Talk:Abraham Lincoln/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

Lincoln's official signature is seen within the information box. However, Lincoln's informal, personal writings are signed, I believe, as "A. Lincoln".

RFC Abraham Lincoln Article

I happen to see that some requested a RFC on this article. As I read through it, I can't find any major changes, but I did find some minor ones.

First, someone should go through and eliminate words that are wiki-linked more then once. Also there are some words that don't have articles and are wiki-linked. Someone should check to see if articles might have been created for them since the last revision.

Second, I'd like to see see more sourcing worked into the article itself. I think that's something that's lacking a bit.

Third, in the sixth paragraph of the summary section a sentence makes the same point again using almost simlar words as it did in the third paragraph. Here is the text of the sixth paragraph:

"Lincoln is always ranked as one of the two or three greatest presidents. His importance comes from his roles in defining the great issues, in organizing and winning a huge war, in destroying slavery, in redefining national values, in building a new political party, and in saving and redefining the Union. His assassination made him a martyr to millions of Americans. However, his Copperhead opponents denounced him as an unconstitutional tyrant for declaring martial law, suspending civil liberties, habeas corpus, and the First Amendment, and ordering the arrest of thousands of public officials and newspaper publishers.

This duplicate sentence really should be deleted as the same point was already made.

Fourth, in the Emancipation Proclamation section in the second to last paragraph there is a sentence that reads, "This move remains one of the great seizures of private property by the federal government, restoring the ownership of the blacks to themselves." My feeling is this is a highly POV statement with nothing to back it up and should be deleted.

Fifth, in the Assassination section in the fifth paragraph there is a link to the National Museum of Health and Medicene. This should be in the "External Links" section at the bottom of the article. Davidpdx 08:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC

OK, we've done our share. Your turn.Sfahey 14:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I apologize in advance for perhaps stepping into a conversation on other matters. I just wanted to note that if you search the main page for "agricultural universities" you will find a link to an invitation to start an article. I'm pretty sure that reference is to Land Grant Universities whose mission included the spread of agricultural science. Perhaps someone with the appropriate clearance could update that link. Once again sorry about butting in.

I agree with Davidpdx's comment above on the POV sentence in the Emancipation Proclamation section. I think the sentence should be deleted. --Kfreeland 04:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


Slavery

It says Lincoln's in-laws owned slaves....... Are we all 100% on that one being true, I don't think it is but, honestly I don't know...... Input please?

True. here are the details (From Biography of Lincoln's wife re Abe's father in law, who died in 1849): page 62 says: "By 1830 Robert Todd Smith kept one slave for every white family member of his household. Ten slaves cleaned the house and stables; washed, laundered, and sewed the clothes; cooked the meals; tended the children and horses; and bought the food for ten Todds."

also [p 65] "Mary learned other things from the family slaves. Mammy Sally, the most constant adult presence in her early years, told menacing stories of spirits, the devil, and that archetypal phantom of West African myth, the jay bird. Mammy's tales of the jay bird terrified Mary. In the traditional splitting of the maternal role into the good and bad, the jay bird was Mammy's evil eye, reporting on the children's misdoings and helping the slave control her numerous charges." also [p 66]: "No one in the household of Mary's youth physically abused slaves, although there is evidence that her brother Levi did so later. (According to a formal deposition taken from Betsey Todd after her husband's death, Levi had whipped and burned two family slaves.) For a time in the 1820s [her father] Robert Todd Smith had supported the Kentucky Colonization Society's efforts to send freed slaves to Liberia, and as a legislator in the 1840s he revealed his distaste for slave selling (but not slaveholding) when he opposed efforts to open Kentucky's slave markets to out-of-state imports. Believing slavery wrong in the abstract, he was neither abolitionist nor problack but took the reluctant slaveowner's convenient ground that slavery was a regressive institution tying up capital and inhibiting Lexington's commercial growth." from Mary Todd Lincoln: A Biography by Jean H. Baker - 1987. Rjensen 06:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Cathytreks comments

Anyone interested in reading User:Cathytreks' material regarding the alleged death photograph of Lincoln should read both of the last archives (see top of the page for links.) Otherwise, Cathy is hereby advised that any repetition of the text she's put here before will be immediately deleted. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit protection

Why has this article recieved edit protection? Is there some Honest Abe YTMND fad going on that I don't know about? Maybe it's me, but this feels like it's been on for a while now and I thought these were temporary. --Anoma lee 06:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is constantly vandalized by anon. users. I guess its the favorite for kids at school in the library to go online and add "butt" or something of that nature to it. I think its much better under protection. --Mattweng
Subjects studied in grade schools (George Washington, etc.) are frequent targets of this sort of vandalism. What would it take to promote a policy for sprotecting all of them? Rklawton 15:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Sprotection will never be permenant under current policy. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 15:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Lincoln's Body was stolen after all, and has been photographed to this day

Sec of State Edward Stanton tried but failed to have every single post mortem photograph of Lincoln destroyed...he failed.

