Talk:Mary Surratt

Talk

Dates differ from this Find-A-Grave entry. Lincher 18:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe the Find a Grave date of birth is incorrect. The article has too much information about the other conspirators, and other events that are on the periphery of the Mary Surratt story. I intend to copy edit the article and remove some of it. I will wait for a few days for others to weigh in, before I do so. Dr. Dan 18:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Distance from Washington

I'm curious about the distance from Washington mentioned in the "Lincoln assassination connection" section of the article. The article states a crossroads known as Surrattsville, thirteen miles (19 km) southeast of Washington, D.C. Was the thirteen miles determined by the distance travelled on roads that existed in 1865? Following today's most direct route (Woodyard Road to Branch Avenue, Branch Avenue to the DC Line), this crossroad is only 8.2 miles from the Washington/Maryland border. Straight line, it is 6.7 miles. I believe the crossroads in question is the present day intersection of Woodyard Rd/Piscataway Rd and Old Branch Ave/Brandywine Rd in Clinton, MD (which is very close to the Surratts Tavern). I was raised in Clinton, MD and went to Surrattsville High School, so I know this intersection very well and know it is not thirteen miles from DC. BucsWeb (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Plan to make an addition

I plan to add a reference to a Washington stable owner who provided the "get away" horse to John Wilkes Booth and, according to the Washington Star Newspaper, stood vigil prior to Mary Surratt's execution. I will provide full references and I will first post the text to be added here for comment. I am hoping I can get around to doing this within a week. No promises though. Mkpumphrey (talk) 01:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I plan to reference text from the following document: Twenty Days, By Dorothy Meserve Kunhardt and Philip B. Kunhardt Jr., Castle Books, 1966, ISBN 1-55521-975-6. Any comments on this document? Mkpumphrey (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I will probably add the material I have to the Abraham Lincoln assassination article rather than to this article. Mkpumphrey (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The farting vandal is back

All editors watching this page, please watch out for a vandal who persistently inserts flatulence or farting into this article. At one point the vandalism stayed in the article for months, if I recall correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trovatore (talk • contribs)

I've started watching this article and noticed that "flatulence" had been added and I removed it. I'll keep this on my watchlist. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Contradictory information in articles

This article states "The conspirators dropped about five or six feet, apparently killing Surratt instantly, although Powell, Herold, and Atzerodt writhed at the end of their ropes for a few minutes", citiing a book published in 1965. The article for George Atzerodt states "Of the four, he was the quickest to die, breaking his neck on impact.", but not quoting any reference. So which is it? Perhaps the fact is trivial, but if it is to be included, it should be accurate. One of these articles is wrong. --CPAScott (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

One has to go with verifiability and say it is correct here since it is sourced. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

URL UPDATE MARY SURRATT

Thank you for your link to my Mary Surratt web page. I have purchased my own domain, and the new URL for my Mary Surratt web page is http://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln26.html

The outdated link originally was http://members.aol.com/RVSNorton/Lincoln26.html. Then in 2008 it changed to http://home.att.net/~rjnorton/Lincoln26.html

Thank you very much if you can update the link.

Sincerely, Roger Norton, Webmaster rogerjnorton.com 71.3.57.35 (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, what link is there that used to hold this content? Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Movie Adaptation

A film adaptation of Mary Surratt's trial has just finished filming and is awaiting release later this year. In the film Mary is portrayed by Robin Wright Penn.[1] The film is directed by Robert Redford, and produced by the American film Company.[2] EdwardMRyan (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.3.57.35, 4 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Hello,

I am the author of Abraham Lincoln's Assassination which has been online since 1996. I created the Mary Surratt page at http://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln26.html at that time and have consistently added to it since then. The page has been proofread by Laurie Verge, the director of the Surratt House Museum. The page is intended for students, families, schools, teachers, parents, etc. I request that Wikipedia give consideration to adding it as an External Link on the Mary Surratt page.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely, 71.3.57.35 (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Roger Norton

71.3.57.35 (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done BejinhanTalk 12:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The description of the execution is still inconsistant with the Powell page. In that page, it says that Surratt died instantly while this page says she struggled, and also that George A. died instantly vs. that he lived for a while and urinated. Please fix these errors! Thegargoylevine (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

As I have noted before, the description here follows a reliable source. Do some research and fix it yourself using such reliable sources. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Death

