Talk:Bixby letter/Archive 1

Oxford reference
I had heard that a copy of this letter is posted on the wall of an English department at one of the colleges at Oxford, as an example of the best kind of written English. Can anyone confirm? Am I completely mistaken? beekman (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The article now addresses this tale. —Mrwojo (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Citation
This article could use external citations. Here is one that discusses Mrs. Bixby herself and the evidence for Hay's authorship of the letter: 141.157.47.163 (talk) 11:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please be bold and add them! Wikipedia allows everyone to edit. KnightLago (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Article name
Shouldn't this article be named Bixby Letter? That would be more concise and would improve the look and utility of alphabetized article lists. -- Janeky (talk) 02:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and moved it from Letter to Mrs. Bixby to Bixby letter, which is the most common name judging by the sources we've cited. —Mrwojo (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Category
Can we not have a category called Lincoln's letters? How does one create a category? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.250.242.249 (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Creating a category is pretty easy. Add to the article. It'll appear but as a red link. Click on that link and add the category to other categories (such as   ). And that's it. FAQ/Categorization is a categories FAQ for editors that's probably a good place to start to learn more.


 * However, we probably shouldn't create a category unless it will have more than one member. Are there any other Wikipedia articles on Lincoln's letters? —Mrwojo (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sound file
I mean no personal offense to who created the sound file of a reading of the letter, but frankly it adds nothing to the article. It is read very flatly, too quickly, and with zero affect. There are moments when it sound as if the reader loses his place for a moment or two. Anyone who arrives at the article is able to read the text. Even blind people who use computers have text-reading software, and in my opinion the file is no better than a computerized rendering of the letter. Sound files and images are supposed to enhance an article beyond what it would be with the text alone. Sorry, but this sound file fails to do that. I would like to remove it, so I am posting this message to get other opinions. If someone else can create a sound file of superior quality, I certainly would like to hear it. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 03:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, the wording in the sound file differs slightly in a few places from the text presented in the article and in the facsimile image. Compare text / sound: "to beguile you from the grief" / "to beguile you from any grief", "thanks of the republic" / "thanks of a republic" (possibly, difficult to hear), "cherished memory of the loved and lost" / "cherished memory of those loved and lost".  I would agree with removal or improvement. —Mrwojo (talk) 05:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Desertion vs Unauthorized Absence (AWOL)
There appears to be an issue with a claim of desertion by one of the Bixby sons (the first listed, Private Arthur Edward Bixby). On two separate occasions a user named Cresix has reverted edits to the effect that rather than desertion this was unauthorized absence, at most.

Cresix' last reversion note said: "Two problems with this edit. First and foremost, it is unsourced." It is not. The source is the Uniform Code of Military Justice where desertion and unauthorized absence are defined, and the relevant section and article were supplied within the text. There is no higher authority on the subject.

Cresix goes on: "Secondly, it is unnecessarily detailed. This is not an article on military code." The reason for the detail is that Cresix reverted an earlier edit which was less detailed.

We cannot have it both ways. More importantly, there is a policy issue here. Desertion is a very strong offence and a slander on the reputation of the soldier and descendants. There does not appear to be any conviction before a military tribunal, and on the facts as known no prosecution could have succeeded as a matter of both fact and law (UCMJ article 85). Until we have a reference to a conviction for desertion, it would be better to note the unauthorized absence and leave it at that.

As to the law and facts, being underage Pvt. Bixby could not legally contract to serve in the army, especially against the wishes of the parents; and if his letter of discharge was issued before he absented himself, he could not be charged with desertion. However, until the letter of discharge arrived he might be listed as AWOL (although no prosecution for that would succeed, either).

More discussion can be seen in the edit which therefore has been reverted for now. It may be necessary to refer the page for arbitration and/or protection; under these circumstances I'd like to call for some kind of arbitration before a reversion war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdoradus (talk • contribs) 08:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with changing to AWOL (but see my caveat below), but we don't need your lengthy essay about military code, per WP:WEIGHT. This is an article about a letter, and it is a short article. It is inapppriate to add that much detail on a matter unrelated to the topic of the article. Feel free to cite the military code (see WP:CITE), but don't go into all the detail in explaining it.
 * I also have a second concern: Are you basing your conclusions on the current military code, or the one in place during the Civil War? If it's based on the current code, what evidence do you have that it was the same during the Civil War?
 * And finally, I think it is rather premature to call for page protection over a simple content dispute until it can be seen whether or how it is resolved. If you and I had been edit warring for days and violating 3RR left and right, I could understand that, but right now I think that's overkill. Cresix (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right, we don't need a lengthy essay. We only need to state what is actually known, which is unauthorized absence. Or find some evidence that he was actually convicted. Good luck on that. I don't like the detail either. I only put that in because of the prior reversion.


 * Citing the definition in the UCMJ was convenient, but if it avoids an otherwise necessary arbitration, keep the AWOL and strip the UCMJ references. Without evidence of conviction it's the definitions you need, for the elements of the offence. All the same your point about the UCMJ vs the contemporary code is a good one. But what was contemporary, the code at desertion or the code when caught? Articles of war expressly said desertion had no statute of limitations, so Bixby could have been tried under the 1806 or 1874 code depending on when caught.


 * I felt the main issue was whether Arthur Bixby could be considered a deserter after his letter of discharge. The short answer is he can't under either modern or contemporary law. Some reference had to be made because of the earlier deletion.


 * Should that reference be a law in force today, which modern mortals might understand, or one of several which might have operated at trial? The modern UCMJ goes back to the turn of the last century when Congress revised the 1806/1874 Articles of War. Those old provisions for desertion had to be gathered from several places, at one point articles 28, 29, 39, and 58 to 60. (Article 29 in particular was pointedly read to every enlisted man).


 * UCMJ at least has a concise 'desertion' definition. The contemporary law did not. There was a concise definition of AWOL (article 61) - another reason for preferring that to 'desertion' - but a lot depended on traditions unwritten, although well known to JAG and the courts. Especially, as Lindley Garrison put it, "soldiers have the benefit of the settled and accepted construction that a discharge from an enlistment operates to terminate amenability before courts-martial for offences committed during that enlistment". Thus, soldiers who absented after discharge were not liable to prosecution.


 * On the whole I'd still refer to the modern code. The meaning of quite basic notions has changed and would be unfamiliar to a modern reader. For example, implementation of the Articles by the US (not the Confederacy) during the Civil War was done by the so-called Lieber code. That was not a code at all but a set of instructions issued as a general order which make chilling reading. It justifies some punishments by reference to a vague "Law of Nations" for example - 'international law' in modern terms.Sdoradus (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't claim much familiarity with military code or Bixby's status, but I know something about how Wikipedia works. If his military status is stated in the article, it needs a source to back it up from his time, not today (if in fact those differ; I don't know). Today's military code may be an interesting point of discussion for this talk page, but if it is not clearly relevant to the information in the article, it should not be the source for statements in the article. That being said, in that there was no sourcing before we began this discussion, I see no harm in designating his status as you see appropriate; I certainly can't claim to know what I'm talking about. But unless we know for sure what the military code was during the Civil War, we can't use today's code as a source. In short, it should remain unsourced. The article may be more accurate, but the sourcing hasn't improved. As always, Wikipedia is a work in progress. Thanks for the clarification. Cresix (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. If it's a question of sources, on the whole the best is the 101 Articles of War issued by the first Congress (in 1806, cribbed from the equivalent British articles) - together with general order 100 (the Civil War's Lieber Code). It avoids the issue of defining desertion by prohibiting punishment except on conviction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdoradus (talk • contribs) 09:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Mrs. Bixby's motives
You fail to mention that Ms. Bixby's letter was an application for benefits paid to widows and orphans at the time. Ms. Bixby's husband had died years earlier, and her sons were the only up-keepers of the family farm. Ms. Bixby hoped to fraudulently gain veterans benefits to support herself. Lincoln knew that Ms. Bixby hadn't lost five sons...he had access to the war records. There's more to be read in Lincoln's letter than is on paper. It was brilliant smart-ass reply to Ms. Bixby effectively denying her request. Lincoln knew she did not lose five sons in the war. He was effectively tell her that the "honor" of her sacrifice should be compensation enough. I brilliantly engineered letter to shoot down her fraud attempt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.206.206 (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Mrs Bixby had already been receiving a pension for son Charles, who had been killed at Fredericksburg, for several months when she had her meeting with Schouler in September 1864. See here. Her husband had been a shoemaker and she lived in Boston during the war, not a farm. We don't know why she met with Schouler, since he never mentioned it's purpose because it wasn't germane to what he was writing about. Libertybison (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Also your proposed scenario about Lincoln's motives makes little sense; if he or anybody else suspected fraud, why bother even sending a letter from the President or printing it in a newspaper? Libertybison (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

