Talk:Abraham Lincoln/Archive 25

Article length
This is the present size of the Abraham Lincoln article:
 * *File size: 482 kB
 * *Prose size (text only): 78 kB (12710 words) "readable prose size"
 * *Wiki text: 143 kB

Per Article size, this article seems to be teetering on the edge of being unworkably long with a 400+kB file-size. Any future additions that add significant amounts of text (such as this one), should be subject to careful scrutiny and either moved to this talkpage for further discussion/safekeeping, moved to the appropriate sub-article, split into a new sub-article, heavily edited for length or possibly even deleted. Shearonink (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Other misconduct issues
Would the addition of any following issues improve the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Mary Todd Lincoln overbudgeting renovation of the White House.
 * Mary Todd Lincoln suspected of disloyalty by Congress.
 * The Southern cotton trade under Sec. Chase.
 * Sec. Welles brother-in-law as New York contract agent.
 * Fremont's excessive spending in the Western War Department.

The source for the information is C. Vann Woodward (1974) Responses of the Presidents to Charges of Misconduct. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * All sounds like they would go to the Presidency article, unless you are thinking of deleting something here, which I don't see a call for. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Alanscottwalker. Yes. That makes sense. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All of this is interesting details and facts, but probably too weighty for this article. A section on the relationship between Lincoln and his wife would be appropriate for some of this information, but of course I'm biased on this subject of this relationship, and would probably be in favor of adding more detail towards the relationship.-- JOJ Hutton  22:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This the AL biography. The business of politicized attacks on his wife and other officials (Chase, Fremont) belongs in the presidency article. Congress did not "suspect his wife". Rjensen (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, none of this is terribly relevant to Abe Lincoln himself. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Additional links
I'd like to propose adding two external links: KConWiki (talk) 05:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. Abraham Lincoln at C-SPAN's American Presidents: Life Portraits
 * 2. Abraham Lincoln at C-SPAN's American Writers: A Journey Through History
 * in my opinion #1 is very good and #2 is weak--adds very little. Rjensen (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the main benefit of the pages is that they are kind of landing pages leading to pertinent videos; I guess the Writers one is narrow enough that it wouldn't need to go here, but I am going to see about incorporating the video itself at Gettysburg Address. I'm going to add the first one (Presidents) here and see what others think. KConWiki (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Large additions by Hzecher48
has added large amounts of information to the Memorial section and Religious and philosophical beliefs. These additions are more than the article should bear, considering it's already over the word limit. Additionally the information added to Religious and philosophical beliefs is not even covered in Abraham Lincoln and religion. If anything in the additions is worth keeping here that's fine but the bulk of it should be moved to the proper article. Brad (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Reading through the additions there seems to be a tendency for speculation concerning his faith. Lincoln read the Bible as he read many other books. His exact beliefs have never been known, yet, he clearly wanted to be identified with traditional Protestant faith.  Whether this was done to get votes or he sincerely believed, possibly both, is unknown.  To have an open debate whether Lincoln was a Christian in the Wikipedia article is inappropriate. I suggest moving the additions to the talk page. I am not even certain the additions belong in the Abraham Lincoln and religion article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with the removal. I hadn't read it that closely but it's unacceptable essay material. Quite possibly it's a copyvio too, although gaining access to the references would be the only way to determine that for sure. Brad (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * agree--this is OR based on poor sources and silly anecdotes (hunched over on a long ride = conversion to Christ)--eg much of it is text from someone who did not know Lincoln writes him on the basis of reading a newspaper story--and not based on the best scholarship in the RS. Rjensen (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Noting that I reverted again the essay material and pointed towards this discussion. Brad (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed additions
The additions by Hzecher48 have been removed; written in essay, debate, and speculative format.
 * The two events that appear to have changed Lincoln’s spiritual direction were the death of his son in 1862 and his trip to Gettysburg in November 1863. His wife, Mary, recalled, “He never joined a church; but still, as I believe, he was a religious man by nature. He first seemed to think about the subject when our boy Willie died, and then more than ever about the time he went to Gettysburg; but it was a kind of poetry in his nature, and he never was a technical Christian.”


 * Mary was not alone in connecting his spiritual leap forward to both the death of his son and his trip to Gettysburg. Others saw it, too. Col. Clark E. Carr watched the procession wind its way from the Wills home to the National Cemetery for the dedication. As Lincoln rode toward the cemetery, he sat “in such a stately and dignified manner as to make appear the Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy of the United States, which he was.” But, before they reached the cemetery, Carr reported, “he was bent forward, his arms swinging, his body limp, and his whole frame swaying from side to side. He had become so absorbed in thought that he took little heed of his surroundings and was riding just as he did over the circuit in Illinois…”


 * Finally, Lincoln straightened up and rode on to the platform. But it may have been his moments of apparent disorientation en route to the occasion to which Lincoln later referred when asked by a clergyman if he loved Jesus: "When I left Springfield I asked the people to pray for me. I was not a Christian. When I buried my son, the severest trial of my life, I was not a Christian. But when I went to Gettysburg and saw the graves of thousands of our soldiers, I then and there consecrated myself to Christ. Yes, I do love Jesus."


 * This quote first appeared in the Freeport Weekly Journal on December 7, 1864, five months before Lincoln’s assassination, its early printing further confirmed in a letter from Benjamin Talbot to Lincoln dated December 21, 1864, congratulating Lincoln on his Christian conversion: “Dear Sir, I cannot refrain from expressing to you my joy, (& I doubt not the joy of every Christian heart throughout our land), at the statement recently made in the religious press that you have sought & found the Saviour, that you ‘do love Jesus’. With many others I have prayed, as you once asked the prayers of God's people, that you might be sustained & guided by wisdom from on high, & that you might administer the affairs of our nation at this fearful crisis in the fear of God; & I cannot but feel that these prayers have been answered in the leadings of Providence, bringing both yourself & the nation up by degrees to the admitted standard of personal & national duty, & blessing all your care & anxiety, & all our suffering & sacrifice, with such rich & undeserved measure of national success. That God will continue to hold you in His hand, & make you more & more a blessing to our people by making you more & more His faithful servant, is & shall be the prayer of your true friend & well-wisher, in the service of the Master,


 * Lincoln had to be aware that he had been so quoted.


 * When, in 1873, the Rev. James Armstrong Reed of the First Presbyterian Church of Springfield, Illinois, was preparing a series of lectures on Lincoln’s faith in 1873, he asked several people if Lincoln had been in infidel in his later life. Phineas T. Gurley, pastor of the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington, D.C., which Lincoln attended, and who knew Lincoln’s spiritual side better than anybody, didn’t beat around the bush: “I do not believe a word of it. It could not have been true of him while here, for I have had frequent and intimate conversations with him on the subject of the Bible and the Christian religion, when he could have had no motive to deceive me, and I considered him sound not only on the truth of the Christian religion but on all its fundamental doctrines and teaching. And more than that: in the latter days of his chastened and weary life, after the death of his son Willie, and his visit to the battle-field of Gettysburg, he said, with tears in his eyes, that he had lost confidence in everything but God, and that he now believed his heart was changed, and that he loved the Saviour, and, if he was not deceived in himself, it was his intention soon to make a profession of religion.”


 * Noah Brooks, biographer and friend of the president, told Reed that “I have had many conversations with Mr. Lincoln, which were more or less of a religious character, and while I never tried to draw anything like a statement of his views from him, yet be freely expressed himself to me as having “a hope of blessed immortality through Jesus Christ.” His views seemed to settle so naturally around that statement, that I considered no other necessary. His language seemed not that of an inquirer, but of one who had a prior settled belief in the fundamental doctrines of the Christian religion. “


 * Lincoln himself seemed to identify his conversion with his son’s death, but Brooks went on to say, “In many conversations with him, I absorbed the firm conviction that Mr. Lincoln was at heart a Christian man, believed in the Savior, and was seriously considering the step which would formally connect him with the visible church on earth. Certainly, any suggestion as to Mr. Lincoln's skepticism or Infidelity, to me who knew him intimately from 1862 till the time of his death, is a monstrous fiction -- a shocking perversion.”

Nevins, and others
If whoever added the Nevins cites would fix the problems with them, we would be one step closer to fixing this article's problems. There are also a few short cites that don't have the corresponding long cites at the bottom. Again, if whoever added them would finish the job, this thing might be ready for a trip through FAC soon. If that editor, whoever he is, isn't around anymore, I'll be glad to help in replacing the cites with ones we know, or deleting the material if we can't back it up. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I fixed the Nevins. Note 123 should be vol 4 p 312; the text at note 139 needed repair. Rjensen (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Which volume is quoted at fn. 168 and 169?  --Coemgenus (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * they are all from vol 6. to reduce confusion I'm redoing the Nevins bibiliog entry. The publishers issued the exact same Nevins books under different titles, and libraries are confused too. Rjensen (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that should straighten out most of the footnote confusion. I wish I had the books myself.  My grad school roommate had that series, and I remember enjoying reading part of it.  --Coemgenus (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Purchase of a newspaper

 * I know I have just missed it, as I am sure there have been discussions about it, but there is mention (sort of hidden) under the Lincoln–Douglas debates and Cooper Union speech section of Lincolns purchase of the Illinois Staats-Anzeiger newspaper, and also content in the article; John Whitfield Bunn and Jacob Bunn.
 * This article uses neutral appearing, but what seems biased (towards sounding in support of non-negative material) wording of, "a German-language newspaper which was consistently supportive; most of the state's 130,000 German Americans voted Democratic but there was Republican support that a German-language paper could mobilize.".
 * I state this because after reading material supported by the source, "Carl Sandburg, Edward C. Goodman, "Lincoln: The Prairie Years and the War Years" (Illustrated Edition, 2007), P. 104 (See: Google Books)", used to support, "As a part of his 1860 presidential campaign strategy Lincoln acquired, in May, 1859, the Illinois Staats-Anzeiger, a German-language newspaper of Springfield, Illinois, to further the cause of Republican Party politics among the German-speaking community of the region.", the first seems tame.
 * On 30 May 1859, John Burkhardt sold (secretly) the newspaper to Abraham Lincoln. Theodore Canisius (Canissius), I presume, the same one referenced here, here, and the same "Theodore Canisius, political friend and editor of the Illinois Staats-Anzeiger, which Mr. Lincoln owned. Appointed Consul in Vienna", became the manager, editor, and apparently eventual owner, here. Apparently Lincoln was an early user of mass media as the same source lists many "media friends" appointed to important positions by Lincoln. This reference has what appears to be some good information but an error shows Canisius as the seller
 * Jacob Bunn was the banker that handled the purchase for Lincoln. The Bunns were friends of Lincoln, contributed to Lincoln's campaign fund and, in no small part, contributed to the election of Lincoln.
 * This article does not mention any of this, maybe because of a lack of reliable references or over-sight, but more specifically, it mentions the purchase of a newspaper by a man that became the President-elect, with no mention of a disposition, that apparently occurred 30 days after he was elected. There is no mention of Lincoln (in either article above) transferring, selling, or giving away (as appears to be the case) the newspaper on 06 December 1860.
 * It would appear there needs to be a connection to the Bunn article, which concerns the purchase, and obviously mention of the sale after Lincoln became President-elect would be important. According to the below contract he just turned over ownership, with the stipulation that no negative information was published against the Republican party, and that the paper remain in Springfield.

