Jump to content

Talk:Abraham Lincoln/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Lincoln's Depression

I'm surprised to see no mention of Lincoln's life-long depression. See this article for example: http://www.mcmanweb.com/article-225.htm 62.231.39.150 11:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


I've corrected your reference to Lincoln's wife's death. It was a woman who may have been his fiancee. His wife survived him (He was only married once).Shsilver 16:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yet another controversy

  • Slaves were real property per the rights of slave owners and signed contracts at purchase. The Federal Government considered slaves property. Slaves had no legal standing. Sources are all over the place to verify these facts. When Lincoln, by himself, freed the slaves without legislation passed in the House and Senate this was an abuse of power. Lincoln justified this by stating the country was at war. There was no war powers act in the 1860's. Lincoln as the head of the Executive Branch violated the law when he freed the slaves. Ameerica is not a dictatorship. Someone has stated, and there are zero sources to prove this, that "many" believed that when Lincoln freed the slaves he was returing the "property" (slaves) to the rightful owner, the slave himself. This needs to be removed. This is merely left wing crap and a personal opinon. Slaves had no legal standing. America is a land of laws. The slaves were property, not people in the sense that they had no liberties or legals standing.


Lincoln abolished slavery without the consent of the House or Senate. There was no vote. I want this fact included. The act of freeing the slaves is the only know case in U.S. history where the Executive Branch of government (the President) took real propery from American owners without any legislation or vote in Congress. This is amazing history. There was no vote to end slavery. Lincoln did this on his own and then said the power to do this was his because the nation was at war. This is remarkable given all the laws that were passed to guarnatee the slave holders rights to his real property, slaves. Do you people not see how significant this is?? This is an amazing American fact. This was an act of dictatorial rule. This make anything the Bush administration or even Watergate look like childs play. People need to understand how much power our presidents used to have. Today our presidents have virtually no power compared to 150 years ago..


I think Lincoln's life and career must be the focus of more popular misunderstanding than any other American politician. We often imagine Lincoln as a modern-day liberal, a free-spirited proponent of big government, executive power and equality for African-Americans. In fact, Lincoln was very much a man of the 19th century U.S. who embodied the prevailing mores and limitations of that period. Thus, Lincoln actually believed in limited executive power, strict construction of the constitution, and federalism (very strongly, too), and his racial attitudes were far closer to the 19th century model than today's views.

I deleted a comment about how the emancipation proclamation freed slaves in areas the Union army occupied. The reality is actually much more complex and in fact the Union army usually tried to keep the slaves laboring on plantations under conditions very similar to slavery. The consensus is that the slaves mostly freed themselves by escaping from their masters. But the emancipation proclamation by its own force did not free the slaves and in practice often led to something close to peonage. -- Proudly anonymous

  • It seems you wan't to portray the common positive image of Lincoln, just change the view of him as a 'modern-day liberal' to that of a right-wing conservative (as I am guessing you are - not that there is anything wrong with that). Yet saying "his racial attitudes were far closer to the 19th century model than today's views" is a more postivie way of saying he was a white supremist (in that he though whites to be above blacks), and "Lincoln actually believed in limited executive power, strict construction of the constitution" is just plain incorrect - Lincoln probably had more executive power than any President ever, and would ignore the constitution when he thought it 'necessary'. Saying he believed in "strict construction of the constitution" and the like is basically just saying that he would have supported modern day conservatives, and seems like an argument in favor of conservatism, using an Appeal to authority fallacy - Lincoln was good, and he would have wanted this ...(whatever I happen to support). I'm sorry if I have misconstued what you said. - 00:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • It is also misleading to say it freed few slaves. Slaves weere officially freed as territories were occupied & before the proclamation, Lincoln had to stop generals from freeing slaves. What is your source for this or any of your changes? --JimWae 08:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Why is it misleading to say that it "freed a few slaves"? What source do you have that contradicts my account? You are only going on your own speculation based on irrelevant bits of info. "Officially" is a weasel word in this context. Blacks "officially" won civil rights as a result of the Fourteenth Amendment, yet of course it took a century for them to "actually" win Civil Rights.
Yes, Lincoln had to stop two Radical Republican generals from freeing slaves. Fremont didn't last long after his order and Hunter's order obviously did not reflect military policy. But what does that have to do with the Emancipation Proc.'s effects? That fact says absolutely nothing about the central claim in this dispute. Why did you even cite it?
Source: see http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/family/blk-family/blk-family.htm
("Freedmen who entered Union lines during the Civil War were often put to work on lands under Federal Government control. Freedmen shown here worked on the James Hopkinson plantation at Edisto Island, South Carolina")
There is a book written on the topic whose name I don't remember right now. And anyway you have not cited any sources.
  • The very page you cite discusses assisting freedmen in enforcement of contracts with employers - work is not necessarily slavery --JimWae 13:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • "Discusses assisting freedmen in enforcement of contracts with employers"-- who is the agent in that sentence? Not the Union Army, which presumably would be of little help in intervening in contract negotiations with itself. I am genuinely curious, JimWae, as to why you are so confident that the Union Army would scrupulously ensure fairness in its dealings with the freed slaves. I am also curious as to what role you think the Union Army actually played in freeing blacks. I think your views on this issue are not only wrong (and will be proved so soon when I have more time to track down references), but rather naive.
  • The book is Louis Gerteis, From Contraband to Freedman: Federal Policy Toward Southern

Blacks, 1861-1865 (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1973). He makes the point that the main goal of the Union Army was to keep blacks working in slavery-like conditions without real contracts.

One historian writes of wartime contracts with blacks (Lawrence Powell, Tulane Univ., "New Masters: Northern Planters during the Civil War and Reconstruction"): "[B]y fixing wages it denied a laborer the right to bargain as a free agent with his employers; by obligating a laborer to contract for a year, it seriously restricted his freedom of movement and his freedom to change employers. The entire apparatus was really a system of vagrancy laws that left black people with the choice of working on the plantations or laboring on the public works. And it was even bolstered by such familiar methods of slave control as the pass system and patrols (led by U.S. provost marshals), even though corporal punishment was forbidden or delegated to military authorities."

Here is radical Republican general Benjamin Butler, who controlled Louisiana, in a letter to S.P. Chase:

"Be sure that I shall treat the negro with as much tenderness as possible but I assure you it is quite impossible to free him here and now without a San Domingo. A single whistle from me would cause every white man's throat be cut in this city. Accumulated hate has been piled up here between master and servant, until it is fearful. . . There is no doubt that an insurrection is only prevented by our Bayonets"

It is a moot point now because the weasel wording, "allowed the Union Army...", is not technically untrue though it is incomplete.

  • Slaves were real property per the rights of slave owners and signed contracts at purchase. The Federal Government considered slaves property. Slaves had no legal standing. Sources are all over the place to verify these facts. When Lincoln, by himself, freed the slaves without legistaltion passed in the House and Senate this was an abuse of power. Lincoln justified this by stating the country was at war. There was no war powers act in the 1860's. Lincoln as the head of the Executive Branch violated the law when he freed the slaves. Ameerica is not a dictatorship. Someone has stated, and there are zero sources to prove this, that "many" believed that when Lincoln freed the slaves he was returing the "property" (slaves) to the rightful owner, the slave himself. This needs to be removed. This is merely left wing crap and a personal opinon. Slaves had no legal standing. America is a land of laws. The slaves were property, not people in the sense that they had no liberties or legals standing.
"When Lincoln, by himself, freed the slaves without legistaltion passed in the House and Senate this was an abuse of power."
Hurrah for Lincoln! To have the guts to make such a valiant decision, to destroy the evil idea that people could be "property, with no liberties or legal standing" - his name will live on in glory for evermore! Camillustalk|contribs 02:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC) (Proudly non-anonymous)
Did Congress approve? YES: before Lincoln issued his emancipation proc. Congress passed the Confiscation acts freeing the slaves of owners in rebellion. Lincoln in Sept 1862 said that any areas still in rebellion in Jan 1 1863 he would seize their slaves. He did so--that is called war powers. He also burned plantations and arrested people That's war powers. As for the owners they had repudiated the US governments and its laws and joined a foreign country. They lost their legal standing by doing that. BAD mistake. As for the slaves, they were better off. As for the North--it was better off because it shortened the war. Note that Lincoln did NOT free the slaves inside the parts of the USA controlled by the federal government. "American is not a dictatorship" -- well yes it is, in wartime. Rjensen 02:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong. The House and Senate never voted or approved Lincoln abolishing the legal institution callled slavery. This was not until the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Give me the name of the legislative bill, date, and names of the member sof the House who supported it. It does not exist. Because a handful of memebers of Congress want somethng dooes not make it the law. Hundreds of laws were passed giving slave owners rights. Not one law was ever passed by the house or senate abolishing slavery. Not one..-onenex1000.

NO... look at the "2nd Confiscation Act" Act of Congress at [1] passed both houses & signed by president in July 1862--before the Emancipation proclamation. It provides:

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That if any person shall hereafter incite, set on foot, assist, or engage in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States, or the laws thereof, or shall give aid or comfort thereto, or shall engage in, or give aid and comfort to, any such existing rebellion or insurrection, and be convicted thereof, such person shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten years, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars, and by the liberation of all his slaves, if any he have; or by both of said punishments, at the discretion of the court.

That means: every one who aids the rebellion shall have his slaves liberated. That's not quite the same as abolishing the legal institution of slavery (done by XIII Amendment), but it does prove Congress wanted all slaves owned by rebels to be liberated. And that is what Lincoln did in Emancipation Proclamation. qed. actual copy of the bill passed by CongressRjensen 11:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Intro

I made several changes to the introduction. The intro previously was quite weak, passing off several controversial and broad statements as fact. I have made it NPOV and balanced. I am editing anonymously but have written much of the middle half of the article, including the entire section on Lincoln's conduct of the war. I am writing this because I had the unpleasant experience of having been reverted with absolutely no explanation the last time I tried to do this.

Sexuality dispute

Please resolve this dispute by having a discussion here, rather than having a revert war. Accusations of vandalism and stalking get us nowhere. Continued reversions of this material by anyone will result in page protection and blocking for 3RR if warranted.

User:65.142.101.214, are you the same person as User:65.136.153.219? android79 14:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Here we go again.

Noitall is bound and determined [2] to get the Shenk/Time magazine perspective in there by name, despite the fact that the point made in the Time article is referenced earlier in this paragraph. Once again: Shenk is a journalist, comedian, and (soon-to-be) popular author, not a credentialed historian, academic, or scholar. Time magazine is a weekly newsstand periodical with excellent photography and occasionally decent investigative journalism, but without gravitas. These sources should not be cited by name in an encyclopedic work. Anyone else care to contribute to a consensus on this? -EDM 04:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

You are bound and determined to remove any notable article that does not show your POV. Your statement as to the worthiness of a "credentialled historian" is entirely POV and, if it were true, the article on Lincoln's sexuality would be entirely deleted because it was based on academic fraud and academic POV-pushing. You can't get any more notable than the cover of Time magazine and the article specifically cites a noted researcher, who can be specifically cited by name except that you edited him out. As I noted, it is fine by me to delete the entire paragraph, but having your POV in there must have at least a tiny bit of balance.--Noitall 04:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Noitall must have me confused with someone else that he has been in conflict with in the past, as I've never tried to remove any "notable article" for POV reasons. There are credentialed historians and academics of all different persuasions; demanding SOME credentials for a person who is to be cited as a source in an encyclopedia article is hardly POV. Time magazine is notable for its popularity; it's certainly not noted for its scholarship in any notes I've read. Did the 1911 Britannica cite to the Strand magazine? And if Shenk the part-time standup comic qualifies as a "noted researcher" then I'll eat my stovepipe hat. -EDM 04:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Noitall, the article IS already balanced - both sides are presented in a minimal manner - take details to branch article. One author cannot (& has not) silenced the issue. Btw, "Debunked" is editorial comment & thus POV - as well as being completely evaluative & being non-descriptive of issue. --JimWae 04:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Preserving the Union

