What Killed Abraham Lincoln’s Mother?

Nancy Hanks LincolnNancy Hanks Lincoln died October 5, 1818 of “the milk sick.” Or did she? While Abraham Lincoln biographers generally attribute her death to milk sickness, a possibility exists that it might have actually been something else. The story goes like this:

Early in October, Thomas and Elizabeth Sparrow, relatives of Nancy who had joined them in Indiana the previous year, died of the milk sickness. Within two weeks, Nancy began showing symptoms and after a week of agony, died. While the Lincolns and others knew vaguely it was associated with milk, no one had yet connected the disease with the ultimate source. Some had noticed the seasonality of the disease and that it seemed to occur more often in years in which natural forage vegetation was in short supply. Less than normal rain in 1818 had resulted in dusty conditions and low crop yields. As a result, the Lincolns’ livestock instinctively foraged for food wherever they could find it, often into the underbrush of the neighboring forest. What they found was a weedy plant now known to be white snakeroot (current scientific name Ageratina altissima).

While early observations suggesting plants as a source occurred before Nancy’s death, it was not until 1834 that a physician and scientist named Anna Pierce Hobbs Bixby learned the connection to white snakeroot and led a campaign to eradicate the weed from her Rock Creek, Illinois community. Ohio farmer William J. Vermilya independently implicated white snakeroot in 1837. Given the lack of scientific infrastructure, these early discoveries were insufficient to settle the issue and as late as 1841 the Kentucky legislature was offering $2,000 to anyone “who shall, within five years after the passage of this act” succeed in discovering “the true cause of the disease, now known to be caused by the poisonous effects of the wild, flowering white snakeroot transmitted by the milk, butter, and flesh of cattle consuming the plant.”

That “true cause” was a natural toxin called tremetone that remains active even after the plant was dried for hay. Sometimes farmers noticed listlessness, trembling, and peculiar odors found in the breath of cattle, sheep, and horses. The tremetone easily passes into the milk, which was how most humans were exposed to the toxin. Milk sickness was not a pleasant disease. One of the symptoms is a scent similar to acetone (similar to today’s nail polish remover). Persistent vomiting, abdominal pains, muscle stiffness, and eventually tremors, respiratory distress, and agonizing pain were obvious to the Lincoln family. Not seen was the intense inflammation of Nancy’s gastrointestinal tract, enlarged liver and kidneys, and swelling of her heart. Milk sickness was a painful death.

The definitive conclusion that milk sickness was caused by tremetone was not determined until the early twentieth century. In 1818, all the preadolescent Abe could do was helplessly watch his mother die. Death from the lack of scientific knowledge was one reason Lincoln later supported the greater use of science in agriculture—and the broad dissemination of information to farms of all sizes throughout the nation.

But wait. Tremetone? Virtually everyone that mentions milk sickness says the toxic is called tremetol, not tremetone. For those who are into organic chemistry, the “-ol” means it is the alcohol version of the chemical; the “-one” means it is the ketone version. [Since this isn’t a chemistry lesson, you can look up the difference.] Tremetone is found in tremetol, which is actually a toxin mixture from the aforementioned white snakeroot plant. While most sources say the tremetol is the toxic component, biomedical researcher and Lincoln historian Edward Steers, Jr. argues that tremetone is the actual toxic chemical. Like Steers, I’m also both a scientist and Lincoln historian, so I think I’ll go along with him on this one.

But wait, there’s more.

Steers also suggests that Nancy may not have died of milk sickness at all. When you think about it, the circumstances seem suspect, not the least of which is the fact that no one else in the Lincoln family died despite all of them drinking the same milk and eating the same food. Steers suggests that Nancy may possibly died of brucellosis, a bacterial disease associated with unpasteurized milk or undercooked meat, especially from goats but also from cows and pigs. Symptoms are similar to milk sickness, including fever, sweating, vomiting, weight loss, and muscle pain. Because it is contagious, Nancy may have gotten it when she was nursing the Sparrow family.

So was it milk sickness, brucellosis, or something completely different? In truth, we don’t really know. The series of symptoms and deaths were attributed to milk sickness at the time, but as we’ve seen, they didn’t really understand what was causing the disease, just that it had some vague connection to milk. Or so they thought. Since it’s impossible to accurately diagnose from the limited anecdotal hearsay available from family and friends, biographers stick to the generally accepted story that Lincoln’s mother died from milk sickness. But maybe she didn’t. This is an important reminder that historians need to be careful when they simply report old sources without fully researching the details. And perhaps, that more scientists need to be historians.

[Adapted from my forthcoming book]

David J. Kent is an avid traveler, scientist, and Abraham Lincoln historian. He is the author of Lincoln: The Man Who Saved AmericaTesla: The Wizard of Electricity and Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World as well as two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.

Check out my Goodreads author page. While you’re at it, “Like” my Facebook author page for more updates!

The Pre-Presidential Debates That Made Lincoln President

Lincoln Douglas DebatesIn 1858, Abraham Lincoln began following Douglas from town to town as they campaigned against each other for Douglas’s Senate seat. Challenging the incumbent Senator in a Democratic-dominated state, Lincoln had to coax Douglas to go against his own interests and formally debate. Whenever Douglas gave a major speech, Lincoln told the crowd he would respond that evening or the next day. After doing this for a while, and with the help of his influential friend Jesse Fell, Lincoln approached Douglas about holding a series of joint debates across the state. Reluctant at first, Douglas eventually agreed to one debate in each of the nine congressional districts in Illinois. They had both already spoken in Springfield and Chicago within a day of each other, so they agreed to seven additional joint debates in Ottawa, Freeport, Jonesboro, Charleston, Galesburg, Quincy, and Alton over the next two months. For each debate one candidate would speak for sixty minutes, followed by the other for ninety minutes, and the first would get a thirty-minute reply. They alternated who would speak first, with the incumbent Douglas getting the benefit of doing so in four of the seven debates.

