The Flimsy Case Against Mary Surratt

[mikegriffith1]

I haven't been posting much over the last week or so because I was busy working on a new article: "The Flimsy Case Against Mary Surratt," available at:

http://miketgriffith.com/files/flimsycase.pdf

The article looks at and answers the military commission's major claims against Mrs. Surratt, including her failure to recognize Payne, supposedly telling Lloyd to have the shooting irons ready on the night of April 14, supposedly giving Lloyd field glasses from Booth, and supposedly meeting with Booth at 9:00 PM on April 14. It also includes a section on common myths about the Mary Surratt case.

Here's a short excerpt from the article:

Even Weichmann admitted that prior to the assassination, he believed Mrs. Surratt was a devout Christian woman and a person of outstanding character. He said she cared for him deeply and treated him like a son. At the conspiracy trial, the defense produced numerous witnesses who testified that Mary was an honest and charitable Christian lady. Two of her former slaves testified that she had always treated them kindly (Moore 54 n 73). One witness noted that Mary fed and aided Union soldiers during the war (Winkler 230-231). Reverdy Johnson, Mary’s lead defense attorney, appealed to the evidence of her good character in his part of the defense’s closing argument:

That a woman, well educated, and, as far as we can judge from all her past life, as we have it in evidence, a devout Christian, ever kind, affectionate, and charitable, with no motive disclosed to us that could have caused a total change in her very nature, could have participated in the crimes in question is almost impossible to believe. Such a belief can only be forced upon a reasonable, unsuspecting, unprejudiced mind by direct and uncontradicted evidence, coming from pure and perfectly unsuspected sources. Have we these? Is the evidence uncontradicted? Are the two witnesses, Weichmann and Lloyd, pure and unsuspected? (Pitman 262)

Johnson went on to point out the same thing that many scholars have noted, namely, that there was much more evidence against Weichmann and Lloyd than there was against Mrs. Surratt:

But this conclusion in regard to these witnesses must be, in the minds of the court, and is certainly strongly impressed upon mine, that, if the facts which they themselves state as to their connection and intimacy with Booth and Payne are true, their knowledge of the purpose to commit the crimes, and their participation in them, is much more satisfactorily established than the alleged knowledge and participation of Mrs. Surratt. (Pitman 262)

[Gene C]

I didn't read anything new or surprising.
Just a rehash of the same old "Mary is innocent"

Nice pictures though. Could use a few more.

[mikegriffith1]

(01-10-2019 05:58 PM)Gene C Wrote:  I didn't read anything new or surprising. Just a rehash of the same old "Mary is innocent"

It beats any rehash of the flimsy circumstantial case against her.

I wrote the article because I could not find a single written defense of her available online. There are a few old books that do a good job of defending her, but these are all at archive.org, and many people won't take the time to read a book-length study on her case. There are also a few videos that defend her adequately, but they're necessarily an hour long or longer. So I thought an article was needed.

One would think this would be an article that the Surratt House Museum would carry on their website.

[John Fazio]

Mike and Gene:

Please see Chapter 5 of Decapitating the Union for a completely objective and dispassionate presentation of the evidence in the case against Mrs. Surratt, a consideration of the evidence, and a conclusion based upon the same. Also considered are the opinions of others relative to the conclusion and to her fate. If you find fault with any of it, I would like to hear about it, together with evidence and authority to support your claims.

John

[AussieMick]

Mike,
Gene is right. The pictures are very good.
Did you get anybody to proof-read the document? I know that its not a pleasant process ... and you need to find the best possible people to do so. Too often they try to impose their own opinions and slant on what is, intrinsically, your document. But quality proof-reading would assist in identifying the typos and inconsistencies.

Example :
"How could small field glasses, small enough to be opera glasses, wrapped in paper
appear to be several saucers wrapped in paper? Go look at pictures of the alleged
Booth field glasses, or at pictures of field glasses that were similar in size (see picture
above). Imagine wrapping them in some paper, and then try to imagine how the
package could look like “two or three saucers” or a “glass dessert dish” wrapped in
paper. A pair of field glasses wrapped in paper would be rectangular in shape and
would look noting like some saucers wrapped in paper."

'noting' ? you mean 'nothing' ?
That's just the first typo I noticed (OK, maybe its the only one?)

I would though also comment on your use of 'Go look at pictures'. That type of vernacular is fine (though a bit insulting) on a forum. But its not really common usage in discussion papers (IMO).


The other issue , more of an opinion I know, the title ("The Flimsy ...") for the document could be improved ... maybe "A woman unjustly Hanged ? A Defence of Mary Surratt" ?

[wpbinzel]

The opening sentence of your "article" reads "On June 30, 1865, an illegal military tribunal found Mrs. Mary Surratt guilty of conspiring with John Wilkes Booth...."

Um, Mike, please provide the legal citation of the court case that specifically found the conviction of Mrs. Surratt before a military tribunal to be "illegal." If you cannot provide such a ruling from a court of competent jurisdiction, then your statements are, and should be labeled as, your personal opinion and not as a fact. That seems to be a concept with which you have a very high degree of difficulty.