George Bixby
has repeatedly changed information about the identify George A. Bixby but has never provided a source that unequivocally backs up the claim or justified removal of a legitimate source that was already in the article. His edit summaries have included websites that do not support his claim, such as a FindAGrave link that provides no useful information, or a book on genealogy that discusses "George Way Bixby" but provides no proof that this person is the same as George A. Bixby discussed in the article. I have asked Libertybison to discuss here. Sundayclose (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * George Way Bixby, the son of the widow Lydia Bixby, was a private in Company B of the 56th Massachusetts Infantry. This is supported by the 2 inline citations already used for the information on the Bixby sons before I made any edits; (1)Basler and (2)Lincoln Legends by Steers & Holzer. Removing the Basler source citation was not done intentionally. The Bixby genealogy book {link just added} was a reused citation from elsewhere in the article because the birth & some death information about the Bixby sons weren't in Basler or Steers and thus were unsourced. It specifically states that this is the same Bixby family, has the text of the letter, and the military units of the other sons match the ones in the article. It also lists George's military unit as B Co. 56th Mass. Infantry (as does the Bullard book). As I explained in the edit summaries- the rank, unit, and dates of service used for George in the article come from this other soldier buried at Richmond National Cemetery.
 * Libertybison (talk) 07:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Sundayclose, I've twice asked you to please come back here to discuss my response to your post above regarding this matter. I'm going to go ahead and make the changes described above. Libertybison (talk) 05:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Dallas museum copy
I believe I originally wrote this paragraph:


 * In 2008, a Dallas museum found a document in its archives that may be an authentic, handwritten government copy of the letter. The Dallas Historical Society is having the document appraised. According to Alan Olson, curator for the Society, the paper and ink appear authentic to the Civil War era. Some Lincoln experts doubted the authenticity of the document, citing the large circulation of copies distributed since the 1890s and the unlikelihood of an official copy being made of such a letter.

Nearly two years later and no follow-up stories according to Google News suggests to me that it's not notable. —Mrwojo (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's my two cents. The issue may still be unresolved and still under investigation. A source from March 2010 states that "Attempts to authenticate the letter led to a wide variety of pro and con opinions". I have no idea about how it's authenticated, or how much margin of error there is among the experts. It may be that there will never be complete agreement. I personally think that the possibility that it is authentic justifies leaving it in the article as long as the caveat about authenticity remains. If it stays here, however, I wouldn't want it to get archived and forgotten. New sources may turn up. Cresix (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem like he's asserting anything more than what the original Dallas Morning News story said (pro: authentic paper/ink, con: lots of copies exist, etc.).  Within the context of that section focusing on this particular claim gives it undue weight. Perhaps mentioning it briefly alongside other newsmaking claims, such as the old copy from Huber's Museum and possibly this story from 1902, would provide better context? —Mrwojo (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that a brief mention in the context of other related news items would be OK. Cresix (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I recall reading some time ago that the copy of the Bixby Letter found by the Dallas Historical Society turned out not to be authentic after the tests were conducted. However, right now I can't seem to find any follow-up articles on the internet of the results of the testing after the initial 2008 announcement by doing. The closest thing I could find to a follow-up was this undated interview of Michael Burlingame (probably from 2009) where he mentions it as a copy and not an original (or an extra copy made by the Administration). However it's not clear if he knew the results of the tests that were conducted or was basing his statements on his historical knowledge of the Lincoln Administration's process of making copies of letters. I'm sure it wouldn't take 7 years to conduct the tests, even if the results were inconclusive. It also would be impossible (and extremely expensive) for it to be continually being appraised now all these years later. If it had been authenticated I'm sure there would have been another announcement or release to the press and multiple online articles written. Libertybison (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Edward Bixby death?
The 04 Jan. 1909 death in Chicago of Edward Bixby remains unsourced. The Bixby Genealogy only suggests the possibility that it might be him in a footnote because of similarity in age and because that Edward Bixby was also "born in Massachusetts". None of the other sources say he died in 1909. Also it may be somebody else. I can't tell just by looking at that page, but I did notice that the image of the death certificate there only has a squiggly line going through the space for birthplace. So the Bixby genealogy seems to be wrong in it's suggestion that the 1909 death record may be Edward because he was "born in Massachusetts". Libertybison (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

25 November 1864 Boston Traveller article title
The following is copied from the Help Desk page for reference Libertybison (talk) 02:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC) --
 * I've recently been making a lot of improvements to the Bixby letter article. In it I've cited an 1864 Boston Evening Traveller article. However I cannot make out one of the words of the title by looking at the image scan of the article by GenealogyBank.com, the website I used to view/read the article. (The website doesn't seem to have, or I can't find, permanent links I can use to add a url to the citation.) Is there some Wikipedia policy/suggestion for this problem? I tried looking for one and couldn't find anything that seemed to relate. For now I've just omitted the illegible word, but should something like [illegible] be written in it's place? Any advice on this matter would be much appreciated Libertybison (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If someone can dig up a rule or precedent for this, fine, but I suspect there isn't one -- in which case, "do what you think would best serve the reader" would be operative. Speaking for myself, I would replace the illegible word(s) with [illegible] (like that, in square brackets). Using - might lead the reader to believe that the dashees are in the title, simply omitting it without space would give an incorrect title, using several spaces would be confusing, and omitting the title altogether is unnecessary redaction of useful data. That's my opinion, though; you're doing the work, you get to decide. Herostratus (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I would then probably follow up by contacting the BPL or the Massachusetts Historical Society to see if they have microfilm or originals which could be consulted to determine the missing word. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  21:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and . I've decided to use a [?] to designate the illegible word. I'll also note it on the article talk page. If you'd like, I can copy this conversation here to the article talk page for future reference. Libertybison (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  02:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The mystery of the illegible word was solved with this later post to the Help Desk thread Libertybison (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC) -
 * According to this book, the missing word is "Israel", if that's any help. It makes sense in context; it's a reference to Judges 5:7. &#8209; Iridescent 18:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This is wonderful I had tried to search for the missing word yesterday and couldn't find it. Never thought of searching google books. Thanks. Lourdes  16:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Bixby letter facsimile.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Bixby letter facsimile.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 21, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-11-21. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Son Arthur's death in Chicago?
Find A Grave usually cannot be considered as a reliable source because all of the information provided for memorials are user generated and often unattributed (see WP:RS). In fact, unusually, Arthur's memorial page is one of two that claim the same 1909 grave. You can see the other memorial here. Also, the note on Arthur's memorial page on the date of the discharge attempt is incorrect, it was in October 1862; five months after he deserted.

The notion that he died in Chicago in 1909, comes from a footnote in the 1914 Bixby Genealogy book where the author suggests the possibility that the 1909 grave is son, Arthur Edward because he was "born in Massachusetts." You can see it here. If you look at the link to the other memorial above, there's an image of the death certificate but there's just a squiggly line where the birth place should go.

That memorial also has links to the journal of the Cigar Makers' Union that paid for the burial in 1909 (for the article mentioning payment for his burial, see here; for other mentions before his death see here and here) referring to Edward being from Iowa. The Edward/Edwin from that memorial page was also from Iowa, so it seems pretty likely that both he and the Edward in the grave are the same person. Libertybison (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Tobin and Huber's Museum
All the sources say that Michael F. Tobin first produced the forged copy of the Bixby letter in 1891 when he applied for a copyright. Then "soon after" Huber's Museum began displaying a copy of it and selling their own copies. But they're all sort of vague and nonspecific of exactly of when exactly Huber's did this (ie "around 1892"). The copy of Tobin's print, which he provided to the Library of Congress when submitting his copyright application, is here on their website. The copyright was granted for the image of the text with an image of an engraving by John Chester Buttre of Lincoln above it. So isn't it possible that Huber's Museum was first and Tobin made his version from one of their copies? Does anybody know if there are any sources from 1891 or earlier that mention Huber's either displaying a copy of the letter or selling copies of it? Libertybison (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC) According to this, Tobin also sold copies of Robert E. Lee's Farewell Address. Does anyone have any more information about this or any other lithographic copies of letters sold by Tobin and if any of them were forgeries? I'm just saying it would make more sense if Huber's was first and Tobin copied them, at least if there isn't any evidence of Tobin selling any other forgeries. Libertybison (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * After my previous post above, I looked more closely at one of the sources which stated that Huber copy of the forgery corrected the spelling of the word "assuage" from the Tobin version of the forgery. ("Assuage" is not misspelled in the original Boston newspaper articles reporting the letter.) So logically, the Huber version must have been copied from the Tobin version. I already made the edit to reflect that several months ago, but I thought I should mention it on this thread for any interested readers/editors who had the same question I did. Libertybison (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)