Welcome to uiboss.com on January 8 2009.
This is an internet experiment running to monitor browsing habbits of individuals through wikipedia contents.

Talk:Abraham Lincoln

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Abraham Lincoln is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good article Abraham Lincoln was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 5, 2004.
WikiProject Echo      (German)
Abraham Lincoln is a featured article on the German Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6
Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12
Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15
Archive 16


Contents

[edit] Abraham Lincoln and depression

I definitely think that there should be a section at least partly based on Lincoln's depression. There is at least one book out on the subject called Lincoln's Melancholy by Joshua Wolf Shenk. Lighthead þ 04:05 21, March 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

I would like to add this source [1] to the {{fact}} tag about his avoidance of killing animals.Valkyrian (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

N Edit declined. Not a reliable source. Sandstein (talk) 06:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Ummm, why does the line directly quote the soulclassics comment anyway, even after it was pointed out as a poor source- but reference a statement from a book by Sandberg? Seems like someone's promoting vegan agenda, not expressing Lincoln's actual practice. What's wrong with some intellectual honesty? Lincoln would be ashamed!Batvette (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Had the jungle fever —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladampire (talk • contribs) 04:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Lincoln most likely did not suffer from depression. Any claim that he did is inordinately speculative and does not merit inclusion in an article concerning what may be known of his life and character. What is known, however, is that Lincoln suffered from a melancholic temperament, or "the hypo," as he was fond of calling it. Doris Kearns Goodwin, the author of an insightful biography of Lincoln (namely Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln) spent 10 years researching his life and found no substantial evidence to support the conclusion that he suffered from clinical depression. Dewey56 (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I, too, am not convinced that Lincoln suffered from clinical depression. But I do, however, believe that the issue merits discussion in the main article. In Dr. John G. Sotos' book, The Physical Lincoln, there is a lengthy discussion regarding how Lincoln's physical appearance may have misled others to believe that Lincoln was perpetually "gloomy" ("hypo") in demeanor. Sotos believes that MEN2B (a rare genetic disorder whose symptoms include rendering many of its victims as appearing perpetually sad) was responsible for this. Sotos estimates that Lincoln's mood was probably somewhere midway between normal (i.e. average for the population) and that of clinical depression. Sotos does not believe that Lincoln's mood was indicative of pathology, but rather that Lincoln's mood was on the low side of normal, similar to how some individuals may typically exhibit low blood pressure (say, 100/65 mmHg), which is within the range of what is considered to be "normal", but which is on the low side of that normal range. Sotos adds that Lincoln's ability to rebound quickly from his bouts of the "hypo" would, in and of itself, disprove a diagnosis of clinical despression. In any case, in my opinion, Lincoln's mood is quite relevant to the discussion of Lincoln the man. It could be stated that while Lincoln did experience several episodes of depressed mood during his lifetime that Lincoln's overall behavior, particularly as president, does not support a diagnosis of clinical depression. Wally From Columbia (NJ) (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Clinical Depression can result entirely from external factors, including stress, loss, and feelings of inadequacy. We do know that Lincoln eperienced all of those things. Instead of deciding on a rare genetic condition, why not realized that he suffered several periods of Xanex worthy depression in his lifetime. Probably his depression did not result from internal factors, (e.g. brain chemistry) and thus was not prevalent in and throughout his life. Additionally, even in the 1800's a president knew that his papers would be studied at some point, thus I doubt Lincoln would ever write down the clearer indications of depression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.165.132 (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] There is a Factual Error on the Page

The Democrats won three, not two, states in the election of 1864. (New Jersey, Deleware, Kentucky) Lillie Yifu (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


Another factual error -- the Lincoln cent pictured is not "proof quality." It can either be left at Lincoln cent, or it can be called "Uncirculated." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbspiegel (talk • contribs) 05:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)



inaccurate statement:

