Crimes in Herstory (Blog Series) -- Mary Surratt: Executed by Association

 WC Blogpost By: 

FemaleCrimeHistorian & WriterOfHerstory

4. Encyclopædia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mary-Surratt

Introduction

For many Americans, the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln in 1865 is known only by its victim, location, and primary perpetrator. President Lincoln and his wife were viewing a play at Washington, D.C.’s Ford Theatre on April 14 when “[d]uring the third act…a sharp report of a pistol was heard…a man rushed to the front of the President’s box, waving a long dagger in his right hand exclaiming, ‘Sic Semper Tyrannis,’ and immediately leaped from the box…making his escape…mounting a horse, fled.”1  The assassin, later identified as an actor named John Wilkes Booth, targeted Lincoln out of anger for the Confederacy’s ultimate loss in the Civil War just a few days prior.2 Booth, however, was not the only person to have been connected with the assassination plot. Nine other individuals were processed through the judicial system (as Booth had already died from a gunshot wound), with four receiving death sentences, three sentenced to life in prison, one sentenced to six years in prison, and one being ultimately dismissed.3  Among those convicted, though, lies an intriguing outlier, someone who is often not mentioned or even considered when discussing Lincoln’s assassination at large outside of an academic setting. The reason they stand out is not necessarily for the size of the role they played in the plot, but for their status as the sole female perpetrator attached to one of most significant events in American history. While not the face of the conspiracy, Mary Surratt’s apparent role in Lincoln’s death should not be overlooked, especially considering her media portrayal throughout her trial and ultimate execution

Context 

As one may expect, Mary Surratt’s allegiance did not lie with the Union during the Civil War. A widowed property owner, she was alleged to have run her tavern in Maryland (alongside her son John Surratt, the one individual whose case was dismissed during the Lincoln trials) as a “...safe house for Confederates” during the war before eventually utilizing her Washington, D.C. boarding house as a place where Confederate supporters could meet with one another; John Wilkes Booth was among those who visited her boarding house, ultimately planting the seed that would lead her to become involved in the assassination.5

In the first few days following the assassination of Lincoln, the nation’s eyes were primarily set on the manhunt for Booth as well as figuring out how and who he planned the murder with. By April 18, reports began to circulate in the newspaper that “[f]or several days past it had been noticed that a number of suspicious persons were in the habit of going into a certain house in the very heart of the city of Washington and changing their clothes;” the house was eventually determined to be the boarding house owned by Mary Surratt (whose son John was on the run after arousing immense suspicion of his involvement) and she was arrested alongside a few other occupants of the house.6 As such, Mary Surratt was not initially tied to the Lincoln plot based on her own publicly visible actions, but rather the actions of other men (including her own son) that appeared to take place under her own roof. Authorities eventually determined Surratt’s pro-Southern leanings and previous contact with Booth through search of the boarding house; her fate was even more sealed with the surprise appearance of a disguised man (eventually revealed to be one of the men who stabbed Secretary of State William Seward as part of Booth’s plot) on her doorstep while investigators were still at the house.7 

From then on, Mary Surratt was presented in the public eye as one of Booth’s co-conspirators, despite little public-facing action of her own in the overall Lincoln plot.

Trial, Execution, and Portrayal 

The Surratt trial began in May 1865 after Mary and seven other conspirators were charged with the assassination plot against Lincoln. Surratt’s case itself was based entirely on circumstantial evidence. More specifically, the single testimony of John Lloyd. Lloyd was a tenet at Surratt’s boarding house and claims to have had an exchange with Mary Surratt about shooting irons. In Lloyd’s testimony he claimed, “She told me to have those shooting irons ready that night, there would be some parties who would call for them.”8  These said shooting irons were then supposedly used in the assassination of Lincoln. This was Mary’s only supposed indiscretion in relation to the murder. Mary’s lawyer, Frederick Aiken, did his best to provide Mary with a fair trial and genuinely believed in her innocence. However, the consensus of guilt prevailed and Mary Surratt became the first woman executed by the United States. Media coverage of Mary Surratt and the other Lincoln conspirators did not stop after they were found guilty, as newspapers continued to follow the lead up and actual event of their execution, which came two days after the sentence was announced to the public. The evening before her scheduled execution, one of the other conspirators (Lewis Powell/Payne) made a point to state that “[she] knew nothing about the assassination. Certainly, she had never said a word to him on the subject, nor had any of his co-conspirators mentioned her in connection of the matter.” While he did acknowledge that she may have known of the plot, he argued that she did not really have any active involvement in it, making her not nearly as involved as the other convicts.9 On July 7, a writ of habeas corpus attempted on her behalf, with the primary argument being that her position as a private citizen gave no authority for a military tribunal to try her. This attempt, though, was ultimately denied by the court, leaving her no other options but to be hung alongside the other implicated men. In the early afternoon of the same day, Mary Surratt was led to the gallows by a group of officers and prepped for execution, whereupon she was swiftly hung in front of a crowd of onlookers.10 Despite the last minute attempts to absolve her severe sentence, Mary Surratt could not escape the grips of death by the state’s hand.

However, equally if not more shocking than Mary’s guilty verdict and sentence was her portrayal in the media and court. Mary’s defense emphasized her womanhood and motherhood in hopes of gaining sympathy while the prosecution and media tried to strip her of all femininity. In Frederick Aiken’s defense of Mary, he describes her as follows. “This woman, who, widowed of her natural protectors; who, in helplessness and painfully severe imprisonment, in sickness and in grief ineffable, sues for justice and mercy from your hands, may leave a legacy of blessings, sweet as fruition-hastening showers, for those you love and care for, in return for the happiness of fame and home restored, though life be abbreviated and darkened through this world by the miseries of this unmerited and woeful trial.”11  Aiken aimed to emphasize Mary’s image as a woman first and foremost. However, to Aiken, emphasizing Mary’s womanhood meant emphasizing her supposed “weakness.” Mary was “widowed of her natural protectors,” and Mary was “helpless.” Aiken wanted the jury to see Mary as a feeble woman incapable of ever being involved in a murder plot. Additionally, if Mary were to be granted innocence she would leave a “sweet” legacy. In almost complete opposition, the media and prosecution tried to devoid Mary of any woman-like characteristics. “This wretched woman is dressed in full mourning. She wears her bonnet and veil during the sessions of the court. Her age is probably fifty. She is a large Amazonian class of woman, square built, masculine hands, full face, dark grey lifeless eyes, hair not decidedly dark, complexion swarthy.”12  This media description of Mary is anything but favorable. This press publication describes Mary in the least feminine way and emphasizes more “manly” characteristics. Interestingly, this depiction of Mary is purely physical, as if her appearance could have any indication of her guilt. If Mary had been young and petite would the public have been so quick to label her guilty? However, the Brooklyn Eagle, another newspaper, described Mary in a much more favorable light. As she appeared in court, she was described. “She is modest and reluctant, but justice is stern, and her shyness must give way. There, now you see the face perfectly; and between us, it is a fine one.”13  A modesty about her veiling is emphasized and she is described as having a “fine” face. This is a sharp contrast to the masculine description the other press outlet used. 

However, the Brooklyn Eagle emphasizes her femininity as a contributor to her guilt. They portray Mary as being a manipulative woman, the only way she could keep both her beauty and her guilt. The same paper went on to assert, “Immersed as she is in crime, she does not forget a woman’s art. She is doing her best to make a favorable impression, by dress and aspect, upon her judges.”14  Mary receives a favorable physical description in this newspaper, however, such a description is only used because her female manipulativeness is highlighted. The media was sure of Mary’s guilt and that continued to shine through in articles by means of portraying her in many different lights. Conclusion Mary Surratt has been remembered as the first female assassin since 1865 when Lincoln was murdered. However, Mary’s story was never told by herself. Mary was portrayed as manly, weak, manipulative, and as a murderer. Mary’s story has never been told without a caveat. Mary was guilty because she was manly and cold. Mary was guilty because she was beautiful and manipulative. Mary was innocent because she was weak and widowed. Mary was never described as a human being, she was always described in reference to her womanhood, either to hurt or help her. We hope that in reading this blog post you will now think of Mary as a person who had a complicated involvement.

Endnotes

1. The Burlington Times, 4 April 1865

2. Wallenfeldt, https://www.britannica.com/event/assassination-of-Abraham-Lincoln

3. Ibid.

4. Encyclopædia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mary-Surratt

5. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mary-Surratt

6. New York Daily Herald, 18 April 1865

7. Ibid.

8. Linder, http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lincolnconspiracy/surrattm.html

9.  The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 8 July 1865

10. Evening Star, 7 July 1865

11 Linder, http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lincolnconspiracy/defenseofsurratt.html

12 Segrave, Women and Capital Punishment in America, 1840-1899: Death Sentences and Executions in the United States and Canada, 57

13  The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 31 May 1865.

14 Ibid.

Works Cited 

“The Assassins.” New York Daily Herald, 18 April 1865. 

“Did She Deserve to be Hanged?” Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 8 July 1865. 

Encyclopædia Britannica. “Mary Surratt.” 

Encyclopædia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mary-Surratt.

“The Great Execution.” Evening Star, 7 July 1865. 

Linder, Doug. Biography of Mary Surratt, Lincoln Assassination Conspirator, law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lincolnconspiracy/surrattm.html

Linder, Doug. Frederick A. Aiken’s Defense of Mary Surratt, law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lincolnconspiracy/defenseofsurratt.html 

“Mary Surratt.”Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mary-Surratt

“Presid’t Lincoln Assassinated.” The Burlington Times, 14 April 1865. 

Segrave, Kerry. Women and Capital Punishment in America, 1840-1899: Death Sentences and Executions in the United States and Canada. McFarland, 2008. 

“The Trial of the Conspirators.” Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 31 May 1865. 

Wallenfeldt, Jeff. “Assassination of Abraham Lincoln.” Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/assassination-of-Abraham-Lincoln