Thomas F. Harney

[John Fazio]

(11-20-2014 10:01 AM)Rick Smith Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 08:16 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(11-19-2014 01:52 PM)Rick Smith Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 07:51 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 03:56 PM)Rick Smith Wrote:  If Edwin Stanton was not a target, he sure should have been.

Rick:

Why?

John

John,

In the words of my good friend, Bill Richter, "He needed killing."

Seriously; as part of an effective, overall plan to decapitate the federal government, Stanton should have been a target. No one else, aside from Seward & Lincoln, would have been able to continue the running of the Union government. Do not misunderstand me; I am no fan of Stanton, Seward or Lincoln, it is just that I think Stanton would have been the most effective in administrating the Union plan.

Rick

---

John,

Forgot to add a postscript: It is very interesting that you and Bill come to the same conclusions, with which I agree.

Looking forward to your new book.

Rick

Rick:

Murder is a draconian remedy for someone who was merely discharging the duties of his office under the law and the Constitution. That goes for Confederate officeholders too, who, though they were operating under a different Constitution, were entitled to immunity from assassination inasmuch as I know of 15 arguments favoring the legitimacy of secession. Accordingly, Wistar's and Dahlgren's orders, assuming they were bona fide, are an excrescence. I believe that Lincoln saw the matter so, as evidenced by his announcement at the Cabinet meeting of 4-14 that he wanted "no bloody work" and that the leaders of the Rebellion should be permitted to exit the country unmolested. Further evidence is the fact that paroles, pardons and conciliation were the order of the day after the war, except for Wirz, who presided over the deaths of some 16,000 at Andersonville (Sweetwater Creek, with all the clean water in the world, was 0.6 of a mile from the camp) and Champ Ferguson, who was nothing but a cold-blooded serial killer of even disarmed and wounded men (other cold-blooded killers (e.g. "Bloody Bill" Anderson) having met their end without the aid of a hangman). Everything considered, then, decapitation, even if had resulted in greater success, would not have produced a different result, and was, for that reason, excessive and foolhardy. Churchill said the outcome of the war was "almost inevitable". There was no way the ruling class in the South (about 350,000 out of a population of about 9 million) could stop the locomotive of history. It was time for slavery to go. All the major powers in the world and some 17 other countries had already abolished it.

John

John,

My answer to your earlier question was to support your position that Stanton was a target of assassination and I do believe that he was. Your response to me is just a little confusing. Do you believe that he was a target or do you not? From your response, it is now unclear.

Where is it stated in any constitution, Union or Confederate, that Lincoln & Davis were entitled to immunity from assassination?

I disagree that Lincoln's killing was a murder, or a civil crime. His killing was an act of war during a time of war. During a time of war, heads of state are legitimate targets.

Rick

Rick:

I most certainly do believe he was a target, as stated in earlier postings.

I did not say it was stated in any Consitution. Nor do I believe it is necessary that it be stated.

Should, then, the conspirators not have been indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced? Inasmuch as they were merely perpetrating an act of war, just as surely as the soldiers in the field were? Do you equate Booth's bullet with, say, the bullet that killed Sedgwick at Spotsylvania?

John