I disagree with you somewhat Kees, regarding Mrs. Surratt. Did she get a fair trial? By today's standards no. But under the circumstances and events of the Lincoln assassination, she probably got as fair a trial as was possible at the time. When you successfully plot to kill the president following a brutal civil war, you kind of forfeit your rights to a certain extent. Remember that Weichman's life was also threatened by those with strong southern connections and sympathetic to Mrs Surratt. They were probably worried about how much he did know. There was not a witness protection program for him. From what I have read of his testimony, he actually liked Mrs. Surratt, but became convinced and appalled at her involvement with Booth and her son's activities. John Surratt by his actions may have been more responsable for her conviction and death than anything Weichman or Lloyd said. Lets not forget her actions the day of the assassination. I could go on and on, but Eva's suggestion about recommending Kate Larson's book to read is better.

I previously mentioned a young researcher being interested in knowing about the structure of military trials. Here's the email I received from him this week:

Dear Ms. Verge,

Since becoming fascinated with Mrs. Surratt's story I have read numerous books, articles, documents, etc. and find the more I read, the more questions I have. The one that most interests me at present has to do with Military Tribunals. I have searched the internet and when that failed I asked a librarian at the local university and that failed. My question is what official guidelines, instructions, rules, etc. framed a military tribunal during the civil war? For instance, was the defendant presumed innocent, guilty or was this not addressed. Were judges given criteria such as beyond reasonable doubt to come to a verdict or not? By statute, what role does the judge advocate play? In other words are there some official, written rules that all military commissions must follow or are the rules for each commission left to the discretion of the commanding officer or judge advocate?

Any help with this will be greatly appreciated as I continue my research into this fascinating but tragic part of our history.

Comments or thoughts or flat-out accurate answers to any of the above?

Kees-Your opinion of the guilt of Mary Surratt and my opinion differ[Kate Larson's-book]! It is my opinion that your use of the video goes far beyond my realm of thinking!

That is an interesting question Laurie, because I imagine that the process of a military trial has changed over the past 150+ years just as our civilian court system has changed. There are rules and guidelines for military commissions. The judge advocate can not make up rules as the court goes along.

My impression of the times is that the trial of the conspirators (whether it was a civilian or a military trial) was to convict and punish the eight accused prisoners quickly and severely. They were assumed to be guilty. At the time, Stanton was pretty much in control of the issue regarding how to get that done. As Sec of War, he felt the military trial would best serve that objective. His goal was to protect the govenment from further attacks, maintain a stable government, and retain the hard fought victory the union had won. In spite of the criticism and method used, he obtained that objective.

(04-29-2015 10:21 AM)L Verge Wrote:  I previously mentioned a young researcher being interested in knowing about the structure of military trials. Here's the email I received from him this week:

Dear Ms. Verge,

Since becoming fascinated with Mrs. Surratt's story I have read numerous books, articles, documents, etc. and find the more I read, the more questions I have. The one that most interests me at present has to do with Military Tribunals. I have searched the internet and when that failed I asked a librarian at the local university and that failed. My question is what official guidelines, instructions, rules, etc. framed a military tribunal during the civil war? For instance, was the defendant presumed innocent, guilty or was this not addressed. Were judges given criteria such as beyond reasonable doubt to come to a verdict or not? By statute, what role does the judge advocate play? In other words are there some official, written rules that all military commissions must follow or are the rules for each commission left to the discretion of the commanding officer or judge advocate?

Any help with this will be greatly appreciated as I continue my research into this fascinating but tragic part of our history.

Comments or thoughts or flat-out accurate answers to any of the above?

Many thanks to Scott for sending this article on military tribunals written by Frank J. Williams (former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Rhode Island) and Nicole J. Benjamin.

CLICK HERE.

As a late arrival I apologize if this has been covered, but I wonder if JWB would only have been momentarily deterred if he had not gotten into the box. Forcing an entry might have worked, but he also had the option of waiting for the play to end and then stalk the President on his way to the coach. Once the night was underway and he had parted with his co-conspirators, JWB knew that there was no going back. An attack on Seward and/or Johnson would most likely give way to revealing the full extent of the plot. So, there was nothing to lose if he tried to attack Lincoln sometime that night. I suppose, JWB could have "skedadled" once he was denied entry, but it would seem out of character to leave the others in the lurch.

Like the sinking of the Titanic exactly 47 years later, that night haunts with those twists of fate that made all the difference.

The thespian to the end, I suspect that Booth wanted to make his last grand exit stage left (or right? Tom?) for the entire audience to see.

(04-29-2015 09:13 AM)loetar44 Wrote:  To illustrate that the execution of Mary Surratt was wrong and an injustice that can never be rectified. Guilty or innocent, she was a civilian tried in a military tribunal, so her trial was illegal.

Hi Kees. I know a lot of experts agree with you, but I believe others (such as Dr. Steers) do not. One place to read Dr. Steers' opinion is in Chapter 10 of His Name Is Still Mudd. In 1865 Attorney General James Speed wrote an opinion on the use of a military tribunal in this particular case (mentioned in Scott's article). Dr. Steers summarizes and writes, "Its essence, however, reduces down to two important and substantive points: that the offenses which the accused were charged with were offenses against the laws of war, and that the defendants were, in fact, "belligerents" who served as, "secret but active participants (spies) in the recent hostilities."

