The photo Mr. Prindle used, on page 105, was unfortunately of Surratt in his Papal Zouave uniform. The chair he is seated in, looks like the same one as in the "Canada Jacket" photo you posted, and the baseboard on the wall looks the same. I agree they were probably taken at the same time. That they were to be sold at Surratt's lectures, explains why they were taken, and when.
In Mr. Prindle's book the Zouave uniform is captioned Surratt as he appeared in Elmira. He should have used the "Canada Jacket" photo. It's a simple mistake that doesn't undermine his theory at all. The Canada Jacket, especially if it was red, would have served to get him noticed and remembered in Elmira, at the time of the assassination, establishing his alibi, which implies foreknowledge of the assassination, perhaps gained by Surratt in his function as a courier between Juda Benjamin and Booth, which shows that the assassinations were ordered by Benjamin, in Richmond, "Who lived in the house that Jack built"! I hope my mild sarcasm will be forgiven. I consider Mr. Prindel's book a "keeper".
Mike

I'm sorry, but this is not what I was "taught" was a Garibaldi jacket -- first, I thought that Garibaldi was known for his red shirts, not jackets, and they were popular with women. The Butterick pattern for the boy's so-called Garibaldi is more like what I would suspect. The photo above is more like what I have in mind, but somewhere I have seen reference to the jacket having a belt at the waistline. I sure hope I'm not crazy.


Sandy's photo of Surratt on page 105 shows him in his Papal Zouave uniform and states that he wore it in Elmira. 'Tain't so. He did not have that uniform until he escaped from Canada and headed to England and then down the continent until seeking final sanctuary with the Pope's forces under a false name. As I stated earlier, he was arrested in that uniform, escaped, finally captured in Egypt and brought back to D.C. in that uniform. To top it all off, the verso of that CDV says that it was taken by Matthew Brady (probably in his D.C. studio).

I'm at work again today and found an answer to Mike's question about the 14-page Booth letter. Here's what I replied to him:

"I’m at work yet again, so I have access to books. Hanchett gives a synopsis of the letter, which is definitely the “To Whom It May Concern” letter that was left with Asia, but intended for her husband. Hanchett credits Mr. Hall with finding it in the Attorney General’s files at the Archives. He says it was dated in August of 1864, which would put it at just about the time that the kidnap thoughts began to form. Three months later, Booth was in Southern Maryland and meeting Dr. Queen and Dr. Mudd.

"I also searched the huge The Evidence book and found the verbatim transcription of the letter that was published in the Philadelphia Inquirer on April 19, 1865. In that book, the entire letter takes up two-and-a-half pages. Perhaps the handwritten original is 14-pages long? Mr. Hall is credited again with finding it in 1977, over a hundred years after it was thought to be missing."

(08-01-2019 10:04 AM)mike86002000 Wrote:  I have valued our respectful exchange of opinions. I hope, when you return to home, and your resources, we can continue an occasional, reasoned, respectful discussion.

I walked off a plane about an hour ago and have not had the opportunity to go through all the posts made while I was travelling last week, but I did catch the sentences above. Mike, I thank you for, and completely concur with, the sentiments expressed. Let's have a good and informative exchange, but nothing I write is ever intended to be disrespectful of you (or anyone else for that matter). I have many friends, but can't think of a one with whom I agree 100% of the time. That has not prevented us from being friends or having "an occasional, reasoned, respectful discussion." When I have the opportunity, I will respond to specifics in the thread, but I thought that your words so well encapsulate the purpose and spirit intended by Roger Norton in founding and maintaining this Forum, that I wanted to express my appreciation for them. More to come.

Laurie,
Actually, "shirt" and "jacket" are sometimes used interchangeably. As recently as the '70's, the top part of the U.S. Army fatigue uniform, what normal people, in the "Real World" would call a "shirt", was officially a "Jacket, Fatigue". Sometimes, surplus stores would allow it to be confused with the popular, and much more expensive field coat, to lure customers searching for a bargain.
As I explained above, I doubt Surratt was still wearing the same uniform he had on when he escaped from the Papal Zouaves, when he was returned to the States, maybe one like it. That makes me wonder where it came from. Did he have access to a tailor? For that matter, how could his "Canada Jacket" have gotten to Brady's studio for the photo shoot? It would seem reasonable to believe he had both the uniform and jacket tailor made for the shoot, except for the story that he was wearing the uniform when he was brought back to the States.
The actual information in the Hanchett book, referred to in a footnote by Mr. Prindle, about a speech, makes the existence of a 14 page speech questionable. The Walter Hamden museum's catalog lists multiple letters from John Wilks Booth to his brother Edwin, written after the assassination. I suspect those are from various people, about John Wilks Booth, To Edwin. I haven't found any mention of their ocean view real estate holdings in Kansas and Nebraska, yet, or mention of the speech.
Mike

