Talk:Abraham Lincoln/Archive 27

Military rank
Veterans rank is different in each country. Wartime members of the United States military maintain their highest rank achieved during war after discharge.

10 U.S. Code § 772(e) states: A person not on active duty who served honorably in time of war in the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps may bear the title and wear the uniform of the highest grade held by him during that war.

There was initially some debate here over Lincoln's rank being that he was reduced from Captain when he re-enlisted as a Private to further continue his service. However, Under US Code 10, once he was discharged his rank as a veteran became Captain again as it is the highest uniformed rank he held during a war and is entitled to bear with regards to the uniformed rank of Commander-In-Chief.
 * the Black Hawk episode did not involve US forces, only local militia, and it was not a time of war. --better read up on Abe, Rjensen (talk) 07:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Thomas Hicks - Leopold Grozelier - Presidential Candidate Abraham Lincoln 1860 - cropped to lithographic plate.jpg to appear as POTD
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Thomas Hicks - Leopold Grozelier - Presidential Candidate Abraham Lincoln 1860 - cropped to lithographic plate.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 12, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-02-12. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Request to add link to External Links section
The Indiana Historical Society has several archival collections related to Lincoln, much of it digitized and available to view online. This link to a page on the IHS website decribes the collections and provides web links to related collections guides, there are several separate collections: Abraham Lincoln-related Collections, Indiana Historical Society. Is it ok to go ahead add this to the External Links section of the main Abraham Lincoln article, which appears to include other major collections from archives and libraries? Rosalina523 (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Honest Abe
I'm surprised there isn't any mention of Lincoln's nickname of "Honest Abe" or how he got the nickname. Should a section be added for the nickname? Illegitimate Barrister 20:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Why cant i edit
why cant i edit this article please help 71.184.73.208 (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Becaue it's semi protected. Meters (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * see WP:CONFIRM. IPs, new accounts, and accounts with too few edits cannot edit semi-protected articles. Meters (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

External links - patent information
An External link containing an OCR scan of Lincoln's Patent Application was removed in a previous edit. I restored that link. I also added a link to the original Patent Model Collection Listing (the original Patent Model is held in the Smithsonian but is too fragile to travel or be on public display). Keeping STEM in mind, I think that it is important to show the breadth of Lincoln's interests and to give readers links to his original materials. Seeking editorial consensus as to whether or not the information contained in the external links about Lincoln's patent 1)is important enough to be kept or 2)if they should be removed. Shearonink (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that both links be removed from this article for these reasons, (a) the article is on the general subject of Lincoln and not Lincoln's patent (This treatment would be in line with item 13 under WP:LINKSTOAVOID), (b) an internal link to article Abraham Lincoln's patent already exists within the main article, and (c) that links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum WP:ELPOINTS. FFM784 (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the links fall under Links to be avoided. #13 says "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject". - Lincoln filed the patent, he created the patent, he directly worked with the craftsman who created the model.  As to the ELPOINTS issue, that linkage being encapsulated within the text escaped me.  Since casual readers of this article might miss it as well, I've added a "see also" under the "Prairie lawyer" heading to more clearly delineate the fact that there is an actual article about the patent.  I do see that these links I added/restored to the main article are in the patent article's External links section so have deleted them from this main article.  Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Discrepancy with Wikipedia "Gettysburg Address" article
In a photo caption that accompanies the "Gettysburg Address (1863)" section of this article, it states there is only one confirmed photo of Lincoln at Gettysburg. However, in the actual Wikipedia "Gettysburg Address" article, a photo caption states there are two confirmed photos.Bunkyray5 (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

