Talk:Abraham Lincoln

Toolbox
Alt text Citation Bot Disambig links Edit count External links Peer review Redirects Ref Links

Large additions by Hzecher48

Hzecher48 (talk · contribs) has added large amounts of information to the Memorial section and Religious and philosophical beliefs. These additions are more than the article should bear, considering it's already over the word limit. Additionally the information added to Religious and philosophical beliefs is not even covered in Abraham Lincoln and religion. If anything in the additions is worth keeping here that's fine but the bulk of it should be moved to the proper article. Brad (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Reading through the additions there seems to be a tendency for speculation concerning his faith. Lincoln read the Bible as he read many other books. His exact beliefs have never been known, yet, he clearly wanted to be identified with traditional Protestant faith. Whether this was done to get votes or he sincerely believed, possibly both, is unknown. To have an open debate whether Lincoln was a Christian in the Wikipedia article is inappropriate. I suggest moving the additions to the talk page. I am not even certain the additions belong in the Abraham Lincoln and religion article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the removal. I hadn't read it that closely but it's unacceptable essay material. Quite possibly it's a copyvio too, although gaining access to the references would be the only way to determine that for sure. Brad (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

agree--this is OR based on poor sources and silly anecdotes (hunched over on a long ride = conversion to Christ)--eg much of it is text from someone who did not know Lincoln writes him on the basis of reading a newspaper story--and not based on the best scholarship in the RS. Rjensen (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Noting that I reverted again the essay material and pointed Hzecher48 (talk · contribs) towards this discussion. Brad (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed additions

The additions by Hzecher48 have been removed; written in essay, debate, and speculative format.

The two events that appear to have changed Lincoln’s spiritual direction were the death of his son in 1862 and his trip to Gettysburg in November 1863. His wife, Mary, recalled, “He never joined a church; but still, as I believe, he was a religious man by nature. He first seemed to think about the subject when our boy Willie died, and then more than ever about the time he went to Gettysburg; but it was a kind of poetry in his nature, and he never was a technical Christian.”

Mary was not alone in connecting his spiritual leap forward to both the death of his son and his trip to Gettysburg. Others saw it, too. Col. Clark E. Carr watched the procession wind its way from the Wills home to the National Cemetery for the dedication. As Lincoln rode toward the cemetery, he sat “in such a stately and dignified manner as to make appear the Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy of the United States, which he was.” But, before they reached the cemetery, Carr reported, “he was bent forward, his arms swinging, his body limp, and his whole frame swaying from side to side. He had become so absorbed in thought that he took little heed of his surroundings and was riding just as he did over the circuit in Illinois…”

Finally, Lincoln straightened up and rode on to the platform. But it may have been his moments of apparent disorientation en route to the occasion to which Lincoln later referred when asked by a clergyman if he loved Jesus: "When I left Springfield I asked the people to pray for me. I was not a Christian. When I buried my son, the severest trial of my life, I was not a Christian. But when I went to Gettysburg and saw the graves of thousands of our soldiers, I then and there consecrated myself to Christ. Yes, I do love Jesus."

This quote first appeared in the Freeport Weekly Journal on December 7, 1864, five months before Lincoln’s assassination, its early printing further confirmed in a letter from Benjamin Talbot to Lincoln dated December 21, 1864, congratulating Lincoln on his Christian conversion: “Dear Sir, I cannot refrain from expressing to you my joy, (& I doubt not the joy of every Christian heart throughout our land), at the statement recently made in the religious press that you have sought & found the Saviour, that you ‘do love Jesus’. With many others I have prayed, as you once asked the prayers of God's people, that you might be sustained & guided by wisdom from on high, & that you might administer the affairs of our nation at this fearful crisis in the fear of God; & I cannot but feel that these prayers have been answered in the leadings of Providence, bringing both yourself & the nation up by degrees to the admitted standard of personal & national duty, & blessing all your care & anxiety, & all our suffering & sacrifice, with such rich & undeserved measure of national success. That God will continue to hold you in His hand, & make you more & more a blessing to our people by making you more & more His faithful servant, is & shall be the prayer of your true friend & well-wisher, in the service of the Master,

Lincoln had to be aware that he had been so quoted.

When, in 1873, the Rev. James Armstrong Reed of the First Presbyterian Church of Springfield, Illinois, was preparing a series of lectures on Lincoln’s faith in 1873, he asked several people if Lincoln had been in infidel in his later life. Phineas T. Gurley, pastor of the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington, D.C., which Lincoln attended, and who knew Lincoln’s spiritual side better than anybody, didn’t beat around the bush: “I do not believe a word of it. It could not have been true of him while here, for I have had frequent and intimate conversations with him on the subject of the Bible and the Christian religion, when he could have had no motive to deceive me, and I considered him sound not only on the truth of the Christian religion but on all its fundamental doctrines and teaching. And more than that: in the latter days of his chastened and weary life, after the death of his son Willie, and his visit to the battle-field of Gettysburg, he said, with tears in his eyes, that he had lost confidence in everything but God, and that he now believed his heart was changed, and that he loved the Saviour, and, if he was not deceived in himself, it was his intention soon to make a profession of religion.”

