Catholicism · Christianity · government · politics · religion

What my history class never told me about Lincoln’s assassination

When I was taught American history throughout grade school, Abraham Lincoln was one of my favorite people to learn about. Since his birthday is around the corner, I think this is the perfect time to share what I have learned about situations surrounding the conspiracy that led to his assassination. I, like so many other Americans, was always told the conspiracy to assassinate one of our best Presidents was because of anger over the South losing the Civil War.  However, my research shows Lincoln’s assassination was about much more than that.

This story begins with a Roman Catholic priest, a French Canadian named Charles Chiniquy.  In October 1851, Chiniquy met with the Roman Catholic Bishop of Chicago named Vandeveld who commissioned him to found a colony of Canadian Roman Catholic immigrants south of Chicago.  Their hope was to flood the state of Illinois with so many Roman Catholics that they could “rule the government of Illinois.”1  Accompanied by six citizens of Bourbonnais, Illinois, Chiniquy chose a site in southern Kankee County, Illinois.  The settlement, christened St. Anne, was founded by Chiniquy and his immigrant followers in November 1851.

However, Chiniquy became the object of jealousy from some of his priestly peers and they unleashed several plots to hinder the progress of his settlement.  The plots against him increased when his friend, Bishop Vandeveld of Chicago, resigned his post and was replaced as Bishop of Illinois by Bishop O’Regan.  O’Regan saw how beautiful Chiniquy’s 11 acres of land in St. Anne were and decided that he should have them, arguing that all land owned by priests of Rome belonged to the Church and should therefore be the property of the regional bishops.  Chiniquy refused O’Regan so O’Regan spread the word that he was looking to reassign Chiniquy to another area, but needed some justification for the move.

An evil land speculator named Peter Spink approached O’Regan in 1855 and told him he would gladly bring Chiniquy before a criminal court for fraud and theft if O’Regan would fund the suit.  O’Regan agreed and the suit came before the Kankakee criminal court in May of that year, but Spink lost the suit.  But refusing to be denied what he wanted, O’Regan encouraged Spink to bring another criminal suit against Chiniquy, and Spink lost again in November 1855.  However, Spink filed an appeal to the court in Urbana, Illinois for May 1856.2

This appeal prompted a stranger to approach Chiniquy to urge him to acquire the services of Abraham Lincoln.  The stranger told him “…I am a Catholic like you, and one who, like you, cannot bear any longer the tyranny of our American bishops.  With many others, I look to you as our deliverer. …Abraham Lincoln is the best lawyer and the most honest man we have in Illinois.”3

Chiniquy asked Lincoln for his help and Lincoln agreed to work with Chiniquy’s lawyers.  Along with Spink, O’Regan asked the priests Father Lebel and Father Carthuval from Chiniquy’s neighboring parishes to testify against Chiniquy because they too hated Chiniquy.  In May 1856, the trial was held and Abraham Lincoln poked holes in the lies these men told in court.  All the jurors, except one, wanted to find Chiniquy “not guilty” of all charges.  That one juror was an Irish Catholic who was told to vote against Chiniquy.  The jury was hung because of him and the jurors were dismissed.  Spink then asked the court to continue the prosecution and the court granted another trial set for October 1856.

While awaiting that trial, O’Regan made several attempts to get Chiniquy to quit his post, but Chiniquy refused.  And many Catholic parishioners throughout Illinois turned against O’Regan, signing petitions and writing letters to have him removed because of his greed and drunkenness.  At the trial in October 1856, Spink and the priests Lebel and Carthuval gave every kind of damaging perjured testimony they could against Chiniquy.  Lincoln was able to tear down many of their lies, but was doubtful the jury could easily dismiss enough of their testimony to find Chiniquy not guilty, so Lincoln urged Chiniquy, “The only way to be sure of a favorable verdict tomorrow is, that God Almighty would take our part and show your innocence!  Go to him and pray, for He alone can save you.”4

So that night, Chiniquy prayed and cried out to God from 11 pm to 3 am.  He got his breakthrough that night.  Lincoln knocked on his door at 3 am and gave him good news.  A witness came forward named Philomene Moffatt who related to Lincoln and gave sworn testimony that she witnessed firsthand the plot to destroy Chiniquy.  After reading the Chicago newspapers which predicted Chiniquy would surely be found guilty, Miss Moffatt took a train from Chicago to Urbana to tell everything she knew when she saw Spink and the priests concocting their schemes.

