If I recall correctly, Mary Surratt was the first woman executed by the Federal Government. Of course, her sentence came as a result of her role in the Lincoln assassination.
Did she deserve to die? Well, she always maintained her innocence, as if one might engage in murder, but would never lie. I think the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, demonstrates she was a conspirator. That said, the question remains: Did she deserve to die?
If we believe in process in this country--and we theoretically say we do, that rights cannot be violated in the search for justice, that the rules must be followed--I don't think she deserved the death penalty. This sentence came after a trial in which she was found guilty; so the guilt is not in question here.
It's a bit hazy--OK, I'm losing some of my faculties!--but I recall that the military tribunal charged with determining her fate originally proposed life imprisonment. Edwin Stanton, among others, heard and was outraged. He likely was driven by two factors. One was his anger at the assassination. One of my favorite memorials about Lincoln was Stanton's words upon the pronouncement of Lincoln's death, "Now he belongs to the ages." In the movie, I awaited those moving words and was rewarded. The other factor was possible political motivations/aspirations Stanton had. Stanton was not "a nice man," hardly. He immediately went to work to get the tribunal to change its mind/sentence (however preliminary). He concocted a compromise of sorts, one involving a certain Presidential commutation, one he himself, he assured the tribunal, would push on President Johnson. He didn't and in the course of events, it is pretty clear he had no intention of doing so. And, it is pretty apparent that there were many lies told along the way, from Stanton to Johnson. Although I believe she was guilty in the conspiracy, as was Samuel Mudd, she was a victim. She was a victim of Stanton's duplicity, deviousness, and aspirations. She was a victim of the nation's thirst for revenge. The North had just seen more than 300,000 deaths, maybe closer to 400,000. Now, their beloved President, who they had only recently come to embrace, had been assassinated. Surratt helped satisfy vengeful feelings.
Another interesting "what if" is "What if Lincoln hadn't been murdered? What of Reconstruction?" Johnson was no match for Sumner, Stevens, Wade, Chandler, and the other Radicals. Lincoln, with his new-found popularity, I think was more than their equal. I guess a further question would be "Would Lincoln have opposed the Radicals or embraced their agenda?"
Yet another episode of "History That Never Happened."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Mary Surratt was indeed the first woman to be executed by the United States.
Yes, she always maintained her innocence and I concede that all prisons and death rows are populated almost exclusively with innocent people.
If memory serves, the only direct evidence against her was the testimony of her innkeeper against her. He claimed she had dropped off some weapons at the tavern for Booth and Harald to pick up after the assassination. Bearing in mind that Stanton had ordered the hanging of anybody who had the slightest knowledge and/or involvement in the assassination, it's not difficult to see how the innkeeper would say anything he had to in order to avoid the gallows. It's interesting that he got immunity for handing over the weapons to Booth and Harald in exchange for saying Surratt dropped them off. Which was the greater crime? Bringing the weapons to the tavern or putting the weapons into the conspirators hands?
Yes, Lewis Paine did show up at Surratt's boardinghouse in the middle of the night when federal investigators were there. Yes, Mary Surratt did lie about recognizing him. However, given the circumstances (largest manhunt in US history, suspicion focusing on you because of the actions of your son and his friends, the nation clamoring for vengeance, etc.) it's not hard to understand why she might be less than honest when one of the most hunted men in the country shows up at her back door.
I would also point out John Surratt was the one federal investigators were hunting for. Knowing the type of person Stanton was, the preponderance of the evidence suggests Mary Surratt was used as bait to bring him out of hiding. (He was arrested, tried, and acquitted four years later and lived to the age of 72).
Some argue she could have stopped the conspiracy if she had gone to the authorities and turned in her son. At the time the War of Northern Aggression (I live in the South...when in Rome) ended, death threats against Lincoln would have been commonplace. Would authorities have acted before the assassination? Who knows?
Edwin Stanton was a villain during this ordeal. He insisted civilians be tried by a military tribunal--where he could control the outcome. If memory serves, Stanton was meeting with the judges every day after the trial. It's obvious the trial was rigged and Stanton presided over a lynching. One can be somewhat comforted by the fact Harald, Paine, and to a lesser degree, Atzerodt (he lost his nerve and got drunk the night of the assassination) have been shown by history to be guilty. Surratt's case was far more ambiguous and it is still debated if she was murdered or if justice was served with her.
Post a Comment