The Emancipation Proclamation, announced on September 22, 1862 and put into effect on January 1, 1863, freed slaves in territories not already under Union control

it did not immediately free anybody and did not free slaves in Union-loyal border states[1]:

It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control. Most important, the freedom it promised depended upon Union military victory.
Although the Emancipation Proclamation did not immediately free a single slave, it fundamentally transformed the character of the war. Cedwyn (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn
the statement is quite accurate. Most slaves were in fact freed by the Emancipation Proclamation.Rjensen (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
the National Archive says the EP didn't immediately free anybody - it was always contingent on Union victory. i'll take their word on it.

regardless, the Emancipation Proclamation did not free all slaves and the article doesn't quite make that clear. the reader is allowed to make the assumption that the EP did, indeed, free all slaves, as everyone imagines that everything under Union control was slave free, which isn't the case.

to be a neutral POV, the article should explain that the EP retained slavery in some territories under Union control. there were explicit exceptions for loyal border states and union-controlled parts of the Confederacy. Cedwyn (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

[edit] Break

The EP article makes that very clear. This article says

The Emancipation Proclamation, announced on September 22, 1862 and put into effect on January 1, 1863, freed slaves in territories not already under Union control. As Union armies advanced south, more slaves were liberated until all of them in Confederate territory (over three million) were freed. Lincoln later said: "I never, in my life, felt more certain that I was doing right, than I do in signing this paper." The proclamation made the abolition of slavery in the rebel states an official war goal. Lincoln then threw his energies into passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to permanently abolish slavery throughout the nation.

from which it is quite clear that the EP did not free all slaves. It did not retain slavery anywhere, it did not say slavery is OK anywhere - it just did not outlaw it there. If a school says that smoking is prohibited on its premises, it is not retaining smoking elsewhere - it simply lacks jurisdiction elsewhere. Few then or now would hold that the federal gov't (prior to the 13th amend) had the jurisdictional power to free slaves everywhere in the US --JimWae (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

NO states were explicitly excepted, only counties (& parishes) (with 3 cities included in those counties) --JimWae (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-In-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, and in accordance with my purpose so to do, publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days from the first day above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof, respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States the following, to wit:
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana (except the parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension, Assumption, Terrebone, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the city of New Orleans), Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkeley, Accomac, Northhampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Anne, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth), and which excepted parts are for the present left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

The slaves were legally (per US law) freed that day - the enforcement of the proclamation & the realization of their freedom depended on military advances - but not their legal freedom. --JimWae (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

isn't "not outlaw" = "retain"?


the relevant text:

and which excepted parts are for the present left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
...and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith, represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States.

that is the explicit exception for border states. because the EP specifically lists the states affected, we know where slavery was not affected: the states not named and "which excepted parts are for the present left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued." and it is not in dispute that there were loyal border states with slavery.

as was argued, Lincoln could only emancipate the areas in rebellion; the only logical conclusion from there is that he must have, therefore, left existing loyal-state slavery intact. and the article does not make this clear, as evidenced by your own assertion that the EP "did not retain slavery anywhere."

most people assume north = free and south = slave in some kind of monolith. so the article is not entirely neutral in its presentation when it uses wording such as "As Union armies advanced south, more slaves were liberated until all of them in Confederate territory (over three million) were freed."

the statement is true enough, as far as it goes. but the information, as presented, does allow the reader to continue in the north = free, south = slave assumption. imo, this is not a neutral presentation. i think the article would be strengthened by making it clear that several states retained slaves after the EP was issued, some right up until the passage of the 13th amendment.

and yes; i realize the article does mention Lincoln's pursuit of the 13th. but most people will not read the relevant passage and come away with "well, if he continued to push for a constitutional amendment to ban it, it must have still existed." most people upon reading it will roll with the implied north = free, south = slave and take the 13th amendment as a mere formality so slavery could never be legalized again. peace

67.171.145.192 (talk) 04:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

A school board does not "retain" smoking on land it does not have jurisdiction over. As an action by the commander-in-chief of the armed forces to stem a rebellion, a presidential Proclamation could only apply to states (or parts of states) in rebellion. Legality required that some conditions for what counts as being or not being in rebellion be given. Lincoln would not have been on any solid legal ground had he used any Proclamation to emancipate slaves in states that were not in rebellion. Just as he could not end it in states not in rebellion, neither had he any power to "retain" it there. Had Lincoln attempted to declare emancipation in regions where jurisdiction could be questioned, the entire proclamation would have been subject to being tossed by SCOTUS.

