Talk:Abraham Lincoln/Archive 23

Grant section
In the Grant section, no mention is made of General Orders No. 11, the order Lincoln rescinded. Does there need to be any mention of antisemitism in the Union Army? Lincoln did have concerns over Grant and the Vicksburg campaign. Lincoln sent Charles Dana to keep watch over Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That has far more to do with Grant than with Lincoln. Including it seems coatrack-ish to me.  --Coemgenus 19:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would not say that Anti-semitism is neccessarily "coatrack-ish". The section in the Lincoln article is called Grant.  I would suppose that anti-semitism, Grant, and Lincoln's response would need to be discussed. Lincoln handled the situation with fairness and sound judgement.  That is a positive on Lincoln's behalf. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If other editors view mentioning antisemitism only belongs in Grant articles, that is fine. I only brought up the issue since Lincoln directly rescinded Grant's General Order No. 11. That is why I put this in discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the General Order No. 11 to help other editors see what is being discussed. --Javaweb (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Javaweb
 * Donald makes no mention of it. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Donald Lincoln does mention this on page 409. However, maybe the appropriate place for mentioning this would be the religious section. Richard Cawardine Lincoln A Life of Purpose and Power talks on the subject. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * it has nothing to do with religiousity and is a political matter. I think it belongs with Grant not Lincoln. Rjensen (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I was just going by what the sources had stated. If no editors want this mentioned in the article, that's fine.  I thought antisemitism had to do with faith and race. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Cawardine (p. 277) did say Lincoln turned meetings with religious leaders into his political advantage. Was Lincoln's rescinding of Grant's General Orders No. 11 just a calculated political move? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Jews were an important ETHNIC group with high solidarity & the Union needed their support. Grant went to far by banning all group members. religion was not a factor here--it's ethnicity. Rjensen (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Cawardine (p. 277) does say that there is question on how much Lincoln own spiritual beliefs influenced his view toward religious leaders versus just using them form political purposes. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * With all of the books written about Lincoln, you will be able to find thousands of interesting facts and theories that aren't included in this brief article. When something is common to many or allbiographies, it ought to be included, but this or that historian's unusual insight must stay out, not because it's wrong, but because there's not room for all of them.  --Coemgenus 03:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Rjensen is right that Grant's remarks pertained more to 'ethnicity' than religion, as is evidenced by Grant's words "jew peddlers", (clearly mentioned by Donald, as Cm' points out). If the section on Grant revolves around Lincoln's direct involvements with the general this item needs to at least be mentioned. It's certainly no trivial item. As for Lincoln's religious beliefs being a factor I would concur also that this gets into 'theory' and need/should not be mentioned here. Coverage of Lincoln's association with Grant in this matter can be mentioned without getting into matters of religion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I know the order had to do with Jewish enthnicity. My focus was on Lincoln rescinding the order.  Did he do this out of equality or just so the Jews would fight in the war? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Could be any of these reasons, and if there is a RS that nails the idea down it also should be mentioned. Meanwhile this is an unusual order made by Lincoln, presidents rarely intervening with General's orders in such a fashion. That by itself makes it mentionable. The fact that Grant singled out one ethnic group also makes it mentionable, by itself also. If we can add further biographical color and historical perspective to this idea that would also be nice, but this gets into Lincoln's religious beliefs, which must be weighed against his political aspirations -- an undertaking that would no doubt involve some more digging. For now just present the reasons you can account for (i.g.public/political protest, etc) and maybe let the readers read in between the lines as they're apt to do in the first place, this being a somewhat controversial item. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The order was Grant's and lasted 21 days. I know the topic could be speculative and potentially lead to "coatrack-ish" conspiracy.  There has been debate whether Anti-semitism was endemic in the Union Army. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * One source, Regenstein, said that Lincoln tolerated antisemitism since he did not punish Grant or other officers for the order. However, Regenstein stated that the Confederates were fighting for their families, rather then slavery. There may be a Southern bias with Regenstein's theory on Lincoln. Grant's General Order No. 11 most anti-Semitic in American history Cmguy777 (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Best just to cover Lincoln's order to Grant and leave any religious motives out of it, unless there's a good RS w/npov that presents enough facts to take the topic beyond the realm of speculation. At the risk of judging a book by its cover, the publication you cite doesn't sound quite NPOV. In fact, the title suggests the author is pushing a POV. Whatever the case it's best not to get into that part of the topic. Because of its sensitive nature it's an entry that would no doubt be contested, reverted and edited over and again, if it ever makes it to the page in the first place. Including any opinion on religious/ethnic motivation without a solid npov/RS is just asking for the page to be edited/reverted (above and beyond the norm). -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Other editors are hesitant or do not want Lincoln's rescision of Grant's General Order No. 11 in the Lincoln biography article. I would say only put the issue in the article with all editors agreement.  Thanks for your support Gwillhickers. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * By all means. While there's a legitimate concern about the issue (like any other) becoming coat-rackish, Lincoln's decision to rescind Grant's order seems to be one of the feature items of Lincoln's involvement with Grant and can easily be covered without getting into Lincoln's religious motivations, if any. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Move Grant, McClellan sections?
There is an article entitled Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War. In keeping with Summary Style, shouldn't the bulk of the content be moved there? Then we won't need Grant or McClellan "sections" in this article  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  23:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, the sections could both stand to be reduced and consolidated. That's the point of the sub-articles.  --Coemgenus 13:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Coemgenus, As I said back in May 25, these sections are way too long, but your reply then was thus: Those two sections came through the last FA candidacy much improved and are of appropriate length. Also, since this is the Lincoln biography having sections with the names of other people is not the best way to go. Generals like Grant, McClellan, (and others) should be covered with (a) separate paragraph(s) contained in a section called 'Military involvements' or something along this line. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed my mind. Do you want me to go back to disagreeing with you for consistency's sake?  --Coemgenus 18:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it would be nice if you were just consistent to begin with. Those sections should have been dealt with a long time ago and you and another editor objected to attempts to do so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * people come to this article wanting to know about Lincoln and the Civil War. It has to be the centerpiece, whether or not there is another more detaield article. Rjensen (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Jensen: I agree that the war is, by far, the most important thing in Lincoln's presidency. I just thought some of the battle-by-battle parts could be tightened up and focused on Lincoln's actual role.  Strategy, not tactics, in other words.  As to the section titles, perhaps something like "First Bull Run to Gettysburg" and "Overland campaign and the March to the Sea" might better ddescribe those sections.  I think keeping them separate might be better, after all, since the "Gettysburg address" section really does belong between them. --Coemgenus 19:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Rj' what you say is very true, and is why Grant and perhaps McClellan should be covered in 'some' length. As it is now the sections are quite long and have a person's name for the title. Since there is already a Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War (detailed) article, the sections should be further condensed, and linked to that article AND the Grant and George McCllelan articles. i.e. There are already three other detailed articles that cover these things, well. Also, on the AL' Cival War page the only sections with person's names are Lincoln's cabinet members -- topics, along with others, that have been more or less neglected here on this page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

what I seem to be hearing is that there may need to be an overhaul vis-a-vis the content in this article and the content in AL and the CW. I'm also wondering if there could be a separate article on Lincoln's cabinet  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  06:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. With all the source material (even in that Goodwin book alone) I'm sure you could write a cabinet sub-article if you wanted to.  --Coemgenus 10:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe the Grant and McClellan sections are necessary for the Lincoln article, since Lincoln relied on them to defeat or fight the Confederate forces. McClellan and Grant are almost opposites in terms of aggressiveness.  McClellan did save the Union from defeat at Antietam. Grant had Sheridan, Sherman, Meade, and Thomas.  The War had changed also in terms of an all out coordinated aggressive attack on all fronts as Lincoln wanted. Possibly the sections could be trimmed or rewritten to focus on Lincoln's perspective.  Rjensen is correct that Lincoln and the American Civil War are why people read the article. I had previously mentioned trimming the Grant and McClellan section since the Lincoln stamp controversy. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Reconstruction addition paragraph proposal
I have planned to install this paragraph under Lincoln's reconstruction section. Any objections or suggestions? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

