(06-22-2015 04:45 PM)Pamela Wrote:  Wild Bill, I just want to counter your statement about Weichmann being yellow. Not one of the convicted conspirators said Weichmann was a conspirator, not even on the eve of their execution, or for those whose penalty was prison, none of them said Weichmann was in on the crime, until the day they died. Atzerodt gave multiple confessions and named everyone he could think of, but not Weichmann. If anyone would have known he was involved at least one of them would.

Didn't Gus Powell make reference to Louis knowing what was going on? Also, the government had what they needed in Weichmann, a squealer on the inside. Don't bite the hand that is feeding you valuable information. This is strictly my opinion, but I think that Weichmann had peripheral knowledge that something was going on, and I also suspect that he did report his suspicions to his higher-ups, who chose not to do anything except wait and see. As far as his claims after the assassination, I think Weichmann did what many of us would do. He saved his own skin. Self-preservation is, I believe, still the first law of nature.

Laurie, who is Gus Powell? My point is that no convicted conspirator named Weichmann and who would know better than they or have more motivation since his testimony helped convict them. You called Weichmann a squealer. Would you think better of Weichmann if he lied to authorities seeking justice for Lincoln and Seward and others who were attacked? We know now that Mary, John and Booth tried to compromise him. Mary stole the Father Menu letter and gave it to Booth. Booth sent a telegram to Weichmann intended for John. John took Weichmann with him to the Herndon house when he confirmed arrangements for Powell. John, Mudd and Booth tried to compromise Weichmann with their December or January meeting. What would you have Weichmann do?

(06-22-2015 06:21 PM)Pamela Wrote:  Laurie, who is Gus Powell? My point is that no convicted conspirator named Weichmann and who would know better than they or have more motivation since his testimony helped convict them. You called Weichmann a squealer. Would you think better of Weichmann if he lied to authorities seeking justice for Lincoln and Seward and others who were attacked? We know now that Mary, John and Booth tried to compromise him. Mary stole the Father Menu letter and gave it to Booth. Booth sent a telegram to Weichmann intended for John. John took Weichmann with him to the Herndon house when he confirmed arrangements for Powell. John, Mudd and Booth tried to compromise Weichmann with their December or January meeting. What would you have Weichmann do?

Pamela - My apologies because I just realized my typo. My post should read Gus Howell, not Powell. Do read up on Gus Howell. He was one of the underground couriers (and/or escorts) that we don't know a lot about because he was a tad more careful perhaps than the others. He ended up being arrested at the Surrattsville tavern shortly before the assassination.

That arrest may have been one of the reasons for Mrs. Surratt's April 11 visit to her country home. Howell had been active in the same line as young John. His testimony at the trial is one of the best examples of how to dance around the questions thrown at you that you will ever read.

And, I did understand your point; I just see other sides to it. As for the last 3-4 assertions that you make here, I can only say that I consider them conjecture. I can't prove that you are right, but in my estimation, you can't prove you are right either. And, I thought I made it clear that I think Weichmann did what others - including myself in 1865 -- would have done. He saved his own skin.

(06-22-2015 04:42 PM)L Verge Wrote:  What's the song from the 60s about "seeing things from both sides now?" (Gene, that's your specialty).

Here you go Laurie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7Xm30heHms

Thanks, Gene. I knew I could depend on you to complete my thoughts with the song.

If you listen to those words carefully, I think they may reflect the same feelings that many of us continue to have about the American Civil War. No matter how many sides you read about and think you understand, 99% of us will never realize what truly happened in the minds of our ancestors from say 1830 on because we did not walk that long, bloody road in their shoes. We are doomed (on both sides) to ignore logic in favor of emotions.

---

BTW, Gene: Remember that old TV show of the 50s (if you are old enough), Name That Tune? You would be great at it.

Laurie, do you have an explanation for how Father Menus (I can't find apostrophies on my Droid tablet!) letter came into Booth's possession? John was in Richmond so who else in the house would have taken it? Weichmann didn't give to Booth. Soon after the failed kidnapping or whatever it was, Booth telegraphed Weichmann with a message for John. Weichmann had just witnessed very suspicious and disturbing events, wrote to Father Menu and confided in Gleason. Why else would Booth telegraph Weichmann? Why did John take Weichmann to the Herndon house?

Herb, Wild Bill, Pamela, Laurie, Gene, et al.:

A few brief comments.

Herb, thank you; we are always on the same page.

