Talk:Abraham Lincoln/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

new Lincoln Picture in front of the the White House authenticated, yes?

Shouldn't that photo be included in this article?, it seems geniune from the experts and their cautious N.P.O.V. [[1]]

regards a tired teacher.

--Tinki Winki (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln's sexuality

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/gayabe.htm

Claims he had several homosexual relationships in his life. Worthy of mention ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.107.88 (talk) 11:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

See Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

great balls of furry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.152.69.212 (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. See WP:Fringe.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

My mother slept in the same bed as her two sisters during the 1920s when they were in their teens. was she therefore a lesbian? Of course not. I have shared beds/blankets with men during military service and Civil War reenacting due to the field conditions we lived under. Does that make me gay? Of course not. During a great part of our country's history, the smallness of cabins or houses, or rooms in the ghettos of our cities meant that families lived in the same room. Parents and their children slept in the same confined space and somehow those parents managed to have sex while their children slept nearby. Does that mean they were somehow perverted. Of course not.

I know most of those reading this may already know this, but for many others it will be news that men, who often didn't even know each other, shared beds rooms in homes, boarding houses and hotels was quite common during the early part of our history. Motel 6 wasn't around then and facilities were limited while traveling. The suggestion that Abraham Lincoln was gay because he shared a bed with another man is just an another attempt by some people to demonize one of our greatest Presidents because he wasn't on their side during the Civil War. Perhaps we should look more closely at why none of Robert E. Lee's four daughters were ever married. There has been a suggestion that he took every means to ensure they didn't. Is this true? Probably as true as Abe being gay. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Methinks the lady doth protest too much... But it's not just the bed thing (which I agree is the least convincing of the evidence as it suggests that homosexual relationthips could be carried out at the time with a degree or normalcy and domsticity), it is wider than that. And in any case why do you think to suggest Lincoln was gay would be to 'demonise' him? Don't assume everyone shares this pessimistic outlook. Contaldo80 (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

New Lincoln biography by Fred Kaplan

Please add to the biography section:

Lincoln: The Biography of a Writer by Fred Kaplan (Nov 2008) 9780060773342 Link: http://browseinside.harpercollins.com/index.aspx?isbn13=9780060773342

thanks, 206.15.106.226 (talk) 15:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Kyle Hansen, Harper Collins

Lincoln and Depression

I don't think it would hurt this article, and it may help a modern readership to know, that Abraham Lincoln, one of our greatest Presidents, suffered from depression.

It might help to lift some of the stigma associated with mental illness if this fact were more widely known.

Sean7phil (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be some doubt about whether Lincoln actually suffered from pathological depression. Clearly he experienced several episodes of depressed mood lasting a few weeks, including one episode of suicidal ideation following Anne Rutledge's death (Lincoln's friends felt that they had to keep sharp objects from him), but it doesn't appear that he had depression per se. (In other words, his depressed moods were more or less normal.) Indeed, he would probably have never been able to function as president during the Civil War had he had true depression. Dr. John Sotos conjectures in his book "The Physical Lincoln" that Lincoln's "pseudo-depression", as he calls it, was probably related to MEN2B (a genetic disorder that Lincoln is thought to have had), which could have caused Lincoln's almost constant "sad" expression to make it appear that he was depressed, even though inside he probably was no more depressed than anyone else around him.

--Wally From Columbia (NJ) (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, what is "pathological depression"? Perhaps you mean clinical depression? Second, there is not much evidence for the Anne Rutledge episode, or even for the idea that he was in love with Rutledge. Third, having clinical depression would not necessarily have made it impossible for Lincoln to function as president. Many people are able to lead fairly normal lives while still suffering from clinical depression. I am not saying that he was definitely depressed, but please get your facts straight before claiming that there is no way he could have been. Tad Lincoln (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Depression can be debilitating, but it certainly doesn't have to be; there's a whole spectrum, not just depressed vs. not-depressed. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln Assasination

The assasination was not clearly covered in this article... I would appreciate some more "info." on the assasination part... I need this such "info." for a report due in 2 days... so it would be great if you could reply speedily. Thank you! Bethany Grace Clark "Baptistbutterfly97" :))) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baptistbutterfly97 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

We have an entire article: Abraham Lincoln assassination. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The one such article "Abraham Lincoln Assasination" was not clear on the said subject "the assasination" I need a extremely great quality article with much, much more "info" as the report is required to be extremely informative, as this article is not. The said article covers pretty much nothing compared to what I need for this report... Thank you! Bethany Grace Clark "Baptistbutterfly97" :))) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baptistbutterfly97 (talk • contribs)....

HELLO Baptistbutterfly again, if anyone has any other Abraham Lincoln sources i would appreciate if you posted them, thanks again. -----Baptistbutterfly97 <3

Baptistbutterfly97 (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Auto-archiving

I just cleaned a lot of threads off this page, some had been around since March 2008. Would anyone be opposed to setting up automatic archiving using MiszaBot set for 30 days? --Andrew Kelly (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Since there have been no objections, I have set up auto archiving for all threads more than 30 days old. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that I didn't see that already. I actually do object to such auto-archiving.

Discussions on talk pages, especially those for articles of major importance, like this one, may stretch on for months. More importantly, new users are coming to articles like this all the time. It is important that discussions be as continuous (in appearance) as possible, so that the new editor can more easily follow the threads of past discussions. Auto archiving tends to abort long discussions (which I know some consider to be a virtue), but then that makes it more likely that future readers will have to hash out the same arguments that have happened in the past. I'm not opposed to archiving, I just think that it should be done (on this kind of article) on an "as needed" basis. When a newbie comes along and wants to do an edit on which we reached a consensus against two years ago, after four months of off-and-on discussion, I want to be able to point him to the archive where that discussion took place, rather than have him try to piece it together out of several discussion archives.

Auto archiving is great for User: Talk pages, and maybe even for certain types of article pages. I just don't like it here. That's my 2¢ worth. Unschool (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I see your point there. I have removed the MiszaBot template and have undone the archiving it had already done. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for being so agreeable and flexible. But of course, that was just my opinion. I'm still open to the thoughts of others. Let's let it sit out there for a few more days. Cheers! Unschool (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

i agree with unschool, especially when it comes to articles that generate a lot of discussion, like this one.

Cedwyn (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Recent reports of African &/or Native American descent

Is there any credibility about recent news stories suggesting that Barack Obama is not the first president of African descent and that Lincoln may have had both African and Native American ancestors? The same stories list up to six other presidents with possible or probable African ancestry. (BTW I find this theory even more difficult to believe in the cases of Thomas Jefferson or Andrew Jackson, who are also on the list!) Grant | Talk 08:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Most reputable historians regard such stories as nonsense. You can actually find books out there (generally self-published) that will tell you that President Lincoln, President Harding (the most common two) and others are of partial African blood. Well, you know what? We all are of Africa descent, if you go back to Australopithecus , right? So what the heck. Unschool (talk) 08:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for Citation - Lincoln being told to duck in battle during Early's attack on Washington, 1864

"Get down, you fool!" is a quote from from Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in Cramer, John H.,LINCOLN UNDER ENEMY FIRE The Complete Account of His Experiences During Early's Attack on Washington. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press (1948), p 20. as related in Doris Kearns Goodwin, Team of Rivals, p 643, Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, New York, 2006.

I just finished Kearns' book and remembered that she mentioned this incident. You can find the citation in her notes, although she didn't give the full Cramer citation.

There is a more detailed accounting found here "http://www.cwbr.com/index.php?q=2787&field=ID&browse=yes&record=full&searching=yes&Submit=Search", in a review of Cramer's book.

