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

[Steve]

(12-11-2018 08:12 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  That is not a bit surprising. You have people in this forum who still believe that Spangler was guilty, who still peddle the Confederate conspiracy theory, and who still view the military commission as a credible and honorable tribunal.

If I recall correctly, you seemed surprised (and unable to respond) when we all concurred that Spangler was most likely innocent:

https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussi...-3892.html

[L Verge]

Steve et al,

I keep saying that Mr. Griffith either doesn't read or ignores our postings. Even if he does read some of them, he manages to twist their meanings in his replies.

[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.

[Rob Wick]

Sorry to disappoint you but I did indeed read Winkler's malodorous tripe. Anyone who believes anything proffered by Eisenschiml does not deserve to be spoken of as a high caliber mind.

Best
Rob

[mikegriffith1]

(12-11-2018 10:38 AM)L Verge Wrote:  I think you are underestimating Richard Smoot's story. Double-check, but I'm pretty sure that you are leaving out his previous visit to the boardinghouse a few nights before, when he was told to come back on Friday to see John.

Huh????? You might want to go back and re-read my reply. See also below.

Quote:Also, I don't recall that his conversations were with Anna; he spoke directly with Mrs. Surratt.

No, he spoke with Anna--during his previous visit, a few nights before that Friday, the very visit you somehow believe I failed to consider. Please go back and read my reply. I specifically mentioned the paragraphs before the one that Roger quoted, and those paragraph discuss that visit.

Quote:Just curious, do you ever intend to answer the numerous, good questions that a number of our posters here have thrown at you over the weeks? Inquiring minds want to know.

Humm, well, let's just say that you and I have different ideas about what constitutes a "good question." By the way, I've posed a whole bunch of questions that have gone unanswered. So welcome to the club.

[L Verge]

(12-16-2018 07:58 AM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 10:38 AM)L Verge Wrote:  I think you are underestimating Richard Smoot's story. Double-check, but I'm pretty sure that you are leaving out his previous visit to the boardinghouse a few nights before, when he was told to come back on Friday to see John.

Huh????? You might want to go back and re-read my reply. See also below.

Quote:Also, I don't recall that his conversations were with Anna; he spoke directly with Mrs. Surratt.

No, he spoke with Anna--during his previous visit, a few nights before that Friday, the very visit you somehow believe I failed to consider. Please go back and read my reply. I specifically mentioned the paragraphs before the one that Roger quoted, and those paragraph discuss that visit.

Quote:Just curious, do you ever intend to answer the numerous, good questions that a number of our posters here have thrown at you over the weeks? Inquiring minds want to know.

Humm, well, let's just say that you and I have different ideas about what constitutes a "good question." By the way, I've posed a whole bunch of questions that have gone unanswered. So welcome to the club.

In regards to the Smoot book, you must be reading the work of a different Mr. Smoot. Also, several of us on this forum worked with Randal Berry on his book regarding Smoot. Have you read, Shall We Gather at the River?

Good questions are ones that get to the heart of the matter of citing reputable and documented facts (perhaps that's why you avoid them? And on the other hand, perhaps that's why we avoid some of your speculative, off-base questions?)

---

In regards to the Clampitt article written 15 years after the trial: First, please get his name correct if you are going to quote him. His name is John W. Clampitt, and there appears to be more known about him after the trial years than before and during. We have spoken with a family member (when the Surratt Society dedicated the tombstone to his partner, Frederick Aiken) and they knew very little of Clampitt either. The lawsuit that he brought against Aiken later seems to have gotten more attention than his participation in the trial.

In reading that article once again, I was reminded of how little accurate information he gave about Mary's early life and marriage, where she lived (not in the county of Marlborough because there was/is no such county in Maryland), etc. If we were inclined to reproduce this article for our visitors to take, we would certainly have to insert [sic] a number of times. I can also guarantee that 95% of our visitors would toss it in a trash can out of disinterest. We present the pertinent points on both sides of this history lesson and hope that a few will go home and do some more studies, but in this day and age, I fear we are hoping for too much.

