Edman (Ned) Spangler: Anyone Still Think He Was Guilty?

[mikegriffith1]

Given all that we now know, does anyone still think that Ned Spangler was guilty as charged by the military commission?

In his book Backstage at the Lincoln Assassination (New York: Regnery History, 2013), I think Thomas Bogar makes a very persuasive case that the military commission's case against Spangler was not only dubious but was based on perjury (especially Ritterspaugh's testimony).

[Steve]

No, I don't.

[Gene C]

I can agree with you on that.

[RJNorton]

(11-18-2018 12:05 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Given all that we now know, does anyone still think that Ned Spangler was guilty as charged by the military commission?

No, I don't. In his book, John Fazio writes of Spangler:

"The testimony of the witnesses against him was, in every case, in some degree defective (mendacious, meaningless or misinterpreted)."

IMO, Edman Spangler was innocent.

[L Verge]

I don't think that many historians have ever considered Ned Spangler guilty in the true sense of the crime - including the military commission, hence his lenient sentence compared to the others.

If they were basing their judgments on conspiracy, they had no proof (except for an unreliable witness) that Ned participated in plotting either beforehand or after. Since he didn't even do what Booth asked and passed the horse off to Peanuts, why would that even count at the time the crime was about to be committed? Peanuts was actually the one who "abetted" in Booth's escape to a certain degree.

[JMadonna]

(11-18-2018 12:05 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Given all that we now know, does anyone still think that Ned Spangler was guilty as charged by the military commission?

I'm not sure we know anymore than what was presented at the trial. We've heard a lot of opinions by historians about perjury (regarding Spangler's case) but unless there is testimony contradicting the testimony given at trial they remain just opinions.

I agree with Laurie, the military commission weighed the evidence and gave him the most lenient sentence. Maybe he was in the wrong place at the wrong time but given the outrage at the time, 'guilty' was the appropriate verdict.

[mikegriffith1]

(11-19-2018 07:42 AM)JMadonna Wrote:  

(11-18-2018 12:05 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Given all that we now know, does anyone still think that Ned Spangler was guilty as charged by the military commission?

I'm not sure we know anymore than what was presented at the trial.

Yes, we now know a whole lot more than was presented at the "trial." For example, it was later revealed that the chief witness against him was threatened by Lafayette Baker with prison if he didn't say what Baker wanted him to say. Bogar talks about this in his book.

(11-19-2018 07:42 AM)JMadonna Wrote:  We've heard a lot of opinions by historians about perjury (regarding Spangler's case) but unless there is testimony contradicting the testimony given at trial they remain just opinions.

I agree with Laurie, the military commission weighed the evidence and gave him the most lenient sentence. Maybe he was in the wrong place at the wrong time but given the outrage at the time, 'guilty' was the appropriate verdict.

By any traditional American standard of justice, Spangler's sentence was neither appropriate nor lenient. It was a gross injustice and an outrage. At a bare minimum, there was ample reasonable doubt that Spangler did anything wrong, much less that he knowingly aided an assassin.

[L Verge]

(11-19-2018 07:45 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 07:42 AM)JMadonna Wrote:  

(11-18-2018 12:05 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Given all that we now know, does anyone still think that Ned Spangler was guilty as charged by the military commission?

I'm not sure we know anymore than what was presented at the trial.

Yes, we now know a whole lot more than was presented at the "trial." For example, it was later revealed that the chief witness against him was threatened by Lafayette Baker with prison if he didn't say what Baker wanted him to say. Bogar talks about this in his book.

(11-19-2018 07:42 AM)JMadonna Wrote:  We've heard a lot of opinions by historians about perjury (regarding Spangler's case) but unless there is testimony contradicting the testimony given at trial they remain just opinions.

I agree with Laurie, the military commission weighed the evidence and gave him the most lenient sentence. Maybe he was in the wrong place at the wrong time but given the outrage at the time, 'guilty' was the appropriate verdict.

By any traditional American standard of justice, Spangler's sentence was neither appropriate nor lenient. It was a gross injustice and an outrage. At a bare minimum, there was ample reasonable doubt that Spangler did anything wrong, much less that he knowingly aided an assassin.

Do military commissions adhere to the "reasonable doubt" principle the same as civilian juries?

[JMadonna]

(11-19-2018 07:58 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Do military commissions adhere to the "reasonable doubt" principle the same as civilian juries?

No - Under military commissions it is assumed that the charge is true. You have to prove the charge was invalid.

[John Fazio]

Mike, Steve, Gene, Roger, Laurie and Jerry:

Decapitating the Union contains an entire chapter on Spangler, titled Spangler Was Innocent. Obviously, I have no doubt of his innocence. The chapter concludes with this: "An innocent man spent four years in hell and had his life shortened because he was caught in an April 1865 whirlwind and because of vast carelessness. It matters." In the chapter, I quote in full the statement Spangler prepared and which was found by Dr. Mudd in his tool chest (fortunately for posterity). It is on pages 320 and 321 and it is worth reading. After the book was published, another statement he prepared came to my attention. I cannot lay my hands on it this minute. If anyone has a reference to this second statement, please send it to me (jcf@neohio.twcbc.com) and thank you.

