Though old news now: http://www.foxbaltimore.com/news/feature...Zgq4r7D8dU

Note: A couple things they say are incorrect. The Booth obelisk does have John Wilkes' name on it and the white marker with the pennies on it is Asia Booth's foot stone. Also the Booth family asked for Booth's body much earlier than 1869 but that is when they finally received it.

Nice one Dave! When I started this particular thread, I felt there were similarities in the stories. Glad to see someone else thinks so too.

Aside from one of the bombers possibly being buried in a unmarked grave, you still really can't compare the two men. It was two completely different times, situations, and backgrounds.

Kate -

I agree one hundred percent -

Blessings crown the head of the righteous,
but violence overwhelms the mouth of the wicked.
The memory of the righteous will be a blessing,
but the name of the wicked will rot.

Proverbs 10: 6 & 7

And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.

Mark 11:25

If Debate Club has taught me anything, I should explain my opinions. Let me explain what I meant before. I wasn't referring to the Boston Bombers. I was referring to the case of Booth. Both acts were horrible and caused grief and pain. I am not saying that we forgive the Boston Bombers. Murder with no cause is inexcusable. We can only hope that the tragedy will bring people together and we can stop the hate with love. No, I am not saying that Gene was hating on anyone. He makes a very valid point. I'm just raising another point on the subject of Booth (not the Boston Bombers).

In the case of Booth, it's hard to compare him to the Boston Bombers because the time was so different. America was divided in half. There was no unification. There was North and South and both had different ways of life. Booth thought that he was going to be a patriot for the South, his country, his American. I'm not saying that assassinating President Lincoln was not wrong. It was very wrong. However, in order to understand the workings of Booth's mind, we have to look with somewhat of an unbiased eye and not just toss him aside as a bloodthirsty killer.

We all make mistakes. Some mistakes are just worse than others. To understand why a man who had everything going for him would commit the first presidential assassination, we have to somewhat forgive the mind of that man and look deeper into his thoughts and life. I'm not saying that we excuse his error. However, we have to not focus so much on it. To do that, we have to accept it and learn to forgive that lost soul.

John Wilkes Booth wasn't always an assassin. He had many friends and admirers, his sister loved him, and he was a popular actor. The name John Wilkes Booth was once renowned. To understand what drove him down such a dark path, we need to realize that he wasn't always an assassin. I believe it takes some forgiveness to accept that he did have good qualities too.

Kate: I agree. I think in the case of Booth and the bombers- they chose to kill because of their ideology. Although, in the case of the bombers, it hasn't been established what they were thinking, has it?

No, I don't think any reason has been given for the Boston Bombers, just a few "they hated America" rumors.

. . . It has been the contention of historian and Lincoln Assassination scholar, William Hanchett, that we should accord Booth the “respectability of rational political motivation.” Booth, Hanchett suggested, “deserves a measure of respect we so generously and indiscriminately pay to men on both sides of the war who fought, killed, and died for what they believed. When we are able to make this concession to Booth,” Hanchett concluded, “we will truly understand how terrible the Civil War was.” from Hanchett, JWB and the Terrible Truth about the Civil War, 34-35, as quoted in Richter, Sic Semper Tyrannis: Why JWB Shot AL (Bloomington: iUniverse, 2009), 184-5.

The Civil War has been so over-romanticized that most people forget how horrible it really was; I agree with Hanchett's concession. (Excellent quote, Mr. Richter!) Not sure how many people will agree with me.

Both the Boston Bombers and John Wilkes Booth chose to kill due to ideology... but their ideologies were extremely different. Although we do not know specifics, last I heard the bombers were extremists out to "punish America" for the wars overseas. John Wilkes Booth, in my opinion, genuinely thought he could help save or avenge the South, his country (his America as Kate said), in his crazy little head by shooting Lincoln, the commander in chief of the United States Armed Forces. Not to mention the world was a very different place in almost all respects when you consider how things were in the 19th century versus the 21st century, especially during the Civil War.

The way both parties went about killing and who was involved are also incomparable in my opinion. So I still see absolutely no comparison between the Lincoln assassination and the Boston Bombing other than superficial ones such as the body of the culprit not being buried right away.

Kate, you must have been very good in Debate Club!

(05-19-2013, 12:32 PM)william l. richter Wrote: . . . It has been the contention of historian and Lincoln Assassination scholar, William Hanchett, that we should accord Booth the “respectability of rational political motivation.” Booth, Hanchett suggested, “deserves a measure of respect we so generously and indiscriminately pay to men on both sides of the war who fought, killed, and died for what they believed. When we are able to make this concession to Booth,” Hanchett concluded, “we will truly understand how terrible the Civil War was.” from Hanchett, JWB and the Terrible Truth about the Civil War, 34-35, as quoted in Richter, Sic Semper Tyrannis: Why JWB Shot AL (Bloomington: iUniverse, 2009), 184-5.

I don't agree with this statement at all, and I could be taking it out of the context in which it was written but, Booth does not desereve "the respectability of rational political motivation". I can understand the civil war was terrible, I can even understand why Booth felt the way he did, but he took his feelings and beliefs beyond the rational actions of man. He fed his anger till it grew into an uncontrolable hate that he was able to rationalize as right. What he did was wrong, period.

Booth was not acting under battlefield conditions. Hurting innocent individuals because of your ideolody, and knowing that you could be caught or killed for your actions might be considered brave but it is not honorable.

I agree with most of what has previously been posted. The feelings of forgiveness is difficult since 150 years have passed. Had I been personally affected by the tragedy that night it would certainly require a strong will and deep sense of humility to forgive.

According to the rationality of his motives - I could "follow" he viewed assassination as a (last) way to prevent black suffrage, but I wonder if he himself really believed at that point in time (as it is said) a resulting electional disorder and chaos could maintain Southern independence.

I don't think he was thinking that far ahead, unfortunately. He *wasn't* being rational. :/ The entire change of plans from a kidnapping to assassination seems like a spur of the moment change over three days and was not well thought out or planned period in my opinion. Plus I personally think Booth himself was mentally unstable by that point. (Example: His inability to remember what year it was on the day of the assassination.)

I believe that Booth was acting mostly from a self-inflated ego that transcended the bounds of reason when he assassinated Lincoln. There is no doubt that he held the Southern ideology close to his heart. However, he must have known (even if it was on a subconscious level) that southern independence was doomed when Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox. Besides Booth and Jefferson Davis (who was also mentally lying to himself) the leaders of the Confederacy along with influential southerners were smart enough to see that it was all over for them.

I am no psychologist, but my layman's perspective on Booth's mindset would put him in the category of a Persecutory type of delusional behavior. He believed "he" was being wronged, and the people he associated with himself were being wronged, therefore he set out on a course for revenge to settle the perceived wrong.

Craig