HistoryNet mastheadHistoryNetShop Summer Catalog

Dr. Samuel A. Mudd

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

Booth also was seen in the Bryantown area in mid-December by a third person, who was called as a government witness during the trial. John F. Hardy, who lived midway between Bryantown and the Mudd farm, testified to seeing Booth at St. Mary’s Church near Bryantown on two separate occasions, the first in November, the second about a month after but before Christmas. Hardy went on to testify: On Monday evening, I rode to Bryantown to see if I could get my horse shod; and I met Mr. Booth…a little above Bryantown riding by himself. He was riding a horse in the road leading straight to Horse Head, or he could not come to this point, to Washington, on the same road.18

Subscribe Today

Subscribe to American History magazine

This testimony places Booth in Bryantown on Monday eveningduring his second visit in December. Evidence that Booth purchased the one-eyed horse from George Gardiner during this second visit is gleaned from testimony of Thomas Gardiner. He testified that Booth bought a horse from his uncle on a Monday just as Mudd had claimed, and continued, Booth requested my Uncle to send the horse to Bryantown the next morning [Tuesday]; and I took the horse myself the next morning to Bryantown. If Booth had purchased the horse on Monday and took delivery on Tuesday, it is clear that the purchase could not have happened in November, since Booth’s letter to Burch and Bunker’s memo both place him in Washington on Monday, November 14. Booth simply could not have been in two places at the same time.

Mudd probably lied about Booth’s overnight stay at his house in November and about purchasing a horse the next day to cover up his second Charles County meeting with Booth. Clues to the doctor’s reasons for meeting with Booth a second time can be found in an 1892 article written for the Cincinnati Enquirer by George Alfred Townsend.19 In 1885, Townsend, a journalist who had written extensively on the Lincoln assassination and those involved, interviewed a man named Thomas Harbin. Harbin had served during the war as a Confederate secret service agent involved in covert operations in Charles County, Maryland, including the Bryantown area, and in King George County, Virginia.

Harbin was well-acquainted with Mudd. He had once lived a few miles south of the Mudd farm and had served as postmaster at Bryantown before the war.20 He was well-connected throughout the area and knew virtually all the Confederate operatives working between Washington and Richmond. According to Harbin’s statement, he went to Bryantown in December 1864 at Mudd’s request and met with him and his friend at the Bryantown Tavern on Sunday, December 18. Harbin told of being introduced to Booth by Mudd, and although Harbin described Booth as acting rather theatrical, he consented to assist Booth in his plan to capture Lincoln. Summarizing what happened during that meeting, Townsend wrote, Harbin was a cool man who had seen many liars and rogues go to and fro in that illegal border and he set down Booth as a crazy fellow, but at the same time said that he would give his cooperation.21

Whatever Harbin may have thought of Booth, he agreed to join in the conspiracy. The enlistment of Harbin in Booth’s scheme was vitally important–as important as the enlistment of Surratt. Both were Confederate agents, highly competent, trusted and well-connected throughout the Confederate underground route between Washington and Richmond. Both men knew the intricacies of safe routes and safe houses located throughout southern Maryland.22

Harbin also helped by joining with Surratt to recruit George A. Atzerodt in Booth’s conspiracy.23 This showed that Harbin’s involvement in the plot was not superficial but serious. His help would later prove invaluable when Booth and Herold made their escape south from Washington, D.C., after crossing the Potomac River into Virginia.24 Booth had Mudd to thank for the enlistment of Harbin and Surratt into his team.

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