Wow Laurie-that article was spell-binding! A movie could easily be made about Stevens. Look at his picture-I wouldn't want to go up against him!

(03-03-2013 07:21 AM)LincolnMan Wrote:  Look at his picture-I wouldn't want to go up against him!

Did you noitce which finger he held up?

Oh my goodness!

I finally watched Lincoln. I’ve read most of what’s been posted on this forum about this movie. I guess it won’t hurt to post what I think of it.

Good movie; a story well told by folks who cared what they did. A lot of time and treasure went into the making of it. Many viewers resented the fact that it took too much of their time, in their estimation, and required them to use their brains. Well, they’ll survive.

Some folks think that the fact that slavery in this country had to be abolished by law is itself offensive. I’m no Constitutional scholar, but I don’t believe that document explicitly mentions slavery at all; it doesn’t permit it or forbid it. It gingerly touches on operational aspects of slavery in a few places, dealing with population counts, the slave trade and slaves escaping from one state to another, and that’s about it.

Lincoln and those who worked with him forced the law into the situation and the document and made slavery illegal, forcing the United States to be “a more perfect union.”

This movie, as much as anything else, showed the actions of the elderly. As the young died on the battlefields, the old, careful in how they stepped, fearful they might fall or fail, strove to bring meaning to horror. Lincoln is the story of how some of the old fought their Civil War.

That was time well spent, at least for me, and I learned from the film.

--Jim

Jim, I like this observation:

"This movie, as much as anything else, showed the actions of the elderly. As the young died on the battlefields, the old, careful in how they stepped, fearful they might fall or fail, strove to bring meaning to horror. Lincoln is the story of how some of the old fought their Civil War."

(03-02-2013 05:10 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  First of all I would like to welcome David Lockmiller to the forum. Some members here were posters on the defunct Abraham Lincoln Online Friends of Lincoln Mailbag and will remember David as being an integral part of the discussions there. Welcome aboard, David!

I believe the parts of the movie which I was referring to have now been mentioned by the posts above. I think, with Abraham and Mary Lincoln, it's sometimes difficult to get at the absolute truth. Neither of them kept a diary. Although we have plenty of letters, when it comes to conversations, language, mannerisms, etc. we often have to rely on the recollections of others. These recollections do not always agree with each other. Many of the recollections were made many, many years after the fact.

One example would be Lincoln's voice. I have a book entitled "Abraham Lincoln: Public Speaker" by Waldo W. Braden. Chapter 8 is entitled "Penetrating and Far Reaching: Lincoln's Voice." Although many of the "ear witnesses" do say something like "high-pitched," not all do. It's not unanimous. So what Daniel Day-Lewis tried to emulate is simply what the majority of folks thought. I am sure there are probably some people from Lincoln's time who, had they seen the movie, would say, "No, that's not the way he sounded at all."

The movie is partly based on Goodwin's book. In her book she uses a variety of sources, some quite obscure. Are her sources accurate? In some cases, there is no way of telling. If a conversation was reported by one single individual, how can we tell if it's accurate when there is no other source? I don't think we can.

As far as I know Elizabeth Keckly is the sole source for the conversation about the big white building. Did she remember it correctly? We really have no sure way of knowing. I had not previously been aware that Mary turned away from Tad after Willie's death. That was new to me. Maybe someone who knows more than me can expound upon that.

Regarding the "clothed in immense power" quote, the only source I see for this are the reminisces of Congressman John B. Alley published in "Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln by Distinguished Men of His Time" collected and edited by Allen Thorndike Rice. Goodwin used an 1886 edition.

The two House members who are supposed to have heard this remark are not named either in Goodwin's book or Rice's. Goodwin writes, "He (Lincoln) assigned two of his allies in the House to deliver the votes of two wavering members. When asked how to proceed he said (see above quote)." Unless I am missing it, Alley doesn't even say if he is one of the two Congressmen present for the remark.

When I researched that quote I found that the Fehrenbachers did not even think it was worthy enough to include in their excellent book. This made me wonder about the accuracy of other quotes in the movie. How much of what Lincoln says in the movie is based on dubious sources?

