Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

L Verge · 06-12-2019, 11:50 AM

And we have all responded to your contentions over the past weeks, James, and offered sound and documented evidence to disagree with your assessments. Your rebuttals have just been more of your suppositions, so what have we accomplished?

Some friends ask me why I keep up with this (and others that have come before), and I do have my reasons: 1. It keeps my mind active in relaying what I already know as well as researching for what I don't know or need to verify. 2. Most importantly to me, I hope that readers of this forum who are not as well-versed in Lincoln history as others will not be taken in by false claims, will learn the necessity for good research, and will also learn good and accurate American history along the way.

BTW: I have no idea what the negative comment was about regarding Mick, but his postings regarding the dag have been most appropriate. I suspect that your frustrations with us who will not roll over and play dead are showing?

RJNorton · 06-12-2019, 01:00 PM

James, do you know why the expert opinions of Timothy H. Bakken, Daniel Weinberg, Kim Bauer, and Lloyd Ostendorf are no longer displayed on the dag's website?

For anyone curious to read these opinions please go here, here, and here.

Anita · 06-12-2019, 04:35 PM

(06-10-2019 04:04 AM)RJNorton Wrote:
(06-09-2019 09:45 PM)James Wrote: They refuse to even consider the possibility that Abe's right side was "compromised", in large part because they don't want his right side to be compromised.

Not true, James. My eyes do not see it in the photos you mention. You see things that I don't; that's the truth. People who actually knew Lincoln, such as William Herndon and Ward Hill Lamon, would have mentioned it in their books had it really existed. Eyewitness accounts from New Salem stress feats of strength, not weakness. Dr. John Sotos studied Lincoln from head to toe, and he never found any right side weakness. After the autopsy in 1865, Dr. Edward Curtis wrote, "I was simply astonished at the showing of the nude remains, where well-rounded muscles built upon strong bones told the powerful athlete. Now did I understand the deeds of prowess recorded of the President's early days."

This describes Lincoln holding the axe by thumb and forefinger of his right hand with right arm extended, at City Point, April 8, 1865
https://tinyurl.com/y3dylsjk

06-12-2019, 05:17 PM

Roger - thank you for posting the links to the responses from people you refer to as experts.

Laurie - my comments have absolutely nothing to do what Mick said. He went in last night and "modified" his comments. I wasn't aware that we could do that. That's pathetic. Absolutely pathetic that we, as adults, are given a big eraser to fix our boo-boos. It just rubs me the wrong way. We preach to our kids over and over to be responsible, to proofread and THINK before hitting the send button or post button or whatever it may be because it will be set in stone once that occurs. But folks on this forum get to fix theirs?
You make a mistake - own it. You make a grammatical error - no biggie. That's life. Personally I don't see what's wrong with the word "ain't". That's what was changed in the middle of the night and expanded upon. The only thing worse than making mistakes or saying things on a public forum that we regret is having the tools available to go back and fix it. Maybe it's just me. It just went through me like a bolt of lightning.
I think it's time I exit stage left. Thank you all for your comments and insight.

RJNorton · 06-12-2019, 05:47 PM

James, anyone can edit their own posts. Simply go to a post you've made and click "Edit." You will find this in the section right below your post. Then you can make additions, re-word a sentence, correct spelling, make corrections and modifications, etc. You cannot edit others' posts, but you can always do this to your own. When you are done, just click the words "Update Post" which is located near the bottom of the screen (at least that is where it is located on my monitor). Or if you see a rectangular box which says "Save Changes" then click that.

06-12-2019, 06:06 PM

(06-12-2019 05:47 PM)RJNorton Wrote: James, anyone can edit their own posts. Simply go to a post you've made and click "Edit." You will find this in the section right below your post. Then you can make additions, re-word a sentence, correct spelling, make corrections and modifications, etc. You cannot edit others' posts, but you can always do this to your own. When you are done, just click the words "Update Post" which is located near the bottom of the screen (at least that is where it is located on my monitor). Or if you see a rectangular box which says "Save Changes" then click that.

