Friday, March 29, AD 2024 3:52am

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, or should I say dream, 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.

My own view of temporary insanity is that it is insane for courts to allow it, as it almost always is entirely pretextual, to offer an excuse for jurors who feel sympathy for a defendant to vote not guilty.  The saving grace of temporary insanity is that it rarely works, many jurors suspecting that it is the mendacious garbage it appears to be.  The utility of the insanity defense varies from state to state, and if temporary insanity is pleaded very experienced defense counsel will be needed for it to have a prayer of working.

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
25 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Paul, Just This Guy, You Know?
Tuesday, November 27, AD 2012 8:23am

And, some believe, he masterminded the plot to assassinate President Lincoln, Vice President Johnson and Secretary of State Seward, which, under of the laws of the day, would have left Stanton as president.

Paul, Just This Guy, You Know?
Tuesday, November 27, AD 2012 9:43am

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.)

Paul, Just This Guy, You Know?
Tuesday, November 27, AD 2012 9:47am

Hmm, Wikipedia seems quite clear in that I am simply wrong. I guess it’s not only science that changes as you get older, but history, too.

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Tuesday, November 27, AD 2012 10:52am

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 . . .

Pinky
Pinky
Tuesday, November 27, AD 2012 11:31am

History. So much to learn of practical value, so much of cultural significance, and then there are ripping yarns that’d make anyone smile.

Robert A. Rowland
Robert A. Rowland
Tuesday, November 27, AD 2012 2:05pm

Is Temporary insanity anything like invincible ignorance

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Tuesday, November 27, AD 2012 4:29pm

Birds of a Feather Department:

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

trackback
Wednesday, November 28, AD 2012 7:27am

[…] Edwin M. Stanton and Temporary Insanity – Donald McClarey, The American Catholic […]

Pinky
Pinky
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 12:55pm

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.

Pinky
Pinky
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 4:23pm

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?

Pinky
Pinky
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 5:04pm

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.

Bill R
Bill R
Wednesday, February 8, AD 2023 7:11am

Interesting Sickles fact, for which we all enjoy the benefits…good coming from bad. He was the highest ranking Union officer wounded at Gettysburg and recuperated in Washington. While there he networked extensively, spreading his version of the battle; namely that Meade was wrong and he, Sickles, saved the day. He stopped Longstreet’s advance, forced Hood to sweep right and into Devils Den and without such action there never would have been a defense of Little Round Top. The defense of the second day was result of his bold action, not Meade’s timidity. History would come to take a very different view.

Most importantly, after the war he took a job in the government and set about preserving the battlefield at Gettysburg to ensure everyone knew his role in the victory. Battlefield preservation in the US is entirely the result of his efforts…and pride.

Dale Price
Dale Price
Wednesday, February 8, AD 2023 9:22am

Bill R:

Sickles was great at one thing: self-promotion. A virtuouso.

That he nearly lost the War by getting the Third Corps wrecked by marching into indefensible terrain against orders has been universally recognized despite his best efforts.

Lee didn’t always have the best read of his opponents, but he nailed it when he said “Meade will make no blunder on my front.”

He never did. The Snapping Turtle wasn’t an audacious commander, but he was quite competent. In his most trying hour, he performed flawlessly. Reminds me more than a little of Admiral Raymond Spruance, another cautious man who nevertheless won big when the nation needed it most.

Dale Price
Dale Price
Wednesday, February 8, AD 2023 9:41am

I agree that Meade would have followed the old “hard fight/refit” campaigning of the Eastern Union generals. Mine Run was a misfire, but Meade did side-step a trap, frustrating Lee. Then the both of them were immobilized by the transfers to the West for Chickamauga/Chattanooga.

Grant was, contra Lee’s own assessment, the best commander Lee faced. He did what needed to be done and the Overland Campaign finished the ANV as an offensive force.

And yet, but for the fall of Atlanta the War still might have been lost. A damned near-run thing, to repurpose Wellington.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Wednesday, February 8, AD 2023 12:22pm

I think that the proper Catholic understanding is that capital punishment should be avoided except in cases where the society has no recourse.

Who would have offered that formulation prior to 1962?

Art Deco
Art Deco
Wednesday, February 8, AD 2023 12:26pm

Rather odd that most of the comments on this post are time stamped 2012 and several are from someone whose handle I haven’t seen in years.

Mary De Voe
Wednesday, February 8, AD 2023 7:06pm

“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.”
The Church does not execute capital punishment. The state is the arm of God.
As a member of the state the capital one murderer brings himself to Justce and is executed through his own power of attorney. No one is forced to be executioner and act though the power of attorney of the condemned.
Read the Book of 1 Samuel and the execution of Agag.

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top