Rafuse on Lee's end

A new book from Ethan Rafuse filled with new insights and analysis: what a good thing.

1066 and All That

One of the great jokes of my youth was a book written for history readers mocking what we would today call "public historians." It was called 1066 and All That and adopted the mission of conveying only memorable history to the broad public. I am looking at an Internet extract on the subject of barons and picturing a tour guide ladeling this out to a group of tourists. Spelling corrected:

Simon de Montfort, although only a Frenchman, was a Good Thing, and is very notable as being the only good baron in history. The other barons were, of course, all wicked barons. They had, however, many important duties under the baronial system. These were:

1. To be armed to the teeth.

2. To extract from the villein saccage and soccage, tollage and tallage, pillage and ullage, and, in extreme cases, all other baronial amenities such as umbrage and porridge.

3. To hasten the King's death, deposition, insanity, etc., and make quite sure that there were always at least three false claimants to the throne.

4. To resent the Attitude of the Church. (The barons were secretly jealous of the Church, which they accused of encroaching on their rights.)

5. To keep up the Middle Ages.

The points of similarity with pop ACW history might be called out in a list of its own:

1. Organizing historical phenomena into lists (or serials).

2. Carefully pointing out the Good Thing and the Bad Thing to the reader.

3. Synthesizing already wobbly generalities into even higher level generalities.

4. Striking a tone of false neutrality ("They had, however, many important duties...").

5. Edifying the public.

Another angry ACW historian

Interviewer: Does this history anger you?
Historian: I don’t think it would be unfair to say that.

See here.

What does it take to change a marker?

Predictable?

For Lois Helmers it was the last straw when she was notified last Saturday that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has apparently no intention of correcting Private Philip Findling’s name on his marker at the National Cemetery in Marietta.

Games: Ironclad demo released

A demo for "Ironclads: American Civil War" has been posted here. It appears to be a tactical game; historiographic content may be low.

Russell Bonds on Civil War Talk Radio

Russell Bonds will appear on Civil War Talk Radio on Friday at 12 noon PST/3:00 pm EST.

Gerry P and Russell B are funny, outgoing, smart ACW authors. This could be a lot of fun.

Bloggers and museums

The Museum of the Confederacy is asked to respond to comments by blogger Kevin Levin.

"Centennialism" as duplication and repitition

In this space I often use a neologism of my own coining, "Centennial," as a token for certain tendencies in Civil War history that culminated in the 1960s and which were revived by the work of James McPherson in our own times.

Betsy Rosen has sent me the following wonderful recent quote from Southern littérateur Louis D. Rubin, Jr. (pictured, right). You'll recognize what he's talking about, I think:

I just received a book by and from my Hollins professor and longtime mentor, Louis D. Rubin, Jr.-- THE SUMMER THE ARCHDUKE DIED: On Wars and Warriors, U. of Missouri Press, 2008.

It's mostly all about the Great War (with a brief memoir of the author's childhood in Charleston and early fascination with the ACW), but the following paragraphs on p. 13 made me think of you:

"Another and less ideological factor was impacting upon the reading and writing of Civil War military history in the 1950's and 1960's. As new book after book about the war was published, not only repetition but also outright duplication of topic and approach multiplied. More and more was being published about less and less. Some useful and informative books continued to be written, and certain facile assumptions and partisan interpretations received needed revision; but the ratio of heat to light grew ever more inefficient with each book-publishing season.

"Not a few good Civil War historians began to examine the doings of generals and politicians of other wars and crises for possible study. Others took to repeating themselves. By the time the centennial years drew to an end, books on the Civil War were becoming a glut on the history market...."

I like this phrase very much - "not only repetition but also outright duplication of topic and approach." The later success of Ken Burns and James McPherson in recycling the "greatest hits" of the '50s and '60s "inspired" regurgitation of the exhausted material for a new generation of readers.

We are just now coming into a new wave of original research, thought, and analysis. I try to be celebratory about it despite this blog starting out of deep anger with the commercial success of repitition and duplication. The question I force on myself nowadays, however, is whether I am celebrating new work on its own merits or for the relief it gives me from the intellectual poverty of a dying consensus.

(Blogger Betsy's ACW novel Hallam's War, meanwhile, is going paperback with a major trade house. I think ACW novels, on the whole, do better than ACW nonfiction titles.)

History beyond words

"Widow of Confederate soldier dies at 93." As I post this, her death was reported five hours ago.

