(01-22-2013 02:54 PM)Gene C Wrote:  And why is Stanton not a target? He has more to do with military management than Seward.

Good question, Gene. One theory on this was offered by Michael Maione and James O Hall in an article entitled "Why Seward?" in the Spring 1998 edition of the Lincoln Herald.

If Andrew Johnson had also been assassinated as Booth planned, Senate President Pro Tempore Lafayette S. Foster of Connecticut would have become acting president pending an election of a new president. The process of electing a new president could only be set in motion by the secretary of state; thus Booth felt Seward's assassination would throw the Union government into "electoral chaos." A Presidential Succession law passed on March 1, 1792, was still in effect in 1865. It provided that the president pro tempore of the Senate was third in line to the presidency and the Speaker of the House was fourth. This law didn't make any succession provisions beyond the Speaker.

In Weichmann's book (p. 138) he says Booth had a noontime conversation with John F. Coyle, part-owner and editor of the Washington Daily National Intelligencer. In the conversation Booth quizzed Coyle on the line of secession:

Booth: “Suppose Lincoln was killed, what would be the result?"
Coyle: “Johnson would succeed.”
Booth: “But if he was killed?”
Coyle: “Then Seward.”
Booth: “But suppose he was killed, then what?”
Coyle: “Then anarchy or whatever the Constitution provides.”

Coyle went on to say, “What nonsense, they don’t make Brutuses nowadays.”
Booth replied, “No, they do not.”

The above conversation, which allegedly took place in a restaurant, was published in the Washington Post and is also included in the article by Mr. Maione and Mr. Hall. It’s also reported on p. 277 of Frank A. Flower’s biography of Edwin Stanton.

Personally, I do not know if Coyle's memory is reliable or not.

If it's true, then Coyle gave Booth some incorrect information, stating that Seward was third in line to the presidency.

I wish I could come to the Surratt Conference this year and sit down with y'all and discuss this (over a moon pie and a RC). Maybe next year. I might even give Rob a ride.

I guess you could make the same argument for Booth. Shooting Lincoln (a defenseless man) in the back of the head at close range was (somehow) to him an heroic act of tyrannacide. Booth was a man loved by his family and friends and he was not an experienced killer in the "cold-blooded" sense.

For me, both Booth and Powell had in them some inherent ability to act in a cold-blooded manner and were able to murder or attempt to murder in a most vicious way. Most people do not have that ability. It's one thing to be a soldier in war defending yourself and your unit; it's another to attack and kill a defenseless person.

We hear it all the time with almost every cold-blooded crime..."I never thought he could do such a thing"..."he seemed like such a nice person"

For both, their signature act has defined them and their character forever. Whatever good qualities they had or seem to have had prior are, in my mind, meaningless.

This is a fascinating thread.

We don't really know what was going through Powell's head when he assaulted Seward. Was he the good soldier following orders or the "cold blooded killer" taking out his rage on the Seward family while also following orders? When he told Gus Seward in a quiet but intense voice during the assault that he (Powell) was mad, (insane), was he repeating what Booth had told him to say or was the whole experience so overwhelming to him that he found himself telling someone he was attacking that he was mad? Why didn't he kill Seward? Was it a "lack of nerve" (Pitman) or the fact that after his gun misfired and he had bashed in Fred Seward's head, he fought with Robinson and found his way in the dim light only to find Seward wrapped in bedclothes with bandages and wire around his head. Did Fanny's hysterical screaming distract him?

I was introduced to the Enneagram a while back. It is based on an ancient way of describing people's personalities. There are nine basic personalities in the Enneagram.

I think Powell is a Type Six, which is a Loyalist/Devil's advocate. Those people work well "in a clearly defined chain of command." They are doubtful of their own capacity to take action so they may "project of great deal of their power to leaders." This has come about in part because as children "they remember being afraid of those who have power over them." "Sixes try to ease this insecurity by either seeking a strong protector or by going against authority in the Devil's Advocate stand." Enneagram: Understanding Yourself and the Others in Your Life by Helen Palmer.

Another good book is: Personality Types: Using the Enneagram for Self-Discovery by Don Richard Riso. This book talks about the different levels of each type and what happens to each under stress. For example, at the top level, The Loyalist is The Valiant Hero who has learned to depend on him/herself. The Average Six is the Dutiful Loyalist and at the bottom is The Authoritarian Rebel where they can do "serious mischief, or worse harm, to others."

Of course, I have greatly simplified these books but I find them interesting because I am trying to understand how the boy that Powell was turned into the man who attacked the Sewards. I know the war was hideous but there had to be something in Powell's makeup that made him susceptible to Booth.

Powell's behavior around authority figures in the government and his lawyer, Doster, show how uncomfortable he was with them. Most of the authority figures describe him as a dolt or simpleton but I think he went downhill every time he was in that situation. Sixes respond strongly to the people they are with so that explains how he can be described in so many different ways. Riso's book states that Type Six is the most puzzling of the nine personality types because they are reactive.

The key to understanding Sixes is that they are ambivalent. I think that Powell's behavior reflects the environment he found himself in whereas JWB, say, was always JWB, working on his agenda.

Maybe this explains in some way how the person who brutally assaulted the Branson maid and the Seward family and aids is also the person who gained the respect of his captors.

(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

I think it's safe to assume that Powell would have tried to follow his orders regardless of Seward's physical state. The fact that he was bedridden was neither here nor there.

Agreed, Maddie. Powell was on a mission and he was going to go through with what he perceived was his military mission.

(01-22-2013 03:44 PM)wsanto Wrote:  I guess you could make the same argument for Booth. Shooting Lincoln (a defenseless man) in the back of the head at close range was (somehow) to him an heroic act of tyrannacide. Booth was a man loved by his family and friends and he was not an experienced killer in the "cold-blooded" sense.

For me, both Booth and Powell had in them some inherent ability to act in a cold-blooded manner and were able to murder or attempt to murder in a most vicious way. Most people do not have that ability. It's one thing to be a soldier in war defending yourself and your unit; it's another to attack and kill a defenseless person.

We hear it all the time with almost every cold-blooded crime..."I never thought he could do such a thing"..."he seemed like such a nice person"

For both, their signature act has defined them and their character forever. Whatever good qualities they had or seem to have had prior are, in my mind, meaningless.

It's also one thing to be sent into war to die, and quite another to sit safely behind a desk and give the order that those men should die. I guess it's all about perspectives.

I've been down this road a few times before, so I'll renew my position in the "Not a cold blooded killer" camp. I'll agree with what Betty said a few posts back...Powell committed a cold blooded act, but in my opinion that act should not saddle him with the immortal label of cold blooded killer. These were young men living in times very different from ours, compounded by a 4 years long Civil War. Even under normal circumstances, young men in groups do stupid things. I speak from experience, as I have done my share. These particular young men made huge mistakes and committed terrible crimes. I just don't believe that those crimes should forever define what and who they were in life.

I am not a cold hearted person, at all. Very much the contrary, I am normally very empathetic, and always try to consider the other person's situation. Yet in my life, in certain situations and under certain circumstances (usually in relationships with women), I have sometimes said and done cold hearted things. Does this make me a cold hearted person? Because I'm not. I swear. When this happens, I'm usually ashamed afterwards, and wish I had not been that way.

Are we defined by who we are in our worst moments? Is that fair? Even if those worst moments cross lines that most of us would likely never cross? Should I forever be labeled as a cold hearted person because I said something cold hearted to somebody at a time I happened to be in a very stressful time in my life? Can't I be a good hearted person who is capable of occasionally doing cold hearted things? To be truly "cold hearted", shouldn't my heart always be cold? Shouldn't it be cold before and after the act? Should Lewis Powell be labeled for eternity as a cold blooded killer because of something he did in a moment, when most of his life was likely lived in a good and honest manner? And should John Wilkes Booth be always remembered as one of the great villains in American history, even if he truly believed he was doing the right thing? Can't these be normal men who are capable of doing terrible things? Does crossing a line have to forever change who we are, who we were? Shouldn't we look in the mirror and recognize that the line is indeed thin before we pass judgement so quickly, before we try and define somebody we never even knew?

As per usual on this forum, I understand and respect that everybody doesn't agree, and please know that these are just my opinions, I don't claim that it's the law.

This may come as a shock to you, Rob, but if Dahlgren's Raid had been successful and had decapitated the Confederate hierarchy, I would pronounce it successful and likely praise the skill it took to carry it off. I look at history from a variety of sides and sources and try to stay objective without personal prejudices against "the enemy" getting in the way.

Good soldiering should be praised. I happen to be a fan of Genl. Grant. He knew (along with Sherman) what it took to win wars. But, sending tens of thousands into mortal combat would probably be cold blooded to you? Or, is it okay since Grant was bent on murdering Confederates?

Quote:The fact that he was bedridden was neither here nor there.

The fact that he was bedridden has a great deal to do with it. Attacking a man who is able to defend himself, while no less horrendous, has some difference since that person can either fight back or get away. Severely beating and stabbing someone who can do neither is not the actions of a "boy" who is in over his head. It's the actions of a thug who has no moral compunction against killing. Whether Powell was a soldier or not is what's irrelevant here..

Quote:I just don't believe that those crimes should forever define what and who they were in life.

With due respect, Jonathan, it most certainly should. This wasn't some fraternity prank gone astray. It was murder and attempted murder, and those who participated got what they deserved.

Betty is a careful and serious researcher, and the credit she has received for her work on Powell is well-deserved. That still doesn't change the fact that in my opinion (and the opinion of many others) Powell was not someone in over his head. He knew exactly what he was doing, and he knew the consequences of what would happen if he got caught. That explains his point of view afterward, not any so-called "remorse."

And Laurie, Grant didn't "murder" Confederates. They had an opportunity to fight back. Far more than Lincoln or Seward did.

Best
Rob

Yeah, I can understand that some people have the opinion that some crimes, even if they were a one time thing, are too great to get past. And I agree that those situations exist. I just don't feel like this is one of them. It's a toughie for sure, but fun to talk about.

I agree that our arguments are fun to mount - just don't let me serve on the same jury with Rob!

Talk about 12 angry men (or women and men).

Best
Rob

(01-22-2013 07:09 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  Talk about 12 angry men (or women and men).

Best
Rob

It's good to chew the fat... even if someone has more gristle than the other!!

(01-22-2013 03:31 PM)Natty Wrote:  

(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?

It seems likely that Booth’s plot included the assassination of Stanton too, although this attempt has received little coverage in the histories because the would-be assassin was never identified or apprehended.

Two men passing Stanton’s house the evening of April 14 saw a tall man with a high hat hurriedly leaving Stanton’s stoop. The incident made the morning newspaper. When Stanton read it, he remarked to his very close friend, Hudson Taylor, a Washington book seller, that his doorbell was broken and that if it had been in good repair and the tall man had rung it, Stanton, had no doubt that he would have been assassinated. Apparently, the intruder, getting no response to the bell, assumed that no one was home and left, or perhaps, simply got cold feet.