I am not totally clear - did Speed write his opinion before the trial started or after the trial ended? In his assassination encyclopedia Dr. Steers writes, "Just when Speed wrote his opinion and delivered it to Johnson is unclear."

The article Scott sent says it was written afterwards, and the footnote cites Speed himself as the source. Also, John Fazio, in his book says Speed gave a verbal opinion only prior to the trial; the written opinion came afterwards.

I will post Speed's concluding paragraphs, but the entire opinion can be read here.

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

"The law of nations; which is the result of the experience and wisdom of ages, has decided that jayhawkers, banditti, &c, are offenders against the laws of nature, and of war, and as such amenable to the military. Our Constitution has made those laws a part of the law of the land. Obedience to the Constitution and the law, then, requires that the military should do their whole duty; they must not only meet and fight the enemies of the country in open battle, but they must kill or take the secret enemies of the country, and try and execute them according to the laws of war. The civil tribunals of the country cannot rightfully interfere with the military in the performance of their high, arduous, and perilous, but lawful duties. That Booth and his associates were secret active public enemies, no mind that contemplates the facts can doubt. The exclamation used by him when he escaped from the box on to the stage, after he had fired the fatal shot, sic semper tyrannis, and his dying message, "say to my mother that I died for my country" show that he was not an assassin from private malice, but that he acted as a public foe. Such a deed is expressly laid down by Yattel, in his work on the law of nations, as an offence against the laws of war, and a great crime. "I give, then, the name of assassination to a treacherous murder, whether the perpetrators of the deed be the subjects of the party whom we cause to be assassinated or of our own sovereign, or that it be executed by any other emissary introducing himself as a suppliant, a refugee, or a deserter, or, in fine, as a stranger." (Vattel, 339.)

Neither the civil nor the military department of the government should regard itself as wiser and better than the Constitution and the laws that exist under or are made in pursuance thereof. Each department should, in peace and in war, confining itself to its own proper sphere of action, diligently and fearlessly perform its legitimate functions, and in the mode prescribed by the Constitution and the law. Such obedience to and observance of law will maintain peace when it exists, and will soonest relieve the country from the abnormal state of war.

My conclusion, therefore, is, that if the persons who are charged with the assassination of the President committed the deed as public enemies, as I believe they did, and whether they did or not is a question to be decided by the tribunal before which they are tried, they not only can, but ought to be tried before a military tribunal. If the persons charged have offended against the laws of war, it would be as palpably wrong for the military to hand them over to the civil courts, as it would be wrong in a civil court to convict a man of murder who had, in time of war, killed another in battle."

I am, sir, most respectfully, your obedient servant,

JAMES SPEED, Attorney General.
To the President.

As for Mary Surratt, please allow me to "throw in" the following question here: What would you read behind her asking Weichmann to pray for her intentions? What do you think was on her mind? Thanks for sharing your opinion!

That she would find a way to pay the casual laborer that she hired to dig a gutter for her.
That now that the war was over she could fulfill her life long dream of owning a chinese restaraunt.
That her son John would get the opportunity to travel and see the world.
That JWB would become more famous than his brother.
That Lucy Hale was all wrong for JWB and somehow he would end it all.

Most dying Catholics ask for prayer and forgiveness such as Mary Surratt.It is my opinion that she felt that she would go free!

---

Gene,I love your responses and I agree with you!

(04-29-2015 05:26 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  What would you read behind her asking Weichmann to pray for her intentions? What do you think was on her mind? Thanks for sharing your opinion!

Eva, I think this was said shortly after JWB's third visit to the Surratt boardinghouse on April 14. Due to the timing of her saying this, IMO it was related to something Booth told her on this third visit. Based on what she told Smoot (who also visited that night shortly after Booth) she knew things were about to happen and quickly. So I think it was related to her knowledge that things were going to happen that night. What she told Lloyd and her asking about the pickets on the road also indicate she knew. Just my opinion.

(04-29-2015 05:26 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  As for Mary Surratt, please allow me to "throw in" the following question here: What would you read behind her asking Weichmann to pray for her intentions? What do you think was on her mind? Thanks for sharing your opinion!

Eva, I think that request to Weichmann, and then not saying what her intentions were, is significant. I put it right up there with her sitting in the dark when the police arrived after the assassination. She knew beforehand.

My theory is that the federal government had some knowledge of her high level of involvement, and that is why Mrs. Surratt wasn't given a lesser sentence or a reprieve from the gallows. Just a theory, of course.

--Jim

Thanks for all your comments! I, too, tend to believe she knew criminal things were going on or going to happen, and was struggling to justify her cooperation to herself, respectively to adjust her religious to her political or worldly desires (intentions) and beliefs. Thinking of JWB's "victimizing spell" Mr. Fazio mentioned I also wondered if these words perhaps indicate she sort of gambled and lost.
I admit I haven't yet considered the possibility of her intending to open a Chinese restaurant (perhaps indeed an endeavor that needs divine support), and Gene's suggestion made me aware of how much, even if strongly indicated, remains still speculation.

I love Gene's thoughts and will share them with our volunteers! If those themes don't make a wonderful closing episode to a long-running soap opera, nothing ever did...

We Boothies have always admitted that the key to staying sane while addicted to the Lincoln assassination story is to always be able to add a little laughter.