Talk:Abraham Lincoln/Archive 8

Him being gay
Where is that in the article? Falconleaf 03:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to ask that question as if it were an established fact that Lincoln was gay. That is not the case.  There have been rumours and speculation, that's all.  There's a reference to this debate at the end, linked to this sentence: "It was in 1837, that Lincoln met his most intimate friend, Joshua Fry Speed.[10]".  JackofOz 03:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The mention of Joshua Fry Speed seems to have disappeared. I see that there is a wikipedia article about this, Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln. I wonder why it is not linked from this article. --Timtak 01:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe because that is the most unencyclopediatic piece of crap every written. I love the part on the talk page where an editor says that in a few years more and more material will be fleshed out on this topic. Yeah right, in 5 years their will be film footage of ol' Abe with his ass piston partners who he "shared a bed with" on youtube, right? Give me a freakin break. I thought I had seen it all in this project until I can across that piece of dog crap article. Unless you have explicit photos or a sworn statment from one of Abe's lovers, thats garbage, and has ZERO business here, imho. Again, it ain't about the truth in here but verifiability by reliable sources it seems. --Tom 02:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Lincoln was violently hated during the war and the most terrible things were said about him. But even then no one ever said he was gay. It's a 20th century invention. Rjensen 02:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No! That can't be, could it? Anyways, I going to strike the above since I am not usually that pissed off but I saw this article yesterday and flipped out today. I am going to bed, enough! --Tom 02:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've restored the link to Speed. There is no scholarly, detailed biography on Lincoln, whatsoever, that does not mention Speed.  We are not here to censor just because a topic is touchy. Wjhonson 02:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You say that like the lightbulb shouldn't have an article because it's a 20th century invention. There's plenty of published reputable sources on the topic of lincolns sexuality, the fact that it was not controvertial then is a matter of changing scholarly concerns, not validity. Lotusduck 22:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Article as of now states "It was also in 1837 that Lincoln met his most intimate friend, Joshua Fry Speed" with no other details seems at least slightly imbalanced to me. They shared a bed for four years at least as young men so at expanding on the friendship would seem in order. As to being gay even gay people did not openly use that term (or many others) because homosexuality was an even bigger taboo than it is now - and people are still killed today for being gay so being entrenched in a highly constructed society back then meant you followed certain protocols like keeping your bedroom door closed and business private. Personally I wouldn't be terribly surprised either way, gay or not, we may never know or some diary or letters or proof might surface, time may tell. Benjiboi 09:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The amount of space devoted to this friend is comparable to the amount devoted to Mary Todd Lincoln. It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss the details of every significant person in Lincoln's life -- many of whom, such as Ann Rutledge, are not even mentioned. Tom (North Shoreman) 17:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Length of the Intro
I removed the unnecessary heading "Lincoln Presidency in History", but I agree with the sentiment apparent in the person who inserted it. The intro needs to be pared down, and the information found in it synthesized into other sections.K. Scott Bailey 16:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I see your point. I had another go at it.  Edeans 18:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Use of "Elected"
While it's common usage in current parlance to say a president was elected on "Election day" Lincoln wasn't elected president until the Electors of each state met and sent their results to Washington. When the results were tallied and read in front of a joint session of congress, he was elected. Rebsiot 07:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Review
I'll look it over in more detail tonight, but can someone either find a source for the fact tag or get rid of that part of the lead/reqrite that part?-- Wizardman 17:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * McPherson in "Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution" makes the point that Lincoln was instrumental in shifting the focus of American Liberty from negative liberty (i.e. freedom from government intrusion) as embodied in the Bill of Rights to positive liberty -- the utilization of the government to expand, in McPherson's words, "notions of equity, justice, social welfare, equality of opportunity." (page 64). In Lincoln's words (from his July 4, 1861 speech to Congress), the war was "a struggle for maintaining in the world, that form, and substance of government, whose leading object is, to elevate the condition of men -- to lift artificial weights from all shoulders -- to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all."


 * Harry Jaffa in "A New Birth of Freedom" looks at the same speech from Lincoln and concludes that it is consistent with Lincoln's consistent position, in Jaffa's words, was that "the Declaration of Independence had formed the 'sheet anchor' of American republicanism." (page 399) Jaffa concludes that this is a specific rejection of the Southern conception of republicanism in general and Calhoun's philosophy in particular.


