Military Response Time To Assassination

[John E.]

Hi folks,

Considering the lack of communication technology in 1865, can anyone argue that the military's response to Lincoln's assassination was anything but swift and overwhelming ?

In just 12 days, Booth was dead and all of his suspected accomplices (that were prosecuted) were in custody.

Two weeks later, they were put on trial. Its hard to imagine anything happening that fast nowadays.

I know Stanton said he wished all of the conspirators to be tried and executed before Lincoln was buried but I think that was an emotional response and not realistic one, even to him.

Thoughts ?

[Craig Hipkins]

It was amazing considering it was 1865 and not 2013. One wonders if the telegraph had not been invented would Booth had escaped the dragnet?
Also, compare this to how long it took the authorities to get the Boston Marathon bombers.

Craig

[LincolnMan]

Maybe part of the answer to the swiftness that you note is due to the smaller size of the government back then compared to today.

[irshgrl500]

Hi folks,

Considering the lack of communication technology in 1865, can anyone argue that the military's response to Lincoln's assassination was anything but swift and overwhelming ?

In just 12 days, Booth was dead and all of his suspected accomplices (that were prosecuted) were in custody.

Two weeks later, they were put on trial. Its hard to imagine anything happening that fast nowadays.

I know Stanton said he wished all of the conspirators to be tried and executed before Lincoln was buried but I think that was an emotional response and not realistic one, even to him.




Thoughts ?

Swift & Overwhelming? Far from it, and also met with enormous errors.
Also, even if the trial was held in a Civilian Court, the defendants had a right to a speedy trial, which is normally waived by the defendant, (today) in order that they may be able to prepare adequately for trial. So, no, considering the defendants were arraigned after their arrest, (and in 1865, one was NOT given a court appointed Attorney – this did not occur until Gideon v. Wainwright, (1963) ), so the defendants likely could not afford an Attorney, thus their right to a speedy trial was not waived, and trial would begin immediately. So, no this would not be unusual, today, IF the same laws (which includes Case law, which has highly evolved and changed trials, since 1865.), were in place, today.

Also, Abraham Lincoln was the first President to be assassinated, and this must be taken into consideration, in any analysis, no matter how brief, or general.

The statements are a bit difficult to address; you have made some enormous assumptions, and thus formed your opinions. This is not meant to offend, just an observation.

[John E.]

Swift & Overwhelming? Far from it, and also met with enormous errors.
Also, even if the trial was held in a Civilian Court, the defendants had a right to a speedy trial, which is normally waived by the defendant, (today) in order that they may be able to prepare adequately for trial. So, no, considering the defendants were arraigned after their arrest, (and in 1865, one was NOT given a court appointed Attorney – this did not occur until Gideon v. Wainwright, (1963) ), so the defendants likely could not afford an Attorney, thus their right to a speedy trial was not waived, and trial would begin immediately. So, no this would not be unusual, today, IF the same laws (which includes Case law, which has highly evolved and changed trials, since 1865.), were in place, today.

Also, Abraham Lincoln was the first President to be assassinated, and this must be taken into consideration, in any analysis, no matter how brief, or general.

The statements are a bit difficult to address; you have made some enormous assumptions, and thus formed your opinions. This is not meant to offend, just an observation.

Not offended, but i disagree with your statements and assumptions.

What am I assuming?

Within 3 days of Booth assassinating President Lincoln, the military and its investigators unraveled a web of conspiracy and arrested: Michael O'Laughlen, Sam Arnold, Mary Surratt and Lewis Powell. Days later, Ned Spangler, who had already been arrested, questioned and released, would soon be back in custody as would Dr. Mudd.

All this was accomplished with the "telegraph" being the only form of communication technology. No security cameras, televisions, telephones, cell-phones, 2-way radios, body heat sensors, internet, etc., were used to aid the investigation.

Swift - See above. While it took 12 days to hunt down Booth, his accomplices were arrested in short order. The investigation and manhunt for the perpetrators began in the parlor of the Petersen House where the President lay dying. How is that not a swift response?

Overwhelming:

Civil and military forces (police, investigators, federal troops) were rallied to assist in hunting down John Wilkes Booth and his accomplices.

