Thomas F. Harney

[Gene C]

Thank you Roger.

[John Fazio]

(11-19-2014 01:52 PM)Rick Smith Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 07:51 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 03:56 PM)Rick Smith Wrote:  If Edwin Stanton was not a target, he sure should have been.

Rick:

Why?

John

John,

In the words of my good friend, Bill Richter, "He needed killing."

Seriously; as part of an effective, overall plan to decapitate the federal government, Stanton should have been a target. No one else, aside from Seward & Lincoln, would have been able to continue the running of the Union government. Do not misunderstand me; I am no fan of Stanton, Seward or Lincoln, it is just that I think Stanton would have been the most effective in administrating the Union plan.

Rick

---

John,

Forgot to add a postscript: It is very interesting that you and Bill come to the same conclusions, with which I agree.

Looking forward to your new book.

Rick

Rick:

Murder is a draconian remedy for someone who was merely discharging the duties of his office under the law and the Constitution. That goes for Confederate officeholders too, who, though they were operating under a different Constitution, were entitled to immunity from assassination inasmuch as I know of 15 arguments favoring the legitimacy of secession. Accordingly, Wistar's and Dahlgren's orders, assuming they were bona fide, are an excrescence. I believe that Lincoln saw the matter so, as evidenced by his announcement at the Cabinet meeting of 4-14 that he wanted "no bloody work" and that the leaders of the Rebellion should be permitted to exit the country unmolested. Further evidence is the fact that paroles, pardons and conciliation were the order of the day after the war, except for Wirz, who presided over the deaths of some 16,000 at Andersonville (Sweetwater Creek, with all the clean water in the world, was 0.6 of a mile from the camp) and Champ Ferguson, who was nothing but a cold-blooded serial killer of even disarmed and wounded men (other cold-blooded killers (e.g. "Bloody Bill" Anderson) having met their end without the aid of a hangman). Everything considered, then, decapitation, even if had resulted in greater success, would not have produced a different result, and was, for that reason, excessive and foolhardy. Churchill said the outcome of the war was "almost inevitable". There was no way the ruling class in the South (about 350,000 out of a population of about 9 million) could stop the locomotive of history. It was time for slavery to go. All the major powers in the world and some 17 other countries had already abolished it.

John

[Rick Smith]

(11-20-2014 08:16 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(11-19-2014 01:52 PM)Rick Smith Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 07:51 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 03:56 PM)Rick Smith Wrote:  If Edwin Stanton was not a target, he sure should have been.

Rick:

Why?

John

John,

In the words of my good friend, Bill Richter, "He needed killing."

Seriously; as part of an effective, overall plan to decapitate the federal government, Stanton should have been a target. No one else, aside from Seward & Lincoln, would have been able to continue the running of the Union government. Do not misunderstand me; I am no fan of Stanton, Seward or Lincoln, it is just that I think Stanton would have been the most effective in administrating the Union plan.

Rick

---

John,

Forgot to add a postscript: It is very interesting that you and Bill come to the same conclusions, with which I agree.

Looking forward to your new book.

Rick

Rick:

Murder is a draconian remedy for someone who was merely discharging the duties of his office under the law and the Constitution. That goes for Confederate officeholders too, who, though they were operating under a different Constitution, were entitled to immunity from assassination inasmuch as I know of 15 arguments favoring the legitimacy of secession. Accordingly, Wistar's and Dahlgren's orders, assuming they were bona fide, are an excrescence. I believe that Lincoln saw the matter so, as evidenced by his announcement at the Cabinet meeting of 4-14 that he wanted "no bloody work" and that the leaders of the Rebellion should be permitted to exit the country unmolested. Further evidence is the fact that paroles, pardons and conciliation were the order of the day after the war, except for Wirz, who presided over the deaths of some 16,000 at Andersonville (Sweetwater Creek, with all the clean water in the world, was 0.6 of a mile from the camp) and Champ Ferguson, who was nothing but a cold-blooded serial killer of even disarmed and wounded men (other cold-blooded killers (e.g. "Bloody Bill" Anderson) having met their end without the aid of a hangman). Everything considered, then, decapitation, even if had resulted in greater success, would not have produced a different result, and was, for that reason, excessive and foolhardy. Churchill said the outcome of the war was "almost inevitable". There was no way the ruling class in the South (about 350,000 out of a population of about 9 million) could stop the locomotive of history. It was time for slavery to go. All the major powers in the world and some 17 other countries had already abolished it.

John

John,

My answer to your earlier question was to support your position that Stanton was a target of assassination and I do believe that he was. Your response to me is just a little confusing. Do you believe that he was a target or do you not? From your response, it is now unclear.

