This discussion is over. No more. It’s becoming personal, and that is neither appropriate nor acceptable.

One more, and comments get disabled.

Never in a million years did I think I would have to moderate my own blog. Guess what kids–it ain’t happening. The minute I have to do that, the problem will be eliminated, and the way that it will be eliminated is that there will be no more comments.

I trust that my position on this has been made abundantly clear.

Eric

Throughout this discussion, I have tried very carefully to point out those facts and circumstances which lead me to believe in the involvement of Lincoln and his Administration in the affair – which, by the way, I have done without any moral judgments at all. I have pointed out the political and military situation known to all here and how that would mitigate against the belief that Lincoln was a ‘know nothing’ President whose underlings were in the habit of taking on serious military and political adventures absent his knowledge or consent. I have also pointed to the information being presented either by Mr. Wittenberg or those sources to whom he has/had access, among which were:

[1] Dahlgren’s acknowledged intimate connection to the White House which would have reasonably precluded his use in any ‘adventure’ of which the President would have disapproved and therefore have been kept ignorant by those plotting same;

[2] the nature of the raid itself which we have now learned included not only considerable troops, but ‘specialists’ in explosives and the materials necessary for them to do their job;

[3] the testimony of contemporary persons that earlier expeditions had been planned and then abandoned for whatever reason (simply because Wistar may have lied about WHY he didn’t go on a planned raid does not mean that the raid was never planned!);

[4] the political situation extant before Lincoln’s second term which clearly demanded that something be done sufficient to insure the man’s re-election;

[5] Lincoln’s own acknowledged and expressed support for the tactics of Sheridan and Sherman which clearly demonstrates that he was not above causing death and destruction among the civilian population of the South;

There were others, but they need not be reiterated here. My problem is that throughout all, the only answer that I have gotten to these points is none at all or a mere dismissal of them as either ‘speculative’ or ‘unimportant’. Yet, in some posts, Mr. Wittenberg himself has made these same points which at that time at least, seemed to be taken somewhat (a lot?) more seriously by those involved in the discussion.

Furthermore, when I asked for either a refutation of those points which indicate Lincoln’s involvement or, in the alternative, the presentation of points which would indicate otherwise, all I seem to find (albeit I may have missed something) is the tired old saw that it would have been contrary to the man’s nature. How do we know that? Lincoln had a very dark side. He suffered from depression, his home life was awful, he lost his first love and his career was hardly one of constant success. Who knows what he might have done to insure his re-election and, in his own mind at least, the future of the Union? Again, it seems to me, we are dealing with the mythology that has grown up around the man since his assassination rather than a clear, objective view of the politician and the man who was actually alive at the time and making decisions.

I do not mean to impugn anyone as I have said, but it is quite frustrating to be ignored or passed over as if I had suggested something altogether without any possible basis in reality. Frankly, from the information that has been – and continues to be – forthcoming since this matter has been broached, it would appear that my point of view is receiving considerable vindication. Will there be a ‘smoking gun’? I doubt it, but I still have to wonder if there would be as much contention in the matter if the person at its core were not Abraham Lincoln.

As for the disappearance of the Dahlgren papers, as others have pointed out, it is unlikely that we’ll ever know what became of them but that doesn’t necessarily mean that there were sinister motives behind their disappearance. Stanton, for all of his warts and he had plenty, he could be notoriously generous to those he liked or admired. If he were behind the disappearance, rather than an effort to cover up any misdeed on his part, is it possible that he made them “go away” as a favor to the Dahlgren family? All conjecture here, but perhaps Stanton felt the Dahlgren family had suffered enough, and that since Ulric had already paid the ultimate price for his part in the “plot,” it would serve no purpose to continue to blacken the young man’s reputation for generations to come. Back to lurking….

Regards, Teej

We have had a long colloquy about this issue, and I have made serious efforts to not only understand your position, but to consider it in light of the evidence. I have concluded that we look at many of the same evidence and come to different conclusions. I have no problem with that.

I do have a problem with the insinuation that if a smoking gun appeared that indicated that Lincoln knew of a scheme to murder Davis and his cabinet that would not change my conclusions. That is just plain wrong, and a disservice to all who try to examine the issues judiciously and honestly in this forum.

Moreover, I wonder if you are prone to the same huge leaps of reasoning that you attribute to those of us who come to the opposite conclusion. For example, you state the circumstantial evidence “clearly indicates involvement at the very highest levels of government; that is, the President.“ Exactly how does it do that? What evidence can you present that shows, say, Stanton did not act alone without the approval of the president (as we know he was capable of doing)? What evidence can you present that disproves a thesis to the effect that Lincoln and Stanton thought they gave approval for a raidthat would free the prisoners—thus authorizing extraordinary resources– but that Kilpatrick and Dahlgren came up with the rest on their own? The evidence is, as we all agree, circumstantial, and that suggests it is, by its very nature, unclear.

In response to my repeated invitations for anyone to come up with a parallel instance of Lincoln being involved in something this dastardly, or even saying something aggressive that would suggest he could have approved of a murderous scheme, you have resorted to unsupported assertions such as Lincoln “most certainly would [have approved of a plan to kill Davis and his cabinet] if he believed it would bring a quick end to the war and assure his re-election.” Exactly how is that certain? And if that were so, if he was that desperate, would he have not immediately launched similar raids or backed similar schemes?

The point is not that you are right and I am wrong or vice versa. The point is that you have little basis for impugning the intellectual honesty of those of us who continue to research this issue but come to conclusions different from yours. Nor do you have any basis for claiming that your position is “strongly supported by the facts.” I make no such claim because the facts are ambiguous and too much remains unknown.

Bill

First, Mr. Gaddy seems to try to make BMI into some 19th century sinister organization, which it was not. BMI was organized to provide the Army with intelligence to conduct military operations. Sending BMI soldiers (and they were soldiers, not ’employees’) with Kilpatrick’s Raiders makes sense when one considers that the spring campaign would need intelligence on the area.

Second, BMI was not a hit squad organization, so their presence in and of itself proves nothing on the subject of killing politicians.

Third, If the actual intent was to murder, it would have been far easier to send a small group of infiltrators to Richmond then a massive cavalry raid with unknowing regiments and an inexperienced Colonel.

Lastly, there seems to be an illusion to “specialized equipment” of Oakum, terpintine and torpedoes. What is so special about that? Oakum, terpintine and torpedoes were used to fire and destroy Railroad bridges and facilities!

Mr. Gaddy’s references to all sorts of 20th century covert ops simply confirms my previous e-mails that the approach of this theory is 20th century, not 19th century.

However, no one seems to be able to offer any ‘proof’ – other than the usual ‘Lincoln wouldn’t have done something like that’ – that the President was NOT involved – OR knowledgeable. And as well, Mr. Wittenberg admits that ALL the evidence is ‘circumstantial’. Even the ‘eyewitnesses’ – Kilpatrick, Wistar et al. – are long dead and may have had their own agendas vis a vie the matter and so their ‘evidence’ may be considered ‘circumstantial’ as well’. The fact is that I doubt very much that any ‘smoking gun’ is going to come to light which will neatly solve the problem. Indeed, even if one did, I doubt very much that it would be accepted by those for whom the resultant conclusion would be simply unacceptable.

I still say – and no one has in any way been able to reasonably refute at least to my satisfaction – that the makeup of the raid including the papers carried by Dahlgren which DISAPPEARED (had they been forgeries, why not make them public and therefore expose the forgery?) clearly indicates involvement at the very highest levels of government; that is, the President.

Furthermore, the information forthcoming from Mr. Gaddy – especially that involving the inclusion in the raid of persons whose expertise and the nature of the materials that they carried with them – strongly indicate a well planned and determined assault not only on the prisons holding Union captives, but on the Confederate government and the city of Richmond as well. If it is accepted by most historians that Harney intended to blow up the White House when he and his Ranger escort were captured attempting to enter Washington by virtue of the fact that he was an explosives expert and carried the requisite explosives, then how can one simply ‘dismiss’ the presence of similar ‘experts’ and materials in the Dahlgren raid as not being sufficient to prove intent?

