Louis Weichmann

[HerbS]

Thanks Wild Bill,you are the man!

[Rick Smith]

Gus Howell's testimony is not damning in regard to Mrs. Surratt, but he does refer to his conversations to Louis Weichmann; showing him how to use a cipher key and that he was interested in going South with him and asked if Howell might be able to find him a position in Richmond. I suppose this could be more of the alleged double agent business on Weichmann's part. Some of this occurred during the time that Howell was waiting for the "French Woman" who he was to escort north.

[Pamela]

(09-06-2015 01:38 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Since the family business was tobacco farming and running the tavern - not truck farming, I have often wondered if the transport of fruit and vegetables into D.C. was sporadic and more in time with and coordinated with Surratt's courier runs. A bushel of apples can hide courier packets, so can floorboards on wagons, and Surratt used to joke about even hiding things in the heels of his boots.

(09-17-2015 07:43 PM)Rick Smith Wrote:  Gus Howell's testimony is not damning in regard to Mrs. Surratt, but he does refer to his conversations to Louis Weichmann; showing him how to use a cipher key and that he was interested in going South with him and asked if Howell might be able to find him a position in Richmond. I suppose this could be more of the alleged double agent business on Weichmann's part. Some of this occurred during the time that Howell was waiting for the "French Woman" who he was to escort north.

Howell's testimony was extremely damaging to Mary. There was already testimony that Mary was going to take actions to get him released from prison for rebel activities when she encountered Lloyd on the road to the Surratt tavern on the trip when she mentioned "shooting irons " the first time. She wanted Howell to take a loyalty oath so he would be released. That was the occasion where Lloyd said, "It was put in a manner as if she wanted to draw my attention to something so that anybody else could not understand." And, in fact, nobody else heard those comments including Weichmann. Howell testified to staying at her boarding house one night and to being friends with the Surratts, despite all his double talk on the stand. The defense was desperate to impeach Weichmann and failed. Howell came off sounding like he was lying, embellishing and twisting conversations with Weichmann to help out his friends, which he was, and continued to do so after the executions. After her death he must have realized his testimony added more nails to her coffin, so he continued to attack Weichmann.

[L Verge]

I think you are really stretching on this one, Pamela. To my knowledge, you are the only one who has ever placed Gus Howell in the position of causing Mary Surratt's death. John Lloyd and Louis Weichmann must be very relieved to find out that a tiny piece of the weight/guilt has been removed from their shoulders.

Before the assassination, Mary was concerned about the arrest of Gus Howell because it had happened here at her tavern at a most inappropriate time in the midst of Booth's planning. It raised concern that the feds might be on to something.

BTW: Taking the oath of allegiance was standard practice for many people who even smelled like "secesh." It was a simple process of swearing to accept the Union as your master, get out of jail, go back to what you had been doing. And Gus was such a small player in all this that his sole purpose on the stand was to damage Weichmann. If you are one who suspects that Weichmann was under the control of Holt and/or Stanton, nothing was going to damage Weichmann at that point.

[Pamela]

They weren't guilty and documentation proves that Weichmann felt no guilt, only compassion, a sense of duty to his country, and sorrow that a mother and son could have betrayed his trust so horrifically. http://www.nytimes.com/1865/07/08/news/e...eanor.html

[Rick Smith]

(09-18-2015 07:31 PM)Pamela Wrote:  They weren't guilty and documentation proves that Weichmann felt no guilt, only compassion, a sense of duty to his country, and sorrow that a mother and son could have betrayed his trust so horrifically. http://www.nytimes.com/1865/07/08/news/e...eanor.html

The truth of the matter is that Weichmann and Lloyd both testified on behalf of the federal government. it was either agree to that, or they would have been number 9 and number 10 in the dock. Both of these men traded testimony for their lives. I use the word "men' in the loosest sense. Sense of duty and sorrow, my Aunt Fanny.

[Pamela]

The best evidence supports my statement and proves you wrong. It is true that Mrs. Surratt, her son and Booth systematically, intentionally and without conscience placed Weichmann in dangerous positions that he was unaware of. For example, taking advantage of Weichmann's kindness by having him drive her to Surrattsville twice, and under false pretenses, so that she could further the conspiracy of murder,while secretly ordering Lloyd to have guns ready was a special kind of evil. And was proven during trial in court, with daily transcripts provided for the world to read. Anarchy was not the law of the land. Perhaps Booth's charisma clouded their thinking.

[Jim Page]

(09-18-2015 08:35 PM)Pamela Wrote:  . . . taking advantage of Weichmann's kindness by having him drive her to Surrattsville twice, and under false pretenses, so that she could further the conspiracy of murder,while secretly ordering Lloyd to have guns ready was a special kind of evil.

