Time to write a new editorial criticizing the judge.
Shortly after winning the 1860 presidential election, Lincoln was bombarded by applications from office seekers. One of them was Pennsylvania Senator Simon Cameron. Cameron had a reputation for dishonesty, and when fellow Pennsylvanian, Congressman Thaddeus Stevens learned that Lincoln was considering Cameron for a cabinet position, he expressed his disapproval.
“You don’t mean to say you think Cameron would steal?” asked Lincoln, when told of Stevens’ reservations.
“No,” replied Stevens. “I don’t think he would steal a red-hot stove.”
Lincoln found this response hilarious and repeated Stevens’ comment to several people. One of those to whom he told the story was Simon Cameron. Cameron did not find the story nearly as amusing as Lincoln thought he should. He was outraged and immediately went to Stevens and demanded that he retract the defamatory remark.
Stevens immediately went to Lincoln, exasperated. “Mr. Lincoln, why did you tell Cameron what I said to you?”
Lincoln replied that he thought it was funny and didn’t think Cameron would take it seriously.
“Well, he is very mad, and he made me promise to retract,” replied Stevens. “I will do so now. I believe I told you he would not steal a red-hot stove. I take it back.”
Can someone explain the red hot stove joke? Is it just implying he would steal it if it wasn’t hot? Like being hot is the necessary requirement for him not stealing it?
Yep, that is the joke. It does do so in a way that allows Stevens to say ‘no’ to the question ‘would he steal’.
The retraction also works, as now he has an implication Cameron would steal a red hot stove.
Oh I didn’t get that “no” element. Clever.
Old jokes can be hard to follow. I was expecting more idiom.
The problems here are so overwhelmingly self-evident that I’m not going to insult anyone’s intelligence laying them out.