The majority of americans do not really know where Lincoln body is at all.

For he is not still in his tomb as Lincoln's body was stolen in the 1930's by some rather clever body snatchers who dug UNDER the crypt which Robert Lincoln had covered over with concrete in a wasted effort to prevent body snatchers from doing what R. Lincoln tried to prevent, the removing of his father's body from above.

Currently Lincoln's body is on display in a glass coffin in a secret location in Washington D.C., where he is on display and on view to the select few who are rich enough, or connected enough, (High Masonics) along with the other "right people" to see the still remarkably preserved 16th President of the United States, not unlike how V.Lenin is in Red Square in Moscow, Russia. (Cathytreks 17:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC))

  • Interesting theory, and one I've never heard. What's the source for this? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Deathbed confession of one of the 1930's Lincoln body snatchers as described in the 1977 book "The Lincoln Conspiracy", I believe it AS OUR ENTIRE SYSTEM is one of cover ups, and intriege! (Cathytreks 17:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC))

  • This book is controversial, and (besides the unconventional claims it makes about Lincoln's assassination) most professional historians dismiss it because it is based on questionable evidence. For example, the book cites the papers of Andrew Potter, who historian James McPherson points out has never been proven to have existed. (See the article, Fact or Fiction?) --Kfreeland 19:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No offense but there is not a thing mentioned in your link you provide that has a word against the theory of Lincoln's body being cleverly taken out of his crypt from underground (the only possible way of his theft after Robert Lincoln poured 10 tons of concrete over his caged burial vault and coffin) via a 50 ft tunnel 30 ft down and then up into his vault from below by these clever body snatchers working for the High Masonics, to display their "prize" in their ultra private Temples in Washington D.C.!

Its not just a fish story, and if you cant besmirch the Lincoln Death Phtograph, published by Lloyd Ostendorf, now some of you would try and discredit another book that your article-link you refer us to, does not even mention anything about Lincoln's body being stolen in the early 1930's, as being a fabrication!?

I am sorry..but respectfully I must say your counterpoint does not ring true, there are no other "proofs' to negate 1977's "The Lincoln Conspiracy" because the fact's it present's are true! (Cathytreks 21:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC))

  • I wasn't commenting on the THEORY of Lincoln's body being snatched or about the Lincoln Death Photograph. I was just pointing out the controversial nature of the book you cited. I pointed out one example that I know of (which doesn't specifically mention the book you are talking about, but discusses a piece of "evidence" that "The Lincoln Conspiracy" uses). I'm sure there are many other proofs to negate the book, since mainstream history books about Lincoln's assassination don't follow the same lines, even though the arguments made by the authors have been around since 1977. I haven't made any major contributions to this article, so you can't say I'm part of any conspiracy against you. I just couldn't bite my tongue when I saw you cite a BOOK that is so controversial and that most scholars consider to be questionable. --Kfreeland 22:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

no prob,but can we still be friends?

-)

a wiki in earnest, shalom, fellow editor! 

Cathy

(Cathytreks 22:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC))

  • No problem! I just didn't want you to think I was saying anything other than what I was trying to say... if that makes sense. I'd also like to say that no book can ever provide 100% accuracy about any historical event. It's always colored by the writer's point of view (and sometimes by the reader's point of view as well). We just have to weigh the evidence to decide what we believe and don't believe. :) --Kfreeland 22:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Chronology

The article as a whole seems to jump around a bit. Wouldn't it make sense to make it more chronoligical? For example, the Emancipation Proclamation and Civil War beginnings are sandwiched between politics discussions, then it goes back to the war. I realize that it is all integral and you can't discuss one w/o the other, but it's kind of incongruous and rather confusing when you read through it to keep in your head where you are in time. Not sure the best way to fix it, but I think something should be done. Civil Engineer III 14:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Please add io and oc

io:Abraham Lincoln oc:Abraham Lincoln. Thank you.(João X.M.Santos)

Objectiveness of the article

I feel that this article is should be editted in some places because it basically glorifies lincoln. It is hypocritical that a "bad" leader cant be depicted in a positive light, but must be depicted in a neutral or even negative one. But a "good" leader can be is portrayed in a positive light only. I just feel that the negative aspects of Lincoln are understated or put into a postive light and that his positive achievements are glorified and worshipped. P.S. if you want my opinion, lincoln was a terrible dictator who stole the basic rights of the people which are guaranteed by the constitution. Also, he further violated the constitution by over extending his rights as the president. 12.240.2.80 04:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, as it turns out, on Wikipedia your opinions and my opinions are irrelevant, as are your feelings or my feelings. What particular changes would you like to see in the article? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Does the fact that Lincoln only cared about the fate of slaves as it impacted on politics, come through strongly enough? I also note that all previous reference to Joshua Speed, a major figure Lincoln's life for several years, has been deleted for idiotic homophobic reasons (see history). Speed deserves some recognition in the article whatever their intimacy may have been.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Engleham (talk • contribs) 05:04, June 3, 2006 (UTC)

  • Agree with the Speed comment. Regarding "caring about the fate of the slaves", that's just wrong, though that POV perhaps should be mentioned in the article, as belief in it is not uncommon. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

JP(I think this is who I am addressing) - historic men, should be judged not by our age but by theirs. Lincoln compared to many of his contemporaries was all that carried America forward. Not all information is relevant, and Speed is not relevant - if so how? Your also wrong regarding "caring for the slaves" - Lincoln was deeply opposed to slavery on moral grounds. He was a man of his times regarding race and integration (although more enlightened than our Southern brethren) but he absolutely opposed the institution of slavery and that any man could be enslaved or have to work without pay to another. Lincoln was not perfect, but he saved a country through his economic, government, and moral beliefs that would save Europe from calamity, let alone Asia and go on to defeat the Soviet Union and communism and aid millions throughout the world, starving and beaten down by their own corrupt governments. Lincoln rightfully deserves his place in our secular temple on the Mall - together with the "Father of our Country" Washington - and none other - for without these two men - we would not be. --Northmeister 02:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part of that really meant to be addressed to me. At any rate, Speed was Lincoln's best friend, and an important part of his life (regardless of whether there were any sexual overtones; I tend to think there were not, but that's neither here nor there). We don't disagree re slavery; I've put a signature on the comment from Engleham to avoid further confusion. Nice speech, but kinda misplaced. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The issue about speed is not homophobia: it's more about just having that one sentence (out of the blue) about some guy seems to be discreetly pushing a homosexual agenda. If Speed was such an influential part of Lincoln's life, there should be a paragraph devoted to it. The way it was worded gave it no significance to history or the article whatsoever.Civil Engineer III 12:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"The issue about speed is not homophobia". Oh but it is. Or to be more precise, your homophobia. Why otherwise would you perceive a 'homosexual agenda' (the newspeak of bigotry) at a succinct statement which defines for the reader how close the friendship was - that they shared a house and bed. (Look how Mary Todd herself barely gets a sentence – it states that they married, which defines that relationship.) I myself added the clarification that bedsharing was often done purely for reasons of economy. (Mention of the assertions of the Tripp book have long ago been wiped by other parties.) If you found the sentence so inadequate, you should have rewritten it. But you didn't. You employed underhand means to delete it without being called to account. Is the Wikipedia Velvet Mafia really that scary? ;-) Do I personally think Lincoln was gay? No, but casually bisexual as a young man, quite possibly. Whichever way you look at it, the friendship with Speed helps round out the portrait of his life. Here's a thought. Why not actually read a Lincoln biography, and then write the currently missing Speed entry yourself. Just don't make it the Tripp book – we don't want you having a coronary. Engleham

Actually, it's quite easy to deduce a specific agenda when examing your history of contributions to Wikipedia. Rklawton 13:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There's not a human being, let alone an historian, or a soul editing on Wikipedia, who doesn't have an agenda, including your smarmy self. So the slight you wish to make on my integrity, is none. Engleham

Someone please make me a Wikipedia admin. I want to slag off contributors, and then, turning on a dime, hypocritically issue cautions about personal attacks! Oh, and this isn't one – because we've seen the picture. So it's pity. Engleham

I do agree that this article needs to become more objective. I do feel that Lincoln was a good president, and outlawing slavery is quite possibly the greatest thing to happen to America, next to the revolution itself. However, he did many bad things in the process. He was a heavy protectionist, and regulated the economy to death. This article portrays Lincoln as a scientologist would portray L. Ron Hubbard. It should portray not only the great things he did (and there are plenty of them), but also the bad things. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.175.12.94 (talk • contribs) 15:29, June 18, 2006 (UTC)

Hrm... perhaps stating that he was a protectionist and heavily regulated the economy. Also, he curbed civil liberties in order to more easily battle the Confederacy. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/young8.html This and other articles on LewRockwell.com state the many bad things he did. Note: I believe that even the, in my opinion, bad things he did should be shown from a neutral perspective, neither condemned nor glorified.

Lincoln's Homosexuality

It belongs in the article the many allegations of Lincoln's homosexuality. (added by User:67.8.115.243)

  • "Many"? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    • there is one allegation by an amateur historian whose book has received strongly negative reviews from all scholars. Rjensen 03:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
      • The book might be worth its own article, though - just for the fun of refuting it. See also the ongoing discussions about verifiability. Rklawton 03:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I agree Rklawton, verification as we both know is mandated here at Wikipedia, perhaps I have failed in that arena myself at times, and am willing to admit and own up to my err's. But this topic is beyond proposterious, Lincoln was a heterosexual male who was both a devoted husband and father, he was no more homosexual than I am a Canary Bird, on the recently discovered Tenth planet Xena (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2003_UB313#Xena) and it's moon Gabrielle.(cathytreks 15:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC))

