Mudd Descendants visit Fort Jefferson NP

[Wild Bill]

In the last paragraph of his book, Decapitating the Union, Fazio admits to taking the reader on a “long, sometimes tedious, sometimes contentious, sometimes puzzling” journey. He thanks us for our perseverance in making the trip. “More importantly, I hope that this book has brought us closer to that will o’ the wisp known as truth,” Fazio says.
Fazio is determined to clear up many of the existing conundrums surrounding the Lincoln assassination even today, those “will o’ the wisp[s]” that lead to “truth.” He uses three “tools,” as he calls them, to find “truth”: Evidence (eyewitness, material and circumstantial), Reason, and an understanding of Human Nature to clear up errors, differences of opinion, and unknowns to prove conspiracy. It is a natural process when one considers his life-long law experience, but he often offers up speculation that he considers enlightened that informed readers might see otherwise.
I am willing to go along with most of what he says about Dr. Mudd, viz., “[if] we accept the theory that Dr. Mudd was ignorant of the crime, we have to ask ourselves: What did Dr. Mudd suppose had happened to Booth and Herold, the famous actor and dandy whom he knew quite well, to cause them to show up on his doorstep at 4:00 am in a bedraggled state, in terrible condition, and, in Booth's case, with a broken leg? Common sense dictates that he must have realized that only some very extraordinary circumstance would put them there at that time and in that condition. That he does not appear to have inquired or made an issue of it suggests that he already knew or at least had a very good idea of what brought them there at that time. In other words, if we accept as fact Dr. Mudd's recognition of one of his callers as Booth (and the case for it is clear and convincing), then we are almost compelled to accept his knowledge of Booth's crime.” Almost compelled, but not quite, is the implication here. This leaves open a lot of room for Mudd’s train of thought, if he had any beyond helping a hurt patient.
Fazio goes on: “[if] we accept the theory of ignorance, then we must suppose that all the help Booth and Herold received from the mail line operatives (Dr. Mudd, Cox, Jones, Hughes, Harbin, Baden, Bryant, Quesenberry, et al.) was spontaneous rather that prearranged. Does that seem likely? I think not[.]” I believe that some knew what Booth was doing (Harbin, Baden), some might have suspected it (Cox, Hughes, Struart), and others were ignorant (Quesenberry, Bryant). But no one was too surprised to find an unannounced stranger in need of assistance at their door night or day if they were part of the “Secret Line.” After all, the Confederate spy and agent Stringfellow preceded Booth all the way into Virginia by approximately the same route.
Finally, Fazio asserts: “[if ] we accept the theory of ignorance, we are almost forced to conclude that Dr. Mudd really and truly believed that Booth's conspiracy had kidnapping the President as its goal, rather than assassination, which, in my opinion, is absurd.” I do not know that we are forced to “almost forced to conclude” that it was “absurd” that Booth et al. never thought of or tried to abduct President Lincoln, at least “in my opinion,” but then I admittedly lack Fazio’s superior education knowledge as an attorney/historian, having spent 30 years wrangling horse and mules out here in fly-over country on the Mexican border.
Fazio correctly maintains overall that the whole truth about the Lincoln assassination will never be known because it is unknowable. We are fated to see but the crumbs from the table, trimmings, off-scourings, outlines, translucencies, and other leavings, as we humans cannot comprehend the whole truth about those chaotic hours, days, even months that surround April 1865.
But as a truly wise man once observed, “We learn from history how little we learn from history.