[brtmchl]

Very interesting thread. I think everyone would agree that everyone who participates in this forum would LOVE to hear proof of new information regarding the events of the assassination. However, I do not understand the desire to insult and scoff at people because they are simply asking for proof to back up a theory. I've never known respected and passionate researchers to simply just roll over and accept something simply because someone desperately wants it to be so. The Assassination is a hobby to me. I am fully aware that I am a novice, so there are times I may deserve an elbow or two; but there are many highly respected members here that do this as a profession. As I said, I thought the premise of this topic very interesting and entertaining, but I found this fierce defensiveness and unreasonable acceptance to respect those asking for proof, and unwillingness to debate documented counter arguments to this theory off putting. I do however thank you for the material to read the FBI findings for myself.

[mikegriffith1]

(12-09-2018 02:15 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(12-09-2018 10:50 AM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  * In his testimony at the conspiracy trial, Louis Weichmann, one of the prosecution’s key witnesses, did not claim (1) that Booth visited Mary Surratt at 9:00 PM on April 14; (2) that she was “nervous, agitated, and restless” after this alleged meeting;

Richard M. Smoot backed up Weichmann's claim that Mary was in an agitated state that night. He wrote in The Unwritten History of the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln that he visited Mary's boardinghouse at 9:30 on the night of the assassination. Smoot recalled:

"The door was quickly reopened, and I was admitted into the presence of Mrs. Surratt. She was in a state of feverish excitement. I asked her if John had returned, and she replied that he had not. She then informed me that she was positive that the boat would be used that night, and that I would get my money in a day or two. She most earnestly besought me to leave the city and not be seen at her house again. Her manner caused me alarm. I felt that a crisis was at hand, and that I was facing some unseen danger."

IMO, it was apparent to Smoot that Booth's plan was to take action that very night, and Mary knew about it. It's possible Mary thought it was the kidnapping, not assassination; no matter what, she knew something was going down that night.

Correction to my first reply to you: When Smoot visited the first time, Anna answered the door, but then she let him in and he saw Mrs. Surratt.

After re-reading the paragraphs that come before the one you quoted, I am even more skeptical of Smoot's story. First, Mrs. Surratt was supposedly cold toward him, because of how he was dressed. Then, once he told her that he'd come to see John about the boat, her demeanor changed completely and she started asking about the arrangements for the boat. Then, without explanation, Mrs. Surratt's demeanor changed again: she acted fearful and she started whispering. She whispered to Smoot that if he would come back on Good Friday, he "most likely" would catch John at the house. Then, still in this unexplained state of fear, she showed Smoot a letter that John had written to a girl named Mitchell to confirm that he intended to be in Washington that Friday! REALLY?

This strikes me as a very tall, unbelievable tale designed to implicate Mrs. Surratt in the kidnap operation.

(12-09-2018 02:15 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  Maybe Weichmann was never specifically asked what kind of state Mary was in that night after 9 P.M., and that is why it's not in his trial testimony. I'll have to check the trial transcript.

Again, this is a really weak excuse. Go read Weichmann's testimony. There were plenty of times when he volunteered all kinds of information that the prosecutor had not asked about in his question--and, of course, in many cases, it was information that was helpful to the prosecution.

[RJNorton]

(12-15-2018 07:13 AM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Toward the end of the conspiracy trial, the defense obtained evidence that Weichmann had given false testimony because he had been threatened,

From what I can tell, assassination authors do not give a great deal of credence to Weichmann's 1902 deathbed statement. The statement has never been discovered, but his sisters apparently talked about it many years later. I do not have a date on this, but I think it was in the 1920s. Despite the controversy over the statement itself, I will mention what Lloyd Lewis wrote about it in Myths After Lincoln:

"Louis Weichmann died naturally enough to disappoint the superstitious, but for all that, he was old and broken far beyond his sixty years, when, on June 2, 1902, the end came. He knew that his soul was drifting out of the window where the night-air, fresh with fragrance of young corn, drifted in. He called for a paper, his two sisters brought it, he dictated a statement, signed it, they witnessed it. What he wanted written had nothing to do with property, nor with money — nevertheless it was a bequest, a bequest, as he phrased it, "to all truth-loving people."

He was testifying again about Mary E. Surratt as he lay by the open window. This time he was before a new Court, and what he had to tell, now, was of even greater weight than had been his testimony in May, 1865, for death-bed statements are better than sworn testimony, the legal men say, arguing that no man will send his soul climbing up through the stars to God weighted down with a lie.

