Hello,

I haven't posted in a while, but I've been slowly organizing my Mary Lincoln research. I recently created a blog, where I posted a two-part article I wrote for the Manuscripts Society's quarterly journal, which isn't available online. It digs into, among other things, the Henry Wikoff issue, which I believe has been totally misrepresented. A lot of this stuff is too detailed to appeal to anyone but those *really* into Mary Lincoln, and this is one of the best places to find them! If you have any interest, please check it out.

Thank you,
Kerry

Thanks much - I hope it will be available for awhile!

(03-01-2020 04:00 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Thanks much - I hope it will be available for awhile!

No plans to take it down. I have so many tidbits that are cluttering my brain that I'd really like to do a daily update, but it was hard to keep up the motivation when it didn't seem like anyone was reading it. It's hard to remember to check a blog...I was thinking of starting a Substack or something. Thanks for reading!


ETA: I did decide to create a substack, if anyone is interested. It will email you the blog posts so that you don't have to remember to check. https://ke.substack.com/

Welcome back and thanks for sharing your research tidbits! Much to digest.

(03-02-2020 07:26 PM)Anita Wrote:  Welcome back and thanks for sharing your research tidbits! Much to digest.

Thank you!

Thanks for sharing your blog, Kerry. I was especially intrigued by your Mistaken Identities Part 2 article (or is it a draft?).

If your concerned about people not being able to follow your blog. Have you considered adding one of those icons that lets people sign up for email announcements to be sent when a new article post has been made. If you can't, you can always post a notice here to make those of us on the Forum aware.

Have you considered writing an article on the clash between Mary and Herndon, especially after the assassination?

(03-04-2020 12:18 AM)Steve Wrote:  Thanks for sharing your blog, Kerry. I was especially intrigued by your Mistaken Identities Part 2 article (or is it a draft?).

If your concerned about people not being able to follow your blog. Have you considered adding one of those icons that lets people sign up for email announcements to be sent when a new article post has been made. If you can't, you can always post a notice here to make those of us on the Forum aware.

Have you considered writing an article on the clash between Mary and Herndon, especially after the assassination?

Hi Steve...thank you for reading! Part I is also there--both were published in the Manuscript Society's quarterly journal.

I decided to make a substack, https://ke.substack.com/ so that people can register there to be alerted to new posts. It's an email newsletter site, and I migrated my blog articles, but for some reason it put a giant-sized version of the Wordpress footnote icon between every footnote on the Mistaken Identities series. I'm slowly deleting them one by one. But as long as you don't scroll to the footnotes, you can read the articles easily on substack, and sign up for more. The form will allow me to do short daily reveals of things I've found.

I have considered an article on Mary and Herndon---some of it is written. I feel like something's off with how that is understood. I do have something somewhat related to it that I hope to reveal soon. One thing I will point out is that before Ida Tarbell got involved, they weren't consistently portrayed as nemeses.

A better characterization, I suspect, is that Herndon just had a lot of fixations because of the way his mind worked and his personality. He was brilliant, obsessive, and eccentric. Two of his many obsessions were Ann Rutledge and Lincoln's domestic life. He was prone to a great deal of speculation, sometimes insightful and other times not so much. I don't think his actions that caused "the clash" were mainly motivated by a desire to strike at Mary Lincoln. He was caught up in certain ideas.

But it is striking to me that in the early 1890s, several people noted that Herndon had at least tried to be fair to her, as compared with an opportunistically faux-moralizing press. Her oft-quoted cousin Eliza Norris's letter to Emilie Helm makes this point, but that part is never published.

(03-04-2020 12:58 AM)kerry Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 12:18 AM)Steve Wrote:  Thanks for sharing your blog, Kerry. I was especially intrigued by your Mistaken Identities Part 2 article (or is it a draft?).

If your concerned about people not being able to follow your blog. Have you considered adding one of those icons that lets people sign up for email announcements to be sent when a new article post has been made. If you can't, you can always post a notice here to make those of us on the Forum aware.

Have you considered writing an article on the clash between Mary and Herndon, especially after the assassination?

Hi Steve...thank you for reading! Part I is also there--both were published in the Manuscript Society's quarterly journal.

I decided to make a substack, https://ke.substack.com/ so that people can register there to be alerted to new posts. It's an email newsletter site, and I migrated my blog articles, but for some reason it put a giant-sized version of the Wordpress footnote icon between every footnote on the Mistaken Identities series. I'm slowly deleting them one by one. But as long as you don't scroll to the footnotes, you can read the articles easily on substack, and sign up for more. The form will allow me to do short daily reveals of things I've found.

I have considered an article on Mary and Herndon---some of it is written. I feel like something's off with how that is understood. I do have something somewhat related to it that I hope to reveal soon. One thing I will point out is that before Ida Tarbell got involved, they weren't consistently portrayed as nemeses.

A better characterization, I suspect, is that Herndon just had a lot of fixations because of the way his mind worked and his personality. He was brilliant, obsessive, and eccentric. Two of his many obsessions were Ann Rutledge and Lincoln's domestic life. He was prone to a great deal of speculation, sometimes insightful and other times not so much. I don't think his actions that caused "the clash" were mainly motivated by a desire to strike at Mary Lincoln. He was caught up in certain ideas.

But it is striking to me that in the early 1890s, several people noted that Herndon had at least tried to be fair to her, as compared with an opportunistically faux-moralizing press. Her oft-quoted cousin Eliza Norris's letter to Emilie Helm makes this point, but that part is never published.

Do you have the entire Norris letter? I've tried in vain to get it from the presidential library.

(03-04-2020 12:58 AM)kerry Wrote:  I have considered an article on Mary and Herndon---some of it is written. I feel like something's off with how that is understood. I do have something somewhat related to it that I hope to reveal soon. One thing I will point out is that before Ida Tarbell got involved, they weren't consistently portrayed as nemeses.

A better characterization, I suspect, is that Herndon just had a lot of fixations because of the way his mind worked and his personality. He was brilliant, obsessive, and eccentric. Two of his many obsessions were Ann Rutledge and Lincoln's domestic life. He was prone to a great deal of speculation, sometimes insightful and other times not so much. I don't think his actions that caused "the clash" were mainly motivated by a desire to strike at Mary Lincoln. He was caught up in certain ideas.

But it is striking to me that in the early 1890s, several people noted that Herndon had at least tried to be fair to her, as compared with an opportunistically faux-moralizing press. Her oft-quoted cousin Eliza Norris's letter to Emilie Helm makes this point, but that part is never published.

Kerry, bringing up Ann Rutledge reminded me of this thread from last year about Herndon and the reliability of his sources that you might want to check out:

https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussi...l#pid76353

(Note: My viewpoint on Herndon's "defaulting bridegroom" account of the events of Jan. 1, 1841 have changed since my posts in that thread. I now think Mary's sister, Elizabeth, might have been remembering preparations for something like a New Year's party but confusing them for wedding preparations years later. But I still remain somewhat skeptical of the Ann Rutledge romance story, there's enough evidence for it to be "possible" but not yet enough for it to be "probable".)

I do think Herndon was trying to be fair in his evaluation of Mary in his role as an historian. I can see where his source may have led him astray in the "defaulting bridegroom" story. Even though he was only reporting what his source told him, it's easy to see why Mary would be upset about it and him -- if it weren't true. Herndon's emphasis on the Ann Rutledge story seems hard to base on the vague and contradictory stories his sources told him about Lincoln and Rutledge. I'm sure Herndon believed it to be true but I can't help but feel his own feelings toward Mary helped tint his glasses on the evidence. And the emphasis he placed on the Rutledge story does come off like an attack on Mary, even if he tried to be fair to her and bring up what he felt were Mary's good qualities.

(03-04-2020 05:45 PM)Steve Wrote:  Kerry, bringing up Ann Rutledge reminded me of this thread from last year about Herndon and the reliability of his sources that you might want to check out:

https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussi...l#pid76355

(Note: My viewpoint on Herndon's "defaulting bridegroom" account of the events of Jan. 1, 1841 have changed since my posts in that thread. I now think Mary's sister, Elizabeth, might have been remembering preparations for something like a New Year's party but confusing them for wedding preparations years later. But I still remain somewhat skeptical of the Ann Rutledge romance story, there's enough evidence for it to be "possible" but not yet enough for it to be "probable".)

