the LINCOLN / SEWARD CONSPIRACY TRIAL


“April 14, 1865, Lewis Powell arrived at Secretary of State William Seward’s home. Seward was recuperating from a carriage accident and Powell claimed he had a delivery of medicine. Seward’s son Frederick denied Powell entrance into his father’s bedroom, but Powell was determined to finish his mission and beat Frederick Seward severely, entering William Seward’s bedroom and slashing his throat twice. Seward’s son Augustus struggled with Powell but he broke free and escaped from the house, where David Herold was waiting with their horses.”


“On the evening of the 14th, Booth had called at the Kirkwood House, where Vice-President Johnson was stopping, and left a card on which was written: “Don’t wish to disturb you. Are you at home? J. Wilkes Booth.”

SEE ALSO : JESUIT EXPULSIONS
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=jesuit+expulsion
http://one-evil.org/content/entities_organizations_jesuits.html
http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/19111005p01.html
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2202287?sid=21106021677813&uid=2&uid=4
http://ecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1889&context=luc_theses
http://www.toughissues.org/the%20jesuit%20oder.htm

“A sampling of expulsions of Jesuits from various nations (listed chronologically according to the 1st year of expulsion by various nations: in some cases the monarch who ordered the expulsion is listed):

1579, 1581, 1586, and 1602 – Elizabeth I, Queen of England
1604 – James I, King of England [This was the 5th expulsion of the Jesuits from England!]
1614 – Japan
1618 – the Kingdom of Bohemia
1716, 1783 – China
1719 – Peter the Great of Russia
1759 – King Joseph I of Portugal [He believed the Jesuits attempted to assassinate him in 1758.]
1764 – King Louis XV of France
1816 – Russian Czar Alexander I [He expelled the Jesuits from Moscow and St. Petersburg.]
1820 – Russian Czar Alexander I [He expelled the Jesuits from all of Russia.]

1820, 1835, 1868 – Spain
1834 – Portugal [2nd expulsion of the Jesuits from Portugal]
1848 – Switzerland
1848, 1859 – Italy
1872 – Guatemala
1872 – German-Prussian Empire
1873 – Mexico
1874 – Brazil
1875 – Ecuador and Columbia
1880, 1901 – France [2nd and 3rd expulsions of the Jesuits from France]
1884 – Costa Rica
1901 – Portugal [3rd expulsion of the Jesuits from Portugal]

Jesuits assassinating Henry IV
“This is the moment a drifter by the name of François Ravaillac seizes to strike. Then a group of armed men appear out of nowhere to kill the assassin on the spot, but one of the King’s attendants, the Baron de Courtomer, has enough presence of mind to disperse the men by telling them Henri is safe. Ravaillac can then be arrested and questioned. The man is clearly unbalanced. He sought to take orders, first with the Feuillants, then with the Jesuits, rejected by both on account of his hallucinations, which he believed to be religious visions. The investigation is suspiciously hasty: only 13 days between the crime and the execution of the assassin! Ravaillac himself insists under torture that he has no accomplices, but when he is drawn and quartered on the 27th of May, he exclaims “I was deceived when they persuaded me that my deed would be well received by the people.” 

NOTE: The Jesuits were expelled from England five times! The Jesuits were also expelled three times from predominantly Roman Catholic Spain, three times from predominantly Roman Catholic Portugal, and three times from predominantly Roman Catholic France! The Jesuits were also expelled numerous times from various predominantly Roman Catholic countries in South and Central America. Why were the Jesuits expelled so many times from so many nations of the world? Let us here repeat a quotation by Canadian author and historian J.E.C. Shepherd that was given earlier in this newsletter – a quotation that provides us with the answer:  “Between 1555 and 1931 the Society of Jesus [Ed.: i.e., the Jesuit Order] was expelled from at least 83 countries, city-states and cities, for engaging in political intrigue and subversive plots against the welfare of the State, according to the records of a Jesuit priest of repute [Ed.: i.e., Thomas J. Campbell]. Practically every instance of expulsion was for political intrigue, political infiltration, political subversion, and inciting to political insurrection. – J.E.C. Shepherd (“The Babington Plot”; 1987; Wittenburg Publications, Toronto, Canada; Page 12)

“Regarding the conspirators who killed Abraham Lincoln, United States General Baker stated for the record: “I mention, as an exceptional and remarkable fact, that every conspirator, in custody, is by education a Catholic.”

POPE FRANCIS to VISIT LINCOLN MEMORIAL
http://www.wikihow.com/Address-the-Pope
http://www.truthontheweb.org/abe.htm
http://www.eiu.edu/~eiutps/april_65a.php
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lincolnconspiracy/conspirators.html
https://politicalconnection.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/lincoln-his-assassins-unhooded/
Lincoln’s assassins unhooded / May 2, 2013

“For those unfamiliar with these facts, be sure to visit the article at this link. Keep in mind that you can secure photo books by the Civil War photographer, Matthew Brady, that show photos of these facts.  One interesting and pivotal point in the history of Lincoln’s assassination is when John Wilkes Booth visited a Catholic church in Bryantown and was introduced to Dr. Samuel Mudd in November 1864 as you can read in another article at this link.  Another interesting detail is how the Catholic Church helped arch-conspirator John Surratt to escape the manhunt for Lincoln’s assassins as you can read in the article at this link. You can also read about such facts in numerous old history books, some of which this author mentions.


Edman Spangler was employed at Ford’s Theatre. On April 14, 1865 it was his job to prepare the presidential box for the evening’s performance. While John Wilkes Booth attacked President Lincoln, Spangler attended to Booth’s horse then he later placed himself by the theatre’s back door to help aid Booth in his escape.”

Burke McCarty’s book at this link, written shortly after the tragic assassination of Lincoln, tells how the Georgetown Jesuits sat in the courtroom in Washington, D.C. during the trial, monitoring the jurors who testified for or against John Surratt.  It also tells how priests were discussing the assassination of Lincoln before it even took place. Furthermore, C.T. Wilcox was able to obtain documents from that era of history, and you can hear about how he secured the historical evidence in the video interview at this link and you can also read his website at this link and order his eye-opening book, available on his website or go to Amazon.com for a copy at this link, although it’s not always in stock.

His book describes the full details of how the American republic was targeted by the Vatican and has been slowly transformed over the past century into the failing republic that she is today. A sample chapter including photos is available of his book at this link.  A PDF copy of one of his books, which is missing all the photos but still has some of the text, is also available at this link.  In an article on the website of popular talk show host , C.T. Wilcox is stated as saying: “In 1822 the Roman Catholic Monarchies of Europe conspired with the Vatican to destroy the concept of popular government, as found in the experiment of the United States, by means of infiltration, subversion and corruption,”
While pretending to partner with America, is not the European Union benefiting from the demise of the United States as we write these very words?

As America continues to play the war machine for the Old World Order, are not these nations more and more resembling two iron feet mixed with clay planted firmly on each side of the Atlantic Ocean, reminiscent of a prophecy in the Book of Daniel chapter two? America continues to spill her solders’ blood in further imperialistic conquests, and spends all the country’s money, while her CIA, started by a Vatican Knight with Catholic Nazi scientists and intelligence officers, incurs the wrath of the world by toppling governments, rigging elections, and assassinating world leaders as her quest for world domination continues.

Meanwhile, the Pope wags the naughty finger at America and talks of peace and denies her multiple and massive connections to all the blood-letting, and still meets secretly with the President of the United States and encourages America to self-destruct by suggesting to the U.S. President that socialism be exalted, guns be controlled and that a world leader is needed.  Can all we all guess who the Pope might have in mind for this global world leader he thinks is needed?

Another very thought-provoking article at this link shares a good deal of history on this issue and states: “Not long after Lincoln’s assassination, the U.S. Government broke off diplomatic relations with the Vatican on 30th June 1867 … Lincoln’s assassination was found by the Tribunal to have been perpetrated by eight Catholics, several of whom were held by the Tribunal to have been under the influence of the Jesuits and one of whom (John Surratt) was found to have been working for months in Rome as a Zouave (a personal bodyguard in the paid service of the Pope) “under the false name of John Watson.”

Charles Chiniquy: “My dear President, I must repeat to you here what I said in 1856. My fear is that you will fall under the blows of a Jesuit assassin if you do not pay more attention than you have done, till now, to protect yourself…”

Abraham Lincoln:You are not the first to warn me against the dangers of assassination. My ambassadors in Italy, France, and England, as well as Professor Morse, have many times warned me against the plots of the murderers, which they have detected in those different countries. But I see no other safeguard against those murderers but to be always ready to die…”

“As German Cardinal Walter Kasper said in a speech on Pope Francis at The Catholic University of America, “[Francis] does not represent a liberal position, but a radical position, understood in the original sense of the word, as going back to the roots, the radix.”

Samuel F.B. Morse, inventor of the telegraph (which made possible the internet): “And do Americans need to be told what JESUITS are? If any are ignorant, let them inform themselves of their history without delay; no time is to be lost; their workings are before you in every day’s events; they are a SECRET SOCIETY, a sort of Masonic order with super added features of revolting odiousness, and a THOUSAND TIMES MORE DANGEROUS.”

“Ronald Reagan was the President who restored diplomatic ties with Rome under the disguise of a being a “Protestant” and under guise of being a popular, conservative President who nobody would suspect. Reagan’s parents are buried in a Catholic cemetery today.”

“It has been told to us, coming from what we believe to be true authority, that Booth, about three weeks before he committed the crime, was admitted to the Roman Catholic Church, and privately received the sacraments from no less a personage than Archbishop Spaulding himself, which he did to silence any conscientious scruples that he might have in taking Abraham Lincoln’s life…”


“Passage Through Baltimore”
: President-elect Lincoln depicted ignominiously hiding in a cattle car by Adalbert J. Volck, 1863

“…and it was but a short time after that Archbishop Spaulding received a donation of funds for the specific purpose which was to uniform and equip a military body in the same manner and style as the Papal Guard at Rome. The uniforms, muskets, cartridge boxes and belts all bearing the Papal coat of arms and consecrated by the pope himself, were sent to Archbishop Spaulding at Baltimore… The entire diocese… was rebel to the core and fierce in its hatred of Lincoln.” – Edwin A. Sherman, “Engineer Corps of Hell”, page 213


John Surratt was scurried out of the United States with the help of Catholic priests in Canada, from where he fled to Italy. He is shown here in uniform as a member of the Pope’s bodyguard militia known as Papal Zouaves.”

