Interesting Visit

[L Verge]

(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.