Was there an assassin on Grant's train?

[L Verge]

I'm not sure that we can rely on Weichmann's word as to dates that things occurred. Remember that he could not recall when he and Surratt met Booth and Mudd in D.C. It was two days before Christmas, so that would seem a pretty easy thing to remember - at least within a few days. He put the date in January instead.

[Pamela]

Lol, Susan! Your post in the Weichmann thread of the transcription of the letter was where I got the March 29th date! So that was a typo? The 29th date is what led me to believe it had to have been Mary who took the letter, so yes, John could have done it.

[Susan Higginbotham]

(06-23-2015 08:27 AM)Pamela Wrote:  Lol, Susan! Your post in the Weichmann thread of the transcription of the letter was where I got the March 29th date! So that was a typo? The 29th date is what led me to believe it had to have been Mary who took the letter, so yes, John could have done it.

Whoops! Yup, that was a typo.

[Eva Elisabeth]

In post # 39, Gene wonderfully worded what I was wondering, too. I, too, would like to see one positive example of John Surratt's humanity. Something like Lincoln's heartfelt letters, caring for stray kittens, etc. Or even JWB's evident love for (at least white) children, and for his mother and sister.

Thanks for your ideas on this, Laurie, but fathering a large family doesn't even prevent some fathers from even abusing them (I don't mean to say J.S. did), i.e. doesn't automatically indicate human qualities like compassion, caring, love, helpfulness, etc. And sometimes even behind the fassade of "well-respected" families grows a lot of weed.

What I personally find the least noble is that he pulled his mother into all the mess and didn't attempt to help/save her. IMO he sacrificed her to save his own life. I find him sort of responsible for her death, and putting the blame on Weichmann makes it IMO worse. O si taccuisses!

However, like Gene, I appreciate, thank for, and try to consider all aspects, opinions, and expert input!

[L Verge]

Has anyone ever considered that it was his mother who pulled John Surratt into the conspiracy? If her brother's comment to my great-grandfather upon being given sympathy means anything: "She got exactly what she deserved. She knew what she was getting into."

I was not the one who posted that John's having a large family after the war was proof that he was a good father; but from the various descendants that I have spoken with over the past forty years, I have heard nothing to the contrary. I also consider it a good sign that Anna allowed John to come to her wedding and that both Isaac and Anna stayed in close contact (even to the point of both men working for the same company) with all three living in Baltimore City for the rest of their lives a positive. Would any of us have been as forgiving?

I was hoping that somewhere along the line the fact that the Civil War changed people's lives would sink in to our psyche. I once started a television interview with the thought that, if it had not been for the Civil War and John Wilkes Booth, Mary Surratt would never have been heard of. That has always been what fascinated me about the war, and even about Lincoln. I don't care a bit about military campaigns - or even what started the war. I enjoy learning about its effects on the common man. As for John Surratt, I consider him a typical teenager caught up in the high drama of a war that had pitted the country against itself. He could easily be those impressionable young people in America and Europe today who are enticed to offer their services to ISIS. Has anyone else considered such a comparison? That's what the study of history is all about.

[Eva Elisabeth]

Laurie, I was just going to delete my post as I feel not knowledgeable enough on the topic to comment, but you beat me to "acting". Thanks for all these additional thoughts the first of which (the mother pulled the son) I find very interesting.

[L Verge]

There was something that I wanted to mention earlier in regards to Louis Weichmann. Mention was made that none of the conspirators accused Weichmann of wrong doing. Actually, Samuel Arnold did - albeit after the fact (1867). In his treatise on Defence and Prison Experiences of..., Arnold states that Weichmann had passed on to Booth information obtained on his job in the War Department under General Hoffman, Commissary General of Prisons (as in data on what was being given to Confederate prisoners being held by the Union Army).

And here is John Surratt's assessment of his friend Weichmann, given during the December 6, 1870, lecture at Rockville, Maryland: "I proclaim it here and before the world that Louis J. Weichmann was a party to the plan to abduct President Lincoln. He had been told all about it, and was constantly importuning me to let him become an active member. I refused, for the simple reason that I told him that he could neither ride a horse nor shoot a pistol, which was a fact.

"I have very little to say of Louis J. Weichmann. But I do pronounce him a base-born perjurer; a murderer of the meanest hue! Give me a man who can strike his victim dead, but save me from a man who, through perjury, will cause the death of an innocent person. Double murderer!!!! Hell possesses no worse fiend than a character of that kind. Away with such a character. I leave him in the pit of infamy, which he has dug for himself, a prey to the lights of his guilty conscience."

One last thing - Most people who have read about Weichmann know that he ended up in Anderson, Indiana. But how many of you know how long it took him to move there?

