X-ray Analysis Confirms Forged Date On Lincoln Pardon of Civil War Soldier (arstechnica.com) 46
U.S. President Abraham Lincoln pardoned a soldier in the Civil War, and in 1998 that document was re-discovered. But "It was the date that made the document significant," writes Ars Technica: April 14, 1865, "meaning the pardon was likely one of the last official acts of President Lincoln, since he was assassinated later that same day at Ford's Theater in Washington, D.C. The pardon was broadly interpreted as evidence for a historical narrative about the president's compassionate nature: i.e., his last act was one of mercy."
But now scientists at America's National Archives have conducted a new analysis (published in the journal Forensic Science International: Synergy), and "confirmed that the date was indeed forged (although the pardon is genuine)." An archivist named Trevor Plante became suspicious of the document, noting that the ink on the "5" in "1865" was noticeably darker. It also seemed as if another number was written underneath it. Then Plante consulted a seminal collection of Lincoln's writings from the 1950s. The pardon was there, but it was dated April 14, 1864 — a full year before Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth. Clearly the document had been altered sometime between the 1950s and 1998 to make the pardon more historically significant..
Investigators naturally turned to the man who made the discovery for further information. They began corresponding with Thomas Lowry [a retired psychiatrist turned amateur historian] in 2010. Initially, Lowry seemed cooperative, but when he learned about the nature of the investigation, he stopped communicating with the Office of the Inspector General, thereby arousing suspicion. So the investigators knocked on the historian's door one January morning in 2011 for an interview. Shortly thereafter, the National Archives released a statement that Lowry had confessed to altering the date on the pardon. Lowry confessed to bringing a fountain pen into the research room, along with fade proof, pigment-based ink, and changing the "4" in "1864" to a "5." Lowry couldn't be charged with any crime because the statute of limitations for tampering with government property had run out, but he was barred from the National Archives for life.
But there's a twist: Lowry soon recanted, claiming he had signed the confession under duress from the National Archives investigators...
Long-time Slashdot reader waspleg writes that Ars Technica "goes through the analysis of how it was verified to be a forgery using several techniques," including ultraviolet light and X-ray fluorescence analysis to study chemicals in the ink. From the article: An examination under magnification and reflective fiber optic lighting showed the ink used to write the "5" was indeed different in overall color compared to the other numbers in the date. Furthermore, "Vestiges of ink from a scratched away number can be seen below and beside the darker '5,' as well as smeared across the paper," the authors wrote. Additional analysis under raking light — a technique that accentuates hills and valleys in the paper texture — revealed abrasions to the paper under and around the "5" that were not observed anywhere else on the document. The team also determined that the paper around the "5" is thinner than everywhere else, and that ink residue of the scratched-away "4" were caught in the abraded paper fibers, clearly visible using transmitted light microscopy...
"The authors also concluded that there is no way to restore the document to its original state without causing further damage."
But now scientists at America's National Archives have conducted a new analysis (published in the journal Forensic Science International: Synergy), and "confirmed that the date was indeed forged (although the pardon is genuine)." An archivist named Trevor Plante became suspicious of the document, noting that the ink on the "5" in "1865" was noticeably darker. It also seemed as if another number was written underneath it. Then Plante consulted a seminal collection of Lincoln's writings from the 1950s. The pardon was there, but it was dated April 14, 1864 — a full year before Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth. Clearly the document had been altered sometime between the 1950s and 1998 to make the pardon more historically significant..
Investigators naturally turned to the man who made the discovery for further information. They began corresponding with Thomas Lowry [a retired psychiatrist turned amateur historian] in 2010. Initially, Lowry seemed cooperative, but when he learned about the nature of the investigation, he stopped communicating with the Office of the Inspector General, thereby arousing suspicion. So the investigators knocked on the historian's door one January morning in 2011 for an interview. Shortly thereafter, the National Archives released a statement that Lowry had confessed to altering the date on the pardon. Lowry confessed to bringing a fountain pen into the research room, along with fade proof, pigment-based ink, and changing the "4" in "1864" to a "5." Lowry couldn't be charged with any crime because the statute of limitations for tampering with government property had run out, but he was barred from the National Archives for life.
