What do you think?
Rate this book
The Assassin's Accomplice
Set against the backdrop of the Civil War, The Assassin's Accomplice tells the story of the conspiracy to assassinate Abraham Lincoln through the eyes of its only female participant, Mary Surratt, the first woman ever to be executed by the federal government of the United States.
Based on long-lost interviews, confessions, and court testimony, this book reveals Mary's deep complicity in the murder plot, and explores how Mary's actions defied nineteenth-century norms of femininity, piety, and motherhood, leaving her vulnerable to deadly punishment historically reserved for men.
Based on long-lost interviews, confessions, and court testimony, this book reveals Mary's deep complicity in the murder plot, and explores how Mary's actions defied nineteenth-century norms of femininity, piety, and motherhood, leaving her vulnerable to deadly punishment historically reserved for men.
288 pages, Hardcover
First published June 3, 2008
About the author
Kate Clifford Larson
11 books131 followersKate Clifford Larson is a bestselling author of critically acclaimed biographies including Bound for the Promised Land: Harriet Tubman, Portrait of an American Hero and Rosemary: The Hidden Kennedy Daughter. Her latest work, Walk With Me: A Biography of Fannie Lou Hamer tells the remarkable story of one of America's most important civil rights leaders of the 20th century. Praised for her research and insights as a biographer, Larson digs deep into Hamer’s history, uncovering her family roots, personal life, and reclaims Hamer’s faith as a centerpiece of her survival and appeal. Larson accessed recently opened FBI records, secret Oval Office tapes, new interviews, and more, to reveal never before seen details about Hamer’s life. An award-winning consultant for feature film scripts, documentaries, museum exhibits, and public history initiatives, Larson is frequently interviewed by national and international media outlets. Dr. Larson is a Brandeis University Women’s Studies Research Center Visiting Scholar.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 178 reviews
September 30, 2013
Even though John Wilkes Booth is known for assassinating President Abraham Lincoln; there were other individuals involved in the plot. One of those conspirators was Mary Surratt, who owned the boardinghouse where many of the plans were made and was also the mother of another plotter. Kate Clifford Larson clears up the muck and spotlights Surratt’s role in “The Assassin’s Accomplice”.
Larson opens “The Assassin’s Accomplice” with a brief (very brief) introduction of Surratt’s childhood and young adult life before transitioning into a description of the assassination plot. Thus, “The Assassin’s Accomplice” is not a thorough portrait or biography of Mary and rather attempts to pinpoint her role and position in Lincoln’s death.
To elaborate, there are many pages which barely even mention Mary and instead describe the greater political climate, Civil War, and the assassination plot (and other plotters). In other historical portraits claiming to focus on a single individual; this emphasis on extra material result in a filtered view of the person and is a reason for complaint. However, Larson’s background descriptions are very much relevant to the topic and help to better understand each step in the assassination of Lincoln which opens up Surratt’s own thoughts/views. The text is very smooth and makes perfect sense in conveyance.
Speaking of text, Larson’s writing is intelligent, suspenseful, and exciting with a pace of a dramatic murder-mystery fictional novel. Larson’s detective-esque descriptions are filled with strong research and historical merit stimulating the reader and encouraging onward reading. This method of presenting information results in retaining the information much more easily than if Larson went with a drier, scholarly route.
At times, Larson repeats herself when information is blurry or a smooth transition is unclear. Also lacking is Larson’s ability to convince of Mary’s level of participation in the plot with such comments as, “At this time, Mary became much entangled in the web…” but then doesn’t explain how or why, leaving unanswered questions and an absence of clear proof of Mary’s actions.
After the plot is discussed, Larson describes the court trial and Surratt’s testimony which includes actual quotes/dialogue. Some of these chapters lack thorough information, while others are squirming with facts and require the reader to put “The Assassin’s Accomplice” aside in order to absorb it all. The issue, however, is that the book doesn’t really capture Mary’s role and is more about the conspirators and trial, overall. Without a doubt, the trial material is dramatic and gripping but the text is more like a transcript without much commentary from Larson.
Unfortunately, “The Assassin’s Accomplice” claims to acknowledge feminist issues and the precedent of Surratt being the first female executed in US history but this link is weak with Larson barely exploring the angle; although it could have strengthened the work, making it seem less of a summary and recap.
The conclusion of “The Assassin’s Accomplice” is quite strong, emotional, and memorable with its minute by minute descriptions of the days leading up to the execution of the conspirators, the execution itself, and a summary of the aftermath/lives of those involved. This is supplemented by morbid but tantalizing photos from the execution resulting in a crisp ending.
It should be noted that “The Assassin’s Accomplice” features some editing errors such as misspelled words (i.e. the word ‘ar’ instead of ‘at’ on page 178) and uses few sources (although the ones used are primary). On the contrary, Larson introduces characters in such ways that further research is enticed (someone please write a historical fiction novel on Anne Surratt, Mary’s daughter!).
Despite not being perfect, “The Assassin’s Accomplice” is a well-written, riveting work which not only educates on the murder of Abraham Lincoln; but does so with a strong and moving narrative which truly captures the time period. Larson’s research blended with her writing style is extraordinary and the book is therefore much recommended for those interested in Lincoln, the Civil War, or conspiracies.
Larson opens “The Assassin’s Accomplice” with a brief (very brief) introduction of Surratt’s childhood and young adult life before transitioning into a description of the assassination plot. Thus, “The Assassin’s Accomplice” is not a thorough portrait or biography of Mary and rather attempts to pinpoint her role and position in Lincoln’s death.
To elaborate, there are many pages which barely even mention Mary and instead describe the greater political climate, Civil War, and the assassination plot (and other plotters). In other historical portraits claiming to focus on a single individual; this emphasis on extra material result in a filtered view of the person and is a reason for complaint. However, Larson’s background descriptions are very much relevant to the topic and help to better understand each step in the assassination of Lincoln which opens up Surratt’s own thoughts/views. The text is very smooth and makes perfect sense in conveyance.