Contract
Contract with Theodore Canisius

May [30?] 1859

This instrument witnesseth that the Printing-press, german types &c. purchased of John Burkhardt, [2] belong to Abraham Lincoln; that Theodore Canissius is to have immediate possession of them, and is to commence publishing in Springfield, Illinois, a Republican newspaper, to be chiefly in the german language, with occasional translations into English at his option; the first number to issue in the ensuing month of June, and to continue thenceforward issuing weekly or oftener, at the option of said Cannissius, he, said Cannissius, bearing all expences, and charges, and taking all incomes and profits; said paper, in political sentiment, not to depart from the Philadelphia and Illinois Republican platforms; and for a material departure in that respect, or a failure of said paper to issue as often as weekly, or any attempt to remove said press, types &c, from Springfield, or to print with them any thing opposed to, or designed to injure the Republican party, said Lincoln may, at his option, at once take possession of said press, types &c, and deal with them as his own. On the contrary, if said Canissius shall issue a newspaper, in all things conformable hereto, until after the Presidential election of 1860, then said press, types &c are to be his property absolutely, not, however, to be used against the Republican party; nor to be removed from Springfield without the consent of said Lincoln. A. LINCOLN

May 1859 TH CANISIUS

May 30. 1859. Jacob Bunn, bought the press, types &c. of John Burkhardt, for me, and with my money A. LINCOLN
 * Reference: University of Michigan Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 3
 * At any rate I think, at a minimum, that information should be included concerning Lincoln relinquishing ownership of the paper after his election. Otr500 (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * None of the biographers consider this a big deal. It was a small-circulation weekly --the Republicans had minority support of Illinois Germans during the election season and needed a German paper to reach them by printing party news, candidate schedules, speeches and editorials. As the contract shows there was no long-term ownership plan by Lincoln. The paper was not a personal organ, it was more of a GOP campaign device. Rjensen (talk) 06:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. If the biographers don't make anything of it, neither should we.  --Coemgenus (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am confused as to what that statement means? If the biographers don't make anything of it? Is Wikipedia suppose to be a mirror of biographers? How would just using information from biographers be neutral?
 * There is no doubt, and I agree that "it was more of a GOP campaign device", and so it was more rightfully written (and referenced) in the Bunn article; that "... to further the cause of Republican Party politics among the German-speaking community of the region.", and why I feel that wording is better.
 * My main point is that if it is not important to mention the disposition of a paper that was bought while mentioning in the article that Lincoln did in fact do so, then I think maybe the trivia concerning the purchase is not important. He bought it and got rid of it after being elected. The second part is not in the article and should be. Otr500 (talk) 06:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * the editors are required to follow the main scholarly sources--there is too much junk about Abe to sort through all sorts of claims by people who have a hero (like Bunn) to promote who had a very remote connection to Abe.
 * I don't know about the hero thing, and I sure don't know about Bunn (or the family) having only a remote connection, or what it means by the hero thing, I am just trying to work this out. Maybe, since there was no reply to the question, the "junk" about him buying a paper should be removed and put in another article where it can be concluded. I understand that an ideal article can only be so long but again, there is mention of a paper being bought, that he absolutely sold, and this part is omitted from the article. This is only telling part of a story and for why? If there is some reason I am missing just tell me. My reasoning CAN NOT be misconstrued as anything but what it is. Lincoln is not my hero nor do I have any disdain for him. His actions, no matter what the real reasoning, resulted in something most of the world had already concluded, that slavery in any form, should not be tolerated. For that I feel he rightly deserves great respect, regardless of other circumstances or events that took place. Falling on either side of a "Lincoln side" has nothing to do with my questioning or reasoning.
 * This article is listed as a good article, that was a featured article, and of course part of the criteria is neutrality (for both), in that, "it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.", and under good article criteria, "it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.", and this is in addition to all other criteria concerning articles in general. Now, in light of this, and the further facts that under "Featured article", neutral means, "it presents views fairly and without bias;", there should be an entry concerning the selling of the news paper, the content removed, or the content placed somewhere else. If "selling the paper", is somehow considered junk, then buying the paper is also "junk", and not to mention the section it is included in, Lincoln–Douglas debates and Cooper Union speech, has no relevance to the newspaper.
 * For whatever reasons information is included or not included please don't be patronizing by stating "the editors are required to follow the main scholarly sources". Although that may be something agreed upon between editors, and I am not against this, it is not policy in any form, nor is there (that I know of) a list of "scholars" that have been considered as the the only ones acceptable for content inclusion in this article. I am not trying to make waves but statements that I quoted, without some link as to location of the decision, is not proper. Otr500 (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To repeat--Lincoln had little personal interest in the paper (it was all in German & he did not read German). As a party leader he helped the party with $400 for Bunn to buy a paper because it needed to reach German readers in Illinois in the 1860 election. After the election he resold the paper and got his $400 back. If an anecdote is not included in the main Lincoln bios (this one is not included in any major biography of the last 40 years that I have seen) that we need a VERY good reason to include it here. No reason at all has been provided. Rjensen (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 April 2012
Please change "Speaking in his Kentucky accent, with a very powerful voice" to " Speaking with a very powerful voice" because "Kentucky accent" implies a southern, uneducated speech and it is not the best adjetive to use in this sentence. Thank You. 184.45.62.137 (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

184.45.62.137 (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * well all the RS agree he did have a Kentucky accent. He sounded like other well-educated Kentucky leaders (like Henry Clay). I think the comment is based on the false assumption that Kentucky = hillbilly or something like that. Rjensen (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

From what I gather, Lincoln had a high pitched Kentucky accent voice. His facial expressions, apparently are what was so captivating concerning his speeches, in addition to his word selections and sentence structures. He did have an accent, but that does not diminish in any way his political and private carreer. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The "dark side" of Lincoln
Now I lived for a time in the US and I know Lincoln often enjoys an almost mythical standing as the "second-greatest guy" in American history (and therefore world history ;)), but I happened to have read a few sources about the American Civil War, and some things shocked me quite profoundly with regard to my perception of his personal beliefs. I had known Lincoln as the "Great Emancipator" but he did say, quote:

""I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races--that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which will ever forbid the two races living together in terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior. I am as much as any other man in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

...I agree with Judge Douglas that he is not my equal in many respects, certainly not in color - perhaps not in intellectual and moral endowments ; but in the right to eat bread without leave of anybody else which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas and the equal of every other man.""

- 6th Debate with Steven A. Douglas at Quincy, Illinois, 13 October 1858

I believe "assigning a superior position to the white race" is the very definition of white supremacism. He also appears to have been in favor of segregation, and strongly, one might say (fudge! :)):

""Negro equality! Fudge! How long, in the government of a God, great enough to make and maintain this Universe, shall there continue knaves to vend, and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagougism as this.""

- Fragments: Notes for Speeches, 6 September 1859

Not only was he (unlike a substantial number of people in his time!) a white supremacist and a segregationist, he also believed in segregation so strongly that an ocean or two might be the appropriate means of said segregation. In 1962 he stated in an address to an African American assembly:

""But for your race [African Americans] among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or the other. Nevertheless, I repeat, without the institution of Slavery and the colored race as a basis, the war could not have an existence.

It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated. ...I suppose one of the principal difficulties in the way of colonization is that the free colored man cannot see that his comfort would be advanced by it. You may believe you can live in Washington or elsewhere in the United States the remainder of your life, perhaps more so than in any foreign country, and hence you have come to the conclusion that you have nothing to do with the idea of going to a foreign country. This is (I speak in no unkind sense) an extremely selfish view of the case.""

- Address on Colonization to a Deputation of Negroes, 14 August 1862

So "your presence here is partly to blame for the American Civil War, you can't live among us, and you should leave". Think about this. It means, for example, that Abraham Lincoln would have been quite strongly opposed to Martin Luther King. In fact it almost seems that he might have viewed slavery as merely the main obstacle to getting rid of African Americans (by encouraging them to move to Central America or Africa). All this is missing from the article, a grievous oversight in my view. If someone were to argue that Lincoln later changed his position regarding white superiority, segregation and deportation, I think the WP:BURDEN would be squarely on his/her shoulders. -- Director  ( talk )  20:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a specific question or statement here about how to improve this article? If these quotes appear in published reliable sources that also analyze them as "Lincoln's views of African-Americans prior to the Emancipation Proclamation" or as part of "Abraham Lincoln's evolving views of African-Americans" or as "whatever" then have at it.  To present three quotes on the article's talk page - two that date prior to his election as President and one from early in his first term - as covering the totality of his views on the subject of slavery or as covering the totality of his views about African-Americans and to also draw the analogy that Lincoln would have been strongly opposed to Martin Luther King, Jr?...  But as I posted above, if the quotes and these statements/conclusions appear in reliable sources along with scholarly analysis, what would keep any editor from adding the verified information to this article or from possibly writing an article about the subject? Shearonink (talk) 06:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * One thing at a time. Abe was dedicated to abolishing slavery by preventing its expansion, so it would die a natural death in the face of free labor. However the pro-slavery forces said that was impossible because of all these reasons ("it would mean racial equality" "shat about segregation?" "where will the blacks go?"). One by one Abe solved all the challenges and abolished slavery.  Rjensen (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * @Rjensen. Yes, and then he told African Americans that they should leave. Prior to the Civil War, slave holders were naturally the main opponents of black deportation, thus a person strongly in favor of a purely "white America" would have been strongly opposed to slavery. I remember in another one of his controversial statements he berates slavery as an obstacle to improving the lot of the "free white laborer", as in by getting rid of black people to open-up jobs for white people. I'll see about posting that one too.


 * @Shearonink "Is there a specific question or statement here about how to improve this article?" What do you mean? Didn't I suggest that these views are missing from the article and should be included for the sake of objectivity? Even if he held these views up to 1862, and then had a miraculous self-reform, they are still very much shocking and worthy of note. Also as I said, the WP:BURDEN is on the person supporting the idea that he changed his views.
 * There are, I think, a lot more quotes from Lincoln than these three where he expresses his belief in the "superiority of the white race" and his conviction that black people should leave the US post haste. It is perfectly permissible to include these quotes on their own under WP:PRIMARY. -- Director  ( talk )  08:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think DIREKTOR misses the point: Lincoln said all that in order to abolish slavery. Unless abolished it would still be around for XXX decades. Rjensen (talk) 08:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not missing any point, Rjensen. I'm not going to go into the "how long slavery would have existed" debate, but if you're saying Honest Abe was lying - please produce a credible source to the effect that these statements are unrepresentative of his "real" opinions (on the issues of black deportation, segregation, and white supremacy). I'm not saying its impossible that Lincoln changed his views, and I'm not saying its impossible he was being dishonest in his statements above, but both of those are claims that need sources.
 * WP:PRIMARY states "Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Shearonink (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * @Shearonink, its blatantly obvious that Lincoln was strongly in support of segregation. Thus it is no leap of faith whatsoever to assume he would have been opposed to the reverend Martin Luther King. However that was, of course, just a bit of speculation on my part, and I'm certainly not proposing such a statement be introduced into the article without a source that explicitly supports it. -- Director  ( talk )  12:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

In addition, here is Lincoln in a speech at Springfield, Illinois, on 26 June 1857: ""There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas...

Such separation, if ever affected at all, must be effected by colonization [of African Americans to a foreign land]. The enterprise is a difficult one, but where there is a will there is a way, and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.""

