https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/ Fri, 24 Apr 2026 20:28:18 +0000 MyBB https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-5137.html Mon, 19 Jan 2026 06:30:32 +0000 https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-5137.html February 11 and associate this date with Theodore Augustus Mills, Clark's eldest son. However, in June of 1865, Clark's second son, Theophilus Fisk Mills, applied for a patent for a bust of Lincoln based on the life mask. In that document, Fisk gives the date the life mask was created as February 14, exactly two months before Lincoln's assassination.

I don't have the largest library when it comes to the living Lincoln. Does anyone have a good source for the claim that Lincoln sat for the mask on February 11 rather than the 14th?]]> February 11 and associate this date with Theodore Augustus Mills, Clark's eldest son. However, in June of 1865, Clark's second son, Theophilus Fisk Mills, applied for a patent for a bust of Lincoln based on the life mask. In that document, Fisk gives the date the life mask was created as February 14, exactly two months before Lincoln's assassination.

I don't have the largest library when it comes to the living Lincoln. Does anyone have a good source for the claim that Lincoln sat for the mask on February 11 rather than the 14th?]]> https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-5121.html Fri, 07 Nov 2025 16:29:44 +0000 https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-5121.html
https://apnews.com/article/abraham-linco...74241db866]]>
https://apnews.com/article/abraham-linco...74241db866]]> https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-5085.html Fri, 25 Jul 2025 22:48:23 +0000 https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-5085.html https://americanhistory.si.edu/explore/s...incoln-tie]]> https://americanhistory.si.edu/explore/s...incoln-tie]]> https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-5076.html Mon, 23 Jun 2025 23:35:01 +0000 https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-5076.html https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:...-Handy.jpg

iN THE CLASSIC bOOK 20 DAYS IS A aLLEGED PORTAIT OF lAMON ON P.71

hOWEVER THIS OFFICER HAS A MUSTACHE AND NO bEARD

wHO COULD HE BE]]> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:...-Handy.jpg

iN THE CLASSIC bOOK 20 DAYS IS A aLLEGED PORTAIT OF lAMON ON P.71

hOWEVER THIS OFFICER HAS A MUSTACHE AND NO bEARD

wHO COULD HE BE]]> https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-5075.html Mon, 23 Jun 2025 23:26:22 +0000 https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-5075.html https://www.loc.gov/resource/lprbscsm.scsm0646/

https://npg.si.edu/exhibition/abraham-li...fk-travers

https://www.newser.com/story/331446/this...faint.html

A story exists about a portrait of Abraham Lincoln painted by a Dutch artist, W.F.K. Travers, that caused Mary Todd Lincoln to faint.]]> https://www.loc.gov/resource/lprbscsm.scsm0646/

https://npg.si.edu/exhibition/abraham-li...fk-travers

https://www.newser.com/story/331446/this...faint.html

A story exists about a portrait of Abraham Lincoln painted by a Dutch artist, W.F.K. Travers, that caused Mary Todd Lincoln to faint.]]> https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-5040.html Mon, 17 Mar 2025 19:59:02 +0000 https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-5040.html
To what policy of the President Abraham Lincoln administration was the New York Times correspondent making reference?

No Googling please.]]>
To what policy of the President Abraham Lincoln administration was the New York Times correspondent making reference?

No Googling please.]]> https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-4955.html Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:33:07 +0000 https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-4955.html
https://www.thecollector.com/alexander-g...civil-war/]]>
https://www.thecollector.com/alexander-g...civil-war/]]> https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-4948.html Wed, 03 Apr 2024 17:36:16 +0000 https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-4948.html
The author of one of those books being reviewed is the historian Allen C. Guelzo and the book is titled OUR ANCIENT FAITH: Lincoln, Democracy, and the American Experiment.

The book reviewer wrote as follows:

In 1861, Guelzo writes, when rioters in Baltimore attempted to stop Union militia members from traveling to Washington, Lincoln authorized “his generals to arrest and imprison suspected saboteurs without trials or charges.”

As critics accused Lincoln of leading an unconstitutional dictatorship, he wondered whether free republics had a “fatal weakness”: “Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?” Lincoln erred on the side of governmental strength . . . .

I do not believe that this is a correct conclusion by the book reviewer.

The quotation is part of President Lincoln’s Message to a Special Session [of Congress], July 4, 1861:

[T]he assault upon, and reduction of, Fort Sumter was, in no sense, a matter of self-defence on the part of the assailants. They well knew that the garrison in the Fort could, by no possibility, commit aggression upon them. …In this act, discarding all else, they have forced upon the country, the distinct issue: “Immediate dissolution, or blood.”

And this issue embraces more than the fate of these United States. It presents to the whole family of man, the question, whether a constitutional republic, or a democracy—a government of the people, by the same people – can, or cannot, maintain its territorial integrity, against its own domestic foes. It presents the question, whether discontented individuals, too few in numbers to control administration, according to organic law, in any case, can always, upon the pretenses made in this case, or on any other pretenses, or arbitrarily, without any pretense, break up their Government, and thus practically put an end to free government upon the earth. It forces us to ask: “Is there, in all republics, this inherent, and fatal weakness?” “Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?” So viewing the issue, no choice was left but to call out the war power of the Government; and so to resist force, employed for its destruction, by force, for its preservation.

