Джон Апдайк - Memories of the Ford Administration

Before this insinuation at Ann Coleman could quite register, another sound woman, stout and dutiful Mary Jenkins, appeared; the golden minutes had fled by, the evening dinner hour was at hand. Despite her profuse invitations Buchanan desisted from partaking . He reclaimed his beaver hat and the dove-gray gloves folded within it, stood erect with a creak of his travelled knees, and informed the vision in silk — who wore in his sight yet some aspect of a foe, a combatant in the implicative battles of sexual negotiation — “I will strive to accept your advice, Miss Hubley. This chance encounter has been not merely pleasurable but instructive. Shall it occur again, I wonder?”

“If the Lord wills,” she said prettily, confident that it would.

But it did not; events whirled the possibility away. If Grace Hubley is viewed, under a loving but stern Providence, as the source of Buchanan’s impending misfortune, and of a neurosis that decades later disabled his Presidency and plunged our nation into its bloodiest war, then she deserved to be punished. Not only did she live unwed but she died violently, in utmost pain. As she grew older in life, and thrice had broken engagements that would have brought her respected husbands, she devoted most of her energies to the entertainment of her friends, many of whom were as light-hearted and blithe as she, too, had been. It was on the return from chaperoning a party of young people from the historic old hotel at Wabank that she met her death. Standing with her back to an open-grate fire, in an unsuspecting moment a spark lit upon her dress, and before help could be called she was seared most terribly over the body and died in pitiful agony in a few hours . The date, thanks to a tombstone, is known: November 19, 1861. The Union disasters at Bull Run and Ball’s Bluff were already history; her death was a match-flare within a spreading conflagration. But surely Grace Hubley did not, after Buchanan desisted from partaking of dinner with the Jenkins family, and hurriedly departed to his home, where he enjoyed his own solitary meal and performed his toilet for his appointment that evening with his fiancée , execute the melodramatic perfidy described:

Hardly had he left the Jenkins house, when Miss Hubley slipped to her boudoir and hastily penned a note to Miss Coleman that was “the most unkindest cut of all” to the delicate, sensitive nature of the woman who received it. It was short and concise, telling that Mr. Buchanan had stopped at the Jenkins home to see her and “that they had spent a very pleasant afternoon together.”

Nay, rather than believe such outright and useless malice one would cling to the muffled but musical sentence with which George Ticknor Curtis disposed of the scandal in his authorized (by Buchanan’s younger brother Edward and his niece Harriet Lane Johnston) Life of 1883: It is now known that the separation of the lovers originated in a misunderstanding, on the part of the lady, of a very small matter, exaggerated by giddy and indiscreet tongues, working on a peculiarly sensitive nature . Whose tongues? Jenkins tongues, Rogers tongues, Jacobs, Reynolds, Boyd, Shippen, Slaymaker? A town has many tongues, and twice as many eyes and ears.

Curtis knew more than he told, but he had not seen the packet of mementos so precious to Buchanan that the careful old man dispatched them to a New York bank for safekeeping when Pennsylvania, and Wheatland with its reviled occupant, were menaced by an invasion of Confederate troops. In his retirement, the former President had been shown a gossipping article on the Ann Coleman incident, and, in Curtis’s words, He then said, with deep emotion, that there were papers and relics which he had religiously preserved, then in a sealed package in a place of deposit in the city of New York, which would explain the trivial origin of this separation. His executors found these papers inclosed and sealed separately from all others, and with a direction upon them in his handwriting, that they were to be destroyed without being read. They obeyed the injunction, and burnt the package without breaking the seal .

Another burning, and not from a stray spark. Why did he religiously preserve these papers and relics, if the executors were truly to burn them? Surely he wanted us — posterity, to whom he would be history — to know the facts of the matter. Mr. Buchanan had a habit of preserving nearly everything that came into his hands . Curtis was the third chosen biographer, and the first not to be overwhelmed by the mass of Buchanan papers. The initial choice, Mr. William B. Reed of Philadelphia, a personal friend … in whom he had great confidence , was appointed in Buchanan’s will, but was prevented by private misfortune from doing anything more than to examine Mr. Buchanan’s voluminous papers . Edward and Harriet, eager to have their brother and uncle vindicated and explained, found another writer. After Mr. Reed had surrendered the task which he had undertaken, the papers were placed in the hands of the late Judge John Cadwallader of Philadelphia, another personal friend of the President. This gentleman died before he had begun to write the proposed work . Curtis, a New Englander, Harvard graduate, and lawyer turned professional writer, who had never met Buchanan, persevered, in patient legalistic fashion. He had written a fuller account of the Coleman incident, and showed it to Samuel L. M. Barlow, his friend and Buchanan’s, for approval. Barlow, would you believe, did not approve: he wrote Curtis, I am clearly of the opinion that you should not print any considerable portion of what you have written on the subject of his engagement to Miss Coleman.… In this view Mrs. Barlow agrees fully . Oh, Mrs. Barlow, what a toad you are, lurking in the garden of history!

We are left, like our hero, in the dark. Night came to the so-called city of Lancaster as decisively as to a village. Only the taverns in and around Centre Square cast much light through their windows onto the sidewalks of rough planking, which thudded hollowly beneath the heels of Buchanan’s hastening boots. The tilted attic roof of blue-black clouds at whose eaves a brown sunset had wanly peeped now was breaking up, disclosing spatterings of dry cold stars. The afternoon’s feeble spittings of snow had yielded to crystalline air tasting of woodsmoke, fresh horse dung, and evening ale. He could see his breath before his face. Guilt of an unformulated and foreboding sort revolved in his stomach with what it sourly contained of tea, port, Lititz pretzels, and a lonely supper. It has never been ascertained just whether or no Buchanan was received by his fiancée that evening. If he was, the dullest of imaginations can readily picture the chill that must have characterized the greeting. Considering the modest, sensitive nature of the young woman, it seems improbable that she could have faced the torture of a meeting . From whatever direction he approached the Coleman house, its façade was dark; its front door felt closed to him. The panes of its parlor windows held only light reflected from afar, like the residue of liquid that is left in an emptied dish. The future statesman hesitated outside, divided between longing for a lamp of recognition to flare within Ann’s house and a certain fear of the same flare, and at last retired, his dignity and weariness intact, to his bachelor lodgings.

There you have my attempt, Retrospect editors, to work into the fabric of reconstruction the indeterminacy of events. As in physics, the more minutely we approach them, the stranger facts become, with leaps and contradictions of indecipherable quanta. All we have are documents, which do not agree. Was there, we might legitimately ask, ever an actual afternoon when Buchanan met Grace Hubley? We first hear of it in an article, maddeningly undated and somewhat edited in quotation by Klein, written by Blanche Nevin, a daughter of the Reverend John W. Nevin — an intimate of Buchanan’s seven years of retirement and the deliverer of the President’s funeral sermon in 1868—and of Martha Jenkins Nevin, whose father had been William Jenkins’ brother Robert. In other words, Blanche Nevin’s mother had been Mary Jenkins’ and Grace Hubley’s niece-in-law; her account has the authenticity of family lore. Some time after the engagement had been announced, Mr. Buchanan was obliged to go out of town on a business trip. He returned in a few days and casually dropped in to see … [ellipses not mine] Mrs. William Jenkins, with whose husband he was on terms of intimate friendship. With her was staying her sister, Miss Grace Hubley,… [see bracketed disclaimer above] a pretty and charming young [for young see discussion on this page] lady. From this innocent call the whole trouble arose. A young lady [a different young lady , presumably] told Miss Coleman of it and thereby excited her jealousy. She was indignant that he should visit anyone before coming to her. On the spur of the moment she penned an angry note and released him from his engagement. The note was handed to him while he was in the Court House. Persons who saw him receive it remarked afterward that they noticed him turn pale when he read it. Mr. Buchanan was a proud man. The large fortune of his lady was to him only another barrier to his trying to persuade her to reconsider her rejection of himself .