Comments on: The Dahlgren Papers Revisited http://www.historynet.com/the-dahlgren-papers-revisited.htm From the World's Largest History Magazine Publisher Tue, 18 Jun 2013 22:25:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: The Plot to Assassinate Jefferson Davis? - Guerrilla Explorer http://www.historynet.com/the-dahlgren-papers-revisited.htm#comment-817287 The Plot to Assassinate Jefferson Davis? - Guerrilla Explorer Fri, 07 Sep 2012 16:35:48 +0000 #comment-817287 [...] failure of their effort may have included the death of their own president.” ~ Stephen Sears, The Dahlgren Papers Revisited Related [...] [...] failure of their effort may have included the death of their own president." ~ Stephen Sears, The Dahlgren Papers Revisited Related [...]

]]> By: Michael R. Cunningham,Ph.D. http://www.historynet.com/the-dahlgren-papers-revisited.htm#comment-212769 Michael R. Cunningham,Ph.D. Thu, 04 Mar 2010 05:40:37 +0000 #comment-212769 Hayes asserted that "It can be accepted then that the authenticity of the Dahlgren papers is established beyond a doubt." I disagree; many doubts remain for the impartial student of this incident. Hayes fails to acknowledge the weakness of the chain-of-custody evidence for possession of the papers following Dahlgren's death, and the slowness of transferring Dahlgren's notebook to RIchmond. In fact there was ample time, opportunity, and Confederate motive for the alteration of Dahlgren's papers. Indeed, Hayes admits that the writing on the publicized version of Dahlgren's papers was altered, but attributes that to the actions of a lithographer. Evidence that was the only alteration is not compelling. Hayes also dismisses the suspicious signature that uses just the first initial, rather than the full "Ulrich", which appears on no other Dahlgren document, He claims that officers commonly use their initials on "formal official documents" and that this was the only time Dahlgren ever composed such a document. That is simply not true. Hayes also ignores the absence of Kilpatrick's approval endorsement on the publicized version of the Dahlgren letter, which is consistent with it being a forgery. When given the choice between believing the testimony of Admiral John Dahlgren, who had a sterling reputation, or that of Gen. Jubal Early, who was personally responsible for a self-serving disinformation campaign about the Gettysburg campaign, I find Dahlgren, and his son, much more credible than their adversaries. Like any failing administration, the Confederate government routinely issued lies to generate outrage and bolster morale. It is sad to see people still being taken in by Rebel propoganda a century and a half later. Hayes asserted that "It can be accepted then that the authenticity of the Dahlgren papers is established beyond a doubt." I disagree; many doubts remain for the impartial student of this incident. Hayes fails to acknowledge the weakness of the chain-of-custody evidence for possession of the papers following Dahlgren's death, and the slowness of transferring Dahlgren's notebook to RIchmond. In fact there was ample time, opportunity, and Confederate motive for the alteration of Dahlgren's papers. Indeed, Hayes admits that the writing on the publicized version of Dahlgren's papers was altered, but attributes that to the actions of a lithographer. Evidence that was the only alteration is not compelling. Hayes also dismisses the suspicious signature that uses just the first initial, rather than the full "Ulrich", which appears on no other Dahlgren document, He claims that officers commonly use their initials on "formal official documents" and that this was the only time Dahlgren ever composed such a document. That is simply not true. Hayes also ignores the absence of Kilpatrick's approval endorsement on the publicized version of the Dahlgren letter, which is consistent with it being a forgery. When given the choice between believing the testimony of Admiral John Dahlgren, who had a sterling reputation, or that of Gen. Jubal Early, who was personally responsible for a self-serving disinformation campaign about the Gettysburg campaign, I find Dahlgren, and his son, much more credible than their adversaries. Like any failing administration, the Confederate government routinely issued lies to generate outrage and bolster morale. It is sad to see people still being taken in by Rebel propoganda a century and a half later.

]]> By: Short Takes | TOCWOC - A Civil War Blog http://www.historynet.com/the-dahlgren-papers-revisited.htm#comment-180385 Short Takes | TOCWOC - A Civil War Blog Mon, 18 Jan 2010 04:08:51 +0000 #comment-180385 [...] to the comments for this post?Following up on my post about the recent Dahlgren bio, an excellent dissection on HistoryNet about the authenticity of the papers found on that officer’s body: It can be accepted then [...] [...] to the comments for this post?Following up on my post about the recent Dahlgren bio, an excellent dissection on HistoryNet about the authenticity of the papers found on that officer's body: It can be accepted then [...]

]]> By: Charles Hayes http://www.historynet.com/the-dahlgren-papers-revisited.htm#comment-65292 Charles Hayes Mon, 25 May 2009 02:05:51 +0000 #comment-65292 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. 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: Don Herko in kansas http://www.historynet.com/the-dahlgren-papers-revisited.htm#comment-55165 Don Herko in kansas Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:44:43 +0000 #comment-55165 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. 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: douce51 http://www.historynet.com/the-dahlgren-papers-revisited.htm#comment-43204 douce51 Sun, 15 Mar 2009 00:06:04 +0000 #comment-43204 I like your analysis and mannner of speaking, thank you for this interesting ticcket, it s always nice to visit this beautiful blog :) I like your analysis and mannner of speaking, thank you for this interesting ticcket, it s always nice to visit this beautiful blog :)

]]> By: Those Nasty Dahlgren Papers A clear view into the Yankee-Marxist worldview « THE “G” BLOG @WordPress.com http://www.historynet.com/the-dahlgren-papers-revisited.htm#comment-27 Those Nasty Dahlgren Papers A clear view into the Yankee-Marxist worldview « THE “G” BLOG @WordPress.com Sat, 24 May 2008 13:41:37 +0000 #comment-27 [...] Editor’s Note: As may be expected, the Yankee historian, James M. McPherson, contests the genuineness of the Dahlgen papers. Steven W. Sears, in a scholarly study, refutes McPherson and concludes that the papers were indeed real, and further, that their subsequent publishing in the Richmond Examiner (1 April 1864) may well have contributed to John Wilkes Booth’s assassination of Lincoln. Read the paper by Sears here. [...] [...] Editor's Note: As may be expected, the Yankee historian, James M. McPherson, contests the genuineness of the Dahlgen papers. Steven W. Sears, in a scholarly study, refutes McPherson and concludes that the papers were indeed real, and further, that their subsequent publishing in the Richmond Examiner (1 April 1864) may well have contributed to John Wilkes Booth's assassination of Lincoln. Read the paper by Sears here. [...]

]]>