Search
Member List
Calendar
Help
|
The Pope Did It?
|
|
11-05-2015, 09:30 PM
Post: #16
|
|||
|
|||
RE: The Pope Did It?
(10-30-2015 04:22 AM)RJNorton Wrote: Hi Paul. Can you cite any of the standard Lincoln biographies that mention/confirm Chiniquy's meetings with Lincoln when Lincoln was President? Sandburg does not mention them...neither does Donald, Burlingame, Oates, Thomas, etc. Also, neither Hay nor Nicolay mention Chiniquy ever meeting the President in the White House. Greetings, You stated “Also, neither Hay nor Nicolay mention Chiniquy ever meeting the President in the White House.” What evidence do you have that they would have been aware of every person who visited Lincoln at the White House and also would have recorded / reported everyone that visited? You asked what biographies have mentioned Charles Chiniquy seeing President Lincoln at the White House. Before I deal with this, could you answer these questions? Based on the evidence, what contact do you think Charles Chiniquy had with Abraham Lincoln during his lifetime and what evidence do you base this on? You reproduced Chiniquy, who quoted Lincoln, and asked if I could, “name any other people who claimed/wrote Lincoln had these sentiments after they personally met with him?” Several pages before where you obtained the quote from Chiniquy in Fifty Years, Chiniquy gives a quote from Newton Bateman. The Bateman quote originally came from Josiah Gilbert Holland’s 1866 Life of Abraham Lincoln which Allen Guelzo called “in a number of ways, the first great comprehensive Lincoln biography”. Holland reported in the months before Lincoln went to Washington as President-elect, “Mr. Newton Bateman, Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State of Illinois, occupied a room adjoining and opening into the Executive Chamber. Frequently this door was open during Mr. Lincoln’s receptions; and throughout the seven months or more of his occupation Mr. Bateman saw him nearly every day. Often when Mr. Lincoln was tired he closed his door against all intrusion, and called Mr. Bateman into his room for a quiet talk.” Bateman declared that during one talk, Lincoln stated, among other things, “I see the storm coming” and also that “now the cup of iniquity was full, and the vials of wrath will be poured out”. Holland reported that Lincoln also repeatedly declared to Bateman his conviction that the day of wrath was at hand, and that he was to be an actor in the terrible struggle that would issue in the overthrow of slavery, though he might not live to see the end. This was before Lincoln occupied the White House. The original statement of Bateman on his talk with Lincoln, in his own hand, is held by the New York Public Library. Chiniquy reported that that once Lincoln was in the White House and the United States in the midst of the bloody Civil War, his views of the role the Roman Catholic Church was playing changed as he became informed on what was really going on. Lincoln said that he spoke of these subjects only to Chiniquy and very few others. Though he was very eloquent, Lincoln was a “shut-mouthed” man. He evidently bought the Illinois Staats-Anzeiger, a German newspaper, not exactly like buying a corner grocery store. He bought this newspaper, I understand, and yet reportedly never mentioned anything about this purchase in public, by mouth, by letter. Are you saying he couldn’t have owned this entity because he didn’t speak about it? If he could have done this, he could have done and said other things and not spoken about them as well. Richard Lougheed, who wrote The Controversial Conversion of Charles Chiniquy, is an authority on Chiniquy. He is unique as he is both an admirer and a critic of the clergyman. He thought, (mistakenly) that Joseph George had provided a strong argument for dismissing what Chiniquy said about his friendship with Lincoln. However he said something I do agree, in principal, with and that is that George “based his case on an argument from silence. The fact that other accounts do not mention the friendship can never prove that Chiniquy is a liar.” Silence is what you may want to lean on and that does not make a good argument, I suggest. |
|||
|
|
12-17-2015, 03:27 PM
Post: #17
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: The Pope Did It?
So it has been well over a month since I answered Mr. Norton and I wonder if I will get a response to my latest post. Perhaps I will but no one has declared that any further answers are to be forthcoming.
