+- 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 - 05-15-2017 08:42 PM
Headley's exact words are, "The prisoners never met this lady before or after her visits to the jail at Montreal. One of the survivors secured her photograph at the jail, but after forty years her name is forgotten."
The most likely scenario to me is that the unnamed lady herself was the source of the photograph. I just don't see why Sarah would take the trouble to veil herself if she was going to hand out her photograph, not knowing into whose hands at the jail it might ultimately fall.
RE: Interesting Visit - SSlater - 05-15-2017 09:37 PM
Why did the police have Sarah's picture? Sarah was a complete unknown in Canada. The Confederates didn't have a name. The Police never got her name. Yet, she visited the Raiders daily. She brought them food, She mailed their letters. She brought them Mail, etc.
Up to this time she never ran a "mission". She was not yet a spook. Her whole motivation was to get to Mama - in New York City.
I almost forgot -we are talking about the Police. Sarah had not committed a Crime, so she was not "investigated", but she needed to be Identified each day, by whoever was on duty, day or night, to be allowed to see the prisoners. They accomplished this with the Photo.
I have found that she used her name only once - when she signed the Register at the St. Lawrence Hall. She signed Nettie S. Slater, at
3 AM in April 1865. Another time she used her Mother's name.
But the Cops didn't know that, nor did the Confederates. It wasn't until Cameron spilled the Beans, at the Raiders trial.
I could write all week with info like this. Is it of interest? This activity almost started a war between the U.S. and Canada. The U.S. was desperate to prevent the "papers" from getting to Canada. The Confederates sent about 10 different people to Richmond. Each went by a separate route, at a different time etc. etc. Only 3 made it to Richmond. One was captured in Ohio, and "convicted", but Lincoln let him off with imprisonment for the duration. (That turned out to be 2 months +/-.) I wonder if the U.S. ever kept a record of what they did with the rest?
Correction. That might have been March 1865 - Iforget.
(05-15-2017 09:37 PM)SSlater Wrote: Why did the police have Sarah's picture? Sarah was a complete unknown in Canada. The Confederates didn't have a name. The Police never got her name. Yet, she visited the Raiders daily. She brought them food, She mailed their letters. She brought them Mail, etc.More: When the book was published in 1905. Sarah was in Poughkeepsie-most of the time as Sarah Long.
Up to this time she never ran a "mission". She was not yet a spook. Her whole motivation was to get to Mama - in New York City.
I almost forgot -we are talking about the Police. Sarah had not committed a Crime, so she was not "investigated", but she needed to be Identified each day, by whoever was on duty, day or night, to be allowed to see the prisoners. They accomplished this with the Photo.
I have found that she used her name only once - when she signed the Register at the St. Lawrence Hall. She signed Nettie S. Slater, at
3 AM in April 1865. Another time she used her Mother's name.
But the Cops didn't know that, nor did the Confederates. It wasn't until Cameron spilled the Beans, at the Raiders trial.
I could write all week with info like this. Is it of interest? This activity almost started a war between the U.S. and Canada. The U.S. was desperate to prevent the "papers" from getting to Canada. The Confederates sent about 10 different people to Richmond. Each went by a separate route, at a different time etc. etc. Only 3 made it to Richmond. One was captured in Ohio, and "convicted", but Lincoln let him off with imprisonment for the duration. (That turned out to be 2 months +/-.) I wonder if the U.S. ever kept a record of what they did with the rest?
Correction. That might have been March 1865 - Iforget.
more: That picture HAS to be the Lady who took care of the Raiders. or the Raiders would not have allowed the Picture to be published and identified as the woman who went Richmond at her own cost - to save their lives. She meant too much to them. By then they knew that Cameron gave them her name.
RE: Interesting Visit - Gene C - 05-16-2017 06:55 AM
I find it all very interesting. The more information you (and others) share the more informed decision I can make and the better I can understand the events as they happened. You have been doing the research for years, finding documents filed away for longer than I've been alive, and I highly respect that. I'm still not totally convinced about Hedley and his photograph.