Abe, the musical, moves forward

The producers are getting ink in Playbill.

Re-enactment turns ugly

Sioux activists "were taken into custody by law enforcement officers after they used a microphone and speaker to voice their objections to the re-enactment."

The Sun's book blog

For those of you who love top ten (or top top five) lists (me, I hate them) The Baltimore Sun's book blog has a few posts on which you can add some personal choices: Defining Southern Literature, Southern Writings, and Check It Out - CW Books. On the latter a few ACW bloggers have weighed in already. All are found at this link. Scroll down as needed.

Bullseye?

James McPherson, as on all issues and topics, perfectly represents the Centennialist doctrine on rifle muskets:

Time and again generals on both sides ordered close-order assaults in the traditional formation. With an effective range of three or four hundred yards, defenders firing rifles decimated these attacks. - James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom

Brent Nosworthy has worked hard to upgrade our understanding from the level of these 1950s-era nostroms. Thus,

[CSA] Major E. P. Alexander, an expert shot, decided to take a crack at the Pennsylvania Bucktails, who were running toward his position [on Sept. 17, 1862]. Positioning eight men behind a rock to load for him, he started to unleash about eight shots a minute, starting when the Union infantry was still about 600 yards distant. Alexander would later recall "I don't think I hit many, for distances varied rapidly & all had to be guessed, but I did distinctly see one fellow drop at my shot." - Brent Nosworthy, Bloody Crucible of Courage

And again:

A soldier, firing [a rifle musket] at a target 540 yards away who overjudged the distance by 33 yards would completely miss a 10-foot high target. - Brent Nosworthy, Bloody Crucible of Courage

And once more with feeling:

Lieutenant Colonel Dixon of the Royal Artillery ... pointed out that given the relatively low initial muzzle velocity of the new style rifle muskets, it was critical to estimate the range of each shot accurately, something that required concentration and sangfroid. This was rare among troops in massed formations under fire. Surrounded by smoke and the whistle of shells and bullets flying nearby, most soldiers would become distracted. Some would even shake and wobble on their legs. Their ability to compute ranges, adjust the back sight, and aim accurately would be greatly diminished. - Brent Nosworthy, Roll Call to Destiny

Now comes Earl Hess with a new book, The Rifle Musket in Civil War Combat: Reality and Myth. The promotional literature tells us

Hess presents a completely new assessment of the rifle musket, contending that its impact was much more limited than previously supposed and was confined primarily to marginal operations such as skirmishing and sniping. He argues further that its potential to alter battle line operations was virtually nullified by inadequate training, soldiers' preference for short-range firing, and the difficulty of seeing the enemy at a distance.

This is an exciting time in Civil War publishing. We are moving from single works that upend this or that Centennial certainty to a collective building on complex corrections.

(Hess's book is blurbed by fellow blogger Mark Grimsley.)

Conspiracy theory 5: analyzing the letter

Previously: LTC Edward Wright, friend and aide to McClellan, had traveled to D.C. to receive a message from Allan Pinkerton: Wright and McClellan's small circle of friends were under observation for plotting the assasination of Abraham Lincoln, Pinkerton said. Their arrests would would be triggered by any move to execute their plot. It would also follow any protest or commotion made by McClellan in reference to the upcoming election, the results which were already rigged. If GBM kept quiet, he and his friends would be spared arrest (and presumably execution). The threat came in the midst of military trials of the Sons of Liberty and foreshadowed those executions.

"Mr. Lincoln knew of this interview" has a certain resonance. McClellan contracted for Pinkerton's and Lincoln's services at the Illinois Central, GBM personally directing their activities. Pinkerton's involvement with Lincoln's security appears to flow from this comity.

The Civil War reader has no idea of how "thick" Pinkerton, Lincoln, and McClellan were; a small digression may help with this. On April 15, 1861, Baldy Smith wrote GBM to tell him the rumor that Lincoln was going to make the civilian Mac a brigadier in the Regular Army. He advised his friend to get the highest volunteer commission first to leverage himself up in any federal negotiations. By April 18 (see his letter to Robert Patterson) McClellan had accepted a state level engineering staff position under Patterson. The same day he told Fitz John Porter of a feeler put out inviting his command of the Pennsylvania Reserves. On April 19, Baltimore rioted. Pinkerton's trusted agent, Timothy Webster, was by Lincoln's side. In his biography of Webster Pinkerton wrote that immediately after the riots Lincoln told Webster, "take these telegrams, and when you have reached a point where communication is possible, send them to General [sic] McClellan at Columbus, Ohio; they are important and must be sent without delay. Also telegraph to Mr. Pinkerton at once; his services are, I think, greatly needed by the government at this time." As Washington is cut off, Lincoln has Pinkerton and GBM in his thoughts at the same time. Moreover, by April 23, we see offers of major generalcies gushing in all at once from Republican governors: from Morgan (NY), from Curtin (PA), From Dennison (OH).

There is another phrase that resonates in Wright's recounting of the Pinkerton interview: "it was with a desire to befriend McClellan and save him from possible trouble that he [Lincoln] had employed him [Pinkerton] in the matter."

Here "befriend" refers to an estrangement. I don't know if Lincoln considered McClellan, his employer, a friend after sharing rooms (and beds) with him in country inns throughout Illinois as they plied railroad cases in county seats but by 1861, Lincoln habitually and publicly referred to McClellan as "George" and even "our George." I don't know of any cabinet officer or politician outside Lincoln's small circle of pre-election friends referred to by their first names; certainly no general ever after received this treatment. In the same vein, I once tried to tally the number of visits (drop-ins) Lincoln made on McClellan at home and gave up in discouragement. There were so many.

And so this "befriending" has meaning. It also has context.

There were several presidential-tinged overtures to bring McClellan back into active duty that occured on May 1, 1864 (Montgomery Blair to SLM Barlow); July 21 (Francis Blair Sr. to GBM); July 31 (Lincoln and Grant, confirmed by Cameron). IIRC Cameron also approached McClellan about his restoration before the spring 1864 campaign even started.

If we interleave these McClellan-related dates with the government's progress in its Sons of Liberty investigation, we get some interesting results. Perhaps I'll table these incidents at the end of this series. There are two more remarkable dates we should consider.

The first is well known: it is the confrontation after Lincoln levels treason accusations against McClellan on the morning of March 8, 1862. (McClellan: "It is difficult to understand that a man of Mr. Lincoln's intelligence could give ear to such abominable nonsense.") The second date occurs on September 23, 1864. McClellan's political manager wrote to him:

"Lincoln pretends to have a letter of yours to himself, written in 1861, I believe, in which you advised him to assume dictatorial powers, arrest members of Congress &c &c. This story is likely to hurt us very much in certain quarters. Have you a copy of any such letter and if, not can you give me the substance."

McClellan answered,

"I have carefully thought over the matter & cannot think of anything I ever wrote or said that could be tortured into giving Lincoln the advice in question. You may be sure that it is a lie out of the whole cloth."

And so, we see Lincoln on this emotional see-saw. He recruits McClellan, he confronts McClellan; he credits treason, he cultivates friendship. On the verge of arresting him, if we credit Pinkerton, he sends an olive branch.

Two days after the election, Simon Cameron feels compelled to send Lincoln the strongest letter possible to prevent the restoration of McClellan to command.

So questions arise.

(1) Did the McClellan Minute Men or Sons of Liberty, in arrest, confinement and under interrogation, fabricate implications? Even if they did, it seems impossible that they would come up with precise circle of men surrounding candidate McClellan (Wright, Curtis, Belmont, etc.).

(2) Was this intimidation a Stanton scheme? Sears in his GBM biography says McClellan thought so but gives no evidence. Actually, McClellan is on the record before the election as saying that Stanton had lost all discretion and was being directed by Lincoln from day to day; furthermore, Pinkerton did not have a Stanton connection and if he worked for Stanton at all during the war it was temporarily.

The Wright letter describing the Pinkerton meeting has an internal coherence that invites credibilty among those familiar with the Lincoln-McClellan-Pinkerton relationship.

It seems to me - I'm speculating - that the Sons of Liberty cases opened the door to a general crackdown on the political opposition and this Wright incident was part of that. We'll see more of this next with the arrest of a lieutenant governor.

Previously:
"Mr. Lincoln knew of this interview"
"The McClellan interest"
Rosecrans discovers a plot
Conspiracy theory
General Wool writes a letter

p.s. My reference to LTC Wright as the son of the General appears to be erroneous. Bill Bergen writes:

In yesterday's post, Conspiracy theory 4, you state that Edward H. Wright was Horatio Wright's son. As the reigning expert on Horatio Wright, I can tell you that Horatio had only two daughters and no sons (though one might have died in infancy). If you have info to the contrary, I'd love to see it.

It appears true, though I have never been able to confirm it, that the two Wrights were related. There is a single reference in one article I found that mentioned Horatio and a William Wright, a Senator from NJ, were cousins. Here is his info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wright_(politician)

I gathered from some context or another that the senator was Edward's father or uncle. That this letter is written from NJ, and not CT or DC, the two places Horatio called home, lends some credence to that theory.

One of the few of Horatio Wright's non-military letters that is in the public domain is to Edward Wright. Here is a synopsis of that:

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/taro/ricewrc/00093/rice-00093.html

Having read the whole letter, the reference to McClellan is to Arthur McClellan, G.B.'s younger brother, who was a long-time VI corps staff officer and a source of some controversy. In Sears' book of McClellan letters, there is a early fall 1864 missive from GB to Arthur saying that if he were to be restored to command of the army he would take the VI Corps' staff as his own. He tells Arthur to give his regards to Wright and Getty.

I have a few other pieces of evidence that hint at a Horatio-GB close relationship, but nothing definitive.

Top: McClellan and Pinkerton from The Spy of the Rebellion.

Conspiracy theory 4: "Mr. Lincoln knew of this interview"

The story so far: With the election looming, the government begins a roundup of civilian conspirators operating as "The Sons of Liberty" putting them before military commissions answering to Stanton's friend and appointee Judge Joseph Holt.

Felix Stidger, an infiltrator of the conspiracy, recalls in his memoirs that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute all the conspirators, in other words, there were (in modern parlance) unindicted co-conspirators at large.

Judge Holt, in a report to Stanton on the results of Rosecrans's and Carrington's investigations into the conspiracy, notes the same; he also conflates the Sons of Liberty with a New York organization calling itself "the McClellan Minute Guard." He further connects the mish-mashed Sons/Guard with what he calls "the McClellan interest" and indirectly with McClellan himself. He promises "military surveillance" over the unindicted.

Given the intensity of feeling, Holt's prediliction for blurring distinctions, and the opportunity to destroy a perceived opponent of Lincoln, did Holt and Stanton broaden the category of unindicted co-conspirators beyond what what the investigation produced or the law allowed? Did they use the existence of unprosecuted conspirators to persecute political enemies not connected to the Sons?

The following letter is unknown to Civil War historians, although it has been in plain view among the McClellan Papers forever. Only Stephen Sears has ever mentioned it and that in passing, in paraphrase, in brief, in his Young Napoleon biography. He seemed puzzled by it and eager to move on.

We, on the other hand, have enough context to consider it in the fullness it deserves. It was supplied to McClellan's literary executor for possible inclusion in the posthumous McClellan's Own Story but was not used.

From Reel 60, The McClellan Papers, microfilm edition: a letter from Edward H. Wright to George Ticknor Curtis. Col. Edward Wright was the son of Gen. Horatio Wright and a former aide to General McClellan:

Dec. 28 1886
Newark

Dear Sir:

In reply to your letter of the 23rd in reference to an interview with Gen. McClellan at his home on Orange Mountain about the time of the Presidential election in 1864 at which interview you were present, I hasten to make the following statement.

The interview was not on the day after the Presidential election but about nine o'clock on the morning of the 29th of October.

On the evening of the 26th of October at a late hour Gen. McClellan, with some friends, called on me at my father's house, bringing with them a message from Pinkerton, the chief detective of the War Department, asking for an interview with me at either Philadelphia or Baltimore and stating that he had information in reference to the approaching Presidential election which he was unwilling to give to any of McClellan's friends but myself.

I was to go to Philadelphia and await a visitor at the Continental Hotel. In case of no one appearing during the day, I was to leave by the night train for Baltimore go to Barnum's Hotel and remain there till recognized.

In pursuance of these instructions I left on the morning of the 27th for Philadelphia and while there called on Dr. John McClellan meeting Gen. Andrew Porter to whom I stated my business.

No one calling for me at Philadelphia I took the night train for Baltimore, and soon after reaching there on the following morning I was accosted by a stranger and conducted to a house some blocks in the rear of the hotel, where I was left alone in the front room of the second story.

In a few moments Pinkerton entered the room.

The first statement he made was that a conspiracy to assassinate Mr. Lincoln existed among the friends of McClellan, that every one of the conspirators was known and watched and on the slightest movement on their part all would be arrested and hung.

I asked him for the names of these men.

He mentioned the names of yourself, Colonel Key, Mr. Belmont [campaign manager for Buchanan and Douglas, leading backer of McClellan] and my own name with those of others I do not recall.

I treated his statement as an absurdity, and asked him if he had anything else to say.

He then said he was a friend of McClellan and wished to serve him in every way he could. That McClellan and his friends might as well give up the fight; that the elections would be carried for Mr. Lincoln by such majorities as they wished; that Pennsylvanians would give any majority they called for, that with the exception of New Jersey, about which they cared nothing, every state would give Mr. Lincoln its vote, and it would be seen to that the majorities would be so overwhelming as to prevent any further opposition. That the attempt to get the soldiers' vote for McClellan would not be allowed to get beyond control. That the election was already settled, and that McClellan and his friends would get into serious trouble if they did not abstain from further action. That Mr. Lincoln knew of this interview, and that it was with a desire to befriend McClellan and save him from possible trouble that he had employed him (Pinkerton) in the matter.

After further conversation on these subjects, I took train for my home, reaching there on the morning of the 29th and reporting as soon as possible to Gen. McClellan at Orange when you were present.

Gen. McClellan treated the conspiracy nonsense as I had, and said he would not insult any of his friends by repeating such a charge to them. The information did not have the slightest effect on him or his friends. I was agreed that my interview with Pinkerton should not be spoken of to anyone.

I knew Pinkerton as the chief of the Detective bureau at the Headquarters of the Army of the Potomac while I was serving as an aid of McClellan. I believe he was honest in his assertion of friendship for McClellan, that he knew the desperate men in control of Washington and had their secrets, that he feared the zeal of some of McClellan's friends might be used by his enemies as an excuse for his arrest and trial by the pliant courts, and suborned witnesses of Stanton.

I believe Mr. Lincoln always felt kindly towards McClellan, and desired to befriend him as far as political necessities permitted.

Very respectfully yours,

Edw. H. Wright

Next:
Analyzing the letter and building a timeline

Previously:
"The McClellan interest"
Rosecrans discovers a plot
Conspiracy theory
General Wool writes a letter

Images: top, Wright, bottom, Pinkerton

Conspiracy theory 3: "the McClellan interest"

As Rosecrans's agent runner, Major Hays, wrapped up his 1,000-page report on the Missouri conspiracy, General Henry B. Carrington, spymaster for Kentucky, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, and Tennessee was hitting paydirt for the first time with a mole named Felix Stidger.

On May 4, 1864 when he joined the secret services, Stidger had never even heard of the Sons of Liberty (or their predecessors, the Knights of the Golden Circle). By June, he was esablished a principal officer of their Indiana chapter, fully conversant with their aims, members, and network, reporting regularly to Carrington. In his 1903 memoirs, Treason History of the Order of Sons of Liberty (available on Google Books), Stidger says that prior to his rise within the order, Carrington had been having no luck: "no man in the employ of the Government had ever been able to get farther into the Orders than one or two of the lower degrees, the members of which never came in communication with the leaders ... [and] were never informed of any of the details..." (Emphasis in the original.)

Stidger gave the federal authorities a close view of the conspiracies hatched by the Sons; one book credits him for the advance warning Seward gave New York authorities of the 1864 plot to burn Manahattan. (Stidger had actually couriered the relevant information between Jacob Thompson, the CSA spymaster in Canada, and his controllers in Richmond.)

In his book, Stidger not only names names, he prints pictures of the conspirators, leading men in Indiana public life (his work was Indiana-focused). And although he places Clement Vallandigham at the head of the Sons nationwide, he painstakingly separates him from the violent plots, the planned burnings, the uprisings, the liberation of Rebel POWs, and so on. He pins these on a man named H.H. Dodd, the COO of the Sons.

McClellan makes but one appearance in Stidger's book. Recounting a meeting between Vallandigham and the Sons' leadership, in which they are drawing up planks for the platform of the Democratic convention, Stidger quotes Vallandigham as so pleased with the planks he says, he "would be willing to accept McClellan, or any other man as the Presidential Candidate on it [the platform]." This puts McClellan in the role of troublesome outsider neutralized by the platform ... but we have no sense of whether this was reported at the time or understood by the men who may have received such information.

Stanton's Judge Advocate General (Joseph Holt) was so pleased with Rosecrans/Hays and Carrington/Stidger, he named them in his official report, "On the 'Order of the American Knights,' alias, Order of the Sons of Liberty," issued on October 8. Blending the information he received and heralding the commission trial of Dodd, Holt stressed the military nature of the Sons and gave some figures:

The numbers of its members in the several States has been differently estimated in the reports and statements of its officers. Thus, the force of the order in Indiana is stated to be from 75,000 to 125,000; in Illinois from 100,000 to 140,000; in Ohio from 80,000 to 108,000; in Kentucky from 40,000 to 70,000; in Missouri from 20,000 to 40,000; and in Michigan and New York about 20,000 each.

Holt brings up McClellan's name, echoing an appelation found in Rosecrans's letter to Lincoln cited in the previous post:

The "McClellan Minute Guard," as appears from a circular issued by the Chief Secretary [of the Guard] in New York in March last, is organized upon a military basis similar to that of the order proper. It is composed of companies, one for each election district, ten of which constitute a "brigade," with a "Brigadier General" at its head. The whole is placed under the authority of a "Commander-in-Chief."

Holt notes that this "Guard" "would seem to be a branch" of the Sons, adding

as the Chief Secretary of this association... stated in June last to a reliable witness ... "those who represent the McClellan interest are compelled to preach a vigorous prosecution of the war, in order to secure the popular sentiment and allure voters."

And so Holt, in an official communication to Stanton, links "the McClellan interest" inferentially to a violent, revolutionary conspiracy while using the paraphrased words of an informer to characterize McClellan's own pro-war stance as a dissimulation "to allure voters." All this on the eve of an election.

Holt concludes ominously that

The greater part of the chief and subordinate officers of the order, and its branches, as well as the principal members thereof, are known to the Government, and where not already arrested, may regard themselves as under constant military surveillance.

Remember this phrasing; we will see it again.

In his memoirs, Stidger makes note that the commissions needed witnesses and that he was the key to many of the cases brought against the Sons; where they lacked a Stidger, the prosecutors would not bring charges, he says. This suggests two sets of books - prosecutable conspirators and non-prosecutable associates: indictable and unindictable co-conspirators, as it were. This may be the meaning of Holt's words. Or, Holt may be taking an even broader view of "guilt by association."

Stidger's success, his meteoric career as an informant, culminated on October 21, 1864, with the start of serial trials by military commission of the many civilians he had been reporting on. He was the key witness against the defendants in case after case. This sensational political circus - foreshadowed by Holt's dark report - set the stage for the secret meeting between Allan Pinkerton and Col. Edward Wright six days later.

Previously:
Conspiracy theory 2: Rosecrans discovers a plot
Conspiracy theory
General Wool writes a letter

Images, top to bottom: Holt, Carrington, Stidger.

Conspiracy theory 2: Rosecrans discovers a plot

Having explored the difference between speculative history and conspiracy theory, we are ready to unwind the events - in a safe and sane manner - surrounding the death threat conveyed to George B. McClellan by Allan Pinkerton (through Col. Edward Wright) on October 28, 1864. First, the background parts.

When last we left John Wool, he had written an angry letter to the Army and Navy Journal in September of 1864 denouncing McClellan and a "wide-spread conspiracy" saying "The conspirator[s] have secret associations, whose members are scattered over the land," and "The perils of the Union were never greater than at the present moment." He implicated McClellan in the conspiracy with the comment, "At a future day I may present facts which will substantiate all I have said in regard to this dangerous conspiracy and their convention and their candidates for the Presidency." (Emphasis added.)

Before Wool reached this fever pitch of suspicion, beginning in June of 1864 a series of alarming letters had been sent to Lincoln directly by William Rosecrans from Missouri. Only one of these is readily available online and I post it in full with my emphasis added in bold. This is the synopsis conveying a more detailed report delivered separately by hand running over 1,000 pages.

From William S. Rosecrans to Abraham Lincoln, June 22, 1864: Head Quarters Dept of Missouri June 22. 64

Since Major Hays departure bearing my letter about the secret conspiracy we have been tracing out, we have added much information of its southern connexions operations uses and intentions.

We have have also found a new element in its workings under the name of McClellan minute men.

The evident extent, and anti national purposes of this great conspiracy, compel me to urge the consideration of what ought to be done to anticipate its workings and prevent the mischief it is capable of producing again upon your attention.

Therefore I have sent the report of Col Sanderson with the details of evidence covering a thousand pages of foolscap [roughly legal-size paper] by himself to be carried or forwarded to you by safe hands.