In truth I agree with both David and Liz. I thought it was a terrific movie....I absolutely loved it and along with many in the theater gave it a standing applause at the end. I did this despite having some misgivings on the historical accuracy. I wish I didn't feel that way; so my opinion on the movie is "divided," but I still loved it (if that makes any sense!). Do we "nit-pick" too much? I think everyone is entitled to their own opinion on that, and there will never really be a consensus. I agree that it is important that the movie stay true to Lincoln's actions, thoughts, and character. In some respects it may not have, but I still loved the movie anyway. If the inaccuracies in the movie do divert the audience from Lincoln's true character, then I disagree with that. I doubt we can reach a consensus as to what degree this happens. What is "nit-picking" to one person may be serious movie flaws to another. I think we should respect both views.

I am NOT a movie critic. So, David and Liz, if you are disappointed in this posting, please know that critiquing a movie is not something I am good at doing. I did not take part in the "Killing Lincoln" analysis. I didn't know what to say - I just loved the production although articulating why is hard, if not impossible, for me to do. As a teacher I rarely assigned my students essays as I myself am poor at writing them and didn't know how I could possibly justify assigning a letter grade to what the students wrote. Most of the teachers on my old staff were far better at writing essays than I was.

---

Plutarch wrote: “So very difficult a matter is it to trace and find out truth of anything by history.” (“Lives,” Pericles, page 194)

Leslie Stahl in her national 60 Minutes broadcast to millions of Americans on the "Lincoln" movie began her presentation with these words: "The film is filled with things about our 16th President that we, who are not Lincoln scholars, did not know."

The 60 Minutes piece made reference to an early meeting in the movie-making process arranged by Doris Kearns Goodwin in New York in 2006 with a number of Lincoln scholars, Director Steven Spielberg and movie playwright Tony Kushner.

In a recent newspaper article entitled “Is 'Lincoln' the real deal?” written by Rebecca Keegan for the Los Angeles Times (November 28, 2012), she states: “[T]here's another group whose opinion matters — historians.” The article itself was an interview with Lincoln biographer James McPherson and was conducted shortly after he had seen Steven Spielberg's biopic on Lincoln. James McPherson is a professor emeritus at Princeton University, a Civil War historian, Lincoln biographer and Pulitzer Prize-winning author of "Battle Cry of Freedom."

At the outset of the interview, McPherson stated that previous movies on Lincoln “tended to reflect a romanticized Lincoln, almost a mythologized Lincoln.” McPherson’s overall opinion on the “Lincoln” movie was that it “comes closer to reality.”

In response to the reporter’s first question regarding the Lincoln voice utilized by actor Daniel Day-Lewis, McPherson gratuitously added a comment of a different nature at the end of his response: “Lincoln rarely if ever used profanity, and some of the dialogue calls for him to do that. I thought that was a bit jarring.” Later in the interview, McPherson observed: “This movie reflects a fairly sympathetic reading of Mary Todd's character, although there are allusions to her going off the rails in 1862.” And in his response to the reporter’s question on Lincoln’s son Robert, McPherson states: “I'll tell you one thing that bothered me — I thought it was out of character when Lincoln slapped Robert.”

Based on the text of her own book on Lincoln, “Team of Rivals,” I am of the opinion that Doris Kearns Goodwin also considers the scene of Lincoln slapping his eldest son to be “out of character” and fictitious. At the time the alleged incident occurred, Robert Todd Lincoln was a grown man and a recent graduate of Harvard University. In her book, ”Team of Rivals,” there are two references under the heading “Lincoln, Robert Todd – Lincoln’s relationship with”:

“Very different in temperament, Lincoln and his eldest son never seemed to develop a close relationship. During Robert’s childhood, Lincoln had been absent for months at a time, traveling the circuits of both politics and law. At sixteen, Robert entered boarding school in New Hampshire, and he was a student at Harvard when his father became president. ‘Thenceforth,’ Robert noted sadly, ‘any great intimacy between us became impossible. I scarcely even had ten minutes quiet talk with him during his Presidency, on account of his constant devotion to business.’” (“Team of Rivals,” page 541)

“Good Friday, April 14, 1865, was surely one of Lincoln’s happiest days. The morning began with a leisurely breakfast in the company of his son Robert, just arrived in Washington. ‘Well, my son, you have returned safely from the front,’ Lincoln said. ‘The war is now closed, and we soon will live in peace with the brave men that have been fighting against us.’ He urged Robert to ‘lay aside’ his army uniform and finish his education, perhaps in preparation for a law career. As the father imparted his advice, Elizabeth Keckley observed, ‘his face was more cheerful than [she] had seen it for a long while.’” (“Team of Rivals,” page 731)

