Talk:Abraham Lincoln

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Abraham Lincoln article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Workshop on Lincoln's slavery and abolition sentiments

Former featured article Abraham Lincoln is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article Milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good article Abraham Lincoln was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 5, 2004.
Wikipedia CD Selection Abraham Lincoln is either included in the Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL images. However, if you can improve the article, please do so!


1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Contents

[edit] Useful Facts About Lincoln

There used to be a trivia section in this article that had useful information like Lincoln's height, the fact that he was the first president with a beard and such. It's gone now because of this misguided moratorium on trivia sections. Can we get this useful information back please? I don't care if we don't call it "trivia," or whatever. -- 66.135.149.195 00:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lincoln's "Lost Speech"

Should Lincoln's "Lost Speech" be mentioned (May 29, 1856, in Bloomington, Illinois)? It "may have been the most influential oration delivered in America since the founding of the Republic," and it is considered a major event in strengthening the new Republican party and furthering Lincoln's political career. See: http://members.aol.com/RVSNorton1/Lincoln63.html which is linked in the WP articles on Oratory and Eloquence.

If the Lost Speech is mentioned (and perhaps even if not), Wilson Tucker's time-travel novel The Lincoln Hunters could be added under "Lincoln in art and popular culture". Its focus is the quest for the Lost Speech. 4granite 03:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So, um, why is the title "Abraham Lincoln Life?

Abraham Lincoln redirects here. Was his "real" life name "Life"? WTF? — Lenoxus 00:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I moved it back. Now to give a welsome and subtle talking-to to the person who moved it in the first place... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lenoxus (talk • contribs) 00:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC).



[edit] Lincoln's "Bankruptcy"

http://www.totalbankruptcy.com/celebrity_bankruptcy.htm

Could someone clarify something for me. As I understand it the story goes that Lincoln borrowed money to invest in a store in 1833. The store failed, I don't know if it was formally wound up or even if there was legislation to do that. Lincoln's personal debt became due and the law got involved, a sheriff seizing his possessions. Was this formal insolvency or was it a court judgement to seize assets from a delinquent debtor? I suppose in 1833 it could have been a criminal matter? The story that he took on his former partners debts voluntarily suggests to me it wasn't formal bankruptcy as does his legal and public career - in England it would have been difficult to practice law or take public office as a bankrupt. I'd like to get some clarification on a story which is clouded by his subsequent achivements. —The preceding Johnnybriggs 05:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC) unsigned comment was added by Johnnybriggs (talk • contribs) 05:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] sarah

Sarah was born in 1807, not 1805.

[edit] Civil liberties suspended

I think that this section needs to be expanded and cited. Also, the capture and holding of the 18,000 troops was already mentioned earlier. Wikifier 02:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The suspension of civil liberties was an issue that effected both the Union and the CSA and involved more leaders than just Lincoln. Habeas corpus was suspended in both the North and the South and both sides had political prisoners. Historian Mark Neely Jr has written two excellent books on the subject, "The Fate of Liberty: Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties" and "Southern Rights: Political Prisoners and the Myth of Confederate Constitutionalism".
As far as I can tell, there is no specific reference to these issues in the main Civil War article. It seems like the best resolution would be to create a new, comprehensive article titled something like "Civil Liberties in the American Civil War". I note that the Heidler's "Encyclopedia of the American Civil War" has two separate articles on this subject, "Civil Liberties, C.S.A." and "Civil Liberties, U.S.A".
Any thoughts? Specifically:
1. Should a separate article be created?
2. Should there be one article or two?Tom 23:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Shoreman has an excellent idea: let's have two articles on Civil Liberties in USA and Civil Liberties in CSa, using Neely. Rjensen 23:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] function of opening section = summarize his importance

Many readers read only the opening. It has to concisely summarize his important actions, before the war and during the war, covering military and civilian phases. Every sentence is covered in multiple books, so we have to condense here. Rjensen 11:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] attacks ... was held against him.

The sentence should read, "Lincoln's attacks on Polk and Taylor came back to haunt him during the Civil War and indeed *were* held against him when he applied for a major patronage job from the new Taylor administration." Easy mistake to make; probably came from the combining of two originally separate sentences. It's so minor I probably wouldn't point it out except that it's an example of the problems of locking a page. If the page were open to edits, minor mistakes like these could be ironed out by casual readers.

