The Insanity Plea in Early Nineteenth Century America

q 1998 Human Sciences Press, Inc. 227

Journal of Community Health, Vol. 23, No. 3, June 1998

HISTORY

THE INSANITY PLEA IN EARLY NINETEENTHCENTURY AMERICA

Allen D. Spiegel, PhD, MPH; and Marc B. Spiegel, MBA

ABSTRACT: In 1846, former New York State Governor William H. Sew-ard defended two murderers using the insanity plea in both cases. Sew-ard contended that the accused became insane due to brutal beatingsadministered while they were in the Auburn penitentiary. In the WilliamFreeman trial, nine physicians testified that the murderer was insanewhile eight said he was sane. Juries convicted both prisoners; one washanged and the other died in prison awaiting a new trial. Seward’s legaldefense attracted much attention to the jurisprud ence of insanity and toinsanity in general.

INTRODUCTION

Two murder trials in New York occurred within a few months ofeach other and both men were defended by the same lawyer who used thesame insanity defense for both trials. These murder trials attracted a greatdeal of attention to the medical concepts of insanity and their relation tothe law. Essentially, the question was straightforward but complex: ªHowcan you tell if a man is crazy?º

A plea of insanity as a defense against a charge of murder has beenviewed with disdain and disbelief ever since the first time the argumentwas used in a court of law. Public and professional attitudes toward thesuccessful insanity defense persist despite research indicating that ªimpres-sive evidence of insanity probably had more to do with acquittals . . . thanhas been commonly assumed.º1

Partial support from a Continuing Faculty Development Award from the New York State/United University Professions Professional Development and Quality of Working Life Committee.Thanks to the following for rendered assistance: Ross Ljungquist, Interlibrary Loan, SUNY, HSCB;Merrill S. Spiegel, JD, legal consultant, Washington, DC; Joanne Tobey, New York State HistoricalSociety.

Allen D. Spiegel, PhD, MPH, is Professor, Preventive Medicine and Community Health,State University of New York, Health Science Center, College of Medicine, 450 Clarkson Avenue, Box43, Brooklyn, New York 11203. Marc B. Spiegel, MBA, is a Sports Marketing & Public Relations Consul-tant, 4206 Ocean Drive, Manhattan Beach, California 90266.

Requests for reprints should be addressed to: Dr. Allen D. Spiegel, SUNY, HSCB, 450Clarkson Avenue, Box 43, Brooklyn, NY 11203.

228 JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY HEALTH

WYATT: MURDERER OR INSANE?

Early in 1846, Henry G. Wyatt, a prisoner in the Auburn Peniten-tiary, wrote to William H. Seward pleading for his legal defense on acharge of murder. Wyatt murdered James Gordon while they both wereprisoners. Seward agreed to defend Wyatt and maintained that Wyatt wasbrutally whipped across the spinal column so often that he became insaneand irresponsible. Furthermore, Seward claimed that Wyatt was an exam-ple of the new concept of moral insanity; insanity caused by other thanorganic brain disease.2 During the February 1846 trial, Seward relied onthe warden’s official records of the whippings and combined that withexpert medical testimony. Although this insanity defense was regardedwith suspicion and disfavor, a hung jury resulted and a second trial wasscheduled for June.

3

A DEDICATED AND FEARLESS LAWYER

William H. Seward was a lawyer by profession, a native New Yorker,and a resident of Auburn for most of his life (Figure 1). His fame as a jurylawyer rested on four criminal case defenses, although Seward lost all ofthem: John Van Zandt in a fugitive slave law case in 1842; Henry G. Wyattfor murder in 1846; William Freeman for murder in 1846; and Abel F.Fitch for conspiracy to destroy railroad property in 1851.3

Both, Wyatt and Freeman were Negroes (the term in use at thetime) and Seward’s defense for both was insanity caused by brutal treat-ment while in prison. As he defended the two men charged with murder,Seward evolved into a legal expert on the jurisprudence of insanity. De-spite his respected legal reputation, Seward declared his misgivings aboutthe law: ªI fear, I abhor, detest, despise, and loathe litigation.º3 Neverthe-less, he was well known in legal and political circles in Albany, New YorkCity and Washington, DC. During his political career, Seward was consecu-tively elected a New York State Senator, the Governor of New York, a U.S.Senator and in 1860 he was appointed Secretary of State by Abraham Lin-coln. After declining the nomination for Governor in 1842, Seward prac-ticed law in Auburn with the firm of Seward, [Christopher] Morgan and[Samuel] Blatchford.

In 1843, mental health crusader, Dorothea Lynde Dix, visited Sew-ard seeking his advice on steps to improve the lot of demented people.4 AsNew York’s Governor, Seward had devoted considerable time to mental

Allen D. Spiegel and Marc B. Spiegel 229

FIGURE 1

William H. Seward defended both murderers using the insanity plea(Courtesy Library of Congress).

disease as a state problem and sponsored successful legislation to forbid atrial for the insane.2

With this background and while awaiting Wyatt’s second trial, amurderous rampage occurred and Seward was plunged into the develop-ing maelstrom.

