Mistaken Identities: Part I

A version of this article was published in the summer 2019 edition of Manuscripts. Part II will be published in the fall 2019 edition. Thoughts, suggestions, corrections and questions welcomed!

In a 1951 issue of Lincoln Lore, Dr. Louis A. Warren protested against the media’s coverage of some newly discovered letters that Mary Lincoln had written to Abram Wakeman in 1864 and 1865. Wakeman was Surveyor of the Port in New York, a coveted office that Lincoln had appointed him to in late 1864. He often visited the White House to talk about “sundry domestic differences in the ranks of the Union party [in New York].” He seems to have been well-suited to the task, with a sincere amiable steadiness that made him an appealing confidant.1

The letters Mary wrote him are cryptic but carried a definite air of intrigue–some of the headlines suggested an adulterous relationship. But read in context, they were examples of Mary’s “tendency to endow the mildest machinations with an air of vast and mysterious import.”2 They clearly focus on the political machinations of certain men, who are identified only by initials. One, “Mr. B,” is unquestionably James Gordon Bennett, of the New York Herald.3 Warren said that another, “Mr. W.”, was “unquestionably Thurlow Weed.”

Well, I’m questioning it. When I first read that series of letters in the extraordinary Mary Todd Lincoln: her life and letters, by Justin G. and Linda Levitt Turner, something seemed a little off. Given the consensus of prominent historians that the man was Weed, the powerful figure behind New York’s viciously competitive Republican Party machine, it seemed presumptuous to second guess his identity.4 But over the last few years, I read through her letters many times, and realized how easy it is to overlook implications that, in later readings, stand out clearly.

I had begun studying the letters due to their main point of interest: the references to yet another mysterious figure, identified only by the initial “E.” This “E” had gossiped about Mary in New York political circles, but the cryptic letters5 to Wakeman do not reveal what “E” said. Mary protests to Wakeman, rather casually, that at least some of the allegations are false or misleading, rumors maliciously spread by “E.” It seems that she knew “E” personally, and that she was more annoyed than threatened by whatever he said. It is generally asserted that this was the longtime White House doorkeeper, Edward McManus, whom she had reportedly fired in December 1864.6 I had little luck in trying to puzzle out that situation, despite a very close, word-by-word reading. But as I spun it around in my mind, I realized that the Turners’ repeated identification of “W” as “Weed” just didn’t make sense.

In the letters, “Weed” was keeping her posted on threatening gossip via Wakeman. Weed just didn’t play on that level. He had far bigger things to manage and wouldn’t have wasted that much time meeting with an intermediary who approached him with Mary Lincoln’s musings on household gossip. That stuff was already common and far from the biggest threat to Republican interests. Mary surely knew that he did not desire her input, and certainly not so frequently and casually. Wakeman surely realized the same, and did not get where he did by constantly interrupting Thurlow Weed with updates on Mary Lincoln.7 “W” was someone closer to Wakeman’s level, and I had my suspicions, but knowing the claim was controversial, I began a long search for corroborating evidence. I now have no reservations: “W” was Henry Wikoff.8

I will not attempt to characterize Wikoff; stylized “Chevalier Wikoff” by the New York Herald, he was a colorful and controversial character prominent in the political and social circles of the east coast cities; well-connected with political elites in both America and Europe, he had a complicated relationship with Bennett. He had been jailed in Italy for “sequestration,” after holding a woman against her will for several hours when she refused to either marry him or sign over her fortune—the case was followed internationally, and when he got out, he wrote My Courtship and its Consequences, telling his witty, entertaining version of events.9 It seems clear to me that Wikoff was essentially a sleazy combination of intriguer and performance artist, and was widely understood to be one, but was kept around because he was a fascinating and entertaining companion. While his life invites a careful attempt to separate fact from invention, the author has not yet accepted the invitation. For our purposes, it is safe to say that those who study Lincoln generally view him quite negatively, and are familiar with him mainly in connection with a controversy that erupted in early 1862.

In late 1861, a summary and a few lines of Lincoln’s first message to Congress appeared in the Herald a few hours before its release. President Buchanan and other politicians had, as a courtesy, often telegraphed messages to New York the night before so that the papers could set their type and publish it at the time of its delivery to Congress.10 As the contents would be revealed within hours, the message by its nature did not contain sensitive or even non-public information; its delivery to Congress was ceremonial—it was not meant exclusively for congressmen’s eyes, and the papers wanted to be in on the ensuing public discussion before it became stale.

Whatever Lincoln’s own plans were, they became inoperative when he realized his secretary of war Simon Cameron’s message recommended recruiting and arming black soldiers. Fearing heavy backlash, Lincoln scrambled to stop its publication, and did not deliver his own message on the day Congress convened.11 Usually, all the cabinet members submitted their messages together—Cameron had forwarded his to the Tribune by the time Lincoln knew of its contents, and apparently Lincoln’s edited version was sent to the Tribune and Herald the next day. While obeying Lincoln’s orders not to publish, the Tribune explained that this was because there was a dispute over which of the two versions to publish. This alerted the more radical members of the Republican Party, generally associated with the abolition movement, that Lincoln was hostile to Cameron’s more radical views. Before even receiving the message, the House of Representatives became contentious, and its members appointed a series of committees to investigate and pressure the administration as suited the various interests of the members.12 A couple of days later, Lincoln released what many considered a decidedly conservative message,13 and the so-called radical faction aimed to force Lincoln’s hand in the direction they believed was necessary to avert disaster—striking down slavery. Over the next couple of months, practically every day saw a major clash of Republican factions, with controversies as significant as the removals of cabinet officers and generals.14

In early January, one of the congressional committees launched an inquiry into a subject of increasing complaints from the press—government censorship of the telegraph. While Lincoln had notified the press he was holding his message back from everyone, the excerpt had made it to the Herald, but not its rivals (which was not unusual—the Herald always found innovative ways to get the news before anyone else, and generally succeeded). Needless to say, they were displeased, and made this known. While the committee’s course cannot be separated from the political machinations of the time, its members had every right to investigate the incident. It did relate to its mission–which, again, was investigating complaints of government censorship. The key point is that the committee’s aim was not to prevent another such incident —it was to ensure that the government was not preventing other papers from doing the same! This incident raised important questions about press access in wartime, but they were being raised far more pointedly in simultaneous investigations into other allegations of censorship. Allan G. Bogue, who did a historical study of these investigations, said the importance ascribed to this incident “threatened to turn the inquiry into utter farce.”15

Rumors quickly surfaced that Wikoff, with his persistent vague association with the Herald, had leaked the information, having been given access to the message by Mary.16 He allegedly conveyed information from it to a Herald journalist, Simon P. Hanscom, who had telegraphed it to the Herald the night before publication. While the main witnesses were hostile to the Herald, the basic elements of this story are generally accepted. In a strange turn of events that will not be analyzed here, Lincoln met with members of the congressional committee, and the next day, shady White House gardener John Watt claimed to be responsible. Wikoff, who had been arrested for contempt of congress after refusing to divulge his source, was immediately released. He then wrote a series of amusing articles for the Herald, in which he mocked the committee’s actions. These events and some of Wikoff’s insinuations as to the committee’s real target point in Mary’s direction, but as Bogue put it, “By no means all the details of this incident are clear.”17

