> Washington D C April 20/61 > Dear Unkle I now take this Oppitunity to > write to you to Let you know that i still > Live i am now in the White house in the Gallery > over the Senate Chamber Charles & Bill & Little Bill > are here we are all Prety well After So Long a Journey > we arrived here Last Night 15 of 6 tired and hungry > we had quite a Little Brush at Baltimore we lost 3 > of our men. they Lost 8 of the Rebels they > throwed Stones into the Cars and tore up the Track > But as soon as we fired they Scattered we are > now waiting for Orders whitch i do not [k]now > what they will Be i hope i Shall Live to come > Back to Massachusett and see you all tell > Dan it would make him Stare to see the > Folks here and the [?] of the [?] > we left home Tuesday Morning 3 O Clock Father he > felt rather Bad to have us go of[f] But it is > all for the Best give my Luve to Dan & Aunt > and Frank and all inquiring Friends > i have not seen the Natick Co. here yet > But hope i Shall See those Bold Boys we are > to stay here 3 months to go where we are > Ordered we shall See some warm work
Given his basic literacy, it could be a misspelling of "brightness" or whatever. FWIW "briskness" would fit very well in the context of the times if he's talking about the jolly camaraderie or the efficiency of the army
>> Washington D C April 20/61 >> Dear Unkle I now take this Oppitunity to >> write to you to Let you know that i still >> Live i am now in the White house in the Gallery >> over the Senate Chamber Charles & Bill & Little Bill >> are here we are all Prety well After So Long a Journey >> we arrived here Last Night 15 of 6 tired and hungry >> we had quite a Little Brush at Baltimore we lost 3 >> of our men. they Lost 8 of the Rebels they >> throwed Stones into the Cars and tore up the Track >> But as soon as we fired they Scattered we are >> now waiting for Orders whitch i do not [k]now >> what they will Be i hope i Shall Live to come >> Back to Massachusett and see you all tell >> Dan it would make him Stare to see the >> Folks here and the [?] of the [?] >> we left home Tuesday Morning 3 O Clock Father he >> felt rather Bad to have us go of[f] But it is >> all for the Best give my Luve to Dan & Aunt >> and Frank and all inquiring Friends >> i have not seen the Natick Co. here yet >> But hope i Shall See those Bold Boys we are >> to stay here 3 months to go where we are >> Ordered we shall See some warm work
>Given his basic literacy, it could be a misspelling of "brightness" or >whatever. FWIW "briskness" would fit very well in the context of the >times if he's talking about the jolly camaraderie or the efficiency of >the army
That was sent too soon in error. I was going to add the full definition given by my Imperial Dictionary of 1850 (British but based on Webster's). "BRISKNESS n. Liveliness; vigour in action; quickness; gaiety; vivacity; effervescence of liquors." It fits very well with _some_ interpretations of the second part of the sentence but I wouldn't push it as correct.
Is it known, by the way, whether he did make it home? -- Phil C.
In soc.genealogy.britain Phil C. <philsuse...@fsmail.net> wrote:
: Is it known, by the way, whether he did make it home?
Yes, he served through the War and returned home without injury. In a letter written a few weeks after the one in the sample, having slept out in the rain on Federal Hill in Baltimore and days guarding the rail line between Baltimore and Washington, he says to his uncle to discourage his cousin Dan from enlisting with the words "Tell Dan it is not such prety [sic] work to be a soldier as it is to play one." His cousin Dan did enlist and was killed at the battle of Antietam. His father was searching for him after that battle and wrote home to that effect not knowing that his wife had already been notified of their son's demise in battle.
James wrote: > Thanks for the bigger sample. It certainly doesn't contradict the > suggested reading as "the Richness of the Buildings", which makes very > good sense in the context (the letter was written in the Senate) and > which allows for plausible matches letter for letter.