As the Civil War drew to a close, Lincoln's presidential reconstruction for the Southern States was in fluxuation; having believed that the federal government had limited responsibility to the millions of freedmen. He signed into law Sen. Charles Sumner's Freedmans Bill that set up a federal bureau that would help with the immediate material needs of former slaves. The law assigned land for a lease of three years with the ability to purchase title to freedmen and disenfranchised whites. Shortly before his assassination Lincoln had announced he had a new plan for southern reconstruction. Discussions with his cabinet revealed that Lincoln planned short term military control over Southern states, until readmission under the control of southern Unionists.
 * I prefer "flux" to "fluxuation" (which is spelled "fluctuation".) --Javaweb (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Javaweb


 * I can make modifications. Is the overall concept of the paragraph important enough for the article? Thanks Javaweb. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is rewrite: "As the Civil War drew to a close, Lincoln's presidential Reconstruction for the South was in flux; having believed that the federal government had limited responsibility to the millions of freedmen. He signed into law Sen. Charles Sumner's Freedmans Bill that set up a federal bureau designed to help with the immediate material needs of former slaves. The law assigned land for a lease of three years with the ability to purchase title for the freedmen.  Lincoln stated that his Louisiana plan did not apply to all states under Reconstruction.  Shortly before his assassination Lincoln had announced he had a new plan for southern Reconstruction.  Discussions with his cabinet revealed Lincoln planned short term military control over southern states, until readmission under the control of southern Unionists."

Criticism revisited
Historical or critical review is found in the Lincoln article. FA status is recommended. Job well done! Cmguy777 (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggested next step.
I long ago came to the conclusion that peer reviews are essentially worthless when an article has reached the level this one has. I was thinking that a more worthy process before this article goes to FAC again would be a Milhist A-class review. Many editors there have a lot of experience taking articles through FAC and it's probably the most valuable step at this point. However it would be unusual for a presidential bio to go through the Milhist A-class process. I'm only bringing up the idea since Milhist has their banner on this article. I suppose the best thing to do would be to ask Milhist if they're willing to have this article go through their process. Anyone agree or disagree? Brad (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * good idea! Rjensen (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. They do good work at that wikiproject.  --Coemgenus 16:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as there are still open issues with the article it's not ready for an A-class review just yet. Brad (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Life at the White House
Is there any support in putting a segment on Lincoln's life at the White House. Col. William H. Crook was Lincoln's body gaurd starting in 1864. Here is the link: Through Five Administrations. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think, for now, we should focus on fixing what we have and not adding more to this already long article. That source might be useful in one of the sub-articles, though.  --Coemgenus 10:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. That is good.  The source gives information that Lincoln rose at 7 AM and went to bed at 12 AM everyday.  He rarely took a break. In the morning he would read books. Around midnight he would go to Sec. Stanton's office to get wire messages on the War.  There was no wire cable at the Whitehouse.  The source also stated that Lincoln "moaned" in his sleep, the War having had an effect on his emotional state. There was also concern that Lincoln's life was most vulnerable at the theater. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess the main thing is that President Lincoln was protected by a gaurd system at the White House from around 1864 onward. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

States admitted to the Union
I don't know what, but something needs to be done with this section. As currently written, it basically says Lincoln is all but irrelevant to this, so why is it in his biography? Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is it there? Because it's always been there in presidential biographies on Wikipedia. Yes, that's a terrible reason, but there you have it.  If you want to cut it, I won't object, but it might draw someone else's objection.  FWIW, Lincoln was involved in W.Va.'s and Nevada's admissions, even if the section doesn't say so.  --Coemgenus 00:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The admission of these states would be at least somewhat related to reconstruction and would therefore be particularly appropriate for inclusion here in my view. I'll work on the clarification tag. Carmarg4 (talk) 13:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Lede references
If the lede is a summary of the article, then why does the lede need references? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * this is the most over-referenced article I've seen on Wikipedia, and the lede just continues that tradition. I think the number of footnotes can easily be cut in half, for example by consolidating Donald...Donald...Donald into Donald. Rjensen (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The "Donalditis" is entirely my doing, but I agree with the point made here. That aside, I must say that in the FAC, peer and GAC reviews I have been involved in, no FAC/GAC reviewer has ever made this complaint. Some input from that theater might be advisable, if the FA route is anyone's goal. Carmarg4 (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My personal style in lede cites is to never use them except to support a direct quote, or when someone reasonable challenges the fact in question. The latter shouldn't happen often, but I wouldn't be shocked in this article.  --Coemgenus 14:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how anyone could object to more efficient referencing, but I disagree re "over-referenced," rather most articles are under referenced. Especially since most content is paraphrase or summary of others work, including in the lead, here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, either, but my academic background is in writing law review articles, where everything that isn't the author's original thought is cited, sentence by sentence. The style used in history books -- one big cite at the end of paragraphs -- I find confusing and unhelpful.  So, the number of cites here seems appropriate to me.  --Coemgenus 14:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My style derives from this legal writing habit as well. I have noticed on some occasions where I have consolidated the cite at the end of a paragraph, using a page range, that there is a lack of trust in readers that an uncited sentence in indeed covered. I understand someone not trusting me on this open venue, as I might trust Donald for instance. I suspect that is the reason for the exagerated RS policy. Carmarg4 (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is a relevant statement on the issue at hand: WP:CITEBUNDLE. Seems like the choice is between cluttered text and a cluttered reference section, with ALOT of labor cost. Also, Lincoln by his nature is NOT well suited to any maintenance of refined formatting - see above re images and refs. Carmarg4 (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Citations aren't normally in a lede section unless there is a very strong statement at hand. I don't see lede citations necessary here. Brad (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rjensen. Stream lining the references in the article would be good. The Lincoln article, in my opinion, is not really that confrontational to warrant lede citations, when the article is suppose to cover what is in the lede. If at all possible the lede is best without any references, and in my opinion, needs to concentrate on style. Sources and style need to counterbalance each other, not work against each other. Donald is an excellent source, but he may be over referenced in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sometimes refs just provide a source for statements that are never repeated exactly the same way in the body. We do not want people to be able to make assertions in the lede for which no source can be found a year from now - even if they are not contentious they might be somewhat interpretational. Keep at least some refs.--JimWae (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That is a good point JimWae. My view is that the lede is not always set in stone and can be modified with modern or any potential future sources that are put in the article.  I can see how someone taking advantage of no references in the lede to put in POV statements.  I can not see any POV in the lede section at this moment.  The lede needs to follow the sources in the article, that can daily change.  At the same time, a reference source does not always make a lede sentence not POV.  If the source is valid and found in the article, I do not see any reason to have lede references unless the subject matter is controversial.  As for the number of references in an article paragraph, I would limit to three.  That could reduce clutter in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Here are some statements in the current lede not supported in the body: Here is one that people should not need to hunt up the ref for: Here is one that barely makes sense in the sentence it is in
 * He was an *affectionate*, though often absent, husband and father of four children.
 * After *deftly* opposing the expansion of slavery in the United States in his campaign debates and speeches,[2]
 * A *shrewd* politician deeply involved with power issues in *each state*
 * Lincoln fought back with patronage,
 * Lincoln has been consistently ranked by scholars as one of the greatest U.S. presidents.
 * and secessionists saw him as their enemy.[3]--JimWae (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * let's wait until someone challenges these well-known, obvious points that are fully supported by Donald, Thomas, White and the other biographies. Rjensen (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

...Too well known by history professors, perhaps. But, the reader is not expected to know what history professors know. For example, there's nothing I can find about his using patronage in the article, nor his being involved in state issues. The sentence about secessionists seems completely out of place in the context of the rest of the paragraph it is in -- unless again, it is about something not covered in the article--JimWae (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Apparently there needs to be work on connecting the lede with the article. Lincoln's use of patronage can be expanded in the article. The word "shrewd" could be a bit strong, however, Lincoln did show sterness with Mrs. Fremont, over her husbands emancipation of slaves in Missouri.  Lincoln did appoint a few political generals, Maj. Gen. Butler was one, Maj. Gen. Fremont was another.  Maybe "stern" could replace the word "shrewd".  Lincoln's involvement with patronage in each state would need expansion in the article.  That sentence is sourced, however, leads the reader guessing how involved Lincoln was with in patronage in "each state".  I suggest the lede needs some modification, not a rewrite, that connects more with the content in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * some of the problem is the main text, not the lede. So I added main text re AL as politician. I suggest that the lede should summarize the chief  points about Lincoln--and if a certain chief point is not in the main text then we add to the text, not drop it from the lede. Rjensen (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * if the default is "no refs in lede" then all sorts of interpretations by those "in the know" can appear. 1>Statements about factual events are more accessible than interpretations & evaluations 2> Asking for refs for interpretations & evaluations in lede is a way to prevent the addition of content that appears nowhere else in article. WP:LEADCITE does NOT say NO cites in lede, it says "editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material"--JimWae (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Rjensen is correct. My point was the lede and article content needs to match.  I do not want a "lede" war.  Adding text to the article to reinforce information in the lede is appropriate.  I will accept references in the lede to avoid misinterpretation or controversy. Thanks Rjensen for adding information on AL's political ability. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that much of [the cited material in]° the lead is not the original writing of a Wikipedian but is based on the writing of another, and therefore should be referenced, otherwise Wikipedia misrepresents itself. Wikipedia policy calls such non-citation "unethical." See using the work of others. Therefore, we have to defer to the user who put the cite in the lead, in the first place. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * °braketed phrase added for clarification Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As a major contributor myself, I am confident in saying that no such material has come from my hand. Carmarg4 (talk) 01:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The lede is the summary of the articles sourced material. As JimWae pointed out, Wikipedias policy is not to put redundant references in the lede section if the material is already sourced in the article.  The material in the article has been thoroughly sourced and documented.  We have been making sure that what is mentioned in the lede matches the source reference in the article.  In other words, whatever is in the lede needs to be sourced and mentioned in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If an editor in the lede reformulated the work of another, you cannot get away with silently implying that there is a reference for this reformulation some 5000 characters, down there, somewhere in the article. That is unethical and is not the policy of Wikipedia.  WP:LEADCITE is specifically made subject to the policy on using the work of another and cannot be construed on in isolation from it.  The governing policy is: "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, so long as you do not follow the source too closely. (See our Copyright FAQ for more on how much reformulation may be necessary as well as the distinction between summary and abridgment.) 'However, it would still be unethical (but not illegal) to do so without citing the original as a reference.'"   Silently implying there is a reference somewhere for this reformulation does not cut it.  It's misleading and wrong. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing is being silently implied or unethical in the article. The article is fully sourced material from valid authors. If there is not a reference in the article that supports the lede, then a reference either needs to be found or the statement cut from the lede. Preferably the source being found. The Rutherford B. Hayes article, another U.S. Presidential article, was a featured article and there are no citations in the lede section. Cutting and pasting is unethical. Why all these wild accusations that a lede summary is unethical or automatically a cut and paste job? Here is a link to the Bibliography in the Lincoln article AL article bibliography. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * According to Wikipedia policy lede citations are up to the editor's consensus. Lead Citations. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Alanscottwalker suggests much of the lead is not the original writing of a Wikipedian --why say that? I wrote parts of it and those parts were original with me. Rjensen (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why say that, indeed. This statement is not appropriate unless one can clearly identify the original source which has fallen prey to the piracy. Carmarg4 (talk) 11:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant to say "cited material." I have fixed that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As to why assume that? Because, in good faith, I assume the author had a reason for the cite. It is not "piracy" -- that would be illegal -- which I have NOT said. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * And editors should not consent to what may be unethical. That is why we should assume, in good faith, that the editor who wrote the sentence with the citation in the lede, had a reason for the citation (including that they had reformulated the work of another), even if we cannot fathom why they included the citation.  Indeed, we should strongly encourage (even insist) editors include such proper citation. As the process above shows, ledes are often written before the information in the article.  There is nothing wrong with that, but it would be wrong to thereafter, remove the cite in the lede, unless we also remove the sentences they support, and there is generally no call for that just because we, stylistically, don't want the cite there. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * perhaps Alanscottwalker is referring to some sentences I added. I wrote the text (and did not copy it) following usual Wikipedia norms. I added the cites to help readers who wanted to check it or follow up--but the info (Lincoln as politician) is based on many different books (Nevins, Potter, Donald, Randall, Thomas, Harris, White, Guelzo, Luthin, Neely, Thomas, Goodwin, McPherson, Paludan) which all come to the same conclusion about AL's highly effective political skills, and re his intense opponents. These books are listed in the bibliography . I can't understand what his complaint is. Rjensen (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am objecting to removing citations for stylistic reasons, without knowing why the citation, substantively, was there in the first place. By all means, edit yourself according to Wikipedia rules. If you included unnecessary cites and wish to remove them, do so. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, no editors, including myself, to my knowledge have consented or conspried to do anything unethical. I have not conspired to be unethical in the lede. This is a discussion on what citiations are appropriate for the lede. I am not for taking out the existing citations, because I believe they are appropriate for the lede section. Clearly Wikipedia policy states that editors are allowed to discuss what citations can be in the lede. That is not a conspiracy to be unethical. If Alanscottwalker believed that the Wikipedia rule is unethical, then that rule can be changed. Rjensen did a good job summarizing the lede. I take Rjensen's edit in good faith that Rjensen did not cut and paste any source. I am not for taking away any citiations in the lede that are appropriate for the lede. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is what the Wikipedia rule is for citation ledes:
 * "Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." Lead Citations Cmguy777 (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I will agree with Alanscottwalker that removing lede citations from the lede section for stylistic purposes is inappropriate. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) I am glad we agree. 2) I want to make clear that I didn't accuse you or anyone of anything. 3) I asserted the primacy of the phrase, "there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads," which appeared to be getting lost in the discussion. 4) One of those requirements is that ethical citation requires that reformulations of other's work be cited. 5) Thus, I concluded, we must defer, in good faith, to the person who put the citation in the lede, and that they had a reason to do so;  6) You began this discussion by asking why there are citations in the lede and I gave you one very important reason, why this could and even should, as appropriate, be so; 7) The rules are fine and I have been a proponent of them, here. We are construing how they must go together and what exactly is "non-controversial" and what is "not, however, an exception" in WP:LEADCITE. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree the person(s) who put in the citation(s) had good reason to put the citation in the lede. The Wikipedia rule states, "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus."  So far there has been no editor consensus to remove these citations.  I had specifically asked why does the lede need references.  I believe this question has been adequately discussed and has clarified Wikipedia's policy on lead citations.  The concern JaeWae brought up was whether issues brought up in the lede were discussed in the article.  Two of these concerns included sentences that had citations.  The first concerned cited sentence had to do with Lincoln's political ability.  Rjensen put in information on Lincoln's political ability.  I added information on how Lincoln took control of the war effort after Fort Sumter fell.  The second cited sentence concern was the view that successionists saw Lincoln as their enemy.  This needs to be addressed in the article.  I am not for removing the citations in the lede, just expanding on them in the article where needed with further sourced citations. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Section break II
I changed "shrewd" to "remarkably astute" in the lede. I know "shrewd" is complimentary in the Lincoln article, however, if anyone disgrees, feel free to discuss and/or change back to "shrewd". Cmguy777 (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there one word that means "remarkably astute" other then "shrewd" without any potential negative connotations?


 * 1> Is it "*remarkably* astute" because people born in log cabins are not expected to be astute? Perhaps just "astute" will do - but that might need a ref... 2> I still see nothing about AL being "deeply involved with power issues in each state" - except for what is unsourced in the lede 3> The first 3 sentences of the last lede paragraph still are a jumble - secessionists had no part to play in the Republican party or the US gov't & AL did not outfox the secessionists in the South with patronage -- as far as I know. 4> It is a misread reversal of my comments to conclude "As JimWae pointed out, Wikipedias policy is not to put redundant references in the lede section if the material is already sourced in the article." 4a> That was not my point. My point was, quoting from WP:LEADCITE: "editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material" 4b> The MOS is not a policy, but a guideline. 5>Verifiability IS a policy --JimWae (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "Lincoln fought back with patronage, by pitting his opponents against each other, and by appealing to the American people with his powers of oratory." This does seem to miss about a million men in arms that Lincoln is generally thought to have 'fought back with.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * the paragraph is about AL as a politician with sharp elbows (so to speak) in Northern political frays. (and yes he was involved in politics in every state, as numerous historians have shown--see the cited Fish article for starters.) (and I'll tweak it to add copperheads and put secesh in is place)Rjensen (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I apoligize, JimWae, if I misrepresented your statement. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I can change to "astute". My view is that someone like Ben Butler was a "shrewd" politician, as Catton pointed out, always up to something, but never getting caught. Lincoln was not involved with deceiving others or questionable deals. I was not implying that since Lincoln came from a log cabin, what he did politically was remarkable.  However, coming from an impoverished background without formal education to President of the United States, is a signifigant accomplishment. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * he's remarkable because he displayed unusually successful political skills--it's hard to think of ANY US politician who did better. so we get essays bu leading scholars with these titles: "Abraham Lincoln: Master Politician" by Roy F. Nichols; "The Master Politician" (by Richard N. Current who says AL "possessed a remarkable ability for holding together antagonistic elements"); Albert Shaw ("Lincoln increasingly displayed that remarkable combination of the statesman's seriousness and the politician's shrewdness which at once inspired confidence and brought popular support."); Carwardine: "Lincoln was indeed a talented politician who rose beyond expectation .... Less well appreciated is his remarkable success in reaching out to what was the most powerful of all the era's subcultures"; Austrian historian Stefan Zweig said he was  "the most remarkable politician the world has ever known."  Rjensen (talk) 22:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * How about this? A vote for remarkable. I vote yes.  Rjensen believes Lincoln was remarkable as well as other historians.  Maybe I got that right the first time. I can put remarkable back into the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * He was a remarkable politician, a remarkable person, an astute politician, and an astute person. But what does it mean to say he was "a remarkably astute politician" beyond saying he was "an astute politician"? It is editorial voice creeping in. It is just heaping up superlatives until one wonders why all the superlatives are needed instead of describing his actions & letting the reader make his own determination. A "remarkably good carpenter" is the sort of praise made for one not expected to do well. If astute is not enough, "exceptionally astute" at least does not carry the same baggage of possibly being "faint praise" --JimWae (talk) 05:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * What kind of discussione do you see that justifies readding "remarkably" already? Also: There's still nothing to support "deeply involved with power issues in each state" --JimWae (talk) 05:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "Astute" is high praise without tipping over into purple prose. Let's use it.  --Coemgenus (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * JimWae, there is time for discussion and a vote. I put "remarkably" in again since three sources Carwardine, Zweig, and Shaw use the word remarkable. My initial question was if there was another word that means "remarkably astute".  So far JimWae and Coemgenus are for using just "Astute".  Rjensen is for "remarkable" and Cmguy is for using "remarkably astute".  Another choice, then, would be to just use the word "remarkable". Other editor's opinions are needed for concensus. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * In "remarkably astute politician", "remarkably" is modifying "astute", not "politician". It is not clear if adding the word adds or subtracts from "astute".--JimWae (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Current choices:
 * "remarkably astute politician"
 * "astute politician"
 * "remarkable politician"
 * "shrewd politician"
 * "talented politician" Cmguy777 (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe "shrewd" is the best word afterall. Readers will understand that "mischievous" and "malicious" does not apply towards Lincoln. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "exceptionally astute politician" --JimWae (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That sounds good. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Alternative:
 * "exceptionally talented politician" Cmguy777 (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Another set of alts:
 * "discerning politician"
 * "artful politician"
 * "canny politician" as in "A canny politician deeply involved with power issues in each state..." the best, imho BusterD (talk) 02:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Lincoln apparently is controversial enough to have references in the lede section, after further inquiry. I change my initial view that Lincoln does not warrant lede citations. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article
This should be a featured article. 65.79.14.28 (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Are there any more controversies or concerns for the AL article? What is the ETA for the AL featured article?  What else needs to be done for the AL article to achieve FA? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * AL has been worked through to completion of two FA noms in the past year. I know the standard is especially high for promotion due to the AL's importance. Hoppyh (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

MOS Images Part II
I hadn't looked at the main article in a couple of weeks but it seems that Mos Images has gone right out the window since the last review. How annoying. The largest problem is the Dred Scott pic which has a dubious copyright rationale. Fix the copyright or pitch it on out of here. I'll do more eye-rolling later on. Brad (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Question: Is anyone getting a text sandwich for the Marriage and family section? Brad (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I get it in that section and "1860 election". --Coemgenus 22:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't in either section but feel free to move the images around and see if you think its better than current.Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Alanscottwalker: This edit violates Mos Images. The subject of the photo must overlook the article text and not the side of the article when they strike an off center pose. Thanks. Brad (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes, that rather irrational rule is hard for me to remember, but I have reverted that to 'face the text' (because someone might think the person in the picture is not interested in what we have to say), and the troublesome copyvio images. As to the first, I was concerned about inconsistant tiling, and also topic headings lining up along the left margin.  As to the second, it would improve the article to illustrate the big issues of the 1850s, which propelled Lincoln to national office (Kansas-Nebraska, Popular sovereignty, Dred Scott, etc.)Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I also added an illustration to the historical reputation section (I chose the Apeothis(sp) because it had been here before for a long time (and it is a very famous lithograph), instead of my first choice the Library Museum (for continueing scholarly insterest), but I have now gone to back to the Library Museum bc of the copy vio thing, and I added a great cartoon illustrating the reconstruction section. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the corrective edits. The reconstruction cartoon is also a featured picture which makes 3 FP's total now in the article. It's a good use of featured content. After looking at File:TheApotheosisLincolnAndWashington1860s.jpg it does not have a very strong copyright rationale; at least not one you would want to try and defend at a FAC review. I'll look things over again later on and see if there is anything else I can complain about. Brad (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * there is no copyright on File:TheApotheosisLincolnAndWashington1860s.jpg [it is in the public domain since it was published in USA before 1923]. Rjensen (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * True, if we were certain this was an upload of an original picture taken before 1923, but I think the problem is that the source info is incomplete; thus if someone took a picture of the lithograph recently, he or she has a copyright in that picture (of the lithograph) in Commons, and it does not appear that we know who that person is or its source. The source info says the original is in someone's house and then links to a Getty copyrighted picture of the lithograph. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There isn't much doubt that the pic can be considered public domain. The licensing on the file needs fixing but it's more trouble to fix up the license than it is to just replace it with another. The file appears to be a photo of an out of copyright artwork therefore the photo copyright may not apply. Brad (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As I understand photos of art work, you have to have free content rights in the art work itself, and free content rights in (e.g., a release for) the photo. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * photos of pictures in public domain are also in the public domain. You can't get a copyright by using a xerox machine (only originality can be copyrighted, says Supreme Court). See Fishman The Public Domain (2010) p 149 "A reproduction ... is entitled to copyright protection only is it is original. It cannot be simply an exact copy of the original artwork. Reproductions that lack originality are in the public domain." online text Rjensen (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be simpler to stick with commons policy on artwork. File:Usspresidentatanchor.jpg is a properly licensed photograph of an out of copyright artwork. The commons policy is one based on Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. Brad (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reference to the commons policy re photographs of 2D art (for anyone interested, note, it does not apply to 3D art e.g., pictures of sculptures). I also note a separate policy statement for scans of 2D art (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-scan_tag). (I'm not sure where the policy statement is about what you do if you don't know whether it's a photo or a scan.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I added the copyright license tags to the Dred Scott portrait and reinserted it. Let me know, if this does not address the copyvio issue you raised.Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Looks good. Can we hold off adding pics for the time being? Brad (talk) 00:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * At the moment, I don't have any more to add . . . so I would say, yes. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Crowding
I believe the only solution for pic crowding is to put a rule on this article of only one pic per section. Most sections in this article just aren't long enough to support two pics and avoid crowding. I'd estimate that in order to avoid crowding there would need to be at least two solid paragraphs of text between pics. I don't see that much room currently. Crowding is not an issue on my screen but others report such. One of the mos rules is to be mindful of those who may experience crowding. Also, the Lincoln-Douglas debate section is too small to support even one pic from what I can tell. On my screen there is only about two sentences of text below the pic. That situation could cause overlapping into the section below it. Another mos no-no. Brad (talk) 01:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The pictures (unless there is an issue of some important detail in the picture) could be resized smaller, without deletion. But which pictures in the three sections that have two, would you want to delete?  And who is reporting crowding, anyway? Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * From experience I've learned that doing the pic shuffle doesn't really help matters. For example, sections in the article now suffer from a "stack up" wherein two pics are one on top of another. They're supposed to be staggered right and left which brings us back to right and left pics that create a text sandwich (text in between two pics) which Coemgenus was reporting just above here. The only solution I can see is to reduce pics to only one per section. Brad (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't quite understand this. MOS:Images, WP:STACKING and WP:Layout do not require that there be only one image in a section, nor do they require that they be staggered right to left.  They specifically give ways to have multiple images in a section, one on top of the other on the same side of the page, and give screen resolutions where this is perfectly fine. All of which screen resolutions are fine in the three sections with with two images in this article. Finally, although it is "often preferable" to have images face inward, that is not required either, because it is sometimes preferable that they do not; so, it is perfectly acceptable to tile the images without requiring the images face inward, or to put images along one side of the page.  In short, I don't see a special need for rules specific only to this article. Special rules are generally arbitrary, inhibit the the development Wikipedia, and are even more unenforceable then other rules, tending to cause a disrespect for the community rules in general.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Then I guess we both have different interpretations of the policy. I'm not going to turn this into a battleground but I'm fairly confident that somewhere between now and the next FAC the image issue will arise. Someone else can then make the corrections. Brad (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

In the non-battling spirit, for the Marriage and Family section would this be preferable, along the right margin? See yoked images:

(*moved image to section, as discussed below.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure. It seems to solve the problem but I don't recall ever seeing a FA use one. I say let it stand and see what happens. Brad (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I used a similar set-up in a Featured List once without incident. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Here are some examples where it is used in FA: Millennium Park; Crown Fountain Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok; it's worth the effort I think. Brad (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

We now have in the early life section an image of AL's math work, which I think should be omitted. I don't think this image is of sufficient significance to be included per WP:image guidelines. We have previously gone to great lengths to keep the significance bar high and I think this lowers it. Thoughts ? Hoppyh (talk) 11:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup. I was going to just delete it, but I suppose talking it through on the talk page will cause fewer ruffled feathers.  --Coemgenus (talk) 12:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree and the pic also lacks any sort of copyright tag. Based on where the pic came from it might not be a free image. Boot it on out anytime. Brad (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Image as follows removed per above. File:Lincoln_math_exercise.jpg|thumb| Young Lincoln's Mathematics exercise book fragment: manuscript, [ca. 1825]. 1 leaf ; 32 cm. MS Am 1326, Houghton Library, Harvard University Hoppyh (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Alt text
at least for the here and now. Brad (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Several pics are missing alt text. Use the alt viewer to see which ones. For help with alt text see WP:ALT. Brad (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Ft. Sumter Image
I have removed the following image of Ft. Sumter. File:Sumter.jpg|thumb|left|alt=Artwork depicting a battle scene with a stone fort at center surrounded by water. I replaced it with an image of the Sumter CO whose request for rearmaments lead to the beginning of the war. Hoppyh (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Smallpox
"Most probably do not know that, as he delivered his Gettysburg Address in 1863, Abraham Lincoln was just coming down with smallpox, which in the next week nearly killed him in midwar."

--Javaweb (talk) 08:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb


 * Per Donald (p.467) when AL returned to the White House, the doctor diagnosed "varioloid", a mild variant of smallpox. No lasting effects from it are mentioned. AL commented on the illness in the context of the continued press of office seekers, saying, "Now I have something I can give all of them." A nice vignette, but I'm not sure the detail is sufficiently significant for inclusion. Hoppyh (talk) 11:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

State Representative in infobox
Not sure why this info was removed here. Will restore.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Shrewd letter
Rjensen or others: The emancipation Proclamation section talks of Lincoln's "shrewd" letter to Greely but it is not readily apparent from the text why it is called this. I gather it's because the letter steered a politically palatable course between Unionists and Abolitionists and set the political groundwork for the Emancipation that Lincoln was already planning but can whomever described the letter such, or another editor with more knowledge add a few words, perhaps a parenthetical, to explicate this? Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I reworked it and added a cite. Lincoln's unusual use of "I" in the letter is the clever part. He is saying that as president in charge of the Army he is putting the Union first. At all times Lincoln wanted the STATES to abolish slavery, not the federal government (as the Radicals demanded). That is the federal army ("I") gives primacy to Union. Now if the abolishing slavery will help that Union goal then he will abolish slavery in some areas. If that is not necessary to Union he (the federal army) will not abolish it (letting the states do the job). Keep in mind Lincoln did not oppose slavery in the border states.  Lincoln finally got the states to officially abolish slavery through their adoption of the 13th amendment (which required approval of 3/4 of the states). Rjensen (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Lincoln stated he emancipated the slaves to save the Union and that if keeping slavery meant saving the Union, he would do this. This is an apparent contradiction. Did this mean that Lincoln would accept a Union with slavery, an institution Lincoln believed to be immoral? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, if it preserved the Union. --jpgordon:==( o ) 18:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It was shrewd because Lincoln already had written the Proclamation & discussed it with his cabinet. He discussed options (in the letter) that he had already rejected (but did not reject them in the letter). He was preparing people to accept limited emancipation because that is all that he could see was within the power of the federal gov't--JimWae (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Then, if I am correct, an accurate statement would be the preservation of the Union, for President Lincoln, trumped the emancipation of slaves?
 * yes. AL is saying that for the president-as-commander-in-chief, preservation of the Union was the only goal the Constitution allowed. Abolishing slavery in the Confederacy was a legitimate means to that goal-bit NOT abolishing slavery in the North & border. Lincoln believed the states (individually or through the 13th amendment) had to do the abolishing in the border Union states, not the president. Rjensen (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

He had taken ¶an oath to protect the Union. He had no power to emancipate slaves in states -- except as commander-in-chief during a civil war within a state. He opposed slavery on moral grounds, but to end it properly it had to be done through proper legal channels. "Trumped" (in some "absolute" sense) is not the way to look at it. The justification he gave for emancipation was to preserve the Union, he could not constitutionally (nor legally) justify emancipation by saying ending slavery trumped preserving the Union. The preservation of the Union, for the Constitution (which protected slavery), "trumped" the emancipation of slaves -- regardless of what Lincoln or anyone else thought was more important --JimWae (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This goes beyond this letter and the little amount of space we have to discuss it in the article, here but there are historians who argue that, for Lincoln, part of saving the Union was saving it from slavery (or even, the only Union worth saving was one in which slavery would end). How, was the question. How could you end slavery and preserve the Union that had been built in part on slavery in its founding Constitution? Lincoln had a definite understanding of the limits that the Constitution imposed on him as President, but he found a way to end slavery, nonetheless. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Lincoln took extra constitutional powers to preserve the Union, his funding the military without appropriations and his arrest of thousands of people without trial. I was only looking for consistency with Lincoln's views on slavery and his views on preserving the Union.  I personally find emancipating millions of slaves was both revolutionary and constitutional, eventually with the 13th Amendment.  The Reconstruction states could not be represented in Congress without passing the 13th amendment. That would mean abolishing slavery was mandatory in the Southern States for rejoining the Union. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * the president then and now can arrest anyone obstructing the military (that's the war powers clause). those arrested can go to court for a habeus corpus hearing, but the Constitution allows suspension of habeus corpus so they can't get out of jail by court order (which is what Lincoln did). Rjensen (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand Constitutional powers in terms of habeus corpus. Lincoln's then, was a war document without morality? Possilby saving the Union was Lincoln's morality. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * yes, -- historians have often quoted Richard Hofstadter (1948) who said the Emancipation Proclamation had ''all the moral grandeur of a bill of lading" (that is, none at all). Rjensen (talk) 02:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rjensen. I have always grown up with the impression that the Emancipation Proclamation was a moral document against slavery.  I am beginning to understand Lincoln and the Civil War better. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would venture that the former slaves in the states affected by the Proclamation had a less nuanced view of the morality of their emancipation. --jpgordon:==( o ) 22:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

