James McPher-son in his article, “Grant’s Final Victory,” gives some insight to Grant’s military career as well as his later years writing his memoirs while battling against throat cancer. In the arti-cle, McPherson rebukes the claims from other historians that Grant was an alcoholic or a butcher of his soldiers. Similarly, Andrew Ferguson in his article, “The Last Battle of the Civil War,” refutes the claims of many that Dr. Samuel Mudd was an accomplice to John Wilkes Booth in the assassination of President Lincoln. Both of these authors take the unpop-ular argument in both of their cases.

Grant’s Final Victory” was centered on Grant’s memoirs. At the same time Grant was writing his memoirs in 1885, he was dying of throat cancer. It is revealed that the reason he wrote the memoirs in the first place was because he was in debt and needed the money. Prior attempts to per-suade him into writing memoirs always result-ed in rejection because he denied having any writing abilities. During his presidency, many of his messages, executive orders and other docu-

ments were produced by subordinates. However, his claim of being a poor writer was anything but the truth. His memoirs received praise from literary greats such as Mark Twain and Edmund Wilson. After his death, his memoirs earned his family $450,000, well over the debt he owed.

Several char-acteristics of Grant’s personality which allowed him to excel as a general were revealed in the article. One of these characteristics was the determination he possessed which never allowed him to give up. In April 1885, Grant’s condition worsened because of a sever hem-orrhage. The text in his memoirs written during this time reflects the real life struggle he was cur-rently experienced as the text became less detailed and more repetitious. However, despite the worsening of his con-dition, Grant continued to write as always. This uninterrupted writing can be compared to his actions in battle where he refused to retreat.

Another characteristic was his style of writing which was described as “plain meaning.” The orders he dispatched to his subor-dinates always contained much clarity so no one would have to read the

or-der more than once

to ascertain its meaning. McPherson states that there were several instances under other generals in which vague and confusing orders were issued by command-ers which affected the outcomes of the battle or war negatively. Unlike during his time as president, Grant personally wrote all of his orders so as there could be no discrepancies in the objective he set.

Many historians have labeled Grant as a “butcher” of his troops. By McPherson’s article, a general should be labeled a butcher if he causes the unnecessary deaths of many of his soldiers. The Over-land Campaign fought between Grant and Lee in Vir-ginia in 1864 was essentially a campaign of attrition. This meant that the campaign lasted longer than it had to since no quick and decisive battles were fought. Any full confrontation between the opposing armies would have been a decisive battle resulting most likely in a Union victory and the rout of the Army of North-ern Virginia. However, the war of attrition caused the campaign to drag on for months without a convention-al battle ever occurring.

McPherson argues that Grant did not de-serve the title of butcher because the war of attrition which caused him to attain that nickname was the fault of Robert E. Lee. Grant attempted to lure Lee into an open field so as to conclude the war with a final showdown, but Lee avoided such a showdown since there was no way he could win. McPheron states despite entrenching themselves in defensive positions, the casualty rate for Lee’s army was higher than the casualty rate for Grant’s army. Because of this along with the fact that Lee avoided an open battle and therefore prolonged the war of attrition, McPher-son actually says that Lee deserves the title of butcher more than Grant does.

Another accusation of many historians was that Grant was an alcoholic. Interestingly enough, there is no mention of his rumored alcoholism in his memoirs. McPherson does admit that Grant may have had an alcoholic problem and partially at-tributes that to his resigna-tion from the army in

1864. The absence of any mention of alcoholism in his memoirs could be seen as shame he may have had. Be that as it may, McPherson puts a positive spin on this subject stating that despite any alcohol problems Grant may have had, he still accomplished so much during his career as a general. He overcame the vice he had and achieved more success and fame than so many of his fellow generals.

Grant’s final victory was the completion his mem-oirs before he succumbed to throat cancer which became in-creasingly severe as time went by. In the end, Grant finished his memoirs just days before he died. The profits his family received from his memoirs rescued them from the financial ruin that they would have inherited. The legacy his memoirs left behind also gave readers an insight to what McPherson describes as “one of the great heroes of history, an ‘unheroic’ hero.”

Dr. Samuel Mudd was another controversial figure of the Civil War era. He was accused of being an accomplice to John Wilkes Booth in the assassination of Lincoln. He was arrested, convicted and served four years in jail and hard labor before receiving amnesty from Lincoln’s successor, Andrew John-son. Despite those facts, his cased was not closed even 137 years after his death. His ancestors carry on the case in an attempt to prove his innocence and have their family name cleared. Newspaper articles, letters to and from congressman and presidents and even a movie have all been made expressing the innocence of Dr. Mudd, but the case remains.

The main reason that Dr. Mudd was accused of being an accomplice of John Wilkes Booth was be-

cause he set Booth’s broken leg which he had received

leaping from the balcony where he assassinated the pres-ident. Of course his ancestors

had an optimistic view of the case which is also the view that Mudd himself had. The public

at the time along with the mili-tary tribunal trying him had a less

favoring view. He was unanimously convicted and received five out of

nine votes to receive capital pun-ishment, only one vote short of the

necessary majority to hang him. In or-der to experience both perspectives on

the case, Ferguson interviews ancestors of Dr. Mudd to gain their perspective

on the story and he also consults experts outside of the family who take an oppo-

site view.

The story Mudd gives of the night of April 15th

1865 would clear him of any culpability in

a public court if proved

true.

He claims he was sleeping when two men knocked on his door, one with a broken leg whom he was obligated to care for since he was a doctor. He allowed them to stay overnight in his house. The next day Dr. Mudd went to visit patients in a neighboring village which was swarmed with federal troops, one of which informed him the president had been assassinated. The description the soldier gave him matched the description of the wounded man who appeared at his door the day before so he decided to tell authorities about his encounter. Days later he was arrested, convicted and sentenced.

He and his family claimed that he did not recognize Booth when he arrived at Dr. Mudd’s house that night. Mrs. Arehart, Mudd’s granddaughter, claimed that Booth was wearing a false beard when he showed up at Mudd’s house following the shooting. However a prominent researcher of the Lincoln assassination, James Hall, dismissed that as “a concoction.” During the assassination at the theater, he made no effort to conceal his own identity to the dozens of people that witnessed him after the shooting so wearing a beard just for Mudd would be illogical. Ferguson also raised the argument that Booth spent over twelve hours at Dr. Mudd’s house which would have been plenty of time to recognize him even with a fake beard. Mrs. Arehart replied that Booth was an actor and that deceiving one into believing he was whatever character he was playing.

There were several factors that worked against Dr. Mudd during the trial which made his innocence harder to prove. Dr. Mudd was known to be a secessionist who harbored southern sympathies during the war. It was revealed through an account left from Mudd’s neighbor, Samuel Cox Jr., that Dr. Mudd did indeed recognize John Wilkes Booth on the night of April 15th 1865 because he had in fact met with Booth on more than one occasion. Fer-guson reaches the conclusion that Dr. Mudd was recruited by John Wilkes Booth in his scheme to kidnap the presi-dent in order to end the war, but had no idea that Booth had committed murder and was baffled upon hearing that he did. Dr. Mudd had no desire to kill the president, he just wanted the war to end. If that is how Dr. Mudd truly felt, it would make sense for him to be in cahoots with Booth since Booth initially only wanted to kidnap the president as well but was forced to assassinate him when he failed to kidnap him.

Taking that into consideration, Dr. Mudd was not the malicious criminal the military tribunal mad him out to be,

but he was also not the innocent country doctor merely helping a person in need. The punishment he received from the tribunal was appropriate given the evidence that is now known about the case. He plotted with John Wilkes Booth to kidnap the president of the United States, a major act of treason. He was originally sentenced to life, but only served four years. Four years in prison and hard labor is actually a very lenient sentence consider-ing what he was charged for. If the evidence we have today, such as Cox’s testimony that Mudd recog-nized Booth, was available during the time of the military tribunal, Dr. Mudd probably would have received the death penalty he so narrowly escaped.

In conclusion, the char-acteristics of Grant’s personality were what allowed to be victorious as a general as well as afterwards as an author while simultaneously fighting throat cancer. McPher-son defends Grant against attacks from critics claiming that he was a butcher or an alcoholic. Dr. Mudd was an accomplice to the murder of Abraham Lincoln, but he wasn’t even aware of it at the time. Dr. Mudd received a punishment for a crime he did not want to occur, but it did occur so punishment was still necessary.

End