(05-17-2017 12:31 PM)L Verge Wrote: "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.)"
Am I correct in assuming that Headley never used "Mrs.'s" full name? If he knew it in 1905-06 and knew enough to invite her to the reunion, why didn't he use it in his book? If she showed up at the reunion, it appears obvious to me that she was no longer being elusive and secretive. I also do not understand why Slater would have been honored by the state of Kentucky since she was not from the state. What did she do to earn an honor there?
Up until modern times, widows retained their husband's names until they remarried. But, Sarah wasn't a widow until years later. I'm sorry, but none of this makes sense to me. I find it more logical that the photo is of another true Confederate widow from Kentucky who evidently helped fellow Kentuckians in the Northwest Conspiracy and was honored for it.
Also, the source I used stated that Sarah was first recruited in Richmond by the Secretary of War James Seddon specifically to carry the commission papers to St. Albans. That makes sense since the matter concerned soldiers under Seddon's jurisdiction. It also made sense since Sarah spoke fluent French. Also, if Sarah had carried the Canadian demand for proof of the soldiers' commissions from Canada to Richmond, Olivia Floyd would not have been needed in the process - but she was.
Jerry - I wish I knew where one draws the line in separating fact and theory. Mr. Hall would refer to Occum's Razor, but also admit that it didn't totally solve an issue. I think what we must do is consistently state "theory," "speculation," "assumption," etc. when dealing with such situations. Many historians/authors have muddied the waters by making flat statements without proof to back them up.
I have thought about the Honorarium. Maybe "she was not invited to an honorarium", suppose she was visiting Louisville and she was spotted by someone who knew her and he called for an instant honorarium, and the legislature said, Yeah!
I would guess that if she was "Invited" and traveled days and days, the party would have lasted more than
15 minutes..
I think we will never know the true story, because much of this is "cover - up, and they did a good job.
What do you think about the lady - named as a possible second lady helping the Raiders - was never in Canada at the time they were in Jail? I have got to think SOME MORE.
She did go to Canada to get her husband AFTER THE WAR.
I wish that Rush and Pewit were around to help. Did they send a copy of their work to the Research Center?
Search
Member List
Calendar
Help
