Poison Papers

[henry lloyd]

"No further trace of the original papers was found, and the argument over their authenticity still rages. Duane Schultz, in his 1998 book, The Dahlgren Affair: Terror and Conspiracy in the Civil War, says circumstantial evidence suggests that Confederates tampered with the Dahlgren papers and that no plan to kill rebel leaders was afoot. Historian Stephen Sears makes a strong case for the authenticity of the papers in recent articles in MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History and in Columbiad. If the Dahlgren papers are authentic, it could be fairly argued that President Lincoln, by targeting his opposite number in Richmond, set in motion the events that would end with his own appointment with destiny at Ford's Theatre on April 14, 1865."


Read article here:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/doubleissue/mysteries/dahlgren.htm

 

[M E Wolf]

Well, again--one would have to take a look at the original documents. Really "look".

It would be a neat thing to get all the Law Enforcement "Questioned Document" section (the section that investigates forgeries) to take them under the jeweler's loop and then some.

In looking at my own personal collection of documents, the embossed seal would be on the document, as well as seals if they were official yet, the etiquette of the day--if the letter was a third party document, it wasn't necessary to seal the letter--this being before envelopes had lick a bit to glue shut. The seal was either wax, wafer or glue--much like rubber cement.

But, I believe the Confederates would have/could have tampered with the documents, had they the opportunity. They already tampered with Annadale Town's votes and ballots, they were intimidating a good many folks around. Anything is possible but, the abilities to see layers now in paintings under existing layers, they would be able to see any additions or ink erasers (scraping of ink) on these questioned documents. And, if there was a change in recipe in the ink. Back then powder ink was made into liquid ink with adding a bit of vinegar and water--each having a different chemical marker in various creeks, etc. Apple vinegar vs. White vinegar, etc.

Interesting.

Thank you for sharing Henry Lloyd.

M. E. Wolf

 

[henry lloyd]

Well, again--one would have to take a look at the original documents. Really "look".

It would be a neat thing to get all the Law Enforcement "Questioned Document" section (the section that investigates forgeries) to take them under the jeweler's loop and then some.

In looking at my own personal collection of documents, the embossed seal would be on the document, as well as seals if they were official yet, the etiquette of the day--if the letter was a third party document, it wasn't necessary to seal the letter--this being before envelopes had lick a bit to glue shut. The seal was either wax, wafer or glue--much like rubber cement.

But, I believe the Confederates would have/could have tampered with the documents, had they the opportunity. They already tampered with Annadale Town's votes and ballots, they were intimidating a good many folks around. Anything is possible but, the abilities to see layers now in paintings under existing layers, they would be able to see any additions or ink erasers (scraping of ink) on these questioned documents. And, if there was a change in recipe in the ink. Back then powder ink was made into liquid ink with adding a bit of vinegar and water--each having a different chemical marker in various creeks, etc. Apple vinegar vs. White vinegar, etc.

Interesting.

Thank you for sharing Henry Lloyd.

M. E. Wolf

You're welcome Mr. Wolf, thanks for your thoughtful analysis and perspective...especially with the inks.

henry

 

[M E Wolf]

Henry, sir;

What the Civil War detectives/military didn't have was that chemical analysis. We got that today.

What I am amazed at though, how well they did with what they had to work with.

Signatures were the fingerprints of the day, to the document's authority and or authenticity. A forger can trace and so forth but can't copy the pressure on the pen and the spread of the feet of the nibs. Its how they knew if the document was authentic as these fellows at West Point would see each other's signature as they signed for stuff.

Everybody's writing is distinctive. Similar yes but distinctive traits nonetheless. Its fun how writing experts can point out little things to weed out authentic or fakes.

M. E. Wolf

 

[deleson1]

"No further trace of the original papers was found, and the argument over their authenticity still rages. Duane Schultz, in his 1998 book, The Dahlgren Affair: Terror and Conspiracy in the Civil War, says circumstantial evidence suggests that Confederates tampered with the Dahlgren papers and that no plan to kill rebel leaders was afoot. Historian Stephen Sears makes a strong case for the authenticity of the papers in recent articles in MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History and in Columbiad. If the Dahlgren papers are authentic, it could be fairly argued that President Lincoln, by targeting his opposite number in Richmond, set in motion the events that would end with his own appointment with destiny at Ford's Theatre on April 14, 1865."


Read article here:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/doubleissue/mysteries/dahlgren.htm[/quote]


.

The article says that the papers were traced to being in the possession of Stanton and then they disappeared. Some claim part of Booths diary disappeared while being in the possession of Stanton. The plot thickens,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,lmao.

 

[James B White]

Well, again--one would have to take a look at the original documents. Really "look".

It would be a neat thing to get all the Law Enforcement "Questioned Document" section (the section that investigates forgeries) to take them under the jeweler's loop and then some.

I certainly agree, but do they still exist? The article at the link says the trail ends with Edwin Stanton: "Historian James O. Hall searched widely for the missing papers and finally tracked them to Stanton. ' Suspicion lingers,' Hall wrote, 'that Stanton consigned them to the fireplace in his office.' No further trace of the original papers was found, and the argument over their authenticity still rages."

In looking at my own personal collection of documents, the embossed seal would be on the document, as well as seals if they were official yet, the etiquette of the day--if the letter was a third party document, it wasn't necessary to seal the letter--this being before envelopes had lick a bit to glue shut. The seal was either wax, wafer or glue--much like rubber cement.

There were lick-em-stick-em envelopes then, and that might actually have made it easier to alter the papers, if they were inside an ordinary envelope, since most could be reopened by moistening them again. Here's an article on envelope-making machines in the period, from The New American Cyclopaedia, 1863, p. 230:

"In these machines the [unfolded] envelopes placed in a pile are brought up from beneath the table by a counterpoise, and the top one is immediately taken up by the gummer, which comes down upon it, and leaves the required quantity of gum in the right place to secure the end and back flap--the front one, as in all machines, being first gummed by hand and dried. The paper dropped by the gummer is then taken by a carriage under a double plunger, the outer portion of which forces it down into the mould, and an inner part follows, turning over the flaps in succession."

R. T. Knight of Philadelphia (p. 113) apparently tried to remedy the problem by inventing a patent envelope which couldn't easily be unsealed, claiming "It is, for some purposes, quite a defect in the present envelope that the gum may be moistened and the letter opened without discovery. Wafers may be soaked nearly as easily, and wax is liable to melt in hot climates."

But I'm not sure the papers were sealed or enclosed in anything at all. The article at the link says, "two folded documents and a pocket notebook."