Talk:Dahlgren affair

Theory in history

Not every idea that someone has that connects events together merits elevation to a theory - not even in the discipline of history. A theory in history needs to be a framework - a broad explanation of things - like "class struggle", and it also needs to have withstood criticisms.--JimWae 20:14, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)

Theories can be specified too, especially when referring to specific criminal acts. For example, one "theory" about the JFK murder is a second gunman on the grassy knoll. Another "theory" about Lincoln's murder is retaliation for the Dahlgren papers. Rangerdude 07:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Great example! Second gunman theory is a conveniently corrupt use of the word "theory" in an attempt to elevate speculation. THe real historical theory is the "conspiracy theory" of history. Otherwise, there's a different "theory" for every event in history. The theory we are exploring here for Lincoln's assasination is the "tit-for-tat" theory. These papers are not a theory about the assasination, but tit for tat is a theory about Booth's motivation - which can only be speculation unless you know of something he wrote about his motives. (Booth, of course, was not a soldier & had no orders to carry out.) Using theory here is very unscholarly --JimWae 09:06, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

The theory that Booth was reacting to the Dahlgren papers has been credibly forwarded by several historians as an explanatory device for Lincoln's assassination. Per the American Heritage Dictionary 2000 edition, definitions of the word theory include "A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment," "Abstract reasoning; speculation," and "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture." Any of these validly describes the treatment of the Dahlgren papers by several historians regarding Lincoln's assassination. I will further note that you are exercising a point of view and espousing a position when you assign a motive and the characteristic of corruption to the "second gunman theory" of the JFK assassination, thus proving your purpose here is not the neutral portrayal of the Dahlgren Papers' relationship with Booth but rather an attempt to diminish that observation by passing it off as little more than a random guess. Rangerdude 00:16, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• that was your (only) example, not mine
• your own words show that conjecture is less ambiguous
• I see you are again espousing the deterministic/ non-free will theory of history with your "chain of events"
• --JimWae 01:44, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

Well Jim. Sometimes there IS a chain of events in history. That doesn't make it "non-free will" or deterministic. It simply means two or more related particular events are causally or incidentally connected to each other, which is what the theory about the Dahlgren papers and Booth maintains. Returning to the issue though, there is absolutely no valid reason for the changes you propose to make over the word "theory" based on its standard dictionary definitions and common use. Its placement is just fine in the present context, and seeing as your only indicated need for altering it seems to stem from your desire to insert your own unsourced personal POV into the existing neutral language (gee, where have we seen that before?), no reason exists that merits a change. Seriously, a strong and disagreeable anal retentive characteristic is present in your posts here. Rangerdude 02:14, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• It is you who wants to retain an ambiguous & unscholarly use of a term. I guess you subscribe to the "There's a separate theory for any two events that anyone thinks are connected" theory.--JimWae 02:22, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for mass consumption, Jim, not a scientific journal. Far from "unscholarly," the word "theory" is a commonly used and widely understood term of the English language. By your own indication, your introduction of the word "conjecture" as a replacement for "theory" (which was properly used to begin with per the American Heritage Dictionary, as I have show) was to diminish the significance of the historians' observation, which you did not believe to "merit elevation to a theory." Changing your justification after the fact smacks of an ulterior motive than the one you are now claiming, and initiating such a petty dispute over a wording that by all reasonable measures was never problematic in the first place smacks of anal retentiveness. Try doing something constructive for a change. Rangerdude 05:26, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• "instigated the chain of events" is a dodge from ascribing any personal responsibility

Obfuscationist garbage. Booth is the personally responsible party. That Booth may have been motivated to act however by the Dahlgren papers has been credibly argued by several scholars. The existing language was neutral, Jim. Why do you insist upon making it something else? From the first moment you arrived here you clearly stated your edits were for an opinionated purpose - that you PERSONALLY did not believe the event "merits elevation" to a theory. No matter how you try to cloak it, that's been your driving angle here - to rephrase a neutrally presented idea in a way that diminishes it through connotation so that it personally conforms to whatever bizarre personal belief is driving you here. That angle of inserting connotation in the place of neutrality does simply not square with the NPOV policies no matter how you dress it. Rangerdude 00:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• It seems now that either history is hopelessly mired in fantasy, or you are not well-versed in the discipline, or you have omitted important details from the article. How much does this "theory" differ from fantasy history? It is silly for any discipline to have a separate "theory" of a chain of events for each and every event. Theories need to be overarching - applicable to many different events -- like class-struggle, determinism, her-story. Given a choice between "NYC is the largest city" and "NYC is the most populous city", one is ambiguous and the other not. If there is a theory of some chain of events for Dahlgren & Booth, let's see the details of this chain of events & then we can examine this "theory". Is it anything more than something similar to what I had already put in once - that it may have significantly influenced Booth's decision (some private experience) to use assassination as a strategy? Did Booth leave any papers behind in which he mentioned the Dahlgren papers? Just because somewhat learned people conjecture and other people repeat it, such is not sufficient to raise these thoughts to a "theory" about historical events. (And what of the "chain of events" that led to the Dahlgren papers? This chain of events has a connotation of laying [at least some] blame on whoever came up with this scheme for Lincoln's eventual assassination - all when it is still unsettled whether it was a forgery in the first place) Then, given a choice between theory & conjecture, we will be able to evaluate which is less ambiguous.--JimWae 04:48, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

You're obfuscating the issue by philosophizing, Jim. In doing so you also read far too much into a very simple and commonly observed connection between Dahlgren and Booth. You are absolutely right that more could be said about the details of this theory, but that is why this is an open edit project! If somebody has the time to research and summarize the theory (which has taken up multiple chapters in several books) then we let them do so! But you do NOT have the right to come in here and intentionally diminish the theory through words with non-neutral connotations because you personally don't like it. It's like your whole Morrill Tariff episode all over again, where you kept trying to insert your personal position into the article without finding any source for it. Returning to the root issue, we find a dispute over whether the word "theory" (my preference) should be used versus "speculation" and "conjecture" (your preferences). As I have noted and as you have failed to address, the word "theory" has neutral connotation. Your choices, by contrast, have POV connotations that diminish or minimalize the events being mentioned - something you have also repeatedly indicated to be your purpose in substituting them. Wikipedia has a policy requiring NPOV terminology and you are repeatedly violating it. Rangerdude 05:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Theory is not really NPOV, it is a positive evaluative term. If you had read carefully instead of trying to insult me, you would have seen I have never suggested that conjecture (my preference) diminishes the claim. I have said that "theory" elevates it above what has been presented and that "theory" is inappropriately used when it suggests there can be a separate theory for every event.

Jim - that is simply not accurate. You've stated at least three times that your term, "conjecture," is preferred out of your belief that the issue does not "merit elevation" to a theory, or something similar. That being the case, your purpose is necessarily to diminish the referred object to something less than a "theory." Yet as I have shown through multiple dictionary definitions, your original objection over the proper use of the word theory in which its use is limited to strict scientific modeling was simply wrong. It fits the object here soundly. Rangerdude 19:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • If you want to call it a theory, the onus is on you to show some reason (other than repetition by others) why it merits consideration at that level. I have made at least 2 suggestions that use neither theory nor speculation nor conjecture. What you have added today really amounts to "other people have said this too". Where are details about any conjectured linking events?

No Jim. The onus on me is NOT to meet your personal definition and standards of the word "theory." Rather it is to show simply that the word "theory" in its common English Language dictionary definition applies, and I have already done that. You persist in objecting because your personal and largely arbitrary definition of the word "theory" evidently conflicts with the dictionary (much as your personal interpretation of the Morrill Tariff conflicted with the historians). So once again we have a case of you attempting to inject your own personal POV into the article even though sourced statements say something at odds with that POV. OTOH, since you are the one pressing for a change, there is an onus on you to demonstrate the need for that change. Thus far you have failed, offering only your personal unsourced definition of "theory" and your POV belief that the object being described should be diminished to a term of lesser significance (in other words, a term with a non-neutral connotation). Neither of those objections rises to the level of merit for a change, and in fact the change you propose would remove the neutrality of the present article. Rangerdude 19:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • • such as at http://www.usnews.com/usnews/doubleissue/mysteries/dahlgren.htm

      Whatever the truth [about the origin of the incriminating passages], the Dahlgren papers served as reason enough for the Confederate leaders to finally approve plans to whip up armed rebellion among Southern sympathizers in the North. They also encouraged a plot to bomb the White House and kill President Lincoln. The actor John Wilkes Booth was believed to have been part of that plot. When it failed, it is conjectured, Booth decided to take more direct action.

  --JimWae 07:29, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

Googling the words "dahlgren" and "conjecture" to find them in the same paragraph proves nothing to your case, Jim. Why not try reading what your own quote says? The conjecture is that Booth decided to assassinate Lincoln alone due to the failure of a larger conspiracy, not due to the Dahlgren papers, which are stated as a reason to pursue plots against Lincoln. Of course if you want a proper use of the terms, that is not hard to find either. From Sears' article:

Some historians claim the heinous proposals contained in the Dahlgren papers were the motivation for the equally heinous shooting of Lincoln in Ford's Theatre. This theory is well documented in Come Retribution: The Confederate Secret Service and the Assassination of Lincoln, by William A. Tidwell with James O. Hall and David W. Gaddy

In short, you've failed to make a case for the change. Rangerdude 19:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• and you have failed to present anything other than "other people have said so too"--JimWae 19:48, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

Try reading the article for starters, Jim. I named several sources. Now where are yours? Rangerdude 01:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• and, to repeat RD, all your additions say is "there are sources who say so too"--JimWae 02:49, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

And to repeat Jim, that's more than anything you've added. Rangerdude 04:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

External Links are Dead

Dead Links. Godspeed John Glenn! Will 21:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixes

I fixed this up a bit, and have added some working links and created a "Dahlgren Papers" page on Wikisource. This article needs a lot of citations, however. TuckerResearch (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Having came here to wonder out loud how the Smithsonian Channel could have performed handwriting analysis on historical documents that have been lost for the better part of two centuries, I then got completely sidetracked by the Naughties Era wiki-slap-fight going on between JimWae and Rangerdude in the paragraphs above. I second TuckerResearch's recomendation. Also, I want these fifteen minutes of my life back. 24.14.128.207 (talk) 04:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)