Louis Weichmann

[Eva Elisabeth]

Thanks, Roger!

[Pamela]

Laurie, I would like copies of Abel, Isacsson, Dr George and the 1863 Father Menu letter written to the regional superior of the Sepulcians you mentioned where he described Weichmann's many problems or assorted defienciencies. Any Catholic priest Weichmann bashing I would love to have a copy of. If you have letters by Your friend Pep Martin communicating with priests, also, if they are in the library.

The Sam Arnold book is a treasure. There's no sustitute for first hand accounts, even decades after the fact and reading through the Victorian filter.

[RJNorton]

(09-09-2015 06:30 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Thanks, Roger!

Thanks, Eva. I think I shall reply with something that may get me in trouble, but in my mind, it represents what I feel.

I think there is a definite comparison/likeness between Louis Weichmann and William Herndon. We owe a great deal to both men. Herndon provided us with all sorts of information about Abraham Lincoln we would otherwise not know. Many of Lincoln's personal habits, opinions, tastes, etc. would not be known if it were not for Herndon. Louis Weichmann provided us with invaluable information about the conspirators, the boardinghouse, etc. that we would never know except for him.

At the same time I think we need to read each man's writings with caution. Did they both have an agenda that is apparent in their works? Did Herndon exaggerate his role in Lincoln's life? Did he purposely hunt for negative things about Mary Lincoln and leave out the good? Was Weichmann really the 100% Union man as he says in his book? Did he exaggerate his patriotism? Did he purposely leave out activities of his that were pro-Southern?

Were both men quite selective in their writings? Did they include only what they wanted us to know and exclude what they didn't?

What I am trying to say is that I think we need to read these men's works with discretion. They teach us a lot, but they must be read with a discerning eye.

[Eva Elisabeth]

I agree, like Herndon's "legacy", his is book is an amazing, most valuable account. Still as for his own role I am sceptical. AFAIK, Weichmann never considered/attempted enlisting, even not when he was desperately seeking employment. If Weichmann was such a Union man, I wonder why. Even Robert Lincoln, who to me seemed rather seemed a "desk"/book person than someone predestined for fighting activity, was eager to. Also declaring his boarding with the conspirators an officially assigned post or duty - does it represent the truth? What about the information about prisoners he revealed to Howell? Did he comment on/explain that?

I would tend to think the difference is that Herndon acted for the "thing", really attempted and believed to tell the truth about Lincoln, all good and bad, reality, away from the growing mystification, and this well-intended (from his mindset and view). He didn't have himself and his own image in mind I believe. This is different with Weichmann, one of whose paramount goals was to whitewash his image.

I can't help it - but e.g. the explanation Roger previously quoted to me sounds quite constucted and "designed". I tend to believe he had other reasons as well he held back about. Genre's post #175 e.g. makes sense to me. Also Mr. Kauffmann states he had feelings for Anna Surratt, and maybe more.

[Eva Elisabeth]

BTW, did/do you realize "Weichmann" literally means "soft man"? And the German pronunciation even emphasizes this. Did Weichmann speak German? I, in his place, would not have agreed to the changed spelling as his original name, Wiechmann, sounds better to me. This is a medieval name, "Wiech" from the medieval German word for "dwarf", or "imp", and "-mann" meaning "man".

[Gene C]

Great points Roger.

Some of the modern comments, questions, and even criticism of Weichmann I believe can be attributed to the writing style of the time he wrote his notes for the book. Several of the books of the time (that I've read) over emphasize the qualities of the main characters.
It's not surprising he would be a target for Mary Surratt sympathizers and those with strong southern feelings. Look at the press and our political climate today. Not much has changed. Everyone's looking for a "bad guy or scapegoat" to blame things on. He was an easy target back then.

Regarding Weichmann's marriage, it appears his wife had her own political, social agenda. Wasn't she a strong activist in the Temperance Movement? She may have been a difficult person to live with.
It takes two to make a marriage work.
He might not have left her as much as she nudged him out the door. We just don't know.

[Eva Elisabeth]

Re.: "Everyone's looking for a 'bad guy or scapegoat' to blame things on. He was an easy target back then." I am not sure what you mean. Could you please explain or give an example? (I don't intend to seek a scapegoat, not seek to make him one, I am just not sure of and wonder about his role/position in the "play", and not yet 100% convinced of what he tells it was.)

[Susan Higginbotham]

(09-10-2015 06:06 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  I agree, like Herndon's "legacy", his is book is an amazing, most valuable account. Still as for his own role I am sceptical. AFAIK, Weichmann never considered/attempted enlisting, even not when he was desperately seeking employment. If Weichmann was such a Union man, I wonder why. Even Robert Lincoln, who to me seemed rather seemed a "desk"/book person than someone predestined for fighting activity, was eager to. Also declaring his boarding with the conspirators an officially assigned post or duty - does it represent the truth? What about the information about prisoners he revealed to Howell? Did he comment on/explain that?

