Edwin M. Stanton and Temporary Insanity

 

 

Edwin M. Stanton could be a pill.  Irritable, sarcastic and often completely unreasonable, no doubt many of the Union Generals who had to deal with him often thought that they were dealing with a very mad man.  Mad in an emotional sense Stanton often was, anger often seeming to be the prime emotion he displayed throughout his career, at least after the death of his beloved first wife in 1844 which had a souring impact on his disposition.  However, he was also a very able man, and that compensated for his complete lack of tact in dealing with virtually everyone he came into contact with.  Prior to becoming Secretary of War he had been one of the ablest attorneys in the country.  Doubtless his most famous, or rather infamous case, was in the defense of future Union general Daniel Sickles.

Sickles in 1859 was a Democrat Congressman from New York, already notorious for having been censured for bringing a prostitute into the New York General Assembly chamber.  Leaving his pregnant wife at home, on a trip to England he had introduced the same prostitute, Fanny White, to Queen Victoria under an alias, the surname of which was that of a political opponent in New York.  Sickles obviously viewed his vow of marital fidelity with complete contempt.  However he did not view the vow of fidelity given to him by his wife Teresa in the same light.  When he found out on February 26, 1859 that his long-suffering wife was carrying on an affair with the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, Philip Barton Key II, the son of Francis Scott Key, the composer of the Star Spangled Banner, he murdered Key the next day in Lafayette Park across from the White House, shooting him through the heart.  Sickles immediately surrendered to the Attorney General who lived just a few blocks away.

His trial was one of the most sensational in American history.  Public opinion was almost totally on his side, painting Sickles as an outraged husband defending his wife Teresa from a villain who had seduced her.  Sickles engaged a stellar defense team which included Stanton.  The defense team had a problem.  No matter what the public thought as to his motivation, Sickles was manifestly guilty.  Stanton hit upon the idea of raising the novel defense of temporary insanity which had never before been successful in the United States.  This was a true stroke of legal genius.  It allowed the defense to put on endless lurid testimony as to the affair and, in effect, have the dead man tried rather than Sickles.  In his closing argument Stanton portrayed the ever adulterous Sickles as a defender of marriage:

May it Please Your Honor: it becomes my duty to present some considerations in support of the points of law which had been submitted by the defense, and which points are in conformity with those which may be given to a jury…. there are two classes of cases in which a man may be exempted from judicial punishment for killing, namely, self-protection, which is a natural right, and, secondly, the defense of one’s household from a thief or robber.  But there is a third class, arising from the social compact, for the law holds family chastity and the sanctity of the marriage bed, the Matron’s Honor and the Virgin’s Purity, to be more valuable and estimable in law than the property –  or life — of any man.

The present case belongs to that class.  The instructions presented by the defendant brings to the attention of the court two consistent lines of defense: one, that the act of the prisoner at bar is justified by the law of the land under these circumstances; the other, that whether justified or not, he is free from legal responsibility by reason of the state of the prisoner’s mind.  “The family,” says a distinguished moralist, “is the cradle of sensibility, where the first lessons are taught of that tenderness and humanity which cement mankind together; and were they extinguished, the whole fabric of society would be dissolved.”  If the adulterer be found in the husband’s bed, he is taken in the act, within the meaning of the law.  If he provides a place for the express purpose of committing adultery with another man’s wife, and be found leading her, accompanying her, or following her to that place for that purpose, he is taken in the act.  If he not only provides but habitually keeps such a place and is accustomed, by preconcerted signals, to entice the wife from the husband’s house, to accompany him to that vile den, and if he be found watching her, Spyglass in hand, and lying in wait around the husband’s house, he is taken in the act.  If, moreover, he has grown so bold as to take a child of the injured husband, his little daughter, by the hand, to separate her from her mother, to take the child to the house of a mutual friend in order to enjoy the mother, it presents a case surpassing all that has ever been written of cold, villainous, remorseless lust.  Who, seeing this thing, would not exclaim to the unhappy husband, “hasten, hasten hasten to save the mother of your child.  Although she be lost as a wife, rescue her from the horrid adulterer; and may the Lord, who watches over the home and the family, guide the bullet and direct your stroke.”  [Applause here].  The death of Key was a cheap sacrifice to save a young mother from the horrible fate which, on that Sabbath day, hung over this prisoner’s life and the mother of his child.  The husband here beheld the adulterer in the very act of withdrawing his wife from his room, from his presence, from his arm, from his wing, from his nest; meets him in that act and slays him; and we say that the right to slay him stands on the firmest principles of self-defense. [Thunderous applause and  cheers.]

In spite of the novelty of the defense, the verdict of not guilty was a foregone conclusion by the end of the trial.  Sickles went on to play a colorful and controversial role in the Army of the Potomac.  He publicly forgave his wife and took her back, which outraged public opinion far more than the murder of Key.  Stanton was now perhaps the most famous attorney in the country, being appointed by James Buchanan as his Attorney General in December of 1860 where he vigorously opposed secession.  Serving as legal advisor to Secretary of War Simon Cameron under Lincoln, he stepped into Cameron’s shoes as Secretary of War on January 15, 1862.

StumbleUponRedditPrintFriendlyShare

15 Responses to Edwin M. Stanton and Temporary Insanity

  • Some believe that Paul, without a shred of evidence to support the claim. The line of succession was according to the 1792 act and the successor would have been the President pro tempore of the Senate, followed by the Speaker of the House. This was not changed until the presidential succession act of 1886 which took out the President pro temporare of the Senate and the Speaker of the House with cabinent officers from the date of the creation of the office. First in line was the Secretary of State and then the Secretary of the Treasury and then the Secretary of War. The 1792 act also required that a special election for President be held in December of the year in which someone other than the President or Vice President held the office of President, or, if there were less than two months until December, December of the following year.

