Porter & Comstock

[John Fazio]

(01-09-2016 11:43 AM)loetar44 Wrote:  Just read in Roy Z. Chamlee’s “Lincoln's Assassins: A Complete Account of Their Capture, Trial, and Punishment” that Gen. Horace Porter on May 10, 1865 was removed from the Military Commission (like Maj. Gen. C. B. Comstock) because of defense objections that he would be biased. Strange, because IMO the defense had no opportunity to object, because no defense counsel had attended the sessions of the tribunal, which started in secret on May 8, without any defense counsel. I thought the first defense witnesses were heard on May 12. Am I right? Was the proper reason to remove Porter and Comstock because they were uncooperative in the eyes of Holt and Stanton?

Kees:

My understanding is that Comstock was appalled at the treatment of the prisoners, upon observing them enter the courtroom on May 8, with all their medieval paraphernalia (hoods, balls, chains, shackles, manacles) and for that reason asked to be excused and was. Porter was excused at the same time, so the presumption is that he too was offended by the treatment of the prisoners. However, both men were senior aides to General Grant and it is probable, therefore, that their status as such facilitated their removal inasmuch as Grant was alleged, in the indictment and specifications, to have been an intended victim, which, in my judgment, he was.

The trial did start on the 8th. It was closed to the public until the 15th. Testimony began to be taken on the 12th, but not from defense witnesses, but from prosecution witnesses.

I hope this helps.

John