We cannot be responsible for interpretations by people who do not read or cannot understand the rest of the paragraph. Alternatively, it seems you want the article to state that the EP did not end slavery everywhere. Saying it did not apply everywhere is different from saying (either) it (or Lincoln) "retained" slavery. If you can propose an alternate wording that would be relevant to the article on Lincoln, present it here for discussion. But, assuming we add such a sentence, some people will not read it anyway--JimWae (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the EP did not specifically state that it was retaining slavery. But if something exists and you do not eliminate it because you don't have the authority, it has been retained, by definition if not intent. Anyhoo...I will look at the text and work on an alternate phrasing. but, really, the whole section needs help, starting from the top:

[edit] Second Confiscation Act

The Second Confiscation Act was not a an attempt to free slaves; its goal was, as stated, to weaken the Confederacy by confiscating property and resources of use. Here is the act's summary text:

CHAP. CXCV.–An Act to suppress Insurrection, to punish Treason and Rebellion, to seize and confiscate the Property of Rebels, and for other Purposes.

This act was about the confiscation of property. Freeing slaves is not mentioned in the summary text. The only slaves it did free were those of persons tried and found guilty of treason, or those who had escaped to the North. It did not apply to regions of the South or enable broad-scale emancipation. Therefore, "Congress moved to free the slaves by passing the Second Confiscation Act" is non-neutral/inaccurate. Unless we have source documents indicating Congress thought the act's purpose was to free slaves, it is not an accurate assessment.

The Act was about property seizure, not slavery. The debate around the act's passage is a fascinating study in property rights and what authority the federal government has in relation to them[2].

And the debate about the act's passage was heated; it did not represent a unified front and purpose as implied in this article. There was very adamant resistance to it, some of it rooted in opposition to emancipation.[3]. The 37th Congress spent months discussing this bill. Alternate versions were introduced; Lincoln even threatened to veto it unless certain property protections were made explicit.

It was not a bill about slavery, except that slaves were one more resource at the South's disposal to further its military aims. The purpose of this act was to weaken the Confederate war effort, not free slaves. A lot of people voted against it even still.


Thanks!

Cedwyn (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

[edit] opinion

" ...successfully led his country through its greatest internal crisis..." (taken from the first sentence) Thats definitely an opinion. 97.102.154.152 (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it might seem like an opinion, but when it's an opinion shared by virtually every expert [i.e., historian] on the subject, it's still acceptable to place it in there in this way. If you want, we can put about 15-20 citations on that, but I think that it really detracts from the aesthetic appeal of the opening sentence. Unschool (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Regardless, Its an opinion and not NPOV. Only cited facts should be added, not cited opinions.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
First of all, let me say that I admire your desire to better this project; your sincerity is clear, and I respect your motives. Nonetheless, I disagree with the bulk of your concerns here. WP:NPOV does not mean that we need to exclude all opinions. Look at the opening paragraph of WP:NPOV:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

