He Served in Place of Abraham Lincoln

[maharba]

Abraham Lincoln had a War enlistment substitute to take his place in the Federal army. Little more than a child really when the War began. And the poor fellow was not well served by the Federals, in the endgame. Lincoln assigned a wealthy crony to go find him a young man as a 'representative recruit" who would go into the Federal army and take the place of him. So a very wealthy masonic friend Nobel Danforth Larner did just that. He met the young man on the street in DC, and brought
John Summerfield Staples to see Abraham Lincoln. Summerfield
had already served one tour of duty and had only just left with his life, nearly dying from typhoid fever. John Staples had recovered from much of that, when Nobel Larner accosted him, to join up in place of Lincoln. Mr.N.D.Larner held many well-placed positions in and around DC. Never needing to actually go into the field against the Southern Army. Probably Larner's position as Grand High Priest of the Washington masons was the the most prestigious.

The stories vary on what compensation that Abraham Lincoln's
personal 'substitute' got paid. Anywhere from $300-$500. Lincoln sized him and supposedly pulled $60 out of his pocket, handed it to the young man, and wished him well. This final tour of duty for Summerfield apparently was working as a guard at prison camps. He finished that by mid 1865 and went back home to Monroe PA. The effects of typhoid in the War took its toll on John Staples and near the end of his life he applied for a Pension. Strangely though, all records of his service --the only man ever to serve as a recruit substitute for a president-- were 'lost'. Even a small Pension was denied to him.

In 1887 Noble Danforth Larner, Grand High Priest of the Arch Masons, and who had prospered so well through Lincoln and Grant's terms was interviewed by a DC paper. Noble mused about the man who had been Lincoln's stand-in, that Summerfield "was a 'ne'er do well...probably
died in the Wilderness Campaign".

Still alive though infirm, Summerfield was working over the road to support his children. He returned to his work in Dover, NJ. The man the public has never heard of, the man never taught about in schools, John Summerfield Staples who took the place of Abraham Lincoln and for whom the Federals claimed they "lost his records" and denying him
even a small pension, died in boardinghouse on a cold January in 1888.

[RJNorton]

Dr. Sam Wheeler, research historian for the ALPLM, wrote an article about Staples here. Wikipedia also includes an article here. There's a much more lengthy article here.

[Gene C]

At the age of 55, why would Lincoln need to hire a substitute, unless it was really for his son Robert who was in college at the time?

[RJNorton]

Gene, I really do not know other than a guess. This would be that it was done as a symbolic gesture.

[Gene C]

Is this a credible story, first I recall ever hearing of it.
If it was a symbolic gesture, I am surprised it didn't get more mention.

Are you aware of any of the Lincoln biographers mentioning it?

[maharba]

Some interesting sites for sure, Roger, and they do amplify what I was able to find out. Thanks. And a good point that it was likely a symbolic gesture. What would have happened if the poor guy had been maimed in battle and survived slightly deranged, then begun raving about himself 'a stand in for Lincoln' and not getting his full measure of devotion in return?
As a 'false start publicity project' this could have gone in many directions --good and bad for the Federals.

Gene
Is this a credible story, first I recall ever hearing of it...
Are you aware of any of the Lincoln biographers mentioning it?

Good points, too, Gene. You are very widely read in Lincoln lore and had not heard of Summerfield, Lincoln's replacement.
What gets me is the treatment of the poor guy from the likes of Noble Danforth Larner, Grand High Priest of the masons. Not only do they just forget about Summerfield, they make snide remarks about Summerfield's character.

[Joe Di Cola]

Gene,

The only biography I have encountered that had the Staples story was in Sandburg's 6-volume biography, in volume 3 of "The War Years." And, as much as I am fond of the lyric prose of Carl Sandburg in his Lincoln bio, we do not have a full picture of where that author got his sources. As reported by Sandburg, the whole incident appears to be more symbolic than anything--sort of like an 1861 photo-op since Lincoln, as C-in-C would actually not be considered part of the quota of recruits from his ward in Washington, D.C.
The pseudo-/micro-research that occupies some on the symposium is disheartening and sometimes produces posts that have less merit than other posts. C'est la vie!

[Susan Higginbotham]

His tombstone is on Find-A-Grave. A historical marker on the same page indicates that Lincoln procured him as his "representative recruit" to encourage draft-ineligible men to do the same.

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi...&GRid=3652

[L Verge]

(01-13-2016 10:25 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Dr. Sam Wheeler, research historian for the ALPLM, wrote an article about Staples here. Wikipedia also includes an article here. There's a much more lengthy article here.

Thanks for the link to the Monroe County newsletter. I thoroughly enjoyed the long article on Staples by John H. Abel.

---

(01-13-2016 10:48 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Gene, I really do not know other than a guess. This would be that it was done as a symbolic gesture.

I had seen brief mentions of John Summerfield Staples over the years, but had never read anything of substance. One of the articles that Roger linked us to, however, gave Lincoln's reasoning as wanting to get fresh recruits as substitutes for the elderly and those who, for one reason or another, could no longer serve in the military. He needed to swell the ranks in order to keep winning battles and the upcoming election of 1864. The symbolic gesture would be offering himself as the first to have a substitute on this go-round of recruitment, but his thoughts were pure politics and military.

I have ancestors on both sides of the family tree who impoverished themselves by buying substitutes for their sons to avoid having our Marylanders fight against their Confederate brethren after Lincoln had promised our state that such would not be the case.

---

(01-13-2016 01:57 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  His tombstone is on Find-A-Grave. A historical marker on the same page indicates that Lincoln procured him as his "representative recruit" to encourage draft-ineligible men to do the same.

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi...&GRid=3652

Is it just me, or does Mr. Staples remind you of what Willie Lincoln might have looked like had he survived into his 20s?

[Rob Wick]

When I saw this post, I seemed to remember that Tarbell did some research on this when she was writing her second series of articles on Lincoln for McClure's. Sure enough, there are two letters in her papers regarding this, although they don't really shed much light on Staples. Here are the links to the letters. And Joe, as always, I agree 100 percent with you.

http://hdl.handle.net/10456/33096
http://hdl.handle.net/10456/32854

Best
Rob

[Eva Elisabeth]

This was new to me, too.

Rob, it never ceases to amaze me what sources and in-depth info you and some others instantly provide! Thanks.

Wiki reads:

"During the Civil War, it became customary for many citizens to pay for 'substitutes' to serve in the army in their place. HOPING TO SET A GOOD EXAMPLE, President Lincoln selected Staples as his substitute and offered him a bounty of $500. Staples saw little action during the year he served as the president's representative, primarily working as a clerk and prison guard. He mustered out in September 1865."

Despite the 500$ (500 in 1864 would convert to $7653 in 2015 btw), would he have received regular pay for his service? I would think so. He seemed to have had a quite safe job, and he accepted voluntarily - at all and to the conditions, so I don't see an issue about this.

(M., why didn't you post this thread in the "White House Years" section?)

---

PS: Re.:"Abraham Lincoln had a War enlistment substitute to take his place in the Federal army. Little more than a child really when the War began" - but an adult of 19 when substituting Lincoln.

[Gene C]

Thanks to all who posted info on this. I was highly skeptical when this was first mentioned, am much less skeptical now.

[maharba]

Again we see that this Lincoln Symposium, and Roger Norton providing it, develops new and interesting Lincoln information. Compare our efforts with all the past giants in Lincoln scholarship, and if we seem to surpass them to some extent, it is due to: the Internet and sites like this Lincoln Symposium. With the net and a desire to really investigate a topic, a person can almost instantly run down items and hunches in their mind, search for past instances on the net, accumulate and sort out from millions of sophisticated sources. The very best, past 'Lincoln scholars' never remotely had that option to gather and sort through information. Then with a forum like this, you can instantly bring your 'new ideas' to the table for the enjoyment, ridicule, analysis of other folks across the world --many having a much greater depth of Lincoln lore and often quickly share the wealth of their knowledge. Wouldn't the 'oldtyme Lincoln scholars' wish they had some of the advantages and resources we enjoy here.

[Houmes]

(01-14-2016 06:19 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  PS: Re.:"Abraham Lincoln had a War enlistment substitute to take his place in the Federal army. Little more than a child really when the War began" - but an adult of 19 when substituting Lincoln.

YIKES.

From E.B. Long's book Civil War Day by Day:

There were 127 Northern soldiers recorded as being age 13; 330 age I4; 773 age 15; 2758 age 16; 6425 age 17; 133,475 age 18; 90,215 age 19; 71,058 age 20; 97,136 age 21. From there on it gradually went down to 7012 age 45; 967 age 46; and 2366 age 50 or over.

[Eva Elisabeth]

(01-16-2016 10:55 AM)Houmes Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 06:19 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  PS: Re.:"Abraham Lincoln had a War enlistment substitute to take his place in the Federal army. Little more than a child really when the War began" - but an adult of 19 when substituting Lincoln.

YIKES.

From E.B. Long's book Civil War Day by Day:

There were 127 Northern soldiers recorded as being age 13; 330 age I4; 773 age 15; 2758 age 16; 6425 age 17; 133,475 age 18; 90,215 age 19; 71,058 age 20; 97,136 age 21. From there on it gradually went down to 7012 age 45; 967 age 46; and 2366 age 50 or over.

Personally I agree on the YIKES - in general, as I would prefer a world without war and military (or as Carl Sandburg worded: "Sometime they'll give a war and nobody will come"), as well as in particular as for the underaged.

My sole point was that of legal adulthood that includes all rights like the right to vote as well as responsibilities - at least viewed from the background I grew up with. Legal adulthood here begins at age 18, and until 2011 adult young men at the earliest time possible (i.e. after finishing school) had to make a similar decision between either six months (admittedly half of the time Staples served) of mandatory military or civilian service. Thus until 2011, most young men of typically age 18/19 served in the military. And Staples was aware of his accepting meant serving in wartime. He could have refused, there was no obligation to oblige. The question probably begins rather at whether an 18-year-old is eligible for adulthood and to make such decisions. I realize in Lincoln's youth adulthood in the US began at 21 and this might not have changed since.

So while I personally agree on the YIKES, my sole point was that the YIKES factor in Staples' case was "legally" (admittedly from my perspective) perhaps not that much higher than the just recently abolished conscription young men at the same age had to face here for several decades.