Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Linda Anderson · 08-15-2014, 07:49 PM

(08-15-2014 03:32 PM)L Verge Wrote: Hadn't Seward said something earlier in the war, however, about assassination not being in the American nature of politics?

Here is what Seward wrote in 1862 to John Bigelow, the American counsel in Paris.

"Assassination is not an American practice or habit, and one so vicious and so desperate cannot be engrafted into our political system. This conviction of mine has steadily gained strength since the Civil War began. Every day's experience confirms it. The President, during the heated season, occupies a country house near the Soldiers' Home, two or three miles from the city. He goes to and...from that place on horseback, night and morning, unguarded. I go there unattended at all hours, by daylight and moonlight, by starlight and without any light."

However, Seward changed his tune a year later according to his friend Henry Raymond, co-founder and editor of the NYT.

"Mr. SEWARD talks freely of the assassination and of all its circumstances and antecedents. I do not think he was in the least surprised at it. Indeed, he has more than once within the last two years told me in conversation that we should never emerge from this great war without political assassinations. They might be attempted in the hope of aiding the rebellion, or for the purpose of revenging its defeat; but they were morally certain to come. For his own part, I know that he had made his personal arrangements with a view to the possibility of such a close of his own career. He was never insensible of the extent to which the great body of the slaveholding oligarchy held him responsible for the political and moral changes which prompted the rebellion."

New York Times, May 12, 1865

LincolnToddFan · 08-16-2014, 12:06 AM

Thanks much Linda, for reproducing the comments I was referring!

RJNorton · 08-16-2014, 06:00 AM

(08-15-2014 09:38 AM)LincolnToddFan Wrote: I still struggle to accept that she would knowingly involve herself in an assassination plot.
Thanks BettyO and Laurie!

Hi Toia. Hopefully this won't come as a big surprise, but my opinion is that Mary knew about both plots. I think Mary Surratt may well have known about the change to assassination in Booth's plot. I used to think she just knew about the kidnap plot, but then along came Dr. Kate Larson's Assassins' Accomplice. IMO this is the best book ever written on Mary Surratt. Kate is a forum member, and she is a terrific author. Suddenly I saw Mary in a very new light, and her activities leading up to the assassination make me think she may well have known Booth had changed plans. I have explained why I feel this way in older posts on the forum and won't go into it again here, but that is my personal opinion regarding what Mary knew.

L Verge · 08-16-2014, 11:09 AM

Roger,

I am very close to hopping over the fence to your side. Call me really silly, but I just can't wrap myself around Mrs. Surratt being a VERY devout Catholic convert but condoning murder. If Weichmann's statement that she asked him to pray for her intentions is true, however, that would make all the difference. Does one pray for absolution before the deed is done?

As far as her being found guilty by the military court, I feel that: 1) The government had little choice at that time to try the conspirators in anything but a military court; 2) Under the vicarious liability angle of conspiracy law, her even knowing about the original plot would tie her to the assassination; and 3) The fact that she continued to assist Booth (knowingly or unknowingly) up to within hours of the assassination caused her to get the death penalty. In case I'm confusing you, even though I don't think the government adequately proved their case against Mrs. Surratt, I still understand their actions. Besides assessing her guilt or innocence, we need to establish whether the conspiracy was one plot that changed to another plot or whether conspiracy entails one single plot from start to finish. I vote for the one plot theory via vicarious liability - and so did the military court.

P.S. You are absolutely correct about Kate's book being the best on the subject of Mrs. Surratt.

Linda Anderson · 08-16-2014, 11:29 AM

(08-16-2014 11:09 AM)L Verge Wrote: Roger,

I am very close to hopping over the fence to your side. Call me really silly, but I just can't wrap myself around Mrs. Surratt being a VERY devout Catholic convert but condoning murder. If Weichmann's statement that she asked him to pray for her intentions is true, however, that would make all the difference. Does one pray for absolution before the deed is done?

Maybe some people pray for absolution before they commit the deed but that is not how the sacrament of reconciliation works. She was probably praying that Booth would be successful in killing Lincoln and that he wouldn't be caught!

I'm not so sure Mrs. Surratt would have considered killing Lincoln murder anyway. He was her version of Hitler.

