http://www.slate.com/articles/life/histo...cross.html

If I am reading this correctly, there was a general concern about the body's discoloration after the prolonged exposure to air in the viewing at City Hall in NYC. The reporters were evidently doing their duty in reporting decay along the rest of the journey - until people began to worry that morbid curiosity was adding to the long lines of mourners.

There is a brief indication that the embalmers had notified authorities in advance that discoloring of the corpse was likely to occur, but this article (actually an excerpt from Lincoln' Body: A Cultural History by Richard Wightman Fox) does not list any direct quotes from them along the way. The author quotes so many newspaper sources, that one would suspect that he would have quoted Brown and Sands also - if he had found such a quote or quotes.

EMERGENCY NOTE: I attempted to click on that site from this post and received a 404 Error note from Slate. Google Autopsy of Lincoln, and scroll down a ways until you see "Abraham Lincoln's decaying corpse was sent on a two week funeral tour across... Click on that, and you should be able to read this interesting piece.

Thanks for that link, Laurie. Apparently Brown and Sands did say, "No perceptible change has taken place in the body of the late President since it left Washington."

In truth, I wonder if they were under orders from Stanton not to publicly say anything that would upset Mary Lincoln. Also, IMO Brown and Sands probably did not want to admit that their work in Washington was not holding up as well as they had originally hoped.

Excerpted from Lincoln’s Body: A Cultural History by Richard Wightman Fox. Copyright © 2015 by Richard Wightman Fox. With permission of the publisher, W. W. Norton & Co. Inc. All rights reserved.
A BODY FOR THE BODY POLITIC

I am not sure why the posted link (from Laurie's post) is not working, so I am posting the link to Google's cached page:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/se...clnk&gl=us

Also, I contacted Dr. Ron Rietveld. He wrote to me:

"There is no question regarding the provenance and the authenticity of the photograph taken in New York City Hall on April 24, 1865. Both "Blood on the Moon," and Swanson's work verifies further the background to the full story--all apart from me having anything to do with leading other's "by the nose," or any kind of "planted find." The photograph itself falls under the ownership and control of the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum in Springfield, Illinois. And of its authenticity--there is no question. Dr. James Cornelius there may be contacted if so desired. You may direct her or the discussion to Jim at the Museum."

Marsha, I think Dr. Rietveld's suggestion is excellent - please take your photo to Dr. James Cornelius at the ALPLM.

I never questioned the provenance or the authenticity of the gurney photo 4/24/1865 I questioned the fake abe in the coffin of that photo, what don't you get ?

I understand now.
Hundreds of thousands of people file past Lincoln's coffin to see a statue of him in his coffin, and no one makes mention of it, until now. No history books, no diary entrees, no newspaper articles. And to help carry on the charade, they have two morticians travel with the statue to keep it real looking and plant fake news articles about the real body's deteriorating condition.

Well, Gene, as the saying goes, "We weren't there."

Since I wasn't there at Victoria's coronation either, I have declared that a nonevent.

(07-01-2017 08:37 PM)wcvet6 Wrote:  Excerpted from Lincoln’s Body: A Cultural History by Richard Wightman Fox. Copyright © 2015 by Richard Wightman Fox. With permission of the publisher, W. W. Norton & Co. Inc. All rights reserved.
A BODY FOR THE BODY POLITIC

Since I had already attributed that article to an excerpt from that book written by that author, is there a purpose for this post? Or, did you fail to read my post in its entirety? I don't want to miss any points in this ever-increasing (and confusing) topic.

I just have to muse that this whole thread may become worthy of a study on how one simple request for historians' opinions can become a lengthy discourse on a variety of semi-related topics that stray from the original posting and never come to a definite conclusion. It makes one very aware of the twists and turns of history where questions never get answered to everyone's satisfaction -- even when superior opinions and hard, primary source facts are thrown into the equation...

---

(07-02-2017 06:08 AM)wcvet6 Wrote:  I never questioned the provenance or the authenticity of the gurney photo 4/24/1865 I questioned the fake abe in the coffin of that photo, what don't you get ?

At the risk of getting a verbal attack, Marsha, I have to ask, "What don't you get?" when you have been presented a large amount of excellent, fact-based, and primary-sourced responses to your original post as well as to subsequent avenues that this discussion has taken.

You once mentioned a legal background? Have you turned this into a sort of "lawyer's game" to see how many ways you can confuse the issue to keep us going and you entertained?

Frankly, your method frustrates me -- but, it has also been somewhat enjoyable to see where you will head next and then to do some research (combined with common sense) to see how to shortstop you! It is sort of like a game of Jeopardy, but where all the questions fall under the same category.

(06-30-2017 01:11 PM)wcvet6 Wrote:  I believe mary had the real Lincoln corpse why she stayed in dc

If you think this is what happened, then what do you think Mary did with the remains of her husband?

Arlington of coarse

Thank you to all who have participated in this thread. I think we have gone as far as possible. Marsha, I hope you can receive some professional guidance on your photo when or if you submit it to Dr. Cornelius. Over the past decade he has helped many times with photos folks have sent me. His expertise is outstanding - please trust me on that.

Good bye, Marsha, and thank you for sending your photo for discussion.