Gene, Jack Cade was the name of a play that ostensibly provided an opportunity for Booth's team to abduct Lincoln. Campbell Hospital allegedly provided another opportunity. Both came to nothing. McMillan's testimony was never impeached. Circumstantial evidence corroborates some of it. His reliability as a witness is a subjective judgment.

Bill, inasmuch as we come to the same conclusions as to decapitation by multiple assassinations, I will pass over everything relating to that conclusion. I will say, however, that the right of secession was not the cause of the war. I can agree in the abstract that a state has a right to secede (I once prepared a list of 15 arguments supporting the right of secession), but for what purpose? The purpose trumps the right. In this case, the purpose was to preserve the institution of slavery, which had political, social, economic and cultural dimensions, but which was nevetheless the root cause of the war. If the seceding states had had a noble purpose, other nations, indeed the entire world, would have rallied to their side and they would then have been all but unassailable. But what in fact happened? Not one country in the world formally recognized the Confederacy! Not one. To defend the Southern cause, then, is not to defend the right of secession, but to defend slavery. You may be comfortable with that position, but I am not. BTW: You previously argued that Surratt was in Washington on the 14th. Have you changed your mind? Arnold a coward? He simply recognized that Booth's "kidnapping" idea was a ruse and wanted a chance for his life. Weichmann another coward? Then Lloyd too. So now we have two men willing to sell their souls to the Devil and send an innocent woman to the gallows. Not likely. All vile in war? Not really. There were noble warriors on both sides, e.g. John Brown Gordon and Oliver Otis Howard.

Pamela, thanks for your valuable input.

Laurie, there is nothing self-serving in McMillan's testimony, nor is there anything in it suggesting that the POW's were a threat to Surratt's party, nor is there any reason for Surratt to have told McMillan about the incident other than its being true. Killing emaciated POW's in cold blood cannot be justified. Period. Sheridan's and Hunter's deeds in the Valley were appalling. I wrote about the same at great length, but publishers made me take it all out in the interest of brevity. Sherman's burning of Atlanta, his March to the Sea and his burning of Columbia were also appalling. A hung jury was the reason Surratt went free, coupled with the expiration of a statute of limitations. There is no intentional, knowing falsehood in my book. I will be disappointed if you do not finish it. There are so many unknowns about the story that speculation is unavoidable. I did not use the word "vile" in this thread; I used it only in my book. I do not feel I have a prosecutorial approach; I strive for truth using three tools: evidence (eyewitness, material and circumstantial), reason and an understanding of human nature. Rose Greenhow drowned in 1864 before anyone had a chance to prosecute her, but I do not believe she would have been executed anyway, because she was never tied to an assassination attempt.

Gene, thanks for "understanding" my "medieval" prose.

John

Pam, I can add Mike Kauffman's opinion on the Father Menu letter. I had written Mike about this back in 2006, and Mike replied:

"If Father Menu wrote to Weichmann just after the so-called kidnap attempt, his letter would have arrived about March 20 or 21. John Surratt was out of town at the time, so that means it was most likely Mary Surratt who intercepted the letter and turned it over to Booth (perhaps indirectly through John, later in the week.) In her defense, it could be said that her motive was to warn her son that he ought not to trust his old friend. Either way, it was not just Weichmann who betrayed Mrs. Surratt; that was a two-way street."

SOURCE: Mike Kauffman email, March 8, 2006.

Thanks John, a very well thought out and worded reply.
I did read that McMillan served as a ship's doctor on the ship Surratt sailed on from Canada to England, and Surratt was a talkative young man. Over the course of a few days told the doctor of his activities during the war and his involvement in the assassination.

(06-22-2015 09:43 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  All vile in war? Not really. There were noble warriors on both sides, e.g. John Brown Gordon and Oliver Otis Howard.

I think this is one of the many valid points you make here. While there was certainly harsh and cruel behavior on both sides, the book below has short, one to two page stories (many of them from diaries and letters) about many of the victims and the witnesses of the horrors and cruelties of war. What they endured changed their lives forever, but they tried not to succumb to the evil deeds around them. We overlook and forget about these people and their lives.

I haven't read it through, I had it for about a week and I let someone borrow it who has misplaced it, but I am going to buy another copy.
I found the authors comments a little weak some days, his selection of daily stories was pretty good. It helped me appreciate what I have been given, and put difficult times in perspective.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0899570...o_pC_S_ttl

Thanks Laurie and Wild Bill for your opinion.I tend to think like a teacher of 35yrs,and I too have a law degree,thus,I have to see all of the evidence before I can render an opinion of my own. However,I do jump the gun at times and act before thinking things through!

