HistoryNet mastheadHistoryNetShop Summer Catalog

Dr. Samuel A. Mudd

American History  | 5 comments  | Print This Post  | Email This Post

When Booth came to Mudd’s house in the early morning of April 15, 1865, seeking medical aid, it was the fourth time that the two men had met, and none of the four meetings had been accidental. In his three previous meetings with Booth, Mudd had played a pivotal role in Booth’s scheme to assemble an action team8 to capture President Lincoln and carry him to Richmond as a prisoner of the Confederacy. Booth not only was an overnight guest at Mudd’s house during one of the three meetings but also had sent provisions to Mudd’s house for use during the planned kidnapping of the president.9

Subscribe Today

Subscribe to American History magazine

Mudd’s statement that Booth spent the night at his house after their introduction in November 1864 and that he purchased a horse the next morning is not true. Those events did not occur in November as Mudd claimed, but in December. The reason Mudd would lie about such occurrences was self-preservation. He hoped to keep secret the number of times he had associated with Booth.

During Mudd’s trial, evidence was introduced by the prosecution showing that Mudd and Booth had indeed met prior to April 15, 1865. Louis Weichmann, the government’s key witness, told of an earlier meeting involving Mudd and Booth in Washington, D.C., at which Weichmann was present. Weichmann testified that while he and John Surratt, Jr., were walking along Seventh Street toward Pennsylvania Avenue, they met Booth and Mudd coming from the opposite direction.10 After introductions, the four men retired to Booth’s room at the National Hotel, a short distance away. Weichmann testified that during the meeting Mudd and Booth stepped into the hall and engaged in a subdued conversation that Weichmann could hear but could not discern the actual words. The two men were subsequently joined by Surratt before all three men returned to the room where Weichmann was sitting. Booth, Surratt, and Mudd sat around a table in the center of the room while Booth drew something on the back of an envelope–Weichmann said he thought it resembled a map. Whatever was discussed among the three men, one thing is certain: As a result of Mudd’s introduction of Surratt to Booth, Surratt agreed to join Booth in his plot to capture Lincoln.

Although Mudd’s defense attorney, Maj. Gen. Thomas Ewing, denied that the meeting had taken place, Mudd himself acknowledged that the meeting had taken place in an affidavit he prepared in August 1865 while in prison at Fort Jefferson, in the Florida Keys. It was in his affidavit that Mudd inadvertently let slip that yet another meeting involving Booth and himself had occurred in mid-December, immediately before the meeting in Washington.

After his conviction Mudd and co-conspirators Michael O’Laughlen, Samuel Arnold, and Edman Spangler were transported to Fort Jefferson, where the men were scheduled to serve out their prison sentences. During the trip they were placed under a military guard commanded by Captain George W. Dutton. Captain Dutton later claimed that during the journey Mudd had confessed that he knew Booth when he came to his house with Herold on the morning after the assassination of the President. The captain said that Mudd also confessed that he was with Booth at the National Hotel on the day referred to by Weichmann in his testimony; and that he came to Washington on that occasion to meet Booth by appointment who wished to be introduced to John Surratt.11

Neither of those admissions were revelations to the government, which suspected the first and had proved the second. The trial was over. Mudd had been convicted and was now serving a life sentence in the isolation of Fort Jefferson. The government had lost interest in Mudd, but Mudd had not lost interest in trying to gain his release through the federal judicial system.

Word of Dutton’s statement reached Mudd in prison, and Mudd knew that he had to respond to Dutton’s charges if he was ever to regain his freedom. On August 28, 1865, Mudd prepared an affidavit in which he denied telling Dutton that he knew it was Booth who arrived at his house on April 15, only hours after Lincoln was shot. His denial was important; for if Mudd had allowed Dutton’s accusation to stand it would have meant that the doctor had indeed knowingly aided and abetted the murderer of President Lincoln. But while denying any knowledge of Booth, Mudd inadvertently admitted for the first time to the meeting at the National Hotel with Booth, Surratt, and Weichmann on December 23, 1864, thus confirming the government’s charge made during the trial.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Tags: , ,

HistoryNet.com Subject Locator
  1. 5 Comments to “Dr. Samuel A. Mudd”

  2. I met Mudd’s grandson, 20 years or so ago. He invited me to his house in Saginaw, Mi. He had me convinced. But after more reading and research, I have probably come to the conclusion that Mudd did know Booth. He did realize soon on that it was Booth whose leg he was fixing. And I think that he probably told Mudd that he had just shot Lincoln. I’m still not convinced that he had anything to do with the assassination or kidnappng beyond that. Getting life in prison (although pardoned by Johnson) seemed a bit harsh. I think 10 years would have covered it.

    By Randy on Jun 19, 2008 at 7:35 pm

  3. Mudd was guity then and he is guity now,his name is mudd for a reason.

    By katie kennedy on Jan 17, 2009 at 11:21 pm

  4. I am trying to rember to famous actor ….female…..that was performing at Ford Theatre the night Booth assisinated President Lincoln. Does anyone know? Thank you,

    By Barbara Renfrow on Mar 18, 2009 at 7:11 pm

  5. Barbara,

    It was Laura Keene, playing in the 1000th performance of Our American Cousin.

    Regards,
    Archie

    By A. MacLean on Jun 2, 2009 at 6:47 pm

  6. Unfortunately, based, no doubt, on John Ford’s treatment of Mudd in his 1936 film, The Prisoner of Shark Island, the modern view of Mudd’s complicity in the Lincoln assassination has been blurred considerably. In tfiis work, written for the screen by Nunally Johnson, a Georgian, Mudd is seen as simply a doctor who helps strangers who come to his door late at night. Not only did he not know Booth, acording to the film,he did not recognize him when he came to his house then. The film further resurrects all sorts of racist themes, like the carpetbagger myth, the good slave owner (Mudd!), the hapless slaves, Northern brutality (a Northern soldier breaking the doll of Mudd’s daughter in front f the girl (!), etc. None of the facts of Mudd’s complicity, or the trial transcript with incriminating evidence are presented. In fact, Ford intentionally misrepresents history by suggesting that there was no evidence whatsoever of Mudd’s guilt when the reverse is true. He bases the movie entirely on the self serving fabrication of Mudd’s daughter, who penned a tribute to her father.

    By cliff meneken on Jun 30, 2009 at 1:14 pm

Post a Comment

Please note that HistoryNet Staff cannot respond to requests for research of any type. Please visit our research forum to post research questions. If you have a question about our magazines, please use the contact us form.

Related Articles



SPONSORED SITES







HistoryNet Article Archives Historynet Spacer

OPINION POLL

Which of these World War I aircraft was the best fighter plane?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

See previous polls

STAY CONNECTED WITH US

RSS Feed
 
Get Our Daily HistoryNet Email
 
 


What is HistoryNet?

The HistoryNet.com is brought to you by the Weider History Group, the world's largest publisher of history magazines. HistoryNet.com contains daily features, photo galleries and over 5,000 articles originally published in our various magazines.

If you are interested in a specific history subject, try searching our archives, you are bound to find something to pique your interest.

 Get our RSS!
 Newsletter Signup

From Our Magazines

Weider History Group

Weider History Network:  HistoryNet | Armchair General | Great History | Achtung Panzer!

Terms of Use | Copyright © 2009 Weider History Group. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Contact Us|Advertise With Us|Subscription Help