Madness of Mary Lincoln

[Gene C]

Excellent book by Jason Emerson.
We've commented a lot in various threads about this book.

If you are interested in Mary Lincoln this is a must have book.
I would suggest reading a full biography of Mary Lincoln first to help put this book in perspective. Jason does a great job of weaving so many different resources and facts into a sad but fascinating story. I was amazed by the ability of Mary to act so rationally at times, to write clearly while at the same time battling mental illness. She was more intelligent and determined than most people give her credit for. Unfortunately the combination of depression, poor physical and mental health were more than she could deal with. More than Robert could deal with too, although he tried. Her illness was more severe than I thought, and I knew she had problems. With the tragedy of Willie and Abraham's death she struggled on, but it slowly killed her too.

https://www.amazon.com/Madness-Mary-Linc...303&sr=8-1

[Eva Elisabeth]

A good book but very Anti-Mary and pro-Robert, justifying his actions and judging in a way that made me angry.

[Gene C]

I can agree Jason was defending Robert's actions, but I didn't see the book as being anti-Mary.
I am glad you shared that.
Ruth Randall (who's books I enjoyed) is more sympathetic to Mary, Jason's book is more matter-of-fact style and goes into more detail about the time after Lincoln's assassination, has more information to share about May's physical and mental condition. Any sympathy the author may have toward her doesn't come through like Ms. Randall's writing. What does come through to me is that Mary had some physical and mental illness problems, needed help, and those close to her could not and didn't know how to give her the degree of help she needed. At one point, in trying to help his mother, there developed some serious friction between Robert's mother and his wife. What's a fellow to do? As with many cases of mental illness, there was some paranoia and resistance to help on Mary's part.
Eva, I appreciate your different perspective and hope others share too.

[L Verge]

I am one of those who prefer to cut Mary Lincoln some slack. I think she has been unfairly judged by many historians -- mainly the men.

That said, I have to agree with Eva regarding Jason's tendency to be overly judgmental about the lady. W have had him as a speaker at the Surratt House conference on several occasions, the last being several years ago when Giant in the Shadows came out. He certainly is not as vehement in his judgments as Dr. Burlingame, but there seems to be a tendency to downgrade Mary when given a chance.

I would like to see an author give fair and equal assessments of Mary. We had Dr. Baker speak about thirty years ago, and she certainly gave a more positive approach to understanding the First Lady; but there was still something missing imo. I must admit that I have neither read nor heard Catherine Clinton's opinions, so I better get busy catching up on her work.

As I have mentioned before, one of my favorite books on Mrs. Lincoln is Crown of Thorns and Glory, which compares her and the treatment she received with Varina Davis, who was a strong personality in her own right. That book is not an extensive biography of either woman, but I felt it was a good evaluation of their treatment by society, etc. during the time period that affected them the most.

[kerry]

I think the book is very good, but I get the concern about bias. It's very hard to find a tone that is neither dismissive nor promotional with Mary. I think she's still hard to pin down - the female writers during the Civil War did a much better job capturing her personality. Mary Clemmer Ames wrote a piece around the time of her death that was far more detailed than the previous one she wrote about having nothing to do but shop. One of the things she said was "The intelligence of Mrs. Lincoln by the country at large has always been greatly underrated. Physically and mentally she was a strong woman, though her mental force had probably never been fully developed and in her later life became deeply warped,"

I think this is true of a lot of women during that era, and I think some of Mary's problems had to do with her having an "enterprising" spirit and trying to make a business out of the limited opportunities she had available. People have trouble giving her credit for her agency while also balancing the questionable ethics of her plans. I think during her insanity trial, she took great pride in reading about the insanity laws, writing up her petition for freedom and choosing the wording, and also writing a statement for the press and doing an interview. The fight woke her up from the drifting she'd been doing. I think it's hard to give her credit for that that without feeling a need to mention things about her manipulations or mental issues. I think men who show that sort of ambition and self-interest are accepted more easily, even when they have obvious issues. If Mary were alive today, I'm sure she'd still have a bad temper and some mental health issues, but I believe she'd have a successful business of some sort. That instinct was warped at the time and since there were few legitimate avenues to follow, she comes across as a schemer. She enjoyed squaring off against all those lawyers during her commitment. She would have been better off had she just foregone propriety and done what Myra Bradwell had regarding a career, but I understand how that would be too difficult for most women to deal with at the time.

[Eva Elisabeth]

If Mary were alive today her "weaknesses" would be more accepted. No one would care about her multiple gloves purchases as many VIPs do similar. Same goes for the other weak points. She'd be called eccentric and possibly have her fans and "followers.
Mr. Emmerson's book has great info but his judgment I perceive as almost male chauvinistic. Cold Robert = good boy.
In my memory Ms Clinton's book shows even more sympathy for Mary than Ms Baker's.
One book I liked because while (very accurate) historical fiction the omniscient narrator revealed a very different possible view from Mary's perspective is by Samuel Schreiner, I highly recommend:
https://www.amazon.com/Trials-Mrs-Lincol...1556112424
Dr. Evan's book is the most neutral one IMO.

