Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Susan Higginbotham · 03-03-2016, 08:13 AM

I think she's simply saying that the photo was a copy of an original, which is plausible enough--such copies were common.

Dating the clothing in the picture would be very helpful--although it wouldn't prove the identity of the subject, it would give an idea of when the original was taken.

Houmes · 03-03-2016, 09:05 AM

(03-01-2016 03:12 PM)Gene C Wrote: This has little to do with the discussion, but I noticed the man in the photo seems to be missing the tip of his index finger on his right hand.
Probably a common injury back then, especially for a farmer or carpenter.

If you Google the image of the supposed Thomas Lincoln and enlarge the picture, there are multiple abnormalities in the fingers of both of his hands. The right index finger is not amputated, but held at a peculiar 90 degree angle. This is more likely a "Trigger Finger" from constant use and irritation, not uncommon today--and probably quite common in a pioneer farmer, occurring from repetitive gripping actions. The tendon in the finger becomes inflamed, becomes thickened over time with nodules forming, and that makes its movement more difficult (back and forth with flexion and extension) through the sheath surrounding the tendon.

Look at his left ring finger. It looks like a good chunk was lost at some time in his life. Look at his left index finger. He has a pronounced nodule or growth on the end of the first bone in that finger, perhaps from some type of arthritis, either osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis. Either one, incidentally, can cause kidney failure.

Steve Whitlock · 03-03-2016, 12:13 PM

Here is my transcription of the entire letter written by Mrs Schafer:

Dear M. Warren-

Yours received some time ago and have just neglected to answer sooner as has been to warm to do anything, and I have been having so much trouble with my eyes.

I have talked to a number of people and they say why don't I write to his grandson and see if he has a picture of him. I don't know his address or would. All photographers I have talked to say it is a coppied picture from a daguerrotype and coppied later on as during the civil war but was not taken on paper as I told you that it was during the war that my father obtained it. Lots of people have wanted me to give it to them but if it is worth something to them it is to me. I have that several times I would have it anounced over the radio asking if there was any one lising [listening] who ever saw him or his picture.

I was told one time by a young lawyer who lived here said he had a friend in the city who had one but I did not learn his name and the lawyer is dead now.

Surely some one has one some place. I would lend it to you if it would do you any good but would want it back if I did not care to sell it.

Yours respectfully,
Mrs F. J. Schafer

Franklin Ind
161 Banta Place
**********************

Mention of a young lawyer saying he had a friend in the city who had a copy of the Thomas Lincoln photo then implies that other copies were made, and somewhere there was an original daguerreotype plate, probably in IL, but not necessarily so. In any case nothing is said to establish whether the photo is really Thomas Lincoln.

IF it can be established somehow that someone from the Johnston family is the Lincoln relative who sold the copied photo I think that would enhance the likelihood of the photo really being Thomas Lincoln, in spite of what Robert Todd Lincoln and John J. Hall have maintained to the contrary. On the other hand Sarah Bush Johnston-Lincoln would have known if there was a photo available of her husband, and surely would have had a copy herself if one were in existence.

After reading the letters of Mrs Schafer I get the feeling there was no con job in play, and the photo was actually thought to be of Thomas Lincoln. If the Lincoln relative was trying to put one over on O.V. Flora I would think he might have sold a photo with more value. At the time I seriously doubt anyone realized how important a photo of Thomas Lincoln could be. I didn't find any mention so far of how much was paid for the photo. I do wish other Flora family members had been interviewed for further input.

ELCore · (This post was last modified: 03-03-2016 10:11 PM by ELCore.)

(03-01-2016 12:47 PM)Steve Whitlock Wrote: I'll set aside many misgivings I have concerning the photo of Thomas Lincoln, who should be turning 73 in 1851, the clothing he wears being questionable as to the period, his ability to afford such clothing, questions as to why he would not have a single photo with either his wife or son (even tho he and Abe were estranged)....

Allow me to note that Abraham is not known to have posed for a photo with any member of his own family except Tad (AL.1864.2E and AL.1865.1A).

Steve Whitlock · 03-03-2016, 08:29 PM

(03-03-2016 08:13 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote: I think she's simply saying that the photo was a copy of an original, which is plausible enough--such copies were common.

Dating the clothing in the picture would be very helpful--although it wouldn't prove the identity of the subject, it would give an idea of when the original was taken.

Thank you for your contributions to this conversation. Are you perchance related to the James Higgenbotham that married Nancy A. Hall (1869-1949), daughter of John J. Hall?

If so have you ever heard, or know of, anyone in the John J. Hall, John D. Johnston and associated families who had a copy of the Thomas Lincoln photo prior to 1930? If someone from those families were the reputed Lincoln relative that sold a copy to O. V. Flora, I should think someone else of those families, or Dennis Hanks for that matter, may have kept a copy as well.

Susan Higginbotham · 03-03-2016, 09:59 PM

(03-03-2016 08:29 PM)Steve Whitlock Wrote:
(03-03-2016 08:13 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote: I think she's simply saying that the photo was a copy of an original, which is plausible enough--such copies were common.

Dating the clothing in the picture would be very helpful--although it wouldn't prove the identity of the subject, it would give an idea of when the original was taken.

Thank you for your contributions to this conversation. Are you perchance related to the James Higgenbotham that married Nancy A. Hall (1869-1949), daughter of John J. Hall?

If so have you ever heard, or know of, anyone in the John J. Hall, John D. Johnston and associated families who had a copy of the Thomas Lincoln photo prior to 1930? If someone from those families were the reputed Lincoln relative that sold a copy to O. V. Flora, I should think someone else of those families, or Dennis Hanks for that matter, may have kept a copy as well.

No relation that I know of, sorry! Although my Higginbothams are from Kentucky.

Steve Whitlock · 03-10-2016, 06:39 AM

(03-02-2016 05:54 AM)RJNorton Wrote: I can go either way on this "apparent" image of Thomas Lincoln. Robert Lincoln was not always correct on his memories regarding photos. Regarding the earliest known photos of his parents his reminiscence was that they were made in 1847-1849 in Washington (or possibly St. Louis). One reason he expressed doubt that these early images were made in Springfield was that Springfield was a small town at the time, and he doubted any daguerreians were located there in the mid-1840s. Robert was incorrect, however. Lloyd Ostendorf found there were several already operating in Springfield in 1846. Most Lincoln books say these two daguerreotypes were made 1846-1847 in Springfield.

Here is some more information from the Michael Lynch article regarding the alleged image of Thomas Lincoln:

During the Civil War a relative of Thomas Lincoln approached O.V. Flora, a soldier from Ohio who was stationed in Illinois, with an offer to sell him a photo of Thomas Lincoln. The relative told Flora the photo was genuine and he needed the money badly and was willing to sell it. Under the photo was written "Thomas Lincoln. Born 1778 Died 1851." The exact date and nature of the transaction is unknown. R. Gerald McMurtry researched Flora and found that Flora was indeed assigned (for a short time) to service in Charleston, Illinois, only a few miles from Thomas Lincoln's home.

The photo then ended up in the hands of Flora's daughter, Mrs. E.J. Shafer of Franklin, Indiana. In 1932 she loaned the photo out for display in Ft. Wayne. In 1933 McMurtry got her permission to publish the photo in Kentucky Progress magazine.

Although scholars disagree on the photo's authenticity, Charles Hamilton and Lloyd Ostendorf wrote, "Many scholars doubt its authenticity, but the rugged, angular features of the subject, so dramatically Lincolnesque, match contemporary descriptions of Thomas Lincoln." McMurtry speculated that the family member who sold the photo to Flora was probably "a member of the Johnston family, a descendant of Sarah Bush, the second wife of Thomas Lincoln."

In writing about the image Michael Lynch notes, "To argue that someone defrauded O.V. Flora requires a forger who successfully pulled some difficult and improbable stunts: locating a suitable picture to match Thomas Lincoln's appearance, discovering the correct dates, and passing himself off as a Lincoln relative in a community near where the family lived."

Roger,

I believe I can now say with more conviction that the photo in question is NOT Thomas Lincoln, but that is insufficient in my assessment of why it isn't Thomas Lincoln. I also believe I know who the Lincoln relative was that sold the photo to O. V. Flora, as well as the true identity of the man in the photo.

While I work on a more reasonable presentation as to my thoughts on the subject, you might note that the coat being worn seems somewhat singular in appearance (due to the collar) to coats worn by others. The person wearing that coat in a later photo is a Lincoln relative, not the one who sold the picture, I don't think, but the real person in the photo. You might try envisioning a really raggedy beard and less hair on top.

Steve W.

RJNorton · 03-10-2016, 08:34 AM

Here is Michael Burlingame's note regarding this alleged Thomas Lincoln photo in Abraham Lincoln: A Life:

"There is no authenticated photograph of Thomas Lincoln, though one purporting to be of him has been widely reproduced. R. Gerald McMurtry, “Was Thomas Lincoln Photographed?” Lincoln Herald 4(1944): 24; [Mark E. Neely, Jr.], “Was Thomas Lincoln Photographed?” Lincoln Lore, no. 1577 (July 1969), 1-3. The nose on the gentleman in the photo is not as large as the one that Thomas Lincoln was reported to have had. W. H. Cunningham, a journalist who interviewed John J. Hall (husband of Thomas's stepdaughter, Matilda Johnston), reported that “No photograph or likeness was ever taken of Thos. Lincoln.” Greenup, Illinois, Press, 22 September 1895. Hall allegedly said that he and Sarah Bush Lincoln insisted that Thomas have “a picture taken just a year or two before his death, but he neglected to have it done.” Statement by John Hall, in the notes of Charles Coleman, in Robert W. Sterling, ed., “Thomas Lincoln: Father of the Nation’s Sixteenth President,” Eastern Illinois University Research and Review Series 4 (August 1993): 21. Robert Todd Lincoln said he had “never heard of any picture of my grandfather, Thomas Lincoln.” Robert Todd Lincoln to Isaac Markens, Washington, 13 February 1918, Paul M. Angle, ed., A Portrait of Abraham Lincoln in Letters by His Oldest Son (Chicago: Chicago Historical Society, 1968), 56."

Steve Whitlock · 03-10-2016, 11:34 AM

Roger,

Abraham Lincoln
and
Coles County, Illinois
by

Charles H. Coleman

"A neighbor, George B. Balch, of Lerna, Coles County, has recorded that:
Thomas Lincoln was a large, bulky man, six feet tall and weighing about two hundred pounds. He was large-boned, coarse-featured, had a large blunt nose, florid complexion, light sandy hair and whiskers. He was slow in speech and slow in gait. His whole appearance denoted a man of small intellect and less ambition. It is generally supposed that he was a farmer; and such he was, if one who tilled so little land by such primitive modes could be so called. He never planted more than a few acres, and instead of gathering and hauling his crop in a wagon he usually carried it in baskets or large trays. He was uneducated, illiterate, content with living from hand to mouth."
****************************************************************

As pointed out by others the man in the photo does not have a large blunt nose, nor does he have the whiskers attributed to him by George B. Balch, who seems to have a low regard for Thomas Lincoln. And yet, at a time when the grave of Thomas Lincoln was ignored, George B. Balch wrote a poem to bring attention to the neglect shown Thomas Lincoln, which resulted in a better monument that was chipped away and stolen by relic seekers, necessitating another monument with better security.

George B. Balch was a neighbor in Pleasant Grove, Coles, IL, and while the height he gives for Thomas isn't in accord to other descriptions, it isn't that far off. Clearly, the man in the photo does not match the description given by George B. Balch, and is not Thomas Lincoln.

If not Thomas Lincoln then who is he? He appears to be John "The Railsplitter" Hanks, before he grew that beard in later life. From the beginning I felt the man in the photos was likely in his 40's, and John Hanks was born in 1802; therefore, he was 48 in 1850.

I don't know how to attach a photo here, but one exists (I have an image) of John Hanks wearing what appears to be the same coat as the man in the "Thomas Lincoln" photo. Also, the nose of John Hanks is a match, a ridge on each side of his nose is a solid match, the manner and length maintained for his hair is likewise a match. The manner in which his mouth seems to droop down at the corners is also consistent with the photo, as is the solid neck and sturdy frame. In later years it appears that John Hanks put on a little more weight and is puffier in the face, yet the cheekbones seem the same. There is another photo of John Hanks in a dark suit that shows his gnarled hands. I can't see the hands clearly enough in the "Thomas Lincoln" photo to compare them, but perhaps someone else can.

