Lincoln Studies

Lincoln Studies is Moving........

2008-06-29T12:53:00.003-05:00

Hi Everyone,

I have decided to move the blog to LincolnStudies.com and will no longer be posting on Blogger, so please update you links to:

http://www.lincolnstudies.com/

If you wish to subscribe to the RSS Feed, you may do so at:

http://lincolnstudies.com/?feed=rss2

I hope to see you all over at the new (and much improved) site!

Lincoln on Ebay: Attention Un-Reconstructed Southerners

2008-06-27T12:03:00.000-05:00

This week's edition of Lincoln on Ebay comes to us in the form of a letter, written some eight months after the assassination.

D. M. Wharton, a citizen of Huntsville, Alabama, wrote his nephew a letter on November 4, 1865. He begins with the usual pleasantries by thanking his nephew for sending such a nice letter a couple of weeks back and shares his optimism that pre-war "prosperity was once more drawing upon you."

But then the cold reality of Reconstruction slaps him in the face. His letter takes an abrupt turn.

The "Black troops who were placed over the white citizens to mortify and spook us had been withdrawn," he announces, adding, "the prosperity of the African race, has caused much anxiety and loss to the honest part of our citizens."

After condemning black troops, as well as "the prosperity of the African race," Wharton turns to the new president, Andrew Johnson. He has heard that Johnson has been making enemies in Washington, refusing to work with the Republicans in humiliating the South. "I am glad to hear 'Johnson is now acting like a gentleman," he declares. If the rumors were true, Wharton had no doubt that "we shall soon hear of the liberation of Jeff Davis, who was cruelly kept in confinement for obeying the orders of his own sovereign state."

Now thoroughly warmed up, Wharton confronts the Lincoln assassination. Republicans tried to make the case that Davis "had some hand in killing Lincoln, but could not[.]" According Wharton, neither Davis nor the Confederacy had a hand in killing Lincoln; it was God Himself who did the deed.

"The god of justice had him promptly summoned," he concludes, "decree of the almighty god 'Sic Semper Tyrannis.'"

John Wilkes Booth could hardly have said it any better.

The Problem with Statues

2008-06-26T13:12:00.001-05:00

The United States Supreme Court is making headlines today. They have struck down the District of Columbia’s 32-year ban on handguns, claiming it is a clear violation of the Second Amendment to the U. S. Constitution:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The decision hinged on a critical point. Does the Second Amendment protect an individual’s right to own a gun no matter what, or does the amendment simply protect the rights of the state militias?

In a 5-4 decision today, the Supreme Court decided that the Constitution does not permit, “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.”

I’m sure political commentators on radio and cable, as well as the internet and various print media outlets, will be discussing the decision for some time to come; however, I want to move in a different direction.

On this date in 1857, Abraham Lincoln spoke about a recent controversial Supreme Court decision.

He held no office; in fact, his lone term in Congress had ended almost a decade earlier. Though he had a burning desire to enter the national spotlight, in 1857 he was merely a lawyer from central Illinois.

The U. S. Supreme Court had recently handed down its controversial decision in the Dred Scott case. Though Lincoln had reverence for the law and was absolutely devoted to the American political process, he disagreed with the court’s decision. Moreover, he was appalled when Illinois Senator Stephen A. Douglas came out in support of the decision.

Lincoln began his speech by revealing Douglas’ motives:

There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people, to the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races; and Judge Douglas evidently is basing his chief hope, upon the chances of being able to appropriate the benefit of this disgust to himself. If he can, by much drumming and repeating, fasten the odium of that idea upon his adversaries, he thinks he can struggle through the storm. He therefore clings to this hope, as a drowning man to the last plank.

Therefore, Douglas has used the Dred Scott decision to distort the Republican Party’s position on racial equality:

[Douglas] finds the Republicans insisting that the Declaration of Independence includes ALL men, black as well as white; and forth-with he boldly denies that it includes negroes at all, and proceeds to argue gravely that all who contend it does, do so only because they want to vote, and eat, and sleep, and marry with negroes!

Lincoln objected to Douglas’ caricature:

Now I protest against that counterfeit logic which concludes that, because I do not want a black woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. I need not have her for either, I can just leave her alone. In some respects she certainly is not my equal; but in her natural right to eat the bread she earns with her own hands without asking leave of any one else, she is my equal, and the equal of all others.

Lincoln told the crowd that the Dred Scott decision was absolutely revolutionary because the Supreme Court had reinterpreted the meaning of America’s founding document, the Declaration of Independence:

Chief Justice Taney, in his opinion in the Dred Scott case, admits that the language of the Declaration is broad enough to include the whole human family, but he and Judge Douglas argue that the authors of that instrument did not intend to include negroes, by the fact that they did not at once, actually place them on an equality with the whites. Now this grave argument comes to just nothing at all, by the other fact, that they did not at once, or ever afterwards, actually place all white people on an equality with one or another. And this is the staple argument of both the Chief Justice and the Senator, for doing this obvious violence to the plain unmistakable language of the Declaration.

Lincoln fundamentally disagreed with their interpretation. He revealed how he interpreted the document:

I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness, in what respects they did consider all men created equal---equal in ``certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'' This they said, and this meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth, that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet, that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In fact they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit. They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere. The assertion that ``all men are created equal'' was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain; and it was placed in the Declaration, nor for that, but for future use. Its authors meant it to be, thank God, it is now proving itself, a stumbling block to those who in after times might seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism. They knew the proneness of prosperity to breed tyrants, and they meant when such should re-appear in this fair land and commence their vocation they should find left for them at least one hard nut to crack.

Again, Lincoln reverted back to Senator Douglas. This, Lincoln claims, is how Douglas interprets the same Declaration of Independence:

No man can vindicate the character, motives and conduct of the signers of the Declaration of Independence except upon the hypothesis that they referred to the white race alone, and not to the African, when they declared all men to have been created equal---that they were speaking of British subjects on this continent being equal to British subjects born and residing in Great Britain---that they were entitled to the same inalienable rights, and among them were enumerated life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration was adopted for the purpose of justifying the colonists in the eyes of the civilized world in withdrawing their allegiance from the British crown, and dissolving their connection with the mother country.''

Not only was Douglas’ interpretation wrong, but Lincoln claims it is ultimately dangerous to the American experiment in popular government.

My good friends, read that carefully over some leisure hour, and ponder well upon it---see what a mere wreck---mangled ruin---it makes of our once glorious Declaration.

Why, according to this, not only negroes but white people outside of Great Britain and America are not spoken of in that instrument. The English, Irish and Scotch, along with white Americans, were included to be sure, but the French, Germans and other white people of the world are all gone to pot along with the Judge's inferior races.

I had thought the Declaration promised something better than the condition of British subjects; but no, it only meant that we should be equal to them in their own oppressed and unequal condition. According to that, it gave no promise that having kicked off the King and Lords of Great Britain, we should not at once be saddled with a King and Lords of our own.

I had thought the Declaration contemplated the progressive improvement in the condition of all men everywhere; but no, it merely ``was adopted for the purpose of justifying the colonists in the eyes of the civilized world in withdrawing their allegiance from the British crown, and dissolving their connection with the mother country.'' Why, that object having been effected some eighty years ago, the Declaration is of no practical use now---mere rubbish---old wadding left to rot on the battle-field after the victory is won.

Lincoln underscored what the Dred Scott decision had done by reinterpreting the Declaration of Independence:

I understand you are preparing to celebrate the ``Fourth,'' tomorrow week. What for? The doings of that day had no reference to the present; and quite half of you are not even descendants of those who were referred to at that day. But I suppose you will celebrate; and will even go so far as to read the Declaration. Suppose after you read it once in the old fashioned way, you read it once more with Judge Douglas' version. It will then run thus: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident that all British subjects who were on this continent eighty-one years ago, were created equal to all British subjects born and then residing in Great Britain.''

And now I appeal to all---to Democrats as well as others,---are you really willing that the Declaration shall be thus frittered away?---thus left no more at most, than an interesting memorial of the dead past? thus shorn of its vitality, and practical value; and left without the germ or even the suggestion of the individual rights of man in it?

With that being said, I cannot stress this point enough: throughout the speech, Lincoln clearly says America’s different races should remain separated. Indeed, he went on to develop that idea in the Lincoln-Douglas debates a year later (see the Charleston Debate, for instance).

It is incredibly important to acknowledge Lincoln’s views on racial equality. This is how Lincoln saw race in 1857:

But Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the thought of the mixing blood by the white and black races: agreed for once---a thousand times agreed. There are white men enough to marry all the white women, and black men enough to marry all the black women; and so let them be married. On this point we fully agree with the Judge; and when he shall show that his policy is better adapted to prevent amalgamation than ours we shall drop ours, and adopt his.

Lincoln argues that the Republican position to oppose the spread of slavery offers a practical solution to preventing the “amalgamation” of the races. Using statistics, Lincoln illustrates his case:

Let us see. In 1850 there were in the United States, 405,751, mulattoes. Very few of these are the offspring of whites and free blacks; nearly all have sprung from black slaves and white masters. A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation but as an immediate separation is impossible the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas. That is at least one self-evident truth. A few free colored persons may get into the free States, in any event; but their number is too insignificant to amount to much in the way of mixing blood. In 1850 there were in the free states, 56,649 mulattoes; but for the most part they were not born there---they came from the slave States, ready made up. In the same year the slave States had 348,874 mulattoes all of home production. The proportion of free mulattoes to free blacks---the only colored classes in the free states---is much greater in the slave than in the free states. It is worthy of note too, that among the free states those which make the colored man the nearest to equal the white, have, proportionably the fewest mulattoes the least of amalgamation. In New Hampshire, the State which goes farthest towards equality between the races, there are just 184 Mulattoes while there are in Virginia---how many do you think? 79,775, being 23,126 more than in all the free States together.

These statistics show that slavery is the greatest source of amalgamation; and next to it, not the elevation, but the degeneration of the free blacks. Yet Judge Douglas dreads the slightest restraints on the spread of slavery, and the slightest human recognition of the negro, as tending horribly to amalgamation.

I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation. I have no right to say all the members of the Republican party are in favor of this, nor to say that as a party they are in favor of it. There is nothing in their platform directly on the subject. But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it, and that the chief plank in their platform---opposition to the spread of slavery---is most favorable to that separation.

Such separation, if ever effected at all, must be effected by colonization; and no political party, as such, is now doing anything directly for colonization. Party operations at present only favor or retard colonization incidentally. The enterprise is a difficult one; but ``when there is a will there is a way;'' and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be. The children of Israel, to such numbers as to include four hundred thousand fighting men, went out of Egyptian bondage in a body.

What do we make of all this?

First, these words often make people uncomfortable. Many of us don’t want to think the author of the Emancipation Proclamation ever said or believed such things. To the folks who say highlighting Lincoln’s rhetoric in 1857 is somehow sacrilegious, especially on a site like LincolnStudies.com, I sharply disagree. I don’t write hagiography; I write history. I would encourage my readers to hold themselves to the same standard. Lincoln was not semi-divine; he was thoroughly human.

Second, these words often make other people quite happy. Challenge a neo-Confederate to quote Lincoln’s 1837 protest statement on slavery in the Illinois State Legislature or his 1864 letter to Albert G. Hodges and you’ll get a blank stare, but if you mention the statements like the ones quoted throughout this post, you’ll see their eyes light up. Both the hagiographers and the neo-Confederates operate under a similar set of standards: both are interested in creating cartoon figures, not historical actors.

Third, these words tell us a great deal about the Nineteenth Century. The crowd in Springfield cheered when they heard Lincoln's words. There is a reason why books like Lerone Bennett's Forced into Glory are written, but in my view, such interpretations inevitably miss the mark. Was Lincoln a racist or was he the Great Emancipator? Well, it simply isn't that easy.

Lincoln wrestled with tough questions throughout his life. This speech from 1857 documents the answers he had found at that moment in time.

But Lincoln never stopped looking for answers. His ideas were not set in stone in 1857.

His ideas evolved over the next year when he met Douglas in debates throughout Illinois. As history presented different variables, Lincoln’s ideas evolved. The election of 1860 certainly transformed the political landscape, while the most horrific tragedy in American history forced him to rethink his position even further.

Modern political discourse has deceived us into thinking politicians are supposed to be marble statues long before they die. We seem to delight in confronting politicians with conflicting statements; we are very quick to brand someone a “flip-flopper.”

Of course, that is the problem with statues. They lock a person into a rigid pose; they deny a person the ability to grow.

But consider this. Though America is filled with statues of Abraham Lincoln, how many of them depict the way he looked in 1857?

Happy Trails One Man's Rebellion Record

2008-06-25T11:18:00.000-05:00

I'm sorry to report that Rob Wick has decided to pull the plug on his blog, One Man's Rebellion Record.

Believe me, not all blogs are created equal, but his blog was one of those that seemed to raise the bar in terms of quality posts. I hope the blog will remain available online; there really is a lot there that is worth reading.

Posts like "Five books on Lincoln's Assassination You Should Have" come to mind, as do his posts on
Everton J. Conger (later life), one of the folks responsible for capturing Lincoln's assassin.

And another thing. Now that the One Man's Rebellion Record is no more, what corner of the blogosphere will serve up Civil War historiography quite the same?

That's right, Wick produced a series of highly detailed portraits of historians from James G. Randall (Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, ) and Bell Irwin Wiley (Part 2 ), to Otto Eisenschimal!

When the A. Lincoln Blog called it quits earlier this year, LincolnStudies.com extended an invitation to Brian Dirck to post here if he should ever get the itch again.

We gladly extend the same invitation to Rob Wick. If he should ever feel the need to sound off in blog format, he is welcome to do so in a guest post at LincolnStudies.com!

Joseph T. Glatthaar, "General Lee's Army"

2008-06-24T12:18:00.000-05:00

I have been making my way through Joseph T. Glatthaar's new book, General Lee's Army: From Victory to Collapse and wanted to pass along some initial thoughts.

To put it simply, Glatthaar has produced one of the most detailed portraits of the Confederate army I have ever seen.

The research is meticulous. Based on primary documents, manuscripts, published letters, and diaries of about 4,000 soldiers, Glatthaar has constructed a representative sample of some 600 Confederate soldiers. His database allows him to:

...address some of the most important questions, many of them answered unsatisfactorily by previous scholars, about who these soldiers and their families were and what their wartime experiences were like, including background, slave ownership, occupation, wealth, family, desertion, conscription, illnesses, casualties, and many more. (xiv).

Glatthaar confronts these findings early in his narrative.

For example, one of the most loaded questions regarding the Confederate Army goes something like this: "How many Confederate soldiers were slave owners?"

Though it is a common question, historians have never been able to arrive at a simple answer.

For example, in For Cause and Comrades, James M. McPherson tried to explain why men fought in the Civil War. He constructed a database of 1,076 soldiers, 647 Union and 429 Confederate. When he turned to Confederate motivations, he was surprised to find "only 20 percent of the sample of 429 Southern soldiers explicitly voiced proslavery convictions in their letters or diaries" (p. 110). However, McPherson acknowledged that none at all dissented from that view.

But what did that mean? If one in five Confederate soldiers expressed proslavery convictions, did that mean 20 percent of Confederate soldiers were slave owners? No. Only about one-third of Confederate soldiers who expressed pro-slavery convictions came from a slaveholding family. While McPherson provided anecdotal evidence, his methodology prevented him from arriving at a simple answer.

Glatthaar is able to do what previous historians have failed to do, but be warned, his answer is not a simple one.

He finds that 10.27 percent of enlistees in the Confederate army in 1861 personally owned slaves (p. 19). While just 4.95 percent of whites owned slaves in the Confederacy, one might conclude the average Confederate enlistee was more than twice as likely to be a slave owner as a common citizen in the Confederacy. However, the conclusion fails to tell the whole story.

Glatthaar finds that more than one in every four (25.62 percent) enlistees lived with a parent who was a slave owner.

If we combine those enlistees who owned slaves (10.27 percent) with the number who lived with parents who owned slaves (25.62), we find that 35.89 percent of enlistees either owned slaves or lived with parents who did.

While 24.9 percent of Confederate households owned slaves, we might conclude that volunteers in 1861 were 42 percent more likely than the general population to own slaves themselves or to live with family members who did. Yet again, Glatthaar cautions against forming that conclusion just yet.

He finds that one in every ten volunteers did not own slaves themselves, but lived in households headed by non-family members who did.

If we combine the 10 percent of enlistees who lived with non-family members who owned slaves, with the 35.89 percent figure we arrived at earlier (volunteers who were slave owners or who lived with parents who owned slaves), we find that nearly half of all Confederate enlistees in 1861 either lived with slaveholders or were slave owners themselves.

Glatthaar concludes his point:

Nor did the direct exposure stop there. Untold numbers of enlistees rented land from, sold crops to, or worked for slaveholders. In the final tabulation, the vast majority of the volunteers of 1861 had a direct connection to slavery. For slaveholder and nonslaveholder alike, slavery lay at the heart of the Confederate nation. The fact that their paper notes frequently depicted scenes of slaves demonstrated the institution's central role and symbolic value to the Confederacy. (p.20)

Of course, slavery is merely one of the many issues that Glatthaar deals with.

Is Glatthaar's book worth reading? Yes. It is an important book; it is a complex, yet highly readable, analysis of General Lee's Army. I know I'll be using it for quite some time.

Soldiers in the Same Struggle: Jim Limber and Black Confederates

2008-06-23T13:03:00.002-05:00

A few weeks ago I mentioned that the statue controversy in Richmond was back in the news.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans have unveiled their proposed statue design, featuring Jefferson Davis (pictured above).

Their design is breathtaking.

Compare it to the current statue of Lincoln and his son, Tad:

Notice: Lincoln is sitting, while Davis is standing; Lincoln is looking down, but Davis is staring defiantly. But that's not all.

Who are the children in these statues?

Lincoln is with his son Tad, but Davis appears with two little boys. One of them is his son Joe, while the other one is not related to him. His name is Jim Limber, a mixed-race child who allegedly stayed with the Davis family. Little is known about him, but that hasn't stopped partisans from using him to reconstruct Davis' complicated record regarding race.

Now that the SCV has officially enlisted Jim Limber in their ongoing public relations war to rewrite America's Civil War narrative, I suppose we might add his name to the growing list of "black Confederates" who are soldiers in the same struggle.

Though a final decision on whether to include the Davis, et al. statue is expected in August, we must recognize that the verdict doesn't mean much. The SCV will not accept their cause is lost.

Lincolniana on Auction: Everything that Says A. Lincoln is not a Lincoln

2008-06-20T12:24:00.003-05:00

The Lincolniana on Auction beat is overflowing with examples today; however, I thought it might be fun to explore a couple potentially dubious items.

First up, let's start with a seemingly innocuous textbook, circa 1835 (pictured above). Though the owner provides very few
details about the book, I did a quick Google Book search of one of the pages and found a match. The textbook is probably Adams's New Arithmetic, by Daniel Adams (Keene, New Hampshire: J. & J. W. Prentiss).

Why is this book part of our Lincolniana
on Auction series? Well, take a look at this picture:

Look closely at the signature at the bottom of the photo. The owner offers this explanation:

Signed on the bottom of the first page is the signature of our beloved president--Abraham Lincoln--the book has many anatations and inscriptions that we cannot make out but the history letter that comes with the auction states--"Given to my friend 1844--read this so you can outfigure them in Washington."

That's all the owner says; however, before you dismiss this item, consider this:

The item description mentions a number of intriguing dates. First, the year 1844 was an important one if we're talking about a textbook containing Lincoln's signature. Lincoln made a trip back to southern Indiana in 1844 to campaign for Henry Clay and the Whig ticket. This is pure speculation, but would it be out of the question for one of his old Indiana neighbors to give him a textbook he might have used as a boy in southern Indiana?

Second, the owner lists two possible publication dates for this book. First, the item description claims the book was published, circa 1835. This, of course, would have been too late for Lincoln to have used this book in southern Indiana. He was living in New Salem in 1835. However, later in the description, the owner claims to see the date 1827. This date falls well within the time frame of Lincoln's time in southern Indiana.

Third, if Lincoln did indeed sign this book and give it to someone heading to Washington in 1844, who might it be? Perhaps it was Representative John J. Hardin?

Again, notice how much speculation is involved with each of these points. Let me stress that point. The owner provides scant information and we have added in historical evidence to create a plausible scenario. Is it worth $775 to see if this Davinci Code-like scenario has any validity?

Let's take a look at another one.

The owner claims this torn piece of paper features the signature of Abraham Lincoln, 1865.

Here is the provenance, directly from the owner:

My daughter was bequeathed a box of family heirlooms from her God Mother which consisted of a book signed by Lincoln and sold to help pay for college expenses. In the same box there were old documents, a deed to land in California from 1910, a signature on a document signed by President Theodore Roosevelt, an old reel of film with footage of President Eisenhower and the lincoln signature on this tattered piece of paper.

When we know absolutely nothing about the original document, I would suggest we have no option but to be skeptical.

Without commenting on the handwriting, I wonder about the mere placement of the signature. For instance, notice the signature is on either the upper right or left corner of a sheet of paper. How ofen did Lincoln sign his name in this place? Moreover, when Lincoln took the time to affix the date below his signature, he usually wrote the month, as well as the day of the month. Simply writing the year seems out of character.

Shakespeare reminds us "all that glisters is not gold." I'd like to add that everything that says A. Lincoln is not a Lincoln.

Lincolniana on Auction: Relisting

2008-06-19T12:34:00.006-05:00

No need to adjust your monitor, we covered this Ebay auction a few weeks ago. However, this hand-written note, measuring approximately 4.25 x 3.5," failed to attract a winning bid. The asking price was reduced from $6,000 this time around. I notice that someone has indeed placed a bid this time.

The document reads as follows:

If the service needs such an appointment, let Mr. Taylor be appointed unless some valid objection to him be known at the Department.

A. Lincoln

March 18 1865

The owner claims the note has been in the possession of the family since it was written, which suggests they might be able to shed some light on Mr. Taylor's identity.

Last time I pointed out that the timing of the note was interesting. Four days earlier, on Tuesday, March 14, Lincoln had been so ill he condducted a Cabinet meeting in his bedroom (Gideon Welles, Diary). The following day, he resumed his usual schedule, but reporters commented on his "feeble" condition for the rest of the week. I pointed out that Lincoln's handwriting doesn't look as strong as it does in other documents. If this note is indeed genuine, perhaps we might conclude he was still feeling rather week from his illness earlier in the week.However, there is another explanation.

Perhaps Lincoln was simply rushed. Though March 18th was a Saturday, Lincoln was hard at work. According to the Collected Works, Lincoln authorized General Edward R. S. Canby to assist in raising funds for an orphanage, he discharged Charles T. Dorsett from the draft, annulled the sentence of the Smith brothers of Boston for fraud, revoked the order dismissing Dr. George Burr, and issued a pass to Rev. Thomas C. Teasdale through military lines. Though this note does not appear in the Collected Works, it is one of the many documents Lincoln wrote that Saturday in March, less than a month before the assassination.

Tomorow we'll do a new auction, but I wanted to pass along this repeat. It will be interesting to see if the bidding crosses the $6,000 mark.

Jonesboro Dedication Ceremony

2008-06-18T11:02:00.000-05:00

With the statues of Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas already at the Jonesboro debate site, organizers have planned a dedication ceremony.

A Lincoln-Douglas Breakfast and Statue Dedication will take place on July 4th, just north of the Jonesboro Square, from 7:30-9:30. The event begins with an old-fashioned country breakfast.

Following breakfast, you are invited to "Walk Where Lincoln Walked" to the Debate Site, about a half-mile away in Lincoln Memorial Park. If you don't want to walk, no problem. You might enjoy a buggy ride, as Douglas did in 1858.

A dedication ceremony will take place at 10:00 with a cannon salute, while children's games and bluegrass music will round out the celebration.

Lincoln's Niagara Falls: Never Dried, Never Froze, Never Slept, Never Rested...

2008-06-17T11:56:00.002-05:00

Though we aren't really sure when he wrote it, Abraham Lincoln penned a 500-word meditation on Niagara Falls. It was discovered after the assassination by Lincoln's secretaries, John Hay and John Nicolay. They estimated that Lincoln wrote it about July 1, 1850, though no one has really offered a sufficient explanation for the date.

The editors of the Collected Works assign a far more probable date to this piece. They say Lincoln probably wrote it sometime between September 25 and 30, 1848. They cite two reasons. First, Lincoln visited Niagara Falls during his return trip from Boston to Chicago (September 23 and October 5, 1848). Second, the piece of paper Lincoln used looks like the paper he used for speeches and letters throughout 1848 in Washington.

Though I make something of this awkwardly poetic fragment in my dissertation, I thought I might share Lincoln's text with you this morning:

AL, [c. 25-30 September 1848], in Roy P. Basler, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, 9 vols. (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1953), 2:10-11.

