[12.1] As pointed out in the Introduction page, the subject daguerreotype could not have been made between late November 1848 and March 31, 1849, because Lincoln and Mary were apart during this time (see para. no. 1.3*). As pointed out in the Appendix page (see para. no. 7.1.5), the subject daguerreotype could also have not been made after December 12, 1849, when Eddie’s health took a debilitating turn for the worse, with his condition lingering for 52 days until his passing on February 1, 1850. In Nicolay and Hay’s book The Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, 1894, Vol. II, p. 135, owing to its authors’ misquotation of a letter sent by Lincoln to his stepbrother John D. Johnston, dated February 23, 1850, Lincoln is quoted as writing: “[. . .]As you made no mention of it, I suppose you have not learned that we lost our little boy. He was sick for fifteen days and died in the morning of the first day of this month[. . . .]” In Lincoln Lore Issue No. 22, dated September 9, 1929, the misquoted duration of Eddie’s illness is repeated. In 1932, in Dr. W.A. Evans’s book Mrs. Abraham Lincoln: A Study of Her Personality and Her Influence on Lincoln, owing to the misquoted duration of Eddie’s illness, the author mistakenly post-diagnosed Eddie’s illness as diphtheria. In Lincoln Lore Issue No. 244, dated December 11, 1933, the misquoted duration of the illness is again repeated. Twenty years later, in Ruth Painter Randall’s book Mary Lincoln: Biography of a Marriage, 1953, p. 467, the author addresses the issue of Lincoln’s misquoted letter by clarifying that Lincoln wrote that Eddie was ill for “fifty-two days,” not “fifteen.”
[12.2] In Jason Emerson’s book (analytical bibliography) Mary Lincoln for the Ages, 2019, he writes: “. . . Through the years [ . . . ], Mary Lincoln has been the subject of numerous writings—newspaper articles, songs, poems, plays, scholarly articles, juvenile literature, fiction and nonfiction books—and identifying and reading through this vast selection of literature can not only elucidate who Mary Lincoln was but also illuminate how and why historians and other writers have portrayed her through the years. It is fascinating to see how a story or “fact” that everybody may know about Mary Lincoln is repeated by modern writers who copied the story from previous writers. Those writers, in turn, repeated the story from writers before them and, as you go farther down the line of writers using the same story, ultimately you find the original source—and often there is no citation or evidentiary proof that the story or “fact” was ever true in the first place.”
Exhibit (Final)
[12.3] Clear weather and bright sunlight would have been imperatives to making the subject daguerreotype. Weather records will be instrumental in deducing the exact dates that were suitable, as will Lincoln’s out-of-town travel itinerary:
• From June 10 to July 4, 1849, Lincoln was away from home on a business trip to Washington.
• From August 17 to September 26, 1849, Lincoln was away from home on Eighth Judicial Circuit business.
• On October 18, 1849, the Lincoln family left Springfield on a trip (both social and business) to Lexington, Kentucky, to visit Mary’s family (Mary’s father, Robert Smith Todd, had died the previous July of cholera). The journey took the Lincolns again through St. Louis both going and coming. Their return home to Springfield was on November 15th. The subject daguerreotype may have been made during this trip. Important clues may be inscribed on the enclosed subject daguerreotype plate.
[12.4] Due to the accumulation of haze (film) and debris on the interior of the glass of the subject daguerreotype, the finer details of the subject daguerreotype cannot yet be fully accounted. Once the daguerreotype has been disassembled and cleaned, the following advantages will be forthcoming:
• Clearer images of eyebrows.
• Clearer images of eyelids.
• Clearer evidence of the subject Robert’s likely strabismus.
• Clearer evidence of the subject Lincoln’s diminished mole.
• Clearer evidence of whether the subject Lincoln’s famous mole has been retouched.
• The possible discovery of further evidence within the subject daguerreotype—the possible Lincoln name; a possible studio name or mark; a possible newspaper scrap with a city name or date or both; etc.
• The uncovering of the outer perimeter of the subject daguerreotype image currently hidden behind the nonpareil frame (mat) of the subject daguerreotype. For example, both of the subject Lincoln’s hands are captured in the daguerreotype image, but the subject Lincoln’s left hand is largely hidden behind the nonpareil frame. Once the daguerreotype is disassembled, this evidence will be uncovered, as will any other photographic evidence similarly situated.
