Jump to content

Talk:Abraham Lincoln/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

Bloody Lincoln Flag?

The Sean Strub mentions fred a "Bloody Lincoln Flag" which apparently was used to cradle Lincoln's head following the shooting. As I am hesitant to edit a high profile article such as Lincoln's myself, I just wanted to bring it to the attention of people who might know more about the subject. --85.5.190.67 11:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

See Lincoln Assassination Flags. For the wider cultural context, see Relic. Gwen Gale 20:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln's position on slavery

In 1800's, Abraham Lincoln supported the perpetuation of slavery in the southern states and it is thoroughly documented that he supported strict segregation, a mass colonization project which would have removed masses of black people from the United States and strongly supported the Fugitive Slave Act, which extended the "rights" of slave owners into the northern states. During the civil war he repeatedly asserted he had not gone to war to free southern slaves. Although from time to time editors have individually tried to include mentions of these policies into the article, they've failed to find consensus but rather have been accused (not singling out any individual editors here at all), of vandalism, fringe theories, disruption, ignorance or worse (such as supporting the vile, amoral practice of chattavery).

The sources are clear, Lincoln was willing to perpetuate slavery in the south permamently in order to avoid secession and advocated doing so. Slavery was on the way out either way. Most countries ended slavery peacefully during the 18th century, most southern leaders understood slavery was going to end sooner or later anyway for economic, cultural and political reasons and most southerners didn't even own slaves.

The southern states seceded over states' rights issues relating to very lopsided tariffs and dwindling southern representation in the US congress due to the entry of new states. If this is counter-intuitive for some editors, for starters, the US of 1860 was politically and culturally very different from the US of 2007. The war of independence had ended only 79 years earlier (compare with 1928 from today's perspective) and its immediate aftermath was in the living memory of many older Americans.

This is no fringe theory, it was widely taught to generations of schoolchildren in certain US states and in western Europe for generations and is inescapable as the only narrative which can be drawn from the primary sources. As written, the article supports subsequent, widely published and government-sanctioned interpretations that Lincoln "actually" (in the words of one editor) fought the war to end slavery.

This is a high profile article about a topic which runs to the core of American political identity and as such, it can be an emotional one. I'm more than ok with consensus having sway on this public wiki but please bear in mind, consensus is not truth and moreover, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability. Lincoln's countless statements about his political position on slavery in the southern states are easily verifiable and in my humble opinion belong in this article. However, I'm but one editor and this won't happen without consensus. Hopefully, editors who suggest this in the future will at least be treated according to WP:CIVIL. Meanwhile, cheers to all! Gwen Gale 22:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Your take on the facts aside, your attempt to insert it into the introduction has been refuted repeatedly, based on both consensus, and what the major biographers have to say about the issue. You may respond to this or not. I'm not replying again. My opinions on the matter (Lincoln was not an abolitionist, but also opposed the expansion of slavery) are clearly elucidated above. K. Scott Bailey 23:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Gwen, this is a large topic. In fact, it has its own page. I think that would be the place to start this thread. This page should simply summarize what is described there. Ronnotel 01:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Gwen Gale 02:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, so do I--and heartily so! K. Scott Bailey 03:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop with the accusations

Quit using your edit summaries to accuse me of "edit warring." I (and other editors as well) have identified the current state of the "external links" section as in need of pruning. I am asking you to stop reinserting links removed by consensus of editors per WP:EL. And stop accusing me of "edit warring" when you are reverting good faith attempts to comply with WP:EL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kscottbailey (talk • contribs) 01:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what "facts are clear" that AL was willing to "perpetuate slavery permanently?" He repeatedly said that slavery was a moral evil but he would recognize it as a legal right in the slave states and he wanted to put it back on the same basis the founding fathers placed it: On the path to gradual extinction. He did believe that saving the Union was more important than abolishing slavery; he regarded destroying the Union as an even greater evil than slavery. In his debates with Stephen Douglas he repeatedly attacked Douglas for being part of a conspiracy to perpetuate slavery. If Lincoln himself ever said he wanted slavery to be perpetual I certainly would like to known about it. 18:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)John Rydberg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.173.224.32 (talk)

