Type of trial - Debate

[L Verge]

Kate - I feel that the military court was the only way to assure a quick and speedy trial and justice based on the severity of the crime. As John pointed out, Washington was under martial law; it had come under attack in 1864 (even though Jubal Early only made it to the outskirts of the city); Lincoln was Commander-in-Chief of the government's forces (which is a military rank).

Even though the city was the capital of the federal government, its citizenry was still basically Southern in feeling; and the chances of getting an impartial jury of peers would have been difficult (hence what happened in the Surratt, Jr. trial). Military trials had been used against civilians in other phases of the war, and certainly for lesser crimes than killing the head of state. And, finally -- and someone please correct me if I'm wrong -- I believe that trying civilians deemed "enemy belligerents" in military courts had been used in other wars and by other countries.

As for Corbett shooting Booth, I don't think there was any order to take him alive. Some historians have pointed out that it would have been a dangerous order because it would have stopped soldiers from protecting themselves from a fugitive who came out of that barn with guns blazing. I think Corbett did the U.S. court system and the U.S. people a great service by having the assassin die an ignoble death. Despite what I have been accused of previously, I do think that Booth's act was despicable -- however, I also think it was patriotically inspired in terms of what he saw an American democracy to be.