Lincoln Stories

[thea_447]

LINCOLN SUICIDE POEM FOUND

It is believed that a suicide poem written by Lincoln has been found which confirms most historians opinions that he suffered from depression for most of his life.

In this article it is said that Lincoln wrote this after breaking off his engagement to Mary Todd, but I thought it might have been after his love affair with Miss Ann Rutledge so I looked further. (Don't faint, Neil, I was wrong. It WAS written after breaking the engagement with Miss Todd.)

The first site is for the CNN commentary on the poem. (I have searched high and low for the poem itself and cannot find it.)
The second url contains information about Ann Rutledge who died very young.

The last information (from a site on Mary Todd Lincoln) shows the state of mind he was in when he finally married her! <grin>

In fairness to the man, I believe he was beset on all sides by problems; not just the war, but this unstable woman.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/08/lin....ap/index.html

http://members.aol.com/RVSNorton/Lincoln34.html

This is something I found about Mary Todd and Lincoln.
Read on.

"In 1832 Marys sister Elizabeth married a future Governor of Illinois and moved to Springfield. In 1839 Mary went to live with her sister in Illinois. Her life was never to be the same. Mary soon became a feature of the Springfield social circle and before long she had been introduced to a rising lawyer and politician by the name of Abraham Lincoln. At an evening ball Lincoln approached Mary and said, Miss Todd, I want to dance with you in the worst way. A year later the two were engaged. After several months, however, the engagement was broken off, apparently at Lincolns behest. But Mary was not prepared to let her man go. Her tears broke down Lincolns resolve and a date was set for the wedding. Lincoln, however, got cold feet and left his bride standing at the altar. A friend brought the two together again. The marriage was finally entered into on November 4, 1842, although it would appear that Lincoln was none too enthusiastic about the whole affair. When a friend, noting his formal dress, asked him where he was going he said, To hell, I reckon."

[thea_447]

"The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these (new) territories. We want them for the homes of free white people". --A. Lincoln, Oct. 16, 1854

[thea_447]

"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary." --A.Lincoln in response to Senator Stephen Douglas in an 1858 debate in Ottawa, Illinois. He was indignant over Senator Douglas's insinuation that he might favor racial equality and dismissed the idea by saying, "anything that argues into his (Douglas's) idea of perfect social and political equality with the Negro is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse chestnut to be a chestnut horse."

[thea_447]

On the topic of emancipation, Lincoln said, "Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this....We cannot, then, make them equals." --Abraham Lincoln's Reply to Stephan Douglas, First Debate at Ottawa, Illinois, August 21, 1858, in Abraham Lincoln: His Speeches and Writings, ed. Roy P. Basler (New York: Da Capo Press, 1990), pg. 444.

[thea_447]

It is interesting that one usually hears part of this Lincoln quote but it becomes more enlightening about the man when viewed as a whole:
Abraham Lincoln who wrote on August 22, 1862: "If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."

And revealing even more in a letter a year later:
"There was more than a year and a half of trial to suppress the rebellion before the proclamation issued, the last one hundred days of which passed under an explicit notice that it was coming, unless averted by those in revolt, returning to their allegiance. The war has certainly progressed as favorably for us, since the issue of proclamation as before. I know, as fully as one can know the opinions of others, that some of the commanders of our armies in the field who have given us our most important successes believe the emancipation policy, and the use of the colored troops constitute the heaviest blow yet dealt to the Rebellion, and that at least one of these important successes could not have been achieved when it was but for the aid of black soldiers. Among the commanders holding these views are some who have never had any affinity with what is called abolitionism or with the Republican party policies but who held them purely as military opinions. I submit these opinions as being entitled to some weight against the objections often urged that emancipation and arming the blacks are unwise as military measures and were not adopted as such in good faith.
You say you will not fight to free negroes. Some of them seem willing to fight for you; but, no matter. Fight you, then exclusively to save the Union. I issued the proclamation on purpose to aid you in saving the Union. Whenever you shall have conquered all resistence to the Union, if I shall urge you to continue fighting, it will be an apt time, then, for you to declare you will not fight to free negroes.