[12.5] The age of the subject daguerreotype case (mat and preserver) is authentic to 1849. (See “Dating Photographs 1839 – 1903.” Internet Archives, https://ia802807.us.archive.org>…PDF.)
[12.6] The subject Lincoln’s clothing is accurate.
[12.7] The subject Lincoln’s height is accurate.
[12.8] The subject Lincoln’s arms are accurate.
[12.9] The subject Lincoln’s hands are accurate.
[12.10] The subject Lincoln’s hair is accurate.
[12.11] The subject Lincoln’s forehead is accurate.
[12.12] The subject Lincoln’s eyebrows are accurate.
[12.13] The subject Lincoln’s iris size is accurate.
[12.14] The subject Lincoln’s iris color (deduced color gray) is accurate.
[12.15] The subject Lincoln’s strabismus is accurate.
[12.16] The subject Lincoln’s ears are accurate.
[12.17] The subject Lincoln’s diminished mole is accurate.
[12.18] The subject Lincoln’s nose is accurate.
[12.19] The subject Lincoln’s nasolabial folds are accurate.
[12.20] The subject Lincoln’s jawline is accurate.
[12.21] The subject Lincoln’s chin is accurate.
[12.22] The subject Lincoln’s vertical, horizontal, and diagonal measurements between facial features are accurate.
[12.23] The subject Mary’s clothing is accurate in preferred fabric type.
[12.24] The subject Mary’s height (seated on riser) is accurate.
[12.25] The subject Mary’s arms are accurate.
[12.26] The subject Mary’s hands are accurate.
[12.27] The subject Mary’s hairstyle and color tint are accurate.
[12.28] The subject Mary’s hairline is accurate.
[12.29] The subject Mary’s forehead is accurate.
[12.30] The subject Mary’s eyebrows are accurate.
[12.31] The subject Mary’s iris size is accurate.
[12.32] The subject Mary’s iris color (deduced color blue) is accurate.
[12.33] The subject Mary’s inner eyelid joints (tear ducts) are accurate.
[12.34] The subject Mary’s nose is accurate.
[12.35] The subject Mary’s unique bottom lip is accurate.
[12.36] The subject Mary’s chin is accurate.
[12.37] The subject Mary’s vertical, horizontal, and diagonal measurements between facial features are accurate.
[12.38] The subject Mary’s wedding ring is accurate.
[12.39] The subject Mary’s small brooch is accurate to her established style preference.
[12.40] The subject Robert’s clothing style is accurate to the style worn by later siblings William and Thomas.
[12.41] The subject Robert’s hair is accurate.
[12.42] The subject Robert’s broad forehead is accurate.
[12.43] The subject Robert’s eyes are accurate.
[12.44] The subject Robert’s likely strabismus is accurate.
[12.45] The subject Robert’s large earlobes are accurate.
[12.46] The subject Robert’s diminutive chin is accurate.
[12.47] The subject Eddie’s hairline is accurate.
[12.48] The subject Eddie’s forehead is accurate.
[12.49] The subject Eddie’s eyes are accurate.
[12.50] The subject Eddie’s nose is accurate.
[12.51] The subject Eddie’s ears are accurate.
[12.52] The subject Eddie’s misshapen lips are accurate.
[12.53] The subject Eddie’s chin is accurate.
[12.54] Mary’s “painted likeness” affirms the authenticity of the subject daguerreotype; the subject daguerreotype affirms the authenticity of Mary’s “painted likeness.”
[12.55] Eddie’s “only known” photograph affirms the authenticity of the subject daguerreotype; the subject daguerreotype affirms the authenticity of Eddie’s “only known” photograph.
[12.56] The subject daguerreotype affirms that Mary’s assumed earliest photograph was taken several years after Lincoln’s presumed earliest photograph.
[12.57] The subject daguerreotype affirms that Mary’s assumed earliest photograph is actually her third earliest known photograph.
[12.58] The subject daguerreotype provides evidence that Lincoln’s “presumed earliest” photograph, Mary’s “painted likeness,” and Eddie’s “only known” photograph were likely all taken in Washington in 1848 at the Mathew Brady Studio. A daguerreotype of Robert was also likely taken at this time but has never materialized.
Copyright © 2023-2025 P.A. Epperson. All rights reserved.