Happy John Wilkes Booth Day!

OD celebrates our First Annual John Wilkes Booth Day

Alabama

I propose a toast: to the memory of the great John Wilkes Booth, slayer of tyrants, martyr for liberty, avenger of the South! May his countrymen prove worthy of his heroic sacrifice.

“After being hunted like a dog through swamps, woods, and … chased by gun boats till I was forced to return wet, cold, and starving, with every mans 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 cuttthroat … I hoped for no gain. I knew no private wrong. I struck for my country and that alone … I do not repent the blow I struck. I may before my God but not to man.”

Note: I’m pleased to see that the LoS is making some real progress. Nothing is gained by accommodating Rainbow Confederate idiocy. That’s like allowing modern Episcopalians to define Christianity.

We’re not “mainstream.” Let’s use that to our advantage. I for one happily embrace the charge of “extremism” by the SPLC. Indeed, it is “extreme” to be a self respecting White conservative in Black Run Amerika. That’s not allowed in the “mainstream.”

As Rhett would say, “I am a disunionist! I am traitor!” As the descendant of a long line of traitors, I feel no sense of loyalty to Obama or BRA. I’m not willing to march in lockstep with the “mainstream” off the cliff of world history.

I would directly respond to this article with a “well said,” but I have been Facebook purged.

About the Author

Hunter Wallace
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

50 Comments on "Happy John Wilkes Booth Day!"

  1. I toast John Wilkes Booth each year and salute him for his courageous act of tyranocide – a noble tradition in the Western world which should be celebrated. No one had it coming more than Lincoln… and Booth certainly gave it to him.

    Happy birthday, Mr Booth!

  2. Tony Blair’s wife Cherie is a direct descendant of Booth.

    Cherie Booth. Her dad was an actor on a show called Til Death Do Us Part.

    Archie Bunker was based on the character Alf Garnet from that show.

    Her dad played the liberal kooky son inlaw.

  3. One more thing Cherie Blair is the model for the CIA wife of the British PM in Roman Polanski’s Ghostwriter. It’s a funny old world.

  4. My favourite American. A brave soul who personifies an American spirit of resistance to tyranny and injustice. My only regret is that he didn’t act sooner, before the genocidal maniac launched his war of extermination. Together with Churchill they can be blamed for killing the White Western man. Every White person should feel an instinctive feeling of profound loathing whenever those names are pronounced.

  5. It greatly pained Churchill to have to give up the empire, in which the whiteman held the whip hand. Europe has had fratricidal wars before and not gone into decline. The real problem was the push to get rid of the French, British and Belgian Empires. The curious abtiimpwrialism of the Americans made empire over the niggers impossible. Germany bankrupted empire, the Americans (short term profits) buried it.

  6. If the Confederacy had won, we would have been spared participation in WW1 and WW2. The course of world history would have been radically altered.

  7. I agree with that about ww1. A specific factor in that war that gets little notice is how the Prussians imitated the Union. Their military staff colleges studied the railway networks in that war and the centralization that came with it. I do not think Prussia would have emerged as the Second Reich in quite the same way. Unity itself may never have actually proceeded and Germans would have emigrated to France and Britain happily enough to help run the colonies or even form/take up the role of the ruling class. Hanover, Saxe Coberg Gotha, Battenberg. There was plenty of places for Germans in the British sphere and the French sphere. Germany could have quite easily remained as a confederacy itself.

  8. I toast John Wilkes Booth as well – but his assassination just proves it’s not a good ideas to assassinate people. He was an immensely popular figure – a real star – and beloved. I understand why he shot that SOB – but I watched a Hitlery Channel YTV show once – I think it was the Hitlery Channel – and they did a decent job on ‘splaining What Happened, from start to finish, re: Booth’s reasons, and his benighted flight from DC, up til his death, at the farmhouse.

