David, it does appear that is what happened. Walter Graves' reminiscence of what his brother told him mentions the same.

Mary was mad at Abraham and sympathetic to the boys involved, according to Graves. I am intensely sympathetic to the animals; I wonder if Mary knew what was really going on in the Lincolns' barn.

Graves wrote the following to Ida Tarbell:

"Later in the day she (Mary) sent Bob over the neighborhood, inviting the aggrieved children to a candy pulling. But something went wrong, the molasses was burned, and the invitations were withdrawn."

He did do the right thing. And it's common for one parent to sometimes disagree with the other's disciplinary techniques. But remember Mary Lincoln's fierce temper and how very overly indulgent and protective she was of children - that is, when she wasn't the one doing the spanking!

From what I can gather from the accounts, Lincoln reacted by striking the boys with some object, which Mary may have felt was going was too far. She probably just heard he lost his temper and was embarrassed. For all the stories about Mary's temper, no one seems to accuse of her going after another person's kid. I sympathize with Lincoln's outburst, but I can see how some neighbors might have resented it. Hopefully that was the end of mixing ropes and animals in Springfield.

To me, the punishment was necessary and typical of the day. What I would argue about is Mr. Lincoln's use of a barrel stave to do the spanking. I'm of the old school that believes a well-placed palm of the hand on that "spankable sector" for a few whacks is acceptable, but a barrel stave seems completely uncalled for. If I had been Mary, I would have been angry too at the use of such an instrument.

As far as the other boys, I grew up in the age where the parents of my friends were welcome to verbally reprimand me (unlike today), and I suspect that was true with the Springfield neighbors. Again, however, I doubt that it was acceptable to administer corporal punishment to someone else's child - except maybe in school... If this story is true, it certainly shows that Mr. Lincoln had a temper!

Maybe Mr. Graves just thought it was a barrel stave, being so young at the time? It could have been a stick or something.

I don't think Graves was even there - he seems to have been repeating his brother's story. I was wondering what a barrel stave was - I pictured it being metal, but essentially it is a stick.

(01-17-2018 06:51 PM)L Verge Wrote:  If this story is true, it certainly shows that Mr. Lincoln had a temper!

As I am such an ardent and sensitive opponent of animal abuse, I would have lost my temper, too. If the one account I read is true, Abraham Lincoln was given bad information. A man rushed up to him, and told him a group of neighborhood boys were hanging dogs in his barn and two were already dead. If this were told to me, I probably would have "lost it." My anger would be overwhelming, and I can sure understand Abraham using more force than necessary to punish the culprits. Once he realized no dogs were dead, he probably told Mary about the incorrect information he received and that the situation in the barn was not as bad as what he had been initially told. Mary probably scolded him for overreacting, and then she decided to hopefully make peace with the neighbors by hosting a party for the boys.

Based on the way I think, Abraham's extreme anger was totally understandable. I can easily relate to having a temper tantrum if I thought dogs were being hanged and killed in my barn (and especially so if I worried my own son were involved with the group). Given the circumstances as I understand them, Abraham's tantrum makes sense in my brain.

That's amazing Roger, it's like you were there too!
That's just the way it happened.

In some ways, I can understand the children's actions. Being a quick learner and a highly accomplished performer I suppose the children though all dogs were as talented as I am. Some of neighborhood dogs just weren't to smart. I think its because to many of their mothers used to eat some of the WildWood Weed when they were in the family way.

Which reminds me of a song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyQi-1Z2tN8

Fido

Yeah, picking on animals is about one of the only things that would make me strike somebody. I understand it as well. Tough to even read about it.

Nobody loves animals more than I. At one point, my parents took out a kennel license because they had taken in so many strays (14 dogs and several cats) that it was cheaper than buying individual tags for each. Of course, we also had acres of land in those days and room to shelter them.

That said, however, I still think that picking up a barrel stave - or any other solid "instrument" of punishment - was rather harsh treatment for children. On the other hand, it is almost refreshing to see another side of Lincoln (the human side that showed real anger)... Makes me wonder what he said about the rebellious Southerners behind closed doors or edited by his biographers. Shades of President Trump? And, Richard Nixon? Remember the famous "expletives deleted" chatter that went on for months in the 1970s?

(01-18-2018 07:10 PM)L Verge Wrote:  it is almost refreshing to see another side of Lincoln (the human side that showed real anger)... Makes me wonder what he said about the rebellious Southerners behind closed doors or edited by his biographers.

About an hour after the departure of Mr. Campbell, a man dressed in gray homespun, with a huge rough stick in his hand, appeared at the landing and demanded to see the President. “I am Duff Green,” he said: “I want to see Abraham Lincoln, and my business concerns myself alone. You tell Abraham Lincoln that Duff Green wants to see him.” The officer of the deck delivered this message in the cabin, and the President said, “Let him come on board; Duff is an old friend of mine, and I would like to talk with him.”

When Mr. Green was shown into the cabin, the President arose and offered him his hand. “No,” said Green, with a tragic air, “It is red with blood; I can’t touch it. When I knew it, it was an honest hand. It has cut the throats of thousands of my people, and their blood, which now lies soaking into the ground, cries aloud to heaven for vengeance. I came to see you not for remembrance’ sake, but to give you a piece of my opinion.

. . . . When the fanatic commenced his tirade, Mr. Lincoln stood with outstretched hand, his mouth wreathed in a pleasant smile. He was pleased at meeting an old and esteemed friend. As Duff Green started on his talk, the outstretched hand was withdrawn, the smile left his lips and the softness in the President’s eyes faded out. He was another man altogether. Green went on without noticing the change in the President’s manner and appearance: “You came her,” he continued “to triumph over a poor conquered town, with only women and children in it, whose soldiers have left it, and would rather starve than see your hateful presence here; those soldiers—and only a handful at that—who have for four years defied your paid mercenaries on those glorious hills, and have taught you to respect the rights of the South. You have given your best blood to conquer them, and now you will march back to your demoralized Capitol and lay out your wits to win them over so that you can hold this Government in perpetuity. Shame on you! Shame on -----“

Mr. Lincoln could stand it no longer, his hair stood on end and his nostrils dilated. He stretched out his arm until his lean forefinger almost touched Duff Green’s face. “Stop, you political tramp,” he exclaimed; “you the aider and abettor of those who have brought all this ruin upon your country, without the courage to risk your person in defence of the principles you profess to espouse! A man who had not principles in the North, and took none South with him. A political hyena, who robbed the graves of the dead and adopted their language as his own! You talk of the North cutting the throats of the Southern people. You have all cut your own throats, and unfortunately have cut many of those of the North. Miserable impostor, vile intruder! Go, before I forget myself and the high position I hold! Go, I tell you, and don’t desecrate this national vessel another minute!”

This was something Mr. Duff Green had not calculated upon. His courage failed him, and he fled out of the cabin, never stopping until he reached the deck, where he stood looking at the shore, seemingly measuring the distance to see if he could swim to the landing. The Admiral followed close behind him, and said to the officer of the deck, “Put that man on shore, and if he appears in sight of this vessel while we are here, have him sent away with scant ceremony.

When the Admiral returned to the cabin, fifteen minutes later, the President was perfectly calm, as if nothing had happened, and did not refer to the subject for some hours.

Source: The Naval History of the Civil War by Admiral David Dixon Porter, pages 800-01.

Good example of a more human Lincoln, who could show venom like anyone else when ticked off. Thanks, David.

One question, however, since there were no tape recorders in those days, how did Admiral Porter remember that those were Lincoln's exact words (notice the quote marks, indicating such)? How much of that report was Lincoln's verbiage and how much was the Admiral's opinion of Duff Green and the South? Just saying...

(01-19-2018 09:29 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Good example of a more human Lincoln, who could show venom like anyone else when ticked off. Thanks, David.

One question, however, since there were no tape recorders in those days, how did Admiral Porter remember that those were Lincoln's exact words (notice the quote marks, indicating such)? How much of that report was Lincoln's verbiage and how much was the Admiral's opinion of Duff Green and the South? Just saying...

That observation could be applied to any and all long Lincoln quotations. I have always wondered that myself. If there is more than one person in attendance, one can always compare accounts with matched sections providing greatest assurance of actual events.

But there is one other consideration that has been lost in time. Back in those days, many people kept daily diaries of their activities. And, being an admiral at that period of the Civil War, the author must have been intellectually gifted. One must also consider that the subject matter of his observations was the President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln. You are going to be observing the facts of stories that you can tell your friends, children and grandchildren. And, many of these officers wrote books (Recall recently the staff officer who disputed the accounts of his commanding officer General Sickles regarding the meeting Sickles had with President Lincoln shortly after the Battle of Gettysburg.) Thank goodness that F.B Carpenter came up with the idea of painting President Lincoln's first presentation to the Cabinet of his Emancipation Proclamation. What a wealth of first hand accounts was provided to history.

And, then there is the problem of variations on the same story. As I mentioned in a previous post elsewhere, I was determined to no longer post stories from Emanuel Hertz's book "Lincoln, A Biography in Anecdote" without corroboration. Well, I remembered that the answer that I provided to your question was in this book. I looked up the answer in which Hertz noted the source as the New York Daily Tribune, Jan. 1885. I then did a Google Books search with a prominent line from this newspaper story and this led me to Admiral Porter's version of the story.

Presumably, Admiral Porter was the source for both. But newspaper reporters might well add little embellishments. For instance, I noticed that in the newspaper account it was written: "His courage failed him, and he turned and fled out of the cabin, and up the cabin stairs as if the avenging angel was after him." The same scene was in Porter's account in the next to last paragraph of my previous posting. This apparently was a minor embellishment. But how do you know when a major embellishment to history has been made on a second telling of a Lincoln story?

Another example of this phenomena occurred in the third paragraph of my previous posting between the following two sentences: "He was another man altogether. Green went on without noticing the change . . . ."

The newspaper man inserted an entire paragraph between these two sentences:

"Had anyone shut his eyes after Duff Green commenced speaking, and opened them when he stopped, he would have seen a perfect transformation. His slouchy position had disappeared, his mouth was compressed, his eyes were fixed, and he looked four inches taller than usual."

Perhaps, you can sell more newspapers this way or maybe the newspaperman just likes to write. Remember the story about Lincoln and Judge Davis when another attorney wrote a very long court filing and Davis asked Lincoln to respond with a story. Lincoln, I believe, cited the example of a preacher who wrote out a very long sermon and Lincoln stated that the reason for this was that the "preacher was too lazy to stop writing." [Unfortunately, this story was from Hertz's book as I recall.]

You can see now why I like to make my signature postings as I do.

There was a clear tendency to dramatize at the time -- the effect was more important than the exact words, given no one had a tape recorder. And everyone was serving their own purposes in storytelling. It was more acceptable to portray someone as a role model than as a real person, so everything is "cleaned up."

Stuff like this is everywhere, and often clearly fabricated or dressed up, such as when the person is reporting on what someone else told them, not using quotes, and wasn't there:

"Had anyone shut his eyes after Duff Green commenced speaking, and opened them when he stopped, he would have seen a perfect transformation. His slouchy position had disappeared, his mouth was compressed, his eyes were fixed, and he looked four inches taller than usual."

For my Mary Lincoln research, I've been specifically focusing on the casual accounts of everyday people, because they do a lot less of this. No grand speeches and metaphorical descriptions.

I do think that people were trained to remember exact words and detailed much more than today, because of the lack of recording devices. You were supposed to be able to describe things accurately via letter, and clarity of expression was way more valued. People very casually give minute unflattering physical descriptions because they had to, before widespread photography.

I finally have a lunch break and can "legally" participate in this discussion off company time. I immediately picked up on the mention of Duff Green in David's first posting, and I suspect that several of our Lincoln scholars did also.

Duff Green frequently ate dinner with Lincoln at Mrs. Spriggs's boardinghouse on Capitol Hill when Lincoln was in Congress in the 1840s. Duff was an old-timer and owned a row of nice townhouses nearby, known as Duff Green Row; he also took his dinners at Mrs. Spriggs's table, where he got into "lively" conversations with the young legislator. Unfortunately, neither the boardinghouse nor the Row exist. The Library of Congress now stands on their sites. I first learned of Duff about forty years ago when I met Joan Chaconas, now a member of my staff but also an excellent Washington, D.C. historian.

Green was a Kentuckian, a school teacher, and a Kentucky militia member who fought with Gen. William Henry Harrison during the War of 1812. He later moved to Missouri, where he fought with its brigade in Indian campaigns. In Missouri, he was a schoolmaster, lawyer, state representative and also senator. It was while here that he bought the St. Louis Enquirer and became a mover in the journalistic field - enough to get himself beaten up on occasion for his views, John Quincy Adams was one special antagonist when Green was a supporter of Andrew Jackson. In the 1830s, he was the editor for a controversial publication called The Reformation, which was radically partisan and in favor of free trade, states' rights, Manifest Destiny, etc.

After moving to Washington City, he ran The United States Telegraph paper and staunchly supported Jackson to the point that he became a member of that "unofficial" group of Jackson advisers known as the Kitchen Cabinet. When the Civil War came, however, Duff and his family headed south to a mansion that he had built in Vicksburg, Mississippi, for his bride. When Grant focused on Vicksburg and started the destructive siege, their mansion became a field hospital because Duff designated it as a hospital for both Union and Confederate troops. During that siege, Mrs. Green gave birth to their first child in a nearby cave where the family sought shelter.

Duff Green strongly supported the Confederacy and started three iron foundries and the Dalton Arms Company in order to supply the South with everything from nails to rifles and railroad tracks (he was also active in the railroad industry before and after the war). From sources that I read, Lincoln flat-out declared him a traitor. When Andrew Johnson became President, he granted Duff a pardon, but a $20,000 fine was part of the "deal."

The University of North Carolina has a collection of the Duff Green and Benjamin Green (his son) Papers in their Southern collection. The Vicksburg home, Duff Green Mansion, is now a lovely bed and breakfast, so you might want to visit and walk the same floors where Jefferson Davis once danced and U.S. Grant once paced.

Sorry for the history lesson, but that's what you put up with from a used history teacher, resident of metropolitan D.C. with a love of Capital history and a streak of Southern pride...