The Confederate Conspiracy to Kill Lincoln

[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.

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.

I'll need to register this post with the Institute of missed points.

 

[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

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.

Well, the evidence is circumstantial, but that's still important and can't be ignored. It's admissible in a court of law. The question is whether it's enough. Some here have argued that Davis had no real cause to order Lincoln's assassination. But the Dalghren raid, with the supposed purpose of assassinating Davis would have given him plenty of cause. There is most importantly though the undeniable connection between Judah Benjamin and Surratt. Surratt was a member of the Confederate spy ring in DC. He had at a minimum indirect meetings with Benjamin, if not actually face to face. That part were not sure about. The idea that they acted in a rogue fashion also doesn't make sense when all of the targets are taken into consideration. Why attack the Secretary of State? He was not in line for the Presidency! The answer has to do with a 1798 succession law and the Secretary of State's role if both the President and Veep are taken out. Only someone trained in the law, i.e. Judah Benjamin, would likely know the process and the targets selected were guaranteed to wreak maximum havoc on the Union government. Such an event, might (MIGHT) have been sufficient to turn the tide for the Confederacy at such a time - especially if Lee's Army was still in the field (when the order was likely given). Or at least that is what some strident southerners could conclude. And finally Benajmin leaves the US, never to return. Here was a guy that hated the union so much that he left it for good rather than return to his birth nation. He certainly does sound like the sort of guy who wouldn't hesitate to kill Lincoln.

Granted there is no direct evidence. No smoking gun. Benjamin burned his files before abandoning Richmond. Smart move. But we've lost the historical opportunity to know what really happened. Of course destruction of evidence is admissible to prove guilt in a court of law. See the spoliation rule.

SLD

 

[SLD]

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.

I'll need to register this post with the Institute of missed points.

Arrrgh.

Who cares what some North Carolina enlisted soldier thought with respect to the OP? Southerners were not all of one mind; neither were northeners. The point is that some Southerners, including some in very high leadership places, possibly up to Jeff Davis, were hell bent on maximum destruction and continuing the war with all possible means, even after the fall of Richmond, and even after Lee's surrender at Appomattox. When, Richmond had to be evacuated, Davis issued a release saying that the Army was now free to maneuver and could more readily defeat the Union Army. Uh-hunh!

Many other southerners left the South never to return. There is still a Southern expat community in Brazil.

It's also important that if there we an assassination order, it went out before Lee's surrender, and Grant's extremely generous terms to the Southern men who'd waged the war. And even those terms did not apply to the Southern political leadership. Jeff Davis was charged with treason, and many people wanted him hung. He served several years in prison before the North simply lost interest in prosecuting him. By that point people just wanted to forget "the late unpleasantness." But at the time, the Southern leadership had no such assurances, and did fear for their necks; striking back at Northern leadership was a last gasp for them.


SLD

 

[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.

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.

I'll need to register this post with the Institute of missed points.

Arrrgh.

Who cares what some North Carolina enlisted soldier thought with respect to the OP? Southerners were not all of one mind; neither were northeners. The point is that some Southerners, including some in very high leadership places, possibly up to Jeff Davis, were hell bent on maximum destruction and continuing the war with all possible means, even after the fall of Richmond, and even after Lee's surrender at Appomattox. When, Richmond had to be evacuated, Davis issued a release saying that the Army was now free to maneuver and could more readily defeat the Union Army. Uh-hunh!

Many other southerners left the South never to return. There is still a Southern expat community in Brazil.

It's also important that if there we an assassination order, it went out before Lee's surrender, and Grant's extremely generous terms to the Southern men who'd waged the war. And even those terms did not apply to the Southern political leadership. Jeff Davis was charged with treason, and many people wanted him hung. He served several years in prison before the North simply lost interest in prosecuting him. By that point people just wanted to forget "the late unpleasantness." But at the time, the Southern leadership had no such assurances, and did fear for their necks; striking back at Northern leadership was a last gasp for them.


SLD

Excuse me, but if you wish to speak for the Confederate dead, please submit your pedigree.

Technical note relating to the fall of Richmond: J. Davis's order not withstanding, Richmond was the last supply depot in the south. The fall of Richmond meant there would be no more rations delivered to an Army which was already several days behind in meals.

 

[SLD]

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.

I'll need to register this post with the Institute of missed points.

Arrrgh.

Who cares what some North Carolina enlisted soldier thought with respect to the OP? Southerners were not all of one mind; neither were northeners. The point is that some Southerners, including some in very high leadership places, possibly up to Jeff Davis, were hell bent on maximum destruction and continuing the war with all possible means, even after the fall of Richmond, and even after Lee's surrender at Appomattox. When, Richmond had to be evacuated, Davis issued a release saying that the Army was now free to maneuver and could more readily defeat the Union Army. Uh-hunh!

Many other southerners left the South never to return. There is still a Southern expat community in Brazil.

It's also important that if there we an assassination order, it went out before Lee's surrender, and Grant's extremely generous terms to the Southern men who'd waged the war. And even those terms did not apply to the Southern political leadership. Jeff Davis was charged with treason, and many people wanted him hung. He served several years in prison before the North simply lost interest in prosecuting him. By that point people just wanted to forget "the late unpleasantness." But at the time, the Southern leadership had no such assurances, and did fear for their necks; striking back at Northern leadership was a last gasp for them.


SLD

Excuse me, but if you wish to speak for the Confederate dead, please submit your pedigree.

Technical note relating to the fall of Richmond: J. Davis's order not withstanding, Richmond was the last supply depot in the south. The fall of Richmond meant there would be no more rations delivered to an Army which was already several days behind in meals.

What the fuck does my "pedigree" have to do with shit? My ancestry is utterly irelevant. What is important is to read history, and not rely on what your pappy told you about what his great grand pappy said about how you got your belly button. The issue is evidence for or against a wider Confederate government conspiracy. But for the record, my ancestry is southern, including the 6th Alabama and the 14th Georgia. Also a southern spy in NYC. Only one Yankee, but he was a brit who came over to get in the fight one way or the other and just happened to end up in the north.

SLD

 

[Bronzeage]

[

What the fuck does my "pedigree" have to do with shit? My ancestry is utterly irelevant. What is important is to read history, and not rely on what your pappy told you about what his great grand pappy said about how you got your belly button. The issue is evidence for or against a wider Confederate government conspiracy. But for the record, my ancestry is southern, including the 6th Alabama and the 14th Georgia. Also a southern spy in NYC. Only one Yankee, but he was a brit who came over to get in the fight one way or the other and just happened to end up in the north.

SLD

Welcome to the Coven. Since you have one Union ancestor, you will have to sit in the second row. I'm sure you understand.

Yeah, that history is some good stuff and I've read quite a bit of it. There is no evidence of a wider Confederate Government conspiracy. There's dubious evidence against some of the people actually convicted in the conspiracy.

As for grandpappy's and belly buttons, you don't really believe that story about how your Brit grandfather "just happened to end up in the north", do you?