Colonel Silas D. Baldwin: Guilty or not Guilty? A Case of Command Influence?

Abstract

THE IDEA FOR THIS ARTICLE CAME from a footnote in the late John Y. Simon's The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant.' I knew that Colonel Silas D. Baldwin, the commander of the Fifty-Seventh Illinois, had been court-martialed, but I did not know much of the details of the case. The footnote directed me to a file of papers in the Illinois State Archives. I contacted the archivist and he sent me the packet containing 102 pieces of correspondence. Included in this packet were sixteen letters addressed to President Abraham Lincoln written on behalf of Baldwin. I talked with Dr. Simon about this case in 1985 during his presentation on General Grant at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. He was curious about my work and asked for a version of what I had done. I sent him an early version, and he sent me a reply with a few suggestions. This spurred my interest, and I visited the National Archives and read the transcript of the court-martial. There were more documents in this file that were related to this case. combination of these documents and some additional letters provided by the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library raised questions in my mind about the nature of the case and the many conflicting views of the participants.In this article I propose to present an objective look at the Baldwin case and present the facts as I have discovered them. However, after researching this subject for over twenty years, it is difficult to hide my bias in favor of Baldwin and his efforts to correct the record. I hope this work will provide a basis for further exploration of this episode in history, and bring to light the true circumstances that prevailed during this time in Corinth in 1863.On the last day of December 1862, Lieutenant George S. Nash, judge advocate, reported to Brig. General Grenville M. Dodge the results of his examination of the two charges against Colonel Silas D. Baldwin, violations of the fifty-second and seventeenth Articles of War. Nash had interviewed all the witnesses listed for each of the specifications related to both charges. Here is what he concluded in his report:I have the honor herewith to return charges and specifications against Col. S. D. Baldwin 57th Regt 111 Infantry. In Compliance with your order I have obtained the statements of various officers whose names are in the list of witnesses for the prosecution and instead of being able to ascertain and facts in proof of the ist charge and specifications, their statements are in direct contradiction thereto, and complimentary to the conduct of Col. Baldwin in the various engagements in which he has participated. The specification of the 2nd charge if proven would not support the charge. I have examined the original muster in rolls of the 57th Regt Ills Infy and find the name of the man referred to in the charge and specifications upon the roll of Co A Capt John Phillips which is signed by J. Christopher ist Lieut 16th U. S. Infantry Mustering Officer U.S.A. Consequently the man was a soldier until properly discharged, and the subsequent mustering of him as such was only the duty of his Commanding officer and could not be considered a violation of the 17th Article of War as is charged.2Colonel Silas D. Baldwin was shocked. His fellow regimental commander, Colonel John W. Sprague, had just finished reading the verdict. Colonel Baldwin had been found guilty of three of the five specifications of the charge of violation of the fifty-second Article of War in his court-martial. Baldwin could not believe what he had just heard. Why hadn't the judge advocate, Lieutenant George S. Nash, two months earlier sent the charges back to Brig. General Grenville M. Dodge with a convincing recommendation that there was no basis for the charges? Furthermore, Nash had stated in his letter that to the contrary, Colonel Baldwin should be commended for his actions on the battlefield. Nash wrote that the witness statements were highly complimentary to the conduct of Col. …