I do think Herndon was trying to be fair in his evaluation of Mary in his role as an historian. I can see where his source may have led him astray in the "defaulting bridegroom" story. Even though he was only reporting what his source told him, it's easy to see why Mary would be upset about it and him -- if it weren't true. Herndon's emphasis on the Ann Rutledge story seems hard to base on the vague and contradictory stories his sources told him about Lincoln and Rutledge. I'm sure Herndon believed it to be true but I can't help but feel his own feelings toward Mary helped tint his glasses on the evidence. And the emphasis he placed on the Rutledge story does come off like an attack on Mary, even if he tried to be fair to her and bring up what he felt were Mary's good qualities.

Thank you - I will go read it now. I don't put much stock in the Ann Rutledge story, and I've looked hard at the alleged first wedding thing but have never developed a good idea of what happened. I've always thought what John W. Bunn, much younger brother of Jacob Bunn, told Wayne Whipple in 1911 was interesting. That he had asked Herndon about this, and that Herndon said he had the story from Mary Lincoln herself. Bunn said he thought that was unlikely, and that no one has ever understood how it got started. More than one person has claimed to have seen correspondence between Herndon and Mary that does not survive. Who knows? Also possible is that Herndon said he got it from Mary's sister, and Bunn misunderstood. And Jessie Weik also indicated that the Edwards spoke a bit to him about it. I plan to write something on this soon--I found a few interesting tidbits, but no smoking gun.

It is quite plausible to me that Herndon just magnified events through speculation. Eloping was common, and engagements were often kept quiet, and weddings were often small and sudden. It is entirely plausible to me that Lincoln didn't show up to some small gathering, possibly even a wedding, and that no one quite knew what went on and rumors arose. That wouldn't have been a big scandal like it would be today if you'd booked a hall and bought an expensive dress. The bride all dressed up waiting at the altar was probably not what that would have looked like. All the contemporary comments indicated that it was kind of a funny thing, and that Lincoln embarrassed himself, not that he did anything terrible. It sounds like there was just drama/hesitation that was mortifying at the time but probably pretty silly in hindsight.

Sorry it these points have already been made, but - Some rhetorical questions -
I just finished 'Honor's Voice', by Douglas Wilson. I cannot speak to his sources, but in this book it seems he attempted to dash almost every pre-'43 assumption that's been made.

1. What happened on the 'Fatal First'? Is the only referrence to it twice, in correspondences with Speed? Why does this fatal event have to have something to do with Lincoln? Could Speed have trespassed against someone? (aka Sarah Rickard?)

2. Wilson speculated that Mary was planning to announce her engagement to Lincoln at a party hosted by the Edwards, and then Lincoln's cold feet didn't show up. (is the only proof of their '41 engagement Speed's verbal interview, where he said, he recommended to Lincoln - go to her instead of writing a letter?)

Anyways -- Perhaps Doug Wilson has some interesting sources.

(03-05-2020 03:09 PM)Amy L. Wrote:  1. What happened on the 'Fatal First'?

I believe authors' opinions differ on the meaning of these two words. I think the majority of books say that this is a reference to the day the engagement between Abraham and Mary was broken. I feel this is especially true of what is written in the older books. I am not sure if anyone has a 100% answer with certainty. As far as I know, the only reference Abraham made to it was when he wrote Speed (March 27, 1842), "I am not going beyond the truth, when I tell you, that the short space it took me to read your last letter, gave me more pleasure, than the total sum of all I have enjoyed since that fatal first of Jany.'41." On the other hand, Wilson feels the reference has to do with Speed, not the broken engagement. I believe Wilson view is shared by others.

(03-05-2020 03:09 PM)Amy L. Wrote:  Sorry it these points have already been made, but - Some rhetorical questions -
I just finished 'Honor's Voice', by Douglas Wilson. I cannot speak to his sources, but in this book it seems he attempted to dash almost every pre-'43 assumption that's been made.

