Did She or Didn't She?

[Randal]

brim? I need rest!

[Laurie Verge]

How do you explain the letter that Mrs. Surratt received from Calvert?  She had to make a trip to dun money out of Nothey.  Can't she mix business with conspiracy? 

Booth found out that she needed to go to Surrattsville from a morning visit to the boardinghouse.  He then visits Ford's about noon and finds out the plans of the Lincoln party.  Didn't he stare at Mrs. Grant first at dinner (served about 1-2 pm in those days) and then at the couple in the carriage.  Grant attended a Cabinet meeting before leaving town.  What time was the Cabinet meeting - I'm betting about 1-2 pm the reason Mrs. Grant was dining alone.  Again, what time did the Grants depart for the train?  If it was before 2 pm, that means that Booth could breathe a sigh of relief that Grant and his guards would not be at the theater.

Weichmann places him at the boardinghouse again about 2 pm.  Weichmann was at work in the morning, so he would not have known about the earlier Booth visit unless Mrs. Surratt told him.  They're on their way to Surrattsville by 3:45.  However, if they arrived in Surrattsville at 4:30, they made very good time for a horse and buggy doing about 14 miles.  I'm betting they left about 2:45.

There's a timeline for you, but it still doesn't establish that Mrs. Surratt knew why she was delivering field glasses and a message to Lloyd.  As for Lloyd, he had been in on the hiding of the rifles in the first place, his landlady knew that they were probably in the tiny room over the kitchen wing and that retrieving them would take some time if they stayed hidden until the fugitives arrived.  Get them out now and have them ready for quick retrieval.  That still doesn't mean that she wasn't just glad to have the guns out of her house.  That's part of the sticking point that keeps me from announcing her guilty of knowing about the murder.

[Roger Norton]

How well did Booth really know Mary Surratt?  It's not like they were lifelong buddies.  Yes, they knew each other, but exactly how well?

Apparently Booth told her one of two things:

(1)  "We're going to made another attempt to kidnap Lincoln tonight.  Could you drop these field glasses off at your tavern in Surrattsville and tell Lloyd to have the carbines, etc. ready?"

(2)  "I am going to shoot Lincoln at Ford's Theatre tonight.  Could you drop these field glasses off at your tavern in Surrattsville and tell Lloyd to the have the carbines, etc. ready?"

Which scenario makes more sense?  Did JWB know her well enough and trust her with the pre-knowledge of an actual assassination?  Or did he think she might panic if she knew that, and it was better for her to think just another abduction attempt was going to be made?

Maybe I am trying to simplify this too much.  I suppose there are other scenarios that people could think of as far as what Booth told Mary that fateful day.  Obviously he told her SOMETHING. 

[Randal]

I say #2.
Because he later told Herold, Azerodt and Paine he was going to kill that night and doled out the other assignments, so why wouldn't he have told Mrs. Surratt?

On the night of the first visit by the Metropolitan Police, Weichmann testified that Mrs. Surratt said, "For God's sake! Let them come in. I expected the house to be searched" (Weichmann had knocked on her door to let her know the cops showed up at her boarding house)

[Randal]

Here's the clincher as I see it. Why would Mary say"For God's sake! Let them come in. I expected the house to be searched"
IF she  DIDN'T KNOW  the plot had changed to murder? She wouldn't be expecting the cops so soon after a kidnap, because the detectives would not have put it together in that short time frame  after  the fiasco at Ford's.

She KNEW the President had been killed, as detectives had told Weichmann when they arrived at the boarding house. And I'm reasonably sure Weichmann relayed that message to Mary when he knocked on her bedroom door, and she replied, as stated above.

[Kate Larson]

So, I think that Roger's scenario #2 is the most likely, and for several reasons. On Tuesday the 11th, Mary went to Surrattsville to conduct business with Nothey and Gwynn, and check with Lloyd about having those guns ready.  On the 12th, Calvert writes a letter to Mary indicating he had heard from Nothe that Mary had worked out a settlement, and now he was hoping to get his settlement too.  He wrote that he hoped that she would do so at her "earliest convenience", not Friday specifically.  I believe she used that letter as a ruse and cover-up.  Nevertheless, Booth visited Mary around noon or so, soon after he heard that Lincoln would be at Ford's theater the night of the 14th. I believe that he asked her to go to Surrattsville, and she used Calvert later as her cover.  Booth also asked Atzerodt to go to Surrattsville and make sure everything was all set for that night, but Atzerodt failed to do so (in addition to never following through with his assignment to kill V.P. Johnson).  If Herold, Payne, and Atzerodt knew of Booth's plan by Friday mid-day, why would Booth hesitate to tell Mary?  Frankly, she was smarter and more trustworthy than those three ya-hoos.  And, why kidnap Lincoln at that late date. The Confederate Army had surrendered, it was disbanding, and the prisoners of war would be freed momentarily. Kidnapping would not have the same impact of a few weeks earlier.  Assassination would most certainly have been effective if Booth's plan to kill Lincoln, Johnson, Seward and Grant actually happened.  Mary was smart, and she must have known Booth's plan had changed - why risk so much for just a kidnapping at such a late date?

Anyway, Smoot's boat still would have been needed to get Booth and friends across the Potomac.  It had already been arranged for. No time to order a skiff or some other type boat.  Why not use the one ready and waiting?

As for Father Walter and Catholic priests? I was raised a Catholic, and Catholics commit sins, including sins of the capital sort, while claiming innocence. Survival trumps faith anytime, I believe.  If she were a Protestant or Lutheran, or even Episcopalian, no one would claim that her faith prevelnted her from telling a lie, even to a priest. I think this is the myth of Catholicism, that Catholics like to perpetuate, that their faith prevents them from ever telling a lie, blah, blah, blah. Nonsense!!  Priest tell lies, too. Don't even get me going.  Anyone heard anything about the child abuse scandles perpetrated by priests in the Church? As for murder and violence, how about the Crusades? Inquisition? Slavery? Rebel activities in Central and South America?There is an allowance for murder if it is in the pursuit of good, right?  Mary thought, as did many Catholic faithful and Catholic priests in the South and some Northern communities, that the rebellion had merit and was worth fighting, killing and dying for.  Fr. Walter's "confession" statement is very much suspect.  Total violation of his oath as a servant of God.  And thirty years later? He hardly knew Mary when the trial started, and he ended up being one fo the few priests who would actually go to her.  But he would not testify, right?  I think Walter got stuck in defending MAry when he had no real knowledge ot base his conviction upon. Then, after the fact, he could not back down because he had made such a stink about it.  He lied about being denied access to Mary.  I have no confidence it his statements.

As for Brophy, I too, like Laurie, have wondered why this person became such a champion of Mary's.  I have concluded that he is a character much like people today who become supporters and fans of people in trouble. Death Row inmates have scores of supporters and pen pals who try to help them.  Some are understandable, but others are mind-boggling.  Brophy could have been like those people today.  Brophy had access to news outlets, so we hear about him. But he wouldn't testify, either, even when he was given the chance to challenge Weichmann. Only later, after the execution, did Walter and Brophy come forward. Convenient, I say.  Both were fools... and drama queens, too.

Oh, and Roger, Mrs. Trindal is mistaken in her timeline of events.

I still believe that Mary knew what Booth was up to, and that she depended upon prevailing notions about women's weakness and second-class status to protect her from any serious accusations linking her to the assassination.  She lied about so much that we know about.  Why is it so hard to believe she would lie about her "innocence,"  when she lied about so much else. And in her mind, what she had done was right, not wrong.  She just made the wrong bet and lost her life because of it.  I ask all of you to imagine Mary as a man who assisted Booth with all that she assisted Booth with, and then be honest about how you might feel about her - ahem, him - then.

[Randal]

So There!

Hell of a post Kate!

[Roger Norton]

Some of my books tend to "gloss over" the possibility of a third visit to the boardinghouse by Booth on April 14.  Other books clearly state Booth came yet again (his third visit of the day) shortly before his arrival at Ford's.  It would seem he wanted to check with Mary that she had accomplished his requests before riding to the theater to shoot the president. That's three visits on the day of the assassination.

Last night I was re-reading Mary's April 28, 1865, examination by Col. Olcott while in jail. He asks her about Booth, and she replies "I never knew anything about his private matters at all."  Are you kidding me?