The American Film Company

Home | Discuss | Slavery, race, and the assassination

The Conspirator

Posted By - James M. McPherson
Mar 21, 2011 at 6:40pm | Filed Under “The Conspirator

“Slavery, race, and the assassination”

On the evening of April 11, 1865, a large crowd gathered on the south lawn of the White House in Washington to hear President Abraham Lincoln deliver a speech from a second-floor balcony. They had come to celebrate the surrender of General Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia to General Ulysses S. Grant two days earlier at Appomattox. Instead of the triumphalist speech expected by the audience, however, Lincoln gave a serious address looking toward the procedures for bringing the defeated states back into the Union. The victorious Union army would have to stay in the South for an indefinite period to oversee this process and to suppress "disorganized and discordant elements." With the disintegration of the Confederate government, "there is no authorized organ for us to deal with." Therefore "we must simply begin with, and mould from" those disorganized elements. Lincoln had already begun that effort in Louisiana, Tennessee, and Arkansas, where he hoped that the newly "moulded" state governments would soon grant the right to vote to literate African Americans and black Union army veterans. For the other states, the president promised a "new announcement to the people of the South." (1)

One of the listeners in the crowd turned to his companion David Herold. "That means nigger citizenship," snapped John Wilkes Booth. "Now, by God, I'll put him through. That is the last speech he will ever make." (2)

Booth's beloved Confederacy had been founded on the cornerstone of slavery, and he hated Lincoln for destroying both the Confederacy and slavery. In a famous speech on March 21, 1861, Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens had explicitly avowed slavery as the basis for the new nation. Thomas Jefferson's Declaration that all men are created equal was wrong, said Stephens. "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man, that slavery . . . is his natural and moral condition. This, our new government, is the first in the history of the world based on this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." (3)

A native of the slave state of Maryland, Booth was a strong believer in slavery. In the draft of a speech (which he never delivered) written when he was in Philadelphia in December 1860, Booth defended slavery and denounced the abolitionists for driving the South into secession by their persistent agitation of the question. "The South has a right according to the constitution to keep and hold them," he wrote. "And we have no right under that constitution to interfere with her or hers. And instead of looking upon slavery as a sin . . . I hold it to be a happiness for themselves and a social & political blessing for us. . . . I have been through the whole South and have marked the happiness of master & of man. . . . True I have seen the Black man w[h]ip[p]ed but only when he deserved more than he received." (4)

Foreshadowing his attack on Lincoln, Booth denounced those who wanted to abolish slavery as traitors deserving death. "Then what are they who preach this Abolition doctrine who have in doing so nigh destroyed our country. I call them tra[i]tors . . . and treason should be stamped to death and not al[l]owed to stalk abroad in any land. So deep is my hatred for such men that I could wish I had them in my grasp And I the power to crush. I'd grind them into dust." (5) Four years later he had Lincoln, now seen as the arch-Abolitionist, in his power. And he ground him into dust.

Two of the other conspirators were slaveholders, Mary Surratt and Samuel Mudd. The Surratts had been compelled to sell some of their slaves in the 1850s to meet debts, and Mary Surratt evidently owned no more slaves when Maryland abolished the institution by a constitutional amendment in 1864--a measure strongly pushed by the Lincoln administration. The extended Mudd family were substantial slaveholders, and Samuel had also participated in patrols that chased down and returned fugitive slaves in Maryland during the war. Surratt and Mudd would also hold Lincoln responsible for the dual crimes of destroying slavery and the Confederacy, for which he deserved death. (6) It is safe to say that if slavery had not existed, there would have been no Civil War--and no assassination.

1. Roy P. Basler, ed., The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, 9 vols. (New Brunswick, N.J., 1953-1955), 8:399-405.

2. William Hanchett, The Lincoln Murder Conspiracies (Urbana, IL, 1983), 37. A similar version is quoted in Michael W. Kauffman, American Brutus: John Wilkes Booth and the Lincoln Conspiracies (New York, 2004), 210.

3. Augusta Daily Constitutionalist, March 30, 1861.

4. John Rhodehamel and Louise Taper, eds., "Right or Wrong, God Judge Me": The Writings of John Wilkes Booth (Urbana, IL, 1997), 62-63.

5. Ibid., 56.

6. Kate Clifford Larson, The Assassin's Accomplice: Mary Surratt and the Plot to Kill Abraham Lincoln (New York, 2008), 21-22; Edward Steers, Jr., Blood on the Moon: The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln (Lexington, KY, 2001), 66-68.

Expand to read more Click to close


1 2 3 4 5 ... 12 Next
  • Florence
    08/22/2012 at 3:11pm


    As a new member I think The American Film Company's mission to make films of American historic events (historically accurate) is a fantastic way to educate those people who take pride in their country,and want to learn more about our American stories.

    Report Abuse
  • Americanophile
    08/14/2012 at 1:42pm


    The film world is greatly enriched by the efforts of these great folk at the Film Company of Americal Now history and historical accuracy become the primary consideration of film making rather than simply entertaining. people. Given the incredible power of film to engross mass audiences, it is inevitable that more people will now learn more about the history of the greatest civilization in human history. `The Conspirator' is a great beginning,. It showed that even in times of the greatest national trauma conceivable, the United States is able to keep its footing on the ground on which it was established. The fact that the moral to the story is that civilians earned the rights to be tried in civilian courts tells it all. It gives proof to President Obama's claim about the ability of the great democracy to continually improve itself.

    God Bless the United States of American and all its great citizens like the folks at the AmericanFilmCompany,l

    Report Abuse
  • Sonny76
    08/23/2011 at 10:15am


    The act of winning the war was a great victory indeed, however, Lincoln knew that there was still the huge task of stiching back together the Union which he had worked so hard to preserve. The South was in ruins. The once proud Southern people were reduced to shame and misery from their once prosperous lives. Lincoln realized that for the Union to heal, he must reunite the country while at the same time saving "face" for the Southern citizens. An olive branch had to be extended along with the human compassions associated with such. For the deep wounds to heal properly, this reunification needed to be done with dignity along with an offer of friendship. More difficult work lay ahead for Lincoln, however, his life was cut short. I still wonder what he would have done during his final term as President had he lived.

    Report Abuse
  • AStudentofHistory
    06/29/2011 at 12:50pm


    Should Robert E. Lee have been tried for treason?
    Results so far:
    Yes 37% 372 votes Total: 1010 votes
    No 63% 638 votes
    My Published Article (Burgess Foster)
    "Robert E. Lee did resign as a Lt. Colonel in the Union Army prior to joing the CSA. However, he did lead an Army against a nation he swore to protect from both domestic and foreign enemies.
    He was personally responsible for ordering his army to kill Union soldiers who were defending their flag's honor. He was a graduate of Westpoint, but chose to fight against the nation that bestowed upon him honor.
    How can the American populace or hoi polloi defend somenoe who sought to utterly destroy their nation and support a man in Jefferson Davis who swore to overthrow the U.S. Government?
    He, as irony would have it, put down John Brown for raising a band against the U.S. and seizing an armory, when, consider this, the Confederates seized countless armories and raised an Army against the USA.
    State's rights does not obviate honor?
    U.S. Senator Ben.Wade (R-OH): "If there is any stain on the present Administration, it is that they have been weak enough to deal too leniently with those traitors. I know it sprung from goodness of heart; it sprung from the best of motives; but, sir, as a method of putting down this rebellion, mercy to traitors is cruelty to loyal men ..."

    Report Abuse
  • AStudentofHistory
    06/27/2011 at 1:50pm


    KUDOS: to the American Film Staff, laverge-01 & kcliflar, Dr. McPherson and others: Thanks for promoting public history, my professors at UNC-CH and NCCU were big on public history and its value it adds to the USA's collective memory!

    Report Abuse
1 2 3 4 5 ... 12 Next
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to register, click here to login.


James M. McPherson

Professor of History Emeritus, Princeton University

Professor James McPherson is the George Henry Davis '86 Professor of History Ameritus at Princeton University. He is also a member of the editorial board of Encyclopaedia Britannica. He won the Pulitzer Prize for "Battle Cry of Freedom" and his most recent book "Tried by War: Abraham Lincoln as... More

James M. McPherson

2009 THE AMERICAN FILM COMPANY. All rights reserved. | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

American Film Co. Twitter facebook