The optics of the debates were almost comical. Lincoln was as tall and thin as Douglas was short and wide. Douglas tended toward inflammatory and racist language, while Lincoln was calmer and more logical in his arguments. Douglas had a reputation as a blatant liar; Lincoln as “Honest Abe.” Douglas often arrived in town on a special train accompanied by boisterous bands. Lincoln rode coach. Douglas was prone to histrionics, personal attacks, dogmatic exclamations, blatant negrophobic pandering to white superiority, and lying without remorse. Lincoln avoided sliding in the muck, focusing on making his key points clear to the often large crowds.

Because of the way Illinois was settled—the south moving up from slave states, the central from free states to the east, and the north from the upper states via the Great Lakes—each debate city offered a different range of public opinion. And while topics like banking were briefly mentioned, the main focus of all debates was the defining issue of the day—slavery.

Douglas and Lincoln explored several aspects of the slavery question, with Douglas largely sticking to his stump speech at each stop while Lincoln built on his arguments over time. One aspect was whether slavery was right or wrong. Lincoln argued that slavery was inherently wrong, both from a moral view and from a public policy perspective. Douglas asserted that he “cares not whether slavery is voted down or voted up.” To Douglas, each state could choose whether it wanted slavery, and the federal government had no right to dictate policy. Lincoln disagreed, noting again that the Founders had banned slavery from the territories that became Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and parts north. The Founders also banned the import of new slaves from Africa. As such, Lincoln argued, the federal government had every right to restrict slavery in the territories, and had done so repeatedly.

Sensing this was a difficult position, Douglas went on the attack. He accused Lincoln and all “Black Republicans” of being abolitionists, intent on removing slavery from all the southern states where it currently existed. Lincoln denied this, reminding people that he acknowledged the Constitution protected slavery where it existed. His goal was simply to stop it from expanding. Douglas took his attacks a step further, accusing Lincoln of being for the full equality of the races. This was a straw man used to play to the flagrant racism that permeated the North as well as the South. Douglas knew that if he could paint Lincoln as a “left wing radical,” it would help his campaign.

But Lincoln was hardly a radical. Today he might be considered a “prudent progressive.” True, he achieved great things, including the radical idea of emancipation, but he did so by sticking to authority constrained by the U.S. Constitution. Lincoln, and most Americans at the time, believed that while slavery was immoral (he once said, “If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong”), the acknowledgement of its existence in the Constitution meant the federal government did not have the authority to ban it in the states where it already existed. Each state must take action to remove slavery from within its borders, which is how each of the northern states had achieved their free status. As noted above, however, Lincoln believed that Congress did have the power to block slavery from entering the federal territories and the District of Columbia. He and Congress later took steps to ensure freedom from slavery in both of those.

Later, as President, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which did free enslaved people in those states in active rebellion against the Union. This actually remained consistent with the Constitution as it provided for special powers in case of insurrection, powers that would not have been available in the normal state of affairs. Lincoln used these powers as a military necessity. Acknowledging that the Proclamation would become legally moot once the war ended, Lincoln worked hard to have Congress pass the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which permanently enshrined the freedom of all men and women regardless of race.

All of this was possible because of the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858. In particular, during the second debate in Freeport, Lincoln posed a set of questions to Douglas. Always thinking ahead, Lincoln set a trap, and Douglas had no choice but to fall into what would become known as the Freeport Doctrine. Lincoln asked:

Can the people of a United States Territory, in any lawful way, against the wish of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from its limits prior to the formation of a State Constitution?

The question directly pit Douglas’s Popular Sovereignty against the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision. Douglas was forced to choose between alienating those people he required to get reelected to the Illinois Senate or the Southerners he needed in his third run for the presidency two years later. He responded that people in a territory could keep out slavery despite the Dred Scott decision, which stated that federal and state governments had no authority to exclude slavery because it would deprive slaveholders of their “property” rights without due process.

Lincoln was ecstatic over Douglas’s response, although he did not show his hand. Southerners, who wanted the ability to expand slavery without limit, had grown concerned that states could choose to exclude slavery in accordance with Douglas’s Popular Sovereignty. They saw the Dred Scott decision as confirming their right to bring slaves wherever they wanted, and now Douglas was saying that was not true. This presented a long-term problem for slave-owning states. While they knew that most of the new territories were grossly inadequate for growing cotton, which was still the primary driver of the need for slaves, they recognized that every new slave state would increase their representation in Congress—and their continued power to dictate policy.

When the votes were counted, Lincoln had won the popular vote and the Republican Party picked up seats in the legislature. But the state legislature, which was majority Democratic, was still choosing Senators. Douglas retained his Senate seat. Lincoln likely realized his chances of winning the seat were close to nil because of the legislature’s makeup. When he was asked why he would give Douglas an advantage for Senate reelection, Lincoln replied that he had a longer view in mind: Douglas might win the Senate, but he would lose the presidency. The Freeport Doctrine would see to that.

The rest, as they say, is history.

[Adapted from Lincoln: The Man Who Saved America]

David J. Kent is an avid traveler, scientist, and Abraham Lincoln historian. He is the author of Lincoln: The Man Who Saved AmericaTesla: The Wizard of Electricity and Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World as well as two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.

Check out my Goodreads author page. While you’re at it, “Like” my Facebook author page for more updates!

When Abraham Lincoln Appointed a 10th Supreme Court Justice

LincolnAbraham Lincoln is the only president to appoint a tenth justice to the Supreme Court. He made five appointments, one of the most prolific appointers-in-chief in our history. And it all started because of Dred Scott.

In 1857, Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote the 7-2 majority opinion denying Dred Scott and his family the right to live as a free man, returning him to slavery. Taney further declared that African Americans can never be citizens and had no rights to which white men were bound to respect. One of the two dissenters, Justice Benjamin Curtis, was so disgusted he left the court to return to private practice. The second dissenter, John McLean, died a few weeks after Lincoln’s inauguration in 1861. John Campbell, a pro-slavery firebrand, resigned from the Court to become the Confederate Assistant Secretary of War. Lincoln had several vacancies to fill immediately. He did so by nominating Noah Haynes Swayne, Samuel Freeman Miller, and his old friend David Davis, all of whom the Senate quickly confirmed.

While all of us today have seen nine justices all our lives, the Constitution doesn’t actually specify how many Supreme Court justices will sit. Early on that number varied between five and nine. Congress decided to deal with the complications of the Dred Scott decision (including its rather pro-slavery leanings) by adding a tenth justice to the Court. So in 1863 Lincoln was able to fill the extra seat with Steven Johnson Field. Chief Justice Roger Taney then died in October of 1864. After Lincoln won the election in November, he nominated his former Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase as the new Chief Justice, his fifth justice appointed. Interestingly, the Court still ruled against Lincoln posthumously in an 1866 case known as Ex parte Milligan in which they determined the Lincoln administration had exceeded its authority by relying on a military tribunal to convict Lambdin Milligan and three others, stating that Indiana civil court should have been employed for the trial.

After Lincoln’s assassination, Congress decided it needed to limit the ability of his successor, Andrew Johnson, from appointing pro-slavery justices to the Court, so they reduced the number to seven. Immediately after Johnson was out of office, Congress reset the number again to nine, and since 1869 that has been the standard to today.

Which means there is precedent for changing the number of justices on the Supreme Court to thwart racist and anti-American behavior by presidents (and the Court itself). That said, there is a reason that the Court has remained stable at nine justices since the aftermath of the Civil War. Also, ten – or any other even number – sets up the potential for a Court mired in constant ties, for which there is no remedy (unlike the Senate, where a tie is broken by the Vice President’s vote). Which means any change in current circumstances would have to be to add two justices to reach eleven. Can it be done? Yes. Should it? That depends on the honesty and integrity of the Senate and President, something that we’ve seen is not always guaranteed.

David J. Kent is an avid traveler, scientist, and Abraham Lincoln historian. He is the author of Lincoln: The Man Who Saved AmericaTesla: The Wizard of Electricity and Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World as well as two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.

Check out my Goodreads author page. While you’re at it, “Like” my Facebook author page for more updates!

Lincoln in San Marino – Wiegers Calendar September

Wiegers September calendarSeptember in the 2020 calendar series by David Wiegers brings us to the tiny city state of San Marino, where Abraham Lincoln not only makes a showing, he’s a citizen.

I actually wrote about this way back in 2013 in a post called “Did Abraham Lincoln Have Dual Citizenship?” It turns out he did. As I wrote then:

Tiny as it is, San Marino apparently had a good marketing department when they decided to send a letter to the new President of the United States in 1861. Two recently discovered documents have now been provided to The Papers of Abraham Lincoln, a project “dedicated to identifying, imaging, transcribing, annotating, and publishing all documents written by or to Abraham Lincoln during his entire lifetime (1809-1865).” 

Read more on the original post.

This month’s calendar shows the bust of Lincoln by Raymond Barger presented by the United States to the Republic of San Marino in 1932. It has a place of prominence in the Palazzo Pubblico, which serves as the official town hall and federal government building. Since San Marino is so small (it’s considered a microstate completely surrounded by Italy and barely showing up on a map), the Palazzo is the seat of the Republic’s main institutional and administrative bodies, which are the Captains Regent, the Grand and General Council, the Council of XXII, and the Congress of State, all packed into a building much tinier than you might expect. The building itself looks like an old castle, with battlements topping a series of corbels. A clock tower gives height to an otherwise unimpressive building. Essentially, Palazzo Pubblico looks like Florence’s Palazzo Vecchio met Honey, I Shrunk the Kids.

Still, its small-town population managed to convince Abraham Lincoln to become a citizen. Given the timing – May 1861, a mere few weeks after the fall of Fort Sumter – Lincoln may have been thinking about contingencies should the newly started Civil War not go the way he hoped. 

In all my travels in Italy I’ve never been to San Marino. COVID has eliminated travel until at least next year, but once Europe lets Americans within their borders again, I’ll be visiting Lincoln at the Palazzo Pubblico.

David J. Kent is an avid traveler, scientist, and Abraham Lincoln historian. He is the author of Lincoln: The Man Who Saved AmericaTesla: The Wizard of Electricity and Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World as well as two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.

Check out my Goodreads author page. While you’re at it, “Like” my Facebook author page for more updates!

Abraham Lincoln and the Devil

Abraham Lincoln Healy PortraitAbraham Lincoln and the Devil? That’s a connection most people wouldn’t easily make, but did you know that Abraham Lincoln had a particular affinity for the fable of Faust?

The Faust of German legend is an intellectual scholar, highly successful but rather bored and dissatisfied with his life. He falls into melancholia and, in a bout of severe depression, tries unsuccessfully to take his own life. Failing in that, he begs the Devil to give him “magical powers with which he can indulge in all the pleasure and knowledge of the world.” Being a shrewd bargainer, the Devil appears in the form of Mephistopheles to serve Faust with his powers for a set number of years, after which Faust must give up his soul to eternal damnation.

Hardly a light day at the office.

Most people know that Lincoln was also prone to bouts of melancholy, and on one occasion his depression got so deep that his friends put him on 24-hour suicide watch. But most people do not know that Lincoln, who was not himself able to play music, was still a lover of music played by others. He liked much of the popular music of the day – ballads, jocular minstrel songs, and even the song Dixie. He also enjoyed opera, and one of his favorite songs was the soldier’s chorus in Charles Gounod’s operatic version of Faust. Gounod’s opera is based on the two part tragic play written by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, considered by many to be one of the greatest works of German literature.

Interestingly, the legend of Faust has come to mean people giving up their integrity to ambition in order to achieve undue power and success for some defined period of time. That hardly describes Lincoln given his long history of integrity – he had been given the nickname Honest Abe at a relatively young age. More likely Lincoln was attracted to Faust both for the quality of the opera and to garner some insight into the machinations of his overly ambitious Generals and Salmon P. Chase, the Secretary of the Treasury who worked behind Lincoln’s back in an attempt to replace him as the 1864 nominee for President.

Lincoln is said to have dealt with the grief of his son Willie’s death in the White House in 1862 by borrowing a copy of Goethe’s Faust from the Library of Congress. The main character’s trials may have helped Lincoln cope with his own great loss. The original play is written largely in rhymed verse – an epic lyrical poem – in Goethe’s native German. Lincoln obviously would have read an English translation.

So Lincoln did have a connection to the devil, albeit in a good way.

[Adapted from Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate]

David J. Kent is an avid traveler, scientist, and Abraham Lincoln historian. He is the author of Lincoln: The Man Who Saved America, Tesla: The Wizard of Electricity and Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World as well as two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.

Check out my Goodreads author page. While you’re at it, “Like” my Facebook author page for more updates!

Lincoln and the Calcium Light

In late August of 1864 Abraham Lincoln was still pushing research in technological advancement that might help the war effort. This interest put him in the middle of testing a calcium light between the Old Soldiers Home and the Smithsonian.

Homer Bates is best known for his post-war book, Lincoln in the Telegraph Office, in which he recounts the many visits by the President to the War Department next door to the White House. Bates recalls an incident in which a demonstration was arranged for his benefit while Lincoln was staying at what is now referred to as President Lincoln’s Cottage. Major Thomas Eckert and Bates traveled to the Soldiers Home one night while their colleagues set up a similar array in the tower of the Smithsonian Institute castle. Smithsonian Secretary Joseph Henry was also present to witness the tests.

Calcium light

Calcium light was not exactly new technology. Sometimes called Drummond light, and more commonly referred to as limelight, calcium lights were already in use as stage lighting for theaters and concert halls, hence the derivation of the phrase “in the limelight” for people in the public eye. The intense light is created by directing an oxyhydrogen flame at a cylinder of quicklime (calcium oxide).

According to Bates,

Lincoln was greatly interested in this exhibition and expressed the opinion that the signal system of both the army and navy could and would be improved so as to become of immense value tot he Government.

The calcium light signaling method did go on to be of value to the war effort, as were several other signaling and coding inventions. Lincoln encouraged these developments, and in some cases like this, was intimately involved in the testing of advancements. Calcium lights were eventually replaced by arc lighting, which in turn was replaced by direct current and then alternating current. This development becomes one thread that ties Abraham Lincoln to Joseph Henry to Nikola Tesla (and Thomas Edison too).

[Diagram courtesy of By Theresa knott (original); Pbroks13 (redraw) – Limelight_diagram.png, CC BY-SA 2.5, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=4171671]

David J. Kent is an avid science traveler and the author of Lincoln: The Man Who Saved America, in Barnes and Noble stores now. His previous books include Tesla: The Wizard of Electricity and Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World and two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.

Check out my Goodreads author page. While you’re at it, “Like” my Facebook author page for more updates!

The Party of Lincoln

Lincoln RoomAbraham Lincoln was the first Republican President of the United States. As the southern slaveholding states seceded from the Union, Lincoln was faced with an existential crisis that would define, or destroy, the last best hope on earth. Today, both the Republican and Democratic parties claim the mantle of Lincoln. So who has the better case?

Lincoln’s Republican Party was cobbled together from several pre-existing parties. Lincoln himself was “always a Whig in politics,” and the Whig party was the central backbone of the new Republican party. In the 1850s the Whig party splintered and the Republican party came into being. Lincoln helped define the new party, especially in Illinois, by encouraging them to focus primarily on a platform restricting the expansion of slavery into the federal territories. Joining most Whigs were anti-slavery factions of the Democratic party, as well as similar-minded members of the Free Soil, Know Nothing, Liberty, and other minor parties. The Whigs had gotten their start as an opposition party to challenge the Jacksonian Democrats.

The new Republican party carried on the Whigs support for internal improvements. With Lincoln as its premier champion in Illinois, internal improvements were government funded infrastructure such as roads, canals, navigable rivers, and railroads. These improvements would enable economic expansion and a chance for all men to better their condition. Whigs, and Lincoln, believed that education was of critical importance to the growing population of the United States. As one scholar put it, whiggery was the triumph of the cosmopolitan and the national over traditional folkways and customs. The Whig and Republican parties believed in giving all men a fair chance at advancement. They were a party of diversity of views, including those driven by moral reform, anti-slavery abolitionists, and those opposed to Andrew Jackson’s harsh and racist treatment of Native Americans in his rush to expand the nation’s border. Whigs also favored passing relief legislation (aka, stimulus packages) in response to the financial panics of 1837 and 1839. In short, Whigs were for a strong central government that supported education and federal investment in people’s lives such that all had an equal opportunity to make their lives better. Today they would be called a progressive party.

The Republican party ran its first presidential candidate in 1856. John C. Fremont lost that election, but was close enough that he could have won if a few more states’ electoral votes had gone his way. This scared the slaveholding class of the South who had controlled the federal government since its inception. Seeing a trend that would reduce their federal power, slaveholding states immediately stepped up their activities to protect and expand slavery, and by extension, their power. The Dred Scott Decision of the pro-slavery conservative Supreme Court in 1857 helped their case, but Stephen A. Douglas, the most prominent Democrat in the nation and the likely nominee for the 1860 election, while he himself was racist and didn’t care if slavery spread into the territories, let Southerners know that under his Popular Sovereignty mechanism of the Kansas-Nebraska Act most states would probably choose to be free, not slave, states. The Lincoln-Douglas Senate debates of 1858 reinforced southern slaveowner belief that Douglas was not going to protect slavery expansion. This split the Democratic vote (Southern Democrats and Northern Democrats ran different presidential tickets), a decision which ensured their loss in the 1860 election. When a Republican won, the southern slaveholding states chose to destroy the Union rather than take a chance of losing their system of slavery. In its essence, the Civil War was about rich plantation owners protecting their profitable business model; profitable because it required the forced enslavement of Americans based on the color of their skin.

In addition to the progressive economic views of the Whig party, the new and diverse Republican party added to their platform the restriction of expansion of slavery into the federal territories, which by this point included not only the remaining Louisiana Purchase lands but also the rest of the land to the west coast acquired at the end of the war with Mexico in 1848. Republicans did not seek to ban slavery in the states where it existed, merely to restrict its expansion in the belief that slavery would eventually die under the weight of its own immorality and bad economic policy. Lincoln reiterated many times that he believed (as did most Americans) that, in its tacit acknowledgement of slavery while avoiding the actual words, the Constitution allowed slavery to continue in those states where it existed. Still, slaveholding states felt that to protect slavery they must break apart the Union. Most Northern Democrats were pro-slavery but also pro-Union, as were at least some Southern Democrats who but for circumstances would have been against secession.

So we have Lincoln’s Republican party as the progressive party favoring a federal government that actively supports its citizens, advocates for government support of infrastructure projects that benefit the masses, and federal intervention in times of crisis to protect the ability of the people to better their condition. Lincoln’s party sought to remove unfair labor practices, provide for equality for all, and “do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but cannot do, at all, or cannot, so well do, for themselves.” Undoubtedly Lincoln’s party would support equal rights, the end to discrimination, federal support for high-speed rail and other internal improvement projects, and stimulus bills during extreme financial crises that threaten the individual and national economy. Lincoln never forgot his impoverished upbringing and always sought to bring the benefits of science, technology, and economic development to the masses, not just to the super-rich. Lincoln’s Republican party was progressive and Hamiltonian in its economic philosophy.

The Democratic party of Lincoln’s time was conservative. They favored status quo policies that protected the rights and profits of the wealthy, including the idea that whites were superior to non-whites and thus could enslave other people. The Jacksonian Democratic party of the time was significantly more racist and exclusionary; it was also more Jeffersonian in its economic philosophy, that is, more rural and agronomic on a large scale.

Today, of course, these primary characteristics are reversed. The Republican party held control through the end of Reconstruction, ending around 1877 when the former slaveholding states of the South were able to advantage their increased congressional power (they now could count 5/5ths of all African Americans rather than the 3/5ths of enslaved people) and began engaging in legal and extra-legal practices to eliminate African American voting rights. Conservative Democrats held control throughout the first half of the 20th Century, largely by implementing Jim Crow laws to segregate the populace, intimidation to restrict voting and other human rights (via the KKK and other racist organizations), and otherwise promote white supremacy in America. But by the 1950s a shift was beginning. Strom Thurmond, an openly racist Democrat from South Carolina, had run for president in 1948 under a new party mantra called the Dixiecrats (he later switched to Republican). After Brown v. Board of Education required the desegregation of schools, racist Democrats in the South began a massive shift. Democratic President John F. Kennedy began supporting civil rights for African Americans, and his successor, Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson, signed into law the 1964 Civil Rights and 1965 Voting Rights Acts. This led the Dixiecrat contingent of the Democratic party to lead the exodus of racist Democrats to the modern Republican party. Johnson’s successor, Republican Richard M. Nixon, intentionally engaged in what he called “the Southern Strategy” to recreate the Republican party as the party of the Confederacy with a stronghold in the deep South and focused on building a white supremacy-based electorate in which fear of non-whites became the central theme. This spawned today’s version of Jim Crow laws to restrict non-white citizenship and pressing a dystopian view of black violence against whites inherent in today’s screams of “law and order” and “Suburban Housewives of America.”

