John Hay wrote the Bixby letter

[David Lockmiller]

It's now unofficially official according to the New York Times: John Hay wrote the Bixby letter

Trump’s Not Alone. A Lincoln Condolence Letter Stirred Controversy, Too.

By JUSTIN BANK and GARDINER HARRIS NYTimes OCT. 22, 2017

"A 1933 Times editorial was among the first speculation that the letter was actually written by Lincoln’s secretary, John Hay. Multiple pieces of reporting and books were dedicated to resolving the question of the letter’s authorship and the fate of the Bixbys. As recently as July 2017, a team of forensic linguists published research they believed confirmed Hay as the author."

Another Lincoln myth "bites the dust."

[Gene C]

If the NY Times says so, it must be true!

I believe Hay may have written the letter, but he used Lincoln's thoughts, ideals and words. Hay just polished it up a little.

Is the Dead Poets Society a professional/social organization for forensic linguist?

[RJNorton]

Here's another article on the topic:

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/07/20/a...s-say.html

(Maybe they will also discover the true identity of Jack the Ripper?)

[David Lockmiller]

I think John Hay made efforts to convince people that he wrote the Bixby letter.

[RJNorton]

I think John Hay made efforts to convince people that he wrote the Bixby letter.

Very true, David. As far as I know the sole exception was Robert Lincoln.

[Steve]

Here's a link to the full text of the New York Times article:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...ar-AAtRDfh

[ELCore]

We have had at least one lengthy discussion here of The Bixby Letter. We talked about a Time article on the recent computerized research starting here: 07-20-2017, 10:18 AM.

[Steve]

A couple of things about that New York Times article -

Although it toots it own horn, I believe the first claim in print that Hay was the author of the Bixby Letter was in 1922, a full decade before the 1933 editorial.

The new study on the Bixby Letter hasn't even been published yet. On the website of Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, the journal the paper was submitted to, the April 2018 issue is next.

https://academic.oup.com/dsh/issue/32/suppl_2

[Eva Elisabeth]

The times didn't claim the 1933 editorial the first, just among the first - speculation(s). And in the end I think we will like likely never evidently know the truth - whether there was a 1922 claim or whether the study will be published not until April. Both might provide considerable arguments or thoughts, yet I doubt actual proofs.

[RJNorton]

The times didn't claim the 1933 editorial the first, just among the first - speculation(s). And in the end I think we will like likely never evidently know the truth - whether there was a 1922 claim or whether the study will be published not until April. Both might provide considerable arguments or thoughts, yet I doubt actual proofs.

I agree that 100% proof will probably never emerge. Historians themselves differ. I have said this before; I apologize for repeating. John Hay wrote to William Chandler: "the letter of Mr. Lincoln to Mrs. Bixby is genuine." F. Lauriston Bullard used this as a major argument in his book. He felt this statement by Hay proved Lincoln wrote the letter. Dr. Mark Neely agreed with Bullard's analysis.

But we really do not know for certain what Hay meant by saying the letter was "genuine." (other than the letter to Mrs. Bixby did emanate from the White House)

I doubt we'll ever know 100% for certain whether Hay or Lincoln (or a combination of both) wrote the letter. I tend to disagree with Messrs. Bullard and Neely that Hay was saying Lincoln definitely wrote the letter when he (Hay) used the word "genuine."

[Steve]

The times didn't claim the 1933 editorial the first, just among the first - speculation(s). And in the end I think we will like likely never evidently know the truth - whether there was a 1922 claim or whether the study will be published not until April. Both might provide considerable arguments or thoughts, yet I doubt actual proofs.

Eva,
I was only making a point about the accuracy of the Times' weirdly self-congratulatory opinion piece.