[RJNorton]

(01-10-2019 05:21 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  That a woman, well educated, and, as far as we can judge from all her past life, as we have it in evidence, a devout Christian, ever kind, affectionate, and charitable, with no motive disclosed to us that could have caused a total change in her very nature, could have participated in the crimes in question is almost impossible to believe.

A mailman, John T. Tibbett, took the stand during the 1867 John Surratt trial. Here is the key part of his testimony (especially the last sentence):

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

Q. Did you ever see the mother and son together?

A. Yes, sir, I have.

Q. Have you ever heard them conversing in the presence of each other in reference to Abraham Lincoln, late President of the United States? If so, state what yon have heard them say?

A. 1 have heard them conversing but very little together. Mr. John H. Surratt had but very little to say when I would be passing there, but I have heard Mrs. Surratt say...

Mr. Bradley: I would like to know upon what ground this evidence is

The Court. Do you propose to prove the conversation between the prisoner and Mrs. Surratt in reference to Abraham Lincoln?

The District Attorney. Yes, sir; the conversation in presence of the prisoner, expressing malice towards the President, and pointing directly towards his assassination.

Mr. Bradley. How long before the assassination?

Mr.Pierrepont. We do not care how long.

Mr. Bradley. You will hardly say a conspiracy was formed in 1863.

Mr. Pierrepont. We will show, before we are through, that the conspiracy was formed in 1863.

Mr. Bradley. I think the evidence is not competent, but we waive any objection to it.

Witness. I heard Mrs. Surratt say...

Mr. Merrick. In the presence of the prisoner at the bar?

Witness - Yes. I heard her say she would give any one $1,000 if they would kill Lincoln.

[L Verge]

Tibbett's (maybe "Tippett") last sentence is almost verbatim as to what my great-grandfather said he heard her declaring during visits to T.B. -- and he did not attend the trial. However, he was the postmaster at T.B. and perhaps both he and Tibbett (the mailman) heard her at the same time??

The mail coach stopped at each post office (Surrattsville and T.B. - and others) six times a week. So each man - Tibbett and Huntt - had ample opportunity to hear the lady express her thoughts on the war, Mr. Lincoln, the Confederacy, etc.

Mr. G. - Please don't expect this article to appear on either our website or in one of our monthly newsletters. Trust me, it would not pass peer review even if I asked a non-member of the Surratt Society to read it. Read especially Rob Wick's comments on the What is a Historian thread to learn why I say that. I would also suggest that you change the title of your piece: instead of "The Flimsy Case...," you might want to consider "The Flim-Flam Case... ."

You do continue to resort to smoke and mirrors in trying to present your opinions. The bio that you include on your site indicates a very reputable background in a number of fields that should indicate a much more professional method of researching and writing than what I am observing here. I don't pretend to be a professional writer, but I certainly have been and continue to be friends with many who have mentored me over the past 40-50 years. Good facts, clarity, and style go a long way in making one's point.

[Warren]

Mike, I like the pictures. Haven't read it all, but will. Wanted to point out, at top of page 2, change "An April.." to "On April.."

No dig at you; I'm the worst speller in the world. I could never be an editor.

[mikegriffith1]

(01-10-2019 07:57 PM)AussieMick Wrote:  Mike,
Gene is right. The pictures are very good.
Did you get anybody to proof-read the document? I know that its not a pleasant process ... and you need to find the best possible people to do so. Too often they try to impose their own opinions and slant on what is, intrinsically, your document. But quality proof-reading would assist in identifying the typos and inconsistencies.

Example :
"How could small field glasses, small enough to be opera glasses, wrapped in paper
appear to be several saucers wrapped in paper? Go look at pictures of the alleged
Booth field glasses, or at pictures of field glasses that were similar in size (see picture
above). Imagine wrapping them in some paper, and then try to imagine how the
package could look like “two or three saucers” or a “glass dessert dish” wrapped in
paper. A pair of field glasses wrapped in paper would be rectangular in shape and
would look noting like some saucers wrapped in paper."

'noting' ? you mean 'nothing' ?
That's just the first typo I noticed (OK, maybe its the only one?)

I would though also comment on your use of 'Go look at pictures'. That type of vernacular is fine (though a bit insulting) on a forum. But its not really common usage in discussion papers (IMO).


The other issue , more of an opinion I know, the title ("The Flimsy ...") for the document could be improved ... maybe "A woman unjustly Hanged ? A Defence of Mary Surratt" ?

Actually, I caught those typos and a few more when I re-read the article over the last couple of days, and they have all been corrected. But thank you for taking the time to point out those typos.

Now that I think/hope/believe I've caught all the typos, I will be adding a link to the article on my Lincoln assassination site (on the lincoln.pdf page of the site).