We should probably examine these one at a time. This would be a good place to do it. Rklawton 01:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend visiting the first two links (to the "Open Directory" depository of relevant links). Those two pretty much cover all of the bases, as far as I can tell, leaving little need for many (if not most) of the other links to be included. Especially given the policies/guidelines I cited in my last edit removing them. What's your take on this? K. Scott Bailey 01:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather address this on a link by link basis. Rklawton 01:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Even if many of these links are redundant to those provided in the Open Directory list of Lincoln links? Wouldn't that make some difference in the evaluation process? I was just trying to cut down on some of the redundancy in the evaluation process. K. Scott Bailey 01:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm more than ok looking at them link by link. Gwen Gale 01:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at the Open Directory links? They're VERY comprehensive. K. Scott Bailey 01:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
DMOZ is very helpful but it also adds another layer through which readers must browse and click. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
After apparently agreeing to discuss links "link by link", Gwen has decided to add back the Lew Rockwell link without any discussion. The non-scholarly site projects a fringe neo-confederate perspective that may appeal to folks who accuse Lincoln of genocide, but has no place in serious Lincoln scholarship. Most of the contributors have no record of print publications and no history degrees. Those few that do have publications are either not historians or have not published serious works about Lincoln. Anyone wishing to establish a consensus on including this link should be prepared to explain the contributions these folks make to Livoln scholarship. Tom (North Shoreman) 00:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I restored several links but none of the personal pages. K. Scott Bailey has disappeared, userpage and all and nobody else was participating. The Lew Rockwell link is both scholarly and directly concerned with a discussion of civil war politics. Gwen Gale 00:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
By what standards do you possibly qualify this link as scholarly? Since this is an historical subject, I would think belonging to the professional historical establishment would be a prime qualification and the vast majority of these people do not qualify. These folks are certainly not recognized by historians as even worth refuting. Other than an occasional shot taken at DiLorenzo, the others are simply not part of the historical debate. Scholarly certainly suggests some attempt at balance, yet the very title of the webpage puts the lie to any attempt to claim historical balance.
Of course, as the person that initiated the reverts, you have the advantage over me in an edit war because of the 3R rule. If you're seriously interested in consensus, explain what is scholarly about the majority of the pieces on the website. What are these writers qualifications? What is their scholarly experience (i.e. degrees, publications, memberships in professional societies). Better yet, show that the articles themselves follow scholarly practices -- i.e. footnotes, bibliographies.
PS Kscottbaliey seems to have morphed into Bobthetomato and is still active. One other editor suggested adding back some links but obviously not the one you are championing. You seem to be outnumbered. It is disingenuous of you to claim a lack of debate over a link NOBODY HAD MENTIONED as justification for adding it back without any debate. Tom (North Shoreman) 01:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Please think long and hard before suggesting I'm not editing in good faith. I disagree with your interpretation of this thread, it was abandoned after K. Scott Bailey's user page was dumped into the memory hole. Gwen Gale 01:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:3rr developed over time for many helpful reasons. The link is to a set of pages, not the global website. The authors' academic qualifications are easily browsable. As for footnotes, we both know if you agreed with the content in that link you wouldn't be bringing any of this up. The link is scholarly and aside from that, conforms with WP:EL. Gwen Gale 01:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I support the removal of the Ron Paul site (most of the other contributors on the site, perhaps even including H.L. Mencken, recommend the DiLorenzo book). I have deleted it myself, and I must remind Gwen Gale that he or she is approaching 3RR territory too. "Scholarly" typically refers to work associated with an academic institution or recognized scholarly foundation; this site currently has a Ron Paul picture on its front page, and lists a very particular political agenda, one specifically associated with a former employee of a current U.S. Presidential candidate, a candidate who might do anything to get elected, including promoting his political agenda on this pedia through proxies. BusterD 01:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, BusterD. Although we don't seem to agree on this one, I do wish you all the best! Gwen Gale 01:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The Lew Rockwell link is to a blog - a personal website of someone who is not noted for his Lincoln scholarship. His work on this website is not peer-reviewed, and it is not up to the high standards required for an article whose editors should be seeking to regain its FA status. Rklawton 01:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/lincoln-arch.html is neither a blog nor a personal website. Although you are also mistaken about the scholarship and peer review of the site (no surprise since you seem to think it's a blog or a personal website), there is nothing in WP:EL about scholarship and peer review being required in external links, so your assertions don't apply to Wikipedia policy. Moreover, I think your remark about FA status is unsupported. While this link is clearly unpopular with editors watching this page, I have yet to see an accurate or relevent reason offered for its exclusion from the EL section of the article. Consensus will have sway, but please don't think it has anything else to do with WP policy. Cheers to everyone and thanks for the feedback. Gwen Gale 01:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
For starters, the site is called Lew Rockwell.com. Lew Rockwell, get it? It's his website, and his biography (in Wikipedia) lists this website as his blog. You've edited his article, you should know. And read up on the standards for FA - blogs don't cut it. We dont' give equal "air time" to cranks, either - except for articles specifically about the cranks and their crackpot theories. Rklawton 03:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • You know better than to cite Wikipedia articles as a source (it's against WP policy and has no sway).
  • I edit lots of articles about several, unrelated topics. Please try to refrain from remarks which could mislead casual readers into inferring I may be a WP:SPA.
  • Lewrockwell.com is not a personal website, it is a high traffic economics and libertarian website with its own columnists and many features and archives.
  • Lewrockwell.com is not a blog. There is a separate lewrockwell "blog" (but it's not really an open blog).
  • Lew Rockwell is not a crank, he's a degreed scholar, a public figure and president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
  • Austrian economics is not a crackpot theory.
  • Wikipedia does not give "air time." Please review WP:NPOV.
  • You are not Wikipedia, please feel free to express your own opinions as to WP policy but do not speak for this public wiki (Jimbo does it now and then but you're not Jimbo and neither am I).
  • Please try to avoid namecalling. I think it strays from WP:CIVIL. Thanks and cheers to all. Gwen Gale 05:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Please refute the assertion that on its front page, the site presents a photo of and lists the specific political agenda of a current presidential candidate, Ron Paul. Please refute the assertion that Lew Rockwell is by his own admission a former employee of Representative Paul. Please refute the assertion that the Rockwell site is not scholarly. It should then be much easier to refute the assertion that this linking has the effect of promoting Ron Paul by linking specific non-scholarly commentary with a former president for the purposes of (arguably) beneficial comparison. BusterD 12:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This would be the appropriate section to continue the discussion over the merits of the Lewrockwell.com website. For starters, supporters of this website should respond to BusterD's points above. Rklawton (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

