FYI on Stringfellow

[SSlater]

Curiosity moved me to look at Frank Stringfellow - What name did he use while on a Job? I did find one reference to him as Edward Delcher. Another reference gave me Robert Hawkins. But I can't find any confirmation for either name. This does not surprise me, since he was trying to hide and did a good job. He kept out of the CITY DIRECTORY etc. and he wasn't there in a Census Year. I also looked for the Dentist who was supposedly training him. This try netted Dr. Richard Sykes. Again Dead End. - no record of him as a Dentist.
I read also, that he did earn a license to Practice, but no additional name. Can anyone add anything to this? Please add to the positive side , not the negative side. He He!

[RJNorton]

When he disguised himself as a girl didn't he use the name "Miss Sally Marsten?"

[SSlater]

(06-07-2017 03:17 PM)SSlater Wrote:  Curiosity moved me to look at Frank Stringfellow - What name did he use while on a Job? I did find one reference to him as Edward Delcher. Another reference gave me Robert Hawkins. But I can't find any confirmation for either name. This does not surprise me, since he was trying to hide and did a good job. He kept out of the CITY DIRECTORY etc. and he wasn't there in a Census Year. I also looked for the Dentist who was supposedly training him. This try netted Dr. Richard Sykes. Again Dead End. - no record of him as a Dentist.
I read also, that he did earn a license to Practice, but no additional name. Can anyone add anything to this? Please add to the positive side , not the negative side. He He!

As I searched for Stringfellow, I ran across several submissions by Jerry Madona to various "Government Websites". Is Jerry a serious source for info on Strimgfellow? Jerry, are you holding back on us?
I would very much appreciate anything you can add to our limited knowledge. PLEASE!

[John Fazio]

John and Roger:

What was the nature of the mission he undertook in Washington in March, 1865, at the behest of Jefferson Davis? Inasmuch as Lincoln was assassinated in mid-April, can we be criticized for assuming that it had something to do with the assassination and attempted assassinations that occurred on April 14? This view receives support from the fact that he mentions that he was in constant communication with an officer who occupied an important position about Lincoln, adding that he made this officer a proposition. The view receives further support from the fact that Stringfellow left the country for two years after the assassination, going to Canada and returning to Virginia in 1867. All of this is circumstantial evidence, I grant, but as any prosecutor will tell you, circumstantial evidence isn't bad, frequently preferable to eyewitness testimony and material evidence. Any thoughts on who the officer who was near Lincoln might be? Robert Lockwood Mills thinks it was Parker. I argued against this conclusion in Decapitating the Union, but I offer no one in his place. That there was treachery in the Federal government, however, is, in my opinion, certain. The evidence for it is clear and convincing, including the means employed by the fugitives to get across the Navy Yard Bridge. Remember that the grunts and the hatchet men went to the gallows and the Dry Tortugas, but the masterminds walked. When has it ever been otherwise?

John

[RJNorton]

John, is it possible to post the entirety of Stringfellow's 1880 letter to Jefferson Davis?

I agree with you - I doubt Stringfellow's White House contact was John F. Parker.

[John Fazio]

(06-08-2017 05:03 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  John, is it possible to post the entirety of Stringfellow's 1880 letter to Jefferson Davis?

I agree with you - I doubt Stringfellow's White House contact was John F. Parker.

Roger:

Regrettably, it is not. Here's what Tidwell, Hall and Gaddy say about the letter: "Stringfellow to Davis, Stringfellow Collection. This nine-page typescript bears only the date 1880 and was apparently made from a copy kept by Stringfellow. It is one of forty-two items given to the society (The Virginian Historical Society) in 1955 by a Stringfellow descendant, Alice Stringfellow Shultice. The location of the original letter to Davis has not been learned. The typescript is the basic source used here (Come Retribution, pp. 411, 412) to describe Stringfellow's Washington mission and related movements." (CR, p. 425)

Comment: I believe we may safely assume that the original letter was destroyed by Stringfellow, Davis or another Southern partisan because of its sensitivity. A mission to Washington at the behest of Davis, approximately one month prior to the attempted decapitation of the United States government (Lincoln, Johnson, Seward, Stanton and Grant, at least, and as many as "15 yankees", per the Confederate agent "Johnston"), a mission that involved constant communication with an officer occupying an important position about Lincoln, to whom (the officer) Stringfellow made "a proposition", could not have been for a purpose other than one relating to the decapitation. The typescript somehow preserved the substance of the letter and is likely all we are ever going to have.

John

[Steve]

(06-08-2017 07:34 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  Roger:

Regrettably, it is not. Here's what Tidwell, Hall and Gaddy say about the letter: "Stringfellow to Davis, Stringfellow Collection. This nine-page typescript bears only the date 1880 and was apparently made from a copy kept by Stringfellow. It is one of forty-two items given to the society (The Virginian Historical Society) in 1955 by a Stringfellow descendant, Alice Stringfellow Shultice. The location of the original letter to Davis has not been learned. The typescript is the basic source used here (Come Retribution, pp. 411, 412) to describe Stringfellow's Washington mission and related movements." (CR, p. 425)

Comment: I believe we may safely assume that the original letter was destroyed by Stringfellow, Davis or another Southern partisan because of its sensitivity. A mission to Washington at the behest of Davis, approximately one month prior to the attempted decapitation of the United States government (Lincoln, Johnson, Seward, Stanton and Grant, at least, and as many as "15 yankees", per the Confederate agent "Johnston"), a mission that involved constant communication with an officer occupying an important position about Lincoln, to whom (the officer) Stringfellow made "a proposition", could not have been for a purpose other than one relating to the decapitation. The typescript somehow preserved the substance of the letter and is likely all we are ever going to have.

John

That doesn't make any sense. Why would Stringfellow make his own copy of the letter, save it for at least a couple decades and then he or a descendant go through the trouble of making another, typed, copy of the letter only to later decide that it's contents were too sensitive and destroyed the first copy?

If anybody's interested, I tracked down the information about this collection at the Virginia Historical Society website. Unfortunately, their website is a little wonky, and the only stable link I was able to find for the collection is a little difficult to read, but it does have a description of what Shultice donated and the call number:

http://vhs4.vahistorical.org/star/downlo...129521.dat

Does anybody know if the other letters in the collection are later typed copies?

[John Fazio]

(06-08-2017 09:47 AM)Steve Wrote:  

(06-08-2017 07:34 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  Roger:

Regrettably, it is not. Here's what Tidwell, Hall and Gaddy say about the letter: "Stringfellow to Davis, Stringfellow Collection. This nine-page typescript bears only the date 1880 and was apparently made from a copy kept by Stringfellow. It is one of forty-two items given to the society (The Virginian Historical Society) in 1955 by a Stringfellow descendant, Alice Stringfellow Shultice. The location of the original letter to Davis has not been learned. The typescript is the basic source used here (Come Retribution, pp. 411, 412) to describe Stringfellow's Washington mission and related movements." (CR, p. 425)

Comment: I believe we may safely assume that the original letter was destroyed by Stringfellow, Davis or another Southern partisan because of its sensitivity. A mission to Washington at the behest of Davis, approximately one month prior to the attempted decapitation of the United States government (Lincoln, Johnson, Seward, Stanton and Grant, at least, and as many as "15 yankees", per the Confederate agent "Johnston"), a mission that involved constant communication with an officer occupying an important position about Lincoln, to whom (the officer) Stringfellow made "a proposition", could not have been for a purpose other than one relating to the decapitation. The typescript somehow preserved the substance of the letter and is likely all we are ever going to have.

John

That doesn't make any sense. Why would Stringfellow make his own copy of the letter, save it for at least a couple decades and then he or a descendant go through the trouble of making another, typed, copy of the letter only to later decide that it's contents were too sensitive and destroyed the first copy?

If anybody's interested, I tracked down the information about this collection at the Virginia Historical Society website. Unfortunately, their website is a little wonky, and the only stable link I was able to find for the collection is a little difficult to read, but it does have a description of what Shultice donated and the call number:

http://vhs4.vahistorical.org/star/downlo...129521.dat

Does anybody know if the other letters in the collection are later typed copies?

Steve:

I do not know the provenance of the typescript. I doubt that anyone does. Maybe it was made from a copy of the original made by Stringfellow; maybe from a copy of the original made by Davis; maybe from the original itself. The typescript may not have been made with the knowledge of the correspondents, or perhaps it was made after they were both deceased. The only certainty is that the original or a copy of it was available to the person who prepared the typescript, or at least had been read, at some time, by that person, who then remembered its contents with some precision, and that the typescript was prepared after the invention of the typewriter. The destruction of the original, because of its sensitivity, may not have been in any way related to the preparation of the typescript.

John

[RJNorton]

Stringfellow's letter to Davis also indicates he stayed a few days at the Kirkwood House. The exact dates are not given. I was wondering if anyone knows anything about this.

Dave Taylor has posted the Kirkwood House register for April 14th, and George Atzerodt checked in under his own name. (see Dave's red arrow near the bottom)

Would it be likely Stringfellow checked in under an alias? Do other pages from the Kirkwood House register exist?

