Autobiography of Mark Twain (131 page)

You remember Harrison, the colored body-servant? the whole family hated him, but that did not make any difference, the General always stood at his back, wouldn’t allow him to be scolded; always excused his failures
& crimes
& deficiencies with the one unvarying formula, “We are responsible for these things in his race—it is not fair to visit our fault upon them—let him
alone
;” so they did let him alone, under compulsion. (CU-MARK, in
MTL
, 2:460–61)

90.29 best portrait of General Grant that is in existence] For an image of the bust see the photograph following page 204; see also Schmidt 2009d.

91.17–18 after the world learned his name] Here, at the end of the account of the bust of Grant, Clemens wrote “Depew’s speech” in the bottom margin of the page as a prompt to himself. It wasn’t until the Autobiographical Dictation of 1 June 1906, however, that he actually described the speech, which was delivered at a banquet in Grant’s honor by Chauncey M. Depew (1834–1928), a prominent attorney and director of several railroads. There Clemens noted that it was “the most telling speech I ever listened to—the best speech ever made by the capable Depew, and the shortest.”

92.3–4 we proceeded to draw a writing to cover the thing] Webster wrote to Clemens on 15 April 1885 that he had just signed a contract with the Century Company, which stipulated that all of Grant’s “future articles” in the
Century Magazine
—that is, the second, third, and fourth—were to be copyrighted by Webster and Company “in the name of U. S. Grant.” In regard to the
Memoirs
, Webster agreed “not to publish first vol before Dec. 1
^st
next, and second vol before Mch. 1
^st
next” (CU-MARK).

92.32 Smith’s exact language] Clemens’s extant notebook contains no such remark. Clemens did, however, note that

Mr. R S . . . said to me shortly after the contract was signed, “I am glad on GG’s account that there was somebody with pluck enough to give such a figure[;] I should have been chary of venturing it myself.” . . .

10 p c.

This was a perfectly fair & honorable offer, for it was based upon a possible sale of 25,000 sets. But I was not figuring on 25,000, I was figuring on a possible 300,000. Each of us could be mistaken, but I believed I was right
. (
N&J3
, 182–84)

93.7–8 New York World and a Boston paper, (I think the Herald)] Clemens appended four clippings at the end of his typescript, which are included in the text; among them is the
World
article, which appeared on 9 March 1885 (see 95.24–96.27). No copy of the
Herald
has been found, but another article that Clemens appended, from the 9 March Springfield (Mass.)
Republican
(see 94.36–95.21), repeats the information reported by the New York correspondent of the
Herald
.

93.9–11 I had taken an unfair advantage . . . got the book away from them] Robert Underwood Johnson, an associate editor of the
Century Magazine
, wrote many years later that Paine’s account of the Grant negotiations in
Mark Twain
: A Biography (
MTB
, 2:799–803)—which was based on this dictation—“leaves something to be desired. It places Mr. Roswell Smith in the attitude of treating the author in a somewhat niggardly manner, the fact being that the matter was wholly in the hands of General Grant, on whose terms it was to have been undertaken”:

As to the first offer of Mr. Clemens, the difference between it and ours was very slight, if any: in one case a larger royalty being computed on the net returns and in the other a smaller on the gross. Mr. Clemens made a later alternative offer of a considerable cash advance, a large percentage of the profits, and a guaranty of a certain sale. Had we known of this we should have been able to meet the situation. We were at the disadvantage that Mark Twain, who was a frequent visitor at the Sixty-sixth Street house, knew our terms and we did not know his.

Nevertheless, with all respect to Roswell Smith’s motives, which were above criticism, it remains that his failure to secure this work beyond peradventure within the five months from the time he was invited to Long Branch in September until the signing of the contract in February was, from a business point of view, a signal exception in the successful career of a publisher of imagination, boldness, and resourcefulness. His omission to clinch the matter did not reflect the alertness and enterprise of his associates, but he had the disadvantage of having as a rival a man of winning personality, shrewd business ability, and large horizon. The result cast a gloom over the younger members of the Century Co., who never ceased to think that in our hands this phenomenal book would have reached as phenomenal a sale as it did in Mr. Clemens’s; for at that time the success of the War Series had put the Century Co. in close touch with the public in the matter of military history. We thought it hard that another should have “plowed with our heifer.” (Johnson 1923, 218–19)

In late October 1884 Smith was still confident that Grant would place his book with the Century Company. In a letter of 9 September 1884 he wrote to Gilder that Grant was

thoroughly intelligent in relation to the subscription book business, and very much disgusted with the way it is usually managed. He remarked that he did not propose to pay a scalawag canvasser $6 for selling a $12 book, not worth much more than half the money, as in some cases he quoted. His ideas agree with ours—to make a good book, manufacture
it handsomely, sell it at a reasonable price, and make it so commanding that we can secure competent agents at a fair commission. (Rosamond Gilder 1916, 123–24)

Johnson later learned from Fred Grant that “his father’s decision had been influenced chiefly by the fact that Mr. Clemens had convinced him that . . . his own firm had been successful publishers of subscription books, while the Century Co. had done little in that line” (Johnson 1923, 218).

93.14–16 Boston paper’s account . . . sister of Mr. Gilder]Jeannette L. Gilder (1849–1916) corresponded from New York for the Boston
Saturday Evening Gazette
(not the
Herald
, as Clemens suggests) under the pseudonym “Brunswick.” Her letter to the
Gazette
is largely reprinted in the article from the Springfield (Mass.)
Republican
of 9 March 1885 that here follows Clemens’s dictation (see 95.13–21). Although less well known than her brother Richard Watson Gilder, Jeannette Gilder pursued a successful literary career. In 1881 she cofounded a literary magazine,
The Critic
, with her other brother, Joseph B. Gilder, which they edited together until 1906. Her work appeared in a variety of newspapers and magazines, and she compiled several literary anthologies.

94.14–16 new electric light company of Boston . . . prosperous condition] In the spring of 1883, numerous articles in the Hartford
Courant
reported on the rapid growth of the American Electric and Illuminating Company of Boston, incorporated a year earlier. Its successful plan to establish subsidiary companies throughout New England was expected to pay shareholders “substantial dividends” (Hartford
Courant
, 20 Feb 1883, 3).

94.22 lied about his son] See the note at 95.3–4.

94.34–35 in the way of abuse] Clemens’s dictation ends here. Redpath added two typed comments. The first, “
To be followed by Duncan’s libel suit
,” referred to the lawsuit for libel that Charles C. Duncan—former captain of the
Quaker City
and organizer of the 1867 Holy Land excursion—brought against the New York
Times
in 1883. Duncan objected to an article published on 10 June which reported remarks of Clemens’s condemning his misuse of public funds in his position as New York shipping commissioner. Clemens claimed that the
Times
reporter had misrepresented his comments. Duncan technically won his suit in March 1884, but was awarded only twelve cents in damages. No 1885 dictation about the lawsuit has been found (
N&J3
, 18 n. 34; “Mr. Mark Twain Excited,” New York
Times
, 10 June 1883, 1; see also
N&J2
, 35 n. 26). Redpath’s second note read: “See two pages of newspaper statements about Grant’s book and the Century people and Mark Twain affixed.” These “statements,” which survive in four clippings preserved with the typescript, are transcribed at the end of Clemens’s dictated text.

94.36–38 G
EN
G
RANT
, M
ARK
T
WAIN AND THE
C
ENTURY
. . . correspondent of the Boston Herald] The first part of this article (through “news is true,” 95.10), from the Springfield (Mass.)
Republican
of 9 March 1885, reports information published in the Boston
Herald
, presumably on 7 or 8 March; no copy of the
Herald
has been located.

95.3–4 Webster & Co . . . his son Jesse] Jesse and Fred Grant were both interested in a partnership in Webster and Company, an arrangement that neither Clemens nor Webster favored.
Clemens’s first known mention of the idea was in a letter of 21 July 1885 to Edward H. House: “Neither of the General’s sons is a partner. We all
talked
about that, but it was never seriously considered. Col. Fred talks about it yet—but if seriously it doesn’t sound so” (ViU). On 20 December 1885 Clemens alluded to the scheme in a letter to Webster. At that time the partnership was “a consideration” in the firm’s negotiations to secure the right to publish Grant’s letters to his wife—a deal that was never concluded (NPV, in
MTBus
, 347). Although discussions of a Grant partnership continued into early spring 1886, neither of Grant’s sons joined the business (8 Feb 1886 to Webster, NPV, in
MTBus
, 353–54; Webster to SLC, 10 Feb 1886 and 20 Mar 1886, CU-MARK; see
N&J3
, 218, 220, 222).

95.10–21 “Brunswick,” . . . publish the book] Jeannette Gilder’s column, “New York Gossip,” which began with a long section on Grant’s medical news, appeared in the
Saturday Evening Gazette
on 7 March 1885. The Springfield
Republican
accurately quoted her discussion of Grant’s book, omitting only two brief passages about subscription books and the series of war articles in the
Century Magazine
.

96.28 N.Y. World] From the issue of 9 March 1885.

97.30 N.Y. Tribune] From the issue of 10 March 1885.

97.38 General’s connection with Lincoln’s assassination] Abraham Lincoln and his wife invited the Grants to accompany them to Ford’s Theater on 14 April 1865, the night that John Wilkes Booth assassinated the president. The Grants did not attend because they were visiting their children at school in New Jersey. Booth’s co-conspirators planned to assassinate two men who were not at the theater: Secretary of State William Seward (who was injured but survived) and Vice-President Andrew Johnson (who was not actually attacked). It is probable, but not certain, that Grant was another intended victim.

98.20–39 work of Gen. Adam Badeau . . . book which I did not write] Grant prepared most of the manuscript of his
Memoirs
himself, but occasionally dictated to his son Fred, or to a stenographer, Noble E. Dawson. Badeau provided editing services, for which he was to receive nothing if the book earned less than $20,000, $5,000 if it earned $20,000, and $5,000 more if it earned $30,000. The false accusation that Grant was not doing his own writing was based on information from “General George P. Ihrie, who had served with Grant in Mexico. Ihrie had inadvertently remarked to a Washington columnist that the General was no writer” (Goldhurst 1975, 118, 153, 193–94). Clemens was so outraged by the
World
article that he briefly considered initiating a lawsuit. He wrote to Fred Grant on 30 April 1885:

The General’s work this morning is rather damaging evidence against the World’s intrepid lie. The libel suit ought to be instituted at once; damages placed at nothing less than $250,000 or $300,000; no apologies accepted from the World, & no compromise permitted for anything but a sum of money that will cripple—yes,
disable
—that paper financially. The suit ought to be brought in the General’s name, & the expense of it paid out of the book’s general expense account. (NPV, in
MTBus
, 319)

By 3 May he had reconsidered and wrote to Webster:

I have watched closely & have not seen a single reference to the World’s lie in any newspaper. So it is possible that it fell dead & did no harm. I suppose Alexander & Green have decided that a libel suit against a paper which hasn’t influence enough to get its lies copied, would be a waste of energy & money (as you give me no news of any kind about the matter.) If that is their verdict, & if the lie has
not
been copied around, it is no doubt the right & sensible verdict. I recognize the fact that for General Grant to sue the World would be an enormously valuable advertisement for that daily issue of unmedicated closet-paper. (NPV, in
MTBus
, 323)

Badeau responded to the
World
article by demanding a new financial arrangement with Grant: $1,000 a month until the book was done, and 10 percent of the profits. After a bitter exchange of letters, Badeau withdrew from the project. He and Grant never met again (Goldhurst 1975, 194–200, 251). After Grant’s death, Badeau threatened Mrs. Grant with a lawsuit to claim what he was owed. The dispute was settled in 1888, when Badeau accepted $10,000 plus interest (as stipulated in the original contract), and agreed that the composition of the
Memoirs
“was entirely that of Gen. Grant, and to limit his claim to that of suggestion, revision, and verification” (“Gen. Badeau’s Suit Ended,” New York
Times
, 31 Oct 1888, 8).