    The single most interesting aspect, for me, was how badly his escape was executed. He and the other conspirators got away with killing Lincoln, and attacking the other targets, cause there was basically no security at all. Booth REALLY screwed up his flight plans, and the thing was – many many many many people agreed with his beliefs. Once he committed murder, Southern rebels, and sympathizers wanted NOTHING to do with him. There was a sort of a chain of Southern activists, for want of a better term (I’m DEAD tired tonight) – ad he was booted out of almost every place he went. His flight fomr DC eas realy interesting, re: the chain of events. The thing that struck me though is that he could have bene MUCH MUCH MUCH more effective by speaking out against Lincoln, and using his fame and his wild popularity to hammer home the righteous grievances of the Southern Cause.

    I hope we can all learn from his mistake.

  9. Europe was dominant while Germany was a loosely organized patchwork of agricultural and industrial principalities. Germans migrated out to France, Britain, Russian, Romania, Italy quite peacefully. Europe at that time saddled Africa and Asia and produced the highest civilization yet seen in human history. That all ceased once the Second Reich formed by forcibly unifying German kingdoms and Principalities. About the same time the Union destroyed the Confederates. Hunter is quite correct about the fate of Confederacy and it’s effect on 20th century events. The desire to match an overmighty America by German unification may never have occurred to anyone there. Lincoln losing would have detered other would be tyrants.

  10. Booth should never have attempted to hide after he shot Lincoln. He should have simply surrendered himself and prepare a trial statement. It was a politcal act and running did him no favours.

  11. oscar the grinch | April 26, 2012 at 3:59 am |

    Seems to me Booth made a huge historical error without realizing it. Whatever you want to say about Lincoln, the man was competent, and had he lived, my guess is that Reconstruction would have proceeded in a more rational fashion. Instead the drunken nitwit Andrew Johnson was left in charge, in my opinion the only president as catastrophic as the despicable fool George W. Bush. And also the only president whose faults and failings caused such lasting long-term damage. This nation may quite possibly never recover from the harms inflicted on it by George W. Bush, Enemy of His Country and His People, and a similar thing could be said for the Johnson boys, Andrew and Lyndon both. I struggle to understand what could have motivated such fools and cowards.

    Anyway Booth it seems to me, without foreseeing it, only caused and multiplied exactly the troubles he’d intended to resist. Better historians than myself are welcome to correct me if they can.

  12. Oscar, I hear your argument from older people some times. They say that Lincoln wasn’t really such a bad man. Even though his troops burned all our cities and killed hundreds of thousands of our people he would have been easier on us than the people who followed him. lol This argument doesn’t make sense. Imagine someone planning to kill Stalin, the greatest mass murderer in history, and someone stopping him, insisting that the man who will follow him could be even worse. lol Tyrants deserve to be killed. Lincoln was a tyrant. He was an evil man. I only regret he didn’t suffer more before he died.

  13. Johnson has been unjustly maligned by liberal historians. He opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment:

    http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2011/12/14/andrew-johnsons-third-annual-message/

  14. Lincoln was a liar and a cipher who endorsed negro equality in his last speech. Although Johnson was a traitor to the South, he wasn’t nearly as bad as Lincoln and made a stand for white supremacy.

  15. Stonelifter | April 26, 2012 at 4:14 am |

    I spent some time living in Southron Md when I was a kid. There was a sign at an old home that said

    “John Wilkes Booth, glorious hero of the South, stayed here after slaying the tyrant Lincoln”

    The sign was still there last time I was up there, and I lived one farm down form a decedent of Dr Mudd. It was a very cool place to live before DC got so big and the yankee invasion occurred

  16. I’ve added a new quote to the sidebar.

  17. oscar the grinch | April 26, 2012 at 5:41 am |

    I really don’t blame you guys for the anti-Lincoln arguments. While my own opinion of Abe is more sort of middle-ground (judicious and not stoopidly worshipful, but also not deranged with venom), I welcome anti-Unionist pushback simply because I think it’s healthy and necessary, regardless of my own stance. I think that simply on principle, vigorous pushback is nearly always good.

    But in these grim times one must alas be practical and not romantic. It was Old Romance that caused the catastrophe of the muddle-headed CSA and its dire consequences, when a more rational, practical, realistic approach would have produced a far better future.

    By all means, learn your lessons at your own pace. But keep in mind that those who learn too slowly perish too quickly. Whites have less time on the clock than they think. Consider it, and be sober about it. I’m trying to help, ya know.

  18. We are being thoroughly practical here:

    (1) I’ve taken the bare skeleton concept of a “White ethnostate” and I have fleshed it out, given it a name, identified the ethnicity that is the basis of the proposed ethnostate, identified the targeted region that is to secede, sought allies and made alliances, and I have neatly woven the proposal into the history and culture of the South.

    (2) Instead of starting from scratch, I have chosen to build upon a preexisting foundation that millions of people already identify with. Southerners already have a viable autonomous sense of regional and national identity.

    (3) I’ve thought deeply about the people who need to be mobilized behind secession. I have studied history to learn how conservatives were radicalized in the past.

    (4) I’ve thought deeply about our own tactical situation: we are excluded from the “mainstream,” but that is something that can be used to our advantage.

    (5) We’re building a counterculture here that can appeal to disaffected White Southerners. I’ve also learned from past mistakes to do this in such a way that minimizes its offensiveness to non-Southerners. We have no quarrel with people who think like we do on racial issues.

    WNs claim to believe in racial separatism and a “White homeland.” I’ve adapted that ideal to Dixie where it came from in the first place. It is practical to be romantic; Southern nationalism is and always has been a type of romanticism.

  19. Consider John Wilkes Booth.

    What prompted him to assassinate Lincoln? He was obviously driven by a sense of honor. For honor, men will gladly march to their graves. That’s the missing link.

    Why are we in this situation? Only a submissive and degraded people who have loss their sense of honor would put up with these outrageous conditions. Those with a sense of honor will rebel whereas those without a sense of honor will remain couch potatoes.

  20. Stonelifter | April 26, 2012 at 6:57 am |

    I disagree Hunter.

    We only had two chances of winning

    #1)We could have follow Jackson’s advice and devastate the north early in the war before the north got up to speed.

    #2) Or with the naval/ material support of France or England.

    #2) would have lead us to into WW1 and WW2. There is no way we would have not come to the aide of those who aided us.

  21. Landsknecht | April 26, 2012 at 6:57 am |

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Abe Lincoln support the idea of compensating the newly freed Blacks with some $$$, and then sending them packing off to Africa? I think something like that would have been most favourable to both North and South in the short and long term, assuming in fact he was willing to go through with it.

    Just wondering…

  22. oscar the grinch | April 26, 2012 at 7:15 am |

    HW — yes I totally respect your position although I disagree. It’s coherent and it’s got “good bones,” as they say. I happen to have a different concept of what to do (which I haven’t sketched out here, it would need a blog of its own to demonstrate), but I do think your approach shows integrity and thoughtfulness, I just don’t know if it can succeed; but objectively a more sound evaluation would be based on a lot of factors that I simply don’t have good data for.

    This question, ironically, was actually a lot easier back in the 19th century because back then the potential foreign interlopers of any notice were Britain and the Continental powers, so that, win or lose, the racial equation remained the same.

    The situation now is very different. Many non-white powers now have established beach-heads on this continent (thank you, YKW! You realize that if we survive this, we’ll never include you again!). Some are easily erased, given sufficient political will, like Islam and Mexico. But if China gets its meat-hooks into North American territory in a serious way (some I suppose would argue that it already has), then it’ll be an endless nightmare for future generations.

    The irony is that unlike many of our other foes, blacks are fundamentally an unserious people; to have wasted this much strategic effort (so many “tempi” as they say in chess) over such a bunch of nothings has got to have our genuine long-term enemies split in half giggling at our silliness.

  23. I’m not against what Booth did, for it is a legitimate act of war to take out the enemy leaders, but I am against his timing. If he had done it in 1863, or even 1864, his action would have been judged more heroic. As it happened in 1865, following Lee’s surrender, it just enraged the Yankees, and emboldened the Radical Republicans and their plans to subjugate the South.

  24. Lincoln would have been very radical had he lived. Whites in the South would have been in terrible shape.

    The hatred of the GOP at that time, for the working class white southerner must have burned very very hot.

    Had the Union not won I do not think Germany would have united
    in a way that threatened France or Russia or Britain. Thus no ww1 or two.

    Oscar sort of exposed his pro Union sympathy here. Had the French and British correctly pitched in with the Confederates it’s much more likely that Europe’s twentieth century would have been harmonious. The Union gave radicals in Europe (Germany) the idea that whites should wage mechanized war on whites and get away with it. The British were were always terrified of a centralized Continental power and were not keen on the Union either. Lincoln was a Proto-fascist.

  25. “Nothing is gained by accommodating Rainbow Confederate idiocy. That’s like allowing modern Episcopalians to define Christianity.”

    LMAO.

    Hunter, while the (traditional) 1928 BCP is a gem of a work, and the Anglican tradition has much to recommend itself to an Anglo/English (speaking) national consciousness, these sentences made me howl. The entire edifice of post-1979 women’s ordination TEC is a vast nadir of idiocy.

    Bravo.

  26. oscar the grinch | April 26, 2012 at 12:45 pm |

    #24 — Nah, I think your reading of history is a bit distorted and more than a little bit shallow. You’re forgetting 1848, you’re forgetting Karl bloody Marx and all his evil. You’re forgetting the battle of the Crimea, you’re forgetting the Vienna circle too and what it signified, and the last gasps of the Porte. And Ibsen and Kierkegaard and what those symptoms meant. Listen to the “Viva, viva la liberta!” chorus from “Don Giovanni” some time, that continent has a loooong history, and their problems had and still do have deep roots.

    Our advantage had always been in the freshness of our rather short history, and the actual geographical fact that North America was/is a natural fortress, unless some idiots like, oh, I don’t know, maybe just all US leadership since 1945 just pissed the whole thing away.

    Wonder if we’ll ever get it back. It’s possible but I don’t know.

    I’d advise you guys to study the blathering of the CSA less, and study more actual North American geography.

    Especially the river systems.

  27. Lincoln supported deporting blacks to Africa in the same sense that Obama promises to “secure the border.” He was just trying to calm fears in the North of abolition. He was lying to the people to continue the war.

  28. Lincoln wasbeing disengenuous about repatriating blacks to Africa. He was a radical lover of blacks. He played rhetorical games to hoodwink white voters but it’s obvious what he wanted.

    He’s not much different from Bismarck or Napoleon or Stalin in the end. He invaded the south to extract capital, kill rivals and used blacks as a bludgeon.

    And, America/Europe are much worse for the effort.

  29. Oscar,

    shallow? I assume you are relpying to me. The Prussian staff college closely followed the Union strategy and the followed it to a tee. The parallel is extra ordinary. While the French were busy dominating blacks and Arabs the Prussians shivved them.

    The Seige of Paris for example in 1870 lead to the first Commune. The French had to go back in and restore order after that Outbreak of madness.

    The revolutions of 1848 were Romantic in nature. They were nationalistic and similar to the Confederate worldview.

  30. White & Confederate | April 26, 2012 at 1:17 pm |

    John, then why did the 1848’ers back Lincoln to the hilt politically and militarily? No, they were socialists not romantic nationalists.

  31. Large portions of the 1848 revolts, rebellions and revolutions were Nationalistic in character. The events in Austria Hungary for example lead to a more decentralized system. Same effectively happened in Italy, even though it lead to Italian nationhood later on. The fighting in Schleswig Holstein, a German revolt against a Danish tyrant.

    There were three conflicting currents in these fights. Status Quo royalists, communist and nationalists. Mutually antagonistic currents. The Nationalists were not unlike the Confederates. In Italy they were getting rid of Bourbons and breifly set up and Italian confederacy.

  32. Communists also tagged along taking credit for things they were not really doing. Much like the first ‘Kerensky’ [February?] revolution against the Czar. The Communists came later and seized power in a coup in October.

    Communists are very apt at inserting themselves in events they had bugger all to do with.

  33. oscar the grinch | April 26, 2012 at 1:52 pm |

    #29 — heh heh, well that’s a good enough riposte that I’ll gladly take back “shallow,” although I still disagree; but I now suspect that it’s merely because we’re just arguing on different radio frequencies. And that’s fine, I don’t mind.

    My real issue is not to write a dissertation on 19th-cent. Euro historiography, it’s how to safeguard North America for the future of my people, which has been failing lately big time. I’ll happily grant you whatever you like about Prussian school systems or the Paris Commune, if you’ll get with the program of helping us figure out how to salvage North America from the bloody orcs.

  34. Just a quick essay:

    The Confederacy would have worked had they separated from the Northern states in 1848. Discuss.

    Had they seized the moment I believe that the ‘North’ would have frozen in terror and immediately given in.

  35. I’m glad to see the League of the South is moving farther and farther away from the ‘black Confederates” and “Rainbow Confederacy” twaddle thats been passed off as Southern heritage preservation.

  36. This is sufficient to close the gap between us and them.

  37. Hunter suggests that The USA is beyond saving. It got too big. Too egalitarian and we are now living in the hangover period after the party.

    The CSA’s fate is intimately connected to the fate of Detroit it’s intimately connected to the savage Banlieu’s surrounding Paris.

    The triumph of Lincoln and the conquest of the CSA ripped out the heart of white supremacy and set off a chain reaction that ended European Domination of Africa. The very success of the proto BRA America that Lincoln founded possibly doomed the white to extinction in the European homeland and in the European colony of North
    America.

    You do not understand how aggressively Americans sought to shut down European colonies in Africa. Colonies which were clearly critical in maintaining civilized
    standards. Did you not read Hunter’s African History Month on OD?

    Too many American presidents have been nigger lovers and have been irrationally hostile to French and British Imperial possessions in Africa.

    You probably think I’m being a loopy historical determinist but the connection is there.

  38. “The revolutions of 1848 were Romantic in nature. They were nationalistic and similar to the Confederate worldview.”

    hardly. John, have you not heard of Bakunin? His anarchic satanism inspired the ‘young revolutionary’ Wagner, which led to the Ring, which inspired adulation in the nihilist Nietzsche. I think I should recommend E. Michael Jones’ “Dionysos Rising: The Birth of Cultural Revolution Out of the Spirit of Music.”

    As a historical emetic.

  39. German reunification was only a single six sigma event away from happening anyway, and Bismarck was that event. It was bound to eventually happen, and to worse to do all the things that Bismarck specifically and emphatically did NOT want it to do.

    We were in a basic prisoners dilemma situation at the time: White nations had to be strong centralized powers to fight off each other. Hopefully that is over.

  40. Anglo Protestant American | April 27, 2012 at 3:23 am |

    The old view by many in the South that Booth should not have shot Lincoln is not based off the idea that Lincoln was some really good guy we should all admire. The idea behind it is that the assassination made things much harder for the South during reconstruction by strengthening the Radical Republicans in Congress.

    You may disagree with this view but you can not deny the antiquity of it. It isn’t something that was just thought up in the late 19th or early 20th century. It dates back at least to 1868 when Edward Alfred Pollard made this argument in his famous book “The Lost Cause Regained” which the following quote is from,

    “Had Mr. Lincoln lived, there is no doubt he would have easily triumphed in his policy of Reconstruction and readily defeated the small faction which Mr. Sumner excited against him in 1865. He had already routed whatever there was of opposition in the Cleveland Convention that had so pretentiously called upon the people “in thunder tones to come to the rescue of impartial justice and universal freedom.” He had already triumphed over the protest of Wade and Davis. He was master of the situation, and had he been left to command it, there is every reason to believe that the faction which disturbed him a few days before his death would have been crushed as a paltry annoyance to his popularity a faction which profiting by accident and the accretion of circumstances and the growth of passions has since assumed the dimensions and the insolence of a dominant party.

    President Johnson directly inherited the policy of Mr. Lincoln, and faithfully carried it out until December 1865. He appointed Provisional Governors in the Southern States, and held out inducements to the people to re-organize their governments, and to restore as rapidly as possible their rightful relations to the Union.”

    http://goo.gl/v15nc

    It appears by the end of the war Lincoln did favor black suffrage at the very least for the intelligent, property owners, and Union veterans. However there is no indication that he was going to FORCE black suffrage on the Southern States as a condition for “readmittance to the Union” i.e for representation in Washington.

    In fact the opposite is true, Lincoln supported the readmittance of Louisiana’s Unionist government in spite of the fact that they refused to grant Black suffrage. This was unacceptable to Senator Charles Sumner who led the Radical Republicans in a filibuster that prevented the seating of Louisiana’s two senators.

    goo.gl/TQv6j

    The death of Lincoln enraged people in the North which in turn led to even more Radical Republicans being voted in office in the 1866 congressional elections.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1866

    While no one can obviously prove alternate history one way or the other it is a possibility that had Lincoln lived we may not have ended up with the 14th and 15th amendments.

    One thing is certain though had Lincoln was not killed he could not have been turned into “Sainted fallen martyr who shed he blood for the Union.” Just like the assassination of Martin Luther King produced nothing positive, only a sainted martyr that we are all supposed to worship, I feel the same phenomenon took place with Lincoln’s death.

    Had MLK lived he most likely would be regarded as no different from Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. I think the same may have very well been true with Lincoln with his legacy in the United States remaining much more controversial than it has eventually become for most people.

  41. Anglo Protestant American | April 27, 2012 at 3:33 am |

    When comment comes out of filter it should have read, “had Lincoln not been killed” instead of “was not killed.”

  42. The 1864 Dahlgren Raid made Lincoln fair game for assassination. U.S.A. Col. Ulrich Dahlgren was the son of Union Navy admiral with close political connections to Lincoln, and he attempted to murder Jeff Davis, Judah P. Benjamin, et al. When Richmond fell Lincoln’s War Secretary Edwin Stanton dispatched “cleaners” to the city to seize all the papers collected from Dahlgren’s corpse, which he then destroyed.

    Lincoln was also commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces, which made him just as much a military target as any army private or lieutenant. At the time of his death, the Army of Tennessee had not yet surrendered, and General Kirby-Smith’s Trans-Mississippi Dept. was still on the field and very much operational, which means that the war was NOT over, Appomattox notwithstanding. Booth should have donned a Confederate army jacket shortly before firing his shot, proclaimed himself a soldier killing an enemy combatant.

  43. So can can be said with a single bullet.

  44. Bill Yancey | May 3, 2012 at 9:49 pm |

    Lincoln supported deporting blacks to Africa in the same sense that Obama promises to “secure the border.” He was just trying to calm fears in the North of abolition. He was lying to the people to continue the war.

    I missed this first time around. Can’t tell you how much trouble I’ve had trying to explain it to ‘white-supremacist-Lincoln’ devotees. I’ll try out this particular analogy now if you don’t mind.

  45. Knott Phohled | June 6, 2012 at 2:24 pm |

    Wow, did the Jews fool you folks! Look again at the assassinators and their goals.
    You are being laughed at by your manipulators. But then, some of you are their decedents. Wow, what a Jew nest here!

  46. This is the most racist, self-centered, adn idiotic group of people I have ever seen. Do yoy even bother to read history or when you do you make up your own lies? How is Lincoln a tyrant? HE DIDNT START THE CIVIL WAR! WE DID! THE SOUTH! WE FIRED THE FIRST SHOT! and we all paid for it. Especially Virginia, my home state, who got its capital burned to the ground.

  47. Yeah, North Vietnam also started the Vietnam War in the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and the Spanish started the Spanish-American War by taking out the Maine.

    lolzlolzlolz

  48. Thank you, Hunter.

  49. http://www.exploresouthernhistory.com/boothmonument.html

    A historical JWB monument! No lie!

    Hope you guys like it.

  50. Thank God for me finding this site. I thought I was the only one who admired Mr. Booths. Feels good not to be alone.

Comments are closed.