(07-13-2016 12:07 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  

(07-12-2016 07:05 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(07-12-2016 05:08 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Here's another to brood about (could it be a painting?):
http://ourhairourskin.com/?p=461

Could be a painting, but very doubtful that it is Mrs. Keckly. I doubt that the other three posted on this thread are Elizabeth either. I'll try to find time to search for ones that have been better verified.

When the Surratt Society raised the funds to mark her grave, renowned Lincoln scholar, Thomas Schwartz, sent us a photo of Mrs. Keckly in later years for us to use on the dedication program. I just have to find it in our computer files again.

---

The computer refuses to let me transfer some photos of Mrs. Keckly to this forum, but if you go to the Wiki bio of the lady and an article on her from the Smithsonian magazine (obtained by googling Photos of Elizabeth Keckly), you will see a photo that was obviously taken at the same time as the one that Tom Schwartz sent to the Surratt project. Dr. Schwartz's pose, however, is more of a profile.

There is also an earlier photo of the lady that has all the younger features of the aforementioned photos above. Go to http://blackpast.org/aah/keckley-elizabe...-1818-1907 You will definitely see that others posted here do not have the same resemblance to these verified ones.

If it's a photo and supposed to be her - she looks very young. Until the age of 30 she was a slave - how likely is it in those days photos were taken of slaves? (A painting could, of course have been painted later from imagination, it's just strange and makes it suspicious IMO that such items remain such "secrets". If authentic they would probably have long been known of in "public".)

Elizabeth was born in 1818, about thirty years before photography was introduced. She was past forty when she worked with Mrs. Lincoln. What are the chances that anyone would have known about her at an earlier age, or even have cared enough to paint an imaginary portrait?

As far as the other spurious photos, even an untrained eye will have a hard time identifying even similar facial structures.

(07-13-2016 12:35 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 12:07 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  

(07-12-2016 07:05 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(07-12-2016 05:08 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Here's another to brood about (could it be a painting?):
http://ourhairourskin.com/?p=461

Could be a painting, but very doubtful that it is Mrs. Keckly. I doubt that the other three posted on this thread are Elizabeth either. I'll try to find time to search for ones that have been better verified.

When the Surratt Society raised the funds to mark her grave, renowned Lincoln scholar, Thomas Schwartz, sent us a photo of Mrs. Keckly in later years for us to use on the dedication program. I just have to find it in our computer files again.

---

The computer refuses to let me transfer some photos of Mrs. Keckly to this forum, but if you go to the Wiki bio of the lady and an article on her from the Smithsonian magazine (obtained by googling Photos of Elizabeth Keckly), you will see a photo that was obviously taken at the same time as the one that Tom Schwartz sent to the Surratt project. Dr. Schwartz's pose, however, is more of a profile.

There is also an earlier photo of the lady that has all the younger features of the aforementioned photos above. Go to http://blackpast.org/aah/keckley-elizabe...-1818-1907 You will definitely see that others posted here do not have the same resemblance to these verified ones.

If it's a photo and supposed to be her - she looks very young. Until the age of 30 she was a slave - how likely is it in those days photos were taken of slaves? (A painting could, of course have been painted later from imagination, it's just strange and makes it suspicious IMO that such items remain such "secrets". If authentic they would probably have long been known of in "public".)

Elizabeth was born in 1818, about thirty years before photography was introduced. She was past forty when she worked with Mrs. Lincoln. What are the chances that anyone would have known about her at an earlier age, or even have cared enough to paint an imaginary portrait?

As far as the other spurious photos, even an untrained eye will have a hard time identifying even similar facial structures.

I agree that many of these photographs are not Elizabeth Keckly.
However, since this one is on display at Ford's Theatre, I have always believed it to be an authentic photograph of Keckly:
http://www.gal-dem.com/wp-content/upload...kley-2.jpg
Also, in this photo (above), Keckly is younger and thinner which would account for her appearance being different than that of photos taken in her later years.

Another photograph of Keckly, is this one:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c...ly_UNC.gif

And lastly, I am positive that this is an authentic photograph of Keckly, and it is actually quite similar to the photograph of Keckly on the front of the program cover that Roger posted earlier:
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/01/...-popup.jpg

(07-13-2016 03:05 PM)PaigeBooth Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 12:35 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 12:07 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  

(07-12-2016 07:05 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(07-12-2016 05:08 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Here's another to brood about (could it be a painting?):
http://ourhairourskin.com/?p=461

Could be a painting, but very doubtful that it is Mrs. Keckly. I doubt that the other three posted on this thread are Elizabeth either. I'll try to find time to search for ones that have been better verified.

When the Surratt Society raised the funds to mark her grave, renowned Lincoln scholar, Thomas Schwartz, sent us a photo of Mrs. Keckly in later years for us to use on the dedication program. I just have to find it in our computer files again.

---

The computer refuses to let me transfer some photos of Mrs. Keckly to this forum, but if you go to the Wiki bio of the lady and an article on her from the Smithsonian magazine (obtained by googling Photos of Elizabeth Keckly), you will see a photo that was obviously taken at the same time as the one that Tom Schwartz sent to the Surratt project. Dr. Schwartz's pose, however, is more of a profile.

There is also an earlier photo of the lady that has all the younger features of the aforementioned photos above. Go to http://blackpast.org/aah/keckley-elizabe...-1818-1907 You will definitely see that others posted here do not have the same resemblance to these verified ones.

If it's a photo and supposed to be her - she looks very young. Until the age of 30 she was a slave - how likely is it in those days photos were taken of slaves? (A painting could, of course have been painted later from imagination, it's just strange and makes it suspicious IMO that such items remain such "secrets". If authentic they would probably have long been known of in "public".)

Elizabeth was born in 1818, about thirty years before photography was introduced. She was past forty when she worked with Mrs. Lincoln. What are the chances that anyone would have known about her at an earlier age, or even have cared enough to paint an imaginary portrait?

As far as the other spurious photos, even an untrained eye will have a hard time identifying even similar facial structures.

I agree that many of these photographs are not Elizabeth Keckly.
However, since this one is on display at Ford's Theatre, I have always believed it to be an authentic photograph of Keckly:
http://www.gal-dem.com/wp-content/upload...kley-2.jpg
Also, in this photo (above), Keckly is younger and thinner which would account for her appearance being different than that of photos taken in her later years.

Another photograph of Keckly, is this one:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c...ly_UNC.gif

And lastly, I am positive that this is an authentic photograph of Keckly, and it is actually quite similar to the photograph of Keckly on the front of the program cover that Roger posted earlier:
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/01/...-popup.jpg

You are quite right as to the last two photos, but many of us believe that Ford's is displaying an inaccurate one. The University of North Carolina has a lot of material on Mrs. Keckly. It might be in their project of Documenting the American South.

She was a very interesting lady, and although it caused an irreparable split between Mary Lincoln and herself, her writings in Behind The Scenes have given historians a lot of historical perspective on life with the Lincolns at the White House.

The markings of her grave here in Maryland, that of Frederick Aiken in D.C., and that of Edman Spangler near the Mudd House are three projects that I am very proud of the Surratt House and Surratt Society for spearheading.

(07-13-2016 04:01 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 03:05 PM)PaigeBooth Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 12:35 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 12:07 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  

(07-12-2016 07:05 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Could be a painting, but very doubtful that it is Mrs. Keckly. I doubt that the other three posted on this thread are Elizabeth either. I'll try to find time to search for ones that have been better verified.

When the Surratt Society raised the funds to mark her grave, renowned Lincoln scholar, Thomas Schwartz, sent us a photo of Mrs. Keckly in later years for us to use on the dedication program. I just have to find it in our computer files again.

---

The computer refuses to let me transfer some photos of Mrs. Keckly to this forum, but if you go to the Wiki bio of the lady and an article on her from the Smithsonian magazine (obtained by googling Photos of Elizabeth Keckly), you will see a photo that was obviously taken at the same time as the one that Tom Schwartz sent to the Surratt project. Dr. Schwartz's pose, however, is more of a profile.

There is also an earlier photo of the lady that has all the younger features of the aforementioned photos above. Go to http://blackpast.org/aah/keckley-elizabe...-1818-1907 You will definitely see that others posted here do not have the same resemblance to these verified ones.

If it's a photo and supposed to be her - she looks very young. Until the age of 30 she was a slave - how likely is it in those days photos were taken of slaves? (A painting could, of course have been painted later from imagination, it's just strange and makes it suspicious IMO that such items remain such "secrets". If authentic they would probably have long been known of in "public".)

Elizabeth was born in 1818, about thirty years before photography was introduced. She was past forty when she worked with Mrs. Lincoln. What are the chances that anyone would have known about her at an earlier age, or even have cared enough to paint an imaginary portrait?

As far as the other spurious photos, even an untrained eye will have a hard time identifying even similar facial structures.

I agree that many of these photographs are not Elizabeth Keckly.
However, since this one is on display at Ford's Theatre, I have always believed it to be an authentic photograph of Keckly:
http://www.gal-dem.com/wp-content/upload...kley-2.jpg
Also, in this photo (above), Keckly is younger and thinner which would account for her appearance being different than that of photos taken in her later years.

Another photograph of Keckly, is this one:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c...ly_UNC.gif

And lastly, I am positive that this is an authentic photograph of Keckly, and it is actually quite similar to the photograph of Keckly on the front of the program cover that Roger posted earlier:
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/01/...-popup.jpg

You are quite right as to the last two photos, but many of us believe that Ford's is displaying an inaccurate one. The University of North Carolina has a lot of material on Mrs. Keckly. It might be in their project of Documenting the American South.

She was a very interesting lady, and although it caused an irreparable split between Mary Lincoln and herself, her writings in Behind The Scenes have given historians a lot of historical perspective on life with the Lincolns at the White House.

The markings of her grave here in Maryland, that of Frederick Aiken in D.C., and that of Edman Spangler near the Mudd House are three projects that I am very proud of the Surratt House and Surratt Society for spearheading.

Laurie, I am so interested to learn more about this. I would love to know more details about why you believe Ford's Theatre is displaying an inaccurate photo of Keckly. Would you please share some of the facts you have found pointing to this conclusion? Thanks, in advance, for all the interesting information.

It is truly wonderful that Surratt House and the Surratt Society is able to preserve this amazing history by marking these graves!

I cannot admit to having deeply researched photos of Elizabeth Keckly. Sandra Walia, the former research librarian at Surratt House is more of an authority on Elizabeth than I, and she is the one who urged us to mark her grave after Richard Smyth of this forum found her reburial records in New Harmony. From the 1950s on, everyone had thought that her remains were either lost or scattered in a mass grave when her first burial cemetery was sold to developers. Richard proved them wrong, and New Harmony was very helpful in pulling everything together for a re-marking of her grave.

That said, Sandra and I worked in tandem getting the project started and completed. I depended heavily on Sandra's knowledge of Mrs. Keckly, and this included opinions on which photographs were spurious and which ones were good possibilities. Sandra had a special qualification because she volunteered at Ford's Theatre for years and also portrayed Mrs. Keckly in a special, first-person presentation that the NPS produced as part of their special events.for a good number of years. She had done a great deal of research in order to portray accurate history.

When we started thinking about appropriate photos to use, the discussion turned to which ones were correct and which ones were not. Beginning with her birth year of 1818, we decided to concentrate on ones that appeared to show a woman in her 40s - basing that decision on the fact that she would have been at least 42 when she was employed by Mrs. Lincoln. We also added a few years, suspecting that she was not in a financial or social position to have a formal photo taken much before 1863 - if then. She had also lost her son in the Union army early in the war, so she would have been in mourning for at least one year. Note that her son passed for white in order to enlist before colored troops were admitted into the service. Mourning would surely have stopped her from being photographed for one or two years at least.

The photo that Ford's chose to display shows a woman in typical dress of the mid-1860s with skirt fullness tending to be more in the back than earlier. European fashions (which Elizabeth should have been privy too) led American fashions by several years, and the wide hoops all-round were already going out of fashion there. The experts' photos also showed her in much more fashionable and decorative garb, something to be expected in an extremely talented designer and seamstress. Ford's Elizabeth's dress is just basic "stuff."

The Ford's photo also shows a face with extremely full cheekbones set in a rounder and smaller face than the ones Lincoln experts were pointing to. The experts pointed to a woman of greater stature, elongated facial structure, and an authoritative poise about her - a woman who had fought hard for everything that she gained.

I can't quote you chapter and verse or cite indisputable sources. Instinct and common deductions seemed to point us on the path we chose as to which Lizzie to show on the reburial program's cover.

My favorite.

(07-13-2016 07:39 PM)ELCore Wrote:  My favorite.

Lane, I know I've seen this before, but my mind has gone blank. Who is this?

(07-15-2016 03:54 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 07:39 PM)ELCore Wrote:  My favorite.

Lane, I know I've seen this before, but my mind has gone blank. Who is this?

Emily Dickinson, poet

(07-15-2016 05:18 AM)Houmes Wrote:  Emily Dickinson, poet

Indeed. Fully half of her known poems were written during the years of the Civil War, though she lived until 1886.

I was recently researching the evolution of pantries in homes in order to educate our tour guides. I ran across a reference to one of our great female literary figures who did most of her writing while sitting in the kitchen pantry. I think it was Emily Dickinson, but I can't find the reference again, of course. She evidently appreciated the peace and quiet of her surroundings. I guess canned peaches don't interrupt one's creative juices.

(07-15-2016 07:29 PM)L Verge Wrote:  I was recently researching the evolution of pantries in homes in order to educate our tour guides. I ran across a reference to one of our great female literary figures who did most of her writing while sitting in the kitchen pantry. I think it was Emily Dickinson, but I can't find the reference again, of course.

I just got this ebook, so I may be able to find out, eventually.

My Wars Are Laid Away in Books: The Life of Emily Dickinson

It's miraculous! I found the citation again:

Circa 1850-1886 ~ The reclusive Emily Dickinson often writes poems from her pantry in Amherst, MA as her cousin Louise Norcross later described: “I know (she) wrote most emphatic things in the pantry, so cool, so quiet, while she skimmed the milk; because I sat on the footstool behind the door, in delight, as she read them to me.”

http://inthepantry.blogspot.com/p/pantry-timeline.html

Thanks!

I just acquired Emily Dickinson's Poems: As She Preserved Them, ed. Cristanne Miller. I noticed that Louisa Norcross, Emily Dickinson's cousin on her mother's side, is identified as having "published a piece in 1904 describing ED as writing and reading poems aloud in the pantry".