Conference smurf::civil_war

    re .0
    
    Although the behaviour of Stanton lent itself to suspicion, e.g. the
    quick roundup of the suspects and a drumhead trial, I know of no
    substatial evidence that there were any Union officials involved in the
    assasination.  It is not clear to me, just how Stanton or any other cabinet
    member benefitted from Licoln's death.
    

    The radical elements of the Republican party opposed the generous terms
    Grant offered to Lee and also forced Sherman to harden his terms to
    Johnson.  Many of them were motivated by a desire for revenge against
    the South.  The harsh measures of the Reconstruction followed those
    desires and Pres. Johnson was within a single vote of being tossed out,
    largely because the radical considered him to be soft on the South.
    
    Republicans ruled the nation for several terms following the war.  
    
    These things may indicate that the radical republicans indeed benefit
    from Lincoln's death.
    
    However, I know of no creditable evidence that a conspiracy beyond
    those in Booth's group existed.
    
    
    Marv
    

    
    Re: .2
    
    While the Radicals did espouse a hard line with the South, it
    is not fair to say that they were motivated with a desire for
    revenge against the South. 
    
    Many were also motivated with a desire for justice for the 
    black men and women who had formerly been slaves. Reconstruction
    WAS harsh because the South persisted in maintaining social
    control of blacks, and keeping them in "peonage" with lesser
    access to education or voting rights. 
    
    Johnson was a narrow-minded individual, who cleaved
    to what he believed was Lincoln's policy at a point in time.
    He utterly lacked Old Abe's flexibility and ability to 
    compromise advantageously. He was the author of many of his
    own misfortunes. When he started his Presidency, he had the
    goodwill of the Radicals.
    
    The Radical Republicans have had a bad press. They are only
    now being recognised as what they were - men who struggled
    to liberate the blacks, which of course carried a measure
    of distaste for the white South, but who ultimately failed.
    
    Toby

    There's long existed a theory that someone in Lincoln's Cabinet
    was involved. This was given some credibility (SP?) by his own
    son, Robert Todd Lincoln in the mid 1920's (1926 I think). It 
    seems that Robert Lincoln was either living with friends or 
    friends were visiting him at that time. They discovered him
    burning some papers and when asked what he was burning his
    reply was "some of my fathers papers". The friend then said
    "for history's sake you mustn't" to which he is reputed to
    have replied "for history's sake I must because they implicate
    a member of my father's cabinet in his death." I cannot fathom
    why Robert Lincoln wouldn't want to divulge the information,
    however, why do lots of people do lots of things?
    
    Many continually point towards Stanton as a suspect, although
    I did read an account where Mary Todd Lincoln herself was also
    suspected by that author. (Can't really recall where I read that
    though). Stanton's activities did have some rather parculiar aspects
    to them. For example he refused to let a man Lincoln requested as
    a bodyguard for that evening go with Lincoln (because Lincoln 
    had seen this fellow break fire pokers over his own forearm) saying
    that he (Stanton) had work for the man that evening. However he 
    sent him home quite early enough to have been able to accompany
    Lincoln. Stanton did act as a Military Dictator for several hours
    immediately following the assassination attempt and some of his
    moves were likewise suspect. For example he closed all bridges
    leading out of Washington immediately EXCEPT the one bridge which
    Booth and Harold ultimately took. One could suspect Secretary of
    State Seward except that he was seriously wounded by Lewis Paine
    that same night while in bed. It was clear from the trial and
    evidence that the plan was to assassinate Steward, Lincoln and
    Vice President Johnson. Now Johnson's assassin, George Atzerod
    was probably the absolute weakness one, so could that have
    been pre-planned? Atzerod never even made the attempt, although
    he was hung anyways for being part of the conspiracy that could
    be proved. Likewise David Herold, Lewis Paine and Mary Surratt 
    were all hung for their part. There's a lot of argument around
    that Mary Surratt was a victim versus a conspirator though. A good
    book, still in print and available in Paperback from most good
    book stores is "The Lincoln Conspiracy". That one does tend to
    lean towards Stanton as I recall. It also proposes Northern 
    Businessmen as being part of a conspiracy as well. As to who would 
    benefit, well, those who favored a harsh surrender terms, as many 
    felt Lincoln's proposal for healing the nation was too lenient 
    (Stanton among them).
    Also, obviously, Andrew Johnson now became President of the U.S.
    Considering some of the recent books on some of our presidents
    (LBJ, JFK, and of course Richard Nixon) that might not be as
    far fetched as you'd initially think, although Johnson, as noted,
    was more in favor of Lincoln's reconstruction policies.
    
    	To get back to the original question though, yes, there was
    a clear conspiracy. This involved John Wilkes Booth, Lewis Paine,
    George Atzerod, John Surratt, David Herold and, based solely on
    her conviction (not my opinion though) Mary Surratt. Those names
    were linked, and for want of a better word, 'proven' during the
    trial of Paine, Atzerod, Herold and Mrs. Surratt. Several others
    were also found guilty and sentenced to prison (Dr. Samual Mudd
    and Ned Spangler I believe) but later pardoned. Insofar as how
    high up in government, there may or may not have been involvement,
    I can only guess and no one has ever really proven others that
    I know of. 
    
    	Hope that's helpful
    		 

    
    	A couple of interesting notes on the assasination and trial that I
    picked up from the memoirs of Henry Kydd Douglas, a man from Maryland
    who served as one of Stonewall Jackson's staff.
    
    	Douglas noted in his diary, when he heard the news of Lincoln's
    assasination, that it was going to mean trouble for the South - which
    turned out to be prophetic.  It throws an interesting light on how one
    determines the probable outcomes of an action, because Booth clearly
    thought (if Booth can be said to have thought clearly... ;^} ) that he
    was avenging the South and destroying one of its enemies.
    
    	Douglas was present at the trial.  He was a combination
    witness/accused, because an effort was made to link officers of the
    Stonewall Brigade of the ANV with the assasination (based entirely on
    the unsupported testimony of a man who deserted from the AoP, joined
    the ANV, and the deserted from there - when recaptured by the Federals,
    he told his "conspiricy" story).  Douglas' opinion was that the trial
    was a farce - that no attempt to follow proper procedure was made.  He
    also thought it was an _unnecessary_ farce, because enough evidence
    existed against Booth and the others, except Mrs. Surrat, to convict
    them.  He was storngly of the opinion that Mrs. Surrat was innocent.
    
    MikeR
    

    
    	My father put a new spin on Reconstruction for me. The history he
    	learned was that Johnson didn't have enough support to govern, and
    	the real power was the Speaker of the House, Thaddeus Stevens. And
    	that furthermore, Stevens got his Reconstruction policy from his
    	black maidservant!
    
    	Any votes for him as conspirator?
    

    
    I find something distasteful in the title and content of the
    last note.
    
    Racial slurs about abolitionists or Radical Republican were common
    e.g that they had black mistresses, or that they had black 
    grandparents etc. etc. These slanders were in general circulation,
    however they were mostly false.
    
    Thaddeus Stevens was not Speaker of the House (as far as I can recall)
    but he was the leader of the Radicals there. In many respects, in
    particular his advocacy of Civil Rights for blacks, he was a century
    ahead of his time. He consistently opposed Johnson's "softness" towards
    ex-Confederates. As I said above, Johnson was a cantankerous and
    contrary man who set his face against any compromise with his 
    opponents.
    
    However the Radical Republicans were always in a minority in both
    houses. For the constitiutional amendments and laws they proposed,
    they had to put together majorities based on compromises with
    more conservative members. Hence a lot of their work was later
    undone by the Supreme Court and Congress itself. Blacks lost
    voting rights, and racial segregation was introduced in the South
    without serious opposition from Congress.
    
    Even if Stevens had a black mistress or wife, there is no reason
    to believe that is was her influence that caused him to take the
    stand he did. Nor is there any grounds to make him a co-conspirator
    with a disgruntled Confederate synpathizer like Booth.
    
    There is a counter-picture of Stevens (who is usually presented as a 
    malevolent and evil man) as an enlightened and progressive individual,
    albeit sarcastic and savage towards opponents, who left instructions
    that he be buried in a pauper's grave to symbolise his sympathies
    with the poor and powerless.
    Toby

    
    My favourite Stevens story tells how at the end of a long
    speech, when he had to give the floor to an adversary, he
    introduced him thus:
    
    "I now yield the floor to my friend, ********, who will make
     a few feeble remarks...."