Reseñas
Lincoln's last trial : the murder case that… por Dan Abrams
Dan Abrams & David Fisher do a great job in showing that no matter the political climate. Truth and the law should matter. When we deviate and pick and chose what laws are worth imposing our institutions crumble. Sadly we don’t have leaders like John Adams anymore who could stand up to a mob even when he agrees with them politically. He could and would do the right thing no matter the polling.
Best quote:
“If the legal system could be bent to achieve a desired political outcome any liberty that came of it would be worthless.”
Dan Abrams & David Fisher
Coming in at just under 400 pages, THEODORE ROOSEVELT FOR THE DEFENSE is well researched, as Abrams and Fisher rely on transcripts of days of testimony, not only of Roosevelt and Barnes, but a whole slew of New York politicians and businessmen, including the former President’s distant cousin and future President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and future Governor and Presidential nominee, Alfred Smith. Both Roosevelt and Barnes had very able legal representation, who argued well for their clients. The reader gets a good feel for the give and take of the trial, and of the personalities involved. But I think many readers may find some of this to be a slog at times, as the fine details of the backroom political dealings that went on in the state legislature over the filling of a United States Senate seat, and the decision making process over what company would print documents for the state can get tedious and hard to follow. On the other hand, this book is a vivid reminder that the issue of money in politics is not even remotely new. That a century ago, Americans were alarmed that powerful corporate interests and wealthy elites exerted far too much influence on those in the political process who were more than happy to take their money, and do their bidding at the expense of the great many Americans who lacked deep pockets, but who labored every day to make the country work, and who expected to be treated fairly. The issue that no man is above the law also comes into play, as Barnes’ lawyers argued that no man, not even a charismatic and popular public figure, could sully another man’s reputation without consequences. What also comes is what made Theodore Roosevelt such an effective leader in his time, not only was he a big and vivid personality, but he stands with Lincoln in his ability in his use of the English language as a weapon in the political arena. The man thrived on challenge and was utterly unafraid of confrontation. On the stand in his own defense, neither his own lawyer nor the judge could contain him. How sorely do we need a leader like him today?
While this book might be mostly enjoyed by those in the legal profession, it is a must read for Teddy Roosevelt fans, and for those who like a deep dive into now forgotten history.
This is the narrative story of Jack Ruby’s days in court, and it’s a confusing, and troubling one of prejudice, perjury, grandstanding attorneys (on both sides), and a unprofessional judge who was more interested in re-election than justice.
The authors use this strange sad tale to outline the history and development of several of the aspects of the US legal system that we now take for granted. It’s at times a compelling read, but unfortunately there are also significant parts that get into too much detail slowing the narrative down in dry legal explanations.
Lincoln’s Last Trial, The Murder Case That Propelled Him to the Presidency, by Dan Abrams and David Fisher (pp 287). Notwithstanding the exaggeration of the book’s title, this is a fascinating look at Lincoln, with a focus on his trial work. Despite an imminent run for the presidency, Mr. Lincoln took on a murder trial that, if it had gone badly, might (!) have tarnished his reputation. He knew virtually everybody involved in the trial, including victim and perpetrator, the judge, opposing counsel, and witnesses. The author reports much of the trial from the perspective of the court stenographer, Mr. Robert Hitt. Hitt was a bit of personality himself, having gained a degree of fame for his transcriptions of some of the Lincoln - Douglas debates, and be snd a friend and colleague of Lincoln. His accurate transcript of the trial helped make the trial especially noteworthy and provided the detail that brings the back and forth of sometimes dry court procedure to life. Lincoln’s defense of Peachy Quinn Harrison against a charge of murder was successful, and the credit for victory lay more in Lincoln’s rhetorical skill than in the cases’s facts or the law. The author included some elements of the evolution of evidentiary procedure in a way that, surprisingly, was both enlightening and insightful. This book provides a peek at Lincoln as an attorney, more nuanced and detailed than many others that are written in broad strokes and which focus more on his manner and personality than his understanding of the law and an ability to argue the law in ways that made sense to often unsophisticated juries.
The defendant in the trial was a young man named Peachy Quinn Harrison, the grandson of a revivalist preacher who had been a staunch political opponent of Lincoln’s, while the victim, Greek Grafton, studied law in Lincoln’s office. There had been something of a feud going between the families of the victim and the accused, and youthful passions, seem to have gotten the better of Greek, who made public threats against Peachy. A fateful encounter in a local store left Greek mortally wounded by Peachy’s knife. The latter, who was physically smaller than Greek, claimed self defense, but the law, at the very least, said it was manslaughter. It became a question for a jury to decide. Much of the drama came from the fact that everyone involved – the defense lawyers, the prosecutor, the judge, the members of the jury, the witnesses, the families of the victim and the accused – had all known each other for years, as Springfield was still very much a small town at the end of the 1850s.
Though there is no Perry Mason moment, Abrams and Fisher weave a good tight courtroom drama thanks to the transcript Hitt left behind, which wasn’t discovered until 1989. The authors give us look at what life was like in America just before the Civil War, a time when the country was still dominated by small towns and farms, where communities were close knit, with strong ties to the land. The book is also short history lesson in American justice, and how our legal system developed. The other characters beside Lincoln are well rendered inside the pages, and we all but feel the heat of the late summer of 1859. The best thing the book does is give us a fuller picture of Lincoln the lawyer, and his talent as a communicator, which served him very well when summing up the case before the jury, just as it would serve him very well in the political arena.
