The Flimsy Case Against Mary Surratt

[mike86002000]

(01-10-2019 11:31 PM)wpbinzel Wrote:  The opening sentence of your "article" reads "On June 30, 1865, an illegal military tribunal found Mrs. Mary Surratt guilty of conspiring with John Wilkes Booth...."

Um, Mike, please provide the legal citation of the court case that specifically found the conviction of Mrs. Surratt before a military tribunal to be "illegal." If you cannot provide such a ruling from a court of competent jurisdiction, then your statements are, and should be labeled as, your personal opinion and not as a fact. That seems to be a concept with which you have a very high degree of difficulty.

I would like to comment about the legitimacy of Mary Surratt's "trial" by a military court. I have a copy of the Supreme Court's opinion in the case of "Ex Parte Milligan". It's included in the University Of Chicago's collection, "The People Shall Judge", Vol I, page 772, and deals with the military "trial" of the civilian Milligan in 1864. The opinion was written in 1866.
The question, in the case before the Supreme Court, is stated: "had the military commission … jurisdiction, legally, to try and sentence him?". The answer is based on the Constitutional clause, "That the trial of all crimes, except in case of impeachment, shall be by jury", and the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments. The answer is NO.
The parallels to Mrs. Surratt's case are striking. Milligan and Surratt were not residents of states that had seceded. Neither had ever been members of the military. Both had been arrested in their home by the military. Both were tried, convicted, and sentenced to be hanged by a military commission, although civilian courts were available at the time.
On line, please see the article at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Milligan . Probably the text of the Supreme Court's opinion is online somewhere. It's very clear, and emphatic.
Another Mike

---