(10-11-2014 06:30 PM)Linda Anderson Wrote:  I have a hard time with Mary Lincoln. It seems she could be lovely when she wanted to be and not so lovely when it didn't suit her. She snubbed Mrs. Seward and Fanny when Mrs. Seward came to pay a courtesy call on her when Mrs. Seward first came to Washington in September 1861. Mary didn't like Seward but she should have met with Mrs. Seward for Lincoln's sake.

I agree 98% - Mary should have found time to receive them.
For the remaining 2% I would like to learn first what exactly happened.

Catherine Clinton (p. 361/62 of "Mrs. Lincoln") respectively Fanny Seward writes about this incident:
"The diary of Fanny Seward (Sept.9, 1861) records that the Seward women came to pay a call on Mrs. Lincoln at the White House. The group were seated, then told Mrs. L. was 'very much engaged,' so they filed out, but 'the truth of Mrs. L's engagement was probably that she did not want to see Mother - else why not give general direction to the doorkeeper to let no one in? It was certainly very rude to have us all seated first...' Fanny was extremely annoyed but goes on to compliment Mrs. Lincoln for begging for life of a soldier. "

My questions:
- Does "came to pay a call" mean they were invited and/or expected, or did they come unexpectedly? (What does "they filed out" mean?)
- What real evidence was there that "probably..she did not want to see Mother"? Lacking "general direction to the doorkeeper to let no one in" alone is IMO a too weak argument. Also why should Mary have them seated when she knew she didn't want to see them? To haze them? Maybe, if they came along unexpectedly, Mary indeed first intended to make up time for them but her schedule had already been too full and all became too much?
- Did Mary ask to excuse she turned the Seward ladies away? Linda, do you perhaps know more details on the incident?

Catherine Clinton suspects: "Perhaps Mrs. Lincoln was engaged in trying to deal with the rumors of the scandal and corruption that were raging around her renovations of the White House, which she discovered upon her arrival back in Washington on Sept.5. It is also true that she repeatedly blamed Seward for circulating stories against her. In addition, missing callers was a common hazard, as Mrs. Seward reported the same week: 'Sept.8, 1861, Mrs. Bates Called last week - I did not see her.'"

Before that incident, on her way to Niagara Falls in August, Mary had payed a call on Frances Seward in Auburn, and W. Seward had accompanied her and her sons from Albany to his home. Linda, do you (or does anyone else) know what the Seward women thought of her and her behavior/feelings towards them then?

Mary Lincoln was a survivor in many ways.She did what she had to do to survive.Mary and Julia were xerox copies of each other,both were cunning and intellegent.But,Mary was the"First Lady"and Mrs.Grant was a mere general's wife.So,I think that Mary had that in her mind through out the war.

Thanks Roger and Eva...FASCINATING info from both of you!

Laurie,
Also I want to defend Mary Lincoln. I always try not to see someone as a “caricature”, as so many people do. The image many have of Ulysses Grant is that he was an insensitive butcher as a general (I once read –don’t know right now where and when- that also Mary Lincoln called him a butcher), an incompetent mediocrity as president and a drunk. The image many have of Abraham Lincoln is an image of near-perfection, someone who could do no wrong, someone almost reaching to the status of a demi-god. The image many have of Julia Grant is that of a (very) shy and always caring and loving mother and wife, a genuinely liked lady. Well, I never believe in such stereotypes, and never want to characterize people in such a dramatique way, because this goes in my opinion always too far. Nobody is as evil as the devil, nobody is a saint. I always try to think not black or white, always grey. And I think that all behavior is explicable. Let me explain in Mary’s case, starting with myself…

I know from experience how personal loss can disrupt your life and can acting out behavior that easily can be interpreted as “not normal”. When I lost my twin brother I thought for more than a year that I really acted normal, until it became clear that this was not so and that my behavior was not so normal as I thought. For example: normally I’m easygoing, but in those days I lost my temper for nothing. Normally I’m in for a good prank, in those days I could not stand any form of humor. Normally I’m not jealous at all, but in that year no man could come very close to my wife, because I could not bear that she gave any attention to another man (fearing that I could lose her too?). Further, my kids and pupils had no life. I had no interest in my friends and lost some of them for good, etc., etc. And what was my grief if you compare that with that of Mary Lincoln? Mary lost her mother when she was only six. She desperately tried to please her stepmother but was rejected.. She lost two little sons before her husband. Several of her relatives were killed fighting for the Confederacy. Her Southern family disowned her. Both sides accused her of being a traitor, etc, etc. That seems more than enough to make anyone difficult to deal with. Therefore I want to plea for Mary.

Eva,
Don’t underestimate yourself! Your opinions are of a high standard and very much appreciated, at least by me, and imo by others too. I think you are right by saying that the Grants actually were not in the mood to spend Good Friday at the theater. I agree with Laurie that Grant was worn out and Julia had her fears about his health and was convinced that he needed rest. Laurie is right by saying that she feared ill health for her husband, brought on by fatigue and mental anguish.

Linda,
Now you use the term “obstinate fool” I suddenly recall that I read that in reference to (indeed) none other than Mary Lincoln, who used the term for Grant after Cold Harbor (“Grant is an obstinate fool and a butcher”). Okay, the Union suffered numerous casualties in May 1864, but Harry S Laver says in “A General Who Will Fight: The Leadership of Ulysses S. Grant” that Mary was “unfairly harsh” to Grant. I believe that Mary made the remark only to Elizabeth Keckley and that the Grants in April 1865 were not aware of this “harsh statement”.

Roger
Simpson has done a masterly job by writing that book about Grant and the interview was interesting, but I wonder how could Simpson definitely know that Grant did not want to go out in public any more with Mrs. Lincoln after the horrid experience with her on the night of April 13? I really need here a primary source. It looks to me now as if Simpson makes his own interpretation and that I can’t see as a fact. It reminds me of a review about his book I read. In this review was said that Simpson often mention events without explaining further . For example: “Several times Simpson states that Grant discussed politics with others, but he does not explain what those events were or how they affected or influenced Grant”. Well, in the interview it seems to me that Simpson is again in too great a rush to hurry past an event, without explaining further, how he came to the conclusion.

Linda again,
You write “ I have a hard time with Mary Lincoln. It seems she could be lovely when she wanted to be and not so lovely when it didn't suit her.” Do you mean that Mary had “some kind of choice” to decide by herself how she wanted to react? I think that’s not fair to say. Also remember that Mary traveled to battlefields with her husband many times, without any incident, except for City Point in March 1865. According to me this means that extreme displays of her temper were the exception, not the norm.

Eva again,
I too am curious to know what the Seward women thought of Mary and her opinion of them. Is that documented somewhere? Good points Eva!

Herb,
I agree that Mary was indeed a surviver.

Last remark:
Upon their return from City Point, Mary Lincoln stated concern about “enemies” in the city to which Lincoln replied, “Enemies, never again must we repeat that word.” After Grant came to Washington Julia experienced the same. She also stated concern about ”enemies”. Her husband listened to her and left town….

(10-12-2014 01:48 PM)loetar44 Wrote:  Linda again,
You write “ I have a hard time with Mary Lincoln. It seems she could be lovely when she wanted to be and not so lovely when it didn't suit her.” Do you mean that Mary had “some kind of choice” to decide by herself how she wanted to react? I think that’s not fair to say. Also remember that Mary traveled to battlefields with her husband many times, without any incident, except for City Point in March 1865. According to me this means that extreme displays of her temper were the exception, not the norm.

Kees, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Do you mean to say that I am being unfair to Mary when I say that she had control over how she chose to react to situations? Are you saying that she had no control over her actions then?

(10-12-2014 03:04 PM)Linda Anderson Wrote:  Kees, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Do you mean to say that I am being unfair to Mary when I say that she had control over how she chose to react to situations? Are you saying that she had no control over her actions then?

Linda,

Sorry that I was not really clear, but let me better explain what I ment to say. We all face negative situations in our life. And in most cases you are completely right, you can keep your response under control and if you cannot you can train a better behavior. However there are situations where it is extremely difficult to keep a positive attitude. That’s why I gave –see my response to Laurie- as example how I reacted in an extreme negative situation, when I lost my twin and was literally torn by grief, because that was for me personally a situation in which I had not myself under control, during more than a year. I personally thought that there was nothing wrong with me and that I had given the loss of my brother a certain place in my life and that I could carry on. I really thought that I acted as normal as I always did. But subconsciously I reacted totally different to all kind of situations, especially negative situations. In fact I had no control over my response, only I did not know or see that. I also said that my grief was “nothing” compared with the grief Mary Lincoln had to endure. That was "in extremo". If I had no total control over my response, I suspect that it was extremely harder for Mary to overcome all kind of negative situations, because response out of emotion (which will only make it all worse) is (and I speak out of my own experience) in particular in case of grief only clearly visible to others. The circumstances made it that Mary was (feeded by her subconscious brain) out of her control. I needed help to realize that and after that I could continue with my life. Nobody blamed me. But who helped Mary? That’s why I wrote that it is not fair to blame Mary. It’s still my opinion that Mary could not in all circumstances always decide how she wanted to react.

