Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Gene C · 03-12-2013, 10:53 AM

Answering my own question about Wirtz (can I do that?, I haven't violated any protical or rules of etiquette have I? )

http://www.exploresouthernhistory.com/andersonville

03-12-2013, 11:38 AM

Who was the other Rebel executed for war crimes??

Rob Wick · (This post was last modified: 03-12-2013 11:49 AM by Rob Wick.)

John,

Off the top of my head, I'm not sure. The main time I am aware of, which really ties into the war, was during Reconstruction, which is why the act was passed in the first place. All my files are in boxes and I don't have access to them right now. As for the NDP, it was really only "national" in the mind of Lafe Baker. Its main function was to stop bounty jumpers and to investigate other military issues. In fact, when Lincoln was assassinated Lafe and Byron Baker were in New York and Conger was in Virginia investigating bounty jumper claims. It really wasn't a national police force per se. As far as I know, it didn't trump state or local authority, but I have the feeling that at the time of the assassination most people weren't really cognizant of or cared about jurisdictional issues. No one really expected the D.C. police department to lead the investigation given that it didn't have the manpower or resources required to do so. Plus, given D.C.'s "neither fish nor fowl" status, I wonder if jurisdictional questions would even come into play. Mind you, I'm not saying they wouldn't, but i don't know that they would have.

Lafe really got lucky with the capture of Booth. Even though Stanton called for him to come to Washington and help in the investigation, and he was partly responsible for the reward being offered, he was just one of several involved. Had he not been hanging around the telegraph office when the report came in that two men had crossed the Potomac, he likely wouldn't have been as lucky.

Best
Rob

(03-12-2013 11:38 AM)Hess1865 Wrote: Who was the other Rebel executed for war crimes??

Champ Ferguson.

Best
Rob

Eva Elisabeth · 11-02-2014, 05:42 AM

Thanks for any input on the following:
I don't know this about US court rules and procedures and also am no expert on German laws (and, of course, in 1865 laws on this may have differed), but AFAIK as soon as the verdicts are determined, they are to be pronounced in the courtroom in the presence of the accused (sentenced). It is only possible to do so in the absence of the accused in case of a minor crime leading to a sentence to a penalty of less than a certain sum (I believe less than 2000$). The conspirators learned of the verdicts with delay (even after the President had approved the verdicts, and the "Fort Jefferson party" even after the executions.) Why? And - is/was this a usual legal proceeding? Or just legal at military trials?

STS Lincolnite · 11-02-2014, 07:32 PM

(11-02-2014 05:42 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote: Thanks for any input on the following:
I don't know this about US court rules and procedures and also am no expert on German laws (and, of course, in 1865 laws on this may have differed), but AFAIK as soon as the verdicts are determined, they are to be pronounced in the courtroom in the presence of the accused (sentenced). It is only possible to do so in the absence of the accused in case of a minor crime leading to a sentence to a penalty of less than a certain sum (I believe less than 2000$). The conspirators learned of the verdicts with delay (even after the President had approved the verdicts, and the "Fort Jefferson party" even after the executions.) Why? And - is/was this a usual legal proceeding? Or just legal at military trials?

I am no legal expert either but I think that the proceedings in military trials are different (and as you said, 1865 military trials are probably different than those today). I know the delayed sentence is consistent with a Confederate military trial in the case of the Andrews Raiders - see the book Stealing the General by Russell Bonds (great book!).

L Verge · 11-02-2014, 07:52 PM

We need Jill Mitchell or Ed Steers to chime in on this one...

Eva Elisabeth · 11-03-2014, 09:16 AM

Thanks, Scott!
I believe I read somewhere Stanton "ordered" the delay to increase the psychological stress especially on the "surviving" ones (as an additional punishment), and I wonder if there was a legal basis for this.

STS Lincolnite · 11-03-2014, 10:17 AM

(11-03-2014 09:16 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote: Thanks, Scott!
I believe I read somewhere Stanton "ordered" the delay to increase the psychological stress especially on the "surviving" ones (as an additional punishment), and I wonder if there was a legal basis for this.

Whether or not there is a legal basis, it would not surprise me that Stanton would use such a tactic.

This subject of this thread is very interesting to me and thanks Eva for posting and resurrecting it. It first appeared before I was on this forum and had not come across it in my back reading.

I once heard Judge Frank Williams (former Chief Justice of the Rhode Island Supreme Court, Lincoln Scholar and President of the Lincoln Forum) state that he had no doubt that Mary Surratt was guilty but whether or not she received due process was another question. I think that was an interesting statement that may give some insight into Frank's thoughts as to how the military trial was handled. The Lincoln Forum Symposium is coming up in a couple of weeks and I will see Frank there. If I get a chance I will try to corner him and ask him a question or two about the topic(s) in this thread or if he would recommend any articles that address the subject. If I don't get a chance to speak with him personally (it's hard to nail him down for more than a minute or two) I will shoot him an e-mail. I should also note that Judge Williams will be one of the speakers in the stellar (as always) lineup at the Surratt Conference in March.

L Verge · 11-03-2014, 12:40 PM

Mr. Hall was of much the same feeling regarding Mrs. Surratt. He felt that she was guilty, but that the government had failed to prove its case.

Speaking of the Surratt Conference, the information packets went in the mail today.

John E. · 11-04-2014, 11:49 PM

Just as a side note, I believe the Lincoln assassination trial was one of the few military tribunals ever opened up for the public to attend.

They obviously made concessions due to the magnitude of the case.

RJNorton · 11-05-2014, 06:02 AM

(11-04-2014 11:49 PM)John E. Wrote: ...one of the few military tribunals ever opened up for the public to attend.

John, have you ever come across a source that says Tad Lincoln attended the trial for one day? I have one book...and only one...that says this, and the book (Lincoln's Sons) is not footnoted.

HerbS · 11-05-2014, 10:31 AM

The"Trial"and who was there,is a research nightmare!

Susan Higginbotham · 11-05-2014, 02:10 PM

(11-05-2014 06:02 AM)RJNorton Wrote:
(11-04-2014 11:49 PM)John E. Wrote: ...one of the few military tribunals ever opened up for the public to attend.

John, have you ever come across a source that says Tad Lincoln attended the trial for one day? I have one book...and only one...that says this, and the book (Lincoln's Sons) is not footnoted.

The May 19, 1865 New York Tribune's dispatch from Washington dated May 18, 1865, states, "Master Tad Lincoln was among the spectators at the conspiracy trial this afternoon."

RJNorton · 11-05-2014, 03:12 PM

Thank you, Susan! I always wondered what Ruth Painter Randall's source was!

John E. · (This post was last modified: 11-05-2014 08:30 PM by John E..)

(11-05-2014 10:31 AM)HerbS Wrote: The"Trial"and who was there,is a research nightmare!

And a lot of fun.

(11-05-2014 06:02 AM)RJNorton Wrote:
(11-04-2014 11:49 PM)John E. Wrote: ...one of the few military tribunals ever opened up for the public to attend.

John, have you ever come across a source that says Tad Lincoln attended the trial for one day? I have one book...and only one...that says this, and the book (Lincoln's Sons) is not footnoted.

Hi Roger,

Anthony Pitch also mentioned it in his book but I'm not sure of his source. I have it listed in the May 19, 1865 issue of the Boston Advertiser.