toriety by gunning down a public figure.rnBooth, however, was a celebrity long beforernhis fatal encounter with Lincoln. Itrnwas his co-conspirators — Lewis Powell,rnDavid Herold, and George Atzerodt—rnwho more closely resembled the LeernHarvey Oswalds and James Earl Rays ofrnour time. Booth was more like O.J.rnSimpson with a political agenda.rnRobertson tells his story through thernvoice of John Surratt, the most normalrnand the longest-lived of the Booth conspirators.rnWhen Robertson began workrnon his novel, he was struck by the factrnthat Surratt, who died in 1916, lived longrnenough to have seen Lincoln’s assassinationrndepicted in D.W. Griffith’s classicrnfilm The Birth of a Nation, which premieredrnin 1915. Robertson therefore setsrnhis novel in April 1916, less than a weekrnbefore Surratt’s death, and introducesrnthe filmmaker as a character in the book;rnGriffith’s attempts to enlist Surratt’s aidrnin a movie on Lincoln that he is contemplatingrn(and which was actually produced)rncause Surratt to reflect on thernevents of over half a century earlier.rnBooth’s perverse power, as Robertsonrndepicts it, lies in his ability to satisfyrnthe vicarious needs of others. Powell,rnHerold, and Atzerodt were all skid-rowrntypes who had been destroyed by eitherrnthe war or life itself In playing the role ofrnpatron and surrogate brother to thesernyoung men, the glamorous Booth capturedrntheir unquestioning loyalty. Althoughrnthe fatherless John Surratt alsornfell prey to Booth’s charm and benefitedrnfrom his influence, he placed limits onrnboth his devotion and his service. Gonsequently,rnhe is the perfect narrator forrnthis book—a character who is involvedrnwith the main action but stands at a sufficientrndistance to comment honestly onrnit. (It also helps that he survived into thernsecond decade of the next century.)rnThe most aggrieved character inrnRobertson’s narrative (as well as in historicalrnfact) is John Surratt’s mother, Mary.rnOne of only a handful of women ever executedrnby the federal government, Mrs.rnSurratt was almost certainly guilty ofrnnothing more than having known JohnrnWilkes Booth. Even in the brief affairrnthat Robertson imagines between herrnand Booth, Mary comes off as a lonelyrnwidow whose temporary weakness ofrnthe flesh brings her more anguish thanrnpleasure. The affair, in turn, motivatesrnJohn Surratt’s break with Booth.rnInitially, one is encouraged to seernBooth as a man deluded into thinkingrnthat his quixotic plot to kidnap Lincolnrnwill bring an end to the national bloodshed.rnOnce peace is declared, however.rnBooth must murder the President, ostensiblyrnto redeem the honor of the South,rnbut actually to play out a personal deathrnwish. Up to the last moments of his life.rnBooth is a more consummate actor offstagernthan on. Whether with the menrnwho shared his false friendship or thernwomen who shared his bed. Booth alwaysrnknew how to play an audience. Hisrnbetrayal of the people who felt closest tornhim ultimately seems more real andrnmore damning than any wrong he inflictedrnon a nation he never claimed tornlove. If, as many historians believe, Reconstructionrnwas harsher because of Lincoln’srndeath, the final victim of Booth’srntreachery was the South itselfrnIf his encounter with Booth was thernworst thing that could have happened tornLincoln the man, it was one of the bestrnthings that could have befallen Lincolnrnthe myth. One can only speculate aboutrnwhat would have occurred had Lincolnrnlived to sen’e out his second term. Norndoubt he would still be ranked high byrnpresidential historians, who are alwaysrnready to be impressed by politicians whorncome out of desperate times on the winningrnside. Still, I suspect that the Lincolnrnof legend would not loom quiternso large in our national imaginafion. Inrndepriving us of the real Lincoln, whornwould have faced challenges in the nextrnfour years nearly as severe as those of thernpreceding term. Booth gave us the Lincolnrnwho might have been. This figurernis not the Old Testament God of the warrnyears but a benevolent New Testamentrndeity, who would have united us all —rnNorth and South, black and white —rnaround the table of reconciliation andrnbrotherhood. Thanks to Booth, we arernable to believe that the wounds and bitternessrnthat have plagued this nationrnsince April 14, 1865, would never havernexisted had Lincoln only lived. Booth’srnspectacular crime —committed onrnGood Friday, no less—can be treated asrna kind of feUx culpa, which has allowedrnus as a people to imagine so great a redeemer.rnGuriously enough, Edgar Lee Mastersrnhimself created a fictive Booth sevenrndecades before the publication of DavidrnRobertson’s novel. In his book of poemsrnGettysburg, Manila, Acoma (1930), Mastersrndepicts Booth anticipating his finalrnperformance. In what is surely unintendedrnirony, he declares:rnGod! If I die, send my motherrnwordrnI died for my country…. Now Irnmean to do.rnAnd do alone what armies couldrnnot do.rnLIBERAL ARTSrnHEALING RACISMrnDr. Charles Willie, a professor at Harvard University, is an educational consultantrnwho designed the “controlled choice” busing plans for Rockford,rnIllinois, and Boston (among other cities). While most proponents of busingrnargue that it must be done to benefit black children, Willie, in The Ivory andrnEbony Towers (Heath, 1981), argues that the real beneficiaries of desegregationrnare whites: “Blacks do not have the right to hoard the liberatingrnmethods that they have developed through years of suffering. . . . Whitesrnmust be taught about honesty, justice and altruism and learn how to be merciful,rnforgiving and trusting. Whites can learn to overcome their enslavementrnto the false idea that they are supreme only if they have the privilegernof living as a trusting minority.”rnSEPTEMBER 1998/29rnrnrn