What is also increasingly clear is that the “long winded anecdote” has no available sourcing, other than perhaps the biography mentioned above. The quote, for all intents and puposes, looks very much like the BrainyQuote version.

* * * * *

But there is always the doubt: Is the story [of calling the dog’s leg a tail] accurate? Is this just another of the dozens of quotes that are misattributed to Lincoln in order to lend credence to them?

I have a source for the quote: Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln by distinguished men of his time / collected and edited by Allen Thorndike Rice (1853-1889). New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1909. This story is found on page 242. Remarkably, the book is still available in an edition from the University of Michigan Press. More convenient for us, the University of Michigan has the entire text on-line, in the Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, an on-line source whose whole text is searchable.

However, Lincoln does not tell the story about a dog — he uses a calf.

Rice’s book is a collection of reminiscences of others, exactly as the title suggests. Among those doing the reminiscing are ex-president and Gen. U. S. Grant, Massachusetts Gov. Benjamin Butler (also a former Member of Congress), Charles A. Dana the editor and former Assistant Secretary of War, and several others. In describing Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation, George W. Julian relates the story. Julian was a Free-Soil Party leader and a Member of Congress during Lincoln’s administration. Julian’s story begins on page 241:

Few subjects have been more debated and less understood than the Proclamation of Emancipation. Mr. Lincoln was himself opposed to the measure, and when he very reluctantly issued the preliminary proclamation in September, 1862, he wished it distinctly understood that the deportation of the slaves was, in his mind, inseparably connected with the policy. Like Mr. Clay and other prominent leaders of the old Whig party, he believed in colonization, and that the separation of the two races was necessary to the welfare of both. He was at that time pressing upon the attention of Congress a scheme of colonization in Chiriqui, in Central America, which Senator Pomeroy espoused with great zeal, and in which he had the favor of a majority of the Cabinet, including Secretary Smith, who warmly indorsed the project. Subsequent developments, however, proved that it was simply an organization for land-stealing and plunder, and it was abandoned; but it is by no means certain that if the President had foreseen this fact his preliminary notice to the rebels would have been given. There are strong reasons for saying that he doubted his right to emancipate under the war power, and he doubtless meant what he said when he compared an Executive order to that effect to “the Pope’s Bull against the comet.” In discussing the question, he used to liken the case to that of the boy who, when asked how many legs his calf would have if he called its tail a leg, replied, ” Five,” to which the prompt response was made that calling the tail a leg would not make it a leg.

I believe it is fair to call the story “confirmed.” It’s not an exact quote, but it’s an accurate story.

* * * * *

Sincerely yours, Charles

We seem to be talking past each other, so let me try a different approach:

You continue to suggest that the quote turned out to be false, based on your research. I continue to suggest that she may indeed have a better source than you, which otherwise proves the quote true. And my point was that you could have contacted the writer at some point to ask for the source.

But I guess that would undermine your argument about verifiability and transparency and effort, in which you seem to argue that it’s really hard to verify sources with traditional media, whereas all one needs to do on the web is click around the links on your blog. I think that is a bit of a straw man. My suggestion in contacting the writer was precisely because it’s easy, not much more effort than the web. They make it easy, with an email at the top of the article. No need -as you put it- to launch a “federal investigation.” All you needed to do was contact the writer, which seems simple.

As I said before, you spend a lot of time assuming where her sources were from. Maybe you got all of them, maybe not. But you don’t know. Worse, you conclude that the writer didn’t read some of the primary sources. Your reason? Apparently, since it was too much trouble for you to get the InterLibrary Loan, it must have been for her, too. So she must not have done the work. Umm, to conclude that, with no verifiable support is, at best, irresponsible. And, if you’re wrong, it’s another example of where something on the web is not true.

As to your other minor point: that were she to go to all this research trouble and find the primary sources, it only proves the absurdity of the effort needed for the old way. Well, that sort of takes us back to the the article, which seems to suggest that –in most cases (and as the students interviewed would probably agree), the web works just fine, and you get results that are pretty accurate. But there are some (librararians and teachers) who think that, when you need something really accurate, perhaps a bit more work, a bit more effort, is called for.

Thanks for your indulgence.

Regardless of how she got her information, it turned out to be false. We can assume she trekked to a library or museum somewhere to view the original document if we want to do such a thought experiment, but ultimately that’s a minor point. That amount of effort, had it still produced her faulty conclusion, would merely call attention to other absurdities. An email from her clarifying why she put out an erroneous article would be nice for me, but it wouldn’t change the fact that she has wrongly impugned BrainyQuote and other web resources, when in fact a very cursory examination of web resources would have revealed that the web had nothing to do with propogating this quote, and the the web quote was most likely the right quote.

It’s quite possible that had chance gone differently she would have chosen an example where the web actually did result in a degradation of truth. Had she chosen such an example then perhaps our conversation would be different, But that didn’t happen and although I’ve repeatedly read my post next to your critique, I can only see your critique as a sort of thought experiment, interesting, but making far stranger assumptions than mine, and not really addressing the reality.

But you’re right, we’ll have to agree to disagree here.

We’ll have to respectfully disagree that the “whole point of the article is what makes something “true” and that her “answer is because her pay stub says WaPo on it.”

First, I didn’t read that as the “whole point.” I read a number of running themes/questions, like:
-what is the difference between information and knowledge?
-what role does the repetition of information, especially in the internet age, play regarding accuracy?
-in a world with lots of information, what’s the best way to sort it all out?

Second, you suggest her answer is “because her pay stub says WaPo on it.” Really? I didn’t think she attempted to provide us with any answers, just questions and different perspectives (e.g., those of the teachers and students).

My original point was that you could have simply contacted her directly to ask, but you didn’t.

Ironically, it seems that you sort of played into a theme in the article: how best to sort through information. You sorted through multiple sources (often times returning to the web when you hit roadblocks). But you never approached the writer directly on her source?

You then go on to make a number of assertions, at one point suggesting that “the Hesse version appears based on a single, non-primary source which references a journal article the author DIDN’T READ [emphasis added]…”

Really, how do you know? Is this a true statement, or just truthy? If it’s not true will it become true - if it is attributed here and repeated enough?

How DO you sort through all that info out there? That’s the question, with different people offering different answers, as the article suggests.

To your specific point — if you are saying that she researched it enough to know about the sheep quote in contemporary papers, yet decided not to use the quote, that’s an ethical concern. And if you are saying that you believe, based what was in the article, unsourced, that she reviewed a primary source, I’d ask you what odds you’d take on that bet.

Regardless, I think you’re missing the more important point — if I have to speculate about her sources, her article becomes an exercise in irony. The whole point of the article is what makes something “true”.

Her answer is because her pay stub says WaPo on it.

What protects truth on the internet is transparency. It’s kind of a major flaw in an article about truth on the internet to not get that.

Interesting exercise, but you’re doing a lot of speculating about the writer’s research. Perhaps Hesse does have a more authoritative source than you were able to find?

Which leads me to Ritchie, who wrote:
“I would REALLY like to know about any response from the Post. I’d like to know if your article was read by the Post writer–whether or not you got a response. Is there a way to find rumors about the Post authors talking with anybody–who would then write about it on a blog?”

Umm, why not try contacting her directly to ask where she got the quote? Writers aren’t hard to reach, their emails are posted at the top of every article.

Let me know when the picture is done, I’d love to put it up here.