+- Lincoln Discussion Symposium (https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium)
+-- Forum: Lincoln Discussion Symposium (/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Assassination (/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Interesting Visit (/thread-3369.html)
RE: Interesting Visit - Susan Higginbotham - 05-11-2017 06:45 PM
I'm skeptical myself. And I have a hard time associating this rather prim-looking lady with Sarah.
RE: Interesting Visit - RJNorton - 05-12-2017 06:54 AM
There is a side of me that makes me want the pictured lady to be Sarah.
Here are a few things said about her.
When she stayed at the Surratt boardinghouse, Weichmann wrote, "The woman was rather diminutive in height but very active and sprightly in all her movements." He never saw her face because of the veil she wore. She left behind a pair of shoes or slippers which Weichmann found. He said they were "a delicate pair of ladies' shoes, evidently belonging to someone who was the owner of a small foot."
At the John Surratt trial David Barry was questioned:
A. She was a rather slim, delicate woman. I think she had black eyes and dark hair. I do not recollect whether I saw her with her bonnet off. I think she wore her veil down nearly all the time. I saw her at the table.
Q. She was delicate in size?
A. I think so; that is my recollection.
Q. What was her age, about?
A. I should say she was under thirty.
In one of his statements George Atzerodt said, "This woman is about 21 years of age, spruce, neat, medium size, black eyes and fair complexion."
In another statement Atzerodt said, "This woman is about 20 years of age, good looking & well-dressed. Black hair & eyes, round face..."
Is it a stretch to assume, in general, the woman in the photo could fit these descriptions?
RE: Interesting Visit - JMadonna - 05-12-2017 07:09 AM
F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote that non-fiction is "halfway between fiction and fact". Most writers of history have found this to be true. My feeling is that you'll never know for certain if it is Sarah or isn't especially if you are skeptical of the chain of evidence. All you can do is build your case, present it to your readers and let them decide.
RE: Interesting Visit - L Verge - 05-12-2017 08:37 AM
(05-12-2017 06:54 AM)RJNorton Wrote: There is a side of me that makes me want the pictured lady to be Sarah.
Here are a few things said about her.
When she stayed at the Surratt boardinghouse, Weichmann wrote, "The woman was rather diminutive in height but very active and sprightly in all her movements." He never saw her face because of the veil she wore. She left behind a pair of shoes or slippers which Weichmann found. He said they were "a delicate pair of ladies' shoes, evidently belonging to someone who was the owner of a small foot."
At the John Surratt trial David Barry was questioned:
A. She was a rather slim, delicate woman. I think she had black eyes and dark hair. I do not recollect whether I saw her with her bonnet off. I think she wore her veil down nearly all the time. I saw her at the table.
Q. She was delicate in size?
A. I think so; that is my recollection.
Q. What was her age, about?
A. I should say she was under thirty.
In one of his statements George Atzerodt said, "This woman is about 21 years of age, spruce, neat, medium size, black eyes and fair complexion."
In another statement Atzerodt said, "This woman is about 20 years of age, good looking & well-dressed. Black hair & eyes, round face..."
Is it a stretch to assume, in general, the woman in the photo could fit these descriptions?
Yes, she could fit those descriptions; but so could many women. David Barry's claim that he "saw her at table" makes his description more accurate to me. She had to have thrown back her veil in order to eat. I would tend to think that she actually removed her entire bonnet when eating. Proper etiquette required women to remove hats at the dining table -- even when I was a child.
Do we have any other sources that refer to Sarah as a "young widow from Kentucky?"
I agree with Jerry. I also think that the elusive Sarah Slater will remain elusive just because none of the details can be proven without a doubt.
RE: Interesting Visit - SSlater - 05-14-2017 04:51 PM
Dear Disbelievers. What do you require, in any form whatever, that which would convince you that there really was a SARAH SLATER that traveled back and forth to Canada as an agent of the Confederate Government, and we are researching her experiences?
No one can convince you that something you hold dear. is not true, without your trust and acceptance of new facts, just as they are found. No one will change your mind, until you change it yourself.
In the meantime, we will continue as we now stand, until you climb the fence that stands between us.
Signed, Your Conscience
RE: Interesting Visit - Steve - 05-14-2017 06:13 PM
(05-14-2017 04:51 PM)SSlater Wrote: Dear Disbelievers. What do you require, in any form whatever, that which would convince you that there really was a SARAH SLATER that traveled back and forth to Canada as an agent of the Confederate Government, and we are researching her experiences?
No one can convince you that something you hold dear. is not true, without your trust and acceptance of new facts, just as they are found. No one will change your mind, until you change it yourself.
In the meantime, we will continue as we now stand, until you climb the fence that stands between us.
Signed, Your Conscience
I don't understand your comment. It looks like the other commenters are only questioning whether the photo of the woman is Sarah, not whether Sarah existed.
RE: Interesting Visit - L Verge - 05-14-2017 08:32 PM
John,
I agree with Steve here. We all know that Sarah Slater, "The Lady in the Veil," existed. Extensive research by James O. Hall over forty years ago and then continued by you has proven that. We disbelievers just want more solid proof that Headley's photo is definitely of Sarah. There is just something about its provenance that doesn't ring true to me.