Yes. And I think he did a very good job trying to make sense of it, but I ultimately wasn't satisfied with it. At the moment, I forget all my specific quibbles, but reading it made me decide to try writing a series for reddit's unresolved mysteries discussion community. They had started doing historical mysteries as well as true crime, and some of the people there are really good at noticing overlooked things. I thought fresh eyes might help, and wanted to lay out my own thoughts. For various reasons, I didn't end up finishing it, but I may try again. Instead of repeating what I think, I'll link to it.


As an update, at this point, I am pretty sure the Jane Bell letter was "forged", which would seem to make a difference. It would be easy for a Lincoln buff to see an opportunity to do this, and the wording closely tracks existing sources. It reads as though it is contrived, and a few years ago one Lincoln scholar sent out a call for the original, leading me to believe others have realized this. The same may be true for some of the other letters--this was (and probably to some extent still is) trivially easy to do, and the market for new gossip is always present, and people want to believe. The famous Ann Rutledge letters debacle in The Atlantic was quickly uncovered because it was so poorly done, and even then it got published. Someone with more skill and knowledge could have made a killing in that environment.

I'm also still convinced we are missing literary references. A huge amount of cultural knowledge evaporated between the world wars. I suspect this has to do with the professionalization of the press and the triumph of "objective" reporting. Most writers were seemingly incapable of taking newspapers from the 1800s as anything but literal and authoritative, and all of Lincoln literature is messed up by this mistake. The press was very playful and personal, on the whole, until World War I. The Civil War era was the peak of this, and the press had way more power than the government. This didn't compute for people living inn a more conservative time where that power relation was reversed. I was stunned by what the editor of John Hay's diary wrote in a footnonte:

Quote: “From the Hay diary it would appear that throughout the Civil War it was not uncommon to place journalists in important military and public positions whence they could write for the paper with a view to directing public opinion . . . We are accustomed to think of government propaganda as having been developed during the World War.”

Historians of secretaries of state thought the concept of media manipulation was developed during the World War?!? I have no idea how this could have come as a surprise to him---it is the most obvious thing in the world if you read the papers and letters of that time. I talk about this with regard to Wikoff. This was normal practice, not considered shameful nor even hidden from the public in most instances. It wasn't really government propaganda because no one expected straight news, and the government didn't really control the information. They gave access in exchange for what they hoped would be favorable or at least accurate and non-abusive press.

Quote:1. What happened on the 'Fatal First'? Is the only referrence to it twice, in correspondences with Speed? Why does this fatal event have to have something to do with Lincoln? Could Speed have trespassed against someone? (aka Sarah Rickard?)

I go into this in my reddit post, and I think this was one of the complaints I had with Wilson's version. I think he only says it once, but it was a relatively common figurative expression. Wilson points out Speed's store closed on January 1, 1841. But the quote is:

Quote:I am not going beyond the truth, when I tell you, that the short space it took me to read your last letter, gave me more pleasure, than the total sum of all I have enjoyed since that fatal first of Jany.'41. Since then, it seems to me, I should have been entirely happy, but for the never-absent idea, that there is one still unhappy whom I have contributed to make so. That still kills my soul. I can not but reproach myself, for even wishing to be happy while she is otherwise. She accompanied a large party on the Rail Road cars, to Jacksonville last monday; and on her return, spoke, so that I heard of it, of having enjoyed the trip exceedingly. God be praised for that.

Why would he immediately turn to talking about Mary Lincoln after that reference if it is about Speed's store? And if it was about something else and he was just making a self-absorbed comment about his personal problems, there's no reason he would have gotten over it the next day and been entirely happy about everything else.

Quote:

2. Wilson speculated that Mary was planning to announce her engagement to Lincoln at a party hosted by the Edwards, and then Lincoln's cold feet didn't show up. (is the only proof of their '41 engagement Speed's verbal interview, where he said, he recommended to Lincoln - go to her instead of writing a letter?).

It's really hard to make sense of Herndon's notes, to know what was his speculation and what was a quote, and all that. Speed said they were engaged in late 1840, that it was over by 1841, I think. Others supported that timeline, but no one is very exact. I'm pretty sure Herndon's notes never mention him asking Speed, "so what was the fatal first?" which you think would be natural. There is just a general lack of follow up questions on some things that i can't make sense of. This was a national discussion by 1872, and yet no one turns up letters in which it is discussed by any of the main players. No one asked Speed or the Edwardses for clarification? I do think that a possible announcement at a party is plausible, and a relative claimed that is what happened, but the account is iffy. But all the contemporary focus is on Lincoln's wretchedness, not Mary's.

