|
|
Dr. Samuel A. MuddAmerican History | 5 comments | Print This Post | Email This Post
Dr. Richard Stuart, another Confederate operative who lived south of the Potomac River in King George, Virginia, received Booth and Herold after Harbin saw them safely to Stuart’s house. Following his arrest, Stuart gave a statement to the authorities in which he said of Booth and Herold, They said Dr. Mudd had recommended them to me.31 Subscribe Today
And in 1893, Thomas A. Jones published a book describing his role in first hiding the two fugitives in a pine thicket after they had left Mudd’s house and then sending them over the Potomac River to Harbin in Virginia. Booth and Herold had been turned over to Jones by Samuel Cox, Sr., another Confederate agent in Charles County. Subsequently, Samuel Cox, Jr., who was present the night Booth and Herold arrived at his step-father’s home, made several notations in his personal copy of Jones’ book. His notations about Mudd included one about Mudd’s role as a mail drop for the Confederate underground.32 He also wrote that Mudd had admitted to him in 1877 that he knew from the beginning that it was Booth who came to his door seeking aid in the early morning of April 15, 1865.33 This is the same claim that Captain Dutton had made in July 1865.
These allegations cast a dark shadow over Mudd’s claim of innocence. The story of the other meeting adds substantially to Mudd’s role as an accomplice of Booth. It opens up a whole new perspective on claims by Mudd’s defenders that he was an innocent victim of a vengeful government as it rushed to judgment.
Dr. Mudd died of pneumonia in 1883 at the age of forty-nine. George Alfred Townsend once again wrote a column about the mysterious doctor from Maryland. Among several people from Charles County he interviewed was Frederick Stone, who served as Mudd’s defense attorney along with Thomas Ewing. Stone told Townsend shortly after Dr. Mudd’s death:
The court very nearly hanged Dr. Mudd. His prevarication’s were painful. He had given his whole case away by not trusting even his counsel or neighbors or kinfolk. It was a terrible thing to extricate him from the toils he had woven about himself. He had denied knowing Booth when he knew him well. He was undoubtedly accessory to the abduction plot, though he may have supposed it would never come to anything. He denied knowing Booth when he came to his house when that was preposterous. He had been even intimate with Booth.34
Nothing could be more damaging to Mudd’s claim of innocence than his own attorney’s condemnation. Those advocating Mudd’s innocence must explain his pattern of lying. An innocent man does not fear the truth. He neither misrepresents it nor withholds it. Dr. Mudd did both. Despite his own efforts and the efforts of his defenders to rewrite history, his name is still mud. 1 Mudd gave two statements as a result of his interrogation by authorities. Both statements are in the National Archives Records Administration (NARA), M-599, reel 5, frames 0212-0239. The statements may also be found in Laurie Verge, ed., From War Department Files. Statements Made By The Alleged Lincoln Conspirators Under Examination 1865 (Clinton: Surratt Society, 1980), 29-38 (hereinafter cited as Statements).
2 Statements, 30.
3 Statements, 31.
4 John Paul Jones, ed., Dr. Mudd and the Lincoln Assassination. The Case Reopened (Conshohocken: Combined Books, 1995), 254.
5 U.S. Congress, House, Committee on National Security, Subcommittee on Military Personnel, H. R. 1885, 105th Cong., 1st sess., May 7, 1997.
6 Representative Ewing, is related to Maj. Gen. Thomas Ewing one of Dr. Samuel Mudd’s two defense attorneys.
7 Richard D. Mudd v. Togo West, case number 1:97CVO2946 (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, December 9, 1997). Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Help HistoryNet by bookmarking to
            Tags: American History, Historical Figures, People
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
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. |
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. |
||
Loading ...
5 Comments to “Dr. Samuel A. Mudd”
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
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
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
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
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