The Mysterious Death of Ebenezer Allen

The Mysterious Death of Ebenezer Allen

By Allen H. Mesch
Private Detective

Richmond, Virginia
1863

Preface

This analysis was prompted by an article published in the Fall 2026 issue of Civil War Navy. The Triton Submarine Apparatus: Newly Surfaced Letter Adds to Mystery by Edward T. Cotham Jr. and Andrew W. Hall describes a Confederate submarine named the Triton.  A key part of their analysis centers on a letter requiring Ebenezer Allen’s signature that inventor C. Williams later signed and sent to Texas. The article describes the invention and its ultimate rejection.

I decided to take a whimsical approach to my new analysis of the mysterious death of Ebenezer Allen. I assumed the role of a 19th-century private detective in Richmond, Virginia. The detective, Mr. Allen Mesch, was retained by Mr. C. Williams to investigate the death of his solicitor, Mr. Ebenezer Allen.

Don’t be concerned. In the latter part of my analysis, I return to September 2026 for a more serious evaluation of the evidence.

When I began reviewing the information about the Allen/Williams letter, I had no idea that it would turn into such an undertaking.

Please read the complete analysis to learn the impact of the mysterious letter on my prior conclusions.

Allen Mesch
Plano, TX
September 2026

Chapter One  – The Mysterious Death of Ebenezer Allen

On October 14, 1863, Ebenezer Allen met some associates for a late breakfast at the Gem Saloon under the Linwood House in Richmond, Virginia. Allen remained at the table after “his friends” left the saloon. Sometime later, a waiter checked on Allen and discovered he was dead.[1]

His death was certified by Dr. Slack, “who happened to be in the house, pronounced death the result of disease of the heart.” The following day, The Richmond Examiner reported Colonel Allen’s “mysterious death.” The news article contained the phrase “and concerning whom nothing more is known up to last night.” On October 17, The Richmond Examiner published his obituary and noted that his “remains are in the keeping of the Masonic Lodge 10.”

Let us imagine that it is October 18, 1863. The inventor, Mr. C. Williams, has signed a letter that Allen was to have authorized and sent the information to Texas. Suppose Williams was not satisfied with the coroner’s ruling that the death was due to natural causes. He decided to hire a private detective to see if there was foul play. Enter Detective Mesch, a German immigrant who had recently retired from the Richmond Police Force.  Thus Mesch’s investigation began.

Chapter Two -The Marsh Test

First, the detective considered the events immediately following his death. Dr. Slack ruled the death was a “result of disease of the heart.” The acting coroner did not think that an autopsy was necessary. Would an autopsy have revealed a different cause of death?

The Marsh Test

According to information about the Marsh Test, an autopsy in 1863 could potentially reveal arsenic poisoning, but only if the autopsy included toxicological testing and the right samples were collected and analyzed.

By the mid‑19th century, arsenic was a common poison, often called “inheritance powder” because it was odorless, tasteless, and could be easily concealed in food or drink. Before the development of the Marsh test in 1836, arsenic was essentially untraceable in the body. The Marsh test, refined by chemist James Marsh, could detect and quantify minute amounts of arsenic in biological samples, making it a breakthrough in forensic toxicology.

In 1863, toxicologists could still use the Marsh test on samples such as stomach contents – to check for recent ingestion of arsenic; blood or urine – to detect acute exposure; and hair or nails – though less common in that era, arsenic could bind to keratin, and segmental analysis could indicate chronic exposure.

In 1863, the test had its limitations. The test required skilled chemists and proper laboratory conditions. Post‑mortem redistribution of arsenic could affect results, so sample collection was critical. Without toxicological testing, an autopsy might note symptoms consistent with arsenic poisoning (e.g., gastrointestinal distress, neurological effects) but could not confirm the cause.

An autopsy in 1863 could reveal arsenic poisoning if toxicological analysis was performed using the Marsh test or similar methods on appropriate samples. Without such testing, the cause of death might remain unconfirmed, even if symptoms suggested poisoning.[2]

Chapter Three – Interviews of Dr. Slack and Acting Coroner Sanxay

After determining that the presence of arsenic could be detected in an autopsy, Mesch decided to interview Dr. Slack and Coroner Saxby. Mesch decided to conduct the questioning separately in the Gem Saloon.

“Thank you for meeting with me, Dr. Slack,” began Mesch.

“What is this all about?” the doctor asked.

“I have been retained by Mr. Williams to investigate the death of his solicitor, Ebenezer Allen.”

“I see,” said Slack. “How can I help you?”

“Did you know the deceased?”

“No. I met him or his corpse on the 14th.”

“How did you decide that he died from natural causes?”

“There were no apparent wounds or other marks on his face and hands.”

“Did you consider poisoning? Perhaps with arsenic?”

“No. There was no smell of almonds on his breath. His tongue, nose, and eyes showed no evidence of poisoning.”

“Did you suggest that the body undergo an autopsy?”

“No. I left that determination to the coroner.”

“Did you think he was capable of making that determination? After all, he was only acting coroner.”

“No. That was not my decision to make. The city obviously felt that Dr. Sanxay was capable.”

“Do you have anything else to add?”

“No.”

“Thank you. If you do think of something, I can be reached at the Linwood House.”

After the doctor left the table, Mesch reviewed his notes and prepared to question Coroner Sanxay.

“Thank you for meeting with me, Mr. Sanxay,” began Mesch.

“What is this all about?” the doctor asked.

“I have been retained by Mr. Williams to investigate the death of his solicitor, Ebenezer Allen.”

“I see,” said the coroner. “How can I help you?”

“I understand that you have been the coroner since May 1862.”

“Yes, I was appointed acting coroner by the City Council at that time,” replied Sanxay

“What are your qualifications to perform the duties of the coroner?” asked Mesch.

“That, sir, is none of your business,” barked Sanxay.

“Why were you appointed?” continued the detective. “Sir, I find your questions annoying and impertinent,” protested the coroner.

That, sir, is none of your business,” barked Sanxay, and he stood up, prepared to leave.

Quickly, Mesch apologized and explained he was just trying to understand the circumstances surrounding Mr. Allen’s death. Sanxay sat down, but retained his angry disposition.

“Did you know the deceased?”

“No. I learned of his death late the afternoon of the 14th.”

“Why did you decide not to perform an autopsy?”

“After Dr. Slack concluded Mr. Allen’s death was from natural causes, I saw no need to perform an autopsy. You must understand, Mr. Mesch, that our hospitals were full of wounded and dying men. Our cemeteries were in chaos. I had so much work to do that I couldn’t, nay, wouldn’t, question Dr. Slack’s judgment.”

Acting Coroner Sanxay was coroner from at least May 1862 to August 1864

Chapter Four – The Mysterious Letter

Detective Mesch was curious about the letter that Williams sent to Texas. Williams told him he had drafted the letter for Ebenezer Allen’s signature, but Allen died before he could read and sign it. Williams was quite definite that he had prepared the letter.

The inventor said, “Mr. Allen was my solicitor, and as he did with Robert Crezbauer, he handled all of the written communication. I wrote the technical details in the letter. Specifically, the fourth paragraph, which describes in great detail how the submarine boat should be designed and operated.”

Williams was convinced that the Texas attorney was murdered. However, Mesch wanted to examine the death without any preconceived notions. In his room at the Linwood House, he listed his questions:

  1. Was Allen committing treason? The war was not going well for the Confederacy. Would Allen try to gain Union friends in a post-Civil War South? Were his breakfast companions pretending to be Union spies, learning about the invention while also testing his loyalties? When they discovered the extent of his treachery, they decided to kill him. However, Allen was very loyal to the South and Texas. Why would he expose his family to such danger?
  2. Were the breakfast companions rival Confederate inventors who wanted to eliminate the competition? If this were the case, why wasn’t Williams also killed? As the inventor, he represented a more serious threat than Allen.
  3. Did Allen write the letter? Perhaps Williams drafted the letter for Allen to sign. The letter was not signed because Allen died before he had an opportunity to review it. If Allen wrote the letter, why didn’t he sign it after he was finished writing it?

In the 19th century, people didn’t typically sign letters immediately after writing them. Instead, they often drafted letters first, then revised and polished them before signing. Many people, especially in the upper and middle classes, treated letter writing as a formal process. Drafts were common, and writers would revise content, grammar, and tone before sending. This was partly because letters mattered for social standing, business relationships, and personal reputation. Poor spelling, grammar, or tone could be interpreted as a lack of education or professionalism.

Once the letter was considered complete, the writer would sign it at the end, often after checking the date, address, and any formal salutations. In Victorian-era etiquette, the physical presentation mattered: paper color, ink choice, and even the way the letter was sealed were part of the “do’s and don’ts” of correspondence. The signature was usually placed at the very end, after the closing salutation and the date.

In some cases—especially for quick personal notes or informal letters—people might sign as they wrote, but this was less common in formal or business correspondence. For example, in the mid-19th century, merchants and officials still had to ensure their letters were correct before sending them, and many kept a dictionary nearby to check spelling.

While some informal letters might be signed immediately, in the 19th century, especially in the letters were generally drafted, revised, and polished before signing. This process reflected the era’s emphasis on correctness, etiquette, and social image.

Chapter Five – The Breakfast Companions

Wouldn’t it be nice to find the men who dined with Ebenezer Allen in the Gem Saloon? Mesch thought. It would have been so simple to talk to them and find out if they would admit to killing Allen. Unfortunately, life was not that simple.

