It is worth noting Butler apparently did not know of the raid until it was well underway (based on reports in the O.R.). If there had been some scheme to do more than free the prisoners would it not have been likely Butler would have had orders to have his forces at the ready to exploit the confusion? Instead he appears to have only had been ordered not to advance beyond a certain point on the New Kent Road.

Finally, Kilpatrick is quoted in the O.R. in Butler’s report as saying Dahlgren was ordered to move as a diversion supporting Kilpatrick’s movements. Why, at this early juncture and in reports back to superiors who allegedly would of known of some greater purpose, would Kilpatrick maintain his raid was the primary movement?

As to Dahlgren’s papers, if the Confederates forged them it would have had to have been done very quickly, as they were forwarded to Cooper by Fitz Lee on the 4th. My best guess, and no more than a guess, is Dahlgren went beyond his warrant on his own authority, exceeding what even Kilpatrick intended.

I know of the Mosby/Wistar conversation as mentioned in Mosby’s letter to which you referred, but I am unaware of any source stating that Mosby spoke with Custer and apparently those who are considered somewhat ‘expert’ in Mosby are also unaware of it or at least they didn’t mention anything about a report of that nature – with or without a source. That is all that I meant, not that such a document might not exist.

Still, I would expect that these men who spend LOTS of time combing through historical papers relative to Mosby and his command would have at least mentioned the fact that such a meeting had been reported even if the source was anonymous and/or questionable. Instead, they simply stated that they knew of no such meeting. Ergo, I was of the opinion that perhaps Mr. Long had simply mixed up his Union generals given that Mosby was involved with both Custer and Wistar during the war. However, his mention of Mosby in the article was only in passing though – as you did yourself with the Wistar conversation – he used it to validate the claim that the murder of Davis was at least one of the objectives of the raid.

In any event, the only ‘assumption’ I made was that Long wrote Custer when he actually meant Wistar. If no source connected Mosby to Custer relative to the conversation both you and Mr. Long reported between Mosby and SOME knowledgeable Union officer – and as none of the experts I questioned made any mention WHATSOEVER of Mosby speaking with Custer after the war – then I can see no other logical answer than to assume that Long got his Yankee generals mixed up.

On the other hand, if you know of a source linking Mosby to Custer post-war, I hope (as I asked above) that you let me know what it is and where you found it so that I can pass it along to those whose opinion I asked. I’m sure they would be MOST interested. 🙂

I have a copy of the document in question in my possession. It comes from the collection of Virginia Historical Society. It’s undated, and there is no author’s name on it. However, it does state, quite unambiguously, what Long repersents it says.

Personally, I give it little credence because it cannot be corroborated and because we don’t know who wrote it. However, just because I don’t give it credence doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. In fact, it does. As stated, I have a photocopy of it in my Dahlgren files at home.

Don’t make those sorts of assumptions unless you’ve seen the primary sources.

Eric

Mosby might have seen fit to respond to something that Custer said or wrote, but he would not have INITIATED any contact. It would have been entirely out of character for the man and especially when one considers that Custer attacked GRANT and his Administration for their ‘Indian Affairs’ policies and actions. So Mosby had TWO reasons to hate Custer: his treatment of Mosby’s men at Front Royal and his feud with Mosby’s ‘best friend’, Ulysses Grant.

No, I think it is safe to say that Mr. Long has simply made a mistaken and substituted Custer for Wistar in his article. Now the question is, did WISTAR make the admission to Mosby that Long posits in his article was made by Custer? If he did, then the error has to do with a misplaced name. If, on the other hand, General Wistar did NOT, then the error grows in scope and importance.

Many, many thanks for the fascinating comment. And thanks also for validating my thoughts. Yours match mine almost to the letter.

Eric

“Now, does this sound like it belong more in the pages of the National Enquirer than North & South, or am I missing something?”

I’m with you man. Sensationalism has always sold more copies & stirred up more controversy. Revision is OK as long as it is backed with some hard evidence. Long offers conjecture. And speculation is fine if it is labeled as such.

Mike

At the same time, however, I am also far too ignorant to state with any confidence that such a meeting did NOT take place. Ergo, I have sent the question out to some Mosby experts whom I know to see if they can further enlighten me. If it turns out that this ‘meeting’ to which Mr. Long refers is unknown to the persons whom I have contacted, it is probable that it never took place and that puts Mr. Long’s accuracy in grave doubt.

I will let the group know the results when I receive the information requested.

Orthodoxy has never held much water with me – I love to explore the evidence. I think Eric’s the same way – hence our book on Stuart’s Ride. But if you’re going to say A is A and B is B, you better damn well have the evidence for it. If maybe A is A or B is B, then you need to be honest with your reader and explain it that way.

Whether Lincoln tried to kill Davis, or was homosexual, or dressed up as a woman, is fine fodder for banter. But the way the headlines are written now, I feel like I’m in the supermarket checkout line instead of reading supposedly “scholarly” works.

J.D.