(10-26-2021 09:39 AM)Gene C Wrote:  While not as an attractive project, but perhaps a more educational one, would be to reconstruct the "half face camp" structure that the Lincoln's lived in when they first moved to Indiana. Less expensive to build, it would show the visitors to the Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial how primitive the conditions that not only the Lincoln family lived in, but many of the new arrivals to the area, and have a greater appreciation of the challenges they faced.

Too much conjecture is involved in constructing a replica of the half-face camp. Even though there is some conjecture involved in the replica cabin in Indiana, there was some archaeology involved based on the location of the hearth from the original cabin. I think we need to stop adding anything that will detract from the already meagre and, in some cases ill-maintained, sites we have.

I would find it cool to have the chance to also experience the home where Abraham Lincoln began a new "stage" of his live - that of a home owner, and the dimensions of this beginning. I am trying to understand the problem - just to clarify, they don't plan on tearing the late "upgraded" (original) house down that stands there now but just want to add a replica of the original (smaller) Dresser home in the neighborhood? What is the problem? From all I've seen the setting (perfect houses, paved sidewalk, lots of space and neat and tidy lawn, modern "casted" trees) ​already looks a bit "artificial", like an outdoor museum rather than "genuine" to me, and I don't mean that in a negative way. I have lived historic cities, Aachen and Vienna, for most of my life, and both are narrow, packed, crowded, no green outside castle parks and church yards, lots of dirt and cobblestone, lots of buildings in less "clean" and perfect condition...and I think in the past this was way worse. (And, of course, people are still living in the many historic houses.) So my impression is that the replica wouldn't really look odd in the Lincoln neighborhood "site". Isn't most of New Salem reconstructed? Why is that not "Disneyfied" then?

Most of my experience in Springfield was along with busloads of 8th graders on the annual trip held by the middle school where I taught. My guess is that the students would have enjoyed walking through the replica of the 1844 cottage (6 rooms) followed by walking through the historic home (12 rooms). I can easily see having a discussion back in class of the various changes/additions made by the Lincoln family. Dioramas showing the changes are wonderful, but IMO the students of the age I taught would have learned and understood more by walking through an authentic replica of the small home as it was when the Lincolns first arrived in 1844, and then comparing that experience to walking through the much larger 1856 home.

(10-27-2021 04:07 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Most of my experience in Springfield was along with busloads of 8th graders on the annual trip held by the middle school where I taught. My guess is that the students would have enjoyed walking through the replica of the 1844 cottage (6 rooms) followed by walking through the historic home (12 rooms). I can easily see having a discussion back in class of the various changes/additions made by the Lincoln family. Dioramas showing the changes are wonderful, but IMO the students of the age I taught would have learned and understood more by walking through an authentic replica of the small home as it was when the Lincolns first arrived in 1844, and then comparing that experience to walking through the much larger 1856 home.

The transition signifies Abraham Lincoln's success as an able and trustworthy lawyer.

I was happy to see people weighing in on both sides of the Lincoln cottage issue. We can agree to disagree. I fear that neither side will convince the other.

Roger, I probably should have used a term other than diorama to describe the Dana House display of the changes to the Lincoln home over the years. They are actual models in cases around which one can walk and, therefore, see the details of the changes.

Yes, the Lincoln neighborhood is an outdoor museum, preserving what was there when the Lincolns resided in the neighborhood. The final decisions about what would remain were based on historical records and archaeological investigations. New Salem was reconstructed based on extensive archaeological investigations (although the location of the reconstructed Rutledge tavern is on the wrong site) and on plats and maps of the original village. Structures are basically where they were in the 1830s.

The same exists for places like Williamsburg, VA. Some buildings had to be reconstructed, but were based on historical records and on archaeology. The Mt. Vernon mansion is vastly different from when George Washington assumed ownership of the plantation because he made extensive changes to the structure. I doubt if the Mount Vernon Ladies Association would ever countenance building a replica of the "original" home on the site.

The Lincoln cottage project is going to involve a great deal of money, funds that perhaps could maintain other Lincoln sites that are not being well-maintained by the fiscally bankrupt State of Illinois.

As I stated at the start of this polemic, we can agree to disagree.

(10-27-2021 09:06 AM)Joe Di Cola Wrote:  As I stated at the start of this polemic, we can agree to disagree.

Well said, Joe. Thanks.

Sorry! It's me again.