[RJNorton]

(11-11-2017 05:36 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Dr. Evan's book is the most neutral one IMO.

I agree. IMO he does as good a job as any at getting inside Mary's mind and body and explaining her behavior. To me he seems very fair. And the book is 85 years old!

[Steve]

I agree that Mary has sometimes received a raw deal from some historians, such as Burlingame, who seem to have an axe to grind against her. I haven't read the Madness of Mary Lincoln, but I did read and enjoy Emerson's Giant in the Shadows.

I do think we should think of Robert's actions in light of the views of treating mental illness of the time and that he thought he was acting in the best interest of his mother.

[kerry]

(11-11-2017 08:54 PM)Steve Wrote:  I agree that Mary has sometimes received a raw deal from some historians, such as Burlingame, who seem to have an axe to grind against her. I haven't read the Madness of Mary Lincoln, but I did read and enjoy Emerson's Giant in the Shadows.

I do think we should think of Robert's actions in light of the views of treating mental illness of the time and that he thought he was acting in the best interest of his mother.

I definitely have sympathy for Robert's situation, but it's hard to figure out exactly if he was trying to act in her best interest. Understandably, he had his own interests to worry about, including his own mental health, and Mary was definitely hard to deal with and did need some sort of help. I can completely get if Robert just couldn't handle it anymore, and he doesn't seem to have gotten much advice/support.

But reading Davis saying "now you can get back to business" and that a financial conservatorship only would be called for in cases of a woman of a "different temperament" shows a pretty cold view. The same with Robert saying it would be different if she wasn't Lincoln's widow getting herself in the papers. Those statements were kind of an acknowledgement that she didn't exactly *need* to be institutionalized, or not for any long period, but that it would be a relief to them if she was because she was hard to deal with. It was tough because there weren't really treatment options short of institutionalization. Spiritualism was probably the closest she got to a support/therapy group. There weren't a lot of good options.

But I think the biggest issue is they seem to have totally underestimated her. She was not going to sit quietly in the institution - her "temperament" wasn't like that. As her sister said, her "proud spirit" couldn't handle it -- it was never a good solution, unless she was violently out of control. Instead, she was allowed to live very freely, unlike the other patients, who were out of control. Women like her were not typically in these institutions. She did benefit from the structure imposed by it, but that could only stabilize her. They never make any reference to her intelligence in all the letters - only comments about her "temperament" etc. Had they taken her seriously, they may have avoided her campaign for release, which could have gotten a lot uglier. But it didn't occur to them that this might happen, apparently, which I think relates to sexism. As does Robert not recognizing Myra Bradwell as the first attempted female attorney in Chicago but instead believing she is a high priestess in a gang of spiritualists. She wasn't on his radar and he underestimated her, too.

And then there's the idea that Mary had behaved like this for a while, and that Lincoln had not institutionalized her. No doubt it worsened after his death, but the more I research her, the more it is clear this stuff started pretty early. Sadly, Robert's best bet was to just accept her shopping/hoarding and wandering ways and spiritualist leanings, as Lincoln did despite bad press, but society at the time expected him to do *something.* We don't know exactly what happened, so it is hard to judge. But her friend Prof. Swing said it was only a few days or weeks out of the year when she needed help, and he advocated brief commitment and release, which is how we do it today for people who infrequently have severe episodes. That probably made the most sense, but the publicity of it, coming after Mary had already been so eviscerated in the press, was a high cost.

[RJNorton]

Kerry, have you read the 1932 biography by Dr. William Augustus Evans entitled Mrs. Abraham Lincoln: A Study of Her Personality and Her Influence on Lincoln? If so, what did you think of it? As far as I know, it remains the sole biography of Mary written by a medical doctor. Evans was an internationally known physician and public health leader.

[kerry]

(11-12-2017 06:30 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Kerry, have you read the 1932 biography by Dr. William Augustus Evans entitled Mrs. Abraham Lincoln: A Study of Her Personality and Her Influence on Lincoln? If so, what did you think of it? As far as I know, it remains the sole biography of Mary written by a medical doctor. Evans was an internationally known physician and public health leader.

I have and I think it's excellent. He pointed out a lot of things that were ignored, and explained them well. The only issue is he didn't have access to as much information as later biographers, but it still doesn't change much. One thing I remember is his declaration that Elizabeth Edwards was totally normal for a Todd, everyone loved her (which seems to have been true), and her kids were all mentally normal. Now we know that is not the case. Another was that Robert was somewhat abnormal but never came close to a breakdown, which it seems he did at one point. But overall I thought he had a really good approach, and while it was definitely more on the pro-Mary side, it was reasonable. He did a great job with limited resources, and asked the right questions. The medical stuff is also outdated - but I think she probably did die of diabetes, and I think his explanation of her mental state is more accurate than bipolar disorder. She seemed to change moods mid-sentence, not on a cyclical basis. But it's hard to know. So many people had untreated diabetes and seasonal malaria then, so those alone did a number of mental and physical health.

