+- Lincoln Discussion Symposium (https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium)
+-- Forum: Lincoln Discussion Symposium (/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Assassination (/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Type of trial - Debate (/thread-738.html)
Type of trial - Debate - John E. - 03-11-2013 09:34 AM
Hi All,
I posted this debate topic on the ITW facebook page. I'd like to know people's opinions if they care to share.
There are many who believe the trial of the conspirators should have been conducted in a civil rather than military court. Would that same logic suggest that the military had no legal authority to hunt down John Wilkes Booth?
Should Boston Corbett have been charged with murder for killing JWB? How could the military justify using its resources to pursue the assassin if this was a police matter?
In 1865, there was no law distinguishing between killing the POTUS or anyone else. It was simple murder. Who would national detectives worked with in Virginia to pursue Booth and Herold?
Thoughts?
RE: Type of trial - Debate - Hess1865 - 03-11-2013 09:43 AM
Remember, the POTUS wears two hats-President and Commander In Chief
The military trial was also based on the latter.
RE: Type of trial - Debate - Matt Macoubrie - 03-11-2013 09:58 AM
I thought that it was valid for them to hunt down Booth, because I believe that one of the officers was the head of the NPD at the time, which would be somewhat like a CIA today. I look at this situation as the hunt for Osama bin Laden. We used military force to find, capture, and kill bin Laden.
I also do not think Corbett should have been charged, because though he was not instructed to, he did kill Booth, ending the situation. I honestly believe that the United States wanted to simply move on, and knowing that John Wilkes Booth was dead, made it easier to run through the other trials, convict, and kill Surratt, Herold, Powell, and Atzerodt. It makes sense that they did not take him to trial because he was slightly mentally impaired, considering that he escaped from a mental institution in 1888.
RE: Type of trial - Debate - tblunk - 03-11-2013 10:37 AM
Was the area still under martial law? Does that make a difference in using the military to pursue and apprehend?
They probably should have been tried in a civilian court. But it wasn't until after the war that that was made clear by the Supreme Court in regards to a case from Indiana, I believe. If Lincoln had been alive, he might have insisted on a civilian trial. Didn't he instruct Burnside to use civilian courts in Ohio?
RE: Type of trial - Debate - John E. - 03-11-2013 10:48 AM
For the record, I believe the trial and pursuit of the conspirators by the government was absolutely justifiable and legal.
RE: Type of trial - Debate - LincolnMan - 03-11-2013 11:04 AM
When did the civil war officially end? It's an important consideration because Lincoln was killed while the war was still on. Many count the surrender of Lee as the ending of it-even Lincoln made a comment about that on his last day alive. However, the war was not over on April 14th-there were still Confederate armies in the field-and engagements that would yet occur. It is interesting to note that some of our wars have officially ended long after many people think. Vietnam ended in 1975-not 1972. I believe World War Two didn't end until December 1946.
RE: Type of trial - Debate - Bill Richter - 03-11-2013 11:35 AM
The US Civil War ended on August 20, 1866 by presidential proclamation by Andrew Johnson. In reality the surrendering Confederates from Lee at Appomatox onward merely agreed to a ceasefire and to lay down their weapons and battleflags and go home and "behave." If they did so they would be undisturbed by the Federal authorities.
RE: Type of trial - Debate - LincolnMan - 03-11-2013 11:53 AM
Bill, great information. So the war didn't officially end for well over a year after Lee's surrender. On sort of a side-note-when did that Confederate ship cease activities? Was it the "Alabama?"
RE: Type of trial - Debate - Bill Richter - 03-11-2013 12:54 PM
The last one was the CSS Shenandoah or the CSS Stonewall, I think. Somewhere around December 1865? It had been raiding Yankee whalers in the Pacific around the Bering Strait. Surrendered to the British? The CSS Alabama went down before the USS Kearsage off Cherbourg, France, in 1864, I think. This is all off the top of my head so I will stand to being corrected
RE: Type of trial - Debate - John E. - 03-11-2013 01:05 PM
The good Dr. Wild Bill bringing the goods.
P.S. Mosby never surrendered. Isn't that right Betty? Come to think of it, you can visit some parts of the south (eh-hem Georgia) and they'll swear their ancestors never surrendered either. -- Seriously.
I visited a little museum in Andersonville about 2 years ago and was taken back by the big statue of General Wirz. One of the older men who volunteered at the museum asked me if I was Northern or Southern.
True story.
RE: Type of trial - Debate - Bill Richter - 03-11-2013 03:12 PM
Moby surrendered on June 17, 1865, more or less under the same terms given Lee at Appomattox. There were some bureaucratic mix ups and he was arrested, but Gen US Grant interceded a couple of times to keep him free. He served the Grant Administration as a land commissioner in Nebraska and later Republican administrations in diplomatic posts
RE: Type of trial - Debate - Laurie Verge - 03-11-2013 03:45 PM
Why were the Confederate Cabinet members and Gen. Lee never put on trial?
BTW: John E, I agree with you completely that the military tribunal was the route to take in bringing the conspirators to justice. I'm just surprised that more did not make it to prison for extended stays. I happen to believe in the term "enemy beligerents" in relation to civilians during war times.
Surprise all of you who have me pegged as a perpetual She Rebel! I do have a sense of justice.
RE: Type of trial - Debate - KateH. - 03-11-2013 05:12 PM
Laurie, I find your point very interesting. Why do you feel that a military tribunal, as opposed to a civilian court, was the correct route for the Union to take in order to deal with the eight captured conspirators?
Also, John E, why do you think the pursuit and trial of the conspirators by the government was absolutely justifiable and legal as it stood?
I'm intrigued to hear the different opinions
As for my stance on Corbett shooting Booth, sometimes you have to take an eye for an eye. Booth would have died on the gallows if he'd been captured. I think his death brought a sense of peace to the people. Lincoln had been avenged and his killer was no longer running free. It also helped put some faith back in the Lincoln-less government. 12 days is a rather long while. Every time the government turned up with no Booth the people lost faith in their superiors. It seemed like Lincoln was the driving force of action and, without him, everyone else just crumbled. Killing Booth proved that the government was capable of carrying on with Lincoln.
RE: Type of trial - Debate - John E. - 03-11-2013 05:30 PM
Kate,
Even though the civil courts were operating in DC, the city was still under martial law and the assassination attempts were acts of war in my opinion.
Depending on the charges, if not a military trial, Mudd would have been put on trial in Maryland and Arnold in Virginia.
RE: Type of trial - Debate - L Verge - 03-11-2013 06:23 PM
Kate - I feel that the military court was the only way to assure a quick and speedy trial and justice based on the severity of the crime. As John pointed out, Washington was under martial law; it had come under attack in 1864 (even though Jubal Early only made it to the outskirts of the city); Lincoln was Commander-in-Chief of the government's forces (which is a military rank).
Even though the city was the capital of the federal government, its citizenry was still basically Southern in feeling; and the chances of getting an impartial jury of peers would have been difficult (hence what happened in the Surratt, Jr. trial). Military trials had been used against civilians in other phases of the war, and certainly for lesser crimes than killing the head of state. And, finally -- and someone please correct me if I'm wrong -- I believe that trying civilians deemed "enemy belligerents" in military courts had been used in other wars and by other countries.
As for Corbett shooting Booth, I don't think there was any order to take him alive. Some historians have pointed out that it would have been a dangerous order because it would have stopped soldiers from protecting themselves from a fugitive who came out of that barn with guns blazing. I think Corbett did the U.S. court system and the U.S. people a great service by having the assassin die an ignoble death. Despite what I have been accused of previously, I do think that Booth's act was despicable -- however, I also think it was patriotically inspired in terms of what he saw an American democracy to be.