Talk:Abraham Lincoln/Archive 17

Abraham Lincoln and depression
I definitely think that there should be a section at least partly based on Lincoln's depression. There is at least one book out on the subject called Lincoln's Melancholy by Joshua Wolf Shenk. Lighthead þ 04:05 21, March 2008 (UTC)

editprotected

I would like to add this source to the  tag about his avoidance of killing animals.Valkyrian (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Edit declined. Not a reliable source. Sandstein (talk) 06:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ummm, why does the line directly quote the soulclassics comment anyway, even after it was pointed out as a poor source- but reference a statement from a book by Sandberg? Seems like someone's promoting vegan agenda, not expressing Lincoln's actual practice. What's wrong with some intellectual honesty?  Lincoln would be ashamed!Batvette (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Had the jungle fever —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladampire (talk • contribs) 04:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Lincoln most likely did not suffer from depression. Any claim that he did is inordinately speculative and does not merit inclusion in an article concerning what may be known of his life and character. What is known, however, is that Lincoln suffered from a melancholic temperament, or "the hypo," as he was fond of calling it. Doris Kearns Goodwin, the author of an insightful biography of Lincoln (namely Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln) spent 10 years researching his life and found no substantial evidence to support the conclusion that he suffered from clinical depression. Dewey56 (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I, too, am not convinced that Lincoln suffered from clinical depression. But I do, however, believe that the issue merits discussion in the main article. In Dr. John G. Sotos' book, The Physical Lincoln, there is a lengthy discussion regarding how Lincoln's physical appearance may have misled others to believe that Lincoln was perpetually "gloomy" ("hypo") in demeanor. Sotos believes that MEN2B (a rare genetic disorder whose symptoms include rendering many of its victims as appearing perpetually sad) was responsible for this. Sotos estimates that Lincoln's mood was probably somewhere midway between normal (i.e. average for the population) and that of clinical depression. Sotos does not believe that Lincoln's mood was indicative of pathology, but rather that Lincoln's mood was on the low side of normal, similar to how some individuals may typically exhibit low blood pressure (say, 100/65 mmHg), which is within the range of what is considered to be "normal", but which is on the low side of that normal range. Sotos adds that Lincoln's ability to rebound quickly from his bouts of the "hypo" would, in and of itself, disprove a diagnosis of clinical despression. In any case, in my opinion, Lincoln's mood is quite relevant to the discussion of Lincoln the man. It could be stated that while Lincoln did experience several episodes of depressed mood during his lifetime that Lincoln's overall behavior, particularly as president, does not support a diagnosis of clinical depression. Wally From Columbia (NJ) (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Clinical Depression can result entirely from external factors, including stress, loss, and feelings of inadequacy. We do know that Lincoln eperienced all of those things. Instead of deciding on a rare genetic condition, why not realized that he suffered several periods of Xanex worthy depression in his lifetime. Probably his depression did not result from internal factors, (e.g. brain chemistry) and thus was not prevalent in and throughout his life. Additionally, even in the 1800's a president knew that his papers would be studied at some point, thus I doubt Lincoln would ever write down the clearer indications of depression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.165.132 (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a Factual Error on the Page
The Democrats won three, not two, states in the election of 1864. (New Jersey, Deleware, Kentucky) Lillie Yifu (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Another factual error -- the Lincoln cent pictured is not "proof quality." It can either be left at Lincoln cent, or it can be called "Uncirculated." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbspiegel (talk • contribs) 05:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

inaccurate statement:

The Emancipation Proclamation, announced on September 22, 1862 and put into effect on January 1, 1863, freed slaves in territories not already under Union control

it did not immediately free anybody and did not free slaves in Union-loyal border states :


 * It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control. Most important, the freedom it promised depended upon Union military victory.


 * Although the Emancipation Proclamation did not immediately free a single slave, it fundamentally transformed the character of the war. Cedwyn (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn


 * the statement is quite accurate. Most slaves were in fact freed by the Emancipation Proclamation.Rjensen (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * the National Archive says the EP didn't immediately free anybody - it was always contingent on Union victory. i'll take their word on it.

regardless, the Emancipation Proclamation did not free all slaves and the article doesn't quite make that clear. the reader is allowed to make the assumption that the EP did, indeed, free all slaves, as everyone imagines that everything under Union control was slave free, which isn't the case.

to be a neutral POV, the article should explain that the EP retained slavery in some territories under Union control. there were explicit exceptions for loyal border states and union-controlled parts of the Confederacy. Cedwyn (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Break
The EP article makes that very clear. This article says
 * The Emancipation Proclamation, announced on September 22, 1862 and put into effect on January 1, 1863, freed slaves in territories not already under Union control. As Union armies advanced south, more slaves were liberated until all of them in Confederate territory (over three million) were freed. Lincoln later said: "I never, in my life, felt more certain that I was doing right, than I do in signing this paper." The proclamation made the abolition of slavery in the rebel states an official war goal. Lincoln then threw his energies into passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to permanently abolish slavery throughout the nation.

from which it is quite clear that the EP did not free all slaves. It did not retain slavery anywhere, it did not say slavery is OK anywhere - it just did not outlaw it there. If a school says that smoking is prohibited on its premises, it is not retaining smoking elsewhere - it simply lacks jurisdiction elsewhere. Few then or now would hold that the federal gov't (prior to the 13th amend) had the jurisdictional power to free slaves everywhere in the US --JimWae (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

NO states were explicitly excepted, only counties (& parishes) (with 3 cities included in those counties) --JimWae (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-In-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, and in accordance with my purpose so to do, publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days from the first day above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof, respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States the following, to wit:
 * Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana (except the parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension, Assumption, Terrebone, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the city of New Orleans), Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkeley, Accomac, Northhampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Anne, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth), and which excepted parts are for the present left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

The slaves were legally (per US law) freed that day - the enforcement of the proclamation & the realization of their freedom depended on military advances - but not their legal freedom. --JimWae (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

isn't "not outlaw" = "retain"?

the relevant text:


 * and which excepted parts are for the present left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.


 * ...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.

that is the explicit exception for border states. because the EP specifically lists the states affected, we know where slavery was not affected: the states not named and "which excepted parts are for the present left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued." and it is not in dispute that there were loyal border states with slavery.

as was argued, Lincoln could only emancipate the areas in rebellion; the only logical conclusion from there is that he must have, therefore, left existing loyal-state slavery intact. and the article does not make this clear, as evidenced by your own assertion that the EP "did not retain slavery anywhere."

most people assume north = free and south = slave in some kind of monolith. so the article is not entirely neutral in its presentation when it uses wording such as "As Union armies advanced south, more slaves were liberated until all of them in Confederate territory (over three million) were freed."

the statement is true enough, as far as it goes. but the information, as presented, does allow the reader to continue in the north = free, south = slave assumption. imo, this is not a neutral presentation. i think the article would be strengthened by making it clear that several states retained slaves after the EP was issued, some right up until the passage of the 13th amendment.

and yes; i realize the article does mention Lincoln's pursuit of the 13th. but most people will not read the relevant passage and come away with "well, if he continued to push for a constitutional amendment to ban it, it must have still existed." most people upon reading it will roll with the implied north = free, south = slave and take the 13th amendment as a mere formality so slavery could never be legalized again. peace

67.171.145.192 (talk) 04:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

A school board does not "retain" smoking on land it does not have jurisdiction over. As an action by the commander-in-chief of the armed forces to stem a rebellion, a presidential Proclamation could only apply to states (or parts of states) in rebellion. Legality required that some conditions for what counts as being or not being in rebellion be given. Lincoln would not have been on any solid legal ground had he used any Proclamation to emancipate slaves in states that were not in rebellion. Just as he could not end it in states not in rebellion, neither had he any power to "retain" it there. Had Lincoln attempted to declare emancipation in regions where jurisdiction could be questioned, the entire proclamation would have been subject to being tossed by SCOTUS.

We cannot be responsible for interpretations by people who do not read or cannot understand the rest of the paragraph. Alternatively, it seems you want the article to state that the EP did not end slavery everywhere. Saying it did not apply everywhere is different from saying (either) it (or Lincoln) "retained" slavery. If you can propose an alternate wording that would be relevant to the article on Lincoln, present it here for discussion. But, assuming we add such a sentence, some people will not read it anyway--JimWae (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the EP did not specifically state that it was retaining slavery. But if something exists and you do not eliminate it because you don't have the authority, it has been retained, by definition if not intent. Anyhoo...I will look at the text and work on an alternate phrasing. but, really, the whole section needs help, starting from the top:

Second Confiscation Act
The Second Confiscation Act was not a an attempt to free slaves; its goal was, as stated, to weaken the Confederacy by confiscating property and resources of use. Here is the act's summary text:


 * CHAP. CXCV.–An Act to suppress Insurrection, to punish Treason and Rebellion, to seize and confiscate the Property of Rebels, and for other Purposes.