It's the PRINCIPLE, Roger. We should not be able to do that. You're missing the point. Why would reasonably intelligent people get do-overs. Because we said something embarrassing or stupid or grammatically incorrect. That's not real life. Again, we should practice what we preach to our kids. This has nothing to do with comments. I've got a thick skin, broad shoulders, and a whole lot of heathen in me. There is nothing that anybody is going say here that would bother me one scintilla of one iota. Water off a duck's back. Something about being to say something and then take it back just rubs me the wrong way. Like I said, maybe it's just me. But I really do appreciate you allowing me to post on here and get my argument out. THANK YOU, Roger. I need to leave you folks alone though. You have been more than patient and very accommodating.

L Verge · 06-12-2019, 07:44 PM

While James exits stage left, I would like to post one more piece of qualified opinion that Rick Smith received today from a gentleman very well-known as an expert in men's clothing of the mid-19th century:

"Spoke this afternoon with my friend, Ben Jenkins, who is well known to the living history community as a mid 19th century men's clothing expert and maker of mid 19th century men's clothing, after sending him a copy of the alleged Lincoln photo. I explained the situation and asked him to date the photo based on the gentleman's clothing. After .... [clearly expressing his opinion that] 'no.... way is that Lincoln!,' he said that the clothing, particularly the coat {set of the sleeves, size of the sleeves, size and set of the lapels} is typical of 1855-1859."

If this were Lincoln posing on Inauguration Day in 1861, he would be in an outdated coat. As to the age of the couple in the daguerreotype, Mr. Jenkins guessed the man to be in his mid-50s and the woman even older.

AussieMick · (This post was last modified: 06-12-2019 08:45 PM by AussieMick.)

With respect [to] * my 'edit'.
From memory, I had written ...
"That lady, if she was Mary, would be 9 years younger than the man. She aint.'
It now reads ...
"That lady, if she was Mary, should look about 9 years younger than the man. She doesn't. 2 or 3 years older maybe."

I make no apology. I edited because I knew that I'd used the word 'aint' for dramatic effort but that I really dislike it. I also knew that I'd used the word 'drivel' in an earlier post and felt guilty for allowing my frustration to be displayed in anger. Then there was that silly 'You're having a lend of us' ... attempt at humour/sarcasm which I considered editing but didn't.

So, all up, I was determined to try to be a bit more serious and hence removed the 'aint' and made the Post (IMO) a little more accurate and defensible.

James is correct in that I made the change in the middle of the night U.S. Time ... but it was daylight/evening time here in Melbourne. When I made the change I noted that only a short time (how many minutes? not sure ... not many) had passed since the original Post was 'sent'. I also noted that nobody else had responded to me and nobody else was on the Forum when I submitted my edited Post ... James must have been briefly absent.

One other point about editing ... the website containing the image could really do with a little work. It says that Lincoln was assassinated on April 15th. Obviously I can see why it would say that and there's perhaps other sites which also say April 15th. A little 'editing' would go a long way in clarification.... in my opinion anyway.

* the word 'to' was inserted in an edit ... I will also be inserting the URL link to the above website and using edit to do that in a minute ...

http://web.archive.org/web/2016032821250...ag.com/abe

One last point, James. I hope that you'll continue to be part of this forum and havent exited for good.
(its 11:46 am now as I hit the send)

Gene C · (This post was last modified: 06-14-2019 06:02 AM by Gene C.)

ZAP !

Which is why this post will self destruct in 24 hours (we're working on shortening the time limit) Good luck!

AussieMick · 06-13-2019, 07:56 AM

I did a google on 'gene editing' ... About 191,000,000 results

Gene C · (This post was last modified: 06-13-2019 10:56 AM by Gene C.)

That's ~~got to be wrong~~ interesting

Steve · (This post was last modified: 06-14-2019 02:08 AM by Steve.)

