tblunk - I think you have a very valid point about what life's circumstances might have done to Thomas Lincoln. Too often we judge people by the way we see them, not taking into consideration what made them that way.

There is some speculation, I think warrented that Lincoln possibly resented his father favoring his stepbrother Johnston who seems to have been a bit of a ne'er do well.

Lincoln did however, think very highly of his stepmother and went to see her before his trip to Washington for the Presidency. He reportedly said that she had been "his best friend in this world."

I think he remembered the time after his mother's death, when he, his sister, and Denis Hanks were living almost like savages in the Wilderness without Nancy Hanks his mother. In her own words, she washed the Lincolns, and made them look more "human."

I also think she may have shielded Lincoln from his father in that his father would "slash" him for neglecting his work by reading which he thought was a waste of time and a sign of laziness. According to Hanks, and Lincoln's stepmother seems a bit defensive for Thomas Lincoln on this.

(03-22-2013 07:41 PM)Mike B. Wrote:  He reportedly said that she had been "his best friend in this world."

I wonder why he never once brought her to his home to meet Mary and the children. I can understand her not being at the wedding as that was so hurried, but certainly there were other opportunities to invite her to stay a few days and meet his family.

(03-23-2013 05:58 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(03-22-2013 07:41 PM)Mike B. Wrote:  He reportedly said that she had been "his best friend in this world."

I wonder why he never once brought her to his home to meet Mary and the children. I can understand her not being at the wedding as that was so hurried, but certainly there were other opportunities to invite her to stay a few days and meet his family.

There may have been reasons relating to Mary for that. We don't know.

Does anyone believe that Lincoln may have been embarressed by his rural upbringing? Maybe this is why he never introduced his stepmother, and father to his new relations.

Craig

Absolutely. When asked to write a short autobiographical piece, he pretty much just mentioned that he had been born poor-and who would find that interesting?

(03-26-2013 08:17 PM)LincolnMan Wrote:  Absolutely. When asked to write a short autobiographical piece, he pretty much just mentioned that he had been born poor-and who would find that interesting?

Bill, Yes, I can remember reading that. I do know that Lincoln was interested in his genealogy, and had talked with Massachusetts Governor Levi Lincoln about being a possible relation. I assume that he might have been trying to create a more respected lineage that he felt could hold him in high esteem with the ruling families of America at that time.

Craig

Indeed Lincoln had interest in his genealogy. Here is a letter he wrote to a cousin, David Lincoln, on April 2, 1848:

*********************************************

To David Lincoln


Dear Sir, Washington, April 2nd. 1848

Last evening I was much gratified by receiving and reading your letter of the 30th. of March. There is no longer any doubt that your uncle Abraham, and my grandfather was the same man. His family did reside in Washington county, Kentucky, just as you say you found them in 1801 or 2. The oldest son, uncle Mordecai, near twenty years ago, removed from Kentucky to Hancock county, Illinois, where within a year or two afterwards, he died, and where his surviving children now live. His two sons there now are Abraham & Mordecai; and their Post-office is ``La Harp [e].''

Uncle Josiah, farther back than my recollection, went from Kentucky to Blue River in Indiana. I have not heard from him in a great many years, and whether he is still living I can not say. My recollection of what I have heard is, that he has several daughters & only one son, Thomas. Their Post-office is ``Corydon, Harrisson county, Indiana.''

My father, Thomas, is still living, in Coles county Illinois, being in the 71st. year of his age. His Post-office is Charleston, Coles co. Ill. I am his only child. I am now in my 40th. year; and I live in Springfield, Sangamon county, Illinois. This is the outline of my grandfather's family in the West.

I think my father has told me that grandfather had four brothers, Isaac, Jacob, John and Thomas. Is that correct? and which of them was your father? Are any of them alive? I am quite sure that Isaac resided on Wata [u] ga, near a point where Virginia and Tennessee join; and that he has been dead more than twenty, perhaps thirty, years. Also, that Thomas removed to Kentucky, near Lexington, where he died a good while ago.

What was your grandfather's christian name? Was he or not, a Quaker? About what time did he emigrate from Berks county, Pa. to Virginia? Do you know any thing of your family (or rather I may now say, our family) farther back than your grandfather?

If it be not too much trouble to you, I shall be much pleased to hear from you again. Be assured I will call on you, should any thing ever bring me near you. I shall give your respects to Gov. McDowell, as you desire. Very truly yours--- A. LINCOLN---

***********************************

Here's another letter to a cousin, Jesse Lincoln, written April 1, 1854:

************************************

To Jesse Lincoln


Springfield, Illinois, April, 1, 1854.