Later that day Spink dropped his suit and Lincoln gave his comments in court on how evil and upsetting the plot against Chiniquy was.  With the trial over, there was much rejoicing but it was soon overshadowed by another reality.  Chiniquy knew that things would not go well for Lincoln’s future because there were several high ranking Jesuits from Chicago and St. Louis in the courtroom who were clearly enraged at the turn of events and at Lincoln putting them to open shame in a public courtroom.  Chiniquy warned Lincoln to be careful and that he feared for Lincoln’s life, to which Lincoln replied, “I know that Jesuits never forget nor forsake. But man must not care how and where he dies, provided he dies at the post of honor and duty.”5

According to Chiniquy, papal Rome had always hated the U.S. because of our Constitution and the liberties that are guaranteed by it.  These liberties stand in the way of their quest for unfettered power over the masses.  So the destruction of America as a democratic republic has been one of its main goals.  When Abraham Lincoln ran for President, Rome was enraged and flooded the American media with all of the negative views they could muster against their enemy Lincoln.  Nevertheless, Lincoln became President in 1861.

The papacy then instituted a backup plan by urging the Southern states of the U.S. to secede and attack the North with devoted Catholic Jefferson Davis as their president.  The Pope was the only world leader at the time to recognize Jefferson Davis as leader of a legitimate government.  With the papacy promising to back their efforts, General Beauregard fired the first shot of America’s Civil War on April 12, 1861 at Fort Sumter.  This was the papacy’s chance to rid the world of the United States, or so they thought.

Chiniquy, having connections to Rome in the 1860s even though he had surrendered his life to Christ and had become Protestant, was able to uncover several plots by the Jesuits against President Lincoln and was able to warn him.  In the meantime, the Jesuits ran a campaign of misinformation in American newspapers by saying Lincoln was born Roman Catholic and was baptized by a priest.  Lincoln, of course, was never Catholic, but Chiniquy revealed to Lincoln that the reason behind the stories was that the canons of the Roman Catholic Church stated it was perfectly fine for any Catholic to murder anyone who had defected from the Catholic Church.  This was, in effect, a call for any Catholic fanatic to kill the President.

President Lincoln in his conversations with his friend Charles Chiniquy expressed how honored he was to be leader of the U.S., what a privilege it was to be able to free millions of slaves in the same way Moses led the Hebrews to freedom, how he loved the Lord Jesus and his word, and like Moses, how he knew he would not be able to see the Promised Land.  In spite of what Lincoln knew would be his impending death, Chiniquy saw that Lincoln was at peace.

After Lincoln’s assassination, Chiniquy compiled facts from the trials of the conspirators and other information to show how the Jesuits put Lincoln in their cross-hairs.  The Jesuits met often at the house of Mary Surratt and were the friends and confessors of the Surratts and John Wilkes Booth, who were all Catholic.  Dr. Mudd who tended to Booth’s broken leg and Richard H. Garrett, who hid Booth in his barn, were also devout Catholics.  At their trials, the conspirators admitted the Jesuits trained them not only to kill, but how to perjure themselves.  It was also brought out that Jefferson Davis promised them a million dollars to kill Lincoln.

Before his death, Booth wrote: “I can never repent, though we hated to kill.  Our country owed all our troubles to him [Lincoln], and God simply made me the instrument of his punishment.”6

Although the conspirators in their testimonies admitted religious reasons for their conspiracy, all mention of religion concerning the conspiracy has been erased from the history books in America.

…yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. [John 16:2]

–posted by Harry A. Gaylord–

1. Chiniquy, Charles. Fifty Years in the Church of Rome. Abridged ed. Chick Publications, 1886, reprint 1985, p. 214.

2. Ibid., p. 261.

3. Ibid., p. 262.

4. Ibid., p. 275.

5. Ibid., p. 281.

6. Ibid., p. 309.


30 thoughts on “What my history class never told me about Lincoln’s assassination

  1. I am not sure how long the person who made these comments has studied what Charles Chiniquy said. I read Chiniquy’s autobiography and was so fascinated by what he said, I started to investigate his life. I researched his life over a period of 22 years, from Minnesota to New York, through institutions such as the Library of Congress, the National Archives and other repositories. After careful review of essentially all of the relevant documentation available, I could not find any part of the ex-priest’s book where there are any significant historical errors of fact. I have written a book based on my investigations entitled “Who Killed Abraham Lincoln?”, published in 2010.
    Charles Chiniquy made the stunning allegation that his former Church was behind President Lincoln’s assassination. After the research I have done, I have concluded that there is very strong evidence to back up what he said. For instance, Chiniquy went to Washington after his friend’s murder and started his own investigation. He alleged that top leaders of the US government that he talked to told him they believed the Jesuits were behind the slaying of the President. They wanted it kept from the public to avoid further bloodshed and renewed rebellion. I found that one of those leaders was no less than the man who was, in reality, in charge of the American government in the weeks after the murder and the one who headed the official investigation into the assassination, Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton.
    It certainly appears to be true that current mainstream media and perhaps the U. S. education system is in no hurry to present these inconvenient truths to the American public. Paul Serup


    1. Paul, thanks for your verification that this information is true. I not only read the whole book by Chiniquy, I was able to verify that Abraham Lincoln did, in fact, represent him in courts in Illinois since those court cases are matters of public record. If information such as this regarding, in my opinion, the best President we’ve ever had is blatantly hidden from our history, it only makes me wonder what other pertinent information about American history has been hidden from us.


      1. You are most welcome. Lincoln is, I believe the evidence clearly shows, America’s greatest President. He certainly is the one that people are the most fascinated with. There are some 15,000 to 16,000 different books, imprints, written about him. Abraham Lincoln indeed defended Chiniquy in two court actions in 1856 in Urbana, Illinois, the second action being the most high-profile libel suit in Lincoln’s career.
        As far as distortions in history, there also appears to have been a campaign to demonize Charles Chiniquy after his death, as he was well able to confound his detractors when he was alive. He was a very accomplished man and although he had been dead for more than a century, he remains, according to a 2009 biography, Canada’s best-selling author of all time. I am just finishing a paper to be submitted to the Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society, to point out the numerous errors in a paper that was published in that journal, criticising Chiniquy. This paper was written by Joseph George Jr., entitled “The Lincoln Writings of Charles P. T. Chiniquy“, (February, 1976) and it has been used to dismiss Chiniquy and his allegations. At the time, Joseph George was the chair of the history department of Villanova University. As you say, one wonders how much historical information has been hidden or distorted.


  2. Robert Redford’ movie The Conspirator, will soon be out. I have not seen the movie yet but unfortunately, based on the reviews of its screening at the Toronto International Film Festival and the trailers, it appears that it will be a historically dishonest attempt to rehabilitate the reputation of Mary Surratt. She was the very first woman executed by the United States government, for her part in the Lincoln assassination. She also happened to be a very devout Roman Catholic.
    Newspaper reviews of the TIFF screening have essentially reported that the movie portrayed Mary Surratt as an innocent woman who was put on trial for running a boarding house that happened to be frequented by members of John Wilkes Booth’s assassination conspiracy. This is frankly ridiculous. The evidence presented at her trial showed that she was clearly guilty of being part of the plot. Among the things she did was deliver a field glass, or set of binoculars, along Booth’s escape route, for him to pick up as he fled. This was done on the very day of the assassination. She also helped to ready supplies including guns, for Booth and fellow conspirator, David Herold, as they escaped Washington. Among the evidence that point to her guilt is the fact that when Lewis Payne, who had attempted to kill Secretary of State, William Seward, and a man whom she knew, came to her door three days after the events, she claimed that she did not know him.
    While she was being tried in Washington in the summer of 1865, her son, John Surratt, was in the Canadian Province of Quebec, being hidden by Roman Catholic priests. They put him on a ship to Liverpool, England, where he stayed in the Catholic Church of the Holy Cross. From this city, he stole through Europe, reportedly being received in Roman Catholic institutions until he ended up as part of the Pontifical Zouaves in the Papal States. He was finally captured by a U.S. government agent in Egypt and brought back to Washington to face trial in the summer of 1867, for his part in the conspiracy to murder President Lincoln. Surratt’s defence essentially put his mother on trial along with him, in an attempt to explain his actions.
    Their reason for doing so evidently was to provide an explanation for their client’s conduct after the President’s murder. His actions had been those of a guilty man, furtively moving from one hiding place to another until he was finally caught. The defence seemingly believed that if they could show Mary Surratt to be an innocent woman who had been executed to pacify a nation crying for blood, then they could argue that her son’s flight and time in hiding was reasonable and he was not seeking to avoid justice but injustice. The difficulty with that is that the evidence against her plainly shows her guilt and no re-presentation of it could make any difference.
    Academic Kate Clifford Larson, like other serious historians, concluded that Mary Surratt was culpable and in her 2008 book, The Assassin’s Accomplice: Mary Surratt and the Plot to Kill Abraham Lincoln, she asked a very good question, ”Why did Mary willingly participate in such a vicious plot, risking her life and the lives of her children? Her strong Southern sympathies do not adequately explain her dangerous level of involvement.”
    Charles Chiniquy, a very close friend of Abraham Lincoln, and one of the most famous men in the world during his lifetime, provided an explanation, pointing out that it had much to do with her Catholic beliefs.
    This is examined in my book, Who Killed Abraham Lincoln?, more is available at I believe that Mary Surratt is, to this day, an embarrassment to the Roman Catholic Church and this appears to be an effort to restore her reputation in the eyes of the American public.