Noah Brooks, biographer and friend of the president, told Reed that “I have had many conversations with Mr. Lincoln, which were more or less of a religious character, and while I never tried to draw anything like a statement of his views from him, yet be freely expressed himself to me as having “a hope of blessed immortality through Jesus Christ.” His views seemed to settle so naturally around that statement, that I considered no other necessary. His language seemed not that of an inquirer, but of one who had a prior settled belief in the fundamental doctrines of the Christian religion. “

Lincoln himself seemed to identify his conversion with his son’s death, but Brooks went on to say, “In many conversations with him, I absorbed the firm conviction that Mr. Lincoln was at heart a Christian man, believed in the Savior, and was seriously considering the step which would formally connect him with the visible church on earth. Certainly, any suggestion as to Mr. Lincoln's skepticism or Infidelity, to me who knew him intimately from 1862 till the time of his death, is a monstrous fiction -- a shocking perversion.”

Nevins, and others

If whoever added the Nevins cites would fix the problems with them, we would be one step closer to fixing this article's problems. There are also a few short cites that don't have the corresponding long cites at the bottom. Again, if whoever added them would finish the job, this thing might be ready for a trip through FAC soon. If that editor, whoever he is, isn't around anymore, I'll be glad to help in replacing the cites with ones we know, or deleting the material if we can't back it up. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the Nevins. Note 123 should be vol 4 p 312; the text at note 139 needed repair. Rjensen (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Which volume is quoted at fn. 168 and 169? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

they are all from vol 6. to reduce confusion I'm redoing the Nevins bibiliog entry. The publishers issued the exact same Nevins books under different titles, and libraries are confused too. Rjensen (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that should straighten out most of the footnote confusion. I wish I had the books myself. My grad school roommate had that series, and I remember enjoying reading part of it. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Purchase of a newspaper

I know I have just missed it, as I am sure there have been discussions about it, but there is mention (sort of hidden) under the Lincoln–Douglas debates and Cooper Union speech section of Lincolns purchase of the Illinois Staats-Anzeiger newspaper, and also content in the article; John Whitfield Bunn and Jacob Bunn#Friendship with Abraham Lincoln, Middle and Later Life in Illinois, and Industrial Contributions to Illinois and the United States.

This article uses neutral appearing, but what seems biased (towards sounding in support of non-negative material) wording of, "a German-language newspaper which was consistently supportive; most of the state's 130,000 German Americans voted Democratic but there was Republican support that a German-language paper could mobilize.".

I state this because after reading material supported by the source, "Carl Sandburg, Edward C. Goodman, "Lincoln: The Prairie Years and the War Years" (Illustrated Edition, 2007), P. 104 (See: Google Books)", used to support, "As a part of his 1860 presidential campaign strategy Lincoln acquired, in May, 1859, the Illinois Staats-Anzeiger, a German-language newspaper of Springfield, Illinois, to further the cause of Republican Party politics among the German-speaking community of the region.", the first seems tame.

On 30 May 1859, John Burkhardt sold (secretly) the newspaper to Abraham Lincoln. Theodore Canisius (Canissius), I presume, the same one referenced here, here, and the same "Theodore Canisius, political friend and editor of the Illinois Staats-Anzeiger, which Mr. Lincoln owned. Appointed Consul in Vienna", became the manager, editor, and apparently eventual owner, here. Apparently Lincoln was an early user of mass media as the same source lists many "media friends" appointed to important positions by Lincoln. This reference has what appears to be some good information but an error shows Canisius as the seller

Jacob Bunn was the banker that handled the purchase for Lincoln. The Bunns were friends of Lincoln, contributed to Lincoln's campaign fund and, in no small part, contributed to the election of Lincoln.

This article does not mention any of this, maybe because of a lack of reliable references or over-sight, but more specifically, it mentions the purchase of a newspaper by a man that became the President-elect, with no mention of a disposition, that apparently occurred 30 days after he was elected. There is no mention of Lincoln (in either article above) transferring, selling, or giving away (as appears to be the case) the newspaper on 06 December 1860.

It would appear there needs to be a connection to the Bunn article, which concerns the purchase, and obviously mention of the sale after Lincoln became President-elect would be important. According to the below contract he just turned over ownership, with the stipulation that no negative information was published against the Republican party, and that the paper remain in Springfield.

