National Archives Reveals Altered Lincoln Document

Today, the National Archives announced that it had determined one of the signed Abraham Lincoln items in its collection, a pardon for Private Patrick Murphy (which appears above), had been physically altered. One digit in the original written date was altered, so that Lincoln's endorsement of April 14, 1864 appeared to be signed on April 14, 1865 (closeup below). This implied that the pardon was granted on the day Lincoln was shot, making it one of his final acts in office.

While Lincoln's frequent use of pardons and amnesty to prevent many soldiers from being executed is well documented, the image of Lincoln sparing the life of a poor soldier -- who likely would have been executed by firing squad -- on the very day that Lincoln himself would fall victim to an assassin's bullet is filled with irony and pathos.

The storytelling potential -- and the economic benefit of publishing the story -- appear to be the motive for the alteration. The National Archives announced that Thomas Lowry, who authored a book on Lincoln and cases of military justice featuring this story of an April 14, 1865 pardon of Murphy, has confessed to altering the document with a pen he smuggled into the National Archives during his research. (Lowry is evidently claiming, through newspaper reports, that the confession was given under duress, though the image of National Archives investigators using oppressive techniques to obtain a confession for a crime which cannot be charged seems rather incredible -- the statute of limitations has expired on this crime.)

The news seems to be prompting national attention, with full stories already by The New York Times and The Washington Post (and probably others). It also has been appearing on other blogs, including Kevin Levin's popular Civil War History and The Abraham Lincoln Blog. Across all of them, the tone is one of outrage -- on a spectrum from veiled to blatant -- at Lowry's alleged act. In addition, there is a sense that a false history has been corrected, with a "too good to be true" tale of one final pardon being disproved after over a decade.

Craig Symonds, who won the Lincoln Prize for his book Lincoln and His Admirals, rightly implies in The New York Times that this change is unimportant, given the overwhelming evidence of Lincoln's involvement in granting such pardons. One could go further and state the obvious -- Lincoln still issued this pardon while President, meaning that the only value that has been changed is not historical, but emotional. Lincoln's final day is still filled with plenty of emotional moments -- breakfast with his full family, interactions with many of his favorite staff, a carriage ride with his wife. It also has the issue of pardon and amnesty, given that reconstruction was almost certainly discussed at that day's meeting of the Cabinet.

I find the story unsettling, though in different ways than the initial reports. In a country where many primary source documents are available for viewing by anyone who requests such a privilege, it seems likely that this breach of trust occurs more than we'd like to imagine. If a crude alteration can escape notice for a period of years, what if a skillful forger were involved? Should most of our primary source documents be more suspect?

This signature could have been discovered much sooner if anyone had thought to consult The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, which has annotated transcriptions of most of Lincoln's writings, including almost all of it in the National Archives and Library of Congress. All of the documents are listed chronologically in the Collected Works, so it would have taken a sharp eye to find this specific endorsement, dated April 14, 1864 "To Joseph Holt." Still, someone should have asked the obvious question -- how was this document missed by editor Roy Basler and his team? This question should have raised a red flag, which would have brought closer physical inspection of the document itself. (In recent years, the Collected Works have been fully searchable online, which would have made such cross-checking even quicker, especially given that Pvt. Murphy's name is mentioned in the annotation.)

More troubling is the implicit slur against Lowry's professional standing, or lack thereof, perhaps as a means to explain how this action could occur. Lowry is referred to as an "amateur historian" in both the Post and the Times -- the National Archives refers to him as "a long-time Lincoln researcher." An "amateur historian" is suspect, given that they do not have the academic credentials, or reputation, to back up their research.

In the video embedded in the National Archives' press release, there is a more subtle indictment of Lowry. Trevor Plante, the Acting Chief of Reference at the National Archives, who is credited with raising questions about the pronounced "5" in the document's date, says in an interview, "It's very galling and upsetting to me, as a trained historian, that someone would change a document..." [emphasis mine].

Is it too flippant to admit that I find that comment galling, along with the innuendo in the news articles? Given that the history of the field of history is heavily reliant on non-academically trained historians, the implication that the actions and findings of such "amateur historians" are suspect is ridiculous. (As is the term "amateur historians," given that large numbers of such authors were paid for their writing.) Academic training has little bearing on whether someone is willing to commit forgery or to desecrate an historical artifact -- though one could argue that such training may influence whether the perpetrator of fraud will be caught.

