Springfield. I am afraid you would not be satisfied. There is a great
deal of flourishing about in carriages here, which it would be your doom
to see without sharing it. You would have to be poor, without the means
of hiding your poverty. Do you believe you could bear that patiently?
Whatever woman may cast her lot with mine, should any ever do so, it is
my intention to do all in my power to make her happy and contented; and
there is nothing I can imagine that would make me more unhappy than to
fail in the effort. I know I should be much happier with you than the
way I am, provided I saw no signs of discontent in you. What you have
said to me may have been in the way of jest, or I may have misunderstood
you. If so, then let it be forgotten; if otherwise, I much wish you
would think seriously before you decide. What I have said I will most
positively abide by, provided you wish it. My opinion is that you had
better not do it. You have not been accustomed to hardship, and it may
be more severe than you now imagine. I know you are capable of thinking
correctly on any subject, and if you deliberate maturely upon this
subject before you decide, then I am willing to abide your decision.
You must write me a good long letter after you get this. You have
nothing else to do, and though it might not seem interesting to you
after you had written it, it would be a good deal of company to me in
this "busy wilderness." Tell your sister I don't want to hear any more
about selling out and moving. That gives me the "hypo" whenever I think
of it.
Yours, etc., LINCOLN.
TO JOHN BENNETT.
SPRINGFIELD, ILL., Aug. 5, 1837. JOHN BENNETT, ESQ.
DEAR SIR:-Mr. Edwards tells me you wish to know whether the act to which
your own incorporation provision was attached passed into a law. It
did. You can organize under the general incorporation law as soon as you
choose.
I also tacked a provision onto a fellow's bill to authorize the
relocation of the road from Salem down to your town, but I am not
certain whether or not the bill passed, neither do I suppose I can
ascertain before the law will be published, if it is a law. Bowling
Greene, Bennette Abe? and yourself are appointed to make the change. No
news. No excitement except a little about the election of Monday next.
I suppose, of course, our friend Dr. Heney stands no chance in your
diggings.
Your friend and humble servant, A. LINCOLN.
TO MARY OWENS.
SPRINGFIELD, Aug. 16, 1837
FRIEND MARY: You will no doubt think it rather strange that I should
write you a letter on the same day on which we parted, and I can only
account for it by supposing that seeing you lately makes me think of you
more than usual; while at our late meeting we had but few expressions
of thoughts. You must know that I cannot see you, or think of you, with
entire indifference; and yet it may be that you are mistaken in regard
to what my real feelings toward you are.
If I knew you were not, I should not have troubled you with this letter.
Perhaps any other man would know enough without information; but I
consider it my peculiar right to plead ignorance, and your bounden duty
to allow the plea.
I want in all cases to do right; and most particularly so in all cases
with women.
I want, at this particular time, more than any thing else to do right
with you; and if I knew it would be doing right, as I rather suspect it
would, to let you alone I would do it. And, for the purpose of making
the matter as plain as possible, I now say that you can drop the
subject, dismiss your thoughts (if you ever had any) from me for ever
and leave this letter unanswered without calling forth one accusing
murmur from me. And I will even go further and say that, if it will add
anything to your comfort or peace of mind to do so, it is my sincere
wish that you should. Do not understand by this that I wish to cut your
acquaintance. I mean no such thing. What I do wish is that our further
acquaintance shall depend upon yourself. If such further acquaintance
would contribute nothing to your happiness, I am sure it would not to
mine. If you feel yourself in any degree bound to me, I am now willing
to release you, provided you wish it; while on the other hand I am
willing and even anxious to bind you faster if I can be convinced
that it will, in any considerable degree, add to your happiness. This,
indeed, is the whole question with me. Nothing would make me more
miserable than to believe you miserable, nothing more happy than to know
you were so.
In what I have now said, I think I cannot be misunderstood; and to make
myself understood is the only object of this letter.
If it suits you best not to answer this, farewell. A long life and
a merry one attend you. But, if you conclude to write back, speak as
plainly as I do. There can neither be harm nor danger in saying to me
anything you think, just in the manner you think it. My respects to your
sister.
Your friend, LINCOLN.
