United States vs. Thomas Moakley, Landsman, USS John Griffith
Thomas Moakley's rendezvous index card notes he "was tried by Court Martial and sent home Oct.30/62, no further record."
Proceedings of a General Court Martial convened on board the US Ship Susquehanna by order of Rear Admiral D. G. Farragut
October 24th 1862
The Judge Advocate read the order annexed to the Record in the case of Thomas Roscommons (Ordinary Seaman). The Court was cleared for deliberation and decided that there was no further business before them under that order. A member of the Court was therefore delegated to present the Record in the case of Thomas Roscommons (O. Sea) to the Authority convening the Court.
On the return of the Member so delegated, the Court convened pursuant to an Order. Present
Captain R. B. Hitchcock
Captain Jas. S. Palmer
Commander James Alden
Lieutenant Commander A. B. Cummings
Lieutenant Commander A. W. Weaver
Lieutenant Allen V. Reed.
E. C. Gabaudan, Judge Advocate and the accused Thomas Moakley (Landsman) and his counsel, Assistant Surgeon R. F. Eden, USN.
The Order convening the Court was read by the Judge Advocate who asked the accused if he objected to any member named therein, to which he replied that he did not.
The Judge Advocate was then duly sworn by the presiding officer of the Court in the presence of the accused, and the Court was duly sworn by the Judge Advocate in the presence of the accused.
The charges were read aloud by the Judge Advocate.
Judge Advocate: You have heard this charge preferred against you, how say your "guilty" or "not guilty"?
Accused plead "not guilty."
William Wolfe, a Government Scout, called into Court and sworn, said:
I was sent after the men about two o'clock in the evening, four men with a sergeant in command were sent. We went about thirty miles to a place called "Miller's Mill." I had seen a boat go in ahead of me, and thought it might be the boat which the men had deserted in. I landed and made some inquiries in regard to the boat and was told that it belonged to a Mr. Axleton. I saw a boat out in the Bay; there were two boys on the wharf, when I asked who the boat belonged to, they told me they thought that it belonged to a Mr. Squire. I asked who were the two men pulling the boat. They told me that they did not know. I jumped into my boat again and made sail and told the Sergeant that those must be the men we were after. When we first saw them they were in about the middle of the River, towing a raft with the boat they were in. The raft was composed of rails. When we got within about twenty five yards of them I knew the men and told the Sergeant and his men to lay low in the boat so as to not be seen until such time as I should tell them. I ran my sail boat to the raft and told the men to come on board as they were captured. I asked them why they deserted. The sailor remarked that he was sorry.
Question by the Court: Do you refer to the accused as "the sailor"?
Answer: I do. He said he had been doing wrong and he was sorry. I asked him if he was treated well by his Captain. He said he was treated well by both Captain and crew. The soldier remarked that had they taken his advice they would not have been captured. I asked the soldier what he meant. He said by pushing along toward Apalachicola, he knew I would capture them if they remained about there, that he intended to steal my boat, and he would not have been caught if he had had my boat, it being very fast. The boat he took he said leaked and they had to desert it. The accused as well as the soldier had on citizen's cloths. I asked the man that was with them what he paid them a month for labor, he said nothing but articles as they only intended remaining a few days.
Question by the Judge Advocate: By whom were you sent "after the accused"?
Answer: By the Provost Marshal at Pensacola.
Question: Can you state about what day of what month this occurred.
Answer: I can not.
Cross Examination by the Accused
Question: Was the order of the Provost Marshal the first knowledge you had of deserters being up the bay?
Answer: It was not.
Question: What did you know about it previous to the order?
Answer: I knew they were up the Bay somewhere but did not know exactly where.
Question: How did you know?
Answer: I knew there were men up the Bay, and knew by the description I had received that these were the men.
Question: How did you know anyone deserted from the Navy?
Answer: I did not know that there were deserters from the Navy. I only knew there were deserters from the Army.
Question: Did the accused make any statement to you as to his plans for the future?
Answer: He did not.
Question: Do you know anything about the character of the man in whose boat the Accused was?
This question was objected to as irrelevant.
Question: Do you consider from any reliable information you have that the person in whose boat the accused was in a rebel?
Answer: I can not say, but his son is here in Fort Pickens as a prisoner, having been in the fight at Richmond; on his return on furlough, I had him arrested and brought to town. The old man I never knew much about.
Question: Was the "old man" you speak of, in arms, or does he to your knowledge furnish any aid to the rebellion?
Answer: He was not in arms, and I do not know much about him. I never was in his house. He wanted me very much to go there when I captured the two men. He is a prisoner now, in town on parole, on account of these two men.
Question: What is his name?
Answer: Mr. Squire.
At 3 PM the Court Adjourned to meet at 10 AM tomorrow.
Saturday October 25th, 1862
At 10 AM the Court met pursuant to adjournment. Present
Captain R. B. Hitchcock
Captain Jas. S. Palmer
Commander James Alden
Lieutenant Commander A. B. Cummings
Lieutenant Commander A. W. Weaver
Lieutenant Allen V. Reed.
E. C. Gabaudan, Judge Advocate and the accused Thomas Moakley (Landsman) and his counsel, Assistant Surgeon R. F. Eden, USN.
The proceedings of yesterday were read over.
Henry Brown, Acting Master Commanding US Schooner John Griffith, was called into Court and sworn, said:
On the 20th of August, Mr. Levensaler, executive officer of the John Griffith informed me that Thomas Moakley had obtained leave for half an hour, but had not returned at the expiration of that time. I did not send his description ashore to the Provost Marshal until two days after. I instituted inquiries myself thinking I might find him somewhere about the town. I did not succeed and requested the Provost Marshal to apprehend him, giving at the same time his description. The Provost Marshal informed me that on the 28th that he knew where he was, and asked me to lend him a boat so as he could send a party of men to go with a scout to apprehend him. I told him my boat was at his service, but he did not make use of it. The next day the Provost Marshal informed me that the prisoner had been captured thirty miles from Pensacola in company with a soldier deserter from the Army. He was sent on board the Horace Beales the next day and from the Horace Beales he was sent on board my vessel. He had on citizen's clothes when brought on board.
Question by the Judge Advocate: In your evidence you speak of Thomas Moakley and "the prisoner," do you refer to the Accused now present in Court?
Answer: I do.
Question: Do you know whether or no, the place at which the accused was apprehended, was at the time of apprehension in possession of a rebel?
Answer: I do not.
Cross-examined by the Accused.
Question: What is the character of the accused in regard to discipline?
Answer: Very good.
Question: What is the character of the accused as regards discipline?
Answer: He is nothing of a Seaman, and does not seem to be very bright.
Question: Do you think that he is capable of understanding how great an offense desertion under the present circumstances may be?
Answer: I do not think he is.
Question: Did he ever to your knowledge express any intention of deserting either to a rebel or otherwise?
Answer: Never.
Question: Did he carry any arms with him?
Answer: None that have been missed.
Question by the Court: Have the "articles of war" been made known to your crew?
Answer: They have been read on the first Sunday of every month, with an exception of one Sunday when we were bombarding below Vicksburg.
T. H. Levensaler, Acting Master's Mate was called into Court and sworn.
Question by Judge Advocate: Were you ever attached to the Schooner John Griffith, if so, during what period?
Answer: I was, from November 1861 till September 16th.
Question: Do you identify the accused, Thomas Moakley?
Answer: I do. At the time specified the accused came to me and asked if he could go ashore a little while. I told him that he could but must not stay over an hour or an hour and a half. He was acting as Ward Room boy at the time and previous to this had been ashore and stopped overnight by permission. He did not return until he came from the Horace Beales.
Question by the Judge Advocate: Had the half hour or rather hour and a half elapsed when he came from the Horace Beales?
Answer: Yes sir.
Question: By how much?
Answer: By four days. I know nothing of the latter part of the charge, save by hearsay.
Cross-examined by the Accused.
Question: Has the accused ever to your knowledge expressed any desire to aid the rebels or any wish for their success?
Answer: No sir.
Question: What is his character as regards discipline?
Answer: Very good, always attended to duty, he was liked very much as a boy in the Ward Room.
Question: Do you know of his carrying any arms with him or anything in any way liable to aid the rebels?
Answer: No sir.
The evidence for the prosecution being closed.
Peter McKeever (Landsman) a witness for the defense, was called into Court and sworn, he was attached to the John Griffith and identified the accused.
Several times before the accused went he was in conversation with me said he would like to get away and go home to his parents, so I advised him not, that in war time it was a very risky thing to desert. Had no knowledge at the time he went away that he would go so soon. We talked together some time six or seven days about going away. I know he was absent from the vessel some five or six days after he left. I know nothing of the charges.
Question by Accused's Counsel: Did he tell you why he wished to leave the vessel?
Answer: He told me some time before he left that he wished to go home to his parents, and also told me several times that he never wished to go with the Rebels. I always heard him down on them.
Question: Did he to your knowledge take with him anything in any way liable to aid the rebels?
Answer: No sir, not to my knowledge.
Question by the Court: Where do the parents or friends of the accused reside, or did reside at the time of his alleged desertion?
Answer: In Massachusetts
Question: Did he ever tell you how he expected to get through the Rebel county to his home?
Answer: No sir, He never told me, nor do I believe he knew every well himself how he was going to get through.
The Judge Advocate announced that Mr. Squire, an important and the only remaining witness for the defense had been summoned from Pensacola, but had not yet arrived. The Court therefore adjourned until 10 AM on Monday October 27th.
Monday October 27th, 1862
At 10 AM the Court met pursuant to adjournment. Present
Captain R. B. Hitchcock
Captain Jas. S. Palmer
Commander James Alden
Lieutenant Commander A. B. Cummings
Lieutenant Commander A. W. Weaver
Lieutenant Allen V. Reed.
E. C. Gabaudan, Judge Advocate and the accused Thomas Moakley (Landsman) and his counsel, Assistant Surgeon R. F. Eden, USN.
The proceedings of yesterday were read over.
At 10.30 the Court adjourned, subject to the call of the presiding member, in order to await the arrival of Mr. Squire from Pensacola.
At 11 AM the Court met pursuant to adjournment, the members of the Court, the Judge Advocate, the accused and counsek and Mr. Squires, witness being present.
Wiley Squires, was called and sworn, resides at East Bay, about twenty miles from Pensacola, Fla.
This witness identified the accused and said:
Sam McCloud met me and told me that he had to men who I could get to work on reasonable terms, as they agreed to work for him, and he was not quite ready. I went to his house and they went home with me.
Question by the Accused's Counsel: How long were these two men at work for you?
Answer: They came on Thursday, before dinner and were arrested in the skiff with me in the Bay. They were with me some twenty-six hours or a little over.
Question: Did the accused tell you where he was from?
Answer: Yes sir.
Question: What did he tell you about his previous movements?
Answer: He said he wanted to get back home to his parents, or where he came from, that was the reason of his leaving.
Question: Did the accused tell where he intended to go?
Answer: He said he wanted to go to New York to his parents.
Question: Did he express to you any desire or willingness to aid the cause of the Southern Confederacy?
Answer: No sir, he said he did not intend going to them he was afraid if he went they would kill him.
Question: Is the part of the country where you live occupied by any Confederate troops?
Answer: No sir.
Cross-examined by the Judge Advocate.
Question: Is Sam McCloud in favor of the Rebels?
Answer: I do not think I ever heard him say which side he was in favor of. His wife wanted to move down to Pensacola, but he said that "he would rather go to hell at once" or something that way. I do not recollect his exact words.
Question: Did you hear the accused say that eh was going to Apalachicola?
Answer: I do not know as I did.
Question: How long since there was Rebel soldiers at the place where you reside?
Answer: I think a year ago, the 14th of July last. They were stationed for two or three months a few miles up the Bay from where I live.
Question: Do the people around where you live generally speak in favor or against the Yankees?
Answer: Mostly in favor of them.
Question: Has Sam McCloud ever been in the Rebel Army?
Answer: Not to my knowledge.
Question: did you intend sending the accused to the Rebel authorities to help him home?
The Court was cleared to determine whether this question was admissible or not, and decided that it was although the witness was not obliged to commit himself.
Answer: No sir, I did not intend to give them any assistance.
Question: Do not straggling armed men some into your town now and then?
Answer: No sir.
Question: Are you not yourself personally in favor of the Rebellion and have you not aided this rebellion either directly or otherwise?
Answer: No sir, I have never been in favor of the rebellion and have not aided the rebels.
Question: Why is your son confined at Fort Pickens?
Answer: For being a Secessionist, but his being such does not make me one. I did the best I could to keep my son from joining the army.
Question by the Court: Where did these men intend going immediately after leaving you, that is how were they to get to New York?
Answer: They told me that they aimed to stay around the vicinity of Pensacola until some vessel should go to New York, when they would try to get on board. They said that there was a certain brig here which when she went out they could get on board of.
The evidence of both sides having been heard and read to the witness a the time of their deposing for their correction, the accused assked time to prepare his final defense.
The Court took a recess in order to enable the Accused to prepare his defense.
At 12.45 the Accused presented his final defense, which was read by his Counsel.
At 1 PM, the Court adjourned to enable the Judge Advocate to prepare his Record, which was presented at 1.45 PM.
