diately to the recorder's office to examine Adams's title, and found
that the land had been entered by one Dixon, deeded by Dixon to
Thomas, by Thomas to one Miller, and by Miller to Gen. Adams.
■ — The oldest of these three deeds was about ten or eleven years old.
and the latest more than five, all recorded at the same time, and
that within less than one year. This I thought a suspicious cir-
cumstance, and I was thereby induced to examine the deeds very
closely, with a view to the discovery of some defect by which to
overturn the title, being almost convinced then it was founded in
fraud. I finally discovered that in the deed from Thomas to Mil-
ler, although Miller's name stood in a sort of marginal note on
the record book, it was nowhere in the deed itself. I told the fact



64 LIFE OF LINCOLN

to Talbott, the recorder, and proposed to him that he should go to
Gen. Adams's and get the original deed, and compare it with the
record, and thereby ascertain whether the defect was in the orig-
inal, or there was merely an error in the recording. As Talbott
afterwards to»d me, he went to the General's, but not finding him
at home, got the deed from his son, which, when compared with the
record, proved what we had discovered was merely an error of the
recorder. After Mr. Talbott corrected the record, he brought the
original to our office, as I then thought and think yet, to show us
that it was right. When he came into the room he handed the
deed to me, remarking that the fault was all his own. On opening
it, another paper fell out of it, which on examination, proved to
be an assignment of a judgment in the Circuit Court of Sangamon
County from Joseph Anderson, the late husband of the widow
above named, to James Adams, the judgment being in favor of
said Anderson against one Joseph Miller. Knowing that this
judgment had some connection with the land affair, I immediately
took a copy of it, which is word for word, letter for letter and crosa
for cross as follows:



" Joseph Anderson,

vs.

Joseph Miller.



Judgment in Sangamon Circuit Court
against Joseph Miller obtained on a note
originally 25 dolls and interest thereon
accrued.

I assign all my right, title and interest
to James Adams which is in consideration
of a debt I owe said Adams.



May 10th, 1827. his

Joseph X Anderson.
mark."

As the copy shows, it bore date May 10, 1827; although the
judgment assigned by it was not obtained until the October after-
wards, as may be seen by any one on the records of the Circuit
Court. Two other strange circumstances attended it which cannot
be represented by a copy. One of them was, that the date " 1827 "
had first been made " 1837 " and without the figure " 3 " being fully
obliterated, the figure " 2 " had afterwards been made on top of it;
the other was that, although the date was ten years old, the writing
on it, from the freshness of its appearance, was thought by many,
and I believe by all who saw it, not to be more than a week old.
The paper on which it was written had a very old appearance ; and
there were some old figures on the back of it which made the
freshness of the writing on the face of it, much more striking
than I suppose it otherwise might have been. The reader's curi-



APPENDIX 65

osity is no doubt excited to know what connection this assignment
had with the land in question. The story is this: Dixon Bold and
deeded the land to Thomas: — Thomas sold it to Anderson; but
before he gave a deed, Anderson sold it to Miller, and took Miller's
note for the purchase money. — When this note became due, Ander-
son sued Miller on it, and Miller procured an injunction from the
Court, of Chancery to stay the collection of the money until he
should get a deed for the land. Gen. Adams was employed as an
attorney by Anderson in this chancery suit, and at the October
term, 1827, the injunction was dissolved, and a judgmi nt given
in favor of Anderson against .Miller; and it was provided that
Thomas was to execute a dee,] for the land in favor of Miller, and
deliver it to Gen. Adams, to be held up by him till .Miller paid the
judgment, and then to deliver it to him. .Miller left the county
without paying the judgment. Anderson moved to Fulton county,
where he has since died. When the widow came to Springfield last
May or June, as before mentioned, and found the land deeded to
Gen. Adams by Miller, she was naturally led to enquire why the
money due upon the judgment had not been sent to them, inas-
much as he. Gen. Adams, had no atithority to deliver Thomas's
deed to Miller until the money was paid. Then it was the General
told her, or perhaps her son, who came with her, that Anderson,
in his lifetime, had assigned the judgment to him, Gen. Adams.
I am now told that the General is exhibiting- an assignment of the
same judgment bearing date " 1828 ;" and in other respects differing
from the one described; and that he is asserting that no such
assignment as the one copied by me ever existed; or if there did,
it was forged between Talbott and the lawyers, and slipped into his
papers for the purpose of injuring him. Now, I can only say that
I know precisely such a one did exist, and that Ben. Talbott, Win.
Butler. C. R. Matheny, John T. Stuart, Judge Logan, Robert Irwin,
P, C. Canedy and S. M. Tinsley, all saw and examined it. and that
at least one half of them will swear that IT WAS IN GENERAL
ADAMS'S HANDWRITING! ! And further. I know that Tal-
bott will swear that he got it out of the General's possession, and
returned it into his possession again. The assignment which the
General is now exhibiting purports to have been by Anderson in
writing. The one I copied was signed with a cross.