[mikegriffith1]

(01-10-2019 07:45 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  Please see Chapter 5 of Decapitating the Union for a completely objective and dispassionate presentation of the evidence in the case against Mrs. Surratt, a consideration of the evidence, and a conclusion based upon the same. Also considered are the opinions of others relative to the conclusion and to her fate. If you find fault with any of it, I would like to hear about it, together with evidence and authority to support your claims. John

There is no way to even begin making a case against Mary Surratt without Weichmann and Lloyd, both of whom would get utterly demolished on cross-examination in a modern trial. If a modern jury were to hear the case and were made aware of the pressure that was applied to Weichmann and Lloyd--not to mention the many contradictions and belated claims in Weichmann's story, Lloyd's drunken state, and the evidence of the real reason Mary went to Surrattsville on those two days--they would return a "not guilty" verdict in a matter of minutes.

The whole premise of "decapitation" is untenable. With Stanton still in control of the War Department and the Radical leadership in Congress intact, there would have been no decapitation with Lincoln, Johnson, and Seward gone. Instead, the Radicals' grip on the government would have been greatly strengthened. There would have been a figurehead-like successor to Lincoln in the White House (Lafayette Foster of Connecticut), a man who was relatively unknown and had no national constituency. Stanton, Stevens, Wade, Wilson, Julian, etc., would have run over him.

The Confederate conspiracy theory is rejected by most scholars, as William Marvel, author of Lincoln's Autocrat: The Life of Edwin Stanton, notes:

Stanton wanted his department to assemble the evidence against Davis and try him before a military commission. He was especially keen to tie Davis to Lincoln's assassination. But he failed, perhaps because (as most but not all scholars today believe) the Confederate leaders had nothing to do with the assassination, or perhaps because the War Department's investigation was inadequate. (pp. 454-455)

Even Lafayette Baker and his army of perjury collectors could not come up with a credible case against Davis and other Confederate leaders.

Finally, as someone who has studied George McClellan for years and written many articles about him, the idea that McClellan would have remained silent about a plot against Lincoln is utterly ludicrous. Anyone who has seriously studied McClellan knows that his Christian faith and his devotion to the rule of law would have led him to immediately sound the alarm if he had so much as heard the faintest hint of a plot to kidnap or murder Lincoln. (Anyone who has studied McClellan also knows how many times Stanton and other Radicals pressured Lincoln into making bad decisions regarding McClellan's army and operations.)

Answering Some Criticisms of General George B. McClellan
http://miketgriffith.com/files/answers1.htm

[Steve]

(01-12-2019 04:05 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Finally, as someone who has studied George McClellan for years and written many articles about him, the idea that McClellan would have remained silent about a plot against Lincoln is utterly ludicrous. Anyone who has seriously studied McClellan knows that his Christian faith and his devotion to the rule of law would have led him to immediately sound the alarm if he had so much as heard the faintest hint of a plot to kidnap or murder Lincoln. (Anyone who has studied McClellan also knows how many times Stanton and other Radicals pressured Lincoln into making bad decisions regarding McClellan's army and operations.)

Am I missing something here? Who claims McClellan was a member of the conspiracy?

[Christine]

I have often wondered if there was a connection between JWB and Mary Surratt and George W Gayle of Alabama who posted an ad in December 1864 in Selma Alabama newspapers soliciting money to fund the assassination of Lincoln, Johnson, and Seward. Would be interesting to know if JWB knew Gayle. To say there was no credible plans to decapitate the union is to ignore some pretty strong evidence. Perhaps he was acting alone or bluffing, but it seems I remember Booth went to Montgomery didn't he? Anyone know if they knew each other?

[wpbinzel]

Oh, one can learn many new things from Bill Marvel's book; for example: "The dying president had been carried across Tenth Street to a boarding house owned by one William Peterson." (p. 368)

[mikegriffith1]

(01-10-2019 10:31 PM)wpbinzel Wrote:  The opening sentence of your "article" reads "On June 30, 1865, an illegal military tribunal found Mrs. Mary Surratt guilty of conspiring with John Wilkes Booth...."

Um, Mike, please provide the legal citation of the court case that specifically found the conviction of Mrs. Surratt before a military tribunal to be "illegal." If you cannot provide such a ruling from a court of competent jurisdiction, then your statements are, and should be labeled as, your personal opinion and not as a fact. That seems to be a concept with which you have a very high degree of difficulty.

I say this half-jokingly, but I swear it seems like you folks just beamed into our day from July 1865. The Supreme Court ruled in 1866, in Ex Parte Milligan, that it was unconstitutional to try civilians in a military court if civilian courts were in operation.

It is just amazing that anyone in our day would defend the government's decision to try the accused Booth conspirators in a military court, after all that has been written on the subject since then.

Stanton knew that it was unlikely that any civilian court would convict Mudd, Surratt, O'Laughlen, Spangler, and Arnold based on the pathetic "evidence" he had against them.

Even two of the original members of the military commission privately expressed misgivings about the legality of the commission, and so they were dismissed. Lincoln's former attorney general blasted the decision to try the accused before a military commission.

Stanton's only excuse for pushing for a military trial was his bogus Confederate conspiracy theory, which was destroyed even at the conspiracy trial, and has been so thoroughly debunked since then that even most scholars in our day now reject it.