Porter & Comstock

[loetar44]

Just read in Roy Z. Chamlee’s “Lincoln's Assassins: A Complete Account of Their Capture, Trial, and Punishment” that Gen. Horace Porter on May 10, 1865 was removed from the Military Commission (like Maj. Gen. C. B. Comstock) because of defense objections that he would be biased. Strange, because IMO the defense had no opportunity to object, because no defense counsel had attended the sessions of the tribunal, which started in secret on May 8, without any defense counsel. I thought the first defense witnesses were heard on May 12. Am I right? Was the proper reason to remove Porter and Comstock because they were uncooperative in the eyes of Holt and Stanton?

[Eva Elisabeth]

I seem to recall it was their own wish to be removed because of personal objections to the procedere/military trial.

[John Fazio]

(01-09-2016 10:43 AM)loetar44 Wrote:  Just read in Roy Z. Chamlee’s “Lincoln's Assassins: A Complete Account of Their Capture, Trial, and Punishment” that Gen. Horace Porter on May 10, 1865 was removed from the Military Commission (like Maj. Gen. C. B. Comstock) because of defense objections that he would be biased. Strange, because IMO the defense had no opportunity to object, because no defense counsel had attended the sessions of the tribunal, which started in secret on May 8, without any defense counsel. I thought the first defense witnesses were heard on May 12. Am I right? Was the proper reason to remove Porter and Comstock because they were uncooperative in the eyes of Holt and Stanton?

Kees:

My understanding is that Comstock was appalled at the treatment of the prisoners, upon observing them enter the courtroom on May 8, with all their medieval paraphernalia (hoods, balls, chains, shackles, manacles) and for that reason asked to be excused and was. Porter was excused at the same time, so the presumption is that he too was offended by the treatment of the prisoners. However, both men were senior aides to General Grant and it is probable, therefore, that their status as such facilitated their removal inasmuch as Grant was alleged, in the indictment and specifications, to have been an intended victim, which, in my judgment, he was.

The trial did start on the 8th. It was closed to the public until the 15th. Testimony began to be taken on the 12th, but not from defense witnesses, but from prosecution witnesses.

I hope this helps.

John

[loetar44]

Thanks Eva and John. But what about the assertion that the military tribunal acted (in the eyes of Comstock and Porter) illegally in trying civilians. Comstock had written that civilians ought to be tried by civil courts. He also wanted no secret sessions of the tribunal as Holt wished. And yes, he despised the cruel treatment of the prisoners. Comstock ventilated his critics loud and clear at the secret session of May 8. Porter had the same objections as Comstock. This all was against the will of Holt and Stanton, and when Comstock and Porter went to the court on May 10, they were removed from the commission. It was not their own (free) choice, but due to their protests.

[John Fazio]

(01-09-2016 05:03 PM)loetar44 Wrote:  Thanks Eva and John. But what about the assertion that the military tribunal acted (in the eyes of Comstock and Porter) illegally in trying civilians. Comstock had written that civilians ought to be tried by civil courts. He also wanted no secret sessions of the tribunal as Holt wished. And yes, he despised the cruel treatment of the prisoners. Comstock ventilated his critics loud and clear at the secret session of May 8. Porter had the same objections as Comstock. This all was against the will of Holt and Stanton, and when Comstock and Porter went to the court on May 10, they were removed from the commission. It was not their own (free) choice, but due to their protests.

Kees:

A lot of people thought a military trial was unlawful, including former Attorney General Bates. But, ultimately, we have to accept what was decided by those whose responsibility it was to decide it. In this connection, President Johnson asked Attorney General Speed to give his opinion as to the legality of a military trial. Speed famously ruled that the alleged conspirators "...not only can but ought to be tried before a military tribunal." In this, Speed was strongly supported by Bingham and, in our own time, has been supported by Steers and other assassination historians, including me. Further, in 1868, a Federal Court for the District of Southern Florida upheld the jurisdiction of the military commission to try the conspirators and clearly distinguished the case from the case of Ex Parte Milligan, which the Supreme court had decided in the interim period and which appeared to cast doubt on the legality of the
proceedings against the conspirators. Most likely, it was Comstock's and Porter's opinion re the jurisdiction of the commission, together with their objections to the treatment of the prisoners and the fact that they were both senior aides of Grant, that resulted in their dismissal. Interestingly though, they probably both stayed on until replacements were found for them, because Comstock went to the President with his complaints about the closed proceedings two days after testimony was first taken (i.e. the 14th). The following day, the proceedings were open to the public. Recall that Comstock originally registered his objections on the 8th.

