Talk:Abraham Lincoln/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 ← Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 → Archive 30

Mystify and transfiguration ?

I missed the following quote "

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it. … What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union.”

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/emancipation-150/i-would-save-the-union.html

Lincoln want to beware the Union wiht all methods. One of this method/tactic was to instrumentalized the slave. The reason for the civil war were different between economies, social structure. The Sout-staates determine. (politically and economically) Without slaves they will lose this power immediately.

Slaves were to count three-fifths of the population. The number of deputies of the State House of Representatives depended on the population. Slaves work for nothing. Slaves caused low costs. The northern states had an interest to change it. Without slaves the southern population were low. So what is more smart to use slaves to defeat them ?

There were no right to choice for the colored. No votig rights. They wanted to deport them to Africa after war. The mighty determined in a democratic or dictatorship. The right of the strongest. There is no differetn between all the other. What did the european ancestors do first ? Killed and deport natives. France and britain used Bioweapons. Blanket with pox virus. They all slaughtered the nativ, like Spains. They use the rights of the strongest like russian, germans, us-amerikans, japanese, chines etc.pp in the past and today. Conqueror do that. In war we are all the same. The most Americans are not natives.


87.186.62.100 (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

What changes do you suggest for the article? --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Interesting quote by Lincoln. I have read that Lincoln made that statement to passify the non abolitionist Northern population that his intent was to save the Union rather then end slavery. He made this statement in his first term of office. What I find troubling about the statement is that slavery is viewed in a casual manner and that Lincoln, the Great Emancipator, would apparently be comfortable with being President of a Union with slavery. Lincoln really was a moderate concering slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

"exercised his authority to suspend habeas corpus"

I find this phrase problematic, in that it includes the assumption that he actually possessed the Constitutional authority to do so. While popular support rendered the question moot, I think it is pretty clear that the Constitution grants no such authority to the Executive.

Comments? Dlabtot (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

if he didn't have it could change exercised to abused? "abused his athority to suspen....no that still sounds like he had it. congress wasn't in session at the time so he couldn't have right? personally I'd say just remove the bit "used his authority" and say "suspended habias corpis" is the most accurate/least controversial compromise? --pseudobob (talk) 09:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Interesting question. Was there a law that allowed President Lincoln to suspend Habeas Corpus. For example when President Ulysses S. Grant prosecuted the Klu Klux Klan in 1871, Congress passed a Force Act that allowed President Grant to suspend habeas corpus. Did President Lincoln suspend habeaus corpus on his own or was he authorized by Congress? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The Constitution allows habeas corpus to be suspended. "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Clearly some folks were in rebellion. The question, just to make things clear is, "did Congress at any time grant the president this authority either explicitly or implicitly?" Rklawton (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Were there any laws passed by Congress prior to Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Corpus, that allowed the President to suspend Habeus Corpus. Otherwise Lincoln would have assumed a position of a dictator. Lincoln, did take an oath to protect the Constitution, so could that be a legal outlet for the President to suspend Habeaus Corpus in case of insurrection? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes the president can suspend habeus corpus during times of rebellion. Lincoln did just so, but only, it appears (correct me if I'm wrong) in places in dire need of it, such as Maryland. The question is, did Lincoln take it too far by jailing people for minor infractions? He may have, but legally, I do not think that Lincoln misused the suspension of HC, but I'm sure there are examples of its misapplication.JOJ Hutton 23:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Congress was not in session at the time and I believe Lincoln had no other choice. I believe he had to assume a dictatorship or the "Union" would have been defeated. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Well since this conversation has already jumped the shark in terms of Not a Forum, I may as well go for it and say that the underlying problem with the current constitution is that it only takes a popular president, a majority congress, and a sympethetic court to undo 200+ years of freedom. If we really had checks and balances, the states would have more of a say in how the constitution is interpreted.--JOJ Hutton 01:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
well to be fair it used to/was supposed to pre civilwar.--pseudobob [[User talk:pseudobob| 09:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I am only using the word "dictatorship" for lack of any better phrase. I am not sure that any sources state that Lincoln operated under a dictatorship. In light of the federal government and corporations ability to spy on Americans, Jojhutton, your comments are not unwarranted for this discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I found what appears to be a good source on whether President Lincoln was a Constitutional dictator: Herman Belz (1998) Abraham Lincoln, Constitutionalism, and Equal Rights During the Civil War Era, Chapter 1 Cmguy777 (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent change in Infobox military rank

This edit changes Lincoln's military rank in the article's Infobox from Captain to Private. Regardless of what the US military considers that their rank at mustering-out is that person's rank, Wikipedia puts the highest rank in the Infobox that an individual achieves, per what Template:Infobox military person states about rank:

  • rank – optional – the highest rank achieved by the person. Unusual cases, such as this rank not being the last achieved, or the rank being awarded posthumously, may be noted. In cases where the person held different ranks in different armies, multiple ranks should be specified with a date and country note for each.

Lincoln's highest military rank achieved was as a Captain. If editors disagree with this statement, then perhaps someone should open an RFC on this page or on a Wikipedia policy page about the matter as it affects all Military-person/Infoboxes, but pending any possible Infobox/MOS changes in the future, Lincoln's highest achieved rank should be kept in the Infobox for now. Shearonink (talk) 12:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

  • The current U.S. military policy isn't terribly relevant. Lincoln was a member of a state militia in an era when officers were elected by enlisted men. He served as captain. Wiki policy says list highest rank. Seems pretty obvious what we must do -- keep it as "captain". --Coemgenus (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I am not sure why one would think military policy is irrelevant when dealing with military infoboxs. The current policy is the same as when Lincoln was in service. Obviously the person who came up with the Wiki policy is uniformed of military regulations and just decided to give their own opinion of what they believe rank is. This is not suitable if one contends Wikipedia to be a valid source of reliable information. Lincoln lost the temporary rank (see military rank) title of Captain when he was later issued the title of Private upon reentering the service. Suppose a person was reduced-in-rank via a court martial, but the person was of such notability that garnered them a Wiki article. You should not list their prior rank as their rank. You would list their last rank held if dead or discharged, or current rank they were reduced to if still in service. This is a problem that should be fixed before it causes any more confusion, especially among military historians and persons who use Wikipedia as a reference in their school work. To be completely truthful and technically correct his rank should be listed as Private. Lincoln was a great man and people hold him in high regard, which is why I could see someone wanting to list his rank as Captain, but there is no need to dishonor him by lying about his military rank or service. -- Topbookclub - - US Navy Veteran —Preceding undated comment added 01:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Let me say this again...if editors disagree with this Wikipedia policy or guideline about what Military rank should go in articles' infoboxes (highest achieved or last held), then it seems to me that the correct thing to do is to open a Request for Comment on one of the main Wikipedia pages for such consensus-building...perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history or maybe Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) so the policy or guideline can be followed appropriately in all the various Wikipedia biographical articles. To imply that editors who have worked on this talk page's article and who have followed the appropriate guidelines in their editing are somehow lying or causing Wikipedia to lie about the subject's military service is unnecessary hyperbole. Shearonink (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
He didn't say lie, he just said it was wrong/inaccurate. if that can be proven its foolish to continue on with it for the sake of bureaucracy because "its the way its done", let alone revert correct edits. why not just fix it now and submit the report about the correct way? --pseudobob (talk) 9:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

sorry if wrong place

does anybody know the context of this quote?