    1. If what you say is true about the movie, that’s no surprise coming from Hollywood. They are the bastion of misinformation and I imagine when the Antichrist comes on the scene, Hollywood will be the first to line up to sing his praises. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Vatican bankrolled the movie somehow in a shady deal. It’s too bad the prosecutors didn’t find enough evidence to convict John Surratt in the end.


  3. Don’t know if you’ve heard, but Bill O’reilly is coming out with a Lincoln book in September, says it’s gonna have alot of stuff that folks don’t know about Lincoln. It might be a good idea if Paul got in contact with Bill.


  4. Thanks Greg for the heads up re Bill O’Reilly’s book on Lincoln, that is to come out in September. It is a good idea to try to contact him and I will try although some of these high-profile media types are hard to reach. Don’t know if the book is set in stone yet, might be. I understand he is a Catholic so I will definitely try to contact him, and see what happens. Redford’s movie reportedly was bankrolled by a Chicago guy, Joe Ricketts, founder of TD AMeritrade. Wouldn’t be suprised if he is a Catholic.


  5. I have recently been reading and researching the life of Rev Chiniquy. I found this opposing view posting by Rev. Smith in 1908 and would like to know your thoughts on its content.

    When Joe Ricketts’ son Peter ran for the U.S. Senate in 2006, he listed his religion as a member of St. Margaret Mary Church (Catholic) in Omaha.



    1. As Paul said above, there was a vigorous campaign to demonize Chiniquy after his death and that’s when this piece by Smith was written. This is the usual fare from papists. Whenever someone hinders the Vatican from having its way on the world stage, they re-write history to smear their detractors. They did it to Queen Elizabeth I, King James I, Luther, Erasmus, and plenty of others.

      Thanks for confirming the info on Joe Ricketts. I’m not at all surprised the Catholic Church had its hand in the movie “The Conspirator.” I imagine it was done so the involved Catholic parties would have masses said on their behalf so they could spend less time in “purgatory,” which of course doesn’t exist.


  6. That is very helpful info from Larry B. re Ricketts’ son. If I might give some further information, I critique the work of five Chiniquy critics in my book, Joseph George Jr., William Hanchett, Caroline Brettell, Richard Lougheed, (both a critic and an admirer of Chiniquy)and Sidney Smith, a Jesuit priest. I don’t have my book in front of me but I spend about 14 pages on Smith, I believe. I wanted to answer the criticisms of Chiniquy that I knew about. Joseph George Jr. published a paper in the Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society that stopped me in my tracks for at least a year, when I was doing research. Then I went over it point by point and realized that he really had nothing to stand on in his criticism of Charles Chiniquy. I am almost finished a paper to be submitted to the Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society, refuting what Joseph George said. At the time his paper was published, George was the head of the history department of Villanova University. Sidney Smith, like Chiniquy’s other critics, seemed to have real reading comprehension problems and also appeared to be incompetent. The attacks on Chiniquy go on to this day, by the way.


