(01-13-2016 08:25 AM)maharba Wrote:  Abraham Lincoln had a War enlistment substitute to take his place in the Federal army. Little more than a child really when the War began. And the poor fellow was not well served by the Federals, in the endgame. Lincoln assigned a wealthy crony to go find him a young man as a 'representative recruit" who would go into the Federal army and take the place of him. So a very wealthy masonic friend Nobel Danforth Larner did just that. He met the young man on the street in DC, and brought
John Summerfield Staples to see Abraham Lincoln. Summerfield
had already served one tour of duty and had only just left with his life, nearly dying from typhoid fever. John Staples had recovered from much of that, when Nobel Larner accosted him, to join up in place of Lincoln. Mr.N.D.Larner held many well-placed positions in and around DC. Never needing to actually go into the field against the Southern Army. Probably Larner's position as Grand High Priest of the Washington masons was the the most prestigious.
The stories vary on what compensation that Abraham Lincoln's
personal 'substitute' got paid. Anywhere from $300-$500. Lincoln sized him and supposedly pulled $60 out of his pocket, handed it to the young man, and wished him well. This final tour of duty for Summerfield apparently was working as a guard at prison camps. He finished that by mid 1865 and went back home to Monroe PA. The effects of typhoid in the War took its toll on John Staples and near the end of his life he applied for a Pension. Strangely though, all records of his service --the only man ever to serve as a recruit substitute for a president-- were 'lost'. Even a small Pension was denied to him.

In 1887 Noble Danforth Larner, Grand High Priest of the Arch Masons, and who had prospered so well through Lincoln and Grant's terms was interviewed by a DC paper. Noble mused about the man who had been Lincoln's stand-in, that Summerfield "was a 'ne'er do well...probably
died in the Wilderness Campaign".

Still alive though infirm, Summerfield was working over the road to support his children. He returned to his work in Dover, NJ. The man the public has never heard of, the man never taught about in schools, John Summerfield Staples who took the place of Abraham Lincoln and for whom the Federals claimed they "lost his records" and denying him
even a small pension, died in boardinghouse on a cold January in 1888.

Please cite your references to the information provided above. The way it's presented makes it difficult to differentiate between your opinion and fact. Thanks.

PS to my last post: My comment was also made with the background in mind that he, like Robert, was put into a quite save position. I wonder if he in advance had been promised so?

PPS: Powell enlisted at 17, McClellan was 20 when he served in the Mexican - American war, and Queen Elizabeth when an18-year-old princess, joined the Women’s Auxiliary Territorial Service and served as a mechanic and military truck driver during World War II.

(And Alexander the Great began his military career by leading his first campaigns at the age of 16, saving his father's life in one. Not justifying/legitimizing, just saying this was not a CW-unique/unusual condition but reality throughout history and worldwide. Sadly not even those 15/14 yrs or younger soldiers.)

Good points, Houmes, and close analysis. Thanks. I have heard of even younger children fighting against the swarms of 'Shermans bummers' fresh off the boats and paid to burn, loot, rape Southerners. Of even young girls firing from windows at the invading 'soldiers'. If I were Abraham Lincoln, I think I would have spent a bit more time in producing an enlistment substitute. I would have selected a man from Kentucky or a border state, so that (if the timing was just right), Lincoln could point to this man from Kentucky...who was stirred into devotion to preserve the sacred Union. Lincoln could have assigned Seward to cook up a brief speech with pious-sounding Biblical invocations larded throughout the speech.

(01-17-2016 11:00 AM)maharba Wrote:  Lincoln could have assigned Seward to cook up a brief speech with pious-sounding Biblical invocations larded throughout the speech.

But he didn't.