habeas corpus section
Does the current discussion of Lincoln's habeas corpus suspension (Abraham_Lincoln) have the right balance of detail? Is it fair? Biased? Piledhighandeep (talk) 08:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to discuss with User:Rjensen his objection to the current Abraham_Lincoln section. You commented that "names are not relevant" to the Lincoln bio, but then deleted the phrase "a sitting US Congressman," which is not a name. (I agree that the Congressman's name is not important, but the fact that the president arrested a sitting Congressman without trial might be.) You also inserted "suspected of treason," but this is not known for all cases, since the point of these arrests is they were done without charges in many cases. In fact, the newspaper editor stated that he was arrested for writing an editorial critical of the president's dismissal of the Ex parte Merryman ruling. The president's disregard for that federal court ruling may have been illegal, but the editor's criticism of the president's disregard for it certainly wasn't illegal, not to mention "treason." Piledhighandeep (talk) 05:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a biography of Abraham Lincoln, and the exact details of the thousands of suspected Confederate sympathizers is not needed. Lincoln signed off on the policy, but he did not handle the actual arrest nor did he investigate these cases.  The article is very long and since Lincoln had a hand in many thousands of details regarding the Civil War, there is no particular reason to include it here. Put in the history of Maryland article.  Sitting Congressman, of course, do not have immunity from the law except when they are acting on the floor of Congress. Rjensen (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining you concern. I actually reduced the length of the text, so that should help. Also, you say again 'suspected Confederate sympathizers,' but this is speculation. We do not know for those who were not charged. Many appear to have been merely anti-Lincoln or anti-war.  This would be like calling all anti-Vietnam protesters arrested in various episodes during the 1960's 'communist sympathizers.' Piledhighandeep (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No it is not a good comparison because in fact top leaders in Maryland were trying to seize control of the state and join the Confederacy. the point is that Lincoln took aggressive action to keep control of Maryland, and that deserves 100 words or some. -- He also took aggressive action in Missouri Kentucky in western Virginia, but we do not have enough space to cover all that. Our goal in this article is to tell succinctly what Lincoln did, especially in terms of preserving the union.  The bitter complaints of neo-Confederates do not belong here. Rjensen (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Some were pro-Confederate, as some anti-Vietnam protestors definitely were communist sympathizers, but not all were. This is known and recorded. For instance, let's look at the votes, on April 29, the Maryland Legislature voted 53–13 against secession, but they also voted not to reopen rail links with the North, and they requested that Lincoln remove Union troops from Maryland. Voting not to support the use of war against neighbors (like Virginia) who have seceded may be 'treason,' but it is not the same as trying to 'join the Confederacy,' which the Maryland legislators voted against. Likewise, as I already mentioned, a newspaper editor's criticism of the president's likely unlawful disregard of the Ex parte Merryman ruling of the Supreme Court Chief Justice (riding circuit or not) is neither pro-Confederate nor 'treason.' I am not a neo-Confederate, which is a rather ridiculous claim to level at someone of my background. This article should be fact based, not a hagiography of Lincoln. All history is complex, let's not distort it. Piledhighandeep (talk) 06:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * blocking the RR was treason. Rjensen (talk) 06:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but not necessarily 'pro-Confederate,' it seems more 'anti-war,' as shown by the legislature's votes. Also, the arrested newspaper editor clearly did not commit treason simply by publishing an editorial critical of Lincoln's (likely unlawful) disregard of the federal court's Ex parte Merryman ruling. Piledhighandeep (talk) 06:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * people get shot for treason in wartime. people who take action to impede the war get arrested. Lincoln avoided shooting but he did the arresting. (and he released Merryman) What do you think was Lincoln's proper response to the threat of treason in Maryland and getting the troops through?  Rjensen (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A newspaper editor supporting the judicial branch, the Constitution, and separation of powers, against the president by writing an editorial critical of the president's disregard for a federal court ruling should be neither shot, nor arrested. (Especially since the Chief Justice's ruling stated that only Congress could suspend habeas, and Congress, even without its southern members, had not been able to get the votes to pass a suspension that summer.) Maybe Lincoln knew better, but that's not how the American constitutional system is supposed to work. I agree that Lincoln handled the situation admirably, and the end may well have justified his means. However, for a fascinating historical look at the strength of the Constitution, the federal judiciary, freedom of the press, and separation of powers in times of stress, the accurate portrayal of this event is crucial. These were interesting cracks in America's democracy. Piledhighandeep (talk) 07:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * That does not handle the case of treason during rebellion; "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." Did the public safety require it? well yes, and Taney did not deny it-- Merryman was accused of treason (helping blow up bridges so troop trains could not move). As for journalists, they get arrested too when they support traitors. Taney failed to ask, "did the public safety  require it?"  He instead invented theargument that ONLY Congress could ask that question. This is an encyclopedia and people are directed to other articles for all the details, and that applies here too.  Keep the focus here on Lincoln.  Rjensen (talk) 07:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The newspaper editor was supporting the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court when writing his editorial critical of Lincoln, he was not a 'journalist' supporting a 'traitor.' This article needs to be NPOV, not use partisan language. Lincoln's disregard of the ruling that only Congress can suspend habeas, and then, after Congress did not pass a measure supporting Lincoln, Lincoln's arresting of a sitting Congressman and others without habeas in defiance of the ruling, is very much a topic focusing on Lincoln that belongs in this article. (Also, whether Chief Justice Taney "invented" the argument in his ruling, was not for Lincoln to decide. That isn't how separation of powers works.) Piledhighandeep (talk) 07:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Rjensen has the better of this. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Taney invented the notion out of thin air that only Congress can act "when the public safety may require it." No court or expert before or since has agreed with that, and Lincoln's Attorney General rejected it at the time. Piledhighandeep is echoing antiwar attitudes of the 19 sixties ( as he says himself) and neo-Confederate attitudes of the 2010s. That is the only reason, I suggest, that such disproportionate attention is given to this episode in this article. Rjensen (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. That's the general analysis by sources, as if someone being shot at won't defend themselves - based on the say so of anyone.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think Rjensen is correct here. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Piledhighandeep is echoing antiwar attitudes of the 19 sixties ( as he says himself)" I absolutely do not say so myself. "and neo-Confederate attitudes of the 2010s." I don't even know what 2010 attitudes you are referring to, but no I am not. How about facts rather than ad hominem? Do you have any? I've given several. Nothing was "invented out of thin air" by Chief Justice Taney, and if it was, as we all know, it wasn't for Lincoln or his political appointees (attorney general) to say so. That is not how separation of power worked then or works today. I can't believe you are even trying to argue this. Are you Lincoln apologists or are you interested in telling fact based history? Perhaps Chief Justice Marshall invented judicial review out of thin air? Is that what you think? This case is still relevant. Check-out Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. You know history is complex. Probably Lincoln did the right thing here--he was a great man and he righted a great iniquity--but let's tell the story historically, not as a fictional hagiography. Piledhighandeep (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is an article about Abraham Lincoln. It was Piledhighandeep who brought in the antiwar movement of the 19 sixties (above).  Here is an example of his pov editing: and later had Francis Scott Key's grandson, Baltimore newspaper editor Frank Key Howard, arrested without charges or trial for writing an editorial critical of his dismissal of the ruling.. Piledhighandeep is waving the flag of the famous patriot Francis Scott Key in Lincoln's face. In wartime, the Army arrests people without charges or trials.  The Army reports to the president. When he says the writ of habeas corpus is suspended, the Army follows his orders And disregards such writs.  Rjensen (talk) 05:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The "POV" edit you refer to is a fact. I'm sorry the facts don't fit the narrative you seem to be attached to. Children once grew up believing that most in Columbus' time thought the world was flat. In fact all educated people knew it was round. Should we retain the heroic fictional narrative because many are familiar with it, or should we present the facts? When the president says the writ is suspended and the Supreme Court Justice says it is not constitutional to suspend it without Congress' support and then Congress fails to suspend it, who is right? Who interprets the constitution? You? The president? In the American system, even in time of war, the judiciary interprets the Constitution. Piledhighandeep (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the section does not fairly represent a number of points in weight of their typical mention that I have seen about it. Baltimore was in rebellion and blocking defenders from reaching the nations capitol, a direct threat of it being captured, and only after clever end run thru Annapolis did forces get there.  If you'll look under Baltimore riot of 1861 or Baltimore riot you'll see troops were killed and a force of several hundred militia was formed, local government directed acts opposing by force the federal government.  I'm not seeing these sorts of things given due weight of their typical presence, which makes a narrative issue too because it leaves a big hole by not showing the reasons why Lincoln would do this. Markbassett (talk) 06:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The deaths (killing of troops) should definitely be mentioned (article only says they were attacked). I think my point is being misunderstood... I don't want to suggest (or portray) this episode as an inexcusable response by Lincoln. I simply thought the facts concerning its legality--ignoring a federal court ruling (by the then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court), imprisoning a newspaper editor critical of the ignoring of that ruling without charges, also a sitting Congressman--should be briefly given, because they starkly illustrate the seriousness of the crisis in America's democracy and Constitution that Lincoln had to negotiate. This is relevant even today. What is possible in times of war? What constitutional powers triumph (the president's executive power for instance) and what Constitutional powers may be sidelined or equivocated (the judiciary for instance). Piledhighandeep (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In the determination of legality, The Supreme Court makes the decisions not a single judge. It never ruled on this case.  Taney has a very bad reputation among historians -- as the worst of all Supreme Court justices, especially for his Dred Scott decision.  He was an intense partisan And no one considers him a dispassionate analyst of the law.  His very weak position in Merryman Was cleverly structured to argue that in at a moment of extreme national crisis, no one in the United States government have the authority to act in the name of national security. (He insisted with no evidence whatsoever that only Congress could act, and he did so because he knew it was not in session.)  Lincoln ignored him, and so did Congress. Meanwhile this article about Lincoln should say how Lincoln actually dealt with the enormous threat of treason in Maryland. Rjensen (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I won't support Taney, but he was Chief Justice. The judiciary interprets the Constitution, we'd have chaos if their decisions were ignored. Some argue the justices voted along partisan lines in Bush v. Gore, but we still honored their decision that Bush was elected. Also, Taney ruled the first week of June. Congress was in session later that summer, and it tried to pass a suspension of habeas, but it could not. It did not have enough support (even with only northern members). That is how a democracy works (even in war time). Nevertheless, in mid-September Lincoln arrested the newspaper editor critical of his ignoring of the ruling as well as a sitting US Congressman and others without habeas. Much of the country did not support war (see Copperhead (politics)). Anti-war sentiments are not the same as pro-Confederate, though Lincoln had a history of trying to conflate the two. See Ohio Congressman Clement Vallandigham leader of the anti-war Union Democrats in Congress, "On May 19, 1863, President Lincoln ordered Vallandigham deported and sent to the Confederacy. When he was within Confederate lines, Vallandigham said: 'I am a citizen of Ohio, and of the United States. I am here within your lines by force, and against my will. I therefore surrender myself to you as a prisoner of war.' " It is a common wartime propaganda tactic to accuse pacifists of secretly being pro enemy, and we see Lincoln played that game too. Piledhighandeep (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the current language is that it shows only one side of the issue -- apparently since Piled's main point is that Taney was legally correct and no other opinions and no explanation of the actual circumstances faced by the Union are presented. Merryman is presented as an official while ignoring he was a bridge burner and a member of a pro_CSA militia. Taney is mentioned as a Chief Justice w/o explaining any of his pro-slavery and pro-CSA agenda. The actual riot is glossed over, ignoring the fact that soldiers were killed and wounded. Baltimore's official actions to block federal troops and to destroy RR bridges is glossed over. Specific actions are claimed to have been directly done by Lincoln when, in fact, he largely delegated the authority to troops in the field on how to deal with the suspension of habeas corpus. Piled, in his responses, has created a new myth that there were few actual pro-CSA folks -- they were mostly just pacifists. He ignores the fact that claiming neutrality for Maryland and condemning coercion against the CSA is as pro-CSA as you can possibly get w/o actually joining their army. Piled speaks of "Much of the country" not supporting the war,ignoring the fact that the Union as a whole was widely supportive after Fort Sumter and was generally incensed over the Baltimore Riot. Taney's rationale is given while Lincoln's defense is ignored. Also ignored are the facts that the entire SC never ruled and different Justices made different rulings, for and against suspension, throughout the war with the Union often complying with court orders, depending on the circumstances. Also ignored is the fact that opinion was divided, both then and now, on who was right.

