May 29, 1865

Monday, May 29, 1865

Previous Session       Trial Home       Next Session

Proceedings

The court convened at 10 o’clock.[1]

Present: All nine members of the military commission, the eight conspirators, Judge Advocate General Joseph Holt, Assistant Judge Advocates Bingham and Burnett, the recorders of the court, lawyers Frederick Aiken, John Clampitt, Walter Cox, William Doster, Thomas Ewing, and Frederick Stone.

Absent: Reverdy Johnson

Seating chart:

The prisoners were seated in the same manner as the day before.

The reading of the prior day’s testimony was completed.

John Clampitt, one of Mary Surratt’s lawyer’s, read a letter on behalf of his client asking for the recall of Henry von Steinaecker, the very first witness who took the stand at the trial. The letter Clampitt read then detailed the ways in which von Steinaecker had perjured himself when he took the stand earlier and how the defense had since discovered his desertion from both the Union and Confederate armies. At the conclusion of the letter, Judge Advocate General Joseph Holt stated that, like the request Frederick Aiken made on May 26, the government would attempt to recall von Steinaecker but that they were unaware of his whereabouts. Holt disagreed with the letter being entered into the record as it attempted to discredit von Steinaecker outside of the court proceedings. General Lew Wallace, the only member of the commission with law training, supported Holt in this stating that he disagreed with the propriety of the letter, feeling that the proceedings of the court allowed for the discrediting of witnesses by the introduction of new witnesses. Clampitt and Aiken assured the court that they had consulted Reverdy Johnson, their senior counsel, in regards to the letter and that he thought the letter was right and proper for being entered into the record. The commission then voted and decided against allowing the letter from appearing on the record. Frederick Aiken replied that the defense possessed witnesses to testify to the points in the letter to which commission President David Hunter stated that there was, “no objection” to defense’s invalidating of a witness, “in a legal way.” The letter was dropped and the examination of witnesses then began.[2]

Testimony began

[William] Thomas Davis, a worker on Dr. Mudd’s farm, testified that he had been living at the Mudd farm since January of 1865. Davis stated that Dr. Mudd was only away from his farm overnight on three occasions while Davis was working there. According to Davis, Dr. and Mrs. Mudd attended a party at a neighbor’s on January 26th and Dr. Mudd later took a trip to Washington on March 22nd looking to buy horses. While Davis was present at the Mudd farm when Booth and Herold arrived on April 15th, Davis claimed that he never saw the men, only their horses in the stables. When the authorities arrived at the Mudd farm on April 21st looking to interview Dr. Mudd again, Thomas Davis was the one who retrieved Mudd who was at his father’s at the time.[3] Davis’ testimony about Dr. Mudd’s whereabouts in January was to counter the testimony of Louis Weichmann who claimed that Dr. Mudd had introduced John Wilkes Booth to John Surratt in January of 1865, rather than the correct date of December 23, 1864.

Julia Ann Bloise, an African American servant, testified that she had worked for Dr. Mudd from January to December of 1864. Her duties included cooking, washing, cleaning, and waiting on the family at meals. Bloise stated that she never saw any men hiding in the pines near the Mudd farm during her year with Mudd. She stated she knew Bennett Gwynn and his brother Andrew but that neither man had made an appearance at the farm during her time there. Bloise was shown Exhibit 72, John Surratt’s photograph, but stated she had never seen him before. Mudd’s defense also asked Bloise about the reputation of Mary Simms and her brother Milo, both of whom testified about Dr. Mudd being a vindictive and openly disloyal enslaver. Bloise stated her opinion that Mary and Milo were not known for their honesty and that it was Mrs. Mudd, not Dr. Mudd, who had hit Mary with a switch for not obeying.[4]

Break

Following Julia Ann Bloise’s testimony, the court decided to take its normal one hour recess for lunch. During this time all of the conspirators were returned to their cells. At 2 o’clock, the court reassembled and testimony was resumed.[5]

