In reading the wonderful book that comprises of all of Mary's correspondence over her lifetime, I noticed that even in her intimate letters to her dearest friends, e.g., Sally Orne, she never opens the letter with "Dear Sally..." It was always the more formal "Dear Mrs. Orne..."
This must have been the convention of the era, but it seems so stiff to our 21st-century familiarity.
Does anyone know about the letter-writing conventions of the day??

Thank you!!

Victorian convention was extremely strict in some instances. There were actually some couples who, throughout their married life, who referred to themselves as Mr. and Mrs; i.e. Mr. Jones and Mrs. Jones when addressing themselves. There were also those who simply did give a bit of casualness to their addresses - either in person or by letter. I've seen letters with Dear John or Dear Sally in the salutations as well. I guess it was simply how "genteel" or well bred one wanted to appear. Being a "lady" or "gentleman" was the ultimate in "Cool" in the 19th Century - so folk would want to appear well bred. Likewise, Mrs. Lincoln would want to appear very high toned - so therefore she apparently wrote formally even to close acquaintances.

Thank you for your reply, Betty.
Alas, I wish being a lady and a gentleman was yet considered cool, but our age knows nothing of those words.

(08-20-2013 07:10 AM)BettyO Wrote:  Victorian convention was extremely strict in some instances. There were actually some couples who, throughout their married life, who referred to themselves as Mr. and Mrs; i.e. Mr. Jones and Mrs. Jones when addressing themselves. There were also those who simply did give a bit of casualness to their addresses - either in person or by letter. I've seen letters with Dear John or Dear Sally in the salutations as well. I guess it was simply how "genteel" or well bred one wanted to appear. Being a "lady" or "gentleman" was the ultimate in "Cool" in the 19th Century - so folk would want to appear well bred. Likewise, Mrs. Lincoln would want to appear very high toned - so therefore she apparently wrote formally even to close acquaintances.

Dorothy, I certainly agree! In MY estimation, being "well bred" and courteous is the ultimate in "Cool!" Something that is sorely missed in the 21st Century.

Simple courtesy, decency, gentility -- gone with the wind. I blame the baby boom generation, Betty, of which I'm part. We thought our parents too strict and stilted, so our children were raised with laxity, winking at behavior our parents would have never tolerated.

After all, it's difficult to be a lady when a young woman is "sexting" on her smart phone.....

Mary simply would not believe what her country's come to.

But I better not get started!! .....LOL!

(08-20-2013 07:10 AM)BettyO Wrote:  Victorian convention was extremely strict in some instances. There were actually some couples who, throughout their married life, who referred to themselves as Mr. and Mrs; i.e. Mr. Jones and Mrs. Jones when addressing themselves.

This is from Benjamin Ogle Tayloe's book of reminiscences, Our Neighbors at Lafayette Square, one of whom, by the way, was William Seward.

"At Mount Vernon, a guest who slept in an adjacent chamber is reported to have heard a curtain lecture from Mrs. Washington to her lord. The General received it in silence, and at last said, 'Good-night, Mrs. Washington,' and was heard to turn over in bed.
"Mr. Buchanan, when I related the above, remarked that it bore with it internal evidence of its truth."

It makes Mr. Lincoln's calling Mary "Molly" and/or "Mother" seem all the more tender...

Thanks so much, Betty.

(08-20-2013 09:37 AM)Linda Anderson Wrote:  "At Mount Vernon, a guest who slept in an adjacent chamber is reported to have heard a curtain lecture from Mrs. Washington to her lord. The General received it in silence, and at last said, 'Good-night, Mrs. Washington,' and was heard to turn over in bed.
"Mr. Buchanan, when I related the above, remarked that it bore with it internal evidence of its truth."

Just remember, George and Martha never had any children together

I have the wonderful Linda Leavitt-Turner compilation of MTL's letters...about 600 in all. She was an amazingly complex woman. She was smart, shrewd, funny, passionate and opinionated...as well as incredibly selfish and self-deluded at times. I understand why she made so many enemies in her day.

Her letters are fascinating because in the midst of all the narcissism contained in them, there is an occasional glimpse of awareness that is heartbreaking. For example in a letter to her friend Sen. Charles Sumner of Massachusetts written only weeks after the assassination, she confides her sorrowful regret that she never got to say good-bye to AL and that she never had the opportunity to beg his forgiveness for any unhappiness she had caused him. That to me, was very revealing and poignant.

