Words from Dr. Richard Mudd

[Wild Bill]

Why the Mudd family cannot admit that Dr Sam was a Confederate sympathizer and possible agent beats me, But Mike Kauffman agreed with them in American Brutus (New York Random House, 2004), 230-31, 243-45, 293-94. Here is some of the relevant material: The account that makes the most sense to me is Edward Steers, Jr., His Name is still Mud" (Gettysburg: Thomas, 1997), perhaps the best thing written on the Mudd case. See also, Dr. Mudd's Sense of Timing: The Trip to Bryantown," Dillon (ed.), The Lincoln Assassination: From the Pages of the Surratt Courier, VIII, 33-36. But not all are convinced. See John E. McHale, "A Letter in Response," ibid., VIII, 37-38; and Clark Larsen, "Response to Response in re Mudd," ibid., VIII, 39-42. See also, William A. Tidwell, "April 15, 1865," Surratt Courier, 22 (April-May-June 1997), 6-10, 5-10, 4-9; Kauffman, “Booth's Escape Route: Lincoln's Assassin on the Run,” Blue & Gray Magazine (June 1990), 17-18.
Advocates of Dr. Mudd's innocence often maintain that he was shown a picture of Edwin Booth, not John Wilkes, hence the denial he had seen that man at his house. This argument is belittled by critics who point out that the correct picture was shown the hapless doctor. We have taken the coward's way out and allowed Lt. Dana to get his Booths mixed up, verbally. But Mudd knew which Booth was at question, picture or not.
See the exchange between John E. McHale (on Mudd's behalf) and James O. Hall and Edward Steers, Jr., (against Mudd), which hit hard against the doctor's strict parsing of his answers to the Federal detectives' questions: Dillon (ed.), The Lincoln Assassination: From the Pages of the Surratt Courier, VIII, 1-30. See also, Steers, "The Wrong Picture," ibid., VIII, 31-32, and Steers, Blood on the Moon, xiii. A nice summary of he whole argument is Andrew Ferguson, “Last Battle of the Civil War [The Guilt or Innocence of Dr. Mudd],” Weekly Standard, 8 (December 30, 2002), [1-13].