Learn more and buy the 2015 Old Farmer's Almanac!

Abraham Lincoln, the Almanac, and a Murder Trial

Click to see full image of Abraham Lincoln showing an 1857 almanac to the jury during the famous Armstrong murder trial in the spring of 1858. The original of this Norman Rockwell painting hangs in The Norman Rockwell Museum in Stockbridge, Massachusetts.

Credit: Yankee Archives
PrintPrintEmailEmail
Your rating: None Average: 4.6 of 5 (15 votes)

In our Dublin, New Hampshire, office hangs a reproduction of a painting by Norman Rockwell depicting Abraham Lincoln standing in front of a jury holding the 1857 edition of an almanac in his hand. Was it The Old Farmer's Almanac?

It's difficult to prove conclusively, but everything I've read about the case—and certainly my examination of the 1857 edition—indicates that it was.

The occasion depicted in the Rockwell painting is the 1858 murder trial of an Illinois man named William "Duff" Armstrong. Armstrong was accused of murdering James Preston Metzker with a "slung-shot"—a weight tied to a leather thong, sort of an early blackjack—a few minutes before midnight of August 29, 1857. Lincoln was a friend of the accused man's father, Jack Armstrong, who'd just died, and so he offered to help defend young Duff Armstrong, without pay, as a favor to Jack Armstrong's widow.

The principal prosecution witness against Armstrong was a man named Charles Allen, who testified that he'd seen the murder from about 150 feet away. When Lincoln asked Allen how he could tell it was Armstrong given that it was the middle of the night and he was a considerable distance away from the murder scene, Allen replied, "By the light of the Moon."

Enter the Almanac!

Upon hearing Allen's testimony, Lincoln produced a copy of the 1857 edition, turned to the two calendar pages for August, and showed the jury that not only was the moon in the first quarter but it was riding "low" on the horizon, about to set, at the precise time of the murder. There would not have been enough light for Allen to identify Armstrong or anyone else, said Lincoln. The jury agreed, and Duff Armstrong was acquitted.

Related Articles

Comments

Interesting! I hope that

By potsonna2

Interesting! I hope that everyone had a nice Earth Day!

I have seen this event

By Michael Moore 2

I have seen this event dipicted in the movie, "The Young Mr. Lincoln" where Henry Ford played the part of Mr. Lincoln. In this portrayal, the mother of the accused did indeed witness the murder but could not tell which of her sons was guilty and would not testify either way. Mr. Lincoln was puzzled by Mr. J.C. Cass, the prosecution's lead witness's name in the movie, who had testified he saw the accused kill the decedent, his supposedly best friend from the distince because the night was "moon bright". Upon the final day of the trial Mr. Lincoln called Mr. Cass back to the stand for reexamination. He asked him why he lied about his name. Mr. Cass said he had not lied. "Oh yes you did Mr. Cass." Lincoln said. "You only gave us your initials, was it because you might think we thought your name was Jack-Ass that you didn't tell us your name was Jack Cass?" "I'd would venture to say anybody who would lie about their name would lie about just about anything. Just like you lied about seeing this boy kill your best friend." And you know the rest of the story...

good retelling of the story

By accuracypls

good retelling of the story from Hollywoods point of view....with the exception of the "Jack Cass" statement...this was mentioned earlier in the movie and never brought up in the end of that movie...just watched it by the way....

Doesn't matter if he did it

By blondeecakees

Doesn't matter if he did it or not, Lincoln only had to prove reasonable doubt. That is what an attorney does and that is what Lincoln did. Look at the OJ trial.

You are absolutely right.

By Mignonne

You are absolutely right. When I served on a jury, the judge instructed us that it is the prosecutions job to prove that a crime was committed. It is not the responsibility of the defender to prove innocence. With my case, we all knew the defendant was most likely guilty, but the prosecution completely failed to prove that a crime had been committed so we had to find the person not guilty.

Doesn't mean he didn't do it,

By YB

Doesn't mean he didn't do it, just no witnesses.

I agree! Honest Abe!

By Bigb827

I agree! Honest Abe!

Post new comment

Before posting, please review all comments. Due to the volume of questions, Almanac editors can respond only occasionally, as time allows. We also welcome tips from our wonderful Almanac community!

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.