(09-15-2015 01:45 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(09-15-2015 08:54 AM)Pamela Wrote:  Peterson be disturbed? I have no idea how the house was managed, but how did Matthews reconstruct the letter? There is only his word as to its contents and even with the best of intentions , accuracy could be questionable especially with all the shock and stress going on. I hadn't heard about the lack of ashes. I don't remember, was there a witness to the letter from Booth to Matthews, or had Booth told someone that a letter would be produced after the 14th?

I used to wonder about how Matthews could remember the contents of that letter also. However, I have had a number of talented people in the theater field tell me that it would not be hard for a seasoned actor. First, Matthews would likely read that letter multiple times - not believing what he was seeing. Then, anyone accomplished in live theater performances are "quick studies." They may not recite the lines exactly as written by the playwright, but they are able to do general memorization in a short period. Reading what his friend had written would surely burn into Matthews's memory, I would think

I can confirm this.

---

(09-15-2015 03:06 PM)L Verge Wrote:  9. I went for some gossip regarding Annie Johnson Weichmann. "He was then 28; his fiancee said she was 32." Other than the wedding announcement, no other mention of Mrs. Weichmann is found in the Holt Papers. Floyd Risvold knew nothing about Louis having been married when Dr. George contacted him. It appears that Weichmann's sisters never mentioned Annie to Lloyd Lewis when he interviewed them for his Myths After Lincoln. The City Directory for 1880 shows Lou had moved out of the house and that Annie was taking in boarders. When he lost his government job in 1886, he moved to Anderson, Indiana, without Annie, and it appears that she seldom, if ever, heard from him after that. The Philadelphia City Directory of 1895 listed her as "widow of Lewis J. Weichmann." The mistake was not corrected until 1899. In 1904, she was correctly listed as his widow. The final listing for her was in 1916, as Weichmann's widow. She died in Philadelphia in 1920, and the death notice indicated no children and that there had never been a divorce.

Maybe the marriage was annulled?

(09-15-2015 05:06 PM)Gene C Wrote:  

(09-15-2015 03:06 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Gene, you are on your own to wade through the trial testimony (all three versions and I recommend Benn: Perley Poore) as well as the testimony related to John's trial. I would rather digest broken glass than go through those deadly pages again!

---

Gene - did you rescind your questions after I posted a reply?

Yes

Whew! I thought I was imagining things.

---

(09-15-2015 05:26 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  

(09-15-2015 01:45 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(09-15-2015 08:54 AM)Pamela Wrote:  Peterson be disturbed? I have no idea how the house was managed, but how did Matthews reconstruct the letter? There is only his word as to its contents and even with the best of intentions , accuracy could be questionable especially with all the shock and stress going on. I hadn't heard about the lack of ashes. I don't remember, was there a witness to the letter from Booth to Matthews, or had Booth told someone that a letter would be produced after the 14th?

I used to wonder about how Matthews could remember the contents of that letter also. However, I have had a number of talented people in the theater field tell me that it would not be hard for a seasoned actor. First, Matthews would likely read that letter multiple times - not believing what he was seeing. Then, anyone accomplished in live theater performances are "quick studies." They may not recite the lines exactly as written by the playwright, but they are able to do general memorization in a short period. Reading what his friend had written would surely burn into Matthews's memory, I would think

I can confirm this.

---

(09-15-2015 03:06 PM)L Verge Wrote:  9. I went for some gossip regarding Annie Johnson Weichmann. "He was then 28; his fiancee said she was 32." Other than the wedding announcement, no other mention of Mrs. Weichmann is found in the Holt Papers. Floyd Risvold knew nothing about Louis having been married when Dr. George contacted him. It appears that Weichmann's sisters never mentioned Annie to Lloyd Lewis when he interviewed them for his Myths After Lincoln. The City Directory for 1880 shows Lou had moved out of the house and that Annie was taking in boarders. When he lost his government job in 1886, he moved to Anderson, Indiana, without Annie, and it appears that she seldom, if ever, heard from him after that. The Philadelphia City Directory of 1895 listed her as "widow of Lewis J. Weichmann." The mistake was not corrected until 1899. In 1904, she was correctly listed as his widow. The final listing for her was in 1916, as Weichmann's widow. She died in Philadelphia in 1920, and the death notice indicated no children and that there had never been a divorce.

Maybe the marriage was annulled?

She would not be entitled to use the term "widow" in case of an annulment. Also, that was a difficult process (and expensive, I believe) to go through in both the Catholic and Episcopal Churches at that time.

---

(09-15-2015 04:08 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  

(09-15-2015 03:06 PM)L Verge Wrote:  The new research librarian at Surratt House is pulling out Weichmann material faster than we can blink our eyes! Pamela - I'll be sending you an email shortly about copies that you may want. In the meantime, I'm getting addicted to Lou once again (the late-1970s was the last time). Here are some things to share:

1. I had forgotten that Louis J. Weichmann originally signed letters to priests, etc. as Aloysius H. Wiechman. Did anyone ever find out why? It appears that he registered as Aloy. H. Wiechman at St. Charles College in Ellicott's Mills, Maryland on March 1, 1859, at age 16. There are also letters signed by him as Aloy, and John Surratt addressed one to him as "Dear Al."
2. St. Charles College was equivalent to junior and senior year high school curriculum.
3. The school was established by the French Order of Sulpicians in 1848, and it appears that nearly 100% of the faculty spoke French and required six years of study by the students. (That should have been beneficial to Surratt when he had to deal with Canadians.)
4. Sulpicians were intent on teaching only those headed for the priesthood. The order does not take special vows, but is composed of priests who prefer communal service instead of parishes. They are free to leave the Society whenever they wish.
5. We have very poor copies of original letters in the church files now in the holdings of the Maryland Historical Society. These were obtained by Pep Martin in 1977. There are instructions from the Sulpicians that the letters are not to be reproduced, and it is our policy to obey such instructions. Most of the letters pertain to Louis trying to get back into seminary starting in 1863 (was he afraid of the draft?).
6. The gist of one letter from Fr. Menu to Bishop Dubriel at St. Mary's Seminary in Baltimore says that Louis wanted to go to the Diocese of Richmond because the Bishop there had paid all expenses for other students in similar situations until the war began. Menu says, "His talents are more than ordinary. His conduct was not satisfactory - especially towards the end." He also says that the the head of St. Charles (Fr. Jenkins - any kin to Mary Elizabeth Jenkins Surratt?) did not favor him.
7. There are several other letters written during the summer of 1863 by Louis showing that his patience is wearing thin. He wants to know why his pleas to reenter a seminary are being ignored, and in one assumes that it is because his entrance fees cannot reach the Bishop of Richmond because of the blockade. I had to snicker at that one and wonder why he didn't give the money to friend Surratt to deliver to Richmond...
8. The piece de resistance, however, is Joseph George's full "The Days Are Yet Dark," L.J. Weichmann's Life After the Lincoln Conspiracy Trial (1984) -- complete with 57 source citations. These include bits from the numerous pieces of correspondence that Weichmann maintained with Judge Holt (clearly a benefactor - arranging for "donations" from gov't coffers even when not employed) until the late-1880s as well as Dr. George's correspondence with Floyd Risvold.
9. I went for some gossip regarding Annie Johnson Weichmann. "He was then 28; his fiancee said she was 32." Other than the wedding announcement, no other mention of Mrs. Weichmann is found in the Holt Papers. Floyd Risvold knew nothing about Louis having been married when Dr. George contacted him. It appears that Weichmann's sisters never mentioned Annie to Lloyd Lewis when he interviewed them for his Myths After Lincoln. The City Directory for 1880 shows Lou had moved out of the house and that Annie was taking in boarders. When he lost his government job in 1886, he moved to Anderson, Indiana, without Annie, and it appears that she seldom, if ever, heard from him after that. The Philadelphia City Directory of 1895 listed her as "widow of Lewis J. Weichmann." The mistake was not corrected until 1899. In 1904, she was correctly listed as his widow. The final listing for her was in 1916, as Weichmann's widow. She died in Philadelphia in 1920, and the death notice indicated no children and that there had never been a divorce.
10. Victor L. Mason did an article for Century Magazine in 1896, stating that Weichmann was the "most important government witness..." "....who wove the thread of testimony which closed upon Mrs. Surratt, and in so doing, escaped the gallows himself." This was the year after David Miller DeWitt's Judicial Murder of Mary Surratt had declared that Weichmann was frightened and testified as a government witness to "clear his own skirt...and save his own neck." Five years later, Louis called Mason "the most contemptible dog that ever lived." He added, "if I ever meet him face to face, I will give him a good pounding."
11. Mike Kauffman covered some Weichmann anecdotes in American Brutus: Stanton had begun to suspect Weichmann and was mad that he had been allowed to go to Canada to search for Surratt. Stanton suspected that Weichmann would be sheltered by the Catholic Church as well as the Southern sympathizers north of the border. The John T. Ford Papers in the Maryland Historical Society also refer to fellow prisoners at the Carroll Annex to the Old Capitol Prison as hating him and teasing him about hanging too.