As for the standard of proof in the trial by the Military Commission, Jerry, I am surprised to hear you say that the burden shifted to the defendant. I doubt that, but if you have an authority, please refer me to it. Again I quote from Decapitating: "The commission ...proceeded to adopt its Rules of Procedure...The Rules...followed civil law closely and there was therefore nothing inherently unfair about the Rules. The civil law did not differ from the military law anyway. Throughout the trial, both sides cited legal precedent from civil cases and civil law."

John

[RJNorton]

(11-20-2018 11:26 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  I quote in full the statement Spangler prepared and which was found by Dr. Mudd in his tool chest (fortunately for posterity). It is on pages 320 and 321 and it is worth reading. After the book was published, another statement he prepared came to my attention. I cannot lay my hands on it this minute. If anyone has a reference to this second statement, please send it to me (jcf@neohio.twcbc.com) and thank you.

John, I am posting this. I hope someone can post the second statement you referenced. I was not aware of this second one - very interesting!!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


"I was born in York County, Pennsylvania, and am about forty-three years of age, I am a house carpenter by trade, and became acquainted with J. Wilkes Booth when a boy. I worked for his father in building a cottage in Harford County, Maryland, in 1854. Since A. D. 1853, I have done carpenter work for the different theaters in the cities of Baltimore and Washington, to wit: The Holiday Street Theater and the Front Street Theater of Baltimore, and Ford's Theater in the City of Washington. I have acted also as scene shifter in all the above named theaters, and had a favorable opportunity to become acquainted with the different actors. I have acted as scene shifter in Ford's Theater, ever since it was first opened up, to the night of the assassination of President Lincoln. During the winter of A. D. 1862 and 1863, J. Wilkes Booth played a star engagement at Ford's Theater for two weeks. At that time I saw him and conversed with him quite frequently. After completing his engagement he left Washington and I did not see him again until the winters of A. D. 1864 and 1865. I then saw him at various times in and about Ford's Theater.
Booth had free access to the theater at all times, and made himself very familiar with all persons connected with it. He had a stable in the rear of the theater where he kept his horses. A boy, Joseph Burroughs, commonly called "Peanut John," took care of them whenever Booth was absent from the city. I looked after his horses, which I did at his request, and saw that they were properly cared for. Booth promised to pay me for my trouble, but he never did. I frequently had the horses exercised, during Booth's absence from the city, by "Peanut John," walking them up and down the alley. "Peanut John" kept the key to the stable in the theater, hanging upon a nail behind the small door, which opened into the alley at the rear of the theater. Booth usually rode out on horseback every afternoon and evening, but seldom remained out later than eight or nine o'clock. He always went and returned alone. I never knew of his riding out on horseback and staying out all night, or of any person coming to the stable with him, or calling there for him. He had two horses at the stable, only a short time. He brought them there some time in the month of December. A man called George and myself repaired and fixed the stable for him. I usually saddled the horse for him when "Peanut John" was absent. About the first of March Booth brought another horse and a buggy and harness to the stable, but in what manner I do not know; after that he used to ride out with his horse and buggy, and I frequently harnessed them up for him. I never saw any person ride out with him or return with him from these rides.

On the Monday evening previous to the assassination, Booth requested me to sell the horse, harness, and buggy, as he said he should leave the city soon. I took them the next morning to the horse market, and had them put up at auction, with the instruction not to sell unless they would net two hundred and sixty dollars; this was in accordance with Booth's orders to me. As no person bid sufficient to make them net that amount, they were not sold, and I took them back to the stable. I informed Booth of the result that same evening in front of the theater. He replied that he must then try and have them sold at private sale, and asked me if I would help him. I replied, "Yes." This was about six o'clock in the evening, and the conversation took place in the presence of John F. Sleichman and others. The next day I sold them for two hundred and sixty dollars. The purchaser accompanied me to the theater. Booth was not in, and the money was paid to James J. Gifford, who receipted for it. I did not see Booth to speak to him, after the sale, until the evening of the assassination.

Upon the afternoon of April 14 I was told by "Peanut John" that the President and General Grant were coming to the theater that night, and that I must take out the partition in the President's box. It was my business to do all such work. I was assisted in doing it by Rittespaugh and "Peanut John."

In the evening, between five and six o'clock, Booth came into the theater and asked me for a halter. I was very busy at work at the time on the stage preparatory to the evening performance, and Rittespaugh went upstairs and brought one down. I went out to the stable with Booth and put the halter upon the horse. I commenced to take off the saddle when Booth said, "Never mind, I do not want it off, but let it and the bridle remain." He afterward took the saddle off himself, locked the stable, and went back to the theater.

