Changing Traditional Interpretations by Correcting Errors

Chaplain Louis N. Beaudrye was the regimental historian of his unit, the 5th New York Cavalry. The regimental history is one of the better ones, but like many, it has its flaws. As a chaplain, Beaudrye didn’t spend much time on the battlefield, and he was also captured during the retreat from Gettysburg, meaning that he spent a stint at Libby Prison and hence wasn’t present for some of the events chronicled in his history of the regiment. That means that it has gaps in the thoroughness of its coverage. Nevertheless, it’s an important source on the Army of the Potomac’s Third Cavalry Division.

There’s also one other small point. The name on the regimental history is “Boudrye”. However, it appears that the proper French spelling of the name is “Beaudrye”, which was apparently anglicized a bit. I have chosen to use the proper French spelling.

Beaudrye was back with the regiment by the time of the Kilpatrick-Dahlgren Raid. Two companies of the 5th New York went with Dahlgren’s column to Richmond, while the rest went with Kilpatrick’s column. It was always believed that Beaudrye also accompanied Dahlgren’s column. The regimental history contains a lengthy description of the Dahlgren raid written by a member of the unit, but it’s not attributed. It appears in the middle of the narrative, and everyone has always assumed that Beaudrye wrote it since there’s nothing to indicate that he didn’t. This account contains a detailed description of the last minute or so of Dahlgren’s life, including recounting what was said just before the fatal shots were fired.

Virgil Carrington “Pat” Jones, as one very notable example, cited to the Beaudrye regimental history as a major source in his 1957 book Eight Hours Before Richmond, which is generally considered to be the best and most detailed account of the raid yet published. Jones attributes the account of the last moments of Dahlgren’s life to Beaudrye. So does Duane Schultz in his book The Dahlgren Affair: Terror and Conspiracy in the Civil War.

I discovered last night that these traditional accounts were all wrong. In the 1880’s, an officer of the 5th New York Cavalry named Lt. H. A. D. Merritt, who commanded the advance of Dahlgren’s column during the raid, wrote an account of the raid that was published in The Century Magazine as part of its “Battles and Leaders of the Civil War” series. A four-volume set of what the editors believed were the best articles from the series was published under the title Battles and Leaders of the Civil War. However, Merritt’s article was not included in that collection. It was, therefore, largely lost to history.

In 1996, a descendant of Chaplain Beaudrye published the chaplain’s war diary, which is now out of print. I pulled out my copy last night and discovered the truth: during the raid, Chaplain Beaudrye stayed at Cavalry Corps headquarters at Brandy Station, performing his ministerial duties. He did not accompany the raid. Thus, he could not have written an account of the raid as a primary account. That meant that the account contained in the regimental history could not have been penned by Chaplain Beaudrye. It’s far too detailed to have been written by someone who was not present.

When I realized that, I realized that, while the error is certainly understandable, ALL of the conventional accounts of the raid published to date have misidentified the source of that account of the last moments of Dahlgren’s life. So, I set out to figure out who really wrote it.

In the 1990’s, Peter Cozzens decided to publish more of the articles from the series and came out with a fifth volume of Battles and Leaders. Then, in 2004, Cozzens published volume six of Battles and Leaders. Sure enough, the Merritt article appears in volume 6. I pulled out the book this evening, and…mystery solved. The mystery account in the regimental history is the same as the article in volume 6. Therefore, the author had to have been Lieutenant Merritt and not Beaudrye.

So, in a small way, I have corrected a long-standing but easily made and understandable error. This is the sort of thing that I really enjoy and which makes this sort of historical work fun for me. It made me feel good to fix a historical error and to finally set the record straight. It’s a small thing, for sure, but it’s cool stuff nevertheless. It goes right along with my constant desire to shatter Civil War mythology.