Niagara-Falls! By what mysterious power is it that millions and millions, are drawn from all parts of the world, to gaze upon Niagara Falls? There is no mystery about the thing itself. Every effect is just such as any inteligent man knowing the causes, would anticipate, without [seeing] it. If the water moving onward in a great river, reaches a point where there is a perpendicular jog, of a hundred feet in descent, in the bottom of the river,---it is plain the water will have a violent and continuous plunge at that point. It is also plain the water, thus plunging, will foam, and roar, and send up a mist, continuously, in which last, during sunshine, there will be perpetual rain-bows. The mere physical of Niagara Falls is only this. Yet this is really a very small part of that world's wonder. It's power to excite reflection, and emotion, is it's great charm. The geologist will demonstrate that the plunge, or fall, was once at Lake Ontario, and has worn it's way back to it's present position; he will ascertain how fast it is wearing now, and so get a basis for determining how long it has been wearing back from Lake Ontario, and finally demonstrate by it that this world is at least fourteen thousand years old. A philosopher of a slightly different turn will say Niagara Falls is only the lip of the basin out of which pours all the surplus water which rains down on two or three hundred thousand square miles of the earth's surface. He will estim[ate with] approximate accuracy, that five hundred thousand [to]ns of water, falls with it's full weight, a distance of a hundred feet each minute---thus exerting a force equal to the lifting of the same weight, through the same space, in the same time. And then the further reflection comes that this vast amount of water, constantly pouring down, is supplied by an equal amount constantly lifted up, by the sun; and still he says, ``If this much is lifted up, for this one space of two or three hundred thousand square miles, an equal amount must be lifted for every other equal space, and he is overwhelmed in the contemplation of the vast power the sun is constantly exerting in quiet, noiseless opperation of lifting water up to be rained down again.

But still there is more. It calls up the indefinite past. When Columbus first sought this continent---when Christ suffered on the cross---when Moses led Israel through the Red-Sea---nay, even, when Adam first came from the hand of his Maker---then as now, Niagara was roaring here. The eyes of that species of extinct giants, whose bones fill the mounds of America, have gazed on Niagara, as ours do now. Co[n]temporary with the whole race of men, and older than the first man, Niagara is strong, and fresh to-day as ten thousand years ago. The Mammoth and Mastadon---now so long dead, that fragments of their monstrous bones, alone testify, that they ever lived, have gazed on Niagara. In that long---long time, never still for a single moment. Never dried, never froze, never slept, never rested,

A House Divided 150 Years Later

2008-06-16T11:42:00.002-05:00

Today marks the 150th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's "House Divided Speech." Springfield continues its celebration today with a number of events scheduled:

All Day: Traveling exhibit, Confronting Democracy's Boundaries: The Lincoln-Douglas Debates Traveling Exhibit, Old State Capitol.

10-11 am: "Researching Lincoln & Douglas at the Presidential Library." Outreach program for the general public highlighting the Library's research materials for Stephen A. Douglas & Lincoln-Douglas Debates, featuring Glenna Schroeder-Lein from the Manuscripts Division, Mary Michals from the A/V Division, and Lincoln Curator James Cornelius, Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library. CPDUs offered.

11-2:30 pm: Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum Education Department. Half-day Teachers' Workshop on Lincoln & Douglas and related topics: Lunch & Workshop in Presidential Library Classroom with Allen Guelzo. Teachers who come early can also attend the Research program at 10 am. CPDUs offered. Cost: $10.00.

1-3 pm: Lincoln and Douglas performers George Buss and Tim Connors mingle with visitors, Old State Capitol.

2 pm: Lincoln and Douglas Debate Performance, Old State Capitol's Representative Hall.

5:30 pm: Special Performance—"House Divided Speech" Sesquicentennial Commemoration featuring historical readings by Lincoln-Douglas performers George Buss and Tim Connors with running historical commentary by award-winning historian Allen Guelzo; Representative Hall. Cost: $8.00.

I thought we might spend a moment this morning placing the speech into context.

Democratic Senator Stephen A. Douglas was up for re-election in 1858. He had a national reputation, dating back more than a decade. Whoever the upstart Republican Party decided to nominate would certainly face an uphill struggle.

Nontheless, Republicans met in the state capitol in Springfield on June 16, 1858 to announce their nominee, Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln's "House Divided Speech" was his formal acceptance speech. The speech not only set the tone for the campaign, but it captured headlines in both Republican and Democrat papers across the state, as well as the nation.

The real highlight of the speech, at least to me, is the elaborate "conspiracy theory" Lincoln unravels. Not only was Senator Douglas complicit in a scheme to nationalize slavery, but Lincoln also implicated the current and former president of the United States, as well as the Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court!

For the next several months, whether on the stump or in the seven debates against Douglas across the state, Lincoln elaborated on his conspiracy theory.

In the end, Lincoln did not capture a seat in the Senate, but I think he captured the imaginations of citizens across the state, as well as the nation. Some became passionate Lincoln supporters, while others became staunch Lincoln opponents.

Odds and Ends for Friday the 13th

2008-06-13T14:57:00.002-05:00

Get ready for a tour de force of LincolnStudies.com stories for this "Friday the 13th!"

Special thanks to Laurie Chambliss at Civil War Interactive for all of her hard work during the past year. Yesterday, she announced that her very popular weekly column, "This Week in Blogs," was coming to an end. LincolnStudies.com was one of the many Civil War blogs featured in her columns. I will miss her fine sense of humor, attention to detail, and dedication. Perhaps another blogger out there will pick up where she left off.

I hear that Indiana officials have put together a "compelling proposal" to keep the Lincoln Museum's estimated $20 million collection in state. Back in March, we announced that the museum in Fort Wayne would be closing its doors at the end of June. I encouraged the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Museum in Springfield to submit a bid for the impressive collection. Apparently, they indeed made an offer, as did the Smithsonian Institute. Now, an Indiana group has joined the bidding. If they succeed, the Indiana group plans to share the collection with the Indiana State Museum, as well as the Allen County Public Library. We'll see how it plays out, but I suspect the collection would be better off in Springfield or Washington.

Tomorrow (Saturday, June 14) marks the official opening of a new exhibit, Something So Horrible: The Springfield Race Riot of 1908. We covered this horrific chapter in Springfield's history, as well as the creation of this fine exhibit. If you are going to be in Springfield soon, I suggest checking it out.

On this date in 1786, a mere 222 years ago, Winfield Scott (pictured above) entered the world! "Old Fuss and Feathers" had a truly remarkable career, which spanned a half century. He was a veteran of a number of wars, from the War of 1812, through the American Civil War. Not simply a military man, Scott was also the Whig nominee for president in 1852.

Finally, I'd like to thank the folks who sent me emails about the Thomas DiLorenzo piece I posted yesterday. I ended up watching the rest of his interview last night, but I must say, I was hardly surprised by much of what I heard. However, there was one part of the interview that was particularly revealing. Check back around the 22 minute mark when DiLorenzo begins his attack on "court historian" Doris Kearns Goodwin. At about 26:00, he condemns Goodwin for using "psycho-history:"

I've read a good bit of this psycho-history, and it seems to me that they take actions by a lot of these politicians and just dream up excuses that are, sort of arm-chair psychology that they use, and they dream up excuses or rationales for things that they did and the whole enterprise sounds very dubious to me, a psycho-history.

Of course, I might point out that "psycho-historians" do not simply "dream up excuses" for historical actors. No, on occasion, "psycho-historians" do the exact opposite. Sometimes they go out of their way to attach sinister motives to nearly every action their subjects make. Sounds familiar, does it not?

CSPAN Q & A: Thomas DiLorenzo

2008-06-12T09:40:00.001-05:00

I'm not a Thomas DiLorenzo fan, but I thought I'd pass this along to you anyway.

He recently appeared on CSPAN's Q & A with Brian Lamb.

If you are able to hang with DiLorenzo for the full hour, you will have lasted about 45 minutes longer than I did!

Bicentennial Backlash

2008-06-11T12:22:00.003-05:00

I was hardly surprised when the national media ignored Jefferson Davis' 200th birthday last week. I understand it can be difficult to differentiate between commemorating and celebrating such an event. Perhaps the media was wise to sidestep the entire issue.

However, not everyone seems willing to let it slide.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans have been lashing out as of late, with a series of rather embarrassing displays.

Take, for example, the massive Confederate flag now greeting travelers along Interstate 75 in Tampa, Florida. That’s right, a 50 x 30 foot Rebel flag now flies atop a 139-foot flagpole.

Remember when Florida used to give you a glass of orange juice when you crossed into the state? You probably can still get the juice, but now you get to drink it while you stare at the most divisive symbol in American history.

When did this happen? The SCV unveiled the flag on Davis’ 200th birthday.

Now that they’ve got the Rebel flag planted in the ground, the SCV has set their sights on a statue controversy in Richmond, Virginia.

If you thought the controversy over the statue of Lincoln and his son Tad (pictured above) was settled a few years ago, you’re mistaken. Though defeated in that battle, the SCV has refused to concede the point.

To mark the Davis bicentennial, the SCV is now calling for a life-sized statue of Jefferson Davis to counter the one of Lincoln. But this won’t be just any old Davis statue. The proposed design depicts Davis, along with his son Joe, and a mixed-race child, Jim Limber, who allegedly lived with the Davis family.

SCV representatives are scheduled to present their design to site officials next week.

Though these are just two stories, I think they represent the first wave of a prolonged "bicentennial backlash."

Disappointed by the resounding silence surrounding Davis' 200th birthday, the calls for “historical balance” by groups like the SCV will no doubt grow increasingly louder as we approach the Lincoln bicentennial in February.

Lincolniana on Auction: Life or Death Mask?

2008-06-10T10:58:00.000-05:00

I thought we might try something a bit different today as we continue our series: Lincolniana on Auction.

In the past, we’ve examined various Lincoln documents, but today, I thought we might look at sculpture; in particular, life masks.

After studying in Rome, sculptor Leonard Volk opened a studio in Chicago in 1857. He learned about a rising politician who was making national headlines with a series of debates against U.S. Senator Stephen A. Douglas. Volk seized his opportunity. He asked Lincoln if he would serve as his subject; Lincoln gave his consent.

Toward the end of March 1860, Lincoln visited Volk’s studio. To keep future sittings to a minimum, the sculptor made a plaster cast of Lincoln’s face. Recalling the process of letting wet plaster dry on his face, Lincoln said it was “anything but agreeable.”

Not only did the plaster cast turn out well enough for Volk to produce a fine bust of the future president, but the “life mask” preserved Lincoln’s appearance in 3D.

“Virtually every sculptor and artist uses the Volk mask for Lincoln,” said sculptor Avard Fairbanks, “it is the most reliable document of the Lincoln face, and far more valuable than photographs, for it is the actual form.”

Today, you can actually buy a replica of the 1860 life mask (as pictured above).

Shortly after Lincoln captured the Republican nomination for president, Volk paid a visit to him in Springfield. “I went straight to Mr. Lincoln’s unpretentious little two-story house,” recalled Volk. He gave Mary a smaller version of this finished bust:

Volk told Lincoln he wanted to make a full-length statue of the next president of the United States. Again, Lincoln consented.

This time, Volk began by making plaster casts of Lincoln’s hands.

He told Lincoln to hold something in his right hand. Lincoln seized a broom handle and the casting took place in the dining room. “The right hand appeared swollen as compared with the left, on account of excessive hand-shaking the eveing before,” Volk later said, “this difference is distinctly shown in the cast.”

You can even buy replica castings of Lincoln's hands. I searched Ebay for an example, but I could only find Lincoln's left hand:

But the life mask business does not stop there. Lincoln sat for yet another life mask about three months before he was killed. This time, on February 11, 1865, sculptor Clark Mills captured the president's likeness. He covered Lincoln's face with oil, applied a coat of wet plaster, waited 15 minutes, and then removed it.

Though less than five years had passed between life masks, the results varied greatly. The toll of the war had visibly worn the president down. In fact, most people assume this final life mask was not taken during Lincoln’s lifetime at all. Oftentimes, people assume this was a “death mask.”

Again, this life mask has been reproduced and is available for purchase. I could only find one example of this one:

In addition to sculptors and painters, I suppose people buy these life masks for display in their office or library. At the very least, they are certainly conversation pieces. But remember, don’t believe anyone who tries to tell you the second likeness is a “death mask.”

Google Books & Lincoln's Poetry

2008-06-09T10:10:00.001-05:00

I did a small interview back in January, talking about how I use Google Books to research Abraham Lincoln's "lost poetry." I just saw the finished product and thought I'd pass it along.

"Right or Wrong, in Time of War"

2008-06-06T11:23:00.007-05:00

For the past few weeks, I've been re-examining Lincoln's Congressional career. His opposition to the Mexican War is a well-known story, often defined by his "Spot Resolutions," as well as his extended speech in Congress on January 12, 1848.

Reaction in his hometown was characteristically mixed. The friendly Illinois State Journal called his anti-war speech "an able one," while the hostile Illinois State Register dismissed it as "politically motivated" and predicted he would not only be "repudiated by the great mass of people who voted for him," but when veterans of the Mexican War returned home, they warned him he would also "have a fearful account to settle."

Democrats outside of Springfield were just as outraged. The editor of the Illinois Globe in Charleston thought the speech demonstrated "the littleness of the pettifogging lawyer" and, despite his best efforts, Lincoln had "not merged into the greatness of the statesman."

Perhaps the most thoroughly devastating criticism came from the citizens of Morgan County, where the martyred John J. Hardin had lived before dying at Buena Vista. They expressed "deep mortification" at Lincoln's actions in Congress, calling his speech a "base, dastardly, and treasonable assault upon President Polk..." From then on, they promised "this Benedict Arnold of our district be known here only as the Ranchero Spotty of one term."

Lincoln's peers in the United States Congress also reacted to his anti-war stance. On January 18th, a mere six days after Lincoln's critical speech, Missouri Representative John Jameson took the opportunity not only to criticize his colleague from Illinois, but the entire Whig Party:

The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lincoln] has surprised me nearly as much, coming, as he does, from that State whose sons have so distinguished themselves—acting with promptness in every call—furnishing more than their quota, and offering twice as many more—and when in the field, in many hard-fought battles, not one of them ever turning his back upon the enemy; and coming, as he does, from a district which again furnished its quota in the State, and as brave a set of boys as ever lived—a district that furnished two colonels in the war, Hardin and Baker, and the immediate predecessors of the gentleman. They were Whigs, but not Federal Whigs; they were for their country. The gallant Hardin fell while leading his men at Buena Vista, and Baker gallantly led the brigade at Cerro Gordo, after the noble and gallant Shields fell from a grape passing through his lungs. And how the gentleman can get up here and declare that this war is unconstitutional and unjust, and thereby put so many of his brave constituents in the wrong, having them fighting in such a war as he has described, killing innocent Mexicans, and thus committing moral if not legal murder, is not for me to determine. I leave that between him and his constituents. And here is the inconsistency with which gentlemen act. I suppose it is because the party screw is turned on them. There is but one thing, in a word, that Federal Whigs are consistent in, and that is, in inconsistency.

Mr. Chairman, what is the motive, and how does it happen, that the Federalists have always gone against their country in time of war? It is no excuse that they think the country in the wrong, for patriots feel themselves bound to go for their country, right or wrong, in time of war.

Lincoln was accused of several things by the opposing party in 1848. Exploiting the war for political purposes was perhaps the most gentle way of putting it, but others were more direct: Lincoln was simply unpatriotic. Perhaps they might have even charged him with rooting for American defeat. Sounds rather familiar, doesn't it?

Walt Whitman in the Classroom

2008-06-05T12:54:00.002-05:00

I am a big fan of the American Experience DVDs by PBS.

The program on John Brown is incredibly good, as is the program on Ulysses S. Grant and another on Reconstruction.

I've used a handful of these American Experience DVDs in the classroom. Whether I play a brief clip at the beginning of a lecture to capture the mood or later in a lecture to punctuate a point I'm trying to make, the combination of audio, visual, and scholarly analysis makes quite an impression on students.

That brings me to the Walt Whitman DVD. PBS just released this one. I'm not ashamed to say I even preordered it. When the box came from Amazon, I could hardly wait to watch it.

So was it any good?

It was excellent! Do yourself a favor and watch this one. If you don't know much about Whitman, this is a good place to start. If you already know a lot about him, you'll probably appreciate the program even more.

The real highlight of this DVD, and of course the point that makes it such a valuable resource in a Civil War course, is the lengthy section on the war itself and Whitman's unique role in it. The gruesome pictures of the wounded, combined with their words home from the hospitals, are haunting. Moreover, the program does an excellent job of analyzing the effect these scences had on not only the poet, but American society at large. The next time I lecture in a Civil War course, I will use this section to drive this crucial point home.

The program also does a fantastic job of describing life in New York in the mid-1850s. Before the sanitation committees emerged, the city streets were maintained by scores of roaming pigs, gobbling up whatever they could find. The filth on the streets, the sound of horses, the conversation of street car operators, job seekers, and newly-arrived immigrants come through clearly. Simply put, the program offers one of the finest descriptions of antebellum city life I have ever seen.

One last note, the Whitman program has a website that might be useful for teachers. They usually have maps, images, and articles, as well as lesson plans and assingments for use in the classroom.

Here is one of my favorite prose passages from Whitman's Specimen Days:

August 12, 1863
Washington, D. C.
I see the President almost every day, as I happen to live where he passes to or from his lodgings out of town...I see very plainly ABRAHAM LINCOLN'S dark brown face, with the deep-cut lines, the eyes, always to me with a deep latent sadness in the expression. We have got so that we exchange bows, and very cordial ones...[Mr. and Mrs. Lincoln] pass'd me once very close, and I saw the President in the face fully, as they were moving slowly, and his look, though abstracted, happen'd to be directed steadily in my eye. He bow'd and smiled, but far beneath his smile I noticed well the expression I have alluded to. None of the artists or pictures has caught the deep, though subtle and indirect expression of this man's face. There is something else there. One of the great portrait painters of two or three centuries ago is needed.

America's Political Religion

2008-06-04T12:12:00.001-05:00

So now it would appear as if we have two candidates for president: John McCain and Barack Obama. Notice I hesitate to say anything is settled just yet. Like many of you, I watched Hillary Clinton’s speech last night. I was waiting for her to congratulate her opponent for capturing the nomination, but it never happened. In fact, as the speech went on, I wondered if she was going to ask Obama to be her vice president.

I want to take a moment this morning to talk about the role religion plays in the political process. During the past few months, the major news networks, as well as the political pundits on cable television and radio, have told us all about Obama’s former preacher, Jeremiah Wright. Democrats have countered by reminding us that conservative televangelist John Hagee, a man who praised Adolf Hitler, has endorsed McCain. Both Obama and McCain have distanced themselves from these polarizing figures.

Susan Jacoby wrote a thought-provoking piece this morning in the Washington Post. Her premise? She says she wants to hear less about each candidate’s religious beliefs. She longs for the good old days when “whatever a candidate did or did not believe was considered personal—as long as the candidate avowed his support for the separation of church and state.”

Jacoby even brings Lincoln into the discussion by recounting how he declined to join a church in 1860 and seemed content to live with the potentially negative political repercussions. In the wake of Obama’s decision to resign from his former church, Jacoby seems to be encouraging him to take a Lincolnian view toward church affiliation in the future.

Jacoby’s editorial coincides with a fine piece written by Anthony Stevens-Arroyo for the Washington Post yesterday. Stevens-Arroyo, a Catholic, weighed the importance of religion and spirituality in the political process. I found this passage particularly interesting:

In one sense, I think spirituality is more desirable in a president than religion alone, although I hasten to add that both of them together would be the best of all possible worlds. The virtue produced by this match is defined with the Latin word, “pius.” This term ought not to be translated as “pious”—a better sense of its meaning is “loyal.” I would not claim that such a person is a saint: only that they are trying to be a saint.

Do we really expect our presidents to be saint-like?

Unfortunately, this passage reminded me of an etching (pictured above, color added) found in the Library of Congress. “Abraham Lincoln the Martyr-Victorious” by John Sartain hangs above a case that displays the contents of Lincoln’s pockets on the night of the assassination.

I want to choose my words carefully here. Sartain’s etching is…uhm…breathtaking.

Look at it closely. From the bottom up:

A Union soldier on guard is asleep outside either Ford’s Theater (where Lincoln was shot) or, more likely, the Peterson House (where Lincoln died).

Lincoln’s most identifiable earthly possession, his stove-pipe hat, rests on the ground. He won’t need his hat where he’s going as he ascends into Paradise.

There are angels on clouds with wings, but notice, the angels are slaves. However, why are the slave/angels still wearing chains? I’m not sure about that one. I thought the Great Emancipator had freed them by the time he was assassinated, right?

Now here comes the good part.

Look at Lincoln. Not only is he riding a cloud, ascending into Heaven, but what position is he in? His arms are outstretched, his feet are close together. It looks to me as if he is being crucified! Lincoln has been transformed in this painting. Forget saint-like, Lincoln has become Jesus; he has died for his country’s sins. Oh my!

And who is greeting him as he enters the Kingdom of Heaven? None other than George Washington. But notice, Washington is not an angel. He doesn’t have wings like the slave/angels below him. Washington is God. Yes, Washington/God is greeting his son Lincoln/Jesus.

The etching mimics the scene inside the state capitol in Springfield while Lincoln lay in state in 1865. A large banner on one side of the hall read, "Washington the Father," while another banner read, "Lincoln the Savior."

While Washington might well be the Father of the nation and Lincoln the Savior of the Union, I am sorry to say I have no idea what the flying log cabin is supposed to signify.

A Quiet, Local Affair: The Jefferson Davis Bicentennial

2008-06-03T10:06:00.002-05:00

He was born 200 years ago today, but most Americans will not be celebrating the Jefferson Davis bicentennial.

I have no desire to beat up on the president of the Confederacy today. In many respects, he was a talented individual. He graduated from West Point, served in both the Black Hawk War and Mexican War, served terms in both the United States House of Representatives and Senate, as well as a term as Secretary of War under President Franklin Pierce.

And, of course, despite opposing secession, Davis served as president of the Confederacy.
When the war began, just one thing was certain: Jefferson Davis was far more accomplished than his counterpart, Abraham Lincoln.

But we know how things turned out. The unpredicatability of war turned such appraisals upside down.

A full century after Fort Sumter, historian David M. Potter wrote that the Confederacy might have succeeded if only the two sides had switched presidents. Historians have not wavered far from Potter's assessment. Perhaps the latest evidence of such scholarly consensus appears in the form of bicentennial celebrations.

We are still nine months away from the bicentennial of Abraham Lincoln's birth, yet hardly a week goes by without a special event.
Conversely, the Jefferson Davis bicentennial is a much more quiet. local affair.

For example, the Davis Family Association held a reunion at Rosemont Plantation, near Woodville, Mississippi, over the weekend. Descendents who could trace their lineage from Samuel and Jane Cook Davis, Jefferson Davis' parents, were invited to attend. Not surprisingly, the descendants of the Davis family slaves were not invited. But also notice, the general public was not invited. However, for $10, adults can tour the plantation throughout the week.

In recognition of the big day, the state of Alabama gave its employees the day off yesterday.
They have more events planned for June 14th, which include a parade in Montgomery, as well as a "Jefferson Davis Bicentennial Ball in the Old Archives Room of the Capitol." The ball will, of course, feature music performed by, "The Un-Reconstructed Band."

If that isn't enough, how about some irony for the occasion? The Mississippi Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans announced they have completed the restoration of Beauvoir, the last home Davis and his wife lived in. A dedication ceremony for the home is scheduled for tomorrow.

But where did the funds come from to restore the home? To be sure, generous individuals donated to the effort, as did the state of Mississippi, but funding also came from FEMA. Yes, the federal government, the government Davis tried to overthrow, helped fund the restoration because the home had been badly damaged by Hurricane Katrina.

And finally, the state of Kentucky, the state where both Davis and Lincoln were born, will host a symposium later this month. Instead of celebrating Davis' contribution to American history, panels such as "Jefferson Davis and Lost Cause Memory" will examine his "Contested Legacy."

Since most readers of LincolnStudies.com will not be able to go to Mississippi, Alabama, or Kentucky for the festivities, I encourage you to read one of the many fine books about Jefferson Davis. Here are a few of my favorites:

Alabama Employees Enjoy a Day Off

2008-06-02T15:35:00.002-05:00

Tomorrow is the 200th anniversary of the birth of Jefferson Davis. I suspect the day will come and go without much mention of the Davis bicentennial; however, I'll have more on that tomorrow.

In the meantime, allow me to wish state employees in Alabama a happy day off from work! Yes, the state of Alabama has declared the first Monday in June an official state holiday, in recognition of Jefferson Davis' 200th birthday. The Sons of Confederate Veterans held a ceremony at the capitol in Montgomery this afternoon.

"Impartial History...Will Write You Down as the Greatest Tyrant that Ever Lived..."

2008-05-28T09:03:00.002-05:00

I think the weekly edition of Lincolniana on auction we've been doing has the potential to be incredibly useful. I began the program thinking this would be a good way for us to track the value of certain items in today's marketplace, but my thinking has evolved a bit over the past few weeks.

Most of the Lincoln documents available for auction are not found in the Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. The editors of that monumental documentary editing project knew they had not been able to locate every document in existence. As you might imagine, hundreds of documents have come to light since the project was completed. In part, that is why the folks at the Papers of Abraham Lincoln Project in Springfield are working so hard to create a 21st Century Collected Works.

As we continue to monitor the auction sites, I am pleasantly surprised with both the quantity and quality of the documents that are still in private hands. As I find documents and spend a few moments digging up research on them, I am amazed by how many individual stories still need to be told. Today's document is another fantastic example of this.

This week, a controversial, full-page document, written by Lincoln on July 4, 1864, is up for auction. This document has an absolutely breathtaking backstory.