Speaking of text, Larson’s writing is intelligent, suspenseful, and exciting with a pace of a dramatic murder-mystery fictional novel. Larson’s detective-esque descriptions are filled with strong research and historical merit stimulating the reader and encouraging onward reading. This method of presenting information results in retaining the information much more easily than if Larson went with a drier, scholarly route.
At times, Larson repeats herself when information is blurry or a smooth transition is unclear. Also lacking is Larson’s ability to convince of Mary’s level of participation in the plot with such comments as, “At this time, Mary became much entangled in the web…” but then doesn’t explain how or why, leaving unanswered questions and an absence of clear proof of Mary’s actions.
After the plot is discussed, Larson describes the court trial and Surratt’s testimony which includes actual quotes/dialogue. Some of these chapters lack thorough information, while others are squirming with facts and require the reader to put “The Assassin’s Accomplice” aside in order to absorb it all. The issue, however, is that the book doesn’t really capture Mary’s role and is more about the conspirators and trial, overall. Without a doubt, the trial material is dramatic and gripping but the text is more like a transcript without much commentary from Larson.
Unfortunately, “The Assassin’s Accomplice” claims to acknowledge feminist issues and the precedent of Surratt being the first female executed in US history but this link is weak with Larson barely exploring the angle; although it could have strengthened the work, making it seem less of a summary and recap.
The conclusion of “The Assassin’s Accomplice” is quite strong, emotional, and memorable with its minute by minute descriptions of the days leading up to the execution of the conspirators, the execution itself, and a summary of the aftermath/lives of those involved. This is supplemented by morbid but tantalizing photos from the execution resulting in a crisp ending.
It should be noted that “The Assassin’s Accomplice” features some editing errors such as misspelled words (i.e. the word ‘ar’ instead of ‘at’ on page 178) and uses few sources (although the ones used are primary). On the contrary, Larson introduces characters in such ways that further research is enticed (someone please write a historical fiction novel on Anne Surratt, Mary’s daughter!).
Despite not being perfect, “The Assassin’s Accomplice” is a well-written, riveting work which not only educates on the murder of Abraham Lincoln; but does so with a strong and moving narrative which truly captures the time period. Larson’s research blended with her writing style is extraordinary and the book is therefore much recommended for those interested in Lincoln, the Civil War, or conspiracies.
November 4, 2012
The author grabbed my attention at the very beginning by admitting that when she started the research for this book she believed that Mary Surratt was not involved in the assassination. The author must have been exposed of the same conventional wisdom that I’ve picked up over the years--that Mary Surratt was the innocent boarding house owner who had the misfortune of renting boarding space to the conspirators.
The author goes on to state that over the course of reading court documents as well as statements by the witnesses, she came to a very different conclusion. Reading this book leads me to the same conclusion that the evidence against her is damning. Some people still claim that the evidence is circumstantial, but I consider her involvement with the hidden arms at Surratsville more than circumstantial. Furthermore, her interactions with the conspirators was more intimate than what one would normally expect between landlord and boarders (i.e. numerous extended private conversations).
One issue that was hotly debated at the time, and has echos of some of today’s controversies, was whether the conspirators and Surratt should have been tried by a military tribunal or a civil court. I was surprised that the author mostly defended the decision to try them in a military court. It seems logical to me that civilians should be tried in civil court. It is true that the conspirators were motivated by war time loyalties. So in that sense it was a military matter, and during a civil war the differences between who's civilian or military gets blurred.
The book first covers Mary’s pre-war life. She lived in Maryland’s rural area filled with a rural population that was sympathetic to the southern cause, even though Maryland did not secede. In 1862 her husband died, and soon after she decided to move to Washington D.C. and operate a boarding house. The combination of her tavern in Surratsville, Maryland and the boarding house in D.C. provided a convenient set of of resources and contacts that were utilized by her son John and his friends related to Confederate spy activity.
Late in the war her boarding house and Surratsville tavern became the centers of planning for the kidnapping of President Lincoln. That conspiracy didn’t succeed for various reasons. So then John Wilkes Booth developed alternative plans to assassinate the President, Secretary of State, and Vice President. He went through with the assassination of the President, a fellow conspirator badly stabbed the Secretary of State, and the conspirator assigned to kill the Vice President chickened out.
The second half of the book is focused on the investigation, apprehension, testimony, trial and sentencing of the conspirators. After covering the actions in considerable detail in the first half of the book, the drawn out court testimony about those activities was a bit tedious. The author repeatedly pointed out that the lawyers representing Mary Surratt failed to provide a good defense. I agree that they apparently made some mistakes, but I question what else they could have done that could have changed her sentence. The rules of evidence at the time did not require the prosecution to provide to the defense attorneys the transcripts of pretrial interviews between the conspirators and the investigators. I think that might explain some of the mistakes make by the defense attorneys.
It’s interesting to note how public sentiment seems to have switched after the executions. The public apparently was shocked that a woman was executed. Mary Surratt was the first woman to be executed by the U.S. Government. That probably explains the multiple myths spread about her innocence which have continued through the years since and influenced my own perceptions.
Within the context of 19th Century standards, the trial and sentences of the conspirators seems reasonable. Of course, if the trial were held today things would be considerably different.
The author Ms. Larson has provided an eminently readable and fascinating review of Mary Surratt's role in the Lincoln conspiracy. This book was used as the basis of the 2011 movie The Conspirator directed by Robert Redford. Mary Surratt was portrayed by Robin Wright. I have not seen the movie.
The author goes on to state that over the course of reading court documents as well as statements by the witnesses, she came to a very different conclusion. Reading this book leads me to the same conclusion that the evidence against her is damning. Some people still claim that the evidence is circumstantial, but I consider her involvement with the hidden arms at Surratsville more than circumstantial. Furthermore, her interactions with the conspirators was more intimate than what one would normally expect between landlord and boarders (i.e. numerous extended private conversations).