The detective’s thoughts produced several questions:

  1. Who were they? An obvious question.
  2. What were they talking about? Were they considering investing in the project, or was it another topic?
  3. Why didn’t they identify themselves to the police or try to learn about Allen’s death?
  4. Did they leave town or not want to get involved with Allen’s death?
  5. What motive would they have for killing Allen?

The last question was critical in answering the question of murder or natural causes.

Chapter Six – Motives

Murder is driven by a range of motives, typically falling into categories such as revenge, self-interest, delusion, or emotional and situational triggers.

  1. Revenge and retaliation are frequent motives, where the killer perceives an injustice or harm and seeks to restore balance or settle an emotional debt. This can include retaliation for abuse, workplace disputes, or personal slights.
  2. Self-interest involves killing to gain material or emotional benefits, such as money, inheritance, life insurance, property, or eliminating a rival in love, business, or politics. 
  3. Jealousy and obsession often drive murders within intimate relationships, where emotions like envy, possessiveness, or unrequited love escalate to lethal violence.
  4. Delusion or distorted beliefs can motivate murder when the perpetrator acts on irrational or psychotic perceptions, including paranoia, hallucinations, or extreme ideological convictions.
  5. Situational or opportunistic motives include murders arising from physical fights, robberies, or attempts to hide secrets, where the act may be impulsive or premeditated.
  6. Moral, ideological, or hate-driven motives occur when the killer targets someone based on religion, politics, sexual orientation, or perceived moral failings, sometimes framing the act as a “crusade.”
  7. Escape or avoidance motives involve killing to avoid consequences, such as ending a marriage without alimony, silencing a whistleblower, or evading legal or social repercussions.

Forensic psychology categorizes homicidal motivation into three broad types: revenge, delusion, and self-interest. These categories help law enforcement and mental health professionals understand offender behavior, assess risk, and develop prevention strategies. While motives often overlap, identifying the primary driver provides insight into the offender’s psychology and potential for reoffending.

Understanding motives is not about excusing murder but about comprehending the psychological mechanisms that lead individuals to commit such acts. Most murderers are not inherently “evil” but are influenced by a combination of emotional, cognitive, and situational factors.

Murder motives are complex and multifaceted, ranging from emotional impulses like jealousy and revenge to calculated self-interest or delusional beliefs. Recognizing these motives is crucial for criminal justice, mental health assessment, and violence prevention, as well as for creating realistic portrayals in literature or media.

Chapter Seven – The Mysterious Dr. Slack

Much of the mystery surrounding Ebenezer  Allen’s death involves Dr. Slack. Who was he? Why was he present in the Gem Saloon at the time of Allen’s death? Who contacted him to examine Allen? How did he know the death was a heart attack?

The search for a “Dr. Slack” has been disappointing.

An internet search for Dr. Slack yielded the following names:

A person named Dr. Slack was a notable 19th century physician who contributed significantly to his community.

Several individuals named Dr. Slack made their mark during this period:

  • Dr. George Washington Slack (1825-1866): He moved to Delaware County, Indiana at a young age and married Mary Louise Hardin in 1854. He would have been 38 years old in 1863. This person might be a possibility; however, his residence in Indiana seems to eliminate him as a candidate.
  • Dr. Clarence M. Slack (1841-?): Known for his dedication to service, he studied at Jefferson Medical College and practiced medicine. He would have been 22 years old in 1863. He seems too young to have completed his medical education.
  • Dr. Robert N. Slack (1818-1857): Esteemed for his education and character, he was well-regarded in his profession. Died before 1863.
  • Dr. Thomas Slack (1797-1849): His life events and contributions are documented, showcasing his role in New Jersey. Died before 1863.

These physicians “exemplified the medical practices and community service of their time, reflecting the evolving landscape of healthcare in the 19th century.”

There is no “Dr. Slack” listed in the Richmond Civil War records.[3]

There is no mention of Dr. Slack in the records in Mississippi, North Carolina, or South Carolina.[4]

If “Dr. Slack” was an alias, it adds to the suspicion that Allen was murdered.

Chapter Eight– The Masonic Connection

The Masonic connection was likely because of some jewelry, perhaps a ring. The local Masonic Lodge was able to connect Allen with his old lodge. Allen was not an active member of the lodge.

An article in the October 17, 1863 Richmond Examiner reports that: “His remains are in the keeping of the Masonic Lodge No. 10.” Mr. Allen was to be buried in ”Hollywood Cemetery on Sunday morning at 10:00.”

The mysterious letter reveals that Mr. Allen’s membership in the Masons was known. In a second postscript, Mr. Williams writes: “He will be buried with marine [probably Masonic in the original] honors…”[5]

Chapter Nine – Why Wasn’t Williams Killed?

