The Confederate Conspiracy to Kill Lincoln

[SLD]

The standard view on Lincoln's assassination is that it was carried out by a handful of angry southern sympathizers with no connection to the Confederate government. But I have always though that such a story makes no sense. Why would a small group of people on their own decide to completely decapitate the head of the federal government? How would they have received funds and plans for such an enterprise?

The south had a spy network throughout the north, including in Washington. But most of its records were destroyed with the fall of Richmond so we have no smoking gun. But there is in fact some surpirising substantial circumstantial evidence to link the conspirators, albeit indirectly, with high ranking Confederate officials, including even Jeff Davis and at least Judah Benajmin, the secretary of State, and former Secretary of War for the Confederacy. Benjamin was head of the confederate spy rings and burned all of the associated papers just before the fall of Richmond. He fled to Europe and never returned to the US. He was a lawyer by trade, and would have known that the government could be paralyzed by the simultaneous killing of the President, vice president, and secretary of State. At the time, the Secretary of State was responsible for governing the process of the next electoral college to choose the President. Booth most likely didn't understand exactly which officials to kill to guarantee maximum chaos.

There is also the curious issue of a raid into Richmond by Union troops over a year before the assassination. This was led by a Colonel Dahlgren, who was killed on the raid. On his person was found a paper indicating that he was to kill Jeff Davis if possible. Certainly the motive was there for retribution.

Then there is John Surratt, clearly a member of the Confederate spy ring around Washington. He actually travelled through Confederate lines and may have met with Benjamin.

I suppose we will never know for sure. According to Surratt the plan was originally only to kidnap Lincoln. Surratt was actually acquitted of murder.

All in all it seems highly unlikely that Surratt and Booth would not have acted without orders from higher ups. Surratt most likely fled because he knew the plot would fundamentally fail, and they would be hunted down as indeed they were, including his own mother. But he probably carried the orders from Benjamin, and Benjamin burned all of the evidence to protect himself and others.

The North though wasn't interested in creating this grand conspiracy after the war. the impact would have created too harsh a backlash to deal with.

Thoughts?

SLD

 

[steve_bnk]

You can look at the history ofpolitical violence, political assassination, and attempted assassination in the USA. I'd say there are likely always plots against the president.


Clinton avoided a bomb plot in thePhilippines foiled by intelligence services.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts



'...February 23, 1861: The BaltimorePlot was an alleged conspiracy to assassinate President-elect AbrahamLincoln en route to his inauguration. Allan Pinkerton, eponymousfounder of the Pinkerton National Detective Agency, played a key rolein protecting the president-elect by managing Lincoln's securitythroughout the journey. Though scholars debate whether or not thethreat was real, Lincoln and his advisers took actions to ensure hissafe passage through Baltimore.

August 1864: A lone rifle shot missedLincoln's head by inches (passing through his hat) as he rode in thelate evening, unguarded, north from the White House three miles toSoldiers' Home (his regular retreat where he would work and sleepbefore returning to the White House the following morning). Neareleven o'clock pm, Private John W. Nichols of the Pennsylvania 150thVolunteers, the sentry on duty at the gated entrance to the Soldiers’Home grounds, heard the rifle shot and moments later saw thePresident riding toward him "bareheaded." Lincoln describedthe matter to Ward Lamon, his old friend and loyalbodyguard.[9][10]///

1996: During his visit to theAsia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum in Manila in 1996,Clinton's motorcade was rerouted before driving over a bridge.Service officers had intercepted a message suggesting that an attackwas imminent, and Lewis Merletti, the director of the Secret Service,ordered the motorcade to be re-routed. An intelligence team laterdiscovered a bomb under the bridge. Subsequent U.S. investigation"revealed that [the plot] was masterminded by a Saudi terroristliving in Afghanistan named Osama bin Laden".[35]...'