[edit] Protection and Unprotection

I think we should keep this page on Abe Lincoln PROTECTED —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.12.163.39 (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] External Link

Editors,

I am a presidential librarian at the Miller Center of Public Affairs (a research institution affiliated with the University of Virginia). We run a non-partisan, non-profit website on the American Presidency. We have a section on each president that includes an extensive essay on the president and shorter essays on the first lady and each cabinet member. Each essay is vetted by a prominent scholar of that particular president. We also provide quick facts, key events, and links to a growing collection of multimedia materials specific to the president. I believe that a external link to our Lincoln page would be a valuable addition to the Lincoln wiki entry. Please take a look at the following page and if you think it is appropriate, we would appreciate you adding it as an external link.

http://www.millercenter.virginia.edu/index.php/academic/americanpresident/lincoln

Should you choose to put the link on the page, we would prefer the following language:

Extensive essay on Abraham Lincoln and shorter essays on each member of his cabinet and First Lady from the Miller Center of Public Affairs

Best,

Michael Greco —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MillerCenter (talk • contribs) 16:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] ABE Lincoln

Llist and explian three World Events that influenced the U.S during his presidrncy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.115.220.77 (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Fake Lincoln Quotes

For 160 years, people have been citing quotes falsely or dubiously attributed to Lincoln.

For instance, did Lincoln refer to elements of the U.S. military as "demons from hell" in his first floor speech as a congressman?

One doubts it -- that speech was a carefully constructed legal argument. Would Lincoln have carelessly or deliberately wrecked his own construction? It seems unlikely.

Such words don't appear in the standard record of Lincoln's speech of January 12, 1848.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mal:@field(DOCID+@lit(d0007400))

The "demons from hell" words, and other dubious verbage, appeared a couple of months later, in a newspaper account by a supposed ear witness who claimed that the standard record omitted all the really bad stuff that Lincoln actually said.

This account was dismissed at the time as being the work of locofocoists (extremely partisan Democrats, presumably willing to lie about Whig politicians such as Lincoln).

See the book, "Abraham Lincoln: A Press Portrait, His Life and Times from the Original Newspaper Documents of the Union, the Confederacy, and Europe" -- edited by Herbert Mitgang (New York: Fordham University Press, 2000).

Since the "demons from hell" words are of disputed authenticity, the Wikipedia page on Lincoln should either drop those words, or else should indicate that they may or may not be Lincoln's actual words. Skeptic99 23:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


This article from the State of Illinois may interest folks who are wondering about the veracity of some quotes attributed to Lincoln.A mcmurray 23:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Demons from Hell quote is authentic says leading biographer

The leading Lincoln specialist on this period (Beveridge) believes Lincoln did say that in his speech but erased the term when he sent it to the printer. Beveridge says: "Obviously Lincoln had been unrestrained while delivering his speech; and, when he came to write out his remarks for the Congressional Globe, had left out the violent part which so incensed the newspaper correspondent." Beveridge goes on: "The version by the newspaper correspondent resembles the language of Giddings and Corwin. The reporter's account was from memory of what he heard Lincoln say, and not from the speech as it afterward appeared in the Globe. Speeches published in the Appendix of the Cong. Globe were always written out, either before or after delivery....Often speeches as delivered differed widely from the printed version in the Globe. (Beveridge, "Lincoln" vol 1 p 430) The Springfield Democratic newspaper (the Register) editorialized:

I think Lincoln will find that he had better remained quiet. He will . . . regret that he voted that' Illinois officers [naming them] 'fell while leading brave Illinoisans to ROBBERY AND DISHONOR . . . "IN AID OF A WAR OF RAPINE AND MURDER". . .; that he has thrown upon the escutcheon of Illinois the stain of having sent six thousand men to Mexico "to record their infamy and shame in the blood of poor, innocent, inoffending people, whose only crime was weakness". . .; that he has declared by his vote that the "God of Heaven has forgotten to defend the weak and innocent, and permitted the strong band of murderers and demons from hell to kill men, women, and children, and lay waste and pillage the land of the just." Rjensen 18:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beveridge

died in 1927. Other historians have since questioned some of his conclusions. His work was notable, but not the final word. Skeptic99 23:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Beveridge did a good job (he's the only major biographer who served in Congress), but more to the point: no one disagrees with him. Rjensen 18:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
How can you say that "no one disagrees" with Beveridge, when Lincoln himself disagrees with Beveridge? When the State Register's version of the speech is different from Lincoln's version of the speech, then neither version can fairly be claimed as undisputed. Skeptic99 Skeptic99 00:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The section "Antiwar activist" confusingly discusses Lincoln's speech of January 12, 1848, as if it were two different speeches. The first mention of the speech is in the first paragraph, and has a footnote linking to Lincoln's official version, as published in the "Globe". The second graf of the "Antiwar activist" section mentions "an intemperate speech" and should be made clearer to show that this is actually the same speech. The second graf contains a direct quote attributed to Lincoln but not footnoted. A footnote is required. In addition to a second footnote, the first and second grafs of the "Antiwar activist" section should be rewritten to make it clear that they are about two different versions of the same speech, not two different speeches, and the article should also make clear that the second version is the unofficial version published by a virulently anti-Lincoln newspaper, the "State Register", but endorsed by Beveridge, in whose judgment the "demons from hell" words were "obviously" authentic. Skeptic99 00:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The "Antiwar activist" section should at least acknowledge the possibility that maybe Lincoln didn't speak extemporaneously on January 12, 1848 -- but maybe stuck to his prepared text, which he then submitted to the Globe, and which might actually be the valid version of his speech. Skeptic99 00:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] dating of last picture of Lincoln

