I'll agree war is the closest thing on this earth we'll see compared to hell.
Which is exactly where I suspect alot of the people who acted in such ways on both sides of the war will end up.

I'm not a flower child, but there is a higher law than the law of the land that we are accountable to.

http://www.oldmagazinearticles.com/Civil...l_Behavior and
http://www.confederatecolonel.com/2010/0...the-enemy/
Sometimes that is the more difficult way to live, and I admit I don't always measure up.

(11-20-2014 04:02 PM)Wild Bill Wrote:  That's your answer to a serious argument? Come on.

Rick:

Your point is well taken.

Bill:

I think Gene prefers to think of it as a discussion among friends rather than an argument. Me too.

John

Ah, John. Come down to Arizona. We can go over to Yuma. I have some ocean front property to show you.

(11-17-2014 03:47 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  8. Three witnesses at the trial testified that O'Laughlen was at Stanton's home on the night of the 13th. Their testimony was corroborated by Atzerodt in one of his confessions.

I realize the discussion has moved on to another topic. However, John, I do have a question when you have time. I am still trying to decide if I believe O'Laughlen really was the "stranger" who showed up at the Stantons' reception. I have an open mind. I am familiar with some of Atzerodt's statements/confessions, but I was unaware of the one you mentioned. I did a search and finally found it here. It was in the July 10, 1865, New York Times after being in the previous day's Baltimore American.

The article has a lot of information including Atzerodt's account of the kidnap plot.

The part where O'Laughlen is mentioned with regard to Stanton's house is at the end.

I am curious as to the source. No name is given that I see - all that is said is that the information regarding what Atzerodt said "was prepared by one who has Known him since his arrest." My question is how much credence can we place in a source where no name is given? Do you have more information on who the source was or how this information was obtained by the paper? Many thanks for any input.

(11-20-2014 05:05 PM)Wild Bill Wrote:  Ah, John. Come down to Arizona. We can go over to Yuma. I have some ocean front property to show you.

Ah, Bill. Come over to Paducah. We can sit down and enjoy a Moon Pie and an RC Cola.

(11-20-2014 04:19 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 04:02 PM)Wild Bill Wrote:  That's your answer to a serious argument? Come on.

Rick:

Your point is well taken.

Bill:

I think Gene prefers to think of it as a discussion among friends rather than an argument. Me too.

John

John,

I truly am looking forward to your book. See you at the Conference.

Rick

(11-20-2014 12:41 PM)Gene C Wrote:  We seem to be treading on dangerous ground with this.
Let me just say I don't know if it is written down, but assassination of heads of state is a very dangerouse road to travel, and in my opinion, it is not the prudent thing to do.

Just because the last troops haven't surrendered, doesn't mean the war isn't over. Several of Lee's troups offered to engage in guerrilla warfare and continue fighting when he surrendered his army and he told them no. If we want to get technical about it, I can't recall when President Lincoln ever publicaly called this a war, or requested congress to declare war.

War has nothing to do with prudence. Dating back to the cavemen, the object is to defeat your enemy.

The idea of continuing the Southern cause via guerrilla warfare was actually favored by President Davis, if I'm not mistaken.

"If we want to get technical about it, I can't recall when President Lincoln ever publicaly called this a war, or requested congress to declare war." Shades of Korea - and we're still there. Tell the thousands of Americans who died there that they weren't at war.

---

(11-20-2014 03:34 PM)Rick Smith Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 01:42 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 12:47 PM)Wild Bill Wrote:  Do you equate Booth's bullet with, say, the bullet that killed Sedgwick at Spotsylvania?


Yes, I do

Bill:

It follows, then , that none of the conspirators should have been arrested, but if arrested, they should then have been released. As for Booth, they should never have even pursued him; they should simply have allowed him to run off to Mexico or wherever, or even settle in Washington, for that matter, returning to the stage, unmolested. While we are at it, why prosecute any assassin of a head of state or any other government official during a time of war (e.g. Marat during the French Revolution; McKinley during the Spanish-American War; Kennedy during the Vietnam War). The Confederacy certainly did not view the Dahlgren orders with such magnanimity. On the contrary, they were outraged by the orders, called meetings to discuss and plan a proper response and then initiated a year of terror and laid plans for retribution in kind.

I don't think your argument holds up. The consequences of such an interpretation of assassination are unacceptable and, to my knowledge, not practiced anywhere. On the contrary, assassins are more likely to be killed on the spot, if possibile, without even a pretense of due process, whereas killings of the enemy in the field are never prosecuted as criminal acts.

John

John,

You seem to be laboring under some misapprehension. No one has said that Booth, et al, should not have been prosecuted and let go to Mexico. But if you think that heads of state are not targets during a time of war, you are, I think, being naïve. During any war, if enemy combatants are found operating behind lines, they are, or should be, dealt with. No one is condoning assassination either, just saying that it is a tool of war and always has been.

Rick

Thank you, Rick. From John's comments, I thought I was misinterpreting everything in this "interesting" interpretation of what is legal and illegal in times of war. At some points, it has seemed like one thing is said and then the same person turns around and contradicts what he has just said. I'm so confused.

(11-20-2014 05:05 PM)Wild Bill Wrote:  Ah, John. Come down to Arizona. We can go over to Yuma. I have some ocean front property to show you.

Bill, Rick, Laurie, Roger, Gene, Herb, et al.:

I never had much interest in real estate. In my lifetime I have bought only two houses. No commercial property at all. Truth, like a good woman, holds a greater allure, together with cheese and a drink.