---

Mr. Binzel,
I'm glad to hear you are home, safe and sound.
Mike

Selected portions of the testimony of James Sangster, the clerk at the St. Laurence Hall in Montreal (with the parts about the Garibaldi jacket in bold)

(By Mr. Bradley)

Q. Are there any circumstances that would recall this man to you?
A. The circumstances were, that after the death of Lincoln parties came there inquiring for him, and from the description they gave of his dress I remembered such a party there answering to that description.

Q. What was this dress?
A. He wore what is called a Garibaldi jacket.

By the Court :

Q. What is a Garibaldi jacket?
A. It is a kind of straight coat, or jacket, with a belt of the same material.

By Mr. Bradley, Jr. :

Q. Do you recollect anything else peculiar about his dress?
A. I remember that he was tall — nothing more than that. At the time of these inquiries I remembered that such a party had been in the house. I do not remember now his appearance except that he wore a Garibaldi jacket.

Q. Do you remember whether he carried a cane or not?
A. I do not remember that.

Q. Or the style of his hat?
A. My impression is that it was a slouch hat — a kind of soft hat.

Q. Do you remember the pants he wore ?
A. No, I cannot describe them. The coat was close-fitting, buttoning up in front, with pockets in the sides.

By a Juror :

Q. Do you remember the color ?
A. I do not remember the color. It was a style of coat not much worn there at the time, and attracted my attention.

**********
Mr. PIERREPONT. I am informed by counsel upon the other side that they are going to bring in a dress they claim to correspond to that of this John Harrison: I will not, therefore, ask any further question at present.

Mr. BRADLEY. I will say that we had sent a subpoena for Mr. Sangster for the purpose of proving these facts. I state it in order to ascertain how far it may be taken as a stipulation that the prisoner, John H. Surratt, on the 6th of April, 1865, arrived at that hotel, and entered his name on the register as John Harrison; that he left there on the 12th of April, returned on the I8th, and again registered his name as John Harrison.

Mr. PIERREPONT. And that these two entries are in his handwriting.

Mr. BRADLEY. That he registered that identical name. We wish to exhibit to Mr. Sangster not the dress worn by the prisoner, but a dress of the same kind.

Mr. PIERREPONT. That will certainly save us the necessity of taking a very considerable amount of evidence.

The dress referred to was here brought into court, and the question asked by Mr. Bradley, Jr.,

"Is that the style of garment worn by the person entering his name as John Harrison on the occasion referred to?"
Ans. "That is the style of garment."


So, according to the court record, it seems Surratt no longer had the Garibaldi coat when he was arrested, since the defense had to show a different Garibaldi jacket to Sangster for him to identify it as the same type of suit. So, it can't be the exact same suit that Surratt is wearing in the picture. Sangster described it as a straight coat or jacket with a belt of the same material. If you look at that picture of Surratt, just below his hand you can see what looks like a belt made of the same material as the rest of the jacket. Interestingly, Sangster says he cannot remember the color of the coat - one has to ask do you think Sangster would've been more likely to remember the color if the coat was indeed red?

It is surprising that no mention is made of the distinctive color. Mr. Prindle says it was red. Wicipedia says Garibaldi's was red. Does Surratt mention what color his was in his letter about it?
Mike

(08-05-2019 05:15 AM)mike86002000 Wrote:  It is surprising that no mention is made of the distinctive color. Mr. Prindle says it was red. Wicipedia says Garibaldi's was red. Does Surratt mention what color his was in his letter about it?
Mike

I have yet to find the reference to the letter and really won't have time to look. However, when you read the testimonies from others, there is no mention of red; in fact, one uses the word "drab."

I think we can dismiss this discussion over the jacket and just accept that the photo of Surratt in the current book is mislabeled.

I have yet to find the reference to the letter and really won't have time to look. However, when you read the testimonies from others, there is no mention of red; in fact, one uses the word "drab."

I think we can dismiss this discussion over the jacket and just accept that the photo of Surratt in the current book is mislabeled.
[/quote]
I agree. But where did the idea that Surratt's jacket was red come from?
Mike

(08-05-2019 09:45 AM)mike86002000 Wrote:  I agree. But where did the idea that Surratt's jacket was red come from?
Mike

Probably from the fact that Garibaldi's soldiers wore red shirts as part of their uniforms.