According to my eyes, the document reads as follows:

July 4, 1864

Senator Powell

Sir

The Sec. of War informs me that Col. Woolford will be put on trial this week & just as early in the week as the case can be prepared

Very Respectfully

A. Lincoln

In response to General James B. Fry's order of "the enrollment without delay, of all colored males of military age," Union Colonel Frank L. Wolford of the 1st Kentucky Volunteer Cavalry, denounced President Abraham Lincoln as a tyrant and a traitor during a public ceremony on March 10, 1864. Wolford urged his fellow Kentuckians to resist the enrollment of African American soldiers.

Wolford's incendiary remarks were promptly telegraphed to mlitary authorites and Wolford was arrested. On March 24, Lincoln and Secretary of War Edwin Stanton "dishonorably dismissed" Wolford from service for "violation of the Fifth of the Rules and Aricles of War, in using disrespectful words against the Presdient of the United States, for disloyalty, and for conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman."

The Chicago Tribune condemned Wolford in a graphic editorial, calling the disgraced cavalryman a "negrophobist." In language closely resembling Lincoln's letter to James C. Conkling, which was read in public the previous August and published, the Tribune condemned Wolford:

Let Mr. Wolford, and all his kith and kin in politics, remember that the God-fearing black, who, with musket in hand steps forward at the call of the country, is tenfold more the brother and fellow citizen of the true patriot, than the wretcheswho to spite the negro would ruin the country.

Nonetheless, on April 1, 1864, General Ulysses S. Grant revoked the previous order and Wolford was indeed reinstated in command.

But that is hardly the end of the story.

According to the very detailed item description:

Col. Wolford was chosen a presidential elector of Kentucky's pro-McClellan Conservative Union Party and, as he had done previously, spoke throughout the state against Lincoln's policies. On June 27, 1864, Wolford was arrested again at Lebanon, Kentucky, and sent to Washington in shackles per Gen. Burbridge's orders, though still no formal charges had been filed. Burbridge became known as the "Butcher of Kentucky" for the imprisonment and execution of numerous Kentuckians, including public figures, on charges of treason and other crimes, many of which were baseless. When Wolford was brought to Secretary of War Stanton, the shackles were ordered to be removed and Wolford to be taken to a room at the Willard Hotel just a few blocks from the White House. At the hotel, Wolford received a message that Pres. Lincoln wanted to see him. The bearer of the message, Van Buren, who had served under Wolford as an engineer, and was a friend, was told by Wolford that he was a prisoner, he had seen the President's picture, and did not care to see him, but if the President wished to see him, he could "call around." Van Buren at first refused to carry such a message, but finally consented. Col. Wolford met with Lincoln, Stanton, Kentucky Senator Lazarus Powell, and others at the Willard.

On July 7, 1864, three days after writing this letter to Sen. Powell, Lincoln met again with Col. Wolford at the White House and handwrote a statement for Wolford to sign on Executive Mansion stationery:

I hereby give my parol of honor, that if allowed, I will forthwith proceed to Louisville Kentucky, and then remain, until the court for my trial shall arrive, when I will report myself to their charge, and that in the mean time I will abstain from public speaking, and every thing intended or calculated to produce excitement." Wolford signed it, beneath which the President penned, "Col. Wolford is allowed to go on the above conditions. A. Lincoln.

On July 17, 1864, Pres. Lincoln wrote to Wolford that he had that day sent to Attorney General James Speed "a blank parole in duplicate, which, if you chose, you can sign, and be discharged. He will call upon you. I inclose a printed copy of the letter I read to you the last day you were with me, and which I shall be pleased for you to look over." The parole, handwritten by Lincoln for Wolford's signature: "I hereby pledge my honor that I will neither do or say anything which will directly or indirectly tend to hinder, delay, or embarrass the employment and use of colored persons, as soldiers, seamen, or otherwise, in the suppression of the rebellion, so long as the U.S. government chooses to so employ and use them."

On July 30th, Wolford replied to Lincoln in a lengthy letter.

In answer to this proposal I have frankly to say that I can not bargain for my liberty and the exercise of rights as a freeman on any such terms. I have committed no crime. I have broken no law of my country or of my state. I have not violated any military order or any usages of war, no act or word of mine has ever given encouragement to the enemy. I have no sympathy for the rebellion; all my sympathies are with and all my hopes are for my country. The triumph of the national arms, the preservation of the Union, the maintenance of the Constitution, the restoration of the supremacy of the law over all the States, and the perpetuation of civil and religious liberty are the objects most dear to my heart. I may say without presumption that I have done more to enlist white men in the army of the Union than any other man in the State of Kentucky. I have done nothing to hinder the enlistment even of negroes, because I do not associate with them and have no influence over them. You, Mr. President, if you will excuse the bluntness of a soldier, by an exercise of arbitrary power, have caused me to be arrested and held in confinement contrary to law, not for the good of our common country, but to increase the chances of your re-election to the Presidency and otherwise to serve the purposes of the political party whose candidate you are, and now you ask me to stultify myself by signing a pledge whereby I shall virtually support you in deterring other men from criticising the policy of your Administration. No, sir; much as I love liberty I will fester in a prison or die on a gibbet before I will agree to any terms that do not abandon all charges against me and fully acknowledge my innocence...If, Mr. President, you can not face your case, so stated, it is only because you can not face the truth. If you by persisting in your policy of forcibly abolishing slavery, should cause this war to continue two years longer...It will bring over a million freemen to a bloody end. It will cause cripples and widows and orphans to become so numerous, and crime and violence and bloodshed and misery will increase to such an extent, and your tyranny will have become so great in carrying out the policy you have adopted in order to keep down the discontented and wounded spirits, that your course will come to rise up to defy you, that impartial history, in attesting the goodness and severity of God, will write you down as the greatest tyrant that ever lived...

Four days later, on August 3rd, Wolford telegraphed Lincoln. The Judge Advocate had ordered him to immediately report to Washington to be tried before a military commission. Wolford told the President that he had "scrupulously kept" the terms of his July 7th parole and that Lincoln had promised he would be tried in Louisville.

On August 4th, Lincoln telegraphed:

Yours of yesterday received. Before interfering with the Judge Advocate General's order, I should know his reasons for making it. Meanwhile, if you have not already started, wait till you hear from me again. Did you receive letter and inclosures from me?

Wolford's August 5th reply indicates that he had not as yet mailed the lengthy July 30th response to Lincoln's July 17th offer of parole and discharge:

I duly recd letter and was on the point of mailing my answer when the order of the Judge Advocate came. My answer is now on the way to you.

Lincoln never replied to Wolford's lengthy, critical letter.

With his fate undecided, Wolford went back on the campaign trail. On September 19, 1864, Col. Wolford spoke in Richmond, Kentucky, at a McClellan rally, beginning:

I have been asked to point out a single clause in the Constitution of the United States that Mr. Lincoln has violated. This is an easy task; for there is scarcely a clause in that sacred instrument that he has not violated.

In the November 8, 1864, presidential election, Lincoln won in a landslide, 212-21 electoral votes. Lincoln won 22 states to McClellan's 3, including Kentucky, Pres. Lincoln's birthplace.

On July 5, 1864, a day after Lincoln wrote this letter about Col. Wolford to Senator Powell, the President issued a the following proclamation:

Whereas many citizens of the State of Kentucky have joined the forces of the insurgents and...that combinations have been formed in the said State of Kentucky with a purpose of inciting revel forces to renew the said operations of civil war within the said State...I, Abraham Lincoln...do hereby declare that in my judgment the public safety especially required that the suspension of the privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus be effectually suspended within the said State...and that martial law be established therein...

Habeas Corpus was protection against illegal imprisonment. With its suspension, Col. Wolford and other Kentuckians could be imprisoned indefinitely without going to trial. Arrested frequently, Wolford never went to trial.

Col. Frank Lane Wolford had served in the Kentucky House of Representatives from 1847 until 1849. From 1849 until the outbreak of the Civil War, he had earned a reputation as one of the best criminal lawyers in the state . On March 4, 1865, Wolford returned to the Kentucky House, serving until 1867 when he was appointed Adjutant General of Kentucky by Gov. John W. Stevenson. In 1869, Wolford returned to his law practice and, in 1882, was elected to Congress, serving from 1883-1887.

The letter has been professionally restored, the folds have been reinforced on verso. Toning and a few spots of foxing as well as some soiling.

This letter, measuring 5" x 8", does not appear in the Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln-Douglas at 150

2008-05-27T10:10:00.002-05:00

The Southern Illinoisan ran a nice story on Friday about the progress at the Lincoln-Douglas debate site in Jonesboro. We've been tracking their progress for over a year now and have been quite impressed with their efforts.

In preparation for their celebration, which will take place September 12-14, organizers have opened a visitor’s center. The center includes information about the debates, copies of period letters, as well as a video of a reenactment of the debates.

Jonesboro is just one of several Illinois communities planning to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Here’s a look at some of scheduled events:

June 14-16, Springfield
Saturday, June 14

All Day: Traveling exhibit, Confronting Democracy's Boundaries: The Lincoln-Douglas Debates Traveling Exhibit, Old State Capitol.

1-2 pm: Lincoln and Douglas performers George Buss and Tim Connors mingle with visitors, Old State Capitol.

2 pm: Lincoln and Douglas Debate Performance, Old State Capitol's Representative Hall.

4-5 pm: "Together We Read Libraries" featuring audience interaction with award-winning historian Allen Guelzo, discussing his new book, Lincoln and Douglas: The Debates that Defined America, Old State Capitol

Sunday, June 15

All Day: Traveling exhibit, Confronting Democracy's Boundaries: The Lincoln-Douglas Debates Traveling Exhibit, Old State Capitol.

1-3 pm: Lincoln and Douglas performers George Buss and Tim Connors mingle with visitors, Old State Capitol.

2 pm: Lincoln and Douglas Debate Performance, Old State Capitol's Representative Hall.

3-4:30 pm: "Historians Speak" a public conversation between award-winning Lincoln historian, Allen Guelzo, and Illinois State Historian, Thomas F. Schwartz. Audience participation encouraged. Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library.

4:30 pm: Book Signing by historian Allen Guelzo, Abraham Lincoln Presidential Museum Store.

Monday, June 16

All Day: Traveling exhibit, Confronting Democracy's Boundaries: The Lincoln-Douglas Debates Traveling Exhibit, Old State Capitol.

10-11 am: "Researching Lincoln & Douglas at the Presidential Library." Outreach program for the general public highlighting the Library's research materials for Stephen A. Douglas & Lincoln-Douglas Debates, featuring Glenna Schroeder-Lein from the Manuscripts Division, Mary Michals from the A/V Division, and Lincoln Curator James Cornelius, Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library. CPDUs offered.

11-2:30 pm: Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum Education Department. Half-day Teachers' Workshop on Lincoln & Douglas and related topics: Lunch & Workshop in Presidential Library Classroom with Allen Guelzo. Teachers who come early can also attend the Research program at 10 am. CPDUs offered. Cost: $10.00. To reserve a space, go to abelincolnmuseum.org or call (217) 558-8934.

1-3 pm: Lincoln and Douglas performers George Buss and Tim Connors mingle with visitors, Old State Capitol.

2 pm: Lincoln and Douglas Debate Performance, Old State Capitol's Representative Hall.

5:30 pm: Special Performance—"House Divided Speech" Sesquicentennial Commemoration featuring historical readings by Lincoln-Douglas performers George Buss and Tim Connors with running historical commentary by award-winning historian Allen Guelzo; Representative Hall. Cost: $8.00. Purchase Tickets Online or by calling (217) 558-8934

July 26, Bement

Lincoln and Douglas reportedly met in Bement to finalize the details for the seven debates. Although no debate took place here, Bement has been chosen to host the grand opening event of the Sesquicentennial Celebration. Commemorations include a Lincoln Douglas Press Conference, a play called "The Bement Story", a band and chorus concert, Civil War infantry demonstrations and drills, and a torch light parade featuring Lincoln and Douglas. For more information call 217-678-8184.

August 22-23, Ottawa

Friday events: Yarns and Fables Story Telling Festival. Refreshments available.

Saturday events: Two performances at 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. of Reunion Tour 2008 at the historic debate site. Lots of entertainment all day including an old town Farmers Market and a Petticoats and Pantaloons Vintage Fashion Show. The day will end with a costume ball honoring Mr. and Lincoln and Mr. Douglas aboard the Spirit of Peoria paddle wheel boat. For more information call 888-688-2924.

August 29-September 1, Freeport

Friday: Lincoln and Douglas will arrive by steam train. Their arrival will be followed by a torchlight parade and a re-enactment of an abolitionist rally. The rally will include Frederick Douglas.

Saturday: Morning parade through downtown Freeport followed in the afternoon by the dedication of Debate Square and a performance of Reunion Tour 08 with Lincoln and Douglas. In the evening is an 1860 era Grand Ball.

Sunday: Family Day and Art in the Park-juried art and family activities.

Labor Day: The Flavors of Lincoln's Freeport will provide ethnic foods and entertainment and an opportunity to visit with Lincoln and Douglas. For more information call 1-800-369-2955.

September 12-14, Jonesboro

Friday Events: Lincoln and Douglas will meet with the local press and school children. The evening ends with a "Dinner with the Debaters" Reservations are required.

Saturday: All day community festival featuring period crafts demonstrations, food, music and games. At 2:00 the Reunion Tour 2008 press conference will take place with Lincoln and Douglas.

Sunday: Old Fashioned Picnic in Park with Lincoln and Douglas.

For more information call 1-800-248-4373.

September 20-21, Charleston

Saturday Events: All day festival will take place at the original site of the Lincoln Douglas Debate. Activities include a pancake breakfast, 4K run/walk, tours of the Lincoln Douglas Debate Museum, an art fair with traditional 19th century artisans along with modern loca artists, period music and performs. Reunion Tour Press Conference.

Sunday: Events include tours of historic homes and the Downtown Square where Lincoln and Douglas once visited regularly. For more information call 217-348-0430.

October 3-5, Galesburg

On Saturday, listen to Lincoln and Douglas describe the important issues of the debates. Tour Old Main at Knox College, original site of the Debate. Exhibits through the building tell the story of Lincoln's time in Galesburg. Visit the Galesburg Colony Underground Railroad Freedom Station to discover how escaping slaves found shelter in Knox County. Join the fun at the Galesburg Scarecrow Festival. For more information call 309-343-2485. The weekend will include music, entertainment, food and other special programming.

October 11-13, Quincy

Saturday Events: A Grand Welcom Celebration will greet Lincoln and Douglas as they arrive at the site of the former Quincy Railroad Depot. Dedication of the enhanced Lincoln Douglas Debate site in Washington Park.

Sunday: Reunion Tour 2009 festivities will take place in Washington Park. Then join the fun at a Community Contra Dance.

Monday: After spending a day with school children, Lincoln and Douglas will participate in a Farewell Celebration at the Quincy Riverfront. The three day celebration will include music, entertainment, food and other special programming. For more information call 1-800-978-4748.

October 17-18, Danville

Free, advance seat reservation by call 217-442-2922. A paraphrase of the debates with actors from the college drama department and characters from Vermilion County history.

October 17-19, Alton

Friday Events: Alton School will host Lincoln and Douglas and then attend "Dinner with the Lincoln's featuring authentic Lincoln and Civil War recipes along with special programming. Reservations required.

Saturday: The Debate Festival will cover a nine block area of downtown Alton plus City Hall and the debate site. Activities will include period vendors a living history tour with re-enactors and docents at 10 different Lincoln and Civil War interpretive panels and presentations of Reunion Tour 08 Press Conference. Special programs at the Hayner Public Library and the Alton Museum of History and Art.

Sunday: Through the weekend festival special cruises with the Lincoln re-enactors will be available for scenic fall color and historic cruises. The St. Louis Science Center is also tying in Lincoln Segway tours of the historic Lincoln sites in Alton. For more information call 1-800-258-6645.

Odds and Ends

2008-05-23T11:10:00.002-05:00

A number of stories caught my eye this week, but time did not allow me to bring them all to your attention. I thought we'd might do an "odds and ends" type post this morning:

Thomas Kennedy, a Spencer County, Indiana artist, unveiled his new Lincoln Bicentennial painting on Monday. Kennedy hopes a print will hang in every school in his home state. The local news station Fox 7 WTVW covered the story, which you can view here.

Barack Obama must be reading LincolnStudies.com. In the wake of Monday's post on the coveted Lincoln endorsement, Obama told voters in Boca Raton, Florida about Doris Kearns Goodwin's "wonderful book" Team of Rivals. "Lincoln basically pulled in all the people who had been running against him into his Cabinet because whatever, you know, personal feelings there were, the issue was, 'How can we get this country through this time of crisis?'" Obama said he would take the same approach as president. His rivals on the Democratic side, which include Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden, and Chris Dodd, might receive Cabinet positions. What about John McCain? "You know, if I really thought that John McCain was the absolute best person for the Department of Homeland Security, I would put him in there," Obama said.

Daniel Mark Epstein has a new book, The Lincolns: Portrait of a Marriage. I enjoyed his previous book Lincoln and Whitman: Parallel Lives in Civil War Washington and am looking forward to this one. On Tuesday Andrew Ferguson, the author of Land of Lincoln: Adventures in Abe's America, reviewed Epstein's latest offering for the Wall Street Journal.

On a related note, both Epstein and Daniel Stowell, the Director of the Papers of Abraham Lincoln, will be appearing on Saturday, May 31st for a Virtual Book Signing. You can order signed copies of Epstein's book, as well as the four-volume The Papers of Abraham Lincoln: Legal Documents and Cases.

Happy Memorial Day!

The Crime Against Kansas

2008-05-22T10:49:00.001-05:00

On Monday and Tuesday the Republican Senator from Massachusetts delivered a speech. “The Crime Against Kansas” denounced the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the “slave power of our Republic.” Charles Sumner’s rhetoric was characteristically graphic, but two passages were particularly objectionable.

The first passage included an extended metaphor, in which Sumner compared the crisis in Kansas to “the rape of a virgin Territory.” The slave states were forcing “the hateful embrace of Slavery” on Kansas. Sumner predicted the “hideous offspring of such a crime” would soon add “to the power of slavery in the National Government.”

While the first passage was generally offensive to the slave states, the second passage attacked a specific individual, Senator Andrew Butler of South Carolina.

The Senator from South Carolina has read many books of chivalry, and believes himself a chivalrous knight, with sentiments of honor and courage. Of course he has chosen a mistress to whom he has made his vows, and who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight I mean the harlot, Slavery. For her, his tongue is always profuse in words. Let her be impeached in character, or any proposition made to shut her out from the extension of her wantonness, and no extravagance of manner or hardihood of assertion is then too great for this Senator.

Butler’s cousin, Representative Preston Brooks, was outraged. He would make Sumner pay for his crime.

Brooks had a violent past. A few years earlier, he fought a duel and had been shot in the hip, forcing him to use a cane for the rest of his life.

How would he respond to this latest insult?

He initially wanted to challenge Sumner to a duel, but he quickly dismissed the notion. A duel was indeed the wrong way to settle the matter. The code duello required two participants of equal social standing. Brooks concluded the Senator from Massachusetts was not his social equal. Sumner’s reckless speech on the Senate floor proved as much.

Brooks collected his debt on Thursday, May 22, 1856.

“Mr. Sumner, I have read your speech twice over carefully,” Brooks exclaimed. “It is a libel on South Carolina, and Mr. Butler, who is a relative of mine.”

As Sumner looked up from his desk and began to rise, Brooks began beating him on the head with his thick, gold-handled cane.

Brooks was merciless.

He landed a number of vicious blows before his cane snapped in half. Blinded by his own blood, Sumner staggered a few feet up the aisle before he collapsed unconscious.

Suffering from the physical, as well as the mental, effects of the beating, Sumner’s seat remained empty for the next three years.

Northern newspapers decried Brooks, as well as “the slave-power.” Writing in the New York Evening Post, William Cullen Bryant asked:

Has it come to this, that we must speak with bated breath in the presence of our Southern masters?...Are we to be chastised as they chastise their slaves? Are we too, slaves, slaves for life, a target for their brutal blows, when we do not comport ourselves to please them?

Similarly, the political cartoon (pictured above) comes from a Northern paper. Notice what is in Sumner’s hands, a pen and paper, sure symbols of “the words of truth,” to which Southern men could only reply with force. Notice too the other Senators in the background, some are even smiling and holding others at bay.

Conversely, Southern papers like the Richmond Enquirer praised the act as "good in conception, better in execution, and best of all in consequences." The "vulgar abolitionists in the Senate" had been allowed "to run too long without collars," but Brooks thankfully "lashed" them "into submission."

Sectional hostilities continued to deteriorate.

Two days after the beating, blood stained the Kansas landscape. Anti-slavery forces, led by the messianic abolitionist John Brown, massacred five pro-slavery men with broadswords at Pottawatomie.

The long march toward Fort Sumter had begun.

For his actions, Brooks was not punished. Southern votes prevented his expulsion from Congress by the required two-thirds majority. Regardless, Brooks resigned his seat, only to recapture it a short time later.

Brooks became a hero, not only in South Carolina, but throughout the slave-holding states. A South Carolinian mayor presented Brooks with a new cane, while the city of Charleston gave him another one with the inscription, “Hit Him Again.” Brooks received dozens of canes from all across the South and became a hero to the emerging fire-eaters. However, he did not have long to revel in his new-found celebrity. He died eight months later of the croup.

Author Pleads Guilty to Stealing Lincoln Document

2008-05-21T09:51:00.000-05:00

Hat tip to one of my favorite bloggers, Kevin Levin, at Civil War Memory, for calling my attention to this unfortunate story.

Edward Renehan, historian and author of six books, plead guilty on Tuesday to interstate transportation of stolen property for trying to resell historical documents through a Manhattan gallery.

Prosecutors said Renehan stole three documents from the Theodore Roosevelt Association in Oyster Bay on Long Island, NY and tried to resell them for $97,000. To make matters worse, Renehan was acting director of the association at the time of the theft.

Renehan's lawyer told reporters his client was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, which along with family issues, contributed to his actions.

"It's similar to getting drunk and doing something you wouldn't do if you were thinking straight," he said.

Renehan faces up to two years in prison and a possible fine of $250,000. He will be sentenced on August 21.

Renehan is also accused of stealing at least one more document, a 1918 letter written by Theodore Roosevelt, which details his son's death in World War I. Those charges are still pending.

However, the three documents Renehan plead guilty to stealing included two letters written by George Washington, one penned on December 29, 1778, the other on August 9, 1791.

The other stolen document was a handwritten letter by Abraham Lincoln. This was no ordinary letter. It was dated March 1, 1840, more than twenty years before he became president.

The letter appears in the Collected Works of Abraham. Here is the document in full, along with the relevant annotations:

AL to John T. Stuart, 1 March 1840, CW, 1:206-207

Springfield, March 1, 1840. [1]

Dear Stuart: I have never seen the prospects of our party so bright in these parts as they are now. We shall carry this county by a larger majority than we did in 1836, when you ran against May. [2] I do not think my prospects individually are very flattering, for I think it is probable I shall not be permitted to be a candidate; but the party ticket will succeed triumphantly. Subscriptions to the ``Old Soldier'' pour in without abatement. This morning I took from the post-office a letter from Dubois [3] inclosing the names of sixty subscribers; and on carrying it to Francis, I found he had received one hundred and forty more from other quarters by the same day's mail. That is but an average specimen of every day's receipts. Yesterday Douglas, having chosen to consider himself insulted by something in the ``Journal,'' undertook to cane Francis in the street. [4] Francis caught him by the hair and jammed him back against a market-cart, where the matter ended by Francis being pulled away from him. The whole affair was so ludicrous that Francis and everybody else (Douglas excepted) have been laughing about it ever since.

I send you the names of some of the Van Buren men who have come out for Harrison about town, and suggest that you send them some documents: Moses Coffman (he let us appoint him a delegate yesterday), Aaron Coffman, George Gregory, H. M. Briggs,---Johnson [5] (at Birchall's book-store), Michael Glynn,---Armstrong [6] (not Hosea, nor Hugh, but a carpenter), Thomas Hunter, Moses Pilcher (he was always a Whig, and deserves attention), Matthew Crowder, Jr., Greenberry Smith, John Fagan, George Fagan, William Fagan (these three fell out with us about Early, and are doubtful now), [7] John Cartmel, Noah Rickard, John Rickard, Walter Marsh (the foregoing should be addressed at Springfield). Also send some to Solomon Miller and John Auth at Saulsbury; [8] also to Charles Harper, Samuel Harper, and B. C. Harper; and T. J. Scroggins, John Scroggins, [9] at [Mount] Pulaski, Logan County.

Speed says he wrote you what Jo. Smith [10] said about you as he passed here. We will procure the names of some of his people here and send them to you before long. Speed also says you must not fail to send us the New York journal he wrote for some time since. Evan Butler [11] is jealous that you never send your compliments to him. You must not neglect him next time. Your friend, as ever,

A. LINCOLN.

Annotation

[1] ALS, Theodore Roosevelt Assoc. Oyster Bay, NY

[2] William L. May, Democrat.

[3] Jesse Kilgore Dubois, state representative from Lawrence County.

[4] Simeon Francis, editor.

[5] J. H. Johnson, partner of Caleb Birchall.

[6] John Armstrong.

[7] William Fagan, a Kentuckian who settled on a farm near Springfield in 1831, and his two sons, John, who was Lincoln's age, and George, who was a few years younger. Probably Lincoln refers to the defense by Stuart & Lincoln which brought about the acquittal of Henry B. Truett for the murder of Dr. Jacob M. Early on March 7, 1838.

[8] Salisbury, Illinois.

[9] Thomas J. Scroggin.