Anyway, I am not an expert on this subject, just an interested user of Wikipedia who thought he might be able to help.

Thanks for your time.

Jim Kimura jhkimura@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhkimura (talk • contribs) 21:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

FAC

Next year is the 200th anniversary of Lincoln's birth, and it seems a bit sad that this article is nowhere close to a Featured article. If there is anyone who is willing to do the research (read some of that large number of books in the Further reading section), then I'd be happy to help write the article and massage it towards an FAC. The offer will stand as long as I'm an active Wikipedian - just let me know on my talk page. Karanacs (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I am seconding that offer to help but not willing to be main editor (maybe after RCC makes FAC, if ever!). NancyHeise ^talk 21:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You're the one who inspired the offer Nancy - I saw your post on User talk:Moni3. Karanacs (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs, I will not embark on another effort to make a controversial article FA if I am not able to bring Roman Catholic Church up to FA. The reasons for this are that there must be either something wrong or incomplete with my abilities to write an FA article, or something wrong with trying to bring a controversial article to FA on Wikipedia. Perhaps its a little bit of both, I don't know. Someone remarked that all the articles brought to FAC are boring [2], I am wondering if the reason is because there is some unsurmountable difficulty in bringing a controversial article to FA these days. Several people have commented to me saying that very thing and I have ignored such comments putting my hope in the Wikipedia process. I hope my hope will be justified in the end. NancyHeise ^talk 17:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm maybe interested in researching Lincoln and improving this article. I'm wary of edit warring because of the previous comment. How big of an obstacle do you think the controversial nature will be? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the key to a successful FAC nomination is to be very, very prepared. I would not rate Lincoln at the same controvery level as the Roman Catholic Church (Lincoln's life was much shorter than the RCC history!). There is a LOT of information about Lincoln, and it would be important to make sure that a sufficient number of books were consulted to address all major viewpoints. Then it is just a matter of giving appropriate weight to the facts and viewpoints and ensuring that the text is neutral. I think Lincoln would have a much, much easier time at FAC than RCC; the only reason I'm unwilling to do the research myself is because I am in the middle of a giant project on the Texas Revolution. If you'd be willing to start reading the books and taking good notes, I'd be happy to help in prosifying and getting it ready for FAC. With my general FAC experience and Nancy's experience with controversial articles, I think we could get Lincoln ready without too many issues. Karanacs (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sixela82 (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)sixela82 November 26, 2008: I would like to add an external link. The Rosenbach Museum and Library in Philadelphia is having a special exhibit about the Lincoln Bicentennial. The link is: http://www.21stcenturyabe.org/

Karanacs, I will be willing to answer this question after my next attempt at RCC FAC. I did a report on the life of Abe Lincoln when I attended FSU and I read the life of Frederick Douglas who should feature into the article somewhere too. I would enjoy doing this very much but right now I have been encouraged by Sandy to tweak RCC with the help of some editors she recommended and I want to finish what I have already begun first. Maybe by then you will be done with Texas Revolution and we can do this together. I would enjoy that. NancyHeise ^talk 01:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Frederick Douglas is a C class page - amazing! His life is the most interesting and amazing story, his page should really be in better shape than this. Maybe I'll work on his page too. NancyHeise ^talk 01:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a note to say that I would be interested in helping get this page back to FA status, but realistically I won't be able to put much work into this until mid-late March (I've been at a low-level of wiki-activity for months because of other obligations). However I know a fair amount about Lincoln (it's not my area of specialty, but I am a history doctoral student and college teacher of history) and have ready access to the scholarly literature. Anyhow just throwing my hat into the ring, but I can't do much in the immediate future (it would be nice to have it up to FA by his birthday, but that might be pretty difficult). Feel free to contact me on my talk page if work begins though. I don't know much about the FA process, but I'm comfortable doing heavy content work and write fairly well (good god I sound like I'm applying for a job!).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

sources

This article relies on many non-scholarly sources and even those that are rejected for use by WP:reliable source examples. I am going to peruse my library for some better sources and make an effort to clean this up and bring it to GA over time (little by little so don't expect instant miracles!) NancyHeise ^talk 17:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to stick with those sources that are used as university textbooks to maintain mainstream views of history but will also be OK with those written by scholars and published by University presses or equivalent publishing houses. Some source ideas so far are:

• Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution by James McPherson
• Lincoln by David Herbert Donald
• Herndon's Lincoln by William Henry Herndon
• Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin
• Lincoln's Sanctuary by Matthew Pinsker

NancyHeise ^talk 19:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I spent my lunch hour in the local library today. There was an empty shelf where all of the Abraham Lincoln books should be - apparently a hot topic these days. I guess none of those people who checked out the books are Wikipedia editors! NancyHeise ^talk 18:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a couple of quick thoughts on sources. The McPherson, Donald, and Pinsker books are all very usable (Donald's is probably still the most well regarded single-volume biography among historians). Herndon's book must be taken with enormous grains of salt. It is in a sense more a primary than a secondary source, and Herndon should not be treated as a reliable reporter of the facts because he had his own agendas (a recent edition seems to have critical essays and updates on the scholarship, so that would actually be a good source - no one should just dive into Herndon without knowing some of the problems with him).

Though it's very popular and in the news after Obama's election, I do not recommend using Goodwin's book to any great degree. Simply put, her work is not respected by professional historians (the plagiarism in a past work of hers is part of the issue, but the main thing is that her work is largely derivative and/or just plain wrong). Most real Lincoln scholars would dispute the whole "Team of Rivals" thesis (see for example here and here). As a student and teacher of history I must confess to a bit of a knee-jerk aversion to popular histories, but I think Goodwin's recent book is particularly problematic (hopefully this does not come off as too snobbish, but we really should be using the works that are most well regarded by experts in the field, which is just not the case with Goodwin).

I would recommend basing most of the article on books by Lincoln scholars (whether published by University or mainstream presses - the key is the the author and how the book was received) and also academic articles when appropriate. I'll try to work up a list of some books in the next few days, though as I said in a comment in the above section while I would love to put in heavy work on this article right now I don't have much time to do so until March.

Finally to Nancy, if you are interested in Douglass as well as Lincoln as you mentioned in the section above, you could kill two birds with one stone and read the recent award winning book The Radical and the Republican: Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and the Triumph of Antislavery Politics. It's scholarly but accessible history which could be used in both this article and the Douglass one. More later hopefully.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Lincoln/Obama

From the article: "Lincoln was the first U. S. President elected from Illinois, and the only one until Barack Obama was elected 148 years later."

This appears to be false, I think. I'm pretty sure that Ulysses S. Grant made his home in Illinois during his presidential runs. MookieZ (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The Ulysses S. Grant article only mentions that he was the second President from Ohio. If he ran for President while living in Illinois, that should be mentioned in his article as well. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Mookie, I'm quite sure that you're correct about USG; he lived in Galena during his adult life, I believe. Unschool 20:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Born in Ohio, but lived in Illinois with his father. If Ohio claims him as a president, then logic states that Obama is not from Illinios either, but from Hawaii.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I am going to remove the part about Obama. MookieZ (talk) 14:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Lincoln Rasist?

Lincoln being rasist is a myth!!!!!

ehhh...not so much

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; 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.

He continued:

I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on 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, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

Cedwyn (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

By our contemporary standards, Lincoln was certainly a racist as the above comments suggest. But in the first debate with Stephen Douglas (the above passage comes from a September 1858 debate), Lincoln noted: "...I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man..."

That would hardly win Lincoln an award from the NAACP, but given the prevailing white attitudes of the time (even in the North) this was a fairly tolerant position. And the best evidence suggests that Lincoln was becoming even more accepting of African Americans toward the very end of his life (though again, by our standard to a still unacceptable degree).

Asking whether Lincoln was "racist" is simply the wrong question. To write a good article we need to contextualize his views with those of other Northern whites of the era, and also point to ways in which his views evolved.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - well said all around. I refer to Lincoln's perspective as "neutral racism." While he did not espouse equality for black Americans, he did support their right to be free, just not here...hahaha.

peace

98.232.243.146 (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

It is my honest opinion that we can't tell. If Lincoln had publically supported african americans as equals, he would have been exiled. Thus, he had to hide his true views for that of the public. Palantini (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Subjectivity, or quote?

In the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 section, there is clause "poorly dressed ugly man from the West" -- is this a quote or the writer's subjectivity? If the former, please use the exact quotation from the reference; if the latter, please reword to make encyclopedic. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a summary of Harold Holzer, Lincoln at Cooper Union: The Speech That Made Abraham Lincoln President (2006), which is given as the source. It's an important point as Holzer shows, because people were afraid he was a dumb backwoodsman, and he did look the part. see pp 109-10, Holzer quoting several eyewitnesses: "his hair was disheveled and stuck out like rooster's feathers"; "his coat was altogether too large for him in the back, his arms much longer than his sleeves." "His clothes hung awkwardly on his gaunt and giant frame;" "his face was of a dark pallor, without the slightest tinge of color"; [Lincoln's face] was "wrinkled, and indented...as though it had been scarred by vitriol." Rjensen (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, but perhaps there's a better descriptive term than "ugly"? Unless that's a quote from Holzer, it's a bit too subjective for an encyclopedia article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

the goal here is to tell what impression Lincoln made on people esp in his famous 1860 talk; they thought he was ugly --that's an objective fact. Rjensen (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The text should better convey the fact that it was the audience's conclusion, and not ours. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Minor point

Lincoln didn't carry his birth state of Kentucky in either election. Maybe this is worth fitting in somewhere, but I'm not sure where. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Why? Of what importance is it? He's certainly not the only President not to have carried his birth state; most recently, George H. W. Bush didn't carry his birth state of Massachusetts, for example. Lincoln didn't have any particular connection to Kentucky other than living there until he was 7 years old. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Because it's an interesting footnote. As I said, it's a minor point. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
    • It's mentioned in United States presidential election, 1860, which should suffice. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding line and external link

{{editsemiprotected}}

In the last section about memorials, I would like to add:

"Abraham Lincoln Library and Museum is located in Harrogate, TN."

Would it be possible to include an external link to the Abraham Lincoln Library and Museum's website? If so, the link is: http://www.lmunet.edu/museum/Index.html

Stephensjl1 (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

 Doing... Leujohn ^(talk) 13:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done Leujohn ^(talk) 13:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Teaching Resources for Abraham Lincoln

The National Endowment for the Humanties has been funding research scholarship, educational materials, historical preservation and public programs (exhibits, lectures, films) on Abraham Lincoln. EDSITEment which is the NEH's web based outreach for K-12 teachers is planning a "Teaching Lincoln" portal which will go live in January 2009. In the meantime we have an existing spotlight on our Lincoln teaching resources at http://edsitement.neh.gov/spotlight.asp?id=138. We would appreciate it if you could review these resources and consider adding them to your external links to the Wikipedia Lincoln article Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noelcaprice (talk • contribs) 14:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I posted the above request over 10 days ago and have not received any response from the editors, or administrators of this article. Can somebody get back to me with a response. I notice that this article on Lincoln does include within the external links section a number of lesson plans so I would think you would willing to consider EDSITEment's lessons. Our curriculum unit "A Word Fitly Spoken: Abraham Lincoln on Union" http://edsitement.neh.gov/view_lesson_plan.asp?id=733 was written by the Lincoln scholar and teacher Lucas Moral. Please take a look at this and get back to me. Thanks Noelcaprice (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)]]

 Done—⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Problems with the lead

Rjensen has reverted my recent edit to the lead with a request that I take it to the Talk Page first. Here are the key points motivating my edit:

1. The lead stated that Lincoln was the "first Republican elected to the President". Yes, this is true but why not just say he was "the first Republican President"? Says the same thing in fewer words.
2. The lead said that he "saved the Union". Yes, but that is a bit POV. "saved" implies a value judgment. "keeping secessionist states from leaving the Union" is more NPOV and avoids making a value judgment.
3. The lead said "Before being elected to the Presidency, he was a lawyer...". I think it's better diction to say "Before he was elected to the Presidency, he had been a lawyer...".
4. The lead said that he "ended slavery". Technically, this is not true. The Emancipation Proclamation was an important first step to ending slavery but it did not end slavery in the United States.

--Richard (talk) 11:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The first one is a nit and I think what's there is sufficient and even elegant. For the second, we need to realize this is a lead and therefore a summary, so perhaps use "preserved" instead of "saved". The third is a nit, and simply changing to equivalent language, so why bother? The fourth is debatable, but from what I understand, Lincoln, as CIC, legally ended slavery in the secessionist southern territory recaptured by the North. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Richard on item 1. The organization of the sentence is key. We should always be a concise as possible which is why the sentence should read "the first Republican President." I agree with Steve on item 2, "preserved" makes more sense than "saved." Item 3 is moot. Item 4 should not read "ended slavery." Slavery still existed in the U.S. beyond the Emancipation Proclamation and it is debatable that Lincoln effectively ended slavery. He clearly took a step towards ending it, however the lead should not include debatable information which could be misleading.

On point 1, when I read Richard's comment here, I initially agreed completely with him; economy of words is something that I generally prize (in articles, not on talk pages). But now that I read it in the article, I must say that I too find the current wording to be preferable, though I am at a loss to explain it. Maybe it is more "elegant", though that's not very encyclopedic to ask for. Unschool 17:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, we're writing an encyclopedia, not a technical manual, so elegance should be something to be striven for, although I wouldn't call it a top priority. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Rgoss25 (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

on point 4. Slavery was ended by the Emancipation Proclamation plus the 13th amendment, and Lincoln was the person primarily responsible for both--who else? As Stephen Ambrose put it, "Without Lincoln's sense of timing and persuasive power, and without his moral sense and courage, it is impossible to imagine how emancipation might have come about." (Ambrose, Americans at War (1997) page xii) James Bryce put it well: "Once or twice, as when Jefferson purchased Louisiana, and Lincoln emancipated the slaves in the revolted States, he [the President] has courageously ventured on stretches of authority, held at the time to be doubtfully constitutional, yet necessary, and approved by the judgment of posterity." (Bryce, The American Commonwealth 1888 1:72). Rjensen (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly my point. The 13th Amendment needed to be passed in order for slavery to be illegal, not necessarily ending slavery practices. Lincoln needed support in the Senate and House as well as state ratification in order to put into place the 13th amendment. To say that Lincoln ended slavery is misleading. Lincoln put forth the 13th Amendment which was voted on by Congress and ratified by the individual states. The combination of his Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th amendment made Slavery Illegal in the United States.

Rgoss25 (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the 13th Amendment was proposed by Congress not Lincoln. So you can thank Congress for making slavery illegal. There were prosecutions up until 1947 in this matter, meaning that there were people still enslaved in the United States through 1947. Therefore slavery was not ended, just illegal. If this was the intent of the statement then it should be phrased as such.