One issue that was hotly debated at the time, and has echos of some of today’s controversies, was whether the conspirators and Surratt should have been tried by a military tribunal or a civil court. I was surprised that the author mostly defended the decision to try them in a military court. It seems logical to me that civilians should be tried in civil court. It is true that the conspirators were motivated by war time loyalties. So in that sense it was a military matter, and during a civil war the differences between who's civilian or military gets blurred.
The book first covers Mary’s pre-war life. She lived in Maryland’s rural area filled with a rural population that was sympathetic to the southern cause, even though Maryland did not secede. In 1862 her husband died, and soon after she decided to move to Washington D.C. and operate a boarding house. The combination of her tavern in Surratsville, Maryland and the boarding house in D.C. provided a convenient set of of resources and contacts that were utilized by her son John and his friends related to Confederate spy activity.
Late in the war her boarding house and Surratsville tavern became the centers of planning for the kidnapping of President Lincoln. That conspiracy didn’t succeed for various reasons. So then John Wilkes Booth developed alternative plans to assassinate the President, Secretary of State, and Vice President. He went through with the assassination of the President, a fellow conspirator badly stabbed the Secretary of State, and the conspirator assigned to kill the Vice President chickened out.
The second half of the book is focused on the investigation, apprehension, testimony, trial and sentencing of the conspirators. After covering the actions in considerable detail in the first half of the book, the drawn out court testimony about those activities was a bit tedious. The author repeatedly pointed out that the lawyers representing Mary Surratt failed to provide a good defense. I agree that they apparently made some mistakes, but I question what else they could have done that could have changed her sentence. The rules of evidence at the time did not require the prosecution to provide to the defense attorneys the transcripts of pretrial interviews between the conspirators and the investigators. I think that might explain some of the mistakes make by the defense attorneys.
It’s interesting to note how public sentiment seems to have switched after the executions. The public apparently was shocked that a woman was executed. Mary Surratt was the first woman to be executed by the U.S. Government. That probably explains the multiple myths spread about her innocence which have continued through the years since and influenced my own perceptions.
Within the context of 19th Century standards, the trial and sentences of the conspirators seems reasonable. Of course, if the trial were held today things would be considerably different.
The author Ms. Larson has provided an eminently readable and fascinating review of Mary Surratt's role in the Lincoln conspiracy. This book was used as the basis of the 2011 movie The Conspirator directed by Robert Redford. Mary Surratt was portrayed by Robin Wright. I have not seen the movie.
January 30, 2017
There are many phrases I can think of to describe John Wilkes Booth's plot against President Lincoln, but "madcap scheme" (118) is not one of them.
Short version: I recommend American Brutus: John Wilkes Booth and the Lincoln Conspiracies instead.
Slightly longer version: Despite its claims to the contrary, this book has no new evidence or insights to offer, unless by "insight," you mean unsupported speculation about what various people must have been feeling during interrogations or while giving testimony. Larson's writing ranges from pedestrian to awful. She makes only clumsy and superficial gestures in the direction of social and gender history. She gets basic things wrong, like claiming that "a crazed John Wilkes Booth burst into [the President's] private box" (89) to assassinate Lincoln (Booth proceeded calmly, stealthily, and with obvious premeditation until after he shot Lincoln, at which point he became very stagey and theatrical . . . but still not crazed) or failing for some unfathomable reason to note that Sic semper tyrannis is the motto of the Commonwealth of Virginia and not only the slogan of John Wilkes Booth. She can't decide what her own position is, whether she admires Surratt and deplores her death as a travesty of justice, or believes that she was a contemptible traitor who was justly executed, or any of the many possible judgments in-between. Nor can she decide what she thinks about Louis Weichmann or about the military tribunal who sentenced Surratt to death. This indecision incidentally makes it impossible for her to articulate or support a thesis.
Bah.
Short version: I recommend American Brutus: John Wilkes Booth and the Lincoln Conspiracies instead.
Slightly longer version: Despite its claims to the contrary, this book has no new evidence or insights to offer, unless by "insight," you mean unsupported speculation about what various people must have been feeling during interrogations or while giving testimony. Larson's writing ranges from pedestrian to awful. She makes only clumsy and superficial gestures in the direction of social and gender history. She gets basic things wrong, like claiming that "a crazed John Wilkes Booth burst into [the President's] private box" (89) to assassinate Lincoln (Booth proceeded calmly, stealthily, and with obvious premeditation until after he shot Lincoln, at which point he became very stagey and theatrical . . . but still not crazed) or failing for some unfathomable reason to note that Sic semper tyrannis is the motto of the Commonwealth of Virginia and not only the slogan of John Wilkes Booth. She can't decide what her own position is, whether she admires Surratt and deplores her death as a travesty of justice, or believes that she was a contemptible traitor who was justly executed, or any of the many possible judgments in-between. Nor can she decide what she thinks about Louis Weichmann or about the military tribunal who sentenced Surratt to death. This indecision incidentally makes it impossible for her to articulate or support a thesis.
Bah.
July 14, 2023
Her story is certainly an interesting one, but I shouldn't have been this bored with this history book.
November 1, 2011
The Assassin's Accomplice is a completely engaging read. I read this after I saw the movie "The Conspirator" (directed by Robert Redford), which was an excellent movie on the same subject, but leaned towards Mary's innocence. This book leans towards her guilt in the conspiracy to kill Abraham Lincoln. Rich in period detail, plot and courtroom drama, I found it hard to put down. I recommend both the movie and the book and then draw your own conclusions. Mary Surratt, conspirator, accomplice or victim?
February 24, 2022
I disliked this book so much that I felt compelled to write a review despite not being able to finish it. It did have the misfortune of being the book I tried to read right after American Brutus, which was a superb book, but I don't think I would have enjoyed this any better at another time.