DiLorrenzo, Clyde Wilson, and COUNTLESS others are excluded only because they refuse to omit truths or to make excuses for them. Wherever they are "refuted" the "refutation" is laughable at best and countered without any doubt by the author receiving the refutation. Even state loving apologists for slaughter like Neely display Lincolns horrors. And he won a politzers prize for it! But I suppose even though hes excusing King Lincolns wrath... because he doesnt support a saintly view of Lincoln for those of you in the Lincoln cult, (praise be to the savior of the union!) that he is not "scholarly" enough for you. --ThorsMitersaw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.78.145.1 (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Second Paragraph

It says this: "Under his leadership, the Union took control of the border slave states at the start of the war.". What is "the Union"?? 76.65.67.143 (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

"The Union" is what the United States of America was called during the Civil War. But somehow I think you knew that already, and you have some big point that you're now going to try to make. K. Scott Bailey (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
K. Scott Bailey, please review WP:CIVIL. Meanwhile, another editor has since quietly disambiguated this term to Union (American Civil War). Gwen Gale (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I did not violate policy in my response. If you feel I did, report me. Otherwise, leave me alone. K. Scott Bailey (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Did you review WP:CIVIL? Gwen Gale (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I know policy as well as you do. Report me, or leave me alone. K. Scott Bailey (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Anyway your reply to the anon above was both mistaken and uncivil. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
"The Union" was, in fact, shorthand for the United States of America. Now report me for incivility or leave me alone. [From the diambig-ed page YOU linked above: "...the Union was a name used to refer to the United States."] K. Scott Bailey (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
(I'll now accept your apologies for both your spurious assertion of policy violations littered throughout this page, as well as your false assertment that I was "mistaken" in my response. Thanks.)K. Scott Bailey (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Right-o. I see you finally looked at your own wikilink as well. Can I assume that this non-response means you won't be apologizing for your false accusations? K. Scott Bailey (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
What wikilink? Gwen Gale (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The one you linked in both your first post to this thread (where you condescendingly (and incorrectly) told me I needed to review wikipolicy) and the accompanying edit summary. You know, the one where you linked an article that proved that the definition I provided for the IP was not, in fact, "mistaken" as you described it. K. Scott Bailey (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Special topics Bibliography---The Spiritual life of A.L.--subsequently cancelled---

This aspect (spiritualism) of A.L. was probably neglected by many as considered unfit for such a prominent man and president; The article mentions his position concerning religion,but I may suppose that, so far, his spiritualist interests was not acceptable for religious reserchers for one reason, and for laicist ones for another, but if there was it should not be ignored; furthermore, at that time it was much more common and relevant, in U.S. and elsewhere, to search contact with spirits; Shakers and many more could be an example; so I suggest to reconsider the cancellation of the mentioning of the Book by Dr. Susan B. Martinez in the Bibliography, and also I think an addition on this topic should be done regarding A.L. religious views; Sincerely,Vanais (talk) 13:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


Need section of "Criticism of Lincoln"

Lincoln has faced criticism from many people, notably libertanians. Article only mentions supporting side's views. See "King Lincoln" archive User:Ibrahim92 17:21, 5 December 2007

As discussed above, the material at Lew Rockwell has no value as legitimate, historical analysis. To the extent that actual historians have noted conflicting interpretations of Lincoln's actions, this material should be part of the article as long as it is within the scope of this article and is not more appropriate for the numerous spin-off articles on Lincoln. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The material at Lewrockwell.com is scholarly and fully supported by the primary sources. I support the inclusion of a "Criticism of Lincoln" section in this article. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you show how your claims of genocide are supported by the primary sources? Or you could go back to the section of this page that I added to earlier today and show how DiLorenzo's claim that thousands of citizens were executed by the Union is supported by primary sources? Or you could go to scholarly reviews from historical journals and demonstrate that DiLorenzo et al are taken seriously by actual historians? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you seriously trying to imply Lincoln is beyond criticism? So perfect that a "Criticism of Lincoln" section would be unsupportable under Wikipedia policy and thus empty?
You know, I don't accept your characterizations and I have no wish to go about in circles with you. I think Wikipedia policy clearly supports the inclusion of a "Criticism of Lincoln" section in the article. If you don't agree with some critical interpretations of Lincoln, I understand, but Wikipedia policy wholly supports their inclusion in the article. Calling these critical interpretations "unscholarly" would have no weight, since WP policy specifies only verifiability of reliable sources. If you argue the sources are unreliable but other editors argue they are reliable, then it will come down to consensus, which is what this is about. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please respond to BusterD's challenge to using the Lewrockwell.com website above[1]. Without responding to these points, you have no valid basis for your continued support of this website. By the way, I think a Criticism of Lincoln section is a great idea. However, it should only include scholarly critiques for reasons I would think obvious. Rklawton (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

