Post Reply 
Preponderance of the Evidence in a Civil Trial
03-25-2020, 12:04 AM (This post was last modified: 03-25-2020 11:48 AM by David Lockmiller.)
Post: #10
RE: Preponderance of the Evidence in a Civil Trial
(03-22-2020 05:06 PM)Steve Whitlock Wrote:  I shared the above post with a research teammate, Richard "Rich" Hileman, a retired trial lawyer and genealogist, because I thought he might find it interesting.

Perhaps he anticipated that I have no clue as to the Fehrenbacher book, and I thought Rich's explanation might help others who may not be familiar with the Fehrenbachers.

"As for the Fehrenbacher’s rating system, I have my own peeve with that. I don’t know what you know about their book, so sorry if I go over ground you already know. It’s a great book in that it collects, thousands of recollected words of Lincoln reported by others. Then they have a grading system. The first three grades, a, b, and c are objective. A is a recollected direct quote attributed to Lincoln and recorded within a few days of when it is claimed Lincoln said it—e.g. all the reports of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. So As are claimed by the Fehrenbachers to be the most reliable recollected Lincoln statements. B is an indirect quote recorded within a few days. C is a quote attributed to Lincoln but not recorded contemporaneously. Those are their three objective categories. The next category is D which is “a quotation about whose authenticity there is more than average doubt.” Lots of things reported by Herndon they put in this category, including Herndon’s statement that Lincoln told him his mother was illegitimate. Their argument for this is ridiculous. I’ve got to conclude now, but if you’re interested in their argument, let me know and I’ll get back to you on it.

Take care.

Rich"
**************
I was blind, but now I see, sort of.

Steve W.

I agree with what your research teammate, Richard "Rich" Hileman, had to say about the Fehrenbacher’s rating system. I believe that such a system has prohibited far more truth being told expansively about Abraham Lincoln by accomplished Lincoln historians, such as Doris Kearns Goodwin in "Team of Rivals" on two occasions in her book.

According to Henry Wing (the only witness and participant in the conversation with President Lincoln on May 7, 1864, after the members of the cabinet had exited the room), the following conversation took place:

“You wanted to speak to me? said Mr. Lincoln.

“Yes, Mr. President. I have a message for you – a message from General Grant. He told me I was to give it to you when you were alone.”

In an instant the President was all awareness, intent – “Something from Grant to me?”

“Yes,” blurted out Henry. “He told me I was to tell you, Mr. President, that there would be no turning back.”

The harried man had waited long – three years – for such a word – the one word that could have brought him help in his despair; and his long arm swept around and gathered the boy to him, and bending over he pressed a kiss on his cheek. “Come and tell me about it,” he said.

Who, in that moment standing in Henry Wing’s place, would not have remembered precisely the response in words and acts of President Abraham Lincoln?

Is "Lincoln truth" to be lost forever because the truth does NOT satisfy the subjective "objective" criteria imposed upon subsequent Lincoln historians by the "Fehrenbacher" standard for truth regarding what President Lincoln has actually said and done? It should not be so, in my opinion.

In essence, the Fehrenbachers appointed themselves as arbiters of the truth for all things considered "Lincoln history." As Richard "Rich" Hileman wrote in the post above:

The next category is D which is “a quotation about whose authenticity there is more than average doubt.” Lots of things reported by Herndon they put in this category, including Herndon’s statement that Lincoln told him his mother was illegitimate. Their argument for this is ridiculous.

Rich Hileman added that "if you’re interested in their argument, let me know and I’ll get back to you on it." I would be interested to hear what Rich Hileman has to say specifically on this subject.

There is not a single "Lincoln history" source for "Henry Wing" listed in the index of the Fehrenbachers' book. Thus, there is no credibility rating in the book by the Fehrenbachers of any "Lincoln history" statement attributed to Henry Wing. In effect, the Fehrenbachers "ghosted" (modern terminology meaning: "stopping all communication and contact without any apparent warning or justification") Henry Wing as an accredited source of "Lincoln history" by any Fehrenbacher-approved authenticity standard of qualification for use by subsequent Lincoln historians.

It is this ironic conclusion alone that accounts for the description by Doris Kearns Goodwin, in her "Team of Rivals" text, describing Henry Wing as an anonymous "reporter" who merely relayed the words of General Grant to President Lincoln in the early morning hours of May 7, 1864. The same reasoning and conclusion applies to the subsequent conversation between President Lincoln and Henry Wing regarding the soldier vote in which Doris Kearns Goodwin refers to Henry Wing as a "visitor" to the White House. The only way one can determine from the work of Doris Kearns Goodwin that both the "reporter" and the "visitor" to the White House were one and the same person, Henry E. Wing, is to read both footnotes referenced by the page number in the text and make this connection.

"So very difficult a matter is it to trace and find out the truth of anything by history." -- Plutarch
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Messages In This Thread
RE: Preponderance of the Evidence in a Civil Trial - David Lockmiller - 03-25-2020 12:04 AM

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)