I am told that Gen. Neale says that he will swear, that he heard
Gen. Adams tell ynnn<r Anderson that the assignment made by his
father was signed with a cross.

The above are facts, as stated. T leave them without comment.
I have oiven the names of persons who have knowledge of these
facts, in order that any one who chooses may call on them and
ascertain how far they will corroborate my statements. T have
only made these statements because T am known by many to be
one of the individuals against whom the charge of forging the
assignment and slipping it into the General's papers, has been
made; and ' "cause our silence might be construed into a confes-

(5)



66 LIFE OF LINCOLN

sion of its truth. I shall not subscribe my name; but I hereby
authorize the editor of the ' J ournal ' to give it up to any one that
may call for it."

" It having been stated this morning that the subscriber had
refused to give the name of the author of the hand-bill above re-
ferred to (which statement is not true) : to save any farther re-
marks on this subject, I now state that A. Lincoln, Esq., is the
author of the hand-bill in question. Simeon Francis.

" August 7, 1837."

Messrs. Lincoln and Talbott in reply to Gen. Adams.

" Sangamo Journal/' Springfield, III., Sept. 9, 1837.

In the " Republican " of this morning a publication of Gen.
Adams's appears, in which my name is used quite unreservedly.
For this I thank the General. I thank him because it gives me an
opportunity, without appearing obtrusive, of explaining a part of
a former publication of mine, which appears to me to have been
misunderstood by many.

In the foi'mer publication alluded to, I stated, in substance, that
Mr. Talbott got a deed from a son of Gen. Adams's for the purpose
of correcting a mistake that had occurred on the record of the said
deed in the recorder's office — that he corrected the record, and
brought the deed and handed it to me — and that, on opening the
deed, another paper, being the assignment of a judgment, fell out
of it. This statement Gen. Adams and the editor of the " "Republi-
can," have seized upon as a most palpable evidence of fabrication
and falsehood. They set themselves gravely about proving that
the assignment could not have been in the deed when Talbott
got it from young Adams, as he, Talbott, would have seen it when
he opened the deed to correct the record. Now, the truth is, Tal-
bott did see the assignment when he opened the deed, or at least
he told me he did on the same day; and I only omitted to say so,
in my former publication, because it was a matter of such palpable
and necessary inference. I had stated that Talbott had corrected
the record by the deed; and of course lie must have opened it;
and, just as the General and his friends argue, must have seen the
assignment. I omitted to state the fact of Talbott's seeing the
assignment, because its existence was so necessarily connected
with other facts which I did state, that I thought the greatest
dunce could not but understand it. Did I say Talbott had not
seen it? Did I say anything that was inconsistent with his having
seen it before? Most certainly I did neither; and if I did not,
what becomes of the argument? These logical gentlemen cannot
sustain their argument only by assuming that I did say negatively
everything that I did not say affirmatively; and upon the same
assumption, we may expect to find the General, if a little harder



APPENDIX 67

pressed for argument, saying that I said Talbott came to our office
with hi9 head downward, not that I actually said so, but because I
omitted to say he came feet downward.

In his publication to-day, the General produces the affidavit of
Reuben Radford, in which it is said that Talbott told Radford that
he did not find the assignment in the deed, in the recording of
which the error was omitted, but that he found it wrapped in
another paper in the recorder's office, upon which statement the
Genl. comments, as follows, to-wit : — " If it be true a3 stated by
Talbott to Radford, that he found the assignment wrapped up in
another paper at his office, that contradicts the statement of Lin-
coln that it fell out of the deed."

