Lincoln Research

[DannyW]

The question I wanted to ask is related to how the historians - professional or amateurs like myself go about their research on the Lincoln Assassination or matters related to Lincoln .
1. Do you choose something your interested in a particular area?
2. Do you try to locate something new or hasn’t been brought out before?
3. You read all available literature on a particular area & try to give new
Insight.
4. Or in other words how do you go about doing what you are doing?
I should have asked this years ago? Thank you !

[Gene C]

When I read something I find interesting about someone or an event, I check the footnotes and bibliography to see what source the author used that I might find interesting for further reading. I fall under your #3, except for giving new insight. There is plenty of old insight that has been overlooked or forgotten, so sharing it makes it seem new.

[davg2000]

Begin with #3. You have to read widely. That's really essential. If you are interested in Lincoln, then you need to become grounded in basic Lincoln facts. Read recent biographies of Lincoln--my favorite is David Herbert Donald's. Once you feel familiar with Lincoln's life, read several biographers, from different times. A good start for this is Portrait for Posterity, by Benjamin Thomas, 1947. Thomas introduces the reader to all of the Lincoln biographers from Josiah Holland to Carl Sandburg. (Of course there have been many since then, including my favorite.) By reading Thomas you will come to understand that Lincoln's life has been interpreted differently by writers almost from the first. You will also begin to learn why Lincoln continues to fascinate writers. (As you read about Lincoln, his times, and his contemporaries, ideas for further research will begin to occur to you. Write these down! Don't trust to memory.)

So, what can you do? You almost certainly aren't going to find anything new about Lincoln's life, but you may be able to provide a new perspective on some established fact. Perhaps you will cause a reader to question something that he thought he already knew. That's one thing that made teaching fun for me--a pupil's question might cause me to reconsider my take on something.

Google can be helpful, but be careful about what you find on the Web. Wikkepedia can be a blessing and a curse.

If you are interested in Lincoln's assassination, these are essential reads: American Brutus, by Kauffman; Blood on the Moon, by Steers; Manhunt, by Swanson; They Have Killed Papa Dead, by Pitch; The Lincoln Conspiracies, by Hanchett; and Fortune's Fool, by Alford. If you can find a copy of The Mad Booths of Maryland, by Kimmel, that's good, too. Finally, another one referred to often by writers on the Symposium is Twenty Days, by Kuhnhardt and Kuhnhardt.

[Rob Wick]

For me, Danny, a lot of the answer depends on what you're trying to accomplish with your research. If you're just doing it for yourself, then I would say your #3 is the best way to go about it. However, if you want to publish your research either in a journal, popular magazine article, or book that is a whole other matter.

I first got interested in Ida Tarbell when I was researching Carl Sandburg's study of Lincoln. Tarbell and Sandburg were very close and between the two of them sold more books on Lincoln than all other authors combined. I knew I would eventually have to go through her papers but I also knew they were in Pennsylvania and at the time I had no idea they had been microfilmed.

When I was in college I had a historical methods professor who said the only way we will ever stay with a topic of research is to pick something we personally find interesting. All my life I've always been fascinated by how things work. For some reason I've always found the creation of books and articles, from a historical perspective, to be interesting.

One night while Googling another historian I came across a few letters that had been written by Tarbell. I just assumed they were outliers that someone had posted to the web. When I clicked on them, I discovered that Allegheny College, Tarbell's alma mater, was in the process of digitizing all her letters and manuscripts that she, and later her heirs, had donated to the college. I realized that no one had done for Tarbell what I was attempting to do for Sandburg, and thus was born a new project.

How one approaches research is a matter of personal taste. For me, the first thing is to discover where the papers of those I am interested in are located. One CANNOT do original research without the original source documents. Fortunately, with the internet doing so is much easier. There are a couple of websites that make that task a lot easier. The first is the electronic version of the National Union Catalog of Manuscript Collections, known to researchers as NUCMC (pronounced Nuck-Muck). The second is called ArchiveGrid and is part of the WorldCat search engine. I use both.

Second, if the person I'm studying is an author, I will find used copies of all of that person's books. Fortunately, much of Tarbell's work was written before 1922 so much of it is in the public domain and can be downloaded from the Internet Archive. However, I've had to buy physical copies of everything after that. If the person or event you're studying is not an author, but there are books available, I would recommend getting them as well. WorldCat is a good resource for finding what libraries hold a particular book or books by an author.

Personally, I don't do any reading of secondary literature until I've exhausted the primary material. In the case of an author, primary material includes their books. I've found that by reading the primary stuff first, it gives me more insight into what other writers have written and whether or not I agree with them. There's only been two biographies written about Tarbell, so I read the most important because I hadn't made up my mind whether or not I was going to pursue the topic.

There are some people who don't do their research the same way that I do, and I have no issues with the way they approach it. In some cases I can even imagine that a person, especially if they're not very familiar with a topic, would be be better off finding a couple of recent books about it and learning whatever they can. But just remember, the author has already gone through the primary material and read all the relevant secondary material and chosen what to leave in and what to leave out. The biography I mentioned of Ida Tarbell is an excellent book that still deserves to be read to this day. Yet the author didn't delve too much into Tarbell's study of Lincoln. For a general biography that is fine, and in my opinion, actually expected.

If you're focusing on a person (not necessarily an author, but someone heavily involved in the event you're studying) you also need to find out where the primary material for that person's contemporaries is kept. In that case that's where the footnotes and the bibliographies come in handy. It's not enough for me to talk about how Ida Tarbell approached Lincoln. For it to be well-rounded and to contribute something original to the discussion, I have to compare her with William E. Barton, Albert J. Beveridge, and Carl Sandburg, not to mention other lesser-prominent authors.

Another thing to consider is how much money can you devote to this? While most libraries are willing to copy items or scan them into PDF format for you, most will also charge you. I've had some libraries not charge me for an item of one or two pages, but recently the Library of Congress, which was the only place I could find that had the item I needed, charged me $38 for three pages. If you live in an area or near to one that has material, that will help on the expenses, but plan to spend more money than you think you'll ever get back on your projects. If you know that most of the material you will need is in a particular location, try to find a competent researcher that can help you out. I have two, one located in Chicago and the other in Washington, D.C. Neither is cheap, but both have done excellent work for me and even at what they charge I cannot go there and get the items.

If I was you, I wouldn't try to focus on something that's never been brought out before, because on Lincoln you'll have better luck finding a four-leaf clover. What I would recommend is to pick something that interests you completely and depending on your knowledge level, either read the most recent book on the topic or an article and go from there. There is absolutely nothing illegitimate about taking a topic that has been covered in the past and putting your own spin on it. Again, much of that will depend on what you want to do with the research. For an academic journal, they want something new, either new information or a new interpretation. A popular magazine article, on the other hand, wants an interesting angle on something that may or may not be well known.

One other point. There are numerous books out there written for undergraduate students who are just beginning the study of history and research. The two that I used in college are The Historian's Handbook by Wood Gray and The Modern Researcher by Jacques Barzun. Both are older works, but both still have a great deal to teach about how to do research.

With all that said, the one thing I would emphasize is there really is no right or wrong way to do research. Whatever works best for you is the best method to use. In the 35 or so years that I've done this I've found that much of it is trial and error. Just understand that for every three steps forward you will take in doing research, sometimes you'll take two steps back and have to start on another path.

Just as an aside, to give you an idea of what I've done so far, I've attached a copy of my working bibliography that shows all the manuscript collections I've utilized and the other materials, both primary and secondary, that I have used or will use.

I hope this helps.,

Best
Rob

[David Lockmiller]

(04-22-2018 10:21 PM)DannyW Wrote:  The question I wanted to ask is related to how the historians - professional or amateurs like myself go about their research on the Lincoln Assassination or matters related to Lincoln .
1. Do you choose something your interested in a particular area?
2. Do you try to locate something new or hasn’t been brought out before?
3. You read all available literature on a particular area & try to give new
Insight.
4. Or in other words how do you go about doing what you are doing?
I should have asked this years ago? Thank you !

I would make two suggestions:

1. Read F.B. Carpenter's book "The Inner Life of Abraham Lincoln, Six Months at the White House." It begins in February, 1864 and gives Lincoln's own account for the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation and many other contemporaneous first-hand stories directly involving Lincoln. The book also contains a number of second-hand stories (which are almost as good).
2. A second suggestion, in combination with the first, would be Lincoln quotes on particular subject matter. I would suggest either/and the "Lincoln Dictionary" edited by Ralph B. Winn (1959) or "The Lincoln Treasury" compiled by Caroline Thomas Harnsberger (1950) containing "Lincoln's expressions on a multitude of subjects."
   

Start with what interests you, and go as far as you want to go on a subject by going to the indexes of other published works. There is a neat little trick that I learned on the Lincoln Discussion Symposium website. [Go to Google books and put in an exact Lincoln quote and press enter. It will take you to the published Lincoln quote and provide academic context.] Or, dare I say, subject matter research on this website threads.

[Steve]

(04-22-2018 10:21 PM)DannyW Wrote:  The question I wanted to ask is related to how the historians - professional or amateurs like myself go about their research on the Lincoln Assassination or matters related to Lincoln .
1. Do you choose something your interested in a particular area?
2. Do you try to locate something new or hasn’t been brought out before?
3. You read all available literature on a particular area & try to give new
Insight.
4. Or in other words how do you go about doing what you are doing?
I should have asked this years ago? Thank you !

I'm an amateur historian just like yourself, but here are my answers to you questions:

1. Yes, I tend to research topics that I'm interested in, otherwise it would be boring. I personally like genealogical research, so in regards to Lincoln I like to look/research small things/questions in depth but those small things can be anything from Lincoln's childhood to his assassination.

2. I like to research those small questions, sometimes they lead to something new, other times they lead to... nowhere.

3. When researching a particular question, I try and find as much information as I can on the specific topic I'm looking at that particular time. But in, say, reading a biography/big book on a large topic/person, I tend to be more scattershot and only read a chapter or a few pages at a time. And a lot of times I read those chapters out of order, I might have something like ADD in that regard.

My advise to you would be, besides researching your primary interest, would be to do historical research on something else like your family history or local history where you live. The skills you can pick up doing that could help you with whatever Lincoln research you're interested in (I'm assuming that's what you want to do since you're on this forum).

Also focus on looking at/researching primary documents when you can!

Good luck!

[Craig Hipkins]

Danny,
The National Archives is a great place to start a search for primary material. Depending on what topic interests you there is a wealth of information available. Pension records, muster rolls and rare manuscripts are all available to peruse if you go in person. You can also order copies of files, but that can cost you a pretty penny! A few years ago I spent a couple hundred dollars on Boston Corbett's pension file, but I found some stuff in there that had never seen the light of day. State libraries and historical societies also contain a treasure trove of information waiting to be discovered.

[DannyW]

Thanks to all of you for your responses . That really helps since it gave me some new ideas .
Everyone here is so helpful!

[AussieMick]

Hi Danny,
Just to add my two penn'orth .... I've always wanted to know more about Lincoln 'the politician'. How did he manage to win nomination ... how did he select his cabinet and generals ... who were his enemies ... who were his friends ... did he know which was which ... did he hold grudges (or make use of talented people, regardless of past experiences ... I think that was one of his strengths, BTW) what was the Washington culture like (media-wise) ... Did he make any unjustified assumptions (and why) ? What mistakes did he make , why, and how did he deal with them. We know he had to make compromises (such as, I think, Cameron) ... was he aware of the risks? When he was ill, did this affect decision-making? This may mean that the researcher acts more like a Devil's Advocate. Assume that Lincoln was not only astute but also crafty and willing to shaft someone that was no longer useful.

Just as importantly, but frustratingly, I'd like a reasonable attempt by knowledgeable people at telling us how might the US have been different if he'd lived through a second term? Would his first term have exhausted his phenomenal powers in political management?

I, being too lazy and not terribly academic, await the fruits of your work.

[David Lockmiller]

I previously made two suggestions in response to this thread topic:

[2] The second suggestion, in combination with the first, would be Lincoln quotes on particular subject matter. I would suggest either/and the "Lincoln Dictionary" edited by Ralph B. Winn (1959) or "The Lincoln Treasury" compiled by Caroline Thomas Harnsberger (1950) containing "Lincoln's expressions on a multitude of subjects."

By reason of necessity, I became interested recently in the duty of government officials to render justice against the government itself in favor of citizens. It so happens that President Abraham Lincoln had recognized this particular cause and was given occasion to specifically address this subject in his first Annual Message to Congress on December 3, 1861. I found the relevant abbreviated quote under the subject of "Justice" in the "Lincoln Dictionary." The abbreviated quote is the bold section below. The complete quotation in "The Life, Public Services and State Papers of Abraham Lincoln" by Henry J. Raymond at pages 218-19 is as follows:

"It is important that some more convenient means should be provided, if possible, for the adjustment of claims against the Government, especially in view of their increased number by reason of the war. It is as much the duty of Government to render prompt justice against itself, in favor of citizens, as it is to administer the same between private individuals. The investigation and adjudication of claims in their nature belong to the judicial department. Besides, it is apparent that the attention of Congress will be more than usually engaged for some time to come with great national questions. It was intended by the organization of the Court of Claims mainly to remove this branch of business from the halls of Congress: but while the court has proved to be an effective and valuable means of investigation, it in great degree fails to effect the object of its creation for want of power to make its judgments final.

