Lincoln's embalmment

[STS Lincolnite]

(01-08-2015 06:52 AM)loetar44 Wrote:  Lincoln would have been disabled and incapacitated. That would have caused an even more chaotic situation, because in 1865 no provision existed for the VEEP or anyone else to take over as chief executive for an incapacitated president. In 1865 the Costitution contained provisions for the transfer of presidential power only when a president died. There were (until the 25th Amendement in 1967) no procedures by which an incapacitated president could be replaced.

I know this is a little of the topic of the thread, so I apologize, but I found Kees comments to be thought provoking.

Those individuals that continue to propogate the idea that Stanton was involved in Lincoln's assassination often cite the fact that Stanton inappropriately took over the government in the assasination aftermath. However, I wonder what the alternative was. As Kees pointed out there was no formal process in place for transfer of authority in the case of an incapacitated President. The Vice President at this period of time was little more than an afterthought in regards to running the government. The leaders of in the legislative branch (speaker of house, etc.) were not part of the executive branch and would likely not have been particularly familiar with the President's day to day plans/process for performing his duties in regards to the impending end to the war, reconsturction and all the other more mundane duties. So who is left. I would reason it would have been generally acceptable in 1865 for a cabinet member (most familiar with the President's plans) to act on behalf of the incapacited (not deceased) President until such time as he recovered or if he died until such time as the Vice President would be elevated to President. I would next reason that Seward (because of his political pedigree and role as Secreteray of State - often a springboard to the Presidency) and Stanton (because of his role as Secretary of War during what was still technically war time - and the killing of the President which may have been part of a wartime action) would have been the logical first choices. Seward was of course himself incapacitated by Powell, so we are left with Stanton. How he performed in his role immediately following the assassination and what role he played or should have played after Johnson was inaugurated could certainly be debated but I can't really see how his assuming control in the stead of the incopacitated President somehow illustrates his complicity in the assassination.

I would love to hear others thoughts.

Again, I apologize for going off thread topic but I wanted to write while the thoughts were in my head. Roger please feel free to move this particular post elsewhere as you see fit.