Facts are said to be the building blocks of history. For those living in an age where virtually everyone leaves a paper trail through government agencies, public schools, and local newspapers, documentation of the rudimentary facts of life is taken for granted, and the challenge of reconstructing the past is presumed to lie principally, if not exclusively, in the selection and interpretation of factual evidence. But for Abraham Lincoln’s early life, documentary records and verifiable facts are difficult to come by, and the serious student is forced to come to terms with something more challenging and mercurial: the personal testimony and recollections of those who knew him. The present work brings to publication the richest and most extensive collection of such material.

How this collection came into being, what it contains, and why it is only now being published in a scholarly edition is a complicated story that began soon after the assassination of President Lincoln in mid-April 1865. It involves the character and career of what has been called "one of the first extensive oral history projects in American history," an effort which began as part of an attempt to write a more personal and revealing kind of biography but which succeeded in raising a cloud of controversy that has never receded. The motives of the persons involved, the competence of the witnesses, and the reliability of the testimony are issues that still swirl in the winds of debate. There is no disagreement, however, that at the center of the story—and the controversy—stands William H. Herndon.

Within a few weeks of the assassination of President Lincoln in April 1865, Herndon conceived the idea to write something about his old friend. The two men had been closely associated as partners in the Springfield firm of Lincoln and Herndon since 1843 and had known each other for several years before that. When Herndon tried out his literary aspirations on certain knowledgeable friends, they encouraged him to capitalize on his intimate personal knowledge of Lincoln’s career. But Herndon seems to have decided very early that what he wanted to offer to the world was something other than a memoir. On May 26 he wrote to the prospective biographer Josiah G. Holland: "When you were in my office I casually


informed you that it was my intention to write & publish the subjective Mr Lincoln — ‘The inner life’ of Mr L." What he meant by this Herndon went on to explain in his inimitable style: "I am writing Mr L’s life — a short little thing — giving him in his passions — appetites — & affections — perceptions — memories — judgements — understanding — will, acting under & by motions, just as he lived, breathed — ate & laughed in this world, clothed in flesh & sinew — bone

& nerve."

This sounds ambitious, if not grandly presumptuous, but Herndon thought his close association with the fallen president in the practice of law had given him an opportunity to observe Lincoln’s mind and personality that was afforded no one else. Nor was he alone in his thinking, for his correspondents frequently pointed this out. What may have been the first letter he received on the subject of his proposed biography began: "I am glad you design giving us something about Lincoln. Your long acquaintance and close association with him must have given you a clearer insight into his character than other men obtained." The remark of a lawyer and congressman from Menard County, and the son of one of Lincoln’s former New Salem neighbors, is fairly typical: "Your long association with Mr Lincoln in business — in the same office, your knowledge of his opinions expressed on the various subjects political religious social &c which came up in his daily conversation with you during that time & your personal acquaintance with his early associates enables you above all others to give a true & faithful story of his life."

But Herndon was apparently not content to retail his own impressions where Lincoln’s early life was concerned. He seems to have had a passion for getting at what he called "the facts," which is presumably what led him to embark at once upon a series of inquiries, not just in Illinois, but in Kentucky, where Lincoln had been born, and southwestern Indiana, where he grew up. When Herndon set out at the end of May on his first fact-finding trip to Menard County, his announced object was to search "for the facts & truths of Lincoln’s life — not fictions — not fables — not floating rumors, but facts — solid facts & well attested truths."

It is distinctly ironic that many of the "facts" that Herndon found so "solid" and "well attested" would one day be regarded as the "fictions" and "fables" he was trying to supplant, for Herndon was already reacting to the public’s growing tendency to mythologize his former partner. He began purposefully and energetically to compile information for an account that would expose to the world not a sainted martyr but the real man. The excited letter he wrote to Holland upon his return suggests that he was unprepared for what he had found: "I have ‘been down’ to Menard County where Mr L first landed and where he first made his home in old Sangamon. . . . From such an investigation — from records — from friends — old deeds & surveys &c &c I am satisfied, in Connection with my own Knowl-edg of Mr L. for 30 years, that Mr Ls whole Early life remains to be written."