(06-23-2015 03:56 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Pam, I can add Mike Kauffman's opinion on the Father Menu letter. I had written Mike about this back in 2006, and Mike replied:

"If Father Menu wrote to Weichmann just after the so-called kidnap attempt, his letter would have arrived about March 20 or 21. John Surratt was out of town at the time, so that means it was most likely Mary Surratt who intercepted the letter and turned it over to Booth (perhaps indirectly through John, later in the week.) In her defense, it could be said that her motive was to warn her son that he ought not to trust his old friend. Either way, it was not just Weichmann who betrayed Mrs. Surratt; that was a two-way street."

SOURCE: Mike Kauffman email, March 8, 2006.

I am so glad that you saved that email, Roger. I knew that years ago, several of us discussed the Menu letter (I think Mr. Hall was still alive and in on the discussion) in a chat that we used to have sometimes after events and Booth Tours. I could only remember that the consensus of opinion was that Mrs. Surratt was the one who told Booth about it.

I have very mixed emotions about Louis Weichmann. I will also admit that my judgment of him is based more on feelings than facts. However, I see him as an unstable personality who wanted desperately to fit in (sort of like the child that never got picked for the softball game at recess). As for him turning state's evidence against Mary Surratt, I understand from the standpoint of self-preservation as well as doing his duty as a good citizen.

The other side of me thinks that he would have to live with his conscience for the rest of his life for turning against the woman who supposedly had treated him like a son. During the last six months of the war, especially, he served her more than her son did because of John's increased responsibilities with the Secret Line.

(06-23-2015 03:56 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Pam, I can add Mike Kauffman's opinion on the Father Menu letter. I had written Mike about this back in 2006, and Mike replied:

"If Father Menu wrote to Weichmann just after the so-called kidnap attempt, his letter would have arrived about March 20 or 21. John Surratt was out of town at the time, so that means it was most likely Mary Surratt who intercepted the letter and turned it over to Booth (perhaps indirectly through John, later in the week.) In her defense, it could be said that her motive was to warn her son that he ought not to trust his old friend. Either way, it was not just Weichmann who betrayed Mrs. Surratt; that was a two-way street."

SOURCE: Mike Kauffman email, March 8, 2006.

According to Weichmann's testimony at John Surratt's trial, John was still in town on Monday, March 20, when he picked up a letter from "Wood" at the post office and showed it to Weichmann. Weichmann says that he met John when Weichmann was coming home, so this must have been in the late afternoon when Weichmann was leaving his office. Perhaps John picked up the Menu letter at the post office as well and gave it to Booth.

Did John Surratt actually leave town at all? He was in Washington on March 23 according to Weichmann's testimony.

(06-23-2015 03:56 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Pam, I can add Mike Kauffman's opinion on the Father Menu letter. I had written Mike about this back in 2006, and Mike replied:

"If Father Menu wrote to Weichmann just after the so-called kidnap attempt, his letter would have arrived about March 20 or 21. John Surratt was out of town at the time, so that means it was most likely Mary Surratt who intercepted the letter and turned it over to Booth (perhaps indirectly through John, later in the week.) In her defense, it could be said that her motive was to warn her son that he ought not to trust his old friend. Either way, it was not just Weichmann who betrayed Mrs. Surratt; that was a two-way street."

SOURCE: Mike Kauffman email, March 8, 2006.

Thanks for digging out that bit of correspondence! Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how there was a 2 way street with Weichmann as a betrayer. Also, Kauffman left out the word "stole" because that's what Mary's "interception" of the letter was, and from one priest to an aspiring priest! From the beginning the Surratts worked at deceiving Weichmann while using him to further the conspiracy. Mary didn't need to warn her son not to trust Weichmann. He was never trusted with the truth of their activities because they knew he supported the Union. At one point Anna Surratt even slapped Weichmann over a political debate, according to a statement made by one of the clerks Weichmann worked with. Mary may have thought as a woman she wouldn't hang, and John always knew he would escape, but they were OK with compromising Weichmann, to outward appearances, and letting him be a sitting duck. In the trial Weichmann said that John forfeited their friendship by putting him in the position he was in, and when it came to a choice between John Surratt and the Government he chose the Government.

And Laurie, as for calling Weichmann a "squealer", the Free Dictionary has this definition: "Slang To turn informer; betray an accomplice or secret." How can you betray an accomplice or secret that you were never knowingly a part of?

