Talk:Abraham Lincoln

Template:FAOL

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)

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)

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 [1], 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

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) [2]].

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.[3] 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)