(07-16-2015 07:57 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  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.

Susan, that's a really interesting part of his book which I wish he had shared more of his thoughts about. He said that he was shocked to see John appear at the boarding house that night because Mary told him John had gone to Richmond for a clerkship. John was wearing a new suit. Louis said he was "worn out by the turmoil and excitement of the occasion" referring to the big news of the day, that Richmond had evacuated. The inquisitive Mr Weichmann asked John where he had been, to which John replied, "Richmond." Weichmann then said, "Richmond is evacuated. Did you not hear the news?" John's response was, " No, it is not, I saw Benjamin and Davis, and they told me it would not be evacuated."

Weichmann didn't say who else was in the parlor when John said that, but presumably Anna, Mary and others where there. Also, John should have heard the news during his travels, so he would have lied about not knowing that Davis had fled Richmond. As Weichmann said, the city was in turmoil with excitement. Since John had been secretive with Louis, why would he then change tactics? Was it a kind of taunt or said sarcastically? Could it have been something like, I met with the President of the Confederacy, and how was your meeting with Lincoln, Mr. Nosy?

When Louis followed John up to their room, where Surratt reverted back to being secretive and enigmatic with Louis concerning the large amount of gold coins he had, which Holohan exchanged to greenbacks for him. In response to Louis's expression of surprise at seeing so much money, John said he had an account in a bank in Washington, which was not an explanation, and other than that, had little to say to him. Even so John invited Louis out for oysters after which they parted ways.

I agree with your opinion Sue!

Found this interesting article RE: Weichmann as recalled by Spangler in my files -

Washington Critical Record, June 25, 1869

   

If this be true, it's interesting to see Spangler's take on the other boys' (Powell, Herold, Atzerodt) opinion regarding Mrs. Surratt. Herold supposedly stated, "That old lady (meaning 43 year old Mrs Surratt - HA!) is as deep in as the rest of us!" Even chivalrous Lew Powell stated that Mrs. Surratt might not have known of the murder, but possibly knew of the kidnapping plot.

Aside from John Surratt, I personally don't think that any of the original crew had any use for Lou Weichmann, other than to find him a wheedling snoop.

Fascinating article, Betty. What he says about Weichmann is intriguing.

Thanks for posting this! Very interesting.

Thanks BettyO for the information!Once again,you come thru with great historical research!

Thanks, BettyO. So Mary was innocent!

I, personally would not go so far as to say that Mary was innocent. I think she knew more than she let on. However, the media (press) of the times as well as her "fellow conspirators" (perhaps due to the gallantry offered to a lady by gentlemen of the Victorian era) seem to have expressed the opinion that she wasn't guilty.

Three co-conspirators (that Spangler never knew before he was arrested) say Mary is innocent, but implicate Weichmann.
So Spangler has no personal knowledge, didn't know Weichmann, he's just repeating what he's heard from people who have a grudge to bear.
Surratt later claims in his Rockville lecture he wouldn't let Weichmann be a part of the plot.

Wheedling snoop? I think he was curious, maybe a little jealous of John Surratt's exciting tales of being a courier. He knew just enough to know something unusual might be going on, but not enough to put it all together.

Was the Washington Critical Record a Republican leaning newspaper?

I agree with Betty's assessment of how the conspirators felt about the involvement of Mrs. Surratt. Herold was probably the closest to speaking the truth, and there were lots of reporters who professed her guilt - until public shock and backlash hit AFTER the execution.

I found it interesting that Spangler refers to Mrs. Surratt's ankles being shackled, even in court. This has been a topic of debate for as long as I can remember. Consensus recently has turned towards saying that she was not shackled - at least not in court. Spangler's statements refute that.

I hadn't heard that the convicted conspirators were given the opportunity to mingle together after the trial.

The conspirators (men) were allowed exercise in the court yard for one hour a day, as per Dr. Porter who, in his daily report to Hartranft, stated that he was afraid that the men would be mentally impaired as Spangler's mind seemed to be wandering while hooded; i.e. he was apparently talking or acting weird for a man subjected to the abnormal cruelty of hooding. It is a known fact that Spangler, Rath and Powell participated in pitching quoits (a ring toss game akin to horseshoes) out in the prison yard. This was not long before the sentences and hanging. I would assume that if they were "pitching" quoits, that the Lilly irons had been removed for the exercise session. Powell had also picked flowers in the courtyard and pressed them in his Bible (also courtesy of Dr. Porter.) I don't know about the lessening of leg irons, however. They had an 18 inch chain between their legs. I would think that the cannon balls were removed from Powell's legs to facilitate his exercise.

Rosieo, how was wei vs. wie Louis's big chance to disappear?

(07-17-2015 10:18 AM)L Verge Wrote:  I agree with Betty's assessment of how the conspirators felt about the involvement of Mrs. Surratt. Herold was probably the closest to speaking the truth, and there were lots of reporters who professed her guilt - until public shock and backlash hit AFTER the execution.

I found it interesting that Spangler refers to Mrs. Surratt's ankles being shackled, even in court. This has been a topic of debate for as long as I can remember. Consensus recently has turned towards saying that she was not shackled - at least not in court. Spangler's statements refute that.

I belive Mary's lawyer said she was not shackled. Maybe I'm wrong, but I give more weight to his statement.

(07-20-2015 06:10 PM)Pamela Wrote:  

(07-17-2015 10:18 AM)L Verge Wrote:  I agree with Betty's assessment of how the conspirators felt about the involvement of Mrs. Surratt. Herold was probably the closest to speaking the truth, and there were lots of reporters who professed her guilt - until public shock and backlash hit AFTER the execution.

I found it interesting that Spangler refers to Mrs. Surratt's ankles being shackled, even in court. This has been a topic of debate for as long as I can remember. Consensus recently has turned towards saying that she was not shackled - at least not in court. Spangler's statements refute that.

I belive Mary's lawyer said she was not shackled. Maybe I'm wrong, but I give more weight to his statement.

Fredrick Aiken did indeed say that Mrs. Surratt was not shackled. Several years ago, after Christine's wonderfully thorough research on Aiken, we published in the Surratt Courier a response that Aiken publically made to that effect.