Louis Weichmann

[L Verge]

Susan - Thank you so much for that outstanding piece of information related by Gus Howell. I don't know of anyone else who has found it and reported it. Since we know next to nothing about Gus, you will each have to form your own opinion as to his veracity. Of course, since he was a member of the Confederate underground, several of you will write him off immediately as unreliable and a traitor... It intrigues me, however, that he brings in the oil and cotton speculation angle as related to Weichmann personally. I do not recall ever hearing that slant. What a coup it would be if someone could make the connection!

You know, I started this whole thread being somewhat neutral about Louis Weichmann. Now I'm starting to be really suspicious of him! My "bias" on the man has been based in the past on what I have read from very qualified historians. Now that I am concentrating on him for my own edification, I am starting to think that self-preservation and then, perhaps, financial gain from his cooperation with the authorities are definite areas to be considered. The fact that those who have been quoted as praising Mr. Weichmann are all people involved in the death of Mary Surratt suggests to me that they are covering their own tails in the process. He has to be the truthful hero or their reputations went down the drain also?

And Wild Bill, you and I have probably had more disagreements than most people on this forum - even to the point where we haven't spoken for awhile. Even then, however, I never underestimate the knowledge you bring to the history table. The breadth of it is outstanding, and your dedication to considering all angles makes me wish that our current educational fields could be blessed with more well-rounded, well-read teachers like you - and ones who aren't afraid to show the real bumps in American history in hopes that we can improve things. I bet your college students loved your classes because you challenged them! Those that didn't probably didn't like the work you made them do.

---

(09-17-2015 04:20 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Can anyone explain exactly why Father Menu was so clearly one-sided in the John Surratt trial. Louis Weichmann writes that Father Menu sat right next to John Surratt during the trial in 1867. In the courtroom Father Menu shook hands with John Surratt and never with Louis Weichmann. Menu was a professor at St. College College, and both Surratt and Weichmann were ex-students. Was it because Menu felt Weichmann's 1865 testimony had helped lead to the hanging of Surratt's mother? Menu had been Weichmann's father confessor, and Menu's behavior during the trial must have hurt him deeply.

If I remember correctly, Fr. Menu chose to divest himself of priestly garb when he came to John Surratt's trial. That was highly unusual and maybe even against religious rules? I would guess that he was trying to divert the anti-Catholic taint that so many had at that time.

I would also guess that the Father was deliberately snubbing Weichmann because he considered him a liar in the case of Mary Surratt. He is also the one who wrote of John Surratt's praise-worthy performance at St. Charles - as well as Weichmann's less-than-exemplary conduct there.

Another thought is that, in the eyes of the Church, Weichmann had gone against the principles of its faith when he gave testimony that led to the death of another person. Hasn't the Church always prided itself in offering sanctuary and assistance to those who could be condemned to death as a result of their actions? Could Fr. Menu (and his superiors who had to approve his going to Surratt's trial) consider that Weichmann's testimony against Mary Surratt had sealed her fate and that he wasn't worthy of further recognition? We'll never know.