Booth's Mental health

[Jenny]

(05-21-2015 04:10 PM)Pamela Wrote:  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.

Oh boy. I'm not even going to get into that one.

As for the quote, I am going to think about how to respond for a while. I still do not see it in that context at all. Thank you for going into detail though.

[Gene C]

Bill, I'm going to disagree with you regarding your post #49, but acknowlege you're better at stating your points more clearly than I am.

First, while many of us admire and respect Lincoln, your use of the term "hero worship" is an exageration.

Second, this was a crime, and committed during a period of war. Just because Lincoln was Commander in Chief does not exclude Booth's actions from being a crime. Booth had no military documentation (as the supposed documents Kirpatrick-Dahlgren people carried) explaining, justifying, or authoriizing his actions as a military operation. As far as I know, no one in the Confederate Gov't ever claimed he did have their approval and authority to act as he did, and I don't recall if ever Booth claimed he did have their approval.

Third, Lincoln was not a legitimate military target. He was not on a battlefield involved in the specific and direct management of a military engagement. Grant would be a military target. Lincoln was a political target. Had he been on the battlefield directing the armies in combat with the enemy, he would become a military target. As such, his death did not determine the outcome of an individual military engagement. The decision regarding the continuation of war was a political decison. And even if you disagree with me, the military actions of the war at this time would not change with Lincoln's death, so he can not be considered a legitimate military target. There was no military benefit in his death.

Fourth, I have serious doubts about the orders regarding the Kilpatrik-Dahlgren raid which subject has been discussed previously.
http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussio...t=dahlgren

Fifth, had Lee escaped from Grant, I serously doubt Lee and Johnson could have defeated Sherman, they were out numbered and under equiped (but we will never know)

I'll stop here since those are the foundations of you comments, and I don't like long posts.
*** Disclaimer - Please recognize this discussion is purely an academic exercise, with no personal animosity or harsh feeling on my part. I respect your knowledge and opinions and enjoy learning from you.

[Pamela]

I said Booth and Brown weren't interested in man's law. So Booth's higher law meant enslavement? Wouldn't that be a lower law? And wasn't Brown a kind of anarchist, a law unto himself who decided who he felt like butchering? He was against slavery and apparently against the laws of the Union in order to achieve his goals. Seward's higher law was a goal he worked toward within man's laws, not by disregarding them.

[L Verge]

Just two points, and then I'm going to fix dinner: Not necessarily referring to people on this forum, but there are definitely people who "hero worship" Mr. Lincoln to the point of turning a blind eye to history. I have met many. Be assured, however, that I personally feel that Americans need to have a tad more hero worship of some of our leaders over the centuries than what they have now. It's pure and simple patriotism to do so. We need more statesmen - with statesman-like qualities to look up to.

Your point about Lincoln not being a military target was, I believe, denied by his own governmental officers who used the points of his being Commander-in-Chief of the military who had come under fire while on the battlefield (Ft. Stevens) and who was actively involved in war matters and ruled from a city under martial law when they justified the creation of the military tribunal in 1865.

[Rick Smith]

(05-21-2015 04:45 PM)Gene C Wrote:  Bill, I'm going to disagree with you regarding your post #49, but acknowlege you're better at stating your points more clearly than I am.

First, while many of us admire and respect Lincoln, your use of the term "hero worship" is an exageration.

Second, this was a crime, and committed during a period of war. Just because Lincoln was Commander in Chief does not exclude Booth's actions from being a crime. Booth had no military documentation (as the supposed documents Kirpatrick-Dahlgren people carried) explaining, justifying, or authoriizing his actions as a military operation. As far as I know, no one in the Confederate Gov't ever claimed he did have their approval and authority to act as he did, and I don't recall if ever Booth claimed he did have their approval.

Third, Lincoln was not a legitimate military target. He was not on a battlefield involved in the specific and direct management of a military engagement. Grant would be a military target. Lincoln was a political target. Had he been on the battlefield directing the armies in combat with the enemy, he would become a military target. As such, his death did not determine the outcome of an individual military engagement. The decision regarding the continuation of war was a political decison. And even if you disagree with me, the military actions of the war at this time would not change with Lincoln's death, so he can not be considered a legitimate military target. There was no military benefit in his death.

Fourth, I have serious doubts about the orders regarding the Kilpatrik-Dahlgren raid which subject has been discussed previously.
http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussio...t=dahlgren

Fifth, had Lee escaped from Grant, I serously doubt Lee and Johnson could have defeated Sherman, they were out numbered and under equiped (but we will never know)

I'll stop here since those are the foundations of you comments, and I don't like long posts.
*** Disclaimer - Please recognize this discussion is purely an academic exercise, with no personal animosity or harsh feeling on my part. I respect your knowledge and opinions and enjoy learning from you.

What does the fact that Booth had no orders on his person have to do with the event? By the nature of the type of operation he was involved in, he would carry no orders.

It is naïve to think that Lincoln was not a target during a time of war. He was commander in chief of all Union forces; of course he was a target. This is one of the things that war is about. Lincoln's killing was an act of war during a time of war.

Lincoln talked a lot about death, his own death. You better believe he did, especially after the Dahlgren and Wistar raids, whose object was to eliminate Jefferson Davis.

After the failed raids, Lincoln knew they were coming for him.

[HerbS]

THANK You Bill!YOU KNOW YOUR HISTORY!

[Thomas Thorne]

"After the failed raids, Lincoln knew they were coming for him." To quote Rick Smith

Was anyone as insouciant about his own safety as Abraham Lincoln? I don't believe Lincoln believed the Confederate government was seeking his death.

The "Come Retribution" thesis is fascinating but has yet to convince me. One key factor is the failure of the US government after the assassination when it was seeking evidence of the involvement of the Confederate government to latch on to the elements of the "Come Retribution' conspiracy if it existed would be in its possession.

The idea that Charles Dunham and friends were an elaborate ruse to discredit the idea of a general conspiracy is too clever by half. Such an idea ran the risk that in its eagerness to believe Jefferson Davis et al were conspirators, The US government might hang them based on the bogus evidence or discover the real evidence of conspiracy.

One of the most fascinating questions in all this is how quickly Republican elites rejected the idea of Confederate participation as Mrs Clement Clay discovered when seeking her husband's release.

Tom

[Juan Marrero]

Interesting that this thread began with a suggestion that JWB may have labored under a mental condition that we might today identify and mark as one suitable for pharmaceutical or "talk" therapy. That would not mean that he was a de jure or de facto member of the Confederate intelligence service, a fine or mediocre actor, a romantic young man or just a serial womanizer. Trying to understand the character of major historical figures is a perfectly legitimate exercise that may be useful in understanding the kind of leadership we desire for the present and the future.

Booth believed in what he believed and acted in a manner consistent with those beliefs informed by the "content of his character." The thread merely sought to discuss his character, whether it was free from mental concerns that may help explain his tactical choices.

Again, as I mentioned in connection with St. Francis of Assisi (a comparison that not even the most ardent Boothies should mind too much), people can change direction but not their very nature. Booth's ardent, voluble, dynamic, inconstant nature took him in a certain direction that I loath.

[Gene C]

Rick, we probably agree on more than we disagree.

I agree that Booth had no written orders for his actions. In regards to Booth you stated, "By the nature of the type operation he was involved in, he would carry no orders" I believe that holds true for Dahlgren too. I'm not convinced the orders found on Dahlgren are authentic. As far as I know, those orders are the only record to indicate his objective was to eliminate Jefferson Davis. Some where, some how, those original papers were lost or destroyed, if they ever existed.

I agree with you that Lincoln was a target. But to kill him anytime after Nov 64' and think it would have an influence on the military out come of the war doesn't stand with me .
I believe Booth made a statement to the effect "I no longer have a country left"
Target, yes. Legitimate Military Target, no. Military target or not, he still was killed, which was Booth's objective.
The why and how will always be an interesting discussion

[HerbS]

Great post Juan and Gene,I agree with you 100%.

[L Verge]

(05-22-2015 07:22 AM)Gene C Wrote:  Rick, we probably agree on more than we disagree.

I agree that Booth had no written orders for his actions. In regards to Booth you stated, "By the nature of the type operation he was involved in, he would carry no orders" I believe that holds true for Dahlgren too. I'm not convinced the orders found on Dahlgren are authentic. As far as I know, those orders are the only record to indicate his objective was to eliminate Jefferson Davis. Some where, some how, those original papers were lost or destroyed, if they ever existed.

I agree with you that Lincoln was a target. But to kill him anytime after Nov 64' and think it would have an influence on the military out come of the war doesn't stand with me .
I believe Booth made a statement to the effect "I no longer have a country left"
Target, yes. Legitimate Military Target, no. Military target or not, he still was killed, which was Booth's objective.
The why and how will always be an interesting discussion

First, I would think that a military operation requires more written documentation than a covert one sinced a main purpose of secret duty is to leave no paper trail. I also think that Lincoln's death would sit well with Davis, who up until the evacuation of Richmond was still hoping to continue the war as a guerrilla affair. But, Davis would have been stupid to say that in public.

Anyhow, I wish that Ed Steers would chime in here since he is one of a small group of historians to give credence to the Dahlgren Raid spurring the assassination of Lincoln. He addresses a portion of it in Blood on the Moon. Stephen Sears and the late-David Long were also in agreement.

As for the absence of the original Dahlgren papers, we should mention that copies were made in Richmond after the papers were found on Dahlgren's body and widely distributed in Europe in an attempt to show the barbarism of U.S. forces. Those copies are still in existence, and the father of Dahlgren, the famous admiral used them in an attempt to save his son's reputation. One of the questionable items was a supposed misspelling of Dahlgren in the son's own handwriting.

About twenty-five years ago, it would take the combined efforts of former Confederate general Jubal Early and historian James O. Hall to solve this particular puzzle. In 1879, Early carefully examined a set of the photographs taken in Richmond of the original Dahlgren address to his men. There were three photographic prints: one each of the two pages on cavalry corps stationery, and a third showing the concluding six lines of the address and the signature. Early pointed out that the conclusion of the speech was written across the back of page one, and that the inked writing had seeped through the thin paper. In the signature this show-through of letters from page one was quite marked, and it was possible to read Dahlgren’s signature, Early thought, as a misspelling of his name.

A century later, while examining one of the lithographed broadsheets of the address, Hall completed the solution to the puzzle. The London lithographer who worked with the papers in 1864 transferred the closing lines of the address and the signature to the bottom of page two in order to better fit the photographed document he was working from onto one piece of paper. Then, to produce an overall legible look to the finished broadsheet, he retouched the show-through area. When he cleaned up the signature–never having seen the name Dahlgren before–he made it what it looked like to him: Dalhgren.

Since we know that kidnapping Lincoln was a viable plan with other Confederate agents over the war years - and that the possibility that Lincoln might be killed in such an attempt existed with each - why are we judging Booth differently? Would we think differently if Gen. Bradley Johnson's plan had worked and Lincoln was killed in the process? Would Johnson then be declared deranged? My guess is Yes, because he was a Confederate.

[My Name Is Kate]

From the article mentioned in Post #57:
"In his second inaugural address in March 1865, Lincoln appealed to the Old Testament God to vindicate bloody violence in the battle against injustice. Only 750 words long, the speech contained fourteen mentions of God, three invocations of prayer, and four Biblical citations, including Lincoln’s militantly pious declaration: “If God wills that [the war] continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said ‘the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.’” John Brown would have agreed completely.""

I wonder if Lincoln ever questioned whether such a bloody Civil War had anything to do with God's plans for ending slavery, or if the same end might have been accomplished more peaceably (though not being an historian, I have no idea how or if that was possible). It is a dangerous pursuit to attempt to read the mind of God, or to claim that the consequences of one's own actions were ordained by God. Lincoln may have been right that the war was God's will and was retribution for the sin of slavery, but he may also have been wrong, and unless he was in direct communion with God, I don't see how he could be certain either way. It would be so much better not to make any public statements about God's will when it is not clear that the war was God's will. The fact that he did, calls into question the state of Lincoln's mind. Of course the same can be said of John Brown and Booth.

Did Lincoln not actively prevent his son Robert from joining the Union forces and risking his life along with all the other hundreds of thousands who perished in the war? Did he believe that was God's will too, or how did he rationalize his choice to keep Robert out of the war? Did he do it mostly for his wife's sake (sanity)? What about the sanity of other mothers who may have lost more than one son in the war?

[LincolnMan]

"...and the war came." I think this was Lincoln's way of affirming that it was God's will because it did happen.

[Wild Bill]

Read James Oakes two recent books, Freedom National: The Destruction of Slavery in the United States, and his The Scorpion's Sting: Anti-Slavery and the Coming of the Civil War.Then see if the war was God's will or Man's, specifically Lincoln's and the Republicans'.

[Gene C]

Here is the Amazon site for both books
http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-National-D...1435156140

and http://www.amazon.com/The-Scorpions-Stin...y_14_img_y

Do you prefer one over the other Bill?