"I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man.”

i couldn't seem to find it. it gets attributed to lincoln but did he say it and if so when/how? --User:pseudobob User talk:pseudobob 09:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Something like that may have been said in the Lincoln Douglas Debates when Lincoln was accused of being a "race mixer". The interesting thing is the quote, if it is exact, suggests that the problem is inherent in American society (which was true), and that the assignment is a human choice. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

All of the people asserting that Lincoln was a racist seem to be ignoring one basic fact...his beliefs evolved over time..he pushed for the right for blacks to vote near the end of his life..if you study his life you will learn that he changed his beliefs over the years as all intelligent people do like Washington`s views on slavery as Obama`s views on gays..or you can live your life with one fixed set of beliefs and live in ignorance your life..it` up to you. Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 17:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Problem in the intro

The last line reads:

"Each time a general failed, Lincoln substituted another until finally Grant succeeded in 1865."

The writer is conflating two distinct things. Lincoln was famous for frequently changing commanders of the ARMY OF THE POTOMAC after a single loss (though bête noir George McClellan arguably served two distinct tours in the Peninsula and Maryland campaigns). But Grant was NEVER placed in command of that army (one of many in Federal service). In 1864, the dormant rank of lieutenant general was reactivated for the first time since George Washington held it, and Grant was brought from his theater command in the West to supersede then General-in-Chief Henry Halleck in charge of ALL U.S. land forces.

George Meade -- commanding the AoP since June 1863 -- retained his role in that capacity until the close of the war.

It should instead read something to the effect that the Federals struggled to coordinate and exploit the advantage of their vastly-superior resources for years until Grant was named to overall command of all Union armies in 1864, resulting in final victory one year later.

24.127.11.91 (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I did not write that but you're reading too much into it. The preceding sentence is about 'taking Richmond'. It does not matter to any of that which army took Richmond. (BTW: I always understood 'taking Richmond', as used there, to be kind of a metaphor for crushing the rebellion.) Also, remember, the lead needs to say allot in a few words. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
all historians agree that Grant told Meade what to do on a daily basis, and all give Grant the credit for taking Richmond, not Meade. Rjensen (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

"ABRAHAM LINCOLN" - Edit request on 15 August 2013

EDIT REQUEST BELOW:

In Lincoln's boxed biography (right-hand side), there is no mention under his political life of his being an Illinois State Legislator. A gaping hole, indeed, as he served four terms.

Please add this because as it stands, it leaves the glancing reader to believe his only political life was as a one-term U.S. Congressman and U.S. President.

Thank you, Sixteezkid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixteezkid (talk • contribs) 16:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Done on September 15, 2013. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Lincoln the War Criminal

It never ceases to amaze me how slanted these articles are in favor of the "Union" viewpoint. It starts by stating that the Confederates attacked Fort Sumter. Try to understand that the Fort was in Southern territory and the Yankees were unwelcome guest who refused to leave. Lincoln was by the standards of the day and of today, a War Criminal. He burned cities and starve people into submission. He never cared about the eNegro; he waited until the very last second to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. The entire war was about the rights of the individual states and Federal power. If you try to include this information into the section, it's removed. This entire Article is a piece of Union propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.146.101 (talk) 02:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The article accurately summarizes what the range of academic historians have written about Lincoln. He was never adjudicated a "war criminal" and only a tiny minority of historians would endorse that description of him. You are entitled to your fringe viewpoint but should not expect that it will dominate an encyclopedia article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

How many books have to be written on the subject of Northern War Crimes during the American Civil War does it take for people to understand that history is not as presented in this article. Lincoln even ordered the arrest of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States because the Court ruled that Lincoln had pretty much voided the American Constitution. Furthermore, General Sherman was tried and was found innocent of War Crimes because he was found to be 'INSANE.' Civilians were taken as hostages and exchanged for Union troops. If the exchange didn't take place, then the civilians were summarily executed. This can go on forever, but you will NEVER get these crimes into the article with being as quickly removed. Lincoln was a war criminal and any honest historian knows this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.146.101 (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

These conspiracy theories would be a lot more convincing with a citation to a reliable source. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
We are uninterested in self-published neo-Confederate diatribes written by cranks who make things up. We expect citations to books by academic historians with established reputations, issued by respected publishers. Otherwise, there is nothing to discuss. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 09:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


Need a typo correction at the end of the third paragraph in the "Marriage and Children" section. Robert Lincoln's death occurred in the 19th century, not the 20th. Txsgrl96 (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)txsgrl96, 30 September 2013

Robert died in 1926. 1926 is in the 20th century. We are now living in the 21st century. Rklawton (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

It would seem that individuals with family histories and photographs, yes photos of some of the individuals involved, have no right but Northern historians from Northern universities are the only respected historians. I assure you that historians from Southern universities have an entirely different view of what happened and why during the American Civil War. My own family was from Kentucky and fought and died on both sides of the war. My Aunt has a photograph of the sister of Robert E. Lee that has been published. She is her descendent. Letters, photos, etc... don't count because some Northern historian wants to further the Northern propaganda machine. You are not historians, you are propagandist for the Northern Republicans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.146.101 (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 October 2013

religion = Christianity 209.212.39.227 (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Stfg (talk) 10:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Link to the pronunciation of his name

The pronunciation recording may have been done by someone who is not a native American English speaker. I've never heard Abraham pronounced like that. It's almost like a computer generated voice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.173.177 (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Italics?

Can someone please fix the ridiculous italics in the ultimate introductory paragraph? Nearly the whole thing is erroneously italicized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.250.96.13 (talk) 05:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thx.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Validity of Reference Material?

Questionable Reference: Abraham Lincoln in the Post-Heroic Era: History and Memory in Late Twentieth-Century America Author: Barry Schwartz Book is listed multiple times as a reference. Book is out of print and was printed by the University of Chicago Press in 2009. Mr Schwartz is listed as a professor at the University of Chicago at time of publication. There are no reviews on Amazon where it has a best seller ranking of 1.4 million. This ranking equates to less than ten copies sold per year. There is one review dated 2009 on Goodreads. The book is listed to be out of print. It seems unusual that a book of such limited readership would be cited three times on a topic of such gravity. In addition, Barry Schwartz has another book about Lincoln listed on Amazon titled: Abraham Lincoln and the Forge of National Memory. This book shows an electronic publication date of 2003. There are no reviews on Amazon with a sales ranking of over 2.25 million. There is one review on Goodreads dated 2011.JK3412 (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no opinion on that book, really, not having read it, I take it you have not either. But I do not think what you have listed are the metrics for use: If we are writing about 'Lincoln memory in the late 20th century', one uses high quality sources such as scholar's university published books on Lincoln memory in the late 20th century. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
What time frame does Amazon use for its rankings? A book that is currently out of print will obviously not sell many copies this year. Sales figures, especially in a narrow field of limited interest to the general public, aren't a good measure of reliability. Were Stephen King to suddenly take interest in the field and publish on the topic, he'd sell hundreds of thousands of copies. This would not make King the preeminent scholar in the field, just the best selling author in the field. (Much as Madonna is not a sex scholar.) - SummerPhD (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Also for the record:
  • Schwartz, Barry (2000). Abraham Lincoln and the Forge of National Memory. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-74197-0.
  • Schwartz, Barry (2009). Abraham Lincoln in the Post-Heroic Era: History and Memory in Late Twentieth-Century America. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-74188-8.
It appears that these are something like a two volume work. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
the Schwartz books are indeed different and make up a 2-volume set. It's long, detailed, and written in a scholarly tone that will not make for a best seller. It has received good reviews in the history & sociology journals. The books have already been cited hundreds of times in scholarly books and journals as shown here Rjensen (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like that wraps it up: Schwartz is published by U of Chicago and cited. Therefore, the work is a reliable source (and Schwartz lives to publish another day). - SummerPhD (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Also a simple peruse of Worldcat (click on the ISBN (linked above)) will show that these books are held in libraries all over the world. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2014

Request to remove repetition of the word 'greatest' in the following sentence:

Lincoln led the United States through its Civil War--its bloodiest war and its greatest greatest moral, constitutional and political crisis.[2][3]


Lincoln led the United States through its Civil War--its bloodiest war and its greatest moral, constitutional and political crisis.[2][3] 31.54.200.241 (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Done, thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 20:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Trimming out non-essential details from the lead

The lead is currently extremely long. While WP:LEAD calls for a maximum of 4-5 paragraphs, these paragraphs are also very long "walls of text" and certain details should be trimmed out so as not to intimidate readers and overwhelm them with a lot of info at once and to also encourage them to read the body for further detail. The last two paragraphs are longest and contain the least necessary details. My reason for removing the specific details is that they are non-essential to the lead, excessive for a broad overview and are fit for the body.

From second paragraph: The Republican politicians promptly enacted much of their party platform, including a high tariff, free land for colleges in every state (Morrill Act of 1862), new banking laws, free land for settlers (Homestead Act of 1862), free land for the transcontinental railroad, and a new US Department of Agriculture.

When the North enthusiastically rallied behind the national flag after the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861, Lincoln concentrated on the military and political dimensions of the war effort. His goal was to reunite the nation. He suspended habeas corpus, arresting and temporarily detaining thousands of suspected secessionists in the border states without trial. Lincoln averted British recognition of the Confederacy by defusing the Trent affair in late 1861. His numerous complex moves toward ending slavery centered on the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, using the Army to protect escaped slaves, encouraging the border states to outlaw slavery, and helping push through Congress the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which permanently outlawed slavery. Lincoln closely supervised the war effort, especially the selection of top generals, including commanding general Ulysses S. Grant. Lincoln brought leaders of the major factions of his party into his cabinet and pressured them to cooperate. Lincoln's Navy set up a naval blockade that shut down the South's normal trade, helped take control of Kentucky and Tennessee, and gained control of the Southern river system using gunboats. He tried repeatedly to capture the Confederate capital at Richmond, Virginia. Each time a general failed, Lincoln substituted another until finally Grant succeeded in 1865.

An exceptionally astute politician deeply involved with power issues in each state, Lincoln reached out to "War Democrats" (who supported the North against the South), and managed his own re-election in the 1864 presidential election. As the leader of the moderate faction of the Republican party, Lincoln found his policies and personality were "blasted from all sides": Radical Republicans demanded harsher treatment of the South, War Democrats desired more compromise, Copperheads despised him, and irreconcilable secessionists plotted his death.[2] Politically, Lincoln fought back with patronage, by pitting his opponents against each other, and by appealing to the American people with his powers of oratory.[3] His Gettysburg Address of 1863 became the most quoted speech in American history. It was an iconic statement of America's dedication to the principles of nationalism, republicanism, equal rights, liberty, and democracy.[4] At the close of the war, Lincoln held a moderate view of Reconstruction, seeking to reunite the nation speedily through a policy of generous reconciliation in the face of lingering and bitter divisiveness. Six days after the surrender of Confederate commanding general Robert E. Lee, however, Lincoln was assassinated by an actor and Confederate sympathizer named John Wilkes Booth. Lincoln's death was the first assassination of a U.S. president and sent the nation into mourning. Lincoln has been consistently ranked both by scholars[5] and the public[6] as one of the greatest U.S. presidents.

Cadiomals (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

These seem like good edits to me. That lead was pretty long. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
the lede is now 4 paragraphs (and the 4-rule is only a suggested guideline). It's important to tell what happened, not just tease people. The lede now tells how he used/bent the Constitution, avoided British intervention, what was his war strategy, who were his opponents and why the Gettysburg Address was important. Those are what historians call "essential" information. To keep it short I trimmed out minor items. Rjensen (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2014

This article states Abraham Lincoln "abolished slavery". It should be changed to "abolished slavery in The United States of America" beacause there was slavery in other parts of the world http://www.disc.wisc.edu/archive/slave/ Gordon2352 (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

That entire paragraph explicitly focuses on the United States as the location, and that sentence on the Union, so the 'where this happened' seems clear. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Lincoln was shot on Good Friday and became a Christ-like figure

This article does not acknowledge that the day Lincoln was shot was Good Friday: the annual anniversary of Jesus son on Joseph being on the Cross. Lincoln didn't die that day; he died the next morning at 07:22. The following morning - Easter Sunday - the entire country knew of his assassination. Many preachers rewrote their Easter sermon to make comparisons between Jesus and Lincoln. - Benjamin Franklin 75.74.157.29 (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

'Father Abraham' Lincoln and "4 score and 7 years ago, our fathers..."

This article needs to make reference to how Lincoln was commonly referred to as 'Father Abraham' in a comparison to the Biblical Abraham. The famous 1862 Stephen Foster song We Are Coming, Father Abra'am is the BIGGEST example of this. Lincoln used his connection to "Father Abraham" when he famously began his Gettysburg Address with "4 score and 7 years ago, our fathers...". This was a quote from Genesis 16:16 of the King James Bible, "Abram was 4 score and 6 years old when Hagar the slave woman bore his son Ishmael" (paraphrased). The fact that Lincoln was the 16th president at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. appears to be a proof of destiny. - Benjamin Franklin 75.74.157.29 (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Removed as unsourced original research. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Did he nearly drown in childhood?

According to the following sources, Austin Gollaher saved Abraham Lincoln from drowning when both were children. http://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln57.html

Lincoln was apparently a life long friend to Austin Gollaher and according to the following, said this about Austin: "I would rather see him than any man living.". http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=10676097

I've looked on the web, but can anyone more familiar with Lincoln corroborate these two accounts, the near drowning and the quote?

Thanks! 86.46.181.194 (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, for the drowning according to our Knob Creek Farm article, and the cited NPS material there. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Much obliged Alan! Thanks! I'll give that article a searching and report back. Ok, having read a bit more, the drowning most probably occurred, although there is allegedly one claim that the story might be apocryphal here -> http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0026.204?rgn=main;view=fulltext
As for the NPS website reference that I found on the Knob Creek Farm page, it states that Lincoln spoke of the incident after he became president on the NPS site, but frustratingly, does not state where or when this speech took place, or if he spoke to people in private, who recorded the story from him.
Any pointers towards a primary source would be helpful! By the way, I was editing the Gallagher (surname) page and stumbled upon Austin, you know in case you're curious about my motivation for trying to authenticate the story.
83.71.30.126 (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes he did nearly drown unfortunately after he dropped his gold fish into a near-by river and went after it. In desperate struggle for air, it was a really sad out come because his goldfish got away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pancake234 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Wedding Day Photos curiosity

The wedding day .tiff files at the LOC have scratches everywhere EXCEPT on the head and torso.....intentional??? what's around Abe's ring finger???184.9.119.34 (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Introduction

Upon his election in 1860, Abraham Lincoln became the first and thus far the only politician to become president without spending any time as Vice President, Governor, US Senator, cabinet member, or General. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.150.176.116 (talk) 11:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2014

Abraham Lincoln was on the Union side. 174.100.225.152 (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

just found a gramatically incomplete sentence. Fix if its important.

As the leader of the moderate faction of the Republican party, confronted Radical Republicans who demanded harsher treatment of the South, War Democrats who called for more compromise, Copperheads who despised him, and irreconcilable secessionists who plotted his death.126.209.129.29 (talk) 01:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

THANKS for spotting the problem. I fixed it: "Lincoln confronted etc" Rjensen (talk) 04:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Lincoln did not regret opposition to Mexican War

"Lincoln later regretted some of his statements, especially his attack on the presidential war-making powers.[67]"

Lincoln never stated he regret these statements or his attack on the presidential war-making powers. The source used only states that his actions "would later come back to haunt him." Which is an extremely liberal interpretation by Daniel Herbert Donald. Because he voiced opposition to the presidential war-making powers during his time in Congress and later became a president who would strengthen the presidential war-making powers doesn't mean that he regretted his earlier actions. --170.140.214.20 (talk) 03:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Mention how Willie died.

Recommend the following change.

"Willie" Lincoln was born on December 21, 1850, and died on February 20, 1862.

"Willie" Lincoln was born on December 21, 1850, and died of illness on February 20, 1862.


Since Willie died during the Civil War it is useful to clarify the cause. It leads the reader to wonder if the fighting was related. The details are listed on Willie's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.93.201 (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done —Telpardec  TALK  06:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
No, typhoid diagnosis needs a RELIABLE source with medical expertise not a popular book that has less than a sentence and no references. Little boys in the White House don't die in battle. in any case the material belongs with the boy's article not the father's. Rjensen (talk) 07:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Wondered if this would be of interest in the Abraham Lincoln Death Details.

I Read this in a History Book Somewhere, and Wondered if this would be of interest in the Abraham Lincoln Death Details... See Below..

A week before Lincoln’s Death, Lincoln dreamt that he heard crying in a room in the White House? He found the room and saw a coffin and someone crying. When he asked who was in the coffin, the person responded, “It's the President.” Then he looked in the coffin and saw himself.

Al Adams AlAdams12 (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Hope I Did This Correctly, I am a "Newbe" Here I Can Not Remember What Book I Read This in ? Sorry ...

Colonization and compensation

Is there any mention of Lincoln's colonization plan of freed slaves or compensation to former slave owners in the article? Lincoln advocated emigration of former black slaves and even freed blacks from the United States througout his presidency. Lincoln believed that whites and blacks could not get along with each other. Lincoln wanted to compensate the former slave owners $400,000,000 dollars for their slaves. Source: Robert Morgan The 'Great Emancipator' and the Issue of Race Abraham Lincoln's Program of Black Resettlement Institute For Historical Review (2013-2014) Cmguy777 (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

You'll need a reliable source. Holocaust denial "Institute for Historical Review" is not useful here. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Is Robert Morgan a "Holocaust denial" institute? Morgan uses source references in his article. The article has nothing to do with the Holocaust. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Please do not revise you talk comments after someone has responded to them. Doing so makes it appear that they were responding to something other than what you wrote. You cited an article is from the Holocaust denial "Institute for Historical Review". They are not a reliable source. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I believe Robert Morgan is a national best selling author of Boone: A Biography (2008). The Institute for Historical Review would not be used in the article as a source due to the above controversy mentioned. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
A "Robert Morgan" wrote Boone: A Biography. This "Robert Morgan" is "the pen name of a writer who holds a bachelor degree in general studies from Indiana University-Purdue University", as explained at the bottom of your original link.[1] I see nothing to indicate that this nobody, published by a disreputable source, is a reliable source for anything. -SummerPhD (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I can check for reliable sources that mention Lincoln's emanicipation and compensation programs. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Other sources:

Covered in Abraham Lincoln and slavery Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Not covered or apparently mentioned in the Abraham Lincoln main biography. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
There is a ton of stuff we can't cover in this article that are covered in the scores of other Lincoln articles. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
The current article presents Lincoln as a moderate on Reconstruction. Compensation to slave owners and expatriation of slaves follows in line with Lincoln's moderate Reconstruction plan. In my opinion, only mentioning Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation counters the view the Lincoln was a moderate and views Lincoln as an abolitionist. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Proposed article sentence:
The article currently contains this:
At the beginning of the war, he also sought to persuade the states to accept compensated emancipation in return for their prohibition of slavery. Lincoln believed that curtailing slavery in these ways would economically expunge it, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, under the constitution.[180]
and this:
For some time, Lincoln continued earlier plans to set up colonies for the newly freed slaves. He commented favorably on colonization in the Emancipation Proclamation, but all attempts at such a massive undertaking failed.
There is no need for more in this particular overview article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Lincoln continued to advocate compenstated emancipation in 1865 at the Hampton Roads Conference. The article only states he advocated compensation only at the begining of his Presidency. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Also Carwardine (2006), page 202, states that following emancipation volunteer colonization and compensation were two of Lincoln's principles. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Hampton Roads, at this point, is only mentioned briefly in the article -- two sentences in the middle of a paragraph converned with other issues. You seem to be suggesting to throw in the compensation issue without any context. Are you proposing to expand the entire subject? Why not just expand the first sentence I quoted by adding "and later" in an appropriate place. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I am not for opening any new section. That would be unneccessary for the article. Maybe a sentence or two concerning the context of Lincoln and his Emancipation Proclamation. Emancipation is linked with compensation to slave owners and expatriation or colonization of freed slaves. Concerning compensation instead of adding, "and later" why not state "Throughout his presidency" ? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
"Throughout his presidency" implies that this was a continuous effort rather than something that reappeared sporadically. Also the existing source for linking the EP and colonization is Donald -- there is no mention in the source linking compensation. Do you have a source? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
PS It also appears that even the existing reference is taken out of context. Colonization was not an integral part of the EP but was merely mentioned in Lincoln's annual address to Congress as a sop to those concerned about too many freed slaves running around. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Tom and Alan. It's covered enough already. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Tom suggested modifying the sentence on compensation to add "and later". I suggested to add "througout his presidency". The issue has to do with clarification of content covered in the article. As stated before I am not for adding any new section, only suggesting give neutral context. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
there is a large literature on Abe & compensated emancipation, which he supported until the last minute (Feb 1865). See Phillip Shaw Paludan, Lincoln And Colonization: Policy Or Propaganda? Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association Jan 2004, Vol. 25 Issue 1, p23-37. who concludes "Lincoln sincerely and eloquently favored gradual, compensated emancipation with colonization as one plan, but not the only plan, for the end of the war, the reunification of the country, and the end of slavery." Rjensen (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
This [2] seems to be the article you were talking about, but I can't find your quote. The article's main focus is on the 1862 proposal by Lincoln. Paludan does say that, "The prevailing historical narrative usually ends the story of colonization and gradual emancipation with the dramatic deed that occurred after the border states turned down Lincoln the third time—the Emancipation Proclamation." The only exception after this that Paludan notes is "We might note that through much of 1863 and 1864, while Lincoln stopped talking publicly about colonization, he was acting to Page do it. For a while he encouraged a project in Chirique (a venture which a sponsor said had enlisted nearly five thousand freedmen) and then moved in behalf of the Ile de Vache effort. Both failed, but Lincoln still seems to have retained his hopes for the gradual process until sometime around July 1, 1864." I don't think there is anything in the article that supports what Cmguy wants to add. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Apparently Rjensen is supporting me. Rjensen's reference quote is in agreement with Carwardines' statement that colonization and compensation were Lincoln's principles or goals after emancipation. I am just suggesting that the article needs to be adjusted to emphasize Lincoln's overall Reconstruction plan, state ratified emancipation, federal colonization and compensation. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like you are now thinking about a major new addition to the article rather than a sentence. Suddenly his entire plan for reconstruction is related to "state ratified emancipation, federal colonization and compensation." As far as your Carwardine reference, the context is the DC emancipation which took place in April 1862. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I found Rjensen's full quote through Google: Eric H. Boehm America, History and Life, Volume 41, Issue 4 page 899 Clio Press 2004 Cmguy777 (talk) 01:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

So who actually said it? Do you have a link? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no doubt that in early 1865 Lincoln proposed to his cabinet that the US pay $400 million to the Southern states (not to the slaveholders directly) as compensation for the lost slaves. The cabinet was negative and Lincoln did not propose it to Congress. see the text at Vorenberg, Michael (2001). Final Freedom: The Civil War, the Abolition of Slavery, and the Thirteenth Amendment. p. 224. Rjensen (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Since both Cmguy and I have acknowledged this above, I'm not sure how this adds to the discussion. It certainly doesn't support his latest suggestion when he said, "I am just suggesting that the article needs to be adjusted to emphasize Lincoln's overall Reconstruction plan, state ratified emancipation, federal colonization and compensation." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I Googled Rjensen's full quote and got the Boehm (2004) journal source. Clearly the Vorenberg link can be used as reference that Lincoln supported federal compensation for the freed slaves throughout his presidency. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I've already addressed the Hampton Roads events above and its context. Now you again want to generalize about Lincoln's beliefs throughout his entire presidency based only on his desire to use compensation (without colonization) in this one instance to end the war. Compensation was not tied to the EP or 13th Amendment, both of which freed a lot of slaves -- from mid 1862 until February 1865 there are no instances of further proposals for compensation. I'm not even sure what you're proposing now, but it seems to have gone way beyond adding a single sentence relating to the EP. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
we have pretty solid RS statements that Lincoln proposed compensated emancipation throughout the war. Donald (re 1865) says flatly that "He had all along favored compensated emancipation." (p 560) So we should say that too. Rjensen (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
No we don't. This is what we say at Abraham Lincoln and slavery:
President Lincoln advocated that slave owners be compensated for emancipated slaves.[25] On March 6, 1862 President Lincoln in a message to the U.S. Congress stated that emancipating slaves would create economic "inconveniences" and justified compensation to the slave owners. The resolution was adopted by Congress, however, the Southern States refused to comply.[26] On July 12, 1862 President Lincoln in a conference with Congressmen from Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri encouraged their respective states to adopt emancipation legislation that gave compensation to the slave owners.[27] On July 14, 1862 President Lincoln sent a bill to Congress that allowed the Treasury to issue bonds at 6% interest to states for slave emancipation compensation to the slave owners. The bill was never voted on by Congress.[28] At the Hampton Roads Conference in 1865, Vice President of the Confederacy Alexander H. Stephens stated that President Lincoln was in favor of a "fair indemnity", possibly $500,000,000, in compensation for emancipated slaves.[29]
There is a three year gap between his early proposals and final proposals. His early proposals were for emancipation WITHIN the Union while his latter proposal was for the rebelling South in order to end the war. The actual facts support my proposal to add the bold faced words to an existing sentence:
At the beginning of the war, and later, he also sought to persuade the states to accept compensated emancipation in return for their prohibition of slavery. Lincoln believed that curtailing slavery in these ways would economically expunge it, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, under the constitution.[180]
Donald describes what Lincoln's beliefs may have been throughout; it is more accurate and useful to a reader to describe what he actually did. In order to provide a proper and useful context the proper (and neutral) way to proceed, if anything is added, would be to include a version of the paragraph I quoted from "Abraham Lincoln and slavery." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with RJensen. In terms of compensation Lincoln supported through both terms of his Presidency during the war. The articles needs to state this. In terms of colonization Lincoln actually did colonize African Americans. Benjamin Butler, states that Lincoln wanted to colonize African Americans in 1865. Bruce Catton (1965), Never Call Retreat, on pages 113-114 states that Lincoln always supported colonization, but decided to not to push the subject, since African Americans did not want to be colonized, but wanted to be citizens of the United States. Catton also on page 113 interestingly states that Lincoln believed the EP was a conservative document to prevent a slave uprising in the South what would spare Southern slave owners from violence. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
So, despite your earlier denials, you do want to expand the article well beyond your original proposal. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

This discussion still looks like it belongs at the slavery article or Presidency of Abraham Lincoln. After all, Compensated Emancipation was the primary historical precedent for Lincoln. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Lincoln never made the EP, the 13th amendment or his reconstruction program contingent on compensation. There are other articles for the discussion of the nuances and details and we very clearly, through the header to the section under discussion, show readers where to go if they're actually interested in such details and nuances. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
"Despite my denials"? How is adding "Throughout his Presidency" a major edit to the article? I have yet to add anything. That is why we are discussing colonization and compensation. I am talking about clarification of Lincoln's views on compensation and colonization during his Presidency. The lede does not even mention any of these issues. No one is stating the EP was contingent on the 13th Amendment or his reconstruction Program contingent on compensation. Rjensen agrees that Lincoln held to his Compensation program throughout his presidency. His cabinet rejected this compensation proposal in 1865. Lincoln in 1865 talked with Benjamin Butler wanting to resume his colonization policy after the Civil War. Compensation and colonization were Lincoln's principles or views concerning Reconstruction. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
When you make statements such as "I am just suggesting that the article needs to be adjusted to emphasize Lincoln's overall Reconstruction plan, state ratified emancipation, federal colonization and compensation," it sure seems like you're talking about adding more than three words. When you proposed to add a sentence that says Lincoln, along with his Emancipation Proclamation, advocated compensation to slave owners and colonization to freed African American slaves, certainly raises questions as to exactly what the relationship between the EP and colonization was.
Adding three words to a sentence on compensation that does not mention colonization at all is not a major edit. Is this the only change you want to make?
Answer: That depends on the how flexible the editing process is in terms of discussion and historical content. Compensation and colonization can be edited seperately. Right now the editing process does not seem flexible since I seem to be the focus of discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
You had now mentioned the article lede before your last edit-- are you now proposing to add the issues of colonization and/or compensation to the article lede? If yes, this would certainly be a major edit.
Answer: That depends on editor concensus. I believe that briefly mentioning that Lincoln colonized freed slaves and sought to compensate former slave owners in the lede is appropriate for the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Do you want to add colonization information based on Butler's recollection? If yes, how is this not going to be a major edit?
Answer: No. A major edit is not required to add Butler's recollection. A simple statement is only required that Butler recalled that Lincoln desired to revive his colonization plan in 1865 at a White House meeting. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
These questions can all be answered "yes" or "no" and will facilitate my confusion over exactly what you want to add. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change compensation:

Throughout the war Lincoln's reconstruction policy was to have Southern states accept compensated emancipation in return for their prohibition of slavery. Lincoln viewed curtailing slavery economically, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, was constitutional. In 1865 Lincoln proposed to give Southern states $400,000,000 in compensation for loss of slaves at a Cabinet meeting. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I added one sentence for context. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Misleading. You leave out the context. What efforts to promote compensated emancipation did Lincoln make between his December 1862 State of the Union Speech and the February 1865 cabinet meeting, a period which covers over half of his presidency? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Fix: Lincoln's principal policy during the begining of the war was to persuade Southern states to accept compensated emancipation in return for their prohibition of slavery. Lincoln viewed curtailing slavery economically, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, was constitutional. In 1865 Lincoln proposed to give Southern states $400,000,000 in compensation for loss of slaves at a Cabinet meeting. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Please answer the three questions I asked you. I'll then be glad to explain why this version is just as problematic as your original "fix".Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I answered your questions. Carwardine (2004), Lincoln on page 202 states that two of Lincoln's principles during the war were federal funding to support implementation of the voluntary colonization of freed slaves and compensation to slave owners. Respectfully, I don't have to answer questions "yes" or "no" on Wikipedia discussions as if I was on trial. I believe I am stating the facts not the arguements. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for answering the questions. It seems clear that you are proposing significant changes. Four of us have opposed your changes, largely on the issue of whether it should be in this article or one of the related articles. I don't think there is any point in discussing the specifics to be added until there is a consensus that ANYTHING on confiscation and compensation should be added. At present, the consensus is going in the opposite direction.
As to your second fix, your statement that"Lincoln's principal policy during the begining of the war was to persuade Southern states to accept compensated emancipation in return for their prohibition of slavery" is simply not true. Lincoln's principle policies during this time were concerned with managing the war. Futhermore, you ignore context by lumping all the instances together and ignore what was actually required in order for compensation to kick in. Context and details are particularly important if you want to include a mention of it in the lede.
I already addressed the Carwardine quote.
As far as including Butlers take in this article, I suggest you check out how the AL and slavery article handles it in a balanced way. Your suggestions do not reflect that balance -- again a reason why the material belogs in the slavery article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
The article is about Lincoln's policies, including the ones like compensation that did not go through because of opposition. Readers need to know why the Radical opposed Lincoln and this was one of the main reasons. Rjensen (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually the article is about Lincoln's life. A sub-article has been created to discuss slavery and another to discuss his presidency. There's plenty of room for an expanded discussion of this topic there. As to your statement that "Readers need to know why the Radical opposed Lincoln", I totally agree. However there is no language in the article that describes where Radicals opposed Lincoln on compensation and none has been proposed. There are other reasons why there was opposition to compensation yet that isn't covered. Readers also need to know when Lincoln proposed compensation and why -- this isn't covered and no suggestion has been made to include it.
This is part of why I have insisted that Cmguy's expansion is inadequate -- it ignores context. And there is the additional problem that he has proposed throwing in Benjamin Butler's take on colonization as if it were gospel despite the fact that the slavery article presents a balanced account of the issue -- POV fork is the term. The context is best addressed in the other articles. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Rjensen for your support. I agree. The Radicals nor Lincoln's cabinet did not support compensation to the former slave owners. The Radicals wanted freed slaves to be citizens and vote. The Radicals and Lincoln did eventually agree on ending slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
@ North Shorman. Your statement is not true that I am proposing significant changes. Your statement "despite your earlier denials, you do want to expand the article well beyond your original proposal" is not true. Accusing me of things I have not done does not help make for a constructive discussion. I have not denied anything only defended myself against your accusations. I have not yet made any edits to the article. The article states that Lincoln was a moderate, but then emphasizes the EP, without mentioning colonization nor compensation, two principles of that Lincoln believe in during the war. Carwardine (2004) is a reliable source. Lincoln, as far as I know, was the only President who colonized African Americans. I do not believe my edit ignored context. I have no issues with mentioning times and dates. Butler had no reason to "lie" about colonization and he in fact did meet Lincoln possibly in the April 9-11, 1865 time frame window. Source Did Ben Butler meet with Lincoln in 1865? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Two sentence proposals

  • Compensation:
In February 1865, upon his return from the Hampton Roads Peace Conference, Lincoln proposed to his Cabinet that $400,000,000 in federal funds be distibuted proportionally to Southern States as compensation to slave owners for the loss of their slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Colonization:
Benjamin Butler stated that in April 11, 1865 at a White House meeting, Lincoln told him that he wanted to revive his colonization plan and send African Americans to work in and colonize Panama. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
No, and no. Such detail is entirely WP:Undue for this article. And apparently from your comments above, you don't know about Liberia or Sierra Leonne, both colonies for freed slaves, well before Lincoln. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Lincoln's colonization plan was federally funded. Sierra Leonne and Liberia were not federally funded. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Colonization Butler's claim is controversial and we can't just throw it out there w/o mentioning that controversy. Here is how we cover it in the article Abraham Lincoln and slavery:
The question of when Lincoln abandoned colonization, if ever, has aroused considerable debate among historians.[46] The government funded no more colonies after the rescue of the Ile a Vache survivors in early 1864, and Congress repealed most of the colonization funding that July.
Whether Lincoln's opinion had changed is unknown. He left no surviving statements in his own hand on the subject during the last two years of his presidency, although he apparently wrote Attorney General Edward Bates in November 1864 to inquire whether earlier legislation allowed him to continue pursuing colonization and to retain Mitchell's services irrespective of the loss of funding.[47][48] An entry in the diary of presidential secretary John Hay dated July 2, 1864, says that Lincoln had "sloughed off" colonization, though without much elaboration.[49] In a later report, General Benjamin F. Butler claimed that Lincoln approached him in 1865 a few days before his assassination, to talk about reviving colonization in Panama.[50] Historians have long debated the validity of Butler's account, as it was written many years after the fact and Butler was prone to exaggeration of his own exploits as a general.[51] Recently discovered documents prove that Butler and Lincoln did indeed meet on April 11, 1865, though whether and to what extent they talked about colonization is not recorded except in Butler's account.[52] On that same day, Lincoln gave a speech supporting a form of limited suffrage for blacks.
Much of the present debate revolves around whether to accept Butler's story. If rejected, then it appears that Lincoln "sloughed off" colonization at some point in mid-1864. If it is accepted, then Lincoln remained a colonizationist at the time of his death. This question is compounded by the unclear meaning of Hay's diary, and another article by Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles, which suggests that Lincoln intended to revive colonization in his second term. In either case, the implications for understanding Lincoln's views on race and slavery are strong.[53]Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Compensation Lack of context. What was the Hampton Roads Conference? What were Lincoln's purposes in proposing it? Under what circumstance would the compensation kick in? What was the reason people opposed this? I know the answers but many readers won't. This should be addressed in Abraham Lincoln and slavery which does not provide adequate coverage. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support compensation. Perhaps we can say that one of the reasons the Radicals opposed Lincoln was his plan to compensate slaveowners for the value of emancipated slaves. He made several such proposals, the last one in February 1865. They were rejected both by the loyal slaveowners in border states (who did not want to emancipate their slaves), and by the Radicals who rejected the idea of paying people to give up an sinful and evil practice. No compensation was ever paid. Rjensen (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
The cabinet proposal was for ending the war and returning the states more speedily, as Lincoln's stick was already in his hand -- continuation of his policy on uncompromising devastating war throughout the rebellious areas (with slaves freed by the military without any payment), and insistence that the conquered states pass abolition constitutions, again without compensation. Lincoln was always concerned with not just getting something today, but making it last for the long term. He practiced better than most the art of leadership -- being out in front but not too far, so followers will actually follow. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I would also note that Lincoln set up the Freedmen's Bureau in 1865, which was the only nascent hope and program for getting any compensation to freed slaves and in 1863 set up a plan to give United States' land to freed slaves. Although we cannot know, what would the world have been like if both compensation plans were pursued in some form, as the Marshall plan was pursued after WWII -- a much less bitter land for everyone, perhaps. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support compensation: I agree with Rjensen. Compensation would have been repugnant to a Radical to pay for the end of slavery after loyal Union Soldiers died during the Civil War and especially to those whom they believed to have committed treason against the United States. Lincoln's compensation program also demonstrates his generosity to the South after the War. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support colonization: There were two earlier reports of Butler and President Lincoln's meeting before the later report. Butler did meet Lincoln on April 11. That has been confirmed. Butler made the statement and even drafted legislation for Lincoln after the meeting for colonization in Panama. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
There are two Opposes and two Supports for Compensation. Another editors view point is needed on Compensation. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose both. These subjects would be better addressed in the subarticles. Adding them here gives them greater weight than they deserve. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Unless other editors comment looks as if editor concensus is not to add anything further at this time on compensation and colonization. Voluntary colonization of African Americans, a plan that Lincoln actually federally funded and implemented, is not even mentioned in the lede section. Lincoln's $400,000,000 compensation policy proposal in 1865 to his Cabinet, not implemented, has been reliably sourced by Rjensen. I consider this matter closed for now unless any further discussion is warranted or neccessary. Thanks for all editor input into this discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Correction: That Anti-Slave Trading Act of 1819 signed into law by President James Monroe federally funded freed African Americans to be transported to and colonize Africa. Lincoln was not the first President to have a federally funded African American colonization program. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Other sources

I found a book that discusses Lincoln and colonization after emancipation: Phillip W. Magness and Sebastian N. Page (2011) Colonization After Emancipation: Lincoln and the Movement for Black Resettlement, pages 217-221 Cmguy777 (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Lincoln met and spoke to African Americans at a historic White House meeting on August 14, 1862 concerning colonization and race. R. Basler, et al,(1953) Collected Works , vol. V, pp. 370-375; Nathaniel Weyl and William Marina (1971), American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro pages 217-221 Cmguy777 (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Rick Beard (August 16, 2012) DISUNION Lincoln’s Panama Plan, New York Times, The Opinion Pages Opinionator Discusses historic meeting between Lincoln and African Americans August 14, 1862 meeting Cmguy777 (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I am not purposely trying to keep this conversation going but I thought this article was very helpful concering Lincoln and colonization. This is a really reliabe source on Colonization: Phillip W. Magness (September 2011) | James Mitchell and the Mystery of the Emigration Office Papers Volume 32, Issue 2, pages 50-62 James Mitchell was the Commissioner of the Lincoln's Office of Emigration, that Congress appropriated $600,000. This article brings up the fact that Mitchell's Office of Emigration papers were lost and this could explain Lincoln's apparent "silence" on emigration and colonization after 1863. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I can add this information to the Abraham Lincoln and slavery article. James Mitchell, the Commissioner of Office of Emigration, apparently does not even have a Wikipedia article. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Was this part of the speech?

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, that 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; and 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 ... I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. - http://hnn.us/article/153860 See more at: http://hnn.us/article/153860#sthash.q4X4aZ8j.dpufKevinFrom (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

As Frederick Douglass, said: "Despite the mist and haze that surrounded him; despite the tumult, the hurry, and confusion of the hour, we [blacks] were able to take a comprehensive view of Abraham Lincoln, and to make reasonable allowance for the circumstances of his position. We saw him, measured him, and estimated him; not by stray utterances to injudicious and tedious delegations, who often tried his patience; not by isolated facts torn from their connection; not by any partial and imperfect glimpses, caught at inopportune moments; but by a broad survey, in the light of the stern logic of great events, and in view of that divinity which shapes our ends, rough hew them how we will, we came to the conclusion that the hour and the man of our redemption had somehow met in the person of Abraham Lincoln. It mattered little to us what language he might employ on special occasions; it mattered little to us, when we fully knew him, whether he was swift or slow in his movements; it was enough for us that Abraham Lincoln was at the head of a great movement, and was in living and earnest sympathy with that movement, which, in the nature of things, must go on until slavery should be utterly and forever abolished in the United States. . . . I have said that President Lincoln was a white man, and shared the prejudices common to his countrymen towards the colored race. Looking back to his times and to the condition of his country, we are compelled to admit that this unfriendly feeling on his part may be safely set down as one element of his wonderful success in organizing the loyal American people for the tremendous conflict before them, and bringing them safely through that conflict. His great mission was to accomplish two things: first, to save his country from dismemberment and ruin; and, second, to free his country from the great crime of slavery. To do one or the other, or both, he must have the earnest sympathy and the powerful cooperation of his loyal fellow-countrymen. Without this primary and essential condition to success his efforts must have been vain and utterly fruitless. Had he put the abolition of slavery before the salvation of the Union, he would have inevitably driven from him a powerful class of the American people and rendered resistance to rebellion impossible. Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined." (1876) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2014

In the second section it says that a mother died giving birth to a stillborn son. I didn't know what stillborn meant so I looked it up. Could we wikilink the word stillborn? 173.78.222.115 (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Already done Done by MirrorFreak (talk · contribs) here Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 17:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Regret expressed by Allan Pinkerton

In his presidency, Lincoln was often protected by the Pinkerton Detective Agency through the Army Secret Service, a predecessor to today's Secret Service (the guys who'll tackle you to the ground if you touch the President without permission). and the inspiration for the stencil on the frosted glass of the detective's door for every cheesy film noir crime movie. His head of security, Allan Pinkerton (who ironically died after contracting gangrene on the tongue) has expressed regret that he wasn't able to prevent the assassination at Ford's Theatre in his absence.

65.87.51.212 (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

There needs to be some source reference that states Pinkerton expressed regret. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Off topic

Where is the section about his vampire-hunting?

This article fails to include an important part of the Presidents life.

--109.189.156.159 (talk) 12:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Vampires do not exist, that movie was 100% fictional with no historical aspects. --A Wild Abigail Appears! Capture me. Moves. 19:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Line in Intro

To editor Rjensen: I just think this line is not accurate, "When the North enthusiastically rallied behind the Union after the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861." It particularly clashes with the Baltimore riot of 1861 on April 19 (border states that stayed in the Union are usually considered part of the "North"), the unilateral suspension of habeas corpus by Lincoln soon after, the divisive ruling, which Lincoln ignored, in June 1861 by the U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice that such suspension was unconstitutional unless enacted by Congress, the filibustering in Congress by the opposition to Lincoln such that Congress did not pass a bill to suspend habeas corpus in summer 1861, and the subsequent arrest by Lincoln of a sitting U.S. Congresman and much of the Maryland legislature in September 1861 in defiance of the Chief Justice's ruling. The North's democracy, and entire political system, emphatically did not "enthusiastically rall[y] behind the Union after the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter." Large sections of the North's democracy in 1861 (rioters, Supreme Court Justices, arrested Congressmen, filibustering Congressmen) did not rally to Lincoln's military approach to the problem. Piledhighandeep (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

"Northern states responded quickly and with determination" [3] “The response of the loyal states to the call of Lincoln was perhaps the most remarkable uprising of a great people in the history of mankind,” [4]. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Maryland was never a "northern" state and was never so considered. Public opinion was clear enough: as Nevins says: "The thunderclap of Sumter produced a startling crystallization of Northern sentiment.... Anger swept the land. From every side came news of mass meetings, speeches, resolutions, tenders of business support, the muster of companies and regiments, the determined action of governors and legislatures." (Nevins 1: 74-75) Rjensen (talk) 02:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I gave plenty of sources contradicting this. Maryland was part of the "North;" the Union border states are usually considered part of this polity. There were only two democratic polities involved in the Civil War. In any case the Chief Justice ruled against Lincoln and the Northern Congress itself defied Lincoln and did not suspend habeas corpus after that. A blog and a historian who wrote 80 years ago are not reasons to overturn modern historians. Perhaps more precision is needed here, but "the North enthusiastically rallied behind the Union" is inaccurate and ignores the lives of many filibustering Northern Senators amongst others in an attempt to oversimplify and emotionalize the early months. Piledhighandeep (talk) 06:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Maryland = South = below the Mason-Dixon line and had slavery and its leaders were mostly pro-Confederate. The Nevins statement is unanimously supported by all recent historians (such as McPherson Battle Cry p 274: " this news galvanized the North.... Democrats joined in the Eagle-screen of patriotic fury." Goodheart (2011) p 180 says " the response to Sumter seemed to manifest itself among Northerners of every political and cultural hue as a kind of flag mania...it struck a transformative chord." Donald-Baker-Holt (2001) agrees (p 166) as does Fellman-Gordon-Sutherland (2003) pp 83-84. as does Paludan (1988) ch 1. The statement explicitly is about how the North responded to the attack on Fort Sumter in April. Mentioning a three people who months later disagreed on legal issues is not counter evidence it is a synthesis not accepted by any historian. Looking over the scholarship I will state that Nevins to this day has the best written coverage (he won several Pulitzers) based on the widest sources. Rjensen (talk) 07:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Rjensen has it right, I think. The North did rally, even the Democrats, according to every history of the war I've read. And Maryland has never been considered the North until maybe the late 20th century. It was always Border South, as Kentucky and Delaware were. --Coemgenus (talk) 09:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Piledhigh: you have not given sources, mentioning Wikipedia articles is not giving sources. See WP:NOR Moreover, saying "Maryland is the North", would not even make sense -- whatever it is, the North is a collection of many multiple states. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I think we have a consensus here. It is not true to speak of "many filibustering Northern Senators" (there was no filibuster). I think the compromise that will solve any misunderstanding is to refer to Americans above the Mason-Dixon line. I added a cite: There is a whole chapter 10 pp 254-74 in Russell McClintock, Lincoln and the Decision for War: The Northern Response to Secession (2008) pp 254-74 that details what happened. Two quotes: p 254 across the North, a tremendous wave of popular indignation translated into an outpouring of support for the administration... and p 255 "At the time, Northerners were right to wonder at the near unanimity that so quickly followed long months of bitterness and discord. Would not last throughout the protracted war to come – or even through the year – but in that moment the unity was laid bare the, and Northern nationalism usually hidden by the fierce battles more typical of the political arena." Rjensen (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes. But we don't need quotes in the article, just summary for this, summary info -- would be better. It's hard (probably impossible) to gainsay that huge numbers of Massachusetts and New York troops, et al., were quickly in (occupying, even) the capital of the United States -- an unprecedented thing, in an unprecedented timeAlanscottwalker (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm well aware of OR, but clicking the links to the WP articles I cross-referenced and viewing the references there is not, I thought, considered research. It seemed simpler than reproducing all those articles' references here. But, I can reproduce the references here if you would like. For instance, a reference to the filibustering in summer 1861 by Democrats in Congress (there was a filibuster), preventing Congress from suspending habeas corpus is found here.[1] Also, if Maryland and the border states are not part of the Northern polity, what are they part of? If they are, then the statement (about the entire North) is false. Also, how to explain the constitutional crisis in the North's federal courts and dissension in its Congress if the entire North (not just New York and New England) "enthusiastically rallied." It seems that the statement is no true Scotsman. If by the "North" we mean everyone who rallied, and then everyone who didn't is a "southern sympathizer" and not a true Northerner, even if, as Maryland, they voted to remain in the Union, then the statement is trivially true and not worth saying. Piledhighandeep (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The border states are the border states. The states below the Mason-Dixon line were in the South. To this day, they are primarily in the South. [5]. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Your source for the filibustering claim, the Congressional Globe, is a primary source. Your attempt to look at the actual transcripts of the debate and conclude it was filibustering is Original Research. Phillip Shaw Paludan, a reliable secondary source, looks at the historical record and concludes that congressional inaction reflected a political determination that "it was better to stay quiet on the subject and let Lincoln take the heat. More important, however, their inaction showed that congressmen agreed with Lincoln. They were willing to let him do whatever it was that the Constitution allowed him to do." (source: The Presidency of Abraham Lincoln page 82) Do you have a reliable source that actually claims a filibuster took place?
What this special session of Congress was not afraid to do was approve all of the other war measures that Lincoln had implemented. On the final vote, only five Democrats opposed approval. This is a clear indication that Congress, like the vast majority of the Union population, favored an aggressive response to Fort Sumter. It was clearly possible to enthusiastically support the war while questioning one aspect of it.
You have been shown any number of reliable sources that recognize the huge outpouring of support for the Union after Fort Sumter. Other than your opinion, can you provide similar reliable sources that specifically reject this notion? You were offered a compromise by another editor (I think the compromise that will solve any misunderstanding is to refer to Americans above the Mason-Dixon line) -- perhaps it is time to accept that offer rather than to continue arguing against a clear consensus. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I believe you have not understood my comment. The reference you are attacking is not mine, it comes from one of the WP articles I cross-referenced. My point in giving it was that the references (which I was accused of not providing earlier) were located in the WP articles I had cross-referenced, and that I had not reproduced them here, because it is easy enough to find them on those articles by clicking the hyperlinks I provided, rather than my cluttering this Talk page with them. By the way, if this source is OR you ought to delete it off the WP article it is in. I did not put it there. I put it here only as an example of one of the many references in those articles, and chose it because User:Rjensen claimed that there was no filibuster. By the way, if "Congress was willing to let [Lincoln] do whatever it was that the Constitution allowed him to do" then the Congress did not support his suspension of habeas corpus, because the U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice at the time had already ruled (in June), while sitting on a Circuit court, that the Constitution did not allow Lincoln to unilaterally suspend habeas corups without Congress approving it. I am questioning the impression that I think the sentence gives, that the Northern polity was united, when in fact it was not; a sitting U.S. congressman was arrested in defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court chief justice's circuit court ruling, how is this an "enthusiastic" untied government? The border states did not form a nation at the time. There were only two governments, the North and the South. Maryland, for instance, was a part of the Northern democracy, as its legislature had voted to remain a part of that polity. There is, when referring to the reactions of the two belligerent governments (North and South), no third national government called "the border states." Piledhighandeep (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Two points. We have resolved the geographical question by saying "North of the Mason Dixon Line" -- that leaves out Maryland & Taney. Second Piledhighandeep has said nothing at all about what historians report as an amazing flag-waving unity following Sumter. He has no sources that say anything to the contrary. Rjensen (talk) 07:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
the Nevins quote is a brilliantly written very short summary of a lot of major events--I would be amazed if a Wiki editor could do a better job. Rjensen (talk) 12:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The Mason Dixon line approach seems like a solution. The Nevins quote is well written; I simply thought, for a quote in the article, a more recent historian, if available, would be better. Thanks for humoring me. I know drive-by editing by self-appointed experts must be annoying. Piledhighandeep (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Lincoln's middle name?

Was Lincoln born without a middle name, or is this an obscure fact of history? I searched the archives of this page and apparently no one has raised this issue, to my surprise. Could someone with historical experience verify this? JustinTime55 (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Lincoln was not given a middle name (he was named for his grandfather who was also just "Abraham Lincoln"). The sources I checked, including these Roger J. Norton's Lincoln website and the book "Honest Abe: 101 Facts", concur on the fact that Lincoln didn't have a middle name. Shearonink (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Error regarding General Grant in Lincoln article

The line states that President Lincoln " obtained Congress's consent to reinstate for Grant the rank of Lieutenant General, which no officer had held since George Washington." According to Winfield Scott's article, he obtained the rank in 1855. This would make General Grant the second such office holder since Washington. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.49.108.98 (talk) 09:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I think Scott held it as a brevet rank only. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Congressional Globe, Thirty-Seventh Congress, First Session (1861), pp. 40–50, 64–71, 127, 137–44, 177, 180, 208, 217, 220, 234–35, 288–97, 332–36, 391–95, 451–54.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abraham_Lincoln/Archive_26&oldid=1083505899"