The source given in the article is the book Twenty Days by the Kunhardts. Like all other sources I've read, it says that Surratt's death was the easiest of the four, and she never moved her body after the drop. Since that's what the book referenced says, I've changed the text to correpond to it. SBHarris 03:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The description of who was struggling how much after being dropped differs on the pages about the four hanged. On Surratt's page it states Herold and Powell struggled for minutes. On Atzerodt's page it says he struggled for minutes. On Powell's page it says Herold struggled briefly while Powell and Atzerodt struggled for minutes. Herold's page does not describe the execution. Not sure which one is right. Maybe someone with sources can verify and correct. 06 February 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.243.7.168 (talk) 04:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

POV

"Mary Surratt's older brother, Zadoc Jenkins, was arrested by Union forces for trying to prevent an occupying Federal soldier from voting in the Maryland elections that gave Lincoln a second term."

What is an "occupying Federal soldier"? Does this article mean a uniformed member of the US Army? Maryland never seceded, so I don't see how by any stretch a US soldier could be considered "occupying", especially if he presumeably met state residency requirements to cast a vote.

Also, it wasn't the "Maryland elections that gave Lincoln a second term". I don't recall that Maryland (alone) elects the US president, nor that Lincoln's 1864 victory hinged on winning Maryland. I would think something like "for trying to prevent a Union soldier in Maryland from voting in the 1864 Presidential elections" would be more accurate and less POV. Konchevnik81 (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Mary Surratt link for students and schools was deleted by someone

Dear Wikipedia,

Someone keeps removing the link to my Mary Surratt page. It has been on Wikipedia for years, first under the URL http://members.aol.com/RVSNorton/Lincoln26.html, then under the URL http://home.att.net/~rjnorton/Lincoln26.html, and now at http://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln26.html

I have no idea why anyone would remove it, but it's happened several times now. I have worked closely with the Surratt House Museum since the 1990's.

Could someone at Wikipedia please contact me at this address RJNorton@att.net? Hopefully you have a way of finding out who is doing this to my site and why. Possibly someone at Wikipedia could put the link back up.

Thank you very much. I appreciate your help in solving this mystery. I have devoted the last 15 years of my life to the Lincoln assassination, and it's upsetting that someone is doing this.

Best wishes, Roger Norton, Webmaster (71.3.59.161 (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)) April 12, 2011

• I think it's awesome that you have done so much work on the Lincoln assassination, Roger. The problem is that your Web site remains a personal one. There's no mystery about its removal: Look at the "History" tab for the article, and see which editor has made the change. Wikipedia has rules about what can be linked to in "External Links" sections. I'm sorry it upsets you to see a link to your page removed. But the link to your personal page (as laudable as the goal might be) did not seem to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for external links. You re-added the link (it appears). Since this page is semi-protected, other editors approved of that action. It would be edit warring to keep removing it. - Tim1965 (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Inline citations

... are good in general, but it is possible to overdo them. The current version of the article overdoes them. --Trovatore (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• I disagree. Wikipedia is fundamentally about verifiability. The policy is: "All material added to articles must be attributable to a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and one appropriate for the information in question. In practice you do not need to attribute everything; only quotations and material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed, through an inline citation that directly supports the material." (emphasis in original, wikilinks removed) This article confronts two key challenges:

1) It is about a highly controversial subject. Much of the case for (or against) Surratt depends on factual statements about who, what, where, when, why, and how. As her innocence/guilt is controversial, including these facts is critical to an understanding of the person and what happened to her. A number of sources have fabricated evidence for and against her guilt, or shaded facts for and against her guilt. (See the discussion in the National Register of Historic Places listing for some of this.) Because Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires citations to facts which are likely to be challenged, and this is a controversial article that hinges on getting facts right, practically everything in this article has been cited.

2) It is the subject of conspiracy theory speculation. Although not cited in this article, there are a large number of conspiracy theories about the Lincoln assassination. Many conspiracies challenge commonly-accepted facts, or shade or interpret facts so that they fit the conspiracy theory being developed. Since this raises the challengeability of facts again, citations should be used.

3) This article contained errors in the text which are challenged. I'm no Surratt or Lincoln assassination expert; I'm a cinema buff who saw the movie coming out and was curious. The original Wiki article had almost no citations, and what citations existed were often unreliable, biased, not published, etc. Doing just a little research not only revealed much new encylopedic information about Surratt (now added), but also differed from the claims in the text. In other words: I challenged the facts in the article, and I provided reliably, neutral, published, third-party sources and citations to them as replacements. (We have a challengeability issue in this article right now, I guess I'm saying.)

4) Sources do differ. There is a great deal of sloppy reporting and scholarship about Surratt and the execution. Look at the H.L. Mencken thing. It's widely sourced, but clearly inaccurate (Mencken "reported" on something almost a half-century after it happened). Most sources say Capt. Rath clapped his hands twice; there are one or two casual references in very brief mentions of Surratt's execution (buried in books about other subjects) which say three times. Some sources (as the NHRP noted) are blatantly inaccurate because they try to prove/disprove Surratt's guilt. Therefore, it's critical to include as many sources as possible.

5) Error and challengeability can be overcome with redundancy. That's my pithy way of claiming that an editor or reader could challenge a fact or claim by saying, "You cited Jane Doe, but I think Doe is biased. This claim is really important to this controversial topic. Find more sources." Additionally, with so many problems in sources (some accidental, some intentional, etc.), multiple citations for the same fact helps to demonstrate the consensus among scholars. (This may border on synthesis, but that's another discussion.) Wikipedia is about verifiability, and verifiability can be partially established through citation to multiple (rather than a single) source. Finally, verifiability helps overcome reliance on a single or just a few sources (a common problem in biographical articles).

6) The real issue is the way Wikipedia displays citations. I'm unhappy with this, too. One issue is that Wiki's citing procedure says that if you are using the same cite more than once (e.g., "Doe, p. 1."), break it out into its own footnote and then use the <ref name="Doe"> code rather than ibid, id, etc. Another issue is the way Wiki single-spaces all text and keeps citation font size fairly large. This makes articles with lots of citations look clunky.

7) It doesn't look bad on all screens. Much depends on your monitor's size, screen settings, resolution, and more. If I display this on my friend's 1024x768, 17", 1.25:1 monitor, the text is ugly. On my 1440x900, 17", 16:1 monitor, it looks much improved. Font size, font type, and font enlargement may also affect how the article appears (although I've not tested that).

Readability is not a Wikipedia policy, frankly. I think the article's grammar and style could be improved, now doubt. (I'm an average writer.) But removing citations to challenged or likely-to-be-challenged facts isn't a policy or guideline Wikipedia has adopted. In fact, that goes against verifiability—a cornerstone of the encyclopedia. That's the tradeoff Wikipedia makes (scholarship, not art). - Tim1965 (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Having looked over the thing just slightly more carefully, the problem is not just the density of cites, though that absolutely is a problem. The problem is that an article that was once a narrative is now pretty much just a collection of facts. Good facts, maybe. But this is supposed to be an article, not a summing up of a legal case.

It absolutely is possible to over-cite, and it is possible to put too many facts. Articles have to have a narrative flow. It doesn't matter whether that's a "policy" or not — if you want a "policy" for that, see WP:IAR. --Trovatore (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• I did just that: Broke rules about narrative flow to provide real information in an encyclopedic way. What we had was a narrative that was (I thought) incomplete, inaccurate, uncited, and which, frankly, didn't provide any of the informtion essential to understanding Mary Surrat, her life, her trial, her death. It broke a lot of fundamental Wikipedia guidelines. And while written in what I think was an average writing style, it wasn't about anything. I think it's got terrific narrative flow now. It's hardly "just" a collection of facts; it's not a list. I understand you've been working on this article for years. I've seen the history of the article, and you've made good contributions. So've I, now. I also have to say that while the trial section is now there, the rest of the article is hardly legal in either tone or narrative. Moreover, while I agree it's possible to include too many facts (e.g., trivia) in an article, I don't believe that has been done. Rather, what you have is an article that provides context, history, and solid information (appropriately cited). "Narrative flow" (not a Wikipedia guideline) might be asserted under IAR. I'd argue: Break down whatever "narrative flow" might be, and be encyclopedic. - Tim1965 (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Really, no, I haven't been "working on the article" in any real sense, ever. All my edits have been small stuff, fighting vandalism, maybe fixing a phrase here and there. I'm no historian.

