I bought a used hardback and it was in perfect condition. Much better than I expected. Arrived promptly. Would definitely purchase from this vendor again.

Really a great study of a relatively unknown woman. Larson finds the real woman behind all the myth from both sides. An engaging read, a well researched history and worth buying!

It seems Kate Clifford Larson has "borrowed" her research for this work from more thorough and accomplished authors than herself, though she has no problem disparaging their conclusions in her acknowledgments. The only difference in this treatise is her own distorted, twenty first century, feminist, liberal, white apologist twist to the history of the Surratt family!
It is a shame her political and cynical views of the history of the time are interfering with her objectivity. Ms. Larson was in such a rush to publish her slanted view of Mrs. Surratt's supposed guilt, she didn't get Miss Anna Surratt's husband's surname right, among many other details(see other comments; I don't need to rehash)! And her undisguised hatred of John H. Surratt Jr. is a main character in this book!
Mrs. Elizabeth Steger Trindal's fifteen years of reseach and ultimate publication of Mary Surratt: An American Tragedy is a more truthful and precise portrayal of sentiments, politics and facts associated with the entire population of the United States before, during and after the assassination of President Lincoln.
I found it in no way skewed of Southern leaning and I think it's appalling Ms. Larson is trying to start another war between the North and South by suggesting Mrs. Trindal is less than objective.
When Ms. Larson has spent as much time researching the subject and is used as a source for someone else's text as much as she has referenced Mrs. Trindal and others, maybe I'll look twice at what she has to say.
Until then, I say real research is done in the field, not on the internet, Ms. Kate Clifford Larson!
I was warned of this less than flattering portrayal of Mrs. Surratt before publication and now that I have read it, I say, "Save the Trees!".

I was disappointed that this book offered no new insight into the tragic events of 1865. It is so heavily weighted with the authors opinions-she is quick in many cases to draw or infer the wrong conclusion because she is unfamilier with the society and manners of time.
I found the book written by Elizabeth Trindal on the same subject much more interesting.

This is a compellingly written book that brings together data from a wide variety of primary and secondary sources to paint a vivid, well-realized portrait of Mary Surratt.

That said, the other reviewers who have complained about historical, factual, and typographical errors have quite a bit of justification. I was disappointed by the sloppiness of the book.

But Kate Clifford Larson's prose style is engaging, and although not an authoritative text by any means, this was a fascinating read.

A book of this nature must have a bibliography. This is a college professor? Is she citing comic books? She ignores the most comprehensive and thoroughly researched book on the subject -American Butus- never citing it once. St Marys Church is drawn in the wrong place on the map in the first page. That is a clue to the inaccuracies of things to come.Dr Mudd didnt attend St Peters Church near his house in Bryantown not because he wanted to hatch murder plots at St Marys Church in Piscataway.But because St Peter wasnt ordained a saint til 1880 and St Inigoes was a Jesuit Church for the Jesuits' slaves on their plantation St. Inigoes. That is a big guess-too bad wrong. In fact Mudd is buried at St marys- his home parish. Mary Surratt, nee Jenkins was from a family of Catholics.not espicopalian, ANother famous St marys parishener was Admiral Raphael Semmes CSA (but one would have to know something about the civil war to know that name)
The Jenkins family of southern MD is listed by the Catholic Church as one of the colonies founding catholic families. Mary was "fair, fat and forty" by all eyewitnesses, not the sleek temptress on the cover. Oxen Run is by the present day Naylor Road and Suitland Parkway in SE DC.
NOT OXON HILL in suburban Maryland where the new National Harbor Center.
Before you write a book- drive around the subject or at least check out google earth. Professor I give you an F!

At last, we have a judicious and thoroughly unbiased account of Mary Surratt's involvement in the assassination of Lincoln. Professor Larson goes to great lengths to give Mary the benefit of the doubt. Court records and trial transcripts are gone over with a fine tooth comb proving what many have surmised for years: Mary was a willing co-conspirator who allowed all of the conspirators, including Booth, to use her boarding house and tavern at Surrattsville, as a meeting place for planning the death of Lincoln. There are new tidbits of information concerning Mary's inept lawyers, if you can call what they did, practicing law. Yet, even with their obvious stupidity, what was revealed by the witnesses, indicate that Mary was not the pious, innocent boarding house keeper she pretended. Even the Catholic clergy brought in as character witnesses, couldn't vouch for much; many didn't even know her that well.

The evidence exists that President Johnson did receive information regarding a stay of execution for Mary, but with all the evidence, it is obvious that he had no choice but to let the matter proceed.