LINCOLN’S LAST CASE flows like a novel; that is because Abrams and Fisher fill in between the lines of Hitt’s transcript by giving us “deductions” as to what certain characters are doing or thinking at any given time. It’s a liberty the authors are entitled to take, but they do blur the line between fiction and non-fiction for many readers. They also claim that the trial is the case “that propelled” Lincoln to the Presidency. But they don’t back that up and it feels like hyperbole. Lincoln was fresh off his race for the Senate in Illinois the year before, where his debates with Stephen Douglas had already brought him national fame and attention. Lincoln was very much a dark horse candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination by the time the trial commenced. But those are trivial faults, as it is, Dan Abrams and David Fisher’s book is a must read for any Lincoln fan and American history buff.
The soldiers and their superior were put on trial separately. Samuel Adams wanted to capitalize on the incident to inflame anti-British sentiment and support the Sons of Liberty.
John Adams was part of the team to defend the Redcoats. He wanted to keep politics out of it and to prove the fairness and impartiality of American justice.
I knew it was a pivotal trial in American judicial history and I thought it would be interesting to learn more.
Dan Abrams' book John Adams Under Fire follows the incident and the testimonies at the trials in meticulous detail. The trials set new precedents in the length of the trials, extending over days, and the judge's warning of 'reasonable' doubt' tending toward a verdict of not guilty.
I have to admit that with pages and pages of testimony reproduced in the book I scanned over many pages without a through reading. It was...frankly, boring...
But I am not a scholar or a lawyer.
I appreciated many aspects of the book including a deeper understanding of the roots of the riot.
British soldiers stationed were in Boston, one lobsterback to every three citizens. Bostonians resented their presence and their conduct toward. Some soldier took jobs to supplement their meager income, and some courted young women, but they also pushed their weight around and raped young women.
Young Bostonian men decided to give the sentries a hard time, taunting them to lash back by firing their guns. The youth threw ice balls and carried clubs and struck the guns. They knew the soldiers could not fire in anger.
Until they did.
Since Americans did in the end sent the Brits back across the pond, our history is biased. Paul Revere's picture of soldiers firing and citizens dying shows Americans as victims. Crispus has become a hero, even if he was likely one of the men out to stir up trouble in the first place.
A book not for the reader who prefers narrative nonfiction that reads like a novel, I am still pleased to have increases my understanding of this pivotal moment in America history.
I was given access to a free ebook by the publisher through NetGalley in exchange for a fair and unbiased review.
Although the book does follow Lincoln and the case, the real star of the show is the Stenographer for the case, a man from Chicago named Robert Roberts Hitt. He invented his own form of shorthand that enabled easier transcription. Prior to this, the courts had to rely on the memories of the lawyers; it was basically an honor system.
This shorthand also enabled the case to be transmitted over telegraph to the distant cities of New York, Boston, and Philadelphia. The details of the case are somewhat interesting, but I am not a Lawyer. I took this book out of the library so I could read it and find out a little bit about Abraham Lincoln the man. Lincoln might not have had the most encyclopedic knowledge of statutes or laws, but he was very persuasive. He had a folksy attitude that allowed him to relate to people easily.
All in all, the details of the case were that a man killed another man in self-defense, but it had to obtain evidence from hearsay, which means Lincoln had to persuade the Judge to admit it as evidence. As I said, I am not a lawyer. Personally, I find Law Practice to be somewhat boring and overly technical. However, that did not detract from my enjoyment of the book.
**The true story of Abraham Lincoln’s last murder trial, a strange case in which he had a deep personal involvement—and which was played out in the nation’s newspapers as he began his presidential campaign.**
At the end of the summer of 1859, twenty-two-year-old Peachy Quinn Harrison went on trial for murder in Springfield, Illinois. Abraham Lincoln, who had been involved in more than three thousand cases—including more than twenty-five murder trials—during his two-decades-long career, was hired to defend him. This was to be his last great case as a lawyer.
What normally would have been a local case took on momentous meaning. Lincoln’s debates with Senator Stephen Douglas the previous fall had gained him a national following, transforming the little-known, self-taught lawyer into a respected politician. He was being urged to make a dark-horse run for the presidency in 1860. Taking this case involved great risk. His reputation was untarnished, but should he lose this trial, should Harrison be convicted of murder, the spotlight now focused so brightly on him might be dimmed. He had won his most recent murder trial with a daring and dramatic maneuver that had become a local legend, but another had ended with his client dangling from the end of a rope.
The case posed painful personal challenges for Lincoln. The murder victim had trained for the law in his office, and Lincoln had been his friend and his mentor. His accused killer, the young man Lincoln would defend, was the son of a close friend and loyal supporter. And to win this trial he would have to form an unholy allegiance with a longtime enemy, a revivalist preacher he had twice run against for political office—and who had bitterly slandered Lincoln as an “infidel…too lacking in faith” to be elected.
*Lincoln’s Last Trial* captures the presidential hopeful’s dramatic courtroom confrontations in vivid detail as he fights for his client—but also for his own blossoming political future. It is a moment in history that shines a light on our legal system, as in this case Lincoln fought a legal battle that remains incredibly relevant today.
The case would assist in propelling him to the Presidency a year later in 1860.
And it's about time, too.
I read so many of these out loud to my bf and he basically just kept repeating the same thing: "That's true."
Heck, he even gave me examples of how I'm better at driving or tasting or hammering. Weird.
But true. I'm amazing at tasting things and hammering.
Este sitio utiliza cookies para ofrecer nuestros servicios, mejorar el rendimiento, análisis y (si no estás registrado) publicidad. Al usar LibraryThing reconoces que has leído y comprendido nuestros términos de servicio y política de privacidad. El uso del sitio y de los servicios está sujeto a estas políticas y términos.