Here is some more "St. Albans"

[SSlater]

WE COULD BAT THIS STORY AROUND FOREVER.

It is fairly well agreed that the Raiders got about $200,000 from the Raid, but only $90, 000 was recovered. That leaves $110,000 up for grabs. The $90,000 was taken from about one/half of the Raiders. The names of the ones who surrendered their take did not include Young or Higbee.

Some of the money was hidden by the Raiders as they raced to escape the Chase Party, also some of the money was spent on "Girls", while in Jail - Sarah may have gotten some of it.

Even I got some. (Xerox Copies)

Some of the money was identified by Serial Numbers, and the Bank "Stopped Payment". (We will never know "How much the Banks lost.)

How much money was claimed "as stolen" but ended up in the Bank President's Pocket? or the employees pocket?

(Ain't this fun?)

[Gene C]

Regarding the $$$$ - This from "The Civil War Years: Canada and the United States" by Robin Winks

" Lamothe, (Chief of Police of Montreal) who had just surrendered to (Jacob) Thompson's banking agent friend a receipt that had been entrusted to his care for eighty-four thousand dollars of the stolen St Albans money, demanded three-quarters of an hour for consideration, sufficient time to permit the Confederates to escape on the evening train from Montreal. He had acted without authorization from Coursol (Judge James Coursol, Police Magistrate of Montreal) making his decision to surrender the receipt on the basis of an informal tete-a-tete that he had had with the magistrate (Coursol) some days before on the then hypothetical question of what Lamothe would have to do in case the Southerners were freed. ....

Thompson's agent had rushed to the bank after closing time with the receipt and had received the money through the back door, all within an hour of Coursol's decision that he had
no jurisdiction in the case .....

The Canadian newspapers also deprecated the outcome, the Montreal Gazette expressing the feeling of many: 'We feel, and believe that the great body of the public feel, that the Federal applicants at our door had a right to expect different treatment from us than they have received'. The consensus of responsible opinion was that Coursol's action had been unwise and would worsen relations with the Federal government" (page 315-316)

Hope this makes sense, I skipped over a lot.
There is a lot more detail in the book, about political maneuvering and public opinion. More comments later.

[Gene C]

Here are some quotes from ""The Civil War Years: Canada and the United States" by Robin Winks, from the chapter about the St Albans Raid. Before the St Albans Raid.

"As their fear for the Southern cause grew, Confederate leaders in British North America began to show less regard for British neutrality"
(page 295)

"There is little question but that the raid itself was an actual violation of British neutrality. Thompson had been enjoined to observe that neutrality, to 'neither command nor permit destruction of private property, nor injury or annoyance to non-combatants.' In adhering to these orders he specifically had rejected George Sanders plan for robbing the banks of Buffalo. Sanders, who's son had died a Northern prisoner, had approached the more naïve Clement Clay, who still had several thousand dollars at his disposal, and had convinced Clay that attacks against Northern banks would be legitimate acts of war in retaliation for the campaigns of William T Sherman and Phillip Sheridan in the South. Clay had authorized Bennett Young to organize a raiding party - which was to be the first of a series of such raids, if successful.... and Clay advanced nearly two thousand dollars to the raiders. He did not have Confederate authority to authorize such a raid, for he technically still was a subordinate of Thompson's,.....Thompson clearly disapproved of the raid and Clay's activities, but he declared that he could not desert the men who risked their lives while thinking they had approval for their exploit."

"The raid hurt rather than helped the Southern cause. Any satisfaction gained in the South by the daring that the raiders displayed was more than offset by the feeling created in the Canadas that the Confederates had abused British hospitality."

"Even papers that had been highly sympathetic to the South, like the Montreal Evening Telegram and the Toronto Leader, deplored the acts of the 'brigands' " (page 306)

[Gene C]

More from, "The Civil War Years" by Robin Winks, page 311.

