Frederic Bernal (1828-1924) - Revision history

Ecpclio at 17:31, 14 September 2022

2022-09-14T17:31:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:31, 14 September 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Frederic Bernal (1828-1924), British Consul, in Baltimore during the Civil War		'''<big>Frederic Bernal (1828-1924), British Consul, in Baltimore during the Civil War</big>'''

	:::[https://docs.google.com/document/d/14WX5j1ZixNBtd2p2qlZdTCuUyz8qM_4kOun7iF0i9BI/edit draft biographical essay]		:::[https://docs.google.com/document/d/14WX5j1ZixNBtd2p2qlZdTCuUyz8qM_4kOun7iF0i9BI/edit draft biographical essay]

	Working Chronology & Sources		'''<big>Working Chronology & Sources</big>'''

	[https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0ByACveTTZ5jWLVltUGpKVGlKa3M?resourcekey=0-lWXnWWmeolPn3iPAkhdWBA Google Drive files]		[https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0ByACveTTZ5jWLVltUGpKVGlKa3M?resourcekey=0-lWXnWWmeolPn3iPAkhdWBA Google Drive files]



	[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ky2la86lTPvn62SyAjVxsQRB0UAgDDMgzF7PDXzADT4/edit Research Images are from]		[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ky2la86lTPvn62SyAjVxsQRB0UAgDDMgzF7PDXzADT4/edit Research Images are from]

	[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ky2la86lTPvn62SyAjVxsQRB0UAgDDMgzF7PDXzADT4/edit The British National Archives and]		[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ky2la86lTPvn62SyAjVxsQRB0UAgDDMgzF7PDXzADT4/edit The British National Archives and]

	[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ky2la86lTPvn62SyAjVxsQRB0UAgDDMgzF7PDXzADT4/edit The Maryland Historical Society]		[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ky2la86lTPvn62SyAjVxsQRB0UAgDDMgzF7PDXzADT4/edit The Maryland Historical Society]
Line 22:		Line 23:


	Notes and Transcriptions:


			'''<big>Notes and Transcriptions:</big>'''<blockquote>


Line 34:		Line 38:


	1861/01-12, BNA FO5/784		1861/01-12, BNA FO5/784


Line 84:		Line 88:


	Although the Lincoln administration had readily released British prisoners arrested under habeas suspension since the first year of the war, Union officials did not prove as lenient with British prisoners once they were convicted by military commissions. In one particular case, Judge Advocate General Joseph Holt made it clear that Britons arrested and tried by the military for serious offenses would not be spared punishment merely on account of their nationality. In a seven-day trial that began on May 30, 1864, Richard M. Hall, a Canadian prisoner at Fort McHenry, was tried by military commission for violation of the laws of war in conducting illegal trade and correspondence with the Confederacy. Sometime between January 29 and March 8, 1864, Hall had unlawfully crossed Union lines into the Confederacy by running the Union blockade from Norfolk, Virginia, and he was apprehended by Union authorities shortly after returning to Baltimore in early March.43		Although the Lincoln administration had readily released British prisoners arrested under habeas suspension since the first year of the war, Union officials did not prove as lenient with British prisoners once they were convicted by military commissions. In one particular case, Judge Advocate General Joseph Holt made it clear that Britons arrested and tried by the military for serious offenses would not be spared punishment merely on account of their nationality. In a seven-day trial that began on May 30, 1864, Richard M. Hall, a Canadian prisoner at Fort McHenry, was tried by military commission for violation of the laws of war in conducting illegal trade and correspondence with the Confederacy. Sometime between January 29 and March 8, 1864, Hall had unlawfully crossed Union lines into the Confederacy by running the Union blockade from Norfolk, Virginia, and he was apprehended by Union authorities shortly after returning to Baltimore in early March.43


Line 90:		Line 94:


	42 See the consolidated cases of Robert Archibald, Robert Pringle, Archibald McKay, George McFarland, Alexander McFarland, Archibald McFarland, and Thomas Cook, all in case file MM 1953, RG 153, NARA. For a general discussion of this problem, see Neely, Fate of Liberty, 24-26.		42 See the consolidated cases of Robert Archibald, Robert Pringle, Archibald McKay, George McFarland, Alexander McFarland, Archibald McFarland, and Thomas Cook, all in case file MM 1953, RG 153, NARA. For a general discussion of this problem, see Neely, Fate of Liberty, 24-26.


	43 Commission testimony in the Case of Richard M. Hall, case file LL 2067, folder #1, RG 153, NARA.		43 Commission testimony in the Case of Richard M. Hall, case file LL 2067, folder #1, RG 153, NARA.


