Johnson at odds with Holt & Stanton in June of 1865

[L Verge]

(02-22-2015 05:43 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 Also this was a request for clemency - not one of the commissioners, from my understanding, rescinded their vote for guilt in this letter - only requested that the sentence be reduced.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.