According to the first plank of the Republican platform of 1856[3], "That the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence, and embodied in the Federal Constitution are essential to the preservation of our Republican institutions, and that the Federal Constitution, the rights of the States, and the union of the States, must and shall be preserved." According to the 1860 platform, on which Lincoln won, "That the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the Federal Constitution, 'That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,' is essential to the preservation of our Republican institutions; and that the Federal Constitution, the Rights of the States, and the Union of the States, must and shall be preserved."[4] To say that Lincoln fought the Civil War for the preservation of the Union, therefore, is not POV, but rather a reference to an historical statement of the reasons. Shsilver 01:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

It represents Lincoln's point of view, as you have shown, and thus belongs in the article one way or another. It is not, however, a neutral description of Lincoln's war aims. From the southern point of view the union between the northern and the southern states had been abolished. Those were certainly the facts on the ground, regardless of legalities. Let's say you drop a statue on the ground and it breaks. You try to patch it together again. Are you trying to "preserve the statue"? It could be argued, perhaps, but it doesn't strike me as the most natural way to express what you're doing. Or let's say you want a divorce from your husband. You've moved out and you believe that you've legally got a divorce. Your husband disagrees and keeps pursuing you, saying that the divorce isn't legal. Is he "preserving the marriage"? Perhaps, from his point of view, but it may not be how you would like to put things. - Haukurth 09:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it is how I would put things, since that it the way I phrased it. It is no more point of view that claiming that there was no union left to be preserved. You seem to have a very strange view of historical documents, in that case. Prior to the outbreak of hostilities, in 1856 and 1860, the Republican Party stated that the Union must and shall be preserved. You claim to know what Lincoln's War aims were, yet you refuse to accept the reasons Lincoln stated both before and during the war. TO use your divoce analogy: There is a legal way of getting a divorce and an illegal way. Moving out is not a legal method of getting a divorce. If you were to get remarried simply because you felt the marriage had been disolved without following the legal method, you would be guilty of bigamy.Shsilver 11:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Please note this sentence in my analogy: "you believe that you've legally got a divorce". - Haukurth 13:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
To put it another way, there was no legal means for secession from the union, just as there was no legal method for the colonists to dissolve their ties with England in the 1770s. What made the latter legal was the fact of their victory at the end of the war. What kept the former illegal (and meant the union had, in fact, been preserved) was the fact of the defeat of the secessionists.Shsilver!
The union was not preserved. It was broken and then reestablished by force of arms. Not everyone agrees with your idea that the secession was illegal and those who do typically don't use your curious "to the victor go the history books" reasoning. Preserving the union could potentially be NPOV wording for the Republican antebellum policy but it's certainly not NPOV wording for their policy during the war. - Haukurth 13:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Born in a one room log cabin... yada, yada

After reading that line, I honesty wonder how much of this stuff is accurate, and how much is just urban legend--Q1werty 15:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

In rural Kentucky of 1809, I suspect that most people were born in one room log cabins.--Rogerd 17:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you serious about wondering about accuracy? Read a biography on Lincoln. He grew up under pretty bad circumstances. Read With Malice Toward None by Stephen Oates. An excellent and very readable biography on Lincol. —Gaff ταλκ 07:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Lincoln mentions this in his own auto-biography published shortly before his nomination for the Republican ticket, for the 1860 election. This is attested to by nearly every biography of Lincoln ever written... So unless there is a conserted effort of Historians to make up the legend of Lincoln, it can be taken as variably true. Doris Kearns Goodwin, author of Team of Rivals, offers a sound description of Lincoln's early life... which includes the meak beginnings.

Yeah, and I've been to the national park of the log cabin that he was born in. It says it there. -Alex, 12.220.157.93 21:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC).

Vandalism

hey...someone tried to vandalize the page. i edited the word 'sucker' from the beginning of the early life section d

First Presbyterian Church (Springfield)

Lincoln sidenote. Anyone from Illinois or interested in Lincoln history may want to write and article on First Presbyterian Church (Springfield). I found out that it is where the Lincoln family went to church when I was writing an article on pipe organ builder John Brombaugh.—Gaff ταλκ 07:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

It was primarily Mary Todd Lincoln's church, as she was an outstanding Presbyterian, however, there is little evidence that Lincoln, himself, attended church regularly... and the same can be said of his son after he was a boy.

Timeline?

How many people see a value in this Timeline section that was added recently? I deleted it once and remarked that it was superficial. It is now back and although it has a lot more entries, is still a relatively superficial collection of random dates in Lincoln's life (and rather poorly formatted by Wikipedia standards at that). Are there other significant biographies that include a similar section? I watch over more than 200 American Civil War biographies and cannot recall any, other than a few generals who have lists of command histories. My concern about the section is that when people notice it and see some of the trivial entries, they will pile on and add so many events that it will become unwieldy. Dates of battles, speeches, appointment of generals and cabinet officers, signing of laws, etc. The article is long enough already. Opinions? Hal Jespersen 22:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Timeline defense

