His Name Is Mudd

[smbovard]

In D.W. Griffith's "Abraham Lincoln" one of the midwife's at his birth describes Abe as being "homely as a mud fence".

[RJNorton]

Yes indeed, Steve!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO9CF63L0Ig&t=2m52s

[mikegriffith1]

It turns out Robert Lockwood Mills was still active on the Lincoln assassination in 2009. I found a review that Mills did on the Samuel Mudd case in 2009. He has some rather negative things to say about Steers' research on the matter. Here is part of Mills' article:

In 1992 the doctor’s grandson appealed to the Army Board for the Correction of Military Records to overturn his grandfather’s conviction. This board acted, essentially, as an appeals court for cases prosecuted under military law, and the Mudds scored an important victory when it decided in their ancestor’s favor. . . .

Under intense lobbying, the Secretary of the Army decided not to reverse Mudd’s conviction as the board recommended. Writer James O. Hall distributed a series of memoranda outlining the case against Dr. Mudd, and shortly afterward Edward Steers Jr. published an anti-Mudd book that repeated and even amplified the claims then being circulated. Enthusiastically endorsed by Hall and others, His Name is Still Mudd (1997) was treated as the new gold standard on Mudd books, in spite of its obvious drawbacks. It repeated the accusations made by the prosecution in 1865 but ignored the testimony offered in rebuttal. As the subtitle conceded, this was “The Case Against Dr. Samuel Alexander Mudd.” It made no pretense of balance.

Encouraged by the favorable reception, Steers continued to write articles and speeches about the case. In a subsequent book, Lincoln Legends (2007), he devoted a full chapter to the man he had grown accustomed to calling “the deceptive doctor.” Though this book provided source notes, they often referred the reader back to Steers’s own earlier work, which was not annotated.

By and large, the public has found the Steers version of the Mudd case convincing. But like those of his counterparts on the other side, his appeal is more emotional than reasonable. He put far too much emphasis on the trial testimony. Normally, this would seem a safe bet to guarantee accuracy. But the Lincoln conspiracy trial was no ordinary proceeding, and the record it produced is extraordinarily unreliable. A survey of the War Department’s own records (such as those of the Army’s Continental Commands, which show the day-to-day movements of troops and detectives) would show that some of their own witnesses were swearing falsely on the stand. The Mudds have long maintained that this was the case, but as yet, no writer or historian has undertaken a detailed study to prove or disprove the point. If the aim is to determine whether Dr. Mudd was falsely accused, it seems to me that a close scrutiny of all the records is absolutely necessary.

Had he delved a little deeper, Hal Higdon might have noticed that a pivotal claim against Mudd--that he had falsely denied seeing Booth after their initial meeting in Maryland the year before--actually originated with a prosecution witness, and not with the doctor himself. Clearly, Mudd had seen Booth on at least two more occasions, and at the earliest opportunity he spoke freely about those incidents. But that would come later. By the prevailing laws of the day only government witnesses could testify on the matter, and it was this, more than anything else, that tipped the balance against Mudd in that sweltering courtroom. It is ironic that modern historians put their faith in the testimony produced and influenced by such an archaic rule. Mudd eventually issued a heated challenge to that testimony, but by that time he was in prison, and his words were not widely read.

With arguments raging on all sides, Robert K. Summers stepped quietly into the fray with the publication of The Fall and Redemption of Dr. Samuel A. Mudd (2007), followed by two book-length monographs: Dr. Samuel A. Mudd at Fort Jefferson (2008) and The Slaves of Dr. Samuel A. Mudd (2008). Summers, a great-grandson of Dr. Mudd, is less preoccupied with exonerating his famous ancestor than with building on the historical record. His archival research has turned up surprising new information on Mudd--not all of it flattering--and he shares it without hesitation. He is a firm believer in the doctor’s innocence, but he is also a scholar, and aims to make his points in a calm and professional manner.

Great stuff!

[L Verge]

Does this mean that Mr. G is finally off of freckles and onto the "innocent country doctor" theme? Anything to keep his ponderings in the limelight?

Personally, to compare Bob Mills's work with that of Ed Steers and Mr. Hall is inexcusable. As for Bob Summers, I have high regards for his work also, especially because he works very hard at toeing a center of the line approach to his ancestor's history.

[mikegriffith1]

(12-18-2018 03:54 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Does this mean that Mr. G is finally off of freckles and onto the "innocent country doctor" theme? Anything to keep his ponderings in the limelight?

Read: You don't care about the scientific and medical problems posed by the freckles. You're just going to dismiss them and ignore them, because you cannot explain them. Nor can you explain how nobody on the Montauk could see a resemblance between the photos of Booth and the body they were viewing, when Rollins had no problem recognizing the man on crutches as the man in the Booth photo that Conger/Baker showed him less than 48 hours before Booth was supposedly shot. Maybe one day you'll venture to explain what in the world happened between the time Rollins was shown a picture of Booth and recognized him as the man on crutches and the time Booth's alleged body was viewed on the Montauk.

(12-18-2018 03:54 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Personally, to compare Bob Mills's work with that of Ed Steers and Mr. Hall is inexcusable.

Oh, really? Ok, well, I have a little surprise and confession for you: The article from which I quoted was not written by Mills. It was written by . . . MICHAEL KAUFFMAN. I promised myself I would reveal the article's true author after I received the first dismissive, pejorative reply about Mills (and I figured you were a leading candidate to provide such a response). Here's the link to Kauffman's article:

https://networks.h-net.org/node/4113/rev...vs-dr-mudd

[L Verge]

(12-18-2018 04:07 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 03:54 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Does this mean that Mr. G is finally off of freckles and onto the "innocent country doctor" theme? Anything to keep his ponderings in the limelight?

Read: You don't care about the scientific and medical problems posed by the freckles. You're just going to dismiss them and ignore them, because you cannot explain them. Nor can you explain how nobody on the Montauk could see a resemblance between the photos of Booth and the body they were viewing, when Rollins had no problem recognizing the man on crutches as the man in the Booth photo that Conger/Baker showed him less than 48 hours before Booth was supposedly shot. Maybe one day you'll venture to explain what in the world happened between the time Rollins was shown a picture of Booth and recognized him as the man on crutches and the time Booth's alleged body was viewed on the Montauk.

(12-18-2018 03:54 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Personally, to compare Bob Mills's work with that of Ed Steers and Mr. Hall is inexcusable.

Oh, really? Ok, well, I have a little surprise and confession for you: The article from which I quoted was not written by Mills. It was written by . . . MICHAEL KAUFFMAN. I promised myself I would reveal the article's true author after I received the first dismissive, pejorative reply about Mills (and I figured you were a leading candidate to provide such a response). Here's the link to Kauffman's article:

https://networks.h-net.org/node/4113/rev...vs-dr-mudd

And, if you were in the thick of things, you would know of the decades of "continuing disagreement" that has gone on between Mike and Ed (and Mr. Hall) over the Mudd issue - to the point of serious contentiousness. However, even the folks at the Dr. Mudd museum are discussing the points that worked against Dr. Mudd. As his own lawyer stated after the trial, "...Mudd's own prevarications almost doomed him." (I'm paraphrasing because I am not close to my source.)

[RJNorton]

(12-18-2018 03:39 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Summers, a great-grandson of Dr. Mudd, is less preoccupied with exonerating his famous ancestor than with building on the historical record. His archival research has turned up surprising new information on Mudd--not all of it flattering--and he shares it without hesitation. He is a firm believer in the doctor’s innocence, but he is also a scholar, and aims to make his points in a calm and professional manner.

I sure agree with this. Although Bob Summers believes in innocence, he is willing to listen to arguments on both sides. In his book, The Assassin's Doctor: The Life and Letters of Samuel Mudd, Bob includes George Alfred Townsend's interview with Samuel Mudd's cousin, George Mudd. The interview took place shortly after Samuel Mudd had died. I included a part of that interview here.

[Gene C]

(12-18-2018 04:07 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Nor can you explain how nobody on the Montauk could see a resemblance between the photos of Booth and the body they were viewing, when Rollins had no problem recognizing the man on crutches as the man in the Booth photo that Conger/Baker showed him less than 48 hours before Booth was supposedly shot. Maybe one day you'll venture to explain what in the world happened between the time Rollins was shown a picture of Booth and recognized him as the man on crutches and the time Booth's alleged body was viewed on the Montauk.

