I recently finished American Brutus, a reconstruction of sorts of the Lincoln assassination by John Wilkes Booth. The author, Michael Kauffman, references some never-used sources, namely many original documents and transcripts from the “Trial of the Century”. His goal, as he puts it, was to debunk some of the popularized myths surrounding the assassination, and to attempt to get behind Booth’s motivation for shooting Lincoln. Not as easy as it sounds, actually, getting at his motivation. One of the theories going around (which I had actually subscribed to, for lack of better knowledge) was that Booth was simply a deranged individual, with broken dreams of Southern glory. While this may have played a part, Booth wasn’t quite the deranged person he was made out to be. I’ll leave it to you to read the book – a surprisingly quick read for a 400 pager – but these are what I found to be most interesting:
1. A Day May Have Made All The Difference.
Lincoln, in the 1860s, was quite the controversial figure. He, along with his Secretary of State, William Seward (of Seward’s Folly fame), were seen in the South as tyrants, unwilling to allow their succession. Lincoln also made some interesting decisions during the war, namely suspending habeas corpus and allowing many confederate supporters to be detained without cause. Sounds somewhat familiar.
And it wasn’t just the South. New York was a haven for confederate sympathizers, and Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Herald, had openly written of the need to kill Lincoln!
Given this, it’s not hard to see how Booth came to the decision to kill Lincoln. The plan had actually begun as a plot to kidnap him and use him as leverage for the return of confederate prisoners, but it eventually became the assassination “plot”. Booth, a well known stage actor, had been in many Shakespearean plays, particularly Julius Caesar. As we all know from having read that play in high school or college, Caesar was killed on the Ides by Brutus, who believed he was doing so for the greater good.
Flash forward to 1865. April 13 was the Ides of April, and Booth had planned on killing Lincoln on that day to provide the overt symbolism of Lincoln as the Caesarean tyrant (remember “Sic semper tyrannis!” or “Thus always to tyrants!”). Booth would be seen as the hero, who acted for the greater good of the South and indeed America. However, he missed his chance and had to kill him on April 14… which was Good Friday. The media latched onto the Jesus Christ analogy instead, and Lincoln became the savior and Booth the detested terrorist. Who knows what might have happened had Booth acted on the 13th.
2. Mary Surratt was the first woman put to death by the federal government.
In fact, many were later outraged that Andrew Johnson did not commute her sentence due to “her gender and her age.” Even worse, in my mind, is that it looks like Mary Surratt may not have been so central to the plot.
3. Dr. Samuel Mudd (“thy name is Mudd”) was most likely innocent.
The details are better left to the book, but Dr. Mudd may have gotten a bum rap in this historical event, forever condemning his family name to children’s stories. How could that have happened? See number 4.
4. John Wilkes Booth was one wily, sneaky, crafty conspirator.
He may have completely fabricated his “conspiracy” through artful (and devious) uses of handwritten notes, staging of appearances with “co-conspirators”, and letters stashed with his family members. For example, he wrote a note to Andrew Johnson saying “Don’t wish to disturb you, are you home?” Problem is, Johnson wasn’t even acquainted with Booth. However, this note cast doubt on Johnson’s innocence, particularly during his impeachment hearings. Or, Booth would go on a horse ride with another person, making sure he was seen by townsfolk, and making it look like in hindsight that they had been mapping out escape routes. Crafty!
Bottom line: Great book. Is Kauffman 100% correct with his theories and conclusions? Probably not. But it was an educational read nonetheless.