Laurie,
Thanks so much for all this. You have access to a lot of information at the Surratt house, and have been very helpful, and generous with your time.
"The letter" I referred to is the one to Annie Ward that arrived on April 10th. Mr. Prindle says Surratt expected it to fall into government hands, and hoped it would help establish his alibi. It matches your description of the letter of the 10th. It's supposed to contain an expression of Surratt's belief that the Southern Cause was dead. Booth was interested in the post script. Mr. Prindle says Surratt wrote it in Montreal, on the 7th or a little later, while awaiting his new Garibaldi jacket. This letter, or at least information about it is supposed to reside in Mr. Barbee's files, and Mr. Hall's files, according to Mr. Prindle's footnote. That's it!
Earlier, I mistaken said that the Garibaldi jacket was supposed to have been made in Elmira. I'll try to correct that. It was supposed to have been made in Montreal.
Mike

---

Previously, Laurie, and Mr. Norton 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.
[/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 Surratt thought 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, St Albans, or Montreal, when all hell broke loose. He did this because he knew the murders 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.
[/quote

It's only necessary for Surratt to have gained knowledge of the change in plans, supposedly from new orders from Benjamin to Booth, delivered before he left Washington, (April 4th?). That's supposed to be the reason he tried to establish his alibi in Elmira, St Albans, or Montreal.
Mike

Mike - There may be notes on that April 10 letter in Barbee's files, but I do not believe that the original or a transcription of it exists and has probably been "lost" on purpose since April of 1865. As I said earlier, it is mentioned in Weichmann's self-vindicating book (as edited by Floyd Risvold in the 1970s), but there is no indication of what it said other than something about the fall of Richmond.

Personally, I think it would have been rather foolhardy for Surratt to attempt to make himself so visible in his journeys northward. Out of sight, out of mind works for spies and Confederate couriers also -- why take the chance of anyone being able to identify you?

I do not think that Benjamin was issuing orders to Booth or Surratt at that point. Maybe from November through March, but when Richmond fell, so did Booth's chances of communication and he went out on his own, imo.

In closing: I swear that this world of technology is going to drive me crazy! How Pinterest found out that I had been digging around Garibaldi, but five minutes ago this showed up on my work email https://www.pinterest.com/search/pins/?r...cbeae839f6

I spent time scrolling through everything and clicking on some and have yet to find what I would call a Garibaldi jacket - shirt, yes, and even photos of women in their Garibaldi blouses. I am now, literally, seeing RED on the subject and sticking with my theory that Surratt's purchase was more along the lines of the Oxford style. Rick Smith found a perfect photo of one, but we can't seem to get it transferred to Roger to post here.

(08-06-2019 01:33 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Mike - There may be notes on that April 10 letter in Barbee's files, but I do not believe that the original or a transcription of it exists and has probably been "lost" on purpose since April of 1865. As I said earlier, it is mentioned in Weichmann's self-vindicating book (as edited by Floyd Risvold in the 1970s), but there is no indication of what it said other than something about the fall of Richmond.

Personally, I think it would have been rather foolhardy for Surratt to attempt to make himself so visible in his journeys northward. Out of sight, out of mind works for spies and Confederate couriers also -- why take the chance of anyone being able to identify you?

I do not think that Benjamin was issuing orders to Booth or Surratt at that point. Maybe from November through March, but when Richmond fell, so did Booth's chances of communication and he went out on his own, imo.

In closing: I swear that this world of technology is going to drive me crazy! How Pinterest found out that I had been digging around Garibaldi, but five minutes ago this showed up on my work email https://www.pinterest.com/search/pins/?r...cbeae839f6

I spent time scrolling through everything and clicking on some and have yet to find what I would call a Garibaldi jacket - shirt, yes, and even photos of women in their Garibaldi blouses. I am now, literally, seeing RED on the subject and sticking with my theory that Surratt's purchase was more along the lines of the Oxford style. Rick Smith found a perfect photo of one, but we can't seem to get it transferred to Roger to post here.

I pointed out earlier that what is usually called a "shirt" may be referred to as a "jacket". I think, as Steve said, the mere fact of its being red would be reason enough to call it a "Garibaldi".
Mike

(08-06-2019 01:50 PM)mike86002000 Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 01:33 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Mike - There may be notes on that April 10 letter in Barbee's files, but I do not believe that the original or a transcription of it exists and has probably been "lost" on purpose since April of 1865. As I said earlier, it is mentioned in Weichmann's self-vindicating book (as edited by Floyd Risvold in the 1970s), but there is no indication of what it said other than something about the fall of Richmond.

