Talk:Abraham Lincoln

The Abraham Lincoln page as it was on 5 May 2004.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

House Term

The article states that "Lincoln himself was despondent, and he decided not to run for reelection." in reference to his speeches denouncing the Mexican-American War. I've read a few biographies of Lincoln (D.H. Donald, Sandburg, Oates, and Goodwin), and none of them state that this was his reason for not running again. They all, however, talk about how he and two other Whigs, John Hardin and Edward Baker, had agreed to rotate the safe seat between them, and that Lincoln subscibed to this plan and wanted to abide by it (while also taking great pains to convince Hardin to abide by the plan and not try to run again). There never seemed to be a plan for Lincoln to run again. Is there a source saying the poor reaction to his speech was his reason for not running again? Does anyone else remember the rotation plan? I figured I would get some opinions before changing it.Mattweng8:00pm 24 August 2006 EST

I just read that section of the Donald biography, and it looks like you're right. Stilgar135 19:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Railsplitter

"Poor boy makes good" -- is that really the theme they were pushing, as opposed to "poor boy just like most of you"? I'd be more inclined to refer instead to "humble origins" or something like that. What would the contemporary reaction to the rail-splitting iconography have been? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The GOP in 1860 gave heavy emphasis to Lincoln's poverty and rise to the top. It was Lincoln himslef who emphasized "poor-boy-makes-good" theme. Like the log cabin images in 1840, the rails seem to have been effective--they show up in many cartoons for example. Rjensen 15:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course I know about the log cabin and rail splitting iconography -- I was just wondering about the "poor boy makes good" language. Is "poor boy makes good" mid-19th century phrasing, or might we find something contemporary with the same flavor? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Biographer Thomas (1952) says: "when Abraham Lincoln was a candidate for President of the United States, and John Locke Scripps, a campaign biographer, asked him about his boyhood years, he replied: "Why, Scripps, it is a great piece of folly to attempt to make anything out of my early life. It can all be condensed into a single sentence and that sentence you will find in Gray's Elegy-- 'The short and simple annals of the poor.'" Thomas adds: "Republican organization was thorough. The party's techniques were skilled. Speakers and campaign literature made the most of Lincoln's boyhood poverty, his pioneer background, his native genius, his rise from obscurity to fame. His nicknames, "Honest Abe" and "the Rail-Splitter," were exploited to the full. " (p 216) Rjensen 15:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Good. Now, is "poor boy makes good" mid-19th century phrasing? All I'm asking about now is the particular language; certainly the meaning and intent of the phrase is correct, but it sounds Horatio Alger than Abraham Lincoln to me. (Of course, now that I said that, I notice that the very first entry in our Alger bio is Abraham Lincoln: the Backwoods Boy; or, How A Young Rail-Splitter Became President (1883).) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"poor boy makes good" = first citation of exact quote is about 1900. But the article does not claim the term is older. Rjensen 20:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

2nd After Jesus

It is a known fact (well, known by me and a couple of other triva nerds, anyway) that Abraham Lincoln is the second most written about person after Jesus Christ. Should it feel necessary, I think it should be mentioned somewhere in the article.--El Niño's Brother 13:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)El Niño's Brother

• "Well known facts" are useful if they can be documented. Find some numbers and include them! --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• More written about than Shakespeare, Lincoln's favorite author? Or more than Robbie Burns, also a favorite? One can almost hear the ghostly laughter coming from the tomb in Springfield.

Edeans 07:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Lincoln's Religion

It says that Lincoln was not affiliated with any religion. It doesn't make much sense to me that he would be an atheist because he quoted the Bible. Personally, I think Lincoln believed in God; but opinions are not what Wikipedia is about. Since Abraham Lincoln's religion is a subject of great controversy, I think it would be better if the article said something like more neutral like, "no affiliation known" instead of just completely denying that he had any faith whatsoever. JNeal 08:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Having no affiliation does not mean having no religion - it means not belonging to any religious group. His beliefs were clearly deistic, so yes, he did belive in some kind of deity. It is known that he had no affiliation with any religious group - though he sometimes attended services with his wife, he never joined any church. Deist would be the easiest to defend, but it is not really a religion - and putting it there will irritate people, especially Christians. Since it seems to have irritated you a bit, though, maybe it's time to irritate someone else --JimWae 08:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

deist does not seem right (compare Jefferson, who was a deist)...Deism had pretty well disappeared by this time, and unlike deists Lincoln had a profoundly religious sensibility--which he shared in for example 2nd inaugural. He did NOT think the world was a clock that God wound up 6000 years ago then ignored ever since. Rjensen 09:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

There are several theories that he was a diest. And not all diest think of the world as a clock that God wound up and has ignored ever since. That is an over simplification that people use to argue against it. Diesm is better described as a rational, logic based approach towards faith that rejects the ideal of divine revelation. To say that he couldn't be a diest because he has "religious sensibilities" is foolish. Dominic 17:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

One would think, perhaps, that one knowledgeable about deism might be able to spell it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Please remain civil and on topic. --ElKevbo 23:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Abraham Lincoln – Deist; no personal affiliation (KY/IN/IL)
   • Life before the presidency
     • For much of his life, Lincoln was undoubtedly Deist (see [1], [2]). In his younger days he openly challenged orthodox religions, but as he matured and became a candidate for public office he kept his Deist views more to himself, and would sometimes attend Presbyterian services with his wife Mary Todd Lincoln. He loved to read the Bible, and even quoted from it, but he almost never made reference to Jesus, and is not known to have ever indicated a belief in the divinity of Jesus.
     • Evidence against Lincoln's ever being Christian includes offerings from two of Lincoln's most intimate friends, Ward Hill Lamon and William H. Herndon. Both Herndon and Lamon published biographies of their former colleague after his assassination relating their personal recollections of him. Each denied Lincoln's adherence to Christianity and characterized his religious beliefs as deist or atheist.
   • Lincoln's religion at the time of his death is a matter about which there is more disagreement. A number of Christian pastors, writing months and even years after Lincoln's assassination, claimed to have witnessed a late-life conversion by Lincoln to protestant Christianity. Some pastors date a conversion following the death of his son Eddie in 1850, and some following the death of his son Willie in 1862, and some later than that. These accounts are hard to substantiate and historians consider most of them to be apocryphal.
     • One such account is an entry in the memory book The Lincoln Memorial Album—Immortelles (edited by Osborn H. Oldroyd, 1882, New York: G.W. Carleton & Co., p. 366) attributed to An Illinois clergyman (unnamed) which reads "When I left Springfield I asked the people to pray for me. I was not a Christian. When I buried my son, the severest trial of my life, I was not a Christian. But when I went to Gettysburg and saw the graves of thousands of our soldiers, I then and there consecrated myself to Christ. Yes, I do love Jesus." Other entries in the memory book are attributed by name. See a discussion of this story in They Never Said It, by Paul F. Boller & John George, (Oxford Univ. Press, 1989, p. 91).
     • Rev. Dr. Phineas D. Gurley, pastor of the New York Avenue Presbyterian church in Washington D.C., which Lincoln attended with his wife when he attended any church, never claimed a conversion. According to D. James Kennedy in his booklet, "What They Believed: The Faith of Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln", "Dr. Gurley said that Lincoln had wanted to make a public profession of his faith on Easter Sunday morning. But then came Ford's Theater." (p. 59, Published by Coral Ridge Ministries, 2003) Though this is possible, we have no way of verifying the truth of the report. The chief evidence against it is that Dr. Gurley, so far as we know, never mentioned it publicly. The determination to join, if accurate, would have been extremely newsworthy. It would have been reasonable for Dr. Gurley to have mentioned it at the funeral in the White House, in which he delivered the sermon which has been preserved[3]. The only evidence we have is an affidavit signed more than sixty years later by Mrs. Sidney I. Lauck, then a very old woman. In her affidavit signed under oath in Essex County, New Jersey, February 15, 1928, she said, "After Mr. Lincoln's death, Dr. Gurley told me that Mr. Lincoln had made all the necessary arrangements with him and the Session of the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church to be received into the membership of the said church, by confession of his faith in Christ, on the Easter Sunday following the Friday night when Mr. Lincoln was assassinated." Mrs. Lauck was, she said, about thirty years of age at the time of the assassination.
     • --JimWae 23:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Summary

Isn't the lead and the summary serving the same purpose? So in my opinion, the summary heading is redundant and should be eliminated, with some of the essential items moved up to the lead. The lead is rather short for such a long article anyway. Some of the information is even a repeat of the lead, or a repeat with a little more information, which is then fully explained in the article. Superfluous. Civil Engineer III 14:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Since no response, went ahead and did it. I think it's a little long though. Maybe some of that can come out completely, since a lead is supposed to be a summary of the article to follow...Civil Engineer III 15:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• six paragraphs & 774 words is tooooo longgggg - even for Lincoln--JimWae 17:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

cut to 390 words and 5 paragraphs Civil Engineer III 18:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Add Lincoln's "Lost Speech" to Abraham Lincoln page

I was just wanting to suggest that you add some information on Lincoln's "Lost Speech" which took place on May 29th, 1856 in Bloomington, IL. "It furnished the setting for one of the most dramatic episodes of Lincoln's life ... A speech by Lincoln was rarely an ordinary occurrence, but on this occasion he made one of the really great efforts of his life. So powerful was his eloquence that the reporters forgot to take notes of what he was saying. Several commenced, but in a few minutes they were entirely captured by the speaker's power, and their pencils were still." Since I am a resident of Bloomington/Normal, it would be greatly appreciated if this information were added. Thank You, dither1987