I had a bad feeling about this book when I saw that the dust jacket on proclaimed the objectivity of a book with the subtitle "An American Tragedy." Objectivity isn't always necessary, and there is nothing wrong with writing a book that promotes a particular point of view, but I suspected that the blurb protested too much (it did.) One reads such a book with a more skeptical eye, especially since other books on the topic contradict important claims.

As an example, one very important issue is whether or not Mary Surratt (hereafter MS) delivered a message from John Booth to John Lloyd in Surrattsville on April 14 about preparing "shooting irons" to be picked up that night. Trindal quotes MS's lawyer Aiken as saying that she could not have, because Booth didn't know that the Lincolns would be at Ford's Theater until it was too late to give the message to MS before she left at 1:30. Trindal does not say how Aiken knew this. According to Anthony S. Pitch's "They Have Killed Papa Dead!": The Road to Ford's Theatre, Abraham Lincoln's Murder, and the Rage for Vengeance, p. 85-86, Booth learned that the Lincolns would be at Ford's around midday, which may have given him time to see MS before she left. More importantly, he had found out the previous day, April 13, that the Lincolns had been invited to a performance at Grover's theater on the 14th, and he rented an adjoining box. He could have intended to shoot the President at Grover's on the 14, which gave him plenty of time to deliver the message about "shooting irons." This is confirmed by Edward Steers, Jr. in Blood on the Moon: The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, p. 109. In addition, both books say that George Atzerodt confirmed Booth's message; this was not used in the trial. (Pitch, p.88, p. 421, note 55 ; Steers p.141)

This is an extremely tendentious book, in which the author has perhaps tried to be a little too clever. She argues out of both sides of her mouth, undercutting her own reasoning. The book is told from a Southern perspective, sometimes interjecting rather long digressions to justify the Confederacy, as in the discussion of the events leading up to the firing on Fort Sumter. In the hands of a subtler writer, this might be justified as showing the point of view of Southern sympathizers, such as Mary Surratt. It is a little hard to believe, however, that she was privy to the high-level negotiations about the provisioning, or not, of Fort Sumter. One cannot imagine why there was a need for Fugitive Slave Law. Surely once any slave had experienced the ghastly life of the free states they would run home on their own accord.

In building this case for the noble Southerner fighting the terrible injustices perpetrated by the North, she is undermining the argument that as a good woman, Mary Surratt would have nothing to do with Lincoln conspiracy. After recounting at some length the horrors inflicted on Southern prisoners of war, she quotes Booth describing his original plan as "purely humane and patriotic in its principles, . . . and legitimate as an act of war." Later she quotes, with apparent approval, Powell's lawyer arguing that his client was acting in a noble fashion for the right as he saw it. In the face of all this, it is absurd to argue that Mary Surratt can't be guilty because of her spotless reputation and undoubted piety. Why wouldn't she, like Booth and Powell, enter into the conspiracy believing that her goals were noble and violence was justified? Anyone with any decent knowledge of history knows that the genuinely pious can be quite violent, perhaps the more so because they are confident of heaven.

I have questions about her presentation of the evidence. Trindal spends a great deal of time talking about Weichmann's perjured betrayal of Mary Surratt, yet she makes great use of his memoir as a source. When she talks about the perjured evidence at the trial, I am expecting to hear that at very least, that he claimed she cleaned and loaded J.W. Booth's derringer for him on April 14. Oddly, while the evidence Trindal presents doesn't seem to demonstrate MS's guilt, it also makes Weichmann's remarks seem to consist mainly of things that Trindal has accepted as factual. I get the same impression here that I got in Samuel Carter's The Riddle of Dr. Mudd, that the problem isn't that Weichmann told lies, but that he told inconvenient truths.

This makes me suspect that a lot has been left out. Humorously, Trindal tells us that after being imprisoned, Mary Surratt spotted Weichmann and blew him a kiss, but he ominously ignored her and turned away. "A guilty conscience, perhaps?" (p.133). Then, she cites witness after witness who testify that MS's eyesight was extremely poor and that is why she denied ever having seen Powell. If she couldn't recognize Powell face to face, how could she recognize Weichmann at some distance? Maybe she was hailing a complete stranger who couldn't imagine why some strange woman was blowing him kisses.

Trindal finds it suspicious that it only took the commission one day to reach a verdict when the trial had generated such a mass of evidence. I see nothing sinister in this: the members had, after all, like any jury, had heard all the evidence when it was given, and according to Steers (Blood on the Moon: The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, p.215), had heard the transcript read out the next day. Transcriptions and the like are given to juries for reference, they are not expected to reread all the material in entirety.

Trindal urges the reader to peruse the end-notes, and this is very important. Crucial information is sometimes relegated to them. Indeed, I was often puzzled by the things that she chose to put into the text, as opposed to the notes.

So I am utterly unconvinced that this is reliable and authoritative recounting and interpretation of events. It is certainly poorly argued. One is left to wonder why the government would go to such lengths, allegedly including bribery and torture, to implicate a woman they knew to be innocent, especially since they had seven other suspects; it's not as if they needed a scapegoat. Maybe Mary Surratt is guilty and maybe not, but I'll have to read further to decide. ( )