There is no plausible defense for the likely partial destruction of this document (the National Archives says it will attempt to restore the original "4" of the date). But I find it more troubling that trained historians failed to identify the forgery sooner, given their presumed expertise in dealing with primary documents (still as much art as science) and the professional encouragement for peer review and cross referencing. (A questioning of the guild of historians, especially Lincoln historians, will have to wait for another day, except to note that there is occasional evidence that even "trained historians" take shortcuts in completing their work.)

This critique of the professional historical community is not merely an idle act of poking fun -- after all, I could likely be included in such a community given my collegiate and graduate education. This incident -- and others like it -- reminds us of the need for all historians to be critical, even when dealing with documents that are presumed to be authentic originals. As another Lincoln Prize winner, Elizabeth Brown Pryor, proved in her book Reading the Man: A Portrait of Robert E. Lee Through His Private Letters, the wealth of information in primary documents must be contextualized to be understood and appreciated. The context for the pardon, such as the fact that army records should have indicated Lincoln's decision, or even the general observation that Lincoln usually went through several military capital cases at a time, meaning that there should be decisions in multiple such cases on the date of any granted pardon, seems to have been overlooked, or even ignored.

Ignoring context, skipping over cross-referencing, forgetting to be curious whenever a story seems too good to be true -- these are greater threats to historical accuracy than someone sneaking an ink pen into a repository of documents. Bad history began with an unfortunate hoax and a forgery, but it was perpetuated by others who failed to ask the right questions -- and it was unchecked until someone asked the right question.

150th Anniversary of Lincoln's Election

Today marks the 150th anniversary of the Presidential election of 1860, when a former one-term Congressman defeated three other candidates, each of whom had previously served in the US Senate, and one who was the current vice-president. Abraham Lincoln, a dark horse candidate who gained the nomination of the nascent Republican Party as much for who and what he was not as for who and what he was.

By election day, though, his election was almost a foregone conclusion. The Republican coalition was united around him, while the larger Democratic Party of Andrew Jackson had split geographically between Stephen Douglas and John Breckinridge. Of course, given Lincoln's recent experiences in attempting to gain election to the US Senate, he seemed reluctant to view his election as inevitable. Instead he patiently and deliberately worked behind the scenes to do all he could to achieve election. On election day, he was calm but refused to accept any congratulations until the returns proved his election.

The Gray Lady has two excellent web postings about the 1860 election, including a reprint of the 1932 reminiscences of a reporter who spent much of that election day with Lincoln, including the hours in the telegraph office where Lincoln waited for all of the election returns to be transmitted. They are an excellent account of that fateful day, which continued events in motion toward secession and civil war.

The first relates Lincoln's careful strategic silence during the election and the period leading up to his inauguration. The second records Lincoln's activities on November 6, 1860.

Dueling Civil War Sesquicentennial Blogs Debut

Last week, The Washington Post and The New York Times rolled out blogs that will cover the 150th anniversary of the American Civil War over the next five years. (Coincidence, co-dependence, or healthy competition? Who can say?)

They take slightly different approaches. The Post has gathered a panel of 25 experts to answer questions about the war, the politics of the era, and the consequence. Among the experts are noted Lincoln authors such as Harold Holzer and recent Lincoln Prize-winner Craig Symonds. The first question, answered by six panelists, is "Would there have been a war if Lincoln hadn't won the 1860 election?" The answers (none of them particularly earth-shattering or provocative, sadly) are posted on the blog, entitled "A House Divided."

The Times is evidently planning to refight the war day-by-day by offering posts of events that occurred exactly 150 years before. Some of the posts will be written in a "You are there" style; others are reflections on the past events. The Times has called their blog "Disunion" -- well, actually, "DISUNION," but I'm unclear why they feel the need to shout.

Hopefully there will be some good material here in the coming years. At the very least, let's hope that there is sufficient interest to sustain the efforts.

David Herbert Donald, Dean of Lincoln Historians, Passes Away

News is out this morning about the death late Sunday of David Herbert Donald, American historian who wrote several important works about Abraham Lincoln, including the best one-volume biography, Lincoln.   The two-time Pulitzer-Prize winning historian, whose writings extended beyond far beyond Lincoln was 88 years old.  After studying under noted Lincoln scholar James Randall at the University of Illinois in the 1940s, Donald eventually became a named professor at Harvard University.

Obituary from The Washington Post can be found here and from The Gray Lady here.  An appreciation from Brian Dirck at A. Lincoln Blog was also posted early this morning.  Another touching appreciation from one of his former graduate students, now a professor at McGill University is here.

