Friend:
First: Please do not dishonor my ancestors by refering to the war as a "Rebellion". It wasn't. Congress officially named it the War Between the States in 1877. To refer to the war as a "rebellion" is as ludicrous as me refering to it as the "War of Northern Agression"
You may not agree with the fact that the Confederacy was a legitimate entity, but you must realize that from the Southern point of view, Lincoln was an enemy. Once he authorized Kilpatrick & Dahlgren to make their raid on Richmond, he placed himself in the risk of being killed s well. From the Confederate Governments point of view, ordering an assassination was morally correct, and viable, due to the above facts.
If I did not call them like I see them I would not be honest in my overview of either side during the Civil War.
I realize Lincoln was the enemy to those promoters of insurrection since they were determined to expand and also maintain their monetary interests in the cotton trade which was only possible due to the continuation of slavery. Let's face it, the plantation masters were not about to pick cotton in the blazing humid heat all day.
In terms of any raid on Richmond. If such a raid would have ended the wholesale bloodshed this nation been reduced to, then naturally & logically a plan to end the Civil War should have been implemented.
Since the removal or capturing of the entire Confederate régime never happened the assassination of President Lincoln is even more detestable.
What if some politicians triggered a civil war in today's America. You and I both know what the public outcry would be. What you are saying here, "From the Confederate Governments point of view, ordering an was morally correct, and viable, due to the above facts."
The assassination of any American President can ever be considered "morally correct".
Look at this topic in this manner. If the same question were polled to the Americans people today on if it is permissible or morally correct to assassinate any American President for any reason, the overwhelming response would be one of being appalled the question was even being asked and second, the answer would be 'no', 'never'.
That is part the point of disagreement. The other is I do not considerer the corporate interests for the promotion of the South's exported commodity crop, that being cotton, to be a government by any stretch of the imagination, no matter how the Southern corporate leaders attempted to spin it even back in 1861.
The majority of little guys doing the fighting for the cotton empire and dieing, did not share in the corporate entities profits.
Examine the moral fiber of some of the prime promoters of insurrection and succession, the likes of Griffin and Stephens. These were despicable examples for human beings so consumed with hate one shot himself because he could not live in reality of freedom for the slaves he so valued for his own self gain.
The bottom line in all of this is if the Confederates had pulled off total victory slavery would have continued and being a divided nation we would have been susceptible to foreign intervention. I know those possibilities are unaceptable to you as well as I.