Before I read your post, "Richness of the Buildings" is what I thought also. I spent quite a while trying to decipher, including pulling it into Photoshop to enhance a bit. Comparison of other letter samples, etc.----and it flows with the context. Mentioning the people and then calling attention to the strangeness/beauty of the surroundings seems natural.
I considered the first word might be "Bickering," but then I couldn't decipher a second word that would flow with that. I also considered "Business" (as in business of the government), but finally decided "Richness of the Buildings" was the probable phrase.
>On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 02:41:16 +0000 (UTC), Dennis Ahern ><ah...@world.std.com> wrote: >>Joe Makowiec <makow...@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>: On 08 Jun 2008 in soc.genealogy.britain, Dennis Ahern wrote: >>:> Folks here and the [?] of the [?] >>: Folks here and the Bi*kn**s of the Grand Army. >>: Note: Grand Army of the Republic was an immediate-post-(US)-Civil-War >>: veterans' organization for Union veterans; the term could have come into >>: use prior to that. I don't think it was an official term during the war. >>I had not wanted to suggest that, but Grand Army is what the other members >>of the committee working on this exhibit had decided on. The use of >>initial caps in this handwriting does not always mean anything. If the >>consensus is Grand Army, what could the other word be? >Redoubts ??? >. . . it would make him stare to see the folks here >and the redoubts of the Grand Army . . .
Yes, I think "redoubts" is the best fit for the context and the text, though I admit I don't know how the writer actually spelled it. :-) I only today found the expanded copy with much more text for comparison.
And seeing the writer's penchant for capitalization I don't think we need to read too much into the "Grand Army;" given the massing of troops it might have been "grand army" might have been common usage among the troops and citizens in Washington.
Michael Kenefick wrote: > I thought it looked like President??? Mike in Ohio
> Dennis Ahern wrote: >> I am having some trouble deciphering part of a letter written in 1861. >> It was written by an 18-year-old soldier from Massachusetts from >> Washington where his regiment had just arrived after fighting their >> way through a mob of Secessionists in Baltimore the day before. A >> portion of this letter is at >> http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~macacton/sample.jpg >> Here is my transcription of this portion: >> what they will Be i hope i Shall Live to come >> Back to Massachusett and see you all tell >> Dan it would make him Stare to see the >> Folks here and the [?] of the [?] we left home >> Tuesday Morning 3 O Clock Father he >> At the time of this writing, his regiment, the 6th Massachusetts >> Militia, were billeted in the Senate Chambers of the Capitol building, >> which the writer mistakenly refers to as the White House, which is not >> surprising for a boy who had probably never been more than a few miles >> from home before. >> Dennis Ahern Acton Mass. History & Genealogy at >> http://www.rootsweb.com/~macacton/
After inverting the image with software, and reading what other people have guessed, I am guessing it is "Briskness of the Grand Army". I guess I am wondering how quickly they marched back then and if the drill sargents were told to train the troops to march a brisk step ?
If you invert the image, it does not at all look like Buildings and I am not sure why someone would capitalize buildings anyway. But then why capitalize Briskness either ? So Briskness does not seem to fit either, so it might be a last name or perhaps an inside joke or reference.
I do wonder if I am seeing a letter strike out in the first word. The second to last letter being the strike out which may be confusing the matter.
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:52:29 +0000 (UTC), Dennis Ahern
<ah...@world.std.com> wrote: >In soc.genealogy.britain Phil C. <philsuse...@fsmail.net> wrote:
>: Is it known, by the way, whether he did make it home?
>Yes, he served through the War and returned home without injury. In a >letter written a few weeks after the one in the sample, having slept out >in the rain on Federal Hill in Baltimore and days guarding the rail line >between Baltimore and Washington, he says to his uncle to discourage his >cousin Dan from enlisting with the words "Tell Dan it is not such prety >[sic] work to be a soldier as it is to play one."
My wife's got a letter from a relative by marriage from WWI expressing similar sentiments. It must have slipped past the censors.
