The Flimsy Case Against Mary Surratt

[mike86002000]

Bill Binzel wrote, quoting Judge Boynton:
“The decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on the inferior courts; and no decision was ever more willingly followed than would be the decision and the ruling of the majority of the Supreme Court in Milligen’s [sic] case by this Court in any case where that decision was on point. … But I do not think that ex parte Milligen [sic] is a case in point here [i.e., the facts of Ex parte Milligan, are not applicable to the Lincoln assassination conspirators because they were not “civilians”]. … The President was assassinated not from private animosity, nor any other reason than a desire to impair the effectiveness of military operations…. It was not Mr. Lincoln who was assassinated, but the Commander-in-Chief of the army for military reasons [i.e., the Lincoln assassination conspirators were, in modern terminology “enemy combatants”]. I find no difficulty therefore, in classing the offence as a military one, and with this opinion arrive at the necessary conclusion that the proper tribunal for the trial of those engaged in it was a military one.”
-- Ex parte Mudd, 17 F. Cas. 954 (S.D. Fla. 1868)

PS - I am familiar with what Marty Lederman wrote on page 454, but it does not change the fact that Mudd still stands as the final ruling on the Constitutionality of the use of a military commission to try the Lincoln assassination conspirators. One may be of the opinion that Judge Boynton's ruling is incorrect, but that is all it is -- an opinion, and is not a matter of fact or law.

(end of my quotation of Bill)

The ruling in "Milligan" was unanimous, not just a "majority", as Boynton says. Apparently he read the case, even though he had trouble spelling it, (not having the benefit of "spellcheck"). He was either blissfully unaware of, or chose to ignore, the history of the actual charges against Mr. Milligan and his codefendants. They were alleged to have established a secret organization that planned to liberate Confederate soldiers from Union prisoner-of-war camps in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, and then seize an arsenal, provide the freed prisoners with arms, raise an armed force to incite a general insurrection, and join with the Confederates to invade Indiana, Illinois, and Kentucky, and make war on the government of the United States. Certainly, they had "a desire to impair the effectiveness of military operations". Certainly their crimes had a "military reason". These facts didn't prevent the Supreme Court from ruling that Mr. Milligan was entitled to a civilian trial, and that trial and sentencing by a military commission was illegal, since he was a civilian and civilian courts were available. By extension, Ex Parte Milligan should apply to the trial of the Lincoln conspirators , even if they also had "a desire to impair the effectiveness of military operations", and their crimes also had a "military reason" .
It is a fact, that it is my opinion, that it is a fact, that:
The enormity of the murder of my distant cousin, President Abraham Lincoln, and the desire for revenge, is what made the trial of the conspirators by military commission even thinkable, at the time. It doesn't make it defensible today. The conspirators were civilians. Civilian courts were available with, I might add, ample resources to try a murder case. Ex Parte Milligan applies.
I've explained, previously, that Boynton's ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court, who actually started to hear the case, and how that was "headed off" by the pardoning of all the conspirators who still survived. Had the case been heard, by the same justices who determined Ex Parte Milligan, I think the finding would have been easily predicted.
Bill, you state your opinion, that it is a fact, that Boynton's ruling "still stands as the final ruling on the Constitutionality of the use of a military commission to try the Lincoln assassination conspirators". At the moment, it may remain the most recent ruling. I think, it is my opinion, that may change.

Mike