(08-06-2012 08:29 AM)LincolnMan Wrote:  We all know the story of Abraham Lincoln being born and growing up in poverty. Is that actually the case? Certainly compared to others back East the Lincoln's were poor. But was Thomas Lincoln poor? I read he owned land, had farms, etc. By the standards of the West in his day-was he considered poor? Or have writers imposed their standards on the story? I wonder if Thomas would have considered himself poor?

(07-08-2013 10:45 AM)irshgrl500 Wrote:  

(08-06-2012 08:29 AM)LincolnMan Wrote:  We all know the story of Abraham Lincoln being born and growing up in poverty. Is that actually the case? Certainly compared to others back East the Lincoln's were poor. But was Thomas Lincoln poor? I read he owned land, had farms, etc. By the standards of the West in his day-was he considered poor? Or have writers imposed their standards on the story? I wonder if Thomas would have considered himself poor?

Hello Bill,
I realize that it is nearly a year after your initial topic was started, which I am commenting. This is the very subject, which I too am posed. I've seen contradictions, over and over again, which state both that Thomas was very poor, and also that he was considered a prosperous landowner. Michael Burlingame has said in his books, and in interviews that it truly is an illusion to think that Thomas was some sort of prosperous landowner, and that he basically never rose much beyond poverty. I tend to trust Burlingame’s word, as it seems to be backed with tenacious research.

Karin

(07-09-2013 09:33 PM)Mike B. Wrote:  [quote='irshgrl500' pid='21289' dateline='1373298334']
[quote='LincolnMan' pid='2095' dateline='1344259780']


Also, the 1920s was the time of the great "de-bunking" biographies, so the idea that Lincoln wasn't really poor fit into the idea that the de-bunkers like Edgar Lee Masters tried to say that Lincoln was simply representing the rich and corporations as a Whig.

My own view was that the Thomas Lincoln, that Lincoln remembered was a poor man, who was anti-intellectual, who hit Lincoln up for money when Lincoln became successful.

Is that the whole Thomas Lincoln? Of course not. But I think that is the Thomas, Lincoln for the most part remembered.

(07-10-2013 12:07 AM)irshgrl500 Wrote:  

(07-09-2013 09:33 PM)Mike B. Wrote:  [quote='irshgrl500' pid='21289' dateline='1373298334']
[quote='LincolnMan' pid='2095' dateline='1344259780']


Also, the 1920s was the time of the great "de-bunking" biographies, so the idea that Lincoln wasn't really poor fit into the idea that the de-bunkers like Edgar Lee Masters tried to say that Lincoln was simply representing the rich and corporations as a Whig.

My own view was that the Thomas Lincoln, that Lincoln remembered was a poor man, who was anti-intellectual, who hit Lincoln up for money when Lincoln became successful.

Is that the whole Thomas Lincoln? Of course not. But I think that is the Thomas, Lincoln for the most part remembered.

Interesting information about information, circulating or populated, regarding biographies, in the 1920s. Funny, 1925 was when "The Great Gatsby" first came out, and though it was a novel, it fits right in with what you say became the "style" in the 1920s, where biographies were concerned.

From what I've read, too, Thomas was poor, and wasn't good with finances; although I have never read he hit Lincoln up for money, after Lincoln became successful. Also, it doesn't fit their profiles. The two rarely communicated, once Lincoln left home, and even as a Lawyer, he was not a rich or well-off man. Comfortable, and yes purchased his own home but giving money to a man, who happened to be his father but he barely spoke to, seems out of character.

Maybe, I'm wrong.

Thank you, so much for your reply.

Best,
Karin

(07-10-2013 09:08 AM)Mike B. Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 12:07 AM)irshgrl500 Wrote:  

(07-09-2013 09:33 PM)Mike B. Wrote:  [quote='irshgrl500' pid='21289' dateline='1373298334']
[quote='LincolnMan' pid='2095' dateline='1344259780']


Also, the 1920s was the time of the great "de-bunking" biographies, so the idea that Lincoln wasn't really poor fit into the idea that the de-bunkers like Edgar Lee Masters tried to say that Lincoln was simply representing the rich and corporations as a Whig.

My own view was that the Thomas Lincoln, that Lincoln remembered was a poor man, who was anti-intellectual, who hit Lincoln up for money when Lincoln became successful.

Is that the whole Thomas Lincoln? Of course not. But I think that is the Thomas, Lincoln for the most part remembered.

Interesting information about information, circulating or populated, regarding biographies, in the 1920s. Funny, 1925 was when "The Great Gatsby" first came out, and though it was a novel, it fits right in with what you say became the "style" in the 1920s, where biographies were concerned.

From what I've read, too, Thomas was poor, and wasn't good with finances; although I have never read he hit Lincoln up for money, after Lincoln became successful. Also, it doesn't fit their profiles. The two rarely communicated, once Lincoln left home, and even as a Lawyer, he was not a rich or well-off man. Comfortable, and yes purchased his own home but giving money to a man, who happened to be his father but he barely spoke to, seems out of character.

Maybe, I'm wrong.

Thank you, so much for your reply.

Best,
Karin

Thomas Lincoln had his step-son Johnston, write Lincoln for money.