Trying to maintain as much of Piled's preferred language as possible, I rewrote the section below -- striking out some text and placing in bold print additions necessary to achieve balance. I didn't even attempt to add Lincoln's justifications from his message to Congress. The bottom line is to walk back most of the section and replace it with a brief summary of ALL the actions Lincoln took unilaterally before Congress met in July, most of which were approved when Congress met. Habeas corpus in Maryland is only a very small part of the entire story.


 * Regiments headed south to fight in response to Lincoln's call. On April 19, anti-war mobs in Baltimore, which controlled the rail links from above the Mason Dixon Line to Washington D.C, attacked Union troops, killing four and wounding over thirty others while they were attempting to change trains. trains. and militia groups later burned critical rail bridges. Fearful of further violence, city officials ordered the destruction of railroad bridges to the north of Baltimore in order to prevent Union troops from getting to the nation's capitol. On April 20 Lincoln received information indicating there was evidence that 3,000 men belonging to a secret society were planning "insurrection" in the city. 


 * Lincoln responded by arresting city officials; they were imprisoned without warrants, charges, or trials. 'On April 25, due to the violent unrest, Lincoln wrote to General Scott that, if necessary, he could order the suspension of he writ of habeas corpus''. The first suspension occurred in the Philadelphia to Washington rail corridor on April 27.


 * John Merryman, a Maryland official who was believed to be involved in the bridge burning was arrested and he petitioned Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, a Southern sympathizer who had authored the controversial Dred Scott decision, to issue a writ of habeas corpus, In June Taney, acting as a circuit judge and not speaking for the Supreme Court, issued the writ, stating that Lincoln's presidential suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional because only Congress could suspend the writ. Congress, however, was not in session during the crisis.  Lincoln ignored did not comply with the ruling, but later justified his actions to Congress.


 * In June, after receiving reports that the Baltimore police board had secured and hidden weapons for the use of secessionist forces, Scott, without any further orders from Lincoln, ordered the arrest of four city officials. 800 weapons were found, many taken from Union troops at the earlier rioting.  A newspaper editor, a critic of the president's disregard for the court's ruling who had "recommended assassination" of Republicans and who had circulated a petition "in favor of direct cooperation" with Virginia, was subsequently arrested.


 * By the end of summer, military reverses in Northern Virginia raised fears that Washington would again be threatened by Confederate forces. Fearing a repeat of events in April, Lincoln and several Cabinet members agreed that secessionists in Maryland needed to be dealt with. In September federal agents imprisoned without trial one third of the members of the Maryland General Assembly as well as a sitting U.S. Congressman and a newspaper editor, a critic of the president's disregard for the court's ruling. No trials were held and Lincoln released most in February 1862. (May was released in December 1861 in order to attend the first meeting of the new Congress.)

My purpose in the above exercise is not to suggest that this much be added but rather to demonstrate how badly biased and one-sided the current language is. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Several good suggestions. They have been incorporated. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, however problems remain. The article still reads as if city officials were arrested as a result of the Baltimore Riot.  In fact, however, officials met with Lincoln to discuss possible resolutions to Maryland's concerns about instigating further riots and some accommodations were granted -- a fact missing from the article.  Arrests did not begin until May 13 (which is what both the Heidler and Harris sources say) and, as far as I can tell, no city officials were arrested until June 27 -- these were the arrests associated with the seized weapons mentioned in my last post. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But I think we should not make too much of this in a biography article on Lincoln. see Donald 303-4 for a balanced view that emphasizes what Lincoln said. Rjensen (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Donald, in a biography approaching 600 pages of text, specifically discusses Merryman in the second half of a single paragraph. Replacing the current text with the general info. on pages 303-304, as you suggest, makes sense to me. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, it can be trimmed further, so as not to be WP:UNDUE. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate this discussion, especially User:North Shoreman's clarification above, and I think the current tone is fine. I do think not mentioning that a U.S. Congressman, and one third of the legislature, (that's only 8 words) were arrested is over-trimming. It indicates the magnitude of the habeas episode (including significant representative officials within the democracy). The content-to-added-word-count ratio seems high for that addition to me. Piledhighandeep (talk) 07:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You're missing the point -- badly. It is not the eight words that are the problem.  The problem is that no context is offered for those eight words.  You are creating the POV that Lincoln must have done something bad for people with such important titles to be arrested.  What is unsaid is the turmoil around the arrests -- specifically the intelligence that said the intent of the legislators was to illegally take Maryland out of the Union in cooperation with a planned confederate invasion of Maryland.  It doesn't matter whether the intelligence was accurate; what matters is that the belief in the intelligence by the military, including McClellan, is the reason these arrests occurred.  You want to tell only a part of the story -- telling the entire story would require expanding this article by more than is warranted in a general biography article.  I count four editors opposed to you and none in support -- continuing to add it back w/o support seems to border on edit warring. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, PHAD, you are not getting it when you edit war on the page (I have participated in the discussion) and consensus is against you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have just read this section for the second time in recent days. Count me as another voice opposing Piledhighandeep's interpretation. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  00:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think you are missing the point, or you get it and you don't like it. The point is the US also had a crisis in its democracy (like the Ukraine today or Latin American countries in the past). "People with important titles had to be arrested" as you say, and that is scary information that shouldn't be presented here?! It should. This was a serious period. Perhaps you are worried that it confuses people's respect for authority for the Chief Justice's words to be ignored or a Congressman arrested without habeas? This is US history; it doesn't just happen in the third world; it happened in our past. I'm not saying Lincoln was wrong; I'm saying your fear of these few words show that they ARE important. Let people click on the hyperlinks for context and further information. That is what they are they for. Without those links, readers will not find their way on their own. Why are you censoring this? Piledhighandeep (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Editorial judgment regarding the content of this specific biography is not "censorship" as we have other articles where it is appropriate to give this matter the lengthy, nuanced treatment that it deserves. It is bad form to charge "censorship" when consensus is against you. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You have not responded to me. As I explained, the clause simply provides the links for readers to find the 'nuanced treatment' the topic deserves. A reader would not guess that such serious figures were arrested (and then click to read more), if it is not mentioned. What reader would guess that such large events would not be mentioned? Piledhighandeep (talk) 06:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The passage in question is the final clause (currently deleted from the article) of this sentence: "Lincoln continued the army policy that the writ was suspended in limited areas despite the Ex parte Merryman ruling, later arresting a U.S. Congressman from Maryland and a third of the state's legislature." Piledhighandeep (talk) 06:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Why don't you then work on improving Henry May (Maryland), a mediocre article which mentions his imprisonment only briefly, and Maryland General Assembly, which mentions the arrests not at all? And if we were to include your proposed clause, I have no idea why we wouldn't mention the Congressman by name. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I love how May's imprisonment is cited to an 1861 source published in London, called The Bastille in America; or Democratic Absolutism. I wonder how that would fare at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, Lincoln arrested no one, the army did. When I was arrested in an anti-war demonstration by the Capital Police 45 years ago, I did not imagine that I was arrested by Richard Nixon. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The deleted clause is a misrepresentation, and shows a decided twisting or misunderstanding of what the writ is, what suspension of the writ is, and what Lincoln does and did as president, as was explained to you before you decided to edit war: they were not arrested because of the suspension of the writ, they were arrested for constituting a threat to the nation - the section is overlong already and these details can go in other articles. Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Alanscottwalker you are misrepresenting the plain language of the clause. The clause says they were arrested while the writ was still suspended. They didn't have recourse to it. I don't know where you got the idea that they were arrested 'because' the writ was suspended. What does that even mean? The clause does not say that. Stop edit warring based on this straw man. Piledhighandeep (talk) 02:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Cullen328 it is not disputed that Congressman Henry May was arrested and held without charges during Lincoln's unilateral suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. The 1861 source was published in London, interestingly, because publishers in the US who published similar materials were arrested, but I've added a 2007 source to the Henry May wikipedia article for completeness. Also, the Democrats in Congress protested to Lincoln about the arrest of their fellow Democratic Congressman Henry May; Lincoln was very aware that an opposition Congressman was being held for months without recourse to habeas, and he could hardly have been ignorant of the fact that 1/3 of the Maryland legislators were also being held. Arrests of Congressmen by an executive branch that is ignoring the ruling of a prominent leader of the judicial branch have implications for the functioning of checks and balances in the American democracy. They are more serious than arrests of average civilians, and Lincoln knew May was being held. It was a controversy. So, how is this clause? "Lincoln continued the army policy that the writ was suspended in limited areas despite the Ex parte Merryman ruling, and a U.S. Congressman from Maryland along with a third of the state's legislature were later arrested and held without charges."   Piledhighandeep (talk) 02:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC).


 * Your the only one who has edit warred. Your clause lacks context and understanding. You have been told by multiple editors that that that is undue here. Consensus is against you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The article about Henry May remains deeply mediocre, and adding one additional source without wikilinks accomplishes very little. The 1861 London source is unreliable on the face of it, and should be removed from that article forthwith, in my opinion. Lincoln as a highly intelligent man was very aware of far more things than are appropriate to mention in his Wikipedia biography. Whether to mention this otherwise obscure Congressman notable only for opposing his government in its time of need is a matter of editorial judgment, guided by the principle of due weight. As I see it, the place to describe May's treachery and imprisonment is May's biography, not Lincoln's biography. Please do so. Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that a topic over one hundred years old is still so emotionally charged that a factual presentation is not possible. Is this a Civil War reenactment? Do you think I am a Confederate? I couldn't disagree more with their cause. You should note with respect to Lincoln that the federal government was not "his government." He was the executive branch (with one of the weakest electoral mandates ever, only 39.9% of the popular vote) of the federal government, of which the judicial branch, including the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who ruled against Lincoln's suspension of habeas in June while riding circuit, and the members of Congress, who prevented a Congressional habeas corpus suspension from passing that summer, formed the other two thirds. May was part of the government (legislative branch), not in opposition to it. During a period in which the executive and federal power increased, a presentation of these facts seems important. I think the slave-holding founding fathers of the democracy, Washington and Jefferson, would say that your modern lack of appreciation for the significance of these constitutional issues is anachronistic, and, along with your language ("treachery" of May), is rooted in a worldview formed by what happened later (sacrifices on battlefields, victories and reelection of Lincoln, pride in a new chapter of American history), and not what was happening at the time. Piledhighandeep (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Piledhighandeep Started all this up with a neo-Confederate line of thought... For example, he made a big point about one of the arrested men being the grandson of Francis Scott Key, draping the flag of patriotism over the grandson. That is the kind of rhetoric used in neo-Confederate literature. Repeated references to Tawney  as chief justice, completely obscure the fact that he was not acting as chief justice, and the spring court did not issue an opinion in the case. There was no mention of his record as the most prominent judicial leader in the fight for slavery.  There is no mention of his rejection, in the Merryman decision, of the notion that the nation was in dire danger from traitors.  That is the kind of bias that one expects from "Marilyn my Maryland" attitudes.  Rjensen (talk) 10:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The only thing "emotionally charged" has been your language. The premises of "Maryland, my Maryland" do not make for biography. There are many things in history not detailed in this already overlong article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you both fail to distinguish between interesting questions of democratic procedure and constitutionality and 'siding with the Confederacy' (as illustrated by your continued use of the term "neo-Confederate"). Piledhighandeep (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Page size
I came to this article to close a RFC. But one thing I noticed is the the size of the article. It takes a bit to load. Its currently at 85kb of readable prose. I have no stake in the article, but perhaps splitting some of it off to daughter pages might be a good idea because of its size. WP:SIZESPLIT AlbinoFerret  02:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations
Congratulations on making it to today's listing on the "Did You Know..." section of Wikipedia Main Page. The process of making it the listing takes a bit of effort and involves the quick cooperation of many editors. All involved deserve recognition, appreciation, thanks and applause.
 * Best Regards,
 * <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 3px 3px;"> Bfpage &#124;leave a message 12:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2015
}}
 * battles=Black Hawk War and Civil War

50.250.138.58 (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ No coherent request was made. Please make a request in the form of "please change X to Y" or "please add X" to the appropriate section. Thanks.--JayJasper (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

THIS needs work
This is poorly written, and missed many personal details about his life including being a country person born in a log cabin, and the personal thoughts about him Please consider a rewrite. There are many other wonderful sources. 69.254.202.3 (talk) 02:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: health section
I understood that Lincoln is suggested to have had Acromegaly, rather than Marfans as stated in the article, based on his appearance and some of his medical symptoms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.49.108.135 (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sources? References?  To include such a claim, Wikipedia requires Verifiability, to Use reliable sources and all that.  Shearonink (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2015
The intro section says: On April 15, 1865, six days after the surrender of Confederate commanding general Robert E. Lee, Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth, a Confederate sympathizer.

However, it should say: On April 14, 1865, five days after the surrender of Confederate commanding general Robert E. Lee, Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth, a Confederate sympathizer. Lincoln died the next day, April 15, 1865.

