The Writings of Abraham Lincoln, Complete

A >> Abraham Lincoln >> The Writings of Abraham Lincoln, Complete


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?

Adams's assurance, in demanding disinterested testimony, is surpassing.
He brings in the affidavit of his own son, and even of Peter S. Weber,
with whom I am not acquainted, but who, I suppose, is some black or
mulatto boy, from his being kept in the kitchen, to prove his points; but
when such a man as Talbott, a man who, but two years ago, ran against
Gen. Adams for the office of Recorder and beat him more than four votes
to one, is introduced against him, he asks the community, with all the
consequence of a lord, to reject his testimony.

I might easily write a volume, pointing out inconsistencies between the
statements in Adams's last address with one another, and with other known
facts; but I am aware the reader must already be tired with the length of
this article. His opening statements, that he was first accused of being
a Tory, and that he refuted that; that then the Sampson's ghost story was
got up, and he refuted that; that as a last resort, a dying effort, the
assignment charge was got up is all as false as hell, as all this
community must know. Sampson's ghost first made its appearance in print,
and that, too, after Keys swears he saw the assignment, as any one may
see by reference to the files of papers; and Gen. Adams himself, in reply
to the Sampson's ghost story, was the first man that raised the cry of
toryism, and it was only by way of set-off, and never in seriousness,
that it was bandied back at him. His effort is to make the impression
that his enemies first made the charge of toryism and he drove them from
that, then Sampson's ghost, he drove them from that, then finally the
assignment charge was manufactured just before election. Now, the only
general reply he ever made to the Sampson's ghost and tory charges he
made at one and the same time, and not in succession as he states; and
the date of that reply will show, that it was made at least a month after
the date on which Keys swears he saw the Anderson assignment. But
enough. In conclusion I will only say that I have a character to defend
as well as Gen. Adams, but I disdain to whine about it as he does. It is
true I have no children nor kitchen boys; and if I had, I should scorn to
lug them in to make affidavits for me.

A. LINCOLN, September 6, 1837.




Gen. ADAMS CONTROVERSY--CONTINUED

TO THE PUBLIC.

"SANGAMON JOURNAL," Springfield, Ill, Oct.28, 1837.

Such is the turn which things have taken lately, that when Gen. Adams
writes a book, I am expected to write a commentary on it. In the
Republican of this morning he has presented the world with a new work of
six columns in length; in consequence of which I must beg the room of one
column in the Journal. It is obvious that a minute reply cannot be made
in one column to everything that can be said in six; and, consequently, I
hope that expectation will be answered if I reply to such parts of the
General's publication as are worth replying to.

It may not be improper to remind the reader that in his publication of
Sept. 6th General Adams said that the assignment charge was manufactured
just before the election; and that in reply I proved that statement to be
false by Keys, his own witness. Now, without attempting to explain, he
furnishes me with another witness (Tinsley) by which the same thing is
proved, to wit, that the assignment was not manufactured just before the
election; but that it was some weeks before. Let it be borne in mind
that Adams made this statement--has himself furnished two witnesses to
prove its falsehood, and does not attempt to deny or explain it. Before
going farther, let a pin be stuck here, labeled "One lie proved and
confessed." On the 6th of September he said he had before stated in the
hand-bill that he held an assignment dated May 20th, 1828, which in reply
I pronounced to be false, and referred to the hand-bill for the truth of
what I said. This week he forgets to make any explanation of this. Let
another pin be stuck here, labelled as before. I mention these things
because, if, when I convict him in one falsehood, he is permitted to
shift his ground and pass it by in silence, there can be no end to this
controversy.

The first thing that attracts my attention in the General's present
production is the information he is pleased to give to "those who are
made to suffer at his (my) hands."

Under present circumstances, this cannot apply to me, for I am not a
widow nor an orphan: nor have I a wife or children who might by
possibility become such. Such, however, I have no doubt, have been, and
will again be made to suffer at his hands! Hands! Yes, they are the
mischievous agents. The next thing I shall notice is his favorite
expression, "not of lawyers, doctors and others," which he is so fond of
applying to all who dare expose his rascality. Now, let it be remembered
that when he first came to this country he attempted to impose himself
upon the community as a lawyer, and actually carried the attempt so far
as to induce a man who was under a charge of murder to entrust the
defence of his life in his hands, and finally took his money and got him
hanged. Is this the man that is to raise a breeze in his favor by
abusing lawyers? If he is not himself a lawyer, it is for the lack of
sense, and not of inclination. If he is not a lawyer, he is a liar, for
he proclaimed himself a lawyer, and got a man hanged by depending on him.

