Talk:Abraham Lincoln/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 → Archive 25

Buggy image link

The image in the Emancipation Proclamation section is buggy when clicked on. It goes to other Wiki articles when it should enlarge the image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.29.64 (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Connection to John C. Calhoun

My history teacher in high school said that there were several articles that connect Lincoln to John C. Calhoun, some even claiming him to be Lincoln's actual birth father. Calhoun stayed at an inn in Abbeville, SC and Lincoln's mother worked there and apparently they began to "have relations.". The timeline is right for Lincoln's birthday because Thomas Lincoln wasn't in SC at the time, and there is nothing that says Lincoln was a legitimate child. Has anybody else seen anything like this? Cougars2012 (talk) 06:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

And of course you believe it. Do you have a source, other than you teacher?--Jojhutton (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Cougars doesn't say that he (or she) believes it. He (she) is plainly making a statement of hearsay, accompanied by a reasonable question. Asking for a source is the right thing to do. Stating "And of course you believe it", along with "other than you [sic] teacher" is cynical and insulting, without cause. Can we be nicer to each other, please? Karl gregory jones (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

this is all wrong dont listen to anything that he says —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.220.45 (talk) 02:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I usually don't comment on issues that are not fact, but I thought I might shed some light on this subject. I am an historical research analyst and certified genealogist with knowledge of this subject. I believe Cougar may be thinking of Abraham Enloe. These theories are nothing new. In fact, Lincoln referred to them during his lifetime, claiming he knew little of his family history, other than what his father had told him... which wasn't much.
In light of new technology that can prove these claims, Lincoln's ancestry is actually current news. Anything short of exhuming the body of Lincoln's great grandson Robert Todd Lincoln Beckwith or performing DNA studies using Lincoln artifacts amounts to mere speculation. While there are numerous conflicting reports regarding this issue, here is the basic summation:
Documented records show that Nancy Hanks lived with the Abraham Enloe family as an indentured domestic servant. She was the illegitimate daughter of Lucy Hanks, who was a seamstress. Nancy was taken in as a young girl to work in the large Abraham Enloe household. She was considered part of the family.
In 1808, Abraham Enloe fathered a son by the young girl and she named the child "Abraham." Mrs. Enloe couldn’t stand the thought of the child in the house and banished Nancy from the home. At that point, Nancy returned to Rutherford County and gave birth to little Abe in a cabin on Puzzle Creek. Abraham Enloe arranged for a local sawmill worker, Tom Lincoln, to marry Nancy and head for Kentucky.
Enloe gave Tom Lincoln $500 (a lot of money in those days) and continued to send money monthly to them for living expenses. One sworn affidavit states that as Tom Lincoln and Nancy Hanks left on the wagon from North Carolina the child sat between them. They raised the young boy, Abraham Lincoln, who later became President Abraham Lincoln.
You can google Abraham Lincoln and Enloe and read more about this subject. Photos are also available online that compare family resemblances. Physically, Tom Lincoln was short, stocky, low-browed, and not very smart. Abraham Enloe was tall, lanky, and highly intelligent, as was his son, Wesley, who bears a strong resemblance to Lincoln. The comparisons are striking.
Of note: Abraham Lincoln's mother died when he was a child. He wrote that he knew little of his ancestry. He also had a contentious relationship with his father. They each looked down upon the other claiming that they lacked similar qualities and character traits. Abraham even refused to attend his father's funeral. Before he died, Abraham Enloe's son, Wesley, gave sworn affidavits that revealed additional information supporting the claims that Enloe was the biological father of Abraham Lincoln.

Cindamuse (talk) 07:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cindamuse (talk • contribs) 07:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

it's all nonsense. The Lincoln genealogy has been worked over for 90 years by many scholars--most recently Michael Burlingame, (2009) who sees no need to mention Enloe or Calhoun. Rjensen (talk) 23:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is a more useful rebuttal [1]. Rklawton (talk) 23:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Religion and infobox shortcomings

Infoboxes are intended to give very quick and simple answers, and when quick and simple answers are available, they work great. When more complex answers are appropriate, they kind of stink and can cause edit wars when editors insist that simplicity be used for complexity.

I've been watching the addition of Abrahamic to the infobox to populate the religion field. This, as given for the source is not sufficient to simplify Lincoln's beliefs on religion and spirituality. First, it's a summary of book text. The actual text will have to be found in the book. Secondly, this summary does not label Lincoln's views as Abrahamic. Simplifying his views to Abrahamic based on this is WP:SYNTH. If the author uses the word Abrahamic, that is one historian's interpretation of what Lincoln believed. Dozens have written about him.

I do not think that the infobox should be populated, unless "disputed", "multiple", or some other word can symbolize that Lincoln's beliefs are not so easily categorized. --Moni3 (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree -- the source cited does not support Abrahamic and, even if it did, this is certainly NOT a view shared by any other Lincoln authority that I am aware of. I have reverted the edit. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Would it be better if you put Christian insted of Abrahamic? --Protostan (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
It would be better to leave it exactly as it is now. There is no consensus among historians that ANY label would be appropriate. In any event, it would be nice if you quit edit warring and not add ANYTHING until you obtain a consensus for it. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I think Joseph Sobran has made a decent case that Lincoln was a religious cynic, possibly approaching agnosticism. Certainly Loncoln's faux-religious imagery in many of his speeches indicates what in modern times would be recognized as a cynical use of God for political purposes. It also seems like the unnecessary killing of a half-million American men and the making of war on a distinctly Christian Confederacy could be construed as un-Christian. If Lincoln had any sincere relious beliefs, I would argue that his statement that God basically willed the Civil War reflects a self-inflated, messianic view of himself as the savior of the "Union." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.48.88.122 (talk) 13:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Redirect discussion

There is currently a requested move discussion related to a redirect to this page at Talk:Lincoln#Requested move to move Lincoln to Lincoln (disambiguation), comments from all are welcome. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

  • The discussion there is almost surreal, with one U.K. user claiming that the only usage of the word "Lincoln" that stands alone, without context, is when it's used in reference to some old U.K. town. There's a multiplicity of drama, and very little common sense currently being applied in that discussion. UnitAnode 16:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The Abe Lincoln (musician) hatnote

I notice the hatnote referring to Abe Lincoln (musician) was added on December 4 with this edit, after which his traffic shot up. He seems like an incredibly minor musician, does he really need to be the very first line of Abraham Lincoln's article? He's already mentioned, I think adequately, in Abraham Lincoln (disambiguation), so any objections to removing this hatnote?  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"Abe Lincoln" is not the same as "Abraham Lincoln", and it should not be assumed that readers are aware that "Abe" is a common contraction of "Abraham". WP:PT makes it clear that such disambiguation links should exist where the undisambiguated title is a redirect. This hatnote should be reinstated. --MegaSloth (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) With some trepidation, I agree. If you read his Allmusic entry, he was not alone in sharing (or hi-jacking) the name of an American President; even though his given name was "Abram Lincoln" it's not clear per WP:COMMONNAME that he was known by that name. I think a short blip in traffic to his article does no harm, because that is, essentially one thing we are here for- an online, richly-linked encyclopedia encourages readers to seek beyond the obvious, and the redirect is cheap in technical terms. Readers come here with some vague idea about spelling, and if the DAB doesn't point them in the correct direction, there will be frustration. Having said that, we don't have an "Abram Lincoln" that redirects to his name for 30s/40s jazz enthusiasts, and perhaps we should. We also have an Abram Lincoln Harris article, so that would also need DAB'bing. Rodhullandemu 23:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid I can't agree that this is an appropriate hatnote. (And we're not talking about a "short blip in traffic"; presumably, we're discussing leaving the hatnote here indefinitely.) For one thing, although it's good to have people learn things beyond the obvious, we would never dream of putting "If you're interested in learning about Dixieland jazz, see Ace Brigode" at the top of Abraham Lincoln, because hatnotes are for convenience and and clarification, not for promoting broader learning of the esoteric. And for another thing, unfortunately for Abe Lincoln (musician), he is esoteric. On an average day last October, for instance, Abraham Lincoln got 13,000 hits, Abe Lincoln got 300 hits, and Abe Lincoln (musician) got about eight hits.
That means that at most about 3% of people who type in "Abe Lincoln" could be looking for the musician, and the number must surely be less because the majority of hits on the musician likely come from links to the page or from people correctly entering "Abe Lincoln (musician)." So the hatnote saves time for a maximum of nine people a day (and maybe as few as zero), while for 13,000 other people it presents an unnecessary sentence as the absolute first thing in the article. Now, I'm not a scholar of the hatnote rules, but from what I can tell they don't say a hatnote must be used here, only that it "can be used." Even if I were wrong about that, I think WP:IAR might well apply on an issue like this when we're talking about one of Wikipedia's most-visited articles versus one of its least-visited.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 07:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
OK given there are arguably 3 articles competing for the title "Abe Lincoln" and in order to satisfy others' concerns and reduce the impact of hatnotes to this article, how about making Abram Lincoln a DAB page and adding a link to that (via Abram Lincoln (disambiguation)) by rewording the current hatnote? This avoids giving undue prominence to specific individuals and minimises hatnotes while appropriately disambiguating the term.
I note my previous comment that the musician "Abe Lincoln" is not called "Abraham Lincoln" and is thus not appropriately disambiguated by a link to Abraham Lincoln (disambiguation) was inadvertently removed in an edit conflict. I therefore note it again here.
In terms of traffic statistics, the increase was from around 3 to 5 a day to around 30 a day. Quite probably a lot of this increase can be put down to concerned editors such as Glenfarclas checking on the destination of the new hatnote, any web crawlers not scrubbed from the statistics (and I see no obvious indication of any attempt at all to scrub such hits), and even possibly one or two extra people actually finding the article they were looking for. Thus while I am happy to try and find a good compromise that has consensus, personally I think that the actual impact of the cited rationale for reverting the change is even more "incredibly minor" than the musician that introduces the issue. --MegaSloth (talk) 09:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I've posted a further comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenfarclas (talk • contribs)