I'm not saying your contributions aren't good. I think they are good. I think, roughly speaking, that there are just too many of them. It's no longer easy to read the article and come away with the story. That's a real problem; you can't wish it away. --Trovatore (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that it's a real problem, or that it takes away from the visual appeal of the article. I've laid out some rationales for what I did, but you've not addressed them. Instead, now I'm "wishing away" problems—which isn't showing much good faith. I do agree that the style of the article can be improved: Grammar, vocabulary, interstitial text, and more can clearly be enhanced. But I don't know what you are proposing. Removing citations to challengeable facts or claims? I don't think that's a viable way to improve the article under WP's citation guidelines or any other guidelines. I think there are much better ways to improve the article (e.g., doing the work of copyediting and writing) that can do that. - Tim1965 (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm proposing less detail, more story. If you remove uninteresting facts, then you can also remove the citations for them. But even for the interesting one, a citation every other sentence is just too much. It makes it seem like a postmodernist master's thesis rather than an encyclopedia article. --Trovatore (talk) 09:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

H. L. Mencken

This article asserts -- and even gives one of those inline cites -- that H. L. Mencken witnessed the execution. However, as Greg Mitchell has pointed out on Twitter, Mencken was not even born until some 15 years after Suratt's execution. Since I don't have access to the cited text used as evidence of this assertion, I can't tell what, of anything, the sentence in question was supposed to say; but it obviously is incorrect as it currently stands, so I am removing that portion of the sentence for now. --Ray Radlein (talk) 03:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• That's my bad. The cite says August Mencken, Jr., and says he wrote about it. But in looking up the actual Mencken book (By the Neck: A Book of Hangings) it becomes clear he is not relating an eyewitness account. (He could not have witnessed it, and he is not reporting anyone else's account.) I agree the cite and claim should be removed, unless an appropriate source by an eyewitness says the same thing. - Tim1965 (talk) 13:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Lincoln conspirators execution2.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Lincoln conspirators execution2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 7, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-07-07. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 08:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the day

On July 7, 1865, at Fort McNair in Washington, D.C., Mary Surratt, Lewis Powell, David Herold, and George Atzerodt (shown left-to-right) were hanged for their roles in the assassination of U.S. President Abraham Lincoln. Eight people were convicted for the crime; three others were sentenced to life imprisonment, with the last receiving a six-year sentence. Mary Surratt's son John was able to escape and was never convicted for his role. His mother was the first woman to be executed by the United States federal government.Photo: Alexander Gardner; Restoration: Lise Broer

Execution

The trial for the alleged conspirators began on May 9, 1865. Mary Surratt was hanged on July 7, 1865. The last shots of the Civil War were on June 22, 1865, and General Lee had already surrendered on April 9th, 1865. The Habeas Suspension Corpus Act of 1863 lost effect at the end of the war. So how would it be possible or legal for Johnson to be granted authority to suspend habeas corpus -- from an act that was expired and rendered inoperative -- as a prior editor has claimed in the Execution section of the article? YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 02:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I think perhaps you are in error about when the Habeas Corpus Act lost effect. The writ of habeas corpus was restored by President Andrew Johnson's Proclamation 148, but not until December 1865. Shearonink (talk) 03:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I should have known it was Wikipedia in error and not I.. see Habeas Corpus Suspension Act 1863 edits I made if you wish. Thanks to the information you gave me about that Proclamation and letting me know when that Act really lost effect I was able to make that other article a little better at least. YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 05:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Mary Surratt Web Page

The copy reads: "On November 30, December 8, and December 27, Mary Surratt advertised for lodgers in the Washington Star newspaper." I can assure you that she did not place any advertisements in a paper of that name as the Evening Star did not become the Washington Star for another hundred years. My father was assistant manager of the newsroom on his retirement from the Evening Star in 1970.

I did not correct this error as it appears to be a link to your article on the Washington Star and a search on "Evening Star" leads to an article on the celestial body. I am hoping one of you Wikipedia whizzes can correct the name with an appropriate link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.200.232 (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the information as presented is not completely wrong. The Washington Star's article includes some references to its varied names throughout its history including The Daily Evening Star which appears to have been its name during the Civil War. I've adjusted the link so its name at the time appears within the surface text while the link to the appropriate article is preserved within the underlying code. Shearonink (talk) 02:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Clarification of quote

The article says

Historian Laurie Verge has commented that "Only in the case of Dr. Samuel Alexander Mudd is there as much controversy as to the guilt or innocence of one of the defendants."

