George Atzerodt punishment and trial were unjust. He did not have a fair trial because the people were biased to the union. He also didn’t get the punishment he deserved his crime because of the trial being unjust. He was forced to kill the vice president but he backed out of it.
George Atzerodt did not have a fair trial. Some people might say that the trial was fair. Consequently his trial was not fair was because it was a time of war so the trial had military officer. The military officer were from the union and George Atzerodt was from the confederate. This made the trial unjust because the military officer were union biased and they wanted George Atzerodt to lose. Another reason why the trial is unfair was because the trial conducted by the said Judge Advocate General as recorder aided by Assistant and Special Judge Advocate as he made designate. The
…show more content…
It can be argued that the punishment for George Atzerodt was fair. This is not true because he was charged for conspiring to kill the vice president. The punishment that George Atzerodt was given was to be hanged. This is not the crime that George Atzerodt should have been given because he backed out of killing the vice president but he got punished because he knew about assassination plan to kill Abraham Lincoln. The punishment for his crime was not fair because in the U.S code of law says that if two or more persons conspire to kill or kidnap any individual (president of the united states, president elect, or the vice president) or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life. In the U.S code of law it says that the punishment for conspiring to kill the president, president elect, vice president is imprisonment for any term of years or for life. This is why the punishment for George Atzerodt’s crime was not fair which makes the trial
The Silber Medal winning biography, “Surviving Hitler," written by Andrea Warren paints picture of life for teenagers during the Holocaust, mainly by telling the story of Jack Mandelbaum. Avoiding the use of historical analysis, Warren, along with Mandelbaum’s experiences, explains how Jack, along with a few other Jewish and non-Jewish people survived.
John Wilkes Booth infamously known for the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln was himself an interesting personality. The man was a well-known American stage actor at the Ford’s theatre, Washington. Booth believed slavery was a part of the American way of life and strongly opposed president Lincoln’s view on abolition of slavery in the United States.
Andrew Jackson: war hero, president, murderer and political failure. To elaborate, Andrew Jackson was unfit to serve as the president of the United States. During his term, Jackson degraded the office of the presidency with his policies and antics. For example, Jackson caused a financial collapse that induced a depression of tremendous magnitude with the destruction of the national bank. But, perhaps his greatest offence of all is his crimes and cruelty toward the Native Americans displayed in the Trail of Tears.
The definition of justified is “having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason.” This is something that the situation lacked. Charles Guiteau had a mental illness driving him to murder James Garfield. This was odd, because Garfield and Guiteau were both Republicans. What mainly drove Guiteau to murder Garfield was his ignorance. Guiteau was expecting a position after Garfield was elected even though Charles Guiteau wasn’t even qualified to hold a position in the government. Without many messages ignored, Charles Guiteau decided to confront James Blaine about the issue and was told never to return. Charles Guiteau was now raged by this confrontation and came up with the idea from his religious beliefs along with his mental illness which was as strong as ever. Guiteau believed from God that shooting Garfield would restore power to the Republican party. This was easy for him to accomplish, because even though president Abraham Lincoln was assassinated only 16 years, 2 months, and 17 days before, the presidents in power still didn’t have any protection in case of an attack. Based on research articles, Charles Guiteau was ready. He was just sitting there gun ready for James Garfield to go onto the train July 2nd,
Abraham Lincoln’s assassination was not justified because he was killed for helping the north win the civil war and abolishing slavery, although some southern sympathizers wanted to revive the confederate army and thought that killing Lincoln was the first step. The assassin who killed Lincoln was named John Wilkes Booth. He killed Lincoln while he was watching his show. John shot Lincoln in the back of the head. Making it even more unjust. A man should always have the right to face his killer.
During the civil war, Lincoln blatantly disregarded the U.S. Constitution and adapted his own form of government. His first step was to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. With such rights thrown away, Lincoln arbitrarily imprisoned those who publicly disagreed with his principles.
During the trial itself, there was no need to connect communism with the charge of espionage, never-the-less, it was done excessively. Prosecutors used a primitive bias as a substitute proof of motive. President Eisenhower practically admitted to this. "The execution was necessary to refute the known convictions of Communist leaders all over the world that free governments.are notoriously weak and fearful and that consequently subserve and other kinds of activity can be conducted against them with no real fear of dire punishment." The primary consideration was that going through with the execution would send a message to the Communists that from now on, American nationals recruited into Soviet espionage networks would be treated with the utmost security. So many recognized and respected people believed the verdict of death had been sealed from the beginning by a conspiracy of the fascist, anti-semitic forces that controlled America.
