|
03-26-2013, 12:44 PM,
|
|
|
RJNorton
Hero Member
      
|
Posts: 13,225
Threads: 555
Joined: Jun 2012
|
|
Lincoln pallbearers - April 19, 1865
Thanks to Laurie for sending this.
The following photo was donated to Surratt House Museum this past week by Jerry and Eleanor Bennett of New Jersey.
The names are difficult to read on the scan. They are: Senate: Lafayette Foster, Edwin D. Morgan, Reverdy Johnson, Richard Yates, Benjamin Wade, John Conness. Army: U. S. Grant, H. W. Halleck, W. A. Nichols. Civilians: Orville Browning, George Ashmun, Thomas Corwin, Simon Cameron. Marine Corp: J. Zelin. Navy: D. Farragut, W. S. Shubrick. House of Representatives: Henry Worthington, Elihu Washburn, Green Clay Smith, Schuyler Colfax, Henry Dawes, Andrew Coffroth.
|
|
|
|
03-26-2013, 05:48 PM,
|
|
|
RJNorton
Hero Member
      
|
Posts: 13,225
Threads: 555
Joined: Jun 2012
|
|
RE: Lincoln pallbearers - April 19, 1865
Yes, I think it is the same Reverdy Johnson. When I looked up Reverdy Johnson I came upon this 1849 Brady daguerreotype of the Zachary Taylor Administration. From the left, the men are William B. Preston, Thomas Ewing, John M. Clayton, Zachary Taylor, William M. Meredith, George W. Crawford, Jacob Collamer and Reverdy Johnson. Thomas Ewing's son represented Samuel Mudd, Ned Spangler, and Sam Arnold at the conspiracy trial.
Picture source: Library of Congress
|
|
|
|
03-26-2013, 09:45 PM,
|
|
|
RE: Lincoln pallbearers - April 19, 1865
(03-26-2013, 09:32 PM)LincolnMan Wrote: And yet, if I understand the history correctly, he really did not do much in the Surratt case?
Didn't Reverdy basically pass it off to Aiken??
|
|
|
|
03-27-2013, 10:04 AM,
|
|
|
Laurie Verge
Hero Member
     
|
Posts: 1,229
Threads: 69
Joined: Jul 2012
|
|
|
RE: Lincoln pallbearers - April 19, 1865
Reverdy Johnson may have hurt the case for Mary Surratt. Aiken and Clampitt has already been retained as counsel for the lady when Johnson agreed to sign onto the case also. He did so without sufficient time to examine the facts and basically stated that he would represent her unless he found extenuating circumstances that would cause him to withdraw.
He immediately questioned the legality of the military tribunal in trying a civilian and incurred the wrath of some very vocal members of that tribunal. During the war, he had also questioned the use of verbal oaths of allegiance; and this was brought up against him. At that point, he realized that he was becoming "an enemy" of the court also and that it would prejudice the officers against Mrs. Surratt, so he withdrew from the spotlight. The court, the press, and the public, however, saw this as a sign that Johnson had found evidence of Surratt's guilt. It became yet another hurdle to overcome in Mary's defense.
I doubt that Reverdy Johnson could have done any better with the case than did Aiken and Clampitt, however - even if he had not prejudiced the court against him.
|
|
|
|