Lincoln's Pocket Watch Reveals Long-Hidden Message
The Smithsonian opens one of its prized artifacts and a story unfolds
- By Beth Py-Lieberman
- Smithsonian.com, March 11, 2009, Subscribe
The National Museum of American History acquired the watch in 1958 as a gift from Lincoln Isham, Abraham Lincoln great-grandson. (Courtesy of the National Museum of American History)
Every living soul can recall with certainty what they were doing when a national tragedy occurs—the day the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, the day in Dallas when John F. Kennedy was assassinated or the events of September 11.
Yet, no one alive today can recall the tragic day in 1861 when Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter, beginning a terrible and tragic war that divided this nation and changed it forever. This week, a stunning find unveiled a personal record that touched the highest levels of government but remained hidden for nearly a century and a half.
On April 13, 1861, Irish immigrant and watchmaker Jonathan Dillon, working for the M.W. Galt and Co. jewelers in Washington, D.C., was repairing President Abraham Lincoln's pocket watch, when he heard of the attack. Forty-five years later, Dillon told the New York Times what he did that day.
"I was in the act of screwing on the dial when Mr. Galt announced the news. I unscrewed the dial, and with a sharp instrument wrote on the metal beneath: ‘The first gun is fired. Slavery is dead. Thank God we have a President who at least will try.'"
On Tuesday morning, at the National Museum of American History, some 40 reporters and Smithsonian staff witnessed master craftsman and jeweler George Thomas of the Towson Watch Company open Abraham Lincoln's watch to search for Dillon's secret message. Dillon's message was there, but not exactly as he later described it. News of the message inside Lincoln's pocket watch made every local broadcast and the front page of the New York Times. It was a rare moment when a museum, dedicated to the preservation of American history, could be said to be making history. And therein lies a tale.
The watchmaker and the President would never meet. And Lincoln would never know that he carried Dillon's secret message in his pocket.
Lincoln's watch is a fine gold timepiece that the 16th president purchased in the 1850s from a Springfield, Illinois jeweler. It has been in the safe custody of the Smithsonian Institution since 1958—a gift from Lincoln's great-grandson Lincoln Isham.
Harry Rubenstein, chief curator of the museum's bicentennial exhibition "Abraham Lincoln: An Extraordinary Life" (on view through 2011), has a fondness for the watch, which today would be the equivalent of a high-end Bulova or Tag Heuer.
"When you think about Lincoln especially at this point in his life," Rubenstein says, "his ill-fitting clothes and mussy hair; he doesn't seem to care about his appearance.
But in fact, he does care about how people perceive him. One of the status symbols of the 19th century is a gold watch. Lincoln is making a statement. He's carrying a very visible statement of his own success."
This story is full of ironies. And so we must pause here to reflect on one. It was February 12, Lincoln's 200th birthday, when the phone on Rubenstein's desk rang. The caller was Douglas Stiles, a 59-year-old attorney and genealogy expert, from Waukegan, Illinois. Stiles is also Dillon's great, great grandson.
The evidence was not overwhelming. All that Stiles had to offer was a bit of family lore and a newspaper article written 45 years after the fact. Could the stranger calling convince a museum curator to pull a national icon from display, to bring in an expert craftsman to disassemble the delicate, historical artifact, and to take a huge chance that nothing, in fact, could be there?
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.
Comments (31)
+ View All Comments
dear sir, regarding the story of the message in Lincoln's watch, could the remainder of the message have been removed by a later repairer?
Posted by M WALKER on February 28,2013 | 01:55 AM
I believe the correct sentence would read: "it will be a while", not "awhile". ;)
Posted by David-Paul on February 21,2013 | 04:28 AM
Wonder why there was no mention of the inscription that was written by Jonth Dillon that says, "Thank God we have a government." All the others are mentioned...
Posted by Scott on January 30,2013 | 03:09 PM
Did anyone happen to notice Jeff Davis scratched on the bridge???
Posted by Bryan on January 7,2013 | 11:52 AM
Regarding the "LE Grofs" engraved on the watch: I believe this would read as "LE Gross"? What appears to be "f" is actually a stylised "s" which was in the style used then.
Posted by Jay on January 5,2013 | 01:45 PM
Becki Jones, you say that the Civil War was not caused by slavery, but rather State's Rights. This is a myopic argument. #1 The south was frequently AGAINST state's rights when it benefited the institution of slavery. A) The Fugitive Slave Act hurt northern state's rights no longer were the trials in the localities, but in southern courts, northern tax money and resources would no be forced to help catch runaways against the will of the northern localities -- the Dred Scott decision hurt northern territories and threatened northern state's ability to ban slavery from within their own boarders.. #2 The south has a hard time pointing to a state right that we being violated in 1860 that doesn't pertain to slavery. EVERY SINGLE reason that South Carolina gave in their official declaration of secession pertains directly to slaves (ie the north is not doing enough to catch runaways, some northern states let blacks vote, they elected Lincoln who is opposed to the expansion of slavery, etc..) Also, tariffs, which South Carolina did not mention among their many reasons for secession was not a state's right and could only be raised when the south broke off, as there was not strong support for higher tariffs in the Great Lakes and western regions. Finally, I think your professor did a poor job of putting into context Lincoln's actions. Lincoln as president clearly believed that slavery was wrong, but preserving the union was his primary job. He did not believe that he had the power to ban slavery, but for a war measure in the rebel areas. Trying to ban it in the border states would have had no legal merit, cost him the war, and led to more chaos.
Posted by Morse on November 25,2012 | 12:42 PM
Here is the Smithsonian trying to rewrite history. If you believe the message in the watch was truthful and accurate that is good but the script on the watch doesn't say what the article says. It neither mentions slavery nor the word president. I am amazed that clear words that are inscribed are still mis-represented. Why must we try to change history to our liking?
Posted by Tony on November 11,2012 | 08:57 AM
I'm certain that the fact that Jefferson Davis was a Confederate leader has already been overstated.
Posted by A. McLaughlin on October 9,2012 | 09:46 AM
Wouldn't the inscription "LE Grofs Sept 1864 Wash DC" be another watchmaker noting that he'd serviced the watch? It's my understanding, at least, that watches and clocks needed to be serviced regularly and that the men doing the servicing noted when on a hidden part of the watch for a record.
Posted by Andrea on September 10,2012 | 04:47 PM
Would it have been to much trouble to have a full picture of the watch? You people should be more professional.
Posted by Arthur R. Gustafson on September 9,2012 | 10:19 AM
L.E. Gross was listed as a watchmaker in the 1866 directory for Washingtom DC.
Posted by Janet Cassidy on August 5,2012 | 12:43 PM
The other name there is L.E. Gross, not Grofs. What looks like "fs" is the old way of writing a double s.
Posted by Janet Cassidy on August 5,2012 | 12:39 PM
I don't see how the watch could have been inscribed April 13, 1861 when the Waltham records show the watch was produced in 1863. I understand these other two names could have been watchmakers that serviced the watch on later dates since watch oiling and servicing was routine.
I call BS on the story in that someone ran up the stairs to tell Dillon the first shots were fired. Why?
18s Waltham Wm Ellery
Start: 1/1/1863 End: 1/31/1863
First: 67581 Last: 67900
Lincoln's watch was not even on earth on April 13, 1861
Posted by Don on April 11,2012 | 06:30 PM
hi guy's. i just happened upon this news about the said watch of abe.just got a few questions for anyone who may want to get back to me.#1 are you sure this is abe's time piece? not one statement on face says what the 1861 guy said.you need to make sure now that said watch is or was abe's.#2look at war papers to see if the south was called rebels in 1861. has the metal in the watch been carbon dated to 1850,s. now it looks like to me that since you opened said watch,every step should be taken to be sure that this jewel is abe'.look at letters on watch and compare to how folks wrote back in 1860's.those writings don't look like the same way they wrote back then.i have seen a bunch of letters from that era and it looks different to me. think!
Posted by RAY WYNEGAR on December 30,2010 | 01:57 AM
+ View All Comments