Was Lincoln’s coffin opened in February 1866 ?

[loetar44]

I think all of you would say “No”, only on Dec 21, 1865 and the first time after that date, on Sept 19, 1871 (and of course 3 times more in later years). But. I would like to draw your attention to the following I found today.

The Brooklyn Daily Eagle of Friday Evening Feb. 16 (no year printed) says the following:

           

Written on the clipping is “1866”. Lincoln Lore #1443, May 1958 quoted the reporter of this Brooklyn Daily article in their article “And so they buried Lincoln…”, see red boxes.

   

Lincoln Lore says in her article: “According to the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, February 16 (1872)” and is referring to the exhumation of Sept. 19, 1871. But they are IN ERROR ! Possibly because the Brooklyn Daily Eagle was published Friday Evening Feb. 16 and because Feb. 16, 1872 was a Friday and close to the exhumation of 1871 they assumed that it had to be 1872. Why is this wrong?

First: Feb. 16, 1866 was ALSO a Friday!
Second: please note that in the same paper is an article about the marriage of Princess Helena (of the United Kingdom). Well, Princess Helena married Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein on July 5, 1866. So, the article in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle is undoubtly from Feb. 16, 1866.

The Brooklyn Daily Eagle explicitly says:

(1) The vault recently constructed at Oak Ridge ---- that was December 1865 (the temporaily vault)
(2) To which the mortal remains of the late president were removed A SHORT TIME since --- that was Dec 21, 1865
(3) [the vault] was visited A FEW DAYS AGO ---- the article is dated “Springfield, Ill. Feb. 10.” What is A FEW DAYS AGO ??? That is according to me a date in the first week of Feb 1866
(4) The coffin was OPENED and Gov. Oglesby, Newton Bateman and Ozias Hatch viewed the remains – only three men. On Dec 21, 1865 and Sept 1871 the body was viewed by six men.
(5) The visit of the committee was an OFFICIAL ONE and made in pursuance of a resolution of the Board of Directors of the Lincoln Association ….. to certify to the actual presence of the body in the casket.
(6) A positive identification was made. After the viewing the coffin was replaced in the sepulchre, the temporary vault, a great stone / slab was rolled to the door (for protection, I suspect).
(7) The remains will now rest undisturbed unil the National Monument shall be completed --- that was Sept 19, 1871.

IF, and only IF, Abraham Lincoln was viewed in Feb. 1866, how is it then possible that ALL books and ALL other accounts does not mention this? Or is my interpretation WRONG ? You all out there know a lot more than me, so I think you can help me out. And IF Lincoln was viewed in Feb. 1866 it is for me quite "a bomshell". I'm still trying to catch my breath ......

[STS Lincolnite]

Kees,

I really think you are on to something here!

To me the article describing the wedding of Princess Helena as an event that is to occur (not has occurred) is critical.

I would also note that Richard J. Oglesby served 3 different times as Governor of Illinois. The first was from 16 January 1865 to 11 January 1869. One time for about 10 days in 1873 and the last time from 1885-1889. He was not Governor in 1871 or 1872. As they referred to Hatch as "ex Sec. of State Hatch", I would think they would have referred to Oglesby in much the same was as "former Governor" or "Ex-Governor" if this was written in 1872 (referring to the 1871 opening). But they did not, he was referred to as Governor Oglesby. To me, this indicates he was the current Governor, which he would have been in 1866.

I suppose it is possible that this article was referring to the December 1865 viewing. The "a few days ago" line is the one that makes this difficult to pin down. You ask correctly, what exactly does "a few days ago" mean? Is it 30 days or 10 days or 5 days, etc.?

I did find it interesting that they described the President's features being "scarcely discernible". Reports of the last viewing stated that Lincoln was perfectly recognizable.

[RJNorton]

I was curious about the sentence which reads, "The face was examined through the glass covering which underlies the outer strata of the case..."

What glass covering?

Also, I am curious as to why this might have happened in the first place. The article says the Missouri Democrat was the source and gives a February 10 date, so this allegedly happened fairly early in February. We know the remains were identified December 21, 1865. So why, less than two months later, would yet another "official identification" even be necessary? Was the December 21 opening not considered "official?"

I searched for other newspapers that carried this same article and found quite a few. For example The Launceston Examiner (Tasmania, Australia) carried the article on June 13, 1866, and gave its source as the March 13, 1866, London Evening Sun.

[loetar44]

Launceston is a city in the north of Tasmania, Australia. But The Launceston Examiner of Wednesday June 13, 1866 (eightteen sixty six) printed the same article.

   

   

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/page/365...oomLevel=1

Page 2, bottom, 4th column

---

(02-18-2015 05:22 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  I was curious about the sentence which reads, "The face was examined through the glass covering which underlies the outer strata of the case..."

What glass covering?

Also, I am curious as to why this might have happened in the first place. The article says the Missouri Democrat was the source and gives a February 10 date, so this allegedly happened fairly early in February. We know the remains were identified December 21, 1865. So why, less than two months later, would yet another "official identification" even be necessary? Was the December 21 opening not considered "official?"

I searched for other newspapers that carried this same article and found quite a few. For example The Launceston Examiner (Tasmania, Australia) carried the article on June 13, 1866, and gave its source as the March 13, 1866, London Evening Sun.

Roger, I saw that you already found the Launceston Examiner ! I too have "problems" with the glass covering, and the fact that the embalming seemed to be a "failure". But WHY was this printed in several newspapers all over the world? Because it was true, or ........

[RJNorton]

Kees, this is a mystery to me. I was thinking maybe there was confusion, and this was really a reference to the December 21 opening, but the "scarcely discernible" features make no sense when compared to what the eyewitnesses said in 1901. I am currently at a loss on this...

