"Our revels now are ended:" Looking Back on the Semester

As the semester draws to a close, it only seems fitting to look back on what I've learned. And there is so much to cover.

At the beginning of the semester, I came into my historical methods class not knowing what to expect. And now, I've realized, that was probably a good thing, because no expectation could have been equal to what I learned.

We started out discussing historiography, and what makes a historian who they are. And suddenly, I was able to say with confidence, Yes, I know what I'm going to do when I receive my degree, I can say what a historian does (although there are still plenty of jokes about history majors and historians out there that still make me laugh and sigh in recognition).

Sadly, it does seem sometimes that I'm swimming in papers...

We discussed primary documents and secondary documents, and read Mickey Mouse History, which enlightened me as to the plight of history in America (circa 1995, of course). And then, after a brief dalliance with Turabian and learning citation format, we entered into paper writing.

I think, if there was anywhere this semester where I learned the most, it was during this phase. Once again, I have realized the benefit of taking carefully labelled notes, and taking them long before I start trying to write my rough draft. I also learned to skim my sources' bibliographies, looking for sources that come highly recommended or that are repeated (since they're typically the major sources on the topic). Most of all, I learned to do my best to avoid bias while writing, avoiding formulating my thesis until after my research is completed.

But I learned more than just the nuts and bolts of writing a paper. I also began to view the Lincoln assassination from another viewpoint - that of Mary Surratt. Previously, I had only seen it from the perspective of an outsider looking in. I had always looked at everything that happened as bad - that John Wilkes Booth was an evil mastermind, that Lincoln was a martyr, that Surratt, while most likely innocent, was guilty by association. And, by looking at the evidence again - by actually sitting down and sifting through it - my views have been reopened. While Booth might not be the evil mastermind I thought he was and Lincoln may not be a martyr, Surratt still remains somewhat of a conundrum for me. Her possible guilt/possible innocence has made me only that much more interested in the Lincoln assassination, and rekindled my love for the Civil War.

Finally, I couldn't have made it through the semester without the amazing support of my classmates. Everyone in the class was so helpful and supportive that it gave the class a welcoming atmosphere. Even on the days where I didn't feel like I could deal with dragging myself to classes, I was always excited to see my classmates, and they definitely made the class what it was.

If anything can be said for this semester, it can be said that it has reminded me why I'm doing what I'm doing, and confirmed that, if there was any doubt that I wanted to work in history, it is gone.

Thank you for a wonderful semester. I look forward to sharing the next semester, and the next, and the next.

"Our revels now are ended. These our actors,

As I foretold you, were all spirits and

Are melted into air, into thin air:

And, like the baseless fabric of this vision,

The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces,

The solemn temples, the great globe itself,

Yea, all which it shall inherit, shall dissolve

And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,

Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff

As dreams are made on, and our little life

Is rounded with a sleep."

 - William Shakespeare, The Tempest Act IV, Scene I

Finding the Right Sources

Finding sources for Mary Surratt has been easy. Finding time to read through them this week, not so much.

This week has been one of the most stressful of my life. I have been working on the fall play (I was cast as Rosencrantz in the school production of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead), and the show has taken over my life. Finding time to sit down and read through my sources for this paper (or any of the papers that I'm supposed to be writing right now - I have five on the docket) has been nigh on impossible.

That being said, I have flipped through all my sources at least once, so I have a vague idea of what sources will be useful to me.

My idea of what I want to write on, at the moment, is this: Mary Surratt was innocent of plotting to kill Abraham Lincoln. While she might have known about the prior plot to kidnap the president and hold him for ransom, that has no bearing on what she was tried for. Therefore, I only wish to examine her innocence for the charges placed against her: conspiring to assassinate the President of the United States.

As far as primary documents go, the trial transcripts are my best source of information. However, all of the documents are kept on microfiche at the National Archives and are very difficult to obtain. Therefore, I am mostly able to find them through secondary sources, such as Theodore Roscoe's The Web of Conspiracy, which devotes multiple pages solely to reprinting the testimony of Surratt and other witnesses. The other primary sources that I think might be helpful are newspapers. James L. Swanson and Daniel R. Weinberg's Lincoln's Assassins is complete with full-color photographs of many of the primary documents of the time period, which I would not have been able to obtain otherwise.