    1. Thanks Paul for your thoughts on this issue. I recently started reading about Chiniquy and have about a half dozen books on my ‘to be read list’. Yours will definitely be added and placed at the top. Having been raised a Presbyterian (in the same church in St. Anne, Illinois that Rev. Chiniquy started) I sincerely hope that his story is not only accurate but some day gets the attention that it deserves.

      I will be in DC this summer with some time on my hands and would like to further my research at the National Archives and/or Library of Congress. Would you be kind enough to offer a suggestion or starting point when I’m there?

      Thank you so kindly,


  7. Wow, that is amazing that you are from St. Anne. I think I was there once, years ago. I don’t think there was anything there to lure me there in the document realm so I just stopped to see the town, if I remember correctly. I haven’t found anything major re historical errors that Chiniquy made. He did make some mistakes and had typos in his book but we all do, I think. It is amazing that he wrote his book, considering all the other things he was doing. One source stated that “He traveled more miles and delivered more public addresses an addressed more people and larger audiences than any other person in the nineteenth century.”
    Good question re being in DC during the summer and what to research. I went to the National Archives because I was looking for the court record that was printed every day in the National Intelligencer. I did spend quite a bit of time at the Library of Congress. You will have to give me some time to think about your question and I’ll get back to you. There certainly were some trails that one could go down that I didn’t have the specific need to go down, but may have explored if I had the time.


  8. I haven’t forgotten the question of Larry B. I have some questions that you might be interested in. If not, no problem. There was a Quebec Catholic priest named Charles Boucher who admitted to hiding John Surratt from US justice though he knew he was John Surratt. I write about this. He testified at the trial of John Surratt. I wonder if there was any discussion in US government circles of prosecuting Boucher. The prosecutor asked him if he had any guarantee of safe conduct when he came to Washington and testified, (p. 906 Trial of John Surratt).
    In light of how he has been slandered, I believe, by Redford’s recent movie, I also wonder if Edwin Stanton has any descendants living today who maybe would like to know how their distinguished ancestor has been maligned.
    I also came across the allegation that Lincoln appointed Stanton as Secretary of War from his position as second –in-command to Simon Cameron. I believe that is not true and Stanton did not serve as a second-in-command but was put in the top job from outside the department. Maybe you could confirm this small point. A few things to check out if it fits your schedule.
    I have written to Bill O’Reilly, care of his publisher, but I do not expect to hear anything. By the way, though my book is about Chiniquy’s life story and he inspired my book, the Chicago Public Library has informed me that they would not add my book to their collection, even if I donated a copy. The Chicago Library therefore has no books by or about Charles Chiniquy, a major Chicago personality who went on to become world famous. The Chicago Tribune reported on Chiniquy about a hundred times for example. In one article, the Tribune actually recommended that all Americans read his autobiography alleging that Lincoln’s murder was the work of Jesuits. Chiniquy’s books were sold by the million and the Chicago Library has none. The Chicago Tribune is also not interested in my book, or this story. Censorship is alive and well in Catholic Chicago. Is this the American way? One wonders why American troops are in Iraq and Afghanistan as these countries historically already have this kind of “freedom” and don’t need to have anyone teach them how to suppress information. I shall keep up the struggle to get this story out though.


    1. Paul, I have been reading the excerpt of your book from:

      Your research about Chniquy and Lincoln papers is excellent. I know a lot of people who would like to read the book in Spanish. Is there a possibility to have it in Spanish? I can make an excellent work of translation into Spanish because I am from Costa Rica.

      Maybe you can email me to talk about it:

      My name is Gabriel Piedra.

      Thanks for your attention.


    1. Riiight. And we’re supposed to believe the information about Chiniquy from his Jesuit enemies at this link you provide. The Roman Catholic Church is infamous for it’s revisionist history, from its false claims that it has apostolic succession given to it by the apostle Peter to attacking all historical figures who have been in opposition to bowing to their world domination.

      This video explains starting at 9:00 in:


  9. Donald R. McClarey says “The Chiniquy conspiracy allegations are all bunk and have been debunked countless times, most notably by Professor Joseph George, Jr.”
    Thank you for your statement, that is a little more evidence to support my view that Professor Joseph George, Jr. is, as I wrote in my book, “The modern detractor that has seemed to have most influential at shaping attitudes toward Chiniquy…”
    Unfortunately for you though, I show in my volume, Who Killed Abraham Lincoln?, that it is what Joseph George Jr. said, not Chiniquy, that is essentially bunk.
    As well, unfortunately, Mr. McClarey, I would question whether you are interested in the truth about this. At least you give your actual name, not like another website where I have faced venom from anonymous persons. Harry, what do you think? When will people like Mr. McClarey stop quoting the blundering Joseph George and deal with the fact that what he said has been refuted? Probably not any time soon, as Catholic apologists have little else and, in my opinion, likely have greater confidence that they can keep up the appearance to the ignorant that George is a strong bulwark against Chiniquy, than deal what I have said about him.
    I have the following little piece posted on my website under the critics section.
    As I wrote in my book, Who Killed Abraham Lincoln?, “Since Joseph George Jr.’s, paper, “The Lincoln Writings of Charles P. T. Chiniquy“, was published in the February, 1976 issue of the Journal of the Illinois Historical Society, most, if not all, of those commenting negatively on Chiniquy have used his work as the basis for dismissing the ex-priest’s allegations against the Catholic Church.” Joseph George Jr., however, was wrong in his dismissal of the celebrated clergyman, Charles Chiniquy. At the time his paper was published, George was chair of the history department of Villanova University, a Catholic institution.
    George’s paper stopped me in my tracks when I first read it some twenty years ago. One of the personnel of the Illinois State Historical Library, now the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library, very kindly gave me a copy of the aforesaid issue of the Journal of the Illinois Historical Society, gratis, and it was then that I read what George said about Chiniquy. The paper was written in such a final, conclusive manner that it made me think, for the time, that Chiniquy must have been wrong. I was disappointed and I put away my work on the clergyman and his allegations. Having put time into my research and having traveled to places like Illinois to do so though, I picked up the paper again, many months later, to see exactly where Chiniquy had gone wrong. I then discovered how George had misquoted him and all the errors of historical fact and reason the history professor had made. I will give a sentence in his paper as an example. There actually is a number of errors contained in this one sentence. On page 22 of this issue of the Journal of the Illinois Historical Society, George stated, “At that time Lincoln was hired as defense attorney and was influential in producing a key witness from Chicago who exposed Spink as a perjurer.” This presumably was regarding the fall term court action of 1856, because if it wasn’t, he would be even more incorrect.
    George’s source was Charles Chiniquy’s autobiography, Fifty Years in the Church of Rome, as the paper clearly shows. As I stated in my book: “Here Professor George managed to make possibly as many as three mistakes in one sentence. First of all, Fifty Years did not state that Lincoln was influential in producing this key witness from Chicago. The witness in question was Philomene Moffat and it was another man, Narcisse Terrien, who independently contacted her and asked her to go to Urbana to testify. Lincoln was not aware of her existence until she showed up at his hotel door. Secondly, according to Chiniquy, she didn’t publicly expose anyone as a perjurer, as she didn’t end up being a witness, because Spink withdrew his charges and no more testimony was given. It appears that only Abraham Lincoln, Charles Chiniquy and his other lawyers, along with those on Spink’s side of the suit, that knew of the perjury before the case ended. Thirdly, if she had testified, she would have exposed Lebel as a perjurer, not Spink.”
    George made a number of errors in his paper and it could be asked: why did he do so? Was he simply incompetent? Did he have reading comprehension problems? He seemed to suffer from blindness but I would suggest it might be a blindness that caused by his anger at Chiniquy for criticizing his religion. Regardless of the reason however, as I stated in my book, “whatever George accomplished, it definitely wasn’t a refutation of Charles Chiniquy’s allegations.” To get my full review of Joseph George’s criticism of the clergyman, as well as a review of the criticism of four other, including three academics and a Jesuit priest, get a copy of my book.


    1. Well said, Paul. Devout Catholics are brainwashed and trained to defend their religion no matter what despite the fact their church leaders lie, steal, kill, or rape children. I believe part of it may be because they are promised things like less time in the non-existent purgatory when they die or to be rewarded financially or with other favors doled out by the RCC.


