Talk:Abraham Lincoln/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

1860 Republican National Convention paragraph

Hi everyone. In the section "1860 Presidential nomination and campaign", it states On May 18, at the Republican National Convention in Chicago, Lincoln's friends promised and manipulated and won the nomination on the third ballot, beating candidates such as Seward and Chase. The wording of this sentence is confusing to me – what do "promised" and "manipulated" mean in this context? And it was not "Lincoln's friends" who won the nomination, but Lincoln himself. I took a look at the cited article, and it's still not really clear to me. The source doesn't contain the word "manipulate" (nor, for that matter, does it even mention Hannibal Hamlin).

For greater clarity, I propose changing this sentence back to how it read when the article passed GA: On May 18, at the 1860 Republican National Convention in Chicago, Lincoln became the Republican candidate on the third ballot, beating candidates such as Seward and Chase. Mz7 (talk) 04:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and implemented this change per WP:BOLD. Mz7 (talk) 03:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

OBS

What does "OBS" stand for in the military portion of the infobox? --RAN (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Now that you've mentioned it RAN, I'm not sure. I just assumed it was some kind of military acronym for leaving the military and then re-enlisting or whatever but just now was unable to find a clear meaning/definition. Calling M. Armando...since he's the editor who added that particular wording to the infobox in 2014. Shearonink (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

RAN and Shearonink, "OBS:." stands for "observation", but if it's too confusing you may change it. Cheers. M. Armando (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Can we change it to "Note: He was discharged from his command and he re-enlisted as a Private."? I think that is what is intended. I see "note:" in infoboxes to explain why an exact birth date is not known or why two different birth years are given. --RAN (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure, RAN. — M. Armando (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Lincoln Douglas debates?

Anyone care if I add a section about those? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keiththelegokid (talk • contribs) 11:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. There is a section, already. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2018

2601:241:102:C30:7CA5:770B:E19B:EB9F (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. AdA&D 02:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2018

• 112.134.106.42 (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2018

• 112.134.106.42 (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Assassination location in fact box needs clarification

The wording in the fact box states that Lincoln died by assassination, and that he died at Petersen House, Washington DC. *** Born: February 12, 1809, Hodgenville, KY Height: 6′ 4″ Assassinated: April 15, 1865, Petersen House, Washington, D.C. ***

The Google fact box pops up on a google search and abbreviates this whole article to the fact box. The fact box leads one to the inference that Lincoln was assassinated at the Petersen House, when in fact he was shot at Ford's Theatre.

This requires some clarification. 100.8.136.229 (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done That is not an issue to be corrected here. You need to have a word with Google about that.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2018

Contradiction with the "Assassination of Abraham Lincoln" article regarding the DATES, 14 or 15 of April? Alejoroblesm 18:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done

There is no contradiction. Lincoln was shot the night of April 14, and died about ten hours later, on the morning of April 15. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2018

The text below from the original article is misleading and out of place. This sentence is in a paragraph discussing Lincoln's time in Indiana but this encounter with the Clary's Grove Boys took place in Illinois. It would be nice to see a more detailed account of the wrestling match and, for the "renowned leader" aka Jack Armstrong to actually be named in the article. There is mention in the original article about the Duff Armstrong murder trial but no connection to Jack or why Lincoln so vigorously defended Duff in that trial. There is a large part of Lincoln's personal history missing from the article. I do not have the skill to edit wiki, I barely found my way here to submit this request. I do know there are sources all over the place to verify his relationship with the Armstrong Family, including Lincoln's own writings, I do not know how many of those sources have already been cited in this article. I would like to request that someone with the skill and editorial powers add this missing part of Lincoln's past to his Wiki.

In the article He attained a reputation for brawn and audacity after a very competitive wrestling match with the renowned leader of a group of ruffians known as "the Clary's Grove boys".[53] Awmanthisgirl (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. @Awmanthisgirl:, you ask for other editors to find the sources that would back up your corrections but it is usually the responsibility of the person submitting the correction to have also provide the source. It appears that the brief mention of the Clary's Grove Boys is cited to this book. You may be able to read it at this link. If you find more about the incident either in that book or elsewhere, then please provide a page number or full source and this article will be updated. I hope this helps and thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request for Abraham Lincoln

Some sources I found that could be added for the "assassination" section on the Abraham Lincoln page. These have mentioned by some respected sources, and even a few historians.

“As he died his breathing grew quieter, his face more calm. According to some accounts, at his last drawn breath, on the morning after the assassination, he smiled broadly and then expired. Historians have emphasized Lincoln's peaceful appearance when and after he died. Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Lincoln Administration, Maunsell Bradhurst Field wrote, "I had never seen upon the President's face an expression more genial and pleasing." The President’s secretary, John Hay, saw "a look of unspeakable peace came upon his worn features".“

References

This article is already very long, if anywhere, go to Assassination of Abraham Lincoln to hash out whether is is good material or not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Bold changes to the article for your consideration

