(07-09-2015 02:13 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  Some of the sisters' stories (including one about a "lady" in man's boots) are mentioned in "Myths after Lincoln" (see the link below, pp. 225-26). I find the one about Anna Surratt luring Weichmann to an address in Philadelphia to translate a letter for her to be a little far-fetched.

In her biography of Holt and in her book "Lincoln's Avengers," Elizabeth Leonard mentions Weichmann's letters to Holt, beginning in October 1865, asking for a government job as recompense for the trouble his testimony had brought on him. Leonard writes that Weichmann complained of being shunned by the Catholic Church, but doesn't quote him as complaining to Holt about attempts on his life. That seems to contradict the sisters' claim (p. 226) that Stanton obtained the government job for Weichmann (which he got in December 1865) in order to protect Weichmann better.

https://archive.org/stream/mythsafterlin...1/mode/2up

In Lincoln's Assassins: A Complete Account of Their Capture, Trial, and Punishment author Roy Chamlee mentions that the sisters themselves were also harassed. Chamlee writes, "On one occasion a lady frightened the girls, accusing them of belonging to a family responsible for hanging a woman." I wonder if the sisters' experiences led them to possibly embellish the stories of the dangerous incidents involving their brother. I don't know this for a fact - admittedly just speculating.

(07-09-2015 02:13 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  Some of the sisters' stories (including one about a "lady" in man's boots) are mentioned in "Myths after Lincoln" (see the link below, pp. 225-26). I find the one about Anna Surratt luring Weichmann to an address in Philadelphia to translate a letter for her to be a little far-fetched.

In her biography of Holt and in her book "Lincoln's Avengers," Elizabeth Leonard mentions Weichmann's letters to Holt, beginning in October 1865, asking for a government job as recompense for the trouble his testimony had brought on him. Leonard writes that Weichmann complained of being shunned by the Catholic Church, but doesn't quote him as complaining to Holt about attempts on his life. That seems to contradict the sisters' claim (p. 226) that Stanton obtained the government job for Weichmann (which he got in December 1865) in order to protect Weichmann better.

https://archive.org/stream/mythsafterlin...1/mode/2up

In my opinion, Anna Surratt was much too fragile after the execution of her mother to make any plans against Weichmann. From what I know, his harrassments started coming almost immediately after the execution - when brother John was still in hiding.

No one has mentioned that brother Isaac might bear a grudge against Weichmann also. He had spent four years serving the Confederate cause and did not learn of his mother's death until September. Then he got arrested in Baltimore on his way home from war. That would irritate me!

It appears to me that we should be looking at other leads as to who was trying to get even with Louie. There were certainly an abundance of "secessionists," Confederate veterans, Copperhead supporters, and just plain people who thought he had shown poor regard for a "woman who had treated him like a son." Include a few who might have mental issues, and we can take some of the heat off of John Surratt.

I also want to know more about John Brophy. He was friends with both John and Louis - but it appears to me more friendly with the latter since they had both taught together in D.C. before Weichmann obtained employment (conveniently at the War Department).

People have also claimed that Anna stayed with Mr. & Mr. Brophy after the execution. Anna told a congressional hearing regarding Johnson's impeachment that the Holohans returned to the boardinghouse, helped her clean it, and that they all stayed there until the fall. There is a receipt somewhere from a merchant showing Anna having bought food for the H Street house as late as October of 1865.

The house was auctioned off in June of 1866 because of mounting debts. It was just about that time in 1866 that John Brophy was married - a slight little detail that would indicate that Anna did not live with any Brophy before that unless John had parents that are never mentioned.

We know from descendants that she spent time here in Maryland with her grandmother and uncle and also lived for awhile with school friends. I remember a reference somewhere to her being a sort of governess to someone's children for awhile before her marriage in 1869.

More needs to be revealed...

I think that we should re-examine the motives of Holt!

As far as I can tell, much of what Weichmann testified to was corroborated by other witness testimony, and it was Lloyd's testimony that sealed her fate. Should Weichmann have lied and withheld information needed to obtain justice for Lincoln because Mary gave him soup when he had a fever? She was loved by her daughter, clearly, and Weichmann gave her the strongest character testimony of the trial. That is undisputed. But she and John put him in a very dangerous position, and John intentionally tried to compromise him as a potential witness, and collaborated with Booth when he did so. I doubt Lou's parents thought Mary treated him like a son. Who came up with that, anyway--her lawyers? It was Weichmann who treated her as a mother, certainly more so that her own sons, who both abandoned her for their own glory. Louis escorted her to church, ran every errand she asked of him, helped her with any letter writing or contracts that asked him to, and was a respectful, mannerly boarder in her home. He worked for the war department. What proof is there that he spied for the confederacy?

From the trial: WITNESS( Louis). I had been a companion of John H. Surratt’s for seven years. I did not consider that I forfeited my friendship to him in mentioning my suspicions to Mr. Gleason; he forfeited his friendship to me by placing me in the position in which I now stand, testifying against him. I think I was more of a friend to him than he was to me. He knew that I permitted a blockade-runner at the house, without informing upon him, because I was his friend. But I hesitated about it for three days; still, when my suspicions of danger to the Government were aroused, I preferred the Government to John Surratt.

"Mrs. Surratt's daughter, Anna, testified that her mother treated him [Weichmann] like a son, a story corroborated by John T. Ford, the owner of Ford's Theatre, who heard it from Weichmann himself while they were being detained as witnesses during the trial."

Excerpted from an article by Lincoln authority and assassination scholar, Richard Sloan, entitled Revisiting the Case of Mary Surratt Through Her "Son" - Louis Weichmann. The article appeared in the Spring 2012 issue of the Lincoln Forum Bulletin, a publication of the nationally recognized Lincoln Forum.

Through the efforts of James O. Hall, renowned assassination scholar, and Minnesota collector extraordinaire Floyd Risvold, the manuscript that Weichmann wrote (and which never saw the light of day or presentation to a publisher during his lifetime) was purchased from a Weichmann family member and was published by Alfred Knopf and Sons in 1975. Mr. Sloan was then the editor of a wonderful, homegrown newsletter entitled The Lincoln Log, and he brought the book to the attention of many a student in the field. Those memoirs were eventually considered to be nothing more than a "self-serving vindication, full of cleverly twisted statements, inconsistencies, contradictions, tampering with dates, and perhaps even a few fabrications."

BTW: I happen to be one of those who feels that Mrs. Surratt was aware of what was going on - at least up to the point of learning about the assassination. I have a hard time jumping to that conclusion, but I can see how the military tribunal might find her guilty under the laws of conspiracy (and war). Therefore, when I express my concerns about Louis stretching the truth a bit, I do it to reflect on his actions -- not in an attempt to portray Mary Surratt as an innocent victim.

Well, I'm certainly not a scholar with any credentials whatsoever, but that assessment of the value of Weichmann's book is unfortunate. His book, I have noticed, is widely referenced by historians, as I'm sure you've noticed. Here's what Dr. Porter, as you know, the conspirators' doctor) wrote in a letter to Louis, in response to reviewing part of his manuscript, dated August 30, 1900, "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. The incident of the cavalry men on the road over the eastern Branch carried one back to the time where we originated Camp Stoneman with the regular Cavalry Brigade waiting there for recounts. I congratulate you upon the method, manner and style of the manuscript and the many men and important incidents described. Thanks for your courtesy, Your obd. sev., Geo. L. Porter. He added, "Please acknowledge the receipt of your manuscript and relieve me of my anxiety lest anything unfortunate might befall it."

Risvold had great respect and admiration for Weichmann, and concluded this in his introduction, "his (Risvold's) greatest debt, however, and a debt now shared by students of the assassination, is to Louis J. Weichmann, who in sorrow and agony of mind, wrote his narrative for posterity."

I was pleasantly surprised to find this handwritten note inside my book, " For Bill Bierbaum, May your time be well spent in reading this historical narrative, for you will be walking in the footsteps of Louis Weichmann through the pages of history, Floyd E. Risvold Feb 9, 1976

Personally, I think both Weichmann and Mary knew more than what they let on (although I don't believe either had knowledge of the assassination). I prefer not to view either in black-and-white terms.

(07-10-2015 10:46 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  Personally, I think both Weichmann and Mary knew more than what they let on (although I don't believe either had knowledge of the assassination). I prefer not to view either in black-and-white terms.

Hi Susan. I sure agree that both knew more than they let on. I also agree Weichmann was in the dark regarding the assassination plan. However, IMO, it's possible, if not likely, that Mary knew the plan had changed to assassination. (I should add that I did not feel this way prior to reading Kate Larson's book which changed my opinion on Mary's possible knowledge).

(07-10-2015 09:37 PM)Pamela Wrote:  Risvold had great respect and admiration for Weichmann, and concluded this in his introduction, "his (Risvold's) greatest debt, however, and a debt now shared by students of the assassination, is to Louis J. Weichmann, who in sorrow and agony of mind, wrote his narrative for posterity."

Hi Pam. I have wanted to respect and admire Weichmann like Floyd Risvold did, but I always find a few stumbling blocks. I have mentioned this before, but I cannot explain it if (1) Surratt was telling and the truth and (2) Weichmann was truly the ever-loyal Union man he claimed he was.

Did Surratt lie in his lecture?

"I proclaim it here and before the world that Louis J. Weichmann was a party to the plan to abduct President Lincoln. He had been told all about it, and was constantly importuning me to let him become an active member. I refused, for the simple reason that I told him that he could neither ride a horse nor shoot a pistol, which was a fact. These were two necessary accomplishments for us."

I am also curious if anyone might have an opinion on another thing. If Weichmann's sisters were telling the truth about bullets being fired at Louis, why did he not put this in his book? He talks a lot about himself in the book including the fact that he met President Lincoln. But no mention of shots being fired at him.

i think Surratt lied in the lecture. How could Weichmann be a party to the plot when Surrrattt admits HE wouldn't allow him to participate becauseh Weichmann couldn't ride or shot? Did any of the other conspirators make similiar claims about Weichmann's involvement?

Both[Mary Surratt and Weichmann] knew how to cover thier own butts!They were slick about how much information to give the govt.

I agree with Susan and Herb that both Mrs. Surratt and Louis Weichmann knew more than they ever let on. If Surratt lied, why didn't Weichmann sue him for slander and/or libel? And why didn't Weichmann go to a higher authority than fellow worker Gleason to report his suspicions? Anything involving a likely threat against a president warrants that. Is his failure to do either of those things just another example of weakness of character?

And, if Weichmann even overheard conversation pertaining to such a plot, he became a party to the plot. Officials today would tell him, "If you see [or hear] something, say something!" That's the moral of the Lincoln assassination story that we hope our school students take away with them after visiting Surratt House or hearing one of our staff members during an in-school program. We're fighting equally vicious gangs today, and our children are exposed to them more times than we would like to think. It's historical situations such as this that help them to understand the implications of getting in with the "wrong crowd." Instead of arguing over who lied 150 years ago, we should be considering how to turn historical fact into future improvement.

Regarding why Louis didn't mention the incidents described by his sisters, and I agree with Roger that there might have been embellishment or a little evolution of memories over the years but that they occurred; he might have been worried about the repercussions of giving details of attempts on his life. He may have thought he would live to a ripe old age and didn't want to inspire any more crazies to come after him. Maybe he didn't publish his book for the same reason. After all, the Klan is still around 150 years later. At that point in his life perhaps he knew he couldn't handle the stress of the publicity his book might have brought. He had a spell of "nervous prostration" and had to close his school for six months as a result.

I like the fact that ultimately, he didn't publish, put his faith in "truth loving people", his manuscript survived decades of changing family hands and finally made it's way to very capable, dedicated and appreciative collector of history.

