What do you think?
Rate this book
Moonlight: Abraham Lincoln and the Almanac Trial: Abraham Lincoln and the Almanac Trial
On August 29, 1857, in the light of a three-quarter moon, James Metzger was savagely beaten by two assailants in a grove not far from his home. Two days later he died and his assailants, James Norris and William Armstrong, were arrested and charged with his murder. Norris was tried and convicted first. As William "Duff" Armstrong waited for his trial, his own father died. James Armstrong's deathbed wish was that Duff's mother, Hannah, engage the best lawyer possible to defend Duff. The best person Hannah could think of was a friend, a young lawyer from Springfield by the name of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln took the case and with that begins one of the oddest journeys Lincoln took on his trek towards immortality. What really happened? How much did the moon reveal? What did Lincoln really know? Walsh makes a strong case for viewing Honest Abe in a different light in this tale of murder and moonlight.
Moonlight is a 2001 Edgar Award Nominee for Best Fact Crime.
Moonlight is a 2001 Edgar Award Nominee for Best Fact Crime.
- GenresHistoryAmerican History
192 pages, Hardcover
First published June 3, 2000
1 person is currently reading
43 people want to read
About the author
John Evangelist Walsh
40 books3 followersJohn Evangelist Walsh was an American author, biographer, editor, historian and journalist. He was best known for leading a team of 7 editors tasked with creating a condensed version of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
November 14, 2024
I have been on a binge of books about Lincoln's legal career. All four of the books I have read are well done, honest evaluations of a difficult subject. This book is a stinker.
The "Almanac Trial" was the murder trial of Duff Armstrong. He was charged with murder. The crime happened at night. Charles Allen, a key witness, claimed to have been able to see the crime because there was a full moon directly overhead. Lincoln showed that the moon at the time of the murder was just over the horizon. Armstrong was found not guilty. It became a famous Lincoln story. Gregory Peck's movie "Young Mr. Lincoln" was based on the trial.
Walsh claims in this 2000 book that everyone who had previously written about the trial had it all wrong and he has discovered the truth. His most startling claim is that there is good reason to believe that Lincoln suborned perjury. He is cute on this issue. He says, 'So it must be admitted that no definite conclusions as to suborning of perjury are possible." And yet he continues throughout the book to discuss his suspicions that Lincoln suborned evidence. He makes it clear that in his opinion, Lincoln did it.
The evidence he offers is unreliable and it doesn't say what he claims it says. His big discovery is a two-page article in the April 1910 "Journal of the Illinois Historical Association". It is written by James Gridley, who was a juror in the Almanac trial. Gridley, who is in his seventies, describes a conversation he had in 1858, 52 years ago, with a witness from the trial. This is not reliable evidence. I am in my seventies. I would not want to see someone accused of suborning perjury based on the nuances of my memory of a conversation in 1972.
The amazing thing is that the article does not provide evidence of Lincoln suborning perjury. Armstrong was charged with hitting the victim with a sling shot filled with a metal ball. Will Watkins testified at the trial that he was the owner of the slingshot and that he lost it sometime during the evening. He testified that he never gave it to Armstrong and that Armstong never had it. Watkins said that he had been in the area where the slingshot was found the next morning. This was very helpful testimony for Armstrong.
Gridley in his 1910 article said that he ran into Watkins about two months after the trial in 1858. Watkins told him about meeting with Lincoln before the trial. Watkins told Lincoln that it was his slingshot and Armstrong never had it. Watkins said he started to tell Lincoln about what he saw in the fight. He said that it was not helpful to Armstrong. Lincoln said that all he wanted to know was that it was Watkins slingshot and Armstrong never had it. Watkins said he was worried about being asked about the fight in cross examination because he would have to say things that were not helpful to Armstrong. Lincoln said he would make sure he was only asked about the slingshot at trial
Watkins testified at trial the same way he told the story to Lincoln. The prosecution did not cross him on the fight, probably because they knew he was a friend of Armstrong's and therefore would probably not be help.
There is nothing in the Gridley article that even hints at suborning evidence. Watkins testified truthfully. Lincoln never suggested any evidence to Watkins. Lincoln had no knowledge of false testimony by Watkins, because there was none.
I reread the key sections of the book and the Gridley article, which is an appendix to the book, because I thought I had missed something. I did not. The evidence trumpeted by Walsh simply doesn't support the insinuations he makes.
The other silly argument by Walsh concerns moonlight. Allen was the key witness against Armstrong. He claimed to have seen the fatal blow by Armstrong. It was 11:30 at night, he said, but there was a full moon directly overhead on a cloudless night so he could see almost like day light. Lincoln proved with an Almanac that in fact the moon was close to the horizon at 11:30 that night. It destroyed Allen's credibility.
Walsh argues that there would still be bright moonlight from a moon close to the horizon and therefore Lincoln's almanac trick misled the jury. He tries to prove this by his observations in his backyard. Anyone who has been out at night knows the difference between a full moon overhead and a full moon on the horizon. Lincoln pointed out in his cross examination that the area was surrounded by tall trees which would dim the moon. The 1858 jury was very aware of the different type of moonlights. I would defer to their opinion over Walsh's.
In any case, as any trial lawyer could tell you, the biggest impact was that Allen was shown to be a completely unreliable witness. the jury laughed at him when they heard about the Almanac. The Almanac was about the witness, not the moonlight.
Armstrong's co-defendant was tried separately. He struck the victim with part of a wagon frame. He was pardoned by the Illinois Governor five years later. Walsh claims that Lincoln used his influence to get the pardoned issued. His "evidence" is speculative. In any case, he never explains why it would be suspicious or improper if Lincoln had recommended a pardon.
I was annoyed by this book.
The "Almanac Trial" was the murder trial of Duff Armstrong. He was charged with murder. The crime happened at night. Charles Allen, a key witness, claimed to have been able to see the crime because there was a full moon directly overhead. Lincoln showed that the moon at the time of the murder was just over the horizon. Armstrong was found not guilty. It became a famous Lincoln story. Gregory Peck's movie "Young Mr. Lincoln" was based on the trial.
Walsh claims in this 2000 book that everyone who had previously written about the trial had it all wrong and he has discovered the truth. His most startling claim is that there is good reason to believe that Lincoln suborned perjury. He is cute on this issue. He says, 'So it must be admitted that no definite conclusions as to suborning of perjury are possible." And yet he continues throughout the book to discuss his suspicions that Lincoln suborned evidence. He makes it clear that in his opinion, Lincoln did it.
The evidence he offers is unreliable and it doesn't say what he claims it says. His big discovery is a two-page article in the April 1910 "Journal of the Illinois Historical Association". It is written by James Gridley, who was a juror in the Almanac trial. Gridley, who is in his seventies, describes a conversation he had in 1858, 52 years ago, with a witness from the trial. This is not reliable evidence. I am in my seventies. I would not want to see someone accused of suborning perjury based on the nuances of my memory of a conversation in 1972.
The amazing thing is that the article does not provide evidence of Lincoln suborning perjury. Armstrong was charged with hitting the victim with a sling shot filled with a metal ball. Will Watkins testified at the trial that he was the owner of the slingshot and that he lost it sometime during the evening. He testified that he never gave it to Armstrong and that Armstong never had it. Watkins said that he had been in the area where the slingshot was found the next morning. This was very helpful testimony for Armstrong.
Gridley in his 1910 article said that he ran into Watkins about two months after the trial in 1858. Watkins told him about meeting with Lincoln before the trial. Watkins told Lincoln that it was his slingshot and Armstrong never had it. Watkins said he started to tell Lincoln about what he saw in the fight. He said that it was not helpful to Armstrong. Lincoln said that all he wanted to know was that it was Watkins slingshot and Armstrong never had it. Watkins said he was worried about being asked about the fight in cross examination because he would have to say things that were not helpful to Armstrong. Lincoln said he would make sure he was only asked about the slingshot at trial
Watkins testified at trial the same way he told the story to Lincoln. The prosecution did not cross him on the fight, probably because they knew he was a friend of Armstrong's and therefore would probably not be help.
There is nothing in the Gridley article that even hints at suborning evidence. Watkins testified truthfully. Lincoln never suggested any evidence to Watkins. Lincoln had no knowledge of false testimony by Watkins, because there was none.
I reread the key sections of the book and the Gridley article, which is an appendix to the book, because I thought I had missed something. I did not. The evidence trumpeted by Walsh simply doesn't support the insinuations he makes.
The other silly argument by Walsh concerns moonlight. Allen was the key witness against Armstrong. He claimed to have seen the fatal blow by Armstrong. It was 11:30 at night, he said, but there was a full moon directly overhead on a cloudless night so he could see almost like day light. Lincoln proved with an Almanac that in fact the moon was close to the horizon at 11:30 that night. It destroyed Allen's credibility.
Walsh argues that there would still be bright moonlight from a moon close to the horizon and therefore Lincoln's almanac trick misled the jury. He tries to prove this by his observations in his backyard. Anyone who has been out at night knows the difference between a full moon overhead and a full moon on the horizon. Lincoln pointed out in his cross examination that the area was surrounded by tall trees which would dim the moon. The 1858 jury was very aware of the different type of moonlights. I would defer to their opinion over Walsh's.
In any case, as any trial lawyer could tell you, the biggest impact was that Allen was shown to be a completely unreliable witness. the jury laughed at him when they heard about the Almanac. The Almanac was about the witness, not the moonlight.
Armstrong's co-defendant was tried separately. He struck the victim with part of a wagon frame. He was pardoned by the Illinois Governor five years later. Walsh claims that Lincoln used his influence to get the pardoned issued. His "evidence" is speculative. In any case, he never explains why it would be suspicious or improper if Lincoln had recommended a pardon.
I was annoyed by this book.
January 22, 2018
There is enough in this book to dispel the belief that the almanac was the most significant element at the trial. There were many factors that were more important than the almanac for the jury to reach a not guilty verdict. For example, the trial judge thought it was the testimony of a doctor. The real story is far more complex than widely believed and perhaps can only be grasped and understood by an experienced trial lawyer.
February 21, 2024
Very interesting book. Dispels the myth of the altered almanac.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 18, 2012
I've been to Lincoln New Salem site and new about this trial, but wasn't able to read enough about it at the time. This book is very interesting and I learned a great deal. I don't believe Lincoln altered the almanac's at the trial. I also believe both Norris and Armstrong are guilty.
June 20, 2009
Any interest in Abraham Lincoln's character requires this one small facet.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews