 |
| Richard Basehart as Capt. Henry Wirz and William Shatner as Col. Norton Chipman |
 |
| Jack Cassady as Defense Counsel Otis Baker and Wirz |
 |
| Cameron Mitchell as General Lew Wallace |
 |
| Camp Sumter aka Andersonville Prison, Andersonville GA |
 |
| An Andersonville survivor |
 |
| Graves of Union prisoners at Andersonville National Cemetary |
 |
| A recreation of how the prisoners lived at Andersonville National Historic Site |
Writer: Saul Levitt
Telecast on PBS 17 May 1970
Lt. Col. Norton P. Chipman...William Shatner
Maj. General Lew Wallace...Cameron Mitchell
Capt. Henry Wirz...Richard Basehart
Otis Baker...Jack Cassady
Andersonville has become the representation of the mistreatment of prisoners during the Civil War. According to the oracle—Wikepedia—13,000 of the 45,000 Union prisoners held there died of scurvy, diarrhea, and dysentery. Over 30,000 Union soldiers died in captivity in Confederate prisons while almost 26,000 Confederate prisoners died in Union prisons. Henry Wirz, born in Switzerland, was one of the very few soldiers on either side to be tried for war crimes.
First: READ Dan's essay on the film.
1. I know this is slow going—it's truly a filmed play—but nonetheless, what moment or scene in today's viewing stayed with you—and why?
2. Col. Chipman vs.Otis Baker. What do you think of the courtroom opponents? Who do you think is the better advocate and why?
3. I asked in class which of these two have made a better case for their cause. Those of you who talked mostly said Otis Baker. As Avery pointed out, the production puts us in the position of being the jury. So as the prosecution almost finishes its presentation, what would be your verdict at this point? And why?
4. "I was just following orders." How is that for a defense for a soldier, whose job is to...follow orders? Explain your answer.
5. What's a legal—or moral or ethical—question you would like to talk about tomorrow with Dan back from Africa?
I heard some of you laughing at Chipman's dramatics toward the end of the viewing. Well, William Shatner has built a fifty years and more career based on his unique acting style. His Chipman is actually restrained compared to his time on the original Star Trek that ended the year before. Here he is at his most Shatneresque.
See you all tomorrow. Be sure to welcome Dan back warmly.
A scene that stayed with me after viewing “The Andersonville Trial” was when a witness for the side of the prosecution (forgot name) said “yes” a lot of times responding to questions about the horrific conditions of the camp. This stuck with me because he seemed so casual about something so awful, showing us how normalized this treatment was over time. Another reason this stuck with me was because it vividly illustrated the situation the whole trial is based on.
ReplyDeleteI think the defense, Otis Baker, is the better advocate because Henry Wirtz is accused of being the cause of death for thousands of people (conspiracy and cruelty) and yet most of the class agreed his side was more believable. This is due to the clever questioning and formality of Baker, despite Wirtz’s outbursts.
My verdict would be that Wirtz is guilty by directly demanding the murder of at least one man and encouraging the death of many more. He used his position to keep people in torturous captivity. While I agree with the defense that he wasn’t the leader of the Andersonville camp, he did put forth effort in keeping these people prisoners and giving them nothing to live off of. Had the man in the position above him survived, I believe he should also be punished. His attempted suicide before the trial only confirmed my verdict.
I am conflicted by this because soldiers fight and do whatever they can for what they think is right for their side/the greater picture, however, this is a moral issue when they are forced to kill. If soldiers don’t follow orders they will probably be killed. This is the best defense a soldier can give but that doesn’t make it right.
1. The scene that stuck with me the most was when they were explaining what went on in the prison camps. The lack of clean water, healthcare, and food put into perspective how bad the camps were. 14,000 men died because their food consisted of cornmeal, which felt like sandpaper in their throats. Their water source is contaminated with all sorts of bacteria, and they are provided no shelter in the blazing summers and freezing winters.
ReplyDelete2. Col. Chipman is the worse advocate merely because he can’t convince the jury that a man who killed 14,000 people is a bad person. The argument would be simple. This man ruthlessly tortured and killed American soldiers, and in the end, the Confederacy still lost. There is countless evidence that the person on trial abused his power, and took the camp to an extreme.
3. My verdict is that the man is guilty. Everyone fighting in the Civil War was an American soldier. Although they were enemies, they were united. The man treated his fellow citizens as animals, and forced them to do unspeakable things, eventually killing tens of thousands of people. Prisons of war are always immoral, and I would argue more immoral than actual war. Soldiers are all fighting for the same thing, just for opposing sides. This man didn’t allow civilians to bring the prisoners food, and completely dehumanized them.
4. I think that as a soldier, you are asked to do things that are terribly difficult. Being a “guard” at a prison camp could be one of those things. As a soldier, you are committed to doing everything your superior tells you to do, regardless if it’s right or not. You are a small part in a greater effort for victory. If torturing fellow Americans is one of those things, you have to do it.
The scene that we closed today’s class with stayed with me the most because we can see how hopeless Chipman feels about the trial and admits the fact that he is being crushed by Baker. It stuck with me the most because I believe it demonstrates how imperative it is that attorneys (both defendants and prosecutors) prepare well for their cases. While it may be obvious that Wirz is guilty and Chipman has witnesses to prove it, he is unable to obtain the jury’s favor or preference because of lack of preparation and confidence in his argument. Even those who may have the “winning hand” must prepare a strong case.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting to see how the opponents advocate in a military trial and in a different time period. Chipman seems to lack preparation and confidence despite the fact that he has arguably strong witnesses and knowledge of the war as a Colonel. There is no doubt that Henry Wirz is guilty of the death of thousands of soldiers, yet Baker is able to confidently advocate otherwise, manipulating the audience into siding with him based on his strong argument; he even manages to have Chipman second doubt his declarations and witnesses.
Despite the fact that I prefer Baker’s argument based on the fact that he is able to execute his presentation “intellectually”, I would still find Wirz guilty of the mistreatment and death of prisoners of war. My final decision is based on the fact that Chipman was able to bring in evidence (his witnesses) of the impact of Wirz’s mistreatment on soldiers. While Baker has the ability to defend otherwise, he is simply excusing (hence defending) Wirz’s actions instead of proving that Wirz did not mistreat and kill soldiers.
I can see how it can be a defense for a soldier because it can be a matter of life or death. If a severe punishment awaits for the soldier who is expected to obey, one can believe that the last thing a soldier would do is do the opposite of what is ordered. I believe it is an ethical dilemma, because if he were good hearted, he could be willing to sacrifice himself (one person) in order to help the prisoners (thousands of people meaning more than one person). However, it can be hard to sacrifice yourself for people that you are made to believe are your enemies.
ReplyDeleteThe scene that stuck with me the most through the slow beginning is the scene where the prosecution describes how sewage from all parts of the camp were placed into the river which was used to wash and water the prisoners. This scene stuck with me because it describes how dismal and nasty the conditions were that the soldiers were kept in.
I do not think Col. Chipman was very prepared for the trial, or had very much hard evidence against the defense. With that being said, Chipman did have the advantage of having the court on his political side in this trial. I think Baker was the better representative because he was very well prepared and always had a counter to any witness or testifying person brought into the courtroom.
In the general scheme of things, I think that Wirz should be prosecuted because he obviously committed and condoned many war crimes. With that being said, from a legal standpoint, if I were a juror, I would not convict Wirz. Baker saved Wirz by presenting many great arguments and making many witnesses look silly which was enough to show me that it could be possible for the crimes Wirz was being charged with to have not been committed by him.
The statement “I was just following orders.” is enough of a defense in my opinion because a soldier usually does what his commander tells him to do, without thinking about whether it is right or wrong. I also believe this to be an adequate defense because a soldier who does not follow his orders would be punished for not obeying his commander.
Would it be allowed for a Union Court to try a Confederate General if this were a real life scenario?
I liked the scene where the defense attorney tore apart the witnesses statements. This is something I watched and thought back to my experience in mock trial. As a witness, you will be questioned/ cross-examined so hard about things you are certain about, but the questions will undermine your believability. I really like the character of Otis Baker. I think Baker has a lot of passion and excitement about this case, that Chipman does not share all of the time. Sometimes Chipman comes across as underprepared, but Otis always seems aware of what is happening and what to do to advertise his client better. I would vote that Wirz is guilty to a line. He should have done something. But what was there to do? He couldn’t disobey orders from his commanders. He is guilty of some things but in reality, there is not much he could have done. He should have, but I'm not sure he could. The idea of following orders is important. What choice did he have to follow orders and tell his officer he was wrong. You cannot do that. I wonder why the judge seems so partial to one side.
ReplyDelete1. The moment that stayed with me is when the prosecution brought up a victim of the Anderson Prison who had watched another man get attacked and killed by dogs. It was disturbing to see how the prison had affected him and he is only 19. The poor guy even had to end the questioning early because he felt sick. This definitely encouraged me to side with the prosecution after seeing the trauma Wirz had inflicted on thousands of people.
ReplyDelete2. I think both Col. Chipman and Otis Baker were too emotional and dramatic. The two definitely let their emotions get to them, shown through scenes when they yell at or touch the witnesses. I believe that the defense attorney was the better advocate. He was more passionate than the prosecution, in part because he was tasked with defending a man who definitely did kill 14,000 men. He tried every way possible to prove his point that Cap. Henry Wirz was obligated to do the things he did because he was at war. I think that the prosecution thought that they would win the case before they even began trial because Wirz is pretty much responsible for the death of 14,000 men, so therefore the prosecution did not as much of their effort into the case.
3. I believe that Wirz is guilty for the death of thousands of men. I understand the sacrifices one makes during the war to follow orders, but it was a conscious decision to deprive these prisoners of war from basic necessities- clean water, food, etc. It is evident that Wirz made no effort whatsoever to keep these men alive, and even Wirz feels guilty himself as we see from his suicide attempt.
4. When you become a soldier your main duty is to follow the commands of your superiors. Some people might say if you are a soldier not following the commands, then you aren’t a good soldier. But what happens if a superior asks you to kill some people, but you do not want to kill them? I have no idea what I would do. Thankfully, I am not in that situation. If I was a soldier I think would have to ask myself these questions to justify my actions: Do I believe in what I am fighting for? Is this cause worth the toll?
The scene that struck me the most was when the guy said yes to all the horrid deeds that went on in the camp. I was very surprised by those things and it is really stuck with me. He made those horrific things seem like nothing, as if those things were normal. That really stuck with me
ReplyDeleteI think that Otis Baker was better. He was always prepared and had very good questions. He really know what he was doing, unlike Chipman. Chip man had decent points but the fact that he had good witnesses really held him in. He was never truly prepared for the case.
My verdict is that Writz is guilty because he sort of kept the prisoners in and was the a second hand leader in a way. He wasn’t the leader but did things the leader would do. He is also guilty of committing a murder and condoning them. I’m not exactly sure what my verdict would be because Baker does one hell of a job in saving him. He did exactly what Vinny did and he made the witnesses look stupid at times
I don’t think that’s a good defense of a soldier. A soldier should know what is right and wrong. He shouldn’t follow orders if they go against his morals.
What do you think about Baker and how does he portray Wirz
The scene that has stayed with me was when the defense guy talked to the prosecutor about the hypocrisy of his case and how he was no better than the person he was prosecuting.
ReplyDeleteI fully believe that Firz was an awful person who miht have done awful things just based on my judgement of his character, but i think the defense attorney is the better advocate. He has cross examined well and, in my eyes, has been fair and just about the whole trial so far.
I have not heard enough to hear a verdict, but based on what i have heard, i think the verdict should be not guilty. I have yet to see an example of killing from the camp that wasn't because of the guy on top or because of one of his orders.
Its a perfect defense. I think it is obserd to expect him to do otherwise. He would be killed or fired. Even the prosecutor ponders weather he would have done the same. Especially when dealing with war crimes, i dont think following orders can be prosecuted because for any war effort to work everybody has to follow orders. Individuals cannot just act on their own Morales.
When trying war crimes, how is "following orders" viewed by the court?
Evan
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. What shocked me the most was the shell shocked survivor that testified in court. In my opinion, he was one of the actors in the film who put on a good performance. His testimony didnt really prove anything, but if i was a juror it would have pushed me over the fence.
ReplyDelete2. To be totally honest, i really don’t like either of them. Col. Chipman and Otis Baker both are petty and seem to like to hear themselves speak. I’d be inclined to side with Baker, just because of how he looks cleaner and more respectable than Chipman, who just seems narcissistic and hard to get behind.
3. I’d have to go with the defense. The state’s whole argument was that the conditions at the camp were awful, and with Sherman on the loose and tearing through the south, it’s obvious why they would be cut off from confederate support. There wasn’t anything to prove that the guy actually conspired to kill anyone, or took any part in the killing of prisoners. Sure, the camp was awful, but who’s to prove Wurz did it?
4. Coming from pretty much any perspective, “I was just doing what I was told is as bad of a defense as you can get. Following illegal orders is a crime in and of itself, and at some level you’re completely okay to deny them. Wirz doesn’t just get to say that he wasn’t thinking for himself, he has to prove he didn’t commit the crime.
A moment that stayed with me from this film is when Wirz got really angry about something, so he stood up and started yelling at the prosecution/the jury (I couldn’t tell which one). It was surprising to see him do this because he insisted that he lay on the couch, yet he suddenly has all the energy in the world when he jumps up to defend himself. This lead me to thinking about why he actually needs a whole couch for himself in the courtroom, while chairs are certainly sufficient for most people. I feel like he might just be acting over-dramatic about the extent of his injuries, or maybe i’m being ignorant. This factor makes me even more suspicious of him.
ReplyDeleteI think Otis Baker is the better advocate. He is well prepared and asks relevant questions to the witnesses. Also, I can tell that he knows the answer to all questions he asks the witnesses, which is a sign that he knows what he is doing. Col. Chipman does not appear to have a plan and he is basically arguing with whatever Baker says in order to unravel it. Baker has a good presence in the courtroom, and it looks like he has plenty of experience. Chipman may have the same amount of experience as him, but his persona is unprofessional in my opinion. I think that Chipman does have evidence of the crime on his side, though, and that gives him the upper hand.
That being said, my verdict would be that Wirz should be convicted for mistreating these prisoners of war. I recognize that the person who was giving him orders is dead, so I think that his sentence should be lowered in lieu of this. He was following his orders and doing his job, and that is what he was told to do, therefore I cannot hold it against him. On the other hand, he was responsible for the prisoners and should have provided them with everything necessary for a reasonably comfortable stay in the prison camp. He could have fed them properly and didn’t. Even if someone above Wirz is the reason why he neglected the prisoners, I believe that it is not an excuse and more should have been done by Wirz to ensure the survival of the prisoners.
I think that it is a valid defense for a soldier whose job is to follow orders. Not a great excuse, but a valid one. A person with good morals would stand up for what is right and not follow whatever unjust order they are given. This cannot be expected of everyone, though.
Do military trials still exist today? Do you think Col. Chipman went to law school? Does this trial follow the same rules as “normal” trials?
The scene that stuck most with me is the scene where there is a prisoner of war being cross examined by both the prosecution and the defense. He seems to be recalling a specific event where dogs were ordered to eat away at a prisoner. This scene stuck with me because the man being questioned was clearly having a difficult time recalling the events in that it was difficult for him to relive the moments. The prisoner (or maybe ex-prisoner) clearly went through some kind of PTSD, and when he was describing how he was forced to watch the dogs eat away at this man, it gave me a really clear image of how grotesque some things are in these prison camps.
ReplyDeleteI think the defense is doing a better job of representing because I think his job is much more difficult and he seems to be in a fair stance in terms of winning the trial. I think there is no doubt about whether or not this man ordered for horrible things to be done to these prisoners. The prosecution can call up witness after witness to testify about the horrors they have experienced and seen in these war camps. However, I think the defense is doing a good job in this where he is convincing the jury that Wirz was doing his job during a time of war. I think that regardless of who I think is guilty, and just thinking objectively about who is doing a better job of representing and doing their job, I think the defense is.
At this point, I do think the defense is guilty. The prosecution has made a clear case in bringing up a few prisoners that whether or not Wirz was just following orders or not, He still ordered for a lot of damage, pain, and tourture to be inflicted upon these prisoners. One thing that’s difficult about this movie is that its shown from a very unbiased point of view, as we just see the trial, no backstory. I would convict Wirz because he participated in the act of mistreating the prisoners, however I don’t think his sentencing will be the most extreme, because he was doing what he knew, and there were others who had more ability to stop the gross treatment.
Like I mentioned above, while I understand that Wirz was following directions, he was still a part of this mistreatment of soldiers. Even if I had been in Wirz’s position, I think I would have accepted a sentence because I understand what I did. Say Wirz was under extreme pressure, maybe he himself would be killed if he didn’t follow orders, or in the extreme, that his family would be killed. I understand following orders, however he was still responsible for killing thousands of people, and I don’t think its fair to get off free for that.
I would just like to know how Dan would go about in representing the defendant- what tactics would he use? What would be his central argument? And how would he plead?
1. The moment when the 19 year old boy who was taking the stand began to change his stance. He said one thing, and after being questioned so heavily, said something else. I thought it was interesting how one intense cross examination can make someone second-guess themselves and their beliefs. Furthermore, I felt bad for the boy because it was obvious that the traumas of war had a lasting effect on him.
ReplyDelete2. Col. Chipman seems a bit too uppity for me. It feels as though throughout the film, he is putting himself above others as an attempt to say “I’m better”. I didn’t really like him, and he seemed skeptical of his witnesses. He was more unsure of himself than Otis Baker was. However, I didn’t particularly like Otis Baker either. However, he was the better advocate. He knew exactly what he was talking about and knew how to get under the skin of those on the stand. He debunked each of their arguments while simultaneously reinforcing his own.
3. I would say that he’s guilty. While Otis Baker did a fantastic job, the witnesses all had the same narrative. Though they change their minds on stand, it seems as though it’s corherced. I believe that some form of torture and abuse took place. Furthermore, the man on trial doesn’t seem to be remorseful. In fact, he laughs at the lawyers and testimonies.
4. I don't believe that that's an adequate defense. By that logic, if your friend jumps off a bridge, you should too. At the end of the day, we all have a mind of our own. We know right from wrong. If something seems, feels, or is wrong, we must defy those in power and speak out against injustice. There is no excuse. He should have known better. He should have done better. There are very few (extreme) cases where someone can make someone else do something (that they don't want to). This man had a choice, and he made the wrong one.
5. How do you defend someone when you know they are guilty?
How do you defend a child murderer or rapist when you have children?
The scene that stuck with me the most is when the young man testifying (19 years old, forgot his name) clearly has hard time (emotionally) recalling the events that occured during his time at Andersonville, and Chipman gets in his face, puts his hands on the arms of the witness's chair and yells at him until he answers. I had no reason to dislike Chipman until that moment, and I think the courtroom felt the same way. Even to prove his (very important) point, he crossed a line that he shouldn't have.
ReplyDeleteI think that Chipman is naturally more likeable, and has a better, more laid out case, but the court is obviously biased in favor of the Union arguement, having jsut won the war. I think Baker has a much harder time, as it is well known that his client did these things, he now just has to make it seem like a direct order (from a very conveniently dead man), which any good soldier would follow. Still, after hearing the testimonies of the two survivors, I am in favor of the prosecution.
I would find in favor of the prosecution simply because we haven't seen the defense's arguement yet. The witnesses Chipman put on the stand were very convincing, and he has looked more put together. Also, Wirz seems very unstable, and to show no remorse for the vicious nature of his POW camp, which concerns me a little bit.
That's a perfectly fine defense, if he were actually following orders. I don't know if I believe that everything he did was simply following orders. Wirz went above and beyond any other POW camp in the confederacy, and one would assume they were all supposed to be run the same. A soldier's job is to follow orders though, so if he could actually prove that he was just carrying out orders, I would be inclined to let him off the hook.
-Would all of Wirz's requests be met (lying down on a couch during trial etc)?
-is it hard to defend someone who you believe to be a horrible person (you know they raped someone or killed someone) followup question: is it hard to try to keep those kinds of people out of jail for as long as possible?
1. The scene that stuck the most with me was the scene at the end with Baker and Chipman in the courtroom. I think that it really outlines the dynamic between attorneys and shows how important it it is for both of them to be at the top of their game, no matter how easy or hard it looks like it is going to be for each side to win. It was also interesting to see how they interact outside of the trial itself.
ReplyDelete2. Baker comes to the court prepared with what he’s going to say and do and how he’s going to turn the jury in his favor. Also, he has a courtroom style and never falters, unlike Chipman who is far more unprepared and struggles with his witnesses, even though he has far more evidence to support his side. Based on this, I, personally, find Baker to be the better and more persuasive advocate.
3. At this point, I find Wirz to be guilty. Even though Baker did a very good job of defending him, the witnesses all testified that he abused and caused harm to the prisoners. Even though he was working under someone, who didn’t live to take part in the trial, he still mistreated them using his own free will, and that alone convicts him of being at least partially guilty for all of those deaths.
4. This is a conflicting answer. Yes, a soldier submits themselves to have to follow the orders of their superiors, and if they are loyal, should carry out those orders. However, how do you justify such things like guarding prisoners who are really just fighting for the same cause as you or how do you justify brutally killing thousands of people? If you leave morals out of the equation, yes this is a valid defense, but it’s harder to use that line once the crimes start to get more and more serious.
5. Why are military cases tried differently than civil cases, and what are the main differences between the two?