The picture of Lincoln in your article with the caption "last picture" is dated in your caption as April 10, 1865. According to "Lincoln's Greatest Speech: The Second Inaugural" by Ronald C. White, Jr. (Simon & Schuster, 2002) "[the photo] was taken by Alexander Gardner in Washington on Sunday, February 5, 1865 ..." White goes on to say, "For many years the photograph was misdated ..." (page 129, caption of picture). The author, Professor White, is listed on the inside back jacket of his book as the dean of American Religious History at San Francisco Theological Semincary. He offers evidence for his dating in his book. I offer his view as to the dating of this picture for Wikipedia's consideration. 70.108.0.36 15:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC) D.J.J.

Both dates are noted on the image's own page. We had an editor awhile back who was adament that the April date is correct, and she wore out everyone's patience on the matter. Rklawton 15:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marfan's?

[1] Just from looking at Abe's stature and body structure, it's apparent that he could very well have had Marfan's Syndrome, and historians are now beginning to suspect he did. Should the article reflect this? --Captain Wikify Argh! 20:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I also read this http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A3065140

In 1959, Marfan syndrome was diagnosed in a distant relative of Lincoln's (a third cousin four times removed). Sharing 1/4048th of Lincoln's genetic material, it is difficult to ascribe much significance to this fact. Although the world's greatest authority on Marfan syndrome thinks it's '50-50' that Lincoln had the condition, other geneticists think it unlikely

[edit] Assassination

In the section on the assassination, it is stated: "On stage, a character named Lord Dundreary (played by Harry Hawk) who has just been accused of ignorance in regards to the manners of good society, replies, ... " Hawk was playing the part of Asa Trenchard, not Lord Dundreary. Sfcjack 03:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Good eye. I made the correction. Edeans 16:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethiopian ancestry

Well, rather than continue a cycle of reversion, let's discuss the issue of Lincoln's ancestry. For starters, I see here no authoritative Lincoln scholars here that supports this claim. The sources provided for this claim do not come from reliable academic sources. Therefore, it is my believe that these claims do not belong in an encyclopedic article about Lincoln. The sources provided are more along the line of "conspiracy theory" cruft that non-scholarly folks put out from time to time in order to sell books. Rklawton 15:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I reiterate your point that the issue has not made it into any scholarly biography of Lincoln that I am aware of. Apparently there was an attack of this sort made on Lincoln during the 1864 election by an anonymous source (the same type of charges were made against Hamlin). However it seems well beyond the scope of this article to go into the minutiae of unfounded campaign claims.
The challenge for anyone wishing to include the article would be to describe exactly what research was done by Dr. Leroy Vaughan et al (the sources quoted in the article)to arrive at their conclusions. The place to do this, first, is here on the Talk Pages. Tom 17:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I am extremely suspicious of the claim of Ethiopian ancestry for Lincoln. While it is not that unusual for whites in the US to have some African ancestry, the chances of Ethiopian ancestry for Lincoln are so infinitely small as to not be worth any serious consideration without extraordinary proof. Ethiopia (also formerly called "Abyssinia") was an independent kingdom all during the period African slavery was legal in European nations and their colonies. It was also rather isolated during that time. The vast majority of Africans taken into slavery and transported to the Americas were West Africans. The comparatively few East Africans sent to the Americas came from the Portugese colony (later nation) of Mozambique, which is several hundred miles south of Ethiopia. I am assuming, of course, that the contributor pushing for this section is referring to Ethiopian ancestry occurring during the historic period. As I understand it, many anthropologists now believe that all modern humans are descended from a small interrelated group of humans that lived in what we now call Ethiopia about 250,000 years ago. In that sense, we are all part Ethiopian. Edeans 19:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
well you are right that we all maybe part ethiopians. Anyway the reality is we should try to come up with sources that directly disagree with Lincoln's Ethiopian background. I have studied a lot about Ethiopia but even i don't know enough about Lincoln's relation with Ethiopia as much as the biographer of Lincoln Mr.William Herndon who said Lincoln has Ethiopian ancestry. So it is hard for me disagree with the biographer of Lincoln until i find some extraordinary evidence doing so.

