Was Thomas Lincoln actually poor?

[irshgrl500]

(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"

Thank you, Mike. I stand corrected, and a bit surprised.


Best,
Karin