LewRocwell.com is a sholarly website which features articles by people such as Lew Rockwell, David Henderson, Thomas Woods, and Pual Craig Roberts. These are all accomplished men, many which have PhDs. Just because they are not mainstream does not make their idea invalid.Ibrahim92 (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
And the website's political agenda? Should we ignore that? Rklawton (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean?Ibrahim92 (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that criticism of Lincoln should have its own section in this article. We can all agree that he violated First Amendment rights by arresting Southern sympathizers and shutting down newspapers in non-rebellious states (Illinois and Oregon come to mind). His suspension of Habeas Corpus, implementation of martial law, confiscation of private property, and acting without congressional approval can all be more or less justified as necessary in time of war, but the controversial nature of these actions should still be mentioned. Likewise, Lincoln's views on black inferiority and colonization (while not unusual for the time period) would be well placed in such an article. --CorMcFord (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Before a criticism section is warranted, the actual FACTS about the incidents you cite need to be added to either this article or one of the spinoff articles. Even then, the criticism could probably be incorporated into the articles itself. The problem is using reliable sources and not the type of non-scholarly, politically motivated sources suggested above. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The Great Emancipator

This article makes no mention of Lincoln's epithet, which I think is quite germane, "The Great Emancipator." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.22.77 (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Rklawton (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln DISAPPROVED of Mixed Marriages

Wow! Look how racist Abraham Lincoln actually was! From his campaign: pg 498 Who locked this page from edits?! I found an interesting speech that reflects what Abraham said to republican party-men reflecting his views on the Dred Scott decision, and more specifically the mixing of the "races."

I would like to be able to add to the section about his philosophical beliefs. In short,Abraham Lincoln announced on July 10th 1843 that he had no desire to ever marry a Negro woman, and he believed the races should not be mixed since the offspring would be inferior. Talk about racism Here's the cite:

(Bauster 498) "I protest, now and forever, against that counter-feit logic which presumes that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave, I do necessarily want her for a wife [Laughter and cheers.] My understanding is that I need not have her for either, but as God made us separate, we can leave one another alone and do one another much good thereby. There are white men enough to marry all the white women, and enough black men to marry all the black women, and in God's name let them so be married. The Judge regales us with the terrible enormities that take place by the mixture of the races; that the inferior race bears the superior down. Why, Judge, if we do not let them get together in the Territories they won't mix there. [Immense applause.] A voice--"Three cheers for Lincoln."

(The volume I drew this from is a collection of letters and speeches by Abraham Lincoln. Great though he may have been for emancipating the slaves, he had a skewed view on "mixed"-marriage.)

Bauster, Roy P. . The Collected works of Abraham Lincoln II . 2nd. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1953

--Wasspam (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Your point? There is no controversy over the fact that by today's standards Lincoln and pretty much every political leader in the 1850s (you have your dates wrong) did not meet today's standards regarding racial attitudes. Why don't you show exactly where anything in the article says something contrary. The relevant and historically significant fact is that Lincoln, while not an abolitionist, was morally opposed to slavery and politically opposed to the expansion of slavery beyond where it currently existed. Southerners in 1860 recognized that the election of Lincoln was a threat to the preservation and expansion of slavery -- hence the Civil War. Slavery, not 21st Century views of civil rights, was the significant issue in Lincoln's life and national politics in the 1850s and 1860s. Neo-confederates, in an attempt to throw a smoke screen over the inconvenient (to them) truth that the Confederacy existed ONLY because of the perceived need to defend slavery, try to confuse the issue by attempting to blur the actual issues that were important in the 19th Century. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 04:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Lincoln politically advocated the permanent continuation of slavery in the southern states. The secession of southern states was stirred not by slavery but by lopsided tariffs, states rights and dwindling influence in congress. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Which is why pretty much every state's declaration of secession said explicitly that they were seceding due to the North's impinging upon their right to hold slaves. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because you don't think Abe's views on are significant, doesn't mean they are not worth mention in this article. And no, my dates are NOT wrong--that quote is from July 10th 1858 according to my citation. And if there is 'no controversy over the fact that by today's standards Lincoln and pretty much every political leader in the 1850s...did not meet today's standards regarding racial attitudes,' then why is there no mention of those said attitudes? If you visit the Thomas Jefferson page, you will find reference to his desire to send the Africans "back to Africa;" no such honest critism is leveled against Abe here! Are they not both significant enough to history to merit analysis of the personal philosophies that guided their actions?