This act was about the confiscation of property. Freeing slaves is not mentioned in the summary text. The only slaves it did free were those of persons tried and found guilty of treason, or those who had escaped to the North. It did not apply to regions of the South or enable broad-scale emancipation. Therefore, "Congress moved to free the slaves by passing the Second Confiscation Act" is non-neutral/inaccurate. Unless we have source documents indicating Congress thought the act's purpose was to free slaves, it is not an accurate assessment.

The Act was about property seizure, not slavery. The debate around the act's passage is a fascinating study in property rights and what authority the federal government has in relation to them.

And the debate about the act's passage was heated; it did not represent a unified front and purpose as implied in this article. There was very adamant resistance to it, some of it rooted in opposition to emancipation. . The 37th Congress spent months discussing this bill. Alternate versions were introduced; Lincoln even threatened to veto it unless certain property protections were made explicit.

It was not a bill about slavery, except that slaves were one more resource at the South's disposal to further its military aims. The purpose of this act was to weaken the Confederate war effort, not free slaves. A lot of people voted against it even still.

Thanks!

Cedwyn (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

opinion
" ...successfully led his country through its greatest internal crisis..." (taken from the first sentence) Thats definitely an opinion. 97.102.154.152 (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it might seem like an opinion, but when it's an opinion shared by virtually every expert [i.e., historian] on the subject, it's still acceptable to place it in there in this way. If you want, we can put about 15-20 citations on that, but I think that it really detracts from the aesthetic appeal of the opening sentence. Unschool (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless, Its an opinion and not NPOV. Only cited facts should be added, not cited opinions.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, let me say that I admire your desire to better this project; your sincerity is clear, and I respect your motives. Nonetheless, I disagree with the bulk of your concerns here.  WP:NPOV does not mean that we need to exclude all opinions.  Look at the opening paragraph of WP:NPOV:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.


 * What is a "view"? It is, of course, shorthand for "viewpoint".  And what is a viewpoint?  Fred has his viewpoint on John McCain's mortgage plan, and Barney has his; another word for their respective "viewpoints" is their opinions on the plan.  And what does Wikipedia tell us to do with viewpoints?  It tells us to represent fairly all significant views.  It does not tell us to exclude these views, but to treat them fairly.  And note that it does not say that we need to give them equal time.  We are not only allowed to distinguish between them based upon their significance, we are expected to:  not all viewpoints necessarily need to be included (though I would argue that the default setting should be to include all of them, until it is ascertained that conflicting opinions are too insignificant to include).  We need only include those points of view for which there is significant published support.


 * So that brings us to the statement to which you have objected. That the American Civil War was the greatest crisis in American History is simply accepted as fact by probably 90% of historians of United States history.  I actually think that this is so generally understood that it is unnecessary to provide citations, but I will put a few on there.  Of course, you have also asserted that we should not include cited opinions.  Joj, you will never exclude cited opinions from Wikipedia.  They are a fundamental underpinning of this encyclopedia, more than any other encyclopedia, because they provide credibility to what would otherwise be mere anonymous opinion.  Mind you, other encyclopedias use expert opinions too, but they don't cite them because the credibility of those encyclopedias is underwritten by their editorial process, which of course is fundamentally different than ours.


 * WP:NPOV does not exist to exclude anything that could conceivably be defined as an opinion. It exists to make sure that, where there are conflicting viewpoints, that this project does not favor one point of view over another.  There is no extant authority that would argue against the proposition that the American Civil War was the greatest crisis in American history.  Accordingly, WP:NPOV does not need to be applied to the sentence in question.


 * One closing thought. Be careful what you wish for.  A truly, truly NPOV project, such as you think you desire, would be unbelievably bland and difficult to read.  Most of what we say is, in one form or another, an opinion.  Whether we refer to Shakespeare as the greatest writer in English or the Pittsburgh Steelers as the most dominant NFL team of the 1970s, or the American Civil War as the greatest crisis in American history, yes, we are expressing opinion.  And we are also—hopefully—providing something that readers will want to read.  Just my 2¢ worth.   Unschool (talk) 03:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I always love reading your 2 cents comments. You truely love to comment and help every article. Thats great. Actually my only concern here is NPOV. Its not the fact of the Civil War being the "greatest crisis" in US history, which it most likely was, but the statement is too subjective. Too open to interpretation, especially through over two hundred years of history. It can be argued that the American Revolution was more of a crisis because the outcome was always in doubt, while it has been argued, by Shelby Foote for one, that the overall outcome of the Civil War was never in doubt, just the lenghth of the war. Now, by what definition do we place on "Greatest Crisis"? If it is loss of life than yes the Civil War would be that crisis. If it is financial, then perhaps the 1929 stock market crash would be the crisis. If we must place this TAG on the article then lets at least define it.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Is the statement we are discussing "subjective"? When you or I make it, yes, it is, as is virtually every statement in the social sciences.  That's specifically why we cite experts.  It's the closest thing to "facts" that we can find.  And when they agree on the facts, then those are the facts, even when—on a semantic level—you can point out that these "facts" are subjective.  You see, I don't have to determine by what criteria we will define the "greatest crisis", because the experts have done it for me.  Unschool (talk) 04:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Any expert who writes a book will, and sometimes unconciously, make the topic that they are writing about seem more important than it sometimes is, especially when it comes to subjective opinions. They are in the bussiness of selling books and people are more willing to buy that book if it is about the "greatest crisis" in our history, rather than the second greatest. I respect the experts on the facts they provide and I do think, in my opinion, that is was the greatest crisis in US history, but perhaps it s a bit too NPOV[ for the lead paragraph.--Jojhutton (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL, You added like eight citations. Thats great. I am actually laughing out loud--Jojhutton (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am glad to have brought you a moment of levity. :-) Unschool (talk) 04:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Widely held opinions, especially by experts in the field, are indeed usable encyclopedic facts. That said, do we really need eight references?  It looks a bit unsightly, when perhaps three would be enough.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 04:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I think that one would be more than enough. I think that references in the intro should be kept to a bare minimum, because, yes, they are unsightly, and generally, the facts are repeated later in the article where citations are less of an irritant.  But I spent about eight minutes gathering citations just to satisfy another editor who objected to this ostensible violation of WP:NPOV.  Unschool (talk) 04:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I second that (the first message). He definitely "led the country through a crisis", but the "successfully" puts the finger where it hurts, and is not necessary in this part of the text. the term "led through a crisis" already gives enough idea of "success". There is no reason to put this word there, if not to express the opinion that his invasion of the foreign newly-created southern country was a good thing, desired by everyone. I can live with this kind of rhetoric in the body of the text, but at least in the opening paragraph I would like to see a more neutral text. I don't see where the opinion of experts enter here. They may agree that he was successful in keeping the original borders of the country, but the sentence states that this was a "success" in general, as for example Bill Gates will be "successful" if he manages to eradicate malaria and Windows from the planet. (See what I did?? I just passed a controversial personal opinion in the end!! I am so funny.) -- NIC1138 (talk) 23:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmmmm. Nwerneck, I think I understand your point, but I disagree.  Lincoln had goals.  Those goals were the goals of the United States government (if only because he [Lincoln] set the goals for the country).  He accomplished those goals.  Therefore, he was successful.  Yes, I understand that not everyone would agree with his objectives, but he was successful in accomplishing his objectives.  Unschool (talk) 05:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

unsupported/infactual conclusion
<< Ending slavery was always a primary goal of the Lincoln administration. However, the American public was slow to embrace the idea. In a shrewdly penned letter to Horace Greeley, editor of The New York Tribune, Lincoln masked his goal of ending slavery by making it subservient to the cause of preserving the union.>>

No citation is provided for this conclusion and there is no historical document supporting this position. It needs to be stricken from the page immediately. Even the letter to Greeley (reading Greeley's letter provides deeper insight, as does the intro of Lincoln's letter wherein he cedes any disupte to the facts presented) cited for this statement wholly contradicts that interpretation:

<< I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." ... My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. 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; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.[37]>>