>His cousin Dan did >enlist and was killed at the battle of Antietam. His father was searching >for him after that battle and wrote home to that effect not knowing that >his wife had already been notified of their son's demise in battle.
A quick look at the order of battle tells me that Fred Crouch would have been on the other side at Antietam with the First Company, Richmond Howitzers. It was evidently the bloodiest day in American history. -- Phil C.
>> I thought it looked like President??? Mike in Ohio
>> Dennis Ahern wrote:
>>> I am having some trouble deciphering part of a letter written in >>> 1861. It was written by an 18-year-old soldier from Massachusetts >>> from Washington where his regiment had just arrived after fighting >>> their way through a mob of Secessionists in Baltimore the day before. >>> A portion of this letter is at >>> http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~macacton/sample.jpg >>> Here is my transcription of this portion: >>> what they will Be i hope i Shall Live to come >>> Back to Massachusett and see you all tell >>> Dan it would make him Stare to see the >>> Folks here and the [?] of the [?] we left home >>> Tuesday Morning 3 O Clock Father he >>> At the time of this writing, his regiment, the 6th Massachusetts >>> Militia, were billeted in the Senate Chambers of the Capitol >>> building, which the writer mistakenly refers to as the White House, >>> which is not surprising for a boy who had probably never been more >>> than a few miles from home before. >>> Dennis Ahern Acton Mass. History & Genealogy at >>> http://www.rootsweb.com/~macacton/
> After inverting the image with software, and reading what other people > have guessed, I am guessing it is "Briskness of the Grand Army". I guess > I am wondering how quickly they marched back then and if the drill > sargents were told to train the troops to march a brisk step ?
> If you invert the image, it does not at all look like Buildings and I am > not sure why someone would capitalize buildings anyway. But then why > capitalize Briskness either ? So Briskness does not seem to fit either, > so it might be a last name or perhaps an inside joke or reference.
> I do wonder if I am seeing a letter strike out in the first word. The > second to last letter being the strike out which may be confusing the > matter.
> Jonathan M.
You could all be right, but, to play devil's advocate --
I dislike "redoubt" largely because I don't remember there being redoubts around the Capitol Building ... There were redoubts up near Western/Eastern Aves -- Ft Stevens, Ft Reno, Ft Totten (and the other 4), yes, mentioned often, but I'm not recalling any mention of any on the Capitol grounds.
Nor am I enamoured of "Richness of the Buildings" because unless this kid was from the far toolies/boonies, I'm not sure what he would have thought was so rich -- historydc has a picture of the view from the Capitol to the White House in the 1840s.
In soc.genealogy.britain singhals <singh...@erols.com> wrote:
: I dislike "redoubt" largely because I don't remember there : being redoubts around the Capitol Building ... There were : redoubts up near Western/Eastern Aves -- Ft Stevens, Ft : Reno, Ft Totten (and the other 4), yes, mentioned often, but : I'm not recalling any mention of any on the Capitol grounds.
A photo of another militia unit drawn up in front of the Capitol in April 1861 does not show any redoubts. The letter in question having been written only a week after Fort Sumter, I rather doubt there were any redoubts under construction. Lincoln and his cabinet, by the way, had chosen the patent office building to make their last stand as it was made of brick and had deep set windows.
>: I dislike "redoubt" largely because I don't remember there >: being redoubts around the Capitol Building ... There were >: redoubts up near Western/Eastern Aves -- Ft Stevens, Ft >: Reno, Ft Totten (and the other 4), yes, mentioned often, but >: I'm not recalling any mention of any on the Capitol grounds.
>A photo of another militia unit drawn up in front of the Capitol in April >1861 does not show any redoubts. The letter in question having been >written only a week after Fort Sumter, I rather doubt there were any >redoubts under construction. Lincoln and his cabinet, by the way, had >chosen the patent office building to make their last stand as it was made >of brick and had deep set windows.
So, there were no redoubts in Washington, and no Grand Army, but there were rich buildings and folks that would make Dan stare.
>: I dislike "redoubt" largely because I don't remember there >: being redoubts around the Capitol Building ... There were >: redoubts up near Western/Eastern Aves -- Ft Stevens, Ft >: Reno, Ft Totten (and the other 4), yes, mentioned often, but >: I'm not recalling any mention of any on the Capitol grounds. >A photo of another militia unit drawn up in front of the Capitol in April >1861 does not show any redoubts. The letter in question having been >written only a week after Fort Sumter, I rather doubt there were any >redoubts under construction. Lincoln and his cabinet, by the way, had >chosen the patent office building to make their last stand as it was made >of brick and had deep set windows.
>>: I dislike "redoubt" largely because I don't remember there >>: being redoubts around the Capitol Building ... There were >>: redoubts up near Western/Eastern Aves -- Ft Stevens, Ft >>: Reno, Ft Totten (and the other 4), yes, mentioned often, but >>: I'm not recalling any mention of any on the Capitol grounds.
>>A photo of another militia unit drawn up in front of the Capitol in April >>1861 does not show any redoubts. The letter in question having been >>written only a week after Fort Sumter, I rather doubt there were any >>redoubts under construction. Lincoln and his cabinet, by the way, had >>chosen the patent office building to make their last stand as it was made >>of brick and had deep set windows.
>Were there any revetments?
A lady came round with a tea trolley.
Oh... "revetments". I thought you said "refreshments". -- Phil C.
>>: I dislike "redoubt" largely because I don't remember there >>: being redoubts around the Capitol Building ... There were >>: redoubts up near Western/Eastern Aves -- Ft Stevens, Ft >>: Reno, Ft Totten (and the other 4), yes, mentioned often, but >>: I'm not recalling any mention of any on the Capitol grounds.
>>A photo of another militia unit drawn up in front of the Capitol in April >>1861 does not show any redoubts. The letter in question having been >>written only a week after Fort Sumter, I rather doubt there were any >>redoubts under construction. Lincoln and his cabinet, by the way, had >>chosen the patent office building to make their last stand as it was made >>of brick and had deep set windows.
> So, there were no redoubts in Washington, and no Grand Army, but there > were rich buildings and folks that would make Dan stare.
> Shall we take a vote on the reading?
> James
I think some of us are having a problem erasing today's image of downtown DC ... nearly every important building and monument down there is a 20th c building. It would NOT have been there to impress him in 186x. The Washington Monument was there, was a 19th c construct, but in the 1860s it was barely 150 ft high and incomplete.
From what I've seen up in Boston, they had buildings very similar to those in DC and Baltimore, so, again, unless the writer of the letter was from the suburban boonies, there wasn't much to impress him with the "richness of the buildings" (plural).
It _might_ fit the Capitol building itself, but that would then be "richness of the building" (singular).
Cheryl
REF:
The Supreme Court Building, constructed between 1932--1935, was designed by noted architect Cass Gilbert, who is best known as the architect for the ...National Park Service (NPS)
The main Library of Congress building was erected in 1897; the library also occupies the Thomas Jefferson building, formerly called the annex, ...sc94.ameslab.gov/TOUR/libcong.html
National Arboretum was finally established by Congress in 1927... NPS
The National Gallery of Art is an art museum, located on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. The museum was established in 1938 by the United States ... wikipedia
The Jefferson Memorial was officially dedicated in April 1943 on the occasion of the 200th anniversary of Thomas Jefferson’s birth. AIA
In soc.genealogy.britain singhals <singh...@erols.com> wrote:
: From what I've seen up in Boston, they had buildings very : similar to those in DC and Baltimore, so, again, unless the : writer of the letter was from the suburban boonies, there : wasn't much to impress him with the "richness of the : buildings" (plural).
the writer was an 18-year-old farmhand from suburban acton. even today there are no impressive buildings. he would have been impressed when they marched past the state house in boston with its golden dome, compared to the u.s. capitol with its unfinished dome. in new york city the regiment was fed breakfast at the astoria hotel, which would have made the willard hotel in washington look pretty shabby by comparison. i'm still inclined to interpret the end of that line to read grand army, a term which was in use during the war and not just in reference to the gar after the war.
>: From what I've seen up in Boston, they had buildings very >: similar to those in DC and Baltimore, so, again, unless the >: writer of the letter was from the suburban boonies, there >: wasn't much to impress him with the "richness of the >: buildings" (plural).
>the writer was an 18-year-old farmhand from suburban acton. even today >there are no impressive buildings. he would have been impressed when they >marched past the state house in boston with its golden dome, compared to >the u.s. capitol with its unfinished dome. in new york city the regiment >was fed breakfast at the astoria hotel, which would have made the willard >hotel in washington look pretty shabby by comparison. i'm still inclined >to interpret the end of that line to read grand army, a term which was in >use during the war and not just in reference to the gar after the war.
OK, I admit the weakness of "Richness of the Buildings". Would a singular Building be more convincing in the historical context? The last word is so faint that I could have imagined the s.
But I think that "Grand Army" is weak too, for the following graphological reasons:
The writer otherwise leaves distinct spaces between words. This definitely looks like one word.
The first letter doesn't look like the capital G in Gallery. It has no descender.
The first letter doesn't like like his lowercase g either.
We have instances of a capital A, in April, After and Aunt. The letter in the supposed Grand Army is not identical to these.
Advocates of Briskness should look at the word Brush and the loop on all the lowercase r's.
You can't say we ignore a request for help! Alt.genealogy can be an intense group----although I do see that soc.genealogy.britain has gotten in on the discussion. A lot of handwriting expertise is floating around here.
> James Hogg wrote: > > On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 12:23:25 +0100, Josiah Jenkins > > <josiah-jenkins@somewhere_else.com> wrote:
> >>On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 02:41:16 +0000 (UTC), Dennis Ahern > >><ah...@world.std.com> wrote:
> >>>Joe Makowiec <makow...@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >>>: On 08 Jun 2008 in soc.genealogy.britain, Dennis Ahern wrote:
> >>>:> Folks here and the [?] of the [?]
> >>>: Folks here and the Bi*kn**s of the Grand Army.
> >>>: Note: Grand Army of the Republic was an immediate-post-(US)-Civil-War > >>>: veterans' organization for Union veterans; the term could have come into > >>>: use prior to that. I don't think it was an official term during the war.
> >>>I had not wanted to suggest that, but Grand Army is what the other members > >>>of the committee working on this exhibit had decided on. The use of > >>>initial caps in this handwriting does not always mean anything. If the > >>>consensus is Grand Army, what could the other word be?
> >>Redoubts ???
> >>. . . it would make him stare to see the folks here > >>and the redoubts of the Grand Army . . .
> > As far as I can see, there are two letters in that word that are > > absolutely certain: the B at the start and the k in the middle > > (compare the word Back). That rules out redoubts.
> > I don't like Briskness either. Did people really write double ss > > like fs as late as 1861? He has two ordinary s's in Massachusetts. The > > last two letters certainly look like fs to me but I can't think of any > > word that fits.
> > Could we see a larger sample of this hand?
> The writer doesn't seem at all consistent ... but ...FWIW -- > for reasons not obvious in this snippet, STARE is more > likely than START, so a 2nd occurence of a word not ending > in a "t" but with one earlier in the word would be useful.
> Concur that there is a distinct k and an fs in the first > missing word. I've seen that fs in the 1880 census, so it's > not jarring in 1861. I don't like the B in this word but > it's close enough to the one in "Back" to use for test > purposes. (g) Bxxkness ... brikness, biekness, bickness, > beckness, brekness, the ltr before the k is almost certainly > either a c or an e; the one after the b probably isn't an r > (it matches none of the clear r).