My Dear Sir: On yesterday I had the pleasure of receiving your letter of the 16th of March. From what you say there can be no doubt that you and I are of the same family. The history of your family, as you give it, is precisely what I have always heard, and partly know, of my own. As you have supposed, I am the grandson of your uncle Abraham; and the story of his death by the Indians, and of Uncle Mordecai, then fourteen years old, killing one of the Indians, is the legend more strongly than all others imprinted upon my mind and memory. I am the son of grandfather's youngest son, Thomas. I have often heard my father speak of his uncle Isaac residing at Watauga (I think), near where the then States of Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee join,---you seem now to be some hundred miles or so west of that. I often saw Uncle Mordecai, and Uncle Josiah but once in my life; but I never resided near either of them. Uncle Mordecai died in 1831 or 2, in Hancock County, Illinois, where he had then recently removed from Kentucky, and where his children had also removed, and still reside, as I understand. Whether Uncle Josiah is dead or living, I cannot tell, not having heard from him for more than twenty years. When I last heard of him he was living on Big Blue River, in Indiana (Harrison Co., I think), and where he had resided ever since the beginning of my recollection. My father (Thomas) died the 17th of January, 1851, in Coles County, Illinois, where he had resided twenty years. I am his only child. I have resided here, and here-abouts, twenty-three [23] years. I am forty-five years of age, and have a wife and three children, the oldest eleven years. My wife was born and raised at Lexington, Kentucy; and my connection with her has sometimes taken me there, where I have heard the older people of her relations speak of your uncle Thomas and his family. He is dead long ago, and his descendants have gone to some part of Missouri, as I recollect what I was told. When I was at Washington in 1848, I got up a correspondence with David Lincoln, residing at Sparta, Rockingham County, Virginia, who, like yourself, was a first cousin of my father; but I forget, if he informed me, which of my grandfather's brothers was his father. With Col. Crozier, of whom you speak, I formed quite an intimate acquaintance, for a short one; and when you meet him again I will thank you to present him my respects. Your present governor, Andrew Johnson, was also at Washington while I was; and he told me of there being people of the name of Lincoln in Carter County, I think. I can no longer claim to be a young man myself; but I infer that, as you are of the same generation as my father, you are some older. I shall be very glad to hear from you again. Very truly your relative, A. LINCOLN.

(03-23-2013 10:38 AM)Mike B. Wrote:  

(03-23-2013 05:58 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(03-22-2013 07:41 PM)Mike B. Wrote:  He reportedly said that she had been "his best friend in this world."

I wonder why he never once brought her to his home to meet Mary and the children. I can understand her not being at the wedding as that was so hurried, but certainly there were other opportunities to invite her to stay a few days and meet his family.

There may have been reasons relating to Mary for that. We don't know.

Why do negative reasons have to always be attributed to Mary? Perhaps Sarah did not wish to travel to the 'city' or was too frail to travel.
The only fact that is known is that Sarah and Mary never met. We will never know why. We also know that the two women had some communication through letters, for one letter from Mary to her mother-in-law has survived.

Interesting that Lincoln writing the letter in 1854 at 45 years of age-states that he doesn't consider himself young anymore. But, then again, I suppose 45 years of age then was old-as people didn't live as long as they do today.

I think that what we understand about the average life expectancy of people in the mid-19th century may give us the wrong impression about how long people actually lived. The average life expectancy was probably lowered significantly by the high rate of infant and child mortality in those days. If you look at the birth and death years of a lot of Lincoln's contemporaries, you'll see that a good many of them lived into their 70s, 80s and 90s.

It's possible that Americans of the mid-19th century looked at the terms "old" and "young" a bit differently than we do now. Maybe what Lincoln meant - and I could be wrong - was that he was "mature." In other words, he wasn't one of the up-and-comers just starting out with their whole lives ahead of them.

Just to illustrate the difference in word usage between then and now, they seem to have used the word "poor," with respect to economic status, a bit differently than we do now, also. My impression is that "poor," in the mid-19th century, could mean anything from dirt-poor to working class to struggling middle class. In fact, I'm not sure that the term "middle class" had the same currency it has had in the 20th and 21st centuries. Someone else here probably knows better than I.

(04-04-2013 10:57 AM)Liz Rosenthal Wrote:  I think that what we understand about the average life expectancy of people in the mid-19th century may give us the wrong impression about how long people actually lived. The average life expectancy was probably lowered significantly by the high rate of infant and child mortality in those days. If you look at the birth and death years of a lot of Lincoln's contemporaries, you'll see that a good many of them lived into their 70s, 80s and 90s.