I don’t mind people disagreeing with me, but I have been asked to ‘prove’ my contention that Lincoln was involved in the raid, albeit I have made no claim that he was its instigator. I now ask that those who so strongly disagree, to DISprove this thesis with something other than the above noted claim that Lincoln wouldn’t have been a party to such an action. I think that he most certainly would if he believed it would bring a quick end to the war and assure his re-election.

Furthermore, I believe that my point has been if not totally validated, at least strongly supported by the facts that continue to arise in the investigation of the matter. Certainly, it could be very fairly said that given what we have learned so far, the facts are far more supportive of my contention than the alternative.

JFE

We’re all on the same page here. As I said, I’m going to include most of what Dave wrote in a note, but my basic conclusions remain unchanged. I simply don’t see Lincoln ordering such a thing. I’ve said it before, and David Woodbury repeats it–this sort of thing was far, far from consistent with Lincoln’s known character, and I simply cannot make that leap of faith.

It IS a fascinating issue though, isn’t it?

Eric

Gaddy’s points are thought-provoking. I am no expert on the Army of Potomac’s BMI, but my impression is that Kilpatrick arrived back in Culpepper from his trip to Washington with orders that he be given the resources for the raid. Meade dutifully carried out those orders almost certainly without knowledge of any directive involving the murder of Davis and high military officials. One sees in Meade’s correspondence an almost willful desire not to know any details of the raid, and skepticism of Kilpatrick’s after-action alibis.

But while Gaddy provides fascinating details, it does not necessarily change the conclusion. We knew already that Kilpatrick was handed the authority to call on Meade for everything he needed for the raid. The intelligence component could be explained by simple prudence alone, or could be related to nothing more than Kilpatrick thinking he needed specialized help with freeing the captives.

In the end, I return to three of my own biases when thinking about history. One, my reading of human nature is that people tend to act in the same patterns over and over, and I can find nothing in Lincoln’s behavior or language which would support such a wild, risky, and blood-thirsty scheme as that found in Dahlgren’s papers. My study of Stanton’s life and actions have brought me to the unexpected conclusion that authorizing such a scheme would, at a minimum, be out of character. (I very much agree, however, with Gaddy’s comment about Stanton’s psychological complexity as I am finding that understanding his mindset is even more difficult than understanding Lincoln’s.)

Two, my reading of history is that conspiracies are hard to keep secret forever, and to believe that a conspiracy existed without any hard collaborating evidence is to disregard the very human motivation of, well, disclosing one’s secret knowledge. The fact that BMI personnel were on the raid and, to our knowledge, never contributed anything useful to understanding the controversy suggest to me that they did not know of any scheme involving murder of high Confederate officials.

Three, while it is always fun to speculate—and in this fascinating instance, speculation is warranted because the mysteries are so deep—in the end one must rely on the most concrete of evidence. The most tangible piece of information we have is Dahlgren’s papers, and it is impossible to read those and conclude that flamboyant and aggressive language (“hateful” and “exhorting” and “traitorous crew”) were taken from orders issued from above. And while it is possible to explain that away with an explanation of conspiracy, that way leads to unsupported rationale on top of unsupported rationale. That can be interesting, but it is not history as I know it.

And so while I concede everything in the realm of speculation, i.e., that it is possible that Lincoln ordered a raid that would result in the murder of Davis and his cabinet, the evidence is simply not there to support such reasoning and–from what we know– the odds are against keeping such an order secret forever. To my reading, what evidence we have points way further down the chain of command.

I agree with David: Gaddy provides more insight, but nothing that suggests to me your conclusion should change.

Bill

You also need to take into consideration Lincoln’s character, or what we know of it, and you correctly note that authorizing such an activity would be out of character.

Adding something to the notes of your book will help readers navigate this minefield, but aside from my earlier suggestion, I would not change what you have written.