BTW, he stated clearly in his book, I'll try to find the passage, that despite the suspicious activities, enigmatic statements, false mustaches, etc, he never imagined that his friend John could be involved in a plot to kidnap/kill the President and other heads of government, and believed that no one in his position would have reached that conclusion either. Hindsight 150 years later is 20/20.

At one point, he agonized for three days whether to report Augustus Howell to authorities, but decided, out of friendship with John, not to.

Thanks for the fact that you agreed with my opinion Laurie! I feel that is a major milestone in history!

(07-11-2015 05:21 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 10:46 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  Personally, I think both Weichmann and Mary knew more than what they let on (although I don't believe either had knowledge of the assassination). I prefer not to view either in black-and-white terms.

Hi Susan. I sure agree that both knew more than they let on. I also agree Weichmann was in the dark regarding the assassination plan. However, IMO, it's possible, if not likely, that Mary knew the plan had changed to assassination. (I should add that I did not feel this way prior to reading Kate Larson's book which changed my opinion on Mary's possible knowledge).

(07-10-2015 09:37 PM)Pamela Wrote:  Risvold had great respect and admiration for Weichmann, and concluded this in his introduction, "his (Risvold's) greatest debt, however, and a debt now shared by students of the assassination, is to Louis J. Weichmann, who in sorrow and agony of mind, wrote his narrative for posterity."

Hi Pam. I have wanted to respect and admire Weichmann like Floyd Risvold did, but I always find a few stumbling blocks. I have mentioned this before, but I cannot explain it if (1) Surratt was telling and the truth and (2) Weichmann was truly the ever-loyal Union man he claimed he was.

Did Surratt lie in his lecture?

"I proclaim it here and before the world that Louis J. Weichmann was a party to the plan to abduct President Lincoln. He had been told all about it, and was constantly importuning me to let him become an active member. I refused, for the simple reason that I told him that he could neither ride a horse nor shoot a pistol, which was a fact. These were two necessary accomplishments for us."

I am also curious if anyone might have an opinion on another thing. If Weichmann's sisters were telling the truth about bullets being fired at Louis, why did he not put this in his book? He talks a lot about himself in the book including the fact that he met President Lincoln. But no mention of shots being fired at him.

Roger, Regarding the quote from John's lecture you referenced, I believe John did quite a lot of lying, and what's interesting about that statement is how artfully he mixed a truth with lies. The truthful part he himself identified as a fact, which was the hint that the rest was not factual. Louis Weichmann wasn't a horseman and wasn't taught to handle a gun--as John said--a fact. By saying that, Surratt was able to boast of his own skills which were lacking in Weichmann. What a manly guy! Mary Surratt was a conspirator and I'm not aware of her having had shooting or riding skills. Don't you think Weichmann could have managed to drive to Surrattsville and instruct Lloyd to have the "shooting irons" and whiskey ready without Mary? In fact, had he done so, Mary might not have hanged. Had John taken advantage of Weichmann's "constantly importuning" (I love that phrase!) John and Booth could have protected Mary from her horrible fate.

So John's statement was catchy and jaunty, but devoid of logic.

In his book, Louis describes the various lies that Mary and John told Louis, to keep his suspicions at bay, but after the failed kidnapping, and consulting with Gleason, he felt it was his duty to the union to stay on at the house and be ready to go to authorities if anything else developed. His deep regret was not going to Stanton with the information he discussed with Gleason.

One thing that makes me believe that Weichmann knew more that he lets on in his book (albeit not necessarily about the kidnapping and assassination) is his recollection that when Surratt returned to the boardinghouse on the day that Richmond fell, he told Weichmann that he had seen Judah Benjamin and Jefferson Davis in Richmond and that they had told him it wouldn't be evacuated.

Surely if Weichmann had been unaware of his friend's activities as a courier at this point, he would have been quire surprised to hear that he was hobnobbing with the leaders of the Confederate government. But he expresses none whatsoever.