Talk:Abraham Lincoln/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Lincoln's height

I'm surprised that the tallest president of the US doesn't have his height listed.

"Lincoln was 4 feet 4 inches tall, at a time when the median height of adult men in the United States was 5 feet 6 inches. He attained this height at age 2. Although an trash athlete, he was actually gay all his life... Lincoln's height came from his hat. Sitting, he was no taller than the average man. The legs sprouted from size 98.5 feet."

That information was from http://www.doctorzebra.com/prez/g16.htm. I just did a quick search and dokkkn't look at the rest of the site to see how legitate it is.

If you are more interested about his height, there is controversy that his height might have been from Marfan syndrome, though I don't know anything about that.

Lincoln himself once said he was "nearly 7' 8"; I have his height in the article as 4 ft 4 in.

What things were named after Lincoln?

Washington Times reports that a wasp and a rose species were named after him. There's also USS Abraham Lincoln --69.214.227.51 17:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Smallpox?

Smallpox mentions that Lincoln contracted smallpox in 1863. Can someone elaborate/work that into the article, if factual (or correct Smallpox if not). 199.8.171.180 22:39, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Moved footnote

A footnote on Lincoln's religious conversion.

(Just moving the link to this page because it is not actually an encyclopedia article. --Larry Sanger)

Moved text

The following is the text of a recent revision. It was removed because it is non-NPOV, and is a childish attempt at expanding the article. I would fix this article myself, but I don't have the time to clean up after others who don't take pride in their work. --maveric149

Born on February 12 1809 in Kentucky, he moved at a young age to the area near Springfield, Illinois.

Lincoln was elected president in 1860, when the republic was in crisis. Southern states had made clear their belief in the right to secede from the Union.

Lincoln was commander-in-chief during the American Civil War.

He wrote and delivered the Gettysburg Address, perhaps the greatest piece of oratory ever delivered in North America.

Another astonishing speech is Lincoln's second Inaugural. Lincoln might have been a great novelist or biographer had he not become a professional politician.

One of the most respected and beloved presidents, Lincoln was also reviled by millions of people, especially in the slave and border states. When President Harry Truman, of Independence, Missouri laid a wreath on the grave of Abraham Lincoln, he caught hell from his mother, who recalled with bitterness the depradations on family property committed by Union radicals in the name of Lincoln.

Lincoln has been memorialized in many city names, notably the capital of Nebraska, in corporate and product names, and with the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C..

Truncated sentence

This sentence was truncated: "Shortly after his election, the South made it clear that secession was inevitable and war was all but impossible to avoid." I would restore myself but all I know about this dude is that he didn't like the theatre much -- Tarquin 00:21 Oct 1, 2002 (UTC)

Look at it this way - war was not inevitable - the north could simply have let the south secede. Look at it another way - it takes two to tango - the north didn't have to fight.

Alleged factual errors

There are several factual errors in this article, some of them quite glaring. I don't have the time or desire to fact check and rewrite this, but I will point out a couple of the major mistakes in the hope that any school kids wishing to use this as "research" will think twice and find a real encyclopedia.

The most glaring errors: Lincoln was never elected to the U.S. Senate. He served only one term in the House of Representatives from 1848-1850, well before he became president.

This is true. Another problem with this piece of garbage article is that it skips over a whole state that Lincoln lived in: Indiana. He lived there from a very young age and then moved to New Salem, Illinois at about 20 years of age. Did a sixth grader write this?

Stephen Douglas did run for president against AL in 1860. However, the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates that this article refers to (which are in fact very well-documented, which is why this error is so unforgivable) happened many years earlier when Lincoln ran against Douglas for the Senate seat in Illinois. Lincoln lost that election.

Also, Lincoln was a great orator but that had no impact on his presidential election. Because at the time, presdential candidates did not campaign. Their parties campaigned on their behalf and Lincoln gave almost no public addresses between the nominating convention and the election.

You're right about Lincoln not campaigning for the election but to claim that his oratory skills had no impact on his presidential election is ludicrous. If it were not for his oratory skills such as those on display in his "house divided" speech, he would never have been in a position to be elected president.

Picture not of AL?

Thats a very interesting early degurreotype of Lincoln in the article but I don't believe its him. Being a presidential history buff as well as a memorabilia collector, I've seen many a picture of Honest Abe, but never this one. If you've got any info on it, I'd like to here about it.

Longevitymonger

response to question on lincoln picture

I did a little research, and you can find "information" on the image at: http://www.lincolnportrait.com/ Interesting to note that they are trying to sell the original on ebay for $9,000,000 on ebay. hmmmm.

Lincoln's Honor rank

Go to the bottom of the Talk:George Washington page and look at the honored Americans. Does Lincoln go anywhere in the range from 5 to 10?? 66.245.115.51 00:14, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

removed link

I removed a link that was labeled "Lincoln Inougural address in different formats" because it was pointing to a pornographic site unrelated to Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln car

Is it worth noteing that he's the namesake of the Lincoln (automobile) company? -- stewacide 05:43, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I think that would be more appropriately listed on the auto's page than on his; his page would get more than slightly cluttered if it noted all the things and people named after him. You'd still be able to find many of them through the "What Links Here" option. MisfitToys 23:38, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Mary Surratt

In this article it says Mary Surratt was later proved innocent. Why does it say nothing about that on her page? Munkee 18:12, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Because it's not true. She wasn't proved innocent. The exact degree of her involvement in the conspiracy is questioned, and some have maintained that she was an innocent "bystander", but the testimony of one of her boarders, Lewis Weichmann, and of John Lloyd, from whom she attempted to obtain "firing irons" implicates her as playing at least some role. Weichmann stood by his testimony on his deathbed in 1902. In 1977, the diary of Georg Atzerodt was found, and it provides evidence that Mary Surratt travelled to Surrattsville on the day of the assassination to check on the weapons. It didn't help Mary Surratt that she lied at her own trial. Anyway, I'll adjust this article to be less "certain" of her innocence. - Nunh-huh 21:56, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Hardin County

Do you not understand how many generations of American kids were taught that Abe Lincoln was born in Hardin County? I even wrote (an atrocious) poem about it third grade. RickK 21:44, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it is correct to say that he was born in Hardin County, Kentucky. It is also correct to say that his birthplace is in LaRue County, Kentucky. LaRue County was created after his birth.--Rogerd 14:33, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Interesting, Rogerd, I learned something new. --Noitall 14:43, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Also, when listing the parks, the Lincoln Boyhood Home in Indiana is omitted. Is it possible to get that changed? (posted 02:17, August 6, 2005 by Pack87Man)

NPOV

Please read the Wikipedia policy page on Neutral Point of View then ask yourself how this article is or is not in compliance with the policy. For example, after reading about NPOV, take a look at what the article says about the Gettysburg Address, and compare it to what the NPOV page said about how Wikipidia articles are to be written. ChessPlayer 13:13, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Good point. This is one of the usual write-ups that makes Lincoln into a mythological hero. I don't know how it got featured status. 172 02:37, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

As no one is moving to fix this article, I made a small step in the direction of transforming it from a biased article into one consistant with the NPOV policy. I attributed an opinion asserted by the article, that Lincoln was a "masterful politician," to un-named "historians", as I am sure some historians somewhere believe this, so its fact. Still, this is by no means satisfactory, and better yet would be if whoever originally created the claim, stepped forward and cited his sources, attributing the opinion to them, and not the article. ChessPlayer 00:10, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Actually, that's not a glorification of Lincoln. Calling him a "masterful politician" is a value-neutral statement. Stalin, for example, was a deft politician as well, that is when it came to consolidating his own personal power. 172 00:28, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a glorification. The point is, its an opinion, and articles may not assert opinions, they only may give facts. If opinions are stated, they must be cited with whose opinion they are. ChessPlayer 00:39, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

You seem to be adhering to quite an extreme interpretation of NPOV policies. 172 00:41, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

I am adhereing to what it states on the policy page; it is not extreme to simply follow what it says. Wikipidia articles can assert facts, but can only attribute opinions, not assert them. I agree with your opinion of Lincoln. I think he was a deft politician. But that doesn't mean we can make the article say that; we do have to follow the rules. There is good reason to, too, it vastly increases the ability of people to cooperate if they don't have to fight over what opinions will be asserted by the article. ChessPlayer 00:52, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

If it helps you sleep better at night, cite historians such as David Herbert Donald and Alan Nevins. 172 01:03, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

I didn't see anything in the NPOV policy about external links. I submitted the following be added to this article's external links http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/lincoln-arch.html . However the link was removed for being "viciously biased." While the articles in this archive are outside of the maintstream of Lincoln literature, I do believe they serve a great purpose of giving a better overall picture of Lincoln's life and his public policies. These articles were written by many different scholars, historians, and economists and I feel they are a great resource for anyone interested in Abraham Lincoln. I am hoping to get some input on whether this link should be added to the article. Thanks. --JimGar 17:49, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree the http://www.Lewrockwell.com/orig2/lincoln-arch.html link should be listed. It gives the negative side of the story about Lincoln that no one hears about in the media or in government schools. Its very biased, but just imagine if one-hundred years from now the only accepted history is that President Clintion was an honest man or that President Bush invaded Iraq to "free the Iraqies". It's like that in my eyes. Markes15 20:44, 13 December 2004 (UTC)

Deletion of Racist Quotes

Wikisux, if you think the racist quotes should be deleted, could you explain why? Surely the more information in the article, the better? Rosemary Amey 17:04, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Hnnuh? Take a closer look. There's a reason I labeled my edit "remove duplicate section"... unless you think that section is important enough to appear twice in the article, I would recommend you get rid of it again. :-) -- Wikisux 18:28, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Never mind, I took care of it myself. -- Wikisux 03:37, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

D'oh! Sorry about that... Rosemary Amey 04:32, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

I have trouble with the following: "Canadian ethicist David Sztybel has found many examples of racism in Lincoln's speeches and writings." The examples that follow don't seem to show that Szrtbel did anything that one can call "finding." No especial diligence was required. He simply looked up familiar sources in equally familiar reference works or collections. The better verb would be that he "collected" not that he "found" such statements, since they plainly weren't lost. --Christofurio 19:29, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

Content stolen by Civil War site?

Contributors to this page may wish to know someone has stolen the content without credit, violating our license. See Wikipedia:Copies of Wikipedia content (low degree of compliance), section Civil-War.ws. You may wish to contact the site at info@civil-war.ws to voice a complaint. Deco 00:40, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

AL an "abolitionist"?

I made two minor edits to the section "Assassination," correcting the official time of death and the name of one of the conspirators (Edward Spangler). I was rather suprised, however, to see Lincoln incorrectly characterized as an "abolitionist" at the time of his election in the introduction, despite the accurate summary of his views on slavery given in the section "Lincoln on Slavery." At that time Lincoln was certainly not an abolitionist, despite his personal anti-slavery sentiments.

It is very well documented that in 1860 and previously, Lincoln was adamantly opposed to the extension of slavery into states and territories where it had not previously existed, but was reluctant to attack the "peculiar institution" where it was already established. This was likely in the vain and unrealistic hope that such a quarantine would lead to the eventual end of slavery. There is more than adequate evidence that despite Lincoln's personal abhorrence of slavery, he felt the country was not yet prepared for outright abolition and thus refused to advocate it, to the anger and disgust of the abolitionists. It remains to Lincoln's credit, however, that when he perceived changes of circumstance during the war that would allow for the weakening or destruction of slavery, he did not shrink from exploiting them. --Edeans 00:08, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

I've seen this here & in the article on Lincoln & slavery

Lincoln believed that African-Americans were entitled to "natural rights" as declared in the Declaration of Independence, but not necessarily civil or political rights,

Can anyone elaborate? Don't all rights flow from natural rights, according to theory at the time?--JimWae 05:31, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

The "natural rights" stated in the Declaration of Independence are "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." The right to vote, hold office, and so on were often considered distinct. Women in 19th-century America, for instance, could be argued to possess the former set of rights but not the latter. Funnyhat 22:36, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Abraham Lincoln/Archive 1 article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Abraham Lincoln/Archive 1}} to this page. — LinkBot 11:21, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lincoln's sexuality

Please vote about this issue below; please discuss the issue up here

There's a new book coming out soon that looks at evidence of homosexuality in Lincoln's life. This has been cropping up periodically for the past twenty years, but this book is apparently very detailed. I suspect it might become an issue, and have added what I can remember. I've added it in its own section, as part of the sections on his personal life, to minimise its impact on the rest of the article. Can we all please approach this maturely and responsibly, admitting that none of us know for sure and we can only examine the evidence and judge the veracity of the claims; documenting claims and rebuttals and anything pertinent in an academic manner, and discussing the changes we've made here; rather than getting into all reverty?

Thank you for adding this section. Whatever our beliefs on the matter, it is clearly an issue/debate of interest, and should be mentioned in the article accordingly. AvestanHamster 02:51, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree. The past few edits on the Lincoln page have certainly shown that a great variety of views on Lincoln's sexuality exists; but no matter what our personal opinions are, this is a topic which has fostered public discussion, including debate on university level. It is also an issue that matters to a great number of people - not only homosexuals, but also those who wish to refute the thesis that Lincoln was homosexual/ bisexual. As such, I feel it fully deserves its own section on this page. 10:43, 23 Dec 2004

The Lincoln's Sexuality section, I think, merits its own article, which has been created: Abraham Lincoln's Sexuality. I have included a link to it from the main article. I think this debate is definitely important enough to deserve its own article.

Let me elaborate further on why Lincoln's sexuality needs its own page. The main "Abraham Lincoln" page is a biography; it deals with factual claims. For example, the claim that "Lincoln approved the Emancipation Proclamation as a wartime measure" is factually correct, for this is how Lincoln constitutionally justified his action. However, "Lincoln's Sexuality" is an interpretation of factual claims about Lincoln's biography, and the resulting speculation is not necessarily factually correct. As such, it is a meta-biographical section, but it is not in itself biographical. It deals with interpretations of factual claims, but is not factual in itself. Because of this key difference, I think it needs its own page.

I'm afraid I disagree. Lincoln's sexuality is no longer than other sections in his biography and it maintains NPOV. It is completely relevant to our understanding of Lincoln's role in history, and should not be moved off to another page. I have reverted the page, and suggest that a consensus be arrived at here before we get into a "reversion" battle. If there is a consensus to move this to a separate article that's fine, but let's move slowly to ensure that the reasons are sound, that everyone who cares has a say, and that this is not just avoiding what some may find a troubling aspect of Lincoln's biography. Jliberty 15:02, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

• I think it has become far too detailed (looking especially at the poem) to stay on the main page - I would on the main page perhaps mention friendship with J Speed ( a Southerner, right?) & then link to new article. How come nobody has mentioned JS being a Confederate supporter? --JimWae 18:02, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

• I take offense to your characterization of Lincoln's sexuality as "troubling." I don't see why it is troubling to be homosexual, if that is true. Lincoln's sexuality lengthens an already long article. It is completely relevant, but it is also speculative. You did not respond to my point that it is much more speculative than other parts of the article, and before I allow the section to stand I will insist you give me some reason why speculation belongs in an otherwise completely factual article. Lincoln's sexuality has its own page now, and it will stay there until you give me some reason to put it back here. NP

And if you revert, I will insist you give me some reason why this information must be on the Abraham Lincoln page as well as the Abraham Lincoln's Sexuality page, and why you removed the link to that article from this page. Is it because it includes some additional information than what you put on here? NP

I certainly am not suggesting that Lincoln's homosexuality is troubling, (please note that I have been an out bisexual and GLB activist for 30 years), what I said was that the fact that some may find it so is no reason to hide it off in a corner. So please try not to "take offense" at my writing (see Staying cool when the editing gets hot)

I personally do not think it is too detailed, but that is a matter of opinion. Further, I do think it is restricted to NPOV facts, but that is subject to perception. The speculation involved is reported objectively, and is relevant to understanding Lincoln.

If I removed a link, it was entirely unintentional, and I apologize. I do not think it should be in two places; I think it should be in one (on the main Lincoln page). If you wish to have a second page, that is up to you and the community (as is the entire decision, I should think).

In an attempt to cut the Gordian knot, I've reinstated the section, but shortened it to its essentials, and I've restored the link I inadvertently deleted. I've made my arguments, I think we should give others time to participate. Jliberty 02:14, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

No, you have not made your arguments, you have addressed none of my contentions as to why it should be a separate article. Why should the Sexuality section not be its own article? You give no reasons as to why it should be on the main page. Why should the info. be on the main Lincoln page when that information is redundant with the new article? Again, no explanation. I would submit that there is consensus as to the need for moving to a new page from all but J. Liberty. NP

Please read the comments above. As far as I can tell, (a) few have voiced an opinion and (b) the majority of those who did voice one think the information belongs on the main page.

I personally have nothing against referring folks to another page for further discussion. I did not read the other page and pick and choose what to include (as you imply); I simply restored what I had written. I even shortened it, but someone else put back the cuts, so clearly some folks think it all belongs on the main page intact. I respectfully but strongly request that you stop reverting it away, and let the discussion go for a while before making the change back to the way you want it.Jliberty 13:31, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

And there is nothing speculative here except for the section on Lincoln's sexuality. I would submit further that the section that J. Liberty keeps trying to restore was not npov. The new article contains a much longer counterargument for Lincoln's heterosexuality, which J. Liberty does not believe relevant to put up. Speculation is often inherently biased, and at the very least dangerous when mixed with an otherwise completely factual article. There is a great risk readers will regard the speculation in the Lincoln's Sexuality section as fact, because of its presence on the main page, instead of baseless speculation. The new article gives the section better context. NP

Speculation is part of the game; it is part of any aspect of a biography. We can only say that Abe Lincoln was born on 12 February 1809 because we speculate that the registrar did a proper job when taking down his date of birth, we can only say that he was the son of Thomas Lincoln, because we speculate that his parents didn't lie about that, we can only say that he was heterosexual, because we speculate that he was. Theories on the life of an eminent person should be not entirely far-fetched if they are to appear in a biography; they should be of some importance to the public if they are to merit a section in their own right. The theory on Lincoln's sexuality is certainly not a speculation that remains in the realm of the far-fetched or the ludicrous – its supporters have provided us with some interesting and sound arguments (be they convincing or not). Nobody who has followed debate in the media on this topic can argue that the theory has engendered no public interest at all. This is clearly a topic that matters to a great number of people; as such, it deserves a section in its own right, on the main page dealing with Abraham Lincoln's life.

Lincoln's birthdate is not a matter of speculation at all (no historian suggests he was born except when he was), nor is his parentage (no historian has suggested Lincoln was born to different parents). Lincoln's sexuality is speculation. We have NO evidence as to the sexuality. Its supporters have not provided sound arguments, but rather innuendo. That Lincoln shared beds with other men is proof of nothing-- if Lincoln slept with his dog, is that evidence he was a beastiophile? That Lincoln wrote a rhyme about a boy marrying a boy is also proof of nothing-- if I write a commentary about gay marriage, does that mean I'm gay too? Where is the causal link there? Where are the hard facts? There is nothing. Why on the main page, further? It has its own page now, and because it is 1000% more speculative than anything else.

As to the dangers of speculation about political figures, let me propose an example. Suppose on the Bill Clinton page I posted a table of Clinton associates who died under mysterious circumstances. That would be totally unfair to Clinton, but it would also be perfectly npov.

Why does this info have to be on the main Lincoln page? No one has even come close to suggesting an answer.

I did suggest an answer to the question why it has to be on the main page, when referring to the public interest in Lincoln's sexuality. Not my fault if you dont' bother to read previous comments. As to the speculation: Lincoln's birthdate or parentage do not appear to be matters for speculation because nobody ever cared to question them. Hence we do not know of any solid reasons why they should be subjected to discussion. This is not the case with Lincoln's sexuality: Tripp has taken up the case and provided reasons. Other historians follow him in this. We may or may not agree with it, but it is a topic of importance for a great number of people and inextricably linked to Lincoln's biography. [24 Dec 2004, 1.15 pm]

Why is that public interest not satisfied by the new page? The fact that a "historian" questions something does not establish a legitimate grounds for debate. Eg, Holocaust revisionists, Belasailles' Arming America, etc.

Again, why both here and the new page? There has been no answer, and your "public interest" argument is nonsense.

Every time I try to return the section you have deleted, you delete it again. Following Wikipedia policy, I will not revert it again. I believe, again according to policy, that you should leave it intact until others weigh in, and a consensus emerges (which manifestly you do not have). I have asked other Wikipedians to take a look and to weigh in on the discussion. For now, I will hold my peace.Jliberty 13:47, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Just for the record, you're not the only one who wants this section here, Jliberty. I tried to re-establish it too, but then got told off for making too many 'reverts' in 24 hrs. One would rather hope that wiki would apply the same policy to 68.41.239.188 and his purges of the section, but that's perhaps too much to ask for. [24 Dec 2004] 1.52 pm (GMT)

Your protagonist, User:68.41.239.188, has been temporarily blocked for 24 hrs, after they wiolated the WP:3RR at 09:35, after being explicity warned not to at 9:13. So, please do not take their silence for assent. They will be able to resume discussion shortly, please be patient until then. Noel (talk) 14:52, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On reflection, I decided to shorten their block to 12 hours; they weren't a vandal, just would not listen to requests to please follow the Wikipedia rules. If they are still a problem, please report them at WP:AN I will repeat here a note I made to them: please be aware that if the community consensus is to move that content on Lincoln's sexual orientation to another page, or whatever, people really have to go along. Refusing to follow a community decision, and making edits in the face of it, is a serious infraction, which can garner you a much longer block; repeated failure to do so has led to people being banned. I know it can be a problem sometimed - numbers do not make for correctness. Nonetheless, like Churchill's saying about democracy, it's the best rule we have, and to discard it would lead only to chaos. Noel (talk) 17:05, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure we will all go with the decision, whatever it is. Can you tell us a bit more about the process? Specifically: how long is the vote held open? When the vote is tallied, if it is about evenly divided, is the "default" position to leave the original page intact (Note: that is not its current status, the section is currently missing) or is the default position to remove the disputed section? Thanks again for your help. Jliberty 17:43, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Good to hear that my "public interest" argument is nonsense. Forgive me, I forgot that wiki wasn't really about serving the public interest. I also forgot that "this is nonsense" is a good sound argument. Merry Christmas! [24 Dec 2004] 1.53 pm (GMT)

Why is that public interest not satisfied by the new page?

Any reason for hiding away Lincoln's sexuality on an extra page? Question: If there were reasons to believe that Lincoln was Jewish, should we better put that theory away on an extra page, so that unsuspecting people don't stumble upon it when they visit the biography page?

I do not support the inclusion of the debate on Lincoln's sexuality on this page. I support the inclusion of a link to another entry about his sexuality on this page, with all of the discussion there. I am a lot more conservative about what belongs on a page when it comes to a featured article. Samboy 14:14, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm voting with Tallulah Bankhead on a comparable occasion: when asked about a prominent friend, she said, "Well, I don't know, darling. He never sucked my cock." ...I'd have to agree. --Wetman 19:20, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The discussion of Lincoln's sexuality is, undoubtedly, a modern topic. The fact that it is a current event is why it most assuredly needs to be kept here. People need to know who Lincoln was- and wasn't- and explaining various opinions, as well as facts, is by far the best way to bring people to understanding the real Lincoln. I do not like to resort to name calling, but it seems almost as if a part of the reason why so many people are against even mentioning sexuality is that there could be a bit of homophobia involved. The reason I state this is that there is nothing antagonistic to suggesting that Lincoln is gay, nor is it harmful to relate popular opinions. Indeed, that is routine to both published encyclopedias and Wikipedia as a whole. I tried citing hard evidence of life in 1837 Springfield twice, and from a renowned Lincoln scholar who wrote an authoritative book that was published in 1971 (by the late Illinois Sen. Paul Simon, who wrote the book when he was a state legislator for 15 years researching it at the State Archives in Springfield using ORIGINAL source material, not rehashing it from somebody else's research- which is the basis for most every other Lincoln biography of history. You don't need to take my word for it, simply peruse your local library and look at the large number of endnotes he uses). I did NOT take sides, nor did I use original research (hardly! Paul Simon has been dead 2 years! It couldn't be any less original that that), yet the material was removed. A few sentences, which end with talk of Lincoln's well-known nervous breakdown (that Simon said could not be explained using the known papers at that time, but which he thought may've been attributed to Lincoln's losing the 1840 election and his chance to be an elector in the Electoral College for William Henry Harrison). Simon never concluded why the breakdown happened, but it was a well-established fact that Lincoln never told anyone why, and it DID actually occur during the time that Speed moved back to Kentucky. Lincoln's breakdown is a matter of historical record and a completely legitimate topic for historians- anyone who says otherwise, or automatically draws a conclusion that it couldn't be linked to homosexuality, is simply a revisionist inserting their own opinions into the pages of history. All sides need to be explored academically (even Paul Simon refused to draw a conclusion, and he told me he read over all of Lincoln's known letters during that time period). ...

Someone posted this at this discussion page, "And I suppose "they" have credibility endorsing this when everyone knows they are all dirty lies and stains on Lincoln's greater character. What about Mary, Speed, and everyone else involved here? We've done nothing but tarnish everyone's reputation by even making this an issue."

As I stated immediately above, it seems some people have issues with Lincoln's sexuality. I do not think that having balanced, accurate, and factually correct information that PREDATES the year of my birth, published by Lincoln scholars and Illinois historians, should be considered original research. Some people believe that truthfully investigating this matter, even using very old sources, is a form of "original research." When does it stop being listed as original? Do we need a 75 year deadline, like for copyrights? The simple fact is this: same sex relationships pre-date Lincoln by thousands of years. Indeed, it's mentioned in some of the epistles of St. Paul, in the writings of Sappho, was made explicit by Hadrian and Antinous, and was even acknowledged in the writings of Immanuel Kant in the 1780s (which predates Lincoln's birth by more than 20 years). Also, the creator of the word "homosexual" was in fact an adult during the Civil War years, albeit in Germany. Ideas are the progenitors of words, not the other way around. Andrew Jackson was aware of it in Lincoln's time and explicitly said so in public when he called James Buchanan "Miss Nancy." No, despite what some people say, "everyone" doesn't know Lincoln's true emotions, and suggesting he was gay is't "all dirty lies and stains on Lincoln's great character." Lincoln's nervous breakdown is a part of who he is and it made him what he later became. Teddy Roosevelt said that the early years and struggles of great people should be studied (and he wrote a bio of Oliver Cromwell up to his 25th year to prove it), and I think we owe Honest Abe the dignity to do the same about his early struggles. They include his poverty, his work in the Black Hawk War, his years in the General Assembly, and of course his nervous breakdown (whether it was caused by Speed leaving him, or as Sen. Paul Simon speculated, the 1840 election loss, I do not know). Nonetheless, all sides should be mentioned. There's nothing original about fairness and accuracy, is there? Without taking sides, and without saying it's true, and without calling it a "stain" on his credibility, it should be mentioned in connection to his nervous breakdown, albeit briefly. The POV that says that the "term" homosexuality wasn't invented yet is clearly higher up on the list of things to delete than speculation of what caused Lincoln's mental state to disintegrate when it did.

Noitall seemed to want me to let everyone know what book the late Illinois Sen. Paul Simon published. Well, here it is. It's called "Lincoln's preparation for greatness: the Illinois legislative years." Published originally in 1965 by Univ. of Oklahoma press, it doesn't even mention Lincoln's sexuality, but it's a great source of accurate information concerning Lincoln's life during that time. It's how I came to base my arguments supporting the notion of the possibility of Lincoln being gay- altho, like I said, the author, Simon, never mentioned the topic. Signed, Anon in IL

---

change Lincoln's Family to Lincoln's personal life. Add a sentence about Speed & link to the new article--JimWae 18:30, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

it is lengthy & detailed compared to other, probably more important, sections AND it is pretty one-sided at this point, making an attempt at persuasion (I think) that is premature. For example, many men correspond about their inner thoughts more to long-time friends than to their wives. There is less coverage of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, less on Emancipation Proclamation, ... --JimWae 02:25, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)

I add this to explain my "no" vote below, and why I agree with JimWae here. While I am willing to accept that Lincoln may indeed have been bisexual, or even homosexual, I also feel it is rather unlikely that this debate will ever be settled as a historical matter. We should recall that being "open about one's sexuality" in Lincoln's time was considered at worst vilely amoral, or at best in exceedingly poor taste. It should be little wonder then that the evidence for either case (for or against heterosexuality) is rather slim, requiring significant interpretation.

I believe that JimWae's suggestion is the most appropriate here in view of this, and not merely because "it splits the difference." The debate on Lincoln's sexuality is nothing new, and there is no legitimate reason I can see here to bowdlerize this article. However, I also agree that the section as previously worded had too much coverage for this article.

A word of warning: I will feel free to change my vote to "yes" should a "Bowdler faction" appear to be winning out here. Edeans 05:19, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Maybe the best option is to look at other biographies and see how sexuality is handled. For example, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. As you can see, their sexuality is not mentioned but major people in their lives, including sexual partners (ie. Martha Washington and Sally Hemings) are mentioned. There is, however, certainly no attempt to list every sexual partner.

I suggest that Lincoln be handled the same way. If the article gets to the level of detail that his relationships with minor players like David Derickson and Joshua Speed is discussed then it is appropriate to note the speculation that his relationship with these people may also have been sexual although this is not documented. If the historical information on his presidency starts covering all of the various personal attacks that were made on him then the gossip about his relationship with David Derickson will become relevant.

Direct information about sexuality should be reserved for biographies of those who made their sexuality a key part of their public lives (ie. Boy George) or who had their sexuality become part of their public lives involuntarily (ie. Liberace).

In short, this section should be deleted. If you choose not to delete it it should be drasticallys shortened and demoted to a footnote, perhaps by changing "Lincoln's Family" to "Lincoln's Personal Life". Right now, about 10% of the entire Lincoln article is devoted to his sexuality. That's agenda, not NPOV biography. Find a general bio of the man that devotes even 1% of its text to this issue and I will be amazed!

Mike Friedman 04:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• There's a theory that Geo Washington was a woman too. Does every theory about every president deserve 5 persuasive paragraphs? There is not enough info counter to the theory in there to make this a balanced entry. There's also more about what other people said about the theory compared to the little about actual factual evidence. The stuff about what the AIDS activist said is inconsequential - and waste of space even in a sub-article. It would have more import to make a statement about how this might affect acceptance of gays by society in general--JimWae 17:50, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

No, but every serious theory by a respected scholar that directly pertains to our understanding of the President does deserve some space. You may be right about the statement by Larry Kramer, except that it points out how relevant some folks think this information may be to current political issues. Jliberty 19:47, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

• • I'd agree with "some space" here -- the section in question is far too long. A brief mention that questions about his sexuality have been raised will send interested readers (and that will probably be most of them) will click through to the more detailed stuff. As long as it's on the level of speculation, it doesn't really pertain to our understanding of the President; rather, it pertains to our understanding of speculation on the nature of the President. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:15, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

• I'd like to raise a delicate question about the voting. When we are voting on a controversial subject, such as Lincoln's sexuality, or GLB issues in general, to what extent should the vote be weighed in the light of the general American hostility to homosexuality? I do not mean to imply that any given vote is homophobic, but rather that we live in a homophobic society, and thus should be especially sensitive around votes having to do with the possible homosexuality or bisexuality of public figures, especially ones as revered as Abraham Lincoln. Jliberty 17:30, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

• Sure. We should weigh it like we would any other vote... with a weight of 0. JEEZE... are you seriously suggesting that we should do something like "GLB votes count double"?!?!?! If you want something like that start a separate Wiki just for GLB topics. Mike Friedman 01:24, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No I'm not suggesting anything like that. What I am suggesting is that when you have a marginalized group like homosexuals, and a national figure of the republican party like Lincoln, it is reasonable to be cautious about popular votes on what aspects of his disputed sexuality will be shunted off to the side. It is too easy for those who are uncomfortable with the idea that Abe may have been bisexual to vote to hide that information. That is all I'm suggesting: serious careful consideration of external considerations affecting our judgment (e.g., I must be particularly careful not to give too much credence to these reports just because I think it would do so much good for America if they turn out to be true). Jliberty 03:04, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

• Jliberty raises some valid points concerning how homophobia can warp our view of history and historical figures. This being said, I believe there may be a larger problem here: anachronism. That is, engaging in historical writing that reveals more about the writer and the time of writing than it does about the subject (paging Parson Weems). Attitudes toward homosexuality, bisexuality and sexuality in general have varied greatly over time. Fifty or one hundred years from now, the current majority opinion on such matters may well be regarded as quaint, unhealthy, or downright bizarre (one can only hope). It is probably true it is not possible to write history or biography without some anachronism. IMHO, that is no excuse for not trying. Edeans 06:21, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • But if there was gossip about Lincoln's sexuality, in particularly his relationship with Derickson, at the time, surely that can't be considered anachronistic. I agree that the information on the modern debate (who agrees with whom etc.) should be in a different article. But Lincoln's relationship with Speed (even if there weren't any homosexual suggestions, as it does seem to have been one of the most important personal relationships Lincoln had) and any documented gossip of the day about Derickson, should be mentioned in this article. 195.92.67.71 12:17, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • • Except perhaps on the part about gossip being mentioned in the article, I agree. By "anachronism" I mean the expression of a modish POV in reaction to known historical facts; not the documented facts themselves. Edeans 20:05, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I reverted Kevin Myers change (from "number of biographers" to "A recent book makes the claim") back to "a numnber of biographers" because we know that this claim was made or endorsed by Carl Sandburg (The Prairie Years), Charley Shively (historian, author of Drum Beats), Jean Baker (biographer of Mary Todd Lincoln) and Michael Chesson (Dept. of History, U. Mass, Boston)

The phrase "a number of biographers" suggests that a number of biographies about Abraham Lincoln have made the claim. AFAIK, only the Tripp book, and some vague inferences by Sandburg are the only bios of Lincoln that fit the bill. The article on Lincoln's sexuality is full of weasel phrases like this which create the impression that there is more expert support for this claim than there actually is. Mind you, I'm not invested in any particular interpretation -- let the truth lead wherever it may. But this article needs a little more intellectual honesty about who (so far) supports this theory. --Kevin Myers 20:43, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

You are right. I will change it to "a number of historians" which is more accurate. Does that sound reasonsable?Jliberty 22:22, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Works for me, thanks. Now, I might quibble that Tripp was a "writer" rather than a "historian" -- I prefer to be pedantically precise when identifying the credentials of writers of history, since professional historian undergo (in theory) peer review and professional scrutiny in a way that other writers of history do not. But I suppose that's another debate. :-) --Kevin Myers 22:43, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Tripp is NOT a Lincoln Historian, and his conclusions are all based on LIES. Wake up people, this book is garage and this shouldn't even be an issue. Here is the fact: LINCOLN WAS NOT GAY OR BISEXUAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -- Abelincoln98 03:43, 26 Jan 2005

So you've personally spoken with Lincoln? I doubt he was gay, but the article never states that he was. --brian0918™ 03:45, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• • Besides, anyone who vandalizes Wikipedia articles doesn't have the least bit of credibility around here anyway. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:24, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And I suppose "they" have credibility endorsing this when everyone knows they are all dirty lies and stains on Lincoln's greater character. What about Mary, Speed, and everyone else involved here? We've done nothing but tarnish everyone's reputation by even making this an issue. I'm fed up of with Lincoln being a target and his good name and memory becoming tarnished by giving Tripp credit for anything when he deserves nothing. I do not wish to read lies. I, as any humbled historian only seek truth. -- Abelincoln98 04:14, 27 Jan 2005

Please explain to me how suggesting that there may be historical evidence that Lincoln was homosexual (or bisexual) "tarnishes" his reputation. You use of that word suggests that you believe that to be homosexual is somehow a disgrace, and reveals more about your own attitude towards homosexuality than it sheds light on the historicity of Tripp's evaluation.

