+- Lincoln Discussion Symposium (https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium)
+-- Forum: Lincoln Discussion Symposium (/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Abraham Lincoln - The White House Years (/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: I would rather be defeated with the soldier vote behind me than to be... (/thread-4290.html)
Pages: 1 2
I would rather be defeated with the soldier vote behind me than to be... - David Lockmiller - 02-27-2020 11:45 AM
I recently read the following quotation from Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book “Team of Rivals” at page 664.
As the election drew close, Lincoln told a visitor: “I would rather be defeated with the soldier vote behind me than to be elected without it.”
The source of this quote is Ida M. Tarbell, “A Reporter for Lincoln: Story of Henry E. Wing, Soldier and Newspaperman” (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1927), p. 70.
“[T]he soldier vote swung overwhelmingly in [Lincoln’s] favor. In the armies of the West, he won eight out of ten votes, and even in McClellan’s Army of the Potomac, Lincoln earned the votes in seven out of every ten soldiers.” (“Team of Rivals” at page 666.)
P.S. It is a great honor for me to have participated on the Lincoln Discussion Symposium with Laurie Verge. I miss her.
RE: I would rather be defeated with the soldier vote behind me than to be... - RJNorton - 02-27-2020 01:09 PM
David, I wholeheartedly second what you said about Laurie.
Somewhere I read that in 1864 Republican soldiers were given furloughs to go home to vote, but Democratic soldiers were kept in the field. This, if true, would have boosted Lincoln's votes from soldiers. I am not sure if this granting of furloughs to Republican soldiers is true - has anyone else read this?
RE: I would rather be defeated with the soldier vote behind me than to be... - Gene C - 02-27-2020 01:57 PM
I don't know about the election of 1864, but the votes for soldiers serving over seas was an issue in the 2000 election for the Florida vote.
Just ask Chad.
RE: I would rather be defeated with the soldier vote behind me than to be... - David Lockmiller - 02-27-2020 02:23 PM
(02-27-2020 01:09 PM)RJNorton Wrote: David, I wholeheartedly second what you said about Laurie.
Somewhere I read that in 1864 Republican soldiers were given furloughs to go home to vote, but Democratic soldiers were kept in the field. This, if true, would have boosted Lincoln's votes from soldiers. I am not sure if this granting of furloughs to Republican soldiers is true - has anyone else read this?
Roger, I do not know for certain that your statement that "Democratic soldiers were kept in the field" is true. But if your statement is true, you make a very good point and it is not a good thing. It is a point that Laurie might well have made with the same knowledge as you . . . but perhaps with more "forceful" words about putting a thumb on the election scale.
Regarding your question of whether Lincoln granted furloughs to Republican soldiers, there is the following information from the same page of "Team of Rivals" that I previously cited in my initial post (page 664).
When Thurlow Weed alerted the White House that among the sailors "on Gun Boats along the Mississippi," there were "several thousand" New Yorkers ready to vote if the government could provide a steamer to reach them and gather their ballots, Lincoln asked Welles to put a navy boat "at the disposal of the New York commission to gather votes."
(02-27-2020 01:57 PM)Gene C Wrote: I don't know about the election of 1864, but the votes for soldiers serving over seas was an issue in the 2000 election for the Florida vote.
Just ask Chad.
There once lived in one of the upstairs apartments in my building a guy by the name of "Chad." I thought that was a very unusual name until I heard about the Florida vote recount and the "hanging chads" time and time again on the nightly news.
RE: I would rather be defeated with the soldier vote behind me than to be... - RJNorton - 02-27-2020 03:09 PM
(02-27-2020 02:23 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote: Roger, I do not know for certain that your statement that "Democratic soldiers were kept in the field" is true. But if your statement is true, you make a very good point and it is not a good thing.
It's my guess that if what I read is true, the orders would have come from Stanton, not Lincoln. IMO, Stanton would do whatever he could to help with Lincoln's re-election in 1864.
RE: I would rather be defeated with the soldier vote behind me than to be... - David Lockmiller - 02-27-2020 04:29 PM
President Lincoln letter to General Sherman dated September 19, 1864
Major General Sherman,
The State election of Indiana occurs on the 11th. of October, and the loss of it to the friends of the Government would go far towards losing the whole Union cause. The bad effect upon the November election, and especially the giving the State Government to those who will oppose the war in every possible way, are too much to risk, if it can possible be avoided. The draft proceeds, notwithstanding its strong tendency to lose us the State. Indiana is the only important State, voting in October, whose soldiers cannot vote in the field. Any thing you can safely do to let her soldiers, or any part of them, go home and vote at the State election, will be greatly in point. They need not remain for the Presidential election, but may return to you at once. This is, in no sense, an order, but is merely intended to impress you with the importance, to the army itself, of your doing all you safely can, yourself being the judge of what you can safely do.
Yours truly
A. Lincoln
I "bolded" the whole letter because I thought the whole letter was important.
And, I italicized one sentence regarding the Presidential election only because I thought it to be outstandingly important.
RE: I would rather be defeated with the soldier vote behind me than to be... - RJNorton - 02-27-2020 04:41 PM
This is from an opinion piece. I do not know how much is true or how much is false. IMO, parts of it are probably embellished in order to support the author's thesis.
https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/07/how-lincoln-won-the-soldier-vote/
RE: I would rather be defeated with the soldier vote behind me than to be... - David Lockmiller - 02-29-2020 12:17 PM
The subject of the soldier vote in 1864 from “Team of Rivals” at pages 663-664:
It was clear to both parties that the absentee vote could prove critical in the presidential election. Democrats, remembering the fanatical devotion McClellan had inspired among this men, believed their man would receive an overwhelming majority of the soldier vote. “We are as certain of two-thirds of that vote for General McClellan as that the sun shines,” the Democratic publisher Manton Marble jauntily predicted.
Lincoln thought differently. He trusted the bond he had developed with his soldiers during his many trips to the front. After every defeat, he had joined them, riding slowly along their lines, boosting their spirits. He had wandered companionably through their encampments, fascinated by the smallest details of camp life. Sitting with the wounded in hospital tents, he had taken their hands and wished them well. The humorous stories he had told clusters of soldiers had been retold to hundreds more. The historian William Davis estimates that “a quarter-million or more had had some glimpse of him on their own.” In addition, word of his pardons to soldiers who had fallen asleep on picket duty or exhibited fear in the midst of battle had spread through the ranks. Most important of all, through his eloquent speeches and public letters he had given profound meaning to the struggle for which they were risking their lives.
Provisions for soldiers to cast absentee ballots in the field had recently been introduced in thirteen states. Four other states allowed soldiers to vote by proxy, placing their ballots in a sealed envelope to be sent or carried for deposit in their hometowns. In several crucial states, however, soldiers still had be in their hometowns on Election Day to cast their ballots. [Note: This statement differs somewhat from Lincoln’s letter-telegraph to General Sherman regarding the Indiana soldier vote. See post #6 on this thread.]
. . . The election would tell which man had won the hearts and minds of the more than 850,000 men who were fighting for the Union (page 664).
RE: I would rather be defeated with the soldier vote behind me than to be... - David Lockmiller - 03-05-2020 11:29 PM
(02-27-2020 11:45 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote: I recently read the following quotation from Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book “Team of Rivals” at page 664.
As the election drew close, Lincoln told a visitor: “I would rather be defeated with the soldier vote behind me than to be elected without it.”
The source of this quote is Ida M. Tarbell, “A Reporter for Lincoln: Story of Henry E. Wing, Soldier and Newspaperman” (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1927), p. 70.
Ida Tarbell wrote more on page 70:
The strong and hostile winds of [public] opinion which had been blowing now for weeks became by August [1864] furious, biting gales, converging to one point—the President. He lived in a whirlwind of opposition, a man without a friend, his opponents confident, contemptuous; Congress sneering and hindering; intrigue in his cabinet, dismay in his party. Even his best and oldest friends came to tell him in solemn tones that his defeat was certain unless he should compromise—delay a draft, consider peace overtures, something to soothe the country’s agony until after election.
“Deceive as to my intention?” he retorted, scornfully refusing.
Lincoln’s deepest concern in August of 1864 was not civilian and official opposition, however strong and bitter it might be. He was more and more concerned with the army’s view of things.
“Henry,” he said in one of their long night talks in this dreary period, “I would rather be defeated with the soldier vote behind me than to be elected without it.”
RE: I would rather be defeated with the soldier vote behind me than to be... - David Lockmiller - 03-08-2020 11:19 PM
(03-05-2020 11:29 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:(02-27-2020 11:45 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote: I recently read the following quotation from Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book “Team of Rivals” at page 664.
As the election drew close, Lincoln told a visitor: “I would rather be defeated with the soldier vote behind me than to be elected without it.”
The source of this quote is Ida M. Tarbell, “A Reporter for Lincoln: Story of Henry E. Wing, Soldier and Newspaperman” (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1927), p. 70.
Ida Tarbell wrote more on page 70:
The strong and hostile winds of [public] opinion which had been blowing now for weeks became by August [1864] furious, biting gales, converging to one point—the President. He lived in a whirlwind of opposition, a man without a friend, his opponents confident, contemptuous; Congress sneering and hindering; intrigue in his cabinet, dismay in his party. Even his best and oldest friends came to tell him in solemn tones that his defeat was certain unless he should compromise—delay a draft, consider peace overtures, something to soothe the country’s agony until after election.
“Deceive as to my intention?” he retorted, scornfully refusing.
Lincoln’s deepest concern in August of 1864 was not civilian and official opposition, however strong and bitter it might be. He was more and more concerned with the army’s view of things.
“Henry,” he said in one of their long night talks in this dreary period, “I would rather be defeated with the soldier vote behind me than to be elected without it.”
Before making the above post, I went down to the San Francisco Public Library to check with the Fehrenbacher book to get the credibility rating of this Henry Wing story. Strangely, neither Henry Wing nor Ida Tarbell are referenced in the index to the Fehrenbacher book. Does anyone know why both names are omitted?
RE: I would rather be defeated with the soldier vote behind me than to be... - RJNorton - 03-09-2020 03:56 AM
(03-08-2020 11:19 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote: Before making the above post, I went down to the San Francisco Public Library to check with the Fehrenbacher book to get the credibility rating of this Henry Wing story. Strangely, neither Henry Wing nor Ida Tarbell are referenced in the index to the Fehrenbacher book. Does anyone know why both names are omitted?
David, didn't the Fehrenbachers concentrate on contemporaries of Lincoln? This would explain why Tarbell was left out. I do not know about Wing.
RE: I would rather be defeated with the soldier vote behind me than to be... - David Lockmiller - 03-09-2020 06:24 AM
(03-09-2020 03:56 AM)RJNorton Wrote:(03-08-2020 11:19 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote: Before making the above post, I went down to the San Francisco Public Library to check with the Fehrenbacher book to get the credibility rating of this Henry Wing story. Strangely, neither Henry Wing nor Ida Tarbell are referenced in the index to the Fehrenbacher book. Does anyone know why both names are omitted?
David, didn't the Fehrenbachers concentrate on contemporaries of Lincoln? This would explain why Tarbell was left out. I do not know about Wing.
Thanks, Roger.
Ida Tarbell wrote the following forward in 1927 to her book "A Reporter for Lincoln, Story of Henry E. Wing":
The story of the adventures of Henry E. Wing, cub reporter for the New York Tribune in the last year of the Civil War, is based on letters and articles by Wing himself, supplemented by the author's many conversations with him in the last year of his life. The story treatment has altered no fact, stretched no point, added no artificial evidence to Henry Wing's own stirring accounts of his experiences or of his close relations with Abraham Lincoln. So far as possible, the historical facts have been verified.
Before the narrative was ready for publication, Mr. Wing died, at his home near Bethel, Conn.--a man of 85 years--to the last clear in mind and serene and cheerful in spirit.
signed, Ida M. Tarbell
P.S. As previously posted, Doris Kearns Goodwin found Wing's story to be credible although she referred to Wing in the text of her book "Team of Rivals" not by name, but rather as a "visitor." It is only through her footnote reference that the "visitor" is identified by name.
Somewhat strange to my way of thinking.
RE: I would rather be defeated with the soldier vote behind me than to be... - RJNorton - 03-09-2020 11:16 AM
David, here is what I think happened. The Election of 1864 was held during wartime. The party in power was determined to be re-elected as it wanted to see to it that the war ended in the way that party wanted. There was worry in that party that it might not be re-elected. So, therefore, in order to garner as many votes as possible, people such as Edwin Stanton and Abraham Lincoln may have "stretched" things somewhat in order to gain as many votes as possible from the soldiers. I do not blame them as that is the way it is in the USA, as the two parties always look for ways to win elections. 1864 was an extraordinary time, and I think the governing party (for a time called the National Union Party) looked at every possibility of staying in power. The idea of "bending the rules" to gain more soldier votes was simply a natural outcome of this. I do not in the slightest have a lesser opinion of President Lincoln because of the way things may have gone down.
RE: I would rather be defeated with the soldier vote behind me than to be... - Rob Wick - 03-12-2020 08:06 PM
I haven't visited the forum for a while, so I never saw this thread until I received a private message from David asking my opinion of A Reporter for Lincoln. I asked David to give me a few days to go through my papers. I decided to answer his question here so all can see it.
First, some background.
Henry E. Wing was a Methodist minister and served from Connecticut during the Civil War where he was wounded in the leg during the battle of Fredericksburg, specifically the Union attack on Marye's Heights. He told Tarbell that he didn't support Lincoln during his first run for the presidency, instead supporting Stephen A. Douglas. Wing's father was an ardent abolitionist, and his mother had spent time in the South, where she accepted the role that slavery played there. Wing's father was such a strong opponent of slavery that he publicly castigated his son during a speech before the war. His father told the crowd that he couldn't believe that someone bearing his own name would be as evil as his son. Later that day, at the urging of his mother, Henry left town rather than confront his father.
After his wounding, Wing became a cub reporter for the New York Tribune newspaper. His main claim to fame rested on the fact that during the Battle of the Wilderness, Wing received information from Ulysses S. Grant that no matter what he planned to persevere in his fight against Robert E. Lee. Wing made his way to Washington, where he was given an audience with Lincoln. Having had no news from Grant for days, Lincoln asked to see Wing, who told him of Grant's statement, immediately (in Wing's story) lightening Lincoln's mood and endearing Wing to Lincoln. What made it even more interesting is that Edwin M. Stanton had ordered Wing be shot as a Confederate spy, which Lincoln immediately suspended.
Wing published much of his reminisces in the early years of the 20th century, mainly in the Christian Advocate. Tarbell was first approached about Wing on April 28, 1924 when a woman named Mrs. John Sherman Hoyt wrote her a letter telling her about Wing and his exploits and urging Tarbell to come to South Norwalk, Connecticut to meet with Wing, who was in his 80s and not long for the world. Although Tarbell's reply to Hoyt isn't in her papers, she did go to meet Wing in May of 1924. In a memo to herself, Tarbell wrote of Wing "I am agreeably disappointed in the man. He is past 80 and deaf, but still youthful in spirit--quite simple and friendly. He launches at once into talk of Lincoln. I find that most of the stories in the MS (that had been given to Tarbell by Hoyt to study before meeting Wing) have been printed in one form or another in the Christian Advocate, that under the title of "When Lincoln Kissed Me" they have a little book which still sells."
Tarbell only mentions the story of Lincoln telling Wing about the soldier's vote once in all the memos in her papers. "Light on Lincoln's feeling for the common soldier, his desire that they back him up in '64, his fear that they might not."
Tarbell wasn't convinced that the material she had along with her interviews of Wing would make much a story, especially given that much of the information had already been printed. Tarbell wanted to focus a piece on Wing's horse, named Jess. "I am inclined to think that the real hero of this story is Jess, the horse, that is, from the writer's point of view, and that if Wing can tell me enough of Jess that the Lincoln and Grant material would give the thing a freshness and a value which would be quite unique." According to Tarbell's notes, Jess was left in a thicket and Lincoln ordered that an expedition be fitted out to enable Wing to return to the thicket and retrieve his horse. "The expedition had to run through a Confederate camp at one point and had the glory of having Mr. Lincoln himself ride her. To give more of the horse, its end, etc., would make, it seems to me, a capital tale."
Tarbell, who grew immensely fond of Wing and his wife, admitted that she was "Puzzled to know how I can handle this material to Wing's advantage." Tarbell was able to sell articles to the Ladies Home Journal and Collier's. Macmillan agreed to publish the book, giving Tarbell an advance of $150 (almost $2,300 in today's dollars). She insisted that Wing's widow be given the royalties for the work as well as her pay from the magazine articles given that Wing never made much money off of his Lincoln stories when he was alive.
So now, as to the veracity of Wing's work. Tarbell, from what I saw in her papers, never questioned any of Wing's stories. However, Tarbell rarely questioned any thing, which is why she accepted Joseph Medill's article on Lincoln's Lost Speech as well as the reminisces of Henry B. Rankin.
As for the reviews, the Brooklyn Daily Eagle wrote "She has not romanced to the distortion of historical fact, yet romance is the breath of the story." William E. Barton, exhibiting the snark for which he was well-known, wrote in the Journal of American History in 1927 that "The sentimentality which pervades the narrative will probably win for it a considerable body of readers. For the critical reader it contains nothing of interest or value. It is history of the type that is frequently portrayed on the silver screen. Save for the prestige which the sponsorship of its distinguished editor provides, the narrative would call for no mention here."
I honestly don't have an opinion either way as to how trustworthy Wing's recollections are. I've not done enough research to show what other historians think of Wing. Given that many approach history with an exceedingly skeptical eye, it wouldn't surprise me that some might take his stories as unproven anecdote. That Tarbell accepted them uncritically and that the only negative review I found came from Barton doesn't surprise me. I honestly believe that Wing was such an obscure figure that very little study has ever been given to him, and its likely that very little ever will.
Best
Rob
RE: I would rather be defeated with the soldier vote behind me than to be... - David Lockmiller - 03-14-2020 11:58 AM
(03-12-2020 08:06 PM)Rob Wick Wrote: I honestly don't have an opinion either way as to how trustworthy Wing's recollections are. I've not done enough research to show what other historians think of Wing. Given that many approach history with an exceedingly skeptical eye, it wouldn't surprise me that some might take his stories as unproven anecdote. That Tarbell accepted them uncritically and that the only negative review I found came from Barton doesn't surprise me. I honestly believe that Wing was such an obscure figure that very little study has ever been given to him, and its likely that very little ever will.
Best
Rob
Rob, I apologize for my delay in responding to your post. I had to go down to the San Francisco Public Main Library to read a copy of Secretary Welles May 7, 1864 diary entry when President Lincoln and the members of his cabinet, including Secretary Welles, met with the New York Tribune reporter Henry Wing. It was a most prophetic and fateful meeting for President Lincoln with reporter Henry Wing by way of what occurred after the formal meeting ended and the members of President Lincoln’s cabinet had withdrawn.
