Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

kerry · 01-19-2018, 01:03 PM

Thank you for the information about Green - interesting.

L Verge · 01-19-2018, 01:21 PM

(01-19-2018 01:03 PM)kerry Wrote: Thank you for the information about Green - interesting.

Glad it helped. If you want to see some of the gorgeous rooms at the Vicksburg mansion, just google Duff Green Mansion and check out their website.

For those of you who enjoy ghost tales, the mansion supposedly has several, including a Green daughter who died at age 6 and also Confederate soldiers who were put under the knife in the operating rooms there during the war. I should have mentioned that Mr. Green deliberately designated his mansion as a hospital for both sides in order to save it from being demolished by the Union assault.

L Verge · 01-19-2018, 06:24 PM

(01-19-2018 12:59 PM)kerry Wrote: There was a clear tendency to dramatize at the time -- the effect was more important than the exact words, given no one had a tape recorder. And everyone was serving their own purposes in storytelling. It was more acceptable to portray someone as a role model than as a real person, so everything is "cleaned up."

Stuff like this is everywhere, and often clearly fabricated or dressed up, such as when the person is reporting on what someone else told them, not using quotes, and wasn't there:

"Had anyone shut his eyes after Duff Green commenced speaking, and opened them when he stopped, he would have seen a perfect transformation. His slouchy position had disappeared, his mouth was compressed, his eyes were fixed, and he looked four inches taller than usual."

For my Mary Lincoln research, I've been specifically focusing on the casual accounts of everyday people, because they do a lot less of this. No grand speeches and metaphorical descriptions.

I do think that people were trained to remember exact words and detailed much more than today, because of the lack of recording devices. You were supposed to be able to describe things accurately via letter, and clarity of expression was way more valued. People very casually give minute unflattering physical descriptions because they had to, before widespread photography.

I have had lots of experience with journalists and reporters and other forms of media over the past forty years in my job. To this day, I wonder each time I give an interview how much I will "change" from what I said to what is reported that I said.

Whether you are trying to sell newspapers, radio shows, books and magazines, or a Hollywood production, I think it is just natural for those types of folks to create what they want to show by twisting other folks' knowledge and words. Things haven't changed much since 1865 - except to really get worse under the guise of social media.

kerry · 01-19-2018, 06:33 PM

(01-19-2018 06:24 PM)L Verge Wrote:
(01-19-2018 12:59 PM)kerry Wrote: There was a clear tendency to dramatize at the time -- the effect was more important than the exact words, given no one had a tape recorder. And everyone was serving their own purposes in storytelling. It was more acceptable to portray someone as a role model than as a real person, so everything is "cleaned up."

Stuff like this is everywhere, and often clearly fabricated or dressed up, such as when the person is reporting on what someone else told them, not using quotes, and wasn't there:

"Had anyone shut his eyes after Duff Green commenced speaking, and opened them when he stopped, he would have seen a perfect transformation. His slouchy position had disappeared, his mouth was compressed, his eyes were fixed, and he looked four inches taller than usual."

For my Mary Lincoln research, I've been specifically focusing on the casual accounts of everyday people, because they do a lot less of this. No grand speeches and metaphorical descriptions.

I do think that people were trained to remember exact words and detailed much more than today, because of the lack of recording devices. You were supposed to be able to describe things accurately via letter, and clarity of expression was way more valued. People very casually give minute unflattering physical descriptions because they had to, before widespread photography.

I have had lots of experience with journalists and reporters and other forms of media over the past forty years in my job. To this day, I wonder each time I give an interview how much I will "change" from what I said to what is reported that I said.

Whether you are trying to sell newspapers, radio shows, books and magazines, or a Hollywood production, I think it is just natural for those types of folks to create what they want to show by twisting other folks' knowledge and words. Things haven't changed much since 1865 - except to really get worse under the guise of social media.

Yeah, it's the way things work. I used to be a news junkie, but while interning with the government noticed how horribly incorrect the newspaper was in literally every article about policies. That's when I realized you had to go to the actual primary source of everything before you could comment intelligently, and since then I've tuned out news. Interning as a law student only reinforced it, when briefs and arguments totally misrepresented actual testimony. My favorite thing is hunting down primary sources and figuring out how a story got going, but most people take everything at face value. It amazes me how solemn historical writing can be, when the writer is clearly dealing with a questionable and dressed up assertion, but reports it as fact.

Anita · 01-19-2018, 10:22 PM

(01-19-2018 12:59 PM)kerry Wrote: Yeah, it's the way things work. I used to be a news junkie, but while interning with the government noticed how horribly incorrect the newspaper was in literally every article about policies. That's when I realized you had to go to the actual primary source of everything before you could comment intelligently, and since then I've tuned out news. Interning as a law student only reinforced it, when briefs and arguments totally misrepresented actual testimony. My favorite thing is hunting down primary sources and figuring out how a story got going, but most people take everything at face value. It amazes me how solemn historical writing can be, when the writer is clearly dealing with a questionable and dressed up assertion, but reports it as fact.

Kerry, well said and an important subject. Do you often find the credibility of the primary source in question?

David Lockmiller · (This post was last modified: 01-20-2018 08:39 AM by David Lockmiller.)

(01-19-2018 01:00 PM)L Verge Wrote: I first learned of Duff about forty years ago when I met Joan Chaconas, now a member of my staff but also an excellent Washington, D.C. historian.

When the Civil War came, Duff and his family headed south to a mansion that he had built in Vicksburg, Mississippi, for his bride. When Grant focused on Vicksburg and started the destructive siege, their mansion became a field hospital because Duff designated it as a hospital for both Union and Confederate troops. During that siege, Mrs. Green gave birth to their first child in a nearby cave where the family sought shelter.

Duff Green strongly supported the Confederacy and started three iron foundries and the Dalton Arms Company in order to supply the South with everything from nails to rifles and railroad tracks . . . . From sources that I read, Lincoln flat-out declared him a traitor. When Andrew Johnson became President, he granted Duff a pardon, but a $20,000 fine was part of the "deal."

The University of North Carolina has a collection of the Duff Green and Benjamin Green (his son) Papers in their Southern collection. The Vicksburg home, Duff Green Mansion, is where Jefferson Davis once danced.

Sorry for the history lesson.