Content added

^Early life and ancestry (click here to return to main) Abraham Lincoln was born February 12, 1809, in a one-room log cabin near Hodgenville, Kentucky. His parents, Thomas Lincoln and Nancy Hanks, married in 1806 and moved to Elizabethtown, Kentucky. They had three children: Sarah, Abraham, and another son, Thomas, who died in infancy. In 1814, land disputes forced Thomas to sell his holdings in Kentucky. The family moved to Indiana, a free, non-slaveholding territory, in 1816. The land survey process was more reliable in Indiana, and by 1830, Thomas acquired clear title to 260 acres of land. Nancy Lincoln died of milk sickness in 1818, leaving eleven-year-old Sarah in charge of the household. Lincoln's father remarried late in 1819 to Sarah "Sally" Bush Johnston, a widow from Elizabethtown, Kentucky, with three children of her own. Lincoln's sister died in childbirth in 1828. Lincoln was largely self-educated. His formal schooling may have amounted to less than a year. As a youth, Lincoln disliked the hard labor associated with frontier life, preferring to read. Nevertheless, Lincoln took responsibility for the chores expected of him as one of the boys in the household. Tall for his age, Lincoln was also strong and athletic. In 1830, the family relocated to Illinois, a non-slaveholding state, and settled in Macon County, Illinois. In 1831, Abraham struck out on his own. After moving to the village of New Salem, he was hired to take goods by flatboat from New Salem to New Orleans. In New Orleans, Lincoln witnessed slavery firsthand. He returned to New Salem, where he remained for the next six years. ^Marriage and children (click here to return to main) Lincoln's first romantic interest is believed to have been Ann Rutledge, whom he met when he first moved to New Salem. However, she died at the age of 22 in 1835, most likely of typhoid fever. In the early 1830s, he courted Mary Owens for several years. In 1839, Lincoln met Mary Todd, who was from a wealthy slave-holding family in Lexington, Kentucky. Over the next three years they became engaged, broke off their engagement, and became engaged again, finally marrying in 1842. He was an affectionate, though often absent, husband and father of four children. Robert Todd was born in 1843, and Edward (Eddie) was born in 1846. Edward died in 1850, probably of tuberculosis. "Willie" was born in 1850 and died in 1862. Thomas "Tad" Lincoln was born in 1853 and died of heart failure in 1871. Robert was the only child to live to adulthood and to have children. The deaths of their sons had profound effects on both parents. Later in life, Mary struggled with the stresses of losing her husband and sons. Abraham Lincoln himself suffered from "melancholy" (clinical depression). Early career and militia service summary ^(click here to return to main) In 1832, Lincoln and a partner bought a small general store in New Salem, Illinois. The business struggled, and Lincoln eventually sold his share. He then served as a captain in the Illinois Militia for three months during the Black Hawk War. On his return, Lincoln ran for election to the Illinois General Assembly. After his loss, he decided to become a lawyer and began teaching himself law. In 1834, his second try for electoral office was successful. He served four successive terms in the Illinois House of Representatives as a Whig representative from Sangamon County. He supported the funding of internal improvements, expansion of suffrage to all white males whether landowners or not, and was a moderate standing between defenders of slavery and abolitionists. Admitted to the Illinois bar in 1836, he began to practice law under John T. Stuart and became an able and successful lawyer. U.S. House of Representatives, 1847–49 summary ^(click here to return to main) In 1843, he lost the Whig nomination for Illinois's 7th district of the U.S. House of Representatives to John J. Hardin, but a principle of rotation was in place which allowed Lincoln to run for office in 1846. After winning the election, he supported a compromise bill to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia (while enforcing the fugitive slave act), spoke out against the Mexican–American War, supported the Wilmot Proviso, and opposed President Polk on multiple issues. Although Lincoln considered himself a disciple of Henry Clay, he supported General Zachary Taylor for the Whig nomination in the 1848 presidential election as a candidate with an actual chance of winning. After his single term in office under the rotation agreement, Lincoln resumed his law practice. Prairie lawyer summary ^(click here to return to main) As a busy lawyer in Springfield, Lincoln handled a wide diversity of cases. In one landmark case, he represented a bridge company that was being sued by a riverboat company after a canal boat sank after hitting a bridge. In 1851, in another landmark case, he successfully represented the Alton & Sangamon Railroad in a dispute with one of its shareholders. Lincoln also took on criminal cases, one notable instance occurring in 1858 when he successfully defended William "Duff" Armstrong of murder charges. Republican politics 1854–60 summary ^Emergence as Republican leader (click here to return to main) The debate over whether to allow slavery to expand into the new territories strongly split the South and North. Lincoln favored gradual emancipation and compromise between the opposite extremes on the slavery issue. Senator Stephen A. Douglas's version of compromise was the doctrine of popular sovereignty as expressed in a clause of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which passed Congress in 1854. Lincoln came to strongly oppose the Kansas-Nebraska Act because of the probability that it would lead to an extension of slavery. An internal schism over the slavery issue led to the demise of the Whig party and the rise of a new Republican party. In 1854, Lincoln won election to the Illinois legislature but declined to take his seat, preferring instead to run for the U.S. Senate. Unable to win a majority of the voting legislators, Lincoln threw his support to an antislavery Democrat, Lyman Trumbull, enabling Trumbull to defeat a proslavery Democrat, Joel Aldrich Matteson. In 1856, Lincoln switched to the Republican Party. At the 1856 Bloomington Convention, which established the Illinois Republican Party, Lincoln gave his famous "Lost Speech", which appears to have been a strongly worded condemnation of slavery. Lincoln's vigorous campaigning on behalf of the Republican ticket made him the leading Republican in Illinois. The 1857 Supreme Count decision in the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford, which held that blacks could not be citizens and derived no rights from the Constitution, outraged Lincoln, who alleged that it was the product of a conspiracy of Democrats to support the "Slave Power", the disproportionate and corrupt influence wielded by wealthy Southerners. ^Lincoln–Douglas debates and Cooper Union speech (click here to return to main) 1858 was an election year, with Douglas up for re-election. Lincoln's campaigning for former Democrat Trumbull, who was now serving as a Republican Senator, had earned him great credit within the party, and the Illinois Republicans nominated Lincoln for the Senate. Accepting the nomination, Lincoln delivered his well-known House Divided Speech. The Lincoln–Douglas debates of 1858 are among the most famous political debates in American history. Lincoln accused Douglas of being a representative of the "Slave Power". Douglas, however, emphasized that the principle of popular sovereignty allowed local settlers the freedom to make their own choices. Though the Republican legislative candidates won more popular votes, the Democrats won more seats, and the legislature re-elected Douglas to the Senate. Although Lincoln lost, his articulation of the issues gave him a national reputation. At Cooper Union in New York, Lincoln gave a speech to a group of powerful Republicans. He argued that the Founding Fathers had little use for popular sovereignty and had repeatedly sought to restrict slavery. This speech brought Lincoln into the front rank of contenders for the Republican presidential nomination. ^1860 Presidential nomination and campaign (click here to return to main) At the 1860 Illinois Republican State Convention, Lincoln received his first endorsement for the presidency. Lincoln supporters exploited the embellished legend of his frontier days. At the Republican National Convention, Lincoln became the Republican candidate on the third ballot, while a former Democrat, Hannibal Hamlin, was nominated for Vice President. Lincoln's success depended on his campaign team, his reputation as a moderate on the slavery issue, and his strong support for Whiggish programs of internal improvements and the protective tariff. Douglas was selected as the candidate of the Northern Democrats. Delegates from 11 slave states walked out of the Democratic convention, disagreeing with Douglas' position on popular sovereignty. These southern Democrats nominated incumbent Vice President John C. Breckinridge as their candidate. A group of former Whigs and Know Nothings formed the Constitutional Union Party and nominated John Bell of Tennessee. Lincoln and Douglas competed for votes in the North, while Bell and Breckinridge primarily found support in the South. Lincoln was the only candidate who gave no speeches. Instead, he relied on the enthusiasm of thousands of Republican Party workers who campaigned on his behalf, focusing on the party platform and spreading the story of Lincoln's life. Presidency summary ^1860 election and secession (click here to return to main) In November, Lincoln was elected the 16th president of the United States. His victory was entirely due to his support in the North and West; no electoral college ballots were cast for him in 10 of the 15 Southern slave states. Although Lincoln won only a plurality of the popular vote, his electoral college victory was overwhelmingly decisive. Secessionists began leaving the Union even before he took office in March. On December 20, South Carolina adopted an ordinance of secession; Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas quickly followed. These states adopted a constitution and declared themselves to be a sovereign nation, the Confederate States of America. The upper South and border states (Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Arkansas) were undecided about succession. President Buchanan and President-elect Lincoln refused to recognize the Confederacy, declaring secession illegal. The Confederacy selected Jefferson Davis as its provisional President. En route to his inauguration by train, Lincoln addressed crowds and legislatures across the North. To evade possible assassins, he arrived in disguise in Washington, D.C., which had been placed under substantial military guard. Lincoln directed his inaugural address to the South, proclaiming that he had neither intention nor inclination to abolish slavery in the Southern states. However, by March 1861, no leaders of the insurrection had proposed