To assert that Lincoln secretly desired to abolish slavery and lied about his true motivations for fighting the Civil War is as willful a misreading of the historical record as possible. There is absolutely no historical support for this assertion and it flies in the face of Lincoln's own words. Until/unless some cache of Lincoln correspondence surfaces in which he himself expresses such opinions, it is an unsubstantiated, biased represenatation and should be removed from this article. 98.232.243.146 (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn
 * the text follows the arguments of most Lincoln scholars re the Greeley letter. For example look at the very recent book by Lehrman, Lincoln at peoria (2008) pp 226-7, and the quotes there from Fehrenbacher--it's online at amazon.com Likewise see McPherson Battle Cry (1988) p 510 and Carwardine Lincoln (2003) p. 264. Lincoln did not lie. You have to read the letter very carefully. He is promising he will abolish slavery to defeat the Confederacy and that is what he did--and if there was a way to defeat the Confederacy without emancipating he would do that (but he saw no such way--and even so he did NOT say he would preserve slavery). Rjensen (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

this is the first time in my entire life i have heard this supposition (that "ending slavery was always a primary goal" and that Lincoln "masked his goal of ending slavery by making it subservient to the cause of preserving the union"). Do you have a citation for claiming that this line of thinking "follows the arguments of most Lincoln scholars"?

asssuming that there is some majority of arguments in support of this interpretation, arguments != substantiated conclusions the assertion is currently uncited, regardless - if it is broadly accepted as true, it needs a citation establishing it as the consensus opinion. citing 3 scholars' explorations of the idea does not constitute proof that this is a prevailing view.

basically, if this notion isn't supported from Lincoln's own words or substantiated, widely accepted conclusions, it isn't valid for inclusion here.

as for the Greeley letter signaling his intention to end slavery, that interpretation stands in direct opposition to the plain meaning of its language:


 * As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.


 * I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. 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; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.


 * I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

this emphasis on official duty, i.e, policy, coupled with "I believe I have no lawful right to do so" from the L-D debates, would seem to contraindicate this theory (that "ending slavery was always a primary goal" and that Lincoln "masked his goal of ending slavery by making it subservient to the cause of preserving the union"). without definitive citation, it shouldn't stand.

peace 98.232.243.146 (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn
 * I just cited major recent books; I think Carwardine has the clearest explanation on this point and recommend it highly. Lincoln is one of the great writers in world history,  His words were VERY carefully chosen and have to be read very carefully. He clearly announces his willingness --eagerness--to abolish slavery if it will hasten the end of the war.  Most Republicans thought that it would. Lincoln had to wait for several developments--the fate of compensated emancipation in the border states and DC, and especially the need ofr a battlefield victory. Here's McPherson's argument regarding timing:
 * P. 510 Here was something for all viewpoints: a reiteration that preservation of the Union remained the purpose of the war, but a hint that partial or even total emancipation might become necessary to accomplish that purpose. The same intentional ambiguity characterized Lincoln's reply on September 13 to a group of clergymen who presented him a petition for freedom. The president agreed that "slavery is the root of the rebellion," that emancipation would "weaken the rebels by drawing off their laborers" and "would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition." But in present circumstances, "when I cannot even enforce the Constitution in the rebel states . . . what good would a proclamation of emancipation from me do? I do not want to issue a document that the whole world will necessarily see must be inoperative, like the Pope's bull against the comet!" Here too was something for everybody: an assertion that emancipation was desirable though at present futile but perhaps imminent if the military situation took a turn for the better. Military matters preoccupied Lincoln as he uttered these words. For two months, events in both the western and eastern theaters had been deteriorating to the point where by mid-September three southern armies were on the march northward in a bold bid for victory. But within the next few weeks the Confederate tide receded southward again with- out prevailing, thus ending the chance for European recognition and giving Lincoln the victory he needed to issue the emancipation proclamation. [Battle Cry p 510] Rjensen (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"He clearly announces his willingness --eagerness--to abolish slavery if it will hasten the end of the war"

"if it will hasten the end of the war." Lincoln was in favor of anything to hasten the end of the war. There is no "careful" reading to support this as a wholehearted declaration of abolitionist intent, for the sake of abolition itself. The letter also asserts his equally fervent declaration that his purpose was to preserve the union, not to abolish slavery and that if he could do it without freeing a single slave, he would.

Lincoln also said those things on the eve of issuing the Emancipation Proclamation; of course, now that we know the EP came one month after this letter, it's easy to say it signaled his intent. Let's assume it absolutely was a clear signal - that only applies to his thoughts at that time; it cannot be extrapolated backwards through the start of the war to "Ending slavery was always a primary goal of the Lincoln administration." Lincoln repeatedly asserted that he had no interest in abolishing slavery where it existed; he just didn't want it expanding. He also said he didn't believe he had the authority to end it. It's also true that the EP didn't even fully end it. From the National Archives :


 * It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control.

It is simply not supported by the evidence that ending slavery was always a goal of his. It just isn't. Even the items you specifically cited are addressing the period right before the emancipation proclamation; that he seemed to desire abolition at that time does NOT mean it was always a goal.

and again, citing 3 books does not support the idea that this is a broadly supported consensus opinion.

and the assertion, in the wiki article, is still uncited. yes; you provided 3 writers who seem to feel this way, but there is as yet no citation for the assertion itself. and unless there is a citation indicating that this is a widely accepted consensus opinion, it should not be here, per site neutrality guidelines. It is an unsubstantiated opinion.

peace

98.232.243.146 (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn


 * In 1854, at Peoria, Illinois, in his first major anti-slavery speech, Lincoln said this about slavery, "I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself." Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

hating it != secretly desiring to end it, in spite of all protestations to the contrary.

i see the wording has been changed somewhat, but it still asserts that "Ending slavery was always a desire of the Lincoln administration," which still sits in direct contrast to Lincoln's own words :


 * Do the people of the south really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, there is no cause for such fears.


 * ...To Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune, who had passed along a report of a rabid anti-Lincoln harangue in the Mississippi legislature, Lincoln wrote that "madman" there had quite misrepresented his views. He stated he was not "pledged to the ultimate extinction of slavery," and that he did not "hold the black man to be the equal of the white."

I think "the president subordinated the goal of ending slavery to the cause of preserving the Union" is still inaccurate; it continues to presuppose the end of slavery as the primary goal, despite Lincoln's consistent proclamations to the opposite:


 * I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

peace

98.232.243.146 (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Lincoln did not desire to end slavery
Since you like quoting from the ACW FAQ, here's some more:

Q6: Did Lincoln say he didn't care about slavery? A6: This is true only if you like very selective quoting. The things Lincoln said in favor of equality were many, the things he said against it were few, and those few were combined with a great deal of political pressure. This is especially true with regard to Lincoln's letter to Greeley at a time when border state people and War Democrats might reject emancipation and the war if the issue wasn't explained in a way that they would accept. Also, Lincoln's sole justification for emancipation was military necessity. Lincoln was inconsistent on the equality issue during the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 partly in order to deflect the politically damaging charge (by 19th century standards) that he was a "Black Republican" abolitionist.

As to whether issues of right and wrong were part of the controversy, Abraham Lincoln and Alexander Stephens had the following to say about this:

"You think slavery is right and should be extended; while we think slavery is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub." - From Abraham Lincoln's letter to Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens, Dec 22, 1860

"We at the South do think African slavery, as it exists with us, both morally and politically right. This opinion is founded upon the inferiority of the black race. You, however, and perhaps a majority of the North, think it wrong." - From Stephens' reply to Lincoln, Dec 30, 1860 Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a lengthy previous discussion in the section above on the validity of the article's claim that "Ending slavery was always a desire of the Lincoln administration."

Today I discovered that even the FAQ on the ACW talk page denies that Lincoln desired or intended to end slavery once he was elected:

Here is the uncensored version of the quote: Q10: Did Lincoln plan to immediately abolish slavery in the South when elected? A10: No. Lincoln combined moral opposition to slavery (calling it "a monstrous injustice") with a moderate, gradual program of action. Lincoln, like most Republicans, believed that compromises of the Constitution (a three-fifths clause, a 20 year extension of the African slave trade and a fugitive slave clause) implied Constitutional recognition of slavery where it existed. However, Lincoln would not compromise on preventing any expansion of slavery in the hope that this would put it "in the course of ultimate extinction."

Again, don't quote me any more. And be more honest.Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Q9: Did Lincoln plan to immediately abolish slavery in the South when elected?


 * A9: No. Lincoln combined moral opposition to slavery (calling it "a monstrous injustice") with a moderate, gradual program of action. Lincoln, like most Republicans, believed that compromises of the Constitution (a three-fifths clause, a 20 year extension of the African slave trade and a fugitive slave clause) implied Constitutional recognition of slavery where it existed.

So the statement "Ending slavery was always a desire of the Lincoln administration" should not stand. This applies to its daughter statement "the president subordinated the goal of ending slavery to the cause of preserving the Union" as well. Other parts of wikipedia don't even agree with it.

peace

Cedwyn (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

It should say that Lincoln pledged to put it "in the course of ultimate extinction" instead.Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

As always, you reach for one side of the issue, and censor the rest. Read the rest of the FAQ in question, all of Lincoln's letters and speeches, and some of the better biographies of Lincoln. You're like the talk radio version of the news. Just stop quoting me altogether. Please.Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The statement that he always intended to abolish slavery should be stricken. Some scholars do believe this, but it's controversial.  We should summarize the controversy.  Here's a good article.It says "Perhaps the most controversial argument advanced by Guelzo is that "Lincoln's face was set toward the goal of emancipation from the day he first took the presidential oath".  It has good info after that as well, describing the evidence that can be used to make the case, and why it's controversial.  It's from a guy who has written a number of Lincoln and US History books. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

"Desire to end" and "immediately abolish" are not synonymous. The Lincoln administration did not begin until 1861, so earlier "desires" do not defeat the statement. Both North & South thought that stopping the expansion of slavery would eventually end it. The article might make the point in a more informative way (ascriptions of emotions/desires to any administration is problematic), but as early as 1854 K-N act, Lincoln was motivated to to end the expansion of slavery, and his administration thought that if it stopped slavery's expansion, it would bring about the eventual extiction. --JimWae (talk) 07:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * but he was saying it even at his inaugural:


 * Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them.


 * and what about the part where the ACW FAQ doesn't even agree with the idea?


 * Cedwyn (talk) 14:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn


 * There's a bit of nuance to this whole thing that we should capture instead of just saying he always wanted to end slavery. Here's a ref that kind summarizes things.  Basically, the storyline used to be that he was all about ending slavery.  Then a significant number of historians began to question this, and said he was all about politics.  Lately, maybe, things are starting to swing back towards him being the Great Emancipator (with some of caveats).  This is what we should describe. - 07:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * good point. The logic of "free labor" is that it was always superior to slave labor and the slaveowners --if they could not expand geographically--would eventually give up slavery as was happening at this time in all the border states (and in Brazil too). I revised the text to make this clearer. Rjensen (talk) 10:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * nice edit. that works very well.  now can we please address the Second Confiscation Act?


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abraham_Lincoln#Second_Confiscation_Act


 * it was not about freeing slaves and it was not a unified front from Congress by any means.


 * peace


 * Cedwyn (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn
 * The 2nd Confiscation act was a threat: from this point forward anyone who supports the rebellion will lose all his slaves. The South ignored it -- and it had the great weakness of requiring a criminal trial in every case. But it certainly proved the Congress linked the rebellion to the end of slavery. That gave Lincoln the political support he needed to use executive orders (the EP) whioch did NOT involve any trials against slaveowners in rebellion. Rjensen (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * all well and good. but the article claims that "Congress moved to free slaves," when that was not what the Act was about.  It was a threat, like you said, and an attempt to weaken the Confederacy.


 * peace


 * Cedwyn (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn
 * Congress passed a law that freed the slaves of all convincted rebels. That's moving to free slaves--as the article says. In practive Lincoln's Em Proc route, announced a little later, was the one used to free the slaves. Rjensen (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * it seems our points are now moot...it's been changed.

98.232.243.146 (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Emancipation Proclamation
The Emancipation Proclamation, announced on September 22, 1862 and put into effect on January 1, 1863, freed slaves in territories not already under Union control

it did not immediately free anybody and did not free slaves in Union-loyal border states :


 * It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control. Most important, the freedom it promised depended upon Union military victory.


 * Although the Emancipation Proclamation did not immediately free a single slave, it fundamentally transformed the character of the war.

98.232.243.146 (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn
 * goodness we have a lot of misperceptions about the Great Emancipator. The problem I guess is that things changed over time and the critics seem unaware of that. 1, before 1861 Lincoln said that the country could not permanently exist half slave and half free. It would become or the other. He proposed all free. He did NOT set a timeline. 2. Before the war started he promised not to touch slavery in the South; he expected it would die out there gradually if not allowed to expand (as it was dying out in border states). 3. During the war slavery was in play and the prewar promises were irrelevant. He said he would kill it to preserve the union, saying also he would not kill slavery if the South returned to the Union.   4. The Emancipation Proclamation in fact freed most of the slaves in the Confederacy; those in border states were freed by state action which Lincoln pushed, or by the 13th amendment which he sponsored. Did the Emancipation free any slaves on the day it was issued? No, but it did free them the next day, the next week, the next month all the way to June 1865 when it freed all the slaves in Texas.  5. as late as Feb 1865, 6 weeks before the surrender, Lincoln offered to buy all the southern slaves (he made the offer in a face-to-face meeting with the Confederate vice president). the Confederacy refused and there was no compensation. Rjensen (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

yes; things changed over time. that is precisely my point - that Lincoln came around to supporting abolition as a means to an end (saving the union), not his primary goal, as suggested by "Ending slavery was always a desire of the Lincoln administration" and "the president subordinated the goal of ending slavery to the cause of preserving the Union."

what i am saying is that every direct quote we have from Lincoln denies any intent to abolish slavery where it exists. so how could it have always been a "desire of his administration"?

do you have a direct quote (pre-Emancipation Proclamation) in support of this notion that the rest of us haven't read? that would put an end to all of this real quick. if nothing directly from lincoln is available, maybe a citation indicating that "ending slavery was always a desire of the Lincoln administration" is a widely accepted consensus opinion? here is what Lincoln said at his first inaugural address:


 * Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them.

he very consistently argued against slavery's expansion, for all the reasons one might - personal, political, etc. he personally did not approve of it. he wanted to see it eradicated. but he didn't even think he had the authority to do so and was far from certain how to go about it. which is why he focused on preventing its spread. you even said yourself he expected it to die a natural death - that was his fondest wish, to not have to face it head-on.

regarding your 3rd point - During the war slavery was in play and the prewar promises were irrelevant, I am discussing a pre-war perspective ("ending slavery was always a desire of the Lincoln administration"), so citing antebellum statements is absolutely relevant.

regarding your 4th point - here is the passage i cited as incorrect: The Emancipation Proclamation, announced on September 22, 1862 and put into effect on January 1, 1863, freed slaves in territories not already under Union control.

per your own reply (pt. #4) it is, indeed, incorrect: "The Emancipation Proclamation in fact freed most of the slaves in the Confederacy; those in border states were freed by state action which Lincoln pushed, or by the 13th amendment which he sponsored.

That the border state slaves were eventually freed is irrelevant to the point I'm making, which is that they were not freed by the EP. "state action" and the 13th amendment are, by definition, NOT the Emancipation Proclamation. In any event, the source I cited regarding the Emancipation Proclamation is from the National Archives. the passage in the article has factual errors. at the very least, it is not a neutral POV, as it doesn't explain that the EP left some territories in slavery.

peace

98.232.243.146 (talk) 06:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

If you accept the fact, from the point of view of the United States government, that the southern states were still part of the Union, then the EP freed all the slaves in the areas not controlled by the U.S. government on January 1, 1863. The slaves were free! However, because the slaves lived in areas not under U.S. control, then the now-freed slaves were unable to exercise that freedom because they were prohibited from doing so by illegal armed force, i.e., the military and civil forces of the southern whites holding them captive. Think of it like kidnapping, which is a Federal offense. Just because people in the U.S. are kidnapped does not mean they are now slaves. They are not slaves, but they are still unable to exercise their freedom by walking away because they are illegally locked up or otherwise held captive.

And for those who insist that the EP never freed any slaves... Guelzo's book Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation shows that slaves in the South soon became aware that the EP was due to be issued on January 1, 1863. On that day, in Union held areas all around the border of the Confederacy, slaves walked into Union camps and declared themselves free. We may be talking about only a few hundred on that day, but hundreds of thousands also did so during the following two years.

What a shame that this article is now "nominated to be checked for its neutrality." Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

At civil loggerheads
Well, Joj, I guess we know where each of us stands. I believe that it is acceptable to use expert opinions in constructing this encyclopedia, and believe that without the opinions of experts, there are a great many topics—mostly within the arts and social sciences—about which we could write nothing of significant interest. You appear to believe that nothing that semantically can be defined as an opinion has any place anywhere in Wikipedia. I appreciate the civil way in which you've made it possible to conduct this discussion, but now I think it's time to get input from others. Would you agree? Unschool (talk) 03:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I always welcome input, and the talk page is open to all who wish to contribute to wikipedia, but as always, the discussion usually hovers two or three passionate editors.
 * I know that there is a NPOV policy that discusses this very topic that we are discussing. I will find it and get back to you.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Try WP:ASF. I think this may help the discussion.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoa! What did I do to make you doubt that I am assuming good faith?  I completely believe that you are acting in good faith.  A sincere difference of opinion does not constitute a violation of AGF.  (Note that I titled this section civil loggerheads.)
 * Your point about the discussion revolving around only two or three editors is often true, but I am hopeful, given the prominence of this article, that in this case, it will not be so. Unschool (talk) 03:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you even click on the link? Its WP:ASF, not WP:AGF. Sorry,I know they look similar. Please click on it and look at what it says. It is very important to this discussion.--Jojhutton (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:ASF wouldn't preclude inclusion of a prominent widely held opinion amongst experts in the field, but if there is a notable counter-opinion, its weight should be considered in relation. It seems, though, and I could be wrong, that the opinion that the Civil War was the United States' greatest internal crisis is so overwhelming that it essentially holds all the weight.  Of course, anyone can have an opinion that this isn't correct, but is that opinion expert and notable?  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 12:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The WP:ASF policy refers to all opinions, even widely held ones. "Stealing is wrong", well duh, of course it is, but we must cite the facts and let the facts speak for themselves, not the otherway around. Prehaps it could say...."Through the bloodiest war in American history". At least that would be a fact and would still convey the same message.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's apples vs. oranges to compare a moral assessment to a weight assessment. If the overwhelming number of experts give the war that much weight, it is encyclopedic.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 18:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not what WP:ASF says. It does not make an exception for overwelling number of experts. It does not make an exception for moral over weight issues. It says to "add the facts and let the facts speak for themselves", but don't add the opinion even a widely held one. That the Civil War was the greatest crisis in American History is an opinion regardless of how many people feel this way. That the Civil War was the bloodiest war in American History is a fact and that is how it should read.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It should say both. After the going back and forth on this discussion, I am convinced that Unschool and I are correct on this matter. Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 12:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

What has not been shown is exactly what POV has been omitted from the article. Are there some reliable sources that claim there was a greater internal crisis in the United States than the Civil War? Unless such claims exist to some significant extent, there is no POV problem. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We are discussing a potential NPOV problem with the lead paragraph. Nothing has been added or detracted form this article based on this discussion yet.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am quite aware of what this discussion is about which is why I used the exact phrase in dispute in my above response. Your response, however, is a non sequitur. The first two sentences of the NPOV section states, “Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.”


 * Unless some “significant views that have been published by reliable sources” have been OMITTED (which means something different from “added or detracted form”) from the article, there is no NPOV violation.  So please, what POV (from a reliable source, not your opinion about the American Revolution or Shelby Foote) regarding whether the Civil War was the country’s “greatest internal crisis” has been OMITTED from the article.  Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but you must read WP:ASF. Please do, and you may note that the heading of that section reads, and I quote "Assert facts, including facts about opinions-BUT DO NOT ASSERT THE OPINIONS THEMESELVES". I have respectfully suggested, that the sentence be changed to "...Through the bloodiest war in American History", which is a fact not an opinion. As of yet, no one has commented on this change just yet. I believe that this change will more accuratly describe Lincoln and bring the sentence more in line with WP:ASF. I still have yet to hear anyone cite wikipedia policy as to why widely held opinions are more acceptable than facts in this case.
 * Although, like most of those who are adding comments here, I agree with the statement, but we all must take our "Civil War Buff" hats off, and really look at wikipedia policy subjectivly and with an open mind and remember that policy must come first in all cases. Thanks for listening and happy editing.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You ignore the intent of the NPOV policy. The section that you refer to clearly states, By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."  So where is the “serious dispute” contesting the “fact” that the Civil War was America’s “greatest internal crisis”?  There is much more that was relevant about the situation that Lincoln faced than that it was manifested in the “bloodiest war in American History”.


 * Like all policy articles, the one on NPOV comes with the disclaimer:


 * This page documents an official English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that should normally be followed by all editors.


 * You need to give up the Wikilawyering and address how reliable sources actually cover the issue. If in fact (as you claim and I disagree) a literal reading of the NPOV guidelines do preclude inclusion of a common. relevant, non-controversial, well documented characterization in the Lincoln article, then this would be a perfect example of when an exception is not only permissible but necessary. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not know that this changed from a discussion on the Lincoln header to an attack on how I view wikipedia poilcies.
 * Please Please Please see WP:MORALIZE and WP:SUBSTANTIATE. These are also covered under the NPOV article. Then tell me what is the criteria on which policies to follow and which policies to ignore under the normally part of NPOV.
 * So do you believe that stating an opinion is better than stating a fact? I just don't see how that can be better for the article. Enjoy--Jojhutton (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You state, “I did not know that this changed from a discussion on the Lincoln header to an attack on how I view wikipedia poilcies.” In fact, I and others have attempted to discuss the actual content of the lede -- you are the one who refuses to engage at that level while preferring to discuss your view on policies while ignoring valid points on policy raised by others.


 * You ask, “Then tell me what is the criteria on which policies to follow and which policies to ignore under the normally part of NPOV.” I would suggest we use common sense and consensus.  I explained exactly why I felt this should be an exception -- perhaps you should reread my response and address my argument.


 * You ask, “So do you believe that stating an opinion is better than stating a fact?” By asking this, you are, in fact, creating a false choice. In no way does including the phrase “greatest internal crisis” in the lede preclude also including the opinion (an opinion that is also so widely accepted that it could be treated, under the definition provided by the NPOV article, as a fact) that Lincoln also presided over the “bloodiest war in American History”. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I admire your passion on this discussion but, I find you recent tone very condensending, attacking me and my suggestions and not the policy. The policy on WP:ASF is sound. I see no reason not to follow this policy. The new wording would not detract from the article in one bit. It may even strenghten the tone. I ask you to please at least consider the change. I hope to come to some form of nuetral ground on this. Remember that wikipedia policy is to help editors come to a conclusion on arguments, but I just don't see a scenario where policy can and should be thrownout in this case, even with consensus. I realize, and I thank you for pointing that out, that the policies should normally be observed. I saw the link on NPOV. Yet when I click on the link, the first sentence reads "While this essay is not a policy or guideline it is intended to supplement WP:Ignore all rules. When I click on WP:Ignore all rules it is only about ingnoring rules to improve the article. I do not think that ignoring the rule in this case will in fact improve the article and I don't think that an unofficial essay should override one of wikipedia's three main corp content policies.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:ASF
Joj, I'm still not seeing it your way, though I think I see where you're coming from. I don't see this ASF as affecting things, because it starts out with the following two sentences: ''Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."'' It seems to me that you're seeing the first part but not the second. And again, the problem is, that within certain fields, such as the arts, if we don't allow for the assertion as fact that which is affirmed by the overwhelming consensus of experts, then we will have to strip our articles down to a sterile product that even the editors thereof will not want to read them.

Look WP:ASF is a part of WP:NPOV, right? And WP:NPOV is intended to make sure that no serious points of view are left out of the discussion. Since there is no other serious point of view on this matter, then neither NPOV nor ASF need to make an appearance. That's the way I'm seeing it, anyway. Unschool (talk) 05:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yet why can't just assert the actual fact, rather than asserting an undisputed opinion. The examples that are given in the section are actual facts and not widely held opinions. It also goes on to say that By opinion... we mean a matter that is subject to dispute, which this opinion is. An opinion is an opinion, even a widly held opinion. A fact is something that can in no way be disputed. The rest of the section on WP:ASF as well as the other two sections under NPOV give examples. One of those examples was that murder is wrong. Most everyone agrees with that statment, but the section says that we should let the facts speak for themselves. One of the other sections, WP:MORALIZE gives an example that Hitler was bad. Again, not a big dispute among major scholars, but it says to add the facts rather than the opinion and resist the temptation to apply labels.--Jojhutton (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You write: By opinion... we mean a matter that is subject to dispute, which this opinion is. Who's disputing this "opinion"? Unschool (talk) 05:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to be disputed, it says Subject to dispute. Which means it can be disputed even if, in theory, it is not. It just needs to be narrowed down to the actual fact, rather than the opinion or opinions of others. Let the facts speak for themselves.--Jojhutton (talk) 11:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, I don't know what to say, Joj. I'm not going to use the term "wikilawyering", because that term implies in most people's minds someone who is debating picayune matters for the sake of arguing.  I can see that you are 100% sincere in your belief about this.  But I can't help but say that I think you've gotten hung up on an extremely technical (and tiny) point here.  To coin a cliche, you're missing the forest for the trees.  I don't believe that your interpretation is what was intended at all.  And I do hope that you can recognize that there is at least one other legitimate interpretation of the above statement, that "subject to dispute" might in fact not refer to anything that could imaginably or hypothetically be disputed, but rather, something that has been or is reasonably likely to be disputed.  Surely, Joj, while you do not subscribe to that interpretation, you can see that others might sincerely interpret it in the way that I see it? Unschool (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, perhaps I was just nit picking on the technical definition of subject, but I do know one thing that we can agree on. All works of non-fiction make an argument. All authors form a thesis and then find facts to support the thesis.
 * We have all done the same as well. Whether it was in high school or college, most of us have written a five-paragraph essay or something longer if we went to college. We are told to form an argument or a thesis, then find sitations and citations to support our theory. Then we list our facts and our arguments in the body of the essay. Finally we conclude, hoping that we have convinced our reader to support our thesis. That is what all books of non-fiction are. They are five paragraph essays, but much much longer. Wikipedia is not a non-fiction book, it is an encyclopedia, and as such it is not excist to form an agrument or a thesis, but it excists to state the facts for the reader. What we have done in this case is that we have taken an author's thesis, and have passed it on as fact, without really saying why. We have not added the body of the essay. WP:ASF is very clear on that and I would think that the examples that murder is wrong or Hitler was bad would translate over to Civil war was a great internal crisis. Well everyone agrees with all of those staements. I agree with all of those statements. It would be hard to find anyone who would not. I bet I could cite 50 authors who say murder is bad, but we should not say that. We should say why murder is bad and let the reader determine that for himself. We should also say that the Civil war was a bloody conflict and let the reader conclude that it was a great internal crisis, rather than just telling him that it was. It needs the body of the essay, not the thesis of the author.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The entire opening paragraphs have been plagerized, or vice versa.
I could not believe my eyes when I found this site < http://www.americanprofile.com/heroes/article/28747.html>. It is almost word for word, and the only part that is not, is the part that was changed just a couple of weeks ago. Something is wrong and we as editors need to fix this. Its not even ambiguous, it is clearly the same wording.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to worry. As you probably already know, Joj, there are lots of sites that take Wikipedia articles and use them as their own--sometimes with attribution, sometimes not.  I've seen this before, and yes, it's just a dated copy of our Lincoln article.  Note that this is a site which may not be directly mirroring us themselves, but rather, they accept "contributions" from others.  It is not we who are plagarizing, it is they who are . . . [ahem] . . . flattering us. Unschool (talk) 07:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree. It seems that someone just cut and pasted the article and tried to pass it of as their own.

Similarity among sources
I decided to try and see things from your perspective and in my attempt to search for more online articles that support your cause I began coming across articles such as this one. I found one, then another, and then another. It almost became too perfect. The wording on several non-wikipedia web-sites was just word for word in many cases. Then it dawned on me. Could respected authors do this as well? Could they be citing each other? The wording in each of the eight (I still love that by the way) citations that were provided sound very similar, and my first impression was "Wow, there sure are a lot of authors who say the same thing", then I came across these web sites that quote wikipedia word for word. The wording "Greatest internal crisis" is a very powerful statement and it doesn't seems strange to me that so many authors would come up with the same idea, but the same exact wording and phrasing? I may not be bright in some areas, but that seems a bit strange to me that so many authors and historians would independantly phrase that statement exactly the same way. So are we to believe that eight authors have come to independent conclusions based on individual research and come up with the same exact phrase or do we believe that one author said it, and other authors have cited the original. Now it is not difficult to predict your next argument. You will say that those authors cite the original author because they agree with the statement and that if they agree, then, there is at least a consensus among historians. Well then let me say that you are right to say that. If all historians agree, then there is a consensus, but remember, that they are only agreeing with the original authors opinion and not with the facts.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, first of all, while English may have the largest vocabulary of any language in the world, there are sometimes words that get fitted together naturally, even when there are others to choose from. It would not surprise me one whit that eight different editors writing independently could come up with the exact same simple three letter phrase, "greatest internal crisis".  It would not only not prove anything, I don't think it would even indicate anything of significance.  Now of course, the longer the phrase gets, the less likely it is that different authors would independently pen the phrase.  If this was even five or six words, you would have a stronger point.  But "greatest" is a pretty generic adjective, and "crisis" is nearly as obvious a choice.  Only the word "internal" appears to me to be something that one might not automatically expect.  Of course, I suspect that if you google "greatest domestic crisis", or "greatest constitutional crisis", you would come up with plenty of independent authors using those three letter phrases.


 * Having said that, I am disappointed that you did not, apparently, review the eight sources. Joj, if you look at the eight sources you will see that they do NOT all say the same exact thing.  In addtion to "greatest internal crisis", which was used by at least a couple or three of the sources, there was other wording as well.  Specifically, the other phrases used were:
 * greatest crisis in U.S. history
 * America's greatest crisis
 * the greatest crisis in the American experience
 * [America's] greatest crisis and conflict
 * the country's greatest crisis
 * So pretty much this tosses out the window most of what you had to say, methinks. I mean, you're proceeding (at this point) from flawed premises.  Of course, I am confident that you will return with stronger arguments. Unschool (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I do know one thing that we all can agree on. All works of non-fiction make an argument. All authors form a thesis and then find facts to support the thesis.
 * We have all done the same as well. Whether it was in high school or college, most of us have written a five-paragraph essay or something longer if we went to college. We are told to form an argument or a thesis, then find sitations and citations to support our theory. Then we list our facts and our arguments in the body of the essay. Finally we conclude, hoping that we have convinced our reader to support our thesis. That is what all books of non-fiction are. They are five paragraph essays, but much much longer. Wikipedia is not a non-fiction book, it is an encyclopedia, and as such it does not excist to form an agrument or a thesis, but it excists to state the facts for the reader. What we have done in this case is that we have taken an author's thesis, and have passed it on as fact, without really saying why. We have not added the body of the essay. WP:ASF is very clear on that and I would think that the examples that murder is wrong or Hitler was bad would translate over to Civil war was a great internal crisis. Well everyone agrees with all of those statements. I agree with all of those statements. It would be hard to find anyone who would not. I bet I could cite 50 authors who say murder is bad, but we should not say that. We should say why murder is bad and let the reader determine that for himself. We should also say that the Civil war was a bloody conflict and let the reader conclude that it was a great internal crisis, rather than just telling him that it was. It needs the body of the essay, not the thesis of the author.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all Joj, this is sloppy and unlike you: You state, All works of non-fiction make an argument, then you deny that encyclopedias advance arguments.  Well, is this non-fiction or fiction?  I certainly think Wikipedia is non-fiction, so it follows that its articles must advance arguments.  Well, forget that, you may have stepped in it, but that's surely not what you meant to say.  And it's not what I'm really here to address right now.
 * Now, to your more significant argument, about how the reader should be allowed to draw his own conclusions from the body of the article. In a perfect world, that might be an acceptable argument, though for stylistic reasons I would not want it to be that way.  But the thing is, Joj, not everyone who reads an article—particularly a long one—is going to read the whole thing.  It's for that reason that WP:LEAD indicates that the lead section should be (amongst other things) a synopsis of the whole article, keying in on the main points.  A person who reads above the TOC should come away with a pretty good idea of what is significant about the subject of the article.  That Lincoln "successfully led the US through its greatest internal crisis" is paramount in understanding Lincoln.  It is the most singular event of significance of his life.  Now you think that's POV, but the overwhelming majority of historians (and I'm confident that it would be a minimum of 99.9% of historians) would agree on the fact that this is what is signicant about this man.  That universality of opinion of experts within an inherently subjective field is what makes that fact.  And it is not only acceptable, it is imperative, that this "fact" be included within the lead.  To leave it out would be to violate not only our guideline, but would also be poor writing.  That's why pretty much all encyclopedias open with similar material.  In an expository piece of writing, you lead with what is most significant.  Any why is this?  Because we know that not everyone is going to read the whole article, and as a service to the reader (who has no obligation to read the entire 100+ kilobytes), we make it easy for him or her to gain perspective quickly.  Statements placed in the lead like this not only can, but probably should be developed in more detail in the body.  But we can't develop them to the extent that you would demand in the lead, because then the lead would cease to function as a lead. Unschool (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedias are Tertiary not secondary. It is not the same thing. And since readers rarely cover the entire article and may only read the lead, all the more reason not to subject the opinions of anyone, based on WP:ASF. State the facts not the opinions it says, not the other way around. It is not wikpedia policy to state opinions, rather to state the facts. That is why it is a resource, not a thesis. I don't believe that I was agruing against myself when I said that all works of fiction make arguments. Perhaps I did not make that clear, so I'm sorry. There is a differnace between secondary and tertiary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and should stay that way.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Lets break it down
Lets look at what each of these citations says exactly, based on the wording in the first sentence of the article.