I thought that in your struggle for the Union, to whatever extent the negroes should cease helping the enemy, to that extent it weakened the enemy in his resistence to you. Do you think differently? I thought that whatever negroes can be got to do as soldiers, leaves just so much less for white soldiers to do, in saving the Union. Does it appear otherwise to you? But negroes, like other people, act upon motives. Why should they do any thing for us, if we will do nothing for them? If they stake their lives for us, they must be prompted by the strongest motive--even the promise of freedom. And the promise being made, must be kept."

[unionblue]

Thea,

In what do you find sinister or somehow detremental to Lincoln with the above 'full' texts?

Unionblue

[georgiana]

The excerpts provided above are not, IMO, reflective of the “full text” of Lincoln’s various speeches and/or letters.

For example, the “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races…” statement quoted above is not complete. The entire paragraph reads as follows:

“I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution in the States where it exists. I believe I have no right to do so. I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together on the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said any thing to the contrary, but I hold that notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence—the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas that he is not my equal in many respects, certainly not in color—perhaps not in intellectual and moral endowments; but in the right to eat the bread without the leave of any body else which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every other man."

Likewise, the “Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this....We cannot, then, make them equals." statement quoted above, can be interpreted quite differently when read in its entirety:

"When Southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists, and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia,-to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me, that whatever of high hope, (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough to me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment, is not the sole question, if, indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, cannot be safely disregarded. We cannot, then, make them equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted; but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the South.

"When they remind us of their constitutional rights, I acknowledge them, not grudgingly, but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the reclaiming of their fugitives, which should not, in its stringency, be more likely to carry a free man into slavery, than our ordinary criminal laws are to hang an innocent one.
"But all this, to my judgment, furnishes no more excuse for permitting slavery to go into our own free territory, than it would for reviving the African slave-trade by law. The law which forbids the bringing of slaves from Africa, and that which has so long forbid the taking of them to Nebraska, can hardly be distinguished on any moral principle; and the repeal of the former could find quite as plausible excuses as that of the latter."

And lastly, Lincoln’s memorable letter to Mayor James C. Conkling, is one of my favorites. Again, it it’s entirety:

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 26, 1863.
Hon. James C. Conkling

My Dear Sir.

Your letter inviting me to attend a mass-meeting of unconditional Union-men, to be held at the Capitol of Illinois, on the 3d day of September, has been received.

It would be very agreeable to me, to thus meet my old friends, at my own home; but I can not, just now, be absent from here, so long as a visit there, would require.

The meeting is to be of all those who maintain unconditional devotion to the Union; and I am sure my old political friends will thank me for tendering, as I do, the nation's gratitude to those other noble men, whom no partizan malice, or partizan hope, can make false to the nation's life.

There are those who are dissatisfied with me. To such I would say: You desire peace; and you blame me that we do not have it. But how can we attain it? There are but three conceivable ways. First, to suppress the rebellion by force of arms. This I am trying to do. Are you for it? If you are, so far we are agreed. If you are not for it, a second way is to give up the Union. I am against this. Are you for it? If you are, you should say so plainly. If you are not for force, nor yet for dissolution, there only remains some imaginable compromise. I do not believe any compromise, embracing the maintenance of the Union, is now possible. All I learn, leads to a directly opposite belief. The strength of the rebellion, is its military--its army. That army dominates all the country, and all the people, within its range. Any offer of terms made by any man or men within that range, in opposition to that army, is simply nothing for the present; because such man or men, have no power whatever to enforce their side of a compromise, if one were made with them. To illustrate. Suppose refugees from the South, and peace men of the North, get together in convention, and frame and proclaim a compromise embracing a restoration of the Union; in what way can that compromise be used to keep Lee's army out of Pennsylvania? Meade's army can keep Lee's army out of Pennsylvania; and I think, can ultimately drive it out of existence. But no paper compromise, to which the controllers of Lee's army are not agreed, can at all affect that army. In an effort at such compromise we should waste time, which the enemy would improve to our disadvantage; and that would be all. A compromise, to be effective, must be made either with those who control the rebel army, or with the people first liberated from the domination of that army, by the success of our own army. Now allow me to assure you, that no word or intimation, from that rebel army, or from any of the men controlling it, in relation to any peace compromise, has ever come to my knowledge or belief. All charges and insinuations to the contrary, are deceptive and groundless. And I promise you, that if any such proposition shall hereafter come, it shall not be rejected, and kept a secret from you. I freely acknowledge myself the servant of the people, according to the bond of service--the United States Constitution; and that, as such, I am responsible to them.

