Dr. Mudd's slave who cooked breakfast for JWB and David Herold

[RJNorton]

Thanks to Laurie for sending this article from Bob Summers’ excellent book on the Mudds and slavery. It's about a young slave who said she prepared breakfast for Booth and Herold. Her younger sister carried the tray upstairs.

CLICK HERE.

[J. Beckert]

If that's true, (regarding the two 25 cent pieces) it shows a little more of the kindness Booth was noted for and puts another chink in the old "He was a racist" rant from those those that view him through a 21st. Century prism.

Neat piece.

[John Fazio]

(03-01-2018 04:27 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  Thanks to Laurie for sending this article from Bob Summers’ excellent book on the Mudds and slavery. It's about a young slave who said she prepared breakfast for Booth and Herold. Her younger sister carried the tray upstairs.

CLICK HERE.

Roger:

I second the motion on thanks to Laurie.

Just so I have the time element straight, if Booth and Herold arrived at the Mudd farm at about 4:00 am on the morning of April 15 (which is the conventional wisdom), and Ms. Dade said that Dr. Mudd woke her at "about 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning", then this must have been on the 16th, i.e. Booth and Herold had already spent a full day there. And yet she says that Dr. Mudd was setting Booth's leg upstairs, which is why Louisa had to bring the breakfast up to him. This means that one of three things has to be true: Ms. Dade is mistaken as to the time she was woken; it must have been after 4:00 am, more likely about 5:00 am. Or, Booth's leg was set by Dr. Mudd on the second day that he was there (the 16th), which seems most unlikely. Or, Dr. Mudd and, presumably Frankie, his wife, knew in advance that Booth and Herold (or at least Booth) would be there in the wee hours of the 15th. Which is correct? Am I missing something?

John

[RJNorton]

John, like you, I noticed she was off in her memory of the time she was first awakened. Here's Mrs. Mudd's account of the timing of events:

"About 4 A. M. on the 15th of April, 1865, I heard a rap on the door, and as my husband was not feeling well he asked me if I would not go and see who it was. I replied, "I would rather you would go and see for yourself." He arose and went to the door in his night clothes. I heard some one talking in the hall, and footsteps as they passed into the parlor. My husband returned and told me there was a man out there with his leg broken. He asked me to tear some strips for bandages. I did so. Afterward I heard my husband and a third man assisting the injured man up-stairs. The Doctor returned, and went to bed himself. At 6 o clock I arose, called the servants to get breakfast, and at 7 waked my husband. He sent a servant to tell the man who called himself "Tyson" (and who afterward proved to be Herold) to come to breakfast. I then prepared breakfast for the sick man, put it on a tray, and sent it to his room by a servant; told her to place it on the table by his bed and come down. Tyson and my husband then came to the table, and while at breakfast Tyson asked the Doctor if he knew many persons in the lower part of the county near the river."



I think Mrs. Mudd's memory of a 4 A.M. arrival is universally accepted by authors. Offhand, I cannot think of any books I have ever read that gave a different time.

[L Verge]

(03-01-2018 06:00 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  John, like you, I noticed she was off in her memory of the time she was first awakened. Here's Mrs. Mudd's account of the timing of events:

"About 4 A. M. on the 15th of April, 1865, I heard a rap on the door, and as my husband was not feeling well he asked me if I would not go and see who it was. I replied, "I would rather you would go and see for yourself." He arose and went to the door in his night clothes. I heard some one talking in the hall, and footsteps as they passed into the parlor. My husband returned and told me there was a man out there with his leg broken. He asked me to tear some strips for bandages. I did so. Afterward I heard my husband and a third man assisting the injured man up-stairs. The Doctor returned, and went to bed himself. At 6 o clock I arose, called the servants to get breakfast, and at 7 waked my husband. He sent a servant to tell the man who called himself "Tyson" (and who afterward proved to be Herold) to come to breakfast. I then prepared breakfast for the sick man, put it on a tray, and sent it to his room by a servant; told her to place it on the table by his bed and come down. Tyson and my husband then came to the table, and while at breakfast Tyson asked the Doctor if he knew many persons in the lower part of the county near the river."



I think Mrs. Mudd's memory of a 4 A.M. arrival is universally accepted by authors. Offhand, I cannot think of any books I have ever read that gave a different time.

I agree completely with Mrs. Mudd's statement, based on the fact that the fugitives arrived and quickly departed from Surratt House at midnight on the 15th, according to Lloyd's testimony. They had to go another 15 miles or so (depending on their debated route) to reach the Mudds, and we really need to consider that they had to slow their horses and also keep the hurting Booth in the saddle.

As for Lettie, I doubt that she even knew how to tell time - and how many clocks might the Mudds have owned? Fifty plus years later, she also fits into that category of hazy memories. I just enjoyed the scenario from the perspective of a household servant and the joy it brought to receive monetary compensation for something she did.

[JMadonna]

(03-01-2018 05:18 PM)J. Beckert Wrote:  If that's true, (regarding the two 25 cent pieces) it shows a little more of the kindness Booth was noted for and puts another chink in the old "He was a racist" rant from those those that view him through a 21st. Century prism.

Don't go rewriting history so quickly. William Lucas certainly wasn't given compensation when Booth & Herold threw him and his family out of their cabin on the last leg of their journey.

[John Fazio]

(03-01-2018 06:35 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 06:00 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  John, like you, I noticed she was off in her memory of the time she was first awakened. Here's Mrs. Mudd's account of the timing of events:

"About 4 A. M. on the 15th of April, 1865, I heard a rap on the door, and as my husband was not feeling well he asked me if I would not go and see who it was. I replied, "I would rather you would go and see for yourself." He arose and went to the door in his night clothes. I heard some one talking in the hall, and footsteps as they passed into the parlor. My husband returned and told me there was a man out there with his leg broken. He asked me to tear some strips for bandages. I did so. Afterward I heard my husband and a third man assisting the injured man up-stairs. The Doctor returned, and went to bed himself. At 6 o clock I arose, called the servants to get breakfast, and at 7 waked my husband. He sent a servant to tell the man who called himself "Tyson" (and who afterward proved to be Herold) to come to breakfast. I then prepared breakfast for the sick man, put it on a tray, and sent it to his room by a servant; told her to place it on the table by his bed and come down. Tyson and my husband then came to the table, and while at breakfast Tyson asked the Doctor if he knew many persons in the lower part of the county near the river."



I think Mrs. Mudd's memory of a 4 A.M. arrival is universally accepted by authors. Offhand, I cannot think of any books I have ever read that gave a different time.

I agree completely with Mrs. Mudd's statement, based on the fact that the fugitives arrived and quickly departed from Surratt House at midnight on the 15th, according to Lloyd's testimony. They had to go another 15 miles or so (depending on their debated route) to reach the Mudds, and we really need to consider that they had to slow their horses and also keep the hurting Booth in the saddle.

As for Lettie, I doubt that she even knew how to tell time - and how many clocks might the Mudds have owned? Fifty plus years later, she also fits into that category of hazy memories. I just enjoyed the scenario from the perspective of a household servant and the joy it brought to receive monetary compensation for something she did.

Laurie, et al.:

I am persuaded that the conventional wisdom is right in this case and that Lettie's recollections as to time were faulty.

John

[Dennis Urban]

A truly wonderful account that I had never read before. Lettie also got the name of the MD county incorrect so it is not inconceivable that she also was in error on the time. Good point about Lettie perhaps not knowing how to tell time, especially if one of the Mudd's clocks was inscribed in Roman numerals. Except for those misstatements, her story reasonably matches that of Mrs Mudd.

[L Verge]

(03-01-2018 07:15 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 05:18 PM)J. Beckert Wrote:  If that's true, (regarding the two 25 cent pieces) it shows a little more of the kindness Booth was noted for and puts another chink in the old "He was a racist" rant from those those that view him through a 21st. Century prism.

Don't go rewriting history so quickly. William Lucas certainly wasn't given compensation when Booth & Herold threw him and his family out of their cabin on the last leg of their journey.

Just remember that, while at Mudd's, Booth and Herold were really at the beginning of their journey (that they thought would be triumphant) and were not as mean-spirited as they became ten or more days later after being rejected by folks they expected sympathy and assistance from - especially once they crossed the Potomac.

The rejection by Dr. Richard Stuart had to be one of those proverbial last straws. One of the richest men in America and a known Confederate sympathizer with strong ties to the Lees and the Calverts turns him away and sends him to the home of a free black? Excuse me folks, but I suspect you would be feeling a bit "testy" at that point also -- even if you were sent to a poor white man's cabin.

One of the points in reading and understanding history (as we have repeated numerous times on this forum) is to put oneself in the position of the folks one is studying -- understand their times, culture, social standards, and the circumstances that have led to their actions at any given point. Don't judge them based on what you believe many years later.

[Gene C]

I have a difficult time trying to understanding Booth's actions. (mainly because I don't want to put my self in his position)

But since you mentioned it, I will start a new thread about understanding Booth.

[Steve]

Many thanks to Laurie for posting this interview! I just want to point out a couple things:

1. I checked the Mudd family in the 1870 census and Lettie Hall's age is listed as 17 (probably provided by a member of the Mudd family), meaning she was likely 12 or 13, not 15 or 16 when Booth and Herold arrived at the house. Lettie probably guessed her age then from how old she thought she was and counted the years back to 1865:
   

2. There is NO contradiction between the time estimates by Mrs. Mudd and Lettie! Mrs. Mudd said Booth arrived "about 4 am", which could roughly include any of the preceding half hour before (or after) 4 am. Lettie said "about 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning", which is two whole hours. Now, it is possible one of the women is mistaken in her estimate, but I just want to point out both accounts overlap in part of the 3 o'clock hour time frame.

[L Verge]

(03-02-2018 03:12 PM)Gene C Wrote:  I have a difficult time trying to understanding Booth's actions. (mainly because I don't want to put my self in his position)

But since you mentioned it, I will start a new thread about understanding Booth.

There are many, many people in history that we will never fully understand on an individual basis, but we can understand their times and the area and culture around them.

Booth is not the only villain in history, and personally, I can understand his motives based on his era and the turbulence that had swirled around the U.S. for over a hundred years much more than I can understand the motives of some of the lunatics we are dealing with today.

Our descendants, however, may be able to look back in fifty years and understand what drove folks to the shootings in Las Vegas, Parkland, etc. In fact, there are elements in our society today who are so upset with our leaders and Congress that they could be in position to become the next John Wilkes Booth -- thinking that they, too, can save the country/world.

And while I'm on a roll, why don't we spend this much time trying to analyze the other presidential assassins? Why do we just write them off as mentally deranged or disappointed office seekers and turn the page? The men they killed, or attempted to kill, were good individuals. It just so happens that we admire Lincoln more and that there was a national crisis to consider.

---

(03-02-2018 04:02 PM)Steve Wrote:  Many thanks to Laurie for posting this interview! I just want to point out a couple things:

1. I checked the Mudd family in the 1870 census and Lettie Hall's age is listed as 17 (probably provided by a member of the Mudd family), meaning she was likely 12 or 13, not 15 or 16 when Booth and Herold arrived at the house. Lettie probably guessed her age then from how old she thought she was and counted the years back to 1865:


2. There is NO contradiction between the time estimates by Mrs. Mudd and Lettie! Mrs. Mudd said Booth arrived "about 4 am", which could roughly include any of the preceding half hour before (or after) 4 am. Lettie said "about 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning", which is two whole hours. Now, it is possible one of the women is mistaken in her estimate, but I just want to point out both accounts overlap in part of the 3 o'clock hour time frame.

I found it interesting that Lettie declared that Dr. and Mrs. Mudd were against slavery! Obviously, she did not know the good doctor's reputation. When I first read this article, I immediately thought that Lettie and Louisa were not necessarily orphans, but the products of a slave auction where a family was split apart and Dr. Mudd, or his father, one of his brothers, or in-laws, bought the two young girls because they would soon be of breeding age.

Lettie also mentioned living in Chester County, not Charles County. Maryland does not have a Chester County, but it does have a town by that name on our Eastern Shore. Maybe that's where she came from originally via the auction block? Pennsylvania, where she lived at the time of the interview, does have a Chester County. Perhaps she just was confused.

[Steve]

(03-02-2018 06:15 PM)L Verge Wrote:  I found it interesting that Lettie declared that Dr. and Mrs. Mudd were against slavery! Obviously, she did not know the good doctor's reputation. When I first read this article, I immediately thought that Lettie and Louisa were not necessarily orphans, but the products of a slave auction where a family was split apart and Dr. Mudd, or his father, one of his brothers, or in-laws, bought the two young girls because they would soon be of breeding age.

Lettie also mentioned living in Chester County, not Charles County. Maryland does not have a Chester County, but it does have a town by that name on our Eastern Shore. Maybe that's where she came from originally via the auction block? Pennsylvania, where she lived at the time of the interview, does have a Chester County. Perhaps she just was confused.

Chester County is in southern Pennsylvania on the Maryland border while Bradford County is on the northern Pennsylvania border with New York. I don't know anything about Lettie's life after 1870 and prior to 1929, if she lived in the area of Chester County or not. If she didn't, I'm not sure she would be aware of Chester County, PA. Maybe the man interviewing her misunderstood her when writing down what she said. The both begin with a "ch" sound.

[L Verge]

I rec'd the first Mudd Society newsletter of the new tour season and was pleased to learn that the story of Lettie Hall was featured. More importantly, however, her grave in Rose Hill Cemetery in Butler, Pennsylvania, has been identified by a local historian.

Like many public cemeteries of the day (1936), Rose Hill was segregated at the time of her burial. Lettie was interred in an unmarked grave on the reverse slope of the cemetery. After her grave was located in 2015, it was marked with two, reflective, driveway markers and a small ceremony was held in commemoration of the 150th anniversary of the Lincoln assassination.

In 2016, the Dr. Mudd Society was made aware of the location and condition of Lettie's grave and voted to fund the creation of a marker for the grave. The bronze marker gives her name, dates of birth and death, and a brief sentence as to her ties to the Lincoln assassination and Booth. It will be placed at the grave as soon as ground conditions allow it.

[mikegriffith1]

Here's an article (letter to the editor, actually) that I ran across on the issue of Mudd and his slaves. It was written by John McHale, author of the book Dr. Samuel A. Mudd and the Lincoln Assassination.

Different Picture of Dr. Mudd
John E. McHale, Jr.
Letter to the Editor, The Maryland Independent
August 8, 1997

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, and, while his case was still pending appeal, a statement that Dr. Mudd allegedly made 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 being 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 a slave but added that “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 some sick people. 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.

John E. McHale, Jr.
Suitland, Maryland