Not sure if I can attach two photos to one post but I couldn't see how. Here's the hardwood. I forgot to mention that the thing that puzzles me with the softwood are the pink and yellow hues that I see in several pieces.

Both these pictures were a combination of several view of the same piece of wood if it wasn't evident.

Thanks!

Hi,
I would say you are right on the money. The softwood is very hard to pinpoint a variety with photos. The density you found is in line with eastern white pine. The oak looks like red oak. Bear in mind, if your objective is to match them with material available today, it's a challenge, as both woods were slow-grown in a forest; the farmed stuff you get today, even were it a scion of the original, it will have grown under very different conditions.
Casey

Thanks for the reply. The pine is really gorgeous in person and the rusty nail holes give it a ton of character. I was doing some reading on densities and did a double-check on all my calculations. I screwed up on the hardwood somehow. It's 51.4 lb/cuft. The softwood was accurate at 24.3

the softer wood could be Fir as well.

Can't be fir with that density. Fir far denser.
Casey

In that time, the framing was usually local, so you can look at what is or was harvested locally and eliminate imports. Eastern White pine (which is itself several botanically distinct species) is a good guess.

Trim was often shipped in from "elsewhere".