rejoining the Union on any terms. Lincoln and the Republican leadership agreed that dismantling the Union could not be tolerated. ^The Civil War (click here to return to main) On April 12, 1861, Confederate forces fired on Union troops at Fort Sumter, beginning the war. Lincoln had resolved that the North not fire the first shot, but had also resolved that the forts not be surrendered, provoking the confederates into action. On April 15, Lincoln called on all the states to send detachments to recapture forts, to protect Washington, and to "preserve the Union". This call forced the undecided states to choose sides. Virginia declared its secession, with Richmond becoming the Confederate capital. North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas also voted for secession. Although secessionist sentiment was strong in Missouri and Maryland, they remained in the Union; Kentucky tried to be neutral. Northern states sent Union regiments south in response to Lincoln's call. Mobs in Baltimore, which controlled the rail links, attacked Union troops who were changing trains, and local groups burned critical rail bridges to the capital. The Army responded by arresting local Maryland officials. Despite opposition by Roger B. Taney, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus in areas that the army felt it needed to secure for troops to reach Washington. ^Union military strategy (click here to return to main) Lincoln took immediate executive control of the war. Asserting his war powers as commander-in-chief, he imposed a blockade on Confederate shipping, disbursed funds before appropriation by Congress, and after suspending habeas corpus, imprisoned thousands of suspected Confederate sympathizers. Bipartisan support was essential to success in the war effort, but compromise was difficult. Copperheads criticized Lincoln for refusing to compromise on the slavery issue, while Radical Republicans criticized him for moving too slowly in abolishing slavery. In August 1861, General John C. Frémont imposed martial law in Missouri, declaring that citizens found bearing arms could be court-martialed and shot, and that slaves of persons aiding the rebellion would be freed. Lincoln overruled Frémont's proclamation. This was a popular step in the border states, which saw increases in Union enlistments by over 40,000 troops. Lincoln sought to stop foreign military aid from being sent to the Confederacy. Lincoln left most diplomatic matters to Secretary of State William Seward, but also maintained a close working relationship with Charles Sumner, who chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The Trent Affair of 1861 threatened war with Great Britain. The U.S. Navy had illegally intercepted a British mail ship on the high seas and seized two Confederate envoys. Lincoln ended the crisis by releasing the two diplomats. In 1862, after reports of inefficiency and profiteering in the War Department, Lincoln replaced Simon Cameron with Edwin Stanton as War Secretary. Stanton's efforts saved the federal government $17,000,000. Lincoln's strategic priorities were to ensure that Washington was well-defended and to conduct an aggressive war effort. By reading books on military strategy, Lincoln learned the critical need to control strategic points such as the Mississippi River, realized the importance of Vicksburg, and understood the necessity of defeating the enemy's army, rather than simply capturing territory. ^General McClellan (click here to return to main) After the Union rout at Bull Run and Winfield Scott's retirement in 1861, Lincoln appointed George B. McClellan general-in-chief of the Union armies. McClellan was overly meticulous in his planning and preparations, and consistently overestimated the strength of Confederate troops. McClellan's repeated delays frustrated Lincoln and Congress. Lincoln demoted McClellan from general-in-chief in March 1862 after McClellan's politically unwise "Harrison's Landing Letter". Radical Republicans pressured Lincoln into the political appointment of John Pope to lead the Army of Virginia. Lacking requested reinforcements from McClellan, Pope was defeated at the Second Battle of Bull Run in the summer of 1862. The age of ironclad warships began in 1862 when the CSS Virginia damaged or destroyed three Union vessels in Norfolk, Virginia, before she herself was engaged and damaged by the USS Monitor. Despite dissatisfaction with McClellan's failure to reinforce Pope, Lincoln restored him to command of all forces around Washington. General Robert E. Lee's forces crossed the Potomac River into Maryland, leading to the Battle of Antietam in September 1862. The ensuing Union victory made it politically feasible for Lincoln to announce that he would issue an Emancipation Proclamation in January. McClellan pursued Lee's retreating army too slowly, allowing Lee to escape; likewise General Don Carlos Buell refused orders to engage rebel forces in Tennessee. As a result, Lincoln replaced McClellan with Ambrose Burnside and Buell with William Rosecrans. However, Burnside was stunningly defeated by Lee at Fredericksburg. Desertions had been the thousands, and they increased after Fredericksburg. Lincoln brought in Joseph Hooker, despite his expressed support for a military dictatorship. The mid-term elections in 1862 brought the Republicans severe losses from concerns about conduct of the war, the economy, and loss of civil liberties. Reaction to the prospect of slave emancipation was mixed. Although Democrats saw gains, the Republicans maintained their majorities in Congress and in the major states, except New York. Hooker was routed by Lee at the Battle of Chancellorsville in May. He tendered his resignation and was replaced by George Meade, who followed Lee into Pennsylvania for the victorious Gettysburg Campaign. Grant laid siege to Vicksburg and the Union navy attained some success in Charleston harbor. After the Battle of Gettysburg, Lincoln refrained from making direct suggestions to his field commanders at the level of battlefield tactics, although he continued to give detailed strategic directions to his generals. ^Emancipation Proclamation (click here to return to main) The Federal government's power to end slavery was limited by the Constitution, which committed the issue to individual states. Lincoln had argued that the eventual extinction of slavery would result from preventing its expansion into new U.S. territory. He offered compensated emancipation in return for states' prohibition of slavery. Lincoln believed that curtailing slavery in these ways would economically expunge it. Lincoln rejected two battlefield emancipation attempts by Major General Frémont and by Major General David Hunter, on the grounds that it was not within their power, and that it would upset the border states loyal to the Union. In June, 1862, Congress passed an act banning slavery on all federal territory. In July, the Confiscation Act of 1862 set up procedures to free the slaves of anyone aiding the rebellion. Although Lincoln disagreed that Congress had power to free slaves within the states, he nevertheless approved the bill. He did feel that such action was within the war powers granted to the Commander-in-Chief. Privately, Lincoln concluded that the slave base of the Confederacy had to be eliminated. Publicly, Lincoln stated that the primary goal of his actions as the U.S. president was that of preserving the Union. The Emancipation Proclamation, issued in September, 1862 and put into effect on January 1, 1863, declared free the slaves in 10 states not then under Union control. Lincoln spent the next 100 days preparing the army and the nation for emancipation, while Democrats warned of the threat freed slaves posed to northern whites. Once the abolition of slavery in the rebel states became a military objective, slaves were liberated as the army advanced south. Enlisting former slaves in the military was official government policy after the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation. By the end of 1863, General Lorenzo Thomas had recruited 20 regiments of blacks from the Mississippi Valley. ^Gettysburg Address (1863) (click here to return to main) With the great Union victory at the Battle of Gettysburg in July 1863 and the defeat of the Copperheads in the Ohio election in the fall, Lincoln was in a strong position to redefine the war effort. His address at the Gettysburg battlefield cemetery on November 19, 1863 has become the most quoted speech in American history. In 272 words delivered in three minutes, Lincoln redefined the war as an effort dedicated to the principles of liberty and equality for all. The emancipation of slaves was now part of the national war effort. ^General Grant (click here to return to main) Meade's failure to capture Lee's army as it retreated from Gettysburg persuaded Lincoln that a change in command was needed. After General Ulysses S. Grant's victories at the Battle of Shiloh and in the Vicksburg campaign, Lincoln saw Grant as a top commander who also agreed on the use of black troops. Lincoln obtained Congress's consent to reinstate for Grant the rank of Lieutenant General, which no officer had held since George Washington. Grant waged his bloody Overland Campaign in 1864. This was a war of attrition, with high Union losses. Grant's high casualty figures alarmed the North. However, although Grant had lost a third of his army, his resolve to finish the fight was undiminished. The Confederate forces had equally high casualties but without possibility of reinforcements. Lincoln and the Republican Party mobilized support for the draft throughout the North to replace the Union losses. Grant's army moved south and crossed the James River, forcing the Siege of Petersburg. Lincoln visited Grant's headquarters at City Point, Virginia, to confer in person with Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman about the hostilities. Lincoln authorized Grant to target the Confederate infrastructure—such as plantations, railroads, and bridges—to destroy the South's morale and weaken its economic ability to continue fighting. Following this strategy, Generals Sherman and Philip Sheridan destroyed plantations and towns in Virginia's Shenandoah Valley. Confederate general Jubal Early began a series of assaults in the North that threatened the Capital. Sheridan was appointed to meet this assault, and the threat from Early was dispatched. Efforts to discuss peace began. Confederate Vice President Stephens led a group to meet with Lincoln and his advisors at Hampton Roads, but without results. Grant outflanked Lee's forces in the Battle of Five Forks, and the Confederate government evacuated Richmond. On April 9, 1865, Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox, and the war was effectively over. ^1864 re-election (click here to return to main) Lincoln faced reelection in 1864. Lincoln had managed to bring together all the main factions of the Republican Party, and as well as War Democrats such as Edwin M. Stanton and Andrew Johnson. At its 1864 convention, the Republican Party selected Johnson as his running mate. To broaden the coalition to include War Democrats as well as Republicans, the Republican party relabeled itself the National Union Party. When Grant's 1864 spring campaigns turned into bloody stalemates and Union casualties mounted, Republicans across the country feared that Lincoln would be defeated. Lincoln resolved that if he should lose the election, he would still defeat the Confederacy before turning over the White House. While the Democratic platform followed the "Peace wing" of the party and called the war a "failure", their candidate, General George B. McClellan, supported the war. Sherman's capture of Atlanta in September and David Farragut's capture of Mobile ended defeatist jitters and split the Democratic Party. The National Union Party was energized as Lincoln made emancipation the central issue. On November 8, Lincoln was re-elected in a landslide, carrying all but three states. On March 4, 1865, Lincoln delivered his greatly admired second inaugural address. ^Reconstruction (click here to return to main) Reconstruction began even during the war, as Lincoln and his associates planned how to readmit the conquered southern states into the Union, and mulled over the fates of Confederate leaders and freed slaves. Lincoln led the moderates regarding Reconstruction policy, and was opposed by the Radical Republicans under Rep. Thaddeus Stevens, Sen. Charles Sumner and Sen. Benjamin Wade. Lincoln's Ten percent plan would restore statehood to a rebel state when 10 percent of its voters agreed to its terms, and offered pardons to most Confederates who had not held high government or army office. Lincoln appointed Generals Andrew Johnson and Frederick Steele as military governors of Tennessee and Arkansas. Lincoln's Democratic opponents accused him of using the military to ensure his political aspirations. Radicals denounced his policy as too lenient. To fill Chief Justice Taney's seat on the Supreme Court, he named the choice of the Radicals, Salmon P. Chase. After implementing the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln urged that Congress outlaw slavery with a constitutional amendment. A first attempt at an amendment to outlaw slavery failed to pass. Passage of such an amendment became part of the Republican/Unionist platform in the election of 1864. A second attempt passed Congress in 1865 and was sent to the state legislatures for ratification. This became the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Lincoln signed into law Sumner's Freedmen's Bureau bill that set up a temporary federal agency to assist former slaves in their immediate material needs. Lincoln planned short-term military control over southern states, until readmission under the control of southern Unionists. Historians speculate that had Lincoln lived, his political skills would have helped him avoid Johnson's mistakes, and the long-term outcome for the former slaves might have been better than how they actually turned out. ^Redefining the republic and republicanism (click here to return to main) Lincoln's redefined the meaning of republican values. In the 1850s, most political rhetoric focused on the sanctity of the Constitution as the embodiment of American legal values. Lincoln redirected emphasis to the Declaration of Independence as the foundation of American political and moral values, contrasting it with the Constitution's tolerance of slavery. He highlighted the moral basis of republicanism, rather than its legalisms. In Lincoln's first inaugural address, he explored the nature of democracy. He denounced secession as anarchy, and explained that majority rule had to be balanced by constitutional restraints in the American system. ^Other enactments (click here to return to main) In contrast to his actions as commander-in-chief, Lincoln adhered to the Whig theory of the presidency, believing that his powers as president were relatively limited. Lincoln vetoed only four bills passed by Congress, the most important one being the Wade–Davis Bill sponsored by Radical Republicans. He signed the Homestead Act, making millions of acres of government land available for purchase; the Morrill Land-Grant Colleges Act, which provided government grants for agricultural colleges; and the Pacific Railway Acts, which supported the construction of the First Transcontinental Railroad. Other important legislation involved measures to raise revenues for the Federal government: tariffs and the first Federal income tax. Lincoln presided over the creation of a strong financial network in the country through the National Banking Act, which also established a national currency. In 1862, Congress created the Department of Agriculture. After the Dakota War of 1862, Lincoln personally reviewed 303 execution warrants for convicted Santee Dakota who were accused of killing innocent farmers, rescinding 264 of them. After the editors of the New York World and the Journal of Commerce published false news stories which enabled them to corner the gold market, Lincoln ordered the military to seize the two papers. Lincoln is largely responsible for the institution of the Thanksgiving holiday in the United States. Lincoln approved the Yosemite Grant enacted by Congress, which provided federal protection for the area now known as Yosemite National Park ^Judicial appointments (click here to return to main) Lincoln made five appointments to the Supreme Court who where to have major influence in government policy long after his death: Noah Haynes Swayne, Samuel Freeman Miller, David Davis, Stephen Johnson Field, and in 1864, Chief Justice Salmon Portland Chase. Including his Supreme Court appointments, Lincoln appointed 32 federal judges and 27 judges to the United States district courts. ^States admitted to the Union (click here to return to main) West Virginia contained several counties of northwest Virginia that broke away from Virginia after Virginia seceded from the Union. West Virginia was admitted into the Union as a separate state during the war. Nevada was admitted as a free state in 1864. Assassination and funeral summary ^(click here to return to main) Abraham Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth on Good Friday, April 14, 1865, while attending a play at Ford's Theatre as the American Civil War was drawing to a close. The assassination occurred five days after the surrender of Robert E. Lee and the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia. Booth was a well-known actor and a Confederate spy. Lincoln's bodyguard, John Parker, left Ford's Theater during intermission to drink at the saloon next door. The now unguarded President sat in his state box in the balcony. Seizing the opportunity, Booth crept up from behind and at about 10:13 pm, aimed at the back of Lincoln's head and fired at point-blank range. The President was taken across the street to Petersen House. After remaining in a coma for nine hours, Lincoln died at 7:22 am on April 15. President Johnson was sworn in at 10:00 am, less than 3 hours after Lincoln's death. After laying in state in the East Room and then in the Capitol Rotunda, Lincoln's casket and that of his son Willie were transported in the Lincoln Special funeral train on a slow circuitous waypoint journey from Washington D.C. to Springfield, Illinois, stopping at many cities across the North for large-scale memorials. Booth was tracked down to a farm in Virginia after a 12 day hunt, and after refusing to surrender to Union troops, was killed on April 26. Religious and philosophical beliefs summary ^(click here to return to main) As a young man, Lincoln was a religious skeptic. Later in life, Lincoln's frequent use of religious imagery and language may have reflected his own personal beliefs or may have been a device to appeal to his audiences. He never joined a church, although he frequently attended with his wife. However, he was deeply familiar with the Bible, and he both quoted and praised it. In the 1840s, Lincoln subscribed to the Doctrine of Necessity, a belief that asserted the human mind was controlled by some higher power. In the 1850s, Lincoln believed in "providence" in a general way, and rarely used the language or imagery of the evangelicals; he regarded the republicanism of the Founding Fathers with an almost religious reverence. In his writings, he is known to have wondered why, from a divine standpoint, the severity of the war was necessary. Health summary ^(click here to return to main) Several claims abound that Lincoln's health was declining before the assassination. One such claim is that he suffered from a rare genetic disorder, MEN2b. Others claim he had Marfan syndrome, based on his tall appearance with spindly fingers. As of 2009, a museum holding tissue samples has refused DNA analysis. Historical reputation summary ^(click here to return to main) In surveys of U.S. scholars ranking presidents conducted since the 1940s, Lincoln is consistently ranked in the top three, often as number one. President Lincoln's assassination increased his status to the point of making him a national martyr. Lincoln became a favorite exemplar for liberal intellectuals across Europe and Latin America and even in Asia. Lincoln's American reputation grew slowly in the late 19th century until the Progressive Era (1900–1920s) when he emerged as one of the most venerated heroes in American history, with even white Southerners in agreement. By the 1970s Lincoln had become a hero to political conservatives for his intense nationalism, support for business, his insistence on stopping the spread of human bondage, his acts on behalf of both liberty and tradition, and his devotion to the principles of the Founding Fathers. In the late 1960s, some African American intellectuals led by Lerone Bennett Jr. have led a reaction against Lincoln's image as the Great Emancipator. Bennett won wide attention when he called Lincoln a white supremacist. He noted that Lincoln used ethnic slurs, told jokes that ridiculed blacks, opposed social equality, and proposed sending freed slaves to another country. Defenders retort that it is not fair to judge Lincoln by today's standards, and that he was a moral visionary who advanced the abolitionist cause as fast as politically possible. In the 21st century, President Barack Obama named Lincoln his favorite president and insisted on using Lincoln's Bible for his swearing in to office at both his inaugurations. Memory and memorials summary ^(click here to return to main) Lincoln's portrait appears on two denominations of United States currency, the penny and the $5 bill. His likeness also appears on many postage stamps and he has been memorialized in many town, city, and county names, including the capital of Nebraska. The most famous and most visited memorials include Lincoln's sculpture on Mount Rushmore; Lincoln Memorial, Ford's Theatre, and Petersen House (where he died) in Washington, D.C.; and the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum in Springfield, Illinois, not far from Lincoln's home, as well as his tomb. The United States Navy Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) is named after Lincoln, the second Navy ship to bear his name.

