No need to question this Lincoln conspirator’s guilt

[L Verge]

Oh good grief, Charlie Brown! Mr. Scott could have been any number of men who rode up and down the New Cut Road, or someone from Olivia's neighborhood (now Joint Base Andrews) who had been asked by her family to deliver the county newspapers to her so that she could catch up on local news - especially the casualty lists of local men killed during combat..

My personal belief (assumption) is that Herold had done everything necessary in Southern Maryland on his April 12-13 journey into the area. The only thing he had not taken down was the pair of field glasses. When Booth learned that Mrs. Surratt had received a letter from Mr. Calvert and needed to go to the country, it gave him the opportunity to send those and the message about things being needed that night. The pickets were secondary and likely had been expected anyhow since Union forces had stationed them all over the place in Southern Maryland. People of the area and Confederate agents had circumvented them for four years. Booth, Herold, and others had probably passed them within weeks or days before the assassination.

How do we know that Mrs. Surratt even inquired about them to a farmer? We have only Weichmann's word for it - stated after the close of the trial. What if Weichmann made up that story? Oh, I forgot that the man never lied. (Sorry, sarcasm just seemed to fit right here...)

How do we know that Booth was without a weapon until reaching Surrattsville? Who has solved the question of where and how he acquired the pistols that Mrs. Mudd mentioned?

We have played this type of one-upsmanship game for 151 years now. We don't know what truly happened, and neither do you. The excellent new book, The Lincoln Assassination Riddle, got the title correct on this whole chapter in U.S. history. Every detail cannot be verified, locked down, and solved. That is what has kept the pros and the amateurs on their toes for over a century trying to solve a variety of related riddles. Better folks than we can't answer many of the questions with certainty. I seriously doubt that anyone in the future will be able to either. I don't know about others, but in serious situations, I don't take the word of just one man as gospel. And when someone spends the rest of his life whining about the situation, it speaks to me about his personality.

[Susan Higginbotham]

There are any number of reasons why Scott could have been bringing Olivia newspapers. Maybe Olivia just liked newspapers; many young women at the time followed current events, as you'll see if you read letters and diaries from the period. Maybe a friend or relative was mentioned in them; maybe Olivia kept a scrapbook of newspaper clippings about the war and wanted certain papers; maybe Scott was passing a love note to Olivia under the guise of bringing her newspapers. As Laurie said, 9:00 at night wasn't a shockingly late hour to call in the city, especially simply to deliver something, and Washington had been particularly bustling since the fall of Richmond and the attendant celebrations.

The defense lawyers weren't prevented from asking who came to the house at nine. For that matter, neither was the government. Nora Fitzpatrick, for instance, testified for both sides at the conspiracy trial, but neither side chose to question her about this. Perhaps Weichmann's testimony that he didn't know the identity of the caller made the government assume that none of the ladies present in the house on the evening of April 14 would know either.

[Pamela]

So where was and who is Mr Scott? Not a witness at trial. Forgive my rudeness in daring to question the Mr. Scott story. It is a fact, established in trial, that Mary told Lloyd to have the shooting irons ready, just a few hours after meeting with Booth, whether or not Herold "had done everything necessary" according to your personal belief. It is logical to assume that Mary talked to Lloyd about the guns at Booth's behest. And it's logical to assume that Booth would want to know if Mary succeeded in her mission. Booth did stop at the tavern and retrieved a carbine so he must have wanted it. I'm not playing one up man ship and please ignore my posts if they bother you.

---

(05-25-2016 06:21 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  There are any number of reasons why Scott could have been bringing Olivia newspapers. Maybe Olivia just liked newspapers; many young women at the time followed current events, as you'll see if you read letters and diaries from the period. Maybe a friend or relative was mentioned in them; maybe Olivia kept a scrapbook of newspaper clippings about the war and wanted certain papers; maybe Scott was passing a love note to Olivia under the guise of bringing her newspapers. As Laurie said, 9:00 at night wasn't a shockingly late hour to call in the city, especially simply to deliver something, and Washington had been particularly bustling since the fall of Richmond and the attendant celebrations.

The defense lawyers weren't prevented from asking who came to the house at nine. For that matter, neither was the government. Nora Fitzpatrick, for instance, testified for both sides at the conspiracy trial, but neither side chose to question her about this. Perhaps Weichmann's testimony that he didn't know the identity of the caller made the government assume that none of the ladies present in the house on the evening of April 14 would know either.