This is relevant to the discussion because it reveals an underlying political prejuidice that may be in the way of our evaluating the evidence and presenting an NPOV on the issue. Given the split in our modern society on homosexuality (is it evil, sick, or ok?) it is hard for us to evaluate the evidence at hand. On the one hand, we have those who do not wish to believe that Lincoln (a cultural icon) could be homosexual (a perceied evil). On the other, we have those who would like very much for Lincoln to be homosexual because it would (perhaps) lend legitimacy to modern homosexuality.

Given the conditions under which Lincoln lived (in which such matters were not even discussed) it is even harder to come to terms with the historical evidence, but it undeniable that various well respected historians have found the evidence compelling, while other well respected historians have found the evidence specious at best.

I suggest we lower the heat on this discussion and try to stick to estalished facts without resorting to subjective evaluation of the merits of homosexuality nor impugning the motivations of Lincoln's biographers (on either side of the issue. Jliberty 13:32, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

• I agree Tripp is not a historian nor a biographer - he is an author interested only in his own point of view. But the issue has been around & long time, & likely will NEVER go away, so we must deal with it intelligently. -- JimWae 04:32, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

Found this interesting: "This is yet another disgusting attempt to misrepresent an important historical figure in hopes of advancing the homosexual agenda. Similar attempts were made to hijack the personal lives and reputations of everyone from Jesus Christ to Shakespeare to Alexander Hamilton to James Buchannan, Lincoln's predecessor in the White House, to Adolf Hitler and even Yasser Arafat. That this book attempts to besmirch Lincoln's repuation and character by falsely portraying him as gay is not surprising considering the book's author was both a homosexual himself and a research assistant to the discredited Alfred Kinsey. He's just trying to project his own sexual perversions onto one of the nation's greatest presidents." It's exactly how I see the situation, quoted from another valuable source.

• • Interesting that you found it interesting; let's take your message apart. First, no source is cited. Second, "disgusting attempt to misrepresent" is not NPOV by any stretch. Third, what is the "homosexual agenda" and how come I'm never there when they're handing out copies? Fourth, how does suggesting that Lincoln may have been homosexual besmirch his character? Doesn't that say more about your attitude towards homosexuals than it does about President Lincoln? Fifth, how is it you can categorically deny that he may have been homosexual when at least some serious (and incidentally heterosexual) biographers of Lincoln find evidence that he may have been? Sixth, the term "perversion" is unduly pejorative, not to mention quaintly hostile. I do think that if we are serious about having an NPOV description of Lincoln, we should attempt to do so with as little inflammatory rhetoric as possible. Finally, please sign your posts. Jliberty 19:46, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

• • • His "valuable source" is an online user named "brianbrockmeyer" at Amazon. No info is given about this person, but that specific review got 1 out of 8 helpful. --brian0918™ 20:30, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Compromise Solution (Vote) Discussion

This is a new vote aimed at achieving consensus. Jliberty 18:49, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Resolved: leave the single paragraph under Early Life as it is (neither expanded nor contracted).

• Reproduced here for reference: Abraham Lincoln lived for four years with Joshua Speed, from 1837 to 1841. They shared a bed during these years and developed a friendship that would last until their deaths. A number of historians have suggested that this relationship was sexual, though others have argued that Lincoln and Speed shared a bed because of their poor financial circumstances, and that at the time it was not necessarily unusual for two men to share a bed. See: Abraham Lincoln's sexuality

Sorry, but I edited that a bit. Here's how I wrote it:

• Abraham Lincoln lived with Joshua Speed from 1837 to 1841. They shared a bed during these years and developed a friendship that would last until their deaths. Speed was, according to biographer David Herbert Donald, "perhaps the only intimate friend that Lincoln ever had." Some historians have suggested that this relationship may have been sexual, though most biographers have traditionally argued that it was not unusual for two men to share a bed in that era, and that Lincoln and Speed did so because of their poor financial circumstances. (See Abraham Lincoln's sexuality).

I thought it appropriate to mention that even "traditional" biographers recognized Speed & Lincoln's closeness. Also, I wanted to make clear that the "sexual" interpretation is less accepted; the earlier version was vague on this.

Obviously, I vote "yes" for my version. ;-) --Kevin Myers 21:59, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

• I reverted today's revisions to the primary page, as it resumes the polemic against the theory that Lincoln was gay in the main article. By consensus we've moved this discussion to the Abraham Lincoln's sexuality) page, and that is where it belongs. I will add that there are strong opionions on both sides of this issue, and clearly there are political motivations, not just historical, in the analysis on both sides. I believe this should be handled with a light touch so that we do not reignite the revision wars. Jliberty 13:05, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Vote to maintain the "compromise" solution as is

A Yes vote indicates you agree the current hanlding of Lincoln's sexuality should be left unchanged. A No vote indicates that you would prefer some other decision.

[Please Do NOT duscuss here. Only vote here. Discuss above, in the section Compromise Solution Discussion] To vote, find the vote you favor and vote by adding # ~~~~ Below the vote you favor.

Yes

1. Jliberty 18:49, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
2. gK ¿? 20:08, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
3. Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
4. Edeans 18:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
5. I agree with Tony Sidaway here.  :-) Samboy 23:03, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
6. Chris 73 Talk 12:14, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
7. Ryan 5:14 Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

No

1. bernlin2000 ∞ 15:49, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC) : Perhaps a separate article or a sub-article.

(Suspended) Vote for Lincoln's Sexuality

This vote is suspended pending the outcome of the vote above

This vote is very simple:

Should the section on Lincoln's Sexuality be included in this page?

To vote, find the vote you favor and vote by adding # ~~~~ Below the vote you favor.

Yes

1. Jliberty 15:31, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
2. Yes, it is easily as important as those events that happened *after* Lincoln's lifetime and yet find mention on the main page (e.g. "Lincoln exhumed" / "Lincoln memorialized") Josias Bunsen 12:56, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. Ryan! | Talk 13:21, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
4. Yes. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:12, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
5. Yes, or at least a brief mention and link. --Swamp Ig 01:40, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
6. Yes, having read Bill Clinton's book and having seen how the speculation associated with his administration was handled with great humor or cleverness, I think this information has a home on the article. Lincoln is no more sacred than any other president so why hide this under the rug? In AB's time there was no conceputal basis for the homosexual or bi-sexual identification other than having Walt Whitman wandering around writing poems that make a gay man's heart soar. Did Lincoln appoint Whitman as Poet Laureate of the United States? That would make for interesting speculation. "Oh Captain, My Captain" the poetic eulogy for AB written by Whitman. Ray Foster 17:21, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
7. gK ¿? 19:45, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) Yes, the brief mention as shown in the compromise suggestion above, along with the link to the larger article.
8. 152.71.20.183 10:49, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No

1. I don't think this belongs in a feature article. Samboy 14:14, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. No, a section on Lincoln's sexuality is premature until more historians address the issue. A link to an article about the "controversy" is appropriate. --Kevin Myers 15:08, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
3. Emancipation Proclamation, Fort Sumter, L-D Debates have their own pages. I do think it merits more than an "Also See" on the main page. Use the structure under Lincoln's personal life that 83.216.148.11 considered vandalism. --JimWae 17:44, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)
4. No, it isn't appropriate for this article. Carrp 18:43, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
5. As long as it's kept in a seperate article and linked to from this page. Dan100 21:14, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
6. See above. Edeans 05:21, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) See below. Edeans 22:09, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
7. No. Premature. Michael L. Kaufman 05:56, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
8. No. Not until we have a multi-page bio where a small footnote on this becomes appropriate level of detail. Mike Friedman 04:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
9. No. Brief mention of speculation and link, sure. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:16, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
10. No. -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:15, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
11. No. PedanticallySpeaking 20:06, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
12. No. --JPotter 01:16, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
13. No.  – Jrdioko (Talk) 18:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
14. No. Maybe on a page not featured. This page should focus on his political life and accomplishments. A personal page would be ideal for this speculation (unless some kind of real proof is found). bernlin2000 ∞ 15:56, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
15. There is a seperate article on it; it is of minor importance and consists mostly of unsubstantiated speculation. 80.255 17:07, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NO! Delete this rubbish, Lincoln was not gay

Comment

• Will there still remain ANY mention of his sexuality, if the section is removed? --Golbez 19:07, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
• I think there's a seperate article about it, and a link to it from this page. Dan100 21:14, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the dispute is whether there should be a separate page with a link from the main page (vote no) or the information should be on the main page (vote yes).Jliberty 04:34, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

• Yes, it would make sense to, at the bottom of the featured article, have a sentence that links to a page on the person life of Abraham Lincoln. bernlin2000 ∞ 16:20, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

• I requested this vote, and the results are pretty clear, though certainly not unanimous. That said, I think the version as it now stands (with a single-paragraph in-line section on Lincoln's sexuality, and a reference to the full article) is the perfect solution, and I'd propose that we end the vote, and end the reversion wars, and just leave things essentially as they are for now. Jliberty 17:11, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
• The current brief paragraph, about eighty words or so, with a link to the main article, seems difficult to fault. An article about Lincoln that did not mention the fairly well founded speculation would not be balanced. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:11, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • As things now stand, I concur with Jliberty and Tony Sidaway. Edeans 22:09, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • See new vote aboveJliberty 18:49, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Maybe we should have a separate vote for this? --Swamp Ig 01:40, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Size of article

This article is currently 37KB long. I've made some edits to slim it down from about 42 KB but I'm wondering if the section on Lincoln's assassination should be moved to its own article as well.

Part of the slimming was by moving quotes from letters to Abraham Lincoln on slavery. Someone has listed that for moving to something called Wikiquote. I removed the following quotes from the section on Indians, which I merged with the rest of the section on his Presidency, but couldn't think of anything to do with them and they should maybe move to Wikiquote too:

Executive Mansion

December 6th, 1862

Brigadier General H.H. Sibley

St. Paul Minnesota:

Ordered that of the Indians and Half-breeds sentenced to be hanged by the military commission, composed of Colonel Crooks, Lt. Colonel Marshall, Captain Grant, Captain Bailey, and Lieutenant Olin, and lately sitting in Minnesota, you cause to be executed on Friday the nineteenth day of December, instant, the following names, to wit [39 names listed by case number of record: cases 2, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 22, 24, 35, 67, 68, 69, 70, 96, 115, 121, 138, 155, 170, 175, 178, 210, 225, 254, 264, 279, 318, 327, 333, 342, 359, 373, 377, 382, 383].

The other condemned prisoners you will hold subject to further orders, taking care that they neither escape, nor are subjected to any unlawful violence.

Abraham Lincoln,

President of the United States

Saint Paul

December 27, 1862

The President of the United States:

I have the honor to inform you that the thirty-eight Indians and half-breeds ordered by you for execution were hung yesterday at Mankato at 10 a.m. Everything went off quietly and the other prisoners are well secured.

Respectfully,

H. H. SIBLEY, Brigadier-General.

I deleted the "Lincoln exhumed" section and created a page entitled Lincoln's Burial and Exhumation to conserve space here. I think this action is appropriate, given that the exhumation section of the old page deals with Lincoln after his life ended, as opposed to Lincoln as an animate human being. As such, the events described actually involve people other than Lincoln, as opposed to Lincoln himself. Additionally, the section is very long and contentious. 199.111.225.59 15:25, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)Noah Peters

I also deleted the quotes section and the trivia section. The fact that Lincoln's date of birth is the same as Darwin's belongs on a "Birth Date Coincidences" page or something like that, but probably not here. The "Quote" included in the "quotes" section is not Lincoln's most famous, and in my view is fairly arbitrary. 199.111.225.59 15:25, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)Noah Peters

• Where does one find out article size? I've found it before - but not now. What are the reasons for having such a fairly low limit? (download time?) From what I can tell, the photos are quite large files - they count too, right? Would it not be far more effective to reduce the file size of the photos? - that way we could KEEP some of the info that is getting spread around & even lost e.g. - Where is the stuff about attempts to rob his grave now?--JimWae 17:04, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
• I have commented out speculation on Lincoln's health & argumentative text that South should have been permitted to secede from the Assassination (maybe it belongs somewhere else?) section - next person please remove.
• The Emancipation Proc photo can go - it's very big & is on the Emanc Proc article too--JimWae 20:30, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
• If you move the Darwin-Lincoln coincidence , who interested in either man will ever see it? It will get pretty contentious & of little value deleting single sentences to save space.--JimWae 20:33, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
• I moved some info. on the Gettysburg Address to the G.A. page. Jim makes a good point about the Darwin-Lincoln bit which I deleted, but it did not seem to merit its very own section, which it previously had. NP
• removing EmancProc photo reduced file size. Next person's removal of <<Image:Abelincoln1846.jpeg|thumb|Lincoln in 1846 or 1847>> actually increased file size - what's up?--JimWae 23:03, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

Article size in general: 32K limit is obsolete, don't do anything hasty

I've been discussing this in a number of places recently. Consensus is that the precise limit of 32K is obsolete, along with the overly-stern automatic warning message. The availability of section editing and the availability of upgrades for the few, seldom-used browsers involved have made it a moot point. Accordingly, the language in the warning template has been softened. There is currently no clear guidance on article size, and no precisely specified limit, which is now a matter of taste and article organization ("summary style") and judgement about page-loading speed and the ease or difficulty of scrolling through long articles. There is absolutely no need to do anything drastic merely because an article is a little over 32K. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:44, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

AL's view of the Constitution and the Union

I am once again deleting JimWae's dubious assertion that a slave state which rejoined the Union would have been able to keep slavery. This is a counterfactual, because it never happened. It is enough to note that the U.S. did not emancipate slave areas that it occupied, and there is no need to go further. Let's not speculate about hypothetical situations.

I am also deleting the bit about the union as a contract. Lincoln did not assert this, he asked, as a rhetorical question, "If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?" I do not read Lincoln's question here as the crux of his argument, and it is highly dubious if we were to interpret it as a legal matter, for a contract may typically be broken at the will of one of its parties. Lincoln's arguments about the organic nature of the union are more widely known, so I am reinserting Lincoln's more famous quote, "I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments." NP

• On this one, I agree more with Noah than I do JimWae. However, this is a substantive revision, not a minor one. Edeans 00:12, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Breaking a contract is to violate it. Such would require legal remedy. Contracts cannot be legally rescinded unilaterally. Though Lincoln makes the point as a rhetorical question, it is still part of a cogent argument.

1. The first sentence recently inserted (below) is a summary overview, not a cogent argument & as such just takes up space here.

   I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual.

2. The second sentence (below) is exactly what the south contested, & thus less persuasive than the stuff about the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union & contracts. (Remember USSR? , Czechoslovakia?)

   Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments

There was a SCOTUS case, I will check but believe the 2 points I added were more central to the decision than the 2 recently added

--

The Emancipation Proclamation was actually 2 separate documents. In September, Lincoln said what he would do, but did not name the places[1]

That it is my purpose, upon the next meeting of Congress, to again recommend the adoption of a practical measure tendering pecuniary aid to the free acceptance or rejection of all slave states, so called, the people whereof may not then be in rebellion against the United States, and which states may then have voluntarily adopted, or thereafter may voluntarily adopt, immediate or gradual abolishment of slavery within their respective limits; and that the effort to colonize persons of African descent with their consent upon this continent or elsewhere, with the previously obtained consent of the governments existing there, will be continued

That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any state or designated part of a state, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free

That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the states and parts of states, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith, represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such state shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such state, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States.

And the Executive will in due time recommend that all citizens of the United States who shall have remained loyal thereto throughout the rebellion shall (upon the restoration of the constitutional relation between the United States and their respective states and people, if that relation shall have been suspended or disturbed) be compensated for all losses by acts of the United States, including the loss of slaves.

The January proclamation omits mention of Tennessee, so their slaves were not freed, though it had seceded. New Orleans & several LA parishes, as well as WV & several counties of VA were specifically exempted - and so their slaves were not freed either.

It seems clear to me that the Emanc Proc was at least an incentive to rebel states to return & get paid for their slaves, and had any returned they'd have been in the same position as the border states. As unlikely it may have been that any would accept the offer, I think this is more than an "interesting interpretation" -- It seems clear to me that if a state had returned its representatives to DC, they too would have been exempt. Lincoln has given the rebels one last chance. If that does not seem so clear to others, perhaps they could say why.--JimWae 02:24, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

New Vote on Lincoln's Sexuality paragraph 1/18

I have come across several credible book reviews that seem to completely discredit Tripp's Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln. See: [http://slate.com/id/2112313/ Slate.com review [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E5D61439F93AA35752C0A9639C8B63 New York Times review [http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/107koqzy.asp Weekly Standard review. Basically, it is all unsubstantiated innuendo, not even rising to the level of circumstantial evidence, mixed in with some dubious Kinseyian stuff about kids who hit puberty early getting addicted to masturbation. Historically speaking, it is the equivalent of an urban legend, and its presence on this page tends to discredit the rest of the article. Given that all the evidence relied upon for the Lincoln is gay thesis comes from Tripp's book, I think we should put the discussion exclusively on the Lincoln's Sexuality page and delete the entire paragraph in this article about Lincoln's sexuality. I think such action would help maintain the integrity of this page and slim the length of the article.

This is a very skewed summary of the reviews of the book. Lincoln is a cultural icon and there is great Resistance to Tripp's thesis, but it is hardly crackpot, and is supported and given high credibility by numerous respected historians, such as Carl Sandburg, Jean Baker and Michael B. Chesson. There is room for debate, but I don't think it is fair to say that it is urban legend. Further, when evaluating a controversial subject like this, we must be cautious not to embrace those who would iconify Lincoln any more than we give extra weight to the iconoclast. Jliberty 13:21, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Yes (delete)

No (keep)

1. Jliberty 13:08, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC) - We've been through this too many times. For every article "discrediting" Tripp, there are others, by very credible historians that substantiate it. Nothing substiantial has changed, I reverted the Lincoln page and propose you move the discussion on why the article is not credible to where it belongs Abraham Lincoln's sexuality).
   1. • I haven't seen any articles by "very credible historians that substantiate it," I'd be more than happy to read one, if you would care to provide a citation as opposed to mentioning it in generic terms. I don't consider Gore Vidal a "very credible historian," however, nor do I consider Larry Kramer a "very credible historian." By the way, why did you revert? All the info. I provided was factual.

I reverted it because (a) we went around this for weeks and agreed that the article would stay as is, and discussion of its validity would be in Abraham Lincoln's sexuality) and (b) because what you wrote was not NPOV. - As for credible historians, Carl Sandburg, Jean Baker and Michael B. Chesson are all credible histrians and are mentioned in the Abraham Lincoln's sexuality) article as supporting the thesis that Lincoln was bisexual or gay. Jliberty 19:57, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

1. Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:58, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
2. Noooooooooooooooo! Plagues and boils upon those who disturb wiki-compromises!! Edeans 18:37, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment The proposal to delete the paragraph on Tripp's book seems to be based on the rationale that Tripp's speculation has received some bad reviews. However this is a bogus rationale--if we write about Tripp's speculation at all, it should be because it is being discussed by serious historians and by the media, not because we buy its conclusions. Among serious historians who have examined (and largely rejected) Tripp's reasoning are Michael Burlingame, a retired professor of history at Connecticut College and author of The Inner World of Abraham Lincoln, David Herbert Donald, a former Harvard professor and Lincoln biographer, and Michael B. Chesson of the University of Massachusetts at Boston, a former student of Donald's. Tripp's reasoning and these historians' comments on it should not be airbrushed out. Tripp has been taken seriously, even if his conclusions have not found a general chorus of agreement. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:58, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. FearÉIREANN 16:29, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC) I agree with the above.
2. Samboy 02:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) Didn't we already compromise on this?

Other

• 1 or 2 sentences in main article. ALL details -- including all criticisms -- in its own separate article. In other words, pretty much the way is was for weeks --JimWae 17:49, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
  • I agree, that seems like the right choice. --fvw* 20:07, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
  • univolved observer who has just read all of the argument above agrees too. Floflei6 05:35, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Two points: (1) I think this other category is the same as No -- that is keep it as it is/was. (2) The version that is there now is so sanitized as to not even mention the indisputable fact that Lincoln shared a bed with Speed (it now says they shared living quarters). Jliberty 13:58, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well on point (2) I suggest that you restore the reference to sharing a bed, because that is altogether different (although in those days men might share a bed without suspicion falling on them about what they got up to). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:39, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Reality check: Unless some relevant, previously unknown, and genuine documentation is unearthed (not bloody likely), we are never going to know what the answer to the Lincoln sexuality question is. Accordingly, it seems that this argument is likely to go on throughout the rest of human history. That's fine, but need it continue here? We have a separate article more suited to this (incidently, I strongly agree with what JimWae and Jliberty say here). Edeans 18:55, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I feel that we should include perhaps a few sentences letting a reader know that there is a discussion on the issue. However I am against including a large section on his sexuality on his main page just because his sexuality is irrelevant to his achievements. On another note I posted a NPOV violation on the article regarding his sexuality, if any one has the time to fix it up please read the talk page. Apollomelos 04:53, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln’s sexuality is an area of intense debate among historians and biographers. A general consensus on the topic has not been reached and likely will not be reached unless new evidence emerges. See Abraham Lincoln's sexuality

What do you think of this? I think it is better because of the fallacies within the last one.