Wikoff has gone down in history as a spy planted by the Herald to win the gullible Mary’s confidence and get such a major scoop.18 The fact is, the Herald did not need spies—its reporters were invited right into the generals’ camps and paid as clerks—nor19 was it a major coup for the Herald, which regularly got bigger scoops before breakfast. It had managed to obtain the Treaty of Hidalgo in advance of Congress!20 Most importantly, it defies belief that Wikoff could have functioned as a spy, or surreptitiously obtained access, because Mary—along with everyone else in Washington—knew who he was. Historians seemed to have based this on the idea that Wikoff was excluded from “polite society”—it is unclear who that is supposed to include, but this decision doesn’t seem to have deprived Wikoff21 of an enviable social life. The list of people who could have taken him to the White House for an introduction, while not composed solely of pure characters, is still long and impressive. He was the best friend of diplomat, politician, accused murderer, and future general Daniel E. Sickles, and had been friendly with Charles Sumner many years before. He was also well-known to the editor and politician John W. Forney, Governor William H. Newell, Secretary of State William H. Seward, and Speaker Schuyler Colfax, among many others who were regular guests.22 Mary enjoyed the company of these entertaining and sophisticated men, and Wikoff would have fit right in. He didn’t need to insinuate himself into her circle to get information—he just had to come over with a few friends and have a chat about current events, which is how newspapermen, politicians—and people generally—typically keep posted.

And all this is on top of the fact that, a few months earlier, Lincoln had spoken with Wikoff directly about Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles’ denial of a pass to accompany a Union warship down the Potomac.23 It is possible that Lincoln forgot Wikoff was connected with the Herald after this brief interaction, but Lincoln had a good memory, and Wikoff had a distinct manner and style of speech that apparently made him very striking. Additionally, Lincoln wrote down Wikoff’s unusual last name during the meeting.24 The reason for the denial remains unclear, and it appears Wikoff was making the request on behalf of another Herald reporter, but it was too late at night for Lincoln to consult with Welles. So, he sat down and wrote a note to Bennett, apologizing, and noting that Wikoff had emphasized that passes had been given to the reporters of other papers. “I write this to assure you that the administration will not discriminate against the Herald,” he wrote, an accusation that would shortly be inverted.25 Not to worry, Bennett reassured him—Welles had already given another of his reporters a pass.26

Now that we have the background on Wikoff, we can return to “W.” By the time of Mary’s letters to Wakeman, in late 1864 and early 1865, Wikoff was functioning as a friend or tool (probably both) of Bennett, and being similarly free from partisan loyalties, he absorbed gossip and reported it to Bennett—or anyone else who might be interested. The first surviving letter to Wakeman is dated September 23, 1864. The bitter election campaign was in full swing and Wakeman wielded considerable influence in the campaign and Republican party politics. For our purposes, what is relevant in this letter is her comment that “W” “has exerted a friendly influence without any reward . . . He is a truly disinterested friend.”27

Does this sound like a description of Thurlow Weed? One may argue it also does not sound like Wikoff, but Wikoff was not driven by politics or money.28 Even if Wikoff was acting for the Herald, Bennett was distinguished from other New York editors by his “political agnosticism” and radical independence— he wanted the Herald to be number one, and would “attack virtually any politician at will and to support them when necessary.” In that sense, Wikoff was one of the few people Mary knew who could be plausibly called politically disinterested.

On October 23, she wrote to Wakeman about another attack on Lincoln, which said he had recently paid some long-standing debts to New York merchants. The article’s implication was that he did so only to quiet the allegations of extravagance (which usually hinted at Mary’s shopping) that had surfaced during the bitter campaign. However, she did not deny that some debts existed. She ended with a cryptic comment: “Please say not a word to anyone not even W about the 5th Avenue business.”29

The Turners thought she may be referring to some sort of meeting or incident at the 5th Avenue Hotel, but their annotations of her letters after Lincoln’s death explain that she used the phrase “5th Avenue business” to refer to her efforts to settle bills received from merchants on that street. Fifth Avenue was known then—as it is known today—for its shopping. It almost certainly has the same meaning here–Wakeman probably tried to keep the merchants at bay, or to solicit their discretion, until Mary had paid them in full. She seems to have done so shortly afterward; the details are unclear.

Continuing the line of inquiry, the phrase “not even W” is interesting. This suggests “W” is very close to Wakeman on a friendly level, perhaps the first person Wakeman would be expected to turn to. This could be Weed, as Weed had demanded Wakeman’s appointment. In context with the other letters, though, I think there is room for doubt. A few months later, Mary again wrote to Wakeman, but “W” doesn’t make an appearance. She states that she has learned that “E,” the other mysterious figure, had gone to New York and spread rumors about her. This is followed by an angry denial of his allegations, and condemnation of his behavior. Two days later, she told him she had received a note “from the same disagreeable source,” who, she said, “takes particular occasion not to mention E’s visit to N.Y. says two or three distinguished individuals of his acquaintance coming from W had mentioned flying rumors.” Here, “W” is simply Washington. But I suspect the informant as to “E”’s New York activities, “the same disagreeable source,” is Henry Wikoff, reporting gossip as usual. Mary had dropped any civility, real or pretended, she once had towards him—and, whether related or not, she thought he was being deceptive.

The letter defies total comprehension, and the crypticness noted by the Turners is in part explained by the fact that most of these letters were not mailed. Wakeman was often in Washington, and she was sending him notes by messenger, sometimes mere hours after meeting with him personally. As she was following up on recent chats, she made references that he would have easily comprehended without explanation. But as we do not have the assumed knowledge Wakeman did, the letters are impossible for us to fully understand. However, I will offer the interpretation that makes me think that Wikoff is the “disagreeable source.”

Based on the quotes given above and elsewhere in the letter, Mary is angry because, as she sees it, he should know the rumors are “false.” He pretends he doesn’t know anything about “E,” but writes her that rumors about the situation are flying around in elite circles, presumably from more than one source. This suggests the rumors have a certain credibility to them, which would not be the case if a disgruntled “E” was the one saying this, and she believes the “disagreeable source” knows that this is in fact the case. Why he is playing dumb is unclear, but it seems he wants the situation to be more mysterious and dramatic. She writes that a “noble & distinguished friend” who would never be friends with the “disagreeable source,” had told her he refused to listen to “E’s” “complaints” when he had called.

When she summarizes her point, a “Mr W” enters the scene: “If any information was given Mr W it emanated from E himself and those whom he had entertained with his vile falsehoods.” She closed the letter by telling Wakeman not to tell “Mr W” that he’d heard from her, again implying the two men talk regularly about such matters.