He testified again and died. His sisters folded up the paper and put it away. Their brother had wanted silence for himself; let silence keep his last words, too. Time, however, eases hurts, and the other day, sitting in the room where he had died, out in the west end of Anderson, grown now to be a clanging city of factories, these two aged women told in a word what their brother's dying testimony had been:

"When he was dying he asked us to get a pen and paper and told us to write: 'June 2, 1902; THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT EVERY WORD I GAVE IN EVIDENCE AT THE ASSASSINATION TRIAL WAS ABSOLUTELY TRUE; AND NOW I AM ABOUT TO DIE AND WITH LOVE I RECOMMEND MYSELF TO ALL TRUTH-LOVING PEOPLE.

"Then he signed it 'Louis J. Weichmann' and died.

"The doctor when he filled out the death-certificate put down in the space after the word 'cause' just 'extreme nervousness' — that was all."

[Steve]

(12-19-2018 02:33 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(12-15-2018 07:13 AM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Toward the end of the conspiracy trial, the defense obtained evidence that Weichmann had given false testimony because he had been threatened,

From what I can tell, assassination authors do not give a great deal of credence to Weichmann's 1902 deathbed statement. The statement has never been discovered, but his sisters apparently talked about it many years later. I do not have a date on this, but I think it was in the 1920s. Despite the controversy over the statement itself, I will mention what Lloyd Lewis wrote about it in Myths After Lincoln:

"Louis Weichmann died naturally enough to disappoint the superstitious, but for all that, he was old and broken far beyond his sixty years, when, on June 2, 1902, the end came. He knew that his soul was drifting out of the window where the night-air, fresh with fragrance of young corn, drifted in. He called for a paper, his two sisters brought it, he dictated a statement, signed it, they witnessed it. What he wanted written had nothing to do with property, nor with money — nevertheless it was a bequest, a bequest, as he phrased it, "to all truth-loving people."

He was testifying again about Mary E. Surratt as he lay by the open window. This time he was before a new Court, and what he had to tell, now, was of even greater weight than had been his testimony in May, 1865, for death-bed statements are better than sworn testimony, the legal men say, arguing that no man will send his soul climbing up through the stars to God weighted down with a lie.

He testified again and died. His sisters folded up the paper and put it away. Their brother had wanted silence for himself; let silence keep his last words, too. Time, however, eases hurts, and the other day, sitting in the room where he had died, out in the west end of Anderson, grown now to be a clanging city of factories, these two aged women told in a word what their brother's dying testimony had been:

"When he was dying he asked us to get a pen and paper and told us to write: 'June 2, 1902; THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT EVERY WORD I GAVE IN EVIDENCE AT THE ASSASSINATION TRIAL WAS ABSOLUTELY TRUE; AND NOW I AM ABOUT TO DIE AND WITH LOVE I RECOMMEND MYSELF TO ALL TRUTH-LOVING PEOPLE.

"Then he signed it 'Louis J. Weichmann' and died.

"The doctor when he filled out the death-certificate put down in the space after the word 'cause' just 'extreme nervousness' — that was all."

The sisters told author Lloyd Lewis about the note and he published a story about in Liberty Magazine, I'm going to say around Jan. 1928 (but I'm not totally sure about that date); Lewis then mentions the story about the note in his 1929 book:
https://books.google.com/books?id=F6HB7q...nn&f=false

By the way Lewis is wrong, the cause of death listed on Weichmann's death certificate was not "extreme nervousness", it was "cardiac asthma".

[Rob Wick]

I have the Liberty magazine article Steve mentioned. It's too big for me to upload, so I've sent it to Roger for him to do so.

Best
Rob

Thanks for sending the article, Rob. I have uploaded it. CLICK HERE.

(I think that article includes a photo of Weichmann I have never seen before....the one from his student days at St. Charles Academy)

[Warren]

I’m all for a good, juicy deathbed confession, but I believe there are a few people who have confessed while shaking off the mortal coil prior to the obligatory dirt nap to being D. B. Cooper.

[mikegriffith1]

(12-11-2018 08:45 PM)Steve Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 08:12 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  That is not a bit surprising. You have people in this forum who still believe that Spangler was guilty, who still peddle the Confederate conspiracy theory, and who still view the military commission as a credible and honorable tribunal.

