Colonel Dahlgren's Plans

kevikens

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Location
New Jersey
In reading about Judson Kilpatrick's raid on Richmond early in 1864 I read again of the account where one his Colonels, Dahlgren, was killed and on his body it was discovered that he had a set of plans to kill Jefferson Davis and his cabinet and burn and pillage the city if the opportunity arose. According to Bruce Catton when this note was shown to Lee he had some doubts of its validity. My question is does anybody know if thee plans were preserved and where they might be so that they might be examined to determine just who wrote the plans that Confederate officials were so very upset about.
 
The documents were recovered when Richmond fell. They were taken to Washington. Sometime in late 1865, Stanton signed them out. They were delivered to him, and they then disappeared and were never seen again. Presumably, they found their way into a fireplace. The Confederates had photographed them, and two sets of those photographs still exist.

I did a lengthy analysis of the validity of these documents in an appendix to my bio of Ulric Dahlgren and came to the conclusion that they absolutely were written in Dahlgren's hand. The only question is whether he was cowboying, or whether this was the actual plan for what we now know as the Kilpatrick-Dahlgren Raid.
 
Boy, that was fast. Has the document in question ever been published somewhere? Just out of curiosity I would like to see it.
 
The contents were published in a Richmond newspaper at the time that they were discovered. You should be able to find the content.

The response was quick because I lived with this subject for a couple of years while I wrote my bio of Ulric Dahlgren. I know this inside and out.
 
Do you know if the two photographs taken by Confederate authorities were destroyed by Stanton or did one or both photos survive and if so where might they be?
 
I have one of two known copies of a report by a police handwriting expert, done in 1959, that did an extensive analysis of the photographs of the papers. Ulric's father, Admiral John A. Dahlgren, was a pack rat who saved every scrap of paper in his life, kept every single letter that Ulric sent him, along with his diary. All of that stuff is in the collection of the Library of Congress, and exemplars are plentiful. The police handwriting expert came to the conclusion that the papers were authentic. The reasoning is very sound, and matches my own experience with reading and studying Ulric Dahlgren's handwriting over a period of several years while I researched and wrote the book. There is no doubt in my mind that they documents are authentic.

As I said, the only remaining question is whether Dahlgren was cowboying, or whether Kilpatrick and even Stanton and Lincoln were in on the plot. If you want to know my take on this question, you will have to read my book. I'm not giving that away for free. :-)
 
Wasn't the police expert the one who proved that the so-called Hitler diaries were false? I was just watching a Sacred Trust talk on this topic, but I cannot find it just now. From what I remember, the speaker seemed to think that the orders came from Lincoln and Stanton. I'll keep searching. I would like to read Eric's book as well!
 
The documents were recovered when Richmond fell. They were taken to Washington. Sometime in late 1865, Stanton signed them out. They were delivered to him, and they then disappeared and were never seen again. Presumably, they found their way into a fireplace. The Confederates had photographed them, and two sets of those photographs still exist.

I did a lengthy analysis of the validity of these documents in an appendix to my bio of Ulric Dahlgren and came to the conclusion that they absolutely were written in Dahlgren's hand. The only question is whether he was cowboying, or whether this was the actual plan for what we now know as the Kilpatrick-Dahlgren Raid.

I was just reading about the raid in Foote's trilogy today. Dahlgren apparently executed a slave who was acting as his guide because the river he directed them to was unfordable. Dahlgren claimed the guide was working for the Rebels. Is there any truth for this? Or was Dahlgren just irritated at the course of events and executed him out of anger? It doesn't seem likely that a slave would risk his life in such a manner to foil the Federal raid.
 
Eric, do you have any opinion on the theory that Lincoln's assassination was a conspiracy of the Confederate cabinet in revenge for the Richmond raid? This was a theory of William Tidwell in a book Come Retribution: The Confederate Secret Service and the Assassination of Lincoln. I haven't read the book, only a magazine summary maybe in North & South. I wasn't sure that it made any sense unless the Confederates weren't able to call Booth off and he had gone ahead on his own.
 
I was just reading about the raid in Foote's trilogy today. Dahlgren apparently executed a slave who was acting as his guide because the river he directed them to was unfordable. Dahlgren claimed the guide was working for the Rebels. Is there any truth for this? Or was Dahlgren just irritated at the course of events and executed him out of anger? It doesn't seem likely that a slave would risk his life in such a manner to foil the Federal raid.

The man's name was Martin Robinson. He was not a slave, but rather a freedman. Dahlgren hanged him from a tree along River Road. This was one of a number of very poor decisions that Dahlgren made along the way. There was no evidence to suggest that the man was working for the rebels. The river was unfordable due to rains swelling it. The young man was not up to the stress of command so soon after his near-fatal wound, and he made some poor decisions during the course of the expedition. This was one of them.
 
Eric, do you have any opinion on the theory that Lincoln's assassination was a conspiracy of the Confederate cabinet in revenge for the Richmond raid? This was a theory of William Tidwell in a book Come Retribution: The Confederate Secret Service and the Assassination of Lincoln. I haven't read the book, only a magazine summary maybe in North & South. I wasn't sure that it made any sense unless the Confederates weren't able to call Booth off and he had gone ahead on his own.

I've read the book and I have corresponded with Tidwell. I think that it badly overstates the case. There simply is no evidence other than to suggest that the black flag had been raised.
 
Wasn't the police expert the one who proved that the so-called Hitler diaries were false? I was just watching a Sacred Trust talk on this topic, but I cannot find it just now. From what I remember, the speaker seemed to think that the orders came from Lincoln and Stanton. I'll keep searching. I would like to read Eric's book as well!

I don't know if it was. The man's name is Ira Gullickson, and since a transcription of his report on the papers has been posted here previously, I will include it here again:

Ira N. Gullickson
Questioned Document Analyst
1O308 Connecticut Avenue
Kensington, MD.

May 20, 1958

Mr. Virgil Carrington Jones
743 National Press Building
Washington, D. C.

Dear Sir:

At your request 1 have made an examination of four photostatic enlargements of a series of documents which are entitled "The Dahlgren Papers."

Exhibit No. 1 is a reproduction of known exemplars of the signature Ulric Dahlgren taken from documents in the official files of the United States Archives.

Exhibit No. 2 is an enlargement of the front side of the questioned document, identified as a handwritten Address of Col. Dahlgren to his troops. The stationery is imprinted "Headquarters Third Division Cavalry Corps."

Exhibit No. 3 is an enlargement of the reverse side of Exhibit No. 2. The writing on this document is at right angles to that on the face and bears the signature, U. Dahlgren, Col. Commanding.

Exhibit No. 4 is an infrared enlargement which shows both the front and back writing on the same plane.

After making an examination and comparison of the questioned writing with the standards, it is my opinion that these reproductions, which were made from reproductions of the original, show conclusively more than normally required evidence to establish the genuineness of the questioned original.

These reproductions show a document written on imprinted stationery and of the same thin-type of paper used at that time. The historical background of this event and the circumstances surrounding the death of Dahlgren, to a large extent, precludes the probability of forgery: (1) The forger would have had to obtain properly imprinted paper, (2) He would have had to have available sufficient specimens of Dahlgren's known writing in order to construct this document,, and (3) Most important, to have had someone so adept at copying as to simulate the writing of Dahlgren.

In my examination of Exhibit No. 1, the standard writing of Dahlgren shows three official signatures and writings made during the years 1362 and 1863, and these documents reflect a writer of great writing ability, a rapid writer who varied forms and shapes of many of his letters with a smooth flowing dexterity. For example, there are three forms of the lower case "r" and one of the strong points of establishing identity in the questioned document is the fact that three unrelated forms of "r" are used without apparent thought or deliberation.

The layman may point to the different type of capital "u" used in the standard writing from that used in the questioned. This is not a dissimilarity which would indicate forgery or a different writer. In the questioned signature, merely the initial is used. In the standard writing, which is taken from formally executed documents, the full name "Ulric" is used. Examining the line-quality, the variations of pen-pressure and pen-lifts found in the questioned document, they are all in consistent agreement with the known standards. There is nothing in the questioned document that can be pointed to as indicative of forgery, such as tremor or the line-quality found in copying. There is no appearance of copying, patching, or repairing, therefore, I can arrive at but one conclusion, that the questioned document was written in its entirety by Ulric Dahlgren, Col. Commanding.

Referring to Exhibit No. 4, the infrared reproduction of the document, this exhibit explains and proves itself insofar as the misspelling of the name "Dahlgren." It completely illustrates a condition which undoubtedly occurred due to the type of paper and the pen and ink used. The paper was very thin and quite absorbent and the ink very pentrating [sic]. Therefore, the tail of the "y" in the word "destroying" on the front side of the document pentrated [sic] the paper creating an allusion at the signature mis¬spelling the name "Dahlgren."