RE: Interesting Visit - RJNorton - 05-15-2017 04:25 AM
In addition to John's research and Mr. Hall's, Susan H. has this fascinating web page:
http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/posts/sarah-slater-and-her-souvenir-spoons-her-last-will-and-testament/
Susan has a wonderful website, and if you are ever having a bad day and need a good laugh, please go here:
http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/historicalcosmogirls.html
RE: Interesting Visit - JMadonna - 05-15-2017 01:15 PM
(05-14-2017 04:51 PM)SSlater Wrote: No one can convince you that something you hold dear. is not true, without your trust and acceptance of new facts, just as they are found. No one will change your mind, until you change it yourself.
In the meantime, we will continue as we now stand, until you climb the fence that stands between us.
Signed, Your Conscience
John,
Been there & believe me I feel your pain.
Before your update I would have said the chances of the picture being Slater were 50-50 now I would say its in the 90+percentile.
Laurie's question is certainly legitimate but because its unanswerable does that negate all your research? I would hope not.
She asked "How did the police in Canada come to have the photo in the first place? " I certainly don't know the answer factually but I can offer a plausible scenario.
If you google Saint Albans Raiders, I'm sure you will see a group photo of them under arrest in their Montreal lockup. If they didn't mind having their picture taken in Montreal, why should Sarah who was aiding them? ( another unanswerable question).
Even if she meant it for her own personal use, it would be a simple matter for the police to obtain a copy from the photographer.
RE: Interesting Visit - Gene C - 05-15-2017 02:01 PM
Speaking of the Saint Alban's Bank Robbers, here is what looks like 3 interesting articles from the St. Albans Raid website that I haven't read yet.
http://www.stalbansraid.com/history/the-setting/
RE: Interesting Visit - L Verge - 05-15-2017 02:57 PM
"If you google Saint Albans Raiders, I'm sure you will see a group photo of them under arrest in their Montreal lockup. If they didn't mind having their picture taken in Montreal, why should Sarah who was aiding them? ( another unanswerable question)."
My only answer to that question, Jerry, is that Sarah was still working as an undercover agent for the Confederacy (running the line from Richmond to Canada). Wouldn't photographs be harmful to her missions through "enemy" territory in the North?
That has been my point through this whole identification process. If the war had been over with, then YES, she would have posed for a photo. The photograph being taken at the reunion is a possibility to me - except for the outdated clothing by that time. I just have doubts that Sarah would allow herself to be photographed or to distribute any photographs during her undercover work.
I suspect that most of us have our theories about certain aspects of the assassination, etc. But we hit a brick wall and can't prove them. We have to settle with saying "we think, but can't prove."
My brick wall happens to be my theory that David Herold was sent by Booth into Southern Maryland on April 12-13, 1865, to alert the players down there that the die was cast, and the deed would be done soon. I theorize that is how David came to spend the night of April 13 with my great-grandparents. My sticking point is that I believe Dr. Mudd was one of those he contacted. Some believe me, some don't; and I have no way of proving it. You just learn to live with the fact that some things will never be proven, especially when one is dealing with underground operations.
RE: Interesting Visit - JMadonna - 05-15-2017 04:04 PM
(05-15-2017 02:57 PM)L Verge Wrote: My only answer to that question, Jerry, is that Sarah was still working as an undercover agent for the Confederacy (running the line from Richmond to Canada). Wouldn't photographs be harmful to her missions through "enemy" territory in the North?;
Got to remember this was the 1860s not the 20th century. Photographs were a new technology and people were anxious to get them. The only way to distribute them was by hand so the assumption that police along her path would identify the woman in the veil by a picture was slim to none.
Heck we can't make that connection now (which is the subject of this thread). It pretty much stayed this way until Butch Cassidy and Sundance were unmasked.
RE: Interesting Visit - Gene C - 05-15-2017 05:29 PM
I'll politely disagree with you Jerry, as "wanted posters" following the Lincoln assassination had photo's on them.
Plus, no need for the Canadian police to have a need for Sarah's photo, as far as they were concerned she had not broken the law nor was being accused of breaking the law.
RE: Interesting Visit - JMadonna - 05-15-2017 06:25 PM
(05-15-2017 05:29 PM)Gene C Wrote: I'll politely disagree with you Jerry, as "wanted posters" following the Lincoln assassination had photo's on them.
True but as I said they had to be done by hand. Those posters were all hand made and since there was no way to reproduce them they were limited in production. Google may give you the impression that these were in the next morning editions but there weren't that many of them due to the reproduction restriction.
According to Susan "Headley claims in a footnote on p. 376 that one of the prisoners in jail at Montreal succeeded in securing the young widow's photograph". Laurie assumed it came from the Montreal police, I was just giving her a plausible scenario.
You are correct though - No reason for the police to have one and no evidence that they ever did.
RE: Interesting Visit - BettyO - 05-15-2017 06:59 PM
I have to remark on Laurie's take on the photo of Sarah and the "nose to mouth" lines....medically called "nasal labial fold lines."
I wonder what the condition of her teeth was? Most folk in the mid 19th century had pretty wretched teeth, no matter the age. These facial lines can be indictive not only of age but of missing teeth as well - or so I've been told.