2.2 Charles Francis Adams

Basler: Identifies Adams as head of a special committee on the state of the Union, and notes that Lincoln had passed over him when selecting a Cabinet. (pp. 63-4)

Much more is made of Adams' son, who wrote a biography of Lincoln, and describes him at first as being an "absolutely unknown, and by no means promising, political quantity," but in a later report compliments Lincoln for having developed "immensely" under the trial of the Presidency.

Oates: Indicates that Adams was under consideration for Lincoln's Cabinet as a representative of New England (p. 214); that Adams wanted to admit New Mexico as a slave state. Adams is later identified as "United States minister to London" (p. 260), and it is said that it would be Adams' job to present a strong ultimatum to Britain about recognizing the legitimacy of the Confederacy; later, Lincoln revised the ultimatum and marked it for Adams' eyes only.

Adams later reports to Lincoln that the Emancipation Proclamation was being received well in England, although he exaggerates (p. 368)

Donald: Notes that Adams "proposed admitting New Mexico as a slave state without any prohibition on slavery." (p. 269) Adams' son, described as "supercilious," is reported to have been "appalled" that as President-elect, Lincoln went about the country "kissing little girls and growing whiskers." A "more sober observer" is cited in contrast, giving a more positive view of the journeying. (p. 276)

Concerning the choice of Adams as ambassador to England, it is recorded that William Seward, Lincoln's Secretary of State, was the one who chose Adams, and that in response to Adams' gratitude, Lincoln told him coolly, "Very kind of you to say so Mr Adams but you are not my choice. You are Seward's man." (p. 321)

Concerning Adams' work in England, Donald says that Adams was "doing excellent work" influencing British opinion in favor of the Union, but that further covert and informal influence was needed. (p. 415)

My analysis here is that Adams was selected from the mists of obscurity by the later writers to become a performer of deeds that were too dirty to associate with Lincoln - for example, the exaggeration of Britain's reception to the Emancipation Proclamation. (Of course, as we have proven, there probably was no such proclamation; this is a fancy that all four writers share. The Proclamation is the grandest fabrication of those wishing to first deify Abraham Lincoln, and second make him an icon for civil rights.) Thus it was necessary to eliminate any positive comments by Adams' son; thus the citation of Adams as a proponent of slavery; thus his obfuscation of events in England, and thus the singular (and therefore obviously manufactured) quote from Lincoln asserting that he had nothing to do with Adams' appointment.

2.3 Nathaniel Banks

Masters: A Union general ordered by Simon Cameron (see entry) to arrest members of the Maryland legislature who were suspected of disloyalty. (p. 422)

Oates: Cited as a candidate for Lincoln's Cabinet from Massachusetts (p. 211) who was later removed from consideration in favor of Charles Francis Adams. (p. 213) Given a generalship along with other politicians, to, according to Lincoln, " 'keep them from fighting against the war with their mouths.' " (p. 257)

Headed a Union force routed by Stonewall Jackson at Shenandoah Valley on May 24-25, 1862. (p. 327) Later commanded a "Department of the Gulf" (p. 375) and captured Port Hudson (p. 382).

Headed up Reconstruction in Louisiana, where there was great difficulty over the issue of slavery (pp. 399-400). Banks started a "free-labor system" for Negroes, under which "a federal agent hired out freedmen to white planters or government 'lesees' - those who managed abandoned rebel estates - at government-regulated conditions and wages." One Michael Hahn was elected governor, and a constitution was drafted that "outlawed slavery and established a segregated public school system for black and white children." (p. 409)

Later, Banks and Lincoln persuaded the Louisiana constitutional convention to include empowerment for the legislature to enact Negro suffrage. (p. 411)

Later in the Civil War, Banks led an expedition up the Red River "which ended in failure." (p. 420)

Donald: Identifies Banks as a former Speaker of the House and a Massachusetts Republican. (p. 240; also p. 564)

Mentions Banks as one of three people commanding Union forces at Shenandoah Valley; the other two are Fremont and James Shields. (p. 355)

Referenced as a commander of Louisiana, succeeding General Benjamin Butler. (p. 409)

Banks later led an "ill-timed and bloody assault" on Port Hudson, Louisiana. (p. 435)

Describes Banks' actions as commander of Louisiana, in more detail, but generally in agreement with, the description by Oates (pp. 485-8; also see pp. 562-4, 584-5)

Reports that the War Department, at Lincoln's urging, sent Banks on an expedition up the Red River to liberate more of Louisiana from Confederate rule, as well as capture an enormous amount of cotton thought to be stored in the middle and western part of the state. However, the "Red River expedition was a total disaster." (p. 499)

We find here a number of minor discrepancies, but recall that details are important, and if a writer cannot get the details right - how can we trust anything that that writer says? Some questions:

• Why is Banks only identified as a former Speaker of the House in one account? This was an important position in ancient America, and should have been noted in all three places where Banks is mentioned.
• Who was in command at Shenandoah? Oates mentions only Fremont and Banks; Donald adds someone named James Shields, who is mentioned by Oates as receiving a commission as a political general (p. 257), and by Oates (pp. 66-8) and Masters (p. 79) as a Democratic politician Lincoln nearly fought a duel with in Illinois over the issue of some anonymous articles critical of Shields, of whom Lincoln and his wife were authors. He later became a Senator for Illinois. (p. 107) The only military service Masters records for him is in the war against Mexico, and then for the North in the Civil War, where he "performed distinguished service at Winchester on March 23, 1862." (p. 80) This is two months before Donald places Shields at Shenandoah. There is no word by Donald indicating that Shields served in the Mexican war. Whom are we to believe?
• It is my suggestion that Shields, because he was an early protagonist of Lincoln, was given a humiliating role by Lincoln's 20th-century defenders as a sort of posthumous punishment for causing their hero disgrace. Hence, per Donald, p. 356, Shields' division turned in a poor performance. Lincoln ended up winning the duel between them after all!
• Donald and Masters connect Benjamin Butler with Louisiana. Oates restricts Butler's activities to the Virginia area. Masters relates Lincoln's discomfiture with Butler's actions in Louisiana, but nothing is said about Lincoln deposing Butler in favor of Banks.
• If we are to believe Oates, Banks' attack on Port Hudson was successful, but Donald clearly implies that it was not. Port Hudson is not surrendered until later, according to Donald, with no indication that Banks was involved (p. 446).
• Who was responsible for the disastrous Red River expedition? Oates indicates that Banks himself was responsible. This apparently was found out to be wrong, for Donald puts the responsibility on Lincoln and creates a fictitious motherlode of cotton as an additional reason for the expedition - perhaps as a way to absolve Lincoln of responsibility.

Note that only Oates mentions a beneficial system of work for former slaves. Donald does not mention this, because it is yet another invention designed to support an anti-slavery stance being held by Lincoln.

2.4 John Wilkes Booth

See our entry above on the assassination for further information.

Masters: Booth was present at Lincoln's last speech on the evening of April 11, which celebrated the surrender of the South and the coming Reconstruction, and giving blacks suffrage. "Before (Booth's) vision rose the South that he loved with a lover's madness, ruled by negro votes, deployed by the North to that end. According to one report, Booth at that moment vowed to kill Lincoln." (p. 475)

Oates: Says that Booth was at Lincoln's second Inauguration. Lincoln arrived along Pennsylvania Avenue in a carriage, and went to a platform in front of the Capitol to make his speech. "Up behind the railing of the right buttress, looking down at the President, was the actor John Wilkes Booth, a dashing man with raven hair and a black mustache, wearing a fashionable stovepipe hat. Lincoln had seen Booth perform in The Marble Heart at Ford's Theater; it was on the night of November 9, 1863, just over a week before Lincoln spoke at Gettysburg." (p. 446)

Donald: Lincoln had seen Booth perform in The Marble Heart. (p. 569)

Gives a brief account of Booth's life. He is described as "handsome, vain...the next-to-youngest son and his mother's darling in her brood of ten children..." His father is described as "alcoholic and mentally unstable." He attended school irregularly.

He is described as five foot eight inches tall, "Strikingly handsome, with curly black hair and a full mustache" and raven hair. He is given credit as an excellent actor. (pp. 585-6)

He declared unwavering loyalty to the South, and his "contempt for President Lincoln was open," as he seemed offended by everything about Lincoln, both trivial aspects of his appearance and personality and his stances on slavery and the Union.

Booth contacted the Confederate Secret Service and put together a plan to kidnap Lincoln and hold him hostage in exchange for Southern prisoners of war. Donald provides many details of this plan. (pp. 586-7)

In the workings of the plan, Booth is described as having at times "trouble separating fantasy from reality" (p. 587).

The kidnapping plan failed when, on the intended night, bad weather kept Lincoln from the theatre. Booth then began planning an assassination: "Standing in the rotunda of the Capitol as Lincoln passed through to the portico, where he gave his second inaugural address, Booth reflected on the excellent chance he had to kill the President if he wished." (p. 588)

Booth was drinking very heavily at the time. At the April 11 speech, he made some racist remarks, then said, after Lincoln recommended negro suffrage, "That is the last speech he will ever make." he asked one of his companions to shoot Lincoln on the spot; when the companion refused, Booth told another companion in disgust that he would kill Lincoln himself. (p. 588)

We cannot doubt in the least that John Wilkes Booth was an evil man. However, it seems that this was not enough for authors Oates and Donald. They see fit to add unto Booth a menacing description, making him virulently racist, and invoking blackness to amplify his evil; the invocation of "raven" hair seems calculated to bring up images of Booth's dark-hearted contemporary, fictionalist Allan Edgar Poe. (Previously we have seen an attempt to make him an "Old West" villain.) Donald goes even further, creating an unstable family life, theoretical mental problems, a kidnapping plot for Booth to head up, and all manner of embellishing details - contradicting, in the process, one of Oates' accounts: At the second inaugural, did Lincoln go directly to the platform outdoors to make his address, with Booth up behind him (Oates), or did he pass through indoors, where Booth saw him from the rotunda on the way to the portico (Donald)? Embellishment often leads to embarrassment; and while we may accept that Booth was capable of all of the things Donald claims, it is quite unlikely that most of this information, presented as it is by a single source, is fully credible.

Booth may well have been a racist as is stated. But since Lincoln did nothing that was sincerely anti-slavery or pro-black, this cannot be the reason why Booth killed him. See our entry above on the assassination for the true reason behind Booth's actions.

2.5 Gen. Ambrose Burnside

Masters: Burnside was the presiding Union general in November, 1862, at a loss suffered to Lee at Fredericksburg. The Union lost 12,653 soldiers to the Confederacy's 5309. (p. 154) Another battle between the two there in December resulted in a loss of 13000 men for the North and 4000 for the South. (p. 441)

Commander of the military district of the Ohio in Cincinnati. (p. 423)

Was removed for another general, Hooker. (p. 426)

Oates: Lincoln put Burnside in charge of the Army of the Potomac, "because he had nobody else to choose." He is described as six feet tall, with "prodigious sideburns," virile and tough-looking, but also "a nervous insomniac and deeply insecure about himself." Burnside "sputtered" that he was not "fit" to lead a whole army. (pp. 352-3)

Says Burnside sustained more than twelve thousand casualties at Fredericksburg in mid-Deecmber. (p. 355)

Made commander of the Department of the Ohio, covering the Midwest. Suspended the Chicago Times for "violent outbursts against the administration." Lincoln revoked the suspension. (p. 372)

Successfully captured mountain country in east Tennessee, receiving Lincoln's gratitude for it. Later mistakenly thought his reinforcement was not needed at Chickamauga, and took his forces to Jonesboro, much to Lincoln's consternation. (pp. 390-2)

Later fought off an attack from the Confederacy's Longstreet, thus securing eastern Tennessee for the Union. (pp. 397-8)

Donald: Credits Burnside with the capture of Roanoke Island, and moving inland to New Berne, North Carolina. (p. 338)

Lincoln gives Burnside command of the Army of the Potomac. Burnside is described as "a happy choice" and having "a sturdy figure...commanding presence...elaborate side-whiskers." Burnside himself "said that he was not capable of leading the Army of the Potomac."

Says that Burnside, "against the advice and the warnings" of Lincoln, attacked Fredericksburg on December 13. Casualties are not numbered, but it is said that Burnside lost one out of ten to death or injury; "Confederate losses were less than half as great." Burnside himself assumed responsibility for the loss. (p. 399; also p. 409)

Reports a January attempt on Fredericksburg that was called off after three days due to excessive rain and sleet. This was called the "Mud March." Lincoln replaced him with Hooker thereafter. (p. 411)

Burnside, as commander of the Department of the Ohio, suspends the Chicago Times. Lincoln overturns the suspension. (p. 421)

Proclaimed martial law in Kentucky. (p. 454)

First, we find it odd that both sides of the December Fredericksburg battle should lose exactly 13000 and 4000 men, as Masters claims. Round numbers are very suspicious, and probably fabricated. It is also at variance with Oates' given number for the December battle, 12000. (Oates and Donald seem to know nothing about a November battle there; Oates has Burnside only partway there in November, waiting for some pontoon bridges with which to cross the Rappahannock River - p. 353.) Perhaps this is why Donald does not give casualty numbers, only losses of all kinds: There was no certain record of casualties.

Second, notice how Lincoln is absolved of responsibility for choosing Burnside in Oates: supposedly because no one else was available! Notice, too, how Oates degrades Burnside in his description - how can Lincoln be blamed for hiring this man? It isn't Lincoln's fault that Burnside was an insecure insomniac!

Apparently this was a fabrication, and not received well, for Donald describes Burnside in more glowing terms; and so, where in Oates he uncertainly "spluttered" of his lack of "fitness," in Donald he only only "said" that he was not "capable." Donald's Burnside looks like much more of a hero than Oates'. But at least they agree on his ample facial hair...

Donald also absolves Lincoln by placing the decision to attack Fredericksburg on Burnside - allegedly against Lincoln's wishes, and even having Burnside admit his responsibility, which is said nowhere else; then - perhaps to mollify Burnsides' descendants, who would openly contradict such false information - later has Lincoln compliment and look with favor on Burnside (p. 410) and makes his loss of command to Hooker look like a principled resignation. (p. 411)

Most likely, Lincoln was responsible for the travesty at Fredericksburg, and the later authors are simply covering it up. (Indeed, why else would the press of the day blame Lincoln for it, as Donald openly admits? - p. 399)

Also, Mr. Oates - are we to believe that the bungling Burnside was the only person available in a nation of several million?

Third, why does Masters not mention the suspension of the Chicago newspaper? Surely an event of such note would be recorded. Freedom of the press was an essential part of the American Constitution.

Fourth - two events are mentioned only by Donald and are therefore suspicious: the capture of Roanoke, and the "Mud March." These were also probably added to mollify Burnside's descendants.

Finally, did Burnside act later in Tennessee, per Oates, or Kentucky, per Donald?

2.6 Simon Cameron

2.6.1 His Selection and Character

2.6.1.1 Relative to the Republican Convention

Masters: Politician from Pennsylvania and Presidential candidate suggested for Lincoln's Cabinet by Judge David Davis, in return for a promise of support from the Pennsylvania delegation at the Republican Convention. Indicates there is "no record" that Lincoln authorized any such promises. (p. 367) After the election, Lincoln receives word from Joseph Medill, via Herndon, that Cameron is "a corrupt and debased man." Lincoln protested that "he had authorized no promise to be made of patronage." (p. 374)

Oates: "...Simon Cameron of Pennsylvania was a renegade Democrat who'd amassed a personal fortune in public office, some said by unsavory means. Moreover, his principles were so vague and his loyalties so suspect that he had opposition in his own state and little appeal anywhere else." (p. 191)

Donald: "Pennsylvania Republicans, irate because the low tariff of 1857 had removed protection from their iron industry, mostly favored Simon Cameron, but he had few followers outside that state and was widely suspected of financial improprieties or even gross corruption." (p. 236) Explains in detail how Davis "made a bargain," contradictory to Lincoln's general advice, with the Pennsylvania delegation, to secure Cameron a Cabinet post in exchange for the delegation's support for Lincoln: "Judge Joseph Casey, Cameron's representative in Chicago, demanded that Davis and Swett pledge that Cameron would become Secretary of the Treasury...with control of all federal patronage in Pennsylvania, in return for the votes of that state on the second ballot. Davis responded vaguely that Pennsylvania would surely have a place in the cabinet and that he would personally recommend Cameron for it." (p. 250)

The three writers agree that Cameron was no saint, that he had opposition from his own state, and that few outside Pennsylvania supported him, although Donald later contradicts himself by saying that "Cameron had no following outside of Pennsylvania." (p. 247) However, it is strange that Oates says nothing about Davis' actions at the Convention; indeed, all that is said of Pennsylvania's delegation is that they voted for Lincoln, as though it were some kind of surprise. (p. 193) Apparently this obfuscation on the part of the 20th century pro-Lincoln faction was unsuccessful, for it appears that Donald shortly thereafter was forced to acknowledge the incident. However, it became garbled in the process: Neither Masters not Oates indicate that Swett, a friend of Lincoln, was part of the process.

2.6.1.2 His Appearance

Oates: "...tall and silver-haired, with a jutting nose, pinched mouth, receding chin, and sagging neck."

Donald: "...tall and thin, with a sharp face and thin lips."

These descriptions do not totally agree. Was Cameron tall and have a pinched mouth/thin lips only, or that and all of the other characteristics as well?

2.6.1.3 His Wrongdoings and Lincoln's Consideration

Masters: After the election, Lincoln receives word from Joseph Medill, via Herndon, that Cameron is "a corrupt and debased man." Lincoln protested that "he had authorized no promise to be made of patronage." (p. 374)

Basler: Cites another writer who describes Cameron as an "astute grafter." (p. 31) Cites in a footnote the existence of a letter dated January 11, 1861, expressing jealousy and disappointment over Cameron's appointment and the passing over of Charles Francis Adams. (p. 64)

Oates: On December 20, Lincoln discusses Cabinet appointments with Thurlow Weed. "They discussed several men, including Simon Cameron of Pennsylvania. Republicans there had persuaded Lincoln that they deserved a Cabinet appointment and one faction was booming Cameron as the man. When Weed warned that a lot of other Pennsylvanians despised him, Lincoln wanted to know what other choice they had." (p. 216)

"...Cameron made no secret of the fact that he wanted to be Lincoln's Secretary of the Treasury. His enemies, though, cried out in protest, insisting that to make him Treasury Secretary was equal to appointing a bank robber as president of a bank. One Cameron foe contended that he was so evil and unscrupulous, with such a stench of corruption about him, that he would contaminate Lincoln's entire administration. Yet Cameron's friends all argued that he was honest, sincere, and capable."
Lincoln then made a list of pros and cons about Cameron. The cons were:

• In the 1830s, as commissioner for the Winnebago Indians in Wisconsin, he had allegedly swindled the Indians out of land and pocketed the proceeds, earning the nickname, "The Great Winnebago Chief."
• In 1849 he supposedly tried to bribe an entire state convention in Pennsylvania.
• In 1857, when he was chosen as a senator, he was accused of bribing three legislators and a would-be investigator.

• He was never convicted of the above;
• Most Pennsylvania Republicans supported him;
• He was the only Pennsylvanian suitable for a Cabinet post. (p. 218)

Donald: Indicates that a party of Cameron's supporters visited Lincoln when he was considering Cabinet nominations, upon hearing that he was considering appointing someone else. Lincoln baffled them by telling "story after story of frontier days." Davis advises them to organize "a letter-writing campaign in Cameron's behalf. Soon Lincoln's desk was covered with testimonials for the senator, and he could not help being impressed."

However, Cameron's detractors object to his economic views, but mostly to his "checkered record." Cited:

• "During Van Buren's administration he had served as commissioner to settle the claims of the Winnebago Indians and had allegedly defrauded his charges of $66,000; thereafter he was derisively known in Pennsylvania politics as the 'Great Winnebago Chief.' "
• "Using bribery and political intimidation," he became the "boss" of his state's Republican machine.
  
  

Again, it seems agreed that Cameron is a bad fellow, but the later writers, while agreeing on the nature of Cameron's two primary sins, disagree on the details. Oates says Cameron defrauded the Winnebagos of land and got money from it; Donald says it was a specific amount of money directly. At least they agree on his position and his amusing nickname. The second crime set is similar only in nature; Oates makes no mention, however, of the use of intimidation.

2.6.1.4.1 Cameron's Springfield Visit and the Letter of Acceptance

Masters: "In the latter part of December, Cameron came to Springfield, and, after a conference, departed with a letter from Lincoln appointing him to the secretaryship of war. The letter was dated December 31." (p. 374)

Oates: "Late in December, after a good deal of soul-searching, Lincoln invited Cameron to Springfield...He was a solicitous fellow, but rather insistent about becoming Treasury Secretary. Lincoln handed him a letter, dated December 31, which stated that 'at the proper time' Cameron would be appointed to head either the Treasury or the War Department." (p. 218)

Donald: "Drawing up a memorandum of the charges against Cameron and a list of the numerous letters recommending him (see above), (Lincoln) tentatively concluded that, on the balance, the evidence favored the Senator. He invited Cameron to Springfield, and they met in the Senator's hotel room December 28. ...The two very practical politicians hit it off at once and the next day, as Cameron was preparing to go home, Lincoln sent him a brief note promising that he would nominate him for either Secretary of the Treasury or Secretary of War." (p. 266)

Masters indicates that Cameron "came" to Springfield, with no invitation from Lincoln mentioned as in Oates and Donald. Also, why is it not mentioned by the other writers that the meeting was in a hotel room? Perhaps by doing this, they are attempting to disassociate Lincoln from Cameron, since this would mean Cameron was never under Lincoln's roof.

In Masters, Cameron came to Springfield; in Oates and Donald, he was invited. This minute change by later writers is calculated to make Lincoln look more polite and civil, and perhaps cover up the fact that Lincoln was probably rudely ignoring him. Another discrepancy is that, according to Masters, the initial letter promised charge of the war department only; Oates and Donald say either Treasury or War. Finally, did Lincoln hand him the letter at the meeting (Oates) or send it to him at his hotel room the next day (Donald)?

Taking these last two topics together, we find a peculiar puzzle. Donald's account of the visit by Cameron's supporters and the letter campaign is mentioned nowhere else, and is probably fictitious (for reasons we shall shortly see); merely a way to make Lincoln less responsible for choosing such an immoral man as Cameron. By Oates, the support for Cameron by his friends was there, but quite intangible - certainly there is no hint of a letter campaign; and at any rate, this is supposed to have happened sometime after December 15. Oates implies that a definite decision about Cameron had not been made by December 20, so the invitation could not have been sent yet, and the letters of support could not have reached Lincoln yet. Cameron came to visit Lincoln on December 28. In those days of primitive communication, where is there room for Cameron's friends to start a letter campaign, and for all those letters to get there and cover Lincoln's desk, in the eight days before Cameron arrives and the presumably fewer days before Lincoln sends the invitation?

2.6.1.4.2 Lincoln Changes His Mind (For the Time Being) About Cameron

Masters: "On January 3, Lincoln wrote Cameron withdrawing the appointment. On January 13, Lincoln wrote Cameron saying that he had heard that Cameron's feelings were wounded by the letter of the third. 'I wrote that letter under great anxiety, and perhaps I was not so guarded in its terms as I should have been; but I beg you to be assured I intended no offense,' were Lincoln's words." He sent with this letter another backdated to January 3, with more polite terms. However, "After all this change of mind, and indecision Cameron won the war department at Lincoln's hands." (pp. 374-5)

In a conference with Senator Harlan at the Capitol a few days after arriving in Washington, and before his inauguration, Lincoln mentions that "he had intended to appoint Cameron to be secretary of war." (p. 382)

Oates: "But after he'd gone, Lincoln had nagging doubts about his decision. For one thing, a Pennsylvania Republican called and recounted Cameron's misdeeds in vivid detail. When Lincoln demanded that the man document his accusations, he promised to do so 'with fearful fidelity.' Also, Trumbull, Hamlin, Blair and Chase all objected to Cameron's appointment and demanded a Cabinet member with clear Democratic antecedents and uncompromising antislavery views. Cameron was such a chameleon, his critics said, that nobody knew where he stood on anything but making money - usually by nefarious means.

" 'Under great anxiety,' Lincoln wrote Cameron on January 3, 1861, and rather curtly withdrew his Cabinet offer, insisting that developments in and out of Pennsylvania now made it impossible for him to join Lincoln's official family. But as luck would have it, Cameron had already shown Lincoln's offer to his friends - and it had somehow leaked to the papers. Lincoln was scandalized." (pp. 218-9)

Noting that Cameron's enemies had yet to prove a charge against him, and learning that he had hurt Cameron deeply by dropping him, on January 13 Lincoln "wrote him again and sincerely apologized if he'd seemed offensive, noting that he'd withdrawn the offer under mounting anxiety and perhaps hadn't been so guarded as he should have been. He therefore enclosed a new and kinder letter to replace take the place of the offensive one. And he promised Cameron that if he appointed a Pennsylvanian to the Cabinet before he reached Washington, he wouldn't do it without consulting Cameron and weighing his views and wishes." (p. 220)

"...happily for Lincoln, the Cameron problem had resolved itself, with rival Pennsylvania factions, afraid that the state might lose a Cabinet post altogether, rallying behind Cameron as their man. So Cameron would go to the War Office." (p. 233)

Donald: "Exultant, Cameron showed the letter to several friends on the way back to Washington. His rejoicing, however, was premature, for his train must have passed another bearing his old enemy, A. K. McClure, bringing documents to Springfield to prove Cameron's moral unfitness for high office. Lincoln recognized his blunder and promptly wrote Cameron that 'things have developed which make it impossible for me to take you into the cabinet.' He suggested that Cameron, to save face, should decline the appointment. In order to ease the blow, he asked Trumbull to promise that Cameron's friends should 'be, with entire fairness, cared for in Pennsylvania, and elsewhere.' Restlessly he waited for the desired telegram from Cameron but none came. Hearing that the Pennsylvanian's feelings were wounded by the abrupt phrasing of his letter, Lincoln apologized that it had been written 'under great anxiety' and he drafted another, somewhat more tactfully phrased...

Pennsylvania's rival factions later get together behind Cameron, reasoning that Cameron would be better to have representing their interests than no one at all. (pp. 266-7)

Lincoln asks Republican senators for votes on who would be Treasury Secretary. Nineteen respond: Eleven vote for Chase, three for Cameron, and five for other candidates. "With that, Lincoln had a mandate, and he offered the Treasury Department to Chase. Cameron was given a choice of the War Department or the Interior Department and rather grumpily chose the former." (p. 281)

Here is an egregious and notable error: How could a Pennsylvania Republican have "called" Lincoln about Cameron? The telephone had yet to be invented. The fact that this person is not named by Oates is also suspicious. This story must have been jumped on by the opposition, for in Donald, the detractor is named and comes in person, and has documents in his possession rather than just promises! It is also suspicious that this person is not mentioned at all by Masters; perhaps the later authors are trying to hide an arbitrary and capricious side of Lincoln, and make him look better by suggesting that his blunder was the result of inadequate information! How could this be, since Lincoln obviously had a great deal of information about Cameron already?

The basic story of the letters is probably true, but the authors still disagree on minor details, which throws much of the story into doubt. Where was the phrase referring to "in and out of Pennsylvania" mentioned? Donald says it was in a message to Trumbull; Oates says it was in the letter to Cameron! It was undoubtedly created for the occasion and was not actually used by Lincoln at all; it is something the writers imagine Lincoln said under the circumstances. Similarly, the "under great anxiety" phrase was invented; and we ask: Was in the latter letter (Masters) or was it somehow said by Lincoln (Oates, Donald)? Did Lincoln pick Cameron himself in the end (Masters) or was it the result of Pennsylvanian factions uniting behind Cameron (Oates, Donald) and an indirect result of a poll of Republican senators (Donald)? (In the latter, where does the idea of Cameron taking the Interior Department come from?) Why does Donald not mention the opinions of Trumbull, etc. after the meeting? Why is Donald the only one that mentions that Lincoln suggested Cameron withdraw on his own? These are all things calculated to make Lincoln look better in a bad situation.

2.6.2 His Advice Re: Fort Sumter

Masters: Cameron writes to Lincoln, advising against provisioning it: " 'Whatever might have been done as late as a month ago, it is too sadly evident that it cannot be done without the sacrifice of life and treasure not at all commensurate with the object to be attained; and as the abandonment of the fort in a few weeks sooner or later, appears to be an inevitable necessity, it seems to me that the sooner it is done, the better.' " (pp. 392-3)

Oates: Indicates that Cameron was at a Cabinet meeting on the subject, and that Lincoln told his Secretaries to submit written reports on the matter. (p. 239)

Donald: Sumter is a lead topic at a Cabinet meeting of March 9. "On March 15 (Lincoln) asked each member of his Cabinet to respond in writing to the question..." Cameron is recorded as siding with the majority view that an expedition would provoke combat and possibly war.

Oddly, although Oates indicates that Cameron was among those directed to provide a written report, he does not mention Cameron writing one. This is rather strange if Cameron was the head of the War Office; but we see later on where Oates has Lincoln himself making the military decisions. (p. 242) Why was Cameron dropped out of the picture, and his opinion subjugated?

Here is a peculiar place where Donald contradicts himself. In a later Cabinet meeting on the subject, it is said that Cameron was absent. (p. 288) But on the very next page, describing the same meeting, Lincoln directs Welles (the navy Secretary; see his entry) and Cameron to prepare an expedition to relieve Sumter. How can Lincoln give instructions to someone who isn't there?

2.6.3 His Management of the War Department

Oates: Reports that Cameron's understaffed War Department was swamped with responsibility, and had difficulty accomodating and keeping track of the regiments arriving in Washington. Cameron, "as confused as we was injudicious, sometimes refused to accept state regiments, which set both governors and officers squalling at Lincoln." Lincoln stepped in to resolve the situation.(p. 252)

Lincoln later describes Cameron as "utterly ignorant and regardless of the course of things," incapable of "organizing details or conceiving and advising general plans," "selfish," and "openly discourteous" - yet in spite of this, and "whispers of corruption," he left Cameron in place. Oates says, "It was as though Lincoln rejected his own instincts, covered his eyes, and waited for inept men to reform themselves so he would not have to go through the pain of sacking them." (p. 283)

Among the charges against Cameron in the War Office, as detailed in a 1109-page indictment:

• Competitive bidding had been ignored in favor of buying exclusively from favorite middlemen and suppliers, many of them "unprincipled and dishonest."
• Due to "inefficiency and fraud," the Department has purchased "huge quantities of rotten blankets, tainted pork, knapsacks that came unglued in the rain, uniforms that fell apart, discarded Austrian muskets, and hundreds of diseased and dying horses - all at exorbiant prices."
• Among the purchases: $21,000 in straw hats; "Scotch ale, selected herring, and barreled pickles." (pp. 298-9)

On January 13, 1862, Lincoln asks for and receives Cameron's resignation. He is made Minister to Russia, and Edward Stanton becomes Secretary of War. (p. 300)

Donald: See below.

The purchases delineated above are seem strangely characteristic of wasteful government purchases of the 20th century, and we may wonder if they were somehow created out of the whole cloth based upon 20th-century data. But see also the next entry - these two authors differ on why Cameron was ultimately let go! Oates says (above) it was due to Cameron's personality, his insubordination (below being just one example), and corruption. But Donald says insubordination alone was the cause.

The estimations of Cameron by Lincoln are simply put upon his lips to counteract the undeniable fact that Lincoln kept this incompetent grafter in office. In all probability, Lincoln was in on the take himself, and that is why he kept Cameron on board.

2.6.4 His Opinion of Recruiting Black Soldiers

Oates: Says Lincoln would use Negroes in the navy, but not in the army except as "foragers and laborers," lest Southern loyalists revolt against the government. However, Cameron "cheerfully disregarded" Lincoln's directions in the matter, and released an unauthorized report in December 1861 indicating that Negroes would be used in the army. Oates suggests: "Maybe (Cameron) sincerely believed in emancipation and the use of Negro fighting men and hoped to pressure Lincoln into embracing his views. On the other hand, there were reports of scandal in Cameron's office...and maybe Cameron was maneuvering to protect his job. He'd been consorting with Republican liberals of late; perhaps his report was an attempt to get their support, so that Lincoln would be reluctant to fire him." Although Lincoln acknowledged the strain the report caused between himself and Cameron, Cameron kept his job. (p. 291)

Donald: Reports that Cameron, after suggestions from Lincoln that he resign, took "a daring gamble" and put together a report announcing that it was "clearly a right of the Government to arm slaves...and employ their services against the rebels." He sent this document to the newspapers without telling Lincoln. "Lincoln immediately ordered the report recalled and Cameron's remark concerning slaves expurgated. After that it was simply a matter of time before Cameron left the Cabinet." Donald notes the release of Cameron immediately thereafter, on January 11, 1862, and his change to be minister to Russia.

Here, Oates, who has previously described Cameron in sour terms, presents an unlikely juxtaposition in order to make Cameron into far worse of a villain. Who, after reading about Cameron earlier in Oates, would believe he had a sincere desire to emancipate the black man? This is an obvious attempt to deflect attention from the fact that Lincoln himself opposed the step, and for the flimsiest of reasons; this would not do for the hero of the civil rights movement, so the blame had to be laid squarely elsewhere! Lincoln had nothing to do with offering further freedom to the black man. We may suggest that stories of him "allowing" black men into the Union army are a 20th-century distortion of what actually happened: Northern slaves were impressed into the army. They may have been falsely promised emancipation, and that may explain why some like Frederick Douglass (see below) gave support to Lincoln. This is more in line with the known bigotry of the 19th century.

But now the difference between Oates and Donald is painfully obvious. Oates puts the discovery of corruption before Cameron's firing. Donald puts the discovery primarily after the firing. (p. 326) (Donald offers no list of particulars, just generalities.) Their basic reasons for Cameron's dismissal are fundamentally at odds. (Most likely, Cameron was skimming profits before giving Lincoln his cut.)

2.6.5 Other Actions

Masters: Instructed Nathaniel Banks to arrest members of the Maryland legislature who were suspected of disloyalty, on September 17, 1861. (p. 422)

Donald: Cameron gives up his job in Russia and returns to play politics in Pennsylvania. (pp. 495, 502, 529, etc.)

It is strange that Cameron disappears so abruptly in Oates. There is not even a hint that he returns from Russia! But it fits nicely the overall poor treatment (not necessarily undeserved) that Cameron receives from these authors.

2.7 James Conkling

Masters: Mentions Conkling only as someone to whom Lincoln wrote a letter, in August 1863, after the battle of Gettysburg. (p. 151)

Basler: Referred to as J. C. Conklin; also referred to as someone to whom Lincoln wrote a letter in 1863. (p. 180)

Oates: Identifies Conkling as "dapper and dashing, a Princeton graduate and rising young Whig attorney in Springfield," who was courted by a female friend of Mary Todd Lincoln. (p. 59) Conkling is cited as one person who remarks upon Lincoln's stressful appearance after having spent "a week in mid-January...in his boarding room in acute despair" during trying times in 1841 involving his courtship of Mary Todd. Conkling observes that Lincoln looked emaciated and " 'seems scarcely to possess strength enough to speak above a whisper.' " (pp. 62-4)

Lincoln spoke to Conkling in Conkling's law office while the Republican National Convention was choosing their candidate, of whom Lincoln was one choice. (p. 193)

Donald: Referenced as "a Princeton graduate," part of a group that Lincoln met with in Springfield. (p. 70) Comments, after Lincoln has spent "about a week" in bed in January, that Lincoln " 'is reduced and emaciated in appearance and seems scarcely to possess strength enough to speak above a whisper. His case at present is truly deplorable.' " (pp. 87-8)

Lincoln went to Conkling's at the time of the Republican National Convention, where Conkling reassured him. (p. 250)

During Lincoln's Presidency, he invited Lincoln to Springfield for a rally on September 3, 1863; Lincoln replied with a letter that was published in "nearly every major newspaper throughout the country." (pp. 456-7)

Although there is much more detail of this person added in the later authors, there seems to be little that could not be regarded as at marginally true. Donald, though, has added on to Conkling's description of Lincoln's troubled state after his sickness in order to inspire sympathy, or to make Lincoln look like more of a heroic figure on the rebound. We may wonder if the letter referred to by Masters and Basler is supposedly the one printed in "every major newspaper," for if it was, it seems strange that Masters and Basler do not mention this, and that Oates does not mention the letter at all. It would be an easy tale to fabricate.

2.8 Frederick Douglass

2.8.1 General Actions

Masters: Opposed a second term for Lincoln. Associated himself with a faction in the Republican party which called for a convention on May 31, 1864, to be held in Cleveland and supported Fremont instead of Lincoln.(p. 448)

Oates: Supported Lincoln over Stephen Douglas, coming out from New York state to Illinois to do so. (p. 167)

He "contended that there was little difference between Lincoln's party and the Democrats. Still, Douglass admired Lincoln personally, said he was 'one of the most frank, honest men in political life.' " (p. 203)

Exhorted Lincoln to issue an emancipation decree. (p. 272)

Reacting to Lincoln's proposal that blacks colonize Liberia, he blasts Lincoln for " 'his inconsistencies, his pride of race and blood, his contempt for negroes and his canting hypocrisy.' " (p. 339)

Cheered the Emancipation Proclamation, saying, " 'We shout with joy, that we live to record this righteous decree.' " (p. 347)

Was part of a movement against Lincoln having another term and supporting Fremont. (p. 422)

Was in the crowd at the second inaugural ceremonies. (p. 445)

Lincoln is later informed that Douglass wants to congratulate him, but is not being allowed into the White House because of his race. "Lincoln had Douglass showed in at once. 'Here comes my friend Douglass,' the President announced...'I am glad to see you...I saw you in the crowd today, listening to my address...There is no man in the country whose opinion I value more than yours I want to know what you think of it.' Douglass said that he was impressed; he thought it 'a sacred effort.' 'I am glad you liked it!' Lincoln said...It was the first reception in the history of the Republic in which an American President had greeted a free black man and solicited his opinion." (p. 447)

Donald: Remarked of Lincoln's "entire freedom from popular prejudice against the colored race." (p. 221)

Demanded that Lincoln "Let the slaves and free colored people be called into service, and formed into a liberating army, to march into the South and raise the banner of emancipation among the slaves." (pp. 429-30)

Says that Douglass initially favored Fremont over Lincoln. (p. 541)

Of his second inaugural address, "(Lincoln) positively beamed when Frederick Douglass, who was in the throng at the White House reception after the inauguration, pronounced it 'a sacred effort.' " (p. 568)

We see here what probably represents a significant, genuine strain of data. The authors agree substantially on Frederick Douglass: The "sacred effort" quote may reflect Douglass' feelings at the time, but I doubt if he actually said any such thing at the inaugural. These words are invented for the occasion. The progression of Oates and Donald indicates a subtle twisting of the story, for we see that in Donald, the latest writer, there is no mention of Douglass not being allowed into the White House, and in Masters, no hint that Douglass was present for the inaugural at all. Undoubtedly, owing to the prevalent racism of the time, Douglass had never been allowed anywhere near the White House, at any time. Lincoln's effusive praise of Douglass is pure fancy, an invention; it is what the pro-Lincoln forces wish that Lincoln had said. What Lincoln did say may be partially preserved here - he favored sending blacks to Liberia; in all probability, this is a mangled statement that originally referred to what he would have liked to have done to blacks. It is strangely like the favorite bigots' cry of the 19th and 20th century to "send blacks back to Africa." Thus we have substantial proof that Lincoln was actually a bigot. This is made more clear in our second entry:

2.8.2 August 10 Meeting with Lincoln

Oates: "On August 10 (he) came to the White House to talk about the Union's black soldiers. Lincoln was in his office, sitting in a low chair surrounded by books and papers, when Douglass came in and introduced himself. Lincoln rose - and kept rising, Douglass said, until the President stared down at him. 'You need not tell me who you are, Douglass, I know who you are.' Sit down, sit down. A handsome, bewhiskered man with full hair and stern, frowning eyes, Douglass was the most eminent black leader of his generation. In all honesty, he had several minds about Lincoln. He thought Lincoln 'preeminently the white man's President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men.' For the first year and a half of the war, he 'was ready and willing' to sacrifice blacks for the benefit of white people, and Douglass had been outspoken in his opposition to Lincoln's administration. But since the preliminary emancipation proclamation, Douglass said, American blacks had taken Lincoln's measure and had come to admire and even love this enigmatic man....

"But that was not what Douglass had come to discuss. He was busily recruiting black soldiers himself - was on his way down to help Lorenzo Thomas on the Mississippi - and wanted to protest Lincoln's discriminatory policies against blacks in the army. Douglass argued that they deserved the same pay as whites and should get promoted for meritorious service just as the white troops were. He also insisted that if the Confederacy executed Negro prisoners of war, Lincoln must kill rebel captives in retaliation.

"Lincoln replied quietly, measuring his words. As for discrimination in the army, he pointed out that among whites there was great opposition to enlisting blacks at all. Many white men had threatened to throw down their arms rather than fight beside them. Still others argued that Negroes were inferior and ought to receive less pay than whites. So 'we had to make some concession to prejudice,' the President explained. But...'I assure you, Douglass, that in the end they shall have the same pay as white soldiers."

"But Lincoln hedged about the treatment of black prisoners of war...According to Douglass, Lincoln now shunned 'eye-for-an-eye' reprisals and said, 'I can't take men out and kill them in cold blood for what was done by others.'

"That aside, Lincoln deeply appreciated Douglass' work in recruiting Negro soldiers and heartily approved of his plans to help Thomas on the Mississippi. After their interview was over, Douglass left the White House with a growing respect for Lincoln. He was 'the first great man that I talked with in the United States freely...who in no single instance reminded me of the difference between himself and myself, of the difference of color.' " (pp. 385-6)

Donald: "In August, Lincoln had welcomed Douglass into the White House and, in response to Douglass's fears that he was vacillating about the value of Negro troops, assured him, 'I think it cannot be shown that when I have once taken a position, I have ever retreated from it.' " (p. 471)

The fact that Donald sees fit to compress this account that Oates puts together so elaborately is a strong indication that the whole scenario was fabricated. Indeed, the whole story is too incredible to believe: As pointed out in the previous entry, the racism of the day makes it impossible that Douglass would have been permitted into the White House. The loss of the elaborate detail suggests an evolution which slowly drops the incredible, and probably widely-criticized, story that Lincoln welcomed Douglass to the White House and considered him a friend. The "I know who you are" statement may be genuine, but it was assuredly said in a far different context - probably after some time when Douglass was arrested at Lincoln's orders.

Douglass, we may be sure, was a hero to the 20th-century; but unlike Lincoln, he probably deserved the recognition. The attempt here is obviously to somehow tie Lincoln and Douglass together in a much closer way than actual history would reveal. (It is also hard to believe that Douglass would leave this interview with any respect for Lincoln, since Lincoln rebuffed or hedged on every request that Douglass made.) A few other noteworthy points that indicate fabrication are:

• The reference to Lincoln's honesty sounds suspiciously like a common appeal of 20th-century politicians; hence it probably originated there.
• Many of these statements by Douglass reflect poorly on Lincoln as a hero for the civil-rights movement. I suggest that it is statements such as those by Douglass - obviously well-preserved by the anti-Lincoln forces - that require Oates and Donald to resort to subtrefuge. All statements by Douglass favoring Lincoln are sheer invention, reflecting the pro-Lincoln bias of the authors. Only Masters reflects a genuine view, where he notes that Douglass opposed Lincoln's re-election - as we would expect if Lincoln was not truly an advocate of ending slavery.
• Lincoln's assurances to Douglass likewise sound suspiciously like 20th-century political promises to disenfranchised minorities. They are therefore a product of that time.
  
  

2.9 Jesse Fell

Masters: A friend to whom Lincoln provided an autobiographical sketch on December 20, 1859. He was corresponding secretary of the Republican State Central Committee and went all over Illinois "gathering proof that there was sentiment in the state which favored Lincoln for the presidential nomination." (p. 356)

Basler: A recipient of a letter from Lincoln giving some facts of his life. (p. 106)

Oates: "...founder of the Bloomington Pantagraph, one of the leading Whig papers in Illinois," and someone Lincoln formed a personal and professional tie with. (p.11)

"...Lincoln's friend and a leading Illinois Republican" who agreed with others that Lincoln was the top Republican in Illinois. He took Lincoln for a walk one evening in Bloomington and told him, that he "had just visited in the East and everywhere he went Republicans asked, 'Who is this Lincoln we read about in the papers, who ran Douglas such a fine race?' If Lincoln's personal history and his speeches on the slavery question were brought before the public, Fell said, Lincoln could become a serious Presidential contender. True, Seward and Chase were front runners, but both had reputations as 'radicals,' which hurt them...

" 'Fell,' Lincoln said, 'I admit the force of much of what you say, and admit that I am ambitious, and would like to be President.' But Lincoln had to be realistic. He didn't stand a chance against nationally known men like Seward and Chase. And anyway, 'there is nothing in my early history that would interest you or anybody else; and as Judge Davis says, "it won't pay." ' He told Fell good night and walked on alone in the twilight." (pp. 174-5)

Although preferring going to the Senate than the White House, Lincoln "finally wrote a short autobiographical sketch for Jesse Fell, secretary of the Republican State Central Committee. Though Lincoln remarked that 'there is not much of it, for the reason, I suppose, that there is not much of me,' he did stress his Pennsylvania and Quaker ancestry. Fell sent the sketch to a newspaper in Pennsylvania, one of the critical states a Republican candidate must have in order to win, and the journal published an article about Lincoln widely copied in the Republican press." (p. 184)

Donald: A "Bloomington politician" to whom Lincoln sent "am autobiography for campaign purposes," as a result of a request "forwarded...from Joseph J. Lewis, of the Chester County Times in Pennsylvania. Lincoln sent "a terse sketch" to Fell, saying, "If any personal description of me is thought desirable, it may be said, I am, in height, six feet, four inches, nearly; lean in flesh, weighing, on an average, one hundred and eighty pounds; dark complexion, with coarse black hair, and grey eyes - no other marks or brands recollected," and noting "There is not much of it, for the reason, I suppose, that there is not much of me." Lewis added on to the sketch with remarks of his own and it was published widely. (p. 237)

Helped with Lincoln's convention party. (p. 248)

Oates directly contradicts himself: How could Fell have been the founder of a Whig newspaper and also have been a leading Republican? Oates also gives away that the letter to Fell, while probably genuine, was more personal in nature than it was a campaign tactic. How? He refers to Pennsylvania as a state Republicans must win, in the present tense. Also, the idea of appealing to a Presidential candidate's humble roots clearly originated in the 20th century, and was used in particular by the two-term President William Clinton and Oates' contemporary President, James Carter.

The "not much of me" comment is likely genuine, but I believe that it has been misapplied in subtrefuge. Note first the confusion over who wanted the sketch: Was it Fell (Oates) or Lewis (Donald)? And was Fell himself a newspaper founder (Oates) or a politician (Masters, Donald)?

Why should Lincoln send such a specific description of himself, including noting his complexion and lack of scars? I propose that Lincoln was not doing it for campaign purposes, but was interested in joining the Union army to fight in the Civil War; or else, this was taken from an earlier attempt by him to enlist in the Black Hawk War. His description is what one would give to an Army recruiter; and the "not much of me" comment is obviously nothing more than a reference to that same description: Lincoln was obviously pleading to be accepted for conscription in spite of his lean frame - "not much of me," in other words! Oates and Donald have simply taken the quote woefully out of context.

2.10 Millard Fillmore

Masters: Cited as a Presidential candidate "on the Whig platform" in 1856. (p. 248)

Oates: Recognizes Fillmore as the person who took the place of President Zachary Taylor after the latter died of "cholera morbus" in 1850. (p. 102) Cited in the 1856 election as "a former Whig President now running as the American party candidate." (p. 139) Indicates that Mary Todd Lincoln supported Fillmore in the campaign, though incoln supported a different candidate, Fremont. (p. 141)

Donald: Cites Fillmore as the Whig vice-presidential candidate in the 1848 campaign, Taylor being the presidential candidate. Lincoln met Fillmore in Albany, New York, and supported the Taylor/Fillmore campaign.(pp. 131-2)

In the 1856 campaign, Fillmore is identified as the candidate of the American party and someone with "highly respectable Whig antecedents." Mary Todd Lincoln favored him; Lincoln favored Fremont and made extensive efforts to woo Fillmore's supporters to Fremont's side. (pp. 192-4) This effort to win the votes of Fillmore's supporters continues even after the election. (pp. 230, 240, 255)

Again Oates and Donald each offer their own unique and otherwise unsubstantiated details, though they may in this case both be correct. However, they directly contradict Masters, who identifies Fillmore as a Whig in 1856, whereas Oates and Donald say that he was a former Whig who switched to the American party in 1856. Also peculiar is that Lincoln allegedly supported Fillmore's candidacy in 1848, but did not later. This appears inconsistent; Donald has perhaps invented this meeting in order to give the early Lincoln some credibility as someone who rubbed shoulders with previous Presidents. The entire situation is no doubt founded upon political intricacies of which we shall never be fully informed.

2.11 Ulysses S. Grant

2.11.1 Relevant Personal Data

2.11.1.1 Standard Personal Data

Masters: Saw service in the war against Mexico. (p. 85)

Basler: One of two Northern generals - Sherman being the other - who was from the Middle West. (p. 232)

Oates: "Grant was a slight, shy man who stood about five feet eight and weighed around 135 pounds. He had stooped shoulders and mild blue eyes, walked with a lurch, chewed cigars, and surrendered word with much reluctance. Ohio-born, he'd graduated twenty-first in a class of thirty-nine at West Point, fought in the Mexican War, and married a trim and vivacious Missouri girl named Julia Dent. Later he went off to outpost duty on the West Coast, but loneliness and whiskey got the best of him. In 1854 he quit the army, rejoined his family in Missouri, and tilled a small dirt farm he called 'Hardscrabble.' Eventually he moved into Saint Louis, but failed there as a real estate salesman. Suffering from ague and rheumatism, and feeling useless, Grant moved his family to Galena, Illinois, where he clerked in his father's leather goods store." (p. 416)

Donald: "(Lincoln) knew he could count on (Grant)...Though a former Democrat, Grant expressed no interest in politics and no reservations about the President's emancipation policies; instead he concentrated his energies on defeating the Confederates." (p. 384)

"In Grant (Lincoln) had a commander whom he liked and trusted. Everything about the unpretentious, businesslike general pleased the President...Lincoln was struck by the simplicity and directness of the language Grant used in his reports. He was even more impressed by their infrequency and brevity..." (p. 497)

Though it seems little can be garnered here, in fact this gives us a hint of what is to come. Oates wants us to sympathize with Grant, and that is why we are given so many intimate personal details of his life. Donald does not care if we sympathize with him or not. Why? Further examples are needed to demonstrate. However, the basic premise is that in Oates, Lincoln very much likes, almost worships, the figure of Grant; in Donald, he has respect and some liking for the man, but not much - and indications are that the less he heard from Grant, the more he liked him! For a further example, Donald also indicates praise from Lincoln because Grant "doesn't worry and bother me" and doesn't ask for reinforcements. (p. 497) Note the different manner in which Oates uses this praise by Lincoln below (2.11.2.2) - it comes after a mention of a special letter of thanks Lincoln wrote to Grant, a letter which is never mentioned in Donald.

2.11.1.2 Drinking Problem

Oates: April 1862: "(I)n southern Tennessee, at Shiloh Church near the Mississippi border, Grant had battled a rebel army for two bloody days before driving it from the field." The Union suffered "over thirteen thousand" casualties. Rumors in Washington were that Grant had been drunk during the battle, "prompting one critic to demand his dismissal. But Lincoln refused. 'I can't spare this man,' the President said. 'He fights.' " (pp. 325-6)

Chase passed on a letter from a Cincinnati editor who declared that Grant was 'a poor drunk imbecile' who couldn't organize, control or fight an army. 'I have no personal feelings about it,' the editor added, 'but I know he is an ass.'

"Alarmed, Lincoln and Stanton sent out various people to look Grant over - among them Charles A Dana, lately of the New York Tribune. Dana traveled with Grant's army and filed daily reports that were extremely complimentary about the general, praising him as industrious and sober. Dana's dispatches did much to restore Lincoln's confidence in the only army commander he had who could really fight." (p. 374)

Even after Vicksburg, rumors of Grant's "drunken sprees" circulated among his critics, "and the tales have persisted through the years. Grant may have had his troubles with the bottle earlier in his life, but by the civil war he seems to have imbibed no more than most army officers in that hard-drinking time...there is no documentary evidence that he was the chronic drunk his foes make him out to be." In reply to stories that Grant would be fired because of his drinking, Lincoln supposedly said "that if they could find out Grant's brand of whiskey he would 'send every general in the field a barrel of it.'

"When asked if the story were true, Lincoln laughed. 'That would have been very good if I had said it; but I reckon it was charged to me to give it currency.' " (p. 383)

Donald: When no further reports were heard after the capture of Fort Donelson, "Reports spread that Grant had gone back to his old habits, and in Washington he was now considered 'little better than a common gambler and drunkard.' " (p. 338)

After Vicksburg: "The general, reported Murat Halstead of the Cincinnati Commercial, 'is a jackass in the original package. He is a poor drunken imbecile. He is a poor stick sober, and he is most of the time half drunk, and much of the time idiotically drunk.' " (p. 409)

An enormous contradiction emerges here in the way Oates and Donald regard the figure of Ulysses S. Grant. Oates produces information indicating that Grant was not the drunkard that the press and others made him out to be; Donald makes no such effort.

Why has this happened? We do not possess much information about Grant, but we do know that he followed in Lincoln's footsteps and became President also. I suspect that, in order to keep Lincoln in esteemed company, Grant's reputation was mildly enhanced, and Lincoln was made to praise him profusely in Oates' rewrite of true history. As with many of Oates' schemes, this apparently failed, because Donald gives us an eminently sober (pun intended) view of the general instead.

For a further comparison, see the note below concerning the battle at Shiloh.

Also relevant:

• Why does Oates not name the editor from Cincinnati, and why does Donald not mention that it was Chase who brought the comments to Lincoln's attention?
• What exactly were the comments? Did the editor say: 'I have no personal feelings about it, but I know he is an ass,' or did he call Grant a jackass in the original package, with no qualifications as to his personal feelings? And where is Oates' report of Dana's trip in Donald and the President's subsequent restoration of confidence? They are probably an invention, since they are mentioned only by Oates and since they are probably calculated to make Grant look better, and Lincoln himself look better for sticking with Grant.
  
  

2.11.1.3 Other Actions

Oates: Made an "ill-considered" attempt to expel Jewish peddlers from his lines, "on the grounds that they were rebel spies. Lincoln countermanded the order because it proscribed an entire religious class, some of whom were serving in Union ranks. (p. 374)

In reply to Lincoln's instructions, endorsed the use of Negro troops, calling it, along with the Emancipation Proclamation, "the heavyest blow yet given the Confederacy." (p. 384)

Refused the endorsement of James Gordon for the Presidency, saying that the country needed Lincoln, and that his defeat would be "a great national calamity." (p. 413)

Donald: "Further controversy rose over Grant's ill-conceived order banning 'Jew peddlers' from the lines." Lincoln revoked it as proscribing an entire religious class, some of whom fought for the Union. (p. 409)

Considered for the Democratic Presidential nomination. (p. 478)

Says that Grant "unquestioningly accepted" Lincoln's policies on emancipation and use of Negro troops. (p. 497)

Grant refused any idea that he would run for President, saying that he considered it "as important for the cause that [Lincoln] should be elected as that the army should be successful in the field." (pp. 525-6)

The Jewish peddlers story is probably a well-preserved tidbit, although it is interesting that the charge of spying in not mentioned by Donald; Oates has probably invented this to make Grant less culpable. Note also that Donald makes scant mention of Grant receiving Negro troops positively, and provides no quote from Grant on the matter - indicating that Grant was probably actually a virulent racist who opposed the use of Negro troops, in line with his poor treatment of Jews. (As mentioned earlier, the Negro troops idea is subtly fabricated anyway; they were impressed into the army as slaves, not set free and allowed to join.)

The subtle difference in Grant's minor role as a Presidential candidate is also telling. Both authors have Grant openly refuse consideration, but only Oates says that Grant viewed the potential loss of Lincoln as a "national calamity."

2.11.2 Civil War Data

2.11.2.1 Tennessee/Kentucky Action

Oates: Under Halleck, sent as Brigadier General down Tennesee River to operate in western Tennessee and Kentucky. In February 1862, "Grant drove into northwestern Tennessee, captured Fort Henry on the Tennessee River, and then stormed Fort Donelson on the Cumberland, pounding the shell-torn garrison until it met the terms of unconditional surrender." Lincoln was pleased at this and noted that many of Grant's men hailed form Illinois. "Subsequent reports indicated that Grant's victories had cracked the Confederate line in Kentucky and forced the opposing rebel army, its flanks now exposed, to retreat down into Tennessee. Though Halleck, from his Saint Louis desk, claimed most of the credit, Lincoln himself nominated 'Unconditional Surrender' Grant for promotion to major general. In this long and dismal winter, Grant alone had given the President something to cheer about." (p. 313)

April 1862: "(I)n southern Tennessee, at Shiloh Church near the Mississippi border, Grant had battled a rebel army for two bloody days before driving it from the field." The Union suffered "over thirteen thousand" casualties. Rumors in Washington were that Grant had been drunk during the battle, "prompting one critic to demand his dismissal. But Lincoln refused. 'I can't spare this man,' the President said. 'He fights.' " (pp. 325-6)

Donald: "More significant was a campaign that General Ulysses S. Grant launched to open the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers. On February 6, Grant's forces, aided by navy gunboats under Flag Officer Andrew Foote, captured Fort Henry on the Tennessee River, and eleven days later forced Fort Donelson to surrender."

Lincoln later signed papers promoting Grant to "major general." (p. 335)

"In the West at Pittsburg Landing on the Tennessee Rver the Confederates came close to routing Grant's army in the battle of Shiloh (April 6-7). The timely arrival of Buell's forces helped to save the day. In the end, Shiloh was a great Union victory, but the 13,000 Federal casualties marked this as the bloodiest engagement yet in the war. Halleck blamed Grant for the losses, and there was strong sentiment to have him removed. Lincoln overruled the objections with the quiet comment, 'I can't spare this man; he fights.' But with Grant's reputation under a shadow, Halleck now took personal command of the heavily depleted Western army..." (p. 349)

The inevitable contradiction arises: Did Grant take Fort Donelson immediately after Fort Henry, as Oates implies, or did they take it 11 days later, per Donald?

The major contradiction, however, is the continued disparate treatment given to poor Grant by Oates and Donald. Oates has Lincoln practically worshipping Grant: he is 'something to cheer about' and is stood up for steadfastly when criticized for being drunk during battle. Donald reports no such specific accolades to Grant; instead, Donald reports only Lincoln's general satisfaction with "the recent gallant behavior of Illinois troops," which were under Grant. (p. 335)

Another question: Did Lincoln actually sign the papers promoting Grant (Donald), or just nominate him (Oates)?

Concerning Shiloh, note how Oates has omitted any mention of Buell helping out, so that Grant is made into a bigger hero. Other contradictions:

• Were there over 13,000 casualties (Oates) or just 13,000 (Donald)?
• Was there just one critic calling for Grant's dismissal (Oates) or was there strong sentiment, indicating several critics (Donald)?
• Was the call for dismissal related to Grant's drunkenness (Oates) or because of the loss at Shiloh itself (Donald)?
• Was Lincoln's 'he fights' comment made from strength (Oates) or was it said meekly (Donald)? It may have simply been invented for the occasion.
  
  

2.11.2.2 Vicksburg Action

Oates: Spring, 1863: "...Grant was still stalled in the tangled river country above Vicksburg. Since Sherman had failed to penetrate the bluffs and bayous northeast of Vicksburg, Grant had made one abortive attempt after another to get at the river garrison. He'd even tried to dig canals to facilitate troops movements, but the canals had also failed. Frankly Lincoln worried about Grant. Why didn't he forget about those foolish canals and simply march down the Louisiana side of the Mississippi and operate on Vickburg from below?" (pp. 373-4)

Mid-April, 1863: "Unable to take (Vicksburg) from the north, Grant threw military theories to the winds: he cut himself off from his Memphis base and led his force of twenty thousand down the Louisiana side of the river, heading southward through an area of humid bayous and mosquito-infested lakes. Meanwhile Union gunboats and transports ran past Vicksburg's batteries and steamed downriver. Good, Lincoln exclaimed, this was what he'd wanted Grant to do all along. Now if he would march on down the Mississippi to link up with Nathaniel Banks...they could mount a concerted operation against Vicksburg from the south. But Grant intended to campaign with the men he had. At the end of April, he used the transports to ferry his army back across the river, them drove inland to Port Gibson and prepared to strike out for Vicksburg. Lincoln feared it was a mistake not to join Banks, but he admired Grant's daring and refused to intervene." (pp. 375-6)

"A cryptic telegram arrived from Grant. On May 11 he left Port Gibson - 'you may not hear from me for several days,' the dispatch read - and stormed northeast toward Vicksburg and Jackson, subsisting entirely off hostile country. For two weeks nobody in Washington knew for sure what was happening. Then on May 25...came a glorious report from Grant's chief of staff. The general had won five straight battles in Mississippi, captured the state capital of Jackson, split the rebel forces, and driven to the very trenches of Vicksburg itself.

"Lincoln could not have been happier. In spite of his earlier reservations, he now pronounced Grant's campaign 'one of the most brilliant in the world.'

"Yet Grant couldn't capture Vicksburg. When two assaults failed to break rebel lines, Grant settled in for a siege, with Union artillery shelling the city day and night..."

Lincoln called upon Rosecrans (see entry) to leave his Tennessee theater to help Grant, and after much fuss, Rosecrans agreed. (pp. 377-8)

Later Lincoln sends Grant a personal note of thanks for his "almost inestimable service" to the country. "Lincoln could scarcely restrain his admiration for Grant. In truth, he was 'the joy of Lincoln's heart,' because the man fought without demanding reinforcements." (p. 383)

Donald: "After an unsuccessful attempt to proceed overland through central Mississippi, Grant entrusted the offensive to W. T. Sherman, who led his troops on December 29 in a disastrous assault on the Chickasaw Bluffs defending Vicksburg..." (p. 409)

April: "Equally disappointing were the operations on the Mississippi River. After grant's army spent much of the spring digging a canal on the Louisiana side of the Mississippi River in the hope of bypassing Vicksburg, the banks caved in, and the whole enterprise was abandoned. An attempt by Union warships to run the batteries of Vicksburg was successful but costly. Then Grant, taking no one into his confidence, marched his troops down the west side of the river, crossed into Mississippi, and disappeared, with no one in Washington knowing where he was or what he planned to do."

Lincoln called upon Rosecrans to stage an offensive against Bragg or send Grant reinforcements. "But Rosecrans was unconvinced and remained inactive." (p. 435)

"...Grant plunged into the interior of Mississippi, defeated Confederate forces in a series of engagements, and pushed John C. Pemberton's army back into Vicksburg. During much of this campaign Grant told no one of his plans and seemed simply to have disappeared." Lincoln desperately sought news of what had happened; when he found out about the siege of Vicksburg, he "could understand both the boldness and the skill of his general," and wrote to a Grant critic that Grant's campaign so far had been "one of the most brilliant in the world." (p. 445)

The pattern is no doubt obvious to the reader by now.

• Was there more than one canal attempted (Oates) or just one (Donald)? Note how differently the two report this effort, even though it is recorded as a failure. Oates puts rather a positive spin on the matter!
• Did Rosecrans eventually move (Oates) or didn't he (Donald)? And did Lincoln contact Rosecrans before (Donald) or after (Oates) the Vickburg action?
• Did Grant advise Lincoln of his intent to disappear by telegram (Oates) or did he tell nobody (Donald)?

Overall, the picture again is one of Oates making Grant into a sort of godlike figure, reciting exactly how many engagements were won and having Lincoln admire Grant's boldness throughout; Donald, however, has no such admiration for the general, and has Lincoln compliment him only with qualifications and only after the advance through Mississippi.

2.11.2.3 In Command: Chattanooga

Oates: "In mid October (Lincoln) gave Grant command of all armies in the West and ordered him down to Chattanooga with the authority to fire Rosecrans if he wanted to. Grant, then at Louisville, relieved the general by telegram and hurried south to Chattanooga, riding horseback over gullied mountain roads." Grant took charge of the city. (pp. 392-3)

"In late November, Grant attacked the rebels south of Chattanooga and defeated them in the battles of Lookout Mountain and Missionary Ridge. A report from Dana moved Lincoln deeply, for it told how eighteen thousand Union men charged without orders from Grant or Thomas, how they crawled, pulled and hacked their way to the summit of Missionary Ridge and put the rebels to flight." Grant then sent Sherman to Knoxville to join Burnside in an attack on Longstreet.

Donald: "...Lincoln put Grant in charge of the new Division of the Mississippi, which combined the former Departments of the Ohio, the Cumberland, and the Tennessee, and replaced Rosecrans with Thomas. By the end of October, Grant relieved Chattanooga..." (p. 458)

"In November decisive Union victories of Grant, Sherman, and George H. Thomas at Lookout Montain and Missionary Ridge pushed the rebels out of most of Tennessee..." (p. 468)

I am frankly astounded by the level of contradiction here. Oates had Grant relieving Rosecrans, whereas Donald has Rosecrans replaced with Thomas, per Lincoln's orders! Also, was Grant put in charge of the armies of the West or some entirely new organization, the Division of the Mississippi? They cannot be the same, for Mississippi was in the South.

Notice, again, how Donald removes the glory from Grant, attributing the Tennessee victories to the triad of Grant, Sherman and Thomas, rather than to Grant alone as Oates does.

Again, also, the use of round numbers makes us suspicious, and alert to fabrication. Surely it was not EXACTLY 18,000 men who went in the charge.

2.11.2. War's End

2.11.2.1 Washington: General in Chief

2.11.2.1.1 Who's in Charge Here?

Oates: Arrived in Washington March 8; now commander of "860,000 total troops in all Union armies." In late March, "Grant established his headquarters at Culpepper Court House down in Virginia. But once a week he rode back to Washington and conferred with Lincoln in the White House...Together they produced a grand strategy that called for simultaneous offensive movements on all battlefronts."

Donald: Lincoln, in a private interview with Grant, confesses ignorance of military matters and gives Grant full control and whatever he desires militarily, writing later to Grant, "The particulars of your plans I neither know, nor seek to know..." (pp. 497-8)

So - did they work together, or did Lincoln just let Grant do his job? We hold that there is a reason why Donald disassociates Lincoln from Grant's planning. It shall be seen shortly.

2.11.2.1.2 Strategies

Oates:

• Grant and Meade would concentrate on Lee, "trying to draw him into a showdown battle and liquidate his army."
• The Army of the James, under Benjamin Butler, would advance from Ft. Monroe and cut off Lee's railroad supply south of Richmond.
• Sherman's Army of the Cumberland, "now 112,000 strong," would slash into Georgia and capture Atlanta.
• Banks would drive on Mobile and eventually link up with Sherman. (pp. 416-7)

"Lincoln loved the grand plan" and helped Grant work it out in their weekly meetings. "It entailed exactly the kind of concerted action he'd advocated since 1861...When Grant promised to utilize the entire federal line, Lincoln remarked happily, 'Those not skinning can hold a leg.' " (p. 418)

Donald: Grant first favored "a series of massive raids against the Confederacy" by small armies of around 60,000 men. Proposed:

• Banks would move from New Orleans to move against Mobile, then north to cut railroads in Alabama and Georgia.
• Sherman would sweep through Georgia, destroying the "main east-west transportation line of the Confederacy."
• A third group would move inland from Suffolk, Virginia and demolish rail lines between Weldon and Raleigh.

"Under the influence of Lincoln and Halleck," however, "Grant abandoned nearly all of this plan." Lincoln thought what was needed "was not more maneuvering but assault after assault on the Confederate army." Grant put together a new plan:

• Banks would advance on Mobile.
• Sherman would move toward Atlanta.
• Sigel would cut the Confederate rail line in Shenandoah.
• Butler would head up the James River against Petersburg and ultimately Richmond.
• Meade would push the Army of Northern Virginia back to Richmond.

Lincoln "pretended to be surprised when Grant told him" about his plan - similar to Lincoln's own earlier suggestion to use the Union's numerical superiority to their advantage - and "remarked, in all apparent innocence: 'Oh, yes! I see that. As we say out West, of a man can't skin he must hold a leg while somebody else does.' " (p. 499)

By now the reader needs no instruction to spot the variances in these accounts; indeed, there is no need to harp on them here, for we shall probably never understand why battle strategies, of all things, are so variably recorded. What IS important is the way each author portrays Lincoln as reacting. The "leg skinning" colloquialism is a happy compliment in Oates; in Donald, it is a veiled sarcasm! (It is probably also drawn from the 20th century wisdom sayings; it is the sort of thing that would have been said by Oates' contemporary, President James Carter.) The effect, again, is to distance Lincoln from Grant, and we shall see why this is done in our next entry.

2.11.2.1.3.1 Last Battle, Part 1

Oates: On May 3, Grant attacked Lee's forces. "For four days Lincoln scarcely slept" as he waited for news of the battle. A telegram came May 8 from Grant: "He was pounding Lee again and again, his casualties were heavy, he was inching forward." (p. 419)

One month later, "...Grant was stalled nine miles northeast of Richmond with Lee's army entrenched in his front" and total casualties of 54,000 killed or wounded. "From all corners of the Union came waves of indignation against Lincoln, that he could sanction such senseless carnage, that he could put a butcher like Grant in command." (p. 420)

Donald: "In the early hours of May 4" Grant moves the Army of the Potomac. "For the first two days" Lincoln waited anxiously for information; Grant had "forbidden newspaper correspondents to use the telegraph." On Friday Grant sends a telegram saying "Everything pushing along favorably." At 2 AM the next day Grant sends word through a New York Tribune reporter that there will be "no turning back." Then, over the next two weeks, between battles in the Wilderness and at Spotsylvania, the Army of the Potomac lost "nearly 32,000 soldiers, and thousands more were missing."

Lincoln bewails the great loss of life, hardly sleeping at all. A later message from Grant expresses intent to keep up the fight all summer if needed.

On May 17, facing a depleted army due to casualties and expiration of terms, Lincoln drafted an order for the conscription of 300,000 additional men. Two newspapers in New York pick up and exaggerate the story, causing a general financial panic. Lincoln is forced to withdraw the order and angrily directs the army to "take possession by military force" the premises of the two newspapers, and orders the arrests of the editors.

"By July it seemed that Grant's campaign...was a failure." Several failures are listed. Newspapers report the carnage; "the country shuddered with a sickening revulsion at the slaughter." Lincoln is "sensitive to the suffering," visits the wounded and grants pardons to soldiers who had been court-martialed. He debates what his responsibility is in the matter, and seeks comfort in the Bible. Mary Lincoln refers to Grant as a butcher. (pp. 512-5)

Here at last the disassociation of Lincoln and Grant becomes clear: Donald has distanced the two in order to separate Lincoln from the charges of butchery (Oates, p. 420). No longer is it Lincoln and Grant who the papers blame; in place of this we have the peculiar, unattested, and likely fabricated story of the conscription order allegedly ruined by two newspapers - the press thus becomes a villain instead of a hero; Grant remains the only bloodthirsty one of the pair, and Lincoln's hands are washed of the whole affair - instead he becomes a Bible-reader and meditates on his guilt for the bloodshed; he obviously feels bad about it, so who could blame him? Donald, throughout his book, puts so much distance between Grant and Lincoln because it would not do for the hero of the civil rights movement to be associated with the blood-stained General Grant. Even Lincoln's wife is made to agree that it is Grant who is the butcher!

Obviously, there are these contradictions:

• Did Grant attack on May 3 or 4?
• Were there 54,000 lost or 32,000?

2.11.2.1.3.2 Last Battle, Part 2 and Surrender

Masters: Saw to the needs of the Confederate negotiation team of Stephens, Hunter and Campbell. Received a telegram from Lincoln at that time saying, "Let nothing which is transpiring change, hinder or delay your military movements or plans." Grant replied on February 1: "Your dispatch received. There will be no armistice in consequence of the presence of Mr. Stephens and others within our lines. The troops are kept in readiness to move at the shortest notice, if occasion should justify it." Grant was "exceedingly anxious" that the war should end. (p. 464)

Received Lee's surrender at Appamattox on April 9. "Grant forbade his troops to cheer. A gallant foe lay exhausted. It was unmanly, it was brutal to send up huzzas over the bowed heads of brave men." (p. 473)

Oates: With Lincoln's approval, Grant heads to Petersburg in an attempt to cut off Lee's communications. He arrives June 18 and settles in for a siege, hoping to flush Lee out for a showdown. (p. 423)

Mid-march the next year: Lincoln, on Grant's invitation, joins him at his headquarters "at Ciry Point, at the confluence of the Appamattox and James rivers some twenty miles south of Richmond." Lincoln's wife says that "the rest and fresh air would be good for him." (p. 453)

April 1: 'Heavy fighting all day around Petersburg. That evening a war correspondent came aboard the River Queen (Lincoln's boat) with some rebel battle flags captured that day. Grant sent them back to Lincoln with his compliments. 'Here is something material,' Lincoln rejoiced, 'something I can see, feel and understand. This means victory. This is victory.' " On the morning of April 3, word comes that Lee is retreating; Lincoln "rode into smoldering Petersburg and pumped Grant's hand for this glorious victory. At first, Lincoln said, he'd thought Grant might wait for Sherman to come up from North Carolina and then launch his attack. No, Grant said, he'd decided that the Potomac Army - Lee's old foe - ought to destroy the Army of Northern Virginia without help from Western troops. Lincoln remarked that his anxieties were so great he didn't care where help came from, 'so that the work was perfectly done.' " (pp. 456-7)

April 9: Lincoln receives a telegram from Grant indicating that Lee has surrendered at Appamattox. (p. 458)

Donald: On June 20, Lincoln makes an unannounced visit to Grant's headquarters a City Point. Lincoln is well-received by the Negro troops. (pp. 515-6)

As the war continues, Lincoln's patience wears thin, even with Grant. (p. 519)

July 30: Grant tried to break Petersburg's defense by "exploding a huge mine under the Confederate line; 15,000 Union troops rushed into the crater produced by the explosion, but they were poorly led by drunken or incompetent officers and within hours 4,000 men were killed or wounded and the rest had to be withdrawn." (p. 528)

A Confederate peace commission, consisting of Stephens, Campbell, and Hunter, arrived at City Point. (p. 553) Grant persuades them to delete some possibly offensive language from their peace proposals, for he was "increasingly eager to finish off the war" and "was not attuned to the niceties of diplomatic negotiations." (p. 557)

"On March 20, at Mrs. Grant's prompting, General Grant invited the President to come down to army headquarters at City Point for a few days, suggesting that the rest would do him good." (p. 572) Lincoln goes to cheer up the troops, and they in turn offer him cheers. Lincoln even makes "a point of shaking hands with the hospitalized Confederates." (p. 572)

On April 3, Lincoln follows his troops into Petersburg. Secretary of War Stanton admonishes him for taking the risk. (p. 576)

"That night (April 9) he (Lincoln) learned that Lee had surrendered to Grant at Appamattox." (p. 581)

There is a fundamental disagreement here, for Oates implies that Lincoln's first visit to City Point was at Grant's invitation, in mid-March; Donald puts an unannounced visit in the previous year, and the second visit on March 20 is at Grant's invitation, but at the insistence of Grant's wife. And is it Mrs. Lincoln or General Grant who makes the suggestion about using the visit for recreation? Actually, the whole story stinks; no sensible President would take a vacation like this in a time of war.

Note the warm reception given to Lincoln: It is further rehabilitative propaganda, quite unrealistic for soldiers to praise someone who is basically ordering them to their deaths. The idea that Lincoln was friendly to wounded Confederate POWs is even more ludicrous: Is this really a likely scenario from that barbaric age?

Note the loss of patience by Lincoln that Donald reports - and that Oates does NOT report. Note the failures of Grant that Donald reports and that Oates does not. Notice how the events of April 1 and 3 are changed - Grant is not even MENTIONED in the April 3 incident in Donald, although per Oates, it was a date when Lincoln heaped congratulations on the general. No longer is Lincoln salivating over captured flags and congratulating Grant for butchering people! Note how Grant goes from receiving Lee's surrender and being manly about it (Masters) to reporting it (Oates), to simply receiving it with no comment (Donald). This continues to fit perfectly into our scenario of disassociation.

Overall, we can see how poorly General Grant has been treated as time progressed. Deserving or not, he has been pummeled to Lincoln's benefit, all for the sake of making the latter an appropriate icon for the civil rights lobby.

2.12 William Herndon

In all of the books, Herndon is cited as a friend of Lincoln who provided a great deal of information about him. However, he provided this information some time after Lincoln's death, and many more years after the events allegedly happened; he interviewed and wrote to people who had known Lincoln some 35-50 years before, or spoke to the children of people who had known Lincoln. Although Basler (pp. 103-4) allows that these are "no obstacles to the memory of a great man," we must disagree. Thirty to fifty years allows much time for memories to be befuddled and for accounts to be embellished. Herndon also was practically a worshipper of Lincoln, as several of the writers admit; this makes all of his recollections suspect. Furthermore, if the accounts about Herndon are suspect, anything reported as coming from him is suspect. Unfortunately, this turns out to be the case.

