Unwanted Facts: Facts that Most Books on the Lincoln Assassination Ignore

[mikegriffith1]

Here are more facts that are not included in most books on the Lincoln assassination:

* At one point in the conspiracy trial, the military commission was caught red-handed not only using obvious perjury but using perjury from a man who was falsely posing as a former Confederate army officer to support its Confederate conspiracy theory. The defense was prepared to expose the man as a fraud and to prove his story impossible. When the defense notified the commission of the evidence it had to impeach the witness, one of the commission's "judges," General Lew Wallace, became enraged and denounced the defense attorneys for daring to try to impeach a government witness! A heated exchange ensued between Wallace and the defense attorneys. In the end, a compromise was reached. The whole exchange was ordered stricken from the official record and the commission allowed the defense to call three of its impeachment witnesses (who were able to impeach parts of the witness’s story).

Luckily, this shameful episode was preserved by the National Intelligencer (May 31, 1865), even though it was removed from the official trial record. In his article "The Trial of Mrs. Surratt" in the September 1880 issue of The North American Review, James W. Clampitt, one of Mary Surratt's attorneys, discussed this shocking episode:

Among those who perjured their souls to obtain from the Government a sum of money, was a party by the name of H. Von Steinaker. This individual swore that he had been an officer in the Topographical Department of the Confederate army, serving on the staff of General Edward Johnson, with the rank and pay of an engineer, and that altogether he was in the Confederate service three years; that in the summer of 1863 he saw and was introduced to three civilians in the camp of the Second Virginia Regiment, one of whom was John Wilkes Booth; that the plan of the proposed assassination was related and approved in all its details; and that it was agreed to send certain officers on “detached service” to “Canada and the borders,” to release rebel prisoners, to lay Northern cities in ashes, and, finally, to obtain possession of the members of the Cabinet and kill the President.

This wholesale perjury was so apparent that we immediately set about impeaching the character of the alleged testimony and showing this witness in his true colors. On the morning following his appearance in court we presented to the Commission, in written form, our allegations impeaching his veracity and character as a witness for the Government. By the testimony of witnesses present, we proposed to show that he was a deserter from the Federal army; that in the beginning of the war he had enlisted as a private in Blenker’s regiment of New York Volunteers; that, having been condemned by a court-martial for stealing an officer’s arms and equipments, he had escaped to the Confederate lines, and having enlisted as a private had been detailed as a draughtsman by Oscar Heinrichs, an engineer officer on Edward Johnson’s staff; that while serving in that capacity he was again convicted by a courtmartial for stealing an officer’s coat and arms; that at the battle of Antietam he was captured in our lines and escaped by representing himself as being in possession of the dead body of Major Douglas, of Edward Johnson’s staff—then alive.

Instead of the Commission permitting the defense to establish these facts by competent testimony, and place the brand of infamy upon a perjured wretch, one of the members of the Commission, General Lewis Wallace, with much warmth of speech denounced the attempt of counsel to impeach the testimony of Government witnesses.

We replied that such a speech came with bad grace from a member of the Commission, who was presumed to be sitting as an impartial judge; that we were standing within the portals of a constituted temple of justice, and defending the citadel of life, and that it was our bounden duty, and an obligation we owed to our oaths of office, as well as to our client, to impeach the testimony of each and every Government witness that could be properly impeached with the forms of law that obtained in a civil court of justice. It was, however, of no avail, and, on motion of the Judge-Advocate, our whole impeachment was stricken from the record. It does not therefore appear in the printed proceedings of the trial, but can be found in the files of the “National Intelligencer” of May 31, 1865.

We, however, insisted upon the testimony of General Edward Johnson, who swore that Von Steinaker was never an officer on his staff, but was an enlisted soldier detailed as a draughtsman. We also called Oscar Heinrichs, the engineer officer on Johnson’s staff, who also swore to the same; and Major H. K. Douglas, whose “dead body” Von Steinaker represented to have in his possession at the battle of Antietam. All of these witnesses swore that Booth or other conspirators never made their appearance in their camp, and that no officers of their command were ever sent on “detached service” to lay waste Northern cities or kill the President. ("The Trial of Mrs. Surratt,"The North American Review, September 1880, pp. 232-233)

* Toward the end of the conspiracy trial, the defense obtained evidence that Weichmann had given false testimony because he had been threatened, and that one of the officials who coerced Weichmann was none other than one of the prosecutors, Joseph Holt. However, the commission would not allow this evidence to be presented. Clampitt:

In further illustration of this animus of the Commission, one other case will be cited. Near the close of the trial, and after the testimony of the heartless and perjured Weichmann had been given, stung by feelings of remorse, Weichmann called at the rooms of a young man, now connected with one of the Catholic institutions of learning, but at that time a resident of Washington, with whom he was on terms of intimacy, and, during an earnest conversation, admitted that he had sworn falsely with regard to the connection of Mrs. Surratt with the murder of the President; that having been an inmate of her home during the formation of the conspiracy he was himself suspicioned and was threatened by the authorities of the War Department, in which for some time he had been a clerk, with arrest and trial with the other prisoners, unless he made a statement implicating Mrs. Surratt; that upon such demand he prepared a statement, which was rejected by the Judge-Advocate-General [Holt] with the remark that “it was not strong enough”; that his life being threatened, he made out another statement which was in accordance with their wishes and demands, and this “statement” he swore to on the witness stand, falsely implicating Mrs. Surratt in the conspiracy.

The young man to whom Weichmann made this confession communicated it to the counsel of Mrs. Surratt, and offered to go upon the witness-stand and swear to the same. We took the proper steps to have him called as a witness, but the Commission, taking advantage of a technical ground, refused to permit him to testify on this all-important point. How well this speaks for justice! Can anyone deny that the Commission was organized to convict? (pp. 233-234)

Clampitt’s article is available free of charge at the archive.org website:

https://ia801307.us.archive.org/21/items...00clam.pdf

This would be a great article for any museum related to the Lincoln assassination, especially a museum related to Mary Surratt, to make available to its visitors. The copyright has long since expired on the article. Copies could be printed and offered to visitors along with the other printed materials offered to visitors. If nothing else, the museum’s website could include a brief description, or just the title, and a link to the article.

Finally, someone said that Winkler’s book Lincoln and Booth was nothing but a rehash of Eisenschiml’s research. Two points in reply: One, that person obviously has not read Winkler’s book. Two, the fact that an author of Winkler’s caliber would support many—many, not all—of Eisenschiml’s conclusions should suggest that those conclusions are credible and cannot be summarily brushed aside because they conflict with the official story.