Best regards, Andrew Stewart
Begin forwarded message: > From: H-Net Staff via H-REVIEW <[email protected]> > Date: March 29, 2021 at 12:56:49 PM EDT > To: [email protected] > Cc: H-Net Staff <[email protected]> > Subject: H-Net Review [H-Nationalism]: Walser on Icenhauer-Ramirez, 'Treason > on Trial: The United States v. Jefferson Davis' > Reply-To: [email protected] > > Robert Icenhauer-Ramirez. Treason on Trial: The United States v. > Jefferson Davis. Baton Rouge Louisiana State University Press, > 2019. 376 pp. $55.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-8071-7080-9. > > Reviewed by Heather C. Walser (The Pennsylvania State University) > Published on H-Nationalism (March, 2021) > Commissioned by Evan C. Rothera > > In _Treason on Trial: The United States v. Jefferson Davis_, Robert > Icenhauer-Ramirez explores why the United States failed to prosecute > Jefferson Davis for treason in the years following the US Civil War. > When federal troops arrested the former Confederate president outside > of Irwinville, Georgia, in the early morning hours of May 10, 1865, > few questioned whether Davis would face treason charges. Considering > Davis's role as the leader of the Confederacy, accusations about his > involvement in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, and President > Andrew Johnson's well-known stance regarding the need to make treason > "odious," prosecution of Davis seemed inevitable. But as > Icenhauer-Ramirez skillfully demonstrates, any efforts to > successfully try Davis for treason hinged on the capabilities and > willingness of multiple individuals involved in the prosecution. > According to _Treason on Trial_, the inability of the prosecution to > determine when and where Davis should be tried, the reluctance of > Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase to actively participate in the case in > his role as judge, and the skillful use of the countless delays by > Davis's attorneys and wife crippled the prosecution and resulted in > Davis's release from federal custody in December 1868 as a free, and > fully pardoned, man. > > Davis's trial, or more appropriately lack thereof, has piqued the > interest of multiple historians in recent years, but > Icenhauer-Ramirez approaches the subject with a more focused lens, > choosing to examine the prosecution from "the perspective of the > individuals involved and their actions" (p. xii). Arguing many of the > constitutional issues surrounding Davis's trial, like the question > about the legality of secession, and maintaining that national > politics were actually secondary to the "actions and decisions of > lesser-known men and women" in the failure to prosecute Davis, > Icenhauer-Ramirez provides a detailed play-by-play of how and why > Davis avoided trial and potentially, execution for treason. As he > traces the story from Davis's arrest through the various trial > delays, attorney changes, legal arguments, and ultimately, President > Johnson's pardon on December 25, 1868, Icenhauer-Ramirez focuses on > how the "lives and experiences" of those intimately involved in the > process shaped and reshaped the outcome of the trial (p. ix). The > cast of characters in this story includes Davis and his wife, Varina; > a handful of attorney generals, including James Speed, Henry > Stanbery, and William Evarts; the chief justice of the United States, > Chase; US attorney Lucius Chandler; US district judge John C. > Underwood; and Davis's defense attorney, Charles O'Conor. Each plays > an important role in determining Davis's fate. > > Building his argument from close and detailed readings of the > correspondence and diaries of these men and women, Icenhauer-Ramirez > identifies four important themes that seem to shape the outcome of > the trial more than other factors: the inexperience of the district > attorney Chandler, the confusion created by the rotation of attorneys > general under Johnson, the political ambitions of Chase and his > reluctance to participate in the trial, and the ability of the > defense attorneys and Varina Davis to recraft Jefferson Davis's image > throughout his imprisonment. Chandler's lack of preparation for the > indictment and the replacement of Attorney General Speed with > Stanbery, who was far less interested in prosecuting Davis, hampered > the ability of the prosecution to build a strong case early on. > Meanwhile, Chase's arms-length approach to presiding over the trial > and constant delays in hopes of garnering a presidential nomination > first allowed plenty of time for the defense to soften Davis's image > and begin convincing the public that the federal government was > hesitant to even try Davis. While Icenhauer-Ramirez wisely avoids > placing blame on a single person or event for the failure of the > federal government's prosecution of Davis, he convincingly > demonstrates how each of these factors combined to make it nearly > impossible for the trial to occur, let alone for the government to > obtain a conviction. > > One of the highlights of _Treason on Trial_ is the author's ability > to skillfully weave courtroom and legal analysis into the story of > the trial. In one of the moments when the actors appear in court, > Icenhauer-Ramirez points out to the reader how the "federal > prosecutor missed an excellent opportunity" and presents a handful of > arguments the young prosecutor could have made instead to strengthen > his case (p. 185). Later, in an effort to explain why Chandler might > not have been adequately prepared, Icenhauer-Ramirez uses personal > experience to argue that "uncertainty about if or when a case will be > tried can often lead to unpreparedness" as "an attorney who believes > that a case will not be tried will find it exceptionally difficult to > prepare with the intensity necessary" (p. 222). Moments like this > provide important context for readers unfamiliar with the realities > of legal practice and help emphasize the many contingencies involved > in the efforts to prosecute Davis. > > _Treason on Trial_ is noteworthy because of the different approach it > takes to a topic that scholars have become increasingly interested > in. Icenhauer-Ramirez claims that Cynthia Nicoletti's award-winning > book, _Secession on Trial: The Treason Prosecution of Jefferson Davis > _(2017), which argues that the government "sought to mitigate the > war's disruption of the regular legal process by selecting a test > case that would prove a final determination of secession's > constitutional and the war's legitimacy," is a "bold proposition, but > the historical evidence is unconvincing" (p. xii). Instead, according > to Icenhauer-Ramirez, the concerns about secession only emerged once > the prosecuting lawyers became "convinced that the trial was > pointless and used the argument as motivation for Johnson to concur > in their request to dismiss the prosecution" (p. xiii). By focusing > on the decisions individuals made and the legal minutiae instead of > larger political and constitutional questions, Icenhauer-Ramirez > tells a different story than Nicoletti but one that ultimately has > the same outcome--a failure to prosecute Davis. Icenhauer-Ramirez, > like Nicoletti, suggests that this failure has important implications > for understanding the development of the Lost Cause and its > understanding about the constitutionality of secession. However, > because _Treason on Trial_ is grounded in the individual actors and > their choices, instead of larger constitutional issues like secession > or national political movements surrounding Reconstruction, it > occasionally struggles to clearly relate how the difficulties Davis's > prosecution faced connect to this larger context. While it serves as > a powerful reminder of how important seemingly familiar narratives on > a smaller scale can be, _Treason on Trial_ is at its best when it is > read alongside other books, like Nicoletti's or William Blair's _With > Malice Toward Some: Treason and Loyalty in the Civil War Era _(2014), > that offer additional context to its story. > > Even though the many details Icenhauer-Ramirez provides can > occasionally be a bit tedious and distract from the larger picture, > _Treason on Trial_ is well written and easily accessible for many > different readers. It is certainly a must read for legal scholars of > Reconstruction, and Civil War scholars will benefit from > reconsidering why the federal government failed to prosecute Davis > for treason and what that meant for the success of Reconstruction and > American jurisprudence. > > Citation: Heather C. Walser. Review of Icenhauer-Ramirez, Robert, > _Treason on Trial: The United States v. Jefferson Davis_. > H-Nationalism, H-Net Reviews. March, 2021. > URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=56425 > > This work is licensed under a Creative Commons > Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States > License. > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#7602): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/7602 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/81702575/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
