Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

L Verge · (This post was last modified: 06-22-2014 11:56 AM by L Verge.)

I wish that I had not listened to the tape because it made me sad. My first introduction to Dr. Richard was when I was in my teens and my mother received a phone call from him wanting to hear our story of David Herold spending the night with her grandparents (the Huntts) in T.B. (April 13, 1865). My mother recounted the story, only to have Dr. Richard inform her, "That's ridiculous!" and then hang up on her.

It was another thirty years before I had the opportunity to meet Dr. Mudd at the Surratt House. I found him pleasant - but totally unwavering at that point on any question but that his grandfather was innocent. Frankly, if my ancestor, Eli Huntt, had been arrested and put through what the Mudds went through, I suspect I would be very defensive also. On the other hand, when I did read Atzerodt's statement about Huntt in T.B. being prepared to provide horses for the abduction, I was intrigued and rather proud to know that I had Confederates in the attic who supported their cause.

That said, I enjoyed Dr. Mudd's several visits, and he and I never were at sword's points. He also generously shared materials with us at Surratt House. This tape is troubling to me only because it reflects how the years had taken a toll on this man. There are a number of things I could quibble with, but won't. I would finally say that you have to respect Dr. Mudd for his devotion to the cause - just as I respect Dr. Samuel A. Mudd for (IMO) his support of the Confederate cause.

Now, if you have not already read this book, go find His Name Is Still Mudd by Edward Steers and also go the fantastic website that Bob Summers has on the entire Mudd story.

(06-22-2014 11:17 AM)Wild Bill Wrote: Why the Mudd family cannot admit that Dr Sam was a Confederate sympathizer and possible agent beats me, But Mike Kauffman agreed with them in American Brutus (New York Random House, 2004), 230-31, 243-45, 293-94. Here is some of the relevant material: The account that makes the most sense to me is Edward Steers, Jr., His Name is still Mud" (Gettysburg: Thomas, 1997), perhaps the best thing written on the Mudd case. See also, Dr. Mudd's Sense of Timing: The Trip to Bryantown," Dillon (ed.), The Lincoln Assassination: From the Pages of the Surratt Courier, VIII, 33-36. But not all are convinced. See John E. McHale, "A Letter in Response," ibid., VIII, 37-38; and Clark Larsen, "Response to Response in re Mudd," ibid., VIII, 39-42. See also, William A. Tidwell, "April 15, 1865," Surratt Courier, 22 (April-May-June 1997), 6-10, 5-10, 4-9; Kauffman, “Booth's Escape Route: Lincoln's Assassin on the Run,” Blue & Gray Magazine (June 1990), 17-18.
Advocates of Dr. Mudd's innocence often maintain that he was shown a picture of Edwin Booth, not John Wilkes, hence the denial he had seen that man at his house. This argument is belittled by critics who point out that the correct picture was shown the hapless doctor. We have taken the coward's way out and allowed Lt. Dana to get his Booths mixed up, verbally. But Mudd knew which Booth was at question, picture or not.
See the exchange between John E. McHale (on Mudd's behalf) and James O. Hall and Edward Steers, Jr., (against Mudd), which hit hard against the doctor's strict parsing of his answers to the Federal detectives' questions: Dillon (ed.), The Lincoln Assassination: From the Pages of the Surratt Courier, VIII, 1-30. See also, Steers, "The Wrong Picture," ibid., VIII, 31-32, and Steers, Blood on the Moon, xiii. A nice summary of he whole argument is Andrew Ferguson, “Last Battle of the Civil War [The Guilt or Innocence of Dr. Mudd],” Weekly Standard, 8 (December 30, 2002), [1-13].

I was typing my post while you were posting this one, Bill. I heartily agree that everyone should be reading the sources you have mentioned above. And may I just say that your Master's in Library Sciences sure serves all of us well because you can locate and cite relevant sources of information faster than any person I know! Add to that your command of history (courtesy of another Master's and a PhD -- and lots of reading and study) and you are a formidable encyclopedia.