Human Memory and History

[RobertLC]

Human memory is certainly a complex and fascinating topic. Respected studies have shown that our memory is not a linear recording and can quickly become tarnished.

Historian Thomas F. Schwartz, in his article, “Not Even Wrong”: Herndon and His Informants, (Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association, Vol. 35, Issue 2, 2014), dedicates almost three pages to examine issues related to human memory. He writes, “In short, memory as expressed in individual recollections is much more complicated than historians have heretofore imagined. It is not, by itself, sufficient as a reliable source for documenting the past.” Tim Good also raises concern about human memory on page vii in the preface of his book, We Saw Lincoln Shot, One Hundred Eyewitness Accounts.

An account that is worth noting has nothing to do with Lincoln, but is one for those of us more seasoned citizens who lived through and were old enough to pay attention to the Watergate scandal. John Dean, the White House counsel for Richard Nixon, provided lengthy testimony in congressional hearings that proved to be very damaging for Nixon. People marveled at his remarkable memory. Studies have been done that compared Dean’s recollection to the actual facts that were gleaned from the original White House tapes. Psychologist and author Alan Kennedy wrote this about portions of Dean’s testimony, “More often than not he distorted the gist of a conversation, exaggerating his own role and sometimes even inventing a role for himself where none had existed. In a nutshell, you could not use Dean’s memory of events to recover anything like the truth of what went on. At pretty well all levels, what he remembered was quite manifestly false. People didn’t say what he recalled them saying; people didn’t do what he said they did; and so on.” So, did Dean lie or was his memory so tainted that he honestly testified to what he thought actually happened?

I raise this issue not necessarily for a discussion of the limitations of human memory, although that would be fascinating, but instead, I’m curious as to what members of this forum think about human memory and how we apply it to our study of the past.

Bob

[David Lockmiller]

It is our good fortune that Abraham Lincoln was President of the United States and he had two good secretaries to assist him.

In the last post that I made, I referenced a letter from President Lincoln to Secretary of the Navy Welles. There was an actual copy of the letter in the newspaper article that I referenced. There was even a follow-up newspaper note that the wedding took place two weeks later in a church close to the White House. The whole story is short and true, substantiated with finality by the contemporary newspaper account of the wedding.

And, there's another good thing about the history regarding Lincoln and that is all of the detailed high quality scholarship available to a student of Lincoln. These scholars scrupulously detail by footnote the source of their factual statements.

And, there are contemporary published news accounts of President Lincoln's speeches and public events. For example, the speech that was given to a committee of five free black men on August 14, 1862 was covered by the New York Times and other major newspapers and magazines (at the invitation of the White House, I believe) for national consumption. And, if it were not for that particular New York Times article published the following day in 1862, I could not have disproved the fictional history, describing that same meeting, by Nikole Hannah-Jones (winner of the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary) and published in the New York Times Magazine 158 years later.

[LincolnMan]

I do believe that human memory is subject to our own individual biases and slants as a normal function of remembering things. And I think what we remember is somewhat changeable as a piece of semi-hard clay. Over time the memories may fade and/or change. Some memories remain very much intact depending on the impression they made at the event. So are memories reliable? Sure. But not always. We must continue to have- in no certain order- sound scholarship, well-researched papers, and yes- first-hand accounts, etc..

[Steve Whitlock]

(08-11-2020 06:13 PM)RobertLC Wrote:  Human memory is certainly a complex and fascinating topic. Respected studies have shown that our memory is not a linear recording and can quickly become tarnished.

Historian Thomas F. Schwartz, in his article, “Not Even Wrong”: Herndon and His Informants, (Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association, Vol. 35, Issue 2, 2014), dedicates almost three pages to examine issues related to human memory. He writes, “In short, memory as expressed in individual recollections is much more complicated than historians have heretofore imagined. It is not, by itself, sufficient as a reliable source for documenting the past.” Tim Good also raises concern about human memory on page vii in the preface of his book, We Saw Lincoln Shot, One Hundred Eyewitness Accounts.

An account that is worth noting has nothing to do with Lincoln, but is one for those of us more seasoned citizens who lived through and were old enough to pay attention to the Watergate scandal. John Dean, the White House counsel for Richard Nixon, provided lengthy testimony in congressional hearings that proved to be very damaging for Nixon. People marveled at his remarkable memory. Studies have been done that compared Dean’s recollection to the actual facts that were gleaned from the original White House tapes. Psychologist and author Alan Kennedy wrote this about portions of Dean’s testimony, “More often than not he distorted the gist of a conversation, exaggerating his own role and sometimes even inventing a role for himself where none had existed. In a nutshell, you could not use Dean’s memory of events to recover anything like the truth of what went on. At pretty well all levels, what he remembered was quite manifestly false. People didn’t say what he recalled them saying; people didn’t do what he said they did; and so on.” So, did Dean lie or was his memory so tainted that he honestly testified to what he thought actually happened?

I raise this issue not necessarily for a discussion of the limitations of human memory, although that would be fascinating, but instead, I’m curious as to what members of this forum think about human memory and how we apply it to our study of the past.

Bob

I noticed your mention of Herndon. Is that because you question the accuracy of Herndon's recollection of a buggy ride with Lincoln and their conversation? Especially questionable given Herndon's history of alcoholism.