For convenience, I suggest all further discussion takes place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation. --MegaSloth (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about this page should take place here. If there's a proposal to change the project page, that should take place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation. In this case, it appears that

  • "Abe Lincoln" does redirect here
  • There is another topic ambiguous with Abe Lincoln
  • The U.S. president is correctly the primarty topic for "Abe Lincoln"
  • Disambiguation of the ambiguous title "Abe Lincoln" is needed
  • If there are only two topics ambiguous with it, then a {{redirect}} hatnote will serve to disambiguate them
  • If the third potentially ambiguous topic (the economist) is indeed ambiguous with it, Abe Lincoln (disambiguation) should be created and still linked here through a {{redirect}} hatnote.

Navigational hatnotes are not advertisements, but the ambiguities should be resolved with the readers looking for the ambiguous topics in mind. If there's a side effect of increased traffic, that shouldn't be seen as a problem to solve. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I say we just include Abe Lincoln in the Abraham Lincoln disambiguation page Purplebackpack89 (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

For such closely related titles, I don't see much benefit to having a separate disambiguation page for "Abe Lincoln" or to adding to the hatnote clutter. Many of the items at Abraham Lincoln (disambiguation) could also be colloquially referred to as "Abe Lincoln". older ≠ wiser 16:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Purple, I assume you mean, combine the terms on a singel DAB page per WP:DPAGES? If this were to be done, it would need to be called Abe Lincoln (disambiguation) since Abe is not always short for Abraham; there could be genuine "Abe"s or (as in this case) "Abram"s. Moving Abraham Lincoln (disambiguation) to Abe Lincoln (disambiguation) would be a retrograde step since the vast majority of entries would remain "Abraham Lincoln"s. Per WP:DABNAME: "The spelling that reflects the majority of items on the page is preferred to less common alternatives". Older ≠ wiser; you ignore that in the case of Abe Lincoln (musician), "Abe" is not short for "Abraham". Also, we cannot assume that readers from all cultures will necessarily make the connection from "Abe" to "Abraham", obvious though it is to Westernised English-speakers. --MegaSloth (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
That "Abe" is not short for Abraham in the case of the musician is not entirely relevant. Abe and Abraham (or for that matter Abram) are all closely related names, and can be treated together on a single disambiguation page provided that the page is not so long or complex as to become unusable. older ≠ wiser 17:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
They can. On the other hand, they can also be treated separately on separate disambiguation pages, provided that an editor wants to take that trouble. Since the musician is not actually ambiguous with "Abraham Lincoln", I prefer the second solution as more accurate and not more cumbersome. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I really like Kotniski's single DAB in this edit; actually I think that in general condensing into a single hatnote covering all circumstances is an excellent idea. I do think that adding in the terms actually being disambiguated aids clarity a bit – i.e. the Abe link is there to disambiguate Abe Lincoln – so I added that in. --MegaSloth (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Meaning no disrespect to you or other editors involved, but I think that "For other uses of Abraham Lincoln and Abe Lincoln see Abraham Lincoln (disambiguation) or Abe Lincoln (musician)" is grammatically and stylistically unacceptable. I too liked Kotniski's solution, but I do see your point about mentioning the terms being disambiguated; I just can't think of a way to shoehorn the links into one sentence without it looking like they've been shoehorned into one sentence! Believing it to be the better interim solution, I've therefore decided to be bold and return the article to two hatnotes (using standard hatnote templates, no less) in the hopes that someone will come along with the workable one-hatnote solution that I couldn't think of. -- Perey (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln

Abraham Lincoln, contrary to popular belief, did not end slavery. During his Presidential reign he only managed to abolish slavery in the rebelling confederate states during the American Civil War, as stated in the Emancipation Proclamation. Abraham Lincoln only abolished slavery in the south due to fear that if he abolished slavery in the north as well, Maryland would become a confederate state as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.174.134 (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"Prairie Lawyer"