Rgoss25 (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Rgoss25 is correct on who is technically responsible for passage of the 13th Amendment; the process of amending the US Constitution, which requires action at both the federal and state levels, excludes participation by the executive branch at both levels. However, I think most of us will recognize that Lincoln's leadership was essential both in terms of the EP and the 13th Amendment; many an item would never have passed through Congress without presidential leadership. Perhaps the Ambrose quote gives us a way of saying this. How about this verbiage:

Lincoln's leadership is credited by many historians with being the primary force in ending slavery in the United States. Through a combination of moral suasion, presidential fiat, constitutional reform, and application of military force, the two-hundred year-old institution of slavery was extinguished as a legal institution less than five years after Lincoln's inauguration.

Obviously this would need supporting citations, but I suspect that they would be very easy to come by. Is it any good? I've just whipped it out without thought upon reading this thread, so I'm open to any arrows that other editors might want to fling my way. Unschool 17:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Finally we are on track. I think Unschool has got something we can run with. Rgoss25 (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Minor corrections needed on holiday info

The final sentence of "Domestic Measures" reads: In 1863, Lincoln declared the final Thursday in November to be a day of Thanksgiving, and the holiday has been celebrated annually at that time ever since.

Thanksgiving is no longer celebrated on the "final Thursday" in November. In 1941, Federal law changed the holiday from the "final" Thursday to the "fourth" Thursday in November -- yes, sometimes there are five Thursdays in November [Thanksgiving (United States) [3]].

Also...

The following sentence is not accurate as written: Abraham Lincoln's birthday, February 12, was formerly a national holiday, now commemorated as Presidents Day.

There is no federal holiday called Presidents Day, although there are apparently a few states that do have state observances called Presidents' Day, which may or may not occur on February 12. For more information, see the Wikipedia article on Washington's Birthday at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington%27s_Birthday

Thanks.

68.4.111.215 (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way there is a Federal Holiday called President's Day.

Rgoss25 (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken about Presidents' Day being a Federal Holiday. See Wikipedia's own article about Federal Holidays at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Holidays#Federal_holidays. The only Federal Holidays are New Years Day, MLK Jr. Day, Inauguration Day (not nationally observed), Washington's Birthday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veterans' Day, Thanksgiving Day (which, as noted above, observed on the FOURTH Thursday in November, not the LAST Thursday in November), and Christmas Day. Furthermore, Lincoln's Birthday has never been a Federal or National Holiday. In fact, the United States does not technically have "National Holidays" -- it has only "public holidays for Federal employees" or "'legal public holidays' [designated by Congress] during which most federal institutions are closed and most federal employees are excused from work" -- so the term is used incorrectly in the article. See http://www.america.gov/st/diversity-english/2008/January/20080113151228abretnuh0.5784265.html and http://www.opm.gov/Operating_Status_Schedules/fedhol/2009.asp for sourcing.

Religion

In today's Irish Times ("An Irishman's Diary", by Paul Hurley, p. 15), there's an article on American Presidents. Mr Hurley quotes from the Catholic Review of 27 January 1894, where Bishop Peter Lefevre of Detroit stated that, "Lincoln was a (Roman) Catholic in his youth. I heard his confession many times. But he later left the Church and became a Freemason". Any comment? Should this be included in the main article? Millbanks (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Was Nancy Hanks Catholic? I would imagine the Lincolns and the Hanks to have been Baptist, as the majority of people in Kentucky were of that persuasion.--jeanne (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Thomas Lincoln has Abraham's father being "active in church affairs". What church, one wonders? (No source is provided.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah-ha. On June 12, 1806, Nancy Hanks and Thomas Lincoln were married; presiding over the ceremony was the Reverend Jesse Head. The couple moved to a cabin in Elizabethtown where Thomas worked as a carpenter making cabinets, door frames, even coffins. The Lincolns joined the Little Mount Separate Baptist Church.[4] Not a particularly good source, but it is rather precise. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The "good" bishop arrived in the US in 1828 when Lincoln was already 19. Upon arrival, the bishop went to St. Louis and there's no record he was ever in the same place Lincoln was.--JimWae (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think had the Catholic story been true, Lincoln's many enemies wouldn't have hesitated to use it against him. They would have said he was an agent of the Pope, acting in the interests of the Vatican, etc. I think we can safely presume Lincoln was Baptist, never Catholic. What about the Freemason allegation?--jeanne (talk) 05:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like some very creative remembering on the bishop's part. Given the level of anti-Catholicism at the time (anybody want a copy of Maria Monk?), if there were the vaguest hint of Catholicism in his background, his opponents would have been all over it. There were other Protestant denominations active in Kentucky in those days, Jeanne; but the Separate Baptists are the ones most often mentioned in connection with his family. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The Irish Times article states that, "more than a third of all 43 presidents were also (ie in addition to Lincoln) Freemasons, amongst them Washington, both Roosevelts and Truman". But Mr Hurley doesn't state his sources. Incidentally, he also states that although "some (presidents) had Irish blood, most were of British origin" (as, of course, was Lincoln) Millbanks (talk) 08:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Lincoln very specifically was not a Freemason; several sources on the net say something along the lines of,

Abraham Lincoln was not a Freemason. He applied for membership in Tyrian Lodge, Springfield, Ill., shortly after his nomination for the presidency in 1860 but withdrew the application because he felt that his applying for membership at that time might be construed as a political ruse to obtain votes. He advised the lodge that he would resubmit his application again when he returned from the presidency...On the death of the president, Tyrian Lodge adopted, on April 17, 1865, a resolution to say "that the decision of President Lincoln to postpone his application for the honours of Freemasonry, lest his motives be misconstrued, is the highest degree honourable to his memory."

--jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Change to First Paragraph 1-19-2009

The issue of the opening paragraph was discussed to death a few months ago (see archive 17 -- section “opinion” and “The entire opening paragraphs have been plagerized, or vice versa”). No consensus was reached to make a very similar change that was just made by User:Irregulargalaxies (i.e. deletion of “greatest crisis”). Futhermore, characterizing Lincoln as the national leader during this era is fully supported by any number of reliable sources.

I have restored the existing language subject to a discussion leading to a consensus to make a change. It is not clear exactly what the editor who made the change considers to be a violation of NPOV. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Medical history, body length decimals

It should read He reached his adult height of 6 feet 4 inches (1.93 m), for in the metric system, body length is usually given with two decimals.

Limited government

What about the ideals of the modern Republican Party and its emphasis on smaller government. What policies did Lincoln espouse on this principle? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 13:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The ideas of certain factions of the modern Republican Party are irrelevant to what Lincoln, who in his last election didn't even run as a Republican, advocated. He was a Whig originally, and tended to support the same economic interventionist policies as most Whigs: government-subsidized public improvements, etc. He was no more a proto-libertarian than the Confederates. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Correction needed to Cabinet dates

Right now, the Cabinet listing is showing the wrong dates for the Secretary of War. It lists Simon Cameron as 1861–1864 and Edwin M. Stanton as 1864–1865. This was changed just from the correct dates (1861-1862 and 1862-1865) on January 21, probably as a typo to a formatting change. I can't change it back due to the article's semi-locked status, so I'm posting here so somebody else can make the change.

Jfultz (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Typo in politics section

"There thousands of Republican" should be "There were thousands of Republican", I would think.75.103.6.106 (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is in need of some serious revision.

There is a definite pro-Lincoln vibe in the article. I'm a first generation American, so I believe I am in a position to say this. Here are a few thing to take into account:

1. History is written by the winners-- History books have these distortions, but Wikipedia should not fall prey to the same issue.

2. Lincoln has a cult of personality-- We must not let biases distort our perception of history.

3. Lincoln was a very unpopular president during his time-- Though he won re-election, he was majorly unpoopular.

4. Lincoln has a dark side-- suspension of habeas corpus, imprisonment of the press, mishandling of the events prior to open war with the South, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.174.149 (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Presidents who are "majorly unpopular" do not generally get re-elected. Sure, Lincoln was unpopular in the South, but they weren't part of the country at the time. There were definitely a lot of people who didn't like Lincoln, but it is an overstatement to say that he was "majorly unpopular". Also, if you are, as you claim, a first generation American, how is it that you are such an expert on Abraham Lincoln? Tad Lincoln (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Unpopular presidents get re-elected during periods of war. Lincoln was unpopular in the North, especially in New York City.

You say the South wasn't part of the Union at the time, but Lincoln believed the opposite. That's why he treated the Civil War as a rebellion and not a legitimate separation allowed by the Constitution (sovereign states joining together for mutual interest).

When have I said I'm an expert on Lincoln? What? Because I'm a first-generation American, I'm not allowed to study history?

- Sal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.174.149 (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I never said that you weren't alloud to study history, but yours is one person's opinion, and you have not provided any sources for your claims. I was simply implying that perhaps you do not have as complete a view as you think. Yes, Lincoln did consider the Confederacy to be part of the country, but he realized that they did not consider themselves as such and, in practice, they acted and were treated as a separate entity. For instance, no one in the Confederate states voted in the 1864 election, and they did not have representation in Congress. Lincoln is widely regarded by historians as being one of the greatest U.S. presidents. Also, all of your grievances are very general. If you have problems with specific parts of the article, please say so. You also need to provide reliable sources for any changes/different points of view that you would like to include in the article. Tad Lincoln (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

1) History is often written by winners, but Lost Cause histories of the war are one big exception to the rule.

2) A "cult of personality" implies fame that is undeserved. Lincoln's accomplishments are too well known to need repeating here.

3) However, it's true that Lincoln was unpopular with many in life. Lincoln's big accomplishment was not in being admired by all but rather in holding a large but diverse coalition of Northerners together long enough to win a war. One anti-Lincoln paper said that his Gettysburg Address was "dishwatery."

4) Lincoln did suspend writ of habeas corpus, which the Constitution allows in time of rebellion, but only for the duration of the war, and with good justification. Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Emancipation Proclamation

From the article (which is locked, so I can't edit it): "The Emancipation Proclamation, announced on September 22, 1862 and put into effect on January 1, 1863, freed slaves in territories not already under Union control. As Union armies advanced south, more slaves were liberated until all of them in Confederate territory (over three million) were freed."

This contains factual errors which promote some popular myths about the Emancipation Proclamation. "... freed slaves in territories not already under Union control" should read "... freed slaves in Confederate states, in areas not already under Union control". Slaves in the slave states which remained in the Union (Kentucky, Delaware, Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware) were not freed by the Proclamation. The states where the slaves were freed were explicitly listed in the Proclamation: Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia. Large parts of Louisiana and Viginia (including West Virginia) were specifically excluded. Tennessee was not listed as one of the affected states.

Slavery in Kentucky, Delaware, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, Tennessee, and West Virginia was NOT effected by this Proclamation, and neither was slavery in New Orleans LA, Norfolk VA, and many other places in Louisiana and Virginia.

"As Union armies advanced south, more slaves were liberated until all of them in Confederate territory ... were freed." Also incorrect. Not "all of them in Confederate territory", but rather all of them in Confederate states except for the numerous cases listed above.

The Emancipation Proclamation of 1963 led to the freedom of a great many slaves, but it explicitly allowed slavery to continue in much of the south, even areas under Union control. It did not have any effect in the Union slave states. The myth that the Proclamation freed all the slaves, or all the slaves in the south, should not be perpetuated in Wikipedia. Read the actual proclamation; not pop-culture pseudo-history. 139.68.134.1 (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The states that you mentioned were border states and were not generally considered to be part of the South. They also were already under Union control, so the statement in the article is, in fact, entirely accurate. Tad Lincoln (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Trivia section

Add a small section mentioning the fact that Abe Lincoln and Charles Darwin were born on the same day in 1809

(quite amazing really) Zherkezhi (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

An interesting suggesion. However, including sections of miscellaneous trivia in articles is generally frowned upon in Wikipedia. Please see WP:TRIVIA for more information. The fact also has no real bearing on Lincoln, so does not really belong in the article. Thank for the suggestion, however, and I encourage you to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Tad Lincoln (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

I just realized something today: Abraham Lincoln was born on the same day as Charles Darwin, and they're both 200 today. I read this article very carefully to see if Darwin was mentioned anywhere in the article, but he wasn't. Why not? This is more than just trivia, and it would be irresponsible to ignore it and act as though it didn't exist. (after reading above section, I've come to the conclusion that Zherkezhi is correct. Not including this fact would be foolish.)Hcx0331 (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, it should be noted that the point of WP:TRIVIA is to eliminate lists of trivia, not one sentence of "trivia" (although I don't think the birthday fact is trivial).Hcx0331 (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If you read carefully, you will see that WP:TRIVIA also mentions irrelevant information. Although it is and interesting coincidence, the fact that Lincoln and Darwin were born on the same day is not relevant to a biography of Lincoln. If Darwin had played some role in Lincoln's life, it might be considered relevant, but he didn't, so it's just trivia. Tad Lincoln (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is an interesting factoid but see no way to reasonably include it in an encyclopedic article on either Lincoln or Darwin. Maybe someone will start a page for 'people born on such and such a day' (if it does not already exist).--Fizbin (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Number of books about Lincoln

The TV news reported that there are over 15,000 books about Lincoln, which must be some kind of record. We need the facts about this and a short mention in the article. This article doesn't mention the number, but is an interesting read: Readers due for a feast on Lincoln. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You hear that a lot, but I've never seen a reliable source on it; nor am I at all certain that it's a record when you compare it to Napoleon, Mao, Confucius, Buddha, Mohammed, Jesus, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Year links

I've reverted twice the addition of linked years to the article, and have asked the person who added those to please discuss here on the talk page. The Date Linking RFC showed significant disagreement on whether year links should be made; many said never and many respondents said years should be linked very rarely. Until a further RFC can determine consensus on when year links should be made, I think that any additions should be discussed here first. Karanacs (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally I find date and year links pointless.--Fizbin (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. The MOS is just a guideline, I'll move on to other things. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

How is there no criticism section, the man suspended habeas corpus, banned opposition newspapers, approved of west virginia illegally succeeding but then dis approved of the southern state legally succeeding? oh, and he created the state of Nevada just so he would have more electoral votes for 1864. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.181.241 (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The criticism is integrated into the article, as it is in all well-written articles. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I came to this page specifically to see criticism, with no intention to go all the way trough the text. Perhaps separate article (Criticism of Abraham Lincoln) could be created. 78.88.117.116 (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps an encyclopedia is not the right place for what you want, then. In general, Wikipedia frowns upon "criticism" articles and sections. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It is sad to read that. I bet, that after almost 150 years Lincoln's presidency earned wide and well established criticism - which i would be delighted to read. But since you (Wikipedia) decided, that it is undesirable, I'll have to accept it. 78.88.117.116 (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism is desirable. The suspension of habeas corpus, for example, is already in the article. It's just integrated into the text, not in its own Criticism section. The other things you mention would be good to integrate as well, if reliable sources can be found. -kotra (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Better get the complaints straight. Lincoln did not ban opposition newspapers. West Virginia was given permission to secede from the Virginia legislature. The Constitution says habeus corpus can be suspended, and it does not allow for states to secede (as Buchanan said)...and it was Congress that created the state of Nevada. Rjensen (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Technically, the Constitution doesn't say anything about secession. Since the 10th Amendment says all rights not explicitly granted to the federal government are reserved for the states or individual, and there is no explicit prohibition on secession (or allowance for the federal government to forcibly suppress secession), there is a very justifiable legal argument that secession is allowed under the Constitution. Strikehold (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Umm, I wish I knew that wikipedia frowned upon criticism sections, because it seems to me nearly every article in wikipedia that deals with anything somewhat controversial has a criticism section. A lot even have their own page for criticism. Just because enough people want to think Abraham Lincoln was a good president doesn't make it so. There are many valid criticism of him, and they should have their own section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sephers165 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Disagreement

This site and this article seem to disagree on several key points... just noting.