	Page: 182		Page: 182


Line 102:		Line 106:


	For weeks after Hall’s arrest, both Lord Lyons and Consul Bernal in Baltimore were unable to secure a report on the case from Union military officials. In his final statement before the commission, Hall played up his British nationality, and pled guilty to the charge but not the specification, admitting to running the blockade but stridently denying any intention of conducting illegal trade and correspondence with the Confederacy.45		For weeks after Hall’s arrest, both Lord Lyons and Consul Bernal in Baltimore were unable to secure a report on the case from Union military officials. In his final statement before the commission, Hall played up his British nationality, and pled guilty to the charge but not the specification, admitting to running the blockade but stridently denying any intention of conducting illegal trade and correspondence with the Confederacy.45


	Despite his testimony, the commission remained convinced of Hall’s intentions to establish commercial ties with Southern firms, finding Hall guilty of the charge and specifications and sentencing him to four months imprisonment and whatever additional time necessary to pay off a $6,000 fine. But this did not stop the British minister in Washington from trying to mitigate Hall’s sentence. On July 8, 1864, Lyons delivered to the State Department a petition on Hall’s behalf from the Mayor and other prominent citizens of Montreal, who pled that the Lincoln administration remit Hall’s oppressive fine on account of the long prison sentence that he had already served.46		Despite his testimony, the commission remained convinced of Hall’s intentions to establish commercial ties with Southern firms, finding Hall guilty of the charge and specifications and sentencing him to four months imprisonment and whatever additional time necessary to pay off a $6,000 fine. But this did not stop the British minister in Washington from trying to mitigate Hall’s sentence. On July 8, 1864, Lyons delivered to the State Department a petition on Hall’s behalf from the Mayor and other prominent citizens of Montreal, who pled that the Lincoln administration remit Hall’s oppressive fine on account of the long prison sentence that he had already served.46


	44 Maj. H. Hayner to Maj. Gen. Lew Wallace, March 21, 1864, in case file LL 2067, folder #1, RG 153, NARA.		44 Maj. H. Hayner to Maj. Gen. Lew Wallace, March 21, 1864, in case file LL 2067, folder #1, RG 153, NARA.

	45 Statement of Richard Hall in case file LL 2067, folder #1, RG 153, NARA.		45 Statement of Richard Hall in case file LL 2067, folder #1, RG 153, NARA.

	46 F.W. Seward to Joseph Holt, July 8, 1864; Lyons to William H. Seward, June 27, 1864, both in case file LL 2067, folder #3, RG 153, NARA. The petition from Montreal citizens, dated June 30, 1864, may also be found in this file.		46 F.W. Seward to Joseph Holt, July 8, 1864; Lyons to William H. Seward, June 27, 1864, both in case file LL 2067, folder #3, RG 153, NARA. The petition from Montreal citizens, dated June 30, 1864, may also be found in this file.


	Page: 183		Page: 183


	In the end, however, British intervention failed to save Hall from punishment. Reporting on the case to Lincoln, Holt confided his suspicion that Hall was simply hiding behind his British nationality, and argued against granting leniency in cases in which Britons were found guilty of serious charges. The Judge Advocate General defended Hall’s trial as “an appropriate one, inasmuch as the offence—violating the laws of war— was of a military character and properly triable by a military court.” Despite British requests that Hall’s punishment be mitigated, Holt told the president that the heavy fine levied against the Briton was perfectly justified, since Hall’s primary object in going south was to establish commercial ties there. The strength of evidence in favor of Hall’s guilt should satisfy Lord Lyons “of the justice of the judgement, and render obvious the vital importance of checking violations of the laws of war by penalties at least as severe as the one imposed in this case.” To Holt, Hall’s intention to engage in contraband trade in the Confederacy rendered “aid and comfort not less substantial than would be furnished by English bayonets in English hands.” Thus, Holt concluded, Britons such as Hall who “have been detected and convicted of a persistent participation in these unlawful and treacherous practices” had to suffer punishment, and “manifold, serious and obvious considerations call for the enforcement of the full measure of the penalty imposed” on him.47		In the end, however, British intervention failed to save Hall from punishment. Reporting on the case to Lincoln, Holt confided his suspicion that Hall was simply hiding behind his British nationality, and argued against granting leniency in cases in which Britons were found guilty of serious charges. The Judge Advocate General defended Hall’s trial as “an appropriate one, inasmuch as the offence—violating the laws of war— was of a military character and properly triable by a military court.” Despite British requests that Hall’s punishment be mitigated, Holt told the president that the heavy fine levied against the Briton was perfectly justified, since Hall’s primary object in going south was to establish commercial ties there. The strength of evidence in favor of Hall’s guilt should satisfy Lord Lyons “of the justice of the judgement, and render obvious the vital importance of checking violations of the laws of war by penalties at least as severe as the one imposed in this case.” To Holt, Hall’s intention to engage in contraband trade in the Confederacy rendered “aid and comfort not less substantial than would be furnished by English bayonets in English hands.” Thus, Holt concluded, Britons such as Hall who “have been detected and convicted of a persistent participation in these unlawful and treacherous practices” had to suffer punishment, and “manifold, serious and obvious considerations call for the enforcement of the full measure of the penalty imposed” on him.47


	Following Holt’s recommendation, Lincoln declined to commute Hall’s sentence, and the beleaguered Briton was forced to serve his prison term and pay the $6,000 fine.48		Following Holt’s recommendation, Lincoln declined to commute Hall’s sentence, and the beleaguered Briton was forced to serve his prison term and pay the $6,000 fine.48


	47 Joseph Holt to Abraham Lincoln, July 12, 1864, in case file LL 2067, folder #3, RG 153, NARA.		47 Joseph Holt to Abraham Lincoln, July 12, 1864, in case file LL 2067, folder #3, RG 153, NARA.

	48 Endorsement in the Case of Richard Hall signed by A. Lincoln, July 9, 1864, in case file LL 2067, folder #3, RG 153, NARA.		48 Endorsement in the Case of Richard Hall signed by A. Lincoln, July 9, 1864, in case file LL 2067, folder #3, RG 153, NARA.


Line 173:		Line 177:
	John F. Marszalek, Jr.		John F. Marszalek, Jr.

	August 1971		August 1971

	Volume		Volume
Line 189:		Line 193:
	<nowiki>https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/lawyer.pdf</nowiki>		<nowiki>https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/lawyer.pdf</nowiki>

	Was the symbol on the title page of Justice and Jurisprudence related to the racism of the Whittaker case at West Point?		Was the symbol on the title page of Justice and Jurisprudence related to the racism of the Whittaker case at West Point?

	??		??

	Note that the symbol of Lippincott the publisher of Justice and Jurisprudence was:		Note that the symbol of Lippincott the publisher of Justice and Jurisprudence was:</blockquote>

Ecpclio at 17:24, 14 September 2022

2022-09-14T17:24:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:24, 14 September 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Frederic Bernal (1828-1924), British Consul, in Baltimore during the Civil War		Frederic Bernal (1828-1924), British Consul, in Baltimore during the Civil War

	[https://docs.google.com/document/d/14WX5j1ZixNBtd2p2qlZdTCuUyz8qM_4kOun7iF0i9BI/edit draft biographical essay]		:::[https://docs.google.com/document/d/14WX5j1ZixNBtd2p2qlZdTCuUyz8qM_4kOun7iF0i9BI/edit draft biographical essay]

	Working Chronology & Sources		Working Chronology & Sources

Ecpclio: begun entry

2022-09-14T17:23:52Z

begun entry

New page

Frederic Bernal (1828-1924), British Consul, in Baltimore during the Civil War

[https://docs.google.com/document/d/14WX5j1ZixNBtd2p2qlZdTCuUyz8qM_4kOun7iF0i9BI/edit draft biographical essay]

Working Chronology & Sources

[https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0ByACveTTZ5jWLVltUGpKVGlKa3M?resourcekey=0-lWXnWWmeolPn3iPAkhdWBA Google Drive files]

[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ky2la86lTPvn62SyAjVxsQRB0UAgDDMgzF7PDXzADT4/edit Research Images are from]

[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ky2la86lTPvn62SyAjVxsQRB0UAgDDMgzF7PDXzADT4/edit The British National Archives and]

[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ky2la86lTPvn62SyAjVxsQRB0UAgDDMgzF7PDXzADT4/edit The Maryland Historical Society]

[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ky2la86lTPvn62SyAjVxsQRB0UAgDDMgzF7PDXzADT4/edit London School of Economics Library,]

[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ky2la86lTPvn62SyAjVxsQRB0UAgDDMgzF7PDXzADT4/edit COLL MISC 0821 - Bernal; Frederick (1828-1924) scrapbook]

[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ky2la86lTPvn62SyAjVxsQRB0UAgDDMgzF7PDXzADT4/edit clipping from Shipping World, September 9, 1896]

