In the meantime Lincoln married, in 1842, Miss Mary Todd, from Lexington, Kentucky, a lady of good education and higher social position than his own, whom he had known for two or three years.  As everybody knows, this marriage did not prove a happy one, and domestic troubles account, in a measure, for Lincoln’s sad and melancholy countenance.  Biographers have devoted more space than is wise to this marriage since the sorrows of a great man claim but small attention compared with his public services.  Had Lincoln not been an honorable man, it is probable that the marriage would never have taken place, in view of incompatibilities of temper which no one saw more clearly than he himself, and which disenchanted him.  The engagement was broken, and renewed, for, as the matter stood,—­the lady being determined and the lover uncertain,—­the only course consistent with Lincoln’s honor was to take the risk of marriage, and devote himself with renewed ardor to his profession,—­to bury his domestic troubles in work, and persistently avoid all quarrels.  And this is all the world need know of this sad affair, which, though a matter of gossip, never was a scandal.  It is unfortunate for the fame of many great men that we know too much of their private lives.  Mr. Froude, in his desire for historical impartiality, did no good to the memory of his friend Carlyle.  Had the hero’s peculiarities been vices, like those of Byron, the biographer might have cited them as warnings to abate the ardor of popular idolatry of genius.  If we knew no more of the private failings of Webster than we do of those of Calhoun or Jefferson Davis, he might never have been dethroned from the lofty position he occupied, which, as a public benefactor, he did not deserve to lose.

After his marriage, Lincoln was more devoted to his profession, and gradually became a good lawyer; but I doubt if he was ever a great one, like his friend Judge Davis.  His law partner and biographer, William H. Herndon, who became associated with him in 1845, is not particularly eulogistic as to his legal abilities, although he concedes that he had many of the qualities of a great lawyer, such as the ability to see important points, lucidity of statement, and extraordinary logical power.  He did not like to undertake the management of a case which had not justice and right on its side.  He had no method in his business, and detested mechanical drudgery.  He rarely studied law-books, unless in reference to a case in which he was employed.  He was not learned in the decisions of the higher courts.  He was a poor defender of a wrong cause, but was unappalled by the difficulties of an intricate case; was patient and painstaking, and not imposed upon by sophistries.