Posted on 08/07/2006 3:37:10 AM PDT by lunarbicep
You make a statement like that and now what?
Considering this is about $900k in today's money, this can't be considered fully normal.
Fits in pretty well as a description of what we know today as Bipolar Disorder (Manic-Depression).
I'm thinking of other famous women in modern times - Patty Duke, Carrie Fisher, Margo Kidder.
That condition would be hard to treat in a world without antimanic or antidepressant medication.
She was probably in an extreme when admitted, then cycled back to normal afterwards.
Ah, yes. But if she hated her living quarters and was distrustful of those around her, I doubt she would have left the money in a dresser drawer while she went for a walk.
Maybe she suspected her son of trying to steal her money. Also, people walked around with more cash than they do today. There were no credit cards then, and banks were not as safe as they are now. People used to pay for things in cash, borrowing was rare.
Read a history book Sherlock.
Lookup something called the Baltimore Plot (Google will probably do for starters.)
. It's interesting that if you look at the indices all the fawning biographies of Honest Abe, you probably won't find an entry for Baltimore Plot, but there's some juicy stuff in a couple of Crazy Mary's bios.
ML/NJ
It's not a statement. It's a recitation of history. And few events say more about Honest Abe's character than his behavior during the incident know as the Baltimore Plot.
ML/NJ
That's true.
Interesting points. Still, that's a lot of money to be walking around with, and I'll bet there were muggers and thieves back then too.
I would bet she was BiPolar / Manic Depressive.
No, I wasn't at all suggesting that (martyrdom for the Hildabeast via bullet), I was just suggesting that having her tucked away in an insane asylum might have been a true "win win" solution for everyone. :)
BUMP
It's a figment of your imagination. Mary Lincoln and the rest of the Lincoln family arrived after Lincoln did, that much is true. They arrived about 12 hours later. During that time Lincoln met with key Republicans, President Buchanan, and some office seeker, and rode around Washington with Seward. His presence in Washington was common knowledge long before Mrs. Lincoln left Harrisburg. They were never in any danger, unless you think the rebel mob would have deliberately targeted woman and children.
A very sad story which reflects the lives of many of the mentally ill of years gone by. With modern understanding of mental illness she would have had a much better life today.
Your denial says a lot about your intellectual honesty, and like what the Baltimore Plot says about Lincoln's character, it's not good. Here's the text of a letter I sent to someone (Princeton Graduate) back in 2002 regarding this topic:
I found this text in a file on my computer. I cannot find the copies of the relevant pages of the books I mentioned or the NY Times articles. But any decent library has this stuff. You could go look it up; but I doubt you will. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.It took me a while to find where I had read the account of Lincoln leaving his family to ride on a train which he feared might be attacked, and traveling separately to Washington.
The reason it took a while is that I looked in my mainstream histories first. Most don’t mention the event at all. McPherson, who is the most mainstream of all, does write about it in Battle Cry of Freedom, albeit with a considerable sugarcoating it would seem.
Eventually I found what I recalled in E. A. Pollard’s Southern History of the Civil War. Considering your comment though, that I probably read what I recounted in some anti-Lincoln tome, I decided to check further. (Pollard is decidedly anti-Lincoln.)
What I found confirms the Pollard history, and bolsters my contention that the history we have been taught about that period is extremely dishonest.
See it you agree with me. I’ve provided copies of everything I found concerning this event for you to read, if you care to.
The first place I looked was at the New York Times microfilm. The Times then was decidedly pro-Lincoln, and a Times reporter appears to have been one of the few people who actually was trusted with the knowledge that Lincoln left the threatened train. His confirmation of the Pollard history amounts to what lawyers call an admission against interests. Take a look at the items I highlighted, and everything else too if you wish. It’s not a pretty picture. The bottom line is that there was a fear that the train would be derailed where it would cause death to those in the derailed cars. Lincoln left the train in such a manner that anyone plotting against the train would be unaware that he had left it, but he let his wife and most of his party continued riding in the car he thought threatened.
I also looked at a few Lincoln biographies without finding anything. (I looked for items indexed under Baltimore.) But when I looked at biographies of his wife, I found Turner and Turner’s Mary Todd Lincoln, Her Life and Letters. They do describe the event. Most telling of all is their observation that “She was not free of anxiety … until her own train had passed safely through the restless crowds in Baltimore.” The Turners cite as a source Cuthbert’s Lincoln and the Baltimore Plot, which interestingly is also cited by mainstream McPherson. (I guess McPherson didn’t have room in his book for all the details?) I couldn’t find this 1949 book in the libraries I have access to, but I did attempt to purchase a used copy via the Internet. We’ll see what it says when and if I get it.