John

[loetar44]

Thanks John !

[JosephARose]

On page 377 of William Marvel's scathing biography of Edwin Stanton, Lincoln's Autocrat, he concluded that "Comstock argued, perhaps for both of them, that the commission lacked jurisdiction, notwithstanding Speed's supportive opinion, which had been based on the presupposition that the defendants were guilty. Comstock complained as well about the secrecy of the trial, and of the manner in which all eight defendants were brought in hooded and shackled. Stanton replaced the uncooperative Comstock and Porter the following day." He cites: Sumner, Comstock Diary, 317; Pitman, the Assassination, 409.

In his diary, Comstock had written on May 8th: "Wish I could get off" the commission, and he objected to its being military, not civil, and secret. The next day, he described the "horrid sight" of the bound prisoners.

Porter, in Campaigning with Grant, page 510, wrote: "I was appointed a member of the court which was to try the prisoners. The defense, however, raised the objection that as I was a member of General Grant's military family, and as it was claimed that he was one of the high officials who was an intended victim of the assassins, I was disqualified from sitting in judgment upon them. The court very properly sustained the objection, and I was relieved, and another officer was substituted."

This might already have been posted, but it may be of interest.

[RJNorton]

Welcome to the forum, Joe. I have a question as my memory on this incident is vague. But wasn't Porter also in the carriage on April 14th as the Grants rode to the train station in the late afternoon? Thus, was it Porter who also witnessed Booth riding by very closely and alarming the people in the carriage with a "cold stare?"

[John Fazio]

(02-02-2016 04:58 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Welcome to the forum, Joe. I have a question as my memory on this incident is vague. But wasn't Porter also in the carriage on April 14th as the Grants rode to the train station in the late afternoon? Thus, was it Porter who also witnessed Booth riding by very closely and alarming the people in the carriage with a "cold stare?"

Roger:

In her Memoirs, Julia Grant said that the carriage in which they were riding to the depot belonged to General Daniel H. Rucker and/or his wife. She said, further, that Mrs. Rucker was in the carriage. She does not mention General Rucker, but presumably he was there too. She says nothing about Porter or anyone else being in the carriage. That is not to say with absolute certainty that he was not there; merely that she does not mention him.

John

[John Fazio]

(02-02-2016 05:40 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(02-02-2016 04:58 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Welcome to the forum, Joe. I have a question as my memory on this incident is vague. But wasn't Porter also in the carriage on April 14th as the Grants rode to the train station in the late afternoon? Thus, was it Porter who also witnessed Booth riding by very closely and alarming the people in the carriage with a "cold stare?"

Roger:

In her Memoirs, Julia Grant said that the carriage in which they were riding to the depot belonged to General Daniel H. Rucker and/or his wife. She said, further, that Mrs. Rucker was in the carriage. She does not mention General Rucker, but presumably he was there too. She says nothing about Porter or anyone else being in the carriage. That is not to say with absolute certainty that he was not there; merely that she does not mention him.

John

Roger:

I should have added that because the carriages were designed for four passengers, and because this particular carriage was owned by the Ruckers, and because Mrs. Rucker is expressly said to have been in it at the the time, it seems quite probable that General Rucker was also a passenger. A strong probability, therefore, is that Porter was NOT a passenger.

John

[RJNorton]

John, I think you are right about Porter not being present in the carriage. I was confused because I think I originally saw the incident described in Porter's reminiscences.

In Campaigning With Grant, Porter writes:

"About half-past three o'clock the wife of General Rucker called with her carriage to take the party to the Baltimore and Ohio railroad-station. It was a two-seated top-carriage. Mrs. Grant sat with Mrs. Rucker on the back seat. The general, with true republican simplicity, sat on the front seat with the driver. Before they had gone far along Pennsylvania Avenue, a horseman who was riding in the same direction passed them, and as he did so peered into the carriage. When Mrs. Grant caught sight of his face she remarked to the general: " That is the same man who sat down at the lunch-table near me. I don't like his looks." Before they reached the station the horseman turned and rode back toward them, and again gazed at them intently. This time he attracted the attention of the general, who regarded the man's movements as singular, but made light of the matter so as to allay Mrs. Grant's apprehensions."

[John Fazio]

(02-02-2016 08:15 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  John, I think you are right about Porter not being present in the carriage. I was confused because I think I originally saw the incident described in Porter's reminiscences.

