PicoBlog

I didn’t know about it when I dusted off my 1980 Dr. Mudd piece for republication on Substack, but on Friday (March 15, 2024) Apple TV will start running its series “Manhunt.”

It’s described as a ‘conspiracy thriller’ about the pursuit of John Wilkes Booth after he killed Lincoln. The Wall Street Journal reviewed it. I’ll be watching it, I hope, to see how they handled Dr. Mudd and his role in helping Booth.

So far, it looks good for truth & accuracy: In the review, when discussing the series’ veracity, John Anderson writes:

“Was Dr. Samuel Mudd unaware that the man whose broken leg he treated was the fugitive Booth? As portrayed by Matt Walsh (“Veep”), he’s a fully committed accomplice.”

Otherwise, based on the review, ‘Manhunt’ sounds like the usual load of cliches, caricatures and distortions of history that Hollywood’s distorter community has specialized in for a century.

Los Angeles Times

March 30, 1980

The writer worked on the script of "The Ordeal of Dr. Mudd" while employed as a researcher with the CBS docudrama unit last year. He is a copy editor at The Times.

By Bill Steigerwald

No doubt, most of the 30-or-so million people who watched "The Ordeal of Dr. Mudd" on CBS last Tuesday believe that they saw the true story.

They have little cause to question the veracity of the TV movie about Mudd, the country doctor who treated John Wilkes Booth's broken leg and then was arrested, tried and convicted of conspiring to murder Lincoln.

Newspaper ads and full-page spreads in about 20 million TV Guides claimed that the movie starring Dennis Weaver was to be "The true story of Dr. Samuel Mudd" — a claim largely unchallenged by TV critics or program listing guides.

What's more, the docudrama — which depicted historical events and used authentic names such as Booth and Edwin Stanton and Andrew Johnson — opened with the unqualified pronouncement that "What you are about to see is a true story."

Despite such assertions, however, it wasn't quite the true story. It differed significantly from historical accounts.

On TV, Mudd's character was sympathetically simplified, his innocence was overstated, the extent of his physical suffering in prison substantially exaggerated.

It was long on drama and short on docu. It more closely resembled a 1936 Warner Bros film, "The Prisoner of Shark Island," than two well-documented books written about the unfortunate Dr. Mudd.

The word docudrama is an umbrella term used to describe TV movies and mini-series that use the real names of real people in real events. "Docudrama" is out of favor with networks and producers, however. They prefer less self-contradictory words — theater of fact, historical drama, or drama based on fact.

By whatever name, each docudrama, though it contains its own special ration of fact and fiction, truth and drama, is, nevertheless, supposed to remain essentially loyal to the truth of the story being dramatized — as far as "truth" can ever be ascertained.

Docudramas represent or tend to represent the elite of TV. The best and brightest writers and producers create them and top actors appear in them.

When such creative quality is coupled with major newsmaking events like Watergate or Attica good ratings usually result. At CBS, some programming executives believe that "the true story" tag alone is worth an additional 5 to 10 ratings points.

Some docudramas reenact complicated and important contemporary events, such as "Attica" or the upcoming "Mad Messiah" (Jim Jones), or depict historical eras, such as "Holocaust" or "Roots." Others are entertaining true-life personal stories of little impact, like "Aunt Mary."

Early docudramas in the 1970s elicited considerable criticism from media critics and academics who complained about specific inaccuracies or distortions of fact, or contended that the genre itself was inherently misleading.

Today, in response to criticism (and some lawsuits), each network has its own method of verifying docudrama scripts to ensure their accuracy. Yet networks want good drama, too, so the networks permit producers to employ certain dramatic effects to flesh out the bare bones of fact.

This "dramatic license" allows the use of composite or representative characters, chronological changes such as telescoped or rearranged time, and other dramatic devices. The networks, of course, decide what constitutes legitimate license.

The problem is that the viewer isn't privy to these changes. Networks often place disclaimers at the beginning or end of docudramas for legal reasons and to explain to the audience what it is about to see or what it has just seen.

Yet, unless a viewer already is well-acquainted with the subject being docudra-matized, disclaimers like "Certain characters in this production are composite characters and some names and sequences of events are changed" (NBC's "When Hell Was in Session," about POWs in North Vietnam) are little help.

Not all disclaimers are so ambiguous — ABC's "Attica" opened with a more explicit disclosure statement — but there is no way for a viewer to know which characters or what sequence of events has been changed, or where fact stops and drama starts.

***

“The Ordeal of Dr. Mudd" didn't equivocate. It baldly maintained it was "the true story." But was it?

The real Mudd was not simply a loving husband-father and hopelessly humanitarian doctor. Nor was he pro-Union, as he was made out to be in last Tuesday's movie.

"Dr. Mudd was a born loser, an ardent Confederate sympathizer," Samuel Carter III, the author of "Riddle of Dr. Mudd," said recently. "He was timid. That's what got him in trouble."

Carter's 1974 book and Hal Higdon's "Union vs. Dr. Mudd" were used as sources by the co-writers/co-producers of "The Ordeal of Dr. Mudd," Michael Berk and Douglas Schwartz.

The CBS docudrama unit that verified the script included the same two books in its research. History's Mudd was more complex than TV's Mudd — and not the 20th-century liberal he was portrayed as.

Like many of his neighbors in 1860, he owned slaves-seven, valued, says Carter's book, at $2,500 each. A pious Roman Catholic who resented what he called the "godless Northerners" and anti-Catholic abolitionists, Mudd also believed strongly in the superiority of Southern society.

Tuesday's movie took the position that Mudd's version of the events of April 15, 1865, is true. Mudd steadfastly maintained that although he had met Booth once before, he did not recognize the famous actor because Booth had disguised himself with a false beard.

By depicting this version as the "truth," by showing Booth wearing a false beard on the screen, viewers were presented with absolute proof of Mudd's innocence.

In his book, Higdon concluded that Mudd's tale was untrue.

"Mudd probably was 'guilty,' in quotes," Higdon said recently. "He probably knew who Booth was, but got scared and frightened and acted badly. I'm not convinced he'd have been acquitted even if he had had a fair trial."

Carter also said he thinks Mudd's story about the beard was a fabrication. It seems Booth and Mudd were hardly strangers.

Booth ate dinner and spent the night at Mudd's farmhouse in November, 1864, and the two were seen together in Washington at Christmastime the same year. Also, Mudd saw his infamous patient later that morning, in daylight, and nowhere else on his flight through pro-Southern territory did Booth bother to disguise himself or assume an alias.

In "Ordeal" Mudd suffered physical abuse. At Ft. Jefferson, on the island of Dry Tortugas, he was slapped by the sadistic commandant, put to hard labor, forced to carry a cannonball around his neck for 24 hours and placed in solitary for months following his futile escape attempt.

While soldiers and prisoners at Ft. Jefferson often endured such cruelties, there is no evidence Dr. Mudd ever did: "If anything," Higdon said, "Mudd was treated a little better than the others because of his status as a doctor. He didn't live comfortably at the prison, but no one else did either. He was not ill-treated."

"Mudd wasn't persecuted unduly or singled out for special acts of persecution," according to historian Carter.

Other major discrepancies included the circumstances, chronology and motivations of Mudd's escape, as well as the facts surrounding the trial, the Yellow Fever epidemic and Mudd's presidential pardon.

Even the movie's final message, that "President Jimmy Carter exonerated him (Mudd) of all guilt in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln," is misleading.

In a letter to Mudd's grandson July 24, 1979, President Carter said he, personally, felt Dr. Mudd was innocent; it was by no means an official act.

The real Mudd was not simply a victim of fate or just a good doctor in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was a victim for many reasons. He was a Confederate sympathizer, a Roman Catholic (amid rumors that the Pope had ordered Lincoln's death) and a slave owner — facts apparently too difficult to dramatize or too complex or too trivial for TV viewers.

Mudd and many others were deprived of basic constitutional liberties by a government interested primarily in avenging the death of a President. Yet the lesson of Mudd's ordeal — that constitutional rights can get trampled during hysterical times — was lost somewhere beneath Tuesday night's dramatic scenes of cruel fate and familial love and personal torture.