Personally, I think it would have been rather foolhardy for Surratt to attempt to make himself so visible in his journeys northward. Out of sight, out of mind works for spies and Confederate couriers also -- why take the chance of anyone being able to identify you?

I do not think that Benjamin was issuing orders to Booth or Surratt at that point. Maybe from November through March, but when Richmond fell, so did Booth's chances of communication and he went out on his own, imo.

In closing: I swear that this world of technology is going to drive me crazy! How Pinterest found out that I had been digging around Garibaldi, but five minutes ago this showed up on my work email https://www.pinterest.com/search/pins/?r...cbeae839f6

I spent time scrolling through everything and clicking on some and have yet to find what I would call a Garibaldi jacket - shirt, yes, and even photos of women in their Garibaldi blouses. I am now, literally, seeing RED on the subject and sticking with my theory that Surratt's purchase was more along the lines of the Oxford style. Rick Smith found a perfect photo of one, but we can't seem to get it transferred to Roger to post here.

I pointed out earlier that what is usually called a "shirt" may be referred to as a "jacket". I think, as Steve said, the mere fact of its being red would be reason enough to call it a "Garibaldi".
Mike

My point is that I don't think his jacket was red... but what do I know.

(08-06-2019 01:33 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Rick Smith found a perfect photo of one, but we can't seem to get it transferred to Roger to post here.

This morning I posted it here.

(08-06-2019 02:16 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 01:33 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Rick Smith found a perfect photo of one, but we can't seem to get it transferred to Roger to post here.

This morning I posted it here.

Thank you so much, Roger. I was afraid that attempt had failed also.

(08-06-2019 02:33 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 02:16 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 01:33 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Rick Smith found a perfect photo of one, but we can't seem to get it transferred to Roger to post here.

This morning I posted it here.

Thank you so much, Roger. I was afraid that attempt had failed also.

I really think that's just a picture of what someone called a Garibaldi jacket. That's not illegitimate. It's a good picture, You don't claim it's the perfect example, do you? It doesn't particularly resemble anything Garibaldi wore, and probably wasn't intended to. "Garibaldi Jacket" is a loosely used fashion term. There is an "Historical Definition" of a Garibaldi jacket on the internet. It's described as a garment for women or children. The main feature is that it is red. Else where, any "jacket" as a short coat, is said to be unisex.
At the time of Lincoln's assassination, while Garibaldi, or at least his memory, survived, I believe the definition of "Garibaldi Jacket" was a little more precise, at least to the extent that it was red.
Mike

(08-06-2019 03:05 PM)mike86002000 Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 02:33 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 02:16 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 01:33 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Rick Smith found a perfect photo of one, but we can't seem to get it transferred to Roger to post here.

This morning I posted it here.

Thank you so much, Roger. I was afraid that attempt had failed also.

I really think that's just a picture of what someone called a Garibaldi jacket. That's not illegitimate. It's a good picture, You don't claim it's the perfect example, do you? It doesn't particularly resemble anything Garibaldi wore, and probably wasn't intended to. "Garibaldi Jacket" is a loosely used fashion term. There is an "Historical Definition" of a Garibaldi jacket on the internet. It's described as a garment for women or children. The main feature is that it is red. Else where, any "jacket" as a short coat, is said to be unisex.
At the time of Lincoln's assassination, while Garibaldi, or at least his memory, survived, I believe the definition of "Garibaldi Jacket" was a little more precise, at least to the extent that it was red.
Mike

I give up trying to explain this darn jacket!

According to historical data, Surratt himself called his new jacket an Oxford (see previous post) cut that was popular in Canada in 1865. I looked up the Oxford (now called Norfolk) description and it matches the photo that Rick found. Also, have you even considered what you just posted that Garibaldi shirts were worn by women and children, which indicates that men (unless one is a Garibaldi soldier) didn't strut around in bright red jackets/shirts?

This time, I'm sticking with Wikipedia: "Garibaldi's Redshirts
Giuseppe Garibaldi (1807 - 1882) was an Italian folk hero, a nationalist in favor of Italian independence from Austrian domination. Garibaldi's 'total sincerity and honesty, and exceptional physical courage gave him the kind of personal magnetism which made women of all classes love him, and men of all classes follow him in circumstances of acute danger.'[notes 2] During the Expedition of the Thousand campaign in 1860, his volunteer followers were known as 'Redshirts' (Camicie Rosse in Italian) for their uniforms (or rather shirts, as they could not afford full uniforms), and it is these who inspired the fashion.