[10] Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism.

[11] Evan T. Butler, deputy circuit clerk, Sangamon County.

Lincolniana for Auction

2008-05-20T16:14:00.002-05:00

Back by popular demand, we have another example of Lincolniana for auction!

This Ebay auction caught my eye last week. The item is a note, approximately 4.25 x 3.5", purportedly written by Lincoln on March 18, 1865, less than a month before the assassination.

According to my eyes, it reads as follows:

If the service needs such an appointment, let Mr. Taylor be appointed unless some valid objection to him be known at the Department.
A. Lincoln
March 18 1865

The owner claims the note has been in the possession of the family since it was written, which suggests they might be able to shed some light on Mr. Taylor's identity.

The timing of the note is particularly interesting. Earlier in the week, on Tuesday, March 14, Lincoln had been so ill he conducted a Cabinet meeting in his bedroom (Gideon Welles, Diary). The following day, he resumed his usual schedule, but reporters commented on his "feeble" condition for the rest of the week.

This is just my opinion, but Lincoln's handwriting in this brief note doesn't look as strong as it does in other documents. Perhaps he was simply rushed or maybe he was still feeling rather weak from his illness earlier in the week.

Though March 18th was a Saturday, Lincoln was nonetheless hard at work. According to the Collected Works, Lincoln authorized General Edward R. S. Canby to assist in raising funds for an orphanage, he discharged Charles T. Dorsett from the draft, annulled the sentence of the Smith brothers of Boston for fraud, revoked the order dismissing Dr. George Burr, and issued a pass to Rev. Thomas C. Teasdale through military lines.

Though this note does not appear in the Collected Works, it is one of the many documents Lincoln wrote that Saturday in March, less than a month before the assassination.

Who Would Lincoln Endorse?

2008-05-19T13:43:00.001-05:00

The campaign season has reached an inevitable point. The conversation has momentarily shifted away from the economy, health care, and foreign policy to delegates, super delegates, and political endorsements. Hardly a week goes by without two former rivals embracing in front of a large crowd of voters.

Just last week, former presidential hopeful John Edwards announced he was throwing his support to Barack Obama. The endorsement offers the Obama camp something they desperately need: white, working-class voters, a key constituency Obama lost by more than 2-to-1 in last week's West Virginia primary.

Edwards is only one of the many people to officially endorse Obama. Others include Senators John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, as well as Governor Bill Richardson. Celebrities such as horror writer Stephen King, film-maker Ken Burns, and of course, talk show mogul Oprah Winfrey have also joined the Obama bandwagon.

John McCain has also compiled an impressive list of endorsements. Senators Lindsay Graham and Joe Lieberman, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Former Army General Norman Schwarzkopf support McCain. Former presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee have bandaged their wounds and now support their rival. Celebrities such as Sylvester Stallone and even Red Sox pitcher Curt Shilling have also spoken out in favor of McCain.

And then there is Hillary Clinton. She is still in the race and still touting the endorsements of Senators Evan Bayh and Dianne Feinstein. She also has support among celebrities, which include poet Maya Angelou, actor Jack Nicholson, and even Madonna.

What do all of these endorsements really mean? If you learned something from Ken Burns' massive Civil War documentary, are you going to vote for Obama? If you root for the Red Sox, are you going to support McCain? If you like Nicholson's portrayal of Colonel Jessep in A Few Good Men, does that mean Clinton has earned your vote?

Celebrity endorsements are fun to read about, but I doubt they sway anyone to vote for a particular candidate. I suspect endorsements like those of Edwards, Lieberman, and Bayh have a more meaningful effect on a political campaign.

However, there is another endorsement politicians are eager to capture.

It is the WWLE question: Who Would Lincoln Endorse?

Of course, there is no answer to this question, but that does not prevent political pundits from claiming the "Great Emancipator" endorses their candidate.

On Friday, former Senator and 1972 Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern told a South Dakota crowd he was switching his support from Clinton to Obama. "Illinois gave us Abraham Lincoln," McGovern said. "That state may have now given us a second Abraham Lincoln."

McGovern is not the first person to compare Obama to Lincoln. Obama's rise from relative obscurity to presidential frontrunner has fueled comparisons, as has his gift for soaring oratory, which has been called "Lincolnesque" (see also Garry Wills, "Two Speeches on Race," in New York Review of Books 55:7(1 May 2008).

Instead of running from such lofty comparisons, Obama has encouraged them. Almost two years before the general election, Obama and 17,000 supporters stood in Lincoln's adopted hometown on a freezing February morning. "And that is why, in the shadow of the Old State Capitol, where Lincoln once called on a divided house to stand together, where common hopes and common dreams still, I stand before you today to announce my candidacy for President of the United States," Obama said.

Similarly, McCain's supporters have begun to "get right with Lincoln." Just this week, Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan claimed the Lincoln endorsement for McCain. McCain, like Lincoln, Duncan argued, "understands the importance of the struggle" during wartime. Vague enough to be believed by some, Duncan went on to reminded voters that McCain is a Vietnam veteran, so he understands the importance of military victory, while his Democrat opponents are both too liberal to lead the nation effectively during a time of war.

By emphasizing military victory, Duncan resurrects Lincoln, circa 1864, as he ran for re-election against his war-weary Democratic opponent. If McCain is Lincoln, Duncan wants us to believe Obama is George McClellan.

And again, there is Hillary Clinton. The first woman to have a legitimate chance of capturing the White House has not been immune to nineteenth century analogies. Last month Manisha Sinha of the Huffington Post penned a thoughtful piece comparing Clinton's unexpected presidential collapse to William H. Seward, the Republican favorite in 1860, who eventually lost the nomination to an unknown lawyer from central Illinois.

Not to be outdone, David Quigg has added an additional wrinkle to the Clinton dilemma. After reading Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals, Quigg ponders which path Clinton will take once Obama officially captures the nomination. If she is asked to play a role in an Obama administration, will she pattern herself after Seward, who as Lincoln's Secretary of State, became a staunch supporter of his former rival? Or, as Quigg seems to fear, will Clinton become the modern equivalent of Salmon P. Chase, who despite being Lincoln's Secretary of the Treasury, never yielded to his former rival and never stopped believing he deserved to be the one in the White House?

What do we make of all this? As David Herbert Donald pointed out more than a half century ago, Lincoln remains the most relevant political figure in American history. The 2008 presidential election has certainly followed a well-trodden path: each candidate has tried to convince voters they have earned Lincoln's endorsement.

However, the 2008 presidential election has indeed broken new ground in one very important area. McCain, Obama, and Clinton have emerged as the most diverse collection of presidential hopefuls in American history. By courting the coveted, yet ultimately unobtainable, Lincoln endorsement, they offer the most compelling evidence to date that Lincoln's legacy truly transcends party, race, and gender.

House Divided Speech Sesquicentennial

2008-05-16T11:18:00.002-05:00

The folks at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum have put together an impressive program that will take place June 14-16, 2008.

They plan to mark the 150th anniversary of Lincoln's "House Divided Speech" with a three-day long celebration, featuring commentary by historians Allen C. Guelzo and Thomas F. Schwartz, as well as performances by Lincoln-Douglas presenters George Buss and Tim Connors.

For more details, check out their website. You can also download a free brochure.

For your convenience, I have included a brief run-down of events:

Saturday, June 14
All Day: Traveling exhibit, Confronting Democracy's Boundaries: The Lincoln-Douglas Debates Traveling Exhibit, Old State Capitol.
1-2 pm: Lincoln and Douglas performers George Buss and Tim Connors mingle with visitors, Old State Capitol.
2 pm: Lincoln and Douglas Debate Performance, Old State Capitol's Representative Hall.
4-5 pm: "Together We Read Libraries" featuring audience interaction with award-winning historian Allen Guelzo, discussing his new book, Lincoln and Douglas: The Debates that Defined America, Old State Capitol

Sunday, June 15
All Day: Traveling exhibit, Confronting Democracy's Boundaries: The Lincoln-Douglas Debates Traveling Exhibit, Old State Capitol.
1-3 pm: Lincoln and Douglas performers George Buss and Tim Connors mingle with visitors, Old State Capitol.
2 pm: Lincoln and Douglas Debate Performance, Old State Capitol's Representative Hall.
3-4:30 pm: "Historians Speak" a public conversation between award-winning Lincoln historian, Allen Guelzo, and Illinois State Historian, Thomas F. Schwartz. Audience participation encouraged. Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library.
4:30 pm: Book Signing by historian Allen Guelzo, Abraham Lincoln Presidential Museum Store.

Monday, June 16
All Day: Traveling exhibit, Confronting Democracy's Boundaries: The Lincoln-Douglas Debates Traveling Exhibit, Old State Capitol.

10-11 am: "Researching Lincoln & Douglas at the Presidential Library." Outreach program for the general public highlighting the Library's research materials for Stephen A. Douglas & Lincoln-Douglas Debates, featuring Glenna Schroeder-Lein from the Manuscripts Division, Mary Michals from the A/V Division, and Lincoln Curator James Cornelius, Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library. CPDUs offered.

11-2:30 pm: Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum Education Department. Half-day Teachers' Workshop on Lincoln & Douglas and related topics: Lunch & Workshop in Presidential Library Classroom with Allen Guelzo. Teachers who come early can also attend the Research program at 10 am. CPDUs offered. Cost: $10.00. To reserve a space, go to abelincolnmuseum.org or call (217) 558-8934.

1-3 pm: Lincoln and Douglas performers George Buss and Tim Connors mingle with visitors, Old State Capitol.

2 pm: Lincoln and Douglas Debate Performance, Old State Capitol's Representative Hall.

5:30 pm: Special Performance—"House Divided Speech" Sesquicentennial Commemoration featuring historical readings by Lincoln-Douglas performers George Buss and Tim Connors with running historical commentary by award-winning historian Allen Guelzo; Representative Hall. Cost: $8.00. Purchase Tickets Online or by calling (217) 558-8934

The Springfield Race Riot of 1908

2008-05-15T12:59:00.001-05:00

We’ve been on something of a Vachel Lindsay kick this week, but I’m not ready to shift gears just yet.

Let’s take a step back this morning to Springfield, Illinois in August 1908. That’s right, a full 99 years after Lincoln’s birth and 43 years after his assassination.

Twenty-eight-year-old Vachel Lindsay was living with parents in their home across the street from the governor’s mansion when he witnessed one of the most horrific scenes in Springfield history.

Two black men had been arrested a little more than a month apart. One was accused of killing a white man with a straight razor, while the other was accused of raping a white woman.

An angry mob gathered in downtown Springfield on August 14. They had read the newspaper reports and heard the rumors. They had no desire to wait for the judicial process to play out. They wanted the sheriff to hand the criminals over. Justice would be swift.

The sheriff refused. In a daring act, he borrowed an automobile from Harry Loper, a local restaurant owner, and shuttled the prisoners 60 miles to the north to Bloomington.

When news of the transfer filtered through the mob, they did not disperse; instead, their anger grew more intense.

The mob began by trashing Loper’s restaurant. They quickly moved toward the Levee, an area of Springfield where black-owned businesses thrived, and began destroying anything in their path. From there, they moved onto the Badlands, an area where dozens of black families lived.

Scott Burton, a black barber, tried to defend his shop. Not only did the mob burn his barber shop, but they murdered him and hung his body from a tree; William Donnegan, an 84 year old black man married to a white woman, met a similar fate.

"Abe Lincoln brought them to Springfield," shouted someone in the mob, "and we will run them out!"

It took 4,000 militiamen two days to restore order. When it was over, 40 homes and 24 business were destroyed; at least six people were dead, two black men and four whites. Though there were 107 indictments issued against members of the white mob, only one man was convicted. His crime? He stole a soldier's sword.

What about the crimes that sparked the riot in the first place? The black man who was accused of murdering a white man was found guilty; however, the white woman who accused another black man of raping her admitted she had indeed made the story up.

The horrific Springfield Race Riot led to the establishment of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. February 12, 1909, the 100th anniversary of Lincoln's birth, is often cited as the birth of the NAACP.

What was Vachel Lindsay’s response to the most horrific event in Springfield history?

Instead of running away from the event, the young poet confronted it.

He began by delivering a series of lectures at the local YMCA. His talks not only celebrated diversity, but they highlighted Springfield’s unique distinction as the adopted home of America’s Great Emancipator.

For the rest of his all too brief life, Lindsay used both Springfield and Lincoln as reoccuring images in his brilliant paintings, poetry, and prose.

You can read more about the ways in which these images reappear throughout Lindsay’s art in this insightful post by Larry Stevens.

If you want to learn more about the Springfield Race Riot of 1908, I have a few recommendations.

There is a full-length book on the subject by Roberta Senechal called Sociogenesis of a Race Riot: Springfield, Illinois, in 1908 (Urbana: university of Illinois Press, 1990). The book is quite good.

Senechal has also contributed a brief narrative, which you can view online, here. The site also features several very innovative lesson plans, complete with assignments.

I also encourage you to check out the oral history collection at the University of Illinois in Springfield. Their archive features 30 oral histories that deal with the race riot. You can access the archive online, by clicking here. Click on the PDF icon to read the transcripts.

Finally, I am happy to promote the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum’s upcoming exhibit, Something So Horrible: The Springfield Race Riot of 1908. It begins in June and looks first-rate. Here is the description from their site:

Upcoming at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library in June is Something So Horrible: Springfield Race Riot of 1908. Gathering photographs, news accounts, oral histories, artifacts and other materials, the library will present an exhibition exploring Springfield’s most violent racial confrontation. In the one hundred years since the riot occurred, the historical record has been clouded, reshaped, denied, or forgotten. The purpose of the exhibition is to tell the story of the riot clearly so that the public will know what happened and begin to understand why it happened.

Within hours of a reported rape of a White woman by a Black man, a mob of thousands took control of Springfield. In the violence that held sway in the city for two days, two Black men were lynched, four White men were killed, scores of people were injured, and extensive property was damaged before 4000 state militiamen intervened.

Something So Horrible: Springfield Race Riot of 1908 will illustrate how racism and political corruption undermined law and order and set the stage for mob rule. The exhibit will also show how an event of one hundred years ago lives in both the historical record of the past and the racial divisions that continue to confound us.

Abraham Lincoln Walks at Midnight in Charelston, West Virginia Too!

2008-05-14T10:38:00.001-05:00

Many thanks to Dave Wiegers on the Discussion Board for calling my attention to this magnificent statue in Charleston, West Virginia.

Inspired by Vachel Lindsay's poem, "Abraham Lincoln Walks at Midnight," West Virginian Fred Torrey created a 42-inch plaster model of Lincoln, pacing late at night, while cloaked in a long robe.

The plaster model was exhibited at the 1939-1940 World's Fair in New York. However, the sculptor passed away before he had a chance to complete the piece in bronze. Using Torrey's original model, local sculptor Bernie Wiepper created the nine-and-a-half-foot scultpure that now stands at the foot of the state capitol in Charleston, West Virginia.

Abraham Lincoln Walks at Midnight in Springfield, Illinois

2008-05-13T11:03:00.002-05:00

As Europe stood on the precipice of world war in 1914, Springfield’s most famous poet roused the ghost of Springfield’s most famous citizen.

"Abraham Lincoln Walks at Midnight (In Springfield, Illinois)"
By: Vachel Lindsay
It is portentous, and a thing of state
That here at midnight, in our little town
A mourning figure walks, and will not rest,
Near the old court-house, pacing up and down.

Or by his homestead, or by shadowed yards
He lingers where his children used to play,
Or through the market, on the well-worn stones
He stalks until the dawn-stars burn away.

A bronzed, lank man! His suit of ancient black,
A famous high top-hat, and plain worn shawl
Make him the quaint, great figure that men love,
The prairie-lawyer, master of us all.

He cannot sleep upon his hillside now.
He is among us:--as in times before!
And we who toss or lie awake for long
Breathe deep, and start, to see him pass the door.

His head is bowed. He thinks on men and kings.
Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?
Too many peasants fight, they know not why,
Too many homesteads in black terror weep.

The sins of all the war-lords burn his heart.
He sees the dreadnaughts scouring every main.
He carries on his shawl-wrapped shoulders now
The bitterness, the folly and the pain.

He cannot rest until a spirit-dawn
Shall come:--the shining hope of Europe free:
The league of sober folk, the Workers' Earth,
Bringing long peace to Cornland, Alp and Sea.

It breaks his heart that kings must murder still,
That all his hours of travail here for men
Seem yet in vain. And who will bring white peace
That he may sleep upon his hill again?

LincolnStudies.com Redesign & Hollywood's Lincoln

2008-05-12T10:41:00.001-05:00

Welcome to the newly redesigned LincolnStudies.com! Though we're still in the process of uploading the individual archive, document, and book review pages, each of our redesigned main pages should already be in place.

I encourage you to give the site a quick scan. You'll find a handful of new features. For instance, the Lincoln on Ebay page now features a whopping 200 live auctions!

Similarly, the Bookstore page has a new look. Now the page features a rotating selection of new Lincoln books available for purchase from Amazon.com. Whether you wish to purchase books or simply keep up to date on new publications, I think you'll find the page useful. While you're there, click the link just below today's date; it will take you to our expanded Bookstore, which features 16 different categories of books, music, and dvds for the history enthusiast. We even have a category for children's books!

As always, I encourage you to send me an email if you experience any problems as you navigate through the redesigned site. You should be able to find my email by clicking on my name, which will soon be at the bottom of every page on the site.

Now, onto our regularly scheduled program...

As you can see by today's image, I want to talk about Hollywood's Lincoln. Today's image is a publicity poster for Robert E. Sherwood's 1940 film, Abe Lincoln in Illinois, starring Raymond Massey. The film was based on the Pulitzer Prize winning play of the same title, which in recent years has enjoyed a run on Broadway with Sam Waterson playing the lead role.

Both the film and the play follow Lincoln from his early days as a lawyer up to the election of 1860; however, they both end before Lincoln takes office.

As many of you know, Hollywood now has its eye set on Lincoln's presidency.

Stephen Spielberg has plans to turn Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals into a major motion picture.

As I've reported, Liam Neeson is slated to play Lincoln, while Sally Field will portray Mary. There is also word that Harrison Ford will play Andrew Johnson.

More than a year ago, Spielberg hinted that filming would begin just after he finished shooting the fourth installment of the Indiana Jones saga. However, it appears the plan has changed.

The Los Angeles Times is now reporting that instead of the Lincoln biopic, Spielberg's next project will be Tintin, which will go into production in September. He has told a German magazine that he is going to wait until early 2009 to film Lincoln.

Barring any other delays, I suppose we might look forward to a 2009 or early 2010 release date.

End of the Semester

2008-05-09T10:05:00.000-05:00

Today marks the end of another semester, which means I have a stack of blue books in front of me waiting to be graded. I've only looked at a handfull of them, but so far the essays seem to be quite good. Let's hope the rest of the stack follows suit.

However, my weekend will not be devoted entirely to grading. Check back throughout the weekend to see what we've got in store for LincolnStudies.com.

Everything is going to look a lot different here very soon!

Now it's Official: Abraham Lincoln National Heritage Area

2008-05-08T11:39:00.001-05:00

I have just learned that President Bush has indeed signed the "Abraham Lincoln National Heritage Area" bill into law.

I've been tracking this story for a few months now, from its original incarnation in October to the modified version the Congress passed last week.

The Journal Gazette-Times Courier in Charleston, Illinois is reporting that the funding for this project will go directly into the "Looking for Lincoln Heritage Coalition," which will then distribute the money to groups throughout central Illinois.

Again, as I get more information, I will pass it along.

"A Rather Dull Business After All"

2008-05-07T13:51:00.002-05:00

My apologies for the late post today. Apparently a resident of nearby Murphysboro cut a line, which promptly knocked out internet access to the greater portion of southern Illinois. It was frustrating not being online, but I certainly got a lot of work done in the meantime. I suppose there is a lesson there, but I’ll pass over it quickly.

I want to focus instead on a revealing letter Abraham Lincoln wrote in 1837. At twenty-eight, Lincoln had already accomplished a great deal, but he was still uneasy. He was a young lawyer, as well as a member of the Illinois state legislature, but he had yet to enjoy any sense of financial stability. He had recently moved from New Salem to Springfield, but the transition was not easy; he feared that life in this “busy wilderness” was not for him. And he was involved with a girl, but he wasn’t sure where the relationship was headed.

With his mind clouded by questions, he decided to compose a letter.

[AL to Mary S. Owens, 7 May 1837, Collected Works, 1:78-79.]

Friend Mary Springfield, May 7. 1837
I have commenced two letters to send you before this, both of which displeased me before I got half done, and so I tore them up. The first I thought wasn't serious enough, and the second was on the other extreme. I shall send this, turn out as it may.
This thing of living in Springfield is rather a dull business after all, at least it is so to me. I am quite as lonesome here as [I] ever was anywhere in my life. I have been spoken to by but one woman since I've been here, and should not have been by her, if she could have avoided it. I've never been to church yet, nor probably shall not be soon. I stay away because I am conscious I should not know how to behave myself.
I am often thinking about what we said of your coming to live at Springfield. I am afraid you would not be satisfied. There is a great deal of flourishing about in carriages here, which it would be your doom to see without shareing in it. You would have to be poor without the means of hiding your poverty. Do you believe you could bear that patiently? Whatever woman may cast her lot with mine, should any ever do so, it is my intention to do all in my power to make her happy and contented; and there is nothing I can immagine, that would make me more unhappy than to fail in the effort. I know I should be much happier with you than the way I am, provided I saw no signs of discontent in you. What you have said to me may have been in jest, or I may have misunderstood it. If so, then let it be forgotten; if otherwise, I much wish you would think seriously before you decide. For my part I have already decided. What I have said I will most positively abide by, provided you wish it. My opinion is that you had better not do it. You have not been accustomed to hardship, and it may be more severe than you now immagine. I know you are capable of thinking correctly on any subject; and if you deliberate maturely upon this, before you decide, then I am willing to abide your decision.
You must write me a good long letter after you get this. You have nothing else to do, and though it might not seem interesting to you, after you had written it, it would be a good deal of company to me in this ``busy wilderness.'' Tell your sister I dont want to hear any more about selling out and moving. That gives me the hypo whenever I think of it
Yours, &c.
LINCOLN.

Riding the 8th Judicial Circuit with Lincoln

2008-05-06T11:48:00.002-05:00

What do you think about when you hear the name Abraham Lincoln?

I've asked that question dozens of times and I'm always intrigued by the answers I recieve.

Some have said they immediately think of images associated with the Civil War. Heroic soldiers in new uniforms, as well as horrific images of death and dying on the battlefield come to mind. Some even mention images associated with the institution of slavery.

Others think of Lincoln's words. "Four score and seven years ago..." or "With malice toward none; with charity for all..." Some people even cite the Emancipation Proclamation, though the "quotable language" in that document is practically nonexistent.

Not everyone associates Lincoln with words or actions, some are simply reminded of his "costume." When they think of Lincoln, they think of his stovepipe hat, his funny beard, or his ill-fitting black suit.

As you might imagine, many of Lincoln's contemporaries had a much different memory of Lincoln. Those who knew him well did not immediately associate Lincoln with the Civil War, political rhetoric, or his way of dress. No, when they thought of Lincoln, they immediately thought of his profession.

Unlike many of today's career politicians, Lincoln's profession was not politics. Politics was certainly his passion, but it did not pay the bills.

For nearly a quarter of a century, Lincoln was a practicing attorney; in fact, he built one of the most successful law pratices in central Illinois.

He was involved in more than 5,000 legal cases, an astonishing number. He practiced law on the local, state, and federal level; he even practiced before the United States Supreme Court.

However, the bread-and-butter of Lincoln's law practice came on the Eighth Judicial law circuit. Each year, he spent four to six months "riding the circuit," that muddy trail stretching from country courthouse to courthouse throughout central Illinois. Few of his contemporaries enjoyed their rough existence on the circuit, but Lincoln seemed to thrive.

If you want to know more about Lincoln's time on the law circuit, you are in luck. According to this story in the Bloomington Pantagraph, a group has put together a two-day tour called "Riding the 8th Circuit with Lincoln."

The tour will begin and end in Bloomington. The group will visit more than a half dozen sites in the town, including the David Davis Mansion, where the group will even be served a catered dinner and view a presentation called "An Autobiography of A. Lincoln" by Lincoln presenter James Keeran.

From Bloomington, the group will visit a number of other sites, including courthouses in Metamora, Postville, and Mount Pulaski.

The tour will be led by Guy Fraker, a Bloomington attorney who is working on a book about Lincoln's time on the circuit. I've met Mr. Fraker on a number of occassions and like him very much. He is enthusiastic, knowledgable, and perhaps most importantly for a two-day tour, very cordial.

"Riding the 8th Judicial Circuit with Lincoln"
Where: Various sites in Central Illinois; the two-day tour begins and ends each day in Bloomington

When: Tours are May 29-30 or June 19-20.

Cost: $275 per person includes transportation, lunch both days, dinner Thursday night, entertainment and commentary by Lincoln authority Guy C. Fraker. Not included are motel accommodations and a Friday night dinner at C.J.'s Restaurant in Bloomington.

Tips: The tours involve walking. Wear comfortable shoes and bring an umbrella.

Registration deadlines: May 14 for the May tour, June 4 for the June tour.

More information: Judy Markowitz at (309) 663-2074 or email cityjudy@aol.com

PS: The image at the top of this post is a sketch called, "Lincoln, the Circuit Lawyer," by Lloyd Ostendorf. Ostendorf was a very talented artist who produced a great many sketches from Lincoln's life. This one is my favorite, but you can view, as well as purchase, others at Abraham Lincoln Collectables.

