---

(08-30-2016 01:33 PM)L Verge Wrote:  As for Helen Jones Campbell, let's not bad-mouth her completely. I can honestly say that she is one of the most frustrating authors on the subject, but I cannot discredit her. I can fuss about her not including sources and not giving assurance that some of her anecdotes and historical references did happen. However, for every frustration in that direction, there are also redeeming features where her text is dead-on correct.

In the good old days, I would be traveling to William & Mary to peruse her papers - if the library there ever catalogued them. Bettie Trindal tried to use them and got turned away.

Oddly enough, I am just started reading The Case For Mrs. Surratt.

Mrs. Campbell writes in a manner that is easy to read and flows well.
I've picked up a slight prejudice against Stanton, Weichmann, Lloyd, Baker, and even Lincoln. She does make you pity poor Mrs. Surratt. I probably should go back and note the inaccuracies and distortions of the facts, but it is an older book written in the 1940's. It does seem to lean a bit towards Mrs. Surratt's innocence.

More when I finish reading it.

(06-07-2016 04:01 PM)Gene C Wrote:  

(06-07-2016 03:36 PM)Thomas Kearney Wrote:  Where's my twin Payne in this production? I could win an award if I portrayed him.

Thomas, your first audition involves going to Laurie's house first thing in the morning to dig a gutter. (or any other manual labor chores she wants done)
Second audition involves running down a busy street yelling "I'm mad, I'm mad"
Third audition involves falling of a horse and spending the night in a grave yard.
Fourth audition involves a romantic scene with a MUCH older woman (don't worry, she should still have some of her teeth left)

This made me laugh...

(08-30-2016 01:33 PM)L Verge Wrote:  I will let Kate explain her self-researched and written script -- or better yet, Gene, why not come to the conference yourself to hear it? I know you would really enjoy it.

As for Helen Jones Campbell, let's not bad-mouth her completely. I can honestly say that she is one of the most frustrating authors on the subject, but I cannot discredit her. I can fuss about her not including sources and not giving assurance that some of her anecdotes and historical references did happen. However, for every frustration in that direction, there are also redeeming features where her text is dead-on correct.

In the good old days, I would be traveling to William & Mary to peruse her papers - if the library there ever catalogued them. Bettie Trindal tried to use them and got turned away.

I've always thought of her books as historical fiction. They certainly have all of the apparatus of historical fiction--imagined incidents, dialogue, etc. Did she market them as nonfiction?

I would love to have a look at her papers. William and Mary was very helpful when I asked for some papers in their collection last year, so perhaps they've become more accommodating.

(08-30-2016 09:10 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  

(08-30-2016 01:33 PM)L Verge Wrote:  I will let Kate explain her self-researched and written script -- or better yet, Gene, why not come to the conference yourself to hear it? I know you would really enjoy it.

As for Helen Jones Campbell, let's not bad-mouth her completely. I can honestly say that she is one of the most frustrating authors on the subject, but I cannot discredit her. I can fuss about her not including sources and not giving assurance that some of her anecdotes and historical references did happen. However, for every frustration in that direction, there are also redeeming features where her text is dead-on correct.

In the good old days, I would be traveling to William & Mary to peruse her papers - if the library there ever catalogued them. Bettie Trindal tried to use them and got turned away.

I've always thought of her books as historical fiction. They certainly have all of the apparatus of historical fiction--imagined incidents, dialogue, etc. Did she market them as nonfiction?

I would love to have a look at her papers. William and Mary was very helpful when I asked for some papers in their collection last year, so perhaps they've become more accommodating.

I may have shared some "suspicions" about why Campbell's papers were not available for awhile (the claim was that they had not been catalogued). Mrs. Campbell was a native of the Yorktown/Williamsburg area and was well-versed in the socio-political life (i.e. gossip) of that region, especially during the time that the Rockefellers were footing the bills for the restoration of the colonial capital.

I was told years ago that she first wrote a book on Yorktown and spilled some beans. She was also one of the first docents at Colonial Williamsburg and knew some inside secrets. The person who told me this suspected that the Campbell Papers contained materials on these things as well as the Surratt research and that the College didn't want these unearthed and didn't have enough staff and time to do a quick search to find "incriminating evidence."

Many years have passed (even since Bettie Trindal made her initial plea to see the papers) and certainly the old-timers are no longer on the scene to react to egg on their faces. In defense of that protection, however, there is a southern code of honor that is struggling to survive - don't speak ill of your forefathers...

I suspect that William and Mary will now allow access to the Campbell material. I would just like to know who/what her sources were and if there are any pieces of legitimate history that she found that we don't know about. Nearly a century has passed since she began her research. Did she get to talk to people alive then who shared information that we don't know about?