+- Lincoln Discussion Symposium (https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium)
+-- Forum: Lincoln Discussion Symposium (/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Assassination (/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Johnson at odds with Holt & Stanton in June of 1865 (/thread-2223.html)
Pages: 1 2
RE: Johnson at odds with Holt & Stanton in June of 1865 - L Verge - 02-22-2015 03:30 PM
For years, I thought that the odd placement of the clemency plea at the end of the findings might be the saving grace for Johnson. Unless Holt or someone else pointed it out to him, he just looked for the line on which to sign off on the findings and the order for execution. The thought that Johnson would ever have read all those pages from the trial and deliberations was foreign to me.
Within the past decade or so, however, I have come to feel the same as Roger. To me, it comes down to whether or not Johnson believed there was one plot or two. Was the kidnap plot separate from the assassination? I think conspiracy is conspiracy and that Johnson had no choice but to find Mrs. Surratt guilty if he was going to approve the executions of Herold and Atzerodt.
RE: Johnson at odds with Holt & Stanton in June of 1865 - Eva Elisabeth - 02-22-2015 03:35 PM
Thank you for your reply, Roger. That makes sense to what you write about Johnson. Actually I wanted to know about forum members own opinion regarding if the plea should have been granted or not. Or, in other words - if you had been the president and knew of the plea, would you have found it right to grant it or to deny it?
RE: Johnson at odds with Holt & Stanton in June of 1865 - LincolnToddFan - 02-22-2015 03:36 PM
(02-22-2015 03:16 PM)RJNorton Wrote: Eva, IMO Johnson firmly believed Mary Surratt "kept the nest that hatched the egg." I think his mind was made up on her, clemency plea or not. Also, IMO, I feel the weight of the evidence shows that Johnson knew about the clemency plea and chose to ignore it.
Ditto, Roger. Her fate was sealed the moment she was arrested.
Eva, I definitely would have granted the pardon to the widow Surratt. I've said it before, but I have never been 100% convinced that she was guilty of conspiracy in the assassination plot. What is even more disturbing to me is that her son John was let off on the exact same evidence that condemned his mother.
RE: Johnson at odds with Holt & Stanton in June of 1865 - Eva Elisabeth - 02-22-2015 03:41 PM
(02-22-2015 03:30 PM)L Verge Wrote: I think conspiracy is conspiracy and that Johnson had no choice but to find Mrs. Surratt guilty if he was going to approve the executions of Herold and Atzerodt.Thanks, Laurie, although I am generally opposed to the death penalty, this is my opinion, too. The reasoning why to treat Mary Surratt differently than Herold and Atzerodt seems unjust to me (and like Stanton said would have been an invitation to abuse women as a tool for such). In "Blood on the Moon", Ed Steers pointed well out the law's treatment of conspiracy. I wonder if Mary Surratt was aware of the law and that she was subject to it.
(02-22-2015 03:36 PM)LincolnToddFan Wrote: What is even more disturbing to me is that her son John was let off on the exact same evidence that condemned his mother.Toia, I agree on this.
RE: Johnson at odds with Holt & Stanton in June of 1865 - STS Lincolnite - 02-22-2015 04:43 PM
I assume there is an extant copy of the letter from the commissioners that requested clemency for Mrs. Surratt - where is it located and does anyone have a text copy? I would like to read it for myself. Also this was a request for clemency - not one of the commissioners, from my understanding, rescinded their vote for guilt in this letter - only requested that the sentence be reduced.
It is also important to remember, not all of the commissioners signed this request for clemency (5 of the 9 signed). I think it is hard to retrospectively judge Johnson's decision (assuming he actually did see that letter requesting clemency) on whether to proceed with the execution as penalty for the guilty verdict. I generally do not think much of Johnson, but related to his signing off on the execution I tend to give him a little latitude. He had to consider what Laurie stated above as well as Stanton's argument as Eva stated as well as what the populace generally thought of women's role in society and being the hand that signed off on the first execution of a woman in US history. I just don't think he was well equipped to make those kind of decisions.
From what I understand (per Steers' Blood on the Moon), the commissioners that signed the plea for clemency recommend life in prison instead of execution due to her sex and age. Either way, they found her guilty and didn't waiver from that in their recommendation. If the commissioners felt that she was not guilty they would have found her as such and the death sentence she received would have been a moot point - and they still could have moved on with the other executions with little controversy. But they did find her guilty, indicating that they felt the evidence compelling enough (based on the 1865 conspiracy law standards) to extend that verdict.
So the big questions is: Does someone's sex and age alone warrant a reduction of sentence in the case of someone, who along with others, was found guilty of conspiracy to murder the President of the United States?
As related to John Surratt, his court proceedings resulted in a mistrial, not a "not guilty" verdict. From what I understand, by that point in 1867, the statute of limitations had run out on all the charges except murder and the Government elected not to pursue another trial. The public sentiment, even though many felt he was guilty, was part of what drove the decision not to re-try. People just wanted to move on and forget the pain of war and death. They wanted to close the book on that chapter of their immediate past even if it meant not every "i" was dotted and "t" crossed. Surratt posed no immediate threat to the general public so they let it go. That is very different than Surratt being found not guilty in my mind.
RE: Johnson at odds with Holt & Stanton in June of 1865 - Eva Elisabeth - 02-22-2015 04:55 PM
(02-22-2015 03:16 PM)RJNorton Wrote: Also, IMO, I feel the weight of the evidence shows that Johnson knew about the clemency plea and chose to ignore it.I wonder if this was the reason why Johnson pardoned Arnold and Spangler, too?
RE: Johnson at odds with Holt & Stanton in June of 1865 - RJNorton - 02-22-2015 05:01 PM
The plea itself was worded as follows:
The undersigned members of the Military Commission detailed to try Mary E. Surratt and others for the conspiracy and the murder of Abraham Lincoln, late President of the United States, do respectively pray the President, in consideration of the sex and age of the said Mary E. Surratt, if he can upon all the facts in the case, find it consistent with his sense of duty to the country to commute the sentence of death to imprisonment in the penitentiary for life.
It was signed by Hunter, Kautz, Foster, Ekin, and Tompkins. I do not know where it is located nowadays.
RE: Johnson at odds with Holt & Stanton in June of 1865 - STS Lincolnite - 02-22-2015 05:19 PM
(02-22-2015 05:01 PM)RJNorton Wrote: The plea itself was worded as follows:
The undersigned members of the Military Commission detailed to try Mary E. Surratt and others for the conspiracy and the murder of Abraham Lincoln, late President of the United States, do respectively pray the President, in consideration of the sex and age of the said Mary E. Surratt, if he can upon all the facts in the case, find it consistent with his sense of duty to the country to commute the sentence of death to imprisonment in the penitentiary for life.
It was signed by Hunter, Kautz, Foster, Ekin, and Tompkins. I do not know where it is located nowadays.
Thanks Roger.
In my previous post, I alluded that in finding Mrs. Surratt guilty the commissioners indicated they felt evidence compelling enough to do so. I have been trying to read a few more sources and it seems there may be more to it than that. One source I found says that the commissioners, when convened to decide on the case against Mrs. Surratt, in their initial polling, voted 5 to 4 to either acquit or at least reduce her sentence to life. And further, that a compromise was reached with Holt for all to vote guilty but to add the recommendation for reduction sentence. That makes the question of their surety of her guilt more questionable. I will have to do some more reading...
RE: Johnson at odds with Holt & Stanton in June of 1865 - Eva Elisabeth - 02-22-2015 06:08 PM
If Johnson had granted the plea it might also have convinced more people of what Mary Lincoln was - that he was involved in the conspiracy. I think however he had decided it would in a way have backfired from some side. Thus it seemed probably the least "dangerous" to him to pretend ignorance. I think the plea added some stress upon him.
RE: Johnson at odds with Holt & Stanton in June of 1865 - L Verge - 02-22-2015 07:17 PM
(02-22-2015 04:43 PM)STS Lincolnite Wrote: I assume there is an extant copy of the letter from the commissioners that requested clemency for Mrs. Surratt - where is it located and does anyone have a text copy? I would like to read it for myself. Also this was a request for clemency - not one of the commissioners, from my understanding, rescinded their vote for guilt in this letter - only requested that the sentence be reduced.