Another Lincoln scholar who was interviewed regarding his impressions of the “Lincoln’ movie was Professor Allen Guelzo, director of the Civil War studies department at Gettysburg College. He is the author of “Civil War and Reconstruction” and important studies of Abraham Lincoln's religious views and the emancipation proclamation. The Daily Beast (David Frum) interviewed him for the article entitled “A Civil War Professor Reviews 'Lincoln'” (Nov 27, 2012).

According to this article, Professor Guelzo served not only as author of the young-adult companion book to the movie (also called Lincoln), but as a “Content Consultant” for the Spielberg film. In the article, Professor Guelzo characterizes the two brief battlefield scenes in the “Lincoln” movie as “little more than contrived interjections of emotional commentary.”

Professor Guelzo expressed in this article some concern that as an acknowledged “content consultant” on the movie that he would be held to account for some of the mistakes in history contained therein:

“The book tries to tell the real story of passage of the 13th Amendment, but where Tony Kushner’s extraordinary, beautiful screenplay was concerned, not all of my suggestions were adopted. Not all of my advice was taken. And with my name up there on the credits (albeit nine minutes into the scrolling list), I know I’m going to be held to account for some of the bloopers.”

“For a few weeks, I haven’t known quite how I would respond. But yesterday at Gettysburg*, Steven Spielberg provided the eloquent answer. ‘It’s a betrayal of the job of the historian,’ he asserted, to explore the unknown. But it is the job of the filmmaker to use creative ‘imagination’ to recover what is lost to memory. Unavoidably, even at its very best, ‘this resurrection is a fantasy ... a dream.’ As Spielberg neatly put it, ‘one of the jobs of art is to go to the impossible places that history must avoid.’

(* Steven Spielberg delivered the Dedication Day Address at the National Soldier’s Cemetery in Gettysburg on the 149th anniversary of the Gettysburg Address.)

One of the Lincoln scholars who met with Doris Kearns Goodwin, Director Steven Spielberg and movie playwright Tony Kushner in 2006 to consult about the movie content was Professor Michael Burlingame, author of the prestigious Lincoln Prize two volume work “Abraham Lincoln: A Life.” Professor Burlingame is now the chairman of the Lincoln Studies at the University of Illinois-Springfield.

According to him, he had a specific purpose when he met with Director Spielberg and playwright Kushner regarding the content of the movie.

In an interview article entitled “Experts on Abe weigh in on new movie” written by Kris Kitto for the publication “The Hill” (November 12, 2012), this eminent Lincoln scholar was quoted regarding his plea to the movie makers to realize an accurate movie portrayal of Mary Todd Lincoln:

“I was invited to meet with Spielberg along with several other Lincoln specialists … five years ago. My mission was to insist that Mrs. Lincoln be portrayed accurately. I had to point out that she physically abused him, that she padded payrolls and expense accounts, that she accepted bribes and kickbacks, and that Lincoln was constantly worried that she’d do something to humiliate him— and she did. So I’m interested to see how her portrayal came out.”

In the movie trailer, Mary Todd Lincoln chastises President Lincoln for his failure up to that time to secure passage of the Thirteenth Amendment.

One might justifiably presume that both Director Spielberg and Playwright Kushner understood what Professor Burlingame conveyed to them in 2006 regarding the true character of Mrs. Lincoln. And, one might also justifiably presume that both Director Spielberg and Playwright Kushner read and carefully considered important, relevant material from Professor Burlingame’s work on the subjects of the Emancipation Proclamation and the passage of Thirteenth Amendment. In Professor Burlingame’s chapter entitled “The Emancipation Proclamation (September-December 1862)“ there is this unequivocal entry regarding Mary Todd Lincoln’s opinion of the Emancipation Proclamation at the time Lincoln signed the Proclamation:

“On January 1, 1863, after Lincoln spent a sleepless night, his wife, who (according to her eldest son) ‘was very much opposed to the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation,’ inquired ‘in her sharp way, “Well, what do you intend doing?”’ He replied: ‘I am under orders, I cannot do otherwise.’” (“Abraham Lincoln: A Life,” Volume Two, pages 468-69.)