L Verge · 08-16-2014, 11:44 AM

Good points.

LincolnToddFan · (This post was last modified: 08-16-2014 02:20 PM by LincolnToddFan.)

(08-16-2014 06:00 AM)RJNorton Wrote:
(08-15-2014 09:38 AM)LincolnToddFan Wrote: I still struggle to accept that she would knowingly involve herself in an assassination plot.
Thanks BettyO and Laurie!

Hi Toia. Hopefully this won't come as a big surprise, but my opinion is that Mary knew about both plots. I think Mary Surratt may well have known about the change to assassination in Booth's plot. I used to think she just knew about the kidnap plot, but then along came Dr. Kate Larson's Assassins' Accomplice. IMO this is the best book ever written on Mary Surratt. Kate is a forum member, and she is a terrific author. Suddenly I saw Mary in a very new light, and her activities leading up to the assassination make me think she may well have known Booth had changed plans. I have explained why I feel this way in older posts on the forum and won't go into it again here, but that is my personal opinion regarding what Mary knew.

Hi Roger-

I have that book! I admit that I just skimmed it instead of reading it carefully so maybe I should grab it and dust it off? Anyway I have too many Lincoln and Civil War books...I need to consider selling or donating some of them!

Great points, Linda-

Gene C · 08-16-2014, 05:14 PM

(08-16-2014 02:19 PM)LincolnToddFan Wrote: Anyway I have too many Lincoln and Civil War books...I need to consider selling or donating some of them!

Relax, take a deep breath. We all feel this way at one time or another. But together, we can all help you through this.

Perhaps this web site will give you peace and comfort
http://bookshelfporn.com/

We're here to help!

BettyO · 08-17-2014, 08:57 AM

Great site, Gene -

That's my idea of "Heaven!"

LincolnMan · 08-17-2014, 10:30 AM

(08-14-2014 08:51 AM)HerbS Wrote: Powell and I are alike in so-many ways,same with Custer!

Herb: hope you are well. If you care to tell us- about you and Custer. Sidebar: I recently watched Son of the Morning Star on VHS- shame it is still not on DVD. It is one of the better films about Custer.

STS Lincolnite · 08-17-2014, 12:46 PM

(08-16-2014 11:09 AM)L Verge Wrote: ... Mrs. Surratt being a VERY devout Catholic convert but condoning murder. If Weichmann's statement that she asked him to pray for her intentions is true, however, that would make all the difference. Does one pray for absolution before the deed is done?

For the record, I have little doubt that Mrs. Surratt had knowledge of and was in fact a complicit party in the kidnap plot and probably the assassination.

I have always been interested in the characterization of Mrs. Surratt as a devout Catholic to support the fact that she was innocent. From all I have read, religion was a much greater part of people's daily life than we might broadly expect to see today. So I guess that causes several questions to spring to mind:
1) How is/was "devout" defined?
2) In what way(s) was how she practiced her religion any different than how any other typical Catholic practiced their religion in the mid 19th century?
3) Was this characterization as being "devout" just used as a tool by her attorneys to make her appear more innocent? (Like the characterization of Powell as an illiterate fool who was simply taken in by and enthralled with Booth - which I do not believe is accurate).

The idea of someone appearing to be a devout religious practitioner also brings to mind something my grandfather used to say: "He (or in this case she) who sings loudest in church isn't always the most holy".

And even if she truly was a devout Catholic, I don't think that would necessarily support her innocence. I know that during the American Civil War, people on both sides of the conflict trumpeted the idea that theirs was the truly right cause and that God was on their side (leading to some intra-denominational splits some of which persist to a degree to this day). Their cause and God's grace would be proven by their victory in the war. So (assuming she was a truly "devout" Catholic) if Mrs. Surratt felt that her/their cause really was the right one (actively supported by her son and endorsed by God) I don't find it unbelievable that she would have gone to any length to ensure a Confederate victory - feeling she was doing "God's work" and would be justified/vindicated in doing so. In that context, it doesn't seem unlikely that she might ask someone to pray for her intentions (success in her undertakings or peace of mind for being involved in murder, justified or not). She probably would have never really considered that she would be arrested and convicted, much less executed because in her mind she would have been doing God's work.

