AGAIN, THE BIXBY LETTER

by F. Lauristan Bullard

Lincoln Herald, Volume 53, Number 2 (Summer 1951), pp. 26-27, 37.

 

Internet Editors note: The question of whether Abraham Lincoln or John Hay composed the text of the letter to Mrs. Lydia Bixby expressing heartfelt condolences on the alleged loss of five sons is an old controversy. In 1946 Dr. Bullard wrote a book entitled "Abraham Lincoln and the Widow Bixby" presenting his case for Lincoln as the author of the famous letter. In 1995, Historian Michael Burlingame published an article in the Journal of the Abraham lincoln Associationm presenting his evidence in support of John Hay being the author. In the article below, Bullard presents additional evidence (since publication of his book) to clarify his position and support his claim in support of Lincoln being the author. He discusses a facsimile copy of what many believe was the original Bixby letter written in Lincoln's hand. The article appeared fifty years ago in the Summer, 1951 Lincoln Herald.

 

Nearly five years ago I published a volume with the title Abraham Lincoln and the Widow Bixby, in which I told the story again of the origin of the letter and discussed certain problems which Lincoln students had long debated. I argued at length that John Hay was not the writer of the letter, and practically challenged the then president of Columbia University, Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler, and others to produce any evidence that President Lincoln's assistant private secretary, quoting Dr. Butler's statement, "was able to imitate Lincoln's handwriting and signature in well-nigh perfect fashion," a statement made by the president of Columbia in various forms at least a score of times. Many Lincoln students have written me about my book and most of them accepted my views, noting especially the new evidence that I produced. Nobody, so far as I know, has offered any letter or document written by Hay in what looked like Lincoln's script.

However, I was challenged by a few, not more than four persons, to produce the evidence on which I based one "theory" incorporated in my book. In the Lincoln centenary year, it will be remembered that Columbia University exhibited a collection of Lincoln manuscripts. The New York tribune of February 12, 1909, carried an account of this display, containing the statement that "The Bixby letter reposes in a glass case" near Lincoln's Jefferson day letter. From time to time since then the question had been raised if this exhibit was the genuine original letter which the University either owned or had used for this occasion. Neither the newspaper nor the University declared the exhibit to be the actual letter written by the President. In the display, Columbia simply placed beside the document a card reading "the Bixby Letter," so much and no more.

It is well known also that in the Lincoln centenary year there had been on exhibition in New York City two forged "facsimiles" of the Bixby letter, one know as the Tobin copy, the other as the Huber copy. These were not identical, but claims were made for both, and copies of both were on sale. A collection of miscellaneous curiosities was on display in Huber's Museum on Fourteenth Street, east of Fourth Avenue in 1909, and among the exhibits was the item described by the Tribune as "The Bixby letter with edges frayed and discolored..." The public, whether examining the museum's letter or the University's exhibit, would assume the document to have been written by Lincoln. As we pondered over the problems implicit in this situation, we evolved what we referred to as our solution or "theory." Those in charge of the Columbia exhibit, were informed that the Lincoln letter was at Huber's. They sought to borrow it for their own display during the month of February. We wrote that "They must have examined it with care when it was delivered to them, and the fact that they put it in the glass case without comment is enough to justify the inference that they understood the character of the paper, but felt themselves to be under obligation to recognize the courtesy of the owner by including it in their display." And we declared, also, that it was not just a guess, and that we had "seen documents which guarantee it to be a correct exposition of the essential facts." These documents, however, we were not at liberty to quote nor might we disclose their ownership. To all who asked for additional information we simply reiterated the above statement of facts.

Now, however, conditions have changed, and we present below the text of two letters which seem to close the case.

On February 25, 1909, Robert T. Lincoln wrote to Dr. James H. Canfield, then the librarian of Columbia University, as follows:

As you know, Doctor Butler has been in Chicago ...yesterday he told me...that included in your exhibit was the original of what is known as my father's 'Bixby' letter. He said that it was owned by a gentleman living up the Hudson, and I think he gave his name as HEWLETT, but our conversation was hasty, and I am uncertain about that.

I have long been desirous of what has become of the original 'Bixby' letter, which I regard very highly. Doctor Butler said there was some suspicion as to whether the copy I mentioned above is not a forgery. I told him that once in conversation. I told him that once in conversation, John Hay and I discussed the ease with which such a forgery could be made in consequence of the possibility of anyone finding for such a use an authentic original in my father's hand-writing of almost every word and certainly every letter in the 'Bixby' letter. A man once claimed to have this original and said he proposed to give it to me. Subsequent correspondence, however, showed that he was not to be trusted in any way and I dropped the subject. Last year, I learned that there was in Huber's Museum, which is a combination of,museum and continuous performance variety house in 14 Street a few doors east of the subway, the original 'Bixby' letter. Accordingly, I dropped in to see it, and found on a frame on the wall a much discolored letter which is either an original or a very clever forgery -Which I do not know. The proprietor of the museum was not there so that I could not make any inquiry as to where he got it.

Of course the remark of Doctor Butler refers to a distinct piece of paper, and I should be greatly obliged to you if you will ascertain from the owner, who loaned it for the exhibition, what he knows of its history.

Very sincerely yours,

Robert T. Lincoln

On March 1, 1909, Dr. Canfield replied to Mr. Lincoln. The letter follows. As the librarian died in that month, this is probably one of the last of his letters. It answers very definitely Mr. Lincoln's questions. He said:

The Bixby letter which we placed on exhibition is the one which you saw in Huber's Museum. I had been told that they had the original. I had not time to go down there myself, and sent an agent from the library - who did not feel warranted in doing other than accepting the loan of the manuscript and bringing it here.

After it reached here, I examined it carefully and at once made up my mind that it was a lithograph. I had it examined afterwards by a lithographer of good standing, who concurred in my view. As I had asked for it, however, and it was there, I placed it in the case without comment, thinking this was the best I could do. I did not label it as the original, however, and if inquiry had been made, not for publication, under the circumstances I should have stated what I have just stated to you.

I am not sure, therefore, that I can throw any light upon the present ownership of the Bixby letter.

With kindest regards,

James H. Canfield

My "theory", then, was based on substantial fact. Indeed, what I did in my book was to state the facts in my own way and describe the statement as a "theory." Two or three comments would seem to be in order. Robert T. Lincoln understood Dr. Butler to have attributed the owner of the "Bixby" letter shown in the Columbia Library to be a "gentleman" named Hewlett." Such a mistake in "a hasty conversation" might easily have taken place. Whether Dr. Butler mentioned Huber or not, he may well have named Robert Hewitt, whose great collection of medallic Lincolniana was included in the Columbia exhibit, and that name Robert Lincoln may readily have caught as Hewlett. In our opinion, Librarian Canfield, if he had lived longer, would not have dropped the problem of the origin of this "facsimile" without himself having used the resources at his command for a careful investigation.

And finally, my critics and friends alike will be asking how and where I had access to the Lincoln and Canfield letters. A few years ago, the man who had exact copies of them sent them to me, knowing as he did, that I was giving all my spare time to a study of the "Bixby" questions. They were received by me on May 17, 1945, with permission to make copies, but pledging me not to divulge their ownership. Not long ago the owner died and all Lincolnians still mourn his passing. I allude, of course, to Oliver R. Barrett. His son, Roger W. Barrett, writes that his father "would certainly" now give me permission to print the letters, and he has no objections himself to my doing so. Where they are now, I do not know. At the opening of the Robert T. Lincoln collection of Abraham Lincoln's papers in 1947, I learned that it contained nothing about the Bixby letter, and I am told that the letters quoted above are not in the Barrett Collection of Lincolniana, but that they may be in some other of the collections accumulated by that indefatigable searcher for and finder of valuable manuscripts.