Dave Gaddy’s Take

I have always been somewhat hesitant to accept the underlying thesis of COME RETRIBUTION for the following reason: it is highly speculative and its interpretation tends to reflect a modern conception of intelligence/covert action that I do not believe existed at the time. The 18th and 19th (even early 20th century) conception of secret service is vastly different than what has developed during the late 20th century.

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.

In a comment on the earlier ‘post’, someone asked for ‘proof’ for my assertion that Lincoln WAS involved. Also, it was stated that my conclusion was based on ‘circumstantial’ evidence.

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.

Valerie,

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

I am not impugning anyone’s ‘intellectual honesty’. I do know, however, from some 65 years of experience, that we all hold cherished beliefs that we are not really all that willing to abandon unless the evidence is so overwhelming as to make our adherence to same pure nonsense.

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.