The evidence that sealed Mrs. Surratt's fate

[Rhatkinson]

I recommend again Ms. Verge's (I suddenly remembered my manners and can't abide by continuing to refer to that nice lady by her first name) excellent paper/speech on Mrs. Surratt from 2003.

A KEY piece of evidence from that speech that I had previously overlooked is the behavior of Mrs. S on the night of the assassination. The testimony was that she "hustled" the ladies of her boarding house upstairs to bed before 10pm that evening, which was the only time she had ever done so at that hour. To me, this is damning testimony as why else would she have behaved so but for having inside information that "momentous" events were about to unfold that night? Perhaps she was made to believe that a kidnapping attempt was to be made again (I believe this WAS what she was told by JWB), but whether it was kidnapping or murder, the punishment was the same and she "deserved her fate." If the testimony is true, she knew something was afoot.

Just my thoughts. I would welcome discussion.

Heath

[Thomas Thorne]

I believe that Weichmann described the "hustle" but I don't know if his statements were corroborated by the other boarders. I believe some writers have criticized the government for not questioning the ladies as intensively as was warranted.

The strange behavior by Mrs S. if true is IMO is very interesting but is merely a pebble compared to the boulders that could be thrown at her. I have too much respect for her intelligence to believe she seriously thought that JWB would attempt a kidnapping on 4/14.

Like Sam Arnold she would have ridiculed the idea of a kidnapping in a theater by a few people in the presence of hundreds. How would the conspirators have transported their victim thru city streets swarming with revelers and a garrison of thousands of troops? What at this point did JWB expect to get for kidnapping the president? Where would they have taken Lincoln? Jefferson Davis and his government were fugitives.

It would be fun to read the the Washington press speculations on Davis' whereabouts.
Tom

[RJNorton]

Heath, I have stated this in previous threads, but I'll repeat briefly here. I have a minority view on this. I believe Mary's behavior was due to a 9:00 P.M. visit from JWB in which he told her what was about to happen (and may also have done so earlier in the day). Another reason for JWB's stop was to make sure she had completed her mission to Lloyd's. She then asked Weichmann to pray for her intentions. If Bill Richter is correct, JWB may also have dropped off two pistols and a hat which he picked up as he escaped Washington. Mary sent everyone to their rooms so she could be alone and hold these things to be picked up just like Lloyd (whom I regard as a conspirator) was holding onto other stuff that would be picked up. Earlier Mary had made sure the path to Lloyd's was clear when she determined pickets along the route would no longer be there when JWB passed. Whether or not Bill Richter is correct, I am in the "Kate Larson camp;" i.e. I think it's likely Mary knew the plan had changed to assassination prior to the tragedy at Ford's. I think Booth trusted her fully. He told Lloyd the president had been assassinated; I think he also told Mary he had changed the plan to assassination. As with Atzerodt, I believe Mary had a small "window of opportunity" to save the president's life. Like Atzerodt, she chose not to take advantage of it.

I think the majority of books conclude Mary knew about the kidnapping plot but not the assassination. My gut feeling is that she knew about both.

[BettyO]

Agreed, Roger. I, too am in the "Kate Larson" camp .....sound feasible to me. She was evidently, expecting someone to pop by rather late. I believe it was also Weichmann who claimed that Mrs Surratt had told him that she "expected" the house to be searched after the first search by Detectives.

[Jim Garrett]

Police Superitendent A. C. Richards also presents a strong case concerning her behavior. The Police had received a lead that John Surratt was somehow connected to John Wilkes Booth. Richards went to the boarding house on the night of the assassination to investigate. He arrived after midnight and found Mary Surratt fully dressed in a darkened parlor. When confronted that John Wilkes Booth had shot the president and that they wanted to talk to John Surratt, she show no emotion. Wow, you would think she would have flipped out. Richards described her answers as curt and evasive. Richards felt she was likely the #2 person in the conspiracy.

A.C. Richards has a series of correspondence with Louis Weichmann in the late 1890's. Many of those letters are for sail on ebay or directly from Nate Sanders of Santa Monica.