In the next few minutes, I will be making a bold change to the Abraham Lincoln article for your consideration. Using software that I have created, I will take the latest version of the article, and will insert (from a script that I have spent several days creating) into this article (1) navigational aids and (2) an integrated summary. This will take only a few seconds. Since I will be holding my edit screen open, I will not inadvertently miss any conflicts during the few seconds of this automated rewrite, and I will not inadvertently overwrite any edits by other editors.

The changes that I will make to this article are by no means unprecedented. The inspiration for the changes that I am making comes from the well-regarded article, Spacetime.

What are my reasons for making these changes? First of all, consider its length, which before my edits is over 190 Kbytes. It has a lede of 640 words and a main text of over 16 K words. YMMV, but it took me over an hour to read the article, including looking over all the pictures, graphs, and infobox material.

How do people read this article? As of 5/24/2018, the article is accessed an average of over 17,000 times a day, broken down as follows:

• 7,500/day from desktop
• 9,400/day from mobile web (tablets and phones)
• 270/day from mobile app (tablets and phones)

See Pageviews analysis for Abraham Lincoln

I don't know about you, but I have found reading this article on a phone using the mobile web to be a miserable experience. On a phone using the mobile web, there is no table of contents, and the sections are so long that scrolling up and down is incredibly tedious.

(I might mention, by the way, that on a phone, the mobile app is quite nice, even better in some ways than the desktop experience, because the table of contents is always accessible.)

I don't know how many mobile web users are phone users versus tablet users, but it is safe to imagine that there are thousands of phone users every day who grit their teeth trying to get through this article. When I look up an article on Wikipedia, I want an article that I can read through in a few minutes. If I want real detail, I go to a book. (I own a half dozen biographies of Abraham Lincoln, by the way.) The article as it stands is just too long to be a good encyclopedia article, while at the same time it is not long enough to compete with a book for real detail.

What I supply with the bold revisions that I am introducing are

• Navigational aids to help mobile web users (desktop users also benefit) find their way around the article, and
• A summary section of about 5,200 words that is closely integrated with the main text, which I can read in about 20 minutes.

One can read the main text alone, or one can read the summary alone, but most likely one will either

• want to read the main text, while consulting the summary to review the most important points, or
• want to read the summary, while consulting the main text on some point or other which one wants clarified.

Navigation between main text and summary is made very simple.

Please let me know how successful you find these changes. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 07:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Cant add huge unsourced sections.....nor is the odd format the norm. The example Spacetime is a good example of a badly sourced and formatted page..... as lists are aslo subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources. This means statements should be sourced where they appear, and they must provide inline citations. --Moxy (talk) 11:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The summary section is like a lede. As a general rule, a lede is not expected to have citations because everything in the lede is supposed to be sourced in the main body of the article. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 12:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Dont see regurgitation as helpfull at all... especially when readers have to guess where sources are. We simply dont do this.--Moxy (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Smart phones are nice, but they're not intended to be used as devices for pages and pages of reading, with photos, sources etc, nor is trying to edit articles with these devices at all practical. I just don't see the serious student of history, editors and serious history buffs sitting there with a device stuck up to their face trying to read and/or edit this very long article. If anything, there should be a message at the top of this article indicating that the best way to view the article is via a desktop monitor. It seems User PCH is trying to squeeze a size ten foot into a size six shoe. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• I've held my tongue at Spacetime due to the sheer complexity of the topic making an unorthodox approach reasonable. The "section summary" approach is clearly unnecessary here, and it is almost certainly in violation of the manual of style. If you feel otherwise, please hold an RFC on the topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the fact is that most access to this article is via mobile devices. I do not know what fraction of mobile access to Abraham Lincoln is on phones versus tablets, but since mobile phone to tablet ownership is in approximately a 3:2 ratio, I would guess that phone usage and desktop usage for this article is roughly comparable. Turning your backs on phone users and refusing to acknowledge their needs is a disservice to the community. Refusing to address phone users' needs is, to me, rather like editors not bothering to supply alt-text for their images, because so few Wikipedia users are blind and need to use screen readers. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 11:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

This isn't the appropriate venue for your campaign - WP:VPI is thataway. My personal suggestion would be that a technical solution for mobile users only would be to have a mobile-user summary using hidden markup for casual mobile users and the full text for others, which to a large extent is what we have now anyway via the mobile interface. Please remember that many users take a quick look on mobile and return later for a more in-depth look if they want later on a full screen, where they can check the references, few of which are formatted for phone screens - WP is a tertiary source and serious users will want to review the secondary and primary sources. The user experience in either case is a WMF/developer matter. Acroterion (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

No, smart-phone users need to know that they are attempting to use a device for a purpose it really isn't good for. It is smart-phones that need to change. --Khajidha (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog - I said on your user talk page that you should bring this matter up on the article's talk page before you instituted the changes. I also said that such a huge change to the commonly-accepted editing style should be taken up at one of the high-profile/high-volume Village pumps. You are not just considering changing Abraham Lincoln and George Washington are you...you have been inferring that you want to change all longer Wikipedia articles that have high numbers of page-visits to this proposed summary-style. I suggest you open up an RFC and find out what the editorial consensus is. Shearonink (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia is not the proper venue for ambitious plans of Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog. However Wikipedia is set up precisely for an independent operator, such as him, to set up his own website with summaries of the high-volume articles made suitable for mobile phones. The Wikipedia copyright scheme is explicit at this procedure is allowed freely, requiring only that he give suitable links to Wikipedia. If he's really ambitious, he can do it, and he can sell ads and actually make a generous profit on the deal. Win-win for everybody. Rjensen (talk) 00:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Boy who saw the assassination

@The Cube Root Of Infinity and Rjensen: It looks like there's a start of an edit war going on. Cube, I get that you'd like to have the content about the boy who saw the assassination, but it IS a long article. Is there a special reason why this is needed?–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

To your question regarding an applicable guideline, see Wikipedia:Article size. Some people give up on an article if it is too long. This one is very long.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed the edit war as well and was about to step in in a similar way to what you just did. I've nominated that article for deletion based on WP:BIO1E. It definitely does not belong on this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed! Seeing that the user continued to revert the edits, I just checked out the article, wondering what the fuss is about. Although it's interesting trivia, and would be interesting for a local paper, it's not particularly notable for an encyclopedia article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, keep that bit of trivia out. Meters (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: The "special reason" is that he was a witness to the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, and the section is about the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.

@CaroleHenson: Wikipedia:Article size#Content removal: "Content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length".

@Muboshgu: Raise that at Talk:Samuel J. Seymour not here, and explain there why you haven't nominated for deletion Fleetwood Lindley - who only saw Lincoln's exhumed body. WP:BIO1E states: "if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example, Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination." If they may have their own articles, there's not much problem with the two sentences I added. The Cube Root Of Infinity (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@The Cube Root Of Infinity:, A couple of things:

1. If it was notable content about Lincoln's life, I would see your point. This is not particularly notable.

2. I am not the only person who thinks, so. I am not sure if you saw the next section, Wikipedia:Content removal#Consensus on removal

3. When an article is WP:TOOLONG and about a particularly important historic person, then the article content should be very focused on content that is notable and generally covered by modern historians.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@The Cube Root Of Infinity: Mentioning that other person who I'd never heard of is quite an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. It doesn't help your case that Fleetwood Lindley isn't mentioned in this article. The assassination of Lincoln is of huge importance, but that doesn't mean that Seymour or Lindley deserve their own articles. Or Brennan. Haven't looked at that either. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

the boy did not see the assassination. he only saw Booth jump off the box. Rjensen (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Rjensen is correct. This person did not witness Booth shoot Lincoln. He looked at Lincoln slump after he heard something, and he saw Booth jump over the balcony. Initially, he was more worried about Booth than Lincoln, since Booth broke his leg and was hollering. There were hundreds of partial witnesses that night. This trivial factoid does not belong in this biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Right. Seymour's only claim to fame is that he was the last survivor of all the people who happened to be at Ford's Theater that night. That's a pretty tenuous connection. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Agreed.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2018

I would like to insert a new link in the External Links portion with a link to the Digitized items in the Alfred Whital Stern Collection of Lincolniana in the rare Book and Special Collections Division at the Library of Congress. This would be a new entry and would not replace any text. I believe that this would link to useful information and sources for people who are interested in doing research about Lincoln and various items from his own personal collections. The new entry would read "Digitized items in the Alfred Whital Stern Collection of Lincolniana in the Rare Book and Special Collections Division in the Library of Congress." Source Code "Digitized items in the Alfred Whital Stern Collection of Lincolniana in the Rare Book and Special Collections Division in the Library of Congress" Mwgerman (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Statesman vs. politician

Any thoughts on the usage of "statesman" in the lede? I personally view Lincoln as a statesman, but I'm just wondering out loud whether "politician" or a different term would be more neutral and appropriate? I'm not sold either way and don't particularly care, but thought I'd mention it. Have a great day. 60.248.185.19 (talk) 05:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

My thought is that it's wise to be careful to not overstate the character of a person, per WP:POV. So, it's a good question. In this case, though, I think he was clearly a statesman. There are 682k hits for "Abraham Lincoln" and statesman. And, the definition (a skilled, experienced, and respected political leader or figure) means more than politician. From Historical rankings of presidents of the United States: "Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and George Washington are most often listed as the three highest-rated Presidents among historians".

I think statesman is appropriate and better states how he has been perceived over many decades.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

If you do a Google Books search for "Abraham Lincoln statesman", you will discover that quite a few books have been published that call Lincoln a "statesman" in their titles. Counting the number of reliable sources that call Lincoln a "statesman" would be a worthless exercise, because there are so many that you would soon be wasting your time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Unless those books are encyclopedias or other works with a genuinely neutral perspective, then the number of books or any other type of publication referring to him as a statesman is not really relevant. Regarding the given definition of statesman, I saw the same definition; it implies some subjective judgments, namely "skilled" and "respected," which is why I thought there might be a problem in the first place. I could imagine there may be a way to quantify or qualify these qualities for a historical figure, it just seemed messy to do so (or not to do so) simply to refer to justify the use of a particular noun. This is as far as my interest in the matter extends, so it's fine to leave it. 39.9.232.28 (talk) 06:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC) (Note: I'm the OP.)

one of the two or three leading biographers was James G Randall, who wrote Lincoln, the Liberal Statesman -- that's all the RS that's needed here. (It's not controversial--I have not seen any RS that says he was not a statesman-- for example on the right you have Lincoln as Statesman by Dinesh D'Souza - 2005 who argued, "The key to understanding Lincoln's philosophy of statesmanship is that he always sought the meeting point between what was right in theory and what could be achieved in practice." ). Rjensen (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Illinois House District (General Questions)

Is there any way to find out which district of the Illinois House that President Lincoln served for those four terms? If there is a quality citation for that and/or predecessor/successor, will it be placed in the infobox? Does the consensus here like the infobox the way it is? -- Sleyece (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't know, you might find something in [1] or other research. I have a slight suspicion, they may not have used numbers at that time (maybe counties) his would be Sangamon County, but again I do not know. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I just ordered it here. I'll read it cover to cover when it arrives. -- Sleyece (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Lincoln was elected, from Sangamon County, in a precursor to this. He was one of four winners from the county, that went on to serve in the state assembly (four of the five times he ran). So, numbered districts, or predecessor/successor, did not apply for that time. -- Sleyece (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Battlefield Address

Original text supposedly written and/or signed by the President himself. ВоенТех (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the purpose of this post. I am guessing it's to start a discussion about adding this to the article.

