(11-25-2012 12:35 PM)Rob Wick Wrote: Mark,
in 1890 John Nicolay and John Hay wrote a 10-volume biography of Lincoln utilizing the papers of Lincoln and strongly watched over by Robert Todd Lincoln. Nicolay felt so protective of what he termed his "territory" that he refused to help Ida M. Tarbell when she began researching her study of Lincoln for McClure's Magazine at the turn of the century.
Their biography has been severely criticized for its partisanship and various other "sins" committed. Here is an article by Michael Burlingame on their history of Lincoln. Burlingame has edited a number of books containing their writings.
Best
Rob
Rob,
It is interesting to note that RTL who had veto power over the biography let the line about Ann Rutledge in volume 1 stand and didn't make Nicolay and Hay erase it as he did other things like critical comments about Thomas Lincoln.
Apperently, he felt with his mother passed away, the truth could be said about that.
(11-25-2012 02:56 PM)Mike B. Wrote: (11-25-2012 12:35 PM)Rob Wick Wrote: Mark,
in 1890 John Nicolay and John Hay wrote a 10-volume biography of Lincoln utilizing the papers of Lincoln and strongly watched over by Robert Todd Lincoln. Nicolay felt so protective of what he termed his "territory" that he refused to help Ida M. Tarbell when she began researching her study of Lincoln for McClure's Magazine at the turn of the century.
Their biography has been severely criticized for its partisanship and various other "sins" committed. Here is an article by Michael Burlingame on their history of Lincoln. Burlingame has edited a number of books containing their writings.
Best
Rob
Rob,
It is interesting to note that RTL who had veto power over the biography let the line about Ann Rutledge in volume 1 stand and didn't make Nicolay and Hay erase it as he did other things like critical comments about Thomas Lincoln.
Apperently, he felt with his mother passed away, the truth could be said about that.
A couple points, and I realize people's feelings run deep here.
It is always hard to question motives of writers. Is it really an attempt to "villify" Mary to try to find the honest truth of the matter with her even if it is not flattering?
Case in point:
Harold Holzer is very much on the side of Mary if one can say that. He defends her in his books and has been critical of Jason Emerson for not being harder on Robert Todd Lincoln for his actions in Mary's
"insanity" trial. I have heard him speak on a few occasions and spoken to him one on one when he defends Mary a lot. I don't think anyone can accuse him of a desire to get Mary or villify her.
However,
In his excellent book about Lincoln as President-Elect, Holzer accounts a troubling scene with Mary and Lincoln on page #238. When a patronage seeker went to the Lincoln home he found Mary "on the floor in a sort of hysterical fit, cause by L's refusal to promise the postion of Naval officer of the NY Custom House to Isaac Henderson." Lincoln remarked to his guest, "Kriesmann she will not le me go until I promise an offfice for one of her freinds." Kriesmann continues, "Mary's fit continued until the the promise was obtained." Henderson had apparently given Mary a diamond brooch to intervene on his behalf for this very profitable job. Is there any other way to look at this than influence peddling and a bribe?
One can't blame this on Herndon or Nicolay or Hay or the other supposedly biased men against her, since they have no hand in recording this.
In the book "At Lincoln's Side: John Hay's Civil War Correspondence and Selected Writings" there is an appendix by editor Michael Burlingame called, "Mary Todd Lincoln's Unethical Conduct as First Lady." There is a wealth there of public corruption. Is it all true? I doubt all of it is true. Burlingame is definitely one who isn't a fan of Mary to say the least. But again, without questioning his motive, what about the evidence he compiles? I don't think there is enough evidence on some of the charges and they would qualify as hearsay. However, there seems to be fairly good evidence of public corruption with Wickoff and groundskeeper Watt in the White House (i.e. padding accounts, fraud, kickbacks, etc.)
Now this is part of the record. Should these matters be suppressed? Parts of family friend and Illinois Senator Orville H. Browing's diaries were suppressed until 1994 because they have a lot of material going over corruption.
For example, in the unredacted version of the diary, in March 1862 Browning wrote, "That Watt's wife was nominally stewardess at a salary of $100 per month, all of which, by private arrangement went into Mrs. Lincoln's pocket."
Again what do we call this? Is history served better by these things remaining redacted?
(11-25-2012 02:56 PM)Mike B. Wrote: (11-25-2012 12:35 PM)Rob Wick Wrote: Mark,
in 1890 John Nicolay and John Hay wrote a 10-volume biography of Lincoln utilizing the papers of Lincoln and strongly watched over by Robert Todd Lincoln. Nicolay felt so protective of what he termed his "territory" that he refused to help Ida M. Tarbell when she began researching her study of Lincoln for McClure's Magazine at the turn of the century.
