Mary Lincoln is portrayed as having been highly unpopular during the war. After reading through a few years of coverage recently made available on newspaper sites, I think we have a distorted idea of this. Many harsh comments were made, more privately than publicly, but that was true of everyone. There is a relatively recent book, Corruption in the Civil War North, that tries to get into the culture and mind of the times. People were understandably suspicious and upset during the war, especially early on, and were seeking scapegoats. The treatment of many prominent people was absurd, though probably inevitable.
Historians rarely note how much wartime criticism of Mary Lincoln was mentioned in the same paragraph as criticisms of other figures, sometimes drawing ridiculous associations. For example, it was said that Mary Lincoln was responsible for the retention of Ward “Hill” Lamon, probably at least as unpopular as she was among elites in eastern cities. In reality, we know that Lamon had long been a good friend of Lincoln himself. It was also said she was responsible for the firing of Simon Cameron, by those who approved of it, which is highly unlikely. In 1861-1862, much of this came from Massachusetts, which thought Lincoln was too conservative in his approach, and tolerated too much corruption, but really wanted to believe the best of him. They compensated by projecting his perceived failings onto those around him. While they were somewhat quieted by the Emancipation Proclamation, those in New York kept it up unabated, largely due to factional infighting over patronage and the presence of many Democrats and merchants worried about the disruption of commerce. The Chicago Tribune and Cincinnati Commercial, both leading republican papers in the west, also sometimes feuded petulantly and indirectly with Lincoln by means of attack on related indivduals.
This is from a British paper, The Hampshire Advertiser, on September 14, 1861. The British correspondents were better able to see that people were a little out of their minds:
“The Yankee correspondent to the Morning Herald continues his graphic and amusing letters concerning the War. He shows conclusively that the war has not brought the various sections of the States into unison against the common foe. While the South seceded because they objected to President Lincoln and his Administration, ‘Manhattan,’ and a very powerful section of Unionists in New York, use as vehement language . . . . as any that has proceeded from the Secessionists. He tells us that ‘the hope here (in New York) is that the rebels will take and then burn Washington; and if they hang up the scoundrels they find there (that is, the Federal President and Government), so much the better.’ Individual ‘scoundrels’ are particularized as follows: ‘The hanging of Seward, Cameron, and Welles, and I do not know but Lincoln, would be regarded as a direct interposition of Providence in our favour.’ Even Mrs. Lincoln and her sister are ‘marked,’ and we have bitter allusions to ‘Mrs. Lincoln's man Wood,’ and are assured that ‘President Davis's wife is, by all accounts, a lady, and there are no Woods, Walbridges, M'Cunes, and cattle of that kind tagging after her and her sisters.’ But the secretary of war, Mr. Cameron, comes in for the best share of denunciation, for, says Mahattan, ‘Everybody knew that he was a thief, and now he is held responsible for the death of General Lyon. The rebels killed him, but Cameron murdered him . . .’ . . . In the midst of the dissatisfaction among the model Republicans, the remarkable idea of a Dictator is gaining possession of the public mind . . .”
Note that “Manhattan” isn’t quite sure that they want to hang Lincoln, just everyone around him! These rather silly yet mean-spirited comments were all part of a piece, and generally not made in good faith. They were an easy way to indicate disapproval of the administration. The still somewhat mysterious William S. Wood, the allegedly corrupt commissioner of public buildings often associated with Mary Lincoln, was introduced into the Lincoln orbit by the Seward-Weed crew in New York. Seward and Cameron both came from states with vicious Republican in-fighting and Lincoln was constantly pressured by their opponents. Mary Lincoln was rarely singled out, and when she was, it usually was transparent petty snipping. After the war, there was more personal criticism of her, but that will require separate posts to analyze.
Kenneth W. Wheeler, a historian writing of Cincinnati Commerical editor Murat Halstead captured this dynamic without realizing it, still attributing his criticism of Mary Lincon solely to her political meddling by means of sending letters to newspaper editors, including Halstead. It appears he was mistaken, and that the letter (he cites only one) in question, written after much of Halstead’s criticism, was not written to Halstead, but to a personal friend of hers. She is known to have written to New York Herald editor James Gordon Bennett, but he had reached out to her. A first lady talking politics privately with people who liked political gossip was not a break with tradition; it was normal. After several paragraphs describing Halstead’s vitriolic letters to personal friends about Lincoln, motivated by reports of the president’s incompetence, Wheeler writes:
The closest to personal criticism of the President that Halstead reached was an editorial about a "gay and festive" White House party given by the Lincolns during the war. He claimed in the editorial that the plain people disapproved of the costly and gaudy demonstration that Mrs. Lincoln made of her party and said that when thousands of brave men were out dying for their country it was deplorably wrong to have the White House connected with feasting and dancing. Mrs. Lincoln herself, he said, would be better off employed in promoting the comfort of the sick soldiers than in "driving out in her fine carriage and presiding at ostentatious carousals." It was unfortunate, Halstead declared, that Mrs. Lincoln had "so poor an understanding of the true dignity of her position."
For the Union: Ohio Leaders in the Civil War, Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1968.
In other words, the powerful editor limited public criticism of Lincoln to a cowardly misdirected temper tantrum on behalf of the “plain people.” Please.
There’s a lot more to be written on this topic, but consider this an introduction.