 * While I did not write the phrase in question, it seems like the above provides specific support for the claim that a significant change in the concept of the role of republican government had changed. I will add the footnotes as soon as I'm finished here. Tom (North Shoreman) 20:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not sufficient to find a source that seems to deal with this "redefining republican values" - it needs to be fleshed out in the article what this is supposed to mean. It is not appropriate to have it in the intro if there is no explanation AND it is not even in the main article--JimWae 04:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point by JimWae and so I tried to flesh out the republicanism theme with citations--brieflt in the lede and in more depth in the text. Rjensen 04:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA
A very long article, but under-referenced. Work towards over 100 cites for such a well known figure. WikiNew 21:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hanging
The section on the hanging is not vandalism. Obviously Lincoln's body wasn't used as it is federaly protected. A figurine of Lincoln was used in the hanging. This section was added by me, but was deleted by someone else most likey because of Political Correctness. And I thought that Wikipedia was supposed to be unbiased. --Mark D. 04:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The number one reason is that you did a copy and paste, that is clear copyright violation. Number two, this is an event that took place just as something to do, and was posted on Keene Free Press, whatever that is. So really, it this has nothing to do with being unbiased. It is information that doesn't need to be added. If we were to add everything that involved someone doing something with Lincolns name, this article would be endless. This is an encyclopedia.--Kranar drogin 04:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This information is relevent, I only copied and pasted the bloody charges, which can't be changed. But, whatever, I am totaly over this crap, obviously Wikipedia has gone bad, to politicaly correct. Now I know why the educated and the educators don't view Wikipedia as an acceptable source.--Mark D. 07:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually was looking at this discussion page because I am upset by how biased and innaccurate the article is. Lincoln was not a strong opponent of slavery, nor a defender of Republicanism. There should be a large list of criticisms about Lincoln as he is very unpopular among a large contigent of the population. Fragility 16:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement. There are several books that document proof that Lincoln was not concerned about abolishing slavery, but preserving the Union. Also his belief in "colonization" can easily lead to this conclusion. Destroying habeus corpus during the war is also never mentioned. This article is clearly biased and needs to be adjusted to reflect legitimate criticisms. Keith K. 14:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This article is biased and often inaccurate. Hopefully a consensus can be built to bring the article closer to the documented record. Gwen Gale 20:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that brings about a very interesting question. A huge amount has been written about Lincoln - just in the academic press alone (a generally respected source as far as encyclopedia articles go).  How do we accomodate all the various academic views?  Rklawton 20:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And that's a helpful question too. Maybe this could be done with sub-sections, within the existing sections, each dealing with a different take on AL, as fitting. Gwen Gale 20:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Do we support all published academic views equally or just those accepted by mainstream academics? And how do we tell the difference?  Rklawton 20:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All published academic views should be included (WP:V). The strong PoV of mainstream academics can be given sway in the overall narrative (WP:WEIGHT), the research of dissenting historians should be mentioned and cited. Gwen Gale 07:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

lincoln sexuality in see also
I have reverted the removal of Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln from the see also section. The person who removed it said it was not relevant to this article. An article about Abraham Lincoln is relevant to the central article on Abraham Lincoln.Lotusduck 23:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The article in question is beyond a piece of dog crap and that is being nice. The help section also says " See also WP:NOT Please note that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so see also sections should only include links directly pertaining to the topic of an article and not large general pieces of information loosely connected (or not at all connected) to the subject." That garbage is WAY beyond "loosely connected". Don't you want this project to be taken HALF seriously? If so, you'll seriously consider removing that trash. Thanks, --Tom 12:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur per WP:NOT, specifically WP:SOAP. Djma12 (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Simply discussing the fact that some revisionist historians (I do not use "revisionist" here as a pejorative, but rather in its technical sense) believe Lincoln may have had homosexual inclinations in a separate article, linked in the "see also" page violates either WP:NOT or the more specific WP:SOAP. It's certainly not given any undue weight, being relegated to a link in the "see also" section.  And the article is most certainly NOT "beyond a piece of dog crap" by any means, and calling it such is not "being nice." It clearly violates WP:CIV to speak so pejoratively about other editors hard work.K. Scott Bailey 21:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you bring up a good point. What is our threshold of evidence concerning revisionist (again, not perjorative) histories on Lincoln?  Such a well-known public figure has literally hundreds of various theories about him, very few of which are encyclopedic and worthy of note.  Simply b/c one historian published a book on the topic does not necessarily make it worthwhile.  What is required is several supporting independent sources. (Note: articles about the book do not count.)Djma12 (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have seen speculation in more than one place regarding Lincoln's sexuality. However, I do not wish to take a hard position in this discussion, as it's not an area of expertise for me, and I currently have my hands full over at James Buchanan with a similar issue.  Ironically, I'm perceived as on the other side of this same debate there, though that's not my position at all.  As for what the standard should be, I would say that a "vocal minority" would do, as long as the speculation was well-sourced per WP:REDFLAG.K. Scott Bailey 22:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The article on lincolns sexuality conforms to every wikipedia standard, including Soap Box since it's all attributed to multiple reputable published sources including the NY Times. An article sourcing that many experts in the field writing about Lincolns life is connected to an article on lincoln, far more than the article also in see also "list of lincoln/kennedy coincidences" is.75.161.139.51 14:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Lotusduck

