John Surratt

[John Fazio]

(08-07-2013 05:28 PM)SSlater Wrote:  John. I agree with your evaluation of who should be executed. A person Murdered and a person Executed are two entirely different things. Let me ask, is your reference to the 6 or 7 escaped prisoners the same incident where Sarah Slater asked "Shall we kill them?" - and did. I can't fault her, or the others involved here, Slater lived in a Prisoner-of-War town (Salisbury, N.C.) and I'm certain that it had been drilled into the citizens of Salisbury, that if you see escaped prisoners - shoot them. By merely asking about their fate, she was giving them a trial. Was this a time to kill? Was it within the rules? Was there any other choice? etc. I can not condemn her, or Surratt, or whomever pulled the trigger. I need more evidence. As for the telegrapher, what was he saying on he wire. Was he calling in artillery fire? Was he signaling an attack? etc. Those were instantaneous decisions, fully justified. Yes, there are situations where Killings are in order.
But don't mix "executions/killings" and "murders". There is a time when "it is your duty".
There is more to all of this, than we can solve in a internet exchange.
My explanation for a "High Mass" is - Surratt had been a seminarian. That was a "Special Club" that got special considerations - even when trying to escape from prosecution. (Know what I mean?). "High" mass, "Low" mass - no difference, when it comes to the effect of prayers. It's supposed to be an Honor -especially for the family. In my grade school days - we thought of it as "a thicker asbestos suit". (Know what I mean?)

SSlater:

Recognizing that war is hell, that the black flag was raised even before the war began (with the murder of Lovejoy, in "Bleeding Kansas" and in the Missouri border wars), and that there were depredations and atrocities on both sides, I nevertheless say that there are Laws of War (the Lieber Code) and that murdering emaciated and starving and almost certainly unarmed escaped POW's, in cold blood, is a violation of those laws. It is no longer justified killing, i.e. in combat; it is murder and should subject the offender(s) to the sentence and penalty that apply for murder in the jurisdiction in which it occurs. There can be no justification for it. Surratt, Slater, et al, should have ignored them and gone on their way. That they did not, but chose, instead, murder of helpless human beings, tells us a great deal about them, and what it tells us is that they were much more than couriers. The POW's were not, and could not have been, a threat to their safety. According to McMillan, it was Slater who told the others (there were four or five others traveling with them, according to McMillan, who was told the story by Surratt) to kill the POW's. As for the telegrapher, I will grant that under the circumstances, summary execution may have been the only remedy they had, i.e. it would have been wholly impractical to take him prisoner.

John