Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
Alright guys, since today is the 143 anniversary of the Lincoln Assassination, I figured I would see where some of y'all come down on one of the ongoing arguments pertaining to the assassination and the aftermath.
I have been doing some reading on the case of Dr. Mudd. I live near the Mudd house, and his part of the escape has always fascinated me. There are some who believe that Dr. Mudd was completely innocent of the crime that he was charged with and that he had no part in the conspiracy to either kidnap or kill Lincoln. Then there are others, Ed Steers being an example, that hold to the story that he was complicit in the plot to at least kidnap Lincoln, and therefore deserved atleast some of what he got.
I have been reading The Life of Dr. Samuel A. Mudd, the book published by his daughter, which contains his personal statement, his defense during his "trial" and letters he wrote while in prison. I really think he was innocent, and was basically found guilty by association. It was common knowledge that he had met Booth when he had come down in November of 1864, probably to scout out routes to take the kidnapped president to Virginia, but that was basically it. I don't think he knew it was Booth when he set his leg, having only met the man once and Booth being incognito.
So what is everybody elses take on the Mudd issue? Was he a part of the conspiracy? Or was he an innocent doctor, fulfilling the Hippocratic oath and giving aid to an injured man who turned out to be the most wanted man in the United States?
__________________ "War is, at its best, barbarism." General W.T. Sherman
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it." General R.E. Lee
So what is everybody elses take on the Mudd issue? Was he a part of the conspiracy? Or was he an innocent doctor, fulfilling the Hippocratic oath and giving aid to an injured man who turned out to be the most wanted man in the United States?
All of the above. Can't deny that he knew Booth and may very well have sat in on some talk of kidnapping. However, I don't see where he could have known about the assassination when he set Booth's leg. His earlier complicity got him wrapped up in the later action. It happens.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
All of the above. Can't deny that he knew Booth and may very well have sat in on some talk of kidnapping. However, I don't see where he could have known about the assassination when he set Booth's leg. His earlier complicity got him wrapped up in the later action. It happens.
ole
Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas?
__________________ "There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals figthing in it... Of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent." David Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered (1961)
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
That seems to be what I hear alot. I am still not quite sure, but I think he was innocent for the most part. I do want to read the court proceedings if I am able to get ahold of them though, as I think they would be quite interesting.
There is no doubt that Mudd was a Southern sympathizer, from many of the letters of his I have read. He had very little respect for the black man (though many had little as it was) and he did not have a good view of the Union prosecution of the war. Relatives of his did fight for the Confederacy. So there isn't any doubt, I think it is safe to say, that his sympathies lay south of the Potomac.
It is clear that Booth had come down to Charles County in November of 1864, and that he did meet Booth and stayed at his place. But this is the first time they met, and it doesn't seem that they met when Booth came down the next month. And the alleged meeting that supposedly occured on the 23d of December in Washington seems to be just a coincidental meeting.
If Mudd was really in on the conspiracy, then what is the need of a disguise? If Mudd was in on the conspiracy, wouldn't Booth just have to show up, and ask for aid? Why would Mudd, the next day, go into Bryantown and ask his brother to go and tell the authorities his suspicions about the two men who had shown up, one whose whiskers were "falling" off? I don't think that Mudd was complicit in the plot, and was an unwitting pawn. Guilty by association, nothing esle.
__________________ "War is, at its best, barbarism." General W.T. Sherman
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it." General R.E. Lee
I'm going to assume, here, that Booth did not factor in a fractured fibia. Or was it a tibia? One of those.
There was no way Mudd could have known that Lincoln had been assasinated. He might have been up to his ears in a conspiracy, but that night, he didn't know diddly.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
While my southern genes and a few others are pulling for the good Doc, I'm not sure I could have kept him out of the slammer. The part about the fleas may have been his undoing.
__________________
Ancestors in US Army: 13th TN Cav; 10th TN Cav; 3rd NC Inf
Ancestors in CSA Army: 48th VA; 63rd VA, 5th NC Cav; 37th NC
Wife and Grandson's CSA: 15th AL, 51st GA, 41st TN; 36th TN; GA Mil 1197 Dist
I'm going to assume, here, that Booth did not factor in a fractured fibia. Or was it a tibia? One of those.
There was no way Mudd could have known that Lincoln had been assasinated. He might have been up to his ears in a conspiracy, but that night, he didn't know diddly.
ole
That is something that General Ewing, Mudd's defense attorney at his trial, brought up. Booth didn't intend to break his leg. If his spur hadn't caught the Treasury flag, then the could landed, done a little (theatrical) tuck and roll and been off. He would have headed for the Potomac and might possibly have escaped.
There is the theory that Mudd was a part of the kidnap Lincoln plot, and I am still trying to piece that together myself. As I said, he was a Southern sympathizer. He had relatives that fought for the south. But, that plot did not materialize. If he was a part of that, along with Sam Arnold and Michael O'Laughlen, then he is guilty of that fact. But, he was being charged as an accesory after the fact to the murder of Lincoln (something which Ewing well proves, using contemporary law, he was not) and as a part of the conspiracy to assassinate the president, something I hold he had no part in. So why try him? I think they wanted somebody to blame. They couldn't get Booth on trial, so they brought in men (and a woman) who were somewhat involved, either consciously or not. Spangler, to be sure, wasn't involved. He was an unfortunate, caught up in the mess.
__________________ "War is, at its best, barbarism." General W.T. Sherman
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it." General R.E. Lee
There is the theory that Mudd was a part of the kidnap Lincoln plot, and I am still trying to piece that together myself. As I said, he was a Southern sympathizer. He had relatives that fought for the south. But, that plot did not materialize. If he was a part of that, along with Sam Arnold and Michael O'Laughlen, then he is guilty of that fact. But, he was being charged as an accesory after the fact to the murder of Lincoln (something which Ewing well proves, using contemporary law, he was not) and as a part of the conspiracy to assassinate the president, something I hold he had no part in. So why try him? I think they wanted somebody to blame. They couldn't get Booth on trial, so they brought in men (and a woman) who were somewhat involved, either consciously or not. Spangler, to be sure, wasn't involved. He was an unfortunate, caught up in the mess.
I think you have hit the nail, as it were. The national catharsis after the assassination required punishing someone and since they could not punish Booth, it required lashing out at those who were in reach. As often happens today, unfortunately, I think there was proabably a tendancy in Mudd's trial to think "well, even if he's not guilty of this, he's guilty of something, so we'll hang him for that."
I must admit to not being very up on the whole affair, but under current law if Mudd was involved in a conspiracy to kidnap, which plot resulted in a murder, he would be guilty of murder. The question here would be whether the assassination truly grew out of the same plot.
__________________ "There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals figthing in it... Of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent." David Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered (1961)
During the war, there were numerous spies that traveled between Washington, D.C. and Virginia. It wasn't as if Booth had just established routes, safe houses, and people who would aid someone traveling to Confederate Virginia.
One interesting account is a confession by George Atzerodt who was hung for the Lincoln assassination. Dr. Mudd would have been a safe house location for spies and provide physician services if needed.
The Atzerodt confession was found, in the papers of his trial attorney, Captain William E. Doster.
"I am certain Dr. Mudd knew all about it, as Booth sent (as he told me) liquors & provisions for the trip with the President to Richmond, about two weeks before the murder to Dr. Mudd's."
***
While Dr. Mudd may not have been directly involved in the assassination of Lincoln, he surely was part of the Confederate spy network, that Booth used to make his planned get-away.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Dr. Mudd...Guilty or Innocent? 
Linear Mode