A true story about the conspiracy trial of the Chicago Seven wouldn't eliminate every defendant except Bobby Seale. Nor would a movie about the imprisoning of Japanese-American citizens during World War II neglect historical and political background.

Yet, complex historical and political events were streamlined, simplified, rearranged or eliminated to serve the dramatic purposes of "The Ordeal of Dr. Mudd."

For the true "true story" of Mudd's horrible adventure, take the advice offered by actor Arthur Hill at the end of Tuesday's docudrama — read a book.

****

Boy, did the producers of the CBS docudrama and my friends, colleagues and bosses at the network hate my expose of the many fibs that were told in “The Ordeal of Dr. Mudd.” They bombed the Times with letters of complaint. Sunday Calendar Editor Irv Letofsky, who had trusted me to do the expose, didn’t blink. Since I was also the editor of the Sunday Calendar letters, I made sure my name was spelled right every time the CBS folks trashed it and when I wrote the italic notes after the letters.

April 13, 1980

There were more erroneous and misleading statements in Bill Steigerwald's "Drama Over Docu?: Clear as 'Mudd' " article than he accused the CBS film "The Ordeal of Dr. Mudd" of having made.

First of all, the preamble to the article made it sound as if Steigerwald was a writer who worked on the script when he was a researcher commenting on an already completed screenplay.

His job was to make sure the dramatic interpretation did not alter significantly the "essence of history." As writers and producers of "Ordeal of Dr. Mudd," we strongly disagreed with Steigerwald on what "the essence of history" was.

We became concerned that if Mr. Steigerwald had his way we would have to film a textbook instead of a screenplay. In his article, Steigerwald quotes Hal Higdon (author of "Union vs. Dr. Mudd”) as saying, "Mudd probably was 'guilty,' in quotes," and might not have been acquitted, even if he had had a fair trial.

That statement implies that Mr. Higdon believes Mudd was guilty of conspiracy in the assassination of Lincoln, the crime for which he was tried. It seems impossible that Higdon could have meant that, since in his book he states that Mudd was a "plain country doctor who, through strange circumstances indeed, had been entrapped in a web spun by others," and, that we can "rule out any possibility of previous conspiratorial commitments on the part of Dr. Mudd."

The article also states that Dr. Mudd was an ardent Confederate sympathizer. But it has been documented in both books Steigerwald said he used (Higdon's and Samuel Carter Ill's "Riddle of Dr. Mudd") that Dr. Mudd "freely took the oath of allegiance prescribed for voters, supported a Union candidate against Harris, the secession candidate ... and was never known or reported to have done an act or said a word in aid of the rebellion, or in countenance or support of the enemies of the government."

Steigerwald gave the impression that Dr. Mudd was well-treated at Fort Jefferson. But the facts are that, according to Carter's "Riddle of Dr. Mudd," Mudd was "visited in his cell by soldiers and the prison blacksmith who soldered chains to his ankles and he was forced to do his full day's stint of labor in the yard, dragging the shackles behind him."

The most moving statement of Dr. Mudd's mistreatment came in his own letters (not mentioned by Steigerwald as part of his research). Mudd wrote, "I have grown old in my youth . . . Have they not from the beginning to the present, endeavored to degrade and humiliate by previously unknown and unheard of tortures and cruelties even in an uncivilized community, to lower us, the victims of injustice, beneath the dignity of brute creation." This is not the writing of a man whom Steigerwald described as ". . . not ill-treated."

Regarding Steigerwald's statement "the lesson of Mudd's ordeal that constitutional rights can get trampled during hysterical times was lost somewhere" in our story, we can only state that the entire film dealt strongly with that issue.

If Steigerwald feels that Mudd's imprisonment on Devil's Island was not evidence of constitutional rights being trampled, then Steigerwald had better reexamine his beliefs of what freedom in this country is all about.

Of his statement that our assertion that President Carter exonerated him of all guilt was misleading, then so was the statement of one of the country's most respected and reliable news magazines, Time.

In the September 17, 1979 issue, Time states, "President Carter has exonerated him (Dr. Mudd) of guilt."

Having accused us of distorting the truth in this manner, Steigerwald suggests that people read the books recommended after the movie by actor Arthur Hill. It should be remembered that Hill's recommendation was part of our presentation for the express purpose of providing the viewing public with the facts of the case in a form not limited by a motion picture presentation.

Samuel Carter III, a source quoted repeatedly by Steigerwald, wrote in his book, "Those who follow his (Dr. Mudd's) story are obliged, as often as not, to do their own editing, draw their own conclusions. Mudd's biographer confronts the same dilemma. Even where abundant records are available, they are so often contradictory that one can only accept those facts and versions that seem to fit the picture best and be aware that others may not agree with the selection or interpretation."

One who did agree with our interpretation was Dr. Richard Mudd, Samuel Mudd's grandson, who has led the fight to clear his grandfather's name and to whom President Carter wrote his letter.

Richard Mudd viewed the film, and then, in an emotional phone conversation, told us that the film had moved him deeply, both in its telling of the story, and in its effect on the American people.

There are many other points raised by Steigerwald that we cannot rebut due only to lack of space, so we will close with one final example of Steigerwald's own accuracy.

As a researcher, Mr. Steigerwald should have checked to find out that "The Prisoner of Shark Island" made in 1936 was not a Warner Bros, film as he stated, but was made by 20th Century-Fox.

MICHAEL BERK, DOUGLAS SCHWARTZ, PAUL RADIN

Writers and producers "The Ordeal of Dr. Mudd"

Steigerwald notes that Higdon himself wrote (incorrectly) that "Shark Island" was a Warner Bros. film in his book "Union vs. Dr. Mudd." Also, contrary to Time magazine's report, President Carter wrote in his letter to Dr. Richard Mudd, "There is no authority under law by which I as President, could set aside his (Mudd's) conviction."

***

Is CBS aware of its equivocal position with regard to the alleged guilt of Dr. Samuel Mudd in the assassination of Lincoln?

On March 25, CBS-TV presented "The Ordeal of Dr. Mudd," which told how the Maryland physician was framed and suffered for a crime he did not commit. (Did not the ending credits note that President Carter exonerated Dr. Mudd?)

The next night (March 26), CBS — at least over its KNX-AM outlet — offered "Conspiracy" as its “Radio Mystery Theater” offering. In that drama, Dr. Mudd was portrayed as a knowing, out-and-out conspirator with John Wilkes Booth.

Is the jury still out on the guilt of Dr. Mudd?

STANLEY SLOME, Granada Hills

***

While disagreement and interpretation are commonplace in historical subjects of this nature, and while some compression of time and characters may be called for, these factors do not compromise the accuracy of the story.

The events and characterization portrayed in "The Ordeal of Dr. Mudd" were documented and verified. Mr. Steigerwald, whose career with CBS lasted less than six months, does a disservice to the television industry, the creative form of dramas based on fact, his former colleagues and himself.

DONN H. O'BRIEN

Vice President, Program Practices, CBS

***

I agree with Bill Steigerwald that docu-dramas such as "The Ordeal of Dr. Mudd" ought to be more reliable historically if they are going to be passed off as "true stories," however elusive the "truth" may be.

As Steigerwald says, an effort should be made to come as near the truth as historical documents allow. To show how difficult this can be, I would like to point out that the photo of Dr. Mudd used in the March 30 article is, according to experts at the Library of Congress, not a photo of Dr. Mudd.

My source reference is "Mathew Brady: Historian With a Camera" by James D. Horan (Bonanza, 1955, photo No. 321).

ROBERT PEASE, Ventura

Calendar received the (alleged) photo of Mudd (above, left) as publicity for the TV docudrama. The photo was provided to the publicists by the Library of Congress. The same photo appears in many (but not all) printings of the Horan book with the caption, "For years this was believed to be Dr. Samuel Mudd . . . However, a recent comparison by experts in the Library of Congress of pictures of Mudd reveals that this could not be the unfortunate physician." Author Horan could not be located for comment or clarification. The right photo above is definitely of Mudd. We think.

ncG1vNJzZmibnJ69tHrSrpmsrJGYuG%2BvzqZmqWeVrb2wv8innmasmJp6o7%2BMoqVmrJiaerC%2Bw56YpWWfm4y2wMyYpJ6cmaq6fr7EmpueqmI%3D