Diary of John Surratt – “November 2, 1865. — Conversed with Mr. A. to-day. He says Paris will ruin me, as I have already been recognized more than once. I think ____ and the rest would like to get rid of me. They know that if I was out of the way, there would be none left to betray them. Although not the actual assassins, they had more to do with it than they would like known, especially ______, of New York. A wants me to go to Rome and join the Papal Zouaves. I could then be better protected, and money could reach me as well there as in Paris.”

ESCAPE to ROME
http://www.spirituallysmart.com/lincolnintro.htm
http://thelincolnconspiracy.blogspot.com/2012_05_01_archive.html
http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook/Fifty_Years_in_the_Church_of_Rome_1000243063
https://web.archive.org/web/20050306123350/http://www.surratt.org/su_hist.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20120724154235/http://salmovapress.com/media-and-press-releases
https://web.archive.org/web/20131017204546/http://www.eeriedigest.com/wordpress/2012/06/taem-interview-with-author-paul-serup/
Interview with Author Paul Serup / October 2013

TAEM – Author Paul Serup’s work encompasses all these qualities. As an independent author and researcher he has spent many years studying a case that has haunted America’s history since the Civil War. Paul, tell us a little about yourself and your work as a researcher.
Paul Serup– I have loved reading from an early age and am fascinated with history. As it has been said, real life is often so much more interesting than fiction. As you mentioned, I am an independent research and author, based in central British Columbia, Canada. It is very nice part of the world, but somewhat removed from important repositories of information like the Library of Congress, the National Archives, the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library etc, so doing research in the area I have, has been a challenge. I hold the record, the last time I checked, for the amount of inter-library loans at the library of the city where I live, while researching the book. There is, however, no substitute for having boots on the ground and doing research on location, although travel is expensive.

TAEM– You started your recent book, Who Killed Abraham Lincoln? while reviewing the life of Father Charles Chiniquy. Tell us about him and why you decided to look into his work.
PS– To answer your second question first, in 1986, I read Chiniquy’s autobiography, Fifty Years in the Church of Rome and I was stunned, in particular, by his assertion that the Jesuits were ultimately behind the Lincoln assassination. I became very curious about him and so I started to do research on who he was, what sort of reputation he had, and what place he had, if any, in history. That is essentially what initially motivated me and I began my research with no plans for a book or anything of the sort. Charles Chiniquy was born in the Canadian province of Quebec, into the Roman Catholic religion in 1809, the same year Abraham Lincoln was born. As a child, he learned the Bible at his mother’s side, and as he grew up, he aspired to the Catholic priesthood. Although he struggled with the instruction he received, feeling that there was major disagreement between the teachings of the Catholic Church and what the Bible and logic told him, he finished his training and was ordained a priest in 1833. Through the influence of a Protestant doctor he met while ministering at the Quebec Marine Hospital, Chiniquy became convinced of the damage that alcohol does to individuals, and society in general, and so started a temperance society. He was very successful in his efforts and by the mid-nineteenth century, he had persuaded roughly half of Quebec to give up drinking. At the time, most households in the province had a portrait of the eloquent “Apostle of Temperance”, as he was called. In 1851, he accepted the summons of Bishop Vandeveld, the second bishop of Chicago, to establish a French-Canadian Catholic settlement on the unsettled prairie of Illinois. He was again successful in doing so, but when a new bishop came to Chicago, Anthony O’Regan, Chiniquy found himself in a very public struggle with the tyrannical O’Regan. He also found himself a target of a prominent Catholic named Peter Spink, who began an unsuccessful prosecution of him, through two court terms in 1855 in Kankakee.

TAEM– He left the Catholic Church for the Protestant religion. What motivated him to do so?
PS– Although he struggled to remain a Catholic, changing the religious order he ministered in and the place where he served: the gap between what the Catholic Church preached and what it practiced, the division between the teachings of Catholic theologians and what the Bible stated, eventually caused him the leave the religion he was raised in and become a Protestant. After his tremendous colision with Chiniquy, Bishop O’Regan was summoned to Rome and removed as bishop of Chicago. The final straw for Chiniquy and the Catholic Church, was when the successor of O’Regan, Bishop Smith of Dubuque, asked for Chiniquy and the people of his colony to give a written canonical declaration of submission to him. They promised to obey the bishop in everything he asked as long as it was in accordance to the Word of God. When the bishop told Chiniquy he had to submit unconditionally, Chiniquy refused to do so.

The bishop then told Chiniquy that he could no longer be a Catholic priest and Chiniquy left the Church. Though Chiniquy was initially very alarmed at having left the Church he had been born in, he felt God show him that, like Luther, he could be saved and have a relationship with God by faith, in Jesus Christ, not by trying to keep a system of religious laws. A thousand of his fellow colonists followed him out of the Roman Catholic Church immediately and eventually most of the colony left the Church to become Protestants. Charles Chiniquy went on to become world famous as he spent the rest of his life trying to win Roman Catholics to the Protestant faith. His life was very eventful. Although he endured a number of law suits, riots, stonings, and attempts on his life at the hands of Catholics, he lived to his ninetieth year.

TAEM– Please tell our readers about his friendship with Lincoln, and how he first met him.
PS– After he had won his second battle with Peter Spink in Kankakee, he was greatly discouraged to hear that Spink had successfully petitioned for a change of venue, as it would make Chiniquy’s defense much more difficult. A stranger approached him and told him his struggle was larger than he knew. He said that the bishop of Chicago, who wanted to silence him, was really behind the prosecution. The stranger recommended that he hire Abraham Lincoln, whom he called the best lawyer and most honest man in Illinois, to defend him. Chiniquy sent a telegram to Lincoln and soon received word that Lincoln would help. He first met the future President at the beginning of the spring court session at Urbana in 1856 and they went through this court battle and another in the fall together. The fall court action in which Lincoln defended him was the most high profile libel case in the popular Springfield attorney’s career.

Big crowds came, not because Lincoln was involved but because Chiniquy was. Charles Chiniquy said he was filled with admiration for Lincoln the moment they first met. At the conclusion of the case, Lincoln said he was amazed at how Chiniquy had been persecuted and hoped that he could be counted as one of Chiniquy’s most devoted friends. Chiniquy said that Lincoln’s services were worth at least two thousand dollars but Lincoln refused to accept anything except fifty dollars, saying he had defended Chiniquy less as a lawyer than as a friend. Chiniquy visited President Lincoln three times in the White House and the last visit is actually reported in a letter, by Chiniquy, published in the Chicago Tribune in August 12th, 1864, while the 16th President remained in office. It is published in its entirety in my book. The letter is a fascinating glimpse into the Lincoln White House and into Chiniquy’s friendship with the President. Chiniquy’s great admiration for Lincoln is clearly evident. Strong evidence shows that Chiniquy was actually Abraham Lincoln’s closest friend.


Barack Obama, Cardinal Timothy Dolan and Republican candidate Mitt Romney laugh together at the Oct. 18, 2012 Al Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner [photo Mario Tama]

TAEM– Tell us of your endeavors to research his claim of the conspiracy behind the President’s assassination.
PS– I have researched Chiniquy’s assertions from Minnesota to New York, through institutions such as the Library of Congress, the National Archives, other libraries, archives, collections, cemeteries, and careful review of essentially all of the relevant documentation available, it has not been possible to find any part of the ex-priest’s book where it appears certain that he made a significant error regarding historical fact. I found newspaper articles in Minnesota that reported on the murders of Lincoln and Secretary of State Seward being spoken about, hours before they were attempted, in a solidly Roman Catholic village in the state, many miles from the nearest rail or telegraph line.

Charles Chiniquy talked about them, but I believe these articles have not be found and published before I did in my book. As you likely are aware, it was not just Lincoln who was slated for assassination. It was also the Vice-President, the Secretary of State and General Grant. The last case that Lincoln defended Chiniquy in was ended by the appearance of a young woman, Philomene Moffat, who had direct evidence that a Catholic priest who had testified against Chiniquy had committed perjury. In my research of this woman, which took me through a couple of Chicago cemeteries, I found two of her living descendants, on in the state of New York and one in Utah. They, unfortunately, had essentially no information to add.

TAEM– How many years have you worked on this, and what obstacles have you encountered.
PS– I researched and wrote on this over a period of twenty two years. Something like six or seven years into my research, I believe, I read a paper by Joseph George Jr., published in the Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society. I am not sure exactly when I first read it because, as I mentioned, I had no plan of doing anything with the research at the time so I took no note of when it happened. In any event, the paper was entitled: “The Lincoln Writings of Charles P. T. Chiniquy“, and was published in the February 1976 issue of this journal. At the time, George was the chair of the history department of Villanova University. The paper stopped me in my tracks as it directly stated, in this historical journal, that Chiniquy was wrong and not to be believed. The tone was so final, conclusive, and coming from the chair of a history department of a fairly well known university, I was disappointed to conclude that Chiniquy was therefore simply wrong. As I had traveled, gone to Chicago and other places and done some years of research, I picked up the material again, after a year or so, to go over and see exactly where Chiniquy went wrong. As I did so, I was surprised to find that when his paper was closely examined, this university professor had made numerous errors of historical fact, and reason and had misquoted Chiniquy. I found that in finality, it was Joseph George that shouldn’t be trusted, and not Charles Chiniquy. I then started my research again. The critique of George’s paper is in book.