It's possible that Americans of the mid-19th century looked at the terms "old" and "young" a bit differently than we do now. Maybe what Lincoln meant - and I could be wrong - was that he was "mature." In other words, he wasn't one of the up-and-comers just starting out with their whole lives ahead of them.

Just to illustrate the difference in word usage between then and now, they seem to have used the word "poor," with respect to economic status, a bit differently than we do now, also. My impression is that "poor," in the mid-19th century, could mean anything from dirt-poor to working class to struggling middle class. In fact, I'm not sure that the term "middle class" had the same currency it has had in the 20th and 21st centuries. Someone else here probably knows better than I.

Liz, I think you make a very good point about the meaning of "poor" during the 19th century. Over the years, the words used to describe the working class have changed.
In the 20th century, the terms "blue collar" and "white collar" emerged. Farmers obviously fall into the 'blue collar' catagory. Thanks to a study in the 1950's titled "White Collar - The American Middle Class," there seems to be an impression that "white collar" workers often have more money than "blue collar" workers. In reality, occupations are only one factor of family wealth.

An example I frequently use is a comment made to me by someone I have known since elementary school. She recently informed me that my people are "rural people" (farmers) and that her people are "urban people and college educated." Her theory was that while she inherited a house, cars, antiques, and money, I will inherite little to nothing because of my family's humble background. My parents left the farm years ago - so, I am not in line to inherit the family farm. However, those who have are not "poor." They are farmers - they are blue collar workers - but they are not poor. Yet, I have heard more than one of them discribe themselves as "poor, dirt farmers."
In a recent conversation with those who had grown up during the Great Depression, one lady reminded me that those who lived on farms were considered rich by those who lived in town. No one had jobs - no one had any money - but the people who lived on farms had food, milk, and eggs. By her definition, Thomas Lincoln was rich.

(04-03-2013 02:15 PM)Donna McCreary Wrote:  ....for one letter from Mary to her mother-in-law has survived.

Here is the text of the letter referenced by Donna. It was written December 19, 1867:

*****************************************************

My Dear Madam:

In memory of the dearly loved one, who always remembered you with so much affection, will you not do me the favor of accepting these few trifles? God has been very merciful to you, in prolonging your life and I trust your health has also been preserved – In my great agony of mind I cannot trust myself to write about, what so entirely fills my thoughts, my darling husband; knowing how well you loved him also, is a grateful satisfaction to me. Believe me, dear Madam if I can ever be of any service to you, in any respect, I am entirely at your service. Mu husband, a few weeks before his death, mentioned to me that he intended that summer, paying proper respect to his father's grave, by a head & a foot stone, with his name age && and I propose very soon carrying out his intentions. It was not for want of affection for his father, as you are well aware, that it was not done, but his time was so greatly occupied always. I will be pleased to learn whether this package was received by you – Perhaps you know that our youngest boy, is named for your husband, Thomas Lincoln, this child, the idol of his father – I am blessed in both my sons, they are very good & noble. The eldest is growing very much like his own dear father. I am a deeply afflicted woman & hope you will pray for me –
I am, my dear Madam, affectionately
yours Mary Lincoln

This letter please consider entirely private - I shall be greatly pleased to hear from you.

This from Wikipedia "Abraham preferred not to attend his father's funeral and would not pay for a headstone for his father's grave."

This from With Malice Toward None by Stephen Oates,
"He visited with the Johnstons and the Hankses too, and then sometime that day went to see his father's grave, the prairie wind moaning around him.
Lincoln ordered a stone marker for Thomas's gave. At least the old man should have a marker" (p.206)

No footnotes for either statement.
A retelling of Herndon's opinion and interviews in Wikipedia?
Careful research by Oates, a noted historian?

Gene, I found a web page that says:

"Historians believe John Jake Gordon, one of the early settlers in the area, started the cemetery in the 1830s.

After Lincoln was assassinated, Baker’s grandparents helped raise money to purchase a limestone obelisk to replace the hand-carved markers over Thomas and Sarah Bush Lincoln’s grave.

Throughout the years, souvenir hunters chipped away pieces of the first stone monument, so the local Lion’s Club collected funds to erect the headstone currently delineating the Lincolns’ graves. The limestone marker was relocated near the entrance to the cemetery."

http://jg-tc.com/news/the-dead-are-not-s...98062.html