If I recall correctly, you seemed surprised (and unable to respond) when we all concurred that Spangler was most likely innocent:

https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussi...-3892.html

You might wanna go back and re-read the replies in that thread. Some people who initially wrote carefully worded responses that seemed to say they believed he was innocent later just couldn't help themselves and heavily qualified, if not recanted, their earlier statements. One of them, in a supreme example of weasel wording, said they didn't think Spangler was guilty of large/major involvement, which implied he was involved in a minor way, and, get this, that the military commission's verdict was "acceptable"! Another person responded by repeating the military commission's timeworn and discredited talking points against Spangler.

Regarding the identity of the 9:00 PM visitor on April 14 whom Weichmann belatedly claimed was Booth, the defense in the John Surratt trial blew a truck-sized hole in this lie by calling witnesses who testified that the visitor was a military officer named Scott and that Mrs. Surratt did not look nervous or agitated after the visit. Guy Moore discusses this testimony in his excellent book The Case of Mrs. Surratt:

The defense produced testimony to show ( a ) that it was Anna, not her mother, who answered the door; ( b ) that it was a naval captain named Scott who called, and that he came to leave some papers for Miss Jenkins; ( c ) that no one else in the parlor noticed Mrs. Surratt’s being nervous, and no one heard her ask Weichmann to pray for her intentions, though the ladies were present as long as he was in the room. (p. 84)

[L Verge]

(12-27-2018 07:40 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 08:45 PM)Steve Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 08:12 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  That is not a bit surprising. You have people in this forum who still believe that Spangler was guilty, who still peddle the Confederate conspiracy theory, and who still view the military commission as a credible and honorable tribunal.

If I recall correctly, you seemed surprised (and unable to respond) when we all concurred that Spangler was most likely innocent:

https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussi...-3892.html

You might wanna go back and re-read the replies in that thread. Some people who initially wrote carefully worded responses that seemed to say they believed he was innocent later just couldn't help themselves and heavily qualified, if not recanted, their earlier statements. One of them, in a supreme example of weasel wording, said they didn't think Spangler was guilty of large/major involvement, which implied he was involved in a minor way, and, get this, that the military commission's verdict was "acceptable"! Another person responded by repeating the military commission's timeworn and discredited talking points against Spangler.

Regarding the identity of the 9:00 PM visitor on April 14 whom Weichmann belatedly claimed was Booth, the defense in the John Surratt trial blew a truck-sized hole in this lie by calling witnesses who testified that the visitor was a military officer named Scott and that Mrs. Surratt did not look nervous or agitated after the visit. Guy Moore discusses this testimony in his excellent book The Case of Mrs. Surratt:

The defense produced testimony to show ( a ) that it was Anna, not her mother, who answered the door; ( b ) that it was a naval captain named Scott who called, and that he came to leave some papers for Miss Jenkins; ( c ) that no one else in the parlor noticed Mrs. Surratt’s being nervous, and no one heard her ask Weichmann to pray for her intentions, though the ladies were present as long as he was in the room. (p. 84)

In case you have failed to notice, Mr. G., I do not "weasel word." 99% of the time I say what I believe to be the facts. I do believe that the military commission had to deal with several witnesses whose statements (right or wrong) placed Spangler in a tenuous situation -- and therefore placed the members of the court in a tenuous situation of having to decide if he had played any role - especially in Booth's escape out of the theater. You continue to forget that this was the first time that a military court in the U.S. had to deal with a presidential assassination and that they had a lot on their plate.

As for the visit from naval officer Scott to the Surratt boardinghouse, I believe that this topic was discussed quite some time ago and the record was set straight. Scott's visit was also cited by James O. Hall. Mr. Hall and Guy Moore lived close to each other on the outskirts of D.C. and did confer with one another, despite having opposing opinions as to the guilt or innocence - or degree thereof - of Mrs. Surratt.

[RJNorton]

(12-27-2018 07:40 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Regarding the identity of the 9:00 PM visitor on April 14 whom Weichmann belatedly claimed was Booth, the defense in the John Surratt trial blew a truck-sized hole in this lie by calling witnesses who testified that the visitor was a military officer named Scott and that Mrs. Surratt did not look nervous or agitated after the visit. Guy Moore discusses this testimony in his excellent book The Case of Mrs. Surratt:

I don't doubt Scott was a visitor that night, but Weichmann said it was Anna herself who said Booth also visited.

In The Evidence the quote is as follows:

"Think of that man Booth having called at this house not more than an hour and a half before the assassination."

https://books.google.com/books?id=GvYpUe...22&f=false