Testimony resumed

Dr. George D. Mudd, Dr. Mudd’s second cousin, was asked about his interactions with his cousin on April 16, 1865. George Mudd stated that he saw his cousin at church on that day and that after church Dr. Mudd overtook him on the road to Bryantown. When the defense asked George to recount what Dr. Mudd said to him during their ride together, the prosecution objected to the words of the defendant being introduced. Thomas Ewing, one of Dr. Mudd’s lawyers, replied that the government had previously brought forth witnesses who testified that Dr. Mudd completely denied any parties had been to his house after the assassination. This was the testimony of detectives Joshua Lloyd and William Williams. According to Ewing, the testimony of Dr. George Mudd would show that Dr. Mudd informed his cousin about the “strangers” to his house and requested George inform the proper authorities about them. Judge Advocate Joseph Holt countered that the only declarations of the prisoners that were admissible under the law were those brought forth by the prosecution. Such confessions or statements could be also used by the defense once they had been introduced but Holt stated that the government had brought forth no testimony regarding Dr. Mudd’s behavior or words on April 16th. Instead, Holt stated, the government’s case against Dr. Mudd was not in his so called denial of having seen the fugitives but that  he had “received and entertained… comforted and strengthened and encouraged”[6] Booth and Herold. Holt stated that the statements Mudd made in his own defense, after enough time had passed for him to reflect on crime, could not be admissible in court. Ewing did not back down in his argument, insisting that the testimony of Lloyd and Williams spoke to a charge of concealment and that the testimony of Dr. George Mudd would disprove such a charge. Holt stated that if Ewing would reframe his question to George Mudd, asking him what actions he took because of his conversation with Dr. Mudd, he would not object. Holt stated it was the presentation of Dr. Mudd’s words that had caused him to object. While Ewing attempted to claim the entirety of Dr. Mudd’s statement, he was overruled when the commission sustained Holt’s original objection.[7] Though unable to use Dr. Mudd’s direct words, George Mudd still testified that, on April 16th, Dr. Mudd informed him that two men had been to his house. Dr. Mudd stated that one of the two men had a broken leg which the doctor had set. He also admitted to having traveled with the younger of the two men in search of a carriage but was unsuccessful in acquiring one. When, at the end of their ride together, George Mudd stated that he would mention the matter to the authorities in Bryantown, Dr. Mudd stated he was glad to hear it but would prefer if his cousin could make arrangements for him to be sent for. It was George Mudd’s report to the Union soldiers in Bryantown on Monday, April 17th that caused Lt. Lovett and the other detectives to visit the Mudd farm on April 18th. Thomas Ewing also got George Mudd to testify that he had originally heard in Bryantown that the identity of President Lincoln’s assassin was a man by the name of Boyle, not Booth. George stated that while his cousin’s sympathies were with the South, he did not believe Dr. Mudd to be involved in any disloyal acts during the war. George also testified that, in his professional opinion, Daniel J. Thomas (the prosecution witness who claimed Dr. Mudd told him in March of 1865 that Lincoln and his cabinet were to be killed) was mentally unsound and prone to tell extravagant tales when excited.[8]

Col. Martin Burke, commander of Fort Lafayette in New York City, testified that he was a witness to the confession of Robert C. Kennedy, a Confederate agent who took part in a failed plot to burn New York City in 1864. Kennedy’s confession was read into evidence.[9] Judge Advocate Holt had previously called John S. Young, the Chief of the New York Metropolitan Police, to testify about Kennedy and his confession only to find out that Young had not been present when Kennedy gave his confession. Col. Burke’s testimony corrected that error. While Kennedy’s confession spoke of his being recruited for the mission from Confederates in Canada, the burning of New York City had no connection to the conspirators. This testimony, like the descriptions of Confederate prisoner of war camps, was merely the government’s attempt to portray the assassination of Lincoln as another Confederate atrocity.

A copy of the confession of New York City arsonist Robert C. Kennedy was entered into evidence as Exhibit 73.

Hosea B. Carter, a novelties merchant, testified that he had been staying at the St. Lawrence Hall hotel in Montreal, Canada from September 1864 to February 1865. According to Carter, he had seen John Wilkes Booth communicating with Confederate agents George Sanders and Beverley Tucker at the hotel. Carter stated that a man by the name of John Payne had called upon the Confederate agents during his time at the hotel as well but that he did not know if he was of any relation to the conspirator known as Lewis Payne (Powell).[10] While Carter testified about seeing Booth in Montreal he fails to note exactly when or how long Booth was there. John Wilkes Booth did spend 10 days at the St. Lawrence Hall hotel in October of 1864 but Carter never provides a time frame for when he saw the actor. Carter also failed to explain his own reason for being at the St. Lawrence Hall hotel, a hotbed of Confederate sympathizers, for such an extended period of time especially considering that his home state and business were in New Hampshire. Many years later, Carter would claim that he was employed as a “private detective”[11] during the Civil War but there is little evidence to back up this claim. Still, Carter’s testimony connecting Booth with Confederate agents has more credibility than the government’s prior witnesses of Dr. James Merritt, Richard Montgomery, and Sandford Conover. These three would admit to perjury down the line. Still, it might be worthwhile to note that, in 1867, Hosea Carter was arrested himself for attempting to pass counterfeit greenbacks and for circulating “obscene” prints.[12]

Godfrey Joseph Hyams, a British shoemaker and former Confederate agent, testified that in 1864 he was involved in a plot to use germ warfare against the United States. Hyams detailed his introduction in Canada to a Confederate agent by the name of Dr. Luke Blackburn who hired Hyams to assist him in transporting infected clothing into the United States. Dr. Blackburn’s plot involved him travelling to Bermuda where a Yellow Fever epidemic was occurring. While in Bermuda, Dr. Blackburn acquired the soiled clothing and linens of those who had died from the disease. Blackburn then mixed the soiled clothing with new clothes in hopes of spreading the Yellow Fever contagion to them. Blackburn then tasked Hyams with transporting the clothes from Canada to Washington, D.C. and Union occupied cities in the South. From there Hyams arranged for the auction of the clothing in hopes of infecting the general population of the Union with Yellow Fever.[13] While Hyams had no knowledge of John Wilkes Booth or his plot, the prosecution had Hyams testify anyway as part of their ongoing effort to lump together all of the Confederacy’s wartime crimes together in order to support their premise that Confederate involvement in Lincoln’s death was not a far-fetched claim. At the time, it was thought that Yellow Fever was contagious and that Dr. Blackburn was involved in a form of bio-terrorism against the United States by spreading soiled clothing. It was discovered many years later, however, that Yellow Fever is spread through the bites of infected mosquitoes and therefore Blackburn’s plot was always doomed to fail.

William L. Wall, proprietor of a D.C. auction company, testified that in August of 1864 a man presenting himself as J. W. Harris commissioned his company to sell trunks of shirts. Wall was not present in Washington at the time and the arrangement was made with Wall’s bookkeeper, Anthony Brenner.[14] Wall’s testimony related to the prior witness, Godfrey Hyams, who used the pseudonym of J. W. Harris when selling off his clothing “infected” with Yellow Fever.

Anthony Brenner, bookkeeper for W. L. Wall & Co auctioneers, testified that he had arranged the auction of clothing for the prior witness Godfrey Hyams, known to him as J. W. Harris. Brenner stated that Hyams asked for an advance of $100 prior to the auction which Brenner gave him. When examining the shirts in the trunks, Brenner observed that they appeared brand new but had been carelessly packed into the trunk. He had no knowledge that the shirts had been “infected” with Yellow Fever. In the end, the 96 shirts sold for $184.40.[15] Like the two prior witnesses, Brenner’s testimony about Dr. Luke Blackburn’s Yellow Fever plot was not related to Booth conspiracy against Lincoln.

The account page from W. L. Wall & Co. regarding the auction of Yellow Fever clothing was entered into the record as Exhibit 74.

Thomas Llewellyn Gardiner, a farmer and neighbor of Dr. Samuel Mudd, was recalled to the stand after previously testifying for the prosecution on May 17th. Gardiner was asked about a trip to Washington he took with Dr. Mudd on March 22, 1865. Gardiner stated that he and Dr. Mudd came to D.C. in order to attend an auction of horses, but, upon arriving in the city, found that the auction had been postponed four days. Gardiner and Mudd remained in D.C. overnight anyway, visiting with friends. On the 23rd, Mudd and Gardiner returned home to Charles County. According to Gardiner, he was with Mudd during their entire time in D.C. and the doctor never saw Booth nor stopped at Booth’s hotel during that time.[16] Earlier witnesses had stated that Dr. Mudd was away from his house overnight on three occasions between January of 1865 and the assassination of Lincoln. Gardiner’s testimony was to show that there was nothing nefarious connected to Mudd’s trip to D.C. on March 22nd.