- speech at Springfield, Illinois, 26 June 1857

Unbelievable stuff. Most people are simply unaware of his view on these issues, imo making their addition all the more a priority. -- Director  ( talk )  13:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * In the time it took to formulate this rant, Mr. Director might have written a well-sourced section on the matter that interests him. The question arises: how does he want to spend his time?     36hourblock (talk) 00:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As I previously posted, if you have access to multiple published reliable sources that contain various scholarly analyses of these quotes in context, then have at it and perhaps add that complete information as a section to this article or write a sub-article about the issue called "Abraham Lincoln's evolving views on race" or whatever, otherwise what you are posting on this talk page would seem to constitute original research and in that case WP:FORUM apparently applies. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Another concern for all of us to keep in mind is the article-length. At this moment, the document stats are as follows:
 * File size: 499 kB
 * Prose size (including all HTML code): 118 kB::*References (including all HTML code): 18 kB
 * Wiki text: 143 kB
 * Prose size (text only): 78 kB (12656 words) "readable prose size"
 * References (text only): 1417 B.
 * Technical issues regarding Wikipedia article length would seem to be the guideline to keep in mind for this issue. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Some of this is already covered in Abraham Lincoln and slavery. That would be the proper article to give the full issue. Brad (talk) 03:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. They would also need the context, that this article has no room for as it has to cover his whole life not just his "dark" side, whatever that comes from.Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, Lincoln's actions and statements are not always clear on slavery. I believe that there is importance in understanding Lincoln wanted to be President. Prior to Lincoln, John C. Fremont, basically ran on an abolitionist or radical platform and he got beat in the election to Buchanan. Lincolns' statements are well thought out in advance. He seems to be friends with both sides. This can lead to confusion concerning Lincoln's views on slavery. His most revealing statement was that he would keep blacks enslaved if that meant saving the Union. That might put a moral vacuum in his Emancipation Proclamation for the military purpose to win the war and save the Union. Regardless of Lincoln's intentions, he did free the slaves and supported the 13th Amendment to end slavery completely. Lincoln's transition as President is highly significant. Ending slavery and civil rights are two separate categories. The other issue is that Lincoln was assassinated by Booth who did not want blacks to vote. Lincoln had advocated limited suffrage in 1865. There is no right or wrong answer with Lincoln, since his actions and statements on slavery could be considered purposefully ambiguous for the political necessity of his times. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * His statements on slavery are clear. It was, according to him, an unjust and immoral institution, that should end, because "all men" including slaves, were "created equal with inalienable rights" and its practice made him personally "miserable." The question for him was how, under the Constitution of the United States and in a land where white social and political supremacy was a given, to do it.  He believed that the founders set the course for slavery's extinction by its containment, and he would risk civil war, rather than let it expand because the only hope for its constitutional end (absent war) was slave holders coming to realize that it did not make sense, and it would not make sense, either economically or politically, if it was contained.  The Union, to him, was worth saving, if the ending of slavery was its natural destiny, because to him slavery, in addition to being immoral was incompatible with the republicanism (small "r") of a free people. So, was he a politician yes, because he believed in getting somethings done and he believed that the best form of government was a free people doing it, and one of those things was the end of slavery, first through containment (thus he bitterly opposed Douglas), and then abolition.  The war, of course, which he did not desire, changed all that.  We will never know, if it had worked out as he once hoped, whether things would have been better or worse for the slaves, and the former slaves, and their children's children.  (See, Striner, Richard, Father Abraham: Lincoln's Relentless Struggle to End Slavery (2006, Oxford University Press) Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the documentry by Dr. Henry Lewis Gates, Looking for Lincoln, might answer some of Director's questions: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/lookingforlincoln/ Lincoln's early slavery views are not secret, they are just mainly overlooked in view of the great accomplishments of his presidency. Mr Lincoln is an excellent example of a person who had the ability to evolve and grow over time after by reevaluating his position when presented with new information. With regard to slavery, thorough introspection helped him recognize and correct the error in his thinking and most importantly, to acknowledge it. That's one of the main reasons he is so celebrated. Yours, Wordreader (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

@DIREKTOR: Your attempt by introducing Lincoln's "Dark Side" may or may not be an effort to smear his name, but your outrageous propaganda is best suited for an article in Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream. You should be ashamed of yourself to think anything other than Lincoln's means to an end resulted in the abolition of slavery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyjayb (talk • contribs) 21:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

West Virginia Question
The article cites Donald for the proposition that Lincoln was not involved with WV, prior to admittance. But our West Virginia article states:

"On May 13 the state legislature of the reorganized government approved the formation of the new state. An application for admission to the Union was made to Congress, and on December 31, 1862, an enabling act was approved by Pres. Abraham Lincoln admitting West Virginia, on the condition that a provision for the gradual abolition of slavery be inserted in its constitution. While many felt that West Virginia's admission as a state was both illegal and unconstitutional, Lincoln issued his Opinion on the Admission of West Virginia finding that "the body which consents to the admission of West Virginia, is the Legislature of Virginia," and that its admission was therefore both constitutional and expedient."

If you have access to Donald and can rectify this seeming contradiction, please do so? Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I removed the final sentence in that section which is not fully supported by the two pages cited from the source and which is taken out of context. Page 301 does say that "Lincoln was less involved to hold Virginia in the Union", but this is in comparison with his involvement with Kentucky and Missouri. Donald does say that with respect to the formation of West Virginia "Lincoln could do little to shape the course of events," but this refers to the local creation of the Wheeling government and not the issues of the legality of WVA admission or the condition that it abolish slavery.  Page 539, in discussing the upcoming 1864 election, said that despite anticipating a close election Lincoln didn't try to increase potential electoral votes by "rushing the admission of new states like Colorado and Nebraska" and that he did "proclaim Nevada a state, but showed little interest in the legislation admitting the new state."


 * It seems like the choice is either to leave the sentence out that I removed (my preference) or add some details to present the proper context. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I agree with your deletion. I added some facts for both in relation to slavery. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocking SineBot
I've used bots to block SineBot from this page. Most of the time SineBot ends up signing vandalism which makes the vandalism more difficult to remove. Brad (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Having SineBot around makes it easier to keep track of who posted what on this talkpage. Besides, looking at the User contribution search, SineBot has posted here 171 times in total (since it was created in 2007) with just 8 posts so far in 2012.  Looking at the first page of results, starting in January 2009, there were 71 unsigned IP posts but also 29 unsigned posts by Wikipedia-named accounts.  A high-profile talkpage like this attracts a fair amount of new users, who might not know about the etiquette of signing their talkpage posts.  Giving SineBot access to this page gives the unsigners the same privilege of accountability that those who remember to sign enjoy (plus they also get a follow-up signing-reminder on their own talk page). Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone else have an opinion about blocking SineBot from this page? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Out of the 171 edits how many of them were signing vandalism or stupid things such as abraham lincom vampire hunter da da da boom ? Brad (talk) 23:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * abraham lincoln fought for our rights
 * just kidding! i love wikipedia!
 * Signbot sucks. It serves no viable purpose. Yes it shows who made the post if the person forgets to sign, but it's really unnessasary to the overall goal of the encyclopedia. If someone forgets to sign, who the hell cares? JOJ Hutton  23:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Then maybe it should be de-activated completely, if it is truly unnecessary and serves no viable purpose. Shearonink (talk) 00:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Most unsigned posts are usually vandalism and Signbot makes it more difficult to revert, although not impossible. Perhaps a thread at the village pump would be in order. JOJ  Hutton  00:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You can use Twinkle which reverts past Sinebot easily. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  12:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the stats are regarding unsigned posts being outright vandalism or forgetful-regulars. If a thread at the village-pump is in order about SineBot's status then an editor who thinks SineBot has negative issues (adds to the workload around WP, no purpose, etc.) should post there or on the SineBot talk page.  But until some kind of community consensus about overall usage is reached, should SineBot be deactivated on this particular talkpage?  What about the SineBot reminder (four tildes yo-ho) that gets posted on the unsigned editors' talk pages?  That certainly seems to serve a useful purpose to new contributors. Shearonink (talk) 00:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I find the sinebot very useful here. Otherwise we would be unable to figure out who is saying what. Rjensen (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sinebot is necessary to help keep datestamps on threads which is essential for archiving. The archive bots function based on those datestamps and as one who tries to keep these threads straight on many articles, I can tell you that it is a big labor saver. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  11:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone else have a view on this issue? So far the consensus seems to be to restore SineBot's access to this talk page. Shearonink (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Why is vandalism said to be more difficult to remove w/SineBot? That's not been my experience. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

If there is multiple vandalism on Lincoln, then maybe having the page on lock down for a few days would be good. SinBot seems to be a side issue if vandalism needs to be stopped. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 June 2012
Under "Historical Reputation" please change "By the 1970s Lincoln had became a hero to political conservatives" to "By the 1970s Lincoln had become a hero to political conservatives"

Flowersjustin (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done JOJ Hutton  22:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * good job well done on this page abraham licoln great president — Preceding unsigned comment added by Az0985443 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

minor edit requested.
under assassination, it says "breath" instead of "breathe" 'tis all. Supercarrot (talk) 04:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Check. Thanks, Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit request) Lincoln's quote re: Being an Honest Lawyer
"Resolve to be honest at all events; and if in your judgment you cannot be an honest lawyer, resolve to be honest without being a lawyer" <>Charles Turzak, An Abraham Lincoln Tribute, Dover, 2009</> - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

What specific section of the article do you think this quote should be placed, and in what context? This might be better suited for Lincoln's Wikiquote page, just a suggestion.--JayJasper (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I checked and only one (Oates) of the biographers in the last 50 years think the advice to be honest is worth mentioning. So let's not include it.Rjensen (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Question from a reader
Hello, I am a reader and not a wikipedia editor. I have heard lots of different accusations and arguments about whether or not Lincoln was gay or bisexual. I come to wikipedia to get the facts on such issues.

But short of facts, there is absolutely no mention or discussion of it at all. Why is this when there is such a section for other historical figures such as Michaelangelo Buonarotti? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.136.192.1 (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If such a statement or group of statements were added to this article, it would be like any other edit...one needs verifiable, multiple, independent, reliable sources for Wikipedia edits. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to read unsourced gossip about historical figures.  The two sections about Michaelangelo that refer to his personal life - Michaelangelo: Personal life and  Michaelangelo's sexuality: the poems contain multiple references from reliable sources. Shearonink (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a link to Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln in this article; my understanding is that it has previously been discussed to not include anymore information in this main article, because of undue weight and all the other things this article needs to cover, it is not a substantial enough area of Lincoln scholarship for more. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ^That too. Shearonink (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Sense of Humor?
Why is there nothing mentioned anywhere, in any of the Lincoln articles, about the man's sense of humor? He is rather famous for his sarcasm and wit, and I feel that no mention of this whatsoever is a great omission from the related articles. Might deserve its own article, to be honest. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.183.63.33 (talk) 19:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A separate article would be overkill, IMO. That said, if you can find reliable secondary sources that verify that he was noted for his sense of humor, then it could be included in the article in a manner compliant with WP:NPOV & WP:DUE.--JayJasper (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well said JayJasper. Shearonink (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

beard
Why is this article using a doctored photo of Abraham Lincoln? I'm fairly certain he did not have a beard. --Rebroad (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

What's in a name of slavery
Before we get into a major crisis over what to call the end of slavery, I believe the general term is "abolished". Used by a lot if sources and was used during the time period. JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  21:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Audio recording
I will speak and record this article if it has not been done yet. How shall I submit the recording? I have a Tascam PCM recorder. uriel8  (talk)  14:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know how those text recordings are done, but you might want to ask this at WP:Help desk. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

HOMAGES/LEITMOTIFS/PORTRAYALS IN LITERATURE AND FILM.
Why isn't there a section or a even a separate page dedicated to this topic??? Just got done watching the "Manchurian Candidate" and noted that Lincoln is an omnipresent subtext throughout the movie. And that's just one mainstream Hollywood movie.--johncheverly 17:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)johncheverly9/21/12/1;25pm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncheverly (talk • contribs)


 * We do have an Abraham Lincoln cultural depictions article, which is linked in this article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Alanscottwalker's post and keeping in mind the Wikipedia tenet that "Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit", I would suggest that
 * if you can find multiple, published reliable sources (say from notable film critics' reviews) with information that
 * supports the idea of a Lincoln-leitmotif within The Manchurian Candidate film
 * then you add the information and its sources to the appropriate decade section within the Wikipedia article about cultural depictions of Abraham Lincoln. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Animal Rights
Why is there no mention of Lincoln's stance on Animal Rights? He was considered a major advocate of animal rights for his time.--Valkyrie Red (talk)


 * True. Lincoln was personally kind to animals including his Tabby cat at the White House. However PETA (founded 1980) did not exist then. Unless there is a specific Lincoln speech on Animal rights I am not sure there is enough historical weight to put in the article. Did Lincoln sign any laws that protected any hunted animals? I am not sure he did. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cmguy777 note that Abe never went hunting or fishing; did he ever have a pet of his own (as opposed to one for the kids)??--no one seems to mention it, although publishers joke that they are eager for that book on Lincoln's dog. Rjensen (talk) 07:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Myths
This article could definitely use a section on the myths and legends associated with Lincoln, and then it should say whether or not it is true or false. This would be both interesting and informative, and it would clear up things for people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.102.168.15 (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Product of his time?
Does anybody have access to a reference by a historian making note of Lincoln possibly being a product of his time regarding his ethnic slurs, etcetera? I think it would be worth putting and could round out that section (I can't remember the name; something about historical reputation). I was actually surprised it wasn't there. I'm not trying to excuse his actions, but it's almost a no-brainer to me. Has anybody heard of Ben Franklin? Just a thought. <span style="color:#CCCC00; text-shadow:black 0em 0em 0.7em,black -0.4em -0.4em 0.5em,black 0.2em 0.4em 0.5em">Lighthead  þ 07:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I just want to add that my previous comment is sort of misleading. I mean to ask if anyone has any miscellaneous reference; not one in particular. It almost sounds as if I'm asking about one that I remember seeing. Not so. Thanks. <span style="color:#CCCC00; text-shadow:black 0em 0em 0.7em,black -0.4em -0.4em 0.5em,black 0.2em 0.4em 0.5em">Lighthead  þ 08:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Legacy
There should be a section in this article titled "Legacy", as there is with George Washington and likely many other U.S. presidents.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Possible Addition
I saw that the Duel article had a mention of Lincoln with a 'citation needed' tag at the end, so I found that the James Shields article has a good bit about it, something that I believe should be copied into this article. That is allowed under WP:CWW, as long as the editor mentions the article copied from and the date copied. Here is the text, and it has two references within:

Shields nearly fought a duel with Abraham Lincoln on September 22, 1842. Lincoln had published an inflammatory letter in a Springfield, Illinois, newspaper, the Sagamon Journal that poked fun at Shields, the State Auditor. Lincoln's future wife and her close friend, continued writing letters about Shields without his knowledge. Taking offense to the articles, Shields demanded "satisfaction" and the incident escalated to the two parties meeting on a Missouri island called Sunflower Island, near Alton, Illinois to participate in a duel. Lincoln took responsibility for the articles and accepted the duel. Just prior to engaging in combat, Lincoln made it a point to demonstrate his advantage by easily cutting a branch just above Shields' head, the two participants' seconds intervened and were able to convince the two men to cease hostilities, on the grounds that Lincoln had not written the letters.
 * it's a famous story that is in all the biographies--but Dale Carnegie will not make the cut as a RS. Rjensen (talk) 05:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope someone finds this interesting enough for inclusion.--ɱ	 03:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: reducing clutter through list-defined references
Regarding. Per Citing_sources: "Inline references can significantly bloat the wikitext in the edit window and can be extremely difficult and confusing. There are three methods that avoid clutter in the edit window: list-defined references, short citations or parenthetical references. (As with other citation formats, articles should not undergo large scale conversion between formats without consensus to do so.)" I'd like to introduce list-defined references to this article, to make it more friendly to edit (less code -> closer to WYSWIWYG). Per the request of editor who reverted me and WP:CITEVAR recommendation I'd like to ask editors interested in this article for input which style they prefer, and strongly suggest following the "avoid clutter" recommendation. While LDR add a little code to the total size of the article, it amounts to only 10% or so of the total article size, so load time should not be significantly affected (nobody should notice a 10% change; also, section edit load time will shorter anyway...), and editing experience should become much friendlier. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I completely agree. I did that with the BrickFair and Lego The Lord of the Rings articles and it works well. It also really helps when you want to find the refs again to edit them as you know right where to look, instead of having to search through a sea of text.--ɱ	 06:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No that does not work here. We have hundreds of cites to scholarly books and articles that readers will want to use and the proposal will be very confusing to them. They click on a note and there is no book there. The "clutter" might be a problem only for the actual editors of this article, none of whom have complained because the system used here is similar to that used in actual history books. I note that User:Piotrus has been posting the same advice repeatedly elsewhere--that is spamming--but he has not actually done the kind of history editing that he thinks supposedly needs reforms. Rjensen (talk) 06:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to misunderstand what LDR are. The readers will click on the note and there will be a citation in the same place - at the end of the article. Nor should editors be confused, after all the "ref name=abc/" is common enough (I count many dozens in this article), adding some more and moving all full references to one place, where they are alphabetically organized, should make it more easy for editors to find the full ref. Currently they have to search for it or look for it, after LDR scheme is implemented, they can expect to find it in an alphabetical list in the bottom of the article. Also, I found your accusation of spamming to be uncalled for; familiarize yourself with WP:CIV and WP:NPA before trowing such unfriendly terms at others. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 19:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

A method that works to separate text from long refs and make ref ends easier to find (while still keeping them near the text they support, and thus easier to find) is simply putting the '''  (close ref) on a separate line (all by itself) at the end of the ref, and then adding a carriage return before continuing with the text - unless there are multiple refs, in which having a line which contains only  ''' also makes the separation between refs easier to find. Carriage returns do not add to the length of text any more than a space character does (and much less than putting all the refs at the end). However, occasionally, some people mistakenly feel the need to "clean-up" such an arrangement.--JimWae (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am getting concern that we have editors going around implementing the LDR format without realizing how much more work it causes editors. Do editors that add this format not section edit?Moxy (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's one negative (that I often experience as well) in a sea of positives.--ɱ (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a good idea that our best editors spend so much time cleaning up LDR's. For example one of the many LDR problems that we had to fix just today can be seen here - note how the edit left errors - we are always having to fix this type of problem when there is a LDR format. Please help us in making Wikipedia more user friendly for non Wikipedia coding experts. Help us with Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting - stop LDR's.Moxy (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe the reference or note section could use a general clean up. I am in favor of changing the inline ({{ cite book |...) reference style in the article to the less cumbersome inline (author, page number) reference style. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

John Wilkes Booth
The location of John Wilkes Booth's death was near Port Royal, Virginia, on the South Side of the Rappahanock River. This is closer to 65-70 miles from Washington D.C. not "30" as was stated in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sawahtb (talk • contribs) 13:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I checked on Google Maps and Port Royal VA is approximately 73.5 miles from Washington D.C. taking the current 301 Route and crossing Potomac River at Newburg, VA. I believe this needs to be changed in the article to "approximately 70 miles" from Washington D.C. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)



Did Lincoln Accept Christ at Gettysburg commemoration?
There is an account of Lincoln accepting Christ at the Gettysburg commemoration. I believe this was compiled from O.H. Oldroyd (1883), p. 366; The Parish Messenger of the Church of the Saviour: Commemoration of Lincoln (1909); and Abraham Lincoln: the Christian, William J. Johnstone (1915). Is this all myth? Is this account of Lincoln fact or fiction? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Radical revolt 1864 election
I believe more information could be given in the 1864 election of the revolt against Lincoln by certain Radicals in the Republican Party. John C. Frémont was nominated to run against President Lincoln at the Cleveland Convention having met on May 31, 1864. This would show that Lincoln had to contend with the Deomocratic Party and Radical Republicans during the 1864 election. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:54, 10 December 1932 (UTC)


 * The Radical revolt goes against Lincoln as the bringer together politician. Lincoln held the moderate Republicans together and War Democrats. There was a party bolt in 1864 by the Radicals who believed Lincoln had not done enough to end slavery. There was a convention held in Cleveland, Ohio. True this bolt had little influence on the actual election, but this is not pointed out in the main Lincoln biography article. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Recorded pronunciation
On a whim, I listened to the recorded pronunciation of Lincoln's name provided in the article. It's terrible. As far as I can tell, it's a computer generated-pronunciation, and it isn't even pronouncing the name correctly. It should either be removed or replaced by a recording of an actual person saying the name. Tad Lincoln (talk) 08:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Religious belief
Hi there. Some time ago editors here worded the section on religious beliefs] to my satisfaction, using reliable sources. But since then I'm sorry but I think we have lost that sense in favor of a shopping list of possible Christian affiliations. Also the first phrase of the first sentence (over a dozen words) says nothing about the topic. Using the two references you do (Donald and Carwardine) I think it is possible to clearly express Lincoln's change over time from a skeptical if not agnostic youth. I will wait a day or so to see if anyone here has strong feelings on the subject. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 December 2012
Add external link to http://www.great-quotes.com/quotes/author/Abraham/Lincoln for Abraham Lincoln quotes.

Mattscamp (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:EL. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln Dream
Abraham Lincoln had a dream he heard someone crying the White House and he stepped in and said who died and they said the President and he look in the coffin and he saw himself.This was one week before his death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.252.34 (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Moving the Lincoln Memorials
since we have space issues with this article, I moved the section on "Memorials to Abraham Lincoln" to its own article Memorials to Abraham Lincoln and summarized it. The new article includes new material for which there is no room here. Note that we also have a long specialized article on Abraham Lincoln cultural depictions Rjensen (talk) 05:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

San Marino
Does honorary citizenship of San Marino actually equal true citizenship, which is what the reader is led to believe from the infobox? --89.27.36.41 (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * When San Marino offered (and Lincoln late accepted) "honorary citizenship", the term honorary (in this example) simple means he didn't receive citizenship by birth. Lincoln maintained the right to vote, and many other aspects that came with his citizenship. Hope this helps, B-watchmework (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is low grade trivia of very dubious authenticity. 1) no Lincoln biographer considers it important enough to mention and 2) Lincoln never accepted the offer. The thank you note was written by the Sect of State. Rjensen (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