Fully aware of the delicacy, not to say the danger, of the subject, I commend to your careful consideration whether this power of making judgments final may not properly be given to the court, reserving the right of appeal on questions of law to the Supreme Court, with such other provisions as experience may have shown to be necessary."

Does anyone know if President Abraham Lincoln was successful in this endeavor to take the "power to make [the Court of Claims] judgments final" out of the hands of Congress and be given to the Court of Claims as President Lincoln proposed?

I love the way President Lincoln stated a simple principle of good government: It is as much the duty of Government to render prompt justice against itself, in favor of citizens, as it is to administer the same between private individuals. And, Lincoln added an astute veiled observation regarding the "danger" of continuation of the current process. He also provided answers to foreseeable objections by members of Congress who would have wanted to maintain this power to make such judgments final in their own "political" hands.

[David Lockmiller]

(04-24-2018 11:30 PM)AussieMick Wrote:  I've always wanted to know more about Lincoln 'the politician'. How did he manage to win nomination ... how did he select his cabinet and generals ... who were his enemies ... who were his friends ... did he know which was which ... did he hold grudges (or make use of talented people, regardless of past experiences ... I think that was one of his strengths, BTW) what was the Washington culture like (media-wise) ... Did he make any unjustified assumptions (and why) ? What mistakes did he make , why, and how did he deal with them. We know he had to make compromises (such as, I think, Cameron) ... was he aware of the risks?

Doris Kearns Goodwin wrote a book on most of these questions: "Team of Rivals."

He did not hold grudges as a general rule. An illustrative case in point is Secretary of War Stanton and Lincoln's previous association and legal experience with Stanton in Cincinnati before the war. Lincoln tended to make his statute of limitations short in most, if not all, cases.

I suspect that there were a number of instances when Lincoln had to accept what he could not change. For example, when President Lincoln was desperate for votes to get the Thirteenth Amendment legislation passed in the House of Representatives, he was told he could get two New Jersey Democrats votes if only he could get Senator Sumner "to postpone a bill he had introduced to end the monopoly the Camden & Amboy Railroad enjoyed." Lincoln was asked to intervene. Lincoln responded that he could "do nothing with Sumner in these matters," and feared if he tried, Sumner "would be all the more resolute." ("Team of Rivals," pages 687 - 688.)

The best generals at the outset of the war "went South," with the notable exceptions of General William Tecumseh Sherman (who, incidentally, fought under Grant at the battles of Forts Henry and Donelson, which I did not previously know) and the able General George Henry Thomas, the "Rock of Chickamauga."

Sherman did not oppose slavery and was sympathetic to Southerners' defense of the institution. He opposed, however, any attempt at dissolving the Union. He resigned his position as the first superintendent of the Louisiana State Seminary of Learning & Military Academy (later, it became Louisiana State University). On hearing of South Carolina's secession from the United States, Sherman prophetically observed to a close friend, Professor David F. Boyd of Virginia, an enthusiastic secessionist:

"You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it... Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth—right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail."

(Sherman source material is from Wikipedia.)

[AussieMick]

Thanks, David. Ive heard of that book ... I'll need to check it out. Even buy it! I havent seen it in the public library.

[Gene C]

I second David on recommending it.
It's worth purchasing.

[David Lockmiller]

(04-26-2018 02:01 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  Does anyone know if President Abraham Lincoln was successful in this endeavor to take the "power to make [the Court of Claims] judgments final" out of the hands of Congress and be given to the Court of Claims as President Lincoln proposed?

In answer to my own question:

As originally in 1855, the court lacked the essential judicial power to render final judgments. This oversight was resolved by legislation passed in 1866, in response to President Abraham Lincoln’s insistence in his Annual Message to Congress in 1861 that, “It is as much the duty of Government to render prompt justice against itself, in favor of citizens, as it is to administer the same, between private individuals.”

(Source: Wikipedia on subject of United State Court of Claims - history section)