so why some interest in stevens and not bingham? I would say because Stevens was much more of a lightning rod, in part because he was handicapped, so thus stereotyped as sort of a “bitter cripple.” indeed, some people used to believe his handicap was a sign he was descended from the Devil himself. Silly, yes, but a real and prevalent attitude. So some hated him unfairly. And others, recognizing this injustice, felt a unique desire to defend him. Woodley’s book, for instance, makes in very oblique terms the accusation that Stevens faced discrimination because of his disability, and frankly some of these events are much easier to understand if prejudice was in play. For instance, when he went to join the York County bar, they changed the rules specifically to exclude him, which is naturally suspicious.

fwiw.

What right to you mean?

btw, if you are wondering why these men look very grim, you have to understand that this was a time i jokingly refer to as “before smiles were invented.” That is flippant and misleading, but the real problem was that cameras back then had to be held open for something like a minute and half to get the picture. so if you moved, it looked really bad, with a very blurred effect. Thus, you didn’t smile, because you would have to maintain it for a full minute and a half.

Easier to write about Grant as a general without talking too much about slavery. Downright preferable to talk about Lee without engaging with slavery. But Stevens and Sumner, how could you write about them without dealing with slavery.