[loetar44]

(02-18-2015 06:03 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Kees, this is a mystery to me. I was thinking maybe there was confusion, and this was really a reference to the December 21 opening, but the "scarcely discernible" features make no sense when compared to what the eyewitnesses said in 1901. I am currently at a loss on this...

Roger, I still am in search for a reasonable explanation. Of course, in 1865/66 news "traveled" slow. The Missouri Democrat printed it on Feb 10, 1866, the Brooklyn Daily Eagle on Feb 16, 1866, The London Evening Sun on March 13, 1866, The Launceston Examiner on June 13, 1866. Could it be that the article is referring to the Dec 21, 1865 viewing? But news in the U.S. did not travel "that slow" I asume? I suspect that a week or 10 days is the limit for US papers. I can't get rid of the thought that the coffin was opened early Feb. 1866 and that there was more marked deterioration in Lincoln's remains than ever thought.... Was Lincoln exposed under a glass plate when lying in state in the cities en route to Springfield? But why a glass covering here? Puzzling ....

[STS Lincolnite]

I seem to vaguely remember an account stating that a glass "window" was imbedded into one of Lincoln's coffins or another so that his face could be viewed. There may even have been a drawing of this. I will see if I can track down that account. I make no claim that the account was in any way accurate.

I think that the previous assessment (prior to Kees sinking his teeth into the question) that this article refers to the 1871 opening/viewing is most assuredly incorrect.

I find it most likely that this report is referring to to the December 1865 viewing. A couple thoughts/questions though. Who were the men present at the December 1865 viewing? Were the 3 men reported in the clipping in question reported to be present then? The answer may shed a little more light on the viewing question. If they weren't, I wouldn't put it above some politicians to find a way to "justify" another viewing just so that could fulfill a personal desire to get one more glimpse of Lincoln's face in death. If they were, I think the likelihood that this article refers to December 1865 viewing goes up - because I don't see why the same people would need to do a second "official" viewing to make sure it was Lincoln.

What was the weather like in winter of 1865? Could that account for extra slow news travel? There were obviously telegraph lines but if bad weather (ice/snow) was prevalent maybe they were downed? Maybe train and road travel would have been hindered? I don't know if those thoughts are reasonable. Just thinking "out loud".

[RJNorton]

(02-18-2015 08:58 AM)STS Lincolnite Wrote:  Who were the men present at the December 1865 viewing? Were the 3 men reported in the clipping in question reported to be present then?

I believe the 6 for the December 21, 1865, viewing were Governor Richard J. Oglesby, Orlin H. Miner, Jesse K. Dubois, Newton Bateman, 0zias M. Hatch, and David L. Phillips.

Scott, if I am correct on the above 6, then 3 of the names "overlap."

All were original members of the Board of Directors of the Lincoln Monument Association.

[loetar44]

You are right Roger. J. Carroll Power writes in his "History of an attempt to steal the body of Abraham Lincoln" p75, 76 : “In process of transferring the remains, the box containing the coffin was opened, in order that the features of the deceased might be seen and identified; and six of his personal acquantainces – R.J. Oglesby, O.H. Miner, Jesse K. Dubois, Newton Bateman, O.M Hatch and D.L. Phillips- filed a written statement with the Secretary of the Association that it was the body of Abraham Lincoln”.

Scott, good thinking! I too remember someting about a glass "window", hope you are able to find some reference(s)! It will also declare why in most accounts NO PLUMBERS are mentioned during the first two viewings. Only something like this: "Undertaker Thomas C. Smith opened the coffin and the six personal friends of Lincoln identified the remains". Leon Hopkins is in some sources mentioned but he was in 1865 still a boy of 14.... (see the thread "Who were the plumbers")

The Dec 21, 1865 viewing is described by Lloyd Lewis, on p 265 of his "Myth after Lincoln": “Seven months later this new resting place was ready and,on December 21, 1865, the casket was borne to the door. Six of Lincoln's old friends wanted to see that the body was safe,and a plumber's assistant, Leon P. Hopkins, made an opening in the lead box. (Leon P. Hopkins. Remember him! He is to enter again—and again—into the history of this leaden coffin.) The six friends looked in, nodded their heads, and the casket was closed and entombed.” Nothing about a glass "window" and it describes (according to me) a complete other story. The 1866 article says that the coffin was opened (in the vault ?), not that it was brought into the vault. explicitly stating that the mortal remains of the late president were removed (to the vault) A SHORT TIME since.....

At the Dec 21 viewing Robert T. Lincoln was present. Why is he not mentioned in the Feb. 1866 article? Mary was not (she was at that moment in Springfield and inspected the vault, together with Robert) on Dec. 19. She was not present at the viewing, caused by "a sudden indisposition". I'm thinking "out loud" like Scott. Why is not mentioned that the (only surviving) son of Lincoln was present and Lincoln''s wife not. That are (at least for a newspaper reporter) important facts. Because they are not mentioned it might be indicate that this was another viewing than the Dec 21 viewing. What are your thoughts about this?

[L Verge]

Would records still exist with the caretakers of the tomb today? Surely there were official notations on such things as repeated openings of the coffin. It's been several years since I read Stealing Lincoln's Body; does Thomas Craughwell make any mention of in that book? What about Tom Schwartz? Does his expertise extend into subjects related to the tomb?

[RJNorton]

Laurie, I have the book by Thomas Craughwell. I also have the book by Bonnie Speer. I checked both books and drew a blank. These authors mainly concentrate on the events of 1876 and after; they don't concentrate on the earlier openings that Kees is asking about.