What is a "view"? It is, of course, shorthand for "viewpoint". And what is a viewpoint? Fred has his viewpoint on John McCain's mortgage plan, and Barney has his; another word for their respective "viewpoints" is their opinions on the plan. And what does Wikipedia tell us to do with viewpoints? It tells us to represent fairly all significant views. It does not tell us to exclude these views, but to treat them fairly. And note that it does not say that we need to give them equal time. We are not only allowed to distinguish between them based upon their significance, we are expected to: not all viewpoints necessarily need to be included (though I would argue that the default setting should be to include all of them, until it is ascertained that conflicting opinions are too insignificant to include). We need only include those points of view for which there is significant published support.
So that brings us to the statement to which you have objected. That the American Civil War was the greatest crisis in American History is simply accepted as fact by probably 90% of historians of United States history. I actually think that this is so generally understood that it is unnecessary to provide citations, but I will put a few on there. Of course, you have also asserted that we should not include cited opinions. Joj, you will never exclude cited opinions from Wikipedia. They are a fundamental underpinning of this encyclopedia, more than any other encyclopedia, because they provide credibility to what would otherwise be mere anonymous opinion. Mind you, other encyclopedias use expert opinions too, but they don't cite them because the credibility of those encyclopedias is underwritten by their editorial process, which of course is fundamentally different than ours.
WP:NPOV does not exist to exclude anything that could conceivably be defined as an opinion. It exists to make sure that, where there are conflicting viewpoints, that this project does not favor one point of view over another. There is no extant authority that would argue against the proposition that the American Civil War was the greatest crisis in American history. Accordingly, WP:NPOV does not need to be applied to the sentence in question.
One closing thought. Be careful what you wish for. A truly, truly NPOV project, such as you think you desire, would be unbelievably bland and difficult to read. Most of what we say is, in one form or another, an opinion. Whether we refer to Shakespeare as the greatest writer in English or the Pittsburgh Steelers as the most dominant NFL team of the 1970s, or the American Civil War as the greatest crisis in American history, yes, we are expressing opinion. And we are also—hopefully—providing something that readers will want to read. Just my 2¢ worth. Unschool (talk) 03:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I always love reading your 2 cents comments. You truely love to comment and help every article. Thats great. Actually my only concern here is NPOV. Its not the fact of the Civil War being the "greatest crisis" in US history, which it most likely was, but the statement is too subjective. Too open to interpretation, especially through over two hundred years of history. It can be argued that the American Revolution was more of a crisis because the outcome was always in doubt, while it has been argued, by Shelby Foote for one, that the overall outcome of the Civil War was never in doubt, just the lenghth of the war. Now, by what definition do we place on "Greatest Crisis"? If it is loss of life than yes the Civil War would be that crisis. If it is financial, then perhaps the 1929 stock market crash would be the crisis. If we must place this TAG on the article then lets at least define it.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Is the statement we are discussing "subjective"? When you or I make it, yes, it is, as is virtually every statement in the social sciences. That's specifically why we cite experts. It's the closest thing to "facts" that we can find. And when they agree on the facts, then those are the facts, even when—on a semantic level—you can point out that these "facts" are subjective. You see, I don't have to determine by what criteria we will define the "greatest crisis", because the experts have done it for me. Unschool (talk) 04:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Any expert who writes a book will, and sometimes unconciously, make the topic that they are writing about seem more important than it sometimes is, especially when it comes to subjective opinions. They are in the bussiness of selling books and people are more willing to buy that book if it is about the "greatest crisis" in our history, rather than the second greatest. I respect the experts on the facts they provide and I do think, in my opinion, that is was the greatest crisis in US history, but perhaps it s a bit too [[NPOV[]] for the lead paragraph.--Jojhutton (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
LOL, You added like eight citations. Thats great. I am actually laughing out loud--Jojhutton (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I am glad to have brought you a moment of levity.  :-) Unschool (talk) 04:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Widely held opinions, especially by experts in the field, are indeed usable encyclopedic facts. That said, do we really need eight references? It looks a bit unsightly, when perhaps three would be enough. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 04:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, I think that one would be more than enough. I think that references in the intro should be kept to a bare minimum, because, yes, they are unsightly, and generally, the facts are repeated later in the article where citations are less of an irritant. But I spent about eight minutes gathering citations just to satisfy another editor who objected to this ostensible violation of WP:NPOV. Unschool (talk) 04:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I second that (the first message). He definitely "led the country through a crisis", but the "successfully" puts the finger where it hurts, and is not necessary in this part of the text. the term "led through a crisis" already gives enough idea of "success". There is no reason to put this word there, if not to express the opinion that his invasion of the foreign newly-created southern country was a good thing, desired by everyone. I can live with this kind of rhetoric in the body of the text, but at least in the opening paragraph I would like to see a more neutral text. I don't see where the opinion of experts enter here. They may agree that he was successful in keeping the original borders of the country, but the sentence states that this was a "success" in general, as for example Bill Gates will be "successful" if he manages to eradicate malaria and Windows from the planet. (See what I did?? I just passed a controversial personal opinion in the end!! I am so funny.) -- NIC1138 (talk) 23:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmmm. Nwerneck, I think I understand your point, but I disagree. Lincoln had goals. Those goals were the goals of the United States government (if only because he [Lincoln] set the goals for the country). He accomplished those goals. Therefore, he was successful. Yes, I understand that not everyone would agree with his objectives, but he was successful in accomplishing his objectives. Unschool (talk) 05:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)



