Talk:Abraham Lincoln/Archive 6

Alleged Separatism/Racism
There have been quotes hemaning from Lincoln wich suspected him of being racist, notably:

"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 demagoguism as this?" September, 1859, Springfield, IL. But the more present aspect of him is his separatism. He said that multiple times without really hiding it:

In an address at Springfield, Illinois, on June 26, 1857:

"A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as immediate separation is impossible the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together… Such separation, if ever affected at all, must be effected by colonization… The enterprise is a difficult one, but ‘where there is a will there is a way;’ and what colonization needs now 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."

In the famous Lincoln-Douglas Debates in Charleston, Illinois, Lincoln said:

"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. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor 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 I believe will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality." (Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois on September 18, 1858)

I searched out the text of Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and found to my consternation that even his speech that accompanied it called for the deportation of the Blacks from America and their repatriation to Africa:

"…and that the effort to colonize persons of African descent with their consent of upon this continent or elsewhere, with the previously obtained consent of the governments existing there, will be continued." (From the emancipation proclamation issued from President Lincoln on Sept. 22, 1862)

The following are President Lincoln’s words at a repatriation ceremony in Washington, D.C. addressing the African-American community:

"I have urged the colonization of the negroes, and I shall continue. My Emancipation Proclamation was linked with this plan. There is no room for two distinct races of white men in America, much less for two distinct races of whites and blacks. I can conceive of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the negro into our social and political life as our equal… Within twenty years we can peacefully colonize the negro and give him our language, literature, religion, and system of government under conditions in which he can rise to the full measure of manhood. This he can never do here. We can never attain the ideal union our fathers dreamed, with millions of an alien, inferior race among us, whose assimilation is neither possible nor desirable. See our present condition — The country engaged in war! — our white men cutting one another’s throats . . . and then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or the other. . . It is better for us both therefore to be separated. . . You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word we suffer on each side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. There is much to encourage you. For the sake of your race you should sacrifice something of your present comfort for the purpose of being as grand in that respect as the white people...General Washington himself endured greater physical hardships than if he had remained a British subject, yet he was a happy man because he had engaged in benefiting his race, in doing something for the children of his neighbors, having none of his own. The colony of Liberia has been in existence a long time. In a certain sense it is a success. The old President of Liberia, Roberts, has just been with me--the first time I ever saw him. He says they have within the bounds of that colony between three and four hundred thousand people, or more than in some of our old States, such as Rhode Island or Delaware, or in some of our newer States, and less than in some of our larger ones...The question is, if the colored people are persuaded to go anywhere, why not there?" (address on Colonization to a Deputation of Negroes in Washington, DC on August 14, 1862).

More infos in Forced Into Glory:Abraham Lincoln's White Dream of Lenone Bennett Jr. Roger_Smith

Alleged Bisexuality/Homosexuality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_of_Abraham_Lincoln and The Sexual Life of Abraham Lincoln of Andrew O'heir Roger_Smith

2nd After Jesus
It is a known fact (well, known by me and a couple of other triva nerds, anyway) that Abraham Lincoln is the second most written about person after Jesus Christ. Should it feel necessary, I think it should be mentioned somewhere in the article.--El Niño&#39;s Brother 13:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)El Niño's Brother Edeans 07:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Well known facts" are useful if they can be documented. Find some numbers and include them! --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * hear the ghostly laughter coming from the tomb in Springfield.