This reversal of parties also extends to economic philosophy. The slaveholding economy benefited the few richest Southerners who managed to absorb smaller farms into huge plantations. Plantation owners were immensely wealthy compared to the masses; they were the 1% of the time. Small family farms largely ceased to exist in much of the South. The wealthy plantation owners controlled not only the economy but the politics, often serving directly as political leaders or indirectly by funding – and controlling – surrogates whose function was to protect the wealth of the plantation owners, not the masses. In contrast, the North was dominated by smaller businesses ranging from family farms to cottage industry to the occasional factory employing neighbors. Northern Whigs and Republicans favored homesteading, i.e., allowing small families to move westward into the territories to start farms on federally owned parcels of land, which would become theirs after five years of production. Southerners were against any westward expansion or other free-labor arrangements because they saw it as “too much power to the federal government” (aka, cutting into their system of slave labor). Southern Democrats believed in “small government,” except of course when they controlled it. Today this reflects more the Republican party, which avers its belief in small government except when it benefits the richest Americans.

The issue is more complicated than this, of course, but in general the two parties have switched places. Lincoln’s more progressive Republican party is more akin to today’s Democratic party. Lincoln himself could be characterized as a prudent progressive. The conservative Democratic party of Lincoln’s time, and up to about the 1960s, is more akin to today’s Republican party. This isn’t a partisan position (I don’t belong to either party); it’s simply an acknowledgement of history.

To make the point more obviously, take a look at a map of the United States at the beginning of the Civil War using today’s “red state/blue state” graphics. The Confederacy was all “blue” state back then; today the same states are “red.” The Union was all “red,” today they are “blue.” The states have reversed. This isn’t because conservatives from the South all moved North. People who identify as conservative and liberal remained where they always were, they merely changed political identification (see Strom Thurmond et al. above).

Today’s Republicans proudly announce they are the “party of Lincoln.” And yet, they are the ones who cry “You’re trying to erase my heritage” to anyone suggesting that flying a Confederate battle flag is inappropriate, or who suggests taking down Confederate statues and monuments. You can’t be both the party of Lincoln and the Confederacy any more than you can wave a Nazi symbol and be pro-American.

All of this is hard to grasp in a nation where the teaching of history often promotes different realities depending on where you grow up. All presidents, and perhaps all American politicians, today seem to have a need to avow fealty to Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln saved the Union from destruction and took large steps in ending slavery, so it’s no surprise that another tall transplanted Illinoisan would find common ground with our 16th president. Other presidents also crave the mantle of Lincoln but clearly don’t live up to the ideal. Still, we can all learn from Lincoln. As long as we first understand what Lincoln means.

Fire of GeniusLincoln: The Fire of Genius: How Abraham Lincoln’s Commitment to Science and Technology Helped Modernize America was released on September 1, 2022.

The book is available for purchase at all bookseller outlets. Limited signed copies are available via this website. The book also listed on Goodreads, the database where I keep track of my reading. Click on the “Want to Read” button to put it on your reading list.

You also follow my author page on Facebook.

David J. Kent is President of the Lincoln Group of DC and the author of Lincoln: The Fire of Genius: How Abraham Lincoln’s Commitment to Science and Technology Helped Modernize America and Lincoln: The Man Who Saved America.

His previous books include Tesla: The Wizard of Electricity and Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World and two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.

Lincoln in Austria – Wiegers Calendar August

Wiegers calendar AugustLincoln is in Salzburg, Austria. I missed it…and yet I didn’t. Each month I explore the statues and locations from the 2020 calendar prepared by David Wiegers. For August we’re in Austria.

The statue itself depicts Lincoln reading while sitting on his horse, the stead munching on some grass during a break on the circuit. Lincoln often read while traveling the 8th Judicial Circuit as a lawyer, and sometimes judge, moving from town to town and picking up cases in each district. Called “Abraham Lincoln on the Prairie,” it’s a massive piece by sculptor Anna Hyatt Huntington. Huntington once studied under renowned sculptor John Gutzon Borglum, who is probably best known for Mount Rushmore and his huge bust of Lincoln that now resides in the Capitol crypt. One of the few female sculptors prominent in the New York City artist community, Huntingdon is especially known for her equestrian sculptures.

I saw the statue, not in Salzburg, but in front of New Salem, Illinois. Another copy of the statue stands in Lincoln City, Oregon to commemorate the territorial governor’s post that Lincoln turned down (yes, even places Lincoln rejected still honor him). I passed through Lincoln City on a northwest road trip a couple of years ago, and once again missed a statue I didn’t find out existed until after I was there. The same occurred in Salzburg.

It’s hard to believe that my visit to Salzburg was a decade ago. I was two-thirds of the way through my three year stint working and living in Brussels and decided a road trip was in order. A quick flight on discount airline Ryan Air got me to Bratislava, Slovakia, where I picked up a rental car at the airport. [There’s a long story about how the car would not go into reverse, but I’ll save that for another time] On a whistle-stop tour covering five countries I stayed one night in Bratislava, then a night each in Vienna (Austria), Munich (Germany), Fussen (Germany), Salzburg (Austria), squeezed in a day in Ljubljana (Slovenia), and finally two nights in Budapest (Hungary). Driving through the mountains – and the 10-mile-long tunnels – was amazing.

Like all European cities, Salzburg has its castle up on the hill and a very walkable old town replete with cobblestones. Mozart’s old house is a museum. The churches are massive, the beer is not bad, and there was an interesting 25-foot diameter golden ball on a pedestal, on top of which stood a sculpture of a remarkably anachronistic modern-dressed man. I enjoyed the city immensely. But I missed the Lincoln statue.

Salzburg, Austria

According to “the internets,” the Austrian Minister of Education had originally seen “Abraham Lincoln on the Prairie” on exhibit in the Illinois State Pavilion of the 1963 New York World’s Fair. Greatly enamored of the statue, and with many political connections, the Minister was able to have a copy gifted to Austria in 1965 and placed near the “Teacher’s House” in downtown Salzburg. Unfortunately, the location is now private property and the statue stands in the backyard. David Wiegers told me that the statue is visible through the fence and apparently no one bothered him as he stealthily moved closer to snap the photo for the August calendar month.

I’ll end with a note about my own photo above. While walking around Salzburg there are the usual street performers. This one worked a pretty cool marionette playing the piano (including a little Jerry Lee Lewis). Quite a few people were enthralled with the performance, including this little well-dressed boy, who stood there for some time communing with the puppet. As much as I admire statues, it’s real people with real emotions like this that make traveling such an amazing experience.

[Photo credits: My close up of David Wiegers August 2020 calendar page; my Salzburg photo]

David J. Kent is an avid science traveler and the author of Lincoln: The Man Who Saved America, in Barnes and Noble stores now. His previous books include Tesla: The Wizard of Electricity and Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World and two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.

Check out my Goodreads author page. While you’re at it, “Like” my Facebook author page for more updates!

O Captain! My Captain! Abraham Lincoln and Walt Whitman

Walt WhitmanEarly on the morning of August 12, 1864, poet Walt Whitman watches from his Washington, DC home as President Abraham Lincoln travels from the Old Soldier’s Home to the White House for a day’s work. Whitman would go on to write, not one, but two great poems about our 16th President.

The Old Soldier’s Home, now called President Lincoln’s Cottage, was a respite from the mosquito-infested swamps abutting the Executive Mansion. The heat, humidity, and pestilence drove the Lincoln family about three miles north of the White House each summer beginning in 1862. Mary, despondent over the death of son Willie, likely from typhoid caused by well water polluted from the tens of thousands of soldiers and horses dumping waste upstream of the open sewer that was the Potomac River, desperately needed a change of locale. Lincoln himself needed a breather after days spent besieged by office seekers, inventors, and crackpots lined up for their turn to imping upon the President’s time. He would travel by horse or buggy each day during the summer months. Walt Whitman would watch him pass, noting that they had begun to recognize each other with a formal nod each day.

Whitman remembers:

“Mr. Lincoln . . . generally rides a good-sized, easy-going gray horse, is dress’d in plain black, somewhat rusty and dusty; [and] wears a black stiff hat . . . I see very plainly [his] dark brown face, with the deep cut lines, the eyes, &c., always to me with a latent sadness in the expression. We have got so that we always exchange bows, and very cordial ones.”

After Lincoln’s assassination, Walt Whitman writes a poem of mourning called “O Captain! My Captain!,” which begins:

O Captain! my Captain! our fearful trip is done,
The ship has weather’d every rack, the prize we sought is won,
The port is near, the bells I hear, the people all exulting,
While follow eyes the steady keel, the vessel grim and daring;
                         But O heart! heart! heart!
                            O the bleeding drops of red,
                               Where on the deck my Captain lies,
                                  Fallen cold and dead.

Whitman’s more epic effort is the poem, “When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom’d.” In it Whitman never mentions Lincoln or the circumstances of his death. Instead he uses free verse in the form of an elegy, the first-person monologue lamenting death. Stretching on for 16 cantos ranging in length from five to 53 lines. Like his renowned poetry collection Leaves of Grass, “When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom’d” evolved over several iterations in time to its present form. It begins:

