Post Reply 
No need to question this Lincoln conspirator’s guilt
05-25-2016, 11:06 AM (This post was last modified: 05-25-2016 12:19 PM by L Verge.)
Post: #49
RE: No need to question this Lincoln conspirator’s guilt
I also think Roger's scenario is plausible - even though we are ignoring more substantial evidence as to who visited the boardinghouse at 9 pm (and it probably wasn't Booth). Weichmann pretty much indicated that he assumed it was Booth, but did not see him.

I wish that we had some indication as to how many pickets were actually on duty and where they were located. Booth didn't seem worried about passing a more substantial trouble point at the Navy Yard bridge. I am only guessing that he was counting on the pickets not knowing what had happened in D.C. and that he would saunter past them also.

Going back to my original question as to how you became entrenched in the Weichmann story, let me assure you that, while I have a proud Southern background and am not the least bit ashamed of my Confederate ancestors, I gave up fighting the Civil War many long years ago. I am just totally entrenched in studying all aspects of the Lincoln assassination field - including the character make-up of the various people involved. I like people and am intrigued as to what makes them tick. Of course, I have to surmise what led them onward based on what the books tell us; but when scores of well-read researchers develop the same mind-set about an event or person of history, I think it's safe to think we're on the right track.

I bring this up because Floyd Risvold's editing of the Weichmann manuscript was published in 1975, the year in which we were heavily involved in training guides who would be conducting tours at Surratt House upon its opening on May 1, 1976. Mr. Risvold was a good friend of our mentor and godfather, James O. Hall, and was quickly welcomed into our "gang," and conversed with many other experts. It was the consensus then (and appears to continue today as more people enter the field of study) that Louis told the truth most of the time in 1865 and 1867, but as time went on and his hurt/anger over treatment grew, his manuscript became more self-serving. I believe that it was Dr. Joseph George of Villanova University who reminded us that "the first law of nature is self-preservation." Just as John Surratt was trying to save his family's name, Weichmann was trying to save his.

In summary, I guess what I'm trying to say is that you are the first person I have ever come in contact with who champions Louis Weichmann with so much passion. No one is asking you to change, just to clarify with facts as to how you have reached your decision.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Messages In This Thread
RE: No need to question this Lincoln conspirator’s guilt - L Verge - 05-25-2016 11:06 AM

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)