Passing over such parts of the article as have neither fact nor argument
in them, I come to the question asked by Adams whether any person ever
saw the assignment in his possession. This is an insult to common sense.
Talbott has sworn once and repeated time and again, that he got it out of
Adams's possession and returned it into the same possession. Still, as
though he was addressing fools, he has assurance to ask if any person
ever saw it in his possession.

Next I quote a sentence, "Now my son Lucian swears that when Talbott
called for the deed, that he, Talbott, opened it and pointed out the
error." True. His son Lucian did swear as he says; and in doing so, he
swore what I will prove by his own affidavit to be a falsehood. Turn to
Lucian's affidavit, and you will there see that Talbott called for the
deed by which to correct an error on the record. Thus it appears that
the error in question was on the record, and not in the deed. How then
could Talbott open the deed and point out the error? Where a thing is
not, it cannot be pointed out. The error was not in the deed, and of
course could not be pointed out there. This does not merely prove that
the error could not be pointed out, as Lucian swore it was; but it
proves, too, that the deed was not opened in his presence with a special
view to the error, for if it had been, he could not have failed to see
that there was no error in it. It is easy enough to see why Lucian swore
this. His object was to prove that the assignment was not in the deed
when Talbott got it: but it was discovered he could not swear this
safely, without first swearing the deed was opened--and if he swore it
was opened, he must show a motive for opening it, and the conclusion with
him and his father was that the pointing out the error would appear the
most plausible.

For the purpose of showing that the assignment was not in the bundle when
Talbott got it, is the story introduced into Lucian's affidavit that the
deeds were counted. It is a remarkable fact, and one that should stand
as a warning to all liars and fabricators, that in this short affidavit
of Lucian's he only attempted to depart from the truth, so far as I have
the means of knowing, in two points, to wit, in the opening the deed and
pointing out the error and the counting of the deeds,--and in both of
these he caught himself. About the counting, he caught himself
thus--after saying the bundle contained five deeds and a lease, he
proceeds, "and I saw no other papers than the said deed and lease."
First he has six papers, and then he saw none but two; for "my son
Lucian's" benefit, let a pin be stuck here.

Adams again adduces the argument, that he could not have forged the
assignment, for the reason that he could have had no motive for it. With
those that know the facts there is no absence of motive. Admitting the
paper which he has filed in the suit to be genuine, it is clear that it
cannot answer the purpose for which he designs it. Hence his motive for
making one that he supposed would answer is obvious. His making the date
too old is also easily enough accounted for. The records were not in his
hands, and then, there being some considerable talk upon this particular
subject, he knew he could not examine the records to ascertain the
precise dates without subjecting himself to suspicion; and hence he
concluded to try it by guess, and, as it turned out, missed it a little.
About Miller's deposition I have a word to say. In the first place,
Miller's answer to the first question shows upon its face that he had
been tampered with, and the answer dictated to him. He was asked if he
knew Joel Wright and James Adams; and above three-fourths of his answer
consists of what he knew about Joseph Anderson, a man about whom nothing
had been asked, nor a word said in the question--a fact that can only be
accounted for upon the supposition that Adams had secretly told him what
he wished him to swear to.

Another of Miller's answers I will prove both by common sense and the
Court of Record is untrue. To one question he answers, "Anderson brought
a suit against me before James Adams, then an acting justice of the peace
in Sangamon County, before whom he obtained a judgment.

"Q.--Did you remove the same by injunction to the Sangamon Circuit Court?
Ans.--I did remove it."

Now mark--it is said he removed it by injunction. The word "injunction"
in common language imports a command that some person or thing shall not
move or be removed; in law it has the same meaning. An injunction
issuing out of chancery to a justice of the peace is a command to him to
stop all proceedings in a named case until further orders. It is not an
order to remove but to stop or stay something that is already moving.
Besides this, the records of the Sangamon Circuit Court show that the
judgment of which Miller swore was never removed into said Court by
injunction or otherwise.

I have now to take notice of a part of Adams's address which in the order
of time should have been noticed before. It is in these words: "I have
now shown, in the opinion of two competent judges, that the handwriting
of the forged assignment differed from mine, and by one of them that it
could not be mistaken for mine." That is false. Tinsley no doubt is the
judge referred to; and by reference to his certificate it will be seen
that he did not say the handwriting of the assignment could not be
mistaken for Adams's--nor did he use any other expression substantially,
or anything near substantially, the same. But if Tinsley had said the
handwriting could not be mistaken for Adams's, it would have been equally
unfortunate for Adams: for it then would have contradicted Keys, who
says, "I looked at the writing and judged it the said Adams's or a good
imitation."

Adams speaks with much apparent confidence of his success on attending
lawsuits, and the ultimate maintenance of his title to the land in
question. Without wishing to disturb the pleasure of his dream, I would
say to him that it is not impossible that he may yet be taught to sing a
different song in relation to the matter.

At the end of Miller's deposition, Adams asks, "Will Mr. Lincoln now say
that he is almost convinced my title to this ten acre tract of land is
founded in fraud?" I answer, I will not. I will now change the
phraseology so as to make it run--I am quite convinced, &c. I cannot
pass in silence Adams's assertion that he has proved that the forged
assignment was not in the deed when it came from his house by Talbott,
the recorder. In this, although Talbott has sworn that the assignment
was in the bundle of deeds when it came from his house, Adams has the
unaccountable assurance to say that he has proved the contrary by
Talbott. Let him or his friends attempt to show wherein he proved any
such thing by Talbott.

In his publication of the 6th of September he hinted to Talbott, that he
might be mistaken. In his present, speaking of Talbott and me he says
"They may have been imposed upon." Can any man of the least penetration
fail to see the object of this? After he has stormed and raged till he
hopes and imagines he has got us a little scared he wishes to softly
whisper in our ears, "If you'll quit I will." If he could get us to say
that some unknown, undefined being had slipped the assignment into our
hands without our knowledge, not a doubt remains but that he would
immediately discover that we were the purest men on earth. This is the
ground he evidently wishes us to understand he is willing to compromise
upon. But we ask no such charity at his hands. We are neither mistaken
nor imposed upon. We have made the statements we have because we know
them to be true and we choose to live or die by them.

Esq. Carter, who is Adams's friend, personal and political, will
recollect, that, on the 5th of this month, he (Adams), with a great
affectation of modesty, declared that he would never introduce his own
child as a witness. Notwithstanding this affectation of modesty, he has
in his present publication introduced his child as witness; and as if to
show with how much contempt he could treat his own declaration, he has
had this same Esq. Carter to administer the oath to him. And so
important a witness does he consider him, and so entirely does the whole
of his entire present production depend upon the testimony of his child,
that in it he has mentioned "my son," "my son Lucian," "Lucian, my son,"
and the like expressions no less than fifteen different times. Let it be
remembered here, that I have shown the affidavit of "my darling son
Lucian" to be false by the evidence apparent on its own face; and I now
ask if that affidavit be taken away what foundation will the fabric have
left to stand upon?

General Adams's publications and out-door maneuvering, taken in
connection with the editorial articles of the Republican, are not more
foolish and contradictory than they are ludicrous and amusing. One week
the Republican notifies the public that Gen. Adams is preparing an
instrument that will tear, rend, split, rive, blow up, confound,
overwhelm, annihilate, extinguish, exterminate, burst asunder, and grind
to powder all its slanderers, and particularly Talbott and Lincoln--all
of which is to be done in due time.

Then for two or three weeks all is calm--not a word said. Again the
Republican comes forth with a mere passing remark that "public" opinion
has decided in favor of Gen. Adams, and intimates that he will give
himself no more trouble about the matter. In the meantime Adams himself
is prowling about and, as Burns says of the devil, "For prey, and holes
and corners tryin'," and in one instance goes so far as to take an old
acquaintance of mine several steps from a crowd and, apparently weighed
down with the importance of his business, gravely and solemnly asks him
if "he ever heard Lincoln say he was a deist."

Anon the Republican comes again. "We invite the attention of the public
to General Adams's communication," &c. "The victory is a great one, the
triumph is overwhelming." I really believe the editor of the Illinois
Republican is fool enough to think General Adams leads off--"Authors most
egregiously mistaken &c. Most woefully shall their presumption be
punished," &c. (Lord have mercy on us.) "The hour is yet to come, yea,
nigh at hand--(how long first do you reckon?)--when the Journal and its
junto shall say, I have appeared too early." "Their infamy shall be laid
bare to the public gaze." Suddenly the General appears to relent at the
severity with which he is treating us and he exclaims: "The condemnation
of my enemies is the inevitable result of my own defense." For your
health's sake, dear Gen., do not permit your tenderness of heart to
afflict you so much on our account. For some reason (perhaps because we
are killed so quickly) we shall never be sensible of our suffering.

Farewell, General. I will see you again at court if not before--when
and where we will settle the question whether you or the widow shall have
the land.

A. LINCOLN. October 18, 1837.




1838

TO Mrs. O. H. BROWNING--A FARCE

SPRINGFIELD, April 1, 1838.

DEAR MADAM:--Without apologizing for being egotistical, I shall make the
history of so much of my life as has elapsed since I saw you the subject
of this letter. And, by the way, I now discover that, in order to give a
full and intelligible account of the things I have done and suffered
since I saw you, I shall necessarily have to relate some that happened
before.

It was, then, in the autumn of 1836 that a married lady of my
acquaintance, and who was a great friend of mine, being about to pay a
visit to her father and other relatives residing in Kentucky, proposed to
me that on her return she would bring a sister of hers with her on
condition that I would engage to become her brother-in-law with all
convenient despatch. I, of course, accepted the proposal, for you know I
could not have done otherwise had I really been averse to it; but
privately, between you and me, I was most confoundedly well pleased with
the project. I had seen the said sister some three years before, thought
her intelligent and agreeable, and saw no good objection to plodding life
through hand in hand with her. Time passed on; the lady took her journey
and in due time returned, sister in company, sure enough. This
astonished me a little, for it appeared to me that her coming so readily
showed that she was a trifle too willing, but on reflection it occurred
to me that she might have been prevailed on by her married sister to come
without anything concerning me ever having been mentioned to her, and so
I concluded that if no other objection presented itself, I would consent
to waive this. All this occurred to me on hearing of her arrival in the
neighborhood--for, be it remembered, I had not yet seen her, except about
three years previous, as above mentioned. In a few days we had an
interview, and, although I had seen her before, she did not look as my
imagination had pictured her. I knew she was over-size, but she now
appeared a fair match for Falstaff. I knew she was called an "old maid,"
and I felt no doubt of the truth of at least half of the appellation, but
now, when I beheld her, I could not for my life avoid thinking of my
mother; and this, not from withered features,--for her skin was too full
of fat to permit of its contracting into wrinkles,--but from her want of
teeth, weather-beaten appearance in general, and from a kind of notion
that ran in my head that nothing could have commenced at the size of
infancy and reached her present bulk in less than thirty-five or forty
years; and in short, I was not at all pleased with her. But what could I
do? I had told her sister that I would take her for better or for worse,
and I made a point of honor and conscience in all things to stick to my
word especially if others had been induced to act on it which in this
case I had no doubt they had, for I was now fairly convinced that no
other man on earth would have her, and hence the conclusion that they
were bent on holding me to my bargain.

"Well," thought I, "I have said it, and, be the consequences what they
may, it shall not be my fault if I fail to do it." At once I determined
to consider her my wife; and, this done, all my powers of discovery were
put to work in search of perfections in her which might be fairly set off
against her defects. I tried to imagine her handsome, which, but for her
unfortunate corpulency, was actually true. Exclusive of this no woman
that I have ever seen has a finer face. I also tried to convince myself
that the mind was much more to be valued than the person; and in this she
was not inferior, as I could discover, to any with whom I had been
acquainted.