Notes and Transcriptions:

1858/01-12 Carthagena, BNA FO55/141

1861/01-12 Carthagena, BNA FO55/160

1861/01/13, PRO 30/22/32, Bernal to Baltimore

1861/01-12, BNA FO5/784

1861/10/16 Recommends Contraband to emigrate to Jamaica

1862/01-12, BNA FO5/847

1863/01-12, BNA F05/910

1863/01/0212 PRO 30/22/37, Emancipation Proclamation, etc. (selections from Lord Lyon's private correspondence)

1863/09/26 Bernal's report on the possible invasion from Canada

1864/01-12, BNA FO5/974

1864/01/26- , PRO30/22/38, (selections from Lord Lyon's private correspondence with Earl Russell), discusses capture of British Citizens and Blockade Runners.

1864/06/03-, FO83/400, no. 359, Consular Conventions and Bernal's dispute with the Military Commission over testifying. Note that the following dissertation by Robert O. Faith, Dr. Faith did not examine Lord Lyon’s or Bernal’s original correspondence at the British National Archives. In it he would have found that Lord Lyon’s knew that Hall was trading with the Confederacy. Rescuing the two women was a ruse. The question not yet answered was how was he captured and where?

From:

‘THIS DESPOTIC AND ARBITRARY POWER’: BRITISH DIPLOMACY AND RESISTANCE IN THE HABEAS CORPUS CONTROVERSY OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR

A Dissertation

Presented to

The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Robert O. Faith

May, 2018

ff: 181-183:

Although the Lincoln administration had readily released British prisoners arrested under habeas suspension since the first year of the war, Union officials did not prove as lenient with British prisoners once they were convicted by military commissions. In one particular case, Judge Advocate General Joseph Holt made it clear that Britons arrested and tried by the military for serious offenses would not be spared punishment merely on account of their nationality. In a seven-day trial that began on May 30, 1864, Richard M. Hall, a Canadian prisoner at Fort McHenry, was tried by military commission for violation of the laws of war in conducting illegal trade and correspondence with the Confederacy. Sometime between January 29 and March 8, 1864, Hall had unlawfully crossed Union lines into the Confederacy by running the Union blockade from Norfolk, Virginia, and he was apprehended by Union authorities shortly after returning to Baltimore in early March.43

In his testimony, Hall defended his running the blockade by maintaining that he was merely curious to see the state of conditions in the Confederacy, and had also intended to escort two Canadian women back to Canada from Charlottesville, Virginia. Union authorities doubted Hall’s testimony, suspecting .

42 See the consolidated cases of Robert Archibald, Robert Pringle, Archibald McKay, George McFarland, Alexander McFarland, Archibald McFarland, and Thomas Cook, all in case file MM 1953, RG 153, NARA. For a general discussion of this problem, see Neely, Fate of Liberty, 24-26.

43 Commission testimony in the Case of Richard M. Hall, case file LL 2067, folder #1, RG 153, NARA.

Page: 182

that he was really a Confederate spy. Hall had in his possession a certificate of British nationality and a pass from James Seddon, the Confederate Secretary of War, which allowed him to pass through Confederate lines. After a thorough examination of Hall’s trunks, an officer “succeeded in obtaining evidence most convincing” that Hall “intended by his visit to lay the foundation of large smuggling operations with the South.”44

For weeks after Hall’s arrest, both Lord Lyons and Consul Bernal in Baltimore were unable to secure a report on the case from Union military officials. In his final statement before the commission, Hall played up his British nationality, and pled guilty to the charge but not the specification, admitting to running the blockade but stridently denying any intention of conducting illegal trade and correspondence with the Confederacy.45

Despite his testimony, the commission remained convinced of Hall’s intentions to establish commercial ties with Southern firms, finding Hall guilty of the charge and specifications and sentencing him to four months imprisonment and whatever additional time necessary to pay off a $6,000 fine. But this did not stop the British minister in Washington from trying to mitigate Hall’s sentence. On July 8, 1864, Lyons delivered to the State Department a petition on Hall’s behalf from the Mayor and other prominent citizens of Montreal, who pled that the Lincoln administration remit Hall’s oppressive fine on account of the long prison sentence that he had already served.46

44 Maj. H. Hayner to Maj. Gen. Lew Wallace, March 21, 1864, in case file LL 2067, folder #1, RG 153, NARA.

45 Statement of Richard Hall in case file LL 2067, folder #1, RG 153, NARA.

46 F.W. Seward to Joseph Holt, July 8, 1864; Lyons to William H. Seward, June 27, 1864, both in case file LL 2067, folder #3, RG 153, NARA. The petition from Montreal citizens, dated June 30, 1864, may also be found in this file.