> I don't like Grand Army, though. How about Brevet Army? > Again, the B is close enough to the one in the preceding > word and the one in Bee although the r is off again. Still, > it makes a certain amount of sense in context.
> The White House vs the Capitol ... Now there is one confused > farm-boy. (g)
> As I said FWIW
> Cheryl
Could the "k" in the first word actually be part of a "d"? It's not very similar to the other k's, e.g. in Folks at the beginning of the same line, and the vertical line together with the preceding loop look a lot like the d in Bad, two lines down.
> On Jun 9, 11:00 am, singhals <singh...@erols.com> wrote:
> > James Hogg wrote: > > > On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 12:23:25 +0100, Josiah Jenkins > > > <josiah-jenkins@somewhere_else.com> wrote:
> > >>On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 02:41:16 +0000 (UTC), Dennis Ahern > > >><ah...@world.std.com> wrote:
> > >>>Joe Makowiec <makow...@invalid.invalid> wrote: > > >>>: On 08 Jun 2008 in soc.genealogy.britain, Dennis Ahern wrote:
> > >>>:> Folks here and the [?] of the [?]
> > >>>: Folks here and the Bi*kn**s of the Grand Army.
> > >>>: Note: Grand Army of the Republic was an immediate-post-(US)-Civil-War > > >>>: veterans' organization for Union veterans; the term could have come into > > >>>: use prior to that. I don't think it was an official term during the war.
> > >>>I had not wanted to suggest that, but Grand Army is what the other members > > >>>of the committee working on this exhibit had decided on. The use of > > >>>initial caps in this handwriting does not always mean anything. If the > > >>>consensus is Grand Army, what could the other word be?
> > >>Redoubts ???
> > >>. . . it would make him stare to see the folks here > > >>and the redoubts of the Grand Army . . .
> > > As far as I can see, there are two letters in that word that are > > > absolutely certain: the B at the start and the k in the middle > > > (compare the word Back). That rules out redoubts.
> > > I don't like Briskness either. Did people really write double ss > > > like fs as late as 1861? He has two ordinary s's in Massachusetts. The > > > last two letters certainly look like fs to me but I can't think of any > > > word that fits.
> > > Could we see a larger sample of this hand?
> > The writer doesn't seem at all consistent ... but ...FWIW -- > > for reasons not obvious in this snippet, STARE is more > > likely than START, so a 2nd occurence of a word not ending > > in a "t" but with one earlier in the word would be useful.
> > Concur that there is a distinct k and an fs in the first > > missing word. I've seen that fs in the 1880 census, so it's > > not jarring in 1861. I don't like the B in this word but > > it's close enough to the one in "Back" to use for test > > purposes. (g) Bxxkness ... brikness, biekness, bickness, > > beckness, brekness, the ltr before the k is almost certainly > > either a c or an e; the one after the b probably isn't an r > > (it matches none of the clear r).
> > I don't like Grand Army, though. How about Brevet Army? > > Again, the B is close enough to the one in the preceding > > word and the one in Bee although the r is off again. Still, > > it makes a certain amount of sense in context.
> > The White House vs the Capitol ... Now there is one confused > > farm-boy. (g)
> > As I said FWIW
> > Cheryl
> Could the "k" in the first word actually be part of a "d"? It's not > very similar to the other k's, e.g. in Folks at the beginning of the > same line, and the vertical line together with the preceding loop look > a lot like the d in Bad, two lines down.
Also I am doubtful about the "i" in the first word. The dot looks brown to me, like the stains, not black, like the other writing. If the second word is Grand Army, could the first be redeness (i.e. readiness)?
> You can't say we ignore a request for help! Alt.genealogy can be an intense > group----although I do see that soc.genealogy.britain has gotten in on the > discussion. A lot of handwriting expertise is floating around here.
> Warmest Regards,
> Donn
It was originally posted to soc.genealogy britain and copied over to alt.genealogy later ;)
-- Anne Chambers, South Australia anne dot chambers at bigpond dot com
>>>>>On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 02:41:16 +0000 (UTC), Dennis Ahern >>>>><ah...@world.std.com> wrote:
>>>>>>Joe Makowiec <makow...@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>: On 08 Jun 2008 in soc.genealogy.britain, Dennis Ahern wrote:
>>>>>>:> Folks here and the [?] of the [?]
>>>>>>: Folks here and the Bi*kn**s of the Grand Army.
>>>>>>: Note: Grand Army of the Republic was an immediate-post-(US)-Civil-War >>>>>>: veterans' organization for Union veterans; the term could have come into >>>>>>: use prior to that. I don't think it was an official term during the war.
>>>>>>I had not wanted to suggest that, but Grand Army is what the other members >>>>>>of the committee working on this exhibit had decided on. The use of >>>>>>initial caps in this handwriting does not always mean anything. If the >>>>>>consensus is Grand Army, what could the other word be?
>>>>>Redoubts ???
>>>>>. . . it would make him stare to see the folks here >>>>>and the redoubts of the Grand Army . . .
>>>>As far as I can see, there are two letters in that word that are >>>>absolutely certain: the B at the start and the k in the middle >>>>(compare the word Back). That rules out redoubts.
>>>>I don't like Briskness either. Did people really write double ss >>>>like fs as late as 1861? He has two ordinary s's in Massachusetts. The >>>>last two letters certainly look like fs to me but I can't think of any >>>>word that fits.
>>>>Could we see a larger sample of this hand?
>>>The writer doesn't seem at all consistent ... but ...FWIW -- >>>for reasons not obvious in this snippet, STARE is more >>>likely than START, so a 2nd occurence of a word not ending >>>in a "t" but with one earlier in the word would be useful.
>>>Concur that there is a distinct k and an fs in the first >>>missing word. I've seen that fs in the 1880 census, so it's >>>not jarring in 1861. I don't like the B in this word but >>>it's close enough to the one in "Back" to use for test >>>purposes. (g) Bxxkness ... brikness, biekness, bickness, >>>beckness, brekness, the ltr before the k is almost certainly >>>either a c or an e; the one after the b probably isn't an r >>>(it matches none of the clear r).
>>>I don't like Grand Army, though. How about Brevet Army? >>>Again, the B is close enough to the one in the preceding >>>word and the one in Bee although the r is off again. Still, >>>it makes a certain amount of sense in context.
>>>The White House vs the Capitol ... Now there is one confused >>>farm-boy. (g)
>>>As I said FWIW
>>>Cheryl
>>Could the "k" in the first word actually be part of a "d"? It's not >>very similar to the other k's, e.g. in Folks at the beginning of the >>same line, and the vertical line together with the preceding loop look >>a lot like the d in Bad, two lines down.
> Also I am doubtful about the "i" in the first word. The dot looks > brown to me, like the stains, not black, like the other writing. If > the second word is Grand Army, could the first be redeness (i.e. > readiness)?
Even allowing for the idea that he's writing on a single sheet of paper balanced on his thigh, without a solid surface to support the paper, the major consistent thing about this letter is that the writer is almost intentionally inconsistent.
I'm beginning to wonder, Dennis, about the provenance?
: I'm beginning to wonder, Dennis, about the provenance?
It is one of several letters given to the Library last year by a descendant of the addressee. We have no reason to doubt its authenticity. We also have the service record and pension file of the author.
Dennis Ahern wrote: > singhals <singh...@erols.com> wrote:
> : I'm beginning to wonder, Dennis, about the provenance?
> It is one of several letters given to the Library last year by a > descendant of the addressee. We have no reason to doubt its authenticity. > We also have the service record and pension file of the author.