2602:306:33CB:3FC0:F41C:DA30:B08A:D30A (talk) 10:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

❌ - he wasn't assassinated until he had died, which was April 15 - Arjayay (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with the request and disagree with the reason it was rejected. Booth did nothing on April 15th to Lincoln, his act of shooting Lincoln occurred on April 14th.  The common understanding is that he assassinated Lincoln when he shot him, just like Kennedy was assassinated when he was shot not when he was later pronounced dead in the hospital.  For instance, Assassination of James A. Garfield says Garfield was assassinated when he was shot on July 2, 1881 not when he died in September of that year, and both Assassination of Abraham Lincoln and Ford's Theater, etc. state that April 14th was the day of the assassination.  An assassination is the action that causes the death, there are no sources or references that state the assassination took place on April 15th.  This date should be changed to April 14th. Shearonink (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ See article. Shearonink (talk) 18:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2015
The second-to-last sentence in 'Historical reputation' reads, "Today's U.S. Predident, however, seems to be promoting a sympathetic resurgence for his predecessor, Lincoln." Please correct the word "Predident" to "President". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.88.48.187 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 6 September 2015


 * Done. Vsmith (talk) 02:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Grammer Mistake
In the 7th paragraph of the Family and Childhood section the sentence "Abraham became an adept as using an axe wearing a pink toto " has a grammar mistake. The "as" should be an "at" for the sentence to work, i.e., "Abraham became an adept at using an axe". The sentence could also be rewritten, e.g., "Abraham became an adept with an axe" or "Abraham became adept with an axe".

Anosmiac (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)Anosmiac
 * Done. Vsmith (talk) 02:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I marvel at the irony of "Grammer [sic] Mistake" from an editor concerned about grammar. :)  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  08:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2015
Please add Abraham Lincoln University School Of Law" under organizations or wherever you see fit.

Link to their website http://www.alu.edu/

This is 20 years old law school that honors Abraham Lincoln

Raz klinghoffer (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: I have honestly no idea where that would fit in, there's likely a bunch of institutions connected to subject, but that does not mean they deserve mention in the article. And Abraham Lincoln University has an article. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 10:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2015
can i edit this page

Hihills123 (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Abolished slavery?
Abraham Lincoln did not abolish slavery. Slavery was abolished by the 13th amendment, which was proposed and ratified by US senators. Lincoln did issue an emancipation proclamation, but this didn't actually free any slaves. The four slave states still in the union were specifically guaranteed as exempt from the proclamation; the proclamation only applied in states where Lincoln had no authority until the war ended (rebel states). It seems like this should be removed from the intro to the article. Lincoln was great, but I don't think we should misrepresent a man who once said; "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 (applause); 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."Pwoodfor (talk) 08:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Lincoln was the primary sponsor of that constitutional amendment – better see the movie! by the time it was ratified in December 1865, slavery had been abolished almost everywhere because of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, for which he gets full credit. To say the Emancipation Proclamation did not free any slaves is a very serious misunderstanding: it freed some on the date was issued, but month after month year after year it freed the slaves everywhere except in certain specified areas of the border states. Rjensen (talk) 10:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Grammatical error in article
Hi, I'm new to this and I don't know why I can't edit the main article page - anyone able to explain this to me? In any case the typo is in this sentence "During his term as President of the United States of America, His wife was known to cook for him often. Since she was raised by a wealthy family, her cooking abilities were simple, but satisfied Lincoln's tastes, which included, particularly, imported oysters.[75]" The "h" in his should be lower case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bybyaz (talk • contribs) 07:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Bybyaz (talk) 07:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2016
Hello, I am an aspiring historian and I would be pleased to be editing this page with my knowledge I don't want to ramble on here so I'm ending this now.

38.140.59.74 (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ This is not the right page to request additional user rights.

OF interest
Individuals watchlisting this page may find the following discussion of interest: Articles for deletion/Mary Lincoln Beckwith. Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk) 23:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2016
Please change spelling in link from Marfan's syndrome -to- Marfan syndrome because this is the universally accepted term. Note that the link (Marfan's syndrome) is a redirect.

2606:A000:4C0C:E200:F501:1A09:1431:2F25 (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

✅. Good catch. Thanks for bringing that to attention. --JayJasper (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Why nothing about the attempt to steal his body?
The grave-robbing attempt in the late 1800's, and reburial. That episode, being unique among the presidents, deserves an entire section in the article.Starhistory22 (talk) 07:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Added Archives
I will add 29 access-dates and 8 archive urls to the citations in this page. Details: -- Tim 1357  <sup style="font-family:Times new roman; font-size:small;">talk| poke  15:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Added access date for https://books.google.com/?id=yyvmcMsNnB4C&pg=PA222, (see diff when it was first added to article)
 * Added access date for https://books.google.com/books?id=xJuXT1sVhFcC&pg=PA388, (see diff when it was first added to article); Added archive url too
 * Added access date for https://books.google.com/?id=EADk9ZIMJXEC&pg=PA110, (see diff when it was first added to article)
 * Added access date for https://books.google.com/?id=tPqgC3RS-7sC&pg=PA420, (see diff when it was first added to article)
 * Added access date for http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200510/lincolns-clinical-depression, (see diff when it was first added to article)
 * Added archive url for http://www.foodtimeline.org/presidents.html#lincoln, (see diff when it was first added in article)
 * Added access date for https://books.google.com/?id=JcEVAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA77, (see diff when it was first added to article)
 * Added access date for http://abrahamlincolnsclassroom.org/abraham-lincoln-in-depth/abraham-lincoln-and-internal-improvements/#imc, (see diff when it was first added to article)
 * Added access date for http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/lincoln-resolutions/, (see diff when it was first added to article)
 * Added access date for http://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/object.cfm?key=35&objkey=19, (see diff when it was first added to article)
 * Added access date for https://books.google.com/books?id=tKb8PBhNESYC&pg=PA932, (see diff when it was first added to article); Added archive url too
 * Added access date for https://books.google.com/books?id=Vi8aAQAAIAAJ, (see diff when it was first added to article)
 * Added access date for http://www.nationalreview.com/books/owens200403251139.asp, (see diff when it was first added to article)
 * Added access date for http://www.whitehousehistory.org/whha_about/whitehouse_collection/whitehouse_collection-art-06.html, (see diff when it was first added to article)
 * Added archive url for http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/house-passes-the-13th-amendment, (see diff when it was first added in article)
 * Added access date for http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/13thamendment.html, (see diff when it was first added to article)
 * Added access date for https://books.google.com/?id=3EQcT7-Dpi0C&pg=PA80, (see diff when it was first added to article)
 * Added access date for https://books.google.com/?id=4b8m7cv3wTIC&pg=PA335, (see diff when it was first added to article)
 * Added access date for http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/12/presidential-proclamation-civil-war-sesquicentennial, (see diff when it was first added to article)
 * Added access date for http://www.ipl.org/div/potus/alincoln.html, (see diff when it was first added to article)
 * Added access date for http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Lincolns-Missing-Bodyguard.html, (see diff when it was first added to article)
 * Added access date for http://news.yahoo.com/report-first-doctor-reach-shot-lincoln-found-175353998.html, (see diff when it was first added to article); Added archive url too
 * Added archive url for http://www.lincolnfuneraltrain.com/html/funeral_train.html, (see diff when it was first added in article)
 * Added access date for https://books.google.com/?id=59ZtBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA84, (see diff when it was first added to article)
 * Added access date for https://books.google.com/?id=59ZtBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA108, (see diff when it was first added to article)
 * Added access date for https://books.google.com/?id=KCM50uZMsQMC&pg=PA84, (see diff when it was first added to article)
 * Added access date for http://www.acu.edu/sponsored/restoration_quarterly/archives/1990s/vol_38_no_2_contents/martin.html, (see diff when it was first added to article)
 * Added access date for https://books.google.com/?id=VGF3wbzzy9QC&pg=PA322, (see diff when it was first added to article)
 * Added archive url for http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2009/05/was-lincoln-dying-before-he-was-shot/17955/, (see diff when it was first added in article)
 * Added archive url for http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/01/10/obama-inaugural-bible-kennedy-king/1821363/, (see diff when it was first added in article)
 * Added access date for http://www.nebraska.gov/poi/general-info.html, (see diff when it was first added to article)
 * Added access date for http://www.nps.gov/moru/historyculture/index.htm, (see diff when it was first added to article)
 * Added access date for http://www.alplm.com/, (see diff when it was first added to article)
 * Added access date for http://www.fordstheatre.org/home/about-fords, (see diff when it was first added to article)