TAEM– Do you believe that there may be an ulterior motive to his accusation.
PS– No, I do not believe so. As I mentioned, I examined Joseph George’s criticism of Chiniquy and what he wrote and found George’s negative assessment of the ex-priest to be without merit. I also examined the criticism of four others who were critics of Chiniquy. Three were academics and the other one was a Jesuit priest. Even after his death, when he can no longer defend himself, they were unable to successfully convict him of any wrong-doing. If one looks at his treatment by his contemporaries in the press such as the Chicago Tribune and the New York Times, it is very interesting. They treat him as the celebrated, world famous clergyman that he was, not as someone who personally had a axe to grind regarding the Church of Rome.

TAEM– What are your assumptions of the case’s outcome?
PS– I hope that more thinking Americans will consider what I have found and if they do, they will gain new insight into the motivation of those took part in the Lincoln assassination conspiracy and the role of the Roman Catholic Church in this famous cold case.

‘JESUITICAL’
http://en.dicios.com/iten/ipocrita
http://en.dicios.com/enit/jesuitical
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_murdered_popes
 http://www.toughissues.org/the%20jesuit%20oder.htm

A sampling of leaders whom the Jesuits and their agents plotted against, and/or attempted – but failed – to assassinate – at least initially (in chronological order):

NOTE: It is important to remember, when reading this sampling of various leaders against whom the Jesuits and their agents plotted, that Jesuit-controlled Papal Rome hates (with a purple passion) civil and religious liberty – and strives to have a “monopoly” on religion in any nation where she has sufficient power and influence to force the State to make Roman Catholicism the official State religion (to the exclusion of all others)!

1571, 1583, 1586, and 1588Queen Elizabeth I of England: These years all saw failed attempts by the Jesuits to remove Queen Elizabeth I of England from her throne through Jesuit-instigated plots of assassination and/or rebellion in order to restore the pope’s “temporal power” in England. (Queen Elizabeth I was a strong Protestant ruler who opposed Jesuit efforts to place her beloved people once again under papal tyranny and despotism. Queen Elizabeth I had greatly angered the Jesuit Order by expelling the Jesuits from England in 1579.)

1582William I, Prince of Orange and Duke of Nassau: The first attempt on the life of William I, Prince of Orange was made by a Jesuit “tool” by name of John Jauregay, who was under the direction of a Jesuit who went by the name of Juan de Ysunka. On May 18, 1582 Jauregay shot a ball at point-blank range that penetrated just below William’s right ear. William I miraculously survived this attempted assassination, and Jauregay ended up getting hacked to death by a number of William’s dinner guests. (William I, Prince of Orange would two years later finally meet his end at the hand of an assassin, Balthazar Gerard [one book has “Gerhard”] – another Jesuit “tool” – who shot him with three poison-tipped bullets. William of Orange was greatly hated by the Jesuits because he had broken the pope’s “temporal power” over Holland.)

1857U.S. President James Buchanan: An attempt was made to poison President Buchanan to death on February 23, 1857 at the National Hotel in Washington, D.C. (Thirty-eight individuals died as a result of arsenic poison that was put in the sugar that was placed at the tables where President Buchanan and his supporters sat.) President Buchanan barely survived the poisoning, and did so only because he informed his doctors that arsenic had probably been used in this attempt to assassinate him. This attempt on President Buchanan’s life was the result of his refusal to make war on those southern states that were threatening to leave the Union – thus temporarily thwarting the Jesuits’ efforts to foment the American Civil War in order to split the Union. (President Buchanan was also a strong advocate of States’ rights!)

1866, 1879 and 1880Czar Alexander II: Unsuccessful attempts by Jesuit “tools” to assassinate Czar Alexander II were made in all three of these years. The Jesuits wanted Alexander II dead because he had twice broken diplomatic relations with the Papacy, and because he had supported the Union during the American Civil War of 1861-65. (Jesuit-controlled Papal Rome had supported the Confederacy.) Alexander II had sent part of the Russian fleet to U.S. shores and had placed those ships under the direct command of President Lincoln. This action kept France and England from coming in on the side of the Confederacy – and thus helped Lincoln to preserve the Union! (“Tools” of the Jesuits succeeded in assassinating Alexander II in 1881.) ”

“Execution of Mary Surratt, Lewis Powell, David Herold, and George Atzerodt on July 7, 1865, at Fort McNair

CONVICTED by MILITARY TRIBUNALS
http://www.iment.com/maida/familytree/burnett/lincoln2.htm#military
http://www.iment.com/maida/familytree/burnett/nyt-7-8-1865.htm
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lincolnconspiracy/transcript-sh.html
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lincolnconspiracy/surrattspeech.html
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lincolnconspiracy/davisevidence.html
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lincolnconspiracy/lincolnconspiracy.html
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lincolnconspiracy/lincolnaccount.html
https://www.flickr.com/photos/elycefeliz/7651419350/
Hanging of Conspirators in Lincoln Assassination

“The assassination of United States President Abraham Lincoln took place on Good Friday, April 14, 1865, as the American Civil War was drawing to a close. The assassination occurred five days after the commanding General of the Army of Northern Virginia, Robert E. Lee, surrendered to General Ulysses S. Grant and the Army of the Potomac. Lincoln was the first American president to be assassinated. The assassination was planned and carried out by the well-known stage actor John Wilkes Booth, as part of a larger conspiracy in a bid to revive the Confederate cause. Booth’s co-conspirators were Lewis Powell and David Herold, who were assigned to kill Secretary of State William H. Seward, and George Atzerodt who was to kill Vice President Andrew Johnson. By simultaneously eliminating the top three people in the administration, Booth and his co-conspirators hoped to sever the continuity of the United States government.

Lincoln was shot while watching the play Our American Cousin with his wife Mary Todd Lincoln at Ford’s Theatre in Washington, D.C. on the night of April 14, 1865. He died early the next morning. The rest of the conspirators’ plot failed; Powell only managed to wound Seward, while Atzerodt, Johnson’s would-be assassin, lost his nerve and fled Washington. In March 1864, Ulysses S. Grant, the commanding general of all the Union’s armies, decided to suspend the exchange of prisoners-of-war. Harsh as it may have been on the prisoners of both sides, Grant realized the exchange was prolonging the war by returning soldiers to the outnumbered and manpower-starved South. John Wilkes Booth, a Southerner and outspoken Confederate sympathizer, conceived a plan to kidnap President Lincoln and deliver him to the Confederate Army, to be held hostage until the North agreed to resume exchanging prisoners. Booth recruited Samuel Arnold, George Atzerodt, David Herold, Michael O’Laughlen, Lewis Powell (also known as “Lewis Paine”), and John Surratt to help him. Surratt’s mother, Mary Surratt, left her tavern in Surrattsville, Maryland, and moved to a house in Washington D.C., where Booth became a frequent visitor.

In late 1860, Booth reportedly was initiated in the pro-Confederate Knights of the Golden Circle in Baltimore. He attended Lincoln’s second inauguration on March 4, 1865, as the invited guest of his secret fiancée Lucy Hale, daughter of John P. Hale, soon to become United States Ambassador to Spain. Booth afterwards wrote in his diary, “What an excellent chance I had, if I wished, to kill the President on Inauguration day!” Meanwhile, the Confederacy was falling apart. On April 3, Richmond, Virginia, the Confederate capital, fell to the Union army. On April 9, the Army of Northern Virginia, the main army of the Confederacy, surrendered to the Army of the Potomac at Appomatox Court House. Confederate President Jefferson Davis and the rest of his government were in full flight. Despite many Southerners giving up hope, Booth continued to believe in his cause.

On April 11, 1865, two days after Lee’s army surrendered to Grant, Booth attended a speech at the White House in which Lincoln supported the idea of enfranchising the former slaves. Furiously provoked, Booth decided on assassination. Reportedly he said: “That means n*gger citizenship. Now, by God, I’ll put him through. That is the last speech he will ever give.” On April 14, Booth’s morning started at the stroke of midnight. Lying wide awake in his bed at the National Hotel, he wrote his mother that all was well, but that he was “in haste”. In his diary, he wrote that “Our cause being almost lost, something decisive and great must be done”. At around noon, while visiting Ford’s Theatre to pick up his mail (Booth had a permanent mailbox there), Booth learned from the brother of John Ford, the owner, that the President and General Grant would be attending the theatre to see Our American Cousin that night. Booth determined that this was the perfect opportunity for him to do something “decisive”. He knew the theater’s layout, having performed there several times, as recently as the previous month.


Papal Zouave, Montreal, QC, 1868

That same afternoon, Booth went to Mary Surratt’s boarding house in Washington, D.C. and asked her to deliver a package to her tavern in Surrattsville, Maryland. He also requested Surratt to tell her tenant who resided there to have the guns and ammunition that Booth had previously stored at the tavern ready to be picked up later that evening. She complied with Booth’s requests and made the trip, along with Louis J. Weichmann, her boarder and son’s friend. This exchange, and her compliance in it, would lead directly to Surratt’s execution three months later. At seven o’clock that evening, John Wilkes Booth met for a final time with all his fellow conspirators.

Booth assigned Lewis Powell to kill Secretary of State William H. Seward at his home, George Atzerodt to kill Vice President Andrew Johnson at his residence, the Kirkwood Hotel, and David E. Herold to guide Powell to the Seward house and then out of Washington to rendezvous with Booth in Maryland. Booth planned to shoot Lincoln with his single-shot derringer and then stab Grant with a knife at Ford’s Theatre. They were all to strike simultaneously shortly after ten o’clock that night. Atzerodt wanted nothing to do with it, saying he had only signed up for a kidnapping, not a killing. Booth told him he was in too far to back out.

Within half an hour of his escape on horseback from Ford’s, Booth crossed over the Navy Yard Bridge and out of the city into Maryland. David Herold made it across the same bridge less than an hour later] and rendezvoused with Booth. After retrieving weapons and supplies previously stored at Surattsville, Herold and Booth went to Samuel A. Mudd, a local doctor who determined that Booth’s leg had been broken and put it in a splint. Later, Mudd made a pair of crutches for the assassin. After spending a day at Mudd’s house, Booth and Herold hired a local man to guide them to Samuel Cox’s house. Cox in turn took them to Thomas Jones, who hid Booth and Herold in Zekiah Swamp near his house for five days until they could cross the Potomac River. On the afternoon of April 24, they arrived at the farm of Richard H. Garrett, a tobacco farmer. Booth told Garrett he was a wounded Confederate soldier.