But to be plain, you are dissatisfied with me about the negro. Quite likely there is a difference of opinion between you and myself upon that subject. I certainly wish that all men could be free, while I suppose you do not. Yet I have neither adopted, nor proposed any measure, which is not consistent with even your view, provided you are for the Union. I suggested compensated emancipation; to which you replied you wished not to be taxed to buy negroes. But I had not asked you to be taxed to buy negroes, except in such way, as to save you from greater taxation to save the Union exclusively by other means.

You dislike the emancipation proclamation; and, perhaps, would have it retracted. You say it is unconstitutional--I think differently. I think the constitution invests its Commander-in-chief, with the law of war, in time of war. The most that can be said, if so much, is, that slaves are property. Is there--has there ever been--any question that by the law of war, property, both of enemies and friends, may be taken when needed? And is it not needed whenever taking it, helps us, or hurts the enemy? Armies, the world over, destroy enemie's property when they can not use it; and even destroy their own to keep it from the enemy. Civilized belligerents do all in their power to help themselves, or hurt the enemy, except a few things regarded as barbarous or cruel. Among the exceptions are the massacre of vanquished foes, and non-combatants, male and female.

But the proclamation, as law, either is valid, or is not valid. If it is not valid, it needs no retraction. If it is valid, it can not be retracted, any more than the dead can be brought to life. Some of you profess to think its retraction would operate favorably for the Union. Why better after the retraction, than before the issue? There was more than a year and a half of trial to suppress the rebellion before the proclamation issued, the last one hundred days of which passed under an explicit notice that it was coming, unless averted by those in revolt, returning to their allegiance. The war has certainly progressed as favorably for us, since the issue of proclamation as before. I know, as fully as one can know the opinions of others, that some of the commanders of our armies in the field who have given us our most important successes believe the emancipation policy and the use of the colored troops constitute the heaviest blow yet dealt to the Rebellion, and that at least one of these important successes could not have been achieved when it was but for the aid of black soldiers. Among the commanders holding these views are some who have never had any affinity with what is called abolitionism or with the Republican party policies but who held them purely as military opinions. I submit these opinions as being entitled to some weight against the objections often urged that emancipation and arming the blacks are unwise as military measures and were not adopted as such in good faith.

You say you will not fight to free negroes. Some of them seem willing to fight for you; but, no matter. Fight you, then exclusively to save the Union. I issued the proclamation on purpose to aid you in saving the Union. Whenever you shall have conquered all resistence to the Union, if I shall urge you to continue fighting, it will be an apt time, then, for you to declare you will not fight to free negroes.
I thought that in your struggle for the Union, to whatever extent the negroes should cease helping the enemy, to that extent it weakened the enemy in his resistence to you. Do you think differently? I thought that whatever negroes can be got to do as soldiers, leaves just so much less for white soldiers to do, in saving the Union. Does it appear otherwise to you? But negroes, like other people, act upon motives. Why should they do any thing for us, if we will do nothing for them? If they stake their lives for us, they must be prompted by the strongest motive--even the promise of freedom. And the promise being made, must be kept.

