What Did Mary Know and When Did She Know It?

There was a lot involved in the hanging of Mary Surratt as one of the conspirators in the Lincoln assassination that we probably will never know. Let me say at the outset that I do not think that Mary Surratt shared any guilt in Lincoln’s assassination. I do think she was aware of a possible plot to kidnap Lincoln, but knowledge of that plan falls far short of partaking in a political assassination.

Otto Eisenschiml dealt with that situation at some length in his book In the Shadow of Lincoln’s Death written decades ago now. I think much of his material is worth plowing through, given the subject’s historical implications. Obviously, there were those in the Washington Deep State of the 1860s that did not want those accused of Lincoln’s assassination to talk to anyone – and you have to wonder why.

Eisenschiml noted, on page 127 of his book that: “When the Washington authorities put hoods over the heads of the men accused of conspiracy against Lincoln’s life, they committed a strange act. When they added stiff shackles–manacles which made writing impossible–and forbade all intercourse with the outside world, there arose a misgiving that the purpose was not punishment, but the enforcement of silence, on the strength of the foregoing alone, this idea was scarcely more than a suspicion. But when the government changed the prison of those not hanged from Albany to the inaccessible Dry Tortugas, and when the convicted men were confined there in solitary cells and kept from conversations with any outsiders, suspicion hardened into definite conjecture.”

If Mary Surratt had possessed any real knowledge of Lincoln’s assassination, she would likely have kept silent. She hoped, all through the trial, that she’d be spared from the hangman’s rope.

Secretary of War, Edwin M. Stanton, had in his employ one man who talked about that in later life – Col. William P. Wood. Apparently, his conscience got to bothering him in later life. For that reason, Wood was willing to tell all that he had knowledge of about the conspiracy trial. In a series of articles in the Washington Sunday Gazette in 1883, as he mentioned Mary Surratt, he wrote that: “…there were guarantees made to her brother by the writer, upon authority of Hon. Edwin M. Stanton, that she should not be executed…” This, like so much we get out of Washington today, was pure fiction. The “powers that be” just lied to her brother. Anyone see anything unusual here, folks?

The fact that Stanton even made such a promise gave food for thought. In all probability, he had no intention of living up to this promise. Colonel Wood noted that a promise of mercy was made to Mrs. Surratt which would naturally have guaranteed her silence. If Mrs. Surratt had indeed been lied to, then her execution would have to follow that lie as soon as possible. For, if she found out she’d been lied to way ahead of time, then her natural impulse would have been to try to talk long and loud, even to the point of haranguing the crowd from the foot of the gallows. So, the Deep Staters took care of that thorny problem.

The military court handed down its guilty verdict on July 6th, in the morning. Mrs. Surratt was not even informed until midday that she was really going to hang shortly after noon the very next day! Hardly even time to enter a plea for mercy – which would never have been granted anyway! Her priest’s comment on the timing was, “To act so hastily in a matter of this kind was certainly strange on the part of the government.”

Obviously, her priest did not grasp how the Deep State operated in 1865. Shocked and heartbroken, Mary’s daughter, Anna, requested three days of grace after the sentence was passed on Mary, not an unreasonable request, under the circumstances. Official Washington’s reply was basically “no way, Jose!” They felt it was better to rush in where angels feared to tread rather than hold off and possibly risk Mary saying something they did not want the public to be aware of. Anyone notice a governmental pattern here? So, the government had broken its promise of mercy to Mary’s brother. So, what if Mary had shouted from the gallows her innocence? If I recall correctly, they even enjoined her priest to encourage her to make no statements.

Usually, I don’t do this anymore, but I am going to stop here and carry this into a second part because it’s just too long for one article. I’ve been advised to keep my articles shorter and usually I tend to agree with that sentiment to a large degree. But there are some subjects you just can’t cover adequately in 2-4 paragraphs. This is one of them.

Mrs. Surratt’s case is a prime example of government duplicity in protecting the guilty and punishing the innocent, (such actions didn’t originate with the Clintons or Biden. They are Johnny-come-latelies). Mary Surratt was innocent, but it appears she knew something about someone in or near the government that the Deep State operatives did not want revealed, and, as they say, “Dead men (and women) tell no tales.”

-By Al Benson Jr.