The Baltimore Plot isn’t really something that I’ve thought much about before this week. But its treatment in the references I consulted confirms once again that all I was taught about the War Between the States isn’t all there is to know.
ML/NJ
OK, so intellectual honest is taking a single quote and making an entire conspiracy around it?
Most don’t mention the event at all.
How much time did you expect them to spend on it? David Herbert Donald's "Lincoln" goes into it in some detail. Shelby Foote mentions it in Volume 1 of his trilogy. McPherson does mention it in passing as you said. I even took your advice and looked it up on the internet. They all agree pretty much on the details which, not surprisingly, differ considerably from your innuendos. Pinkerton suspected an assassination attempt on Lincoln's life, they snuck him into town early, and Mrs. Lincoln followed later. That much in indisputable. You say he 'secretly abandoned her' yet Donald clearly details that Lincoln insisted his wife be told. You say that Lincoln thought the train was going to be attacked. Yet every account of the Baltimore plot that I read all agree that the train wasn't to be attacked, the attempt was to be made to kill Lincoln as he made his way through the city from one train station to another. Once in Washington Lincoln didn't hide in secret, he visited the President and leaders of Congress, rode through town with Seward, and met with other people all before Mrs. Lincoln arrived. So there was never any doubt that Lincoln was in town and not on the train. Mrs. Lincoln may have been nervous but there still was no indication that there ever was a threat to her or her safety. Now, perhaps you can pull your primary sources out of wherever they reside and show evidence to the contrary but until then I can't see where my intellectual honesty is open to question.
Besides, it isn't like Lincoln threw on his wife's shawl and beat feet through the woods, leaving Mrs. Lincoln at the mercy of enemy troops or anything like that? Is it?
Then why wasn't she told? (I guess Honest Abe never had an opportunity, huh.)
Go look at the NY Times microfilm, as I suggested; and then let me know what you think. Anything less is dishonest.
I've never lived south of 40 degrees North, and grew up with the same history you did. It's a history the winners wrote. I've spoken to some of the writers of this history and some of these have privately admitted to me that they couldn't write an honest history and keep their lofty university positions.
ML/NJ
She was. Lincoln also sent her word of his safe arrival. Herbert's book, pages 277 to 279. Herbert provides half a dozen sources to back his account. Not just one.
Go look at the NY Times microfilm, as I suggested; and then let me know what you think. Anything less is dishonest.
Sure. I'll drop everything and do it.
It's a history the winners wrote. I've spoken to some of the writers of this history and some of these have privately admitted to me that they couldn't write an honest history and keep their lofty university positions.
Far better to go with the myths that the losers write. Is that it?
Not according to any of the participants' accounts I've seen.
Lincoln also sent her word of his safe arrival.
Isn't that nice?! She was riding on a train that he thought might be attacked and he sent her word that HE was okay!
Sure. I'll drop everything and do it.
Afraid of what you might find?
Far better to go with the myths that the losers write. Is that it?
No. But it might be better than to believe in legends. When faced with contradictions in historical accounts, those who care seek out source material. Others accept one side of the story on faith. As I said previously, ignorance is bliss, for some.
ML/NJ
Then read Herbert's book and the accounts given there.
Isn't that nice?! She was riding on a train that he thought might be attacked and he sent her word that HE was okay!
Can you point out a source that says the train was the target? And while you're at it describe how a train could receive a telegram while traveling.
Afraid of what you might find?
No, mild curiosity. I've already seen sources that contradict your version, based on the accounts of people who were actually there when the decision was made.
No. But it might be better than to believe in legends. When faced with contradictions in historical accounts, those who care seek out source material. Others accept one side of the story on faith.
Especially when the legends support your agenda. When faced with contradictions in historical accounts I prefer to go with that version that has the most supporting evidence. And the body of evidence supports the fact that the assassination attempt was to be made between trains and not against the train itself, that Mrs. Lincoln was aware that her husband left early, and that she was never in any danger herself. However, if you prefer to accept on faith the opposite side based on a single source that you can't produce then so be it.
As I said previously, ignorance is bliss, for some.
Obviously.
You could include 1820 since James Monroe was elected that year and he died bigtime at the Laugh Factory. His comedy act really stunk.
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.