What's Wrong with this Clip?

2008-05-05T08:04:00.002-05:00

Can you identify what is wrong with this clip?

Many thanks to David Markwell for calling this Fox News blunder to my attention!

Apparently, the clip has already spawned some good humored parodies. Check out this one:

One more:

Happy Cinco de Mayo!

Abraham Lincoln National Heritage Area, Part 2

2008-05-02T11:52:00.002-05:00

Remember Congressman Ray LaHood and Senator Dick Durbin's bill that promised to create a historical-geographic entity called the "Abraham Lincoln National Heritage Area?"

When I covered the story last October, the proposed piece of legislation had passed the House, but had yet to make its way through the Senate. However, the story quickly fell off my radar. I heard nothing about its fate and assumed the Senate killed it.

Well, it’s back. I haven’t worked out all the particulars, but I think it went something like this. The Senate modified the bill and then passed it. The modified bill then went back to the House for consideration. After debating the changes, the bill passed the House last Tuesday by a vote of 291-117. Now, the legislation goes to the president, who is expected to sign it into law.

As a result, central Illinois could receive up to $30 million over the next 15 years to promote Lincoln’s legacy. The financial figures include $1million annually from the federal government, plus an additional $1 million per year from public and private sources on the state and local level.

Of course, I’ll continue to follow this story and pass along more information as it becomes available.

April 2008 Sets Record for LincolnStudies.com

2008-05-01T11:20:00.003-05:00

I want to thank all of the readers of Lincolnstudies.com for making April our most successful month to date! April readership was up a whopping 66% over April 2007.

As usual, we covered a wide-range of topics this month, which you can still read by visiting the April 2008 page in the Archive.

I especially want to thank Lewis Gannett for contributing such a fine guest editorial on April 4. His article sparked several vigorous discussions on the Lincoln Studies Discussion Board.

If you haven't yet made the Discussion Board a regular part of your daily routine, I encourage you to do so. It gives us a chance to ask questions, find answers, workshop our ideas, and receive feedback.

I also want to call your attention to the painting at the top of this post. The piece is titled "Lincoln the Railsplitter" and was painted by Norman Rockwell in 1965. I just came across it today and like it very much.

The painting is on display at the Butler Institute of American Art in Youngstown, Ohio. They acquired the piece at auction in November 2006 for $1.6 million. The previous owner was none other than Texas billionaire/former presidential candidate Ross Perot. You can read more about the painting here.

Again, thanks to everyone who made April 2008 a special month for LincolnStudies.com!

Abraham Lincoln Enloe, Part 2

2008-04-30T12:50:00.004-05:00

A strange set of principles govern the news business. Take, for instance, the marvels of modern aviation. Thousands of airplanes will land today at airports all around the country. Aside from a little jet lag, travelers will arrive safely at their destinations. But those stories won't make the nightly news. However, if, God forbid, one of those planes happened to crash, the story would make headlines on the internet, television, and in tomorrow's paper. "News" is often a collection of unusual stories.

For the past several weeks, reporters have been drawn to the story of Abraham Lincoln's birthplace. Of course, the traditional story is well-known. The future president was born in a humble one-room Kentucky cabin to Nancy Hanks and her husband, Thomas Lincoln. However, that is not the sort of story that makes the paper. Remember, a dog bite is not news, but the man or woman who gets on all fours and takes a bite out of a dog deserves to be interviewed.

The recent Lincoln headlines tell an unconventional story:

"Lincoln's Birth Site Disputed," Fort Wayne News-Sentinel

"Group Says N. C. is Lincoln Birthplace," Lexington Herald-Leader
"North Carolina Dares to Rewrite Lincoln Story," The Indianapolis Star

All of the stories are reprints of the original Associated Press story regarding the new Bostic Lincoln Center in North Carolina, which claims everything you thought you knew about Lincoln's birth is wrong. You may recall, I reported on this story a few months ago and weighed-in on their many dubious conclusions.

However, the recent story adds an interesting twist to the tale. The folks who believe Lincoln was born in North Carolina also believe that Abraham Enloe, not Thomas Lincoln, fathered the future president. Therefore, according to the AP, these folks are now "petitioning the federal government to run a DNA test of Lincoln's father, Thomas, to see if it matches some of the 16th president's saved genetic material."

While their request begs a number of intriguing legal and ethical questions, I doubt the folks in North Carolina will indeed “rewrite the Lincoln story.” However, one thing is certain: their efforts will continue to make headlines.

"A Warning," December 3, 1864

2008-04-29T12:48:00.001-05:00

This political cartoon is something of a counterpoint to the one I wrote about last week.

“A Warning” appeared in a British publication called Fun on December 3, 1864, just a few weeks after Lincoln’s victory in the Election of 1864.

The artist portrays Lincoln as a war monger who is bent on prosecuting a costly and pointless war. The knife he is holding carries the words “Yanke LIBERTY.”

The woman leading the president away from the battlefield is, once again, Lady Columbia, who represents the nation. She tells the president:

“Lincoln, you have brought me to this, yet I have not flinched to perform my part of our contract. I still cling to you, that you may fulfil yours. You have swollen the earth with the blood of my children. Show me what I am to gain by this, or look for my dire vengeance in the future!”

Click Here to view a much larger version of this political cartoon.

If Obama is Lincoln, then Clinton is Seward

2008-04-28T11:39:00.002-05:00

I want to call your attention to a very interesting article published by HuffingtonPost.com this morning.

The author, Manisha Sinha, sees a parallel between the 2008 Democrat nominees and the Republican nominees of 1860. Specifically, Sinha pictures Obama as Lincoln, while Clinton most closely resembles William H. Seward.

I'm not sure if I buy Sinha's analogy, but her observations certainly got my mind running in an interesting direction. I could see a productive classroom discussion coming from this article.

Illinois Harvest Collection: Full Text Lincoln Books Online

2008-04-25T11:29:00.001-05:00

Regular readers of LincolnStudies.com know that I'm always on the prowl for useful research tools. I've found another one.

The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has digitized a great many books and they have made their collection available online. I gave the site a look and I was so pleased to see a rich collection of Lincolniana.

The Illinois Harvest collection boasts 369 digitized books on Lincoln, Slavery, and the Civil War. Much like Google Books, you can search this collection, read, or even download entire books. Many of these books are rare, most are out of print, and a good many of them are unavailable anywhere else on the internet.

Just a word of advice when using this collection: when you click on a book and decide you want to read it, I suggest using the "Flip Book" feature, it is marvelous!

I have included a link to the Illinois Harvest collection on our Links page. If you haven't given that page a look yet, check it out.

I think it is the finest page of Lincoln research links anywhere on the internet. As always, whenever you come across useful research links, send me an email and I will consider adding them to the page.

"Compromise with the South" by Thomas Nast

2008-04-24T11:38:00.004-05:00

I’ve been busy lately preparing a series of lectures on late nineteenth century political life. As I was searching the rich collection of images and audio files (yes, there are audio samples of speeches by Benjamin Harrison, Grover Cleveland, William McKinley, and Teddy Roosevelt!), I came across this political cartoon. It really captured my attention.

It appeared in Harper’s Weekly on September 3, 1864. The date is important.

As you know, these were incredibly dark days for the Union. The war showed no sign of slowing down, the Election of 1864 was quickly approaching, and Lincoln did not think he would succeed. In fact, about a week before this cartoon was published, Lincoln drafted his well-known “Probable Failure Memo.”

The 1864 Democratic platform called the war a failure and criticized emancipation. They advocated a cease fire with the South and called for negotiations.

Many within the Union thought the Democrat platform made sense. Prominent politicians of both parties, vocal newspaper editors, as well as mothers, fathers, friends, and families of the soldiers called for an end to the bloodshed. Go to the negotiating table, they said, and end this devastating conflict.

Thomas Nast directed this political cartoon to the folks who called for “Compromise with the South.”

As with any political cartoon, the symbols throughout this piece are incredibly significant.

The cartoon is divided in half. Nast reserves the left-hand side for the North, while the right depicts life in the South.

The Union side features a tattered American flag hanging upside down in an obvious signal of distress. Images of a ravaged Northern city, a home on fire, and a dead body complete the background.

The foreground is more complicated. A Union soldier on crutches is missing a leg. His head hangs low and he holds his hat in his hand. He shakes a Confederate soldier’s hand, but notice their embrace. The Union soldier merely holds out his hand, while the Confederate soldier maintains a firm grip.

A sobbing woman kneels beside the soldier, but notice: she is at the foot of a grave. The tombstone reads, “In Memory of the Union Heroes” who fought “in a Useless War.” The woman is Lady Columbia, a common nineteenth century representation of the United States. Both the Union soldier and Lady Columbia seem to recognize the scene for what it truly is. This is no “Compromise with the South,” this is a Union surrender.

The right side of the cartoon depicts the South. The Confederate soldier, who looks a lot like Jefferson Davis, stands tall with his head held high. He has a firm grip on the handshake and rests his foot on the grave of the Union dead. Notice too: his foot has broken the sword that represents Union power.

Nast saves his most powerful commentary for the images in the background. While the Confederate flag is tattered, it is flying right-side up. But on close examination, there is writing on the flag. The words are hard to make out, but they list several supposed crimes the South had committed throughout the sectional conflict.

There are dead soldiers and civilians in the background, but three people are among the living in the South. A man in a Union uniform, a woman, and a young child. On close examination, they are all African American. They are in chains. With the Union surrender, they are re-enslaved.

The Republican Party reprinted this powerful political cartoon and used it during the campaign of 1864.

Stephen A. Douglas at 195

2008-04-23T11:23:00.002-05:00

Abraham Lincoln's arch-rival, Stephen A. Douglas, was born in Brandon, Vermont 195 years ago today.

Douglas eventually settled in Illinos, where he went on to become one of the most well-known political figures of the nineteenth century. Illinois elected him to the state legislature and eventually elevated him to the position of Illinois Secretary of State. By age 27, Douglas becamae an associate justice of the Illinois Supreme Court.

But Douglas had national ambitions. He served two terms in the United States House of Representatives and three terms in the U. S. Senate, where he helped pass the Compromise of 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

Lincoln and Douglas were opposites in nearly every respect. They were members of opposing political parties, held different views on slavery, economics, and the territories. Their differences continued down through their personal attributes as well; despite being just 5’4” and weighing around 100 lbs., Douglas had a deep baritone voice, while Lincoln was 6’4”, but his voice was high-pitched.

Of course, they opposed one another in 1858 in their famous race for the U. S. Senate and, just two years later, they ran against one another again, but this time for the presidency.

Though Douglas beat Lincoln in 1858, he was not so fortunate in 1860. To Douglas’ credit, he handled defeat gracefully. Not only did he attend Lincoln’s inaugural, but he held his long-time rival’s hat while he spoke.

Finally, in the days leading up to the Civil War, Douglas toured the country and delivered a speech commonly known as the “Save the Flag” speech. Douglas pleaded with his fellow countrymen to put party aside and rally around the cause of preserving the Union.

Unfortunately, the speaking tour wore Douglas down and he died prematurely, at the age of 48.

CLICK HERE to visit the Stephen A. Douglas Association.

Upcoming Events

2008-04-22T13:25:00.002-05:00

There is quite a bit going on in terms of Lincoln activities. I thought I'd spend a moment this morning to pass along a few of the most interesting events planned for this weekend:

62nd Annual Boy Scout Lincoln Pilgrimage

Join the Boy Scouts of America on Friday April 25 through the 27th as they walk where Lincoln walked. They will visit sites throughout central Illinois, from Lincoln's New Salem to the Old State Capitol and Oak Ridge Cemetery in Springfield.

For more information, call Randy Scott at 217.546.5570 or visit their website http://www.alincolnbsa.org/

Pioneer Days

The Lincoln Pioneer Village in Rockport, Indiana will host their Pioneer Days Celebration on Saturday, April 26 from 10 AM to 4 PM.

For more information, call 812.649.9147 or visit their website http://www.lincolnpioneervillage.org/

Lincoln Circuit Ride 2008

You may recall last year's post about this group. They're back!

Illinois' Old Eighth Judicial Circuit provided the life experiences that made Abraham Lincoln immortal. Over 2 weekends, we will make every attempt to ride the same roads and visit the same court houses as did Abe. Bring your children, grandchildren, friends and neighbors. On weekend 1 the tour leaves at 9 am April 26th, 8th & Capitol in Springfield. We will overnight in Lincoln and end at the Piatt/Champaign County Line Marker on April 27th.

For more information, call Rose at 217.891.6297 or visit their website http://www.lincolncircuitride.com/

Our American Cousin

Sterling, Illinois invites you to their production of Our American Cousin, the play Lincoln was watching when he was assassinated.

Show times are Friday, April 27, 7:30 PM. Saturday, April 28, 7:30 PM. and Sunday, April 29, 2:00 PM.

Tickets are $10 for adults, $8 for students.

For more information, call Tim Tedrick at 815.622.3248 or visit their website http://www.centennialauditorium.org/CCP/CCP_Shows/Cousin/Our_American_Cousin.html

The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln

Professor George Hopkins, retired Western Illinois university, will present a lecture and slide show on the Lincoln assassination on Sunday, April 27, 2008 at 2pm in Peoria, Illinois.

The event is free and open to the public.

For more information call Mr. Leslie Kenyon at 309.674.7121

Four Volume Analysis of Lincoln's Legal Career

2008-04-21T11:32:00.002-05:00

Congratulations to my friends at the Papers of Abraham Lincoln Project in Springfield.

They have released their long-awaited four-volume analysis of Lincoln's legal career.

The publisher describes this collection:

Many in politics began their careers in the law; no one has cut such a distinguished path in this regard as Abraham Lincoln. Before his presidency, from 1836 to 1861, Lincoln practiced law in the courts of central Illinois. Part of an ambitious undertaking to collect and publish the surviving documentary record of Lincoln's life, this four-volume set addresses his quarter-century law career.

Arranged chronologically, the four volumes present documents from more than fifty of Lincoln's most interesting, important, or representative cases, all of which are transcribed and annotated. The edition features illuminating essays on Lincoln's career as a lawyer and as a court official, as well as a biographical directory, an extensive legal glossary, and a cumulative index covering all four volumes.

Lincoln first studied the law, through private reading, during an early stint in the state legislature. His passion was evident from the start--he felt that a reverence for the law should be "the political religion of the nation"--and he distinguished himself rapidly. By his early thirties, he was already considered one of the finest attorneys in Illinois. The move of the state capital to Springfield (a shift that Lincoln, as a legislator, helped effect) brought the state supreme court, as well as the U.S. circuit and district courts, to Lincoln's hometown. This played an important role in his later political career; it also brings a useful federal dimension to the documents collected in this edition.

Rather than specializing, Lincoln practiced general law, and so we see him taking on both civil and criminal cases, with breaches of contract and patent infringements sharing space with bootlegging, assault, even murder cases. Much of his work concerned debt collection, for which Lincoln was known well beyond Illinois, and these cases provide a unique window on nineteenth-century business. Lincoln also went out on the road twice yearly to try cases in the state's circuit courts; this edition documents some of these tours in detail.

The cases represented paint a vivid picture of America in the decades leading up to the Civil War. The nation's surging expansion is reflected in cases over land speculation, property disputes, construction, and, of course, the railroads, whose interests are a consistent theme throughout. Other trials touch on domestic law, the Black Laws, even the California gold rush.

This collection will appeal to all scholars and students of the law and its history, as well as to anyone interested in antebellum America or presidential biography. No understanding of Lincoln is complete without a look at the great career in law that preceded his remarkable presidency. Published in association with the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency

My Childhood's Home

2008-04-18T11:31:00.003-05:00

Most people knew Abraham Lincoln liked poetry. He was more than willing to recite a poem for anyone who cared to listen. That is, as long as the poem was written by someone else.

He committed long passages written by Shakespeare and Byron to memory. However, his favorite poem, an obscure piece by William Knox titled, “Mortality,” usually made a deep impression upon his audience. On many occasions, people asked Lincoln if he had actually written the piece.

“Beyond all question, I am not the author,” Lincoln replied. “I would give all I am worth, and go in debt, to be able to write so fine a piece as I think that is.”

Few of Lincoln’s contemporaries knew he wrote verses of his own; he did not share his poetry.

April 18, 1846 was an exception. Lincoln had been corresponding with Andrew Johnston, a Quincy newspaper editor with a fine literary reputation. Lincoln told the editor that he had written a series of poems. He explained what inspired him:

In the fall of 1844, thinking I might aid some to carry the State of Indiana for Mr. Clay, I went into the neighborhood in that State in which I was raised, where my mother and only sister were buried, and from which I had been absent about fifteen years. That part of the country is, within itself, as unpoetical as any spot of the earth; but still, seeing it and its objects and inhabitants aroused feelings in me which were certainly poetry; though whether my expression of those feelings is poetry is quite another question. When I got to writing, the change of subjects divided the thing into four little divisions or cantos, the first only of which I send you now and may send the others hereafter.

Lincoln enclosed the following poem, known as “My Childhood’s Home,” in his letter to Johnston. The editor was impressed. He asked Lincoln if he could publish the piece in his newspaper.

Lincoln gave his consent, but told the editor to publish it anonymously. "I have not suffficient hope of the verses attracting any favorable notice to tempt me to risk being ridiculed for having written them," Lincoln explained.

My childhood's home I see again,
And sadden with the view;
And still, as memory crowds my brain,
There's pleasure in it too.

O Memory! thou midway world
'Twixt earth and paradise,
Where things decayed and loved ones lost
In dreamy shadows rise,

And, freed from all that's earthly vile,
Seem hallowed, pure, and bright,
Like scenes in some enchanted isle
All bathed in liquid light.

As dusky mountains please the eye
When twilight chases day;
As bugle-notes that, passing by,
In distance die away;

As leaving some grand waterfall,
We, lingering, list its roar---
So memory will hallow all
We've known, but know no more.

Near twenty years have passed away
Since here I bid farewell
To woods and fields, and scenes of play,
And playmates loved so well.

Where many were, but few remain
Of old familiar things;
But seeing them, to mind again
The lost and absent brings.

The friends I left that parting day,
How changed, as time has sped!
Young childhood grown, strong manhood gray,
And half of all are dead.

I hear the loved survivors tell
How nought from death could save,
Till every sound appears a knell,
And every spot a grave.

I range the fields with pensive tread,
And pace the hollow rooms,
And feel (companion of the dead)
I'm living in the tombs.[1]

Annotation:

[1] A second canto was sent in Lincoln's letter of September 6, 1846. Both cantos were published in the Quincy Whig, May 5, 1847. See letter of February 25, 1847, infra.

New Statues at the Lincoln-Douglas Debate Site in Jonesboro

2008-04-17T09:50:00.001-05:00

I have good news to report this morning. The Lincoln-Douglas debate site in Anna-Jonesboro has a brand new pair of statues!

The folks in Jonesboro have worked very hard to get the site ready for the 150 year anniversary celebration, which will take place in September. I will pass along the information as it becomes available, along with some more photots of the statues.

Good job Jonesboro!

An Unpleasant Story from New Mexico

2008-04-16T11:35:00.000-05:00

I really don’t like to read stories like this one. I’ll relay the information because I think it is important to be aware of these things, but be warned, this is not a fun story.

According to the Associated Press, federal archaeologists in New Mexico have been forced to exhume the graves of 67 Civil War era men, women, and children buried in an unmarked cemetery surrounding the ruins of Fort Craig, a nineteenth century structure with a rich history dating back to the Civil War and Indian Wars.

What would make the archaeologists do such a thing?

Well, they received a tip: grave robbers were operating in the area. Really? Grave robbers?

It gets worse.

Allegedly, an amateur historian had displayed “the mummified remains of a black soldier, draped in a Civil War-era uniform, in his house.”

The AP gives further details, but I’ll let you read them on your own if you wish.

After investigating the tip, archaeologists determined that 20 of the graves had indeed been looted.

"Now He Belongs to the Ages"

2008-04-15T11:15:00.002-05:00

April 15, 1865. The president dies.

They found a pulse. The president was unconscious, but still clinging to life. They wanted to move him so the doctors could properly examine him, but the White House was out of the question. Someone suggested Taltavul’s saloon next door, but the owner objected, saying it would not be right for the president to die in a saloon. He was thinking clearly.

Instead, they carried the president from Ford’s Theater to a house across the street owned by tailor William Petersen. They laid the president diagonally across a bed with his head closest to the door. The doctors went to work. The bullet had entered behind the left ear and lodged behind the right eye. They cleared the clotting in the entrance wound, which seemed to improve the president’s respiration and pulse. But there was little else they could do.

Mary Lincoln knew that her husband was dying. She was inconsolable. They sent for Mrs. Elizabeth Dixon, the wife of the Connecticut Senator, who stayed with Mary throughout the night in the front parlor. The president’s oldest son, Robert, made his way to the Petersen House, as did members of the cabinet and government officials.

Secretary of War Edwin Stanton set up an interrogation room in the back parlor. He interviewed eyewitnesses and tried to unravel the night’s events. Everything was still so uncertain. There were rumors of a widespread conspiracy.

Secretary of State William Seward had been a target. An assassin had entered his house, tried to kill him and anyone who stepped in his way. Were assassins roaming the city looking to decapitate the federal government?

Stanton stepped in and took control. At 1:30 am, his interviews were complete. An hour and a half later he telegraphed:

Investigation strongly indicates J. Wilkes Booth as the assassin of the President.

Just before 7 am, Mary entered the room one last time. An army surgeon described the scene:

As she entered the chamber and saw how the beloved features were distorted, she fell fainting to the floor. Restoratives were applied, and she was supported to the bedside, where she frantically addressed the dying man. "Love," she exclaimed, "live but one moment to speak to me once—to speak to our children."

At 7:22 am, a doctor put his hands across his chest and whispered, “He is gone.”

Everyone in the room knelt by the bedside and placed their hands on the bed as a minister asked God to accept his humble servant Abraham Lincoln into His glorious Kingdom.

The room remained silent until Stanton proclaimed, “Now he belongs to the ages.”

The president was dead at 56, struck down by an assassin's bullet.

"My God, that's John Booth!"

2008-04-14T11:18:00.002-05:00

April 14, 1865, Good Friday. Assassination.

8 A.M. Breakfast.

Robert Todd Lincoln had been at Appomattox for Robert E. Lee’s surrender, but he arrived back at the White House in time to have breakfast with his father this morning. After four years of national suffering, it looked as if the Civil War was finally drawing to a close.

Today would be another busy day.

The president met with Congressman Colfax, Senator Hale, General Grant, lawyer William A. Howard, Maryland Governor Swann, and Sen. Creswell.

11 A.M. Cabinet meeting.

Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Treasury Hugh McCulloch, Acting Secretary of State Frederick Seward, Postmaster General William Dennison, Attorney General James Speed, Secretary of the Interior John P. Usher, and Secretary of War Edwin Stanton were present, as was a special guest, General Ulysses S. Grant, who related the details of the surrender at Appomattox.

The cabinet discussed what should be done about Confederate leaders like Jefferson Davis. Secretary of War Stanton said they should be arrested and tried for treason, but Lincoln indicated a preference for Confederate leaders to simply flee the country. The topic then shifted toward the other Confederate armies in the field. When would they surrender?

Unexpectedly, Lincoln told the cabinet that good news was coming. He had a dream the night before, the same dream that preceded major events in the war, such as the attack on Fort Sumter, and the battles of Bull Run, Antietam, Gettysburg, Stones River, Vicksburg, and Wilmington. Secretary Welles asked the president to describe the dream.

Lincoln said he was “in some singular, indescribable vessel…moving rapidly toward an indefinite shore.” “I had this strange dream again last night, and we shall, judging from the past, have great news very soon,” he concluded.

Grant reminded Lincoln that Stone’s River was not a Union victory, nor were several of the other battles that occurred after the dream.

Nonetheless, the president said, something significant was going to happen.

2 P.M. Invitation number one and two.

The Cabinet meeting finally came to a close.

Lincoln asked General Grant if he and his wife would care to join he and Mary at the theater that night. Grant declined.

Later, the president asked Assistant Secretary of War Major Thomas Eckert to join him at the theater. Eckert declined.

Afternoon. Paperwork.

Lincoln spent the afternoon doing paperwork. At least two condemned Confederate soldiers received pardons from Lincoln dated April 14, 1865.

3 P.M. Carriage ride.

Lincoln and Mary took a carriage ride. Later, Mary claimed her husband was “almost boyish, in his mirth & reminded me, of his original nature, what I had always remembered of him, in our own home—free from care,…I never saw him so supremely cheerful—his manner was even playful…” She said to him, “Dear Husband, you almost startle me by your great cheerfulness.”

Lincoln replied, “and well I may feel so, Mary, I consider this day, the war has come to a close.” But Lincoln continued.

“We must both, be more cheerful in the future—between the war & the loss of our darling Willie—we have both, been very miserable,” he concluded.

5 P.M. Invitation number three.

The Lincolns arrived back at the White House. Lincoln invited the Illinois Governor Richard Oglesby to the theater. Like Grant and Egert, Oglesby declined.

7 P.M. Dinner.

8 P.M. Enroute.

The Lincolns started or the theater in a carriage. Apparently, Mary found a young couple willing to join them at the theater. Their carriage stopped at the corner of Fifteenth and H Streets to pick up Major Henry Rathbone and his fiancée Miss Clara Harris.

