BLOOD ON THE MOON
EDWARD STEERS Jr.
THE UNIVERSITY PRESS OF KENTUCKY
Copyright © 2001 by The University Press of Kentucky
Paperback edition 2005
Scholarly publisher for the Commonwealth,
serving Bellarmine University, Berea College, Centre College of Kentucky,
Eastern Kentucky University, The Filson Historical Society, Georgetown College,
Kentucky Historical Society, Kentucky State University, Morehead State University,
Murray State University, Northern Kentucky University, Transylvania University,
University of Kentucky, University of Louisville, and Western Kentucky University.
All rights reserved.
Editorial and Sales Offices: The University Press of Kentucky
663 South Limestone Street, Lexington, Kentucky 40508-4008
www.kentuckypress.com
09 10 11 12 13 8 7 6 5 4
Frontispiece: The Apotheosis of Lincoln. D.T Wiest, In Memory of
Abraham Lincoln: The Reward of the Just, published by William Smith
of Philadelphia, 1865. (Lincoln Museum, Fort Wayne, Ind., no. 4377.)
The Library of Congress has cataloged the hardcover edition as follows:
Steers, Edward.
Blood on the moon : the assassination of Abraham Lincoln/
Edward Steers Jr.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-8131-2217-1 (cloth : alk. paper)
1. Lincoln, Abraham, 1809–1865—Assassination.
2. Booth, John Wilkes, 1838–1865. I. Title.
E457.5.S788 2001
973.7’092—dc21 2001003413
Paperback ISBN-10: 0-8131-9151-3 (pbk.: alk. paper)
Paperback ISBN-13: 978-0-8131-9151-5 (pbk.: alk. paper)
This book is printed on acid-free recycled paper meeting
the requirements of the American National Standard
for Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials.
Manufactured in the United States of America
Member of the Association of
American University Presses
To
Edward Steers Sr. (1910–90),
whose love of history rubbed off,
to
Patricia Aire Steers,
whose love of me made this book possible,
and
to
Molly,
in whose absence this book would have been
finished one year sooner.
And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke.
The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the terrible day of the Lord cometh.
Joel 2:31–32
CONTENTS
Preface
Introduction
Part One: A Divided House
1. The Apotheosis
2. You Are in Danger
3. All the World’s a Stage
4. The Black Flag Is Raised
5. The South Wants Justice
Part Two: The Deed
6. The Key Connection
7. A Shift in Plans
8. A Day of Jubilation
9. Decision
10. Sic Semper Tyrannis
11. The Wound Is Mortal
12. Surrattsville
13. Dr. Mudd
14. Here in Despair
15. The Roundup
Part Three: The End
16. Virginia at Last!
17. The Cavalry Arrives
18. Tell Mother I Die for My Country
Part Four: The Aftermath
19. To Remove the Stain of Innocent Blood from the Land
20. The Aftermath: Rewriting History
21. Life after Death
22. Goodbye, Father Abraham
Notes
Bibliography
Index
Illustrations follow page
PREFACE
In 1997 the Surratt Society, in Clinton, Maryland, published the Abraham Lincoln Assassination Bibliography by Blaine V. Houmes. The bibliography was the first of its kind devoted exclusively to Lincoln’s assassination. Listed are approximately 3,000 entries representing 2,900 journal, magazine, newspaper, and newsletter articles and 100 monographs. This number represents roughly 20 percent of the general bibliography (16,000 entries) devoted to Abraham Lincoln. The majority of the 3,000 “assassination” entries are the product of nonacademic or avocational historians who drew most of their material from secondary sources and anecdotal reminiscences that are questionable or can be shown to be incorrect. Many of the assassination books that have included primary sources have relied heavily on secondary sources in their interpretation of the events associated with Lincoln’s death.
In Blood on the Moon I have relied principally on primary sources and sought independent corroboration of the recollections of those persons who figured prominently in the story. The principal primary sources that form the core of documents concerned with Lincoln’s assassination are found in Record Group (RG) 153, Records of the Office of the Judge Advocate General, and Record Group 94, Records of the Adjutant General’s Office, located in the National Archives Record Administration (NARA). These records are published as microfilm copies (M-599 and M-619 respectively) and are available from the National Archives as well as several libraries and research facilities throughout the country.
The principal file, M-599, is known as Investigation and Trial Papers Relating to the Assassination of President Lincoln or the “Lincoln Assassination Suspects” (LAS) file. These papers contain a wide range of materials gathered mostly between April 15 and July 3, 1865. The records consist of pretrial interrogations, letters offering information, and the verbatim transcript of the trial proceedings taken down by court reporters skilled in the use of phonography, a form of shorthand writing.
Colonel Henry L. Burnett was called from his post as judge advocate of the Northern Department (Cincinnati, Ohio) and assigned to the office of Joseph Holt, chief of the Bureau of Military Justice. Burnett and his staff gathered evidence from a variety of sources that was used in both the pretrial investigation and the subsequent court trial (court martial case file MM 2251) of those charged with Lincoln’s assassination. The combined records, published as microcopy M-599, appear on sixteen microfilm reels numbered 1 through 16.
Record Group 94 contains the records that deal with the claims for reward offered to those persons instrumental in the apprehension of those charged with Lincoln’s assassination. In an effort to insure fairness and accuracy in paying the reward money, a special commission, known as the Commission on Rewards for Apprehension of Lincoln Assassins and Others, was established by the adjutant general to receive and adjudicate all claims. These claims and associated documents are published as microcopy M-619, reels 455 through 458.
Shortly after the trial ended, three separate hardback versions of the testimony were published. Petersen and Brothers of Philadelphia published the first manuscript (Petersen version); Benn: Perley Poore, a Boston newspaper journalist, was the second to publish (Poore version); and Ben Pitman, the originator of the trial transcript, was the last to publish (Pitman version). The three versions were published between July 1865 and November 1865.
The versions differ in important ways. The first two versions, Petersen’s and Poore’s, were copied from the daily newspaper accounts. While the Poore version was edited for typographical errors, the Peterson version lacks editing of any kind. The two versions also lack the closing arguments of the prosecution and defense counsels. Most important, they lack indexing, which makes it difficult to locate testimony by spec
ific witnesses without familiarizing oneself with the entire transcript. Witnesses testifying on the same subject did not always appear chronologically, but were occasionally called out of sequence, making it difficult to read the testimony as it relates to a particular defendant unless one is thoroughly familiar with the contents of the three volumes.
The Pitman version suffers no such deficiency. Pitman gathered the evidence from throughout the transcript as it related to one defendant regardless of chronology and combined it under a single heading. His editing, however, eliminated the questions and frequently summarized the answers. Where the testimony is unclear or in controversy, Pitman does give the testimony verbatim. Most important, the Pitman version contains a chronological index within major headings.
The strengths of Pitman’s version are outweighed by its weaknesses. Pitman often merges the witnesses’ response to multiple questions by the prosecutors and defense attorneys, summarizing them into a single response. While the Pitman version makes finding particular testimony easier, it can be quite misleading since relevant testimony about one individual may actually appear in different places and times throughout the trial record and relevant testimony may be missed if one does not read the trial record in toto. An example is found among the testimony relating to defendant Samuel A. Mudd. In providing testimony for the prosecution of Samuel Arnold, Federal Detective Eaton G. Horner, who arrested Arnold, stated that Arnold had told him during interrogation that John Wilkes Booth carried a letter of introduction to Samuel Mudd at the time of Booth’s first visit to Charles County, Maryland. Patrick Martin, a Confederate agent working out of Montreal, Canada, gave the letter to Booth. This important piece of evidence showing that Booth’s meeting with Samuel Mudd in November 1864 was preplanned on Booth’s end ties Mudd into the Confederate underground operating in southern Maryland. Yet none of the biographies written about Samuel Mudd include this important piece of evidence, presumably because the authors of these works did not read the entire trial transcript, or if they did, missed Horner’s important testimony. When one reads the Poore text in its entirety, Horner’s crucial statement concerning Mudd becomes obvious even though it does not appear under the heading “Samuel A. Mudd” in the Pitman version.
A second example involves the controversy concerning one of the trial exhibits, “Exhibit No. 1,” a photograph identified as John Wilkes Booth. The photograph currently found in the envelope marked “Exhibit No. 1” located in the National Archives is a photograph of Edwin Booth, John Wilkes Booth’s brother. This finding has led those who believe there was a government conspiracy designed to frame innocent people to claim that the government deliberately used the wrong photograph to mislead witnesses. And yet, a careful reading of the summation of Samuel Mudd’s own defense attorney, Thomas Ewing, proves that the photograph introduced as “Exhibit No. 1” was a photograph of John Wilkes Booth. This suggests that those who claim a photograph of Edwin Booth was used in place of an image of John Wilkes Booth at the time of the manhunt for Booth and later during the trial did not read the entire trial transcript or did so carelessly. The testimony pertaining to these two pieces of evidence along with several others are found in M-599 and discussed more fully in this book.
I have relied on the Poore version as the primary source of information, using the Pitman version for chronology and as a cross-reference, consulting its index where necessary. The summations of the prosecution and defense attorneys are also found in Pitman as well as M-599. Most of the quotations used in the present study are taken from the Poore transcript and the letters and statements that appear in M-599 and M-619.
In addition to these two primary sources, there are two other sources that are rich in documentary material that figure prominently in this current book. The first is the Surratt Courier, the newsletter of the Surratt Society (Clinton, Maryland). This newsletter has served as an outlet for the findings of several skilled researchers in the Lincoln assassination field. The second is the private file of James O. Hall. Hall has spent over fifty years asking and answering all manner of questions concerned with Lincoln’s assassination. During that time he has accumulated an extensive archive of materials from every source imaginable. This archive includes all of the standard documentation located in numerous libraries and archives as well as letters, diaries, memoirs, photographs, interviews, and miscellaneous papers from the families of many of the people associated with the events surrounding Lincoln’s death. No study of Lincoln’s assassination can be judged complete without utilizing this rich resource.
Sir Isaac Newton, the English physicist and mathematician, when asked what lay behind his genius, said that if it seemed he was able to see further than most people it was because he stood on the shoulders of others. Having spent most of my adult life in basic research, I learned early in my career the truth of Newton’s statement. At every step I had the opportunity to stand on the shoulders of others. In this current undertaking, James O. Hall provided the broadest shoulders of all. Recognized by everyone in the field of assassination research as the premier researcher, Hall is also among the most generous. For fifty years he has doggedly burrowed through every archive both public and private leaving no piece of paper unturned. In the process he has amassed an extensive archive that is unique. His willingness to share his files and knowledge has contributed enormously to our current understanding of this important event in American history. Like so many others, I am indebted to James O. Hall for his generous help and counsel.
There are others who have willingly offered their help along the way. Principal among these is William Hanchett, professor emeritus of history at San Diego State University, who provided me with his considerable insight and knowledge and made many suggestions concerning this manuscript. I am also indebted to Terry Alford, professor of history at Northern Virginia Community College, for his helpful comments and critical evaluations, especially in matters concerning John Wilkes Booth. These two historians rescued me on many occasions.
In reviewing my files I find numerous instances of material generously provided by the many friends who have helped me in my research over the years. Among these are Sarah Barley, John C. Brennan (deceased), Robert Borrell, Lynn Conway, Robert Cook, Robert Emmett Curran, Gordon Damann, Paul DeHann, David W. Gaddy, Joseph E. Garrera, Richard and Kellie Gutman, Vicki Heilig, Harold Holzer, Blaine Houmes, Jim Hoyt, Roger D. Hunt, Lance Ingmire, Michael W. Kauffman, Father Robert Keesler, George H. Landes Jr. (deceased), James E.T. Lange, Carolyn Leporini, Kieran McAuliffe, Michael Maione, Horace Mewborn, Steven Miller, Richard D. Mudd, Michael P. Musick, Betty Ownsbey, Roger Norton, Margery Patten, Floyd E. Risvold, Susan Schoelwer, Thomas F. Schwartz, Jane Singer, Richard Sloan, Larry Springer, Wayne Temple, William Tidwell (deceased), Thomas R. Turner, Laurie Verge, Wayne Wesolowski, Rob Wick, Budge Weidman, and Frank J. Williams.
Special thanks are due Maureen Mylander, Joseph and Kathleen Nichols, and Joan Chaconas, who read through numerous versions of the text and made many thoughtful suggestions regarding both content and style. As close friends, they did not hesitate to offer their candid criticism at various stages of the manuscript, for which I am grateful.
I would also like to acknowledge the special help I received from copy editor Noel Kinnamon and from Kieran McAuliffe, who designed the dust jacket and prepared the maps that appear in the book.
Last is my wife, Patricia Aire Steers, who continues to cheerfully share her house and her life with Abraham Lincoln. Without her, this work would have remained only a dream.
The traditional story of Abraham Lincoln’s assassination is fraught with errors. There are accidental errors and there are willful errors. No doubt this current work will also contain errors, but none that are willful. Hopefully those that do occur are not substantive and at the very worst prove interesting. The errors that do exist are mine alone and in no way reflect on those who generously shared their wisdom with me.
INTRODUCTION
Abraham Lincoln has become the subject o
f more writings than any other person in American history. At last estimate, there were approximately 16,000 entries in a bibliography of works on him that Frank J. Williams is compiling.1 To be sure, a majority of these entries appear as pamphlets or journal articles, but the total number of monographs still ranks Lincoln among the top four individuals in history.2 The greater number of books written about Lincoln are concerned with his period as a war president and commander in chief while the topics least written about are concerned with his religion and his assassination.
Unlike Lincoln’s life, which has been a favorite subject of academic historians, his death has been left almost entirely to the avocational or nonprofessionally trained historians. The first book on Lincoln’s assassination written by a professionally trained historian did not appear until 1982, 117 years after his death. A second book appeared one year later in 1983, and a third, in 1999. These three books remain the only books written by academic historians on this important subject to date.3
This paucity of writing by academicians remains unexplained. One Lincoln scholar suggested that professional historians allowed the assassination to fall between the two major fields of study, the Civil War and the period of Reconstruction immediately following it.4 That Lincoln’s death did not somehow fit into either category suggests it has little importance to either one. Nothing could be further from the truth. Lincoln’s murder was a logical consequence, given the reasons for the Civil War and his pivotal role in it. His death forever changed the course of American history that followed. Yet professional historians mark Lincoln’s passing as an end point rather than a continuation.
Contrary to most professional historians’ interest, Lincoln’s assassination has captivated the general public from a conspiratorial point of view, which may explain why many academicians have shied away from writing about it. William Hanchett, a professionally trained historian whose excellent book on Lincoln’s assassination was published in 1983, wrote that Lincoln’s death was something that the great body of professional historians thought of as a matter that should be described rather than explained.5 To these historians, the story of Abraham Lincoln ended with his death. Having been left to nonprofessionally trained historians to explain, much of the telling of Lincoln’s murder has fallen short of the quality of research and insightful writing normally found in other academic studies. This has led to a series of publications that espoused bizarre conspiracy theories of his murder. In these studies, Lincoln’s secretary of war, Edwin Stanton, is portrayed as an archangel of death orchestrating the murder of his president.6 Unable to engineer such a monstrous crime alone, Stanton received help from a cadre of the rich and powerful among his northern compatriots. Such theory is based on flawed and even fabricated evidence, all designed to titillate the reader and create a type of shock history that, although financially rewarding to the author, misleads.
Blood on the Moon Page 1