So I have no response at this point to my latest. The fact of the matter is, the evidence is, that no one has refuted / debunked Charles Chiniquy and it is not because he was a nobody and no one had tried. The importance of doing so is why such academic luminaries as Joseph George Jr. and William Hanchett have tried. The importance of someone having done so is why Mr. Norton quoted William Hanchett saying “Of course, there never has been any evidence of the Catholic Church’s complicity in the assassination, and none that Lincoln himself feared Catholicism etc” Mr Norton also provided a link to Joseph George, Jr.’s paper on Chiniquy. In the end though, no one has debunked Chiniquy. If the evidence that the celebrated clergyman has not been refuted, though people have tried, does not inform one’s views, then in the end what does? If the historical evidence is not informing one’s view then it has to only be bias, preconceived views that one will not give up, that is doing so. That is not being led by the evidence. That is, according to my dictionary, actually very much like bigotry. I am sorry for being so direct but that is what the word bigot means. According to the first meaning of my Living Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language dictionary, a bigot is defined as: “a person obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a particular religious creed, opinion or practice”. If Chiniquy cannot be refuted, cannot be shown to be wrong, does not ones’ views on the central event of American history, the Civil War, and the murder of the central actor in the drama, Abraham Lincoln, have to be informed by him? That is how real historians act. Kate Clifford Larson began her research on Mary Surratt with the view that she was an innocent woman who was unjustly convicted. She did not stay in this place however as she was led by the evidence and she finished her research with the view that Mary Surratt was certainly part of the conspiracy that took Lincoln’s life and that is what she put in her book, The Assassin’s Accomplice: Mary Surratt and the Plot to Kill Abraham Lincoln. That is very significant thing, that Chiniquy’s assertions have been out for a hundred and thirty years and has not been refuted and the significance of this ought to be recognized if one is intellectually honest. The fact is that the Roman Catholic Church supported the Southern Confederacy, with slavery as its cornerstone, the fact is that the Vatican was the only country to recognize the Confederacy. Evidence is presented by Chiniquy that it was then the Jesuits who were behind the effort to decapitate the Union government as a last ditch attempt to help the South to break up the United States. You may wish to say, “that is crazy”. In reply, I would say, “if it is crazy, why can’t someone debunk Chiniquy?” Merry Christmas to all. |
|||
|
|
|
12-17-2015, 04:22 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-18-2015 10:26 AM by Gene C.)
Post: #18
|
|||
|
|||
RE: The Pope Did It?
(12-17-2015 03:27 PM)Paul Serup Wrote: So it has been well over a month since I answered Mr. Norton and I wonder if I will get a response to my latest post. Perhaps I will but no one has declared that any further answers are to be forthcoming. I have read parts of 50 Years in the Church of Rome. Much of what I read was very dry and boring. The parts that I was hoping would be interesting regarding the assassination weren't, Mr Chiniquy arguments are so one sided and ridiculous that they are not worth the time and effort refuting or commenting on. This quote attributed to Lincoln from the chapter on the assassination, page 715 - " I do not pretend to be a prophet. But though not a prophet, I see a very dark cloud on our horizon. And that dark cloud is coming from Rome. It is filled with tears of blood. It will rise and increase, till its flanks will be torn by a flash of light- ning, followed by a fearful peal of thunder. Then a cyclone such as the world has never seen, will pass over this country, spreading ruin and desolation from north to south. After it is over, there will be long days of peace and prosperity: for Popery, with its Jesuits and merciless Inquisition, will have been forever swept away from our country. Neither I nor you, but our chil- dren, will see those things." I find it hard to believe that Lincoln said this, as well as many other things about this chapter. That's my intellectually honest opinion, and that may be why no one else has responded. Roger's reply made sense and there is nothing more I could possibly add, nor do I wish to be drawn into a into a long discussion on this. So when is this "Old Enough To Know Better" supposed to kick in? |
|||
|
|
|
12-17-2015, 10:41 PM
Post: #19
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: The Pope Did It?
I can see that I have a great deal of reading to do. I never paid much attention to Chiniquy, since he was a former priest, and thus, I never expected him to say anything nice about the church. Then I read authors that I trust and read - they never have anything to say about him, I classified him as a "Crank".
What "assassination plot" could he have warned Lincoln about, in 1861? (Lincoln was said to have a whole file of Plots, should I just pick one?). Why did the Church defrock him? I need more information before I waste my time on a "Crank". I'm not saying He's wrong, or that I am right, I just don't know. |
|||
|
|
|
12-31-2015, 01:50 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-31-2015 02:17 PM by Paul Serup.)
