|
|
The Dahlgren Papers RevisitedAmerica's Civil War | 4 comments | Print This Post | Email This Post The newspapers shouted for the summary execution of the captured raiders, a remedy that found immediate backing within the War Department. Cooler heads called for Robert E. Lee’s opinion in the matter. Although condemning the ‘barbarous and inhuman plot,’ Lee said he could not recommend executing prisoners. He pointed out that the Dahlgren papers represented only intentions, not actions. None of the ‘atrocious acts’ had actually been carried out, nor was it clear that Dahlgren’s men were even aware of their leader’s intentions. In any case, said Lee, the execution of prisoners of war was a bad precedent to set and would only lead the enemy to retaliate. General Lee’s prestige was such that his opinion ended further discussion of executions.17 Subscribe Today
Other officers and bureaucrats in Richmond, however, refused to let the Dahlgren matter end. The notorious papers were photographed, and Secretary of State Benjamin sent copies to John Slidell, the Confederacy’s European envoy. Slidell was enjoined to show the Dahlgren papers and their message to the European powers in the hope of generating support for intervention. The papers, said Benjamin, offered ‘the most conclusive evidence of the nature of the war now waged against us….’ To enhance the effect of this message, Slidell engaged a London printer to reproduce Dahlgren’s address to his men and his instructions for the raid in the form of lithographed broadsheets. He had these tracts circulated widely in Britain and on the Continent.18
On March 30, General Lee was instructed to send a set of photographs of the papers by flag of truce to the high command of the Army of the Potomac and ascertain if Dahlgren was acting under the orders of his government and superiors and ‘whether the Government of the United States sanctions the sentiments and purposes therein set forth.’ On April 1, the Richmond Examiner published the contents of Dahlgren’s pocket notebook, belatedly retrieved from Colonel Beale, and the Dahlgren story once again became front-page news. The notebook, claimed the paper, confirmed the authorship of the earlier documents and their brutal message.19
All of this caused great discomfort for General Meade. He had not thought much of the raid’s prospects from the beginning, and its results were as bad as he had feared they might be. Then, when he saw copies of the Richmond papers for March 5, he was appalled. George Meade was an upstanding soldier and an honorable man, and he told his wife that these Dahlgren papers seemed to him ‘a pretty ugly piece of business.’ Kilpatrick was ordered to make ‘careful inquiries’ among those of Dahlgren’s men who had escaped capture and ask if the colonel had made or issued’such an address to his command as that which has been published in the journals of the day.’
Backed into a corner, Kilpatrick squirmed. His examination of Dahlgren’s men, he replied, turned up no one to testify to any address made by the colonel or to any instructions ‘of the character alleged in the rebel journals….’ The fact of the matter was, he elaborated, just an hour before they set out on the raid Colonel Dahlgren showed him the address he intended to deliver to his men. He, Kilpatrick, endorsed it ‘approved’ in red ink. It read just as printed in the Richmond papers–except for his endorsement and that fateful sentence about exhorting the prisoners to burn the hateful city and kill Jefferson Davis and his cabinet. ‘All this is false,’ Kilpatrick declared indignantly. Dahlgren must have chosen not to deliver the address but had retained it, Kilpatrick argued, and after the Rebels searched his remains they doctored the papers they found for their own invidious purposes.20
Skepticism about the Dahlgren papers’ authenticity surfaced in the Northern press soon after their publication in Richmond’s newspapers on March 5. The Philadelphia Inquirer saw in them ‘evidence of rebel manufacture.’ The New York Times headed a March 15 story, ‘The Rebel Calumny on Col. Dahlgren.’ What Kilpatrick now added to the witches’ brew was his admission that the Dahlgren papers were real enough–he affirmed seeing and endorsing the address–though he continued to assert that the version released by the Rebels had been doctored. Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14Help HistoryNet by bookmarking to
            Tags: 19th Century, America's Civil War, American Civil War, Historical Conflicts, Politics
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
What is HistoryNet?The HistoryNet.com is brought to you by the Weider History Group, the world's largest publisher of history magazines. HistoryNet.com contains daily features, photo galleries and over 5,000 articles originally published in our various magazines. If you are interested in a specific history subject, try searching our archives, you are bound to find something to pique your interest. |
From Our Magazines
|
Weider History Group |
Weider History Network: HistoryNet | Armchair General | Great History | Achtung Panzer! Terms of Use | Copyright © 2009 Weider History Group. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. |
||
Loading ...
4 Comments to “The Dahlgren Papers Revisited”
I like your analysis and mannner of speaking, thank you for this interesting ticcket, it s always nice to visit this beautiful blog :)
By douce51 on Mar 14, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Very interesting article. However, part of your premise is based on COL Dahlgren being an outsider and able to carry out Kilpatrick’s plan.
Dahlgren was every bit the opportunist that Custer and the other Cavalry officers were. Three young men promoted very quickly as the Union formed its Cavalry Corps organization for the Army of the Potomac.
Dahlgren was a Captain at Gettysburg and attemtping the daring missions that secured Custer, Merritt and Farnsworth not to mention Kilpatrick’s rise.
Dahlgren had his father’s coat tails to ride as well. Having a senior admiral as a father also helped in his rise to Colonel from Captain in less than one year.
Dahlgren, had he not been killed, was going to be a Brigade, if not Division Commander in Sheridan’s forces by the end of the war.
Dahlgren was an insider.
Added to that, this raid and the killing of Davis was out of charactor for most everything else the Union did with its covert operations.
Now the Confederate covert operations was a different story. The burning of major cities with Greek Fire. The capture of US merchant ships on the high seas. The capture of civilian and military ships on the great lakes and rivers in Union cities. The cladestine operations across the boarder in Canada to attack or subvert the FederalGovernment. The Confederacy had a long pattern of such acts that we would call today terrorist.
The Union, maybe because they never developed covert organizations like the Confederacy did, had no great coordinated effort. Judah Benjamin was the cabinet level Confederate organizer of covert operations – to include the capture of President Lincoln and everything listed above.
If the Dahlgren letter is true, it was developed by Kilpatrick and Dahlgren alone and outside the bounds and generally against the wishes of President Lincoln.
By Don Herko in kansas on Apr 24, 2009 at 9:44 am
This article is well=written and makes a strong case for the involvement of Stanton. However, the author says, “It certainly cannot be imagined that the president countenanced political assassination and black flag warfare against civilians. Lincoln approved the capture of Davis, perhaps as a hostage for the release of Union prisoners, but nothing we know about the man suggests he would have gone beyond that.”
The author seems to forget Athens, Alabama, where US Col. Turchin told his men, “I shut my eyes for three hours,” thereby granting his soldiers permission to rape, rob, and pillage. Turchin’s conviction by courtmartial was overturned by Lincoln’s promoting Turchin to Brigadier General.
I see no reason to leave Lincoln out of speculation about the source of Dahlgren’s orders.
By Charles Hayes on May 24, 2009 at 10:05 pm