the imaginative conservative logo

“For John Wilkes Booth, sweeping, grand gestures were a way of life. It was how he navigated his way through this world. The bigger and bolder, the better.” —Jesse Johnson, who portrayed Booth in Killing Lincoln

john wilkes boothAmericans tend to think of assassins as mentally-unbalanced individuals, who kill—or try to kill—for reasons that make little or no sense. There is John Hinckley, who put a bullet into Ronald Reagan’s chest in an attempt to impress the object of his romantic obsession, actress Jodie Foster; then there is the disappointed office-seeker, Charles Guiteau, murderer of President James A. Garfield; Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, the follower of Charles Manson who took a shot at Gerald Ford; and the erratic and simple-minded Lee Harvey Oswald, who (despite wild conspiracy theories to the contrary) fired the fatal shot that killed President John F. Kennedy.

John Wilkes Booth is often mistakenly lumped into this category. Remembered by most simply as a pro-Southern actor embittered by the Confederacy’s impending defeat, his killing of Abraham Lincoln at Ford’s Theater is thought to have been the act of an irrational man, as it supposedly doomed whatever hope the South held out for a lenient peace settlement. There is little doubt, however, that Booth was a sane man, whose motivation for killing Lincoln was rooted in his sincere belief that the North’s president was a tyrant who, like Caesar, deserved death at the hands of a Brutus, and whose death might yet change the course of the war he had unjustly inaugurated.

John Wilkes Booth was born in Maryland in 1838 to the famous actor, Junius Brutus Booth, and his mistress, Mary Ann Holmes. John Wilkes’ father was named after the famous assassin of Julius Caesar, and indeed the family had a tradition of naming sons after heroes who had opposed tyrants and kings. Booth himself was named after the English radical politician, John Wilkes, and he had an uncle named Algernon Sidney Booth, after the Whig theorist who was executed for treason against Charles I. If resistance to tyranny was not literally in their blood, it was at least ingrained into the very souls of the Booth men.

John Wilkes and his two older brothers—Edwin and Junius Brutus, Jr.—followed their father into the world of acting. Edwin, the middle son, was the greatest thespian of the trio, exceeding even the fame of his successful father. Whereas Booth père was histrionic on stage and unstable off it (being a conspicuous alcoholic), Edwin was renowned for his understated, realistic public portrayals and his gentleness of manner in private. John Wilkes was, in contrast, temperamental, and a mediocre actor, who was known more for his physical acting–he more than once received real wounds while participating in on-stage fights–and his superior good looks.

As the war between North and South dragged on, John became ever more preoccupied with the Southern cause, and he and Edwin—already rivals for their father’s attention and as actors—became political rivals. Edwin was a backer of the Northern war effort and a supporter of Abraham Lincoln; John Wilkes was a partisan of the Confederate cause and despised Lincoln. (In a strange twist of history, in 1864, Edwin rescued Robert Lincoln, the president’s son, from the path of a train after the young Union officer had fallen between the platform and the tracks at a Washington, D.C. station.) Sibling rivalry dovetailed with political differences to create a wedge between the brothers. Indeed, author Nora Titone sees the fraternal competition for a father’s approval and a nation’s acclaim as the primary motivating force that compelled John Wilkes eventually to kill Lincoln. In this interpretation, John, the inferior actor, burned with the desire to somehow outdo his brother on stage. Though this rivalry no doubt simmered between the brothers, it is doubtful, as Titone claims, that John turned to thoughts of kidnapping and killing Lincoln primarily in order to win fame greater than that of Edwin. Booth’s own writing indicates clearly that the main motivation for his conspiracy plans was an intense hatred of the American president: “Our country owed all her troubles to him,” Booth wrote in his diary after the assassination, “and God simply made me the instrument of his punishment.”

