Robert Todd Lincoln --The vitals

[Susan Higginbotham]

(01-15-2018 06:09 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 12:16 AM)ScholarInTraining Wrote:  or have been destroyed?

I have a question for anyone who would like to try to answer. I think it is accepted by historians that Robert destroyed those family papers and letters he considered to be too personal (or shed bad light) to be publicly shared. My question has to do with Mary's letter posted here. All I can say is how my brain works - if I received a letter from my mother such as that I would not want it shared with the world. Robert had the opportunity to burn it, but he did not. Any thoughts on why it was not destroyed as many others were?

I would guess that he kept it for the same reason he kept the other letters related to Mary's insanity case--as documentation. Or was it found in his lawyer's papers? IIRC, didn't Robert reply to point out that some of the items Mary was accusing him and his wife of having misappropriated had been gifts to them?

---

(01-15-2018 09:40 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Sorry the link doesn't work - here's a screenshot:

A single incident involving a group of young boys imitating a circus act, with no indication of whether Robert was the ringleader, seems to me a rather poor indicator of a person's character as an adult.

Notably, Robert himself is the source of this story.

[Eva Elisabeth]

(01-15-2018 11:26 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 06:09 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 12:16 AM)ScholarInTraining Wrote:  or have been destroyed?

I have a question for anyone who would like to try to answer. I think it is accepted by historians that Robert destroyed those family papers and letters he considered to be too personal (or shed bad light) to be publicly shared. My question has to do with Mary's letter posted here. All I can say is how my brain works - if I received a letter from my mother such as that I would not want it shared with the world. Robert had the opportunity to burn it, but he did not. Any thoughts on why it was not destroyed as many others were?

I would guess that he kept it for the same reason he kept the other letters related to Mary's insanity case--as documentation. Or was it found in his lawyer's papers? IIRC, didn't Robert reply to point out that some of the items Mary was accusing him and his wife of having misappropriated had been gifts to them?

---

(01-15-2018 09:40 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Sorry the link doesn't work - here's a screenshot:

A single incident involving a group of young boys imitating a circus act, with no indication of whether Robert was the ringleader, seems to me a rather poor indicator of a person's character as an adult.

Notably, Robert himself is the source of this story.

I didn't link the incident to his adult character (did he say he regretted it btw?), I only said I despised this kid's action. It's appalling as it was.

[Susan Higginbotham]

I haven't seen the letter in which he mentions the incident, but the fact that he told the story on himself at least shows that he was willing to show himself in a less than favorable light.

It really comes down to this: if someone is determined to dislike Robert, he or she can find evidence to support his or her opinion, just as someone who is determined to dislike Mary can do the same thing (City Point, anyone?), but I think that such a black-or-white view is unfair to both. There are a few people with little if any redeeming qualities, and there are a few people with almost no flaws, but most of us fall into that vast in-between. I think Mary and Robert were in that middle category.

[L Verge]

(01-15-2018 12:13 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  I haven't seen the letter in which he mentions the incident, but the fact that he told the story on himself at least shows that he was willing to show himself in a less than favorable light.

It really comes down to this: if someone is determined to dislike Robert, he or she can find evidence to support his or her opinion, just as someone who is determined to dislike Mary can do the same thing (City Point, anyone?), but I think that such a black-or-white view is unfair to both. There are a few people with little if any redeeming qualities, and there are a few people with almost no flaws, but most of us fall into that vast in-between. I think Mary and Robert were in that middle category.

Excellent response, Susan. A great deal of history - both related to individuals as well as events - boils down to how people interpret things. Even the facts in black and white can be viewed in different ways.

[Eva Elisabeth]

"There are a few people with little if any redeeming qualities, and there are a few people with almost no flaws, but most of us fall into that vast in-between. I think Mary and Robert were in that middle category."

Susan - that and nothing else was I trying to say (all the time) to the initial question whether Robert were a hero. IMO he wasn't, but right what you just said. I think I've said it at least once in a similar way.

I also don't recall saying he were/"is bad", just that I - personally - found some of his actions bad from the humanity point of view (and not just minor issues IMO), and that despite, of what I read about him, I am sorry, not much has yet endeared him to me. Just my very personal opinion so far.

[RJNorton]

(01-15-2018 06:39 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  I agree with his father in despising such actions. I guess I will get to hear now that all/many children/boys do such - no, I strongly disagree, definitely not.

I agree with you, Eva. I have been thinking about this all day as I love animals, and I must admit this really bothers me. I remember the crowd I grew up with, and we did some pretty strange things. But the idea of putting ropes around dogs' necks and hoisting them up is something we never would have thought of or done. Today I read another account of this incident, and Robert and his friends also tried to get the neighborhood cats involved with their "circus," but the cats would have none of it.

[kerry]

Animal abuse is a sensitive subject with me as well - it is interesting Robert thought to have that incident with Lincoln sewing the hogs' eyes shut excised from his biography. A lot of people, especially in that time, would not have cared about that long ago incident. Maybe he just knew how inconsistent it was with Lincoln's own beliefs, being the person who rescued the hog from the mud.

I've never understood how Mary's letter to him surfaced. All the insanity file stuff surfaced later, and all the other correspondence from that time seems to be gone (the "monster of mankind" letter). I imagine it was kept as documentation of the threats by somebody else, like a lawyer, but it's odd. What I find more interesting is that Robert and/or Mary destroyed virtually all correspondence, not just damaging stuff. A few preserved happier letters would have gone a long way in helping the reputation of the family. Imagine if we didn't have those few letters taken from the burn pile and the telegrams, which do so much in humanizing the Lincolns.

[ScholarInTraining]

Here are a few varied accounts and retellings of what happened during the incident with the dogs.

1. Newspaper article:

"Chauncey H. Graves, 83 years old, of Mound City, Mo., says Abraham Lincoln was no weakling in applying a barrel stave to the spankable sector of a small boy's anatomy. Graves, Robert Lincoln and many other boys in the neighborhood were putting on an animal show in the Lincoln barn. The 'wild' animals were dogs suspended from the rafters in a fashion to cause them to 'growl' like lions. A neighbor reported the cruelty to Mr. Lincoln, who, stave in hand, unexpectedly visited the show. After loosing the dogs, Mr. Lincoln rounded up the show managers and applied the barrel stave so effectively the show business stopped."


2. From Abraham Lincoln: A Life, Volume 1 (Burlingame):
"....Now and then these roles were reversed: Lincoln would use corporal punishment, and his wife would object. Once he found young Robert and his friends putting on a play with dogs. The boys fastened a rope around one canine's neck, tossed the rope over a beam, and tugged hard to make the beast rise up. When the animal-loving Lincoln beheld the scene, he grabbed a barrel stave "and immediately began plying it indiscriminately on the persons of such boys as were within reach". Mary Lincoln reportedly "was very angry, and reproached her husband in language that was not at all adapted to Sunday School." Citation listed: Illinois State Register (Springfield), 13 July 1860.

3. Fictionalized version from Love Is Eternal:

"There was a group of children who played together. Mary cleared out the barn and let it be known that it could be used as headquarters for their club. Robert converted the barn into a theatre.....
"One afternoon there was a howling of dogs from the barn; the noise was maddening; she bit her lip, she did nothing to interfere. A little while later she heard hurried steps in the street, saw Abraham vault the tall fence, run through the yard, pick up a stage of an old ash barrel and speed across the yard to the barn. There were frantic sounds of running and one short cry. In a few moments he came onto the back porch, carrying the barrel stave in his hand, an outraged expression on his face.
"Why didn't you stop them, Mary? Why did a neighbor have to make me come all the way home from the office? How can you be so indifferent as to let them hang dogs in the barn?"
"Hang dogs? Whatever are you talking about?"
At that moment Robert came in....
"Robert protested: "We were putting on a dog act is all, teaching the dogs how to stand up on their hind legs. They didn't want to learn so we had ropes around their necks and we were helping to hold them up. Then Papa came in screaming, 'What do you mean by hanging dogs?'"

4. Fictionalized version from a chapter of a children's book about RTL's life, summarized:

Young Robert and his friends want to put on a patriotic dog show in the barn. Mary says it's okay, and the boys make all sorts of excited preparations. Unfortunately, it all goes awry when the dogs get stuck in the ropes and begin to panic. It doesn't help that the children themselves panic as they shout at the dogs to be still and unsuccessfully try to free them. When a worried neighbor overhears dogs howling in the barn, he goes to report to Mr. Lincoln who hurries home, taking a barrel stave with him to stop the abuser. Once he reaches the barn and takes a look at what's going on, he drops the stave and quickly unties the knots himself, freeing the dogs. A subdued Robert appears and explains to his father what they were doing and says he didn't mean to hurt the dogs. Abraham tells his son that be believes him, but "the way to teach animals is by kindness and patience, not by force and ropes, by love, not fear."

5. From The Inner World of Abraham Lincoln:

"Lincoln occasionally erupted in anger at Robert. In Springfield one day, the boy and his friends put on a dog show in the family barn. To get the canines to rise up, the children slung ropes over a rafter then tied them around the dogs' necks, practically hanging them. Lincoln heard the howls and, after rescuing the poor animals, expressed his indignation to Robert." Citation listed: Quoted in Benjamin P. Thomas, Portrait for Posterity; Lincoln and His Biographers (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1947), 154.

6. Modified version from Lincoln's Springfield Neighborhood:

"Lincoln rarely displayed anger with a child. But one day, Robert and his friends put on a dog show in the family barn. To lift up the canines, the children tossed ropes over a rafter and then fastened them around the poor victims' necks, practically hanging them. Lincoln, hearing the howls, rescued the poor animals and expressed his outrage to Robert." Citation listed: Randall, Lincoln's Animal Friends

[RJNorton]

Thank you, Mari. Here is the most detailed account I read yesterday. It is a letter from Walter H. Graves to Ida Tarbell. While this account does not absolve Robert from being part of the group, it appears that it was another boy who actually put the rope around the dog's neck (if Graves' reminiscence is accurate).

https://dspace.allegheny.edu/bitstream/h...sAllowed=y

[Lincoln Wonk]

I came to the R. Lincoln discussion late, but I think the religious quote from Robert Lincoln is interesting. I feel like I've read it somewhere before.I checked all my notes and I don't have it anywhere. There's an online blog on Google that has it and attributes it to the Prescott Journal of April 29, 1865: https://thecivilwarandnorthwestwisconsin...ssination/

That blog also mentions Maunsell Field, who later wrote about the scenes inside Petersen House in similar dramatic language. Of Clara Harris, Field wrote:
"In the hall, I met Miss Harris, the daughter of Senator Harris of New York, who had been one of the presidential party at the theatre. As soon as she saw me, she exclaimed “Oh, Mr. Field, the President is dying, but for heaven’s sake do not tell Mrs. Lincoln."

