Food for Thought

[L Verge]

First, I want to credit Dave Taylor's BoothieBarn for carrying this posting regarding why President Andrew Johnson probably pardoned the Lincoln conspirators held at Fort Jefferson at the time that he did. Interesting point made by Sandy Prindle, a retired Texas judge who spoke on his new book at the Surratt conference in April.

Sandy Prindle
I contend in my just released book “Booth’s Confederate Connections” by Pelican Publishing that Dr. Mudd, like the other two surviving prisoners at Dry Tortugas, were pardoned by President Andrew Johnson, not because of [Mudd's] efforts in the yellow fever epidemic, but because of their impending habeas corpus actions before the Supreme Court. The pardons were granted a year and a half after the epidemic but just weeks before a Supreme Court decision was expected. Johnson did not want his behavior revisited about Mary Surratt being executed by an illegal court. In addition, he didn’t want the press to dig up the fact that he treated Mary Surratt’s daughter badly on the day of the execution nor that the prisoners were given just twenty-four hours notice of their execution. It was a legacy that he didn’t want to face, in view of the fact that he was leaving the White House in disgrace. The ex-parte Milligan ruling would have caused him much more grief than he could overcome.

---

While searching for the source of the reference to the lone shark that patrolled the waters of the moat at Fort Jefferson, I ran across an interesting article from the October 18, 2011, edition of the Washington Post in which a visitor relates the following history told by his NPS guide. Make sure you read about the Christmas dinner... First time I had seen that, but it is probably in Nettie Mudd Monroe's book, which I have not read in over 40 years.

"Mudd, an unapologetic slave owner, regarded himself as a martyr to Yankee tyranny. Engraved over the entrance to the casement where he lived is a quote from Dante’s “Inferno”: “Whoso Entereth Here Leaveth All Hopes Behind.” In his letters home, Mudd complained piteously of “degrading” punishment and “inhuman” conditions, citing among other things the shame of being guarded by black soldiers.

"In fact, according to our guide and “America’s Fortress,” apart from a brief period after he tried to escape, Mudd was not shackled. He was allowed to move freely around the fort, and to earn money for luxuries such as tobacco, foodstuffs and civilian clothing by making boxes and picture frames inlaid with sea shells that he sold to officers and visitors to the fort. One Christmas, Mudd wrote home that he had even dined on roast turkey, oysters, fresh peaches and other treats.

"The Union prisoners and their guards shared virtually all Mudd’s discomfort. The official rations were generally abysmal: Meat was often rancid, bread infested with bugs and the water with wriggling worms. Malaria, dysentery, cholera, sunstroke and other ailments were chronic. Isolation bred excruciating loneliness. Men went mad almost as a matter of course. As Harrison Herrick of the 110th New York noted in his diary, displayed in the museum, 'One of the guards, one of the Del. Artillery shot himself through the head. He was crazy. Wether fair and plesant.' [sic]"

[mike86002000]

Back in January, snowbound, I was moved to rejoin this group, by entries in the thread, "The Flimsy Case Against Mary Surratt". The military trial of the conspirators had been referred to as "illegal", and Mr. Binzel objected.