 * Second most written about in the world or just in the English speaking world? Make sure you are clear on that. Lusitano Transmontano 04:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Second most written about in the world or just in the English speaking world? Make sure you are clear on that. Lusitano Transmontano 04:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln's Religion
It says that Lincoln was not affiliated with any religion. It doesn't make much sense to me that he would be an atheist because he quoted the Bible. Personally, I think Lincoln believed in God; but opinions are not what Wikipedia is about. Since Abraham Lincoln's religion is a subject of great controversy, I think it would be better if the article said something like more neutral like, "no affiliation known" instead of just completely denying that he had any faith whatsoever. JNeal 08:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Having no affiliation does not mean having no religion - it means not belonging to any religious group. His beliefs were clearly deistic, so yes, he did belive in some kind of deity. It is known that he had no affiliation with any religious group - though he sometimes attended services with his wife, he never joined any church. Deist would be the easiest to defend, but it is not really a religion - and putting it there will irritate people, especially Christians. Since it seems to have irritated you a bit, though, maybe it's time to irritate someone else --JimWae 08:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * deist does not seem right (compare Jefferson, who was a deist)...Deism had pretty well disappeared by this time, and unlike deists Lincoln had a profoundly religious sensibility--which he shared in for example 2nd inaugural. He did NOT think the world was a clock that God wound up 6000 years ago then ignored ever since. Rjensen 09:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There are several theories that he was a diest. And not all diest think of the world as a clock that God wound up and has ignored ever since.  That is an over simplification that people use to argue against it.  Diesm is better described as a rational, logic based approach towards faith that rejects the ideal of divine revelation.  To say that he couldn't be a diest because he has "religious sensibilities" is foolish. Dominic 17:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * One would think, perhaps, that one knowledgeable about deism might be able to spell it. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please remain civil and on topic. --ElKevbo 23:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Abraham Lincoln – Deist; no personal affiliation  (KY/IN/IL)
 * 2) * Life before the presidency
 * 3) **For much of his life, Lincoln was undoubtedly Deist (see, ).  In his younger days he openly challenged orthodox religions, but as he matured and became a candidate for public office he kept his Deist views more to himself, and would sometimes attend Presbyterian services with his wife Mary Todd Lincoln. He loved to read the Bible, and even quoted from it, but he almost never made reference to Jesus, and is not known to have ever indicated a belief in the divinity of Jesus.
 * 4) ** Evidence against Lincoln's ever being Christian includes offerings from two of Lincoln's most intimate friends, Ward Hill Lamon and William H. Herndon. Both Herndon and Lamon published biographies of their former colleague after his assassination relating their personal recollections of him. Each denied Lincoln's adherence to Christianity and characterized his religious beliefs as deist or atheist.
 * 5) * Lincoln's religion at the time of his death is a matter about which there is more disagreement. A number of Christian pastors, writing months and even years after Lincoln's assassination, claimed to have witnessed a late-life conversion by Lincoln to protestant Christianity. Some pastors date a conversion following the death of his son Eddie in 1850, and some following the death of his son Willie in 1862, and some later than that. These accounts are hard to substantiate and historians consider most of them to be apocryphal.
 * 6) ** One such account is an entry in the memory book The Lincoln Memorial Album&mdash;Immortelles (edited by Osborn H. Oldroyd, 1882, New York: G.W. Carleton & Co., p. 366) attributed to An Illinois clergyman (unnamed) which reads "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." Other entries in the memory book are attributed by name. See a discussion of this story in They Never Said It, by Paul F. Boller & John George, (Oxford Univ. Press, 1989, p. 91).
 * 7) ** Rev. Dr. Phineas D. Gurley, pastor of the New York Avenue Presbyterian church in Washington D.C., which Lincoln attended with his wife when he attended any church, never claimed a conversion. According to D. James Kennedy in his booklet, "What They Believed: The Faith of Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln", "Dr. Gurley said that Lincoln had wanted to make a public profession of his faith on Easter Sunday morning.  But then came Ford's Theater."  (p. 59, Published by Coral Ridge Ministries, 2003) Though this is possible, we have no way of verifying the truth of the report. The chief evidence against it is that Dr. Gurley, so far as we know, never mentioned it publicly. The determination to join, if accurate, would have been extremely newsworthy. It would have been reasonable for Dr. Gurley to have mentioned it at the funeral in the White House, in which he delivered the sermon which has been preserved. The only evidence we have is an affidavit signed more than sixty years later by Mrs. Sidney I. Lauck, then a very old woman. In her affidavit signed under oath in Essex County, New Jersey, February 15, 1928, she said, "After Mr. Lincoln's death, Dr. Gurley told me that Mr. Lincoln had made all the necessary arrangements with him and the Session of the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church to be received into the membership of the said church, by confession of his faith in Christ, on the Easter Sunday following the Friday night when Mr. Lincoln was assassinated." Mrs. Lauck was, she said, about thirty years of age at the time of the assassination.
 * 8) ** --JimWae 23:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Some great information is presented above that should definitely be sumarized in the article. I can't imagine that religion was not an important issue in Lincoln's life, even if he didn't practice any organized religion. At present, the article mentions religion twice: the vague infobox entry and one comment that appears to attribute his non-Christian beliefs to his youth. Bjart 07:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

New section re Lincoln's religious beliefs
What I have noticed is that all of the highly admired American presidents and Founding Fathers on Wikipedia are always made out to be plain old "deists" (code word for atheist among many wiki editors). Many editors prefer to input gossip, sex lstories, illegitimate children, adultery, malicious behavior and other highly dubious topics rather than focusing on the wealth of information available that deals with why these men are so important in America and their work in advancing an experimental form of government that has worked out so well, that it has been modeled by many other countries of the world. Many of these men, while they were not devout Christians, were also clearly not deists, but rather men who sought God through prayer and admonished others to do the same in order to call the blessing of heaven upon the nation. Lincoln'speeches, for example, clearly portray a man who had a sincere respect for God, believed in the value of prayer, and regularly pondered the words of the Bible, all in order to alter God's plan for humanity, a belief that many deists clearly abhorred. In addition, Rjensen, a wiki editor I rarely agree with, is a respected historian who acknowledged above that deism was not prevalent during Lincoln's day. So, Bjart, JNeal, and others: if you do not appreciate the humanist, agnostic, and atheist portrayals of America's great historical figures, help me fix that. Because most wiki editors either don't care, rampantly expound humanistic and atheistic principles, or simply arouse themselves by degrading these great men. (Gaytan 23:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

Stay tuned... Let's see how fast the opposition comes out against edits that shed some spiritual light on Lincoln. Right now, the article is practically void of any reference to the religion of Lincoln. This subject does not even merit a heading, as it currently stands, as found among this "deist" view of Lincoln. (Gaytan 23:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC))


 * While I find no significant objection to the text of the article as Gaytan has edited it (to this point in time); I do take issue with the anti-Deist prejudice that appears in the comments above. That is, the view that most or all deists are simply closet atheists, or atheists "in training"; and that to call a Founding Father or other prominent figure in our history "deist" is to necessarily insult or degrade them.  The Catholic Encyclopedia, a partisan source, does not endorse such a far-reaching and prejudiced view, for instance.   To be a deist is to by no means rule out the possibility of having deep-seated religious or spiritual feeling.  "Deist" is no more an inherent slur than the words "Jew", "Catholic", "Amish", or "Mormon".  All are an important part of the rich fabric of belief that we have here in the United States.


 * I should also note here that I do not consider the word "atheist" to be an inherent slur either. I say this not because I am an atheist myself, nor because I fear some supposed "humanistic and atheistic" Wiki-cabal, but because I adhere strongly to the principles of toleration implicit in the First Amendment.  I very strongly believe this to be a great strength of our republic, rather than a fatal weakness, as some clerics say.


 * Finally, with regard to Lincoln specifically, it is no argument to assert that because deism was not prevalent in his time, he likely was not a deist. Lincoln was one of the most unusual men of his time, or for that matter, any time.  His contemporaries said and wrote to that effect, and I sincerely doubt Lincoln himself would have disagreed.  Again, while I have no significant problem with how the edits now stand, I do note the absence of Lincoln's oft-quoted remarks on the religion of the Southern Indiana farmer, and his even more quoted remarks on divine justice in his Second Inaugural Address.  Interesting.  Edeans 21:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I now note that the referenced statement in the second inaugural does appear further up in the article in another section. Edeans 02:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The selections made are all chosen to support the claim that he was "kinda Christian" - they are all agenda-driven, by an editor who repeatedly accuses others of having an agenda - and who does not stop short of demonizing those he chooses to battle with. Meanwhile that same has removed other religious info from the article - such as that as a youth, Lincoln wrote a book making fun of religion. During elections Lincoln was accused of atheism & instead of denying it, said that he had never been a scoffer at religion. --JimWae 06:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's funny how I am accused of having an "agenda" yet those who push deism onto every Founding Father are not spoken of similarly. Well, I will say it.  JimWae, you have an agenda: to rewrite history as if religion in general was viewed negatively by all of the Founding Fathers.  I have never made any claims or made any edits that attempt to show how any of the Founding Fathers were "kinda Christian."  I have only tried to pull statements and actions from history, made by the Founding Fathers, that show that every single one of these men viewed religion in general as beneficial to humanity and government.  Admittedly, many of these men were completely at odds with organized religion (wouldn't you be if you lived just after the Dark Ages?) but they praised religion in general since it would increase the morality of the people.  Yes, I have an agenda: to show how the Founding Fathers viewed religion in general, positively.  That's all.  I am not pushing my religion, as anyone can easily find out (check out my personal Wiki page).  If you want to talk about "agendas," the biases and intolerant of several Wiki editors can be easily brought to light by simply noting the websites these editors continually rely on in order to rewrite deism into American history on Wikipedia.  One "primary source" used by these editors is http://www.positiveatheism.org/.  Isn't that an "agenda" too?  Now, let's be honest.
 * So, Edeans, I personally do not have anything against deists. But I do have a problem with atheists who disguise all of their edits behind the cloak of deism.  That is why I clearly state, that "deism" is used by many Wiki atheists as some sort of code word for "atheism". (Gaytan 19:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC))


 * By the way JimWae (that is not intended to be cute), your accusation of my "kinda Christian" agenda implies that you have no agenda, which is simply, ridiculous. If you have no agenda whatsoever, you would not have included the testimonies about Lincoln's youthful ridiculing of religion in the article without at least creating a subsection for Lincoln's religion.  Prior to my edits on this article, not one word was mentioned about Lincoln possibly viewing religion positively, though there is plenty of primary source material out there to show this.  Prior to my edits, Lincoln was made out to be a complete atheist, whoops, I mean deist.  (Please note the extreme intolerance I am confronted with whenever I try to shed a bit more light on some of the Founding Fathers and other important American figures with regard to their view of religion--Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln... and more to come; up until now, the religious beliefs of these men was not important enough to detail in Wiki, according to Wiki's atheist editors).  (Gaytan 20:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC))


 * JimWae, let's move discussion about deist prayer to your talk page under "Founding Fathers and deism". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gaytan (talk • contribs) 20:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC).


 * I am relieved to note Gaytan's express disavowal of anti-Deist prejudice. Evidently, his thinking has progressed since the time he wrote of Deism "being closer to Atheism than any major world religion", "clear deists, or almost athiests", "complete Atheist (code word used today is Deist)", and "Atheists (2006 liberal code word - "deist")" on Rjensen's talk page , as well as what appears above.  Or perhaps I just misunderstood.


 * I must, however, quite strongly agree with Gaytan that we cannot suffer atheists masquerading as deists without comment. Those who lack a belief in God or Divine Providence cannot, by definition, be deist.  For atheists to so pretend is devious, dishonest and downright cowardly.  The only other words I have on that subject is this:  such accusations of extraordinary mendacity require extraordinary proof.


 * All of this being said, I fear we may be losing sight of what should be our focus: accuracy.  On the balance of the evidence available, it would appear that Lincoln was a deist, functionally or by conviction, and remained so to the end of his life, although he apparently did admire the person and philosophy of Jesus.  Edeans 00:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have layed out why I say that some people choose to use "deism" as a code word for "atheism." I need not go into that again.  Me evidence is clear.  Instead of refuting my evidence above, I get attacked in return by stating that I have "progressed" in my thinking.  Since you bring up Rjensen, he is the one who claimed that Benajmin Franklin's Deism was closer to Atheism than Christianity, not I; I simply expanded that statement to include "major world religions," so please, get your facts straight.  I have edited important historical figures of America simply to add in how these men were God-fearing individuals; the intolerance is clearly against me since I have never made an edit that ties any of these men to any particular religion.  None of the atheist leaning Wiki editors bothered to make any positive edits regarding religion on any of these articles.  Just look at the history of this article and anyone will see this.  I was the first to include into it any positive statements Lincoln made about religion (similar to my edit history of the Founding Fathers).  Now that I did that, I get attacked.  But again, it is so ironic how these atheist editors have such a problem with my positive edits, which include quotes widely available in the public domain, yet highly dubious and negative material such as illegitimate children, adultery, fornication, and other related material is accepted without debate.  Instead of respecting these men for the great works they are recognized for around the world, they are debased over heresay. I thought Wikipedians were trying to make Wikipedia a respectable and reliable source of information, not the mouthpiece of a grapevine.  Now please, don't make me chase you on this subject.  Please continue discussion on one page, I am trying to centralize it to JimWae's talk page under "Founding Fathers and deism." Gaytan 18:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hypocrisy regarding Lincoln's religious beliefs
To illustrate some of the backwards editing style of some wiki editors regarding Lincoln and his religious view, ponder this example: I tried to remove a statement regarding Lincoln's youthful ridiculing of religion. My position was that the edit included no reference (at that time) and that he grew out of such behavior. Since then, a reference has been added and I have since left it alone. This statement is still on the latest Lincoln article under the "Early Life" section. I plan to add some context to that statement soon. Later I added a quote from Lincon himself, in which he defended himself against verbal attacks from some individuals which accused him of being an "open scoffer" of religion. This quote I added to the "religous beliefs" section without no interpretation of my own. Rjensen quickly had that quote removed because he believed it added "nothing to the article except 2007-style POV." Isn't this how most people would define as hypocritical? Rjensen will not allow Lincoln himself to elaborate on the subject of his own religion yet he has no problem with obscure atheist ideas about Lincoln "ridiculing religion" that sincerely add "nothing to the article except 2007-style POV" since they are completely based on secondary sources AND clearly contradict Lincoln's own words as found in his speeches. So it seems that if Lincoln did ridicule religion at one time, he definitely grew out of it, as is clearly evident in the "open scoffer" quote and his speeches. That is what I call intolerant hypocrisy. Gaytan 20:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * User Gaytan seems to be on a religious crusade to rewrite history to insert his own version of religion into the lives of famous people. That's OR and POV and not allowed. He should read some serious books--all the major books on Lincoln deal with his religion--instead of pasting his own views into articles. Rjensen 11:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Rjensen I'm having difficulty understanding why you removed Gaytan's addition to the article. It was a comment on the matter from Lincoln himself and was validly sourced. How does its inclusion violate either NPOV or no OR rules? WJBscribe 12:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's all I get from Rjensen everytime: "Gaytan should read some serious books" or Gaytan's "OR and POV is not allowed". All I have done with the articles on Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Benjamin Franklin is show how these men were seriously spiritual men, through their own quotes, always properly referenced.  I usually leave out any personal interpretations on these quotes so that I am not accused of "OR" (original research).  I have never tied any of the Founders directly to any particular religion.  Rjensen has repeatedly deleted my edits from these articles because it disagrees with his own personal 2007 philosophy.  He has openly stated that many of the Founders' views of religion are closer to atheism than Christianity; an erroneous assumption that several Wiki atheists masquerade under the guise of "deism".  Any Wiki editor can see that prior to my edits on any of the Founders' or Lincoln's articles, the religious views of these men were portrayed as if they were anti-religion in general or very similar to today's atheists (without explicitly stating this, of course, since they try their best to be discreet).  They failed to mention any positive statements these men made (primary sources)about religion even though the public domain is full of such material.  That type of behavior is what I call POV.  Failure to insert these men's own words to portray their religious beliefs is blatantly POV.  Yet obscure secondary and tertiary sources that portray these men as atheists is embraced by them.  I think Rjensen needs to seriously evaluate his behavior to assure his 2007 agenda is not blurring his view of history.  He conveniently leaves out parts of history (at least as it relates to religion) in order to push his own POV.  He believes he has no agenda but accuses everyone else of having an agenda.  Gaytan 21:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Gaytan doesn't get it: Wikipedia is not his personal blog or missionary platform. He refuses to read the reliable sources and insists on his own OR, which violates Wiki rules. Rjensen 21:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm still having difficulty understanding why you label Gaytan's addition as his own point of view. The edit in question appears to be a comment by Lincoln himself. Surely that is a valid addition to the article, or are you suggesting that Lincoln did not say this? WJBscribe 00:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wiki rules warn repeatedly that we can only use reliable secondary sources (which Gaytan never does) and NOT use quotes from primary sources except to illuminate that secondary source. That's because the quotes were selected to fit the preconceptions of one POV-oriented editor. Rjensen 01:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you fundamentally misuderstand WP:OR, the use of quotations from primary sources is perfectly acceptable as long as it is not accompanied by comment from editors. In this case a contraversial comment was included in the article which its subject rebutted within his lifetime. NPOV requires that such a response be included if that comment is to be seen in its proper context. Every editor has their own POV, the question is whether the article is neutral and balanced. WJBscribe 01:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the point here is that given all the primary sources available, there should exist adequate scholarly research that takes this information into consideration and evaluates it accordingly. Use these secondary sources for your edits - and then use the source material as an illustration. There shouldn't be any problem presenting conflicting scholarly points of view. Simply adding an uninterpreted illustration can be easily construed as original research. Rklawton 21:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Point is well taken, Rklawton. But Rjensen "doesn't get it".  I have added material taken from "scholarly research" and Rjensen still removes them either because it simply does not agree with his philosophy or the secondary source is not "reliable" in his view. Yet he still doesn't admit that his failure to input relevant material relating to material is POV on his part.  Gaytan 21:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The challenge here is that there's tons of stuff written about AL. As a result, you'll want to stick with the top-tier material.  If he's deleting those citations, then you've got significant grounds for complaint.  Rklawton 21:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Gaytan is not actually doing original research, I think. Instead he's using a source that he keeps secret. probably a church pamphlet or something like that. All sources have to be listed and he refuses to do that. Rjensen 22:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be a very naughty thing to do. Rklawton 22:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Rjensen has serious personal issues with people of faith. My fundamental source is the internet, most of which is full of primary source material on the Founders (all of which I always properly referenced).  I have books which I use too, which are written by various trypes of authors, religious and secular.  Yet Rjensen would have everyone believe that the secular view of the Founders, Lincoln, and other great historical figures are only accurately portrayed by the secular authors and that the religious authors are simply a bunch of wack jobs who should not be trusted.  That is what I label as extreme intolerance.  That's naughty of you Rjensen, a good left-wing intellectual, such as yourself, should know better.  Don't you think that is a bit hypocritical of you?  Anyway, Rjensen has suddenly changed his argument now.  He always claimed my edits constituted original research, now he claims my sources are not listed.  So, which is it, Rjensen?  For example, I clearly listed my source for the Lincoln quote he recently removed from this article (the "open scoffer" quote).  Anyone who is on the side of truth can easily go verify this (that is a hint for 'you' Rklawton).  Rjensen's reasoning for removing this source was simply because it didn't agree with his 2007 politics and agenda.   Since Rjensen would like to "think" that my sources come from some imaginary "church pamphlet" of some sort (typical left-wing attack on religion by the way), so I could just as well state that I "think" you are a typical elitist secretly trying to push your Marxist, humanist, debasing agenda all over Wikipedia. So Rjensen, if the "open scoffer" quote is from my mysterious "church pamphlet", why have you not tried to remove it again? Gaytan 23:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

GA Nomination
There's no tag on this talk page, so many of you might not know this, but this page has been nominated for GA. It's not going to pass, however, because of a few problems.

The prose in this article is far from compelling in places. First, there's the lead. Dissecting it piece by piece, "Abraham Lincoln (February 12, 1809 – April 15, 1865) was an American politician who was elected the 16th President of the United States (serving from 1861 to 1865), and was the first president from the Republican Party."
 * This is good. This is obviously his greatest claim to fame during his own lifetime.

"Today, he is best known for ending slavery and preserving the Union through his supervision of the Federal (i.e., Northern) forces during the American Civil War."
 * This is good too. This is his legacy, and how most of us remember him when we think of him.

"He selected the generals and approved their strategy; selected senior civilian officials; supervised diplomacy, patronage, and party operations; and rallied public opinion through messages and speeches."
 * Now it gets dicey. WP:LEAD says, "In the lead try to have a sentence, clause, or at least a word devoted to each of the main headlines in the article." and "The relative weight given to points in the lead should reflect the relative weight given to each in the remainder of the article." Now, the lead doesn't cover any of Lincoln's early life, rise to political power, or legacy and memorials, and barely talks about the actual civil war itself, but launches into talking about his administrative roles instead. True, it's very important, but if you're going to have a lead that skinny, you're going to have to pick and choose better what makes it in. Finally,

"Lincoln's influence was magnified by his powerful rhetoric; his Gettysburg Address rededicated the nation to freedom and democracy and remains a core component of the American value system."
 * This isn't covered at any length in the actual article, and though we all probably admire lincoln, the flowery speech seems to be fawning over him a little. If there were indeed a source that argues that it "rededicated the nation... &c. &c." which was cited in the article, it would be a different matter, however that section of the article is without citations.