But there's a twist: Lowry soon recanted, claiming he had signed the confession under duress from the National Archives investigators...
Long-time Slashdot reader waspleg writes that Ars Technica "goes through the analysis of how it was verified to be a forgery using several techniques," including ultraviolet light and X-ray fluorescence analysis to study chemicals in the ink. From the article: An examination under magnification and reflective fiber optic lighting showed the ink used to write the "5" was indeed different in overall color compared to the other numbers in the date. Furthermore, "Vestiges of ink from a scratched away number can be seen below and beside the darker '5,' as well as smeared across the paper," the authors wrote. Additional analysis under raking light — a technique that accentuates hills and valleys in the paper texture — revealed abrasions to the paper under and around the "5" that were not observed anywhere else on the document. The team also determined that the paper around the "5" is thinner than everywhere else, and that ink residue of the scratched-away "4" were caught in the abraded paper fibers, clearly visible using transmitted light microscopy...
"The authors also concluded that there is no way to restore the document to its original state without causing further damage."
Silly attempted narrative (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect that "his last act was one of compassion" narrative was pushed forth by whomever was trying to sell this document - whether now, or in the past.
Given Lincoln didn't die of old age, and didn't know his death was coming - it seems rather silly to ascribe too much weight to "his last act", whatever it was. Heck, it might've been to shush Mary Todd so he could hear the play better.
Re:Silly attempted narrative (Score:5, Informative)
I suspect that "his last act was one of compassion" narrative was pushed forth by whomever was trying to sell this document - whether now, or in the past.
The document was never for sale; it was always in the possession of the federal government. But it seems likely that Lowry changed the document in order to increase his fame and make more money on the book he was published.
For a more interesting story of faking civil war relics for money, see https://www.connecticutmag.com... [connecticutmag.com]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
he damaged a significant document and while the statute of limitations had expired, this guy is a doofus. How many other documents or artifacts have been altered with a new eye towards contemporary thinking. Shit, there are idiots on the left and right who want to erase whole sections of the constitution so what's wrong with altering the historic record, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing new about revising old documents for modern interpretations. The entire King James bible was heavily edited from the Talmud and the Gnostic gosdpels. Today, People now add oranges to seder plates re-interpreting the rabbi who said “a woman belongs on the bimah [pulpit] as much as an orange belongs on the seder plate" to be a directive, and hold Passover to be about the horrors of the Holocaust when it is actually about the Hebrew god committing genocide on the innocent children of the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Silly attempted narrative (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Asset forfeiture without a trial is a blatant violation of both of these amendments that state that no one can be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law.
Makes you wonder how any court in the land allows "civil forfeiture." The entire idea of charging inanimate money with crimes is absurd. I want to see a defendant in a shooting crime claim that it's the bullet's fault for any harm done, not the shooter's.
Re: (Score:2)
Makes you wonder how any court in the land allows "civil forfeiture."
Did you miss the bit about "Due process of the law"?
Re: (Score:2)
The south did the same thing with blacks who wanted to vote: "Sure, you can vote, if you can pass this ridiculously difficult test, or pay this tax we know you can't afford, or jump through some other artificia
Re: (Score:2)
who controls the present... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Lol, this alteration was done out of simple greed. But yeah big brother is totally after you.
Re: (Score:3)
What was greedy was Lincoln's illegal War of Yankee aggression.
The South fired the first shot. Checkmate, southerner.
Re: (Score:2)
The South fired the first shot. Checkmate, southerner.
Re: (Score:2)
And so, you admit that the Southerners fired the first shot. It therefore ought to be called the war of southern aggression, for the south aggressed first in many ways. Checkmate, Southerner!" [youtube.com]
Re: who controls the present... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It mattered a lot who fired the first shot (as I discussed in depth here [slashdot.org]). The southerners were seceding because they wanted to preserve slavery. When the South fired the first shot, it polarized public opinion in the North against them, enabling Lincoln to declare war against them.
If the South hadn't been so aggressive, they might have won the war.
Re: who controls the present... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dont for a second believe it was over slavery.
The reason the South seceded was because of slavery. They said it over and over. Check it out [wikipedia.org]. 'The declaration stated the primary reasoning behind South Carolina's declaring of secession from the U.S., which was described as "increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery".' Average Southern soldiers in the civil war fought to preserve slavery [youtu.be]. There is plenty of evidence for this, if you don't close your eyes.
Did they need to secede to do it? Absolutely not. They had a much larger chance of keeping slaves by remaining members.
I have no idea where you got this idea.
Re: who controls the present... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ok, you are just wrong. I presented a lot of evidence to you, and you ignored it.
You are a fool for ignoring evidence, and you are not my friend. My friends all know how to learn by searching for facts.
Re: who controls the present... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The CSA could have protested diplomatically. Or Beauregard could have left the garrison alone since it was doing no harm.
By firing first, the South lost the moral high ground. The rebs drew first blood.
I grew up in the South but in a mountainous area that opposed secession, which mainly benefited flatland plantation owners. My GGGGF was a surgeon in the Union Army during the battles of Franklin and Nashville, where the Army of Tennessee was effectively destroyed. Many of the soldiers in the union army at
Re: (Score:1)
The South fired the first shot. Checkmate, southerner.
Actually, the state got tired of paying for maintaining the fort and sold it to the feds well before the war. The union troops were on Federal land.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it doesn't work like that.
That Fort was Federal Territory until a treaty was worked out between the 2 states.
At best, it was contested territory.
The South chose to solve the problem with an ultimatum and then warfare.
Calling it a war of northern aggression is nothing but standard propagandizing of the cause of the war.
Gotta keep that Lost Cause myth alive.
Re: (Score:2)
What was greedy was Lincoln's illegal War of Yankee aggression.
The South fired the first shot. Checkmate, southerner.
Interesting that the charge of supposed "aggression" is level by the side fighting to preserve the right to own slaves. Somehow owning slaves is not aggression, but taking away one's slaves is aggression. War is peace.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly, throughout the war southern aggression repeatedly provoked the North into stronger action. Being the weaker army, the south's only chance to win was to convince the north to stop fighting (much like the Taliban did against the US), but the South was too quick to counter-attack.
For example, it wasn't even clear at all that Lincoln would have support from the North to fight at all. A lot of people in the North thought the South should be free to go. But once the South impatiently fired the fir
Re: (Score:2)
Those who control the present,
have the most money to buy the best political puppets.
Past and future be damned, it's all about who controls the puppets.
Lincoln's writings from the 1950s. (Score:1)
Wait he was alive 100 years later?
Re:Lincoln's writings from the 1950s. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait he was alive 100 years later?
Yes, I thought that was strange too, but then I remember he was also known for hunting vampires.
It seems entirely plausible therefore, that he was at some point infected, and as a vampire himself would then become immortal.
Re: (Score:2)
+4 insightful you got there.
I love /. It gives me some hope for the future of humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
It was reproduced in the 1950s.
Re: (Score:2)
Better; he lied to a US official. It's no different than lying to the FBI. Much more serious than perjury.
Even if difficult to prove which, I say charge him, and make him choose a story to present to the jury.
A bigger version - f in the UK National Archives (Score:2)
There was an interesting article in The Guardian paper about a historian planting documents in the UK's national archive to provide "evidence" to support some books he wrote.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk... [theguardian.com]
I think I've seen TV programs based on the "facts".
so I guess (Score:2)
I guess now if you got the date wrong and used white-out or other means to change it, it is now considered forged???? Tell me someone who never got the date wrong on a document?
Re: (Score:2)