[
586]
If
Davis had come out of the tent erect, with that gown on, and no shawl, he would have thought nothing of the matter, having seen gentlemen in them before, though he had always supposed they had n( coats on under them.
He was very positive also as to the words used by
Miss Howell, and as to the “form bowed down” of
Davis.
I understand that one of the points made by
Davis' apologists, is that he was arrested the moment he stepped out of the tent.
Bee explicitly denies that.
I asked him how far
Davis had got from the tent before he was halted, when he at first said “about twenty rods.”
Upon my request that he would be more definite he pointed out a building about one hundred and twenty-five feet from where we sat, and said: “Just about as far as that building.”
He insists that
he was the first man to recognize
Davis, and this because he suspected something wrong when the three moved away from the tent.
The letter from
Bullard was written to me at my request, and speaks for itself.
He, too, gives
Davis a good start, as does also
Stedman.
Stedman corroborates pretty closely
Bee's story as to what occurred in front of the tent.
These statements were made by “the boys” without any knowledge of what the other was saying or writing, and agree pretty well in the main.
Bee says he does not recollect any such man as
Stedman, though he may have been present.
I did not ask him anything about
Stedman until after he had finished and signed his “version.”
I have written to
George Munger, corporal of C Company, and expect to get
his story in a few days.
Being somewhat interested in the question, I have, whenever I came across anything in the papers relating to it, been in the habit of cutting it out and pigeon-holing it. Among the others the following from the
Raleigh (North Carolina) News, of August 20th (1877, I think, though I will not be certain as to the year), published by the other side.
It was signed by
James H. Jones,
Davis' colored coachman: “It has been stated that
Mr. Davis had on a hoopskirt, and was otherwise disguised as a woman.
This is wholly false.
He was dressed in his ordinary clothing, with cavalry boots drawn over his pants, a waterproof over his dress-coat, a shawl thrown over his shoulders, and on his head a broad-brim white or drab
Texas hat. He had not an article of female wear about his person.”
The chief point of difference between
Jones and the others appears to be the
location of the shawl only.
I saw
Colonel Pritchard at
Allegan, on Friday morning, and he says that he, too, has received various letters on the subject, which he expects to answer, and will lean far toward the woman disguise side of the question.
Various conversations he had with
Mrs. Davis, he says, will substantiate the fact that she denied nothing.
Many thanks for your account in the weekly times of our great ride.
It is very interesting.
Yours, very truly,
After quoting the foregoing documents, which all candid readers will admit to be entirely conclusive on the question of the disguise, I have only to add that all the statements made by me herein, or elsewhere (not only in reference to this question but to the question of the behavior of
at the time of his capture), are based upon the written — and verbal reports made by the officers and men immediately after the events to which they referred.
This is especially true of the conversation which was held by
.
