+- Lincoln Discussion Symposium (https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium)
+-- Forum: Lincoln Discussion Symposium (/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Books - over 15,000 to discuss (/forum-6.html)
+--- Thread: True Crime in The Civil War (/thread-3824.html)
True Crime in The Civil War - Gene C - 09-01-2018 10:57 PM
written by Tobin T Buhk, about 280 pages, copyright 2012.
This was a $1 , Library Book Sale purchase.
Has some interesting chapters, The Trial of the Lincoln Assassination Conspirators was pretty good, keeping an open mind about Mary Surratt's involvement.
The chapter about The War Crimes Trial of Andersonville's Controversial Commandment (Henry Wirz) was interesting, but I thought at the end the author presented Wirz as a person following orders, faced with significant false testimony who was made the scapegoat for the attrocities at Andersonville.
The most interesting chapter to me, because it was all new, was Sam Upham's Counterfeiting Scheme. Sam was a Philadelphia businessman who printed copies of Confederate bank notes and sold them as curios. He sold copies of the $5 and $10 notes for 5 cents each or in bulk for 100 for $2, and the were very good copies. They were so popular that competitors sprang up and cut into Upham's profits. They made it into circulation in the South and had a negative effect on the southern economy which took a nosedive following the defeats at Vicksburg and Gettysburg.
Another interesting chapter was about the murder of Southern General, Earl Van Dorn.
Most of the "crime" described involves military actions, bushwackers, and military officials.
https://www.amazon.com/True-Crime-Civil-War-Counterfeiting/dp/081171019X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1535854138&sr=8-1&keywords=true+crime+in+the+civil+war#customerReviews
The Amazon site has a few sample pages and table of contents to give you a good perspective on the contents of the book.
RE: True Crime in The Civil War - RJNorton - 09-02-2018 04:02 AM
(09-01-2018 10:57 PM)Gene C Wrote: keeping an open mind about Mary Surratt's involvement.
I am just curious about this, Gene. Does the book mention John Lloyd's testimony?
On April 11, 1865, according to Lloyd, Mary told him the "shooting irons" would be needed soon. Three days later, on the day of the assassination, Mary made another trip to Surrattsville. This time, according to Lloyd, she delivered Booth's field glasses and reminded him to ready the weapons hidden at the tavern he leased from her. Lloyd testified Mary "told me to have those shooting-irons ready that night, there would be some parties who would call for them."
RE: True Crime in The Civil War - Gene C - 09-02-2018 02:01 PM
Yes, this is what he says about Lloyd
"Lloyd said that a little more than a month before Lincoln's assassination, John Surratt, George Atzerodt, and David Herold came to Surrattsville with a cache of guns and ammunition. They secreted the stash under the floorboards of a room above the tavern. According to Lloyd, on the evening of the assassination, Mary Suratt said that the 'shooting irons' " would be needed soon - a remark, that according to the prosecution, suggested she knew about the murder plot.
Surratts lawyer, Fredrick Aiken, noted that the prosecutions entire case rested on 'three circumstances'; Lloyd's testimony about the 'shooting irons', Surratt's statement that she didn't know Lewis Paine when he came to her boardinghouse after the assassination, and her association with John Wilkes Booth. "These three circumstances constitute the part played by the accused, Mary Surratt in this great conspiracy", Aiken said. "They are all that two months of patient and unwearying investigation, and the most thorough search for evidence that was probably ever made, has been able to develop against her".
Lloyd's testimony must, according to Aiken be mitigated by his heavy drinking. "But on the 14th of April," Aiken said, "and at a time when, as testified by his sister-in-law, he was more than ordinarily affected by intoxicating drink." Even though Lloyd had apparently dried his own bar supply on April 14th, he stuck to his story. But, Aiken implied, how reliable could it be?" (page 193)
The author draws no conclusion after these statements regarding Lloyd and other testimony about Mary.
RE: True Crime in The Civil War - RJNorton - 09-02-2018 03:52 PM
Thanks, Gene. IMO, the prosecution's case would have been stronger had Weichmann remembered to testify to Mary's curiosity regarding the hours the Union pickets remained on duty along the road to Surrattsville (assuming Weichmann didn't create or embellish the story).
RE: True Crime in The Civil War - L Verge - 09-03-2018 09:28 AM
Just a note that I suspect the author relied somewhat on the ghostly writings of Hans Holzer, the ghost chaser who visited Surratt Tavern back in the 60s and took the medium Sybil Leek with him. I say this because Holzer wrote a book (Windows to the Past??) in which Surratt House was chapter three. Unfortunately, he misidentified the room where the rifles were stashed and also claimed that Edwin Booth once owned the place. 'Tain't so...
RE: True Crime in The Civil War - AussieMick - 09-04-2018 05:18 AM
The point about Lloyd for me is that he had a vested interest in giving evidence against Surratt. If he had not done so there was a possibility (probability?) that he would be in the dock with them all. He had 2 options : give evidence or risk the noose.
Of course it could be that he was telling the truth ... but I think a modern day lawyer on behalf of Surratt would have pressed him on all points and how much pressure had been brought to bear on him by investigators, and the fact that the only reason he wasnt in the dock was because he was now making Surratt's case look as bad possible. The "shooting irons" quote ? As her lawyer said, we only have his word for it that those words were spoken.
RE: True Crime in The Civil War - RJNorton - 09-04-2018 06:39 AM
(09-04-2018 05:18 AM)AussieMick Wrote: The point about Lloyd for me is that he had a vested interest in giving evidence against Surratt. If he had not done so there was a possibility (probability?) that he would be in the dock with them all. He had 2 options : give evidence or risk the noose.
