Louis Weichmann

[L Verge]

Whoa, Pamela, you are throwing your spear at the wrong person if you think that I am a supporter of the "innocent Mrs. Surratt" theory. I know Surratt House isn't haunted 'cause if it were, her ghost would have gotten me a long time ago for giving my personal opinion of understanding why the government acted as it did in arresting the conspirators and trying them before a military court and why the specific four were executed.

Likewise, your anti-Southern bias ain't gonna work on this broad! And don't even start on the "she was a slave holder" angle because her former slaves testified on her behalf -- at a time when they had the full power of the federal government to support them if they chose to condemn her as an evil mistress. Aunt Rachel continued to support Mrs. Surratt for another thirty-plus years as revealed in a newspaper interview in the 1890s. And finally, throwing the death statistics around isn't going to cut it either. Mrs. Surratt's actions did not cause the Civil War and the death of 700,000+ people. Her actions, if accurately proved, assisted in the death of one person (four if you count Booth and Powell, Herold, and Atzerodt).

To me, the issue comes down to Mary Surratt having enough evidence (albeit circumstantial, perhaps, by our standards) against her to cause her destruction. I have often suggested to museum visitors and others that she must have been deaf, blind, and downright stupid not to know that her son was up to something dangerous.

I feel the same as far as Weichmann, so I wonder why it took him so long to report to Gleason (if he did). It also gave him every reason to protect himself first when push came to shove. I happen to believe the basics of his testimony, but I also think he exaggerated a tad. I think also that the public, both North and South, felt that he practiced the first law of nature -- self-preservation. That's why he didn't get a hero's reception then or now. As much as we all enjoy his memoir as edited by Mr. Risvold, it has yet to receive a 100% approval rating by historians in the field. I remember one who referred to it as pure self-vindication.

This opening of the Weichmann wound has brought two new things for me to ponder: First, you refer to Msgr. Conroy as a nut, but reading his statements and some comments by others, he was reciting what he had been told by Msgr. Mulcahy, who knew Weichmann and his family personally. I want to know what made Mulcahy bad-mouth them so badly. My second question mark concerns what I just read this week about Holt seeing to payments being made to Louis on various occasions after both trials - as well as securing government positions for him. As James O. Hall was wont to say, "Follow the money trail."

[L Verge]

(09-15-2015 09:41 PM)Pamela Wrote:  Eva, I think a professional historian can answer your question. I believe the letter you are referring to was taken into evidence, so I don't know.

My non-professional guess is that Weichmann had access to trial files legally after the John Surratt trial was over and done with. Just like today's researchers, I bet he copied (in shorthand?) anything that he thought might be useful to him in the future. Another possibility is that Holt supplied things to him. They maintained a correspondence history for over twenty years after the trials. I'm not tackling the research trail at NARA now, but the Holt Papers file should be interesting.

Switching back to the mention of Robert Lockwood Mills. Joan Chaconas and I had lots of dealings with him when he was working on his Book of Speculations about twenty years ago. Nice man, but difficult to deal with.

I can also say that his talk before the Lincoln Group of Washington, DC, is the only time that I have ever seen a member of any audience stand up - to the point of having apoplexy - and denounce a speaker's performance (and Bob's was indeed a performance) as an insult to everyone's intelligence and pure B.S. He and a number of other members then put on their coats and left the building -- and they were quite correct in their assessment of the talk and had the historical and legal backgrounds to make such an assessment.

[Pamela]

Laurie, I appreciate your stance on Mary, you described it before and I am aware of it. Btw, I would love to read the Holt/Weichmann file of correspondence and I look forward to reading what Colleen has dug up. She's awesome! I seriously doubt that Major General Lew Wallace was alone in his appreciation of Weichmann. Holt, Richards and many others had high praise for him. P400, Weichmann: "General Harris, a member of the Comission, and author of a history of the assassination of Lincoln, has this to say of me in reviewing the trial of John Surratt: 'Weichmann stood the test of every effort and came out unscathed from a bitter and most hostile cross examination that occupied a day and a half. Every effort was made to make him contradict himself as to his present testimony-in-chief, and also as to his testimony two years before at the military trial, but without avail. No false witness could possibly come out of such a fiery ordeal unscathed.
After every effort was made that could be devised by the ingenuity of man, Weichmann stood before the court, the jury, and the country as an honest, conscientious, truthful man. He was also a man of superior talent, education, and intelligence. In short, he established a character that must challenge the admiration of every candid man'".
You may and do undervalue Weichmann and make the playground comment, but I have offered proof that he recieved high praise from relevant and influential people who knew him. When public figures, as Weichmann became , get positive attention, jealousy is always aroused in some. It's just a fact of life. The fact that you never thought to use the word jealousy in describing how people felt about him speaks to your bias, with all due respect.

Wild Bill, thanks for the book recommendations. They're a bit out of my scope of interest, though.

Remembering about John's job, and the words he used to get it, make it all the sadder that Booth came along when the war was ending and spoiled everything for the Surratt family and the country.

[RJNorton]

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.

[Susan Higginbotham]

For what it's worth, here is some of what Augustus Howell had to say about Weichmann in an affidavit made some time after Mary's hanging. The affidavit is unsworn and undated and is in the John T. Ford papers at the Maryland Historical Society. (I'm working from a typewritten transcript someone made of the handwritten original, so there may be errors.)

"The whole groundwork of my torture proceeded from the Statement made and sworn to before the military commission by Louis J. Weichmann, the principal witness for the prosecution in the conspiracy case, who obtained his largest reward by implicating as many persons as possible whether innocent or guilty in the conspiracy plot--no doubt with the understanding that in consideration for his services he should accomplish his own safety. . . .

"Weichmann states he never gave any information from his books--that also is false, he gave me information and said it came from his books in his office, not only that--he obtained his office in the war department with the express understanding with Surratt that he Weichmann was to furnish Surratt with all information that came under his notice from time to time to be transmitted south--and he did furnish it. . .

"the military commission would have the world believe that he Weichmann was a detective put at Mrs. Surratts for the purpose of seeing what was going on at her house--it turned out very disastrous to Mr. Lincoln much better had they put someone else that they could trust. he Weichmann very apt in detecting other persons' business there while visiting Mrs. Surratt's--yet he was unable to detect anything relative to the Surratt & Booth oil & cotton speculation. He was the constant associate of all those parties . . .

the whole truth of the matter is this--that Weichmann had a large amount invested in this oil and cotton speculation and if Richmond had not fallen and their business prospered and the plot been a success Weichmann would have been walking the streets in Richmond hand and glove with Booth to be lionized by those who favoured the plot . . ."

He goes on in this vein at length and concludes by saying that Weichmann should be tried by a criminal court. Whether he was telling the truth about all or some of these things I don't know, but it's clear that he despised Weichmann and blamed him for the death of Mary Surratt.

[Wild Bill]

No problem, Pamela. You narrow interest is so typical of many members of this forum--to everyone's detriment.

[Gene C]

One again Wild Bill we disagree.
I am a bit surprised by your statement. There is so much to learn, and such limited time, especially for those of us who are not professional historians or educators that we have to pick and choose what we want to study, we've narrowed our interest. Many of us have jobs and family that take up a good part of our time. This is even more of a challenge to people who have not studied this subject all their lives. I appreicate those who are willing to research and look for information that I don't have time or as deep a desire to look for, and then they share their findings and opinions with us.

While I appreciate your suggestions for further reading and study, I don't always share the same enthusiasm for some of the subjects you enjoy. That's one of the reasons I usually look forword to what you have to say.

[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.

[Wild Bill]

OK. I suggested that Pamela read Steve Berry's The Lincoln Myth. I hear Gene's complaint he does not have the time. I suggest that he does but does not realize it. That is because he does not know how to read a book. That is not an insult. Few people do.

I was fortunate to take a course in my days as a student at Az St Univ in US History 50 years ago called Populism and Progressivism from a professor whom I could not stand. He was devout left-winger (one almost has to be to study the era 1890-1920 in US History) and filled us full of all sorts of socialist propaganda. But he did do one good thing. He taught us how to read a book and review it in about an hour's worth of our time.

He had 6 paperback books of at least 300 pp. for us to read for the whole course. The first day (we met once a week at night) he assigned all 6 books to read and write a one page review of by next class. Then he showed us how to do it. In a word one reads each book backwards, beginning with the preface and introduction, the first chapter and the last chapter. The goal is to find the author's thesis. What was the book about?

Then we were to read the book backwards. we were to read the first paragraph and last paragraph. Then the first line and last line of each paragraph. Be like a machine. Look for the author's main points. skip the rest unless the topic was beyond you. Read each chapter starting at the end of the book and read each chapter backwards. This allows you to cut out the usual prose and BS all history books are full of. Take note on a piece of paper if you do not wish to underline in the book (especially if it is from the library).

Then at the end (or beginning if you do it as he told us to) organize the whole thing into an essay that makes sense for the review. After a bit of practice, one can read a 300 page book, take notes, in about 30 minutes. The best part is that you already cut out the unnecessary trash and you will be able to present the author's material in an understandable format.

Back to Berry's Lincoln Myth. Read only pp. 131-35, 170-73, 301, 420, 484-87. Tell me what he says. What is his thesis? What is the Lincoln myth? What do you notice that is peculiar about most of the pages I asked you to read? I daresay that you can put the whole book on one side of a 4x6 card. I bet you all can do it in 15 minutes if you know anything about the Civil War, even a cursory knowledge will do.