It is only in the afterglow of the hangings, that public furor over the execution of the first woman by the federal government, increased to a rising crescendo, egged on by Southern sympathizers.

Highly recommended, I would only suggest that the author, in a revised edition, include an extensive bibliography that would better assist those who are new to this area of Civil War study.

This book is full of error, (i.e., Dr Mudds residence in Prince George County, Mudd was a neighbor of the Surrats, etc.), as well as conjecture and enuendo. Incidents are magnified to become major events. The author fails completely to realize that those who adhered to the Confederacy were just as dedicated, if not more so, then the Northeners. They fully believed in their cause and it is only because they lost the war they became the "goats". This book is not well balanced, it is anti-Catholic and anti-Southern. Pass it by

More specifically, was Mary Surratt guilty of helping plot the murder of Lincoln? Author Kate Clifford Larson is so convinced of Mary's complicity, she calls her Booth's accomplice. The evidence against her is circumstantial but compelling.

Even today, there is a reluctance to attribute guilt to Mary Surratt. She was widely viewed as loving, kind, and regular in church attendance. Weichmann testified to her exemplary character. Fellow inmate Virginia Lomax cited examples of her kindheartedness to others in prison. Even Mary's ex-slave, Rachel Semus (p. 187), testified Mrs. Suratt always treated her fairly and she thus never had reason to complain. [As a descendant of slaves, I certainly don't grant Mrs. Surratt a pass. Unfortunately however, even our most revered figures - Washington and Jefferson - engaged in this detestable commerce. Second, at a time when incivility and sometimes cruelty to slaves were not uncommon, Mary was utterly blameless. Compare with "kindly" Dr. Mudd who shot a slave for insubordination (Edward Steers, "His Name is Still Mudd"). Compare with Lewis Paine who was arrested after stomping a black maid for talking back.]

Mary Surratt's saintly image frustrates attempts to see her as complicit in Lincoln's demise. But, says author Larson, she lied when she denied knowing Paine. She lied when she denied knowing David Herold who had visited frequently at her tavern. And why the many visits by Booth to her H Street boarding house, the two sometimes disappearing for clandestine conversations lasting an hour and longer? Why could she not find that exculpatory letter from her son, purportedly received the very day detectives demanded it?

Why the April 11 hushed tones with Lloyd about having "shooting irons" ready soon? If the guns were for no sordid purpose, say hunting, why the intrigue? And on the April 14 trip to the country, supposedly to transact urgent business, why did she not actually seek out Mr. Nothey who only lived 3 miles from the tavern? She could have sent Nothey's letter via a 3-cent stamp, avoiding a $6 horse and buggy rental and a 5-hour round trip, especially, Larson notes, since she allowed Nothey another 10 days to respond (p. 85). Urgent indeed.

The prosecution stated this was all subterfuge for the real reason for the trip: to prepare for Booth's visit that night.

Why did Mary call Booth an instrument of the Almighty sent to punish the proud and licentious people of Washington?

Author Kate Larson cites two incriminating meetings between Mary and Richard Smoot. Initially regarding him with suspicion, Mary brightened considerably when he revealed he owned the boat requisitioned to kidnap Lincoln. And when Smoot returned the day of the assassination demanding payment, Mary whispered the boat would be needed that very night.

Atzerodt's Lost Confession compromises Mary more than just a little, but less widely known is Larson's assertion that both Herold and Atzerodt implicated Mary the night before their execution (p. 208). Paine steadfastly asserted Mary's innocence, but according to Larson, his statements were made in part to appease an hysterical Anna who harangued him at length to clear her mother.

In isolation, alternative explanations can be made for all of Mary's actions but taken together, her behavior seems far, far more consistent with guilt than not. My opinion: the evidence abundantly supports Mary's knowledge of and active participation in Booth's original plan to abduct Lincoln. However, evidence of her endorsement or even knowledge of Lincoln's assassination plot fails to convince beyond a reasonable doubt. Unfortunately for Mary, reasonable doubt was not a legal stndard in 1865. Like the author states, Mary knowingly gave aid, comfort, advice, encouragement, and concealment to the conspirators and thus she was guilty of aiding and abetting -- and subject to the harsh consequences.

This volume was difficult to put down and at the end, one wished to read more. Larson provides details not commonly found elsewhere. We learn just who Mary's H Street boarders were and why they came to live there. We meet Mr. Holahan and learn his seedy occupation. We are taken to a time when friends and associates were addressed "Mr." and "Miss," a courtesy even extended to Miss Apollonia Dean, aged 9, and all the other boarders. We also find that Mr. Holahan's wife was related to Mary's friend and neighbor, William Kirby ("Is that you, Mr. Kirby?" asked Mary when detectives came to search the house). We discover exactly when the Holahans moved out, and the dollar amounts of Weichmann's monthly rent and Lloyd's yearly lease on the tavern.

Finally, we discover that two weeks prior to the assassination, two others moved into the boarding house, namely, black servant Susan Ann Mahoney Jackson and her fiancée. Miss Jackson's statements to authorities helped spell the end for Mary.

Ms. Larson has provided an eminently readable, fascinating, and unbiased review of Mary Surratt's role in the Lincoln conspiracy.

More specifically, was Mary Surratt guilty of helping plot the murder of Lincoln? His abduction? Neither? Author Kate Clifford Larson is so convinced of Mary's complicity, she calls her Booth's accomplice. The evidence against her is all circumstantial, but that evidence is compelling.

Even today, there is a reluctance to attribute guilt to Mary Surratt. She was widely viewed as loving, tender, and regular in church attendance. Louis Weichmann testified to her exemplary character. Fellow prison inmate Virginia Lomax cited examples of her kindheartedness. Even Mary's ex-slave, Rachel Semus (p. 187), testified she was always treated fairly and never had reason to complain. [As a descendant of slaves, I certainly don't grant Mrs. Surratt a pass, but unfortunately, even our most revered figures - Washington and Jefferson - engaged in this detestable commerce, and, second, at a time when incivility and cruelty to slaves were not uncommon, Mary was blameless. Compare with "kindly" Dr. Mudd who shot a slave for insubordination (Edward Steers, "His Name is Still Mudd."). Compare with Lewis Paine who was arrested after stomping a black maid for talking back.]

Mary Surratt's saintly image frustrates attempts to see her as complicit in Lincoln's demise. But, says author Larson, she apparently lied when she denied knowing Paine. She apparently lied when she denied knowing David Herold who had visited frequently at her tavern in Surratsville. And why the many visits by Booth to her H Street boarding house, the two sometimes disappearing for whispered conversations lasting an hour and longer? Why could she not find that exculpatory letter from her son, purportedly received that very day, when the detectives demanded proof?

Why the April 11 whisperings to Lloyd about having "shooting irons" ready soon? If the guns were for no sordid purpose, say hunting, why the intrigue? And on the April 14 visit, supposedly to transact urgent business, why did she not actually seek out Mr. Nothey who only lived 3 miles from the tavern? She could have sent Nothey's letter via a 3-cent stamp, avoiding a $6 horse and buggy rental and a 5-hour round trip. Especially, Larson notes, since she allowed Nothey another 10 days to respond (p. 85). Urgent indeed.

The prosecution stated this was all subterfuge for the real reason for the trip -- to prepare for Booth's visit that night.

Why did Mary call Booth an instrument of the Almighty sent to punish the proud and licentious people of Washington?

Author Kate Larson cites two incriminating meetings between Mary and Richard Smoot. At first, Mary eyed him suspiciously until he revealed he owned the boat requisitioned to kidnap Lincoln, at which point Mary brightened. And when Smoot returned the day of the assassination demanding payment, Mary whispered the boat would be needed that very night. Atzerodt's Lost Confession compromises Mary more than just a little, but less widely known is Larson's assertion that both Herold and Atzerodt implicated Mary the very night before their execution (p. 208). Paine steadfastly asserted Mary's innocence, but how common is the knowledge that, according to Larson, his statements were made in part to appease Anna who harangued him to clear her mother?

In isolation, alternative explanations can be made for all of Mary's actions but taken together, her behavior seems far, far more indicative of guilt than not. My personal feeling is that Mary's endorsement of -- or even knowledge of -- Lincoln's assassination has not been proven, but her involvement with his abduction is all but notarized. Like the author states, Mary gave aid, comfort, a warm home, encouragement, and concealment to the conspirators and thus she was guilty of aiding and abetting.

This volume was difficult to put down and at the end, one wished to read more. Larson provides details not found elsewhere. We learn just who Mary's H Street boarders were and why they came to live there. We meet Mr. Holahan and learn his questionable occupation. At a time when even intimate associates were addressed "Mr." and "Miss," we are surprised that Miss Apollonia Dean was not a lady, but a 9 year old girl, while Miss Honora Fitzpatrick was 19. We find that Mr. Holahan's wife was related to Mary's friend and neighbor, William Kirby ("Is that you, Mr. Kirby?" asked Mary when detectives came to search the house). We also discover the dollar amounts of Weichmann's monthly rent and Lloyd's yearly lease on the tavern.

Finally, we discover that two weeks prior to the assassination, two others moved into the boarding house, namely, black servant Susan Ann Mahoney Jackson and her fiancée. Miss Jackson's statements to authorities helped spell the end for Mary.

Ms. Larson has provided an eminently readable, fascinating, and importantly, unbiased review of Mary Surratt's role in the Lincoln conspiracy.

Little new here in a bland, unoriginal biography of Mary Surratt, except some some sloppy and distracting errors. Here's one: Larson contends Mary Surratt and her husband John once operated "a mill property that John had acquired near Oxon Hill, a small farming community south of Washington, D.C. along the banks of the Potomac River." Surratt Society researchers locate the Surratt's mill at Oxon Run, a stream flowing into the Anacostia River that was then and is now inside the boundaries of Washington, D.C., (near First and Atlantic SE). It is an urban park today, and millstones can still be found there. Oxon Hill was the estate of Franklin Roosevelt's aide Sumner Welles, and is several miles away.

For more than 140 years the role that Mary Surratt played in supporting John Wilkes Booth's assassination of Abraham Lincoln has been clouded. Though Mary Surratt was executed with other conspirators in the assassination, many have believed that she was thrown to the wolves undeservedly.

In Assassin's Accomplice, Kate Clifford Larson lays to rest any debate about Mary Surratt's role. Initially believing that Mary Surratt was innocent, Larson, through her investigation becomes convinced that she was, in fact, guilty of the crime for which she died. The evidence is clear that Mary Surratt provided Booth and the other conspirators a place to hold-up before the crime and she did know what they were up to. If nothing else, Mary Surratt provided moral support; enough to get you convicted. At her house they planned all of the events that they tried to succeed at on that fateful April day. The evidence is overwhelming. Should she have been executed for her participation before the fact? Execution probably wouldn't happen to day but in 1865 justice was swift.

Though Larson puts forth a significant amount of damning evidence, she still seems to harbor some sympathy for Mary Surratt. To say the Mary's trial was flawless is to miss understand what happened. Her lawyer disappeared early in the trial and her defense was left to lawyers not really up to the task. Certainly, in today's courts she would have had grounds for an appeal.

Larson has researched her topic well using every available resource. She writes to be understood and certainly has compassion for Mary though Larson allows the chips fall where they may.

Highly recommended.

Peace

Lincoln's assassins were a group of fanatical Southerners lead by the charismatic John Wilkes Booth. The plan was to behead the United States Government by murdering its' the most important leaders. The group seems to have put no thought into what this would mean for either the nation or the defeated South. In reality, murdering Lincoln was about the worst thing that could have happened. Without his political leadership, Congress and the President fought over Reconstruction and Impeachment damaging all parties.
Mary Surratt and Dr. Samuel Mudd are the two conspirators that have generated second thoughts. Mrs. Surratt is the first woman executed by the United States Government. Dr. Mudd was imprisoned and later released for setting Booth's broken leg. For almost 100 years, they have been viewed as suffering from guilt by association. Two people caught up in the post assassination frenzy, railroaded by military courts under control of Washington. Vengeance not justice was the popular perception of their fate.
In the last ten or fifteen years, a different view developed. Surratt and Mudd are seen as members of Booth's team with a long history of active support for the Confederacy. A number of books "prove" this thesis showing them to be active members of the CSA secret service in Maryland throughout the war. This book is the latest entry into this group and like the other books requires the reader to accept the argument with few questions.
The problem is that people engaged in a dangerous secretive activity do not make records. The US Government found some information but never came close to the level of "a smoking gun". This book, assumes "a smoking gun" using as sources previous modern books on this subject. Additionally, the Surratt's owning slaves is part of the evidence against them. The author seems unfamiliar with some aspect of the times. She makes much of the press referring to Surratt as an Amazon, while she was only five feet four inches tall. Since the average man was little over five feet six inches tall at this time, it is not a truthful statement on the author's part. I am troubled by placement of footnotes and the lack of a bibliography. Some statements are not footnoted that I felt should be and other statements the footnote was of marginal benefit. Lack of a bibliography is disturbing. Authors need to decide to drop footnotes and bibliographies or include both. Partial footnotes are not a substitute for both.
While expressing doubts about the history content of this book, I agree with the author's conclusions. This is a very very good read! It is enjoyable and provides an excellent look at the current thinking on Lincoln's assassination.