The next surviving letter comes after the inauguration, and there is no mention of “W.” But “Weed” is mentioned, apparently not meriting a “Mr.” The decision to spell out a name instead of using the initial could be meaningless, but is at least worth considering given the argument that he was not “W.” She closed it with “If possible, I am sure you will always say a kind word to Mr & Mrs B[ennett], whose favor, it would be most impolitic to ignore–Weed may try to sour them–all this between ourselves.”

James Gordon Bennett and his paper have been persistently and egregiously misunderstood, and given his overwhelming influence at the time, this distorts many other discussions of the Civil War era. For our purposes, it suffices to say that Bennett held all the cards—presidents and generals groveled before him.30 His constantly shifting endorsements had an internal logic, and he was not anywhere near as hostile to the Lincoln administration as he has often been portrayed.31 The lack of unquestioning loyalty to Lincoln that he is often criticized for is precisely what gave him such public influence—everyone knew what the partisan papers would say.

New York politics was not an arena in which anyone was slavishly loyal to anyone else, and that is another reason I don’t think Wakeman was having breezy chats with Weed. Back in August 1864, weeks before his appointment, Wakeman had written Lincoln that “I am fearful our hold upon Mr Weed is slight He evidently has his eye upon some other probable candidate[.]”32 Indeed, “Daily cogitations are occuring [sic] and new alliances may be formed,” Wakeman wrote with alarm.33 Therefore, while Weed and Bennett rival Henry J. Raymond (of the New York Times, a reliably pro-administration paper), had backed Wakeman’s appointment, securing Bennett’s support for Lincoln’s reelection was one of Wakeman’s main activities.34 The reason he and Mary so casually sent each other notes was because he was acting as a courier for confidential notes about political intrigue.

On April 4, she was still exchanging notes with Wakeman, and this time, he was the one passing on a warning. He even dropped by the White House to leave her a note. “Your very kind note was received, but alas! Too late to remedy the evil,”35 she wrote back, after returning from General Grant’s headquarters at City Point in the aftermath of her infamous meltdown, which seems to have been connected to a belief that she was surrounded by hostile people trying to aggravate her. Her mental instability is well-chronicled, and the main trigger was likely the four years of anxiety that burst forth once the threat of destruction ceased to override all other concerns.

Mary’s story was that she had “left Mr L with a promise that I would return on Wednesday, tomorrow, with a choice little party of friends.”36 It seems likely that Lincoln encouraged her to go home, cool off, and come back with some people she felt comfortable around and who were good at soothing her. Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner was one of them, and Baron Gerolt, a diplomat who had long been a friend of Sumner’s, was also invited. An object of fascination to his contemporaries whose unusual personality is hard to recapture, Sumner is often described as humorless and severe. However, when he went to Europe as a young man, he developed a lifelong reputation in the most select circles for being the most pleasant of companions. Wikoff ran into him at this point, and found him mesmerizing. They carried on a brief correspondence after that, but don’t appear to have had a lasting relationship. When Mary mentioned her “noble & distinguished friend” who would never be friends with “W,” Sumner may well have been the person she had in mind.

Mary wrote Wakeman that it was too late to cancel— “Pray, for me, lest any evil spirits, come near me–I trust in some way, he may have left C[ity] P[oint] ere we arrive.”37

We don’t know who the “he” currently at City Point is, other than that he is classified with evil spirits. But the rest of the note provides some hints: “It was the queerest coincidence last evening. Baron Gerolt, Sumner and myself, were chatting away, when the Baron, brought up some reminiscences of a voyage across the Atlantic, when the ‘Chevalier’ was his room mate & how the latter person endeavoured to learn his the President’s opinion of his ‘book.’ The Baron told it in such a ludicrous way, that S- looking at me, we both laughed immoderately–we had a gay time over it38 . . .”

That she found Gerolt’s mention of Wikoff was “the queerest coincidence,” in my opinion, settles the matter of “W”’s identity. It is unclear if Gerolt was speaking of a voyage prior to Lincoln’s administration, and if Wikoff was therefore inquiring about a different “President.” But what is striking is that Gerolt, who could not have been ignorant of political gossip, was apparently comfortable with bringing Wikoff up casually, to entertain his listeners. Maybe he had thoughtlessly put his foot in his mouth, but what followed was not painful silence. Sumner gave Mary a significant look, and when she met his eyes, they “laughed immoderately.” In modern terms, they “burst out laughing.” That this was Charles Sumner’s response suggests that the Wikoff issue was not considered particularly serious or sensitive, but that it was awkward, and that Sumner knew all about whatever drama had occurred.

This seems confirmed by what she wrote to Wakeman on April 13 about her visit to City Point. “I can scarcely express what a charming time we have had, and not encountering Mr W was the most agreeable feature of the excursion,” she began. “I am told he has just left W for N.Y.”39 We don’t know who told her, but her last sentence displays an awkward self-consciousness she seldom displayed: “Please do not acknowledge to Mr W that you wrote me, he with a party was en route to City Point, there is no necessity that he should know, I had heard any thing about it.”40

For those still unconvinced, my final piece of evidence, I hope, removes all doubt. I failed to find a recorded visit of Weed to City Point during this time, but—after a long pursuit—I located Wikoff.

On May 6, 1865, a publication called the Railway News published correspondence headed “Visit of a British Yacht to Richmond.”41 A “Mr. Kennard,” a prominent English railway engineer, had piloted “the first vessel bearing the British flag which has entered the port after it was in possession of the Federals.” The unknown correspondent’s letter was dated April 8, and he appears to have been a passenger on that vessel, the “steam yacht Octavia,” writing about events that took place in the last few days. He listed the passengers who had traveled from New York to Fort Monroe, and among them was a “Mr. Wikoff.” The argument that this is the Mr. Wikoff is strengthened by the fact that he had many British connections and was always up for adventure. Kennard was unable to obtain a pass at Fort Monroe, but they “decided to risk it by boldly steaming under the British flag up the river.” They did what everyone else was doing: visiting the recently fallen cities of Richmond and Petersburg. When they returned, Admiral Porter was waiting for them, with an order to arrest the party and seize the yacht. “He was at a loss to understand how we had reached this place.” The correspondent evinced a Wikoff-like amusement at their plight, and somehow Kennard talked them out of trouble, and even got permission to stick around. Where did they go after that narrow escape? To visit the President–the queerest coincidence! “The English portion of the party” called on Lincoln aboard the River Queen, and as Wikoff was an American, among other reasons, he probably did not join them. In any case, Mary never ran into him.

When the Mary Lincoln-Abram Wakeman correspondence is re-read with this in mind, the entire exchange makes far more sense, and I think the reader will join the author in wondering why it was not considered–or at least why Weed was so confidently put forth. The Turners even noted that “she began writing harshly of Weed to a man who, interestingly enough, owed his political fortunes to Weed’s sponsorship,”42 which I’d say was an obvious red flag if it weren’t for the fact that Wakeman himself wrote critically of Weed—there’s really nothing surprising about intraparty disagreements.43 There are probably two reasons for this: “W” was an influential New Yorker in regular contact with the most powerful political players, and he had some familiarity with Mary. And he wasn’t Wakeman, who would otherwise have been a good candidate. But he knew Wakeman well, and he took an interest in low-level gossip. There were not many candidates left, but one thing historians were sure of was that it was not Wikoff.

