Booth's Mental health

[L Verge]

(05-22-2015 07:22 AM)Gene C Wrote:  Rick, we probably agree on more than we disagree.

I agree that Booth had no written orders for his actions. In regards to Booth you stated, "By the nature of the type operation he was involved in, he would carry no orders" I believe that holds true for Dahlgren too. I'm not convinced the orders found on Dahlgren are authentic. As far as I know, those orders are the only record to indicate his objective was to eliminate Jefferson Davis. Some where, some how, those original papers were lost or destroyed, if they ever existed.

I agree with you that Lincoln was a target. But to kill him anytime after Nov 64' and think it would have an influence on the military out come of the war doesn't stand with me .
I believe Booth made a statement to the effect "I no longer have a country left"
Target, yes. Legitimate Military Target, no. Military target or not, he still was killed, which was Booth's objective.
The why and how will always be an interesting discussion

First, I would think that a military operation requires more written documentation than a covert one sinced a main purpose of secret duty is to leave no paper trail. I also think that Lincoln's death would sit well with Davis, who up until the evacuation of Richmond was still hoping to continue the war as a guerrilla affair. But, Davis would have been stupid to say that in public.

Anyhow, I wish that Ed Steers would chime in here since he is one of a small group of historians to give credence to the Dahlgren Raid spurring the assassination of Lincoln. He addresses a portion of it in Blood on the Moon. Stephen Sears and the late-David Long were also in agreement.

As for the absence of the original Dahlgren papers, we should mention that copies were made in Richmond after the papers were found on Dahlgren's body and widely distributed in Europe in an attempt to show the barbarism of U.S. forces. Those copies are still in existence, and the father of Dahlgren, the famous admiral used them in an attempt to save his son's reputation. One of the questionable items was a supposed misspelling of Dahlgren in the son's own handwriting.

About twenty-five years ago, it would take the combined efforts of former Confederate general Jubal Early and historian James O. Hall to solve this particular puzzle. In 1879, Early carefully examined a set of the photographs taken in Richmond of the original Dahlgren address to his men. There were three photographic prints: one each of the two pages on cavalry corps stationery, and a third showing the concluding six lines of the address and the signature. Early pointed out that the conclusion of the speech was written across the back of page one, and that the inked writing had seeped through the thin paper. In the signature this show-through of letters from page one was quite marked, and it was possible to read Dahlgren’s signature, Early thought, as a misspelling of his name.

A century later, while examining one of the lithographed broadsheets of the address, Hall completed the solution to the puzzle. The London lithographer who worked with the papers in 1864 transferred the closing lines of the address and the signature to the bottom of page two in order to better fit the photographed document he was working from onto one piece of paper. Then, to produce an overall legible look to the finished broadsheet, he retouched the show-through area. When he cleaned up the signature–never having seen the name Dahlgren before–he made it what it looked like to him: Dalhgren.

Since we know that kidnapping Lincoln was a viable plan with other Confederate agents over the war years - and that the possibility that Lincoln might be killed in such an attempt existed with each - why are we judging Booth differently? Would we think differently if Gen. Bradley Johnson's plan had worked and Lincoln was killed in the process? Would Johnson then be declared deranged? My guess is Yes, because he was a Confederate.