I may have identified the couple in the photograph after researching the family histories of Ruth (Montgomery) Day, and her husband. Ruth's 1976 estate sale is where the daguerreotype supposedly comes from. Based on the clothing and hairstyles in the photo, I would date it to c.1857. My visual estimate would put the couple around their forties. I know that's a little younger than some of your estimates for the couple's ages. There's only one couple that matched this age guess and photo production estimate from Ruth and her husbands lineages:

Jehiel Halsey Montgomery born 15 Oct. 1815 in New York State, died 26 Jan. 1892 in Decorah, Iowa and his wife Emily Biggs born c.1818 also in New York and died 13 Jan. 1906 in Decorah. They are Ruth's paternal grandparents. Based on the c.1857 age estimate, he would be around 42 and she around 39. The couple was living in Aurora, Illinois in the 1850's and if it is indeed this couple the daguerreotype was probably made there too.

Despite being a little younger than some of you suspected, this is the only couple age wise who seems to fit with the age estimate of when the photograph was made. The second closest couple was the paternal grandfather of Ruth's husband - who would've been about 63 - and his wife who would've been about 51 in 1857. I just think 63 is too old for the man in the photo.

I haven't found any photographs of either Jehiel or Emily online, so I can't confirm this. And I guess there's always the possibility that Ruth just bought the daguerreotype somewhere because she liked the photo and it just got mixed in with her family history items.

Gene C · 06-14-2019, 06:24 AM

*** Great Work Steve ****

davg2000 · 06-14-2019, 09:58 AM

Yay, Steve! Logic prevails. You may have found the actual Unassailable Truth!

L Verge · (This post was last modified: 06-14-2019 10:33 AM by L Verge.)

(06-14-2019 01:50 AM)Steve Wrote:

I may have identified the couple in the photograph after researching the family histories of Ruth (Montgomery) Day, and her husband. Ruth's 1976 estate sale is where the daguerreotype supposedly comes from. Based on the clothing and hairstyles in the photo, I would date it to c.1857. My visual estimate would put the couple around their forties. I know that's a little younger than some of your estimates for the couple's ages. There's only one couple that matched this age guess and photo production estimate from Ruth and her husbands lineages:

Jehiel Halsey Montgomery born 15 Oct. 1815 in New York State, died 26 Jan. 1892 in Decorah, Iowa and his wife Emily Biggs born c.1818 also in New York and died 13 Jan. 1906 in Decorah. They are Ruth's paternal grandparents. Based on the c.1857 age estimate, he would be around 42 and she around 39. The couple was living in Aurora, Illinois in the 1850's and if it is indeed this couple the daguerreotype was probably made there too.

Despite being a little younger than some of you suspected, this is the only couple age wise who seems to fit with the age estimate of when the photograph was made. The second closest couple was the paternal grandfather of Ruth's husband - who would've been about 63 - and his wife who would've been about 51 in 1857. I just think 63 is too old for the man in the photo.

I haven't found any photographs of either Jehiel or Emily online, so I can't confirm this. And I guess there's always the possibility that Ruth just bought the daguerreotype somewhere because she liked the photo and it just got mixed in with her family history items.

I'm still hung up on the age question 'cause those folks look a little weathered, but I will concede that life in Iowa in the mid-1800s was a little difficult and may have beaten them down a bit. I would also hazard a guess that the woman may have suffered from consumption since she seems to be wasting away (at least from her "very expensive" lace collar down). I wish I could enlarge her portion of the dag in order to peruse her dress and accessories. There is something about her dress that, despite all the extra frills, appears to be roughly finished. I am also trying to determine if she is wearing a hoop. If not, that would definitely date the dag before 1860. MTL definitely would have been in hoops for the Inauguration.

I am also intrigued with the separate ornamentation at her waistline. It appears to be metallic, like jewelry (almost like sweater clips that some ladies wear today with open cardigans), but also with a chain that hangs down with something attached that appears to be a cross? Was it a unique watch chain? A chatelaine? I'd also like to see the brooch and earrings. My inquiring mind wants to know. Donna McCreary, where are you? We still have time to turn what has been a contentious few weeks of looking at this dag into a teachable moment on period dress - with my apologies to the men on this forum.