Their biography has been severely criticized for its partisanship and various other "sins" committed. Here is an article by Michael Burlingame on their history of Lincoln. Burlingame has edited a number of books containing their writings.
Best
Rob
Rob,
It is interesting to note that RTL who had veto power over the biography let the line about Ann Rutledge in volume 1 stand and didn't make Nicolay and Hay erase it as he did other things like critical comments about Thomas Lincoln.
Apperently, he felt with his mother passed away, the truth could be said about that.
(11-25-2012 02:56 PM)Mike B. Wrote: (11-25-2012 12:35 PM)Rob Wick Wrote: Mark,
in 1890 John Nicolay and John Hay wrote a 10-volume biography of Lincoln utilizing the papers of Lincoln and strongly watched over by Robert Todd Lincoln. Nicolay felt so protective of what he termed his "territory" that he refused to help Ida M. Tarbell when she began researching her study of Lincoln for McClure's Magazine at the turn of the century.
Their biography has been severely criticized for its partisanship and various other "sins" committed. Here is an article by Michael Burlingame on their history of Lincoln. Burlingame has edited a number of books containing their writings.
Best
Rob
Rob,
It is interesting to note that RTL who had veto power over the biography let the line about Ann Rutledge in volume 1 stand and didn't make Nicolay and Hay erase it as he did other things like critical comments about Thomas Lincoln.
Apperently, he felt with his mother passed away, the truth could be said about that.
A couple points, and I realize people's feelings run deep here.
It is always hard to question motives of writers. Is it really an attempt to "villify" Mary to try to find the honest truth of the matter with her even if it is not flattering?
Case in point:
Harold Holzer is very much on the side of Mary if one can say that. He defends her in his books and has been critical of Jason Emerson for not being harder on Robert Todd Lincoln for his actions in Mary's
"insanity" trial. I have heard him speak on a few occasions and spoken to him one on one when he defends Mary a lot. I don't think anyone can accuse him of a desire to get Mary or villify her.
However,
In his excellent book about Lincoln as President-Elect, Holzer accounts a troubling scene with Mary and Lincoln on page #238. When a patronage seeker went to the Lincoln home he found Mary "on the floor in a sort of hysterical fit, cause by L's refusal to promise the postion of Naval officer of the NY Custom House to Isaac Henderson." Lincoln remarked to his guest, "Kriesmann she will not le me go until I promise an offfice for one of her freinds." Kriesmann continues, "Mary's fit continued until the the promise was obtained." Henderson had apparently given Mary a diamond brooch to intervene on his behalf for this very profitable job. Is there any other way to look at this than influence peddling and a bribe?
One can't blame this on Herndon or Nicolay or Hay or the other supposedly biased men against her, since they have no hand in recording this.
In the book "At Lincoln's Side: John Hay's Civil War Correspondence and Selected Writings" there is an appendix by editor Michael Burlingame called, "Mary Todd Lincoln's Unethical Conduct as First Lady." There is a wealth there of public corruption. Is it all true? I doubt all of it is true. Burlingame is definitely one who isn't a fan of Mary to say the least. But again, without questioning his motive, what about the evidence he compiles? I don't think there is enough evidence on some of the charges and they would qualify as hearsay. However, there seems to be fairly good evidence of public corruption with Wickoff and groundskeeper Watt in the White House (i.e. padding accounts, fraud, kickbacks, etc.)
Now this is part of the record. Should these matters be suppressed? Parts of family friend and Illinois Senator Orville H. Browing's diaries were suppressed until 1994 because they have a lot of material going over corruption.
For example, in the unredacted version of the diary, in March 1862 Browning wrote, "That Watt's wife was nominally stewardess at a salary of $100 per month, all of which, by private arrangement went into Mrs. Lincoln's pocket."
Again what do we call this? Is history served better by these things remaining redacted?
Help Roger, if you could so I could reply without quoting myself...lol
Since Lizzie Keckly was mentioned, I have to mention a wonderful book about her and Mary:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0767902...TTHX5NK4NK
"Mrs. Lincoln and Mrs. Keckly: The Remarkable Story of the Friendship Between a First Lady and a Former Slave" by Jennifer Fleischner. The book came out about 10 years ago, and I think never got the influnece it deserves.
And Kudos to Laurie V. who I believe raised money to mark Lizzie K.'s probable resting site.
Search
Member List
Calendar
Help
/
Mary's Reputation
