Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire John Wilkes Booth

Lincoln and his henchmen disregarded the Constitution and the states that preferred the old way of government seceded. He instigated a war against that country and forced it back into the "union". Lincoln was a tyrant, criminal and a murderer.

didn't the south fire on first sumter?? and I suppose black should still be slaves?? I am a texan myself. you have got to get a grip

They were merely serving a lawful eviction notice to vacate CSA property.

Get a grip? lol You must be talking to yourself. You're the one who sounds all worked up about it. I'm merely stating facts.

Certainly the South fired on Fort Sumter, after Jefferson Davis and others journeyed north and practically begged Lincoln to let the Southern states go peacefully. Sumter was in Southern Territory and no sovereign nation will allow a foreign military presence in their territory without authorization. Lincoln had ships steaming south to re-supply Sumter and also had troops ready to go to reinforce the Fort. He played a game with the South and forced them to fire. The President of the Confederacy did not desire to go to war and more than likely a peaceful reconciliation would have occurred had Lincoln and his handlers allowed a peaceful separation.

You really think that the big boys of the north who treated the Irish and other underclasses like dirt, including the post-war negroes, cared a bit about slavery? Slavery was a pretext to get deluded do-gooders in the North behind the war.

Actually reading some history as opposed to watching a couple of episodes about the war on the History channel can really make all the difference.

Booth killed a Republican. If he was not a murderer, then he was a democrat.

If you're a Texan, why does your location say "Utah"? Are you as mixed up about geography as you are about the war?

I don't have the time nor the inclination to educate everybody here, but it goes something like this...The Republican Party were the radicals at the time of the War Between the States. They were a new Party and the equivalent of the Liberals of today. There were several other viable parties of the time period. I believe I posted a link to 1860's election which can explain it better than I can. Basically the Democrats were the good guys. They were the Conservatives who wanted to follow the Constitution. The liberals wanted to trash it, and did. Somehow the sides got switched. Up until somewhat before the 1968 GCA most in the South were still Democrats and were the most conservative people in the Nation.

Amen. Lincoln was a tyrant and died a tyrant's death...

Here ya go Sir.

Bonnie Blue Flag

gunner500,

I'm still on the fence with Lincoln. I do think he's greatly overrated. However, since history must be analyzed in era and context, he might have not considered options to our nation's bloodiest war. Therefore, he might have been lead on to an avoidable path. Moreover, he was elected with a plurality of 36%, so he had to placate his tenuous political base in order to garner support for abolition.

Let's assume that the South had seceded and became a sovereign nation. How long would it have lasted? Because of slavery, it had alienated itself from most of Europe. Since it was an agrarian economy, it's primary source of revenue was export of cotton. If it had no buyers for its crop, then what?

The North, on the other hand, was every bit as racist as the south. In fact, it was Northern racism that instigated abolition of slavery. During the abysmal economic environment preceding the Civil War, poor whites were indignant because they had to compete with slave labor for jobs. Were slavery abolished, it was believed, plantation owners would've hired whites if their field hands had to be paid. Hence, racist Northerners wanted to force blacks off plantations and to compete with whites on equal footing.

While slaves were in deed slaves, they were far better off than many poor northern whites who were free, unemployed, poor, and hungry. Slaves were a substantial investment for plantation owners. It actually was very rare for plantation owners to mistreat them because were they injured they would've been unable to work. In one instance a slave escaped to the destitute north, found no work, and returned to his plantation and slave status. Three meals and a cot was much better than he could find in the North.

So if the South had successfully seceded without bloodshed, how long could it have survived as an independent & sovereign nation? The North, on the other hand was proceeding with America's fledgling Industrial Revolution. It's commerce was moving away from cottage industries to machine manufactured products. Since it wasn't burdened by slavery, it did have European trading partners. So without war, would the North's industrialization brought it revenue while the South languished in poverty because it was unable to engage in international commerce because other countries refused to trade with it due to slavery?

Had Lincoln forgone war, I believe that the union would have been reunited much sooner than later. It would have saved about 1.5 million lives. It would have been able to divert resources to its fledgling industrialization thereby creating more desperately needed jobs. And as a condition of reuniting, abolition would have assuredly been required.

