DOCSLIB.ORG

Recent Scholarship on the Lincoln Assassination

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Recent Scholarship on the Lincoln Assassination RECENT SCHOLARSHIP ON THE LINCOLN ASSASSINATION WILLIAM G. EIDSON Soon after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln the public was torn between two explanations. One view was that the as- sassination resulted from a simple conspiracy of John Wilkes Booth and his close associates. The other view was that the assassination was part of a grand conspiracy of Confederate leaders in Richmond and Canada. Booth, according to this theory, was merely the agent. Both viewpoints were popular, although apparently the public was more inclined to believe in a grand conspiracy. The govern- ment seemed to agree because on 2 May 1865 President Andrew Johnson issued a proclamation stating that the assassination was apparently "incited, concerted and procured" by Jefferson Davis and at least five Confederate agents in Canada.1 During the trial which followed, the prosecution produced witness after witness to "prove" the existence of a grand conspiracy. Within less than a year, however, problems with this view- point emerged. Further investigation proved that much of the evidence presented both at the trial and in later depositions had been falsified. Sanford Conover, a key government witness and a self-appointed correspondent for the New York Tribune, was arrested in the fall of 1866 and tried for perjury. Convicted and sentenced to ten years in prison, Conover admitted he had coached witnesses to lie about Confederate involvement in the assassination in order to take revenge against Jefferson Davis who, Conover claimed, had insulted his wife and caused him to be imprisoned for six months during the war. This confession and additional information discredited the grand conspiracy theory for all but a few diehards.2 WILLIAM G. EIDSON, PH.D., teaches history at Ball State University in Muneie, Indiana. 1 New York Herald, 4 May 1866. 2 William Hanchett, The Lincoln Murder Conspiraciee (Urbana: Univer- 220 The Fimson Club History Quarterly Vol. 62, No. 2, April, 1988 1988] The Lincoln Assassination 221 As a result, the public came to believe, if only by default, that the assassination was a simple conspiracy. Most also ac- cepted the idea that the conspiracy trial had been adequate and that the penalties imposed on the conspirators had been just except, perhaps, for the sentences given to Mary E. Surratt and Dr. Samuel A. Mudd. Thus the simple conspiracy viewpoint be- came dominant within a few years of the assassination and re- mained virtually unchallenged until the 1890s. The ten-volume biography of Abraham Lincoln published in 1890 by John G. Nicolay and John Hay discusses the assassination in these terms.3 The fii-st important book on the assassination, The Judicial Murder of Mary E. Surratt (1895) by lawyer and Democratic politician David M. DeWitt, deviated sharply from the predom- inant viewpoint. DeWitt was highly critical of using a military tribunal to try the eight accused civilians. The nine men chosen to sit in judgment had been in the war. They were asked to view impartially evidence against Southern sympathizers accused of killing the president. Under such conditions, DeWitt believes that a fair trial was impossible; the accused were doomed before the trial began.4 DeWitt was particularly critical of the three men he held most responsible for the trial: Secretary of State Edwin Stanton, Judge Advocate General Joseph Holt, and Special Judge Advo- cate John Bingham. He depicted Stanton as a man obsessed with the idea of a grand conspiracy even in the absence of evidence. Holt and Bingham were charged with persuading the soldiers to impose the death penalty On Mrs. Surratt. They argued that such "sity of Illinois Press, 1983), 81; The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the OHicial Records of the Union and Confederate Armies (Ser. ]I; 8 vols.; Washington: Government Printing Office, 1894-1899), VIII, 974; Seymour J. Frank, "The Conspiracy to Implicate the Confederate Leaders in Lincoln's Assassination," The Mississippi Valley Historical Review 40 (1954l : 629-56. 3 See Hanchett, Lincoln Murder Conspiracies, chapter 4. 4 David Miller DeWitt, The Judicial Murder of Mary E. Sarratt (Balti- more, 1895), 24-26, 33. 