7h3 0N3 7h3 \/4Nl)4L5 Pl-l34R ^technobabble _{my screw ups} 04:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: that is a Microsoft product, and thus not deemed reliable for any purpose. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Why? You have a grudge versus Microsoft or something? :P I'll try to be more specific. It states there that Lincoln being in love with Ann Rutledge is debunked, but here it says:

"Having lost his first love, Ann Rutledge, to what could possibly have been typhoid fever, he courted Mary Owens, the sister of his friend Elizabeth Abell, with the promise of marriage."

Well?

*Coughs* That statement dosen't have a reliable source either... *Loud hacking cough*

7h3 0N3 7h3 \/4Nl)4L5 Pl-l34R ^{-technobabble-} _{my screw ups} 20:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Eherm... another note. By "key points" I meant "a few tidbits that could be glossed over but probably shouldn't". I extaggerate a bit sometimes, and don't specify :(... Eh, what'd you expect, I'm a newb.

But seriously though, you're not one of those people who declare sources and statements are true or bad without researching them first, are you? Bad admin, bad! ;p

I propose changing that statement to:"Sources disagree on whether or not Lincoln was in love with a woman named Ann Rutledge, but it is known that..." OK with you?

7h3 0N3 7h3 \/4Nl)4L5 Pl-l34R ^{-technobabble-} _{my screw ups} 05:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Lincoln's Pocket Watch

The Washington Post has published an article today confirming the presence of an inscription in Mr. Lincoln's pocket watch. Some my consider the inscription trivial, some may consider it a sign of his times. What do the Lincoln scholars think? - Canglesea (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Who is Neeley?

In the section on Lincoln's suspension of civil liberties, the information on Lincoln's grandiose expansion of the Presidency's wartime powers was supplied by a man named Neeley. Unfortunately, neither Neeley nor his work is properly identified, though it is stated that the citation is from 1992. Whether this means the year 1992 or the page 1992 of whatever book it might be is beyond me, though I'm assuming it's the year. (He's reference # 63 at the time of my post, as seen in my signature.) This is driving me nuts because I want to include Neeley's passage in an essay I'm writing, while also giving him proper credit. I've tried finding information on him, but I've had little luck in finding a Neeley who could be writing about Abraham Lincoln in 1992. Could somebody please figure out who this "Neeley" is for me? I'd really appreciate it!!!! --Luigifan (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I corrected the spelling of “Neeley” to “Neely” who is actually Mark E. Neely Jr. I also added the 1992 work (which won a Pulizer Prize) to the “books referenced” section. This book, along with two other works from Neely, are listed in the “Further Reading” section. Depending on what your essay is on, Neely also wrote a more recent book looking at civil liberties in the CSA. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

All right!!! Thanks!!! --Luigifan (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Concerning Civil Liberties, the Wikipedia site on The Real Lincoln would both be a valuable source and external link. Palantini (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

April 3 Edits to the Lede

I reverted two edits to the lede by Doktorschley. In the first place, he/she added unsourced material not covered in the body of the article. Lincoln as a corporate lawyer is a stretch -- he had a general law practice that in the 1850s included railroads. If there is a reliable source that labels him as a “corporate lawyer”, then it should be provided.

As far as the claim that Lincoln “suspend[ed] the Constitution”, this is another POV stretch. Also it is a gross simplification and inaccuracy to suggest that suspending habeas corpus or declaring martial law were the primary reasons why Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland did not secede. In all three states local elected Unionists has a great deal to do with the decision making. What Lincoln did do in regard to the border areas probably should be covered (and sourced) in the body of the article much more than it currently is, but the way to expand this is not to add unsourced material to the article lede. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

North Shoreman is quite right on these points. Rjensen (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Abe's Sister Sarah

I was thinking about Abe's Family today, and realized that there is no mention of his sister Sarah in this article. She was two years older than Abe and died in childbirth. (Sarah Lincoln Grigsby (February 10, 1807 - January 20,1828) I would like to leave this to someone more versed in Wiki to add this to the article, as I am tired of having my work deleted (and insulted) elsewhere on Wiki. I think it is important to know Abe was not an only child, and that he had a sister. If I recall her death also affected him deeply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.142.81.28 (talk) 05:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

He also had a younger brother, Thomas, who died as a child. In the scheme of things, though, they played a relatively small role in his life. This is basically a summary, and there is simply not room for everything. If, however, you can find a reliable source that says she had an important impact, please feel free to add it.Tad Lincoln (talk) 05:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Siblings are always important in biographical article. Given the scale of this article, one sentence for each in the "childhood" section would be appropriate. Zero mention in a section about family constitutes a significant oversight. Rklawton (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Abolitionist

Was Lincoln an abolitionist? The Republican party was founded in opposition to the expansion of slavery. Lincoln was its first president. Why would he have joined, and why would they have nominated him had he not shared their goals? In 1862, Lincoln made the abolition of slavery a war goal. This move cost him the support of the War Democrats, and it prolonged the war. How does this *not* make Lincoln an abolitionist? It would also help if someone posted a definition of "abolitionist" so we're all discussing the same thing. My attempt would read "one who publicly opposes slavery". Rklawton (talk) 12:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Abolitionism was/is an ideology. Any moves Lincoln made in the direction of freeing the slaves were politically motivated, and not due to ideology. Had he not felt that freeing slaves was a necessary part of repairing the country, all evidence seems to say that he likely would not have done so. He also did not make efforts to free slaves in the border states, partly for fear of losing them to the Confederacy. Lincoln was clearly not an abolitionist. Tad Lincoln (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Lincoln was on record in many situations (notably during his debates with Stephen Douglas) as being fundamentally opposed to slavery. He did write a well-known letter to Horace Greeley in which he declared that his intent was to preserve the union, and if he could do it without freeing any slaves, he would, or if he could do it by freeing all the slaves, he would, etc. However, he wrote that after he had already decided to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, and it was clearly a political statement to defuse criticism of the "radical" move of the proclamation in advance.