Larson is a good writer from a stylistic standpoint. She's easy to read, but she is not a good researcher. Quite frankly, I am surprised to see she has a Ph.D. in history and is billed as a "historian." As to paraphrase one of my own history professors who taught my class on historical research methodology, this is NOT how history is done.
I judge nonfiction books very much by the footnotes and bibliography, and this book was quite lacking in both. Her sources are very thin. She seems to rely on the same ones over and over again and uses a lot more secondary sources than primary sources. She never acknowledges the drawbacks of the primary sources she does use. In a book that is billed as one of the few biographies of Mary Surratt, she repeatedly skims over her subject's life and then just redirects readers to other books to learn more.
Some of her comments lack nuance--she spends a lot of time talking about how the Civil War ended at Appomattox before getting around to acknowledging it didn't technically end then--and I found some sloppy typos and mistakes. The most egregious was repeatedly misspelling Mosby's last name. That indicates to me that nobody who looked at the manuscript (including Larson) was familiar enough with the Civil War to see such a basic error.
I will give credit that the book does shine some light on Surrat's position as a widow and the social/economic ramifications of that, but otherwise, I gleaned very little from this book I couldn't have found elsewhere.
A couple years ago, I read the same author's biography of Rosemary Kennedy. It was all right, but I remember being surprised that a book about Rosemary spent so much time ignoring her. I assumed it was due to lack of sources, but now I am not so sure.
The short takeaway from all this is this book put me in a bad mood. LOL
Larson is a good writer from a stylistic standpoint. She's easy to read, but she is not a good researcher. Quite frankly, I am surprised to see she has a Ph.D. in history and is billed as a "historian." As to paraphrase one of my own history professors who taught my class on historical research methodology, this is NOT how history is done.
I judge nonfiction books very much by the footnotes and bibliography, and this book was quite lacking in both. Her sources are very thin. She seems to rely on the same ones over and over again and uses a lot more secondary sources than primary sources. She never acknowledges the drawbacks of the primary sources she does use. In a book that is billed as one of the few biographies of Mary Surratt, she repeatedly skims over her subject's life and then just redirects readers to other books to learn more.
Some of her comments lack nuance--she spends a lot of time talking about how the Civil War ended at Appomattox before getting around to acknowledging it didn't technically end then--and I found some sloppy typos and mistakes. The most egregious was repeatedly misspelling Mosby's last name. That indicates to me that nobody who looked at the manuscript (including Larson) was familiar enough with the Civil War to see such a basic error.
I will give credit that the book does shine some light on Surrat's position as a widow and the social/economic ramifications of that, but otherwise, I gleaned very little from this book I couldn't have found elsewhere.
A couple years ago, I read the same author's biography of Rosemary Kennedy. It was all right, but I remember being surprised that a book about Rosemary spent so much time ignoring her. I assumed it was due to lack of sources, but now I am not so sure.
The short takeaway from all this is this book put me in a bad mood. LOL
April 12, 2011
Dr. Larson did a magnificent job in describing the trial of Mary Surratt, the appeals process and the subsequent hanging of Surratt and three other conspirators. Unfortunately, she asked way too many questions that with a little more cursory research, she would have found the answers, especially when discussing the Booth conspiracy. Some of those questions were answered in some of the very sources that she cites, which I had previously read, and a couple of minor facts, she even got wrong. (Mainly the rationale for Booth's "failed" kidnapping attempt of March 17, 1865.) Furthermore, for being a PhD, she does a sloppy job in her citations.
Other than the technical aspects that I just mentioned, it was still a good read. Once she got into the trial, she had my attention and it did become a page turner towards the end.
With more exhaustive research into the conspiracy, not asking so many questions that her sources already answered (leaving us hanging), and getting a couple of minor facts correct, she would have earned an A or an A+. But in history, one needs to do due diligence, especially when her biography on the book cover states that she "holds a doctorate from the University of New Hampshire." Because of her academic credentials, I have to hold her to a higher standard.
Other than the technical aspects that I just mentioned, it was still a good read. Once she got into the trial, she had my attention and it did become a page turner towards the end.
With more exhaustive research into the conspiracy, not asking so many questions that her sources already answered (leaving us hanging), and getting a couple of minor facts correct, she would have earned an A or an A+. But in history, one needs to do due diligence, especially when her biography on the book cover states that she "holds a doctorate from the University of New Hampshire." Because of her academic credentials, I have to hold her to a higher standard.
December 20, 2011
I have spent a lot of time studying Lincoln over my 73 years which of course includes his murder at the hands of the coward J W Booth. One thing that is important to remember is that this author started out believing that Mary Surratt was not involved in the assassination. But over the course of reading court documents as well as statements by the witnesses, she came to a very different conclusion. Kate Larson does an excellent job of connecting the dots with regard to the conspirators from well prior to the actual events of April 14, 1865. She goes back with regard to Mary Surratt's background to prior to the war and of course right through to the end. I have always maintained that she was fully involved simply because she "hosted" many meetings - but the most damming action was when she sent her son John to Surratsville to deliver weapons - pistols and rifle/rifles to that had been the Surratt Tavern the day prior to the assassination - and told her son that they would be needed the next day. I have to wonder if President Johnson would have liked to commute her sentence, but knew the public outrage was too much to overcome.
Fun read.
Fun read.
January 14, 2009
This was a well written, interesting history of Mary Surratt who was the first woman hanged in the United States. The book illustrates the conflicting sentiments of the public prior to her hanging and following. Prior to her execution, the public vilified Mrs. Surratt as one of the co-conspirators of Abraham Lincoln’s assassination as evidence of her complicity was presented at court. However, public sentiment turned drastically as society was appalled at the execution of a woman. The book also provides documentation showing the poor legal representation that Mrs. Surratt was afforded. As is the usual, the actual answer as to whether Mrs. Surratt was guilty will continue to be debated and will remain unanswered. It’s all in the interpretation.
January 22, 2023
Was given this by a professor when he was cleaning out his office, and I never say no to a free book. This is not on a subject I particularly have interest in or have done much research on.