Donald was a premiere historian, mixing detailed and extensive research with a clear writing style, and his work was at the same time accessible and important.  His work focused on Lincoln and his contemporaries, though his interests spread throughout the 19th century.  His most famous works were biographies.  In addition to the classic Lincoln biography, Donald wrote a two-volume biography of noted abolitionist senator Charles Sumner (the first of which won the Pulitzer).  His first book -- his doctoral dissertation -- was a seminal biography of Lincoln's law partner and biographer William Herndon.

The Herndon biography, Lincoln's Herndon, published in 1948, is a critical book in the history of Lincoln scholarship.  Aside from being the best scholarly biography of Herndon (then and still today), Donald wrote it at a time when Herndon's reputation was taking a beating from historians.  He was seen as careless, and his extensive range of interviews (in person and by letter) with those who knew the young Lincoln were thought to be filled with errors -- not just errors of memory, but significant errors in Herndon's collection process.  Herndon showed that Herndon was not a drunken dope, but a quasi-intellectual (not of the first order, but sincere) who corresponded with leading intellectuals of the day; he also served as mayor of Springfield in the 1850s.  He also defended Herndon's research into Lincoln's youth, which has grown now into a resurgence in using Herndon's sources (greatly assisted by the careful editing and publication of Herndon's Informants, a collection of all the source material by Douglas Wilson and Rodney Davis).

Late in his career, Donald advocated for another rehabilitation in the world of Lincoln scholarship.  During interviews after Lincoln was published in 1995, Donald spoke movingly of his pity for the way Mary Lincoln is often viewed.  At times, he even said that he felt sorry for her and the position she found herself in, especially during Lincoln's presidential years.  While Donald did not pursue this in a specific book, other historians are taking up his challenge.  One senses that we are in the midst of a huge swing in thinking about Mary Lincoln.  While the credit for this extends beyond Donald, his rather emotional speaking on the topic probably had an impact.  For years, when Donald spoke, the community of Lincoln scholars listened.

Scratching Lincoln's Watch and Other Things

Two separate Lincoln-related artifacts have made news in the past couple of days. One pertains to a "secret message" inside of Lincoln's pocket watch; the other about a possible photograph of Lincoln standing in front of the White House shortly before his death. As much as I like Abraham Lincoln, and as excited as I am when the sixteenth president makes newspaper headlines (and even the front page of the Grey Lady), I'm pretty underwhelmed by these stories.

Lincoln's Pocket Watch

On Tuesday morning, the Smithsonian Institute, which owns Lincoln's gold pocket watch, invited the media and descendants of Jonathan Dillon to witness a master jeweler dismantle the piece to see if a "secret message" had been inscribed inside of the watch. Dillon gave an interview to The New York Times in 1906 -- recently discovered by his great-great-grandson -- in which he claimed that he was repairing Lincoln's watch when he learned that Fort Sumter had been attacked. Further, he remembered that he engraved his personal feelings about the attack inside the watch.

The descendant contacted the National Museum of American History and asked them if they would be willing to investigate whether there was an internal inscription in the watch. Here is the Smithsonian's report on what happened. (And here is The New York Times front-page article from Wednesday morning.)

When the watch was opened, it was discovered that Dillon did etch something on the watch -- maybe even two somethings. "Jonathan Dillon April 13_ 1861 Fort Sumpter was attacked by the rebels on the above date" is etched onto the watch, followed by what appears to be an unfinished attempt (perhaps Dillon's first) to sign his name as J. Dillon. Thus it appears that the larger full name/signature above the message may have been an attempt to clarify the rather illegible partial signature. Here are pictures of the pocket watch's innards: full and close-up.

To the left, there is another inscription, also signed by Dillon: "Aprl 13 1861 Washington thank God we have a government Jonth Dillon" The news media has highlighted these messages in the watch to a great extent, probably following the Smithsonian's lead. However, there are other etchings along with those signed by Dillon. "L E Grofs Sept 1864 Wash DC" [or possibly "Sep 1-1864 Wash DC" -- it's difficult to tell if that's an attempt to cross the t or a number 1 followed by a dash] is squeezed in between the two Dillon etchings. In addition "Jeff Davis" [or I suppose "Jeff Daris" though that raises other questions] is engraved in large letters below.

I am no expert in engraving, but it appears that there are easily three different people responsible for the various etchings. There are dates for three of the etchings, but not for the fourth ("Jeff Davis").

What does this tell us? Lincoln evidently sent his pocket watch out to be repaired at least twice during his presidency, once in April 1861 and in September 1864. On both occasions, the repairers added graffiti. Also, an individual who either preferred Confederate President Jefferson Davis (or who was named Jeff Daris) had access to the watch at some time, though that access could have occurred either during Lincoln's lifetime or in the nearly 150 years since.

"Lincoln's Pocket Watch Reveals Long-Hidden Message" trumpets Smithsonian online. "Timeless Lincoln Memento is Revealed" says The New York Times. "Museum finds 'secret' message in Lincoln's watch" reports Reuters. All of that is hype. The true headline should be "Lincoln's Watch Etched with Graffiti on Inside Casing." In the future, when the National Museum displays the pocket watch, they'll put a photograph of the innards next to it.

New Photograph of Lincoln Reportedly Found

If I believe that there was too much hoopla over the messages in Lincoln's pocket watch (and I do), at least I know that the story is mostly about curiosity and family history. The other big Lincoln story, about a possible new photograph of Lincoln, is not really about curiosity or family history (though there is some of that); it's about cold, hard cash. Finding Lincoln in a photograph -- even in an obviously doctored photo, like this famous one -- raises the value exponentially.

Keya Morgan, a collector of Lincoln photographs and artifacts (who values his collection at roughly $25 million), was interviewed by the Associated Press a few days ago. He showed a small, 2 1/2 by 3 1/2 inch photo of the White House. The photo, purchased last month from the great-great-grandson of Ulysses S Grant, can be dated to 1864-1865 and seems to have a tall man standing by a pillar. In a computer enlargement, this tall man seems to have a beard. It also has a hand-written inscription on the back that says "Lincoln in front of the White House."

The AP article interviews White House curator William Allman and founding curator of the National Portrait Gallery Will Stapp. Both experts say that the evidence supports the inscription on the photograph that Lincoln is indeed pictured.

Assuming that all these people are correct, it seems rather unimpressive for Lincoln studies. Lincoln is unrecognizable in the photograph, even compared to photographs of Lincoln at his Second Inaugural or Lincoln at the dedication of the cemetery at Gettysburg. Historically speaking, the photograph is probably more important as a wartime photograph of the White House than of Lincoln.

But I think it is hasty to conclude that Lincoln is one of the five people in the photograph. After all, Lincoln was hardly the only tall bearded person in Washington DC. I am reminded of the conspiracy buffs who have found all of Booth's associates in the Second Inaugural photo, based on John Wilkes Booth's presence (as a guest of Lucy Hale, daughter of a senator). Often, one finds what one is looking for. (Or, to quote a Lincoln misquote from the 1960 movie Pollyanna, "If you look for the bad in mankind expecting to find it, you surely will.") If you look at a picture of the White House from the Civil War era expecting to see Lincoln, and you see a tall figure, you conclude that it's Lincoln.

It may be Lincoln. If it is, I wonder two things. Was the photograph posed? It certainly appears that it was as the figures are very clear, meaning that they held still while the film was exposed. And if the persons in the photograph are posed, who are they? Especially, who is the person standing over the shoulder of the purported Lincoln? Determining those identities might make the photograph more significant historically.

Without such information, it seems to me that the determination of whether Lincoln is in the photo or not matters mostly to Morgan, who paid $50,000 for the picture betting that it is indeed Lincoln.

Falling in Love with Lincoln

Artist Maira Kalman posted an lengthy illustrated piece about Abraham Lincoln on her blog at The New York Times. Entitled "In Love with Lincoln," the piece is a personal reflection of her relationship with the memory of Lincoln. Intercutting parts of Lincoln's biography and Lincoln artifacts with mundane things like going out to breakfast before visiting a museum.

The piece is lots of fun, well-researched and thoughtful. The invitation to Sunday social from Mrs. Maira Lincoln is particularly amusing. And it is another reminder of how palpably Lincoln's legacy surrounds us.

Although Kalman does not say, it seems that this visual essay is inspired by a new online project supported by the Rosenbach Museum and Library, called 21st Century Abe. This site is an effort to document six months of "the popular Abe" that we encounter in advertising, movies, and other things, and consider how this incarnation relates to the historical Lincoln.

Click here to read -- and see -- "In Love with Lincoln."

(A tip of the cap to other blogs where I discovered this visual essay: President Lincoln's Cottage, The Abraham Lincoln Observer, and Civil War Memory.)

Hurry...Now is the Time to Buy...

Evidently, the sour economy has pushed down prices for Lincolniana, which have skyrocketed beyond all normal range in the last quarter century or so. (In his recent book, Land of Lincoln, Andrew Ferguson suggests that the prices soared due to deep-pocketed buyers like Louise Taper and the late Malcolm Forbes.)