Secondly, about the above comment regarding slavery, i don't think Mr. Herndon or others implied Lincoln's ancestry being from that of slaves. I think he and others who study the tri-racial phenomena are connecting Lincoln's lineage to a wider range of ethnic mix, including Native American. Let us try to bring atleast equivalent sources to disagree with the biographer's claim before we remove that section again. Thank you. Jack248 19:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I support keeping this information out. Despite what Jack248 says, there no reputable scholarship supporting this claim. There is also no need to provide sources refuting this claim because the claim is so far out there that no reputable scholar has bothered to refute it. This info simply doesn't belong.--Alabamaboy 01:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Well ofcourse everyone else would support its deletion because this is taboo in the West so no one would like to see this here. Also i don't think concensus should overrule clear evidence. If we are going base this on concensus, of course it will be deleted because nobody in the WEST would like to see an American President who has an African lineage. Do what you want, i guess. But i think it is not right to delete this detail about Lincoln given by his own biographer, just because of our opinion and feelings.Jack248 01:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I am willing to wait for any evidence that directly states Lincoln long ancestry is NOT Ethiopian. I also suggest reading about Melungeon I really hope someone can give evidence to disprove Lincoln's biographer. Please, we don't need just guessworks, opinions, or conjecture in here. I will wait.Jack248 01:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
That's not how it works here. Wikipedia's standards aren't that we prove negatives as you suggest we do above. We don't get to say "XYZ" is "ABC" and it stays that way until you prove it isn't. Instead, we must source positives to reliable and verifiable sources. In the case of Lincoln, a crackpot with an M.D. and an M.B.A. has nothing to add to the work of dozens of Ph.D. historians. Without reliable and verifiable sources, any affirmative statement regarding Lincoln's ancestry is not appropriate. Rklawton 02:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • As an American "white" man with documented African ancestry, I have no problem with Lincoln being identified as part African, just as long as there credible evidence for such a claim. That simply does does not exist (for the historical period, anyway). I have recently read Herndon's Abraham Lincoln, which does not postulate any African ancestry for Lincoln. I also have the understanding that the Melungeon people have West African ancestry, not East African. Edeans 08:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Jack248, please avoid suggesting that we are not allowing this info because it's "taboo" or b/c we're racist. My family is more ethnically diverse than you can even image. In addition, I have no problem accepting info like this on Presidents and others where there are reliable references to support it (such as in the case of Thomas_jefferson#The_Sally_Hemings_controversy). In Lincoln's case, though, the evidence does not rise to the level of Wikipedia standards. I would also add that the consensus appears to be to not add this info.--Alabamaboy 14:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, so far i have not read any evidence suggesting the opposite of what Lincoln's own biographer said. It seems like most of the reasoning above appear like this JUST CAN'T BE REAL or along the lines of "no way, there is no chance of this" etc... Well,i hope we can keep our discussion based on evidence and also with fairness for non-Westerner viewpoints. Also the wild claim that Melungeons only have "west African ancesty" is false. Notice that Melugeons have sub-saharan ancestry as well as Middle Eastern. Similarly, the nation that has Semetic groups in Africa is Ethiopia, formerly known as Abyssinia (Which was an empire that stretched from Eastern sub-saharan Africa all the way to southern parts of what we now call the Middle East) Also i am afraid both Abraham Lincoln's biographer and the Melugeons resources affirm Lincoln's Ethiopian ancestry. Also about the third evidence...well insulting the educated man who wrote that book by calling him a "crackpot" is not a very nice thing to say at all. I don't know what more to say about this one. I guess i will wait for somebody else to bring some kind of evidence before i edit the page and put back the resourced info. Thank you and i would really appreciate getting professional reply here. I realize it is a taboo subject but we have to address it in a civilized manner. Thanks. .--Jack248 1:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the overwhelming consensus here is to not add the info. Unless you can present evidence which changes the views of editors here, do not add this info back in. Best, --Alabamaboy 17:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I will reiterate what another editor has already said -- Herndon DOES NOT in his biography of Lincoln claim that Lincoln's parents had Ethiopian (or any African) ancestry. Tom 17:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] First President With Facial Hair

Lincoln was the first president with facial hair, and was the first in a 50 year long streak of Presidents (McKinley and Johnson being the only exceptions)with facial hair, ending with the close of William H. Taft's term. Since then, there has been no presidents with facial hair. Does this bear mentioning in the article? PS. Do Van Buren's fantastic sideburns constitute facial hair? What about John Quincy Adams' slightly less pronounced ones?74.67.228.2 23:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This is irrelevant both Hayes and Garfield sported long beards, both after Lincoln and in the 19th century. McKinley and Johnson? They both came after Lincoln.A mcmurray 23:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
You've unfortunately misunderstood. I apologize for any lack of clarity. Lincoln was the first president to sport facial hair unless you count the sideburns of Van Buren and Q. Adams. After Lincoln's presidency, every president, until Woodrow Wilson, had facial hair, except for McKinley and Johnson. 74.67.228.2 23:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

