Old report of the St. Albans Raid and the Picture in Question

[L Verge]

After just a quick perusal of the pages before and after the questionable lady in Headley's book, I am more definitely leaning towards it being of Mary Belle Higbee. First, if I ever knew, I have forgotten - when and where was Sarah Slater first described as the "lady in the veil?" I suppose that I have always assumed that it was her mode of disguise while on Confederate duty.

Second, Mrs. Higbee (age 27) had been a widow when her first husband, a minister 16 years her senior, died in 1857. When she remarried, she would have taken off her widow's weeds. Her second husband, Charles Higby (as spelled by Headley), was one of six Raiders who were never identified by the authorities in Montreal or the U.S., but had been injured in the raid. His wife had come to nurse him.

Not having studied the St Albans Raid in depth, reading Headley's account awakened me to the fact that there was more than one trial of the Raiders. As soon as they fled into Canada, the U.S. accused them of breaking something called the Ashburton Treaty. I'll let someone else research what that was, but it evidently had to do with U.S. relations with Canada (and thus England). From what I can gather, the citizenry of Canada were sympathetic to the Raiders. The U.S. demanded extradition for the felony committed by breaking the Treaty, but most people knew that the U.S. would execute them as spies or guerrillas.

Their defenders said that there were no grounds for extradition because the Raiders were commissioned officers and enlisted men of the Confederate Army who committed an unusual form of warfare - robbery and arson. The U.S. Army had certainly done enough of this "unusual warfare" throughout the South, so what was the fuss all about? It appears that breaking that treaty was the felony that the Feds were worried about.

The proceedings against them first began when they were arraigned in the Police Court of Montreal on November 7, 1864. The leader, Bennett Young, spoke first and declared, "Whatever was done at St. Albans was done by the authority and order of the Confederate Government. I have not violated the neutrality laws of either Canada or Great Britain. Those who were with me at St. Albans were all officers or enlisted men of the Confederate Army and were then under my command." He then went on to explain that their actions were in retaliation to "the barbarous atrocities" of Grant, Butler, Sherman, Sheridan, Hunter, and other Yankee officers. A Captain Collins then gave a similar response on behalf of the prisoners in general.

The prosecution then contended that there was no seal/proof of the Raiders' contentions that they were "legal" Confederate soldiers acting under the purview of the Confederate government. The court was adjourned in order to send for such proof. It began again on December 13, 1864. This time, there was a question as to whether or not the court had jurisdiction. The Police Judge rendered a lengthy decision that he did not have jurisdiction, and the prisoners were discharged.

Almost immediately, a warrant was issued for the re-arrest of five of the thirteen Raiders who had just been discharged. They were located near Quebec and brought back to Montreal for examination by the Supreme Court - not a Police Court. The question of jurisdiction was raised again and argued day after day until January 10, 1865, when the point was overruled. A motion was made for a thirty-day delay to allow messengers to obtain the certified copies of the men's Confederate commissions. One eminent Montreal attorney was sent directly to Washington to apply for a pass through the lines to Richmond. The request was refused by both Seward and Lincoln, and Seward's reply instructed the attorney to leave the country. This is when the various stories as to who came with the necessary papers begins.

We know that the Rev. Stephen Cameron arrived from Richmond very near the end of the trial, bearing the papers with the necessary Great Seal of the Confederacy. According to Headley, he arrived the same day as the mysterious lady courier. His description does have the lady in Montreal previously and says she had called on the prisoners in the jail. This makes sense if her wounded husband was one of the Raiders. He then says she volunteered to go to Richmond for the papers. This makes sense also since her husband would be one of the men whose life depended on those papers. That puts Mary Belle Higbee in the spotlight for me. But, was Sarah Slater heading north at the same time Mary Belle was heading south?

Headley clearly states that the woman was a "Kentucky lady." That doesn't match Sarah, bur Mary Belle was born in Kentucky and is now buried in Kentucky. However, in the caption under the photo, he states that the woman was "young." That fits Sarah - Mary Belle was 27 (matronly in those days). Mary Belle would no longer be considered a widow, either.

There is a footnote on page 376 that is even more curious: "The prisoners never met this lady before or after her visits to the jail in Montreal. One of the survivors [maybe her husband?] secured her photograph at the jail, but after forty years her name is forgotten." If she was the wife of one of them, wouldn't someone recognize her and then remember her? When she visited Frankfort, Kentucky, in 1867, and was recognized by the legislature during a 15-minute recess - and received an ovation - wouldn't someone have known her name? How did she receive word to come to Frankfort?

Do we have two women running the blockades to get the papers to Montreal in 1865? If we pay attention only to Headley's recounting, it seems like Mrs. Higbee could have been the courier. However, based on the research of 20th-century scholars, it would appear that Sarah Slater is in the running also. Frankly, I want more information on what went on in Frankfort, Kentucky, in 1867. Who was honored and why? Right now, I'm thinking it was Mary Belle Higbee - based solely on the Headley account, and how accurate is it? I feel a letter to the Kentucky State Archives and/or Historian coming on...

---

One more point: If, as John Stanton states, the Raiders were not popular in Kentucky after the war, why would the state legislature honor a woman(be it Mary Belle or Sarah) who had helped to save their lives?

Underground supporters might honor her with a reception, but the vote-anxious members of the state legislature? I have my doubts, if the populace didn't like the St. Albans Raid or Raiders. Maybe those Raiders were more popular than the Yankee-published history books let on.