I would tend to think the difference is that Herndon acted for the "thing", really attempted and believed to tell the truth about Lincoln, all good and bad, reality, away from the growing mystification, and this well-intended (from his mindset and view). He didn't have himself and his own image in mind I believe. This is different with Weichmann, one of whose paramount goals was to whitewash his image.

I can't help it - but e.g. the explanation Roger previously quoted to me sounds quite constucted and "designed". I tend to believe he had other reasons as well he held back about. Genre's post #175 e.g. makes sense to me. Also Mr. Kauffmann states he had feelings for Anna Surratt, and maybe more.

I have a similar reaction. In the same paragraph as his justification, Weichmann says, "no man in my position would have acted differently from what I did; no one would have suspected from the facts stated that these men had that day tried to effect the capture of the President or, that failing, his murder. I always had too high an opinion of John Surratt and his mother to believe them capable of such a crime." So what did he believe them capable of when he determined not to "desert his post"? In the paragraph before that (p. 108) he writes that he thought that John and the others had been "trying to run the blockade, engage in a cotton speculation, or perhaps had attempted to go South," but none of those things seem adequate to "demoralize and terrify" him, as he claims.

[Wild Bill]

No matter how one spells it, Louis W. lived up to his family name in all of its manifestations

[Eva Elisabeth]

(09-10-2015 08:48 AM)Wild Bill Wrote:  No matter how one spells it, Louis W. lived up to his family name in all of its manifestations

...while I really (positively) like your family name! (Did y'all know - "Richter" means "judge"?!)

[Wild Bill]

Jawohl! Ich bin Richter und Henker auch

[Pamela]

So now Weichmann is to be taunted for the meaning of his name. Whatever floats your boat, have fun. But a quick Google search that I just did suggested warrior or battle+man. I'll leave it there as far as I'm concerned. I don't know the language.

As for Weichmann white washing his image--he knew that his actions and statements were out there for all eternity in trial transcripts and that the numerous defense lawyers did a thorough job spinning their interpretations of those actions and statements in a light most damaging to him, to try to save their clients. He also knew that endless numbers of history buffs and historians would say and think whatever they wanted about him. He had means, ability and determination to tell the story of the assassination and trials and supported as much of the story as he could with research and first hand accounts, like with A.C. Richards, and he did so. He didn't live in a 'warts and all' era, but he did include criticisms of himself, and answered them. He advocated for himself.

BTW, did you know that Sam Arnold was as innocent as a "newborn babe"? He said so in his book!

Back to Weichmann, I can't remember who, but someone in prison said he confessed in his sleep! The poor guy couldn' t even sleep without his snores being twisted and used against him. Someone brought up the numbers of prisoners that Weichmann mentioned to Booth and maybe other conspirators. He answered that, The Evidence , p 1329, "the conversation about the prisoners is incorrect. The number of rebels in our hands was according to paper accounts 78,000 and the number in Rebel hands 33,000. This statement was published in the papers at that time and just about the time of the exchange. I never looked in the books of the office to ascertain that number, as I did not keep that particular book."

[Jenny]

(09-10-2015 08:36 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  

(09-10-2015 06:06 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  I agree, like Herndon's "legacy", his is book is an amazing, most valuable account. Still as for his own role I am sceptical. AFAIK, Weichmann never considered/attempted enlisting, even not when he was desperately seeking employment. If Weichmann was such a Union man, I wonder why. Even Robert Lincoln, who to me seemed rather seemed a "desk"/book person than someone predestined for fighting activity, was eager to. Also declaring his boarding with the conspirators an officially assigned post or duty - does it represent the truth? What about the information about prisoners he revealed to Howell? Did he comment on/explain that?

I would tend to think the difference is that Herndon acted for the "thing", really attempted and believed to tell the truth about Lincoln, all good and bad, reality, away from the growing mystification, and this well-intended (from his mindset and view). He didn't have himself and his own image in mind I believe. This is different with Weichmann, one of whose paramount goals was to whitewash his image.

I can't help it - but e.g. the explanation Roger previously quoted to me sounds quite constucted and "designed". I tend to believe he had other reasons as well he held back about. Genre's post #175 e.g. makes sense to me. Also Mr. Kauffmann states he had feelings for Anna Surratt, and maybe more.

I have a similar reaction. In the same paragraph as his justification, Weichmann says, "no man in my position would have acted differently from what I did; no one would have suspected from the facts stated that these men had that day tried to effect the capture of the President or, that failing, his murder. I always had too high an opinion of John Surratt and his mother to believe them capable of such a crime." So what did he believe them capable of when he determined not to "desert his post"? In the paragraph before that (p. 108) he writes that he thought that John and the others had been "trying to run the blockade, engage in a cotton speculation, or perhaps had attempted to go South," but none of those things seem adequate to "demoralize and terrify" him, as he claims.

I have been thinking the same thing after reading his quote.

[Pamela]

(09-10-2015 11:24 AM)Jenny Wrote:  

(09-10-2015 08:36 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  

(09-10-2015 06:06 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  I agree, like Herndon's "legacy", his is book is an amazing, most valuable account. Still as for his own role I am sceptical. AFAIK, Weichmann never considered/attempted enlisting, even not when he was desperately seeking employment. If Weichmann was such a Union man, I wonder why. Even Robert Lincoln, who to me seemed rather seemed a "desk"/book person than someone predestined for fighting activity, was eager to. Also declaring his boarding with the conspirators an officially assigned post or duty - does it represent the truth? What about the information about prisoners he revealed to Howell? Did he comment on/explain that?

I would tend to think the difference is that Herndon acted for the "thing", really attempted and believed to tell the truth about Lincoln, all good and bad, reality, away from the growing mystification, and this well-intended (from his mindset and view). He didn't have himself and his own image in mind I believe. This is different with Weichmann, one of whose paramount goals was to whitewash his image.

I can't help it - but e.g. the explanation Roger previously quoted to me sounds quite constucted and "designed". I tend to believe he had other reasons as well he held back about. Genre's post #175 e.g. makes sense to me. Also Mr. Kauffmann states he had feelings for Anna Surratt, and maybe more.

I have a similar reaction. In the same paragraph as his justification, Weichmann says, "no man in my position would have acted differently from what I did; no one would have suspected from the facts stated that these men had that day tried to effect the capture of the President or, that failing, his murder. I always had too high an opinion of John Surratt and his mother to believe them capable of such a crime." So what did he believe them capable of when he determined not to "desert his post"? In the paragraph before that (p. 108) he writes that he thought that John and the others had been "trying to run the blockade, engage in a cotton speculation, or perhaps had attempted to go South," but none of those things seem adequate to "demoralize and terrify" him, as he claims.

I have been thinking the same thing after reading his quote.

If you avoid cherry picking you would understand what he meant. Weichmann was referring to the events of March 16 and 17. On the 15th he found the fake mustache, went to the attic bedroom and caught Surrtatt and Powell on the bed playing with knives and spurs. He was alarmed but Mary told him, no problem, John needs protection when he goes to the country. That night Surratt and Powell took the young girls to the theater, returned them home, then left and stayed out all night. The next day, the servant told him about John and several other men on horseback. Mary was weeping out of fear for John. Anna had an angry outburst at the dinner table and threatened to kill Booth if harm came to John. When John returned, bursting into their room he pointed his gun at Louis, told him his prospects were ruined and could Louis help him get a job. Soon, Powell and Booth entered the room, clearly wound up and full of adrenaline. He began adding up all the odd events and comments, and apparent deadly fear for John expressed by his mother and sister. That is the context for the "demoralize and terrify" statement. He confided in Gleason and din't care who heard him in the office. He wrote to his father confessor. Within a day or so Powell and Booth were gone and he had reason to believe that whatever they were up to, it failed and was over.

[L Verge]

Speaking of making fun of Weichmann, it reminded me that he went to high school with George Alfred Townsend at Central High School in Philadelphia (according to GATH). Townsend later wrote a very sarcastic review of Weichmann after having chanced upon him on the street years later and remembering those school days, nicknames, etc. Supposedly, Louis was not the best of students and was into having fun and being disruptive. I believe that Louis wrote a rebuttal to that article when it appeared in print. Somewhere there is a similar reference to Surratt being the excellent, attentive student at St. Charles, while Weichmann liked to have fun. Maybe that's why the church fathers were not happy to have him readmitted?

Speaking of religion, I read somewhere that Louis's father was not Catholic. His mother was, and she was the one who practically forced Louis to study for the priesthood. Maybe he was a rebellious student for that reason?

Pamela did provide us with information concerning Mrs. Weichmann being involved with the Temperance movement, but if she had to resort to taking in boarders in order to survive after Louis moved to Anderson, it wouldn't appear that her social activities provided any support. In the Victorian age, it would not have been atypical for other members of such activist groups to take destitute women under their roof -- or family members would assume responsibility for their support. Wonder why someone didn't step forward?

As to who has "shafted" Louis over the years, it is my belief that authors have relied on statements, etc. that were given close to the time of the assassination and two trials - as well as analysis of Weichmann's own writings in A True History... As to the abuse that he was given early on, much of it came from defenders of the church and of Mary Surratt. In my view, they considered the man a traitor to Mary and to the Catholic Church at a time when Catholics continued to face bigotry in many areas of society.

I would love to think that my next project could be locating the ORIGINAL manuscript prepared by Louis Weichmann before the job of editing and publishing it was done by Floyd Risvold 70+ years after being completed by Louis himself. Having been an editor (both paid and volunteer) over the past 40+ years, I know that editors can add, detract, substitute, and insinuate when preparing final copy.

Floyd Risvold was very well-respected, and I don't want to cast doubt on his work. However, he was (above all else) very high on the food chain in the business world (I believe retail), and had to know that Louis's manuscript could prove very profitable in the hands of the right publisher. It would be interesting to compare the original with the published version.