They all had facial hair. It's just that some of them chose to shave it off every day or so. Rklawton 23:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, 74.67.228.2 [did I number your name right ?]. I think your observation, apart from the arguably included Van Buren and Q. Adams, that Honest Abe was the first American president to shun his Norelco beard burner is worthy of being included in the main article, possibly under a subheading of " Lincoln Trivia. " A category, I am sure, the curious president would have, himself, enjoyed. --Curious2george 00:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Ha at Lawton. I still am not sure it is relevant to the article though interesting trivia, maybe in the article beards?A mcmurray 23:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a bit there already, but I would consider it culturally significant enough to merit a place on either Lincoln's or the US Presidents page. The president's style, fashions, and mannerisms can in many ways be considered a representation of more widely pervading attitudes of the time, and thus are important.74.67.228.2 00:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you do don't add a trivia section, I guarantee it will get deleted. See WP:TRIVIA

A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 00:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Huh? Just pointing it out. Add it in. I don't care.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 06:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
This is WP:OR. With all due respect, the topic should be closed until someone comes up with a credible citation. Xiner (talk, email) 14:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lincoln's First Law Partner?

I am concerned in the article where it says Lincoln practiced law in 1837 with Stephen T. Logan I cannot find any evidence to back this up but have found multiple references to John T Stuart being his first law partner including Lincoln in his own autobiography.I have also found one reference to a William Herndon as a possible option. Can Anyone confirm who it was Lincoln practiced law with?TAA 07:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  • You are correct; numerous sources (including the biography by Lincoln's third and final partner, William Herndon) confirm that John T. Stuart was Lincoln's original law partner. Logan was his second partner. I made the correction. Thank you for your post. Edeans 00:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Him being gay

Where is that in the article? Falconleaf 03:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to ask that question as if it were an established fact that Lincoln was gay. That is not the case. There have been rumours and speculation, that's all. There's a reference to this debate at the end, linked to this sentence: "It was in 1837, that Lincoln met his most intimate friend, Joshua Fry Speed.[10]". JackofOz 03:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The mention of Joshua Fry Speed seems to have disappeared. I see that there is a wikipedia article about this, Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln. I wonder why it is not linked from this article. --Timtak 01:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe because that is the most unencyclopediatic piece of crap every written. I love the part on the talk page where an editor says that in a few years more and more material will be fleshed out on this topic. Yeah right, in 5 years their will be film footage of ol' Abe with his ass piston partners who he "shared a bed with" on youtube, right? Give me a freakin break. I thought I had seen it all in this project until I can across that piece of dog crap article. Unless you have explicit photos or a sworn statment from one of Abe's lovers, thats garbage, and has ZERO business here, imho. Again, it ain't about the truth in here but verifiability by reliable sources it seems.--Tom 02:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Lincoln was violently hated during the war and the most terrible things were said about him. But even then no one ever said he was gay. It's a 20th century invention. Rjensen 02:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
No! That can't be, could it? Anyways, I going to strike the above since I am not usually that pissed off but I saw this article yesterday and flipped out today. I am going to bed, enough! --Tom 02:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I've restored the link to Speed. There is no scholarly, detailed biography on Lincoln, whatsoever, that does not mention Speed. We are not here to censor just because a topic is touchy. Wjhonson 02:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
You say that like the lightbulb shouldn't have an article because it's a 20th century invention. There's plenty of published reputable sources on the topic of lincolns sexuality, the fact that it was not controvertial then is a matter of changing scholarly concerns, not validity. Lotusduck 22:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Length of the Intro

I removed the unnecessary heading "Lincoln Presidency in History", but I agree with the sentiment apparent in the person who inserted it. The intro needs to be pared down, and the information found in it synthesized into other sections.K. Scott Bailey 16:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I see your point. I had another go at it. Edeans 18:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of "Elected"

While it's common usage in current parlance to say a president was elected on "Election day" Lincoln wasn't elected president until the Electors of each state met and sent their results to Washington. When the results were tallied and read in front of a joint session of congress, he was elected. Rebsiot 07:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

I'll look it over in more detail tonight, but can someone either find a source for the fact tag or get rid of that part of the lead/reqrite that part?--Wizardman 17:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

McPherson in "Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution" makes the point that Lincoln was instrumental in shifting the focus of American Liberty from negative liberty (i.e. freedom from government intrusion) as embodied in the Bill of Rights to positive liberty -- the utilization of the government to expand, in McPherson's words, "notions of equity, justice, social welfare, equality of opportunity." (page 64). In Lincoln's words (from his July 4, 1861 speech to Congress), the war was "a struggle for maintaining in the world, that form, and substance of government, whose leading object is, to elevate the condition of men -- to lift artificial weights from all shoulders -- to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all."
Harry Jaffa in "A New Birth of Freedom" looks at the same speech from Lincoln and concludes that it is consistent with Lincoln's consistent position, in Jaffa's words, was that "the Declaration of Independence had formed the 'sheet anchor' of American republicanism." (page 399) Jaffa concludes that this is a specific rejection of the Southern conception of republicanism in general and Calhoun's philosophy in particular.
While I did not write the phrase in question, it seems like the above provides specific support for the claim that a significant change in the concept of the role of republican government had changed. I will add the footnotes as soon as I'm finished here. Tom (North Shoreman) 20:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It is not sufficient to find a source that seems to deal with this "redefining republican values" - it needs to be fleshed out in the article what this is supposed to mean. It is not appropriate to have it in the intro if there is no explanation AND it is not even in the main article--JimWae 04:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Good point by JimWae and so I tried to flesh out the republicanism theme with citations--brieflt in the lede and in more depth in the text. Rjensen 04:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

A very long article, but under-referenced. Work towards over 100 cites for such a well known figure. WikiNew 21:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hanging

The section on the hanging is not vandalism. Obviously Lincoln's body wasn't used as it is federaly protected. A figurine of Lincoln was used in the hanging. This section was added by me, but was deleted by someone else most likey because of Political Correctness. And I thought that Wikipedia was supposed to be unbiased. --Mark D. 04:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The number one reason is that you did a copy and paste, that is clear copyright violation. Number two, this is an event that took place just as something to do, and was posted on Keene Free Press, whatever that is. So really, it this has nothing to do with being unbiased. It is information that doesn't need to be added. If we were to add everything that involved someone doing something with Lincolns name, this article would be endless. This is an encyclopedia.--Kranar drogin 04:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This information is relevent, I only copied and pasted the bloody charges, which can't be changed. But, whatever, I am totaly over this crap, obviously Wikipedia has gone bad, to politicaly correct. Now I know why the educated and the educators don't view Wikipedia as an acceptable source.--Mark D. 07:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually was looking at this discussion page because I am upset by how biased and innaccurate the article is. Lincoln was not a strong opponent of slavery, nor a defender of Republicanism. There should be a large list of criticisms about Lincoln as he is very unpopular among a large contigent of the population. Fragility 16:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] lincoln sexuality in see also

I have reverted the removal of Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln from the see also section. The person who removed it said it was not relevant to this article. An article about Abraham Lincoln is relevant to the central article on Abraham Lincoln.Lotusduck 23:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The article in question is beyond a piece of dog crap and that is being nice. The help section also says " See also WP:NOT Please note that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so see also sections should only include links directly pertaining to the topic of an article and not large general pieces of information loosely connected (or not at all connected) to the subject." That garbage is WAY beyond "loosely connected". Don't you want this project to be taken HALF seriously? If so, you'll seriously consider removing that trash. Thanks, --Tom 12:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I concur per WP:NOT, specifically WP:SOAP. Djma12 (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Simply discussing the fact that some revisionist historians (I do not use "revisionist" here as a pejorative, but rather in its technical sense) believe Lincoln may have had homosexual inclinations in a separate article, linked in the "see also" page violates either WP:NOT or the more specific WP:SOAP. It's certainly not given any undue weight, being relegated to a link in the "see also" section. And the article is most certainly NOT "beyond a piece of dog crap" by any means, and calling it such is not "being nice." It clearly violates WP:CIV to speak so pejoratively about other editors hard work.K. Scott Bailey 21:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, you bring up a good point. What is our threshold of evidence concerning revisionist (again, not perjorative) histories on Lincoln? Such a well-known public figure has literally hundreds of various theories about him, very few of which are encyclopedic and worthy of note. Simply b/c one historian published a book on the topic does not necessarily make it worthwhile. What is required is several supporting independent sources. (Note: articles about the book do not count.)Djma12 (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I have seen speculation in more than one place regarding Lincoln's sexuality. However, I do not wish to take a hard position in this discussion, as it's not an area of expertise for me, and I currently have my hands full over at James Buchanan with a similar issue. Ironically, I'm perceived as on the other side of this same debate there, though that's not my position at all. As for what the standard should be, I would say that a "vocal minority" would do, as long as the speculation was well-sourced per WP:REDFLAG.K. Scott Bailey 22:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The article on lincolns sexuality conforms to every wikipedia standard, including Soap Box since it's all attributed to multiple reputable published sources including the NY Times. An article sourcing that many experts in the field writing about Lincolns life is connected to an article on lincoln, far more than the article also in see also "list of lincoln/kennedy coincidences" is.75.161.139.51 14:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Lotusduck

Because one disagrees with a certain premise doesn't mean a topic shouldn't be covered or included, your opinion of the article's quality isn't relevant, I don't think. Clearly it is connected, the article is titled "Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln". IvoShandor 17:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on our discussion relating to policy the link will be re-included. The support of some users is cool, but of course wikipedia is not a consensus and adherence to policy trumps trying to get everyone to agree.Lotusduck 02:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I still think you need to demonstrate WP:REDFLAG concerning this. What are your sources and why are they extraordinary? Djma12 (talk) 02:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What on Red Flag applies to this article? The claim is well known, I've never heard a lincoln biographer appear on television and not be asked their position on these ideas. The article has 22 reliable sources including the new york times. The article does not make any claims disupted by the academic community, it discusses attributed disputes in the academic community--there is a difference. Lotusduck 02:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah right, every Lincoln biographer is asked about Lincoln's ass piston partners? Please give it a rest. This is obviously a case of agenda pushing. Just come clean that the agenda here is to give some sort of creedance to the rumor/gossip that Lincoln performed homosexual acts. Get some good glossies of him in action and then link the article. Until then its still dog crap and there are a bizzilion other web sites that would love this bull. Cheers, --Tom 13:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be arguing this in the wrong place. Articles should link to other article about the same subject. Lincoln articles should have links to other Lincoln articles. If you have a problem with the Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln article, you need to edit that, or discuss on its talk page, or AfD it. For one thing it would be useful if those with access to biographies of him to provide more information about his relationship with his wife to aid the balance of that article. WjBscribe 13:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I am arguing this in the right spot. People with an agenda are pushing to have that article linked to this. Just because they share the same name in the article does not mean it automatically or deserves to be linked. This is well poisoning by association. Why is so important that this other article is linked here? --Tom 14:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
To aid navigation between related articles. The point of the "see also" section is to link related articles. In this case other articles about Abraham Lincoln are clearly relevant and the reader should be made aware that there is more content available on the subject of "Abraham Lincoln". And please assume good faith about your fellow editors, you are making rather strong accusations. WjBscribe 14:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
There are currently only seven references in the "See Also" section. In the category page “Abraham Lincoln” there are 92 different articles referring to Lincoln. I was under the impression that this was the primary avenue for making a reader aware that there is more content available on the subject of Abraham Lincoln. The category page is intended to be all inclusive whereas the “See Also” obviously is not. I would think that the point of this discussion should center on whether this single article about the opinion of primarily one non-biographer and non-historian merits special reference, in and above the other 92 articles on the category page. Tom (North Shoreman) 15:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
That would make too much sense and be too reasonable. I, on the other hand, would like to get back to the agenda pushing issue here and would like editor(s) to come clean on WHY it is so important to have this article linked under "See also" rather than listed as a category of Abe? Thanks, --Tom 15:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think I mostly started this, and I am "coming clean" and explaining why this belongs in see also, other than that most people agree-- It belongs in see also because this page is largely a lincoln biography, and sexuality of abraham lincoln centers on several written biographies of different viewpoints on the subject. It is also a subject of controversy featured on many political news discussion shows on radio and television. Ease of navigation is important because Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln is not the term anyone would assume to type into wikipedia. If someone were looking for that article, they would read the section here on his early life first. And so, nobody has accused you of having an agenda, in accordance with good faith, likewise nobody has removed the list of kennedy-lincoln coincidences and accused whomever put it there of having a supernatural conspiracy agenda. The article on Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln is based on the work of biographers and historians, and more biographer and historian articles could be sourced for it, according to a quick peruse of what google scholar gives me on the subject. You are the last hold out on this issue. I feel the talk page has resolved that the link be included, except for you. So seriously cut it out.Lotusduck 17:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure who you are talking to, but to say that this is "featured on many political news discussion shows on radio and television" is beyond a stretch. Not every fringe theory that can't be proved needs to be linked to this article.--Tom 18:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Including myself, I come up with three people at least contesting the link. Contrary to your claim, there should be no problem finding the article using the wikipedia search. Someone typing in "Abraham Lincoln gay" in the wikipedia search will come up first with "No page with that title exists", but when you then search the words from that page "Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln" is the first article that comes up. If you use "Abraham Lincoln sex" for the search it is the second article that comes up. Not to mention the fact that, as I've noted earlier, the article can be identified from the "Abraham Lincoln Category" page. Why should this one article be specially listed when all of the 94 other relevant articles are not? Tom (North Shoreman) 23:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Accompanied, as it is, by several eruptions of intemperate language, I don't get Tom's point for deleting the link. User convenience ought to be one of the desirable editorial criteria. It's a convenience thing, Tom, and your charge of agenda-pursuit is not only discourteous but wrong and irrelevant. CoppBob 04:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually the agenda pushing about this is VERY relevant. Having that fringe theory article in the category Abe Lincoln is more than fair. Every fringe article should not be listed under "see also". Should I repeat more slowly? Again, until I see the 5 by 8 glossies of Abe in action, that article is beyond fringe, imo. --Tom 13:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Red flag

Don't think WP:REDFLAG can apply to the link to another article. You might apply that policy to question the content of the other article, but it seems natural for articles about subject X to link to other articles about subject X. There is no claim being made by the "see also" link. Its just a link. I suggest you take up problems you might have with Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln on that article's talkpage. WjBscribe 03:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation Link

Should it say "other persons named Abraham Lincoln" when in reality it links to Lincoln-related events and other various non-specifically person related pages? Brett 03:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone is changing dates... Apparently Mr. Lincoln is going to be born in the future.

[edit] His views on freeing the slaves

Why was the link Abraham Lincoln on slavery deleted? --Uncle Ed 19:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I am the one that deleted your work. The following is what you added:
"Lincoln expressed his opposition to slavery, from his first public statements in 1837, and never wavering.He recognized that the whole country did not share his views, and he did not force the issue. The closest he came to compromising his views came during his debates with Douglas, where he subordinated the cause of Abolition (slavery) to the principle of maintaining the Union.
In actuality Lincoln was silent on the issue of slavery for much of the time between 1837 and 1854. Since he never proposed, until the Emancipation Proclamation, the abolition of slavery it is inaccurate to label him as an abolitionist even though Lincoln always thought slavery was wrong. In fact if you go back to 1837 you will find that he spoke out against abolitionists. In the Lincoln Douglas debates Lincoln was maneuvered into making many statements that, by today's standards, are racist, but the issue of subordinating the slavery issue to preserving the Union didn't really arise until after the war started (perhaps you had the exchange with Greeley in 1862 in mind). Tom (North Shoreman) 19:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your edit, and for sharing your opinion about Lincoln's life. Can you provide a source for your assertion that he "silent on the issue of slavery for much of the time between 1837 and 1854"? If it's true, there must be countless of sources that would back that up, possibly even using the exact same words you did.

I added my two cents after seeing a list of quotations, dated during that period. In fact, the one that got me going was (hold on to your hat) in protest of a measure against abolitionists. I hope it's not "original research" to parse a double negative.

Anyway, I won't revert your change, since you were kind enough to explain it. --Uncle Ed 19:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

When you referenced 1837 I assumed you were referring to the instance in which Lincoln indicated that abolitionists tended to aggravate rather than alleviate tensions over slavery. From 1837 until 1854 the two major public speeches of Lincoln were his congressional attacks on the Mexican War and his later eulogy on Henry Clay which did mention Clay's views on slavery -- although I believe he probably would have spoken out regarding the Wilmot Proviso. My intent was to differentiate Lincoln's career during this time period from Free Soilers and actual abolitionists in the 1840s who were starting to make slavery a primary focus of their politics. It was really not until Kansas-Nebraska that Lincoln chose to direct his focus in that area. Tom (North Shoreman) 20:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


Lincoln was far from silent on the issue of slavery between 1837 to 1854. http://www.nps.gov/archive/liho/slavery/al01.htm

Although Lincoln could never be called a true abolitionist during this time I believe Uncle Ed was correct to state, "Lincoln expressed his opposition to slavery, from his first public statements in 1837, and never wavering."

If you check out the link you provided you will see that the site happens to also skip right from 1837 to 1854. I have also already clarified what I meant in my original statement. Tom (North Shoreman) 19:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
PS What is the deal with deleting part of my earlier statement? Tom (North Shoreman) 19:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not delete anything. I did not touch the article.

I just wanted to make the point that claiming Lincoln was "slient" on salvery from 1837 to 1854 is not correct. He made numerous statements during that time period and not to get to anal about this but the fact is, if Lincon made just one public statement he could not be called "slient" on the issue. http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/slave07.htm

[edit] POV in the intro

I removed some stuff that just seemed to be written from a very anti-Lincoln perspective. It wasn't neutral. --Revolución hablar ver 14:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/b/r/Talk%7EAbraham_Lincoln_29fa.html"