Because one disagrees with a certain premise doesn't mean a topic shouldn't be covered or included, your opinion of the article's quality isn't relevant, I don't think. Clearly it is connected, the article is titled "Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln". IvoShandor 17:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on our discussion relating to policy the link will be re-included. The support of some users is cool, but of course wikipedia is not a consensus and adherence to policy trumps trying to get everyone to agree.Lotusduck 02:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I still think you need to demonstrate WP:REDFLAG concerning this. What are your sources and why are they extraordinary? Djma12 (talk) 02:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What on Red Flag applies to this article? The claim is well known, I've never heard a lincoln biographer appear on television and not be asked their position on these ideas. The article has 22 reliable sources including the new york times. The article does not make any claims disupted by the academic community, it discusses attributed disputes in the academic community--there is a difference. Lotusduck 02:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah right, every Lincoln biographer is asked about Lincoln's ass piston partners? Please give it a rest. This is obviously a case of agenda pushing. Just come clean that the agenda here is to give some sort of creedance to the rumor/gossip that Lincoln performed homosexual acts. Get some good glossies of him in action and then link the article. Until then its still dog crap and there are a bizzilion other web sites that would love this bull. Cheers, --Tom 13:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to be arguing this in the wrong place. Articles should link to other article about the same subject. Lincoln articles should have links to other Lincoln articles. If you have a problem with the Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln article, you need to edit that, or discuss on its talk page, or AfD it. For one thing it would be useful if those with access to biographies of him to provide more information about his relationship with his wife to aid the balance of that article. WjBscribe 13:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I am arguing this in the right spot. People with an agenda are pushing to have that article linked to this. Just because they share the same name in the article does not mean it automatically or deserves to be linked. This is well poisoning by association. Why is so important that this other article is linked here? --Tom 14:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To aid navigation between related articles. The point of the "see also" section is to link related articles. In this case other articles about Abraham Lincoln are clearly relevant and the reader should be made aware that there is more content available on the subject of "Abraham Lincoln". And please assume good faith about your fellow editors, you are making rather strong accusations. WjBscribe 14:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There are currently only seven references in the "See Also" section. In the category page “Abraham Lincoln” there are 92 different articles referring to Lincoln.  I was under the impression that this was the primary avenue for making a reader aware that there is more content available on the subject of Abraham Lincoln.  The category page is intended to be all inclusive whereas the “See Also” obviously is not.  I would think that the point of this discussion should center on whether this single article about the opinion of primarily one non-biographer and non-historian merits special reference, in and above the other 92 articles on the category page.  Tom (North Shoreman) 15:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That would make too much sense and be too reasonable. I, on the other hand, would like to get back to the agenda pushing issue here and would like editor(s) to come clean on WHY it is so important to have this article linked under "See also" rather than listed as a category of Abe? Thanks, --Tom 15:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think I mostly started this, and I am "coming clean" and explaining why this belongs in see also, other than that most people agree-- It belongs in see also because this page is largely a lincoln biography, and sexuality of abraham lincoln centers on several written biographies of different viewpoints on the subject. It is also a subject of controversy featured on many political news discussion shows on radio and television. Ease of navigation is important because Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln is not the term anyone would assume to type into wikipedia. If someone were looking for that article, they would read the section here on his early life first. And so, nobody has accused you of having an agenda, in accordance with good faith, likewise nobody has removed the list of kennedy-lincoln coincidences and accused whomever put it there of having a supernatural conspiracy agenda. The article on Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln is based on the work of biographers and historians, and more biographer and historian articles could be sourced for it, according to a quick peruse of what google scholar gives me on the subject. You are the last hold out on this issue. I feel the talk page has resolved that the link be included, except for you. So seriously cut it out.Lotusduck 17:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not sure who you are talking to, but to say that this is "featured on many political news discussion shows on radio and television" is beyond a stretch. Not every fringe theory that can't be proved needs to be linked to this article.--Tom 18:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Including myself, I come up with three people at least contesting the link. Contrary to your claim, there should be no problem finding the article using the wikipedia search. Someone typing in "Abraham Lincoln gay" in the wikipedia search will come up first with "No page with that title exists", but when you then search the words from that page  "Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln" is the first article that comes up.  If you use "Abraham Lincoln sex" for the search it is the second article that comes up.  Not to mention the fact that, as I've noted earlier, the article can be identified from the "Abraham Lincoln Category" page. Why should this one article be specially listed when all of the 94 other relevant articles are not? Tom (North Shoreman) 23:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Accompanied, as it is, by several eruptions of intemperate language, I don't get Tom's point for deleting the link. User convenience ought to be one of the desirable editorial criteria. It's a convenience thing, Tom, and your charge of agenda-pursuit is not only discourteous but wrong and irrelevant. CoppBob 04:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually the agenda pushing about this is VERY relevant. Having that fringe theory article in the category Abe Lincoln is more than fair. Every fringe article should not be listed under "see also". Should I repeat more slowly? Again, until I see the 5 by 8 glossies of Abe in action, that article is beyond fringe, imo. --Tom 13:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The other users (as well as yours) concerns have been addressed, and they have essentially consented. This is you against both policy and other users. Your criteria for "fringe" is not relatable to policy, guideline or common sense. The New York Times and many other news sources that have written on the topic at length are not fringe. If someone was looking for this information they would first read the biography in this article. There are then essentially two simple and convinient options for navigation: a see also link to sexuality of Abraham Lincoln, or a sentance referencing the scholarly debate on lincolns letters etcetera with a link to that page. In the meantime, even if you had an argument that worked with policy, it is not okay to repeatedly revert going against the talk page conclusion.Lotusduck 18:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wiki policy is to go with the experts, who have rejected these claims. Let's keep the junk history out. Rjensen 18:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please cite to the exact policy to which you refer. "Junk History" to my knowledge is not anywhere in our policies.  Secondly, that it's junk history is your own personal opinion, not shared by others, including reliable sources. Constant harping on the issue isn't going to change anything.  It's here, it's staying.  That should be apparent by now. Wjhonson 20:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Historian Richard Brookhiser (footnote number 1 in the Sexuality article) has this to say about the book:


 * “Tripp died in May 2003, after finishing the manuscript of this book, which means he never had a chance to fix its flaws. The prose is both jumpy and lifeless, like a body receiving electric shocks. Tripp alternates shrewd guesses and modest judgments with bluster and fantasy. He drags in references to Alfred Kinsey (with whom he once worked) to give his arguments a (spurious) scientific sheen. And he has an ax to grind. He is, most famously, the author of The Homosexual Matrix. Published in 1975, it was a document of gay liberation. Since the other president sometimes thought to have been gay is the wretched James Buchanan, what gay activist wouldn't want to trade up to Lincoln? Still, obsession can discover things that have been overlooked by less fevered minds.”


 * While he doesn’t actually say “junk history”, he comes awfully darn close. None of the historians, even the two who contributed to the introduction and one of the “afterwards” to the book, attempt to argue that Tripp actually made his case.  There is not a single historian (these would be the most reliable sources I would guess) quoted (there are probably about 10,000 or so works on Lincoln to choose from) that claims Lincoln was gay.  The discussion of Lincoln as potentially gay has been around for about 15 years according to Tripp.  Considering how many books by historians have been written during that time about Lincoln, the silence on the subject by professionals is deafening.


 * I agree that the Tripp work warrants its own article. I have yet to see, however, anyone address my question concerning why this article warrants special attention in the “see also section” above the other 94 articles that also refer to Lincoln (I think some folks are mistaking my comments for another editor who also signs himself as “Tom”).  I am sure that it is possible to overwhelm this discussion with folks who want to expand Tripp into the main article, but that doesn’t change the fact that historians overwhelmingly either disagree with, or ignore, Tripp’s conclusions. Tom (North Shoreman) 22:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Wiki rules insist on reliable sources. Many experts say Tripp is UN-reliable and none say he's reliable. Including him violates the basic Wiki rule. Rjensen 23:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Your uncited opinion on many, most, some or anything else is just that. There is no "basic Wiki rule", you should read the policies we have and cite them if you're going to try to use them. Finally your red herring argument is just that, Tripp is not the sole authority in this area, and you know this. We've been over it many many times. The reference is not going to go away. So you need to figure out how to live with it. Wjhonson 06:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And Tom when you say that Wikipedia has 94 other articles which "refer to Lincoln" do you actually mean to state that we have 94 other articles which are "completely about Lincoln" ? Because if you do I, for one, would certainly like to see that list of 94.  In fact we should have a  if that's really the case.  Now if you really meant "refer" than I would submit that Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln is in a class entirely relevant to this article as it's entirely about Lincoln, not merely referring to him. Wjhonson 06:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a Category:Abraham Lincoln -- top right hand corner of the main article. Like two other articles from that page, Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream and The Real Lincoln, Tripp's work falls into this type of fringe Lincoln "scholarship" -- it exists so let's acknowledge its existence, as we've done, without giving it a prominent place in the main article on Lincoln. Tom (North Shoreman) 12:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Red flag
Don't think WP:REDFLAG can apply to the link to another article. You might apply that policy to question the content of the other article, but it seems natural for articles about subject X to link to other articles about subject X. There is no claim being made by the "see also" link. Its just a link. I suggest you take up problems you might have with Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln on that article's talkpage. WjBscribe 03:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation Link