Does "as much controversy" here refer to "as much controversy as in Mary Surratt's case"? If so, maybe this could be made clearer. AxelBoldt (talk) 17:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps, but it is a quote, as given as said. Interpretation of the quote is left to the reader. --CPAScott (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

This paragraph, under "Trial":

Surratt was charged with abetting, aiding, concealing, counseling, and harboring her co-defendants.[151] The federal government initially attempted to find legal counsel for Mary Surratt and the others, but almost no attorneys were willing to take the job for fear they would be accused of disloyalty to the Union.[152] Surratt retained Frederick Aiken as her legal counsel.[126][153] A member of the military commission trying the conspirators challenged Johnson's right to defend Surratt, as Johnson had objected to requiring loyalty oaths from voters in the 1864 presidential election.[126][154] After much discussion, this objection was withdrawn, but damage was done to Johnson's influence and he did not attend most of the court sessions.[126][155] Most of Surratt's legal defense was presented by two other lawyers, Frederick Aiken and John Clampitt.[126][152]

Reverdy Johnson is only referred to here by his last name, without any previous mention of him ... I suspect that a prior version said that "Surratt retained Reverdy Johnson" but this has been changed to Aiken. Could someone with better knowledge of this topic fix this paragraph?

--CPAScott (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Execution

Mary Surratt was not the first woman executed in the US. Lavinia Fisher was, 25 years before Surratt. Crash Underride 06:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't say otherwise. It says she was the first woman executed by the US federal government. Fisher presumably was executed by South Carolina. --Trovatore (talk) 06:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

In the Execution section the last two sentences in the second to last paragraph read, "The chairs were removed.[208] Mary Surratt's last words, spoken to a guard as she moved her forward to the drop, were "Please don't let me fall."[206][209]" Weren't all the guards men & this just an editting error or was there a slim chance a female had been "guarding" Surratt? 66.32.138.129 (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the "she"( in reference to the guard) was an inadvertent error (I am not aware of any female guards at the time), and so have changed it to "he" (in reference to the guard). --Shearonink (talk) 07:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

"African American" use in the 1860's

In the section Arrest and incarceration the sentence, "On April 17, a Surratt neighbor told U.S. military authorities that he overheard one of the Surratt's African American servants saying that three men had come to the house on the night of Lincoln's assassination and that one of the men had mentioned Booth in a theater..." needs to be looked at (according to the source) and probably corrected.

I can understand some drive for current black Americans to be referred to, and even redirected on Wikipedia, as African Americans. I do find it highly improbable that the term was used in the 1860's. The article content refers directly to what was supposedly reported, which with a source would be a quote, and without simply hearsay. Nonetheless, I do not think the term "African American" was in use at the time of the Lincoln assassination. I do not have ready access to the source so would like someone that does to explore this. "If" this term was in use during the time there would be historical evidence of a term now in wide spread use. "If", as I suspect, this is not the term used by the source then the correct term needs to be used in the article.

I feel that with the drive for equality, especially racial, that adding "African" to "American" does not just define a black American with roots from Africa, but adds a definitive racial classification to an American. Has anyone noticed that articles such as Abraham Lincoln doesn't include "a white American" as a color classification. My reasoning is that an American is an American and any lineage is historical in that all "Americans", with the exception of Americans with American Indian lineage, are actually Americans from other countries, regardless of origin or color. That is just my unbiased opinion but the fact is that this high profile article should reflect accuracy.

All of this aside, this article concerns an event that occurred in 1865 and wording needs to reflect what would have been used at the time and not something added later. Otr500 (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be saying two different things. First, you seem to be arguing that the race/color/ancestry of the servants, as reported by the neighbor, is something we should not mention at all. I think that might be well-intentioned but doesn't make much sense in context; the servants' interests, and therefore the way they reported things, could have been strongly influenced by their race.

Second, you seem to be saying that if we do report their race (or the neighbor's statement of their race), we should do so using the language of the time? That makes even less sense. We don't write Wikipedia in 1865 English in general; I don't know why we would make an exception for ethnicity. Of course, if it were a direct quote, we would use the actual wording of the quote, but it isn't. --Trovatore (talk) 09:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Trovatore, I have been rather busy this month as I have so far worked 300.5 hours so pardon the delay. My reply is based in part because your reply has a certain tone, that to me implies racial innuendos on my part, even though you added "might be well-intentioned". With this thought I am taken aback, flabbergasted, and otherwise shocked at what I see as the implications of your writings. Pardon the ramblings as I attempt to shed light on certain aspects of my writing that might be hard to read in the dark. Of course I would suggest re-reading what I wrote (as I did), or just turning on the light, as I can not find the confusion you seem to have envisioned.