After the 1865 trial, Stanton and Holt got him a job as a clerk at the Philadelphia Custom House. He lost that job in 1866, when President Johnson purged people in the government who had gotten their jobs via Republican Party influence. When Grant came into office, Stanton arranged for Weichmann to get his job back at the Custom House. The job was lost again when the Democrats came to power in 1886. It was only then that Weichmann moved to Indiana, first teaching in a business school and then opening a school of his own.

Stanton and Holt were certainly kind and considerate of their star witness -- much more so than with John Lloyd, who sued the government for damages to the Surrattsville crops and never got a penny.

[Susan Higginbotham]

Well, there is a series of rather engaging letters from John to his cousin Bell, one of which (dated August 1, 1864) contains this affectionate comment about his mother, "Ma and Anna send their love to you. I wish you knew Ma, I know you would like her. Neither of us is like her. My brother resembles her very much. He is the best looking of the family. That is saying a good deal for myself."

Since John chose to stay out of the public eye after his abortive lecture tour (save for one or two interviews), and those closest to him didn't choose to publicly reminisce about him after his death, most of his adult life is a blank to us. That should be remembered when searching for positive examples of his humanity.

[Gene C]

Regarding your post # 65 , it's interesting Laurie, but that still doesn't answer the question regarding examples of John's humanity or redeeming qualities.
I would think he had some, but no one yet seems to know what they are or has mentioned any examples of them.
Very few people during the civil war made plans to capture or kill government leaders. Or if they made plans, they kept them inside their heads as day dreams.

I think if Mary Surratt could look back, she wouldn't be all that excited about her legacy, her role in history, and the damage it did to her family, because of her association with Booth. Sam Arnold wasn't.

The Civil War certainly changed peoples lives, but they didn't respond the way Booth, Paine and Surratt did.
Surratt was no typical teenager. Neither are the young people who offer their service to ISIS and groups like that.

[Pamela]

Maybe the most redeeming quality of John Surratt's was that he had the decency to spare the world his self-serving Weichmann -slandering version of historical events for 25 years, and thank goodness wasn't able to concoct a book. Who knows how many cliffs he would have jumped from, enemy soldiers he would have charmed and other imaginative examples of derring do he might have invented.

I always enjoy that quote from John's lecture where he uses the word "importuning". Another fun Surrattism was in the Hanson Hiss interview, "the child is father to the man" when trashing his favorite victim. Maybe that's another positive character trait--a talent for fiction writing.

As for Sam Arnold's statement that Weichmann passed on information to Booth from his job--that sounds like something Booth would tell Arnold to try and impress him, keep him in the conspiracy and compromise Weichmann. "We placed Weichmann inside the War Dept. and passes on information to us." Or words to that effect. Who was the bigger liar, Booth or Surratt? That's a tough one. And even the Arnold statement years later didn't put Weichmann in the conspiracy to kill or "kidnap" Lincoln.

[L Verge]

I have stated repeatedly on this forum that I can never and will never defend the final act of assassination. Those of you who have known me over the years know that I was raised in a family who thought Mrs. Surratt was guilty, so I am not trying to whitewash anything.

However, I will continue to study and impart information that I think will help others to understand society, culture, and human instincts of our ancestors who were caught up in the tragedies of the Civil War -- and there were many tragedies on both sides with humans doing nasty things to other humans. Abraham Lincoln was not the only victim.

It is possible to understand history without being pious and judgmental. I was describing to someone the other day the "trauma" that we went through forty years ago in convincing some in the Lincoln world that we were not the enemy, that we were not intending to besmirch Lincoln and praise Booth. We have carefully crafted our presentations at Surratt House to reflect both sides of the story and to encourage others to do more reading and research.

When my colleagues, Ed Steers and Joan Chaconas, were voted in as presidents of the Lincoln Group of the District of Columbia, I thought we had achieved legitimacy. Ed, Joan, and I went on to become members of the advisory board of the nationally recognized Lincoln Forum as well as appointees by President Clinton to the advisory board of the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission That's my offering of braggadocio because I think those honors reflect the unbiased approach that we and many others have chosen in trying to understand our fascination with one of the best murder mysteries in history.

In my opinion, we cannot accomplish anything further with this thread. I think we are fully aware of how three or four of us feel about the situation. I'm stepping back (not out!) before we resort to name calling over something that happened 150 years ago. Not good for public relations, but instructional as to how deeply the results of the Civil War are still ingrained in us.

[HerbS]

Well said Laurie!

[Gene C]

I don't think so.
But I don't totally rule it out.

[John Fazio]

Everyone:

With respect to Gene and everyone else who thinks there was no assassin on the train, I believe there was. Further, I believe the evidence supports this conclusion. Powell's statement to Eckert that it was his "impression" that others were to make the same disposition of other Northern leaders as he was to make of Seward, is especially telling, as is the letter received by Grant after the assassination. These and other items of evidence are in the book.

John

[Wild Bill]

I agree with John that there was an assassin on the train. We may disagree as to who it was, however, . . .