Should it say "other persons named Abraham Lincoln" when in reality it links to Lincoln-related events and other various non-specifically person related pages? Brett 03:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone is changing dates... Apparently Mr. Lincoln is going to be born in the future.

His views on freeing the slaves
Why was the link Abraham Lincoln on slavery deleted? --Uncle Ed 19:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am the one that deleted your work. The following is what you added:
 * "Lincoln expressed his opposition to slavery, from his first public statements in 1837, and never wavering.He recognized that the whole country did not share his views, and he did not force the issue. The closest he came to compromising his views came during his debates with Douglas, where he subordinated the cause of Abolition (slavery) to the principle of maintaining the Union.''
 * In actuality Lincoln was silent on the issue of slavery for much of the time between 1837 and 1854. Since he never proposed, until the Emancipation Proclamation, the abolition of slavery it is inaccurate to label him as an abolitionist even though Lincoln always thought slavery was wrong. In fact if you go back to 1837 you will find that he spoke out against abolitionists. In the Lincoln Douglas debates Lincoln was maneuvered into making many statements that, by today's standards, are racist, but the issue of subordinating the slavery issue to preserving the Union didn't really arise until after the war started (perhaps you had the exchange with Greeley in 1862 in mind). Tom (North Shoreman) 19:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your edit, and for sharing your opinion about Lincoln's life. Can you provide a source for your assertion that he "silent on the issue of slavery for much of the time between 1837 and 1854"? If it's true, there must be countless of sources that would back that up, possibly even using the exact same words you did.

I added my two cents after seeing a list of quotations, dated during that period. In fact, the one that got me going was (hold on to your hat) in protest of a measure against abolitionists. I hope it's not "original research" to parse a double negative.

Anyway, I won't revert your change, since you were kind enough to explain it. --Uncle Ed 19:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * When you referenced 1837 I assumed you were referring to the instance in which Lincoln indicated that abolitionists tended to aggravate rather than alleviate tensions over slavery. From 1837 until 1854 the two major public speeches of Lincoln were his congressional attacks on the Mexican War and his later eulogy on Henry Clay which did mention Clay's views on slavery -- although I believe he  probably would have spoken out regarding the Wilmot Proviso.  My intent was to differentiate Lincoln's career during this time period from Free Soilers and actual abolitionists in the 1840s who were starting to make slavery a primary focus of their politics.  It was really not until Kansas-Nebraska that Lincoln chose to direct his focus in that area. Tom (North Shoreman) 20:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln was far from silent on the issue of slavery between 1837 to 1854. http://www.nps.gov/archive/liho/slavery/al01.htm

Although Lincoln could never be called a true abolitionist during this time I believe Uncle Ed was correct to state, "Lincoln expressed his opposition to slavery, from his first public statements in 1837, and never wavering."


 * If you check out the link you provided you will see that the site happens to also skip right from 1837 to 1854. I have also already clarified what I meant in my original statement. Tom (North Shoreman) 19:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * PS What is the deal with deleting part of my earlier statement? Tom (North Shoreman) 19:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not delete anything. I did not touch the article.

I just wanted to make the point that claiming Lincoln was "slient" on salvery from 1837 to 1854 is not correct. He made numerous statements during that time period and not to get to anal about this but the fact is, if Lincon made just one public statement he could not be called "slient" on the issue. http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/slave07.htm