Lincoln Discussion Symposium
The Union vs. Dr. Mudd - Printable Version

+- Lincoln Discussion Symposium (https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium)
+-- Forum: Lincoln Discussion Symposium (/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Books - over 15,000 to discuss (/forum-6.html)
+--- Thread: The Union vs. Dr. Mudd (/thread-48.html)

The Union vs. Dr. Mudd - RJNorton - 07-10-2012 08:24 AM

Here's an interesting article written by Hal Higdon, author of The Union vs. Dr. Mudd.

Article is here.

RE: The Union vs. Dr. Mudd - LincolnMan - 08-23-2012 05:14 PM

Roger: in reading the article I noticed that the author mentioned that Mudd's heirs were partially successful in clearing Dr. Judd. Really? What is he referring too? Perhaps the letters from Presidents Carter and Reagan? That seems to be a stretch!

RE: The Union vs. Dr. Mudd - L Verge - 08-23-2012 06:58 PM

I agree with you, Bill. We have copies of both Carter's and Reagan's letters to the Mudd family, and they do not imply anything regarding clearing his name. And no one could ever misunderstand the rulings of the Army about a decade ago.

As recently as last week, I have had visitors to Surratt House and people who contact us via our website ask what the Mudd family really wants. All I can do is shrug my shoulders and look perplexed. It has long been my understanding that the full and unconditional pardon that Mudd received from President Johnson in 1869 wiped out the crime as well as the sentence.

One person went so far as to suggest that the family wants reparations from the government. That's how confusing the whole issue has become. Dr. Richard Mudd was always very kind to Surratt House, and he was one of the best p.r. persons in getting the media's attention. There does not seem to be the same force driving succeeding generations.

P.S. I first decided to dislike now-VP Joe Biden when he joined the "Free Dr. Mudd" campaign in Congress about forty years ago! He even gave out information indicating that he didn't know his basic history. If you are going to support a cause, you should familiarize yourself with its history.

RE: The Union vs. Dr. Mudd - RJNorton - 08-24-2012 02:41 PM

As I understand it, the 1915 Supreme Court decision in Burdick v. United States means a pardon carries an 'imputation of guilt', and accepting a pardon is 'an admission of guilt'.

Obviously this ruling came almost 50 years after Mudd's pardon. I am guessing Mudd's acceptance of Johnson's pardon was not seen as an admission of guilt.

RE: The Union vs. Dr. Mudd - Laurie Verge - 08-24-2012 03:18 PM

All I imagine that Dr. Mudd thought about the pardon was, "Thank you. I can now go home!"

I'm not familiar with the Burdick v. U.S. Did it involve a full and unconditional presidential pardon?

RE: The Union vs. Dr. Mudd - RJNorton - 08-24-2012 03:54 PM

The case is discussed here.

For what it's worth, Wikipedia says the Supreme Court ruled in this case that:

(1) A pardoned man must introduce the pardon into court proceedings, otherwise the pardon must be disregarded by the court.

(2) To do this, the pardoned man must accept the pardon. If a pardon is rejected, it cannot be forced upon its subject.

(3) A pardon carries an 'imputation of guilt', and accepting a pardon is 'an admission of guilt'.

RE: The Union vs. Dr. Mudd - LincolnMan - 09-11-2012 01:05 PM

[Image: muddcanel005.jpg]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

At the grave of Dr. Richard D. Mudd in Saginaw, Michigan. He was the grandson of Dr. Samuel A. Mudd who spent many years of his life trying clear his ancestors name regarding the Lincoln assassination.


RE: The Union vs. Dr. Mudd - BettyO - 09-11-2012 01:08 PM

Great photo, Bill!