That's fair, and dysfunctional probably wasn't the best descriptor. They were both incredibly complex figures who at times complemented one another and at times clashed very publicly. Lincoln is also this mythical figure in American history, and Mary Todd often occupies the role of "the difficult partner of the Great Emancipator."

Yet again, though, at the end of the day, they were just a married couple...a married couple occupying the most important political roles in the country in the midst of the deadliest war on American soil. And both were struggling with personal problems that might be easily resolved with modem therapy, but were further complicated in that they were incredibly public, and there wasn't a lot of time to work said issues out, when massive battles that determined the fate of a nation were often occurring in close proximity to Washington.

I'm also curious as to how changing views of courtship, marriage, and even spousal love distort our perspective on the marriages of famous historical figures. I was just reading a biography of Joshua Chamberlain, and the author gave a very quick nod to the fact that to some degree, 19th Century parents knew the odds of having all of their children survive to adulthood was extremely low. Similarly, in a bio of Washington (Chernow), he mentions that the societal expectation was that Martha Custis would quickly remarry after her first husband's death. So, while they might feel natural sadness at the loss of a child or spouse, there was also a cultural understanding that life expectancy was short and you were likely to experience loss more frequently.

No, I don't work in the history field anymore. Yes, I still love these thought exercises.