Noted historians - Thomas Lincoln article
I worked on the Thomas Lincoln article three years ago, before I knew not to group citations at the end of a paragraph. There are also places where multiple sources are cited unnecessarily. So, I am going through and making changes to address those issues in the article.

It would be helpful, though, at the same time to use noted historians for references. Would someone mind taking a look at Thomas Lincoln and seeing if there is someone used as a source that should not be. For instance, Carl Sandburg often has good detail about AL's life. Would he be considered a good source - or is it better to use a more modern historian?

It would seem to me that people that may be included as good sources are:
 * Michael Burlingame (historian)
 * David Herbert Donald
 * Doris Kearns Goodwin
 * David Hackett Fischer
 * Allen C. Guelzo - unless the points at Allen C. Guelzo mean that his use as a source re: Calvinism should be questioned (that's the only place he's used in the article)

I don't know about
 * Carl Sandburg - someone I've considered a noted Lincoln biographer, but I don't know the extent to which his positions may have been discounted by modern historians - use him, particularly for details
 * Charles H. and Mary Coleman may use him - this is a self-published book, so I think we want to replace it, right?
 * Don Davenport - ok for locations
 * Bradley R Hoch
 * Ward Hill Lamon - I think I've seen that historians have discounted some of his points, but I'm not sure
 * Brian Thornton - author of 101 things you didn't know - fact check with Burlingame
 * Herndon's Informants: Letters, Interviews, and Statements about Abraham Lincoln by Wilson, et. al.
 * some others just used once

Your input would be greatly appreciated to help improve the article!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sandburg is early 20th century and is quite good on details but misses or ignores larger picture. Yes, do use him -- readers can easily find his books at thir local public library. My opinion of * Bradley R Hoch = not useful; Don Davenport = ok for locations; Coleman is a good historian (Chair of the Department of History at Eastern Illinois University) and can be used ok; Ward Hill Lamon = negative --all his good ideas have long ago been used by Sandburg, Beveridge, Randall & others; i would use Brian Thornton = for fun stuff only and then doublecheck w Burlingame--he makes lots of mistakes. * David Hackett Fischer seldom writes about Lincoln. Guelzo is old fashioned but ok on Lincon and good on religion. in my opinion.  Rjensen (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's very helpful - I added comments in underline, and struck out the ones to replace above - just so I can keep it straight.


 * Fischer wrote Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America and it's used as a source twice in the Thomas Lincoln article. Once about the Lincoln's intermarriage with Quakers and another time about Nancy Hanks Lincoln being superior to Thomas Lincoln. It sounds like I should find a different source for that info - or remove it if I cannot find one. Is that right?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Never mind, I'll replace Fischer.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Fischer, he's a major scholar.  Avoid Herndon's Informants -- that's all primary sources & hard to evaluate. All the good material in it is in the main biographies. Rjensen (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. Thanks a bunch!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thomas not Abe's biological father - Rumor allayed
While Thomas was clearly Abe's familial father there issome evidence that he was not the biological father, e.g. there are discussions that Thomas was castrated before puberty (at 10) and unable to father children.

Troy Cowan, Quora, 11/28/15 cites Emanuel Hertz, The Hidden Lincoln from the letters and papers of William H. Herndon, Blue Ribbon, Inc. 1938, pg 176

This then leaves an open question of who Abraham's biological father was. Troy mentions Samuel Davis..

This online source document NIU Lincoln / Net, items 673, 674 describe Enloe's denial and substantiate Thomas's inability..

These are murky facts and add little to an appreciation of Lincoln's life. Still they should be documented somewhere. The |Early Life main page - Unproven Rumors] is reasonable, but not visible in the Early Life section here.

The [|Presidents African-American Heritage - Lincoln] section contains similar information.

BTW: the Quora link above is about Lincoln's Mother. If you open it and it resolves to Clinton, something went wrong. The link works for me.

LarryLACa (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what your point is.
 * The Quora linkage is a user-edited discussion board and does not qualify as a reliable source so that basically cannot be used on Wikipedia.
 * The lincoln-live linkage is to a single letter dated 1889 from Charles Friend to William Herndon (not the most reliable of biographers) containing many unsubstantiated rumors and hearsay. The one unequivocal statement is by Abe Enslow stating that he was not Abraham Lincoln's father.
 * By the way, the date of the letter is also somewhat problematic, since it was written in 1889 some 24 years after Abraham Lincoln's death. Charles Friend is recollecting times, places, people from probably 30 or 40 years in the past.
 * Now as to the claim that Thomas Lincoln was possibly "castrated":
 * All I can find in the lincoln-live reference is:
 * "I heard a Cousin of my fathers Judge Jonathan Friend Cessna(*) say that his father Wm Cessna(*) say that Thomas Lincoln could not have been Abes Father for one of Thomas' testacles was not larger than a pea or perhaps both of them wer no larger than peas,..."
 * So. There is nothing in that source that states Thomas Lincoln was castrated, meaning that testicles were cut-off, removed, or suffered severe damage. Charles Friend, the speaker/letter-writer, is saying that he (while probably a child or young man) heard a cousin of the speaker's father - this Judge - say that his (the Judge's) father said that maybe one or both of Thomas Lincoln's testicles were small. Maybe at least one. Maybe both....so therefore he could not have fathered Abraham Lincoln, but this is not true in and of itself.  The smallness of a man's testicles don't prove that a man is sterile. Besides, this "testimony" is hearsay at best, not even a good oral tradition or history.  It's the speakers' recollections of what the speaker's relative said that the relative heard the relative's father assert. At some point in the past. But we don't know when. Or how often.
 * (*) - comment: Jonathan Friend Cessna lived from 1804-1885, William Cessna lived from 1776-1866, Thomas Lincoln from 1778-1851. The judging as to the size of Thomas Lincoln's testicles would had to have taken place at least 38 years before the letter was written, spoken about by William Cessna at least 23 years before the letter was written, and remembered by Jonathan Friend Cessna at least 2 decades after the fact,
 * Historian Edward Steers, Jr. dissects the various rumors and assertions that collected around Lincoln's legitimacy in Chapter Two - "Lincoln's Father - The Paternity of Abraham Lincoln" - of his book Lincoln Legends: Myths, Hoaxes, and Confabulations Associated with Our Greatest President. His building upon the work of William E.Barton and Steers' own scholarship in laying forth the various claims and seeing if they stand up to careful scrutiny should lay any questions about Thomas Lincoln actually being Abraham Lincoln's father to rest.
 * Frankly, in my opinion, the various assertions mentioned in your post above have no place in Abraham Lincoln, I think the "rumors" section in the Early life article is sufficient.  If you disagree, I suggest you open up an WP:RFC on this talk page to see what the consensus from the editorial community is. Shearonink (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with Shearonink, and for the record, I will note that the whole of the section is bloated, so someday I hope some great and bold editor really takes their editing pen to it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Shearonink--leave it out. Rjensen (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

To all who have contributed to this talk page, my sincerest Thank you! When I opened this item, I had let myself be provoked by rumors. In the contemporary landscape of dis-information and 'false' news, the need to rebut what is not true, and find that rebuttal easily, is becoming as essential as digesting the base information itself. If I had been able to find a page where this rumor (among many more) was refuted, this would have been a trivial discussion. LarryLACa (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

McClellan 1864 election.
The articcla says, "While the Democratic platform followed the "Peace wing" of the party and called the war a "failure", their candidate, General George B. McClellan, supported the war and repudiated the platform". But every source I've ever read states that McClellan vowed to end the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:B845:4D50:0:0:0:48 (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Most officers "vowed to end the war", but was McClellan actually opposed to the country going to war initially? After the stunning defeat at Bull Run, Union morale was very low. Lincoln signed two bills, each authorizing the enlistment of 500,000 men, a million men. McClellan was instrumental in organizing the new recruits and turning them into soldiers and in the process restored morale. This doesn't seem to add up to the idea that McClellan opposed the war. It would seem any high ranking officers who openly opposed the war would not be chosen for important command positions in that war. Seems like easy math. Unless there is a RS that says in no uncertain terms that McClellan "opposed the war", we can safely assume he was behind the Union war effort. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abraham Lincoln. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/62a8J9jOa?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whitehousehistory.org%2Fwhha_about%2Fwhitehouse_collection%2Fwhitehouse_collection-art-06.html to http://www.whitehousehistory.org/whha_about/whitehouse_collection/whitehouse_collection-art-06.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2017
Popcicles1 (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No request made. You need to suggest a specific edit. Vsmith (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Infobox photograph - recent change
The infobox photo was recently changed from File:Abraham Lincoln O-77 matte collodion print.jpg to File:Abraham Lincoln head on shoulders photo portrait.jpg - I changed the photo back to the matte collodion print. I know that this print has a greenish tinge to it but it seems to me the detail is so much better than other versions I've seen. Let's discuss etc. Shearonink (talk) 04:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I apologize. I should've asked first. The green tinge bugs the crap out of me, though. The detail isn't anything, it is the EXACT same image, only not green. Dpm12 (talk) 22:06 PDT, 6 April 2017


 * N worries - I can see how the color could be off-putting. It does appear to be the exact image but the collodion print is much sharper in its details and the other ones seem like they're a bit fuzzy to me.  I guess old prints - depending on the materials used - can vary widely in color. Shearonink (talk) 05:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Maybe someone could do a color correction on the green tone? __209.179.9.46 (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2017
1) In the lede, the last sentence of the first paragraph ("In doing so, he preserved the Union, abolished slavery, ... and modernized the economy.") should be changed to, "In doing so, he preserved the Union, paved the way to the abolition of slavery, ... and modernized the economy."

2) In the section 1860 Presidential nomination and campaign, the last sentence of the first paragraph, ("His biographers added that he had a:") should be changed to "A biographer...". 209.179.9.46 (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅ Justin Namen (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Nancy Lincoln's heritage - DNA study
An IP user added: "DNA testing in 2015 has proven that the mother of Nancy Hanks was in fact Lucey Hanks Sparrow. The mitochondrial DNA haplogroup is X1c, very rare in Britain." to Nancy Hanks Lincoln heritage, but I am only finding a few sources for this, this book, this USA Today article, LEX18 tv. This is the DNA study results.

There's also this book that says she's the illegitimate daughter of Anne Lee Hanks.

If it is true that DNA proved her heritage, I am surprised that there is so little information about this. Do you have any insight into this issue?–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln​
What was his fav part of being president Crtnrgrs (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2017
Ishaan11 (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC) He died in April
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Izno (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Abraham Lincoln. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/62a5gtE9P?url=http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/lincoln-resolutions/ to http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/lincoln-resolutions/
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/62dB0ccYV?url=http://lincolnat200.org/exhibits/show/alwayshatedslavery/peculiarinstitution to http://publications.newberry.org/lincoln/exhibits/show/alwayshatedslavery/peculiarinstitution
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/62dBlWFGi?url=http://lincolnat200.org/exhibits/show/alwayshatedslavery/speaksout to http://publications.newberry.org/lincoln/exhibits/show/alwayshatedslavery/speaksout
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/62aAPoA6B?url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/12/presidential-proclamation-civil-war-sesquicentennial to http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/12/presidential-proclamation-civil-war-sesquicentennial
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/62dM1T7zn?url=http://www.ipl.org/div/potus/alincoln.html to http://www.ipl.org/div/potus/alincoln.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/62aAqLOzq?url=http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Lincolns-Missing-Bodyguard.html to http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Lincolns-Missing-Bodyguard.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Removal of flags and insignias from multiple info boxes
User Huberthof has been getting around these past couple of days with his newly created account, and seems to be on this mission to remove flags and insignia from numerous articles, mostly those of American military people. This users cites a guideline about flags in infoboxes (which btw says nothing about insignia), but ignores the fact that every guideline stipulates "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.". Famous military people are such exceptions. Other editors have taken exception to this apparent mission to remove flags and insignia, mostly from the articles of prominent Americans, as evidenced on Huberthoff's Talk page. Imo, we should return these items to the infoboxes. Some of these articles, like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant, etc have had these items when they were approved for GA and FA status, with no issues all of this time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2017
Under Early Career and Militia Services, cite Abraham Lincoln University for quote "I studied with nobody." www.alu.edu/about/ Under Gettysburg Address (1863), cite Abraham Lincoln University for Gettysburg Address date. www.alu.edu/about/ Carabou87 (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: the sources provided in this request are


 * 1) unnecessary & redundant
 * 2) not any more reliable than the sources already backing up the content. Shearonink (talk) 03:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2017
Dtherocket26 (talk) 06:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  07:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2017
Abe Lincoln was in the Republican Party. 66.182.80.8 (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2017
This is not just a change request, but an open letter to Wikipedia Management.

Why is Abraham Lincolns' political party not listed as "Republican" when he was the first Republican in office? Many cannot help but see Democrats are trying to cover up their history as the Slave Owner's Party with the current political climate of Democrats calling for the removal of statues of their founding fathers. Is Wikipedia also rewriting history? 76.91.13.115 (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do not use the edit request template for this purpose. Instead, please use Contact us. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * How about reading the article (which says he was a Republican) and also the Southern strategy article while you're at it, and assuming good faith instead of spouting off conspiracy theories?