Thanks Jerry, I did not know that about the wanted posters.
Many in Canada were worried the North would try to invade Canada if the South started winning the war, to make up for lost territory. The Canadians wanted England to put more effort in protecting Canada, while England felt they needed to show more effort to defend themselves. England's military strength was stretched to the limit with tensions in Europe. Seward's attitude and letters made the situation worse, especially with the Trent affair. Canadian politics and public feeling were a bit divided during this period.
RE: Interesting Visit - Susan Higginbotham - 05-16-2017 08:17 AM
In his book, Headley claims that the "Kentucky lady" was in Montreal visiting the prisoners when she volunteered to go to Richmond. retrieve the needed documents, and then return to Montreal (p. 376). Sarah, by contrast, was already in the South when she was recruited to take the documents from Richmond to Montreal.
There's probably no way to prove this, but after comparing Headley, Hall's account of Sarah's movements, and Cameron's testimony, I suspect that the men who recalled the "Kentucky lady" as bringing documents from Richmond to Montreal were conflating two women: an unnamed widow from Kentucky who called on them in prison, and the courier Sarah.
RE: Interesting Visit - Gene C - 05-16-2017 09:17 AM
His name has come up on a few other posts, but who is the Rev. Stephen Cameron?
Did he have an official position in the Confederate Gov't.
What church was he a reverend for?
I did find two photo's of him with some of the other St Albans Raiders. There is some info about Cameron here also, but it raises as many questions as it answers.
Any ides who were the "two nuns" who traveled with him?
https://books.google.com/books?id=y62ACQAAQBAJ&pg=PT131&lpg=PT131&dq=reverend+stephen+cameron&source=bl&ots=eahKUjmbeW&sig=KUwIsHBY00RSjmTpDDFVaq7XX3o&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj5ssrvyvTTAhVFSyYKHXnLCWMQ6AEIKzAC#v=onepage&q=reverend%20stephen%20cameron&f=false
Any one read the book this link is from?
RE: Interesting Visit - RJNorton - 05-16-2017 12:30 PM
(05-16-2017 09:17 AM)Gene C Wrote: His name has come up on a few other posts, but who is the Rev. Stephen Cameron?
Gene, I do not have his testimony at the John Surratt trial, but here is the conflicting opinion the New York Times printed:
"Today a dozen witnesses testified that Cameron, the pardoned rebel, was a man of truth and good character, while yesterday a dozen others testified exactly to the contrary, and one expressed the opinion that he was crazy."
RE: Interesting Visit - Susan Higginbotham - 05-16-2017 01:13 PM
Cameron's testimony at the John Surratt trial begins on p. 793 here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=HzwuAAAAYAAJ&q=Cameron#v=snippet&q=Cameron&f=false
In Cameron's testimony at the St. Albans trial, he mentions "another messenger" bringing documents to Montreal, presumably Sarah Slater, but does not mention her name or any identifying information about the messenger. From the February 19, 1865, New York Times:
"I received the papers from Secretary Benjamin, Secretary of State, in the State Department, on the 4th of February: he affixed his signature to them in my presence; I did not part with them till I handed them to Mr. Abbott yesterday; the great seal of the Confederate States was affixed to them; Mr. Benjamin called my attention to the excellence of the impression; I volunteered to go for the prisoners; I carried a missive from Col. Thompson, who arranged with me about going, and supplied the funds; I called on Mr. Benjamin an hour after my arrival in Richmond, and was informed the requisite papers had been sent by another messenger the day before; he said everything had been sent necessary to establish their belligerent character and that they acted under orders; the following day I called on the President by appointment, and asked, in order to assure the safe delivery of the papers, if I might be entrusted with duplicates as a second messenger . . ."
http://www.nytimes.com/1865/02/19/news/st-albans-raiders-proceedings-trial-montreal-testimony-geo-n-saunders-rebel.html?pagewanted=all
RE: Interesting Visit - RJNorton - 05-16-2017 01:34 PM
(05-16-2017 01:13 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote: In Cameron's testimony at the St. Albans trial, he mentions "another messenger" bringing documents to Montreal, presumably Sarah Slater, but does not mention her name or any identifying information about the messenger. From the February 19, 1865, New York Times:
Is Headley then the only source available that specifically names Sarah as a messenger for the documents needed from Richmond? Is there any other source that backs up Headley regarding Sarah being a Richmond/Montreal documents messenger? Did Cameron make a statement on this separate from his trial testimony?