Contrast Mary Todd Lincoln’s words with Lincoln’s own account of events that same day and decide for yourself who was for and who was against the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation:

“When Lincoln viewed the engrossed copy of the Proclamation that the State Department had prepared, he noticed a technical error in the wording of the closing subscription and ordered that it be corrected. While that task was being carried out, he presided over the traditional New Year’s reception at the White House. According to Noah Brooks, the ‘press was tremendous, and the jam most excessive; all persons, high or low, civil, uncivil, or otherwise, were obliged to fall into an immense line of surging, crowding sovereigns [i.e., citizens] . . . .’

“After three hours, Lincoln returned to his office, exhausted from shaking hundreds of hands. When he began to sign the corrected copy of the Proclamation, his hand trembled. ‘I could not for a moment control my arm,’ he later recalled. ‘I paused, and a superstitious feeling came over me which made me hesitate.’ Had he made a mistake? He wondered.354 But swiftly regaining his composure, he told Seward and his son Frederick: ‘I never, in my life, felt more certain that I was doing right, than I do in signing this paper.’ He added that ‘I have been receiving calls, and shaking hands since nine o’clock this morning, till my arm is stiff and numb.’ He feared that if his signature appeared shaky, some people would think he had reservations. So, with renewed firmness, he said: ‘any way, it is going to be done!’ Slowly and carefully he wrote out his full name in a bold, clear hand. Smiling, he looked up and observed softly: ‘That will do.’”355 (“Abraham Lincoln: A Life,” Volume Two, page 469.)

It should be noted at this point that the quotation by Daniel Day-Lewis in the movie trailer regarding the importance to Lincoln of the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment legislation is somewhat apocryphal according to Doris Kearns Goodwin.

“When Joshua Speed next came to visit [following Lincoln’s signing of the Proclamation], Lincoln reminded his old friend of the suicidal depression he had suffered two decades earlier, and of his disclosure that he would gladly die but that he ‘had done nothing to make any human being remember that he had lived.’ Now, indicating his Emancipation Proclamation, he declared: ‘I believe that in this measure . . . my fondest hopes will be realized.’” (“Team of Rivals,” page 501)

And, why would the “Lincoln” movie makers unnecessarily distort and misrepresent historical facts? Maureen Dowd in her opinion column questioned this reality. One Lincoln scholar informed them that the roll call on legislation at that time was made in alphabetical order. Why would the same people who take the trouble to record the actual ticking of Lincoln’s own pocket watch, divert from accurate history in this respect?

Altogether, I think that this is enough evidence to “prove” my stated proposition in my previous posting: “[T]he film may be filled with things that Lincoln scholars themselves also did not know, because they did not happen.”

David:

In the weeks and months following the release of the movie Lincoln, I read nearly all of the interviews that you cite in your comment above. Respectfully, I don't view any of them as supporting your argument that the movie is largely inaccurate.

Don't you think that, in evaluating a movie about a historical figure, some sense of proportionality should be used in determining whether the fudging of some facts does violence to the overall accuracy of the movie? Or are you saying that if a movie doesn't comport 100% with known facts or 100% with a particular historian's view of the facts, that it is automatically to be shunned?

Or are some facts more important than other facts? Are some facts mere trivia while others go more centrally to the story being told and the characters being depicted?

I would argue that, while all people are created equal, all facts are *not* created equally. Moreover, watching a trailer or two does *not* give any sort of sense of the accuracy of a particular historical film nor even a sense of how good the movie is as a piece of entertainment!

For example, if you'd seen the movie instead of just a couple of trailers, you'd know that the reason Mary Todd Lincoln whispers to her husband that he'd better get that 13th Amendment passed, or else, is that, in the movie, her paramount concern is keeping their son Robert from dying in battle. By this point in the movie, Robert had successfully lobbied to be allowed to serve. It was emphasized time and again in the movie, but not in the trailers, that the 13th Amendment could very well help the war come to an end. Many believed that the sooner the 13th Amendment passed Congress, the sooner the war would end.

In fact, a scene earlier in the movie has Mary telling the President that he was so loved by the people, which gave him such "power," that he should do something else with that power other than pushing for the 13th Amendment. (In the trailer, you see Mary talking about him being loved and having power, but you don't learn the context of her statement.)

What this means it that the movie does *not* show Mary having a particular passion for the 13th Amendment.

With regard to the importance to Lincoln of the 13th Amendment, vis-a-vis the Emancipation Proclamation, the movie does not suggest that Lincoln was not especially proud of the Proclamation. What the movie does accurately show is Lincoln explaining the legal basis for wanting the 13th Amendment to succeed. There has been plenty written on this subject; we don't need to go over all that here.

However, Lincoln's declaration in the movie that the Amendment was the "King's Cure" to the country's ills is something that his contemporaries recall him saying. I don't think that particular assertion raised any eyebrows among the community of Lincoln historians.

I remember wondering why, when I read the McPherson interview you reference, he made an issue out of Lincoln's swearing. Some contemporaries do remember Lincoln using the word "damned" on more than one occasion. "Damned" is not that far off from "goddamned." Even if it were qualitatively different, the point is that McPherson seems to have chosen to discount the recollections of contemporaries on this issue. Or maybe he's just forgotten.

Also, I was rather bemused at McPherson's statement in that same interview that Lincoln would never have tolerated a military man swearing in his presence, as swearing was prohibited by the Army. Here are my thoughts on that:

**If there was anything Lincoln was not, it was prudish, or sensitive to the propriety of someone else's choice of words. I'm sure you know that he hated formalities. He overlooked or didn't care about rudeness, hostility, insults, etc., etc. All he cared about was substance. Was so-and-so helping the Union cause? In my view, then, he would *not*, as McPherson claimed, chastise a soldier simply for using profanity in his presence.

**If swearing in the Army was as taboo as McPherson now contends, then why, in his recent book, Tried By War, did he write almost whimsically about General Philip Sheridan's profanity-laced leadership in some of the decisive battles late in the war? Perhaps McPherson forgot about this, too. (I have to say I was intrigued by this tidbit in the book and actually wanted more details!)

As for Michael Burlingame, I know that he contends that the Lincolns' marriage was basically Hell on Earth and that Mary Lincoln was just a horrible person and a terrible wife. But not all historians agree with him here! In fact, they tend to take a more balanced approach to evaluating the relationship of the Lincolns. So there wasn't necessarily a need in the Lincoln movie to show Mary being vicious or corrupt. But one thing that I think all historians agree on is that she was very mentally unstable. Her misdeeds and indiscretions could certainly be attributed to this instability; in fact, generally, this is what historians have done. And the movie did show some of this mental instability in the context of her exhibition of grief over the loss of Willie a full three years after his death.

But most of the concerns you've raised, David, seem to me to not be of central importance to the story told or the man depicted - if we're evaluating the movie with an eye on proportionality, that is. Therefore, my respectful conclusion is that you have not "proved" that the Lincoln movie is largely inaccurate.

Liz and David, you both make some interesting points. It's my opinion the movie makers were interested in historical accuracy, but not total accuracy. When you have knowledgeable historians that do not agree on aspects of the events that transpired, their will always be some disagreement and disapointment. There are some details they could have done better, but they didn't. They left some room for improvement for the next movie makers. Still, it was much better movie than I expected. On this subject we are all pretty pickey and have higher standards than the general public. By some of the interesting posts regarding the movie, I've learned some things I probably never would have known. We all knew how the tragic story would finish, but it stll left me a little misty at the end.

On Sunday, March 10, I forced myself to watch Bill Moyer's rerun interview with "Lincoln" movie playwright, Tony Kushner. Two days later, I sent by certified mail (so that I could track the receipt) a letter to him, at the best mailing address that I could find on the internet, on the subject of "'Lincoln' movie criticisms by Lincoln scholars and me." I believe that Bill Moyers was hoodwinked a number of times by Tony Kushner in that interview. Unfortunately, the message that I got back on the Post Office tracking was "Moved, left no address."

So, I went back to the program web site where I had been unable to find a mailing address for the program. The website did have one of those onsite email boxes and so I sent a somewhat abbreviated version of my letter in the email space. I did receive an acknowledgement that this email was received on March 20, but I have not received any response. The following is my email message that I sent that day.