To reiterate, it is my opinion that the questioned document is genuine and not a skillfully [sic] or carefully prepared forgery.

Very truly yours,

Ira N. Gullcickson
Questioned Document Analyst
Metropolitan Police Department

As I said, I own one of the two known copies of this report, and I believe that this was my transcription of it that someone lifted from another site.
 
I don't know if it was. The man's name is Ira Gullickson, and since a transcription of his report on the papers has been posted here previously, I will include it here again:

Ira N. Gullickson
Questioned Document Analyst
1O308 Connecticut Avenue
Kensington, MD.

May 20, 1958

Mr. Virgil Carrington Jones
743 National Press Building
Washington, D. C.

Dear Sir:

At your request 1 have made an examination of four photostatic enlargements of a series of documents which are entitled "The Dahlgren Papers."

Exhibit No. 1 is a reproduction of known exemplars of the signature Ulric Dahlgren taken from documents in the official files of the United States Archives.

Exhibit No. 2 is an enlargement of the front side of the questioned document, identified as a handwritten Address of Col. Dahlgren to his troops. The stationery is imprinted "Headquarters Third Division Cavalry Corps."

Exhibit No. 3 is an enlargement of the reverse side of Exhibit No. 2. The writing on this document is at right angles to that on the face and bears the signature, U. Dahlgren, Col. Commanding.

Exhibit No. 4 is an infrared enlargement which shows both the front and back writing on the same plane.

After making an examination and comparison of the questioned writing with the standards, it is my opinion that these reproductions, which were made from reproductions of the original, show conclusively more than normally required evidence to establish the genuineness of the questioned original.

These reproductions show a document written on imprinted stationery and of the same thin-type of paper used at that time. The historical background of this event and the circumstances surrounding the death of Dahlgren, to a large extent, precludes the probability of forgery: (1) The forger would have had to obtain properly imprinted paper, (2) He would have had to have available sufficient specimens of Dahlgren's known writing in order to construct this document,, and (3) Most important, to have had someone so adept at copying as to simulate the writing of Dahlgren.

In my examination of Exhibit No. 1, the standard writing of Dahlgren shows three official signatures and writings made during the years 1362 and 1863, and these documents reflect a writer of great writing ability, a rapid writer who varied forms and shapes of many of his letters with a smooth flowing dexterity. For example, there are three forms of the lower case "r" and one of the strong points of establishing identity in the questioned document is the fact that three unrelated forms of "r" are used without apparent thought or deliberation.

The layman may point to the different type of capital "u" used in the standard writing from that used in the questioned. This is not a dissimilarity which would indicate forgery or a different writer. In the questioned signature, merely the initial is used. In the standard writing, which is taken from formally executed documents, the full name "Ulric" is used. Examining the line-quality, the variations of pen-pressure and pen-lifts found in the questioned document, they are all in consistent agreement with the known standards. There is nothing in the questioned document that can be pointed to as indicative of forgery, such as tremor or the line-quality found in copying. There is no appearance of copying, patching, or repairing, therefore, I can arrive at but one conclusion, that the questioned document was written in its entirety by Ulric Dahlgren, Col. Commanding.

Referring to Exhibit No. 4, the infrared reproduction of the document, this exhibit explains and proves itself insofar as the misspelling of the name "Dahlgren." It completely illustrates a condition which undoubtedly occurred due to the type of paper and the pen and ink used. The paper was very thin and quite absorbent and the ink very pentrating [sic]. Therefore, the tail of the "y" in the word "destroying" on the front side of the document pentrated [sic] the paper creating an allusion at the signature mis¬spelling the name "Dahlgren."

To reiterate, it is my opinion that the questioned document is genuine and not a skillfully [sic] or carefully prepared forgery.

Very truly yours,

Ira N. Gullcickson
Questioned Document Analyst
Metropolitan Police Department

As I said, I own one of the two known copies of this report, and I believe that this was my transcription of it that someone lifted from another site.

Eric,

Thank you for sharing your sources and knowledge on this topic. Such sharing is always a great benefit to the forum membership & visitors here.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 

Learn About Us
About CivilWarTalk
Contact the Webmaster
Meet the Staff
Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
Register
Browse Forums
View Today's Discussions
Search the Forum
Get Help
FAQ
Student Guide
Forum Rules & Etiquette
Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top