Kees, I think it is safe to say that most people have moments when they cannot control their actions or words, no matter how hard they try. You are not alone in experiencing circumstances that can change our personalities. Unfortunately, many never regain their original personalities. I think that Mrs. Lincoln (and many other historical personalities) have had the misfortune of having authors place their own opinions and psychoanalysis of these people first and foremost in order to suit their own purposes.

PS: Don't tell my Southern ancestors, but I am an admirer of Gen. Grant. Detest the image that we have of McClellan and would kick him in the shins if I could!

(10-12-2014 04:11 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Catherine Clinton (p. 361/62 of "Mrs. Lincoln") respectively Fanny Seward writes about this incident:
"The diary of Fanny Seward (Sept.9, 1861) records that the Seward women came to pay a call on Mrs. Lincoln at the White House. The group were seated, then told Mrs. L. was 'very much engaged,' so they filed out, but 'the truth of Mrs. L's engagement was probably that she did not want to see Mother - else why not give general direction to the doorkeeper to let no one in? It was certainly very rude to have us all seated first...' Fanny was extremely annoyed but goes on to compliment Mrs. Lincoln for begging for life of a soldier. "

My questions:
- Does "came to pay a call" mean they were invited and/or expected, or did they come unexpectedly? (What does "they filed out" mean?)
- What real evidence was there that "probably..she did not want to see Mother"? Lacking "general direction to the doorkeeper to let no one in" alone is IMO a too weak argument. Also why should Mary have them seated when she knew she didn't want to see them? To haze them? Maybe, if they came along unexpectedly, Mary indeed first intended to make up time for them but her schedule had already been too full and all became too much?
- Did Mary ask to excuse she turned the Seward ladies away? Linda, do you perhaps know more details on the incident?

Catherine Clinton suspects: "Perhaps Mrs. Lincoln was engaged in trying to deal with the rumors of the scandal and corruption that were raging around her renovations of the White House, which she discovered upon her arrival back in Washington on Sept.5. It is also true that she repeatedly blamed Seward for circulating stories against her. In addition, missing callers was a common hazard, as Mrs. Seward reported the same week: 'Sept.8, 1861, Mrs. Bates Called last week - I did not see her.'"

Before that incident, on her way to Niagara Falls in August, Mary had payed a call on Frances Seward in Auburn, and W. Seward had accompanied her and her sons from Albany to his home. Linda, do you (or does anyone else) know what the Seward women thought of her and her behavior/feelings towards them then?

Eva, I don't know what Mrs. Seward thought of Mrs. Lincoln. Fanny was not writing in her diary when Mrs. Lincoln visited the Sewards in Auburn in 1861. "File out" to me has the connotation of the Sewards being dismissed like they were school children.

Here's Fanny's description of the Sewards' visit to the White House on Sept. 9, 1861. If Fanny was that annoyed, then there must have been good reason for it.

"After dinner according to our previous plans we went to call on Mrs Lincoln - Mr. Nicolay came to call - and went back with us - we were shown by Edward into the blue and gold room - and all seated - quite a party to be sure - Edward drew a chair for Mrs. L. & one or two extra ones & went to tell her [?] - Father told him to tell the boys he wanted to see the cats - Well there we sat - Father, Mother, Major De Courcy, Mr. Nicolay - Fred, Anna, Jenny and I - after a lapse of some time the usher came and said Mrs. Lincoln begged to be excused, she was very much engaged - (men. the only time on record that she ever refused to see company in the evening - she generally sits in state, Anna found her & Mrs. Grimsley the former in pink tarleton and the latter in yellow - ball dresses, for chance callers once). So we filed out & Edward put those of us that drove into the carriage & told Father that the boys could find but one kitten & would not come without the other - & said "tell the Governer [sic] to wait and we'll come-" So off we came. While in the house we heard the loud merry laughter of the first children that have been in the White House in many years, echoing through its halls - The truth of Mrs. L'.s engagement was probably that she did not want to see Mother - else why not give general directions to the doorkeeper to let no one in? it was certainly very rude to have us all seated first - however Ms. L. & [sic] begged for the life of the soldier sentenced to death for sleeping at his post, and Mr L too was humane in the matter."

Sensitivity and Civil War: The Selected Diaries and Papers, 1858-1866, of Frances Adeline (Fanny) Seward, Patricia Johnson

---

(10-12-2014 05:20 PM)loetar44 Wrote:  

(10-12-2014 03:04 PM)Linda Anderson Wrote:  Kees, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Do you mean to say that I am being unfair to Mary when I say that she had control over how she chose to react to situations? Are you saying that she had no control over her actions then?