(08-05-2019 10:37 AM)Steve Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 09:45 AM)mike86002000 Wrote:  I agree. But where did the idea that Surratt's jacket was red come from?
Mike

Probably from the fact that Garibaldi's soldiers wore red shirts as part of their uniforms.

Agreed, Steve, however when you read about Garibaldi's army, they are very specific in saying that they could not afford uniforms -- just shirts -- and that the style became a feminine one, not a male fashion statement.

That said, I finally found the word that I had been looking for in reference to the style of the Surratt jacket/coat/whatever! God bless Fred Hatch and his attention to details. Chapter 6, pages 85-89, John Surratt: Rebel, Lincoln Conspirator, Fugitive: " .... Before leaving Montreal for Elmira, I provided myself with an Oxford cut jacket and a round-top hat, peculiar to Canada at that time.... I believe that costume guided me safely through St. Albans. I went in with others, and moved around, with the detectives standing there most of the time looking at us..."

Fred also quoted other witnesses at the Surratt trial who mentioned "drab" or "dark gray" or "dark blue" as the colors of the jacket.

I will now pursue a search for the Oxford cut styling -- when I have nothing else to do.

Quick search, and I think this is what Surratt's Canadian jacket may have looked like, but with a different neckline. https://www.amazon.com/Historical-Empori...uage=en_US

Laurie wrote:
I have yet to find the reference to the letter and really won't have time to look. However, when you read the testimonies from others, there is no mention of red; in fact, one uses the word "drab."

I hope you will want to follow up on this reference to what may be "The Letter". The reference in Mr. Prindle's footnote is to James O. Hall's papers, presumably in his library at the Surratt House. I hope details are specific enough to save your time in finding it.

On page 103 of his book, Mr. Prindle mentions a letter written by Surratt from Elmira, while he waited for his jacket and pantaloons to come from the tailor. It was sent to "Ms. Annie Ward", who shared it with Mrs. Surratt. Booth also saw it and expressed interest in the post mark. Mr. Prindle thinks it was written with the expectation that it would fall into the hands of the government, and so was part of Surratt's attempt to establish his alibi during the carnage in Washington, an important part of "The house that Jack built" I referred to above. Mr. Prindle's foot note, ( Chapter 9, #4 ), refers to "Notes on the Ward Department records of John Surratt by D. R. Barbee, 1933, James O' Hall Papers." Hopefully, these are in the James O. Hall library at the Surratt House. "James O' Hall" is almost certainly James Otis Hall. I immediately thought "Ward Department" was probably "War Department", but maybe not since the letter was addressed to Ms. Ward. Similarly, is D. R. Barbee really DR. Barbee? I wonder what's in the records mentioned, perhaps even the letter itself.
Mike

We may be talking about more than one jacket. Surratt bought one, described as drab, in Canada. He had another, the red Garibaldi, made for him in Montreal. I just noticed that the quote above in "John Surratt: Rebel, Lincoln Conspirator, Fugitive", refers to one he bought in Canada, (the Canada jacket?). The, probably red, Garibaldi jacket was made for him, by John J. Reeves. He waited there for some time, for it to be made, according to Mr. Prindle. All this, and the pictures he posed for with Mathew Brady, makes Surratt appear to be something of a "clothes horse".
I've looked at the photos of Surratt in his Papal Zouave uniform and the other jacket, supposed to be like one he wore in Elmira, carefully, (some will say obsessively). They are, of course black and white photos, but I compared the shade of the costumes to the armrest on the chair. The jacket of the Zouave uniform was mostly light blue, with red trim. It appears to be mainly lighter than the chair. The red trim, however, seems to match the chair. The other jacket seems to match the chair. If A=B, and B=C, A=C. I think only that the chair and other jacket, may have been red. This would make it probably the red Garibaldi jacket. I don't mean to assert that this is absolutely the case. I think, perhaps, it is.
I don't think the jacket in the photo is supposed to actually be either of the jackets. It was probably supposed to look like the Garibaldi. I don't think the Zouave uniform is the one he wore escaping arrest by them. It is a Papal Zouave uniform. Both were probably bought for the photo shoot. Remember Surratt escaped arrest by leaping into a pile of excrement, and was a foul deserter after that. I don't think he would have worn his uniform while trying to make his getaway to Egypt. If he was wearing a Papal Zouave uniform when he was returned to the U.S. It was, hopefully, a fresh one. It seems odd since he was still a deserter.
By the way, the tasseled head gear in the photo of the Zouave uniform is authentic. I've found pictures of similar, worn at least by officers. It isn't exactly a fez. A kepi style cap was more common.
Mike

(08-02-2019 11:10 AM)mike86002000 Wrote:  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.

