Food for Thought

[mike86002000]

I just finished Mr. Prindle's book, "Booth’s Confederate Connections". It's "a keeper". There are lots of clear photos, and a useful index. Footnotes are collected at the back, as I prefer. They mostly include information about sources, not additions to the text. I intend to go through it again, make notes, and follow up on some things. There are a few things that I immediately question.
One is a picture on page 105. It's captioned "John Surratt as he was dressed in Elmira, New York." Mr. Prindle theorizes that the red Garibaldi jacket and pantaloons, that Surratt had made for him in Elmira were to make sure people noticed and remembered him there, establishing an alibi at the time of Lincoln's murder. That implies foreknowledge of the timing of the assassination. Surratt is supposed to have had this foreknowledge because he was the courier who delivered the orders to Booth from Richmond, to change the plot from abduction of Lincoln, to assassination of Lincoln and government heads.
The photo is a familiar one , usually labeled as Surratt in the uniform of a Papal Zouave. Surratt, (if it is really even him), has a mustache, but no goatee. His costume includes a fez, complete with tassel, and white leggings worn below bloused pantaloons. The jacket has a large cross on each lapel. If he had walked around Elmira dressed like that, he would not only have been noticed, but probably locked up as insane.
Perhaps Mr. Prindel intended it only as an illustration of what a Garibaldi jacket looked like. It's not a good example of that, either. In Italy, Garibaldi's followers wore distinctive red jackets or shirts. They wouldn't have had crosses on the lapels! The Papal Zouaves were organized to oppose Garibaldi. Their uniform, as in the photo, wouldn't have included anything called a Garibaldi jacket, certainly not a red one.
I don't think the nature of the cloths Surratt wore in Elmira is really that important to Mr. Prindel's "bombshell". Simply a red jacket would have got Surratt noticed and may have been called a Garibaldi jacket just because it was red. "Pantaloons" may be just another word for trousers, and I doubt they were red. I suspect his costume was much more conservative than the photo depicts. It's unfortunate that the photo is used that way in this book.
However, if the picture was taken in Italy, much later, as I believe, why would Surratt pose for the camera while he was hiding from the law? Was it arrogance or pride? Is that really him? Is this the photo the government requested from the Vatican?
Mr. Prindle mentions the existence of a 14 page manuscript of a speech Booth planed to deliver. I don't remember hearing about that before. I have a collection that is supposed to include everything Booth wrote that could be found. The lady who published the collection actually bought all the original examples of Booth's writings she could. If it's mentioned in there, I don't remember it. I'll look, again. Has anyone else heard of this manuscript? I don't think it's the letter he left with his sister. This is supposed to be a speech to be delivered in a theater.
Re the pardons: For those who believe they were granted for any reason other than to block the appeal of Boynton's Ex Parte Mudd et All decision, Mr Prindle offers his ocean front property in Kansas and Nebraska!
That's not an exact quote, but it's "the gist".
Mike