The book reads in part as follows:
Between one and two o’clock of Saturday morning, May 7, the train came into the capital on its return trip, and Wing, unwashed, unbrushed, but entirely unconscious of such minutiae, stepped into a waiting carriage and was driven to the White House. . . .
Henry’s first consciousness of his condition came at the moment when he saw the look of dismay that crossed the face of the President. But it was only for a moment – the Secretary of the Navy, Gideon Welles, had recognized him as a constituent, and rising said, “You are Henry Wing from Litchfield?” And, so he was introduced.
“What had he to tell them,” Mr. Lincoln asked. “When and where had he left Grant?”
What he told them was little more than he had put into his [telegraph] message.
(“A Reporter for Lincoln, Story of Henry E. Wing,” by Ida M. Tarbell, The Macmillan Company (1927), pages 9-11.)
Henry Wing was conscious of the inadequacy of his news. It was not what had happened Thursday that they wanted to know now, but what had happened Friday. And why now, Saturday morning, they still had no news. It was almost as if they put him aside as they rose one by one, said, “Good night, Mr. President,” and left the room. The President himself seemed so overwhelmed with uncertainty that he was scarcely conscious that Henry Wing had lingered behind.
“You wanted to speak to me?" said Mr. Lincoln.
(“A Reporter for Lincoln, page 12.)
Secretary Welles’ entry to his diaries for May 7, 1864 reads as follows:
Some fragmentary intelligence comes to us of a conflict of the two great armies. A two days’ fight is said to have taken place. The President came into my room about 1 P.M. and told me he had slept none last night. He lay down for a short time on the sofa in my room and detailed all the news he had gathered.
Mr. Wing, a correspondent of the New York Tribune called upon me this evening. He brings the first news we have had, but this not full and conclusive.
There is no reference in Ida Tarbell’s book to this possible separate meeting later the same day with Secretary Welles. Perhaps Welles confused the early morning hours of May 7 as the evening hours in his diary entry.
I think that Ida Tarbell is a very fine writer. She reminds me of the excellent “readability” writings of Doris Kearns Goodwin in “Team of Rivals.” Both authors make reading history interesting and informative.
Until proven otherwise, I believe the accounts as written in “A Reporter for Lincoln, Story of Henry E. Wing,” by Ida M. Tarbell, The Macmillan Company (1927).
To repeat, it was a most prophetic and fateful meeting for President Lincoln by way of what occurred after the formal meeting ended and the members of President Lincoln’s cabinet had withdrawn.
“You wanted to speak to me? said Mr. Lincoln.
“Yes, Mr. President. I have a message for you – a message from General Grant. He told me I was to give it to you when you were alone.”
In an instant the President was all awareness, intent – “Something from Grant to me?”
“Yes,” blurted out Henry. “He told me I was to tell you, Mr. President, that there would be no turning back.”
The harried man had waited long – three years – for such a word – the one word that could have brought him help in his despair; and his long arm swept around and gathered the boy to him, and bending over he pressed a kiss on his cheek. “Come and tell me about it,” he said.
They sat down, and suddenly all of Henry’s journalistic discretion was gone. Here was one who had the right to know, and so he told him of the horrors and uncertainties of that day in the Wilderness – of men fighting without knowing where they were going, fighting in groups not masses; of Hancock, left without support; of Warren’s over-caution, bottling up the troops that Hancock had expected to support him; of a day gone wrong from start to finish.
He told how, when night had come and commanders and correspondents had gathered at headquarters, there had been angry charges, one officer accusing another; of Meade’s decision that they should fall back north of the river, reestablish their lines, and try again later, and how General Grant had come in with his quiet but final, “No, we shall attack again in the morning.”
(“A Reporter for Lincoln, pages 12 - 14.)