MURDER SO FOUL

About 9:30 PM on Thursday, March 12, 1846, William Freemanstealthily approached a farm house in Fleming, about three miles south ofAuburn, New York. It was a cold night and the moon reflected on the newfallen snow and the two knives in Freeman’s hands. As Mrs. Sarah Van Neststepped out of the back kitchen door, an unprovoked Freeman attackedher inflicting a single deep wound in her abdomen. She screamed, ran tothe front of the house and died in a few minutes. Freeman entered thehouse through the back door and immediately confronted her husband,41-year-old John G. Van Nest. He stabbed him in the chest and the heart


causing his instant death. Continuing his rampage, Freeman stabbed theirsleeping two-year-old son, George Washington Van Nest with such ferocitythat the knife passed completely through the child’s body. After this,Freeman attacked Cornelius Van Arsdale, the hired man, and severelywounded him in the breast. Despite his wounds, Van Arsdale managed todrive Freeman from the house into the yard. Once outside, Freeman en-countered Sarah’s mother, Mrs. Phebe Wyckoff, who had armed herselfwith a butcher knife. Viciously, Freeman slashed the 70-year-old womaninflicting a deep wound. However, Mrs. Wyckoff managed to severely cutFreeman’s wrist. Later, he would say: ªMy hand was so hurt I couldn’t killany more.º 5 Although badly wounded, Mrs. Wyckoff ran a quarter-mileacross a field to a neighbor to spread the alarm. Finding Mrs. Wyckoff’s oldhorse tethered outside, Freeman mounted it and escaped. He stole a horsewhen the first one faltered, and reached Schroeppel at 2:00 AM the nextmorning where he was arrested. On Saturday, March 14, Freeman wasdriven to the Van Nest home where he was met by a tumultuous, vengefulmob. Shouting for Freeman’s blood, they displayed a rope and a lassodemanding that he be lynched. Authorities acted swiftly to spirit Freemanaway in a covered wagon. Despite their secretive action, a terrible commo-tion followed Freeman into the village of Auburn. Frances Seward, the ex-governor’s wife, wrote to her sister: ª I trust in the mercy of God that I shallnever again be a witness to such an outburst of the spirit of vengeance as Isaw while they were carrying the murderer past our door.º 5 About thistime, Mrs. Wyckoff died from her wounds. Freeman had murdered a hus-band, his wife, their two year old son, and his mother-in-law and badlywounded the hired man.

WHO WILL DEFEND THIS MAN?

Within this impassioned environment, nobody could be found toprovide legal representation for a man who had committed such a mon-strous crime. When nobody volunteered their legal services, Sewardstepped forward to declare that he would defend the murderer. Freemanwas indicted on May 18, 1846 accused of ªfeloniously, willfully, and of mal-ice aforethought, and from a premeditated design to effect the death ofthe said John G. Van Nest, did kill and murder, against the peace anddignity of the people of the State of New York.º

6

With Wyatt and Freeman both in jail for capital offenses, GovernorSilas Wright ordered a special session of the court under Judge Bowen


Whiting for the trial of both prisoners. Freeman’s arraignment was held inthe Auburn court house on Monday June 1, 1846 and Seward entered aplea of insanity. Seward contended that Freeman became insane due tocruel and abusive beatings administered in jail. During the trial, CaptainJames E. Tyler testified that during Freeman’s first year in jail in 1841 heordered Freeman flogged for not doing his full quota of work. Tyler de-scribed what happened:6

I called him up and told him that I was done talking to him. I was goingto punish him. I told him to take his clothes off. I turned to get the catand received a blow on the back part of the head from him . . . As Ilooked around, Bill struck me on the back. I kicked at him and knockedhim partly over . . . He jumped up, went across the shop, took up a knifeand came at me. I took up a piece of wood lying on the desk, went downand met him. It was a basswood board two feet long, fourteen incheswide and half an inch thick . . . When I came in reach of him, I struckhim on the head flatwise, split the board, and left a piece in my handsfour inches wide . . . I hit him eight or ten times with the remainingboard . . . after I flogged him ten or twelve blows . . . A black man’s hideis thicker than a white man’s, and I meant to make him feel the punish-ment.

After this beating, Freeman always appeared downcast and ªwentabout with his head down.º 6 There was a decided difference between theprosecution and the defense as to Freeman’s sanity. Seward said that Free-man acted under a blind impulse to avenge the alleged injustice of hisimprisonment. Freeman explained the injustice: ªI’ve been whipped, andknocked and abused, and made deaf. There wouldn’t any body pay me forit.º 6 After deliberation, Judge Whiting ruled that a trial by jury should de-termine the sanity or insanity of the accused.

PREPARING FOR FREEMAN’S INSANITY DEFENSE

Freeman’s murderous outburst occurred almost immediately afterthe Wyatt jury failed to render a verdict. Seward worked on both cases atthe same time and expeditiously sought out expert medical advice. Hepersuaded Dr. Amariah Brigham, superintendent of the Utica [NY] Luna-tic Asylum to become his prime witness and his personal consultant oninsanity (Figure 2). With the Asylum located about 150 miles east of Au-burn, this was a major effort on Brigham’s part since the trip took 13 hoursby railroad in 1846.2


FIGURE 2

Dr. Amariah Brigham, Superintendent of the Utica [NY] Lunatic Asylum,1842 ± 1849 and editor of the American Journal of Insanity, 1844 ± 1849.

(Source: Coventry, CB. Biographical Sketch of Amariah Brigham, M.D. Utica:W.G. McClure, 1858).