From Collected Works of Lincoln:

"To Thomas Lincoln and John D. Johnston [1]
My dear father: Washington, Decr. 24th. 1848-
Your letter of the 7th. [2] was received night before last. I very cheerfully send you the twenty → dollars, which sum you say is necessary to save your land from sale. It is singular that you should have forgotten a judgment against you; and it is more singular that the plaintiff should have let you forget it so long, particularly as I suppose you have always had property enough to satisfy a judgment of that amount. Before you pay it, it would be well to be sure you have not paid it; or, at least, that you can not prove you have paid it. Give my love to Mother, and all the connections. Affectionately your Son

A. LINCOLN"

(07-09-2013 09:33 PM)Mike B. Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 10:45 AM)irshgrl500 Wrote:  

(08-06-2012 08:29 AM)LincolnMan Wrote:  We all know the story of Abraham Lincoln being born and growing up in poverty. Is that actually the case? Certainly compared to others back East the Lincoln's were poor. But was Thomas Lincoln poor? I read he owned land, had farms, etc. By the standards of the West in his day-was he considered poor? Or have writers imposed their standards on the story? I wonder if Thomas would have considered himself poor?

Hello Bill,
I realize that it is nearly a year after your initial topic was started, which I am commenting. This is the very subject, which I too am posed. I've seen contradictions, over and over again, which state both that Thomas was very poor, and also that he was considered a prosperous landowner. Michael Burlingame has said in his books, and in interviews that it truly is an illusion to think that Thomas was some sort of prosperous landowner, and that he basically never rose much beyond poverty. I tend to trust Burlingame’s word, as it seems to be backed with tenacious research.

Karin

This is a great point.

A big part of the whole Lincoln was not poor goes to two things both in the 1920s.

In the 1920s, Rev. Louis Warren felt the need to make Lincoln's background as middle class and moral as possible...So he went out of his way to make sure in his re-creations that Lincoln's mother was not illigitemate. He also went to prove that Lincoln's father was an upstanding citizen. On this last point by the 1950s he went way overboard and had Lincoln practically worshipping his father.

Also, the 1920s was the time of the great "de-bunking" biographies, so the idea that Lincoln wasn't really poor fit into the idea that the de-bunkers like Edgar Lee Masters tried to say that Lincoln was simply representing the rich and corporations as a Whig.

My own view was that the Thomas Lincoln, that Lincoln remembered was a poor man, who was anti-intellectual, who hit Lincoln up for money when Lincoln became successful.

Is that the whole Thomas Lincoln? Of course not. But I think that is the Thomas, Lincoln for the most part remembered.

(08-06-2012 08:29 AM)LincolnMan Wrote:  We all know the story of Abraham Lincoln being born and growing up in poverty. Is that actually the case? Certainly compared to others back East the Lincoln's were poor. But was Thomas Lincoln poor? I read he owned land, had farms, etc. By the standards of the West in his day-was he considered poor? Or have writers imposed their standards on the story? I wonder if Thomas would have considered himself poor?

(09-22-2013 11:57 AM)Troy Cowan Wrote:  

(08-06-2012 08:29 AM)LincolnMan Wrote:  We all know the story of Abraham Lincoln being born and growing up in poverty. Is that actually the case? Certainly compared to others back East the Lincoln's were poor. But was Thomas Lincoln poor? I read he owned land, had farms, etc. By the standards of the West in his day-was he considered poor? Or have writers imposed their standards on the story? I wonder if Thomas would have considered himself poor?

You ask for people's opinion if Thomas Lincoln was poor. Perhaps you would be interested in a minority opinion. (Being in the minority doesn't mean it is wrong.) At the time I will be talking about, there was no Thomas Lincoln. I will call him by his real name Thomas Linkhorn.

A young woman by the name of Nancy Hanks got herself pregnant. Her relatives arranged a marriage to a castrated drunk by the name of Thomas Linkhorn. He was given 5 gallons of whiskey to marry her. Thomas loved whiskey, not Nancy.

Thomas owned land near Elizabethtown, but he didn't build a home for his wife. He moved his new bride into a 14X14' shed located in an alley of Elizabethtown. It had four walls and a roof and little else. In this shed, she gave birth to a little girl named Sarah. Nancy did not love Thomas, and Thomas did not love Nancy.

Nancy became pregnant again. Thomas knew the child wasn't his and when he was offered a cabin and land from the man that got Nancy pregnant, he accepted. Nancy's lover bought the Linkhorn's a cabin near Nolin Creek. At this time Nancy had the highest standard of living she would ever have in her adult life. Dr. Christopher Graham, a neighbor, visited the Lincolns at Nolin Creek. He said the home was comfortable. Another neighbor, twenty-year-old Peggy Walters, said, “They were poor folks, but so were most of their neighbors." There, at Nolin Creek, Nancy gave birth to Abraham Linkhorn. Years later, he would select the name he preferred to be called--Abraham Lincoln.

The next place we find the Linkhorns living is at Knob Hill. It was an abandoned dugout and a very large step down in their standard of living.

The last place where Nancy lived is at Pidgin Creek. When they arrived, they had no place to live. They built a lean-to to live in. They live in this lean-to for over a year, while Thomas and Nancy built themselves a cabin. Nancy had to help with the cabin, raise a garden, cook for the family and take care of the children. Thomas wore Nancy out. Her body was depleted, worn out.

When they finished the one-room cabin it wasn't much better than living under the lean-to. It had no door to keep out snow and animals. Nancy had no furniture and was walking on a dirt floor. She had a log to sit on and a bed made of bearskin and dried leaves.

Yes, I would consider them poor.

(09-28-2013 01:54 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  Hi Craig. Troy is unable to reply to your excellent question, but I will try to find out. I have his book, and if there is a footnote for this, I will post the source here.