222 The Filson Club History Quarterly [April a decision was necessary to flush out her son John Surratt. Furthermore, Holt and Bingham assured the tribunal that Presi- dent Johnson would never allow her to be hanged. Only by such deception, DeWitt argued, could they get the death penalty. Dewitt believed that the execution of Mary Surratt was the foulest act in the history of the United States.5 Although De- Witt's •vork suffered from basic methodological weaknesses and was obviously biased against the military trial, it had profound impact on the public,e Doubts were publicly expressed about some points in the prevailing theory. People questioned the use of the military trial and Stanton's role in it. DeWitt's influence has been so significant that it is generally agreed that only one writer on the assassination, the Austrian- born Otto Eisenschiml, has had a comparable impact. In 1937 Otto Eisenschiml's Why Was Lincoln Murdered? appeared. Like Nicolay, Hay, DeWitt, and all other writers on the assassination, Eisenschiml was not a historian. He was a chemist who claimed to apply scientific techniques to the study of the assassination. His conclusion was that the assassination was not a simple con- spiracy planned and executed by Booth and his associates. In- stead, Eisenschiml implied that key Northern leaders were the masterminds behind the assassination. Eisenschiml's technique was to raise provocative questions, a list of which fills more than a page. Why did Grant not go to Ford's Theater with Lincoln? Why was police guard John F. Parker not punished? Why was the telegraph inter- rupted? Why was Booth buried so quickly? By raising these questions, Eisenschiml created unwarranted doubts even though in many cases he eventually admitted that the traditional an- swers were still correct. The questions Eisenschiml raised and the doubts he created 5 Ibid., 5-6, 26-27, 109-10, 257-58. 6 For an examination of DeWitt's methodological weaknesses see Thomas Reed Turner, Beware the People Weeping: Public Opinion and th8 Assas- sination of Abraham Lincoln (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1982), 1-2. 1988] The Lincoln Assassination 223 have had great influence on those who have since written on the subject and have attempted to answer the questions he raised. In some cases the results have bordered on the ridiculous. But ridiculous or not, some of these Eisenschiml-influenced works have significantly shaped popular opinion. This article will examine the major works written on the as- sassination daring the last few decades beginning in 1959. Amazingly, at least two-dozen works focusing entirely or ex- tensively on the subject have been published during this period. Some trends have become apparent. For one thing, it is primarily non-professional historians who write about the assassination. That was true in the past and has continued to be true until the 1980s. Professional historians have generally avoided the subject except to criticize the findings of the non-professionals. Prior to 1959 authors of the most notable books on the assassination were journalists, lawyers, editors, museum directors, and actors. That trend continued for the next two decades. In the 1960s and 1970s the major assassin- ation books were written by novelists, journalists, and editors with an occasional work by a businessman, physician, or film- maker. A Second trend is that Otto Eisenschiml, his techniques, and his assumptions continue to have a profound influence on the Lincoln literature. This was true at least through 1977. One book obviously influenced by Eisenschiml is Theodore Roscoe's The Web of Conspiracy: The Complete Story of the Men Who Murdered Abraham Lincoln (1959). A novelist and writer of books about the United States Navy, Roscoe claims that the criminals responsible for Lincoln's murder escaped unpunished.7 Roscoe, like Eisenschiml, believes that Northern leaders were involved in the assassination and that Secretary of War Edwin Stanton was the chief villain, arguing that only his involvement 7 Theodore Roscoe, The Web of Conspiracy: The Complete Story of the Men Who Murdered Abraham Lincoln (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1959), vii. 224 The Filson Club History Quarterly [April can explain his actions. Stanton knew of Booth's abduction plans as early as January 1865 and yet the government took no action to stop him or even to watch the Surratt house. Stanton re- fused Lincoln's request that Major Thomas Eckert, Stanton's assistant, accompany him to Ford's Theater. Stanton's failure to block Booth's escape route and his decision to delay naming him as the assassin for several hours are "inexplicable" unless the secretary was guilty of complicity,s "If the fantasia which permitted Booth's escape was unintentional," Roscoe contends, "one must attribute to War Secretary Stanton a head of almost solid bone, a plethora of unadulterated stupidity." The author does not, however, believe he was stupid.• For the most part The Web of Conspiracy follows the Eisen- schiml thesis and recounts in elaborate detail most of the same mysterious circumstances and unexplained incidents. There are some points, however, on which the novelist deviates from his predecessor. For instance Roscoe believes that Dr. Samuel Mudd was not as innocent as Eisenschiml and others would have us believe. That Booth was trying to disguise who he was when he first reached Mudd's residence is possible, but Roscoe finds it highly implausible that Booth would have continued such a mas- querade once safely upstairs in Mudd's home. Dr. Mudd must have recognized the fugitive. Indeed, Mudd's whole account of what happened is seen as "a confusing and garbled story." Roscoe concludes that Dr.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • USCA Case #01-5103 Document #712838 Filed: 11/08/2002 Page 1 of 9
    <<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>> USCA Case #01-5103 Document #712838 Filed: 11/08/2002 Page 1 of 9 United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued September 3, 2002 Decided November 8, 2002 No. 01-5103 Thomas B. Mudd, Son of Richard D. Mudd and great-grandson of Samuel A. Mudd, as heir and successor to Samuel A. Mudd, deceased, Appellant v. Thomas A. White, Secretary of the Army, et al., Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 97cv02946) Philip A. Gagner argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant. <<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>> USCA Case #01-5103 Document #712838 Filed: 11/08/2002 Page 2 of 9 R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant United States Attorney, ar- gued the cause for appellees. With him on the briefs were Roscoe C. Howard Jr., United States Attorney, Wyneva Johnson, Assistant United States Attorney, and James R. Agar II, Attorney, Office of the Judge Advocate General. Before: Edwards and Rogers, Circuit Judges, and Williams, Senior Circuit Judge. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Edwards. Edwards, Circuit Judge: The appellant, Thomas B. Mudd,* whose great-grandfather, Dr. Samuel Mudd, was convicted by a military tribunal for his alleged role in the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln, seeks judicial review of the Army's refusal to reverse that conviction more than a century later. Appellant bases his claim on 10 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • The Confession of George Atzerodt
    The Confession of George Atzerodt Full Transcript (below) with Introduction George Atzerodt was a homeless German immigrant who performed errands for the actor, John Wilkes Booth, while also odd-jobbing around Southern Maryland. He had been arrested on April 20, 1865, six days after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln by John Wilkes Booth. Booth had another errand boy, a simpleton named David Herold, who resided in town. Herold and Atzerodt ran errands for Booth, such as tending horses, delivering messages, and fetching supplies. Both were known for running their mouths, and Atzerodt was known for drinking. Four weeks before the assassination, Booth had intentions to kidnap President Lincoln, but when his kidnapping accomplices learned how ridiculous his plan was, they abandoned him and returned to their homes in the Baltimore area. On the day of the assassination the only persons remaining in D.C. who had any connection to the kidnapping plot were Booth's errand boys, George Atzerodt and David Herold, plus one of the key collaborators with Booth, James Donaldson. After David Herold had been arrested, he confessed to Judge Advocate John Bingham on April 27 that Booth and his associates had intended to kill not only Lincoln and Secretary of State William Seward, but Vice President Andrew Johnson as well. David Herold stated Booth told him there were 35 people in Washington colluding in the assassination. This information Herold learned from Booth while accompanying him on his flight after the assassination. In Atzerodt's confession, this band of assassins was described as a crowd from New York.
    [Show full text]
  • How Did Booth Break His
    STATE YOUR CASE (No. 2), John Elliott: How Did John Wilkes Booth Break His Leg? I believe that John Wilkes Booth did not break his leg when jumping from the balustrade to the stage at Ford’s Theatre. I support Michael Kauffman’s theory that Booth broke his Fibula when his horse fell on him after he crossed in to Maryland. First I will refute the diary entry Booth wrote during his escape, claiming he broke his leg in jumping. Booth’s version of events is filled with exaggerated claims that were written in response to newspaper articles calling him a coward. Next, I will present the first eyewitness accounts taken in the early days after the assassination that state John Wilkes Booth ran or rushed across the stage after jumping from the box. Surely a man who had just broken his leg would show some signs of pain or would limp after breaking his leg. Last, I will present the evidence that I believe shows JWB broke his leg when his horse fell on him. This includes more eyewitness accounts and medical opinions. Sources: We Saw Lincoln Shot Timothy S. Good American Brutus Mike Kauffman The Lincoln Assassination/The Evidence Edwards and Steers Jr. Booth’s Diary Entry History books tell us that John Wilkes Booth broke his leg while jumping from the balustrade of President Lincoln’s box to the stage at Ford’s Theatre. This is the most commonly held belief because John Wilkes Booth wrote that it happened that way. But should we take his word for it? A closer examination of his diary entry shows that he tried to paint a more daring and heroic image of himself during what he believed to be his crowning achievement.