L Verge · (This post was last modified: 08-17-2014 05:59 PM by L Verge.)

Very good points, Scott. I have based my thoughts on how devout Mrs. Surratt was on stories that have come down through the family. As we know, at 12 years of age, she went across the Potomac River as an Episcopalian (in a long line of Episcopalians) to be educated by the Sisters of Charity in Alexandria, Virginia. When she came back a few years later, she began converting her entire family to Catholicsm. Only her younger brother refused to convert.

We have no evidence that she convinced her husband to convert - either before or after their marriage. All evidence points to them being married outside the church. I have had their great-grandchildren tell me that Mr. Surratt never converted, hated the Catholic Church, and was not buried in blessed ground. We know from her letters to a priest that it was not a happy marriage - and the two things that stand out are his drinking and his refusal to take her to church. Also, she had to turn to the church to get her sons any education. It appears that Mr. Surratt did pay the bills for daughter Annie to be educated in Bryantown.

Near the end of her life, Mrs. Neale (Mr. Surratt's foster - and maybe real - mother) converted to the Catholic faith also. The priest made a note, however, found by James O. Hall, to the effect that he didn't know if the conversion would work since she had been a Protestant for so long. Finally, when she did move to D.C., it appears that Mrs. Surratt took every advantage of attending services.

I will agree that her attorneys had to call on priests to testify to her devotion to the church. They would have been stupid not to have. I also think that Frs. Wiget and Walter contributed to that personification in attempt to spare the Church some embarrassment. Likewise, John Brophy of Gonzaga College was a real apostle in proclaiming her innocence based on her religioius duties.

It has been a few years since I read Kenneth Zanca's book on Mary Surratt and the Catholic Church, but I would recommend it to those who want to pursue the religious angle. And, Scott, you are quite right that the whole issue goes back to exactly which side God is on in any war between Christians -- and other religions that believe in a Supreme Being.

Forgot to add one juicy detail: Most of us know that the Surratts had two sons, but Mr. Surratt had three. A few months after his marriage to Mary (she was 17, he 27), he was hauled into court by another woman on bastardy charges. It was Mary who insisted on the boy being baptized in the Catholic Church.

michiganmoon · (This post was last modified: 08-18-2014 08:20 PM by michiganmoon.)

Good points, good discussion :-)

(08-14-2014 06:34 AM)BettyO Wrote: He was acting as he told Dr. Abram Gillette, as a Confederate soldier under orders.

Is there any concrete evidence that he was acting under orders from the confederate military/government? It seems like this is more of an excuse he was making than reality.

(08-14-2014 06:34 AM)BettyO Wrote: Have I read Swanson? No. I am not a fan of Mr. Swanson. He writes good history, but I prefer Mike Kauffman's research. Have you read American Brutus? It's a far more in depth study. Manhunt, I think, is more for the lay person.

Fair enough, no I have not read that book.

If you are a MS/HS teacher, you should consider assigning a chapter out of the Swanson book - it makes history come alive for the students. I have students who ask to read more. It may be more for the lay person, as you say, but it is good reading and full of facts (and I am sure opinions in how to portray the historical figures).

(08-14-2014 06:34 AM)BettyO Wrote: What I have discovered regarding the maid, Annie is that she more or less knew of Mary Branson's midnight visits to Powell's room. She wasn't just going up to tuck him in as it were....like Roger said, you can use your imagination as to why a 35 year old spinster was haunting the bedroom of a 20 year old boy. I smell cougar. Apparently the maid saw or knew what was going on and threatened to squeal to Branson's parents. She may have threatened to rat on Powell's dealings with the Confederacy. Mr. Branson was also in on the kidnap plot. Their house was a "notorious Confederate safe house" according to Lt. H. B. Smith (Between the Lines.) At any rate, Powell was arrested as a "spy" - no where was it listed as "Assault and Battery."

My understanding is that he was in fact arrested for savagely beating the woman, but the witnesses refused to come in and give statements, at which point he was held for 2 days under the suspicion of being a spy.