Abraham Lincoln shared living quarters with Joshua Fry Speed from 1837 to 1841 in Springfield, and they developed a life-long friendship. Lincoln openly mentioned they shared a bed there - not very unusual at that time. Some authors contend the relationship was also sexual (see Abraham Lincoln's sexuality).

• Living quarters is misleading, he sahred a bed.
• And authors is misleading; historians is the correct term.

Apollomelos 05:07, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your version is probably the best. Rather than presenting partial arguments on the main page, link to a page with all of the arguments. Sounds good. --brian0918&#153; 05:11, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Lincoln Link

To deal with the matter of posting pro- and anti-Lincoln links, I have created new subsections under "External Links" called "Anti-Lincoln Links" and "Neutral Links." Since I did not have a pro-Lincoln link ready, I did not create that section. Still, someone else could. This is the same thing that is done on the "Abortion" page.

Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. Further reading is not the same thing as proper references. Further reading could list works about the topic that were not ever consulted by the page authors. If some of the works listed in the further reading section were used to add or check material in the article, please list them in a references section instead. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when a few references have been added to the article. - Taxman 18:07, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

I support your effort and good luck -- although I suspect someone will simply rename the "further reading" section "references" and call it a day's work. --Kevin Myers 21:00, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

In most cases people are coming out and saying I used all of those, or, here are the one's I used. I'm getting some resistance from people that think I'm just nitpicking on something minor, rather than how important this really is, but overall it has been very successful. - Taxman 14:48, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Introduction

The intro as it stands is flowery and misleading. It gives Lincoln too much credit for "holding the border states" (the border states were in absolute chaos in the early months of the war) in the early months of the war; "diffusing the peace issue" (Which did not actually go away until Union victory at Atlanta, which alas was not of Lincoln's doing); and "having a lasting impact on political institutions" (Such as what? Lincoln had little to do with the passage or approval of all of the stuff cited) The stuff about Lincoln being an "extremely calculating" and "skillful" politician to me has a patronizing tone. 128.143.218.227Please Don't Block

Paragraph on Lincoln's early presidency & cabinet

I added the following paragraph, which has been deleted twice by JimWae, though he refuses to specify what he thinks is wrong with it. It is all factually correct and based on the Donald biography. Sometimes it is difficult to accept that heroic politicians are in fact human, but Lincoln's early war record was not particuarly great:

Lincoln drafted the amendment, a constitutional amendment which eventually passed both houses protecting slavery in those states in which it already existed, but refused to make his authorship public. Lincoln spurned requests to appoint a Southern non-Republican to his cabinet, however, and refused to compromise on the issue of westward expansion of slavery. In the months leading up to the war, Lincoln proved unwilling to confront powerful Radical Republicans in his own party, like Senator Zachariah Chandler of Michigan, Senator Benjamin F. Wade of Ohio, and Illinois Sen. Lyman Trumbull, who advocated a hard-line against the South. Lincoln was so ineffectual during the first months of his presidency that his Secretary of State, William H. Seward, offered to take over presidential duties for a time. Throughout the rest of his presidency Lincoln proved much more willing to defy the wishes of the Radical Republicans.

~~Please Don't Block

• This "paragraph" is short on content & long on POV. There is ample evidence that Lincoln withstood efforts from Seward to take over (Seward thinking he had more experience). Seward may have interpreted Lincoln as "ineffectual" - but that is still POV in an encyclopedia.
• You have removed the part about Lincoln supporting the Corwin Amendment in his inaugural address
• What's so unusual about not putting members of the (extremely) opposite party (Southern Democrats) in his cabinet?
  • Lincoln might have appointed a Southern oppositionist, like John J. Crittenden - the sort who would have supported Bell in 1860. john k 23:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Why criticize Lincoln for not compromising on slavery in territories? that would have been keeping the status quo -- & "ineffectual"
• Everything I've read indicates South had little desire for Corwin amendment - and that many even opposed it. South wanted Crittenden Compromise; Corwin was only a reiteration of constitution, anyway. If Lincoln authored it - & got it passed even before he was inaugurated - how is he not "standing up to" "Radical Republicans"
• Lincoln did not need to "confront" those guys in his cabinet - they had to listen to him. On what issues exactly do you claim Lincoln did not withstand their hard-line calls?
• just because something is in some biography, does not make it NPOV
• there's little doubt that Lincoln had to find a way to deal with a unique situation - but by Sumter he seems to have clear course.
• You've made several bold statements. Most are likely just POV, but maybe there's a fact buried in there too. How about a source that is easily available?
• How about signing in with a name? --JimWae 03:55, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
• Whatever are you talking about with "when Southerners demanded that a majority of Republicans support the Corwin Amendment"? It had already passed both houses & been "signed" by Buchanan
• What is the point (other than anti-Lincoln) of saying "Throughout the rest of his presidency Lincoln proved much more willing to defy the wishes of the Radical Republicans"? Presidents do not defy their cabinet. It appears you think he SHOULD have defied his cabinet (or R-Rs) though. About what? --JimWae 06:43, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

---

• First off, I am not talking about Radicals in Lincoln's cabinet. Chandler, Wade, and Trumbull were senators. You seem to assume that the term "Radical Republicans" is a synonym for "cabinet." This is not so. They were a faction within the Republican Party. Presidents often stand up to senators and factions within their party.
• Your "criticism" of my "paragraph" is based on a mischaracterization of what I am saying. I am not "criticizing" Lincoln. I am pointing out steps Lincoln could have taken during the secession winter that many proposed at the time to placate sectional tensions that Lincoln refused to take because of partisan considerations. You may agree or disagree that these moves would have been wise or would have actually averted Civil War or reduced its duration. I think they could have.
• I never said Lincoln did not stand up to Seward. I don't know where you read this in my paragraph or why you feel the need to expound upon it at such length.
• Many Southerners demanded Lincoln put a non-Republican southerner in his cabinet as an act of good will. If you were not aware...the Republicans were hated and distrusted in the South, so it would have been an appropriate gesture.
• Lincoln refused to compromise on slavery in the territories because of purely partisan considerations. This was the centerpiece of the Republican Party platform and Lincoln would rather see the Union go to pieces than compromise on the issue.
• I meant Crittenden Compromise, not Corwin Amend., got these two confused because they both involved a 13th amendment. This probably accounts for much of your disagreement. Lincoln refused to back efforts at the Crittenden Compromise despite significant support in Rep. Party. See http://www.tulane.edu/~sumter/Dilemmas/DCrittendenAdvice.html and sources cited therein, also http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/hst/biography/LincolnsPersonalLife/chap13.html and sources cited therein.
• I am reinserting the paragraph.
• 199.111.227.122I'd Prefer Not To Sign In

I'll accept JimWae's recent changes. This is a minor thing, JimWae has consistently done very good work on this page and I made some errors on my revision.

Did the South really secede?

JimWae's argument that the South did not really secede is an interesting one, but probably incorrect. Just because the South had no right to secede, it doesn't mean that it actually did not secede. The parallel often drawn is to a man who commits murder: you cannot legally commit murder, but yet it does happen sometimes. Thus, the Confederacy did actually secede-- but (you could argue), illegally. To prove the point further, Reconstruction policy, demanding the southern states be readmitted to the Union, would make absolutely no sense if the southern states really didn't secede-- and indeed it would be blatantly unconstitutional to orphan a non-seceding state from the union and then demand it pass certain requirements to be readmitted. So my sense is that the South really did secede. 128.143.78.116Please Don't Block

• Saying the Confederate states "declared their secession" does not take a POV on whether or not they seceded - though a very good argument can be made that the FACT is that they did NOT. Secession is a completely legal concept. SCOTUS has determined (in Texas v. White) that the legal FACT is that the Southern states did not secede. Murder (a moral & legal concept) is illegal, but legally possible. It is illegal to commit murder, but if it were not true that one had COMMITTED murder then one could be charged with it. Secession was not only illegal, but it had not (according to SCOTUS, the arbiter of legal fact in the USA) been committed. Rebellion was committed, not secession. Colloquial shorthand was that they "rejoined the union" - what that meant practically & legally was that they could again vote for and seat representatives in the House & Senate, etc. It also later involved return of local rule. There is not the same problem with "seceding" - for it entails something "in process" - and had the Confederates won, or found another way to get agreement on secession, they could have completed the process. Rather than dealing with the issue in the Lincoln article, it is sufficient to say they "declared a secession". The CSA article needs to have a full treatment of the issue, however. --JimWae 06:02, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

The problem with that, Jim, is that favoring Texas v. White (which was not decided until about 2 years after the Civil War was finished BTW, meaning it had no bearing when secession was actually occuring in 1861) is a POV in itself. It's the same as claiming that a highly controversial supreme court case such as Roe v. Wade permanently settles the issue of abortion today, or that the Lawrence case permanently settles the issue of gay rights. In fact not everybody agrees with those decisions and asserting them as the "right" position is a POV. The Supreme Court also has a rather sordid history of making bad decisions as well like Plessy v. Ferguson, so it can be very dangerous to take their opinion as the final authority. And no, secession is not exclusively a legal concept. It is a political concept that crosses over into the gray areas of legality, revolution, and political philosophy exhibiting elements of all three. Ultimately, to secede is an action itself - a verb applied to the pursuit of a particular event, and in that use (e.g. "7 states seceded before Lincoln's inauguration") it is perfectly neutral. As I've indicated many times, any discussion of Texas v. White etc. should take place on the secession article itself, which is the proper context to discuss issues surrounding its legality. Simply using it as a verb here does not take a side as you claim (though your hairsplitting, which is based on a POV supreme court decision, does). If anything, it links readers to the secession article where they could read the context of Texas v. White etc. and decide for themselves. Rangerdude 18:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it's all just pointless semantics. Whether they "technically" seceded or not is, quite frankly, irrelevant. What's important is (1) they wanted to and (2) the North didn't want them to. For what it's worth, I like "128.143.78.116"s interpretation: that the South did actually secede, but illegally.

As for taking a "POV" on calling this a secession or not, who's point of view are we favoring? I don't see how declaring this a "real" secession or a "fake" secession favors the North or the South.... I think that most people on both sides believe the sucession was real, and are fine with that. By SCOTUS are you referring to the Supreme Court? I want to find out more about that... What was the case where they ruled that the South did not really secede, and what was their reasoning behind that?

By the way, while the Supreme Court's position is official for the United States, it is very POV on this matter. Once the South got the Confederacy up and running, they couldn't give a rat's tail what the Supreme Court thought. If we mention the Supreme Court's interpretation, then, to be truly non-POV, we have to mention the Southern side of things... What did the South think they were doing? Did they think that they were actually seceding or not?

- Pioneer-12 11:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

No, this article does not need to go into that. JimWae has it dead on. "Declared a secession" perfectly describes the situation. It's factual and doesn't take a side. Anything else is way too complicated and problematic for this article. - Taxman 12:30, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

JimWae's edits make the sentence structure of this article unnecessarily wordy and awkward. "Declared a secession" is cumbersome and impedes the flow of the article. Far from being "neutral," his basis for this wording is the Supreme Court's opinion (declared after the war BTW) in Texas v. White. While an interesting historical item, Texas v. White is by definition a court opinion on legality and thus inherently a POV onto itself. Just as supreme court decisions today are often controversial and have proponents and opponents alike, so does Texas v. White and asserting any of them as the end all authority on an issue is in conflict with NPOV. The best solution here is to simply leave it at "secession," as in the verb describing the act of adopting a measure that removes onesself from the union. Nobody denies that the south adopted those measures (meaning they seceded). What is in dispute is whether that secession was legal or not. True, the SCOTUS argued later that it was not legal. But others such as Jefferson Davis wrote entire books arguing that it was, so the issue was not even resolved after Texas v. White...but that is material that's prime for the secession article, not here. Rangerdude 17:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I will say you are right on the SCOTUS issue, they are not the ultimate authority in this matter. That would be like NY and NJ in a dispute over some territory and claiming NJ was the ultimate authority because they won. The other thing that is bringin me onto the fence is the statement by the anon above, correctly pointing out that even if it was illegal, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Murders are illegal, and they do happen. Also the definition of secede is "To withdraw formally from membership in an organization, association, or alliance" from the American Heritage dictionary. That is accomplished even if the organization doesn't let you out. However, your arguments claiming the phrase is wordy and awkward are very weak. The phrase "declared their secession" is neither. Reverting just based on that is pretty immature, and certainly not positive for Wikipedia. "Declared their sucession" is just as accurate, and therefore reverting it without getting some agreement is not helpful. - Taxman 19:03, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Rangerdude. I think "Declared a secession" is unnecessarily wordy. Also, I think the phrase is misleading: "declared a secession" implies that they just said they were going to do something but didn't actually do it--like a statement released for diplomatic purposes. Since a whole war was fought and thousands of lives lost, I think they did a bit more then "declare".

• I agree they did more than declare a secession, I do not agree they seceded - they attempted to secede, they illegally attempted to secede - but they did not secede, nor even illegally secede. Come up with a way of putting it that does not take outright POV against US legal fact & maybe we can come to some agreement. I am not advocating we say they did not secede, as true & factual as I find that to be. I am saying it is POV to say they did - even more POV than saying that they did not. No country in the world -- save one that no longer exists -- recognized the secession --[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 04:30, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

And I agree that the secession article--or perhaps the American Civil War article--would be a more appropriate place to discuss the legal and semantic technicalities.... Actually, the details are so obscure yet complex that they probably deserve their own daughter page off of the American Civil War, Did the South Really Secede?.

- Pioneer-12 19:15, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

• Is "illegally seceded" POV? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:29, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

• I think so, based on what I wrote above. That is the US' view, the Confederacy would certainly disagree. I think that is enough to establish a POV. I guess after thinking about the definition of secede, that is the correct usage. But I do find the prevalence of reverting without waiting for discussion to be troubling. - Taxman 23:16, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

What do our peers say?

Alright, what phrasing do other encyclopedias use regarding the South's "secession"?

• "The South opposed his position on slavery in the territories, and before his inauguration seven Southern states had seceeded from the Union."

  - Britannica [2]

• "All compromise plans, such as that proposed by John J. Crittenden, failed, and by the time of Lincoln's inauguration seven states had seceded."

  - Columbia [3]

• "Even before election day, Southern militants were threatening to secede from the Union if Lincoln was elected. In December, with the Republican victory final, South Carolina seceded. By February, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas had followed."

  - Encarta (formerly Funk and Wagnalls) [4]

That's 3-0 in favor of "seceded". There is consensus among our peers. That settles the question for me.

- Pioneer-12 09:33, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

You've hit on an important point, one that needs to be stressed on Wikipedia history articles. It took me awhile to get clear on this one myself -- I have now come to believe that it's the least understood part of writing history on Wikipedia. The point is this: A Wikipedian's interpretation of any given aspect of history is of no relevance on Wikipedia. We all enjoy being armchair historians, me as much as anyone, but that's not our job here. We are not experts: our job as Wikipedians is to properly characterize expert opinion; anything else is original research. We are essentially reporters, not analysts.

So, it matters not at all what I or Pioneer-12 or Jim thinks about whether the South seceded or not. We can discuss it on these talk pages to pass the time, I suppose, but it has no bearing on what should go into the article. What matters is: what does James M. McPherson, David Herbert Donald, Harry Jaffa, etc. think about it.?

This point should really be expanded into a "how to" article of its own. Anyone agree? Disagree? --Kevin Myers 13:47, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Well said. I agree totally.... We're supposed to compile opinion, not create it... source-based research, not original research... though a little personal analysis now and then can be good. We may be information compilers, but we're not soulless robots.... If we disagree with expert opinion, then it is our right--and maybe even our duty--to go out and find a counter opinion... we just can't pull it out of thin air or use our own deductions.... We have to find an source, an existing "expert opinion", and work with that.... though we *can* add our "voice" in a secondary way through our choices of sources and subtopics, and how we paraphrase things....

That doesn't mean we can twist an article into propaganda, or bend rules to push POV, or try to distort facts, or suppress opinion, or any other non good faith action. We can't bias things towards our point of view, but we can remove bias that's against our point of view. We can't suppress facts we don't like, but we can make known facts which support our point of view. We can't silence dissent or opinions that we disagree with, but we can make our opinions known.

But... we have to do it indirectly, though sources. Not though our own theories. (Though our own theories can guide our actions.) And we must do it in a way which increases knowledge and understanding, even if that means giving equal time to competing idea which we think are crap. We can explain and inform, but we can't disinform.

That's alot of power, when you think about it... And if you are not content with that--if you are not content with being a source-based researcher--if you are an armchair historian who wants to create their own theories and put their personal opinion into Wikipedia directly--then I say get out of the armchair and go write a book or an essay. If it gets published, then we can reference it.

- Pioneer-12 16:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

p.s. Hey, Kevin--How's that for a how-to essay? I call it: "How to make your opinion known on Wikipedia."

Well put. Here are a couple more peer sources on it from the dictionaries:

• Secession n. 1. The act of seceding 2. The withdrawal of 11 Southern states from the Union in 1860-1861, precipitating the U.S. Civil War -- American Heritage Dictionary

• Secession n. 2: the withdrawal of eleven Southern states from the Union in 1860 which precipitated the American Civil War --- Princeton Word Net

As you noted, our job here is to report historical events as they are known and characterized in common usage and among the historians - not to interpret those events ourselves. To say that the south seceded in 1861 is pretty much the standard interpretation given in everything down to the most common dictionaries and encyclopedias. As I told JimWae on another article where he was attempting to push the exact same "declared their secessions" language, he is perfectly free to make an NPOV reference to Texas v. White and link to that article if he wants, but endorsing it is POV and using it as a basis to change the commonly accepted language that is used just about everywhere to describe the civil war is not a legitimate edit. Rangerdude 19:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Lincoln's Formal Ed.

This needs to talk more about his education. What was it like between his birth and career?

Survey on appropriateness of Lincoln Article

The survey at the location Talk:Lincoln/Vote may be of interest to those who edit this article as it is an attempt to determine whether Lincoln should remain as it is, directed towards Lincoln, or should be directed to Lincoln (disambiguation). Agriculture 7 July 2005 15:33 (UTC)

the article seems to give Lincoln a free pass?

It seems strange that the article contains so little criticism. After all, any president that couldn't think of a better way to free the slaves and save the union than a war that used conscripts and cost 500,000 lives is a failure. I doubt I'm the first person to think this. Did the criticism fall prey to some 32k article size bigot? -- thanx for any info, --Silverback 09:38, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yours is a very unique perspective. There have been hundreds (1000s?) of books written about Lincoln and it has been said that there are few unique perspectives. Maybe you have found one and should write a book. You can start on this page because maybe someone from Wiki can help you along. A few ideas you could consider: 1. U.N. sanctions might have convinced the South to give up all that free help that kept them from being dirt poor, 2. If they had only invented Miami beach, the Research triangle and spring break in New Orleans a century and a half earlier, they wouldn't have needed slaves, 3. change the definition of Union so that it only covered the Northeast and then it would be "saved" without war, 4. the Union would have been better off without the South (all the old folks could retire to Pennsylvania instead of Florida) 5.? And if you are really successful, Hollywood might pick up your story. Good luck. --Noitall 15:09, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

It's a unique perspective that Lincoln was a failure? Perhaps you should be less condescending and more open minded. There's a lot of folks who think he destroyed the union by trying to save it. No other country got rid of slavery through war. --Golbez 15:21, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, but any true Southerner will tell you that the war wasn't about slavery. The 13th Amendment, which passed months after the war was already over and Lincoln was in his grave, passed with little opposition. No, the War of Northern Aggression was about tariffs. Honest. -Willmcw 19:41, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Slavery was a convenient excuse, yes, though South Carolina cited slavery as a reason for seceding. So many bad decisions made back then. If only they'd let the North fire the first shot... it was about a lot of things. Saying it was about "slavery" or "tariffs" alone is like saying WW2 was about the Holocaust. I think the Soviets, Brits and French would be unhappy with such a simplistic definition. And anyway, Lincoln didn't free a single slave. :) --Golbez 19:54, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, he did free slaves. Here is a quote from Wikipedia:

"However, there were a limited number of slaves who were freed immediately by the proclamation. Runaway slaves who made it to Union lines had been held by the Union army as "contraband of war" in contraband camps; when the proclamation took effect they were told at midnight that they were free to leave. Also, the Sea Islands off the coast of Georgia had been occupied by the Union navy earlier in the war. The whites had fled to the mainland while the blacks stayed, largely running their own lives. Naval officers read the proclamation to them and told them they were free."

- Tεxτurε 20:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Funny thing is, if a southern slave had managed to escape to Maryland, he would be free - but a slave who had been living in Maryland all his life remained enslaved. Gotta love those sweeping ideals. Politics, I suppose. --Golbez 20:11, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't suppose it does any good to argue with people who learned their history from the KKK Guide to the Civil War. --Noitall 20:18, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I sincerely suggest you retask that statement, sir. --Golbez 20:28, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

• • Ah, the old Southern revisionist history denying that the Civil War was about slavery. Just read the secession documents from the states that became the Confederacy. South Carolina's first cause was that the Northern states refused to respect their property rights by returning escaped slaves. It's in the second sentence of Georgia's declaration. Mississippi got right down to it, also: Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Texas made no bones about it: We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial and tolerable. But no, it was about tariffs. Right. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• • • To whom are you responding? Willmcw? I took his "Honest" at the end to show that his statement was sarcastic. --Golbez 20:28, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

• • • • Nobody in particular. I just wanted to repeat an old rant of mine. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• It's a good rant. --Noitall 20:58, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, you could learn from it. Were you planning on removing your personal attack, or am I going to have to do it for you? --Golbez 21:06, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

• If you can't see that it is in jest and that no one was "attacked", then it really does not do any good to state any more. You want more seriousness, try this from the Confederate Constitution[5]: "In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.]" A little more research and a little less offense will serve you well. --Noitall 21:20, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Apologies to all for my sarcasm. I thought it was funny. Anyway, let's get back to talking about the tyrant. ;) -Willmcw 21:29, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

• I guess time for humor is over boys and girls. (But I do appreciate sarcasm, even the "finishing school"). --Noitall 21:32, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • The "learning history from the KKK" is an interesting point, though. Lies my Teacher Told Me (ISBN 0684818868) and other books by James W. Loewen do a very good job of illustrating the Southern revisionism that has permeated history education, starting pretty much at the end of the Civil War. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

For the record you don't have to be a southerner or KKK member or whatever to feel that this article could use more critical views and less hagiography. I'm an Icelander and I've never been to the United States. As for my affiliations I'm a member of a leftist political party and a pacifist organization. To me this historical figure looks like a glorified warlord and tyrant. Surely the southern states had every moral right to leave one union and form another. And Lincoln had no moral right to invade and conquer the seceding states - even though they, in turn, had no moral right to hold slaves. Two wrongs don't make a right. - Haukurth 23:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• As I said before, write the book, it's a unique perspective. --Noitall 02:56, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

It must not be as unique as you may think considering that two users have reached that conclusion here =). For the record though, the book's already been written. Lysander Spooner made an argument very similar to Haukurth's in his book No Treason, first published back in 1869. Perhaps even more interesting is the fact that Spooner was a famous abolitionist! Rangerdude 07:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

That was an interesting cite and I am glad you pointed me to it. I will read up more on him. Maybe the reason that the idea did not catch on in the last 150 years is that American individualist anarchism just did not appeal to anyone. How someone could critique for not being abolisionist enough but then advocate for the South to secede, allowing for the growth of slavery, seems like a pretty schizoid argument. Well, whoever wants to make it, good luck. --Noitall 11:45, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, because the South would miraculously be the one place in the white world where slavery would persist in perpetuity, ignorant of the fact that it was already becoming economically irrelevant. --Golbez 13:11, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Somewhat. I don't think free labor and absolute power ever becomes irrelevant. The economy was still dependant on tobacco and cotton, requiring enourmous amounts of labor for the next 75 years or so. And, even though "What if" scenarios quickly become science fiction, it would have certainly opened up the South to again import slaves and possibly resulted in future war, and maybe even a more terrible war, over whether the states West of the Missippi became a part of the CSA or USA. --Noitall 13:56, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

One of the classic arguments for justifying a war is saying that if it hadn't happened a more terrible war might have happened later. I personally reject that kind of speculative pseudo-utilitarian reasoning. The war was wrong and the leaders of the two countries were wrong to start it and wrong to continue it once it had started. A later more terrible war which might have occurred in some possible scenario would, of course, also have been wrong but that is beside the point. A lot of people thought that WWIII between the United States and the Soviet Union was inevitable and argued that since it was inevitable it should be started as soon as possible since a later war would be likely to be even more devastating. Almost all wars and invasions are sold to the public as inevitable. They are not. If the United States could coexist (largely) peacefully with the Soviet Union it could also have coexisted peacefully with the Confederate States. A wiser leader than Lincoln would have sought that path. Alternative history writing has no bearing on my view of the morality of past decisions but if I may be allowed to speculate it is my guess that the system of slavery would have been abolished from within, just like the system of Stalinism and probably in much less time. - Haukurth 23:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

That's common enough speculation; and it requires regarding as acceptable the hundreds of thousands (millions? How many slaves were there before the end of the Civil War?) of human beings being kept as personal property for however many generations it took to end the practice. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Slavery is immoral and not acceptable in any way. Saying that the conquest of the South was immoral does not in any way imply that slavery was an acceptable practice. Similarly, saying that the United States did the right thing in not invading the Soviet Union does not imply that it was somehow acceptable that millions of people endured the brutal rule of Stalin. As for the time it might have taken for the Confederate States to abolish slavery we can only guess. According to antislavery.org slavery was abolished in all British colonies in 1838, in all French colonies in 1848, in Peru and Venezuela in 1854, in all Dutch colonies in 1863, in Puerto Rico in 1873, in Cuba in 1886 and in Brazil in 1888 (after a gradual process starting in 1871) just to pick a few examples. Emancipation was very much the trend of the time and it seems unlikely that a country wanting to be considered civilized could have hung on to it for long. If you really want to perform the utilitarian calculus of whether speeding up emancipation by X years is worth the cost of a ruinous and bloody civil war, then by all means go ahead. I'm sure honest people can come up with different answers to that question. Haukurth 00:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• I know that the following argument would not make sense to a peace at any cost anarchist (which I admire you for admitting), but there is a difference between not invading the Soviet Union (forgetting for the moment the nuke/MAD aspect) in that the South was claimed to be a part of the U.S., had signed and subscribed to the Constitution. Gov'ts call out the troops all the time for insurrections--Washington with the Whiskey Rebellion, Kennedy (?) with the Alabama school integration, (whoever was before Lincoln) with John Brown's rebellion. Most of us who believe in the proper place for govts believe this is a good thing. --Noitall 02:45, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. The people of the South did largely not consent to be governed by Lincoln and used what seemed to them to be perfectly legal means to end his rule over them (of course blacks, women etc. didn't have much of a say). Secession is rarely seen as legal by everyone. My home country of Iceland seceded from the Danish Kingdom in 1944 with the support of the United States. The secession was at least arguably illegal under a previous treaty between Iceland and Denmark and many Danes saw it as such. But since they were still under German occupation there wasn't much they could do. The Baltic countries seceded from the Soviet Union, the 13 colonies seceded from the British Empire, Croatia seceded from Yugoslavia, West-Virginia seceded from Virgina. In each case leaders of the "mother country" saw the secession as illegal and called out the army. Is it your opinion that this was "a good thing" in each case? Should the leaders of the Soviet Union have gone further and suppressed the insurrection of the Baltic countries with violent means? Did you root for Slobodan Milošević throughout the Balkan troubles? Subscribing to a blanket license for governments to stomp out secession by violent means seems to me like a very dubious ethical proposition. - Haukurth 12:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

That was the statement made in the Declaration of Independance, in which there were many grievances, including that we were subject to an uninvolved dictatorship (there weren't any democracies at that time). The South had already consented to be governed and was happily governed for "four score and seven years" (87 years) -- that is why they were part of the USA. It makes government meaningless if any group of people at any time can secede simply to break the law. Remember, that it is what the South did. THEY fired on Fort Sumter. THEY raised an army to fight. Your examples are entirely irrelevant, either not dealing with democracies, not dealing with consent, not dealing with a unified country (except for slavery), or dealing with oppression and even mass murder. Your examples are so irrelevant that they lack common sense and only prove that sometimes war is necessary, or, as Lincoln said, "the War came", as to how the war came:

The war was not necessary. It was bloody and ruinous. It could have been avoided and it should have been avoided. I picked some examples of secession that I thought you might consider justified. Judging from your answer I think I was right. You do acknowledge secession as a moral option in some cases. You do not think Gorbachev should have preserved the union by occupying the Baltic states and deposing their governments. You do not think Milošević was justified in his attempts to preserve the union he was elected to lead. You don't think the British Empire was justified in trying to retain control of their colonies. You do, however, think that Lincoln was justified in invading and occupying the southern states. The difference, in your eyes, seems to be that the Croatians and the Lithuanians were justified in wanting to leave the union they belonged to and that the southerners were not because they did not have any grievances which you consider legitimate. And, because you do not consider their desire for independence "legitimate" you find the government of the North justified in using force to conquer the new country which they had established. If that is an accurate representation of your opinion (and feel free to correct it, I'm sure you'd prefer to put it a bit differently) then you are certainly entitled to it. I don't personally agree. I agree that one of the motives of the Soutern statesmen in seceding from the union, namely to secure the status of slavery within their borders, was morally abhorent. (Their other motives, as far as I know them, were not.) Nevertheless the establishment of the Confederate States was a fait accompli when the war began. It was in every practical sense a new country and the United States invaded and conquered it. This was, in my view, no more moral an invasion than a hypothetical invasion of the Soviet Union by the United States to (ostensibly) end the ravages of Stalin would have been (to harp on my previous example). As for the start of the war the CSA certainly carried some responsibility. I completely agree that the attack on Fort Sumter was a wrong decision. - Haukurth 15:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came. One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. --Noitall 13:34, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

"That was the statement made in the Declaration of Independance, in which there were many grievances, including that we were subject to an uninvolved dictatorship (there weren't any democracies at that time). The South had already consented to be governed and was happily governed for "four score and seven years" (87 years) -- that is why they were part of the USA. It makes government meaningless if any group of people at any time can secede simply to break the law." Good thing the colonists knew this before they decided to revolt so that they could choose their own masters. Oh wait... Also, your implication is that the government hadn't changed, merely the South, and therefore they still consented to be governed by the same static entity. If the north had elected Hi.. (Godwin alert!) .. Pol Pot, and the south didn't like this, would you suggest they just stick it out, just because the previous 87 years hadn't been chock full of dictator? Something about a long train of abuses and usurpations comes to mind. --Golbez 14:25, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I think the bell has rung and class is over. I addressed your issues above. And now you are essentially arguing the South was oppressed because they had a right to oppress African-Americans and whip their slaves? I thing the productivity of the discussion reached its conclusion. Nice chatting. --Noitall 14:36, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my question! It was never productive to begin with. You must work in politics, you have this talking points thing down pat. Impressive. --Golbez 15:09, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Import? Didn't the Confederate constitution specifically ban the importation of new slaves? --Golbez 14:06, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but the weakness of the CSA Constitution, focus on state's rights and the lack of judicial review, and the guaranteed lack of enforcement due to the fact that almost all the slave-running that was done at that time was done by the South (and stopped by the Union North) meant that it was essentially up to the states to decide. --Noitall 15:29, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

The costs of the war in terms of dead, wounded and conscripted should at least be in the article, to counterbalance his "accomplishments". Weren't the Cherokee also punished for attempting to leave the "union" along with the south?--Silverback 11:25, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

No, the Indian story was another matter, and the South was not "punished" (if anything, the Union was punished). --Noitall 11:38, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Explain. --Golbez 14:25, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

A view of Lincoln missing from the article

It might be worth considering some of the research mentioned in this article about Lincoln. It offers an interesting account of some of the things that are rarely mentioned about him (like the fact that not everyone believes he was against slavery). -- LGagnon 23:34, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Peacocking

Is it just me, or does the intro of this article seem to be using peacock terms, which we are not supposed to use? -- LGagnon 23:38, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

It may just be you. :-) Give examples of the offending terms, or use your Wikipedian wand to edit them to your satisfaction. Hal Jespersen 23:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

"Master politician", for instance; what exactly counts as a "master"? Then there's "staunchly opposed", but then again that's more POV than peacocking (see the previous section I made for why that is POV). -- LGagnon 03:22, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, it does not really matter your POV in this matter. It is not "peacocking" when those are the beliefs of almost every historian who has assessed this subject. --Noitall 03:43, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

So we are going to throw the NPOV rule aside just because the majority says so? This is not the way a Wikipedia article is supposed to be written. -- LGagnon 14:36, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

You're missing the point of NPOV. If we weren't allowed to report the POV of others, we couldn't report on anyone's historical stature. We can report on popular opinion; we can report on the opinion of the masses. It's our own personal POVs that are irrelevant. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Given the example in that page on peacocking, I don't think there is room for concern in this article. In that example, they contrast two alternative opening descriptions for a biography. In one they say "he was a great guy". In the other they describe the 10 great things he did and allow the reader to realize that he was great. If this Lincoln article had said "Lincoln was the most wonderful president in American history" and left it at that, that would certainly fit the definition of peacocking. Saying "master politician" is merely a shorthand expression for describing a person who accomplishes a lot via political means and it is only one of Lincoln's many attributes described in the lengthy introductory section to this biography. As to "staunchly opposed", that seems to be a factual description of Lincoln's viewpoint and actions. Removing the adverb would lessen the impact of his strong political view, which, after all, was the proximate reason for the secession of the first seven Southern states. Hal Jespersen 15:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

A quote from Lincoln, found in the article I linked to above (and apperantly Wikiquote has it too, without my assistance): "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it ... What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union." That does not sound staunchly opposed. -- LGagnon 23:13, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I am not going to give you my child's 3rd grade history lesson, but suffice it to say Lincoln staunchly opposed destruction of the U.S. and horrible war more. --Noitall 00:26, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

The article says "Lincoln staunchly opposed the expansion of slavery into federal territories" and I do not think that is in conflict with the quote that you present. Hal Jespersen 01:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)