---

(06-23-2015 07:29 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 03:56 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Pam, I can add Mike Kauffman's opinion on the Father Menu letter. I had written Mike about this back in 2006, and Mike replied:

"If Father Menu wrote to Weichmann just after the so-called kidnap attempt, his letter would have arrived about March 20 or 21. John Surratt was out of town at the time, so that means it was most likely Mary Surratt who intercepted the letter and turned it over to Booth (perhaps indirectly through John, later in the week.) In her defense, it could be said that her motive was to warn her son that he ought not to trust his old friend. Either way, it was not just Weichmann who betrayed Mrs. Surratt; that was a two-way street."

SOURCE: Mike Kauffman email, March 8, 2006.

According to Weichmann's testimony at John Surratt's trial, John was still in town on Monday, March 20, when he picked up a letter from "Wood" at the post office and showed it to Weichmann. Weichmann says that he met John when Weichmann was coming home, so this must have been in the late afternoon when Weichmann was leaving his office. Perhaps John picked up the Menu letter at the post office as well and gave it to Booth.

Did John Surratt actually leave town at all? He was in Washington on March 23 according to Weichmann's testimony.

Susan, the Menu letter was dated March 29, I believe.

(06-23-2015 07:29 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  Did John Surratt actually leave town at all?

The "Watson letter" arrived March 19th asking John Surratt to come to New York on important business. Did he not go?

(06-23-2015 07:30 AM)Pamela Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 03:56 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Pam, I can add Mike Kauffman's opinion on the Father Menu letter. I had written Mike about this back in 2006, and Mike replied:

"If Father Menu wrote to Weichmann just after the so-called kidnap attempt, his letter would have arrived about March 20 or 21. John Surratt was out of town at the time, so that means it was most likely Mary Surratt who intercepted the letter and turned it over to Booth (perhaps indirectly through John, later in the week.) In her defense, it could be said that her motive was to warn her son that he ought not to trust his old friend. Either way, it was not just Weichmann who betrayed Mrs. Surratt; that was a two-way street."

SOURCE: Mike Kauffman email, March 8, 2006.

Thanks for digging out that bit of correspondence! Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how there was a 2 way street with Weichmann as a betrayer. Also, Kauffman left out the word "stole" because that's what Mary's "interception" of the letter was, and from one priest to an aspiring priest! From the beginning the Surratts worked at deceiving Weichmann while using him to further the conspiracy. Mary didn't need to warn her son not to trust Weichmann. He was never trusted with the truth of their activities because they knew he supported the Union. At one point Anna Surratt even slapped Weichmann over a political debate, according to a statement made by one of the clerks Weichmann worked with. Mary may have thought as a woman she wouldn't hang, and John always knew he would escape, but they were OK with compromising Weichmann, to outward appearances, and letting him be a sitting duck. In the trial Weichmann said that John forfeited their friendship by putting him in the position he was in, and when it came to a choice between John Surratt and the Government he chose the Government.

And Laurie, as for calling Weichmann a "squealer", the Free Dictionary has this definition: "Slang To turn informer; betray an accomplice or secret." How can you betray an accomplice or secret that you were never knowingly a part of?

---

(06-23-2015 07:29 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 03:56 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Pam, I can add Mike Kauffman's opinion on the Father Menu letter. I had written Mike about this back in 2006, and Mike replied:

"If Father Menu wrote to Weichmann just after the so-called kidnap attempt, his letter would have arrived about March 20 or 21. John Surratt was out of town at the time, so that means it was most likely Mary Surratt who intercepted the letter and turned it over to Booth (perhaps indirectly through John, later in the week.) In her defense, it could be said that her motive was to warn her son that he ought not to trust his old friend. Either way, it was not just Weichmann who betrayed Mrs. Surratt; that was a two-way street."

SOURCE: Mike Kauffman email, March 8, 2006.

According to Weichmann's testimony at John Surratt's trial, John was still in town on Monday, March 20, when he picked up a letter from "Wood" at the post office and showed it to Weichmann. Weichmann says that he met John when Weichmann was coming home, so this must have been in the late afternoon when Weichmann was leaving his office. Perhaps John picked up the Menu letter at the post office as well and gave it to Booth.

Did John Surratt actually leave town at all? He was in Washington on March 23 according to Weichmann's testimony.

Susan, the Menu letter was dated March 29, I believe.

The Menu letter is dated March 19.

Surratt could have left town in the evening of March 20 and returned by March 23, although Weichmann in his trial testimony doesn't recall him leaving town.