That's a lot of excuses and , maybes and rationalizations and still no Mr Scott.

[L Verge]

"...please ignore my posts if they bother you."

Pamela, your posts happen to bother me because you are speculating your way through the whole thing. I don't want new researchers and young students to be tricked into thinking that your way is the only way to analyze this particular piece of history.

I am not anti-Weichmann. Like Susan and others, I believe he was trapped between a rock and a hard place; and I certainly would not have wanted to be in his shoes or on the witness stand. If he resorted to "enhancing" certain situations, I can understand that. I just don't want future generations to believe things of him that can't be proven by you or me since the hard evidence is just not there one way or the other.

As for Mr. Scott, go find out who he was. When his name first came up at John's trial in 1867, neither the prosecution nor the defense seemed to care to find out. My personal opinion is that it was someone that Olivia or her father knew who happened to get one line in history after the fact because he did a favor for the family at a "delicate" time.

Since the Surratt conference in 2017 falls on the April Fools weekend, its theme will be Lincoln Assassination Studies: No Foolin' - Just the Facts. That's what I would like emerging historians to learn on any topic they choose. Go where the facts lead you.

[Susan Higginbotham]

Olivia didn't give a first name for Mr. Scott, and with a common surname like that I doubt he's traceable 151 years later. If the prosecution at John Surratt's trial had found Olivia's story implausible, no doubt they could have demanded she give more specifics as to Scott's identity. They didn't.

This was a boardinghouse in the heart of the city, not a convent, with three marriageable young women present on April 14. All had family and friends in the vicinity. Is it really so unthinkable to you that they might have people calling on them and/or bringing them things?

You're forgetting another possible caller on April 14, by the way--Richard Smoot.

[Pamela]

We don't know how many callers may have come to the house that night. I don't remember if Smoot came up in court, or in what way. Nothing definitive was proven in court regarding the mystery visitor, other than at least one person called at the boarding house soon after Mary and Weichmann returned from Surrattsville. Susan, you are guessing at the motives of the lawyers.

Aside from these debatable matters there remains the logic that supports Weichmann's belief that Booth called for the third time that day, regardless if you believe the statement that he claimed Anna made, or the conversation with Mary on the drive back to Washington that Weichmann described, or the change in her manner after someone called around 9:00 that he also noted. The logic is that Booth would have wanted to know the results of Mary's trip, that the carbines were there and at the ready, and that she had delivered the field glasses. The boarding house was nearby and easy for him to check in. After all, the trip could have been aborted. The carriage did need repair, there were all kinds of variables. It makes more sense that Booth made the third visit than not, IMO. It was a loose end that was easy for him to tie up.

Laurie, regarding your curiosity about my advocacy of Weichmann, I feel someone needs to defend him. In so many books I've read, I kept coming across digs at his character, suggestions as to his motives that usually implied negativity, weakness, etc. Even John Fazio, who likes him, said Weichmann turned state's evidence, which is not true, and as a lawyer I was surprised he made that mistake.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading Weichmann's book and I feel compassion, as did Risvold for his suffering, and respect for the historical value, and the research and thoughtfulness of his effort, well designed to help anyone interested in the story of the assassination.

Yes, the book has self serving aspects; of course it would, and anyone would want to show themselves in the best light, especially since he was nationally slandered routinely for his entire life after the trial, and during the trial, for that matter, by the defense. So what? That doesn't have much impact on the value of his effort. His book was written at a time when revealing "warts and all" tell alls were an unheard of concept. I think historians and anyone with an interest in the assassination are lucky that his niece, interestingly, an actress, ultimately was the family member who got the manuscript to the perfect collector and editor. In his letters, A. C. Richards thought the book was so important, that he seemed almost desperate for Weichmann to get it published.

Compare Weichmann's book with Surratt's self serving (in the extreme) talk, and Booth's notes while on the run. I love the statement that Dr. Porter made in a letter written to Weichmann: "I have read and reread with great interest the chapters of the new book, which you were so kind as to send to me. The charm and value of personal knowledge of important incidents and events give an actuality to the narratives of history which cannot be found in the compilation of books."

BTW, I see Dr George as one of many Catholic priests or educators who had an ax to grind because a Catholic woman was hung and Weichmann was Catholic. His writings say quite alot about his prejudice and attitude.

[Gene C]

Some good points Pamela. I like Weichmann too, enjoyed his book, which I haven't read in a long time. He was in a tough spot for a young man to be in.

Can you imagine if a similar crime of this magnitude occurred today, how long it would take it to get to trial, and how long the trial would last.
It surely wouldn't go as quickly as this one did, which has it's good and bad points. Stanton was accused of ramrodding this trial through, but in the long run, he may have done the country a big favor.

[L Verge]

I am sorry, Pamela, that you did not know Dr. George and other great ones on the subject. I was privileged to know him and converse with him, along with many of the great historians in our field. He/they had no axes to grind; they just interpreted history in the direction that the facts led them. The good ones still do.

However, it is human nature to form opinions of people - especially the more you learn about them. You have formed a compassionate view of Weichmann while others of us detect a more uneasy tone (for lack of a better term) in his writings that we have a hard time getting past. Believe it or not, we can all co-exist in the history field. I won't claw you if you won't claw me.

[Pamela]

Laurie, it will come as no surprise to you that I disagree with most of what you said, and thanks to you I had to reread Joseph George's paper. Where to start. I'm sure he was a great guy but he had a prejudice and a narrative that he looked to support in his research and writing. When he had the opportunity to make an interpretation of some part of Weichmann's life or something he said or did, he always followed his narrative, that Weichmann threw Mary to the wolves to save his own skin. There are way to many instances to get into, so I'll mention a few. "His testimony helped condemn her, but saved him from prosecution." "....Weichmann later recanted his testimony which had proved so damaging to Mrs. Surratt."
George got into the incident that came up in John's trial where Weichmann admitted looking into the barrell of a gun and reciting Hamlet and Weichmann said he wasn't interested in suicide because, "I am too much of a coward for that." Apparently George never read "To Be or Not to Be" where Hamlet said, "Thus conscience does make cowards of us all." BTW, I recommend reading Hamlet soliloquy, it's beautiful and I never realized it was about the pros and cons of suicide. And here it is!

To Be Or Not To Be’: Original Words Spoken by Hamlet, Act 3 Scene 1

To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, ’tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish’d. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there’s the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there’s the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law’s delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover’d country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.–Soft you now!
The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all my sins remember’d.

George interpreted a guilty conscience, mine is PTSD.

"As to his brother, there is evidence that Frederick C. Weichmann was a disciplinary problem." Really? What were the problems? Many of the Catholic Seminaries were pro Confederacy; John Surratt's sponsor was known as the "Rebel Bishop" and had spent years in Baltimore before being sent to Florida. Louis decribed the Southern bias in his seminary to Charles Alfred Townsend.

"(Weichmann) had placed his life above his conscience" He was never able to live down...his failure to save his landlady." George's bias and narrative is clear.

You said, " while others of us detect a more uneasy tone (for lack of a better term) in his writings that we have a hard time getting past.--What does that mean?

I don't agree that I claw but I will continue to push back on your narrative, and that of others like Susan's, "Weichmann,...consumed with guilt".

[L Verge]

(05-26-2016 06:05 PM)Pamela Wrote:  Laurie, it will come as no surprise to you that I disagree with most of what you said, and thanks to you I had to reread Joseph George's paper. Where to start. I'm sure he was a great guy but he had a prejudice and a narrative that he looked to support in his research and writing. When he had the opportunity to make an interpretation of some part of Weichmann's life or something he said or did, he always followed his narrative, that Weichmann threw Mary to the wolves to save his own skin. There are way to many instances to get into, so I'll mention a few. "His testimony helped condemn her, but saved him from prosecution." "....Weichmann later recanted his testimony which had proved so damaging to Mrs. Surratt."
George got into the incident that came up in John's trial where Weichmann admitted looking into the barrell of a gun and reciting Hamlet and Weichmann said he wasn't interested in suicide because, "I am too much of a coward for that." Apparently George never read "To Be or Not to Be" where Hamlet said, "Thus conscience does make cowards of us all." BTW, I recommend reading Hamlet soliloquy, it's beautiful and I never realized it was about the pros and cons of suicide. And here it is!

To Be Or Not To Be’: Original Words Spoken by Hamlet, Act 3 Scene 1

To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, ’tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish’d. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there’s the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there’s the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law’s delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover’d country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.–Soft you now!
The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all my sins remember’d.

George interpreted a guilty conscience, mine is PTSD.

"As to his brother, there is evidence that Frederick C. Weichmann was a disciplinary problem." Really? What were the problems? Many of the Catholic Seminaries were pro Confederacy; John Surratt's sponsor was known as the "Rebel Bishop" and had spent years in Baltimore before being sent to Florida. Louis decribed the Southern bias in his seminary to Charles Alfred Townsend.