Wikoff was neatly–way too neatly–cut out of the Lincoln story by historians. Around March 1862, when the congressional investigation concluded, he was killed off like an antagonist in a novel. In their telling, he had finally been revealed as the true traitorous villain he was. A humiliated Mary and an angry Lincoln finally realized his true intentions, and he had attained enemy status. In fact, as the story goes, Lincoln immediately and personally ejected him from the White House.44 He had been permanently vanquished. This narrative essentially holds that the Lincolns were blindsided by the idea that Wikoff and Mrs. James Gordon Bennett might have approached them with the Herald’s interests in mind, and that someone had to reveal this devious plot to save them from these three charlatans.45 The Herald was widely recognized as the most aggressive and infiltrating newspaper in the world, and its editor was commonly referred to as “His Satanic Majesty.”46 To say the least, this narrative creates an inaccurate impression, but a detailed analysis of the incident requires its own article.

Nevertheless, the narrative’s indestructibility is remarkable. Harold Holzer’s recent work, Lincoln and the Power of the Press: The War for Public Opinion, is a fascinating and informative discussion of the press during this period. Reading it, particularly the sections on James Gordon Bennett, I realized that the accepted account of the story was not consistent with reality. Holzer seems to be the only historian to address a letter from Wikoff to Lincoln, written on White House stationary and dated December 3, requesting an advance copy of the message. An image of its first page appears in this article, and the letter seems crucial to understanding the incident, but it is hard to know what to make of it. Holzer suggests, reasonably, that it may not have been what it appears to be—perhaps intended as an alibi. However, his dismissal of this letter is notable when contrasted with his twisting practically the whole Civil War around the incident to fit the existing narrative. Holzer correctly cites the letter from Lincoln to Bennett about Wikoff’s request for the pass as being written in September 1861. However, he writes about it as if it took place in September 1862, because of the cognitive dissonance caused by Lincoln having spoken with Wikoff about the Herald previous to the message incident in December 1861.47 Perhaps even more strangely, he describes testimony before the committee at the time of these events as follows: “Summoned to defend the oversight policies from a government perspective was Frederic Seward, son of the secretary of state, and the official identified by many resentful witnesses as the power behind telegraphic censorship…Yet Fred, to whom uncertain telegraph censors occasionally did bring controversial dispatches for further inspection, flatly denied that he played such a role. All he would confirm was that restraints had been put in place not only on reports of troop movements, but ‘in regard to any action of the Govt, and giving intimation of it where it might reach the enemy prior to the time the Govt intended to have it published.’”

So far, this sounds just what one would expect to have happened early in the war: the government tried to heighten security, the press questioned its policies and pushed back, and the government responded by claiming that its policies conveniently did just enough to preserve safety without violating anyone’s rights. Holzer’s next sentence is: “This particular revelation was perhaps less incriminating than it sounded, for the younger Seward was delicately alluding to an episode of ‘intimation’ that had embarrassed the administration just a few months earlier: a news leak of what was considered epic proportions. ‘The struggle of today, is not altogether for today—it is for a vast future also.’ So Lincoln had majestically concluded his first Annual message to Congress on December 3. The only problem was that, in an unprecedented breach of protocol, the inspiring words had appeared in the New York Herald that very morning—hours before they were scheduled to be read aloud in the House and Senate.” There is a lot going on here, but it is sufficient to point out that Frederic Seward was actually alluding to the very real and actually incriminating problem of the government’s ability to censor any information it claimed might “reach the enemy” too quickly. Whether or not the government had the right to do so in any case, surely there were cases that drove them to censor sensitive information that would beneficial to the enemy in a way highly damaging to the Union operations. Lincoln’s message, on the other hand, was a few hours away from public release, after which it would be quickly communicated to the enemy. In fact, it was likely intended to communicate Lincoln’s views to the people in the confederacy just as much as it was to the people in the Union.48

Even the mainstream press regularly covers the story as a major scandal and national security incident. It surfaces whenever presidential documents are leaked, or when speculation arises about a president being subpoenaed or held in contempt by congress.49 Despite all of this, contrary to any current impressions, the message leak simply was not the defining crisis of her career, in terms of press coverage or otherwise.50 It was seen for what it was— a fishing expedition by those pressuring the administration—but the controversy did not reflect well on Mary’s choice of company.51 It was certainly not viewed or treated as a matter of national security. All this is to say that Wikoff should not be considered in a category of his own. As Mary once told Wakeman, many “serpents” had “crossed” the Lincolns’ “pathways.”52 Some were way more venomous than Wikoff, who continued to exist off-stage. He resurfaced in the Lincoln record in 1864 and 1865, keeping clear of the White House but talking with Seward.

Unsurprisingly, he was found in 1865 plying his trade in the New York political arena, as he had likely been doing since the 1862 scandal. It was reported in late 1863 that Mary had attended an opera in New York with Wikoff—the implication was that he escorted her, but he could have gone as one of a party. He was a ubiquitous presence on the political scene—it would be nearly impossible for the Lincolns to have never again interacted with him, and probably unwise, as he had the inside track. It is also worth mentioning that Cameron was removed from the Cabinet shortly after the message controversy, but not before giving Wikoff contracts at Bennett’s request. His replacement, Edwin M. Stanton, had been Sickles’s defense attorney, and knew Wikoff, who sat behind Sickles every day of the trial.53 Therefore, Mary’s indirect communication with at a time when monitoring Washington gossip was crucial is not beyond belief. The author, at least, believes it.

Mary’s interactions with Bennett and those in his orbit practically demand a closer analysis. As it stands, Mary Lincoln’s accurate perceptions of the game being played between Lincoln and Bennett from 1861-1865 have been mocked as evidence of her generally poor judgment. But as in starting down that path, I ferreted out “E,” who I propose was also misidentified. I am now confident that “E” was not Edward McManus.