RE: The Flimsy Case Against Mary Surratt
Bill Binzel wrote:
No court of competent jurisdiction has ever ruled that the trial of the Lincoln assassination conspirators was "illegal," even in the aftermath of Milligan. Judge Thomas Jefferson Boynton of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida considered that very issue in Ex Parte Mudd, 17 F. Cas. 954 (S.D. Fla. 1868) two years after Milligan. Judge Boynton specifically ruled that Milligan was not on point and was not applicable to the Lincoln assassination conspirators. That decision has never been overruled. In fact, a portion of the decision was cited as good law by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 2016 in a ruling authored by now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh. See Al Bahlul v. United States, 840 F.3d 757 (2016).
(End Quote)
The Supreme Court, in "Milligan", states its central question is the legality of military trials of civilians when civilian courts are available. "Had the military commission jurisdiction, legally, to try and sentence him?" Their finding certainly doesn't apply just to Mr. Milligan, any more than "Brown VS. The Board of Education" applies just to Ms. Brown.
The full title of the case Judge Boynton ruled on was "Ex Parte Samuel A. Mudd, Samuel Arnold, and Edward Spangler", all of the "conspirators" who survived. The decision was appealed to the Supreme Court. Just as the petition was being filed, President Johnson pardoned the doctor. The court had actually begun hearing oral arguments in the cases of the other two "conspirators", when they too were pardoned. This rendered the case moot and the court dropped it. Please see page 454 of the Columbia Law Review article.
If it is true that District Court Judge Boynton's decision has not been overruled, it's also true that the Supreme Court decision "Milligan" hasn't been either. Thankfully, it still stands.
Mike

wpbinzel Wrote:
Hello, Another Mike. Welcome to the forum.
I know a little bit about the law and Ex Parte Milligan. See the March 2018 issue of the Columbia Law Review.
Mr. Binzel,
I'm in the process of reading the article you mentioned. Thanks for bringing it up. It is in Vol. 118, Issue 2, titled: "The Law (?) Of The Lincoln Assassination", by Martin Lederman. I'm becoming a fan of his. I see you and Laurie Verge are mentioned in the acknowledgements. You should be proud.
I had problems accessing the article using the URL Laurie provided, probably because of my browser, and found it on "myjstor" @:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26371823?se...b_contents . Other folks may find it useful to do the same. Free membership requires only a user name and password. You can come and go on the article as you please. It's about 168 pages long but there is an abstract and an excellent table of contents that would let one "cherry pick".
The article supports Ex Parte Milligan in the strongest terms, and considers military trials of civilians an aberration. The author is concerned about the recent invocation of these few trials as precedent, supporting the legitimacy of more of them, the opinions of Brett Kavanaugh and Donald Trump not with standing.
Mike

The above are posts from back in January. I strongly recommend the Columbia Law Review article. The link to it still works.
Mr. Prindel has referred to the "trial" as "illegal". Bravo! Was there as much objection in April as in January? Are the times a-changin'? As I wrote in January, the supreme court had agreed to hear the appeal of the district court ruling regarding Ex Parte Mudd et all. Pardons "headed off" hearing the case, much less a decision. Since the members of the court were the same people who ruled on "Ex Parte Milligan", I think results would probably have been similar. That is: Trials of civilians by military tribunals are illegal. Mike

[wpbinzel]

(07-31-2019 05:56 AM)mike86002000 Wrote:  Trials of civilians by military tribunals are illegal.

I am currently traveling and do not have time to post a lengthy response, but the underlying premise and assumption of the above statement is that the Lincoln assassination conspirators were mere citizens and that the facts of Ex parte Milligan and Ex parte Mudd are on point. They are not. Milligan was a civilian, and the Lincoln assassination conspirators were enemy combatants who committed an act of war by conspiring to kill the Commander in Chief in a time of war to further the prospects of the belligerent government of the Confederacy. Whether you accept that as fact today or not, that's how the conspirators were viewed in 1865; and whether 21st Century legal theory would support that view is, in my opinion, totally irrelevant to a 19th Century legal proceeding that has not been overturned.

As for the speculation that Andrew Johnson's action in the waning hours of administration was to avoid a Supreme Court ruling on Mudd is just that: speculation. In my view, such speculation either ignores or totally misreads Johnson's character. He had a much stronger motivation.

[mike86002000]

Mr. Binzel wrote:
"the underlying premise and assumption of the above statement is that the Lincoln assassination conspirators were mere citizens and that the facts of Ex parte Milligan and Ex parte Mudd are on point. They are not."
I doubt he meant to say Ex Parte Mudd is not on point. Isn't that the "19th century legal proceeding that has never been overturned", to which he refers? It is, of course, Boynton's decision to deny the writ of habeas corpus to the surviving conspirators, in which he argues that Ex Parte Milligan is not "on point" in the case. His "reasoning" was that the Lincoln assassination was a military crime, and so should be tried by a military court. He seems not to have realized the military nature of the crimes Milligan was alleged to have committed.