What we all seem to be missing in this friendly discussion, though I touched upon it in an earlier posting, is the fact that a distinction is made in the laws of war between killing in the field and killing off the field (How could it be otherwise?) and that Booth and his action team acted in violation of such laws. Accordingly, those still alive were prosecuted not for a civil crime in violation of the laws of the District of Columbia, but for a violation of Article 82 of General Order 100 (the Lieber Code). The Article provides that "men...who commit hostilities ...without sharing continuously in the war, but who...return to their homes and avocations...divesting themselves of the character or appearance of soldiers...are not public enemies, and, therefore, if captured, are not entitled to the privileges of prisoners of war, but shall be treated summarily as highway robbers or pirates". Booth's bullet, therefore, most certainly DOES NOT equate with the one that ended Sedgwick's days. But Bill, I'm sure you already knew that. How could you not know it? Shall we identify the sharpshooter and try him for murder?

John

(11-20-2014 05:06 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 03:47 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  8. Three witnesses at the trial testified that O'Laughlen was at Stanton's home on the night of the 13th. Their testimony was corroborated by Atzerodt in one of his confessions.

I realize the discussion has moved on to another topic. However, John, I do have a question when you have time. I am still trying to decide if I believe O'Laughlen really was the "stranger" who showed up at the Stantons' reception. I have an open mind. I am familiar with some of Atzerodt's statements/confessions, but I was unaware of the one you mentioned. I did a search and finally found it here. It was in the July 10, 1865, New York Times after being in the previous day's Baltimore American.

The article has a lot of information including Atzerodt's account of the kidnap plot.

The part where O'Laughlen is mentioned with regard to Stanton's house is at the end.

I am curious as to the source. No name is given that I see - all that is said is that the information regarding what Atzerodt said "was prepared by one who has Known him since his arrest." My question is how much credence can we place in a source where no name is given? Do you have more information on who the source was or how this information was obtained by the paper? Many thanks for any input.

Roger:

Certainty is rarely achievable. Possibilities are infinite. We must, therefore, content ourselves with PROBABILITIES. Does the July 10 Times article comport with other sources re the conspiracy? Yes. "Hurline" is obviously Harbin. Atzerodt (Atz) knew the lay of the land. He knew Herold. Surratt went several times to Port Tobacco (P.T.). He sent Atz to Washington, where he was known as P.T. He was poorly regarded. "Geteers" is obviously Gautiers. Everyone mentioned was there, plus Powell. "Seventh-street read (road)" is obviously the Campbell Hospital mess. Herold left with the carbines for P.T. "Branner" is obviously Brawner. The plan "failed" because Lincoln didn't show. Everyone scattered to Baltimore, New York, etc. Everything else is similarly consistent. Why then should we doubt the veracity of the last sentence in the article when everything else squares? The confession was made right before Atz's execution. What reason did he have to lie? It was reported to the Times right after the execution. What reason did its reporter have to lie? Couple this with the degree of certainty of the I.D. at Stanton's (I was standing a step above him, looking directly into his face, which was illuminated by the light, etc.), the fact that Booth went to Baltimore the morning of the 13th to summon O'Laughlen and then returned to Washington, the fact that O'Laughlen went from Baltimore to Washington that afternoon, arrived at 5:30 and went immediately to see Booth, and then went to see him again the following morning, and what is the PROBABILITY? IMO it is that O'Laughlen was at Stanton's on Thursday night, but that another man or men attempted to murder the Secretary on Friday night, just as another man rode on Grant's train to Burlington for the purpose of killing him and still other men probably made still other attempts (per "Johnston" and "T.I.O.S.) that were only weakly recorded or not recorded at all.

John

re post #129

Spoken like a true 20th-21st century lawyer, John. Laws of war? GO No. 100, AGO (1863) were Union laws. You assume that the Confederacy did not exist as an independent government. They never approved of Lincoln's laws. Interesting thing about GO 100. I did a look into the Freedmen's Bureau officers in Texas after the war and they never gave evidence of ever seeing GO 100 even though it was included in their packet of rules and regulations. When it comes down to it there are no laws of war. These are forms used by the winning side to wreak vengeance upon the losers. GO 100 was a Union order to justify the war from their point of view, nothing more.

BTW The crack about Arizona land was my convoluted way of dismissing your arguments as your usual legalistic bovine scatology. I ought to know. I am a renowned bovin game scatologist myself. When the shooting starts the first casualty is law. There are no rules of engagement as American lawyers impose on our men and women at war. It is a good way to lose the whole ball game.

(11-21-2014 10:13 AM)Wild Bill Wrote:  You assume that the Confederacy did not exist as an independent government. They never approved of Lincoln's laws.

Since you brought it up, I was just curious. Did any foreign countries recognized the Confederacy as an independent government?

In all honesty, I do not know, but I doubt it.

Thanks Bill, I wasn't sure

(11-21-2014 12:46 PM)Gene C Wrote:  Thanks Bill, I wasn't sure

Gene:

No country recognized the Confederacy. Great Britain might have, because there was a lot of sentiment for the South among her ruling class (Their mouthpiece, The London Times, was solidly pro-South), but the diplomacy of Charles Francis Adams, the fact that her intelligence services felt a Confederate victory was unlikely and that she would therefore have to deal with a re-united United States, and the fact that crop failures due to weather made Northern wheat more valuable to her than Southern cotton, prevented it. France would not do so without Britain. There was another factor: Two Russian fleets dropped anchor in American waters in 1863, one in New York, one in San Francisco. The officers and seaman from the New York fleet were feted to a magnificent parade up Broadway, complete with music, Russian and American flags, etc. St. Ptersburg was effectively serving notice on Britain and France that if they intervened on the side of the Confederacy, that she would intervene on the side of the Union. St. Petersburg wanted an American ally because she was then engaged in a major struggle with G.B. and France for the control of Cental Asia.

John

How about-The Confederacy-a conquered province?