Furthermore, you essentially write that slavery should be the focus of this article, and by extension, Abraham's views on mixed-marriage (and pro-segregation for that matter) should be left out. Instead we have an article discussing only Abraham's anti-slavery stance--which everyone already knows--and the reader is unable to learn anything new, or unusual, about Abraham from verifiable sources.

Lets return to the change I'd like to see made to this article. We already have a section on his philosophies, which would be a prime place to put this information. I for one am in favor of adding mention of his feelings somewhere on this article to the more controversial side of Lincoln, which is being left out by omission. I cannot find anything against Lincoln that doesn't advocate the same thinking that goes against the rozy thinking of, "Honest Abe," and "George Washington couldn't tell a lie." It is true that Abraham suspended civil liberties in some states to prevent them from suceeding along with the rest of the confederate states. What I have written is also true. Scholars know about what is being omitted from the main page--which has been LOCKED to prevent further change--whether or not the current editors of this article care to acknowledge this. --Wasspam (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The page isn't locked, it's only semi-protected. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Tom; good luck finding any popular politician from that era who publicly approved of mixed marriages. OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Yep, Lincoln had no problem with segregation, or with mass expulsion of blacks back to Africa, or with returning escaped slaves to the south. He also supported the continuation of slavery in the south. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Wasspam -- The article already contains the following paragraph:
During the debates of 1858, the issue of race was often discussed. During a time period when few believed in racial egalitarianism, Stephen Douglas informed the crowds, "If you desire Negro citizenship… if you desire them to vote on an equality with yourselves… then support Mr. Lincoln and the Black Republican party, who are in favor of the citizenship of the negro."[25] Lincoln countered that he was "not in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races."[26] His opposition to slavery was opposition to the Slave Power, though this would change during the course of the Civil War.[27]
If anything, the main article should include information on where Lincoln did believe in equality for African Americans. Plus, there is a separate article on the Lincoln-Douglas Debates. If you want to belabor the point, perhaps you should read the separate article and see if you have anything of value to contribute there. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Gwen -- You need to read something other than Lew Rockwell. Segregation was never a hot political issue as far as I know -- perhaps you can explain its historical significance as it relates to Lincoln's life. You are wrong about Lincoln favoring the "mass expulsion" of blacks -- his advocacy of colonization, which is covered in the separate article on AL and Slavery, never required compulsion but always assumed that blacks would be colonized only with their consent. As far as continuation of slavery in the South, you've had that explained to you before. Lincoln believed that the Federal government could not constitutionally abolish slavery in the states where it existed, but did believe that isolating it where it existed would lead to its ultimate demise. This latter belief was fully shared by Southerners -- hence the Civil War. Since you deny the significance of slavery in the war, perhaps you can explain why all the efforts to reach a last minute compromise (i.e. Crittenden in the Senate, Corwin in the House, and the Washington Conference) all focused on slavery while totally ignoring the tariff issue. Or maybe you can explain why the Democratic Party in 1860 split over slavery in the territories while having identical positions on the tariffs? Or perhaps you could just point to the appropriate Lew Rockwell article that explains this obvious discrepancy? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Gwen, I would have to agree with Tom. Judging Lincoln's policy goals through a contemporary prism while ignoring the political context in which he existed serves little purpose. Lincoln took enormous political risks in his pursuit of Emancipation. Don't forget, there was open insurrection in New York over Lincoln's policies and he could easily have lost his grip on power had he pushed too hard. Citing narrow, cherry-picked quotes as a complete representation of his beliefs fails to acknowledge these risks. Ronnotel (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