Is common sense to be abused with such sophistry? Did I say
what Tabott found it in? If Talbott did find it in another paper
at his office, is that any reason why he could not have folded it in
a deed and brought it to my office, can any one be so far duped, as
to be made believe that what may have happened at Talbott' s office
at one time, is inconsistent with what happened at my office at
another time?

Now Talbott's statement of the case ^s he makes it to me is this,
that he got a bunch of deeds from young Adams, and that he knows
he found the assignment in the bunch, but he is not certain which
particular deed it was in, nor is he certain whether it was folded
in the same deed out of which it was took, or another one, when it
wa9 brought to my office. Is this a mysterious story? Is there
anything suspicious about it?

" But it is useless to dwell longer on this point. Any man who
is not wilfully blind can see at a blush, that there is no discrepancy
and Lincoln has shown that they are not only inconsistent with
truth, but each other " — I can only say, that I have shown that he
has done no such thing; and if the reader is disposed to require
any other evidence than the General's assertion, he will be of my
opinion.

Excepting the General's most flimsy attempt at mystification, in
regard to a discrepance between Talbott and myself, he has not
denied a single statement that I made in my hand-bill. Every
material statement that I made has been sworn to by men who, in
former times, were thought as respectable as General Adams. I
stated that an assignment of a judgment, a copy of which I gave,
had existed — Benj. Talbott, C. R. Matheny, Wm. Butler, and Judge
Logan, swore to its existence, I stated that it was said to be in Gen.
Adams's handwriting — the same men swore it was in his handwrit-
ing. I stated that Talbott would swear that he got it out of Gen.
Adams's possession — Talbott came forward and did swear it.

Bidding adieu to the former publication, I now propose to exam-
ine the General's last gigantic production. I now propose to point
out some discrepancies in the General's address; and such too,
as he shall not be able to escape from. Speaking of the famous as-
signment, the General says " This last charge, which was their last



68 LIFE OF LINCOLN

resort, their dying effort to render my character infamous among
my fellow citizens, was manufactured at a certain lawyer's office in
the town, printed at the office of the ' Sangamon Journal,' and
found its way into the world some time between two days just
before the last election." Now turn to Mr. Keys's affidavit in
which you will find the following, (viz.) " I certify that some time
in May or the early part of June, 1837, I saw at Williams's corner,
a paper purporting to be an assignment from Joseph Anderson to
James Adams, which assignment, was signed by a mark to Ander-
son's name," etc. Now mark, if Keys saw the assignment on the
last of May or first of June, Gen. Adams tells a falsehood when he
says it was manufactured just before the election, which was on the
7th of August; and if it was manufactured just before the elec-
tion, Keys tells a falsehood when he says he saw it on the last of
May or first of June. Either Keys or the General is irretrievably
in for it; and in the General's very condescending language, I
say " let them settle it between them."

Now again, let the reader, bearing in mind that General Adams
has unequivocally said, in one part of his address, that the charge
in relation to the assignment was manufactured just before the
election; turn to the affidavit of Peter S. Weber, where the fol-
lowing will be found, (viz.) " I, Peter S. Weber, do certify that
from the best of my recollection, on the day or day after Gen.
Adams started for the Illinois Rapids, in May last, that I was at
the house of Gen. Adams, sitting in the kitchen, situated on the
back part of the house, it being in the afternoon, and that Benja-
min Talbott came around the house, back into the kitchen, and
appeared wild and confused, and that he laid a package of papers
on the kitchen table and requested that they should be handed to
Lucian. He made no apology for coming to the kitchen, nor for
not handing them to Lucian himself, but showed the token of
being frightened and confused both in demeanor and speech and
for what cause I could not apprehend."

Commenting on Weber's affidavit. Gen. Adams asks, " Why this
fright and confusion ? " I reply that this is a question for the
General himself. Weber says that it was in May, and if so, it is
most clear, that Talbott was not frightened on account of the
assignment, unless the General lies when he says the assignment,
charge was manufactured just before the election. Is it not a
strong evidence, that the General is not traveling with the pole-
star of truth in his front, to see him in one part of his address
roundly asserting that the assignment was manufactured just
before the election, and then, forgetting that position, procuring
Weber's most foolish affidavit, to prove that Talbott had been en-
gaged in manufacturing it two months before?

In another part of his address. Gen. Adams says, " That I hold
an assignment of said judgment, dated the 20th of Mav, 1828, and
signed by said Anderson, I have never pretended to deny or con-
ceal, but stated that fact in one of mv circulars previous to th«



APPENDIX 69

election, and also in answer to a hill in chancery." Now I pro-
nounce this statement unqualifiedly false, and shall not rely on the
word or oath of any man to sustain me in what I suy; but will let
the whole be decided by reference to the circular and answer in
chancery of which the General sneaks. In his circular he did
speak of an assignment ; but lie did not say it bore date 20th of
May, 1828; nor did he say it bore any date. In his answer in
chancery, he did say that he had an assignment; but he did not
say that it bore date the 20th May, 1828; but so far from it, he
said on oath (for he swore to the answer) that as well as recollected,
he obtained it in 1827. If any cue doubts, let him examine the
circular and answer for himself They are both accessible.

It will readily be observed that the principal part of Adams's
defense, rests upon the argument, that if he had been base enough
to forge an assignment, he would not have been fool enough to
forge one that would not cover the This argument he used

in his circular before the election. The "Republican" has used
it at least once, since then; and Adams uses it again in his publi-
cation of to-day. Now I pledge myself to show that he is just such
a fool, that he and his friends have contended it was impossible
for him to be. Recollect — he says he has a genuine assignment;
and that he got Joseph Klein's affidavit, stating that he had seen it,
and that he believed the signature to have been executed by the
same hand, that signed Anderson's name to the answer in Chan-
cery. Luckily Klein took a copy of this genuine assignment,
which I have been permitted to see; and hence I knew it does not
cover the case. In the first place it is headed "Joseph Anderson
vs. Joseph Miller," and heads off "Judgment in Sangamon Circuit
Court." Now, mark, there never was a case in Sangamon Cir
Court entitled Joseph Anderson vs. Joseph Miller. The case men-
tioned in my former publication, and the only one between these
parties that ever existed in the Circuit Court, was entitled Joseph
Miller vs. Joseph Anderson, Miller being the plaintiff. What then
becomes of all their sophistry about Adams not being fool enough
to forge an assignment that would not cover the case? It is cer-
tain that the present one dues not cover the case; and if he got it
honestly, it is still clear that he was fool enough to pay for an
assignment that does not cover the case.

The General asks for the proof of disinterested witnesses. Who
does he consider disinterested? None can be more so than those
who have already testified against him. No one of them had the
least interest on earth, so far as I can learn, to injure him. True,
he says they had conspired against him: but if the testimony
of an angel from Heaven were introduced against him, he would
make the same charge of conspiracy. And now I put the ques-
tion to every reflecting mail, do you believe that Benjamin Tal-
bott, Chas. R. Matheny, William Rutler and Stephen T. Logan
all sustaining high and spotless characters, and justly proud of
them, would deliberately perjure themselves, without any motive



7° LIFE OF LINCOLN

whatever, except to injure a man's election; and that, too, a man
who had been a candidate, time out of mind, and yet who had
never been elected to any office ?

Adams's assurance, in demanding disinterested testimony, is
surpassing. He brings in the affidavit of his own son, and even
of Peter S. Weber, with whom I am not acquainted, but who,
I suppose, is some black or mulatto boy, from his being kept in
the kitchen, to prove his points ; but when such a man as Talbott, a
man who, but two years ago, run against Gen. Adams for the
office of Recorder and beat him more than four votes to one, is
introduced against him, he asks the community, with all the con-
sequence of a Lord, to reject his testimony.

I might easily write a volume, pointing out inconsistencies be-
tween the statements in Adams's last address with one another, and
with other known facts; but I am aware the reader must already
be tired with the length of this article, his opening statements,
that he was first accused of being a tory, and that he refuted
that; that then the Sampson's ghost story was got up, and he
refuted that; that as a last resort, a dying effort, the assignment
charge was got up is all as false as hell, as all this community
must know. Sampson's ghost first made its appearance in print,
and that too, after Keys swears he saw the assignment, as any
one may see by reference to the files of papers; and Gen. Adams
himself, in reply to the Sampson's ghost story, was the first man
that raised the cry of toryism and it was only by way of set off,
and never in seriousness that it was banded back at him. His
effort is to make the impression that his enemies first made the
charge of toryism and he drove them from that, then Sampson's
ghost, he drove them from that, then finally the assignment charge
was manufactured just hefore the election. Now, the only general
reply he ever made to the Sampson's ghost and tory charges, he
made at one and the same time, and not in succession as he states ;
and the date of that reply will show, that it was made at least a
month after the date on which Keys swears he saw the Anderson
assignment. But enough. In conclusion I will only say that I have
a character to defend as well as Gen. Adams, but I disdain to whin*
about it as he does. It is true I have no children nor hitchev-
hoys; and if I had, I should scorn to lug them in to make affida-
vits for me. A. Lincoln.

September 6, 1837.
i

TO THE PUBLIC.

Sangamo Journal, Springfield, III., Oct. 28. 1837.

Such is the turn which things have lately taken, that when Gen.
Adams writes a book, I am expected to write a commentary on
it. In the " Republican " of this morning he has presented the world
with a new work of six columns in length : in consequence of which



APPENDIX 7*

I must beg the room of one column in the "Journal." It i« ob-
vious that a minute reply cannot be made in one column to every-
thing that can be said in six; ami, consequently, I hope that
pectation will be answered, if I reply to such parts of the General's
publication as are worth replying to.

It may not be improper to remind the reader that in his publica-
tion of Sept. 6th General Adams said that the assignment charge
was manufactured just before the election; and that in reply i
proved that statement to be false by Keys, his own witness. Now,
without attempting to explain, he furnishes me with another wit-
ness (Tinsley) by which the same thing is proved, to wit, that
the assignment was not manufactured just before the election;
but that it was some weeks before. Let it be borne in mind that
Adams made this statement — has himself furnished two witnessej
to prove its falsehood, and does not attempt to deny or explain it.
Before going farther, let a pin be stuck here, labeled " one lie
proved and confessed." On the 6th of September he said he had
before stated in the hand bill that he held an assignment dated
May 20th, 1828, which in reply I pronounced to be false, and
referred to the hand bill for the truth of what I said. This week
he forgets to make any explanation of this. Let another pin be
stuck here, labeled as before. I mention these things, because, if,
when I convict him in one falsehood, he is permitted to shift his
ground and pass it by in silence, there can be no end to this con-
troversy.

The first thing that attracts my attention in the General's pres-
ent production, is the information he is pleased to give to " Those
who are made to suffer at his (my) hands."

Under present circumstances, this cannot apply to me, for I
am not a widow nor an orphan : nor have I a wife or children who
might by possibility become such. Such, however, I have no
doubt, have been, and will again be made to suffer at his hands! I
Hands! Yes, they are the mischievous agents. — The next thing
I shall notice is his favorite expression, " not of lawyers, doctors
and others," which he is so fond of applying to all who dare ex-
pose his rascality. Now, let it be remembered that when he first
came to this country he attempted to impose himself upon the
community as a lawyer, and actually carried the attempt so far,
as to induce a man who was under a charge of murder to entrust
the defense of his life in his hands, and finally took his money
and got him hanged. Is this the man that is to raise a breeze
in his favor by abusing lawyers? If he is not himself a lawyer, it
is for the lack of sense, and not of inclination. If he is not a
lawyer, he is a liar for he proclaimed himself a lawyer, and got
a man hanged by depending on him.

Passing over such parts of the article as have neither fact nor
argument in them, I come to the question asked by Adams
whether any person ever saw the assignment in his possession.
This is an insult to common sense. Talbott has sworn once and



72 LIFE OF LINCOLN

repeated time and again, that he got it out of Adams's possession
and returned it into the same possession. Still, as though he was
addressing fools, he has assurance to ask if any person ever saw
it m his possession. — Next I quote a sentence, " Now my son
Lucian swears that when Talbott called for the deed, that he, Tal-