1
When lilacs last in the dooryard bloom’d,
And the great star early droop’d in the western sky in the night,
I mourn’d, and yet shall mourn with ever-returning spring.
Ever-returning spring, trinity sure to me you bring,
Lilac blooming perennial and drooping star in the west,
And thought of him I love.
2
O powerful western fallen star!
O shades of night—O moody, tearful night!
O great star disappear’d—O the black murk that hides the star!
O cruel hands that hold me powerless—O helpless soul of me!
O harsh surrounding cloud that will not free my soul.
And ends:
16
Passing the visions, passing the night,
Passing, unloosing the hold of my comrades’ hands,
Passing the song of the hermit bird and the tallying song of my soul,
Victorious song, death’s outlet song, yet varying ever-altering song,
As low and wailing, yet clear the notes, rising and falling, flooding the night,
Sadly sinking and fainting, as warning and warning, and yet again bursting with joy,
Covering the earth and filling the spread of the heaven,
As that powerful psalm in the night I heard from recesses,
Passing, I leave thee lilac with heart-shaped leaves,
I leave thee there in the door-yard, blooming, returning with spring.
I cease from my song for thee,
From my gaze on thee in the west, fronting the west, communing with thee,
O comrade lustrous with silver face in the night.
Yet each to keep and all, retrievements out of the night,
The song, the wondrous chant of the gray-brown bird,
And the tallying chant, the echo arous’d in my soul,
With the lustrous and drooping star with the countenance full of woe,
With the holders holding my hand nearing the call of the bird,
Comrades mine and I in the midst, and their memory ever to keep, for the dead I loved so well,
For the sweetest, wisest soul of all my days and lands—and this for his dear sake,
Lilac and star and bird twined with the chant of my soul,
There in the fragrant pines and the cedars dusk and dim.
[See the link for the full poem]
Lincoln would continue traveling between the Old Soldier’s Home and the White House during the summers of 1863 through 1864. Whitman continued to work as a volunteer in Washington’s Civil War hospitals, keeping wounded men company, reading to them, and acting as amanuensis. After suffering a stroke in 1873, Whitman moved to live with his brother in Camden, New Jersey, where he carried on additional revisions to Leaves of Grass until his eventual death in 1892. Throughout his life his fondest memories were of Abraham Lincoln, a man he saw many times but never actually got to know.

David J. Kent is an avid science traveler and the author of Lincoln: The Man Who Saved America, in Barnes and Noble stores now. His previous books include Tesla: The Wizard of Electricity and Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World and two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.

Check out my Goodreads author page. While you’re at it, “Like” my Facebook author page for more updates!

 

Abraham Lincoln Picks a Vice President or Two

Abraham Lincoln Healy PortraitAs I write this, Barack Obama’s Vice President Joe Biden is within days of picking his own vice presidential running mate, so it seems a good time to revisit the two vice presidents that Abraham Lincoln picked. Well, saying Lincoln picked his vice presidents isn’t quite accurate. In fact, he had nothing to do with picking the first one and likely not much more to do with the second one.

Presidents and their running mates back in Lincoln’s day were picked by the party’s nominating convention. Today we have what seems an endless campaigns and a series of state primaries and caucuses that drag on for months. The public votes for delegates who are supposed to carry that vote to the convention, which is more for show than it is for making any decisions on candidates. By the time the convention shows up we already know who is the nominee.

Not so in Lincoln’s time. The public had no say in who the party nominated. Nothing was secured in advance. When the date of the convention came each candidate would have his representatives in the smoke-filled rooms trying to persuade enough of the delegates to swing to them. There were usually several rounds of voting. In 1860, most people expected that New York Senator William Seward would get the nomination, and he led on the first ballot. But Lincoln was surprisingly close behind, closed the gap on the second ballot, and won on the third ballot. Abraham Lincoln was the Republican nominee for President.

Then the convention delegates went on to pick the vice president. Seward’s people, not happy that their man hadn’t won, blocked any choice from nearby states, insisting that the convention choose Senator Hannibal Hamlin of Maine. As a former Democrat, Hamlin was considered a good balance with the former Whig Lincoln ideologically, as well as the geographical balance with the westerner from Illinois. Through all of this deciding, Lincoln was in Springfield waiting in the telegraph office for news. He had nothing to do with picking Hamlin.

In 1864 Lincoln was the sitting President in the midst of the Civil War. By the time of the nominating convention he had survived an attempted coup of sorts by his Treasury Secretary, Salmon P. Chase. The Republican party, in an effort to secure all the pro-Union voters for Lincoln, opted to rename itself (for one election only) the National Union party. With this in mind the party operatives sought to balance the ticket more than the Mainer Hamlin could do, so they nominated Andrew Johnson of Tennessee as the vice presidential running mate. Johnson had been the only southern Senator that remained in the Union when their states seceded. Lincoln had appointed him as military Governor in those parts of Tennessee recaptured by the Union. He was a loyal Unionist, although he would have faults that would become all too evident.

Some have inaccurately argued that Lincoln forced Hamlin out and brought Johnson in, but that isn’t true. The delegates of the convention made the choices then, and they did in this case. When old friend Leonard Swett asked Lincoln about one particular candidate, Lincoln responded “Wish not to interfere about V.P. Can not interfere about platform. Convention must judge for itself.”

All of this set the stage for endless “what ifs” when Lincoln was assassinated, making Andrew Johnson President instead of Hannibal Hamlin. Johnson went on to be impeached by the Republican Congress and lived in infamy as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history (usually just behind James Buchanan, who preceded Lincoln).

In Lincoln’s time and before, vice presidents had very little in the way of official duties. Essentially they sat around waiting to see if the President passed away in office, which had happened a couple of times before and caused problems as Whig Presidents were replaced by Vice Presidents with differing ideologies. In modern times the presidential nominee for each party picks their own vice presidential running mate. This makes it more likely that they will pick someone with whom they are more compatible ideologically and stylistically. Many more significant responsibilities are delegated to vice presidents today, so the selection of running mate is much more important than in the past.

[Since I mention Joe Biden’s imminent running mate pick, I’ll update this with the name after the announcement: It’s Kamala Harris!]

David J. Kent is an avid science traveler and the author of Lincoln: The Man Who Saved America, in Barnes and Noble stores now. His previous books include Tesla: The Wizard of Electricity and Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World and two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.

Check out my Goodreads author page. While you’re at it, “Like” my Facebook author page for more updates!