"The Garibaldi shirt
According to a brief history of the shirt waist written in 1902, the fashion for the Garibaldi shirt was initiated by Empress Eugénie of France.[notes 3] Its first mention is in 1860, and clothing historian says of it: 'The Garibaldi jacket, of scarlet cashmere with military trimmings of gold braid, was hailed as 'the gem of the season'.''notes 4] It was extremely popular during the first half of the 1860s. Versions in white and lighter fabrics also appeared,[notes 5] and children frequently wore it.[notes 6]

"Camicia rossa
'Camicia rossa' or red shirt is a type of clothing. The Century Illustrated monthly magazine, Volume 74 explains that 'One...relic is none other than a veritable camicia rossa, or red shirt, worn by Garibaldi at [a] siege'.[4] A Cultural History of the Modern Age: The Crisis of the European Soul says that 'For a considerable time Garibaldi was the most famous man in Europe, and the red shirt, la camicia rossa, became the fashion for ladies, even outside Italy'"[5]

You can think what you want, and I will think what I want - and the devil can choose.

BTW: Garibaldi lived until June 2, 1882.

William Keeler was aboard the ship that took Dr. Mudd to Ft. Jefferson. Keeler was a Navy Paymaster. He was concerned about the possibility of Mudd receiving a pardon, so he wrote his congressman, B.C. Cook. Does anyone know if Congressman Cook shared Keeler's letter with President Johnson? Does Mr. Prindle mention this letter?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


La Salle, Ill.
Jany 21, 1869

Hon. B.C. Cook

Dear Sir

I learned by yesterday’s Chicago Tribune that efforts are being made to procure the pardon of Dr. Mudd. The U.S. Steamer Florida, to which I was attached conveyed him and his associates from Hampton Roads to the Tortugas. In conversation with myself, & I think with others on our passage down he admitted what I believe the prosecution failed to prove at his trial - viz - that he knew who Booth was when he set his leg & of what crime he was guilty. I have thought it might be well to have these facts known if they are not.

Very truly yours

W.F. Keeler

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

(08-07-2019 04:20 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  William Keeler was aboard the ship that took Dr. Mudd to Ft. Jefferson. Keeler was a Navy Paymaster. He was concerned about the possibility of Mudd receiving a pardon, so he wrote his congressman, B.C. Cook. Does anyone know if Congressman Cook shared Keeler's letter with President Johnson? Does Mr. Prindle mention this letter?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


La Salle, Ill.
Jany 21, 1869

Hon. B.C. Cook

Dear Sir

I learned by yesterday’s Chicago Tribune that efforts are being made to procure the pardon of Dr. Mudd. The U.S. Steamer Florida, to which I was attached conveyed him and his associates from Hampton Roads to the Tortugas. In conversation with myself, & I think with others on our passage down he admitted what I believe the prosecution failed to prove at his trial - viz - that he knew who Booth was when he set his leg & of what crime he was guilty. I have thought it might be well to have these facts known if they are not.

Very truly yours

W.F. Keeler

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Mr. Prindle mentions Keeler as a crew member on the Florida who overheard a conversation between Dr. Mudd and Captain Dutton, commander of the military escort. That's on pages 190 and 191. He doesn't mention Keeler's letter, at all. He also says Dr. Mudd admitted he had recognized Booth in a New York Times interview, while imprisoned in Washington. I don't remember reading about that else ware, and it isn't footnoted. As I remember all Captain Dutton claimed Dr. Mudd said, was that he recognized Booth, not that he knew about the assassination at the time, when he treated Booths broken leg and let him stay in his house. At his home, before he was arrested he volunteered that he then realized his visitor was Booth, to troops pursuing him.
Mike

Thanks, Mike. Personally I have never heard of a possible New York Times interview; I believe Mudd gave at least one interview after his release in 1869, but I've never read of a possible interview while he was imprisoned.

(08-07-2019 05:46 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Thanks, Mike. Personally I have never heard of a possible New York Times interview; I believe Mudd gave at least one interview after his release in 1869, but I've never read of a possible interview while he was imprisoned.

Dr. Mudd denied even recognizing Booth at various times, and said he never made the statement to Dutton, after he got to prison.
Much later, while running for elected office with one of Cox's sons he is supposed to have admitted to recognizing Booth. There are penciled notes in Cox's copy of the Jones book about it. I think I saw pictures of them, sometime ago. They were badly faded, and hard to read. There was no way to tell who wrote them, or when. Dr. Mudd was desperately trying to save himself, for the sake of his family.
It's often said that he escaped execution by only one vote. it's equally true that he was denied exoneration, and freedom, by one vote.
A commander of the troops pursuing Booth, said Dr. Mudd's lips turned blue, and he appeared to be agitated, when he lied. He wasn't very good at it, not being very experienced, or comfortable with it, to his credit, I think. I recall seeing pictures of him before and after his arrest, trial, and imprisonment. I don't think his nose grew a bit! Smurfs weren't described as a species 'till a hundred years later.
Mr. Prindle, unkindly characterizes Dr. Mudd as a "liar". That's like dismissing George Washington as a "slave owner". I've read the petitions written by guards and fellow prisoners at Dry Tortugas, calling for his release. There are two in the national archives. Some of those folks couldn't even write their name. They signed with an "X", and had someone write in their name, wanting to do what they could for Dr. Mudd.
As I have said above, Mr. Prindle says the "trial" was illegal, and the pardons were granted to head off an appeal to the supreme court. He does so in strong terms.
Mike

Dr. Mudd was interviewed by the New York Herald shortly after he returned home in March of 1869. I think he was reluctant to be interviewed, but finally agreed -- and then complained, after the article appeared, about how he was misrepresented. As far as being interviewed while in prison, I doubt that seriously and do not recall ever reading such a thing. Since Stanton wanted the conspirators away from the public (and reporters) enough to change their sentence from Albany to Ft. Jefferson, I would suspect that the sharks in the moat at the latter abode would be sicced on anyone even smelling like a reporter.

Check with BoothieBarn because I think that Dave had something about the Herald article a few years ago.

The interview is on Dave's site here, and it's on Bob Summers' site here.

(08-07-2019 09:42 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  The interview is on Dave's site here, and it's on Bob Summers' site here.
[/quote
Thanks for making that accessible. It's interesting.
For an even stronger condemnation of Charles County, see George Stevens' letters in "Voice Of Thunder".
He was a servant with Hooker's forces, near Hilltop, West of LaPlata. He was also a "slave stealer" abolitionist, encouraging slaves to run away. He wrote that roads in Southern Maryland didn't deserve to be called roads, and commented on the worn out, desolate, fields. He said all the intelligent negroes had long since run away to Washington. He later served with the "Glory Brigade", deserting , for a time, in Florida, possibly suffering from battle fatigue/shock. Still later he taught in black schools, in Virginia. He wrote about an atrocity that supposedly occurred when one of Cox's runaway slaves sought refuge with Union forces in Hilltop. Cox is supposed to have demanded his "property", dragged the slave back to Bel Alton, and beat him to death. I asked Mike Kaufman his opinion and he dismissed it all as abolitionist propaganda. Local news paper files from that time are missing. Dispatches from Stevens were widely reprinted in Northern papers, at the time.
Mike

---

[quote='L Verge' pid='78215' dateline='1565186803']
Dr. Mudd was interviewed by the New York Herald shortly after he returned home in March of 1869. I think he was reluctant to be interviewed, but finally agreed -- and then complained, after the article appeared, about how he was misrepresented. As far as being interviewed while in prison, I doubt that seriously and do not recall ever reading such a thing. Since Stanton wanted the conspirators away from the public (and reporters) enough to change their sentence from Albany to Ft. Jefferson, I would suspect that the sharks in the moat at the latter abode would be sicced on anyone even smelling like a reporter.

Check with BoothieBarn because I think that Dave had something about the Herald article a few years ago.

I by no means claim there was an interview while Dr. Mudd was in prison, in Florida. He did communicate with the outside world. What do think is in the Nettie Mudd book?
Reporters and lawyers didn't have to be allowed off the ship, at Dry Tortugas. Any sharks probably fed on garbage and waste from the fort, not prisoners. Southern Florida Federal District courts were under control of Boyington, a Lincoln appointee, from the North, who could be counted on to serve the administration, and deny the prisoners their rights. That's why the "conspirators" were sent there.
Mike.