Character of Holland's "Life of Lincoln"--The Bateman
Interview--Inconsistency and untruthfulness of its
statements--Holland's Subsequent Modification and Final
Abandonment of his original Claims.
In the preceding chapter has been presented the Christian side of this
question. It has been presented fully and fairly. Even the Christian
claimant must admit that it is the longest and most complete array of
testimony that has yet been published in support of his claim.
This evidence is explicit and apparently conclusive. To attempt its
refutation may seem presumptuous. And yet, in the face of all this
evidence, the writer does not hesitate to declare that Abraham Lincoln
was not a Christian, and pledge himself to refute the statements of
these witnesses by a volume of testimony that is irresistible and
overwhelming.
Before introducing this testimony the evidence already adduced will be
reviewed. This evidence may properly be grouped into three divisions: 1.
The testimony of Holland and Bateman; 2. The testimony of Reed and his
witnesses; 3. The testimony of Arnold and the miscellaneous evidence
remaining.
Holland's "Life of Lincoln," from a literary point of view, is a work
of more than ordinary merit. It possesses a beauty of diction and
an intellectual vigor seldom surpassed; but as an authority it
is unreliable. Like Weems's "Life of Washington," it is simply a
biographical romance founded upon fact, but paying little regard to
facts in presenting the details. Following the natural bent of Christian
biographers, Holland parades the subject of his work as a model
of Christian piety. He knew that this was false; for, while he was
unacquainted with Lincoln, he had been apprised of his unbelief--had
been repeatedly told of it before he wrote his biography. But this did
not deter him from asserting the contrary. He knew that if he stated the
facts the clergy would condemn his book. They needed the influence of
Lincoln's great name to support their crumbling creed, and would have it
at any sacrifice, particularly when its possession required no greater
sacrifice than truth. Holland was equal to the emergency. When one of
Lincoln's friends in Springfield suggested that the less said about his
religious views the better, he promptly replied: "Oh, never mind; I'll
fix that." And he did. With dramatic embellishments, he presented to
the delight of the orthodox world the now famous, or rather infamous,
Bateman interview.
The publication of this story produced a profound sensation among
the personal friends of the dead President. It revealed to them the
unpleasant fact, assuming Holland's account to be correct, either that
Newton Bateman, who had hitherto borne the reputation of being a man
of veracity, was an unscrupulous liar, or that Abraham Lincoln, whose
reputation for honesty and candor, long anterior to 1860, had become
proverbial, was a consummate hypocrite; and loath as they were to
believe the former, they rejected with disdain the latter.
Referring to this story, Lamon, in his "Life of Lincoln," says:
"There is no dealing with Mr. Bateman except by a flat contradiction.
Perhaps his memory was treacherous or his imagination led him astray,
or, peradventure, he thought a fraud no harm if it gratified the strong
desire of the public for proofs of Mr. Lincoln's orthodoxy" (Life of
Lincoln, p. 501).
While Bateman undoubtedly misrepresented Lincoln in his account of
their conversation--for it is not denied that he had an interview with
Lincoln--it is quite probable that he did not to the extent represented
by Holland. Bateman doubtless exaggerated the affair, and Holland
magnified Bateman's report of it. In an article originally published in
the _Index_, and subsequently quoted by Lamon, Lincoln's law partner,
Mr. Herndon, says:
"I doubt whether Mr. Bateman said in full what is recorded there. I
doubt a great deal of it. I know the whole story is untrue--untrue in
substance, untrue in fact and spirit. As soon as the [Holland's] 'Life
of Lincoln' was out, on reading that part here referred to, I instantly
sought Mr. Bateman and found him in his office. I spoke to him politely
and kindly, and he spoke to me in the same manner. I said substantially
to him that Mr. Holland, in order to make Mr. Lincoln a technical
Christian, made him a hypocrite; and so his 'Life of Lincoln' quite
plainly says. I loved Mr. Lincoln, and was mortified, if not angry, to
see him made a hypocrite. I cannot now detail what Mr. Bateman said, as
it was a private conversation, and I am forbidden to make use of it in
public. If some good gentleman can only get the seal of secrecy removed
I can show what was said and done. On my word, the world may take it
for granted that Holland is wrong--that he does not state Mr. Lincoln's
views correctly" (Lamon's Life of Lincoln, p. 496).