Another thing that struck me was that never, not even once, did she ever question Lincoln's love for her, his devotion to her. Not even when Herndon began his Ann Rutledge tour. The love and devotion between them is an absolute conviction, every time she writes about him and their marriage. At one time she lets slip to a friend that AL once told her that she was his "weakness". Considering everything we know about the dynamics of that relationship, I suspect that there is some truth to that remark.

It would explain so much about why he put up with her for so long, in my opinion.

Speaking of letters (can't find a better thread to add this question) - once more I just read that Mary had sustained severe physical damage while giving birth to Tad (plus the conclusion that it ended any intimate interaction). As the only source for this I've so far seen the sentence in one of her letters: "My disease is of a womanly nature". Is there any other source? If not, who was the first to name the "disease of womanly nature" "physical damage due to giving birth to Tad"?(The earliest I found was RP Rendell in "Mary Lincoln".) Also - I can't find a source for Tad being nicknamed Tad(pole) by his father
a) because his head reminded A. L. of a Tadpole (e.g. in Donald's "Lincoln", but without a reference) /
b) because he wiggled like a tadpole as an infant. This is on Wikipedia ( http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tad_Lincoln ), and refers to a book I don't know: Wead, Doug (2003): "All The Presidents' Children".
Does anyone know??? (I guess my permanent asking for sources is somewhat annoying, sorry!)

Hi Eva-

I have no idea where the idea originated that Mary was injured during Tad's birth, but each of her biographers says that she was. Maybe it's because there were two physicians in attendance instead of just one? In any case I am beginning to question the idea of any such injury. AL left two days after the birth and was gone for six weeks. (The Lincolns: Portrait of a Marriage, by Daniel Mark Epstein) It's possible that it was a difficult confinement compared to the others, but if she had been in such bad shape I can't see AL taking off two days later and staying gone for so long.

Biographer Jean Baker has posited the idea that MTL's "disease of a womanly nature" was perhaps a hemorrhagic menstrual cycle. Mary made reference to one of these in a letter to AL written from NY in late 1863, where she tells her husband that one of these days "these periods will carry me away" and expresses gratitude that Lizzie Keckly was there to take care of her during a bad one.(MTL, Her Life and Letters, by Leavitt and Turner)

I think that is much more likely than any childbirth injury that impacted her for life. And in any case, the idea that it ended marital relations between them is open to question as well. As has previously been discussed in other threads on this forum, they were seen in bed together by two different witnesses on two separate occasions during their WH years.

Thank you, Toia, a hemorrhagic menstrual cycle is what seems to me much more likely as for what the "disease of womanly nature" refers to. So I was wondering about the origin of ther explanation (injury). If there was none, I find the speculation about the ending of marital relations just unacceptable.

I think many historians and biographers base their speculation about the alleged disruption of the Lincoln's conjugal relations on the fact that they moved into separate rooms shortly after Tad's birth, and that there were no more children.

But as Laurie has pointed out separate rooms were not the exception for married couples of a certain socio-economic background in Victorian times, it was the norm. And even after they moved into separate rooms they always had conjoined quarters, both in Springfield and at the WH.

As for no more children...who knows? I can't answer that one. But just because there were no more children doesn't necessarily mean there was no more intimacy.

(08-03-2014 11:37 PM)LincolnToddFan Wrote:  But just because there were no more children doesn't necessarily mean there was no more intimacy.

Jean Baker writes, "Some say an emotional barrier dropped between husband and wife during these years, but of this there is little evidence. They were close enough so that one of her intimates returned to Springfield with the gossip that forty-four year old Mary Lincoln was pregnant. This proved unfounded, but it is incorrect to assume, as some have, that the Lincolns' physical intimacy ended on their arrival at the White House. It is equally specious to make Mary Lincoln's childlessness after Tad's birth in 1853 (when she was thirty-five and he was forty-four) into a case for sexual abstinence. Indeed sex was probably one of the bonds that made the marriage of two uneven personalities a success. Mary Lincoln's friend Elizabeth Blair Lee once explained to her husband, Admiral Samuel Lee, "Mary has her husband's deepest love. This is a matter upon which one woman cannot deceive another."

Thanks for your replies! (Actually it was the context of Mr. Tripp's book and theories in which I found this too weak as an argument) IMO four children were not (too) few - was it really few in those days? Compared to Mary's number of siblings and half-siblings perhaps, but what about the average family of those days?