Welcome

[Eva Elisabeth]

If these letters had been destroyed, how is it known they were affectionate (not that I consider this not possible or not likely)? Was there any "witness" who read them and stated this, or is that just an assumption?

[Linda Anderson]

(01-19-2015 05:38 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  If these letters had been destroyed, how is it known they were affectionate (not that I consider this not possible or not likely)? Was there any "witness" who read them and stated this, or is that just an assumption?

Eva, Gene asked the same question on the Walter Stahr Book on Seward thread and I answered him there.

http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussio...l#pid42979[u]

[L Verge]

(01-19-2015 05:38 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  If these letters had been destroyed, how is it known they were affectionate (not that I consider this not possible or not likely)? Was there any "witness" who read them and stated this, or is that just an assumption?

If those letters were of a particularly affectionate nature, I'd bet my bottom dollar that's why they were culled and destroyed from the packet before being turned over for public consumption...

[Linda Anderson]

(01-19-2015 05:49 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 05:38 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  If these letters had been destroyed, how is it known they were affectionate (not that I consider this not possible or not likely)? Was there any "witness" who read them and stated this, or is that just an assumption?

If those letters were of a particularly affectionate nature, I'd bet my bottom dollar that's why they were culled and destroyed from the packet before being turned over for public consumption...

Sorry, I misunderstood what letters Eva was talking about. Van Deusen was talking about letters revealing what Sewards' sons really thought of Olive and her father that he had heard on the "best authority" "were destroyed by relatives before the Seward Papers were given to the University of Rochester." Like Laurie, I imagine that other letters may have been destroyed as well.

[Eva Elisabeth]

Thanks, Linda. I admit I'm a little confused now, so I'll try again and beg for your patience. You stated they (Seward and Olive R.) wrote affectionate letters to each other. From where do "we" know these affectionate letters actually existed? I sure agree that it would have made sense to burn such letters instead of passing them on, but who was the source of the letters' actual existense? Who saw/had read them to "witness" the affectionate tone?

[Susan Higginbotham]

My own guess is that Seward's feelings toward Olive were more fatherly than romantic--if they had been the latter, I doubt he would have created a quasi-incestuous relationship with her by adopting her, when he could have simply married her and settled his estate in a manner that favored his sons but left her comfortable.

[L Verge]

Just finished Fanny Seward: A Life. Loved it! Cried at the end.

[Linda Anderson]

(01-19-2015 07:24 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Thanks, Linda. I admit I'm a little confused now, so I'll try again and beg for your patience. You stated they (Seward and Olive R.) wrote affectionate letters to each other. From where do "we" know these affectionate letters actually existed? I sure agree that it would have made sense to burn such letters instead of passing them on, but who was the source of the letters' actual existense? Who saw/had read them to "witness" the affectionate tone?

I don't know what if any letters between Seward and Olive were burned by their relatives. The letters that I was talking about were between the Seward sons expressing their displeasure of Olive and her father.

Seward wrote to Olive, "Why did I ever allow myself to become dependent on you so entirely?" (Taylor) On another occasion he wrote, "...the illegible and ragged manuscripts which I sent to you yesterday will show you how tenaciously I adhere equally to a purpose of my will or an affection of my heart." "A few weeks later he closed his letter by telling Olive he was 'as anxious as you can be that we may meet again and not be separated.'" (Stahr)

"Olive signed her letters 'affectionately yours.'" (Stahr)

---

(01-19-2015 07:57 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  My own guess is that Seward's feelings toward Olive were more fatherly than romantic--if they had been the latter, I doubt he would have created a quasi-incestuous relationship with her by adopting her, when he could have simply married her and settled his estate in a manner that favored his sons but left her comfortable.

I wonder if there was a law in Seward's time that determined how much a wife would inherit when her husband died. If there was, Seward may have not been able to favor his sons.

[Susan Higginbotham]

(01-19-2015 09:52 PM)Linda Anderson Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 07:24 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Thanks, Linda. I admit I'm a little confused now, so I'll try again and beg for your patience. You stated they (Seward and Olive R.) wrote affectionate letters to each other. From where do "we" know these affectionate letters actually existed? I sure agree that it would have made sense to burn such letters instead of passing them on, but who was the source of the letters' actual existense? Who saw/had read them to "witness" the affectionate tone?

I don't know what if any letters between Seward and Olive were burned by their relatives. The letters that I was talking about were between the Seward sons expressing their displeasure of Olive and her father.

Seward wrote to Olive, "Why did I ever allow myself to become dependent on you so entirely?" (Taylor) On another occasion he wrote, "...the illegible and ragged manuscripts which I sent to you yesterday will show you how tenaciously I adhere equally to a purpose of my will or an affection of my heart." "A few weeks later he closed his letter by telling Olive he was 'as anxious as you can be that we may meet again and not be separated.'" (Stahr)

"Olive signed her letters 'affectionately yours.'" (Stahr)

---

(01-19-2015 07:57 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  My own guess is that Seward's feelings toward Olive were more fatherly than romantic--if they had been the latter, I doubt he would have created a quasi-incestuous relationship with her by adopting her, when he could have simply married her and settled his estate in a manner that favored his sons but left her comfortable.

I wonder if there was a law in Seward's time that determined how much a wife would inherit when her husband died. If there was, Seward may have not been able to favor his sons.

Well, those excerpts certainly do sound more than fatherly . . .