On the matter of Lincoln’s letter to Horace Greeley and its characterization as “shrewd”. (Alanscottwalker). The letter was penned to be read by the American public and was purposefully “ambiguous”, but this doesn’t mean that Lincoln was morally ambivalent on the topic – hardly. Call it “shrewd”, call it “clever”: historian James McPherson calls it “a stroke of genius”. (Tried by War, 2008, p. 129). “Keep in mind Lincoln did not oppose slavery in the border states.” (Rjensen) Hmmm. To say that Lincoln did not “oppose” slavery lacks precision. He opposed slavery as an institution and said so publicly, repeatedly and emphatically, for years. The border state populations were well aware of his stand on the matter. See Peoria Speech, House Divided Speech and the Lincoln-Douglas Debates (Charleston, Illinois debate). Moreover, Lincoln made strenuous overtures to the governors and legislatures in the border states to impel them to adopt voluntary, gradual emancipation with federal compensation. (Foner, The Fiery Trial, 2010, p. 207) It was almost an obsession with him. (McPherson, p. 60). But it was not illogical. If the border states (unionist, all) relinquished slavery they would not be threatened or provoked by the increasing federal military confiscation of slaves as contraband in the rebellious states. Like a Sword of Damocles hanging over Lincoln’s head, one false move could precipitate succession among the border states. Better to say that Lincoln did not “antagonize” or “assault” the border unionists on the issue, rather than say “did not oppose” it. By the way, when Lincoln boldly went forward with emancipation – despite the border states declining to initiate a state sanctioned option – he put them in a bind. Subsequently, if they succeeded from the Union, they would expose themselves to the provisions of the EP, and they could kiss the compensation goodbye. Talk about “shrewd”. “The Emanicpation Proclamation had ‘all the moral grandeur of a bill of lading…’” (Rjensen) Citing Richard Hofstadter in a “1948” book, presumably The American Political Tradition, a collection of biographies. Only a fragment of the passage is provided, a quotation mark is missing and there’s some confusing italics, conflating the quote with an editorial remark. (Can Rjensen supply the entire paragraph?). I’m going to guess that Hoftstader was pointing out the irony as to the absence of rhetorical flourish – stylistic grandeur if you will – in a pronouncement of such profound moral implication and effect. The language the Commander-in-Chief employed is terse and laconic, i.e. in the style of a citizen-solider of ancient Sparta; there’s a reason for this, as follows: General Robert E. Lee’s relentless offensive at the Seven Days Battles scuttled the General McClellen’s Peninsula Campaign. This disaster for the Union triggered a collapse in Northern morale. Lincoln and the radical Republicans reacted to this crisis by adopting a new course: remorseless, committed warfare. (McPherson, p 110) The centerpiece of this new “hard war” policy was the EP, crafted to destabilize the Confederacy socially and economically, without however harming the Union slaveholders property. Lincoln was announcing a new phase in the war effort. The EP was not meant to persuade through pathos (sentiment) and his rhetorical logos (logic) was austere. The ethos (ethical or “moral” facet) was embedded in the proclamation itself, inextricably linked to the military strategy, namely, the breathtaking act of declaring three million human beings free from slavery. This can hardly be described as a “war document without morality” (Cmguy777) Short of violating the U.S. Constitution (his executive order did not abolish the instituion of slavery), Lincoln reasserted a key precept of the Declaration of Independence: that natural human equality is violated in the ownership of one human being by another. Without invoking the 1776 founding document by name, he wielded it. Finally, four score and six years hence, the founding fathers historic assertion that all men are “endowed with certain inalienable rights” finally “trumped” the “right of property in a slave” and served to preserve the Union. 36hourblock (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Ties??

 * Good discussion. My concern basically was if Lincoln had ties with slavery, if so, when did he break them, and was the EP written simply to get more troops in the Union Army. I will admit Lincoln made a wise move not to immediatly emancipate slaves at the begining of the war. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure what Cmguy777 means by "ties" or "break" (figurative terms, both). On what sources are these assertions based upon? What historian/biographer/author said it was a "wise" move? 36hourblock (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ties to slavery? Lincoln married into the Todd's a prominent slaveholding family in Kentucky. As Congressman one year he sent his wife and children to live in the Todd slave household. His great hero was Clay (slave owner), he worked for the election of Taylor (1848) --another slave owner. His major appointments late in the war included men who had owned slaves--Andrew Johnson and Ulysses Grant, among others. In 1861-2 he sought and got the support of many slave owners in the border states. Rjensen (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I’m not sure what to make of these implied syllogisms; they appear to be ipso facto fallacies. Applying your logic, we can rationalize the following:

American slaves produced 75% of cotton used in textile manufacturing (Major premise) Lincoln purchased and wore cotton clothing (Minor premise) Lincoln had “ties” to slavery (Conclusion)

What conclusions has Rjensen drawn from each of these assertions? Some conclusion needs to be presented. What is it in each case? (Todd, Taylor, Clay, Grant, etc.) And based on what sources("says who")? I’ll let Alanscottwalker and JimWae deal with this, if they care to. 36hourblock (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The term "ties" was not to imply judgement on Abraham Lincoln. The discussion has taken place at the reference desk.  My concern with Lincoln not that he wore cotton clothes, although that is a significant issue, how much trade went on between the north and south during the American Civil War.  My concern was Lincoln giving permits to trade for Southern cotton.  The rational behind "ties" was to find out how significant Lincoln's ties were with slavery and how if in any way these "ties" affected Lincoln's presidential policies. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * He also regularly wrote to his inlaws, who would discuss the issue with him, pointing out the unjust nature of slavery and practically pleading with them to support policies that would limit it and eventually end it.65.79.14.28 (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * did he write to them like that? when? says who? Rjensen (talk) 02:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is how he said it, yet, although it's likely his Kentucky inlaws knew and he expressed himself to them, the evidence that remains is that subsequently famous private letter to his close Kentucky friend (of whom he was probaly even closer than his inlaws), and slaveholder, Joshua Speed of August 24, 1855, just as Speed was to see Mary Todd Lincoln in Kentucky:


 * "I confess I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down, and caught, and carried back to their stripes, and unrewarded toils; but I bite my lip and keep quiet. In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio, there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continued torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border. It is hardly fair for you to assume, that I have no interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the Constitution and the Union. . . . [¶]You say if Kansas fairly votes herself a free state, as a Christian you will rather rejoice at it. All decent slaveholders talk that way; and I do not doubt their candor. But they never vote that way. Although in a private letter, or conversation, you will express your preference that Kansas shall be free, you would vote for no man for Congress who would say the same thing publicly. No such man could be elected from any district in a slave-state. You think Stringfellow & Co. ought to be hung; and yet, at the next presidential election you will vote for the exact type and representative of Stringfellow. The slave-breeders and slave-traders, are a small, odious and detested class, among you; and yet in politics, they dictate the course of all of you, and are as completely your masters, as you are the master of your own negroes. You inquire where I now stand [concerning party affliation]. That is a disputed point -- I think I am a whig; but others say there are no whigs, and that I am an abolitionist. When I was in Washington I voted for the Wilmot Proviso [banning slavery from the territories aquired in the war with Mexico] as good as forty times, and I never heard of any one attempting to unwhig me for that. I now do no more than oppose the extension of slavery. [¶] I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor or degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy [sic]."