Pamela, I basically agree with that portion of your post, though I'm not sure what Weichmann's motivation was. It might have been kindness, it might have been something else. After all, it was Spring, he was a young man, and Mrs. Surratt may have been charming in his eyes.

One day proof may come to light concerning how fundamental Mrs. Surratt was to the Lincoln assassination scheme. At the same time, she evidently acted upon sincerely held beliefs, and, like Thomas Jones, kept her mouth shut about what she knew.

My opinion, worth what you paid for it, is that the Federal government had some extremely damning evidence in hand against Mary Surratt that was never introduced in trial and that's why she wasn't dealt with more leniently.

Was Mrs. Surratt evil or just unconcerned about who she hurt to further her cause? Or is that type of attitude itself evil? Interesting point and we'll never solve it.

The "I'm right and you're wrong" portion of your post seemed unnecessarily combative and somewhat silly, as none of us were there.

--Jim

[Gene C]

Rick, I don't know, so I was wondering what credible witnesses, comments, or information you base your conclusion on in post #232.
You see that situation a little different than I do, and it may be I just have a higher opinion of Weichmann's character than you do.
(either way, I find most of this an interesting discussion.)

[RJNorton]

I have brought this up before, and I think I'll ask it again. Do forum members feel Mary Surratt would still have hanged had Weichmann not be let out of work by Stanton on Good Friday - April 14th? Would she still have gone to Surrattsville that day had Weichmann not been available to drive her? How (if) would history be different if Stanton did not excuse the War Department workers that day?

[HerbS]

Roger,I feel that Weichmann was very influential in Mary Surratt's hanging! I also feel that Stanton had a lot of behind the scenes invlvolvement in his rush to judgement actions! I feel that he[Stanton] felt that he had to do what he had to do for justice!

[L Verge]

We do know that Mrs. Surratt had financial matters with the Calvert family that were pressing her to get settled quickly (the Calverts were trying to settle an estate and needed things that had been dangling for 13 years to be cleared up). Mr Calvert testified to that in court.

I think she planned on making the trip anyhow. If Weichmann had not been available, there was the hired man who could have taken her. It was just opportune for Booth that she could deliver instructions and his field glasses at the same time.

Would her fate have been the same without Weichmann to testify about that trip? I doubt that Lloyd's testimony alone could have hanged her (his word against hers). By the way, local lore down here (that I heard long before I worked at Surratt House) was that the feds threatened to hang Lloyd by his thumbs from a tree in the front yard if he did not divulge what he knew. Wonder how many similar threats or promises the higher-ups made to Weichmann in order to get him to testify? Herb, I'm in agreement with you as to the pressures Mr. Stanton and Judge Holt could bring to bear.

[RJNorton]

(09-19-2015 06:42 AM)HerbS Wrote:  I also feel that Stanton had a lot of behind the scenes invlvolvement

Herb, you are another one who would enjoy reading Robert Lockwood Mills' opinions as expressed in It Didn't Happen the Way You Think.

(09-19-2015 07:40 AM)L Verge Wrote:  By the way, local lore down here (that I heard long before I worked at Surratt House) was that the feds threatened to hang Lloyd by his thumbs from a tree in the front yard if he did not divulge what he knew.

Bettie Trindal, in her Mary Surratt book, wrote, "When he (John Lloyd) refused to say anything against Mrs. Surratt, he was hanged by his thumbs until he could no longer stand the pain. Only then, in order to spare himself any further torture, did Lloyd agree to perjure himself against his landlady."

This is from p. 133 of her book, and it has an endnote. David Rankin Barbee's "The Murder of Mrs. Surratt" was Bettie Trindal's source for writing this in her book.

[L Verge]

(09-18-2015 07:31 PM)Pamela Wrote:  They weren't guilty and documentation proves that Weichmann felt no guilt, only compassion, a sense of duty to his country, and sorrow that a mother and son could have betrayed his trust so horrifically. http://www.nytimes.com/1865/07/08/news/e...eanor.html

I have read that newspaper article quite a few times over the years. While typical of the writing styles of the day, it does present some interesting details. However, I fail to see why you are recommending it as documentation of Louis Weichmann's sainthood. Are you assuming that we readers will take your word for it that the article proves his purity of actions?

[L Verge]

(09-18-2015 10:33 PM)Gene C Wrote:  Rick, I don't know, so I was wondering what credible witnesses, comments, or information you base your conclusion on in post #232.
You see that situation a little different than I do, and it may be I just have a higher opinion of Weichmann's character than you do.
(either way, I find most of this an interesting discussion.)

Gene - Check the post #. I think you cited the wrong one in questioning Rick.