Booths_Caesar

John Wilkes, Edwin, and Junius Brutus Booth

On November 25, 1864, less than six months before the assassination, the three Booth fils appeared in a benefit performance of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar at the Winter Garden Theater in New York. (Proceeds from the performance went to the creation of a statue of William Shakespeare that still stands in Central Park.) John played Mark Antony, Edwin portrayed Brutus, and Junius was Cassius. During this period, John was already orchestrating a plot to kidnap Lincoln and exchange him for Confederate prisoners of war. The kidnap plan again is indicative of Booth’s mental sanity. Unlike, say, the scheme of the radical John Brown, who thought the actions of his ragtag band of abolitionists might incite a national slave uprising, Booth’s plan was a rational one with a decent chance of success. Writer Michael W. Kauffman in American Brutus: John Wilkes Booth and the Lincoln Conspiracies sees John as a brilliant and devious manipulator of men, who was able to exercise control over slow-witted men like George Atzerodt, David Herold, and Lewis Powell into participating in his scheme to apprehend Lincoln.

But an attempt to kidnap Lincoln in 1864 failed, and after Robert E. Lee’s surrender of the main Confederate Army on April 9, 1865, Booth changed his plan from one of kidnapping to killing. Though it is impossible to know what exactly transpired in Booth’s mind, a desire for revenge surely combined with a desperate, eleventh-hour attempt to save the Confederate cause. Often forgotten is that Booth planned not only to kill Lincoln by his own hand, but to have his cohorts kill Vice President Andrew Johnson and Secretary of State William H. Seward, thereby decapitating the United States government and throwing it into confusion. Unfortunately for Booth, Atzerodt—charged with murdering Johnson—lost his nerve and got drunk, while Powell succeeded only in severely injuring Seward (who was already bed-ridden from a carriage accident).

Booth, however, was successful in carrying out his end of the bargain, fatally shooting Lincoln in the back of the head while the president, Mary Todd Lincoln, Major Henry Rathbone and his fiancée, Clara Harris, watched the play, Our American Cousin, at Ford’s Theater on April 14, 1865. After committing the deed, the actor leapt out of the president’s box to the stage below, holding up the knife he had used to stab Rathbone, and shouting in supremely dramatic fashion, “Sic Semper Tyrannis! The South is avenged!”* The younger Booth had at last topped his elder brother on the stage. The conductor of the Ford’s Theater orchestra would later claim to have overheard Booth proclaim during the play’s intermission, prior to the assassination, “When I leave the stage for good, I will be the most talked about man in America.”

From Booth’s own diary, we know that the actor envisioned himself as a modern-day Brutus, the righteous executioner of the judge of history, who yet hoped to preserve American liberty despite the lateness of the hour:

For six months we had worked to capture, but our cause being almost lost, something decisive and great must be done…. With every man’s hand against me, I am here in despair. And why? For doing what Brutus was honored for. What made Tell a hero? And yet I, for striking down a greater tyrant than they ever knew, am looked upon as a common cutthroat. My action was purer than either of theirs. One hoped to be great himself. The other had not only his country’s but his own, wrongs to avenge. I hoped for no gain. I knew no private wrong. I struck for my country and that alone.

Author Kauffman seems to believe that the conspiracy to kill Lincoln was orchestrated by John Wilkes Booth alone. Other researchers, however, think that Booth was to some degree a “patsy”—to use another presidential assassin’s term of a hundred years later—of higher powers. Author Edward Steers, Jr. argues that the Confederate government orchestrated the assassination. In Blood on the Moon: The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, Steers suggests that the plot was a response to an alleged plan by Union forces to kill Jefferson Davis and high-ranking Confederate officials. In March 1864, Union cavalry under Ulric Dahlgren conducted a raid to free Union prisoners of war held in Richmond. Confederate forces foiled the raid, however, and Dahlgren—the son of Union admiral James A. Dahlgren—was killed. On his body were discovered papers in his own hand detailing elements of the mission, including the murder of Davis and his cabinet. Steers argues that in response, the Confederate government raised the “black flag” of unrestrained warfare, launching schemes to terrorize the Northern populace and demoralize the Union cause. These efforts were directed by a group of Confederate agents in Canada and included the spreading of yellow fever throughout Northern cities, the poisoning of New York City’s water supply, and, finally, the assassination of Lincoln, Johnson, and Seward.