My favorite of the "tours" with members of Roger's forum was the tour of the Menard County cemeteries. At least there are no replicas! Those who know me best from Roger's symposium (esp. Rob, Gene, Dave, and Scott) also know why I get livid over the so-called Ann Rutledge grave in Oakwood Cemetery, Petersburg, IL. Her original (and actual) grave is at the Old Concord Cemetery out in the midst of a cornfield. I have to overlook the "modern" gravestone (also the modern stone for Jack Armstrong), but at least they mark the graves. I also get incensed about the abomination that was erected near Ann and David Rutledge's graves to supposedly mark the grave of Ann's father. He is buried in Old Concord, but no one knows where, other than in the general vicinity of the other Rutledge graves.

I know that Bowling and Nancy Green's graves were relocated from their farmstead to Oakwood Cemetery in Petersburg, IL and that Mentor Graham's "remains" were transferred from South Dakota to Farmers Point Cemetery near New Salem and, perhaps, I should be incensed about that. But, the removal of Ann Rutledge, an attempt to promote the selling of plots in Oakwood Cemetery, and to me that is a ghoulish action.

Referring again to New Salem, when the village was first laid out and constructed, the trees were cut down to build the 20+ structures and so there was not the forested look that one sees today at the reconstructed site. The docents point this out and if they don't when I am within earshot I so inform visitors. The Rutledge tavern is "mis-located" and there is no reconstruction of the John Camron residence (and he was one of the founders of the village!). Nevertheless, visitors can see the layout and appearance of the reconstructed buildings on their original sites.

Anyway, I have thoroughly enjoyed the exchanges and only wish we could have done it while seated across from one another. Eva Elizabeth, perhaps one day we can all meet up in Springfield.

Thanks to all that posted here. I agree with Joe when he says that "We can agree to disagree. I fear that neither side will convince the other."


Like Roger and Eva, I too would find it an educational experience to see the Dresser cottage as it was when the Lincolns moved in. I find it difficult to imagine the 1200 sq.ft. cottage environment when touring the 1861 3000, sq.ft. version with it's state of the art stove, lovely furnishings, maid's room.

With restoration, one has to pick a point in time. Most homes undergo some remodeling and updating over time. For the Lincoln Home National Historic site, it's the home and neighborhood as it was in 1861. The home had it's two-story remodel in place and it's where Lincoln was elected President. The history narrative works back in time.

The proposal for the Lincoln cottage portrays the history of a Lincoln family starting out in their first home. Mary and Lincoln worked hard as a team hard, to improve their economic and social standing. This history works forward in time. Each home has a history to tell and I see them as complements. Yes, it's a replica but as different from the 1861 home as the Lincoln log cabin which is a replica.

Lincoln's neighborhood, which was more than just four blocks, and underwent a a big change in demographics from 1844-1861 as did all of Springfield. Lincoln was a great walker and the boys roamed the neighborhood way beyond a four block boundary. Lincoln knew everyone or almost!! In other words Lincoln's neighborhood was more than an artificial boundary set at four blocks. There's much the cottage could add to the story, such as the African-Americans and immigrants that made up the the Lincoln neighborhood.

As has been mentioned, there are other serious issues and obstacles with the proposal. Budget and the burden for the NPS is a big one- the cost for staffing, maintenance, security in perpetuity should be integrated into the proposal. Could/should the funds be used for other projects that better meet the mission of the ALA? Then there are the valid concerns about historical accuracy.

I haven't been able to find the ALA reply to the NPS very public position. This is important to the integrity of the proposal. I've contacted the ALA but haven't heard back.
What I love about the forum is the opportunity to revisit history history in search of answers and learning so much I didn't know.

Great point, Anita, and I second you last sentence. Joe - yes, that would be wonderful... I would like to add that I adore the way Americans preserve and display history, all the places I've seen were so well maintained and presented, in "perfect" shape and condition so to speak, and there are so many volunteers who care. They often look brand new to me even if they are old, because they are kept so neat and tidy. Very different from here.

(10-27-2021 09:56 AM)Joe Di Cola Wrote:  I get livid over the so-called Ann Rutledge grave in Oakwood Cemetery, Petersburg, IL. Her original (and actual) grave is at the Old Concord Cemetery out in the midst of a cornfield. [T]he removal of Ann Rutledge, [in] an attempt to promote the selling of plots in Oakwood Cemetery,. . . is a ghoulish action.

I agree whole-heartedly with this statement. But I prefer the word "abominable" - causing moral revulsion - to the word "ghoulish" in this instance.

My name is Norman Hellmers. I’m pleased that Roger Norton invited me to participate in the Lincoln Discussion Symposium. I had a 31-year career with the National Park Service, the last 13 years as Superintendent of Lincoln Home National Historic Site (1990-2003). I’d like to comment on the Abraham Lincoln Association’s proposal to construct a replica of what they call “Lincoln’s Springfield Cottage” and have it incorporated into the Site through a legislated boundary expansion. As soon as I learned about this proposal, I was opposed to it. Let me tell you why.

A replica of the 1846 cottage would, in my professional opinion, add nothing significant to the interpretive messages being communicated at the Lincoln Home. It also would add an unnecessary financial burden to the operations and maintenance budget of the park, which already has a backlog of needs. An opinion article I submitted to the Springfield State-Journal Register can be found here:
https://www.sj-r.com/story/opinion/colum.../42829857/
In addition to these issues, the proposal is based on false premises. To learn the truth of this matter, I would urge that anyone interested read all of what I have posted online here:
https://www.hellonorm.com/cottage/

The primary falsehoods include the following:
• a replica of the cottage from 1844 to 1856 cannot be constructed. It's impossible.
• the six-room cottage was not transformed directly into the twelve-room home.
• the Lincolns did not live in the six-room cottage for twelve years; only two or so.
• the cottage was not "cramped" nor had "so little space," etc.

I would like to make a few comments on what has been posted in this Discussion Symposium.
• I am unaware that the ALA “presented” the proposal “to the U.S. Department of the Interior for formal review” and “their approval.” To my knowledge neither the National Park Service nor the Department of the Interior has ever made any suggestion that they approve of this proposal.
• As noted in the Coalition’s letter to the leaders of the Congressional committees of jurisdiction: “The Iles property has been moved several times, which is also problematic under the Secretary of Interior Standards” and “has only a tangential relationship to the Lincoln story.”
• Just a simple correction: the models of the three stages of the Lincoln Home (1844-1846, 1846-1856, 1856-1861), are in the Dean House, not “Dana” House. I was Superintendent at Lincoln Home when we developed the exhibits for the Dean House. We felt that models were the best way to tell the story of the evolution of the Home.
• The 1,200-square-foot dimension of the 1844 cottage (aka Dresser cottage) only counts the first floor. (The ALA gave the 1,200 figure, which was simply another of their deceptions.) The half-story second floor was the same size, so the total size of the cottage was approximately 2,400 square feet. The circa 1846 enlargement added another 256 square feet or so, making the house about 2,656-square-feet. Raising the house in 1856 to two full stories did not add substantially to its square footage. The cottage had the same basic configuration of the first floor that is seen today: the stair hall (including newel post and handrail), front parlor, rear parlor (formerly the Lincolns’ bedroom), sitting room, and kitchen (later divided into a smaller kitchen and the formal dining room). A comparison of a cottage replica to the later Home would, frankly, not show that much spatial difference, except that the second floor bedrooms are full height.

Please excuse the length of these comments, but there is much to be said about the inappropriateness of this proposal. Any questions are welcome.

Welcome, Norman, and thank you very much for this thorough information and insight! Wow, 1, 200 is the size of most "standard" houses in Northern Germany like my mother's, but the 1,200 square feet already include both floors (the entire house). So the Lincolns' home indeed wasn't really of "poor" size!
Could you tell how many square feet the entire property had? And do you know what the neighborhood looked like in the 1850s? How much distance was there between the houses, and was there as much green lawn as today (I doubt there was, so I wonder what it looked like).
Basically I would still love to see the "original" cottage even more than the "final upgrade" because I can less imagine it (especially the "half store" bedrooms). The final house almost appears like a what we call a "town villa" to me. I do think there is a difference between the beginning and the "hight end product" and the degree you can relate from each to Lincoln as someone "one of us" versus looking up to someone of the "high society".
However, I understand it is possibly not possible because not enough is known of what it actually looked like, and I do agree on that even if it was possible, the tax payer should by no means finance such.

Hello, Eva. Thank you for the welcome. I enjoyed reading your comments on the information that I provided on the proposal to construct a replica of the 1844 cottage that the Lincolns lived in for about 2 or 3 years before it was first enlarged in about 1846-1847.
To learn a bit about the character of the Lincoln Home neighborhood, you could read the Lincoln Home Cultural Landscape Report that is online here:
http://npshistory.com/publications/liho/clr.pdf
On page 2-11 it describes the typical lot size as being 80 feet wide and a depth of 157 feet, so that would be about 12,560 square feet. The report gives some fascinating information on the physical characteristics of Springfield at various times, but it does take some time to read. Toward the back of the report, there are some interesting photographs and panoramas that give a sense of the spatial arrangement of the neighborhood around the Lincoln Home.
My opinion is that it is unnecessary to spend $400,000 to build a replica of the cottage. (There are many more worthy projects that the ALA could spend this money on.) As I noted, the downstairs of today’s Lincoln Home shows very closely what the cottage was like, except for the early addition of the added bedroom that eventually became the rear parlor. Remember the Lincolns lived in this cottage for only a few years before the bedroom and the pantry were added.
Actually, a fairly accurate replica of the 1844 cottage could be constructed, but the question remains--why. I do not see any purpose in comparing the cottage to the later, post 1856 home. The raising of the second level to two full stories does not say anything about Mr. Lincoln’s financial situation. He didn’t want this change made, so Mary had it done with money that came from her wealthy father. The best that can be said of Lincoln’s financial situation is that he married into money.
As you say, “the tax payer should by no means finance such,” but if these two houses were added to the National Historic Site, the American taxpayers would be obligated to pay for the operation and maintenance of these questionable additions in perpetuity. The National Park Service is already underfunded and has a significant backlog of projects. These additions should not be added to that burden.
Your high regard for the Lincoln Home is admirable and I appreciate your interest in the details of what is being proposed. Thank you for commenting.

Welcome Norman!

Like Eva, I too am surprised to learn that the 1200 sq.ft. Dresser Cottage is actually double that size. That's double the size of my 4 bedroom home in CA!

I read that the upstairs bedrooms were sleeping lofts. Does this mean low ceilings and the rest attic? Even so, the 1200 sq.ft. of living space in the 3 downstairs rooms is sizable indeed.

I too would like to see the Dresser cottage as it was when the Lincolns moved in, especially with simpler furnishings and more history of those early years. I believe it has educational merits as I posted earlier. BUT I just don't see a fit with the Lincoln Historic Home site for the myriad of issues presented here. Do you know if the replica plans include formal guided tours or self-directed? Would this make a difference to the costs?

Suggestion: Update the current models that show the changes to the Lincoln home over the years by using current technology. Perhaps an interactive display where visitors could push a button for a specific year and see the house and furnishings. Add another option to listen to a short description of the family at that point in time. Just an idea.

Hello Anita! Thanks for the welcome. I don’t care for the term “sleeping loft.” The HABS drawings refer to these upstairs rooms as bedrooms. Half-story houses were very popular in Lincoln’s time—and are still today! Generally, modern houses have dormers in the upper level. In the Lincoln cottage, the walls would have extended above the downstairs by three or four feet. (That dimension is known, but I don’t know it.) The walls would then have followed the roofline. At the top, there would have been a flat ceiling about three feet wide. This was probably the only space in which the nearly six-foot, four-inch tall Mr. Lincoln could have stood upright. To me this explains the Lincolns’ early desire to add a downstairs bedroom, which would have allowed Lincoln the luxury of standing upright throughout their bedroom.

Upstairs in the cottage, there were three bedrooms, one each above the parlor and the sitting room and one above the kitchen wing. You can see these bedrooms on this HABS drawing:
https://www.hellonorm.com/cottage/1844-1846_web.jpg

Furnishing the cottage as it may have appeared in 1844 would be highly conjectural. The furnishing of the Lincoln Home today is based on a considerable amount of evidence. No such evidence would be available for the cottage. Furnishing the cottage with little evidence would be a disservice to visitors. How the cottage would be used would be a decision that the National Park Service would have to make, if they were forced by law to accept it. Guided tours would be unlikely, since there is so little that could be said. Also, guiding visitors through the upstairs bedrooms would present physical challenges because of the lower ceilings. Guided tours would also be a considerable expense. You speak of learning about the “early years.” Remember that the Lincolns lived in the original cottage for only two or three years, and there is not that much to tell. Robert was just a toddler. The births of the youngest boys and the death of Eddy were all after the cottage had been enlarged. Even an experienced interpreter would find it hard to use the cottage to tell a story of any significance associated with the Lincoln family. See this section of my online comments about interpretation in our National Park System:
https://www.hellonorm.com/cottage/index5.html

I would encourage everyone (if you haven’t already done so) to watch a tour given of the Lincoln Home by the current Curator, Susan Haake. She has the time to tell more about the Home than is possible on a regularly scheduled tour. The video is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiAe1ndrmJ8

Your suggestion for using “current technology” is intriguing. Mike Jackson, who was the chief architect for the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency for more than 30 years makes a similar suggestion. In his opinion piece, “Why we don't need another replica historic place,” he writes:
“If the Abraham Lincoln Association wants to do something new to better explain Lincoln's life through the places that represent him, there are better ways to do this than recreating the early version of the Lincoln home. The use of virtual recreations through modern architectural rendering tools and information software could put the ALA at the forefront of virtual historic interpretation.”
His piece is here:
https://www.illinoistimes.com/springfiel...d=13909061

I remain opposed to the construction of the cottage, primarily for two reasons. One is the cost of operation and maintenance, but more importantly, I believe there is no universal truth to be conveyed by it, and after all, that’s what the mission of the National Park Service is all about.