Dr. Amariah Brigham

Dr. Brigham studied medicine during several apprenticeships andattended one term of medical lectures at the College of Physicians andSurgeons of New York. Some time later, in 1837, he accepted a speciallectureship in anatomy and surgery there. After practicing for about sevenyears, Brigham continued his education by touring European medical fa-cilities for two years, including hospitals for the mentally ill. In France, helearned the French language and his psychiatric thinking was markedlyinfluenced by liberal interpretations of mental illness. In July 1840, he be-came the superintendent of the Retreat for the Insane in Hartford, Con-necticut. When the New York State Lunatic Asylum in Utica was newlyopened in October 1842, Brigham became the first superintendent (Fig-ure 3). His psychiatric thought and practice became the forefront of con-cepts of moral insanity and moral treatment. In caring for patients,


FIGURE 3

New York State Lunatic Asylum at Utica as it was in 1844. (Source:Coventry, CB. Biographical Sketch of Amariah Brigham, M.D. Utica:

W.G. McClure, 1858).

Brigham limited the use of harsh medicines and restraints. He appliedhydrotherapy, tonics, advocated work and occupational therapy, requirededucational classes to produce an ordered mind, offered entertainmentsand amusements, and promoted public education about mental health.Brigham believed that the brain was the organ of the mind and could beaffected by psychological and physical causes which could lead to mentalillness as well as bodily dysfunction. In 1844, he was one of the thirteenfounding members of the Association of Medical Superintendents of AmericanInstitutions for the Insane which later became the American Psychiatric Associa-tion. Also in July 1844, he founded the first psychiatric journal in the worldpublished in English, the American Journal of Insanity. Brigham remainedthe editor until his death in 1849.7,8

Insanity Readings for Seward

Dr. Brigham sent Seward several books to read in preparation forthe trial:2 James C. Prichard’s A Treatise on Insanity and Other Disorders Affect-ing the Mind 9; Jean Etienne D. Esquirol’s Mental Maladies. A Treatise on In-

sanity10; Samuel Tuke’s Description of the [York] Retreat 11; and Isaac Ray’s ATreatise on the Medical Jurisprudence of Insanity12. While traveling on the Mis-sissippi river, Seward wrote to his wife on May 9, 1846 commenting that Dr.Brigham’s material will help with the Wyatt case: ªHave been reading . . .the works of the fascinating Esquirol, also Isaac Ray . . .º2 Incidentally,Seward’s wife assisted with the trial, read the books, marked pertinent pas-sages and also acquired expertise about insanity.2


Already defending Wyatt, Seward represented Freeman bolsteredby his fearlessness of temporary passions and his sense of duty. He took thebold action despite the almost unanimous degradation by his townspeople.On one occasion, boys even threw stones at one of Seward’s children.3

Even Seward’s father-in-law and former law partner, Judge Elijah Miller,tormented him with advice to ªabandon the nigger.º 4 In a letter to ThrulowWeed, his political mentor, Seward remarked: ªThere is a busy war aroundme, to drive me from defending and securing a fair trial for the negroFreeman . . . He is deaf, deserted, ignorant, and his conduct is unexplain-able on any principle of sanity . . . Freeman is a demented idiot made so byblows [in prison] which extinguished everything in his breast but a blindpassion of revenge.º13

During the three months that Seward worked on the Wyatt andFreeman cases, he greatly enhanced his proficiency on the subject of in-sanity. Seward’s definition of insanity reflected Dr. Brigham’s teachings:ªAlthough my definition would not perhaps be strictly accurate, I shouldpronounce insanity to be a derangement of the mind, character and con-duct, resulting from bodily disease.º14

PRELIMINARY TRIAL ON THE QUESTION OF INSANITY

On June 25, 1846, the trial began to determine whether Freemanwas sane or insane. State Attorney General John Van Buren, the 36-year-oldson of past President Martin Van Buren [1837 ± 1841], and Luman Sher-wood, Cayuga County District Attorney, appeared for the prosecution. Sew-ard and his law partners and David Wright represented Freeman without afee.

This preliminary trial turned out to be a preview for the murdertrial. A host of lay witnesses included: Freeman’s mother, sister, in-laws,and other family members; Van Nest’s mother and father; neighbors ofVan Nest and Freeman; shopkeepers who knew about Freeman’s knives;local townspeople who knew Freeman as a boy; clergymen; investigatingpolice officers and justice officials; fellow prisoners; and jail personnel.Prosecution witnesses testified about the events before, during and afterthe murders to present the obvious uncontested evidence that Freemancommitted the murders. Testimony focused upon a variety of characteris-tics: Freeman’s normal and happy boyhood; his feeble intellect and stu-pidity; his vacant stare; his idiotic smile; his appearance; his insane auntand uncle; his change of character; and his behavior before and after be-


ing in prison for five years after being convicted, probably falsely, of steal-ing a horse in 1840.

Reverend John M. Austin of the Universalist Church of Auburn,raised the racial prejudice issue in his testimony when he asked: ªIs notsociety in some degree accountable for this sad catastrophe?º 5 He charac-terized Auburn’s negroes as:5

victims of unworthy prejudice s which compel them to exist under cir-cumstances where they are exposed to imbibe all the vices, without beingable to become imbued with the virtues of those around them; who canwonder that they fall into crime?

John Dupuy, Freeman’s brother-in-law, made a similar point: ªWhite menmade this murderer [Freeman] what he was, a brute beast; they don’tmake anything else of our people but brute beasts; but when we violatetheir laws, they want to punish us as if we were men.º4,5

Witnesses testified about exactly the same characteristics but posedcontrasting interpretations as to Freeman’s insanity. Freeman’s smile waslabeled idiotic on one hand and the smile he always had on the other.Some noticed tremendous change in Freeman while others said he re-mained the same as always.

