Of course and I always keep that in mind. There are some historians that don't. Sloan's comment sounded arrogant, thoughtless and dismissive, JMO. I do think weight should be given to historical figures who knew Weichmann, watched him testify, and had important roles in those historical events.

I haven't read Herndon's book; I better catch up. Annie Weichmann and her gang might have made herself useful with him.

I'll take a guess regarding Conroy, Mulcahy and Abel. Abel was an alter boy for Mulcahy and mentioned that he was going to Weichmann's school for free tuition in exchange for office work. Mulcahy's Weichmann radar began spinning out of control. Over a period of time he pumped Abel for info. There were multiple copies of the manuscript. Those copies became two books to Abel and Mulcahy but not in reality. Maybe Abel typed copies or not; he caught glimpses of the writing in Louis's office. Maybe he helped pack them up to ship to Holt, Richards or Porter. Perhaps he saw portions of the chapter on Father Walters but didn't read it through and wouldn't have understood it if he did. That chapter sent Mulcahy into overdrive and became The Pope and the Southern Confederacy. BTW, was there a northern confederacy? oh yeah, Canada! The reality was that Weichmann very clearly said there was no Papal conspiracy, since the Pope ordered Surratt's arrest, but that there were individual clergy who supported the southern cause, but were not part of a vast conspiracy.

Mulcahy passed the tale on to Conroy who might have added some Catholic guilt and assorted codswallop of his own to the mix, and saw the necessity of sending this very important historical account to the Lincoln studies in Fort Wayne or whatever it was. Abel felt the vital importance of writing his version 70 years later and filed it in St Mary's where Ewald found it and drew inspiration. The rest is history, and pun intended, so to speak.

Maybe Weichmann did tell Abel about the conspiracy and trials one night during a storm. Perhaps there is some truth to some of the anecdotes of Weichmann's behavior. But what never happened, not in a million years, was that he sent a manuscript home a poorly educated 15 yr old boy to read.

"But what never happened, not in a million years, was that he sent a manuscript home a poorly educated 15 yr old boy to read." Again, JYO... Abel's reminiscences about Weichmann contain 90% recitation of the assassination events. The only thing detrimental to Louis is the claim that he admitted to being forced into testifying against Mrs. Surratt -- a claim that others had made about Louis for thirty years by that time. I think any fuss over Abel is uncalled for.

Msgr. Mulcahey and Msgr. Conroy are a different manner. These men were high on the Catholic totem and sworn to give mercy to the oppressed. Conroy only repeated what he had heard from Mulcahey (reporting, btw, at the time that Helen Jones Campbell came out with her so-so account of The Case for Mrs. Surratt). Mulcahey was the one who knew Weichmann in Anderson. What caused him to dislike the man so much - other than Louis's abdication of his faith?

(09-11-2015 08:28 AM)Pamela Wrote:  Of course and I always keep that in mind. There are some historians that don't. Sloan's comment sounded arrogant, thoughtless and dismissive, JMO. I do think weight should be given to historical figures who knew Weichmann, watched him testify, and had important roles in those historical events.

I haven't read Herndon's book; I better catch up. Annie Weichmann and her gang might have made herself useful with him.

I'll take a guess regarding Conroy, Mulcahy and Abel. Abel was an alter boy for Mulcahy and mentioned that he was going to Weichmann's school for free tuition in exchange for office work. Mulcahy's Weichmann radar began spinning out of control. Over a period of time he pumped Abel for info. There were multiple copies of the manuscript. Those copies became two books to Abel and Mulcahy but not in reality. Maybe Abel typed copies or not; he caught glimpses of the writing in Louis's office. Maybe he helped pack them up to ship to Holt, Richards or Porter. Perhaps he saw portions of the chapter on Father Walters but didn't read it through and wouldn't have understood it if he did. That chapter sent Mulcahy into overdrive and became The Pope and the Southern Confederacy. BTW, was there a northern confederacy? oh yeah, Canada! The reality was that Weichmann very clearly said there was no Papal conspiracy, since the Pope ordered Surratt's arrest, but that there were individual clergy who supported the southern cause, but were not part of a vast conspiracy.

Mulcahy passed the tale on to Conroy who might have added some Catholic guilt and assorted codswallop of his own to the mix, and saw the necessity of sending this very important historical account to the Lincoln studies in Fort Wayne or whatever it was. Abel felt the vital importance of writing his version 70 years later and filed it in St Mary's where Ewald found it and drew inspiration. The rest is history, and pun intended, so to speak.

Maybe Weichmann did tell Abel about the conspiracy and trials one night during a storm. Perhaps there is some truth to some of the anecdotes of Weichmann's behavior. But what never happened, not in a million years, was that he sent a manuscript home a poorly educated 15 yr old boy to read.

Abel was attending Weichmann's school, so surely he couldn't have been all that poorly educated. And who's to say Weichmann wouldn't have allowed a bright pupil who was interested in the assassination to read his manuscript?

Susan, I didn't make that up, about Abel's lack of education--that was Ewald's assessment. I just bought his 6 page article so I'll see if I can figure out how to make it available for this forum, or you can order a copy; it doesn't cost much, about $7.00. It's JMO, like I said. That's OK, isn't it?

Laurie, it's just more guessing, but maybe he felt hostility because of Mary Surratt's fate, maybe he was frustrated because he had high hopes of gleaning tidbits of info from Louis in confession and the fun of laying guilt trips on him. Louis was a famous Catholic, or lapsed Catholic character who came to a quiet Midwestern town. Maybe frustration turned to resentment and anger and before you know it, the good Father despised him, and he passed those sentiments on to his successor.

From Ewald's article in Traces of Indiana and Midwestern History, 1994, "in the early months of 1865, Booth and Surratt visited Weichmann several times after hours in his government office." I have read the testimony of five War Dept clerks in the trial of 1865, and none testified to that. I only came across one clerk, which I posted about already, who made a statement that once after hours Weichmann visited the office with Surratt. As far as I know, Gleason didn't testify at the trial and made no mention of Surratt and/or Booth visiting the office in his statement in The Evidence. Does anyone know of a statement or testimony to support Ewald's statement? (other than Surratt's claim that Weichmann allowed him access to his office after hours in the Rockville lecture).

So,that kind of says he was,in his own mind,[and in my way of thinking]a counter agent!

Herb, no, I'm looking for evidence, sources to support Ewald's statement which I haven't been able to find.
Is George Townsend's "sarcastic review" of Weichmann and Weichmann's response available online? Laurie, you mentioned it, and said Townsend said Weichmann was disruptive and into having fun in high school and he carried this trait to seminary school. I was told that the current Pope has this kind of behavior, also.

(09-14-2015 11:34 AM)Pamela Wrote:  George Townsend's "sarcastic review" of Weichmann

I don't have the entire text, but I have this much in my files from Townsend's notes. Source: Joan Chaconas' article titled "George Alfred Townsend's Papers" in the October 1980 issue of the Surratt Society News:

"Surratt laborious, was brilliant, good conduct. An exemplary Society of the Angels. Weichmann never good enough for it. No war papers allowed there: Everything secession. Surratt haughty.

In July 1862 both left. W. and S. same day. Surratts farewell: Jenkins president, small, thin, once great fop. Surratt cries.

W. then came to Philadelphia, 2 months staid. Sep. '62, W. accepted Professorship in Borremeo College, Md. 4 moths staid left Dec. '62. then went on Northern Central RR to Ellangowan (or Little Texas) all Catholics, 2000 lime burning town, staid two weeks there in December. Taught there voluntarily Schoolhouse burned two nights before Christmas. Two days after Christmas 1862, went to Washington, taught in St. Mathews College."

Thanks, Roger. That's interesting. I read somewhere that Townsend went to the same high school as Louis, but was a year ahead. There was an article written by him or by Gath, his pen name, that Weichmann responded to. I would love to read both, also Father Isacsson's dissertation. Hopefully it's a little less dramatic than Father Conroy's.

Pamela-Best of luck in proving your point of view concerning Weichmann! More power to you and your excellent research!

Somewhere, I have read both Townsend's article and Weichmann's response to it. When I am not overwhelmed with work that I get paid for, I will try to track them down. You should be receiving Fr. Alfred's paper any day now because your order was processed at the end of last week.

Please don't take Msgr. Conroy's blasting of Weichmann (based on what he had heard from Mulcahey) as what Fr. Alfred will say also. I have had the good fortune of knowing both Fr. Isacsson and Erich Ewald (had a nice conversation with him last week, and he sent me his last article on Weichmann in the 1990s). Both men were/are very respectful of their positions and of the Church and state what their research found in a professional manner.

What burr got under the saddle of Mulcahey and Conroy, I have no idea. Too bad you can't trace a factual trail back to Mulcahey's relationship with Weichmann. Conroy was just repeating what he had heard from Mulcahey -- and it just so happened to come out at the time that Helen Jones Campbell was "re-introducing" the case for Mary Surratt to the general public once again with her fictionalized history. I suspect that the Church was closing ranks again to protect the name of Mary Surratt - and her son - against suspected blasphemy?

Thanks, Herb and Laurie. Something else I'd like clarity on is his physical description because there are two completely opposite versions that I've come across. I just read this in Michael Shein's Surratt book, p 12: "Louis was doughy--'fatty' they called him in the casual cruelty of the schoolyard, clumsy, homely, 'poor white', cowardly (at least in popular reputation), frivolous with regards to study, and to make matters worse, he spoke with a lisp and was useless in the manly arts." Schein forgot to mention the hump on his back and club foot! I believe Elizabeth Trindal gave a similar description in Mary Surratt, An American Tragedy, and added something to the effect that had he become a priest it would have been the only way he would have been taken seriously, he had a pot belly and was sexless. She included a picture of him as an older man. Schein lists his sources as Isacsson, Townsend and Surratt's lecture.

On the other hand, Pitman said, "I...found him to be a young man of preposessing appearance, with clear and placid eye, and a countenance indicative of intelligence, modesty and conscientiousness." Major General Lew Wallace said, "I have never seen anything like his steadfastness. There he stood, a young man only twenty three years of age, strikingly handsome, self possessed, under the mist striking self examination I have ever heard." Gleason described him as "...physically and mentally a giant...".

So, there are really two very opposite descriptions. I'm not aware of any others.

After reading all these different comments about Weichmann, I feel like I've been watching an old episode of "To Tell The Truth".
Will the real Louis Weichmann please stand up?

(09-15-2015 05:23 AM)Gene C Wrote:  After reading all these different comments about Weichmann, I feel like I've been watching an old episode of "To Tell The Truth".
Will the after real Louis Weichmann please stand up?

In all honesty, I never seriously thought about Weichmann possibly being a counter agent until Herb brought it up. Now I am giving it some thought. Have we ever discussed exactly why a person with Weichmann's education and intelligence got a job as a clerk in the War Department? Yes, the pay was better than what he had been making, but it also seems a good choice for a person who was/or wanted to be a counter agent.

Double the money as the teaching position and he had more education to pay for as well as helping his younger siblings, like his brother who became a priest. I notice that his big critics or haters were strongly religious. Even Townsend added the h at the end of his pen name for a biblical reason. His father was a minister and his upbringing was strictly religious. Trindal was Catholic and identified with Mary.