Booth, Maddox, "Peanut John," and myself immediately went out of the theater to the adjoining restaurant next door, and took a drink at Booth's expense. I then went immediately back to the theatre, and Rittespaugh and myself went to supper. I did not see Booth again until between nine and ten o'clock. About that time Deboney called to me, and said Booth wanted me to hold his horse as soon as I could be spared. I went to the back door and Booth was standing in the alley holding a horse by the bridle rein, and requested me to hold it. I took the rein, but told him I could not remain, as Gifford was gone, and that all of the responsibility rested on me. Booth then passed into the theater. I called to Deboney to send 'Peanut John' to hold the horse. He came, and took the horse, and I went back to my proper place.

In about a half hour afterward I heard a shot fired, and immediately saw a man run across the stage. I saw him as he passed by the center door of the scenery, behind which I then stood; this door is usually termed the center chamber door. I did not recognize the man as he crossed the stage as being Booth. I then heard some one say that the President was shot. Immediately all was confusion. I shoved the scenes back as quickly as possible in order to clear the stage, as many were rushing upon it. I was very much frightened, as I heard persons halloo, "Burn the theater!" I did not see Booth pass out; my situation was such that I could not see any person pass out of the back door. The back door has a spring attached to it, and would not shut of its own accord. I usually slept in the theater, but I did not upon the night of the assassination; I was fearful the theater would be burned, and I slept in a carpenter's shop adjoining.

I never heard Booth express himself in favor of the rebellion, or opposed to the Government, or converse upon political subjects; and I have no recollection of his mentioning the name of President Lincoln in any connection whatever. I know nothing of the mortise hole said to be in the wall behind the door of the President's box, or of any wooden bar to fasten or hold the door being there, or of the lock being out of order. I did not notice any hole in the door. Gifford usually attended to the carpentering in the front part of the theater, while I did the work about the stage. Mr. Gifford was the boss carpenter, and I was under him."

[L Verge]

This is probably not the statement that John is looking for, but Spangler made a statement to Justice Olin a judge on the D.C. Supreme Court on April 15, 1865. It is a shorter version of the one quoted above. It is published in From War Department Files, a book that the Surratt House put together years ago and which contains the statements made by the alleged conspirators under examination.

Is there yet another statement?

Jerry & John - Years ago, Mr. Hall gave a training session to those of us who were about to become volunteer guides at Surratt House. I asked him then if the military court operated on the same principles as civil courts back then, and he said no, that they (meaning any military tribunal) had the ability to "adjust" their rules and regulations to basically suit individual situations. I asked if the defendant was assumed innocent until proven guilty, and he said that it came closer to the defendant having to prove his innocence.

[L Verge]

Edman Spangler wrote a letter to some unknown friends shortly after arriving at Fort Jefferson. It is dated September 15, 1865, and later was reprinted in an article in the October 25, 1865, issue of the Aledo, Illinois Weekly Record. We carried it in the April 1982, edition of the Surratt Courier. If I have time, I will scan and post.

Spangler begins with a rather detailed description of Fort Jefferson and its environs and then begins much the same information as in previous statements. Personal pleas include, "Before God and all that is sacred I am perfectly innocent of all charges and specifications brought against me by the prosecution....Grate [sic] injustice has been done me by some false witnesses from whom expresses prior to my trial acted by gain or reward."

This next line is rather intriguing - "I wish you could see (name deleted in newspaper) and see whether he ever received my statement that I sent him with a young man by the name of Welch and if he has to let me know what he is going to do with it please..." He ends with asking his friends to send him "2 or 3 fly hooks in a letter and money to buy some postage stamps and some paper... and to give my love to all my enquiring friends and let me know what they think of me. I am here and suffering here wich [sic] I am innocently."

[JMadonna]

(11-20-2018 12:56 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Jerry & John - Years ago, Mr. Hall gave a training session to those of us who were about to become volunteer guides at Surratt House. I asked him then if the military court operated on the same principles as civil courts back then, and he said no, that they (meaning any military tribunal) had the ability to "adjust" their rules and regulations to basically suit individual situations. I asked if the defendant was assumed innocent until proven guilty, and he said that it came closer to the defendant having to prove his innocence.

The objection has been urged that the trial of these parties should have been before a civil court and not a military court. Legally, there was no difficulty in making the crime a military one. Its purpose was military, and the victim was the head of the army of the United States. The murder, moreover, was committed within the military lines of the United States forces at Washington.

The evidence upon which these sentences are based was, it is generally admitted, most conclusive Practically, perhaps, the chances of an impartial trial were, under all the circumstances, just as good with the military as they would have been with a civil court. - Toronto Leader June 1865

IMO The main question the tribunal had to answer was - were the defendants accomplices of Booth or not? Spangler was determined to have been one but with a lesser role - so he got the most lenient sentence.

[RJNorton]

Many thanks to Steve for sending the text of the September 15, 1865, Spangler letter. It comes from page 4 of the October 13, 1865, edition of the Philadelphia Inquirer.