Tidwell revisited

[JMadonna]

(03-19-2020 05:32 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(03-18-2020 08:56 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  One of the criticisms of Tidwell's Come Retribution was that the laws of war in Abraham Lincoln's century forbade assassination and the men who governed the Confederacy repeatedly professed their belief in the laws and customs of war.

Didn't the leaders of the Confederacy abandon their belief in this law of war after the Dahlgren raid?

Maybe, as I recall they pointed out that Lincoln violated the rules but they never 'officially' abandoned it. Why would they? Too much propaganda benefit in not doing so.

---

(03-19-2020 07:28 AM)Gene C Wrote:  Did they ever settle the issue of, since the assassination occurred after Lee surrendered, was it an act of war?
Was the target of assassination the deciding factor, or the timing of the act in regards to "an act of war"?

Lee spoke only for his army not the government, so the war was not officially over. Its the target (Lincoln) that was the issue.

Section 9, article 148, of the code adopted by the War Department in 1863 to guide U.S. forces did "not allow proclaiming an individual belonging to the hostile army, or a citizen, or a subject of the hostile government an outlaw, who may be slain with- out trial by any captor.