Tidwell revisited

[JMadonna]

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.

But did the torpedo plot violate the 'laws of war'?

The destruction of a building was within the ‘laws of war’ and the White House could easily be designated as a legitimate target. If it could be blown-up and the leaders of the government happened to be inside… well "c'est la vie".

Since the men of the Confederacy were lawyers would they have seized on this 'loophole' to justify their actions?

Interested in anyone's opinion.

[Jim Garrett]

Probably the most powerful figure next to the Presidency of Jefferson and Varina Davis was Judah Benjamin. A brilliant lawyer, that's exactly what he was doing. That's why the Confederate Secret Service reported to him.

[RJNorton]

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?

[Gene C]

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"?

[JMadonna]

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.

---

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.

[John Fazio]

Gentlemen:

Confederate Secretary of War James Seddon expressly rejected Columbia University law professor Francis Lieber's rules of civilized warfare for Union forces (General Orders No. 100---Law and Usages of War). Further, Confederate General Daniel Harvey Hill expressed his opinion that "all means of destroying our brutal enemies are lawful and proper". (See Jane Singer's book.) By the end of the war , there was nothing left to Confederate leaders but the decapitation of Union leadership, which they tried to do on the night of April 14, 1865. At a minimum, they attempted to assassinate Lincoln, Johnson, Seward, Stanton and Grant, though there is some evidence that as many as ten others were at least targeted. I consider the evidence for this attempt to be clear and convincing. See my book, Decapitating the Union, for details.

Thank you.

John

[Steve]

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"?

Gen. Johnston still had not officially surrendered by the time of the assassination. And if my memory serves me right, he actually surrendered a larger amount of soldiers than Lee. Maybe, what, nearly 30,000 more troops than Lee had when the Seige of Peterburg began. So, I don't think the war could've been considered over until after the assassination.

Had the Lincoln assassination happened before the fall of Richmond or the torpedo plot had been successful, I don't think members of the Confederate government would've felt the need to "find a loophole" to justify their actions.

[AussieMick]

President Andrew Johnson issued a Proclamation on April 2 1866 declaring the insurrection to have ended. I am guessing this was a formal and legal statement that clarified the situation .

[JMadonna]

Gentlemen:

Confederate Secretary of War James Seddon expressly rejected Columbia University law professor Francis Lieber's rules of civilized warfare for Union forces (General Orders No. 100---Law and Usages of War). Further, Confederate General Daniel Harvey Hill expressed his opinion that "all means of destroying our brutal enemies are lawful and proper". (See Jane Singer's book.) By the end of the war , there was nothing left to Confederate leaders but the decapitation of Union leadership, which they tried to do on the night of April 14, 1865. At a minimum, they attempted to assassinate Lincoln, Johnson, Seward, Stanton and Grant, though there is some evidence that as many as ten others were at least targeted. I consider the evidence for this attempt to be clear and convincing. See my book, Decapitating the Union, for details.

Thank you.

John

Good catch John

[JMadonna]

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?

Does anyone know if Jeff Davis made a statement after the Dahlgren Raid or did he let the newspapers do all the talking? I can't find one in my notes.

[RJNorton]

John, when you mentioned Grant as a target for assassination, were you referring to what happened on his train which had departed Washington prior to Lincoln's assassination? Apparently a man had been assigned to kill Grant, but when he tried to enter Grant's train car, he was turned back by railroad employees. Then, in a sign of remorse, he later wrote Grant one or more letters saying he was glad he failed in his mission. Do you know if any of these letters still exist? Was the name of the man ever revealed? Did his orders come from Booth?

[JMadonna]

John, when you mentioned Grant as a target for assassination, were you referring to what happened on his train which had departed Washington prior to Lincoln's assassination? Apparently a man had been assigned to kill Grant, but when he tried to enter Grant's train car, he was turned back by railroad employees. Then, in a sign of remorse, he later wrote Grant one or more letters saying he was glad he failed in his mission. Do you know if any of these letters still exist? Was the name of the man ever revealed? Did his orders come from Booth?

If the letters still exist they would probably be in whatever papers Grant left behind, but I doubt it. It was mentioned by Lamon in a conversation he had with Grant in 1880. In one of Atzerodt's confessions he mentioned;

“James Donaldson, a low chunky man about 23 or 24 years of age, small-potted, dark complexion (not very) deep plain black suit; only saw him one time & this was Wednesday previous to the murder, he was having an interview with Booth and told him to meet him on Friday eve & he replied he would….. I was under the impression he came on with Booth.”

Atzerodt believed that Donaldson was part of the group, but he never showed up on Friday evening at the Herndon House for final instructions with the rest of the conspirators.

For lack of any other suspects, I speculated that he was supposed to be the hit man for Johnson but Booth reassigned him to Grant. This last minute change, left Booth with no choice but assign the task to either Atzerodt or Herold.

[RJNorton]

Thanks for your input, Jerry. I would think Donaldson is a possibility.

[Jim Garrett]

Come Retribution is not the easiest book to read, however the attention to detail and research is astounding. It lays out a very convincing argument of the extent that the Confederate Secret Service was involved. Seldom is mentioned the name of Enoch Mason. Never is mentioned Thomas H. Williamson, but Tidwell, Gaddy and Hall have brought them in o the narrative. I've read Come Retribution twice and I'm about ready for a third go at it. The more you know of the assassination, the more you find the small details important. In my humble opinion, Come Retribution may be among the very best books on the assassination.

[John Fazio]

Jim:

That is my opinion too. Their 1988 work blew the lid off the simple conspiracy theory. I followed in their footsteps with Come Retribution, arriving at the same conclusions they did, though not always by the same paths. I reject completely, for example, the notion that Booth ever planned to kidnap Lincoln. In my judgment, the evidence is conclusive that murder was his objective all along. I believe the evidence is there and has always been there if we simply open our eyes to it.

John