Linda,

Sorry that I was not really clear, but let me better explain what I ment to say. We all face negative situations in our life. And in most cases you are completely right, you can keep your response under control and if you cannot you can train a better behavior. However there are situations where it is extremely difficult to keep a positive attitude. That’s why I gave –see my response to Laurie- as example how I reacted in an extreme negative situation, when I lost my twin and was literally torn by grief, because that was for me personally a situation in which I had not myself under control, during more than a year. I personally thought that there was nothing wrong with me and that I had given the loss of my brother a certain place in my life and that I could carry on. I really thought that I acted as normal as I always did. But subconsciously I reacted totally different to all kind of situations, especially negative situations. In fact I had no control over my response, only I did not know or see that. I also said that my grief was “nothing” compared with the grief Mary Lincoln had to endure. That was "in extremo". If I had no total control over my response, I suspect that it was extremely harder for Mary to overcome all kind of negative situations, because response out of emotion (which will only make it all worse) is (and I speak out of my own experience) in particular in case of grief only clearly visible to others. The circumstances made it that Mary was (feeded by her subconscious brain) out of her control. I needed help to realize that and after that I could continue with my life. Nobody blamed me. But who helped Mary? That’s why I wrote that it is not fair to blame Mary. It’s still my opinion that Mary could not in all circumstances always decide how she wanted to react.

Kees, I am so sorry about the loss of your brother. I think we are talking about two separate things. I wasn't talking about Mary Lincoln after the assassination but the Mary Lincoln who snubbed the Sewards and who spent too much money on furnishings for the White House.

I posted the following on the thread "Lincoln Letter to John Stuart." Ribbons and dresses may seem like insignificant matters but it shows how Mary had to get her own way.

Julia Taft Bayne wrote about an incident involving Mrs. Lincoln in Bayne's book Tad Lincoln's Father. Julia was the half sister of Charles Sabin Taft who attended Lincoln after he was shot in Ford's Theater. She knew the Lincolns well as she and her younger brothers, Bud and Holly, were friends of the Lincoln boys.

Julia's mother had a hat made by Willian, the "fashionable milliner on Pennsylvania Ave where everybody who was anybody went for bonnets, also dresses." One day in the spring of 1861, Julia noticed that Mrs. Lincoln was looking intently at Mrs. Bayne's bonnet, then speaking with her. Julia was "a bit puzzled by the look of amazement on my mother's face." Julia found out later at dinner that Mrs. Lincoln had requested the bonnet strings on Mrs. Bayne's bonnet because Willian had trimmed Mrs. Lincoln's "bonnet with this same ribbon but is unable to get enough for the strings." Mr. Bayne asked what she would do. "Well," answered my mother, "I suppose I'll have to let her have it and it's provoking, for I really did like this bonnet." Willian came to the rescue.

"That day when the dress was being fitted I
heard Willian say to my mother, 'You is
veree kind, Mrs. Taft. The Madame she
want only that ribbon, not any other. If you
give up ze strings, I retrim ze bonnet with
lavender ribbon so it will be complete.' So
Willian sent for my mother's bonnet and in
a few days it came back, more beautiful than
at first, but now trimmed with lavender
white-embroidered ribbon instead of purple.

"There was a story by Miss Cleveland in
the American Magazine some time ago of a
Springfield merchant who had brought some
patterns of organdy from the city and sent
word to Mrs. Lincoln to select some before
they were put on sale.
"Mrs. Lincoln, accordingly, selected several
but when she saw the one the merchant
had chosen for his wife (they were neighbors)
she wanted that one and threatened to
return all the other patterns she had selected
unless she could have it. And the merchant's
wife had to give up her pattern and take
another.
"This illustrates the same trait as my story
of the bonnet strings. It was an outstanding
characteristic of Mary Todd Lincoln that
she wanted what she wanted when she
wanted it and no substitute! And as far as
we know, she always had it, including a
President of the United States."

Tad Lincoln's Father is available on Internet Archive.org

http://archive.org/details/tadlincolnsfathe00bayn

(10-12-2014 06:10 PM)Linda Anderson Wrote:  I think we are talking about two separate things. I wasn't talking about Mary Lincoln after the assassination but the Mary Lincoln who snubbed the Sewards and who spent too much money on furnishings for the White House.

Linda I also talked about Mary before April 1865. After the murder of AL it all got much worser for her. I think Mary’s excessive buying behavior was giving her a sense of relief . It was compulsive, she could not control it. This goes imo also for her “compulsive wanting” (right expression?) and her snubbing.