Where is it stated in any constitution, Union or Confederate, that Lincoln & Davis were entitled to immunity from assassination?

I disagree that Lincoln's killing was a murder, or a civil crime. His killing was an act of war during a time of war. During a time of war, heads of state are legitimate targets.

Rick

[John Fazio]

(11-20-2014 10:01 AM)Rick Smith Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 08:16 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(11-19-2014 01:52 PM)Rick Smith Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 07:51 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 03:56 PM)Rick Smith Wrote:  If Edwin Stanton was not a target, he sure should have been.

Rick:

Why?

John

John,

In the words of my good friend, Bill Richter, "He needed killing."

Seriously; as part of an effective, overall plan to decapitate the federal government, Stanton should have been a target. No one else, aside from Seward & Lincoln, would have been able to continue the running of the Union government. Do not misunderstand me; I am no fan of Stanton, Seward or Lincoln, it is just that I think Stanton would have been the most effective in administrating the Union plan.

Rick

---

John,

Forgot to add a postscript: It is very interesting that you and Bill come to the same conclusions, with which I agree.

Looking forward to your new book.

Rick

Rick:

Murder is a draconian remedy for someone who was merely discharging the duties of his office under the law and the Constitution. That goes for Confederate officeholders too, who, though they were operating under a different Constitution, were entitled to immunity from assassination inasmuch as I know of 15 arguments favoring the legitimacy of secession. Accordingly, Wistar's and Dahlgren's orders, assuming they were bona fide, are an excrescence. I believe that Lincoln saw the matter so, as evidenced by his announcement at the Cabinet meeting of 4-14 that he wanted "no bloody work" and that the leaders of the Rebellion should be permitted to exit the country unmolested. Further evidence is the fact that paroles, pardons and conciliation were the order of the day after the war, except for Wirz, who presided over the deaths of some 16,000 at Andersonville (Sweetwater Creek, with all the clean water in the world, was 0.6 of a mile from the camp) and Champ Ferguson, who was nothing but a cold-blooded serial killer of even disarmed and wounded men (other cold-blooded killers (e.g. "Bloody Bill" Anderson) having met their end without the aid of a hangman). Everything considered, then, decapitation, even if had resulted in greater success, would not have produced a different result, and was, for that reason, excessive and foolhardy. Churchill said the outcome of the war was "almost inevitable". There was no way the ruling class in the South (about 350,000 out of a population of about 9 million) could stop the locomotive of history. It was time for slavery to go. All the major powers in the world and some 17 other countries had already abolished it.

John

John,

My answer to your earlier question was to support your position that Stanton was a target of assassination and I do believe that he was. Your response to me is just a little confusing. Do you believe that he was a target or do you not? From your response, it is now unclear.

Where is it stated in any constitution, Union or Confederate, that Lincoln & Davis were entitled to immunity from assassination?

I disagree that Lincoln's killing was a murder, or a civil crime. His killing was an act of war during a time of war. During a time of war, heads of state are legitimate targets.

Rick

Rick:

I most certainly do believe he was a target, as stated in earlier postings.

I did not say it was stated in any Consitution. Nor do I believe it is necessary that it be stated.

Should, then, the conspirators not have been indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced? Inasmuch as they were merely perpetrating an act of war, just as surely as the soldiers in the field were? Do you equate Booth's bullet with, say, the bullet that killed Sedgwick at Spotsylvania?

John

[Gene C]

(11-20-2014 10:01 AM)Rick Smith Wrote:  I disagree that Lincoln's killing was a murder, or a civil crime. His killing was an act of war during a time of war. During a time of war, heads of state are legitimate targets.

Rick

What's the "grace period" once the war is over?

I'll disagree with you Rick, on your last statement.

[L Verge]

Gene, if you are disagreeing with Rick's statement about it being an "act of war during a time of war" on the grounds that the war was over when Lincoln was killed, please remember that Lee did not control the bulk of the Confederate forces. I believe that the consensus now is that the event marking the end of the Civil War was when Confederate General Edmund Kirby Smith, commander of Confederate forces west of the Mississippi, signed the surrender terms offered by Union negotiators on June 2, 1865. With Smith's surrender, the last Confederate army supposedly ceased to exist.

Between April 9 and Lee's surrender and June 2 and Smith's surrender, however, there were still many Confederate forces that had to be conquered. Mosby didn't disband his Partisan Rangers until near the end of April; Gen. Johnston had numerous armies under his command until he surrendered on the same day Booth was killed. Cherokee leader and Confederate General Stand Watie was the last Confederate general to surrender (I think), and that was on June 23 of 1865. There was also the Battle of Palmito Ranch in May, and I believe there was a Confederate naval force that made it to England and didn't surrender until sometime in 1866. Finally, President Johnson did not proclaim the war over until August of 1866.

I have always felt that the celebrations in D.C. on April 13 (and before) were more related to the fall of Richmond and the scattering of the political entity of the Confederacy rather than to a military victory of defeating Lee's forces.

As to heads of state of the enemy, where is it written that they are not legitimate targets during periods of war?

[Gene C]

We seem to be treading on dangerous ground with this.
Let me just say I don't know if it is written down, but assassination of heads of state is a very dangerouse road to travel, and in my opinion, it is not the prudent thing to do.

Just because the last troops haven't surrendered, doesn't mean the war isn't over. Several of Lee's troups offered to engage in guerrilla warfare and continue fighting when he surrendered his army and he told them no. If we want to get technical about it, I can't recall when President Lincoln ever publicaly called this a war, or requested congress to declare war.

[Wild Bill]

Do you equate Booth's bullet with, say, the bullet that killed Sedgwick at Spotsylvania?


Yes, I do

[John Fazio]

(11-20-2014 12:47 PM)Wild Bill Wrote:  Do you equate Booth's bullet with, say, the bullet that killed Sedgwick at Spotsylvania?


Yes, I do

Bill:

It follows, then , that none of the conspirators should have been arrested, but if arrested, they should then have been released. As for Booth, they should never have even pursued him; they should simply have allowed him to run off to Mexico or wherever, or even settle in Washington, for that matter, returning to the stage, unmolested. While we are at it, why prosecute any assassin of a head of state or any other government official during a time of war (e.g. Marat during the French Revolution; McKinley during the Spanish-American War; Kennedy during the Vietnam War). The Confederacy certainly did not view the Dahlgren orders with such magnanimity. On the contrary, they were outraged by the orders, called meetings to discuss and plan a proper response and then initiated a year of terror and laid plans for retribution in kind.

I don't think your argument holds up. The consequences of such an interpretation of assassination are unacceptable and, to my knowledge, not practiced anywhere. On the contrary, assassins are more likely to be killed on the spot, if possibile, without even a pretense of due process, whereas killings of the enemy in the field are never prosecuted as criminal acts.

John

[Wild Bill]

War is killing. Grow up.

[Rick Smith]

(11-20-2014 01:42 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 12:47 PM)Wild Bill Wrote:  Do you equate Booth's bullet with, say, the bullet that killed Sedgwick at Spotsylvania?


Yes, I do

Bill:

It follows, then , that none of the conspirators should have been arrested, but if arrested, they should then have been released. As for Booth, they should never have even pursued him; they should simply have allowed him to run off to Mexico or wherever, or even settle in Washington, for that matter, returning to the stage, unmolested. While we are at it, why prosecute any assassin of a head of state or any other government official during a time of war (e.g. Marat during the French Revolution; McKinley during the Spanish-American War; Kennedy during the Vietnam War). The Confederacy certainly did not view the Dahlgren orders with such magnanimity. On the contrary, they were outraged by the orders, called meetings to discuss and plan a proper response and then initiated a year of terror and laid plans for retribution in kind.

I don't think your argument holds up. The consequences of such an interpretation of assassination are unacceptable and, to my knowledge, not practiced anywhere. On the contrary, assassins are more likely to be killed on the spot, if possibile, without even a pretense of due process, whereas killings of the enemy in the field are never prosecuted as criminal acts.

John

John,

You seem to be laboring under some misapprehension. No one has said that Booth, et al, should not have been prosecuted and let go to Mexico. But if you think that heads of state are not targets during a time of war, you are, I think, being naïve. During any war, if enemy combatants are found operating behind lines, they are, or should be, dealt with. No one is condoning assassination either, just saying that it is a tool of war and always has been.

Rick

[Gene C]

(11-20-2014 03:02 PM)Wild Bill Wrote:  War is killing. Grow up.

Sounds like you just rationalized Sherman's march through Georgian and South Carolina.

[Wild Bill]

Yep. To quote General Sherman: War is hell

Want to go to Centralia, Missouri?

[Gene C]

(11-20-2014 03:53 PM)Wild Bill Wrote:  Yep. To quote General Sherman: War is hell

Want to go to Centralia, Missouri?

No thanks, how about Wal-Mart on Black Friday?

[Wild Bill]

That's your answer to a serious argument? Come on.