Subject: “Lincoln” movie interview with playwright Tony Kushner

Tony Kushner made the following false claim:

“But the truth of the matter is, and I think that film is very honest about this, and many of these critics overlook this, Lincoln didn't know any black people, he really didn't.”

In 1885, in a book entitled “Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln by Distinguished Men of His Time,” Frederick Douglass wrote an eleven page chapter (pages 185 – 95) on his relationship with Lincoln:

“In all my interviews with Mr. Lincoln I was impressed with his entire freedom from popular prejudice against the colored race. He was the first great man that I talked with in the United States freely, who in no single instance reminded me of the difference between himself and myself, of the difference of color, and I thought that all the more remarkable because he came from a State where there were black laws. I account partially for his kindness to me because of the similarity with which I had fought my way up, we both starting at the lowest round of the ladder.” (Page 193)

“[T]here was another feeling that I had with reference to him, and that was that while I felt in his presence I was in the presence of a very great man, as great as the greatest, I felt as though I could go and put my hand on him if I wanted to, to put my hand on his shoulder. Of course I did not do it, but I felt that I could. I felt as though I was in the presence of a big brother, and that there was safety in his atmosphere.” (Page 195)

Bill, do you still believe that the statement “Lincoln didn't know any black people, he really didn't” is true?

In your interview with Tony Kushner, you ran a “Lincoln” clip of the Mary Todd Lincoln theater scene. At the end of which there was this discussion:

Bill Moyers: “You will answer to me.” Why did you put that scene in? For what reason?

Tony Kushner : “Well, you know, I mean, partly because I think it spoke a “provable truth” about their relationship which is that she, you know, he left her at the altar famously and went into what we think of as a great depression. My feeling was that he knew that if you married Mary Todd you weren’t going to stay a circuit lawyer in Illinois and that she was going to make him step into his role. . . .”

Bill, you are probably not aware that the wife of the President of the United States was adamantly opposed to Lincoln signing the Emancipation Proclamation two years earlier on January 1, 1863.

“On January 1, 1863, after Lincoln spent a sleepless night, his wife, who (according to her eldest son) ‘was very much opposed to the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation,’ inquired ‘in her sharp way, “Well, what do you intend doing?”’ He replied: ‘I am under orders, I cannot do otherwise.’” (Professor Michael Burlingame’s Lincoln Prize winning work “Abraham Lincoln: A Life,” Volume Two, pages 468-69.)

Accordingly, I think Tony Kushner’s “provable truth” is “provably false.”

Late in the war, Robert Lincoln served on the staff of General Grant as a result of President Lincoln’s request to Grant, with Lincoln and not the government paying for his son’s service to the country. Presumably, Robert Lincoln was in no more danger than General Grant of being killed or injured in combat. Mary Todd Lincoln would not have granted her son’s request to serve his country otherwise.

Finally, if you have not done so, please read Maureen Dowd’s column in the New York Times on February 16, 2013 entitled “The Oscar for Best Fabrication.”

I was rereading recently F. B. Carpenter's book "Six Months at the White House" and came upon a paragraph which reminded me of the scene from the "Lincoln" movie in which the actor playing Lincoln curses because he feels that he will not have accomplished a "****" thing without the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

The paragraph in Carpenter's book at page 84 reads as follows:

The bill empowering the Secretary of the Treasury to sell the surplus gold had recently passed, and Mr. Chase was then in New York, giving his attention personally to the experiment. Governor Curtin referred to this, saying, "I see by the quotations that Chase's movement has already knocked gold down several per cent." This gave occasion for the strongest expression I ever heard fall from the lips of Mr. Lincoln. Knotting his face in the intensity of his feeling, he said, "Curtin, what do you think of those fellows in Wall Street, who are gambling in gold at such a time as this?" "They are a set of sharks," returned Curtin. "For my part," continued the President, bringing his clinched hand down upon the table, "I wish every one of them had his devilish head shot off!"

