There is a wonderful on-line exhibit regarding the assassination with cool info from the Barbee files as well as other collections - some of these photographs/sketches I've never seen before:

http://www.library.georgetown.edu/exhibi...nspirators

Good Stuff!

Splendid discovery, Betty! I just bookmarked the website on my computer for future reference.

I am delighted that Scott Taylor used his historical talents to assemble such an exhibit. I have dealt with him several times when he was assisting Nicholas Sheetz at Georgetown. Nicholas has now retired, but both men were/are excellent at their jobs. They also forgave us when James O. Hall decided to give his research files to Surratt House. Georgetown and several other higher profile institutions had coveted them.

Paige, with your skills and knowledge, you really need to make time to investigate those assassination archives at Georgetown.

Finally, I hope everyone reads Carter's letter to Dr. Richard Mudd carefully and understands that Carter DID NOT PARDON Dr. Mudd. I swear that half the visitors to Surratt House believe he did. I also hope that President Carter has taken time to read the work by Steers and others to see that there is a second side to the Mudd story. IMO, President Andrew Johnson did not pardon Mudd because an injustice had been done. He did it because Mrs. Mudd was excellent at nagging for her husband's freedom and because pardoning the Lincoln conspirators was one way of Johnson slapping at the Radical Republicans who were doing him dirty!

(09-19-2015 08:24 PM)L Verge Wrote:  I am delighted that Scott Taylor used his historical talents to assemble such an exhibit. I have dealt with him several times when he was assisting Nicholas Sheetz at Georgetown. Nicholas has now retired, but both men were/are excellent at their jobs. They also forgave us when James O. Hall decided to give his research files to Surratt House. Georgetown and several other higher profile institutions had coveted them.

Paige, with your skills and knowledge, you really need to make time to investigate those assassination archives at Georgetown.

Finally, I hope everyone reads Carter's letter to Dr. Richard Mudd carefully and understands that Carter DID NOT PARDON Dr. Mudd. I swear that half the visitors to Surratt House believe he did. I also hope that President Carter has taken time to read the work by Steers and others to see that there is a second side to the Mudd story. IMO, President Andrew Johnson did not pardon Mudd because an injustice had been done. He did it because Mrs. Mudd was excellent at nagging for her husband's freedom and because pardoning the Lincoln conspirators was one way of Johnson slapping at the Radical Republicans who were doing him dirty!

Thank you, Laurie! During our first visit to Surratt House, I had hoped to visit Georgetown, but we ran short of time. I would really love to visit there sometime soon.

Thanks, Betty. Does anyone know who painted Mary's portrait and why and when, and where it is now?

I have already contacted Scott for that information. I hope to hear back this week.

Those portraits appear in the Finis Bates book....I always wondered whatever happened to those paintings - they were quite good - particularly the one of Davey Herold and the one of Mary Surratt....

Thanks!

(09-19-2015 08:24 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Finally, I hope everyone reads Carter's letter to Dr. Richard Mudd carefully and understands that Carter DID NOT PARDON Dr. Mudd. I swear that half the visitors to Surratt House believe he did.

There is a lot of misinformation out there. I have even received letters from folks who think 3 Presidents - Eisenhower, Carter, and Reagan - all pardoned Dr. Mudd!

(09-20-2015 06:33 PM)L Verge Wrote:  I have already contacted Scott for that information. I hope to hear back this week.

Reply from Scott:

Laurie,

Thank you for your e-mail.

Unfortunately, the photo taken of a portrait of Mary Surratt does not include provenance information about the painting.

Only the following text is written in pencil on the back of the photo: "Mrs. Surratt, who was hung as one of the conspirators."

The front of the photo has the label: "Copyright by F.L. Bates 1903."

I regret that we cannot be more helpful.

Bummer! Is there any chance that he was the artist? I just read about Bates in Wikipedia and it's a lot of crazy and no mention of art. Maybe he commissioned the painting, it seems he could afford to, but you'd think he would have photographed it hanging on a wall in a room. It seems fairly well done in a colonial primitive style, although colonial days were long gone when it was painted. I like that the boarding house is in the background. I don't know art history, though. I just looked at it again and there appears to be a signature in the bottom left corner. Maybe it's legible in person. It's so tacky that Bates put his copyright where he did on the print, and so large.

My first instinct at looking at it was that it might be a charcoal? Haven't dug out Finis's book to look for it.

I was wondering about charcoal, too, or even another medium, and we don't know the original size. I haven't studied primitive art in that period, or any period and when I go to museums a portrait that is finished looking is generally oil, but the curtain behind her does have a charcoal look. Nowadays artists have lacquer sprays to prevent smearing of charcoal or pastel and I don't know if anything was used in those days. I don't see any smears.

I've been looking and found the corresponding portrait of Davey Herold from Bates' book - it is simply "marked" - i.e. not "signed" Copyright Finish Bates 1903 -

   

(09-21-2015 04:02 PM)Pamela Wrote:  I was wondering about charcoal, too, or even another medium, and we don't know the original size. I haven't studied primitive art in that period, or any period and when I go to museums a portrait that is finished looking is generally oil, but the curtain behind her does have a charcoal look. Nowadays artists have lacquer sprays to prevent smearing of charcoal or pastel and I don't know if anything was used in those days. I don't see any smears.

We have in storage at Surratt House a charcoal portrait of a gentleman ca. 1900 that is actually a piece of funerary art. It has no glass to protect it, but there is no sign of any smears. I wonder if they had a form of shellac?