RE: Interesting Visit - L Verge - 05-16-2017 01:59 PM
(05-16-2017 08:17 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote: In his book, Headley claims that the "Kentucky lady" was in Montreal visiting the prisoners when she volunteered to go to Richmond. retrieve the needed documents, and then return to Montreal (p. 376). Sarah, by contrast, was already in the South when she was recruited to take the documents from Richmond to Montreal.
There's probably no way to prove this, but after comparing Headley, Hall's account of Sarah's movements, and Cameron's testimony, I suspect that the men who recalled the "Kentucky lady" as bringing documents from Richmond to Montreal were conflating two women: an unnamed widow from Kentucky who called on them in prison, and the courier Sarah.
Thank you for pointing out that Sarah was in Richmond when she received the assignment.
"William Tidwell's book Come Retribution describes her as 'an exotic young French-speaking Confederate agent and courier also known as Kate Thompson.' Her command of the French language would stand her in good stead as a conduit between Richmond and Montreal. This fact was not lost on Confederate Secretary of War James A. Seddon, who recruited her to carry messages between Richmond and Confederate agents in Canada. Her first assignment was to carry papers and money to the agents who had participated in the St. Albans, Vermont raid and bank robbery. The Canadian authorities captured them and put them in jail. The Federal government demanded their return to the States to stand trial for the bank robberies. Sarah carried papers from Richmond to Canada, which convinced the court that the men were not mere criminals, but agents acting on the lawful orders of their government; extradition was denied. Eventually the men were freed and the money they had taken from St. Albans returned to them." (Biography of Slater from eHistory posting, Ohio State University Department of History.)
I'd like to point out here that the papers demanding proof that the Confederate raiders were commissioned by the Confederacy (thus sparing them from death) came through Southern Maryland and reached another Confederate, female agent, Olivia Floyd of Port Tobacco. The documents were skillfully hidden by Olivia while Federal troops searched her house. As soon as they left, she hid the papers in her hair, headed for the Pope's Creek signal point and got them on their way to Richmond. The documents providing the raiders' commission then headed north via Sarah Slater.
RE: Interesting Visit - Susan Higginbotham - 05-16-2017 04:19 PM
(05-16-2017 01:34 PM)RJNorton Wrote:(05-16-2017 01:13 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote: In Cameron's testimony at the St. Albans trial, he mentions "another messenger" bringing documents to Montreal, presumably Sarah Slater, but does not mention her name or any identifying information about the messenger. From the February 19, 1865, New York Times:
Is Headley then the only source available that specifically names Sarah as a messenger for the documents needed from Richmond? Is there any other source that backs up Headley regarding Sarah being a Richmond/Montreal documents messenger? Did Cameron make a statement on this separate from his trial testimony?
As far as I know, Headley never names the female messenger as Sarah or anyone else, but refers to her simply as a widow from Kentucky whose name no one could recall.
Weichmann, however, described Sarah in his conspiracy trial testimony as going "to Canada and Richmond." At John Surratt's trial, Lewis McMillan mentioned "Mrs. Slater's" name as being "very conspicuous" during the St. Albans raiders' trial as one of those had gone to Richmond to help the raiders in their trial.
RE: Interesting Visit - RJNorton - 05-16-2017 04:43 PM
Thanks, Susan. And thanks to Laurie for mentioning the information in Come Retribution.
However, I am still a little confused. Sorry. Did Headley personally see "the Kentucky widow?" I know Headley operated in Canada, but I cannot recall if anyone has posted an answer to that question. If he did see her in person then I would assume the photo in his book is indeed the right messenger.
RE: Interesting Visit - Susan Higginbotham - 05-16-2017 06:12 PM
(05-16-2017 04:43 PM)RJNorton Wrote: Thanks, Susan. And thanks to Laurie for mentioning the information in Come Retribution.
However, I am still a little confused. Sorry. Did Headley personally see "the Kentucky widow?" I know Headley operated in Canada, but I cannot recall if anyone has posted an answer to that question. If he did see her in person then I would assume the photo in his book is indeed the right messenger.
Nothing in his brief account of her suggests to me that he saw the widow personally. He doesn't use the first person, as he does elsewhere in his book when speaking of events in which he participated.
RE: Interesting Visit - L Verge - 05-16-2017 06:30 PM
One thing that seems unusual to me is the reference to her being a Kentucky widow. I don't think that Sarah ever set foot in Kentucky. However, quite a few of the Confederate operatives in Canada were from Kentucky, including Headley, Thomas Hines, Castleman, and (I think) Dr. Blackburn of yellow fever infamy. There were probably more because Kentucky was a volatile state.
Is it possible that there were two young, attractive women running errands in Canadian operations - one who served with Headley (who was active in the plot to burn NYC) and got her photo in his book - and Sarah Slater, The Lady in the Veil (who was not a widow and not from Kentucky)?
Sorry, just had to throw some more speculative oil on the fire...
RE: Interesting Visit - SSlater - 05-16-2017 10:51 PM
Someone in Canada was sufficiently skilled to be able to take decent pictures of the Raiders, at the time of their trial. There are two pictures of the Raiders - one is said to be on the Court House steps.
That same person may have provided a good picture of the women who attended to the prisoners. This shows that a decent picture could have been made of her. ("Goodole watzer name").
I should not care whether or not Sarah was recruited "to go for Documents - from Richmond or from Canada". But strange new claims, totally unsupported, annoy me. Can anyone show a source for the claim?
Here is what Headley says.... "Mrs _______". a widow, only 24 years old, employed by the Confederate Government for Secret Service in the Northern States had come to Montreal and called on the prisoners at the jail. (There was no USO troop to sing and dance, so she tried to get them to smile). They needed help so she volunteered to make the trip. I can't see any room here for doubt.
I did study this event, at some length and came to the conclusion that Headley, knew her name!. This quote was written just before 1905. Does a widow carry the "Mrs" title after the death of her spouse? Does she revert to her Maiden name? I think people Called her a widow - because that was her disguise. I think Headley only emphasized her disguise as a widow. Otherwise he might have used her full name. (He could have said "An unknown lady...."
New question. Who was it that invited her to the proposed Honorarium in Kentucky in 1867? (He knew her name and knew where she lived. ) (P.S. She was living in New York City with Rowan, based on information in her divorce papers. ) She may have been found through the Divorce Proceedings. Her name and Rowan's was published over a string of months, in an effort to find him and get him to attend the hearings (He didn't show.)
For Laurie. A good candidate for "the other woman' that you seek might be Josephine Brown She came to Canada with Sarah (and Cameron) and was working in Thompson's Office. Her Uncle was the one who approved the St. Albans Raid, and was being criticized for it.
His name was Clay. (Her husband worked there too.) I'm sure Clay would want to have "one of his people - on the scene"
RE: Interesting Visit - RJNorton - 05-17-2017 04:17 AM
(05-16-2017 10:51 PM)SSlater Wrote: New question. Who was it that invited her to the proposed Honorarium in Kentucky in 1867?
Headley writes, "This devotee of the South was a Kentucky lady. About 1867 she visited Frankfort when the legislature was in session. During a recess of fifteen minutes taken in her honor she was the recipient of an ovation, being presented by Hon. Thomas T. Coger, of Jessamine County, the home of Lieut. Bennett H. Young."
Are there any other sources to support Headley that this really happened?