Not sure what your statement "met with enormous errors" has to do with mine, but in any case -

Yes, errors were made but this is never unusual in times of emergencies or chaos. To use a modern example, on 9/11, rumors and misinformation were prevalent even with modern communication. The Capitol building, White House and other targets were reported as being under threat of imminent attack. Other planes besides United Flight 93 were rumored to be heading toward Washington. Innocent civilians were arrested for the unfortunate crime of having the same Arabic names as suspected terrorists.


As for the speed of the trial and execution, that's a bit harder to compare with other assassinations or acts of terrorism. All other Presidential assassins were caught on the spot and likely acted alone.

Garfield's assassin was arrested on the spot but his trial didn't begin until 4 months later.

McKinlley's assassin was arrested on the spot and put on trial 16 days later. He was then executed 2 after being sentenced to death.

We all know what happened with Lee Harvey Oswald.

John Hinkley (Attempted assassination) was arrested on the spot but his trial didn't begin until a year and a month later.

Part of the reason the government chose to prosecute the conspirators in a military trial was so they could all be tried at the same time and in the same court. Otherwise, there could have been multiple trials in different states based on location of arrests and specific charges against them. - Arnold and Herold in Virginia; O'Laughlen, Atzerodt and Mudd in Maryland; Spangler, Powell and Surratt in Washington, DC.

I think you are being assumptive in your statement that the "trial would begin immediately". Besides the right to a speedy trial, the 6th amendment calls for a right to an impartial jury. How long would that have taken to find?

Also, what makes you think the defendants could not afford an attorney? All of the defendants save for Atzerodt and Spangler could have afforded attorneys and Ford, like he did in the military trial - would have covered Spangler's attorney fees. I'm not certain but I believe Atzerodt's extended family could have afforded to pitch in for an attorney (if they chose to do so) as well.

In a military trial, the defendants were guaranteed representation. Oddly enough, had they not been able to find attorneys willing to represent them, JAG Holt and his team would have been responsible for both the prosecution and defense of the prisoners.

[L Verge]

I'm going with John on this one. I'm reminded of Mike Kauffman stating, when he used to narrate the Surratt Booth Tours - and as the bus chugged up Good Hope Road (then Harrison Street) -- that there were two forts at the top of Good Hope Hill and that Booth and Herold rode past them as the first alert was being sent as to what had happened. I believe also that some of the communication lines had been disassembled in Southern Maryland by this time (at least the one at Chapel Point), so that would hamper military communications.

Search teams would be further hindered by having to go into Southern Maryland and the Northern Neck of Virginia where the inhabitants had learned a long time ago to "just know nothing." They were getting very little cooperation there. John Lloyd even told the troops when they arrived in Surrattsville the next morning that the fugitives had taken off in a different direction than was correct. In a day when things moved a lot slower, the pursuers were on the right trail and the heels of Booth within twelve hours. The pair's convenient stop-over at Dr. Mudd's bought them some time because the good doctor's house was pretty well off the beaten path.

Louis Weichmann and Mr. Holohan were offering information about goings-on at the Surratt boardinghouse and where John-John might be. I don't have a book in front of me, but I believe that they were dispatched to Canada with government agents in pretty quick order.

Finally, as to the attorneys: The children of Mary Surratt were still dickering with Frederick Aiken and John Clampitt over reducing the fees months after their mother's execution. The pair finally agreed to lower the amount, but not eliminate it entirely - so they got paid.
There was a similar situation with Thomas Ewing and Dr. Mudd. There is a letter somewhere showing that Ewing was asking financial advice from his father regarding the fees charged to the Mudds. I also believe that Herold's family could afford a lawyer. His mother might have been a widow, but her husband had left her fairly well off with substantial pieces of real estate to dicker with.

[irshgrl500]

Swift & Overwhelming? Far from it, and also met with enormous errors.
Also, even if the trial was held in a Civilian Court, the defendants had a right to a speedy trial, which is normally waived by the defendant, (today) in order that they may be able to prepare adequately for trial. So, no, considering the defendants were arraigned after their arrest, (and in 1865, one was NOT given a court appointed Attorney – this did not occur until Gideon v. Wainwright, (1963) ), so the defendants likely could not afford an Attorney, thus their right to a speedy trial was not waived, and trial would begin immediately. So, no this would not be unusual, today, IF the same laws (which includes Case law, which has highly evolved and changed trials, since 1865.), were in place, today.