• The book The blue and the gray, or, The Civil War as seen by a boy - a story of patriotism and adventure in our war for the Union was printed in 1898. Is this still considered a valid draft of the speech?
• If so, wouldn't this be better in Gettysburg Address?
• It seems the title of the image should be changed to something like "Draft of Gettysburg Battlefield Address by Abraham Lincoln" with the description including The blue and the gray, or, The Civil War as seen by a boy - a story of patriotism and adventure in our war for the Union, printed in 1898.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• "wouldn't this be better in Gettysburg Address?" You tell me. ВоенТех (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2018

instead of assassination we better use assassinated in first paragraph 183.83.71.74 (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The current wording sounds okay though and changing it wouldn't be that much of an improvement. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 20:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: I prefer the current wording. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request for Abraham Lincoln

In the "assassination" section on the Abraham Lincoln page, the words “According to eyewitnesses, he face was fixed in a smile when he expired” should be changed to “According to some accounts, at his last drawn breath, on the morning after the assassination, he smiled broadly and then expired”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.20.190 (talk) 09:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2018

successor = Andrew Johnson

to

successor = Andrew Johnson Sonoae (talk) 02:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per MOS:DUPLINK; it's already linked right above. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2018

I want to edit the abraham lincoln page. 2601:2C7:980:1EF2:F81F:C12C:2B5B:8E13 (talk) 03:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. DannyS712 (talk) 06:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Any mention of his iconic "Hat?"

Lincoln is often associated with his top hat, especially with younger audiences. Should it mentioned in the article somewhere? AquilaFasciata (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

It seems like it would be appropriate in the memory and memorials sections, along with his beard. But like everything on wikipedia--regardless of how common sense it seems--it ideally should have a source. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Lede needs work

Just dropped by and quickly noticed the lede is not what it should be, i.e. no more than 4 succinct paragraphs. We should try to preserve our GA rating if possible and this would help. Will pitch in as able. Cheers. Hoppyh (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I shortened the lede to emphasize the main points--its now 4 paragraphs. Rjensen (talk) 08:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request for Abraham Lincoln

In the "assassination" section on the Abraham Lincoln page, I suggest that the words “According to eyewitnesses, his face was fixed in a smile when he expired” should be changed to “According to some accounts, at his last drawn breath, on the morning after the assassination, he smiled broadly and then expired”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.98.49 (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.203.39 (talk)

13th Amendment Introduction Details

"and pushed through Congress the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which permanently outlawed slavery."

The line implies that slavery was totally outlawed, which is not true. It was still permitted as per the text of the 13 Amendment as punishment for a crime. The line should read:

"and pushed through Congress the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which permanently outlawed slavery, except as punishment for a crime." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adonnus (talk • contribs) 07:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion: Move details on father to " Early life and career of Abraham Lincoln"

I think a large part of the material on his early life should be moved to the more appropriate article Early life and career of Abraham Lincoln. For example, how his father lost his land should go in that article, and this would only mention that the family left Kentucky because of losing the land in court fights. Rjensen (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

It's unnecessary to use multiple foototes to make the same noncontroversial simple point. Rjensen (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2019

76.181.232.38 (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Abraham is the 1st pesident.

 Not done: he wasn't DannyS712 (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2019

Was born in virginia Masonzeg13 (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. aboideau^talk 15:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Too long

I ce'd this beauty. It's still way too long. I'd love suggestions as to how to bring it down to 5k words or so (less than half its current size.) Only a tiny fraction of our audience will be able to get this behemoth. I'm guessing just about every point is covered in the subarticles that this one references. Let's get on it! Lfstevens (talk) 07:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Publishers are unanimous: history book buyers dislike footnotes--and unless they are scholars they HATE footnotes at the end. (book publishers hide them in the back). Having multiple notes that support the same noncontroversial point is especially useless. Rjensen (talk) 07:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

It is a great piece of text, but you are right. It is too long and should be shorter, nobody wants to read a 10k article. In my opinion it should be more summarized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.50.37.159 (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Although that hardly applies to footnotes on a digital article. UpdateNerd (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

When I started editing, it ran 46 pages. Now down to 38. More to go... Lfstevens (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC) Even with two (!) reverts, we're down to 36. Am I wrong to think that 20 would be better? Lfstevens (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Pages? No one is going to know what you mean by pages, as its different for different people. See WP:TOOBIG, look to "readable prose size". What matters, really is how good something is written, but at present this article seems below where it would need to be shortened on length alone, as compared to some featured presidential bios, its quite a bit smaller. So I think just focus on whether it is good writing, not length, a least anymore. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I think most people understand pages. In terms of WP:TOOBIG, at 76k, it's between "probably" and "almost certainly" should be split. When I began, it was at 93k. In this age of shrunken attention spans and mostly mobile readers (can't imagine anybody getting to the end on a phone), shorter is almost always better. The details are easy to access for those who want more. Given that this article already stands atop many subarticles, splitting is probably not the right move. That's why I embarked on the journey of trying to increase this piece's focus on its immediate subject and removing details that detract from that. Lfstevens (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Apart from size, just because it has daughter articles does not mean split should not be followed and move well sourced information to those articles or those article talk pages, see WP:PRESERVE, instead of lost altogether. Personally, I'm for trimming things in general but it needs to be responsible, and there comes a time to look more to quality and encyclopedic completeness. Also, for those with short attention span, that is why a good WP:LEAD is important.Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that details removed from parent articles are good candidates for inclusion in child articles. That's how I handled the exorbitantly long list of uncited references that used to be at the bottom of this article. They now appear in the Bibliography article. I don't think I have violated the completeness principle, because the article is too long and the stuff I am removing is the "most detailed" stuff in there. Lfstevens (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Shearonink: Here is the discussion on article length. I made the edits you reverted, because those details aren't about Lincoln per se, they were about other historical figures of no significance other than their tangential relationship to Lincoln who are not family members. Of course, salience is somewhat in the eye of the beholder, but I'm trying to walk in the shoes of someone who wants an intro to his life. Those hungry for more have many other articles to satisfy their curiosity. Lfstevens (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The timeline in that section was severely truncated by those edits, I think it is important to lay out the general timeline of events so people understand Lincoln died the morning after he was shot, that various doctors tried to save his life, that Booth wasn't caught for several days (until after Lincoln's body started its train trip to Springfield Illinois) & so on. As to the length of the article, looking at various historically-important US Presidents' Wikipedia article (and yes yes I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not always a valid point in these "article-length discussions" but it's an essay not policy or a guideline but keeping in mind established practice

John Adams is at 99kb readable prose

John Quincy Adams - 62

Ulysses S Grant - 100

Thomas Jefferson - 87

James Madison - 59

George Washington - 91

Franklin D. Roosevelt - 90

Barack Obama - 79

Andrew Jackson - 99

Abraham Lincoln presently clocks in at 75kb readable prose, basically in the middle of most of the US Presidents' biographical articles. I agree with Alanscottwalker that the focus should be on the quality of the writing not on the length of the article alone. Shearonink (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

It looks like a lot of articles are pushing/beyond an appropriate length for WP according to WP:TOOBIG. Thanks for that information. As for the details you want to retain, how do they affect our understanding of this President? Of what possible importance is the name of the doctor who didn't save him or the number of days it took to track down his murderer? We are writing for a casual audience, working on a piece that is too long. Careful respect is essential, but we are way past that. Lfstevens (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm also against removing content solely on the grounds of article length. There are better solutions: further copyediting, checks for redundancy, etc. But if anything is removed I'd suggest making sure it exists on another article first—the John Wilkes Booth details having little to do with Lincoln are a perfect example. UpdateNerd (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to invite other recent editors to this discussion: @Anthon.Eff:, @Hemlock Martinis:, @Irishpolitical:, @Bigturtle:. Lfstevens (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I just saw the above section after posting the below section ("Edits by User:Lfstevens"). Lfstevens, if the copyedits are making the prose worse, it doesn't matter how long the article is, it's still a bad article. This is (or was) a Good Article that was arrived at by community consensus. No offense, but copyediting is a learned skill that requires some knowledge of, respect for and interest in the sources and topic - if you intended to do it well. One would need to understand proportion, what to highlight or not, etc.. based on what the sources themselves emphasize. For example, you said it's not important to mention the number of days it took to track down his assailants, but that number is significant there have been many books written about those days eg. Manhunt: The 12-Day Chase for Lincoln's Killer. An article without mentioning the 12 days would be strange indeed. -- GreenC 16:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

As to WP:TOOBIG aka WP:LENGTH and Wikipedia:Article size it bears mentioning the comment box at the top of that page:

This page documents an English Wikipedia editing guideline.

It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense,

and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt,

discuss first on the talk page.

So. Common sense and editorial consensus concerning articles and their length should apply. A guideline is just that - a guideline - it is not engraved in stone, it is not something that editors are required to follow. My point about posting the different US Presidential articles is not that they're all too long or any other possible issues, it's that these various articles have arrived at their varying lengths by editorial consensus conducted at the article, and that the article lengths range from 59kb to 99kb of readable prose. So let's use some common sense and discuss the article length - is it too long? Too short? Just right? Shearonink (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for reminder about Common Sense and "discuss first" - a lot of bold editing has been done that can be Reviewed. The article is pretty long but not crazy so, it is about what would one expect for figures like Lincoln or Ghandi two of the most famous figures in history (with Jesus a FA). Wikipedia is many things to many people. Trying to reduce length by reducing prose quality is the worse of both worlds and moves the article away from Good Article status. -- GreenC 18:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I work to improve the prose of every article I touch. I welcome feedback about whether I succeed. I also try to follow guidelines, while not forsaking common sense. I looked back in time and found that this article went GA in October 2010 (I think) here. At that time, the article was about the length it is now (after I shortened it.) Just sayin'.

Also, on the 12 days point, 16,000 books have been written about the guy. Just because the number was in the title of one of them, doesn't make it notable, giving everything else about him that is. Lfstevens (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Edits by User:Lfstevens

Lfstevens has made a substantial number of edits to the article that amount to a lot of deleted material. Here is the diff since they started editing to the present: [2]

Not all of these changes were by Lfstevens, and some of them are unambiguous improvements. But many are questionable deletions of contextual information. The end result is prose that reads like disjointed facts strung together. I'll give some examples of problems:

• The Gettysburg Address was removed from the WP:LEAD. If there is one thing that belongs in the LEAD (per the rules of LEAD) it is this.
• "An astute politician, Lincoln reached out to the War Democrats and managed his own election" was changed to "Lincoln managed his own election". Was he not an astute politician? And was not managing his own successful campaign evidence of this? Why else are we even mentioning that he managed his own elections if not to clarify he was an astute politician, the main point of it. It turned a well thought out sentence and combination into a piece of stand-alone trivia.
• "Several significant family events took place during Lincoln's youth in Indiana." This should not be removed it is contextual guidepost for the reader what is to follow, and is factually accurate.
• "Those who knew Lincoln as a teenager later recalled him being very distraught over his sister Sarah's death" was changed to "Those who knew Lincoln later recalled that he was distraught over Sarah's death". The "knew as a teenager" is worth mentioning as it helps establish the context of who those that knew Lincoln were.
• "His formal schooling from several itinerant teachers was intermittent, the aggregate of which may have amounted to less than a year" was changed to "His formal schooling (from itinerant teachers) was intermittent, totaling less than 12 months". The use of brackets is not an improvement, why? The use of "12 years" is not improvement over "less than a year".
• etc..

Look, the goal not have as few words and characters as possible, anyone can chop away words and sentences, but it doesn't always improve. Someone(s) should go through all these changes and refactor before the content is lost. -- GreenC 16:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed feedback. I will address your issues as best I can. As expanded in the discussion above, my goal is for a concise summary article to top the enormous tree of pieces on this subject. Love to have any other comments on that. Lfstevens (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not hierarchical each article is a standalone production that could be printed on paper without hyperlinks for a single-page that is a complete biography of Lincoln, independent of other articles. If someone wants to split off a section to expand on it, that is fine, but that split off section is another standalone article. Our goal should be the best single-page standalone complete biography of Lincoln. -- GreenC 15:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I was not stating policy, but explaining what I see. Of course, we mean to be complete, but that doesn't mean we put every relevant fact in a single article. It means we cover the subject comprehensively, while complying with guidelines, such as WP:TOOLONG. Such guidelines limit the level of detail in each piece, while providing a model for adding detail in separate articles. "Complete" bios of Lincoln run to multiple volumes. It's not simply a matter of time before we "complete" this article by adding that level of material. For example, the article Early life and career of Abraham Lincoln is nearly as long as this one. It obviously adds lots of detail and provides a place for information that is relevant to Lincoln, but can't be squeezed into this one. I feel like I am operating within WP guidelines (and improving the piece for casual readers). Maybe it would be more productive to discuss individual changes?

In that spirit:

The Gettysburg address is mentioned in the intro section. Not soon enough?

I removed "astute" because it was at once obvious and editorial. That he managed his own successful campaign shows that he was good at it. That's all that is needed.

So, topic sentences. Can anyone point me to a MOS discussion of this? I briefly checked and found nothing. In general, I don't think they add much, but that is a personal opinion.

as a teenager is fine. I'll fix.

The new syntax is simpler. "less than a year" is fine. I'll fix.

Lfstevens (talk) 06:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Attempting to remove the Gettysburg Address from the lead is a big mistake. A very big mistake. For generations, students in the process of learning about Lincoln and the Civil War have learned about this concise speech, a literary masterpiece that teaches so much when interpreted and explained properly. That is the task of an encyclopedia, and pushing the Gettysburg Address lower into the body of the article is simply unacceptable.

This point calls into question all of these recent changes. We need consensus for such dramatic changes to this high-importance biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree about the Gettysburg Address and with GreenC's points up above. Though shortening the article with proper copyediting has consensus, we shouldn't do it by removing content. Some things were simplified so the details are now fuzzy. At the same time, readability/flow is also important, and it looks like mostly (>50%) improvements. I'd just recommend both Lfstevens and other users triple-check the edits for anything substantial that was removed and put it back. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Lfstevens, I posted Endless-length articles over at a Village Pump to see what others think. It's a fair concern you have raised. We can either created endless spin-offs into a deep well of minutia, stop the splits and call it "done", or find some other genre of writing that permits for long form writing. -- GreenC 20:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

To repeat, the Gettysburg IS in the lead. WP has addressed the question of length. That's the guideline I'm following. WP has to deal with enormous topics of all kinds and has found ways to deal with them. It's fine to have split articles as long as they meet WP:NOTABILITY. That's the procedure. I invite other editors to join in discussing substantial changes down the road. Most of the individual changes I've made don't seem to quality. My model has been to eliminate minutiae, seek concision, avoid repetition, and remove unnecessary context. As before, I appreciate the quality of the discussion. Lfstevens (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)