Decapitation of the Union

[John Fazio]

(11-12-2015 08:26 PM)Pamela Wrote:  First, before I complain!, I must say that I think your book is terrific. I appreciate your approach of organizing and analyzing evidence and versions of events.

I do have a problem with your characterization of Louis Weichmann as a milquetoast, "One has only to look at a photograph of Weichmann to realize he was something of a milquetoast. For that reason, and also, perhaps, because he was bisexual, he was shunted aside and made to feel inferior by those who fancied themselves macho men who had "bloody work" to do and who knew how to ride and shoot."

From Dictionary.reference.com: noun, ( sometimes initial capital letter)
1.
a very timid, unassertive, spineless person, especially one who is easily dominated or intimidated

First, I don't know how to divine those qualities from a photograph exactly (maybe a small chin/ jawline, large eyes with a "deer in a headlight" look? However, like you, I have experience studying faces, for me, it's for portraiture, and if anything, I would say that Weichmann's face expresses strength to the point of stubbornness or resoluteness.

As for the bisexual reference as a reason for "being shunted aside" by "macho men"--aren't we in a more enlightened age where we know that gay or bisexual men, or transsexuals can be every bit as fierce and macho as heteros. Note all the athletes coming out of the closet, as transexuals or gay, including Bruce, now Caitlyn Jenner, who won an Olympic gold medal, had three marriages and six children, military men like the transgender Navy Seal who helped kil Bin Ladin, Kristen Beck, and historically, Alexander the Great, who was homosexual. Two hundred years ago these men would have done their "macho" work and stayed in the closet, unknown to their friends and associates as to their real sexual orientations.
Not to mention, the lack of evidence that Weichmann was homosexual or bisexual. A minor point, apparently.

And for the sake of argument, if we're going to decide someone is a milquetoast because of a photograph, my vote goes to John Surratt dressed as a Papal Zuoave or wearing his Garibaldi jacket, or even the youngest photo of him. But, I would not judge him for those photos. However, he was a member of the Society of Angels at St. Charles, a group that Weichmann said he was much too wild to be accepted by, in the Townsend interview. And Surratt showed weakness by becoming enthralled by Booth and abandoning good sense and a sensible job at the Adams Express Company, to do Booth's bidding, to join a venture that he described as, "utterly impracticable" and a "wild scheme" in the Hanson Hiss interview. Surratt hid behind the skirts of priests in Canada while his mother and men he brought into the conspiracy--Herold, Atzerodt and Powell, endured the trial and died on the scaffold, and his friend Mudd suffered in the Dry Tortugas; he murdered unarmed, starving union men to impress his sneaky, rebel spy girlfriend, and was never man enough to tell the truth about the conspiracy. I'd say Surratt was a much better fit for the definition of milquetoast.

And I don't know where you find the evidence that Weichmann was made to feel inferior. If you can direct me to it, I'd like to study that information. Weichmann was two years older that Surratt, was intelligent and talented, an upper classman in school and someone who Surratt asked help for in obtaining a teaching position after his father died. It was Surratt who sought Weichmann's company and whom Weichmann treated with courtesy and friendship, and introduced John to accomplished men, fellow boarders, when he visited him in Washington City. Weichmann hoped to help Surratt obtain "sensible" employment as he did for St. Marie.

In regards to your suggestion that Weichmann gave information to Augustus Howell, in order to deflect "ostracism and belittlement" in the Surratt boarding house--that's simply your imagination. Weichmann explained the conversation he had with Howell in the Evidence and the source of the information he shared, which was available in newspapers, and there is no reason to believe that Weichmann wasn't truthful. However, there was plenty of reason to discount Howell.

Pamela:

A few comments.

First, thank you for your expression of appreciation of my approach to organizing and analyzing evidence and versions of events. I tried to be objective. Truth should be more important than prevailing. But, regrettably, elephants rule (Jonathan Haight).

My impression, and it is only that, is that Weichmann was quite different from the conspirators, that he was relatively intelligent, mature, sensible and mild mannered, whereas they were, or in some cases fancied themselves to be, macho types, wired, reckless, designing, stupid and mercenary. I think the evidence supports that judgment, and though I might have chosen a better word to describe him than "milquetoast", the word does differentiate one type from the other, so I think it is OK. The word does not have to be a pejorative, and I did not intend it to be.

As for his bisexuality, observe that I did not state it categorically, but conditionally ("...and also, perhaps, because he was bisexual...")

Alexander homosexual? It seems to me that one will have a hard time establishing that with any degree of certainty from this distance. Is there a source that asserts it unequivocally? If so, I would like to have it.

Surratt was not a milquetoast in any sense of the word. Quite the opposite. "If you knew all the things I've done, it would make you stare (or gape)", he said to McMillan. He waved a gun and told McMillan that he hoped he would live another two years so that he could serve Andrew Johnson the way Abraham Lincoln was served. (Can you picture Weichmann doing that?) He lied about nearly everything, including his whereabouts between April 6 and 19 and including his "escape" in Italy; he was a cold-blooded killer of helpless and emaciated Union escapees and others, which he made no attempt to conceal from McMillan (being outside American jurisdiction); and he abandoned his co-conspirators and his mother to the hangman to save his skin, which infuriated Powell and doubtless the others.

I think there is enough evidence to conclude that Weichmann was never part of the in-crowd at the boardinghouse, that he was made to feel inferior and shunted aside by the "macho" men, and that he resented such treatment in some degree. Surratt himself admitted that he was not part of the conspiracy because he could neither ride nor shoot. He also said he was too nosy. Recall that Kauffman said that Weichmann was the last person Booth would have made a member of his action team. He just wasn't the type.

John