A parade of medical experts from Auburn, Albany and Utica testi-fied. Six physicians found Freeman to be sane while seven medical expertsdeclared that he was insane. After ten days, the jury returned about 8:00AM on Sunday July 5, 1846 to report that they had not come to an agree-ment. One juror could not agree to a verdict of sanity. Judge Whiting thenadvised the jury that ªthe main question . . . is whether the prisoner knowsright from wrong. If he does, then he is to be considered sane.º 6 WhileSeward took exception to the judge’s remarks, he ordered the jurors toretire to reconsider. At 8:00 PM on the same day, after about an hour ofdeliberation, the jurors rendered their verdict: ªWe find the prisoner suffi-ciently sane in mind and memory to distinguish between right and wrong.º 6

Upon hearing the jury verdict, Seward asked the court to reject that verdictand to instruct the jury to find a verdict on whether the prisoner is sane orinsane. Judge Whiting refused and the murder trial began on July 10.

TESTIMONY AT THE MURDER TRIAL

Almost exactly the same lay and medical witnesses returned to tes-tify at Freeman’s trial for the murder of John G. Van Nest. Jurors heardfrom a staggering total of 108 witnesses including seventeen physicians.


Lay Witnesses

Sixty-four lay witnesses testified for the prosecution while twenty-seven did so for the defense. Generally, the witnesses were questionedabout exactly the same areas discussed in the preliminary trial on the san-ity of the prisoner.

Medical Testimony for the Prosecution

Dr. Leander B. Bigelow had twenty years of medical experience,was a prison surgeon for seven years and visited Freeman in jail severaltimes. Bigelow knew Freeman’s family history and did not consider hislaugh as idiotic. His specialty was detecting fakers, or dissemblers, of insan-ity.2 He examined Freeman’s pulse and asked him a variety of questions.His conclusion: ª I am satisfied that he is an ignorant, dull, stupid, moroseand degraded negro, but not insane . . . I found nothing to satisfy me thatthe prisoner was insane . . . I have no doubt, whatever, but the prisoner issane.º6

After examining Freeman in jail, Dr. Jedediah Darrow ªtalked withhim considerably,º and found his memory was good. Under Seward’s cross-examination, Darrow confessed: ª I have not read anything upon the sub-ject of insanity for a great many years.º Further, his opportunities for ob-serving insanity had been very limited. Nevertheless, Darrow stated: ªIdiscovered nothing that indicated that there was insanity about him. Myopinion was that he was sane at the time I saw him . . . I do not give aprofessional, but only a common sense opinion of this prisoner.º 6

Although he had seen many cases of insanity, Dr. Charles A. Hydesaid ªmy opportunities for treating it professionally have not been veryextensive.º Hyde had practiced for twelve years and examined Freemantwice in jail. He found no insanity although Freeman appeared dull andstupid and not talkative. ªFrom seeing him twice, it would be difficult tosay that he is insane. I was rather of the opinion that he was not.º 6

Dr. Samuel Gilmore examined Freeman in jail and heard the testi-mony. He pointed out Freeman’s preparation and planning of the homi-cide with skill and care and his carrying it out as well as any sane mancould. Gilmore said this murder indicates great depravity, but not insanity.Although not intelligent, Freeman knew it was wrong to commit murder.ªIt is my opinion from my examination of him that he was not insane.º6

Despite being in practice for thirty-five years, Dr. Joseph Clary de-clared: ªI have seen so little of insanity that I don’t know as I ought toexpress an opinion.º He visited Freeman in jail three times and noted that


his pulse ranged from 120 to 123. Even though Clary was not confident ofhis opinion, he did declare: ªFrom what I have seen of him it is my opin-ion that he is sane.º6

Dr. David Dimon of Auburn visited Freeman six or eight times andexamined him at considerable length about his life and the murder. WhileDimon found Freeman to be ignorant and depraved, he didn’t discoverany disturbance of his faculties. Under cross-examination, Dimon did notrecollect any prior case where he had been called upon to determinedoubtful insanity. While he was aware of the questionable smile, the symp-toms of dementia and the insane delusion, Dimon saw no evidence ofinsanity. ªI conclude that his mind is now in the same condition that it hasbeen since he was a boy. I discovered nothing about him indicating insan-ity . . . I think he is as sane as ever he was.º 6

In practice for twenty-three years, Dr. Sylvester Willard, examinedFreeman six or eight times in jail. He stated that he did not have a greatdeal of experience in insanity and added: ªI don’t profess to be an adept,yet I have seen a few insane persons.º Nonetheless, Willard did conclude:ªI did not find evidence sufficient to make me think him insane.º6

Dr. Thomas Spencer, Professor of the Theory and Practice of Medi-cine at the Medical College at Geneva [NY], studied and taught aboutinsanity, visited asylums in London and Paris, and had ten to twelve inter-views with Freeman. Spencer noted that ª l have bestowed much mentallabor upon this case.º In the most scholarly testimony of all the prosecu-tion’s medical witnesses, he defined insanity as ª the deranged, impulsive,incoherent, deluding exercise of some or all of the faculties of mind; sus-pending the control of conscience, reason, and judgment, over the thoughts,words and acts of the patient.º 6 Continuing, he discussed monomania, theprisoner’s smile and Freeman’s change in character.

In a professorial manner, Spencer used a chart to identify thethirty-six faculties of the mind, divided into three classes: involuntary; vol-untary; and intermediate. Involuntary faculties are listed with odd num-bers designating the ªunbalancing, tempting, affective, and instinctiveºranging from Sensation [a1] to Self-preservation [a29]. Conscience [a36] isthe ªessential balancing facultyº between the voluntary and involuntary fac-ulties designated by even numbers ranging from Attention [a2] to Will

[a30]. Three intermediate faculties of Conception [a31], Imagination

[a32], and Association [a33] are ªthe essential seat of insanityº while Sym-

pathy in human weal [a34] and Sorrow for human woe [a35] are aids ofconscience in regulating the voluntary faculties. Since all the faculties areunited, Spencer connected them all with ª imaginary telegraphic wiresº onhis chart6 (Figure 4). Spencer compared the acts of the prisoner with the

FIGURE 4

Chart on the Faculties of the Mind used by Dr. Thomas Spencer in hisexpert testimony for the prosecution to prove that Freeman was sane.

(Source: Hall BF. The Trial of William Freeman for the Murder of John G. VanNest. Auburn: Derby, Miller & Co., 1848, p. 356).


thirty-six faculties of the mind and found all signs and symptoms ª to be ina healthy state.º

Seward’s comprehensive cross-examination raised questions aboutthe impaired mind, moral depravity, pain sensation, mania, walking som-nambulism, memory, and distinguishing right from wrong. In particular,Seward questioned Spencer about his visits to asylums and Spencer couldrecall few facts indicating that he gained any expertise. However, he wasquite assured in his conclusion: ªI can no longer doubt that the prisoner issane. I have no reasonable doubt of it.º 6

Medical Testimony for the Defense

Dr. Blanchard Fosgate of Auburn was in practice for eleven years.He was called to the jail to attend to Freeman’s severe hand wound onMarch 16th. Fosgate commented that Freeman did not manifest any senseof pain despite the bad wound. On one visit, Fosgate found Freeman tohave an idiotic smile on his face for no reason. Freeman seemed to haveno conversational powers; he responded only in monosyllables. ª I think hedoes not comprehend the idea of right and wrong . . . he has no moralsense of accountability.º 6

Although he had seen patients for twelve years as a Thompsonianmedical practitioner, Dr. Levi Hermance was then the assistant keeper ofthe Auburn prison. He observed Freeman in December 1845 when hesawed fire wood for him. Hermance found Freeman to be in a gloomy,despondent state of mind with singular and strange manners. ªMy opinionof him last December was that he was a deranged man. Since then I havehad no cause to change it Ð it is my opinion now.º 6

Dr. Lansingh Briggs lived in Auburn, knew Freeman for abouteight years before he went to prison and was now a prison physician.Briggs observed that Freeman had less mind than before, that he exhib-ited little sensibility to pain, and concluded that his mind was impairedand diseased. Under cross-examination, Briggs defined dementia as agradual diminution or decaying of the powers of the mind. Idiocy wasdefined as a want of mind from birth. Mania means that mental powersare excited into unnatural activity. Symptoms of dementia and delusioninclude a downcast look, an aversion to exertion, indolence, loss of intel-ligence in the expression of the eye, and in the extreme, drooling at themouth. Freeman believed that society wronged him and owed him repara-tion. ªThis delusion, in my judgment, is an insane delusion Ð the delusionof an insane mind.º6

After receiving his medical degree from New York University in


1825, Dr. Charles Van Epps continuously practiced in Auburn. He knew Free-man since he was a nursing babe and commented on the change in charac-ter. ªHis smile and general deportment is like persons demented . . . I thinkhe was insane at and before that time [July 6, 1846] . . . There is not the leastdoubt that at the time the prisoner committed the act, he was insane.º6

As the superintendent of the Utica Lunatic Asylum, Dr. AmariahBrigham was the most experienced medical witness regarding insanity; theonly real expert medical witness. He visited Freeman several times, heardall the testimony at the preliminary trial, and heard or read all the testi-mony at the murder trial. In a dramatic demonstration during his testi-mony, Brigham pointed at a man sitting in court and was proven to becorrect as he said: ªI see a deranged man there . . . I saw him across thecourt room the other day, and knew from his looks that he was insane.ºAfter examination, Brigham found that Freeman was not feigning insanity.He commented that the peculiar pallor, which oftentimes attends insanity,cannot be easily detected from the countenance of colored people. Re-garding a predisposition to insanity, Brigham remarked that Freeman hadan insane aunt and uncle and heredity was a probable cause. Freeman’scharacter changed from a ªlively, active, sociable ladº before enteringprison and emerged ª taciturn, dull and stupid.º Brigham reviewed a num-ber of prior cases to illustrate the actions of insane people. Continuing,Brigham referred to the testimony of earlier witnesses who spoke aboutinsensibility to pain, a rapid pulse, indifference about his fate, and appear-ances. On cross-examination, Brigham identified symptoms of dementiaand partial dementia, labeled Freeman as exhibiting homicidal mono-mania, spoke about the sudden irresistible impulse, explained the changeof character rationale, commented on the smile as evidence of insanity,and defined the role of sleeplessness in insanity. An illuminating dialoguepassed between prosecutor Van Buren and Brigham:

VB: Do you think stealing hens any evidence of insanity?B: If you should rob a hen roost to-night, I should think you were

crazy.VB: And the same of the other counsel, I suppose?B: Yes; for it would be equally strong.

ªI believe the prisoner to be insane . . . although I have heard sane peopletalk of revenge, I still think the prisoner was crazy.º 6 In a letter to his wife,Frances, Seward said that ªBrigham was wonderfulº on the witness stand.2

Dr. John McCall, President of the Medical Society of New YorkState, visited Freeman in jail and examined him. McCall stated that Free-man was not feigning insanity, that his brain was diseased, that there was afamilial predisposition to insanity, and that beatings may have injured the


brain. He believed that Freeman committed the murder under an insanedelusion or irresistible influence and ought not to be held responsible.ªFrom personal observation and also from the testimony, I am of the opin-ion that the prisoner at the bar, is insane. I have no reasonable doubt of it. . . A verdict of a jury in this case, that the prisoner was sufficiently sane toknow right from wrong. I do not consider a verdict of sanity. It falls farshort of it.º6

A Professor of Medical Jurisprudence in Geneva Medical College,Dr. Charles B. Coventry, had prescribed for the insane and came fromUtica [NY] to examine Freeman and to testify. He diagnosed Freeman as acase of partial mania with dementia citing his indifference, the beatings,the predisposition and the supposed feigning. Coventry declared thatFreeman ªhas almost a total abolition of moral faculties . . . The prisoner isinsane, and has been for a considerable period of time . . . I cannot say Ihave doubt of his insanity then or at this time . . . I became fully satisfiedthat he was insane on the twelfth of March.º6

Dr. Thomas Hun, Professor in the Albany Medical College, prac-ticed medicine for sixteen years and did not examine Freeman before thejury verdict in the preliminary trial. Consequently, the prosecution ob-jected to Hun’s testifying about Freeman’s insanity and the judge sus-tained the objection. From observations in the courtroom, Hun cited theidiotic smile, the chronic disease of the brain, his listless manner, and hisinattention to what was happening. Seward proceeded to question Hunusing a number of suppositions and Hun repeatedly responded about thehypothetical person: ª I should think him insane.º 6

In practice since 1817, Dr. James McNaughton, Professor of theTheory and Practice of Medicine at Albany Medical College and SurgeonGeneral of the State of New York, received his medical education in Edin-burgh. McNaughton commented that he could not give a ªvery positiveopinionº of the prisoner’s mental condition from only seeing him in court.He said: ª . . . appears to be stupid and foolish . . . very feeble intellect . . .smile is idiotic . . . from his appearance alone, an imbecile . . . He is eitheridiotic or partially demented.º6

After thirteen trial days, the jury was hard pressed to keep up withthe contrasting views of the 72 witnesses for the people and 36 for thedefense including eight and nine physicians respectively.

SUMMATIONS, VERDICT AND SENTENCE

Seward began his summation with elan: ªThou shalt not kill . . .whoso sheddeth man’s blood by man shall his blood be shed.º 6 He then


proceeded to answer rhetorical questions and explain issues: Is the pris-oner feigning or counterfeiting insanity?; It is proved that the prisoner ischanged; and the prisoner at the bar is insane. During his summation,Seward carefully utilized the testimony of the witnesses to support hisproposition that Freeman was insane. During his impassioned presentationSeward averred that he was shocked ªat the spectacle of trying a maniac asa malefactor.º4

Following, prosecutor Van Buren reminded the jury that ªcriminalirresponsibility is a question of law, not of medicine . . . If the punishmentof crime is to be determined by medical rules, the Professors should situpon the bench and fill the jury box.º This reiterated an earlier remark bycounty district attorney Sherwood that ªhe did not regard insanity as asubject that was purely or exclusively medical.º6 Van Buren said that all hisevidence concluded that Freeman was ª in perfect physical healthº for thepast two years.6

Judge Whiting charged the jury and covered both sides. He said:ªSanity consists of having a knowledge of right and wrong . . . and inposessing memory, intelligence, reason and will . . . If sane, he is guilty. Ifinsane, he is not guilty. There is no middle ground.º 6 Pointedly, the judgeremarked that ignorance is not insanity. In contrast, ªevidence of the pris-oner’s insanity is derived from comparison, from facts and from opinionsof medical witnesses.º6

After retiring, the jury deliberated and rendered a verdict on July23, 1846. They found Freeman ªguilty of the crime wherewith he standscharged in the indictment.º6 Quickly following on July 24, 1846 at 6

12

o’clock AM, the judge pronounced sentence:6

The judgment of the law is, that the prisoner at the bar, William Free-man, be taken from this place from whence he came, there to remainuntil Friday, the eighteenth day of September next, and on that day,between the hours of one and four in the afternoon, he be taken fromthence to the place of execution appointed by law, and there be hung bythe neck until he shall be dead.

MURDERERS OR INSANE?

Despite the hard fought authoritative defense, both defendantswere found guilty. After an initial hung jury, Wyatt was executed after asecond trial. Seward believed that the jury punished Wyatt for Freeman’sbrutal and bloody murders.3 While Freeman was also found guilty, his exe-cution was stayed as Seward appealed to the Supreme Court on a Writ of


Error. In the interim, in October, Seward and his wife visited Freeman injail. She wrote to her sister: ªPray God that he may be insensible to theinhumanity of his relentless keepers. He stood upon the cold stone floorwith bare feet, a cot bedstead with nothing but the sacking underneathand a small filthy blanket to cover him.º5 On February 11, 1847, the Su-preme Court reversed the lower court’s judgment and ordered a new trial.Four days later, Seward called on Brigham to submit the names of ªonehundred of the most intelligent physicians throughout the State of NewYork and abroadº who might give evidence.5 At this point Freeman wasvisited and examined by the Circuit Judge relative to his mental condition.He found the prisoner in a gradual decline of health and strength anddeclined to try Freeman again. William Freeman remained in chains anddied in his cell in the early morning on Saturday, August 21, 1847.

POST-MORTEM EXAMINATION OF FREEMAN

About nine o’clock in the morning of August 21, Drs. Briggs andFosgate assisted by Drs. Willard and Robinson removed Freeman’s brainfrom his skull and preserved it in ice to prevent any deterioration. This wasdeemed expedient since Drs. Brigham and McCall would not arrive untiltwelve hours later. With Drs. Briggs, Dimon, Fosgate, Hyde, Luce, VanEpps and a large number of lawyers and others watching, Brigham care-fully dissected the brain. Brigham prepared a statement which was signedby the other physicians:6

Undersigned coincide in the opinion that this organ presented the ap-pearance of chronic disease . . . arachnoid membrane somewhat thick-ened and congested . . . medullary portion unnatural dusky color, harderin places, as if par-boiled . . . posterior portion appeared diseased anddura-mater unnaturally adherent . . . left temporal bone in vicinity ofauditory nerve carious and much diseased.

In response to a follow-up request, Brigham made a strong, un-equivocal statement about the Freeman case on September 6, 1847:6

The whole history of this man, his parentage, his imprisonment, punish-ment, deafness, crim es, trial, sickness, death and the post-mortem ap-pearance of his brain, establish, most clearly to my mind, and I doubt notto others who are much acquainted with mental maladies, that this was acase of insanity Ð that Freeman had disease of the brain, and was de-ranged in mind, from a period some time previous to his leaving prison,until the time of his death.


AFTERMATH OF FREEMAN’S TRIAL

Seward commented on the intense hostility and verbal abuse fromhis own townspeople that his family endured during the trials: ª I rise fromthese fruitless labors exhausted in mind and body, covered with publicreproach, stunned with duns and protests.º15 Subsequently, Seward’s volun-tary defenses reaped political advantages and enhanced his legal reputa-tion. New clients flocked to his law firm and their business grew by leapsand bounds.4 Seward’s Argument in Defense of William Freeman was publishedfrom his notes and went through four printings.16,17

Freeman’s trial attracted considerable attention to the insanity pleain a murder trial, and to the subject of insanity in general. Complimentaryletters came to Seward. Salmon P. Chase, who became Lincoln’s Secretaryof the Treasury and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, regarded Sewardªas one of the very first public men of our country . . . his action in theFreeman case, considering his own personal position and circumstances. . . magnanimous in the highest degree.º 18 A zealous abolitionist, Samuel J.May, was equally praising: ªYour magnanimous espousal of the case of poorFreeman, and unsparing efforts in his behalf, commanded my admira-tion.º

19 Seward commented on the fickleness of the harsh public reactions

to his defense of Freeman: ªLess than a year has passed since no execra-tions were too severe for the people who now judge favorably my conduct,without any regard to the question whether my client deserved death ornot.º3 After Seward was appointed Secretary of State by President AbrahamLincoln, his legal experiences about the jurisprudence of insanity played apivotal role in making a delicate political decision.

SEWARD, ABRAHAM LINCOLN AND INSANITY

After coming to terms with losing the presidential nomination toLincoln, Seward became Lincoln’s confidant and most influential cabinetmember.3 Their close association and mutual confidence resulted in Lin-coln being reluctant to discuss important questions in the Cabinet whenSeward was not present.4 By the fall of 1862, Secretary of the Navy GideonWelles conjectured in his diary that Seward spent ªa considerable portionof each day with the President, patronizing and instructing him, hearingand telling anecdotes, relating interesting details of occurrences in theSenate, and inculcating his political party notions.º 4

On July 11, 1863, Dr. David Minton Wright, a secessionist South-erner, shot and killed a white officer, Second Lieutenant Alanson L. San-


born, as he drilled colored troops on Norfolk’s [VA] Main Street. A mili-tary commission found Wright guilty and sentenced him to be hung.Union forces desperately needed the colored soldiers and Lincoln could illafford to do anything to discourage the recruitment efforts. While Lincolnhad no doubt about the verdict, he was pressured politically to seek anexpert medical opinion about Wright’s sanity. Clearly, the evidence indi-cates that Lincoln and Seward discussed the choice of medical experts, thesentence of the special military commission and the political expediencyof carrying out the death sentence. Surely, Seward’s memorable experi-ences about the 1846 Wyatt and Freeman trials surfaced in discussions withLincoln. Dr. Brigham’s impressive courtroom performance was no doubtremembered. With pride in his native state, Seward suggested that Lincolnuse the current Superintendent of the Utica Lunatic Asylum and editor ofthe American Journal of Insanity, Dr. John P. Gray, as the expert to examineWright (Figure 5). In keeping with the theory that insanity resulted onlyfrom organic brain damage, Gray examined Wright, found him sane, andLincoln approved the death sentence.20

In addition to Seward’s legal experiences, Lincoln and his Secre-tary of War, Edwin M. Stanton, both had been involved in the jurispru-dence of insanity. In 1857, Lincoln took the lead in the prosecution of amurderer wherein the defense pleaded that the prisoner’s insanity wasinduced by an overdose of chloroform during a surgical procedure. A juryagreed with the defense and the murderer was sent to the state lunaticasylum.21

Stanton was a lead counsel on the legal team that devised the firstsuccessful defense use of a temporary insanity plea in the United States in1859.22 Both Lincoln and Seward were aware of this trial and probablydiscussed it with Stanton in relation to the Wright case.

