Chapter III (3)

"The government of the United States was doubtless created by the adoption of the Constitution. But when it had once been spoken into being it stood upon the same level with other nations, and was clothed with all the powers incident to an independent sovereignty under the laws of nature and of nations, and among these was the power, in time of war or great public emergency, to arrest and inflict upon spies and traitors the most summary punishment, whenever and wherever the strong hand of military justice can be laid upon them. It is a power incident to the right and duty of self preservation, and ought to be exercised, just as the individual owes it to himself to strike down the assassin who is feeling for his heartstrings, without waiting to lose his own life, in order that the courts of justice may, at their leisure, proceed to try the felon according to the formularies of the law and the Constitution. The right of self-defense needs not to be inscribed upon parchment, either for individuals or for sovereign states. The Almighty impressed this right and duty upon the hearts and minds of men long before he wrote the decalogue upon the tables of stone. To say that this government has not the power in time of war to exercise this great duty of self-preservation, for want of warrant in the Constitution, is to condemn the action of the government in acquiring from France and Spain and Mexico and Russia territory lying far beyond the limits of the original thirteen States, because such power of acquisition and growth is not provided for by the Constitution. Both these powers are but the incidents of sovereignty, requiring no warrant in written governmental charter; they are derived from the common law of nations, and are co-existent with sovereignty.

"But with this military commission, gentlemen, you have no concern at this time; whether it was a legal or illegal tribunal, is not the matter on which you are now called to decide. The oath that you have taken requires that you shall 'well and truly try, and true deliverance make between the United States of America and John H. Surratt, the prisoner at the bar, whom you have in charge, and a true verdict give according to your evidence.' The prisoner stands before you indicted for the murder of Abraham Lincoln on the 14th day of April, 1865, in this city. About the time and place and manner of the death of your late President no controversy has been made in the case. If there had been your recollection of a nation in tears, and of a whole civilized world in mourning would have revived your memory of the sad and terrible fact. The only question, therefore, for you to determine is, whether the prisoner at the bar participated with John Wilkes Booth and the others named in the indictment, or either or any of them, in the diabolical crime. If, from all the evidence in the case, your minds shall be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt growing out of that evidence that the prisoner did co-operate with them; if that shall have produced a moral conviction in your minds that the prisoner did participate in the conspiracy to murder, or in a plot to do some unlawful act which resulted in this foul murder, no consideration as to the legality or illegality of the tribunal which tried the prisoner's mother; no feelings of sympathy for other members of the family; no consideration of his youth, or that other lives have already been forfeited for the crime, should for a single moment, tempt you to step aside from the plain pathway of duty."

The last paragraph quoted is directed to some of the many artful appeals made to the political prejudices or to the feelings of the jury to swerve them from the duty devolved upon them by their oath. The former paragraphs may well be said to set at rest forever the question of the right of a government to defend its life when the occasion requires it by sending offenders against its life before a military commission for trial. This question may be taken as settled, as is the question of the right of the federal government to coerce into submission a refractory State. The opportunity thus sought by the prisoner's counsel to foist upon the public mind the assertion that the Supreme Court of the United States had made a decision denying to the government this right, thus gave occasion not only for denying that such opinion had ever been delivered, but also for showing that it never could be.

It will be remembered that for reasons heretofore given the crime charged in the indictment was simply that of murder--the murder of Abraham Lincoln.

The fact of his being, at the time of his murder, the President of the United States was not mentioned. The treasonable purpose of that murder was also omitted no reference being made to the political reasons that moved the conspirators to the commission of the crime. The counsel for the defense contended most earnestly that because of these omissions the fact of the official position of Abraham Lincoln and of the political motives that inspired the crime could not be taken into consideration in the trial of the prisoner. They argued that it must be regarded in law simply as the murder of a man, and as a crime no more henious in character than the murder of the humblest citizen. Had the crime of treason been alleged in the indictment the defense would have been entitled to have a list of the witnesses by whom the government expected to prove the crime in advance of the trial; and it would have taken two witnesses to have established an overt act. The defense contended that because they were not entitled to these advantages under this indictment the prosecution could derive no advantages from the consideration of these facts; and that the case must be treated simply as a case of murder. The spirit of their argument would rather indicate that they really regarded it in the same light that Miss Anna Surratt did, as "nothing more than the death of the meanest nigger in the Union army."[32] The following is Mr. Pierrepont's reply to their argument on this point:--