Ironic, almost four years later, President Lincoln returned to this same question of democratic government on the night that his reelection was confirmed:

On November 10, 1864, in response to a serenade from his supporters, President Lincoln began his short speech with this observation:

"It has long been a grave question whether any government, not too strong for the liberties of its people, can be strong enough to maintain its own existence, in great emergencies."]]>
The author of one of those books being reviewed is the historian Allen C. Guelzo and the book is titled OUR ANCIENT FAITH: Lincoln, Democracy, and the American Experiment.

The book reviewer wrote as follows:

In 1861, Guelzo writes, when rioters in Baltimore attempted to stop Union militia members from traveling to Washington, Lincoln authorized “his generals to arrest and imprison suspected saboteurs without trials or charges.”

As critics accused Lincoln of leading an unconstitutional dictatorship, he wondered whether free republics had a “fatal weakness”: “Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?” Lincoln erred on the side of governmental strength . . . .

I do not believe that this is a correct conclusion by the book reviewer.

The quotation is part of President Lincoln’s Message to a Special Session [of Congress], July 4, 1861:

[T]he assault upon, and reduction of, Fort Sumter was, in no sense, a matter of self-defence on the part of the assailants. They well knew that the garrison in the Fort could, by no possibility, commit aggression upon them. …In this act, discarding all else, they have forced upon the country, the distinct issue: “Immediate dissolution, or blood.”

And this issue embraces more than the fate of these United States. It presents to the whole family of man, the question, whether a constitutional republic, or a democracy—a government of the people, by the same people – can, or cannot, maintain its territorial integrity, against its own domestic foes. It presents the question, whether discontented individuals, too few in numbers to control administration, according to organic law, in any case, can always, upon the pretenses made in this case, or on any other pretenses, or arbitrarily, without any pretense, break up their Government, and thus practically put an end to free government upon the earth. It forces us to ask: “Is there, in all republics, this inherent, and fatal weakness?” “Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?” So viewing the issue, no choice was left but to call out the war power of the Government; and so to resist force, employed for its destruction, by force, for its preservation.

Ironic, almost four years later, President Lincoln returned to this same question of democratic government on the night that his reelection was confirmed:

On November 10, 1864, in response to a serenade from his supporters, President Lincoln began his short speech with this observation:

"It has long been a grave question whether any government, not too strong for the liberties of its people, can be strong enough to maintain its own existence, in great emergencies."]]> https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-4928.html Wed, 21 Feb 2024 15:52:10 +0000 https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-4928.html https://www.finebooksmagazine.com/fine-b...assination]]> https://www.finebooksmagazine.com/fine-b...assination]]> https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-4914.html Sun, 28 Jan 2024 14:42:27 +0000 https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-4914.html THE YEAR IS 1865

Dinner has been served, toasts given and received, cigars lit. A tall and dignified if slightly stooped man is reciting “To a Mouse.” “Wee sleekit, cow’rin, tim’rous beastie Oh what a panic’s in thy breastie! Thou need na start awa’ sae hasty wi’ bickerin’ brattle! I’d be laith to run and chase thee wi’ murdering’ pattle.”

The speaker was famous for his rich and sonorous Midwestern drawl, but the accent tonight was unmistakably Ayrshire. It’s not clear whether the assembled dignitaries had wanted Burns with their Brandy. Then again, when the performer is Abraham Lincoln, who the hell is going to object?

Because this was no ordinary dinner and this was no ordinary gathering. Lincoln had won the war and achieved a second term, but now he had to win the peace. To that end, he invited all the senators and all the governors to the Whitehouse for the weekend to plan the rebirth of a nation rent asunder by a protracted and bitter civil war.

To a captivated audience, he continued to recite. “I’m truly sorry man’s dominion Has broken nature’s social union, And justifees that ill opinion that makes me startle at thee, Thy pair earth born companion and fellow mortal."

How those words must have resonated with the leaders of a shattered America. It was all too much for one old senator, who turned to Lincoln’s secretary, the softly-spoken John Hay and said: “What the hell is Abe talking about?"

“It’s Scotch, sir” replied Hay. “The President adores the Scotchman who wrote it. He reads him constantly and recites him every evening. He says he would not be the man he was, would not have won the war, indeed would not have been President, had it not been for Robert Burns."

As Lincoln concluded the poem he turned to Hay. “Now we have won this great war, I must make good on my promise to go to Scotland and pay homage to the man without whom everything would be different. Tomorrow you must book my passage."

Hay did indeed book the President’s sailing, but the ship left without him. A few days after the dinner, Lincoln visited the theatre and a bullet from the gun of John Wilkes Booth meant that this was a pilgrimage that would never be made. And so ended one of the truly great political careers, and a life and a politics shaped utterly and enduringly and fundamentally by the writings of a farmer and exciseman from Alloway who had been dead for 70 years.]]> THE YEAR IS 1865

Dinner has been served, toasts given and received, cigars lit. A tall and dignified if slightly stooped man is reciting “To a Mouse.” “Wee sleekit, cow’rin, tim’rous beastie Oh what a panic’s in thy breastie! Thou need na start awa’ sae hasty wi’ bickerin’ brattle! I’d be laith to run and chase thee wi’ murdering’ pattle.”