John H. Downing, a neighbor of Dr. Samuel Mudd, testified that Dr. Mudd and another neighbor, Daniel J. Thomas, were both at his home in March of 1865. Downing stated that he was sitting with Mudd and Thomas as the two men conversed for about a half an hour before Dr. Mudd departed. Thomas Ewing, one of Dr. Mudd’s lawyers, asked Downing if he heard Mudd say anything to Thomas about Lincoln, his cabinet, or Union sympathizers being killed. Downing stated that no such conversation occurred. Instead, Downing claimed that Thomas admitted to being appointed as a Union detective but that he stated he would never catch anybody.[17] The purpose of Downing’s testimony was to counter the earlier testimony of Daniel Thomas who claimed Dr. Mudd informed him at Downing’s house that Lincoln was to be killed soon.

Henry Lowe Mudd, Jr., Dr. Mudd’s brother, was asked about a trip he took to Washington, D.C. with Dr. Mudd around April 10th. Henry stated that his brother traveled from their adjacent homes in Charles County to their brother-in-law’s place in Prince George’s County. After spending the night, they traveled the rest of the way to Giesboro, an area of D.C. south of the Anacostia river. In Giesboro they attended a horse auction but found the horses too sickly for purchase. At the conclusion of the auction they returned back to their homes in Charles County. According to Henry, he was with his brother during their whole trip and Dr. Mudd never saw John Wilkes Booth during this time. Henry also stated that, to his knowledge, no men had been hiding around his brother’s farm since he had returned home from college in July of 1864. The prosecution asked Henry about his brother’s land holdings to which Henry replied that all of Dr. Mudd’s land was still held by their father and not owned outright by the doctor.[18] The defense’s purpose for calling Henry Mudd, Jr. was to explain Dr. Mudd’s second overnight trip to D.C. between January and the assassination of Lincoln. The prosecution’s questioning about Dr. Mudd’s land holdings was to counter the claim that Dr. Mudd only interacted with Booth in the fall of 1864 because he was thinking of selling his farm. By having Henry Mudd point out that Dr. Mudd did not own his land outright, the prosecution was hoping to poke holes in this part of Dr. Mudd’s story.

John F. Hardey, a neighbor of Dr. Samuel Mudd, testified that he was dining with Dr. Mudd at the home of the doctor’s father on April 21, 1865. During their meal Thomas Davis arrived summoning Dr. Mudd back to his farm to speak with detectives. Hardey accompanied Mudd back to his farm and was introduced by Mudd to Lt. Lovett, the leader of the group of detectives and soldiers. According to Hardey, Dr. Mudd volunteered to the lieutenant that a boot belonging to the man with the broken leg was there and the doctor asked Lovett if he wanted it. Hardey testified that Dr. Mudd then gave the boot to the detectives himself.[19] Hardey’s testimony runs contrary to that of Lt. Lovett’s from May 16th. Lovett stated that it wasn’t until after he announced the house would be searched that Dr. Mudd volunteered the information about the boot. When asked about this, Hardey merely replied that he had not heard a word about the house being searched before Dr. Mudd offered the boot.

Dr. Joseph Henry Blandford, Dr. Mudd’s brother-in-law, testified that he had accompanied Dr. Mudd and his brother Henry Lowe Mudd, Jr. to the auction of horses in D.C. on April 11, 1865. Blandford supported the earlier testimony of Henry Lowe Mudd regarding the trio’s purpose for travelling up to D.C. and that there had been no opportunity for Dr. Mudd to have met Booth during this trip. Blandford also stated that he had heard Dr. Mudd express an interest in selling his farm about a year and a half prior.[20]

Robert F. Martin, the postmaster of Uniontown, a community of D.C. located south of the Anacostia River, testified that Dr. Mudd had visited his home in both March and April of 1865. Martin largely supported the testimonies of Thomas Gardiner, Henry Lowe Mudd, Jr., and Dr. Joseph Blandford recalling the two trips Dr. Mudd took to D.C. looking for horses.[21] Martin stated his belief that Dr. Mudd’s visit in April occurred on April 4th, which was at odds with the earlier witnesses who stated this trip occurred on April 11th. Martin would be recalled the next day, May 30th, to correct this error.

James H. Montgomery, a tavern and stables operator in Bryantown, Maryland, testified that Dr. Mudd approached him on December 22, 1864 asking if Montgomery could transport a stove down from Washington for him. Montgomery replied that his partner, Francis Lucas, could bring it down for him as he was already in D.C.[22] Lucas had previously testified on May 26th that he had to refuse Dr. Mudd on December 24th because he had not sold enough of his poultry to fit the stove in his wagon. This was all meant to prove that Dr. Mudd’s reason for travelling to D.C. in December of 1864 was to buy the stove, rather than to meet John Wilkes Booth (which he still did).

At the conclusion of Montgomery’s testimony, the court adjourned at around 5 o’clock.[23]


Recollections

From General Kautz’ diary:

“The Commission met at ten as usual, and we got through a fair amount of business…The weather was beautiful”[24]


Newspaper Descriptions

“From the number of witnesses summoned by the defence from Charles County, it would appear as if summonses had been issued for every man whose name appears on the voting list of the county.”[25]

“The prisoners remain without change. The novelty with them has worn off, and they sit listless and apparently careless spectators of the whole scene, which to them is of such infinite importance.”[26]

Mrs. Surratt

“Mrs. Surratt took more than the usual pains to conceal herself from observation.”[27]

“Mrs. Surratt still sits with her veil down, her head leaning against the wall, and her face hidden by the large palm leaf fan.”[28]

Lewis Powell

“Payne occupied the seat next to Herold, and sat with his head thrown back against the wall, in the same position as already described.”[29]

“Payne was less constrained in his manner than heretofore, but bore the gaze of the crowded room with the usual quiet demeanor. He certainly is a most wonderful man in more than one respect.”[30]

“At one time Payne was much amused at the evidence of one of the witnesses.”[31]

David Herold

“Herold and Arnold appear to be rather well pleased with their situation before the spectators.”[32]

“Herold sat with his back against the end of the bench, and seemed to listen attentively to the reading of the testimony. He was attired the same as usual.”[33]

George Atzerodt

“Atzerodt looked the same, and sat gazing on the visitors at the Court.”[34]

Dr. Mudd

“O’Laughlin, Spangler and Mudd look sorrowful and miserable. They sit gazing on the floor most of the time, and seem perfectly miserable.”[35]

“Mudd seems to be in good spirits, apparently gathering encouragement from the evidence in his behalf on Saturday…”[36]

Samuel Arnold

“Harold and Arnold were in very good humor, and at the same time quite indifferent to what was going on.”[37]

“Arnold, in his seat next to the open window, spends most of the time in gazing through the window, with his head resting on his hands.”[38]

Michael O’Laughlen

“O’Laughlin, Spangler and Mudd look sorrowful and miserable. They sit gazing on the floor most of the time, and seem perfectly miserable.”[39]

Edman Spangler

“O’Laughlin, Spangler and Mudd look sorrowful and miserable. They sit gazing on the floor most of the time, and seem perfectly miserable.”[40]


Visitors

“There is a very large attendance of ladies this morning, the fair weather having the effect of bringing them out. The relic hunters, as well as the artists for the pictorial papers, have found their way to the court room, and in default of any more available objects to carry away, they on Saturday appropriated some spools of the court room red tape, which was quickly divided into short lengths and distributed pro rata. The chairs, tables, &c., also begin to suffer some, and it is probable that unless an Argus-eyed watch is kept upon the furniture, the Court will see it diminish visibly each day, and vanish altogether by the close of the trial. From the eager glances bestowed by some of the lady visitors upon the hair of the prisoners, it is evident that they have a hankering for relics in that quarter; and as there is a rush each day to the prisoners’ dock, as they come out and go in, it would not at any time surprise us to see some enterprising lady curiosity hunter clipping away at the head of the longer haired prisoners, as they pass.”[41]

“Two sisters of Harold, aged about sixteen and eighteen, very pretty, and dressed in morning, sat in front of his dock to-day, and took quite an interest in the trial.”[42]

“By ten o’clock the court room was well filled with visitors. They continued to arrive during the morning. By twelve o’clock every inch of standing room was occupied, a great portion of the audience being ladies.”[43]

“The attendance today upon the conspiracy trial was numerically large, the room being so crowded this afternoon as to interfere, to some extent, with the rapid transaction of business.”[44]

“The room was overflowingly full of ladies, and the buzz was indescribable.”[45]

“The Court room was very much crowded, particularly with ladies, whose rustling silks as they pass in and out and crowd each other for seats, form an attractive feature of the trial.”[46]

