Yes, Powell was responsible for what he did to the Sewards. He was a soldier following orders.

The lines do seem to be blurred between military, quasi-military, and what we would now call black ops. The question is when does a politian become a justified target? Does a commander in chief who is ultimately responsible for the prosecution of a war off limits? Is the Secretary of State a legitimate target? Does Seward become a target because of his involvement or condoning the violent abolishonists (John Brown's reign of Terror)?

We did take the removal by assassination of foreign political targets off the table until fairly recently.

Would the outrage have been as great if Jefferson Davis and Judah Benjamin had been assassinated in the Dahlgren raid? Certainly not if the result was a speedy end to the conflict.

As I said before, the U.S. government obviously saw the assassination as a military crime since it went to a military tribunal based on the target being the commander-in-chief and the perpetrators being termed "enemy beligerents."

And, how come it was okay for the U.S. military to target tribal chieftains during Indian wars?

So let's say, for the sake of discussion, that I accept that Powell was a soldier acting under orders. To what direction does that "information" take us? What does it imply that is somehow different from simply being a cold-blooded killer? If it doesn't lead to some other conclusion, isn't it just a pointless academic exercise?

Best
Rob

I believe it is self-evident that Powell's motivation for attempting to assassinate Seward was his belief that he was fighting for a cause. And he was obviously convinced that this action would further the fleeting war effort of the South.

That said; I don't believe he was a soldier in the sense that he was directly ordered by a superior officer to assassinate Seward.

Powell got involved in Booth's plot to kidnap Lincoln. It may be that he was selected from the battlefield and put into the conspiracy by confederate secret service and/or military operatives. But as the plans escalated at the Herndon House in mid-April he took a step away from being a soldier and toward being an assassin. He took a step away from southern-gentleman soldier toward being a cold-blooded killer. He decided to take that step on his own.

He was not a cold-blooded killer until he took that step. However he justified taking that step that doesn't absolve him of full responsibility. He knew this himself and he bravely accepted his punishment.

(02-07-2013 08:49 AM)Rob Wick Wrote:  So let's say, for the sake of discussion, that I accept that Powell was a soldier acting under orders. To what direction does that "information" take us? What does it imply that is somehow different from simply being a cold-blooded killer? If it doesn't lead to some other conclusion, isn't it just a pointless academic exercise?

Best
Rob

The above statement could used in many scenarios. As has been pointed out, it's a matter of perspectives. When Lincoln issued the order for the hanging of 38 Sioux for daring to rebel against the theft of their lands, was that not cold blooded murder? Looks like it to me. But then again, many white settlers had been murdered by those Sioux, so perhaps it was fully justified? Certainly John Pope thought so...as he wanted 300 odd of them hanged. Lincoln had blood on his hands...whichever way you look at this, as did many of those who gave the orders and made the decisions...on both sides.

I think the key issue here is there are those who gave the orders and those who followed them. History nearly always seems to focus on the end product of a crime, rather than what instigated it, led up to it and/or fuelled it.

I think in Powell's case, as with anyone involved with the war, it's not just black and white...there are many shades of grey.

Sherman was correct--War is Hell

I'm willing to bet if Powell's pistol hadn't misfired and he walked in and shot Seward, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I think it's evolved into an emotional issue because of the viciousness of the knife attack. Whether or not Powell was bamboozled by Booth into believing he would be acting under Confederate orders can't be proven, but I'm inclined to believe so. He tried to kill someone. If he was acting as a soldier, in his mind, Seward was just the enemy. It's no different to me than a sniper today killing the enemy from 1000 yards. Is that murder in wartime?

If Powell's gun hadn't misfired, he would have definitely shot Fred Seward, possibly the nurse George Robinson, definitely Secretary Seward and maybe Gus Seward on his way out. Or, maybe Gus, hearing the gunfire, would have grabbed his own gun and shot Powell on Powell's way out.

(02-07-2013 10:36 AM)J. Beckert Wrote:  I'm willing to bet if Powell's pistol hadn't misfired and he walked in and shot Seward, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I think it's evolved into an emotional issue because of the viciousness of the knife attack. Whether or not Powell was bamboozled by Booth into believing he would be acting under Confederate orders can't be proven, but I'm inclined to believe so. He tried to kill someone. If he was acting as a soldier, in his mind, Seward was just the enemy. It's no different to me than a sniper today killing the enemy from 1000 yards. Is that murder in wartime?

Just as I'm inclined to disagree, Joe. And actually, it is different from a sniper. A soldier in the field has the expectation that something like that can happen, and can guard against it. A man lying in his bed has no such defense. What was in Powell's mind or Booth's mind is irrelevant to the criminality, brutality and lawlessness of the act as it would have been if Dahlgren had succeeded in his raid, and it could be proven that it was approved at the highest levels of the Union government. Murder is murder, even in wartime.

Best
Rob

Quote:Murder is murder, even in wartime.

I disagree, Rob. If there's such a thing as an acceptable time to kill someone - it's wartime. Congress gives the go ahead to do so and off we go to kill people. It's unfortunate, but a fact of life. How can someone guard against a sniper they can't see that's a quarter of a mile away? Every enemy would have to wear a suit of armor.

You stated if the highest level of U.S. Gov't approved Dalhgren's raid and he had succeeded, it would still be murder. If it's sanctioned by the Gov't, during wartime, it's killing the enemy in war. Whether it's killing a soldier on the battlefield, shooting a General off his horse or taking out the enemy leader (like was done in Iraq), it's part of war.

When a police officer kills someone in the line of duty, is that murder? No. They are authorized to use deadly force, just as soldiers are. If you'll believe for a moment that Powell was "detached" for this assignment and the plans turned to murder (as he likely believed) by orders from the CSA, he was acting as a soldier. Many soldiers were killed in even more violent ways during the war. Hand to hand combat, bayonets, limbs torn off, etc. How humanely someone is killed doesn't really apply, no matter how repulsive it may be.

But even in wartime, Joe, we make differences for killing an enemy soldier and murder. Lt. William Calley had no defense and was originally sentenced to life imprisonment for My Lai. The Germans at Nuremberg could not use the defense "I was only following orders." There are rules to warfare, which if broken, can result in punishment as war crimes. However, even if one was to believe that Powell saw himself as a soldier, that cannot negate the fact that a majority of Americans, north and south, saw the war as being over.

A police officer can shoot someone in the line of duty. He/She, however, cannot do so without justification. Deadly force is the last resort, as I'm sure you know well and understand.

Best
Rob

(02-07-2013 10:36 AM)J. Beckert Wrote:  It's no different to me than a sniper today killing the enemy from 1000 yards. Is that murder in wartime?

That's exactly a question I've recently had. I read and hear about the actions of military snipers, and they are generally regarded as heroes, even if the United States isn't really at war and their targets pose no threat to American shores. Understand that I'm not judging and claiming that they are not American heroes, only pointing out that one man's cold blooded killer is another man's hero. Also, don't misunderstand and think I'm calling Powell a hero, because I'm certainly not. Of course, at the time, there were people who considered that he was. I doubt that anybody here on this forum has anything but contempt for what he did, though some of us view his actions from a different perspective.

As I've said before, I have a hard time calling Powell a cold blooded killer when it seems that he was remorseful after the fact. In order to be labelled a cold blooded killer, in my opinion, one must remain cold blooded after the fact. One's blood must always be cold. That's not to say that Powell, and many many other "regular" people, aren't capable of cold hearted acts.

Also, do you think Booth and his gang would be viewed differently if they were pro-Union, and had committed their acts against Jefferson Davis and company instead?

I see your reasoning, Rob, but it doesn't jive with the events. If Powell was killing innocent Yankees as Lt. Calley did to the Viet's, you'd have a point. Just because Gen. Lee surrendered the Army Of Northern Virginia, doesn't mean it was over. Lincoln himself said on April 14th., that he considered this the day the war came to a close. It was close to over, but close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. The Nazi's were following orders, but they were orders from a madman and against humanity, not the enemy. You're right there - they did have no defense. An order can be disobeyed if you believe it to be an illegal order. (I have my disciplinary hearing transcripts to prove it).

Deadly force is the last resort, but in this scenario, I believe Powell considered himself to be acting as a soldier, carrying out an order to use deadly force, as he later stated.

---

Quote:Also, do you think Booth and his gang would be viewed differently if they were pro-Union, and had committed their acts against Jefferson Davis and company instead?

Quote:

Booth never did anything more than wear a borrowed uniform he didn't earn the right to wear and play soldier for a few days. I feel Booth and Powell's actions are apples and oranges. Booth most likely hatched this plan on his own. Even if he was recognized as a CSA operative, I can't see how he got orders to carry this out. He had no authority to act. Powell stated he was a soldier following orders, which he had to have felt were coming from Booth through the CSA leaders. A mistake on his part that cost him his life.

Quote:Also, do you think Booth and his gang would be viewed differently if they were pro-Union, and had committed their acts against Jefferson Davis and company instead?

Obviously, i can only speak for myself, but to me the answer would be no. War is completely barbaric, but that's why there are rules which both sides follow, and for which people have been and continue to be charged with violating. Call if naive, but when one side would resort to violating that en masse, that side has lost any moral high ground it may have had.

Of course I make no secret that I'm happy the north won, and all that statement entails, but had it had to resort to the assassination of Davis or any other Confederate cabinet member, it would have been a Pyrrhic victory. I think that's part of the reason the north accepted the tenets of the Lieber Code.

And unless someone can show me a clear-cut case where the south could have fought on and won, the war was over.

Best
Rob