However, historians are critical of Babcock's political power as Grant's White House military aide, shielded by Grant, and not subject to resignation. Historians are also highly suspicious of Babcock's unauthorized Santo Domingo annexation pre-agreement. His reputation was also marred by his involvement in the Gold Ring, the Whiskey Ring, and the Safe Burglary Conspiracy. Most historians agree that Babcock betrayed Grant while President, and remain perplexed at Grant's loyalty to his wartime comrade, including Grant's unprecedented White House deposition on Babcock's behalf. In defending Babcock, Grant was not fully candid with the truth in his own testimony, probably to protect his family and his presidency from further scandal. With Babcock's reputation largely narrowed to observations about his corruption, loyalty to Grant, and wartime bravery, historians are generally not able to consider him in a wider context because he did not author an autobiography, nor has he been the subject of an extended biography. Historian William McFeely criticized Babcock for ignoring ethical values in the spirit of opportunism and personal gain.