Jefferson Davis and the Conspiracy

[STS Lincolnite]

As I am catching up on this thread, the posting has been timely for me. I am currently in the early stages of preparation for a talk on Lincoln’s assassination which I am scheduled to give next spring (it is on April 14, 2014 – some coincidence there, eh) - and it is never too early to start. In the first portion, which I am tentatively titling “The Roots of Assassination” I intend to address the Dahlgren Affair and a potential greater Confederate Government role as pre-cursors to Lincoln’s death. As an aside, as the time draws nearer, I’m sure I will be hitting the Symposium hard for opinions and help as I feel the need – I can think of no group better equipped and with more expertise! Anyway, getting back to the subject, I have several thoughts and questions related to this thread.

1) I agree with other posters in regards to the fact that anyone authorizing a “capture plot” had to understand that there was a very real possibility of the death of the intended subject(s). However, I do also think that understanding a death may occur in a capture plot is very different than directly authorizing a very personal order of assassination. Other posts use Lincoln’s well known pragmatism as a jumping off point for the idea that he may have authorized such an assassination plot in the hopes of ending the war and securing re-election. I have to admit to having a hard time reconciling the idea that AL would order an assassination (pragmatist or not) with what I have come to know about AL’s personal philosophy and character. It may have been Toia who articulated a similar thought. While I agree with the characterization of AL as a pragmatist, I would use that fact as supporting the idea of decreased likelihood of him authorizing such an action for several reasons:
a) The likelihood of a successful raid to liberate prisoners in Richmond was limited at best. Much less if the raid was tasked with entering Richmond, finding the Confederate President and the Cabinet members and then killing them. No reasonable person would expect them to all be sitting in a room waiting for a Union soldier (or small group of soldiers) to arrive – I would think it would have been reported when the Union entered the area and defenses would have been shifted to protect the heads of government or to secure an escape route.
b) A great degree of secrecy among many ground troops would have to be maintained. There would have to be numerous people “in the know” in order to carry out this mission successfully (as I stated above the targets would not just have been sitting in a room waiting). This would mean many more Union troops would have to be “in the know” in order to search for, find, secure and kill all without anyone knowing who did it – at that time the outright assassination of a head of state was (at least publicly) a no-no. The more people that know the more likely the cat will be let out of the bag.
c) No guarantees. Even if an assassination was fully successful, there was still no absolute guarantee the war would have ended or that Lincoln would be re-elected. There are far too many uncontrolled variables to make that determination. It's possible such an event may have re-invigorated the southern will to fight and the war would have continued to some degree anyway (also alluded to in a previous post). It may also have created enough outrage even in the north that Lincoln would not be re-elected. As we can see by the response to the publication of the Dahlgren papers, the idea of the assassination of a head of state was abhorred by the public with everyone (at least publically) condemning such an action.
d) Legality of the action. I think it was Laurie that raised the question of who could legally sanction this type of operation. Lincoln was a stickler for legality of actions and always approached things from that perspective. Consider how careful he was with wording the Emancipation Proclamation to make sure this proclamation was legal – consistent with his powers as president. Certainly there were times he pushed the envelope of presidential power but he always had a prepared legal justification for his actions that he used to diffuse criticism. The ethical question aside, I am not sure Lincoln would have thought it was legal and within his presidential power for him to sanction assassination. Capture maybe, but not assassination. In this case, the President of the Confederacy was a civilian, elected official just like Lincoln himself. When he authorized military missions that involved the death of military combatants that was within his legal powers as president and commander in chief of the military. I’m no lawyer, but I don’t think the actual sanctioning of the assassination of a civilian is considered legal now or then under the presidential commander in chief powers. I'm sure much debate could be had here - but Lincoln would have considered this.

To summarize this drawn out thought, considering again what I think about his personal philosophy and character as well as his foresight and understanding of long term consequences, the chances of a successful mission, and the fact that he regularly viewed things from a legal perspective, I believe the thoughtful and pragmatic Lincoln would have considered those factors as I articulated above (and probably lots of others that I could never come up with) and felt that the authorization of an assassination attempt would not be a good choice. I, however, cannot say I have the same degree of certainty about Lincoln's subordinates. I think Mr. Stanton, for example, was much more comfortable with "hard war" tactics than was the “let’em up easy boys” AL. And though a lawyer himself, I don't think he was as thoughtful as Lincoln nor as concerned about “legal technicalities” in the prosecution of the war. Although it is possible that AL personally authorized such an order, I do not find it probable. I find it more probable that, if an assassination order was issued, it was further down the chain than AL himself – hard to say how far. At the end of the day, as President, he is ultimately responsible for the actions of his subordinates. But to expect that he would have had absolute foreknowledge of what any of his cabinet members or cadre of military officers might take it upon themselves to do is not really a tenable position. And after their actions were exposed, I’m sure someone would get personally (not necessarily publically) chewed out if authorizing or ordering an assassination action. This leads in to the next item.

2) Did Lincoln make any public statements following the failed Dahlgren raid – especially in regards to the part regarding the killing of President Davis and his cabinet? With a cursory search, I was unable to find any reports of a response given by Lincoln himself. I would suspect he would remain silent if he himself or a valued member of his cabinet or military had sanctioned such an operation. Possibly would have gone back to his post-election, pre-inauguration idea that speaking could only cause more trouble than it was worth and that silence was the best option.

3) I found a website that was selling a confidential letter, dated February 26, 1864 written and signed by Gen. Alfred Pleasanton to Gen. Judson Kilpatrick with orders related to “a raid on Richmond for the purposes of liberating our prisoners at that place”. It further mentions the authorization of Dahlgren “to accompany you, and will render valuable assistance from his knowledge of the country” - no mention of capturing/killing of Davis/cabinet was made. Here is the attached link:

http://www.cowanauctions.com/auctions/it...emId=83308


4) It has been noted that there was outcry in the South condemning the contents of the Dahlgren papers and outcry in the North denying their authenticity. Does anyone know what the specific response of the Northern Democratic Party was? This would seem to have been a great wagon to hitch their horse to in order to vilify Lincoln and thereby generate more anti-Lincoln sentiment as the 1864 election drew nearer. Were the allegations true (or maybe even if there was any grain of truth) a weapon would have been handed to them.

5) How can anyone prove or disprove the authenticity of the actual papers found on Dahlgren? From what I understand, the actual papers have been missing since the late 1860s (some think destroyed by Stanton). With the photographic images that remain, I could see how researchers/historians could gather some information and perhaps shed light on the likelihood of whether certain theories about them are true/untrue (ie the “misspelling” of Dahlgren). I think the fact that orders for a raid with the purpose of the release of Union prisoners was real (sans the killing/capture of the Davis and Cabinet) has already been proven by corroborating sources (Kilpatrick’s statement and the Pleasonton letter that I mentioned above). As one poster said, it defies common sense that an order to kill the Confederate President and Cabinet would be put in writing at all much less carried directly on the person whose task it was to carry out such an order (although I admit common sense isn’t always a great indicator – some people just don’t have any). So as to the actual papers themselves, I’m not sure authenticity and provenance (Where did they originate, who penned them, etc.) can be accurately established under the circumstances – all we have are aged photographs.

Whew! Though I have several more thoughts and questions, I better stop there for now in the interest of not boring everyone to slumber – sorry about those I already have! I will post the rest at a later time. I apologize profusely for the length of this post...started typing and it got long very quickly.