Replies

I would like to know which Article of the Lieber Codes you cite as authority for retaliation.

Article 27 & 28, noted below.

Without saying so, explicitly ...

Lee might have surrendered in April 1865, but other Confederate forces did not surrender until May 1865. Among them, Richard Taylor, son of former President Zachary Taylor, brother-in-law to President Davis. Brigadier General Stand Watie did not surrender until 23 Jun 1865.

Booth's action was wrong and is condemned. Regardless of my feelings for Lincoln, his planned treatment of the Confederate states was far more lenient than that of the following Congresses.

Possibly, if you have the cajones, you could explain yourself more fully.

Why, so you or M. Espinola can hit the abuse button again?

Again, for those that are not aware of the FACTS of this case, President Lincoln ordered Gen. Butler to capture President Davis and burn Richmond. That failed. Afterward Col. Dahlgren was killed by Confederate forces outside Richmond in yet another failed raid. On his person he had orders stating, "[t]he men must keep together & well in hand & once in the City it must be destroyed & Jeff. Davis and Cabinet killed."

Lincoln had tried not once, but twice to capture or kill President Davis and his cabinet. Per the Lieber Code - implemented by Lincoln, LEGALLY justifed retailitory measures - in fact - it demanded them. In spite of this, the Confederate leadership REFUSED to order the assassination of President Lincoln.

For those unfamiliar with the military rules of conduct drafted by Frances Lieber for Lincoln & the Union forces:

Art. 148. The law of war does not allow proclaiming either an individual belonging to the hostile army, or a citizen, or a subject of the hostile government, an outlaw, who may be slain without trial by any captor, any more than the modern law of peace allows such intentional outlawry; on the contrary, it abhors such outrage. The sternest retaliation should follow the murder committed in consequence of such proclamation, made by whatever authority. Civilized nations look with horror upon offers of rewards for the assassination of enemies as relapses into barbarism.'

Note that it states "the sternest retaliation should follow..."

Again, from the Code:

'Art. 27. ... [C]ivilized nations acknowledge RETALIATION as the STERNEST feature of war. A reckless enemy often leaves to his opponent no other means of securing himself against the repetition of barbarous outrage.
Art. 28. Retaliation will therefore never be resorted to as a measure of mere revenge, but only as a means of PROTECTIVE retribution...'

Regarding the knowledge of Lincoln and his approval:

'The idea originated with General Kilpatrick, and, on being submitted in all its details, met the approbation of the Secretary of War, and of the President of the United States.'
Admiral John Dahlgren, Memoir of Ulric Dahlgren, Philadelphia, PA: J. B. Lippincott & Co (1872), p. 205

On 26 Feb, Ulric wrote his father, 'I have not returned to the fleet, because there is a grand raid to be made, and I am to have a very important command. If sucessful, it will be the grandest thing on record.'

[Admin Moderator: My comments do not indicate that I wish for the death of ANY President, only that per existing code it was legal as a retaliatory measure. The murder/assassination of anyone is reprehensible, and in no way condoned or advocated.]