    The current act governing succession is the 1947 act:

    1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President.

    (2) The same rule shall apply in the case of the death, resignation, removal from office, or inability of an individual acting as President under this subsection. (b) If, at the time when under subsection (a) of this section a Speaker is to begin the discharge of the powers and duties of the office of President, there is no Speaker, or the Speaker fails to qualify as Acting President, then the President pro tempore of the Senate shall, upon his resignation as President pro tempore and as Senator, act as President. (c) An individual acting as President under subsection (a) or subsection (b) of this section shall continue to act until the expiration of the then current Presidential term, except that –
    (1) if his discharge of the powers and duties of the office is founded in whole or in part on the failure of both the President-elect and the Vice-President-elect to qualify, then he shall act only until a President or Vice President qualifies; and

    (2) if his discharge of the powers and duties of the office is founded in whole or in part on the inability of the President or Vice President, then he shall act only until the removal of the disability of one of such individuals. (d) (1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is no President pro tempore to act as President under subsection (b) of this section, then the officer of the United States who is highest on the following list, and who is not under disability to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President shall act as President: Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Defense, Attorney General, Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Labor, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Secretary of Transportation, Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Education, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Secretary of Homeland Security. (2) An individual acting as President under this subsection shall continue so to do until the expiration of the then current Presidential term, but not after a qualified and prior-entitled individual is able to act, except that the removal of the disability of an individual higher on the list contained in paragraph (1) of this subsection or the ability to qualify on the part of an individual higher on such list shall not terminate his service.

  • Donald, I’ve always been told that at that time, the succession went: President, Vice President, Secretary of State, Secretary of War.

    Do you have a link handy where I could research that?

    Of course today, as you’ve outlined, the Speaker of the House and then the President pro tempore of the Senate are in line before the Secretary of State.

    (I suspect most people don’t know who the President pro tempore of the Senate is; I had to look it up: It’s Senator Daniel Inouye.)

  • T. Shaw says:

    No Good Deed Ever Goes Unpunished Department:

    Character counts.

    If Sickles had been hanged, the events of 2 July 1863 may have occurred less tragically for the Union Third Corps (rendered hors d’combat through his insubordination) and the First Minnesota, which likely would have been spared of its famous “suicide charge.”

    Anyhow, what’s one murder compared with killing an army corps of men?

    Ergo, I will refrain from repeating Shakespeare’s line on lawyers . . .

  • T. Shaw says:

    Birds of a Feather Department:

    Similarly, Thaddeus Stevensmounted a successful insanity defense of a farmhand who used scythe to behead of a fellow worker.

  • Pinky says:

    Hey – Any lawyerly or scholarly reaction to the Delling v Idaho case? It looks like the Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to Idaho’s lack of an insanity plea. The dissenters have written an opinion, but the majority doesn’t do that in a case that they refuse to hear. It’d be interesting to hear both sides of the issue.

  • As a general rule Pinky I am in favor of the states having a broad latitude in regard to their judicial systems. Idaho forces prosecutors to prove that someone knew what they were doing, but they do not have to prove that they knew what they were doing was wrong. That is a fairly traditional view of insanity in criminal prosecutions. It certainly eliminates the type of farcial result as typified in the Sickles case. I can see how it might end up doing injustice to a Defendant who knows that he is killing A, but is convinced, due to insanity, that A is a demon in human form. However too broad an allowance of an insanity plea and we have a killer claiming diminished capacity due to depression which manifested itself in a slovenly appearance and the imbibing of junk food.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie_defense

    (On weekends I have a built in diminished capacity defense!)

  • Pinky says:

    On the Constitutional matter, I can see how the Supreme Court might not find the authority to step in. On the matter of abuse, well, thanks to this article, I know that it’s been a problem since day one, and I’m not surprised that every possible loophole has been used over the years to escape justice. How do you read the morality of it, though?

  • Morality and legal procedure Pinky are a tricky mix. The reason for that is that any legal system needs hard and fast rules, otherwise it becomes completely arbitrary, totally dependent upon the whims of judges and juries. It is very hard, read impossible, to craft rules that will do justice in every situation. Often times rules that are implemented to end a manifest abuse of the system, end up producing abuses of their own. Personally I think it is immoral to convict someone who truly was insane at the time of the crime. Additionally I think it is immoral to acquit someone who was obviously not insane, and is attempting to slide through on legal trickery. Such broad statements I am afraid are of little help when trying to craft fair rules of procedure, especially in an area where fakery is so often relied upon as it is in cases raising insanity as a defense.

  • Pinky says:

    Understood. And I’m not trying to pick a fight here. I just struggle with this question. As Catholics, we should try to make our society as just as possible.

    The twist on it, for me, is the question of capital punishment. I think that the proper Catholic understanding is that capital punishment should be avoided except in cases where the society has no recourse. To me, that would mean situations where it’s not feasible to secure a person. We have supermax facilities to protect the guards and fellow prisoners from the worst of the worst, but Belize may not have something comparable. And there are people who are so dangerous that society doesn’t have a right to expose guards or fellow prisoners to them. If that’s the standard for capital punishment, I can accept it – BUT – how can that standard not be applied to the criminally insane? Haven’t I just set up terms that would require societies to kill those with serious mental illness? I’ve argued myself into a position I don’t find comfortable.

    I’ve been trying to reconcile my instinct and Western history with my understanding of Church teaching, and I know I’m not there yet.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .