Lincoln pallbearers - April 19, 1865

[Laurie Verge]

Reverdy Johnson may have hurt the case for Mary Surratt. Aiken and Clampitt has already been retained as counsel for the lady when Johnson agreed to sign onto the case also. He did so without sufficient time to examine the facts and basically stated that he would represent her unless he found extenuating circumstances that would cause him to withdraw.

He immediately questioned the legality of the military tribunal in trying a civilian and incurred the wrath of some very vocal members of that tribunal. During the war, he had also questioned the use of verbal oaths of allegiance; and this was brought up against him. At that point, he realized that he was becoming "an enemy" of the court also and that it would prejudice the officers against Mrs. Surratt, so he withdrew from the spotlight. The court, the press, and the public, however, saw this as a sign that Johnson had found evidence of Surratt's guilt. It became yet another hurdle to overcome in Mary's defense.

I doubt that Reverdy Johnson could have done any better with the case than did Aiken and Clampitt, however - even if he had not prejudiced the court against him.