 * I guess I started this. I asked if Lincoln had ties with slavery for discussion purposes.  He was from Kentucky, a slave state.  His family owned slaves and his good friend Speed was a prominent slave owner.  Lincoln wanted to give the slave owners money for their slaves.  The Republicans had concern over Lincoln's commitment to abolish slavery.  His emancipation plan was very moderate while he was in the House of Representatives and had only to do with slaves in Washington D.C.  He said the Civil War was not one of Revolution.  I would interpret that to mean he was determined not to make this a war over freeing slaves.  He stopped emancipation of slaves by other generals.  He was very strict with Mrs. Fremont when she visited Washington when she attempted to explain her husbands position on emancipating slaves.  This was done because he knew whites would not join the Union Army if ending slavery was to be the final goal at the beginning of the War.  Is there a qualified source that states Lincoln had ties with slavery?  I believe that would be needed to be put in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We are not to use this page to generally discuss the subject of the article "for discussion purposes," see the talk page directions above.  But since you have, I think your summary misses the point.  Lincoln was made "miserable" by the fact of slavery; he "abhor[ed] oppression of negroes." [his words]. Regardless, before 1865, would it have been Constitutional for the federal government to make war in the states to free slaves, or in the legal realm of the time 'take chattel property'?  If you can't answer that.  Then you can't understand Lincoln's letter to Greely. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Lincoln, I believe, did not assume the Confederate states had broken from the Union. If one took the view that the Confederate state was in fact a separate country, then the Union could free the slaves by war.  The Confederate Army fought for Jefferson Davis. Lincoln's 1863 emancipation was constitutional, however, the heart of the question is what is constitutional when any nation state is in a condition of rebellion.  From the beginning, Lincoln wanted to restore the Union as it was with slavery in tact.  He did not want to start a revolution. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Your getting warmer, now that you are considering whether Lincoln's acts, including his Emancipation, were Constitutional. That was the issue Lincoln was struggling with -- his Constitutional powers -- not his personal feeling or "ties" regarding slavery (he repeats in the Greely letter, slaves should be free). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like you've got this important subject well in hand. Good luck on your research, and we look forward to any contributions you'd like to add to the article, including the relevant citations and sources. 36hourblock (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The AL article is considered controversial and any controversial subjects, I believe, need to be discussed. I suppose I could take this discussion to the Reference Desk.  However, I believe, Lincoln at times is hard to get a handle on in terms of slavery.  Are there any reliable sources that state Lincoln had ties with slavery?  If there are no published sources that specifically stated Lincoln had ties with slavery, that is fine.  I would not put in the article Lincoln had ties to slavery without any source to confirm the statement. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The page instructions do not go in abeyance about "controversial" subjects. In fact they were made for just such subjects. No. This is not the place to discuss controversy or interpretation of facts. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand that controversial subjects can be addressed at the reference desk, however, Lincoln's sexuality has been discussed in a talk page. I have yet to use the reference desk.  I did find a source that stated Lincoln had ties to the South. " The sympathies of Lincoln, his ties of kindred, were with the South."


 * I started a question at the reference desk Did Abraham Lincoln have ties with the South and slavery? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It all depends on what the vague idea of "ties" means. He was "tied" to his wife, who had "ties" to slavery. He was also "tied" to Kentucky. So what? To put anything in the article something more specific would have to be stated, and sourced. --JimWae (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. This is all very vague, and I'm not sure what point Cmguy is trying to make.  What we should do here is summarize the standard scholarship (admittedly, a more difficult task in Lincoln's case than with other historical figures).  Is this "ties to the South and slavery" something the reliable sources differ on?  If not, it's irrelevant to our task as encyclopedia editors; if so, let's compare the source material and try for a synthesis.  --Coemgenus (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for everyone's interest. Please refer to the reference link for discussion on this subject.  I am not saying Lincoln was a slave owner, just that he had ties with the South. Ulysses S. Grant had ties to slavery, having owned slaves.  Lincoln is considered a moderate. I am not sure if there are any sources other then the 1907 Ingersol quote.  The discussion at the reference link is covering this issue.  Ties, I suppose, means any link to slavery.  Lincoln had no issues being around any slave owners or slaves.  Rjensen believed Lincoln had ties to slavery.  The best place for this discussion would be the reference link.  Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Everyone in America in 1860 had ties to slavery, except maybe some isolated abolitionist living in a cabin in Maine who made his own clothes and grew his own food. My point: if there's no reason to contemplate the question other than personal curiosity and a line in a 100-year-old book, that suggests the topic is not germane to this article.  Lots of sources written in the era of the Dunning School will trash Lincoln or cast aspersions on his character.  I don't think we in the 21st century have to take them seriously, not when there's a wealth of modern, less biased scholarship to chose from. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am making no judgement on slavery or slave owners and/or attempting to "trash" Abraham Lincoln's character. I know that Lincoln never claimed to be an abolitionist and he did not own any slaves.  Lincoln truly was historically an honest person. Lincoln did marry into a wealthy slave owning family.  I was attempting to ascertain the extent of Lincoln's tie to South and slavery. This is not merely "personal curiosity" on my part.  I am not part of the "Dunning School". There is a discussion at the Reference desk. I admit there is a lack of sources on this subject, that is why this subject has been relegated to the Reference desk.  Stauffer, had written on Lincoln's ties with slavery, however, the editors have chosen not to have Stauffer as a reliable source. Editors can join the discussion at the Reference desk link.  Cmguy777 (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Cmguy, I never meant to imply that you were "trashing Lincoln," and certainly not that you held antiquated views on the nature of Reconstruction. I didn't mean to impugn your motives -- I know you edit in good faith -- I just wondered at the point of this discussion, which seems to be tangential to the article. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The Republican politics section deals with Lincoln and his views on slavery. This gives Lincoln a broader scope on his views on slavery. That is a good section in the article.  I believe Lincoln's views on slavery tangential since he freed the slaves by the Emancipation Proclamation. I am merely looking at this from a Southern point of view, not just a Northern.  Lincoln had no intention of ending slavery, just the expansion of slavery.  My focus is on his actions while he was President.  He put off emancipation for one year, seven months, and 27 days (militarily a wise decision). He was very cold to Mrs. Fremont for her husband Charles Fremont for emancipating slaves early in the Civil War. He wanted the slaves to be paid for upon emancipation.  He wanted to export the freed slaves out of the country, an idea posed by the arch southerner Thomas Jefferson. He allowed the cotton trade to continue during the Civil War. This is what I mean by ties to the South and slavery.  Now, if all this is summed up as a moderate position of President Lincoln during the Civil War, then my argument is over.  I just felt the subject needed to be addressed. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The question "Did AL have ties to slavery?" does not deserve an answer - as a yes or no answer is worthless. A question such as "Did AL have tie X to slavery?" can be answered, for X=owning slaves (no), for X=having inlaws for who owned slaves (yes), for X=born in a state where slavery was legal (yes), for X=... The issue to deal with on this page is which such "ties" are relevant enough to include in the article. The article Abraham Lincoln and slavery has the stuff that is really of any importance regarding what he did about slavery & what his views were.--JimWae (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks JimWae. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Assuming command for the Union in the war
"After the fall of Fort Sumter, Lincoln soon realized the importance of taking immediate excutive control of the war"

Executive is missing a letter. The article is protected, so somebody else has to edit the page. Aapter (talk) 06:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. Brad (talk) 06:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln and slavery
I have been reading through the Abraham Lincoln and slavery article. I believe this article needs a major overhaul or a rewrite in terms of structure and content. Anyone agree? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It would be appropriate to outline any issues you see with that article at Talk:Abraham Lincoln and slavery --JimWae (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I added discussion in the Abraham Lincoln and slavery article talk page. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 68.104.81.3, 3 September 2011
Dear Friends,

My knowledge of computers is limited. It would not be possible for me to personally do any editing. I can explain in detail my recommendations, but somebody else will have to make the changes. The changes I propose are on the "Abraham Lincoln" page.

Could somebody get back to me, somebody who would be able to make the changes recommended?

Yours sincerely,

Albert Kaplan

albertkaplan@cox.net

68.104.81.3 (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: If you wish to have someone edit this page for you, please post the changes you wish to be made here as well as reliable sources to verify them. Thanks! Topher385 (talk) 02:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * To help with the above advice, as you appear to know how to compose e-mail, perhaps you may also e-mail you changes with citations, as you did with your question, and then someone could transfer your e-mail here.

Did Lincoln own slaves?
No. This is not a query. I found a book title "Did Lincoln own slaves?" (2008) by Gerald J. Prokopowicz. Any objections to putting in the book as source? David H. Donald approved! Cmguy777 (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC) --Javaweb (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb
 * It is an FAQ book about Lincoln. Looks interesting. Thanks for finding it. Here is a cite:


 * Thanks for the link Javaweb. From what I have read, the DLOS book is an honest and forthright, possibly pro-Lincoln, book.  Lincoln according to the book had black domestic "indentured" servants in Illinois, one was Ruth Burns, whom he obtained from John Bradford. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not what the book says. It says that white and black servants were intermittently hired in the household, and it is possible, but unclear, whether Ruth Burns was indentured to John Bradford, until she was eighteen. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Besides that I think the whole mention of it is trivial and should be removed. As a politician I'm sure there were many occasions where Lincoln had white and or black servants in his midst. At the White House there were both black and white servants about. Brad (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a slightly different reaction, if as the author of the book states, the question "Did Lincoln own slaves?" is a burning question to much of the general public interested in Lincoln, (and he certainly seems in position to know) perhaps this article should answer with the "No" the author provides, I would therefore replace the current sentence using this book in the family and household section with: "Like many nineteenth century households, the Lincolns did hire servants both white and black; they never owned slaves." Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion is better. The current mention would require the article to state the slave/non-slave status of every servant Lincoln ever had. Get it over with early in the article and then drop the subject. Brad (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion is better. The current mention would require the article to state the slave/non-slave status of every servant Lincoln ever had. Get it over with early in the article and then drop the subject. Brad (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree. Lincoln never owned slaves; however, he had servants, one may have been indentured. This will tell the reader that Lincoln never owned slaves. However, Lincoln, received profits from the sale of slaves from his father-in-law's estate. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I made the neccessary changes to the article. The Lincolns did not own slaves in Sprinfield, Illinois. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln and Stanton reconnaissance mission
I propose putting in the article this edit. Any objections? I believe this is important, since this demonstrates how much Lincoln wanted McClellan to advance the Army or the Potomac. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * In May 1862 President Lincoln, Sec. Stanton, and Sec. Welles to spur Union advance personally visited the Army of the Potomac. Lincoln and Stanton took a sailing vessel, in a reconnaissance mission, landed in enemy territory south of the James River and scouted for a beach landing to launch an amphibious operation against Norfolk, Virginia.  The following day an Union assault was launched and Norfolk was taken.
 * the point is not made clear--it comes across a a bit of trivia that distracts from the main themes--and it makes Lincoln and Stanton look very foolish. Were there no captains who were more experienced at reconnaissance? Rjensen (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * the point is not made clear--it comes across a a bit of trivia that distracts from the main themes--and it makes Lincoln and Stanton look very foolish. Were there no captains who were more experienced at reconnaissance? Rjensen (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The whole point is that Lincoln took action, not McClellan, to spur the Union advance.   I put this in the article because I thought the section on McClellan just focused on McClellan, rather then Lincoln.  If other editors want to remove the edit then please do so. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * it sounds like he was sighteeing and putting his life in danger. It's the job of military professions to do reconnaissance, not elderly civilians with near zero military field experience.Rjensen (talk) 06:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't question the actions of Lincoln or Stanton. However, if this action is viewed as foolish or trivia then the edit can be removed. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

According to the source, Prokopowicz, Lincoln was attempting to get the Army of the Potomac to move. This he accomplished this by doing the reconnaissance mission. If this is trivia, Rjensen, then I have no issue to the segment removed. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Are there any editors who want to keep the above edit in the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see the importance of this addition or the one above about servants. Were they covered at all by the other major sources used in the article? Brad (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the feedback. I believe the source, Prokopowicz, who has a doctorate from Harvard, a Lincoln scholar, David H. Donald approved, found this information important enough for his book.  I am only using Prokopowicz, to fill in some gaps concerning Lincoln.  I beleive it would be misleading not to put that he had servants, because, that would make Lincoln and Mary did everything, in terms of all the chores.  I never put that one of the "servants" was a black endentured servant.  Just that the Lincoln's used servants at their house.  I have no objection on putting that he was on a dangerous reconnaissance mission, even if the act would have been "foolish".  I would want someone to explain why these issues are not relevant to the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Prokopowicz is copyrighted 2008 and is a major source on Abraham Lincoln. He is not fringe.  From what I have read, he does not have any fringe ideas, and is in many respects a pro Lincoln author.  Prokopowics expands on important questions concerning Lincoln in a scholarly fashion.  He rebuffs myths concering Lincoln and I believe is helpful to the article.  I believe Prokopowics is relatively current research on Lincoln and can be used as a valid source. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is Prokopowicz's web page: Gerald J. Prokopowicz.
 * I think Prokopowicz is a good source. But there are a million Lincoln stories and we have space for only a handful, so let's pick the ones that most of the RS emphasize. Indentured servants are not slaves (they have labor contracts, which were usually used for teenagers). Rjensen (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, Rjensen. What I would like to do is go through the article and use Prokopowicz as a myth breaker, if there is any information in the article that needs demythfying or adjustment.  I used Prokopowicz to change that he only read Halleck's military book.  As far as the Reconnaissance mission, I thought that was an interesting fact, however, that can be taken from the article.  According to Prokopowicz, Lincoln may have "bought" his African American indentured servant.  The only difference from a slave was that indentured servants were set free at 18.  Again. I did not even put that she was an indentured servant, or that these were teenagers, just servants.   Lincoln also visited his father in laws chattel slavery estate many times in Kentucky.  Lincoln would have inherited slaves by will since women could not own slaves. That is not in the AL article.  I am for leaving the servants in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Correction. Lincoln having visited his father-in-law's chattel estate is in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I removed the reference to Norfolk being taken, since there was difficulty fitting into the narration. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with the comments that the 'servants' sentence is trivia, in part because servants were pervasive. Can you point to other articles of 19th century men or women, where such is noted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.90.159 (talk) 13:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ulysses S. Grant used slaves in St. Louis for farming, noted by historian Jean Edward Smith. I am going by the source Prokopowicz who explained that Lincoln had servants noting that Lincoln's views on slavery are the main issue and he was a man of his times.   He did not directly own slaves, however, this is often asked by people, and there is rumor that he owned slaves by African American students. I would not call his having servants trivia, although secondary to his views on slavery. Lincoln did get money from the sale of his father in laws slaves in 1848. Again, I suppose that is just "trivia".  I do not believe the Lincoln article needs to be protectionist, in terms of Lincoln having servants in Illinois or getting profits from the sale of slaves.  Those can be put in the Lincoln and slavery article. The debate is whether his female African servant Ruth Burns Stanton was an indentured servant.  Did Lincoln purchase her or did he pay her very small wage? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think some of that may be important enough to include, but I'd rather here what David or others say on the matter, and leave Prokopowicz out of it. I don't see a ton when looking for one of your examples. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe that it is important to know the servant situation in Illinois and slave situation in Kentucky. I only wanted in the article that Lincoln had servants, some were African American.  Irish servants can be included.  Ruth Burns Stanton may have been an indentured servant.  If women could not own property then Lincoln could have inherited slaves owned by his father in law.  Whatever the arrangement, Lincoln profited from their sale.  However, I do not propose to put that in the bio article, possibly the Lincoln and slavery article.  My opinion was that the article viewed the Lincoln's as a potentially modern couple without any servant help.  That is why I put that the Lincoln's had servants. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Rjensen's remarks bear repeating: "Ties to slavery? Lincoln married into the Todd's a prominent slaveholding family in Kentucky. As Congressman one year he sent his wife and children to live in the Todd slave household. His great hero was Clay (slave owner), he worked for the election of Taylor (1848) --another slave owner. His major appointments late in the war included men who had owned slaves--Andrew Johnson and Ulysses Grant, among others. In 1861-2 he sought and got the support of many slave owners in the border states". Rjensen (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

36hourblock (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)