The Aaron Burr Trial of 1807, commonly referred to as the Burr Conspiracy, is the setting where Aaron Burr was charged three times over with treason. Burr was not tried the first or second time he was accused, but the third time he was tried in Richmond in 1807, still he was never convicted. Aaron Burr ⎼ the defendant ⎼ was one of the founding fathers of the new nation, as well as the third Vice President of America, he is best known though for his duel with Alexander Hamilton in 1804 which ended with Hamilton’s death. The trial judge was John Marshall ⎼ Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Finally, the man behind the prosecution was Burr’s own President, Thomas Jefferson ⎼ founding father, author of the Declaration of Independence,
Is the death penalty fair? Is it humane? Does it deter crime? The answers to these questions vary depending on who answers them. The issue of capital punishment raises many debates. These same questions troubled Americans just as much in the day of the Salem witch trials as now in the say of Timothy McVeigh. During the time of the Salem witchcraft trials they had the same problem as present society faces. Twenty innocent people had been sentenced to death. It was too late to reverse the decision and the jurors admitted to their mistake. The execution of innocent people is still a major concern for American citizens today.
Lincoln's use of executive authority during the civil war is many times illegal and unjust; although his issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation may seem justified, Lincoln blatantly abused his power regarding civil rights. He did things like institute an unfair draft, suspend Constitutional rights, allocate military spending without Congress, and institute emancipation. Although some may justify these actions, they stomped on the Constitution.
Even though the American Revolution constituted represented a tremendous strike against the old social order, its founding ideals could not be realized within the socioeconomic framework that existed in colonial America.
Slavery has been a problem in many societies throughout all of history. It is not always out of prejudice or racism, often times people of the same ethnicity and nationality enslaved each other because of debt or some other reason. However in the instance of the African slave trade, it was without just cause and an extreme display of racism. Slavery in America was a horrible thing. Blacks were subject to overworking and humiliation by white men. Although this was not the case in every slave to master relationship, owning another person as property when they owe you no debt is still degrading, no matter how you treat the person. African Americans have suffered many hardships through slavery, were set free as a result of the Civil War, fought for their rights in the civil rights movement, and are on both sides of the coin when it comes to racism in America.
President Andrew Johnson was the first president to have been impeached in the history of America. The Congress largely dominated by the Republicans objected his position on reconstruction. He abused the Tenure of Office Act that the Congress had passed in the year 1867. When the civil war was going on in the year 1861, Johnson who was Tennessee senator was the only one who supported the Union after all the senators rejected it. Johnson managed to become a popular politician because he defended the rights of poor southerners. He made it clear that he did not support secession because he did not support what the aristocrats stood for together with their masters. This made him be appointed the military governor by President Lincoln who termed
Slavery is the practise of treating people as human cargo and selling, buying and forcing them to work without a compensation for their service. Chattel slavery or traditional slavery is when a person is treated as the property of another. Slaves are inherited from parents or given as gifts. Forced labour is when people are forced to work for another without compensation for their services. Slavery was found 4000 years before the Christian era in Egypt to build pyramids and in Greece (mainly Athens and Sparta). In the instance of slavery at the Cape, slaves contributed greatly to the building up of the colony and to the economic state of the slave owners and their country of origin.
HIS essay presents the key issues surrounding the concepts of partiality and impartiality in ethical theory. In particular, it argues that the tension between partiality and impartiality has not been resolved. Consequently, it concludes that the request for moral agents to be impartial does demand too much. To achieve this goal, this essay consists of four main parts. The first part gives an overview of the concept of impartiality. The second deals with the necessity of impartiality in consequentialism and deontology. The third deals with the tension between partiality and impartiality (Demandingness Objection). Specifically, how a duty to perform supererogatory acts follows from impartial morality. The fourth and final part refutes positions that maintain that partiality and impartiality have been reconciled. Therefore, it demonstrates that current ethical theories that demand moral agents to behave in a strictly impartial fashion are unreasonable.