[SSlater]

John, RJ, Steve. Great info and ideas, Thanx

I don't have any more to work with than you do, and our conclusions are similar. I will go a little further. to wit.
It appears that Stringfellow's assignment was to work out the details of the "Blow up the White House" scheme. His contact in the White House could provide a layout of the building and describe Lincoln's daily work habits. This would dictate where to place the explosive and the size of the explosive needed. In essence - it could be done.

There are many piece-meal scraps of info from others, at this same time, that indicates there were more people involved - such as the trips to New York, bits on more people "approving", or just "looking".
Booth was part of this planning and knew the schedule. So, when Harney was captured, Booth knew "it had to be done - NOW!" to get it done in the time-frame set in Richmond, so he acted.

Steve The "Copy" of the letter may not have include ALLthat was in the original, and needed to be destroyed, rather than force a new inquisition. (There was a reason the letter was destroyed).

[John Fazio]

(06-08-2017 01:25 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  Stringfellow's letter to Davis also indicates he stayed a few days at the Kirkwood House. The exact dates are not given. I was wondering if anyone knows anything about this.

Dave Taylor has posted the Kirkwood House register for April 14th, and George Atzerodt checked in under his own name. (see Dave's red arrow near the bottom)

Would it be likely Stringfellow checked in under an alias? Do other pages from the Kirkwood House register exist?

Roger:

The letter places Stringfellow in Washington in early March. His name would therefore not appear on the Kirkwood register for April 14, nor, most likely, for any day other than one in early March. I believe it likely that he would use an alias. Looking for his name in Kirkwood House registers for March and April, therefore, is unlikely to bear fruit.

Atzerodt claimed, in his confession of April 25, that he checked into the Kirkwood on Thursday, the 13th, pursuant to instruction from Booth. His instructions were to obtain a pass from Vice President Johnson. But Dave's evidence that he checked in on the 14th is persuasive. Atzerodt's brain was addled with alcohol and by the fact that he knew he was quite likely facing a rope. There are, therefore, many inconsistencies in his seven statements and confessions that have survived. This looks like one of them. Interestingly, testimony of Lyman S. Sprague, an office worker at the Kirkwood on the 14th, in the trial of John Surratt, also has Atzerodt registering on the 14th (Trial of John H. Surratt, Vol. 1, p. 323).

John

[John Fazio]

(06-08-2017 02:29 PM)SSlater Wrote:  John, RJ, Steve. Great info and ideas, Thanx

I don't have any more to work with than you do, and our conclusions are similar. I will go a little further. to wit.
It appears that Stringfellow's assignment was to work out the details of the "Blow up the White House" scheme. His contact in the White House could provide a layout of the building and describe Lincoln's daily work habits. This would dictate where to place the explosive and the size of the explosive needed. In essence - it could be done.

There are many piece-meal scraps of info from others, at this same time, that indicates there were more people involved - such as the trips to New York, bits on more people "approving", or just "looking".
Booth was part of this planning and knew the schedule. So, when Harney was captured, Booth knew "it had to be done - NOW!" to get it done in the time-frame set in Richmond, so he acted.

Steve The "Copy" of the letter may not have include ALLthat was in the original, and needed to be destroyed, rather than force a new inquisition. (There was a reason the letter was destroyed).

John, et al.:

Your conclusion that Stringfellow's mission in Washington was related to the Harney mission to blow up a wing of the White House is, I believe, a good one and one, frankly, that I had not thought of before. The person close to Lincoln whom he was in contact with, and to whom he made a proposition, therefore, could hardly have been Parker. That ties in well with my own conclusion re Parker. The person, as you suggest, was most likely someone who could help him with White House logistics. That accords well with Atzerodt's May 1 confession, in which he speaks of the New York crowd's knowledge of an entrance to the White House which could be used to mine it.

The letter indicates that Stringfellow left Richmond on March 1 and arrived in Washington on March 5, using the cover of a "dentistry student". He speaks of Johnson, who was also staying at the Kirkwood, and, of course, of Lincoln. This suggests that these two, at least, were the focus of his mission, Grant being at City Point at the time. Stringfellow left Washington on April 1, which, significantly, is most likely the same day that Harney left Richmond, bound for his rendezvous with Mosby and then on to Washington. Stringfellow speaks of leaving the city "with the aid of a person whose name is linked in the history of these last dark days " and adds that he went some 12 miles the first evening. Good surmises are that his helper was Booth, who also left Washington on April 1, for Boston, with a possible stop in New York, and that the 12 miles took him to the Surratt Tavern.

Your conclusion that Booth acted only when he learned of the failure of the Harney mission is, I believe, on the money. I would add only that in my opinion Booth did not take action of his own volition, but only pursuant to instruction from his handlers, who regarded Booth and his acolytes as a contingency team that would act in the event of the failure of the Harney mission. It ties in perfectly with the telegram Booth sent to Surratt, in Montreal, on April 10, advising him that their plans had changed and instructing him to return to Washington forthwith. Surratt told McMillan that in response to this communication, he left Montreal immediately. Where he went, however, as we all know, is problematic. Booth's instruction certainly suggests that he would go to Washington directly, but there is much to suggest that he went to Elmira to soak up the lower New York scenery and blithely patronize haberdashers and such, at a time when the future of the Confederacy was hanging by a thread. It is illogical, of course, but most historians nevertheless favor Elmira rather than Washington. Wild Bill isn't one of them. I am on the fence, leaning, however, in Wild Bill's direction.

John

[Wild Bill]

Great Scott! Thank you John Fazio

[L Verge]

(06-08-2017 01:15 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(06-08-2017 09:47 AM)Steve Wrote:  

(06-08-2017 07:34 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  Roger:

Regrettably, it is not. Here's what Tidwell, Hall and Gaddy say about the letter: "Stringfellow to Davis, Stringfellow Collection. This nine-page typescript bears only the date 1880 and was apparently made from a copy kept by Stringfellow. It is one of forty-two items given to the society (The Virginian Historical Society) in 1955 by a Stringfellow descendant, Alice Stringfellow Shultice. The location of the original letter to Davis has not been learned. The typescript is the basic source used here (Come Retribution, pp. 411, 412) to describe Stringfellow's Washington mission and related movements." (CR, p. 425)

Comment: I believe we may safely assume that the original letter was destroyed by Stringfellow, Davis or another Southern partisan because of its sensitivity. A mission to Washington at the behest of Davis, approximately one month prior to the attempted decapitation of the United States government (Lincoln, Johnson, Seward, Stanton and Grant, at least, and as many as "15 yankees", per the Confederate agent "Johnston"), a mission that involved constant communication with an officer occupying an important position about Lincoln, to whom (the officer) Stringfellow made "a proposition", could not have been for a purpose other than one relating to the decapitation. The typescript somehow preserved the substance of the letter and is likely all we are ever going to have.

John

That doesn't make any sense. Why would Stringfellow make his own copy of the letter, save it for at least a couple decades and then he or a descendant go through the trouble of making another, typed, copy of the letter only to later decide that it's contents were too sensitive and destroyed the first copy?

If anybody's interested, I tracked down the information about this collection at the Virginia Historical Society website. Unfortunately, their website is a little wonky, and the only stable link I was able to find for the collection is a little difficult to read, but it does have a description of what Shultice donated and the call number:

http://vhs4.vahistorical.org/star/downlo...129521.dat

Does anybody know if the other letters in the collection are later typed copies?

Steve:

I do not know the provenance of the typescript. I doubt that anyone does. Maybe it was made from a copy of the original made by Stringfellow; maybe from a copy of the original made by Davis; maybe from the original itself. The typescript may not have been made with the knowledge of the correspondents, or perhaps it was made after they were both deceased. The only certainty is that the original or a copy of it was available to the person who prepared the typescript, or at least had been read, at some time, by that person, who then remembered its contents with some precision, and that the typescript was prepared after the invention of the typewriter. The destruction of the original, because of its sensitivity, may not have been in any way related to the preparation of the typescript.

John

If I am not mistaken, Betty Ownsbey works right down the street from the Virginia Historical Society. I know she has a lot on her plate right now, but maybe we could entice her to use a lunch hour to see what help a live person at the Society might offer on Stringfellow's file?

Since we have both Hall's and Tidwell's files here at Surratt House, I will ask our librarian to see if there are any that deal directly with Stringfellow. I also notice the Lomax tie-in. That's a family that keeps drifting through the pages of Civil War-related history in and around D.C., and I would suspect covert ties linking them to some of the mischief from 1864 on.

[Steve]

I'm assuming the 1880 letter would be in the same series of correspondence between Davis and Stringfellow as these letters:

July 20, 1878 - Stringfellow:
http://moconfederacy.pastperfectonline.c...3003307794

June 4, 1878 - Davis:
https://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/archives...ringfellow

April 19, 1882 - Stringfellow:
http://moconfederacy.pastperfectonline.c...6682271011