LEGAL SUIT OF WIDOW v.s. Gen. ADAMS
TO THE PEOPLE.
"SANGAMON JOURNAL," SPRINGFIELD, ILL., Aug. 19, 1837.
In accordance with our determination, as expressed last week, we present
to the reader the articles which were published in hand-bill form, in
reference to the case of the heirs of Joseph Anderson vs. James Adams.
These articles can now be read uninfluenced by personal or party
feeling, and with the sole motive of learning the truth. When that is
done, the reader can pass his own judgment on the matters at issue.
We only regret in this case, that the publications were not made some
weeks before the election. Such a course might have prevented the
expressions of regret, which have often been heard since, from different
individuals, on account of the disposition they made of their votes.
To the Public:
It is well known to most of you, that there is existing at this time
considerable excitement in regard to Gen. Adams's titles to certain
tracts of land, and the manner in which he acquired them. As I
understand, the Gen. charges that the whole has been gotten up by a knot
of lawyers to injure his election; and as I am one of the knot to which
he refers, and as I happen to be in possession of facts connected with
the matter, I will, in as brief a manner as possible, make a statement
of them, together with the means by which I arrived at the knowledge of
them.
Sometime in May or June last, a widow woman, by the name of Anderson,
and her son, who resides in Fulton county, came to Springfield, for
the purpose as they said of selling a ten acre lot of ground lying near
town, which they claimed as the property of the deceased husband and
father.
When they reached town they found the land was claimed by Gen. Adams.
John T. Stuart and myself were employed to look into the matter, and if
it was thought we could do so with any prospect of success, to commence
a suit for the land. I went immediately to the recorder's office to
examine Adams's title, and found that the land had been entered by one
Dixon, deeded by Dixon to Thomas, by Thomas to one Miller, and by Miller
to Gen. Adams. The oldest of these three deeds was about ten or eleven
years old, and the latest more than five, all recorded at the same
time, and that within less than one year. This I thought a suspicious
circumstance, and I was thereby induced to examine the deeds very
closely, with a view to the discovery of some defect by which to
overturn the title, being almost convinced then it was founded in fraud.
I discovered that in the deed from Thomas to Miller, although Miller's
name stood in a sort of marginal note on the record book, it was nowhere
in the deed itself. I told the fact to Talbott, the recorder, and
proposed to him that he should go to Gen. Adams's and get the original
deed, and compare it with the record, and thereby ascertain whether
the defect was in the original or there was merely an error in the
recording. As Talbott afterwards told me, he went to the General's, but
not finding him at home, got the deed from his son, which, when compared
with the record, proved what we had discovered was merely an error of
the recorder. After Mr. Talbott corrected the record, he brought the
original to our office, as I then thought and think yet, to show us
that it was right. When he came into the room he handed the deed to me,
remarking that the fault was all his own. On opening it, another paper
fell out of it, which on examination proved to be an assignment of a
judgment in the Circuit Court of Sangamon County from Joseph Anderson,
the late husband of the widow above named, to James Adams, the judgment
being in favor of said Anderson against one Joseph Miller. Knowing that
this judgment had some connection with the land affair, I immediately
took a copy of it, which is word for word, letter for letter and cross
for cross as follows:
Joseph Anderson, vs. Joseph Miller.
Judgment in Sangamon Circuit Court against Joseph Miller obtained on a
note originally 25 dolls and interest thereon accrued. I assign all my
right, title and interest to James Adams which is in consideration of a
debt I owe said Adams.
his JOSEPH x ANDERSON. mark.
As the copy shows, it bore date May 10, 1827; although the judgment
assigned by it was not obtained until the October afterwards, as may be
seen by any one on the records of the Circuit Court. Two other strange
circumstances attended it which cannot be represented by a copy. One of
them was, that the date "1827" had first been made "1837" and, without
the figure "3," being fully obliterated, the figure "2" had afterwards
been made on top of it; the other was that, although the date was ten
years old, the writing on it, from the freshness of its appearance, was
thought by many, and I believe by all who saw it, not to be more than a
week old. The paper on which it was written had a very old appearance;
and there were some old figures on the back of it which made the
freshness of the writing on the face of it much more striking than I
suppose it otherwise might have been. The reader's curiosity is no doubt
excited to know what connection this assignment had with the land in
question. The story is this: Dixon sold and deeded the land to Thomas;
Thomas sold it to Anderson; but before he gave a deed, Anderson sold it
to Miller, and took Miller's note for the purchase money. When this
note became due, Anderson sued Miller on it, and Miller procured an
injunction from the Court of Chancery to stay the collection of the
money until he should get a deed for the land. Gen. Adams was employed
as an attorney by Anderson in this chancery suit, and at the October
term, 1827, the injunction was dissolved, and a judgment given in favor
of Anderson against Miller; and it was provided that Thomas was to
execute a deed for the land in favor of Miller and deliver it to Gen.
Adams, to be held up by him till Miller paid the judgment, and then to
deliver it to him. Miller left the county without paying the judgment.
Anderson moved to Fulton county, where he has since died When the widow
came to Springfield last May or June, as before mentioned, and found the
land deeded to Gen. Adams by Miller, she was naturally led to inquire
why the money due upon the judgment had not been sent to them, inasmuch
as he, Gen. Adams, had no authority to deliver Thomas's deed to Miller
until the money was paid. Then it was the General told her, or perhaps
her son, who came with her, that Anderson, in his lifetime, had assigned
the judgment to him, Gen. Adams. I am now told that the General is
exhibiting an assignment of the same judgment bearing date "1828" and
in other respects differing from the one described; and that he is
asserting that no such assignment as the one copied by me ever existed;
or if there did, it was forged between Talbott and the lawyers, and
slipped into his papers for the purpose of injuring him. Now, I can only
say that I know precisely such a one did exist, and that Ben. Talbott,
Wm. Butler, C.R. Matheny, John T. Stuart, Judge Logan, Robert Irwin, P.
C. Canedy and S. M. Tinsley, all saw and examined it, and that at least
one half of them will swear that IT WAS IN GENERAL ADAMS'S HANDWRITING!!
And further, I know that Talbott will swear that he got it out of the
General's possession, and returned it into his possession again. The
assignment which the General is now exhibiting purports to have been by
Anderson in writing. The one I copied was signed with a cross.
I am told that Gen. Neale says that he will swear that he heard Gen.
Adams tell young Anderson that the assignment made by his father was
signed with a cross.
The above are 'facts,' as stated. I leave them without comment. I have
given the names of persons who have knowledge of these facts, in order
that any one who chooses may call on them and ascertain how far they
will corroborate my statements. I have only made these statements
because I am known by many to be one of the individuals against whom
the charge of forging the assignment and slipping it into the General's
papers has been made, and because our silence might be construed into
a confession of its truth. I shall not subscribe my name; but I hereby
authorize the editor of the Journal to give it up to any one that may
call for it.
LINCOLN AND TALBOTT IN REPLY TO GEN. ADAMS.
"SANGAMON JOURNAL," SPRINGFIELD, ILL., Oct. 28, 1837.
In the Republican of this morning a publication of Gen. Adams's appears,
in which my name is used quite unreservedly. For this I thank the
General. I thank him because it gives me an opportunity, without
appearing obtrusive, of explaining a part of a former publication of
mine, which appears to me to have been misunderstood by many.
In the former publication alluded to, I stated, in substance, that
Mr. Talbott got a deed from a son of Gen. Adams's for the purpose of
correcting a mistake that had occurred on the record of the said deed
in the recorder's office; that he corrected the record, and brought the
deed and handed it to me, and that on opening the deed, another paper,
being the assignment of a judgment, fell out of it. This statement
Gen. Adams and the editor of the Republican have seized upon as a most
palpable evidence of fabrication and falsehood. They set themselves
gravely about proving that the assignment could not have been in the
deed when Talbott got it from young Adams, as he, Talbott, would have
seen it when he opened the deed to correct the record. Now, the truth
is, Talbott did see the assignment when he opened the deed, or at least
he told me he did on the same day; and I only omitted to say so, in
my former publication, because it was a matter of such palpable and
necessary inference. I had stated that Talbott had corrected the record
by the deed; and of course he must have opened it; and, just as the
General and his friends argue, must have seen the assignment. I omitted
to state the fact of Talbott's seeing the assignment, because its
existence was so necessarily connected with other facts which I did
state, that I thought the greatest dunce could not but understand
it. Did I say Talbott had not seen it? Did I say anything that was
inconsistent with his having seen it before? Most certainly I did
neither; and if I did not, what becomes of the argument? These logical
gentlemen can sustain their argument only by assuming that I did say
negatively everything that I did not say affirmatively; and upon the
same assumption, we may expect to find the General, if a little harder
pressed for argument, saying that I said Talbott came to our office with
his head downward, not that I actually said so, but because I omitted to
say he came feet downward.
In his publication to-day, the General produces the affidavit of Reuben
Radford, in which it is said that Talbott told Radford that he did not
find the assignment in the deed, in the recording of which the error
was committed, but that he found it wrapped in another paper in the
recorder's office, upon which statement the Genl. comments as follows,
to wit: "If it be true as stated by Talbott to Radford, that he
found the assignment wrapped up in another paper at his office, that
contradicts the statement of Lincoln that it fell out of the deed."
Is common sense to be abused with such sophistry? Did I say what Talbott
found it in? If Talbott did find it in another paper at his office, is
that any reason why he could not have folded it in a deed and brought
it to my office? Can any one be so far duped as to be made believe that
what may have happened at Talbot's office at one time is inconsistent
with what happened at my office at another time?
Now Talbott's statement of the case as he makes it to me is this, that
he got a bunch of deeds from young Adams, and that he knows he found the
assignment in the bunch, but he is not certain which particular deed it
was in, nor is he certain whether it was folded in the same deed out of
which it was taken, or another one, when it was brought to my office. Is
this a mysterious story? Is there anything suspicious about it?
"But it is useless to dwell longer on this point. Any man who is not
wilfully blind can see at a flash, that there is no discrepancy, and
Lincoln has shown that they are not only inconsistent with truth, but
each other"--I can only say, that I have shown that he has done no such
thing; and if the reader is disposed to require any other evidence than
the General's assertion, he will be of my opinion.
Excepting the General's most flimsy attempt at mystification, in regard
to a discrepance between Talbott and myself, he has not denied a single
statement that I made in my hand-bill. Every material statement that
I made has been sworn to by men who, in former times, were thought as
respectable as General Adams. I stated that an assignment of a judgment,
a copy of which I gave, had existed--Benj. Talbott, C. R. Matheny, Wm.
Butler, and Judge Logan swore to its existence. I stated that it was
said to be in Gen. Adams's handwriting--the same men swore it was in
his handwriting. I stated that Talbott would swear that he got it out of
Gen. Adams's possession--Talbott came forward and did swear it.
Bidding adieu to the former publication, I now propose to examine the
General's last gigantic production. I now propose to point out some
discrepancies in the General's address; and such, too, as he shall not
be able to escape from. Speaking of the famous assignment, the General
says: "This last charge, which was their last resort, their dying
effort to render my character infamous among my fellow citizens, was
manufactured at a certain lawyer's office in the town, printed at the
office of the Sangamon Journal, and found its way into the world some
time between two days just before the last election." Now turn to Mr.
Keys' affidavit, in which you will find the following, viz.: "I
certify that some time in May or the early part of June, 1837, I saw
at Williams's corner a paper purporting to be an assignment from Joseph
Anderson to James Adams, which assignment was signed by a mark to
Anderson's name," etc. Now mark, if Keys saw the assignment on the last
of May or first of June, Gen. Adams tells a falsehood when he says
it was manufactured just before the election, which was on the 7th of
August; and if it was manufactured just before the election, Keys tells
a falsehood when he says he saw it on the last of May or first of
June. Either Keys or the General is irretrievably in for it; and in the
General's very condescending language, I say "Let them settle it between
them."
Now again, let the reader, bearing in mind that General Adams has
unequivocally said, in one part of his address, that the charge in
relation to the assignment was manufactured just before the election,
turn to the affidavit of Peter S. Weber, where the following will be
found viz.: "I, Peter S. Weber, do certify that from the best of
my recollection, on the day or day after Gen. Adams started for the
Illinois Rapids, in May last, that I was at the house of Gen. Adams,
sitting in the kitchen, situated on the back part of the house, it being
in the afternoon, and that Benjamin Talbott came around the house, back
into the kitchen, and appeared wild and confused, and that he laid a
package of papers on the kitchen table and requested that they should be
handed to Lucian. He made no apology for coming to the kitchen, nor
for not handing them to Lucian himself, but showed the token of being
frightened and confused both in demeanor and speech and for what cause I
could not apprehend."
Commenting on Weber's affidavit, Gen. Adams asks, "Why this fright and
confusion?" I reply that this is a question for the General himself.
Weber says that it was in May, and if so, it is most clear that Talbott
was not frightened on account of the assignment, unless the General
lies when he says the assignment charge was manufactured just before the
election. Is it not a strong evidence, that the General is not traveling
with the pole-star of truth in his front, to see him in one part of
his address roundly asserting that the assignment was manufactured
just before the election, and then, forgetting that position, procuring
Weber's most foolish affidavit, to prove that Talbott had been engaged
in manufacturing it two months before?
In another part of his address, Gen. Adams says: "That I hold an
assignment of said judgment, dated the 20th of May, 1828, and signed
by said Anderson, I have never pretended to deny or conceal, but stated
that fact in one of my circulars previous to the election, and also
in answer to a bill in chancery." Now I pronounce this statement
unqualifiedly false, and shall not rely on the word or oath of any
man to sustain me in what I say; but will let the whole be decided by
reference to the circular and answer in chancery of which the General
speaks. In his circular he did speak of an assignment; but he did not
say it bore date 20th of May, 1828; nor did he say it bore any date. In
his answer in chancery, he did say that he had an assignment; but he
did not say that it bore date the 20th May, 1828; but so far from it, he
said on oath (for he swore to the answer) that as well as recollected,
he obtained it in 1827. If any one doubts, let him examine the circular
and answer for himself. They are both accessible.
It will readily be observed that the principal part of Adams's defense
rests upon the argument that if he had been base enough to forge an
assignment he would not have been fool enough to forge one that would
not cover the case. This argument he used in his circular before the
election. The Republican has used it at least once, since then; and
Adams uses it again in his publication of to-day. Now I pledge myself to
show that he is just such a fool that he and his friends have contended
it was impossible for him to be. Recollect--he says he has a genuine
assignment; and that he got Joseph Klein's affidavit, stating that he
had seen it, and that he believed the signature to have been executed
by the same hand that signed Anderson's name to the answer in chancery.
Luckily Klein took a copy of this genuine assignment, which I have been
permitted to see; and hence I know it does not cover the case. In the
first place it is headed "Joseph Anderson vs. Joseph Miller," and heads
off "Judgment in Sangamon Circuit Court." Now, mark, there never was
a case in Sangamon Circuit Court entitled Joseph Anderson vs. Joseph
Miller. The case mentioned in my former publication, and the only
one between these parties that ever existed in the Circuit Court, was
entitled Joseph Miller vs. Joseph Anderson, Miller being the plaintiff.
What then becomes of all their sophistry about Adams not being fool
enough to forge an assignment that would not cover the case? It is
certain that the present one does not cover the case; and if he got
it honestly, it is still clear that he was fool enough to pay for an
assignment that does not cover the case.
The General asks for the proof of disinterested witnesses. Whom does he
consider disinterested? None can be more so than those who have already
testified against him. No one of them had the least interest on earth,
so far as I can learn, to injure him. True, he says they had conspired
against him; but if the testimony of an angel from Heaven were
introduced against him, he would make the same charge of conspiracy.
And now I put the question to every reflecting man, Do you believe that
Benjamin Talbott, Chas. R. Matheny, William Butler and Stephen T. Logan,
all sustaining high and spotless characters, and justly proud of them,
would deliberately perjure themselves, without any motive whatever,
except to injure a man's election; and that, too, a man who had been a
candidate, time out of mind, and yet who had never been elected to any
office?