"Our learned friends on the other side have told us, in the progress of their argument, that they could not subscribe in the least degree to the doctrine that it was a higher crime to conspire against the government of the United States, and through that conspiracy commit a murder upon the Chief Magistrate, than it was to murder the humblest vagabond in the streets, or words to that effect. Now that is not the doctrine of a statesman; it is not the doctrine of the Bible; it is not the doctrine of the law. It is a far more heinous crime to conspire against the government of the United States and to murder its President for the purpose of bringing anarchy and confusion on the land, than to murder a single individual. It is because its consequences are so much more terrible. It is because it is involving the lives of hundreds and of thousands. It is because it is involving considerations affecting the stability, the protection, the life, and the liberty, it may be, of a nation. The law of England, which I have cited, but which it would seem, my friends have not read, lays it down, and without a statute, but as the common law, that it is a crime of such heniousness as to admit of no accessories.

"They, however, undertake to say that the crime of the murder of the President of the United States in time of war or great civil commotion, is not as henious a crime as it would be in England to murder the Chief of their country; and that there is no divinity about our government. What is its origin? All government is either of God or the devil, and they will have to take their choice. I say that the government is of God, and that no other government will stand. What says the civilized world upon this subject? I wrote a note to the Secretary of State two days ago, asking him to send me the letters that were transmitted from the different governments of the civilized world upon the subject of this murder, and what do you think he sent me? He sent me the note I hold in my hand and with it this large printed volume. It takes every line and word of that book, a book of 717 pages, closely printed, to contain the letters of condolence that were written to this government from the foreign governments of the world. Entire Christendom wrote, entire Christendom looked upon it as one of the most horrible of crimes--one that required every nation, even to the Turk, to write for the purpose of expressing their abhorrence of the crime. And, gentlemen, I hold in my hand the original paper sent by some 13,000 rebel prisoners, and our prisoners, at Point Lookout. Here is the paper in which these rebel prisoners, met together, passed their resolutions of condemnation, and their curse upon this crime. I would try this case before any twelve of those rebel prisoners, and feel certain of a verdict, and yet the gentlemen tell us this murder is like that of the commonest vagabond that ever walked the streets, and the crime no higher. Not so thought the rebels; not so thought any honorable man in arms against us; not so thinks any right-minded man upon the face of the earth."

The judge in giving his charge to the jury, addressing himself to this point, spoke as follows:--

"Historians and text writers on the law may treat of the heinousness of the crime of imagining the death of a weak or a wicked king or of a wise or benignant monarch, but you know, gentlemen, as well as you know that you exist, that to murder the duly elected President of the most powerful people on earth, is not less atrocious in its character than to compass the death of a king, or an emperor, albeit he may have sprang from the loins of the people, who have made him their representative head, and may have no royal blood coursing through his veins. You may be told that it is a crime surpassingly heinous to take or compass the life of him who has occupied a throne simply because he may be the king of an enslaved people, but that to take the life of the President of a free republic is an offense of no greater magnitude than to murder the 'veriest vagabond that walks your streets'; but an American jury will only believe this doctrine when the people have become so demoralized and corrupt, so devoid of the love of liberty and patriotic feeling, as to prefer to have a king and ruler foisted upon them by the accident of birth or fortunate adventure, rather than have the making of their own selection of him who is to execute their laws, and, for the time being, to stand as the representative head of their collective sovereignty.

"It is a mistake to suppose that a free people in any country will ever consider it a more henious crime to kill a king, or even to desire his death, than it is to assassinate a President. It is of no avail to tell you that to surround the life of a President of a republic with safeguards as sacred and powerful as those which, in monarchies, are thrown about a king, as you have been told in the argument, is a modern idea, 'entertained only by those whose eyes have been dazzled by visions of stars and garters, and who are desirous of changing our free institutions for a monarchical form of government.'

"On the contrary, they can only be opposed to guarding with sacred vigilance the life of the President of a free people who are themselves prepared to submit to the rule of a despot. Why should the people be less proud or less regardful of the life of a ruler selected by themselves, from among themselves, than they would be of the life of him who claimed to rule over them of his own right? When this question can be sensibly answered, I shall be willing to admit that the life of a President is less worth preserving than that of a king, and that to destroy the life of a President is a crime of less atrocity than to merely desire the death of a prince; but not till then; nor do I believe you will."