The more I read, the more I wonder how Louis J. Weichmann managed to keep his sanity after April 14, 1865. He reportedly did have a nervous breakdown in Anderson that forced him to close his school for about six months, but I can easily see why he imagined himself on a hit list and afraid to walk down the street.

---

Hiding in plain sight under my nose. We had been pondering where to find George Alfred Townsend's article that he wrote about Weichmann in 1867, after a chance meeting with his school mate. We reproduced it and Weichmann's reply to that article in the August 1991 issue of the Surratt Courier, courtesy of Dr. Joseph George, Jr. The original appeared in the New York Tribune on May 20, 1867, p. 5. with Weichmann's reply on May 24, 1867, p. 2.

If you own the three-volume set of books composed of the best assassination articles from the Courier between 1977 and 2000, the articles are in the third book.

---

Gene, you are on your own to wade through the trial testimony (all three versions and I recommend Benn: Perley Poore) as well as the testimony related to John's trial. I would rather digest broken glass than go through those deadly pages again!

---

Gene - did you rescind your questions after I posted a reply?

---

(09-15-2015 07:40 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  

(09-15-2015 05:44 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(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.

This site:
http://m.heraldbulletin.com/community/hi...l?mode=jqm
...claims that "men he had worked with" regarded Weichmann as someone "who was not to be trusted".
Does anyone know a/the source or any further details? Thanks!

In Mr. Hall's files, there is a handwritten note that he left for further investigation: "Weichmann. Clark letter of 16 Apr. says Weichmann in on it. accomplice. Reel 2, LAS, F921 (referring to NARA files) Clark clerk in AGO"
Another note does not give a name: "Wiechman Did he know of plot? Statement of fellow employee. LAS Roll 6 Frame 102 and see 6, Frame 500."

Are copies of "The Days Are Yet Dark" available? If not, I'm going to try to scare up a copy in one of the university libraries here.

If interested, we can send you a copy at 15-cents per page, since you are a member of the Surratt Society. 25-cents per page for non-members. I didn't count the pages, but there are about 10-15, I believe.

As someone whose interest in the Civil War and the Lincoln Assassination Conspiracy was restoked by the serendipitous discovery of Weichmann's book, I can't tell you how amazed and fascinated I have become with the information that continues to appear on a daily basis in this thread. I am in awe of the level of scholarship and the prodigious research that is involved in turning up such arcane ----- and relevant!---- information after 150 years. Every day! Simply phenomenal work. Don't stop! Please. And thank you. Wow.

I am myself of two minds on Weichmann. Wait. Make that three. He is a 'Union Man doing his duty'; he is a clumsy 'wannabe' Conspirator, never quite accepted by, but used by, the REAL conspirators as a kind of 'useful idiot' who can't ride or use a pistol, but DOES work in the Commissary of Prisoners Office with access to info they may be interested in (the exchange of prisoners is given, at least initially, as a primary reason for the Lincoln plot(s)) ; or he may be a counter-intelligence agent, keeping tabs on one of the innumerable plots that were rumored about in Washington City at the time. OK, let's make it FOUR minds: which would be some combination of the three above. Since no smoking gun has been discovered ----yet---- , the jury is still out. It is complicated. Great stuff. I know I am not the only person with an interest here, based on the remarkable number of views that this thread has generated.

(09-15-2015 01:45 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(09-15-2015 08:54 AM)Pamela Wrote:  Peterson be disturbed? I have no idea how the house was managed, but how did Matthews reconstruct the letter? There is only his word as to its contents and even with the best of intentions , accuracy could be questionable especially with all the shock and stress going on. I hadn't heard about the lack of ashes. I don't remember, was there a witness to the letter from Booth to Matthews, or had Booth told someone that a letter would be produced after the 14th?

I used to wonder about how Matthews could remember the contents of that letter also. However, I have had a number of talented people in the theater field tell me that it would not be hard for a seasoned actor. First, Matthews would likely read that letter multiple times - not believing what he was seeing. Then, anyone accomplished in live theater performances are "quick studies." They may not recite the lines exactly as written by the playwright, but they are able to do general memorization in a short period. Reading what his friend had written would surely burn into Matthews's memory, I would think

(09-15-2015 02:00 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(09-15-2015 08:54 AM)Pamela Wrote:  There is only his word as to its contents

Pam, if you are ever interested in reading one author's opinion that Mathews fabricated the letter (i.e. it never existed) please see chapter 8 of Robert Lockwood Mills' It Didn't Happen the Way You Think. In that chapter Mills gives his reasons for thinking Mathews created the entire story of the letter.

Lol, Gene, good one!

Laurie, I wondered if his acting skills might have been a factor, too. Actors need to memorize lines, it's part of their craft.
Roger, that sounds interesting--must read.

---

(09-15-2015 03:06 PM)L Verge Wrote:  The new research librarian at Surratt House is pulling out Weichmann material faster than we can blink our eyes! Pamela - I'll be sending you an email shortly about copies that you may want. In the meantime, I'm getting addicted to Lou once again (the late-1970s was the last time). Here are some things to share:

