Chaplain Louis N. Beaudrye was the regimental historian of his unit, the 5th New York Cavalry. The regimental history is one of the better ones, but like many, it has its flaws. As a chaplain, Beaudrye didn’t spend much time on the battlefield, and he was also captured during the retreat from Gettysburg, meaning that he spent a stint at Libby Prison and hence wasn’t present for some of the events chronicled in his history of the regiment. That means that it has gaps in the thoroughness of its coverage. Nevertheless, it’s an important source on the Army of the Potomac’s Third Cavalry Division.

There’s also one other small point. The name on the regimental history is “Boudrye”. However, it appears that the proper French spelling of the name is “Beaudrye”, which was apparently anglicized a bit. I have chosen to use the proper French spelling.

Beaudrye was back with the regiment by the time of the Kilpatrick-Dahlgren Raid. Two companies of the 5th New York went with Dahlgren’s column to Richmond, while the rest went with Kilpatrick’s column. It was always believed that Beaudrye also accompanied Dahlgren’s column. The regimental history contains a lengthy description of the Dahlgren raid written by a member of the unit, but it’s not attributed. It appears in the middle of the narrative, and everyone has always assumed that Beaudrye wrote it since there’s nothing to indicate that he didn’t. This account contains a detailed description of the last minute or so of Dahlgren’s life, including recounting what was said just before the fatal shots were fired.

Virgil Carrington “Pat” Jones, as one very notable example, cited to the Beaudrye regimental history as a major source in his 1957 book Eight Hours Before Richmond, which is generally considered to be the best and most detailed account of the raid yet published. Jones attributes the account of the last moments of Dahlgren’s life to Beaudrye. So does Duane Schultz in his book The Dahlgren Affair: Terror and Conspiracy in the Civil War.

I discovered last night that these traditional accounts were all wrong. In the 1880’s, an officer of the 5th New York Cavalry named Lt. H. A. D. Merritt, who commanded the advance of Dahlgren’s column during the raid, wrote an account of the raid that was published in The Century Magazine as part of its “Battles and Leaders of the Civil War” series. A four-volume set of what the editors believed were the best articles from the series was published under the title Battles and Leaders of the Civil War. However, Merritt’s article was not included in that collection. It was, therefore, largely lost to history.

In 1996, a descendant of Chaplain Beaudrye published the chaplain’s war diary, which is now out of print. I pulled out my copy last night and discovered the truth: during the raid, Chaplain Beaudrye stayed at Cavalry Corps headquarters at Brandy Station, performing his ministerial duties. He did not accompany the raid. Thus, he could not have written an account of the raid as a primary account. That meant that the account contained in the regimental history could not have been penned by Chaplain Beaudrye. It’s far too detailed to have been written by someone who was not present.

When I realized that, I realized that, while the error is certainly understandable, ALL of the conventional accounts of the raid published to date have misidentified the source of that account of the last moments of Dahlgren’s life. So, I set out to figure out who really wrote it.

In the 1990’s, Peter Cozzens decided to publish more of the articles from the series and came out with a fifth volume of Battles and Leaders. Then, in 2004, Cozzens published volume six of Battles and Leaders. Sure enough, the Merritt article appears in volume 6. I pulled out the book this evening, and…mystery solved. The mystery account in the regimental history is the same as the article in volume 6. Therefore, the author had to have been Lieutenant Merritt and not Beaudrye.

So, in a small way, I have corrected a long-standing but easily made and understandable error. This is the sort of thing that I really enjoy and which makes this sort of historical work fun for me. It made me feel good to fix a historical error and to finally set the record straight. It’s a small thing, for sure, but it’s cool stuff nevertheless. It goes right along with my constant desire to shatter Civil War mythology.

Continue reading

One year ago today, I launched this blog. The first post was dated September 23, 2005, and it was simply a welcome post. Little did I realize that 303 posts and countless comments later, this thing would still be around. There’s a comment on the weekly blog roundup on Civil War Interactive this week that indicates that the CWI folks believe my blog draws more comments than all of the other Civil War blogs combined. I don’t know if that’s true, but it certainly wouldn’t surprise me if it was.

If it is true, it’s quite a tribute to you, my readers. Without you, this would just be my place to rant. There’s certainly a value to a good rant–there are times when I need to get something off my chest–but without all of you and the interaction we have here, this wouldn’t be half the fun that it is. Thank you to everyone who has made my little corner of the Internet a regular stop and who have helped to make this blog what it is.

And until I run out of things to rant about, this blog will go on…..

Continue reading

Sundown today marked the arrival of the Jewish High Holy Days, and specifically, the Jewish new year, Rosh Hashana. L’Shana Tova–happy new year–to all.

Continue reading

Early this year, I was contacted by Norwich University. A Norwich alum named Edward B. Williston was awarded a Medal of Honor for his valor on the second day of the Battle of Trevilian Station, June 12, 1864. This was not one of those bullshit Medals given for capturing a flag or for political reasons. This was the real deal–Williston fought his guns right on the skirmish line. When he wrote his report of the battle, Wesley Merritt, in describing Williston’s performance, wrote, “The light 12’s were magnificent.” Norwich informed me that it had commissioned Dale Gallon to paint a scene of Williston’s performance at Trevilian Station. I gave Dale everything I had: the Medal of Honor file, a copy of the book, and some miscellaneous stuff.

I gave them what information I had, and then offered to show Dale the battlefield, as I felt it critical that he get the terrain right. The first weekend in June, JD, Dale, a representative of Norwich, and I drove down to Trevilians from Gettysburg for a battlefield tour. It made for a long, but fun, day. We covered the whole battlefield, but focused in particular on the second day’s battlefield and the area where Williston did his deed of gallantry. Dale spent a good bit of time getting the lay of the land and the right perspective, and I believe he’s portrayed it as accurately as it can be portrayed.

The print of the painting has been released. I’ve got a copy of it coming. I can’t wait to see it full-size, but I think that Dale got it just right.

Have a look.

Continue reading

Yesterday, Dimitri Rotov had a really interesting post analyzing what he views as flaws in military history.

According to Dimitri, the biggest issues are too much reliance on too few sources and carelessness about the origin of a decision, leaving the analysis incomplete and lack in thoroughness. The combination of these two factors leaves Dimitri cold about traditional military history. It really is an interesting analysis.

He gave Mark Grimsley and me a tip of the cap, indicating that he believes that we go farther toward completeness and fairness in our analysis than most, a compliment I appreciate a great deal.

I thought I would touch base on these two issues. I have always prided myself on being extremely thorough in my research. I would prefer to delay the writing of a book in order to make certain that the scope and coverage of what I do is as complete as possible. I much prefer primary sources, and deifnitely prefer unpublished manuscript material as the basis for my research.

At the same time, it’s impossible to get EVERY source. I don’t care how thorough a researcher might be, you will never find everything. There are just too many obscure repositories out there to get every single one, and there are too many things still in private hands to have even a realistic hope of getting everything. Further, there are too many obscure newspapers that are not generally available to get all of the contemporary coverage and soldier letters published in them. All you can do is to give it your very best shot and then say “enough, and if someone can take what I’ve done and do a better job, more power to them.” I reach that point with every project I undertake. And sometimes, stuff turns up unexpectedly and at the last moment, as it did with those two sets of letters that I had to incorporate into my history of Rush’s Lancers.

With respect to Dimitri’s second point, I think that going into projects with preconceived conclusions is a very bad idea. With the exception of my Sheridan bash, which was written as a legal brief that took an advocate’s position, I have always permitted the evidence to take me where it would. Anything less is intellectually dishonest and fails to give the coverage necessary to address the situation accurately and completely.

As to the issue of failing to recognize the origin of decisions, I try to follow the principles of Ockham’s Razor (also known as the principle of parsimony) wherever possible: entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. Put more succinctly, keep it simple, stupid (also known as the KISS Principle). I admit that I have done a poor job of following my own rules with respect to the Dahlgren debate on what Lincoln knew and when he knew it, but beyond that, I do my level best to keep it as simple as possible and to try not to overly analyze things when I’m doing my historical work.

Thanks for a most interesting and thought-provoking post, Dimitri.

Continue reading

Today, I received an invitation to join the Military Writers Society of America. Here’s how the Society web site describes its mission:

We are an association of more than five-hundred authors, poets, and artists, drawn together by the common bond of military service. Most of our members are active duty military, retirees, or military veterans. A few are lifelong civilians who have chosen to honor our military through their writings or their art. Our only core principle is a love of the men and women who defend this nation, and a deeply personal understanding of their sacrifice and dedication.

Our skills are varied. Some of us are world class writers, with many successful books. Others write only for the eyes of their friends and families. But each of us has a tale to tell. Each of us is a part of the fabric of Freedom. These are our stories…

The good folks at Savas-Beatie arranged the invitation, which I gladly accepted.

Please check out the MWSA. Theirs is a worthy mission. Honoring the men and women who have served this country is always an admirable goal.

Continue reading

I got the new issue of North & South magazine today. It contains an article on the mystery of what Lincoln knew and when he knew it with respect to Ulric Dahlgren’s role in the Kilpatrick-Dahlgren Raid. The article was written by Prof. David E. Long of East Carolina University.

I have been aware of this article for quite some time. David spoke to our Civil War Roundtable last year, and we spent some time together discussing the Kilpatrick-Dahlgren Raid. Between his CWRT talk and our private discussions, David laid out his theory in detail, although I’d never seen it spelled out in writing. David contacted me about eight weeks and asked if I would be willing to read and comment on the thing before it was actually published. I said sure, but for reasons that I don’t quite understand why it never materialized. He never sent it. Today was the first time that I read it.

It says precisely what I expected it to say: that Lincoln not only knew, but that he specifically ordered the assassination of Jefferson Davis, and that Ulric Dahlgren was his hand-picked instrumentality for accomplishing the objective. While David is now a history professor, he spent a number of years practicing law (here in Columbus, ironically enough), and the article is written as if he is making legal arguments.

However, David faces the same lack of specific evidence that I did, and his arguments are based solely on circumstantial evidence, as there is no direct evidence whatsoever for any of us to rely upon. He argues that Ulric Dahlgren became a trusted confidant of Lincoln, and that Lincoln used Dahlgren as a mole in Army of the Potomac headquarters. When the time came to implement this plan, Dahlgren got the job as the leader of the raid.

According to David’s theory, Kilpatrick’s column was the diversionary column, while Dahlgren’s column had the primary responsibility for executing the plan. He correctly points out that conventional interpretations of these events have it the other way around, and argues that the White House actually created a veil of deception to create the illusion that the raid was the brainchild of Kilpatrick in the minds of the public.

Just after the end of the Battle of Chancellorsville, Dahlgren proposed a raid on Richmond from the southwest if the Confederate cavalry went on a raid. The plan was rejected because Joseph Hooker felt it was too risky. David correctly points out that none of the prior published histories of the Kilpatrick-Dahlgren Raid have connected the proposed 1863 raid with the 1864 raid (although I discussed it in my 2003 book The Union Cavalry Comes of Age, and I also discuss it at length in the biography in two places). In his mind, it’s proof positive that Dahlgren was the driving force behind the plan to assassinate Davis and his cabinet.

He addresses the validity of the Dahlgren Papers and concludes that they were authentic, a conclusion I wholeheartedly support. However, the authenticity of the documents doesn’t reach the point of proving that Lincoln knew.

David is working on a book-length treatment of these events. I gave him some material on Ulric Dahlgren that he hadn’t seen, and I will be interested to see how he uses it in the book when the time comes. I’m not sure what the status of the book is, but I’m looking forward to reading it when it’s done. It’s got to be better than Duane Schultz’s The Dahlgren Affair: Terror and Conspiracy in the Civil War, which is such a stretch that I can’t even begin to suggest that he’s drawn valid and supportable conclusions.

I’m glad that I finally got to read what I’ve been hearing about for a long time. I remain unconvinced. While I respect David’s scholarship and his enthusiasm for the subject, the fact remains that the only evidence is purely circumstantial, and in my lawyer’s mind, when you add it all up, it doesn’t constitute sufficient evidence to meet the burden of proof to convict Lincoln of complicity in the conspiracy. I continue to believe that Lincoln did not know, and that Stanton was the driving force behind this episode, not Ully Dahlgren or Abraham Lincoln.

I also still beleive that there’s at least a 50-50 chance that Dahlgren was just cowboying when he went off on his raid. I think it’s entirely possible that he was acting “off the reservation”, as the expression goes.

I repeat what I’ve said previously: the evidence is not persuasive one way or the other, and we will never know the truth. Which makes it a fascinating controversy to explore again and again. I know that it intrigues me.

Continue reading

Tonight, I finished the third pass at the Dahlgren manuscript. The next step, which begins tomorrow, is to plug the changes into the computer, and then it’s ready to be circulated to a few friends for review and comment. I’m finally seeing some light at the end of the tunnel. I will have all of the changes entered into the computer by the end of the week, and then it goes out. I’m looking forward to taking a bit of a break before launching into the next project. Stay tuned.

Continue reading

144 years ago today, September 17, 1862, the Battle of Antietam was fought. In a day-long slugging match along the banks of Antietam Creek, near Sharpsburg, Maryland, that marked the climax of the first Confederate invasion of the North, the Army of the Potomac and the Army of Northern Virginia fought the bloodiest single day of the war. Lee’s army, outnumbered nearly two to one, held against McClellan’s assaults for an entire day. At the end of the day, 12,401 (2,108 killed, 9,540 wounded, 753 captured/missing) Union soldiers, and 10,316 (1,546 killed, 7,752 wounded, 1,018 captured/missing) Confederate soldiers–nearly 23,000 in all–were casualties. Lee waited for McClellan to attack him again on September 18, but McClellan had had enough. Finally, on September 19, Lee retreated back across the Potomac to the safety of Virginia. The first invasion of the North was over.

This post is dedicated to the memory of the soldiers who fought and died at Antietam. Their memory and their sacrifices are not forgotten.

Continue reading

Ted Savas recently published a book titled Playing With the Enemy. The book tells the story of Gene Moore, whose extremely promising baseball career was interrupted by World War II. Moore was sent on a secret mission to guard German prisoners of war, and ended up teaching them to play baseball. It makes for quite a story, and it’s a terrific book. Gene Moore’s son Gary wrote the book to honor his father and tell his story.

The rights to Gene Moore’s story were recently sold to a major Hollywood producer, Gerald R. Molen, who is going to make a major Hollywood movie from it. Presumably, Gary Moore was paid a substantial amount of money for the movie rights to his father’s story. I hope he was. There’s so little money being made in history that I root for anyone who does happen to hit it big.

I can only hope that some day, some way, one of my books will be sold to Hollywood. Maybe then, I can finally tell Susan, “See? I told you we’d make back all of that money I spent doing my book projects eventually.” 🙂

Congratulations, Gary, and best wishes.

Continue reading