Dual Book Reviews: The Dahlgren Affair

 

Memoir of Ulric Dahlgren

Like A Meteor Blazing Brightly: The Short but Controversial Life of Colonel Ulric Dahlgren

These Ulric Dahlgren biographies present the Union and Confederate views of the Dahlgren Affair.

Here is the gist of the “Affair.” In February of 1864, a Union cavalry detachment raided Richmond in the hope of releasing imprisoned soldiers captured by the Confederacy. Colonel Ulric Dahlgren led a major arm of the assault. The raid was unsuccessful, and Dahlgren was killed in an ambush. Papers were found on Dahlgren’s body that ordered the raiding party to murder Jefferson Davis and his cabinet. The Union claimed the papers were forgeries while the Confederacy insisted they were genuine. At the time, the Dahlgren Affair became a cause célèbre. The authenticity of the papers remains unresolved.

Ulric’s father, Admiral Dahlgren, insisted that the papers were forgeries and his son would never have taken part in an assassination plot. The memoir, written by the admiral in 1872, makes the case for the papers being forged.

Eric J. Wittenberg's 2015 biography, Like A Meteor Blazing Brightly: The Short but Controversial Life of Colonel Ulric Dahlgren, argues for the authenticity of the papers. The book details Ulric’s brief life, focusing primarily on the Dahlgren Affair.

If you enjoy the Civil War or unsolved mysteries, read both books and decide for yourself.

Mr. Lincoln’s High-Tech War

 

Mr. Lincoln’s High-Tech War: How the North Used The Telegraph, Railroads, Surveillance Balloons, Ironclads, High-Powered Weapons, and More to Win the Civil War

Thomas B. Allen & Rodger MacBride

Long title and a bit of a misnomer because this book also deals with the Confederate States of America's use of technology. Granted, the Confederacy was limited by their scarce industrial capability, but they focused what they had on their navy, including the first ironclad in combat and the first submarine. Both were effective when let out of the barn, but neither lasted much beyond their first engagement. That’s the way it goes with military innovation; failures often precede a workable design.

Most people view the American Civil War as a series of bloody battles fought with muskets and cannons. It all looks so backward from a modern perspective. In truth, the American Civil War changed warfare dramatically through the use of technology. Prior to the Civil War, Napoleon defined combat strategy and almost every senior officer on either side of the Civil War received their education at West Point which was steeped in the Napoleonic principles of warfare. These principles did not last long into the war. Dahlberg cannons, rifled cannon, rifled shoulder weapons, repeating rifles, repeating pistols, trench warfare, instant telegraph communication, railroads, steam-powered warships, iron clads, turret mounted cannons, submarines, primitive but effective stealth techniques, and ammunition advances made Napoleonic strategies as obsolete as battleships in WWII. These advances in technology were so important that every world power sent military observers to watch how both Union and Rebel forces adjusted to the new weapons.

First submarine

A quick example of how technology changed strategy. For centuries naval warships focused on positioning the ship to deliver a broadside where all the cannons on one side could be brought to bear. Usually, the ship dropped its sails to stay in position, offering a static target. With stream power, warships could circle, thus presenting a moving target and using the cannons on both sides of the ship. A steam engine double the number of usable cannons while defensively making the ship harder to hit.

Mr. Lincoln’s High-Tech War is a short, fast moving book that concentrates on a single aspect of the war. It is filled with illustrations and sidebars which keeps the reader’s interest and help the narrative run smoothly. This National Geographic book is a well-written book with high production values. Mr. Lincoln’s High-Tech War is supposedly targeted at middle-school age children, but anyone interested in the Civil War or the technology of warfare will find it informative.

Lincoln Book Review: The Trent Affair

 

The Trent Affair: The Diplomatic Incident that Nearly Brought Great Britain into the American Civil War

The Trent Affair claims historians pay the Affair short shrift, then promises to deliver new revelations about this diplomatic incident. The books primary value is quoting first source letters, newspaper articles, and official documentation. It is always useful to read first source material, but those presented do not provide a different perspective than historians have depicted. Granted, historians gloss over the nuts and bolts of the Affair, but it’s because the issue was resolved before it could impact the course of the conflict.

What if the Trent Affair hadn’t been agreeably settled. If Great Britain had entered the war on the Confederacy’s side, it was likely that the South would have won. That would have made the Trent Affair a huge deal. Jefferson Davis’s top diplomatic priority was to drag a European power into combat. Abraham Lincoln’s top diplomatic priority was to deny the Confederate States of America recognition by European powers. This book did not provide additional insights on how Lincoln outsmarted Davis. As you study the Affair, there are hints of backroom bartering but no evidence. When desired, Lincoln was fairly astute at maneuvering without leaving fingerprints.

This is an odd little book with poor transitions and scant narrative about quoted material. The photographs of the major participants are well known. In the end, the book added little understanding to this diplomatic fiasco. A pity because handled differently, the Trent Affair could have been the linchpin to the entire conflict.

Lincoln Book Review: Lincoln by Gore Vidal

I’m not a Gore Vidal fan. I thought Burr was a hash, especially from a historical perspective. Lincoln is a better novel, but still blemished due to Vidal’s penchant for showing off. A novel is a story, and the cardinal rule of storytelling is to never jerk the reader out of the story, but Vidal continuously interrupts his characters mid-scene to take a bow. Witty asides, overly clever dialogue, meaningless gossip, and focus on the trivial when the reader yeans for the big picture, are bad enough, but the near absence of transitions is jarring. Vidal goes from one scene to another with a whole different cast of characters without even a “by your leave.” It is like, “Hey, I veered off over here, catch up.” And you do, but it takes the rereading several sentences. By then the magic is gone.

The book is titled Lincoln, but Ol’ Abe comes across as a side character. He is explained by countless others that surround the supposed protagonist. Most of these characters come across as untrustworthy narrators. Characterization is not a Gore Vidal strong suit. Everyone seems similar and each carries a little of Vidal’s rapscallion nature. Vidal likes rogues, scoundrels, and outright villains and ascribes his characters' motivations to the dark side of human frailty.

Some historians have taken issue with the historical accuracy of Lincoln. As a historical novelist, I know strict adherence to facts presented in their proper order does not always lend itself to good storytelling. In this readers opinion, Vidal’s may skew events and people to his viewpoint but, for the most part, his violations are inconsequential. This is a well-researched book and Vidal’s relaying of events, large and miniscule, is generally accurate.

If you prefer history presented as a story, Lincoln is the best novel about Lincoln available ... until I publish Maelstrom.

Abraham Lincoln, by Lord Charnwood

 

Lord Charnwood published Abraham Lincoln in 1916. In order to get a clearer perspective of the Civil War, it helps to read books from multiple viewpoints. Lord Charnwood wrote only fifty years after the war, bringing an almost contemporaneous perspective to his depictions. His biography has the advantage of proximity but with enough time elapsed to dampen the passions of the moment. More important, as an English depiction, it is a simultaneously a distant point of view. It is a distance of more than nautical miles. Lord Charnwood also brings the bias of English nobility to his descriptions. This is exceptionally important in gaining an understanding of the diplomatic imperative for both sides. The Confederacy desperately sought European recognition of their legitimacy, while Lincoln did everything in his power to deny international recognition and suppress arms and funding from abroad. Lincoln’s success was arguably pivotal to eventually making victory possible.

 Abraham Lincoln, by Lord Charnwood can be a tough read. A simple, declarative sentence is beyond the baron. This is partly due to the style of the times and partly the way of academics who feel a need to qualify every utterance. Once the reader adjusts to the wordily writing, nuggets of rare perspective make the effort well worthwhile. For example, Thomas Jefferson is not one of my favorite Founders and Lord Charnwood seems to have shared some of my reservations. He also makes other political observations that an American might be reluctant to express.

If you have an interest in the mid-nineteenth century, Abraham Lincoln by Lord Charnwood can be an enlightening read.

Grant Takes Command by Bruce Catton

 

When asked, what sort of man is Grant, Lincoln replied that Ulysses S. Grant was “the quietest little fellow you ever saw. The only evidence you have that he’s in any place is that he makes things git! Wherever he is, things move."

Lincoln explained that every other general briefing him before a battle told him that he was short some crucial resource to ensure victory, but, if ordered, they would proceed anyway. This essential resource was almost always cavalry. Lincoln claimed their real purpose was to shift responsibility to him. When Grant took charge, he immediately recommended reassigning twenty thousand horseless cavalrymen to the infantry. Since there was no way to acquire horses for every man designated as cavalry, these idle soldiers were only held in reserve as a handy excuse. Grant recognized the duplicity and removed the excuse before his first battle.

In this biography, Bruce Catton does an excellent job describing the man and his military philosophy. Grant reminded me of General Patton, a warrior through and through. Both believed that to decrease casualties in war, you don’t minimize the fallen in a specific battle, you win the war to stop the killing.

Catton relates a story about a grizzled sergeant leaning against a fence post when a comrade came up.  The sergeant jerked a thumb at a man in the distance and remarked: “That’s Grant. I hate to see that old cuss around. When that old cuss is around there’s sure to be a big fight on hand.”

Is the word "all" the most important word in the Declaration of Independence?

 

Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis were interesting characters. Exactly the type of characters a novelist needs to carry a story. In writing Maelstrom, I had a scene where Lincoln addresses Congress after a recess. (As customary at the time, his address was read by a clerk.) Not much has happened during the recess. Eleven states had seceded from the Union, Fort Sumter had been bombarded and surrendered, a piece of Virginia had been occupied, and Lincoln had exceeded his executive powers to spend unauthorized money, build an army, and suspend habeas corpus among other things.

He desperately needed Congress to backfill behind him.

This was a crucial address. Important for Lincoln and the country. The address was not one of his well-known speeches, but I was struck by the clarity and simplicity of the explanation of why he took these actions.

Lincoln said it was a struggle for maintaining a form of government “whose leading object is to elevate the condition of men—to lift artificial weights from all shoulders—to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all—to afford all an unfettered start, and a fair chance in the race of life.”

On the cusp of war, Lincoln repeatedly used the word “all.” He had previously stated that this was the most important word in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence and had reputedly written that word over and over again on pieces of paper.

I cannot think of a loftier goal for government. Perhaps in this age of divisiveness, we should all write the word “all” over and over again.