William Herndon wrote:

"On the subject of his ancestry and origin I only remember one time when Mr. Lincoln ever referred to it. It was about 1850, when he and I were driving in his one-horse buggy to the court in Menard county, Illinois. The suit we were going to try was one in which we were likely, either directly or collaterally, to touch upon the subject of hereditary traits. During the ride he spoke, for the first time in my hearing, of his mother, dwelling on her characteristics, and mentioning or enumerating what qualities he inherited from her. He said, among other things, that she was the illegitimate daughter of Lucy Hanks and a well-bred Virginia farmer or planter; and he argued that from this last source came his power of analysis, his logic, his mental activity, his ambition, and all the qualities that distinguished him from the other members and descendants of the Hanks family. His theory in discussing the matter of hereditary traits had been, that, for certain reasons, illegitimate children are oftentimes sturdier and brighter than those born in lawful wedlock; and in his case, he believed that his better nature and finer qualities came from this broad-minded, unknown Virginian. The revelation - painful as it was - called up the recollection of his mother, and, as the buggy jolted over the road, he added ruefully, 'God bless my mother; all that I am or ever hope to be I owe to her,' and immediately lapsed into silence."
***************************************
Research has shown that Nancy Hanks Lincoln was indeed the illegitimate daughter of Lucy Hanks Sparrow, but we don't know how accurate other parts of the conversation were.

Factors beyond drinking too much need to be considered in Herndon's case, and I've never really looked into how his memory was for other matters, or even how old he was when he made the statement. But even there my late mother-in-law had a phenomenal memory at 95, and at 79 I may not remember what I ate yesterday, but in my youth could recall whole pages when taking a test. Individuals differ for many reasons. I was a heavy drinker in my younger days, but could recall things quite well, better than now when I very rarely even have a single beer.

[RJNorton]

(08-11-2020 06:13 PM)RobertLC Wrote:  Tim Good also raises concern about human memory on page vii in the preface of his book, We Saw Lincoln Shot, One Hundred Eyewitness Accounts.

Bob, I think this is one of my favorite accounts of how Booth escaped from Ford's Theatre. At 10 P.M. on Saturday, February 11th, 1928, Mrs. Nelson Todd, who said she witnessed the assassination, said: (on radio station WOR)

**********************************************

"Few people know how badly Booth was hurt by his fall. I had read accounts and seen pictures of him hobbling off the stage to make his escape. This is as false as the story that he shouted "Sic Semper Tyrannis."

"Here is what did happen, and I think I am the only person that knows how Booth made his escape. Knowing Booth, it was only natural that my interest was keen enough to attract my attention back to the stage even though I know Lincoln was assassinated. When Booth's spur caught and threw him to the stage he broke his leg in a terrible way, so that the bone actually protruded through his trousers and smeared the stage with blood. Naturally he couldn't move. Laura Keene leaned over and patted his head. Then to my amazement I saw a rope swing out, evidently thrown by some confederates, lasso him and whisk him into the wings. That was the last time I ever saw John Wilkes Booth."

[RobertLC]

Roger,

That is quite an account for sure. Thanks for sharing it. I can see why it is one of your favorites. She must have been a very young girl when she witnessed the event or a very elderly lady when she reported her story on the radio in 1928. Maybe there were cowboys in the wings who were experts with roping animals just waiting to take Booth away.

Booth’s broken leg (or not broken leg) is always an interesting topic. It has been a while since I’ve looked, but I don’t recall any immediate 1865 accounts that described Booth as limping or favoring his leg in any way as he escaped the stage. But after his diary was “rediscovered” and released in 1867, accounts began to appear that mentioned his favoring his leg in some way.

Amazing how memory mutates.

Bob

[Donna McCreary]

A friend of mine recently commented that at the age of 64, there is nothing wrong with his memory. He is able to remember several things that never happened.

[David Lockmiller]

(08-19-2020 07:54 PM)Donna McCreary Wrote:  A friend of mine recently commented that at the age of 64, there is nothing wrong with his memory. He is able to remember several things that never happened.

Isn't that the same problem that Professor Fehrenbacher had with the words of William Herndon?

[LincolnMan]

(08-19-2020 07:54 PM)Donna McCreary Wrote:  A friend of mine recently commented that at the age of 64, there is nothing wrong with his memory. He is able to remember several things that never happened.

Yes! Exactly! Lol.

[Eva Elisabeth]

(08-13-2020 03:08 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 06:13 PM)RobertLC Wrote:  Tim Good also raises concern about human memory on page vii in the preface of his book, We Saw Lincoln Shot, One Hundred Eyewitness Accounts.

Bob, I think this is one of my favorite accounts of how Booth escaped from Ford's Theatre. At 10 P.M. on Saturday, February 11th, 1928, Mrs. Nelson Todd, who said she witnessed the assassination, said: (on radio station WOR)

**********************************************

"Few people know how badly Booth was hurt by his fall. I had read accounts and seen pictures of him hobbling off the stage to make his escape. This is as false as the story that he shouted "Sic Semper Tyrannis."

"Here is what did happen, and I think I am the only person that knows how Booth made his escape. Knowing Booth, it was only natural that my interest was keen enough to attract my attention back to the stage even though I know Lincoln was assassinated. When Booth's spur caught and threw him to the stage he broke his leg in a terrible way, so that the bone actually protruded through his trousers and smeared the stage with blood. Naturally he couldn't move. Laura Keene leaned over and patted his head. Then to my amazement I saw a rope swing out, evidently thrown by some confederates, lasso him and whisk him into the wings. That was the last time I ever saw John Wilkes Booth."

My favorite, too, Roger. Right in line with this:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ue7wM0QC5LE

[LincolnMan]

Love it the account of the rope escape. Might want to call it the “dope on a rope” theory? Nah. Bad joke I guess.

[Gene C]

This subject reminds me of a song...if I could only remember the title

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KII5be5qExs