Herndon’s astonishment was undoubtedly genuine. He thought he had known his law partner well, so well that he was prepared to write his subjective, inner life. And since he also knew personally many of the Menard County residents he had interviewed, he was apparently amazed to discover from their stories of Lincoln in New Salem that he had actually known very little about his great partner’s formative years. This seems to have intensified his zeal for discovery, for he proceeded to generate a whirlwind of investigative activity. In the early summer of 1865, he sent out scores of letters to people who had known Lincoln, he interviewed knowledgeable friends and associates who were closer at hand, and he systematically established contacts for the purpose of gathering information in far-off places such as Kentucky, Indiana, and even Virginia. Within a few months, in addition to his prolific correspondence and local interviewing in the Springfield area, Herndon had traveled to Chicago to interview Lincoln’s cousins, John and Dennis Hanks; to Coles County, Illinois, to interview Lincoln’s stepmother and other relatives; and to southwest Indiana, where he interviewed many of Lincoln’s boyhood friends and neighbors.

Neglecting his law practice and other responsibilities, Herndon kept up this strenuous pace of investigation for nearly two years. When he was unable to go himself, he sent others to secure testimony. T o help track down witnesses and check out leads in Menard County, his most productive venue, he enlisted the aid of his father-in-law, G. U. Miles. In one letter Herndon wrote: "It is said in one of Mr Lincolns biographies that he attended a debating society in New Salem? Was there such a society & did Lincoln ever speak in it? Get all the facts & write to me. It is said that Mr Lincoln when elected to the Legislature in 1834 — 36 — & 1838 walked to Vandalia afoot? Is this true? Get all the facts — See Carman — Bails and oth-ers." Miles performed many such errands, though he apparently had reservations about Herndon’s prying so deeply into private matters. Reporting on his efforts in Herndon’s behalf in the investigation of Lincoln’s love affair with Ann Rutledge, Miles wrote: "the above statements I think you may rely on but if you Should undertake to write a history of my life after I am dead I dont want you to inquire So close into my Early courtships as you do of Mr Lincolns."

The more Herndon corresponded and interviewed, the more surprising things he learned; and the more he learned, the more he became convinced that he had uncovered important information about Lincoln’s early life that bore significantly on the formation of his character, and thus on his later accomplishments. If what his informants were telling him was true, the man whom a grieving nation was rapidly raising to sainthood had actually been born of doubtful parentage; he had been subject to deep and even tragic disappointments in love; he had been subject to bouts of mental derangement and had been suicidal on more than one occasion; he had been a rank unbeliever in religion and had openly ridiculed the


tenets of Christianity; he had proposed marriage to several women, and after becoming engaged to his future wife, Mary Todd, had fallen in love with someone else; and after a long period of guilt and indecision, he had finally given himself up to a loveless marriage to satisfy his sense of honor.

Nearly all of this was news to Herndon, who soon realized that the picture he was in the process of putting together was scandalously at odds with what other biographers had presented and with what the worshiping public had come to expect. When he tried out some of his findings on the public in November 1866— in a lecture on Lincoln’s tragic courtship of Ann Rutledge—he tactlessly gave offense by urging his own hypothesis that Ann’s untimely death was a principal source of Lincoln’s lifelong melancholy and that Ann herself was the only woman Lincoln had ever loved. When critics and friends alike objected that he was treating subjects that should be left alone, he justified his approach with a doctrine of "necessary truth." It held that private and inappropriate to published biography as certain facts or conditions might ordinarily be considered, they were necessary to the understanding of Lincoln’s character, which in turn was the key to what the man had ultimately accomplished. Defending himself to a friend, Herndon wrote: "All truths are necessary that show, explain, or throw light on Mr. Lincoln’s mind, nature, quality, characteristics, thoughts, acts and deeds, because he [suppressed] the Rebellion . . . and guided the grandest of Revolutions through its grand con-sumation."

Knowing that he had additional revelations to make, even more unwelcome and potentially disruptive than the Ann Rutledge story, gave Herndon serious pause. Especially the ambiguous and inconsistent nature of the testimony he collected about Lincoln’s paternity, from Kentucky informants he did not know and whom he had never questioned face-to-face, seems to have contributed to his inability to complete a draft of his biography. Herndon knew only too well the traditional fate of the messenger bringing unwelcome news. "Would to God the world Knew what I do," he wrote to his young correspondent Charles H. Hart, "and save me the necessity of being the man to open and Explain all." A short time later he complained to Hart: "Mr Lincoln is hard to get at — ie it will take so much talk — Explanation &c to get him properly before the world, that I almost despair."

Herndon’s plan was to draft his biography in 1867, but with the death of his father in that year and his subsequent inheritance of a substantial farm, Herndon let his biographical project languish. In 1869, under serious financial pressure, he


sold transcriptions of his collected materials, which he referred to as his "Lincoln Record," to Lincoln’s friend Ward Hill Lamon and deferred his biography indefinitely.

Although he continued, in the years that followed, to supply information about Abraham Lincoln to a great variety of correspondents, occasionally being drawn into public controversy, Herndon did not seriously resume his own biographical investigations until the mid-1880s, when he entered into a collaboration with one of his correspondents, Jesse W. Weik. Weik was a native of Greencastle, Indiana, who had boldly written Herndon for a Lincoln autograph in 1875, the year he graduated from college. The two met in 1882 when Weik was assigned to Springfield as a government pension agent, and a friendship developed between the aging law partner of Lincoln and the aspiring young writer, who was an admirer of both. Just before Weik returned to Indiana in 1885, the two men began a collaboration to produce a biography for which Herndon would supply most of the documentation and opinion and Weik would do most of the writing.

Herndon began sending Weik a torrent of letters in late 1885, putting down on an almost daily basis incidents and anecdotes about Lincoln as they came to mind. To fill out his picture and clarify some issues, he went back to interviewing some of his old informants and located some new ones as well. Weik also conducted interviews and corresponded with people who had known Lincoln, even traveling to Kentucky for this purpose, something Herndon had never managed to do. From the surviving originals of the letters and interviews Herndon had assembled in the 1860s (some had been lost), from dozens of additional letters and draft material on Lincoln sent by Herndon, and from new letters and interviews, Weik crafted the text of the biography that was published in 1889 as Herndon’s Lincoln: The True Story of a Great Life. Herndon died in 1891, but not before helping to prepare a revised edition of the biography, with new material, that appeared in 1892.

Most of the testimony assembled in this process by Herndon and Weik relates to Lincoln’s life before he became president. They collected accounts of Lincoln’s boyhood in Kentucky, his growing to manhood in Indiana, his six years in and around the village of New Salem, his domestic life in Springfield, his career as a practicing politician and officeholder, and his professional life as a successful circuit and state supreme court lawyer. This testimony came not just from a handful of like-minded people but from more than 250 widely differing informants: political allies and adversaries, fellow lawyers and judges, relatives and in-laws, clients and cronies, women to whom he proposed marriage, longtime comrades and erstwhile friends. As this listing suggests, the information imparted is not confined to political and public affairs but relates to the whole spectrum of his pre-presi-dential life and character.


The importance of these documents is beyond dispute. Though many biographers wrote about Abraham Lincoln before and in the years immediately following his death, none carried their investigations to the lengths that Herndon did. Indeed, Albert J. Beveridge wrote that he could not recall "another case in history where, immediately after the death of a great personage, the facts of his personal life were collected so carefully, thoroughly and impartially by a lifelong friend and intimate professional associate, as the facts about Lincoln were gathered by William H. Herndon." Even Herndon’s biographer, David Donald, who had serious reservations about the testimony Herndon collected, acknowledged its special value: "It is doubtful whether any other biographer of his day had equal opportunities to gather these invaluable reminiscences; certainly no one else collected anything of comparable significance. Without the statements of Dennis Hanks, Mrs. Thomas Lincoln, David Davis, Joseph Gillespie, James Gurley, and a score of others—all given at Herndon’s urgent solicitation—our knowledge of Lincoln would be incomparably poorer."

From the time it was first assembled, Herndon’s informant archive has been recognized as valuable. Ward Hill Lamon contracted with Herndon in 1869 to pay $4,000 for the transcriptions made by John G. Springer. These materials, which were used as the basis for Lamon’s ghostwritten life of Lincoln, published in 1872, are now part of the extensive Lincoln holdings in the Huntington Library in San Marino, California, and consist of transcriptions of virtually everything Herndon had collected up to the end of November 1866. The letters, interviews, and statements on Lincoln obtained from people who knew him constitute the heart of the archive, but what is not usually recognized is that the collection contains much more. Working in Herndon’s office during the fall of 1866, Springer transcribed the welter of material that Herndon had amassed, including census data, population figures, resolutions in the legislature, reports on banks and internal improvements, information on early newspapers, court records, and legal documents. From old newspapers Herndon had Springer copy into his "Lincoln Record" articles and editorials, texts of Lincoln’s early speeches, accounts of legislative sessions, articles relating to Lincoln’s near duel with James Shields, items on his political activities and his debates with Stephen A. Douglas, and reports of his nomination for the presidency. The transcription of a speech Lincoln made in January 1841 resulted in the preservation of a primary source that would otherwise have been lost, since all issues of the newspaper from which Springer copied it have disappeared.

The Springer transcriptions are eloquent testimony to the diligence and magnitude of Herndon’s labors, and, though copies, they are useful in many ways to


the student of Lincoln’s life. For one thing, they are legible, which many of the originals are not. Having been copied in Herndon’s office under his supervision, they have considerable authority, as well as great utility, when it comes to deciphering the many passages in the originals that are difficult to read. Another consideration is that a substantial number of originals are no longer to be found. Herndon gives part of the reason when he reports that some were lost in an office fire, some were brazenly stolen by people he allowed to examine them, and some, when stored at his farm, were eaten by mice. Other originals Herndon agreed to return to their owners, such as the detailed records provided him by Allan Pinker-ton, soon after to be destroyed in the Great Chicago Fire, relating the discovery and circumvention of the Baltimore plot on President-elect Lincoln’s life in February 1861. For such material and for originals that escaped the collection after November 1866, the Springer transcriptions at the Huntington Library represent the only known manuscript version still extant.

After Herndon’s death, his collection of Lincoln documents became the property of his collaborator, Jesse W. Weik, who drew on them for his own biographical study, The Real Lincoln, published in 1922. Though Weik permitted a few trusted researchers to consult Herndon’s materials—Horace White, for his life of Lyman Trumbull, and Joseph Fort Newton, for his book Lincoln and Herndon, to name two—he allowed them little exposure and resisted all attempts by others to purchase them. After The Real Lincoln was published, Weik conferred the ultimate privilege on his old friend, Albert J. Beveridge, by allowing him not only to take possession of the documents but to photostat and transcribe them at will. Beveridge’s access to the testimony of Herndon’s informants and the careful and detailed use he made of them are the principal reasons his biography, though unfinished and written nearly seventy years ago, remains the most thorough and authoritative treatment of Lincoln’s pre-presidential life.

Many other students of Lincoln were eager to examine Herndon’s Lincoln archive during Weik’s lifetime, but none of the notable Lincoln biographers of the time, such as Ida M. Tarbell, William E. Barton, or Carl Sandburg, was granted access. When Weik died in 1929, the bulk of the collection was bought by a combine of dealers as a speculation, and after changing hands and remaining on the market for a number of years, the documents were acquired by the Library of Congress in 1941. Sorted and arranged and committed to microfilm in the 1940s, the preponderance of Herndon’s informant testimony at long last became available to Lincoln scholars and the public at large.


But the microfilm availability of this material has not been a satisfactory solution to the problem of access. When the microfilming of historical documents first came into general use in the 1930s, the historian Julian P. Boyd published an essay declaring that the need for printed editions of such material was henceforth at an end, that the availability of the document itself on microfilm would remove all future need for printed editions. But, as he admitted later, he had badly miscalculated the situation, and within a few years of making this prediction, he himself became the principal editor of the most ambitious of all documentary editions, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson.

The Herndon-Weik Collection at the Library of Congress shows the value of documentary editions. For one thing, these handwritten documents are sometimes very hard to locate on the microfilm, the effort often necessitating the scanning of hundreds of documents to locate one. And once located, the documents are frequently very hard to read. The omnipresent hand of Herndon himself, especially when employed in taking down a statement at white heat, can be stubbornly illegible, so that someone unfamiliar with Herndon’s hand might spend hours deciphering a single document and still not be sure that the text thus retrieved is accurate. A further difficulty is the uneven visual quality of the microfilm, for not all of the images are sufficiently in focus to be read with confidence.

As countless Lincoln researchers have discovered, there are other problems. The card index prepared by the Library of Congress, for example, is limited to names of letter writers or interviewees and is neither entirely accurate nor complete. The chronological arrangement is unreliable and subject to strange, unaccountable lapses. The individual leaves of letters and interviews are sometimes maddeningly out of order, while leaves of other documents have become widely separated and appear as fugitives or fragments. Some letters and interviews that were collected by Herndon have ended up in the part of the collection given over to the personal papers of Weik. All these difficulties plague the use of a collection that sprawls over several long reels of microfilm. And to crown the confusion, the collection itself has been reorganized, so that the researcher who needs to examine the originals soon discovers that they are currently arranged in a somewhat different order from that on the microfilm. Readers of the present edition are therefore warned that the foliation numbers assigned to the documents by the Library of Congress and duly recorded here do not appear in the microfilm currently available, as they were added to the documents after the film was made.

Another barrier to full and effective use of these documents has been the pall of suspicion that was cast over Herndon and his informant testimony even before the material became generally available. Disturbed by the uncertainties that attend reminiscence as historical evidence and by the way such things as the Ann Rut-ledge story had taken on too much importance and "usurped the spotlight," the leading Lincoln scholars of the second quarter of the twentieth century, led by Paul


M. Angle and James G. Randall, forcefully called into question the reliability of both Herndon and the evidence given by his informants. Because Herndon’s evidence is highly subjective and typically was taken down many years after the events in question, nearly all of this testimony, these critics insisted, is sufficiently susceptible to the fallibility of human memory and other contingencies as to be unreliable as historical evidence.

Taking up the critique of Herndon’s efforts, his biographer, David Donald, outlined some of the practical difficulties: " To collect historical data through oral interviews, though sometimes necessary, is always hazardous. The reminiscences of a graybearded grandfather have to be guided or they are likely to become incoherent rambling. Yet in controlling an interview, it is very difficult not to influence the informant. To ask some questions is to suggest the answers desired." These caveats were reinforced by evidence that Herndon did not always write down what was offered to him and that he often had to put down later what he was told. "I did not take down in writing 100th part of what I heard men and women say," Herndon told Weik, "they talked too fast for me, not being a stenographer — Some I conversed with on the roads and other places and had no chance. Things which I did not deem of importance I paid not much attention to, but now I regret it, as I have often wanted the very things that I rejected."

Such considerations seriously dampened confidence in Herndon’s informant testimony for succeeding generations of Lincoln scholars. Some went so far as to regard Herndon as hopelessly biased and unscrupulous in his handling of evidence, but the principal concern was the quality and reliability of testimony so heavily based on memory. Randall’s judgment of the Ann Rutledge testimony in 1945 would prove the prevailing sentiment:

The historian must use reminiscence, but he must do so critically. Even close-up evidence is fallible. When it comes through the mists of many years some of it may be true, but a careful writer will check it with known facts. Contradictory reminiscences leave doubt as to what is to be believed; unsupported memories are in themselves insufficient as proof; statements induced under suggestion, or psychological stimulus, as were some of the stories about Lincoln and Ann, call especially for careful appraisal. . . . When faulty memories are admitted the resulting product becomes something other than history; it is no longer to be presented as a genuine record.

The import for Herndon’s evidence was clear: testimony that cannot be confirmed by known facts and reminiscence that is in conflict with other testimony need not be admitted to the historical record. Such a judgment, as intended, effectively


placed much of what Herndon had collected in historiographical limbo. So successful was this critique among historians and biographers that even though much of what is known about Lincoln’s pre-presidential years comes directly through Herndon, his name as a biographer has been seriously tarnished, and the evidence he assembled has for many decades been widely regarded with suspicion.

While the prejudice against Herndon and his informant testimony still prevails, historians and biographers generally are much more open to the type of evidence he collected, and reminiscence no longer needs an elaborate defense as a historical source. While its liabilities continue to be well understood, its special importance is more widely recognized, so that reminiscence is nowadays considered essential by the most discerning historians and biographers. In the intervening years, oral history has become a respected subdiscipline of the historical profession, with a canon of its own. From the outset, its practitioners have been careful to identify the unique character of memory when used as an adjunct to traditional sources. Oral history has been hailed from its beginnings as an enterprise that has empowered the subliterate or the underdocumented by providing them a historical voice. Professional practioners are well apprised of informants’ frequent tendency to confuse events chronologically, or to telescope them, and of the need to seek corroboration from a number of oral accounts of the same event. Though they acknowledge the vagaries of memory and emphasize the need to develop interrogation techniques that will ensure the fullest and most accurate interviews possible, oral historians have succeeded in demonstrating the value of reminiscence as an important historical source.

There are, in fact, many indications in the material presented in this edition and elsewhere that Herndon himself was far from naďve about reminiscence or its pitfalls. As the readers of this work will soon discover, he frequently questioned his informants on what he heard from others, checked up on conflicting accounts, and with certain informants made a point of revisiting their testimony. After selling copies of his "Lincoln Record" to Ward Hill Lamon, he counseled: "Human memory is uncertain and it is possible that somewhat of my ideas and opinions is made up of rumor and rumor alone. I state this to you to put you on your


guard as to what I say, and what all men say. Much of the matter is ten years old, and watch all men, weigh well what is said, search for opportunities, casts of mind, education, and veracities. Follow no man simply because he says so and so. Follow your records, sharply criticizing as you go."

As this passage suggests, Herndon knew from his own experience how memories can fade and become elusive. When his biography was finally in proofs, for example, he developed a concern about his own first glimpse of Abraham Lincoln and wrote to his collaborator: "Be sure that Lincoln Came all the way up to Bogue’s Mill. It seems to me that he did and that, I at that time, saw Lincoln, but be sure that I am right. The records [i.e., his letters and interviews, then in Weik’s possession] will fix it — it has now been 56 years since I saw what now Seems to be the truth to me. Try and get me right. If L Came up to Bogues mill I saw Lincoln & if he did not then I did not see him at Bogues mill." While this dramatizes the precarious qualities of memory, it also demonstrates that Herndon was, to the last, deeply concerned about historical accuracy and more than willing, if the evidence warranted, to have his own memory corrected.

The letters, interviews, and statements included in this edition all relate to William H. Herndon’s biographical project, but they are limited, with few exceptions, to those that purport to provide information or informed opinion about Abraham Lincoln. The great majority of these documents were received or taken down by Herndon himself, but his own personal recollections of Lincoln are outside the scope of this work. A respectable number of documents containing informant testimony resulted from the work of his collaborator, Jesse W. Weik. Weik continued his Lincoln inquiries after completion of the collaborative biography, but letters and interviews that he collected are restricted in this work to those acquired in the service of Herndon’s overall project, which began in 1865 and ended with publication of the revised edition of their biography in 1892. The materials on Lincoln collected by Weik after that date for other projects are therefore not included. Correspondents who merely supplied copies of Lincoln’s letters are ignored. These selection criteria effectively exclude from the present work a very substantial portion of Herndon’s and Weik’s papers, so that students interested in the progress and details of Herndon’s biographical project, in Herndon’s own writing on Lincoln, or in the material on Lincoln that Weik acquired after the appearance of the revised edition will need to supplement this edition with a wider array of documents.

Readers of the material presented here will readily perceive that the pertinence and quality of the testimony offered by Herndon’s informants vary widely. Not surprisingly, witnesses are often demonstrably wrong in their recollections of fact. Particularly in such unforgiving matters as dates, informants are often in error (though perhaps a more remarkable circumstance is how often they are right). It


is precisely this known degree of error, together with the notoriously treacherous character of human memory, that makes the assessment and evaluation of such evidence so problematic. Some, but by no means all, of the errors of fact have been noted by the editors. While it is widely agreed among historians and biographers of Lincoln that Herndon’s materials must be used carefully and selectively, no clear consensus has emerged on the criteria that should be employed. Don E. Fehren-bacher, a noted Lincoln scholar who has dealt critically with one aspect of this problem—"judging the authenticity of recollected utterances"—has concluded that "there is no simple formula" in such matters and that "every recollection of spoken words is a separate problem in historical method."

The editors’ aim has not been to pass judgment on the merits of the evidence but rather to put the students of Lincoln’s life into possession of the documents and, where possible, to provide information needed for better understanding and evaluating their content. In addition to annotating certain matters in the text that seem to call for explanation or comment, the editors have attempted to provide, to the extent that it could be located, pertinent biographical information for each informant. This information is in the "Register of Informants" that follows the documents. While the biographical data is often of necessity quite meager, it is offered to aid the reader in gauging the informant’s relationship to Lincoln and to the people and events reported on. It goes without saying that, in many instances, much more information is needed to accurately judge the character of the testimony.

In his second lecture on discoveries and inventions, Abraham Lincoln observed that the invention of writing made possible the preservation of information and ideas whose value or usefulness, even if not fully understood at the time, might thereby be realized and exploited by others far into the future. The invention of printing, Lincoln went on to note, vastly extended this benefit to society, for "consequently a thousand minds were brought into the field where there was but one before." Lincoln’s insight helps to illustrate the basic purpose and potential value of printing Herndon’s informant testimony. Well known and familiar as some of it is, there is much that is unfamiliar or known only through excerpts and inaccurate texts. Making it all available in printed form should dramatically expand its audience, and this, by Lincoln’s formula, should make for a wider exposure to whatever clues and indications it might contain for future enhancements of our knowledge and understanding of Abraham Lincoln.



1. Charles B. Strozier, Lincoln’s Quest for Union: Public and Private Meanings (New York: Basic Books, 1981), xvi.

2. See the letters of John L. Scripps (§1) and Horace White (§32).

3. WHH to Josiah G. Holland, May 26, 1865, Holland Papers, NYPL.

4. John L. Scripps to WHH, May 9, 1865 (§1).

5. T. W. McNeely to WHH, Nov. 28, 1866 (§313).

6. WHH to Josiah G. Holland, June 8, 1865, Holland Papers, NYPL.

7. Ibid.

8. See, for example, the testimony solicited by John Miles (§3), Erastus Wright (§16), and J. W. Wart-mann (§62).

9. WHH to G. U. Miles, Dec. 1, 1865, HW.

10. G. U. Miles to WHH, Mar. 23, 1866 (§178).

11. Herndon’s lecture, "ABRAHAM LINCOLN. MISS ANN RUTLEDGE. NEW SALEM. PIONEERING AND THE POEM" was delivered on November 16, 1866, and distributed as a broadside. It has been reprinted in William H. Herndon, Lincoln and Ann Rutledge and the Pioneers of New Salem (Herrin, Ill.: Trovillion Private Press, 1945).

12. WHH to Isaac N. Arnold, Nov. 20, 1866, in Hertz, 38 — 39. For a fuller treatment of Herndon’s doctrine of "necessary truth," see Wilson, 37 — 52.

13. See Wilson, 40 — 41, 46 — 47.

14. WHH to Charles H. Hart, Dec. 12, 1866, Lamon Papers, HL.

15. WHH to Charles H. Hart, Dec. 28, 1866, Lamon Papers, HL.

16. See Donald, 250 — 53.

17. The story of the Herndon-Weik collaboration is told in detail in ibid., 296 — 321.

18. Albert J. Beveridge, "Lincoln as His Partner Knew Him," Literary Digest International Review 1:33 (Sept. 1923), cited in Donald, 193.

19. Donald, 195.

20. Ibid., 252.

21. See CW 1:227 — 28. Had other rare issues of early Illinois newspapers suffered a similar fate, such things as Lincoln’s speech to the Young Men’s Lyceum, his temperance address, his Clay eulogy, and his speech before the Scott Club would still survive in Springer’s transcripts.

22. See the memorandum appended to an interview with James H. Matheny (§472).

23. For Oliver R. Barrett’s unsuccessful attempt at purchase, see Sandburg, 28 — 29; Joseph Fort Newton, Lincoln and Herndon (Cedar Rapids: Torch Press, 1910); Horace White, The Life of Lyman Trumbull (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1913).

24. A portion of Weik’s papers, including some of his Herndon material, ended up in the Illinois State Historical Library.

25. See Julian P. Boyd, "Some Animadversions on Being Struck by Lightning," Daedalus 86 (May 1955): 49 — 56.

26. See Paul M. Angle, "Lincoln’s First Love?" Lincoln Centennial Association Bulletin 9 (Dec. 1, 1927): 1 — 8; J. G. Randall, "Appendix: Sifting the Ann Rutledge Evidence," Lincoln the President: Springfield to Gettysburg, 2 vols. (New York: Dodd, Mead and Co., 1945), 2:321 — 42.

27. Donald, 195.

28. WHH to JWW, Dec. 13, 1888, HW.

29. Randall, "Appendix: Sifting the Ann Rutledge Evidence," 325.

30. See Wilson, 21 — 36.

31. The substance of oral history may be defined as testimony about events and situations that occurred during the lifetime of the informants. See Jan Vansina, Oral Tradition as History (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985), 12.

32. Michael Frisch, A Shared Authority: Essays on the Craft and Meaning of Oral and Public History (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990), xviii — xx; Barbara Allen and Linwood Montell, From Memory to History: Using Oral Sources in Local History Research (Nashville: American Association for State and Local History, 1981), 19 — 22; Cullom Davis, Kathryn Back, and Kay MacLean, Oral History: From Tape to Type (Chicago: American Library Association, 1977), 2 — 3.

33. Allen and Montell, From Memory to History, 26 — 29, 35 — 36, 76 — 77; Vansina, Oral Tradition as Histo-ry, 158 — 59.

34. Ronald Grele, "Can Anyone over Thirty Be Trusted? A Friendly Critique of Oral History," in Envelopes of Sound: The Art of Oral History, ed. Ronald Grele and Studs Terkel (Chicago: Precedent Publishing, 1975), 206; Grele, "Private Memories and Public Presentation: The Art of Oral History," in ibid., 244, 260 — 63.

35. See, for example, WHH’s queries reflected in letters from Dennis F. Hanks: §§143, 160, 161, 165.

36. WHH to Ward Hill Lamon, Mar. 6, 1870, Lamon Papers, HL.

37. WHH to JWW, Nov. 10, 1888, HW.

38. Don E. Fehrenbacher, Lincoln in Text and Context: Collected Essays (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1987), 281.

39. CW 3:362.