When the timeline gets too big it gets moved to its own entry, just like every other article on popular subjects. The Iraq entry is now divided into 24 (and growing) seperate entries, all accessable from the main extry. Timelines are now standard in the New York Times, and Time magazine so that information is readily accessable in a chronological order. You say: "The article is long enough already". I say: No article is too long until all the facts are presented in a clear manner. The same might be said of the indexes placed in the back of books. There are pages and pages of entries I have no interest in, but they are there for not just me. In several books I own the combined space used for the bibliography, endnotes, and the index comprise 1/3 of the publication. You say: "My concern about the section is that when people notice it and see some of the trivial entries". I say: What is a trivial fact? I guess something your not interested in. We all have our own interests in Lincoln: Family, War, Assasination. They appear trivial to scholars of the other areas of expertise. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

the timeline of births, deaths and census entries is trivial and useless. It weakens the entry and adds zero new information. Rjensen 23:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


OK, I will follow your suggestion of moving that section to its own article if and when it becomes unwieldy. But a couple of comments regarding your reply:
1. Triviality is, of course, subjective, but it also can be judged in relative terms. If I were to create a list of the top 15 events in the life of Abraham Lincoln, I would not have included two US census forms, as an example. I believe that most objective people would consider those as trivial events in the course of his (or anyone's) life and career.
2. I do believe that articles can be too long if you look at the objective of creating an encyclopedia. The art of writing an encyclopedia article includes understanding how to describe a person or event in a concise manner—what is most important and what should be left out. An encyclopedia is not a compendium of all known information on the subject (such as the World Wide Web itself hopes to be), nor is it a database of tabular data. Putting too much information into an encyclopedia article is doing a disservice to the typical reader who wants to get directly to the salient points and does not wish to wade through insignificant details. For instance, suppose I found Lincoln's shoe size, the color and styles of suits he wore, the kind of meals he ate, a list of all of the White House staff members, the text of all his speeches, or a list of all the lawsuits he handled in Illinois. All of this is information that may be of interest to someone, but it merely detracts from the important information about his life as a man and a wartime leader by taking up space and sapping attention spans. This is not to say that all Wikipedia articles meet this objective because they do not. I do attempt to impose such standards on articles that I edit, though obviously there is the opportunity for people to disagree with me on what is important. I admit that it is quite difficult to have such standards for articles that have as many editors as Abraham Lincoln or the American Civil War, so I tread lightly in such places.
3. Your example concerning indexes is really beside the point. They are artifacts of old technology. Someday when printed materials have faded, search technology such as Google will render indexes obsolete. But a related artifact is germane to my argument. I think you will find that most books today no longer have footnotes clogging the bottoms of pages, distracting readers. They put them in the back to be less obtrusive. Including too much trivia is equally distracting. (Now in your case, the timeline section is neatly walled off from the rest of the text, so my distraction argument admittedly carries less weight.)
Just my $0.02 of writing philosophy. Happy editing ... Hal Jespersen 00:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Paying attention to Lincoln

In a serious encyclopedia it is necessary to stay focused on Lincoln. Material on the escape of John Wilkes Booth, for example, belongs in the Wilkes entry, not Lincoln's. Furthermore the newly discovered photograph supposedly of Lincoln's body does not belong in Wikipedia unless and until scholars have thoughly verified it. Rjensen Rjensen 08:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I would agree w/u on the Wilkes argument but must strongly dissagree on the new death photo of Lincoln, as it has been agreed upon as authentic by at least 10 major Lincoln scholars including The Lincoln Presidental Library, in Springfield. best regards, Cathytreks

editors who want to censor history

  • Lincoln viewed negoes as second rate. Period. He joked and made fun of them in numerous speeches. He was opposed to making judges or wifes of any of them. Lincon was a racist. This is a fact.

He believed the white man was superior. We need not be affraid to speak the truth. He did not believe in laws that would allow for the mixing of the white and black race. I've been trying to put these two items in the slavery section but a few editors keep deleting them. They are very relevant to what's being said there. Please assist me in providing a proper account of history instead of continuing to mythologize Lincoln through censorship. And, be thankful that Lincoln is not president or he might shut down Wikipedia for speaking critically of him. Here are the items:

    • "However, he stated in a debate with Stephen A. Douglas that he opposed to granting citizenship to blacks and said: "I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." <--I placed this in response to his quote that all men are created equal.
    • "However, a few weeks before signing the Proclamation, and after it had already been drafted, Lincoln said in a letter to Horace Greeley: "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." <--obviously he was doing this as a means to an end, rather than for the cause of emancipation.

Thank you for your assistance. RJII 06:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Section & paragraphs are not about his private views, but about public policy - and Declaration of independence, though without force of law, is part of the literature on public policy
  • Greeley quote was partial, in wrong paragraph, and already in branch article more fully - and not really needed in this article to make the point. Since, however, you seem to think readers cannot find branch article, either all of Greeley letter or none of it should be in this article. It is quite good prose - and it hints about freeing some slaves and not all of them. Sometimes strategy is needed to get one's views accepted --JimWae 07:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, and I do not think the title of this section accords with Wikipedia: Assume good faith--JimWae 07:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Harvard College or Harvard University?

People who attend the undergraduate school prefer "Harvard College" just as the lawyers say they went to "Harvard Law School." So avoid "Harvard University," which anyway is an anachronism in 1860 when it was just a college. Rjensen 08:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll go with that - but not because it is ananachronism. I checked before changing it from the red-linked Harvard College. (sic). It began to be called Harvard University around 1780--JimWae 21:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Right-to-revolt speech?

Should there not be some mention of Lincoln's right-to-revolt speech (Lincoln vs. U.S. Aggression Against Mexico, 12 January 1848), which he made during his one term in the House of Representatives? In this speech, which came to haunt him during the early days of his presidency, he said: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,-- most sacred right--a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit."[5]

Eroica 15:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Republicanism

There is a surge of interest in political ideology in 1850-1870 era, centered on Lincoln. The recent biographies of Lincoln for example. the article on Republicanism in the United States is just a shell (with a detailed bubliography), and will get fileld in step by step. AL plays a major role, esp with Gettysburg Address in what it means to guarantee eash state will have a republican form of govt. (That provision of Constitution was central to Reconstruction debates too) So let's keep it in and see what AL's political philosophy was, and why he paid so much attention to the founding fathers Rjensen 04:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Lincoln death photo

Lincoln death photo issues

I have removed the chunk of text about Lincoln's post-mortem photograph which was originally insterted here, for the following reasons:

  • The photograph linked to is of the president lying in repose, unlike how it is billed;
  • The editor who inserted the original information is the same person who maintains the GeoCities website on which the photograph is hosted;
  • There is no evidence that such a photograph was ever taken.