As far as Booth, while he might have deluded himself into thinking that his murdering Lincoln would have resulted in some nebulous benefit for the South, that was not the case. During warfare, leaders are legitimate targets. However, when Booth murdered Lincoln, the war was over. So I would have to conclude Booth was a murderer. Lincoln's murder did result in Southerner Andrew Johnson ascension to the presidency, but he served only the remainder of Lincoln's second term during which Reconstruction proceeded under Union Army supervision. In essence, Johnson as a Southerner did nothing to ameliorate the South's Reconstruction.

I do know that the Civil War was not fought over egalitarian ideals of ending the scourge of slavery. Like nearly all wars, it was fought over economic advantage.


Take care,

Tom

BTW, had Lincoln been spared a murderer's bullet, he might not have had long to live. Its believed that he was suffering from a fatal disease that would have taken his life before he finished his second term.

So, you are calling me a liar? "Internet Bull Hockey" you say? Well Captain Ignorant, I did not get my information from the internet. The Dahlgreen Affair is well documented. Just because you have not heard of it does not mean it did not happen. If you care to do some research, either on the internet or possibly some historical refernce books not designed for third graders you possibly could find it for yourself. The Confederate govenment actually made photographs of the documents and a set of those photographs and the original document are at the U.S. National Archives at Washington. I also recall seeing a television documentary about the Dahlgren Affair and an investigation to determine if the documents found on the body of Col. Dahlgren were in fact real or faked. They were determined by computer analysis to have been real. As to my "friend" whom you seem to imply that I made up, I have encouraged him to publish his research on the Lincoln Assasination and most particularly his research concerning Booth. He has given several presentations to historical research groups on this and other related subjects and does in fact quote his sources. He is very much in demand as a speaker. There is a program on either the History Channel or Discovery Channel called Brad Metzger's something or another where they do historical research on various subjects. Metzger did a program about Booth and uncovered several of the same facts as my friend Eric did several years before. I guess you will claim that both of them were lying? By the way my imaginary "friend" is Eric Sandifer of Baytown, Texas. If you would like, I will get his mailing address and telephone number for you. His passion is history and he is constantly doing research. I have many pages of copies of Eric's presentations on this subject and if you still insist on implying that I am a damned liar, give me your mailing address and I will copy them and mail it to you. I'm not appologizing for a damned thing. I'm just stating documented facts of historical events and expressed my opinion that I think that it would have been better if Lincoln had not been assasinated. I did not say a damned thing about slavery in my post. If you were capable of reading comprehension, maybe you would have realized that.

My friend, you have to realize where a lot of folks are at on this issue. They have been indoctrinated by years, on purpose, by Yankee propaganda. A hated poster on these forums is a college prof and he calls historical research such as you speak of, "Revisionist History", as if it were some made-up thing that the Yankees themselves love to put forth.

I'd heard of the "Dahlgreen Affair" but knew naught of what it actually consisted of. I thank you ever so much for educating me on it. President Davis was a great, great man, vilified whereas the real villain, Lincoln, was uplifted as a Patriot and martyr. I have tried to educate some on here as to Davis' accomplishments, but it is tough sledding. Folks are near brainwashed on this subject.

You keep repeating that old lie and maybe someone will start believing it. Those "Good guy" Democrats of which you speak founded the KKK. So, you are wrong. Even in the 60's, Democrats opposed Civil Rights. Republicans, and Christians, have always opposed slavery.

Murderer who caused reconstruction....and destroted the South.

It was the Union Army that invaded and destroyed the South.

Swampy don't worry about the actual history, he just likes the hats.

Henry,

I am not sure of the alleged Dahlgren Affair. But it's a non-issue. During war, assassination of political leaders is legitimate. However, after warfare, any such assassination would be murder. Therefore, post-war, the murder of Lincoln was not justified. Booth committed premeditated, first degree murder.

At the time Booth murdered Lincoln, he could not have been a Confederate secret service agent because the Confederacy no longer existed. The South had lost the war. It no longer existed. Hence, the Confederacy had no government; therefore, it had no governmental entities; e.g., secret service.

Laguna,

If I'm not mistaken only Lee and the ANV had surrendered, there were still Confederate armies under arms in the field.

LBP,

When Lee surrendered at Appomattox, the Confederate Army was in full retreat. In fact, the war, for all intents and purposes, was over after Sherman's late 1864 March to the Sea. Lee's Appomattox surrender is considered the official end of the war. While there were assuredly insurgents who refused to abide by the terms and conditions of Lee's surrender -occurs in all wars- the Confederate government ceased to exist at Appomattox. Jefferson Davis was captured a month later. He could have been tried for treason & hanged, but wasn't.