Booth's Escape Route

[J. Beckert]

Great point, Jerry, and as usual, nobody else thought of it. You actually live "outside the box", don't you? Great observation.

These attacks were indeed vicious, but attacks with the intent to end someone's life usually are. The objective is to take out the opposing side's leaders and as Laurie pointed out, the Yanks may have had it on their minds, too. Personal opinions and convictions about what is right and moral, don't really apply to situations like this, in a time of war. As Booth said, these were times when a brother tries to pierce a brother's heart. Would it have been more "sportin'" if Booth challenged Lincoln to a duel? Maybe, but the times were desperate and so were the folks that lived in them.

[BettyO]

Amen, Brother Joe!! Well said -

[Rob Wick]

I guess if someone could actually prove that Booth and Powell were agents of the Confederate government on a mission to take the Union leadership out, then one might be able to make a case like that Joe. However, all I've seen is personal belief and very little evidence that such a plot existed. The war was over when Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia. With the exception of Jefferson Davis, who was busy running from one point to another, Lee on down believed the war to be over. The north certainly held that point of view. Assassination at that time was not recognized as a legitimate act of war. As I've stated before, had Lincoln been kidnapped by the Confederacy while hostilities were going on, that's a whole different question. But he wasn't. Moral issues certainly do apply here.

Best
Rob

[Laurie Verge]

Rob,

Have you read Come Retribution or April '65?

[Rob Wick]

Laurie,

I have not, but I know enough about them by what I've heard and read in other books to know that they don't come close to proving their thesis.

Best
Rob

[JMadonna]

Rob,
Wars, especially civil wars, rarely end with a battle, a surrender or a peace treaty. Davis continued to believe, after Appomattox, that he could make a new start west of the Mississippi. The fact that Lee had surrendered what was left of the Army of Northern Virginia was not conclusive to Davis, nor to many other Southerners; Johnston’s army, Mosby’s Rangers and Kirby Smith’s army in the Trans-Mississippi were still in the field. All told, about 175,000 Confederate soldiers had still not surrendered.

The evidence is clear that Davis would continue the fight through guerrilla warfare. The weight of the evidence makes the Come Retribution thesis far more likely than making the case that the Confederate Hierarchy were innocent bystanders. Smoking gun evidence is never written down by government officials. This is why I find the case made for the Dalhgren letters highly suspect.

[Jenny]

I agree with Jerry on this one. Fascinating stuff. (I love this board. You are all educating me!)

[Laurie Verge]

Very good post, Jerry. And Rob, I really think you should make the effort to read those two books and form your own opinion. I am quite aware of the academics' opinions of twenty-five years ago when the book came out. At that point, I think some of those experts felt a little abashed that "rank amateurs" could actually produce such excellent material.

I am also aware that the authors stated up-front that, because it was a covert operation, the complete documentation would likely never be available. However, given the qualifications of the three authors involved in those books, most historians would agree that they were/are more skilled in investigating such covert operations than anyone else in the field.

The evidence that they did uncover, however, certainly makes a good case and worthy of attention - which many more people are now giving it. And thank the lord for that because it is not some obscure subject to sweep under the rug and which only a limited audience would ever be interested in. Again, for assassination-oriented scholars, it is very important to consider every angle and not just write things off because they don't support our personal feelings.

[Gene C]

It's been a lonnnngggggg time since I read Come Retribution, and I will give you that the authors were highly qualified, but there were times when I was reading and I had to ask myself what in the world is he talking about and why are you trying to plow throught this. (Hey that sounds like some of my posts) It is not an easy book to read. I had to really work at it, and since troop movements and such is not my real interest, they lost my train of thought and I never did get quite back on track. Another book to reread.
April 65 was better, easier to follow, for me.

And as for not just writng things off because they don't support our personal feelings, I have found it's ok to go with your gut feeling, as long as you have plenty of antacid.

[Laurie Verge]

Gene, There are days when I live on antacid!!!

As for Come Retribution, I applaud you for plowing through the book. The main author, Gen. William Tidwell, wrote the first ten or so chapters as an espionage textbook, so to speak. When I first met him, he told me that the French Resistance during WWII used the Confederate system on which to base many of their operations. It astounded him that the Europeans would know more about espionage tactics in our Civil War than Americans did.

Since his background was in Army intelligence, CIA, and spooky stuff, he set out to remedy the situation. Hence the high detail and boring aspects of the first part of that book. Once it got into the application of that stuff as related to the assassination, I think you'll agree that it got easier to read -- and because you did plow through Come Retribution, it made April '65 easier also.

I think Betty will agree that you had to know the personalities of the authors in order to better understand the text. I could recognize immediately where Tidwell stopped writing and Hall took over and the Secret Line material of Dave Gaddy came in. One of the great things about my being involved in the assassination field has been the chance to get to be friends with so many of the highly learned people in the field. When you know their personalities, their thoughts and writings are more easily understood.

Just a comment in reference to Come Retribution: Please don't write it off the reading list based on its complexity. One person I know who fancies himself an assassination expert frequently commented that the book was only good for use as a doorstop...

[BettyO]

Indeed one can see where one author (Tidwell) stopped and handed the reins to Hall and then Gaddy.....

This is heavy stuff and it only gets more interesting as one gets into it. There's a lot to chew over here - highly recommended!

[Rob Wick]

(01-23-2013 10:46 AM)JMadonna Wrote:  Rob,
Wars, especially civil wars, rarely end with a battle, a surrender or a peace treaty. Davis continued to believe, after Appomattox, that he could make a new start west of the Mississippi. The fact that Lee had surrendered what was left of the Army of Northern Virginia was not conclusive to Davis, nor to many other Southerners; Johnston’s army, Mosby’s Rangers and Kirby Smith’s army in the Trans-Mississippi were still in the field. All told, about 175,000 Confederate soldiers had still not surrendered.

The evidence is clear that Davis would continue the fight through guerrilla warfare. The weight of the evidence makes the Come Retribution thesis far more likely than making the case that the Confederate Hierarchy were innocent bystanders. Smoking gun evidence is never written down by government officials. This is why I find the case made for the Dalhgren letters highly suspect.

And where exactly were these troops going to get supplies? Jefferson Davis had absolutely no support among his remaining generals. He might of found a few stragglers, but even guerilla warfare would not have changed anything. None of his remaining generals were willing to do what they considered suicide.

As for Come Retribution, it's just a theory. It's like me saying I could run a three-minute mile. No one can prove I didn't, so therefore until someone can, it's possible. Same logic applies.

Best
Rob

[John Stanton]

We are having a problem with semantics. We are using inappropriate words to emphasize shock and impact. MURDER - is the unlawful killing of a person, with malice aforethought. ASSASSINATE is to murder by sudden attack for inpersonal reasons. etc. etc. Since Powell acted under orders of lawful authority, he did not attempt MURDER. There are many many of us who did, and are doing, the same thing over and over. We were convinced by our Military and Religious leaders that this (WW II) is a "Just War". We were not limited to how to do the killing , Bombs, cannons, fires, bullets, knife, hammers, rocks, rope, needles, were all OK. (Note: Confirmed by the Pope, in writing). How can you call Powell's Assignment , a Mistake? A mistake occurs when you have several choices, and you choose the wrong answer. It is not a MISTAKE to fail. Going there was not a MISTAKE, He did what he was told, that is not a MISTAKE. Would the killing of Powell runnimg up the stairs to Seward's room, be Murder? In the case of Booth - - was Booth under ORDERS? or was he on his own,, looking for remuneration. Similarly, who is responsible for a death caused by an unmanned drone? Is it MURDER.

[JMadonna]

(01-23-2013 02:45 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  And where exactly were these troops going to get supplies? Jefferson Davis had absolutely no support among his remaining generals. He might of found a few stragglers, but even guerilla warfare would not have changed anything. None of his remaining generals were willing to do what they considered suicide.

Rob,
Guerilla warfare did indeed exist and was active for over 100 years unless you consider the Ku Klux Klan in the same vein as the Optimists Club with a bad press agent.

The goal was to keep the South unassimilated, unreconciled and sectarian, thereby preserving hope for creation of a separate nation at a later date.

The removal of Federal leadership would create chaos in the government and, by extension, in the military because of the provisions of the 1792 statute.The inclusion by Booth of at least the President, the Vice President and the Secretary of State as targets, therefore, is further evidence of a link between Booth and Confederate leadership.

Orders to decapitate Northern leadership could only have come from persons who were conversant with that statute, i.e. Confederate leaders, not a 26-year old actor unschooled in the law.

BTW - Booth ran a 3 minute mile WITH a broken leg.

[Rob Wick]

Jerry,

I don't consider the Klan, or any other southern group, as a guerilla organization, given that they operated in the open, which is a far cry from the way most operate by striking and then withdrawing. Republican abandonment of Reconstruction did far more to lose the peace than any actions by southern whites.

The removal of federal leadership would not have caused any more chaos than was caused when Lincoln was assassinated. Seward, Johnson, Lincoln and Stanton could all have been assassinated and while that certainly would have been difficult to overcome, the Constitution provided for the continuation of government. By this point the south had no manpower or material which would have allowed it to take advantage of any chaos. You mentioned earlier that there were about 175,000 men in the field. Why didn't these men rise up when news hit that Lincoln was dead? They didn't because they had no fight left in them. Neither did their commanders. Oh, and don't forget the north had over 650,000 soldiers in the field as well.

As I asked you concerning your belief that Booth and Herold had passes signed by Andrew Johnson, where is your proof of orders emanating on high?

Oh, and Booth was an excellent runner...just not a very good horseman.

Best
Rob