I did not re-type part of the Duff Green story.

The following is from the New York Daily Tribune, Jan. 1885 newspaper story, simply because it is easier for me to access at this time. The story begins:

A man appeared at the landing dressed in gray homespun with a somewhat decayed appearance, and with a staff about six feet long in his hand. It was, in fact, nothing more than a stick taken from a woodpile. It was two and a half inches in diameter, and was not even smoothed at the knots. It was just such a weapon as a man would pick up to kill a mad dog with.

. . . The officer came down into the cabin and delivered the message [from Duff Green]. I [Admiral Porter] arose and said: "I will go up and send him away," but the President said: "Let him come on board. Duff is an old friend of mine, and I would like to talk to him."

I then went on deck to have a boat sent for him, and to see what kind of man this was who sent off such arrogant messages to the President of the United States. He stepped into the boat as if it belonged to him, instead of sitting down, he stood up, leaning on his long staff. When he came over the side, he stood on the deck defiantly, looked up at the flag, and scowled, and then, turning to me (whom he knew very well), he said: "I want to see Abraham Lincoln." He paid no courtesy to me or the quarterdeck.

It had been a very long time since he had shaved or cut his hair, and he might have come under the head of "unkempt and not canny."

"When you come," I said, "in a respectful manner, the President will see you, but throw away that cord of wood you have in your hand, before entering the President's presence."

"How long is it," said he, "since Abraham Lincoln took to aping royalty? Man dressed in brief authority cuts such fantastic capers before high heaven that it makes the angels weep. I can expect airs from a naval officer, but I don't expect to find them in a man with Abraham Lincoln's horse sense."

I thought the man crazy, and think so still. "I can't permit you to see the President," I said, "until I receive further instructions, but you can't see him at all until you throw that woodpile overboard."

He turned on his heel and tried to throw the stick on shore, but it fell short, and went floating down with the current.

"Ah!" he said, "has it come to that? Is he afraid of assassination? Tyrants generally get into that condition."

I went down and reported this queer customer to the President, and told him I thought the man crazy, but he said: "let him come down; he always was a little queer, I shan't mind him." Mr. Duff Green was shown into the cabin. The President got up from his chair to receive him, and approaching him, offered his hand.

[The rest of the story is in my original post.] I made this post because of the line: "It was just such a weapon as a man would pick up to kill a mad dog with."

kerry · 01-20-2018, 06:56 PM

(01-19-2018 10:22 PM)Anita Wrote:
(01-19-2018 12:59 PM)kerry Wrote: Yeah, it's the way things work. I used to be a news junkie, but while interning with the government noticed how horribly incorrect the newspaper was in literally every article about policies. That's when I realized you had to go to the actual primary source of everything before you could comment intelligently, and since then I've tuned out news. Interning as a law student only reinforced it, when briefs and arguments totally misrepresented actual testimony. My favorite thing is hunting down primary sources and figuring out how a story got going, but most people take everything at face value. It amazes me how solemn historical writing can be, when the writer is clearly dealing with a questionable and dressed up assertion, but reports it as fact.
Kerry, well said and an important subject. Do you often find the credibility of the primary source in question?

A lot of it turns out to be pretty suspect. What I find interesting is how little credible stuff there is from the Springfield years. It seems like all of Springfield read Herndon and Lamon's books, assimilated their actual memories to match, and repeated it to their grandkids. Almost no one is telling a firsthand story in the Springfield sources - those who knew kept their mouths shut. Graves being an example - he's retelling his brother's story several different ways, then mentions he and his brother argued over Mary's motive for the candy pull - to make up with the kids, or to spite Lincoln. It's not something either one could know, but they are comfortable confidently stating their assertions. The Washington years sources seem more credible. But the Springfield stories are just reprinted and dressed up until they get further and further from the truth. The whole adding a second story to the house thing is told in so many different ways that it is ridiculous.

Anita · 01-20-2018, 09:18 PM

(01-20-2018 06:56 PM)kerry Wrote:
(01-19-2018 10:22 PM)Anita Wrote:
(01-19-2018 12:59 PM)kerry Wrote: Yeah, it's the way things work. I used to be a news junkie, but while interning with the government noticed how horribly incorrect the newspaper was in literally every article about policies. That's when I realized you had to go to the actual primary source of everything before you could comment intelligently, and since then I've tuned out news. Interning as a law student only reinforced it, when briefs and arguments totally misrepresented actual testimony. My favorite thing is hunting down primary sources and figuring out how a story got going, but most people take everything at face value. It amazes me how solemn historical writing can be, when the writer is clearly dealing with a questionable and dressed up assertion, but reports it as fact.
Kerry, well said and an important subject. Do you often find the credibility of the primary source in question?

A lot of it turns out to be pretty suspect. What I find interesting is how little credible stuff there is from the Springfield years. It seems like all of Springfield read Herndon and Lamon's books, assimilated their actual memories to match, and repeated it to their grandkids. Almost no one is telling a firsthand story in the Springfield sources - those who knew kept their mouths shut. Graves being an example - he's retelling his brother's story several different ways, then mentions he and his brother argued over Mary's motive for the candy pull - to make up with the kids, or to spite Lincoln. It's not something either one could know, but they are comfortable confidently stating their assertions. The Washington years sources seem more credible. But the Springfield stories are just reprinted and dressed up until they get further and further from the truth. The whole adding a second story to the house thing is told in so many different ways that it is ridiculous.

Kerry, you said "It seems like all of Springfield read Herndon and Lamon's books, assimilated their actual memories to match, and repeated it to their grandkids. Almost no one is telling a firsthand story in the Springfield sources - those who knew kept their mouths shut. "

Reminds me of eyewitness accounts of the assassination story whose early recollection later changed after reading published accounts.

What about New Salem sources?

Does "The LIFE of ABRAHAM LINCOLN" Drawn from original sources and containing many speeches,letters and telegrams hitherto unpublished, by Ida Tarbell contain credible Springfield sources?

kerry · (This post was last modified: 01-21-2018 12:59 AM by kerry.)

(01-20-2018 09:18 PM)Anita Wrote: Kerry, you said "It seems like all of Springfield read Herndon and Lamon's books, assimilated their actual memories to match, and repeated it to their grandkids. Almost no one is telling a firsthand story in the Springfield sources - those who knew kept their mouths shut. "

Reminds me of eyewitness accounts of the assassination story whose early recollection later changed after reading published accounts.

What about New Salem sources?

Does "The LIFE of ABRAHAM LINCOLN" Drawn from original sources and containing many speeches,letters and telegrams hitherto unpublished, by Ida Tarbell contain credible Springfield sources?

Agreed as to the assassination accounts. I've said before I don't believe anyone said "He belongs to the ages," but later people just decided to go along with it.

Because I am mostly focusing on Mary Lincoln in my research, I haven't done much New Salem research.

Ida Tarbell's work is mostly good. She worked to get to the bottom of things. But even her Springfield stuff is iffy, which is why she asked Graves to straighten out his story. The Graves story was in an article, not the book - the series of articles she did had a lot more about Mary, but she chose to leave it out of the book. She got some stuff from Mary's relatives which should be credible - she was the one who decided the two weddings thing didn't happen. That being said, the stories she got from those relatives conflicted with stuff said by other relatives (like the Edwards saying there were two weddings), so it's kind of hard to know if they were doing damage control or telling the truth. I just looked and it seems she barely mentioned Mary in Springfield - most of her comments come in the White House years. She dwells on the wedding thing at length, but not the marriage. She was the first to heavily interview Company K, which I think is one of the best sources about Lincoln family life.

RJNorton · 01-21-2018, 05:26 AM

(01-21-2018 12:56 AM)kerry Wrote: (like the Edwards saying there were two weddings)

Was it Elizabeth Edwards who said this in a later interview? Could she have been confusing Mary with her sister, Ann? Apparently Ann Marie Todd had a first wedding planned, but the groom (Clark Smith) didn't show; however, the two got married in a second planned wedding shortly thereafter.

kerry · (This post was last modified: 01-21-2018 11:26 AM by kerry.)

(01-21-2018 05:26 AM)RJNorton Wrote:
(01-21-2018 12:56 AM)kerry Wrote: (like the Edwards saying there were two weddings)

Was it Elizabeth Edwards who said this in a later interview? Could she have been confusing Mary with her sister, Ann? Apparently Ann Marie Todd had a first wedding planned, but the groom (Clark Smith) didn't show; however, the two got married in a second planned wedding shortly thereafter.

I believe Elizabeth said it in two interviews, and in the second, with Weik, Ninian interrupted to remind her she was talking to a reporter. So it seems unlikely she was confused to me. I feel like there is more to the story, because it just doesn't seem like she would be confused about that and then not correct herself. It seems impossible to figure out what happened - the stories conflict everywhere.

Tarbell asked Mrs. Speed and she said she'd never heard of the 2 weddings. I don't know the credibility of this, but John Hanks put forth a wedding invitation in 1881 from Lincoln for the next week, which if real, means it wasn't a one-day announcement. Somewhere I have an account of, I think, Martinette Hardin, talking about Mary being jilted either at a wedding or an engagement party. Some of the things I've come across that go beyond the normal courtship talk:

Mary consistently put out a story to non-Springfielders that she broke up with Lincoln over Douglas, but that it was a very short-lived thing. Dr. Henry apparently also promoted this story.

Thomas D. Jones wrote a book called Memories of Lincoln, published in 1934. In it he gave an anecdote he’d heard while researching in Springfield. “While Lincoln courted Miss Todd, he and Douglas were rivals for her hand. For some reason or other, and a woman always has a reason, Lincoln was discarded. The description of the effect it had upon him as it was told me by one of the actors that was present at the scene, I shall never forget. Several of Lincoln's friends feared that he would become insane, (that is the word), if not already mad. Finally Miss Todd was prevailed upon to see Lincoln. She consented. As an old friend of both related the incident: ‘We put them both in a room together and let them fight it out,’ and Lincoln was victorious.”

Harriet Chapman later said that Mary told her that “Mrs L. was engaged to Sen Douglas but she broke off engagement ― she became sick ― Douglas did not want to release her but her bro in law Dr Wallace who was treating her told Douglas he must give her up. Ms L. told Ms C. that she was engaged to D.” Mary always pushed the Douglas rivalry story, including that it was a battle of oratory. In addition to Mary’s claim that Lincoln had threatened to “blow [his] brains out” over her, she claimed that he also threatened to kill Douglas.

Gen. James Grant Wilson later recalled that at a “dinner that was given on the occasion of Douglas’s engagement to Ada Cutts . . . I remember that Gov. Aiken of South Carolina . . . was at the dinner.” Douglas recalled that he, Lincoln and Shields “promptly took it into our heads to fall in love with the beautiful lady,” recently arrived Mary Todd. “In course of time it was annoyed that Lincoln was the favored one. I presently ceased my visits to Miss Todd, but Shields continued to call rather to Lincoln’s disgust. He thought that Shields held Miss Todd’s hand longer than necessary in saying ‘good evening.’ Miss Todd and a friend of hers, in the spirit of mischief, wrote a skit in the form of a conversation between a grandmother and granddaughter. The old lady gave the young one much good advice, warning her especially against schoolmasters you would hold people’s hands. The thing was published in the local paper . . . The morning after . . . Shields appeared at the newspaper office with a hickory stick. ‘Tell me who wrote that thing,’ he said, ‘and I will break every bone in his body.’” The story continued that Lincoln took the blame, “chose Douglas as his second,” and the story is well known, although he claimed Shields fainted.

From Keckley’s book, we get Mary’s version of the story:

Mrs. Lincoln, as Miss Mary Todd, was quite a belle in Springfield, Illinois, and from all accounts she was fond of flirting. She generally managed to keep a half-dozen gentlemen biting at the hook that she baited so temptingly for them. The world, if I mistake not, are not aware that the rivalry between Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Stephen A. Douglas commenced over the hand of Miss Mary Todd. The young lady was ambitious, and she smiled more sweetly upon Mr. Douglas and Mr. Lincoln than any of her other admirers, as they were regarded as rising men. She played her part so well that neither of the rivals for a long time could tell who would win the day. Mr. Douglas first proposed for her hand, and she discarded him. The young man urged his suit boldly:

"Mary, you do not know what you are refusing. You have always had an ambition to become the wife of a President of the United States. Pardon the egotism, but I fear that in refusing my hand to-night you have thrown away your best chance to ever rule in the White House.”

"I do not understand you, Mr. Douglas.”

"Then I will speak more plainly. You know, Mary, that I am ambitious like yourself, and something seems to whisper in my ear, 'You will be President some day.' Depend upon it, I shall make a stubborn fight to win the proud position.”

"You have my best wishes, Mr. Douglas; still I cannot consent to be your wife. I shall become Mrs. President, or I am the victim of false prophets, but it will not be as Mrs. Douglas.”

I have this little chapter in a romantic history from the lips of Mrs. Lincoln herself.

. . . A few evenings after Mr. Douglas had been discarded, Mr. Lincoln made a formal proposal for the hand of Miss Todd, but it appears that the young lady was not willing to capitulate at once. She believed that she could send her lover adrift to-day and win him back to-morrow.

"You are bold, Mr. Lincoln.”

"Love makes me bold.”

"You honor me, pardon me, but I cannot consent to be your wife.”

"Is this your final answer, Miss Todd?" and the suitor rose nervously to his feet.

"I do not often jest, Mr. Lincoln. Why should I reconsider to-morrow my decision of to-day.”

"Excuse me. Your answer is sufficient. I was led to hope that I might become dearer to you than a friend, but the hope, it seems, has proved an idle one. I have the honor to say good night, Miss Todd," and pale, yet calm, Mr. Lincoln bowed himself out of the room.

He rushed to his office in a frantic state of mind. Dr. Henry, his most intimate friend, happened to come in, and was surprised to see the young lawyer walking the floor in an agitated manner.

"What is the matter, Lincoln? You look desperate.”

"Matter! I am sick of the world. It is a heartless, deceitful world, and I care not how soon I am out of it.”

"You rave. What has happened? Have you been quarrelling with your sweetheart?”

"Quarrel! I wish to God it was a quarrel, for then I could look forward to reconciliation; the girl has refused to become my wife, after leading me to believe that she loved me. She is a heartless coquette.”

"Don't give up the conquest so easily. Cheer up, man, you may succeed yet. Perhaps she is only testing your love.”

"No! I believe that she is going to marry Douglas. If she does I will blow my brains out.”

"Nonsense! That would not mend matters. Your brains were given to you for different use. Come, we will go to your room now. Go to bed and sleep on the question, and you will get up feeling stronger to-morrow;" and Dr. Henry took the arm of his friend Lincoln, led him home, and saw him safely in bed.

The next morning the doctor called at Mr. Lincoln's room, and found that his friend had passed a restless night. Excitement had brought on fever, which threatened to assume a violent form, as the cause of the excitement still remained. Several days passed, and Mr. Lincoln was confined to his bed. Dr. Henry at once determined to call on Miss Todd, and find out how desperate the case was. Miss Todd was glad to see him, and she was deeply distressed to learn that Mr. Lincoln was ill. She wished to go to him at once, but the Doctor reminded her that she was the cause of his illness. She frankly acknowledged her folly, saying that she only desired to test the sincerity of Mr. Lincoln's love, that he was the idol of her heart, and that she would become his wife.

The Doctor returned with joyful news to his patient. The intelligence proved the best remedy for the disease. Mutual explanations followed, and in a few months Mr. Lincoln led Miss Todd to the altar in triumph.”

Keckley made it absolutely clear that this was Mary’s official story, and that it was backed up by Dr. Henry:

“I learned these facts from Dr. Henry and Mrs. Lincoln. I believe them to be facts, and as such have recorded them. They do not agree with Mr. Herndon's story, that Mr. Lincoln never loved but one woman, and that woman was Ann Rutledge; but then Mr. Herndon's story must be looked upon as a pleasant piece of fiction. When it appeared, Mrs. Lincoln felt shocked that one who pretended to be the friend of her dead husband should deliberately seek to blacken his memory. Mr. Lincoln was far too honest a man to marry a woman that he did not love. He was a kind and an indulgent husband, and when he saw faults in his wife he excused them as he would excuse the impulsive acts of a child. In fact, Mrs. Lincoln was never more pleased than when the President called her his child-wife.”

The Edwards' son claimed his parents broke them up, but that there was no real breakup.

Albert Stevens Edwards, the son of Ninian and Elizabeth Edwards, later tried to correct misconceptions about the courtship. Clearly he had motive to smooth things over, but his contributions are still interesting. He said “with emphasis” that there was no foundation to the statement that Lincoln had left Mary at the altar . . . Lincoln was about 30, bright and jolly, and a great favorite with all of the young ladies at my father's. From 1837 to 1839 he was one of the most frequent visitors. There was nothing bashful about him. The ladies would urge him to call again. My father had a relative here from Alton, Matilda Edwards, daughter of Cyrus Edwards, a very bright girl. The family thought that Lincoln was much taken with Matilda, but nothing came of it beyond story-telling and fun-making . . . My mother and my father both liked Mr. Lincoln. Up to the time of the courtship they had made Lincoln welcome and had encouraged his visits. A cousin of my mother, John Todd Stuart, was the law partner of Mr. Lincoln. But my mother and my father at that time didn't want Mary to marry Mr. Lincoln. There was no objection to the match on the ground of Mr. Lincoln's character or social standing. But Mr. Lincoln then hadn't $500 to his name. He was just getting started in the practice of his profession. My mother and my father felt that he could not support Mary as they thought she ought to be maintained, and for that reason only they opposed the engagement. . . . During 1841 and 1842 my mother did what she could to break up the match.”

The author of A Reporter’s Lincoln, after talking to family still living, noted that “Mrs. Edwards did not resort to measures strenuous or extreme to prevent the marriage of her spirited sister, but she tried to avert it in her own way without hurting the feelings of Mr. Lincoln.” He also explained:

“Lincoln was 30 and Mary Todd was nearly 20 when their acquaintance began. Lincoln's law practice was very small. He had been admitted to the bar only a short time before. He felt the weight of the seriousness of the objection which Mrs. Edwards raised. The girl was deeply in love with him. She was impulsive and strong-willed. It fell to Lincoln to do some hard thinking for both of them. That he had periods of depression and despondency, as he contemplated his unfortunate financial condition and realized what was expected of him, is not to be wondered.”

"When Lincoln saw that his attentions to my aunt were looked upon coldly by my mother and father, his visits to our house became less frequent," Mr. Edwards said. "But that did not mean a suspension of the courtship. Lincoln and Mary arranged to meet at the houses of mutual friends. One of the houses where they were made welcome and where they met often was the residence of Simeon Francis . . . There was no break in the courtship and there was no setting of the date and then postponing the marriage. The courtship was a long one because Lincoln was in no condition to support a wife. The two remained loyal to each other, meeting from time to time and waiting for Mr. Lincoln's circumstances to justify marriage."

Multiple sources mention Mary resenting her sister because of this marriage interference and having little to do with her until Lincoln's election. I've never been able to figure out how much truth there was to that, but there is an odd lack of known interactions between them. Page Eaton claimed this, and I've always wondered at his credibility.

. . . After the marriage Mr. Lincoln never showed any trace of resentment toward his wife's relatives for their opposition to the marriage. With Mrs. Lincoln it was different. She had said a little defiantly to her brother-in-law, Ninian W. Edwards, before the wedding, that she was going to marry a man who would one day be president of the United States. In the years afterward she would recall those long months of courtship without home sympathy and show that the memory of the family opposition to her choice still rankled. "After the marriage," said Mr. Edwards, "Mr. and Mrs. Lincoln visited at our house. They were always invited there on social occasions. They went out in Springfield society. . . Mr. Lincoln and my father were always very friendly. Mrs. Lincoln, I think, always was a little cool toward my mother for the course she had taken to discourage the engagement. But my mother and Mr. Lincoln were very friendly. "

A lot of people simply directly quoted Herndon, even when they would seem to have known more.

Mrs. Logan knew nothing more than what Lamon did: “Both Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas proposed to her. She refused Douglas and accepted Lincoln. Lincoln feared that the match would not be a happy one, and Ward Lamon, his biographer, states that he failed to be present at the time first set for the ceremony, though the guests were assembled and the wedding-feast prepared. He became suddenly ill, and it was more than a year before the marriage was consummated.”
A Joseph Peters remembered being a law student and meeting Lincoln, when he was either engaged or recently married (his account says Lincoln had been married a short time, but he gives a date of 1840). Calling on Lincoln, he found him “was found sitting in the shade of a tree, reading to Mrs. Lincoln. He often remarked many years afterward, when hearing people speak lightly of her, that he could only think of Mrs. Lincoln as he saw her when making that call ― pleasant, social, and in every word and [g]esture a lady.”

Mary’s story always emphasized Lincoln’s “illness.” Elizabeth Grimsley wrote Ida Tarbell that “in the year previous to the marriage, and when Mr. Lincoln and my Cousin Mary expected soon to be married, that Mr. Lincoln was taken with one of those fearful, overwhelming periods of depression, which induced his friends to persuade him to leave Springfield. This he did for a time, but am satisfied that he was loyal and true to Mary even though at times he may have doubted whether he was responding as fully as a manly generous nature should, to such affection she knew my Cousin was ready to bestow on him. And this because it had not the overmastering depth of an early love. This every body here knows, therefore I do not feel as if I were betraying dear friends.” She also said Lincoln’s mind had been “somewhat overclouded,” and that the Edwardses “naturally felt that might be an obstacles to a happy marriage, and rather discouraged any further thought of it, but the young people knew their own minds.”

Mary V. Stuart recalled that Mary “told me herself, all the circumstances of her engagement to Mr. Lincoln, of his illness, and the breaking off of her engagement, of the renewal and her marriage.”
However, Mrs. B. S. Edwards remembered that Lincoln had met Ninian on the street and given him the news. She also “doubted it was really a love affair” but that it was “made up” by “mutual friends.” She remembered Lincoln being “deeply in love with Matilda Edwards,” and that what really made him almost “los[e] his reason” was that Matilda’s father objected.

While Mary and her family pushed the Douglas angle, in June 1868, someone wrote a letter to a newspaper editor saying that “As the intimate personal and political friend of Judge Douglas for many years, familiar with him from his settlement in Illinois until his death, permit me to say that the story is, like many others in said book, a sheer fabrication, as Judge D. had not the honor of Mrs. L’s acquaintance until some time after her marriage. It is with in the personal knowledge of the writer of this, that a good many of the sensational incidents ion the book are purely fictions of the brain, inserted no doubt, to make it sell, but having no foundation whatever in fact, as is well known in this city.”

Court Circles of Washington, published in 1870, also has some of Mary’s story, either told by her directly or by sympathetic friends (she knew the author and illustrator). The description of her included this:

“The last four years of her school days were passed at Mde. Mentelle's select establishment . . . where a near relative, Margaret Wickliffe, afterwards Mrs. William Preston, was her room-mate. The young ladies continued intimate friends till the civil war; and during that, Mrs. Preston often sought Mrs. Lincoln's help, to be permitted to join General Preston. Miss Todd returned from school to Springfield, when only seventeen, and was soon admired in a select society of gentlemen, of whom many became distinguished. Judge Douglas was one of her persistent suitors. Abraham Lincoln paid his addresses three months after the first meeting with the lovely and accomplished girl, who alone of all her sex had ever touched his heart. He had never sought any other woman's society. He courted her devotedly for three years, and during the twenty-two or three years of married life that followed, he remained the fond lover as well as the affectionate husband and father ; never absent from his wife more than a day without sending daily letters ; sharing with her the joy of every success ; finding no happiness so great as that of the home brightened by her. She shared with him the anxieties that accompanied his elevation to the Presidency, as well as the affliction of losing his gifted son ; seeking relief from sorrow in visits to the hospitals where her kind ministrations to the suffering soldiers might do them good, and bathing eyes swollen with weeping when duty called her to the drawing-room reception. Mrs. Ann S. Stephens, the distinguished novelist, often accompanied her on these visits of mercy, and described the scene as most interesting ― to see the wife of the President walking for hours through the wards to say cheering words of hope and encouragement to the wounded and sick; laying fresh flowers on their pillows, and offering them delicacies brought from the White House. Her carriage would be laden with flowers and baskets of dainties, fruits, &c., for these hapless ones. In strawberry time her gardens would be stripped for their benefit. She often assured Mrs. Stephens that but for these humane employments, her heart would have broken when she lost her child. No one who knew her could doubt Mrs. Lincoln's possession of a feeling and noble heart.”

Then we lost whatever information would have come out here:

At some point, it was reported that Mrs. Charles Ridgley, President of the Sangamon County Columbian Exhibition Club in Springfield, decided to “prepare a souvenir or Lincoln memorial book” for the World’s Fair. “This book was intended to be very handsome in every particular, and touching and beautiful incidents in the life of President and Mrs. Lincoln, from their romantic courtship on through the stirring scenes of their public life at Washington, were to be written by old friends and neighbors.” “For various reasons the club were not as enthusiastic over the proposed plan as they should have been, and at the last meeting of the club Mrs. Ridgely thought best . . . to withdraw her proposition, and by a vote of the club it was decide to give up that feature of the exhibit. . . The collection of colonial and Lincoln lyrics will now constitute the exhibit from Sangamon Country. A very kind letter offering any assistance in his power has been received from the Hon. Robert T. Lincoln…"

Then there is the information that Mary's father may have been the one objecting - apparently even in the family people differed:

Mary Edwards Brown in Life magazine said “Mother always told me they married suddenly because Aunt Mary’s father had heard about the engagement and said Lincoln was ‘poor white trash’ and he wouldn’t have is daughter marry him and he threatened to make all sorts of trouble. There’s another story that it was Ninian Edwards, my grandfather, that made the trouble: he said Mr. Lincoln was poor, with no prospects, and had nothing in common with Aunt Mary. Grandfather forced her to write a letter breaking off the engagement. He said Aunt Mary was his ward and he knew best. But they met secretly and one morning announced that they were going to be married that night.” Perhaps later, the Edwardses did not want to admit this and went with the jilting story.

Judge Matheney told Weik much, but made him promise to keep it to himself until both he and Mary had died. “The marriage was originally set for a day in the winter of 1840-1841, probably New Year’s Day, and Judge Matheney always instead that he had been asked to serve as groan then; but Lincoln, for reasons unnecessary to detail here, having failed to materialize at the appoint time, an estrangement naturally followed and he was no longer enshrined in the affections of Miss Todd or person grata at the Edwards home . .. Through the intercession of the wife of Simeon Francis . . . A reconciliation as elected. . . Meanwhile, at frequent intervals, they were meeting each other as before, but never at the Edwards residence and probably without the knowledge of the Edwards family. When the marriage was set for a second time it was planned to have to solemnized by the pastor at his own house in the presence of a few close friends; but a day or so before the appointed time, when Mr. Edwards first heard off t, he hunted up Lincoln and earnestly protested on the ground that he was the nutria protector of Miss Todd; that she was in reality a member of his family, and the marriage ceremony soul take place, if at all, in his home. After some argument Lincoln and Miss Todd were finally won over …The attendance was limited, probably not over forty persons being present.’For a time after the gusts arrived,; related Judged Matheny, ‘ there was more or less stiffness about the fair due, no doubt, to the sudden change of plans and resulting ‘town talk,’ and I could not help noticing a certain amount of whispering and elevation of eyebrows on the part of a few of the guests, as I if preparing each other for something dramatic our looked for to happen. Things over awkwardly―at least not naturally―until, during the ceremony, an interruption occurred so usual and amusing it broke the ice.” Mrs. Francis refused to enlighten Weik about the circumstances, but did not deny the prior wedding.

Matheny has 40 people there - I think Lizzie Grimsley or one of the others names like 5. Sometimes I wonder if they eloped and never had a wedding and people just wrote themselves into the story. Maybe there was a botched elopement before, and that was the first wedding.

Sarah Rickard discussed the courtship, although it is unclear how much of it she was simply repeating from current stories. “I can tell you something that may be news about the courtship of Mr. Lincoln and Mary Todd, though it is pretty well know that Mary Todd was madly in love with Mr. Lincoln. She simply loved him and would have him whether or not. She was a bright, fascinating girl, with an unusual gift of sarcasm. She had a way of saying sharp, brilliant and sometimes cutting things. Mr. Lincoln admired her greatly, and though he still continued to take me to the theater and to dances, and to show some attention to Matilda Edwards, also, it was the talk of Springfield that Mary Todd would marry him in spite of himself. Things went on until Mr. Lincoln found himself enmeshed in an engagement with Mary. And now comes the odd phase in the life of the man. He broke off with Mary outright―just quit. He seemed to be afraid to marry her. It might have been the belief that he did not love her, or the fear of the responsibilities of marriage, but at any rate for lack of a better word, I must say that Lincoln jilted her. The wedding day was set and all was ready, but Mr. Lincoln failed to appear. Mr. Lincoln went to the home of Joshua Speed, and almost immediately became violently ill. My brother-in-law, Mr. Butler, and my sister . . . went over and got him and brought him over to their home, where my sister nursed him through a long illness . . . Mr. Lincoln did to seem to recover, and my sister, who had watched him closely, decided that he had something on his mind. At last she decided upon a plan of action, and one day went into Mr. Lincoln’s room, closed the door and, walking over to the bed, said: “‘Now, ‘Abe,’ what is the matter? Tell me all about it.’” And he did. Suffering under the ought that he had treated Mary Todd badly, knowing that she loved him, and that he had broken off the wedding, Mr. Lincoln was wearing his very life away in an agony of remorse. He made no excuse for breaking with Mary, but said sadly to my sister: ‘Mrs. Butler, it would just kill me to marry Mary Todd.’ ‘ But she’s a nice girl,’ my sister urged, ‘and you won’t be poor always.’ ‘It isn’t that,’’ said Mr. Lincoln, desperately. ‘There are plenty of nice girls, and there’s one that I would much rather marry than Mary. I’d rather have Sarah for my wife than any girl I know.’ ‘…After my sister’s interview with Mr. Lincoln about the Mary Todd business he didn't see her any more for along time. At last we all went down to Jacksonville to attend the wedding of Miss Nellie Hardin, whose brother was a distinguished officer during the Mexican war. I went to the wedding and so did . . . Mr. Lincoln and Miss Todd. I sat next to Mr. Lincoln at the wedding dinner. He was going with me quite a good deal then. Mary Todd sat just across. Of course, rather than bring restraint upon the company, they spoke to each other, and that was the beginning of the reconciliation. When we all got back to Springfield and Mrs. Edwards . . . heard of it she was furious. She felt that Mr. Lincoln had treated Mary badly, and she forbade him the house. So Mary would quietly go over to the home of Mrs. Simeon Francis . . . and then Mrs. Francis would send for Mr. Lincoln. That was how the second courtship of Mary Todd and Mr. Lincoln came about, and no matter how might have been at first, Mary certainly made most of the plans and did the courting. I have never been able to account satisfactorily for Mr. Lincoln’s behavior about that time. He was the gentlest, most honest man I ever knew, and feeling that he had perhaps not fully appreciated the great love which Mary Todd undoubtedly had for him at first, he set about to make himself return it. Mary worshipped him, and he knew it, and knowing her worthiness he determined to make her happy. At last they were engaged again.”

Knowing Lincoln's response makes you wonder if Sarah wrote herself into the story.

In summary, no one seems to know, and I think Tarbell got so many conflicting stories she stayed away from writing much about Mary. It's very confusing. I feel like the simplest explanation is Lincoln was afraid to get married in general and fell apart, and people assigned the nearest cause they could think of, all of which were contributing factors. Then he got himself back together and soon they were joking about Mathilda (and, let's be honest, Lincoln didn't "love" this girl he had just met. He was infatuated with her and it added to his confusion.)

Rob Wick · (This post was last modified: 01-21-2018 01:32 PM by Rob Wick.)

Kerry,

For the past three or four years now I have done detailed studies of Ida Tarbell's work on Abraham Lincoln for a book I hope to get finished before I end up joining the choir invisible. In addition to studying Tarbell's Allegheny College papers I have studied her papers in several other archival institutions, along with detailed conversations with Kathleen Brady, author of the only full-length biography of Tarbell. I would like to clear up some things in your posting.

Quote:Ida Tarbell's work is mostly good. She worked to get to the bottom of things. But even her Springfield stuff is iffy

If by "iffy" you mean incorrect, I have to heartily disagree with your characterization. Tarbell was a very careful researcher throughout her life as was her Springfield researcher, J. McCan Davis. Indeed, Davis found so many things that changed public perception on Lincoln that he received author's credit on the first book Tarbell wrote on Lincoln, which was a collection of her McClure's Magazine articles reprinted.

However, if by "iffy" you mean confusing, then I can go along with that. Tarbell at times was led astray by her sources and in a few instances by her own belief in what she was presented with. The two best examples I can offer for that would be her writing on Lincoln's "Lost Speech" in Bloomington and her initial acceptance of the Wilma Minor letters. She went to her grave believing that Henry Clay Whitney had provided the closest thing to a detailed account of what Lincoln had said in 1858. As for Minor, she let her own desire that Lincoln and Ann Rutledge be in love cloud her judgment.

Quote:I think Tarbell got so many conflicting stories she stayed away from writing much about Mary.

Again, I can't agree with that. In the first place, Tarbell wrote as much as she felt necessary about Mary. Much of her hesitation before 1926 in what she wrote came from her desire not to upset Robert Todd Lincoln, whose donation of the first known picture of Abraham was the frontispiece for the first McClure's article. Because he gave that picture, it brought the initial series much more publicity,

Tarbell did not like Mary. She said so in numerous letters and she felt that with RTL still living her dislike for Mary would come through even in what most would recognize as a benign comment. It should tell you something that Tarbell waited until after RTL died in 1926 before she accepted an offer from Ladies Home Journal to write a two-part series on Mary, which the magazine published in February and March of 1928.

Even before then, however, Tarbell often considered writing, even in a glancing way, about Mary. In the early 1920s, Tarbell was asked by William Briggs, editor of Harper's, to look over the manuscript for Orville Hickman Browning's diary to see whether or not it would make sense for the company to publish it. The Browning heirs made it a condition for negotiations that information about Mary that Browning wrote would have to be left out. In a memo Tarbell wrote to herself on April 29, 1921, she mentioned talking with Briggs about that. "Discussed whether or not the material in regard to Mrs. Lincoln should be used. Told him I want as soon as Robert Lincoln is dead to write a sketch, that it doesn't seem to be quite nice..." Unfortunately, the next page that completes that thought is lost from Tarbell's papers. But even that short paragraph shows that Tarbell was hesitant to write anything as long as RTL was still alive.

As an aside, Harper's never published anything as the Browning heirs sold the diary to the state of Illinois, which published in the diary in two volumes minus the Mary material. That material wasn't published until Michael Burlingame did so some years ago.

As for the barrel stave story, Tarbell used it in a story she wrote for Good Housekeeping in February 1929 called "Lincoln and the Youth of Illinois" and the reason it didn't appear in book form after that was due to its insignificance to the entire Lincoln story. In my own research on Tarbell I've come up with about 15 or 20 stand-alone articles that could be written that are of interest yet tell little about my subject at hand. Tarbell used it to illustrate the story only.

Best
Rob

kerry · (This post was last modified: 01-21-2018 04:09 PM by kerry.)

(01-21-2018 01:29 PM)Rob Wick Wrote: Kerry,

For the past three or four years now I have done detailed studies of Ida Tarbell's work on Abraham Lincoln for a book I hope to get finished before I end up joining the choir invisible. In addition to studying Tarbell's Allegheny College papers I have studied her papers in several other archival institutions, along with detailed conversations with Kathleen Brady, author of the only full-length biography of Tarbell. I would like to clear up some things in your posting.

Quote:Ida Tarbell's work is mostly good. She worked to get to the bottom of things. But even her Springfield stuff is iffy

If by "iffy" you mean incorrect, I have to heartily disagree with your characterization. Tarbell was a very careful researcher throughout her life as was her Springfield researcher, J. McCan Davis. Indeed, Davis found so many things that changed public perception on Lincoln that he received author's credit on the first book Tarbell wrote on Lincoln, which was a collection of her McClure's Magazine articles reprinted.

However, if by "iffy" you mean confusing, then I can go along with that. Tarbell at times was led astray by her sources and in a few instances by her own belief in what she was presented with. The two best examples I can offer for that would be her writing on Lincoln's "Lost Speech" in Bloomington and her initial acceptance of the Wilma Minor letters. She went to her grave believing that Henry Clay Whitney had provided the closest thing to a detailed account of what Lincoln had said in 1858. As for Minor, she let her own desire that Lincoln and Ann Rutledge be in love cloud her judgment.

Your book sounds very interesting! I meant that what she was told by her sources was iffy, not that she herself didn't vet it. I agree she was a very careful researcher.

Quote:Again, I can't agree with that. In the first place, Tarbell wrote as much as she felt necessary about Mary. Much of her hesitation before 1926 in what she wrote came from her desire not to upset Robert Todd Lincoln, whose donation of the first known picture of Abraham was the frontispiece for the first McClure's article. Because he gave that picture, it brought the initial series much more publicity,

Tarbell did not like Mary. She said so in numerous letters and she felt that with RTL still living her dislike for Mary would come through even in what most would recognize as a benign comment. It should tell you something that Tarbell waited until after RTL died in 1926 before she accepted an offer from Ladies Home Journal to write a two-part series on Mary, which the magazine published in February and March of 1928.

Even before then, however, Tarbell often considered writing, even in a glancing way, about Mary. In the early 1920s, Tarbell was asked by William Briggs, editor of Harper's, to look over the manuscript for Orville Hickman Browning's diary to see whether or not it would make sense for the company to publish it. The Browning heirs made it a condition for negotiations that information about Mary that Browning wrote would have to be left out. In a memo Tarbell wrote to herself on April 29, 1921, she mentioned talking with Briggs about that. "Discussed whether or not the material in regard to Mrs. Lincoln should be used. Told him I want as soon as Robert Lincoln is dead to write a sketch, that it doesn't seem to be quite nice..." Unfortunately, the next page that completes that thought is lost from Tarbell's papers. But even that short paragraph shows that Tarbell was hesitant to write anything as long as RTL was still alive.

As an aside, Harper's never published anything as the Browning heirs sold the diary to the state of Illinois, which published in the diary in two volumes minus the Mary material. That material wasn't published until Michael Burlingame did so some years ago.

As for the barrel stave story, Tarbell used it in a story she wrote for Good Housekeeping in February 1929 called "Lincoln and the Youth of Illinois" and the reason it didn't appear in book form after that was due to its insignificance to the entire Lincoln story. In my own research on Tarbell I've come up with about 15 or 20 stand-alone articles that could be written that are of interest yet tell little about my subject at hand. Tarbell used it to illustrate the story only.

Best
Rob

Yeah, I've read her correspondence about not liking Mary or wanting to upset Robert, and wanting to write more once he was dead. I guess I disagree that she didn't think more was necessary - she seemed to be actively avoiding dealing with it, both because of the negative nature and concern about Robert and because she couldn't get a great picture of Mary. When it comes to the Lincoln family, which is what I've spent the most time researching, the Springfield sources just don't seem to amount to a clear picture, even a negative one. Her Washington sources (Williamson, Browning & French descendants, Bucktails) offered more information. I just find it interesting that none of the Springfield sources had much information about Lincoln's family significant enough to make the book.

On November 3, 1927, she wrote to Mrs. Clifford Ireland “As I see it, dear Mrs. Ireland, the main point in regard to Mary Lincoln is to gather a substantial body of material which will counteract the effect that her unfortunate hysterical public exhibits of herself had upon the public mind during the War and in the years immediately following . . . The whole story is very painful to me. As time goes on and we get more and more information concerning her life, I think people who were very severe with her may come to a kinder view, at least I hope so . . ."

It seems like she thought more information was out there, but that she hadn't gotten it from her sources. And when she did write about Mary, she relied heavily on Rankin, right? It seems like Rankin was the only one who could give firsthand commentary on Lincoln's Springfield family life, instead of just repeating local gossip. Burlingame has since suggested he was lying -- I know he doesn't like Mary Lincoln so that is convenient, but I get the sense Rankin was writing himself into the story. I don't blame Tarbell for trusting him, given the connections he had to Springfield, but it doesn't seem she ever had much to work with from the Springfield years. I think it is interesting she didn't focus more on her Washington-era interviews if she wanted to present a new side of Mary -- more of those stories were corroborated, with multiple members of Company K attesting to the same thing.

Rob Wick · 01-21-2018, 04:55 PM

Whether one could say Tarbell relied "heavily" on Rankin is subject to interpretation. I don't believe "heavily" is the word I would use. Tarbell didn't begin corresponding with Rankin until 1914 when he approached her with his reminisces he wanted to publish in the American Magazine. Tarbell had visited Springfield several times since 1895 when she was researching the McClure's pieces. According to the Springfield papers, she was there at least three times in 1895, once (or twice, it isn't clear) in January 1895 and then again in June. One of her more prominent sources was Roland "Rollo" Diller, who talked with her about Mary. As to who else she spoke with or corresponded with, we will never know given that a great deal of McClure's Magazine documents were tossed into the trash in 1917 when the magazine moved locations. Whatever Tarbell kept for herself in her Allegheny collection, it doesn't come close to disclosing all the sources she had for her research. And, as I stated earlier, J. McCan Davis did much of the legwork in Springfield between Tarbell visits.

It seems to me the evidence is clear that Tarbell declined to write much on Mary because of her concerns over Robert's reaction and her own dislike for Mary.

Best
Rob

kerry · (This post was last modified: 01-21-2018 06:15 PM by kerry.)

(01-21-2018 04:55 PM)Rob Wick Wrote: As to who else she spoke with or corresponded with, we will never know given that a great deal of McClure's Magazine documents were tossed into the trash in 1917 when the magazine moved locations.

That's frustrating! I wonder what publications have not thrown out their archives - there must be so much sitting undiscovered somewhere.

Quote:It seems to me the evidence is clear that Tarbell declined to write much on Mary because of her concerns over Robert's reaction and her own dislike for Mary.

Best
Rob

It's interesting how many people don't get written about because they were disliked. It doesn't make them less of a part of history, and humans love to critique, so you'd think critical biography would be more of a thing. The recent rather negative biography on Stanton is an interesting example. And the recent books on Sickles and Don Cameron have shone some light on previously avoided topics.

What did Diller say? I'm not sure if I've ever read the article in question.