In a lecture on "Lincoln's Religion," delivered in Springfield in 1874,
alluding to the same subject, Mr. Herndon says:
"My notes of our conversation bear date December 3, 12, and 28, 1865.
Our conversations were private, I suppose. However, I can say this much:
that Mr. Bateman expressly told me Mr. Lincoln was, in the conversation
related in Holland, talking _politics_ and not religion, nor
Christianity, nor morals, as such. I have persistently dogged Mr.
Bateman for the privilege of publishing my notes, or to give me a letter
explaining what Mr. Lincoln did say, so that I might make known the
facts of the case. Mr. Bateman has as stoutly refused."
Dr. Bateman finally permitted Mr. Herndon to make public a letter,
marked "confidential," which he had written Mr. Herndon in 1867. In this
letter Bateman says:
"He [Lincoln] was applying the principles of moral and religious truth
to the duties of the hour, the condition of the country, and the conduct
of public men--ministers of the gospel. I had no thought of orthodoxy or
heterodoxy, Unitarianism, Trinitarianism, or any other ism, during the
whole conversation, and I don't suppose or believe he had."
Had Lincoln made the confession he is reported to have made, this would
have suggested to Mr. Bateman the idea of his admitted orthodoxy as well
as his reputed heterodoxy. Had Lincoln declared that "Christ is God,"
this would have suggested to him the idea of Trinitarianism. It will
be seen, even from this letter, that instead of talking theology
and professing a belief in Christianity, he was talking politics and
denouncing the intolerance and bigotry of Christian ministers.
Dr. Bateman privately asserts that he was not correctly reported, that
Holland's version of the interview "is colored." It is to be regretted
that he had not the courage to state this fact to the public, and his
plea, "My aversion to publicity in such matters is intense," is a poor
apology for refusing to do so.
As previously intimated, this story is probably founded on fact and
has an element of truth in it. Lincoln and Bateman had a political
interview, and the object of this interview was the examination and
discussion of the list of Springfield voters. This list revealed the
fact that twenty out of twenty-three clergymen and a very large majority
of the church-members of Springfield were opposed to Lincoln. The
significance of this fact Dr. Holland and Dr. Bateman have apparently
overlooked. Why was the church opposed to him? It must have been either
because it was opposed to the Republican party, or because he was
personally objectionable to the members of that party. His political
principles were the principles of his party, his ability was conceded,
and his moral character was above reproach. It is fair to assume
that the political sentiment of the Christians of Springfield was
substantially the political sentiment of Northern Christians generally.
Now, was the Northern Church overwhelmingly in favor of the extension of
slavery? Were eighty-seven per cent, of Northern Christians Democrats?
Or did the Christians of Springfield oppose Lincoln because he was an
Infidel?
Holland makes Bateman affirm that Lincoln "drew from his bosom a pocket
New Testament." It is generally believed by Lincoln's friends that he
did not have a New Testament, that the only book used in the interview
was the book containing the list of Springfield voters. One of them
says: "The idea that Mr. Lincoln carried the New Testament or Bible in
his bosom or boots, to draw on his opponents in debate, is ridiculous."
It is possible, however, that there was a New Testament in the room, and
that Lincoln used it to enforce an argument. Indeed, there is internal
evidence in the story, aside from the declaration of Bateman, that such
was the case. The central idea in his political creed--the keynote of
his campaigns, both in 1858 and in 1860--was contained in that memorable
passage, "'A house divided against itself cannot stand.' This government
can not endure permanently half slave and half free." The figure quoted
was a familiar and powerful one, and Lincoln recognized its force in
dealing with the masses. It was taken from the New Testament, and
from the words of Christ himself. That he should use it against those
Christians who were acting contrary to this well-known truth, is not
strange. Immediately after the declaration, "Christ is God," he is
reported as saying: "I have told them that a house divided against
itself cannot stand, and Christ and reason say the same." This furnishes
a solution to the whole story. This shows what he was doing with a New
Testament. In connection with this, nothing is more natural than that he
should exclaim: "Christ teaches it, and Christ is [their] God!" That he
was terribly in earnest, that he was deeply agitated and pained to learn
that his Christian neighbors were opposed to him, is not improbable.
Thus the incidents of a simple political interview that were natural
and reasonable have been perverted to make it appear that he was a
Christian. A mere reference to the New Testament and Christ have been
twisted into an acknowledgment of their divinity. Bateman himself admits
that Lincoln said: "I am not a Christian." Why not accept his statement,
then? Why then distort his words and in the face of this positive
declaration attempt to prove that he was a Christian? Bateman reports
him as modifying the statement by adding: "God knows I would be one."
Yes, "God knows I would be one were I convinced that Christianity is
true, but not convinced of its truth, I am an unbeliever." Lincoln is
also reported to have said that in the light of the New Testament "human
bondage can not live a moment." But he did not utter these words. He did
not utter them because they are untrue, and none knew this better than
himself. He knew that in the light of this book human bondage had lived
for nearly two thousand years; he knew that this book was one of the
great bulwarks of human slavery; he knew that there was not to be found
between its lids a single text condemning slavery, while there were to
he found a score of texts sustaining it; he knew that that infamous law,
the Fugitive Slave law, received its warrant from this book--that Paul,
in the light of its earliest teachings, had returned a fugitive slave to
his master.
In this story Lincoln is charged with the grossest hypocrisy. He is
declared to have professed a belief in Christ and Christianity, and when
Bateman observed that his friends were ignorant of this, he is made to
reply: "I know they are. I am obliged to appear different to them." Now,
to use Lincoln's own words, "A sane person can no more act without a
motive than can there be an effect without a cause," and what possible
motive could he have had for such conduct? Supposing that he was base
enough to be a hypocrite, what could induce him to lead the world
to suppose he was an Infidel if he were not? In the eyes of the more
ignorant and bigoted class of Christians, Infidelity is a more
heinous crime than murder, and an Infidel is a creature scarcely to be
tolerated, much less to be intrusted with a public office. Freethinkers
generally detest the dogmas of Christianity as thoroughly as Christians
possibly can the principles of Freethought. But free thought and free
speech are the leading tenets of their creed. They recognize the fact
that we are all the children of circumstances, that our belief is
determined by our environments, and while they reject Christianity, they
have nothing but charity for those who conscientiously profess it. They
may repudiate a bigot, but will not oppose a man merely because he is
a Christian. If Lincoln were an Infidel, discretion might urge a
concealment of his views; if he were a Christian, policy would prompt
him to give it as wide a publicity as possible, especially when he
rested under the imputation of being a disbeliever. Had he changed his
belief and become a convert to Christianity, a knowledge of the fact
would not have lost him the support of his friends, even though some
of them were Freethinkers; while it would have secured for him a more
cordial support from the Republican side of the church, many of whom had
been alienated on account of his supposed anti-Christian sentiments.
It is hard to believe that Lincoln was a hypocrite; but this story,
if true, makes him not only a hypocrite but a fool. If he believed in
Christianity there can be but one reason advanced for his desiring to
keep it a secret--he was ashamed of it.
Holland, in trying to explain away the inconsistencies of this
fabrication, repeatedly blunders. In one of his attempts he makes use of
the following remarkable language:
"It was one of the peculiarities of Mr. Lincoln to hide these religious
experiences from the eyes of the world.... They [his friends] did not
regard him as a religious man. They had never seen anything but the
active lawyer, the keen politician, the jovial, fun-loving companion
in Mr. Lincoln. All this department of his life he had kept carefully
hidden from them. Why he should say that he was obliged to appear
differently to others does not appear; but the fact is a matter of
history that he never exposed his own religious life to those who had
no sympathy with it. It is doubtful whether the clergymen of Springfield
knew anything of these experiences" (Life of Lincoln, pp. 239, 240).
What! had the clergymen of Springfield no sympathy with a religious
life? A person can utter one falsehood with some degree of plausibility;
but when he attempts to verify it by uttering another, he usually trips
and falls. The above passage is mere hypocritical cant. It carries
with it not only its own refutation, but that of the rest of Holland's
testimony also. It is the language of the man who is conscious of having
stated a falsehood; conscious that there are others who believe it to be
a falsehood. He knew that the personal friends of Lincoln all understood
him to be a disbeliever. He knew that the church-members of Springfield
all entertained the same opinion. He virtually says to these people: "It
is true that Lincoln professed to be an Infidel, but he was not; he was
a Christian. The fact has been kept a profound secret. Bateman and I
have been the sole custodians of this secret, and we now give it to the
world."
A Christian writer, apologizing for the absurd and contradictory
statements of Holland and Bateman, says, "They aimed at the truth." I
do not believe it. It is clearly evident that they aimed at a plausible
lie. But in either case they made a bad shot.
In his "Life of Lincoln," Holland endeavors to convey the impression
that Lincoln was always a devout Christian. He declares that even during
the years of his early manhood at New Salem, "he was a religious man;"
that "he had a deep religious life." When Herndon and Lamon exposed his
shameful misrepresentations he retreated from his first position, and in
_Scribner's Monthly_ wrote as follows:
"What Abraham Lincoln was when he lived at New Salem and wrote an
anti-Christian tract (which the friend to whom he showed it somewhat
violently but most judiciously put in the fire) is one thing, and it may
be necessary for an impartial historian to record it. What he was when
he died at Washington with those most Christian words of the Second
Inaugural upon his lips, and that most Christian record of five years of
patient tenderness and charity behind him, is quite another thing."
He admits that Lincoln was an Infidel in Illinois, but would have us
believe that he was a Christian in Washington. He refers to "those
most Christian words of the Second Inaugural," and "that most Christian
record of five years of patient tenderness and charity." In the Second
Inaugural there is not a word affirming a belief in Christianity--not a
word in reference to Christianity. He mentions God, and quotes from
the Bible, but does not intimate that the Bible is God's word. That
Christians have a monopoly of "patient tenderness and charity," can
hardly be accepted. The history of the church does not confirm this
assumption. Many Christians have possessed these virtues. So have
the votaries of other religions. These attributes belong to good men
everywhere, but they are the distinguishing features of no particular
creed.
Smarting under his exposure, with that whining cant so peculiar to the
vanquished religionist, Holland finally sent forth this parting wail and
virtually abandoned the whole case:
"The question is, not whether Abraham Lincoln was a subscriber to the
creeds of orthodoxy, but whether he was a believing--that is to say,
a truthful Christian man; not whether he was accustomed to call Jesus
Christ 'Lord, Lord,' but whether he was used to do those things which
Jesus Christ exemplified and enforced. He was accustomed, as we know
well enough, to speak of an Almighty Father, of whom justice and mercy
and sympathy with weak and suffering humanity were characteristic
attributes. Who was it that revealed to man a God like this? Who was it
that once 'showed us the Father and it sufficed us?' Whoever it was that
made this revelation to mankind it was of him that this man, even though
he knew it not, had learned, and it was in his spirit that he acted"
(Scribner's Monthly).
The concluding words of Dr. Holland's testimony, as quoted from his
"Life of Lincoln," are as follows:
"Moderate, frank, truthful, gentle, forgiving, loving, just, Mr. Lincoln
will always be remembered as eminently a Christian President; and
the almost immeasurably great results which he had the privilege of
achieving were due to the fact that he was a Christian President."
This prediction and this assumption are false, change one word and make
them grandly true.
"Moderate, frank, truthful, gentle, forgiving, loving, just, Mr. Lincoln
will always be remembered as eminently a Liberal President; and
the almost immeasurably great results which he had the privilege of
achieving were due to the fact that he was a Liberal President."