|
Post by Chuck T on Apr 25, 2011 12:03:16 GMT -5
Kevin: I might also add that I did a family history project a few years ago that was very informative for me.
My mother was born near Upper Marlboro, MD in 1908. As a young girl she went to school with a lot of the Mudd clan. I researching familiy history I chanced upon a history of the Catholic Church in Southern Maryland provided to me by some of the folks at Saint Mary's Church in Marlboro. It gave me insights into the terrain of mid 19th century Prince George's and Charles Counties. You get the impression from there writings that the whole area was one of almost impenetrible swamp with islands of good farming land. The bridges were few and far between, the roads were a bad joke. Far different from today. although there are still a few very bad places along to course of the Potomac. It is little wonder then to me why this was the chosen escape route.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Apr 25, 2011 13:11:12 GMT -5
Kevin: As an afterthought, did the map you refered to have any specifics or landmarks of Booth's route in the District of Columbia. I am fairly familiar with the Maryland - Virginia portion. I am also quite familiar with the route from Ford's to the Navy Yard (now 11th Street) Bridge, but I have no specifics on that part of the route from Anacostia ( the other side of the bridge) to where he crossed the Maryland line. Any information or insights you may have would be most welcome.
PS: I guess I should have stated above that my interest in this particular part of the route is generated by the preplanned stop for weapons at the Surratt Tavern. This indicates to me that a great deal of care must have been put into the planning of Booth's route through D.C. After crossing the Navy Yard Bridge the cavalry depot where NAS Anacostia/Bolling AFB now stands must have been a concern to Booth. Couple this with the chain of forts (actually artillery emplacements) that extended all along the highlands above the Anacostia River. He must have had to throughly reconnioter this route well in advance to be able to slip through this ring, where the slightest mis-chance would have spelled capture.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Apr 25, 2011 14:38:11 GMT -5
Sidebar. Over on the Lincoln Assassination Web Forum, they were discussing the other Surratt son, Isaac (who is not mentioned in Conspirator). He served in the 33rd Texas Cavry (Duff's Partisans) as a Sgt. in Company A and went to Mexico after the surrender.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 25, 2011 15:57:48 GMT -5
Kevin, Issac is mentioned in passing as a Confederate soldier in the book I mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Apr 25, 2011 16:26:38 GMT -5
I think the film was more about the justification of trying civilians in a military court, rather than Surratt's guilt or innocence, although (IMO) Surratt came off as a more sympathetic figure in the film than she does in history. Allen I haven't seen the film so can't comment on the content, but Redford has made several statements about the film being a political commentary on military tribunals. From his statements its not clear that Redford is aware of the long history or the role military tribunals have played in this country. Whether, they are good are not, it is perhaps easier to look at WWII, and examples of both - the Nueremburg and Tokyo trials.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 25, 2011 19:50:28 GMT -5
The book I'm reading gives a much more clear explanation by those who made this choice in 1865 as to why a military tribunal was chosen than the movie does. I did not know that Redford had made such statements, but they are consistent with the way the film came across to me. It was not really about Surratt or her guilt/innocence. It was about whether or not she and the other conspirators should have been tried that way as they were U.S. citizens protected by the Constitution, thus entitled to a trial by a jury of their peers in a civil court.
President Andrew Johnson asked his attorney general (Speed) to render an opinion on how the accused conspirators should be tried and Speed gave him a detailed, legal justification for the military tribunal and strongly recommended it. Other members of Johnson's cabinet disagreed, some quite strongly. One of the government's real fears that was that a jury in the Washington area was very likely to include southern sympathizers who would vote for acquittal, regardless of the evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Apr 25, 2011 20:18:35 GMT -5
Allen: I am not a lawyer, but I should still probably know the answer, but I do not. Which charged trumped which. Murder and attempted murder to include the conspiracy to commit were DC crimes. Conspiracy to overthrow was treason and as such Federal. I think under most circumstances the Federal charge is superior. Was there a means then available to try these people under Federal law, in time of war, meaning other than by military tribunal?
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 25, 2011 21:10:57 GMT -5
That was pretty much the argument of the prosecution, Chuck, meaning the government. I think all of them were charged with conspiracy to murder the president and it was regarded as an act of war, not a local murder, and they were charged with treason. The key government point was that the country was still technically at war since there were still Confederates fighting in the field and Jefferson Davis, et al, were still at large. Since the murder conspiracy was seen as an act intended to continue the war and bring danger to the country it was treason as well as an act of war.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 25, 2011 23:46:08 GMT -5
As to your other question, apparently there was no alternative to either a civil trial or a military tribunal; had to be one or the other.
By the way, I finished the book and highly recommend it. A great, brief account of the conspiracy, the trial and a weighing of the evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Apr 28, 2011 7:13:59 GMT -5
We got into a spirited but friendly discussion about the film at our local CW Roundtable...the lawyers in the crowd liked it. The debate was over the fact that Aiken's political involements were skipped over-he was a Democrat who was high up in the Breckenridge's Campaign, supported McClellan in the 1864 election and encouraged Fremont to run for the Radical Republicans...
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 28, 2011 9:33:34 GMT -5
The choice of Aiken is odd. Not only was he a green incompetent, but a devoted Democrat. But, then, so was his boss, Reverdy Johnson, who was actually supposed to represent Surratt, but bailed after a short time, leaving it all in Aiken and Clampitt's hands (both green and over their heads). Interesting that the lawyers would like it as it does focus more on the broader legal issues than the historical events.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on May 2, 2011 17:54:23 GMT -5
I go along with the defence being incompetant. Mary Surratt could have defended her actions, but not much seemed to be done to challenge the prosecution's witnesses and introduce some of her own. Perhaps Aiken was so sure the court would show mercy to a woman, he didn't mount a more vigorous defence. For all the good our legal system has been for over 200 years, it has made some tragic mistakes. What could be worse than being accused of a crime and standing trial during a time of heightened public disturbance? It wasn't good for Jesus, or Joan of Arc, or Thomas More or dozens of other notorious trials throughout the centuries. The law depends on all men following their better angels. But more often then we would like, justice is thwarted by our own humanity or lack of it. Fortunately, our freedom let's us study these cases through books and the media, in the hope that we can learn from these instances and not repeat them. By the way, to me the Conspirator was a good film because it was not too preachy and I think attempted to portray the different points of view with some attention to realism.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on May 2, 2011 19:50:42 GMT -5
The book I mentioned is quite different from the movie and I recommend it as a counterpoint to the film, which I also enjoyed. Regarding witnesses to support Surratt, she could not come up with any, so that was not really the defense counsel's fault. Also, several of the convicted conspirators (Mudd, Spangler, Arnold) were not executed but senteneced to life in prison, although all eventually were pardoned or had their sentences commuted. The long and short of it seemed to be that Mary was as guilty as the others who were hung and no defense would have saved her. Nonetheless, it's important to note how easily rights are abrogated in times of crisis -- at the very point where it is most important for a country to live up to what it stands for. The 4 who were executed probably would not have done any better in a civil court, but our civil courts and trials have come a long way since 1865.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on May 3, 2011 0:31:57 GMT -5
Allen: I have never seen anything that would make me cast doubt on the guilt of Mary Surratt. The weapons waiting for Booth at the tavern sealed the deal for me.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on May 3, 2011 8:21:35 GMT -5
That and Lloyd's testimony are what did her in at the trial as well. The only thing that may not be 100% certain is whether or not she knew that Booth had switched from a kidnap plot to one of murder, but even there I find little reason to doubt her guilt, particularly the special trip to her tavern to check on the weapons' availabiility that night. One of the star witnesses against her, Weichmann, seems to have been more involved than he claimed and comes off as disingenuous, but telling the truth about Mary. He was not prosecuted because the rules of the tribunal prohibited defendants from testifying. Had they charged Weichmann the prosecution would not have been able to use him as a witness, and his testimony was damning.
|
|