(05-20-2015 07:52 AM)Juan Marrero Wrote:  Thank you, LincolnToddFan, that is very generous.

It is a real pleasure to be in communication with such a great group of folks who share a passionate interest in the most crucial half-decade of American history and in the Greatest American!

I think Geronimo was the Greatest American.

(05-21-2015 07:28 AM)Rick Smith Wrote:  I think Geronimo was the Greatest American.

Interesting Rick, since I don't know much about Geronimo, would you share with us why you think that?

(05-21-2015 08:50 AM)Gene C Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 07:28 AM)Rick Smith Wrote:  I think Geronimo was the Greatest American.

Interesting Rick, since I don't know much about Geronimo, would you share with us why you think that?

Mostly, because he fought the Blue Coats.

Ok. Let’s look at the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, totally devoid of the modern hero worship, so aptly portrayed in the blogs of Juan Marrero, Herb Swingle, and others.

First, we must realize that we are talking about war, not crime. Under the system of government put forth by the Founding Fathers in the US Constitution of 1789, the civilian branches of government of the United States command the armed forces, with the president as commander in chief and backed by the branches of the Defense Department (as of 1947). In 1865, these branches of the Defense Department were individual cabinet offices. The Confederacy was run in exactly the same manner.

Thus the president was a legitimate military target. After the revelation of the plans of the Kilpatrick-Dahlgren operation to assassinate Jefferson Davis and his cabinet in 1864, the whole gentlemanly conduct of the war changed, brought about by the inability of either side to win the war in the field. This was before Gen. US Grant’s Overland Campaign of 1864, but the stalemate in the field as US forces failed to capture Richmond and Atlanta only increased the Union frustrations.

Copying what the Confederates saw as Lincoln’s changing the nature of the war with the failed Kilpatrick-Dahlgren raid, Jefferson Davis and his civilian advisors conceived of similar approach—take Lincoln out of the war. This would seriously affect the Union forces ability in an area known nowadays as C3I, i.e., Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence. The disruption of the Union C3I system would also allow the Confederates to institute their Campaign of 1865—the abandonment of Richmond and he joining the two major armies in the East (Lee in Virginia and Joe Johnston in North Carolina) under the command of Robert E. Lee. The Rebs were to travel by rail, destroying the tracks as they passed. Grant would be stuck in the Virginia mud, as April was a very rainy month. Lee and Johnston would defeat Sherman in NC and move back to Va and hit Grant as his army moved in a disjointed manner along the roads.

The man picked out to handle Lincoln’s removal was John Wilkes Booth. The Confederates saw not the madman that we have seen offered up in this blog, but a superb rider, smuggler of quinine, and a crack shot. He was he most famous actor of his day, a profession that allowed him great mobility and opportunity to travel without raising undue suspicion. Yeah, he was an egotist, womanizer, drinker, but he was also a loyal partisan of the South. When he sought help, he relied on friends (Arnold, O’Laughlen), fellow agents (Surratt), and those with talents he needed to carry out his plan (Herold, who knew Southern Maryland like the back of his hand; Atzerodt, who could cross the Potomac at will, day or night; and Powell, a superb rider with Mosby and a trained killer with4 years experience in war).

At first Booth was to capture (not kidnap—it is a war objective not a crime) Lincoln and spirit him to Richmond and try him for Northern excesses in prosecuting the war in the South. But as the war proceeded in favor of the North, more and more Southerners felt that Lincoln, whom they saw as a worse tyrant than George III, should pay the ultimate price for starting the war. It was too late to capture, now he would be assassinated.

Richmond sent powderman Thomas Harney to blow up the White house. But Harney was captured just outside Washington. He was to be led into the Whitehouse basement by Booth and his compatriots. Now Booth wondered where Harney was, found him in the Old Capitol Prison though informants, and decided to do Harney’s job for him. Explosives were beyond the ken of Booth and his men so they reverted to normal weapons—revolvers, knives. The targets were Lincoln (Booth), Johnson (Atzerodt), Seward (Powell), Stanton (Olaughlen), and Grant (Surratt). So Booth and his cohorts carried out a MILITARY OPERATION to nullify the C3I of the Union Forces in the field. At the time only Lee’s army had surrendered, and his was the smallest force in the field for the Confederacy.

That only Booth was successful is immaterial. What really killed the intent of the Confederacy’s Campaign of 1865 was that Grant’s army moved faster than it should have because the rain normal in Virginia in April did not arrive on time. This allowed Grant to beat Lee to Amelia Station and cut off the rails to the South and Johnston.

In this light, 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.”
Booth was no madman. He was a soldier just like the others, doing his duty, however unsuccessfully it may have been done.

I give you all the following bibliography, most of which, regrettably, is xeroxed in my private collection:
David Winfred Gaddy, “Under a Southern Rose: Of a Time when CIA Meant “Confederate Intelligence Activities’.”
William Hanchett, “Lincoln’s Assassination as a Military Necessity.”
William Hanchett, “John Wilkes Booth and the Terrible Truth about the Civil War.”
William A. Tidwell, James O. Hall, and David W. Gaddy, Come Retribution.
William L. Richter, Last Confederate Heroes.

Thanks Bill, can't speak for the others, but I found your answer reasonable and rational, something to ponder over and look further into since I will admit I have probably more opinion than knowledgeable facts regarding some of your statements. Thanks, you always give me something to consider and think about.

Bill, I think your input is wonderful because otherwise we would risk becoming a church choir with any number of "Hosannahs" issuing daily.

Come to think of it (but not in anyway implying that there is any sympathy for JWB's actions on this Forum), there is one assassin I happen to like very much. As you probably know, during the Terror of the French Revolution, Charlotte Corday, a very young (19 or so if I recall) Norman woman, killed Marat, the Swiss-born, publisher-agitator.

Charlotte was intially an enthusiast of France's republican revolution. However Robespierre lost her to the cause when he decided that the best way to change minds was to cut off heads. Robespierre's work was aided by the helpful lists compiled and published daily by Marat suggesting suitable subjects for immediate decapitation. The effects of this policy began to be seen in Charlotte's native Normandy. Charlotte then decided that she would do what a young girl had to do, after all Joan of Arc would have done no less.

Properly brought up, Charlotte wrote a letter of apology to her father asking forgiveness for leaving for Paris without his permission. Once in Paris, she went straight to Marat's house, telling the doorkeeper that she had a list of anti-revolutionary suspects for Marat's consideration. The housekeeper wanted to send her off, but Marat had overheard from his bath where he was soaking for a painful chronic skin condition the sound of a young woman's voice. Intrigued, he ordered that she be brought into his sanctum. Instead of a list, Charlotte had a knife which she expertly used.

Done with her work, she sat down to await her own arrest. She explained later that she did not want anyone else to be charged with what she had done alone. The artist David went on to depict Marat dead in his bath in an hagiographic piece of propaganda that helped turn Marat, for a while, as the Revolution's martyr of liberty.

As for Charlotte, she was guillotined several days later, stoic and uncomplaining as ever. I will not speculate on her mental health status!

I posit that JWB was no Charlotte Corday because AL was no Marat.

Thank you, Bill, for giving a great history lesson that should make sense to anyone who understands that the strategy of war is basically to inflict the most damage as possible to the enemy. The occurence of one event usually depends on what the outcome of the previous event(s) has been. Bill has given you a very clear picture of how the last few months of the Civil War led to dire consequences -- but all within the pervue of war.

Forty years ago (when there were still cowboy and Indian movies on television), I used to ask fourth graders who were visiting Surratt House who the first person was that the U.S. forces went after when they fought the Indians for control of the West. The majority of them knew right away that the correct answer was "The Indian Chief!" Why do we have such a hard time figuring it out?

BTW: James O. Hall once said that he thought the story of Booth being crazy was started by the Confederates to throw suspicion off of them

Juan - To his enemies at that time, Mr. Lincoln was a Marat.

Well said, Laurie and Roger. And thank you.

[To his enemies at that time, Mr. Lincoln was a Marat.
[/quote]
I agree that that was then a reasonable enough take from his enemies' perspective.

Jim's and Mrs. Verge's posts about war tactics remind me of something my mother always used to say: "in a quarrel people don't throw flowers." The Civil War obviously was the biggest American quarel ever. At least many of the ideas that were disputed then are still relevant--federal v. State control, etc. Think of how little relevant now seem the issues Europeans fought over in WWI!

(05-21-2015 02:09 PM)Pamela Wrote:  I believe Booth was driven by "demons" in as much as his narcissism was so profound, that his "political" talk and writings said more about his psychology than any political reality. Narcissism is underrated; psychopaths get most of the attention, but narcissists also have no empathy and can be enormously destructive people.

I want to point out to Jenny that your signature Booth quote is a perfect example of my opinion.

"Right or wrong, God judge me, not man." - I think I see where you might be coming from there but I still don't agree. Please explain further?

Wild Bill, your post is wonderful in every way. I agree with your assessments on Booth and the war completely (that might be surprising to hear after what else I've written in this thread since everyone seems to interpret that I was saying Booth was insane).

(05-21-2015 03:10 PM)Jenny Wrote:  [quote='Pamela' pid='47947' dateline='1432235360']
I believe Booth was driven by "demons" in as much as his narcissism was so profound, that his "political" talk and writings said more about his psychology than any political reality. Narcissism is underrated; psychopaths get most of the attention, but narcissists also have no empathy and can be enormously destructive people.

I want to point out to Jenny that your signature Booth quote is a perfect example of my opinion.

"Right or wrong, God judge me, not man." - I think I see where you might be coming from there but I still don't agree. Please explain further?"

The Booth statement demonstrates his sense of grandiosity, a trait of narcissism. It may be that other men are judged by other men (Like he judged Lincoln and gave him a death sentence, which showed that Booth felt like he had all the rights and power of a nation wrapped up in one man) but he was above all that. There are so many examples of his narcissism, not the least of which was his choice of Lincoln's death scene, a theater, and his leap to the stage to show the world his "greatness". He could have shot Lincoln in so many other places, but that was his choice, a place with a stage for him to strut victoriously while the world watched.

This is a quite excellent and well written article from the archives of The Atlantic entitled "John Wilkes Booth and The Higher Law". It's theme is that higher law, or moral law was considered the ideal in the 19th century and that it superseded mere man made law. I am too lazy and not articulate enough to give a blow by blow analysis of this article but basically it states what I agree with...John Brown, John Wilkes Booth, and Abraham Lincoln were all convinced that they were pursuing a course that was sanctifioned by Higher Law.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch...aw/385461/

Excellent article.

I'll read the article, but just a quick comment, a first impression. Lincoln spent his entire adult life working within man's law, the law of our great democracy. He cherished American law, it's fair to say. Booth and Brown, not so much, to put it mildly.

I daresay that Booth and Brown would disagree. It is not man's law but higher law they were interested in--the same higher law William H. Seward talked about in the 1850s.