Louis Weichmann

[Pamela]

(09-10-2015 10:24 AM)Jenny Wrote:  

(09-10-2015 07:36 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  

(09-10-2015 05:06 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  I agree, like Herndon's "legacy", his is book is an amazing, most valuable account. Still as for his own role I am sceptical. AFAIK, Weichmann never considered/attempted enlisting, even not when he was desperately seeking employment. If Weichmann was such a Union man, I wonder why. Even Robert Lincoln, who to me seemed rather seemed a "desk"/book person than someone predestined for fighting activity, was eager to. Also declaring his boarding with the conspirators an officially assigned post or duty - does it represent the truth? What about the information about prisoners he revealed to Howell? Did he comment on/explain that?

I would tend to think the difference is that Herndon acted for the "thing", really attempted and believed to tell the truth about Lincoln, all good and bad, reality, away from the growing mystification, and this well-intended (from his mindset and view). He didn't have himself and his own image in mind I believe. This is different with Weichmann, one of whose paramount goals was to whitewash his image.

I can't help it - but e.g. the explanation Roger previously quoted to me sounds quite constucted and "designed". I tend to believe he had other reasons as well he held back about. Genre's post #175 e.g. makes sense to me. Also Mr. Kauffmann states he had feelings for Anna Surratt, and maybe more.

I have a similar reaction. In the same paragraph as his justification, Weichmann says, "no man in my position would have acted differently from what I did; no one would have suspected from the facts stated that these men had that day tried to effect the capture of the President or, that failing, his murder. I always had too high an opinion of John Surratt and his mother to believe them capable of such a crime." So what did he believe them capable of when he determined not to "desert his post"? In the paragraph before that (p. 108) he writes that he thought that John and the others had been "trying to run the blockade, engage in a cotton speculation, or perhaps had attempted to go South," but none of those things seem adequate to "demoralize and terrify" him, as he claims.

I have been thinking the same thing after reading his quote.

If you avoid cherry picking you would understand what he meant. Weichmann was referring to the events of March 16 and 17. On the 15th he found the fake mustache, went to the attic bedroom and caught Surrtatt and Powell on the bed playing with knives and spurs. He was alarmed but Mary told him, no problem, John needs protection when he goes to the country. That night Surratt and Powell took the young girls to the theater, returned them home, then left and stayed out all night. The next day, the servant told him about John and several other men on horseback. Mary was weeping out of fear for John. Anna had an angry outburst at the dinner table and threatened to kill Booth if harm came to John. When John returned, bursting into their room he pointed his gun at Louis, told him his prospects were ruined and could Louis help him get a job. Soon, Powell and Booth entered the room, clearly wound up and full of adrenaline. He began adding up all the odd events and comments, and apparent deadly fear for John expressed by his mother and sister. That is the context for the "demoralize and terrify" statement. He confided in Gleason and din't care who heard him in the office. He wrote to his father confessor. Within a day or so Powell and Booth were gone and he had reason to believe that whatever they were up to, it failed and was over.