Lincoln speech on the Bible?

[Rob Wick]

Quote:Is it known whether Robert Todd owned a copy of Smith's book?

Anita,

I'm not sure what made up Robert Todd's library, nor do I know how voluminous it was. Just going by what Herndon reported, I don't question that Lincoln at least knew of the book.

Quote:Did Edwards have a motive to make up such a story?

I think he did. I'm currently reading David Herbert Donald's biography of Herndon, called Lincoln's Herndon. It was originally Donald's doctoral dissertation written as a student of James G. Randall. I have the Da Capo Press reprint, which was published in 1989 and includes corrections made by Donald as well as a new introduction. I started reading this book long before the question of Lincoln, the alleged lecture, and James Smith came up. Today, as luck (or coincidence) would have it, I reached Chapter 17, titled "Judas in Springfield." I don't want to spend a lot of time going through what Donald wrote (I would highly recommend the book, even though Donald's strong anti-Herndon bias, which he received from the Randalls, is on display for all to see. That said, Donald admits in the new introduction that he was much too harsh on Herndon in the 1948 edition, which Carl Sandburg wrote the foreword to, by the way), but after Ward Hill Lamon's book was published, Herndon was on the receiving end of a great deal of criticism. What strikes me is Donald's assertion that people weren't angry because Herndon lied, but rather because he told a truth that should have been kept quiet.

Donald notes that, interestingly, Chauncey Black, who was the ghostwriter for Lamon's book, developed a friendship with Herndon and was negotiating a potential deal that would allow Black to restore much of the Lamon biography that publishers insisted on excising against Black's wishes by using Herndon's Lincoln Record. Black wrote Herndon a letter informing him of James Reed's lecture, which Donald points out bypassed Herndon's notice as he was living on his farm and not in the city of Springfield. After hearing what he considered to be Reed's personal attack on him, Herndon vowed to either write an article or deliver a lecture on Lincoln's religion from birth to his election to the presidency. With this brewing, Black informed his publishers that Herndon's lecture would be like catnip to potential readers of Black's new book.

Here is a copy of Herndon's lecture, along with the side presented by Reed and others. Interestingly, Matheny and John Todd Stuart tried to back out of their assertions, which Herndon discusses, which everyone can read for themselves. However, I do want to quote what Donald said about Herndon's lecture.

"As a critique of Reed's article, Herndon's lecture showed considerable skill. One after another he tested Reed's witnesses and showed that they were prejudiced, badly informed, or imperfectly quoted. The minister had cited letters from John Todd Stuart and James M. Matheny denying that they wrote the statements attributed to them in the Lamon biography. Quite true, answered Herndon; they did not write the words. [Italics in original] He himself had written the statements during his interviews with these men. Their denials were just a quibble over words. Actually, he went on to reveal, Matheny did not write the retraction which Reed quoted; "it was prepared for him by Mr. Reed, and Matheny is old enough to have known that deception and wrong...were intended." That said, Donald then writes, "All in all, the lecture on Lincoln's religion revealed Herndon at his worst. It was characterized by the dogmatic conviction of his own righteousness, by intolerance for the opinions of others, and by loose reasoning." (pg. 277)

So I think it's quite possible that Edwards would have reason for lying in trying to protect the memory of Abraham and the reputation of Mary.

I want to add that I recently (again, long before this topic came up) received a copy of Robert Bray's Reading With Lincoln (Southern Illinois University Press, 2010), who goes into detail why he believes that Lincoln either didn't read Smith's book, or only read parts of it.

Noting that both Barton and Wayne Temple accepted Smith's telling, Bray notes that "what makes their opinions especially important is that, perhaps unique among the students of Lincoln's religion who mention The Christian's Defence, Barton and Temple took the trouble to examine the book." (pg. 152) Later, Bray writes "In his final judgment of Smith's work and its influence on Lincoln, Barton insisted that 'the more carefully these lectures are examined, the more probably does it appear that in form and method they would have been likely to make, what they appear to have made, a very strong impression upon Abraham Lincoln.

"To one who has read the book closely and all the way through, the claims of Barton and Temple seem untenable. James Smith's The Christian's Defence is a great white elephant of a book--in its size, readability, and popularity (little in its day, none at all now). Published in Cincinnati in 1843, its two-volumes-in-one add up to a galumphing 700 pages, the text in small type, the frequent footnotes even smaller." (pg. 153)

Bray's arguments are too detailed for me to break down here, but again, I would recommend trying to find a copy in your local library or buy it yourself (I paid $24 for my copy). It only covers about eight or nine pages, but Bray makes a strong argument that not only would Lincoln not have read the book, but that what he did read (if he did read anything) he would not have agreed with.

Quote:So it could be Smith and Lincoln used each other to their own ends.

Indeed, it is quite possible.

Best
Rob