8:30 P.M. Arrival.

Though it was Good Friday, Ford’s Theater was full. Our American Cousin, starring Miss Laura Keene, started around 8 pm, but the person everyone came to see entered the presidential box about a half hour late.
When the audience saw the president and first lady enter the box, they stood and cheered. The orchestra even joined in the welcome and played “Hail to the Chief.” Lincoln responded with a “smile and bow.”

10:30 P.M. Act 3, Scene 2.

Harry Hawk was the only actor on stage. As he delivered the most humorous line in the play, a gunshot rang out.

Later that night, Secretary of War Stanton interviewed him. The actor described what he saw:

I was on the stage at the time of the firing and heard the report of the pistol. My back was towards the President’s box at the time. I heard something tear and somebody fell and as I looked towards him he came in the direction in which I was standing and I believe to the best of my knowledge that it was John Wilkes Booth. Still I am not positive that it was him. I only had one glance at him as he was rushing towards me with a dagger and I turned and run and after I ran up a flight of stairs I turned and exclaimed “My God that’s John Booth.” I am acquainted with Booth. I met him the first time a year ago. I saw him today about one o’clock. Said I, “How do you do Mr. Booth” and he says “how are you Hawk.” He was sitting on the steps of Ford’s Theatre reading a letter. He had the appearance of being sober at the time. I was never intimate with him. He had no hat on when I saw him on the stage. In my own mind I do not have any doubt that it was Booth. He made some expression when he came on the stage but I did not understand what.

James P. Ferguson was sitting in the dress circle when the president was shot. Like Hawk, he was interviewed and described the horrific scene:

I then heard the report of the pistol and saw Mrs. Lincoln catch [the president] around the neck. I saw him throw up his right arm at the same time I saw Booth with his hand in his side and pull a knife and move between Mrs. Lincoln and a lady in the same box. He put his hands in the cushion of the box and threw his feet right over. As he jumped over he pulled part of a state flag off and had part of it under his feet when he fell on the stage. The very moment he struck he exclaimed “Sic Semper Tyrannis.” As he came across the stage facing me he looked me right up in the face and it alarmed me and I pulled the lady who was with me down behind the banister. I looked right down at him and he stopped as he said, “I have done it” and shook the knife…

"That is the Last Speech He Will Ever Make"

2008-04-11T11:30:00.002-05:00

April 11, 1865. Washington, D. C.

A celebratory crowd gathered on the White House lawn. Abraham Lincoln peered out from a second floor window. He had something important he wanted to say:

We meet this evening, not in sorrow, but in gladness of heart. The evacuation of Petersburg and Richmond, and the surrender of the principal insurgent army, give hope of a righteous and speedy peace whose joyous expression can not be restrained.

The end of this terrible war was finally at hand; however, the president did not want the country to lose sight of the hard road that lay ahead:

We all agree that the seceded States, so called, are out of their proper practical relation with the Union, and that the sole object of the government, civil and military, in regard to those States is to again get them into that proper practical relation.

But what would that mean?

Lincoln cited the Louisiana example. Under his “Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction,” Louisiana had already made great progress toward reentering the Union:

As many as 12,000 Louisiana residents had already “sworn allegiance to the Union."

The state held elections, organized a state government, and adopted a free-state constitution, under which both black and white children could attend public schools.

The state legislature had also already ratified the thirteenth amendment, abolishing slavery throughout the nation.

In essence, the 12,000 people who had already taken the oath were “committed to the very things, and nearly all the things the nation wants—and they ask the nation's recognition, and it's assistance to make good their committal,” Lincoln explained.

Voting rights was another issue, but now, for the first time in public, Lincoln endorsed a controversial idea:

It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers.

Actor John Wilkes Booth was one of the many faces in the crowd that night. When Lincoln spoke about voting rights for African Americans, Booth promised a companion, "That is the last speech he will make.”

The president had been thinking about Reconstruction for a long time. He definitely had ideas about how it should occur, but he needed more time to work them out. Of course, fate had different designs.

Lincoln's Legacy: Sinner or Saint?

2008-04-10T12:01:00.003-05:00

The Courier-Journal in Louisville, Kentucky recently took a look at Lincoln’s place in American history. I encourage you to give the article a look.

The piece examines the way historical interpretations change over time; in other words, the article traces the way Lincoln historiography has evolved.

The piece does a fine job of putting the argument over Lincoln’s legacy in particularly stark terms. The article begins: “Great Emancipator or calculating politician? Principled champion of human rights or flawed compromiser?”

Indeed, many individuals have adopted this sinner-or-saint approach, which I think, is terribly unfortunate. When we reduce the past to mere caricatures, we do a great disservice—not simply to Lincoln or to the past itself—but to all of us living in the present.

Take, for example, the anti-Lincoln crowd. The two most prominent individuals are, of course, Lerone Bennett and Thomas DiLorenzo. While Bennett portrays Lincoln as a “white supremacist” who would sooner “deport” African Americans than give them basic civil rights, DiLorenzo argues that Lincoln was America’s greatest tyrant who shredded the constitution, shattered the republic, and replaced it with an all-powerful, oppressive federal government.

Like Bennett and DiLorenzo, neo-Confederates have a penchant for misinterpreting the past, but I find their criticism of Lincoln scholars particularly interesting. They often dismiss Lincoln scholars as simply “court historians” who stick to a “predetermined script” in which they “sweep the truth under the rug” and “glorify” all things Lincoln, while “denigrating his opponents.”

Though these critics paint with far too broad a brush, their observations are not entirely delusional. You see, there are far too many Lincoln folks (I hesitate to use the term scholars, though there are some who fit in this category), who take the term “great figures in American history” a bit too far.

Lincoln was never infallible. Like those who came before him, his contemporaries, and yes, like all of us today, he had serious limitations. He was not the quintessential man, lawyer, or politician. He was human, no more no less. By definition, we are all imperfect beings. To those who argue otherwise, I sharply disagree.

As we approach the bicentennial of Lincoln’s birth, I would encourage everyone, including my students, peers, and readers of this website, to toss this sinner-or-saint model onto the historical trash heap. Let us approach Lincoln studies from a more sophisticated direction.

Lincoln studies is interested in historical evidence and interpretations; we have no desire to silence critics, but we will engage them in debate. Lincoln studies is not interested in hero worship, nor does it engage in character assassination; we understand that distorted history is little more than fiction in disguise.

Surrender at Appomattox

2008-04-09T17:00:00.001-05:00

One of the most significant scenes in American history took place 143 years ago today.

Why not let someone who was there explain what happened? The following account comes from the Personal Memoirs of U. S. Grant (New York, 1885), 555-560.

I had known General Lee in the old army, and had served with him in the Mexican War; but did not suppose, owing to the difference in our age and rank, that he would remember me; while I would more naturally remember him distinctly, because he was the chief of staff of General Scott in the Mexican War.

When I had left camp that morning I had not expected so soon the result that was then taking place, and consequently was in rough garb. I was without a sword, as I usually was when on horseback on the field, and wore a soldier's blouse for a coat, with the shoulder straps of my rank to indicate to the army who I was. When I went into the house I found General Lee. We greeted each other, and after shaking hands took our seats. I had my staff with me, a good portion of whom were in the room during the whole of the interview.

What General Lee's feelings were I do not know. As he was a man of much dignity, with an impassable face, it was impossible to say whether he felt inwardly glad that the end had finally come, or felt sad over the result, and was too manly to show it. Whatever his feelings, they were entirely concealed from my observation; but my own feelings, which had been quite jubilant on the receipt of his letter [proposing negotiations], were sad and depressed. I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse. I do not question, however, the sincerity of the great mass of those who were opposed to us.

General Lee was dressed in a full uniform which was entirely new, and was wearing a sword of considerable value, very likely the sword which had been presented by the State of Virginia; at all events, it was an entirely different sword from the one that would ordinarily be worn in the field. In my rough traveling suit, the uniform of a private with the straps of a lieutenant-general, I must have contrasted very strangely with a man so handsomely dressed, six feet high and of faultless form. But this was not a matter that I thought of until afterwards.

We soon fell into a conversation about old army times. He remarked that he remembered me very well in the old army; and I told him that as a matter of course I remembered him perfectly, but from the difference in our rank and years (there being about sixteen years' difference in our ages), I had thought it very likely that I had not attracted his attention sufficiently to be remembered by him after such a long interval. Our conversation grew so pleasant that I almost forgot the object of our meeting. After the conversation had run on in this style for some time, General Lee called my attention to the object of our meeting, and said that he had asked for this interview for the purpose of getting from me the terms I proposed to give his army. I said I meant merely that his army should lay down their arms, not to take them up again during the continuance of the war unless duly and properly exchanged. He said that he had so understood my letter.

Then we gradually fell off again into conversation about matters foreign to the subject which had brought us together. This continued for some little time, when General Lee again interrupted the course of the conversation by suggesting that the terms I proposed to give his army ought to be written out. I called to General [Ely S.] Parker, secretary on my staff, for writing materials, and commenced writing out the following terms:

Appomattox C. H., Va.,

Ap'l 9th, 1865

Gen. R. E. Lee,

Comd'g C. S. A.

Gen.:

In accordance with the substance of my letter to you of the 8th inst., I propose to receive the surrender of the Army of N. Va. on the following terms, to wit: Rolls of all the officers and men to be made in duplicate. One copy to be given to an officer designated by me, the other to be retained by such officer or officers as you may designate. The officers to give their individual paroles not to take up arms against the Government of the United States until properly exchanged, and each company or regimental commander sign a like parole for the men of their commands. The arms, artillery and public property to be parked and stacked, and turned over to the officer appointed by me to receive them. This will not embrace the side-arms of the officers, nor their private horses or baggage. This done, each officer and man will be allowed to return to their homes, not to be disturbed by United States authority so long as they observe their paroles and the laws in force where they may reside.

Very respectfully,

U.S. Grant,

Lt.-Gen.

When I put my pen to the paper I did not know the first word that I should make use of in writing the terms. I only knew what was in my mind, and I wished to express it clearly, so that there could be no mistaking it. As I wrote on, the thought occurred to me that the officers had their own private horses and effects, which were important to them, but of no value to us; also that it would be an unnecessary humiliation to call upon them to deliver their side arms.

No conversation, not one word, passed between General Lee and myself, either about private property, side arms, or kindred subjects. He appeared to have no objections to the terms first proposed; or if he had a point to make against them he wished to wait until they were in writing to make it. When he read over that part of the terms about side arms, horses and private property of the officers, he remarked, with some feeling, I thought, that this would have a happy effect upon his army.

Then, after a little further conversation, General Lee remarked to me again that their army was organized a little differently from the army of the United States (still maintaining by implication that we were two countries); that in their army the cavalrymen and artillerists owned their own horses; and he asked if he was to understand that the men who so owned their horses were to be permitted to retain them. I told him that as the terms were written they would not; that only the officers were permitted to take their private property. He then, after reading over the terms a second time, remarked that that was clear.

I then said to him that I thought this would be about the last battle of the war -- I sincerely hoped so; and I said further I took it that most of the men in the ranks were small farmers. The whole country had been so raided by the two armies that it was doubtful whether they would be able to put in a crop to carry themselves and their families through the next winter without the aid of the horses they were then riding. The United States did not want them and I would, therefore, instruct the officers I left behind to receive the paroles of his troops to let every man of the Confederate army who claimed to own a horse or mule take the animal to his home. Lee remarked again that this would have a happy effect.

He then sat down and wrote out the following letter:

Headquarters Army of Northern Virginia,

April 9, 1865

Lieut.-General U. S. Grant.

General:

--I received your letter of this date containing the terms of the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia as proposed by you. As they are substantially the same as those expressed in your letter of the 8th inst., they are accepted. I will proceed to designate the proper officers to carry the stipulations into effect.

R. E. Lee,

General

While duplicates of the two letters were being made, the Union generals present were severally presented to General Lee.

The much talked of surrendering of Lee's sword and my handing it back, this and much more that has been said about it is the purest romance. The word sword or side arms was not mentioned by either of us until I wrote it in the terms. There was no premeditation, and it did not occur to me until the moment I wrote it down. If I had happened to omit it, and General Lee had called my attention to it, I should have put it in the terms precisely as I acceded to the provision about the soldiers retaining their horses.

General Lee, after all was completed and before taking his leave, remarked that his army was in a very bad condition for want of food, and that they were without forage; that his men had been living for some days on parched corn exclusively, and that he would have to ask me for rations and forage. I told him "certainly," and asked for how many men he wanted rations. His answer was "about twenty-five thousand": and I authorized him to send his own commissary and quartermaster to Appomattox Station, two or three miles away, where he could have, out of the trains we had stopped, all the provisions wanted. As for forage, we had ourselves depended almost entirely upon the country for that.

Generals Gibbon, Griffin and Merritt were designated by me to carry into effect the paroling of Lee's troops before they should start for their homes -- General Lee leaving Generals Longstreet, Gordon and Pendleton for them to confer with in order to facilitate this work. Lee and I then separated as cordially as we had met, he returning to his own lines, and all went into bivouac for the night at Appomattox.

Soon after Lee's departure I telegraphed to Washington as follows:

Headquarters Appomattox C. H., Va.,

April 9th, 1865, 4:30 p.m.

Hon. E. M. Stanton:

Secretary of War,

Washington.

General Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia this afternoon on terms proposed by myself. The accompanying additional correspondence will show the conditions fully.

U. S. Grant,

Lieut.-General

When news of the surrender first reached our lines our men commenced firing a salute of a hundred guns in honor of the victory. I at once sent word, however, to have it stopped. The Confederates were now our prisoners, and we did not want to exult over their downfall.

New Record...a $3.4 Million Document at Auction

2008-04-08T13:20:00.001-05:00

You might recall my post a few weeks back about a letter for auction that was expected to fetch as much as $5 million. Not only did the auction take place last week, but it also set a record.

The winning bidder paid a whopping $3.4 million for the letter, which I'm happy to report, is a new record for any American manuscript!

I admit, I was a bit surprised by the final price. Pleasantly surprised, but suprised nonetheless. It is a charming letter.

I like to watch how various news outlets cover these stories. If we tracked enough newspapers from different sections of the country over a long-enough period, I suspect we could form some interesting observations about how modern Americans view the sixteenth president. We might even extend our research to include foreign newspapers. What an interesting project that would be! If anyone is so inclined, feel free to steal it and fill out an application for graduate school right away.

Anyway, who had the best news coverage of the $3.4 million Lincoln auction?

The major news agencies reported the story. The Associated Press offered a fairly straightforward account. The lead stressed Lincoln's name, the phrase "little slave children," and the record-setting price:

NEW YORK (AP) -- Abraham Lincoln's heartfelt reply to a group of youngsters who asked him to free America's "little slave children" has sold for $3.4 million.

Sotheby's auction house said Thursday that the 1864 letter set a record for a Lincoln manuscript, as well as for any presidential and American manuscript.

It was purchased by an American private collector bidding over the telephone.

Lincoln's hand-penned reply is contained in a letter to a woman who mailed the children's petition from Concord, Massachusetts.

In it, Lincoln says: "Please tell these little people I am very glad their young hearts are so full of just and generous sympathy."

Several newspapers picked up the concise AP story, among them:

Chicago Sun-Times

Lexington Herald-Leader [KY]

Charlotte Observer [NC]

New Zealand Herald

Contrast the AP's story with a more substantive story by UPI:

NEW YORK, April 4 (UPI) -- A letter written in 1864 by Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president of the United States, has been sold at an auction in New York for $3.4 million.

NY1 said the letter was a reply to a group of young students who pleaded with him to free the country's "little slave children." An unidentified private collector bought it Thursday.

The year of the letter is significant because it was the one in which Lincoln later signed the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed millions of slaves.

Sotheby's auction house in New York said the amount was the most ever paid for a U.S. manuscript, the Springfield (Ill.) State Journal-Register reported.

"We believe this to be an auction record not only for Lincoln, but for any presidential manuscript -- indeed for any historical American manuscript," said Selby Kiffer, senior vice president of Sotheby's books and manuscripts department.

"The previous record-holder, to my knowledge, was an 1865 manuscript of a Lincoln speech sold in the Forbes sale by Christie's in March 2002 for a hammer price of $2,800,000 -- or $3,086,000 with the buyer's premium included," Kiffer said. "I don't apologize for this price. This is the best Lincoln document available for purchase in many, many years."

However, of all the major news agencies, I have to give the nod to Reuters. Consider their coverage:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A stirring 1864 anti-slavery letter from Abraham Lincoln was auctioned for a record $3.4 million on Thursday, Sotheby's auction house said, setting a new record for the 16th U.S. president.

Lincoln's hand-written reply to a petition by children to free "all the little slave children in this country" surpassed the previous record for a Lincoln manuscript -- the $3.1 million for a document sold by Christie's in March 2002.

It was purchased by an American collector bidding by telephone, Sotheby's said.

"Please tell these little people I am very glad their young hearts are so full of just and generous sympathy, and that, while I have not that power to grant all they ask, I trust they will remember that God has, and that, as it seems, He wills to do it," Lincoln wrote in the letter.

Sotheby's called the letter "arguably Lincoln's most personal and powerful statement on God, slavery and emancipation."

He was responding to a petition signed by 195 children.

In 1862 and 1863, Lincoln signed two executive orders known together as the Emancipation Proclamation, which declared free slaves held in some Confederate states. The 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which formally abolished slavery was ratified in December 1865, eight months after Lincoln's assassination.

The letter was the centerpiece of an auction entitled "Presidential and Other American Manuscripts from the Dr. Robert Small Trust."

Several media outlets picked up the Reuters story, among them:

Yahoo! News

The Straights Times [Australia]

The West Australian

Other news outlets prepared original articles, but in nearly every case, they resemble the work of at least one of the three major news agencies:

CNN

BBC News

Honorable mention for the best coverage of this story goes to an original piece, written by, Kate Augusto of the Boston Globe:

Letter from Lincoln fetches $3.4m

By Kate Augusto

April 4, 2008

Abraham Lincoln's addresses are still making history.

A private American collector bought a letter at auction yesterday that Lincoln wrote to some schoolchildren in Concord in 1864. The $3.4 million purchase set a record for an American manuscript, said James Cornelius, curator of the Lincoln collection at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library in Springfield, Ill.

In 1864, the country's 16th president received a petition from 195 schoolchildren from Concord, asking him to "free all the little slave children in this country."

In a handwritten letter to the petition's collector, antislavery advocate Mary Mann, Lincoln wrote, "Please tell these little people I am very glad their young hearts are so full of just and generous sympathy, and that, while I have not the power to grant all they ask, I trust they will remember that God has, and that, as it seems, He wills to do it."

The trust of retired New York physician Richard Small sold the letter dated April 5, 1864, through Sotheby's New York. Small's collection also included a book with Lincoln's autograph on the day of his Gettysburg Address.

Leslie Wilson, curator of special collections at the Concord Library, said the letter's greater significance is its illustration of antislavery sentiment in Concord. "There's always a great tendency to put a lot of emotional importance into something like this . . . but there was a bigger story: the organized antislavery movement. And Concord was only a part of that," she said.

But, without a doubt, the best coverage of the $3.4 million Lincoln auction goes to...

Lincoln's hometown newspaper, Springfield's State Journal-Register. Pete Sherman not only recapped the details of the story, but he interviewed the person in charge of the auction at Sotheby's, Selby Kiffer. More importantly, at least in my view, Sherman spoke with a Lincoln studies expert, Kim Bauer. Bauer is currently the director of Decatur's Lincoln Heritage Project, but before that, he was the curator of the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library. I can't think of too many people who could do a better job of putting a Lincoln document into perspective.

Lincoln Letter Fetches $3.4 Million

Amount sets record; some local scholars doubted it would sell for that much

By PETE SHERMAN

STAFF WRITER

Friday, April 04, 2008

Abraham Lincoln’s 1864 letter to Horace Mann’s widow, responding to her students’ request that he free slave children, was sold by Sotheby’s auction house in New York Thursday for $3,401,000, the most ever paid for an American manuscript, according to the auction house.

We believe this to be an auction record not only for Lincoln, but for any presidential manuscript — indeed for any historical American manuscript,” said Selby Kiffer, senior vice president of Sotheby’s books and manuscripts department and the person in charge of the auction Thursday.

The identity of the buyer, who was bidding over the phone, has not been revealed. Kiffer said even he doesn’t know the buyer’s name.

However, Kiffer said, the Lincoln-Mann manuscript was purchased by a collector, not an investor.

“This is someone who fell in love with the letter,” Kiffer said.

“The previous record-holder, to my knowledge, was an 1865 manuscript of a Lincoln speech sold in the Forbes sale by Christie’s in March 2002 for a hammer price of $2,800,000 — or $3,086,000 with the buyer’s premium included,” Kiffer said.

“I don’t apologize for this price. This is best Lincoln document available for purchase in many, many years.”

According to Sotheby’s Web site, a commission of 12 percent is charged for purchases exceeding $500,000. That puts the hammer price (the winning bid) for the Lincoln-Mann letter at about $3 million.

Some Lincoln scholars in Springfield suspected the 1864 letter to Mary Tyler Peabody Mann would not fetch anywhere near the $3 million to $5 million the auction house was expecting.

But another local historian said never underestimate Sotheby’s.

“Sotheby’s is very good at this,” said Kim Bauer, director of the Lincoln Heritage Project in Decatur and the former curator of the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library.

“Getting the word out, fanning interest. The psychology of auctions is always the same, whether it’s a farm auction in Girard or at the highest end. As an auction house, you push, you push and push and you get people interested and inflamed, and they have to have that piece. The only thing that’s different is the price tag.”

Kiffer said the last time a copy of the Gettysburg Address was sold was in 1962 — for $54,000. If one went up for sale today, he estimated it would go for $25 million to $50 million. At another Sotheby’s auction last year, Carlyle Group co-founder David Rubenstein bought a copy of the Magna Carta for more than $21 million.

Lincoln’s letter was among 111 items Sotheby’s was selling Thursday as part of a collection of historic documents owned by the Dr. Small Trust. The collection included roughly 20 other Lincoln documents, one of which included the only known signature of Lincoln’s at Gettysburg. That was the second-highest sale, going for $937,000, including the commission.

Sotheby’s sold approximately 70 of the 111 items for a total of $5,649,326.

Kiffer said he thought the best value was the $937,000 paid for the Lincoln signature.

Bauer thought the best bang for the buck was the $25,000 paid for an 1862 letter by former President Millard Fillmore in which he called Lincoln a “tyrant.”

“The much more interesting letter was Fillmore’s,” Bauer said. “(The buyer) got a very good deal. Maybe the steal of the auction.”

The Tripp Thesis: An Interpretation and a Challenge

2008-04-07T15:35:00.003-05:00

I want to thank Lewis Gannett for contributing such an insightful article to LincolnStudies.com last week. The piece was both well-written and well-argued, but above all, it was well-received.

I was so pleased to follow the discussion on the Lincoln Studies Discussion Board throughout the weekend. The conversation was spirited, yet it remained respectful. As some of you may know, that is something of a rarity in the world of cyberspace. I want to thank both Mr. Gannett and those who participated. And, of course, the thread is still open for anyone who would like to weigh-in.

Though controversial, the Tripp Thesis is important. It challenges us to weigh historical evidence, debate controversial conclusions, and yes, it allows us to respectfully disagree with one another. Again, I say, the Tripp Thesis is important.

Tripp has introduced scores of people to the complex field of Lincoln Studies. People who previously had no interest in Lincoln heard a broadcast or read an article that detailed Tripp’s sensational claim. Lincoln was a homosexual? That certainly wasn’t in their high school textbook!

People bought Tripp’s book and learned about the characters from Lincoln's past. Ann Rutledge, Mary Owens, Joshua F. Speed, and Elmer Ellsworth all jumped off the page, as did the many scholars who Tripp quarreled with throughout the text. I have no doubt that many people who read Tripp’s book wanted to know more. I am a supporter of almost any book, film, or song that encourages people to learn more about Abraham Lincoln and the American Civil War.

Moreover, I think the Tripp Thesis is important because it has a great deal to teach us. However, I encourage you to read that statement carefully. Does the Tripp Thesis have a great deal to teach us about Lincoln? Well, yes and no.

There are certainly insightful observations throughout the text. For instance, I think Tripp’s book served as my introduction to Captain David Derickson. While I don’t necessarily think Tripp’s interpretation is accurate, I also acknowledge that I can’t tell you exactly what role the captain played in Lincoln’s life. In this respect, Tripp has encouraged me to re-examine evidence and seek out new sources.

Ultimately, however, I suspect that the Tripp Thesis tells us more about modern life than either Lincoln or nineteenth century America. Does the current political climate have anything to do with the Tripp Thesis? Are the 2004 presidential election and the gay marriage amendment connected to a study about Lincoln's sexuality? None of that, by the way, is a criticism of the Tripp Thesis. In fact, I think it gives us a powerful opportunity to discuss how historiography works.

More broadly, however, I would suggest that Tripp falls into a common trap. Throughout The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln, Tripp views Lincoln as a contemporary. Both his methodology and his interpretations are thoroughly products of the twentieth century. Tripp sees something sexual in two men sharing a bed. If the incident had occurred in 2000 instead of 1840, I might agree, but it was not the case. I suspect Lincoln’s sleeping habits tell us more about the scarcity of beds or the frequency of his travels on the law circuit than anything to do with his sexuality. Context is so critically important, and on this score, the Tripp Thesis falls far short. At the same time, Tripp’s book encouraged me to re-examine several books about nineteenth century life and sexuality, among the most useful, I would recommend American Manhood: Transformations in Masculinity from the Revolution to the Modern Era by E. Anthony Rotundo, as well as, Joseph F. Kett’s Rites of Passage: Adolescence in America 1790 to the Present (both pictured above).