Roger has furnished here, I see, several links which document much of what I found out, even including the old newspaper clipping with Noble D. Larner being interviewed and then casually slurring the soldier who took the place of Lincoln in the army. I agree with you, Anita, that particularly that portion has the look of a partisan poster (me) slanting the reporting, there. But that really is what Mr.Larner said. When it was reported in the newspapers, as the articles which RJN cites detail, then Summerfield and his friends and family took great exception and apparently wrote the newspapers to set the story straight: Summerfield was both still alive, and very much a decent, working fellow. The authors of the other Summerfield items did not seem to understand who Larner really was, and how highly well-placed.

But now I will add a personal observation which arises in my mind from the actions of Lincoln's crony "the Grand High Priest" Noble Danforth Larner. Can't you just see him sitting in a lavish drawing room enjoying an expensive cigar with some fine cognac, laughing and even amused at the naive young soldiers slaughtered in the fields, the South on fire now with invading foreign troops. The Grand High Priest comfortable by the fire and expostulating that even Lincoln's own substitute he had fetched for him, was just some loser...probably died in the Wilderness. Did Seward, Stanton and company join in these shared good times?

(01-19-2016 10:33 AM)maharba Wrote:  But now I will add a personal observation which arises in my mind from the actions of Lincoln's crony "the Grand High Priest" Noble Danforth Larner. Can't you just see him sitting in a lavish drawing room enjoying an expensive cigar with some fine cognac, laughing and even amused at the naive young soldiers slaughtered in the fields, the South on fire now with invading foreign troops. The Grand High Priest comfortable by the fire and expostulating that even Lincoln's own substitute he had fetched for him, was just some loser...probably died in the Wilderness. Did Seward, Stanton and company join in these shared good times?

No, I can't see that.

Maharba,

After reading several of your posts, I've decided that you are a cynic who cannot ascribe to Lincoln or members of his cabinet any altruistic motive. It is certainly true that there have been venal office holders, motivated by the desire for money and/or power. (I live in Illinois.) And it is also true that, to gain office and remain in office, a politician must be pragmatic and sometimes, for a larger good, might have to do something he would prefer not to do. But you have made it sound as if Lincoln associated with "cronies," who chuckle evilly as they commit another nefarious deed. It's as if you believe that Seward and Stanton were villains in a melodrama, curling their mustaches before they tied poor Nell to the railroad track. Where do you get this stuff? Do you read a lot of bad fiction?

I'm also willing to bet that you are a conspiracy buff who distrusts the "experts" because you think them either self-motivated hacks willing to create or perpetuate lies to sell books or fools who have been blind to the realities which you think are obvious. (How could anyone miss the significance of the omission of Lincoln from the 1840 census? What fools! And this has been going on for 175 years?!!) In an earlier post you said that "history demands" that people pursue the truth (I'm paraphrasing here). True. But you seem to find that the only truth-pursuers are those whom you agree with.

In another post a responder called your post "drivel." The writer's comment was accurate. Your posts have been (with the exception of one about Martin Luther King) drivel because the thoughts behind the posts are immature.

Re.: "Can't you just see him sitting in a lavish drawing room enjoying an expensive cigar with some fine cognac, laughing and even amused at the naive young soldiers slaughtered in the fields..."

No - and this suggestion is disgusting. We have already pointed out to you that Lincoln evidently did neither drink nor smoke, despite he had little interest in the lawishness of the WH. And the least it matches him to be amused at the death of young nor any soldiers - mahabra, I don't know what devil rules your fantasies or soul, but your posts on this forum reveal more about the poster than about Lincoln.

(01-19-2016 06:04 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  . . . your posts on this forum reveal more about the poster than about Lincoln.

Well said, Eva, and precisely so. Also good comments from davg2000.

--Jim

...or, to quote from Goethe's "Faust": "A man sees in the world what he carries in his heart."

Perhaps you did not read this item or the links RJN posted. It was worse than even I detailed it. Poor Summerfield and family got to hear of the sneering comments directed against him by Lincoln's crony, and that "he was a ne'er' do well who probably died in the Wilderness'. I did not include that and several items in my initial narrative, and I assumed that Lincoln students here would read the other links that were posted. Do you not see the irony in both their treatment of Summerfield and that they refused him --the man who had stood in the place of Abraham Lincoln--
even a small pittance of a pension? If this article were published in a pop magazine such as The New Yorker or Readers Digest in the past, I believe many readers would have found it jarring on several levels --including that they had never heard of the man in all their high school and or graduate level college history courses.

RE: When asked to recall his impression of the young man who served as President Lincoln’s representative recruit, Larner is quoted as saying:

“There lived in our ward the son of a clergyman, who bore the usual reputation given a minister’s son. He was naturally a ne’re do well and it is generally believed he was killed during the Wilderness Campaign.”

There is no footnote for Larner's quote. And there are no footnotes for the article as a whole. I do not know what is true and what isn't.

Can you give another source for Larner's alleged quote? Thanks.

You refer to Larner as "Lincoln's crony." The definition of crony is given as:

"a close friend of someone; especially: a friend of someone powerful (such as a politician) who is unfairly given special treatment or favors"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crony

I cannot find that Lincoln and Larner were friends. Leaving out the Staples' story I do not think Larner would be mentioned in Lincoln literature at all. And, as Joe mentioned, I think Sandburg is the only well-known Lincoln biographer who even mentions him in a book. Certainly the overwhelming majority of Lincoln books do not mention Larner; this would not be the case if the two were friends. From what I can tell Lincoln and Larner met only one time: October 1, 1864.

Can you give specific examples of what you seem to regard as the close friendship of Lincoln and Larner? Thanks.

Re.:"Do you not see the irony in both their treatment of Summerfield and that they refused him --the man who had stood in the place of Abraham Lincoln--" - I DID read the articles but am afraidcannot find this ("both their treatment" nor specifications thereof) therein. In which one is it? Who are "both"? Thanks.
As for the pension - I am sure Lincoln would have taken care of that had he been alive.

(01-19-2016 10:33 AM)maharba Wrote:  Roger has furnished here, I see, several links which document much of what I found out, even including the old newspaper clipping with Noble D. Larner being interviewed and then casually slurring the soldier who took the place of Lincoln in the army. I agree with you, Anita, that particularly that portion has the look of a partisan poster (me) slanting the reporting, there. But that really is what Mr.Larner said. When it was reported in the newspapers, as the articles which RJN cites detail, then Summerfield and his friends and family took great exception and apparently wrote the newspapers to set the story straight: Summerfield was both still alive, and very much a decent, working fellow. The authors of the other Summerfield items did not seem to understand who Larner really was, and how highly well-placed.

But now I will add a personal observation which arises in my mind from the actions of Lincoln's crony "the Grand High Priest" Noble Danforth Larner. Can't you just see him sitting in a lavish drawing room enjoying an expensive cigar with some fine cognac, laughing and even amused at the naive young soldiers slaughtered in the fields, the South on fire now with invading foreign troops. The Grand High Priest comfortable by the fire and expostulating that even Lincoln's own substitute he had fetched for him, was just some loser...probably died in the Wilderness. Did Seward, Stanton and company join in these shared good times?

Ralph Geoffrey Newman (1911-1998) was the dean of rare books, documents, and ephemera dealing with Lincoln material. He claimed that there were two works indispensable for a study of the life of Abraham Lincoln, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (9 volumes and supplements) and Lincoln Day by Day, A Chronology, 1809-1865 (3 volumes). By my count, in the 5,272 combined pages of references in these volumes involving meetings (including appearances social, political, work-related) with Lincoln, plus documents and correspondence, only once is Noble D. Larner mentioned, in a casual meeting on October 1, 1864. On that day President Lincoln was introduced to his substitute, John Summerfield Staples, by a party consisting of Provost Marshal Gen. Fry, Noble D. Larner, and Staples' father.

Considering the minimal contact Larner had with President Lincoln, just how friendly was he with him? Is it also possible the cognac in your fantasy was affecting Mr. Larner's interview?

In addition to what Blaine just posted I might add that, according to my research, Larner was not "the Grand High Priest" at that point in time (October 1, 1864).