“The young woman, Ella Turner, who it will be remembered evinced her affection for Wilkes Booth by attempting suicide on learning of his crime and flight from the city, has been summoned as a witness by Payne’s counsel, and much curiosity is manifested to learn what she may know of the conspiracy. She has been in the witness room at the arsenal since Saturday morning, and will probably be called to the stand tomorrow.”[47]

“Booth’s mistress, Ella Turner, a rather pretty, light-haired, little woman was also on hand. But that sort of evidence was not very much to the point and [she was] dismissed without examination.”[48]


Previous Session        Trial Home       Next Session


[1] John F. Hartranft, The Lincoln Assassination Conspirators: Their Confinement and Execution, as Recorded in the Letterbook of John Frederick Hartranft, ed. Edward Steers, Jr. and Harold Holzer (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 2009), 109.
[2] William C. Edwards, ed., The Lincoln Assassination – The Court Transcripts (Self-published: Google Books, 2012), 660 – 665.
[3] Edwards, Court Transcripts, 665 – 670.
[4] Ibid., 670 – 673.
[5] Evening Star (Washington, D.C.), May 29, 1865, 2.
[6] Edwards, Court Transcripts, 675.
[7] Ibid., 673 – 676.
[8] Ibid., 673 – 685.
[9] Ibid., 685 – 686.
[10] Ibid., 686 – 689.
[11] Hariette E. Noyes, A Memorial to the Town of Hampstead, New Hampshire (Boston: George B. Reed, 1899), 339.
[12] The Mirror & Farmer (Manchester, NH), May 25, 1867, 2.
[13] Edwards, Court Transcripts, 689 – 696.
[14] Ibid., 696.
[15] Ibid., 696 – 698.
[16] Ibid., 698 – 700.
[17] Ibid., 700 – 705.
[18] Ibid., 705 – 707.
[19] Ibid., 707 – 709.
[20] Ibid., 709 – 710.
[21] Ibid., 710 – 711.
[22] Ibid., 711 – 712.
[23] Hartranft, Letterbook, 109.
[24] August V. Kautz, May 29, 1865 diary entry (Unpublished diary: Library of Congress, August V. Kautz Papers).
[25] Boston Daily Advertiser (Boston, MA), May 30, 1865, 1.
[26] The Philadelphia Inquirer (Philadelphia, PA), May 30, 1865, 4.
[27] Boston Daily Advertiser (Boston, MA), May 30, 1865, 1.
[28] Daily National Republican (Washington, D.C.), May 29, 1865, 2.
[29] Daily National Republican (Washington, D.C.), May 29, 1865, 2.
[30] Boston Daily Advertiser (Boston, MA), May 30, 1865, 1.
[31] The World (New York, NY), May 30, 1865, 1.
[32] Boston Daily Advertiser (Boston, MA), May 30, 1865, 1.
[33] Daily National Republican (Washington, D.C.), May 29, 1865, 2.
[34] Daily National Republican (Washington, D.C.), May 29, 1865, 2.
[35] Daily National Republican (Washington, D.C.), May 29, 1865, 2.
[36] Evening Star (Washington, D.C.), May 29, 1865, 2.
[37] The World (New York, NY), May 30, 1865, 1.
[38] Daily National Republican (Washington, D.C.), May 29, 1865, 2.
[39] Daily National Republican (Washington, D.C.), May 29, 1865, 2.
[40] Daily National Republican (Washington, D.C.), May 29, 1865, 2.
[41] Evening Star (Washington, D.C.), May 29, 1865, 2.
[42] The Philadelphia Inquirer (Philadelphia, PA), May 30, 1865, 4.
[43] Daily National Republican (Washington, D.C.), May 29, 1865, 2.
[44] Boston Daily Advertiser (Boston, MA), May 30, 1865, 1.
[45] Evening Star (Washington, D.C.), May 29, 1865, 2.
[46] The Philadelphia Inquirer (Philadelphia, PA), May 30, 1865, 4.
[47] Boston Daily Advertiser (Boston, MA), May 30, 1865, 1.
[48] William E. Doster, Lincoln and Episodes of the Civil War (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1915), 276.
The drawing of the conspirators as they were seated on the prisoners’ dock on this day was created by artist and historian Jackie Roche.

1 Comment

One thought on “May 29, 1865

  1. Pingback: The Trial Today: May 29 | BoothieBarn

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: