Mary Lincoln and Jacob Bunn

A complicated relationship.

The cover of Jacob Bunn: Legacy Of An Illinois Industrial Pioneer by Andrew Taylor Call. Available on Amazon.com.

Not long after her arrival in Pau, Mary Lincoln wrote to the “intelligent, accomplished” Baron de Branneker, desiring to enlist his services in a mysterious matter. It is one of the few letters that survives from this period. In it, she spells his name correctly, no doubt because, as she told Myra Bradwell in a letter written the same day, she had just received a calling card from the Brannekers, and it was lying on the table next to her. She wrote a response to their overture:^[i]

“B.on De Branneker

My dear sir:

I wish to see you, to consult you on a little business^[ii] desiring your advice which will not embarrass you, in the least by its responsibility. Therefore may I take the liberty, of requesting you to call on Saturday afternoon, at four & half o’clock (4 1/2) Saton, No 19. Second stage. I shall consider it a favor. Please present, my compliments to Mme La Barronesse Branneker,^[iii] whilst I, remain, most respectfully

Mrs. A. Lincoln”

So, what was this little business? A few days later, she wrote to Springfield banker Jacob Bunn, with whom she had deposited her bonds and authorized to handle her financial matters,[iv] and provided the only hint: “The Pension paper, accompanied by your note, with instructions, have been received. I return the paper to you, signed by the proper authorities. Mr Musgrave Clay, is the Consul, connected with the American Consulate. Le Baron De Bennecker, is one of the high authorities here & one of the Government officers.”[v]

His official title appears to have been “Director of the Union Syndicate,” and one of his duties was encouraging tourists to come to Pau through advertisements in European newspapers, particularly London ones. His pitch went as follows: “Mild climate (neither fog nor snow), curative and alleviative of chest diseases. English colony. Every accessory to the enjoyment of life or implement of health.”^[vi]

It seems another of his duties, official or voluntarily assumed, was making sure she was not caught up in red tape when it came to receiving her monthly pension payments, a cumbersome process even when delicately arranged. The way in which Mary describes it makes it sound like some sort of criminal enterprise; it is possible that the only way to accomplish this was evading some sort of regulatory structure, and was not therefore strictly legal. Mary’s style of expression made common, if not admirable, irregularities and schemes take on the air of an organized crime syndicate. Processing paperwork through the bureaucratic systems of two countries via mail that had to cross the ocean on a steamer was a complicated undertaking.

The only people with a hope of accomplishing it were those who did it for a living, typically consuls and bankers. Englishman Musgrave Clay was both, and had the authoritative, no-nonsense manner required of someone who knew the ins and outs of international transactions, as well as the tricks, and dealt with the public—and the public’s money, at that. He processed the transactions, and transferred the funds via his bank, which meant he spent a lot of time with Mary. He promised to help her, and a mutual respect and fear developed as they figured out the paperwork procedures.

Her letters to Bunn shine light on her finances, her personality, and her interactions with others. She was always looking for her $125 “rent” from Robert, which was due on the first of the next month, as in “due the 1^st of Oct- for the preceding month of Sept.^[vii] In 1874, she had deeded Robert a house she owned at 375 West Washington Street, Chicago. The agreement called for monthly payments over seven years, which were intended to be paid out of the rent he collected from tenants. But first on her mind was the red tape involving her pension payments from Bunn, which she needed to sign and return. In late November, she wrote him that her pension payment for December 4 would have to be sent with papers relating and instructions for Springfield.

On arrival, she had received a visit from the Mayor of Pau. She noted Ninian had suggested she call on him “in his official capacity” to discuss the pension matter, but as the call was unexpected and ceremonial, “of course no allusion, was made to the business.” It seems like Ninian had put a lot of time into helping her plan her voyage and affairs. “Mr. Clay, is a man of intelligence & doubtless, understands, the whole routine,”^[viii] she assured Bunn. This was an unusual expression of confidence from her, but not as surprising as her subsequent judgment that he was “uncommonly nervous”(!)^[ix]

While Clay did her bidding on one side of the Atlantic, Bunn did it on the other. Bunn was powerful and respected man, and an astoundingly good one. He was certainly good to Mary, and it went beyond personal kindness. During the time she was under a conservatorship, she repeatedly asked that authority be transferred to Bunn, whom she evidently placed a lot of trust in. At one point, Ninian wrote to Robert on her behalf, “If you are afraid that she will squander her means or use any portion of her principal, she is willing that Mr. Bunn shall hold her bonds in trust, paying her only the interest. He is willing to do so, and to reinvest in other bonds, as they fall due without any charge.”^[x] Ultimately, she did leave her bonds and papers with Bunn, who loaned (or advanced) her money to pay for her voyage to Pau and gave her a letter of credit!

IV.

Indeed, Bunn had good company in Ninian Edwards, who appears in the record from 1875 on primarily as Mary’s lackey. Ninian, married to Mary’s sister Elizabeth, did not just show patient sympathy for his wife’s sake—he seemed to not only understand Mary but respect her—While she could intimidate him, he went beyond appeasement to what seemed like sincere encouragement. As he said, almost as an aside, in a long letter consulting Robert about the best course to take in 1876, “she dislikes the idea of being under bondage to you or to any other person as conservator.”

Her freedom was attained in June 1876, after Ninian testified that she was capable of managing her financial affairs and presented Mary’s petition to do so to the court. Initially he spoke too quietly for the judge to hear him, and was asked to repeat his statement, which did the job. Almost as soon as the petition was granted, Ninian’s first thought was to send Mary a telegraph update, knowing full well she was in an extreme state of anxiety (which meant Elizabeth was equally eager for the news). He was delayed by a request from Robert Lincoln to sign a copy of his statement, a typical request in the days before photocopiers. When Robert or someone else read it “in a low voice,” he realized it had been copied verbatim, and that the inclusion of both statements rendered it redundant, but he could restrain himself no longer over a technicality. He simply signed and ran full speed for the telegraph office.

To Ninian’s embarrassment, before he was able to draft and sign an edited statement, Robert released the statement for publication, and the famous Chicago Times commented on its redundancy. It was a time when precise and decided statements were indicators of intellectual integrity, even, or especially, in press releases. The matter threw him into a panic, and he sent out a flurry of letters, including one to Springfield’s Daily Illinois State Journal, and three in one day to Robert explaining what had happened. In the meantime, Mary had read the reports, and Ninian reported she was angry that she was declared “restored to reason,” since she never conceded she had lost her reason.^[xi]

Whether because he was angry at Robert or was under siege by Mary, he ended his letter with a declaration of confidence in Mary’s judgement that went way beyond what was necessary to keep the peace. He had simply told the court that she was capable of managing her affairs and property, he said, “-―and might have added that no one could have managed an estate better than she has managed hers, both previous to and since the death of her lamented husband.”

Mary was still calling the shots.

Ninian and Lincoln, close friends and natural competitors, ended up in tense disputes during the War. Ninian had made things awkward by becoming a Democrat and giving speeches against Lincoln’s policies, though he always qualified them by praise of Lincoln as a person.^[xii] He quickly apologized to Mary, and lobbied for a government position, partly because his financial situation was not what it had been.[xiii] Driven by a mix of personal, political, and principled reasons, prominent Springfield Republicans demanded his removal from the lucrative government position Lincoln had bestowed upon him.^[xiv] Ninian’s querulous letters and demands did not help his case, but Lincoln believed him to be an essentially good man and held out as long as he could before caving to overwhelming political pressure to turn out the traitor.[xv]

It is interesting, however, to note his main defense: Lincoln owed him. In a letter to Lincoln, and in person, he pointed to his support, financial and otherwise, during their early life. He was also saying this around town before the appointment, and one of his Springfield detractors wrote to Lincoln with alleged specifics: “I heard Mr. Edwards say . . . That you must do something for him. That he had greatly befriended you. When you were poor and unknown. Had helped you to get your wife. &c.”^[xvi]

That he was using this as leverage suggests that he thought Lincoln’s marriage had been to his benefit, and, more importantly, that he thought Lincoln shared this view. While it cannot be proven that Ninian said this directly to Lincoln, one letter makes allusions that sound he was going in that direction. While Elizabeth Edwards’ feelings on the matter are unknown, Mary deeply resented his conduct.^[xvii] In any event, by 1875 the surviving parties managed to move on. Despite Ninian’s conflicting feelings about how Lincoln unexpectedly and totally eclipsed him, he loyally met his responsibilities as one of Lincoln’s few prominent survivors, essentially the male head of the family.

Ninian’s letters acted as a conduit between Robert and other Springfielders in 1875 and 1876, particularly the women most interested, and his letters seem to spell out what the arrangements were regarding Mary’s property, Bunn’s involvement, and how she would spend her money. He indicated that she had full understanding of them after intelligent discussion.

Mary had frequently spoke to Bunn about going to Chicago for her “business,” which seems to have been collecting pension payments that had to be received in-person. Sometimes she lost her patience with the convoluted process. “The pension paper, just received by me from Mr B- had not a mark or star where names should be placed and it annoyed the Consul so much, that at first he said, he could not have any thing to do—with a paper, so sent, without any instructions,” she wrote Lewis. “I managed to persuade him that he must sign it, which he did.”^[xviii] She asked him to clarify to Bunn the procedures “Just read the last two or three sentences of his note, which I here enclose you, & if you can make out any sense in it, it is more than I can do. . . please request your Grandfather to see him also . . . about the little rent coming to me each month, Mr B- has been so kind in forwarding it to me—But if I had had the strength to work, I could have earned the money, long since, from this 4^th of March Pension.”

When she finally received it on May 22, she wrote Bunn “I am going to mail it myself within the hour—” When her bond interest was due, she wrote him much in advance to make sure it would be taken care of. She had recently received a letter from Springfield that had taken 16 days. “And this letter, gives you 17 days & half, as I go immediately to mail it myself.”^[xix]

No one could have spelled things out more clearly. There is no question she was on top of everything and left no room for misunderstanding, but most people aren’t quite as particular, which is part of why having to be indirect drove her crazy. Presumably Bunn was particular, which is why she wanted him to do everything himself.

In June she wrote Bunn “The Consul informs me, of what I already knew,”^[xx] which had been matters relating to her semi-annual interest on bonds that she had been reminding Bunn about for months—she did not want to deal with exchange rates, so she wanted to draw it directly instead of having it sent in America currency. She noted that it was difficult to write as her right hand was “bound up,” so she was having some sort of health problem or she had an infection. A week or so later, her letter to Bunn noted “I am suffering so much from a disabled hand.” When Bunn failed to follow her instructions about the interest, which he had already drawn from the local bank, she spelled out how to correct the error and told him not to send a duplicate amount, concluding “You will certainly not send me any money on July bond interest, as I have already drawn it —I can scarcely write with a suffering hand.” Not long after, she wrote that her writing might be bad as “I am suffering much with neuralgia, in any right arm.”

A couple of weeks later, she wrote she had received the rent check. “I am very grateful to you, for your management of my little business & as a matter of course, whatever expenses may arise, from the necessity of your going to Chicago or otherwise, I am most willing to pay them,” which was something for her. At one point, upon receiving payment, she actually said “All, was very satisfactory & I never fail to be grateful, for your kindness.”^[xxi] She seemed to be doing well, and this seemed sincere rather than obsequious.

