Lincoln Discussion Symposium

(07-11-2014 06:44 PM)LincolnToddFan Wrote: [ -> ]Also, I have never read that account of the night before the wedding. This is the night that the estimable Prof. Burlingame speculates that Mary spent seducing AL into bed, causing him to panic the next morning to the extent that he felt compelled to marry her that same day.(Abraham Lincoln, A Life, Vol I)

Has anyone read the book Mary by Janis Cooke Newman? It is fiction. I have not read it but was told that not only does the author have Mary "tricking" Abraham into marriage but also describes a torrid, but extremely brief, love affair Mary supposedly had with William Wood. Possibly someone who has read it can comment on whether or not what I've heard about the book is true.

I've heard of that book, but I am not at all interested in reading it Roger. It sounds like it's based on the Herndon School view of Mary Todd Lincoln.

As for Mary seducing Lincoln before the wedding, is it completely outside the realm of possibility that HE seduced HER, if anyone was indeed seduced?

(07-12-2014 01:12 PM)LincolnToddFan Wrote: [ -> ]As for Mary seducing Lincoln before the wedding, is it completely outside the realm of possibility that HE seduced HER, if anyone was indeed seduced?

Toia, I think anything is possible, including what you mentioned. I have read that Abraham dropped by Reverend Dresser's and said, "I want to get hitched tonight." Things moved very quickly for whatever reason.

I have also read that the inscription on the ring actually read "A.L. to Mary, Nov. 4, 1842. Love is Eternal." Has anyone else seen that? (Most books simply say "Love is Eternal.)

Roger,

I read that the full inscription read "A.L. to Mary Nov 4 1842 Love Is Eternal"

I read that, too. I searched the web, and found where, plus one further source. Jason Emmerson in "The Madness of M. L." cites the entire inscription ("A.L. to Mary, Nov. 4, 1842. Love is Eternal") and refers to the Illinois State Journal and the NY Times edition of July 18, 1882, and to Mary Edwards Brown's interwiew in Kunhardt's "Lincoln: An Illustrated Biography".

Another article I found refered the "extended inscription" to the Chicago Tribune of July 18, 1882.

Hi Eva.,

Mary Edwards Brown is also quoted extensively in Kunhard's "Looking For Lincoln". She took care of MTL in her final days and talks about what an exasperating, difficult patient she was. If she is the source for the inscription message on the inside of the ring, I believe her.

I don't find it strange that most books just quote the "Love is Eternal". The date plus names are anyway engraved in each wedding ring, aren't they? I would think most authors didn't consider this worth mentioning and shortened the inscription to "Love is Eternal" to point out this personal, meaningful addition not inscribed in each ring.
What I DO NOT understand is why A. L. obviously had no wedding ring (or did I miss this?). I've never heard that only the bride is given a wedding ring! It's the most important connecting symbol! Or was it not common in the Victorian era that the groom was given a ring?

May I ask - is it possibly at all not common in the US that the husband wears a wedding ring? I've thought about A. L.'s (lacking?) wedding ring so often and this question keeps me racking my brain over it. It seems I'm the only one who doesn't understand, so I would be most grateful for any comment!!!

Eva,

I think few men wore wedding bands in the 19th century. It was completely optional then, as now. For example I don't believe Prince Albert, Consort of Queen Victoria wore a ring. More recently there was a mini-controversy when Prince William announced he would not be wearing one after he married Catherine Middleton.

Toia is correct that the wedding ring was optional for a man in the 19th century and pretty much continues that way today in the U.S. I think much of it is tied to occupations. Skilled laborers, carpenters, electricians, plumbers, etc. need their hands to be ring free while working. In the old days, it might also have been an issue of expense -- the bride's family was already providing the wedding, why add the cost of a ring?

---

(07-13-2014 01:03 PM)L Verge Wrote: [ -> ]Toia is correct that the wedding ring was optional for a man in the 19th century and pretty much continues that way today in the U.S. I think much of it is tied to occupations. Skilled laborers, carpenters, electricians, plumbers, etc. need their hands to be ring free while working. In the old days, it might also have been an issue of expense -- the bride's family was already providing the wedding, why add the cost of a ring?

I asked this question on another post last year: How did they engrave gold and silver in the 1840s? They didn't have those electronic gadgets to do it with. I am assuming by hand - and that means that it took more than short notice to engrave that entire inscription of initials, date (which would have to have been set earlier than 24 hours), and loving thoughts. The logic to me is that Mr Lincoln intended to take Mary as his lawfully wedded wife at least several days before the nuptials. Does that make sense? They couldn't just drive out to Las Vegas for a quickie.

Many thanks!!! I've NEVER heard (have you, Angela?) of any case where a couple married without wedding rings (don't know about the 19th century though), not even when marrying only at the registry office. Sure I do know people who cease to wear it sometime, for professional or other reasons (and the latter case usually causes gossip).

(07-13-2014 01:03 PM)L Verge Wrote: [ -> ]...why add the cost of a ring?

My personal opinion - because it's way more important and long-lasting. The wedding lasts one day, the ring is (intended to be) a lifelong symbol!!!

---

(07-13-2014 01:03 PM)L Verge Wrote: [ -> ]How did they engrave gold and silver in the 1840s? They didn't have those electronic gadgets to do it with. I am assuming by hand - and that means that it took more than short notice to engrave that entire inscription of initials, date (which would have to have been set earlier than 24 hours), and loving thoughts.

Laurie, I'm sure it wouldn't have taken more than some minutes! In Tunisia or Marocco you can watch traditional engravers and artisans at each street corner, engraving entire landscapes, camels, ornaments, all sorts of personal inscriptions, and whatever else the customer wishes into all sort of silver- and copperware with a chisel within five to ten minutes!!!

Eva, when I mentioned the cost of the ring, I was referring to earlier days when money was not as free-flowing for a bride's parents.

Thanks for the information on the engraving. I really had no idea that a hammer and chisel could work that fast.

(07-13-2014 06:02 PM)L Verge Wrote: [ -> ]Eva, when I mentioned the cost of the ring, I was referring to earlier days when money was not as free-flowing for a bride's parents.

Yes, Laurie, I was aware you were talking of former days, and I only stated my very personal opinion of the priorty the ring had to (for?) me. I just wanted to delete my comment, but it's too late...
However, on the other hand, if rings weren't a traditional necessity and expensive - the more it indicates the sincereness of A. L.'s feelings for Mary.

To me, Love is Eternal meant that their love had survived a long breakup period and brought them back to marriage. If Mr. Lincoln had qualms about that marriage, he didn't have to have that engraved on the inside. I have several of my ancestors' rings, and they just bear initials and occasionally the date. Mr. Lincoln may have been socially awkward, but he sure made cultural history with that engraving. And he stuck by his wedding vows, despite the mess that some authors claim their marriage became.

Well, Laurie...according to certain "experts" the engraving was not Mr. Lincoln's idea. Mary insisted that he do it.