Or, if you want to believe the theorists, they could have all snuck out the back door of that barn and become bank robbers in the Old Wild West!

That's right, Laurie -- remember that Jesse James and his brother Frank had also been guerrilla fighters in the war like Powell!

I always felt bad for Billy Clanton. he had more courage than the rest of the Clanton's and McClarey's put together.

Craig

(08-30-2012 08:00 AM)Linda Anderson Wrote:  

(08-30-2012 07:53 AM)BettyO Wrote:  Possibly at that juncture, Powell was more or less wanting to just get out of the house and away. He may have known he had failed and was just concerned with getting out.

Betty, why do you think Powell tried to cut Seward's throat rather than stab him in the heart?

Thanks for asking this question. I've asked myself the same: Why didn't Powell just stab him in the chest? Don't get me wrong but if I would be an assassin and find myself in that situation as Powell found himself, I probably would try to stab into the most accessible target. A target I cannot miss. The body. Maybe Powell stabbed Seward in the face because of the tons of blankets around Sewards body. I don't know. BettyO wrote: "He simply just began to strike wildly and randomly [...]" - Wildy, yes. But randomly? Didn't Powell try to cut Sewards throat? This seems to me quite targeted. I imagine to stab someone in the head, in the face is a very cruel act. Powell surely panicked but I guess there was also pure hatred involved. Not against Seward personnaly, of course, but Seward must appeared to him as the incarnation of everything Powell had fought against in the preceding years. And he didn't want to fail. I think in that very moment Powell really wanted to kill Seward.

(09-09-2012 07:41 AM)Claudine Wrote:  

(08-30-2012 08:00 AM)Linda Anderson Wrote:  

(08-30-2012 07:53 AM)BettyO Wrote:  Possibly at that juncture, Powell was more or less wanting to just get out of the house and away. He may have known he had failed and was just concerned with getting out.

Betty, why do you think Powell tried to cut Seward's throat rather than stab him in the heart?

Thanks for asking this question. I've asked myself the same: Why didn't Powell just stab him in the chest? Don't get me wrong but if I would be an assassin and find myself in that situation as Powell found himself, I probably would try to stab into the most accessible target. A target I cannot miss. The body. Maybe Powell stabbed Seward in the face because of the tons of blankets around Sewards body. I don't know. BettyO wrote: "He simply just began to strike wildly and randomly [...]" - Wildy, yes. But randomly? Didn't Powell try to cut Sewards throat? This seems to me quite targeted. I imagine to stab someone in the head, in the face is a very cruel act. Powell surely panicked but I guess there was also pure hatred involved. Not against Seward personnaly, of course, but Seward must appeared to him as the incarnation of everything Powell had fought against in the preceding years. And he didn't want to fail. I think in that very moment Powell really wanted to kill Seward.

Such clumsy attempts at killing speak to me of someone who had never done it.

Agreed, Maddie; and of someone had had panicked. As I stated, Powell was not prepared to use his knife and had more or less never used one before. I think that he had thought to use his gun; not a knife. He thereby panicked while resorting to the other weapon - and thank God for that!

(09-09-2012 09:58 AM)MaddieM Wrote:  Such clumsy attempts at killing speak to me of someone who had never done it.

Yep. And he was very sorry for what he did, as Betty has proved. I cold blooded murderer would not waste his time with bad conscience.

A man of good conscience wouldn't have been there in the first place.

Best
Rob

Wasn't Seward struggling as best as he could and George Robinson wrestling with Powell as best he could? It's hard to hit a moving target, especially with a knife I would imagine, and with another man hopping on you and trying to pull you off.

(09-09-2012 12:26 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  A man of good conscience wouldn't have been there in the first place.

Best
Rob

It could be argued that war has no conscience

This was not an act of war. It was murder (or attempted murder).

Best
Rob

(09-09-2012 01:48 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  This was not an act of war. It was murder (or attempted murder).

Best
Rob

there seems to be argument that it was an act of war, just as Lincoln's murder was. I agree it was totally unacceptable either way. But rather than excuses it, does explain it.

Were not all the casualties of war murder victims?

It is an argument I disagree with. I think what explains it is that one man who was precipitously close to the edge was thrown over the edge when Lincoln announced that he wanted to give the vote to some black men who had fought for their country, and that a group of hangers-on who were enthralled with him were happy to do whatever he asked. One was willing to attack an invalid in his bed and to nearly kill him and other innocent victims.

And as for your last point, I'm not enough of a philosopher to answer that. I will say, however, that most people who go to war see the difference. When you face an enemy, generally that enemy has a weapon similar to yours and has the same chance that you do of either surviving or being killed. That did not apply in this case.

Best
Rob

(09-09-2012 02:48 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  It is an argument I disagree with. I think what explains it is that one man who was precipitously close to the edge was thrown over the edge when Lincoln announced that he wanted to give the vote to some black men who had fought for their country, and that a group of hangers-on who were enthralled with him were happy to do whatever he asked. One was willing to attack an invalid in his bed and to nearly kill him and other innocent victims.

And as for your last point, I'm not enough of a philosopher to answer that. I will say, however, that most people who go to war see the difference. When you face an enemy, generally that enemy has a weapon similar to yours and has the same chance that you do of either surviving or being killed. That did not apply in this case.

Best
Rob

yes, that's a good point. However, there are nearly always peripheral victims of war - those innocents caught in the cross fire, be it literally or emotionally. All war has far reaching effects. And we would be naive to believe that only those wielding the weapons are the ones who die.

I personally think that the conspirators were just as much victims of the war as Lincoln and Seward with one exception. They didn't start it.

Neither did Lincoln or Seward. The firing upon Fort Sumter in 1861 was spearheaded by secessionists, of which Booth and Powell etc., supported...one in uniform, the other out.

Best
Rob