(08-14-2014 06:34 AM)BettyO Wrote: Powell was totally wrong to explode as he did and beat the maid. I'm no proponent of violence either - but it happened. He did have an explosive temper, according to his family and apparently he just lost it. Unfortunately, in the 19th Century, servants were not treated with the same rights and considerations as "ladies" were treated. This was universal - it was simply a different world than ours today.

Even if maids were treated poorly back then, that seems to be a pretty abnormal and violent attack for the time period.

(08-14-2014 06:34 AM)BettyO Wrote: Yes, Powell panicked at Seward's house. As a Mosby Ranger, he was used to fighting outside; not in close quarters. There were also women present. This also threw him off. And yes, he seriously injured five people in the house that night. It is my opinion that he simply panicked. I also wonder what affect his being in the army from age 17 on had to do with this. Could he have had PTS Syndrome which could account for some of the violence? We don't know. A lot of researchers today are now thinking that PTS may have had a lot to do with the actions and reactions of a lot of young Civil War Soldiers. Many of them committed suicide after the war or turned to a life of crime. Take Jesse James for instance - same scenario. Went into the Confederate Army at the age of about 16. Look how he turned out.

Did Lewis Powell panic at the Seward home, because women were present?

He was calm enough to deceive his way into the home. He made the poor decision to use his pistol as a club before he saw a woman. With Fannie screaming in the room he intensely, but 'calmly' told Sgt. Robinson that he was mad and made the calculated decision not to kill Robinson when he easily could have. When he left the house he didn't gallop away, but trotted away.

I think as a soldier he was able to control his nerves enough to not panic.

(08-14-2014 06:34 AM)BettyO Wrote: According to those who knew Powell, he was no dummy, but rather cultured and intelligent. He was not slavishly devoted to Booth. This is an old canard which has been handed down through the years and was embellished by Powell's attorney Doster. Powell saw Booth as a superior officer, yes - and supposedly JWB did have a Captain's commission. This, unfortunately, can't be confirmed. But this is what Powell told Gillette.

(08-14-2014 06:34 AM)BettyO Wrote: Powell more or less wasn't lost. He was heading to Baltimore when he was thrown from his horse as the animal stumbled and fell attempting to jump a ditch (see Steer's The Evidence .) Powell was knocked out, possibly suffering a mild concussion (see Elliott and Cauchon's Between the Walls, Vol. II) and when he came to, found his horse gone. He therefore decided to hide out until he could think of what to do. Yes, he did stumble back to Mary Surratt's house a few days later, but it was the only place in DC besides the Herndon House where he thought he could find clean clothing and a meal before hitting the road, again probably to Baltimore.

He did supposedly take a wrong turn and then not find his way out.

When he did go to Surratt's house he wasn't at his sharpest.

#1 He failed to notice soldiers outside the home. He should have been more observant knowing that there would be a manhunt.

#2 He quickly told the soldiers inside the home that he must have the wrong house, then quickly admitted it was the right house when they said it was the Surratt house instead of trying to leave for the 'right' house.

#3 Then he came up with a completely unbelievable cover story for why he was at the Surratt house. Claiming to be a rarely employed, poor day laborer, while wearing fine too-expensive clothes and showing up in the darkness of night with a pick axe to confirm what time to dig tomorrow.

If he was very smart, hiding out for a few days had to have seriously rattled him beyond clear thought at the time of this arrest.

BettyO · (This post was last modified: 08-18-2014 09:29 PM by BettyO.)

Quote:Is there any concrete evidence that he was acting under orders from the confederate military/government? It seems like this is more of an excuse he was making than reality.

There is nothing "concrete" but all evidence seemingly points in the direction that yes, he was working under orders from the Confederate military government. Have you read my book, Alias Paine? In it, I list primary sources which state that Powell was more or less assigned to work with the Confederate Secret Service and sanctioned by Colonel John S. Mosby to leave his unit and work thus. Also see Come Retribution by Messrs. Hall, Gaddy and Tidwell....

Quote:If you are a MS/HS teacher, you should consider assigning a chapter out of the Swanson book - it makes history come alive for the students. I have students who ask to read more. It may be more for the lay person, as you say, but it is good reading and full of facts (and I am sure opinions in how to portray the historical figures).