Post: #20
|
|||
|
|||
RE: The Pope Did It?
(12-17-2015 04:22 PM)Gene C Wrote:(12-17-2015 03:27 PM)Paul Serup Wrote: So it has been well over a month since I answered Mr. Norton and I wonder if I will get a response to my latest post. Perhaps I will but no one has declared that any further answers are to be forthcoming. Gene C. said: This quote attributed to Lincoln from the chapter on the assassination, page 715 - " I do not pretend to be a prophet. But though not a prophet, I see a very dark cloud on our horizon. And that dark cloud is coming from Rome. It is filled with tears of blood. It will rise and increase, till its flanks will be torn by a flash of light- ning, followed by a fearful peal of thunder. Then a cyclone such as the world has never seen, will pass over this country, spreading ruin and desolation from north to south. After it is over, there will be long days of peace and prosperity: for Popery, with its Jesuits and merciless Inquisition, will have been forever swept away from our country. Neither I nor you, but our chil- dren, will see those things." I find it hard to believe that Lincoln said this, as well as many other things about this chapter. That's my intellectually honest opinion…. Well let’s see, Chiniquy was there and you were not. You cannot prove Lincoln did not say what Chiniquy said he did in a private meeting with him, even if you were living at the same time, even if you were in the next room, close by but unable to hear what was said. You could only provide evidence that Chiniquy has proven to be untruthful, unreliable at other times and it therefore could then be said, “well, look at the source, you can’t believe him.” So you doubt he is credible. People like me then have a choice between you, living more than a century after he lived, and his distinguished contemporaries at, for instance, the New York Times. Sorry but in a contest between whether to be persuaded by your “intellectually honest opinion” or the testimony of the prestigious New York Times, by people who lived at the same time, very possibly had met him, undoubtedly knew what kind of man he was, I will go with the Times. Chiniquy’s allegations were out for years when he was alive. Leaders and laity of the Roman Catholic Church would have had great reason to try to refute him, to show that he was wrong in what he said. Yet they did not do so and we know that because if they had, the Times, and other large reputable newspapers like the Chicago Tribune would not have treated him as the accomplished, celebrated clergyman he undoubtedly was. Why didn’t Catholic officials and other apologists of the Catholic Church debunk him? They would have had the motivation to do so. They didn’t do so though. Isn’t the only the reason because they couldn’t do so because what Chiniquy said was correct? I studied in depth what he said and I found that he made no significant mistakes regarding historical fact. As I have said, if one is ideologically opposed to the view that Lincoln could have said what Charles Chiniquy said he did, then likely no amount of evidence will make a difference. You are not constrained to get into any long discussion, (people like Joseph George could have made it a short thing except for the problem of not being able to refute Chiniquy). When I said that no one had answered me, I was not aiming my remarks at any one person and I also expect that Mr. Norton can answer for himself. You also don’t have to remain in any debate, discussion, but if you, or anyone else wants to effectively critique what Chiniquy said, you will have to get specific and show point by point that what he said cannot be believed instead of making general blanket statements. You may wish to dismiss Chiniquy without getting into specifics, which just doesn’t work, even Joseph George and William Hanchett did not try to do that, so I will just put you down as someone who has nothing to say about Chiniquy. That is fine, as I have said, you don’t have to get into any long discussion. I am getting used to people evidently not wanting to engage, making statements saying they don’t accept Chiniquy’s assertions and then running away without providing specifics, without proving proof, because they don’t, I assume, have any to offer. As I point out to SSlater, this also seems to include a man who has achieved prominence as a Lincoln scholar. (12-17-2015 10:41 PM)SSlater Wrote: I can see that I have a great deal of reading to do. I never paid much attention to Chiniquy, since he was a former priest, and thus, I never expected him to say anything nice about the church. Then I read authors that I trust and read - they never have anything to say about him, I classified him as a "Crank". I appreciate your attitude of wanting to be informed and then make your judgement on whom to believe from a position of knowledge. This was my position when I had first read Chiniquy’ autobiography decades ago. I could believe him, or not believe him, based on the evidence and still wish to be guided by the evidence. You asked: “Why did the Church defrock him?” According to Chiniquy. he was not defrocked, nor was he excommunicated, as some have claimed. He and his congregation had had a very well publicised struggle with the Bishop of Chicago, Anthony O’Regan, (which included his legal defence by Abraham Lincoln according to Chiniquy) and after O’Regan had been replaced, Chiniquy was asked to make a declaration of submission to their new bishop. He wrote what he termed their “act of submission”, promising to obey the authority of the church, “according to the word and commandments of God as we find them expressed in the gospel of Christ”. This was ultimately refused and when Chiniquy declared that he and his people would only submit to any bishop on the condition that they follow the Word of God, he was told that he could not then be a Roman Catholic priest and so he left the priesthood, and the Catholic Church. Regarding whether he was excommunicated, as I reported in my volume, in the October 11, 1856 issue, the New York Times published a pastoral letter from the Bishop of Chicago, Anthony O’Regan, in an article entitled, “Schism in the Roman Catholic Church of Chicago; Excommunication of Father Chiniquy, The Great Apostle of Temperance”. In his letter, which was dated September 3, 1856, O’Regan declared that he had suspended Charles Chiniquy. Since Chiniquy had continued his normal duties as a priest, the bishop excommunicated him by his letter therefore. Weeks later, in a November 1st article though, the Times also detailed that Chiniquy and his congregation had met at the court-house at Kankakee. There the priest had made a speech and the people determined to support him in his struggle with the prelate. They stated “That we, French Canadians of the County of Kankakee, do hereby decide to give our moral support to Rev. C. CHINIQUY, in the persecution now exerted against him by the Bishop of Chicago, in violation of the laws of the Church, expressed and sanctioned by the Councils.” In addition, in a letter published in the May 1, 1857 Chicago Daily Democrat, while acknowledging O’Regan had declared that he had suspended him, Chiniquy vigorously disputed this, asserting that the Bishop was mistaken. Chiniquy asserted that in this matter, the prelate had not followed the laws of the Catholic Church. As far as an assassination plot in 1861 goes, Charles Chiniquy said that he first feared for Abraham Lincoln’s life in 1856, when he rescued him from Bishop O’Regan. In 1861, he had learned of a plot to murder Lincoln from a Catholic priest and so he went to see his friend in the White House to warn him. You stated, “Then I read authors that I trust and read - they never have anything to say about him”. You do not mention who these authors are. Whoever they are, they may have been influenced by people like William Hanchett or Joseph George, as the Pulitzer Prize winning historian, Mark Neely Jr., was unfortunately. Neely dismissed Chiniquy, evidently taking what George said about Chiniquy on face value. They may have been influenced, wrongly, by George, Hanchett or then by Neely, who had followed George. Therefore the authors you speak about may just be misinformed regarding Charles Chiniquy and they dismissed him, based on the erroneous writings of George, Hanchett etc. I also wonder if you have checked what the authors that you speak of have said, as they may also not be reliable. This is not something we like to generally consider but it is possible. As an example, I point to this year’s winner of the prestigious Gilder Lehrman Lincoln prize, Harold Holzer. He gave a talk at the National Archives on April 16, this spring. He was asked about the allegations of U. S. General, Thomas M. Harris, who followed Chiniquy’s theme in his book, Rome's Responsibility for the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln. You may see Mr. Holzer’s talk at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCdIwwkq...e=youtu.be . At 52:00 approximately, he is asked about Harris’ book. He said that he did not believe that the plot to murder Lincoln was “managed by the Pope“, and as proof for this he pointed to Lincoln’s “interesting relationship” with the Archbishop of New York, John Hughes. He does not give any information or proof of this relationship but he does talk about the New York City Draft Riots and how the archbishop acted. Hughes, he says, was “so mortified by the overwhelming number of Irish Catholics who participated in the Draft Riots”, (absolutely correct), that he personally went out in front of Protestant churches, Presbyterian, Methodist and Episcopalian churches and ordered rioters not to touch them and “was pretty heroic” during the Draft Riots. I was in Washington at this time but had not heard that he would be giving this talk and ended up watching the video months later. I was immediately struck by what Harold Holzer had said, as I had studied the Draft Riots fairly extensively and never come across what he stated regarding Hughes actions. I emailed Mr. Holzer on August 18. In my email, I stated that I had not previously heard of what he said about Archbishop Hughes standing in front of Protestant churches and asked where this information came from. To his credit, Mr. Holzer answered quickly, within some 15 minutes, but he only had a one line answer. He said that it had been some time since he had done research on the Draft Riots but he “may well do some again” for a future book. I later on responded to his answer, expressing my surprise that he had made his positive statement at a not inconsequential venue, while not having evidence to back it up. I received no further response from Mr. Holzer. This is the concrete thing that Mr. Holzer brings up as to why he doesn’t believe the Roman Catholic Church had anything to do with Lincoln’s murder and when he is asked for proof for it, he has absolutely nothing to offer. I find that pretty astounding, especially coming from a current major Lincoln prize winner. I also am quite sure that further research will not help him find proof for his position. 2013 was the sesquicentennial year of the New York City Draft Riots and the only article in a major American newspaper on it that I know of was published in the Washington Post, on April 29, 2013. Joel Headley was the only journalist / historian quoted in the article on the Draft Riots by the Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle...tory.html. Headley, who wrote the 1873 book, The Great Riots of New York, says the essentially the opposite in regards to Hughes, that Archbishop Hughes had expressed an irrational fear to go out on the streets and that he did nothing heroic or useful during the riots. So you have this prestigious prize winner, the Gilder Lehrman Lincoln prize winner, who makes a definite statement when asked a question at a high-profile venue, the National Archives. He makes his positive, definite statement about why he doesn’t believe the Roman Catholic Church was involved and when he is asked for the proof for his statement, the “heroic” actions of the prelate, he does not have a shred of evidence to provide. “Pretty heroic”, how about pretty imaginary? I don’t know who the authors are you speak of but hopefully they do not practise the same type of scholarship as Mr. Holzer apparently does. Happy New Year to all. |
|||
|
|
|
12-31-2015, 04:54 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-31-2015 04:54 PM by Gene C.)
Post: #21
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: The Pope Did It?
Paul, at least in a previous post I told people on the forum where they could purchase your book.
However, after reading some of your posts, I am curious if anyone will. So when is this "Old Enough To Know Better" supposed to kick in? |
|||
|
|
|
12-31-2015, 05:00 PM
Post: #22
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: The Pope Did It?
Paul, happy New Year to you also. If Abraham Lincoln were assassinated as a result of a Roman Catholic conspiracy wouldn't there be indications in John Wilkes Booth's writings, conversations, travels, etc? The assassination experts who believe Lincoln was killed as a result of a Confederate conspiracy are able to point to trips Booth made and meetings he had with the Confederate underground. They can point to the devotion Booth had for the Confederate cause in his writings, conversations, etc. Can you cite similar evidence that Booth was in fact working for/hired by the Roman Catholic Church?
|
|||
|
|
|
12-31-2015, 08:37 PM
Post: #23
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: The Pope Did It?
I was reading through Paul's long interesting answer and trying to refresh my memory of what (little) I know of Chiniquy. But I was framing a question about JWBooth and Catholicism. Then you anticipated me, Roger, and asked nearly the same question I was going to. In another thread here (The Legend of John Wilkes Booth), I am pursuing the notion that JWBooth survived into Texas and Oklahoma in the time frame 1870-1903 and used such alias as John St. Helen and David George.
I pointed out that the John St.Helen who nearly died in 1870 Granbury TX requested a catholic priest come to his bedside, apparently all the way from Dallas to Granbury TX. And I had commented that it appeared to me that St.Helen WAS a Catholic, while I had no other evidence that John Wilkes Booth was Catholic. So, I'll join your question (to Paul): was JWBooth a catholic, did he convert to catholicism? |
|||
|
|
|
01-01-2016, 05:59 AM
Post: #24
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: The Pope Did It?