1. I had forgotten that Louis J. Weichmann originally signed letters to priests, etc. as Aloysius H. Wiechman. Did anyone ever find out why? It appears that he registered as Aloy. H. Wiechman at St. Charles College in Ellicott's Mills, Maryland on March 1, 1859, at age 16. There are also letters signed by him as Aloy, and John Surratt addressed one to him as "Dear Al."
2. St. Charles College was equivalent to junior and senior year high school curriculum.
3. The school was established by the French Order of Sulpicians in 1848, and it appears that nearly 100% of the faculty spoke French and required six years of study by the students. (That should have been beneficial to Surratt when he had to deal with Canadians.)
4. Sulpicians were intent on teaching only those headed for the priesthood. The order does not take special vows, but is composed of priests who prefer communal service instead of parishes. They are free to leave the Society whenever they wish.
5. We have very poor copies of original letters in the church files now in the holdings of the Maryland Historical Society. These were obtained by Pep Martin in 1977. There are instructions from the Sulpicians that the letters are not to be reproduced, and it is our policy to obey such instructions. Most of the letters pertain to Louis trying to get back into seminary starting in 1863 (was he afraid of the draft?).
6. The gist of one letter from Fr. Menu to Bishop Dubriel at St. Mary's Seminary in Baltimore says that Louis wanted to go to the Diocese of Richmond because the Bishop there had paid all expenses for other students in similar situations until the war began. Menu says, "His talents are more than ordinary. His conduct was not satisfactory - especially towards the end." He also says that the the head of St. Charles (Fr. Jenkins - any kin to Mary Elizabeth Jenkins Surratt?) did not favor him.
7. There are several other letters written during the summer of 1863 by Louis showing that his patience is wearing thin. He wants to know why his pleas to reenter a seminary are being ignored, and in one assumes that it is because his entrance fees cannot reach the Bishop of Richmond because of the blockade. I had to snicker at that one and wonder why he didn't give the money to friend Surratt to deliver to Richmond...
8. The piece de resistance, however, is Joseph George's full "The Days Are Yet Dark," L.J. Weichmann's Life After the Lincoln Conspiracy Trial (1984) -- complete with 57 source citations. These include bits from the numerous pieces of correspondence that Weichmann maintained with Judge Holt (clearly a benefactor - arranging for "donations" from gov't coffers even when not employed) until the late-1880s as well as Dr. George's correspondence with Floyd Risvold.
9. I went for some gossip regarding Annie Johnson Weichmann. "He was then 28; his fiancee said she was 32." Other than the wedding announcement, no other mention of Mrs. Weichmann is found in the Holt Papers. Floyd Risvold knew nothing about Louis having been married when Dr. George contacted him. It appears that Weichmann's sisters never mentioned Annie to Lloyd Lewis when he interviewed them for his Myths After Lincoln. The City Directory for 1880 shows Lou had moved out of the house and that Annie was taking in boarders. When he lost his government job in 1886, he moved to Anderson, Indiana, without Annie, and it appears that she seldom, if ever, heard from him after that. The Philadelphia City Directory of 1895 listed her as "widow of Lewis J. Weichmann." The mistake was not corrected until 1899. In 1904, she was correctly listed as his widow. The final listing for her was in 1916, as Weichmann's widow. She died in Philadelphia in 1920, and the death notice indicated no children and that there had never been a divorce.
10. Victor L. Mason did an article for Century Magazine in 1896, stating that Weichmann was the "most important government witness..." "....who wove the thread of testimony which closed upon Mrs. Surratt, and in so doing, escaped the gallows himself." This was the year after David Miller DeWitt's Judicial Murder of Mary Surratt had declared that Weichmann was frightened and testified as a government witness to "clear his own skirt...and save his own neck." Five years later, Louis called Mason "the most contemptible dog that ever lived." He added, "if I ever meet him face to face, I will give him a good pounding."
11. Mike Kauffman covered some Weichmann anecdotes in American Brutus: Stanton had begun to suspect Weichmann and was mad that he had been allowed to go to Canada to search for Surratt. Stanton suspected that Weichmann would be sheltered by the Catholic Church as well as the Southern sympathizers north of the border. The John T. Ford Papers in the Maryland Historical Society also refer to fellow prisoners at the Carroll Annex to the Old Capitol Prison as hating him and teasing him about hanging too.

The more I read, the more I wonder how Louis J. Weichmann managed to keep his sanity after April 14, 1865. He reportedly did have a nervous breakdown in Anderson that forced him to close his school for about six months, but I can easily see why he imagined himself on a hit list and afraid to walk down the street.

---

Hiding in plain sight under my nose. We had been pondering where to find George Alfred Townsend's article that he wrote about Weichmann in 1867, after a chance meeting with his school mate. We reproduced it and Weichmann's reply to that article in the August 1991 issue of the Surratt Courier, courtesy of Dr. Joseph George, Jr. The original appeared in the New York Tribune on May 20, 1867, p. 5. with Weichmann's reply on May 24, 1867, p. 2.

If you own the three-volume set of books composed of the best assassination articles from the Courier between 1977 and 2000, the articles are in the third book.

---

Gene, you are on your own to wade through the trial testimony (all three versions and I recommend Benn: Perley Poore) as well as the testimony related to John's trial. I would rather digest broken glass than go through those deadly pages again!

---

Gene - did you rescind your questions after I posted a reply?

---

(09-15-2015 07:40 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  

(09-15-2015 05:44 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(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.

This site:
http://m.heraldbulletin.com/community/hi...l?mode=jqm
...claims that "men he had worked with" regarded Weichmann as someone "who was not to be trusted".
Does anyone know a/the source or any further details? Thanks!

In Mr. Hall's files, there is a handwritten note that he left for further investigation: "Weichmann. Clark letter of 16 Apr. says Weichmann in on it. accomplice. Reel 2, LAS, F921 (referring to NARA files) Clark clerk in AGO"
Another note does not give a name: "Wiechman Did he know of plot? Statement of fellow employee. LAS Roll 6 Frame 102 and see 6, Frame 500."

Laurie , lots of good stuff.

The Clark statement is in The Evidence, p 355: Jos. N. Clark (to Edwin Stantin, April 16, 1865) I feel it is my duty to make known to you that Lewis J. Wiechmann, clerk in Gen. Hoffman's office knows something of this plot, if not one of the accomplices. He has expressed himself to a friend of mine, on the last six weeks, at different times, in words as follows: He knew a way of making a large sum of money that Booth was one of the leaders; that it was something by which they would acquire fame; that it was the assassination of the President, etc. I just now learned this from my friend. Jos. N. Clark, clerk A.G.O. Col. Breck's offices.

My guess is that his friend was Gleason, who made a statement, p 594-5 The Evidence, on April 18. Gleason, of course, was the clerk who worked next to Weichmann, and in whom he confided and brainstormed about what the activities could mean, or be about. At the end of his statement he mentioned that Weichmann stopped by on horseback on Saturday and borrowed boots and a gun from another clerk, in front of the other clerks. Gleason wrote an apology to Weichmann after the trial for harboring feelings that "were anything but true" and said he had done well. I've posted his letter on this thread.

(09-15-2015 07:14 PM)tom82baur Wrote:  As someone whose interest in the Civil War and the Lincoln Assassination Conspiracy was restoked by the serendipitous discovery of Weichmann's book, I can't tell you how amazed and fascinated I have become with the information that continues to appear on a daily basis in this thread. I am in awe of the level of scholarship and the prodigious research that is involved in turning up such arcane ----- and relevant!---- information after 150 years. Every day! Simply phenomenal work. Don't stop! Please. And thank you. Wow.

I am myself of two minds on Weichmann. Wait. Make that three. He is a 'Union Man doing his duty'; he is a clumsy 'wannabe' Conspirator, never quite accepted by, but used by, the REAL conspirators as a kind of 'useful idiot' who can't ride or use a pistol, but DOES work in the Commissary of Prisoners Office with access to info they may be interested in (the exchange of prisoners is given, at least initially, as a primary reason for the Lincoln plot(s)) ; or he may be a counter-intelligence agent, keeping tabs on one of the innumerable plots that were rumored about in Washington City at the time. OK, let's make it FOUR minds: which would be some combination of the three above. Since no smoking gun has been discovered ----yet---- , the jury is still out. It is complicated. Great stuff. I know I am not the only person with an interest here, based on the remarkable number of views that this thread has generated.

Hi, Tom, I'm so glad you're enjoying this thread, me too. One element of the Weichmann story I don't think has been talked about, but I think was a very strong factor that affected Weichmann's life, is jealousy. I believe that most of the people involved in varying degrees in the assassination story, were very aware of the fact that it was a very historical event, and that many of their stories would become part of that history. Louis Weichmann was the star witness in the trial to achieve justice for Lincoln, and people being human, were bound to be jealous. For example, I wonder if John Ford resented Weichmann's status in the trial when he had to live with the shame, embarrassment and economic loss involving his theater, while this twerp Weichmann became the Union hero. And, to add insult to injury, Weichmann "performed" better than anyone could have hoped for. Of course, you know, I don't think of Weichmann that way at all. But jealousy is a powerful force in human affairs.

Another question - maybe Pamela has an answer? In his book, Weichmann quotes so many testimonies, letters, and other accounts, also such he hadn't personally witnessed. Where did he get all this from? Only about some he tells. Especially as for letters I wonder if all those quoted people shared the information voluntarily.
One example - he quotes an entire private letter John Surratt wrote to his cousin Bell Seaman on Feb.6, 1865. Did he secretly copy it somehow? Unless officially assigned this offended against data privacy.

Eva, I think a professional historian can answer your question. I believe the letter you are referring to was taken into evidence, so I don't know.

(09-15-2015 07:29 PM)Pamela Wrote:  Roger, that sounds interesting--must read.

Pam, Mills' book is very different from most assassination books. Many of his ideas are not accepted by the vast majority of historians. He sees the events through unconventional eyes and asks all kinds of questions which lead one into thinking outside the box. Once I mentioned that I found the book thought-provoking, and (as I recall) the only person to agree with me was Bill Richter. I think it's fair to say most folks don't agree with Mills' ideas.

Tom, I loved the way you worded your post. You expressed my own feelings in a much more articulate way than I can write. Thank you.

Tom,great post! Do you you think Weichmann was a double agent or a wannabe?

Herb, at first I dismissed your idea, but I've been giving it some thought and I think you have a really good point. It's very possible that on some level Weichmann was always keeping his eye on the Surratts, once he realized how strong their rebel sympathies were. I don't think he fully understood how involved they were until after the assassination, of course. Whether he had a talk with some official (beyond Gleason) at his work, who told him to watch the Surratts and the people who came to their house, or he just decided on his own to keep track of their activities, I don't know. At the same time I think he thought he could encourage John to act like a "sensible man", p.102, Weichmann, while he lived at the boarding house, but the extraordinary event of Booth entering their lives occurred and everything went to ruin from that point. John had gotten a job with the Adams Express Company, in part because of the positive attitude he showed the agent of the company in his letter of application when he wrote that he had, " a willing hand and ready heart" and that he would be faithful in any position given him.--p31-32, Weichmann. Louis said he always believed that a major reason for the Surratts to move to Washington, "...was that of rescuing her son from the baleful influences and temptations of his country life in those war times, and enabling his to secure some remunerative employment." Surratt got the job on Dec 30 1864, and by January 13 1865 he left without even applying for his last two weeks of pay, so that he could begin his role in the conspiracy. Nearly two years afterwords, a clerk in the National Hotel found a card in Booth's clothing, written in John's handwriting, "I tried to secure leave but failed. J. Harrison Surratt" p.70-71, Weichmann.

(09-15-2015 08:46 PM)Pamela Wrote:  

(09-15-2015 07:14 PM)tom82baur Wrote:  As someone whose interest in the Civil War and the Lincoln Assassination Conspiracy was restoked by the serendipitous discovery of Weichmann's book, I can't tell you how amazed and fascinated I have become with the information that continues to appear on a daily basis in this thread. I am in awe of the level of scholarship and the prodigious research that is involved in turning up such arcane ----- and relevant!---- information after 150 years. Every day! Simply phenomenal work. Don't stop! Please. And thank you. Wow.

I am myself of two minds on Weichmann. Wait. Make that three. He is a 'Union Man doing his duty'; he is a clumsy 'wannabe' Conspirator, never quite accepted by, but used by, the REAL conspirators as a kind of 'useful idiot' who can't ride or use a pistol, but DOES work in the Commissary of Prisoners Office with access to info they may be interested in (the exchange of prisoners is given, at least initially, as a primary reason for the Lincoln plot(s)) ; or he may be a counter-intelligence agent, keeping tabs on one of the innumerable plots that were rumored about in Washington City at the time. OK, let's make it FOUR minds: which would be some combination of the three above. Since no smoking gun has been discovered ----yet---- , the jury is still out. It is complicated. Great stuff. I know I am not the only person with an interest here, based on the remarkable number of views that this thread has generated.

Hi, Tom, I'm so glad you're enjoying this thread, me too. One element of the Weichmann story I don't think has been talked about, but I think was a very strong factor that affected Weichmann's life, is jealousy. I believe that most of the people involved in varying degrees in the assassination story, were very aware of the fact that it was a very historical event, and that many of their stories would become part of that history. Louis Weichmann was the star witness in the trial to achieve justice for Lincoln, and people being human, were bound to be jealous. For example, I wonder if John Ford resented Weichmann's status in the trial when he had to live with the shame, embarrassment and economic loss involving his theater, while this twerp Weichmann became the Union hero. And, to add insult to injury, Weichmann "performed" better than anyone could have hoped for. Of course, you know, I don't think of Weichmann that way at all. But jealousy is a powerful force in human affairs.

I can honestly say that I never would have thought to use the word "jealous" in describing how people felt about Weichmann! Likewise, I have a hard time thinking that anyone considered him a hero, especially after Mrs. Surratt died on the gallows.

The public then was just like the public now - they were against the lady while she was on trial, but changed their opinion once the feds actually carried through with her execution. She then got sympathy from many, and Weichmann became the cursed one - at least that has been my opinion for lo these many years.

When it became fairly certain that Weichmann was enjoying some support from Stanton and Holt, I suspect that other employees in the War Department began to warm up to him also (i.e. Gleason). What's good for the boss is good for you syndrome.

Tom, I'm still sticking with your explanation #2 as to Weichmann's role in history. I see him as one of those people in life who cannot cut a break, no matter what.

I like #2 also

Clearly there is a lot of Southern sympathy around here, but out in the world, I think that the silent majority, although not happy to see a woman hung, believed that the war of rebellion was over, the Union won , and was and is the law of the land, and it's good not to live in anarchy, and justice was served. She was a woman who chose to play a dangerous game, and it didn't work out for her, but there was a disgusting amount of tragic loss of life in the conflict for the right to keep slaves. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature knew that Weichmann didn't hang Mary Surratt -- she hung herself when she welcomed conspirators into her home and told Lloyd to have the shooting irons ready just hours before the assassination. The majority of the tribunal recommended leniency and the President had the power to make the final decision, and it was his choice. And I do believe the jealousy factor has been overlooked; even that nut Father Conroy addressed the issue in his report.

What "anarchy" are you speaking of?

It is nice to blame everything on slavery, but before we get all mushy and moralistic, what we really are talking about here is political power. To put it simply, the Founders made a deal--the North got a common market through the commerce clause of the Constitution and the South got recognition of slavery, through the 3/5 clause, the existence of the slave trade from Africa until 1808, the equal representation of the states in the US senate, and the extraterritoriality of slavery. The problem was two-fold: no one knew when the Constitution was written that upland cotton would become an ideal staple because of the invention of the cotton gin, and the grandsons and granddaughters of the Northern compromisers at the Constitutional convention could no longer accept the secondary control of the government by the South through what was conveniently branded the Slave Power Conspiracy. If one gets rid of all the nonsense spewed forth by then abolitionists and the antislaveryites and reads the cases of Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) and Ableman v. Booth (1859), one would see that the Northern position had lost out on its illegalities and the Civil War was pure bunk. It was caused by the North to save a losing legal position.

Read, e.g., Arthur Bestor, "State Sovereignty and Slavery," Illinois State Historical Society, Journal, 53 (1960), 117-80; James Oakes, Freedom National (2013) and his Scorpion's Sting (2014), and his "Was the Civil War Really about Slavery?" Salon (August 29, 2012); Walter Williams, The Civil War wasn't about Slavery," Jewish World Review (Dec. 2, 1998); and William J. Cooper, "The Critical Signpost on the Journey toward Secession, "Journal of Southern History, 77 (no. 1, Feb. 2011), 16ff.

Or just for fun, Pamela, read Steve Berry's novel, The Lincoln Myth. He is a lawyer with an interesting thesis.

(09-16-2015 02:57 PM)Pamela Wrote:  Clearly there is a lot of Southern sympothy around here....
She was a woman who chose to play a dangerous game, and it didn't work out for her, but there was a disgusting amount of tragic loss of life in the conflict for the right to keep slaves. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature knew that Weichmann didn't hang Mary Surratt -- she hung herself when she welcomed conspirators into her home and told Lloyd to have the shooting irons ready just hours before the assassination.

I can agree to that. Plus....
Mary denied knowing Lewis Powell, her daughter Anna's confession "Oh ma, and to think that man (Booth) was here ony hours before the assassination", plus her Confederate courrier house guests.


Weichmann's not good enought to be a part of the confederate plot, can't ride, can't shoot, not too bright, but he's smart enough to be a double agent and fool everybody for months.
I don't think so.

---

(09-16-2015 04:23 PM)Wild Bill Wrote:  It is nice to blame everything on slavery, but before we get all mushy and moralistic, what we really are talking about here is political power.

If one gets rid of all the nonsense spewed forth by then abolitionists and the antislaveryites and reads the cases of Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) and Ableman v. Booth (1859), one would see that the Northern position had lost out on its illegalities and the Civil War was pure bunk. It was caused by the North to save a losing legal position.

I hope I didn't select certain comments and take them out of context, but I don't agee with any of that.