The statements of the parties being thus in possession of the Court, the Court was cleared for deliberation and the entire evidence having been read over and maturely considered, the Court do find the accused Thomas Moakley (Landsman) attached to the US Mortar Schooner John Griffith as follows:
Specification: Proven
Of the Charge: Guilty except the words "to a rebel."
and the Court therefore do sentence the said Thomas Moakley (Landsman) to "one years confinement at hard labor in a penitentiary."
The Court having been induce to pass so lenient a sentence from their conviction of the simplicity of the character of the accused and of his inability to fully apprehend the enormity of his offence.
Captain R. B. Hitchcock
Captain Jas. S. Palmer
Commander James Alden
Lieutenant Commander A. B. Cummings
Lieutenant Commander A. W. Weaver
Lieutenant Allen V. Reed.
E. C. Gabaudan, Judge Advocate
Approved
D. G. Farragut
Rear Admiral
Flag Ship Hartford
Pensacola Bay, Oct 24, 1862
By virtue of the authority contained in the Act of Congress "for the better government of the Navy of the United States", approved July 17, 1862, and which has been vested in me by special order of the President, a Naval General Court Martial is hereby ordered to convene at 1 PM on board the United States Ship Susquehanna, on the 24th day of October, 1862, or as soon thereafter as practicable, for the trial of such persons as may be legally brought before it.
The Court will be composed of the following officers, viz:
Captain Robert B. Hitchcock
Captain James S. Palmer
Commander James Alden
Lieut. Comdr. A. B. Cummings
Lieut. Comdr. Aaron W. Weaver
Lieutenant Allen V. Reed
and Edward C. Gabauden is hereby appointed the Judge Advocate.
D. G. Farragut
Rear Admiral
Comd'g West Gulf Blockading Squadron
Charge and Specification of Charge preferred against Thomas Moakley, Landsman, serving on board the US Mortar Schooner John Griffith.
Charge: Desertion to a Rebel
Specification: In this, that the said Thomas Moakley, Landsman, serving on board the US Mortar Schooner John Griffith did obtain permission on the 20th day of August 1862 to leave the vessel for half an hour, at the expiration of which time he failed to return; subsequently information was received that he was in company with solider, a deserter, some thirty miles distant in the country. when he was apprehended, having substituted civilian clothing for his uniform, was brought on board on the 30th day of August 1862.
D. G. Farragut
Rear Admiral
Flag Ship Hartford
Pensacola
Oct 20 1862
Witnesses:
Acting Master Henry Brown
Acting Master's Mate Thomas H. Levensaler
Mr. Wolfe.
The part of desertion in the present case is proved beyond a doubt. The only thing to be done in favor of the accused is to ask the Court to find him guilty of a charge less than desertion to rebel.
The witnesses brought before the Court on the part of the prosecution entirely failed to prove that he either wished to aid the rebellion or that he actually did so or that he was among rebels. All that is said is that he was outside our lines. His captain and the other officer whose evidence is adduced speak of no insubordinate disposition but the contrary; and have never hear him speak in favor of the rebels. The government scout nearly testified to finding him some distance up East Bay, but says nothing about the people in that vicinity being rebels.
Peter McKeever says that he has always heard the person "down on the rebels" and here is the proper remark that the last witness whom, it is from the manner of his getting here about impossible to prepare any collusion with McKeever, says very much the same thing. The proof of treasonable intention there is entirely wanting.
Was he found among rebels? He was found in the employ of a feeble old man living a mile from his nearest neighbor in a region where no rebel troops have been for considerably over a year and where he hears most of the people speak in favor of the Yankees.
This witness, Mr. Squire, being very naturally be respected of not "belly the whole mouth" as relation to the sentiments of himself and neighbors but his consistency and readiness with which he not only distains all disloyalty but admits the slight facts might seen to fell against him speak thoroughly in his favor. He also be remarked that his strongest disclaimer of disloyalty were developed by the cross-examination. The statements of this witness agree with those of McKeever in relation to the motive which lead him to desert, which are anything but treasonable.
The fact of his being outside our lines in themselves, entirely insufficient of convict the accused of desertion to a rebel insomuch as not only did he not [illegible] to desert to a rebel but he was nowhere in their neighborhood, had [illegible] them no assistance and had given them no information.
It is then I think the part of the Justice to convict the accused of nothing more than simple desertion and also the part of mercy in relation in acknowledging his punishment to consider his [illegible] misunderstanding and his inability to comprehend of how great a crime more unfortunate circumstances of which he being have no control might have made him appear guilty.
Thomas Moakley.
[Return to Courts Martial and Courts of Inquiry index]
Tweet