Endnotes

  1. See “Abram Wakeman (1824-1889).” Mrlincolnandnewyork.Org (blog). Accessed June 23, 2019. http://www.mrlincolnandnewyork.org/new-yorkers/abram-wakeman-1824-1889/. ↩
  2. Justin G. Turner and Linda Levitt Turner, editor, Mary Todd Lincoln: Her Life and Letters. ↩
  3. For an account of Bennett’s life and career, see Crouthamel, James L. Bennett’s New York Herald and the Rise of the Popular Press, Ix-Xiv. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1989. http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.bu.edu/stable/j.ctv64h7cg.3. For background information on his interactions with the Lincolns, see “James Gordon Bennett (1795-1872).” Mrlincolnandnewyork.Org (blog). Accessed June 23, 2019. http://www.mrlincolnandnewyork.org/new-yorkers/james-gordon-bennett-1795-1872/. ↩
  4. See “Thurlow Weed (1797-1882).” Mr. Lincoln and Friends (blog). Accessed June 23, 2019. http://www.mrlincolnandfriends.org/the-journalists/thurlow-weed/ ↩
  5. See Turner & Turner, Mary Todd Lincoln: Her Life and Letters. ↩
  6. Ibid. ↩
  7. After the war, Mary Lincoln famously got into a public controversy involving both Weed and Wakeman, known as the “Old Clothes Scandal.” See “Thurlow Weed (1797-1882).” Mr. Lincoln and Friends (blog). Accessed June 23, 2019. http://www.mrlincolnandfriends.org/the-journalists/thurlow-weed/; “Abram Wakeman (1824-1889).” Mrlincolnandnewyork.Org (blog). Accessed June 23, 2019. http://www.mrlincolnandnewyork.org/new-yorkers/abram-wakeman-1824-1889/. ↩
  8. For background information on the Wikoff as it relates to the Lincolns, see “Mary’s Charlatans: Chevalier Henry Wikoff (1813-1884).” Mr. Lincoln’s White House (blog). Accessed June 23, 2019. http://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org/residents-visitors/marys-charlatans/marys-charlatans-chevalier-henry-wikoff-1813-1884/. ↩
  9. This book is not exactly light-hearted—throughout, Wikoff evinces a deviousness compatible with his (often self-perpetuated) reputation as an intriguer of questionable character. “The Courtship of Henry Wikoff; or, A Spinster’s Apprehensions.” American Literary History 18, no. 4 (2006): 659-694. https://muse.jhu.edu/ (accessed June 22, 2019). Mary Lincoln has been criticized for being anywhere near Wikoff, given his improper reputation regarding women. There is no evidence Mary Lincoln was ever alone with him—the complaints resulted from the fact that she was seen in public with him. Some go so far to claim that no respectable woman would have been seen in his presence. Similar claims were made about associating with the allegedly “fast” and intriguing Mrs. Bennett. See “Mary’s Charlatans: Chevalier Henry Wikoff (1813-1884).” Mr. Lincoln’s White House (blog). Accessed June 23, 2019. http://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org/residents-visitors/marys-charlatans/marys-charlatans-chevalier-henry-wikoff-1813-1884/. I know of at least one exception: the wife of General Nathaniel P. Banks. In March 1863, Banks wrote his wife of Mrs. Bennett, “Be like a child [with her]…lean on her,” A few months later he urged her to visit the Bennetts. While in Europe after the War, she met and corresponded with Wikoff. These interactions were done in the interest of Banks’ career. See: Banks, Raymond H., King of Louisiana, 1862-1865, and Other Government Work a Biography of Major General Nathaniel Prentice Banks, Speaker of the U. S. House of Representatives, Accessed June 20, 2019. https://sites.google.com/site/nathanielpbanksbiography/. It is more than plausible that Lincoln encouraged this relationship, as he, and other prominent men, were aggressively courting Bennett. The hostility and mock piety displayed towards associating with her was largely an expression of hostility towards Bennett by his rivals. ↩
  10. This process was illustrated by another leak which Lincoln found far more distressing. Later in the war, he carefully drafted a letter in response to Illinois political resistance, and sent it to a friend to be read aloud at a Springfield rally. It was leaked to eastern newspapers the day of the rally. Lincoln wrote to his friend, James C. Conkling, “I am mortified this morning to find the letter to you, botched up, in the Eastern papers, telegraphed from Chicago. How did this happen?” Conkling explained: “In order that the St Louis Chicago and Springfield papers might publish your Letter simultaneously and at the earliest period after the meeting, so as to gratify the intense anxiety which existed with regard to your views, copies were sent to the two former places with strict injunctions not to permit it to be published before the meeting or make any improper use of it But it appears that a part of it was telegraphed from Chicago to New York contrary to my express directions. I do not know what particular individual is chargeable with this breach of faith, but I presume it was some one connected with the Chicago Tribune. I was very much mortified at the occurrence, but hope that no prejudicial results have been experienced as the whole Letter was published the next day.” Lincoln’s mortification was not because the letter contained sensitive information, but because he had carefully worded his argument and developed his logic, so any “botched up” version could ruin the impact of the entire message. “James Conkling (1816-1899).” Mr. Lincoln and Friends (blog). Accessed July 4, 2019. http://www.mrlincolnandfriends.org/the-lawyers/james-conkling/. ↩
  11. See “Simon Cameron (1799-1889).” Mr. Lincoln and Friends (blog). Accessed June 23, 2019. http://www.mrlincolnandfriends.org/the-cabinet/simon-cameron/; Shaffer, Donald R. “Cameron Goes Rogue, Lincoln Goes Public.” Civil War Emancipation (blog), December 4, 2011. https://cwemancipation.wordpress.com/2011/12/04/cameron-goes-rogue-lincoln-goes-public/; Lincoln, Abraham. Abraham Lincoln papers: Series 1. General Correspondence. 1833 to 1916: Henry Wikoff to Abraham Lincoln, Tuesday, Copy of President’s message. December 3, 1861. Manuscript/Mixed Material. https://www.loc.gov/item/mal1323100/. ↩
  12. Bogue, Allan G. 2010. Congressman’s Civil War. Cambridge, GBR: Cambridge University Press. ↩
  13. The Herald repeatedly taunted the more radical members of the party about President Lincoln’s decision to take a conservative course and not be led astray by abolitionists. See “THE PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE AND THE SATANIC ABOLITION ELEMENT IN CONGRESS,” New York Herald, December 5, 1862. The Herald’s scoop was not news at the time—when the allegations came out in January, several sources assumed it had happened in July, during the previous congressional session. ↩
  14. Bogue, Allan G. 2010. Congressman’s Civil War. Cambridge, GBR: Cambridge University Press. ↩
  15. Ibid. Of course, if Mary blindly placed trust in Wikoff and suspected no ulterior motive for anything he did, this would indicate poor judgment. It is by no means clear this is the case, and it would be more consistent with her behavior to have done this strategically— intending, for example, to stay in Bennett’s good graces. It seems the more significant question is whether or not there would have been an investigation if she had been visited by New York Tribune reporters around the same time and given them the information she had given Wikoff. The Tribune employees’ exasperation with the Herald and Lincoln administration during this period is evident in their testimony. Bogue notes that the Herald claimed that “the investigation reflected the frustration of the Tribune’s Washington chief, [Sam] Wilkeson, at losing the special privilege accorded to him by Secretary Cameron of sending his dispatches to New York without review by the censor.” He explains, “Wilkeson admitted that he had enjoyed favored status until he transmitted Colonel Charles P. Stone’s report on the action at Ball’s Bluff before General McClellan had had an opportunity to review it . . . Three Tribune reporters accounted for a much greater volume of the testimony than did the representatives of any other paper…In preparing a report that was critical of the secretary of state, the Republican committee members found common cause with newsmen disgruntled over restrictions they considered excessive.” Ibid, 71. Additionally, “Another broader issue may have been involved.” The committee members had been considering a draft joint resolution in response to Lincoln’s conservative views on confiscation of “the property of rebels, including their slaves,” an issue that had been central to the controversy in Lincoln’s annual message. On February 11, it was “successfully moved that it should ‘not be reported to the House.” As a result, Lincoln and the chairman, who had drafted the resolution, “were at odds on at least two fronts while Wikoff was undergoing his ordeal.” Ibid. Wikoff was called before the House on February 10, and given two days to answer the committee’s questions. When he did not divulge his source, he was arrested, and spent the night of February 12 in custody at a “Capitol patrol” building. Ibid, 70. ↩
  16. Hanscom had just been fired from the Herald for unclear reasons, and likely was resentful. Tribune correspondents were upset with the administration about telegraph censorship, and were always upset about the Herald’s existence. See ibid. ↩
  17. Ibid; See also Mary’s Charlatans: Chevalier Henry Wikoff (1813-1884).” Mr. Lincoln’s White House (blog). Accessed June 23, 2019. http://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org/residents-visitors/marys-charlatans/marys-charlatans-chevalier-henry-wikoff-1813-1884/. ↩
  18. See Mary’s Charlatans: Chevalier Henry Wikoff (1813-1884).” Mr. Lincoln’s White House (blog). Accessed June 23, 2019. http://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org/residents-visitors/marys-charlatans/marys-charlatans-chevalier-henry-wikoff-1813-1884/; Turner & Turner, Mary Todd Lincoln: Her Life and Letters. ↩
  19. See, for example, Sears, Stephen W., editor The Civil War Papers of George B. McClellan: Selected Correspondence, 1860-1865, (Ticknor and Fields, 1989). ↩
  20. Crouthamel, James L. Bennett’s New York Herald and the Rise of the Popular Press, Ix-Xiv. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1989. http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.bu.edu/stable/j.ctv64h7cg.3. ↩
  21. For some examples of people who claimed to be scandalized, see “Mary’s Charlatans: Chevalier Henry Wikoff (1813-1884).” Mr. Lincoln’s White House (blog). Accessed June 23, 2019. http://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org/residents-visitors/marys-charlatans/marys-charlatans-chevalier-henry-wikoff-1813-1884/. John Hay is the most commonly quoted critic, but the comments, especially that Wikoff was a “pariah,” were written in his “baroque style” and do not seem to have been meant literally. He was, however, indicating that he found Wikoff’s presence obnoxious and offensive. Another, journalist William H. Russell, made rather facetious cracks in his diary and letters about Wikoff’s presence at the White House. He knew Wikoff personally, from his diplomatic endeavors. Various less prominent people made similar comments, but these people often confused the fact that the Herald was loudly denounced by the educated class with its being unpopular and unsuccessful. Therefore, regardless of its high circulation, it had no influence, and would be naturally shunned by all decent people. ↩
  22. See, for example, Keneally, Thomas. American Scoundrel: The Life of the Notorious Civil War General Dan Sickles. New York: Anchor Books, 2003. ↩
  23. Abraham Lincoln to James Gordon Bennett, September 29, 1861, https://www.raabcollection.com/abraham-lincoln-autograph/abraham-lincoln-signed-sold-abraham-lincoln-and-press-private-and ↩
  24. Lincoln did spell Wikoff’s name incorrectly, as most people did, but he was close: “Wickoff.” ↩
  25. Abraham Lincoln to James Gordon Bennett, September 29, 1861, https://www.raabcollection.com/abraham-lincoln-autograph/abraham-lincoln-signed-sold-abraham-lincoln-and-press-private-and. Lincoln explicitly says the requested pass was to allow someone “to accompany one of our vessels…as a reporter of the Herald.” Additionally, Mary Lincoln wrote to her cousin, who had spent a few months in the White House with her, that Wikoff had given her details about her niece’s questionable behavior in New York City. The niece had also lived in the White House for a while, and both she and Mary’s cousin knew Wikoff. The letter was dated the same day as his visit to Lincoln. Mary Lincoln to Elizabeth Grimsley, September 29, 1861, in Turner & Turner, Mary Todd Lincoln: Her Life and Letters, 182, 189. ↩
  26. Bennett replied a few weeks later: “I regret that Mr Wikoff gave you any trouble about the small matter referred to— Before that application by Mr W, but unknown to him the Secretary of the Navy had very kindly forwarded another of my correspondents all that was required— There was no necessity for troubling you about such an affair.” He then reciprocated Lincoln’s flattering reassurances. Lincoln, Abraham. Abraham Lincoln papers: Series 1. General Correspondence. 1833 to 1916: James Gordon Bennett to Abraham Lincoln, Tuesday, Acknowledgment. 1861. Manuscript/Mixed Material. https://www.loc.gov/item/mal1260200/. Holzer cites this letter as well, correctly placing it 1861. In his telling: “While that shrewd judge of character Lincoln disliked him (Bennett once felt compelled to apologize to the president if ‘Mr Wikoff gave you any trouble’ about some ‘small matter), the ‘Chevalier’s circle of admirers soon came to include Henry Villard—nobody’s fool—and, ultimately, the president’s wife, Mary.” Holzer, Harold. 2014. Lincoln and the Power of the Press: The War for Public Opinion, 369. Bennett’s reply was dated October 22, so he was not scrambling to apologize. ↩
  27. Mary Lincoln to Abram Wakeman, September 23 [1864], in Turner & Turner, Mary Todd Lincoln: Her Life and Letters, 180. This letter mentions granting Wikoff a contract, an interesting reference that deserves its own analysis. ↩
  28. Editor and politician John W. wrote he “must not be called mercenary,” as he stood by his friends in hard times. He goal was being in the company of the powerful. Mary’s Charlatans: Chevalier Henry Wikoff (1813-1884).” Mr. Lincoln’s White House (blog). Accessed June 23, 2019. http://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org/residents-visitors/marys-charlatans/marys-charlatans-chevalier-henry-wikoff-1813-1884/ ↩
  29. Mary Lincoln to Abram Wakeman, October 23, 1864, in ibid, 181. ↩
  30. Lincoln and other presidents held one card—their ability to appoint Bennett minister to France. The position had traditionally been given to the most recognized writer or intellectual of the day, such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. Bennett was born in Scotland, classically educated in a seminary, spoken several languages, and was well-traveled. He had come to America and become a citizen in emulation of his hero Benjamin Franklin, and long coveted this honor. It would be a recognition of the great services he had rendered his country in the Herald’s innovations, influential advocacy, and bold example of independent speech. It was finally tendered to him—by Lincoln. The circumstances under which this occurred remain unclear. The simplest and most common version of the story is that it was offered in exchange for his support of Lincoln’s 1864 re-election campaign. Bennett, now elderly, declined, but made sure the offer was publicly revealed. Some say the declination was arranged in advance. Lincoln died only a few weeks later, and Bennett retired not long after. ↩
  31. See Crouthamel, James L. Bennett’s New York Herald and the Rise of the Popular Press, Ix-Xiv. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1989. http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.bu.edu/stable/j.ctv64h7cg.3; “James Gordon Bennett (1795-1872).” Mrlincolnandnewyork.Org (blog). Accessed June 23, 2019. http://www.mrlincolnandnewyork.org/new-yorkers/james-gordon-bennett-1795-1872/. ↩
  32. “Abram Wakeman (1824-1889).” Mrlincolnandnewyork.Org (blog). Accessed June 23, 2019. http://www.mrlincolnandnewyork.org/new-yorkers/abram-wakeman-1824-1889/. ↩
  33. Ibid. ↩
  34. Ibid. ↩
  35. Mary Lincoln to Abram Wakeman, April 4, 1865, in Justin G. Turner and Linda Levitt Turner, editor, Mary Todd Lincoln: Her Life and Letters, 212-213. ↩
  36. Ibid. ↩
  37. Ibid. The significant deterioration of her feelings about Wikoff, including some of the only self-conscious awkwardness she ever displays, suggests that something occurred in addition to the gossip updates he was sending her. ↩
  38. Ibid. ↩
  39. Mary Lincoln to Abram Wakeman, April 13, 1865, in Justin G. Turner and Linda Levitt Turner, editor, Mary Todd Lincoln: Her Life and Letters, 220. ↩
  40. Ibid. ↩
  41. The Railway News, May 6, 1865, 447. https://books.google.com/books?id=d3wqAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA447&lpg=PA447&dq=wikoff+%22city+point%22+1865&source=bl&ots=yuHSzApKxe&sig=mZzVHTXZd2Gq6a1nPuuqSW43d84&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiq69ja9dXbAhWItVkKHX77DTMQ6AEIPjAF#v=onepage&q=wikoff%20%22city%20point%22%201865&f=false ↩
  42. Justin G. Turner and Linda Levitt Turner, editor, Mary Todd Lincoln: Her Life and Letters. ↩
  43. See “Abram Wakeman (1824-1889).” Mrlincolnandnewyork.Org (blog). Accessed June 23, 2019. http://www.mrlincolnandnewyork.org/new-yorkers/abram-wakeman-1824-1889/. ↩
  44. The version of this account is mainly based on a book by journalist Matthew Hale Smith (“Burleigh”), apparently originally published in 1869. See Smith, Matthew Hale. 1883. Sunshine and shadow in New York By Matthew Hale Smith. (Burleigh.). Hartford: J.B. Burr and Co. http://catalog.hathitrust.org/api/volumes/oclc/910655187.html. Beyond being implausibly dramatic, Smith’s story simply does not make sense. The section is called “Conspiracy Against President Lincoln.” There was no plot to reveal, and it is hard to imagine any related discussion that would necessitate Smith, a senator who escorted him, and Lincoln immediately cloistering themselves in a locked room to look at a collection of newspaper clippings to put the puzzle together. In his introduction, he stated his purpose was “to draw the Great Metropolis with its lights and shades, in a series of graphic papers,” using “original and reliable sources” and his own knowledge or observations, focusing on “representative men.” That it was based on real New Yorkers and was a good story is sufficient explanation for the inclusion of it. It is possible he was discussing a plot unrelated to Wikoff, but the person involved sounds just like him. Interestingly, he has a detailed and favorable sketch of the Bennett family, with particular emphasis on Mrs. Bennett’s contribution to the Herald. This would fit with the alleged spy being the tool of two New Yorkers. ↩
  45. James Gordon Bennett would be the third, according to the implications in Smith’s account. ↩
  46. See Crouthamel, James L. Bennett’s New York Herald and the Rise of the Popular Press, Ix-Xiv. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1989. http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.bu.edu/stable/j.ctv64h7cg; “James Gordon Bennett (1795-1872).” Mrlincolnandnewyork.Org (blog). Accessed June 23, 2019. http://www.mrlincolnandnewyork.org/new-yorkers/james-gordon-bennett-1795-1872/. ↩
  47. This allowed for further distortion of the incident to fit the existing narrative, as Holzer claims that in this letter, Lincoln indicated to Bennett that the ban applied to Wikoff alone. In fact, Lincoln was writing Bennett specifically to assure him that there was no ban in existence. He could have imposed an unofficial ban on Wikoff, clairvoyantly, and merely hinted at it by using the excuse of it being too late at night to issue the pass. It seems, however, that Wikoff was managing the reporters and not applying for a pass for himself. In any event, it is not at all clear from the letter that Lincoln singled out Wikoff for anything. Holzer indicates that the president was “careful to avoid mention” of what had gone on with the message affair, which had not yet occurred. He also claims that Lincoln’s insinuation was that reporters would be allowed if the Herald continued its support—essentially a hint it should stay in line. From the context, it appears his statement was intended as a flattering expression of gratitude for the Herald’s support. The concluding sentence is “I write this to assure you that the administration will not discriminate against the Herald, especially while it sustains us so generously, and the cause of the country so ably as it has been doing.” Essentially, in Holzer’s telling, Lincoln is master of the Herald and giving it a diplomatic scolding over the Wikoff incident. But the letter is more consistent with the scenario that he was being careful to keep on Bennett’s good side, to the point of being unusually nervous over this failure to accede to the Herald’s demands. As mentioned in this article, further complicating this story is that among Lincoln’s papers, there is a letter from Wikoff to Lincoln requesting an advance copy of the message, written on White House stationary! The only acknowledgement I have found of this is by Holzer, who comments in a footnote “It is not impossible to imagine that the clever Wikoff wrote this letter after the fact, dating it December 3, to provide him with an alibi should be accused of purloining the Annual Message in advance.” It certainly is not impossible to imagine that something is not as it appears in regard to this letter—the strategy suggested is not even particularly clever. However, it is hard to see how this could be a useful alibi when it is not accompanied by Lincoln’s endorsement and places him firmly in the White House, seeking an advanced copy, at the time of the purloining. The reason it was written remains unknown—and it is possible it is exactly what it appears to be. It may not have been passed on to Lincoln, who was busy dealing with the situation of Cameron’s message. It is possible that or he or a member of his staff could have given a hurried and equivocal response, which Mary Lincoln took to be permission. This would not seem to explain the level of secrecy, however. It may be that anything obtained from the White House would seem to establish favoritism by the president himself. It is also possible that Wikoff’s best friend Daniel E. Sickles, who acted as his attorney and also consulted with the Lincolns, had it drafted as part of an unknown strategy. See Holzer, Harold. 2014 Lincoln and the Power of the Press: The War for Public Opinion, 369, 630, n 111; See Lincoln, Abraham. Abraham Lincoln papers: Series 1. General Correspondence. 1833 to 1916: Henry Wikoff to Abraham Lincoln, Tuesday, Copy of President’s message. December 3, 1861. Manuscript/Mixed Material. https://www.loc.gov/item/mal1323100/. Holzer also writes “Mary Lincoln’s biographers have not accepted her complicity,” 631, n 113. The evidence is strong, in the author’s opinion, that Mary Lincoln was somehow involved. Thomas Stackpole, who essentially monitored the White House staff, approached Lincoln’s friend, Senator Orville Browning, on March 3, 1862, that the information “had been furnished to Wycoff by [Mrs. Lincoln], and not by Watt as is usually supposed . . .” “Mary’s Charlatans: Chevalier Henry Wikoff (1813-1884).” Mr. Lincoln’s White House (blog). Accessed June 23, 2019. http://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org/residents-visitors/marys-charlatans/marys-charlatans-chevalier-henry-wikoff-1813-1884/. Browning’s diary entry recounts the conversation. Stackpole’s comments are, in the author’s opinion, persuasive—however, Holzer claims that despite Watt’s story, “Senator Orville Browning had no doubt ‘that the President’s message had been furnished to Wycoff [sic]’ by Mary.” Holzer, Harold. 2014. Lincoln and the power of the press: the war for public opinion, 370. The diary entry indicates the exact opposite of this–it was apparently news to Browning that this was the case—almost three months after the actual incident, and a few weeks after Wikoff’s arrest and release. In his view, it was “usually supposed” that Watt was involved. His view may not have been representative, but to say he “had no doubt” is a strange interpretation. Interestingly, Browning’s diary also reports that John P. Usher, a government official, “told me a great deal of scandal about Mrs. Lincoln” in July 1861. Burlingame, Michael. 2006. At Lincoln’s Side: John Hay’s Civil War Correspondence and Selected Writings. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 186. This would have been before the message leak, but he joined Lincoln’s cabinet as Secretary of the Interior around the time of the incident. Almost twenty years later, he talked about Lincoln with a journalist. His comments about Mary Lincoln were not flattering—he actually said that in his opinion, “[Lincoln] would not have gone to the theater on the night he was murdered but for his wife,” who wanted to publicly celebrate the fall of Richmond. Yet when asked if she had any involvement in the Wikoff incident, he replied, “No, I think not . . . I don’t think there was anything in it,” saying Wikoff made the claim because he enjoyed the media attention. Interview with GATH, Cincinnati Enquirer, January 1, 1879. ↩
  48. Holzer, Harold. 2014. Lincoln and the power of the press: the war for public opinion, 368-369. ↩
  49. See, for example, “Like Trump, Abraham Lincoln Also Had a Problem with Leaks in His Administration.” Washington Examiner, June 12, 2017. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/like-trump-abraham-lincoln-also-had-a-problem-with-leaks-in-his-administration; Solomon, Burt. “When Lincoln’s State of the Union Leaked.” The Atlantic, January 19, 2015. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/01/when-lincolns-state-of-the-union-leaked/384636/; Rosenwald, Michael S. “Who Are the Trump White House Leakers? In Lincoln’s Day, It Might Have Been His Wife.” Washington Post, August 4, 2017, sec. Retropolis. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/08/01/who-are-the-trump-white-house-leakers-in-lincolns-day-it-might-have-been-his-wife/. ↩
  50. In the 1870s, journalist Benjamin Perley Poore published reminiscences in which this story featured. He was a witness before the committee, but his account does not completely add up. Bogue, Allan G. 2010. Congressman’s Civil War. Cambridge, GBR: Cambridge University Press, 71. While he certainly had direct knowledge of Washington affairs over a period of decades, his comments on Mary Lincoln and some other matters indicate he simply reprinted old press reports. ↩
  51. See, for example, New York Evening Express, February 13-14, 1862. These issues of the Express also show how it was related to issues of government censorship and the arrest of Herald reporter Malcolm Ives, which was given more attention. Additionally, it spotlighted Wikoff’s connection with Simon Cameron and war contracts, as well as information obtained from him by New York Tribune reporters, as being one target of the investigation. Fulton History, on its website fultonhistory.com, has a list of New York Express issues from this time. See http://fultonhistory.com/my%20old%20photos/Historical%20Newspapers%20United%20States%20and%20Canada/New%20York%20NY%20Evening%20Express/New%20York%20NY%20Evening%20Express%201861-1862/index.html. At the same time, it was alleged that Ives had gotten permission to publish information otherwise suppressed from Cameron and other officials for the Herald through his persistent flattery. “A reporter of the New York Tribune got hold, we know not how, of Adjutant General Thomas’s report on the Fremont case, and in the Tribune it appeared in advance of any other paper.” In this telling, Bennett was angry and asked Cameron about it, but Cameron “attributed the Tribune’s success to its enterprise.” Chicago Tribune, February 15, 1862. The Wikoff investigation got the most coverage in New York City, because it was largely the result of newspaper feuds. The Times had started a row with the Herald over a White House party in early 1862 which was portrayed afterward by political opponents as a “ball” and condemned for extravagance. The Times teased or claimed that Bennett was piqued because Wikoff had asked and failed to obtain an invitation for him, but did not explain how they knew this. The Tribune found out about the message incident by early January, and it appears that the Tribune reporters may have been angry over what they perceived as government favoritism towards the Herald. The Tribune began publishing faux-innocent light paragraphs about Mary’s fun friendship with Mrs. Bennett, saying that they exchanged bouquets and Wikoff was the bearer of them, acting as a courier. The Herald saw an opening to strike back at both its rivals: “We see that, in connection with this affair, the Times has got hold of that mysterious and omnipresent being the Chevalier Wikoff, useful alike as a political go-between nor as the bearer of bouquets and perfumed billets. We would advise [the Times] to steer clear of the Chevalier,” it concluded, and then tipped everyone off to something else: “We understand that he has been prying about a good deal among the contractors and political jobbers who have infested Washington for the last six months, and can tell a thing or two if he chooses . . . his squibs and crackers are not at all as harmless as you suppose.” This “hint” was then followed up on.
    See New York Times, February 4, 1862; New York Herald, February 5, 1862; The Philadelphia Inquirer, February 3, 1862; “THE PARTY OF BLOOD AND BRUTALITY? THE TRIBUNE AND LIEBRATOR AND ITS ORGANS,” New York Herald, March 18, 1862; Holzer, Harold. 2014. Lincoln and the power of the press: the war for public opinion, 372. Cameron had indeed given Wikoff a war department contract to appease Bennett, as shown by a letter he wrote to the new secretary of war. The wording of the letter is ambiguous, but it seems someone attributed this to Mary’s influence, which Cameron did not appreciate. See Simon Cameron to Edwin M. Stanton, Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History https://www.gilderlehrman.org/collection/glc07091. See also Mary’s Charlatans: Chevalier Henry Wikoff (1813-1884).” Mr. Lincoln’s White House (blog). Accessed June 23, 2019. http://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org/residents-visitors/marys-charlatans/marys-charlatans-chevalier-henry-wikoff-1813-1884/. ↩
  52. Mary Lincoln to Abram Wakeman, January 30, 1865, in Justin G. Turner and Linda Levitt Turner, editor, Mary Todd Lincoln: Her Life and Letters. ↩
  53. Keneally, Thomas. American Scoundrel: The Life of the Notorious Civil War General Dan Sickles. New York: Anchor Books, 2003. ↩

One thought on “Mistaken Identities: Part I”

  1. Pingback: More on the Henry Wikoff Drama | My Civil War Research ~

Leave a comment