I'll start with the first and work my way down.


 * Citation 1 reads Greatest Internal Crisis


 * Citation 2 reads Greatest Internal Crisis


 * Citation 3 is interesting since it does not support the Greatest Internal Crisis wording at all. The author was quoted as saying Most important event, and he actually begins the quote by claiming I believe... which is slang for In my opinion. So this citation can be ruled out.


 * Citation 4 reads Greatest Crisis


 * Citation 5 reads Greatest Crisis


 * Citation 6 reads Greatest Crisis


 * Citation 7 is another interesting citation since it is a book review and never seems to actually quote the book or the author. In fact, if I may be so bold, it actually supports my version because it says Bloodiest Cousins' War. It is also a book about three differant wars and not just about the U.S. Civil War. Looks like a good book though and I have no problem keeping the citation, since it actual supports my version of the edit.


 * Citation 8 reads Greatest Crisis

So we have two for Greatest Internal Crisis and four for Greatest Crisis. Regardless of what it says after and before the phrase, the phrase is still peculiar to find in so many various "independent" sources, since there would be many other ways to say the same thing, but these authors somehow choose to use the same wording, and it is suppose to be coincidense?--Jojhutton (talk) 02:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There is nothing peculiar about this at all. First of all, I said that repetition of a couple of words, especially such run-of-the-mill words such as "greatest" and "crisis", would be meaningless.  Secondly, you take the above out of context.  If I run through one speech by Barack Obama and another by John McCain, and I run across the phrase "financial crisis", would you use that as proof that one of them was copying off of another?  Of course not, it's just the simple recognition that that phrase aptly describes the times, and they both use it accordingly. It neither denotes plagiarism nor even a sharing of ideas.  Now if both of them used the longer phrase, "the ill-conceived deregulatory policies-induced financial crisis", then you might be on to something.  But what you present is meaningless. Unschool (talk) 03:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and one more thing. None of the sources capitalized that phrase, the way you appear to indicate above.  If they had, it would have added a wee bit of weight to your argument (though not enough, IMO).  But as it was, they just used the phrase as reasonable and generic language, just as Obama and McCain do when they speak the words "financial crisis". Unschool (talk) 03:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

So If We Had Nine Citations That Read "Bloodiest War In American History" Would That Be Sufficiant To Change It From The Current Wording, Since That Hits At The Root Of The Discussion?? I Don't Think It Is What Can Be Cited And What Can Not. We Can Both Make Viable Arguments And Citations For Each. Wouldn't You Say??--Jojhutton (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Huh? You lost me. Unschool (talk) 03:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

What the real argument is
Lets just see if we can cut away all of the jibberish and get down to what the disagrement is really about. This is a discussion on what the first sentence should say, agree or disagree? The two versions of this discusion are:
 * 1. Lincoln succesfully led his country through its greatest internal crisis
 * 2. Lincoln succesfully led his country though the bloodiest war in U.S. history

I agree with both of those statements, as I am sure most historians would, so arguing citations is pointless, because there are hundreds of citations that say both of these things. It comes down to which one is more POV than the other. If we had to rank the two of these, I would say that the second is less POV than the first based on WP:ASF. It doesn't matter how many citations we can get, it only matters that the lead of the article follows wikipedia guidlines. I invite any other editor to rank these two based on WP:ASF as well and see where we stand.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, first of all, I don't agree that this is a discussion on what the first sentence should say, because I could go in different directions on that. My argument has not been that the current version "should" be the version used, but rather, that there is nothing in the current version which violates any strictures in place on Wikipedia.


 * Joj, you know what I think the disagreement between us really is? I think that you've made the mistake of thinking that the rules exist for their own sake.  But they don't.  Why are WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:UE, WP:LEAD, and all the other policies and guidelines in place?  Why were they created?  The answer, paradoxically, can best be discerned by understanding WP:IAR.  You see, Joj, NPOV doesn't exist for it's own sake, it exists because such a policy pushes us in the direction of being a higher quality encyclopedia.  Let me ask you something.  Do you think that Britannica has NPOV and WP:V policies in place?  Probably not in so many words, because it is obvious to the professionals who write those volumes what is expected of them.  No one will respect an encyclopedia that is biased and takes sides on issues of contention.  No one would respect an encyclopedia that doesn't get its information for reliable sources.  These things are just understood by the crafters of World Book and Britanica.  Whether or not they are actually written out is immaterial, they do follow these types of policies, and it is evident in their product.


 * But in the production of Wikipedia, we could not assume that everyone who would contribute would understand, let alone adhere, to such policies. So they are spelled out.  But the encyclopedia does not exist for the rules, the rules exist to help us make a better encyclopedia. Having said that, it is just as clear that the rules do not cover every situation nor is flawless adherence to a specific literal interpretation of the rules always the best way to go.  The point is to make the encyclopedia the best that it can be.


 * Now my personal opinion is that the current wording of this article does not violate the letter of our NPOV policy. But I can see how others would disagree.  But I have a much greater difficulty in understanding how anyone can think that the current wording violates the spirit of NPOV.  If other encyclopedias use this language, are you accusing them of bias?  Do you honestly think that in this passage that World Book betrays that they lack a neutral stance in their articles? Unschool (talk)


 * I don't see the point of arguing which of the two statements are "more POV". They are both neutral enough, and significant enough, and widely held enough by experts so as to be encyclopedic, to be part of the lead. The argumentation over this has been tiring, and rather troubling in the ongoing inability for the obvious to just be accepted and we all move on.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 06:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I think it comes down to . ..

 * To be non-neutral is to take one side. To take one side is to be opposed to the other side.  Joj, who is the other side in this supposedly non-neutral comment?  There's only one possible answer that I can see:  The policy itself.  And that's what I mean when you appear to be making the mistake of thinking that the rules exist for their own sake.  You are not protesting that the current language favors one point of view in opposition to another point of view (which is the actual purpose of WP:NPOV), but that the current language is in opposition to the rules themselves.  But the rules were not created to be invoked in defense of themselves, they were created to be invoked when various forms of unacceptable writing appear, be it biased writing or unverifiable writing, etc. Unschool (talk)

The Ignore all rules defense
It has been my pleasure to come across many editors who have willingly made an effort to come to an understanding with his fellow editors. Compromise is the backbone of any society. It is only through compromise or at least the willingness to enter into a compromise that has allowed civilization to advance through the ages. Compromise does not, however, come without sacrifice. Everyone must give a little in order to get little. A time honored tradition that goes back thousands of years. Then came the internet age. The age of Unreason. Where debates no longer take place in a civil and orderly matter face to face, but are sent electronically through wires and hardware. In most debates, like this one, there is very little that actually gets accomplished. For days, two editors have been trying to hash out well thought out arguments and ideas to help convince the other that his words are more correct, only to discover that neither one is willing to compromise. Both interpret the rules in various ways, yet when all else fails, the final and inevitable argument is always Ignore all rules. As if this is suppose to convince one editor that all of the rules on wikipedia can be broken, if we don't like them or they don't fit into our version of events. WP:IAR is a poor argument to make in any situation.

That being said, I have a few thoughts for any and all editors who will be reading this passage. All week, I have been wondering why UnSchool has been so passionate about this particular wording. Most editors I believe would have no problem with a minor edit that improves an article, myself included. On a hunch, I decided to do a bit of searching and found this particular edit dated May 13th 2008 My hunch was right, and UnSchool was the author of that particular edit and he was the one who added the current wording. A few weeks ago I an edit in the same paragraph that he also fought to keep, although he did compromise on that, because the facts to the contrary were just too overwelming.

I commend UnSchool for being so passionate about this article. Abraham Lincoln was a great president and I know that UnSchool only wishes the best for this article. That being said, I will recuse myself from further debate on this topic and I hope Unchool will do the same as well, since he is the author of the information. I will place a TAG at the top of the article that exclaims that there is an ongoing debate on NPOV. Then I will nominate the article for a NPOV check. If it passes as OK the way it is now, then I will gladly retract my suggestions.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * After making these final comments, I too will recuse myself from this debate. User:Jojhutton is probably correct that further discussion between us on this matter is unlikely to change things, though I disagree as to why this is so.  Okay, so my final comments to those who will (hopefully) follow after us:


 * Far from being stubborn, I indicated in my last edit that I am in no way committed to the sentence in question; indeed, there are many other ways it can be written. I have not fought for "my edit", I have fought against what I believe to be an erroneous interpretation of policy.  I simply object to the characterization of the sentence as being in violation of WP:NPOV.  I believe that Jojhutton harbors a misconception of what it means to be NPOV. Rather than rehash the arguments here, I refer the reader to our extended discussion above.


