Quote:I think that with Lew Powell, it was simply an error of misjudgement, youth and immaturity

Needless to say I have disagreed with Betty on this point from the first moment I heard it. To say this implies that Powell was caught up in something greater than his ability to reason, and that's just wrong. Powell knew exactly what he was doing from the moment he received his assignment from Booth. As I've stated several times before, the only thing which kept Powell from being a cold-blooded killer is that Seward et al survived.

Best
Rob

Sorry Rob, but I agree to disagree!

Powell was not in anyway a cold blooded killer. Yes, he attempted to kill Seward and almost wiped out his entire family - something not in anyway commendable. This was a heinous crime against innocent people. But, and we've had this discussion before, I feel he was simply following orders as he told Gillette. He was young and misguided. He was also extremely contrite about what he did from the moment he leaped into the saddle. Soldierly, certainly. But to insinuate that he was a cold blooded killer is all wrong. You seem to make him out to be some sort of "Jack the Ripper" when evidence into his background points otherwise. There are too many instances that this boy was not a killer in any way shape or form. He was simply following orders to the best of his ability. This is what he told Gillette. I believe him.

I have to agree with Betty.
During war, soldiers are prepared to kill and act on orders that instruct them to do so. It is possible that a person could eventually become hardened by repetition of such acts, but from all accounts, Lewis Powell was a newbie when it came to the business. He even admitted to his spiritual adviser that he had not knowingly killed anyone before. He was extremely contrite and depressed after the attack and seemed to show signs of regret even during the act itself, when he began referring to himself as "mad". This "cold blooded killer" did not even know how to load his gun with the proper bullets.

He was just a kid, 20 years old, following orders and making a serious mistake. There is nothing about his past or anything after the attack which suggests this kind of behavior came naturally to him, or that he would have repeated these actions in the future, either of which would be on the short list of prerequisites necessary to fit the profile of a "cold blooded killer".

(01-22-2013 11:51 AM)Rob Wick Wrote:  

Quote:I think that with Lew Powell, it was simply an error of misjudgement, youth and immaturity

Needless to say I have disagreed with Betty on this point from the first moment I heard it. To say this implies that Powell was caught up in something greater than his ability to reason, and that's just wrong. Powell knew exactly what he was doing from the moment he received his assignment from Booth. As I've stated several times before, the only thing which kept Powell from being a cold-blooded killer is that Seward et al survived.

Best
Rob

I think it's too easy to label someone negatively without looking at past histories, their past deeds and life. Nobody could ever say that what he did was justified, even Powell himself realised that.

I don't even believe he went into that situation realising the full consequences of his actions...and most young people are guilty of that. As a soldier, he would have been used to taking orders and as a soldier in this situation was, as he saw it, doing his part in a war that was still raging. Of course, this does not excuse it, but it does explain it.

I suspect he was following orders to the letter, got there and realised mid attack that killing someone hand to hand, and one to one was more terrible than he realised. I'm sure, had he really wanted to, he could have stabbed Seward in the heart or chest, killing him, but he didn't. I don't think he really wanted to kill. But he didn't realise that until he was in the middle of trying. I also believe that his cries of 'I'm mad!' were exclamations to himself at the insanity and evil of what he was doing. In other words, he came to his senses.

That he was used by people more sophisticated and worldly than he, is undoubted. But this didn't make him stupid, or dumb, or a cold blooded killer. It just made him naive and trusting, and misguided.

People do make mistakes...big ones, like Powell did. He paid with his life and records show that he was genuinely repentant and appalled at what he did. Cold blooded psychopaths have no regrets, and they certainly do not feel the pain of others or repent their crimes.

---

I find it ironic that one person can be labelled a cold blooded killer for a failed assassination attempt, whilst the people responsible for sending thousands of men to their deaths are hailed as heroes.

I think that people use such inflammatory terms too loosely, without actually being aware of their actual meaning.

Any dictionary will toss you a variation of this definition of "cold-blooded" when applied to crime:

Executed without feeling or emotion

Someone yelling "I'm mad! I'm mad!" during a crime doesn't indicate a lack of feeling or emotion and if that same person shows remorse and psychological anguish after the crime, you'd better find yourself another label.

Cold blooded killer = a regular hit man for the mob

Lewis Powell? Cold blooded killer? Hardly.

Who's "orders" was Lewis following? Booth's? Mosby? Richmond?

I guess we females are sticking together on this one. As I have announced before, I was raised military and think in military terms. The object is to win a battle and ultimately the war. Call me a pragmatist, but the ends justify the means in such a situation. That does not make a soldier fighting for a cause a cold-blooded killer. The Ted Bundys of the world are cold-blooded killers to me.

As far as Booth and his cabal and many others at that specific time, the war's objective had not yet been met. The thought of a large, centralized government that usurped the rights of civilians was still a threat -- my personal opinion is that the disarray of that government was the primary target, not just the men at the top.

Agreed, Laurie! The entire government was the "enemy" - not just a few men....

Gene as far as we can tell and this was verified by General William H. Payne, General Bradley C. Johnson as well as Lt. Benjamin Palmer and a couple of other Mosby Rangers - Lew's orders were from the Confederate Hierarchy. It was not specified just WHO posted the orders -

Just because I'm obviously in the minority here doesn't mean I'm wrong, or that this is the generally-held opinion about Powell or his actions from other scholars and writers.

I'm well aware of what cold-blooded means and it's a phrase that fits. To jump on a man who is defenseless and an invalid with a knife and a gun is a textbook definition. I don't care one whit that they believed it to be justified. When Powell was a soldier shooting at someone who had the ability to fight back, that's one thing, but how anyone could believe otherwise about the attacks on Seward and his family just boggles my mind.

I daresay had Ulric Dahlgren actually carried out his raid and did to Jefferson Davis and members of his cabinet what happened to Lincoln and Seward, most people here would have found it to be unconscionable.

Best
Rob

(01-22-2013 02:23 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  Just because I'm obviously in the minority here doesn't mean I'm wrong, or that this is the generally-held opinion about Powell or his actions from other scholars and writers.

I'm well aware of what cold-blooded means and it's a phrase that fits. To jump on a man who is defenseless and an invalid with a knife and a gun is a textbook definition. I don't care one whit that they believed it to be justified. When Powell was a soldier shooting at someone who had the ability to fight back, that's one thing, but how anyone could believe otherwise about the attacks on Seward and his family just boggles my mind.

I daresay had Ulric Dahlgren actually carried out his raid and did to Jefferson Davis and members of his cabinet what happened to Lincoln and Seward, most people here would have found it to be unconscionable.

Best
Rob

Rob,

Your reasoning is clear and sound on this point.

(01-22-2013 02:23 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  Just because I'm obviously in the minority here doesn't mean I'm wrong, or that this is the generally-held opinion about Powell or his actions from other scholars and writers.

Until Betty Ownsbey came along, not all that much was known about Lewis Powell's character.
Generally-held opinions should not be upheld if they can be revised. If we clung to everything dusty and outdated, we'd be stagnating, my friend.

(01-22-2013 02:23 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  I'm well aware of what cold-blooded means and it's a phrase that fits. To jump on a man who is defenseless and an invalid with a knife and a gun is a textbook definition.

Unfortunately a textbook definition is something you CAN'T revise, just to fit your own personal wishes. It doesn't matter who you attack; if you feel the way Lewis Powell did during and after the attack, you are by definition not a cold blooded killer.

(01-22-2013 02:23 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  I don't care one whit that they believed it to be justified. When Powell was a soldier shooting at someone who had the ability to fight back, that's one thing, but how anyone could believe otherwise about the attacks on Seward and his family just boggles my mind.
I daresay had Ulric Dahlgren actually carried out his raid and did to Jefferson Davis and members of his cabinet what happened to Lincoln and Seward, most people here would have found it to be unconscionable.

I never justified it. It was a terrible attack, without question. Still, regardless of how morally offensive one might find it, Lewis Powell was not a cold blooded killer. You can't bend the facts just because you take offense with something.

I'm NOT attempting to start another Civil War here - just stating facts which my research has turned up after 40 years. I simply don't believe that he was a cold blooded killer. I happen to believe, like Laurie and the rest that he was a decent person who got involved in a situation over his head. He was a soldier. He was following orders. Period. End of discussion.

Interesting discussion. Powell certainly had time to think about the "orders" he was given, and he should have been aware of the political/military situation of the south (Lee's surrender). If he was engaged, he certianly had something to live for and to consider his future. Lewis's act was cold blooded. Do you have to be cold blooded all the time? Was he just a "follower" who could be easily misled?

And why is Stanton not a target? He has more to do with military management than Seward. (there are plenty of opportunities to get at him, he's certainly not guarded any more than Seward) You want to throw the gov't in confusion, kill Stanton. Seward is already injured and out of the picture. If you plan to kill Lincoln and Seward, why not send 2 or 3 more people and try to kill a few more. Or did Richmond try that, and the people they sent realized it was a lost cause and not carry through their orders?

Quote:Powell certainly had time to think about the "orders" he was given, and he should have been aware of the political/military situation of the south (Lee's surrender). If he was engaged, he certianly had something to live for and to consider his future. Lewis's act was cold blooded. Do you have to be cold blooded all the time? Was he just a "follower" who could be easily misled?

Yes, Powell certainly did have time to think about his orders - as did Booth and the rest. He was not stupid. I'm certain Powell knew what was going on with Lee's surrender - it was the death knell of the Confederacy. Unfortunately we do NOT know the full scale of the conspiracy and just why it was instigated after the Surrender. It was always seemingly surmised that these plans were propelled forward to throw the Union government into a state of panic and cause mass confusion so that the tables could be turned. Remember Lee had surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia only. They were still fighting on the Western Theatre and Mosby himself never surrendered his men; but simply disbanded on April 21, 1865.

Yes a 20 year old boy has a LOT to live for. Yes, he was engaged to be married. He also thought that he was still following his orders. This does not make him out to be cold blooded. He was young, and more or less easily led. He was also a soldier. He saw himself as one who followed his orders and as he told Dr Gillette, as a "savior of the Southern people." Misguided, perhaps - but not cold blooded. I will not deny that the act itself was cold blooded. Very cold blooded. He himself realized this after he had committed the deed - but this in itself illustrates to me that the boy was not a murderer and not a cold blooded killer at heart. Only a soldier following his orders.

(01-22-2013 02:54 PM)Gene C Wrote:  And why is Stanton not a target?

I've always wondered about that myself. Any theories?