(07-17-2015 06:50 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Pardon me for saying this, but you are really hooked on Weichmann! Are you planning a biography on him?

I am not anti-Weichmann (and I doubt that few of his detractors are). I said from the beginning that I think he practiced the first law of nature - self-preservation. I doubt that Weichmann ever thought that his testimony would actually set a precedence for the government to hang a woman. In that, he and John Surratt were alike - they both got outfoxed by the U.S. government.

Likewise, I am not pro-Surratt. I think that Surratt dropped out of Booth's plans, was sent north on Confederate business, and then listened to advice to stay in hiding because his mother was being used as a decoy to get to him. I think Stanton and Holt would have hanged both of them if he returned.

We will never know for certain how much of Louis's complaints was based on true events or a bad case of nerves after 1867. However, he did seem to do well for himself afterwards - first with the support of Stanton and Holt and then with establishing his own business.

A School which continues to this day, and an excellent book to his credit. And by the way, it was Lloyd's testimony, not Weichmann's, that put the nail in her coffin, or pine box, and it was Weichmann who gave the strongest testimony as to the good qualities of her character. And much, if not most of his testimony was backed up by other witnesses or by facts and circumstances. I don't agree that Mary was simply used as a decoy by the government to get to John--I think she was guilty.

I'm pretty sure that a "detractor" by definition is "anti". You do seem pro-Surratt to me, which is fine.

If I could write, I would. Seriously, though, self preservation makes you think of Weichmann before Surratt? And when John piously proclaimed in the Hanson Hiss interview, after making a complete denial of any involvement in any Lincoln conspiracy (although in his previous lectures he proudly admitted to attempted kidnapping), "The South lost it's best friend when it lost Lincoln. He understood it's conditions and the character of it's people as no man did before or since."-- no conscience, no remorse. Surratt was the very man who facilitated the crime, brought Powell, Atzerodt, Herold and his own mother into it, and abandoned them all to their fate.

Weichmann was never out-foxed by the government--Mary was, sadly. Weichmann did his duty. Here's a description of Weichmann from a very accomplished man who actually met him, and whose work all assassination students and historians benefit from:

"A dramatic incident connected with this memorable trial in which phonography figured as a prime element, has never yet been told. Among the seizures of property that had been made at the house of Mrs. Surratt was a carpet sack belonging to one of her boarders, who was a friend and had been a fellow student with John Surratt. The conduct and character of the young gentleman who owned the sack were subjected to a most careful investigation, as were all those who resided in the house. With other like matters the carpet sack came to me for safekeeping, examination, and report. In this sack, to my surprise, I found copies of my manual and Reporter's Companion, together with a quantity of phonographic exercises. I particularly noticed that the exercises were carefully written and were dated continuously up to the time of the great tragedy. These were significant facts in favor of the young man. I could not believe that a student who had recently left college and who was pursuing a study like phonography, could in any way be cognizant of a conspiracy so dangerous.

I soon had the opportunity of making the acquaintance of the gentleman and found him to be a young man of prepossessing appearance, with clear and placid eye, and a countenance indicative of intelligence, modesty, and conscientiousness. I communicated the fact to the judge advocates and laid stress upon the fact that the study of phonography without a teacher, save the books, required considerable application and necessarily demanded the time, interest and energy of the student, and that such a one would be a very unlikely person to have anything to do with such a conspiracy. My suggestions received a most careful consideration. The gentleman appeared as a witness in the case, was on the stand and passed through a most trying ordeal unscathed." Benn Pittman, August 13, 1893.