2.12.1 Early Association with Lincoln

Masters: "One day quite suddenly Lincoln rushed in on Herndon, who was a beginning lawyer, and said that he going to sever his partnership with Logan, and asked Herndon to be his partner. Herndon was delighted, and the partnership between them came to pass at once...Lincoln found in Herndon just what he wanted, namely, the younger partner who was the studious and self-effacing member of the firm, while he, the older partner, could follow his natural bent of loafing, and talking and being the orator and jury man of the firm, which he was well equipped to be." Herndon, however, acted more as a tutor to Lincoln, working on Lincoln to read the great books and telling him about them when Lincoln wouldn't read them, and pushing Lincoln to make a definite stand politically. "All along Herndon was writing and publishing editorials in the Sangamon Journal in praise of Lincoln" and when Lincoln became a presidential possibility, he wrote letters to all over the country to "keep the political fires burning bright and warm for the man he almost worshipped." (p. 84)

Oates: In December 1844, Logan and Lincoln "dissolved their law firm by mutual agreement." Lincoln is quoted as citing Herndon's organizational skills as a reason for the choice, being that he was a careless records keeper himself; Herndon "had a system and would keep things in order." "Also, since (Herndon) was young and inexperienced, he wouldn't contest Lincoln's decisions, wouldn't argue with him about which cases to accept." Lincoln also wanted to align himself with Herndon because he wanted to have the backing of Herndon's fellow young Whigs when he ran for Congress in 1846. (p. 78)

Working for Lincoln became the focal point of his life. He performed only routine book-toting and research chores at first; then he "tagged along" when Lincoln went to court or stayed in the Springfield office when Lincoln went traveling. After the first year, "Herndon became an accomplished lawyer in his own right, sought out cases himself, and defended people in court. As he faced a jury, he often cursed, flung his coat to the floor, shouted, and wept - you won cases, he told his nephew, by making jurors cry." The pair finally settled after many moves "on the second floor of a brick building across from the public square." "Neither man bothered to sweep the floor, so that little mountain ranges of dust rose in the corners and along the walls. Clients were apt to step on cherry and orange seeds, too, since Lincoln liked to munch on fruit for lunch. According to a law student, the office dirt was so fertile that some seeds fell to the floor and subsequently sprouted." Despite Herndon's alleged organizing skills, the office remained unorganized, with papers everywhere in disarray; Lincoln even kept papers in his stovepipe hat, which Herndon called "an extraordinary receptacle...his desk and memorandum book." Visitors often found the pair "thrashing" through papers looking for things; Lincoln kept a special pile of paper tied with string "on top of his desk" with a note attached: "When you can't find it anywhere else look into this." Oates observes that the pair got to know each other well; but Herndon considered Lincoln "obtuse" when it came to learning new things; didn't find his anecdotes funny, and hated when Lincoln would bring his sons around and allow them to "gut the room," pulling books off the shelves, spilling inkstands, and stabbing gold pens into the stove as "Lincoln worked away unperturbed." (pp. 79-80)

Lincoln once bailed Herndon out of jail and paid his fine after he'd been arrested the night before for breaking tavern windows during a drunken brawl. Despite urgings to dump Herndon because of this, Lincoln asserted that he intended "to stick by him." (p. 81)

Donald: "In the fall of 1844, Logan and Lincoln decided to dissolve their highly successful partnership...The severance was not an abrupt one.

"One fall morning in 1844 he came dashing up the stairs to the third floor of the Tinsley building, where he found William H. Herndon busily studying. 'Billy,' he asked breathlessly, 'do you want to enter into partnership with me in the law business?' " Herndon "managed to stammer" and affirmative reply.

Lincoln "left no record of his reasons" for selecting Herndon, "but it is clear he was tired of being a junior partner and wanted to head his own firm." He also recognized that Herndon was a leader of the "populist element" in the Whig party, which would help him in his aspirations to Congress. (pp. 100-1)

The new partners "occupied a room in the Tinsley building," of which a law student, Gibson Harris, said: "The floor was never scrubbed" and the furniture was dilapidated. (p. 102)

Herndon began by doing routine book-toting and research chores and "answered inquiries as to Lincoln's whereabouts" and was charged with keeping the office managed and the files straight. Lincoln later told lawyer Henry Whitney that he supposed Herndon "had system and would keep things in order." But Herndon was not orderly, and at any rate, Lincoln himself was a hard person to keep files for. "The firm had no filing cabinets and no files. In one corner of the office was a bundle of papers with a note in Lincoln's handwriting: 'When you can't find it anywhere, look in this.' Herndon sometimes took legal papers home, where they were lost. Lincoln frequently stuck documents and correspondence in his stovepipe hat, which Herndon said was 'his desk and memorandum-book.' " Papers were lost so often that they had to confess to clients that they could not find them.

On Sundays, Lincoln would bring his children to the office with them, "where Herndon found them a nuisance." Herndon recalled that they would "take down the books - empty ash buckets - coal ashes - inkstands - papers - gold pens - letters, etc. etc. in a pile and then dance on the pile. Lincoln would say nothing, so abstracted was he and so blinded to his children's faults. Had they s--t in Lincoln's hat and rubbed it on his boots, he would have laughed and thought it smart." (pp. 159-60)

The mythologizing of William Herndon requires that he be recognized as an accurate source. Hence these many personal details are given, few of which make sense. Who would really believe that the dirt in their office was thick enough to grow plants? Who on earth believes that Lincoln used his fine stovepipe hat as a filing cabinet? How do Oates and Donald expect us to believe that despite all this, despite losing important client papers, the pair ran a successful law firm, and that one of these persons became leader of the nation? Such poor work habits would surely be reflected in all their work. Oates is creating humorous yet unbelievably false stories in order to endear us to Herndon and trust his reporting; Donald embellishes them with names of witnesses (likely fabricated) and tones them down somewhat. Evidently, both had hoped that their readers would be so busy laughing that they would not notice how silly the stories were. Oates also sidesteps that fact that Herndon was obviously a creative liar: his strategy in court was not to tell the truth, but to manipulate the jury. Thus we have excellent reasons from the start to question his accounts of Lincoln's practices and life.

Now here are some contradictions:

• Did Lincoln approach Herndon in December 1844 (Donald) or in an unspecified month in the fall (Oates)? December is a wintry month.
• Had Lincoln already parted ways with Logan (Oates, Donald) or was that yet to come at the time (Masters)? Did Lincoln even mention the parting of ways to Herndon (Masters), or did he get right to the point of asking Herndon to be his partner (Donald)?
• What exactly were Herndon's duties? There are major differences in the listings:

Masters: Study aspects of the work.

Oates: Routine work, then tagging along or staying in the office.

Donald: Routine work, answering inquiries, office management.

• Oates says that Lincoln said that he chose Herndon because of his organization skills, and also because he would be a good junior partner and because of his Whig connections. Masters indicates that it was just because Herndon would make a good junior partner. Donald says that Lincoln "left no record of his reasons" for selecting Herndon, "but it is clear he was tired of being a junior partner and wanted to head his own firm." He also recognized that Herndon was a leader of the "populist element" in the Whig party, which would help him in his aspirations to Congress. So did Lincoln give a reason for hiring Herndon or didn't he?
• Why does no other author than Oates mention Herndon writing editorials?
• There are minor variations in what Herndon reported of Lincoln's misbehaving children. More significantly, Oates places there visits BEFORE Lincoln's term in Congress; Donald places them after. (It is not hard to believe, however, that the children did the things that both Oates and Donald attribute to them!)
  
  

2.12.2 Advice and Direction to Lincoln

2.12.2.1 War with Mexico

Masters: In a Congressional speech January 12, 1848, Lincoln attacked President Polk for his decision to attack Mexico, on the basis of it was a usurption of power. Herndon, concerned about the speech, wrote to him saying that "the United States to repel possible invasion might invade the territory of another country first." Lincoln replied by saying that this gave the President too much power to do what he wished and make reasons for it. (pp. 97-8)

Oates: January 12, 1848: Lincoln attacks Polk's decision to attack Mexico. In Illinois, Democratic newspapers call him an "Illinois Benedict Arnold" for his stance. Herndon "considered his partner frightfully misguided. Herndon wrote that he not only approved of the war, but thought Polk had a right to dispatch troops to the Rio Grande to guard against Mexican invasion." Lincoln rejects Herndon's arguments, asserting that he had spoken out against the war "as a matter of conscience" and saying that Herndon's way of thinking would "allow an American President 'to make war at will.' "

Donald: "A few days later" than a January 3 speech made by George Ashmun condemning Polk's actions, Lincoln made his own speech condemning Polk. Democratic papers in Illinois were "uniformly critical" of the speech, one calling him "this Benedict Arnold of our district." Herndon wrote reporting dissatisfaction among Whig ranks, warning Lincoln that his speech would not be well received by Whig soldiers, and that Lincoln ought to argue " 'that if it shall become necessary, to repel invasion, the President may, without violation of the Constitution, cross the line, and invade the territory of another country.' "Because Herndon claimed to speak for a considerable Whig constituency in Illinois, Lincoln went to some pains to refute his arguments," citing the possibility of giving a President too much power.

For once we seem to have a remarkable agreement between authors, although that Donald does not assign a specific date to the speech seems suspicious. The correspondence between the pair seems valid, having only minor differences; though only Donald gives the issue a political twist, suggesting a further need for reply. In all likelihood, however, no such correspondence has been found. They are the creation of someone - perhaps Herndon; more likely a later writer - who believes that this is what Lincoln said under the circumstances; who believes that Lincoln was the sort who would take a principled stand against the powers-that-be - much as would be required for him to act to end slavery!

2.12.2.2 State Convention

Masters: "On May 24, 1856, Herndon convoked a meeting in Sangamon County of all those who favored 'the policy of Washington and Jefferson,' whatever that was, to select delegates to the Bloomingtom state convention...Herndon signed Lincoln's name at the head of those making this call. As soon as the call became public, Herndon was beset by shocked and terrified men who asked if Lincoln had authorized him to put Lincoln's name at the head of this list. When Herndon replied that he had no authorization from Lincoln...the indignation against Herndon was outspoken. 'You have ruined him,' said the cautious Stuart...Herndon then sent off a letter to Lincoln in Tazewell County apprising him of what he had done...Lincoln merely said, 'All right; go ahead. Will meet you radicals and all.' " (p. 237)

At the convention, Lincoln demanded "that the platform should be conservative, and that it should be written by men like himself, and like Browning..." "Browning drew the platform as Lincoln sat by in collaboration." (pp. 238-9) Lincoln's speech was not written down beforehand, and recorded in some measure only by Whitney; Whitney's notes were verified by reporter Joseph Medill. (p. 240)

Oates: Does not mention the Herndon incident, but says that Lincoln helped make arrangements for the convention and promised to "buckle on the armor" in the 1856 Presidential contest. (p. 135) Lincoln "played a prominent role" in the convention, helping to draft a party platform and draw up a slate of Republican candidates, and delivering a keynote address which was spoken "extemporaneously for an hour and a half." No script or record of it was made. Herndon called the speech "the grand effort of Lincoln's life." (pp. 136-7)

Donald: "On May 10 (Herndon)...published a call for a meeting of Sangamaon County citizens opposed to the Kansas-Nebraska Act to select delegates to the Bloomington convention. Though Lincoln was out of the office...Herndon signed both his name and Lincoln's. Dismayed at this evidence of radicalism, John Todd Stuart rushed into the Lincoln & Herndon office to ask whether Lincoln had actually signed the call. Herndon admitted his responsibility. 'Then you have ruined him,' muttered Stuart. But Herndon knew he was doing just what his partner wanted...To placate Stuart, he wired Lincoln that the announcement was causing a stir among conservative Whigs, and his partner promptly responded: 'All right; go ahead. Will meet you - radicals and all.' " (p 190)

Orville Browning "constructed a platform on which all could stand" after conferring with "about twenty influential politicians representing all shades of opinion." Lincoln gave "what was universally acclaimed as the best speech of his life" at the end of the convention; "there was no reliable record of what he said," though one newspaper, the Alton Weekly Courier, "gave the highlights."

As usual, we find contradictions:

• Was the call to people who favored " 'the policy of Washington and Jefferson,' whatever that was" (Masters) or to citizens opposed to the Kansas-Nebraska Act (Donald)?
• Was there response from several people after Herndon threw Lincoln's name in the hat (Masters) or just from Stuart (Donald)?
• What was the meaning of Lincoln's reaction to what Herndon did? Masters sees a sort of resignation, and no specific direction from Lincoln; Donald says it was done with Lincoln's knowledge and approval. (This phrase, too, is probably an invention to suggest what Lincoln would have said under the circumstances.)
• Did Herndon send a letter to Lincoln, at his own initiative, just to say what he had done (Masters), or did he send a telegram ("wired") to placate Stuart and tell Lincoln what a stir the announcement was causing (Donald)?
• Who put together the convention platform? Was it:
  • Browning, with Lincoln's collaboration (Masters)
  • Partly Lincoln, and others (Oates), or
  • Browning, with input from about 20 others, but not Lincoln (Donald)?
• As to the speech, was it:
  • Recorded by Whitney (Masters)
  • Not recorded (Oates), or
  • Recorded by the Alton newspaper (Donald)?

Because there are so many contradictions here, we must assume that while Lincoln made some major contribution to this convention, it is doubtful that he actually made a speech of any kind. He may have served to introduce each speaker, and perhaps he told some jokes that were so memorable that they left an impression that he had played a more active role than he did.

The authors excuse the pitiful record by saying that the audience, including Herndon, was enraptured and couldn't write; this is manifestly silly, and a very poor excuse for what was allegedly Lincoln's greatest speech not being written down. The conclusion must be that such a speech never took place; or else that is was so befuddled by an oral transmission process that it could not be reasonably recovered.