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinated_American_politicians

 

[Sarpedon]

The assassination was extremely ill-timed. The war was basically over, and all it accomplished was removing the concilliatory Lincoln, and replacing him with the hard line Johnson, and pissing everyone off to boot. Confederate General Johnston, who was in surrender negotiations at the time, called it 'the greatest calamity for the people of the South imaginable' or something to that effect. The southern government was not known for its competence, but such an act was so obviously a bad move, I can hardly imagine anyone in the southern military having anything to do with it (they were largely competant) nor can I imagine the rigid, calculating Davis having anything to do with something that was at the same time so dishonorable and stupid.

 

[Bronzeage]

The assassination was extremely ill-timed. The war was basically over, and all it accomplished was removing the concilliatory Lincoln, and replacing him with the hard line Johnson, and pissing everyone off to boot. Confederate General Johnston, who was in surrender negotiations at the time, called it 'the greatest calamity for the people of the South imaginable' or something to that effect. The southern government was not known for its competence, but such an act was so obviously a bad move, I can hardly imagine anyone in the southern military having anything to do with it (they were largely competant) nor can I imagine the rigid, calculating Davis having anything to do with something that was at the same time so dishonorable and stupid.

I agree with this. The High Command of both the Union and Confederate Armies were officers who served together as young men. Many of them were close personal friends, even when they wore different uniforms. Jefferson Davis was among them. Death in battle was considered a matter of fate and to personally target another man would have been considered reprehensible, as this would be an act of murder.

As for "too harsh a backlash," it's hard to imagine it being harsher.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

From what I heard, even the South didn't like that he was killed and it pissed off Booth to no end.

 

[steve_bnk]

I think the idea of it being achivalrous war is romanticized myth.


Both sides had irregulars who committedatrocities and acts of terror like Quantrille's Raiders. Pillage andburn behind enemy lines.


Anti personnel land mines were used,considered by some unethical. The Gatling Gun.


Former brothers in arms did not thinktwice of putting a bullet or saber in a former colleague.


Career military officers were selfpromoters, without family money it is how they made money. Custerbeing one of the most notorious.


Andersonville POW prison. POWs weretreated badly on both sides.


The burning of Atlanta. Civilians wereshelled in the siege.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_in_the_Civil_War#Atlanta_as_a_target

 

[SLD]

The assassination was extremely ill-timed. The war was basically over, and all it accomplished was removing the concilliatory Lincoln, and replacing him with the hard line Johnson, and pissing everyone off to boot. Confederate General Johnston, who was in surrender negotiations at the time, called it 'the greatest calamity for the people of the South imaginable' or something to that effect. The southern government was not known for its competence, but such an act was so obviously a bad move, I can hardly imagine anyone in the southern military having anything to do with it (they were largely competant) nor can I imagine the rigid, calculating Davis having anything to do with something that was at the same time so dishonorable and stupid.

I agree with this. The High Command of both the Union and Confederate Armies were officers who served together as young men. Many of them were close personal friends, even when they wore different uniforms. Jefferson Davis was among them. Death in battle was considered a matter of fate and to personally target another man would have been considered reprehensible, as this would be an act of murder.

As for "too harsh a backlash," it's hard to imagine it being harsher.

Lincoln wasn't one of the pre war buddies. Besides, it wasn't the Confederate military that was involved, but certain high ranking confederate civilian leaders, particularly Judah Benjamin, and Jefferson Davis. Benjamin's spy network included Surratt a major conspirator. As far as chivalric feelings between the warring parties, it only existed amongst those West Point buddies. People like Nathan Bedford Forrest and John Mosby were hardly chivalric. A whole brigade of southerners called themselves The Lincoln Killers. For rabid fire eating secessionists, the idea of assassinating Lincoln was no big deal.
And then Jeff Davis thought he had good cause to do so after the Dalghren raid.

Granted there is no smoking gun pointing to them as the ultimate conspirators, but it does make more sense then just a bunch of rogue operatives.

SLD

 

[Sarpedon]

Except that it was too late to serve any purpose. Neither Davis nor Benjamin were the sort of fanatics who would burn everything down for the sake of meaningless retribution. Davis lived quite peaceably after he was released, and Benjamin went to london and resumed law practice.

An absolutely pointless assassination that runs counter to the actual national interest is the hallmark of rogue operatives.

 

[Sarpedon]

As for "too harsh a backlash," it's hard to imagine it being harsher.

Bah, I tire of hearing southerners whine about how badly they were treated. Read about World War II if you want to learn how bad it could have been. Hell, you don't even have to go that far. Ask the Native Americans how they were treated after they lost a war with the United States of America. The treatment of Southerners was so gentle, that there remain plenty of them around to complain.

Had it been me, I would have at least dispossessed the southern slave owning class, who were the movers and shakers of the rebellion, distributing their lands and other properties to their former slaves. This would have been both prudent and just. Even that was not done.

 

[Bronzeage]

As for "too harsh a backlash," it's hard to imagine it being harsher.

Bah, I tire of hearing southerners whine about how badly they were treated. Read about World War II if you want to learn how bad it could have been. Hell, you don't even have to go that far. Ask the Native Americans how they were treated after they lost a war with the United States of America. The treatment of Southerners was so gentle, that there remain plenty of them around to complain.

Had it been me, I would have at least dispossessed the southern slave owning class, who were the movers and shakers of the rebellion, distributing their lands and other properties to their former slaves. This would have been both prudent and just. Even that was not done.

The fatigue must be overwhelming.

Yeah, I'm sure you would have, but the Union was tired after the loss of over 600,000 men(both sides counted) and the prospect of giving white southerners a motivation to continue fighting was probably not a good policy.

 

[Underseer]

The standard view on Lincoln's assassination is that it was carried out by a handful of angry southern sympathizers with no connection to the Confederate government. But I have always though that such a story makes no sense. Why would a small group of people on their own decide to completely decapitate the head of the federal government? How would they have received funds and plans for such an enterprise?

The south had a spy network throughout the north, including in Washington. But most of its records were destroyed with the fall of Richmond so we have no smoking gun. But there is in fact some surpirising substantial circumstantial evidence to link the conspirators, albeit indirectly, with high ranking Confederate officials, including even Jeff Davis and at least Judah Benajmin, the secretary of State, and former Secretary of War for the Confederacy. Benjamin was head of the confederate spy rings and burned all of the associated papers just before the fall of Richmond. He fled to Europe and never returned to the US. He was a lawyer by trade, and would have known that the government could be paralyzed by the simultaneous killing of the President, vice president, and secretary of State. At the time, the Secretary of State was responsible for governing the process of the next electoral college to choose the President. Booth most likely didn't understand exactly which officials to kill to guarantee maximum chaos.

There is also the curious issue of a raid into Richmond by Union troops over a year before the assassination. This was led by a Colonel Dahlgren, who was killed on the raid. On his person was found a paper indicating that he was to kill Jeff Davis if possible. Certainly the motive was there for retribution.

Then there is John Surratt, clearly a member of the Confederate spy ring around Washington. He actually travelled through Confederate lines and may have met with Benjamin.

I suppose we will never know for sure. According to Surratt the plan was originally only to kidnap Lincoln. Surratt was actually acquitted of murder.

All in all it seems highly unlikely that Surratt and Booth would not have acted without orders from higher ups. Surratt most likely fled because he knew the plot would fundamentally fail, and they would be hunted down as indeed they were, including his own mother. But he probably carried the orders from Benjamin, and Benjamin burned all of the evidence to protect himself and others.

The North though wasn't interested in creating this grand conspiracy after the war. the impact would have created too harsh a backlash to deal with.

Thoughts?

SLD

Do you have evidence that the assassination plot was carried out by the Confederate government? No? If not, then what you have is a  just-so story.

 

[Sarpedon]

Yeah, I'm sure you would have, but the Union was tired after the loss of over 600,000 men(both sides counted) and the prospect of giving white southerners a motivation to continue fighting was probably not a good policy.

The south was absolutely broken, there was no will for further resistance. The bitterness of poor southern whites against the slave owners was very high. Remember that the rich could buy their way out of the draft. The desertion rate in south was far higher than in the north. There were many reasons, but discontent among the poor against their leaders was a contributer.

The north wasn't all that war weary, as we immediately threatened war against France if they didn't withdraw from Mexico (they did.) We also had no difficulty maintaining our wars against the Native Americans.

The problem is that no one in the north was ready to do any genuine long term thinking, and especially no one was ready to think in terms of racial equality, even at the cost of sound policy. In the end, racism won, and the culture of racism and aristocracy was preserved in the south.

 

[Bronzeage]

Yeah, I'm sure you would have, but the Union was tired after the loss of over 600,000 men(both sides counted) and the prospect of giving white southerners a motivation to continue fighting was probably not a good policy.

The south was absolutely broken, there was no will for further resistance. The bitterness of poor southern whites against the slave owners was very high. Remember that the rich could buy their way out of the draft. The desertion rate in south was far higher than in the north. There were many reasons, but discontent among the poor against their leaders was a contributer.

The north wasn't all that war weary, as we immediately threatened war against France if they didn't withdraw from Mexico (they did.) We also had no difficulty maintaining our wars against the Native Americans.

The problem is that no one in the north was ready to do any genuine long term thinking, and especially no one was ready to think in terms of racial equality, even at the cost of sound policy. In the end, racism won, and the culture of racism and aristocracy was preserved in the south.

There was no will for resistance, which is a very good reason to not give them one.

The only reason France was able to send troops to Mexico was because the US was distracted by it's internal problems. Once the war was ended, attention turned to Mexico. The resources needed for this potential conflict, or expansion in the west were miniscule, compared to the previous four years.

The problem in the north was they lacked the benefit of 150 years hindsight.

 

[Sarpedon]

And do you think the poor whites would rise to keep the rich in their mansions? It was at that moment that the south was most divided against itself.

There were people, like General Sherman and President Johnson himself, who proposed measures that were considerably harsher. And don't forget that ol' Machiavelli, who straight up said that when conquering a country, you should dispossess the rich and powerful and establish colonies of loyal citizens. So no hindsight necessary.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As for "too harsh a backlash," it's hard to imagine it being harsher.

You mean how The North didn't execute the entire leadership of the Rebellion? You think King George would have been as nice if the American Revolution had failed?

 

[Bronzeage]

As for "too harsh a backlash," it's hard to imagine it being harsher.

You mean how The North didn't execute the entire leadership of the Rebellion? You think King George would have been as nice if the American Revolution had failed?

I did not say a harsher backlash was not possible. I meant it was hard to imagine a harsher backlash, given the reality of the situation.

And do you think the poor whites would rise to keep the rich in their mansions? It was at that moment that the south was most divided against itself.

There were people, like General Sherman and President Johnson himself, who proposed measures that were considerably harsher. And don't forget that ol' Machiavelli, who straight up said that when conquering a country, you should dispossess the rich and powerful and establish colonies of loyal citizens. So no hindsight necessary.

I congratulate you on your knowledge of the south.

Two of my great grandfathers served in the Confederate Army. One was wounded at Gettysburg and the other spent two years in a contract prison of war camp in Connecticut. Neither of them ever owned a slave, yet for some reason, they both enlisted. I don't expect a 21st century Minnesotan to understand the motivation of a pair of 19th century North Carolina farmers, but for the ordinary Confederate soldier, the fight was more about place than slavery. Their county, their town, and their state called them and they answered. I have to concede this is a bizarre concept in this time. If there were a call for my neighbors to defend the honor of Baton Rouge, I'm not sure we could muster enough people to fill park bench.

The war affected the rich, the poor, and the middle class, much alike. When I was young, from the ages of about 5 to 12, I lived in Vicksburg, Mississippi. In the backyard of my house was a 13 inch mortar. This was a large round iron ball, which was supposed to explode and destroy everything in a 50 foot radius. It did not explode and was found many years later, while digging the foundation of the house where I lived. Even 100 years after the siege of the city, it was still common to find unexploded ordnance.

Consider this for a moment. A warship of the United States Navy fired a 200 pound explosive shell, which was capable of leveling a 100 foot circle, killing any and all, into a residential neighborhood. Most of the other shells did explode. Such experiences have a way of unifying people. It would be a mistake to imagine the white southerners who survived the experience would be divided if confronted with more of the same.

 

[steve_bnk]

The South was burned, pillaged, and its economic infrastructure destroyed. It's ability to feed itself was attacked.

Not much different than the tactics used against the Native Americans.

I suppose post war the southerners could have been rounded up and put on reservations.

Post war the Northern Carpetbaggers. Other than physical punishment I don't see how much worse it could have been for the South.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpetbagger

'...In United States history, a carpetbagger was a Northerner (Yankee) who moved to the South after the U.S. Civil War, especially during the Reconstruction era (1865-1877), in order to profit from the instability and power vacuum that existed at this time....

The term came to be associated with opportunism and exploitation by outsiders. The term is still used today to refer to an outsider perceived as using manipulation or fraud to obtain an objective.Together with Republicans, carpetbaggers were said to have politically manipulated and controlled former Confederate states for varying periods for their own financial and power gains. In sum, carpetbaggers were seen as insidious Northern outsiders with questionable objectives meddling in local politics, buying up plantations at fire-sale prices and taking advantage of Southerners.

The term carpetbaggers was also used to describe the Republican political appointees who came South, arriving with their travel carpet bags. Southerners considered them ready to loot and plunder the defeated South...'

 

[Sarpedon]

I understand perfectly well. It is a common conceit that people have that other people with different experiences can't understand them. The answer to the question is 'why would non slave owners enlist to defend slavery' is simple. One reason was that non slave owners benefit, or think they benefit from slavery. It is similar to today's issue of poor republicans voting in favor of policies that favor the rich. The second is the good ol' us vs them mentality. Surely this needs no explanation. People have been conned into fighting for other people with paranoia and tribal politics since time immemorial. No mystery, nothing an outsider can't understand, because EVERYONE has experienced tribal politics. There's nothing to get people to band together than the shared delusion that everyone on the outside is some sort of unfeeling monster. So what if not everyone who fought for the south was a slaveowner? Not everyone who fought for Germany in World War II was a Nazi. Irrelevant. It was absolutely necessary to defeat both.

It is a fact that, by the war's end, desertion and discontent was common in the south, no matter how enthusiastically they started the war. The same thing happened in World War 1, and just about every war, in fact. I've never denied that southerners enthusiastically enlisted at first. Do you deny that the south had to resort to conscription long before the north did? Do you deny that it had a much higher desertion rate? My whole point is that by the end of the war, enthusiasm had worn thin. I have ample evidence to support that fact. Hard numbers and records, not the post war fantasy of the poor south victimized by the evil north.

And I have nothing to say about the shelling. Yes, Vicksburg was shelled, and no, it was not wrong. The South sought to strangle the north by shutting down the Mississippi. The north sought to open the Mississippi and blockade the south. Vicksburg was a military target. If combatants use civilians as human shields, and occupy civilian areas during conflict, it is they who are responsible for civilian casualties. This is why the rules of war have all manner of rules for cities and when they can and can not be a war zone. The south CHOSE to make Vicksburg into a military objective, and CHOSE not to evacuate the civilians beforehand. Lay your dead at their feet. But of course you won't. Everything is the fault of the evil yankee. Its so much easier that way.

 

[Bronzeage]

I understand perfectly well. It is a common conceit that people have that other people with different experiences can't understand them. The answer to the question is 'why would non slave owners enlist to defend slavery' is simple. One reason was that non slave owners benefit, or think they benefit from slavery. It is similar to today's issue of poor republicans voting in favor of policies that favor the rich. The second is the good ol' us vs them mentality. Surely this needs no explanation. People have been conned into fighting for other people with paranoia and tribal politics since time immemorial. No mystery, nothing an outsider can't understand, because EVERYONE has experienced tribal politics. There's nothing to get people to band together than the shared delusion that everyone on the outside is some sort of unfeeling monster.

It is a fact that, by the war's end, desertion and discontent was common in the south, no matter how enthusiastically they started the war. The same thing happened in World War 1, and just about every war, in fact. I've never denied that southerners enthusiastically enlisted at first. Do you deny that the south had to resort to conscription long before the north did? Do you deny that it had a much higher desertion rate? My whole point is that by the end of the war, enthusiasm had worn thin. I have ample evidence to support that fact. Hard numbers and records, not the post war fantasy of the poor south victimized by the evil north.

And I have nothing to say about the shelling. Yes, Vicksburg was shelled, and no, it was not wrong. The South sought to strangle the north by shutting down the Mississippi. The north sought to open the Mississippi and blockade the south. Vicksburg was a military target. If combatants use civilians as human shields, and occupy civilian areas during conflict, it is they who are responsible for civilian casualties. This is why the rules of war have all manner of rules for cities and when they can and can not be a war zone. The south CHOSE to make Vicksburg into a military objective, and CHOSE not to evacuate the civilians beforehand. Lay your dead at their feet. But of course you won't. Everything is the fault of the evil yankee. Its so much easier that way.

Irrelevant facts do not support an argument, even though each is in fact a fact. No one denies that enthusiasm for the war had grown thin by the end. This does not mean enthusiasm for a new and different war could not have been generated by a harsh military regime whose purpose was to punish southerners.

I'm sure if you could have explained it all to the citizens of Vicksburg, they would have realized that they were a fair military target and felt no animosity toward the people who were shooting at them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As for "too harsh a backlash," it's hard to imagine it being harsher.

You mean how The North didn't execute the entire leadership of the Rebellion? You think King George would have been as nice if the American Revolution had failed?

I did not say a harsher backlash was not possible. I meant it was hard to imagine a harsher backlash, given the reality of the situation.

The Southern Rebellion cost America the lives of over half a million people. All in the name of a state's right to allow legal slavery, when the issue of banning slavery wasn't even on the table with Lincoln.

Sure the heck could have been worse!

And do you think the poor whites would rise to keep the rich in their mansions? It was at that moment that the south was most divided against itself.

There were people, like General Sherman and President Johnson himself, who proposed measures that were considerably harsher. And don't forget that ol' Machiavelli, who straight up said that when conquering a country, you should dispossess the rich and powerful and establish colonies of loyal citizens. So no hindsight necessary.

I congratulate you on your knowledge of the south.

Two of my great grandfathers served in the Confederate Army. One was wounded at Gettysburg and the other spent two years in a contract prison of war camp in Connecticut. Neither of them ever owned a slave, yet for some reason, they both enlisted. I don't expect a 21st century Minnesotan to understand the motivation of a pair of 19th century North Carolina farmers, but for the ordinary Confederate soldier, the fight was more about place than slavery. Their county, their town, and their state called them and they answered. I have to concede this is a bizarre concept in this time. If there were a call for my neighbors to defend the honor of Baton Rouge, I'm not sure we could muster enough people to fill park bench.

Honor? It seemed more like a parallel with God telling Abraham to sacrifice Issac, ie... blind obedience.

The war affected the rich, the poor, and the middle class, much alike. When I was young, from the ages of about 5 to 12, I lived in Vicksburg, Mississippi. In the backyard of my house was a 13 inch mortar. This was a large round iron ball, which was supposed to explode and destroy everything in a 50 foot radius. It did not explode and was found many years later, while digging the foundation of the house where I lived. Even 100 years after the siege of the city, it was still common to find unexploded ordnance.

Consider this for a moment. A warship of the United States Navy fired a 200 pound explosive shell, which was capable of leveling a 100 foot circle, killing any and all, into a residential neighborhood. Most of the other shells did explode. Such experiences have a way of unifying people. It would be a mistake to imagine the white southerners who survived the experience would be divided if confronted with more of the same.

Boo fucking hoo. If the South didn't want to suffer the consequences of a war, they shouldn't have rebelled in the first place. They could have quit at any time.

The Colonies rebelled to form a democracy, the South rebelled to create a permanent institution of slavery.