I believe Robert was rambunctious at one point because there's an account from Mary Lincoln's cousin, who was unaware he was related to Mary and her boys when the shared a railroad car to Lexington, Ky., when the boys were young. The cousin arrived at the Todd home first and crabbed about the unruly boys who crawled all over the railroad car and their indulgent father who played right along with them.

I have a small soft spot for Robert because he donated more than $100, I forget the exact amount, to Boy Scouts of America at the turn of the century when he was president of Pullman.

[L Verge]

Thank you, Scholar, for the varying accounts of this incidence. Any idea how old Robert was at this point? Old enough to know better as far as the treatment of animals?

Love the first description with the phrase "...the spankable sector of a small boy's anatomy." Also enjoyed Burlingame's sentence about Mary Lincoln's use of language that was not Sunday School appropriate. This might be applied in another thread on this forum about the use of vulgar language... Even a future First Lady slipped up -- and I can see that happening in Mary's case since she had been privy to conversations with her father's political cronies at an early age.

[Susan Higginbotham]

The letter to Ida Tarbell refers to the perpetrators as "little boys" and to the boy with the rope as a "little fellow."

BTW, I read the wrong footnote in Emerson's book. RTL is not a source for the story.

[kerry]

Thanks for pointing out the Graves letter, Roger. Graves gave a few versions of the story, one of which is much more easy to digest (they were imitating a recent circus, trying to make the animals stand up with a rope, instead of trying to hang them). I haven't figured out what his response was, but here is Ida Tarbell's letter asking for a clarification:

https://dspace.allegheny.edu/handle/10456/28991

[RJNorton]

(01-16-2018 06:16 PM)kerry Wrote:  Thanks for pointing out the Graves letter, Roger. Graves gave a few versions of the story, one of which is much more easy to digest (they were imitating a recent circus, trying to make the animals stand up with a rope, instead of trying to hang them). I haven't figured out what his response was, but here is Ida Tarbell's letter asking for a clarification:

https://dspace.allegheny.edu/handle/10456/28991

Thanks, Kerry. Indeed there seems to be many different versions. They range from (1) only one dog was involved and his/her rear legs were never raised off the ground, and no cats were involved; (2) several dogs were actually hanged, and Abraham Lincoln was (incorrectly) told two were dead, plus the boys had also rounded up cats.

[David Lockmiller]

(01-16-2018 10:25 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Thank you, Scholar, for the varying accounts of this incidence. Any idea how old Robert was at this point? Old enough to know better as far as the treatment of animals?

Love the first description with the phrase "...the spankable sector of a small boy's anatomy." Also enjoyed Burlingame's sentence about Mary Lincoln's use of language that was not Sunday School appropriate. This might be applied in another thread on this forum about the use of vulgar language... Even a future First Lady slipped up -- and I can see that happening in Mary's case since she had been privy to conversations with her father's political cronies at an early age.

1. Newspaper article:

"Chauncey H. Graves, 83 years old, of Mound City, Mo., says Abraham Lincoln was no weakling in applying a barrel stave to the spankable sector of a small boy's anatomy. Graves, Robert Lincoln and many other boys in the neighborhood were putting on an animal show in the Lincoln barn. The 'wild' animals were dogs suspended from the rafters in a fashion to cause them to 'growl' like lions. A neighbor reported the cruelty to Mr. Lincoln, who, stave in hand, unexpectedly visited the show. After loosing the dogs, Mr. Lincoln rounded up the show managers and applied the barrel stave so effectively the show business stopped."


2. From Abraham Lincoln: A Life, Volume 1 (Burlingame):
"....Now and then these roles were reversed: Lincoln would use corporal punishment, and his wife would object. Once he found young Robert and his friends putting on a play with dogs. The boys fastened a rope around one canine's neck, tossed the rope over a beam, and tugged hard to make the beast rise up. When the animal-loving Lincoln beheld the scene, he grabbed a barrel stave "and immediately began plying it indiscriminately on the persons of such boys as were within reach". Mary Lincoln reportedly "was very angry, and reproached her husband in language that was not at all adapted to Sunday School." Citation listed: Illinois State Register (Springfield), 13 July 1860.

I can understand why Mary became "very angry." What I don't understand is why she "reproached her husband in language that was not at all adapted to Sunday School."

Perhaps you could explain. In my opinion, if the newspaper article is truthful and correct, Abraham Lincoln did exactly the right thing. Perhaps you disagree.