The practical legal bearing of this question on the trial was as to whether the prisoner, being proven to have been a member of the conspiracy which resulted in the death of President Lincoln by the hands of a fellow-conspirator, should be held as a principal in the crime, or only an accessory before the fact. In other words whether the court and jury could take cognizance of the official position of Abraham Lincoln without its being alleged in the indictment. If he could be regarded as a principal and not as an accessory he could be held equally guilty with Booth although he might not have been present and assisting in the assassination.

Practically, however, this was not a matter of any consequence in this trial, because it was proven beyond a doubt that the prisoner was actually present, acting a conspicuous part in the execution of the plot. It was also proven by the testimony of one witness whose testimony was in no way impeached that it was he, and not Spangler, who prepared and fitted the bar to the door to prevent Booth being followed into the box at the theatre. The summing up of the evidence by Judge Pierrepont in his concluding speech is one of the most admirable and masterly efforts that can be anywhere found. In the first place it is a model of judicial fairness and honesty. To him the prisoner was evidently a pure abstraction toward whom he had no feelings. His only effort was to weigh impartially the evidence in the case, and to give to it a fair and common sense interpretation. He brushed away all side issues and every effort of the prisoner's counsel to bring the trial under the influence of political and of religious prejudices, and held them strictly to the question of the guilt or innocence of the prisoner, as shown by the evidence. Again it was a model effort in its logical ability in bringing the evidence before the jury. He had so completely analyzed the testimony that he was able to present it in its logical connection as to time, purpose, and circumstances; tracing the plot through the evidence before him, from its incipiency to its completion, step by step, showing the bearing and relation that one thing sustained to another in a most conclusive and unanswerable way.

He had systematically and logically arranged the testimony, which had necessarily been presented in a most desultory and unsatisfactory way, from the fact that the evidence had to be taken just as witnesses were found to be present. By great care and labor the judge had arranged the evidence just in the order in which he would have chosen to introduce it had the witnesses all been at his command at the moment he would have chosen to use them. Having thus arranged the testimony, he simply read it to the jury, stopping when necessary to comment on it and interpret it. His fair, natural, common sense interpretation of the facts proven could not fail to bring conviction to every intelligent, and candid mind. That the proof before him had brought to the mind of this eminent and experienced advocate and jurist the most complete conviction of the prisoner's guilt, is shown throughout his argument. He did not, however, leave the matter of his own convictions to be the subject merely of inference, but left himself on record on this point as follows:--

"In this case I feel justified in saying, that the prisoner is proved to be guilty, and in as overwhelming a manner as any man was ever proven guilty in the history of jurisprudence. I appeal to any judge, any lawyer, any man who has had experience, if there was ever a case where the guilt of the party, was more clearly demonstrated. He is proven guilty not only beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond the possibility of any doubt. There is not a man of you who can doubt it. It has been a strange case. It was a strange providence that brought the man back here to be tried. And now that he is here, you, the twelve men who in the providence of God have been selected to try the case, are to say whether what he has done is right or not right; whether he is guilty or not guilty.

"That is for you to say, not for me. I know he is proved guilty. About that there can be no doubt. I do not believe that any of you have any doubt whatever on that subject."

That the purpose of this conspiracy was to assassinate the heads of the government from its very first inception, is made clear by the whole run of the evidence brought out on the two trials. Atzerodt, in his confession, which he had gotten up to be used in his defence, claims that he was a member of a conspiracy to kidnap the President, and carry him to Richmond. John H. Surratt, in his Rockville lecture, claims the same thing. They both claim that when Booth laid aside this plan as impracticable, and proposed to change it to a conspiracy to assassinate, that they withdrew, and would have nothing further to do with it. It is evident that the statements of both are false, both as regards the original purpose of the conspiracy, and also their abandonment of it. Surratt in his confessions to McMillen stated that he received a letter from Booth in Montreal on the 10th of April. This letter was written from New York, and summoned him to Washington at once, as it had become necessary for them to change their plans and to act quickly.

He left Montreal in obedience to this summons on the 12th of April, and was in Elmira on the morning of the 13th. In his defense of an _alibi_, he tried to prove that he remained at Elmira until after the 15th, and then returned to Montreal, where he arrived on the 18th.

His counsel argued that the plan up to that time had been to capture, and that it was then for the first time that Booth had determined to assassinate; that this was the change of plan referred to in his letter, and that, as Surratt, according to their plea, never saw him after this change of plan had been determined upon, he knew nothing about it, and was never a member of a conspiracy to assassinate. He admitted that he left Montreal in response to Booth's letter, but claimed that he did not go any further than Elmira, in his defense.

This, also, is his story in his Rockville lecture, in which he admits that he was a member of the conspiracy to capture the President, but asserts that he was never a member of the conspiracy to assassinate him. Why did he obey Booth's summons which required him to come at once to Washington? Why did he come by way of Elmira? He says in his lecture that he went to Elmira in the interest of a plan to liberate the rebel prisoners that were held at that place. He had just been to Richmond, carrying dispatches from Davis and Benjamin to their agents in Canada. Active measures were at once resorted to to accomplish the assassinations that had been planned without delay, and had the scheme been fully realized it was no doubt a part of this plan to bring into active service at once all the secret treasonable military organizations throughout the North, liberate all the rebel prisoners held in Northern prisons, and inaugurate a new rebellion in the North, in aid of the existing rebellion in the South. Surratt admits that he went to Elmira on this business. He went there no doubt to arrange with other conspirators there for carrying out this purpose when notified of the success of the assassination plot. No doubt similar arrangements had been made at Chicago to liberate the prisoners at Camp Douglass; and perhaps at other places. The partial failure of the assassination plot, and the signal triumph of our arms, admonished these Northern traitors that they had better not enter the arena of actual war, and frustrated all the plans of Jefferson Davis and his Canada Cabinet. Surratt's admissions are right in the line of our theory, and tend to prove its correctness; but his claim that he was only a member of a conspiracy to capture is manifestly untrue. Let us hear the conclusion of that eminent jurist, Judge Pierrepont, founded on a careful consideration of all the evidence on this point. "Now you see gentlemen, what is meant by a change of plan. In the spring of 1864 the plan was to murder Mr. Lincoln. They laid various plans for its accomplishment. They thought to do it as he went to the Soldiers' Home, by the telescopic rifle, and they did not intend, in the event of concluding to carry out that plan, to let his wife or his child stand in their way. They then thought to do it by having Payne call upon Mr. Lincoln, get into conversation with him, listen to his stories, seem to be interested in them, and then, at that moment, to strike the knife home, deep into his heart. They at another time thought to poison him, and for this purpose tried the cup; but it seemed that that failed them once, and, as Booth said, might fail them again. They finally concluded they would try to kill him in the theatre, instead of on his way to the Soldiers' Home, and have Payne kill Secretary Seward at his house. That plan they carried out. But, gentlemen, notwithstanding this change of plan, never was there for more than a year any other purpose than to murder. They had long since abandoned the idea of kidnapping, for that required too much machinery, too many men, and subjected them to too much danger; and the changes in plan that had taken place recently were simply as to the mode of killing, and the men who should strike the fatal blow." Here we have the mature opinion of an eminent jurist, founded on a thorough and careful examination of all the evidence, and we feel confident that no candid, intelligent man who studies all the evidence with care can come to any other.

Having had occasion to follow the history of this sad affair from its incipiency to its conclusion, as revealed by the evidence produced before the commission, and that brought out on the civil trial, my purpose in writing this book has been fulfilled. It was, first, to correct many grave errors in public opinion that have grown out of a wilful and ingenious suppression of the truth and an unblushing publication of falsehoods, in order to cover up from view the fact that the assassination of President Lincoln was the result of a deep-laid political scheme to subvert the government of the United States in aid of the rebellion; that it was not merely the rash act of Booth and his co-conspirators, to whom the work was intrusted; but that behind these stood Jefferson Davis and his Canada cabinet; that it was the work of a great conspiracy.

The second object of the author was to vindicate the government in its method of dealing with the assassins, and to show that the decisions of the commission were founded on adequate testimony. And, lastly, to so gather up and present the truth, as shown by the evidence, that his work might be of some service to the future historian. He feels that he has kept faithful to his purpose to present nothing but the truth. He feels that by this he has not only vindicated the government, but that also in doing this he has vindicated the commission. He has shown that a military commission was the only tribunal before which the conspirators and assassins could properly be tried; that the right of the government to try offenses of this character is a power inherent in sovereignty as is the right of personal self-defence a right that inheres to the individual; that the laws of war recognize this right and justify its exercise. The wisdom of the government in dealing thus summarily with these offenders was seen in its effect on the Canada conspirators, who at first were swearing that "they were not done yet," but who were driven to their holes by the prompt and wise action of the government in dealing thus summarily with their hired assassins as fast as they were caught. The government thus compelled its enemies to respect its authority.

And, finally, the result of the trial of one of the conspirators before a civil court, more than anything else, vindicates its wisdom in sending these prisoners before a military tribunal for trial.

_Side Lights on the Conspiracy._

John Matthews gives us the substance of a paper put into his hands by Booth on the afternoon of the assassination, which closed as follows: "Men who love their country better than their lives--Booth, Payne, Atzerodt, and Herold."[33] It will be observed that Booth here identifies Atzerodt with the conspiracy and the evidence shows that he relied on Atzerodt at that time to perform the part he assigned to him: to assassinate Vice-President Johnson. He had transferred Atzerodt from the Pennsylvania House, where he had been boarding, to the Kirkwood House on the morning of that day, having engaged his room but for one day, and paying for it in advance. This change was made because the Vice-President was stopping at the Kirkwood.

That Booth had visited Atzerodt at his room during the day was shown by the fact that his coat, containing his bank book and handkerchiefs marked in his name, was found in Atzerodt's room where he had hung it up and then forgotten to take it again when he left. That the purpose was a murderous purpose was shown by the fact that a pistol, loaded and capped, together with a large dagger, were found hid away in the bed. Booth had been there schooling Atzerodt in his part, and had had such assurances from Atzerodt that he felt safe in coupling his name with his own and those of Payne and Herold in the paper referred to. Matthews stated that whilst he was in conversation with Booth, General Grant passed rapidly down the Avenue in an open carriage, having his baggage along with him; that he called Booth's attention to this fact, when Booth left him abruptly and galloped down the avenue after General Grant. Why did he do this? What did this mean? When Atzerodt had made his way into the country, and was eating his dinner on Sabbath, the 16th, at the house of Hezekiah Metz, he was asked if it was true, as had been reported, that General Grant had been killed, answered, "If the man who was to follow him had done so, it was likely to be true." This explains Booth's purpose in galloping after General Grant when he saw that he was about to leave the city. He hurried to inform O'Laughlin of the fact and to have him follow the General and assassinate him on the road or at the end of his journey, and had told Atzerodt of this arrangement. We can in this way account for the fact that Atzerodt knew that a man had had orders to follow him. The fact that Booth, in the paper referred to, coupled Atzerodt's name with his own and those of Payne and Herold as "men who loved their country better than their lives" shows that he fully expected Atzerodt to perform the part he had assigned him in the tragedy. O'Laughlin was no doubt the man who had orders to follow the General, but upon reflection, wisely declined to do so.

Dr. Mudd voluntarily confessed to Captain Dutton, who had charge of the convicts who were sent to the Dry Tortugas, whilst on their voyage thither, that he knew Booth when he came to his house on the morning of the 15th of April; and said that he denied it because he was afraid of endangering his own life, and the lives of his family. He also admitted that he went to Washington by appointment to introduce Booth to Surratt, and that Wiechmann's testimony on this point was true. Why, if innocent, should he have been afraid to let it be known that Booth and Herold called at his house on that morning, and what he had done for them? This fear could only have come from a consciousness of guilt, and shows that he not only knew what they had done, but, also, that he was implicated in their guilt by his previous knowledge of what they were going to do. John H. Surratt, after he had been set at liberty, delivered a lecture at Rockville, Maryland, in which he denied that he ever knew of the plot to assassinate, but admitted that he was a member of a conspiracy to capture President Lincoln and carry him a prisoner to Richmond. He asserts that this was Booth's purpose whilst he was co-operating with him, and that they had spent a great deal of money ($10,000) in preparations to effect their object. He claims that neither the Richmond government, nor its agents in Canada, knew anything about their scheme, and that they alone were responsible for it. Where then did they get their $10,000 to spend on it? They were both without means of their own, and without employment. The Rockville lecture is simply a plausible tissue of falsehoods, well put together, but altogether inconsistent with the whole tenure of the evidence in the case. It is contradicted at almost every point by the testimony we have had under review. Yet its admissions are important, as they establish the theory of the conspiracy which we have maintained. He admits that he was engaged in the secret service of the Confederate government almost constantly from the time he left college in the summer of 1861, and that he enjoyed that service greatly, and was very active in it. He claims that he was entrusted with dispatches for the agents of that government in Canada, and that he passed from the one place to the other frequently. He admits that he reached Montreal on the 6th of April with dispatches from Davis and Benjamin to Thompson. Of course he does not say that he also carried Bills of Exchange on Liverpool at the same time for $70,000, or that he carried funds at any time; but we have had the proof of this fact. He admits that he went from Montreal on the 12th of April, to Elmira, New York, and claims that he remained there until after the assassination.