WP policy supports the inclusion of criticism of AL in this article. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the straw-person argument, Gwen. While you're quite correct (and I think virtually all of us agree) the policy supports inclusion of well-cited subject criticism in every pagespace, the question of undue weight is at issue here. WP policy supports consensus as the most common and logical mechanism for addressing these page-by-page resolutions. I'll admit that pages are often watched and maintained by users who have strong (perhaps intrinsically positive) feelings about page subjects, and while that might on occasion inject inherent biases in articles, it is through the clash of ideas and honest disagreement that we can help move the pagespace forward into more nuanced and accurate territory. So for that reason, I applaud your efforts. Consensus as a mechanism doesn't seem to work for your cause in this case, and the fact that Ron Paul partisan Lew Rockwell might be trying to get attention during the last weeks of a Republican presidential primary season might be working against your assertion of inclusion at this exact moment, no matter our personal views. Let's say we come back and visit this discussion in, what, ninety days, and see how strongly everybody feels about inclusion then. BusterD (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Although I don't agree with your "straw-person argument" take on WP:WEIGHT, since as you imply all of this only comes down to consensus, otherwise that's what I've been thinking, BusterD. Meanwhile, I think restoring the King Lincoln Archive at LewRockwell.com to the external links section would be helpful to readers. It was there for (at least) months before being unilaterally deleted with no prior discussion. Cheers to all! Gwen Gale (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The "straw person" argument to which I referred was your assertion that WP policy supports the inclusion of criticism. As my post pointed out, everybody agrees with this, hence, not a particularly valuable contribution to the discussion. I assert your insertion doesn't merit inclusion because any mention of this radical and political site on this page during the primary season gives undue weight to a demonstrably fringe POV. BusterD (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
As I have removed ELs from this article, I feel I should respond briefly. No argument has to be made for deletion. Inclusion is what must be supported. From reading the above discussion regarding LR, it's clear you have not dones so. Rockwell is not a noted Lincoln scholar, and the articles I found on his "King Lincoln" page violate both WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Therefore, until an argument has been made for inclusion of a personal (and non-neutral) website like this one, they stay out. Mr Which??? 17:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as how the link does not point to material written by Rockwell, but to works by about three dozen authors and scholars, you clearly haven't looked at it with any care and your assertions fall kinda flat. As for WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE, this Wikipedia article is very much in violation of WP:NPOV and reasoned criticism of AL by over 36 published authors from diverse backgrounds hardly qualifies as WP:FRINGE. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I count four editors opposed to re-insertion and only one in favor. Rklawton (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
That's what I get too. While that's not an enduring sample, it does represent rough consensus, at least in this thread. BusterD (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia does tend to fall to its knees on these high profile articles but that's ok. Year by year this public wiki becomes all the more helpful. I think it's wonderful. All the best! Gwen Gale (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a funny thing: POV crap like Rockwell's "King Lincoln" archive gets deleted, and scholarly research gets included. WP is funny that way. All the best to you as well! Mr Which??? 17:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The links points to scholarly material. The only thing keeping this link out of the article is a consensus that the material is critical of Mr Lincoln and hence unacceptable. It's this article which is wholly PoV and in violation of WP:NPOV. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
You are now being disruptive with your incivil interpretation of our clearly stated objections. Please stop. Rklawton (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I have replied on your talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The links actually point to POV-pushing crap. However, I'm sure you actually do believe that the whole article (and every major contributor but you) are the actual POV-pushers. Assuming good faith of you allows me to believe nothing less. All the best to you and yours this fine holiday season! Mr Which??? 18:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
To you too, Mr Which! All my best wishes! Gwen Gale (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Glad we could come to an agreement about what POV-pushing crap the Rockwell link is, and in such an amicable way! Wishing nothing but the best for you and yours this holiday season! Mr Which??? 18:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Haha! No, we're not in agreement about that but I do wish you all the best! Gwen Gale (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Haha! It's too bad that you won't be reasonable, but I still wish you the best of everything the world has to offer as the new year approaches! Mr Which??? 19:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abraham_Lincoln/Archive_13&oldid=1224783147"