--Stephen Deken 21:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes there is...I refer you to http://www.morningsidebooks.com/cgi/bookshop/shelf.cgi?book=1471BB&userid=253546019 and order the book as I did, it is a photograph and it is numbered #"0-130". Sorry to have been rude before as I see below...it took away credence from an otherwise valid point I had made. (Cathytreks 18:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC))

The picture of the dead president is obviously real....the facts of how the picture came from us from the past are not in question...just who the hell do u think u are to remove it? some george bush coverup artist?....figures!

Who the hell he thinks he is, would be "a Wikipedia editor who is familiar with Wikipedia's policy on verifiability." I would have done the same thing myself. If you have verifiable evidence you could save us a lot of time by presenting it. Since anyone can add material to Wikipedia, Wikipedia cannot rely on the credentials or the authority of contributors. Everything contributed needs to be verifiable. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Regardless of whether the photograph stays or goes, it needs to be sourced better and the very poorly-written paragraph describing it needs to be extensively trimmed. The contributor of the picture does herself no credibility favor by writing on this discussion page in txtspeak and dragging George Bush into the mix. -EDM 01:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm still calling shenanigans on this:
  • Lincoln was shot behind the left ear and the bullet was lodged behind his left eye. I find it difficult to believe that if this photograph was taken "but a few hours post mortem", that the pillow he is lying on would be free of blood, that his neck would be clean, that his hair would be arranged neatly, and that there would be nothing but white pillows surrounding his head.
  • I find it difficult to believe that, in 1865, as a doctors and statesmen are surrounding the dying president, a photographer was setting up his equipment in the corner to take a picture for posterity. Unlike today, that sort of thing didn't happen back then, because it's not as though they were going to print it in the newspaper the next day.
  • I don't even believe that this is a photograph at all. Photographic technology at the time Lincoln was assassinated was in the form of ferrotype, a process which results in images that look like this. Even accounting for possible digital retouching for better contrast and assuming the image was scanned in from a book (presumably printed with halftones as there is a considerable vertical interference pattern), features such as the slight indentation in the nose or the slight fold between the nose and the mouth would not be evident. Given that John B. Bachelder was a talented portrait painter and engraver, I suspect that this is actually an engraving of Linocln lying in state.
  • If this is such a shockingly important historical find, why is Wikipedia the only site on the internet that mentions it? Why is the only image a closely cropped shot of Lincoln's head?
The book that this image allegedly appears in is available in my public library. I'll check it out this evening and read for myself what it says. --Stephen Deken 16:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Such language. Is that really neccessary? -- XXXX

Might be an authentic hoax... that is, a hoax well-known-enough to be worth mentioning.

Googling on "Lloyd Ostendorf" death makes it clear that Ostendorff was born in 1925, lived in Dayton, Ohio, and died in 2000, and was a well-known and important collector of Lincolniana.

The Ostendorf book exists, but was published in 1998, not 2004 so the photograph is not a very "new" discovery.

Not sure whether this link will work if you don't have a Google account, or if you have a different Google account from mine. [6] If that link doesn't work, go to [Google Book search], search on Lincoln's Photographs: A Complete Album. It turns up a reference to a book entitled "The Lincoln Forum: Rediscovering Abraham Lincoln." On p. 225, it refers to Lloyd Ostendorf, gives the book reference, and mentions "some have challenged the authenticity of his latest finds" which include "a photograph that he argues depicts Lincoln after death." The Ostendorf book was published in 1998, not 2004.

I have no idea whether the link to the image is actually the image in the book or not.

The gross inaccuracy in the details that I've checked doesn't give me much confidence in the reliability of the rest of the item. And it does not seem to have been regarded as terribly important. An online search of the entire New York Times yields only one reference to Ostendorf, and the death picture of Lincoln isn't mentioned. There is an article cautioning about the popularity of Lincolniana on eBay and the danger of buying fake items.

This American Heritage article--very, very slow loading but it eventually loaded for me--mention's Ostendorff's discovery of a every early, possibly the earliest painted portrait of Lincoln--and an initially puzzling portrait of Lincoln, apparently painted from life but after this death, which turned out to be a copy of the first portrait. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The image at http://www.geocities.com/cathytreks/lincolnatpeace2.jpg seems to have a resemblance to an 1866 painting by John Littlefield, entitled "Death-Bed of Lincoln," as seen in

The text of the latter explains "Shown above is a reproduction of the death-bed scene painted by John. H. Littlefield, once a law student in Lincoln’s office. Photographs of those in attendance, including the twenty-three year old Surgeon Taft, standing to the right of Lincoln’s oldest son, Robert, were used as models. It is interesting that in his diary Taft writes that he spent most of the night supporting the President’s head in order that the wound would not press on the pillow." That's why Taft's hands are holding Lincoln's head.

I don't think I see the hands in Cathytrek's image but it's hard to tell. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Ok, I've got the 1998 edition of the book in my hands, and sure enough, this image is on page 374, labeled "O-130" and generally meets the description offered by Cathytreks. In that vein, I owe her an apology for branding it a hoax; I am sorry, Cathy. The caption and facing text reads:
"The reverse of this photograph of Lincoln in death bears the inscription:
"Lincoln photograph taken by Uncle Bachelder after Lincoln died.
"The life-like quality and photographic perspective is evident in the image even thought [sic] some retouching has been applied. The exposure was evidently taken under poor lighting conditions and under difficult circumstances; the task was obviously undertaken in purposeful secrecy."
The facing page reads:
"A post-mortem portrait. An extremely rare carte-de-viste discovered in the extate of artist and engraver John B. Bachelder. The heretofore unpublished photograph of Abraham Lincoln seen at the right was taken on approximately April 16, 1865, after the President's death. Apparently, it was to serve as a model for the death-bed scene produced by Bachelder in collaboration with Alonzo Chappel."
The photograph, in general, looks exactly like the version offered by Cathytreks, except that it is surrounded by apparently underexposed media (or perhaps vignetted, as the text indicates it has been retouched). To me, seeing the reproduction in the book, it looks even more like a drawing than it did before, but I suppose it's not. However, Ostendorf asserts in the text that it was taken on the 16th, the day after he died, and I agree with that. This is not a candid action shot. --Stephen Deken 00:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

My cousin placed the piece with my name and authority as I had seen the photograph in the late Ostedorfs last book , It made me then and makes me cry now still sad somehow, I have no doubt it is as the article surounding it claimed,and that it was very much a photograph (albiet somewhat nessisarily imo retouched) one of the late beloved president but a few hours post (within a mere 24 maxiumum!) mortem~... it is truly documented, it is clearly unlike any other porported hoax or falseity, etc;...When I look at "that honest abe" PHOTOGRAPH ...just seeing the truth of death there...seeing Lincolns sallow face and the tired sad eye of lincoln....grieves me still, knowing in my heart it is real......YES, it was Abraham Lincoln at repose...for awhile, aand our last clear look for all the world to see (aside from that small blurry photo taken in N.Y.C. while he lay in state in city hall there) on his slow final trip home to Springfield.

The basic issue is whether any discussion of this photo belongs in a Wiki article on the life of AL? There are thousands of photos of Lincoln. It has to be really important to be included and no one has made a case for its importance. Rjensen 18:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Surely a Lincoln historian such as yourself Rjensen, must be aware of the authentic nature of the photograph of Lincoln taken by John Batchelder in the White House only hours after his body taken there, the photograph proven since as authentic taken by Batchelder within 24 hours of Lincolns assasination, re: Lloyd Ostendorf's book Lincoln's Photographs: A Complete Album" photograph # "0-130"),

From the book: "The reverse of this photograph of Lincoln in death bears the inscription: "Lincoln photograph taken by Uncle Bachelder after Lincoln died." "The life-like quality and photographic perspective is evident in the image even thought [sic] some retouching has been applied. The exposure was evidently taken under poor lighting conditions and under difficult circumstances; the task was obviously undertaken in purposeful secrecy."

This alone shows the importance of this photograph and its ever gaining prominence of study amoungst Lincoln researchers and scholars.

Not looking for a fight Rjensen,....only seek the truth.... "...with malace towards none...and charity for all" A.L.

peace out.

(Cathytreks 21:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC))

There are two issues here. Why should Wiki discuss this photo in the first place? Second, what PROOF do we have it is authentic. --there are LOTS of fakes out there in the Lincoln word. Who wrote the inscription. What is the provenance of the photo. What museum owns it and attests to it? Where IS this photo now? Which experts have looked at it? Why does no Lincoln book use it? Citations please to the scholars?? Rjensen 21:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rjensen, I am glad we can talk about this way, you have every right to be skepticaland I do not blame you! Yhere have been too many pretenders out there to make skeptic's of us all, but please go to the link i'm providing and order the book for yourself? I was shocked too at first but am now a believer in the photographs true authenticity, meanwhile in the interests of peace and truth seeking I have placed the article with the photo as a link at the bottom of the Lincoln article untill it passes the test of you and the other understandable skeptics. please believe me...I am in earnest about this matter! I will provide more proofs for you and other naysayers in the days ahead...it is all part of my on going research on the great President...done with respect and honour, please believe in my sincerity. (Cathytreks 22:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC))

OK start with the basics: where is this very valuable photo now? Who owns it? what does the owner claim? Rjensen 22:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That one is easy! The John B. Bachelder family is still in possesion of it, as is stated in the book and kindly allowed Mr. Lloyd Ostendorf (a highly respected and well known Lincoln Authority!) permmision to use it in his book on the complete photography collection of President Lincoln, please allow me to get my scanner at work and i'll reprint the piece in its entire form, meanwhile you might google the subject yourself as there is more on this photograph than you might suspect?, best wishes, (Cathytreks 22:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC))

Batchelder apparently had Matthew Brady take photographs when Lincoln died. See http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2004/Apr/29/Features_new/tourism_a.shtml Rjensen 23:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
That article makes is sound like Batchelder had Brady take pictures of the individuals who were there at various times after the event so he could create his etching. Shsilver 23:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Not so says the John B. Bachelder family in Lloyd Ostendorf's book Lincoln's Photographs: A Complete Album" photograph # "0-130, on page 274 it states: "The reverse of this photograph of Lincoln in death bears the inscription:

"Lincoln photograph taken by Uncle Bachelder after Lincoln died.
"The life-like quality and photographic perspective is evident in the image even thought [sic] some retouching has been applied. The exposure was evidently taken under poor lighting conditions and under difficult circumstances; the task was obviously undertaken in purposeful secrecy."

