Jefferson Davis and the Conspiracy

[LincolnToddFan]

From what I have read, the Dahlgren raid was ordered after AL and his cabinet learned of the treatment of Union pow's being held at Confederate prisons. He was outraged. He wanted them freed from their torment, and it stands to reason that he was prepared to authorize whatever means were necessary to do this. BUT...that does not mean that I am prepared to accept that he personally ordered the murder of JD, any more than I believe that JD would have authorized the assassination of the elected president of the U.S.

AL is the man who wanted to look the other way and let JD and his cabinet slip out of the country after Appomattox.. He insisted in his last days that he would have no part of any military tribunals and hangings of the Confederates..."not even the worst of them," as he put it. Anything is possible, but I do not believe that he personally authorized an assassination attempt on Jefferson Davis.

[Eva Elisabeth]

Yes, but then it was not "necessary" anymore because the war was (virtually) over. This was by far not the case at the time of the raid. Just to clarify, I don't think he actively planned or seeked this, I rather think it's possible he let it happen (out of "devastation" as over three years of bloodshed had till then been to no avail.)

[Gene C]

(07-30-2014 07:58 PM)LincolnToddFan Wrote:  From what I have read, the Dahlgren raid was ordered after AL and his cabinet learned of the treatment of Union pow's being held at Confederate prisons. He was outraged. He wanted them freed from their torment, and it stands to reason that he was prepared to authorize whatever means were necessary to do this. BUT...that does not mean that I am prepared to accept that he personally ordered the murder of JD, any more than I believe that JD would have authorized the assassination of the elected president of the U.S.

AL is the man who wanted to look the other way and let JD and his cabinet slip out of the country after Appomattox.. He insisted in his last days that he would have no part of any military tribunals and hangings of the Confederates..."not even the worst of them," as he put it. Anything is possible, but I do not believe that he personally authorized an assassination attempt on Jefferson Davis.

Do yall honestly believe Dahlgren is stupid enough to carry the orders that he is to assassinate Davis and cabinet and burn Richmond on his person into enemy territory & that a superior officer would also be dumb enough to put it in writing?

[Eva Elisabeth]

Excellent point, Gene!

[LincolnToddFan]

ITA Gene, that's an excellent point-

[SSlater]

I do not believe that either Davis or Lincoln, would instigate a plan that was solely intended to kill the other.
However, I cannot exclude either president from being "fair game" for an assassination.
Each of them had able Generals, and Cabinet Members, who were responsible to develop "plans" - to win, and that the plans had to be approved by the President.
Lets compare National Leaders in the wars waged in our lifetime. Hitler, Stalin, etc. (In the South the next name is Lincoln - in the North the next name is Davis.) Would you lament the death of either of the first two?
Davis most likely approved the abduction of Lincoln, never intending for him to die. Obviously, that didn't work. In desperation, the order came down "do what you have to do'. The subordinates then used the Dahlgren papers as a "crutch" to approve the assassination. Don't ask me if the Dahlgren papers were prepared in the North - I don't know. I really don't believe they are sufficient evidence to approve murder.
There is one more question that I have to ask. Did Davis approve any of these desperate moves? I have read that Davis was quite ill in the final days of the war, and Benjamin was running the show. He supposedly conferred with Davis on issues, but maybe not this one.

PS. Are you aware that the South had an agent working in the front office of Baker's Secret Police? (Andrew Norton) He tipped off the South that Dahlgren was Coming. (Baker's 1st D.C. Cavalry were part of the raiding Troop.) The South knew who, what, when, and where, of the raid. The South had sufficient time, and reason, to prepare "Papers". Also,there was another raid earlier that month, the Wistar Raid, that got the same welcome. By the second raid, the South was ready with the "Evidence". Those Cabinet Members were a crafty, desperate crowd.

[wpbinzel]

There is no doubt in my mind that both Lincoln and Davis viewed the capture of the other as a legitimate military objective. (And because history is written by the wining side, I have also noticed that it is generally cited as efforts to "capture" Davis and to "kidnap" Lincoln. I am not sure that a difference with a distinction....)

The earliest reference I found with regard to the capture of either is in a May 8, 1863 telegram from Lincoln to General Hooker bemoaning the failure of a Union cavalry raid to press the attack and move into Richmond, saying, "there was not a sound pair of legs in Richmond, and that our men, had they known it, could have safely gone in and burnt every thing & brought us Jeff. Davis." [Roy P. Basler, ed., The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1953), vol VI, p. 203.]

[LincolnToddFan]

There is no doubt in my mind about that. But capture is a long way from murder...at least for me.

[L Verge]

Couldn't it be fairly well considered possible that any kidnap/capture plot could end in murder? I can't see either Lincoln or Davis being naive enough to not foresee such an event.

P.S. I prefer the word "capture" because it seems more appropriate for what I consider a military tactic.

---

Here's a portion of what the Southern Historical Papers say about the Raid (beginning near bottom of pg. 186):

We followed up the enemy, pursuing them closely, charging from rear to front, barely escaping being shot to death in an ambush set for the enemy by Captain Magruder, who had hurried to join us. His company of thirty men joined us, and Captain Pollard resorted to strategy, ending a bare half-dozen bold riders to pursue the fleeing enemy while the rest of the men set out along another road to intercept the flying enemy. We hurried along the road to Stevensville, a small village not many miles distant from King and Queen C. H. At dark we were awaiting the enemy with carbines sprung. Two men were sent out to reconnoitre, and they returned, reporting that the enemy had gone into camp a mile or two away from us. It was night, but we lost not a moment to get into ambush. They were attempting to find a way of escape. It was half past eleven o'clock at night. Upon the noise made by some of our men in ambush we hard a demand of "Surrender, or I will shoot," in a loud voice. At the same time he who called out attempted to fire his revolver at us, but it failed to fire.

Page 187 The Dahlgren Raid.

This action drew a terrific fire upon himself. He fell from his horse dead, pierced by five balls. The man proved to be Ulric Dahlgren.

The enemy stampeded, and the next morning at daybreak Sergeant Meredith was ordered by Captain Cox, who had joined us, to find out where the enemy were. He went forward with an attendant and found the enemy in a field dismounted and in confusion.

We captured there about 107 or 108 men, and some officers, with about 40 negroes additional, who had joined them. We also captured somewhat more than 100 horses.

That night William Littlepage, a boy thirteen years of age, who had followed us from Stevensville with his teacher, Mr. Hallaback, took from the body of Colonel Dahlgren the books and papers which contained his address and orders which excited such intense indignation among the Confederate people. The papers were given by Mr. Hallaback to Captain Pollard, and they passed through him and Col. Beale to the War Office in Richmond. The day following General Fitzhugh Lee gave orders to Captain Pollard to disinter the body of Dahlgren, which had been buried, and bring it to Richmond "for the purpose of identification." The body was taken to Richmond on the 6th of March by Lieut. Pollard's Company, was buried in Oakwood Cemetery, and was afterwards taken up and carried to Miss E. H. Van Lew's house on Church Hill. From her house the body of Colonel Dahlgren was first carried to Chelsea Hill, where it remained several days, after which the original resurrectionists (two white men--one of them being the late erratic Martin Meredith Lipscomb, whose proclaimed motto was "to strike high even if you lose your hatchet"--and a negro), placed the body on a wagon covered with young fruit trees and carried it through the picket lines and buried it near Hungary Station, R. F. & P. R. R. After the war it was taken up, carried North and again interred with kindred and friends.

The papers which were found upon Colonel Dahlgren's person were the subject of immediate controversy. Throughout the North there were those who claimed that they were forgeries. This was due to the fact that there were orders included therein which were so barbarous as to have no place in modern warfare.

Page 188 Southern Historical Society Papers.

Colonel Dahlgren's leading address to the officers and men of his command was written on a sheet of paper, having in printed letters on the upper corner "Headquarters Third Cavalry Corps, 1864." This address was patriotic and reverent in some parts, but contained a sentence which was particularly offensive to the Southern people. "We hope to release the prisoners from Belle Isle first, and having seen them fairly started, we will cross the James River into Richmond, destroying the bridges after us, and exhorting the released prisoners to destroy and burn the hateful city; and do not allow the rebel leader, Davis, nor his traitorous crew, to escape."

Another striking sentence in this address was this: "Many of you may fall, but if there is any man here not willing to sacrifice his life in such a great and glorious undertaking, or who does not feel capable of meeting the enemy in such a desperate fight as will follow, let him step out and go tot the arms of his sweetheart and read of the braves who swept through the city of Richmond."

Other special orders were written to detached slips. These related mainly to the details of the approach toward the city and the entrance into Richmond over the bridge across James River.

These papers caused a storm of protest throughout the South. The Richmond newspapers argued therefrom that every captured man of Dahlgren's regiment should be executed, but this was not done. [There was, at one time, as announced in the Southern Historical Society Papers, photographic copies of the orders in the archives of the Southern Historical Society, but they have never been found, though diligently sought for by the present Secretary.]
The Richmond Daily Examiner for March 7th, 1864, contained a striking article on Dahlgren's raid. They got the information for the article largely from Captain Dement, of our forces, who had been captured by Dahlgren in Goochland County, and forced by him to accompany him throughout his raid and act as his guide. It was to Captain Dement that the straggling members of Dahlgren's command surrendered ont he morning after their leader had been shot. This officer afterwards came into Richmond and gave an accurate account for the entire raid. Captain Dement and Mr. Mountcastle (who was also a captive of Dahlgren's) gave a full description of Dahlgren's personality to the Richmond people. Judge Henry E. Blair, a nestor of the law, was another of Dahlgren's

Page 189 The Dahlgren Raid.

captives. The Daily Examiner had the following paragraph upon the subject: "Both Captain Dement and Mr. Mountcastle described Dahlgren as a most agreeable and charming villain. He was very agreeable to his prisoners, shared his food with Captain Dement, and on several occasions, invited him to a nip of whiskey with him. He was a fair haired, very young-looking man, and his manners were as soft as a cat's."

In 1872, Admiral J. A. Dahlgren, father of Ulric Dahlgren, wrote a comprehensive memoir of his son's life and career. In this memoir the following paragraph occurs: "The document alleged to have been found upon the person of Colonel Dahlgren, is utterly discredited by the fact that the signature attached it is not his name--a letter is misplaced, and the real name "Dahlgren'; hence it is undeniable that the paper is not only spurious, but a forgery. * * * It is entirely certain that no such orders were ever issued by Colonel Dahlgren." Memoir of Ulric Dahlgren, pp. 233-234.

PLEASE NOTE: There is no mention of assassination in Dahlgren's papers that I can see, only an admonishment to not let the rebel leader Davis and others escape. I believe that recent scholars have also declared the papers to be authentic.

IMO, both Kilpatrick and Dahlgren were daredevils enough to undertake such a mission. I guess the question comes down (in both the case of Lincoln here and Davis in 1865) as to who gave the official authorization.

Earlier in the escapade, Dahlgren had hired a free black man to serve as a guide to the approaches of the city. They reached a water crossing that was so high that they could not go across. Dahlgren got so frustrated that he blamed that man for giving him wrong information and had him hanged on the spot. I think that indicates a very strong desire on the part of Dahlgren to have this mission go as expected.

[LincolnToddFan]

Thanks Laurie.

Sobering to know that Dahlgren held the poor guide responsible for the overflowing river and had him hanged. What a guy.

[wpbinzel]

Other than the May 8, 1863 telegram that I referenced above and the Dahlgren affair, are there any other credible accounts of Union plots or attempts to capture (or kill) Jefferson Davis?

(I am aware of the 1998 book, The 1862 Plot to Kidnap Jefferson Davis by Victor Vifquain. The editors of the book pass it off a "a true tale ... reconstructed novelistically," but I view it as fiction and not credible history.)

[L Verge]

I am not aware of any other plans. Anyone else knowledgeable on the subject?

[BettyO]

Quote:Sobering to know that Dahlgren held the poor guide responsible for the overflowing river and had him hanged. What a guy.

I remember reading about this in a class I took in college. If I remember right, this tragedy was certified as true. In my opinion, Dahlgren was nothing short of a cold blooded murderer. He deserved what he got. I'm surprised that Elizabeth "Crazy Bets" Van Lew held him in such high esteem.

[L Verge]

Do you think Van Lew held him in esteem because of who his father was? Or was Crazy Bets in cahoots with the plan to raid Richmond? There's a full story of the guide and his execution that I found online and forgot to make note of. The site concerns historical executions. I found it while trying to find the exact wording of the Dahlgren Papers. The one that I printed out of the Southern Historical Papers does not mention "killing," but a variety of other sources do. I want to see the exact wording of those papers that have been perused, tested, and supposedly declared legitimate. There's a big difference to me between papers reading to burn the city and "kill" the Confederate leaders and burning the city and not allowing them to "escape."

[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.