Paul, in addition to the questions maharba and I have for you, I thought of another one overnight. How did Chiniquy recall for 20+ years the exact words of Abraham Lincoln? Wasn't his book published more than 20 years after the assassination? Here is a word-for-word example of what Chiniquy claimed he remembered from what President Lincoln said to him:
“This war would never have been possible without the sinister influence of the Jesuits. We owe it to Popery that we now see our land reddened with the blood of her noblest sons. Though there were great differences of opinion between the South and North, on the question of slavery, neither Jeff Davis nor any one of the leading men of the Confederacy would have dared to attack the North, had they not relied on the promise of the Jesuits, that, under the mask of Democracy, the money and the arms of the Roman Catholics, even the arms of France, were at their disposal if they would attack us.” If I think back to conversations I had with people in 1996 there is no way I could present word-for-word examples like this. Don't you find this the least bit suspicious? The quote above is in the Fehrenbachers' book and is given an "E" - the lowest possible grade. |
|||
|
|
|
01-01-2016, 11:31 AM
Post: #25
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: The Pope Did It?
Good points Roger.
In his book "We Saw Lincoln Shot," Tim Good discusses the issue of human memory recall. He does so at the bottom of the first page of the Preface. That knowledge seemed to guide him in his choice of accounts and the amount of trust he placed in them. We can also see something similar in Dr. Charles Leale’s account of the assassination that he described in February 1909, compared to his immediate notes, copies of which were discovered by researchers in 2012. And I completely agree with you that there is no way that I could remember word-for-word a discussion that I had with someone 20 years ago. Bob |
|||
|
|
|
01-03-2016, 10:05 AM
Post: #26
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: The Pope Did It?
It should be remembered that the civil war not only divided north and south over slavery but also religions. Jews and Catholics generally supported the North. Presbyterians divided their church into Old and New School factions in 1837 over roughly sectional lines. The Old School was the branch more accommodating of slavery.Baptists and Methodists divided their respective denominations into Northern and Southern branches between 1844 and 1845, they were unequivocal that the main object of contention was slaveholding.
The Pope refused to step in and stop Irish immigration whose Catholic manpower was essential to the North. It is not surprising that the Catholics and Jews would become scapegoats. |
|||
|
|
|
01-03-2016, 06:26 PM
Post: #27
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: The Pope Did It?
The Jesuit's and the actions there of,have raised many questions during the Civil War!
|
|||
|
|
|
01-05-2016, 11:03 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-05-2016 11:14 PM by Paul Serup.)
Post: #28
|
|||
|
|||
RE: The Pope Did It?
(12-31-2015 08:37 PM)maharba Wrote: I was reading through Paul's long interesting answer and trying to refresh my memory of what (little) I know of Chiniquy. But I was framing a question about JWBooth and Catholicism. Then you anticipated me, Roger, and asked nearly the same question I was going to. In another thread here (The Legend of John Wilkes Booth), I am pursuing the notion that JWBooth survived into Texas and Oklahoma in the time frame 1870-1903 and used such alias as John St. Helen and David George. Was the assassin of Abraham Lincoln a Roman Catholic? As I state in my book: In Fifty Years, Charles Chiniquy alleged that the actor was a “Protestant pervert to Romanism“. In her 1982 article in the Lincoln Herald, “Insights on John Wilkes Booth from His Sister Asia‘s Correspondence“, historian Constance Head stated that strong evidence pointed to the fact that Booth indeed was a Catholic. Booth’s sister, Asia Booth Clarke, wrote a memoir of her brother which was published after her death. College history professor, Terry Alford, a leading authority on the life of John Wilkes Booth, attested to how valuable a witness Booth Clarke is regarding her brother’s life. He stated, “Asia Booth Clarke‘s memoir of her brother John Wilkes Booth has been recognized as the single most important document available for understanding the personality of the assassin of President Abraham Lincoln“, adding that “no outsider could give such insights into the turbulent Booth‘s childhood or share such unique personal knowledge of the gifted actor“. Alford edited a recent edition of the memoir. Ms. Head agreed, declaring that “Asia should be accurate in the matter of her brother’s religious preference”. Head quoted