 * That I wrote the sentence in question was never a secret, and if Joj had a "hunch", he could have asked and I would gladly have told him that I wrote it. But I categorically deny that that was the reason for my defense of it.  Indeed, I have on more occasions than I can count gladly yielded to other editors on wording, either because they convinced me that I was wrong or because they simply wrote it better.  I do not cling to my personal words anywhere on this project.  Indeed, Joj himself provides an example where recently I listened to his arguments against some prior wording and became convinced that his argument was acceptable, and I stood down.  I am disappointed by the characterization of my yield on that as coming because the facts against me were "overwhelming".  The implication might appear to be that I only backed down because I had no choice.  But I backed down because I listened, came to understand Joj's position, and decided that his wording was acceptable.  There was nothing "overwhelming" about it, we just had a rational discussion and as I attempt to do always, I evaluated the situation objectively (which I must say, I think I'm fairly good at doing), and came away seeing his side.


 * Accordingly, I am disappointed in the tone of Jojhutton's comments above, from which one may infer ("The age of Unreason") that Joj thinks that my arguments are not reasonable. I don't know if Joj has grown frustrated or what, but if he has, he should be commended for laboriously persuing a sincere line of reasoning for several days (as have I).  I would not want someone reading that paragraph to regard Joj as anything but a calm and rational editor; indeed his civility level has generally been as high as anyone I have ever encountered, with the single acception of some guy I encounted on some eastern religion page.  (Wish I could remember his name; he was so calm and patient with other editors that I wonder if he is still in human form.)


 * Jojhutton characterizes this as a discussion between two editors. But two additional editors (whom I have never encountered before in any other discussion) have weighed in as well, and both of them agreed with my perspective.  That they contributed less text to the discussion does diminishes neither their contribution nor the weight that their opinions carry.  (However their decision to enter in to the discussion only briefly does probably make them look smarter than Joj and I.)


 * And I must say that I am most unhappy to read the following:

''when all else fails, the final and inevitable argument is always Ignore all rules. As if this is suppose to convince one editor that all of the rules on wikipedia can be broken, if we don't like them or they don't fit into our version of events. WP:IAR is a poor argument to make in any situation.''
 * I don't know if Joj has had some bad experiences with WP:IAR before, though it's obvious how IAR can be used in a perverted manner. Having said so, IAR is policy for a reason, and to dismiss its use (which, in three years, I have only touched upon twice before) is just as bad as using it without justification.  But IAR was NOT my argument, and it should never be anyone's argument.  All IAR does is give the editor permission to advance an argument for improving the encyclopedia in a manner that may not appear to conform with standard rules.  Again, IAR is not an argument in of itself, and I did not use it in this way.


 * Look, I have a made a number of arguments above which Joj has just ignored (and, by the way, I know of at least one time when I ignored his point to make one of my own, so I'm not blameless). I would appreciate it greatly if those who will be commenting on this not only read both of our arguments, but also address them in explaining why they feel the way they do.  I think that my points are in there if anyone will read them.  I think that they're pretty sound.  I also think that Jojhutton's arguments are reasonable, and have no problem if there is a consensus supporting his opinion on this matter.  As Joj indicates, all I care about is making this article the best that it can be.  I know that Joj feels exactly the same way.  The only difference between us is that he believes (as do many editors) that a high quality article is defined as one that follows the rules, and I believe that the rules were created to assist us in writing the best articles, that they are not an end unto themselves.


 * Unschool has left the talk page. :-) Unschool (talk) 01:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Lincoln's War Crimes
At the time of Abraham Lincoln's election to his first term as president of the United States, international standards for warfare prohibited attacks by warring militaries on civilian populations and the destruction and plundering of civilian property. "The Law of Nations", written by Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss jurist, was first published in 1798. It became the source of much of what was later codified as the rules of war in the 1863 Geneva Convention. Vattel wrote that occupying soldiers who wantonly destroy civilian farms, property, and livestock were to be regarded as, "savage barbarians". The standards of warfare among civilized nations prohibited taking civilians hostage, mistreating civilians, looting, and the wanton destruction of civilian property of every kind. Measured against these standards, the conduct of the Federal army throughout the War for Southern Independence ("Civil War") was criminal. Starting with First Manassas, Federal troops looted and destroyed civilian property, and raped, beat, and murdered Southern civilians whether slave or free, as a matter of routine.

These war crimes are most famously typified by "Sherman's March to the Sea." During his bombardment of Atlanta, Georgia, and Columbia, South Carolina, and other cities and towns, Sherman was responsible for killing women, children, and old men indiscriminately. However, General William T. Sherman had plenty of company. By late 1864, the Confederate military forces had finally been pushed out of the Shenandoah Valley. Union General Ulysses S. Grant then ordered General Philip Sheridan to make one more sweep through the valley to so thoroughly destroy the land that no crops, livestock, or civilian inhabitants could remain. Following the total destruction of the Shenandoah Valley, Lincoln extended to Sheridan his personal thanks and the thanks of the Nation.

Involved in the day to day management of the War, and continually receiving telegraphic reports and debriefings by his commanding generals, Abraham Lincoln could not have remained unaware of the criminal depredations being perptrated against the Southern civilian population. While some Lincoln apologists may continue to argue that, as president, he was unaware of the brutal treatment being meted out to Southern civilians, both black and white, there is no escaping the fact that Lincoln ordered the blockade of Southern ports, specifically including interception of vital medical supplies needed to relieve pain and suffering among civilians. Lincoln, famous as a micro-manager of the War, left a paper trail that, were he to have been brought to trial, could easily have led to his being hanged along with his favorite Generals, Grant and Sherman, for war crimes that included shooting innocent civilians, organized gang rapes of both slave and free females, and the laying waste of wide swathes of Southern countryside so as to lead to death by starvation of thousands of Southerners, both black and white. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.255.20.222 (talk) 02:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * First I would like to say that you made a very viable and well thought out argument. It seems that you have been giving this much thought. I only wish that you had signed in so that we knew who you were. If you are new, I suggest creating a user name and start contributing right away. Wikipedia needs editors who give ideas fresh reboots every now and then.


 * Secondly, you have said nothing that wasn't true. Every fact that you brought up is considered true and therfore we cannot debate you an those topics. Sherman did burn cities and towns as well as privatly owned plantation houses. Sheridan did sweep through the Shenendoah valley and there was a blockade of southern ports. Lincoln was, I'm sure, aware that much of this was happening, although may have been unaware of the full extent of Sherman's march.


 * what you fail to say is why this happened in the first place. And what else the Law of Nations says about the subject. You quote from the Law of Nations, so I will do the same.


 * Rule 161 says: We have a right to deprive our enemy of his possessions, of everthing which may augment his strenghth and enable him to make war. This every one endeavors to accomplish in a matter most suitable to him.


 * Rule 163 says: ''In fine, we seize on his property, his towns, and his provinces, in order to bring him to reasonable conditions, and compel him to accept an equitable and solid peace.


 * Rule 166 says: It is lawful to take away the property of an unjust enemy in order to weaken or punish him, the same motives justify us in destroying what we cannot conviently carry away. Thus we waste a country, and destroy the provisions and forage, that the enemy may not find subsistance there..


 * Rule 173 says: Hence, the pillaging of a country, or the ravaging it with fire, is not, in a general view of the matter, a violation of the laws of war.


 * All of what was done during the Civil War, was done to end the war quicker and not a violation of the rules of war, as stated in the Law of Nations. To conclude, I do not think refering to Lincoln as a war criminal is prudent on wikipedia, if that is what you were trying to get at.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a quickie...
"Lincoln had a star-crossed record as a military leader..."

Doesn't "star-crossed" mean unlucky? (original source: R&J) -124.180.178.158 (talk) 00:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Star-crossed from dictionary.com: thwarted or opposed by the stars; ill-fated: star-crossed lovers. It gives the following synonyms:  catastrophic, cursed, damned, disastrous, ill-fated, ill-omened, ill-starred, jinxed, luckless, misfortunate, unfortunate, unlucky.  None of these seem to work in the sentence, so I have reworded it completely. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)