Of course it could be that he was telling the truth ... but I think a modern day lawyer on behalf of Surratt would have pressed him on all points and how much pressure had been brought to bear on him by investigators, and the fact that the only reason he wasnt in the dock was because he was now making Surratt's case look as bad possible. The "shooting irons" quote ? As her lawyer said, we only have his word for it that those words were spoken.
I understand the points you make, Michael. I thought you might be interested in a thread from many years ago. I asked the forum what might have happened with Mary if John Lloyd had never testified at all.
That thread is here.
RE: True Crime in The Civil War - AussieMick - 09-04-2018 05:38 PM
Roger, I read the very interesting Thread http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-74.html ('what if Llloyd did not testify'). Everyone makes good points.
My opinion? Mary would have been found guilty but not hanged. Weichmann's evidence was damning but not without Lloyd's. Put them together and it made close to a certainty she'd hang. The book mentioned in the Thread sounds interesting ... I'll try to get it. Kate Clifford Larson's book, "Assassins Accomplice".
Obviously we'll never know, and I know the witnesses were under oath so that's what we have to work on, but ... I think it possible (!!!) that the investigators might have 'assisted' them to remember what happened and especially Surratt's involvement.
Hence me wondering how a modern day lawyer defending Surratt would have acted. I think these days the role of investigators is much more open to question and people are more cynical about the potential for 'verballing' (not sure if thats a well known term in the US) and leaning on witnesses.
Her main lawyer was Colonel Frederick Aiken (with John Clampitt ... no, not Clampett ... that was the TV show).
Her official counsel was Reverdy Johnson. According to Wikipedia ... "several members of the panel challenged Johnson's right to defend Surratt as he had objected to requiring loyalty oaths from voters during the 1864 presidential election. Though the objection was withdrawn, Johnson nonetheless did not participate much in the process, and left much of the legal defense to Aiken and John Clampitt, who had recently set up their own law practice in Washington."
Interesting ... That 'objection' seems highly suspect. Could it be that Johnson , who was a statesman and jurist and went on to be Ambassador to the UK, could sense the likely outcome and didnt want close involvement with Surratt?
RE: True Crime in The Civil War - L Verge - 09-05-2018 09:33 AM
(09-04-2018 05:38 PM)AussieMick Wrote: Roger, I read the very interesting Thread http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-74.html ('what if Llloyd did not testify'). Everyone makes good points.
My opinion? Mary would have been found guilty but not hanged. Weichmann's evidence was damning but not without Lloyd's. Put them together and it made close to a certainty she'd hang. The book mentioned in the Thread sounds interesting ... I'll try to get it. Kate Clifford Larson's book, "Assassins Accomplice".
Obviously we'll never know, and I know the witnesses were under oath so that's what we have to work on, but ... I think it possible (!!!) that the investigators might have 'assisted' them to remember what happened and especially Surratt's involvement.
Hence me wondering how a modern day lawyer defending Surratt would have acted. I think these days the role of investigators is much more open to question and people are more cynical about the potential for 'verballing' (not sure if thats a well known term in the US) and leaning on witnesses.
Her main lawyer was Colonel Frederick Aiken (with John Clampitt ... no, not Clampett ... that was the TV show).
Her official counsel was Reverdy Johnson. According to Wikipedia ... "several members of the panel challenged Johnson's right to defend Surratt as he had objected to requiring loyalty oaths from voters during the 1864 presidential election. Though the objection was withdrawn, Johnson nonetheless did not participate much in the process, and left much of the legal defense to Aiken and John Clampitt, who had recently set up their own law practice in Washington."
Interesting ... That 'objection' seems highly suspect. Could it be that Johnson , who was a statesman and jurist and went on to be Ambassador to the UK, could sense the likely outcome and didnt want close involvement with Surratt?
Michael - You are correct in that John Clampitt was Mary's other defense lawyer, but we're not sure how active a role he took. There are no known records of their dealings, interviews, etc. with Mary. Likewise, we suspect that the government conducted other interrogations of her, but so far only the early interview is known. I'm not sure whether it was said by Aiken or by Clampitt, but one of them later claimed that they were "hamstrung" by her uncooperative behavior. They needed more in order to find points of defense.
Now, as for Reverdy Johnson, his previous views on the loyalty oath were not what really hurt him. First, he was a Union man trying to help a Confederate woman, and he was a friend of Lincoln. He knew nothing about any of the Surratts before April 14th, 1865. He took her case only because she asked for him specifically and he believed that everyone was entitled to have their rights protected. He offered his service free of charge.
Johnson made a statement at the beginning and his first sentence was "she should not go undefended." His last statement, however, is what harmed Mary the most: "I am not here to protect anyone who, when the evidence is heard, I shall deem to have been guilty -- not even her."
We have no idea whether he deemed her guilty, but within a few days of the court opening, he began showing up less and less. Most think that he probably realized that the animosity between him and members of the court was hurting the case, so he held back. Rumor, however, had it that evidence pointed more to guilt, so (true to his word), he dropped out.
You really do need to read Kate Larson's book, Assassin's Accomplice. She takes a hard stand against the innocence of Mary Surratt (which is semi-okay with me), but the book is very well researched and written. If you have a hard time finding a copy, we do sell it at Surratt House. We have shipped to places in Europe before, but I don't know how mail and customs work as far as Australia.
RE: True Crime in The Civil War - RJNorton - 09-06-2018 03:24 PM
Many years ago Laurie put together a paper on Reverdy Johnson's position against the legality of the military commission. This was done for the benefit of the Surratt House guides. She also mentions Attorney General James Speed's opinion.
Thank you to Laurie for sending this paper.
CLICK HERE.
RE: True Crime in The Civil War - AussieMick - 09-06-2018 05:51 PM
I'd suggest that Laurie's work, whilst it may have been done for the benefit of Surratt House guides, will prove very useful to many people in the future.