[fortheDeclaration]

http://hnn.us/articles/508.html

The 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."

As a result, on July 21st, a mere two weeks after Mrs. Surratt and the others were hanged for conspiring to assassinate Lincoln with Booth, Davis, and other Confederate leaders, the government decided to charge Davis with treason and not assassination. What's more, it determined that Davis would be tried in a civil court rather than a military one, with even Stanton voting in favor.

Jefferson Davis was eventually released from prison on bail in May of 1867 and never brought to trial. The tide had shifted, with the preoccupation of the Republican-dominated Congress moving from punishing Davis to removing Johnson from office.

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.

The proclamation of May 2nd, signed by President Johnson, charging Jefferson Davis and other Confederate leaders with involvement in the plot to assassinate President Lincoln was never revoked.

[nolu chan]

This is one of my previous responses to the recycled sewage served up by fortheDeclaration

Thread: Commentary: Truth blown away in sugarcoated 'Gone With the Wind'
Date: 11/26/2004

[nolu chan #1363]

To: fortheDeclaration; lentulusgracchus; capitan_refugio

[fortheDeclaration quoting another meathead Derek Alger who selectively quotes from Hanchett] 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."

Continuing on page 73, Hanchett wrote, "How credible were the witnesses? Even while the trial was in progress a flood of letters and affidavits denouncing Merritt, Montgomery, and Conover as liars and imposters was published in Canadian newspapers and reprinted in the United States."

Moving on to page 81, Hanchett wrote:

In fall 1866 Conover was discovered and arrested and brought to Washington to stand trial under his real name, Charles A. Dunham, for perjury and the suborning of perjury. Sentenced to prison for ten years, he confessed that he had coached the lying witnesses in their stories in order to take revenge against Confederate President Davis, by whose order he had been im­prisoned for six months in 1863 in Castle Thunder prison, Rich­mond. But he continued to insist that his testimony against Davis and the Confederate agents in Canada given at the 1865 con­spiracy trial was strictly true, and on this point Holt supported him for the rest of his life.

In a December 1866 letter to the president, Holt once again urged a military trial for Davis, despite the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Ex parte Milligan that such trials were illegal in areas where the civil courts were open and functioning. No part of the May 2nd proclamation, Holt assured Johnson, had been based on information supplied by Conover, whom he had not even known at that time. The proclamation had been based chiefly upon the testimony of Merritt and Montgomery, as corrobo­rated by many other witnesses. Its validity, he reminded the president, had been confirmed by the military commission, which, "after a long and patient investigation," arrived at ver­dicts of guilty for each of the eight defendants. The guilt of Da­vis had "thus become [a] matter of solemn record, and this record stands unimpeached."

If Holt really believed that the record of the military commis­sion stood unimpeached and that the Confederate leaders had been proved guilty as charged, he was doubtless the only mem­ber of the administration who did. In May 1867 Davis was re­leased from prison on bail. He was never brought to trial.

And there was perjurer Henry Von Steineker, alias Hans H. Vonwinklestein. On September 2, 1864 Private Von Steineker was court-martialed for "desertion" from the U.S. Army and found guilty. He was dishonorably discharged and sentenced to three years at hard labor. On May 12, 1865 he winds up testifying as a witness for the prosecution in the Lincoln assassination tribunal. On May 30, 1865 General Edward Johnson, then a prisoner of war, testified of Von Steineker, "he belonged to the Second Virginia Infantry, of the Stonewall Brigade, which was one of the brigades of my division." Mr. Aiken asked, "Q. Was he the subject of a court-martial at any time in your camp, and, if so, for what?" Judge Advocate Bingham objected: "I object to the question. The record of such a court-martial would be the only competent evidence of conviction, and if the record were here, it would not impart any verity. I do not think there were any courts in Virginia in those days that could legally try a dog." Mr. Aiken: "Under the circumstances, parol testimony of the fact is the best that can be offered, and therefore I presume it will not be seriously objected to." Mr. Aiken was wrong. The Commission then sustained the objection. Quotations are from the Pitman record of the Trial.

Pitman Assassination Trial Transcript Page 38

Henry Von Steineker.

For the Prosecution. - May 12. [1865]

I was in the Confederate service as an en­gineer officer in the Topographical Depart­ment, with the pay of an engineer, and was on the staff of General Edward Johnson. Al­together I was in the service nearly three years. In the summer of '63, being at Swift Run Gap, near Harrisonburg, I was over­taken by three citizens, and rode with them some eighteen or twenty hours. The name of one was Booth and another Shepherd.

[A photograph of John Wilkes Booth being shown to the witness, he identified a resemblance between it and the person referred to. The photograph was offered in evidence.]

I was asked by Booth, and also by the others, what I thought of the probable suc­cess of the Confederacy. I told them, after such a chase as we had just had from Get­tysburg, I thought it looked very gloomy. Booth replied, ''That is nonsense. If we only act our part, the Confederacy will gain its independence. Old Abe Lincoln must go up the spout, and the Confederacy will gain its independence any how." By this expres­sion I understood he meant the President must be killed. He said that as soon as the Confederacy was nearly giving out, or as soon as they were nearly whipped, that this would be their final resource to gain their inde­pendence. The other two engaged in the conversation, and assented to Booth's senti­ments.

They being splendidly mounted, and my horse being nearly broken down, they left me the next day. Three or four days after­ward, when I came to the camp of the Second Virginia Regiment, I found there three citi­zens, and was formally introduced by Cap­tain Randolph to Booth and Stevens. That evening there was a secret meeting of the officers, and the three citizens were also pres­ent. I was afterward informed of the pur­pose of the meeting by Lieutenant Cockrell of the Second Virginia Regiment, who was present. It was to send certain officers on "detached service" to Canada and the "bord­ers " to release rebel prisoners, to lay Northern cities in ashes, and finally to get possession of the members of the Cabinet and kill the President. This "detached service" was a nickname in the Confederate army for this sort of warfare. I have heard these things spoken of, perhaps, a thousand times before I was informed it was the purpose discussed at this meeting, but I always considered it common braggadocio. I have freely heard it spoken of in the streets of Richmond among those connected with the rebel Government. Cockrell belonged, I believe, to the Second Virginia Regiment, and to the same company to which Captain Beall belonged, who was executed at Governor's Island. Cockrell told me that Beall was on "detached serv­ice," and that we would hear of him.

I have heard mention made of the exist­ence of secret orders for certain purposes to assist the Confederacy. One I frequently heard of was called a Golden Circle, and several times I heard the name of the "Sons of Liberty."

[No cross-examination.]

---

And here is a document on Von Steinaker from the records of the Judge Advocate in charge of the prosecution.

This appears to be sort of a modus operandi with these cases. In the assassination conspiracy trial, Gen. Lew Wallace was a member of the panel. In theWirz trial, Gen. Lew Wallace was the head of the panel. In each case the U.S. government prosecutor used a U.S. Army deserter testifying under a false name to provide perjured testimony.

In the assassination conspiracy trial a copy of the General Court Martial Orders of September 2, 1864 was later found with the files of the judge advocate in charge. The document serves as proof that Von Steinaker was a convicted U.S. Army deserter who was dishonorably discharged and sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor for three years.

From a General Court-Martial sentence of DD and 3 years imprisonment on 9/2/1864 we find Von Steinaker testifying on 5/12/1865.

Note: The photo purported to be of John Wilkes Booth, identified as trial exhibit #1, was actually a photo of his brother, Edwin Booth.

The trial exhibit list identifies the photo only as "Booth's Portrait," which was legally accurate whether the photo was of John Willkes Booth, Edwin Booth, or Shirley Booth.

In his closing argument, prosecutor John Bingham referred to "the photograph which is of record here." (Pitman trial transcript, page 400) Mr. Bingham was being legally accurate as well.

1,363 posted on 11/26/2004 9:57:07 AM CST by nolu chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1218 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[nolu chan]

This is one of my previous responses to the recycled sewage served up by fortheDeclaration

Thread: Commentary: Truth blown away in sugarcoated 'Gone With the Wind'
Date: 11/26/2004

[nolu chan #1390]

To: nolu chan; capitan_refugio

[ftD #1364] I stated that I had very little knowledge regarding the level of involvement that the Southern leadership had in Lincolns murder. That was not the point of the article I cited.

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 Alger

The 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.