The 'new' book cover a lot o.f. old ground, I'm afraid. I've seen this theory advanced before and am not impressed by it.
In this one case, I am strictly, 'the lone nut' case o.f. John Wilkes Booth and his slow-witted comrades.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Me too. Until someone comes up with better evidence supporting conspiracy theories, Booth acted alone.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Lincoln, Garfield and McKinely all get assassinated. You would think there would have been more personal protection for the President, particularly during the Civil War.
I agree, I think Booth acted alone, the conspiracy theory I like the best is the Stanton did it theory!
I think that Stanton had something to do with the act. He was convinently attacked but not seriously injured. Most writing seem to show he was opposed to the lenient treatment the Souther soilders were recieving and wanted strict penalities against the Confederate goverment and civilians.
I think that Stanton had something to do with the act. He was convinently attacked but not seriously injured. Most writing seem to show he was opposed to the lenient treatment the Souther soilders were recieving and wanted strict penalities against the Confederate goverment and civilians.
There's circumstantial evidence that could imply involvement. And he was opposed to the lenient treatment the rebellious states were intended to receive. But to even think of eliminating the man who had just become the Union's hero would have been incredibly stupid--and Stanton was not a stupid man. The outrage against Booth was only a hint of what would have happened if Stanton had been accused.
Besides, conspiracies rarely work. If Stanton were involved, that would be two.
ole
I like your posts.
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
What is it about people that they can't believe that a single nut/zealot could be an assassin? While the official versions may not be perfect, I'm still yet to see a conspiracy theory that didn't have HUGE holes in it.
__________________ David
"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person" diddyriddick
Welcome to the board Nebka! Glad to hear form you. Can you elaborate a little bit perhaps? Don't be shy just cause your new, none of us bite! (well I do sometimes but Ole tries to keep me in line!!)
__________________ "In mortal combat, a man may and will become so infuriated by the din and dangers of a bloody fight that his heart will turn to stone and his every de sire [be] for blood."
John Hadley, 7th Indiana after the battle at Port Republic
Same welcome, Nebka, and almost the same question: did the prof back up his belief with anything but circumstantial evidence? I'll assume that you've walked back to the beginning of this thread and read your way forward. You noted that your professor is not alone in his belief. I was wondering if he was more convincing than the posters to this board.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
