51/71 To Fox.) That this was wholly a Navy Department plan and was disliked by State Department representatives is shown by Dudley's complaints (Forbes MS.). The whole incident has been adequately discussed by C.F.Adams, though without reference to the preceding citations, in his _Studies Military and Diplomatic_, Ch.IX. "An Historical Residuum," in effect a refutation of an article by Chittenden written in 1890, in which bad memory and misunderstanding played sad havoc with historical truth.] [Footnote 994: _U.S.Diplomatic Correspondence_, 1863, Pt. To Seward, March 24, 1863.] [Footnote 995: _Ibid._, p.160.To Seward, March 27, 1863.] [Footnote 996: State Department, Eng., Vol. |