(01-19-2014 11:19 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  I was rereading recently F. B. Carpenter's book "Six Months at the White House" and came upon a paragraph which reminded me of the scene from the "Lincoln" movie in which the actor playing Lincoln curses because he feels that he will not have accomplished a "****" thing without the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

The paragraph in Carpenter's book at page 84 reads as follows:

The bill empowering the Secretary of the Treasury to sell the surplus gold had recently passed, and Mr. Chase was then in New York, giving his attention personally to the experiment. Governor Curtin referred to this, saying, "I see by the quotations that Chase's movement has already knocked gold down several per cent." This gave occasion for the strongest expression I ever heard fall from the lips of Mr. Lincoln. Knotting his face in the intensity of his feeling, he said, "Curtin, what do you think of those fellows in Wall Street, who are gambling in gold at such a time as this?" "They are a set of sharks," returned Curtin. "For my part," continued the President, bringing his clinched hand down upon the table, "I wish every one of them had his devilish head shot off!"

David, I have always been a fan of Carpenter's book. I think it offers unique insights into Lincoln's actions and way of thinking. Not everyone agrees, but I think Mary Lincoln was most adamant about it. In a December 16, 1867, letter to Henry C. Deming, Mary wrote, "He (Carpenter) is a second edition of Mr. L.'s crazy drinking law partner, Herndon, endeavoring to write himself into notice, leaving truth, far, far, in the distance." Still I think the book is an invaluable resource and fascinating to read.

(01-20-2014 01:43 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  David, I have always been a fan of Carpenter's book. I think it offers unique insights into Lincoln's actions and way of thinking. Not everyone agrees, but I think Mary Lincoln was most adamant about it. In a December 16, 1867, letter to Henry C. Deming, Mary wrote, "He (Carpenter) is a second edition of Mr. L.'s crazy drinking law partner, Herndon, endeavoring to write himself into notice, leaving truth, far, far, in the distance." Still I think the book is an invaluable resource and fascinating to read.

Roger, I too am a fan of Carpenter's book. Could the rest of Mary's quote explain her dislike of Carpenter. " C. intruded frequently in Mr. L’s office when time was too precious to be idled. Of this fact, I am well aware.”10

I think she was jealous of Carpenter's access and time spent with Lincoln.

When I was searching for something on Sen. Ira Harris, I saw references to him always being at the White House begging Mr. Lincoln for favors, etc. Someone said that Lincoln remarked that he even expected Harris to be hiding under Lincoln's bed at night. Maybe Carpenter and Harris worked in shifts.

(01-20-2014 02:30 PM)Anita Wrote:  I think she was jealous of Carpenter's access and time spent with Lincoln.

I agree, Anita. And she also probably thought Carpenter embellished on his presidential access even more than what was true. Carpenter wrote, "My access to the official chamber was made nearly as free as that of the private secretaries, unless social business was being transacted." I am thinking Mary felt Carpenter maybe overstated his welcome.

I agree whole-heartedly with your assessment, Roger (including your commentary on Mary Lincoln's opinion). F. B. Carpenter strikes me as a quite honest person and the first-hand, detailed observations that he relates in his book, on many occasions, would have been lost to history if not for the reporting in his book.

I was again reading last night this book and came across this story on Lincoln's selection of Chase to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (pages 218-19).

The Hon. Mr. Frank, of New York, told me (Carpenter) that just after the nomination of Mr. Chase as Chief Justice, a deeply interesting conversation upon this subject took place one evening between himself and the President, in Mrs. Lincoln's private sitting-room. Mr. Lincoln reviewed Mr. Chase's ploitical course and aspirations at some length, alluding to what he had felt to be an estrangement from him personally, and to various sarcastic and bitter expressions reported to him as having been indulged in by the ex-Secretary, both before and after his resignation. The Congressman replied that such reports were always exaggerated, and spoke very warmly of Mr. Chase's great services in the hour of the country's extremity, his patriotism, and integrity to principle. The tears instantly sprang into Mr. Lincoln's eyes. "Yes," said he, "that is true. We have stood together in the time of trial, and I should despise myself if I allowed personal differences to affect my judgment of his fitness for the office of Chief Justice."

This text was followed by an important story from the Hon. H. C. Deming of Connecticut (the person you refer to in your post, Roger) on two questions that he asked directly of President Lincoln: 1) If President Lincoln had ever despaired of the country? and 2) Had there ever been a period in which he thought that better management upon the part of the commanding general might have terminatd the war?

I would be happy to expand upon Lincoln's answers to these two questions in Carpenter's book, upon request. And, I would add another story in explanation from a different source in answer to the first question.