• You may find search is unavailable for a little while. Trying to fix a problem.
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

Was the Jury right to Free Abriham Lincoln

Crazy Chainsaw

Philosopher
Crazy Chainsaw
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
8,339
When Abraham Lincoln was arrested he said that the law is like Pregnancy there were no half measures you either are or you are not Guilty, would that legal defense work today?
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
When Abraham Lincoln was arrested he said that the law is like Pregnancy there were no half measures you either are or you are not Guilty, would that legal defense work today?
Click to expand...

In a quick google I can find no source for the "'like pregnancy" defense in this case or indeed any link to Lincoln at all, but his actual purported argument was the best kind of correct in a court of law; technically correct.

It seems he actually argued that he did not violate anyone's ferry rights, as he only transported his passengers to a steamboat in the middle of the river and not to the other shore. As noted here.

According to one of the few other online sources for this story that I can find, here, there are no surviving official records of this trial even taking place.

Neither of these sources provides any supporting documentation.
 
Last edited:
TalosMarr said:
In a quick google I can find no source for the "'like pregnancy" defense in this case or indeed any link to Lincoln at all, but his actual purported argument was the best kind of correct in a court of law; technically correct.

It seems he actually argued that he did not violate anyone's ferry rights, as he only transported his passengers to a steamboat in the middle of the river and not to the other shore. As noted here.

According to one of the few other online sources for this story that I can find, here, there are no surviving official records of this trial even taking place.

Neither of these sources provides any supporting documentation.
Click to expand...

It's in the Hancock county archives, Hawesville Kentucky My Great Great Grandfather was a juror and also a passenger on the ferry Lincoln opperated.
 
Well I'm not sure we have sufficient information to answer the question posed by the OP:

Did he, in fact, have a license? I don't really know what facts were presented at trial, so it is hard to second-guess the jury. (I take it as given that he was indeed operating a ferry.) Since there is a potential risk involved in such activity, it may be reasonable to require ferry operators to have a license, for the same reason we require people to have a license to operate a motor vehicle.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
It's in the Hancock county archives, Hawesville Kentucky My Great Great Grandfather was a juror and also a passenger on the ferry Lincoln opperated.
Click to expand...

The sources I can find say that the decision to dismiss was made by Squire Pate, a Justice of the Peace from KY, no mention of a jury at all. Outside of family histories can you provide any links or sources for the trial or do I need contact the Hancock County Archive myself?

This passage and cite here,
In Carl Sandburg's book " Abraham Lincoln; the Prairie Years and the War Years"
at pages 18 -19 describes the relationship between Lincoln and Squire Samuel
Pate. Library of Congress Card Number 54-9720.
Squire Samuel Pate was a Justice of the Peace in Breckenridge Co KY. At age
18 Lincoln, who was living in IL, was arrested for illegal operation of a
ferry. Lincoln was taken before Squire Pate and the charge was dismissed.
He only took passengers to mid stream to board steamboats, never to the
Kentucky shore.
Click to expand...

Also a passage in "A. Lincoln: A Biography" by Ronald C. White on page 35 that says, "Lincoln pleaded innocence and said that he had not violated any law - he was only responding to requests from passengers on the Indiana side. Squire Pate got down the Kentucky statute book and consulted the relevant law, discovering that it prohibited unlicensed persons transiting persons over or across the river but not to passing steamers in the river. Squire Pate immediately dismissed the charges."

So now we also have a second possible defense proffered by Lincoln, that he was operating from the Indiana side implying Kentucky law had no sway and the original stories of only going halfway across being the defense; here ascribed to discovery by Justice Pate. Still nothing on the "like pregnancy" defense though.

I find my self wondering if someone in your family mistook sitting in the gallery for sitting on a jury in the retelling. I'm not sure if juries were seated for pleadings and subsequent trials for minor offenses at that time in Kentucky though so I could be completely mistaken.

I'm not trying to put you on the spot or cast aspersions. I'm genuinely curious about this bit of Lincoln lore as I'd never come across it before now.
 
Last edited:
TalosMarr said:
I find my self wondering if someone in your family mistook sitting in the gallery for sitting on a jury in the retelling. I'm not sure if juries were seated for pleadings and subsequent trials for minor offenses at that time in Kentucky though so I could be completely mistaken.

I'm not trying to put you on the spot or cast aspersions. I'm genuinely curious about this bit of Lincoln lore as I'd never come across it before now.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a bit of questionable "family lore" that should probably be taken with a grain of salt. I can't say definitively that it's not true, of course, just that I would take it with a modicum of skepticism. Elizabeth Warren got into a bit of trouble that way, it seems. By repeating some bit of family lore as if it were a demonstrable fact, which it is hard to do.

I do wonder how trials of this sort were conducted in those days. Much has changed since then. I know that the US constitution does guarantee the right to a trial by jury, if the defendant chooses it; however, at least today that's interpreted as when there's a possible sentence of at least 6 months in jail or more. For lesser offenses, it could be just a judge or a Justice of the Peace. Back in the early 19th century, perhaps things were different.
 
Puppycow said:
Sounds like a bit of questionable "family lore" that should probably be taken with a grain of salt. I can't say definitively that it's not true, of course, just that I would take it with a modicum of skepticism. Elizabeth Warren got into a bit of trouble that way, it seems. By repeating some bit of family lore as if it were a demonstrable fact, which it is hard to do.
Click to expand...

I don't mind giving the oral history the benefit of the doubt in this case. Mostly because I have exactly the same reason to believe it's true as not, absolutely none, and it being true is more interesting at the moment.

Puppycow said:
I do wonder how trials of this sort were conducted in those days. Much has changed since then. I know that the US constitution does guarantee the right to a trial by jury, if the defendant chooses it; however, at least today that's interpreted as when there's a possible sentence of at least 6 months in jail or more. For lesser offenses, it could be just a judge or a Justice of the Peace. Back in the early 19th century, perhaps things were different.
Click to expand...

I agree, the differences are very interesting when looked into. Though in this case I'm not sure it even applies, from my admittedly not first hand sources, it seems that this was dismissed at the pleading stage. Of course if there was no such difference in pleading and trial at the time it most certainly would apply.

I wish I could find a transcript or even first hand account of the trial somewhere, but there doesn't seem to be anything directly available online and my anxiety already made me delete my first attempt at contacting the Hancock County Archive via email. :o
 
Last edited:
TalosMarr said:
I don't mind giving the oral history the benefit of the doubt in this case. Mostly because I have exactly the same reason to believe it's true as not, absolutely none, and it being true is more interesting at the moment.



I agree, the differences are very interesting when looked into. Though in this case I'm not sure it even applies, from my admittedly not first hand sources, it seems that this was dismissed at the pleading stage. Of course if there was no such difference in pleading and trial at the time it most certainly would apply.

I wish I could find a transcript or even first hand account of the trial somewhere, but there doesn't seem to be anything directly available online and my anxiety already made me delete my first attempt at contacting the Hancock County Archive via email. :o
Click to expand...

A history of Hancock county Kentucky By Lee A Dew, is I believe the Book you are looking for, the original Trial Records were lost when the Breackenridge County Court house was burned in the civil war. Samual Pate's notes survived much longer than that.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
The Hand written trial notes of Squire Samual Pate.
Click to expand...

Have you seen the notes?

You're making claims that appear to be contradicted by the available sources. You say there was a jury trial, but avaliable sources say there was not.

You say the defense made one argument, but available sources say it was a different argument.

How can we see the evidence that supports your claim?
 
theprestige said:
This is a secondhand account, written in 1974. It cites no sources and does not support your claims about the jury trial or defense argument.
Click to expand...

The Jury bell was rung, it is from an earlier Breackenridge County, Newspaper, I think from 1860s.
They rang the Jury bell when ever a Trial might be held in the Court in those days.
 
theprestige said:
Have you seen the notes?

You're making claims that appear to be contradicted by the available sources. You say there was a jury trial, but avaliable sources say there was not.

