What was the public reaction to President Johnson's pardon of the conspirators at Dry Tortugas in 1869 (Mudd, Arnold & Spangler) , only 4 years after the assassination?

That's a great question Gene but I do not have the answer. I can only surmise that the nation had the same feelings for John Surratt. They were tired of the trials and hangings and if the perpetrators kept a low profile they would be left alone. I look forward to other responses.

I don't know what the reaction was, but if I recall correctly, Johnson didn't care what anyone thought about the pardon.

I tend to agree with Jim. I suspect that Johnson welcomed the opportunity to slap his radical political foes in the face -- and probably get Mrs. Mudd off his case also. Frankie appears to have been a pit bull in fighting for her husband. However, if I recall correctly, some of his letters from Ft. Jefferson to her were a tad disrespectful. I remember reading them and thinking I might have been tempted to leave him down there!

---

Jerry Madonna did a lot of research involving Andrew Johnson in his book on The Threat to the Republic. He might want to chime in here?

Did you suppose the pardons changed what people thought of him? Or he, at least, had hoped that they would? Here's another thought-did he issue the pardons to try and salve personally felt guilt for Mrs. Surratt's execution?

Another general question might be whether, from today's point of view, Johnson was too generous in his pardons. He started out his term as president as being hated and feared by the people of the South. But, he ended up being their greatest defender.

In the short time I had yesterday, I looked through some DC papers of the time on the Library of Congress's website. I only read about three or four papers which mentioned the pardon, and none said anything negative, or positive for that matter, on it. I think probably, as had been stated before, people were ready to move on. There was probably some anger on the part of the radicals, but not enough to cause Johnson any more problems than he already had.

Best
Rob

It seems as though for many, justice had been done with the execution of the four conspirators. The others who were sent to Dry Tortugas became an afterthought. -- Except for Mudd of course. He kept his name in the news with his failed escape attempt.

When word leaked out in early 1869 that pardons were being considered, a paymaster who was aboard the Florida steamer (ship that sent the conspirators to Dry Tortugas) wrote a letter to a representative from Illinois stating that Mudd admitted to him (and others) of knowing who Booth was and to what crime he committed when he showed up at his home that early morning.

The paymaster had no motivation for writing his letter other than to make sure it was known before a pardon decision was made. Of course, others reported the same thing. -- Namely Captain Dutton, Captain Budd and General Dodd.

Years after the pardons, Samuel Cox, Jr. said that Dr. Mudd admitted the same thing to him.

It wouldn't be the first time a guilty man lied about his innocence. However, his selflessness during the outbreak of Yellow Fever at Dry Tortugas somewhat redeemed his reputation.

Spangler served the majority of his sentence and seemed to get the worst deal of all. I've changed my mind about him. I don't believe he deserved to be found guilty.

Arnold was pardoned at the behest of his family's pleas and those of many other Baltimore residents and Governor Bowie of MD.

And speaking of Spangler-what was his involvement in the crime anyway? Was it merely because he consented to hold Booth's horse-which he didn't do anyway?

(09-30-2012 12:52 PM)LincolnMan Wrote:  And speaking of Spangler-what was his involvement in the crime anyway? Was it merely because he consented to hold Booth's horse-which he didn't do anyway?

Spangler was alleged to have:

1. Cleared a path for Booth to escape backstage
2. Bored a hole in a door for Booth to look upon Lincoln
3. Made the Wooden brace Booth used to secure the balcony door shut
4. Told at least one witness to keep quiet regarding Booth's identity

Thanks for the great info!

They had to arrest someone from the theater. Spangler was the easiest one to pick on. (Plus he looks guilty)

(09-30-2012 04:18 PM)Gene C Wrote:  They had to arrest someone from the theater. Spangler was the easiest one to pick on. (Plus he looks guilty)

Judging from what I've read from newspaper reports at the time, God help you if you'd received a good thrashing with the ugly stick!

You are certainly correct, Maddie. Judging from the reporters' descriptions of the conspirators day after day, there wasn't a decent looking one among them. Shortly after Surratt House opened, we ran across one account that described Mary Surratt as a "verago." We had to research that word - only to find out that it is the equivalent of an amazon woman - a large woman with mannish traits, etc.

My personal opinion is that they would all have cleaned up nicely under regular circumstances.

One more strike against Spangler, also, was the fact that he had known Booth for quite some time - both in the theater, but also having been one of the men who worked for James Gifford in building Tudor Hall. Prior friendships at that time were tantamount to being guilty and having to prove one's innocence.

Guilt by association then for Spangler-and the others!