Was a fine story with some interesting points, but overall did not leave much of an affect on me. Sometimes the writing itself was a little repetitive without saying or adding much.
Was a fine story with some interesting points, but overall did not leave much of an affect on me. Sometimes the writing itself was a little repetitive without saying or adding much.
July 19, 2019
You will have made up your mind as to the guilt or innocence of Mary Surratt regarding her associations with John Wilkes Booth and the other conspirators,when you finish this book..I think.
March 12, 2012
I really do think history is boring. I have never been in a history class that even remotely interested me in the subject. I mean, history is history, basically teachers have made thousands of years of the past seem uninteresting, dull and maybe even insignificant in that respect. But, after reading Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, I've begun to think that history can be quite exciting. That is what compelled me to read this book. All the holes in the story, the conspiracies behind it all are what fascinate me the most. I had no idea a woman was involved, in fact I hardly knew any of this information. All I knew was John Wilkes Booth shot the President in the back at the Ford theater. Reading the whole thing from the perspective of Mary Surrattt really pulled me in. Like the back of the book says, some parts of the book read like a suspense novel. The key words are some parts. I found other parts to kind of drag, but thankfully not a lot. The parts of the story where Larson throws a whole lot of names at you bored me. I wasn't going to remember or even attempt to remember every single person involved in it. That was the historical side of the book, where everything was spelled out for you in an attempt to be accurately portrayed. It was a good idea to intersperse the photos with the text. It provided more atmosphere. The photos of the four being hanged are the most creepy. Larson kept asking the question of how involved Mary Surratt was and whether justice was served. She didn't seem to take a concrete side and I could read it in the telling of the story. But, I guess one could interpret that to mean that it could be taken either way by anyone. There are works published in favor of Mary Surratt and against her even today. This was my first attempt at reading a non-fiction historical book and I really did enjoy it. History doesn't have to be boring. When it was actually happening, it was current news and current news is always interesting to read about, so why can't history be written the same way? I liked how Larson presented doubt and even a few conspiracies within the book. That's proof of how history isn't finished and done with. It shows how history still breathes and is capable of new discussion or discovery. Hopefully I'll be reading more history in the future, and I'll actually like it.
July 26, 2016
Crossposted at Booklikes
If you are planning a trip to Washington DC, you should include on your list of things to see and do Ford’s Theatre and the Peterson House. Both places have been recently remodeled and updated. The stack of Lincoln related books are impressive. Undoubtedly this one is there.
I’m not sure how close the movie follows this book, but this book makes an excellent case for Mary Surratt’s guilt as well as looking at the reasons for her actions as well as the trial and press treatment.
Perhaps the weakest part of the book is the discussion of the press treatment of Mary Surratt. While Larson does prove the claim of sexist treatment of Surratt by the press, it is barely done. A closer study of such reporting would have presented the claim in stronger terms. This is particularly in true when Larson glances at the shift of public opinion after the hanging.
The question, if question one considers it to be, of Surratt’s guilt is far more strongly presented. Larson spends time on the conflicting loyalties of the area around Washington DC as well as a discussion of the courier/agent network for the Confederacy that reached up to Montreal. This functions amazing well in terms of building a case against Surratt. However, Larson is also able to calmly dissect Surratt’s defense team, showcasing mistakes (really stupid ones) that they made. Furthermore, when she cannot answer questions –how close was the relationship between Booth and Surratt, why did the lead defense attorney stop attending the trial – she doesn’t speculate or guess. She presents evidence and lets the reader, in many cases, wonder and consider the possibilities.
If you are planning a trip to Washington DC, you should include on your list of things to see and do Ford’s Theatre and the Peterson House. Both places have been recently remodeled and updated. The stack of Lincoln related books are impressive. Undoubtedly this one is there.
I’m not sure how close the movie follows this book, but this book makes an excellent case for Mary Surratt’s guilt as well as looking at the reasons for her actions as well as the trial and press treatment.
Perhaps the weakest part of the book is the discussion of the press treatment of Mary Surratt. While Larson does prove the claim of sexist treatment of Surratt by the press, it is barely done. A closer study of such reporting would have presented the claim in stronger terms. This is particularly in true when Larson glances at the shift of public opinion after the hanging.
The question, if question one considers it to be, of Surratt’s guilt is far more strongly presented. Larson spends time on the conflicting loyalties of the area around Washington DC as well as a discussion of the courier/agent network for the Confederacy that reached up to Montreal. This functions amazing well in terms of building a case against Surratt. However, Larson is also able to calmly dissect Surratt’s defense team, showcasing mistakes (really stupid ones) that they made. Furthermore, when she cannot answer questions –how close was the relationship between Booth and Surratt, why did the lead defense attorney stop attending the trial – she doesn’t speculate or guess. She presents evidence and lets the reader, in many cases, wonder and consider the possibilities.
October 11, 2009
Mary Surratt’s role in the conspiracy to assassinate Abraham Lincoln is certainly an interesting subject—and in the hands of a different author might have resulted in a compelling book. Larson makes factual blunders that diminish her overall credibility (one example: she identifies John C. Breckinridge as Vice President of the Confederacy although that office was actually held by Alexander Stephens). Larson’s writing is as sloppy as her history; it is often disjointed and repetitive. This book should have been thoroughly reviewed by a fact-checker and an editor prior to publication. Better yet, it should have been written by a more capable historian.
January 19, 2012
A very-well written, objective look at Mary Surratt's (possible) involvement in the plot to assassinate Abraham Lincoln. There is a lot of primary documents, including court reports and transcripts, referenced here that are often neglected in other books on the subject. Larson lays out the facts in a way that's interesting to those who are familiar with the events leading up to and following the shooting at Ford's Theatre while also maintaining readability and an easy flow for those who are new to the topic.
January 4, 2015
I found this book to be an excellent depiction of the life of Mary Surratt as a coconspirator in the assassination of President Lincoln. The books investigates the background information surrounding the events leading to the trial and conviction of Mrs. Surratt. Further the author provides depth to the relationships surrounding Mrs. Surratt. It is a well written and compelling account that will keep the reader interested from beginning to end. Ms. Larson's style belies my long held view that historical accounts can either be good history or good writing; Ms. Larson has accomplished both!
October 15, 2021
Head turning
I won't post beyond saying this book will make you think. It did for me. Never take anything at face value
I won't post beyond saying this book will make you think. It did for me. Never take anything at face value
August 5, 2024
Struggling to pay off debts after her husband's 1862 death, Mary Surratt devised a strategy of survival that including providing a safe haven for Confederate spies and ultimately assassin John Wilkes Booth. At her trial, Surratt generated little sympathy. But upon becoming the first federally executed woman prisoner, public opinion changed to revulsion at the hanging. Surratt's apologists began a largely successful campaign to portray her as a sorrowful victim.
Larson sets the record straight. Surratt was a wicked woman, not only guilty of abetting Booth but more involved in the plot to kill Abraham Lincoln that supposed.
Although they took much of what was said between them to their graves, it's clear that Surratt was in contact with Booth multiple times in the month before Lincoln's assassination, including helping with the actor's escape plan the afternoon of the murder. Surratt had intimate knowledge of Booth's initial plans to abduct the president and ultimately to kill Lincoln.
Surratt's Washington boarding house served as the headquarters for the subterfuge to topple the government. Surratt helped with the logistics of plotting and served as the funnel for the conspirators to gather. Sharing Booth's disdain for Lincoln and the assassin's passion to preserve slavery, Surratt saw Booth as God's instrument in punishing the North.
Only when William Seward attacker Lewis Payne stopped by the boarding home after three days of hiding did Surratt's involvement begin to become clear. For Payne chose the exact moment police were searching the home. Surratt swore before God that she had never met Payne, one of her many lies. Defiance and arrogance when questioned by authorities continued after her arrest.
Public disgust during the seven-week trial grew against Surratt as she remained stoic. Her ill-prepared lawyers didn't really believe the government would execute a woman because it had never been done before. But she was one of four conspirators hanged. President Andrew Johnson refused to mitigate her sentence.
Larson sets the record straight. Surratt was a wicked woman, not only guilty of abetting Booth but more involved in the plot to kill Abraham Lincoln that supposed.
Although they took much of what was said between them to their graves, it's clear that Surratt was in contact with Booth multiple times in the month before Lincoln's assassination, including helping with the actor's escape plan the afternoon of the murder. Surratt had intimate knowledge of Booth's initial plans to abduct the president and ultimately to kill Lincoln.
Surratt's Washington boarding house served as the headquarters for the subterfuge to topple the government. Surratt helped with the logistics of plotting and served as the funnel for the conspirators to gather. Sharing Booth's disdain for Lincoln and the assassin's passion to preserve slavery, Surratt saw Booth as God's instrument in punishing the North.
Only when William Seward attacker Lewis Payne stopped by the boarding home after three days of hiding did Surratt's involvement begin to become clear. For Payne chose the exact moment police were searching the home. Surratt swore before God that she had never met Payne, one of her many lies. Defiance and arrogance when questioned by authorities continued after her arrest.
Public disgust during the seven-week trial grew against Surratt as she remained stoic. Her ill-prepared lawyers didn't really believe the government would execute a woman because it had never been done before. But she was one of four conspirators hanged. President Andrew Johnson refused to mitigate her sentence.
June 10, 2023
I rarely leave a negative review because I believe that reading tastes are varied so what I dislike others may love. That being said, when it comes to non fiction, my thought process is more rigid.
I was deeply disappointed in this book. It was hailed as new evidence and giving the definitive answer on Mary Surratt’s innocence or guilt. I found it to be nothing more than a rehash of the theories, testimony, and historical documents that I have read in other history books or material specifically about Mary.
As a librarian I found this to be more a narrative nonfiction instead of detached view with facts. There is no way to know Mary’s thoughts can be clear without primary sources. While the end notes were plentiful, I found them lacking in how they were laid out. I would preferred the notes be referenced to the text instead of pages in the notes. I will give credence that is my personal preference.
I have been studying The Civil War and it’s outcomes since I was a teenager. I am now almost 45. I have sought primary resources, studied the media scrutiny in this era, and the sensationalism of being tried in the public’s opinion. Sensational media has always been an interest of mine. That is a plus in the book. It does dive deeper into the role of unethical journalism that we still see today.
I believe Mary was guilty. She bet on the wrong horse, but she didn’t deserve to die. Others who participated did much more were spared. I believe she died in place of her son. Who I considered to be a coward.
If you had very little background knowledge of this event, this book would be informative and interesting. For those who have long been interested and studied this era, this book is a pass.
I was deeply disappointed in this book. It was hailed as new evidence and giving the definitive answer on Mary Surratt’s innocence or guilt. I found it to be nothing more than a rehash of the theories, testimony, and historical documents that I have read in other history books or material specifically about Mary.
As a librarian I found this to be more a narrative nonfiction instead of detached view with facts. There is no way to know Mary’s thoughts can be clear without primary sources. While the end notes were plentiful, I found them lacking in how they were laid out. I would preferred the notes be referenced to the text instead of pages in the notes. I will give credence that is my personal preference.
I have been studying The Civil War and it’s outcomes since I was a teenager. I am now almost 45. I have sought primary resources, studied the media scrutiny in this era, and the sensationalism of being tried in the public’s opinion. Sensational media has always been an interest of mine. That is a plus in the book. It does dive deeper into the role of unethical journalism that we still see today.
I believe Mary was guilty. She bet on the wrong horse, but she didn’t deserve to die. Others who participated did much more were spared. I believe she died in place of her son. Who I considered to be a coward.
If you had very little background knowledge of this event, this book would be informative and interesting. For those who have long been interested and studied this era, this book is a pass.