Prior to the St Albans Raiders release by Judge James Coursol (Police Magistrate of Montreal) we have this

"....Sanders retained three prominent Montreal attorneys to defend the raiders. Soon the proceedings were transferred to Montreal, as Coursol felt the tension was too great so near the border for a fair examination. Bennett Young penned an eloquent open letter to an anti-Northern Montreal newspaper, explaining that the raid was undertaken in retaliation for Sheridan's activities in the Shenandoah Valley. He declared that he was commissioned to act as he did and that raiders had violated no Canadian laws. Young pointed out that he was captured by Vermonters who had violated the Canadian border. 'Surely the people of Vermont must have forgotten that you are not in the midst of war, and ruled by a man despotic in his actions, and supreme in his infamy', he wrote"

"The proceedings (against the raiders) was slow, for evidence taken was to be taken on each of six potentially extraditable charges: assault, murder, attempted murder, robbery, attempted arson, and horse stealing. The prisoners were housed in the jailer's own home and were well fed on expensive delicacies supplied by Sanders. He provided wine at each meal, and it was said that those who felt the need had the solace of female company at night. Young carried on friendly chess games with the jailer and read of his exploits in the St. Albans Messenger, to which he had subscribed. The prisoners were carefully guarded, but not so much as to prevent escape as to forestall possible kidnappers from the United States. Outside, tight little knots of noisy Southerners and their sympathizers milled about, singing. The law's slow course and the favorable treatment that the prisoners received soon turned Northern gratification at the speed of the original arrest to annoyance and exasperation."

[SSlater]

Let's think about the Bank Robbery for a minute. How much money did the robbers get? The published amount was $200,00 =/_. I say they got NOTHING, repeat NOTHING.
Even if they went out the door with $200,00. They got nothing. All the bills had "ST. ALBANS BANK written all over them. So, the next day the Bank says "All Green Bank notes are now worthless. Any good neighbors who have Green notes, bring them in for exchange to Red notes. (Don't even think about what serial number they are.) THUS
no money was "lost".
Maybe the Raiders got $100.00 in U.S. Money to be split 20 ways, but is that worth dyeing for?
I read that the Banks made a profit on the robbery, after reimbursement by the Robbers , by Canada and by the U.S.

[JMadonna]

(06-16-2017 12:25 PM)SSlater Wrote:  Let's think about the Bank Robbery for a minute. How much money did the robbers get? The published amount was $200,00 =/_. I say they got NOTHING, repeat NOTHING.
Even if they went out the door with $200,00. They got nothing. All the bills had "ST. ALBANS BANK written all over them. So, the next day the Bank says "All Green Bank notes are now worthless. Any good neighbors who have Green notes, bring them in for exchange to Red notes. (Don't even think about what serial number they are.) THUS
no money was "lost".
Maybe the Raiders got $100.00 in U.S. Money to be split 20 ways, but is that worth dyeing for?
I read that the Banks made a profit on the robbery, after reimbursement by the Robbers , by Canada and by the U.S.

If that's true why did England compensate St. Albans for their loss?

[SSlater]

(06-17-2017 07:37 AM)JMadonna Wrote:  

(06-16-2017 12:25 PM)SSlater Wrote:  Let's think about the Bank Robbery for a minute. How much money did the robbers get? The published amount was $200,00 =/_. I say they got NOTHING, repeat NOTHING.
Even if they went out the door with $200,00. They got nothing. All the bills had "ST. ALBANS BANK written all over them. So, the next day the Bank says "All Green Bank notes are now worthless. Any good neighbors who have Green notes, bring them in for exchange to Red notes. (Don't even think about what serial number they are.) THUS
no money was "lost".
Maybe the Raiders got $100.00 in U.S. Money to be split 20 ways, but is that worth dyeing for?
I read that the Banks made a profit on the robbery, after reimbursement by the Robbers , by Canada and by the U.S.

If that's true why did England compensate St. Albans for their loss?

I have never seen a full and final accounting, but a more and interesting question would be WHY give them anything? It looks like their Lawyers and the Bankers teamed up on a scheme. We know that the Raiders, used money, lost money, hid money and even took money home and the Banks were compensated. I will reread what ever I saw. PS. Why do I see your name in footnotes when I read this stuff?

[JMadonna]

(06-16-2017 12:25 PM)SSlater Wrote:  PS. Why do I see your name in footnotes when I read this stuff?

As Al Franken would say; "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and dog-gone it, people like me."