The trial of Henry Wirz and nineteenth century military law

In November 1865, a military commission sentenced Henry Wirz to death for atrocities committed against Union soldiers. Wirz was the former commandant of Andersonville, a prison camp originally known as Camp Sumter located in southwestern Georgia during the Civil War. The Wirz trial and execution were sensations for northerners in the months following the conflict. Twentieth century scholars have noted that Wirz was a scapegoat because of mass hysteria following the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln. However, he was also the victim of an increasingly hostile Republican press and, more importantly, the military justice system of the mid-nineteenth century.;The Wirz trial became the focal point for Judge Advocate General Joseph Holt and his desire to punish ex-Confederates. During the Civil War, Holt increasingly used military commissions to quash disloyal northerners, spies, and rebels. The case provided the perfect opportunity to implicate former high ranking members of the Confederacy in an alleged conspiratorial plot to kill Federal prisoners at Andersonville. As the proceedings continued, ex-rebel president Jefferson Davis became the special target of the prosecuting attorney.;The prosecuting officer, Judge Advocate Norton Parker Chipman, repeatedly implicated Davis by submitting evidence that gave credence to a scheme regarding the murder of Union prisoners. Holt, Chipman's superior, hoped to get the former Confederate president before a military commission in the near future. Defense lawyers, on the other hand, had no voice in military courts. The military justice system during the mid-nineteenth century allowed the judge advocate a tremendous amount of power in tribunals. It was Chipman who controlled the summoning of witnesses, and he could even be asked to act as the defense attorney if counsel for the accused suddenly withdrew.;Personality also defined military courts. Oftentimes commission members were ignorant of military law so they looked to the judge advocate for guidance. Superior ranking members could also sway subordinates as well. During the Wirz trial, some commission members would not openly challenge inherent contradictions found in military law because they did not want to threaten promotions in rank. Based heavily on archival sources, this dissertation is the first modern study of the Wirz trial in the context of nineteenth century military law.