June 30, 2022
I will start this review out that I may be biased because the author and I are buddies on Twitter.
However that being said I long held an interest in reading this book. I had seen the movie The Conspirator back when it came out and wanted to know more. As a kid the Lincoln Assassination was a big thing in our house. We would regularly stop at the site of the Garrett Farm and go traipsing through the woods to the spot where Booth was captured and shot. I really didn't commit the other assassin's names to memory beyond David Herold until I was older and I picked up other books about the plot. About five years ago though I did visit the boarding house in DC where the plot was hatched and had some of the best General Tso's chicken. The owners even let me go upstairs to where the bedrooms would have been that is now a karaoke bar.
Anyway, I thought this book was great. Kate does a great job of laying out the facts and presenting them. She does a great job of showing both sides of the arguments especially during the trial and carefully discredits and points out flaws in Mary's supporters arguments. It can be difficult when writing about such an emotionally charged topic to not come cross as biased but I think she did a fantastic job. There never was much doubt in my mind that Mary was guilty but this book certainly further solidified that belief.
I also think it's another interesting entry point in how the Civil War truly did a number in gender stereotypes at the time. Much like Sherman's march had proven, the traditional feminity ideals was not going to protect women anymore. I find that fascinating.
However that being said I long held an interest in reading this book. I had seen the movie The Conspirator back when it came out and wanted to know more. As a kid the Lincoln Assassination was a big thing in our house. We would regularly stop at the site of the Garrett Farm and go traipsing through the woods to the spot where Booth was captured and shot. I really didn't commit the other assassin's names to memory beyond David Herold until I was older and I picked up other books about the plot. About five years ago though I did visit the boarding house in DC where the plot was hatched and had some of the best General Tso's chicken. The owners even let me go upstairs to where the bedrooms would have been that is now a karaoke bar.
Anyway, I thought this book was great. Kate does a great job of laying out the facts and presenting them. She does a great job of showing both sides of the arguments especially during the trial and carefully discredits and points out flaws in Mary's supporters arguments. It can be difficult when writing about such an emotionally charged topic to not come cross as biased but I think she did a fantastic job. There never was much doubt in my mind that Mary was guilty but this book certainly further solidified that belief.
I also think it's another interesting entry point in how the Civil War truly did a number in gender stereotypes at the time. Much like Sherman's march had proven, the traditional feminity ideals was not going to protect women anymore. I find that fascinating.
June 18, 2024
I'd never seen the movie until this year. One thing I learned from the book is that the movie is an almost complete fiction.
As to the book, I don't think the author actually supports her thesis (that Mary Surratt was incontrovertibly guilty) completely enough. There are many assumptions in the book, and even if, as she asserts, there was a preponderance of evidence, this raises an important point. A preponderance of evidence is only good enough in civil litigation, and falls short of the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt required in criminal trials.
Of course, Mary Surratt's was not an ordinary criminal trial, but a military trial. Perhaps the standard is different, but this raises two more points. This military trial was not much more than a kangaroo court; even the author mentions on one or more occasions that the prosecution would introduce non-sequitirs having nothing to do with the matter, such as the capture of Jefferson Davis, that were merely intended to inflame the tribunal.
But the author never called it a kangaroo court. In fact in the epilogue she outright complains about people after the execution still questioning the military tribunal's jurisdiction, regarding which she leaves out a very interesting subsequent development. Later in the decade, the Supreme court unanimously ruled that all US citizens are entitled to a non-military trial, even in times of war.
To leave out this fact indicates either an alarming research failure, or an intentional refusal to bring this fact to the reader's attention. In either case, not a good look.
As to the book, I don't think the author actually supports her thesis (that Mary Surratt was incontrovertibly guilty) completely enough. There are many assumptions in the book, and even if, as she asserts, there was a preponderance of evidence, this raises an important point. A preponderance of evidence is only good enough in civil litigation, and falls short of the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt required in criminal trials.
Of course, Mary Surratt's was not an ordinary criminal trial, but a military trial. Perhaps the standard is different, but this raises two more points. This military trial was not much more than a kangaroo court; even the author mentions on one or more occasions that the prosecution would introduce non-sequitirs having nothing to do with the matter, such as the capture of Jefferson Davis, that were merely intended to inflame the tribunal.
But the author never called it a kangaroo court. In fact in the epilogue she outright complains about people after the execution still questioning the military tribunal's jurisdiction, regarding which she leaves out a very interesting subsequent development. Later in the decade, the Supreme court unanimously ruled that all US citizens are entitled to a non-military trial, even in times of war.
To leave out this fact indicates either an alarming research failure, or an intentional refusal to bring this fact to the reader's attention. In either case, not a good look.
November 2, 2021
An account of Mary Surratt, the first woman executed by the United States government as a result of her involvement in the Lincoln assassination. Beginning with her early life, Larson establishes context by giving shape to Surratt’s values and beliefs, especially in light is the coming war between the states.
As the text transitions to the more specific events of 1864 and early 1865, Larson outlines the details that ultimately led to Mary’s arrest. While at times it felt as if something was missing as it related to the plot and specifically John Wilkes Booth, the story was not designed to be a comprehensive analysis of the assassination plot but rather a consideration of Surratt’s role.
With that consideration in mind, there are three primary reasons for the mediocre rating. First, even though it was not meant as an exhaustive review (as noted), there were plenty of places where it felt a bit like a short cut was being taken. Second, in more than a few places the author offers some speculation without offering a good foundation on which to build the theory. Third, (and it feels a bit nitpicky), the writing is a bit vanilla. The repeated use of words like “obfuscation” speaks to a lack of creativity in expression.
This was not a bad book. And I learned several things. But it took some perseverance. It was not something that compelled me to pick it up each evening with anticipation of what was happening next.
As the text transitions to the more specific events of 1864 and early 1865, Larson outlines the details that ultimately led to Mary’s arrest. While at times it felt as if something was missing as it related to the plot and specifically John Wilkes Booth, the story was not designed to be a comprehensive analysis of the assassination plot but rather a consideration of Surratt’s role.
With that consideration in mind, there are three primary reasons for the mediocre rating. First, even though it was not meant as an exhaustive review (as noted), there were plenty of places where it felt a bit like a short cut was being taken. Second, in more than a few places the author offers some speculation without offering a good foundation on which to build the theory. Third, (and it feels a bit nitpicky), the writing is a bit vanilla. The repeated use of words like “obfuscation” speaks to a lack of creativity in expression.
This was not a bad book. And I learned several things. But it took some perseverance. It was not something that compelled me to pick it up each evening with anticipation of what was happening next.
November 23, 2017
The title of this book is a bit misleading as the book does not provide much insight into Mary Surratt's early life or her motivations for conspiring with John Wilkes Booth and others to kill President Abraham Lincoln. I really enjoyed Robert Redford's 2010 movie, The Conspirator, (produced after this book was published) and I did not learn much more from reading this book than what I learned in the film. I also read a few other books on John Wilkes Booth and the Lincoln assassination, so perhaps I am not the best audience for this book. This book does provide a comprehensive history of the assassination and Mary's role, although she is not featured more prominently than the other conspirators who were hanged along side her. If you have read nothing of the assassination and want to learn more about the conspiracy and the ensuing trial, this would be a great place to start. If you are expecting a more in depth profile of Surratt, this might not be the best book for you.
February 11, 2018
I'm not normally a biography reader, not because of a lack of interest but more so am inability to be pulled into biographies due to their dryness. This biography of Mary Surratt was no different, in fact I didn't complete this read until my fourth attempt. The story behind the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln has always been a mystery to me as I grew up playing in the yard he was supposedly born in and couldn't comprehend that someone would murder anyone who would try to create equality for all people. Reading this book about Mary Surratt, however, did clear up some of that mystery though. The author not only explained about the history of this woman, but also the plight of single mothers in her situation in that era. Mary's story is an important one and one that needs to be understood, yes she did help murder the president, but she and those 3 who were executed for this act with her truly did believe that they were completing the work of the Confederacy.
January 14, 2023
I read American Brutus: John Wilkes Booth and the Lincoln Conspiracies and America's Original Sin: White Supremacy, John Wilkes Booth, and the Lincoln Assassination a few months before reading this book, and after reading those two highly-detailed and engaging accounts of Lincoln's Assassination, this book felt rather flat. It's not bad, and there's a decent rendering of the assassination (before, immediate, and after) and what happened to the co-conspirators (with a heavy focus on Mary Surratt, obviously), but it just didn't compare.
May 10, 2021
As a fan of Kate Clifford Larson's biography of Rosemary Kennedy, I trusted her voice to tell the 21st-century version of Mary Surratt. Larson rigorously researched the facts leading to and proceeding the assassination of Lincoln. Still, she acutely zoomed into Surratt's small circle of family and associates to the point that the murder itself was almost a footnote, as were the deeper implications of slavery and the Emancipation Proclamation. This gave the story a "single-room" feel, as though it could be a staged for the theater.
The more humanistic approach was a refreshing departure from the countless historical accounts of Lincoln, the Civil War, John Wilkes Booth, etc. Larson rarely inserts herself into her writing, but has a presence that emerges when questioning the many unknowns of this world-altering event in American History.
The more humanistic approach was a refreshing departure from the countless historical accounts of Lincoln, the Civil War, John Wilkes Booth, etc. Larson rarely inserts herself into her writing, but has a presence that emerges when questioning the many unknowns of this world-altering event in American History.
July 9, 2024
Decent information, but this is an amateurishly constructed book on a topic that has been done many times before. The book definitely has different feels to the sections. The first 40-50 pages, which covers the assassination plot and Mary Surratt's background, is a slog. There is way too much background information on the people involved. Lots of names, many of which don't matter over the course of the story.
The next section is better, where it describes the day of the assassination and the few days after. But this is the topic that has been covered way too many times in other books, so it feels like this part should be easy to write.
The final section is about the trial, which relies entirely on the transcript of the trial. It would have been nice to see some historiography woven in there.
The next section is better, where it describes the day of the assassination and the few days after. But this is the topic that has been covered way too many times in other books, so it feels like this part should be easy to write.
The final section is about the trial, which relies entirely on the transcript of the trial. It would have been nice to see some historiography woven in there.
May 30, 2017
While I think that this is a subject that has been seldom recorded and written about, I feel like most of this book could have been trimmed away. The most likely people who are going to pick up this book have read and read and read and read the circumstances surrounding the events leading up to the assassination. The first 4-5 chapters of this book are, in my opinion, rather superfluous. The book picked up and became more interesting to me as an amateur historian of the assassination and the conspiracy were the last several chapters devoted to the trial and the verdict and the hanging itself. All in all, lots of good information in the second half of this book.
October 19, 2022
The story of Mary Surratt was either new to me, or at least not that memorable in the few Civil War books that I have read. I found this interesting, but the book dragged for me at times. I read Larson's Rosemary Kennedy book, which was fantastic. I don't know if the Kennedy book just seemed better because I really knew all of the people involved and their stories.
Larson's research is first rate and she is generous with her footnotes.
What a different world we might have if Lincoln would have lived. I couldn't help but think that Reconstruction might have had a chance if he was our leader.
Larson's research is first rate and she is generous with her footnotes.
What a different world we might have if Lincoln would have lived. I couldn't help but think that Reconstruction might have had a chance if he was our leader.
January 17, 2021
I have not read much on this subject so unlike a lot of the other reviews I don't have much to compare this book to. I found it to be very well written and engaging. It brought to light many elements of the assassination that I was not aware of. As for how it does when compared to the other many books devoted to this point in history I cannot comment, but for anyone interested in this subject this book seems like a good starting point.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 178 reviews