Furthermore, this article is 80 kb long. While succinctness isn't a requirement for GA, appropriate lead lengths for an article like this are around 3 to 4 paragraphs. It needs to be longer.

Next, the "Major achievements" section comes in out of nowhere and doesn't flow well into the next main section. Now, if it were part of the lead, it wouldn't be so bad, since that's what is needed in the lead, but you shouldn't have that in the first paragraph. Additionally, it's factually inaccurate. The Emancipation proclamation had no effect on the confederacy since they had already seceeded. In fact, except for providing precedence for the 13th amendment, it really didn't have any real effect.

Finally, there are still huge gaps in citations. You can't have 30 citations for an 80,000 character block of text without some major holes. Some paragraphs are very sparsely cited, and after his assassination there are no citations.

It's certainly got promise, but it's got to be shaped up much more before it's GA quality. I think you should also think seriously of splitting this page into multiple pages and summerizing their content onto this page. That would make it much easier to work with and much easier to fix it up to GA and FA status. Thanatosimii 18:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Slave auction
"While in New Orleans, he may have witnessed a slave auction that left an indelible impression on him for the rest of his life."

This should be reworded so that it's not speculative. Did Lincoln witness an auction in New Orleans by his own account? Did he say that one left an impression on him? Gazpacho 19:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree That sentence sounds like the source is not very sure of themself

separate article on AL's religion
There's not much point in adding negatives--Lincoln did not do this, did not do that, did not believe this or that. Maybe we should have a separate article on AL's religion. Rjensen 23:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)]
 * I agree. But we still need to keep a small intro to this topic on Lincoln's primary article.  As for the religious page, who would like to begin that work? Gaytan 20:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If Gaytan would please read some of the books in the bibliography we might move along here. Start with David Donald. Rjensen 21:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln did NOT end slavery! Controversy is not vandalism
How can the editors decre Lincoln "ended slavery" as a part of the official locked page when, at best, he play a role in the end of slavery? Historians who are honest will at least admit there is controversy as to exactly what role he played. On a locked page, you should stick to that which cannot be argued based on the facts. How can you say that is an unbiased fact when there are respected historians who disagree?

You are supposed to be unbiased. Just say he preserved the Union and played a role in the end of slavery. Latter, mention that some historians disagree as to Lincoln's views on slavery and link to the controversy, which should include BOTH SIDES, including points raised by scholars who have actually read his civil war orders.
 * Controversy is vandalism when the controversy only exists in the realm of conspiracy theorists. I'm not saying that's the case in this matter, but it's an example of how "controversy" can be vandalism - and the exception is sufficient to disprove your premise.  Rklawton 03:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Historians disagree re ending slavery?? No dissenting historians have been cited on the matter. Rjensen 04:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose that depends on how you define "historian". But that was the point to my comment.  Since the controvery doesn't exist except in the realm of nut-cases, it's vandalism.  Rklawton 04:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * yes, I agree with Rklawton on this Rjensen 04:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Why sprotected?
Why is this page semi-protected anyway? It appears to have been so since October 2006. Is it still necessary? WJBscribe 01:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably because the kids are back in school, and they love to vandalize this article. Rklawton 03:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't take a historian to figure this out. The Emancipation Proclamation ended slavery only in the Confederacy; afterward, slavery was still allowed in at least 5 of the Union or Union Controlled states (including Kentucky & Maryland). It was part of Lincoln's economic warfare against the South, not a humanitarian effort to free slaves. I don't even bother citing a source, since all of the thousands of scholarly books on Lincoln discuss all this in depth. When Wikipedia sinks below the level of a 5th grade textbook, what's the point? [Unsigned]


 * And when an editor resorts to invective instead of citing a source, why argue? Wjhonson 18:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The unsigned comment is correct. The proclamation was mostly meant as an economic punishment for the states in "open rebellion." I will find a source and insert it where appropriate, if it is not already in there. : )A mcmurray 23:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)