Sic semper tyrannis!

Rasp

Senior Editor
Lincoln, his life and time; volume 2. By Henry J. Raymond. Chicago, 1891.

Important Letter From J. Wilkes Booth.

His Original Purpose was to take Mr. Lincoln a Prisoner.—His Reasons for his Action.

[From the Philadelphia Press, April 19 (1865).]

We have just received the following letter, written by John Wilkes Booth, and placed by him in the hands of his brother-in-law, J.S. Clarke. It was written by him in November last, and left withy J.S. Clarke in a sealed envelope, and addressed to himself, in his own handwriting. In the same envelope were some United States bonds and oil stocks. This letter was opened by Mr. Clarke for the first time on Monday last, and immediately handed by him to Marshall Milward, who has kindly placed it in our hands. Most unmistakably it proves that he must for many months have contemplated seizing the person of the late President. It is, however, doubtful whether he imagined the black deed which has plunged the nation into the deepest gloom, and at the same time awakened it to a just and righteous indignation:—

______, ______, 1864.

My Dear Sir:—You may use this as you think best. But as some may wish to know when, who, and why, and as I do not know how to direct it, I give it (in the words of your master):—



"To whom it may concern,"

Right or wrong, God judge me, not man. For be my motive good or bad, of one thing I am sure, the lasting condemnation of the North.

I love peace more than life. Have loved the Union beyond expression. For four years have I waited, hoped, and prayed for the dark clouds to break, and for a restoration of our former sunshine. To wait longer would be a crime. All hope for peace is dead. My prayers have proved as idle as my hopes. God's will be done. I go to see and share the bitter end.

I have ever held that the South were right. The very nomination of Abraham Lincoln, four years ago, spoke plainly, war—war upon Southern rights and institutions. His election proved it. "Await an overt act." Yes; till you are bound and plundered. What folly! The South were wise. Who thinks of argument or patience when the finger of his enemy presses on the trigger? In a foreign war, I, too, could say, "Country, right or wrong." But in a struggle such as ours (where one brother tries to pierce the brother's heart), for God's sake choose the right. When a country like this spurns justice from her side, she forfeits the allegiance of every honest freeman, and should leave him, untrammelled by any fealty soever, to act as his conscience may approve.

People of the North, to hate tyranny, to love liberty and justice, to strike at wrong and oppression, was the teaching of our fathers. The study of our early history will not let me forget it, and may it never.

This country was formed for the white, not for the black man. And, looking upon African slavery from the same stand-point held by the noble framers of our Constitution, I, for one, have ever considered it one of the greatest blessings (both for themselves and us) that God ever bestowed upon a favored nation. Witness heretofore our wealth and power; witness their elevation and enlightenment above their race elsewhere. I have lived among it most of my life, and have seen less harsh treatment from master to man than I have beheld in the North from father to son. Yet, Heaven knows, no one would be more willing to do more for the negro race than I, could I but see a way to still better their condition.

But Lincoln's policy is only preparing the way for their total annihilation. The South are not, nor have they been, fighting for the continuance of slavery. The first battle of Bull Run did away with that idea. Their causes since for war have been as noble and greater far than those that urged our fathers on. Even should we allow they were wrong at the beginning of this contest, cruelty and injustice have made the wrong become the right, and they stand now (before the wonder and admiration of the world) as a noble band of patriotic heroes. Hereafter, reading of their deeds, Thermopylæ will be forgotten.

When I aided in the capture and execution of John Brown (who was a murderer on our western border, and who was fairly tried and convicted, before an impartial judge and jury, of treason, and who, by-the-way, has since been made a god), I was proud of my little share in the transaction, for I deemed it my duty, and that I was helping our common country to perform an act of justice. But what was a crime in poor John Brown is now considered (by themselves) as the greatest and only virtue of the whole Republican party. Strange transmigration! Vice to become a virtue simply because more indulge in it!

I thought then, as now, that the abolitionists were the only traitors in the land, and that the entire party deserved the same fare as poor old Brown; not becasue they wish to abolish slavery, but on account of the means they have ever endeavored to use to effect that abolition. If Brown were living, I doubt whether he himself would set slavery against the Union. Most, or many in the North do, and openly, curse the Union if the South are to return and retain a single right guaranteed to them by every tie which we once revered as sacred. The South can make no choice. It is either extermination or slavery for themselves (worse than death) to draw from. I know my choice.

I have also studied hard to discover upon what grounds the right of a State to secede has been denied, when our very name, United States, and the Declaration of Independence, both provide for secession. But there is no time for words. I write in haste. I know how foolish I shall be deemed for undertaking such a step as this, where, on the one side, I have many friends and every thing to make me happy, where my profession alone has gained me an income of more than twenty thousand dollars a year, and where my great personal ambition in my profession has such a great field for labor. On the other hand, the South has never bestowed upon me one kind word; a place now where I have no friends, except beneath the sod; a place where I must either become a private soldier or a beggar. To give up all of the former for the latter, besides my mother and sisters, whom I love so dearly (although they so widely differ with me in opinion), seems insane; but God is my judge. I love justice more than I do a country that disowns it; more than fame and wealth, more (Heaven pardon me if wrong), more than a happy home. I have never been upon a battlefield; but oh! my countrymen, could you all but see the reality or effects of this horrid war as I have seen them (in every State, save Virginia), I know you would think like me, and would pray the Almighty to create in the Northern mind a sense of right and justice (even should it possess no seasoning of mercy), and that he would dry up this sea of blood between us, which is daily growing wider. Alas! poor country, is she to meet her threatened doom? Four years ago I would have given a thousand lives to see her remain (as I had always known her) powerful and unbroken. And even now I would hold my life as naught to see her what she was. Oh! my friends, if the fearful scenes of the past four years had never been enacted, or if what has been had been but a frightful dream, from which we could now awake, with what overflowing hearts could we bless our God and pray for his continued favor! How I have loved the old flag can never be known. A few years since, and the entire world could boast of none so pure and spotless. But I have of late been seeing and hearing of the bloody deeds of which she has been made the emblem, and would shudder to think how changed she had grown. Oh! how I have longed to see her break from the mist of blood and death that circles round her folds, spoiling her beauty and tarnishing her honor. But no, day by day has she been dragged deeper and deeper into cruelty and oppression, till now (in my eyes) her once bright red stripes look like bloody gashes on the face of heaven. I look now upon my early admiration of her glories as a dream. Only love (as things stand to-day) is for the South alone. Nor do I deem it a dishonor in attempting to make for her a prisoner of this man, to whom she owes so much of misery. If success attend me, I go penniless to her side. They say she has found that "last ditch" which the North have so long derided and been endeavoring to force her in, forgetting they are our brothers, and that it is impolitic to goad an enemy to madness. Should I reach her in safety, and find it true, I will proudly beg permission to triumph or die in that same "ditch" by her side.

A Confederate doing duty upon his own responsibility.

J. Wilkes Booth


---------------

For his reconstructed rough draft see:

Right or Wrong, God Judge Me: The Writings of John Wilkes Booth
 
I think J. Wilkes Booth’s statement

This country was formed for the white, not for the black man. And, looking upon African slavery from the same stand-point held by the noble framers of our Constitution, I, for one, have ever considered it one of the greatest blessings (both for themselves and us) that God ever bestowed upon a favored nation. Witness heretofore our wealth and power; witness their elevation and enlightenment above their race elsewhere. I have lived among it most of my life, and have seen less harsh treatment from master to man than I have beheld in the North from father to son. Yet, Heaven knows, no one would be more willing to do more for the negro race than I, could I but see a way to still better their condition

raises a very historically valid argument, and one that goes to the heart of White Nationalism.

English philosopher John Locke’s theory of natural rights, rights that man hold just by the nature of his existence, were a defense against European Royalty’s claim of ruling by divine right over inferiors as a Nanny state overseeing its children. The claim of natural rights was rooted in the inherent rationality of the white men of Europe.

The meaning of “All men are created equal” was that no [white] royal had any claim to sovereignty of any other white man of Europe. It was never intended as blacks are equal to whites. In fact, Africans, in their savagery, were very much excluded from the doctrine of possessing natural rights.

As Booth points out, sovereignty over the Negro by white men was very much in the Negro’s own interest, and modern African history shows the foundations of this are unchanged.

The Bill of Rights is best understood as the enactment of a philosophy of individual natural rights that dominated American political thought in the Eighteenth Century. Natural rights philosophy emerged in the Seventeenth Century as an explanation of the proper function of government that was in sharp contrast to the philosophy that had prevailed in the Middle Ages. During that time, Europe was ruled by kings who had acquired power basically by invading countries, defeating the natives in battle, and ruling them by force of arms. Kings soon found propaganda useful in subduing their subjects and there was no shortage of intellectuals who would curry favor with the king by announcing in obscure treatises that kings ruled by divine right and their authority was absolute.
Along about the Seventeenth Century, however, certain authors like John Locke offered an alternative explanation of the basis for political authority. Locke and others less famous argued that individuals possessed certain rights by virtue of their nature as rational human beings. They had the rights to life, liberty and property, for example. To secure these rights, governments were established, whose powers were delegated to them by the people for the limited purposes of maintaining order and protecting natural rights. While governments were to protect rights, these philosophers emphasized that the rights belonged to individuals by nature, and were not granted by the government.
http://apollo3.com/~jameso/first5.html
----
[Maddison’s] premise was that the Constitution created a form of government under which "The people, not the government, possess the absolute sovereignty." The structure of the government dispersed power in reflection of the people's distrust of concentrated power, and of power itself at all levels. This form of government was "altogether different" from the British form, under which the Crown was sovereign and the people were subjects.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=376&page=254
 
Back
Top