[Eva Elisabeth]

Thanks for clarifying, Linda. I agree, these excerpts do sound more than fatherly . . .Did she inherit less than the sons? Wiki reads: "She and Seward's three surviving sons were named joint heirs of the Seward estate", but that still doesn't tell if the portions were equal ones. At least nowadays here it's easier to eclipse the spouse from inheritance (or diminish the statutory share by prior seperation of property and appropriation of a minor sum) while it's almost impossible to cut your children (biological or adopted) out of your will and of their statutory share. But maybe indeed US law in those days favored spouses rather than children (if that was the reason for adoption)? Does anyone know? I've always thought since her husband died without a will, Mary was very lucky to inherit the same share as the two sons (1/3), not less (here she would have inherited 1/4, Tad and Robert 3/4).

[RJNorton]

(01-20-2015 05:36 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  I've always thought since her husband died without a will, Mary was very lucky to inherit the same share as the two sons (1/3), not less (here she would have inherited 1/4, Tad and Robert 3/4).

Eva, I just read this page, and if I understand correctly, Mary should have received 1/2 and the boys 1/4 each. But maybe Illinois' laws were different in 1865?

[Eva Elisabeth]

Thank you, Roger! I find this (such in general) very interesting to learn! (I meanwhile checked the German law. Depending on the marriage settlement, the spouse may claim to inherit 1/2, and the children share the other half, but basically it's 1/4.)

However, law was obviously indeed different in those days. An announcement in the "Springfield Journal" and the "NY Times" in fall 1867 stated:
"Hon. David Davis, administrator of the estate of the late President Lincoln, made a final settlement of the estate with Hon. William Prescott, Judge of the County Court of Sangamon County, on Wednesday last. After paying all debts and expenses, there remains to be divided amongst the heirs the sum of $110,295.90. Of this amount Mrs. Lincoln receives $36,765.30, Robert T. Lincoln and Thomas Lincoln each the same amount. It is a remarkable fact that the total amount of Mr. Lincoln's ineptness, at the time of his death, as per schedule filed in the County Clerk's office, was only $10.81.
Since the death of the President, Mrs. Lincoln has received of the estate $4,085.51, Robert Lincoln $7,300.15, and Thomas Lincoln $1,096.54.
We learn that Judge Davos, who was a warm personal friend of the lamented President, made no charges for hos services in the settlement of the estate."

[Note: Mary learned of the settlement only from these newspapers, also of the fact that Robert had received more in advance to finance his bachelor apartment, while Mary, who, too, had asked Davis for more for accomodation but had been denied this.]

Re: "It is a remarkable fact that the total amount of Mr. Lincoln's ineptness...was only $10.81" - my humble question - why was he expected to be in debts??? (Mary's debts?)

What I don't understand is how the Springfield house was handled in this settlement.

---

(01-20-2015 08:42 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  [Note: Mary learned of the settlement only from these newspapers, also of the fact that Robert had received more in advance to finance his bachelor apartment, while Mary, who, too, had asked Davis for more for accomodation but had been denied this.]

(Considering this and the trial, do you understand my resentments against Robert being a thoroughly faithful, noble son?
I again don't know about Illinois law in those days, but here and now it's almost impossible to disinherit children by will of their statutory share, you have to prove and try them for unfaithfulness. As an insane person by verdict, after the insanity trial's verdict it was I assume unlikely Mary would have ever been legally able to try Robert, the sole heir at this time, and desinherit him, plus she was unable to waste her inherited money. Thus the trial secured the main portion and Robert would have gotten it sooner or later. I can't help it but to guess the thought she might have "wasted" all for her pleasures and shopping sprees had caused Robert some headaches prior to the trial and these had some share in his decision try her and to ensure he would win. This all just smelled. I consider it possible though that Robert felt preventing Mary from spending his father's money on "flub dubs" were in the latter's sense. I know I bore y'all...sorry.)

[RJNorton]

(01-20-2015 08:42 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  What I don't understand is how the Springfield house was handled in this settlement.

Eva, I don't know what was in the settlement regarding the house, but what I have read is that Robert continued to lease the house. I think there were several tenants during the years after the assassination. As far as I know the rent payments went to him. I recall reading that a tenant was once late with his payment but responded in a positive way to Robert's reminder. As I write this, my mind is blank regarding Mary and the house - I don't recall ever reading that she had anything to do with it.

[Eva Elisabeth]

Thanks, so I assume the rent was divided?! The question occured to me as it was suggested to her to live in the Springfield home in order to save money for accomodation.

[Linda Anderson]

(01-20-2015 05:36 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Thanks for clarifying, Linda. I agree, these excerpts do sound more than fatherly . . .Did she inherit less than the sons? Wiki reads: "She and Seward's three surviving sons were named joint heirs of the Seward estate", but that still doesn't tell if the portions were equal ones.

The 11/18/1872 New York Herald published a copy of Seward's will dated 11/5/1870. Seward's three sons Gus, Fred and Will inherited in equal shares "the house and real estate in Auburn in which I dwell."

Seward gave "all my remaining estate, real and personal, in equal shares to my said three sons, and my adopted daughter, Olive F. Risley, daughter of my old friend, Harrison A. Risley."

Seward appointed Will and Olive as executor and executrix.

The 10/18/1872 San Francisco Chronicle states that besides the house in Auburn, "his other property, consisting in part of securities, but mainly of real estate in Auburn and vicinity, he divides in four equal shares among his sons and his adopted daughter, Olive Risley Seward...The property has not yet been appraised, and it is impossible to say precisely what it will amount to, but it will probably not be far from $200,00."

Does anyone know what $50,000 was worth in 1872?