Post Reply 
Reevaluation of the St. Albams Raiders
06-18-2017, 09:35 AM (This post was last modified: 06-18-2017 01:06 PM by Gene C.)
Post: #15
RE: Reevaluation of the St. Albams Raiders
Speaking of Bennett Young, this from "The Civil War Years - Canada and the United States, by Robin Winks:

"The defense presented the prisoner's statements, and Young submitted to the court copies of his vague commission from Confederate Secretary of War Seddon, which authorized him to organize a company of twenty men for an unstated purpose. Young further declared that the particular expedition was neither organized nor projected from the Canadas, and in this he appears to have been less than honest. He added, for emotional effect and apparently with some truth, that he was also avenging his fiancée, who had been criminaly attacked by a Northern soldier, a point which impressed the pro-Southern crowd in the courtroom. The defense requested a thirty day delay so that messengers might go to Richmond to obtain copies of commissions and other documents that would prove that the expedition had been an act of war, and Coursol suspended the charges until December 13.

When the defense appealed to Lincoln to grant the messengers safe conduct to Richmond, the President refused."
(page 312)

**** This occurred before "Coursol declared he would hear no more of the matter and discharged the prisoners from all six warrants" (page 314)
Coursol claimed he had no jurisdiction in the case. - p 315.

So when is this "Old Enough To Know Better" supposed to kick in?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Messages In This Thread
RE: Reevaluation of the St. Albams Raiders - Gene C - 06-18-2017 09:35 AM

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)