    [Show full text]
  • 23 League in New York Before They Were Purchased by Granville
    is identical to a photograph taken in 1866 (fig. 12), which includes sev- eral men and a rowboat in the fore- ground. From this we might assume that Eastman, and perhaps Chapman, may have consulted a wartime pho- tograph. His antebellum Sumter is highly idealized, drawn perhaps from an as-yet unidentified print, or extrapolated from maps and plans of the fort—child’s play for a master topographer like Eastman. Coastal Defenses The forts painted by Eastman had once been the state of the art, before rifled artillery rendered masonry Fig. 11. Seth Eastman, Fort Sumter, South Carolina, After the War, 1870–1875. obsolete, as in the bombardment of Fort Sumter in 1861 and the capture of Fort Pulaski one year later. By 1867, when the construction of new Third System fortifications ceased, more than 40 citadels defended Amer- ican coastal waters.12 Most of East- man’s forts were constructed under the Third System, but few of them saw action during the Civil War. A number served as military prisons. As commandant of Fort Mifflin on the Delaware River from November 1864 to August 1865, Col. Eastman would have visited Fort Delaware on Pea Patch Island, located in the river channel between Wilmington and New Castle, Delaware. Channel-dredging had dumped tons of spoil at the northern end of the island, land upon which a miserable prison-pen housed enlisted Confederate pris- oners of war. Their officers were Fig. 12. It appears that Eastman used this George N. Barnard photograph, Fort quartered within the fort in relative Sumter in April, 1865, as the source for his painting.
    [Show full text]
  • The Assassination 1 of 2 a Living Resource Guide to Lincoln's Life and Legacy
    5-2 The Assassination 1 of 2 A Living Resource Guide to Lincoln's Life and Legacy The Assassination Lincoln Assassination. Clipart ETC. 18 July 2008. Educational Technology Clearinghouse. University of South Florida. <http://etc.usf.edu/clipart> March 17, 1865 John Wilkes Booth’s plot to kidnap Lincoln is foiled by Lincoln’s failure to show up at the soldiers’ hospital where Booth planned to carry out the kidnapping. April 14,1865 Booth fires his derringer the President while Lincoln, his wife Mary Todd Lincoln, Maj. Henry R. Rathbone, and his fiancée Clara Harris are in a private box in Ford’s Theater viewing a special performance of Our American Cousin. Entering through the President's left ear, the bullet lodges behind his right eye, leaving him paralyzed. Booth leaps from the box on to the stage, declaring “Sic simper tyrannis” and breaking his right fibula. Nearly simultaneously, Lewis Paine twice slashes Secretary of State William Henry Seward’s throat while the Secretary lies in bed recovering from a carriage accident. A metal surgical collar prevents the attack from accomplishing its deadly objective. Believing his attempt successful, Paine fights his way out of the mansion. Dr. Charles Leale examines the President. Lincoln is moved to a boarding house, now called the Peterson House, across Office of Curriculum & Instruction/Indiana Department of Education 09/08 This document may be duplicated and distributed as needed. 5-2 The Assassination 2 of 2 A Living Resource Guide to Lincoln's Life and Legacy from the theater on 10th Street. Co-conspirator George Atzerodt fails to carry out the plan to assassinate Vice President Andrew Johnson.
    [Show full text]
  • The Lincoln Assassination
    The Lincoln Assassination The Civil War had not been going well for the Confederate States of America for some time. John Wilkes Booth, a well know Maryland actor, was upset by this because he was a Confederate sympathizer. He gathered a group of friends and hatched a devious plan as early as March 1865, while staying at the boarding house of a woman named Mary Surratt. Upon the group learning that Lincoln was to attend Laura Keene’s acclaimed performance of “Our American Cousin” at Ford’s Theatre in Washington, D.C., on April 14, Booth revised his mastermind plan. However it still included the simultaneous assassination of Lincoln, Vice President Andrew Johnson and Secretary of State William H. Seward. By murdering the President and two of his possible successors, Booth and his co-conspirators hoped to throw the U.S. government into disarray. John Wilkes Booth had acted in several performances at Ford’s Theatre. He knew the layout of the theatre and the backstage exits. Booth was the ideal assassin in this location. Vice President Andrew Johnson was at a local hotel that night and Secretary of State William Seward was at home, ill and recovering from an injury. Both locations had been scouted and the plan was ready to be put into action. Lincoln occupied a private box above the stage with his wife Mary; a young army officer named Henry Rathbone; and Rathbone’s fiancé, Clara Harris, the daughter of a New York Senator. The Lincolns arrived late for the comedy, but the President was reportedly in a fine mood and laughed heartily during the production.
