I haven't searched exhaustively, but so far I have not found any mentions of this:

In the November 14, 1864 edition of the Washington Evening Star, there is this ad:

"Wanted. A House. From four to six rooms. Address J. B. Wilkes, City Post Office."

J. B. Wilkes was Booth's first stage name, used in the late 1850s. This was just about the same period that Mrs. Surratt was advertising her new rooms.

Jerry Kuntz
Warwick NY

(11-04-2017 03:43 PM)jparkuntz Wrote:  I haven't searched exhaustively, but so far I have not found any mentions of this:

In the November 14, 1864 edition of the Washington Evening Star, there is this ad:

"Wanted. A House. From four to six rooms. Address J. B. Wilkes, City Post Office."

J. B. Wilkes was Booth's first stage name, used in the late 1850s. This was just about the same period that Mrs. Surratt was advertising her new rooms.

Interesting. I just checked right now and the same ad also appears in the 16, 17, 18, and 19 November 1864 editions of the Evening Star.

Jerry and Steve:

It seems unlikely that this ad has anything to do with Mary Surratt's boardinghouse inasmuch as her husband John bought the 4-story townhouse in December, 1854. Anna and John, Jr. moved in on November 1, 1864, and Mary moved in on December 1. This move to the Washington boardinghouse may well have been related to her and John Jr.'s activities on behalf of the Confederacy rather than financial hardship (see Chamlee, p. 165; Larson, p. 39). In any case, the Confederacy already had its safe house in Washington (and doubtless others), so it seems unlikely that Booth's ad for a house could have been related to this need. What WAS it related to? I have no idea. Suggestions are welcome.

John

Maybe this isn't Booth?
It's just a misdirecting false lead from the New York gang designed to throw the police and historians 160 years in the future off track.

Any similar type adds in the newspaper regarding housing wanted?

(11-07-2017 10:32 AM)Gene C Wrote:  Maybe this isn't Booth?
It's just a misdirecting false lead from the New York gang designed to throw the police and historians 160 years in the future off track.

Any similar type adds in the newspaper regarding housing wanted?

Gene:

Excellent! I do believe you are on to it. The name "Wilkes" is common enough. There is really no good reason to suppose that it was Booth simply because that is his middle name. As for your second sentence, however, I seriously doubt it. It is too early for the New York crowd.

John

(11-07-2017 11:00 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 10:32 AM)Gene C Wrote:  Maybe this isn't Booth?
It's just a misdirecting false lead from the New York gang designed to throw the police and historians 160 years in the future off track.

Any similar type adds in the newspaper regarding housing wanted?

Gene:

Excellent! I do believe you are on to it. The name "Wilkes" is common enough. There is really no good reason to suppose that it was Booth simply because that is his middle name. As for your second sentence, however, I seriously doubt it. It is too early for the New York crowd.

John

It wasn't just his middle name. He had used "J. B. Wilkes" as his stage name in the late 1850s. And the fact that the ad is not just looking for a house, or a room, but 4-6 rooms--that is suggestive of housing needed for several separate individuals. If this is a coincidence, then it is an extremely implausible one.

If it was Booth, I don't see the connection with Mary's advertisement. If she planned to use her boardinghouse to house conspirators, she wouldn't have needed to advertise in the newspaper.

Booth may have been thinking of getting a place that offered more privacy than his hotel lodgings.

I agree with Susan on both fronts - Mary would not have advertised for boarders if it were to become "the nest" for conspiracy, and she likely would have seen no revenue from conspiratorial boarders. Unlike what John F. said above, that boardinghouse represented financial assistance to Mary and her children after the hubby left them with $3500 in unpaid bills and had sold off much of the revenue-producing farmland in Surrattsville, and the state then freed her slaves on November 1, 1864. Running a boardinghouse was a perfectly acceptable job for a lady in 1864, and city life was also safer than the isolated roadside establishment in Prince George's County.

I can also see why our John Wilkes might want better and more private accommodations than what a hotel or similar boardinghouse could offer -- if it was indeed Booth.

Has anyone checked a city directory to see if there was any J. Wilkes listed in DC at that time?

There is no Wilkes listed in Boyd's city directory in 1864 for either Washington City or Georgetown. Nothing even close. Booth was probably going to need a love shack for his ladies.

There is a Joseph P. Wilkes, printer residing at 588 I Street North in the 1863 Hutchinson's Washington and Georgetown city directory. A simple printer's error could account for the difference but I still feel pretty confident that the ad was placed by John Wilkes Booth.

Jerry, as far as I know it's uncertain when Booth met John Surratt but the most common theory that I've heard is that it was when Booth was in Montreal in October 1864. I also checked the late Art Loux's book John Wilkes Booth: Day by Day and Booth was briefly at the Surratt tavern on 11 November 1864 during a stop on a stage ride to Bryantown, Maryland where Booth would meet with Dr. Queen to discuss the plot to abduct Lincoln. So, it seems that Booth may have already met the Surratts before the ad was placed in the newspaper. But looking at the timeline something really interesting appears:

November 8:
Lincoln reelected. Booth in Baltimore.

November 9-10:
Booth meets his brother Junius in Baltimore on the 9th and then travels to Washington, registering at the National Hotel that evening.

November 11-13:
On the 11th Booth takes the early morning stage to Bryantown mentioned above. He stays in the area, leaving on the 14th.

November 14-15:
Booth arrives in Washington and checks into the National Hotel early in the evening on the 14th.
The series of ads is probably purchased on the 15th since they ran from the 16th until the 19th

November 16:
Booth opens a checking account with Jay Cook & Co. with an initial deposit of $1500. He then checks out of the National Hotel and goes to Baltimore to see his brother Junius.