[RJNorton]

(11-12-2017 12:06 PM)kerry Wrote:  but I think she probably did die of diabetes

That certainly is a possibility. Last year Dr. Blaine Houmes of this forum wrote the following excellent summary:

"There is no consensus of what Mary Todd Lincoln died from. You could easily attribute it to myxedema coma (from hypothyroid disease), diabetic coma, stroke caused by high blood pressure with or without brain bleeding, syphilis, etc., etc., etc. The "mental peculiarities" could be explained by slurring of speech or talking gibberish, delusional behavior, and even varied stages of confusion. Interestingly, those suggesting she had tabes dorsalis (syphilis of the spinal cord) due to her gait degenerating with symptoms of back pain and stiff gait--labeling it locomotor ataxia which at that time was a synonym for syphilis--should be able to explain why her gait and weakness weren't from the partial paralysis and numbness she suffered after an 1879 fall from a ladder in France, causing injury to her back? Osteoarthritis in the back with or without trauma can cause the same symptoms. Plus, syphilis of the back usually starts earlier in life and has a characteristic gait with high-stepping and then slapping the ground with their feet due to loss of feeling."

[kerry]

(11-12-2017 12:55 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(11-12-2017 12:06 PM)kerry Wrote:  but I think she probably did die of diabetes

That certainly is a possibility. Last year Dr. Blaine Houmes of this forum wrote the following excellent summary:

"There is no consensus of what Mary Todd Lincoln died from. You could easily attribute it to myxedema coma (from hypothyroid disease), diabetic coma, stroke caused by high blood pressure with or without brain bleeding, syphilis, etc., etc., etc. The "mental peculiarities" could be explained by slurring of speech or talking gibberish, delusional behavior, and even varied stages of confusion. Interestingly, those suggesting she had tabes dorsalis (syphilis of the spinal cord) due to her gait degenerating with symptoms of back pain and stiff gait--labeling it locomotor ataxia which at that time was a synonym for syphilis--should be able to explain why her gait and weakness weren't from the partial paralysis and numbness she suffered after an 1879 fall from a ladder in France, causing injury to her back? Osteoarthritis in the back with or without trauma can cause the same symptoms. Plus, syphilis of the back usually starts earlier in life and has a characteristic gait with high-stepping and then slapping the ground with their feet due to loss of feeling."

Yeah, high blood pressure also seems like a good candidate. She lived too long for syphilis and most dementias. I think her issues were caused by a mix of physical and mental complications and no one thing explains it. Infections were also untreated back then. I feel like the effect of high fevers is often ignored when talking about this era. Malaria or infection could easily make someone delusional or cause vivid dreams. Some biographers question their subject's frequent illnesses, but I think many were actually pretty sick pretty often. It's not something that can be easily compared to today.

[Eva Elisabeth]

Whatever she died from I'd think she was certainly multimorbid, and diabetes added to it. (And I, too, tend to believe untreated diabetes probably for years had the greatest share in her death.)
And whatever caused her mood swings and whatever those caused, I'd think she was certainly more warm-hearted and caring (from the heart, not from sense of duty) than Robert. Sometimes I am tired of the argument folks were "made" by their days - there's still common sense (and such as the ten commandments) to feel something is not right to do to others. He had her captured and locked away to get his peace of mind and get back to business without any warning - it seems cold-hearted to me whatever the times. And what about his own offspring? Except for Jack none of them (throughout all following generations) to me seemed having matched the "concept" of being "normal".

[kerry]

(11-13-2017 08:24 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Sometimes I am tired of the argument folks were "made" by their days - there's still common sense (and such as the ten commandments) to feel something is not right to do to others.

I definitely agree with this. There's no doubt most people go along with their time and place, but what gets left out of most history discussions is all the people who did the right thing anyway. From the beginning of time, there were people who advocated women's rights, abolition of slavery, etc. at great personal risk to themselves. It does them a disservice to claim that was just the way it was back then. It also does a disservice to brilliant men like the founders to claim they didn't know any better. They agonized over most moral questions, whether they ultimately did the right thing or not. They had common sense and noticed that some people other than white men were capable, but didn't always act on it. I think one of Lincoln's most obvious good traits was that he was able to use his common sense to discern the right thing, even if he was slow to act on it at times. I think what is aggravating about Robert, somewhat unfairly, is that his parents were willing to break with the norm to a large extent, and he had such a platform and example on which to extend that outlook, but he instead went in the other direction. I can see how he craved normalcy after all that, and I think his personality just tended that way, but he displayed a lack of imagination that had consequences in the case of Mary. There is also the fact that I think he called Mary, his alcoholic law partner, Herndon, and his youngest daughter insane (well, she wrote that he would say that, which makes it seem like he had before). Granted, they all had their issues, but Robert seemed to lump people into two categories, normal or abnormal, with no in between.