Last night, Bob and I watched "The Conspirator" - the story of a young lawyer defending Mary Surratt after the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln. I don't do movie reviews, so this is not actually a review, so much as some thoughts that came to me during the piece.
Mary Surratt was essentially hanged for being guilty by association. She, herself, was not part of any conspiracy to kill the president, but her son was. And since they could not find her son, they tried her instead. That's the basis.
What unsettled me was the focus of revenge disguised as being the only way to preserve peace. Things, which I'm sure happen even today, such as "turning a witness" through bribery to lie about another. For Mary Surratt, she had no chance before the case even began. As a civilian, she was tried in a military court, not in front of a jury of her peers. Additionally, the commission was entirely chosen by the War Secretary, who not only was dealing with the death of a president but with the knowledge that he had narrowly escaped a similar fate as the conspiracy included killing him. None of the evidence presented could have convicted Mary Surratt, but with twisted witnesses, and ignoring true evidence, not to mention taking the word of those who should have been convicted as conspirators, but whom were let go, Mary Surratt was foudn guilty. And why? Because she was the mother of John Surratt, close friend of Booth, and one of the conspirators. And since they could not have him in the time they wanted in order to have a swift and full execution, they laid the blame entirely upon Mary Surratt.
Now, I have not checked the facts myself to see how close to the truth this story comes, but my heart was twisted during the movie with what was presented. The lawyer, who didn't not wish to take the case to begin with, becomes compelled to do everything he can to stay in accordance with the constitution. He is denied that right -and so Mary is denied the rights which the constitution calls for. This young lawyer says that the constitution was written especially for times that those - when war and anger and revenge rage in the hearts of men. Such times when emotions often override what is right. But he was shut down, time and time again. And in the end is completely defeated based on the group - fueled by their anger and hatred.
I cannot helping thinking that Abraham Lincoln would have been disgusted at how that was handled. For a man who desired the rights of all Americans, I feel he would not have been happy at seeing the way these men behaved and responded to his assassination.
The other thing that sprang to mind is how it seems our country, us as a people, must go through some tragedy, some marking stain in our history, in order to awaken to those things which matter most. In this case, it was not only recognized but made law a year after Mary Surratt's death, that any civilian would be tried in a civil court in both times of peace and times of war.
But what about today. What tragedies have we seen and will they wake us to those things which matter most? Or will we blindly blundger along not seeing, being driven by our tunnel vision, until an even greater tragedy comes along to wake us up.
We are told "Those who do not learn their history are doomed to repeat it" - or something along those lines. I do not believe what we are doomed to repeat in this case is the exact problems of the time of Mary Surratt, but in learning about these things, we open our eyes more fully to what is before us and, hopefully, will make better choices so that we do not fall into the trap of "repeating".
No comments:
Post a Comment