That was not the point of the article I cited.
The article made mention that the only reason that Davis was not tried was because the radical republicans were going after Johnson and had lost interest in Davis.
You do know you lost-don't you?
Do you consider yourself an American or a Southerner?
Lack of knowledge has not stopped you from lecturing about legal opinions you have not read.
You keep serving up internet sources with no known creditials. You served up someone named Derek Alger with the following quote:
By Derek AlgerThe problem of Davis, however, still remained. He was in custody, accused of guilt in the assassination conspiracy by Holt, with the judge advocate general logically maintaining that Davis should be charged with treason, tried before a military commission, and a date with the gallows the logical outcome.
According to historian William Hanchett in his book, The Lincoln Conspiracy Murders, "While it is unlikely that Holt doubted for a moment that Davis and the others were guilty, as charged, he and Stanton were too able and experienced to fail to recognize that the evidence presented at the conspiracy trial was not proof of guilt but only hearesay and that it was only as credible as the eyewitnesses who gave it."
One would think it relevant to mention that several witnesses were proven to be known army deserters who conspired with the prosecution to commit perjury. One was convicted for perjury in the case.
Derek Alger wastes many words treating Louis Weichmann as some sort of legal expert. But then, Derek Alger wastes many words thinking of himself as legally competent. The following quote will testify to the competence of Derek Alger.
A month later, John Surratt, who had been serving as a zouave in the papal guard at the Vatican before being turned over to the United States government, stood trial for murder for his alleged involvement with Booth in the plot to assassinate Lincoln. It was a trial before a civil court and in many respects a replay of the case against Mrs. Surratt, the first woman ever executed by the United States government. Her son was acquitted, with eight jurors reportedly in favor of a not guilty verdict and the other four against.
This is probably the only case in American judicial history where the defendant was ACQUITTED by an 8-4 split jury.
John Surratt was turned over by the Vatican, he was captured in Egypt.
As for "eight jurors reportedly in favor of a not guilty verdict and the other four against," such writing does not inspire confidence.
8-4 is a hung jury, not an acquittal. The government knew it could not win the case and chose not to retry it. The charges were therefore dropped.
Alger writes, "In his narrative, A True History of the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln and of the Conspiracy of 1865, not published until 1976, seventy-five years after his death, Weichmann maintained that a military tribunal was justifiable under the circumstances, but added, that had the assassination occurred sixty days later, then all individuals implicated in the plot would have justifiably been tried in civil courts."
I have a 1975 first edition of Weichmann's book, published by Alfred A. Knopf. Alger should check his facts.
Weichmann was a clerk in Stanton's War Department, and may have been a conspirator or mole. Why cite his legal opinion?
[ftD] The article made mention that the only reason that Davis was not tried was because the radical republicans were going after Johnson and had lost interest in Davis.
The article was written by another of your idiot internet sources who does not know that an 8-4 jury cannot be an acquittal.
When they had to use a civilian court, it became perfectly clear that the government had little chance of winning the case, and could not afford to lose the case. Because habeas corpus had been suspended nationwide for years, for years attorneys could do nothing for clients who were locked up without charges. A dream team of defense attorneys had volunteered to defend Davis. The government attorneys had not tried a case before anything but kangaroo courts for years. They were much safer in a case such as Texas v. White where the Federal government of Texas set up a sham case. Your source is too discredited to be taken seriously.
[ftD] You do know you lost-don't you?
I thought you lost. When you serve up an idiot source, and you get slam-dunked, you lose.
[ftD] Do you consider yourself an American or a Southerner?
Do you consider yourself a human or a reptile?
Your question is based on a false assumption.