(07-17-2015 10:38 AM)Rosieo Wrote:  

(07-17-2015 08:53 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 12:37 PM)Rosieo Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 12:31 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  In her memoirs Julia Grant wrote:

"At about midday, a rap at my door was followed, in answer to my "come in," by the entrance of a man dressed in light-colored corduroy coat and trousers and with rather a shabby hat of the same color. I remarked his dress; as he came in, I started up and said: "I thought it was the bellboy with cards. What do you want?" He reddened and, bowing, said: "This is Mrs. Grant?" I bowed assent. "Mrs. Lincoln sends me, Madam, with her compliments, to say she will call for you at exactly eight o'clock to go to the theater." To this, I replied with some feeling (not liking either the looks of the messenger or the message, thinking the former savored of discourtesy and the latter seemed like a command), "You may return with my compliments to Mrs. Lincoln and say I regret that as General Grant and I intend leaving the city this afternoon, we will not, therefore, be here to accompany the President and Mrs. Lincoln to the theater." He hesitated a moment, then urged: "Madam, the papers announce that General Grant will be with the President tonight at the theater." I said to this: "You deliver my message to Mrs. Lincoln as I have given it to you. You may go now." He smiled as he turned to leave. I have thought since that this man was one of the band of conspirators in that night's sad tragedy, and that he was not sent by Mrs. Lincoln at all. I am perfectly sure that he, with three others, one of them [John Wilkes] Booth himself, sat opposite me and my party at luncheon that
day."

In his book John Fazio speculates that Mary Lincoln's "messenger" might have been David Herold. If this be true then Booth could have known the Grants were leaving town a lot earlier than most books indicate (although, at that time of day, he would not know where they were going). Still this knowledge would have given Booth more time to arrange a potential Grant assassination. Most books indicate Booth didn't find out the Grants were leaving until late in the afternoon when he saw their carriage go by while talking to John Mathews.

If the man were not David Herold who could it have been? Did Mary Lincoln send a messenger to the Willard Hotel at midday?

Seems to me Mrs. Grant would have been wise to ask Mrs. Lincoln.

Roger and Rosieo:

I believe "speculates" doesn't quite describe my opinion as to the identity of the messenger who called on Julia Grant on the 14th. I am, rather, convinced that it was Herold, largely because Julia was convinced, as evidenced by her two statements that "I am perfectly sure that he, with three others...sat opposite me and my party at luncheon that day" and "I thought I recognized in one of (the four attendees at the luncheon) the messenger of the morning..." Doubtless, Herold told Booth what Julia had said to him. Booth now knew that Grant wasn't going to be at the theater that night, a monkey wrench in his machinery. If Grant was to be killed, therefore, which was without question Booth's intention, he had to know where Grant was going to be that night. Thus the attendance of Booth, Herold and two others (probably Powell and Atzerodt) at Julia's luncheon (after she was watched) and thus Booth's strange behavior there, as described by Julia, namely "(he) played with his soup spoon, sometimes filling it and holding it half-lifted to his mouth, but never tasting it. This occurred many times. He also seemed very intent on what we and the children were saying. I thought he was crazy..." Obviously, Booth was eavesdropping in an attempt to find out where his intended victim was going to be that night. Just as obviously, he was not successful. Thus, when, by pure chance, he saw them in a carriage on the way to the depot (after Mathews drew his attention to them), he galloped past them in an apparent attempt to ascertain that it was in fact they who had been spotted by Mathews and also, perhaps, to ascertain their destination. He may or may not have determined that they were on the way to the depot, but even if he did, that might not be enough to know of Grant's whereabouts that night; he needed to know where they were going and therefore what train they would take. Then he got lucky (again): he rode back to Willard's and inquired of someone there (probably the desk clerk) as to the destination of the Grants and was finally apprised of the same. (See p. 258 of Decapitating the Union and the two citations given.) Now he knew where they were going and therefore what train they would be on. At this point, it was a relatively simple matter to arrange for a co-conspirator to purchase a ticket for the same train, which, I am convinced, he did. Couple all this with the fact that Grant was often mentioned by Confederate operatives in Canada, as well as in letters that came into the possession of the Bureau of Military Justice, as an intended victim, and with the fact of the letter received by Grant shortly after the assassination, written by someone who claimed to have been the would-be assassin, and we have a very strong case for someone being on the train. For me, the contents of the letter excludes John Surratt. It wasn't his style to thank God for failure. There were plenty of others whom Booth was in contact and who could have been assigned for the purpose besides his action team.

John

Wow. Fascinating. I am glad to be on this forum.

One thing... and, is this too picky or are topics here never too picky?

Would Booth play with his soup so obviously? On the one hand, this is a frazzled 26-year old. On the other, he should have known how to pretend-eat soup because he would have pretended to eat on stage.

As for the writer of the note to Grant: Surratt's junior partner?

Rosieo:

When one is eavesdropping, with purpose to pick up valuable information with respect to a plan of such moment as Booth's, one cannot afford to be distracted by something as mundane as eating. The conversation between Julia and her companions had to have a priority over his food. Julia noticed his strange behavior and commented on it. So what? Why should he care; he wasn't going to be in her company for long.

Who is Surratt's junior partner? We know of dozens who were involved in the conspiracy, but who were not prosecuted. There must have been dozens more we don't know about, except by vague reference to "others". Booth had plenty to choose from.

John

---

(07-16-2015 03:36 PM)HerbS Wrote:  I agree with your opinion John!

Herb:

Thanks. Your affirmations are always greatly appreciated and valued.

John

(07-17-2015 07:36 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Can you please tell what/in which letters she wrote about the assassination? Ore someone else? My memory completely seems to fail, I was sure she only made one vague reference in one letter afterwards. Thanks!

Hi Rosemary and welcome to the forum! I have the same question as Eva. My memory is that her letters contain many references to her overwhelming love for her husband, but few (if anything) specific references to the assassination. I can think of her letter to Sally Orne where she says she is sure Andrew Johnson was involved in Booth's plot, but that is all that I can think of right now. Have you read letters of hers that discuss more? Many thanks!

(07-18-2015 01:49 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  Who is Surratt's junior partner?

Like John I am curious about this. Rosemary, did you have a name in mind?

(07-17-2015 08:53 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  I believe "speculates" doesn't quite describe my opinion as to the identity of the messenger who called on Julia Grant on the 14th. I am, rather, convinced that it was Herold, largely because Julia was convinced...

John, please accept my apology. I was applying what was in my mind to yours, and I should not have stated it that way. My excuse, if there be one, is that (unless I missed it in another book) this is the first time I've read that the "messenger" was David Herold. Other books I've read are in line with what Tony Pitch and Michael Burlingame say. In They Have Killed Papa Dead! Tony Pitch refers to the person as "Mrs. Lincoln's Courier." In Abraham Lincoln: A Life Michael Burlingame uses the phrase "the First Lady's Messenger."

The idea that John Wilkes Booth assigned David Herold to go to the Grants' room at the Willard was new to me.

I do not believe I have read in any other book that John Wilkes Booth, David Herold, Lewis Powell, and George Atzerodt had lunch together at the Willard Hotel on the day of the assassination.

So all this was new to me, and the word speculate is what came to my mind. I credit you with making an excellent case based on Julia Grant's word, but I am wondering....if these four men actually ate together at the Willard wouldn't we have more witnesses than Julia? Wouldn't we at least have had a waiter come forward in an interview and say, "Wow, I served lunch to Booth, Seward's attacker, and two other main conspirators on the day of the assassination?"

Grant left Julia at Stanton's reception (night of the 13th) and went to the White House for a Grand Illumination carriage ride with Mary Lincoln. Is it not possible that the two discussed the Ford's outing, and Mary told Grant that she would send a courier the next day with information as to the exact time the Grants would be picked up?

Roger, despite the Johnson mentioning, the only "references" that come to my mind is her writing such as "since that terrible bereavement", but I cannot recall she specified anything further.

Not sure if Mary wrote this, or it was a conversation, but in Ruth Painter Randall's book, "Mary Lincoln Biography of a Marriage",
Mary became attached to her sister's grandson, Edward "Lewis" Baker Jr. She wrote several times to him.

From p393-394 of Randall's book, "She talked much of the past and of her lost sons. She told Lewis what had not been known before, that Lincoln was holding her hand when the fatal shot was fired. When death took two of Lewis's little sisters she wrote tenderly and understandingly of his sorrow: "We are never prepared for these things...God, gives us our beloved ones, we make them our idols, they are removed from us & we have patiently to await the time when He reunites us to them" Then followed perhaps the most poignant sentence in all her expressions of her own grief: "And the waiting, is so long!"

"You do seem pro-Surratt to me, which is fine."

Pamela - you really don't know me. I created a stir forty years ago when I began working at Surratt House and came right out and said that I was raised in a family that knew Mrs. Surratt slightly and thought that she was guilty. I have gone on to give speeches in which I have stated the pros and cons of her actions and concluded that I understand why the government had grounds to try her as a conspirator and even to execute her - based on the time, the circumstances, and the turmoil that the country was in. Do I think she would have received the same treatment today? If we truly had a justice system based on the law (and not on politics), yes I do.

I hope you have read Kate Clifford Larson's book on Assassin's Accomplice. I did not know Kate until after the book was nearly finished. She did use our research library at Surratt House, however, and shortly after the book was published, she commented to me that she almost gave up on the project because she thought she was fighting a tide of Surratt sympathizers. Most authors to that point had either sidestepped the issue of Mrs. Surratt's guilt or innocence, or they had portrayed her as an "innocent victim of hysteria."

Kate happened to read a copy of the speech that I mentioned above and decided to keep on with her project since even the director of the Surratt House Museum (me) had thoughts about Mrs. Surratt's guilt. A good museum and a good teacher/historian (which I hope I am) considers all angles of events. And, I sound like a broken record here, but they have to take into consideration the cultural and social circumstances at the time of that event.

I think that is what is bothering me the most. We fail to understand fully the ramifications of what the American Civil War meant to citizens on both sides. For good or bad, people made judgments and also protected their ways of life.

Would I have testified against Mrs. Surratt if placed in Weichmann's shoes? Probably. Would I have perjured myself if threatened by Stanton, Holt, and the Generals of the court? Maybe. Would I have listened to my friends and stayed in hiding like John did? Probably, especially if I thought my mother innocent of knowingly giving support to Booth. Would I have publicly condemned Weichmann for his actions? Yes. Would I have lived in fear of retribution the rest of my life? If I wanted to remain sane, probably not. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

(07-18-2015 10:56 AM)Rosieo Wrote:  Well, hey.
1.) I wrote: Surratt’s junior partner?” --- a question after reading a post re doubt that Surratt was the author of the note re not killing Grant… and because the note sounds to me like it was written by a young person.
2.) Another question: Mrs. Lincoln wrote about the assassination in letters, right? .... I realize I should not have asked without having cite in hand. Newbie mistake. So sorry. Right now I'm drawing a blank on source but I have some suspects in mind to begin a search for the answer. If you guys haven't heard this then I probably picked up bad info.
My CW studies had been for fun - but now I'm in this game I have to start keeping score.

Rosieo - Please never assume that it is you who picked up bad information. There is always something new being discovered or an old theory being proved (or rejected) each and every day.

Being a newbie, you may not be familiar with the wonderful research done by the late James O. Hall over a period that spanned more than fifty years. Several of us on this forum had the honor of being in the inner circle of researchers that Mr. Hall mentored over the years until his death about ten years ago.

He referred to his "followers" as the Baker Street Irregulars (referencing Sherlock Holmes's sources for information). Our research efforts, combined with his skill as a historian, led to some amazing finds. I like to think that this forum is carrying on that tradition.

(07-18-2015 05:14 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Roger, despite the Johnson mentioning, the only "references" that come to my mind is her writing such as "since that terrible bereavement", but I cannot recall she specified anything further.

I haven't read this, but maybe it will help?

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860...w=fulltext

Rosieo, you can research her letters, i.e. the primary source, here:
http://www.amazon.com/Mary-Todd-Lincoln-...0880640731
...and here:
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860...w=fulltext

---

Thanks, Laurie and Gene, I'll reply more to you later!

(07-18-2015 02:17 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(07-18-2015 05:14 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Roger, despite the Johnson mentioning, the only "references" that come to my mind is her writing such as "since that terrible bereavement", but I cannot recall she specified anything further.

I haven't read this, but maybe it will help?

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860...w=fulltext

I just skimmed it and found virtually nothing that speaks directly to the issue of whether or not Mrs. Lincoln ever wrote specifically of the assassination.

Thanks, Laurie - being on vacation I haven't yet made it to read the article.

Gene, thanks for the reference to E. L.Baker - I'll check her letters to him when upon returning to my Turner copy in a week.

However, that Lincoln was holding her hand when the fatal shot was fired as well as his last words being "She won't think anything about it" etc. which Dr. Henry reported in a letter to his wife on April 19, 1865 all refers to the love of her husband to her and her memories thereof rather than to her desire to recall or investigate any details of the plot itself and the actual assassins (despite suspecting that "that miserable inebriate Johnson had cognizance of my husband’s death"). I'm sorry, but I don't think "Mrs. Lincoln would have responded to Mrs. Grant....She would have found Mrs. Grant's question about whether she, Mrs. Lincoln, sent a messenger to be quite interesting...A nice letter six or so months after the event maybe would have been okay." If there are any letters indicating this interest or that Mary would have welcomed such a written request by Julia Grant this is new to me, and I'd love to learn and read!

I once made the mistake of trying to read some of Mary T. Lincoln's writings, and there were so many stray and random commas that I had a severe case of the fantods for several days afterwards.

--Jim

(07-18-2015 07:07 PM)Rosieo Wrote:  This post quoted above was me putting in a good if speculative word for Mrs. Lincoln's ability to cooperate and exchange info.... I wrote it because I believe Mr. Lincoln would pick a wife with a good brain and a good heart.

And I think he did (which I have frequently stated in the past along with corrobating evidence). I don't see why Mrs. Lincoln's desire not to further investigate the assassination should be (have been!) contradictionary to this - what would it have changed or bettered about her life to know who the messenger was compared to the pain such memories caused her? The assassin was dead by that time, despite nothing would have brought her husband back to life, and Mary had partly died with him, too. Being in great, paralyzing emotional pain and depression IMO doesn't mean not to be endowed with a good brain and heart.
However, I just read on p.168 in "Lincoln's Sons" that "Robert frequently visited the box at Ford's and sat there trying to figure out how it would have been if he said yes instead of no when his father asked him to go". This was new to me, unfortunately R. P. Randall's books are not footnoted. Does anyone know where this originally comes from?

(07-18-2015 08:01 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  However, I just read on p.168 in "Lincoln's Sons" that "Robert frequently visited the box at Ford's and sat there trying to figure out how it would have been if he said yes instead of no when his father asked him to go". This was new to me, unfortunately R. P. Randall's books are not footnoted. Does anyone know where this originally comes from?

Eva, I do not know her source. Jason Emerson writes, "One of Robert's later friends suggested that perhaps the greatest effect of the assassination on Robert was the overwhelming guilt it caused him, in that he never forgave himself for his absence at Ford's Theatre that night. As the youngest member of the presidential party, Robert would have sat at the back of the box, closest to the door. According to Butler, Robert always felt that had he been there, "Booth would have had to deal with him before he could have shot the president."

Thanks, Roger. In her books it sounds as if it was a newspaper article, and I recall several of her sources asked for on the forum turned out to be newspaper articles. But what you quote sounds as if the info came from this friend!