The Conspirator

[honeychile]

Thank you for the first 10 minutes.

I've been a student of the Lincoln Assassination for more years than I care to mention, and have already filled one legal page (both sides) of historic inaccuracies. My problem is with the script, not the acting, and some of the casting. I won't say any more just yet.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by honeychile

Thank you for the first 10 minutes.

I've been a student of the Lincoln Assassination for more years than I care to mention, and have already filled one legal page (both sides) of historic inaccuracies. My problem is with the script, not the acting, and some of the casting. I won't say any more just yet.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I was spending more time wondering what was accurate and what wasn't. That's my biggest thing with movies about historical events/true stories. I always wonder what was accurate/what was actually documented. What did you see that was inaccurate?

[honeychile]

Some of these SPOILERS are small, and others are bigger.

-The prisoners ALL sat guard-prisoner-guard-prisoner-guard etc. I've never heard of any of the prisoners being able to sit at a table with their attorney, but as so few people were actually in the courtroom, I could be wrong.

-Mrs. Surratt ONLY lifted her veil at the trial when someone had to identify her. Other than that, she kept her face hidden - even though the well over 100 degrees tempertaures caused her to faint once. (I can understand the dramatic license with this - Robin wants that Oscar!)

-Which, in turn, had the warden move her to a much nicer cell, just outside of the courtroom.

-Fredrick Aiken was actually two men, juniors at the firm of Reverdy Johnson.

-Mrs. Surratt wasn't manacled (although the ones they showed were the type made for the male prisoners), nor did she wear a ball and chain.

-She knew the night prior to her death that she was to be executed. She had priests and her daughter with her the entire last night.

-In fact, so many people (even those who thought she was guilty) thought she was going to be spared at the last moments that there was a relay of horsemen ready to rush a stay of execution from the White House to the prison. Which, since it was roughly behind where the current Capitol is, boggles my mind about the bridge and all - but that could be me.

-Anna Surratt would NEVER have stayed in a house alone - she did have friends who stayed with her, so her reputation wouldn't be ruined.

and my last one for just now: Lewis Powell (Paine/Powell) was described as a giant of a man - he was tall, very strong, but not so smart. IMHO, the other conspirators blended too much, but if you see any of the pictures of them, they were very different. One of the best description of George Atzerodt I've read was that in today's terms, he'd look like a Hell's Angel. Sam Arnold was actually fairly handsome. Now, granted, they were all mussed up, being hooded and not being allowed to change clothes. They must have smelled SOOOO good by the time their sentences were decided (arrested as early as 4/16, execution 7/7)!

As for your thoughts on the death penalty, please remember that this was a time when people were hanged for stealing a horse, and there was considerable arguement as to whether this trial should have been held in a civil or military court. The Lincoln assassination was biggest crime ever committed in the history of America at the time, and they didn't have either JWB or John Surratt to hang. Someone was going to hang for this crime.

There is a John Wilkes Booth Escape Route Tour held eight times a year that's sponsored by the Surratt Society, and you get to go into many places which are normally closed to tourists. It's a long day, but you come away with a much better understanding of what happened when and how. If you're intrigued enough by the movie to learn more about it, I would suggest that you consider the tour. You can find more about it at The John Wilkes Booth Escape Route Tour, but you want to make sure that Michael Kauffman is the guide.

I'll close by saying that, once I didn't see either Laurie Verge (who's been with the Surratt Society forever!) or Michael Kauffman as historians for this story, I knew that I'd be a sceptic. I really find it hard to believe that neither of them were consulted.

[cheerfulgreek]

Too bad they don't have that tour here. I'd love to see it. I've seen a lot of Civil War historical sites in the South, but I still haven't seen the historical sites here in my own state. I was told that Michigan played a pretty big role in the Civil War.

During the movie I wondered about the change of clothes/showers etc. As for the cells, her cell looked a lot nicer than what I imagined it to look like IRL. I mean, it looked bad, but better than I thought. I was thinking they did that for the movie.

What did you mean by this. I'm confused. He was two people?
-Fredrick Aiken was actually two men, juniors at the firm of Reverdy Johnson.

I didn't understand why her son wasn't executed. I was really expecting to see that he was at the end. Instead, he was set free, and for what?

[honeychile]

John Surratt got off on a hung jury - pretty evenly split, but most people at the time thought that losing his mother was punishment enough. He was also tried by a civil court, not a military court. The government didn't want to waste the time & money on a second trial. Frankly, I've yet to read anything that doesn't make him sound like a jerk - I'm talking Charlie Sheen style!

Frederick Aiken was actually both Frederick Aiken and John W. Clampitt - the juniors of Reverdy Johnson's firm. Reverdy Johnson couldn't represent Mrs. Surratt fully, because he refused to take the loyalty oath, but was held in very high esteem. It was his idea to take the tactic that Mrs. Surratt shouldn't be tried in a military court.

One of the benefits of the tour being in the actual locations is that, if one person is in one room, and another is in the next room, you can tell if someone could hear or see the other. It made a huge difference for the people on the tour. At the beginning, the tour guide asked who thought which people were guilty and who thought others were not. By the end, there was a lot of people who had changed their minds. One of the examples was with Dr. Mudd - even though his family has lobbied for exhonoration several times in the past 146 years, there is just too much evidence that he was involved.

Surprisingly, there were quite a few people who helped JWB escape who were either not arrested, or never brought to trial - but I realize that the movie was about Mrs. Surratt, not the whole picture. Oh, another thing that wasn't mentioned in the movie was how very much Mrs. Surratt used the phrase, "On my honor as a lady," (which led to a lot of joking about her "honor") or how much she leaned on her religion as a reason for her innocence as opposed to her comfort. That led to a whole faction of people who believed that the whole assassination was "a popish plot" (which is ridiculous).

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by honeychile

John Surratt got off on a hung jury - pretty evenly split, but most people at the time thought that losing his mother was punishment enough. He was also tried by a civil court, not a military court. The government didn't want to waste the time & money on a second trial. Frankly, I've yet to read anything that doesn't make him sound like a jerk - I'm talking Charlie Sheen style!

Frederick Aiken was actually both Frederick Aiken and John W. Clampitt - the juniors of Reverdy Johnson's firm. Reverdy Johnson couldn't represent Mrs. Surratt fully, because he refused to take the loyalty oath, but was held in very high esteem. It was his idea to take the tactic that Mrs. Surratt shouldn't be tried in a military court.

One of the benefits of the tour being in the actual locations is that, if one person is in one room, and another is in the next room, you can tell if someone could hear or see the other. It made a huge difference for the people on the tour. At the beginning, the tour guide asked who thought which people were guilty and who thought others were not. By the end, there was a lot of people who had changed their minds. One of the examples was with Dr. Mudd - even though his family has lobbied for exhonoration several times in the past 146 years, there is just too much evidence that he was involved.

Surprisingly, there were quite a few people who helped JWB escape who were either not arrested, or never brought to trial - but I realize that the movie was about Mrs. Surratt, not the whole picture. Oh, another thing that wasn't mentioned in the movie was how very much Mrs. Surratt used the phrase, "On my honor as a lady," (which led to a lot of joking about her "honor") or how much she leaned on her religion as a reason for her innocence as opposed to her comfort. That led to a whole faction of people who believed that the whole assassination was "a popish plot" (which is ridiculous).

This is really interesting. I wish I could have read more on the history of it before I saw the movie to be able to see what was accurate and what wasn't. Thanks for posting this. There's a lot I didn't know.

I just hate the fact that she was sent to death, but they had a hung jury over the moron who clearly should have been sent to his death. It just doesn't make sense, to me.