It's probably wrong to call him an abolitionist, though, because before the war he advocated gradual, compensated emancipation and opposed expansion of slavery to the territories. "Abolitionist" at the time referred to advocates of immediately freeing all the slaves. Lincoln was a moderate on this issue, and he was too moderate for a lot of people in his party -- he wound up getting the nomination due to some skillful political maneuvering that played party factions against each other. During the war he became more radicalized, and late in the war did insist on return to the union and freeing the slaves as preconditions for ending hostilities. At that point, though, it's not clear that there could have been any end to the war other than complete victory. Anyway, his positions on slavery were nuanced and changed over time, so it may be misleading to refer to him as an abolitionist. Agathman (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's start, though, with a definition for "abolitionist". That alone may help clarify the issue. Rklawton (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Let's look at what it says in Abolitionism#Abolitionist_Movement. I think that the relevant material is under Garrison and immediate emancipation, as that set the stage for the way the term was used in Lincoln's time. As it says in the article "After 1840 "abolition" usually referred to positions like Garrison's" -- immediate emancipation. Under that definition, Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist. Agathman (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I think we should use the definition of abolitionist as it was applied at the time. Agathman's definition seems suitable for that purpose. Rklawton (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Lincoln did not end slavery, the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.48.18 (talk) 12:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Debated sexual orientation

Is Lincoln's sexual orientation really debated? I mean, is it debated among academics? If it's not seriously debated among academics, then I don't think this category belongs in this scholarly article. Yes, I know some people debate it, but some people also believe astronauts never landed on the moon. In short, this article isn't the place for fringe theories. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The category looks to be headed for almost certain deletion... I wouldn't object to removing it now, but don't want to personally bring us to two category removal controversies in one night... --Chiliad22 (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favor of the easiest solution. If the category is up for deletion, well, it gets the job done. Rklawton (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Addtions of Category:American abolitionists

The editor Sammy Houston has been repeatedly tagging this article with Category:American abolitionists. I have reverted his edits twice, and I see that someone else has reverted similar edits by a different editor least once. All of these reverts were for the same reason: Lincoln was not an abolitionist. I have tried explaining this to Sammy, but he has accused me of being the disruptive editor and has insisted that he is right and everyone else is wrong (see my talk page for the conversation). I have not had contact with the editor who made the most recent addition. Any ideas what should be done? Tad Lincoln (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It might be worth a breif discussion. Obviously lincoln was not a political adovcate of abolition - but he did in fact enact emancipation. So while he was not technically an abolotionist, he did -atlbeit for military reason- abolish slavery in most of the United States. So I guess the question would be. Is Category:Abolitionists for political abolitionists only?Charles Edward (Talk) 17:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

See above. Rklawton (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

People who favored abolition during the war were abolitionists. That's Lincoln. That is how people talked then: "Lincoln is an abolitionist" they said. See McPherson's standard history. Lincoln by 1862 favored freeing ALL the slaves and he did it as fast as possible using different steps because of constitutional limits. In DC and border states he favored purchase of slaves or new state laws (as in Missouri). In Confederacy he issued Emanc. Proc. For the entire USA he sponsored and pushed the 13th amendment. In a word, Lincoln pushed--with success--to free ALL the slaves. "Lincoln was not an abolitionist" in 1858 is true; "Lincoln was not an abolitionist" in 1864 is false. Rjensen (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I can go along with that. So at least at the end of his life, he falls into Category:American abolitionists. Agathman (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No, RJensen doesn't understand that abolitionism was a movement and an ideology. Lincoln never subscribed to either one. He chose to declare emancipation for political and strategic reasons; but anybody making the claim that he joined the abolitionist movement or subscribed to its ideology is making an extraordinary claim, and needs to have strong sources to back it up. (I'm a recent honors history graduate with a specialty in U.S. history; how about yourself?) --Orange Mike | Talk 21:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm just a geneticist myself. However, based on what I've read, I don't think it would be correct to say that he declared emancipation solely for political and strategic reasons; he seems to have been opposed to slavery for most of his life, although not a proponent of immediate emancipation until near the end of the war. I guess what we need here are some authoritative sources to guide us in this issue. I'll have a look at some sources at home and see if I can substantiate my position later. Agathman (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Abolitionism was not a single movement. Every historian emphasizes it had multiple dimensions with multiple goals, with people coming and going all the time. Lincoln was a very strong supporter of emancipation --he really believed that slavery was evil and had to be destroyed. The suggestion that in 1862 he used the Proclamation as a mere "tactic" is possible but cannot explain his total commitment in 1865 to passing the 13th amendment which everyone will agree was the death of slavery. And he did it. True the old-line abolitionists in 1864 were split on whether Lincoln was now one of them. Garrison said Lincoln was indeed and denounced other abolitionists like Phillips who thought Lincoln was too timed. That view of Phillips seems to be Orange Mike's view. see McPherson Struggle for Equality p 268-9 online) In 1864, Lincoln wrote, "I am naturally anti- slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think and feel." Rjensen (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I am also a history major specializing in U.S. History, and I can guarantee you that Lincoln was not an abolitionist. In fact, I specifically recall one of my professors explaining how, in the 19th century, there were major differences between being anti-slavery and being an abolitionist. While Lincoln may have, to an extent, been against slavery, that in no way meant he was an abolitionist. What you are failing to account for with you quotes and sources are the facts of the time. In his day, Lincoln was not considered an abolitionist. Tad Lincoln (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The professor said Lincoln was not an abolitionist before the war. true. But he was an abolitionist at the end of the war, and was considered so by many old-line abolitionists including Garrison and Douglass.Rjensen (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no, he didn't. Sorry, you don't get to force you erroneous views onto my professors. Tad Lincoln (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick reminder about professors and history majors. Here at Wikipedia, we don't give a rats ass what your major was, what your professor told you, or whether you were there to see it for yourself. We operate solely on reliable, verifiable sources. In an article such as this, we hold out an even higher standard for scholarly, verifiable sources. So please, let's all drop any talk about what someone's professor said. If it's published in a Tier I or Tier II academic journal, then you have our interest and an eager invitation to share it with the rest of us. And yes, if it sounds like we don't value your academic experience, then you have gotten the point. We don't. Indeed, we would expect history majors to have even less difficulty digging up the appropriate sources to support a position, and that is about it. Rklawton (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I certainly didn't mean to make an appeal to authority, Rklawton, as that is not a valid argument. All I was trying to say was that the only way you can declare Lincoln an abolitionist is by denying what that word meant to him, and to the actual abolitionists of his time; and that those who were trying to do that clearly knew little or nothing of the politics of that time, of U.S. intellectual and ideological history of that time, etc., whereas I have in fact delved pretty deeply into these matters at a fairly advanced level. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone who thinks Lincoln is an abolitionist read Foner's "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men" - one of the key works on this topic? I think you people may be falling into the classic trap of assuming anyone who wanted to end slavery considered themselves an abolitionist. It seems like the same thing to us post-Civil Rights folks, but when you really look into 1850s politics, abolitionism was an extremist point of view with little popular support even in the north. Many people supported "Free labor" though, believing that slave labor was actually unfair to poor and middle class white people, since how could a free laborer compete with a slave laborer? And thus they opposed expanding slavery because it threatened their own economic well being, not because they were sympathetic toward the slaves. It's a big and important difference. If you people are familiar with it and still think Lincoln's an abolitionist, that's one thing... but I think people might just be falling into that classic trap. Someone above quotes Lincoln saying he's anti-slavery, that is NOT the same as Lincoln saying he's an abolitionist. --Chiliad22 (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should take a step back here and think about the actual issue under discussion, which is whether this page should have the Category:American Abolitionists tag on it. Obviously it depends on how you define abolitionist, and what period of Lincoln's life you're referring to, etc. What happens if we put the tag on, but it turns out that he actually didn't have the American Abolitionists card in his wallet? People looking for information about abolitionists come to this page and see stuff about Lincoln, which probably is at least vaguely relevant to what they were looking for. On the other hand, what if we leave off the tag, and in fact Lincoln was planning to come home from Ford's Theater and write a speech declaring that he and John Brown were BFFs? People looking for information on abolitionists miss the Lincoln page. Except they'd probably wind up looking at Lincoln anyway, as he's so entangled with the lives and politics of so many unquestioned abolitionists. In other words, I think this is the proverbial tempest in a teapot -- it really doesn't make much difference whether we put that tag on or not. Maybe it would be better to take all this erudition and put together a "relationship to abolitionism" section in the article that would pull the info and sources together. Agathman (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. Rklawton (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Based on the effects of his actions he is the ultimate and most effective abolitionist in US history.--Fizbin (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That's like saying FDR was the most effective socialist in US history... results that fit with an ideology don't automatically mean the person subscribes to that ideology. --Chiliad22 (talk) 01:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

So he was an accidental Socialist? Along those lines, could someone compare and contrast the American Socialist party platform and the Democratic party platforms of the 1930s for me? (my talk page would be fine) Rklawton (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Back to the subject at hand, Western Europe had already outlawed slavery, and England had taken significant action to crack down on the trans-Atlantic slave trade. The South responded to Lincoln's election based on its fears of becoming politically and economically marginalized by an anticipated non-slave owning, unsympathetic northern majority, one responding in knee-jerk fashion to the betrayal of the Kansas-Nebraska act. The South appears to react to Lincoln's election as though he and his fellow Republicans were abolitionists and a direct threat to southern economic well-being. In short, the South appears to believe that Lincoln would eventually bring about the abolition of slavery - in sort of a DUCK-like way. Rklawton (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're correct about the southern reaction, they did fear he was an abolitionist. But a lot of people have reacted to Barack Obama as if he were a socialist - that doesn't mean he is a socialist. It seems people are trying to use all kinds of wacky logic to prove Lincoln's an abolitionist - everything but finding a source where a reputable scholar identifies him as an abolitionist (not just "anti-slavery"). --Chiliad22 (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Words of Booth??

I thought there were several quotations of what Booth said after he shot the president? Isn't that up for debate STILL or did wikipedia have it's own debate and decide by itself why Booth had said??No Stahr (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no debate on that of any substance; where did you hear differently? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Last words of Lincoln

I know what they are, but I don't have a secure source. I believe it's true, but someone is going to ask for links. If someone could find where "They won't think anything of it" came from, then that would be fantastic, thank you No Stahr (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Moving to bottom:

7h3 0N3 7h3 \/4Nl)4L5 Pl-l34R ( _t / _c ) 23:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If you don't have a reliable source, don't put it in; that's fundamental. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC).

Lincoln's Religious Upbringing

The article states that Lincoln attended a "Hardshell" Baptist church as a child, which is correct. However, the proper name of that order of faith is "Primitive Baptist." While "Hardshell" is a term describing Primitive Baptists, it was originally a somewhat derogatory term. To my knowledge, few, if any Primitive Baptist churches formally used that term in their church names. Here is a link to Little Pigeon Primitive Baptist Church, where Lincoln and his family attended. http://www.lspfriends.org/little_pigeon.html

It would be more factual for the word "Hardshell" to be changed to "Primitive." Bwinslett (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Lincoln's Religion

In response to my revert here [5] to a claim that Lincoln's religion was "Judaism", the editor I reverted placed the following on my talk page:

"It calls up the indefinite past. When Columbus first sought this continent — when Christ suffered on the cross — when Moses led Israel through the Red-Sea — nay, even when Adam first came from the hand of his Maker — then as now, Niagara was roaring here. The eyes of that species of extinct giants, whose bones fill the mounds of America, have gazed on Niagara, as ours do now. Co[n]temporary with the whole race of men, and older than the first man, Niagara is strong, and fresh to-day as ten thousand years ago." Lincoln

http://books.google.com/books?id=yNMVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=%22nay,+even+when+Adam+first+came+from+the+hand+of+his+Maker+%22&source=bl&ots=jZhDJVujJh&sig=WBxPdzRi8ZZxEnUGGGwTtcN3D2w&hl=en&ei=YGo1SpiIH4_KsQPX4Z2BDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

The man believed that Moses lead the Hebrews through the red sea just as he believed Columbus first sought this continent. --Protostan (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If you don't respond soon I'm going to have to assume you no longer object to my edit. --Protostan (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I treated the original edit as vandalism and nothing above makes me think this was a serious edit. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Assuming Lincoln wasn't Christian what do you call a person who believes "Moses led Israel through the Red-Sea" and " Adam first came from the hand of his Maker"? --Protostan (talk) 23:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Your take on the meaning of a letter by Lincoln is irrelevant. The claim that Lincoln was Jewish does not even meet the criteria for a fringe viewpoint, let alone as the justification for listing his religion in the Infobox as Judaism. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Indeed, this is so far out on the fringe that it runs into the territory of vandalism/disruption. Rklawton (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

An utterly ridiculous claim. As I added to the piece, Lincoln's earliest American ancestor was a Puritan from East Anglia, England, whose ancestors had lived for generations previous in the area of Hingham, Norfolk, where Samuel Lincoln's grandfather Richard was buried in the center aisle of the Anglican church. MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Again though assuming Lincoln wasn't Christian what do you call a person who believed "Moses led Israel through the Red-Sea" and "Adam first came from the hand of his Maker"? --Protostan (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd call any conclusions derived from that question - without sources - original research and not appropriate for this article. Rklawton (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The source of the quote is listed above. But what do you call a person like that? --Protostan (talk) 05:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

An intelligent person who grew up in the 19th century U.S. and is therefore reasonably conversant with Scripture? --Orange Mike | Talk 13:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The source is only of the quote, it is NOT the source of the conclusion you are deriving. Your conclusion is original research, and also predicated on ignoring many other possibilities, such as deism, Islam, and actual being Christian. Now, I'm not saying he is any of these, I'm saying that the conclusion you are drawing it original research (therefore already not allowed), and not at all the only conclusion that could be drawn. Judaism is actually pretty unlikely compared to Deism. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

A Deist would not believe in the Red Sea crossing, or that God had given him a sign to free America's slaves. I hadn't thought about the Islam possibility though and I'm going to think about this. --Protostan (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You are largely incorrect on your assertion regarding Deism, and if you have to "go and think about this" since I've pointed out other possibilities, you are only proving that this is your original research. Stop now. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Do Deists frequently believe in the Bibical Adam? Or that Moses crossed the Red Sea? --Protostan (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It is irrelevant and impertinent to this conversation. You have been informed and had it clearly demonstrated to you that your actions and edits constitute original research, without source of your actual conclusions. Stop. Anything further does not belong on this talk page. This isn't an article about deism. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

you wrote I was "incorrect" on my "assertion regarding Deism" so I assumed you had a book article etc. on it that I could reference. Do you not have one? --Protostan (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Once again, this is NOT a discussion on Deism, I will not let you turn it into one. This is simply a notification to you to stop making your additions to this article, as they are both factually incorrect, baseless, sourceless, and constitute original research. Unless you have anything to say on your edits to this article, this conversation is closed. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again. Protostan has now cited a different Lincoln source (a speech) and declared him a Christian. I have reverted it back again. Lincoln's religious status and beliefs are a subject of scholarly debate and there is no consensus -- therefore rather than making a declaration, the infobox rightly refers the reader to the separte article on AL's religion where the issues are discussed in detail. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Lincoln family tree link?

Can we have a link to it, perhaps at the end of the paragraph about Lincoln's ancestors and descendants?  J L G 3 9 2 6  20:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Photo of his wife

Mary Todd Lincoln, wife of Abraham Lincoln

. I just found a photo of his wife on Flickr the Commons and added it to the Wikimedia Commons. I would like to add it to the section about his family but I can't because the page is protected and my account is too new. Can somebody please add [[File:Mary_Todd_Lincoln.jpg|thumb|right|Mary Todd Lincoln, wife of Abraham Lincoln]] to the 'marriage and family' section? Yhoitink (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

Done Thank you. —C45207 | Talk 22:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick action! Yhoitink (talk) 08:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

poo

$¢