What do you think?
Rate this book
Campaigns and Commanders #51
Kill Jeff Davis: The Union Raid on Richmond, 1864
The ostensible goal of the controversial Kilpatrick-Dahlgren Raid on Richmond (February 28–March 3, 1864) was to free some 13,000 Union prisoners of war held in the Confederate capital. But orders found on the dead body of the raid’s subordinate commander, Colonel Ulric Dahlgren, point instead to a plot to capture or kill Confederate president Jefferson Davis and set Richmond ablaze. What really happened, and how and why, are debated to this day. Kill Jeff Davis offers a fresh look at the failed raid and mines newly discovered documents and little-known sources to provide definitive answers.
In this detailed and deeply researched account of the most famous cavalry raid of the Civil War, author Bruce M. Venter describes an expedition that was carefully planned but poorly executed. A host of factors foiled the raid: bad weather, poor logistics, inadequate command and control, ignorance of the terrain, the failures of supporting forces, and the leaders’ personal and professional shortcomings. Venter delves into the background and consequences of the debacle, beginning with the political maneuvering orchestrated by commanding brigadier general Judson Kilpatrick to persuade President Abraham Lincoln and Secretary of War Edwin Stanton to approve the raid. Venter’s examination of the relationship between Kilpatrick and Brigadier General George A. Custer illuminates the reasons why the flamboyant Custer was excluded from the Richmond raid.
In a lively narrative describing the multiple problems that beset the raiders, Kill Jeff Davis uncovers new details about the African American guide whom Dahlgren ordered hanged; the defenders of the Confederate capital, who were not just the “old men and young boys” of popular lore; and General Benjamin F. Butler’s expedition to capture Davis, as well as Custer’s diversionary raid on Charlottesville.
Venter’s thoughtful reinterpretations and well-reasoned observations put to rest many myths and misperceptions. He tells, at last, the full story of this hotly contested moment in Civil War history.
In this detailed and deeply researched account of the most famous cavalry raid of the Civil War, author Bruce M. Venter describes an expedition that was carefully planned but poorly executed. A host of factors foiled the raid: bad weather, poor logistics, inadequate command and control, ignorance of the terrain, the failures of supporting forces, and the leaders’ personal and professional shortcomings. Venter delves into the background and consequences of the debacle, beginning with the political maneuvering orchestrated by commanding brigadier general Judson Kilpatrick to persuade President Abraham Lincoln and Secretary of War Edwin Stanton to approve the raid. Venter’s examination of the relationship between Kilpatrick and Brigadier General George A. Custer illuminates the reasons why the flamboyant Custer was excluded from the Richmond raid.
In a lively narrative describing the multiple problems that beset the raiders, Kill Jeff Davis uncovers new details about the African American guide whom Dahlgren ordered hanged; the defenders of the Confederate capital, who were not just the “old men and young boys” of popular lore; and General Benjamin F. Butler’s expedition to capture Davis, as well as Custer’s diversionary raid on Charlottesville.
Venter’s thoughtful reinterpretations and well-reasoned observations put to rest many myths and misperceptions. He tells, at last, the full story of this hotly contested moment in Civil War history.
- GenresHistory
384 pages, Hardcover
First published January 5, 2016
3 people are currently reading
62 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
November 25, 2021
My principal problem with this book is the way Venter deals with evidence from primary sources. Which is that he throws it all in, whether the source is reliable or not, but makes little to no effort to analyze it. If he were writing a cultural history of the 1864 Union raid on Richmond, that would be one thing---and in fact I think that would be a very INTERESTING thing---but that's not what he's doing. He's writing a straightforward account of the raid (and not a very good one) with every story he could find about the raid piled indiscriminately on top of it. And he's willing to go out way further on speculative limbs than I think a good historian ought to.
My other problem with this book is Venter's belief that a good cavalry officer has to be "gallant" and have "verve" and "elan" and MUST lead from the front. (Which may make you a good cavalry officer, but also makes you dead and therefore your quality as a cavalry officer is of no use.) Jeb Stuart is his beau ideal, and he judges Judson Kilpatrick (whose nickname was Kill-Cavalry), not based on whether he led his men successfully, but whether he led them with the elan that Jeb Stuart would have had.
Venter is the first apologist for Judson Kilpatrick that I have seen.
Venter is also a little too willing to buy into the idea of the Confederate "cavalier," the idea that Confederate cavalry were "noble" and "gallant" and therefore better than Union cavalry, not just in terms of effectiveness (where, yes, indeed, the Confederate cavalry WAS better than the Union cavalry) but in terms of inherent quality, "cavaliers" against "ruffians." That part is the myth constructed by white people, mainly but not exclusively Southerners, where somehow the people defending chattel slavery were in the right, "noble" and "gallant" (and "tragic") and so on and so forth. My belief is that no one defending chattel slavery is anything other than morally bankrupt and that no one who fought for the Confederacy did so without knowing that defending chattel slavery was part of what they were doing.
The 1864 Union raid on Richmord was a botched job from the start, a fact which Venter can't quite get around, although he tries. The part of it that was under Ulric Dahlgren's command was even more botched than the rest of it: Dahlgren hanged a Black man for leading them in the wrong direction and managed to get himself killed and his confidential papers (which he should have destroyed when things STARTED to go pear-shaped) in the hands of the Confederates. These papers included a speech Dahlgren intended to make to his men, wherein he was going to tell them the purpose of the raid was to free the prisoners in Libby Prison, burn Richmond to the ground, and kill Jefferson Davis and as many of his cabinet as could be found. That last one was not part of any order Judson Kilpatrick would admit to giving and probably, to give Kiilpatrick what little credit he deserves, it was the brain-child of Ulric Dahlgren (with or without the figure of Edwin Stanton like Mephistopheles in the background).
Venter does not organize his (admittedly very complicated) subject well, and as a writer/historian he's too soft for my tastes; that's where these words like "verve" and "gallantry" and "swagger" (which Venter seems to believe to be a positive characteristic) creep in and where Venter will go off on a tangent about George Armstrong Custer for three pages and achieve nothing for his argument. (I get why he's trying to hype Custer's part in the raid, Custer being the only one involved who got famous enough that his name is still recognized, but Custer's entire involvement is worth a paragraph. Maybe two. Not pages.) The argument itself seems to be to resuscitate the reputation of Judson Kilpatrick (at one point he refers to Kilpatrick as "the plucky little colonel," which maybe tells you everything you need to know) and to plump for the genuineness of the Dahlgren papers (which exist only in lithograph copy because Mephistoph---I mean Stanton destroyed the originals in 1865). He does not convince me about Judson Kilpatrick, and I agree with him about the Dahlgren papers.
My other problem with this book is Venter's belief that a good cavalry officer has to be "gallant" and have "verve" and "elan" and MUST lead from the front. (Which may make you a good cavalry officer, but also makes you dead and therefore your quality as a cavalry officer is of no use.) Jeb Stuart is his beau ideal, and he judges Judson Kilpatrick (whose nickname was Kill-Cavalry), not based on whether he led his men successfully, but whether he led them with the elan that Jeb Stuart would have had.
Venter is the first apologist for Judson Kilpatrick that I have seen.
Venter is also a little too willing to buy into the idea of the Confederate "cavalier," the idea that Confederate cavalry were "noble" and "gallant" and therefore better than Union cavalry, not just in terms of effectiveness (where, yes, indeed, the Confederate cavalry WAS better than the Union cavalry) but in terms of inherent quality, "cavaliers" against "ruffians." That part is the myth constructed by white people, mainly but not exclusively Southerners, where somehow the people defending chattel slavery were in the right, "noble" and "gallant" (and "tragic") and so on and so forth. My belief is that no one defending chattel slavery is anything other than morally bankrupt and that no one who fought for the Confederacy did so without knowing that defending chattel slavery was part of what they were doing.
The 1864 Union raid on Richmord was a botched job from the start, a fact which Venter can't quite get around, although he tries. The part of it that was under Ulric Dahlgren's command was even more botched than the rest of it: Dahlgren hanged a Black man for leading them in the wrong direction and managed to get himself killed and his confidential papers (which he should have destroyed when things STARTED to go pear-shaped) in the hands of the Confederates. These papers included a speech Dahlgren intended to make to his men, wherein he was going to tell them the purpose of the raid was to free the prisoners in Libby Prison, burn Richmond to the ground, and kill Jefferson Davis and as many of his cabinet as could be found. That last one was not part of any order Judson Kilpatrick would admit to giving and probably, to give Kiilpatrick what little credit he deserves, it was the brain-child of Ulric Dahlgren (with or without the figure of Edwin Stanton like Mephistopheles in the background).
Venter does not organize his (admittedly very complicated) subject well, and as a writer/historian he's too soft for my tastes; that's where these words like "verve" and "gallantry" and "swagger" (which Venter seems to believe to be a positive characteristic) creep in and where Venter will go off on a tangent about George Armstrong Custer for three pages and achieve nothing for his argument. (I get why he's trying to hype Custer's part in the raid, Custer being the only one involved who got famous enough that his name is still recognized, but Custer's entire involvement is worth a paragraph. Maybe two. Not pages.) The argument itself seems to be to resuscitate the reputation of Judson Kilpatrick (at one point he refers to Kilpatrick as "the plucky little colonel," which maybe tells you everything you need to know) and to plump for the genuineness of the Dahlgren papers (which exist only in lithograph copy because Mephistoph---I mean Stanton destroyed the originals in 1865). He does not convince me about Judson Kilpatrick, and I agree with him about the Dahlgren papers.
May 13, 2024
Unless new sources are unearthed, this is the definitive account of the Kilpatrick-Dahlgren Raid of 1864. The author takes the reader on a deep dive into the planning and execution of the raid. He then provides sharp analysis into the controversy surrounding the raid’s aftermath. It is well researched and written. If readers have any interest in this topic, get this book—you will not be disappointed.
December 29, 2022
The preeminent book on the Kilpatrick-Dahlgren raid. Extensively researched and a much needed account on a fascinating, and often overlooked, event of the Civil War.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews