Mary Todd Lincoln's faux pas (plural), worse, and much worse

[David Lockmiller]

(07-04-2014 03:19 PM)Linda Anderson Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 02:54 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  ]

I looked up Professor Burlingame's reference to the speech disruption on the Knox college website. There was also this reference which was not in the book: Clara Harris in Timothy S. Good, ed., We Saw Lincoln Shot: One Hundred Eyewitness Accounts (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1995), 70.

I looked up the Timothy Good book on Google books and brought up the book preview. Unfortunately, the preview excludes page 70.

If anyone is going to make a comment on this incident favorable to Mary Todd Lincoln, it would be Clara Harris. I would like to know what Clara Harris said regarding the incident.

David, you can find Clara's account on Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/We-Saw-Lincoln-Sho...ncoln+shot

It starts on page 69. "He spoke from the center window of the Executive Mansion. I had been invited to pass the evening there, and stood at the window adjoining room with Mrs. Lincoln, watching the crowd below as they listened and cheered. Of course Booth was there, watching his chance. I wonder he did not choose that occasion but probably he knew a better opportunity would be offered. After the speech was over, we went into Mr. Lincoln's room; he was lying on the sofa, quite exhausted but he talked of the events of the past fortnight, of his visit to Richmond, of the enthusiasm everywhere felt through the country; and Mrs. Lincoln declared the last few days to have been the happiest in her life."

I got a "please sign in" message when I tried to read page 69. I am not a "sign in" type of guy; that usually means creation of an account with passwords.

But as I said, Professor Burlingame left the Clara Harris reference out of the published book for some unknown reason. Maybe he purposely left out information in the book that differed from his own accepted thoughts. And the account of Clara Harris entering Lincoln's bedroom, after the speech as Lincoln rested on a sofa, certainly seems to me to differ from the Marquis de Chambrun's account. The Marquis mentions only Mary, Lincoln, and himself being in the room. Clara Harris does mention the Marquis being there; and, the Marquis does not mention Clara Harris being there.

As Plutarch wrote: "So very difficult a matter is it to trace and find out the truth of anything by history."

[Eva Elisabeth]

So, and I wonder how one can draw such a hard judgement from such weak evidence as you did in the beginning of this thread. Injust IMO.

[RJNorton]

Here is what reporter Noah Brooks, who was present, wrote about the speech:

"The notable feature of the evening was the President's speech, delivered to an immense throng of people, who, with bands, banners and loud huzzas poured around the familiar avenue in front of the mansion. After repeated calls, loud and enthusiastic, the President appeared at the window, the signal for a great outburst. There was something terrible about the enthusiasm with which the beloved Magistrate was received - cheers upon cheers, wave after wave of applause rolled up, the President modestly standing quiet until it was over. The speech was longer and of a different character from what most people had expected, but it was well received, and it showed that the President had shared in, and had considered, the same anxieties which the people have had, as this struggle has drawn to a close."

Brooks also recalled, "While the crowd was assembling in front of the house, and before the President went up-stairs to the window from which he was to speak, I was with him, and noticed that his speech was written out, and that he carried a roll of manuscript in his hand. He explained that this was a precaution to prevent a repetition of the criticisms which had sometimes been made by fastidious persons upon his offhand addresses. Senator Sunnier, it may be remembered, had objected to the President's using on a former occasion the expression, "The rebels turned tail and ran," as being undignified from the lips of the President of the United States. Lincoln recalled that criticism with a placid smile. From a point of concealment behind the window drapery I held a light while he read, dropping the pages of his written speech one by one upon the floor as he finished them. Little Tad, who found the crowd no longer responsive to his antics, had now sought the chief point of attraction, and scrambled around on the floor, importuning his father to give him "another," as he collected the sheets of paper fluttering from the President s hand."

[David Lockmiller]

(07-05-2014 03:27 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  So, and I wonder how one can draw such a hard judgement from such weak evidence as you did in the beginning of this thread. Injust IMO.

I was thinking about that last night. A newspaper, especially a major newspaper, must know how important it is to its own long-term existence that it print the truth and only the truth. People do not read newspapers for fictional accounts of history.

There were a lot of people attending President Lincoln's speech that night in April, 1865. Presumably, if the newspaper did not have credible eye-witness testimony attesting to the events as described in detail, Mary Todd Lincoln could have sued for libel. If the account was fictional, Mary Todd Lincoln could have brought as witnesses-at-trial dozens of witnesses situated in the front rows of the audience to testify that nothing of the sort had occurred. The speech took place only two years earlier.

It is a question of fact for the jury whether or not President Abraham Lincoln was interrupted during his important speech on Reconstruction of the Southern States by a section of the crowd up front shushing Mary Todd Lincoln and her friends into silence in order that they might be able to hear Lincoln's speech. It seems to me that the Boston newpaper account was very fact specific. (Would you agree?) If the newspaper article was a complete work of fiction, then I believe that Mary Todd Lincoln had a legitimate right to sue the newspaper, IMO (I believe that's stands for "In My Opinion"). And, I might add, I believe that my opinion is a "just and fair" opinion.

[L Verge]

Do you really think that the First Lady of the land would sue a newspaper over that and right at the moment of victory? If that reporter really did see and hear such a thing, I still think (IMO, David) that it was a cheap shot given the times.

[RJNorton]

Besides Noah Brooks another person present for President Lincoln's last speech was Elizabeth Keckly. She wrote the following account:

"Great crowds began to gather in front of the White House, and loud calls were made for the President. The band stopped playing, and as he advanced to the centre window over the door to make his address, I looked out, and never saw such a mass of heads before. It was like a black, gently swelling sea. The swaying motion of the crowd, in the dim uncertain light, was like the rising and falling of billows--like the ebb and flow of the tide upon the tide upon the stranded shore of the ocean. Close to the house the faces were plainly discernible, but they faded into mere ghostly outlines on the outskirts of the assembly; and what added to the weird, spectral beauty of the scene, was the confused hum of the voices that rose above the sea of forms, sounding like the subdued, sullen roar of an ocean storm, or the wind soughing through the dark lonely forest. It was a grand and imposing scene, and when the President, with pale face and his soul flashing through his eyes, advanced to speak, he looked more like a demi-god than a man crowned with the fleeting days of mortality.

The moment the President appeared at the window he was greeted with a storm of applause, and voices re-echoed the cry, 'A light! a light!'

A lamp was brought, and little Tad at once rushed to his father's side, exclaiming:

'Let me hold the light, Papa! let me hold the light!'

Mrs. Lincoln directed that the wish of her son be gratified, and the lamp was transferred to his hands. The father and son standing there in the presence of thousands of free citizens, the one lost in a chain of eloquent ideas, the other looking up into the speaking face with a proud, manly look, formed a beautiful and striking tableau.

There were a number of distinguished gentlemen, as well as ladies, in the room, nearly all of whom remarked the picture.

I stood a short distance from Mr. Lincoln, and as the light from the lamp fell full upon him, making him stand out boldly in the darkness, a sudden thought struck me, and I whispered to the friend at my side:

'What an easy matter would it be to kill the President, as he stands there! He could be shot down from the crowd, and no one be able to tell who fired the shot.'

I do not know what put such an idea into my head, unless it was the sudden remembrance of the many warnings that Mr. Lincoln had received.

The next day, I made mention to Mrs. Lincoln of the idea that had impressed me so strangely the night before, and she replied with a sigh:

'Yes, yes, Mr. Lincoln's life is always exposed. Ah, no one knows what it is to live in constant dread of some fearful tragedy. The President has been warned so often, that I tremble for him on every public occasion. I have a presentiment that he will meet with a sudden and violent end. I pray God to protect my beloved husband from the hands of the assassin."

[STS Lincolnite]

(07-05-2014 10:52 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 03:27 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  So, and I wonder how one can draw such a hard judgement from such weak evidence as you did in the beginning of this thread. Injust IMO.

I was thinking about that last night. A newspaper, especially a major newspaper, must know how important it is to its own long-term existence that it print the truth and only the truth. People do not read newspapers for fictional accounts of history.

David, from everything I have read, I think this is much more true today than it would have been in the mid-19th century. The vast majority of newspapers, large and small alike, were far from what we would consider fair and balanced today. Newspapers were in the habit of promoting a particular agenda - mostly political in nature. One would only have to read various newspaper's accounts of/responses to Lincoln's remarks at Gettysburg to find examples of this. Their interest was not so much in printing the truth, but in printing the "truth" as they saw it or printing items/pieces that were consistent with that "truth" in order to further their own agenda. The readers of the time understood that and would likely have reacted (or perhaps not reacted) in a very different way than we might today. I am reminded of some of the old time presidential campaigns (Jefferson/Adams and Adams/Jackson to name a couple). Some of the things that were written were absolutely terrible and were nothing but blatant fabrications.

[Eva Elisabeth]

David, maybe Mary didn't read it as it was the only newspaper with this story and this was peanuts in the end? I think like many VIPs she was quite used to such stories and sure didn't expect anyone would pay that much attention to it (least of all 147 years later) and take it as seriously you did to consider it worth the stressful procedure of a trail (she had enough problems to deal with at that time).

---

(07-05-2014 10:52 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  A newspaper, especially a major newspaper, must know how important it is to its own long-term existence that it print the truth and only the truth. People do not read newspapers for fictional accounts of history.

David, just think of the Wilma Frances Minor letters (published as alleged Lincoln correspondance):
http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/archiv...al/304449/

[Eva Elisabeth]

Roger's mentioning of Tad at the speech on April 11, reminds me of this neat little incident: When a listener suggested that the defeated Rebels should be hung, Tad said, "Oh, no, we must hang on to them." A. L. agreed: "That's right, Tad, we must hang on to them."

[LincolnToddFan]

What Tad said that night was preternaturally wise, and so unlike the spoiled brat that has so often been described by history.

So far, we have had three first hand accounts of the president's speech. The Marquis's, Noah Brooks, and Clara Harris. And by the way I also read Elizabeth Keckly's memoirs so that is in fact FOUR first hand accounts of people who were there who make no mention of Mary Lincoln and her friends drowning out the president that night.

This leads me to agree with Eva's opinion. One of Mrs. Lincoln's many detractors either embellished or made up this incident as a "pile-on" to the already bad publicity she was receiving in 1867. Burlingame decided to believe this obscure, unflattering Mary Lincoln story and use it in his book, which should surprise no one.

As far as suing for libel, not only was it rarely done in those days but she probably took a page from her late husband's book and decided to simply ignore all the slanderous things that were said and written about her. After all, this was a woman who-among many other things-had been accused of passing military secrets to Confederate spies from her bedroom window!

ETA: Eva...thank you for mentioning the Wilma Minor letters. They were so hilariously cornball...God forbid such tripe ever came out of the mouth of the man who penned the Gettysburg Address! And yet people fell for it hook, line and sinker!

[L Verge]

Most of you know that I idolize my mentor, James O. Hall. Few realize that he was an expert on Abraham Lincoln (and George Washington) in general, not just the assassination subject. He was a very kind man and rarely spoke vehemently against anyone, but he got very upset about the Wilma Minor letters and the fraud that he was sure was being perpetrated by those who were pushing them as genuine.

[LincolnToddFan]

Laurie, I don't blame Mr. Hall one bit for being upset about someone's fraudulent, crude and dishonest attempt to promote these silly forgeries as legitimate history!