Headley, and the picture of Sarah

[SSlater]

Rest easy folks, I am not about to start a new "War". I believe that the picture is Sarah. However, by this date, I have more information to work with, so I have come to believe that the picture came from a different time and under different circumstances, that that described by Headley.
When Sarah worked with the Saint Albans Raiders, roughly Dec. 1864 to Feb. 1865, all pictures were taken by Professional Photographers. The product of their work was usually a large rectangular print, that had a stiff pose, caused by the use of head clamps to hold the head from moving and was generally time consuming to the subject, or it was a rural scene, with a corpse or two for interest.
In about 1888, George Eastman invented the first "Kodak" camera. The camera was intended for the use by the general public. It had a shutter and a roll of film, that had to be returned to the factory for processing and it took ROUND PICTURES (Like the picture that appears in Headley.) I have a gut feeling that Sarah sat for that picture, long after 1865, and provided it to Headley. In 1865, Sarah was barely 22, the woman in the Picture is older than that.
The Picture that Headley used, does not look like an 1865 era picture, but does resemble the 1890's, and later, products
In the past (2010), we might have assumed that Sarah was deceased by the time Headley published his book in 1905, and was not involved in the book. We just didn't know. Now we know that Sarah lived until 1920. If any of the Raiders had contact with Sarah, after 1865, she was still "Sarah Slater", but by 1898 she disappeared from her usual haunts and had moved to Poughkeepsie to live with her sister. Sarah's whereabouts were further concealed by an error in the City Directory. She is shown as the widow of "J. E. Slater". "J. E. Slater" is her sister - Josephine Elizabeth Loftin. Then by 1905 she had married Mr . Long. So, the Raiders didn't know where she lived or what her name was. I have never doubted that they remembered her appearance and what she did for them, but they didn't know the new residence of the new husband.
I think that my new search to find any contact between Sarah and the Raiders, after the War, will take as long to do, as it took me to find Sarah, in the first place. 30 years. I better get busy.

PS. Does anyone know if there is s collection of Headley's "Papers" available anywhere? How about Gus Howell? or James Fowell? John Surratt never said much about Sarah in his repots or speeches. We do know that he took her to Richmond and they remained together until E. G. Lee sent her packing, about May 1865. This date matches up with the reports that she was back with her husband Rowan in June 1865

[RJNorton]

John, is this the photo you are talking about?

[Dave Taylor]

It breaks my heart to see such a poorly pixelated picture, Roger. Go here and you can either zoom in and take a nice screen grab or right click and save the whole page image:

https://archive.org/stream/confederateop...6/mode/2up

[L Verge]

I think that John is onto something about this being a Kodak moment for Sarah. My only reservation is her bodice. I distinctly see a drop-shoulder sleeve line there that would have been passe by the 1870s. By the 1890s, we would start expecting to see the leg-of-mutton sleeves, which are very distinctive. The hairstyle is also more CW period than the Gibson Girl upsweeps of the 90s.

[SSlater]

Msg for Betty O. Did I send you a copy of Sarah's Picture that I enlarged? If I did would you post it here, please? If I did not, may I send you a copy for posting. JOHN

---

Laurie. I accept your description of the dress and Hair styles of the 1890's. as accurate. Would the styles shown in the picture be available in the 1888/1891 era? I'm trying to pinpoint the time frame for the picture. Sarah was born April 1843 - so she would not be 22 yet, when she was in Canada. Does she look that young, to you, in the picture? IF, the picture is an early Kodak, it was taken after 1889. To further support your "eagle-eye", Sarah and her sister Laura Louise, were Seamstresses, and Dressmakers in New York a little before 1890, so I assume they were up on fashions. The round "Kodak- feature", is the strongest clue that I have, that the pic is 1890ish. I don't want to create a scenario, to make my theory fit. Part of my problem, I don't know where Sarah was from about 1875 until 1898, but somewhere in that time, she became a "Trained Nurse". I have a Sarah Slater, in 1894, in Wilkes Barre, PA working in a Hospital. (But no identifying facts). When Sarah got to Poughkeepsie, in 1898, she was still a Slater. Then about 1902 she became a Long., but he died in less than a year. When she married Spencer, 1912, he was under Doctor care before they were married, and he died is a short while. I appears she was becoming a "Black Widow". When she died, she lived on "Grubb" Street.Sort of Fits her?

[Cliff Roberts]

Here's an enlargement of the tiny photograph I scanned from the book, with a little photoshopping to improve it. Image quality is not very good, but this is the only photograph I've ever been able to find of this mysterious lady.

[L Verge]

John - First, I want to thank Cliff for enhancing the photo. That's the best rendition of it that I have seen. Unfortunately, however, that dress bodice just smacks of the 1860s to me. Even the bow around the neckline was popular then, but usually more of a bow tie that fit with a round, lower neckline. The only reservation I have is the height of the neckline itself. During the 1850s and 60s, that part of the bodice was usually lower and rounded. The 1890s did feature higher necklines.

As for the hairdo and facial features: I think the hair could pass as a convenient style for ladies of several 19th-century decades, so I will ignore it. She definitely looks older than 22 in this photo, but this lady appears to have an olive complexion, which would be natural for her French background -- also, isn't there a connection with her to a Caribbean island or something? The darker complexion might make her appear older to us.

It isn't gonna be me that makes the final call on this, but it is probably as close as we will ever get to knowing what Sarah looked like.

[BettyO]

Laurie -

Agreed.

I DO think that the dress looks somewhat like late 1860s - probably 1866-1869 or thereabouts....the hairstyle, yes. The diagonal stripes on the "jockey caps" or "imitation" jockey caps on the sleeves simply scream 1867-1868 to me....

[L Verge]

I bet that, if we could see past her waistline, this lady is wearing a basque jacket. That was actually a bodice style (not a jacket like we think of) where the bodice extended past the waist, down to about the upper hip area.

That said, those were popular in the late 1860s and as the styles moved the skirt fullness to the rear to finally be accentuated by the bustle around 1874.

One other thought: While the round photo sure looks like a Kodak moment, I also wonder if the photo was actually taken from the original photo encased in an album with the round matting. While most of the old albums have arched rectangular mounts to accommodate a vertical CDV, perhaps Sarah's photo was a square one that could be fitted into a round "peg."

[BettyO]

Quote:While the round photo sure looks like a Kodak moment, I also wonder if the photo was actually taken from the original photo encased in an album with the round matting. While most of the old albums have arched rectangular mounts to accommodate a vertical CDV, perhaps Sarah's photo was a square one that could be fitted into a round "peg."

Either that Laurie, or the photo could have been a "gem" style tintype. I've got a couple of those in my collection and they are round or in a round mount....

[SSlater]

(12-06-2013 09:16 AM)L Verge Wrote:  John - First, I want to thank Cliff for enhancing the photo. That's the best rendition of it that I have seen. Unfortunately, however, that dress bodice just smacks of the 1860s to me. Even the bow around the neckline was popular then, but usually more of a bow tie that fit with a round, lower neckline. The only reservation I have is the height of the neckline itself. During the 1850s and 60s, that part of the bodice was usually lower and rounded. The 1890s did feature higher necklines.

As for the hairdo and facial features: I think the hair could pass as a convenient style for ladies of several 19th-century decades, so I will ignore it. She definitely looks older than 22 in this photo, but this lady appears to have an olive complexion, which would be natural for her French background -- also, isn't there a connection with her to a Caribbean island or something? The darker complexion might make her appear older to us.

It isn't gonna be me that makes the final call on this, but it is probably as close as we will ever get to knowing what Sarah looked like.

Laurie. Joseph Maria Gilbert, born St. Pierre, Martinique,West Indies. Antoinette Raynaud, born Port of Spain, Trinidad, W.I.

[Gene C]

Other than Headley, any supporting evidence that this photo is Sarah?

John, you mentioned in post #1 reports that she was back with her husband in June 1865.
Can anyone tell us what reports, and what they indicate?

Has anyone checked to verify what Headley said regarding Sarah on page 376 of his book that Dave posted.
(she was from KY and the KY legislature took a 15 minute recess in her honor.)

I also question the reality of the following statement about the photo above, (where did the prisoner get the photo from, and how did Headley end up with it?)
" *The prisoners never met this lady before or after her visits to the jail
at Montreal. One of the survivors secured her photograph at the jail,
but after forty years her name is forgotten."

Having read some of this book, I am under the impression that Headley exaggerated many of the statements in his book. I would like to be wrong, but I have doubts this is a photo of Sarah.

[Susan Higginbotham]

(04-10-2016 04:12 PM)Gene C Wrote:  Other than Headley, any supporting evidence that this photo is Sarah?

John, you mentioned in post #1 reports that she was back with her husband in June 1865.
Can anyone tell us what reports, and what they indicate?

Has anyone checked to verify what Headley said regarding Sarah on page 376 of his book that Dave posted.
(she was from KY and the KY legislature took a 15 minute recess in her honor.)

I also question the reality of the following statement about the photo above, (where did the prisoner get the photo from, and how did Headley end up with it?)
" *The prisoners never met this lady before or after her visits to the jail
at Montreal. One of the survivors secured her photograph at the jail,
but after forty years her name is forgotten."

Having read some of this book, I am under the impression that Headley exaggerated many of the statements in his book. I would like to be wrong, but I have doubts this is a photo of Sarah.

In an affidavit submitted in Sarah's divorce case, Sarah's brother Eugene Gilbert said that Sarah and Rowan had lived as "man and wife" in New York City from June or July 1865 to October 1865.

I find it unlikely that the "Kentucky lady" was Sarah. Going to Kentucky to be acclaimed by the entire legislature seems inconsistent with Sarah's keeping silent about her wartime activities, especially in 1867 when John Surratt's expected trial was looming. Perhaps the Kentucky lady was exactly that--a lady from Kentucky.