Mistaken Identities, Part II
Mistaken Identities
Part 2
A version of this article was published in the fall 2019 edition of Manuscripts. Part I was published in the summer 2019 edition. Thoughts, suggestions, corrections and questions welcomed!
I.
Part I of this series discussed an intriguing exchange of letters between Mary Lincoln and powerful New York City Republican Abram Wakeman. In the letters, several people are referred to only by initials, and I have proposed that “W” was Henry Wikoff, not political heavyweight Thurlow Weed. In Part II, I argue that “E” has also been misidentified, but the case is far less straightforward. It has always been recognized that we do not have anything close to the whole story of what went down with “E,” given how cryptic the references in the letters are. While I do not think the argument for my proposed candidate is as convincing as with “W,” I hope to at least shed some light. An appraiser suggested in 1951 that the “secret” the letters held may have been worth $100,0001, so it seems like a discussion worth having, but it has gotten little attention over the last seventy years. The letters mention other mysterious figures, but I have put most of my speculation about them in the footnotes, confining this article to advancing a new identity for “E.”
As it stands, “E” is assumed to be longtime White House doorkeeper Edward McManus. The most commonly accepted story is that he was seeking revenge on Mary Lincoln in early 1865, after she suddenly fired him. Before proceeding with the discussion, I will give her comments to Wakeman about “E” without much context, so that they can be viewed with fresh eyes. In a letter believed to be written on February 18, 1865,2 Mary Lincoln wrote to Wakeman inviting him to stop by her reception later that day. She continued:
“. . . Since I have certainly ascertained that E has been up North3―I am more shocked than ever, that any one can be so low, as to place confidence in a discarded menial’s assertions, the game of espionage,4 has been going on, to a greater extent than we have imagined―if the ‘Heavens fall,’ E shall never be restored―Nicol. himself says,5 that E’s mind is positively deranged,6 I have suspected it for some time. It will gratify Mr L if you pay your respects to him to day. I believe, if possible I shall love and venerate my blessed Husband more than ever7 ―as E- inhabits a three story brick house & has it filled with lodgers8 no doubt, ‘Monsieur Thomson,9 will quarter there―and have many exciting chats ―’How have the mighty fallen’ . . .”
Two days later, she wrote Wakeman again. Her February 20 letter was discussed in Part I of this series. In it, she expressed anger that “W” was talking about Washington gossip that had made it to New York. “E” had approached a “noble & distinguished” friend of hers, “and began his complaints, that this Mr. G- [unidentified] had informed against him & caused his removal.”10 The friend told him to go away, and she thought everyone should do the same. She believed anything he had heard was from “E” and his cronies, lies that could not have been circulating among anyone else, and that he was pretending otherwise. “Coupling a lady’s name, with one with whom, I have never considered & not placed on even the footing, of one of our doormen, is indeed a farce! The intellect that kind & Heavenly Father, gave him, he has thrown away, in a very strange manner.”
Let’s break this down, piece by piece. While she refers to a “discarded menial,” which points right to Edward McManus, she then claims she had never considered this person as reaching the status of a doorman. White House employees were always shuffling titles, so his official position shifted over the years, but he was generally known as the main doorkeeper.11 It does not make any sense that she would never have placed him on the footing of the position he held. She also mentions his “intellect” and comments “how have the mighty fallen,” which, though coupled with sarcasm, does not match well with a “discarded menial” she who barely entered her thoughts. I suspect this is because she is talking about two different people: “E” and the “discarded menial.” Bizarrely, I don’t think either one is Edward McManus.
II.
There is an “E” who fits her convoluted remarks well enough that they almost become coherent: Tennessee politician Emerson Etheridge. He was well known in Washington, having been a congressional representative,12 and Lincoln had even considered him for a cabinet position.13 Famous for his passionate and impressive oration, and he courageously campaigned against secession throughout Tennessee in 1861.14 The situation was so volatile that at one of his speaking rallies, a secessionist mob entered and killed a unionist.15 Given this environment, it is not surprising that Tennessee voted to secede in June 1861, at which point he and Andrew Johnson, the only Senator to stay loyal after secession of his state, traveled to Washington.16 The history of Etheridge’s party identification is complicated, but he was a strong Unionist who opposed what he considered extreme views on all sides.17 In recognition of his efforts to keep Tennessee and other southern states from seceding, he was appointed clerk of the Republican-dominated House of Representatives.18 Eccentric and chatty, he was conspicuous in this role, and well-connected politically.
How does he fit into all this? One historian’s summary of him is relevant here: “Emerson Etheridge was a colorful Tennessean with a gift for political invective and sarcasm to match his taste for political intrigue. His capacity in both respects was considerable.”19 This was on full display back in late 1863 and 1864. Etheridge had become increasingly disillusioned since Lincoln’s issuance of the emancipation proclamation, which betrayed Etheridge’s celebrated evisceration of the claim that Lincoln wanted to take southerners’ slaves, and cast him in a humiliating light.20 He had begun cooperating with Democrats and more conservative factions in opposition to the Lincoln administration. In December 1863, when the House reconvened, he “planned to exclude Republican Representatives on a technicality while admitting conservatives from Louisiana, thus giving Democrats control of the House,” which has been described as an attempt at a “parliamentary coup.”21 Word got out, Republicans were ready, and Etheridge was stopped, savagely denounced by Republicans, and removed from his position.22 (“If the ‘Heavens fall,’ E shall never be restored”).23
Of course, Etheridge had naturally been vilified by many in his native state for his pro-Union sentiments—then his Tennessee home was raided by Union soldiers. These blows and the traumatic dynamics of the war in general seemed to have a destabilizing effect on Etheridge’s naturally intense personality. Loyal “border state” men had a hard time during the war, to put it mildly. They faced guerilla violence and a divided populace. At one point, Lincoln told Tennessean Unionists he’d done everything he could, but said, “I know you are too much distressed to be argued with.”24 At another, a member of Lincoln’s cabinet, frustrated over affairs in the border state of Missouri, wrote a letter complaining of Lincoln and his Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase’s feeble approach to the War effort.25 It made its way into the papers, and the officer, Postmaster-General Montgomery Blair, offered to resign, but Lincoln told him to let it go, that he knew it was just venting. Blair next approached Chase with an apology, and while Chase is portrayed as humorless and self-centered to a parodic degree, his response was the same, adding “You middle state men have had more than enough to run you mad.” This was true for Etheridge, and by late 1864, he publicly wondered if “the question arises whether Lincoln was a traitor at heart.”26 The courage and denunciation that had won him acclaim at the beginning of the war was used to attack Lincoln’s administration on a long and extensive speaking tour.27 He was still pro-Union, but was campaigning for the democratic nominee, lamenting the treatment of people like himself, in disenfranchised states, to crowds in eastern cities.28 He asked them to vote for McClellan – if Lincoln would “permit” them to get a fair vote.29 His claims became more outrageous with time, and it was increasingly stated that he had lost his mind.30 By September, he was referred to as that “erratic politician.”31 In other words, “deranged.”32
For years, Etheridge had been a prominent and admired political figure33, and he was personally friendly with the Lincolns. He was of acknowledged intellectual power, so his increasingly irrational claims were all the more startling. (“The intellect that kind & Heavenly Father, gave him, he has thrown away, in a very strange manner.”) That both Mary Lincoln and John G. Nicolay would have been aware of his increasingly unhinged behavior, and commenting on it with some interest, is likely. Shortly after Lincoln defeated McClellan in November 1864, Etheridge returned to Washington, and seemed to be behaving erratically.34 And, at the time these letters to Wakeman were written, Etheridge may have been engaged in “game of espionage” in which he coupled Mary Lincoln’s name with a discarded menial’s!
III.
First, some background information: The accepted story is that Mary Lincoln fired McManus in December 1864, and it has also been alleged that she did this in order to hire a doorkeeper who would agree to take bribes from visitors and give her a cut.35 This comes from a story put forth at the time—by the “copperhead” press. That epithet, meant to evoke the venomous snake, was generally applied to northern democrats pursuing a peace settlement with the Confederacy. They were not happy in early 1865, having lost the recent election, and the disappearance of McManus gave them an opening. I was going to say that details of his alleged firing remain sketchy, but then realized the exact opposite is the case: they are excruciatingly, unnaturally specific. I believe that McManus left as part of an arrangement not made public, because his position was needed as a cover for increased security personnel.