I realize that most of you do not have my education. I could read 60 pp a minute with notes. I am in my seventies now so I am slower. I read a 1200 pp book of the modern South with notes in about 8 hours in my prime. I also could take part in a discussion of the material in an intelligent manner in a seminar with other students who were much smarter than I but who had not reduced the material to a manageable size. They did not know how to read. This works really well with any history topic. I will not guarantee it with sciences.

I realize I seem a bit pedantic when I write in the forum. But when I give you where I got my ideas from, the idea is for you perhaps to find something new and interesting.

Yeah, I know, I am an hopeless optimist. That's why I quit teaching and started shoeing horses and mules. At least they pay attention--when you get their attention!

[L Verge]

Thanks for the tips! Right now, I have promised four different people that I would read their books or drafts. I already read the preface and intros of all books first and skim the first chapter. I then go to the last chapter and read it. I just have never been told the formula for reading the pages in between. Time to learn.

BTW: The Lincoln Myth is a good one to practice on. Historical novel/spy thriller, easy read, clears those dusty history corners of your mind while still giving a plausible explanation of a historic "maybe" event. I think I sent my copy to Bill.

[Gene C]

Thanks for the tip Bill.

I usually read for enjoyment, but I am currently ready (slowing) through an interesting but detailed book of 400+ pages so l will try this method out. Thanks, I don't remember learning that in school. I understand your earlier comment better now.

My local library has a copy of the Lincoln MYth so I will go check it out. Plus a nice used copy is very affordable on Amazon.

[Pamela]

(09-17-2015 07:32 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  For what it's worth, here is some of what Augustus Howell had to say about Weichmann in an affidavit made some time after Mary's hanging. The affidavit is unsworn and undated and is in the John T. Ford papers at the Maryland Historical Society. (I'm working from a typewritten transcript someone made of the handwritten original, so there may be errors.)

"The whole groundwork of my torture proceeded from the Statement made and sworn to before the military commission by Louis J. Weichmann, the principal witness for the prosecution in the conspiracy case, who obtained his largest reward by implicating as many persons as possible whether innocent or guilty in the conspiracy plot--no doubt with the understanding that in consideration for his services he should accomplish his own safety. . . .

"Weichmann states he never gave any information from his books--that also is false, he gave me information and said it came from his books in his office, not only that--he obtained his office in the war department with the express understanding with Surratt that he Weichmann was to furnish Surratt with all information that came under his notice from time to time to be transmitted south--and he did furnish it. . .

"the military commission would have the world believe that he Weichmann was a detective put at Mrs. Surratts for the purpose of seeing what was going on at her house--it turned out very disastrous to Mr. Lincoln much better had they put someone else that they could trust. he Weichmann very apt in detecting other persons' business there while visiting Mrs. Surratt's--yet he was unable to detect anything relative to the Surratt & Booth oil & cotton speculation. He was the constant associate of all those parties . . .

the whole truth of the matter is this--that Weichmann had a large amount invested in this oil and cotton speculation and if Richmond had not fallen and their business prospered and the plot been a success Weichmann would have been walking the streets in Richmond hand and glove with Booth to be lionized by those who favoured the plot . . ."

He goes on in this vein at length and concludes by saying that Weichmann should be tried by a criminal court. Whether he was telling the truth about all or some of these things I don't know, but it's clear that he despised Weichmann and blamed him for the death of Mary Surratt.

Did you happen to notice this notation at the end of Howell's testimony in Pitman's summation of the trial?

"We can not present the contradictions and prevarications of this witness without occupying many pages. In each case we give his last statements, many of them flatly contradicting those made a few moments before."

(09-17-2015 07:34 AM)Wild Bill Wrote:  No problem, Pamela. You narrow interest is so typical of many members of this forum--to everyone's detriment.

I am in awe of your ego.

[L Verge]

I believe that Rick Smith (the only one to have done any research on Howell) addressed Gus's "prevarications" - otherwise known as "road blocks" - to the court in a previous posting. His having fun with his interrogators is about the only entertaining part of the whole transcript. Part of the secret to being a successful underground runner and Union irritator during the war? Don't dismiss those agents' qualities too quickly. Again, further reading gives everyone a broader base on which to form opinions.

P.S. If I were Benn Pitman, trying to take down verbatim statements each day (with help from about five aides) in shorthand, I would have been pulling my hair out by the time Gus Howell left the witness stand.

[Pamela]

Gus's fun added a few more nails to Mary's coffin. In the history of bad ideas, putting him on the witness stand in defense of Mary was right up there near the top.

[L Verge]

(09-17-2015 04:04 PM)Pamela Wrote:  Gus's fun added a few more nails to Mary's coffin. In the history of bad ideas, putting him on the witness stand in defense of Mary was right up there near the top.

Not when you are trying to shoot holes in Weichmann's testimony and cast suspicions on Louis's loyalty and "innocence."

---

Quote from Pamela in reference to Wild Bill: "I am in awe of your ego."

Oh, Pamela, if you only knew Bill better, you would be more in awe of his intelligence.