---

(10-12-2014 05:50 PM)L Verge Wrote:  PS: Don't tell my Southern ancestors, but I am an admirer of Gen. Grant. Detest the image that we have of McClellan and would kick him in the shins if I could!

My lips are sealed!

Thanks, Linda. To me a very important point is that "Mrs. Lincoln begged to be excused".
The main remaining question - does "came to pay a call" mean they were invited and/or expected, or did they come unexpectedly?

If that was the case I would consider Fanny's assumption that "the truth of Mrs. L'.s engagement was probably that she did not want to see Mother" quite an egocentric accusation, and, as I previously stated, the fact that the Sewards were let in to me rather indicates that Mary indeed first intended to make up time for them but simply couldn't make it due to her schedule and maybe due to the latest developments regarding the refurbishing scandal.

Giving general directions to the doorkeeper to let no one in was not the Lincolns' policy, they didn't want a locked White House like Congressman Lincoln experienced under Polk's presidency, but that still doesn't mean the Lincolns' shedule allows them to be available at any time. Perhaps the Seward ladies would also have judged milder if they had themselves experienced what it means to fulfil the busy schedule of a First Lady?

Here is what George S. Bryan writes in The Great American Myth (1940):

"Endeavors have been made to invest Grant's action with a semblance of mystery and to convey unjustifiable inferences re-garding others. Here we must consult the old precept of cherchez
la femme. Mrs. Lincoln had accompanied the President to City
Point in March. She remained there for a week, arrived back in
Washington on April 1st, and was a second time at City Point from
the 6th to the 8th. On March 26th and 27th, during visits to the
Army of the Potomac and the Army of the James, Mrs. Lincoln
(according to Badeau, Grant's secretary) caused highly unpleasant
scenes; on the second day, in the presence of officers, she insulted
both her hostess Mrs. Grant and Mrs. Grant's friend Mrs. Ord,
wife of Gen. E. O. C. Ord. "I suppose," she raged at Mrs. Grant, "you think you'll get to the White House yourself, don't you?"
It was not the first time she had been offensive to Mrs. Grant, of
whom she once had demanded, "How dare you be seated until I
invite you?"

No doubt, too, the General's lady, facing the ordeal of a box
party with Mrs. Lincoln, was understandably piqued at the fact
that Mrs. Lincoln had only the day before invited the General to
drive about the city and view the lights but somehow had altogether omitted Mrs. Grant. To Mrs. Grant, balanced thus between
pride and social duty, entered Mrs. Stanton— "as white and cold
and motionless as marble," Hay wrote of her, "whose rare smiles
seemed to pain her." On this day she must have been roused. She
disclosed that the Secretary and herself had likewise been invited,
and wished to know what Mrs. Grant intended to do. "For unless
you accept the invitation," she declared, "I shall refuse. I will not
sit without you in the box with Mrs. Lincoln!" The First Lady
was not popular in official society, and Mrs. Stanton had told
Badeau flatly, "I do not visit Mrs. Lincoln."

It seems that Mrs. Grant then and there determined not to at-
tend the play. She sent a note to the General, who, prompt for an
excuse, made up his mind not to go without her. About three
o'clock Mrs. Stanton was at the War Department, conferring with
the Secretary, who instructed her to send regrets. He had often
been asked to the theater by Lincoln, he said, but had consistently
refused because he thought Mr. Lincoln himself should not go.
David Bates asserts that Stanton had personally requested Grant
not to attend— thinking, perhaps, that Lincoln might thus be dis-
suaded from going. This, so far as we may know it now, is the
real story of why Grant was not in the box that night. There were
no mysterious entanglements as sensational writers have hinted;
but Grant (who, Badeau says, "regarded the feelings of others
carefully") quite naturally did not unfold to Lincoln the whole
truth."

"Desperate-times call for desperate measures",and I feel that the quote applies to Mary Lincoln.Mary Lincoln was in my humble opinion,the world's best survivor,during the worst of times-The U.S. Civil War,and her husband's terrible assassination.No person is prepared for this.We are never prepared for grief,no matter how much we say we are.Believe me,I have been there-mother,wife and son.However,I will survive!

Had the Grants not declined - what would have happened at Ford's that night? What would JWB have done, how would he have proceeded - shot both? Whom first? Would he have succeeded? What do you think?

I think that Booth would have been sucessful no matter what happened,he was well armed and prepared.I feel he was ready to shoot and kill Lincoln first,then Grant!

And, as has been discussed on the Forum previuosly, some believe that Booth carried two pistols with him. If true, he could have attempted to shoot Grant after firing at Lincoln.