WHY BUY RUSSIAN ICEBERGS?

Despite his notoriety from the Freeman trial, Seward is best re-membered for buying Russian icebergs. Continuing to serve under Presi-dent Andrew Johnson after Lincoln’s assassination, Seward achieved du-bious fame for the $7.2 million purchase of 586,000 square miles of landin North America from Russia on March 30, 1867. His acquisition of thisdomain called, Walrussia, was derisively labeled ªSeward’s Follyº or ªSew-ard’s Icebox.º In the New York Herald , James Gordon Bennett summed upthe conventional wisdom of the day by suggesting that any impoverishedEuropean monarch who wanted to sell worthless territory should apply to


FIGURE 5

Dr. John P. Gray succeeded Dr. Brigham as Superintendent of the Utica[NY] Lunatic Asylum. (Source: Atkinson, WB. The Physicians and Surgeons

of the U.S. Phila: Charles Robson, 1878, p. 693).

ªW.H. Seward, State Department, Washington, DC.º Seward responded tothe ridicule on August 12, 1868 in a speech at Sitka: ª[I do not doubt] thatthe political society to be constituted here, first as a Territory, and ulti-mately as a State or many States, will prove a worthy constituency of theRepublic.º In 1897 ± 1898, the Klondike Gold Rush was the first discoveryto turn ªSeward’s Follyº into a fortuitous bargain which was augmented bythe later discovery of oil. On January 3, 1959, President Eisenhower signedthe act declaring Alaska the 49th state.23

REFERENCES

1. Ireland RM. Insanity and the unwritten law. Am J Legal Hist 1988; 32: 157 ± 172.2. Conrad E. Mr. Seward for the Defense. New York: Rinehart & Co., Inc., 1956, pp. 5, 9, 12 ± 13, 62, 85,

98, 238.3. Bancroft F. The Life of William H. Seward. New York: Harper & Brothers Pub., 1900, pp. 171, 174 ±

175, 179 ± 181.4. Van Deusen GG. William Henry Seward. New York: Oxford University Press, 1967, p. 93 ± 94, 97.5. Dunn JT., Jones LC. Crazy Bill had a down look. Am Heritage 1955; 6[5]: 60 ± 63, 108.


6. Hall BF. The Trial of William Freeman for the Murder of John G. Van Nest. Auburn: Derby, Miller & Co.,1848, pp. 26, 143 ± 144, 232, 275, 278, 291, 307, 310, 315, 320, 325, 339 ± 40, 346, 351, 353, 360,368, 428, 469 ± 470, 473, 475, 498 ± 499.

7. Hutchings RH. Amariah Brigham. Am J Psychiat 1944; 100: 29 ± 33.8. Carlson ET. Amariah Brigham: life and works, Part 1 and Psychiatric thought and practice, Part

11. Am J Psychiat 1956; 112: 831 ± 836 and 1957; 113: 911 ± 916.9. Prichard JC. A Treatise on Insanity and Other Diseases Affecting the Mind. London: Sherwood, Gilbert

& Piper, 1835.10. Esquirol JED. Des Maladies Mentales. Bruxelles: Meline, Cans & Co., 1838.11. Tuke S. Description of the [York] Retreat. Philadelphia: Isaac Pierce, 1813.12. Ray I. A Treatise on the Medical Jurisprudence of Insanity Boston: Little & Brown, 1838.13. Seward FW. Autobiography of William H. Seward New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1877, pp. 809 ± 810.14. Baker GE. The Life of William H. Seward. New York: Reedfield, 1855, p. 297.15. Lothrop TK. William Henry Seward. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1899, p. 143, 431.16. Blatchford S. Argument of William H. Seward in Defence of William Freeman on his Trial for Murder at

Auburn, July 21st and 22nd, 1846 . Auburn: J.C. Derby & Co., 1846.17. Taylor JM. William Henry Seward. Lincoln’s Right Hand. New York: Harper Collins, 1991, pp. 69, 74.18. Schuckers JW. The Life and Public Services of Salmon Portland Chase. New York: D. Appleton & Co.,

1874, p. 66.19. Phillips W. Speeches, Lectures and Letters. [Second Series] Boston: Lee & Shephard, 1894, p. 382.20. Spiegel AD. Abraham Lincoln and the insanity plea. J Comm Hlth 1994; 19[3]; 201 ± 220.21. Spiegel AD, Kavaler F. Abraham Lincoln, medical jurisprudence, and chloroform induced insan-

ity in an 1857 murder trial. Caduceus 1994; 10[3]:145 ± 160.22. Fontaine FG. Trial of Hon. Daniel E. Sickles for Shooting Philip Barton Key, Esq. New York: R.M. DeWitt

Pub., 1859; Brandt N. The Congressman Who Got Away With Murder. Syracuse: Syracuse UniversityPress, 1991.

23. Gislason E. A brief history of Alaska statehood, 1867 ± 1959. http://xroads.virginia.edu/-CAP/Bartlett/49state.html; Alaska purchase treaty. http:// www.ripon.edu/dept/pogo/presidency/AJohnson/ AJohnson.alaska.html.

Documents

The Insanity Plea in Early Nineteenth Century America