The Yankees' Secret Weapon

[David Lockmiller]

Thomas P. Lowry, MD, was well-known in the Civil War/Lincoln field for his writings on various topics that do not usually get covered in the more academic tomes -- more human interest research than what "true scholars" are supposed to write about. Since he is part of the amateur historians (like most of us), some of the professional historians ignored him. I heard him speak several times and found his topics interesting and refreshing. I also found him to be a very gracious and friendly gentleman with a good speaking style.

Dr. Lowry retired from the medical field after practicing psychiatry in California for about forty years. He and his wife moved to the DC suburbs to continue their work in the CW field and practically lived at the National Archives. They are well-known for their cataloging of thousands of courts-martial cases.

About 5-6 years ago, Archives personnel accused him of altering a date on a Lincoln Presidential Pardon of a soldier convicted of desertion. They said that the document's actual date was April 14, 1864, but that the "4" had been changed to a "5." Ironically, that change would make it seem that the kind-hearted Lincoln pardoned the young man shortly before his own assassination.

Tom professed innocence, but later confessed -- and then recanted the confession, saying that he was coerced into the confession of guilt. One of the archivists who did the investigation is a member of our Surratt Society. The outcome was that Dr. Lowry and his wife were banned from ever entering the National Archives. I believe that statutes of limitation kicked out any further punishment. Wikipedia does a pretty good job of summarizing the case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_P._Lowry

You can also go here to read Tom's side of the story: https://tomlowry.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/hello-world/

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/12/...r-soldier/

After a prolonged time of badgering and bullying, threats and promises, I (foolishly, very foolishly) wrote that I had done it. Ah, but that wasn’t good enough. Tremaglia moved in. Now he wanted a motive. I protested I that had no motive. He suggested that I was seeking fame. He suggested that I put down what kind of pen I had used. Bottom line, he dictated a plausible, detailed confession to a crime I had never committed, with the promise of no publicity and no bad consequences.

After they left I had a very bad feeling, a premonition of disaster. When I told Beverly what I had done, she had more than a premonition, she was furious. “Don’t you know that the cops are allowed to lie? Why didn’t you wake me up? I’d have thrown them out of the house. They had no evidence, because there is no evidence! We sat at the same table in the Archives for ten years. We helped the staff get rid of people who were damaging the records. Neither of us would write on the records, and neither of us did. Their promise of nothing bad happening is a lie. Cops lie. Something dreadful will happen. And soon.”

At age seventy-eight I was still a liberal, a believer in justice.

One of the Lincoln notes that caught our attention was squeezed into the margin of the trial of Private Patrick Murphy of the Second California Infantry. He had been sentenced to death. Lincoln reprieved him in a note dated April 14, 1865. This of course was also the date of the assassination. We immediately called this note to the attention of several Archives employees. They thought it so important that the page was removed from the usual files and was exhibited in the Rotunda of the National Archives, where it was seen by thousands. The date looked like “1865” to us. It looked like “1865” to the special Archives curator assigned to examine it. It looked like “1865” to all the tourists who viewed it.

And, there is this character observation made by Laurie Verge in the post above:

"I heard [Thomas Lowry] speak several times and found his topics interesting and refreshing. I also found him to be a very gracious and friendly gentleman with a good speaking style."

[AussieMick]

Couple of comments if I may. ... well, I will anyway. ...
The darkness of the 5 in fact closely , in the image anyway, matches Lincoln's signature. The figures 186 are much fainter than the rest of the writing. .... My point is therefore "Is the darkness of the 5 really that significant or indicative of forgery?" And why does the forensic report make no mention of the faintness of the 186 as compared to the rest of the writing such as ''April 14' and ' A Lincoln ' ?

The supposed evidence of removal of the 4 seems much less demonstrative than the forensic report asserts. Anybody that has tried to remove an ink character from paper knows that its darn near impossible without leaving clear evidence of the action. To do it with any success would require significant time.

Certainly the forensic report presents forceful evidence regarding chemical composition of the 5 as compared to that of 'Lincoln ' (though that of '186' less so). But quite how they managed to get enough of the scratched away vestiges of the '4' for comparison seems. ... heroic.

Has anybody confirmed that there is a statute of limitations with respect to altering Govt documents? I'd be very surprised, because Govt documents are usually treated with almost reverence. I'd really like someone with legal experience to comment.

Was Mr Lowry the only person that had access to the document? When? Anybody else interviewed? His wife?

What happened to Private Murphy? Did he disappear in 1864 ? Or was he still in the army until 1865 ? I think these questions might remain unanswered.

[RJNorton]

Was Mr Lowry the only person that had access to the document? When? Anybody else interviewed? His wife?

Thomas Lowry noted:

"During the course of my interrogation Mr. Tremaglio asserted that only two other persons had ever checked out Murphy’s file and both were Archives employees. The National Archives own Inspector General’s audit found that, “Too many employees have access to the stacks.” There are many employees who could have tampered with Murphy’s records over the years, without leaving a paper trail."

[AussieMick]

Thanks, Roger. I guess the assumption is that he had a motive (and it is said to this effect in some of the documentation) due to his book and the desire to dramatize the pardoning as the 'last official act' .

But one wonders how Mr Tremaglio could be so certain that 'only two other persons had ever checked out ' the file. But even if there were 'only two' .... that means there were 2 other potential offenders. Were they questioned? When did they access the file? Did they notice the date was 1865 0r 1864 ... and why did they (as employees) need to access the file ? Who first discovered the 'forgery' ? [ Obviously these are rhetorical questions on my part ... ]

---

I see that " In the United States, a government agency is permitted by the Congress to create under federal regulations its own statute of limitations". Ok . So the National Archives has done that ? (Hmmm ... I wonder)

I reckon Lincoln the lawyer would have had a field day acting for Mr Lowry.

[RJNorton]

Many thanks to Steve for sending these images. Steve writes, "These documents are related to Lowry. One is related to the Hambrick pardon, the others to the Pvt. Murphy pardon.

Bradford Hambrick - notification of pardon by AGO

Murphy Pardon Cropped

Private Patrick Murphy pardon Adjutant General order #167 April 20, 1864

Private Murphy pardon AGO 20 April 1864 General Order p. 3

Private Murphy pardon AGO 20 April 1864 General Order 167 p. 4

Private Murphy pardon AGO 20 April 1864 General Order 167 p. 10

Private Murphy pardon AGO 20 April 1864 General Order 167 p. 11

[RJNorton]

I reckon Lincoln the lawyer would have had a field day acting for Mr Lowry.

This is just my opinion, Michael. I think even Lincoln might have had a difficult time convincing all of the jurors that an innocent man signed a confession (later recanted) after an apparently difficult interrogation. My best guess is that Lincoln could have explained it in such a way as to convince some of the jurors, but all? I am thinking this could end up in a hung jury.

[Steve]

Here's a link to the scientific article:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...1X21000802

---

and here's a link to how the pardon was published in Basler in 1953:

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lin...;q1=Murphy