Was there an assassin on Grant's train?
|
06-22-2015, 04:42 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-22-2015 05:35 PM by L Verge.)
Post: #42
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Was there an assassin on Grant's train?
Last night, I had posted what I thought was a good (and very brief) response to John's too lengthy "dissing" of John Surratt, as well as what I hoped would be a conciliatory end to this thread. However, when I pushed the button to post, I got the response that the thread was locked. I cannot retrieve my eloquent thoughts from last night. However, I just read the first few paragraphs from Wild Bill above and decided that he had done a much more historically correct reply.
My opening sentence was to the effect, John, that you had missed one vital point in your assessment of John Surratt's behavior. You forgot to mention that there was a war going on. Despite the fact that Mr. Lincoln did not want to declare the CSA a separate country, those who were fighting for that cause believed it to be and knew who their enemy was. John Surratt, IF HE INDEED COMMITTED MURDER OF THOSE MEN, did so in the belief that he was supporting his effort in winning the war. What makes him any more "vile" (or "evil" - same spelling, have you noticed?) than Generals Sheridan and Sherman of the U.S. forces or the marauders that they allowed to function in their battle areas? What makes John Surratt more vile than John Brown and his actions in Bleeding Kansas? We were not even at war when he committed atrocities or plotted to continue slavery's annihilation via violence in Harpers Ferry and onward. One other point: You quoted me as saying that Surratt was showing braggadocio. If you will re-read what I actually said, you will find that I stated that I do not believe that the killing of Union soldiers by Surratt and Slater even existed. I doubt that Surratt ever claimed it did unless in braggadocio. If I am not mistaken, that claim was made by others - who could likely have been perjuring themselves to please the government, such as Charles Dunham and others had done at the 1865 Conspiracy Trial. BTW: Surratt's freedom did not come via hung jury. Finally, your lengthy and pontifical format used in describing the evils committed by Surratt reminded me of why I have had to lay down your book for awhile. It is too exhausting for me to read! Congratulations to those who claim to have read it because it is very difficult to ascertain where truth, falsehood, and speculation are separate. I agree with a great deal of your comments and research, but I found myself having to stop and re-read portions (even going back to previous chapters) in order to understand other points that you were making, and I did not agree with the outcome in all cases. I think like a teacher, and you think like a lawyer; and I cannot condemn you for that. However, your prosecutorial approach to so many things smacks of Law and Order instead of unbiased historical methods of research. That has frustrated me into not wanting to continue reading. To be honest, I have never considered myself a Confederate, even though I am intensely proud of my Southern heritage. Being so closely in touch with James O. Hall for so many years taught me to judge things on their merit, not on my feelings. What's the song from the 60s about "seeing things from both sides now?" (Gene, that's your specialty). I wish that we could reach a consensus on this forum to consider historical things from all sides and not to create further dissension through words and innuendo. John was not the first one to use the term "vile" on this forum, but it is that type of verbiage that does little to really help us understand our history. The Civil War will be alive and well in all of us as long as we allow ourselves to take sides. I'm very glad that I did not live during the Civil War, especially here in Maryland. On one side of my family, the two brothers fought on opposite sides with both surviving the war, but never speaking to one another again. On the other side of the family, the patriarch impoverished himself paying substitutes to take his sons' places in the draft, but neither son went South. Though slave holders, the family did not believe in secession. I sometimes wonder what my thoughts would have been... |
|||
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
User(s) browsing this thread: 11 Guest(s)