Page: 183

In the end, however, British intervention failed to save Hall from punishment. Reporting on the case to Lincoln, Holt confided his suspicion that Hall was simply hiding behind his British nationality, and argued against granting leniency in cases in which Britons were found guilty of serious charges. The Judge Advocate General defended Hall’s trial as “an appropriate one, inasmuch as the offence—violating the laws of war— was of a military character and properly triable by a military court.” Despite British requests that Hall’s punishment be mitigated, Holt told the president that the heavy fine levied against the Briton was perfectly justified, since Hall’s primary object in going south was to establish commercial ties there. The strength of evidence in favor of Hall’s guilt should satisfy Lord Lyons “of the justice of the judgement, and render obvious the vital importance of checking violations of the laws of war by penalties at least as severe as the one imposed in this case.” To Holt, Hall’s intention to engage in contraband trade in the Confederacy rendered “aid and comfort not less substantial than would be furnished by English bayonets in English hands.” Thus, Holt concluded, Britons such as Hall who “have been detected and convicted of a persistent participation in these unlawful and treacherous practices” had to suffer punishment, and “manifold, serious and obvious considerations call for the enforcement of the full measure of the penalty imposed” on him.47

Following Holt’s recommendation, Lincoln declined to commute Hall’s sentence, and the beleaguered Briton was forced to serve his prison term and pay the $6,000 fine.48

47 Joseph Holt to Abraham Lincoln, July 12, 1864, in case file LL 2067, folder #3, RG 153, NARA.

48 Endorsement in the Case of Richard Hall signed by A. Lincoln, July 9, 1864, in case file LL 2067, folder #3, RG 153, NARA.

1864/06/03-, PRO30/22/38, Lord Lyons re: Bernal's refusal to testify before the Military Commission, etc.

1865/01-12 BNA FO5/1026

1866/01/12 BNA FO5/1069

1866/04-05 John Henry Keene vs. Frederic and Augusta Bernal

Other Sources reviewed, 2019/09:

1821 dispatches from Baltimore

Note Keene’ role with the Brotherhood of Liberty (1885-1890) and his authorship of Justice and Jurisprudence. The title page carries the motto of the Inspector General of the Army: Droit et Avant.

Inspector general’s symbol adopted in 1890.

See:<nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Office_of_the_Inspector_General_of_the_United_States_Army</nowiki> for a history of the office dating from 1777.

<nowiki>https://www.westpoint.edu/about/west-point-staff/inspector-general/IG-Symbol</nowiki>:

On 26 February 1890, the Inspector General's insignia was approved by the Secretary of War. The U.S. Army Inspector General Symbol is comprised of three parts. Each part has a specific and unique symbolic meaning. The IG symbol's parts are layered in order of precedence.

The first symbol, the Sword, represents military power and justice.

The second symbol, the Fasces, represents civil authority.

The third symbol, the Wreath, represents academic and intellectual achievement.

Emblazoned on the Wreath is the IG motto "Droit Et Avant" which is French for "First be Correct -Then Take Action" or more commonly "Be Right - Then Forward."

See: <nowiki>https://www.americanheritage.com/black-cadet-west-point</nowiki>

One morning Cadet Johnson Whittaker was found battered and bleeding, trussed to his barracks bed. Who had done it, and why?

John F. Marszalek, Jr.

August 1971

Volume

22

Issue

5

.

According to Huber, the Heraldic Section of the Quartermaster Corps, explained the significance of the design this way: the pen is to denote the recording of testimony; the sword, the military character of the Corps' mission; and the wreath, the traditional symbol of accomplishment. Curiously, the development of the insignia of the Inspector General branch parallels that of the JAGC in both time and design. Both insignia were authorized in the same year and both insignia were wreathed, resulting in a similarity of appearance. By another coincidence, the Corps' present colors of dark blue piped with white were once those of the Inspectors General. Prior to that time, the JAGD had colors of dark blue piped with light blue-then sometime during the first half of the 20th Century the colors of the two Departments were switched, for reasons no longer known

<nowiki>https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/lawyer.pdf</nowiki>

Was the symbol on the title page of Justice and Jurisprudence related to the racism of the Whittaker case at West Point?

??

Note that the symbol of Lippincott the publisher of Justice and Jurisprudence was: