Type of trial - Debate

[HerbS]

I have the newspaper and Sue is correct!

[RJNorton]

Thanks, John and Herb (and again to Susan). I actually find Lincoln's Sons and Twenty Days similar in one respect - neither one is footnoted and both say things I have questioned. But every time I ask "what is the source for this" or "what is the source for that" someone on the forum finds the answer, and it's almost always in an old newspaper. Much appreciated!

[HerbS]

I think RTL had to be slick and cunning to survive!He did that with the Pullman Corp.

[Rick Smith]

(03-11-2013 03:45 PM)Laurie Verge Wrote:  Why were the Confederate Cabinet members and Gen. Lee never put on trial?

---

BTW: John E, I agree with you completely that the military tribunal was the route to take in bringing the conspirators to justice. I'm just surprised that more did not make it to prison for extended stays. I happen to believe in the term "enemy beligerents" in relation to civilians during war times.

Surprise all of you who have me pegged as a perpetual She Rebel! I do have a sense of justice.

Good point.

If you begin with the notion that Lincoln's killing was an act of war during a time of war, then it follows that a military tribunal would be convened to try those involved with eliminating the president, who is the commander in chief of all Union forces, and various cabinet members.

[MajGenl.Meade]

However,

Quote:In Ex parte Milligan (1866), the Supreme Court ruled that a prisoner's ability to challenge his or her detention could only be suspended for a brief and finite period of time, and only if the situation compelled it. The Court also ruled that military tribunals generally lack jurisdiction over civilians who are not connected with or engaged in armed conflict. Assessing the rights of an Indiana citizen accused of plotting against Union forces during the Civil War, the basic rules defined in Milligan are quite relevant today

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/ant...parte.html

The decision also found that Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional - but it had already (of course) worked to put the conspirators into a "trial" in which they were not permitted to testify.

On another note, the pursuit of Booth by the military was correct. Virginia (into which he fled) was under military occupational rule and had no state mechanisms (or loyal officers) to undertake such a task. Washington police civil authority had no jurisdiction in Virginia I would have to think (?)

[L Verge]

The conspirators would not have been permitted to testify in a civil court at that time either. Only the State of Maine granted defendants that right in 1865.

[John Fazio]

(11-06-2014 10:28 AM)Rick Smith Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 03:45 PM)Laurie Verge Wrote:  Why were the Confederate Cabinet members and Gen. Lee never put on trial?

---

BTW: John E, I agree with you completely that the military tribunal was the route to take in bringing the conspirators to justice. I'm just surprised that more did not make it to prison for extended stays. I happen to believe in the term "enemy beligerents" in relation to civilians during war times.

Surprise all of you who have me pegged as a perpetual She Rebel! I do have a sense of justice.

Laurie:

As to why Confederate Cabinet members and Lee were not tried, a few points:

1. As for Lee, my understanding is that he was indicted, but that he informally appealed to then-President Grant, alluding to their agreement at Appomattox as being dispositive of the matter. Grant, so the story goes, was very upset with the prosecutors (Attorney General's office?) and threatened to resign if the indictment were not withdrawn. It was withdrawn. My understanding, further, is that Lee applied for a reinstatement of citizenship, but the application was lost until found in, I believe, 1975, at which time action by the Congress was taken to approve it. Corrections to this history are welcome.
2. As for the Cabinet members, several considerations came into play.
a. They would have had to be tried in civil courts in Virginia for treason. The government had little confidence that it could find a jury in Virginia which would convict them, just as it had little confidence that a Virginia jury would convict Davis. The government's anxieties in this regard were vindicated in 1867 by the failure of a jury to convict John Surratt, certainly complicit in the assassination and attempted assassinations.
b. The trial of the conspirators, from May 10 through June 28, 1865, absolutely exhausted everyone: the Commissioners, the prosecutors, the defense and the public. The heat was stifling and the proceedings very tedious. No one was inclined to do it all over again, and perhaps again, and perhaps again. It was largely for this reason that the accessories after the fact, i.e. those in the Mail Line who had helped the fugitives Booth and Herold (Cox, Jones, Quesenberry, et al.) were not tried, nor, for that matter, so many others who were complicit but escaped justice.
c. After the trial and sentencing, the mood of the country changed from retribution to reconciliation. The government was mindful of this fact. This mood change was one reason Surratt was not extradited from England when the government learned of his presence there. But there were other reasons.

John


Good point.

If you begin with the notion that Lincoln's killing was an act of war during a time of war, then it follows that a military tribunal would be convened to try those involved with eliminating the president, who is the commander in chief of all Union forces, and various cabinet members.

[HerbS]

I think that the was one big cover up!

[MajGenl.Meade]

(11-11-2014 01:24 PM)L Verge Wrote:  The conspirators would not have been permitted to testify in a civil court at that time either. Only the State of Maine granted defendants that right in 1865.

Yes that was still the case when John Surratt was tried in the civil court system

---

(11-14-2014 06:08 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  Laurie:

As to why Confederate Cabinet members and Lee were not tried, a few points:

1. As for Lee, my understanding is that he was indicted, but that he informally appealed to then-President Grant, alluding to their agreement at Appomattox as being dispositive of the matter. Grant, so the story goes, was very upset with the prosecutors (Attorney General's office?) and threatened to resign if the indictment were not withdrawn. It was withdrawn. My understanding, further, is that Lee applied for a reinstatement of citizenship, but the application was lost until found in, I believe, 1975, at which time action by the Congress was taken to approve it. Corrections to this history are welcome.

Hello John - long time, no see! I think you mean "then-General" Grant. Johnson was President when the indictment was dropped. Otherwise, your history is validated here:

http://www.aleksandreia.com/2009/09/16/g...e-treason/