I am not a teacher - but as long as the book inspires students to learn more, I'm all for it. Again, Mr. Swanson's "research" is literally that of foregoing authors and historians. I don't think he gives a clear "portrayal" of Powell inasmuch as he uses other's opinions that he was a brainless brute.

Quote:My understanding is that he was in fact arrested for savagely beating the woman, but the witnesses refused to come in and give statements, at which point he was held for 2 days under the suspicion of being a spy.

You are correct - but he was held and arrested as a spy - not for assault and battery.

Quote:Even if maids were treated poorly back then, that seems to be a pretty abnormal and violent attack for the time period.

Definitely so, but we don't have the full particulars on exactly how violent the confrontation was; it was said was that he struck her on the forehead and then kicked her. Agreed, pretty rash treatment - but what did the maid do to anger him? He said that she "called him names"; again a pretty rash response. But one wonders how much she knew and if she was basically "blackmailing" him.

Quote:Did Lewis Powell panic at the Seward home, because women were present?

No certainly not - I believe he panicked because he had never fought in close quarters before. Powell was used to fighting out doors and then quickly skedaddling; using Mosby's "hit and run" tactics. This time he was in a house; closely confined. It was a "first" for him. He knew therefore that he'd have to make his way in, shoot Seward and then quickly affect an escape.

Quote:He was calm enough to deceive his way into the home. He made the poor decision to use his pistol as a club before he saw a woman. With Fannie screaming in the room he intensely, but 'calmly' told Sgt. Robinson that he was mad and made the calculated decision not to kill Robinson when he easily could have. When he left the house he didn't gallop away, but trotted away.

He did resort to the use of his pistol on Fred Seward - but he did not "calmly" tell Robinson he was mad. This statement was made while he was attempting to escape after he had stabbed Seward and was grappling with Robinson and Gus Seward at the foot of the bed. He spoke in "an intense but low voice, "I'm mad!" He may have also yelled it as he ran down the stairs and stabbed Hansell in the back. He was striking at everyone and everybody in order to make his escape.

Quote:I think as a soldier he was able to control his nerves enough to not panic.

Perhaps - but I think he had a case of the jitters that night - either that or he had been drinking a bit. Bell said that his face was very red and flushed when he came in.

Quote:He did supposedly take a wrong turn and then not find his way out.

He went near Bennings Bridge and found that a gate had been put up and supposedly turned around to go another way. In any way, I think he was headed up to Baltimore and the Branson boarding house.

Quote:When he did go to Surratt's house he wasn't at his sharpest.

#1 He failed to notice soldiers outside the home. He should have been more observant knowing that there would be a manhunt.

#2 He quickly told the soldiers inside the home that he must have the wrong house, then quickly admitted it was the right house when they said it was the Surratt house instead of trying to leave for the 'right' house.

#3 Then he came up with a completely unbelievable cover story for why he was at the Surratt house. Claiming to be a rarely employed, poor day laborer, while wearing fine too-expensive clothes and showing up in the darkness of night with a pick axe to confirm what time to dig tomorrow.

If he was very smart, hiding out for a few days had to have seriously rattled him beyond clear thought at the time of this arrest.

Agreed. He had been thrown from his horse and knocked out (perhaps an apparent concussion - his face had been cut up a bit; having a black eye and a bloody lip). He had also gone for three days without any food or sleep. He was dog tired and dead on his feet so no, he was not at his "best" thinking wise or any other way. You are right in thinking that perhaps he was thoroughly rattled by the time of his arrest.

LincolnToddFan · 08-18-2014, 11:58 PM

(08-16-2014 05:14 PM)Gene C Wrote:
(08-16-2014 02:19 PM)LincolnToddFan Wrote: Anyway I have too many Lincoln and Civil War books...I need to consider selling or donating some of them!

Relax, take a deep breath. We all feel this way at one time or another. But together, we can all help you through this.

Perhaps this web site will give you peace and comfort
http://bookshelfporn.com/

We're here to help!

Oh Gene....you have given me a glimpse of heaven...books, books, and MORE BOOKS!! Tongue

Thank you