Ian.thomson (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Lincoln was a Whig Party politician for many years. He was elected President as a Republican in 1860 and re-elected on the Union Party ticket in 1864, with Democrat Andrew Johnson as his running mate. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2017
Abraham Lincoln was elected as a Republican. The wiki box that pops up with his main information lists his party as National Unity Party. This is incorrect. My source - whitehouse.gov and every other history book. 2601:58B:4200:6A7F:6D55:B919:3F62:FA76 (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Asked and answered above. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 18:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Presidency section titles and organization
I was wondering if the Presidency section titles need to be more encyclopedic rather than academic. Should the titles be more chronological and follow the chronology of the Civil War ? There really is no title that specifically says American Civil War. Does the Presidency section need to be reorganized ? Other editor opinions welcome. Thanks Cmguy777 (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I made some minor changes to two titles and added "Union military" for context. I don't want to make any major edits to the article, just tightening things up a bit. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I added this source I added information using this source. I understand the article is fairly large. I put information I believed essential to the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk of Compromise
I have the utmost of respect for User:Rjensen; indeed, I doubt I have ever disagreed with any edit of his before this. I'm not reverting, however, because I would like some other input. After all, perhaps I am mistaken.

I came to this article the other day finding the following sentence leading of the second paragraph of the lead section:


 * Lincoln's victory prompted seven southern slave states to form the Confederate States of America before he moved into the White House—no compromise or reconciliation was found. 

I found this a bit awkward. The comment about no compromise being found was 100% accurate, but it seemed to presume that the reader already knew that attempts at compromise had been sought. But this is the lead section, and no such assumption is warranted. So I changed it to this:


 * Lincoln's victory prompted seven southern slave states to form the Confederate States of America before he moved into the White House, despite efforts to find a compromise that would keep slave states from seceding.

I thought (and still think) that this is an improvement upon the previous version, as it provides some context to the failure to find compromise, because it states outright that there were such attempts, and even provides a link to the most famous attempt, the failed Crittenden Compromise. However, today I find that the esteemed Professor Jensen has changed it to this:


 * Lincoln's victory prompted seven southern slave states to form the Confederate States of America before he moved into the White House. Talk of compromise led nowhere as polarization made secession a reality. The South demanded independence; the North said never.

Furthermore, the edit summary for the above reads, "no compromise".

The edit summary was what caught my attention. Had it been almost anything else, I would have seen an Rjensen edit and left it alone, knowing that it was surely excellent. But the "no compromise" summary made me wonder. . . could it be that I was being called out for inaccurately stating that a compromise had occurred? So I read the edits, and came to the unhappy conclusion that I had been misunderstood, and that the resulting edit was perhaps not as good as my imperfect efforts. Here are my thoughts:
 * First of all, I think it quite clear that, whatever the edit summary changing my work implied, it was quite clear from my version that "no compromise" was achieved, and therefore this edit summaries muddies the water more than clears them.
 * Secondly, the line, "Talk of compromise led nowhere as polarization made secession a reality", inserted here, makes it sound like this polarization took place only after Lincoln's election, when as we all (including Professor Jensen) know that this polarization was building for decades (though at a much greater pace since the advent of the Republican Party, and especially the appearance of Lincoln as its nominee the summer previous. So I suggest that this wording may not be the best.
 * Finally, the line, "The South demanded independence; the North said never." sounds like it was a dialogue between two single voices. But there were many voices in the North, as there were in the South.  The number one demand of the South was not independence, but rather, an assurance that the perpetuity of slavery would never be challenged.  There were many persons from the South, including members of Congress, who would have gladly accepted some version of Crittenden and thus given up independence.  But there were people from the North who felt that Crittenden gave up too much to the South.  Some historians would assert that Northern resistance to compromise was greater than Southern.  So I do not like the words, "The South demanded independence", because that was far from a universally held position.

I would like to suggest a new (and improved) version for the words under discussion here. Here it is:


 * Lincoln's victory intensified the determination of many Southern leaders to leave the Union. Congress turned its efforts toward averting secession and possible war by finding a compromise to keep the South within the Union, but two days after voting down the Crittenden Compromise, South Carolina announced her secession. Exactly a month Before Lincoln's inauguration, a peace conference met in Washington DC, failing to find common ground, and two days'' before Lincoln's swearing in, the Corwin Amendment was actually passed by Congress and submitted to the states for ratification.  But it was too late, as seven states had already seceded and formed the Confederate States of America.

Any thoughts? Un sch  ool  20:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I actually was trying to compromise with Unschool :) The article is about Lincoln not about the history of secession generally, which is well covered elsewhere.  Historians (like Craven, Randall etc) in the 1930s argued compromise was possible and blamed blundering generations for not getting there. [see https://www.google.com/search?q=blundering+generations+1930s&oq=blundering+generations+1930s&aqs=chrome..69i57.3052j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8] Since the 1950s the consensus among scholars is that no compromise was possible. Timing here is key: CSA formed in Feb 1861 and from that point on there was zero support in 7 CSA states to return to the union thru any sort of deal. Independence or death--and the CSA held that policy to the bitter end in 1865.  No compromise was possible in the CSA. Border slave states were bitterly divided with moderates saying that the was not really a lot of "Northern Aggression"--these moderates wanted a compromise for their own benefit, not to get the CSA to rejoin USA. The North did not have many different voices by Feb 1861--there was no significant support for allowing secession. The key here was the move of conservative Democrats to denounce secession as illegal (Buchanan and esp Stanton). Rjensen (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The article is about Lincoln not about the history of secession generally
 * I think this point of yours is the most salient one to be made, and I confess that I had lost sight of that. In that light, details like Crittenden are probably unnecessary in the article, and certainly unnecessary in the lead. Might I have your leave to attempt one more version that takes into account the epiphany you have provided me?  Un  sch  ool  21:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I hope the current version meets with your approval. Un  sch  ool  01:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Is the pronunciation really necessary? Maybe it's because I'm American, but it's my impression that the pronunciation of "Abraham Lincoln" is fairly universally known among English speakers, which would mean the pronunciation should be removed per WP:LEADPRON. Nloveladyallen (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2017
I want to edit this 123456Jake (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Padlock-dash2.svg Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request.  JTP (talk • contribs) 15:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2017
The segment "paved the way to the abolition of slavery" should read "paved the way towards the abolition of slavery". Rufushenry (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I didn't find the wording "paved the way to..."; I only found "paved the way for...", which is probably better anyways. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Illinois House Of Representatives [Infobox]
Periodically, President Lincoln's four terms in the Illinois House is shown in the infobox, and later it will be removed. Is there any sort of consensus on his initial public service, or will the infobox continue to go back and fourth with no sign of consistency? -- Sleyece (talk) 14:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it should be in the infobox rv chronologically - as it was for most the life of the article, and as it is central to his career - he spent more time there than any other. (just FYI, it is still in the infobox but was recently strangely, hidden collapsed at the bottom of the infobox). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I added back the office. I doubt it was removed on consensus since the information was somewhat hidden in the the source. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2017
Please let me edit to add more information to make this page better,I will not ruin this page i will help it. Sfgserg (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Your request is blank or it only consists of a vague request for permission to edit the article. It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected article; however, you can do one of the following:
 * If you have an account, you will be able to edit this article four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other articles.
 * If you do not have an account, you can create one by clicking the Login/Create account link at the top right corner of the page and following the instructions there. Once your account is created and you meet four day/ten edit requirements you will be able to edit this article.
 * You can request unprotection of this article by asking the administrator who protected it. Instructions on how to do this are at WP:UNPROTECT. An article will only be unprotected if you provide a valid rationale that addresses the original reason for protection.
 * You can provide a specific request to edit the article in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing the article will determine if the requested edit is appropriate. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 19:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)