That Report and its acompanying papers, show

1. That there exists an oath-bound secret society, under various names but forming one brotherhood both in the rebel and loyal states, the objects of which are the overthrow of the existing national government, and the dismemberment of this nation.

2. That the secret oaths bind these conspirators to revolution and all its consequences of murder arson pillage and an untold train of crimes, including assassination and perjury under the penalty of death to the disobedient or recusant.

3. That they intend to operate in conjunction with rebel movements this summer to revolutionize the loyal states, if they can.

4. That Vallandingham is the Supreme Commander of the Northern wing of this society and Genl Price of the rebel army the Supreme Commander of the Southern wing of the organization. And that Vallandinghams return was a part of the programme well understood both North and South, by which the revolution they propose was to be inaugurated.

5. That this association is now and has been the principal agency by which spying and supplying rebels with means of war are carried on between the loyal and rebel states, and that even some of our officers are engaged in it.

6 That they claim to have 25000 members in Missouri, 140000 in Illinois, 100000 in Indiana, 80000 in Ohio, 70000 in Kentucky and that they are extending through New York New Jersey Penna Delaware & Maryland.

Besides which prominent & general facts, the names of members mode of operating and other details appear fully showing what a formidable power and what agencies for mischief we have to deal with.

With this synopsis of the Report it is respectfully submitted with the single remark that whatever orders you may deem best to give it must be obvious to your Excellency that leading conspirators like Chas S. Hunt & Dr Reed Shore of of St Louis arrested for being implicated in the association cannot be released without serious hazzard to the public welfare & safety--

W. S Rosecrans
Maj Genl

As history readers, we can beat ourselves up for dabbling in "conspiracy theory" but the principals actually lived it from day to day.

Reflections on Grant's tomb

Political blogger Mencius Moldbug shares some of his contemporary verse with readers:

Grant's Tomb

Horny-handed scions of the soil,

Loggers, and adult children of oil,

May visit here, and leave their souls.

Confirm them, soldier, in their roles.

Review our million generals of peace,

Braided and squabbling for office.

Award them stars for being bright,

Hard-working, careful, and polite.

Gifts from the gods are gifts to own;

Generals are men. Our gifts are loans.

Blue, bearded Ulysses, our drinker,

Our only patron saint of failure,

I may yet stop by with open hands.

Try and be closed for maintenance.

New books from Holzer and McPherson

The Bicentennial is upon us. Publishers Weekly has reviewed Tried by War: Abraham Lincoln as Commander in Chief by James M. McPherson. Get ready for Lincoln's shrewd and perceptive operational advice.

In the same omnibus, we have Lincoln President Elect: Abraham Lincoln and the Great Secession Winter, 1860–1861 by Harold Holzer. "Holzer shows Lincoln shrewdly and methodically manipulating friend and foe alike."

Hey, blurb that Mr. Publisher!

Goodwin's speaking fee

We noted here some time ago the amount of Doris Kearns Goodwin's speaking fee. Good to see the mighty New York Times catching up. They have the fee wrong, however, due to a lack of basic research.

Goodwin does not command "up to" $40,000 as reported in the Gray Lady. Her speaker's fee is $40,001 "and up" given the code 6 rating her bureau displays on her page.

The Times rationalizes the size of her fee based on its content: motivational speakers get more.

Ten days ago, Goodwin spoke to a gathering of legislators in Anchorage. She could have spoken out of her rich personal background as an aide to Lyndon Johnson. Topics? Successful transitions from legislator to executive or games executives play with legislators. Instead, she delved into a topic that she admits was new to her when she started writing Team of Rivals. And this is the content served up for a fee that starts at $40,001:

The qualities that made Lincoln outstanding, Goodwin said, should still be the benchmark today: the ability to set aside anger, jealousy and other destructive emotions, in order to make the right policy calls for the country.

By the way, could we not say that the hallmark of the Lincoln Administration was its refusal to set policy? It had no occupation policy, no reconstruction policy, no freedmen policy, no military srategy, no foreign policy; it was a policy free zone driving the generals and cabinet officers and legislators mad.

The larger tragedy is that Goodwin, as a celebrity, has personally met more legislators than anyone in her Alaska conference audience plus she had a ringside seat at the Lyndon Johnson circus. She has original content to share with her paymasters. And yet, she will resort to canned speeches on half-baked historical insights based on her incomplete reading and understanding of material that seems fundamentally beyond her.

Her pay seems an inverse ratio of value.