Human Memory and History

[Steve Whitlock]

(08-11-2020 06:13 PM)RobertLC Wrote:  Human memory is certainly a complex and fascinating topic. Respected studies have shown that our memory is not a linear recording and can quickly become tarnished.

Historian Thomas F. Schwartz, in his article, “Not Even Wrong”: Herndon and His Informants, (Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association, Vol. 35, Issue 2, 2014), dedicates almost three pages to examine issues related to human memory. He writes, “In short, memory as expressed in individual recollections is much more complicated than historians have heretofore imagined. It is not, by itself, sufficient as a reliable source for documenting the past.” Tim Good also raises concern about human memory on page vii in the preface of his book, We Saw Lincoln Shot, One Hundred Eyewitness Accounts.

An account that is worth noting has nothing to do with Lincoln, but is one for those of us more seasoned citizens who lived through and were old enough to pay attention to the Watergate scandal. John Dean, the White House counsel for Richard Nixon, provided lengthy testimony in congressional hearings that proved to be very damaging for Nixon. People marveled at his remarkable memory. Studies have been done that compared Dean’s recollection to the actual facts that were gleaned from the original White House tapes. Psychologist and author Alan Kennedy wrote this about portions of Dean’s testimony, “More often than not he distorted the gist of a conversation, exaggerating his own role and sometimes even inventing a role for himself where none had existed. In a nutshell, you could not use Dean’s memory of events to recover anything like the truth of what went on. At pretty well all levels, what he remembered was quite manifestly false. People didn’t say what he recalled them saying; people didn’t do what he said they did; and so on.” So, did Dean lie or was his memory so tainted that he honestly testified to what he thought actually happened?

I raise this issue not necessarily for a discussion of the limitations of human memory, although that would be fascinating, but instead, I’m curious as to what members of this forum think about human memory and how we apply it to our study of the past.

Bob

I noticed your mention of Herndon. Is that because you question the accuracy of Herndon's recollection of a buggy ride with Lincoln and their conversation? Especially questionable given Herndon's history of alcoholism.

William Herndon wrote:

"On the subject of his ancestry and origin I only remember one time when Mr. Lincoln ever referred to it. It was about 1850, when he and I were driving in his one-horse buggy to the court in Menard county, Illinois. The suit we were going to try was one in which we were likely, either directly or collaterally, to touch upon the subject of hereditary traits. During the ride he spoke, for the first time in my hearing, of his mother, dwelling on her characteristics, and mentioning or enumerating what qualities he inherited from her. He said, among other things, that she was the illegitimate daughter of Lucy Hanks and a well-bred Virginia farmer or planter; and he argued that from this last source came his power of analysis, his logic, his mental activity, his ambition, and all the qualities that distinguished him from the other members and descendants of the Hanks family. His theory in discussing the matter of hereditary traits had been, that, for certain reasons, illegitimate children are oftentimes sturdier and brighter than those born in lawful wedlock; and in his case, he believed that his better nature and finer qualities came from this broad-minded, unknown Virginian. The revelation - painful as it was - called up the recollection of his mother, and, as the buggy jolted over the road, he added ruefully, 'God bless my mother; all that I am or ever hope to be I owe to her,' and immediately lapsed into silence."
***************************************
Research has shown that Nancy Hanks Lincoln was indeed the illegitimate daughter of Lucy Hanks Sparrow, but we don't know how accurate other parts of the conversation were.

Factors beyond drinking too much need to be considered in Herndon's case, and I've never really looked into how his memory was for other matters, or even how old he was when he made the statement. But even there my late mother-in-law had a phenomenal memory at 95, and at 79 I may not remember what I ate yesterday, but in my youth could recall whole pages when taking a test. Individuals differ for many reasons. I was a heavy drinker in my younger days, but could recall things quite well, better than now when I very rarely even have a single beer.