Nobody? Get real!
The witnesses on the Montauk didn't need a photograph to compare to the body for identification, they had seen Booth when he was alive
We have already shown on another thread (Identification of Booth's Body) how you have deliberately twisted , taken out of context, and misrepresented Dr. May's testimony when he identified Booth's body on the Montauk. You have used the same tactics when discussing Booth's diary. You are doing it again here.

You are quick to repeat and point out the problems in identifying the body, because if credible witnesses identify the body as Booth, which they did, then your theory that Booth wasn't killed in the barn at Garrett's goes up in smoke.

[mikegriffith1]

(12-18-2018 03:54 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Personally, to compare Bob Mills's work with that of Ed Steers and Mr. Hall is inexcusable.

Now that you know that the "work" you dismissed was written by Kauffman, not Mills, you might want to retract that comment.

Having read Mills', Steers', and Hall's research, I would say that Mills' research is far better than Steers' and better than Hall's.

When the Army Board for the Correction of Military Records concluded that Mudd's trial had been grossly unfair and that his conviction should be set aside, Hall lobbied the Secretary of the Army with memos that argued for Mudd's guilt. I'm gonna take a wild stab and guess that Hall never once mentioned any of the inconsistencies in Weichmann's testimony, or any of the evidence that Weichmann was coerced to lie. I'm also guessing that he didn't mention any of the problems with the slaves' negative stories about Mudd. Just a wild guess. In fact, I'd bet very good money on it.

As for Kauffman, aside from his blind spots about Booth's fate and the identification of the body on the Montauk, his research is very good. For example, I think Kauffman makes a strong case that Booth did not injure his ankle when he jumped onto the stage, but that he injured it later when his horse tripped. And Kauffman's comments about the military commission in his review of Higdon's book are right on target.

I'm still in the process of formulating my views on Mudd. My initial take was that he did not recognize Booth, that his previous contacts with Booth were commercial in nature, etc. I definitely don't think he deserved a life sentence, nor do I think he knew anything about Booth's intention to kill Lincoln. But I'm not sure about his claim that he did not recognize Booth, and I'm open to the idea that Mudd was in some way involved in the kidnap plot while the war was still going on (which he would have rightly viewed as an act of war designed to free Confederate POWs, some of whom were being terribly mistreated).

I sense the ring of truth in Cox's claim that Booth told him that when Mudd returned from Bryantown and had learned about the assassination, he angrily shouted at Booth, "How dare you put my family in danger" and ordered him and his companion to leave. Until then, Mudd's behavior was entirely consistent with innocence.

In the dangerous, revenge-filled atmosphere of the first few weeks after the assassination, many innocent people who knew Booth denied that they knew him, including Seaton Munroe, because they feared that this admission would be get them into trouble for no valid reason. I suspect this might have been why Mudd denied that he recognized Booth.

[L Verge]

I was going to congratulate you on recognizing the talents of Kauffman and Steers in the field of history - until you just spouted off that Mills was better than anyone. All I will say is OMG; if I go any further, Roger will ban me from the forum. IMO, you, sir, are not the person qualified to judge other writers.

Mike does make a strong case about the leg being fractured when Booth's horse fell on him. I don't believe it, but (as I tell others), we will never know and what difference does it make in the total story. Yes, the injury may have caused him to veer off course and go to Dr. Mudd. Personally, I think Mudd's was his destination all along, and I won't bore the rest of our poor readers by repeating my theories. One point that I do make is that Booth's writings in the "diary" are in flowing text and written in a chronological manner. His description of breaking his leg while jumping is in perfect order with his preceding actions and what happened later.

Have you reached the part in the Mudd story yet where he took his own sweet time about ambling back to his farm after leaving Bryantown with the news of the assassination? Stopping to chat with an acquaintance? Not hustling the fugitives off until nearly sundown (cover of night and all that stuff)?

As for your last paragraph, don't pass out, but I actually agree with you! But I have one caveat: Mudd had spent four years of the war serving the Confederate underground, had been a slaveholder, had really vehement views on the role of the black man in society, and had watched the value of his family's holdings become practically non-existent thanks to the war and the new Maryland constitution outlawing slavery in his state as of Nov. 1, 1864. Maybe his denial was based on the fact that he hated the U.S. government and especially the military at that point and was not going to do anything to assist them.

[mikegriffith1]

(12-18-2018 03:54 PM)L Verge Wrote:  As for Bob Summers, I have high regards for his work also, especially because he works very hard at toeing a center of the line approach to his ancestor's history.

