Lincoln speech on the Bible?

[RJNorton]

I don't know if Lincoln read Smith's book or not, but here's what Herndon thought:

"One thing is true: that the said Reverend Dr. Smith of Scotland presented Lincoln with a book written by said doctor; Lincoln brought it to the office, laid it down, never took it up again to my knowledge, never condescended to write his name in it, never spoke of it to me. Never let me know much about his religious aspirations from 1854 to 1860 in the above line, always appeared different, that scorning all Christian views. It is said by someone here that Lincoln told him that he was about converted, but that man — I do not know and can't find out — is said to be a blab, etc."

[Anita]

Thanks Roger. If Lincoln didn't read Smith's book he wouldn't have told him so. Herndon's account of Matheny's take rings true. Lincoln knew that to fulfill his political ambitions he had to appear ready to embrace Christian religions' path to salvation. And he was good at it. He met with Smith often, he was a trustee at First Presbyterian, his wife and children were members of the congregation and he sometimes attended services. There is no record of the speech other than Smith's account. What's telling is that Lincoln never became a member there or of any church.

[Gene C]

I'm currently reading Herndon's Lincoln.
Herndon's book has several comments where he was at odds with other people who knew and wrote about Lincoln.
Three areas in addition to Lincoln's religious views that I have noted so far are in his comments about Lincoln's father, Ann Rutledge, and Lincoln's relationship with Mary.

Part of Herndon's objective with his book was to portray Lincoln as he really was, good and bad, as Herndon saw him.
So far in my reading, the majority of the book has been very interesting.

(Fido thinks Herndon totally missed the mark in regards to Lincoln's attitude and relationship with dogs - and cats)

[Anita]

Thanks Gene. Thhat will be my next Lincon read after Towssend's "Lincoln and the Bluegrass."

(I agree with Fido!)

[Rob Wick]

Quote:Is it known whether Robert Todd owned a copy of Smith's book?

Anita,

I'm not sure what made up Robert Todd's library, nor do I know how voluminous it was. Just going by what Herndon reported, I don't question that Lincoln at least knew of the book.

Quote:Did Edwards have a motive to make up such a story?

I think he did. I'm currently reading David Herbert Donald's biography of Herndon, called Lincoln's Herndon. It was originally Donald's doctoral dissertation written as a student of James G. Randall. I have the Da Capo Press reprint, which was published in 1989 and includes corrections made by Donald as well as a new introduction. I started reading this book long before the question of Lincoln, the alleged lecture, and James Smith came up. Today, as luck (or coincidence) would have it, I reached Chapter 17, titled "Judas in Springfield." I don't want to spend a lot of time going through what Donald wrote (I would highly recommend the book, even though Donald's strong anti-Herndon bias, which he received from the Randalls, is on display for all to see. That said, Donald admits in the new introduction that he was much too harsh on Herndon in the 1948 edition, which Carl Sandburg wrote the foreword to, by the way), but after Ward Hill Lamon's book was published, Herndon was on the receiving end of a great deal of criticism. What strikes me is Donald's assertion that people weren't angry because Herndon lied, but rather because he told a truth that should have been kept quiet.

Donald notes that, interestingly, Chauncey Black, who was the ghostwriter for Lamon's book, developed a friendship with Herndon and was negotiating a potential deal that would allow Black to restore much of the Lamon biography that publishers insisted on excising against Black's wishes by using Herndon's Lincoln Record. Black wrote Herndon a letter informing him of James Reed's lecture, which Donald points out bypassed Herndon's notice as he was living on his farm and not in the city of Springfield. After hearing what he considered to be Reed's personal attack on him, Herndon vowed to either write an article or deliver a lecture on Lincoln's religion from birth to his election to the presidency. With this brewing, Black informed his publishers that Herndon's lecture would be like catnip to potential readers of Black's new book.

Here is a copy of Herndon's lecture, along with the side presented by Reed and others. Interestingly, Matheny and John Todd Stuart tried to back out of their assertions, which Herndon discusses, which everyone can read for themselves. However, I do want to quote what Donald said about Herndon's lecture.