Contract

Contract with Theodore Canisius

May [30?] 1859

This instrument witnesseth that the Printing-press, german types &c. purchased of John Burkhardt, [2] belong to Abraham Lincoln; that Theodore Canissius is to have immediate possession of them, and is to commence publishing in Springfield, Illinois, a Republican newspaper, to be chiefly in the german language, with occasional translations into English at his option; the first number to issue in the ensuing month of June, and to continue thenceforward issuing weekly or oftener, at the option of said Cannissius, he, said Cannissius, bearing all expences, and charges, and taking all incomes and profits; said paper, in political sentiment, not to depart from the Philadelphia and Illinois Republican platforms; and for a material departure in that respect, or a failure of said paper to issue as often as weekly, or any attempt to remove said press, types &c, from Springfield, or to print with them any thing opposed to, or designed to injure the Republican party, said Lincoln may, at his option, at once take possession of said press, types &c, and deal with them as his own. On the contrary, if said Canissius shall issue a newspaper, in all things conformable hereto, until after the Presidential election of 1860, then said press, types &c are to be his property absolutely, not, however, to be used against the Republican party; nor to be removed from Springfield without the consent of said Lincoln. A. LINCOLN

May 1859 TH CANISIUS

May 30. 1859. Jacob Bunn, bought the press, types &c. of John Burkhardt, for me, and with my money A. LINCOLN

• Reference: University of Michigan Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 3

At any rate I think, at a minimum, that information should be included concerning Lincoln relinquishing ownership of the paper after his election. Otr500 (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

None of the biographers consider this a big deal. It was a small-circulation weekly --the Republicans had minority support of Illinois Germans during the election season and needed a German paper to reach them by printing party news, candidate schedules, speeches and editorials. As the contract shows there was no long-term ownership plan by Lincoln. The paper was not a personal organ, it was more of a GOP campaign device. Rjensen (talk) 06:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. If the biographers don't make anything of it, neither should we. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I am confused as to what that statement means? If the biographers don't make anything of it? Is Wikipedia suppose to be a mirror of biographers? How would just using information from biographers be neutral?

There is no doubt, and I agree that "it was more of a GOP campaign device", and so it was more rightfully written (and referenced) in the Bunn article; that "... to further the cause of Republican Party politics among the German-speaking community of the region.", and why I feel that wording is better.

My main point is that if it is not important to mention the disposition of a paper that was bought while mentioning in the article that Lincoln did in fact do so, then I think maybe the trivia concerning the purchase is not important. He bought it and got rid of it after being elected. The second part is not in the article and should be. Otr500 (talk) 06:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

the editors are required to follow the main scholarly sources--there is too much junk about Abe to sort through all sorts of claims by people who have a hero (like Bunn) to promote who had a very remote connection to Abe.

The "dark side" of Lincoln

Now I lived for a time in the US and I know Lincoln often enjoys an almost mythical standing as the "second-greatest guy" in American history (and therefore world history ;)), but I happened to have read a few sources about the American Civil War, and some things shocked me quite profoundly with regard to my perception of his personal beliefs. I had known Lincoln as the "Great Emancipator" but he did say, quote:

"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races--that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which will ever forbid the two races living together in terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior. I am as much as any other man in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

...I agree with Judge Douglas that he is not my equal in many respects, certainly not in color - perhaps not in intellectual and moral endowments; but in the right to eat bread without leave of anybody else which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas and the equal of every other man."

—6th Debate with Steven A. Douglas at Quincy, Illinois, 13 October 1858

I believe "assigning a superior position to the white race" is the very definition of white supremacism. He also appears to have been in favor of segregation, and strongly, one might say (fudge! :)):

"Negro equality! Fudge! How long, in the government of a God, great enough to make and maintain this Universe, shall there continue knaves to vend, and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagougism as this."

—Fragments: Notes for Speeches, 6 September 1859

Not only was he (unlike a substantial number of people in his time!) a white supremacist and a segregationist, he also believed in segregation so strongly that an ocean or two might be the appropriate means of said segregation. In 1962 he stated in an address to an African American assembly:

"But for your race [African Americans] among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or the other. Nevertheless, I repeat, without the institution of Slavery and the colored race as a basis, the war could not have an existence.

It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated. ...I suppose one of the principal difficulties in the way of colonization is that the free colored man cannot see that his comfort would be advanced by it. You may believe you can live in Washington or elsewhere in the United States the remainder of your life, perhaps more so than in any foreign country, and hence you have come to the conclusion that you have nothing to do with the idea of going to a foreign country. This is (I speak in no unkind sense) an extremely selfish view of the case."

