During his initial interview with investigating detectives on April 18, 1865, Dr. Samuel A. Mudd claimed, ‘I never saw either of the parties before, nor can I conceive who sent them to my house.¹ With these words Dr. Mudd told the first in a series of lies about his involvement with John Wilkes Booth and Booth’s conspiracy to capture President Abraham Lincoln, a conspiracy that would ultimately lead to Lincoln’s assassination at Ford’s Theatre.

Subscribe Today

• Did you enjoy our article?
• Read more in American History magazine
• Subscribe online and save nearly 40%!!!
 

Mudd would change his statement one day later while en route to Bryantown, in Charles County, Maryland, under a military escort for further questioning. Apparently having had second thoughts about his first statement, in which he denied ever seeing Booth, Mudd now admitted, I have seen J. Wilkes Booth. I was introduced to him by Mr. J.C. Thompson, a son-in-law of Dr. William Queen, in November or December last.²

Mudd went on to more fully describe that meeting, telling of Booth’s alleged interest in acquiring land in Charles County and his desire to purchase a horse. In a handwritten statement, Mudd wrote, The next evening he [Booth] rode to my house and staid [sic] with me that night, and the next morning he purchased a rather old horse. He continued, I have never seen Booth since that time to my knowledge until last Saturday night.³ In those two statements, Mudd continued his pattern of lying. He knew the statements were false and was attempting to conceal other information that would prove even more incriminating. Mudd had not only seen Booth before, but he had met with Booth on at least three occasions prior to the assassin’s appearance on his doorstep. As to who was responsible for Booth and David Herold’s visit to Mudd’s house in the early morning hours of April 15, it was Mudd himself.

History has been much kinder to Mudd than the events in the assassination should warrant. The facts that have emerged about his involvement with Booth belie the popular image of Mudd as a gentle country doctor who unexpectedly became entangled in a tragic murder through no fault of his own. The current perception of an innocent Dr. Mudd is largely due to the tireless efforts of Dr. Richard Dyer Mudd, who has struggled for seventy years to clear his grandfather’s name and officially expunge the findings of the military tribunal that convicted him. His efforts have come close to fruition in the past decade.

In 1991 the Army Board for the Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), a civilian review board, agreed to permit a hearing on Mudd’s conviction. The procedure limited the testimony to only those witnesses favorable to Mudd’s case. The board did not consider innocence or guilt but only whether the military commission that tried Mudd had legal jurisdiction to do so. In deciding against the military commission 126 years after it ruled, the ABCMR recommended that the secretary of the Army set aside the guilty verdict and expunge the record in Dr. Mudd’s case. The assistant secretary of the Army, acting for the secretary, twice refused the recommendation of the board, stating in part, It is not the role of the ABCMR to attempt to settle historical disputes.⁴

That ruling resulted in Maryland Representative Steny Hoyer’s introducing a bill into the U.S. Congress directing the secretary of the Army to set aside the conviction of Dr. Samuel A. Mudd…for aiding, abetting, and assisting the conspirators who assassinated President Abraham Lincoln.⁵ One of the cosponsors of the bill was Representative Thomas Ewing of Illinois, who represents part of Lincoln’s original congressional district.⁶ As an added measure, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of Richard D. Mudd in December 1997 in the Federal Court for the District of Columbia seeking to force the secretary of the Army to accept the recommendation of the ABCMR.⁷ Persistent efforts to rewrite history, however, have obscured certain facts supporting the conclusions of the military commission that first found Dr. Mudd guilty.

Help HistoryNet by bookmarking to