Yet, you don't carry his book The Fall and Redemption of Dr. Samuel A. Mudd (2007) at the Mary Surratt House Museum's gift shop.

Nor do you carry former FBI agent John McHale's book Dr. Samuel A. Mudd and the Lincoln Assassination (1995) at the gift shop.

Another book that one would think the museum's gift shop would carry is The Case of Mrs. Surratt, written by Guy W. Moore (B.A, M.A.) and published by the University of Oklahoma Press. Moore's book is one of the best defenses of Mary Surratt's innocence that I've read so far. It is far better than Elizabeth Trindal's book.

[L Verge]

(12-19-2018 03:46 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 03:54 PM)L Verge Wrote:  As for Bob Summers, I have high regards for his work also, especially because he works very hard at toeing a center of the line approach to his ancestor's history.

Yet, you don't carry his book The Fall and Redemption of Dr. Samuel A. Mudd (2007) at the Mary Surratt House Museum's gift shop.

Nor do you carry former FBI agent John McHale's book Dr. Samuel A. Mudd and the Lincoln Assassination (1995) at the gift shop.

Another book that one would think the museum's gift shop would carry is The Case of Mrs. Surratt, written by Guy W. Moore (B.A, M.A.) and published by the University of Oklahoma Press. Moore's book is one of the best defenses of Mary Surratt's innocence that I've read so far. It is far better than Elizabeth Trindal's book.

Just a quick reply to your know-nothing comments: We carried both of the first two books that you mentioned for years. Take a look at the publication dates for both, however.

Bob's has been out there for 11 years and John's (basically a child's book) fir 23 years. At some point, a good shop realizes that they have likely sold as many as they are going to sell and does not reorder in order to make room on the shelves for new entries into the field. A first-year business manager could figure that out.

Build us a gift shop the size of just one at the Smithsonian, and we'll be happy to stock as many as we can still get our hands on.

And speaking of obtaining older books. Guy Moore has been a member of the Surratt Society for about forty years and has contributed articles to the Surratt Courier during that time. He and Betty Trindal were good friends.

Once again, I agree with you (don't expect this to be a habit, however) that his work was very well-researched -- likely because it started life as his Master's thesis at the urging of his wife, who firmly believed Mary Surratt to be an innocent victim of an angry government. I think one of its few drawbacks is that it still reads like a Master's thesis in many spots.

As to why we don't carry it in the gift shop? It has been out-of-print for decades. The museum bought the last of the stock along about 1980 because it was the only book out there related solely to the Surratt story (except for Helen Jones Campbell's book, which was/is hard to interpret as to what is fact and what is fiction).

Another suggestion, since Guy Moore may still be alive, why don't you buy his rights to the book and republish it? As long as you did not edit, revise, or insert your own questionable comments, our museum would consider purchasing it for resale. Why not do DeWitt's book also - under the same restrictions?

May I make a suggestion before you make a suggestion? Find out the current status of many of the books that you are pitching. I have spent many hours, many years, and many dollars acquiring my own private collection of Lincoln-assassination-related books, so I know how difficult to find many of them are (and how costly). I have perhaps 300 or more such books; how large is your personal collection?

[Paul F.]

As far as I'm concerned, the only books you need about the life of Dr. Samuel Mudd are Bob Summers's books. "His Name Is Still Mudd" by Ed Steers does a wonderful job laying out the case against Mudd. Those combined give a great overview on the story of Dr. Mudd. Sam Arnold's memoir about their time at Ft. Jefferson also gives a lot of good details about their time in prison. Lots of material to cover there.

[LincolnMan]

(11-16-2018 04:33 PM)smbovard Wrote:  In D.W. Griffith's "Abraham Lincoln" one of the midwife's at his birth describes Abe as being "homely as a mud fence".

But what is a "mud fence?"

[Paul F.]

(01-04-2020 10:24 AM)LincolnMan Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 04:33 PM)smbovard Wrote:  In D.W. Griffith's "Abraham Lincoln" one of the midwife's at his birth describes Abe as being "homely as a mud fence".

But what is a "mud fence?"

A “mud fence” is a contrast to a wooden fence, which is more costly and something that looks more well put together. Earth fences are for those who can’t afford a fence made of other materials and is typically much more homely in appearance. That’s my take.