—Address on Colonization to a Deputation of Negroes, 14 August 1862

So "your presence here is partly to blame for the American Civil War, you can't live among us, and you should leave". Think about this. It means, for example, that Abraham Lincoln would have been quite strongly opposed to Martin Luther King. In fact it almost seems that he might have viewed slavery as merely the main obstacle to getting rid of African Americans (by encouraging them to move to Central America or Africa). All this is missing from the article, a grievous oversight in my view. If someone were to argue that Lincoln later changed his position regarding white superiority, segregation and deportation, I think the WP:BURDEN would be squarely on his/her shoulders. -- Director (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there a specific question or statement here about how to improve this article? If these quotes appear in published reliable sources that also analyze them as "Lincoln's views of African-Americans prior to the Emancipation Proclamation" or as part of "Abraham Lincoln's evolving views of African-Americans" or as "whatever" then have at it. To present three quotes on the article's talk page - two that date prior to his election as President and one from early in his first term - as covering the totality of his views on the subject of slavery or as covering the totality of his views about African-Americans and to also draw the analogy that Lincoln would have been strongly opposed to Martin Luther King, Jr?... But as I posted above, if the quotes and these statements/conclusions appear in reliable sources along with scholarly analysis, what would keep any editor from adding the verified information to this article or from possibly writing an article about the subject? Shearonink (talk) 06:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

One thing at a time. Abe was dedicated to abolishing slavery by preventing its expansion, so it would die a natural death in the face of free labor. However the pro-slavery forces said that was impossible because of all these reasons ("it would mean racial equality" "shat about segregation?" "where will the blacks go?"). One by one Abe solved all the challenges and abolished slavery. Rjensen (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

@Rjensen. Yes, and then he told African Americans that they should leave. Prior to the Civil War, slave holders were naturally the main opponents of black deportation, thus a person strongly in favor of a purely "white America" would have been strongly opposed to slavery. I remember in another one of his controversial statements he berates slavery as an obstacle to improving the lot of the "free white laborer", as in by getting rid of black people to open-up jobs for white people. I'll see about posting that one too.

@Shearonink "Is there a specific question or statement here about how to improve this article?" What do you mean? Didn't I suggest that these views are missing from the article and should be included for the sake of objectivity? Even if he held these views up to 1862, and then had a miraculous self-reform, they are still very much shocking and worthy of note. Also as I said, the WP:BURDEN is on the person supporting the idea that he changed his views.

There are, I think, a lot more quotes from Lincoln than these three where he expresses his belief in the "superiority of the white race" and his conviction that black people should leave the US post haste. It is perfectly permissible to include these quotes on their own under WP:PRIMARY. -- Director (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I think DIREKTOR misses the point: Lincoln said all that in order to abolish slavery. Unless abolished it would still be around for XXX decades. Rjensen (talk) 08:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Not missing any point, Rjensen. I'm not going to go into the "how long slavery would have existed" debate, but if you're saying Honest Abe was lying - please produce a credible source to the effect that these statements are unrepresentative of his "real" opinions (on the issues of black deportation, segregation, and white supremacy). I'm not saying its impossible that Lincoln changed his views, and I'm not saying its impossible he was being dishonest in his statements above, but both of those are claims that need sources.

• WP:PRIMARY states "Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Shearonink (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

@Shearonink, its blatantly obvious that Lincoln was strongly in support of segregation. Thus it is no leap of faith whatsoever to assume he would have been opposed to the reverend Martin Luther King. However that was, of course, just a bit of speculation on my part, and I'm certainly not proposing such a statement be introduced into the article without a source that explicitly supports it. -- Director (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

In addition, here is Lincoln in a speech at Springfield, Illinois, on 26 June 1857:

"There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas...

Such separation, if ever affected at all, must be effected by colonization [of African Americans to a foreign land]. The enterprise is a difficult one, but where there is a will there is a way, and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be."

—speech at Springfield, Illinois, 26 June 1857

Unbelievable stuff. Most people are simply unaware of his view on these issues, imo making their addition all the more a priority. -- Director (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

In the time it took to formulate this rant, Mr. Director might have written a well-sourced section on the matter that interests him. The question arises: how does he want to spend his time? 36hourblock (talk) 00:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

As I previously posted, if you have access to multiple published reliable sources that contain various scholarly analyses of these quotes in context, then have at it and perhaps add that complete information as a section to this article or write a sub-article about the issue called "Abraham Lincoln's evolving views on race" or whatever, otherwise what you are posting on this talk page would seem to constitute original research and in that case WP:FORUM apparently applies. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Another concern for all of us to keep in mind is the article-length. At this moment, the document stats are as follows:

• File size: 499 kB
• Prose size (including all HTML code): 118 kB::*References (including all HTML code): 18 kB
• Wiki text: 143 kB
• Prose size (text only): 78 kB (12656 words) "readable prose size"
• References (text only): 1417 B .

Technical issues regarding Wikipedia article length would seem to be the guideline to keep in mind for this issue. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Some of this is already covered in Abraham Lincoln and slavery. That would be the proper article to give the full issue. Brad (talk) 03:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)