Who, then, is of record as a seller of Abraham Lincoln relics, and maintained a residence in Charleston, Coles, IL? He also knew John Hanks and Thomas Lincoln intimately. That would be Dennis Friend Hanks. I believe he is highly probable as the "Lincoln relative" that allegedly sold a Thomas Lincoln photo to O.V. Flora.

But where did the discrepancy occur? Was it a John Hanks photo that was later glued to a mat with Thomas Lincoln's name and dates for birth and death? If so, by whom? In the sales of relics, including the "Lincoln rails" cut by Abraham Lincoln and John Hanks, there was always a note certifying the rails (even if bogus) and other artifacts. Did O. V. Flora have such a note for certification. If so what became of it?

I haven't forgotten that Thomas L. D. Johnston was a photographer, and maintained a studio in Charleston, Coles, IL in 1864; however, the Lincoln relative mentioned a need for money. According to "Abraham Lincoln and Coles County, Illinois" by Chapman:

2 Herndon-Weik photostats, Nos. 522-523. Thomas L. D. Johnston operated a photographic studio in Charleston in the Mount and Hill hall in 1864. Lerna Weekly Eagle, n.d. Article dated Charleston, July 12, 1929. In files of Lincoln National Life Foundation, Fort Wayne, Indiana. John J. Hall, uncle of Thomas Johnston, told Mrs. Gridley in 1891 that "Uncle Abe gave him a pass to go all over the army takin’ pictures. . . ." Gridley, pp. 22-23. Thomas Johnston was behind the lines in January 1864, at Vicksburg, Mississippi. John Berry, husband of Elizabeth Jane Hall, John’s younger sister, wrote from "Camp Clear Creek, Miss." on January 21, 1864, to Amanda Hall (also a sister of John J. Hall) , "I was at town the other day and I seen Thomas Johnston and he gave me his likeness and told me to send it to Jane. . . . Tom has a good time in vicksburge and he makes Plenty of money." Letter in Illinois State Historical Library. From Barrett Collection.
**********************************************

It would seem that Thomas Johnston had "Plenty of money", and may have even still been in Vicksburg, MS or elsewhere taking Civil War photos during the period that O.V. Flora was in Charleston, IL.

In closing I conclude that the photo in question is not Thomas Lincoln, but was a photo of John Hanks at a time he was clean shaven in his 40's, which to me more closely resembles the age of the man in the photo, rather than someone who is 72 or 73.

To prove me wrong one need only find a proven photo of John Hanks in his 40's with a beard.

Also, I remain convinced that Dennis F. Hanks is most likely to have sold said photo to O.V. Flora, and it is still open to speculation as to who tampered with the photo to make it appear to be a photo of Thomas Lincoln.

I had hoped to get a nap and sleep on things before blurting this out; however, I haven't slept all night, and still can't quiet my mind enough to rest. If nothing else you now have my thoughts in regard to the "Thomas Lincoln photo". It isn't enough in my opinion to just say it isn't Thomas Lincoln without giving an alternative as to who the man in the photo is. Otherwise, the speculation continues and there are those who will still maintain it must be Thomas Lincoln.

RJNorton · 03-10-2016, 12:45 PM

(03-10-2016 11:34 AM)Steve Whitlock Wrote: If not Thomas Lincoln then who is he? He appears to be John "The Railsplitter" Hanks, before he grew that beard in later life. From the beginning I felt the man in the photos was likely in his 40's, and John Hanks was born in 1802; therefore, he was 48 in 1850.

I don't know how to attach a photo here, but one exists (I have an image) of John Hanks wearing what appears to be the same coat as the man in the "Thomas Lincoln" photo. Also, the nose of John Hanks is a match, a ridge on each side of his nose is a solid match, the manner and length maintained for his hair is likewise a match. The manner in which his mouth seems to droop down at the corners is also consistent with the photo, as is the solid neck and sturdy frame. In later years it appears that John Hanks put on a little more weight and is puffier in the face, yet the cheekbones seem the same. There is another photo of John Hanks in a dark suit that shows his gnarled hands. I can't see the hands clearly enough in the "Thomas Lincoln" photo to compare them, but perhaps someone else can.

Steve, if you can scan the John Hanks' photo and send it to me via email file attachment I can post it for you.

Steve Whitlock · (This post was last modified: 03-10-2016 01:04 PM by Steve Whitlock.)

(03-10-2016 12:45 PM)RJNorton Wrote:
(03-10-2016 11:34 AM)Steve Whitlock Wrote: If not Thomas Lincoln then who is he? He appears to be John "The Railsplitter" Hanks, before he grew that beard in later life. From the beginning I felt the man in the photos was likely in his 40's, and John Hanks was born in 1802; therefore, he was 48 in 1850.

I don't know how to attach a photo here, but one exists (I have an image) of John Hanks wearing what appears to be the same coat as the man in the "Thomas Lincoln" photo. Also, the nose of John Hanks is a match, a ridge on each side of his nose is a solid match, the manner and length maintained for his hair is likewise a match. The manner in which his mouth seems to droop down at the corners is also consistent with the photo, as is the solid neck and sturdy frame. In later years it appears that John Hanks put on a little more weight and is puffier in the face, yet the cheekbones seem the same. There is another photo of John Hanks in a dark suit that shows his gnarled hands. I can't see the hands clearly enough in the "Thomas Lincoln" photo to compare them, but perhaps someone else can.

Steve, if you can scan the John Hanks' photo and send it to me via email file attachment I can post it for you.

Roger,

While trying to send you an email via the forum I didn't see an attachment option and stumbled across an attachment capability. The photo above is the one I referred to as appearing to be the same coat worn by the gentleman in the "Thomas Lincoln photo". I'll try to do the other photo as well. It didn't come through this time.

Steve W.

(03-10-2016 12:45 PM)RJNorton Wrote:
(03-10-2016 11:34 AM)Steve Whitlock Wrote: If not Thomas Lincoln then who is he? He appears to be John "The Railsplitter" Hanks, before he grew that beard in later life. From the beginning I felt the man in the photos was likely in his 40's, and John Hanks was born in 1802; therefore, he was 48 in 1850.

I don't know how to attach a photo here, but one exists (I have an image) of John Hanks wearing what appears to be the same coat as the man in the "Thomas Lincoln" photo. Also, the nose of John Hanks is a match, a ridge on each side of his nose is a solid match, the manner and length maintained for his hair is likewise a match. The manner in which his mouth seems to droop down at the corners is also consistent with the photo, as is the solid neck and sturdy frame. In later years it appears that John Hanks put on a little more weight and is puffier in the face, yet the cheekbones seem the same. There is another photo of John Hanks in a dark suit that shows his gnarled hands. I can't see the hands clearly enough in the "Thomas Lincoln" photo to compare them, but perhaps someone else can.

Steve, if you can scan the John Hanks' photo and send it to me via email file attachment I can post it for you.

Roger,

There are both photos. The one in the dark suit has a nice view of John's hands. I'm convinced John Hanks, the railsplitter, is the man in the "Thomas Lincoln photo". Others may not agree.

Steve W.

RJNorton · 03-10-2016, 01:10 PM

Thanks. Here's one I had in my files alongside the alleged Thomas Lincoln image:

]

Steve Whitlock · 03-10-2016, 01:41 PM

Roger,

Your photo really highlights the areas I mentioned around the mouth, the cheekbones and the two ridges being identical.

Steve W.

Gene C · 03-10-2016, 03:07 PM

When was the photo taken of the bearded John Hanks in the dark suit?
Roger can you post a comparison/close up of their hands?
The hands in the 'Thomas' photo look in a little rougher condition than the John Hanks photo, but hard to tell.

RJNorton · 03-10-2016, 03:37 PM

Gene, I do not have the software or knowledge to do a very good or detailed job of this. But here they are. The alleged Thomas Lincoln hands are on the left; the John Hanks' hands are on the right: (maybe someone with more know-how than me can also do this and post)