from a letter the actor’s sister had written to a friend regarding the assassination and the conspirators. Booth Clarke wrote, “I was shocked and grieved to see the names of Michael O’Laughlin and Samuel Arnold [among the conspirators.] I am still more surprised to learn that all engaged in the plot are Roman Catholics. Wilkes was of the faith professedly and I was glad that he had fixed his faith on one religion” Head also stated: Although the Booth family was traditionally Episcopalian, Asia personally was very much inclined toward Catholicism as the result of her schooling at the Carmelite convent in Baltimore. Eventually she became a Catholic herself, and although the date of her conversion is unknown, it is a matter which she and Wilkes may have discussed. It is even conceivable that it was Asia who converted him. On the other hand, perhaps as an actor, he was simply attracted by the dramatic beauty of the Mass. He seems moreover to have entertained a low opinion of certain protestant clergymen who preached the sinfulness of the stage, and thus may have been drawn toward Catholicism as a faith more congenial to his vocation. In any case, it seems certain that Booth did not publicize his conversion during his lifetime. And while there is no reasonable cause to connect Booth’s religious preference and his “mad act”, the few who knew of his conversion must have decided after the assassination that for the good of the church, it was best never to mention it. Thus the secret remained so well guarded that even the most rabidly anti-Catholic writers who tried to depict the assassination of Lincoln as a Jesuit or Papist plot were puzzled by the seemingly accurate information that John Wilkes Booth was an Episcopalian. Other evidence presented at the 1865 Trial of the Conspirators point towards Booth’s Catholicism as well. (01-01-2016 05:59 AM)RJNorton Wrote: Paul, in addition to the questions maharba and I have for you, I thought of another one overnight. How did Chiniquy recall for 20+ years the exact words of Abraham Lincoln? Wasn't his book published more than 20 years after the assassination? Here is a word-for-word example of what Chiniquy claimed he remembered from what President Lincoln said to him: Yes, could Chiniquy remember these conversations with Abraham Lincoln? Coming from the President of the United States, a man Chiniquy had tremendous respect for, a man who he viewed a giant of the ages, while he was President and while visiting him in the White House, would Lincoln’s words not have stayed with him? As well, how is it known for certain that the source of these discourses came from Chiniquy's memory and not from a journal, perhaps written very soon after the visits? Again, as I point out in my volume: Rev. Chiniquy said he kept a journal, noting in Fifty Years, "I had almost lost sight of those emotional days of my young years of priesthood. Those facts were silently lying among the big piles of the daily records, which I had faithfully kept since the very days of my collegiate life at Nicolet”. Regarding a question he asked Rev. Baillargeon, curate of Quebec, Chiniquy also stated, “The next day I took down in writing his answer, which I find in my old manuscripts, and I give it here in all its sad crudity” In a footnote in his 2009 biography of Chiniquy, The Controversial Conversion of Charles Chiniquy, Richard Lougheed reported on Chiniquy's accuracy when quoting from his correspondence, "We have found all the letters quoted by Chiniquy to be accurate (except for occasional dates) when checkable." As well, the “Letter From Father Chiniquy” published in the Chicago Tribune while Abraham Lincoln was in power, gave a description of Lincoln in office and the White House reception of the National Union Convention delegates, as well as a quote of the President to them which agreed with the newspaper reports at the time. |
|||
|
|
|
01-06-2016, 08:44 AM
Post: #29
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: The Pope Did It?
Paul, in Fifty Years in the Church of Rome Chiniquy wrote that President Lincoln told him:
"But sooner or later, the light of common sense will make it clear to everyone that no liberty of conscience can be granted to men who are sworn to obey a pope, who pretends to have the right to put to death those who differ from him in religion. 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 of the plots of murderers which they have detected in those different countries." (Professor Morse is the Samuel F. B. Morse of telegraph fame) I assume these warnings referenced by Chiniquy were in the form of letters. Are you able to provide the actual text of such letters to Lincoln? If not, do you know if they are still in existence? |
|||
|
|
|
01-06-2016, 02:28 PM
Post: #30
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: The Pope Did It?
QUOTE FROM ABOVE: Was the assassin of Abraham Lincoln a Roman Catholic? As I state in my book:
In Fifty Years, Charles Chiniquy alleged that the actor was a “Protestant pervert to Romanism“. In her 1982 article in the Lincoln Herald, “Insights on John Wilkes Booth from His Sister Asia‘s Correspondence“, historian Constance Head stated that strong evidence pointed to the fact that Booth indeed was a Catholic. Booth’s sister, Asia Booth Clarke, wrote a memoir of her brother which was published after her death. College history professor, Terry Alford, a leading authority on the life of John Wilkes Booth, attested to how valuable a witness Booth Clarke is regarding her brother’s life. He stated, “Asia Booth Clarke‘s memoir of her brother John Wilkes Booth has been recognized as the single most important document available for understanding the personality of the assassin of President Abraham Lincoln“, adding that “no outsider could give such insights into the turbulent Booth‘s childhood or share such unique personal knowledge of the gifted actor“. Alford edited a recent edition of the memoir. Ms. Head agreed, declaring that “Asia should be accurate in the matter of her brother’s religious preference”. Head quoted from a letter the actor’s sister had written to a friend regarding the assassination and the conspirators. Booth Clarke wrote, “I was shocked and grieved to see the names of Michael O’Laughlin and Samuel Arnold [among the conspirators.] I am still more surprised to learn that all engaged in the plot are Roman Catholics. Wilkes was of the faith professedly and I was glad that he had fixed his faith on one religion” Head also stated: Although the Booth family was traditionally Episcopalian, Asia personally was very much inclined toward Catholicism as the result of her schooling at the Carmelite convent in Baltimore. Eventually she became a Catholic herself, and although the date of her conversion is unknown, it is a matter which she and Wilkes may have discussed. It is even conceivable that it was Asia who converted him. On the other hand, perhaps as an actor, he was simply attracted by the dramatic beauty of the Mass. He seems moreover to have entertained a low opinion of certain protestant clergymen who preached the sinfulness of the stage, and thus may have been drawn toward Catholicism as a faith more congenial to his vocation. In any case, it seems certain that Booth did not publicize his conversion during his lifetime. And while there is no reasonable cause to connect Booth’s religious preference and his “mad act”, the few who knew of his conversion must have decided after the assassination that for the good of the church, it was best never to mention it. Thus the secret remained so well guarded that even the most rabidly anti-Catholic writers who tried to depict the assassination of Lincoln as a Jesuit or Papist plot were puzzled by the seemingly accurate information that John Wilkes Booth was an Episcopalian. Other evidence presented at the 1865 Trial of the Conspirators point towards Booth’s Catholicism as well. END QUOTE Constance Head was a personal friend of both Betty Ownsbey and me as well as a volunteer docent at Surratt House for several years, making the trek from Western Carolina University to Maryland every chance she could get. She died quickly at the hands of cancer at an early age, and her research materials went to both Terry Alford and Jeannine Clarke Dodels. Constance was of the Jewish faith, and the question of Booth's religious choices was interesting to her. We know that his father embraced at least bits and pieces from most sects (Christian and non-Christian), and that Mrs. Booth raised her children in the Episcopal faith (when they had a chance to go to church). When their grandfather Booth moved in, I would suspect that he added another stake in the Episcopal (Church of England) worship. My question has always been, "When did JWB have the time to convert to Catholicism and where are the records?" Such a conversion was not a simple matter; one did not just walk into a rectory one day and ask to be converted. I have been a lifelong Episcopalian, and I married a Catholic who converted to my faith. This was years before the various Ecumenical Councils took away much of the majestic liturgy in both churches. I sat through weeks and hours of cathechism to be confirmed in my faith at age twelve, and my husband did likewise and went through the ceremony of confirmation also. When did Booth stay in one place long enough to do the same? Where are church records to prove his conversion? Also, we believe that Booth started out supporting the Nativist political party, otherwise known as the Know Nothings. That party was anti-Catholic. Did he also drop his political persuasions to join the Catholic faith? Do we have records from any church that he even visited? Did any of his many friends mention attending any church with him? What denomination was Lucy Lambert Hale? That would definitely have been a topic for conversation if they indeed intended to marry. There is mention of a religious medal that he wore and also that he pleased the Surratts by supporting one of their church's bazaars. Could he have "earned" the medal by contributing money to that bazaar? Or, was it a medal distributed by the Episcopalians for good deeds or good luck? There are a lot of simple questions that need answers before anyone can flat out state that John Wilkes Booth converted to Catholicism. |
|||
|
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
User(s) browsing this thread: 7 Guest(s)