Rome’s Responsibility for the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln
Facts about the assassination of Abraham Lincoln
Contents
Now for the facts. And we will take, as our starting point, the fact well established, that the headquarters of the conspiracy in Washington City, was the house of a Roman Catholic family, of which Mrs. Mary E. Surratt was the head; and all of its inmates, including a number of boarders, were devoted members of the Roman Catholic Church. This house was the meeting place, the council chamber, of Booth and his co-conspirators, including Mrs. Mary E. Surratt, and her son, John H. Surratt, who, next to Booth, were the most active members of the conspiracy in preparation for the execution of the plot.
Booth, the ringleader, was born and reared a Protestant. He was only a nominal Protestant, however.
He was man of the world; a drunkard and a libertine, and utterly indifferent to matters of religion.
That under the influence of his associations in the conspiracy plot, he had become a pervert to Catholicism, was shown, however by the fact that, on examination of his person after his death, it was found that he was wearing a Catholic medal under his vest, and over his heart.
The wily Jesuit, sympathizing with him in his political views, and in hope of destroying our government, and establishing the Confederacy, which had already received the Pope’s recognition, and expressions of good will and sympathy conferred upon it, had been able to pervert him to Catholicism, and to deceive him into the belief that his medal would conduce to his personal safety, and to the success of his enterprise. He had, no doubt, been baptized into the Catholic Church. This medal at once marked and identified him as a pervert to Catholicism.
Now we have Mary E. Surratt, John H. Surratt, J. Wilkes Booth, Dr. Samuel Mudd, and Michael O’Laughlin, five of the leading active spirits in the execution of the plot to assassinate, belonging to the Roman Catholic Church.
My impression is that Herold and Spangler were also members or adherents to that church. Be this as it may, they, together with Atzertot and Payne, were the mere tools, and hired agents of Booth and Surratt, and so stood ready to serve their purpose; and so it boots not to inquire into their faith or want of faith.
Our inquiry then, thus far, has established the fact that five of the conspirators were members of the Roman Catholic Church and that these five were its leaders, to whom the execution of the plot had been confided. We have also seen that their meeting place, or council chamber, in Washington, whilst engaged in perfection their arrangements for the assassinations that had been determined upon, was the dwelling place and under the control of Mrs. Mary E. Surratt and John H. Surratt, her son; both of whom were zealous slaves of the Pope, and clearly proven, by the evidence given before the Commission and by that given two years later, on the trial of John H. Surratt in a civil court, to have been leading and active members of the conspiracy. Mrs. Surratt was a diligent and faithful attendance upon church services; and from the evidence given by three or four priests in her behalf before the Commission, she had established, in their estimation, a high character for devotion and Christian piety.
It was a noteworthy fact, however, that, of all these priestly witnesses, but one admitted that he had been on specially intimate terms with her during the five months in which the plans and preparations for the assassinations were being made. Most of them had been acquainted with her for many years, and seemed to be well acquainted with her church reputation, but they had only seen her casually during these latter months. One of these, Father Wiget, was Mrs. Surratt’s pastor during all this time, and testified that he knew her well; but did not know whether she was loyal or disloyal. This would seem to be very doubtful testimony, as Father Wiget was noted for his disloyalty, and could hardly have been supposed to have spent many hours with her, at different times, without ever having heard her express her views in relation to the one all absorbing topic of the time. that was uppermost in the minds of all, and formed the chief topic of conversation.
He could only say that he did not remember having heard her utter a loyal sentiment since the beginning of the rebellion; nor could he remember having heard any one speak of her as notoriously disloyal, until since her arrest. He said he had become acquainted with her through having had the care of two of her sons as his pupils, one of these was serving in the rebel army; and the other, John H. Surratt, had been a rebel emissary and spy for three years, passing back and forth between Washington and Richmond, and from Richmond to Canada and back, as a bearer of dispatches, and yet, this Jesuitical priest, endeavored so to shape his testimony as to leave the impression that the topics of conversation between himself and Mrs. Surratt, whilst all this as going on, and much more, was confined to such topics as the state of her health, the weather, etc.. He was very positive as to her good Christian character, which he had been summoned to prove, but had very little recollection of anything else.
Father Boyle, resident at St. Peter’s Church, Washington City, had made the acquaintance of Mrs. Surratt eight or nine years previously, but had only met her three or four times since. He had always heard her well spoken of; never had heard anything to her disadvantage; had never heard her utter any disloyal sentiments.
Father Stonestreet, pastor of St. Aloysius Church, Washington City, had made her acquaintance twenty years before; had only occasionally seen her since; had scarcely seen her at all during the last year or two; had always looked upon her a proper Christian matron. At the time of his acquaintance with her, (which he was locating twenty years back) there was no question of her loyalty. Replying to a question by the Judge Advocate: -“He did not remember having seen her, thought he might have done so transiently, since the commencement of the rebellion; and knew nothing of her character for loyalty, only what he had seen in the papers.”
Father Lanihan, a Catholic priest living near Beantown, in Maryland, testified that he had been acquainted with Mrs. Surratt for about thirteen years; intimately for about nine years; that he had been very familiar with her, staying at her house. He regarded her as a good Christian woman, highly honorable; he had frequently talked with her about current events, and public affairs since the rebellion, but could not remember ever having heard her express any disloyal sentiments; neither had he heard her reputation for loyalty spoken of.
Finally, Father Young, of St. Dominick’s Church, on Sixth Street, Washington City, was called in her behalf; he had been acquainted with Mrs. Surratt about eight or ten years, but not intimately; he had occasionally seen her, and visited her; passed her house about once a month, and generally called there, staying sometimes an hour. He, like the others, was a good witness for her as to her character, but could say nothing as to her loyalty, or disloyalty; he had never heard her speak as to current events one way or another. How can we credit the testimony of this witness? Is it credible that he could have spent an hour in conversation with a rebel woman of such positive character and convictions, once a month, during the heat of the conflict, and yet never have heard any expressions from her on the subject that filled the minds and hearts of all, and formed the chief topic of conversation, in all classes of society’? Such silence between a rebel woman and a rebel priest, who were on intimate and confidential terms, is too incredible to be believed.
We cannot help thinking that all of these holy or unholy Fathers testified under the well understood mental reservations of the Jesuits. Father Wiget was, as we have said, her pastor, and so, we take it, was her confessor. We cannot think it at all probable that she would have engaged in a conspiracy fraught with so much danger to her, and such grave consequences hereafter, without having confided to him her terrible secret; nor without his approval. It certainly is rather strange that she should have broken her relations with him after her conviction, and taken Father Walter for her confessor and spiritual guide in her preparation for death.
There must have been some grave reason for this change; and it was made for her, by these Jesuit priests, for some important reason. It is not at all likely that at such a time, and under such solemn circumstances, she would have made this change from her pastor to another priest with whom she had not had any previous acquaintance, of her own volition. Had she been innocent, her trusted pastor would have been the one to whom she naturally would have looked for consolation. But Wiget had no doubt told her that she would incur no guilt in aiding the conspiracy, and so to Walter she could declare her innocence, having the faith of a Catholic in Wiget’s power to grant her dispensation. Father Walter could say “that whilst his priestly vows would not allow him to reveal the secrets of the confessional, he could say, that from what there came to his knowledge, he knew her to be an innocent woman.” There was to be a great effort made to get a commutation, or reversal of her sentence; and the strong plea of the Father was to be based on this assertion of her innocence. Failing in this, Father Walter, for thirty years, persisted in his efforts to fix upon the government the stigma of having murdered an innocent woman.
In its uniting with Father Walter in his effort to fix upon our government the stigma of a great crime, to its eternal disgrace, the Roman Catholic Hierarchy assumed, with him, the responsibility of perverting the well established truths of history, and of thus manifesting their hatred of our government, and their chagrin and bitter disappointment at the failure of their efforts for its overthrow.
So deep, and bitter, was their disappointment at the signal success of the government in the vindication of its authority, and its right to exist, that for a quarter of a century it never ceased its efforts to fix upon it the stigma of this alleged crime, and it was only estopped from this effort by the publication of my “History of the Great Conspiracy” to overthrow our government by a series of assassinations, when, fearing that its further agitation might tend to give publicity to my book, and that thus the facts of this conspiracy would become more widely known, and the truth of history vindicated, that the agitation of this charge, and contention against the government was dropped as it had become a hot potato. We must not forget, that in all this, they acted under a full knowledge of all the facts in the case. These had been fully displayed to the world through the evidence produced by the government on the trial of the assassins in 1865, and two years later, still more fully, on the trial of John H. Surratt in a civil court. These things were not done in a corner, but openly before the world. Their sympathy with the conspirators and assassins, and their enmity toward the government, was thus openly proclaimed before the world; and the attitude of the Hierarchy toward the assassination of the nation’s head, was clearly manifest. It was Abraham Lincoln, it is true, that was slain, but it was the life of the nation that the blow was aimed at. The scheme to aid the rebellion by the assassination of the President, the Vice-President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of War, and the General in command of our armies, was concocted by the emissaries of the rebel government, who kept their headquarters in Montreal, Canada. These emissaries held a semi-official relation to the Confederate government. The whole run of the evidence makes it clear that the Roman Hierarchy kept itself in close relations with these emissaries; and it is highly probable, from a consideration of all of the facts, with the head of the government in whose service they were employed also. It kept itself in these close relations for a purpose, and was most likely the original source of the inspiration of the assassination plot.
These rebel emissaries were Jacob Thompson, of Mississippi: Clement C. Clay, of Alabama; and Beverly Tucker of Virginia. These had associated with them as helpers. George N. Sanders, Dr. Blackburn, and others; men who preferred to fight in the field of political strategy, rather than on the field of battle.
These agents of the rebel government entered into a contract with J. Wilkes Booth and John H. Surratt to carry out their scheme, and also aided them in the selection of their subordinates. Whether these emissaries were Protestants or Catholics, I am not informed. My impression, however, is that they were nominally Protestants. They were all, however, wicked men, evidently accepting the maxim that “all is fair in war,” and having no conscientious scruples as to the means that they employed to give aid to their cause. That the Jesuit had their ear, and aided them with his suggestions, is made probable by the fact, that in his efforts to enlist, as a helper to Booth and Surratt, a young man who was sent before the commission as a witness, on the trial, Thompson used the Jesuitical argument, that to kill a tyrant was no murder; and so, assuming that President Lincoln was a tyrant, it would be a glorious and praiseworthy act to take him off.
