Booth's Denial of Foreknowledge of the Attack on Seward

[mikegriffith1]

(12-27-2018 04:48 PM)L Verge Wrote:  There has been so much written over the years by good historians explaining the reasons for "Decapitating the Union" with attacks planned on Lincoln, Johnson, and Seward that I am not going to waste my last day of Christmas leave responding to yet another "analysis" by Mr. G. He can study on his own the line of succession in 1865 and what would happen if Lincoln and Johnson were both gone.

Your "good historians" must not have known that the Radicals were bitterly opposed to Lincoln's lenient Reconstruction terms, that some Radicals viewed Lincoln's terms as treasonous, that Southern leaders were well aware that the Radicals wanted to impose a harsh and exploitative form of Reconstruction, and that Southern leaders much preferred Lincoln's terms, which terms Lincoln had been talking about for over a year.

The "decapitating the Union" theory is just so much nonsense. It would have made the weak-willed and unknown Lafayette Sabine Foster president. With zero name recognition and no political capital, Foster would have been putty in the Radicals' hands. Foster couldn't even win reelection in 1866.

Quote:As far as Booth's "regretting" what had happened at the Seward household, I believe that he was referring to the severe injuries made to other people besides the Secretary of State.

That's a novel interpretation. The logical, plain-sense interpretation is that he was referring to the attack on Seward. Otherwise, we would expect that he would have specified that he was referring only to what was done to the other people in the house.