It is silly and misleading to refer to Lincoln as a 'prairie lawyer.' It is clear from the contents of the section that he worked for large companies (railroads and shipping companies) and served as counsel in high-profile cases (notice how often he appeared before the Supreme Court.) This sort of resume is far beyond the concept of a 'simple prairie lawyer.' As such, I've changed the section heading to 'Return to legal practice.'Rugbyhelp (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It's entirely accurate to refer to Lincoln as a lawyer who worked for virtually all his legal career on the prairies of the new state of Illinois as a "Prairie Lawyer." I suspect you'll need to develop page consensus. BusterD (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that the phrase is inherently an NPOV violation, carrying (at least for Americans) disingenuous overtones of bucolic innocence that mask the man's actual sophistication, and the variety of his clientele. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to see some source myself that "prairie lawyer" is inherently POV; it does depend on one's perspective, as in "civil rights lawyer" may mean one thing to readers of the Daily Mail but something completely opposite to readers of The Guardian. However, if the term "prairie lawyer" has non-neutral overtones in any context, it should be avoided to maintain WP:NPOV unless its use can be justified by reliable sources. Rodhullandemu 01:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
"Lawyer" is not in question and "prairie" is the standard geographical designation for Illinois (like Plains or Mountains for other states). One standard history of the state is Illinois: a history of the Prairie State‎ by Robert P. Howard (1972). The standard study of Lincoln as lawyer: : A. Lincoln Prairie Lawyer by John J Duff (1960). Other reference books use the phrase all the time without suggesting a lack of sophistication on the prairie: Encyclopedia Britannica uses the heading "prairie lawyer" in its Lincoln article. America's lawyer-presidents: from law office to Oval Office (2004) ed by Norman Gross has a chapter on "Abraham Lincoln: Prairie Lawyer" by a leading scholar Paul Finkelman. Brian R. Dirck in his recent Lincoln the lawyer‎ (2007) Page 142 refers to "the cool, unruffled prairie lawyer." David Donald's famous biography (1996) said he handled "every kind of business that could come before a prairie lawyer" p. 96. Where this "bucolic" or "innocence" business comes from???--nowhere.Rjensen (talk) 02:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
If the term is generally neutral, I don't have a problem with it. On the other hand, if it has been hi-jacked as a term of abuse, it becomes an NPOV problem, and the context of its use here becomes the issue. In the circumstances you cite, I see no objection to the description, but it would be otherwise if the term were used to imply a negative inference. Rodhullandemu 02:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Nobody contends that it is a negative term. Indeed, my argument is that the persistent use of the phrase is part and parcel of the American Lincolnolatry tradition. While I happen to be a fervent admirer of Lincoln and his presidency, that does not change the fact that the phrase is part of the whole "homespun Honest Abe the railsplitter" image: not as bogus as the "log cabin and hard cider" campaign, but still hogwash. The man was more complex and sophisticated than this term implies. The "simple country lawyer" schtick is one of the oldest in the lawyer's armamentarium, for those who can get away with it; and the use of this phrase is part of that. I have no doubt that Rjensen could source this phrase back to circa 1859 (if not earlier), when the groundwork was being laid for the Lincoln nomination. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems that Orange is thinking of "simple country lawyer". (Senator Sam Ervin used to call himself that at the Watergarte hearings, suggesting he could see through city-slicker duplicity). Lincoln was a Prairie lawyer -- a lawyer from the prairie state, and indeed that state connection played a major role in winning the 1860 nomination. But "prairie" always meant geography--and in 1860 it meant the frontier west--with no POV to it. Rjensen (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I totally agree with Orange on this. It is pretty clear that "Prairie Lawer" (both in this article and in the sources listed above by Rjensen) is part of the long established routine to make Lincoln seem more rustic and wholesome. If, as Rjensen and others suggest, "prairie" is meant only to refer to the geographic qualities of the state of Illinois, why not just use the more specific heading "Illinois Lawyer"?67.234.97.135 (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
There are two issues here. 1) Wikipedia policy is to reflect the termionology used by the scholars and experts. The citations from leading authorities demonstrate conclusively that "prairie lawyer" is the standard term. Editors who dislike ithe term are imposing their own POV--claiming the experts have it wrong. 2) in substantive terms the argument is false. The prairie region encompassed most of the northern Mississippi Valley (Illinois and also Indiana, Ohio, Iowa and Missouri) that was Lincoln's base in 1860 in his battle for the nomination. He was appealing to a bigger base than just Illinois. As for "rustic" that theme was the "rail splitter" image, which was also used in 1860. It is OR and plain bad history--made with no citations whatever!-- to claim that "prairie" connotes rustic/ innocent/ unsophisticated. (see "prairie" in Mathews, '"Dictionary of Americanisms pp 1299-1304 with over 200 quotations, not one of which suppoprt the alleged theme.)Rjensen (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Just as a curiosity, I googled "prairie lawyer" and I get 42K hits, beginning with the Finkleman links. If one was to search "prairie lawyer -lincoln", one only gets 13K hits. It's not scientific, but at least based on websites which google indexes, 69% of the hits mentioning "prairie lawyer" seem to refer to the 16th president. 11:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
This "prairie lawyer" had his own personal, private railroad car. Lincoln had argued for corporate welfare for the railroads to such an extent that he was issued a card that granted his railroad car free passage on any track in the country. His fee for one, brief case for the railroads exceeded the annual salary of the Governor of Illinois. See "The Real Lincoln", by Thomas DiLorenzo, ISBN-10: 0761526463.Chartguy (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and? --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The term "prairie lawyer" evokes the image of an unsophisticated, rural attorney, who spent his days dealing with simple people and simple transactions. The reality was the opposite of that. Lincoln was a very sophisticated lobbyist and attorney for the fattest cats in the country at that time, and he was very successful at his work. The railroads were given vast amounts of land (the alternating square miles along their right of ways) partly as a result of his work. Calling him a prairie lawyer is simply deceptive. Yes, he was a lawyer who came from the prairie, but he was no prairie lawyer.72.42.75.110 (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Have you bothered to read the rest of this discussion? --jpgordon::==( o ) 17:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
The prairie lawyer should stick because even after he got into the corporate client realm, he didn't change his style or his appearance, which was anything but sophisticated. The term correctly depicts him and not his clients, as it should be.Carmarg4 (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection expiry?

I see an admin has set the semi-protection for this article to end in early August. I don't think ti should end, there's been a long history for protections, and this is a vandal-target. Any other views on this? Anyone in favor of requesting that it be set to indefinite? I have a feeling the vandalism will resume the second the protection expires. Connormah (talk | contribs) 02:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree --vandalism here will not go away. Rjensen (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Support - indef ban seems reasonable. School children wishing to edit this article will still have the means to do so. Rklawton (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Revised to indefinite at your request. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I think they were referring to the article, not the talk page. Talk page protection should be used sparingly, especially when the corresponding article is also protected, and I don't think the level of disruption on this talk page warrants indefinite semiprotection. I don't have a problem with indef semiprotection of the article itself; indefinite semiprotections should also be used sparingly, but there probably isn't much hope for this one. I've noticed that anything that kids learn about in elementary school tend to receive lots of vandalism. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll defer to the consensus of the body; but this talk page is a constant subject of vandalism. I agree with the schoolkid observation, by the way; look as Sugar Act, for example. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to an indef semi-protect of the article. I agree that talk page vandalism is annoying, but it's a lot less embarrassing. Rklawton (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I was also referring to an indef semi-protect of the article, also, as it looks like it'll expire in August, just in time when the school year starts. I'd appreciate it if it can be raised to indef. Connormah (talk | contribs) 00:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Just realized as I posted this comment that it has been raised. Thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 00:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln and Douglas

I'd like to add the following to the page and can't find the edit link.

The October surprise of the election was the endorsement of the Democrat Douglas by former Whig John Crittenden. Former Whigs comprised the biggest block of swing voters, and Crittenden's endorsement of Douglas rather than Lincoln, also the former Whig, doomed Lincoln.[1]

The Guelzo has lots of good detail.

Roberteli22 (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Crittenden letter = minor point for the great majority of historians; Guelzo is an outlier here, not the consensus. We don't use anachronistic terms like "October surprise." Note that Lincoln's party had more votes, but the distribution of legislative seats was based on the old 1850 census and did not reflect the rapid growth of Republican areas.Rjensen (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Who is Bunn?

from User talk:Rjensen Dear Rjensen: You might find the book, "Jacob Bunn: Legacy of an Illinois Industrial Pioneer" to be of some interest. (Brunswick Publishing Company, 2005). Again, I would enjoy hearing your opinions of the Bunn brothers and their historical legacy. Thank you for your time. Respectfully, biogcontrib109 Biogcontrib109 (talk) 09:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I know about it--did you write it? Rjensen (talk) 09:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am in fact the author, yet I do not promote myself as such, because my principal objective is to make known the legacies of the men and women whom I have researched. These people have for an extended period of time escaped historiographical scrutiny. I would be very interested in your thoughts on the Bunn brothers, as you are clearly a Lincoln scholar, and I rarely--and I do mean rarely-- encounter historians who exhibit any degree of familiarity with these men and their commercial and civic legacies. Naturally, therefore, the thoughts of any fellow historian with knowledge of these men are of significant value to me. I have discovered and fully documented a great deal more about these men and their work since original publication, and have discovered even further proof that they established a global network of corporations and industry that affected a broad array of commercial sectors ranging from railroads and banks to international-scale shoe distribution and heavy manufacturing. If you are willing, I would greatly enjoy hearing your comments on these men and HOW you came to know of them. I would also be interested to know how you came to know of the "Jacob Bunn" biography. Thank you again for your response. I hope to hear from you. Sincerely, Fellow Lincoln Scholar, biogcontrib109 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biogcontrib109 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

well I read up on Lincoln topics :) (I scan the Amazon listing, sor example). The Bunn brothers were friends of Lincoln and his personal bankers to 1861, but they became important in terms of big business after Lincoln left Springfield and I can't recall seeing any major relationship with him during the war. Lincoln as President had very little to do with big business, railroads or banks (cabinet members handled that), so the tie between the GOP and big business doesn't sprout from Lincoln's personal bank account with the Bunns, in my opinion.

Dear Rjensen: You are one of the very first I have encountered who actually knew that Jacob Bunn was Lincoln's banker. It is also of note that Lincoln was the general counsel to certain of the Bunns' businesses. John Whitfield Bunn served as a special messenger and coordinator for the mobilization and transfer of Union Army soldiers from Chicago to Cairo, Illinois. Additionally, John W. Bunn was appointed by Lincoln to the post of Pension Commissioner of Illinois. (See: James Alfred Ellis, "History of the Bunn Family in America" (Publisher: Romanzo Norton Bunn) (1928) P. 211 (See: Ancestry.com). Also, the book, "Abraham Lincoln By Some Men Who Knew Him" contains an extensive and detailed personal memoir related by John W. Bunn as to his close personal friendship and association with Mr. Lincoln. (See: Paul McClelland Angle, "Abraham Lincoln, by some men who knew him: being personal recollections of Judge Owen T. Reeves, Hon. James S. Ewing, Col. Richard P. Morgan, Judge Franklin Blades, John W. Bunn" (Ayer Publishing Co.: 1969) Pp. 100-117. See: http://books.google.com). The Bunns and their allied families had either organized, owned, directed, controlled, and/or managed businesses that represented capital quantities of more than $700 million ($ U.S.) by about 1920, and many of these enterprises became the foundations of later business enterprises. The Illinois Watch Company, for instance, was the foremost engine for the standardization of railroad time, from the mechanical and technological standpoint. There is in fact extensive historical documentation of the Civil War communications between Lincoln and the Bunns, and their corporate influence, although not international until after 1870, was indeed instrumental in Lincoln's political successes. It is tragic that these people have evanesced from historical cognizance, as so many contemporary commercial entities either derive from, or relate to, in some manner these men, their colleagues and family, and work. I strongly believe that cursory reference to their connection to Mr. Lincoln is not inappropriate in the "Prairie Lawyer" section of the Lincoln article, as they not only purchased a German newspaper for Lincoln during his initial presidential campaign, but they were also the primary contributors and managers of his campaign capital fund. All of this is fully documented. Are you by any chance familiar with Benjamin Ferguson or John Stryker? Sincerely, biogcontrib109 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biogcontrib109 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Trivia about bank account

Did Lincoln have a bank account in the bank across the street? yes, and he wrote checks on it. Is that a matter of importance? No biographer in 50 years thinks so or even bothers to mention it--we have one editor who thinks it's REAL IMPORTANT but for reasons unknown. There is no evidence that they "purchased a German newspaper for Lincoln during his initial presidential campaign, but they were also the primary contributors and managers of his campaign capital fund." That is all nonsense and has no RS behind it. The Benn brothers donated how much to the AL campaigns-- $50? $5000 $50,000? that amount is left a mystery. No, the bankers who handle a checking account are not the campaign financers. Rjensen (talk) 07:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Bunns were certainly Lincoln friends, but whether Lincoln banked with them is irrelevant. This information detracts from the piece and should be excised. Agreed. MarmadukePercy (talk) 07:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Jacob Bunn and John Whitfield Bunn

My Dear Fellow Editors and Lincoln Historians:

I humbly submit to you that there are in fact myriad historical reference sources documenting the political importance of Jacob and John Whitfield Bunn in the life of Lincoln, leading up to and including the 1860 presidential campaign. John Whitfield Bunn himself related many details of his friendship and close political connections with Mr. Lincoln in the collection of original interview material: "Abraham Lincoln by Some Men Who Knew Him" (1910, Pantagraph Printing and Stationery Company, Bloomington, Illinois: By Owen Thornton Reeves, James Stevenson Ewing, Richard Price Morgan, Franklin Blades, John W. Bunn). Please see: Google Books for the online text version. The book is a work replete with praise and admiration for Mr. Lincoln from men who knew him very well professionally and socially. Reference to the Bunns and Logan is no more irrelevant than reference either to Denton Offutt, or to "Duff" Armstrong. I would actually be quite interested in learning what you know about the Bunn Brothers and their allied families, as it is rare that I encounter historians who do. I have authored a biography of them, and I do very much enjoy sharing information on these men and their legacies to American commerce and industry.

As to my reasons for inserting into the "Abraham Lincoln" article the information on the Bunn Brothers and Stephen Trigg Logan, I assure you that my motivation is encompassed entirely within my desire to bring to the light of digital historiographical cognizance the documented importance of these men to the political career of Mr. Lincoln. I wish also to state politely that the Bunn Brothers were ANYTHING BUT strictly local in their scope of commercial operation, and any claim to the contrary derives absolutely no documentary support from any source whatsoever. The reference sources provided in the numerous footnotes concerning the Bunns, in the article that contains their Wikipedia biographies, attest to the continental and eventually global magnitude of their corporate and commercial operations, associations, and dealings.

Very Respectfully and Sincerely, Biogcontrib109 Biogcontrib109 (talk) 08:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

How much $$ did the Bunn's personally give Lincoln? Rjensen (talk) 08:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Campaign Fund Contributions

Dear Rjensen: Ten men, including those named, contributed (in approximately May, 1860) $500 dollars, constituting an initial campaign fund capital quantity of $5,000. The source of this information is John Whitfield Bunn himself. After a considerable fraction of this sum was expended on a political rally, each of these men contributed an additional $500, restoring the capital value of the fund to $5,000. John W. Bunn contributed an additional $2,500 to the fund later on. So, John W. Bunn contributed at least $3,500, and Jacob at least $1,000. Those sums were, of course, considerable for the time, although minute in comparison to the wealth of Jacob Bunn (and John W. Bunn). John Whitfield Bunn himself describes the association as a campaign management committee, and discusses the basic financial, correspondence, and managerial functions of the committee of which both he and Jacob were charter members. The campaign committee also produced John Hay and John G. Nicolay as managers of the campaign. The reality is that the Bunns performed central functions in the 1860 campaign, and John Whitfield Bunn himself is the primary source. NOTE: The relevant interview fragment is contained in the following reference work. (See: Jesse William Weik, "The Real Lincoln: A Portrait" Houghton Mifflin, 1922). See: Google Books for online transcription. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biogcontrib109 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Biogcontrib109Biogcontrib109 (talk) 09:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

well that's progress. Now we need a relaible source from a secondary source (original research is not allowed here, of course)Rjensen (talk) 10:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Even if sourced, this is way too trivial for this biographical article. It might be interesting to include in an article on the 1860 presidential election. Rklawton (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

New Sources

Dear Rjensen: Thanks. I am working on gathering collaborative sources for above data. --Biogcontrib109Biogcontrib109 (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Tierra del Fuego

Quote source - it was not Lincoln because it comes from the Congressional record & Lincoln was not there then--JimWae (talk) 06:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Abraham lincolns hat

{{editsemiprotected}} Abarham Lincoln had so much mail in his hat that he startes the first air mail sytem to help regulate his mail and lighten his hat. After that he had a squirel jump in to his hat and take a dump, but after that he decided to keep it there and grow to make the first flying squirel which deliverd the air mail.


Habooby (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)  Not done Unsourced, preposterous, and borderline vandalism. Please read up on how to edit Wikipedia. Rodhullandemu 16:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

soooooooo abraham lincoln ended slavery? BS...all he did was make the proclamation...which stated that if a state had slaves they could keep slavery...stopping the slave trade...NOT ending slavery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.133.114 (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Jewish name?

I was wondering,isn't Abraham Lincoln a Jewish name —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.19.47.49 (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The first name, Abraham, was adopted by the Gentile Christian community and is found frequently in a number of Gentile cultures [[2]]. The last name comes from a reference to the 'old U.K. town' of Lincoln (see [[3]] and [[4]].)--BobGriffin-Nukraya (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Please add to "See Also"

{{editsemiprotected}} "Video "Mister Lincoln" (1981) by Herbert Mitgang starring Roy Dotrice filmed at Ford's Theater

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pYDD3IRBQto

President Abraham Lincoln brought back to life on the very stage that witnessed the end of the man and the beginning of an American legend. Watch and understand both as never before. "Moments like these are priceless, and responsible programs like 'Mister Lincoln' provide the valuable service of helping us remember them forever." ~David Sterritt, Christian Science Monitor

"The one man bringing this sometimes enigmatic, always fascinating figure to theatrical life is Roy Dotrice. A specialist in solo performances, most notably as the 17th-century English writer John Aubrey in 'Brief Lives,' Mr. Dotrice is British, a fact that disturbs some American critics. There's no cause for alarm. Mr. Dotrice gives an eloquent performance, creating a Lincoln who is at once vulnerable and awesome. He manages to make the Gettysburg Address sound as if it were written yesterday. Ford's Theater, of course, is the site of Lincoln's assassination. When Mr. Dotrice turns during his curtain calls and bows to the empty box where the President once sat, the sense of historical continuity and national loss is profoundly felt. Mister Lincoln also marks the debut on public television of the long-running Hallmark Hall of Fame series. George C. Scott is the host." ~John J. O'Connor, NYTimes .

For more information on this production see: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0211521/ "

SteffAW (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)SteffAW 7/12/10

Partly done: I added the link in the "External links" section rather than in the "See Also" section. I only added the video link and not your proposed paragraphs because it's inappropriate for either "See also" and "External links" sections.  Davtra  (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 65.78.177.121, 13 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}


65.78.177.121 (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 16:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Section 0n "Emergence of the Republican Party"

I would appreciate comment on the appropriateness of including this section in the Lincoln article. I am thinking it should be deleted and the first line of the section would be sufficient in the previous section, and would include the links currently in the section.Carmarg4 (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
It can be omitted; it's more appropriate for a page on history of the era than Lincoln's bio. I would include more than the first line, though. "Abraham Lincoln's election was a watershed in the balance of power of competing national and parochial interests and affiliations" could also go in the preceding section, and "During the war Lincoln appropriated powers no previous President had wielded: he used his war powers to proclaim a blockade, suspended the writ of habeas corpus, spent money before Congress appropriated it, and imprisoned between 15,000 and 18,000 suspected Confederate sympathizers without trial" could go somewhere lower, if those are not already covered.
I agree. It's largely off topic, but the beginning and the end seem to be Lincoln specific. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Old Ship Church Picture - Delete

Please comment on whether the picture of the Old Ship Church sign at the beginning of the article can be deleted. I am questioning the value added for the memory/space this takes up.Carmarg4 (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't increase the reader's understanding much. It's nice because it's free, but that's about it. I'm sure we could find a better Lincoln related pic, or just remove it. Although it will make the page load slower for slow internet connections, we usually don't care about those people. Wikipedia:Image#Consideration_of_image_download_size has some suggestions about image size. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Section - "Redefining Republicanism" - Should It Be Retained ?

I have not seen in my research any evidence that Lincoln had any intent, or felt any need, to "redefine" the country or "shift the emphasis from the Constitution back to the Declaration of Independence" in solving the problems he dealt with. It may be sound political theory but I question whether it belongs in the article here. I get the impression it goes too far in putting words in his mouth. Please comment.Carmarg4 (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right. The problem is that it's hard to check what the books referenced really say. I have a feeling that some of them are just reprints of Lincoln's speeches, and the joining sentences we have in the article are just some wikipedian's ideas. Some of it can be check on google books. For instance the last couple sentences of the section. Not sure if we're summarizing correctly (it's late here).[5] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Also, I think this article is about 1500 words longer than what we consider to be a good long article size. Maybe that stuff could be moved to something at Template:Abraham Lincoln, or to it's own page. - 06:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
the Republicanism theme has been one of the main concerns of historians and biographers in the last 25 years, and we need to keep it. The theme is central in explaining such issues as Why oppose slavery in the first place? What was the Gettysburg Address all about? why did Lincoln not let the South go peacefully? what did citizenship mean for ex-slaves? As for being too long--hardly, when he is one of the 2 or 3 most influential and most studied figures in American history. (FDR is important too, but there is much less on FDR's ideas because FDR kept quiet about them while Lincoln was one of the most articulate of all political leaders)Rjensen (talk) 06:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Rjensen knows this stuff better than I do. Do we think the ref [6] supports the whole beginning of the section? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The Jaffa quote is pretty clear. What happened was that the pro-slavery forces were talking endlessly about protecting slavery, and citing the Constitution. Lincoln believed the country was founded on the principles of freedom and liberty, not slavery-- that was his powerful argument in the Cooper Union address. Lincoln said the Declaration is what founded the county, and it did so on the principle that "all men are created equal". The reason we memorize the Gettysburg address is to repeat to ourselves this argument which was the basic reason Lincoln and the north fought a civil war. -- it certainly would have been easier to let the South secede, but that would violate the Declaration. Rjensen (talk) 07:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
As a Pol. Sci. major, I have alot of respect for the value of what Jaffa and others offer. My discomfort in including those conclusions here is that, having just finished Donald's biography, for instance, I am left with the impression that Lincoln himself articulated one central theme over all others. to preserve the union, period. I am quite new at this but I wonder if there isn't another article where the political theory belongs.Carmarg4 (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Every serious Lincoln study of recent decades emphasizes this theme; it is far too important to omit. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The central theme of the Cooper Union speech of 1860 is the immorality of slavery and how it has to be restricted. The central theme of the Gettysburg address is that the civil war has created a new nation, one dedicated to both liberty ("a new birth of freedom") and to democracy ("government of the people by the people for the people"). He goes far beyond preservation of the union, which could have been done by accepting slavery.Rjensen (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed from article

Let's get this article up to WP:FA status. It's getting close. I'm going to move some of the unreferenced info into this section. Everyone, feel free to add it back, but it would be great if you could find a reference for it when you do. FA is going to require the whole thing be refed to reliable sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Among contemporary admirers, Lincoln is usually seen as personifying classical values of honesty and integrity, as well as respect for individual and minority rights, and human freedom in general. Many American organizations of all purposes and agendas continue to cite his name and image, with interests ranging from the gay rights-supporting Log Cabin Republicans to the insurance corporation Lincoln National Corporation. The Lincoln automobile brand is also named after him.
The state nickname for Illinois is Land of Lincoln; the slogan has appeared continuously on nearly all Illinois license plates issued since 1954.[2] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
While immediately following his death much of the nation mourned him as the savior of the United States, Copperheads celebrated the death of a man they considered a tyrant. The Lincoln Tomb in Oak Ridge Cemetery in Springfield, Illinois, is 177 feet (54 metres) tall and, by 1874, was surmounted with several bronze statues of Lincoln. To prevent repeated attempts to steal Lincoln's body and hold it for ransom, Robert Todd Lincoln had it exhumed and reinterred in concrete several feet thick in 1901. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

FA push

Do we really need the last two paras of Abraham_Lincoln#Legacy_and_memorials section? While they are both referenced, I'm not sure that a giant Lincoln head roadside attraction is really that important. I'm also not sure that Lincoln's watch requires a para in his bio. Opinions? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ Guelzo, Allen C. (2008). Lincoln and Douglas: The Debates That Defined America. Pages 273-277
  2. ^ "1950–1959 plate history" (PDF). Ilinois DMV. Retrieved 2009-09-23.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abraham_Lincoln/Archive_20&oldid=1148682552"