FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137  
138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   >>   >|  
let any friend who has nothing to do, advise us as to your wishes, in this or any other matter, we will try to carry them out. Respectfully, Charles C. Nott. To Hon. Abraham Lincoln. Springfield, Ills., May 31, 1860. Charles C. Nott, Esq. _My Dear Sir_: Yours of the 23rd, accompanied by a copy of the speech delivered by me at the Cooper Institute, and upon which you have made some notes for emendations, was received some days ago--Of course I would not object to, but would be pleased rather, with a more perfect edition of that speech. I did not preserve memoranda of my investigations; and I could not now re-examine, and make notes, without an expenditure of time which I can not bestow upon it--Some of your notes I do not understand. So far as it is intended merely to improve in grammar, and elegance of composition, I am quite agreed; but I do not wish the sense changed, or modified, to a hair's breadth--And you, not having studied the particular points so closely as I have, can not be quite sure that you do not change the sense when you do not intend it--For instance, in a note at bottom of first page, you propose to substitute "Democrats" for "Douglas"--But what I am saying there is _true_ of Douglas, and is not true of "Democrats" generally; so that the proposed substitution would be a very considerable blunder--Your proposed insertion of "residences" though it would do little or no harm, is not at all necessary to the sense I was trying to convey--On page 5 your proposed grammatical change would certainly do no harm--The "_impudently absurd"_ I stick to--The striking out "_he"_ and inserting "_we"_ turns the sense exactly wrong--The striking out "_upon it_" leaves the sense too general and incomplete--The sense is "act as they acted _upon that question_ "--not as they acted generally. After considering your proposed changes on page 7, I do not think them material, but I am willing to defer to you in relation to them. On page 9, striking out "_to us_" is probably right--The word "_lawyer's"_ I wish retained. The word "_Courts"_ struck out twice, I wish reduced to "Court" and retained--"Court" as a collection more properly governs the plural "have" as I understand--"The" preceding "Court," in the latter case, must also be retained-
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137  
138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
proposed
 
striking
 
retained
 

understand

 
change
 

speech

 
Douglas
 
Charles
 

generally

 

Democrats


convey

 
substitution
 

propose

 

substitute

 

bottom

 
instance
 

blunder

 

insertion

 

considerable

 

residences


lawyer

 

Courts

 

struck

 

material

 

relation

 

reduced

 

preceding

 

plural

 
collection
 
properly

governs

 
inserting
 

absurd

 

grammatical

 

impudently

 

leaves

 

question

 

intend

 

general

 

incomplete


accompanied

 
delivered
 

received

 

emendations

 

Cooper

 
Institute
 
advise
 

wishes

 

friend

 
matter