I will "first" address your "first" implication of my saying what you think is two different things. Before getting to the first part I would like to explain a common current American English practice, also common in many countries, of using paragraphs. Paragraphs are generally identified by the first word being indented. In the case of Wikipedia talk pages, paragraphs can be identified by the use of one or more colons at the beginning. A paragraph (from the article) is used to "...help separate ideas and let the audience know when you change partial topics.". Apparently you are somewhat familiar with this, considering your esteemed educational background, and as I observed you were also, I am sure not by accident, also using this concept.

• First part for confused editor; The subject would appear to be "African American" (no apparent mistake considering your reply) and there were four paragraphs used. The first paragraph discussed the subject and a perceived problem. The second and third paragraphs, with different partial topics, still concern the primary subject but did not, in any normal thinking or context, advance the idea or even a hint that the "race/color/ancestry of the servants", should not be mentioned in an article. I know this because I wrote it and, considering your confusion, read my comments three times, even trying to use liberal California thinking (gave me a headache), and sure enough it wasn't there. In fact, in plain old earthly English, I stated;

• 1. paragraph one; according to the source,
  2. paragraph two; "If", as I suspect, this is not the term used by the source then the correct term needs to be used in the article,
  3. paragraph three; ...this high profile article should reflect accuracy.,
  4. paragraph four; "...wording needs to reflect what would have been used at the time and not something added later.".

It is not hard to see the meaning that the source should be used and appropriate wording, not some word that did not exist at the time but is being portrayed as something that the Surratt neighbor reportedly told authorities, and certainly not that any content (if referenced) should be omitted for any reason.

• Second part for confused editor; Remember, a neighbor in 1865, told authorities that an African American servant made certain statements. Wording does not have to be quotes but would be original research if words are being used in the article that do not accurately reflect what was actually reported, said, or done. Following the source is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. At some point down the line, with made up words being allowed, someone could replace African American with some other word.

It would be interesting to know how, from your point of view (in light of the evidence), and by what wording, you state that I seemed to be giving conflicting ideas concerning not mentioning "race/color/ancestry of the servants". To make something someone commented about apparently a racial thing is shameful, when in plain old English the evidence clearly shows differently.

I am "saying", that the person, black or of African origin, was not considered an "African American" for more than one reason, and the chief one was that the term was not in use at the time. While we don't "write Wikipedia in 1865 English in general", articles should reflect what the references indicate happened or was said (my comment; "The article content refers directly to what was supposedly reported"), or it would be original research.

Please note; "A Surratt neighbor told U.S. military authorities that he overheard one of the Surratt's African American servants...". This is not listed as a quote, which is pretty obvious, but is listed as something one person is reported to have told to someone else, or possibly more than one other person since authorities is plural.

I will tell you what is confusing and that would be inconsistent writing. Surely you can see inconsistent writing even if easily confused in other areas? There is content that shows Surratt having "African American servants" (more than one), a former servant, that may or may not be black but apparently not, as is very likely, and a former slave, that was probably (being a slave) black but apparently not African American. This is evidenced by the content in the "Trial" section, "A former servant and a former slave both said Mrs. Surratt's eyesight was failing,". There are more than one (plural) African American servants (possibly born free I guess but who knows?), which is still a term that did not exist at the time. Washington D.C. abolished slavery (by Presidential order) on 16 April 1862 so this "African American servant", if a former slave, as with all former slaves, would be free in the District of Columbia. I suppose that some former slaves, according to this article, would not be considered African American, unless the mentioned slave was not black. Maybe only a free born black person could be considered African American? Again, who knows, but there it is in the article. Since I am fairly uneducated maybe I am the only one that saw these discrepancies?

I did comment that someone with access should consult the source to more closely use what was stated. This must have been missed as it surely dispels any notion that I intended to confusingly convey that some ethnicity be omitted. Since the wording is what someone presumably said, even though not a direct quote. I used the words " probably corrected". I did not assert, hint, or otherwise infer that any "race/color/ancestry" of the servants are not important but as you stated, "as reported by the neighbor", and what was reported should be used in the article according to the source. Do you know something I do not? Maybe you have the book? Reading what you wrote; "or the neighbor's statement of their race", which is what I am referring to. A neighbors statement, in the 1860's, would not have used the words "African American. I don't know what the neighbor said (I am sure he didn't say African American) but only what is recorded in history. This gets clouded or totally altered when transposing or interpretation is used and original research is allowed that is not supported by references.

• I hope it is evident, especially with my in-depth extra verbiage, that there was some serious misreading, wrong thinking, and/or misconceptions concerning what I wrote. I am no Academist such as you, my learning mostly self taught, so please understand that I am only mildly upset at what seems to me to be a "twist", that might have been unintentional, but gives rise in my mind that you are implying that there might be some racial motivation involved. Nonetheless, being from the deep south and uneducated such that I am, considering my educational pedigree wall is blank, I do not think I am unlearned. There is also not a racial bone in my body as I am racially mixed. My lineage pedigree includes English, Scottish, German, and Indian. I was raised by a Cajun (best food in the world), and married to a wonderful woman of Spanish origin (from her mothers side), and to me she is the best cook in the world. Oh! Did I mention that my ancestors from my mothers side survived the Trail of Tears? All of this still makes us just plain old "Americans" no matter what the race, color, or ancestry.

You did write something that I find confusing or hopefully misunderstand, "...the servants' interests, and therefore the way they reported things, could have been strongly influenced by their race." What does this mean and especially in relation to the subject? The servants interest? Race can strongly influence the way something is reported by a person?

The first part of you assumption (the two part confusion) is totally without grounds and the second part, although I did not consider it as you stated, would be correct considering my assertion to use the source. I mean, after all, that actually does make sense. I did just simply (I thought) ask someone to check it out to reflect what was provided by the source. To further remove some reply because of confusion (not saying this is imminent just wishing to avoid immanent thinking thus confusing replies) I will again assert that the content in the article refers to something someone told someone else so should accurately reflect this as the source provides.

• Summary to confused (and apparently mistaken) editor; Verification, verification, verification, and (there were four paragraphs) last but not lease, and certainly to clarify some perceived confusion, verification. It is NOT about race, color, or ancestry (shame on you if some racial motivation is your thinking) but about accuracy which was mentioned more than once and not actually confusing.

Making "an exception for ethnicity" has nothing to do with the proverbial price of tea in China but, to make certain that any confusion is absolved, verification is what my four paragraphs conveyed. Five times I repeated a word, and provided examples, so surely the point, somehow very apparently and totally missed the first time around, can now be understood. Editors should use the source for verification and proper content. I just thought I would add a sixth time to be 100% perfectly clear. If a seventh time is not needed then maybe we can get off what I see is some racial crap, which blows my mind, and have a normal discussion about content that should reflect what is in the source.

NOW, in light of the many repeated words that do, without a doubt reflect clearly what I was referring to, I submit that there is a mandate thus a common practice to actually "write Wikipedia in 1865 English in general", especially when content is used that conveys what one person told to another, that happened in 1865, and when the source or reference uses such language. There is actually a Wikipedia policy, referred to as Verifiability (just a reminder), that contains, "Verifiability on Wikipedia is the reader's ability to check cited sources that directly support the information in an article". In my infantile educational realm this does equate to editors using whatever language directly supports the source no matter what year it was written. Please overlook my crude form of writing, as I will just blame it on my lack of proper education, but if I can be of assistance if further clarification is needed just ask. Please, do not make it seem that there is any racial motivation in my thoughts, ideas, or reasoning. This might not have been your intention but suggesting I wish to exclude content involving race/color/ancestry (as unimportant or otherwise), especially using that I seem to be arguing that "we should not mention at all", and your questioning as to "why we would make an exception for ethnicity", no matter the original intent, does offer racial implications. Of course my large rebuttal to these accusations prove otherwise. My comments in the second and third paragraphs, my opinion concerning the use of the words "African American", that I feel does add an unneeded racial designation to "American", does not in any way offer that I wish to ever exclude any referenced information in Wikipedia articles, because of such reasons, so I hope you can stand corrected.

I guess I can get the book to see for myself and print a direct quote for historical accuracy if needed. Alright then! I feel better and hope you do too now that all the confusion in comprehension has been resolved. Otr500 (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)