Boston Corbett

[maharba]

If Corbett was true to himself or Christianity he now professed, he would certainly never have done that. While John Brown wanted to end slavery, Boston Corbett did not say any such thing. >

Gene
This isn't the place for this type of discussion, but you have an unhealthy lack of knowledge regarding the Bible and what it has to say about Christianity, and the relationship between God and man.>

LVerge
Gene, I suspect that the Bible is a foreign language to maharba, who has already espoused atheism to us on this forum. Also, I question why he singles out Corbett as going against God's will>

Thanks Gene, LVerge for relevant comments. But returning to Boston Corbett and his maleable religion which allowed him to lie to and about God (directing such and such killing, mayhem). Corbett unlike John Brown was not 'commissioned by God to end slavery', he just enlisted to join the Federal invasion, and a good chance to shoot Southern folk. When he was caught by Mosby's small partisan force, Mosby allowed the odd little fellow to empty his rifle, then instead of shooting or hanging Corbett (as Corbett surely WOULD have done to him, if circumstances reversed), Mosby captured little Boston without backshooting or insane abuse. So thanks to Mosby, Boston Corbett had the chance to return the act of sane Christian mercy, but instead Corbett lurked in the shadows and shot in the back the man in the barn, the man on crutches. Later, bitterly complained about not getting enough blood money for this murder.

Gene
A few years later a man claiming to be Corbett surfaced, trying to collect his pension. He was found to be an impostor.

Yes, that's interesting stuff, Gene. I've traced out their genealogy, and will post the connection, at a later date. Note that that 'Boston Corbett' lived for a time in and around Enid, Indian Territory where David George died in 1903. And also, the 'pension fraud' has interest that I'll come back to, when the dust clears a bit.

In regard to Lincoln experts that there was no order to take Booth alive. Booth or Boyd had already sent out the other man in the barn, and stood alone against 20 men and asked for a fight, face on. Instead the barn was set on fire, and Boyd/Booth was backshot by a coward, as he stood leaning on crutches. Maybe, if the Federals had had 200 men "it might have safe" to try and bring him back alive?

And I want to return again to Corbett's claim of shooting Booth exactly behind the left ear "as God directed him to do". This would be the first description of the supposed "capture of John Wilkes Booth", the eye witness is either lying or another man has been shot. Why is it so hard to interest 'the Lincoln experts' in investigating the huge discrepancy: Corbett swears (in God's holy name, no less) that he shot Booth just behind the left ear. But the man in the barn had NO such injury at all?