Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Ernesto · (This post was last modified: 03-09-2021 08:26 AM by Ernesto.)

(03-08-2021 04:40 PM)Leon Greene Wrote:
(03-07-2021 05:50 PM)Ernesto Wrote:
(03-07-2021 03:09 PM)margotdarby Wrote:
(03-07-2021 02:06 PM)Leon Greene Wrote:
(03-01-2021 09:22 AM)Ernesto Wrote:
thanks margot
looking forward to it.

Margot
thanks to your clue I was able to track down the thesis:
Margaret M. Mulrooney, "labor at Home: the domestic world of workers at the du Pont Powder mills, 1802-1902. Ph.D thesis, college of William and Mary, 1996, p. 132
Her citation is Philadelphia Catholic Herald, 4/24/1834 and 1/8/1835.

Patrick Martin's travels often are not well documented. He had many connections with John Wilkes Booth, George P. Kane, and many of the other conspirators in Canada.
The reference noted in Margaret M. Mulrooney's dissertation was a single paragraph in a document of 445 pages. It cited The Philadelphia Catholic Herald from April 4, 1834, and January 8, 1835, describing Martin's business.
In fact, one Patrick C. Martin, whom we assume is the same Martin of the Canadian Confederacy, placed more than 20 ads in this Catholic Herald during 1834-1838. They all were offers for Catholic books and publications, beads, crucifixes, and pictures. The final advertisement, dated June 28, 1838, made no mention of closing his business, though some ads in 1836 said that he "...intends to decline selling as soon as possible."
These figures from December 18, 1834, and July 9, 1835, are examples of such ads from the Philadelphia Catholic Herald; they are taken from The Catholic News Archive where they are listed under the more general title of The Catholic Standard and Times.

Thank you very much, Leon. I did consult one newspaper database for the 1835 ad cited by Mulrooney, but the issue was missing and I didn't think to rummage through other issues of that paper. I'm familiar with the Standard and Times but did not know they had an extensive archive online, including the Herald. (Thanks for that too.) The timing of the ads is curious because according to Patrick's father, Patrick went to sea for a year or so at 16, which would mean 1833-34. Thus he almost immediately got into the devotional business after returning to Baltimore, and later moved on to something else after marrying Mary Ann Timmins in Pennsylvania in 1837. It appears he worked at his father's fruit-and-candy business at 52 N Gay St. (a couple blocks north of the present-day Harborplace) while intending to buy a share of a merchant ship, which he eventually did.

leon, great follow up
what is your evidence for Booth having "many connections"with Kane? Kane was gone by the time
booth was in canada.

Ernesto-
Thanks for questioning my statement that Kane and Booth had "many connections." I may have overstated the case, but there is some evidence for connections - even friendship - between the two. Much of it is circumstantial; some is not.
Indeed, Kane had left Canada before Booth arrived in Montreal on October 18, 1864.
Here are a few tantalizing suggestions for an association between Kane and Booth:
• The Kane and Booth families were both from Baltimore. In fact, their early family homes were only about four blocks apart. The Kanes lived on Aisquith, between Comet and Douglas; the Booths lived at 62 Exeter, between Douglas and Fayette. Granted, many years separated their residences in these two places, but families and neighborhoods in Baltimore were very important and often remained so, even after a family moved away. (Remember, I admit that many "connections" are circumstantial. This one is VERY circumstantial.)
• Booth returned to Baltimore many times during his life after he had left for his acting career. His friendship with Samuel Arnold and Michael O'Laughlen persisted after Booth began his stage performances in other cities (that was one of those family/neighborhood bonds - the O'Laughlens lived at 57 Exeter in Baltimore). For example, Booth was in Baltimore only one day after the April 19, 1861, "Pratt Street Riot" when the Massachusetts troops went through the city on their way to strengthen the defenses of Washington, D.C., against Southern forces. [See the Eutaw House Register at the Maryland Center for History and Culture, MS 2089, unpaginated, entry for April 20, 1861.] Both Kane and Booth were famous by this time, and it is possible that Kane was informed of Booth's presence downtown where the rioting took place. (This is yet another circumstance - not proof that they met during that week.)
• The most likely venue for a friendship between Kane and Booth was the theatre. Kane, in fact, was an aspiring actor in his early years. He played small roles in the theatres of Baltimore, and contemporary Baltimore historian John Thomas Scharf said that Kane was actually well received as an actor. Kane performed at the Adelphi Theatre (the "Mud Theatre") and likely at others. There was a considerable age gap between Kane and Booth (Kane would have been about 38 years old when John Wilkes Booth made his debut at Baltimore's Charles Street Theatre at age 17), so it is unlikely that Kane and the younger Booth acted together in the same performances. However, Kane continued his interest in the theatre after he abandoned his own acting career.
• It is most likely that Kane began his association with the Booth family through John Wilkes' father, Junius Brutus Booth. Kane thus probably met the younger Booth through the older. Kane supported many theatre events on the Baltimore scene, and the Booth family was intimately involved in multiple theatres in Baltimore. John Wilkes Booth only performed at the Charles Street and at the Holliday Theatres, while his father Junius Brutus Booth played the Adelphi, the Holliday, and the Front Street Theatres, often alternating from one site to the other. Kane was part owner and investor in Baltimore theatres and theatrical companies. Kane was also listed in ads in the Baltimore Sun as a member of committees supporting Junius Booth's plays. One such advertisement from February 1852 for the Holliday Street Theatre had Kane listed as a member of the committee to raise funds for one T. J. Barton, a local supporter of the arts in Baltimore. Acting for that event was Junius Brutus Booth, "The Great Tragedian." Certainly Kane and the elder Booth must have interacted through this benefit performance.
• Kane may also have had a connection to John Wilkes Booth through Edwin Booth. During the time that Kane was a "bit actor" on the stage, playbills often mysteriously listed only the first names of the actors in a production, as if the Baltimore crowd knew the actors well. Many playbills from the era of 1850-1852 list an "Edwin" and a "George" together in the same production. (This is more circumstance, but the juxtaposition of these names could signify yet another connection between the Booths and the Kanes.) And the other famous actor of the day named Edwin - Edwin Forrest - was not acting in Baltimore at the time.
• The Charles Street Theatre, where John Wilkes Booth had his debut on August 14, 1855, began as the Howard Athenium, or "Howard Athenium and Gallery of Arts," opening on June 12, 1848. It seated about 800-1,000 playgoers. It originally existed under the direction of Charles Howard and John Hill Hewitt; the managing company was comprised of John Hill Hewitt, John K. Randall, George P. Kane, and Charles Howard. So Kane was a principal in the theatre where John Wilkes Booth started his professional career. The theatre was renamed Arnold's Olympic Theatre (or simply the Olympic Theatre) after George Joseph Arnold, in the spring of 1853. Edwin Booth was a member of the Thespian Association that worked at Arnold's Olympic Theatre. After a renovation in the summer of 1853, the venue re-opened on September 12, 1853, under the direction of John E. Owens. This theatre was soon transferred to the direction of the Kemble Company of Baltimore, some of whose prominent members and owners were William Key Howard, George Proctor Kane, William R. Travers, and William Sperry, and others. The theatre was re-opened as the Charles Street Theatre in December 1853. Thus, Kane was closely connected to this theatre where John Wilkes Booth began his career. It would seem plausible that Kane and John Wilkes Booth at least met during this time.
• As a well-known businessman, Kane might likely have interacted with the well-known Booth family of actors.
• As the Chief of Police, Kane may have had occasion to deal with the famous Booths, who tended to imbibe to excess.
• Even less certain as a possible connection between John Wilkes Booth and Kane occurred on July 26, 1864, at the Parker Hotel in Boston. [Crane, Cordial, to E. M. Stanton. Letter, May 30, 1865. NARA. Investigation and Trial Papers Relating to the Assassination of President Lincoln, Record Group 153, M-599, Roll 3.] There John Wilkes Booth met with four other men on that date, the four other men likely using aliases. One A. J. Bursted (or Rursted, the handwriting is unclear) was from Baltimore, and some historians believe that he was George Kane. Others think that this Bursted was Patrick C. Martin, who was also from Baltimore. The evidence for either identification is pure speculation, however, based solely upon both Kane's and Martin's connections to Baltimore.
• The most concrete evidence for any friendship between Kane and John Wilkes Booth was Booth's statement made in March 1862 in New York at Mary Provost's Theatre located at 485 Broadway near Broome Street. As those present for a rehearsal were discussing political events, someone mentioned Marshal Kane's arrest in Baltimore. Everyone there knew that Kane was still imprisoned at Fort Warren in Boston. Someone said that the person who ordered Kane's arrest in Baltimore in June 1861 should be shot. Booth allegedly said, "Yes, sir, you are right! I know George P. Kane, he is my friend, and the man who could drag him from the bosom of his family for no crime whatever, but a mere suspicion that he may commit one some time, deserves a dog's death!" (emphasis added). Another quotation of this interchange has Booth saying "I know George P. Kane well...." Booth's words, demeanor, and the intensity of his emotion, as reported by those hearing him, seemed to indicate that he did, indeed, have a close personal connection with Kane. [Jennings, John J. Theatrical and Circus Life; or, Secrets of the Stage, Green-Room and Sawdust Arena (St. Louis: Dan Linahan & Co., 1882), pp.479-480.]
• However, later reports from 1864 told of Booth's request to have a letter of introduction to Kane, one that he allegedly obtained from Patrick C. Martin in Montreal. These two "facts" are contradictory - (1) Booth's statement of friendship with Kane and Booth's outcry against Kane's imprisonment, and (2) Booth's need for a letter of introduction to Kane. It is possible that the letter provided by Martin actually contained incriminating information about John Wilkes Booth's plans to support the North by some scheme, or even Booth's desire to kidnap or assassinate President Abraham Lincoln. A conspiracy theorist (I'm not) might even suggest that the letter contained a request from Booth (through Martin) for Kane to help with such a plan. The stated need for an introduction to Kane could have been a subterfuge. Kane later admitted to receiving this letter from Martin about Booth, but Kane had hid this letter to keep it from being discovered. Kane's description years later of the letter's contents varied from what Booth had requested of Martin. Kane, at the time that he originally read the letter in March or April of 1865 additionally denied ever having known Booth, a statement that would seem quite implausible, given the circumstances of both of their backgrounds in Baltimore and my speculations noted above. Further, everyone knew of Booth, so Kane's statement that "...I doubt that I had ever heard of him" seems quite disingenuous. Kane also said of his reading of the letter and of the reports of Booth's assassination of Lincoln, "I endeavored to recall where I had heard that name." These statements simply have the ring of untruth. However, at the time that Kane reported about this letter [New York Daily Graphic, March 22, 1876], Lincoln's assassination had already long since occurred, yet everyone was still trying to distance himself from the president's murderer. Certainly, at the time Kane first read the letter in March or April of 1865, he would have wanted to deny any association with Booth. This alleged letter from Martin to Kane has never been found.

These are just a few of the possible "many connections." So maybe Kane and John Wilkes Booth were well acquainted. Who knows?

Leon
no need to speculate. Asked by Marin if he knew Booth, Kane said he never heard of him before the assassination (St. Albans Daily Messenger, March 27, 1876, 2)