In Campaigning With Grant, Porter writes:

"About half-past three o'clock the wife of General Rucker called with her carriage to take the party to the Baltimore and Ohio railroad-station. It was a two-seated top-carriage. Mrs. Grant sat with Mrs. Rucker on the back seat. The general, with true republican simplicity, sat on the front seat with the driver. Before they had gone far along Pennsylvania Avenue, a horseman who was riding in the same direction passed them, and as he did so peered into the carriage. When Mrs. Grant caught sight of his face she remarked to the general: " That is the same man who sat down at the lunch-table near me. I don't like his looks." Before they reached the station the horseman turned and rode back toward them, and again gazed at them intently. This time he attracted the attention of the general, who regarded the man's movements as singular, but made light of the matter so as to allay Mrs. Grant's apprehensions."

Roger:

Excellent. That nails it down. I never read that book. I will add it to my list, which now has about as many entries as our local phone book.

John

[STS Lincolnite]

(02-02-2016 02:52 AM)JosephARose Wrote:  In his diary, Comstock had written on May 8th: "Wish I could get off" the commission, and he objected to its being military, not civil, and secret. The next day, he described the "horrid sight" of the bound prisoners.

Porter, in Campaigning with Grant, page 510, wrote: "I was appointed a member of the court which was to try the prisoners. The defense, however, raised the objection that as I was a member of General Grant's military family, and as it was claimed that he was one of the high officials who was an intended victim of the assassins, I was disqualified from sitting in judgment upon them. The court very properly sustained the objection, and I was relieved, and another officer was substituted."

Joe, welcome. I was just sitting down to post the exact same quote from Porter (see above) when I read your post.

Porter goes on to relate that he did sit one day at the trial and describes the general condition of the prisoners. At no point did he mention that he took issue with their treatment or with the fact that the proceedings were closed.

If Porter is correct, it seems that there was an objection by the defense to the placement of Comstock and Porter (certainly Porter from his own account) on the grounds of the relationship with Grant (a claimed target of the plot) – the two in question being members of Grant's staff. That objection was upheld. Now, certainly the decision to uphold the objection would have been strongly influenced by the idea that a commissioner or commissioners had some disagreement with the treatment of the prisoners and the format of the trial (Comstock certainly did as alluded to in the quote above). Maybe the objection would not have been upheld if this was not the case – its hard to say for sure in retrospect. But as a matter of procedure (the nature of the objection), it seems they were officially relieved due to being on Grant’s staff and the potential for bias therein. This potential bias sort of gave Holt, Stanton, etc. a reasonable and appropriate excuse for relieving commissioners that may not have been in agreement with the Government’s prosecution procedures from the start.

All that is sort of splitting hairs, but is nonetheless an interesting and important distinction to me.

I can't help but feel that Marvel has unduly piled on Stanton in this particular instance with the statement: "Stanton replaced the uncooperative Comstock and Porter the following day." As I stated above, there appears to have been a defense objection to the presence of Comstock and Porter anyway which certainly warranted their removal (as Porter stated). The "secrecy" issue became moot when the trial was opened up.

In fact Stanton made comment about this to Gideon Welles as related in Welles' diary entry for May 12, 1865: "I inquired of the Secretary of War if there is any foundation for the assertion that the trial of the assassins is to be held in secret. He says it will not be secret, although the doors will not be open to the whole public immediately. Full and minute reports of all the testimony and proceedings will be taken and in due time published; and trusty and reliable persons, in limited numbers, will have permission to attend. This will relieve the proceeding of some of its objectionable features." Recalling John's words in post #6 above, "...Comstock went to the President with his complaints about the closed proceedings two days after testimony was first taken (i.e. the 14th). The following day, the proceedings were open to the public. Recall that Comstock originally registered his objections on the 8th." If I read John's statement correctly, Comstock went to the President on May 14th. Welles' diary indicates Stanton made his comments to Welles prior to that. A decision to have an opened up trial (after an initial period of closure) had already been made by May 12th, and maybe before. The 12th was merely when Stanton articulated it to Welles.

So the either plan had been to eventually open up the trial all along (I don't know if that is likely) or the concerns/opinions of Comstock and others regarding a closed trial were in fact heard, considered, and a change implemented with reasonable speed.

[JosephARose]

(02-02-2016 08:58 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(02-02-2016 08:15 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  John, I think you are right about Porter not being present in the carriage. I was confused because I think I originally saw the incident described in Porter's reminiscences.