So "Uncle Bachelder" a noted photographer as well known as Brady in his day, seemingly did in fact take that hidden historic shot, then proccessed them at Bradys studio...so what? As this is not a hoax situation... the truth wil prevail as its unveiled, right guys?, I feel now after reading that article Rjensen provided us in my belief of the photographs authenticity all the more. , the article which went out of its way to not mention the actual Batchelder photograph, plus it also mistated several key facts of the events of the immediate days following the asasination on April 16, 1865 regarding Batchelder, Brady, and others. The death photo "O-130" of Lincoln in its authenticity is proved now more than ever. (Cathytreks 00:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC))

looks like the photo no longer exists. No one has ever declared it authentic except perhaps for the anonymous person who wrote something on the back. We have the picture of a hoax here. Rjensen 01:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You are the hoax...and are wrong about the things you say, and you know it. The photograph is authentic, and when proved you will apologise, no one talks that way to me, I'm a respectable lady and a history major with a photographic aspect in that I understand the back ground of the photos, the John B. Bachelder current next of kin will verify the photo for a proper forensic study. The photo exists and if you looked and opened your eyes you would see it was a real photograph of the dead president taken under difficult conditions and we need a 1st generation copy to prove to doubters such as yourself...It will be done, as I have contacted the son of the author already and he will send me via email or snail mail too, better detailed photo(s) and more background material.

I'd Be careful (some of you)if I were you.. in what you say unless you seek a libel and slander suit for your lies about Lincolns photograph and your outright rudeness about it after its proven true!

The John B.Bachelder family's decendants and current caretakers of the most prized photograph of Lincoln, is being kept involved in the goings on here, and will be making a press statement through their lawyers very soon.

your a fool...if...you have eyes..but you cannot see its real.

Rjensen, get the book and see for yourself!..its like talking to a brick wall with you, I give up! heres the addy where you can get the book with the total details and photographs:http://www.morningsidebooks.com/cgi/bookshop/shelf.cgi?book=1471BB&userid=253546019

meanwhile...here are the facts:

Abraham Lincoln the day after he was murdered. (april 16th 1865)

Source: private collection of the Batchelder family, This "Lincoln in Death" Photograph is over 140 years old.

The photograph of Lincoln taken by John B. Batchelder the noted photographer, artist and engraver in Washington D.C. was taken in the White House within 24 hours after Lincolns body had been taken there, this photograph has been proven since as authentic taken by Batchelder within a day of Lincolns assasination, re: Lloyd Ostendorf's book Lincoln's Photographs: A Complete Album" photograph # "0-130"),

From the book: "The reverse of this photograph of Lincoln in death bears the inscription: "Lincoln photograph taken by Uncle Bachelder after Lincoln died. "The life-like quality and photographic perspective is evident in the image even thought [sic] some retouching has been applied. The exposure was evidently taken under poor lighting conditions and under difficult circumstances; the task was obviously undertaken in purposeful secrecy."

The facing page reads: "A post-mortem portrait. An extremely rare carte-de-viste discovered in the estate of artist and engraver John B. Bachelder. The heretofore unpublished photograph of Abraham Lincoln seen at the right was taken on approximately April 16, 1865, after the President's death. Apparently, it was to serve as a model for the death-bed scene produced by Bachelder in collaboration with Alonzo Chappel."


This book researched by Lincoln Scholar Ostendorf shows the importance of this newly discovered photograph and that it has been overlooked, and wrongly discredited by some, however its ever gaining prominence of study amoungst Lincoln researchers and photographic scholars of this heretofore unknown (overlooked by some as a etching) photograph!

I will Back in a few of days with more proof positive, see you then, not to watch some eat humble pie...but to show the truth and reveal a long lost photo, never meant to be seen by many at all butwas nessisary at the time for portraits yet to be made by many others....Rjensen.

(Cathytreks 03:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC))

I feel like the "six men of Hindustan to learning much inclined, who went to see the elephant, though all of them were blind." If somebody could post the photo in question, here on the Talk page, so all interested readers could see at least the image that is in dispute (it has long passed into public domain, given its age) it might be helpful, at least to see what the argument is about (even if it is not included in the article itself).Amherst5282 22:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Having now seen the picture, let me say: 1) I am, of course, no photographic expert, so who cares what I think? 2)I am disturbed by the grain and distortion 3)Yet, I compared the photo to the two well-documented last photos of Lincoln alive (http://members.aol.com/RVSNorton1/Lincoln71.html) and am struck by how "correct" this detah picture is: the peculiar permanent "arch" of the left eyebrow, the angle of the left hairline, the hollow of the cheek, and so on on several points -- if made as an engraving from living photos, the artist must have been almost forensically accurate (as opposed to almost every other Lincoln artist), or this is an authentic post mortem picture.Amherst5282 22:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

In the book (2004)ed: it states.."is believed the photograph was taken through a shroud on a bed, a veil placed out of respect yet still allowing the photographer John B. Batchelder and his and Lincoln's friend and assistant on this project famed fellow photographer Mathew Brady to get their picture of him nessisary for later portraits to be done in a quick, and dignified manner" - unquote.

Did you know it was a common practice of the day, when death photograph's or even those taken of not so famous "death photos", as individual family members death photographs were far more a common place event than they are today?

Hense what I now am calling call the "rippling effect" seen in what I believe is the genuine first photograph of the president taken within a day of his death...note his slightly open glazed unseeing eye, and it's surrounding area....and if you hold a piece of paper over the lower area on his chin, but from his lower beard up to the top of his head...then you will note "the conventional lincoln beard area below his chin area seems retouched.

Indeed it is a true death photograph of Lincoln without question with an even then revealed retouch by the family of the photographer himself....well the research being done will bare all of this out in the end....we have a real find here, not a hoax as some have been quick to judge without reading or looking or studying the photo and the facts so far.

It is my surmise in the picture that it was from the Beard area down that they themselves the photographer Bachelder family said via Orsdendorf's, one of the greatest finds in history when it is proven true see this below re: [[Lloyd Ostendorf[['s book Lincoln's Photographs: A Complete Album" photograph # "0-130") the beard areas below his chin are the only area they did a slight and dignified retouch that I can detect as it states below from the scholarly Lincoln book:

"The reverse of this photograph of Lincoln in death bears the inscription: "Lincoln photograph taken by Uncle Bachelder after Lincoln died. "The life-like quality and photographic perspective is evident in the image even thought [sic] some retouching has been applied. The exposure was evidently taken under poor lighting conditions and under difficult circumstances; the task was obviously undertaken in purposeful secrecy."