American Zouave ambulance crew demonstrating removal of wounded soldiers from the field, during the American Civil War.”

Booth and Herold remained at Garrett’s farm until April 26, when Union soldiers from the 16th New York Cavalry arrived at the farm. The soldiers surrounded Booth and Herold in the barn. Herold surrendered, but Booth refused to come out when the soldiers called for his surrender, stating boldly, “I will not be taken alive!” Upon hearing this, the soldiers set fire to the barn. Booth scrambled for the back door, brandishing a rifle in one hand and a pistol in the other. He never fired either weapon. A soldier named Boston Corbett crept up behind the barn and shot Booth in the neck, severing his spinal cord. Booth was carried out onto the steps of the barn. A soldier dribbled water onto his mouth. Booth told the soldier, “Tell my mother I die for my country.” In agony, unable to move his limbs, he asked a soldier to lift his hands before his face and whispered as he gazed at them, “Useless…Useless.” These were reported as his last words. Booth (allegedly) died on the porch of the Garrett farm two hours after Corbett had shot him. The rest of the conspirators were arrested before the end of the month, except for John Surratt, who fled to Quebec. There he was hidden by Roman Catholic priests.

In the turmoil that followed the assassination, scores of suspected accomplices were arrested and thrown into prison. All the people who were discovered to have had anything to do with the assassination or anyone with the slightest contact with Booth or Herold on their flight were put behind bars. Among the imprisoned were Louis J. Weichmann, a boarder in Mrs. Surratt’s house; Booth’s brother Junius (playing in Cincinnati at the time of the assassination); theatre owner John T. Ford, who was incarcerated for 40 days; James Pumphrey, the Washington livery stable owner from whom Booth hired his horse; John M. Lloyd, the innkeeper who rented Mrs. Surratt’s Maryland tavern and gave Booth and Herold carbines, rope, and whiskey the night of April 14; and Samuel Cox and Thomas A. Jones, who helped Booth and Herold escape across the Potomac.


Le Curé Barrette avec des Zouaves pontificaux

Eight suspects were tried by a military tribunal ordered by then-President Andrew Johnson on May 1, 1865. The nine-member commission was presided over by Major General David Hunter. The other eight voting members were Major General Lew Wallace, Brigadier Generals Robert Sanford Foster, Thomas Maley Harris, Albion P. Howe, and August Kautz, Colonels James A. Ekin and Charles H. Tompkins, and Lieutenant Colonel David Ramsay Clendenin.

The prosecution team was led by U.S. Army Judge Advocate General Joseph Holt, assisted by Congressman John A. Bingham and Major Henry Lawrence Burnett. The fact that they were tried by a military tribunal provoked criticism from both Edward Bates and Gideon Welles, who believed that a civil court should have presided. Attorney General James Speed, on the other hand, justified the use of a military tribunal on grounds that included the military nature of the conspiracy, that the defendants acted as enemy combatants and the existence of martial law in the District of Columbia.

The odds were further stacked against the defendants by rules that required only a simple majority of the officer jury for a guilty verdict and a two-thirds majority for a death sentence. Nor could the defendants appeal to anyone other than President Johnson. All of the defendants were found guilty on June 30. Mary Surratt, Lewis Powell, David Herold, and George Atzerodt were sentenced to death by hanging; Samuel Mudd, Samuel Arnold, and Michael O’Laughlen were sentenced to life in prison. Oddly, after sentencing Mary Surratt to hang, five of the jurors signed a letter recommending clemency, but Johnson refused to stop the execution.”

“As reported by the Daily Kos in the article at this link, did not the Congress under Reagan’s leadership also repeal the 1867 Act (meant to penalize the Vatican because of their attempt to assassinate Lincoln a couple of years prior to that act being passed)? Were Reagan’s and the Vatican’s policies almost identical as shown in the article at this link? Who really created Reagan’s policies?”

REAGAN, BUSH, HAIG et al RESTORE DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS w ‘HOLY SEE’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_States_diplomatic_relations_by_country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_See#Relationship_with_the_Vatican_City_and_other_territories
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_Ronald_Reagan_administration#Holy_See.2FVatican
https://web.archive.org/web/20040117164930/http://zenit.org/english/archive/9810/ZE981016.html
https://v666.wordpress.com/2007/02/23/formal-diplomatic-relations-with-vatican-re-established-quietly-january-10th-1984-relations-were-broke-off-by-congress-in-1867-over-vatican-involvement-in-the-assassination-of-abraham-lincoln/

“On November 22nd, 1983, Ronald Reagan signed an accord with the Vatican State, and recognized this Nation with full diplomatic relations and an exchange of Ambassadors at the highest level, “Pro Nucio.” Diplomatic relations had been severed on June 13th, 1867 over Vatican involvement and engineering in the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln.

Pub. L. 98-164, title I, Sec. 134, Nov. 22, 1983, 97 Stat. 1029, provided that: “In order to provide for the establishment of United States diplomatic relations with the Vatican, the Act entitled ‘An Act making Appropriations for the Consular and Diplomatic Expenses of the Government for the Year ending thirtieth June, eighteen hundred and sixty-eight, and for other purposes’, approved February 28, 1867, is amended by repealing the following sentence (14 Stat. 413): ‘And no money hereby or otherwise appropriated shall be paid for the support of an American legation at Rome, from and after the thirtieth day of June, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven.’.”

PAPAL ARMY
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zouave#Zouaves_of_the_American_Civil_War
https://amcatholic.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/the-vaticans-rifles/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Abraham_Lincoln#Conspirators.27_trial
https://v666.wordpress.com/2007/02/22/papacy-responsible-for-abraham-lincolns-assassination-history-corrected/ 
by Phil Jayhan  /  February 21st, 2007

“That papal Rome was responsible for the assassination of U.S. President Abraham Lincoln no doubt seems to most people a rather far-fetched allegation. Nevertheless, on this page (including links) is presented evidence that leaves little doubt that the allegation is in fact true. While ‘Pius’ IX didn’t personally pull the trigger, several of the conspirators were not merely Roman ‘catholics’, but were schooled by the Jesuits who have long been advocates of regicide; the southern confederacy was linked heart and soul with popery; the ‘pope’—both shortly before and after the Lincoln assassination—made public pronouncements that were fiercely in opposition to protestant American constitutional liberty, and in favor of slavery; conspirator John Surratt fled after the crime with the aid of Roman priests to the Vatican for refuge; and President Lincoln was warned by letters from at least two individuals before the assassination to be on guard for his life against Roman ‘catholic’ assassins. Please read on for the specifics.

In her book, The Suppressed Truth about the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, Burke McCarty begins by tracing the roots of papal antipathy toward popular (as opposed to monarchical, or ‘divine right’) government as far back as the Congresses of Vienna (Austria, 1814-15) and Verona (Italy, 1822). Part of the purpose of the Congress of Vienna was to restore the monarchies that had been deposed by Napoleon and the French Revolution. The papacy was represented at that congress by legate Cardinal Consalvi, and recovered the papal states, excluding any former territory in France.

The Secret Treaty of Verona evidences this pro-monarchical (divine right) theme. This was entered into the Congressional Record of April 25, 1916, by Senator Robert L. Owen. That the papacy was intimately involved in these congresses is proven by this quote from Article 3 of the Treaty: “… the contracting powers join in offering their thanks to the Pope for what he has already done for them, and solicit his constant cooperation in their views of submitting the nations.” The potential, and the perceived intent, for these European alliances to threaten popular government in the U.S.A. was the basis of the Monroe Doctrine. That McCarty had credible understanding of her subject is shown by the fact that in her book, published in 1924 (17 years before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor), she writes: “The next step in the Vatican’s Great Scheme is to make war between this country and Japan after the latter country has been placed under full dominance of the Jesuits.” (chapter 1)

McCarty goes on to document the evidence that proves that papal Rome and the Jesuits were intimately involved in the Lincoln assassination (1865), as well as in the assassinations of at least 2 other U.S presidents, and the attempted assassination of another:

1.) President William Henry Harrison (1841), who made his position clear in his inaugural address with these words: “We admit of no government by divine right, believing that so far as power is concerned, the beneficent Creator has made no distinction among men; that all are upon an equality, and that the only legitimate right to govern, is upon the express grant of power from the governed.” He was poisoned to death within less than 6 weeks.

2.) President Zachary Taylor (1850), who determined to preserve the Union against those forces seeking to divide it.

3.) President James Buchanan (1857, attempted assassination), who favored the North, and opposed the Jefferson Davis party on the slavery issue. Poisoned, along with about 50 others, of which 38 died, in 1857.

4.) President Abraham Lincoln (1865), murdered by John Wilkes Booth, tool of a papal/Jesuit conspiracy, as proven in McCarty’s book.

McCarty traces conspirator John Surratt, after the Lincoln assassination, to Canada, where he hid for a time in the care of Roman priests, and on to Rome, where he was found in the service of the papal army under an assumed name, and from whence he was demanded to be extradited to the U.S. for trial. However he was allowed to escape by his papal military guard. He then boarded a steamer for Egypt, where he was aprehended by an American agent.

At least three of the convicted conspirators, David Herold, Samuel Mudd, and Samuel Arnold, were alumni of Jesuit Georgetown University. This is acknowledged in the Georgetown Library Associates Newsletter, #67, Spring, 2003, under the heading Did John Wilkes Booth ever attend Georgetown?, wherein it is stated: “Although the Archivist has heard repeated suggestions that Booth not only attended Georgetown but founded Mask and Bauble while a student, the Archives contains nothing to confirm this. The suggestions may have arisen because there were connections between Georgetown and the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. In fact, of the eight people convicted in the assassination conspiracy, three were Georgetown alumni.


“…the final result transcends propaganda, to remain a thrilling work of art.”

David Herold, who attended the College from 1855-1858, was hanged for his role. He not only guided Lewis Paine to Secretary of State William Seward’s house where Paine attempted to stab Seward to death, but helped the injured Booth to escape after Lincoln’s shooting. Samuel Bland Arnold, who attended 1844-1845, had been part of a previous conspiracy with Herold to kidnap Lincoln and was sentenced to life imprisonment, as was Dr. Samuel Mudd, a student from 1851-1852, who set Booth’s broken ankle. Arnold and Mudd were pardoned by Andrew Johnson in 1869.

Conspirator John Surratt, who escaped conviction by flight, was an alumna of St. Charles College, founded by the Sulpicians, who also helped the Jesuits establish Georgetown University. As stated in Georgetown Magazine, July 1977, They Came to Georgetown: The French Sulpicians: “In its first two decades, Georgetown drew heavily on the abilities—and availability—of French Sulpician priests and seminarians.” The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia says, under the topic Maryland: “From the time of the first Jesuit missionaries Catholic effort for sound education has been constant. To further the organization of a native clergy Bishop Carroll secured the services of a number of Sulpicians, who on 3 October, 1791, began St. Mary’s Seminary, Baltimore…. Under the same direction St. Charles College, Ellicott City, was founded in 1830. Georgetown University (q. v.) was founded in 1778, and in its first years some of the Sulpicians assisted as professors in the work of the institution, carried on by the Society of Jesus. The Sulpicians, in fact, sprang out of a Jesuit root, as their founder Jean-Jacques Olier was educated by the Jesuits in his youth.”

John Surratt’s mother and fellow-conspirator, Mary Surratt, who was convicted and hanged for her part in the conspiracy, was a devout papist, who attended Mass regularly. She viewed John Wilkes Booth’s murderous act as the work of God, as she said to her daughter, “Booth was an instrument in the hands of the Almighty to punish this wicked and licentious people.” It was in her home that the plot was developed, and she aided in its execution by making preparation, before the assassination, for the imminent flight of Booth and Herold. President Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, said of her, “Mrs. Surratt kept the nest that hatched the egg”.

Booth himself expressed sentiments similar to Mary Surratt’s when he entered into his diary on April 21, 6 days after the murder, “Our country owed all our troubles to him, and God made me the instrument of His punishment.” John Wilkes Booth was first introduced to his fellow conspirator, Samuel Mudd, at the Bryantown Catholic Church at Sunday morning Mass, as there is abundant testimony in the conspirators’ trial documents. Tidwell writes of Booth, in Come Retribution, p. 254: “The records of St. Timothy’s Episcopal Church show that John Wilkes Booth was baptized by the rector, Libertus Van Bokkelen on 23 January 1853. No record of confirmation has been found. There are unverified reports that in the last year or so of his life, Booth flirted with Catholicism.”

NSA: The ultimate confessional booth

Burke McCarty, in chapter 7 of her book mentioned above, includes a letter she received from Rear Admiral Geo. W. Baird, U.S.N. retired, in which he tells how he helped to identify Booth’s body, saying: “I was called on board the Montauk by Lieut. W. W. Crowninshield, to identify the body of John Wilkes Booth, which I did. I noticed a piece of cord about the size of a cod line on his (Booth’s) neck and invited Crowninshield’s attention to it, who pulled it out and on it was a small Roman Catholic medal. Surgeon General Barnes arrived at that moment and probed the wound in Booth’s neck.”

Former Roman priest Emmet McLoughlin, in his book An Inquiry Into the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, p. 50, gives a bit of telling information about the influence of Georgetown on its students:The Jesuit-controlled Georgetown University, oldest Catholic college in the United States, had 1500 graduates and students of military age in 1861. Of these, 951 joined the armies of the Confederacy, while only 210 were loyal to the American government. (citing Arizona Register, April 21, 1961). This is especially telling in light of the fact that Maryland, where Georgetown was located, remained loyal to the Union.

Religious Affiliations of the Current U.S. Supreme Court
“With six Roman Catholics on the Supreme Court, with four of them (Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts) theologically and intellectually and politically conservative as only well-educated Catholics can be, it is not unfair to characterize the legal conservative movement led by these justices as medieval in its intentions and Jesuitical in its methods.”


Jesuit College and University Alumni/ae in the Obama Administration and 113th Congress
“President Obama’s Intelligence Team: on the far right, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (Alma Mater at Catholic St. Mary’s University, Texas).  Also attending are, clockwise from left, Robert Cardillo, formerly Deputy Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), now Director of National Intelligence for Intelligence Integration (schooled at Jesuit Georgetown University). Deputy National Security Advisor Tom Donilon (attended La Salle Academy, earned a B.A. at the Catholic University of America in 1977).  Donilon is connected to the Biden family.  Not pictured is Joe Biden, Vice-President of the United States, (as a youth Biden attended Archmere Academy, a Roman Catholic college preparatory school and he has received honorary degrees from Jesuit University of Scranton, and Jesuit Saint Joseph’s University). Rodney Snyder, Senior Director for Intelligence Program (no BIO available). John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (attended private catholic schools from his youth, is Alma Mater at Jesuit Fordham University and is former CIA). Finally, National Security Advisor General James L. Jones (Alma Mater Jesuit Georgetown University).”

The Jesuits have, from their inception and throughout their history, been teachers and advocates of regicide or, euphemistically, tyrannicide. Because there is so much evidence of this in their writings, some of it is included here on a separate page. These teachings could easily have been viewed as applicable to Lincoln in the mentality of the loyal Confederate, many of whom viewed him as a tyrant. Consider, e.g., Booth’s cry of sic semper tyrannis (thus always to tyrants) after he fired the fatal shot. Lincoln was, among other things in their eyes, taking away their slaves, which they viewed as their ‘property’, etc. In

1867, approximately 2 years after Lincoln was assassinated, the U.S. State Department published a book titled “The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, Late President of the United States of America, and the Attempted Assassination of William H. Seward, Secretary of State, and Frederick W. Seward, Assistant Secretary, on the Evening of the 14th of April, 1865. Expressions of Condolences and Sympathy Inspired by These Events.” The book is a collection of expressions of condolence and solace received from all over the world after President ‘Honest Abe’ Lincoln was despicably murdered in cold blood from behind his back while he sat with his wife enjoying some relaxation from his arduous duties, having just prevailed in the long and drawn-out struggle to preserve the Union and abolish slavery. These condolences were received from governments of nations, states, cities and towns, from churches and synagogues, from societies, fraternities, lodges and clubs, from labor unions and business associations, from schools and colleges—from every corner of the world. They are all translated into English.

This reader was moved to near incessant weeping to read the unanimity of the most sincere and deeply heartfelt sentiments of admiration and eulogy for Mr. Lincoln and the cause for which, in the end, he gave his life—the expunging of cursed slavery from a society founded on liberty and equality. While I did not take the time to read every word on every page, I did scan over each page looking for material of interest for the topic addressed here. What I found was that, to the guilt of papal Rome in the Rebellion and the assassination, was borne ample testimony, by their silence. While there were condolences from a large number of ‘protestant’ churches, conferences, councils, etc.—many of them with lengthy and moving expressions of admiration for Mr. Lincoln, including a thorough knowledge of his public life and conduct in office—there was not a single official word from the Vatican.

Rufus King, legate of the U.S. at Rome, in a correspondence of May 6, 1865 with William Hunter, Acting Secretary of State for the U.S., included in a single short paragraph of three sentences the fact that he had had an “official interview” with Cardinal Antonelli wherein Antonelli had taken the opportunity to express his and the papal “horror” at the assassination, and “begged” King to “make known these sentiments to the authorities at Washington” (p. 685). This sort of second-hand expression of sympathy does not bespeak sincerity or earnestness, and was but minimal, obligatory, and empty. And not only was the Vatican entirely silent; but I did not find a single word from a ‘catholic’ church, school, fraternity, club, or group of any sort—not a one! Thousands and thousands of people across the world were moved to express their condolences and solidarity with the people of the United States in the time of their tragic loss; but not one ‘catholic’ is recorded as having done so. That is because, as is clearly and thoroughly demonstrated on this page, the sentiments of papists were wholeheartedly with the Southern Confederacy and against ‘Lincoln & Co’. The reason for that is because the papacy has always been, and will always be, the enemy of free governments—for their goal has always been, and will always be, to enslave the world to themselves. They profess to speak in the name of Him Who is the Light of the world and Who came to give to men the truth that would set them free; but by their corrupted ‘gospel’ they enslave their adherents in darkness and deceit and idolatry.

Further, along with the manifold expressions of condolence for the people of the U.S.A., and of the universal execration of the assassins, was continually expressed the congratulatory and joyous regard for the banishing of the blight of slavery from American society. These were the sentiments of like-minded and enlightened people from around the world who, though distant geographically, were united in their hearts with the American people in their struggle. Contrast these sentiments with those of the papacy which, barely a year after Lincoln—’first in peace and in the hearts of his countrymen’—was murdered by an assassin drunken on the spirit of slavery, published its doctrine clearly in the defense of slavery (see Pius IX, Instruction 20, below). While I cannot publish the entire book of condolences here due to the size of the PDF file, I have typed out some of the expressed sentiments of the citizens of Italy which, obviously, are quite different from those of papal Rome. Read them. Brigadier General (brevetted Major General) Thomas M. Harris was a member of the military tribunal which tried and convicted the conspirators.

He wrote a book titled Assassination of Lincoln, A History of the Great Conspiracy (1892), and, later a tract titled Rome’s Responsibility For The Assassination Of Abraham Lincoln (1897). Chapter XVIII of the book, describing the flight and capture of John Surratt, says this in part: “At this point we meet with a new element amongst the Canada conspirators, viz., the Roman Catholic priesthood. Porterfield had arranged with Father Boucher to take his charge [John Surratt] in custody, and keep him concealed. This Father was rector of the parish of St. Liboire, a newly-settled place, about forty-five miles from Montreal—an out-of-the-way place, and so a good place in which to hide him away. The arrangements had been made in advance with this Father to take charge of Surratt, and keep him secreted at his house. He was conveyed there by one Joseph F. Du Tilley, who seems to have been priest Boucher’s right hand man.

The stratagem to get him away from Montreal was as follows: two carriages drove up in front of Porterfield’s house late in the afternoon, when two persons, dressed as nearly as possible alike, went out together; one of these got into one of the carriages, and the other into the other, when they drove away in different directions. Father Boucher appeared at the trial of Surratt as a voluntary witness for the defense, and without any apparent sense of shame convicted himself, by his own testimony, of being an accomplice after the fact. We think that the testimony he gave warrants the conclusion, also, that another priest, Father La Pierre, placed himself in the same category. Both of these Fathers took Surratt into their houses, and kept him concealed,—the first for three, and the latter for two months,—knowing him to be charged with being a conspirator to the assassination of the President of the United States.”

Papal Zouaves pose in 1869

Surratt is next found in Italy, in the army of the Pope, where he had enlisted as a soldier in the ninth company of Zouaves about the middle of April, 1866. He had found friends after his escape from Washington, who had supported him, kept him secreted, watched over his safety, planned his trip from Montreal to Italy, and furnished him money for the expenses of his journey; friends who, no doubt, were accomplices before, as well as after, the fact, for we find them waiting and watching for his return to Montreal after the assassination, and ready to hurry him off into seclusion. He was to them a stranger; only known to them as a fugitive from his country, charged with the highest crime that a man could commit,—a blow at the nation’s life, by murdering the nation’s head,—a crime against liberty and humanity. These could not have been his friends for mere personal reasons, but from sympathy in the general purpose of this great crime,—the subversion of our free institutions.

A portion of the tract, speaking of Rome’s likely involvment and leadership in the plot, reads: “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.”

In his book, Fifty Years in the Church of Rome, (first published 1886), chapters 59-61, ex-Roman priest Charles Chiniquy, who was personally acquainted with President Lincoln, details his belief of the intimate involvement of the Jesuits in the Lincoln assassination plot. Lincoln had clearly and publicly voiced his opposition to the barbaric decision of the Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sanford, which majority opinion was authored by Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney (who, at the time, was the first and only papist ever appointed to the Court), and which declared that “… the enslaved African race were not intended to be included …” in the phrase of the Declaration of Independence “… all men are created equal …”, but were “…beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery…”. That Roman ‘catholic’ sympathies were, for the most part, wholly aligned with the Southern Confederacy and in agreement with the Dred Scott decision is made clear in this study by Dr. Patrick Carey, published in The Catholic Historical Review, vol.88, April, 2002. Further, Lincoln had bested the papist Stephen A Douglas in their series of debates, and beaten Douglas at the polls in the bid for the presidency.

Prior to Lincoln’s election, he was warned in a letter by Oliver H. P. Parker, that Mr. Parker’s “very thorough private investigation” had revealed that the deaths of former presidents William Henry Harrison (1841), and Zachary Taylor (1850), had been assassinations, and that the near death of former president James Buchanan (1857) had been an attempted assassination. Further, that these assassinations were the work of pro-slavery, Roman ‘catholic’ elements in the country. Mr. Parker makes repeated mention of his suspicion that the ‘Borgias’ were responsible. (The Borgias are an Italian crime family intimately connected with the Vatican, having seated three of their own as popes and eleven as cardinals.) Parker closes his letter by cautioning Lincoln: “Therefore your salvation is caution, and vigilance;—In the selection of your servants be careful not to have any Roman Catholics or Papists about you have none but American born, black and white and have nothing but Protestants, about you, and then I will feel as though you will be comparatively safe.”

In September, 1863, the president of the Southern Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, appointed Dudley Mann as a special envoy to deliver a letter to the Vatican. The Confederate States were hoping to obtain recognition from the Vatican, which would be a great step forward in their cause. Mr. Mann proceeded to Rome, where he met with the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Antonelli, as related in this letter to J. P. Benjamin. An excerpt of the letter: “His Eminence then remarked that he could not withhold from me an expression of his unbounded admiration of the wonderful powers which we had exhibited in the field in resistance to a war which had been prosecuted with an energy, aided by the employment of all the recent improvements in the instruments for the destruction of life and property, unparalleled, perhaps, in the world’s history. He asked me several questions with respect to President Davis, at the end of which he observed that he certainly had created for himself a name that would rank with those of the most illustrious statesmen of modern times. He manifested an earnest desire for the definitive termination of hostilities, and observed that there was nothing the government of the Holy See could do with propriety to occasion such a result that it was not prepared to do.”

Mr. Mann then met with the ‘pope’ as related in this letter to Mr. Benjamin. The ‘pope’ expressed approval of the cause for which the Confederacy was contending, and invited Mr. Mann to remain with him in Rome for several months. Excerpts of the letter: “His Holiness received these remarks with an approving expression. He then said that I had reason to be proud of the self-sacrificing devotion of my countrymen from the beginning to the cause for which they were contending.” His Holiness now observed: “I will write a letter to President Davis, and of such a character that it may be published for general perusal.” I expressed my heartfelt gratification for the assertion of this purpose. He then remarked, half inquiringly: “You will remain here for several months?” Mr. Mann then had a second meeting with Cardinal Antonelli, as related in this letter. Representatives of the United States had noticed and protested the friendly acquaintance and hospitality being extended to the Rebel government representatives. Cardinal Antonelli stated that he intended to offer special protection to the “Rebels”. Also Mr. Mann believed that the Rebel government had been virtually recognized by the Vatican.

Excerpts from the letter: “He took the occasion to inform me, at the commencement, that the acting representative of the United States had obtained an interview of him the day before to remonstrate against the facilities afforded by the government of the holy see to “Rebels” for entering and abiding in Rome; and that he, the cardinal, promptly replied that he intended to take such “Rebels” under his special protection, because it would be making exactions upon elevated humanity which it was incapable of conscientiously complying with, to expect them to take an oath of allegiance to a country which they bitterly detested. … We have been virtually, if not practically, recognized here. While I was in the foreign office the day before yesterday, foreign ministers were kept waiting for a considerable length of time in the antechamber in order that my interview might not be disturbed. Frequently the cardinal would take my hand between his and exclaim: “Mon cher, your Government has accomplished prodigies, alike in the cabinet and in the field.”

“He [Antonelli] is bold, courageous, resolute, and is a great admirer of President Davis … The ‘pope’ responded with a letter to Davis in which he addresses him as “Illustrious and honorable sir”, and as the “President of the Confederate States of America”. However, it seems that the letter came short of giving formal recognition to the Confederacy. Nevertheless, Mr. Mann believed that it was essentially a formal recognition, as stated in this letter. Excerpts: “In the very direction of this communication there is a positive recognition of our Government. … It is addressed “to the Illustrious and Honorable Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.” … Thus we are acknowledged, by as high an authority as this world contains, to be an independent power of the earth.”

However, Mr. Benjamin informs Mr. Mann in this letter that while the papal letter was producing a “good effect”, it wasn’t viewed as a formal recognition of the Confederacy. Excerpts: “The President has been much gratified at learning the cordial reception which you received from the Pope, and the publication of the correspondence here (of which I send you a newspaper slip) has had a good effect. Its best influences, as we hope, will be felt elsewhere in producing a check on the foreign enlistments made by the United States. As a recognition of the Confederate States we can not attach to it the same value that you do, a mere inferential recognition, unconnected with political action or the regular establishment of diplomatic relations, possessing none of the moral weight required for awakening the people of the United States from their delusion that these States still remain members of the old Union. … an intestine or civil war, as it is termed by the Pope. This phrase of his letter shows that his address to the President as “President of the Confederate States” is a formula of politeness to his correspondent, not a political recognition of a fact. None of our public journals treat the letter as a recognition in the sense you attach to it … .” Then, in this letter by Cardinal Antonelli to the CSA Commissioners, there is the suggestion of ‘recognition’ in that he makes mention of “… the most bloody war which still rages in your countries … .”—as though the Union and the Confederacy were now two separate countries.

In this letter Mr. Mann states his intention to proceed to London for the purpose of expanding the influence of the papal recognition. And in this letter he mentions his perception that the public sentiment in Italy was turning in favor of the Confederacy. Excerpts: “Throughout Italy, as far as I was enabled to ascertain from my bankers and numerous other intelligent individuals, enlightened public sentiment is beginning steadily to array itself against “Lincoln and Company,” … . The impious comparison which he [Garibaldi] made of Abraham Lincoln to Jesus Christ has damaged largely his reputation in all Catholic circles while it has popularized our cause. After its [the papal letter] careful perusal, they united in opinion that its early publication on this side of the Atlantic was of almost paramount importance to the influencing of valuable public opinion, in both hemispheres, in our favor. … the direction [of the papal letter], which in itself was positive recognition.”


N. Ireland struggles to confront Catholic Church’s enslavement of thousands of women

Mr. Benjamin states in this letter to Mr. Slidell the positive effect (for the Confederacy) the papal letter was having, and the hoped for effect on papists in the North. Excerpts: “I take it for granted that you have seen the correspondence between the President and the Pope, but enclose it, as published here, with the translation made in the Department of the Pope’s letters. The effect on our people has been good, and we hope that some benefit will be experienced from this correspondence in the influence excited on Roman Catholics in the North. Another Confederate envoy to Europe and the Vatican was Archbishop Patrick Neisen Lynch of Charleston. The Knights of Columbus Council which bears his name says this of him: “Father Lynch was elevated to the Episcopate as the 3rd Bishop of Charleston in 1858. His Episcopate would be particularly noteworthy because Bishop Lynch enjoyed the distinction of being a close friend and confidant of Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederate States of America. Because of this relationship, President Davis would appoint Bishop Lynch Ambassador Plenipotentiary of the Confederacy to Europe. In his roll as Davis’ Special Envoy, Bishop Lynch traveled to the Vatican and the Courts of Europe to plead the cause of the Confederacy for the express purpose of securing for it diplomatic recognition. He was very nearly successful when the war ended and Bishop Lynch found himself stranded in Europe as the Federal Government had denied him permission to return the United States and had, in fact, petitioned the Vatican to assign to a post in Europe to prevent his return to Charleston.”

At the outbreak of the war, Lynch was the bishop of Charleston and the editor of the first ‘catholic’ newspaper in the U.S., the United States Catholic Miscellany. At the beginning of 1861, it was re-named the Charleston Catholic Miscellany to reflect the secessionist views of its authors and subscribers. This was made clear in the words of its then editor: “The American Catholic Historical Society tried to credit the title change to the paper’s smaller range, noting that Georgia had become its own diocese in 1850, but the editor, Father James Corcoran, made no bones about the reason for the change. He wrote that he could no longer tolerate “those two obnoxious words (i.e.: United States), which being henceforth without truth of meaning would ill become the title of the paper.” [1997-98, The Diocese of Charleston]

New Advent (Roman) Catholic Encyclopedia says of Lynch: “Towards the end of the war Bishop Lynch went to Europe as the accredited representative of the Confederacy on a confidential mission.” The Augusta Chronicle says of him: “Patrick Lynch, another Irishman who became bishop, was raised in Charleston, the son of a slave owner. As bishop, he owned 100 slaves himself. Although he believed it was wrong to trade, abuse or neglect slaves, he defended slavery as a part of the culture and economy. When South Carolina broke with the Union, he pledged his allegiance to his state and then to the Confederacy.” The Confederacy sent him to the Vatican as its representative, but the Vatican did not recognize him. Instead, it gave him a new set of vestments and told him to go home. After the South lost the war, he was barred from entering the United States. It took months to get a pardon from President Andrew Johnson to allow his re-entry. [The Augusta Chronicle]

The diplomatic correspondence between the Papal States and the United States in that day adds some color to this: “Bishop Lynch of Charleston S. C., late Confederate Agent, is still here. I had an interview with him, at his request, a short time since. He admitted that the cause of the South was hopeless, expressed a wish to return to his home and post of duty and asked me on what terms he could be re-admitted into the United States. I told him that the first thing to be done was to take the oath of allegiance and make his peace with the Federal Government. This he was ready and willing to do, if that would suffice; but he seemed apprehensive that if he returned to America he might be proceeded against criminally. I told him that the President’s Proclamation, which was daily expected, would no doubt contain full information on this point. The Proclamation has since arrived and Bishop Lynch, I understand, considers himself included in the list of “exceptions”.”

[footnote: Johnson’s Proclamation of May 29, granting amnesty and pardon to all who participated in the Southern cause, excepting certain classes. citing Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, VI, 308. United States Ministers to the Papal States, Instructions and Despatches 1848-1868, edited by Leo Frances Stock, Ph.D, LL.D,  1933, American Catholic Historical Society, p. 342-43, Letter No. 42. of Rufus King (U.S. legate at Rome) to William H. Seward (U.S. Secretary of State), June 24, 1865]

Bishop Lynch is very anxious to get back to Charleston, but very apprehensive that he may be held to account for his “sayings and doings”, as an avowed Confederate agent. The “supplies”, I suspect, have given out and the Bishop, who “entertained” a good deal, last year, by way of creating a “public opinion” in favor of the South, is now, I understand, a “guest” of the Propaganda and without “visible means of support.”
[Ibid., p. 344, Private letter of Rufus King (U.S. legate at Rome) to William H. Seward (U.S. Secretary of State), June 26, 1865[

T. Soutter was sent to Rome with a dispatch for Lynch, who was gone; whereupon he delivered the letter directly to Cardinal Antonelli, who was entirely familiar and sympathetic with the Rebel cause, desiring their success. Soutter describes the meeting in a letter to John Slidell. Excerpts of the letter: “Immediately on my arrival here I sought the residence of the Right Rev. Bishop Lynch and learned that he had left Rome, to be absent several weeks… Accordingly I waited on the cardinal at the appointed hour and he gave me a most cordial greeting, shaking my hand warmly, and, leading me to a seat near his desk, he at once entered upon the discussion of the affairs of the Confederate States. He made no secret of his sympathy with our cause and had not the slightest hesitation in saying he desired our success. … I was more than gratified with the great interest he manifested in the cause dear to our hearts.”

In this letter, J. P. Benjamin commissions John Bannon (Roman Priest) to go to Ireland for the purpose of discouraging the Irish from immigrating to the North, lest they serve in the Northern Army. He also suggests that Mr. Bannon might visit the ‘pope’ at Rome in order to receive his assistance and blessing for the mission. Excerpt: “If, in order fully to carry out the objects of the Government as above expressed, you should deem it advisable to go to Rome for the purpose of obtaining such sanction from the sovereign pontiff as will strengthen your hands and give efficiency to your action, you are at liberty to do so, as well as to invite to your assistance any Catholic prelate from the Northern States known to you to share your convictions of the justice of our cause and of the duty of laboring for its success.”

This letter from Confederate Major-General T. J. ‘Stonewall’ Jackson to Confederate General Joseph E. Johnston shows that they were working in concert with papal priests. He writes: “I have taken special pains to obtain information respecting General Banks, but I have not been informed of his having gone east. I will see what can be effected through the Catholic priests in Martinsburg.” John E. Tallon M. D. (Surgeon in the U. S. Army) wrote in this letter to President Lincoln: “The Roman Catholic Clergy of Louisiana generally, I believe are Rebels at heart …”

That the papal priests and the Irish ‘catholics’ generally sided with the South is shown in this letter from S. C. Hayes to Jefferson Davis, in which he writes: “I mention these circumstances to show you that the great body of Irish at the North feel a deep interest in our success, more especially in Pennsylvania, where they have been subjected to bitter persecution. Although I am an elder in the Presbyterian Church, yet I had conversations with quite a number of Roman Catholic priests at the North, all of whom, with one exception, expressed the utmost confidence and sympathy in our success. Also in this letter from Major Jos. Darr to Lieutenant Colonel W. H. Chesebrough, in which he says of Daniel O’Connor, Roman priest and prisoner: “… he does not hesitate to follow in the footsteps of his bishop and declares his sympathy with the rebels while claiming that he is not an American citizen.”

Also in this letter from Joshua Fiero, Jr. (Captain and Provost-Marshal, North) to Colonel James B. Fry (Provost-Marshal-General, North). Excerpts: “… both localities largely settled by the Irish people. This resistance was mostly made by the Irish women. I called upon the Catholic priest, who assured me that all he could do to restore order should be done. After this better order prevailed. … a meeting was held last night attended by some 300 persons, mostly Irish, who hurrahed for Jeff. Davis and Lee, and voted to resist the draft.” Further evidence of Roman ‘catholic’ sympathy with the South is shown in this letter from Jo. O. Shelby (Brigadier-Genreral) to Lieutenant-Colonel L. A. Maclean, in which he states: “I find that this settlement [Westphalia] is Catholic and composed of Southern sympathizers.”

The Southern Army made it a practice of enlisting its Roman ‘catholic’ prisoners of war into its own ranks, as shown by this letter from Jno. Blair Hoge (Major and Assistant Adjutant-General) to Major-General D. H. Maury, in which he writes: “… relating to the subject of recruiting prisoners of war … by recruiting chiefly among Catholic Irish and other foreigners and obtaining the influence of the Catholic priesthood they may secure faithful soldiers.” As to the material to be received as recruits, it is recommended that Catholic Irish be preferred, and next to them other foreigners. Further evidence of this is found in this letter of J. A. Seddon (Secretary of War) to General M. J. Wright in which he writes, regarding 1,000 or more catholic Irish who wished to enlist in the Confederate Army: “The enlistment of Irish and other foreign prisoners, as proposed, is sanctioned.” And in this letter, Edwin M. Stanton (Secretary of War, North) authorizes Governor Morton (of Indiana) to release 200 ‘catholic’ Confederate prisoners, and to enlist them into the Northern Army. The absence of Roman clergy in the Northern forces is shown in this letter from Major-General W. T. Sherman to Admiral D. D. Porter, wherein he writes: “… don’t believe a single Catholic priest is in our fleet; have sent to enquire, but the answer comes back from each division, None.”

Approximately four months prior to the assassination, ‘Pope’ Pius IX had declared papal Rome’s official position to be at odds with Protestant America and the liberties secured by the U.S. Constitution in his ‘Syllabus of Errors‘ (December 8, 1864):

Some excerpts:

  1. [It is error to believe that] Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.
  2. [It is error to believe that] Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.
  3. [It is error to believe that] The Church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion.
  4. [It is error to believe that] The Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power, direct or indirect.
  5. [It is error to believe that] Kings and princes are not only exempt from the jurisdiction of the Church, but are superior to the Church in deciding questions of jurisdiction.
  6. [It is error to believe that] The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.
  7. [It is error to believe that] In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.
  8. [It is error to believe that] Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.
  9. [It is error to believe that] Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. [The meaning of this is: that it is the view of the Vatican that freedom of worship, and freedom of speech, tend to corrupt the morals and minds of the people and to propogate indifferentism.]

A little more than two months before the assassination, Lincoln received a letter from Louisa Harrison warning him to be on guard against Roman Catholic assassins. It appears that all links to this letter at the Library of Congress are temporary, and thus a link cannot be posted here. The letter can be viewed in photographic format at the Lincoln Papers site by entering “Louisa Harrison” into the ‘keyword’ search. Be sure to set the search filter to “match this exact phrase”. (click on the “Archival grayscale/color (JPEG – 203K)” link for a more readable image.) A portion of it reads: “Do you Sir, not forsee some danger from Catholicism—spread as its members are—all over the Union. They follow and obey their Priests implicitly. And they again their Head—so that one man can cause the uprising of this entire Body of Secret sworn ? —sworn to destroy the Heretic and think that they are doing God service!

The letter tells the story of how an associate of the writer had once seen a new RC church and observed them unpacking and polishing weapons in the basement; and heard talk of the ‘Catholics’ rising up to massacre the Protestants. The letter states that there was much talk of a report that the uprising was to be on March 10th (Lincoln was assassinated April 14). Near the end of the letter, it says: I know the Lord is able to put to flight the armies of the Ailen (sic, alien). And if they are plotting a midnight assassin on so stupendous a scale—my trust is that He will lay his hand on all the Leaders.…”

About fourteen months after the assassination of Lincoln, ‘pope’ Pius IX stated the papal position on slavery, which was virtually in agreement with the position of the Southern Confederacy: “Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons. It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given. The purchaser should carefully examine whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty, and that the vendor should do nothing which might endanger the life, virtue, or Catholic faith of the slave.” [Pius IX, Instruction 20, June 1866]

The evidence is overwhelming that Roman ‘catholics’, under the leadership of their clergy and, ultimately, the ‘pope’, were in favor of the Southern Confederacy and opposed to “Lincoln & Co.”. That the assassination of Lincoln was not the work of John Wilkes Booth acting alone, but was a conspiracy that traces back to the Vatican—to which John Surratt fled for refuge—is borne out by abundance of evidence. And even if some of that evidence is but circumstantial, it is weighty, and compelling. In the end, the reader must draw his or her own conclusions. But the facts are, and will remain, inescapable.”

DEEP POLITICS
http://knights-of-the-golden-circle.blogspot.com/2014/08/keehn-knights-of-golden-circle-2013.html
http://knights-of-the-golden-circle.blogspot.com/2014/09/president-lincoln-assassinated-by.html
http://knights-of-the-golden-circle.blogspot.com/2010/02/tale-of-red-ballot-baltimore-plot-part.html
http://knights-of-the-golden-circle.blogspot.com/2014/09/solving-lincolns-assassination.html
http://stevenhager420.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/solving-lincolns-assassination/
Solving Lincoln’s Assassination
by Steven Hagern  /   September 12, 2014

I tinkered around conducting my own deep political research for years, but it wasn’t until I began the study of secret societies that I made any real headway. My big breakthrough was exploring connections between the Sicilian men-of-honor society and the Central Intelligence Agency, two secret societies that plotted to assassinate Fidel Castro. But after JFK called off that murder, the same team assembled to kill Castro ended up killing Kennedy. If Congress ever holds a real investigation, this is the reality that will emerge, although I suppose the instigators will be long dead by then.

I could write about 9/11 today, after all it is the anniversary, but my musing on that subject don’t attract much attention and offend those who prefer to keep their heads in the sand. I’m sure Facebook downgrades 9/11 posts anyway, unless they support the official story. There’s so much mud in the water and games being played regarding 9/11 that it’ll probably take another 13 years for enough real evidence to emerge to start pointing fingers at the true culprits, though I am certain 9/11 was staged to jump-start two wars that killed over two million people and made billions for the military-industrial complex, while suspending most of our Constitutional rights, because that’s the way deep politics works.

You can’t understand the Lincoln assassination without understanding the Knights of the Golden Circle, one of the more powerful secret societies in America at the time of the assassination. Funny how almost nothing has been written about the Knights, although their existence was well-established before the Civil War. Apparently, the organization grew out of Southern Rights clubs in the South who wished to open up more territory to slavery. These secret clubs financed slave ships that continued to illegally abduct Africans after the slave trade was officially abolished in 1808. In 1844, the War with Mexico was championed by these clubs because they desired to invade Mexico so it could be carved-up into slave states to insure the balance of power in Congress remained with the South.

bickley

In 1855, a resident of Cincinnati, Ohio, named George Bickley organized the Southern Rights movement into the highly secretive Knights of the Golden Circle (K.G.C.), a volunteer militia initially formed for a new invasion of Mexico. Eventually, tens of thousands joined the society, and many came from Northern states. A secret history of the society was written in 1861 and appeared a few years ago online here.

But only three years after the Civil War commenced, the K.G.C. was exposed. Some were leading pro-slave “peace movements” while others were acting as spies and dirty tricks operatives for the Confederacy.

The Army spent months investigating the K.G.C. and the Judge Advocate General eventually produced an exhaustive report titled: “The Order of American Knights”, alias “The Sons of Liberty:” A Western Conspiracy in Aid of the Southern Rebellion, published by the Union Congressional Committee, Washington D.C., 1864. Among other things, the report identified most of the state leaders in the North and claimed Clement Vallindigham, leader of the Copperhead Democrats in Ohio, was the society’s Supreme Commander. Vallindigham had been a member of Congress, but after he lost his seat, President Lincoln had him deported to South Carolina as an enemy alien. You can read the Congressional report here.

Screen Shot 2014-09-11 at 6.56.59 AM

Isn’t it odd that none of Lincoln biographies or recent films mention K.G.C.? In the 1930s an amateur historian and chemistry professor in Chicago put forth the theory that Secretary of War Edwin Stanton was involved in the Lincoln assassination and played the crucial role in covering up the true origins of the plot. After Lincoln’s death, Stanton seized all power in Washington D.C. and took charge of the investigation and ran a military court that swiftly hung some minor players. What nobody seems to mention, however, is that Stanton and Vallindigham were very close personal friends, and that Vallindigham funded Stanton’s rise in politics. Booth’s induction into the K.G.C. is well documented and Booth may have been following instructions from Vallindigham, who had one of the biggest axes to grind against Lincoln.

The transcripts of the trial are available online, or you can watch Robert Redford’s film The Conspirator, which focuses on Mary Surratt, who was targeted as chief patsy and swiftly hung. Her son John was studying to be a Catholic priest but instead joined the K.G.C. He became one of the primary couriers for the Confederacy during the war, and was involved in the K.G.C. plot to kidnap Lincoln so he could be traded for Confederate prisoners of war. But when the kidnap plan shifted to murder, Surratt fled to Canada, where he remained in hiding while his mother was tried and hung as chief patsy.

Surratt was such a devoted Catholic he volunteered to defend the Papal States during the final years of their existence. Eighteen months after his mother was hung, however, he was spotted in Egypt and escorted back to America to stand trial still wearing his Papal Zouave uniform. Fortunately for Surratt, a law had just been passed forbidding military courts from trying civilians so the government was unable to secure his conviction, although Surratt freely admitted associations with Booth, he claimed no part of the murder and most of the jury believed him. Later on, Surratt would publish his diary and the most astonishing thing was his frequent mentions of the K.G.C. on almost every other page. You can read the diary here.

Since Stanton was head of the investigation and running the country under martial law at the time, one wonders why the K.G.C. was never mentioned in the trial, why Booth was executed instead of being brought in for interrogation, and why 15 pages of Booth’s diary disappeared immediately after Stanton got control of the manuscript. If I had to make a guess, I’d say the Civil War was fomented by British interests that also led the abolitionist movement from their headquarters in Boston. After the war, certain business interests wanted to pillage the South for exploitation, something Lincoln was strongly opposed to. Killing Lincoln was not in the best interests of the South, but was in the interest of certain business alliances. After Lincoln’s death, Stanton engaged in a vicious power struggle with President Andrew Johnson, someone who’d also been slated for assassination but survived.

There’s another thread to this saga that involves Freemasonry. Albert Pike, the most powerful Mason in America, was from Boston, but moved to Arkansas during the war, where he became a general for the Confederacy and organized Native Americans to conduct terror raids on Northern civilians. Just as British and American officers met frequently during the Revolutionary War in Masonic lodges (and sometimes on the eve of a battle), it’s safe to assume Masons on both sides of the Civil War held discussions in their temples throughout the warAlbertPikeYounger

Freemasonry has always been a refuge for spies. Immediately after Lincoln’s death, Pike went from hiding out in Canada, to being awarded full masonic honors inside the White House by the deeply masonic President Andrew Johnson, who pardoned Pike for his war crimes and may have helped erect a statue to him in Washington. Consider that Stanton was a devoted Freemason. Also consider the one man brought in to testify against Mary Surratt was a clerk who worked for Stanton at the Department of War.

Consider Stanton placed John Frederick Parker as the sole bodyguard for Lincoln that fateful night even though Lincoln had been having nightmares about being assassinated for three nights running and expressed these fears to Stanton and requested additional protection. Since Parker had a reputation for visiting brothels, sleeping on duty and drinking heavily, he seems like an odd choice. Parker abandoned his post and went across the street for drink in a tavern where Booth was also imbibing before Booth strolled across the street to execute the undefended President.

Consider that Stanton closed every bridge out of Washington immediately after the assassination, save one, which turned out to be the bridge used by Booth and his confederates. Consider the public telegraph lines in Washington went dead for two hours immediately after the assassination, leaving Stanton in control of the only working telegraph line in and out of the city. Although all the films show Booth jumping to the stage and yelling “sic semper Tyrannis,” in his final diary entries Booth claimed to have shouted those words immediately before firing the shot.

mjkogd1

Final note: When conducting operations on a national/international levels, secret societies can manifest dialectical systems. By founding terror groups, they capture centers of gravity and place gatekeepers at key strategic positions in the coming conflict. Just as the abolitionist movement had deep pockets plus the insane John Brown on their side, a complimentary and similarly violent pro-slavery movement may have been manifested so the coming clash of cultures could be more effectively mined for profit. William Quantrill would be the insane terrorist on the flip side. I sense this may be the way secret societies have played their games for centuries.

PREVIOUSLY on #SPECTRE

in FAVOR of SLAVERY : COUNTER-REVOLUTION of 1776
https://spectrevision.net/2014/07/04/counter-revolution-of-1776/

SYNARCHY – REVOLUTION from ABOVE
https://spectrevision.net/2014/11/21/synarchy/

BULLSHIT JOBS
https://spectrevision.net/2015/01/09/bullshit-jobs/

Leave a Reply