You say the defense made one argument, but available sources say it was a different argument.

How can we see the evidence that supports your claim?
Click to expand...

The Jury was seated but Squire Pate dismissed the charges based on Lincoln's Arguement that he did not Transport anyone across the Ohio from bank to bank and could not be found guilty according to the law.
My ancestors liked young Lincoln because the Shared Quaker Conservative values.
I know Crazy Republicans, as my family were ever since until I became independent.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
The Jury was seated but Squire Pate dismissed the charges based on Lincoln's Arguement that he did not Transport anyone across the Ohio from bank to bank and could not be found guilty according to the law.
My ancestors liked young Lincoln because the Shared Quaker Conservative values.
I know Crazy Republicans, as my family were ever since until I became independent.
Click to expand...

Let's leave your family connections out of it for now.

Just regarding the trial itself, do you have any sources that support your version? These sources that you've provided so far do not support your version.

You keep referring to sources that support your version, but you keep providing other sources instead.
 
theprestige said:
Let's leave your family connections out of it for now.

Just regarding the trial itself, do you have any sources that support your version? These sources that you've provided so far do not support your version.

You keep referring to sources that support your version, but you keep providing other sources instead.
Click to expand...
Not on line however there is the history of Lee A Dew, By the local historian, there is no copy of that book online. But the local Library has a copy, in Hawesville.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
theprestige said:
Let's leave your family connections out of it for now.

Just regarding the trial itself, do you have any sources that support your version? These sources that you've provided so far do not support your version.

You keep referring to sources that support your version, but you keep providing other sources instead.
Click to expand...
Tempted but declined the rabbit hole. We don't often see eye to eye, but in this case, we both should walk away.

Come on. Lincoln pesented a defense that is neither a defense nor even vaguely a legal argument? I buy that not. And I doubt you do either. Arguing that next level of crankery is only going to raise one's blood pressure.
 
abaddon said:
Tempted but declined the rabbit hole. We don't often see eye to eye, but in this case, we both should walk away.

Come on. Lincoln pesented a defense that is neither a defense nor even vaguely a legal argument? I buy that not. And I doubt you do either. Arguing that next level of crankery is only going to raise one's blood pressure.
Click to expand...

Well you need to tell Mitch McConnell thwn he needs to Rewrite his Speach he gave in 1990 at the Aluminum Rolling Mill near Lewisport Kentucky, everyone knows about this in Kentucky. He talked about how hard it was for honnest Abe to earn his first dollar. About how Important well paying jobs were.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Well you need to tell Mitch McConnell thwn he needs to Rewrite his Speach he gave in 1990 at the Aluminum Rolling Mill near Lewisport Kentucky, everyone knows about this in Kentucky. He talked about how hard it was for honnest Abe to earn his first dollar. About how Important well paying jobs were.
Click to expand...
McConnell is merely leaching off a great man who not only died before he was even born, has lied his way to power. Lincoln rolls in his grave.

Comparing a great man to a weasel is disingenuous at best. Even at his most flawed, Lincoln was a man. McConnell does not deserve the term.
 
abaddon said:
McConnell is merely leaching off a great man who not only died before he was even born, has lied his way to power. Lincoln rolls in his grave.

Comparing a great man to a weasel is disingenuous at best. Even at his most flawed, Lincoln was a man. McConnell does not deserve the term.
Click to expand...

You know I agree with you about McConnell, used to think he was a Republican Now I know that real Republicans like Lincoln don't exist anymore.
 
abaddon said:
McConnell is merely leaching off a great man who not only died before he was even born, has lied his way to power. Lincoln rolls in his grave.

Comparing a great man to a weasel is disingenuous at best. Even at his most flawed, Lincoln was a man. McConnell does not deserve the term.
Click to expand...

If you asking Why My ancestor was involved he was a road Magistrate in Breakenridge county before Hancock county was formed in 1829 he Reported to Squire Pate's Court.

About Abraham Sanders
Abraham was listed in the census listings as being able to read and write. Abraham was listed as owning 196 acres of land along Panther Creek in addition to being appointed as overseer of a road per Minutes of Hancock Co: Minute Book 1, page 2, Monday, August 24th, 1829 Then the above obligation to be void else to remain in full force and virtue. Samuel C. Jennings, John Sterett, Samuel Pate, W. Sterett, A.H. Miller Done in Court Attest Nathaniel Maxey William Sterett came into court and took the several oaths of office as required by the Constitution and laws of this state, and is thereupon permitted to practice as counsel and attorney at law in this Court. Abraham Sanders who was heretofore appointed overseer to open a part of the road leading from Hawesville to Haydens Mill, towit from the yellow Banks road to said mill came into court and report that he had opened said road agreeably to the order of court aforesaid. Ordered that said Abraham Sanders be and he is hereby appointed overseer of said road, and that all the male laboring persons over the age of 16 years and not exempt by law included in the following bounds towit. Beginning at Abraham Sanders thence to Thomas Richards, thence to the Ohio County line excluding Thomas Martin, thense with the County line to Charles Phillips and to include him and thence to the beginning including Barnet Phillips, David Phillips, James Christian and each of the above named persons do assist said overseer to keep said road in repair 20 feet wide. Present John J. Coleman, Esquire
Click to expand...
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
You know I agree with you about McConnell, used to think he was a Republican Now I know that real Republicans like Lincoln don't exist anymore.
Click to expand...

That is the thing about Lincoln. He had some personal, ummm dubious beliefs. But he was big enough to lay those aside in service to the nation as a whole. That takes a seriously large set of cahoonas.

See, I don't have a gripe with the republican idealogy in principle. Sure we could talk, discuss, argue and disagree all day long and that is all good. Such honest debate is the core of democracy.

The problem is that such is no longer to be found. There are no genuine republicans any more.

Disclaimer: I am not an american, don't live in America, have no vote in any American election. All I can do is sadly observe the descent of a once great nation. I take no joy in it at all. In fact, I mourn it.
 
abaddon said:
That is the thing about Lincoln. He had some personal, ummm dubious beliefs. But he was big enough to lay those aside in service to the nation as a whole. That takes a seriously large set of cahoonas.

See, I don't have a gripe with the republican idealogy in principle. Sure we could talk, discuss, argue and disagree all day long and that is all good. Such honest debate is the core of democracy.

The problem is that such is no longer to be found. There are no genuine republicans any more.

Disclaimer: I am not an american, don't live in America, have no vote in any American election. All I can do is sadly observe the descent of a once great nation. I take no joy in it at all. In fact, I mourn it.
Click to expand...

I totally agree, that's why I admire the progressive Republican party of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt but hate this Courpt institution we have today, that's what got me thinking back to Lincoln. I don't think he would approve of today's Darwinian Capitalist Republicans.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
When I talked about the Kentucky VS. LINCOLN HERE NO ONE BELIEVED ME,
DOES ANYONE KNOW WHERE THAT THREAD IS NOW?

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25707351
Click to expand...


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=341665

You make it sound as though no one believed that the case took place; what actually happened is that some people were skeptical of certain details you supplied, due to your failure to provide sources that corroborated those details.

ETA: Beaten to the punch by Agatha.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Nah, in that thread everyone agrees that KY vs Lincoln is real, but it doesn't mean what CC thinks it means.
Click to expand...

Lee A. Dew wrote the history of Hancock County, and he is the one Who Also sited the Presidency statement Lincoln made, before the Jury. It was typical to ring the Jury Bell, and who ever was eligible to be on the Jury would respond. I think the Jury Bell and the Church Bell were the same.
My Great Great Grandfather was Road Magistrate for Breckenridge County at the time later appointed to the same Job after the Rebellion and creation of Hancock County in 1829. He reported too Squire Pates Court which is why he was there. He meet young Abe earlier when going to Tell City to pick up some road Building tools from the German settlers in Tell City.
I would tell you about the War between my Family and Queen Victoria but of course your not interested.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom