Lincoln & Booth

[nomann]

March 4, 1865
Lincoln and Booth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LincolnJohn.jpg
Booth {See Figure # 4}
http://www.qualitative-research.net/inde.../1173/2618

Related picture
http://abrahamlincolnphotos.blogspot.com/

[L Verge]

Unless my eyes deceive me, the highlighted man in the Second Inaugural photo is different from the one that is generally claimed to be Booth.

Barry Cauchon will be speaking at the Surratt Conference this coming weekend on a topic very similar to the one about analyzing visual concepts.

Finally, the death photo taken in New York was discovered by a fourteen-year-old - who is now a college professor in California. Dr. Ron Rietveld and I served on the Advisory Board for the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission; it was like working side-by-side with a piece of history.

[Dave Taylor]

While Booth's presence at the inauguration is not debated, his identification in any pictures of the event is. Here's an overview: http://boothiebarn.com/2012/05/31/booth-...uguration/

[RJNorton]

(03-10-2014 09:36 AM)nomann Wrote:  Related picture
http://abrahamlincolnphotos.blogspot.com/

Phillip, although Lloyd Ostendorf accepted the photo of Lincoln aboard the Wayanda as legitimate I have read other opinions stating that Lincoln's image is thought to have been added later. (i.e. there is debate on that photo)

[JMadonna]

My question would be: If that is Booth, shouldn't Lucy Hale be by his side? There doesn't appear to be any women in that section. Did Lucy get him a ticket and not attend herself?

[Gene C]

Interesting pictures Roger, paricularly the one dated July, 1864. Would the ship's captiain and Secretary Seward be seated while the President is standing
when a picture is being taken?

[RJNorton]

Gene, if there has been discussion/debate about Capt. White and Secretary Seward I have not followed it and know nothing. However, I have seen talk about Lincoln's image being added to the photo. Ostendorf argued that Lincoln is indeed standing there (with his face "artistically restored"), but I think the Coast Guard itself has stated that Lincoln really isn't in the photo - that his image was added later.

[Joe Di Cola]

As I look at the effects of light on the various figures in the photo, none of the effects appear on the Lincoln figure. I have to assume that Lincoln was "added" to heighten interest in what otherwise wold be a pretty mundane photo.

Joe

[L Verge]

Could the "addition" have come at the suggestion of Mr. Ostendorf?

[RJNorton]

Laurie, I don't think so. The photo was given to the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut, in 1922, and Ostendorf didn't become aware of its existence until 1986.

[PaigeBooth]

(03-10-2014 12:07 PM)Dave Taylor Wrote:  While Booth's presence at the inauguration is not debated, his identification in any pictures of the event is. Here's an overview: http://boothiebarn.com/2012/05/31/booth-...uguration/

Great post! I think the first photo on the web page looks the most like Booth. I've heard of the debate that flies about which pictures are accurate of Booth, and which ones are not. I was also very glad to find Sam Chester from that page. I have been searching for a photo of Chester and have not been able to find one until now. Thanks!

[wsanto]

No one really ever comments on the likeness of other conspirators just below Lincoln. Picking a face out in the crowd that resembles a particular conspirator and saying "there's Surratt" wouldn't be that convincing but having 4 or 5 guys standing together and each one resembling a different conspirator makes it a much stronger claim.

[RJNorton]

(04-21-2014 02:27 PM)wsanto Wrote:  No one really ever comments on the likeness of other conspirators just below Lincoln.

I think the only book I own which makes a case for this as fact is the Kunhardts' Twenty Days. Other authors, such as William Hanchett, don't agree. Dr. Hanchett writes, "In Twenty Days (1865), Dorothy Meserve Kunhardt and Philip B. Kunhardt, Jr., have combined hundreds of magnificently reproduced contemporary photographs and other pictures with an informed and judicious narrative of the assassination, its background and aftermath. One regrets only their claim to have identified Booth and some of the men associated with him in an enlarged (and well-publicized) photograph of the ceremony at Lincoln’s second inauguration, March 4, 1865."

Personally I have never accepted the Kunhardts' claim. This was a favorite discussion topic in my classroom as I used Twenty Days in class, and the students loved the challenge of comparing the conspirators' photos to the people in the Second Inaugural blow-up photo. The students were divided in their opinions.

One reason I never accepted it is the Kunhards claim Spangler to be standing with the others. As far as I know Spangler was never a part of Booth's group, not part of the meeting at Gautier's, and never even knew the others except for Booth himself.

IMO Booth may be in the photo but not the others. But I agree, Bill, that it is an interesting topic, and even my 8th graders were fascinated with the possibility.

[BettyO]

I have to agree with the "nay-sayers".....

Although it IS tantalizing, there is just too much against the belief.....again - pure speculation. Spangler most certainly wasn't there. Powell was in Baltimore at the time, although who is to say that he didn't come down to DC for the day. Furthermore, do we have proof that Surratt was in town for the event? We do not - so again, speculation -

[wsanto]

I agree they don't have a good case for the one they identify as Spangler. But just because they reached for that one doesn't mean the others are wrongly identified. To me the resemblance of Powell and Surratt are pretty strong and I can see Herold a bit as well in the face.

Of course I also think I can identifiy Roger in the third row behind Lincoln.