LETTERS TO THE EDITOR IN THE CASE OF DR. MUDD

Letter to the Editor from Dr. James O. Hall
The Maryland Independent 8/1/97
LEAVE MATTER OF MUDD'S GUILT OR INNOCENCE TO HISTORIANS

On July 9, the Maryland Independent published an article sympathetic to Dr. Samuel A. Mudd in the Lincoln assassination case. Possibly readers would be interested in a somewhat different view. There is another side to this story, although it is rarely told.

Mudd was convicted by a military commission in 1865 of aiding and abetting John Wilkes booth in the conspiracy to assassinate President Abraham Lincoln. For many years, Mudd's grandson, Dr. Richard D. Mudd, had conducted a skillful political and public relations campaign to "clear his grandfather's name."

In June, Congressman Steny Hoyer responded to this public relations campaign by introducing H. R. 1885. This bill would order the secretary of the Army to "set aside" Mudd's conviction on the ground that it as not based on sufficient evidence.

Just how the evidence was lacking, Hoyer does not say. Obviously he has not taken time to study the trial transcript which is readily available in book form and in the national Archives. So the suspicion lingers that Hoyer is merely trolling for votes among the numerous Mudds, their kin and the "true-believers" in his congressional district.

Whatever his motive, Hoyer is seeking to legislate Mudd's innocence, a task the Congress is badly equipped to perform.

While serving a life sentence at Fort Jefferson, the island prison off the coast of Florida, Mudd treated victims of an outbreak of yellow fever. President Andrew Johnson recognized this service when he issued Mudd an unconditional pardon on Feb. 8, 1869.

Despite this pardon, Dr. Richard D. Mudd wants to go further; he ants somebody -- just about anybody -- to somehow rewrite history and "exonerate" his grandfather.

Petitions to this effect have twice been rejected by the office of the secretary of the Army once under the Bush administration, and more recently during the Clinton administration.

The rejection decisions were cogent and well-reasoned. They are too long to be quoted here. Accordingly, they have been assembled as a package, along with supporting papers, and placed where they can be read and copied.

These locations are the Maryland Historical Society, Baltimore; the Maryland Hall of Records, Annapolis; the Charles County Public Library, LaPlata; the Charles County Community College, LaPlata; and the Surratt Society Library, Clinton. Of particular interest in this package is a letter dated June 4, 1992, written by historian Floyd Risvold, Minneapolis, to the secretary of the Army; and an article by respected Lincoln scholar, Dr. Edward Steers, Berkeley Springs, W. Va.

The usual Mudd propaganda line, repeated over and over, and over and over again, is that Mudd was a kindly country physician, convicted by a vengeful government of aiding and abetting in the Lincoln assassination conspiracy only because he set the broken leg of Booth.

This is absolute nonsense. There was ample evidence to support conviction. Mudd's complicity with Booth is adequately covered in the assembled package of materials. But there are other aspects of the Mudd case that warrant a closer look.

Mudd's deeply held beliefs were revealed in a long and bitter letter of Jan. 13, 1862, sent to O. A. Brownson, a prominent lay Catholic scholar. In this letter, Mudd comes over as anti-Lincoln, pro-Confederate and pro-slavery. At one point in his ardent defense of slavery, Mudd wrote: "Christ, our Savior found slavery on his coming and yet he made to command against its practice." Mudd was furious with Brownson because he had published abolitionist sentiments in a Catholic magazine. A printed version of this letter is included in the package; the original is in the Brownson papers, Notre Dame University.

In the 1860s, the black population of Southern Maryland was nearly all slave. These people know little of dates or geography, a great deal about neighborhood affairs and local citizens, and almost everything about the master and his family. Talk and actions often went on in front of them as if they were not there to hear and see. But the black servant were there watching, listening, remembering. Their oral communication grapevine spread news with surprising speed and accuracy.

With the coming of the civil War and its inherent promise of freedom, the stored-up slave resentments against the system began to emerge with increasing frequency and force. With respect to Dr. Samuel A. Mudd, the prosecution tapped into resentment about his threats, he harsh treatment of some slaves, and his pro-Confederate actions and language.

On May 25, 1865, the judge advocate brought in seven former slaves to testify against Mudd in the Lincoln assassination conspiracy trial. Five of these were former slaves of Mudd; Mary Simms, Elzee Eglen, Melvina Washington, Milo Simms and Rachel Spenser. Silvester Eglen had been a slave of Mudd's father. William Marshall had not been a slave of the Mudds. However, Marshall's wife had been a slave of Benjamin Gardiner, a neighbor of Mudd.

A verbatim copy of the recorded testimony of these seven former slaves is included in the assembled information package. The essence of this testimony is a word picture of Dr. Samuel A. Mudd that erases much of the protective coloration painted by his apologists, including Hoyer.

That it would not be out of character for Mudd to become involved with John Wilkes Booth in a plan to capture Lincoln.

That Mudd's farm had been used as a sort of "safe place" for Confederate agents such as John H. Surratt and Walter "Wat" Bowie.

That Mudd's home was used as a "mail drop" for letters coming from and going to the Confederacy.

That Mudd shot and wounded one of his slaves, Elzee Eglen.

That Mudd threatened to send several of his male slave, including Elzee Eglen, to Richmond to build Confederate fortifications.

The Mudd family has constantly sought to create the "kindly country physician" image for Dr. Samuel A. Mudd.

At time he is described in terms that make him appear almost saintly. As part of this image- making process, the U.S. Postage Service has been bombarded with requests to issue a comemorative stamp of Dr. Mudd. But what is kindly about threats to separate male slaves from their families for forced work in Richmond on Confederate fortifications? And certainly there was nothing kindly about Dr. Mudd shooting his slave, Elzee Eglen, or using the lash on his slave, Mary Simms, even after she became a free woman.

Perhaps it would be best for Hoyer to withdraw H. R. 1885 and leave the matter of Mudd's guilt or innocence to competent researchers and historians. They will have the last word anyway.

James O. Hall
McLean, Virginia

Continue on to the next letter Return to the Current Events page Return to the Surratt House Museum Home Page

Letter to the Editor from Mr. John E. McHale, Jr.
The Maryland Independent 8/8/97
DIFFERENT PICTURE OF DR. MUDD

When I read James O. Hall's letter in your Aug. 1 issue dealing with Dr. Samuel A. Mudd, my first inclination was to simply ignore it, for it is the same old song Hall and the handful of his associates have been singing for several years now.

But I decided that wouldn't be fair to either Mudd or Congressman Steny Hoyer, who has been making a good faith effort to set the record straight after more than 130 years.

By way of background, I have spent more than 10 years studying President Abraham Lincoln's murder and the resulting military commission hearing. In 1985, Simon and Schuster published my "Dr. Samuel A. Mudd and the Lincoln Assassination." I am a retired FBI agent who supervised organized crime investigations at bureau headquarters for some 16 years, so I think I know a real conspiracy case when I see one.

Therefore, let me say right up front at no time, during its trial of 1865, did the government ever prove any criminal act on Mudd's part.

And, when Hall claims that proof of "Mudd's complicity with (John Wilkes) Booth is adequately covered" in a group of "packages" which he has apparently filed, he is not being completely forthright

The only so-called "proofs" consist of two statements, one issued 20 years after the fact, and one 30 years afterward, plus an ambiguous statement contained in George Atzerodt's lost confession... (text obliterated here)...and, while his case was still pending appeal, to one of his guards that he had recognized Booth while setting his broken leg.

The arguments against these four "proofs" is overwhelming, but, as Hall said, they are much too long to be quoted here.

In regards to Dr. Mudd's record as a slave owner, Hall elected to pick and choose his "facts" from the 1865 trial in order to convict him by innuendo when nothing else would suffice.

To begin with, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were both slave owners. Does that make them criminals?

Moreover, six former slaves who worked for Mudd, after being freed, testified at his trial that "he treated me first rate," that he "always treated his servants well" and that "Dr. Mudd was kind to all of us," to list but some of their endorsements.

In addition, four of the six accused Mary Simms the principal witness who claimed that Mudd abused his servants as a person who was "never known to tell the truth," as "not a very great truth teller," as having "a bad name as a story teller," and as one who was laughed at by the other servants because "she told such lies they could not believe her."

One of these lies even led Hall to accuse Mudd of whipping the young woman, ignoring the testimony of another servant and former slave, Julia Ann Bloyce, that she never saw or heard of Simms being whipped, but she did know of one occasion when Mrs. Mudd hit...(text obliterated here)..."I don't believe it hurt her." (I wonder if this is in one of Hall's packages.)

Another story promulgated by the thoroughly discredited Simms and her brother, Sylvester Eglent, was that Mudd had threatened disobedient servants with being sent to Richmond to "build batteries" if they disobeyed him, and Hall appears to have swallowed this fable hook, line and sinker, or else he merely capitalized upon it to promote his cause.

In all honesty, however, I must admit that there is one occurrence in Mudd's life of which I doubt even he was proud.

As best can be determined, his quiet demeanor finally snapped under the "obstreperous" behavior of still a second brother, Elzee Eglent, and when the latter flagrantly defied Mudd on one occasion and started walking away, Mudd picked up a shotgun and fired some buckshot in Eglent's general direction to "scare" him. Instead, several pellets inadvertently struck Eglent in the leg, whereupon Mudd laid down his gun, administered first aid and gave the wounded man several days off to recuperate.

After his return from prison, Mudd resumed his practice of medicine, and several years ago my wife and I were told an interesting story by the late Wilson Moore, then patriarch of one of the largest and most distinguished African-American families in Prince George's County.

According to Moore, his father used to talk about one time when he was a young boy and Mudd had come from Charles county to treat...(text obliterated here)...While waiting for the medicine to take effect, Mudd sat down in the living room with the young boy and told him the story of Lincoln's assassination and how he himself had come to be sent to prison. Unfortunately, Moore didn't remember the details of his father's conversation after all those years, but I think the incident gives a decidedly different picture of Mudd than the one Hall painted.

No one has ever said that Mudd was saintly, or even "almost saintly," but he was a good family man, a devout Catholic and a citizen who was entitled to his day in court. Thanks to Hoyer, he may finally be getting that day.

John E. McHale Jr. Suitland, Maryland

Continue on to the next letter Return to the Current Events page Return to the Surratt House Museum Home Page

Letter to the Editor from Dr. Edward Steers, Jr.
The Maryland Independent 8/15/97
THE DR. MUDD DEBATE CONTINUES

My comments concern several statements made by John McHale in his letter (Maryland Independent, Aug. 8). McHale is not correct when he writes that the government did not prove "...any criminal act on (Dr. Samuel A.) Mudd's part." The government proved, and subsequently convicted Mudd of the specification that he conspired with John Wilkes Booth in Booth's conspiracy to capture Abraham Lincoln; a conspiracy which ultimately led to Lincoln's murder, and that he knowingly aided and abetted Booth in his effort to escape the federal authorities. There is no doubt among any reasonable student of the assassination that Mudd knew Booth when he came to his house in the early morning hours of April 15, 1865, and that Mudd learned of Lincoln's murder while Booth was still a "patient" of Mudd's. This proves aiding and abetting the murderer of President Lincoln.

In addition to the two statements which implicate Mudd in Booth's conspiracy and which McHale trivializes (statements of Samuel Cox Jr. and Confederate agent Thomas Harbin), he overlooks two additional statements by Dr. Richard Stuart and William Bryant, another Confederate secret service agent, both of whom said that Mudd had sent Booth and Herold to Stuart's house after leaving Mudd.'s.

As to George Atzerodt's "one statement" in his "lost" confession, it is anything but ambiguous as claimed by McHale. Atzerodt stated, "...Dr. Mudd knew all about it, as Booth sent (as he told me) liquors and provisions for the trip with the President to Richmond, about two weeks before the murder, to Dr. Mudd's" What is ambiguous in this statement? Atzerodt's statement was not made under duress, but was made to Atzerodt's own brother-in-law who was on the staff of Provost Marshal James L. McPhail, both of whom had come to Atzerodt at his own request.

The "alleged admission" referred to by McHale was given in sworn affidavit by Capt. George W. Dutton, who was the officer in charge of escorting Mudd and his three co-conspirators to Fort Jefferson. The same admission which Samuel Cox Jr. said Mudd confided to him in 1877.

The statements by these six individuals are dismissed by Mudd's defenders as being lies by known liars. It was Mudd, however, who did the lying. This is proven by the record, and by Mudd's own statements. When Mudd told authorities that he "...never saw either of the parties before , nor can I conceive who sent them to my house," he lied. He had met with Booth on at least three prior occasions. On two of these occasions he introduced two key conspirators to John Wilkes Booth who were important to Booth's capture plans: John H. Surratt Jr. and Thomas Harbin. Both of these men were Confederate agents and both agreed to join Booth's plot as a result of Mudd's introduction. And both men later fingered Mudd as the man who did the introductions.

When Mudd finally admitted (in writing) that Booth had been an overnight guest in his house one Sunday evening in November 1864 and purchased a horse from Mudd's nearest neighbor the next day, he lied. He lied to cover up a much more important meeting with Confederate agent Thomas Harbin in December of the same year. That is when Booth stayed the night with Mudd and purchased the horse. We know Mudd lied because he inadvertently let the truth slip in an affidavit he filed while in prison. Innocent men do not lie. Mudd lied, and he lied repeatedly.

In Mudd's treatment of his slaves and his concept of blacks, you need only read Mudd's own writings to see that he was a racist who described blacks as "...irresponsible beings of the unbleached humanity," and that he suffered the "...humiliation of being guarded by an ignorant, irresponsible and prejudiced negro soldiery."

McHale puts the best light on Mudd's shooting of one of his slaves. After all, the slave was "obstreperous." In his letter, McHale does not quote but paraphrases the testimony of Jeremiah T. Mudd concerning the shooting incident. This appears to soften the incident. McHale writes that Samuel Mudd "...fired some buckshot in Eglent's general direction..." He did not. He fired directly at him. Jeremiah Mudd said that Dr. Mudd "...had his gun with him, and he thought he would shoot him..."

Nowhere in the testimony does it state that "several pellets inadvertently struck Elgent in the leg..." The evidence from all witnesses including Samuel Mudd's own witnesses which included family members, was that Mudd shot his slave. Not in the "general direction," not "inadvertently striking Mr. Eglent with several pellets."

Mudd took his gun and intentionally shot Eglent in anger. Eglent was hit, suffered wounds and had to be treated. This was not some training exercise that Samuel Mudd was teaching his slave proper behavior. This is also not the image we have all been raised on of the kindly country doctor who was persecuted for nothing more than adhering to his Hippocratic oath.

Lastly, Dr. Samuel A. Mudd did have his day in court. Not once, but three times during his lifetime.

First before a military tribunal, second in federal district court before a federal judge and finally, before the U.S. Supreme Court through the appeal of his co-conspirators Samuel Arnold and Edman Spangler. Mudd lost before the first two courts.

The third court, the Supreme Court, ruled the appeal moot since Arnold and Spangler were pardoned on March 1, 1869, before the court could hand down a ruling. Mudd had been pardoned before the case was argued.

The majority of students of the assassination come down hard on the country doctor who escaped the gallows by his effective lying. They remain convinced that his name is still Mudd.

Edward Steers Jr.
Berkeley Springs, W. Va.

Return to the first letter Return to the Current Events page

Surratt House Return to Surratt House Museum Homepage
Page maintained by Surratt Society Webkeeper