Sons and parents

[Eva Elisabeth]

(01-14-2015 12:36 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  As I read the verdict, "is a fit person to be sent to a State Hospital for the Insane," this simply meant that she met the criteria to be placed in a state hospital; it didn't mean that she would have to go to one if there was a suitable alternative. I can't see an Illinois judge at the time, even a Democratic one, forcing President Lincoln's son to send his mother to a state asylum when there was a private asylum in which she could be placed at his (or his mother's) own expense. What would be the point of such petty behavior? Any small satisfaction the judge might derive from it would be outweighed by the public outrage, I suspect.

RTL had consulted with Dr. Patterson before the trial, so he must have known of his qualifications and got some idea of his establishment before he took his mother there.

I'm a little wary of Schreiner's book. I have a copy, and the author acknowledges using novelistic techniques in his book--"turning indirect statements into direct quotations or carrying the narrative through imagined thought processes." With no footnotes or endnotes, it's difficult to tell what is the author's invention and what is not.

Re: "RTL had consulted with Dr. Patterson before the trial, so he must have known of his qualifications and got some idea of his establishment before he took his mother there."
- Sure, I didn't deny this. He sure expected it better than a state asylum. But I tend to believe Robert's general, definite decision fell before the idea and option of the private asylum developed.

Also I agree it was likely the judge would consent, but not guaranteed and thus still speculative and a risk (and people quite often do behave strangely).

As for "The Trials of Mrs. Lincoln", on pp. 10/11, the author explains: "Although, for the sake of readability, I have dispensed with footnotes, virtually every statement or assumption can be tracked down to a single source or to a consensus among previous biographers. In many cases, readers will easily spot the raw material...If possible, letters, newspaper accounts and the like are quoted with the original spelling, punctuation and structure intact." (My impression is one can well determine the narrative bits, and they also make sense to me.)

Yes, from Jason Emerson's book, Robert and his intentions appeared entirely noble, I can't help it, the book upset me. However, I find this trial, the proceeding and Robert's conduct and strategy in this regard (despite his intentions) not noble but uttermost unfair beyond words, it really upsets me just to think about that someone, a son, can do this, pull such through. The arrest out of the blue, the situation in the court (especially unpreparedly listening to Robert's testimony) and afterwards (the taking of her bonds) must have been most humiliating. And all the doctors (some of whom had never seen Mary before, nevertheless testified against her), lawyers and all in the jury, who all had ganged up on her, including Arnold, her "defence", were men. She was totally unprepared and alone, left without any intimate or true support on her side, treated like a criminal. Uttermost unfair, mean not to say, and humiliating. On that day, out of the blue, she lost everything left to her of the things dear to her - her freedom, her money, and her last remaining son (at least her all her trust in him - and she had been so proud of him). Well, just my opinion. And how would the story have gone on if MTL hadn't managed to free herself?