I found some new courtship-related stuff, which I hope to post soon.

(03-05-2020 11:41 PM)kerry Wrote:  As an update, at this point, I am pretty sure the Jane Bell letter was "forged", which would seem to make a difference. It would be easy for a Lincoln buff to see an opportunity to do this, and the wording closely tracks existing sources. It reads as though it is contrived, and a few years ago one Lincoln scholar sent out a call for the original, leading me to believe others have realized this. The same may be true for some of the other letters--this was (and probably to some extent still is) trivially easy to do, and the market for new gossip is always present, and people want to believe. The famous Ann Rutledge letters debacle in The Atlantic was quickly uncovered because it was so poorly done, and even then it got published. Someone with more skill and knowledge could have made a killing in that environment.

If your interested in trying to find out if the Jane Bell letter is a forgery, this citation:

https://books.google.com/books?id=HcYWhd...ll&f=false

says that a relative of Bell named "Mrs Henry Jackson" first brought the letter to light and gave a copy of it. My advice would be to try and find out who this woman was, her exact relationship to Bell, and does she have a "spotty" record or connection to other forgeries/questioned documents?

I can see why a family might want to keep the original of a letter by a relative who knew Lincoln in Springfield as a keepsake and part of their cherished family history. I've also seen forgeries being passed off as a "copy", usually when a forger wants to influence the scholarship on an issue. Only more research on the background of the background of the letter will illuminate which is more likely.

(03-10-2020 02:40 AM)Steve Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 11:41 PM)kerry Wrote:  As an update, at this point, I am pretty sure the Jane Bell letter was "forged", which would seem to make a difference. It would be easy for a Lincoln buff to see an opportunity to do this, and the wording closely tracks existing sources. It reads as though it is contrived, and a few years ago one Lincoln scholar sent out a call for the original, leading me to believe others have realized this. The same may be true for some of the other letters--this was (and probably to some extent still is) trivially easy to do, and the market for new gossip is always present, and people want to believe. The famous Ann Rutledge letters debacle in The Atlantic was quickly uncovered because it was so poorly done, and even then it got published. Someone with more skill and knowledge could have made a killing in that environment.

If your interested in trying to find out if the Jane Bell letter is a forgery, this citation:

https://books.google.com/books?id=HcYWhd...ll&f=false

says that a relative of Bell named "Mrs Henry Jackson" first brought the letter to light and gave a copy of it. My advice would be to try and find out who this woman was, her exact relationship to Bell, and does she have a "spotty" record or connection to other forgeries/questioned documents?

I can see why a family might want to keep the original of a letter by a relative who knew Lincoln in Springfield as a keepsake and part of their cherished family history. I've also seen forgeries being passed off as a "copy", usually when a forger wants to influence the scholarship on an issue. Only more research on the background of the background of the letter will illuminate which is more likely.

Thank you for passing this on. I ran a quick search and was surprised to find that a relatively recent book about Speed and Lincoln by Strozier raises similar concerns:

https://books.google.com/books?id=hMV1Cw...22&f=false

He suggests it was either a "forgery of some kind" or "astonishingly prescient," which about sums up my opinion. I can see why a relative would want to retain the original, but it's too cute and too detailed. No scholar has ever seen it (I think by copy they mean hand or type written, not a photocopy), and the request that went out by another scholar a few years ago seems to indicate that they tried tracking it down and failed, so presumably they looked into the family. Strozier points out that it was incorrectly transcribed in the Lincoln Herald, so it sounds under-vetted. Can't find that copy of the Herald, which could be helpful in evaluating it. I think we should assume it is fabricated unless better evidence comes up, but I shouldn't have used the word forgery. I don't think it was represented as a legitimate document for sale, but rather that someone, who may have been an actual descendant inspired by family lore, wanted to be part of the story and fabricated something to impress the professor.