"As a critique of Reed's article, Herndon's lecture showed considerable skill. One after another he tested Reed's witnesses and showed that they were prejudiced, badly informed, or imperfectly quoted. The minister had cited letters from John Todd Stuart and James M. Matheny denying that they wrote the statements attributed to them in the Lamon biography. Quite true, answered Herndon; they did not write the words. [Italics in original] He himself had written the statements during his interviews with these men. Their denials were just a quibble over words. Actually, he went on to reveal, Matheny did not write the retraction which Reed quoted; "it was prepared for him by Mr. Reed, and Matheny is old enough to have known that deception and wrong...were intended." That said, Donald then writes, "All in all, the lecture on Lincoln's religion revealed Herndon at his worst. It was characterized by the dogmatic conviction of his own righteousness, by intolerance for the opinions of others, and by loose reasoning." (pg. 277)

So I think it's quite possible that Edwards would have reason for lying in trying to protect the memory of Abraham and the reputation of Mary.

I want to add that I recently (again, long before this topic came up) received a copy of Robert Bray's Reading With Lincoln (Southern Illinois University Press, 2010), who goes into detail why he believes that Lincoln either didn't read Smith's book, or only read parts of it.

Noting that both Barton and Wayne Temple accepted Smith's telling, Bray notes that "what makes their opinions especially important is that, perhaps unique among the students of Lincoln's religion who mention The Christian's Defence, Barton and Temple took the trouble to examine the book." (pg. 152) Later, Bray writes "In his final judgment of Smith's work and its influence on Lincoln, Barton insisted that 'the more carefully these lectures are examined, the more probably does it appear that in form and method they would have been likely to make, what they appear to have made, a very strong impression upon Abraham Lincoln.

"To one who has read the book closely and all the way through, the claims of Barton and Temple seem untenable. James Smith's The Christian's Defence is a great white elephant of a book--in its size, readability, and popularity (little in its day, none at all now). Published in Cincinnati in 1843, its two-volumes-in-one add up to a galumphing 700 pages, the text in small type, the frequent footnotes even smaller." (pg. 153)

Bray's arguments are too detailed for me to break down here, but again, I would recommend trying to find a copy in your local library or buy it yourself (I paid $24 for my copy). It only covers about eight or nine pages, but Bray makes a strong argument that not only would Lincoln not have read the book, but that what he did read (if he did read anything) he would not have agreed with.

Quote:So it could be Smith and Lincoln used each other to their own ends.

Indeed, it is quite possible.

Best
Rob

[RJNorton]

I tried reading The Christian's Defence.

I did not get far; I am afraid my powers of concentration are simply not up to the task. It's really hard for me to picture Lincoln doing anything more than browsing through the book, if that. It's near impossible for me to imagine he was greatly influenced by it.

Maybe Lincoln went out and bought the Cliff Notes version?

[Eva Elisabeth]

Just skimmed through this thread and will read more thoroughly when less busy. I, too, highly recommend Donald's "Lincoln's Herndon" - great research and to me reasonable conclusions. Reads like a much younger work btw.
As for Lincoln reading such a "white elephant" on religion - I think he first of all used to read "primary sources" (the bible itself in this case).

[wpbinzel]

For what it's worth, this is from Herndon's notes of an "interview" he had with Mary Todd Lincoln in September 1866:

"Mr Linc[oln] had a Kind of Poetry in his Nature: he was [a terribly] firm man when he set his foot down -- none of us -- no man nor woman Could rule him after he had made up his mind. I told him about Sewards intention to rule him --: he said -- "I shall rule myself -- shall obey my own Conscience and follow God in it. Mr Lincoln had no hope & no faith in the usual acceptation of those words: he never joined a Church: he was a religious man always, as I think: he first thought -- to say think -- about this subject was when Willie died -- never before. he felt religious More than Ever about the time he went to Gettysburg: he was not a technical Christian: he read the bible a good deal about 1864" -- Wilson and Davis, eds., Herndon's Informants (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1998), p. 360.

[Anita]

(01-09-2017 09:22 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  

Quote:Did Edwards have a motive to make up such a story?

I think he did. I'm currently reading David Herbert Donald's biography of Herndon, called Lincoln's Herndon. It was originally Donald's doctoral dissertation written as a student of James G. Randall. I have the Da Capo Press reprint, which was published in 1989 and includes corrections made by Donald as well as a new introduction. I started reading this book long before the question of Lincoln, the alleged lecture, and James Smith came up. Today, as luck (or coincidence) would have it, I reached Chapter 17, titled "Judas in Springfield." I don't want to spend a lot of time going through what Donald wrote (I would highly recommend the book, even though Donald's strong anti-Herndon bias, which he received from the Randalls, is on display for all to see. That said, Donald admits in the new introduction that he was much too harsh on Herndon in the 1948 edition, which Carl Sandburg wrote the foreword to, by the way), but after Ward Hill Lamon's book was published, Herndon was on the receiving end of a great deal of criticism. What strikes me is Donald's assertion that people weren't angry because Herndon lied, but rather because he told a truth that should have been kept quiet.

Donald notes that, interestingly, Chauncey Black, who was the ghostwriter for Lamon's book, developed a friendship with Herndon and was negotiating a potential deal that would allow Black to restore much of the Lamon biography that publishers insisted on excising against Black's wishes by using Herndon's Lincoln Record. Black wrote Herndon a letter informing him of James Reed's lecture, which Donald points out bypassed Herndon's notice as he was living on his farm and not in the city of Springfield. After hearing what he considered to be Reed's personal attack on him, Herndon vowed to either write an article or deliver a lecture on Lincoln's religion from birth to his election to the presidency. With this brewing, Black informed his publishers that Herndon's lecture would be like catnip to potential readers of Black's new book.

Here is a copy of Herndon's lecture, along with the side presented by Reed and others. Interestingly, Matheny and John Todd Stuart tried to back out of their assertions, which Herndon discusses, which everyone can read for themselves. However, I do want to quote what Donald said about Herndon's lecture.

"As a critique of Reed's article, Herndon's lecture showed considerable skill. One after another he tested Reed's witnesses and showed that they were prejudiced, badly informed, or imperfectly quoted. The minister had cited letters from John Todd Stuart and James M. Matheny denying that they wrote the statements attributed to them in the Lamon biography. Quite true, answered Herndon; they did not write the words. [Italics in original] He himself had written the statements during his interviews with these men. Their denials were just a quibble over words. Actually, he went on to reveal, Matheny did not write the retraction which Reed quoted; "it was prepared for him by Mr. Reed, and Matheny is old enough to have known that deception and wrong...were intended." That said, Donald then writes, "All in all, the lecture on Lincoln's religion revealed Herndon at his worst. It was characterized by the dogmatic conviction of his own righteousness, by intolerance for the opinions of others, and by loose reasoning." (pg. 277)

So I think it's quite possible that Edwards would have reason for lying in trying to protect the memory of Abraham and the reputation of Mary.


Best
Rob

Rob,
Thanks for replying to my questions. Your insights and suggested reading have been very helpful. I read Herndon's lecture on the link you provided. Yes, I can see why you say it's possible he would lie to protect Lincoln and Mary. And I'm sure all Mary's family in Springfield, including Mr. and Mrs. Edwards, were devastated as well by what Herndon proclaimed so publicly. Rob you said "What strikes me is Donald's assertion that people weren't angry because Herndon lied, but rather because he told a truth that should have been kept quiet." I'm sure many believed "Some things are better left unsaid." I believe it's possible that Noah Brooks also could have lied to protect Lincoln's reputation.

What did Robert Lincoln say about Herndon's lecture/article regarding his father's religious beliefs? Did Robert Lincoln attend church?

[Eva Elisabeth]

Robert was furious and commented using an ungentlemanly expression - he wrote D. Davis that "Mr. Wm. Herndon is making an a$$ of himself in his lectures. I am getting seriously annoyed of his way of doting things."

He tried to stop the publication. Please see post #20 as for his written communication with Herndon on the matter:
http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussio...l#pid35484
AFAIK nothing is known about his faith. (I guess you are asking about him attending by himself as an adult?)

[RJNorton]

In Abraham Lincoln: From Skeptic to Prophet author Wayne Temple comments as follows:

"While in Washington as Secretary of War from 1881 to 1885, and after he once more took up residence there in 1911, Robert attended worship services at the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church upon occasion, just as he had done during the Civil War. Little is known of his wife's worship activities at this time."

In the The Lincoln Family Album authors Mark E. Neely and Harold Holzer write:

"Robert Lincoln's religious views certainly seem vague."

IMO, very little seems to be known about this topic. I agree with Eva.

[Anita]

Thanks Roger and Eva. I know Robert Lincoln was outraged by Herndon's account of Lincoln the man and strongly denied the Ann Rutledge story and his father's unhappy marriage but I can't find where he denied Herndon's insistence that Lincoln was an infidel. I think it's very telling that Robert never said his father accepted Christianity as his faith.

I did find this in connection with Robert's church affiliation.
"Robert Todd Lincoln served as a Church Trustee from 1879 – 1889. Robert Lincoln’s wife, Mary, joined the Second Presbyterian by profession of faith on June 12, 1877." http://www.chicagonow.com/chicago-histor...june-22nd/
Like his father who served as Trustee in Springfield but didn't become a member of the church, Robert "was a Trustee (but not a member)of the Second Presbyterian Church from 1879-1889." Jason Emerson
https://books.google.com/books?id=tPqgC3...go&f=false

[Eva Elisabeth]

Thanks, Anita, interesting. I am not sure how telling all this - it could tell of very different "reasons".

What is a trustee in this context? I.e. was it a sort of volunteer position? Or was he officially hired, or were such duties "socially" expected or beneficial for his kind of career?

Also I think that Robert never officially confirmed nor denied anything regarding his father's faith could be mere discretion and experience/ that the less is said/"revealed" on such matters the better, or that he simply didn't know for sure himself his father's final mindset.

Were his kids baptized?

[Anita]

Eva, what I meant by I found it telling is that by not denying Herndon's account of Lincoln's views on religion, it tends to give credibility to Herndon's account.

Generally a trustee deals with financial/legal issues, providing advice and acting as counsel in these ares. "The trustees, under their own chairman, have charge of the property and fiscal and legal obligations of the congregation." https://www.britannica.com/topic/presbyterian

[Rob Wick]

Eva, just one minor quibble. RTL's comment that Herndon was making an a$$ of himself came about in 1866 after the Ann Rutledge lecture.

Anita, as far as I know, RTL never publicly commented on the religion lecture. Jason Emerson notes that he wanted John Nicolay to publish something refuting the lecture as if Nicolay had written it, although it would have been written by RTL himself. RTL was dissuaded from doing so. Emerson notes that the negative coverage that Herndon received helped to make RTL's decision not to proceed. Although I reject Emerson's characterization of Herndon as "nefarious" Emerson makes a valid point that RTL never publicly challenged any historian with whom he disagreed.

I have nothing to add to what little is known of RTL's religious beliefs. That he didn't wear it on his sleeve is no more proof that he was a skeptic then outward expressions of piety can be shown to be a sincere representation of one's particular view. In respect to reticence, Robert was clearly his father's son. However, I think that Emerson makes an interesting point when he writes "Such as assertion infuriated Robert Lincoln, not just because it was false but because disbelief in religion was anathema to society's religious standards of the time and a humiliation to the Lincoln legacy." (Giant in the Shadows, pg. 160). So, if I read Emerson correctly, RTL's objections weren't simply based on truthfulness, but because he might be tainted by the same brush Herndon was using and because it would harm his father's reputation. In some ways, I think that is evidence that Robert shared, at least in part, his father's own skepticism.

Someone lying to protect what they believe to be the reputation of someone else was surely not invented to protect Lincoln. It's gone on for time immemorial (and still goes on today). But given that the only biography of Herndon which attempted to explain his viewpoint and motivations was published 68 years ago, Michael Burlingame was right that a new biography is needed.

As for the term 'trustee" in this instance I think it's more of a lay leader position that wouldn't necessarily have any connection with the propagation of a religious viewpoint. More like a person being part of the bureaucratic arm of the organization.