From Wikipedia:
The military commission for the trial of Milligan, Horsey, Bowles, and Humphreys convened at Indianapolis on October 21, 1864. The commission considered five charges against the men: conspiracy against the U.S. government, offering aid and comfort to the Confederates, inciting insurrections, "disloyal practices," and "violation of the laws of war." The defendants were alleged to have established a secret organization that planned to liberate Confederate soldiers from Union prisoner-of-war camps in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, and then seize an arsenal, provide the freed prisoners with arms, raise an armed force to incite a general insurrection, and join with the Confederates to invade Indiana, Illinois, and Kentucky and make war on the government of the United States.
Indiana had been invaded by Confederate General Morgan. It had been a war zone.

By Boynton's own "reasoning", Ex Parte Milligan would not be on point in Milligan's case either! That seems to have escaped Boynton. I'm amused to point it out. I don't think it's reasonable to argue that the conspirators were any less civilians & citizens than Milligan, either. Certainly, Dr. Mudd, Mrs, Surratt, Herold, Atzerodt, and Spangler were never in anyone's army. (Some say Davey's mom did send him to military school. If so, his name has been removed from their records.)
The reason Boynton's decision on Ex Parte Mudd wasn't over turned was that the appeal to the supreme court was rendered moot by the pardoning of all the surviving conspirators. I do wonder if that is why they were pardoned. I don't know.
Mike

[wpbinzel]

(08-01-2019 07:31 AM)mike86002000 Wrote:  Mr. Binzel wrote:
I doubt he meant to say Ex Parte Mudd is not on point.

No, that is exactly what I meant to say. While one can argue today whether the Lincoln assassination conspirators were enemy combatants (and I think they were), one cannot argue that they were regarded as such at the time of their trial and no court has overturned that position. So speculate all you want to the contrary, but in the end, you are arguing with history, and it is just your opinion. And I do not intend that statement to be disrespectful to one's opinion; but only to say that one's personal opinion is not sufficient to overturn a judicial decision.

[mike86002000]

Do you really mean to abandon Boynton's absurd arguments in Ex Parte Mudd? That was the basis of your arguments for the legitimacy of the military trial of the conspirators. Indeed, the times are a-changin'.
I have valued our respectful exchange of opinions. I hope, when you return to home, and your resources, we can continue an occasional, reasoned, respectful discussion.
I think the conditions that allowed Boynton's decision to stand have been sufficiently explained.
I think all we can really talk about is our opinions. I am a student of history. It's often not fact, but propaganda. Critical analysis is necessary to understand what happened, and then, one is left only with his opinion. The ideal is, of course, that it somehow corresponds to "Truth". Good luck with that, "small truths cry out overloud".
That said, it is not true that "one opinion is as good as another". An informed, well reasoned opinion is better than an ignorant one. The latter isn't deserving of respect.
Mike

[mike86002000]

I just finished Mr. Prindle's book, "Booth’s Confederate Connections". It's "a keeper". There are lots of clear photos, and a useful index. Footnotes are collected at the back, as I prefer. They mostly include information about sources, not additions to the text. I intend to go through it again, make notes, and follow up on some things. There are a few things that I immediately question.
One is a picture on page 105. It's captioned "John Surratt as he was dressed in Elmira, New York." Mr. Prindle theorizes that the red Garibaldi jacket and pantaloons, that Surratt had made for him in Elmira were to make sure people noticed and remembered him there, establishing an alibi at the time of Lincoln's murder. That implies foreknowledge of the timing of the assassination. Surratt is supposed to have had this foreknowledge because he was the courier who delivered the orders to Booth from Richmond, to change the plot from abduction of Lincoln, to assassination of Lincoln and government heads.
The photo is a familiar one , usually labeled as Surratt in the uniform of a Papal Zouave. Surratt, (if it is really even him), has a mustache, but no goatee. His costume includes a fez, complete with tassel, and white leggings worn below bloused pantaloons. The jacket has a large cross on each lapel. If he had walked around Elmira dressed like that, he would not only have been noticed, but probably locked up as insane.
Perhaps Mr. Prindel intended it only as an illustration of what a Garibaldi jacket looked like. It's not a good example of that, either. In Italy, Garibaldi's followers wore distinctive red jackets or shirts. They wouldn't have had crosses on the lapels! The Papal Zouaves were organized to oppose Garibaldi. Their uniform, as in the photo, wouldn't have included anything called a Garibaldi jacket, certainly not a red one.
I don't think the nature of the cloths Surratt wore in Elmira is really that important to Mr. Prindel's "bombshell". Simply a red jacket would have got Surratt noticed and may have been called a Garibaldi jacket just because it was red. "Pantaloons" may be just another word for trousers, and I doubt they were red. I suspect his costume was much more conservative than the photo depicts. It's unfortunate that the photo is used that way in this book.
However, if the picture was taken in Italy, much later, as I believe, why would Surratt pose for the camera while he was hiding from the law? Was it arrogance or pride? Is that really him? Is this the photo the government requested from the Vatican?
Mr. Prindle mentions the existence of a 14 page manuscript of a speech Booth planed to deliver. I don't remember hearing about that before. I have a collection that is supposed to include everything Booth wrote that could be found. The lady who published the collection actually bought all the original examples of Booth's writings she could. If it's mentioned in there, I don't remember it. I'll look, again. Has anyone else heard of this manuscript? I don't think it's the letter he left with his sister. This is supposed to be a speech to be delivered in a theater.
Re the pardons: For those who believe they were granted for any reason other than to block the appeal of Boynton's Ex Parte Mudd et All decision, Mr Prindle offers his ocean front property in Kansas and Nebraska!
That's not an exact quote, but it's "the gist".
Mike

[L Verge]

(08-02-2019 12:10 PM)mike86002000 Wrote:  I just finished Mr. Prindle's book, "Booth’s Confederate Connections". It's "a keeper". There are lots of clear photos, and a useful index. Footnotes are collected at the back, as I prefer. They mostly include information about sources, not additions to the text. I intend to go through it again, make notes, and follow up on some things. There are a few things that I immediately question.
One is a picture on page 105. It's captioned "John Surratt as he was dressed in Elmira, New York." Mr. Prindle theorizes that the red Garibaldi jacket and pantaloons, that Surratt had made for him in Elmira were to make sure people noticed and remembered him there, establishing an alibi at the time of Lincoln's murder. That implies foreknowledge of the timing of the assassination. Surratt is supposed to have had this foreknowledge because he was the courier who delivered the orders to Booth from Richmond, to change the plot from abduction of Lincoln, to assassination of Lincoln and government heads.
The photo is a familiar one , usually labeled as Surratt in the uniform of a Papal Zouave. Surratt, (if it is really even him), has a mustache, but no goatee. His costume includes a fez, complete with tassel, and white leggings worn below bloused pantaloons. The jacket has a large cross on each lapel. If he had walked around Elmira dressed like that, he would not only have been noticed, but probably locked up as insane.
Perhaps Mr. Prindel intended it only as an illustration of what a Garibaldi jacket looked like. It's not a good example of that, either. In Italy, Garibaldi's followers wore distinctive red jackets or shirts. They wouldn't have had crosses on the lapels! The Papal Zouaves were organized to oppose Garibaldi. Their uniform, as in the photo, wouldn't have included anything called a Garibaldi jacket, certainly not a red one.
I don't think the nature of the cloths Surratt wore in Elmira is really that important to Mr. Prindel's "bombshell". Simply a red jacket would have got Surratt noticed and may have been called a Garibaldi jacket just because it was red. "Pantaloons" may be just another word for trousers, and I doubt they were red. I suspect his costume was much more conservative than the photo depicts. It's unfortunate that the photo is used that way in this book.
However, if the picture was taken in Italy, much later, as I believe, why would Surratt pose for the camera while he was hiding from the law? Was it arrogance or pride? Is that really him? Is this the photo the government requested from the Vatican?
Mr. Prindle mentions the existence of a 14 page manuscript of a speech Booth planed to deliver. I don't remember hearing about that before. I have a collection that is supposed to include everything Booth wrote that could be found. The lady who published the collection actually bought all the original examples of Booth's writings she could. If it's mentioned in there, I don't remember it. I'll look, again. Has anyone else heard of this manuscript? I don't think it's the letter he left with his sister. This is supposed to be a speech to be delivered in a theater.
Re the pardons: For those who believe they were granted for any reason other than to block the appeal of Boynton's Ex Parte Mudd et All decision, Mr Prindle offers his ocean front property in Kansas and Nebraska!
That's not an exact quote, but it's "the gist".
Mike

Don't tell Sandy Prindle (a very good friend), but I have not read each and every page of the book and seldom look at photos until getting to them during reading. However, if he claims that John Surratt had a Zouave outfit made in Elmira, he is incorrect. I am at home without my books and I cannot remember the precise name of the style of jacket that he did have made there, but it was a popular fashion (especially in Canada) at the time. He mentions it in one of the letters he is said to have sent to his mother. Someone with a memory or a book, please help me out as to the name of that darn jacket!

As for the Zouave outfit that he is photographed in AFTER the assassination, his escape, and his trial: It was part of his money-making plans to get back on his feet since he was economically hurting by 1868. We have a copy of a letter that he wrote to William Norris, his former chief Confederate operative, asking for assistance. He took a job teaching school (and was not very good at it). Selling photographs in conjunction with his planned and failed lecture series was the reason for that photo -- and the uniform of the Zouaves was a crowd-pleaser - and still revered as a symbol of Col. Elmer Ellsworth's death in Alexandria, Virginia, at the beginning of the war. I am not sure that his stint in Rome earned him the same type of Zouave attire. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

I am drawing a blank on the 14-page manuscript that Booth intended to deliver in a theater.

[mike86002000]

The same picture of the Zouave outfit is used on the internet as an example of the uniform worn by the Papal Zouaves. Other pictures show the same outfit, but with a "kepi" style hat. It's mostly blue, with a red sash worn under a belt. Your explanation of the photo's origin makes a lot of sense. It explains why it is so widely circulated, too. Surratt undoubtedly wore that uniform in Italy. He was a member of the Papal Zouaves, an international mercenary group, employed to fight Garibaldi. Like the French Foreign Legion, it was a good place for someone "on the lamm" to get lost. He may have passed through Rome, but was stationed elsewhere. Colorful Zouave style outfits were popular during the Civil War. Some were worn by Union units made up of volunteer firemen! Surratt's was an authentic Italian uniform, (well maybe not the fez).
The lady who collected Booth's writings appeared on panels discussing the assassination. I think she gave a talk at a Surratt Society conference, but that would have been 20 years ago. I'll put together what information I have, with Mr. Prindle's reference, and post it. I sure would like to read that speech.
Mike

[L Verge]

(08-02-2019 08:59 PM)mike86002000 Wrote:  The same picture of the Zouave outfit is used on the internet as an example of the uniform worn by the Papal Zouaves. Other pictures show the same outfit, but with a "kepi" style hat. It's mostly blue, with a red sash worn under a belt. Your explanation of the photo's origin makes a lot of sense. It explains why it is so widely circulated, too. Surratt undoubtedly wore that uniform in Italy. He was a member of the Papal Zouaves, an international mercenary group, employed to fight Garibaldi. Like the French Foreign Legion, it was a good place for someone "on the lamm" to get lost. He may have passed through Rome, but was stationed elsewhere. Colorful Zouave style outfits were popular during the Civil War. Some were worn by Union units made up of volunteer firemen! Surratt's was an authentic Italian uniform, (well maybe not the fez).
The lady who collected Booth's writings appeared on panels discussing the assassination. I think she gave a talk at a Surratt Society conference, but that would have been 20 years ago. I'll put together what information I have, with Mr. Prindle's reference, and post it. I sure would like to read that speech.
Mike

The lady with the collection is Louise Taper, but I'm still not remembering a 14-page manuscript. If Louise said she has it, however, I would believe her. Pretty sure it didn't go to the ALPLM, however. She co-authored a book, Right or Wrong, God Judge Me, with John Rhodehamel, so it should be in there since it is a collection of Booth's known writings.

And, I apologize for being incorrect about Surratt's uniform. The Pontifical Zouaves (I think that was their official title) wore outfits that were gray with red trim, whereas the New York Fire Zouaves', the uniform popular during the Civil War, were mainly a dark blue with red trim. Also, I suddently remembered that Surratt was captured in his uniform and still had it on when he stepped off the ship in D.C.

I must admit to being weak on my John, Jr. history, and I can't explain why. Michael Schein's and Fred Hatch's books on him are very good. Jampoler's is well-researched, but too heavy on ship and naval details, imo.

[mike86002000]

Mr. Prindel says the manuscript is at the Walter Hamden library in New York City, and is unpublished, page 61 of his book. A footnote refers to "The Lincoln Murder Conspiracies" by William Hanchett. If it's unpublished, it wouldn't be the well known letter he left with his sister.
I may have a copy of the Hanchett book.
The Papal Zouaves were active only in Italy. There were Zouave style outfits in the American Union army with various colorful uniforms. I'd be surprised if Surratt was still wearing his uniform when he was brought back to the U.S. He was probably wearing it when he escaped arrest in Italy by jumping from an outhouse into a pile of human excrement 15 feet below. If he had more than one uniform, I doubt he had it with him when he fled. He sought refuge with enemy Garibaldi troops as a Zouave deserter, and hopefully cleaned himself up. He was arrested again, sometime later, by the U.S. consul in Alexandria, Egypt, and returned to the States, which took weeks.
Mike

[L Verge]

(08-02-2019 09:38 PM)mike86002000 Wrote:  Mr. Prindel says the manuscript is at the Walter Hamden library in New York City, and is unpublished, page 61 of his book. A footnote refers to "The Lincoln Murder Conspiracies" by William Hanchett. If it's unpublished, it wouldn't be the well known letter he left with his sister.
I may have a copy of the Hanchett book.
Mike

The Walter Hampden Library is part of Edwin Booth's Players Club in NYC, I think. It would make sense that it is there.

[Steve]

Here's the Wikipedia page on Garibaldi jacket:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garibaldi_shirt

But the type of clothes described in the article doesn't seem to match the description of the jacket given during testimony during the Surratt trial:

https://books.google.com/books?id=tls_i-...22&f=false

The witness couldn't even remember the color of the jacket.

[Steve]

1871 catalog with an a sketch image of a Garibaldi jacket (# 488 on the left page):

https://archive.org/details/catalogueofe...+jacket%22

[Steve]

Here's a photograph from the National Archives of John Surratt taken after his capture taken at the same time as the photographs of him in his Papal Zouave uniform. When Surratt was selling copies of these photographs, he called it his "Canada Jacket" but I think it's a Garibaldi Jacket based on the description from court testimony and the 1871 catalog sketch in the link in my previous post:

---

Note: I don't have a copy of Prindle's book, so I don't know which photograph he claims is the Garibaldi jacket.