Louis Weichmann

[Pamela]

(07-11-2015 05:21 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 10:46 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  Personally, I think both Weichmann and Mary knew more than what they let on (although I don't believe either had knowledge of the assassination). I prefer not to view either in black-and-white terms.

Hi Susan. I sure agree that both knew more than they let on. I also agree Weichmann was in the dark regarding the assassination plan. However, IMO, it's possible, if not likely, that Mary knew the plan had changed to assassination. (I should add that I did not feel this way prior to reading Kate Larson's book which changed my opinion on Mary's possible knowledge).

(07-10-2015 09:37 PM)Pamela Wrote:  Risvold had great respect and admiration for Weichmann, and concluded this in his introduction, "his (Risvold's) greatest debt, however, and a debt now shared by students of the assassination, is to Louis J. Weichmann, who in sorrow and agony of mind, wrote his narrative for posterity."

Hi Pam. I have wanted to respect and admire Weichmann like Floyd Risvold did, but I always find a few stumbling blocks. I have mentioned this before, but I cannot explain it if (1) Surratt was telling and the truth and (2) Weichmann was truly the ever-loyal Union man he claimed he was.

Did Surratt lie in his lecture?

"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. These were two necessary accomplishments for us."

I am also curious if anyone might have an opinion on another thing. If Weichmann's sisters were telling the truth about bullets being fired at Louis, why did he not put this in his book? He talks a lot about himself in the book including the fact that he met President Lincoln. But no mention of shots being fired at him.

Roger, Regarding the quote from John's lecture you referenced, I believe John did quite a lot of lying, and what's interesting about that statement is how artfully he mixed a truth with lies. The truthful part he himself identified as a fact, which was the hint that the rest was not factual. Louis Weichmann wasn't a horseman and wasn't taught to handle a gun--as John said--a fact. By saying that, Surratt was able to boast of his own skills which were lacking in Weichmann. What a manly guy! Mary Surratt was a conspirator and I'm not aware of her having had shooting or riding skills. Don't you think Weichmann could have managed to drive to Surrattsville and instruct Lloyd to have the "shooting irons" and whiskey ready without Mary? In fact, had he done so, Mary might not have hanged. Had John taken advantage of Weichmann's "constantly importuning" (I love that phrase!) John and Booth could have protected Mary from her horrible fate.

So John's statement was catchy and jaunty, but devoid of logic.

In his book, Louis describes the various lies that Mary and John told Louis, to keep his suspicions at bay, but after the failed kidnapping, and consulting with Gleason, he felt it was his duty to the union to stay on at the house and be ready to go to authorities if anything else developed. His deep regret was not going to Stanton with the information he discussed with Gleason.