When the Rubber Hits the Road

Eric,
One word describes it….excellent! You present plausible but different individuals as the origin of the raid’s most controversial component and underpin each with reasons that support them. The way I am reading this is that you are mounting a coherent argument for either Lincoln ordered it, Stanton ordered it or Dahlgren played lone ranger, and letting the reader wrestle with the arguments presented for and against each. Unlike the argument against why Lincoln would have approved such a venture, I didn’t read anything that argued AGAINST Stanton as the mastermind behind this scheme. Also, what is postulated in favor of Dahlgren being the author isn’t as strong as the finger that points at Stanton; therefore, from this as it is written, the reader is to conclude that the author of the above is leaning towards Stanton, correct? Also, I noticed, no speculation on this being something that both Kilpatrick and Dahlgren jointly dreamed up. I think I remember you writing on here that, rightfully so, the U. Dahlgren biography will make very little reference to the Kilpatrick portion of the three-pronged raid. What was the relationship like between Kilpatrick and Dahlgren? Could Kilpatrick, generally viewed as reckless to a fault, have influenced Dahlgren’s thinking if the Lone Ranger scenario has merit?

Enjoyed reading this very much and looking forward to the end product. Thanks for laying this out in the midst of what I know is a very busy week.

John

Dear Eric,

I believe John is right. You have made an excellent survey of the options and the relative strenghts and weakness of each.

As the paper trail is non-existent (at least for us) and with the absence of a “Deep Throat”, all we can do is speculate based upon who we think could have known and our perceptions of each person’s character (again, character matters!).

Like you, I doubt Lincoln had any role in the affair. Besides being a man of compassion and ethics, he was too shrewd a politician not to see the possibility of what finally did happen and to realize that his denial, pausable or not, would not prevent an inglorious accusation from sticking to him. Now, if Lincoln were Nixon . . . (now there’s an angle for the “what if” novelists–the Civil War with Nixon as President).

Perhaps Dahlgren composed the papers thinking, or wishing, he had heard the President say a sentence here, thought he saw a wink there, later reflected upon a joke told and, with his own creativity and ambition, wrote his legacy in infamy.

All told, you have summarized rather nicely all the options. Thank you for sharing your well-reasoned conclusions.

Lanny

Eric,

Please don’t take this wrong or think I’m trying to be an a*&hole, because I enjoy your books tremendously.
I am troubled by the conspiracy chapter above.

You are writing a book backed by in-depth factual research on the life of Ulric Dahlgren. You spent years researching and gathering those facts to tell the true story. It therefore seems to me unfortunate to dedicate an entire chapter on mere speculation and feelings.
I of course defer to your knowledge on Ulric Dahlgren and your forthcoming book will I’m sure be definitive. But in terms of these meetings/orders what are the facts? In my opinion That is what you should present and let the reader determine how he/she feels. Maybe put your personal thoughts in an endnote.

The conspiracy presentation above reminds me of many of the authors that write about all the conspiracy theories on the the Kennedy and Lincoln assassinations. Too much guilt by association. No facts to back up speculative conversations and activities. Could have, would have, might have.
In this case it reads like watergate…Lincoln becomes Nixonian and Stanton his John Mitchell.
Ulric Dahlgren merely one of the burglars.
You have left the 19th century and veered into 20th century american conspiracy thought.

In this chapter, we are asked to consider that because Dahlgren had two meetings with Lincoln ergo they may have discussed killing Davis. Is that provable?

We are virtually told, based solely on belief, that Stanton specifically ordered the killing of Davis and his cabinet. Is there proof?

You spend a huge amount of time on the conspiracy theories and only at the end do you throw in the paragraph that maybe, just maybe, none of the preceeding conspiracy happened and Dahlgren was just glory seeking.

Do you really want your book to end on conspiracy theories?

Hard to believe that Stanton, or Dahlgren, would mount a rogue operation like this on their own. As you mentioned, it has all the earmarks of a special operation authorized at the highest levels — especially the leader, with political connections, sent down for this raid alone. Most serving officers would probably have balked at the idea of killing Davis and his cabinet.