Also, Abraham Lincoln was the first President to be assassinated, and this must be taken into consideration, in any analysis, no matter how brief, or general.

The statements are a bit difficult to address; you have made some enormous assumptions, and thus formed your opinions. This is not meant to offend, just an observation.

Not offended, but i disagree with your statements and assumptions.

What am I assuming?

Within 3 days of Booth assassinating President Lincoln, the military and its investigators unraveled a web of conspiracy and arrested: Michael O'Laughlen, Sam Arnold, Mary Surratt and Lewis Powell. Days later, Ned Spangler, who had already been arrested, questioned and released, would soon be back in custody as would Dr. Mudd.

All this was accomplished with the "telegraph" being the only form of communication technology. No security cameras, televisions, telephones, cell-phones, 2-way radios, body heat sensors, internet, etc., were used to aid the investigation.

Swift - See above. While it took 12 days to hunt down Booth, his accomplices were arrested in short order. The investigation and manhunt for the perpetrators began in the parlor of the Petersen House where the President lay dying. How is that not a swift response?

Overwhelming:

Civil and military forces (police, investigators, federal troops) were rallied to assist in hunting down John Wilkes Booth and his accomplices.

Not sure what your statement "met with enormous errors" has to do with mine, but in any case -

Yes, errors were made but this is never unusual in times of emergencies or chaos. To use a modern example, on 9/11, rumors and misinformation were prevalent even with modern communication. The Capitol building, White House and other targets were reported as being under threat of imminent attack. Other planes besides United Flight 93 were rumored to be heading toward Washington. Innocent civilians were arrested for the unfortunate crime of having the same Arabic names as suspected terrorists.


As for the speed of the trial and execution, that's a bit harder to compare with other assassinations or acts of terrorism. All other Presidential assassins were caught on the spot and likely acted alone.

Garfield's assassin was arrested on the spot but his trial didn't begin until 4 months later.

McKinlley's assassin was arrested on the spot and put on trial 16 days later. He was then executed 2 after being sentenced to death.

We all know what happened with Lee Harvey Oswald.

John Hinkley (Attempted assassination) was arrested on the spot but his trial didn't begin until a year and a month later.

Part of the reason the government chose to prosecute the conspirators in a military trial was so they could all be tried at the same time and in the same court. Otherwise, there could have been multiple trials in different states based on location of arrests and specific charges against them. - Arnold and Herold in Virginia; O'Laughlen, Atzerodt and Mudd in Maryland; Spangler, Powell and Surratt in Washington, DC.

I think you are being assumptive in your statement that the "trial would begin immediately". Besides the right to a speedy trial, the 6th amendment calls for a right to an impartial jury. How long would that have taken to find?

Also, what makes you think the defendants could not afford an attorney? All of the defendants save for Atzerodt and Spangler could have afforded attorneys and Ford, like he did in the military trial - would have covered Spangler's attorney fees. I'm not certain but I believe Atzerodt's extended family could have afforded to pitch in for an attorney (if they chose to do so) as well.

In a military trial, the defendants were guaranteed representation. Oddly enough, had they not been able to find attorneys willing to represent them, JAG Holt and his team would have been responsible for both the prosecution and defense of the prisoners.

Oh and Swift??????? How about not letting anyone into the State box, while the President and his guests are enjoying a play. I am aware of the events surrounding the President's assassination.

Many question the Constitutional issue of a military trail, and no, they were not guaranteed representation. How so?

An immediate trial is guaranteed by the constitution, except when waived by the defendant, which was not tested entirely until 1972, Barker V Wingo, but still was guaranteed by the 6th amendment.

Also, I know that Mary Surratt could not afford any Attorney because she was barely able to survive, running her boarding house.

I do not wish to reply in the same manner, with attacks or bodes of criticism, and I was simply pointing out, legally, the trial was and is expected to begin, immediately.
This is not the place for a Public Debate, and your reply clearly indicates you were offended.

I'm very sorry I replied, at all.

[John E.]

Is it just me? What did I miss?

[J. Beckert]

From the Legal Dictionary -

"Unlike the balancing test created by the Supreme Court to evaluate a claim under the Speedy Trial Clause, the Speedy Trial Act establishes specific time limits between various stages of federal criminal proceedings. The act requires federal authorities to file an information or indictment within 30 days of a defendant's arrest. A prosecutor who knows that an accused is incarcerated at the time of indictment must take immediate steps to initiate prosecution. If a defendant enters a plea of not guilty, trial must commence within 70 days from the filing of the information or indictment or 70 days from the first appearance of the accused in court, whichever is later."

The last conspirator was arrested on April 24th, they were arraigned on May 10th., with testimony beginning on the 12th. Even by today's standards, this is not unreasonable and appears to have been as expeditious as possible. All parties need a reasonable amount of time to prepare a case and a defense. Six weeks, for the enormity of the charges, doesn't seem unreasonable. (Reasonable is a very elastic word and appears frequently in our legalese)

[JMadonna]

Considering the lack of communication technology in 1865, can anyone argue that the military's response to Lincoln's assassination was anything but swift and overwhelming ?

Considering the fact that the Union Army was the largest in the world at that time and they were in the process of setting up military rule in the South - one could argue that the Booth's decision to escape southward was doomed from the start.

[Gene C]

- one could argue that the Booth's decision to escape southward was doomed from the start.

I can agree to that

[L Verge]

John, like you, I'm confused. You and I must be thinking one thing while others are thinking something else about your statements. I was agreeing to your points about the speed in which conspirators were identified and rounded up - including Booth and Herold who only made it less than 100 miles from D.C. - in a time without communication techniques that we are so used to.

I would agree that heading south was a dicey decision, but if the fugitives hung close to the coastline, I think they could have gotten a lot farther. The bulk of the Yankees were in the mountain regions of Virginia or heading into North Carolina or westward to take care of the Joe Johnstons and Kirby Smiths of the war.

I also believe that establishing that military court and judicial process and getting it running in less than a month after the assassination (and at a time when most of April was concentrated on Lincoln's final journey home to Springfield) was pretty darn good. My house was broken into twice in one week this past January by the same people - two of which were caught within twelve hours. They were never brought to trial until this past June. The mastermind behind the thefts has been identified since January, but has yet to be arraigned. I would like to have had Stanton's military assistance this past year!

Finally, Mrs. Surratt was in financial difficulties, but her lawyers still expected to be paid - and we have the correspondence to prove it. Somewhere in our 30+ years of Surratt Couriers, there is an article about this.

I'm going back to sleep now - don't tell my bosses.

[John E.]

Thanks Laurie, I think we are on the same page. There's numerous examples of people committing atrocious crimes and not even going to trial for months or years. The 6th amendment right (as referred to earlier) doesn't define what Speedy means. No where does it say "immediate" and rarely does that ever come in to play.

By Stanton and Holt suggesting the trial be held in a military court, they kept almost complete control of the situation. They didn't have to wait for impartial jurors to be found, which MIGHT have been difficult seeing how Lincoln's assassination was the biggest story of the century. How long did it take George Zimmerman to go to trial? How long has it been since the Marathon bomber was charged?

The government arrested their culprits and made sure the trial was speedy. In fact, they left many people who warranted possible prosecution off the hook.

You understood my statement and question correctly.

[JMadonna]

- one could argue that the Booth's decision to escape southward was doomed from the start.

I can agree to that

I would agree that heading south was a dicey decision, but if the fugitives hung close to the coastline, I think they could have gotten a lot farther.

I had a hunch Laurie would argue the point. It wasn't a 'dicey' decision - they were doomed from the start. DOOMED! I tell you. (and they should have known it)

[Jim Garrett]

The military dragnet and justice system was running on all cylinders. It is very easy to look back through 20th Century eyes and criticize how things were handled, but considering we, as a nation, were in uncharted territory. While there were turf wars as to investigations, justice, etc., it did turn out to be very efficient.