I am not sure how this proves that John Surratt knew that April 14th was the "scheduled day" for assassination. Personally I do not think Surratt knew Booth was going to shoot the President on the 14th. Surratt left Washington on April 4th and did not return. Booth arrived in Washington on the 8th, but in my opinion, did not decide to shoot Lincoln until he heard Lincoln's speech on the 11th. Booth's plans on the 14th did not include Surratt (unless he told Atzerodt the truth about Surratt being in Washington; in one of his confessions Atzerodt maintained that Booth told him Surratt was in town and going to help at Ford's Theatre).

In sum, I am of the opinion that Surratt did not have foreknowledge of the timing of the assassination. So I feel I must disagree with Mr. Prindle on this.

I am not sure how this proves that John Surratt knew that April 14th was the "scheduled day" for assassination. Personally I do not think Surratt knew Booth was going to shoot the President on the 14th. Surratt left Washington on April 4th and did not return. Booth arrived in Washington on the 8th, but in my opinion, did not decide to shoot Lincoln until he heard Lincoln's speech on the 11th. Booth's plans on the 14th did not include Surratt (unless he told Atzerodt the truth about Surratt being in Washington; in one of his confessions Atzerodt maintained that Booth told him Surratt was in town and going to help at Ford's Theatre).

In sum, I am of the opinion that Surratt did not have foreknowledge of the timing of the assassination. So I feel I must disagree with Mr. Prindle on this.
[/quote]
Actually, Mr. Prindle says the same thing. He doesn't claim that Surratt had foreknowledge of the exact time of the assassination, only that it had been ordered by Benjamin in Richmond, and he had best establish an alibi. He actually says specifically that Surratt couldn't have known the exact timing, it hadn't been established, only that the murder, a change in plans from the kidnap plot, had been ordered, by Benjamin, in a message he carried to Booth.
As I understand it, the reasoning goes: Surratt carefully established his alibi. He was in Elmira when all hell broke loose. He did this because he knew the murder had been ordered by Benjamin, because he was Benjamin's courier to Booth. The hypothetical existence of a message conveyed by Surratt from Benjamin, (how else could Surratt have known he was going to need an alibi?), is supposed to show that the change in plans was ordered by Benjamin.
Mike

(08-05-2019 09:28 PM)mike86002000 Wrote:  Laurie wrote:
I have yet to find the reference to the letter and really won't have time to look. However, when you read the testimonies from others, there is no mention of red; in fact, one uses the word "drab."

I hope you will want to follow up on this reference to what may be "The Letter". The reference in Mr. Prindle's footnote is to James O. Hall's papers, presumably in his library at the Surratt House. I hope details are specific enough to save your time in finding it.

On page 103 of his book, Mr. Prindle mentions a letter written by Surratt from Elmira, while he waited for his jacket and pantaloons to come from the tailor. It was sent to "Ms. Annie Ward", who shared it with Mrs. Surratt. Booth also saw it and expressed interest in the post mark. Mr. Prindle thinks it was written with the expectation that it would fall into the hands of the government, and so was part of Surratt's attempt to establish his alibi during the carnage in Washington, an important part of "The house that Jack built" I referred to above. Mr. Prindle's foot note, ( Chapter 9, #4 ), refers to "Notes on the Ward Department records of John Surratt by D. R. Barbee, 1933, James O' Hall Papers." Hopefully, these are in the James O. Hall library at the Surratt House. "James O' Hall" is almost certainly James Otis Hall. I immediately thought "Ward Department" was probably "War Department", but maybe not since the letter was addressed to Ms. Ward. Similarly, is D. R. Barbee really DR. Barbee? I wonder what's in the records mentioned, perhaps even the letter itself.
Mike

Mike, I have to admit that this theme is starting to get me confused, but here goes: Annie Ward was a former teacher at the St. Mary's Female Institute in Bryantown, where Anna Surratt had been educated, and was now teaching at the Academy of Visitation in D.C. She was a friend of the Surratts and very likely on the fringes of the courier system related to John, Jr. Some authors call her a girlfriend of John, but she was much older.

The so-called "missing letter" was actually the one that Jr. had sent to his mother from Springfield, Massachusetts, telling her that he had missed his connections and would be laying over there for a day. Mary received it on April 5, and that is the one that she supposedly laid on the window sill and it disappeared. The authorities were interested because it could prove that Jr. had already left town.