Thomas “Dana” Pendel worked as a doorkeeper/usher at the White House for six decades, and, by the late 1800’s, was giving practically daily newspaper interviews about his experiences. He often told of his 1864 appointment, in creepily specific detail. He made sure to give the exact day and circumstances of Edward’s firing—“On Thursday evening, December 29, 1864”—naming him as a doorkeeper but portraying him as having been fired for failing to run one of Mary’s errands in a timely manner, and giving Mary’s words in the sudden dismissal as “Now, this is the last duty you will ever perform in the White House.” A day later, Pendel’s story went, Mary asked him, then working a security detail, to take the place. He would then recount his search for the proper authority to make the appointment, concluding it was the president himself.36 “I said, ‘Mr. President, would you have any objection to my taking the place of Edward McManus?’ He said, ‘None at all.’” Pendel described what happened next, according to this version: “That evening, after nightfall, on Saturday, it being the last day of the week, month and the year of 1864,” he went to the president’s office, where Tad was sitting, with his appointment paper. Tad presented it to his father, and got the signature.
A memoir he wrote decades later summarized the event as follows: “The document, dated December 31, 1864, appointed Thomas F. Pendel usher “in the place of Edward McManus, now dismissed.” That he took the place of McManus could not have been made clearer. Note that he was appointed an usher, and resigned a security role in order to do so. On January 3, 1865, D.C.’s Evening Star reported that Pendel, formerly on the police force, “has been appointed usher the President’s House, in place of Edward McManus, dismissed.” The 1865 District of Columbia directory did not list a profession for Edward McManus, instead listing the White House doorkeeper as Thomas Burns, who was also frequently named as the doorkeeper during Edward’s tenure. It appears they had similar duties. A few days later, the Evening Star reported that Alfonso Donn had been appointed doorkeeper, in place of Thomas Burns, who had been dismissed. “Donn resigned from the police force to take the position.”37
IV.
In the mid-nineteenth century, government often operated in an ad-hoc manner. The titles of usher and doorkeeper were interchangeable, encompassing several roles, with the same people alternating in and out of the title.38 This was likely done to match shifting appropriations, taking into account the staff the president had to pay for directly, and how far his ability to pay diverged from the amount of staff support needed39 and what Congress had appropriated to meet those needs. A typical arrangement, as described by one historian: “Buchanan’s steward was . . . listed as a ‘doorkeeper’ so that is salary could be paid by the government. His doorkeeper duties were in fact carried out by one of the two outdoor watchmen.”40 This juggling of accounts and positions occurred throughout the federal government, and the chaos of the Civil War increased the need for a flexible approach.41
Despite early gossip in elite Washington secessionist circles that the Lincolns were running the place like their humble Springfield home, bringing their own “girls,” they retained much of Buchanan’s staff. This was probably partly due to their institutional knowledge, and partly because they were known entities who could be safely assumed not to be plotting to kill Lincoln. Their long service suggested a certain amount of non-partisan safety and trust, and they could vouch for each other. While still in Springfield as president-elect, Lincoln had received letters from people who, given the political situation, feared that the staff might poison him. He was urged to bring his own, but it seems some investigations were done by people such as his friend and Marshal of the District of Columbia, Ward Hill Lamon. This apparently satisfied Lincoln of their adequate loyalty.
IMAGE: https://www.loc.gov/resource/mal.0428000/?r=-0.036,0.208,1.358,0.604,0
A letter that president-elect Lincoln received in 1860, warning him that he would be poisoned by White House servants.
Most had been there for several administrations, and the most recent administration had been democratic. But they had been through regime changes before, and had proved at least competent. Some in Congress wanted anyone who could even be suspected of disloyal sentiments let go from the government, and one committee released a report that included the following:
“EDWARDS, MESSENGER, PRESIDENT’S HOUSE.
The witness . . . ‘testifies that immediately after the troops took possession of Alexandria, he heard Edwards talking with two men at the President’s House, and who were complaining of the troops going to that city. Edwards told them that it was wrong to send the troops over there; that it all came from the black republican abolitionists of the north; and that it was a misfortune that they ever had anything to do with the government.’ One of these men replied to Edwards and said, ‘never mind, Jeff. Davis will be in power here within three months.’ Edwards answered him, ‘the sooner the better.’ Witness further states that Edwards declared ‘that Jeff. Davis was the finest man that ever was in the White House.’ He told these men that Mr. and Mrs. Lincoln were low, mean people, and that they did not know how to act as gentlemen and ladies; that they were not to be compared with their predecessors, and that he hoped they would not be long troubled with them.
THOMAS BURNS, DOORKEEPER, PRESIDENT’S HOUSE.
The same witness. . . also testifies ‘that in the conversation alluded to in the case of Edwards, an Irishman, named Burns, was present, and joined in the conversation, and seemed to agree with all they said. His manner and expression of countenance strongly indicated that he agreed with them in their sentiments.”’ Witness further states ‘that Burns is a messenger or doorkeeper in the President’s House.’” 42
This provides a good glimpse of the stories the committee was being told, and choosing to accept as credible. It also illustrates the anti-Irish prejudice common among some people.43 As a lawyer and decent person, Lincoln quickly spotted witch hunt territory and refused to comply with demands to remove several employees. He took a lot of grumbling for it in some portions of the press, but he recognized that if such allegations were uncritically accepted, they would be unending, given the fierce battle for government jobs. It was probably true that some uttered secessionist sentiments or resentful words about the first Republican administration and the accompanying national chaos, but complaining or showing off is far from treason or malice.
It is worth noting that McManus was identified as “Edwards,” and a “messenger,” and the committee also appeared to think Edwards was his last name.44 Outgoing resident Harriet Lane also referred to Thomas Burns as the White House doorkeeper in early 1861.45 The ambiguity of titles continued at least into the 1870s: “It seems that trusted employees served wherever they could be most useful to presidential families—as doorkeepers, watchmen, stewards, and ushers.”46
McManus was described as “elderly” by the Lincoln years, and one contemporary described him as an “undersized, neatly dressed, polite, comical old man” with white hair.47 By 1865, the death threats toward Lincoln had escalated out of control, with more than one actual attempt made. Mary Lincoln was reported as terrified in the summer and fall of 1864, arranging behind his back to have military guards sleep in the White House at night. She was not alone, and the influence of Lamon and Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, among others, joined her in getting him to accept an armed four-man detective squad taken from the metropolitan police force. William H. Crook, who replaced Pendel on this squad in early January, was retained on the police force payroll while acting as a bodyguard. Like Pendel, he later gave many interviews and wrote a memoir in which he stated, “[Lincoln] hated being on his guard, and the fact that it was necessary to distrust his fellow Americans saddened him. He refused to be guarded as long as it was possible for a sane man to persist.”
The detectives were ordered to duty in the week prior to the election, whether because the threats became intolerable or because Lincoln was now certain of victory and able to disregard his critics. The capitol police force was a rough crowd, and it is probable the choice was made to have them replace the longtime civilian employees, who were older and not trained in security.48 After the election, this was made permanent. It seems that the democratic defeat had not improved the situation. On November 30, Lincoln’s private secretary received a letter from the editor of the Washington Chronicle49 (emphases added by the author):
“There is much conversation in the city respecting the defenceless condition of the President’s house and person now that rebel assassins and incendiaries are abroad; and a suggestion was made to me this morning with a request that I would mention it in the Chronicle or in my correspondence. It seems to me a good one per se, but not a proper one for ventilation through the press. It is that a squad of experienced detectives should be organized for the protection of the President and the White House, the duty of whom should be to be constantly in the Presidential Mansion in adequate force, and more or less near the person of the President. The idea is that such men would more easily and promptly detect evil person designs and designing persons than would mere soldiers, whose routine habits and duties an adroit incendiary and assassin would easily circumvent.”50
V.
This had apparently already been arranged earlier that month. Another member of the squad, Donn (often spelled Dunn) was one of several in this group who spent several decades employed at the White House. He got off to a busy start, as on November 28, the Evening Star reported that he arrested a man dressed in soldiers infirm who was caught in the at of putting a large piece from one of the curtains in the East Room. The ability to surreptitiously watch for this nonsense may explain the need for civilian authorities. These plain clothes officers would have to hold existing civilian positions or get money appropriated for the salaries of new ones. While Pendel and Dunn became White House employees, two others, including Crook, appeared to still work for the police and perhaps hold oversight positions.51 Crook recalled:
“There were many reasons why this fact was not known at the time and has not been generally understood since. In the first place, the President’s bravery ― rashness some called it ― was so universally recognized, he had refused for so long to take any precautions, that people were not looking for him to change. In the second place . . . he did not want it blazoned over the country that it had been found necessary to guard the life of the President of the United States from assassination. It was not wise ― especially at this critical time ― to admit so great a lack of confidence in the people . . . But realizing that he had been chosen to save the country from threatened destruction, he forced himself, during the last months of his life, to be somewhat more cautious. When he had yielded, however, because of all these reasons he wished as little show as possible of precaution. We wore citizen’s clothes; there was no mention of the appointment in the papers or in official records; we walked with him, not behind him.”
The above Evening Star report shows this was indeed reported, at least locally, where the men would have been familiar to the public. Crook probably meant that they were not appointed as guards, but explicitly as doorkeepers. The decision to announce publicly that police officers were being hired may have been intended to serve as a warning about increased security. Whatever the case, controversy over the changes followed—selective controversy, focusing only on McManus (with no mention of Pendel).
On January 2, 1865, the New York Tribune published a special Washington dispatch dated January 1, 1864 (we all have trouble adjusting to the new year). It was entirely confined to war news except for one brief blurb: “An Old Servant Discharged/The time-honored and universally known door-keeper of the White House, domestically called Edward, publicly named Jimmy, who has been in office since Gen. Jackson’s day, was discharged by Mrs. Lincoln on Saturday.”
The Tribune was a Republican paper, although it had a rocky relationship at times with the Lincoln administration. The New York Express, on the other hand, was a copperhead paper and in a generally hostile mood, so it added some editorial dismay. “Since the administration of Andrew Jackson, the Visitors at the President’s house have been accustomed to meet at the door the familiar and bland countenance of ‘Jimmy McManus,’ the faithful and attentive doorkeeper. Mrs. Lincoln has supplanted him, very much to the surprise and regret of the community.”52 Now, he was more than “an old servant,” and he had been supplanted, which suggested that perhaps it was not so much a problem with McManus as a desire of Mary Lincoln’s.
VI.
More importantly, I do not think that Edward McManus was ever known as “Jimmy.” From day one, this seemed like more than an innocent personnel update—someone was pushing a story, and it still survives.
The surprising dismissal of Jimmy became national news, and the Herald referenced it in an article about aspirants for the position of minister to France, the previous minister having died unexpectedly. This is worth looking at more closely, because the article was intended to taunt the aspirants about Lincoln’s “game,” which it proceeded to “explain” to them. Lincoln had promised the coveted position to many, you see, to gain their support in the close election. “Jimmy, the door-keeper (since discharged by Mrs. Lincoln),” had received orders to bring them in one by one, to keep them from being aware of the competition. Now the president was going to reveal he’d led them on, said the Herald, and keep dangling it, letting the interim minister hold the place for a while. This was scene-setting, not literal reporting. Though what exactly happened remains unknown, Herald editor James Gordon Bennett is believed to have been offered that post prior to the election. Whether there was some sort of strategy in mentioning “Jimmy,” I’m not sure—it may have been the writer used the Tribune report to add color without thinking further. But the article was probably approved, if not written, by Bennett himself, and there’s reason to think that the Herald was winking at the report because it knew there was no “Jimmy.” First of all, Bennett likely knew the White House staff during Andrew Jackson’s era. But there was more.
In the summer of 1863, the horrific New York City draft riots occurred. They “remain the largest civil insurrection in American history, aside from the Civil War itself.”53 Abram Wakeman’s home was burned to the ground.54 So was the Colored Orphan Asylum.55
These “violent disturbances in Lower Manhattan” grew out of new conscription laws, including the provision that that provided one could avoid the draft by hiring a substitute for $300—well beyond what the working class, made up heavily of Irish-Americans, could afford.56 Black Americans were exempt from the draft because they were not recognized as citizens.57 The working class voters were historically supporters of the Democratic party, and its New York City press had long “warned New York’s Irish and German residents to prepare for the emancipation of slaves and the resultant labor competition when southern blacks would supposedly flee north.”58 “To these New Yorkers, the Emancipation Proclamation was confirmation of their worst fears,” and resentment towards Republican elites ran high.59 So did resentment towards the increasing numbers of free black Americans, and while “The rioters’ targets initially included only military and governmental buildings,” the property destruction quickly devolved into a violent race riot, with attacks on black Americans.60
In November 1863, Charles G. Halpine, a popular Irish-American New York Herald writer, wrote to Lincoln’s secretary John Hay. Halpine had made a name for himself under the pseudonym “Miles O’Reilly,” writing humorous political sketches from the perspective of this persona, and his friend Hay had written to congratulate him on their popularity. Halpine wanted some inside information from Hay: the latest Lincoln joke or story, and a detailed accounting of the White House staff, as O’Reilly was about to visit Washington for a meeting with the President himself. In fact, O’Reilly was enthusiastically urging Lincoln’s re-election the next year, and this would be made very clear in the pages of the Herald, Halpine explained. The Herald was not a partisan paper, but had always reflected Bennett’s democratic-leaning sympathies, and had been among those blamed for inciting the riots. While Bennett had firmly sided with the Union, his feelings about Lincoln’s re-election remained hard to read. Whatever was going on, he apparently wanted to help out in this area. “Mr Bennett wishes the next O’Reilly paper on the Presidency and to be a strong political & Irish document for Mr. Lincoln,” wrote Halpine. “Your note shall be destroyed five minutes after its receipt.”61
“Also, this is very important, give me the name of James, your doorkeeper, who was so under Pierce & Buckn.,” concluded Halpine. He was from the same part of Ireland as O’Reilly, according to the sketch Halpine was working him into. Hay was apparently not worried about participating. He responded by introducing “Edward McManus the chatty old gray-haired gentleman . . . who has been through five administrations [and] keeps the door below,” and his assistant Thomas Burns, “who has outlived the storms of two reigns.” They were both “from Italy,” of course, cracked Hay. “The President’s Messenger who guard the door of the Abolition despot himself, is Louis Burgdorf a Teutonic worthy whose memory runs back to [Franklin Pierce.]”62 There was no mention of Jackson (anyone who served both Jackson and Lincoln would have served through ten administrations)—but there was a mention of “James.” While Halpine was evidently confused, he never used the nickname “Jimmy.” The sketch ran shortly after, around the time of the Etheridge drama in late 1863, and made enough of a sensation to be memorable.
Halpine started his own publication in 1866, and another of Lincoln’s private secretaries, William O. Stoddard, submitted reminiscences of his White House life, which included a reference to “‘Edward’—he needs no other name—for four administrations doorkeeper of the White House, and an inexhaustible well of incident and anecdote concerning the old worthies and unworthies.” While he listed one fewer administration than Hay did, perhaps not including the Lincoln era, (it was recently noted that “Old Edward had served every president since either Jackson or Polk, depending on the historian,”)63 he felt no need to explain who he meant by “Edward.” This is supported by Lincoln’s own words—in 1863, he wrote a note to General Robert A. Schenck, explaining an apparent miscommunication: “Returning to the Executive Room yesterday, I was mortified to find you were gone, leaving no word of explanation. I went down stairs, as I understood, on a perfect understanding with you that you would remain till my return. I got this impression distinctly from ‘Edward’ whom I believe you know. Possibly I misunderstood him . . . I beg you will not believe I have treated you with intentional discourtesy . . . ” 64
A short summary of Stoddard’s 1866 piece was published nationally, but most publications copied the mistaken statement that “Edward” had served for “four years,” and seemed unaware of any controversy involving his termination. 65 Their interest in the “incidental allusion” to him generally confirmed that everyone who knew Washington knew “Edward.” Based on all the sources I’ve examined, it seems highly implausible that anybody knew him as Jimmy.66 So where did it come from?
Well, there was a “Jemmy O’Neal” during Jackson’s time, who was quite a character, it seems. It is probable that only long time Washington folks would have remembered him.
VII.
Some noted that something was up. On January 11, under the headline “Kitchen Cabinet Meddling,” the reliably pro-administration New York Times published the following:
“WASHINGTON, Tuesday, Jan. 3, 1865.
To the Editor of the New-York Times:
An innate love of mischief, or lack of something better to say, prompts many decent gentlemen connected with the newspaper press to give ready currency to all the idle tales and small gossip concerning the hapless family at the White House, which must abound in a city like Washington, where pro-slavery secesh circles concoct slanders for circulation by better men . . . [reprint of the Tribune report] . . . If the malicious busybody, who was at the trouble of telegraphing that from Washington to New-York, had, before parading the private griefs of ‘Edward’ before the public, inquired into all of the facts concerning this momentous affair, is it not possible that he might have found that insolence, carelessness or drunkenness might have been the cause for the dismissal of a servant ‘who has been in office since Gen. JACKSON’s day?’ Newspaper men sometimes complain of their doubtful social status; what ought it to be when they stoop to exploit the relations between a respectable lady and a discharged servant?
COLOMBIAN.”
“Colombian” is another unidentified figure in this story, and whether he was doing damage control or just speaking his mind is anyone’s guess. At first, I thought the latter, especially given its prominent yet delayed publication. However, he (or she) sounds legitimately annoyed, probably because he knows that the report was sent by someone who had no clue. “Colombian” ignores the reference to Jimmy because it is incorrect, and also puts the reference to Jackson’s time in quotes, like he thinks it is an invention. Possibly this was a mistake by an old-timer that made a useful opportunity to make drama allegedly on behalf of the entire community,67 but “Colombian” saw malice in it, and probably old-time secesh malice, from the reference to Jackson and Jimmy. While he does not deny the dismissal, someone was acting in bad faith with the “parade” of Edward’s—and only Edward’s—removal. But we never got any more clarification, and it is not clear this person had any inside information and wasn’t just annoyed at transparent troublemaking. No one else involved released a statement.
VIII.
Outside of official channels, “Jimmy’s” saga was appropriated for many purposes over the next few weeks. Only one day after his Herald appearance, another paper added a new, entirely self-serving take. It quoted Tribune’s report that “Jimmy,” “a fixture,” had been “discharged by Mrs. Lincoln on Saturday,—to make room for a negro, we suppose68.” For some reason, the New Orleans papers seemed most attuned to the fact that it bore evidence of a manufactured controversy. “The latest complaint of the New York Express against the President,” said the Times-Picayune, significantly, “is that Jimmy McManus has been discharged from the important office of doorkeeper for the White House, by Mrs. Lincoln, ‘very much to the surprise and regret of the community’!”69 Another New Orleans paper printed a letter from a Washingtonian who was familiar with the situation—and therefore confused by the reports. “Four or five of the domestics at the White House, who have been there since the days of Democratic rule, and who sneered at the new regime in the most approved Washington style, have very properly received their walking papers. One of those thus discharged was Edward McManus, a voluble door keeper of the Hibernian persuasion, and I see that a newspaper man in announcing the dismissal says that he was ‘familiarly known as Jemmy.’ This is a mistake…Jemmy C. Neal, was a very different person from Edward McManus.”70
IX.
This seemed to settle the matter for a while, at least publicly. In the first weeks of 1865, major controversies over things like the thirteenth amendment and peace negotiations made for a lot of desperate attacks and disappointed opponents. It is hard to know if there is anything more than partisan bitterness responsible for anything in the press. In late January, Mary’s correspondence with Wakeman indicates that she was hearing rumors and dealing with domestic drama related to a “serpent,” but that it has all blown over and the Lincolns have had a “little laugh” over it and are going to the theater. Wikoff enters the scene, and the February correspondence discussed early in the article results, ending with the February 20 letter in which she dismisses the entire thing as a “farce.”
Etheridge enters the picture on February 24, and while his actions appear to track her comments closely, the official story does not have him getting involved until February 23, 1865. My guess is that he may have been up to similar things—the “game of espionage”—that never became public.71 It may or may not be relevant that the day before, there had been excitement related to Tennessee politics. In January 1865, Vice-President-elect Andrew Johnson, who had gone from an Etheridge ally to an enemy, began to organize a civil government for Tennessee, and met with other loyal Tennesseans of radical beliefs at a constitutional convention.72 They adopted amendments to the state constitution declaring secession null and void and voiding the acts of the secessionist government, as well as abolishing slavery and limiting suffrage to those they believed loyal.73 Etheridge and Conservative Unionists opposed all of this, but the amendments were approved by voters on February 22, 1865.74.
Which finally brings us back to the “discarded menial.” Again, Mary’s letters to Wakeman about “E”’s actions were written on February 18 and February 20. On February 24, Etheridge had a card (a published announcement) printed in a Washington Unionist paper, “charging C. O’Leary, an usher at the Executive Mansion, with receiving a bribe to forward certain applications for the release of prisoners to the President.” Etheridge says he had heard this was going on and tested the matter by approaching O’Leary and seeing if he would accept a bribe. A soldier who had recently left the service, Cornelius O’Leary, was listed on the books as a “White House messenger,” which was a low-level position interchangeable with servant, but was understood to be an usher. While he did not screen guests for danger, he still had to control access in figuring out what people wanted and reporting important cases to the president, or directing them to go elsewhere.
The events apparently took place on February 23, the previous day. The Alexandria Gazette, referring to him as a doorkeeper, reported his removal on February 28, saying Etheridge had given him fifty dollars to get a note signed by the president discharging confederate prisoners from Tennessee who took a loyalty oath. The Evening Star echoed this, referring to him as an usher. The official story was that, having served three years as a soldier, O’Leary was appointed usher, and had been immediately dismissed upon the events being known. Etheridge had learned about this the day of, and arranged for payment back at the hotel room, for $10/prisoner. Confronted by Nicolay, O’Leary confessed he had found a way to get the paper signed, and brought it to the hotel as promised, “delivered it to the petitioners, and had received a present in money for his services.”75 Nicolay quickly released a statement through the friendly Washington Chronicle, saying that O’Leary (identified as an usher) had been questioned, had confessed, and had been immediately fired. “We hope,” said one Republican paper, “that Mr. Emerson Etheridge and the copperhead press feel better.” One member of that group pointed out, in a way that will feel familiar, that if Lincoln did not come down hard on such things, “copperheads” “will be liable to think there is collusion somewhere” and associate him with corruption.76
The allegations were unmistakably made within a political context, which was highlighted by the republican press, though it conceded Etheridge’s basic claims. While Etheridge was angry, sarcastic, dramatic, and used a racial slur, the allegations of corruption appeared to hold up. He said he pursued the matter and made it public for the good of humanity, but the republican papers militantly denied that this was so.
The Chronicle noted that Etheridge had acted “with that strange perversity which has of late so astonished and pained is former friends,” which goes a long with increasing suspicion that he was “deranged or drinking.” Calling O’Leary a man of at least as good character as Etheridge, “his tempter,” it noted he had yielded to “temptation,” that Etheridge had forced the bribe on him. This was followed by an interesting series of events: “The bribery is followed by a forcible extortion, and that by a betrayal of confidence, and Mr. Etheridge insanely forces his own disgrace upon the attention of the world.” While it had a political motivation to pin everything on Etheridge, the implication seems to be that he got the money back from O’Leary by threatening him with exposure, and then exposed him anyway.77
X.
Of course, papers of other persuasions disagreed with this characterization, including the especially hostile democratic Rochester Union, Columbia Register, and New York World. They were notable for their enjoyment of attacking the president’s family, and here was a perfect symbolic event to wrap a narrative around.
On March 11, the Columbia Register ran a piece asking, “What is Going on?” “It was recently announced that Mrs. Lincoln discharged ‘Jimmy,’ the faithful Irishman who had been so long the door-keeper at the ‘White House’―appointed by Jackson―and a man named O’Leary put in his place. It seems the place, like everything else in Washington, has become a sinecure, and that Mr. O’Leary has been in the habit of requiring money of persons calling to see the President on business, before they gain access.” On March 15, the Rochester Daily Union & Advertiser responded to “a recent allusion in the World to the practices which have been common at the White House ever since Mr. And Mrs. Lincoln took up their residence there.” It said “We have long heard pretty well authenticated reports of sharp practice in the White House―reports which were not a little stiffened by Mrs. Lincoln’s dismissal of an old and faithful doorkeeper, and employment of a man who has just been detected in pardon brokerage at fixed rates, a business which he could not have prosecuted successfully, without the aid of a most influential accomplice. In justice to the inmates of the White House the friends the administration should demand that the World be more specific. Will they do so?”
The World responded “No. The friends of the administration will take great pains to make no allusion whatever to the subject. They dare not open their heads to ask a question or risk an exposure which would show the country far more profoundly than it has been shocked by the drunkenness of the Vice President on inauguration day.’”
Now, her name was being coupled with a discarded menial’s—perhaps this is along the lines of what she had been hearing for some time? In any event, the copperhead press kept hammering the theme. On March 16, the Rochester Daily Union & Advertiser commented on this by saying referring to the Rochester Democrat’s publication that morning, which defended the Lincolns, saying that “Mrs. Lincoln didn’t receive all the bribes levied by her chosen door-keeper . . . Robert Lincoln, one of the President’s ‘children,’ isn’t a coward, and didn’t go down to the front with his Captain’s commission to see his aunt at the headquarters of Gen. Ord, but with the determination to fight the enemy!”78
XI.
A review of these letters leads to the question asked by the Columbia Register, “What Is Going On?” If Etheridge’s grumblings about O’Leary were what was being passed on to Wikoff, this seems to fit the narrative hinted at by Mary. Etheridge never said anything about McManus, or Mary Lincoln, and at this point there is no suggestion that the World is fabricating anything—that connection did not come up until weeks later. Mary’s aggravation seems to stem from the fact that somewhat important people are believing E’s claims, and Etheridge must have still had some credibility in Washington circles, even if he was publicly shunned by his old associates. The “coupling a lady’s name” with a low-level White House employee points straight to O’Leary, and the game of espionage could have been Etheridge camping outside the White House and looking for an opening to cause trouble. It seems quite plausible that “E” was Etheridge, and that the discarded menial was O’Leary. The problem is that Etheridge claimed not to have seen O’Leary in action until February 23, the day he bribed him. Mary Lincoln speaks of a “discarded menial’s assertion” on February 18, before he was discarded. The letters may be incorrectly dated, the official story might be wrong, or my identification is simply incorrect.
Interestingly, no one seems to be accusing her of being with involved with “Mr. G-,” but he was the one who got “E” removed. There are many possible candidates for “G,” and for “Monsieur Thomson,” assuming they are different people. This was an incredibly intense time politically, with many possibilities for drama. The flipside of this is that however dramatic these events may sound, they could only be a piece of a much larger puzzle. Whatever happened, it is unlikely that O’Leary was her special project, and even less likely that O’Leary had anything to do with Edward’s removal. He was not Edward’s—or Jimmy’s—replacement. Her financial games were much bigger in every way, and whatever the heck was going on, she had powerful men running interference in several cities. Wakeman was one of them.
Which brings us back to the Wakeman letters. In the early 1900s, Wakeman’s son wanted to publish these letters in The Century Magazine, but bowed to Robert Lincoln’s objection that they were too personal. Wakeman’s son had apparently spoke to the magazine’s editor about a letter from President Lincoln to his father, but that was “also too personal to be made public.” Whatever intrigue Wakeman was involved in, it wasn’t restricted to Mary Lincoln, and that his son was willing to show them to Robert Lincoln and have them published suggests that speculation of infidelity is unfounded.
I also don’t think anything in the record about Edward McManus suggests he “turned” on Mary Lincoln, and he should probably be cleared of charges that he went to New York City to tattle to Thurlow Weed about her domestic affairs. As I argued in Part I, Thurlow Weed was a big shot—he just did not care! Mary Lincoln’s shopping obsession, and the eccentric financial arrangements that came with it, are usually visible in the background of whatever she is doing. However, it is unlikely she was looking for ways to install a corrupt doorkeeper to get a cut of bribes. In early 1865, she was in her glory. Indications are that since her initial problems with overspending in 1861 arose, wealthy or aspiring Republicans stepped forward to make those things go away, or to shower her with presents directly. This led to a controversy in 1867, in which Weed’s newspaper harshly criticized her behavior, but there were no references to “Jimmy” or O’Leary. The editorial basically repeated the petty corruption tales that had floated around since 1861, adding only the claim that wealthy New York City men had given her $15,000 “before Lincoln’s death, and probably without his knowledge.” How much truth there was to this remains unknown, but she wasn’t in pursuit of a few extra dollars—the bills Wakeman assisted her with were for furs.79 Whether or not “E” is Emerson Etheridge, and whatever happened to Edward McManus, I do not believe the latter’s removal was a bribery-driven scandal. I do not think they were even related. The democratic press, however, wished these dots to be connected, and enthusiastically proceeded to do so. The Mary Lincoln-Abram Wakeman letters offer no such easy connections.
Arizona Republic, March 8, 1951.
While Mary Lincoln never wrote with perfect clarity, these quickly dashed off letters are unusually ungrammatical at parts. The dates appear to be mostly taken from surviving envelopes, but the accuracy of this approach is hard to assess, and most of the originals have not been located. (Mary Lincoln often made mistakes in dating her letters. She could, occasionally, be off by months or years.)
It seems that she had learned of rumors in New York that she suspected were being spread by “E,” but the information does not appear to have ever been published or even widely gossiped about.
The author has not determined what she meant by “game of espionage.” The “Great Game” of espionage phrase that Rudyard Kipling is known for did not come into play until later. In the early 1800s, there seems to have been a lot of focus on espionage by local police or elites, organized against rebellious rulers they distrusted, such as Napoleon. This “court” espionage, where associates were watched for damaging details, captured the imagination more than military espionage, and the term is used often in the memoirs of Napoleon’s wife, Josephine. Such personal, intimate espionage was a theme in popular works like those of famous British novelist Edward Bulwer-Lytton, whom Mary was known to read, and she seems to be using it in this sense. It had a more negative, personal connotation than “intelligence.”
This is probably a reference to Lincoln’s personal secretary, John G. Nicolay. He lived in the White House, and would have been familiar with the affairs of its staff. He also would have had regular contact with both Mary Lincoln and Abram Wakeman.
The use of the word “deranged” suggests both that this is more than a disgruntled employee passing on insider information or even plausible lies. It indicates that E’s behavior was strange and irrational. At first, Mary Lincoln seems to attack the credibility of E’s assertions on the grounds of his motive and status, but she sharply veers over to the question of sanity. This makes more sense if, as I argue in this article, the “discarded menial’s assertions” are not themselves the deranged behavior discussed.
This is a dramatic and curious remark, especially as Mary Lincoln rarely made references to her marriage. It seems to have been directly relevant to whatever she was discussing with Wakeman. It is impossible to say for sure what was going on, but a possible reading of the letter is that Lincoln had done something to protect her from what she asserts are false allegations. While this has not been argued in detail, it is easy to get the impression that Wakeman was settling a blackmail matter on the Lincolns’ behalf. He was definitely settling something, but a close look seems to reveal something much more mundane. As mentioned in Part I, Wakeman was helping Mary Lincoln deal with creditors, especially in the run up to the 1864 election and in March 1865. Lincoln’s victory does not seem to have quieted matters when it came to her shopping debts, but letters and telegrams document her efforts to settle bills throughout the final months of his presidency. Wakeman may have been acting as a “fixer” in more than one way, however, as she seems to be referring to more intimate matters. The very day Mary Lincoln wrote this letter to Wakeman, Abraham Lincoln wrote himself a check for over $700, a rare occurrence. This letter ends with the comment “Please burn this note & if I should not see you again, do not fail to see, this person, tomorrow & report of course.” The identity of “this person” (possibly “Monsieur Thomson,” “E,” or Wikoff) is unknown, as is whether or not there was a connection between Wakeman’s assignment and the check. Her February 20 letter, the next in the series that survives, sheds little light, and it is not clear if Wakeman was planning on being in Washington or New York City on February 19. Throughout the correspondence, however, she jokes with Wakeman and sounds more annoyed than seriously concerned about being compromised. Interestingly, all of these events paralleled Lincoln’s mysterious offer of the mission to France to the New York Herald’s James Gordon Bennett, a process in which Wakeman had some involvement. The negotiations during this period are not well-understood, and Wakeman does not appear to have been directly involved in February. In fact, it is possible neither he nor Mary Lincoln knew the details until rumors of the offer and Bennett’s eventual declination surfaced in mid-March. A a Herald journalist chatted with both Lincolns on this same day, February 18, about both political and personal matters. He had nothing scandalous to report to Bennett, only offering the latest gossip among the ladies in the Republican “court”: Mary Lincoln was trying to get former Senator James Harlan appointed to the Cabinet, because she wanted to make a match between Harlan’s pretty young daughter and her son, Robert Lincoln. She was successful on both counts: Harlan was offered the position of Secretary of the Interior, and his daughter Mary attended the inaugural ball with Robert Lincoln. In 1868, Robert Lincoln married Mary Harlan.
I have no found good evidence that either McManus or my proposed candidate, Emerson Etheridge, “inhabited” a three-story brick house. The phrase “has it filled with lodgers” suggests the person owned the property, which sounds like it would have been pricey, and rented it out, but it is possible she is talking about a place where “E” boards. There were many boarding houses in Washington, some popular with members of congress when that body was in session. Due to turnover among politicians in Washington, and the exodus of southerners, renting out residences among the political circles was common.
Monsieur Thomson remains unidentified. She did not close the parentheses, but the inclusion of one suggests it was a literary reference. Such references were common in the letters of educated people at the time, and she used them frequently. The most likely allusion seems to be to “Monsieur Tonson,” a humorous poem later turned into a drama. It had become a shorthand for someone obnoxious who surfaces, to cause his usual trouble, after being thought gone for good. If this is the correct interpretation, someone from her past, or once in the public eye more generally, was haunting her. Emerson Etheridge would fit this, but it seems that this person might be staying with Etheridge when he visits from New York. Wikoff or another press figure could also fit this; it seems that this person may have been a journalist, from the reference to having “many exciting chats,” and that he may have been the one “E” was talking to. She apparently believes he will be staying in Washington long enough to need lodgings and give regular reports, perhaps a recently assigned Washington correspondent from a New York City paper. The press was using the term to refer to Colorado Jewett and others at the time. For example, from the 1864 campaign: “VALLANDIGHAM is holding forth to a crowd in the Court-House square. Of course he is constantly cheered, and is evidently the lion of the day, and FERNANDO WOOD is lion No. 2. But to the speech. It is of no use to report it. It is the same old speech — Monsieur TONSON come again. It is but a repetition of the falsehoods, denunciation and demagoguism with which the Copperhead press and orators abound. When you read or hear one you have read and heard all.” New York Times, August 30, 1864. https://www.nytimes.com/1864/08/30/archives/from-chicago-the-democratic-convention-immense-gathering.html
“Mr. G-” also remains unidentified, but seems like another key part of the puzzle. At the time these letters were written, Mary was also sending notes to Gustav E. Gumpert of Philadelphia, a merchant with a mysterious relationship with the Lincolns. In these notes, and in ones mentioning him, she sometimes calls him “Mr. G-” He appears to have been helping her with debt matters, like Wakeman was. There is no evidence he “informed against” anybody, or had any involvement with the White House domestic staff, but it does appear he was involved in some sort of intelligence work. He does not seem to fit the case, but no other “Mr. G-” stands out in the record. How this man relates to everything else, particularly his role in the scandalous allegations about Mary Lincoln and E’s removal, is impossible to decipher.
The Federal Register first notes Edward’s existence in 1855, as “a doorkeeper at the President’s house,” but he was there at least a few years earlier. WHHA, “Ushers and Stewards Since 1800,” https://www.whitehousehistory.org/ushers-and-stewards-since-1800; Dorothea Lynde Dix, Charles McCool Snyder, and Millard Fillmore, The Lady And the President: the Letters of Dorothea Dix & Millard Fillmore (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1975). He was probably paid directly during the Fillmore administration, and some accounts suggest he started with President Taylor. In 1900, Lincoln’s former private secretary William O. Stoddard claimed that Lincoln had told him directly that this was the case. William O. Stoddard, Reminiscences, Christian Endeavor World, quoted in “Civil War’s Dark Days/With Abraham Lincoln In the Early days of 1861/One of His Secretaries Relates an Evening with ‘Old Edward,’ Mr. Sward and General Dix,” The New Haven Morning Journal-Courier, February 5, 1900. If this is true, McManus served under five administrations, starting with the brief Taylor administration in 1849 or 1850. President Polk used replaced the White House staff with his own slaves upon taking office, so it would make sense that few hired servants transitioned from the Jackson administration into later eras. Wikipedia contributors, “James K. Polk,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_K._Polk&oldid=918014624 (accessed September 27, 2019). However, in 1895, artist Frank B. Carpenter, who claimed to have become quite friendly with McManus while living at the White House in 1864, wrote that he “had served through every Administration from the inauguration of President Polk to that of Lincoln.” He identified McManus as a “porter.” Frank B. Carpenter, “An Hour With President Lincoln,” in “The Independent,” Abraham Lincoln: Tributes from His Associates, Reminiscences of Soldiers, Statesmen and Citizens (T. Y. Crowell & Co., 1895), https://archive.org/details/abrahamlincolnt01wardgoog/
Wikipedia contributors, “Emerson Etheridge,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emerson_Etheridge&oldid=892898445 (accessed August 23, 2019).
For a history of Etheridge’s political identification and career, see Maness, Lonnie E. , “Emerson Etheridge and the Union.” Tennessee Historical Quarterly 48, no. 2 (1989): 97-110. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42626790.
Wikipedia contributors, “Emerson Etheridge;”
Adams, Henry, Henry Adams in the Secession Crisis: Dispatches to the Boston Daily Advertiser, December 1860-March 1861 (LSU Press, 2012), 160-161, N5.
Wikipedia contributors, “Emerson Etheridge.”
Ibid.
In 1861, he was listed as a Whig. Maness, “Emerson Etheridge and the Union.”
Wikipedia contributors, “Emerson Etheridge.”
Herman Belz, “The Etheridge Conspiracy of 1863: A Projected Conservative Coup.” The Journal of Southern History 36, no. 4 (1970): 549-67. doi:10.2307/2206304.
Wikipedia contributors, “Emerson Etheridge;” Adams, Secession Crisis.
Michael Burlingame, Abraham Lincoln: A Life, Volume Two (The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, 2013), 591.
Wikipedia contributors, “Emerson Etheridge.”
Some of Mary Lincoln’s references seem like they could be about Catholicism. Edward McManus, an Irish immigrant, was likely Catholic, while Emerson Etheridge was, if anything, hostile to the religion. “He belonged to no church and was considered an agnostic. However, Emerson was considered very knowledgeable in the Bible.” Maness, “Emerson Etheridge and the Union.” He used religious imagery in his speeches.
Burlingame, A Life, 582.
Elizabeth Blair Lee and Virginia Jeans Laas, Wartime Washington: The Civil War Letters of Elizabeth Blair Lee (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1991,) 105-107.
“Speech of Emerson Etheridge,” Daily Constitutionalist, September 2, 1864.
Wikipedia contributors, “Emerson Etheridge.”
“Speech of Emerson Etheridge,” Daily Constitutionalist, September 2, 1864.
Ibid.
In coming years, he would run for office, but be derailed by bizarre, vitriolic speeches. Wikipedia contributors, “Emerson Etheridge.”
Philadelphia Press, September 21, 1864.
Neither Nicolay nor others who would have been in close contact with him remembered Edward as deranged in later writings. They spoke of him with great fondness. Nicolay’s daughter wrote a book after her father’s death about his White House experiences, in which she described Edward as “to be trusted equally with state secrets, or with the diplomatic management of the President’s unpredictable young son Tad,” indicating she had not heard any horror stories. However, she appears to have taken her cues from Stoddard, referring to him as “Edward Moran.” In her version, he had been doorkeeper since the Taylor administration. Helen Nicolay, Lincoln’s Secretary, p. 121, quoted in “Employees and Staff.” Mr. Lincoln’s White House (blog). Accessed September 27, 2019. http://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org/residents-visitors/employees-and-staff/.
Adams, Secession Crisis.
“Col. James Trimble was arrested in Washington a few days ago, at the instance of Mr. Etheridge, of Tenn, on a charge of larceny. Mr. Etheridge obtained from Trimble some of the articles stolen from him, but learning that he was connected with some respectable families of Tennessee, Mr. E. declined prosecution. This man…has letters of recommendation from president Lincoln Andrew Johnson and the republican state committee of Illinois, and for the last few weeks has been somewhat conspicuous in military and political circles figuring extensively as a lecturer to the negro population.” National Intelligencer, quoted in Alexandria Gazette, January 5, 1865. Etheridge had said he would not prosecute if the man left the city, but did not return to Tennessee. Trimble published a card denying the statement entirely, saying it is wholly false and malicious. The story seemed to go away, but it sounds like there were political implications, and that he attempted to address it vigilante style at his hotel, as with the Cornelius O’Leary situation in February.
See, for example, “Mary Todd Lincoln’s Unethical Conduct as First Lady,” appendix 2, in John Hay and Michael Burlingame, At Lincoln’s Side: John Hay’s Civil War Correspondence and Selected Writings (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2000), 202.
In fact, the positions Edward McManus held were under the authority of the Commissioner of Public Buildings, whom Pendel claimed had directed him to the president. However, Pendel indicated that he had initially explained to Mary that he had to meet with the Commissioner before taking the position, which she would already have known. She regularly correspondent with French about staffing matters. His story does not make sense in many respects, and the copy of the appointment he once showed a newspaper reporter does not seem to be in an authentic format: “These presents witness that Thomas F. Pendel is duly appointed an usher in the place of Edward McManus, now dismissed. A. Lincoln.” The Millbrook Herald, November 10, 1886. The text was probably taken from the Evening Star announcement of his appointment. Pendel seems to have fallen into the common path of exaggerating his relationship with Lincoln and incorporating common Lincoln stories into his life to improve his memoir. The basics of his story—coming on board from the police force as a guard in 1864 and becoming a doorkeeper in 1865—are supported by the record, and he knew many others in the Lincoln White House orbit.
Evening Star, January 6, 1865. Some records indicate that that Edward McManus was on the government payroll for several more months, indicating the appointment was not directly related to his removal. Leech, Margaret, Reveille In Washington, 1860-1865 (Garden City, N.Y.: Garden City Pub. Co., 1945). However, Leech believed he was listed on the payroll under the name of Burke. This was not the case, and so her conclusion may have been faulty. The editors of Benjamin Brown French’s diary say he was removed by French in 1865, but do not say when or indicate a source. French was the Commissioner of Public Buildings and McManus was on his payroll. According to one account, by 1865, breakfast was served “by two waiters who were white men, and who were paid personally by the president, who also paid the wages of the cook and his coachman Ned Burke and footman Charles Forbes.” William H. Crook, “An Eyewitness Account [Part 1],” Rail Splitter 2 (Oct. 1996), quoted in Ronald D. Rietveld, “The Lincoln White House Community,” Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association 20, no. 2 (Summer 1999). http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.2629860.0020.204.
“Messenger” and “watchman” were other titles carrying a similar import. Some White House staff were technical on the rolls of other departments and were paid from those funds. A man named Jacob A. Chase later asserted that he was hired as a messenger “at the instance of Mrs. Lincoln” in the fall of 1864. He was only fourteen years old. He said he was hired along with two other men for White House positions—Donn (“then the doorkeeper”) and Pendel (“usher there to this day”). He remained more than fifteen years, into the Hayes administration, when, “because his salary was paid from the police roll, he was transferred to street duty.” Interview with Jacob A. Chase, Washington Sunday Star, February 7, 1909. In an 1876 directory, Chase was listed as “police President’s House, 610 Mass av.” Boyd’s Directory of the District of Columbia. Washington, D.C. : W.H. Boyd. Accessed September 27, 2019. http://archive.org/details/boydsdirectoryof1876wash.
Both Mary Lincoln’s correspondence and the newspapers from this time contain frequent mentions of the White House doorkeepers and other staff. In October 1864, it was reported that a White House doorkeeper was drafted. In December, Mary asked that one doorkeeper be given a furlough and that someone else be given a watchman or messenger position. There seemed to be a staff reorganization going on, across several departments, but this may have been largely routine patronage management intensified by the need to employ returning soldiers in civilian positions. Also, Lincoln’s decision to accept greater security, and the freedom that comes with being a second-term president who does not have to think about winning another term, probably changed Mary Lincoln’s management style. Even outside of her purview, a lot of changes were being made in late 1864 and early 1865 when it came to White House staffing. “As late as March 8, 1865, at the beginning of the second term, Lincoln needed more help. He wrote the secretary of the treasury ad interim: ‘Please detail a good clerk from your Department, to report to my Private Secretary for temporary duty in the Executive Office…’” Rietveld, “The Lincoln White House Community.”
Ayton, Mel, Plotting to Kill the President: Assassination Attempts from Washington to Hoover (Lincoln: Potomac Books, an imprint of the University of Nebraska Press, 2017).
“John Hay was ‘assistant private secretary,’ but the law did not recognize such an office. He became secretary by ‘subterfuge.’ He was first made a clerk in the Pension Office, and afterward an officer in the army and ordered to the White House for special duty….Charles H. Philbrick of Illinois, an old friend of Nicolay, was made a second class clerk in the Department of the Interior and assigned to duty at the White House, taking the second class clerkship that Neill had held before. In addition, Nicolay and Hay were served by both Gustave E. Matile, Swiss-born, and Nathaniel S. Howe, a pension clerk in the Department of the Interior who served from 1863 to 1865…The law gave [the president] one secretary, with no assistant, and one secretary, to sign land patents. The deficiency was ‘partly remedied by drafting clerks and army officers to the White House to perform special duty, and these frequently take full rank, by courtesy, as Secretaries….’” Rietveld, “The Lincoln White House Community.”
The witness appears to have been Washington architect Charles F. Anderson, who was upset that the government had not compensated him for work on the Capitol extension. He wrote to Lincoln directly complaining that government employees managed by the Commissioner of Public Buildings, which included much of the White House staff, had been increasingly corrupt since the Fillmore administration. Hubbard, Charles M. Lincoln, the Law, and Presidential Leadership. SIU Press, 2015; Richard Peters, ed., The Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America (Little, Brown, 1868.)
Anti-Catholic prejudice was also common, as evidenced by the success of the Know-Nothing movement not long before. In a letter to her half-sister during the 1850s, Mary Lincoln lamented having to deal with the “wild Irish” (her sister lived in slaveholding state) in a comment about that movement. Mary Lincoln to Emily Todd Helm, November 23, 1856, in Justin G. Turner and Linda Levitt Turner, editors, Mary Todd Lincoln: Her Life and Letters (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1972.) During the White House years, the Lincolns maintained a heavily Irish staff and associated with prominent Irish-Americans, despite the fact that, as one writer has put it, “The Irish connections Lincoln cultivated upset the blue-nosed clique.” “Abraham Lincoln’s Irish White House Circle Revealed,” The Irish Post, Accessed September 25, 2019, https://www.irishpost.com/life-style/lincolns-irish-white-house-circle-revealed-153987. By 1862, one of Mary Lincoln’s closest friends was Rhoda E. White, wife of Judge James W. White, and their friendship was lifelong. James W. White, a New York City Judge, was Irish-American and a devout Catholic. His wife had converted to Catholicism upon their marriage, and engaged in major outreach efforts to the working-class communities of New York City. He warned Lincoln of the growing unrest among “disloyal men” shortly before the riots. See, for example, Lincoln, Abraham, Abraham Lincoln papers: Series 1. General Correspondence. 1833 to 1916: James W. White to Abraham Lincoln, Thursday, Draft resistance in New York. April 2, 1863. Manuscript/Mixed Material. https://www.loc.gov/item/mal2278700/. (“I have learned indirectly from the Police Authorities of our City, and I presume they have informed you, that arrangements are being extensively made by the disloyal portion of our population to resist the enforcement of the Conscription act in this City. Unless you heard those disloyal men speak in private, as we sometimes do here, you could not form a proper conception of the bitter, malignant, deadly hatred which they bear towards the Government; and they are determined, if they can, to raise a riot here, which would do more to discredit and damage us at home and abroad than the loss of half a dozen battles in the field.”)
Betty Boles Ellison, The True Mary Todd Lincoln: A Biography (McFarland, 2014).
Harriet Lane to Sophie Pitt, February 24, 1861, in Buchanan, James. James Buchanan and Harriet Lane Johnston Papers: Series II: Harriet Lane Johnston Papers, -1887; 1861, July 16-1862, Aug. 30. 1861. Manuscript/Mixed Material. https://www.loc.gov/item/mss14258030/.
WHHA, “Ushers and Stewards Since 1800,” https://www.whitehousehistory.org/ushers-and-stewards-since-1800.
The Baltimore Sun, September 21, 1866, quoting a writer in the Citizen, known to be William O. Stoddard, one of Lincoln’s former private secretaries.
“Many of the guards were dressed as doormen.” Rietveld, “The Lincoln White House Community.”
Robert A. West was a prominent New York editor who moved to Washington during the war to edit John W. Forney’s Washington Chronicle.
Lincoln, Abraham. Abraham Lincoln papers: Series 2. General Correspondence. 1858 to 1864: Robert A. West to John G. Nicolay, Wednesday, White House security. 1864. Manuscript/Mixed Material. https://www.loc.gov/item/mal4315500/.
While Crook finished out his career as a “disbursing officer,” one article explained that his “first work at the White House was as a bodyguard for the Great War executive,” and that he was “then a policeman on the city police force,” assigned to remain with Lincoln himself. Evening Star, September 1, 1902.
“Ovid,” Washington Correspondence, New York Express, January 5, 1865. The letter was dated January 3, 1865, and among other items was one titled “well known ‘Jimmy.’”
Eschner, Kat. “The Civil War Draft Riots Brought Terror to New York’s Streets.” Smithsonian. Accessed September 30, 2019. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/civil-war-draft-riots-brought-terror-new-yorks-streets-180964905/.
“Abram Wakeman (1824-1889).” Mrlincolnandnewyork.Org (blog). Accessed June 23, 2019. http://www.mrlincolnandnewyork.org/new-yorkers/abram-wakeman-1824-1889/.
Wikipedia contributors, “New York City draft riots,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_City_draft_riots&oldid=917943118 (accessed October 1, 2019).
Ibid.
“The New York City Draft Riots of 1863.” Accessed October 1, 2019. https://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/317749.html&title=The+New+York+City+Draft+Riots+of+1863&desc=.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid; Wikipedia contributors, “New York City draft riots,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_City_draft_riots&oldid=917943118 (accessed October 1, 2019).
John Hay and Michael Burlingame, At Lincoln’s Side: John Hay’s Civil War Correspondence and Selected Writings (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2000.) Halpine wrote Hay saying that if Lincoln liked the piece, all he asked was one favor in exchange: a position for a friend. Hay and Halpine also discussed the Etheridge situation in their correspondence, with Hay writing in early December, “Gen. Etheridge is working to throw out enough Union members to carry off the organization….If he plays that game he will get his head broke….” Interestingly, at the time she was writing to Wakeman in early 1865, Mary Lincoln would accuse Halpine, with whom she was friendly, of writing an 1864 article attacking her for corruption. She seemed to be suggesting to Wakeman than journalists might be conspiring with Etheridge, so that could explain why she began making inquiries. The democratic New York World published the critical article. It is not clear with which newspaper(s) Halpine was affiliated with during this timeframe.
Ibid. Burgdorf disappeared from the scene shortly before this time. An 1894 article claimed that he had worked for the government in some capacity since the Polk administration, acting as a confidential messenger under Lincoln. The article indicated that by the 1870s, he was working in the Treasury department, and that “so greatly was he respected by Lincoln that the after sent him abroad some important missions,” which may explain his whereabouts in early 1865. The New Haven Morning Journal-Courier, July 10, 1894.
“Abraham Lincoln’s Irish White House Circle Revealed,” The Irish Post, Accessed September 25, 2019, https://www.irishpost.com/life-style/lincolns-irish-white-house-circle-revealed-153987.
“The Generals and Admirals: Robert A. Schenck (1809-1890).” Mr. Lincoln’s White House (blog). Accessed September 27, 2019. http://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org/residents-visitors/the-generals-and-admirals/generals-admirals-robert-schenck-1809-1890/. The letter is actually in his secretary’s handwriting.
See, for example, Rutland Daily Herald, September 12, 1866. This circulated alongside the reminiscences of Frank B. Carpenter in Six Months in the White House, which also casually mentioned “Edward.” Harrisburg Telegraph, October 1, 1866.
However, in the prolific Stoddard’s later accounts, his memory was a bit fuzzy, and he began to refer to “Edward Moran,” and made a similar mistake with the comparably little-mentioned Louis Burgdorf, whom he called “Louis Berger” and identified as a messenger. Such haziness with names is to be expected after several decades, but Stoddard seemed to be on the hunt for new details to liven up his writing. In 1866, it had been “he needs no other name.” By 1892, he was describing “Old Edward,” the “all but historic doorkeeper” who had served seven presidents.
William O. Stoddard, Inside Lincoln’s White House in War Times (Annotated) (BIG BYTE BOOKS, 1892). Kindle. By 1900, he was explaining how “Old Edward Moran” had been there since President Taylor’s time.
Many years later, Mary Boykin Chesnut published her now-famous diary, from the perspective of an elite southern woman. According to the published version, on March 13, 1861, she wrote: “Mr. Ledyard spoke to Mrs. Lincoln in behalf of a door-keeper who almost felt he had a vested right, having been there since Jackson’s time; but met with the same answer; she had brought her own girl and must economize.” Mary Boykin Miller Chesnut Miller, Myrta Avary, and Isabella D Martin, A Diary From Dixie: As Written by Mary Boykin Chesnut, Wife of James Chesnut, Jr., United States Senator From South Carolina, 1859-1861… (N. Y.: D. Appleton & co., 1906).
A more recently published “unedited” version carries this entry for March 11, 1861:
“Mrs. Browne & Mrs. Scott said Mr. Ledyard called on Mrs. Lincoln to request t they would keep the present door keep who has had the place since Jackson’s time, the man having asked Mr. L to intercede for him. Mrs. Lincoln said no. She had brought her help with her & required no more except perhaps a girl. She intended to save at least twelve thousand a year out of Mr. Lincoln’s salary, & whenever Dr. Blake says any thing about the Establishment, Mrs. Lincoln answers, ‘Remember, I shall not spend half of the salary….” Mary Boykin Miller Chesnut, C. Vann Woodward, and Elisabeth Muhlenfeld, The Private Mary Chesnut: The Unpublished Civil War Diaries (A Galaxy Book. New York: Oxford University Press, 1984.) My own opinion is that this was written largely in hindsight with the use of newspaper clippings, and is not to be relied upon. Importantly, no doorkeeper had been there since Jackson’s time, and one would think she would know the name of such an employee with anywhere near such longevity. She did not mention any such thing in 1864 or 1865, though she would probably have had less inside information from Washington by that time. However, the mean-spirited fixation on how the Lincolns would manage to “properly” run the White House seems to have been common to old time Washington elites with secessionist sympathies, or who resented the incoming administration. It is likely they were discussing such things in 1861, and the rumors were floating around to be seized upon in 1865. The actual correspondence of Dr. Blake, a government official during the Buchanan administration and the beginning of the Lincoln administration, from 1861 and 1862 does not indicate that Mary Lincoln fired a longtime doorkeeper, or most of the staff. On February 28, 1862, Dr. Blake updated Harriet Lane on the White House staff: “all the old female servants about the house . . . had left . . . Edward, Thomas Burke, and Louis occupy their old situation. Burns and Burke remain true to their old friends and always inquire after you all whenever they see me. Edward is a hypocrite, I fear, and Louis (if you will excuse the epithet) is a scoundrel.” What he meant by these comments is anyone’s guess, but he did not seem to feel Mary was making reckless changes, or seem surprised by the situation of the servants. Dr. John B. Blake to Harriet Lane, February 28, 1862, in
Buchanan, James. James Buchanan and Harriet Lane Johnston Papers: Series II: Harriet Lane Johnston Papers, -1887; 1861, July 16-1862, Aug. 30. 1861. Manuscript/Mixed Material. https://www.loc.gov/item/mss14258030/.
Camden Democrat, January 7, 1865.
New Orleans Times-Picayune, January 17, 1865.
Washington correspondent of an unknown newspaper, quoted in New Orleans Times, February 3, 1865. The article described Jimmy as having episodes of heavy intoxication, during which he was abusive to callers. On sobering up he would beg Jackson’s forgiveness and receive it. This does not seem like the kind of situation visitors would easily forget, and his dismissal under such circumstances would hardly be surprising and universally mourned. It also seems like a heavy-handedly stereotypical account.
When Mary Lincoln speaks of a “noble and distinguished friend” who would not listen to E’s “complaints,” because he “scorned close communion with menials,” I suspect she is using the term in the sense of plotting with the domestic staff, rather than associating with people of lower social status. It seems unlikely that most Washington figures would refuse to speak with Edward McManus because of his position alone. Etheridge may have been somehow trying to get the staff to compromise the Lincolns, or merely watching them closely for an opportunity to make an accusation. He may have been linked with employees other than Cornelius O’Leary, and the “discarded menial” making allegations could have been someone else, including McManus or Burns.
Maness, “Emerson Etheridge and the Union.”
Ibid.
Ibid.
If the letters are correctly dated and her reference to “Nicol” means “Nicolay,” then Nicolay may have already been trying to neutralize Etheridge. He dealt directly with the O’Leary situation, and as the public discussion continued, he added that he had also learned of O’Leary accepting a gold piece from a suspicious man who wanted to see the president on unsavory business. This had happened before the Etheridge reveal. Initial reports had tried to defend O’Leary as extorted by Etheridge but suddenly the administration seemed to want to steer attention in his direction. See, for example, Chicago Tribune, March 9, 1865. Yet, Lincoln’s papers contain a letter from O’Leary requesting his position back in late March, as though this was relatively minor, and he had reason to think it might be worked out. Perhaps by the end of March, the “real” controversy had been neutralized, as Etheridge went quiet. Lincoln, Abraham. Abraham Lincoln papers: Series 2. General Correspondence. 1858 to 1864: Cornelius O’Leary to John G. Nicolay, Wednesday, Removal from office. 1865. Manuscript/Mixed Material. https://www.loc.gov/item/mal4330300/. It is possible that she believed that “E” has, since his removal, been lying in wait for an opportunity to get revenge through obtaining information from multiple Lincoln associates such as servants, or trying to infiltrate that circle. Being “more shocked than ever” could be a figure of speech, or they could have had an issue with ex-staff members going to the press, which is hardly implausible.
The Spirit of Democracy, March 22, 1865.
O’Leary seems to have made this allegation himself. See Abraham Lincoln papers: Series 2. General Correspondence. 1858 to 1864: Cornelius O’Leary to John G. Nicolay, Wednesday, Removal from office. 1865. Manuscript/Mixed Material. https://www.loc.gov/item/mal4330300/. A letter from Cornelius O’Leary to John G. Nicolay is among Lincoln’s papers. In late March, after everything had settled down, he believed he had a chance at getting his job back, and gave his version of events. No response or other correspondence related to O’Leary survives.
Robert Lincoln had recently graduated from Harvard and taken a position on General Ulysses S. Grant’s staff. While there, he ran into his mother’s half-sister, Emilie Todd Helm, the widow of a Confederate general. This is the sister to whom she had complained of the “wild Irish.”
Mary Lincoln is often described as obsessed and irresponsible with money, but the dynamics were more specific. As her later life made obvious, she had a problem with compulsive hoarding, especially of fabrics. Her bizarre and sometimes improper financial behavior tended toward accumulating physical items instead of money, and was often backed up by a belief that the republican party or United States government should cover her bills out of respect for or gratitude to Abraham Lincoln. She was fixated on income, but rarely touched her savings, and therefore would run up debts even when she had money. Notably, she scrambled to hide her White House debts from the executor of the estate after Lincoln’s death, preferring to ask his associates to pay them.