buggy to pick up Mrs. Surratt, he saw Booth talking with her in the parlor. A reasonable estimate would put the time of this alleged meeting at around 2:45. But Mary Anderson testified that she saw Booth standing and talking with a lady in the alley behind Ford's Theater between 2:00 and 3:00.

* In his affidavit, Weichmann said he and Mrs. Surratt started to leave the city at 2:30, but in his testimony he said he didn't even get to the stable until 2:30.

* Some of Weichmann's claims in his affidavit are downright silly. If one assumes that Mary Surratt was part of the conspiracy and had foreknowledge of the assassination, you'd have to believe she must have been one of the dumbest criminals in human history to have uttered some of the statements that Weichmann says he heard her say. Weichmann quoted Mary as making statements that clearly indicated foreknowledge that Lincoln would soon be dead, and then he quoted her as giving lame, dubious explanations of her intended meaning. A few examples:

Quote:Before the fourth of March, she was in the habit of remarking that “something was going to happen to old Abe which would prevent him from taking his seat. . . .

Really? She was "in the habit" of making this statement, a statement that would sound very incriminating after Lincoln was dead?!

Quote:When about a mile from the city [on the 14th, just hours before the assassination], and having from the top of a hill caught a view of Washington swimming in a flood of light, raising her hands, she said, “I am afraid all that rejoicing will be turned into mourning and all this glory into sadness.” I asked her what she meant. She replied that after sunshine there was always a storm, and that the people were too proud and licentious, and that God would punish them.

Right, Weichmann would have us believe that Mary's explanation for her suspicious statement was that a change in the weather would fill the city with mourning and sadness. Of course, this is another statement that sounded very incriminating after Lincoln was dead.

Quote:On the return, I chanced to make some remark about Booth, stating that he appeared to be without employment, and asking her when he was going to act again. “Booth is done acting,” she said, “and is going to New York very soon, never to return.

One, Booth had recently performed in a play. Two, how would Weichmann know if Booth was "without employment"? And, three, are we really supposed to believe that Mrs. Surratt would have implicated herself by telling Weichmann that Booth would "very soon" be leaving Washington and would "never" return?

Put yourself in Mrs. Surratt's shoes. If you were part of a murder plot, would you, or anyone in the same situation in their right mind, be making these kinds of incriminating statements?

* Weichmann said that Booth spoke with Mrs. Surratt three times on the day of the assassination! Three times?! Weichmann further said that on the way back to Washington, Mrs. Surratt said she was anxious to be home by 9:00 because she was expecting a visit from a "gentleman" but would not say who he was:

Quote:She was anxious to be at home at nine o’clock, saying that she had made arrangement with some gentleman who was to meet her at that hour. I asked her if it was Booth. She answered neither yes nor no. . . .

The gentleman whom she expected at nine o’clock on her return, called. It was, as I afterward ascertained, Booth’s last visit to Mrs. Surratt, and the third one on that day. She was alone with him for a few minutes in the parlor.

Well, now, wait a minute! Why would she not tell Weichmann that the man was Booth, if she had already met with Booth twice that day in plain sight of Weichmann? That makes no sense.

* It is important to remember that when Weichmann went to the Metropolitan Police to turn himself in and to tell what he knew about Booth and his associates, he apparently said nothing that implicated Mary Surratt. How do we know this? Because the police had already gone to Mary Surratt's house to look for John Surratt before Weichmann went to the police. After Weichmann told the police what he knew, they saw no reason to return to Mary Surratt's house. It was Lafayette Baker who later ordered the arrest of Mary Surratt, two days after the police had gone to her house, and it was only when Weichmann was interrogated by Baker's men that he implicated Mary Surratt.

RJNorton · 09-20-2018, 05:11 AM

(09-19-2018 09:07 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote: Weichmann said that Booth spoke with Mrs. Surratt three times on the day of the assassination! Three times?! Weichmann further said that on the way back to Washington, Mrs. Surratt said she was anxious to be home by 9:00 because she was expecting a visit from a "gentleman" but would not say who he was:

Could this be a reference to Richard M. Smoot rather than JWB? Here is what Smoot wrote in The Unwritten History of the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

April 12:

"I went to the capital and called upon Mrs. Surratt at her home the Wednesday morning before the assassination. I was met at the door by Miss Annie Surratt, with whom I had a slight acquaintance, and she conducted me into the presence of her mother, who was seated in the parlor. I asked the old lady where I could see her son John. For a moment her face was a study. She really made me uneasy with her penetrating look of inquiry. She evidently was not satisfied with my appearance, for after a brief silence she informed me that she was unable to tell me of the exact whereabouts of her son, or when and where I could see him, I saw that I was under suspicion, and so told her the object of my visit. In an instant her whole demeanor changed. Her face brightened and she extended me a most cordial greeting. She eagerly inquired if the boat was in place and easily accessible, as it might be called into requisition that night. I informed her what disposition had been made of the boat, and that Bateman was in charge of it. Then she assumed an anxious expression and hurriedly and earnestly importuned me to leave the city at once. She did not vouchsafe me any explanation of her sudden change of disposition, but I inferred that she feared that I had been followed, and that my presence in her house would lead to her arrest as well as my own. She whispered to me that if I would return to the house on Friday I would most likely see John and the boys, and she showed me a letter written by John to a Miss Mitchell, in which he said that he would be in Washington on the following Friday if he possibly could. I never found out who Miss Mitchell was. Neither she nor the letter played any part in the subsequent happenings. I opined that Miss Mitchell was John's sweetheart, and that she had given the letter to Mrs. Surratt after having read it."

April 14:

"I returned to the capitol, reaching there about half past nine o'clock at night. I went direct to Mrs. Surratt's. As I approached the house I saw a woman standing on the porch. Her face was so hidden in the capacious depths of a huge sunbonnet that I could not see her features. As I started to ascend the steps the woman turned abruptly and went into the house, almost closing the door, and at the same time asking: 'Who is it?' I gave my name. The door was quickly reopened, and I was admitted into the presence of Mrs. Surratt. She was in a state of feverish excitement. I asked her if John had returned, and she replied that he had not. She then informed me that she was positive that the boat would be used that night, and that I would get my money in a day or two. She most earnestly besought me to leave the city and not be seen at her house again. Her manner caused me alarm. I felt that a crisis was at hand, and that I was facing some unseen danger. I left the house and went down town, feeling that it was imperative that I should get out of the city in the shortest possible time, I found that the only mode of conveyance out of the city was a stage which left the Long Bridge at ten o'clock. I hurried to the bridge only to find that the stage had gone. Impelled by the earnestness with which Mrs. Surratt had urged me to leave Washington, I determined to walk to Alexandria, eight miles distant, which I did, arriving there about eleven o'clock. I went to the City Hotel, engaged a room and went to bed …"

AussieMick · 09-20-2018, 07:50 AM

(09-20-2018 05:11 AM)RJNorton Wrote: ..... feeling that it was imperative that I should get out of the city in the shortest possible time, I found that the only mode of conveyance out of the city was a stage which left the Long Bridge at ten o'clock. I hurried to the bridge only to find that the stage had gone. Impelled by the earnestness with which Mrs. Surratt had urged me to leave Washington, I determined to walk to Alexandria, eight miles distant, which I did, arriving there about eleven o'clock. I went to the City Hotel, engaged a room and went to bed …"

Well, he certainly didnt hang about ... 'walk' eight miles in about one hour ?