2.12.3 Background/Personality

Oates: Lincoln first met Herndon when the latter was a clerk at Speed's store. He was a Kentucky native, attended Illinois college for a year, and "married a shy and reticent woman who was his exact opposite. A nervous, windy fellow, Herndon stepped about in fancy clothes, a big silk hat, kid gloves, and patent leather shoes. He was thin, stood about five feet nine, and had raven hair and black eyes. But the most memorable thing about him was his nonstop chatter, his effusive philosophizing on everything from metaphysics to sex, science, and phrenology. An intellectual gadfly, he had answers to everything and possessed an impressive library that comprised the works of Hegel, Kant, and Francis Bacon. He regarded himself as an expert psychologist and bragged about his 'dog sagacity' and 'mud instinct,' which enabled him to divine other men's inner secrets. Yet Herndon's knowledge of people derived almost entirely from books, and he was a man of striking contradictions. Though he considered himself an intellectual, he often consorted with rowdies and hooligans in Springfield's saloons. A man of causes and a leader in the local temperance movement, he was still a hard drinker and in his later years became an alcoholic. And though he chose the law for a career and worked hard at it, he felt out of place in the legal world." (pp. 78-9)

Donald: Herndon "bubbled over with ideas and enthusiasm." He had been born in Kentucky and had "an unmanageable appetite for books." "On his shelves were authors almost unknown in the Mississippi Valley - Kant, Renan, Fitche, Buckle, Froude. Perhaps he did not always understand what he read, but he learned enough to become a kind of frontier evangelist fro transcendentalism...He prided himself on his 'mud instinct' and 'dog sagacity' that enabled him to see 'to the gizzard' of questions...

"...Herndon was short, quick, and something of a dandy, affecting patent-leather shoes and kid gloves...(he) was always upbeat and optimistic, and he had no sense of humor at all. (pp. 101-2)

So - beyond the general (but still inexact) agreements -

• Did Herndon's library only comprise the works of Kant, Hegel and Bacon (Oates) or did he have Kant, Renan, Fitche, etc. (Donald)? I postulate that Donald's list is imaginary, designed to make Herndon look more intelligent than he really was.
• Why does Donald not mention Herndon's problems with alcohol and ambivalent feelings about law?

These many differences prove that reports about Herndon are unreliable; also note Herndon's appeal to his alleged perceptive abilities - could this be the talent he used to fabricate stories about Lincoln? We may also assume, based on the above, that the many quotes from Herndon, heavily used by the authors, are not reliable.

2.13 John Nicolay

Like Herndon, Nicolay is used as a source often; again, the rule applies that if the authors cannot agree on Nicolay himself, it is unlikely that the material they take from him is reliable. Also, Nicolay's biography was written in 1890, some 25 years after Lincoln's death, and like Herndon, he admired Lincoln deeply. Thus the same stringencies applied to Herndon's biographical material apply here. There was ample time and motivation for fabrications and embellishments.

Masters: One of Lincoln's secretaries. (p. 150) One of two people whom, at the request of Robert Lincoln, prepared Lincoln's Works; also an author of Life of Lincoln. (p. 359)

Sent by Lincoln to see General Scott on the matter of military protection for Lincoln when he arrived in Washington. (p. 375)

Basler: Co-author of Abraham Lincoln: A History, a 10-volume set published in 1890. He was Lincoln's private secretary during the war. (p. 13)

Oates: Describing Nicolay: "A native of Bavaria and a gifted journalist, Nicolay had been working as custodian of records for the Illinois secretary of state." Lincoln hires him as a private secretary because he admired his "punctual and fastidious ways, and thought his writing talents made him an ideal personal secretary." (p. 195) He was "an emaciated fellow with blue eyes and a slow smile, who write love letters to a girl back in Illinois." (p. 264)

After the Presidential election, traveled to Washington with Lincoln, along with Hay, Browning, Governor Richard Yates, and Ward Lamon, a "self-appointed bodyguard." (p. 225)

Received a promise to Lincoln from the publisher Greeley that Greeley would "fight like a savage" on behalf of Lincoln's re-election. (p. 433)

Donald: An authorized biographer of Lincoln. (p. 14)

A "young German-American newspaperman" paid $500 by Lincoln to promote the circulation of a particular Republican newspaper. (p. 211)

Was paid $75 per month from a fund "contributed by ten of Lincoln's wealthy Springfield friends" to serve as Lincoln's "secretary and assistant." (p. 252) Nicolay, along with Hay, helped Lincoln manage the "several baskets of mail" that came each day. (p. 258)

Went to Washington with Lincoln after the Presidential election, along with Hay, Dr. William Wallace (Lincoln's brother-in-law and personal physician), Elmer Ellsworth, Judd, David Davis, Hatch, Dubois, Yates, and Browning. Guarding Lincoln were volunteers Col. E. V. Sumner, Capt. John Pope, and Ward Hill Lamon. (p. 273)

Described as "self-effacing, methodical" (p. 310)

Along with Hay, became like a son to Lincoln. (p. 428)

Given an appointment as consul at Paris. (p. 550)

Not much can be garnered here, so as far as reports of Nicolay himself, our regard for quotes of Nicolay must be inconclusive. (The time-span and embellishment arguments, of course, remain standing.) The descriptions are not directly contradictory, but they offer entirely different information. Questions:

• Is Nicolay from Bavaria, or was he a "German-American"?
• The lists of people who traveled with Lincoln are quite incompatible. Donald almost triples the size of the party. This is undoubtedly a fabrication designed to emphasize Lincoln's importance.
  
  

2.14 Joshua Speed

I diverge from my normal reporting for a moment to advise the sensitive reader that the this final entry may be found offensive. Earlier, in the entries on Lincoln's relationship with Mary Todd, I alluded to some further difficulty that would come later in the essay; and here it is. I propose that the pro-Lincoln forces of the 20th century covered up one of Lincoln's gravest secrets: A brief but meaningful homosexual relationship with Joshua Speed.

Bigotry against homosexuals went hand-in-hand with bigotry against minorities in the 19th and 20th century. In order to maintain the broadest possible appeal for Lincoln, the pro-Lincoln civil rights movement - hypocritically, of course - made every effort to cover up this part of Lincoln's past. However, by reading between the lines of the preserved data, both here and in the previous entries concerning Mary Todd, and observing what has been carefully edited in the later texts, we uncover a definite history leading to my conclusion.

2.14.1 Personal Data: The Meeting with Lincoln

Masters: Owner of a store in Springfield, from whom Lincoln obtained a "room without rent." he is described as "a man of some worth, handsome to look at, and capable of being a good friend." (p. 61)

Sold his store on January 1, 1841, to moved to Louisville. He begged Lincoln to come visit him there and talk to him about his "troubled thoughts." Lincoln wrote a series of letters to Speed throughout 1842 (see below).

Oates: Owner of a General Store in Springfield, "where (Lincoln and Speed lived together. When Lincoln first came there looking for a place to stay, Speed was astonished at his sadness. 'I never saw so gloomy and melancholy a face in all my life,' he declared. But Speed liked the strapping attorney and invited him to share a double bed in the upstairs room...

"A bachelor, too, Speed was a brooding, hefty Kentuckian who soon became Lincoln's 'most intimate friend.' They not only slept together, but confided in one another about their fears, their feelings, and their problems with women. In the evenings, they often met with other young bachelors at the back of the store, where they vied with one another in spinning bawdy tales." (p. 49)

After noting Lincoln's January 1, 1841 breakup with Mary, writes: "In truth, everything seemed to be coming apart (for Lincoln). Speed had recently sold his store and Lincoln had been forced to take another room by himself. Now Speed was planning to move back to Kentucky, and Lincoln was distressed about that, too." Lincoln thereafter entered a period of depression. (p. 62)

Donald: On April 15, 1837, Lincoln arrives in Springfield and enters Speed's store. He buys some bedding material costing $17, but advises Speed that due to his precarious financial state, he must purchase in credit. "Speed, who knew this young man by reputation and had heard him make a political speech, suggested a way he could avoid incurring a debt that clearly troubled him. 'I have a large room with a double bed up-stairs, which you are very welcome to share with me,' he offered." Lincoln looks at the room and accepts the offer. (p. 66)

"From the beginning Speed was (Lincoln's) close companion, and he became perhaps the only intimate friend that Lincoln ever had. Four years younger than Lincoln, Speed was also a Kentuckian...With flashing blue eyes and a mane of dark curly hair, he was a handsome young man, whose vaguely Byronic air of elegance made him especially attractive to Springfield ladies.

"For nearly four years, Lincoln and Speed shared a double bed, and their most private thoughts, in the room above Speed's store. No one thought that there was anything irregular or unusual about the arrangement. It was rare for a single man to have a private room, and it was customary for two or more to sleep in the same bed. Years later, when Lincoln was a well-known lawyer, he and the other attorneys traveling the judicial circuit regularly shared beds...Much of the time when Lincoln and Speed were sharing a bed, young William H. Herndon...slept in the same room, as did Charles R. Hurst, a clerk in another dry-goods store." (pp. 69-70)

Speed sold his interest in his store on January 1 and moved to Kentucky. "...Lincoln was about to lose his best and closest friend, at just the moment when he was being rushed into a new, potentially dangerous kind of intimacy with Mary...(he) found himself awash on a sea of turbulent emotions." (p. 87)

Here we see clear evidence of my theory. Masters, writing as he was in the Puritan early 30s, could not mention these men sharing a bed, of course; but we shall see that he left ample evidence of a homosexual relationship in the letters Lincoln wrote - which the later writers suppress.

Consider that:

• The two men shared a bed. Donald attempts to counter the obvious implications of this by inventing the story that there was nothing "irregular or unusual" about this arrangement and manufacturing examples of how it was not. If these stories were true, we would at least expect Oates to mention them. But he does not. This is a clear example of how tales are embellished over time in order to explain away problems or discrepancies.
• The two men shared their most intimate thoughts - which is what we would expect from lovers.
• Speed suggests Lincoln staying with him as a way of avoiding incurring debt - an implicit bargain of personal favor in return for lodging.
• Donald specifically appeals to Speed's appeal to women - an obvious obfuscation to avoid the inevitable conclusion. If Speed were not homosexually inclined, there would be no need to cite this.
• Lincoln experiences severe depression after Speed makes the decision to leave for Kentucky, so bad that Speed is fears Lincoln will commit suicide. (p. 87, Donald) This is because, we are led to believe, of Mary primarily; but it is more likely that it is because Speed is leaving in a time when Lincoln is trying to make the transition to the socially-acceptable heterosexual realm and is having problems doing so. (Also note that melancholia, in the 20th century, was considered by bigots to be a symptom of homosexuality.)
• As we have seen earlier, Lincoln told bawdy stories to ease his acceptance into the "masculine society" of New Salem. This was undoubtedly done to erase any suspicions of homosexuality.
• Finally, we have noted Lincoln's early, unhappy relationship with Mary Todd.

As we shall see, there is further evidence of this relationship having existed, although undoubtedly, living in such bigoted and prejudicial times, Lincoln and Speed literally had to "convert" to heterosexuality to survive. We shall see that while Speed adjusted rather quickly, it took Lincoln a while to do so, and even then he paid a terrible price.

2.14.2 Speed, Lincoln, and Mary Todd

2.14.2.1 Introduction

Masters: "Lincoln, being introduced by Speed to Mary Todd, began to make frequent calls upon her." (p. 63)

Oates: At a Springfield "cotillion," "In the course of dancing, Lincoln met a young woman named Mary Ann Todd, who was Elizabeth Edwards's younger sister..."

"(Lincoln) wanted to call on her but couldn't without an official invitation from the aloof and critical Edwardses. Luckily for him, Speed was a favorite of theirs and evidently secured permission for Lincoln to see Mary." (p. 57)

Donald: "Abraham Lincoln was one of those who danced in attendance - literally so, since he first met Mary Todd at one of the Edwards' parties and told her he wanted to dance with her 'in the worst way.' And, Mary laughed, he did. Lincoln was enchanted by his vivacious, intelligent young woman, and soon he was one of her regular attendants at parties...(p. 85)

Notice the subtle alteration here as the story develops: Speed directly introduces Lincoln to Mary in Masters; in Oates, he does not introduce them, but paves the way for them to see each other; by the time of Donald, he has nothing to do with it at all! This is an obvious attempt to cover up the truth, which is that Speed was helping Lincoln divest himself of his homosexual tendencies so that they could both survive in a bigoted society.

2.14.2.2 Advice

Masters:"...according to Speed, Lincoln came into the store one evening wrapped in the deepest gloom. He had written a letter to Mary Todd which he wanted to show Speed to get his advice upon it. 'The letter,' said Speed, 'made a plain statement of his feelings, telling her that he had thought the matter over calmly and with great deliberation, and now felt that he did not love her sufficiently to warrant her in marrying him. This letter he desired me to deliver. Upon my declining to do so he threatened to entrust it to some other person's hand.' Speed counseled Lincoln to have the courage of manhood, and to go and see Mary and tell her that he did not love her and would not go on. So Lincoln buttoned up his coat and started out in the darkness for the Edwards mansion, wi