Posted on 01/27/2006 6:59:00 AM PST by wagglebee
Abraham Lincoln's appearance and historical documents that note his especially clumsy gait have long caused researchers to puzzle over whether he may have had a genetic disorder called Marfan syndrome.
Now, members of the beloved president's family tree are wondering if Lincoln had a different, incurable hereditary disease called ataxia that affects the coordination it takes to walk, write, speak and swallow.
Researchers at the University of Minnesota have discovered a gene mutation in 11 generations of relatives who descended from Lincoln's grandparents. There's a 25 percent chance that Lincoln also inherited the gene, said Laura Ranum, a genetics professor who led the research.
"Because the historical literature talks about his clumsy gait ... it raises the possibility that that was caused by a mutation in this gene," Ranum said.
But since Lincoln has no living direct descendants, confirming whether the nation's 16th president had the defective gene would require that his DNA be taken from historical artifacts and tested - an issue that has been debated over the years.
"What historical purpose would it serve? It (wouldn't) change the facts of how he became a great president," said Kim Bauer, Lincoln curator at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum in Springfield, Ill. "I would fall on the side of leaving President Lincoln alone."
The new findings on the ataxia gene were reported this week in the online edition of the journal Nature Genetics. Since 1992, the Minnesota researchers have studied more than 300 members of the Lincoln family. About one-third of them have ataxia.
Terry Smith and Laurie Crary - both ataxia sufferers and descendants of Abraham Lincoln's uncle Josiah Lincoln - said they would like to know if the president had their disease.
"If a president had it, and he was disabled but still running the country, maybe people would lighten up on disabled people a little bit," said Smith, 57, of Manteca, Calif., who said he was once arrested for drunken driving because of the disease's symptoms.
Crary, 50, of Prescott, Ariz., said she has vertigo and had to have reconstructive surgery on her shoulder after losing her coordination and falling. If Lincoln had ataxia, that could offer hope for others suffering from it. About 150,000 Americans have the degenerative disease.
"Look what he achieved, even if he had this defective gene," Crary said.
In the 1990s, a geneticist asked the National Museum of Health and Medicine to test Lincoln's hair and bones to find out if the president had Marfan syndrome, a disorder that affects connective tissue, blood vessels and eyes, and can produce fatal abnormalities of major arteries. Marfan's sufferers often have unusual height and elongated fingers, toes and limbs - all characteristics of Lincoln.
But multiple panels decided "the greater public good is served by not destroying this non-renewable national historic treasure," according to the museum's Web site.
Bauer, the Lincoln museum curator, said that when Lincoln's tomb was renovated about 100 years ago, his last living son made it clear he did not want his father's remains disturbed.
That should be an overriding factor, Bauer said.
"His last living descendant, still alive, saying, 'Don't bother my father anymore.' ... If DNA testing was alive in the early 1900s, I think he would say the same thing," he said.
Ranum said researchers would need a small amount of Lincoln's DNA to test for the gene, which causes spinocerebellar ataxia type 5, or SCA5. The DNA could be found on a bloodstained garment or a hair sample. She said she would pursue a DNA test if the opportunity arose, but for now, her main concern is science.
Dr. Robert Y. Moore, a movement disorder specialist and a professor of neurology at the University of Pittsburgh, said the Minnesota research breaks ground "from the perspective that this is a mutation in a gene that has not been known to be involved in this sort of thing before."
For now, Ranum said the new discovery should lead to better diagnosis and possible future treatments and may help people decide whether to have children. The mutated gene is dominant, so there is a 50 percent chance a parent will pass it on.
Still, she said finding out whether Lincoln had the gene could help destigmatize the disease.
"Every aspect of Lincoln's life has been gone over with a fine-tooth comb," she said. "I think it is of historical interest."
My mother and her sister married my dad and his brother. The children from the union of my uncle and aunt produced children (6) with Marfan who (all except one) died in their early twenties. They looked like Abe Lincoln. None of us on the other were affected.
I just noticed that you were from NC. My dad's roots go back to NC, the name is Lamb.
Interesting. I have a friend whose name is Mike Lamb. He's a good, strong conservative. I'm located in the Central Piedmont, near Winston-Salem.
When certain states joined the union they did so only with the understanding that they could leave the union if things didn't work out. The ratification documents of the states of Virginia and New York specifically state that those States reserved the right to secede. Virginia chose to exercise this right, and Lincoln subsequently stormed the Virgina State House with Federal Jackboots and arrested the legislature.
Abe's actions certainly fit the definition of 'tyrannical'. The war was about States Rights and international commerce, and had little or nothing to do with slavery.
That "Gay Abe" theory didn't fly. Even most liberals have respect and admiration for the man.
Think it would have been an occupational hazard for a rail splitter to have been that clumsy.
Have also heard that he was a pretty good wrestler. That would call for strength, coordination and speed. These "clumsy" accounts are something new but the wrestling and rail splitting are not.
Link to 288,000 mentions of his wrestling skills:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22abraham+lincoln%22+wrestler&btnG=Google+Search
I'm thinking that someone is just trying to get some attention for their obscure research.
Cute. Go sip the FedGuv koolaid...hell, drink a bunch. Someone else is paying for it.
Excellent analysis of the facts related to the legality and correctness of secession as it relates to the beginning of the Civil War. Keep up the good work.
bump
Sandburg's The Prarie Years did mention that Abe dropped one of the two 50 cent pieces he received as "tips" for ferry work along the river.
Prairie, sorry.
You skipped right past the fact that Virginia had a legal right to secede, so why bother with facts?
Except, I didn't.
Except that Virginia didn't have the right to unilaterally secede.
Along with Virginia, the States of Vermont, Rhode Island, and New York incorporated similar language in their respective ratifications.
It's not taught in the government indoctrination centers commonly referred to as public schools, but this nation was formed as a union of Sovereign States, with a very limited Federal government (Commerce Clause be damned!). Lincoln and his war of Federal assertion changed all that forever.
"We the said Delegates, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, do by these presents assent to, and ratify the Constitution recommended on the seventeenth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven, by the Foederal Convention for the Government of the United States; hereby announcing to all those whom it may concern, that the said Constitution is binding upon the said People..."
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the ratification documents. The people of Virginia agreed to abide by the Constitution. And there is nothing in the Constitution which expressly allows states to unilaterally withdraw from the union. The Supreme Court ruled that such a power does not exist. The fact that Virginia mistakenly assumed such powers existed don't make a bit of difference, their acts of secession were illegal and were, in fact, acts of rebellion. And all the southron myths cannot change that.
The US tacitly agreed to Virginia's right to secede when it accepted Virgina's ratification documents as they were written.
And there is nothing in the Constitution which expressly allows states to unilaterally withdraw from the union.
And there is nothing in the Constitution which expressly states that they can't.
The Supreme Court ruled that such a power does not exist.
Shazzam...really? The top Federal court ruled in favor of the Federal government? Whodathunkit. Let's move along now, no conflict of interest here.
The U.S. accepted nothing, it was Virginia that was doing the accepting. They accepted the powers and restrictions as outlined in the Constitution, and agreed to abide by them. The fact that they stuck extraneous wording in their ratification outlining assumptions which proved to be wrong is meaningless.
And there is nothing in the Constitution which expressly states that they can't.
No. So one looks at implied powers. If the states have the sole authority to admit new states through a vote by their members in Congress, and Congressional approval is needed for states to combine or divide or change their borders by a fraction of an inch then it stands to reason that the approval of the other states should be required for leaving the Union as well.
Shazzam...really? The top Federal court ruled in favor of the Federal government? Whodathunkit. Let's move along now, no conflict of interest here.
Haven't read the Constitution, have you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.