This we have seen was proven to be a falsehood, yet his purpose in going to Elmira, as claimed by himself, confirms our theory that the plan of the conspirators was in connection with the assassinations which they had planned to get up a Northern rebellion in aid of that of the South, through the agency of the secret disloyal organizations with whom they were in correspondence throughout the Northwestern and Middle States, and to liberate all the rebel prisoners held in Northern prisons to augment their forces, and in the state of anarchy and confusion, consequent upon the deprivation of the government of a civil head, and the army of a lawful commander, they thus intended inaugurating a reign of terror throughout the North that would make a further prosecution of the war impossible, and by this means establish the Southern Confederacy. Surratt says in his lecture that he went to Elmira for the purpose of preparing for the release of the more than five thousand rebel prisoners that were held at that place. The author, after a very careful scrutiny of all the evidence relating to the question of Surratt's presence in Washington on the night of the assassination, and of his participation in it, has not hesitated to express the opinion that this was proven. By all legal rules the plea of an _alibi_ failed as the vast preponderance of evidence went to prove his presence as charged. But even if we admit that he was at Elmira, as claimed, on the night of the assassination, and that he remained there until the 16th of April, he is not by this admission disconnected with the conspiracy, but was by his own admission acting there in the interest of its purposes by setting at large the five thousand rebel prisoners held there by the government. The effort to aid the rebellion by this step was contingent upon the accomplishment of all of the assassinations that had been planned. The failure to do this rendered his mission there useless. If he was there, he was there in the interest of the conspiracy. That he had all of its guilt upon his conscience is shown by the facts of his flight and concealment.

Thompson and his gang claimed, in the fall of 1864, it will be remembered, that they had eight hundred men hid away in Chicago for the purpose of liberating the rebel prisoners held in Camp Douglass. They were only waiting for a safe opportunity, for which they were planning to secure an opportune moment. Why did Vallandigham break his parole in the summer of 1864 and return to Ohio to become a candidate for the governorship of that state? It was no doubt in the interest of this new rebellion that had been planned, and that he might be in a position to carry out the details of these nefarious schemes. It will be remembered that he had been elected Supreme Commander of the order of American Knights at their annual meeting in February, 1863. During Vallandigham's enforced absence, Robert Holloway acted as Lieutenant-General, or Deputy Supreme Commander, and Doctor Massey of Ohio was Secretary of State. The organization was a military one, of which Vallandigham was recognized as General, and had a complete army organization, and was, in 1864, arming, drilling, and preparing for a Northern rebellion, and the accomplishment of the assassinations that were planned and arranged for was no doubt to have been the signal for a general uprising. It may be asked, why, if this theory be correct, was not this purpose carried out? We answer simply because that God who planted, and has hitherto watched over our nation, frustrated the scheme. He so ordered the events of his providence that the carrying out of this wicked scheme became manifestly impossible. The plan to deprive the government of a civil head and the army of a lawful commander failed. The collapse of the rebellion was precipitated so rapidly that it was manifestly useless to attempt to give it aid. The valor, prowess, skill, and loyalty of our victorious legions was a menace to copperheadism. This secret army concluded that discretion was the better part of valor, and sought safely in seclusion, but not quite in silence. They still continued to hiss.

To God's over-ruling and protecting care we owe our thanks for the preservation of our government, and for the peace and prosperity with which we have been blessed, and it is in Him alone that we can found our hopes for the future. Let us reverently study and learn the lessons of our great civil war, that we may learn to avert future judgments by putting away all our idols, and all the abominations of our national life, remembering that it is righteousness alone that exalteth a nation, and gives to it peace and prosperity, and that sin is not only a reproach to any people, but that national sins, if persisted in, justified and incorporated into national policy, will inevitably call down the judgments of a holy, righteous, and just God.