In days gone by, most warring factions understood that to strike the head was the means by which the war or at least the engagement was quickly ended. Hence, Richard III dies on Bosworth field, Leonidas dies at the Gates of Fire and both Charles I and Louis XVI perish in what are ACTUAL ‘civil wars’ (ours was not) in the hope that by so doing, their monarchies will cease to exist.

To my mind, there is no reason for all the fuss and furor about the Dahlgren-Kilpatrick raid, including such questions as, was it real and, if so, who was to ‘blame’. God knows, had it succeeded, both men would have been lauded and praised as having brought to an end a dreadful fratricidal war as I doubt very much with the Confederate civil government gone, Lee and other West Pointers leading the armies of the South would have remained in the field. Remember, the American military model was based upon Washington’s determination that the military must serve the civilian, not vice versa. Does anyone see Robert E. Lee or even Joe Johnston as American Oliver Cromwells?

By the time the raid took place, the nation was mired in blood with no end in sight. More importantly, Lincoln was coming up for re-election. To win, he knew that the people of the Union required hope that the war would soon end and that their efforts would be crowned with victory under his leadership. And for that he required something to give them that hope. Certainly, the ‘plan’ would have done so had it been successful. That in and of itself is a tremendous ‘motive’ for all concerned including Lincoln, his cabinet and his military leaders. Casting one’s eyes down upon two second tier offices like Dahlgren and Kilpatrick and expecting that they were the sole originators of the business seems feckless to the point of silliness. I would say that such might be the case if the two of them stole off with a few close friends to try a ‘raid’, but there were far too many troops involved including explosives experts along for it to have been a matter of some lower echelon officers’ grab for glory.

This is especially true when one looks at Ulrich Dahlgren. His father was an admiral of the United States Navy and therefore, the young man knew and understood discipline, honor, loyalty and obedience. He was intelligent, brave, well educated, of good character and apparently had become rather intimate with the President after losing his leg in battle. Indeed, he was the antithesis of Kilpatrick whose morals and honesty were questionable at best and absent at worst. Yet, he certainly knew what he was doing during the raid for to suggest otherwise is to make him into a witless tool whether it be of Stanton or Kilpatrick and that doesn’t seem to match what we know of the man. It came as no shock to him nor did he consider it to be ‘dishonorable’ – and my point is, WHY SHOULD HE? It was a rather desperate plan, to be sure and made worse by whomever was in charge not making sure that no incriminating documents could fall into the hands of the enemy if things went awry. But from the point of view of morality, when one considers what went on in Georgia, the Carolinas and the Shenandoah Valley to name just three ‘theaters’ of vicious, bloody, deplorable war waged against civilians, it seems ludicrous to make of this particular operation anything worse than it was – an effort to destroy the Confederate government in order to end the war.

Ergo, why look for ‘patsies’ or ‘culprits’ at all? Why not simply accept the fact that the Union government at some level – and I believe that level to be the very highest – determined to try an audacious plan, that those involved found men whom they believed could bring the plan to fruition and then proceeded to try to implement it. They failed, but had they succeeded, as noted, I’m sure it would be presented in all the history books as the turning point of the war and a great victory rather than an embarrassing episode that requires the production of suitable scapegoats! At least that’s how I see it.