    [Show full text]
  • The Catholic Conscience and the Defense of Dr. Mudd by Lorle Porter (Concluded, from Vol
    Vol. XXXVI, No. 12 December, 2011 The Catholic Conscience and the Defense of Dr. Mudd By Lorle Porter (Concluded, from Vol. XXXVI, No. 11) And his adopted brother William T. Sherman was being puffed as a presidential candidate–the last thing either man needed was association with the political “hot potato” of the day. Prosecutors such as the posturing and violent Ohioan John Bingham, were prepared to use their roles in the trial as political launching pads. Defense attorneys could look forward to nothing but vilification. Attempting to explain Ewing’s decision to join the defense, a 1980 television docudrama The Ordeal of Dr. Mudd, would depict a sequence in which General Ewing, walking down a Georgetown street, overheard a frantic Frances Mudd pleading with an attorney to defend her husband. The following scene showed Mrs. Mudd praying in a non- denominational church, only to be approached by General Ewing with an offer to help. Queried as to why a Union officer would undertake the case, Ewing Dr. Samuel Mudd merely quoted his grandfather’s admonition to follow (Libraryof Congress) an honorable path in life. The scene is fictional, if not In what would become the final month of totally implausible, given Ewing’s “lofty ideals.” the war, March, 1865, Tom Ewing went to However, if placed in a Catholic church, the scene Washington to submit his military resignation to would have been credible, especially in a symbolic Abraham Lincoln, a personal friend. His brother sense. At heart, Ewing undertook the case to defend Bub (Hugh Boyle) was back at Geisborough helping a man of his community.
    [Show full text]
  • Decoding the Civil War: Engaging the Public with 19Th Century Technology & Cryptography Through Crowdsourcing and Online Educational Modules
    The Huntington Library, Art Collections & Botanical Gardens Proposal to the National Historic Publications and Records Commission Decoding the Civil War: Engaging the Public with 19th Century Technology & Cryptography through Crowdsourcing and Online Educational Modules Project Summary 1. Purposes and Goals of the Project The American Civil War is perpetually fascinating to many members of the public. The goal of this project is to use the transcription and decoding of Civil War telegrams to engage new and younger audiences using crowdsourcing technology to spark their curiosity and develop new critical thinking skills. The transcription and decoding will contribute to national research as each participant will become a “citizen historian” or “citizen archivist.” Thus the project provides a model for long-term informal and formal education programs and curricula as it can be used even after the transcription and decoding is completed as a teaching model for students in inquiry-based learning. The Huntington Library respectfully requests a two-year grant from the National Historic Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC) to provide partial funding for a consortium project that draws together the expertise of four different organizations—The Huntington Library, the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum, North Carolina State University, and, through the University of Minnesota, Zooniverse.org (a non-profit devoted to citizen science)— each bringing unique expertise to a collaboration among libraries, museums, social studies education departments, and software developers with the following goals: 1) Engage new and younger audiences by enlisting their service as “citizen archivists” to accelerate digitization and online access to a rare collection of approximately 16,000 Civil War telegrams called The Thomas T.
    [Show full text]
  • The Flimsy Case Against Mary Surratt: the Judicial Murder of One
    The Flimsy Case Against Mary Surratt: The Judicial Murder of One of the Accused Lincoln Assassination Conspirators Michael T. Griffith 2019 @All Rights Reserved On June 30, 1865, an illegal military tribunal found Mrs. Mary Surratt guilty of conspiring with John Wilkes Booth and others to assassinate President Abraham Lincoln, and sentenced her to death by hanging. Despite numerous appeals to commute her sentence to life in prison, she was hung seven days later on July 7. She was the first woman ever to be executed by the federal government. The evidence that the military commission used as the basis for its verdict was flimsy and entirely circumstantial. Even worse, the War Department’s prosecutors withheld evidence that indicated Mrs. Surratt did not know that Booth intended to shoot President Lincoln. The prosecutors also refused to allow testimony that would have seriously impeached one of the two chief witnesses against her. Mary Surratt John Wilkes Booth, Lincoln’s assassin. He shot President Lincoln at Ford’s Theatre in Washington on April 14, 1865. The military tribunal claimed that Mary Surratt: * Knew about the assassination plot and failed to report it * On April 11, 1865, told John Lloyd that the “shooting irons” (rifles) that had been delivered to him would be needed soon 1 * An April 14, the day of the assassination, gave Lloyd a package from Booth and told him to have the rifles ready that night * Falsely claimed that she did not recognize Lewis Payne (Lewis Powell) when he showed up at her boarding house on April 17 * Falsely claimed that her youngest son, John Surratt, was not in Washington on the day of the assassination Two Plots: Kidnapping and Assassination Before we begin to examine the military commission’s case against Mary Surratt, we need to understand that Booth initiated two separate plots against Lincoln.
    [Show full text]
  • Mary Surratt: the Unfortunate Story of Her Conviction and Tragic Death
    Ouachita Baptist University Scholarly Commons @ Ouachita History Class Publications Department of History 2013 Mary Surratt: The nforU tunate Story of Her Conviction and Tragic Death Leah Anderson Ouachita Baptist University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.obu.edu/history Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Anderson, Leah, "Mary Surratt: The nforU tunate Story of Her Conviction and Tragic Death" (2013). History Class Publications. 34. https://scholarlycommons.obu.edu/history/34 This Class Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of History at Scholarly Commons @ Ouachita. It has been accepted for inclusion in History Class Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons @ Ouachita. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Mary Surratt: The Unfortunate Story of Her Conviction and Tragic Death Leah Anderson 1 On the night of April 14th, 1865, a gunshot was heard in the balcony of Ford’s Theatre followed by women screaming. A shadowy figure jumped onto the stage and yelled three now-famous words, “Sic semper tyrannis!” which means, “Ever thus to the tyrants!”1 He then limped off the stage, jumped on a horse that was being kept for him at the back of the theatre, and rode off into the moonlight with an unidentified companion. A few hours later, a knock was heard on the door of the Surratt boarding house. The police were tracking down John Wilkes Booth and his associate, John Surratt, and they had come to the boarding house because it was the home of John Surratt. An older woman answered the door and told the police that her son, John Surratt, was not at home and she did not know where he was.
    [Show full text]
  • Ford's Theatre, Lincoln's Assassination and Its Aftermath
    Narrative Section of a Successful Proposal The attached document contains the narrative and selected portions of a previously funded grant application. It is not intended to serve as a model, but to give you a sense of how a successful proposal may be crafted. Every successful proposal is different, and each applicant is urged to prepare a proposal that reflects its unique project and aspirations. Prospective applicants should consult the program guidelines at http://www.neh.gov/grants/education/landmarks-american-history- and-culture-workshops-school-teachers for instructions. Applicants are also strongly encouraged to consult with the NEH Division of Education Programs staff well before a grant deadline. The attachment only contains the grant narrative and selected portions, not the entire funded application. In addition, certain portions may have been redacted to protect the privacy interests of an individual and/or to protect confidential commercial and financial information and/or to protect copyrighted materials. Project Title: The Seat of War and Peace: The Lincoln Assassination and Its Legacy in the Nation’s Capital Institution: Ford’s Theatre Project Directors: Sarah Jencks and David McKenzie Grant Program: Landmarks of American History and Culture Workshops 400 7th Street, S.W., 4th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20506 P 202.606.8500 F 202.606.8394 E [email protected] www.neh.gov 2. Narrative Description 2015 will mark the 150th anniversary of the first assassination of a president—that of President Abraham Lincoln as he watched the play Our American Cousin at Ford’s Theatre, six blocks from the White House in Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • The History Page: Lincoln's Female 'Assassin'
    The History Page: Lincoln’s female ‘assassin’ Housekeeper Mary Surratt is hanged for conspiracy on flimsy evidence Photo: Corbis By Rob Ogden, Saturday, August 6, 2011, The Daily, http://bit.ly/ogbWUD More than 1,000 people watched as Mary Surratt, a handsome widow and mother of three, stood on a trapdoor with a noose around her neck. Abraham Lincoln had been assassinated just three months earlier, and Surratt had been convicted of conspiring to kill him. Despite her pleas of innocence, U.S. authorities took her to the gallows, put a noose around her neck and pulled the lever. Surratt became the first woman executed by the U.S. government on July 7, 1865. Though convicted of treason, she insisted on her innocence until her death, and evidence suggests that she was, in fact, uninvolved with the Lincoln assassination plot. Tragedy had followed Mary her whole life, beginning with her father’s death in 1825, when she was 2 years old. Her mother ran the family affairs well and put Mary through Catholic boarding school near her home in Waterloo, Md. She grew into a comely young woman with dark hair, high cheekbones and large, mournful eyes. She befriended the local priest and became devoutly Catholic. Perhaps for lack of fatherly guidance, she married at 16 to a man named John Surratt, who had a troublesome background including financial problems and an illegitimate child he’d fathered the year before. But things started off well enough: Between 1841 and 1844, Mary had three children: Isaac, Elizabeth and John Jr.
    [Show full text]