The speaker was famous for his rich and sonorous Midwestern drawl, but the accent tonight was unmistakably Ayrshire. It’s not clear whether the assembled dignitaries had wanted Burns with their Brandy. Then again, when the performer is Abraham Lincoln, who the hell is going to object?

Because this was no ordinary dinner and this was no ordinary gathering. Lincoln had won the war and achieved a second term, but now he had to win the peace. To that end, he invited all the senators and all the governors to the Whitehouse for the weekend to plan the rebirth of a nation rent asunder by a protracted and bitter civil war.

To a captivated audience, he continued to recite. “I’m truly sorry man’s dominion Has broken nature’s social union, And justifees that ill opinion that makes me startle at thee, Thy pair earth born companion and fellow mortal."

How those words must have resonated with the leaders of a shattered America. It was all too much for one old senator, who turned to Lincoln’s secretary, the softly-spoken John Hay and said: “What the hell is Abe talking about?"

“It’s Scotch, sir” replied Hay. “The President adores the Scotchman who wrote it. He reads him constantly and recites him every evening. He says he would not be the man he was, would not have won the war, indeed would not have been President, had it not been for Robert Burns."

As Lincoln concluded the poem he turned to Hay. “Now we have won this great war, I must make good on my promise to go to Scotland and pay homage to the man without whom everything would be different. Tomorrow you must book my passage."

Hay did indeed book the President’s sailing, but the ship left without him. A few days after the dinner, Lincoln visited the theatre and a bullet from the gun of John Wilkes Booth meant that this was a pilgrimage that would never be made. And so ended one of the truly great political careers, and a life and a politics shaped utterly and enduringly and fundamentally by the writings of a farmer and exciseman from Alloway who had been dead for 70 years.]]> https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-4890.html Mon, 13 Nov 2023 17:56:01 +0000 https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-4890.html
I an reading a book from 1909 (Abraham Lincoln for Boys and Girls) that Abraham Lincoln had visited the home of General George Pickett on one of his visits to Virginia near the end of the war.

That sounded a little unusual, so I went to Google and found this article, but not
having a subscription to the NY Times, can anyone out there post a copy of the article reference from the 1927 New York Times, or the Illinois State Register

https://www.nytimes.com/1927/11/27/archi...f-gen.html

I have only done a little follow up, but it seems that the story may have originated with Mrs. George Pickett, and she seems to have had a tendency to exaggerate some in her writing and lectures about Gen. Pickett after he died.

This is from her book "What Happened To Me" published in 1917, pages 167-171
" The day after the fire there was a rap at our door. The servants had all run away. The city was full of northern troops, and my en vironment had not taught me to love them. With my baby on my arm I answered the knock, opened the door and looked up at a tall, gaunt, sad-faced man in ill fitting clothes, who asked with the accent of the North: Is this George Pickett s place?
"This is General Pickett s home, sir,; I replied, but he is not here.
"I know that, ma am, I know where George Pickett is, he answered, but I just wanted to see the place. Down in old Quincy, Illinois, where I used to hear George Pickett whistle the songs of Virginia in his bird-like notes, I have heard him describe his home till in spirit I have been here many a time....
I have sat on that back porch and listened to the music as his sister Virginia, of whom he was so proud, sang in that glorious voice he told me about, and I have swung in this old swing here while the moon and I watched and waited for the old cat to die. So I wanted to see the place.

I, listening, wondered who he could be, till he finished and then he said:
I am Abraham Lincoln.
The President! I gasped.
No no, just Abraham Lincoln; George Pickett s old friend.

the story continues -
https://archive.org/details/whathappened...ell+Picket

Anyway, the book I am currently reading (and more on that book later) was
published in 1909 and Mrs Pickett's book was published in 1917. She is probably the source of the story, but it's bugging me (not that it matters) as to when the story was first published.]]>
I an reading a book from 1909 (Abraham Lincoln for Boys and Girls) that Abraham Lincoln had visited the home of General George Pickett on one of his visits to Virginia near the end of the war.

That sounded a little unusual, so I went to Google and found this article, but not
having a subscription to the NY Times, can anyone out there post a copy of the article reference from the 1927 New York Times, or the Illinois State Register

https://www.nytimes.com/1927/11/27/archi...f-gen.html

I have only done a little follow up, but it seems that the story may have originated with Mrs. George Pickett, and she seems to have had a tendency to exaggerate some in her writing and lectures about Gen. Pickett after he died.

This is from her book "What Happened To Me" published in 1917, pages 167-171
" The day after the fire there was a rap at our door. The servants had all run away. The city was full of northern troops, and my en vironment had not taught me to love them. With my baby on my arm I answered the knock, opened the door and looked up at a tall, gaunt, sad-faced man in ill fitting clothes, who asked with the accent of the North: Is this George Pickett s place?
"This is General Pickett s home, sir,; I replied, but he is not here.
"I know that, ma am, I know where George Pickett is, he answered, but I just wanted to see the place. Down in old Quincy, Illinois, where I used to hear George Pickett whistle the songs of Virginia in his bird-like notes, I have heard him describe his home till in spirit I have been here many a time....
I have sat on that back porch and listened to the music as his sister Virginia, of whom he was so proud, sang in that glorious voice he told me about, and I have swung in this old swing here while the moon and I watched and waited for the old cat to die. So I wanted to see the place.

I, listening, wondered who he could be, till he finished and then he said:
I am Abraham Lincoln.
The President! I gasped.
No no, just Abraham Lincoln; George Pickett s old friend.

the story continues -
https://archive.org/details/whathappened...ell+Picket

Anyway, the book I am currently reading (and more on that book later) was
published in 1909 and Mrs Pickett's book was published in 1917. She is probably the source of the story, but it's bugging me (not that it matters) as to when the story was first published.]]> https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-4824.html Sat, 01 Jul 2023 15:01:32 +0000 https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-4824.html
One morning early in January, 1864, I took up the Washington Chronicle and read : “The sentence of death recently passed by court-martial upon the four deserters has been approved by the President and Friday, the 29th inst. has been fixed upon for the execution.”

It was now Wednesday and the next Friday was the fatal day. About 10 o’clock a gentleman of my acquaintance came to my room saying there was a woman below whose husband was sentenced to be shot and couldn't I do something to help her?

The woman was indeed there, and in great distress, for her husband was one of the doomed four. He had deserted, nor will I suppress the further fact that this was the second time he had attempted to regain his family, nor the further circumstance - a doubtful palliation - that he had done so while excited with drink.

The writer of the letter tells of the woman's vain efforts to get influence by which an audience with the President could be had; and, of their going to the Executive Mansion and her failure to get an interview with the President by importuning the Secretary.

At length the Secretaries Chase, Seward, and Stanton came out, so that I know the Cabinet meeting is over, and now, is it possible? - the usher approaches us.

"Have you any letters for the President?”

I handed him one - the letter of a little child, the daughter of the condemned. It was the child's one thought, as she had written it without prompting or aid.

To His Excellency the President of the United States:

Most Honored and Excellent Sir - How shall a child like me attempt to write to you on such business as this concerning my father, J. W. C, who is sentenced - Oh! how can I write it - to be shot. Spare his poor life, I beseech you, and many thanks shall be given you. If his life is taken my mother cannot stand this heavy blow, and will soon go also. I am the oldest of five children. I have three sisters under eight years. Do not leave us fatherless, I beseech you. I could freely give my life to save his.

Virginia C.

The usher soon returns, the door, that has seemed of adamant [closure] opens before us, and with a bewildering feeling we enter. The President is sitting near a table, and nearly facing the door, and as he greets us politely, I notice traces of tears upon his face. His voice, too, betrays emotion.

“Mr. President,” I said, with what steadiness I could command, “the husband of this lady, J. W. C, 27th Regiment, - Volunteers, is sentenced to be shot, as you have learned from the letter, and we have come to ask you to spare his life. Men's lives are getting to be precious.”

"I know it but I must do something to keep those fellows, or half of them would run away.”

He said at last: "Now you women may go home comforted. I have telegraphed for them not to be executed until I send an order, and I don't intend to send the order.”

The poor woman at my side could only weep her thanks, but I recalled [her] saying more than once : “We thank you a thousand times, Sir.”

The President rose and dismissed us in a pleasant and cheerful way, but yet with such kindly sympathy in word and manner as I shall always gratefully and affectionately remember.]]>
One morning early in January, 1864, I took up the Washington Chronicle and read : “The sentence of death recently passed by court-martial upon the four deserters has been approved by the President and Friday, the 29th inst. has been fixed upon for the execution.”

It was now Wednesday and the next Friday was the fatal day. About 10 o’clock a gentleman of my acquaintance came to my room saying there was a woman below whose husband was sentenced to be shot and couldn't I do something to help her?

The woman was indeed there, and in great distress, for her husband was one of the doomed four. He had deserted, nor will I suppress the further fact that this was the second time he had attempted to regain his family, nor the further circumstance - a doubtful palliation - that he had done so while excited with drink.

The writer of the letter tells of the woman's vain efforts to get influence by which an audience with the President could be had; and, of their going to the Executive Mansion and her failure to get an interview with the President by importuning the Secretary.

At length the Secretaries Chase, Seward, and Stanton came out, so that I know the Cabinet meeting is over, and now, is it possible? - the usher approaches us.

"Have you any letters for the President?”

I handed him one - the letter of a little child, the daughter of the condemned. It was the child's one thought, as she had written it without prompting or aid.

To His Excellency the President of the United States:

Most Honored and Excellent Sir - How shall a child like me attempt to write to you on such business as this concerning my father, J. W. C, who is sentenced - Oh! how can I write it - to be shot. Spare his poor life, I beseech you, and many thanks shall be given you. If his life is taken my mother cannot stand this heavy blow, and will soon go also. I am the oldest of five children. I have three sisters under eight years. Do not leave us fatherless, I beseech you. I could freely give my life to save his.

Virginia C.

The usher soon returns, the door, that has seemed of adamant [closure] opens before us, and with a bewildering feeling we enter. The President is sitting near a table, and nearly facing the door, and as he greets us politely, I notice traces of tears upon his face. His voice, too, betrays emotion.

“Mr. President,” I said, with what steadiness I could command, “the husband of this lady, J. W. C, 27th Regiment, - Volunteers, is sentenced to be shot, as you have learned from the letter, and we have come to ask you to spare his life. Men's lives are getting to be precious.”

"I know it but I must do something to keep those fellows, or half of them would run away.”

He said at last: "Now you women may go home comforted. I have telegraphed for them not to be executed until I send an order, and I don't intend to send the order.”

The poor woman at my side could only weep her thanks, but I recalled [her] saying more than once : “We thank you a thousand times, Sir.”

The President rose and dismissed us in a pleasant and cheerful way, but yet with such kindly sympathy in word and manner as I shall always gratefully and affectionately remember.]]> https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-4814.html Sun, 04 Jun 2023 04:01:25 +0000 https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-4814.html By Roger Lowenstein, author of “Ways and Means: Lincoln and His Cabinet and the Financing of the Civil War.”

The Civil War Congress faced a choice. President Abraham Lincoln and Republicans in Congress recognized that preserving America’s credit was the key to financing the Civil War.

Importantly, in early 1862, it became clear that the war would be longer (and bloodier) than expected, its cost quickly surged to $1 million and then $2 million a day — a level that would exhaust the government’s annual revenue base in only a month.

The only seeming solution was to borrow, but America’s credit was not held in high regard. The United States had recently agreed to 12 percent interest (a high rate that was an expression of investor mistrust), and even at that rate, offers of loans were scarce.

In 1861, Lincoln’s Treasury secretary, Salmon P. Chase, dispatched an emissary to England and continental Europe to scope out interest in loans; the response was poor. The Economist smugly reported, “It is utterly out of the question, in our judgment, that the Americans can obtain, either at home or in Europe, any thing like the extravagant sums they are asking, for Europe won’t lend them; America cannot.”

[I]n December of that year, when America’s banks, (which had been supporting the war over its first months), ran out of gold to lend to the Treasury, . . . Congress proposed a revolutionary expedient: “legal tender”— paper money — supported only by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, not by gold. It would be money by government fiat, standard today but novel in 1862.

The notion of a paper money standard was shocking, including to many Republicans in Congress. As one had put it, paper could not be money any more than a contract to deliver flour was flour itself; it was only a promise to deliver the real thing.

The Treasury was running out of cash. Congress nonetheless recognized that most of the war’s expenses would have to come from borrowing. Had the country simply printed money to cover the entire budget, it would have risked a ruinous inflation, as would indeed occur in the Confederacy. Therefore, Congress limited the issue of legal tender paper notes to $150 million. (Later it authorized two more issues.)

But it still faced a dilemma: How to print legal tender and preserve the nation’s fragile credit?

William Pitt Fessenden, a Maine Republican and the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, was shocked by the idea of paper money (he claimed it “tormented” him night and day) and grievously worried about its effect on the country’s ability to borrow, especially overseas. He proposed a radical amendment. In the original bill, legal tender would be lawful “in payment of all debts”; as amended, government debts, and only they, would be payable in gold.

But the Treasury needed the money. The legal tender bill passed and was signed by Lincoln — with the amendment — and the government’s financial crisis, at least for the moment, subsided. Troops were happy to get the new greenbacks, as they were called, and so were merchants and others.

Fessenden’s amendment was critical to winning the war. Although inflation in greenbacks was serious, ultimately about 80 percent, the United States had surprisingly little trouble borrowing money, because bondholders (many of them overseas) knew that interest payments would be in specie.

The public debt climbed to $2.68 billion by the end of the war — 41 times its level at the onset of Southern secession. Yet the United States emerged with its credit improved at home and abroad, able to borrow more and at lower interest rates.

A Confederate leader ruefully concluded, “The Yankees did not whip us in the field. We were whipped in the Treasury Department.”

After the war, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution (stipulating that the validity of the public debt of the United States “shall not be questioned”) implicitly treated the debt as sacrosanct.]]> By Roger Lowenstein, author of “Ways and Means: Lincoln and His Cabinet and the Financing of the Civil War.”

The Civil War Congress faced a choice. President Abraham Lincoln and Republicans in Congress recognized that preserving America’s credit was the key to financing the Civil War.

Importantly, in early 1862, it became clear that the war would be longer (and bloodier) than expected, its cost quickly surged to $1 million and then $2 million a day — a level that would exhaust the government’s annual revenue base in only a month.

The only seeming solution was to borrow, but America’s credit was not held in high regard. The United States had recently agreed to 12 percent interest (a high rate that was an expression of investor mistrust), and even at that rate, offers of loans were scarce.

In 1861, Lincoln’s Treasury secretary, Salmon P. Chase, dispatched an emissary to England and continental Europe to scope out interest in loans; the response was poor. The Economist smugly reported, “It is utterly out of the question, in our judgment, that the Americans can obtain, either at home or in Europe, any thing like the extravagant sums they are asking, for Europe won’t lend them; America cannot.”

[I]n December of that year, when America’s banks, (which had been supporting the war over its first months), ran out of gold to lend to the Treasury, . . . Congress proposed a revolutionary expedient: “legal tender”— paper money — supported only by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, not by gold. It would be money by government fiat, standard today but novel in 1862.

The notion of a paper money standard was shocking, including to many Republicans in Congress. As one had put it, paper could not be money any more than a contract to deliver flour was flour itself; it was only a promise to deliver the real thing.

The Treasury was running out of cash. Congress nonetheless recognized that most of the war’s expenses would have to come from borrowing. Had the country simply printed money to cover the entire budget, it would have risked a ruinous inflation, as would indeed occur in the Confederacy. Therefore, Congress limited the issue of legal tender paper notes to $150 million. (Later it authorized two more issues.)

But it still faced a dilemma: How to print legal tender and preserve the nation’s fragile credit?

William Pitt Fessenden, a Maine Republican and the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, was shocked by the idea of paper money (he claimed it “tormented” him night and day) and grievously worried about its effect on the country’s ability to borrow, especially overseas. He proposed a radical amendment. In the original bill, legal tender would be lawful “in payment of all debts”; as amended, government debts, and only they, would be payable in gold.

But the Treasury needed the money. The legal tender bill passed and was signed by Lincoln — with the amendment — and the government’s financial crisis, at least for the moment, subsided. Troops were happy to get the new greenbacks, as they were called, and so were merchants and others.

Fessenden’s amendment was critical to winning the war. Although inflation in greenbacks was serious, ultimately about 80 percent, the United States had surprisingly little trouble borrowing money, because bondholders (many of them overseas) knew that interest payments would be in specie.

The public debt climbed to $2.68 billion by the end of the war — 41 times its level at the onset of Southern secession. Yet the United States emerged with its credit improved at home and abroad, able to borrow more and at lower interest rates.

A Confederate leader ruefully concluded, “The Yankees did not whip us in the field. We were whipped in the Treasury Department.”

After the war, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution (stipulating that the validity of the public debt of the United States “shall not be questioned”) implicitly treated the debt as sacrosanct.]]> https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-4804.html Thu, 18 May 2023 14:06:07 +0000 https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-4804.html https://247wallst.com/special-report/202...istorians/]]> https://247wallst.com/special-report/202...istorians/]]> https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-4715.html Wed, 21 Sep 2022 17:00:01 +0000 https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-4715.html Five Chiefs - A Supreme Court Memoir (2011) on this subject of "Justice and the Duty of Government" as follows:

The text of the Constitution does not mention the word dignity or the word sovereignty. It does, however, state in its preamble that one of its purposes was to "establish justice." The term justice is not defined in either the Constitution itself or in any federal statute of which I am aware. I shall therefore conclude by referring to two quite different ways of thinking about the idea of justice that are both described in Plato's Republic.

A serene and elderly gentleman name Cephalus accepted Socrates' suggestion that justice consisted of speaking the truth and paying one's debts, whereas Thrasymachus, a younger and more belligerent antagonist, proclaimed that "justice is nothing more than the interest of the stronger." Presumably the senior citizen would require a ruler to tell the truth and to pay its debts. For Thrasymachus, however, whenever it was in a sovereign's interest to rely on sovereign dignity as a reason for refusing to obey the law, it would be just for him to do so.

An Illinois lawyer named Abraham Lincoln shared Cephalus's thoughts about justice and my views about sovereign immunity. In his State of the Union message of 1861, he said: "It is as much the duty of Government to render prompt justice against itself, in favor of its citizens, as it is to administer the same between private individuals." (Emphasis added.)]]> Five Chiefs - A Supreme Court Memoir (2011) on this subject of "Justice and the Duty of Government" as follows:

The text of the Constitution does not mention the word dignity or the word sovereignty. It does, however, state in its preamble that one of its purposes was to "establish justice." The term justice is not defined in either the Constitution itself or in any federal statute of which I am aware. I shall therefore conclude by referring to two quite different ways of thinking about the idea of justice that are both described in Plato's Republic.

A serene and elderly gentleman name Cephalus accepted Socrates' suggestion that justice consisted of speaking the truth and paying one's debts, whereas Thrasymachus, a younger and more belligerent antagonist, proclaimed that "justice is nothing more than the interest of the stronger." Presumably the senior citizen would require a ruler to tell the truth and to pay its debts. For Thrasymachus, however, whenever it was in a sovereign's interest to rely on sovereign dignity as a reason for refusing to obey the law, it would be just for him to do so.

An Illinois lawyer named Abraham Lincoln shared Cephalus's thoughts about justice and my views about sovereign immunity. In his State of the Union message of 1861, he said: "It is as much the duty of Government to render prompt justice against itself, in favor of its citizens, as it is to administer the same between private individuals." (Emphasis added.)]]> https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-4694.html Mon, 11 Jul 2022 02:52:56 +0000 https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-4694.html
https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/stor...364674007/]]>
https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/stor...364674007/]]> https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-4667.html Fri, 13 May 2022 15:03:28 +0000 https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-4667.html Article by Bill Cash, author of John Bright: Statesman, Orator, Agitator, in the The New Statesman magazine, March 13, 2013.

During the course of the American Civil War, Bright had devoted all his energies to protecting his beloved American democracy – a key influence on his own campaigns for parliamentary reform – centering his arguments on the moral repugnance of slavery. In this, he had the support of the workers at his own cotton mill in Rochdale who, even when impoverished during the cotton famine caused by the war, refused to accept Southern slave-grown cotton. Yet, the relationship between Bright and Lincoln was not merely a real influence on Lincoln himself but on the history of the civil war.

In 1863, Bright defeated a resolution in the House of Commons for an alliance between Britain, the Emperor Napoleon II of France, and the southern Confederate states against the North, as well as ditching the £16 million support raised in England to support the South – the equivalent today of $1.7 billion (estimated by reference to the UK retail price index) – with the British Navy ruling the waves, this undoubtedly would have tipped the balance against the North, particularly given the support of Prime Minister Palmerston, Gladstone and Russell for the South at that time.

Shuyler Colfax and Henry Janney – both of whom were confidants of Lincoln – wrote to Bright after the assassination telling him that his portrait and only his portrait was in President Lincoln’s reception room. Lincoln had sent two portraits of himself to Bright.

Henry Janney (dated 24 April, 1865, immediately after the assassination), wrote to Bright relating how he “told the President I had a letter from thee and he requested me to bring it up and let him see it, saying, ‘I love to read the letters of Mr Bright.’ I complied, when he read carefully every word, then remarked to those around him, ‘my friend has shown me a letter from Mr Bright. I believe he is the only British statesman who has been unfaltering in his confidence in our ultimate success – look there.’ I stepped up to the wall and seeing a familiar face read beneath it, John Bright MP. It was the only portrait in the room.”

Vice-President Shuyler Colfax, then Speaker of the House of Representatives, wrote to Bright in 1866, requesting a likeness of Bright, saying, “Your face is quite familiar to me already, as your portrait hung up in President Lincoln’s Reception room, and often, in the many evenings I spent with him there, he referred to you with sincere regard & even affection. Every loyal man & woman in the land knows you, knows you and esteems you. But your correspondence with Senator Sumner, whom I often meet (& we often talk about you, you may be assured) has informed you of all this.”

It is perhaps, then, no surprise that a long-standing testimonial from Bright calling for Lincoln’s re-election was found in Lincoln’s pocket when they were emptied immediately after his assassination.]]> Article by Bill Cash, author of John Bright: Statesman, Orator, Agitator, in the The New Statesman magazine, March 13, 2013.

During the course of the American Civil War, Bright had devoted all his energies to protecting his beloved American democracy – a key influence on his own campaigns for parliamentary reform – centering his arguments on the moral repugnance of slavery. In this, he had the support of the workers at his own cotton mill in Rochdale who, even when impoverished during the cotton famine caused by the war, refused to accept Southern slave-grown cotton. Yet, the relationship between Bright and Lincoln was not merely a real influence on Lincoln himself but on the history of the civil war.

In 1863, Bright defeated a resolution in the House of Commons for an alliance between Britain, the Emperor Napoleon II of France, and the southern Confederate states against the North, as well as ditching the £16 million support raised in England to support the South – the equivalent today of $1.7 billion (estimated by reference to the UK retail price index) – with the British Navy ruling the waves, this undoubtedly would have tipped the balance against the North, particularly given the support of Prime Minister Palmerston, Gladstone and Russell for the South at that time.

Shuyler Colfax and Henry Janney – both of whom were confidants of Lincoln – wrote to Bright after the assassination telling him that his portrait and only his portrait was in President Lincoln’s reception room. Lincoln had sent two portraits of himself to Bright.

Henry Janney (dated 24 April, 1865, immediately after the assassination), wrote to Bright relating how he “told the President I had a letter from thee and he requested me to bring it up and let him see it, saying, ‘I love to read the letters of Mr Bright.’ I complied, when he read carefully every word, then remarked to those around him, ‘my friend has shown me a letter from Mr Bright. I believe he is the only British statesman who has been unfaltering in his confidence in our ultimate success – look there.’ I stepped up to the wall and seeing a familiar face read beneath it, John Bright MP. It was the only portrait in the room.”

Vice-President Shuyler Colfax, then Speaker of the House of Representatives, wrote to Bright in 1866, requesting a likeness of Bright, saying, “Your face is quite familiar to me already, as your portrait hung up in President Lincoln’s Reception room, and often, in the many evenings I spent with him there, he referred to you with sincere regard & even affection. Every loyal man & woman in the land knows you, knows you and esteems you. But your correspondence with Senator Sumner, whom I often meet (& we often talk about you, you may be assured) has informed you of all this.”

It is perhaps, then, no surprise that a long-standing testimonial from Bright calling for Lincoln’s re-election was found in Lincoln’s pocket when they were emptied immediately after his assassination.]]> https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-4610.html Sat, 29 Jan 2022 01:02:02 +0000 https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-4610.html
Lincoln did not fill any positions until 1862, when he nominated Noah Swayne, Samuel Miller, and David Davis. In 1863 Stephen Field became the tenth Justice after Congress expanded the Court. When Chief Justice Roger Taney died in 1864, Lincoln appointed his former Treasury Secretary to succeed him.

During this period Justices received an annual salary of $6,000 and were expected to travel the circuit to hear federal cases. They met for only one term a year in the U.S. Capitol.

(Source: Abraham Lincoln Online)

Interesting fact: Chief Justice Roger Taney replaced Chief Justice John Marshall of Marbury v. Madison (5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137 (1803)) well-deserved fame.

On March 28, 1836, Taney took the oath of office; he died in office on October 12, 1864.]]>
Lincoln did not fill any positions until 1862, when he nominated Noah Swayne, Samuel Miller, and David Davis. In 1863 Stephen Field became the tenth Justice after Congress expanded the Court. When Chief Justice Roger Taney died in 1864, Lincoln appointed his former Treasury Secretary to succeed him.

During this period Justices received an annual salary of $6,000 and were expected to travel the circuit to hear federal cases. They met for only one term a year in the U.S. Capitol.

(Source: Abraham Lincoln Online)

Interesting fact: Chief Justice Roger Taney replaced Chief Justice John Marshall of Marbury v. Madison (5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137 (1803)) well-deserved fame.

On March 28, 1836, Taney took the oath of office; he died in office on October 12, 1864.]]> https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-4598.html Wed, 05 Jan 2022 10:30:39 +0000 https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-4598.html

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/m...180979230/]]>

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/m...180979230/]]> https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-4555.html Sat, 04 Sep 2021 22:38:40 +0000 https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-4555.html The source is questionable, I have no proof it isn't true, but I find it highly unlikely.

Mr. Lincoln said to Mr. Blair: "I shall be re-elected. No one can doubt it. I do not doubt it, nor do you. It is patent to all. General
McClellan must see it as plainly as we do. Why should he not act upon it, and help me to give peace to this distracted country?
Would it not be a glorious thing for the Union cause and the country, now that my re-election is certain, for him to decline to run, favor my election, and make certain a speedy termination of this bloody war? Don't you believe that such a course upon his part
would unify public partisan sentiment, and give a decisive and fatal blow to all opposition to the re-establishment of peace in the country? I think he is man enough and patriot enough to do it. Do you?
You have been his friend and mine. Will you try this last appeal to General McClellan's patriotism?"

Mr. Blair heartily assented; and, as the result of their consultation, Mr. Lincoln wrote a most remarkable autograph letter to his
rival, suggesting that he retire from the canvass and allow Mr. Lincoln's election, then visibly impending, to be as nearly unanimous
as might be. The compensations to General McClellan and his party for the timely relinquishment of a mere shadow were to be
McClellan's immediate elevation to be General of the Army, the
appointment of his father-in-law, Marcy, to be major-general, and
the very substantial recognition of the Democracy which would
necessarily have followed these arrangements. This letter containing these distinct proposals was placed in Mr. Blair's hands, and
by him delivered to General McClellan.

Source: Ward Hill Lamon in "Lincoln Talks" by Emanuel Hertz p.300-302
https://archive.org/details/lincolntalks...0/mode/2up]]> The source is questionable, I have no proof it isn't true, but I find it highly unlikely.

Mr. Lincoln said to Mr. Blair: "I shall be re-elected. No one can doubt it. I do not doubt it, nor do you. It is patent to all. General
McClellan must see it as plainly as we do. Why should he not act upon it, and help me to give peace to this distracted country?
Would it not be a glorious thing for the Union cause and the country, now that my re-election is certain, for him to decline to run, favor my election, and make certain a speedy termination of this bloody war? Don't you believe that such a course upon his part
would unify public partisan sentiment, and give a decisive and fatal blow to all opposition to the re-establishment of peace in the country? I think he is man enough and patriot enough to do it. Do you?
You have been his friend and mine. Will you try this last appeal to General McClellan's patriotism?"

Mr. Blair heartily assented; and, as the result of their consultation, Mr. Lincoln wrote a most remarkable autograph letter to his
rival, suggesting that he retire from the canvass and allow Mr. Lincoln's election, then visibly impending, to be as nearly unanimous
as might be. The compensations to General McClellan and his party for the timely relinquishment of a mere shadow were to be
McClellan's immediate elevation to be General of the Army, the
appointment of his father-in-law, Marcy, to be major-general, and
the very substantial recognition of the Democracy which would
necessarily have followed these arrangements. This letter containing these distinct proposals was placed in Mr. Blair's hands, and
by him delivered to General McClellan.

Source: Ward Hill Lamon in "Lincoln Talks" by Emanuel Hertz p.300-302
https://archive.org/details/lincolntalks...0/mode/2up]]>