The next day I stood up in open court, and, in as steady a voice as I could manage, I read out Tom Dula’s confession, exonerating his codefendant Ann Foster Melton. The court dismissed all charges against her, and pronounced her free to go. I saw a fleeting smile of pure triumph cross her face, and then she resumed her expression of cold indifference. She swept out of the courtroom on my arm, amid murmurs from the spectators. No one cheered or approached her as she passed.
Once outside, I handed my client over to a subdued and somber James Melton. Without a word, she linked her arm in his, and they walked away without a word of thanks or a backward glance.
But people will remember that she was beautiful.
AUTHOR’S NOTE
I do understand and sympathize with the reader’s reaction to any novel based on a true story:
The first thing to discount in the study of this incident is the catchy but irrelevant Kingston Trio version of the folk song, “Hang Down Your Head, Tom Dooley.” The young man’s name was Dula, not Dooley. He was not hanged in a lonesome valley from a white oak tree, but from a specially constructed T-shaped post in a field beside the train depot in Statesville, North Carolina. The song mentions someone named Grayson-“If it hadn’t been for Grayson, I’d a been in Tennessee.” That is true enough, but Grayson was simply the farmer who hired Tom as a laborer when he fled in June 1866. A more authentic version of the song, made famous by North Carolina mountain musician Doc Watson, is more faithful to the facts of the story, although it, too, supposes that Tom Dula is guilty. Most people who are familiar with the case think otherwise.
When a story has become as steeped in legend as the Tom Dula incident, the first thing a writer has to do is question all the assumptions that have become attached to the narrative over the years, because rumor, conjecture, and wishful thinking taint the story. Over the years dozens of people have offered to tell me the “real story” of Tom Dooley-the one their grandmother heard from the storekeeper/the postman/the doctor, etc. No two are the same. The story as it is generally told did not ring true to me. When I worked on an article about “Tom Dooley” for
•
•
•
•
•
I concluded that there was a missing piece of the puzzle, because one could not construct a plausible scenario with the traditional collection of facts.
When I read the trial transcripts and the newspaper coverage of Dula’s execution, I found three references to a black man, a detail roundly ignored in other studies of the case-but he was real, and he was there.
• As depicted in the novel, when Laura Foster went missing, Pauline Foster says to Wilson Foster: “Maybe she ran off with a black man.” You might dismiss this as a taunt, except that instead of becoming angry Laura’s father agreed that this might be so. In the 1866 Reconstruction South, Wilson Foster’s reaction is astounding. He should have been enraged by that suggestion. Why wasn’t he?
• When Eliza Anderson, Wash Anderson’s sister, takes the stand in the second trial, a defense attorney asks her if she is kin to a man of color named John Anderson. She says no. Census records show that John Anderson had been a slave of her family, and that in 1866, he was still working on their farm. John Foster West interprets the kinship question at the trial as an attempt to discredit the witness, a young, unmarried white woman. This question is too volatile to be used in 1868 on an unimportant witness, especially if the witness is an unmarried girl who is suspected of nothing.
• When a New York newspaper reporter came to Statesville to cover Tom Dula’s trial, he dismissed the state’s chief witness, Pauline Foster, as a depraved woman, commenting that she had recently married a white man and had given birth to a black child. Whose child was it? We will probably never know for sure, because the name of Pauline’s husband is never given, and she vanishes from history after the second trial. But she worked as a servant girl on a farm within sight of the Andersons’ place, where John Anderson lived and worked. This is not proof of their involvement, but it is a plausible theory.
• Pauline’s suggestion-that Laura Foster ran off with a black man-makes more sense than speculating that she was eloping with Tom. Both Tom and Laura were of legal age and unmarried: there was no reason for them to elope. No sneaking around was required. Laura’s father, who had caught her in bed with Tom, would have been relieved. If Laura really was sneaking off to get married, what bridegroom would require such subterfuge?
• But if Laura wanted to plight her troth to a man of color, they would be forced to go elsewhere. I think that John Anderson, who was listed on the census records as mulatto, was light-skinned enough to pass for white in an area where he was not known-in other words, anywhere but Wilkes County. The elopement of John Anderson and Laura Foster makes perfect sense.
•
Most romanticized versions of the Tom Dula legend make a dewy heroine of Laura Foster. I don’t see any evidence for that. When she went missing, her father declared that he didn’t care if he ever saw her again or not, but he did want his horse back. Tom Dula said he had no use for Laura Foster. The people who searched for her seemed to be disinterested community members who were inspired by the thought of an unmarried young girl who