William H. Seward Attack
I think there should be a mention of the attack on William H. Seward in the section about the assassination. I know it is covered in the main assassination article, however I feel like it's a main component of the events and demonstrates that the event was more than an isolated attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elalone (talk • contribs) 13:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a mention of the attack in the Assassination section in the following sentence:
 * "Learning that the President, First Lady, and head Union general Ulysses S. Grant would be attending Ford's Theatre, Booth formulated a plan with co-conspirators to assassinate Vice President Andrew Johnson, Secretary of State William H. Seward and General Grant."
 * Also, the article is already at an almost unwieldy size. Many Wikipedia users are here on dial-ups or somewhat outmoded computers or on their (small CPU) mobile devices, so any future additions for articles of this length need to be carefully considered.  If we add more content to the article the increasing file size can then cause various technical issues, among them 'hang-ups' since the article takes so long for these users to load. Shearonink (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Dakota hangings
Why isnt anything mentioned about Lincolns condemnation of 40 Dakota men? Lincoln signed the order condemning 40 Dakota men to death by hanging. To this date, this is the largest mass hanging in the history of the United States. D/Lakota have utter contempt for this man. Everything he did was not all good. Lets tell the truth, there are two sides to every history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.97.254.49 (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. If you have reliable sources for this information, you could possibly add the information + its sources to the article yourself.  It does appear, however, that at least much of this information is already covered in Dakota War of 1862, especially the Execution section and the Lincoln article itself which summarizes the Lakota/Dakota hangings in the Other enactments section.  Since the Dakota War is not specifically linked to within the article or within the navboxes, I have added it to the "See also" section.  Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I forgot that the article is under semi-protection because of ongoing vandalism. If you wish to edit it, all you have to do is register for an account, have 10+ edits and the account must be at least 4 days old.  Hope this helps, Shearonink (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Vampires
the whole Vampire thing is missing here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.25.116.50 (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Seriously? Could it be because it's not real? --Musdan77 (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As Musdan77 has said, the whole "Vampire thing" is not real. It was created for the fictional book "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" and introduced to a wider audieance by the movie of the same title. NEITHER is to be believed and both are causing problems with folks thinking Lincoln really did hunt vampires. -anonymous 3/25/2013 5:14 AM EST — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.71.217.116 (talk) 09:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any worry that anyone with even the slightest amount of intelligence will think Lincoln really did hunt vampires. --jpgordon:==( o ) 19:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This subject is covered in-depth and the proper fictional context is given at Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter and at Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter (novel). Shearonink (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Lincoln did "nothing for the Thirteenth Amendment"?
Really? See Shelby Foote's The Civil War - a Narrative: Red River to Appomattox, page 748. I quote: "Lincoln in his December message urged reconsideration during the present session, on grounds that approval would surely follow the seating of the newly elected Republicans at the next. 'As it is to go, at all events, may we not agree that the sooner the better?' He asked that, yet he also did a good deal more than ask.  He set out to get the necessary votes, mainly by logrolling."

He did plenty for his original 13th Amendment, the Corwin Amendement, which he did not "tacitly support", but rather, crafted and lobbied for, as shown by Historian and Author Thomas DiLorenzo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuwriter (talk • contribs) 17:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The Kearns-Goodwin book (a source for the movie) similarly portrayed Lincoln as being involved with getting the votes for the Amendment. The current sentence needs to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WGZ2 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The sentence in question was added based on a blog by a fringe source -- it certainly doesn't belong in the article lede and most likely has no place in any part of the article. The majority of historians recognize that Lincoln actively supported the 13th Amendment. The body of the article says, "After implementing the Emancipation Proclamation, which did not apply to every state, Lincoln increased pressure on Congress to outlaw slavery throughout the entire nation with a constitutional amendment. Lincoln declared that such an amendment would "clinch the whole matter".[222]  The footnote is to Donald's biography of Lincoln. I restored the previous language. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent edit concerning parentage assertions
Only one source is being cited for this assertion, which relies entirely on the Cathey book published in 1899, and which I haven't seen in reliable sources. Am posting here to gather editorial consensus on the matter. I did find a scholarly paper that goes into the subject Colloquy-University of Tennessee Libraries and which rejects the Enloe legend. William E. Barton's book about Lincoln's parentage, which also rejects the Enloe legend, can be found at "The Paternity of Abraham Lincoln - Was he the son of Abraham Lincoln?". Shearonink (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * all the RS reject the Cathey book--I've browsed hrough it and it's junk. Rjensen (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree but wanted to gather any thoughts about the matter from the community at large here on the article's talk page. Shearonink (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you won't people to know about this even if it is a theory and perhaps not true? If I were to just write that his father was Elmer Fudd, then I can see the absolute refusal to even have the assertion brought to light. However, there are two many stories of this to not at least let people read that there IS this story and let the people see the sources. Maybe they wouldn't think it's "junk". Another source is "The North Carolina Miscellany" (UNC Press, 1962).

Also, wouldn't you think Cathey, in 1899, had better access to relevant resources and interviews with still living persons personally knowledgeable of the situation and without any modern need for a revisionist view? We won't know until DNA tests are done. There are more reasons for "historians" to reject the idea than to accept it.Cottonpinesap (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It should work better on your Facebook page, so there is no need to repeat it here. It violates Wikipedia rules about Reliable Sources. Students will get flunking grades if they tell such tall tales. Cathey did not have access to even 1% of the sources modern scholars use. Rjensen (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Facebook reference and the rude implication and considering your background, I think WP would be well served by a WP:Senile guideline. Cottonpinesap (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * See also, WP:Fringe Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

But... but I don't HAVE a Facebook page??? I think you should study up on your WP reliable sources. It's a published book??? Students will be thanked for thinking outside the box. Some people never ever learn to do that. They read something in print and take it as the truth. Modern scholars can only speculate and read what they find on WP, unlike people who could talk to living witnesses.Cottonpinesap (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Published ≠ reliable source. This nonsense has been rejected by every credible historian for a hundred years.  It is without value and far outside the mainstream.  --Coemgenus (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Obviously we have some employees of either the FBI, CIA, Dept. of the Interior, State of Kentucky or State of Illinois operating here. If you don't like it then it's "nonsense"? Obvious Point of View and censorship at work. There are two types of Wiki users, those who contribute and those who censor. Also the tone of some of the comments like suggesting where to put my comments, using terms such as "nonsense", "junk" is foul. Tell me what a credible historian is. It's clearly the ones who you agree with. I guess the guy who found the whole topic interesting enough to write about in 1899 isn't a credible historian. Can only be credible after about 1990, I guess. How can it be credible, it's old? I dispute your Fringe assertion. I guess you also want the entry on George Washington to detail the chopping down of the Cherry tree. There used to be an Enloe Homestead in the Great Smokey Mountain National Park. They renamed it. Very Strange. I guess everyone in the area had been wrong about who the place belonged to and the Park Service knew better. There's a growing call for DNA tests and we'll see how those go. I guess the great emancipator being from North Carolina wouldn't work and illegitimate??? No way.Cottonpinesap (talk) 04:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If it is not in fact fringe, perhaps you could point us to some of the many positive academic analyses of the book and its theories which must surely have been published in the last 114 years? Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

What I have done is cited several more references (how many would it take, what would make them "mainstream" for you?) Surely all new studies of the case can't be considered "fringe" can they? Of course the very issue of the implications of making Lincoln's paternity well known have been discussed by former Presidents and the discussions are referenced in the sources. Censorship prevents students from viewing sources and forming their own opinion (knowledge) of an event. If this is all "junk" and "fringe" everyone will agree with that assessment, right?

12.^ The Genisis of Lincoln, Cathy, 1899 13.^ The Eugenics of President Abraham Lincoln, Coggins, 1941 14.^ The North Carolina Miscellany, Walser, UNC Press, 1962 15.^ Nancy Hanks: Single Mother of Abraham Lincoln, Young, 2004 16.^ Hidden History of Western North Carolina Mountains, Sink, 2011 Cottonpinesap (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * the "new" sources just repeat Cathey. Cathey wrote in 1899 -- 90 years after Abe's birth, so any informant alive in 1808 would have to be about 15 years old or older in 1808, making them would be over 105 years old when Cathey showed up. He did not claim to interview any very old person. Instead he says he is repeating rumors that had been passed down orally over the previous 90 years. Cathey did not study the Kentucky marriage records that show Nancy Hanks married Thomas Lincoln in 1806 (Donald p 22) and lived with Thomas in Kentucky. Abe was born in 1809. Hanks was a common name in North Carolina as was Nancy--there were probably multiple Nancy Hanks in NC in 1808 but Abe's mother was known to be a married woman in Kentucky then. But the Cathey story is not the only one--several other "fathers" have been claimed --there is a good discussion of the humorous folly at Rjensen (talk) 09:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The new sources just repeat Cathy? That appears like the development of a consensus among biographers and historians that the story is indeed true then, right? However, I don't believe for a second that you have 1) read all these books and 2) have the expertise to even cast an opinon that the other sources "just repeat Cathey" and that you know for a fact that Cathey was wrong. In the 1800s it would be very easy to come up with paper documents and signatures in records to show just about anything, especially if you were a government official. I understand the story may not be true but there is far too much growing evidence that it is true to exclude its mention. In Russia or Nazi Germany, revisionism and censorship in order to protect a positive image of a national hero is fine. In this country information should be free and available to let the people decide what they think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cottonpinesap (talk • contribs) 15:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Better read Cathey--it's online ,. He has several contradictory stories -- he gives several fathers and several places of birth for Abe. He cant make up his mind--that makes for junk.  The critical point is that none of the stories he tells links Abe Lincoln to the woman who got pregnant in North Carolina. All his stories are of the form X told Y that he heard from Z that many many years ago etc. We know that Abe's mother was in Kentucky in 1806-1809 but Cathey never checked the Kentucky records--nor did he check any Carolina records.  He just used anecdotes that he heard in casual conversation on trains along the way, which often contradicted each other. Read the Peterson book -- it's very good on this myth & on myth that Abe's REAL father was Senator Calhoun or Chief Justice John Marshall or any one of 13 men.   Rjensen (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

"Antecdotes that he heard in casual conversation" - isn't that what they call "testimony" in court trials. Let me say again, there is every reason for the US Government and some others to squash this testimony and no reason to promote it. However, Wikipedia, I thought, was a document that didn't yield to those with a stake in an article, whether monetary or otherwise. After seeing how this site works, I know I've sent them my last check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cottonpinesap (talk • contribs) 15:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 April 2013
67.43.19.26 (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Lincoln was born with a rare condition wich caused him to have a hollow leg which he filled with whiskey. which ended up giving him the name "Whiskey Leg"
 * Rejected. Need reliable source for such assertion. This a poor place to make jokes... BusterD (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

birth date
the birth date in the infobox is March 4, 1861. i think that it is wrong. in the essay the birth date is february 12,1809. please correct the birth date in this essay.--Kvr.lohith (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * . Birth date in the infobox is already correctly shown as February 12, 1809. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Scholars vs. the ignorant masses
Is the thing currently at the end of the lede really necessary/appropriate? 76.180.168.166 (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

If you refer to birth dates, yes. This usually appears in all biographies with such data available.

217.216.96.203 (talk) 00:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Sariyamari217.216.96.203 (talk) 00:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the editor 76.180.168.166 is referring to the ranking among presidents by scholar and by public poll. I think the section is a bit pander-ry for a lede myself. I have zero difficulty with seeing Lincoln ranked with Roosevelt and Washington, but I think comparing Lincoln to modern (mediocre, IMHO) presidents like Reagan and Clinton smacks of recentism. How would editors feel if I were to propose to delete this last bit? BusterD (talk) 03:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, Reagan was president more than 24 years ago - that's really not very recent... Shearonink (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and adjusted that sentence - see what you think. Shearonink (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Better. I tweaked it a bit. Even the Gallup source reports recentism (and in the lifetime of the average voter counts as recentism to me). FTR, I don't have difficulty with these mentions in the appropriate section, but in the lede this looks like excessive detail. BusterD (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, BusterD, that's what I was referring to, thx. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 08:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The Gallup poll is flawed. The people were asked to rank the Presidents from memory rather then a list. Reagan was a better President then Lincoln? I am not sure that their Presidencies are comparible. I am for leaving the scholar rankings, but the people rankings are skued in my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln had SYPHILIS?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1200645/ Author: William C. Roberts, MD, about a book written by Deborah Hayden (MODIFIED);  Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2004 January; 17(1): 89–94.

Remarkable fragments:

"Abraham Lincoln told his biographer, friend, and law partner of 18 years, William Hearndon, that he had been infected with syphilis in 1835 or 1836. Hearndon, believing both Mary Todd and Abraham Lincoln had syphilis, suspected it in the premature death of 3 Lincoln children."

Mary Todd Lincoln "[...] At her trial, it took only 10 minutes for the all-male jury to find her eligible for the state hospital for the insane, another way of saying that she was unfit to be elsewhere. A doctor diagnosed degeneration of brain tissue or dementia at the time. In 1882, a disorder of the spinal cord and reflex paralysis of the iris was diagnosed. The spinal condition progressed. She was unable to walk safely without assistance, and eventually paralysis of the legs ensued. Her sight was reduced to one tenth of normal. Her pupils were fixed. A report in 1999, reviewing the work of her 4 physicians, concluded that hers was a clear case of TABES DORSALIS"

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabes_dorsal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.216.96.203 (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're going to try to use a source for these claims, it would be better to go to the actual book that Roberts quotes from, which is "Pox: Genius, Madness, and the Mysteries of Syphilis" By Deborah Hayden, rather than selected quotes from what appears to be an opinion-column. Besides, this matter is already covered in Medical and mental health of Abraham Lincoln. Shearonink (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

First. I don't know what this appears to be to you, but if you enter the page, it seems more probably to be part of the "US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health". To be more exact, an article from Baylor University Medical Center. Maybe an opinion-column, but for sure an opinion stronger than a non-medical expert one. If the intention is fixing the source, thanks. If the intention, otherwise, is trying to take importance away from the contents by talking about "what-it-seems-to-be", nice try.

Second. It's curious how something like "syphilis", a so-much-known illness isn't mentioned in the main article about A. Lincoln, while people like Zachary Taylor, or things like Salgamon Railroad, are mentioned and even related to other more deep articles, not only in the english version, but in français, spanish, and others. Why don't Wikipedia do the same with the Illness that infected Abraham Lincoln, his wife, and 3 of his 4 children-as certified by the writer of the book, Deborah Hayden, William C. Robert, and much many other doctors-?

Third: in the article you mentioned appears this -->

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_and_mental_health_of_Abraham_Lincoln

"Syphilis: Claims that Lincoln had syphilis about 1835 have been controversial,[5][6][7] but a recent analysis finds them credible.[8]"

"Credible" doesn't mean "certified", neither "sure", "certain", "true". Which is in this particular case.

Thanks for the quick answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sariyamari (talk • contribs) 22:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Nice try"? Well, I do know exactly what this linkage is.  It is a column that appeared in the Baylor University Hospital newsletter in 2004 and it appears online as being in the US/NIH Library - the NIH did not publish it, the NIH is simply the library the article is held in.  The actual source that Dr. Roberts is quoting from is a book originally published in 2003, the book is the better source, to see what Hayden wrote on the page.
 * As to your queries about the article's content, it is already incredibly long, it would be impossible to include most/all of the information about Abraham Lincoln from reliable sources that is known or asserted about the man. Many people access Wikipedia from computers with older browsers or with mobile devices...the article is already teetering on the brink of being inaccessible because of its length - the older browsers will crash when trying to load such a long document and some mobile platforms also have accessibility issues.
 * The syphilis diagnosis is an assertion that Lincoln biographers and scholars disagree on, some authors assert it is so, others assert otherwise. For instance, some authors think that there was a genetic component to some of the Lincoln boys' health issues, the Tad Lincoln article touches upon this when is discusses the cleft palate & speech impediment that Tad was born with.  The various conditions that the Lincoln family is alleged to have had is also covered in the Medical and mental health of Abraham Lincoln Wikipedia article.  I don't really think that this specific information needs to be added to this article when it is already covered elsewhere within Wikipedia but other editors might disagree with me and want to discuss somehow adding the information and that is fine with me - Wikipedia is edited through consensus.  If enough editors think that more well-sourced details and theories about Lincoln's health and his family's health needs to be added to the article, then that content will be discussed and added or not added as the community decides. Shearonink (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Add it and stop the censorship of other contributors.Cottonpinesap (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Do it yourself if you believe it so much. Shearonink (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to have one of you guys click the undo button because you don't agree with it? I have a real job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cottonpinesap (talk • contribs) 15:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's called consensus. Shearonink (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No it's not. It's a couple of editors using some Wikipedia rule to justify using the undo button. How is the consensus determined? Has it been determined here?  What is the consensus? Is there a vote or is it just one or two invested editors saying "We don't have consensus, consensus must be reached in order to add  your contribution".  In any case, my comment was simply voicing my opinion so that a consensus, if there was actually the establishment of one, could be reached. For this article it looks like consensus is your opinion and that of one other guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cottonpinesap (talk • contribs) 17:13 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * To my knowledge no major Lincoln biographer in the last 75 years thinks Lincoln actually suffered from syphilis. However the story does appear in a novel that Gore Vidal wrote. Rjensen (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

What is a major historian? One who repeats the commonly accepted version of history or someone who uncovers new, obscure information? If they don't repeat the storyline they're "fringe", right? Also, the talk of the article being too long to add these thing is absurd. The article discusses particular speeches, presidential elections, Reconstruction etc. etc. etc. The article is not "19th century American History"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cottonpinesap (talk • contribs) 16:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Article size. Shearonink (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Re. what is a major historian, I very much agree. Lee Tru.  16:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the Article size information. I looked at the link but I'm not sure I follow.  Here is your previous comment regarding the article length and another contributor wishing to add additional important changes: "As to your queries about the article's content, it is already incredibly long".  Are you saying it's too long to add direct, personal information regarding Lincoln but that the length is OK according to the Article Size article? If President Licoln had Syphilis, that may explain some of his and his family's health issues and some of his decisions whether the end result of those decisions, in the long run, turned out to be good or bad.  I would be inclinded to add personal health information and delete whole sections about other people, particular Union Generals, particular battles etc. Thanks.Cottonpinesap (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do think the article is presently on the verge of being too long. If you think this information should be added to the article, then continue to discuss it and its sources here on the article talk page and gather consensus on if the information should be added/if added how it should be phrased/what the sources should be/etc., keeping in mind that there is already an entire article about Lincoln's health.  If you're of the opinion that the article needs to be pruned, then that should be discussed as well.  And add your thoughts to the (straw poll) below. Shearonink (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "And add your thoughts below" - command duly noted. Cottonpinesap (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * major historians are those who get their credential and writings evaluated and approved by hundreds of scholars. Rjensen (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source or link for that or is that your opinion, thanks?Cottonpinesap (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Shall we include the Syphilis rumor? (straw poll)

 * Oppose the notion that Lincoln had syphilis isn't sufficiently supported by available evidence or by historians. Rklawton (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition to the already presented evidence, what would be sufficient? Cottonpinesap (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Lincoln at one point about 1835 feared that after a night on the town he might have caught syphilis; he told one person--Herndon--in Feb 1865. This is a very serious disease with really nasty symptoms and yet no symptoms ever appeared. historians dismiss the fears as groundless and Wilson notes [see ] the fear was common among young men in those days. None of the biographies listed here say he had it; Herndon diod not include it in his biography. Don E. Fehrenbacher (Pulitzer prize winner) says in the ''American Historical Review’’ there is an “absence of any corroborative evidence, medical or otherwise.” (AHR Vol. 96, No. 1, Feb., 1991 p 328) Rjensen (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Other sources have already been cited that do support the infection. Cottonpinesap (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's name say 3 Lincoln scholars in the last 75 years who have supported the theory, please. Rjensen (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC).


 * Oppose on the basis that not enough evidence has been presented to date to confirm the assertion. While the notion might have merit, I've not seen any medical diagnosis based on sample analysis, just on inference. The subject's appearance (as a minority view) in the supporting health article is sufficient at this time. If one day a much stronger consensus among historians should arise and be presented here, I'd re-think my oppose. BusterD (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "appearance in the supporting health article is sufficient". I disagree. Cottonpinesap (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Issue is already included at Lincoln health article. Shearonink (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sources are cited and the case of the infection argued there. So, isn't the decision whether the information belongs in a primary article. I say it does.

How did some of those not participating in the conversation show up for the straw poll? Cottonpinesap (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Probably, like me, other watchers of this article didn't really find any credibility to your position and didn't want to waste their time on the issue. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (I'd like to answer this.) 1) As a former featured article and a current good article, this page is one of the 200 most watched pages on Wikipedia; 2) the four oppose assertors above (and the two immediately below) have a combined 200,000 edits over a combined 38 wikiyears, so we've long demonstrated we're here to create the best possible online encyclopedia; and 3) at least one of us was drawn to this discussion by the startling assertion that the 16th president had syphilis. For my part, I came because I saw someone trying to insert a fringe assertion, an assertion unsupported by a preponderance of reliable sources, into one of the highest profile pages on English Wikipedia. If, User:Cottonpinesap, you wish to insert such assertions on a high profile page, you should expect to build consensus on talk using persuasive argument and high-quality sources. BusterD (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. For the reasons stated above by others. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose My recollection of this is that the author, Hayden, noted in her book that Lincoln scholarship was silent on this (unlike several other cases she studied of historical figures) and that in any case, she noted it is not possible to say whether Lincoln had it, one can only deal with probabilities and preponderance of evidence. In part, the evidence seems to go backward through Mary Todd's ill health (which she notes also cannot be determined with certainty), but this is the Lincoln article, which is already far too long for every, even arguably well-founded, conjecture about its subject, that is not widely covered (or accepted) in the scholarship. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The biographers have discussed it. David Donald says that, “Modern physicians who have sifted the evidence agree that Lincoln never contracted the disease.” Rjensen (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * oppose cmt amended with parentheticals. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I won't list sources or examples because there are too many to even begin to list, but I'll just ask a question. Just how many well-supported theories and postulations by respected major historians in their time have been disproved by fringe scholars who later went on to win awards for establishing a new consensus of accurate evidence? It's clear to many Americans why there is a group who wouldn't want to see this article change. You now have an overwhelming and meaningless agreement between you all. And Wikipedia has an article that restates the information found in a hundred other places and loses that opportunity make a difference to people who will now never do any research of their own. It's a disservice to what I thought the purpose of this site is. It's such a popular site, a favorite... don't change a thing. Cottonpinesap (talk) 01:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Insert:
 * Oppose. This is fringey nonsense unsupported by the vast majority of Lincoln scholars. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am not a doctor, however, Lincoln apparently displayed none of the physical symptoms of syphilis. The fear of syphilis is not the same as having contracted syphilis. Lincoln's face looks to be perfectly normal and there is no deformaty that can be seen in any photos that would be caused by Syphilis. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

You know LOL is passe but I actually did after reading the last thoughtful contribution. You guys actually speak in the terms of all the "WP" definitions - "Fringey". That's awesome. I know I can dig up a set of the old Funk and Wagnalls we had 40 years ago to get this same information. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cottonpinesap (talk • contribs) 02:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Whining about it isn't helping your position, User:Cottonpinesap. If you want to proclaim your position, go start your own website. But if you want to edit Wikipedia, you need to learn how we operate. Wikipedians mostly don't care about winning their position in an argument (heck we argue all the time), but generally speaking we do agree as to the rules of the discussion. The guidelines and policies on sourcing are clear. The guidelines about fringe positions are equally well detailed. If we are in fact wrong, we can rest assured that at least we are supported by the overwhelming scholarship, past and present. I, for one, can live with such a mistake. BusterD (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, try to understand that the Pedia is a tertiary source, it neither grants awards to scholars, nor seeks to influence academic consensus, it merely tries to faithfully reflect it. If the scholars are wrong to have that consensus, then one may hope one day it will change, and the Pedia will reflect that when it happens, but not before. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:"Fringey" states that an idea that is not supported by the majority of sources should be noted and weighted accordingly. When I attmpeted to add information regarding the illegitimate birth of President Lincoln I stated it was an alternate view and I believe it was two senteces supported by, I think, five separate sources.  This is also how the information regarding President Lincoln's syphilis should be related.


 * According to WP:Fringey, Fringey is okay if it's Fringiness is reflected appropriately in the article. So if you're going to resort to calling my efforts to get the information added "whining", I'm going to call your censorship and language cyberbullying. Rude uncivil and not in the spirit of the site, and add thay you've failed to follow the very rules that you use so effectively to bully new contributors and keep alternate views out of the "Pedia".  To be absolutely clear, whining is what you're doing about someone trying to make a legitimate contribution.  I understand you have a story to tell and a job to do but you just shouldn't do it on this website. Cottonpinesap (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That is actually only part of the Fringe analysis, especially when an article is very long, or a fringe view is not widely held even by fringe standards, editors by consensus may decide not to include it in that particular article at all. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Back to the consensus stuff. We've gone full circle. Even if it meets all rules and requirements, specifically Fringey you would still get together with a few others to try to prevent a contribution?  We'll end up taking this to an arbitration and see how it works out.  What you call a consensus is weak to say the least. I could call some friends to vote in the poll but won't - tonight. 174.109.89.121 (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Consensus is a messy business sometimes, but that doesn't mean that editors who might disagree with you about an issue are somehow "getting together with a few others to prevent" contributions. And I have no idea why arbitration is being mentioned at this early stage of discussing edits and article content. Shearonink (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

-

"POLL"???? "RUMOR"????
Original Poster of the Syphilis thing here, again.

Well, I read briefly all this "poll"... what I'll say it's very simple:

1st. Tabes Dorsalis in wife. Causes? Syphilis untreated. No doubt here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabes_dorsalis

-- -- 2nd. In this particular case, I don't know very well what any Editor, or historian can say about an illness called "Syphilis", compared to the words from any well-prepared specialist in syphilis or Medicine University Professor. 4 physicians diagnostized this in wife, then there are MDs like D. William C. Roberts, so-much prepared specialists like Deborah Hayden...

-

-->Commentaries about her book from NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE June 19, 2003

http://www.poxhistory.com/Poxhistory/POX.html

"[...] Deborah Hayden's Pox: Genius, Madness, and the Mysteries of Syphilis is the biography of an infection that has fascinated and frustrated clinicians for more than half a millennium. The book is a repository of all that had been forgotten about a sinister bacterium and the disease that was its legacy. It is also a compendium of what Hayden refers to as the "veiled revelation" of syphilis that can be found in the intimate details of the lives of famous people if one searches with sufficient determination and vigor. Most of all, the book provides fodder for the imagination.

Envision a book, written by the owner of a direct-marketing firm, about the history, microbiology, pathogenesis, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, and treatment of one of humankind's most enigmatic disorders. The author has no formal medical training but has gleaned sufficient expertise in syphilology from lavishly illustrated 19th-century and early-20th-century medical books "written in language remarkably accessible to the layperson" to qualify her to lecture clinicians and peer-reviewed medical journals about what she calls "faulty assumptions about a disease no longer familiar in clinical practice." Imagine that same authority examining the case histories of scores of illustrious personalities through "the selective lens of a possible diagnosis of syphilis" and, time and again, finding evidence of the one disease she knows in depth.[...]"

... another specialists in Medicine and Parasitology who named Abraham Lincoln as syphilitic: Antonio L. Turnes, MD, http://www.smu.org.uy/dpmc/hmed/historia/articulos/sifilis.pdf

Antonio Dubravcic Luksic, XII National Congress, Bolivian Academy of History of Medicine - Sucre - Bolivia, August 2012

Mª Carmen Mascaró Lozano, Universitary Professor of Parasitology.

3rd. Now, let's go about that William Hearndon's testimony. Does it exist? Yes.

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0014.104/--lives-of-william-herndon?rgn=main;view=fulltext

"The prostitutes are described in Herndon's letter to Weik, Jan. 5, 1889, Herndon-Weik Collection, and in Hidden Lincoln, ed. Hertz, 233. The Beardstown girl who supposedly gave Lincoln syphilis is mentioned in Herndon to Weik, Jan. 1891, Herndon-Weik Collection, and in Hidden Lincoln, ed. Hertz, 259.return to text"

Is this true? There are some people who say these could probably be simply jokes from Abe.

"One of Herndon's major problems is that he lacked a sense of humor, although he seems to have chuckled at some of Lincoln's ribald jokes. He certainly lacked a sense of irony, and reported Lincoln's escapades with a Beardstown girl who may have given Page [End Page 5] him syphilis and ridiculous scenes with prostitutes that have always struck me as Lincoln jokes Herndon didn't get. [20] His mind was always rushing forward, frantically searching for a new idea before digesting the last one. He loved to pile on adjectives with breathless haste and fill his sentences with dashes. He had a "cubist" mind in Donald's wonderful phrase [21] and a restless soul that Lincoln grounded. The two are the perfect fox and hedgehog."

OK. Let's consider that possibility.


 * Was that Tabes Dorsalis diagnostized in Mary Todd a joke? NO. Diagnostized by 4 physicians. Treatment with mercury in Abe. Testimony.
 * Were three of the four sons' early death a joke? NO.
 * Were these moments when A. Lincoln were furious another joke, to the point that he was called "Lucifer" in the White House? NO.

http://www.bertzpoet.com/essays/pdfs/bluePills.pdf

"Biographer Michael Burlingame has fully documented a number of times Lincoln became memorably enraged in the years before 1861 (Burlingame 1994,ch. 7).Whitney was particularly struck by how readily Lincoln could become so angered that his face turned “lurid with majestic and terrifying wrath” (Burlingame 1994, p. 148). In a graphic description, Herndon himself observed Lincoln in 1859 becoming “so angry that he looked like Lucifer in an uncontrollable rage” (Burlingame 1994, p. 155)"

FACT: 64% of syphilitics with nervous alteration show extreme furious moods. (70% Photophobia; 48% extreme sensibility to noise, smells, vibrations... (Do you see here anything related to vampirism?); 57% are disorientated, etc) — Precedingunsigned comment added by Sariyamari (talk•contribs) 01:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

- -

And so on... well... let's say in other words:

Imagine you have a disease. You need the cure for that disease. From one hand, you can go to an specialist in the matter to get the answer to your problem -obtained through extended investigations, tons of hours, references, that lots of people like that expert did before him etc-... from the other hand, you can choose through democracy what you should do: if going to doctor, or staying home and try another non-specialistic cure.

The disease, here, seems to be the lack of certain perspective.

You talk about "POLLS"? Well, you have enough polls already done above ^ to avoid that possibility. In my opinion, at least. — Precedingunsigned comment added by Sariyamari (talk •contribs) 01:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It appears that you did not read all those reviews and how many times words like "speculative" and "imaginative" are used. One can appreciate a work of speculation and imagination but it still remains that. Indeed, the longest quote you provide above and that you bold, suggests that the "owner of the direct marketing firm" (Hayden) in her book may have been prone to expectation bias and confirmation bias (because she only knew about one disease and sees it everywhere she looks). In short, it is unclear that you actually understand what you are reading to us and you have drawn a certainty about it that the evidence only, in fact, hints at (that is called, overconfidence effect bias).  Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

--- ---

editing break
Overconfidence effect bias, it's possible. In any case, not only in Deborah Hayden's works, but in all the other sources too. A list of few examples already exposed:


 * NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE. http://www.nejm.org/ //  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_England_Journal_of_Medicine

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC261865/

"[...] It is almost impossible, of course, for any syphilis detective like Hayden to prove that a historical figure had the disease, since a posthumous tissue sample is rarely available for testing. Hayden admits that retrospective diagnosis is a fragile art. All she is able to do is to gather a body of circumstantial evidence to support the diagnosis from the records of her subjects' lives.

'''The typical pattern that she finds begins with high risk sexual behaviour. There is fever and malaise, then some form of medical treatment, such as mercury, arsenic, or potassium iodide, followed by a long list of progressive pains and ailments. Later in the subject's life, there are unusual emotional and behavioural disturbances that can include mania, euphoria, depression, and hallucinations. There may also be physical signs, like changes in handwriting, tremors, eye signs, and heart murmurs. Death may be preceded by a period of dementia or psychosis.'''

FACT: 64% presents reversed writing, loss in bilaterality, etc.

http://www.smu.org.uy/dpmc/hmed/historia/articulos/sifilis.pdf
 * Antonio L. Turnes, MD,
 * Antonio Dubravcic Luksic, XII National Congress, Bolivian Academy of History of Medicine - Sucre-Bolivia, August 2012
 * Mª Carmen Mascaró Lozano, Universitary Professor of Parasitology.


 * All of this +
 * Own testimony about "syphilis as product of sexual relations" (Real, but still not sure if this was a joke, misunderstanding, a simple worry, or truth) +
 * Mary Todd's Tabes Dorsal (Certificated) +
 * Early death of 3 of 4 children (Certificated) +
 * Irritability - treatment with mercury (Certificated).

- Although all of this, as appears here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_and_mental_health_of_Abraham_Lincoln

"Syphilis: Claims that Lincoln had syphilis about 1835 have been controversial; no biographer accepts the claim, but Gore Vidal did include it in a novel he wrote.[5][6]Lincoln's law partner William Herndon said that that Lincoln was worried he might have contracting the disease around 1835. It was a common worry among young men but there is no evidence whatever that Lincoln actually did contract the disease.[7] Biographer David Donald says that, “Modern physicians who have sifted the evidence agree that Lincoln never contracted the disease." [8]

But here is an example of a physician who doesn't agree that:

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/29/magazine/beethoven-s-hair-tells-all.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

"I asked the urologist [Alfredo Guevara, MD] about Lincoln.

Lincoln was a riverboat worker when he was a young man, Guevara said. ''He came down to New Orleans, where he would have wanted to have sex and the women there would have wanted to have sex with him. He was lanky, 6 feet 4 inches -- a tall drink of water. There's evidence that Lincoln may have had syphilis.'' His evidence? '''Lincoln's wife, Mary, he said, developed a neurological disorder late in life consistent with the disease. And if Mary had V.D., didn't she most likely contract it from Abe?'''" - http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1988/aug/18/vidals-lincoln-an-exchange/?pagination=false

"If Vidal had the slightest concern for truth, he could easily have learned from such a reference as The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy that Mrs. Lincoln’s symptoms and those of a paretic do not correspond."

This quote should indicate too that syphilis is "the great copycat", hard to detect in an individual without using antibodies -impossible in that time-, and with different phases not only in paretics, with symptoms consistent with Lincoln's mood and the illness of his wife. '''Syphilis is a disease that can last even 20 years without significant symptoms, only detectable by antibodies mainly. Paresics aren't the only patients, nor paresis is the only phase.'''



Before following the case, I'd like to clarify that I don't have any special affinity to this subject -concretely, "Lincoln and syphilis". My motivations are:


 * Improving Wikipedia, in the best way possible (sharing sources, courtesy, etc)
 * Trying to show a thing from all points of view. There is people who think that an illness is something like a "Divine punishment" or "Fated Curse". Personally I abstract the person from the illness, so in this particular case I try to show all evidence, not in a try to soil his figure, but to include some medical details of his biography that could be decisive in his mood and life.

As an example of what I'm trying to say: today there are some scientific researchs that try to show the link between parasites, and behaviour.

http://www.praguepost.com/archivescontent/3144-jaroslav-flegr-a-manipulation-hypothesis.html

Not only with behaviour, but with whole cultures too:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1635495/

Then, if there is evidence of this possibility, why not with Lincoln too in the case of syphilis, with which alterations in mood are proven? — Precedingunsigned comment added by Sariyamari (talk •contribs) 01:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. You've now backed off the "testimony" as a certainty, but you have not examined your other points critically: 1) no autopsy and no diagnosis of Mary Todd during her lifetime; 2) Many children died in those days (perhaps - half for young children - almost half for those to 20); 3) No evidence that it was in fact mercury that was taken; moreover, mercury was prescribed for many ailments at that time; 4) most people get enraged, without this disease. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * it's a strange disease. the ONLY symptom Lincoln had is that in 1857-61 during intense political activity he lost his temper three times. Rjensen (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

1) Diagnosis and autopsy of Mary Todd -which were critical, objective and definitive both of them-: http://www.bertzpoet.com/essays/pdfs/maryLincolnFinal.pdf, page 1.

About Diagnosis: "On New Year's day 1882,in New York City, four eminent physicians examined Mary Todd Lincoln in her room at Miller's Hotel, a medical residence for electro- and hydrotherapies. [..] All four physicians were professors and specialists, and three had contributed substantially to the medical knowledge of the time: Lewis Sayre, and orthopedist; Meredith Clymer, a neurologist; Hermann Knapp, an ophthalmologist; and William Pancoast, a surgeon. Sayre, Mr. Lincoln's principal consultant physician from 1880 to 1882 [...] knew the others well and could rely on them to formulate a diagnosis that would evoke compassion from a legislature that in the past had been bitterly hostile to their patient and her petition. [...]"

As posted before, to continue:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1200645/

"[...] At her trial, it took only 10 minutes for the all-male jury to find her eligible for the state hospital for the insane, another way of saying that she was unfit to be elsewhere. A doctor diagnosed degeneration of brain tissue or dementia at the time. In 1882, a disorder of the spinal cord and reflex paralysis of the iris was diagnosed. The spinal condition progressed. She was unable to walk safely without assistance, and eventually paralysis of the legs ensued. Her sight was reduced to one tenth of normal. Her pupils were fixed. A report in 1999, reviewing the work of her 4 physicians, concluded that hers was a clear case of TABES DORSALIS"

2) True.

3) Daniel Drake MD prescribed this to him. In lawyer's words, after 1836, when Lincoln told him about the illness, and specifically -in his opinion at least- because of that fear, which could not be a simply fear.

http://www.bertzpoet.com/essays/pdfs/maryLincolnFinal.pdf, page 20.

4) About rage, the abnormal thing isn't the fury, but the causes of the rage itself. F. ex., sudden rage without apparent reason or cause, which appears in 64% of patients with nervous affectation.

'Sariyamari'


 * 1) You have not presented evidence of an autopsy or diagnosis of this disease during her lifetime (1999 is not during her lifetime and it is not an autopsy) (You have also left out the rumors reported there against Mary Todd's chastity and faithfulness, etc. for some reason) 2) Thanks. 3) That reference does not say that, it also says things like "perhaps" and "it's unlikely" 4) Many people get enraged, and others have a hard time understanding why they are enraged. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Dr Drake never saw Lincoln and never diagnosed or prescribed for him. The 1999 report says "The doctors' interpretation of the symptoms and diagnosis of the neurological disorder known as 'tabes dorsalis' is probably correct, but their attribution of its cause to an earlier injury is more suspect. Modern medical knowledge suggests that her condition was probably due to untreated diabetes, but the connection was not understood in 1881. It is possible that the physicians believed it to be the result of syphilis, but chose a more socially and politically acceptable alternative." [from Hirschhorn, Norbert; Feldman, Robert G. "Mary Lincoln'S Final Illness: A Medical And Historical Reappraisal" Journal of the History of Medicine & Allied Sciences Oct1999, Vol. 54 Issue 4, p511-542] Rjensen (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

editing break
1) Then, what's this what I posted before? The existence of a signed bill with which the process of diagnosis of 4 was possible isn't a proof itself?

http://www.bertzpoet.com/essays/pdfs/maryLincolnFinal.pdf

(Extracted from --> http://jhmas.oxfordjournals.org/content/54/4/511.extract

(To be more exact, just in case):

"[...](Lewis Sayre, and orthopedist; Meredith Clymer, a neurologist; Hermann Knapp, an ophthalmologist; and William Pancoast, a surgeon, who diagnostized TABES DORSALIS in Mrs. Lincoln, associated with untreated syphilis) Their findings were dispatched in a letter to Congressman William M. Springer of Springfield, Illinois, who entered them into the Congressional Record in support of a bill to increase Mrs. Lincoln's annual federal pension from $3000 to $5000. [...] The bill (from the hands of a professional multidisciplinary medical team) passed, and was signed into law by President Arthur on 2 February 1882.(And here, a footnote where the source IS) Five months lather Mrs. Lincoln was dead".

The Footnote: 'Congressional Record''. Senate, 47th Cong., 1st Sess., 16 and 24 January 1882, pp. 401-2, 578; Congressional Record. House, 47th Cong., 1st Sess., 26-27 January and 2 February 1882, pp. 652-53, 705-6, 822.'''

These references seem pretty concrete; here I'd like to ask with humility and all respect if a signed bill from hands of -I repeat- a multidisciplinary professional medical team, is proof enough.

About Mary Todd's chastity, I just didn't talked about it because I lack of any hint about the subject; however, it seems there is no significant difference in terms of contagion in cases of male or female carriers (even more, if there were any difference, that would be in favor to male --> female direction, in the sense that inside the vagina there aren't so many defensive barriers against the contagion such as in male case, because of less area without skin exposed to fluids with Treponema pallidum thanks to the foreskin, and a longer urethra in males). The main point I discuss about is the presence of the illness in Abraham Lincoln -not in Mary Todd, although the presence in her of the disease means a lot to the case, being Lincoln's wife as she was-.

2) I don't have any problem in recognizing which is proven to be true lol. But let's see: http://histclo.com/pres/Ind19/lincoln/lin-child.html

Bear in mind that Treponema pallidum can reach fetus during pregnancy through placenta. The earlier it reaches, the earlier sons are more probable to die because of malformations, lacks in inmune system, etc. http://www.babycenter.com/0_syphilis-during-pregnancy_1427386.bc#articlesection3

Lincoln's first son, reached maturity. Lincoln's second son, Eddie was born on March 10, 1846. [...] Eddie only lived to be 3 years and ten months old. (Then, he didn't die by conditions of poverty or war, as lots of people of that time) Lincoln's third son, Willie died in the White House on February 20, 1862, at the age of 11, while his father was President.

3) Thanks for the note. 4) I could say the same here, but it isn't possible in all cases.

Rjensen: I guess Science isn't to show what is "politically more acceptable", but what something is -or more probable to be-, acceptable or not. Tabes Dorsal (also known as syphilitic myelopathy) appears in very rare cases excepting an untreated syphilis.

217.216.96.203 (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Sariyamari217.216.96.203 (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * In the late 1800s, the four doctors examined Mary Todd to assist her in her pension application. They described various symptoms, and as it relates to paralysis, ascribed the cause to a specific spinal injury. They did not diagnose her with any communicable or venereal disease.  In modern days, a few speculate that the symptoms reported could be consistent with a condition associated with syphilis (although, they also note, it could be other things, too). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

(I'm sorry for the lack of signs, Now I know how to). (By the way, Alanscottwalker and others. Since I remember starting this discussion about the subject, I don't see a point where I couldn't put a reference. Statistics and percentajes about the symptoms associated with Syphilis are extracted from some modern manuals of Internal Medicine that you can consult too in case of doubt. The rest are links enable to anyone. Could you, please, put references too in order to let me -and the rest of readers- check the information posted? I think it'd be fair, thanks.)

According to Alanscottwalker, in modern days, a few, speculate, that the symptoms reported could be consistent with a condition associated with syphilis (although, they also note, it could be other things, too). I remember that before I put some of that "few" -that in fact, it doesn't seem "a few" to me, but the majority that link a that doesn't speculate, but put it as proven. I'd be glad to read about the references that link these symptoms with another diagnosis, thanks.

Moreover, Syphilitic Myelopathy is a disease that affect Posterior cords of the spinal cord, resulting in a Posterior Cordonal Syndrome. What I have as understood is that syphilis, traumatic damages, and tumors, are the most common causes that affect that particular sector in spinal cord -having in mind the rest of symptomathology as dementia, hallucinations, disorientation, extreme sensibility and such-. It seems to me very rare that diabetes -if that was the case- respected the rest of the nervous afferences, to affect the Posterior cords only, and even more, causing the cerebral symptoms as in this case.

217.216.96.203 (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Sariyamari217.216.96.203 (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * the medical report on Mary Todd Lincoln did NOT mention Syphilis. The 1999 review article said Mrs Lincoln's condition was probably caused by diabetes. The claim that she had syphilis is due to Ms Hayden, whose total ignorance of medicine has been ridiculed by no less than the New England Journal of Medicine. This article of course is about  Abe, and doctors and biographers all agree he never had the disease. -- the one who disagrees appears in a novel by Gore Vidal that does not claim to be a reliable secondary source. Rjensen (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry Sariyamari, that is not what those sources say -- you misunderstand them or overstate them (and I think you misunderstand me, as well). It is probabely best that we not discuss it further, though, as we are not getting anywhere. Thanks, Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Consensus, but still nothing sure
It appears a consensus has formed. We've got one editor in favor of mentioning syphilis in the article, and we've got everyone else opposed. Until new research becomes available, I propose we let this matter rest so we can spend our time on more productive matters. Rklawton (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

--

Determined in solving this discussion the best -and elegant- way as possible, I've decided to ask experts medicine professors from two different departments. According to Alanscottwalker 's words:

"Also, try to understand that the Pedia is a tertiary source, it neither grants awards to scholars, nor seeks to influence academic consensus, it merely tries to faithfully reflect it. If the scholars are wrong to have that consensus, then one may hope one day it will change, and the Pedia will reflect that when it happens, but not before." Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I've deduced the following postulates:

1st. Deciding if someone had a disease by democracy, is like voting if the Sun will arise tomorrow or not.

2nd. Consensus between medicine professors and PhD in the matter -shyphilis- is stronger than consensus between Wikipedia users, as Wikipedia isn't for voting, but for sharing scientific facts accepted as truth by the research community; and not the opposite way. I'm on the work, and I'll post results, of course.

Note: the productiveness of this matter is somewhat related to these links (posted before too):

http://www.praguepost.com/archivescontent/3144-jaroslav-flegr-a-manipulation-hypothesis.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1635495/

217.216.96.203 (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Sariyamari217.216.96.203 (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Just asking doctors you know is not enough, please see WP:RS and WP:MEDRS for what opinions Wikipedia may consider. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * it was David Donald who asked the MD's to look at the case and they were unanimous Abe did not have the disease. No MD has ever said he had the disease--instead we get novelists and direct mail advertisers. (and for that matter no MD ever said Mrs Lincoln or the children had it either). Rjensen (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Dead_horse --Sam (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Sources, no matter to what side. I'll bear in mind WP:RS and WP:MEDRS, thanks.

217.216.96.203 (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Sariyamari217.216.96.203 (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)