"a heterosexual male who was both a devoted husband and father" Half a century after Kinsey and fools still drive lines in the ground with regard to sexuality. The ignorance that surrounds the discussion is typical of the poorly educated soul who wrote: "there is one allegation by an amateur historian". The discussion has been going on since Walt Whitman's infatuation. See the works of Charles Shively, Jonathan Ned Katz (very interesting argument he presents re mistress sharing), etc. etc. Carl Sandburg in his six-vol Lincoln bio phrased it as gently as he could for the time, writing that both Lincoln and Speed had "a streak of lavender, and spots soft as May violets." The academic discussion continues today. The Tripp book which brought the discussion to the public is unfortunately flawed (see fellow author Nobile's criticisms), but it also assembles a considerable amount of material that has been both overlooked and deliberately avoided. See the Wikipedia page on it for more discussion. The following two links to articles by Nobile are helpful if shrill: his bitterness at not having his own book published is obvious. http://hnn.us/articles/97.html http://hnn.us/articles/9514.html Engleham

Hi everyone!, I am a Cathytreks a Canary Bird, and am from the recently discovered 10th planet Xena, and its moon Gabrielle...I only wanted to re-introduce myself here, since now seemingly Lincoln has been determined to a flaming homosexual who carried on torrid affairs with other men as decreed by those life long Lincoln Scholars world wide above have declared... (cathytreks 21:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC))

Kooks repeating rumors is never more than kooks repeating rumors. You'll note how deftly I avoided calling you a kook, while still strongly implying it. Who Lincoln messed around with is as irrelevant as it is unverifiable. Show some class and leave the sex lives in the bedroom.70.115.211.122 07:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)A mildly disgusted lurker

Just so I don't get jumped on tomorrow, my edits tonight do *not* imply Lincoln was gay. They are quotes from biographies of both Lincoln and Speed on the issue that they shared a bed together for four years. And what Lincoln wrote, after Speed married. That isn't in dispute, all biographers on them agree on those issues. What's in dispute is whether they used that bed for other than sleeping. My edits do not address that. Feel free to add whatever you want to address that. I'm merely quoting the sources cited already in this article, which state that Lincoln and Speed were close friends during this time period. Wjhonson 08:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not disagree with your points above. I only object to wording that may leave the uninformed reader with the wrong impression. Adding the clause "a common practice at the time" would pretty much clear things up. Rklawton 08:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The sources I'm using do not actually state that. I have no objection to anyone else adding that phrase, if there is a source that does say it. Be bold Wjhonson 08:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
That was one possible way to solve a problem you've created. Another solution would be to remove that section entirely under the theory that no information is better than misleading information. I'm not particular about how you solve it, but leaving it stand as it is will be problematical, and you will likely find your own solution more satisfactory than the approach taken by some other editor in the morning. Rklawton 08:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
An article about Lincoln which does not mention Speed is just pure censorship. Speed was his closest, most intimate friend, as they both state many times in their letters. The sole possible reason for excising Speed is censorship of this part of his life. That isn't acceptable. No historian of Lincoln would find that acceptable. In fact there is no history of Lincoln whatsoever which excises Speed. If you can find one, post it. The sources are clear that he was his most intimate friend. Wjhonson 20:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
It was just another suggested solution to a problem you created. The problem is that your edit may create a false impression on the reader, and that is worse than censorship. The question now at hand is why is it you do not wish to fix the problem you have created? How you fix it, as I have said before, is not important to me. I was just trying to be nice and allow you to fix your own work. Rklawton 21:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
As I already mentioned, my sources do not give any wording that would *fix* it to make it more palatable to modern sense. If you have a source which states that "it was common practice" or however you're suggesting changeing it, then be my guest and post your source. I don't have a source which states that, so I don't want to venture into WP:OR by posting such a quote. But I have absolutely no problem with someone else posting such a quote if they have a source which states it. Wjhonson 23:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
So your approach to editing is to add incomplete and misleading information in hopes someone else will come along to clean up your messes. Another word for this is vandalism. Rklawton 23:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Undent. No my approach is to cite and source my quotes. Which is what I did. I try not to add my own opinions on what those quotes say. Feel free to add other sources who discuss the context if you wish. That's my approach. Wjhonson 23:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Your cavalier attitude toward misleading readers is unbecoming and unsuitable for an editor, and so I accuse you of vandalizing this article with the deliberate intention of misleading readers. Rklawton 01:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Lincoln speech at Cooper Union

I feel this whole article is woefully incomplete. One glaring omission is Lincoln's speech at Cooper Union in 1860. This speech made him a star & convinced the new Republican party that Lincoln could win a national election. In this speech Lincoln adroitly argued that 21 out the 39 signers of the Constitution believed the federal government had the final say when it came to the issue of expanding slavery into new territories or states. This issue after all, was the reason the Civil War has fought.

Without Lincoln's speech at Cooper Union he would have been nothing more but an obscure politician in Illinois history. This speech needs to be added to this article. Here is the speech.

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/cooper.htm

Lester113

It does seem a sad omission. That speech probably deserves its own article (almost as important as the GA and his 2nd IA). BusterD 15:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I quite agree. The text of the speech itself is on wikisource (Cooper's Union Speech). The significance of the speech needs to be weaved into this article. --rogerd 21:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Good points. Lincoln did a HECK of a lot of research in libraries, using the limited resources of his day to make his points in his speeches. They were NOT unprepared speeches but the products of intense research and reasoning. He absolutely hated extemporaneous speaking declining, for example, when asked to speak about Lee's surrender to well-wishers at the White House (Executive Mansion - until T Roosevelt changed its name) SimonATL 04:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Inaccuracy of Lincoln County, Kentucky Being Named After Abraham Lincoln

The article inaccurately stated that Lincoln County, Kentucky was named after Abraham Lincoln. It was in fact named after Benjamin Lincoln 29 years before Abraham Lincoln's birth. The Wikipedia page on Lincoln County, Kentucky (Lincoln_County,_Kentucky) references this.

Ukgreg 22:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)ukgreg

Popular culture merge?

Someone has suggested that the article Abraham Lincoln in popular culture be merged with this one and it seems like they have neglected to provide any comments. I will start. Hal Jespersen 23:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. These trivia lists of appearances on The Simpsons and similar entries add nothing to the biography of an important historic figure. I am assuming that this material was originally in the article, but was separated when it became too long. I believe it should remain separate (and I would vote to delete it entirely if someone would like to propose that). Hal Jespersen 23:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Having a separate article for issues not related to the actual biography is useful in this unusual case. Most times, because the number of references is quite small, I would agree with such a merge. In this case, such an addition would add nothing useful to the article, and would IMHO greatly damage this important and very visible wiki page. BusterD 23:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. I kill that crap on general principle when it's added to an article. It's the sort of stuff that makes Wikipedia look downright stupid. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. I agree with Jpgordon, but only word for word. Rklawton 00:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but Wikipedia is not paper. There are conflicting tensions in Wikipedia... some wish to see our articles be maximally professional and informative in a classical academic sense. Other people see value in having a list of every time Buffy the Vampire Slayer mentions good ole Abe. We can make both groups maximally happy by allowing splits like this. --Gmaxwell 03:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per Jpgordon --rogerd 04:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per above stated reasons.--Jersey Devil 01:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. I partly agree with User:Hlj, appearances in popular culture are too informal to be mentioned in the main article, and also the article is 83 kilobytes already. If anything, it should be split rather than merged. JIP | Talk 13:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


hey, did everybody take the summer or winter off?

wheres the people calling for lincoln being gay?, or him being a woman in reality, with marfan'syndrome as was seen in the "mirror" weekly disaster I foolishly post here ignorant ages ago...?

Or the debate on the authentic (as far as I honestly know) Lincoln's ...first so called... "death photo" preserved now it seems for posterity at long last I believe, not repeating myself from before in meaningless foolish debate because that the John B. Bachelder's family journals and photo albums have and did say that the image was...." taken quickly at the White House on april 16th, 1865.."

C'mon... you know in your hearts...it's really true....we are all Lincoln buff's and some scholars watch and post sometimes ....cloaked......I am not suckered in by a phony...nor are you!...ever be open to new evidence, and double check it thrice! and look foward to results from new forensic all petaining to the worked on the photographs and journals and other Bacheldor materials being done by Scholars.

In the study's of it Gordon, it will prove authentic, but yet I say.. let the true scholars debate on, For I will accept even the reverse, if my belief is found to be otherwise, im not a imbecile about it all, but do have two reasonably good eyes and clearly see a photograph...not an etching, What do you honestly.. see? (cathytreks 21:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC))

      • Cathy, you still, after all this time, don't understand. Our opinions are absolutely, totally, completely irrelevant here. All along, all we've asked for is a single citation from a verifiable reliable source attesting to the authenticity of the "death photograph". When those "Scholars" you refer to publish their supportive remarks, then and only then will that be something we'll put in Wikipedia. Truth is not the final word here; verifiability is. Even if in your heart and brain you are sure it is true -- and even if I agree with you -- sans verifiability, no wikipediality. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

______________________________________________________

Description Abraham Lincoln in death.
The late 16th president of The United States.
Source "The Lincoln-Bachelder Archives Vol 3", The Concord Historical Society. and other reliable sources, originally from the private collection of theJohn B. Bachelder Family.
Date 1865 April. 16
Author John B. Bachelder
It is a known fact that Bachelder and Abraham Lincoln knew one another in life, and that during the american civil war campains Lincoln consulted with Bachelder, often pouring over his maps an layouts he made of the battle scenes, to show an eager Lincoln and his generals, (etchings he even did by balloon!), coloured sketchings of the Confederate enemy providing the Union Soldjers far below of his apponents activity's, taken from "The Washington Gazzette", October 1864.
It was also taken as common knowledge of the day in society, that indeed they were on amiable terms as men, and had became become fast friends in life, during the exsperiences of the war this is proven by newspaper and socieity papers still in extant today, collected thanks in no small part to Bachelders family themselves,their children saving all the clippings of their well known father J B. Bachelder, from The New York Times , (the rare war time three year run, 1863 summer seasonal edition.)
Many such newspapers, and war books of the period show the Lincoln-Bachedler and a deep deep connection they worked together on for the wars end, are these same news magazines and papers are on display near anywhere on the east coat, also in shoppes or musiuems to the least view, and are still avaliable to the general public!
They are to be found for viewing or or purchase or research, of the period in question of "whether they knew one another, or not, of 1861 to 1865. and then photograph him..in death, That Lincoln and Bachelder knew one another indeed from from many contempoary newspaper records of the times in which the crossed paths, and they lived in the 1860's, is not up for debate, its an easy to prove for any slueth or detectives finding of fact.
There really is strong evidence in the photograph itself that it is real and not some fools hoax, NPOV The fixed dead.. yet slightly open eyes ...of the genuine A.Lincoln in this picture...look below his prominant brows, (anothing thing most often correctly "captured" in photographs only (npov)).
But even in death they remained true to his face, which was true to the picture Bachelder took, but now in a sad repose to us all down the era's of time who still loved him and his uniqueness as as a person, Now he was asleep from a weary world that wore him down at last, at the hands of the inevitable lone gun-man, name in shame them.. in small letters!...lee harvey oswald or mark david chapman... or john wilkes booth,
We know with an equal knowlege that it is him based upon the evidence drawn from "The Lincoln-Bachelder Archives Vol 3", The Concord Historical Society. and other reliable sources, this is not a document from the scandle sheets or proposterious tales.
The N.H. Historcal Society in Concord New Hampshire U.S.A., for starters is a good sourse of info.
This 141 year old photograph and its documents that acompany it will be at last recognised by as the genuine A.Lincoln photograph and family records donated by John Bachelder that it is, and they are.
Abraham Lincoln's only surviving post mortem "close up" photo that has come to us from down the ages of 141 years so far only was almost out of luck it seems, but John B.Batchelder went about his work on his President, and friend, Lincoln valued Bachelder for his Civil War painting etchings for practical reasons, as ofter reported in newspapers of the day...now...there he was at lincolns side...by his Commander In Chief taking it is known, at least 3 photographs of Lincoln at the time, regretfully for historians and all americans, only this one copy remained of this one more than a few taken but destroyed by Stanton, if he but could find them,in his obssesion to obliterate Lincoln's likeness in death, but he failed thankfully now at least in two cases~!
The first one resurfaced in the 1950's of the one at City Hall in New York City, Which was the first "long lost death photo of Abraham Lincoln discovered!" (and the kid did true research and found the picture at the library of Congress he was/is still a true student of Lincoln.
All material on this immediate issue regarding this photograph where originally from the private collection of the Bachelder family of a small New England town, not very far from Boston by car it has been verified and published by 4th generation of the still living decendent/relatives of John B. Bachelder.
Technically is it both clever and natural what Bachelder did, a famed civil war painter and photographer, but he was known as a battlefield color schetcher. any contemparary weekly tals of his ongoing civil war work, esspecially after the wars end when he could at long last afford to be no longer a "unsung hero".
Photograph of Lincoln taken in repose at the White House April 16th, 1865
For what he did to restore his subject in the quickly taken photograph, of his face and his beard resting (on a funeral)~pillow of the period, he did then restore via a careful retouching of the photograph, for what has been discovered to be a very simple reason, to present and show this (long lost) death photo of Lincoln, in a less shocking, respectful to the people of the nation a more natural and "lifelike" view of his continance, were the photograph to be ever published,and indeed eventually it was used , but only in several famous death bed paintings by noted artists of the day... we have Edward M. Stanton to "thank" for not allowing it to have been published or shown back in the day, but it was and is a genuine photograph of Lincoln nevertheless.
This was drawn from "The Lincoln-Bachelder Archives Vol 3", The Concord Historical Society." In Concord New Hampshire, and from the Americal Historical Society in Concord New Hampshire. U.S.A.
Also one may obtain, get, read or still buy or find popular magazines, of the "period", and see what the what the goings on of the Lincolns did on a daily basis then as it may seem strange , but even then people were gossuping and wondering about "celebrity" in those days. (gee...imagine that gordon.)

(cathytreks 15:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC))


-- Cathy, I'm afraid that all I see is a crazy woman, rambling in Lincoln's talk page. Mike Murray 20:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Mike why are you being an insecure man, who need's to resort to name calling?, I bet you would not do that in a "face-to-face" encounter with me, a life-long student, admirer and researcher of Abraham Lincoln. ..shalom. (cathytreks 17:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC))

"Crazy" is a rather pejorative term. Can't you find a more civil alternative? Rklawton 20:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Made some spelling corrections - for experts, you folks ought to learn some grammar. Face-to-face and life-long require hyphens, for example. Don't want people to think we, "having letters, never learned." (KJV). SimonATL 03:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, "Mr. Know-it-All", for such an important contribution to the talk section of the Abraham Lincoln page!
I enjoy eating snob's like you for breakfast. (just kidding there!)
Have a nice day/night...peace...love...etctera...

"Four score and seven years ago...."

(cathytreks 17:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC))

As a historian who lived in Concord New Hampshire until 2004, I never heard of the Concord Historical Society. Address, phone number, web site please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjensen (talk • contribs)
I've asked Cathy repeatedly for this information and she has pointedly not responded. Perhaps you can have a friend in Concord run them down for us. If you can locate these folks, please post all contact information here or on my talk page. Cathy has invented citations and reworded quotations in the past, so I'm keenly interested in what you'll find. Rklawton 03:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I would be delighted to provide the information, they are located right off from State street near the Capital Building right in the hearrt of Concord, I would suggest that YOU look them up as I do not want to be accused again of "engaging in original research". a wiki "no no".

Respectfully I thank you for taking this seriously, dear un~named/unsigned person above.

(cathytreks 03:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC))

let's try it again: There is no Concord Historical Society. What was the name of the contact person? Rjensen 03:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


Look and listen, if cathytreks says its so, its so! so lets try that AGAIN indeed RKLAWTON...If you can about and make that blanket statement like that then you do not know what you are talking about, and are trying to cover up and or avoid the subject with a huge bold faced fib!

There most certainly is The Concord Historical Society, I have been there with Cathy, So regardless of your words to to contrary it does not make it otherwise. I refuse to even try to talk with you doubter(s) anymore till she returns, nor will I post in her name, (though with her permmision), so from now on just go and do your own research and leave us alone..in the name of my flatmate cathytreks, till she return's this week next, I am most certainly done here, with this online "encyclopedia".

She (Cathytreks) can talk with you when she returns from her skiing trip in N.Z.! regards ~ Sophia

(cathytreks 04:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC))

Won't Cathy be thrilled to see how you've "straightened" everything out for her... At any rate, I think you've accidentally attributed Rjensen's remarks to me. Rklawton 04:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes I'm the one who lived for years in Concord NH and suggests there is no such thing as the Concord Historical Society. (It lacks a website, an address, a human contact or an existence.) The sign of poor research, I suggest. Rjensen 04:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe. They do show up here, among other places. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
That's great. I'll follow up with them tomorrow regarding the Bachelder collection Cathy has referenced. Two organizations by the same name in the same city just isn't likely. Therefore, this should be interesting. Rklawton 05:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


"Hey Rk, It's Cathy, I am sending this via email via my cuz Sophia from the town where I am currently at in New Zealand, I can't get Wiki where im at, and hey just remember as it says at wiki, "This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Abraham Lincoln article....."Please do not use it as a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." ...right?"

Cathys letter continues to the group,

"It irk's me I cant be there to defefend a loved ones honest mistake, I told Sophia after this one post to just sign up under her own name!,but also to assure you who think we are one in the same that we are not!" >"I am halfway around the world writing this to you Lincoln >Scholars at 6:40 in the morning NSTZ, I am currently writing >you from Mt Albert, near Auckland, I shall be back to >straighten out my cousin's innocent mistakes in exactly 5 >days, please be nice to her, and in my absence, me." >from Cathy in New Zealand"

This is passed along by a contrite Sophia.

I wont sign cathytreks handle here and will get my own account after she returns, okay everyone, sorry to get yer goats as you yanks say? bye for now. Sophia

Let's see if I've got this figured out. Cathy doesn't have Internet access, but she can send e-mail to her cousin/former flatmate/former schoolmate who happens to be visiting her while she is out of the country skiing. ...a person prone to the same spelling errors, vocabulary, and temper as Cathy herself. Magical, ain't it? Rklawton 19:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What you imply sir(?) is near slanderous, are you saying that I am my own cousin from amerika? on this RK? CathyTreks has an internet connection from Auckland at over5 amerikan dollars a min, she asked me to pass along a regard to you on this fact via long distance phone the day before last, Then "gordon jump" calls what im writing slander in defense of my blood relative a "personal attack" (which it most certainly was/is not!)thou gods of wicca keep us all safe!, the childish nature of him/her to imply this is beyond me.

Why in my gods names (zeus, apollo, aphrodite, etc, could they have the right cast my comments aside, and have such an unfair look with a maliced eye to anything my brilliant Cathy has to say?, in my opinion she is leagues above the know it alls here, I Sophia, hereby state the above words are true to the best of my ability, and sign this without authorization in CathyTreks beloved name and without malice to anyone.

Sophia @ IP 140.186.150.166

  • You said, "Bugger off, RKTroll." That's both a personal attack -- calling someone a troll -- and incivil behaviour. Your opinion of Cathytreks is noted. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I've traveled the world over, including its most expensive cities, and I have never seen Internet time priced at $5 per minute - not on a jet, not on a cruise ship with a satelite link. Nor can I imagine that it takes any longer to edit Wikipedia than it does to pound out an e-mail. To be clear, given that there is exactly one person on this planet who thinks Cathy is brilliant, it is obvious that Cathy and "Sophia" are one in the same person. Rklawton 23:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Now you have gone too far, it is obvious that you are a trouble making liar and a seeker of maviolence.

We are not going to take this king of insult laying down,

You should be sorry for this and it is our intent to see your apologys, I Cathy currently writing from New Zealand and Sophia watching the farm in New Hampshire with my whole hearted approval forwarding my message in an email to you!
It is obvious more so now than ever by your above insulting remark that you are nothing but a trouble maker and not seeking the truth...no, in fact with you it seems all truths to be turned on their heads!?!?!!!

You will apologise with us here at wikipeadia for your wrongful, and lying comment's.

You have no absolutely no proof's whatsoever for anything you have just declared, and we demand to see you somehow prove your inuendo's otherwise and all without a shred of actual evidence. Shame shame shame on you!

(140.186.148.78 15:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC))


p.s. from Cathytreks, She asked me to add that the earlier price at the internet cafe I made was inacurate, it should have said ..:"5 amerikan dollars for 15 mins..." one little digit and you have a bird....yuck on you! why your a yucky person to be such a pit nicker! ..."and your a bad man!..a very bad man who belongs in the corn field!"

lol!

(140.186.148.78 15:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC))

For starters, the "two" of you have identical literary skills as well as the same well-known temperament. Lastly, I see no doubters here. Rklawton 19:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


So "we" are liars? wheres your proof...beyond your inuendo's RK?, Well it is just not there folks!, for it doesnt exist and Lawton is being like a windbag now and seemingly likes to here her/him talk in circles of empty words which prove nothing!, but their own blind hatred, at least on this matter (s)he is a liar, for I am not cathytreks I am Sophia, and my life is my own., people of wiki, do not buy her/his lies, I ask I beg, I plead of you! please ........take a NPOV? (140.186.149.55 00:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC))

Concord Historical Society

New Hampshire Historical and Genealogical Societies Wjhonson 00:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Concord Historical Society 40 Commercial Street Concord, NH 03301 603-228-8444

Wjhonson 00:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

CHS: I think that's a lawyer's office. The claim is they have a photo collection and if so they will have a curator. Not so. Rjensen 06:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I presented a fact, you respond with conjecture and opinion. The previous claim was that the Historical Society did not exist. A trivial google search shows it in the first page of hits. Perhaps someone should apologize for stating their opinion as a fact to try to win points. As to the above attacks (on Cathy not me), please refrain from personal attacks. Wjhonson 19:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
You are right on all counts. However, you should know the background behind this latest disruption. Cathy's disruptions are many and varied. She has at times made significant personal attacks, threatened legal action, expressed a desire to duel an editor, claimed Lincoln's body has been stolen by Freemasons, asked us not to edit her "private" article, has been blocked, and has begged to come back "promising" to be "good". Lately, her writing skills and temper are identical with "Sophia's", so this round appears to be a new manifestation of the same disruptive behavior. Ideally an administrator will take an interest in reviewing Cathy's interactions here at Wikipedia and Commons and monitor her account and IP address on an ongoing basis. If you have doubts, please consult her history of contributions. Rklawton 19:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You are a clearly a Jew Hater ( proven by your many attacks against cathytreks and now me) and you will try and do anything to undermine cathytreks newly presented truths about Lincoln out of resentment and clear and pure bigotry. Sophia (which is my Jewish name taken from the Hebrew word meaning "wisdom".(140.186.149.55 23:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC))

I think somewhere on wikipedia there is a place to post complaints about the behaviour of an editor who you think is being uncivil or disruptive, also see Legal threatsWjhonson 19:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The only disruptions are the ones of RKLAWTON and his "friends" and the imaginary lies he/she have created here at wiki to destroy via character asassination, the solid reputation of cathytreks, whenever and wherever they can....
This is pathetic and the fact that we are first cousins who grew up together in a free society in New Zealand might have something to do with the fact that we "seem similar" in our tone and verbal attitude towards those who wrongly attack others, and anyone who comes up with new facts and information proven by true scholars ,and not wannabe's like him/her. Sophia

(140.186.149.55 23:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC))

Well, this should be easy enough to check out, Cathy. Just take twenty seconds to edit this talk page anonymously. That's all. It'll take less time than sending an e-mail. And it'll be easy enough for us to check your IP address. If it hails from New Zealand, you'll have a strong point in your favor. Wouldn't you just love to make us eat crow? Rklawton 04:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow that was predictable! As soon as she's asked for a proof, silence! And now for my next trick, I predict a flood of excuses. Rklawton 18:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abraham_Lincoln/Archive_4&oldid=1136491723"