  10. It is now over a year ago that Donald R. McClarey stated on this blog that: “The Chiniquy conspiracy allegations are all bunk and have been debunked countless times, most notably by Professor Joseph George, Jr.” I answered what Mr. McClarey said here, pointing out it is really Joseph George that has been debunked, and then Mr. McClarey is never heard from again. Are we to think that Mr. McClarey never came back to this site? Are we to believe that he never checked back to see the reaction to what he said, to see if anyone agreed with him and admitted that what Charles Chiniquy said had been refuted?
    No one was rude to Mr. McClarey, no one called him names or vilified him or said illogical things in typical troll fashion. All people like me and Harry Gaylord want are answers based on historical fact. And Mr. McClarey disappears. Isn’t this proof that he cannot provide such answers? As I pointed out in my book:

    John Surratt was prosecuted for his part in the conspiracy to murder Lincoln. In his argument at Surratt‘s 1867 trial, District Attorney E.C. Carrington asserted that because the defence had not brought anyone to contradict a particular government witness, the rule of law gave him the right to infer it was because they couldn’t do it, “expressio unius est exclusio alterius”.

    Although people like Mr. McClarey should certainly have been interested in showing that Professor George did indeed debunk Chiniquy’s allegations, in answering what I said about George, he doesn’t do so, even though he had a year to do it. Isn’t this because he couldn’t do so, because the fact is that George did not debunk Chiniquy’s allegations?
    The truth is that Charles Chiniquy and his allegations have, in essence, never been debunked to my knowledge. He has been ignored, he has been vilified since his death when he has not been around to defend himself but he has never been shown to be untrustworthy in any significant way as far as historical evidence is concerned.


  11. Greetings,
    For your information, in anticipation of the pope of Rome coming and speaking to the U. S. Congress at the latter part of this month, three works have been hand delivered to every member of Congress, including the Senate, which is almost completed now, I understand, (the last few copies should be delivered today). The books are: a reprint of General Thomas M. Harris’ book, Rome’s Responsibility for the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, a Chick Tract comic entitled The Big Betrayal, (Charles Chiniquy’s story including Lincoln’s assassination), and my book, Who Killed Abraham Lincoln? (which Ford’s Theatre National Historic Site has favourably reviewed).
    That means that any American can email, phone, mail any of their Representatives / Senators and ask them what they think of the pope coming to address Congress in light of the Vatican / Roman Catholic Church’s hostility towards the United States and its democratic institutions, as shown in the books that they definitely have received at their congressional offices in Washington! They do have to give an answer to their constituents, do they not? This includes the Vatican’s recognition of the Confederacy, (the New York Times’ last word on the subject is an 1876 article entitled “How The Pope Recognized The Southern Confederacy – His Letter to Jeff Davis”), and in this sesquicentennial year of the Lincoln assassination, the evidence of Roman Catholic responsibility for Lincoln’s murder. There may be some very interesting answers coming back, which could be discussed on such a site as this.
    As well, there is planned to be at least three full page ads taken out on consecutive Wednesdays in the Washington Times, the second largest newspaper in the nation’s capital, about the visit by this pope and disclosing that all elected federal representatives have received these books. The first ad that will come out will be this coming Wednesday, tomorrow. I may try to post a copy on my website, a copy could be posted on other sites too. All this is being done and paid for mainly by Christians in the United States. The plan is to also send copies of these books to the President, Vice President and the members of the Supreme Court!


    1. Paul,

      In your message above you mention your website. Would share the link to that website? I would like to take a look.

      Incidentally, I purchased your book a few years ago and enjoyed it immensely.

      Larry B


  12. Sure Larry, my site is I am very glad you enjoyed my book, I think it is an extremely fascinating and important subject. I recently saw a TV program where Ken Burns talked about his documentary on the Civil War and he said it was the central event of U. S. history, which I don’t think I had heard expressed before but very much agree with.
    I am not an American and therefore cannot participate but I would very much encourage any United States citizen to phone, email, mail or otherwise contact their Congressman, Senator and ask why it is ok to have this head of this organization / country that has had such an anti-American history, address Congress, without ever addressing its anti-American history. Two years after Lincoln was murdered, the U.S. broke off diplomatic relations with the Vatican and these ties were not renewed for more than a century. There is still some two weeks before the scheduled speech so there is time for Congress to respond to their constituents.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.