If Allen was assassinated, why wasn’t his client also targeted? Mr. Williams was the “brains” of the invention. If competitors or foreign agents wanted to kill the project, why not also kill the man behind the invention? This point adds to my conviction that there was no great conspiracy.

Why kill the lawyer? Williams could easily find another attorney to represent him. If he even needed one at this point in the project’s life.

Although Allen died, Williams proceeded with their plans to send the information to Texas.

Chapter Ten – Suspicions and Evidence

It is very easy to conjure up theories about the death of Ebenezer Allen. Even with evidence, conspiracy theories persist.

In the case of the mysterious death of Mr. Allen, we have two possibilities: natural causes or murder. It is that straightforward.

Because no autopsy was performed, the exact cause of Allen’s death is unknown. Where is the CSI team when we need them?

Of the motives suggested in Chapter 5, the following appear to be the most reasonable:

  1. Revenge and retaliation are frequent motives, where the killer perceives an injustice or harm and seeks to restore balance or settle an emotional debt. This can include retaliation for abuse, workplace disputes, or personal slights.
  2. Self-interest involves killing to gain material or emotional benefits, such as money, inheritance, life insurance, property, or eliminating a rival in love, business, or politics. 
  3. Jealousy and obsession often drive murders within intimate relationships, where emotions like envy, possessiveness, or unrequited love escalate to lethal violence.

Of the above three causes, I believe that the most likely motive for murder is self-interest. Allen was killed to eliminate a rival in the pursuit of government funding and approval.

Now, the letter that was discovered by T. Cotham Jr. and Andrew W. Hall. They believe that the unsigned letter points to assassination. I believe that the explanation provided in Chapter 4 explains that it was not unusual for letters to be drafted and left unsigned pending last-minute reviews. Furthermore, Allen’s death did not result in the letter not being sent. Inventor Williams signed the letter on October 16th and sent the letter to Texas. Allen’s death did nothing but delay the letter being sent by two days.

My Final Assessment

In their report, Cotham and Hall write, “Although Mesch finally concluded his death resulted from a natural cause like a heart attack, the biographer might have been even more suspicious had he known about the existence of a mysterious letter…” Based on my additional analysis, I am forced to maintain my conclusion that Allen died from natural causes. Even Williams agreed with my conclusion. In his P.S.S., he wrote, “Col. Allen died suddenly of heart disease yesterday morning.”

Mistakes by Others

Visitors to Allen can see an image of Ebenezer Allen obtained from the Rosenberg Library in Galveston, Texas. Unfortunately, this is not a picture of the Texas statesman. It is a picture of his son, Ebenezer Allen, Jr. The son and his wife died in the Galveston flood.

I found an error in Cotham and Hall’s paper in regard to the Ebenezer Allen train engine. The engine, named for Ebenezer Allen, was put into service in January 1856. It was the first engine on the Houston and Texas Central Railroad. Cotham and Hall said the Ebenezer Allen #20 steam locomotive was built in 1910. I would also like to temper their remark that “the town of Allen was named in his honor.” The watering station was named in Mr. Allen’s honor. The name of the town derives from the watering station and not to honor Allen. I doubt that when the town was founded in 1872, that few people knew who Ebenezer Allen was.

My comments about the paper “The Triton Submarine Apparatus: Newly Surfaced Letter Adds to Mystery “ do not take away from the otherwise excellent article.

Please see the revised biography The Forgotten Texas Statesman published in 2022. The book includes much additional information, including my appearances as the Ebenezer Allen living historian.

[1] Mesch, Allen, The Forgotten Texas Statesman, p. .225.

[2] “Marsh test,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_test, retrieved August 20, 2026.

[3] “List-of-surgeons-stationed-in-richmond-va-at-various-times-during-the-civil-war,” https://www.civilwarrichmond.com/hospitals/3972-list-of-surgeons-stationed-in-richmond-va-at-various-times-during-the-civil-war, retrieved September 15, 2026.

[4] https://guides.library.vcu.edu/c.php?g=47637&p=298078

[5] The U.S. Marine Corps was established in the historic Tun Tavern in Philadelphia, a location also significant for hosting the first recorded Masonic meeting in 1731. Samuel Nicholas, the tavern’s innkeeper and a member of the Lodge, became its Junior Warden and was commissioned as a Captain of Marines by the Continental Congress in 1775. He recruited two battalions of Marines from Tun Tavern and is recognized as the first Commandant of the Marine Corps, holding the rank of Major. “United States Marine Corps and Freemasonry Mike’s Substack,  https://mythoughtsaboutthings.substack.com/p/united-states-marine-corps-and-freemasonry, retrieved September 22, 2026.