The full truth about Booth’s conspiracy may never be known. Booth himself was killed twelve days after the assassination, shot in the neck as he holed up in a Virginia barn with his companion Herold. A military tribunal quickly tried, convicted, and hanged Herold, Powell, Atzerodt, and Mary Surratt, the owner of the boardinghouse where Booth and the conspirators met. Many of the witnesses in the trial surely perjured themselves under pressure from the United States government. It is also unknown whether evidence was suppressed or destroyed at the direction of U.S. Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, who oversaw both the investigation of the Booth conspiracies and the trial itself.

Whether he was the puppet-master of the plot to kill Lincoln or the agent of Confederate authorities, John Wilkes Booth was no wild-eyed madman. His was not on a suicide mission; rather, he had devised an escape plan whereby he would make his way across the Potomac River into Virginia, into what he assumed would be the welcoming arms of his Southern compatriots. Though vain and manipulative, John Wilkes Booth was an idealist whose deep-seated belief in the righteousness of the Confederate cause and the guilt of Abraham Lincoln led him to commit what has indeed gone down as one of the most spectacular dramatic acts in American history.

*Witnesses differ greatly on many of the details of the assassination, including Booth’s words as he landed on stage. Nearly all, however, agree that he shouted something akin to this in triumph.

The only full biography of John Wilkes Booth is Fortune’s Fool: The Life of John Wilkes Booth by Terry Alford. Books mentioned in this essay may be found in The Imaginative Conservative Bookstore.

Print Friendly
"All comments are subject to moderation. We welcome the comments of those who disagree, but not those who are disagreeable."
9 replies to this post
  1. I once gave a presentation at the Mises Institute here in Poland where I identified the principle example of the corruption of Democracy and the fall of American Empire as being the difference between the would-be assassin of President Reagan and the assassin of President Lincoln. Lincoln’s America took politics seriously. Boothe was a true citizen and Lincoln a true tyrant. Tyrants in the classical sense are necessary to rescue republics, Lincoln knew as much and spoke of it in his Lyceum Address. Boothe arose from the same republican culture that gave birth to Lincoln.

    Our times produce neither, or mere nihilists.

  2. With all due respect I don’t see why you should, have brought up this issue except as a way to divide conservatives on whether Lincoln was a good president. Again no disrespect but sometimes
    I sense on TIC a bias towards the South, (not the Confederacy per se). I for instance believe that the Federalists were the true conservatives of the Founding( I’m not a libertarian at all), and i can not fathom how you could call Thomas Jefferson a conservative, because of his radical sympathies…i digress. I would really appreciate more articles about Old New England. Lets move on from our old Mason/Dixon divide and have more accounts of both sides please, thank you.

    • Unfortunately too many traditionalist conservatives believe that finding sympathy in the good of the South’s contribution to conservative thought means a sympathy towards and advocacy of the cause of the Confederacy; based on myths and falsehoods.

  3. One other interesting perspective on this was a book by Albert Furtwangler entitled “Assassination On Stage: Brutus, Hamlet and the Death of Lincoln.” He presents an interesting analogy of the US’s transition from a “federal republic” to a “nationalistic imperial empire” as a result of Lincoln’s Assassination by Booth just as Brutus himself would ensure the “roman republic’s” transition to an “empire” with Julius Caesar’s Assassination.

    Eric Martin

    • I think it should be noted my friend that Ceasar was not the unpopular dictator that Shakespeare depicted him as. He was in reality very popular with the Roman people. All of Old republican aristocracy were the real tyrants.

  4. Fascinating!! Next, please tell of Dr Mudd (whose name is Mudd), Booth’s innocent doctor;spared the noose and who so redeemed himself.

    What dark powers are in a name? Orientalist St John Philby named his son Harold Adrian Russell, but called him Kim, after Kipling’s child spy, and later the Soviets had reason for gratitude. Maybe it does some good that most of us are named for saints.

    • “What dark powers are in a name?”
      Indeed.
      Would some politicians be running if they did not be the unhappy bearers of a certain name? We readily point to such as John Ellis (Bush) or HR (Clinton). Even Kennedy and Adams have unwonted legacies.
      Yet, we also saddle children with names simply because they are of the zeitgeist of a era. One may, with limitations, know that a John is from a particular time as opposed to a Ferris, and that an Emily is not the same age as an Ashley. It is a fascinating thing to find how the waves of names progress through history. (Oscar may be making a comeback.)

Please leave a thoughtful, civil, and constructive comment: