When [President Lincoln] had thought profoundly upon certain measures, and felt sure of his ground, criticism, either public or private, did not disturb him. Upon the appearance of what was known as the "Wade and Davis manifesto," subsequent to his renomination, an intimate friend and supporter, who was very indignant that such a document should have been put forth just previous to the election, took occasion to animadvert [meaning "to comment unfavorably or critically"] very severely upon the course that prompted it. "It is not worth fretting about," said the President; "it reminds me of an old acquaintance, who, having a son of a scientific turn, bought him a microscope. The boy went around, experimenting with his glass upon everything that came in his way. One day, at the dinner-table, his father took up a piece of cheese. 'Don't eat that, father, said the boy; 'it is full of wrigglers.' 'My son,' replied the old gentleman, taking, at the same time, a huge bite, 'let 'em wriggle; I can stand it if they can.'"

Source -- "Six Months at the White House" page 145.

A related post to the first post on this thread, but one that preceded the first post in time:

The morning of the last day of April, [1864], Mr. Wilkeson, the head of the New York "Tribune" bureau of correspondence in Washington at that period, called upon me with his sister-in-law, Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, well known for her radical views on political and social questions, who wished an introduction to the President. Later in the day, after the accustomed pressure of visitors had subsided, I knocked at the door of the President's study, and asked if I might bring up two or three New York friends. Mr. Lincoln fortunately was alone, and at once accorded the desired permission. Laying aside his papers, as we entered, he turned around in his chair for a leisurely conversation. One of the party took occasion shortly to endorse very decidedly the Amnesty Proclamation, which had been severely censured by many friends of the Administration. This approval appeared to touch Mr. Lincoln deeply. He said, with a great deal of emphasis, and with an expression of countenance I shall never forget, "When a man is sincerely penitent for his misdeeds, and gives satisfactory evidence of the same, he can safely be pardoned, and there is no exception to the rule."

David, like you, I really like Carpenter's book. Here is a Lincoln story I like:

"At the White House one day some gentlemen were present from the West, excited and troubled about the commissions or omissions of the Administration. The President heard them patiently, and then replied: “Gentlemen, suppose all the property you were worth was in gold, and you had put it in the hands of Blondin to carry across the Niagara River on a rope, would you shake the cable, or keep shouting out to him, ‘Blondin, stand up a little straighter — Blondin, stoop a little more — go a little faster — lean a little more to the north — lean a little more to the south.’ No, you would hold your breath as well as your tongue, and keep your hands off until he was safe over. The Government are carrying an immense weight. Untold treasures are in their hands. They are doing the very best they can. Don’t badger them. Keep silence, and we’ll get you safe across."

Francis Carpenter, Six Months at the White House, p. 257-258.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Here is an interesting article about Charles Blondin:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/t...110492884/

(05-07-2018 04:08 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  David, like you, I really like Carpenter's book.

Roger, you have made so many trips to Springfield and you made another one last week, I believe. Accordingly, I am reminded of another story from Carpenter's book with which you are probably familiar.

Among the numerous visitors on one of the President's reception days, were a party of Congressmen, among whom was the Hon. Thomas Shannon, of California. Soon after the customary greeting, Mr. Shannon said:

"Mr. President, I met an old friend of your in California last summer, Thomas Campbell, who had a good deal to say of your Springfield life."

"Ah!" returned Mr. Lincoln, "I am glad to hear of him. Campbell used to be a dry fellow," he continued. "For a time he was Secretary of State. One day, during the legislative vacation, a meek, cadaverous-looking man, with a white neck-cloth, introduced himself to him at his office, and, stating that he had been informed that Mr. C. had the letting of the Assembly Chamber, said that he wished to secure it, if possible, for a course of lectures he desired to deliver in Springfield. 'May I ask,' said the Secretary, 'what is to be the subject of your lectures?' 'Certainly,' was the reply, with a very solemn expression of countenance. 'The course I wish to deliver, is on the Second Coming of our Lord.' 'It is of no use,' said C. 'If you will take my advice, you will not waste your time in this city. It is my private opinion that if the Lord has been in Springfield once, He will not come the second time!'"

Francis Carpenter, Six Months at the White House, p. 146 - 147.

Thanks for including this story, David! (I was not in Springfield last week, but several members of this forum were there.)

The following is an account of a fascinating and very important piece of President Abraham Lincoln and American history that took place on the night before President Lincoln took the oath of office for his second term as President of the United States and gave his memorable and inspiring second inaugural address to the nation. I am sure that many members of the Lincoln Symposium are aware already of this story, especially those that share my opinion regarding the quality of F. B. Carpenter's book.

"On the night of the 3rd of March, the Secretary of War, with others of the Cabinet, were in the company of the President, at the Capitol, awaiting the passage of the final bills of Congress . . . when the telegram from Grant was received, saying that Lee had asked an interview with reference to peace. Mr. Lincoln was elated, and the kindness of his heart was manifest in intimations of favorable terms to be granted to the conquered rebels.

"Stanton listened in silence, restraining his emotion, but at length the tide burst forth. 'Mr. President,' said he, 'tomorrow is inauguration day. If you are not to be the President of an obedient and united people, you had better not be inaugurated. Your work is already done, if any other authority than yours is for one moment to be recognized, or any terms made that do not signify you are the supreme head of the nation. If generals in the field are to negotiate peace, or any other chief magistrate is to be acknowledged on this continent, then you are not needed, and you had better not take the oath of office.'

"'Stanton, you are right!' said the President, his whole tone changing. 'Let me have a pen.'

"Mr. Lincoln sat down at the table, and wrote as follows: --

"'The President directs me to say to you that he wishes you to have no conference with General Lee, unless it be for capitulation of Lee's army, or on some minor or purely military matter. He instructs me to say that you are not to decide, discuss, or confer upon any political question. Such questions the President holds in his own hands, and will submit them to no military conferences or conventions. In the mean time you are to press to the utmost your military advantages.'

"The President read over what he had written, and then said: --

"Now Stanton, date and sign this paper, and send it to Grant. We'll see about this peace business.'

"The duty was discharged only too gladly by the energetic and far-sighted Secretary; with what effect and renown the country knows full well." * Boston Commonwealth


Francis Carpenter, Six Months at the White House, p. 265 - 267.

(05-18-2018 09:19 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  The following is an account of a fascinating and very important piece of President Abraham Lincoln and American history that took place on the night before President Lincoln took the oath of office for his second term as President of the United States and gave his memorable and inspiring second inaugural address to the nation. I am sure that many members of the Lincoln Symposium are aware already of this story, especially those that share my opinion regarding the quality of F. B. Carpenter's book.

Francis Carpenter, Six Months at the White House, p. 265 - 267.

I was looking today to see how noted Lincoln historians treated the accuracy of this story by going to Google books and putting the following quote in the search box: “If generals in the field are to negotiate peace, or any other chief magistrate is to be acknowledged”

The preference results were topped with names that I had not recognized. But shortly down the list was a very familiar name – Harriet Beecher Stowe and her book “Men of Our Times” at page 372 in a chapter labeled as Edwin M. Stanton. She did not quote the Boston Commonwealth article verbatim. Instead, she prefaced the Stanton quotation with the following statement:

“Mr. Lincoln intimated pretty clearly an intention to permit extremely favorable terms, and to let his General-in-Chief to negotiate them; even to an extent that overpowered the reticent habits of his Secretary of War, who, after holding his tongue as long as he could, broke out sternly: 'Mr. President, tomorrow is inauguration day. . . .'”

I thought this to be a very astute observation on the part of Harriet Beecher Stowe.

Does anyone know if Professor Don E. Fehrenbacher thought that this story was not true? I could not find where a noted historian in this or the last century made reference to this story.

This is what I read from the Lincoln Log for March 3, 1865 on this subject:

Lieutenant General Grant March 3. 1865

The President directs me to say to you that he wishes you to have no conference with General Lee unless it be for the capitulation of Gen. Lee's army, or on some minor, and purely, military matter. He instructs me to say that you are not to decide, discuss, or confer upon any political question. Such questions the President
holds in his own hands; and will submit them to no military conferences or conventions. Meantime you are to press to the utmost, your military advantages. EDWIN M STANTON

Secretary of War

Annotation
[1] The body of this telegram is in Lincoln's autograph, the date, salutation, and signature having been written by Stanton. On March 2, Grant had telegraphed Stanton:

``The following communication has just been received from Genl Lee

``Lt Gen U S Grant H'd Qrs C S Armies

``Comd'g US Armies Mch 2d 1865

`` `General: Lieut Genl Longstreet has informed me that in a recent conversation between himself and Maj Genl Ord as to the possibility of arriving at a satisfactory adjustment of the present unhappy difficulties, by means of a military convention. Genl Ord stated that if I desired to have an interview with you on the subject you would not decline, provided I had authority to act. Sincerely desiring to leave nothing untried which may put an end to the calamities of war, I propose to meet you at such convenient time and place as you may designate with the hope that upon an interchange of views it may be found practicable to submit the subjects of controversy between belligerents to a convention of the kind mentioned.

``In such event I am authorized to do whatever the result of the proposed interview may render necessary or advisable Should you accede to this proposition, I would suggest if agreeable to you, we meet at the place selected by Genls Ord and Longstreet for their interview at 11 A M on Monday next Very Respy Your Obdt Servt (signed) R E LEE'

``Genl Ord met Genl Longstreet a few days since at the request of the latter to arrange for the exchange of citizen prisoners. . . .

``He had my authority to do so and to arrange definitely for such as were confined in his Dept. arrangements for all others to be submitted for approval.

``A general conversation ensued on the subject of the war and it has induced the above letter. I have not returned any reply but promised to do so at noon tomorrow. I respectfully request instructions''.

Therefore, the question is: Did Stanton take the lead on the issue? Or, was Lincoln his own counsel, solely? It would appear that Lincoln historians have concluded to answer "yes" to the second question.

When I first read this story in Carpenter's book, I thought the situation similar to the timing of the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation in which Seward wisely counseled Lincoln to wait for a Union victory to issue the Proclamation.

"So very difficult a matter is it to trace and find out the truth of anything by history." -- Plutarch

(05-18-2018 09:19 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  The following is an account of a fascinating and very important piece of President Abraham Lincoln and American history that took place on the night before President Lincoln took the oath of office for his second term as President of the United States and gave his memorable and inspiring second inaugural address to the nation. I am sure that many members of the Lincoln Symposium are aware already of this story, especially those that share my opinion regarding the quality of F. B. Carpenter's book.

"On the night of the 3rd of March, the Secretary of War, with others of the Cabinet, were in the company of the President, at the Capitol, awaiting the passage of the final bills of Congress . . . when the telegram from Grant was received, saying that Lee had asked an interview with reference to peace. Mr. Lincoln was elated, and the kindness of his heart was manifest in intimations of favorable terms to be granted to the conquered rebels.

"Stanton listened in silence, restraining his emotion, but at length the tide burst forth. 'Mr. President,' said he, 'tomorrow is inauguration day. If you are not to be the President of an obedient and united people, you had better not be inaugurated. Your work is already done, if any other authority than yours is for one moment to be recognized, or any terms made that do not signify you are the supreme head of the nation. If generals in the field are to negotiate peace, or any other chief magistrate is to be acknowledged on this continent, then you are not needed, and you had better not take the oath of office.'

"'Stanton, you are right!' said the President, his whole tone changing. 'Let me have a pen.'

"Mr. Lincoln sat down at the table, and wrote as follows: --

"'The President directs me to say to you that he wishes you to have no conference with General Lee, unless it be for capitulation of Lee's army, or on some minor or purely military matter. He instructs me to say that you are not to decide, discuss, or confer upon any political question. Such questions the President holds in his own hands, and will submit them to no military conferences or conventions. In the mean time you are to press to the utmost your military advantages.'

"The President read over what he had written, and then said: --

"Now Stanton, date and sign this paper, and send it to Grant. We'll see about this peace business.'

"The duty was discharged only too gladly by the energetic and far-sighted Secretary; with what effect and renown the country knows full well." * Boston Commonwealth


Francis Carpenter, Six Months at the White House, p. 265 - 267.

Who is ready for one President Lincoln controversy and then another earlier President Lincoln controversy? The first controversy is as follows:

On May 30, 2018, at 8:42 AM, David Lockmiller <davidlincoln@msn.com> wrote:

Dear Mr. Stahr:

You wrote: “Do you really think Stanton, speaking to Lincoln, with half a dozen others standing round, said “you had better not be inaugurated?” Do you really think Lincoln, with half a dozen others around, said “Stanton, you are right!”

I do think that if Stanton saw that Lincoln was being carried away in the elation of the moment that peace after 4 years of war for the nation was at hand, and Stanton also realized the importance of the fact that in our form of democracy that the military could not be placed in the position of deciding political questions regarding the terms of peace. Thus, President Lincoln’s alleged response would be in keeping with this hypothesis: “Stanton, you are right!” Stanton was well known for being blunt!

I hate to lose any correct moments in President Lincoln history. And, this moment also shines well for Stanton, if true. I make contributions to the Lincoln Symposium and I compared thereon this possible moment in history to Seward calling for delay in the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation until AFTER a Union victory.

Yours truly,
David Lockmiller


From: Walter Stahr [mailto:wbstahr@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 8:10 AM
To: davidlincoln@msn.com
Subject: Re: Web Site Message

Dear Mr. Lockmiller:

You are right, I do not believe Carpenter on this point. I wish he had cited the precise DATE of the article in the Boston Commonwealth, it is not available online, and I do not see the language quoted in other places until after Stanton’s death in 1869. At that point of course the source could be Carpenter not the Commonwealth.

But in general I put this in the category of “colorful stories of Lincoln after Lincoln’s death.” Akin to the stories about Stanton’s resignation, which I deal with a few pages later in the book. Do you really think Stanton, speaking to Lincoln, with half a dozen others standing round, said “you had better not be inaugurated?” Do you really think Lincoln, with half a dozen others around, said “Stanton, you are right!”

I am not 100% sure of course, I was not there. But I tried to stick to what I knew; perhaps I should not have said that Stanton carried Grant’s message to Lincoln; because for all I know Lincoln was in the War Department that night. That they worked together on the response is clear, because the original document has BOTH their handwriting on it, Lincoln and Stanton.

Regards, Walter Stahr





On May 29, 2018, at 7:59 PM, David Lockmiller <noreply@authorbyteshosting.com> wrote:

Name
David Lockmiller
Email
davidlincoln@msn.com

Message
You wrote in your book "Stanton" at page 399: "Lee suggested that he and Grant should meet to explore the possibility of such peace terms. Stanton carried Grant's message to Lincoln, and together the two men drafted the response. 'The President directs me to say,' Lincoln wrote in Stanton's voice . . . ."

I assume that you are aware of a markedly different treatment of the same set of events in F. B. Carpenter's book, "Six Months At The White House" written in 1879 at pages 265 - 279.

"On the night of the 3rd of March, the Secretary of War, with others of the Cabinet, were in the company of the President, at the Capitol, awaiting the passage of the final bills of Congress . . . when the telegram from Grant was received, saying that Lee had asked an interview with reference to peace. Mr. Lincoln was elated, and the kindness of his heart was manifest in intimations of favorable terms to be granted to the conquered rebels.

"Stanton listened in silence, restraining his emotion, but at length the tide burst forth. 'Mr. President,' said he, 'tomorrow is inauguration day. If you are not to be the President of an obedient and united people, you had better not be inaugurated. Your work is already done, if any other authority than yours is for one moment to be recognized, or any terms made that do not signify you are the supreme head of the nation. If generals in the field are to negotiate peace, or any other chief magistrate is to be acknowledged on this continent, then you are not needed, and you had better not take the oath of office.'

"'Stanton, you are right!' said the President, his whole tone changing. 'Let me have a pen.'

"Mr. Lincoln sat down at the table, and wrote as follows: --

The source for the story was noted by Carpenter as the Boston Commonwealth.

I would conclude that do you not agree with what was written in the Boston Commonwealth article. Can you inform me as to the basis for your rejection of Carpenter's version of events on the night of March 3, 1865?

Thank you,
David Lockmiller

David, thank you very much for your posting. Walter Stahr is a member of this forum, and he made a post here. When you mentioned Harriet Beecher Stowe I thought of another controversy. When Lincoln was introduced to Stowe he allegedly said, "So, this is the little lady who started this great war." Many historians accept the quote, but I am aware of others (such as what is stated in the Fehrenbachers' book) who feel this is simply a part of Stowe family lore, and there's no way to prove Lincoln actually said those words.

Here is the second controversy:

May 30, 2018 email from Mr. Walter Stahr

Dear Mr. Lockmiller, it is odd that you mention Carpenter’s version of the emancipation meeting, because I discuss that in my Seward book. That is another point at which I think Carpenter is colorful but not accurate. Like you I do not like to lose parts of Lincoln’s life. But I want to focus on what really happened, not what people thought SHOULD have happened. Best, Walter

I cannot understand what possible reason that F.B. Carpenter would have to make up a story about Seward raising the issue of timing for public release notice of the proposed Emancipation Proclamation.

Carpenter wrote what Lincoln said to him as follows (pages 21 - 22):

Nothing, however, was offered that I had not already fully anticipated and settled in my own mind, until Secretary Seward spoke. He said in substance: 'Mr. President, I approve of the proclamation, but i question the expediency of its issue at this juncture. The depression of the public mind, consequent upon our repeated reverses, is so great that I fear the effect of so important a step. It may be viewed as the last measure of an exhausted government, a cry for help . . . . His idea," said the President, "was that it would be considered our last shriek, on the retreat." (This was his precise expression.) "'Now,' continued Mr. Seward, 'while I approve the measure, I suggest, sir, that you postpone its issue until you can give it to the country supported by military success, instead of issuing it, as would be the case now, upon the greatest disasters of the war!'" Mr. Lincoln continued: "The wisdom of the view of the Secretary of State struck me with very great force. It was an aspect of the case that, in all my thought upon the subject, I had entirely overlooked. The result was that I put the draft of the proclamation aside, as you do your sketch for a picture, waiting for a victory."

Mr. Stahr in his book Stanton at page 227 interjected the following scenario:

Another document in the Stanton papers, a long letter from Francis Cutting, a New York lawyer and former Democratic member of Congress, summarized Stanton's thinking in 1862 (in a letter from Cutting to Stanton dated February 20, 1867) and implicated Weed as the one who persuaded Lincoln to delay the proclamation. According to Cutting's account, when he visited Stanton on the morning of July 22, 1862, the secretary was keen for an immediate emancipation proclamation.

Stanton took Cutting to see Lincoln, with whom Cutting used similar arguments and who Cutting thought would issue a proclamation. The next morning, however, when Cutting encountered Weed at the Willard Hotel, he learned that Weed "had undone in the evening what [Cutting] had nearly accomplished in the morning; that after further reflection the President had decided to postpone the proclamation."

In Doris Kearns Goodwin's book Team of Rivals at page 268, she makes reference to this same February 20, 1867 letter in a footnote. But this Lincoln historian's interpretation of the same events are entirely different, but consistent with her perceived veracity of Carpenter's words: "Seward's argument was reinforced later that day by Thurlow Weed, who met with Lincoln on a visit to Washington."

Please read my standard signature.

In addition to Doris Kearns Goodwin supporting Carpenter's version of events, Professor Michael Burlingame noted in his book Abraham Lincoln: A Life Volume II, page 363: "Lincoln recalled Seward's remarks differently [than Stanton]. To the artist Francis B. Carpenter, the president summarized the secretary of state's argument: 'I approve of the proclamation, but I question the expediency of its issue at this juncture. . . . '"

Professor Burlingame also made the following parenthetical note on page 364: (Seward boasted to a senator, "I have done the state service, for I have prevented Mr. Lincoln from issuing an emancipation proclamation in the face of our retreating army.") [Footnote 203]

(05-31-2018 05:02 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  I cannot understand what possible reason that F.B. Carpenter would have to make up a story about Seward raising the issue of timing for public release notice of the proposed Emancipation Proclamation.

Carpenter wrote what Lincoln said to him as follows (pages 21 - 22):

Nothing, however, was offered that I had not already fully anticipated and settled in my own mind, until Secretary Seward spoke. He said in substance: 'Mr. President, I approve of the proclamation, but I question the expediency of its issue at this juncture. The depression of the public mind, consequent upon our repeated reverses, is so great that I fear the effect of so important a step. It may be viewed as the last measure of an exhausted government, a cry for help . . . . His idea," said the President, "was that it would be considered our last shriek, on the retreat." (This was his precise expression.) "'Now,' continued Mr. Seward, 'while I approve the measure, I suggest, sir, that you postpone its issue until you can give it to the country supported by military success, instead of issuing it, as would be the case now, upon the greatest disasters of the war!'" Mr. Lincoln continued: "The wisdom of the view of the Secretary of State struck me with very great force. It was an aspect of the case that, in all my thought upon the subject, I had entirely overlooked. The result was that I put the draft of the proclamation aside, as you do your sketch for a picture, waiting for a victory."

In Doris Kearns Goodwin's book Team of Rivals, at page 268, she [wrote]: "Seward's argument was reinforced later that day by Thurlow Weed, who met with Lincoln on a visit to Washington."

The problem is that Burton Hendrick in his book Lincoln's War Cabinet, at page 363, has a quite different interpretation of the same event after quoting extensively from Carpenter's book: "It seems a fair assumption, in view of Seward's evident hostility to emancipation, that he was seeking delay, hoping perhaps that time and events would cause the President to rescind his unhappy mistake."

(10-18-2023 09:02 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  The problem is that Burton Hendrick in his book Lincoln's War Cabinet, at page 363, has a quite different interpretation of the same event after quoting extensively from Carpenter's book: "It seems a fair assumption, in view of Seward's evident hostility to emancipation, that he was seeking delay, hoping perhaps that time and events would cause the President to rescind his unhappy mistake."

In the index of Lincoln's War Cabinet, under the subject heading of "Lincoln, Abraham," there is an entry titled by Burton Hendrick as "Welles sees greatness of," at pages 77-78, and it reads in part:

Next morning [after the Cooper Union speech] Lincoln spent an hour with Welles in the office of the Hartford Evening Press, of which he was one of the proprietors, elaborating his remarks of the previous evening, and entertaining the not too humorous Welles with the usual jokes and stories.

Next day, in the Evening Press, Welles gave his impressions of his visitor:

"This orator and lawyer has been caricatured. He is not Apollo, but he is not Caliban [Caliban - a feral, sullen, misshapen creature in Shakespeare's The Tempest]. He was made where the material for strong men is plenty; and his loose, tall frame is loosely thrown together. He is in every way large - brain included, but his countenance shows intellect, generosity, great good nature, and keen discrimination. . . . He is an effective speaker, because he is earnest, strong, honest, simple in style, and clear as crystal in his logic."

One can almost sense Welles, as he wrote these lines, judiciously weighing each adjective. One must keep in mind that this characterization was committed to paper two months before Lincoln's nomination, almost exactly a year before he took up his duties in the White House. Yet the portrait sketched by Welles, after an hour's confidential chat, differs little with that upon which history is now agreed. Thus Gideon Welles, of all the seven men whom Lincoln called to his council, was the only one who had anything approaching an accurate appreciation of his caliber. [Emphais added,]

In Lincoln's War Cabinet, at page 89, is a short account by the author Burton Hendrick regarding Judge David Davis:

Great public questions never much interested [Judge David] Davis; the slavery issue aroused only perfunctory attention, and he hated abolitionists with fervor worthy of his Southern origin. Politics, in his view, amounted simply to spoils. Davis had the personal qualities essential to success in this field. He was jovial, interested in people, Lincolnian in his love of laughter and yarn-swapping. In court one day, one of the ornaments of the bar burst out into a loud guffaw -- Lincoln had just told him in whispers a side-splitting story. His Honor promptly fined the offender for contempt of court. After adjournment he called the disrespectful person to the bar. "What was the story Lincoln told you?" he asked. On hearing it Davis himself doubled up with mirth. "Fine remitted!" he shouted in appreciation.