[edit] unsupported/infactual conclusion

<< Ending slavery was always a primary goal of the Lincoln administration. However, the American public was slow to embrace the idea. In a shrewdly penned letter to Horace Greeley, editor of The New York Tribune, Lincoln masked his goal of ending slavery by making it subservient to the cause of preserving the union.>>

No citation is provided for this conclusion and there is no historical document supporting this position. It needs to be stricken from the page immediately. Even the letter to Greeley (reading Greeley's letter provides deeper insight, as does the intro of Lincoln's letter wherein he cedes any disupte to the facts presented) cited for this statement wholly contradicts that interpretation:

<< I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." ... My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.[37]>>

To assert that Lincoln secretly desired to abolish slavery and lied about his true motivations for fighting the Civil War is as willful a misreading of the historical record as possible. There is absolutely no historical support for this assertion and it flies in the face of Lincoln's own words. Until/unless some cache of Lincoln correspondence surfaces in which he himself expresses such opinions, it is an unsubstantiated, biased represenatation and should be removed from this article. 98.232.243.146 (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

the text follows the arguments of most Lincoln scholars re the Greeley letter. For example look at the very recent book by Lehrman, Lincoln at peoria (2008) pp 226-7, and the quotes there from Fehrenbacher--it's online at amazon.com Likewise see McPherson Battle Cry (1988) p 510 and Carwardine Lincoln (2003) p. 264. Lincoln did not lie. You have to read the letter very carefully. He is promising he will abolish slavery to defeat the Confederacy and that is what he did--and if there was a way to defeat the Confederacy without emancipating he would do that (but he saw no such way--and even so he did NOT say he would preserve slavery). Rjensen (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


this is the first time in my entire life i have heard this supposition (that "ending slavery was always a primary goal" and that Lincoln "masked his goal of ending slavery by making it subservient to the cause of preserving the union"). Do you have a citation for claiming that this line of thinking "follows the arguments of most Lincoln scholars"?

asssuming that there is some majority of arguments in support of this interpretation, arguments != substantiated conclusions

the assertion is currently uncited, regardless - if it is broadly accepted as true, it needs a citation establishing it as the consensus opinion. citing 3 scholars' explorations of the idea does not constitute proof that this is a prevailing view.

basically, if this notion isn't supported from Lincoln's own words or substantiated, widely accepted conclusions, it isn't valid for inclusion here.

as for the Greeley letter signaling his intention to end slavery, that interpretation stands in direct opposition to the plain meaning of its language:

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

this emphasis on official duty, i.e, policy, coupled with "I believe I have no lawful right to do so" from the L-D debates, would seem to contraindicate this theory (that "ending slavery was always a primary goal" and that Lincoln "masked his goal of ending slavery by making i