+- Lincoln Discussion Symposium (https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium)
+-- Forum: Lincoln Discussion Symposium (/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Abraham Lincoln before his Presidency (/forum-2.html)
+--- Thread: Thomas Lincoln (/thread-1936.html)
Pages: 1 2
RE: Thomas Lincoln - loetar44 - 10-03-2014 04:07 AM
Mr. Ed wrote me the following and corrected his blog.
Hello Kees ~
Well, I got the photo posted. Thanks a lot for correcting me on this and for sending the correct photo. Have a great weekend. Ed ~
http://mredlincolnalbum.blogspot.nl/
RE: Thomas Lincoln - Eva Elisabeth - 10-03-2014 08:32 AM
Thanks for the update, Kees - I find it very cool that Mr. Ed did this and also mentioned you! Not everyone would.
RE: Thomas Lincoln - Craig Hipkins - 10-08-2014 05:29 PM
Hello Folks, most historians believe that the first photograph ever taken was by Nicephore Niepce in 1826. It is a very hazy image that shows a view of a rooftop. The first photograph taken with human beings in it dates from 1838. It shows a street scene. Apparently the street was crowded at the time the photograph was taken, however, because of the length of time it took to capture the image only two people can be seen in the photograph. The reason that they can be seen is because they stood in the same place long enough while everyone else was moving about.
[attachment=1049][attachment=1050]
I too am skeptical of the (supposed) Thomas Lincoln Daguerreotype that most people consider to be genuine. Does anyone know the original source of that photo? If TL was born in 1778 he would have to have been in his 60s when Daguerreotypes were coming into fashion in the 1840s. To me, the guy in that photo looks considerably younger. Also, having your image taken for posterity was rather costly back in those days and Thomas Lincoln doesn't seem to be the type, that would have spent a few bucks to spend in this fashion. What do you all think?
Craig
RE: Thomas Lincoln - STS Lincolnite - 10-08-2014 09:16 PM
(10-08-2014 05:29 PM)Craig Hipkins Wrote: Also, having your image taken for posterity was rather costly back in those days and Thomas Lincoln doesn't seem to be the type, that would have spent a few bucks to spend in this fashion.
I have never really thought to question the veracity of the claim that the commonly seen photo to used represent Thomas Lincoln was actually him. I must admit now I am skeptical as well. Craig's quote above has the ring of common sense to me. From the things I have read about TL, he doesn't seem to be the kind of man who would be jumping in on the "new technology" of photography - unless someone else talked him into it and probably paid for it.
What exactly is the provenance of that photo?
Where is it supposed to have been taken and by who?
RE: Thomas Lincoln - RJNorton - 10-09-2014 04:24 AM
IMO the provenance is not that good. The story goes - During the Civil War a relative of Thomas Lincoln approached O.V. Flora, a soldier from Ohio who was stationed in Illinois, with an offer to sell him a photo of Thomas Lincoln. The relative told Flora the photo was genuine and he needed the money badly and was willing to sell it. Under the photo was written "Thomas Lincoln. Born 1778 Died 1851." The exact date and nature of the transaction is unknown. R. Gerald McMurtry researched Flora and found that Flora was indeed assigned (for a short time) to service in Charleston, Illinois, only a few miles from Thomas Lincoln's home.
The photo then ended up in the hands of Flora's daughter, Mrs. E.J. Shafer of Franklin, Indiana. In 1932 she loaned the photo out for display in Ft. Wayne. In 1933 McMurtry got her permission to publish the photo in Kentucky Progress magazine.
Although scholars disagree on the photo's authenticity, Charles Hamilton and Lloyd Ostendorf wrote, "Many scholars doubt its authenticity, but the rugged, angular features of the subject, so dramatically Lincolnesque, match contemporary descriptions of Thomas Lincoln." McMurtry speculated that the family member who sold the photo to Flora was probably "a member of the Johnston family, a descendant of Sarah Bush, the second wife of Thomas Lincoln."
In writing about the image Michael Lynch notes, "To argue that someone defrauded O.V. Flora requires a forger who successfully pulled some difficult and improbable stunts: locating a suitable picture to match Thomas Lincoln's appearance, discovering the correct dates, and passing himself off as a Lincoln relative in a community near where the family lived."
There is MUCH more information in Mr. Lynch's article on the image in the Winter 2008 Lincoln Herald.
Mr. Lynch's conclusion: "Perhaps someone scammed Flora, and many Lincoln students through him. But the simplest explanation is usually the most likely. In this case, the simplest explanation is that O.V. Flora stumbled across a genuine historical treasure. The eyes that gaze back at us from this photograph are probably the same eyes that watched Abraham Lincoln crawl, play, work, study, and finally turn his back and walk away at age twenty-one."
RE: Thomas Lincoln - Eva Elisabeth - 10-09-2014 04:58 AM
Many thanks for posting this - like Scott I have never questioned the photo depicted Thomas Lincoln nor heard of any of this! Fascinating info and "news"!!!
RE: Thomas Lincoln - RJNorton - 10-09-2014 07:39 AM
Eva, I have several questions about this photo. I would assume it was taken c.1848 - c.1850 because Thomas Lincoln died very early in 1851. Was there a daguerreotypist in Charleston at that time? McMurtry found one as early as 1854, but this would have to be earlier for Thomas Lincoln to have posed. I also wonder why the family of O.V. Flora never contacted Robert Lincoln about what they said they had in their possession. In 1918 Robert Lincoln said he "never heard of any picture of my grandfather."
RE: Thomas Lincoln - Eva Elisabeth - 10-09-2014 09:00 AM
Now I also wonder - where and when (if known) was this photo taken then?
[attachment=1052]
RE: Thomas Lincoln - RJNorton - 10-09-2014 09:22 AM
On the page opposite p. 408 in Ida Tarbell's The Life of Abraham Lincoln it says that the photo came from Sarah Bush Johnston Lincoln's granddaughter, Mrs. Harriet Chapman. Thus, I think the provenance is better with this one (in comparison to the alleged Thomas Lincoln image). I do not know the year taken.
RE: Thomas Lincoln - Houmes - 10-09-2014 11:37 AM
(10-09-2014 07:39 AM)RJNorton Wrote: Eva, I have several questions about this photo. I would assume it was taken c.1848 - c.1850 because Thomas Lincoln died very early in 1851. Was there a daguerreotypist in Charleston at that time? McMurtry found one as early as 1854, but this would have to be earlier for Thomas Lincoln to have posed. I also wonder why the family of O.V. Flora never contacted Robert Lincoln about what they said they had in their possession. In 1918 Robert Lincoln said he "never heard of any picture of my grandfather."
Abraham Lincoln had 20 different photographs taken in various forms between 1846 and 1859, when he was widely known in Illinois as a prominent attorney and former state legislator. Itinerant photographers were present in Illinois during this time, traveling without advertising except via word of mouth. Given the opportunity, who wouldn't snap a photo of the father of an Illinois favorite son? In a letter to Frederick Meserve in November 25, 1910, Robert Todd Lincoln claimed Nicholas Shepherd couldn't possibly have taken the first daguerreotype of Abraham and Mary Lincoln because "Springfield, in 1846 was simply a village and I do not believe it possible that any one there possessed the facilities..." In the same letter, Robert Lincoln admitted he had no information about those first images, so one might question his recall about other early images. The Abraham and Mary daguerreotypes continue to be accepted by historians as being Shepherd images, and he was known to be a photographer at that time in Springfield. The O.V. Flora image attributed to be Thomas Lincoln has been published in multiple books and it is a print, assumed to be from a daguerreotype. It is now in the collection of Lincoln Memorial University.
RE: Thomas Lincoln - Eva Elisabeth - 10-09-2014 11:42 AM
(10-09-2014 09:22 AM)RJNorton Wrote: On the page opposite p. 408 in Ida Tarbell's The Life of Abraham Lincoln it says that the photo came from Sarah Bush Johnston Lincoln's granddaughter, Mrs. Harriet Chapman. Thus, I think the provenance is better with this one (in comparison to the alleged Thomas Lincoln image). I do not know the year taken.Thanks, Roger!
RE: Thomas Lincoln - Eva Elisabeth - 10-09-2014 02:22 PM
In 1867, Mary wrote a letter to her mother-in-law also mentioning that Tad was named for her husband and that her son (Abraham) had wished a monument to be erected over his father's grave, which he had expressed shortly before being assassinated.
When searching for the entire letter online (as I can't get at my Turner book right now), I didn't find the letter but this statement:
"She also sent Sarah Lincoln some personal mementos of her illustrious stepson, and even a bolt of cloth for a new dress."
I wonder what mementos she sent (if this is true) and if anything is known of Sarah B. L.'s reaction (despite that she wasn't able to read the letter herself)?
RE: Thomas Lincoln - RJNorton - 10-09-2014 02:55 PM
Eva, I cannot answer your questions, but I can post the letter and note Mary wrote to Sarah Lincoln at this time.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Chicago, Dec. 19th, 67
"Mrs. Sally Lincoln
"My dear Madam:
"In memory of the dearly loved one, who always remembered you with so much affection, will you not do me the favor of accepting these few trifles? God has been very merciful to you, in prolonging your life and I trust your health has also been preserved — In my great agony of mind I cannot trust myself to write about, what so entirely fills my thoughts, my darling husband ; knowing how well you loved him also, is a grateful satisfaction to me. Believe me, dear Madam, if I can ever be of any service to you, in any respect, I am entirely in your service. My husband a few weeks before his death mentioned to me, that he intended that summer, paying proper re-
spect to his father's grave, by a head and foot stone, with his name age and so forth and I propose very soon carrying out his intentions. It was not from want of affection for his father, as you are well aware that it was not done, but his time was so greatly occupied always. I will be pleased to learn whether this package was received by you — Perhaps you know that our youngest boy, is named for your husband, Thomas Lincoln, this child, the idol of his father — I am blessed in both of my sons, they are very good and noble. The eldest is growing very much like his own dear father. I am a deeply afflicted "woman and hope you will pray for me —
"I am, my dear
Madam,
"Affectionately yours,
"Mary Lincoln.
"This letter please consider entirely private — I shall be
greatly pleased to hear from you."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
December 20, 1867
"Enclosed is the express receipt, also ten dollars, which please accept for the making of the dress. An answer is requested, whether the box, money, &c. has been received, & oblige
"Mrs. Lincoln" appears on the first page; on the other page is "Mrs. A. Lincoln's address is 460 West Washington St., Chicago, 111. Private".
RE: Thomas Lincoln - Eva Elisabeth - 10-09-2014 03:13 PM
Thanks, Roger! Quite touching, also regarding they had never met and Mary had lived in very a different "world". Also I find it remarkable that Mary AFAIK had never uttered any hateful thought about JWB & Co (while she called her own son a "monster of mankind" etc. after the insanity affair).