I’m certainly not an expert on CW White House politics, but it does seem that Stanton and Lincoln worked quite well together. I would take a look at Stanton’s record — are there any other instances where he set up some sort of initiative on his own without telling the president? Did he have a habit of freelancing? If so what was Lincoln’s reaction? IAC he never seems to have said or done anything to reprove Stanton for it.

Like FDR, Lincoln was a dissembler, and while he did not shrink from the dirty details of war and politics, he did take pains to disassociate himself from them, preferring to rely on trusted subordinates. Example: you usually don’t see Lincoln’s name associated with Sherman’s making Georgia howl, or the Burning in the Shenandoah, but Lincoln obviously knew about it and tacitly approved.

As far as his postwar policy goes, I’m not sure that makes a case for his war policy, which I read as being “Harsh War, Just Peace.”

The Lincoln parable of the lemonade made me wonder – Lincoln seems to have been opportunistic enough to have used a story like that to illustrate a desire for Davis’s convenient escape in spring of 1865, and it seems that he might well have equally used the same story in spring of 1864 to cover for his desire to see Davis executed in Dahlgren’s raid. Lincoln’s situation in early ’64 was a lot riskier and different than a year later, when he could better afford to be magnaminous in a certain victory.

While speculating, I must confess that every time I think of the Dahlgren plan with respect to the Confederate government my mind wanders forward a year to the Lincoln assassination, which has been viewed by some as a planned Confederate Secret Service retribution for what might have been done a year earlier. And if your hypothesis is true with respect to Stanton, the same type of case could be made for the role of Judah Benjamin in those last desperate days of the Confederacy, whom one could certainly see preserving Davis’s own plausible deniability. Benjamin had taken the heat for Davis a number of times.

Very interesting post, Eric, and thanks for giving your fans the opportunity to comment on your work in progress.

I think that the LEAST likely scenario is Dahlgren acting alone. Unless he was a raving lunatic or a blithering idiot – neither of which seems likely – not only would he not have conceived of such a plot himsef (and by so doing place both his father and the President in untenable moral and political positions), but he most probably would not have followed Kilpatrick (if the plan had been his) into any such situation for the same reasons.

The second least likely scenario is that powerful persons in the Administration acted absent the President’s ‘blessing’ and knowlingly contrary to his wishes. The reason for my conclusion? Simple! The choice of Ulrich Dahlgren as a participant. As noted in my comment on RMR2, no one in his right mind would choose someone personally close to the President for such a task knowing that the President would disapprove and put an end to it should he have learned of it prior to its execution.

Frankly, with all this ‘new’ information, the scenario that MOST fits the facts involves Lincoln’s involvement. The only thing here is, was it active or tacit. Did Lincoln conceive of the plan or, having heard of its conception give his active blessing for its follow through – or, having learned of what was afoot, did he merely walk away and take no direct part either in its completion or its prevention. No matter which of these scenarios is ‘the truth’, the fact is, Lincoln WAS involved and virtually (if not actually) from the ‘get-go’.

Furthermore, if Stanton did destroy the papers afterward to my mind simply makes Lincoln’s involvement all the more clear. Stanton was not the kind of man who would have been concerned about public knowledge that he was involved. Indeed, he might have been quite proud to have been so had the matter been successful. On the other hand, Stanton was apparently very moved by Lincoln’s death (as I have already stated) and would have done anything to prevent his memory being tarnished. So the destruction of the Dahlgren papers is far more likely to have been Stanton’s attempt to keep Lincoln’s name out of the whole shameful affair.

Mr. Wittenberg also cites my point about Lincoln wanting to end the war before he came up for re-election given the war-weariness of the North. He further cites my point that Lincoln would probably have concluded that once the Confederate GOVERNMENT was gone, the ‘secessionist beast’ would have been headless and probably the whole movement would have simply ended once Southern military leaders had no more civilian government to lead the effort. America’s military had, from the beginning, been subservient to civilian rule (thank you, George Washington!).

So, on the whole, I can see nothing in what is known so far that in any way absolves Lincoln of involvement other than the myths and cult grown round the man since his assassination. Had he died an old man in his bed, perhaps more objectivity might be displayed in this matter by those who simply refuse to believe that ‘Honest Abe’ could have done such a thing.