The signs look better. The Father of Waters again goes unvexed to the sea. Thanks to the great Northwest for it. Nor yet wholly to them. Three hundred miles up, they met New England, Empire, Key-stone, and Jersey, hewing their way right and left. The Sunny South too, in more colors than one, also lent a hand. On the spot, their part of the history was jotted down in black and white. The job was a great national one; and let none be banned who bore an honorable part in it. And while those who have cleared the great river may well be proud, even that is not all. It is hard to say that anything has been more bravely, and well done, than at Antietam, Murfreesboro, Gettysburg, and on many fields of lesser note. Nor must Uncle Sam's web-feet be forgotten. At all the watery margins they have been present. Not only on the deep sea, the broad bay, and the rapid river, but also up the narrow muddy bayou, and wherever the ground was a little damp, they have been, and made their tracks. Thanks to all. For the great republic--for the principle it lives by, and keeps alive--for man's vast future--thanks to all.

Peace does not appear so distant as it did. I hope it will come soon, and come to stay; and so come as to be worth the keeping in all future time. It will then have been proved that, among free men, there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet; and that they who take such appeal are sure to lose their case, and pay the cost. And then, there will be some black men who can remember that, with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and steady eye, and well-poised bayonnet, they have helped mankind on to this great consummation; while, I fear, there will be some white ones, unable to forget that, with malignant heart, and deceitful speech, they strove to hinder it.

Still, let us not be over-sanguine of a speedy final triumph. Let us be quite sober. Let us diligently apply the means, never doubting that a just God, in his own good time, will give us the rightful result.

Yours very truly
A. Lincoln

In reading some of the above quotes from Lincoln, I am reminded of a story that he liked to tell. It sort of reinforces the notion that context is everything:

One afternoon a young farm boy came running up to his father all out of breath. "Pa! Pa! You gotta come quick. Sis and the new farm hand are up in the loft and he's agot his pants down and she's agot her skirt up and theys getting ready to pee all over your new hay." The farmer looked down at the excited boy and said: "Son, you got your facts right -- it's your conclusions that are wrong!"

Georgiana,

Interesting little bit of humor that you used to make a point. Humourous enough I would suppose. But to me the fact is simply that the father was just as guilty of assumption. Maybe even more so because his preconceived notions were longer entrenched and even more prejudiced. Even to the point of hubris in its presumption. As a joke, it works, albeit a bit weakly. Lincoln was good at jokes. As evidence of the importance of context, however, it fails. Especially since the word evidence comes from evident...meaning ‘to see.’ Had the father actually gone and looked, before making his all knowing-condemnation of the son, then I could buy it as proof of context...which, as you say, is everything. Otherwise, the father is taking it just as much out of context as his son...for all he knows the hay could be on fire.

YMOS
tommy

[unionblue]

Tommy,

Might the biblical phrase, 'Take the beam from thine own eye...' have some merit here?

I think Miss Georginia was trying to point out that to take a part of Lincoln's sayings or writings out of context is a bit like taking one verse from the Bible and basing an entire religious sect upon it. It is a bit misleading at best and at worst, totally unfair if one wants the entire story laid out in context and not just in the light we would like others to see him in.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
PS If I have taken you or Miss Georginia out of context, I apologize.

[unionblue]

Tommy,

Saw this story and was reminded of your, was it Van Dorin story? Sounds mighty similar.

President Lincoln was asked what he thought of General William Tecumseh Sherman, whose "scorched-earth campaign" from Savannah to Athens had struck fear in the hearts of Georgians.

Lincoln said he was reminded of the time Ethan Allen visited Britain after the War of Independence. The Revolutionary general was hosted by an English earl. As Allen went to the manor's outhouse to perform his morning ablutions, he noted that a picture of General George Washington had been stuck on the door facing the seat. Afterward the earl asked Allen for his reaction.

"Well your Lordship, I think the picture is a pretty good method to effect movement. For seeing George Washington would scare the <font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font> out of any Englishman."

Sincerely,
Unionblue

(Message edited by unionblue on August 19, 2004)