Certain tragedies in history pick up a life of their own, and a corresponding number of libraries of books dealing with all aspects of those incidents. A handful of these would be the Titanic and Lusitania disasters, the Lindbergh Kidnapping, the Fall River Murders ("Lizzie Borden Case"), the Whitechapel Murders of 1888 - ? (Jack the Ripper), and the JFK, Malcolm X, King, and RFK assassinations of the 1960s. The last four actually are closer together as they seem to most people to follow a historical pattern from that decade (and truth be told, President Kennedy's death has the bulk of that library's books about it). To these I can, and do add, the assassination of Abraham Lincoln (April 14-15, 1865 - ironically the same two days of the "cruelest" month of April that is also the month and days for the sinking of the RMS Titanic some 47 years afterwards). The library for the Lincoln Assassination would start off with the early 20th Century works of Osborne Oldroyd, especially his pioneering (if somewhat biased) "The Judicial Murder of Mary E. Surratt", then Lloyd Lewis's "Myths After Lincoln", Otto Eisenchiml's questionable but still fascinating misreadings, "Why Was Lincoln Murdered?" and "In the Shadow of Lincoln's Death", Jim Bishop's "The Day Lincoln Was Shot", Theodore Roscoe's encyclopedic (for 1959-60) "Web of Conspiracy, and finally the present volume. "Blood on the Moon" takes it's title from an incident that Bishop mentioned in his book in passing - about ten P.M., just as Booth was finished shooting the President in Washington, D.C., many people in the Midwest claimed the surface of the Moon had turned blood red.
Edward Steers is a biochemist, and since retiring from that field concentrates on the history of the American Civil War and President Abraham Lincoln. It is a huge pair of subjects on their own, but they are interconnected as our greatest President was the man who saw us through the entire war (except for about four more weeks of fighting in North Carolina and Texas). He certainly proved himself among the greatest leaders of known history, and the strongest President from 1837 to 1865 (with James Polk being his closest competitor). His murder by a popular actor of the day, in a theater, with the assassin making a getaway that lasted some twenty-two days, made his life end in a tragic but glitzy way (aided by it happening in the same Easter 1865 week that also saw the surrender of General Lee's forces to General Grant's only five days earlier. As a result Lincoln's Murder is an irresistible subject for discussion again and again, and Steers account, trimmed of all fat and just presenting the facts that we know of, is first rate.
It will also disappoint two groups who have sprung up over the years. These are the defenders of Dr. Samuel Mudd and of Mary E. Surratt. I mentioned that Osborne Oldroyd's book on Mary Surratt's trial (published about 1909) was a trifle biased. Oldroyd, writing about forty years after the tragedy of the President and the four hanged conspirators, was writing in a spirit of backlash against the seemingly unfair tactics of Stanton and the War Department in "protecting the rights" of the conspirators from unfair bias, and cruel mistreatment. One can still make a case about cruel mistreatment, but Stanton had prosecuted the North's military efforts side-by-side with Lincoln from 1862 (when he replaced Simon Cameron as Secretary of War), and was aware that Lincoln frequently would disregard basic legal rights (such as habeas corpus) against individuals considered dangerous to Union interests - and frequently clashed with Chief Justice Roger Taney on these acts.
Stanton had little regard for Lincoln (whom he thought was a hick lawyer before 1861), but after watching him at work in the White House, came to greatly respect the President and become a close friend of his. When Lincoln was killed, Stanton only wanted to avenge his friend, and treated anyone who was suspect or who may have helped the conspirators with the same lack of concern about their civil rights that Lincoln held for secessionists. Also, the trial of the conspirators was held in June-July 1865, and it was just after the last Confederate land force (Kirby-Smith's Confederate army in Texas) had surrendered. Technically the war was over, but Stanton insisted on a military tribunal, and as Lincoln (when assassinated) was still Commander-in-Chief of Union forces still in the field, Stanton's insistence was correct. He did make sure that the eight conspirators had their own counsel, but the rules were military court rules, not civilian. Ironically, the decision that might have prevented what happened to the eight conspirators, Ex Parte Milligan, was not made by the Supreme Court until later in 1866. That might have questioned the right of the military to hear the case in an area where civil law was actively in practice in the local courts. But Milligan was not available in July 1865.
Still the physical treatment of the eight was severe, to say the least. Legs shackled with irons and hoods covering their heads, so they could not see each other or anyone else, and held for long periods on a Monitor in the Potomac (though later transferred to a prison) are beyond anything done before or since. Mrs. Surratt was not forced to wear chains, but it was still difficult to speak to her, as her daughter Anna discovered. But of the evidence against her at the trial, although Oldroyd brushed aside much of it, he was not able to fully refute it before a careful study of the reports of the trial by Ben Pitman and Benn Perley Poore. In particular the damning comments of her tenant at the Surrattsville (now Clinton, Maryland) Tavern, John Lloyd, about her dropping off some sealed parcel to be picked up later by unnamed men, that she said were "shootin' irons", and the testimony of her actions as the owner of the boarding house Booth and the Conspirators met at (which is still standing today) in Washington. That testimony was by another boarder, Lewis J. Weichmann. It was quite damning, showing that Mary was apparently quite aware of some plotting by Booth and the cohorts. Steers shows it is still damning today. Whether or not Mary knew of the plot to kill Lincoln, Seward, and Johnson, or only knew of the plot earlier to kidnap Lincoln is another matter. It looks like it might have ben the former. Still it would have been sufficient to entitle the government to imprison Mary as a co-conspirator like Samuel Arnold and Michael O'Laughlin, both of whom were proved to not be involved in the assassination plot. But was it enough to entitle the military tribunal to give Mary the death sentence? That is the crux of the problem today - not blanket statements that she was totally unaware of what her boarders were plotting. Moreover, as Lloyd was a suspect (and a weakling - a drunk) and Weichmann an even bigger suspect (he was a close friend of John Surratt, and whether or not he also attended the meetings with Booth remains conjectural, their total testimony seems tainted. But to be fair (at least to Lewis Weichmann) he always maintained he told the truth, and left a full manuscript on his life and testimony that was not published until the 1970s.
As for Dr. Mudd, Steers is far less charitable. Mudd did lie, and not only in not coming out sooner about the two men who showed up at night for medical aid, and one of whom he treated for an injured leg. He also insisted he did not recognize Booth. The testimony of the trial showed that Mudd met Booth in Southern Maryland the previous fall (and showed him some farms where he could purchase horses) and also met him in Washington, D.C. This shows he was involved in preliminary planning of the kidnap scheme, but it also strongly suggests how impossible his failure to recognize Booth in his home sounds. A slave owner, Dr. Mudd was a southern Maryland sympathizer with the Confederacy, so he was willing to assist in kidnapping the President. At issue is whether he knew of the assassination - just like with Mrs. Surratt. But Steers points out that Mudd by his crucial mistake about lying of ever knowing Booth made any further comments he made about the incidents of April 15th, 1865 highly suspect. He really had himself to blame for his predicament. He actually was luckier than Mrs. Surratt, David Herold, Lewis Paine, and George Atzerodt, in that he only got that prison sentence (although it was life imprisonment) and not the death sentence.
Steers presents the full story of the murder and it's aftermath in a firm and strictly straightforward approach, and makes one realize how close Booth almost made good on his escape. I have no problems in recommending this account as a good corrective to any more sentimental ones about Mrs. Surratt and Dr. Mudd. I only point out that since Steers wrote this book, the works of James Swanson, particularly his account of Booth's desperate escape to his death at Garrett's barn in Bowling Green, Virginia, takes us further up - to - date on the researches into the Conspiracy, and makes us wonder about what other details will appear in the future that have not been taken into consideration.