I have heard people argue that the Tripp Thesis has done more harm than good because it obscures the Lincoln who lived and replaced him with someone from Tripp’s fantasies. I strongly disagree with that view. The Tripp Thesis is a wonderful illustration of everything that makes history so exciting. Yes, history is exciting because it is such a vibrant field; history is always changing. How is that possible?

Historical interpretations are never the final word. The Tripp Thesis, like any original work of history, is both an interpretation and a challenge. Tripp has presented his case, now scholars must test his conclusions. I look forward to the new generation of scholars who accept Tripp’s bold challenge.

Lincoln's Sexuality: Why Does the Tripp Thesis Matter?

2008-04-04T06:27:00.004-05:00

Shortly after I launched LincolnStudies.com, I received a very intriguing email. “I assisted the late C. A. Tripp with his preparation of The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln, and thus occupy a controversial and tiny banlieu of Lincoln studies,” wrote Lewis Gannett.

He certainly had my attention.

Just a few months earlier, I spoke to a group about Lincoln's poetry. At the end of my talk, I fielded a number of questions, many of which fell far beyond the scope of my paper. I will never forget the last question. An older gentleman standing in the back of the room, who I must say had been waiting patiently, suddenly asked, “So, do you think Lincoln was a homosexual?”

I know I heard someone gasp, but I assure you, it wasn’t me. I expected the question. Actually, I would have been disappointed had the topic not come up.

The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln had just recently hit bookstores. News outlets such as CNN, The New York Times, and the Boston Globe covered the story; the Discovery Channel even weighed in.

But it was more than that.

People were talking about the Tripp thesis. I’m not simply talking about historians, though they certainly offered their perspective. I'm referring to everyday people. People who were not particularly interested in Lincoln’s life were now, suddenly, eager to join the conversation. Friends of mine, who normally wanted to talk about sitcoms or sports, were now asking me about Lincoln. Graduate students, who generally cringed anytime anyone mentioned anything to do with American history, now wanted to know more about this book. And yes, even local history enthusiasts wanted to know more about the most controversial thesis in the field of Lincoln studies.

“You want to know if I think Lincoln was a homosexual?” I asked the man in the back of the room.

He nodded. That's what he wanted to know.

“Really, what does it matter?” I replied. “Do the details of Lincoln’s love life help us understand how he guided a nation through its most tragic hour?”

Was I dodging the question? Was I trying to sweep a potentially embarrassing topic under the rug?

No, I was simply being honest. I can’t say with absolute certainty whether or not Lincoln was attracted to other men. But again, I come back to the same question. What does it matter? In other words, if we had absolute proof that Lincoln was indeed asexual, bisexual, heterosexual, or homosexual, what would that mean? Ultimately, why is it significant?

With these questions still fresh in my mind, I unexpectedly received Mr. Gannett’s email. Over the course of our correspondence, I posed the question to him. I found his response extremely intriguing.

Both Mr. Gannett and I see no reason why you, the LincolnStudies.com reader, should be left out of this intriguing conversation.

Without further ado, I am proud to present the first “Guest Post” on LincolnStudies.com!

After reading the following piece, Mr. Gannett and I invite you to join the conversation on the Lincoln Studies Discussion Board.

Abraham Lincoln: What Difference Does It Make If He Was “Gay”?

By: Lewis Gannett

If Abraham Lincoln found his primary sexual and romantic fulfillment with men, as Charley Shively, C. A. Tripp, and others have argued, does that matter?

In the grand sense of Lincoln’s historical achievements, no. Lincoln did not abolish slavery because he was “gay” (it must be pointed out that the word “gay,” with its social and political meanings as currently understood, didn’t exist in Lincoln’s time, and is used here only for the sake of simplicity). Lincoln did not win the Civil War because he physically loved men; to make that kind of claim is ludicrous. Of the few historical figures who, like Lincoln, have come to be seen as truly, everlastingly great, none did so on account of a particular sexuality—heterosexual, homosexual, or what have you. If Winston Churchill found his primary sexual and romantic fulfillment with women, which no one has bothered to argue, does that affect his place in history? No.

So, why might it matter that Lincoln had sexual relations with men?

Three main reasons, interrelated, come to mind.

First, anything pertaining to the life of our greatest president should be part of the historical record and available for study. This does not of course mean that Lincoln’s sexuality should be of consuming interest to everyone: people are free to decide what provokes a sense of curiosity. But the converse is also true. If some people are indeed curious about the 16th president’s love life—and it is evident that many are—then they should be able to learn about it. This is the most fundamental reason that Lincoln’s sexuality matters.

Second, the teaching of American history has until recently ignored altogether the role of homosexuals in the nation’s past. A reality since colonial times, same-sex love remained invisible for centuries, something that most students at all educational levels never encountered in their studies. This has changed, in some ways remarkably. But much of the change has been cosmetic. I found in the course of researching my master’s thesis that although current college-level American history textbooks vary enormously in terms of lesbian and gay coverage, not one identifies by name more than a handful of homosexual individuals. Yes, many textbooks have expanded the visibility of homosexuality, but it’s largely a faceless visibility. In this context the question of Abraham Lincoln matters quite a lot indeed.

But perhaps, to some, reason # 2 merely begs the question. Why should people care if America’s homosexual history is visible? The answer is simple: Hiding the past is never a good idea, especially if it involves hiding oppression. Take, for example, the evolution of the teaching of African-American history. Bizarre as it may now seem, until almost 1960 mainstream American historians bought the idea that under slavery, “Sambo was happy,” and even as recently as 1998, faculty at a North Carolina community college were claiming that “most slaves were happy in captivity” (a media firestorm led to the cancellation of the course in question). It goes without saying that black students deserve to know the truth about their past. This equally applies to lesbian and gay students, but with a twist. They deserve to know, just for starters, that they have a past—one that includes, by the way, villains as well as heroes. Few of the textbooks I examined mention that key ringleaders of the Second Red Scare were gay men. Although ostensibly a search for subversive Communists, this 1950s witch hunt targeted a far larger number of homosexuals. Does it “matter” that Joseph McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover, and Roy Cohn were gay? I would argue that it matters on the general grounds that many Americans are unaware that homosexuals held senior government positions prior to the last couple of decades. But the fact that these three men fomented a panic that destroyed the lives of thousands of fellow gays, matters in a more particular and urgent sense. This is simply to say that the issue of Lincoln’s sexuality is but one facet of a complex historical puzzle. All of it matters for many different reasons, some of them in painful—but nonetheless instructive—ways.

Third, the “What difference does it make?” attitude about Lincoln’s sexuality carries with it the concession that Lincoln may in fact have had sex affairs with men. Implicit in the argument is, “Even if he did—so what?” Two of the more acute critics of C. A. Tripp’s The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln quite explicitly take this position: Richard Brookhiser in The New York Times Book Review and Christine Stansell in The New Republic. Brookhiser is the biographer of significant figures in early American history. Stansell, a professor at Princeton, specializes in 19th-century gender studies.

Both critics acknowledge that aspects of Lincoln’s life as described by Tripp are suggestive of homosexuality. Brookhiser goes so far as to concede, “On the evidence before us, Lincoln loved men, at least some of whom loved him back.” Stansell, referring to a notable Lincoln bedmate, writes, “Still, it’s what gets you through the night. If Captain Derickson helped the grieving father and the burdened president, we should only be grateful.” Both critics also end their reviews with a resounding, “So what?” Brookhiser refers to Lincoln’s achievements as president and concludes: “This is the Lincoln that matters. The rest is biography.” Stansell says of Lincoln sleeping with Derickson and other items in Tripp’s dossier: “[A]nd finally, it doesn’t matter much.”

It is startling that Brookhiser, a biographer, can so baldly state, “The rest is biography,” implying that it doesn’t really matter. At any rate, those who subscribe to the “So what?” school of thought can take heart from the positions of these distinguished historians. But there is something a bit odd going on here. To the extent that Tripp is right about Lincoln—and as Brookhiser and Stansell suggest, he is perhaps more than a little right—is the extent to which scholars have been not just wrong about Lincoln, but spectacularly wrong. How could that have happened?

Abraham Lincoln is the most-studied figure in American history. A vast and talented army of scholars tends to our memory of him, has done so for a very long time. How is it that a central fact of Lincoln’s life seems to have eluded the myriad of experts devoted to explaining that life? This is not a trivial issue. It raises serious questions about American historiography.

In fact, a number of scholars have looked at evidence relating to Lincoln’s sex life, found leads suggestive of same-sex affairs, hinted at those leads in their writings, but then seem to have said to themselves, “Hmm, I really don’t want to go there.” As Tripp points out in Intimate World, we have indications that the Lincolnists Ida Tarbell, Carl Sandburg, and Margaret Leech all came to that conclusion. It’s worth noting that these writers published many decades ago—Leech most recently, in 1941. What happened to their tentative lines of inquiry? They disappeared from Lincoln scholarship. Why?

One concludes that there has been, if not a cover up, exactly, then at least a willingness to look the other way. Those who espouse the “So what?” point of view do not acknowledge this problem; Brookhiser and Stansell don’t even seem to know that it exists. I can’t blame nonacademics for feeling indifferent about a “gay Lincoln.” During the furor following the publication of Tripp’s book it was a running joke among friends of mine that lots of people, including lesbians and gays, especially young ones, were groaning, “Oh, God—who cares?” So be it. But professional historians are another story. They have an obligation to pursue evidence no matter where it leads. In the case of Lincoln’s sexuality that hasn’t happened. The “So what?” reaction among scholars such as Brookhiser and Stansell is an amusing, and disturbing, testament to that fact. In essence they are saying, “Who cares if the history profession bungled its interpretation of Lincoln’s personal life?” To that I would say: Anyone who cares about history should care.

Lewis Gannett assisted the late C. A. Tripp with the preparation of his book, The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln (Free Press, 2005). Gannett’s article, “‘Overwhelming Evidence’ of a Lincoln-Ann Rutledge Romance?: Reexamining Rutledge Family Reminiscences,” appeared in the Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association (Winter, 2005). He is a graduate of Harvard University, pursued postgraduate studies in political science at MIT, and recently received a master’s degree in history from the University of Massachusetts at Boston.

Lincoln Studies Discussion Board: Join the Conversation!

The Most Controversial Thesis in Lincoln Studies...

2008-04-03T11:57:00.011-05:00

LincolnStudies.com has a big surprise in store for you. I don’t want to completely spoil it, but I suppose I'll give you a few hints:

It will be the first “Guest Post” on LincolnStudies.com

The topic has something to do with the most controversial thesis in the field of Lincoln Studies

I suspect tomorrow’s post will give us plenty to talk about. If you haven’t yet registered for the Discussion Board, you may want to do so in the meantime

Check back in tomorrow!

Abraham Lincoln's Crossroads

2008-04-02T12:20:00.002-05:00

Wow! I found an online game that seems to do the impossible: you can learn and have a bit of fun at the same time.

The game: Abraham Lincoln’s Crossroads

The price: Free

Here is a brief description from the publisher:

The online game is intended for advanced middle- and high-school students. It invites them to learn about Lincoln’s leadership by exploring the political choices he made. An animated Lincoln introduces a situation, asks for advice and prompts players to decide the issue for themselves, before learning the actual outcome. At the end of the game, players discover how frequently they predicted Lincoln’s actions. A Resources Page keyed to each chapter provides links to relevant Websites on Lincoln and the Civil War, permitting students to explore issues in more depth.

The game is based on the National Constitution Center’s traveling exhibit Lincoln: The Constitution & the Civil War. They have graciously agreed to host the game, free of charge on their website.

CLICK HERE to play Abraham Lincoln’s Crossroads.

Good Luck!

April Fool's Day, 1838

2008-04-01T10:47:00.001-05:00

You have to be careful today. If anybody tries to tell you something that doesn’t sound quite right, trust your gut. Today is April Fools’ Day!

I know it’s a bit strange, but whenever I think of this quasi-holiday, I think of a letter Abraham Lincoln wrote in 1838. Let me explain.

On April 1, 1838, Lincoln wrote an amusing letter to fellow lawyer Orville H. Browning’s wife, Eliza. The letter is not a practical joke, but it is certainly written in a playful manner.

The letter chronicles Lincoln’s real life romance with a girl named Miss Mary Owens. Though he had been involved with her for awhile, he wasn’t really sure how he felt about her. Then, rather unexpectedly, the relationship suddenly fell apart.

Why did Lincoln pick up his pen and tell his friend’s wife all about his love life? I suppose it is anyone’s guess, though I suspect she had a good sense of humor. Years later, when asked about the letter, Mrs. Browning said she had no idea it was a true story. She just figured Lincoln was in a playful mood on April Fools’ Day.

But there was more to it than that. The story was indeed real, as was the rejection. I have always thought Lincoln’s use of humor throughout this letter is telling. Notice that he takes several cheap shots at the girl who rejected him.

Lincoln’s letter reminds me of a story he told about twenty years later. He had just lost to Stephen A. Douglas in their celebrated 1858 race for a seat in the United States Senate. A friend asked him how he felt. Lincoln replied that he felt a little like the Kentucky boy who stubbed his toe while running down the road to his sweetheart’s house: “It hurts too bad to laugh, but he was too big to cry.”

On April Fools’ Day, at age twenty-nine, Lincoln tried to convince his friend’s wife that he could laugh in spite of the pain:

[AL to Mrs. Orville H. Bronwing, 1 April 1838, in CW, 1:117-119.]
Dear Madam: Springfield, April 1. 1838. [1]
Without appologising for being egotistical, I shall make the history of so much of my own life, as has elapsed since I saw you, the subject of this letter. And by the way I now discover, that, in order to give a full and inteligible account of the things I have done and suffered since I saw you, I shall necessarily have to relate some that happened before.
It was, then, in the autumn of 1836, that a married lady of my acquaintance, [2] and who was a great friend of mine, being about to pay a visit to her father and other relatives residing in Kentucky, proposed to me, that on her return she would bring a sister [3] of hers with her, upon condition that I would engage to become her brother-in-law with all convenient dispach. I, of course, accepted the proposal; for you know I could not have done otherwise, had I really been averse to it; but privately between you and me, I was most confoundedly well pleased with the project. I had seen the said sister some three years before, thought her inteligent and agreeable, and saw no good objection to plodding life through hand in hand with her. Time passed on, the lady took her journey and in due time returned, sister in company sure enough. This stomached me a little; for it appeared to me, that her coming so readily showed that she was a trifle too willing; but on reflection it occured to me, that she might have been prevailed on by her married sister to come, without any thing concerning me ever having been mentioned to her; and so I concluded that if no other objection presented itself, I would consent to wave this. All this occured upon my hearing of her arrival in the neighbourhood; for, be it remembered, I had not yet seen her, except about three years previous, as before mentioned.
In a few days we had an interview, and although I had seen her before, she did not look as my immagination had pictured her. I knew she was over-size, but she now appeared a fair match for Falstaff; I knew she was called an ``old maid'', and I felt no doubt of the truth of at least half of the appelation; but now, when I beheld her, I could not for my life avoid thinking of my mother; and this, not from withered features, for her skin was too full of fat, to permit its contracting in to wrinkles; but from her want of teeth, weather-beaten appearance in general, and from a kind of notion that ran in my head, that nothing could have commenced at the size of infancy, and reached her present bulk in less than thirtyfive or forty years; and, in short, I was not all pleased with her. But what could I do? I had told her sister that I would take her for better or for worse; and I made a point of honor and conscience in all things, to stick to my word, especially if others had been induced to act on it, which in this case, I doubted not they had, for I was now fairly convinced, that no other man on earth would have her, and hence the conclusion that they were bent on holding me to my bargain. Well, thought I, I have said it, and, be consequences what they may, it shall not be my fault if I fail to do it. At once I determined to consider her my wife; and this done, all my powers of discovery were put to the rack, in search of perfections in her, which might be fairly set-off against her defects. I tried to immagine she was handsome, which, but for her unfortunate corpulency, was actually true. Exclusive of this, no woman that I have seen, has a finer face. I also tried to convince myself, that the mind was much more to be valued than the person; and in this, she was not inferior, as I could discover, to any with whom I had been acquainted.
Shortly after this, without attempting to come to any positive understanding with her, I set out for Vandalia, where and when you first saw me. During my stay there, I had letters from her, which did not change my opinion of either her intelect or intention; but on the contrary, confirmed it in both.
All this while, although I was fixed ``firm as the surge repelling rock'' in my resolution, I found I was continually repenting the rashness, which had led me to make it. Through life I have been in no bondage, either real or immaginary from the thraldom of which I so much desired to be free.
After my return home, I saw nothing to change my opinion of her in any particular. She was the same and so was I. I now spent my time between planing how I might get along through life after my contemplated change of circumstances should have takenPage 119 place; and how I might procrastinate the evil day for a time, which I really dreaded as much---perhaps more, than an irishman does the halter.
After all my suffering upon this deeply interesting subject, here I am, wholly unexpectedly, completely out of the ``scrape''; and I now want to know, if you can guess how I got out of it. Out clear in every sense of the term; no violation of word, honor or conscience. I dont believe you can guess, and so I may as well tell you at once. As the lawyers say, it was done in the manner following, towit. After I had delayed the matter as long as I thought I could in honor do, which by the way had brought me round into the last fall, I concluded I might as well bring it to a consumation without further delay; and so I mustered my resolution, and made the proposal to her direct; but, shocking to relate, she answered, No. At first I supposed she did it through an affectation of modesty, which I thought but ill-become her, under the peculiar circumstances of her case; but on my renewal of the charge, I found she repeled it with greater firmness than before. I tried it again and again, but with the same success, or rather with the same want of success. I finally was forced to give it up, at which I verry unexpectedly found myself mortified almost beyond endurance. I was mortified, it seemed to me, in a hundred different ways. My vanity was deeply wounded by the reflection, that I had so long been too stupid to discover her intentions, and at the same time never doubting that I understood them perfectly; and also, that she whom I had taught myself to believe no body else would have, had actually rejected me with all my fancied greatness; and to cap the whole, I then, for the first time, began to suspect that I was really a little in love with her. But let it all go. I'll try and out live it. Others have been made fools of by the girls; but this can never be with truth said of me. I most emphatically, in this instance, made a fool of myself. I have now come to the conclusion never again to think of marrying; and for this reason; I can never be satisfied with any one who would be block-head enough to have me.
When you receive this, write me a long yarn about something to amuse me. Give my respects to Mr. Browning. Your sincere friend
Mrs. O. H. Browning. A. LINCOLN
Annotation
[1] ALS, CSmH. The wife of Orville H. Browning of Quincy, Illinois, (nee Eliza Caldwell) was like her husband a native of Kentucky. The Brownings were married in 1836, and in the same year Browning was elected state senator from Adams County. Their political careers beginning only two years apart, Lincoln and Browning were to remain closely associated throughout Lincoln's life, and on the social side Mrs. Browning remained one of Lincoln's most valued friends.
[2] Mrs. Bennett Abell.
[3] Miss Mary S. Owens. See Lincoln's letters (supra) of December 13, 1836; May 7, 1837; August 16, 1837.

"Lincolniana on Ebay"

2008-03-31T12:01:00.001-05:00

A big "thank you" to the readers who sent me email regarding my posts last week regarding various Lincoln-related items available for auction.

As I said previously, I not only want to know what items are on the market, but I want to know how much certain items are worth. In my view, the best way to learn is to monitor the online auction sites. In addition to Ebay, I routinely check Sotheby's, as well as Heritage Auction Galleries.

Readers seem to want to know about these auctions, so I have decided to make such updates a regular part of Lincolnstudies.com

Notice on the right-hand side of this blog, on the navigation bar, there is a new page titled "Lincolniana on Ebay." Each week I plan on updating the page with the latest Lincoln-related manuscripts, photographs, campaign memorabilia, and books that are available for auction.

If I ever figure out an effective way to highlight auctions from Sothebys or Heritage, I will be sure to add those as well.

Again, I hope you find the new page as useful as I do.

May I Have Your Autograph?

2008-03-28T11:06:00.001-05:00

I suspect more than one person asked Abraham Lincoln for his autograph while he was in Gettysburg, but only one such signature has survived. Sotheby’s thinks the lone Lincoln autograph could be worth a million dollars.

No word on who the autograph-seeker was, but the person was able to get the signature of nearly every dignitary who listened to the Gettysburg Address:

Secretary of State William H. Seward

Secretary of War Simon Cameron

Pennsylvania Governor Andrew Curtin

Two Generals who Fought at Gettysburg: Abner Doubleday and George Sykes

Lincoln’s Secretaries: John Hay and John Nicolay

Various Foreign Dignitaries

The entire autograph album will be on display at Sotheby’s gallery in New York until next Wednesday, but on Thursday, April 3, 2008 at 10 am, it hits the auction block.

"Wishing to be Happy while She is Otherwise"

2008-03-27T10:44:00.002-05:00

This is one of my favorite Lincoln letters.

He had just received a letter from his recently married friend Joshua F. Speed.

On this date in 1842, Lincoln penned an extraordinary reply.

In the first 200 words, Lincoln conveys how happy he is for his friend, but then he transitions to his own sad situation:

I am not going beyond the truth, when I tell you, that the short space it took me to read your last letter, gave me more pleasure, than the total sum of all I have enjoyed since that fatal first of Jany.'41.

For the next 100 words, Lincoln makes no effort to conceal his frustration. His troubled courtship with Mary Todd comes bubbling toward the surface. Speed and his new bride were happy, but Mary consumes Lincoln’s thoughts. He had made her unhappy. “That still kills my soul,” Lincoln writes. “I can not but reproach myself, for even wishing to be happy while she is otherwise.”

Lincoln suddenly stops himself from descending further into despair, but notice, it never completely fades away:

Dear Speed: Springfield, March 27th. 1842
Yours of the 10th. Inst. was received three or four days since. You know I am sincere, when I tell you, the pleasure it's contents gave me was and is inexpressible. As to your farm matter, I have no sympathy with you. I have no farm, nor ever expect to have; and, consequently, have not studied the subject enough to be much interested with it. I can only say that I am glad you are satisfied and pleased with it.
But on that other subject, to me of the most intense interest, whether in joy or sorrow, I never had the power to withhold my sympathy from you. It can not be told, how it now thrills me with joy, to hear you say you are ``far happier than you ever expected to be.'' That much I know is enough. I know you too well to suppose your expectations were not, at least sometimes, extravagant; and if the reality exceeds them all, I say, enough, dear Lord. I am not going beyond the truth, when I tell you, that the short space it took me to read your last letter, gave me more pleasure, than the total sum of all I have enjoyed since that fatal first of Jany.'41 [2]. Since then, it seems to me, I should have been entirely happy, but for the never-absent idea, that there is one still unhappy whom I have contributed to make so. That still kills my soul. I can not but reproach myself, for even wishing to be happy while she is otherwise. She accompanied a large party on the Rail Road cars, to Jack-sonville last monday; and on her return, spoke, so that I heard of it, of having enjoyed the trip exceedingly. God be praised for that.
You know with what sleepless vigilance I have watched you, ever since the commencement of your affair; and altho' I am now almost confident it is useless, I can not forbear once more to say that I think it is even yet possible for your spirits to flag down and leave you miserable. If they should, dont fail to remember that they can not long remain so.
One thing I can tell you which I know you will be glad to hear; and that is, that I have seen Sarah, [3] and scrutinized her feelings as well as I could, and am fully convinced, she is far happier now, than she has been for the last fifteen months past.
You will see by the last Sangamo Journal that I made a Temperance speech on the 22. of Feb. which I claim that Fanny and you shall read as an act of charity to me; for I can not learn that any body else has read it, or is likely to. Fortunately, it is not very long and I shall deem it a sufficient compliance with my request, if one of you listens while the other reads it. As to your Lockridge matter, it is only necessary to say that there has been no court since you left, and that the next, commences to-morrow morning, during which I suppose we can not fail to get a judgement. [4]
I wish you would learn of Everett [5] what he will take, over and above a discharge for all trouble we have been at, to take his business out of our hands and give it to somebody else. It is impossible to collect money on that or any other claim here now; and altho' you know I am not a very petulant ma[n,] I declare I am almost out of patience with [Mr.] Everett's endless importunity. It seems like [he n]to only writes all the letters he can himself; b[ut] gets every body else in Louisville and vicinity to be constantly writing to us about his claim.
I have always [h]eard that Mr. Evere[tt is] a very clever fellow, and I am very [sorry] he can not be obliged; but it does seem to me he ought to know we are interested [to] collect his money, and therefore would do [it] if we could. I am neither joking nor in a [pet] when I say we would thank him to transfer h[is] business to some other, without any compensation for what we have done, provided he will see the court cost paid, for which we are security.
The sweet violet you enclosed, came safely to hand, but it was so dry, and mashed so fla[t,] that it crumbled to dust at the first attempt to handle it. The juice that mashed out of it, stained a [place] on the letter, which I mean to preserve and ch[erish] for the sake of her who procured it to be se[nt.] My renewed good wishes to her, in particula[r,] and generally to all such of your relatives as know me. As ever LINCOLN
Annotation
[1] ALS, IHi
[2] The date on which Lincoln asked to be released from his engagement to Mary Todd.
[3] Sarah Rickard.
[4] On March 28, Logan & Lincoln obtained judgment for $312.09 in James Bell & Company v. John Lockridge. Speed had been a partner in Bell & Company.
[5] A friend of Speed's who lived in Louisville, Kentucky.