"(Weichmann) had placed his life above his conscience" He was never able to live down...his failure to save his landlady." George's bias and narrative is clear.

You said, " while others of us detect a more uneasy tone (for lack of a better term) in his writings that we have a hard time getting past.--What does that mean?

I don't agree that I claw but I will continue to push back on your narrative, and that of others like Susan's, "Weichmann,...consumed with guilt".

No, Pamela, it comes as no surprise to me (and I would bet to Susan) that you have disagreed with me/us from the very beginning and that nothing we have contributed has been taken into consideration by you. I determined months ago when you last were posting that I was going to ignore you because my efforts were futile. I then reconsidered because I wanted others to understand that there are two sides to viewing Weichmann (and other parts of the Lincoln assassination study also).

As for the soliloquy, we analyzed it in high school English as well as in college - English was my minor. It is a truly beautiful piece of writing. So, there is one thing that we agree on.

What do I mean by the uneasy tones that quite a few of us detect in Weichmann's writings? Are you ready for this next paragraph?

Several people have used the term "Nancy boy" in describing him to me. I honestly did not know what that term meant until I was enlightened, but it did match what I and others had called attention to. Other people have referred to him having a terrible "guilt complex," and your PTSD diagnosis would fit into that. Others have used the words "whining" and "sniveling." Still, others have suggested that he would be comparable to the kid that no one wanted on their baseball team at recess during elementary school. Someone else said that, "Me thinks he doth protest too much."

Finally, this word battle has gained us nothing. I suspect that many of our fellow posters are saying, "Oh, no, not that subject again." In service to them, I am sheathing my claws and leaving this discussion. And, you're right; you may not claw. In fact, I suspect that your fangs are more dangerous. Therefore, when one has done all that they can do to explain the situation, it's time to withdraw from the verbal battlefield. I'm saying, "Good night, Gracie..."

[Pamela]

OMG, I'm trying not to laugh (and not succeeding). Thanks for finally letting that cat out of the bag, or should I say, closet. Maybe someone could explain to me what Weichmann's maybe being gay or effeminate has to do with anything pertinent to this case and his testimony? We are in more enlightened times, are we not? I have a gay collector who I wouldn't change for anything-especially his taste in art.

Also a" guilt complex" does not necessarily have anything to do with PTSD.

"Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a mental health condition that's triggered by a terrifying event — either experiencing it or witnessing it. Symptoms may include flashbacks, nightmares and severe anxiety, as well as uncontrollable thoughts about the event."
BTW, I do consider carefully what you and others say and bring to this forum.

[Eva Elisabeth]

Please allow me to say my opinion - whatever the "truth" is, Weichmann took it to his grave. Hence there's no true victory to win or cause to lose.

With malice toward none, with charity for all...points of view - shouldn't we be capable to disagree while tolerating that others believe and perceive differently what will never be provable? This is not a battlefield but a place to learn of others' opinions, discuss these and our own, agree or disagree - peacefully and respectfully.

We may try to convince, but should accept to fail as - as far as I can estimate - there's no way to prove either side being "the truth". The "use" of claws, cats in closets or other verbal weapons doesn't make any difference about that, but it stresses and saddens immensely to read - me at least.

[Gene C]

(05-27-2016 02:56 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  The "use" of claws, cats in closets or other verbal weapons doesn't make any difference about that, but it stresses and saddens immensely to read - me at least.

Nicely said Eva.

I find a little humor (and a lot of chocolate) can help in situations like this.
Thank goodness we have super heroes who understand!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY_KZu-tnPk

---

[Jenny]

(05-27-2016 02:56 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Please allow me to say my opinion - whatever the "truth" is, Weichmann took it to his grave. Hence there's no true victory to win or cause to lose.

With malice toward none, with charity for all...points of view - shouldn't we be capable to disagree while tolerating that others believe and perceive differently what will never be provable? This is not a battlefield but a place to learn of others' opinions, discuss these and our own, agree or disagree - peacefully and respectfully.

Spot on, Eva. I have been taking a break for a while now because of this issue. I enjoy learning from others even if we don't see eye to eye, but lack of respect makes it tiresome and not enjoyable.

[BettyO]

Thank you so very much, Eva and Jenny! I totally agree.

We are on this site to learn and share - and yes, opposing ideas are good for discussion, but it does at great length, become pointless and tiresome.....