It is also important to remember, not all of the commissioners signed this request for clemency (5 of the 9 signed). I think it is hard to retrospectively judge Johnson's decision (assuming he actually did see that letter requesting clemency) on whether to proceed with the execution as penalty for the guilty verdict. I generally do not think much of Johnson, but related to his signing off on the execution I tend to give him a little latitude. He had to consider what Laurie stated above as well as Stanton's argument as Eva stated as well as what the populace generally thought of women's role in society and being the hand that signed off on the first execution of a woman in US history. I just don't think he was well equipped to make those kind of decisions.
From what I understand (per Steers' Blood on the Moon), the commissioners that signed the plea for clemency recommend life in prison instead of execution due to her sex and age. Either way, they found her guilty and didn't waiver from that in their recommendation. If the commissioners felt that she was not guilty they would have found her as such and the death sentence she received would have been a moot point - and they still could have moved on with the other executions with little controversy. But they did find her guilty, indicating that they felt the evidence compelling enough (based on the 1865 conspiracy law standards) to extend that verdict.
So the big questions is: Does someone's sex and age alone warrant a reduction of sentence in the case of someone, who along with others, was found guilty of conspiracy to murder the President of the United States?
As related to John Surratt, his court proceedings resulted in a mistrial, not a "not guilty" verdict. From what I understand, by that point in 1867, the statute of limitations had run out on all the charges except murder and the Government elected not to pursue another trial. The public sentiment, even though many felt he was guilty, was part of what drove the decision not to re-try. People just wanted to move on and forget the pain of war and death. They wanted to close the book on that chapter of their immediate past even if it meant not every "i" was dotted and "t" crossed. Surratt posed no immediate threat to the general public so they let it go. That is very different than Surratt being found not guilty in my mind.
Excellent summation, Scott. And yes, I believe the original clemency plea is in the LAS files at the Archives. Mr. Hall gave Surratt House a copy many long years ago, and we used to have it on display. It could cause quite a discussion.
You are also quite right that Junior's trial(s) proved nothing. I don't believe that the final "verdict" would even be called a mistrial. The case was marked "nolle prosse" (hope I got the spelling correct), meaning that no further attempts for indictment would transpire. The media of the day and the historians for the past 150 years have made more of the trial than the contemporaries did, IMO.
RE: Johnson at odds with Holt & Stanton in June of 1865 - John E. - 02-22-2015 10:28 PM
I believe Mary Surratt was guilty and paid the right penalty.
RE: Johnson at odds with Holt & Stanton in June of 1865 - Eva Elisabeth - 03-01-2015 08:16 PM
(02-21-2015 05:27 PM)STS Lincolnite Wrote: Thanks Eva and Gene! Preston King is who I was thinking of.Scott, there was probably another suicide you were thinking of, but I couldn't find the name last time, now I did. Senator James Lane of Texas was the other one to shield Johnson, and he, too committed suicide. On July 1, 1866 he shot himself in the head as he jumped from his carriage in Leavenworth, Kansas, and died ten days later. However, as for the motif, Wiki reads: "He was allegedly deranged, depressed, had been charged with abandoning his fellow Radical Republicans and had been accused of financial irregularities."
RE: Johnson at odds with Holt & Stanton in June of 1865 - John E. - 03-01-2015 10:52 PM
(03-01-2015 08:16 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:(02-21-2015 05:27 PM)STS Lincolnite Wrote: Thanks Eva and Gene! Preston King is who I was thinking of.Scott, there was probably another suicide you were thinking of, but I couldn't find the name last time, now I did. Senator James Lane of Texas was the other one to shield Johnson, and he, too committed suicide. On July 1, 1866 he shot himself in the head as he jumped from his carriage in Leavenworth, Kansas, and died ten days later. However, as for the motif, Wiki reads: "He was allegedly deranged, depressed, had been charged with abandoning his fellow Radical Republicans and had been accused of financial irregularities."
Hello Eva, just a slight correction to what was probably a typo - Senator Lane was from Kansas, not Texas. He was famous for starting the Kansas Red Legs. He was on hand for the trial of the conspirators.