November 17-22:
Booth goes to Philadelphia to see Asia and Edwin.

November 23-27:
JWB and Edwin travel to New York on the 23rd. All three Booth brothers have various performances.

November 28-30:
Junius and JWB travel to Philadelphia to see Asia on the 28th.

December 1:
Booth leaves Philadelphia and returns to Washington.

If Booth placed the ads (which I believe he did), then he bought them to run in the paper just as he was leaving the city for a couple of weeks. Here's an actual image of one of the ads for any interested reader:
   

(I know Jerry said in his original post that the ad also appeared in the 14 Nov. edition of the Evening Star as well, but I manually checked that edition of the paper and the ad doesn't appear in it. I hate to point out such a minor date mistake in a post of a new member of this forum, especially since he discovered this ad but feel it's necessary when mapping out this chronology.)

I believe that the "official" date of Booth meeting Surratt is December 23, 1864, when he met Dr. Mudd by appointment in DC and asked to be introduced to John Surratt. While he and Mudd were heading to the boardinghouse, they encountered Surratt and Weichmann on Seventh Street. The group then returned to Booth's room at the National where the conversations testified to by Weichmann took place.

One other thought: Could we assume that perhaps this notice in the paper is in code and has nothing to do with actually seeking a house? Lots of undercover work was done via coded ads and notices in papers across the east coast during the CW.

While I very much suspect those November ads (dates Steve corrected are accurate--my mistake), relate to JWB, I have to further muddy the waters and let you know I just found 33 ads in the Washington Star between 1864 and 1866 with the phrase "four to six rooms," though several are repeats of the same ad. Like this one from 1864:

"Wanted to rent, on or before October 15, a house containing four to six rooms, furnished or unfurnished. Must be in First Ward and west of 18th street. Address, stating terms, "C D B" Star office."

I'm guessing these might be legislators coming and going, and this was a common specification for a family's needs.

[Post edited]

Jerry Kuntz
Warwick NY

(11-07-2017 09:03 PM)jparkuntz Wrote:  While I very much suspect those November ads (dates Steve corrected are accurate--my mistake), relate to JWB, I have to further muddy the waters and let you know I just found 33 ads in the Washington Star between 1864 and 1866 with the phrase "four to six rooms," though several are repeats of the same ad. Like this one from 1864:

"Wanted to rent, on or before October 15, a house containing four to six rooms, furnished or unfurnished. Must be in First Ward and west of 18th street. Address, stating terms, "C D B" Star office."

I'm guessing these might be legislators coming and going, and this was a common specification for a family's needs.

[Post edited]

Jerry Kuntz
Warwick NY

I suppose it's possible the "J. B. Wilkes" ad as a whole has a cipher message hidden in it but I think the specific phrase "four to six rooms" is just common want ad language for people looking for a house to rent with 4 to 6 rooms.

I do have an alternative theory of why Booth would have created the ad if it wasn't a cipher:

Say, Booth meets John Surratt in October 1864 in Montreal. Surratt tells Booth that he has plans to move his family from Maryland to Washington DC. Surratt had been the local postmaster from his father's death in August 1862 until being fired in November 1863 for disloyalty (he had already become a Confederate spy). Surratt and his sister moved into the Washington boardinghouse around the first of November 1864. What if placing the ads was a way of creating a plausible connection between Booth and Surratt if the link between the two had somehow been discovered. Surratt being removed from his postmaster job for disloyalty could've put suspicion on Booth but Booth could point to the ad and claim this was how he met Surratt. Later on, they stage the December 1864 meeting with witnesses to conceal their prior meeting and no longer need the ads for a fake backstory of how they know each other.

(11-09-2017 03:15 PM)Steve Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 09:03 PM)jparkuntz Wrote:  While I very much suspect those November ads (dates Steve corrected are accurate--my mistake), relate to JWB, I have to further muddy the waters and let you know I just found 33 ads in the Washington Star between 1864 and 1866 with the phrase "four to six rooms," though several are repeats of the same ad. Like this one from 1864:

"Wanted to rent, on or before October 15, a house containing four to six rooms, furnished or unfurnished. Must be in First Ward and west of 18th street. Address, stating terms, "C D B" Star office."

I'm guessing these might be legislators coming and going, and this was a common specification for a family's needs.

[Post edited]







Jerry Kuntz
Warwick NY

I suppose it's possible the "J. B. Wilkes" ad as a whole has a cipher message hidden in it but I think the specific phrase "four to six rooms" is just common want ad language for people looking for a house to rent with 4 to 6 rooms.

I do have an alternative theory of why Booth would have created the ad if it wasn't a cipher:

Say, Booth meets John Surratt in October 1864 in Montreal. Surratt tells Booth that he has plans to move his family from Maryland to Washington DC. Surratt had been the local postmaster from his father's death in August 1862 until being fired in November 1863 for disloyalty (he had already become a Confederate spy). Surratt and his sister moved into the Washington boardinghouse around the first of November 1864. What if placing the ads was a way of creating a plausible connection between Booth and Surratt if the link between the two had somehow been discovered. Surratt being removed from his postmaster job for disloyalty could've put suspicion on Booth but Booth could point to the ad and claim this was how he met Surratt. Later on, they stage the December 1864 meeting with witnesses to conceal their prior meeting and no longer need the ads for a fake backstory of how they know each other.

Sounds as plausible a theory as any of the dozens of others related to the conspiracy I have heard over the past 50-60 years, but can you prove it? As for the ad, I like the thought that they were all related to newly elected office holders trying to find an abode. Not as much mystery, perhaps, but certainly more of a common sense idea.