In Campaigning With Grant, Porter writes:

"About half-past three o'clock the wife of General Rucker called with her carriage to take the party to the Baltimore and Ohio railroad-station. It was a two-seated top-carriage. Mrs. Grant sat with Mrs. Rucker on the back seat. The general, with true republican simplicity, sat on the front seat with the driver. Before they had gone far along Pennsylvania Avenue, a horseman who was riding in the same direction passed them, and as he did so peered into the carriage. When Mrs. Grant caught sight of his face she remarked to the general: " That is the same man who sat down at the lunch-table near me. I don't like his looks." Before they reached the station the horseman turned and rode back toward them, and again gazed at them intently. This time he attracted the attention of the general, who regarded the man's movements as singular, but made light of the matter so as to allay Mrs. Grant's apprehensions."

Roger:

Excellent. That nails it down. I never read that book. I will add it to my list, which now has about as many entries as our local phone book.

John

To preface my remarks, I am not well-versed about Lincoln's assassination, but approach the subject as a Grant biographer.

Julia's Memoirs (pgs 155-57) tell how she was approached in her rooms by a curious messenger. Then four suspicious men, one of whom looked like the messenger, watched her eat lunch. Another of the four later rode past the Grants, who were in Mrs. Rucker's carriage, and glared at them. After General Grant left Julia in Burlington, New Jersey, early the next day, she received a note from the would-be assassin. In Young's Around the World with General Grant (2:356), Grant stated that he had "learned afterward that the horseman was Booth."

Even if Grant's testimony was given before he learned this, why wouldn't Grant have testified about the would-be assassin's note and the plot to take his life, as it bore a very probable connection to Lincoln's assassination? Why wouldn't Julia confirm the possible identities of the men who watched her eat lunch, as their presence at the restaurant would be germane to any investigation of the events of that day?

[John Fazio]

(02-02-2016 04:34 PM)JosephARose Wrote:  

(02-02-2016 08:58 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(02-02-2016 08:15 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  John, I think you are right about Porter not being present in the carriage. I was confused because I think I originally saw the incident described in Porter's reminiscences.

In Campaigning With Grant, Porter writes:

"About half-past three o'clock the wife of General Rucker called with her carriage to take the party to the Baltimore and Ohio railroad-station. It was a two-seated top-carriage. Mrs. Grant sat with Mrs. Rucker on the back seat. The general, with true republican simplicity, sat on the front seat with the driver. Before they had gone far along Pennsylvania Avenue, a horseman who was riding in the same direction passed them, and as he did so peered into the carriage. When Mrs. Grant caught sight of his face she remarked to the general: " That is the same man who sat down at the lunch-table near me. I don't like his looks." Before they reached the station the horseman turned and rode back toward them, and again gazed at them intently. This time he attracted the attention of the general, who regarded the man's movements as singular, but made light of the matter so as to allay Mrs. Grant's apprehensions."

Roger:

Excellent. That nails it down. I never read that book. I will add it to my list, which now has about as many entries as our local phone book.

John

To preface my remarks, I am not well-versed about Lincoln's assassination, but approach the subject as a Grant biographer.

Julia's Memoirs (pgs 155-57) tell how she was approached in her rooms by a curious messenger. Then four suspicious men, one of whom looked like the messenger, watched her eat lunch. Another of the four later rode past the Grants, who were in Mrs. Rucker's carriage, and glared at them. After General Grant left Julia in Burlington, New Jersey, early the next day, she received a note from the would-be assassin. In Young's Around the World with General Grant (2:356), Grant stated that he had "learned afterward that the horseman was Booth."

Even if Grant's testimony was given before he learned this, why wouldn't Grant have testified about the would-be assassin's note and the plot to take his life, as it bore a very probable connection to Lincoln's assassination? Why wouldn't Julia confirm the possible identities of the men who watched her eat lunch, as their presence at the restaurant would be germane to any investigation of the events of that day?

Mr. Rose:

I would like to suggest that the answer to your queston is: Grant's testimony as to Booth's menacing him and Julia in the carriage would not have been relevant to the prosecution's case. Booth was not on trial. Similarly, testimony as to the letter received was also irrelevant, inasmuch as the writer did not identify himself/herself and, further, even Grant said that he could not vouch for its authenticity, i.e. that it might have been written by a crank. Julia could have identified Herold as her mid-day visitor, true, but how would that have helped the prosecution? They had as much evidence as they needed to convict Herold and the other minnows; what they really wanted was evidence to implicate the sharks, i.e. the unindicted co-conspirators (the Confederate leadership and the operatives in Canada), whom they were sure were complicit in the great crime. Julia's testimony about Herold would not have helped in this regard. Furthermore, Julia would not wish to sully herself with too close an association with the unseemly business of trying assassins. The General, however, did testify, but he didn't have much to say about anything other than an 1863 meeting with Jacob Thompson.

I hope this helps.

John