Notes from the Microfilm Reader

2008-03-26T12:47:00.003-05:00

I spent some time at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library last weekend. If you’ve never killed an afternoon scanning microfilm, you're missing out.

Of course, I’m only half-joking.

I admit, the microfilm experience can be frustrating. It can be difficult to locate the right microfilm reel or the right article within the reel. Equipment can be difficult to operate and sometimes it completely breaks down.

Thankfully, bad microfilm experiences are few and far between at a first-rate facility like the ALPL.

I had a very good time while I was there. That’s right, a good time staring at microfilm.

How is that possible?

It happens when the room is dark and quiet and I’ve already found the things I was looking for. I can get lost in the experience.

It happened to me again last weekend.

I found myself just reading the newspaper. I’m talking about a newspaper written 170 years ago! Each issue was only a few pages long: a page for national news, another for local, and a page or two of advertisements.

The ads were especially good. The fantastic descriptions of law firms and miracle tonics more than made-up for the lack of colorful illustrations.

I read through a week or two of the Sangamo Journal [Springfield, IL] before I realized I had drifted off to the nineteenth century. This article, published 172 years ago today [March 26, 1836], caught my eye:

FROM a stable in Springfield, on Wednesday, 18th inst. a large bay horse, star in his forehead, plainly marked with harness; supposed to be eight years old; had been shod all round, but is believed to have lost some of his shoes, and trots and paces. Any person who will take up said horse, and leave information at the Journal office, or with the subscriber at New-salem, shall be liberally paid for their trouble. A. LINCOLN.

I don’t know if Lincoln ever found his horse, but as I was walking across campus today, I found myself hoping he did.

Ebay's Lincoln

2008-03-25T08:50:00.006-05:00

I like to check the auction sites for Lincoln-related items. Though I have never bid on a Lincoln document or a period piece, I like to know what is out there. Ebay is one of the sites I monitor.

I thought it would be fun to pass along interesting items for your viewing pleasure. Recently, I learned how to create "widgets" like the one pictured above. It is an easy way to relay the information. You can see a very brief item description, the highest bid, as well as a countdown to the end of the auction. If you click the green bar that says "View & Bid," it will take you directly to the auction page where you will be able to read more about the item, view pictures, and place a bid if you so desire.

The item (pictured above) that caught my attention this week appears to be a letter of recommendation written by Lincoln on Executive Mansion stationary. According to my eyes, the letter reads as follows:

Executive Mansion,
Washington, Sep. 24, 1862
Major General Halleck,
Sir
Capt Thadeus P. Mott of the 19th Infantry, is now at New York as a mustering officer - I remember seeing him once or twice last year, and hearing him always represented as a superior artillery officer. His friends wish him to have a battery; and I ~~wish~~ think the question is worth considering -
Yours truly
A. Lincoln

The letter does not appear in The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. However, according to the Civil War Soldiers and Sailors System, a soldier named Thaddeus P. Mott did indeed serve in the Union ranks. While Lincoln identified the soldier as a member of the 9th Infantry, the database identifies Captain Mott as a member of the 3rd Independent Battery, New York Light Artillery.

The date of the letter is very interesting. The Battle of Antietam occured just seven days earlier, while the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation was issued just two days before the president wrote this letter of recommendation.

According to the Lincoln Log: A Daily Chronology, Wednesday, September 24, 1862 was a very busy day for the president:

Special cabinet meeting considers expediency of treaties regarding voluntary colonization of Negroes and proper answer to treaty complaints of Cherokees. Official Records—Armies, 490-91.
President proclaims that "all Rebels and Insurgents" and their abettors guilty of any disloyal practice are subject to martial law, and all such persons arrested are deprived of benefits of writ of habeas corpus. Proclamation Suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus, 24 September 1862, CW, 5:436-37.
Prepares letter of introduction for Hon. Edward Everett, orator, statesman, and former senator from Massachusetts. "While I commend him to the consideration of those, whom he may meet, I am quite conscious that he could better introduce me than I him, in Europe." Abraham Lincoln to Whom It May Concern, 24 September 1862, CW, 5:437-38.
Large crowd with band and speeches serenades President in honor of Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln says: "What I did, I did after very full deliberation, and under a very heavy and solemn sense of responsibility. I can only trust in God I have made no mistake." Washington Star, 24 September 1862; Randall, Lincoln, 3:12; Reply to Serenade in Honor of Emancipation Proclamation, 24 September 1862, CW, 5:438-39.

Disclaimer: Please understand that by highlighting an auction, I am in no way vouching for the authenticity of any item. Authentication is a process that requires much more than simply seeing a picture, reading the item description, and gathering information that is freely available online. Before placing a bid, I strongly encourage you to find out as much about the item, as well as the seller, as possible.

Click Here For More Lincolniana on Ebay!

Standing Where Lincoln Stood?

2008-03-24T12:34:00.001-05:00

Dozens of communities throughout the Midwest claim to have a connection to Abraham Lincoln. Signs marking the spot where he slept or spoke are not uncommon. Proving or disproving such claims is often quite difficult. Historians might assemble their evidence, but local tradition is often a hard thing to contradict. Today, I found a nice example of this phenomenon.

Officials in Monroe County, Illinois are planning to renovate the courthouse. They want to turn the old courtroom into a modern conference room. The project, which might cost as much as $125,000, calls for multi-media capabilities, wireless networking, and nice "upholstered, fold-up seats" to repelace the old nineteenth-century "church pew" seating.

Sounds good so far, right?

Well, local tradition says Lincoln, then just a young circuit-riding lawyer, argued a case in the old courtroom.

The community is proud of their Lincoln connection. When schoolchildren visit the courthouse, tour guides tell them they are standing where Lincoln once stood.

A Lincoln connection is unusual for a small county in the St. Louis Metro Area. Why would they erase their connection to Lincoln? Why convert a courtroom steeped in tradition into a mundane conference room?

It turns out their Lincoln connection is dubious.

The Law Practice of Abraham Lincoln: Second Edition has documented the sixteenth president’s twenty-five year legal career. Researchers have identified 5,200 cases in which Lincoln was involved; unfortunately, there are no entries for Monroe County.

The database contains every known Lincoln legal case, but others may still be out there. Over the last eight years, researchers have added dozens of cases to the database. They will continue to do so whenever new cases emerge.

If documentary evidence of Lincoln in Monroe County exists, the folks at the Papers of Abraham Lincoln in Springfield would love to hear about it, as would, I suspect, the opponents of the courtroom-turned-conference room in Monroe County.

The Cornerstone Speech

2008-03-21T07:57:00.001-05:00

It is the most fundamental question of the Civil War Era. It may also be the most loaded question in all of American history—Why did the South secede?

For nearly a century and a half, historians have offered various answers; however, the participants themselves told us why they did it. Various newspaper editorials outlined the case for secession. Certainly the Confederate states laid out their reasons in their various Declaration of Causes for Secession. However, today also marks the anniversary of a very important speech that sheds light on the subject.

On March 21, 1861, Alexander Stephens delivered his famous “Cornerstone Speech” in Savannah, Georgia. Though he was an early opponent of the secessionist movement, when his home state of Georgia seceded, Stephens sided with them and became the Vice President of the Confederacy. He hoped his “Cornerstone Speech” would convince other Southern states to join the rebellion.

Stephens told the crowd that the new Confederate constitution secured “all our ancient rights, franchises, and liberties.” However, it was far superior to the constitution of 1787 in one important area:

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.

Stephens summed up the Confederate cause:

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

When the Vice President of the Confederacy tells me why the South seceded, I can only take him at his word.

"The Little Lady Who Started This Great War”

2008-03-20T09:25:00.002-05:00

The best selling novel of the 19th Century was published 156 years ago today. In its first year, Harriett Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin sold 305,000 copies in the United States alone, while some 2.5 million copies were sold worldwide.

But we don’t remember the book because it was simply a commercial success. The book was a social phenomenon as well. It brought the realities of slavery into homes far removed from the American South. Long-suffering Uncle Tom, courageous Eliza, and young Harry put individual faces to previously unknown slaves, while the despicable slave owner finally got a name in Simon Legree.

Surprisingly, Uncle Tom’s Cabin is not a simple anti-slavery novel. Stowe does not hold the Southern states solely responsible for perpetuating slavery. In fact, the book takes great pains to show how the North was complicit as well. After all, Simon Legree might be the stereotypical evil slave owner, but he was not a Southerner by birth—he was a Yankee.

Nevertheless, the novel had a significant impact on the abolitionist movement, both in the United States and abroad. During the Civil War, Stowe visited the White House. Supposedly, Lincoln greeted her with the unforgettable line, “So this is the little lady who started this great war.”

Five Years Ago Today

2008-03-19T10:45:00.003-05:00

March 19, 2003

10:16 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.

On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign. More than 35 countries are giving crucial support -- from the use of naval and air bases, to help with intelligence and logistics, to the deployment of combat units. Every nation in this coalition has chosen to bear the duty and share the honor of serving in our common defense.

To all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces now in the Middle East, the peace of a troubled world and the hopes of an oppressed people now depend on you. That trust is well placed.

The enemies you confront will come to know your skill and bravery. The people you liberate will witness the honorable and decent spirit of the American military. In this conflict, America faces an enemy who has no regard for conventions of war or rules of morality. Saddam Hussein has placed Iraqi troops and equipment in civilian areas, attempting to use innocent men, women and children as shields for his own military -- a final atrocity against his people.

I want Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm. A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment.

We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.

I know that the families of our military are praying that all those who serve will return safely and soon. Millions of Americans are praying with you for the safety of your loved ones and for the protection of the innocent. For your sacrifice, you have the gratitude and respect of the American people. And you can know that our forces will be coming home as soon as their work is done.

Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.

Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. And I assure you, this will not be a campaign of half measures, and we will accept no outcome but victory.

My fellow citizens, the dangers to our country and the world will be overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace. We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others and we will prevail.

May God bless our country and all who defend her.

END 10:20 P.M. EST

John C. Calhoun: 'A Positive Good'

2008-03-18T14:56:00.003-05:00

Today is John C. Calhoun's birthday. I admit, the outspoken senator from South Carolinia is not one of my favorite characters in American history, but he is terribly significant.

I recently re-read one of Calhoun's most well-known speeches. Delivered on the floor of the United States Senate in 1837, Calhoun defended the institution of slavery. While some Americans begrudgingly admitted that slavery was a "necessary evil" in the country, Calhoun disagreed:

I hold that in the present state of civilization, where two races of different origin, and distinguished by color, and other physical differences, as well as intellectual, are brought together, the relation now existing in the slaveholding States between the two, is, instead of an evil, a good—a positive good.

Calhoun continued on with his theme, extolling the virtues of American slavery:

I may say with truth, that in few countries so much is left to the share of the laborer, and so little exacted from him, or where there is more kind attention paid to him in sickness or infirmities of age. Compare his condition with the tenants of the poor houses in the more civilized portions of Europe—look at the sick, and the old and infirm slave, on one hand, in the midst of his family and friends, under the kind superintending care of his master and mistress, and compare it with the forlorn and wretched condition of the pauper in the poorhouse. But I will not dwell on this aspect of the question; I turn to the political; and here I fearlessly assert that the existing relation between the two races in the South, against which these blind fanatics are waging war, forms the most solid and durable foundation on which to rear free and stable political institutions. It is useless to disguise the fact. There is and always has been in an advanced stage of wealth and civilization, a conflict between labor and capital. The condition of society in the South exempts us from the disorders and dangers resulting from this conflict; and which explains why it is that the political condition of the slaveholding States has been so much more stable and quiet than that of the North. . . Surrounded as the slaveholding States are with such imminent perils, I rejoice to think that our means of defense are ample, if we shall prove to have the intelligence and spirit to see and apply them before it is too late. All we want is concert, to lay aside all party differences and unite with zeal and energy in repelling approaching dangers. Let there be concert of action, and we shall find ample means of security without resorting to secession or disunion. I speak with full knowledge and a thorough examination of the subject, and for one see my way clearly. . . . I dare not hope that anything I can say will arouse the South to a due sense of danger; I fear it is beyond the power of mortal voice to awaken it in time from the fatal security into which it has fallen.

This speech is important. Calhoun gives us a bit of insight into how a slave-owner might justify his actions. Moreover, when I re-read this speech, I was struck by how familiar the rhetoric sounded. Throughout the 1840s and 1850s, pro-slavery men--the real defenders of American slavery--adopted many of the same arguments.

Take, for example, William J. Grayson. Not only was this South Carolinian a representative in the United States Congress, he was also a poet. A book of his poetry was published in 1855. One of his most interesting poems compared Northern workers and Southern slaves. Like Calhoun, Grayson reached a startling conclusion:

"The Hireling"
Free but in name -- the slaves of endless toil...
In squalid hut -- a kennel for the poor,
Or noisome cellar, stretched upon the floor,
His clothing rags, of filthy straw his bed,
With offal from the gutter daily fed...
These are the miseries...the wants, the cares,
The bliss that freedom for the serf prepares...
"The Slave"
Taught by the master's efforts, by his care
Fed, clothed, protected many a patient year,
From trivial numbers now to millions grown,
With all the white man's useful arts their own,
Industrious, docile, skilled in wood and field,
To guide the plow, the sturdy axe to wield...
Guarded from want, from beggary secure,
He never feels what hireling crowds endure,
Nor knows, like them, in hopeless want to crave,
For wife and child, the comforts of the slave,
Or the sad thought that, when about to die,
He leaves them to the cold world's charity...

"Social theorist" George Fitzhugh took the argument further. He had been defending slavery in print for nearly a decade when, in 1857, he published Cannibals All! Or Slaves Without Masters.

Though the book contains a great many memorable passages, this excerpt expands on Calhoun's point that slavery was indeed "a positive good:"

The negro slaves of the South are the happiest, and in some sense, the freest people in the world. The children and the aged and infirm work not at all, and yet have all the comforts and necessaries of life provided for them. They enjoy liberty, because they are oppressed neither by care or labor. The women do little hard work, and are protected from the despotism of their husbands by their masters. The negro men and stout boys work, on the average, in good weather, no more than nine hours a day. The balance of their time is spent in perfect abandon. Besides, they have their Sabbaths and holidays. White men, with so much of license and abandon, would die of ennui; but negroes luxuriate in corporeal and mental repose. With their faces upturned to the sun, they can sleep at any hour; and quiet sleep is the greatest of human enjoyments. "Blessed be the man who invented sleep." 'Tis happiness in itself-and results from contentment in the present, and confident assurance of the future. We do not know whether free laborers ever sleep. They are fools to do so; for, whilst they sleep, the wily and watchful capitalist is devising means to ensnare and exploit them. The free laborer must work or starve. He is more of a slave than the negro, because he works longer and harder for less allowance than the slave, and has no holiday, because the cares of life with him begin when its labors end. He has no liberty and not a single right. . . .

I have added Calhoun's speech, Grayson's poem, and several excerpts from Fitzhugh's book to the Primary Documents section for future reference.

Ready to be President on "Day One"

2008-03-17T13:41:00.004-05:00

Hillary Clinton often says she will be ready to be president on “day one.” No need for a “week of orientation” or any “on the job training.” No, if elected, she will “hit the ground running.”

The message is clear. She believes she has more experience than her Democratic rival, Barrack Obama. After all, while Barrack was toiling away in the Illinois state legislature, Hillary was in the White House. She knows she will be ready, she isn’t sure he will be.

Stephen A. Douglas might have been swayed by such logic. While Abraham Lincoln was trudging along the law circuit in Illinois, Douglas was one of the most influential members of the United States Senate.

The election of 1860 threatened to rip apart the country. Who was better prepared to handle the crisis? Who would “hit the ground running” on “day one?”

There was no question. Douglas was clearly the more experienced candidate.

But history didn’t go his way.

Douglas did not take the oath of office on March 4, 1861.

But he was there.

He watched as his rival put his hand on the Bible.

He held his rival’s hat while he delivered his inaugural address.

He listened as his rival reminded his “dissatisfied fellow countrymen” that “we are not enemies, but friends.”

He hoped that “the better angels of our nature” would indeed prevail and bloodshed would be averted.

What did “day one” of the Lincoln administration look like?

It wasn’t easy.

Lincoln remembered it well:

The first thing that was handed to me after I entered this room, when I came from the inauguration was the letter from Maj. Anderson saying that their provisions would be exhausted before an expedition could be sent to their relief, 1861.

The Buchanan Administration had left a crisis for the new president to handle. The flash point would be Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina.

Not an easy first day, right?

The acting Secretary of War Joseph Holt told Lincoln that surrender was inevitable.

Lincoln asked General Winfield Scott for his opinion. The situation was bleak.

When asked how long the soldiers in the fort could hold out, Scott replied:

In respect to subsistence, for the garrison, he has hard bread, flour & rice for about 26 days, & salt meat (pork) for about 48 days; but how long he could hold out against the whole means of attack which the South Carolinians have in, & about the city of Charleston & its Harbour, is a question that cannot be answered with absolute accuracy.

Could Scott resupply or reinforce Fort Sumter with “all the means now in your control?”

“No,” replied the general, “Not within many months.”

How long would a re-supply mission take and what would he need?

A fleet of war vessels & transports, 5,000 additional regular troops & 20,000 volunteers, in order to take all the batteries in the Harbor of Charleston (including Ft. Moultrie) after the capture of all the batteries in the approach or outer Bay. And to raise, organize & discipline such an army, would require new acts of Congress & from six to eight months.

The new president was still not satisified.

On March 15, 1861, Lincoln formally requested a written opinion from each member of his Cabinet. The president’s letter to Secretary of State William H. Seward was typical of the letter each member received:

The Hon. Secretary of State Executive Mansion

My dear Sir March 15. 1861
Assuming it to be possible to now provision Fort-Sumpter, under all the circumstances, is it wise to attempt it?
Please give me your opinion, in writing, on this question. Your Obt. Servt. A. LINCOLN.

Later that day, the president began to receive the written replies.

Secretary of State Seward advised against such a mission at this time :

...If it were possible to peacefully provision Fort Sumter, of course, I should answer, that it would be both unwise and inhuman not to attempt it. But the facts of the case are known to be, that the attempt must be made with the employment of military and marine force, which would provoke combat, and probably initiate a civil war…I would not provoke war in any way now…

Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles agreed with Seward:

...The question has two aspects, one military, the other political. The military gentlemen…represent that it would be unwise…and I am not disposed to controvert their opinions…In a political view, I entertain doubts of the wisdom of the measure…I do not…think it wise to attempt to provision Fort Sumter.

Attorney General Edward Bates echoed their assessment:

...I am persuaded, moreover, that in several of the misguided states of the South, a large proportion of the people are really lovers of the Union, and anxious to be safely back, under the protection of its flag. A reaction has already begun, and, if encouraged by wise, moderate, and firm measures on the part of this Government, I persuade myself that the nation will be restored to its integrity, without the effusion of blood…I am willing to evacuate Fort Sumter, rather than be an active party in the beginning of civil war...

Postmaster General Montgomery Blair offered a radically different opinion:

The evacuation of Fort Sumpter when it is known that it can be provisioned and manned will convince the rebels that the administration lacks firmness and will therefore tend more than any event that has happened to embolden them and so far from tending to prevent collision will, ensure it unless all the other forts are evacuated and all attempts are given up to maintain the authority of the United States...Mr. Buchanans policy has I think re-rendered collision almost inevitable & a continuance of that policy will not only bring it about but will go far to produce a permanent division of the Union.

The president heard from the rest of his cabinet the following day.

Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase was in favor of resupplying the fort:

...If the attempt will so inflame civil war as to involve an immediate necessity for the enlistment of armies and the expenditure of millions I cannot advise it...But it seems to me highly improbable that the attempt...will produce such consequences...I return, therefore, an affirmative answer...

Secretary of War Simon Cameron advised against it:

…it would be unwise now to make such an attempt…I am greatly influenced by the opinions of the Army officers who have expressed themselves on the subject, and who seem to concur that it is, perhaps, now impossible to succor that fort, substantially, if at all…All the officers within Fort Sumter, together with Generals Scott and Totten, express this opinion…

Secretary of the Interior Caleb B. Smith did not think such a mission was wise:

...After a careful consideration of the opinions of Gens. Scott and Totten, and also those of Commodore String[h]am and Mr. Fox…I have arrived at the conclusion that the probabilities are in favor of the success of the proposed enterprise, so far as to secure the landing of the vessels at the Fort, but…it would not be wise under all circumstances to attempt to provision Fort Sumpter...

The president had a great deal to think about.

Compensated Emancipation

2008-03-14T11:31:00.001-05:00

Abraham Lincoln hoped that a grand plan of compensated emancipation might bring a speedy end to the rebellion. Though Senator Charles Sumner doubted the plan’s success, he worked with the president and his cabinet. On March 6, 1862, the president sent a special message to Congress, calling for a joint resolution offering “pecuniary aid” to any border state that would initiate a gradual plan of compensated emancipation. As Lincoln explained, the plan would help save the Union because:

The leaders of the existing insurrection entertain the hope that this government will ultimately be forced to acknowledge the independence of some part of the disaffected region, and that all the slave states North of such part will then say ``the Union, for which we have struggled, being already gone, we now choose to go with the Southern section.'' To deprive them of this hope, substantially ends the rebellion; and the initiation of emancipation completely deprives them of it, as to all the states initiating it.

On this date in 1862, Lincoln tried to convince Senator James A. McDougal to support “gradual emancipation with compensation.” Using statistics, Lincoln pleaded his case in a detailed letter. He began with a brow-raising claim: “Less than one half-day’s cost of this war would pay for all the slaves in Delaware at four hundred dollars per head.” Lincoln claimed that Delaware had 1,798 slaves in 1860. If the government paid $400 for each slave, that would only cost $719,000. At the same time, each day of war cost the Union $2 million. Furthermore, Lincoln ran the statistics for Maryland, the District of Columbia, Kentucky, and Missouri and found the government could ‘purchase’ all of their slaves for a little over $173 million, roughly the same amount the government would spend in 87 days of war.

Lincoln spent the rest of March trying to garner Congressional support. Though he was unsuccessful, he did not entirely abandon his plan of compensated emancipation.

That July, Lincoln called border state representatives to the White House and again tried to convince them to accept some form of compensated emancipation, but again with no success.

The plan appears again in his Annual Message to Congress in December 1862.

"The Jewel of Liberty"

2008-03-13T10:53:00.002-05:00

Good news is sweet to hear, especially when recent news has been particularlly sour. Abraham Lincoln had reason to be happy on this date in 1864.

The war was still going on, but Louisiana was already on the road toward Reconstruction. On February 22, 1864 the state held an election. The results were encouraging.

The new governor was an interesting figure. Born in Bavaria and orphaned in New Orleans, Michael Hahn was a Republican who had originally opposed secession, avoided swearing an oath to the Confederacy, and worked with Federal occupation forces. Now he was the first free-state governor of Louisiana.

On this date in 1864, Lincoln wrote Hahn a congratulatory letter. He encouraged the new governor to so something extraordinary. For the first time, Lincoln endorsed the idea of allowing African Americans to vote.

Private Executive Mansion, Hon. Michael Hahn Washington,

My dear Sir: March 13. 1864.
I congratulate you on having fixed your name in history as the first-free-state Governor of Louisiana. Now you are about to have a Convention which, among other things, will probably define the elective franchise. I barely suggest for your private consideration, whether some of the colored people may not be let in---as, for instance, the very intelligent, and especially those who have fought gallantly in our ranks. They would probably help, in some trying time to come, to keep the jewel of liberty within the family of freedom. But this is only a suggestion, not to the public, but to you alone. Yours truly A. LINCOLN
Annotation

[1] ALS, owned by Roger W. Barrett, Chicago, Illinois; ADfS, DLC-RTL. In an election held on February 22, 1864, Michael Hahn defeated Benjamin F. Flanders and J. Q. A. Fellows for governor. The new constitution drafted by the convention which met beginning April 6 and adopted at an election held on September 5, 1864, contained no provisions for Negro suffrage.

Slaves Called Her "Moses"

2008-03-12T13:20:00.002-05:00

"I was conductor of the Underground Railroad for eight years, and I can say what most conductors can't say--I never ran my train off the track and I never lost a passenger," remembered Harriet Tubman.

She escaped from slavery, but that was not enough. She returned more than a dozen times and led an estimated 300 slaves to freedom.

One of my favorite quotes about Tubman comes from famed abolitionist Frederick Douglass. In 1868, he sent Tubman a poetic letter, in which he compared himself with the woman slaves called Moses.

The difference between us is very marked. Most that I have done and suffered in the service of our cause has been in public, and I have received much encouragement at every step of the way. You, on the other hand, have labored in a private way. I have wrought in the day--you in the night...The midnight sky and the silent stars have been the witnesses of your devotion to freedom and of your heroism: Excepting John Brown--of sacred memory--I know of no one who has willingly encountered more perils and hardships to serve our enslaved people than you have.

If you are going to be in the Chicago-area this evening and want to know more about Harriet Tubman, you are in for a treat.

Kathryn Harris, director of library services at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum, will present the life of Harriet Tubman from 7 to 8 pm at Gail Borden Public Library, 270 N. Grove Avenue, in Elgin.

For more information, call 847.429.4680