A recent auction in the New York city area featured 19 artifacts associated in some way with Abraham Lincoln, and fetched prices that seem rather extravagant: $30,000 for some lamps which Lincoln might have owned and $8,250 for a letter from the mayor of Springfield announcing a holiday for the Lincoln funeral. But Daniel Weinberg, longtime owner of The Abraham Lincoln Bookstore in Chicago, suggested that the items should have sold for much more.

So if you have a spare $100,000, this is the time to buy. Click here for The New York Times report.

NY Times Book Review: 1864

This morning, The New York Times published a prominent review of Charles Bracelen Flood's new book on Lincoln, 1864: Lincoln at the Gates of History. Written by one of the Times' best, Janet Maslin, the piece praises the book not only for its well-crafted, compelling narrative, but also, more interestingly, for Flood's instincts to focus on a single year of Lincoln's life.

Click here to read the review.

Comparing 1864 to other recent Lincoln books, Maslin suggests that life-long biographies allow too little depth, while books that focus on specific aspects of Lincoln's life -- his marriage, for example -- offer too little context. Flood's book, with its focus, is implicitly 'just right.' She writes:

But the survey books can be superficial. And the narrow-turf studies can suffer from tunnel vision. Mr. Flood's "1864" compresses the multiple demands upon Lincoln into a tight time frame and thus captures a dizzying, visceral sense of why this single year took such a heavy toll.

I have yet to read Flood's book, but I sense that Maslin is on the money. In some ways, this book on Lincoln may be like Jay Winik's book April 1865. That book served as a corrective on both Civil War studies and Reconstruction studies by focusing intensely on a specific compressed period of time to attempt to really show the pressures on those making key decisions at that time. Similarly, I think Flood's book may do the same thing for Lincoln, really contextualize the pressures -- Maslin suggests 'viscerally' -- within which he formed his decisions. If Flood's book succeeds, it will do so where other books trying to consider this question have been less successful -- like William Lee Miller's President Lincoln: The Duty of a Statesman, which I previously have reviewed.

Sunday Book Reviews

Both The New York Times and The Washington Post have weekend book sections with Abraham Lincoln features today. The Post's is more extensive, featuring two reviews and then an overview of recent Lincoln books, while the Times has a lengthy piece on recent books by longtime contributor William Safire.

The Post reviews are fairly straightforward, featuring yet another positive review of Ronald White's A. Lincoln. Although I was not a fan of White's book on Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, I am quickly becoming convinced from the number of glowing reviews that this is likely a significant new biography. Also today there is a review of a new biography of Mrs. Lincoln, in which the reviewer is curiously ambivalent about whether Mary Lincoln merits an individual biography.

The overviews of recent biography in both papers are intriguing for their tones, including the fact that both writers feel compelled to regurgitate the long-time publishing joke about how a book on 'Lincoln's doctor's dog' would be an instant best-seller.

Setting this aside, both seem to take the opposite approach on the subject: in the Post, Fred Kaplan seem so repulsed by the number and length of Lincoln books that I half expect him to propose book-burning as a solution. This is odd given that Kaplan himself is the author of a recent book on Lincoln (Lincoln: The Biography of a Writer). Of course, he suggests that authors should limit themselves to one book only on Abraham Lincoln, which is a staggeringly short-sighted view. I gather that Kaplan will limit himself to only one book (which is his right), but I hesitate to think of others, like the prolific and enthusiastic Harold Holzer or the longtime student of Lincoln David Herbert Donald or the superstar of the next generation Douglas Wilson -- all of whom have published several significant books on Lincoln. And given his rather blase rebuttal of Michael Burlingame's recent multi-volume Lincoln biography (the first significant multi-volume work on Lincoln in decades, fitting into an older tradition of Lincoln biography) based on its length suggests that Kaplan does not really have the depth of reading in the Lincoln field to be writing generally about it. Of course, on that the editors of the Post clearly seem to disagree with me.

William Safire's lengthier piece in the Times is odd in that he seems rather eager to write his own Lincoln book to add to recent titles. Safire has a much longer introduction before he considers several important recent titles, including the aforementioned ones by White and Burlingame. He also gives attention to the new Library of America title, The Lincoln Anthology: Great Writers on His Life and Legacy from 1860 to Now which is certainly among the most intriguing of the bicentennial books; drawing from countless authors over almost 150 years, this volume allows one to glimpse the evolution of Lincoln's legacy. After this, though, Safire enters into an extended commentary where he suggests possible inquiries for future Lincoln books, including one that might be described as contrafactual history. As a whole, the column is interesting, but also a bit odd.