[J. Beckert]

I agree, Heath, regarding Ms. Verge's short synopsis of 'did she or didn't she". I found that brief paper very informative and persuasive. I'd like to see it posted here.(Hint). The personal reminisces of the people that actually knew her were the most damning for me. I was recently told that Mary's neighbor stated either one of them wouldn't have passed up a chance to shoot Lincoln if he drove by their homes.

[Rhatkinson]

(05-03-2013 05:17 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Heath, I have stated this in previous threads, but I'll repeat briefly here. I have a minority view on this. I believe Mary's behavior was due to a 9:00 P.M. visit from JWB in which he told her what was about to happen (and may also have done so earlier in the day). Another reason for JWB's stop was to make sure she had completed her mission to Lloyd's. She then asked Weichmann to pray for her intentions. If Bill Richter is correct, JWB may also have dropped off two pistols and a hat which he picked up as he escaped Washington. Mary sent everyone to their rooms so she could be alone and hold these things to be picked up just like Lloyd (whom I regard as a conspirator) was holding onto other stuff that would be picked up. Earlier Mary had made sure the path to Lloyd's was clear when she determined pickets along the route would no longer be there when JWB passed. Whether or not Bill Richter is correct, I am in the "Kate Larson camp;" i.e. I think it's likely Mary knew the plan had changed to assassination prior to the tragedy at Ford's. I think Booth trusted her fully. He told Lloyd the president had been assassinated; I think he also told Mary he had changed the plan to assassination. As with Atzerodt, I believe Mary had a small "window of opportunity" to save the president's life. Like Atzerodt, she chose not to take advantage of it.

I think the majority of books conclude Mary knew about the kidnapping plot but not the assassination. My gut feeling is that she knew about both.

That is very interesting. I wonder about the need for Mary or anyone to keep the pistols and hat for JWB until after the assassination. Wouldn't Booth have been able to keep those among his other items (e.g., the diary)? It seems an unnecessary risk to have to make a pit stop by Mary's house as he was running for his life out of DC. Why not just send the pistols/hat to the Surratt tavern along with the field glasses that Mary took earlier that day?

[RJNorton]

Heath, we had a fascinating discussion on this with 196 posts! Please go here.

[Laurie Verge]

I am happy to share my paper with you, however, I cannot do it electronically (without retyping the whole thing). The computer that it was on crashed years ago, and I had not backed-up that file (I'm terrible at doing that). Our print shop makes hard copies of it from time to time for me, so just e-mail me, and I will send you a copy.

That said, I am positive that Mrs. Surratt was in on the original plot; but my jury is still out on the assassination. However, I understand the court's decision - even though I would probably have voted for life in prison.

As for the theory that Booth visited H Street around 9 pm, before going to the theater, I have my doubts about that - mainly because I think it's a case of fictional assumption without documentable evidence (sorry, Bill!). If we can prove the statement that Joe Beckert found about Clara Harris saying that Booth "cased" the theater box about an hour before he did the deed, then it would screw up the theorists' timelines.

As those of you who have read it know, I began my speech with family stories since my great-grandparents knew Mrs. Surratt, etc. One story especially stuck with me through the ages. When my great-grandfather, Eli Huntt, offered his sympathies to Mrs. Surratt's younger brother, James Archibald Jenkins, the reply was to the effect that "she got what she deserved. She knew what was going on." In an age where family loyalty was a virtue, it seemed very harsh to me - and very telling.

The other event that convinced me that Mary was in on the plot was when I worked with Mr. Hall to transcribe the handwritten statements of the conspirators contained in the War Department files into book form so that they could be sold in the museum's gift shop. This was way back in 1980, while I was still a volunteer at the museum.

As I sat at my kitchen table in front of my typewriter (remember those?) and stared at the pages, trying to decipher 1865 handwriting, I was struck by her cool demeanor under questioning on both April 17 and again in the Carroll Annex on April 28. For a somewhat sheltered lady of the Victorian era, she seemed very composed - almost anticipating what they were going to ask and having a ready answer. I crack today when getting a speeding ticket; I can't imagine being questioned by authorities.

It's kind of funny to watch the expression on some of the museum visitors' faces when they learn that the director of Mary Surratt's old home thinks she "got what she deserved."

[Gene C]

What a dilemma Weichmann found himself in

[Laurie Verge]

Weichmann is one of my least favorite characters in this story, but I do think that he told the truth -- in a self-serving manner, but still the basic truth. Would I have picked him for my softball team? No way!

[Gene C]

I don't know Laurie. He could certainly field some tough ones. Up at bat, he wasn't likely to hit a home run, but he wasn't going to strike out either.
And when things got really tough, and the pressure was on, he didn't choke.

[LincolnMan]

(05-03-2013 09:50 AM)Laurie Verge Wrote:  I am happy to share my paper with you, however, I cannot do it electronically (without retyping the whole thing). The computer that it was on crashed years ago, and I had not backed-up that file (I'm terrible at doing that). Our print shop makes hard copies of it from time to time for me, so just e-mail me, and I will send you a copy.

That said, I am positive that Mrs. Surratt was in on the original plot; but my jury is still out on the assassination. However, I understand the court's decision - even though I would probably have voted for life in prison.

As for the theory that Booth visited H Street around 9 pm, before going to the theater, I have my doubts about that - mainly because I think it's a case of fictional assumption without documentable evidence (sorry, Bill!). If we can prove the statement that Joe Beckert found about Clara Harris saying that Booth "cased" the theater box about an hour before he did the deed, then it would screw up the theorists' timelines.

As those of you who have read it know, I began my speech with family stories since my great-grandparents knew Mrs. Surratt, etc. One story especially stuck with me through the ages. When my great-grandfather, Eli Huntt, offered his sympathies to Mrs. Surratt's younger brother, James Archibald Jenkins, the reply was to the effect that "she got what she deserved. She knew what was going on." In an age where family loyalty was a virtue, it seemed very harsh to me - and very telling.

The other event that convinced me that Mary was in on the plot was when I worked with Mr. Hall to transcribe the handwritten statements of the conspirators contained in the War Department files into book form so that they could be sold in the museum's gift shop. This was way back in 1980, while I was still a volunteer at the museum.

As I sat at my kitchen table in front of my typewriter (remember those?) and stared at the pages, trying to decipher 1865 handwriting, I was struck by her cool demeanor under questioning on both April 17 and again in the Carroll Annex on April 28. For a somewhat sheltered lady of the Victorian era, she seemed very composed - almost anticipating what they were going to ask and having a ready answer. I crack today when getting a speeding ticket; I can't imagine being questioned by authorities.

It's kind of funny to watch the expression on some of the museum visitors' faces when they learn that the director of Mary Surratt's old home thinks she "got what she deserved."

Laurie: do you still get the question frequently:"why is there a Surrett Society anyway, are you trying to honor her?" that must drive you crazy.

[Laurie Verge]

We only get that question occasionally now, and it is usually from people who seem to be confrontational in general. I think we've been around long enough and gotten enough good publicity that people know that we tell both sides of the story (as any good educational institution should). In the early years, however, I had to practically fight my way out of situations where people were accusing us of running a memorial to an innocent woman.

Unfortunately, the early citizens who rallied around and saved the house from destruction by its last private owner (he wanted space for warehouses for his liquor business) did go into the project with the idea of honoring a woman "who was the innocent victim of hysteria." That phrase was actually used on the obligatory bronze plaque that we have on the grounds "honoring" the politicians at the time of the restoration.

Shortly after I finally got the paying job as director of the museum (I had been a volunteer for eight years at that point and had actually trained my predecessors!), I was confronted by a gentleman from Virginia who demanded that we change the wording of the plaque. This is a big, bronze plaque, so there was considerable cost involved. He took his complaint all the way to the governor's office and agreed to pay the cost of a new plaque in order to have his way. It worked for me; I didn't like the wording either; he footed the bill and let me compose the new sentence. It became a win/win situation as far as I (and history) was concerned.

Right now, I can't remember what the new words were that satisfied him; but they are definitely non-commital.

[Jim Garrett]

So we ARE NOT a society to prove Mary innocent????