While she described tension with Clay, who seemed to be fastidious like her and even friendly with her, they made it work—neither was going to back down, and he helped her out a lot, as the government and banking officials generally did. People who deal with public transactions are not much fazed by annoying personalities. They seemed to be bonding over the drama—it was certainly an ordeal. You can hear their frenzied—but not hostile--conversations behind every line of her letters to Bunn. In early 1879 she wrote, “When he signed his name, as one of the witnesses, I remarked to him that would be better for another person to sign it, but he appeared to think not—Afterward I regretted that I had not been more firm . . . He promises to be more strict, regarding the signatures.”^[xxii] Later, she wrote, “The Consul means to act right, but he is uncommonly nervous for an Englishman.”^[xxiii] She hoped the latest Pension Certificate was correct, as when she had “turned away for an instant, I found the Consul had placed a stamp on the power of Att- for collecting it—which may be wrong.”^[xxiv] Shortly afterwards, she said that putting their seal upon the power of attorney for the pension collection was fine. “He was correct in doing so, I am informed—”^[xxv]

In early 1879, she wrote to Bunn she had received the power of attorney, and she had it signed, witnessed, and was resending it. “You mentioned that the blank line where an amendment should be written could be executed on the return of the paper to Springfield It would please me very much, if your own name, was placed there. You have been so kind to me about my business, that I feel especially grateful. The Consul, objected to my placing on the paper, the ‘Mrs’ before my name. I hope his ideas were correct—I greatly regret that the trunk with its simple contents, is giving so much trouble. I fear the box will meet with the same fate.”^[xxvi]

V.

Bunn's Bank failed on January 1, 1878—a casualty of the long depression which followed the Panic of 1873. To a letter announcing his failure, she wrote that a previous panicked communication had been impulsive, as she feared the seizure of her bonds to cover the withdrawals. She wrote: "Most truly do I sympathize with you and your amiable, kind hearted family in this unexpected trouble. . . . Allow me to thank you for your kindness in going up to Chicago to collect money on interest. Your kind attention to my business, as well as your great promptitude, is most gratefully remembered by me. Please present my affectionate regards to your family.”[xxvii]

When Bunn again suggested that in view of his bankruptcy she might wish him to turn the management of her affairs over to another, Mrs. Lincoln wrote: "I entreat you in the future to send my remittances yourself, take charge of my business & I will endeavor to give you as little trouble as possible. Retain my Bonds & my papers, for in your honourable hands I feel well assured, they are perfectly safe. Will you please respect my wishes in regard to this dear Mr. Bunn, for I wish to feel at rest regarding these matters.”[xxviii]

VI.

Some may point out that at one point Mary had not been thrilled with Bunn, in contradiction to her current appraisal of him. This is consistent with everyday human behavior, and is neither mysterious nor disingenuous.^[xxix] It is clear that by 1876, they were on very good terms. Bunn had been one of those demanding Ninian Edwards’s removal during the war,^[xxx] but it seems to have been put largely behind them.

Ten years before, this had not been the case—at least on Mary’s side. After the war, Bunn had started paper a with some other Springfield men, the Chicago Republican. It did not go well, and as other partners bowed out, Bunn ended up with more of a stake.^[xxxi]

This was something Mary found significant in 1867 when she wrote Elizabeth Keckley during the “Old Clothes” scandal. The letter was published in Behind the Scenes, and while a great many names were redacted in that book, Bunn’s was left in. Again, she blamed the wirepullers of the Springfield press for some of her troubles.

“There is a paper published in Chicago called the Republican, owned and published by Springfield men,” she pointedly explained. “Each morning since my return it has been thrown at my door, filled with abuse of myself. Four days ago a piece appeared in it, asking 'What right had Mrs. L. to diamonds and laces?’”^[xxxii]

The universe had provided, if not an answer, a galling contrast. She knew exactly what date each report was published. “Yesterday morning an article appeared in the same paper, announcing that the day previous, at the house of Mr. Bunn (the owner of the paper), in Springfield, Illinois—the house had been entered at 11 in the morning, by burglars, and had been robbed of five diamond rings, and a quantity of fine laces.”

Alas, the satisfaction, if there was any, was brief. “This morning's paper announces the recovery of these articles,” she said, without further comment.

The real point was not sweet revenge, but the illustration provided.

She called it “justice rendered for evil words, to say the least.” She knew Bunn was unlikely to have been involved in the Republican’s day-to-day operations, and she was not lashing out at Bunn personally. The contrast was so glaring that it illuminated the larger point—his money, and the men using it, were the main source, and this was the direct result. She said this rather explicitly, setting up the equation as she usually did.

“Mr. Bunn, who made his hundreds of thousands off our government, is running this paper, and denouncing the wife of the man from whom he obtained his means.” This was not mere venting, but evidence for her case, probably for Keckley to publish in the newspaper or read to others: “I enclose you the article about the recovery of the goods. A few years ago he had a small grocery in [Springfield]. These facts can be authenticated.” It was a “case in point”—“Who will say that the cry of the 'widow and fatherless' is disregarded in His sight! If man is not merciful, God will be in his own time.”^[xxxiii]

This seemed to be borne out by events. There was a certain poetic justice in this matter—or one could say so, were not for the fact that so many people ended up in the same position. In any event, that comment does not imply one was happy to see it, and Mary was not.

On the last day of 1877, Bunn knew he had to suspend the bank, whose customers had maintained their faith and deposits all this time.^[xxxiv] Bunn, the newspaper noted, was “joined by Mrs. Bunn” in his announcing he would assign all his property for the benefit of his creditors.^[xxxv] This included those jewels and laces.

---

^[i] Mary Lincoln to Baron De Branneker, December 1, 1876.

^[ii] Mary Lincoln generally used the term “little business” to refer to financial matters, such as transferring, receiving money, paying bills, collecting rent from Robert, or receiving and returning signed pension papers. See her letters to Jacob Bunn in Turners, Life and Letters.

^[iii] It is not clear why the Baroness had the French title “Mme” and article “La” before her name but not the “de” in the middle.

[iv] “Your mother called on me to day and placed in my hands, on special deposit, fifty nine thousand nine hundred and fifty dollars $59,950 in U.S. Registered 6% Bonds of 1881. Also, powers of atty. To collect the interest, her pension and $125 monthly for rent in Chicago.” Bunn felt he was “not the proper person” to have custody, seeming to mean that Mary should not have control. However, he may not have been aware of the resolution of the conservatorship only days before. It seems most likely he was being polite. Jacob Bunn to Robert Lincoln, June 24, 1876. http://contentdm.acpl.lib.in.us/digital/collection/p16089coll38/id/7334

[v] Mary Lincoln to Jacob Bunn, December 12, 1876, in Turners, Life and Letters, 622, 623.

^[vi] The advertisement furthers confusion as to his name, because it was signed “Baron BRANNEKERBERIDER.”

^[vii] The Turners believed that she was using the incorrect word, and then she meant “mortgage.” They did not have access to records that clarified the arrangement regarding the house. Given her general precision in the use of language, however, this was a strange assumption. See Turners, Life and Letters, 620, n. 5.

^[viii] Mary Lincoln to Jacob Bunn, November 28, 1876, in Turners, Life and Letters, 621-622. This seems to have been related to matters like establishing credit, and making the arrangements for her to make transactions through the financial institutions of Pau; Ninian probably thought she had to make it known who she was in order to get premium service, but the banker had not needed prodding.

^[ix] Mary Lincoln to Jacob Bunn, January 27, 1879, in ibid, 674.

^[x] Ninian Edwards to Robert Lincoln, November 12, 1875, in Emerson, Insanity Case, chap. 8. This indicates that she saw the bonds as the sticking point.

^[xi] See ibid.

^[xii] For a discussion of the Lincoln-Edwards relationship, particularly during the Civil War, see Stephen William Berry, House of Abraham: Lincoln and the Todds, a Family Divided by War, 1st Mariner Books ed (Boston: Mariner Books, 2009), especially 132-135. See also “Ninian W. Edwards (1809-1889).” Mr. Lincoln and Friends (blog). Accessed July 30, 2019. http://www.mrlincolnandfriends.org/the-politicians/ninian-edwards/.

[xiii] Ninian W. Edwards to Abraham Lincoln, December 26, 1860, Abraham Lincoln papers: Series 1. General Correspondence. 1833 to 1916. Manuscript/Mixed Material. https://www.loc.gov/item/mal0532900/;Mr. Lincoln and Friends.

^[xiv] See, for example, William Yates to Abraham Lincoln, May 22, 1863, Abraham Lincoln papers: Series 1. General Correspondence. 1833 to 1916. Manuscript/Mixed Material. https://www.loc.gov/item/mal2363500/; Mr. Lincoln and Friends.

[xv] Berry, House of Abraham, 132-135; Abraham Lincoln to Edward L. Baker, June 15, 1863, Lincoln, Abraham. Abraham Lincoln papers: Series 1. General Correspondence. 1833 to 1916. Manuscript/Mixed Material. https://www.loc.gov/item/mal2412900/; Mr. Lincoln and Friends.

^[xvi] William Yates to Abraham Lincoln, May 22, 1863.

^[xvii] Mary has been credited with Ninian’s removal, but all of Lincoln’s Springfield friends had been after him since 1861, largely due to the fact that he had become a Democrat. See Berry, House of Abraham. She added her voice to this chorus, but it seems unlikely she was decisive.

^[xviii] Mary Lincoln to Edward Lewis Baker, Jr., April 11, 1877, in ibid., 632-633.

^[xix] Mary Lincoln to Jacob Bunn, May 22, 1877, in ibid., 639.

^[xx] Mary Lincoln to Jacob Bunn, June 27, 1877, in ibid., 644.

^[xxi] Mary Lincoln to Jacob Bunn, August 19, 1878, in ibid., 670.

^[xxii] Mary Lincoln to Jacob Bunn, January 27, 1879, in ibid., 673.

^[xxiii] Mary Lincoln to Jacob Bunn, January 27, 1879, in ibid., 674.

^[xxiv] Mary Lincoln to Jacob Bunn, February 6, 1879, in ibid., 675-676.

^[xxv] Mary Lincoln to Jacob Bunn, March 5, 1879, in ibid., 677.

^[xxvi] Mary Lincoln to Jacob Bunn, April 1, 1879, in ibid., 678.

[xxvii] Mary Lincoln to Jacob Bunn, January 24, 1878, in ibid., 658-659.

[xxviii] Mary Lincoln to Jacob Bunn, February 26, 1878, in ibid., 662-663.

^[xxix] See, for example, See Mark E. Neely, Jr. and Gerald McMurtry, The Insanity File: The Case of Mary Todd Lincoln (Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 1986), chap. 4, Kindle. They find the idea of her leaving her bonds with Bunn, absent a trust, obviously untenable because “it depended on Mrs. Lincoln’s goodwill,” and, “like many other prominent citizens of Springfield, Jacob Bunn had once been the object of Mary Todd Lincoln’s mercurial wrath” a decade before. Such a shift in opinion, even a very strong one, is not unique to Mary Lincoln, and is generally unremarkable. Jacob Bunn had been involved in Springfield political drama and business litigation many times. He seemed to trust her quite a bit, based on his actions during these years.

^[xxx] See, for example, William Yates to Abraham Lincoln, May 22, 1863.

^[xxxi] The discussion of Jacob Bunn’s life is based on Andrew Taylor Call, Jacob Bunn: legacy of an Illinois industrial pioneer (Lawrenceville, Va: Brunswick Pub., 2005).

^[xxxii] Mary Lincoln to Elizabeth Keckley, October 24, 1867, in Turners, Life and Letters, 445-446. While some of the logic behind using redactions or initials is clearly correlated to their status as public or private figures, there may be some strategy behind it, and the matter is worth further analysis in the effort to identify those who may have been involved in its publication.

^[xxxiii] Ibid. This was accompanied by one of Mary’s few truly bitter or cruel remarks. A neighbor who had been speaking harshly of her during the Old Clothes Scandal went out (to gossip about her, she sarcastically suggested), and came home to find his son had “almost” blinded himself with gunpowder. She suggested this as “another case in point” of God’s justices, and it is one of her few references to a member of the public being her traducer. However, once again, her “almost” saves her. He may have only had a close call. She could never relish the blindness of a child, even the child of those she resented. It is also interesting that she uses the term burglary and not robbery.

^[xxxiv] Call, Jacob Bunn,174-179.

^[xxxv] Ibid.