The suppressed Truth about the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln

by Burke McCarty

Burke McCarthy was a conspiracy theorist and author of the 1922 book "The Suppressed Truth About the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln"--a book in which he blamed the assassination of Lincoln on Russia, Prussia, Austria and the Pope Pius VIIth, king of the Papal States.

Contents:

I. Destruction of this Republic Plotted By European Monarchists
II. The "Society of Jesus" the Engine of Destruction
III. "The Saint Leopold Foundation" Spy System
IV. The Turning Point in Lincoln's Life
V. When The Pope Was King
VI. Lincoln Takes Up the Burden
VII. Assembling the Chosen Assassins
VIII. The Blackest Deed in American History
IX. The Trials of the Assassins
X. The Trail of the Arch Conspirator
XI. The Trial of John H. Surratt
XII. Summing It All up: Two and Two

Genres: History

278 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1922

Reviews

[Charlsie Russell · Rating 3 out of 5]

Amazon suggested this book to me in one of its “you might also like” promotions. I assume they based the recommendation on my prior purchase of Otto Eisenschiml’s “Why was Lincoln Murdered?” My interest in Lincoln’s assassination stems from a number of things—the mystery itself is great fun, and the intrigue and subterfuge conjures ideas I can incorporate into my fiction, but most importantly I have an interest in the players with whom Lincoln surrounded himself , their political agendas, and their systematic approaches to the dismantling of our founder’s republic. I am not a Lincoln admirer. I don’t particularly care that someone went to the pain of killing him long ago, but I would be interested in knowing why, assuming there was more than an actor carrying out an act of vengeance, especially considering the South might have been better off with Lincoln at the helm than the Radicals.
When it comes to a crime of the magnitude of Lincoln’s murder, I tend to look first at who has the most to gain from the man’s death? On the surface, that would be the Radicals, but there is no way of knowing at this point what other liaisons, agreements, corruption, and sell-outs Lincoln had going with powerful lords of industry and/or banking…or other politicians and religious groups for that matter. He could have been a hindrance, a threat, or simply his usefulness had run out and they needed someone more pliable to control. I do believe the conspiracy went beyond Booth and his little gang of misfits. Doesn’t mean it did, I just think so. A particular favorite of mine for involvement has always been Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, but alas, I don’t like Stanton either, so perhaps it’s just my prejudice shining through. I also consider that he might not have been directly involved in the plot, but that he was aware there would be an assassination attempt on the evening of April 14th and he did his best to ensure nothing foiled it.
So now you know my initial draw to Burke McCarty’s “The Suppressed Truth in the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln.” I took Amazon’s suggestion and dove in expecting to further my evidence (or “take” in lieu of evidence) indicting Stanton for the crime. Boy was I off the mark with that one. Guess what? The Pope did it.
Don’t worry, no spoiler here. Once I drew in a breath and reoriented as to where this was headed, I made the best of it. Ms. McCarty (yes, the author was a woman, probably already in her sixties, with the passion of a twelve-year-old girl for her hero Lincoln), writing in 1922, was not the first person to link Rome to Lincoln’s assassination. This was something I was not aware of. I knew there was a lot of consternation about the Catholics coming to the United States, but not about the theory papists were behind the plot to kill Lincoln. Proving the pope killed the man, figuratively speaking, isn’t nearly as satisfying to me as suspecting Stanton or some other dastardly Radical and friends did it. But, there is food for thought here. What the reader should consider is that Ms. McCarty was writing nearly a century ago when the Protestants (especially those in New England) were having conniptions over the influx of Catholics onto their shores for the past half century. Poetic justice, I say. They should have been minding their own garden and not pillaging the South’s.
Just so you’ll understand where Ms. McCarty was coming from (she was an ex-Catholic by the way), it is the contention of many from that era—and still more before then—that ever since the days of Martin Luther the papacy has conspired to return the European monarchies to the Church and, in tandem, reestablish monarchial control over Europe. The fact monarchies across Europe were, at the time of Napoleon’s defeat, still losing ground in the wake of “democracies” sparked by the United States made an all more compelling case for eliminating Lincoln fifty years later, the man who, in her opinion, saved American democracy. Oh, and the Pope and his army of Jesuit assassins didn’t start their American campaign with Lincoln. They poisoned Presidents Harrison and Taylor, too. Then later they killed Garfield and McKinley. [I’m sorry, but someone who presumes the president, any president, is the keystone that makes our republic hasn’t got a clue about how the Constitution was designed to work.]
It was a long held “urban legend” that Zachary Taylor was poisoned. His decedents recently laid that to rest by allowing his body to be exhumed and tested. He died of natural causes…well, he wasn’t poisoned, anyway. I think we might assume the same for Harrison…but no, not Lincoln. Those sinister Jesuits changed their modus operandi there, recruited dupes, then had those dummies shoot him in the head. Obviously, discretion was no longer a concern…okay, I’m not taking the deflection created by the “dupes” into account. Actually, I wouldn’t rule out Booth and the Surratts, and Dr. Mudd, and all the rest of the “known” conspirators as being dupes. I’m just not convinced they were dupes of the Jesuits.
I trust those reading this realize most of what I wrote above, I wrote facetiously. I believe Ms. McCarty has factual errors in the book, and IMO comes to incorrect conclusions. I also suspect her opposition to Rome skews her narrative—actually, I think her opposition to Rome drove her narrative. She even attributes to the pernicious pope and his Jesuit keepers an ability to set the stage for events 400 years in the future (that made the past to her present timeline work in places; they saw it all before Columbus discovered America). All that said, there is some connection here with the Catholics, I just don’t know how pervasive it was to the overall plot, nor do I believe it’s what she says it is. [I liken her take on the Jesuits and Knights of Columbus to those conspiracy theories about the Jewish Rothschilds and the Bank of England]. But do not be deterred. If you have an interest in the Lincoln assassination, you will be well served by reading the book (read Eisenschiml’s, too, if you haven’t already). I gleaned some things from the McCarty book, so might you. One such was Ms. McCarty’s alluding to Andrew Johnson’s failure to respond to a series of telegrams from State Department officials overseas requesting guidance during the pursuit of John Surratt in the fall of 1865. As a result of Johnson’s supposed failures to respond, Surratt escaped. McCarty used the incidents as evidence Johnson himself was in league with the Pope, but anyone who knows how things were in Washington in 1865-1866 understands that Edwin Stanton at the War Department had control of the telegraph service and guarded it jealously. Johnson (and Seward or his acting Secretary of State) probably never saw the missives. If anyone orchestrated Surratt’s escape by ignoring those telegrams, it was Stanton.
So, I gave McCarty’s book 3 stars for muddying the waters on the Lincoln assassination still further (and I mean that in a good sense) and took two away for her allowing her rabid passion to probably misconstrue the facts as well as her misguided understanding, in my opinion, of the American republic.
If you are interested in Lincoln assassination conspiracies, you’ll enjoy the book, whether you like Lincoln or not. Also, if you have an interest in human intelligence, this might provide you new avenues to explore. That web of spies between Washington, Richmond, Canada, and England was quite tangled.
But, if you’re Catholic (I’m not), you might just get pissed, but if I could cope with her slobbering idolatry of Lincoln, you should be able to handle it.

[Jim Karabin · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is basically an anti-Catholic screed masquerading as a history of the Lincoln assassination. Not that I have a particular problem with anti-Catholic screeds, but they need to be factually accurate.

[Lyle Nussbaum · Rating 1 out of 5]

Anti-Catholic diatribe; conspiratorial conspiracy.

[Robert Day]

No other book dares.

This is the rest of the story.
Read the suppressed facts about the assassination that others will not tell you.