Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Joseph Mason, post: 1541955, member: 13529&quot;]Hi folks. A little backstory on Donna. She&#039;s my sister. I had attempted to register on Roger Norton&#039;s site a couple of years ago hoping to initiate a conversation among members of the Lincoln community that would knock down this nonsense about the white inaugural gown and seed pearl jewelry. Roger refused to allow me to register. Can&#039;t say that I blame him. So I asked Donna to register and I emailed her things to post on their site. It didn&#039;t take them long to figure out it was me on the other end of those comments and they kicked her off. I then signed up using &quot;James&quot; as a pseudonym. </p><p>I texted Donna yesterday and asked her to check out this thread. I little while later, she texted back and said that not only had she looked it over, but she had signed up and posted. I&#039;ve asked her not to post on here any more. I&#039;m the heathen of the bunch, and I&#039;m the one that&#039;s been poking the Lincoln community in the eye for the past 23 years, so I would respectfully ask folks to leave her out of this. </p><p><br /></p><p>2manybooks - You say there is &quot;some question&quot; as to the inaugural gowns being dated correctly. Kudos to you. I really mean that. I would take that comment one step further and state unequivocally that the attributions relative to both photos are as phony as a three dollar bill. Just like the piece of roadkill that someone poofed up with a hairdryer, threw on a hatstand, and turned it into the cornerstone of the ALPLM collection. That also was proven to be a total fabrication by the Lincoln community. (see ... Chicago Sun Times ...December 24 2019 edition ...authored by Dave McKinney). They also went to great lengths to cover that up when people started questioning it&#039;s authenticity. That&#039;s just the most prominent &quot;artifact&quot; that has been put under the spotlight at that exalted shrine to Lincoln in Springfield. There are many others that have had their authenticity called into question.</p><p>You&#039;re right about the &quot;low-necked lavender silk&quot;. But you conveniently forgot the next two words in that sentence - &quot;I think&quot;. In the actual newspaper article, the author had put those two words in parens. I didn&#039;t - because I felt it would appear that those were my words. The parens have some significance, wouldn&#039;t you agree? Why would the author feel a need to highlight them? That article was one of many that I posted to illustrate that the gown was blue, and it was the one single reference that someone could cull from all those articles in an attempt to reinforce their beliefs by taking a partial sentence completely out of context.</p><p>Not that I care, because reasonable people know that a lace collar, which by definition would be around the neck, would never be worn with a low cut gown such as those in the Leslie&#039;s illustration. I don&#039;t need to be a fashion aficionado to know that. </p><p>I don&#039;t want to get into a long back and forth about the daguerreotype cases, mats, and frames. I touched on it briefly earlier. If you and other folks want to use this to bolster your argument, more power to you. But sitting directly within the boundaries of that shiny brass mat, and dressed up in that dress or gown, and suit with the wide lapels, are Abraham and Mary Lincoln. </p><p>I think what we have here is a tale of a mighty oak that is Abraham and Mary Todd Lincoln standing proud. You folks are trying, indeed have been for quite some time now, to chop it down. And the Lincoln community doesn&#039;t have enough sense to realize it is indestructible!&nbsp; From where I sit, all I see is a bunch of zealots standing on their tippy-toes trying to knock the leaves off the lower branches with broomsticks. That ain&#039;t going to work! I have yet to see a single leaf hit the ground. </p><p>Oh, and another bunch standing there with that dead branch that was grafted onto it 150 some odd years by earlier zealots held in place and high over their heads in an attempt to convince folks that it&#039;s still intact. Turn loose of it folks. You can&#039;t put that branch that is the phony gowns photos back up there.&nbsp; </p><p>I think it&#039;s pretty obvious, as I mentioned earlier, that we&#039;re at an impasse on this. You folks are knee-deep in your beliefs ... and I&#039;m up to my neck in irrefutable documented evidence and facts. Another aspect of the unassailable truth as I like to call it, which is evidence that there is a connection between Ruth Montgomery Day and descendants of either Abraham or Mary Lincoln, lies hidden in the archives in Illinois or D.C. or parts unknown. Some of these families (Richardsons, Montgomerys, Nobles, Douglas&#039;, Day&#039;s) were scattered in Illinois and well established before Lincoln ever set foot in the state. I&#039;m not a digging-through-the-archives-for hours-on-end kind of guy, and that what it would take to tie it all together.&nbsp; I&#039;m under no illusions that I&#039;ll ever be able to complete this journey, and quite frankly, don&#039;t really care that much anymore.</p><p>So how about we call it quits and stop arguing for the sake of arguing? If not, I&#039;m just going to pull up a chair, kick back, grab a cold beer, and watch you all swing away.&nbsp;&nbsp; Ciao[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in