Dahlgren Update

Eric,

Presuming that your opinion of Kilpatrick hasn’t improved since last we met; how difficult is it to remain impartial when writing such a book?

For example, do you feel that you have ‘to go that extra mile’ in counting out all other possibilities that would exhonorate Kilpatrick for complicity in this scheme? Or, is it a replication of your usual practice when writing biographies or narratives?

Best wishes,

Mark

Well said, Eric. I think it’s incumbent upon historians to go only where the evidence leads them – you and I know of one shining example of the contrary 🙂 Going into a project with strong bias can make one misinterpret evidence, even fabricate evidence – the worst sin of all – and all other kinds of nasties, to reach pre-determined conclusions. A historian is bound to get reamed – often quite publicly – when doing so.

The only way to be fair with our readers is to present and interpret the evidence as well as possible, injecting speculation when intelligently warranted. That still, fortunately, leaves a lot of wiggle room, but everyone will respect you when you have a defensible basis for it.

It’s exactly what we did with the Stuart book project – and just as we explain in the Introduction and Conclusion. We had our biases to begin with for sure, but we laid them aside and followed the path of the evidence – which often caused us to adjust both our focus and opinions as we went along. Folks may certainly disagree with any part of our Conclusion chapter, and even the title of the book – “Plenty of Blame to Go Around” – but I don’t think a single person will be able to accuse us of not thinking our opinions through deeply enough, documenting them where possible, or not presenting all angles. Our narrative through the three Controversy chapters, I think, is good evidence of that.

J.D.

Eric,

That is a great point, and I was thinking along slightly different lines: there was not only the hope of Union victory in 1864, there was an expectation that it would happen. The overall mood of the U.S., as I read it, was hopeful. And it was clear weeks before Grant assumed office that he would become general-in-chief. Lincoln supported the bill to authorize the rank of lieutenant general only after he was assured that Grant had no presidential ambitions. That alone suggests that Lincoln was more apprehensive about a winning general like Grant seeking the presidency vs. a McClellan.

Lincoln’s re-election seemed much more likely in early 1864 than it would in August before the capture of Atlanta and Mobile and the victories in the Shenandoah. From the Confederacy’s standpoint, the last half of 1863 had been a string of defeats: Gettysburg, Vicksburg, Chattanooga. The Mississippi was open, Tennessee was firmly in Union hands, and Lee had been unable to work his magic and inflict a defeat on the Army of the Potomac. There is no reason to think, then, that Lincoln would have rolled the dice on a risky raid. He was not in any case a risk-taker; when in late summer it appeared that he would be defeated, Lincoln engaged in no wild moves to win victory.

Valarie’s point about why the conspirators were not brought to justice is plausible, but I would think it more likely that, in wartime, such a wild scheme would simply be hushed up. And that is apparently what happened. Kilpatrick was shipped out west, away from any inquiry.

Bill

I don’t know what you mean by ‘evidence’. Unless I have misread all that has been presented – yes, even by Eric – there seems more than sufficient ‘evidence’ for my point of view and very little ‘evidence’ to the contrary other than Lincoln’s ‘saintliness’, Kilpatrick’s bad reputation and this new point regarding the ‘rising hope’ that came with Grant’s appointment.

But Grant carried a lot of baggage AND lost a lot of men after he was appointed ‘General-in-Chief’. He still had to cope with his reputation as a drunkard and the ‘butcher’s bill’ that seemed to accompany some if not most of his battles with Lee. True, the Union could afford to lose a regiment more than the Confederates could afford to lose a squad, but all those wounded and dead being shipped to Northern hospitals and cemetaries did NOTHING to help the morale of the North. The Union STILL hadn’t ‘prevailed’ despite victory after victory and Lincoln’s re-election was hardly a ‘sure thing’ even AFTER Grant took command.

On the other hand (evidently speaking)

1. We KNOW that Dahlgren and his father were intimates of Lincoln and the young man visited the White House frequently prior to the launching of the raid and therefore, unless he was a COMPLETE ignoramus and/or morally bankrupt, was aware of what would not and what WOULD be tolerated by the President.

2. We KNOW the makeup of the raiding party and that it wasn’t just ‘a few good men’ on horseback. There were a goodly number of troops involved together with explosives experts which hardly would have bene the case had this been a clandestine plot by two over-eager soldiers.

3. We KNOW – or it has been strongly suggested with Union testimony – that a similar raid had been planned earlier unless we dismiss General Wistar entirely and I see no reason for that. That means that even BEFORE Dahlgren, a plan had been underway to do what the Dahlgren/Kilpatrick raid was supposed to accomplish and that fact reasonably removes BOTH Dahlgren AND Kilpatrick from the ‘loop’ at least as far as planning the raid is concerned.

4. We KNOW (or let us say that is has been fairly well proven) that the papers were NOT Confederate forgeries, so that removes the claim that this was never a Union objective in the first place.

5. We KNOW that Lincoln was a ‘hands on’ President. He was not an ’empty suit’ who waited around for his underlings to make policy and determine strategy. I would say to you that NOTHING important was forthcoming from the Administration that was absent the President’s involvement – great or little.

6. We KNOW that Lincoln was in the middle of a VERY difficult run for a second term and that the war was not all that popular in the North, especially after it had been ‘reinvented’ as a war to free the slaves rather than a war to save the Union! There had already been serious civil strife over the draft (see the New York draft riots) and the question was being asked – both North and South – ‘When will this cruel war end?’ The appointment of Grant – who had a LOT of baggage as I noted – was not the ‘cure-all’ that seems to be presented here. Grant still was very much at odds with many in the Army. Halleck was no friend of his nor was Hancock, both very important commanders. The casualties in the Wilderness and another battle (the Crater? – I’m not a battle aficianodo.) was such that Grant was called a ‘butcher’ by much of the Northern press.

7. Finally, even if the ‘plan’ had been called off as seems to be one of the points being made, that does not in any way change its ORIGINS. That is, even if Dahlgren and Kilpatrick determined to carry on after receiving orders to desist, that does not make the ‘plan’ theirs; they were still working from a plan conceived elsewhere – and where else could that ‘elsewhere’ be, but the Administration?

As for bringing Kilpatrick to justice had he actually conceived the plan with Dahlgren: again, I must respectfully disagree. He would not have been the first officer cashiered for gross insubordination and it certainly would have been seen as entirely contrary to the well being of the Army to permit an officer who had acted in such an egregiously insubordinate and possibly treasonous manner to just ‘walk away’ from the incident not only uncharged, but still retaining his commission! How on earth would such an ‘oversight’ have played in the ranks? And believe me, the matter would have become known! Armies are not closed mouthed in such matters. The only real answer as to why Kilpatrick was not cashiered or even court martialed is that he did nothing other than ‘follow orders’ – and that brings us right back to square one.

I believe that what I have posted here must be considered as ‘evidence’, albeit circumstantial in nature. There is no ‘smoking gun’ here other than the documents and they do not allude to the people who drew up the plan for the raid. But certainly, there is absolutely NO evidence that contradicts my position that is anything but itself circumstantial and, in fact, a great deal less convincing than the evidence in favor of my point.

I don’t believe that Abraham Lincoln would have been willing to trust his re-election to the ‘good feelings’ and ‘rising morale’ that supposedly accompanied Grant’s appointment. After all, how many generals had ALREADY been appointed – to great huzzahs – but who came to nothing in the end. Yes, Grant had been triumphant, but in the West and NOT against Lee. For all the people of the North knew, he might prove to be another Hooker or Burnside or Meade or Pope, only a bit less sober. No, I don’t think that a shrewd and intelligent politician like Linoln was willing to put ALL his ‘eggs’ in that one basket when there was the possibility that the entire Confederate government and its capitol could be brought down in one quick, decisive military strike.

Well, let me ask you for direct evidence that Lincoln WASN’T involved. The only ‘evidence’ I have seen posited so far is that the ‘Great Man’ ‘wouldn’t do that sort of thing’ which is far less ‘credible’, if you will excuse my opinion, than MY points which at least have the value of being objective and not involved with posthumus hagiography.

Furthermore, my point is ‘revisionist’ only because the present point of view has been accepted without any credible evidence for a long time as part of the ‘Lincoln mythology’ – very much as many ‘scientific facts’ have long since been disproven as technology has permitted us to see what was once beyond our ability to comprehend (i.e. the atom is the smallest particle in nature). Indeed, for quite some time I believe that the documents involved were believed to be forgeries and only now comes an admission by many ‘main stream’ historians that such may not be the case.

I have presented above what I consider to be very proven, credible, believeable, objective points that reasonably lead to the conclusion that the plan was concocted in the Administration. And as the Administration WAS, for all intents and purposes, Lincoln, it is hardly reasonable to believe that he was unaware of it.

On the other hand, If you can present to me evidence that many important schemes and plans were developed in either the military or the government and that those plans were purposefully – AND SUCCESSFULLY – kept from the President, then I will be willing to admit that it is POSSIBLE (and no more) that Lincoln might have been kept in the dark about this one as well. But somehow, I don’t think you will be able to do that and keep alive any pretence of the ‘greatness’ of Lincoln. Let’s face it, the man cannot be a political genius who was the fount of all that was glorious and a dupe who could be used and confused by his underlings; the two concepts are antithetical.

Finally, regarding Kilpatrick: we are not speaking here of some slight infraction of the rules here . If you truly posit that Kilpatrick was responsible for a plan that would have been denounced and rejected by Lincoln and the Union high command and that he attempted to carry out that plan against the known wishes of his superiors, then I cannot imagine how he would have been let go without even a ‘slap on the wrist’. Far too many Union officers of greater and lesser rank than Kilpatrick were summarily cashiered for far less egregious acts! (I know this from my study of Mosby; a lot of those whom he made look foolish in their efforts to capture or kill him found themselves court martialed and drummed out of the army!)

The object of this raid became known by the Confederacy and was a source of GREAT embarassment to the Administration and the Union high command. If Kilpatrick had been one of the culprits, he surely would have suffered at the very least dismissal and at the worst, a far greater punishment. The very fact that he was not punished at all but went on as if nothing had happened (when the son of one of Lincoln’s closest friends – a young man known and apparently liked by Lincoln – died during the escapade) seems to be just one more nail in the coffin of the theory that Dahlgren and Kilpatrick acted independently.

I will certainly accept the fact that we can ‘agree to disagree’ as neither of us is liable to change the opinion of the other.

However, I will also make one more observation, to wit: I think/feel that you are looking at the facts, circumstances and persons with the firm and fixed belief that Lincoln WAS NOT or even perhaps COULD NOT HAVE BEEN involved and that opinion is – I also believe – based upon your assessment of Lincoln the man – rather than any absolute proof of his non-involvement since I can see no such absolute proof. Hence, you construct the facts as above and they are being, I have no doubt, correctly construed from your point of view.

On the other hand, I am looking at the same facts, circumstances and persons with the firm and fixed opinion that Lincoln WAS or certainly COULD HAVE BEEN involved based upon MY assessment of Lincoln the man rather than any proof of his actual involvement. Hence, I construct the facts as I posited them. I have tried manfully (womanfully?) not to ignore any fact that might be seen as conclusive proof of Lincoln’s NON-involvement, but I do not doubt that you may believe that I have done so when I reach a different conclusion based upon the same facts.

The facts are fairly consistent, it is the conclusion drawn from them that differs although I certainly admit that you are undoubtedly MUCH better informed than myself as a ‘newcomer’ to the field. And yet, as there is no ‘smoking gun’ one way or the other, in the end, it becomes a matter of individual judgment rather than a simple knowledge of the historical facts.

I see Lincoln as being perfectly willing to do whatever was necessary to win the war- and, indeed, given the actions of Sherman and Sheridan, he DID do whatever he believed necessary! I do not put much (if any) faith in the man’s ‘conciliatory words’ towards the South because they were spoken AFTER the Confederacy had been hammered into submission and were therefore of little account insofar as what MIGHT have happened in the so-called ‘reconstruction’. It is always easy to be forgiving and magnanimous towards someone you have utterly defeated. Of course, had Lincoln survived and lived up to his much lauded ‘magnanimity’, I might have a different opinion, but that, too, is mere conjecture as he did NOT survive.

Ergo, I have absolutely no problem – given all that has been revealed so far – in finding Lincoln’s hand in the planning of the raid and his blessing upon its execution. I do not see him as some sort of civil ‘saint’, a modern day Mother Theresa who could never consider doing anything as ‘dastardly’ as murdering the entire Confederate government and burning the Richmond in order to bring the war to a swift conclusion – and before election day, too!

On the other hand, I know that for many, Lincoln is a mythic hero and therefore, the Dahlgren-Kilpatrick raid seems entirely out of character for the man. I understand and respect that opinion and since there is no real piece of completely credible and irrevocable evidence either way, I am more than willing to ‘agree to disagree’