As for secondary documents, the two that I think will end up being the most helpful to me are the two biographies of Surratt: Elizabeth Steger Trindall's Mary Surratt: An American Tragedy, and Kate Clifford Larson's The Assassin's Accomplice: Mary Surratt and the Plot to Kill Abraham Lincoln. Trindall argues for Surratt's innocence, while Larson argues for her guilt, so it will be interesting to see both sides of the argument. I also look forward to reading through Louis Weichmann's book on the trial and conspiracy, A True History of the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln and of the Conspiracy of 1865. Because Weichmann was the leading witness against Surratt at her trial, it will be valuable to see his testimony as he has written it.

As I have suspected from day one, James L. Swanson's Manhunt has been an invaluable resource to me, providing me with one of the most well-organized bibliographies I have ever seen and helping me to organize my timeline of the assassination, arrests, and trial. I owe Swanson a great debt - not only for sparking my original interest in the assassination, but providing such a well-structured understanding of it as well.

I look forward to being able to interact more with my sources this week and next. The play is finally wrapping tomorrow night (I'm both sad and happy about this - as I am about most things coming to an end), but the good thing is that I will finally have time to get some hardcore research done!

The Conspirator: Hollywood's Take on the Mary Surratt Trial

This weekend, I watched The Conspirator again for the first time since I began working on my research for my paper. Because it is a Hollywood film, I did take everything it said with a grain of salt, but - that being said - I still managed to find some interesting details that might help me in researching and writing my essay.

Most of these were names. I discovered the names of Mary's lawyers, Frederick Aiken (her defense attorney) and Reverdy Johnson (the man in charge of her case). Johnson was actually a senator from Maryland, and, according to the film (something that I might have to look up to verify) refused to be her defense attorney because he believed that his being a "Southerner" would harm her verdict.

Frederick Aiken (James McAvoy) and Sen. Reverdy Johnson (Tom Wilkinson)

Other names that I found helpful were Louis Payne, Lewis Weichmann, and John and Anna Surratt. Payne's last name was actually an alias - his real name, Powell, was unknown during the trials. His actions form one of the most damning pieces of evidence against Mary. He appeared at her home during the middle of the night, claiming to have been asked to dig a ditch for Mrs. Surratt. She claimed not to know him. Lewis Weichmann provided the main testimony against Mary at her trial, accusing her of being the mother of the plot. His book on the assassination and trial is already on my list of sources, and one that our library conveniently had a copy of. Finally, John and Anna Surratt were Mary's two children. John was definitely close to John Wilkes Booth - during the movie, Aiken calls him "Booth's right hand." Not long before the assassination, John left for Canada, leaving his mother to be snapped up by the government. His sister Anna was placed under protective custody by the government (at least, that's what it seemed like - it might have been house arrest, but the film was rather vague on this point). She gave evidence at the trial, and, from the movie's perspective, was madly infatuated with John Wilkes Booth. The research on these names should hopefully provide me with more information about what happened at the trial.

The film opened my eyes to a number of possibilities to narrow my focus even further - the deplorable conditions, for example, or the trial by military tribunal instead of civilian court. I think what this film has shown me, however, is the qualifications around Mary Surratt's guilt and innocence. While I believe she is innocent, so many others believe she is not. The testimony (at least from the film's perspective) seemed skewed in the government's favor, and the trial seemed to be a sham in order to find someone in the weeks after Lincoln's death to blame. 

I really enjoyed re-watching The Conspirator - it has definitely given me something to think about. 

Robin Wright as Mary Surratt in The Conspirator

The Conspirator is available for purchase on DVD and Blu-Ray Disc. It is also available to play and rent on Netflix and Amazon Prime as of this posting. 

The Conspirator: Hollywood's Take on the Mary Surratt Trial

As I was doing research this weekend, I discovered (or, I should say, rediscovered) this movie. It's called The Conspirator, and came out just before Lincoln did. It covers the trial of Mary Surratt, from the point of view of her lawyer, Frederick Aiken. I haven't seen this since it was released, but from what I remember, it was a really well done film. I plan to watch it again at some point, either during my research or after this semester, to see how much of the trial they actually got right. The video above is for the trailer. You can watch the film through Netflix, Amazon Prime, or on DVD.