Annie Ward's delivery of another letter came on April 10, and Mary, Anna, and Miss Ward were opening it just as Booth arrived. He came wanting to know if Mary knew where her son was (a pretty good indicator that Jr. had cut out on Booth?). Mary asked Miss Ward to read the letter because of her poor eyesight. When finished, Anna took the letter and handed it to Weichmann, who had entered the room. Weichmann mentioned the letter many years later in his manuscript/book, but did not say what it was about.

Whatever the letter said, it made Booth angry when Lou said that the Confederacy was dead. He started pointing out escape routes still available to General Joe Johnston to avoid capture and continue to fight. Weichmann also said that Booth declared himself out of acting, except that he would like to present Venice Preserved, which is about an attempt to assassinate Venetian cabinet members to save Venice Italy. After Booth left, Mrs. Surratt asked Louis to take her to Surrattsville the next day, April 11. It was that night that Booth heard Lincoln speak from the White House window and likely decided to turn to assassination.

At the trial, Annie Ward testified that she had received at least four letters from Jr., two for her and two for his mother. She said that she assumed they had been destroyed. One letter to Mary was written from Montreal on April 12, and she received it on April 14. Another letter that is seldom mentioned is one that Jr. wrote to his cousin, Belle Seaman on April 10 from Montreal. It is just chatty.

Moving on, I am confused about your reference to "The Letter" that is supposedly in the Hall files here at Surratt House. However, I know that Sandy consulted with Michael Schein (author of very good book, John Surratt: The Lincoln Assassin Who Got Away), so I checked on that. I believe you might be confusing letters that went to those in D.C. with the one I just mentioned to Belle Seaman, the cousin who lived in Pennsylvania, so I am bowing out of that aspect.

Finally, "Ward" Department is a typo (should be "War'), James Otis Hall is indeed the wonderful expert on this whole subject and the person honored at our research center. We do have the Belle Seaman letter copy in his files.

And D.R. Barbee is usually cited as David Rankin Barbee, who did some excellent research - and some spurious claims - in the early-20th century. His records are held by the Lauringer Library at Georgetown University, and my pleas for copies have failed so far until digitization might happen that would make it possible. Most researchers have scoured the Barbee Papers. Mr. Hall was impressed with them enough that he contacted Barbee's daughter in the mid-1900s wanting to help her get the papers published. She was not interested.

That's it; I'm exhausted; I'm sure we have used up all available cyberspace...

---

(08-06-2019 05:29 AM)mike86002000 Wrote:  I am not sure how this proves that John Surratt knew that April 14th was the "scheduled day" for assassination. Personally I do not think Surratt knew Booth was going to shoot the President on the 14th. Surratt left Washington on April 4th and did not return. Booth arrived in Washington on the 8th, but in my opinion, did not decide to shoot Lincoln until he heard Lincoln's speech on the 11th. Booth's plans on the 14th did not include Surratt (unless he told Atzerodt the truth about Surratt being in Washington; in one of his confessions Atzerodt maintained that Booth told him Surratt was in town and going to help at Ford's Theatre).

In sum, I am of the opinion that Surratt did not have foreknowledge of the timing of the assassination. So I feel I must disagree with Mr. Prindle on this.

Actually, Mr. Prindle says the same thing. He doesn't claim that Surratt had foreknowledge of the exact time of the assassination, only that it had been ordered by Benjamin in Richmond, and he had best establish an alibi. He actually says specifically that Surratt couldn't have known the exact timing, it hadn't been established, only that the murder, a change in plans from the kidnap plot, had been ordered, by Benjamin, in a message he carried to Booth.
As I understand it, the reasoning goes: Surratt carefully established his alibi. He was in Elmira when all hell broke loose. He did this because he knew the murder had been ordered by Benjamin, because he was Benjamin's courier to Booth. The hypothetical existence of a message conveyed by Surratt from Benjamin, (how else could Surratt have known he was going to need an alibi?), is supposed to show that the change in plans was ordered by Benjamin.
Mike
[/quote]

I disagree with Sandy if he theorizes that Judah Benjamin gave the order to assassinate Lincoln anytime after April 1st. It may have been Plan B in some folks' minds in Richmond (because I do think the hierarchy sanctioned the capture - that could lead to someone getting killed), but in those first two weeks of April 1865, the city of Richmond had to be in chaos, and Judah Benjamin had to have been covering his personal tail feathers by destroying papers, arranging for money transfers to satisfy his own future needs, planning his own escape, etc.

John Surratt was following Confederate orders during those weeks, but those orders were sending him to Canada, Gen. E.G. Lee, scouting out Hellmira, and maybe dilly-dallying with Sarah Slater at the beginning.