Again the proofs in the pudding:

The facing page reads: "A post-mortem portrait. An extremely rare carte-de-viste discovered in the estate of artist and engraver John B. Bachelder. The heretofore unpublished photograph of Abraham Lincoln seen at the right was taken on approximately April 16, 1865, after the President's death. Apparently, it was to serve as a model for the death-bed scene produced by Bachelder in collaboration with Alonzo Chappel."

These were and are all legitimate people involved in this by default of time by the materials laying undisturbed colecting dust on a familys book case, This book researched by Lincoln Scholar Ostendorf shows the importance of this newly discovered photograph and that it had been previously overlooked, and therefore wrongly discredited by some, its ever gaining prominence of study amoungst Lincoln researchers and photographic scholars of this heretofore unknown *(mistakenly overlooked by some as an etching, not understanding the photographic technic's of the glass plate, or albumum processess of the day, a specialty of mine and my familys history) and in fact a genuine Lincoln post-mortium photograph of the man, President Abraham Lincoln...

One can also note a real feeling of sadness in an almost otherwise serene face, shown that could only be possible in a photograph.

...One more last memorable image of him... from a blink of time on April 16th 1865.

ttyl

(Cathytreks 16:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)) 

there it is! WOW! look at his face his sad eyes!  thats a photo not a drawing! the poor guy lincoln i mean!!!
THis is an encyclopedia containing only established facts. When the controversy is resolved by Lincoln experts, let us know. Rjensen 21:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This person did clearly investigate his/her facts on this photograph very well and from what i googled and all they cathytrek seems to be saying it like it is, plainly its a real lincoln death photo! (140.186.149.154 22:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC))

Evidence of hoax?

I've been extremely reluctant to interject myself into such a major stink for my first-ever Wikipedia edit, but about a month ago, after coming across Cathytreks's dubious claims, I stumbled upon what seems to be fairly conclusive evidence of them being a hoax.

more lies! (Cathytreks 03:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC))

This is from several posts in September and October of 2004 to the Friends of Lincoln Mailbag, a mailing list for the site Abraham Lincoln Online. I found them thanks to Google Cache (in which they still exist), but they are also permanently archived in the Internet Archive here.

Note four posts:

  • Cathytreks's post of 2004/09/23, in which she refers to her own website, states that her "exstensive research has found NOTHING to support such a second photograph in fact!"
    • THIS IS ANOTHER SERIES OF LIE'S PUBLISHED BY SOMEONE WHO WAS OBVIOUSLY POSING AS ME TO DISCREDIT THE PHOTOGRAPH FURTHER, AND THE ONGOING RESEARCH ON IT! (Cathytreks 03:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC))
  • Joseph M. Di Cola's post of 2004/09/28. Mr. Di Cola is familiar with the Ostendorf book in question and raises many of the questions regarding the photo that others have raised here.
  • K Morgan's post of 2004/10/01. K Morgan claims to have inspected the original and states unequivocably that it a photograph of a drawing.
  • Blaine Houmes's post of 2004/10/01. Houmes claims to own the image, and gives very specific information about how he came by it, how Ostendorf got it wrong, and how it came to be in Ostendorf's book. A quick google reveals Houmes to a real person, a medical doctor in Cedar Rapids.

Note further that Cathytreks is aware of all of these statements, yet continues to vehemently push her agenda.

this is all untrue and I never heard ofr these statements untill just now, and did not realise there were several persons at work here to discredit both the photograpgh of Lincoln in death, and me as a serious researcher on Lincoln, RV Norton and his band never recieved anything from me as we do not agree on the matter in question here, as I seek only to have the truth revealed in a npov way. (Cathytreks 03:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC))

Again, I hate to post this now, when it seems to have died down for the time being, but I thought you should be aware of what I found, in case it arises again. —LonelyPilgrim 09:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

A previous statement I made was incorrect. I apologize. Cathytreks's first edit concerning the supposed "Lincoln death photo" was on 2005-07-04, not prior to the above posts as I stated. This is what I get when I wait so long before posting; I forget what I was researching. But I stand by my previous statement that this seems to implicate Cathytreks in a hoax. —LonelyPilgrim 15:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You are a lier and a perpetrator of an untruth if you DO NOT believe in what I have written and researched!... in 1998, a photograph was published with the permission of John B. Bachelder's decendents that was taken of President Abraham Lincoln within 24-36 hours after his death. Bachelder was credited by his own family as the photographer in the Abraham Lincoln photography book by Lincoln historian, Lloyd Ostendorf, and his find, published for the first time anywhere in 1998 with the permission of the Bachelder family, The Lincoln death photograph which they engraved themselves on the back of it, with their own writing, in which it said...; "It was Uncle Bachelder himself who took this post mortem photograph of Lincoln as a study for a later painting..."..unquote. # [7] Ostendorf, photograph #0-130, p. 274.
these are the facts!
(Cathytreks 03:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC))

LINCOLN DEATH PHOTO DEBATE:TAKE 3!

What some have said here regarding my insistance on the truth being revealed is a lie against the very truth of the matter I and many others seek to have shown to the world, lays heavy on my heart and brings me close to tears, sirs or madames.

That is a non NPOV look at what my work here has been about! and what you are saying here regarding my insistance on the truth is a lie against the truth of my words and long research regarding this matter, sirs, or madames.

Fore~ This is not a "one person/insane war of mine" (as some uneducated ones here would try to make my efforts out to be) but instead this effort of mine has always been to reveal the truth about the Bachelder Photograph, and both the genuine and wrongly overlooked nature of it by the unwiilling, and or "thick of skulled" and those who would make a lie of its legitimate nature in spite of many mistatements of the facts sourounding it and its history, sirs, or madames.

I suggest ANYONE who wants to see the facts of its genuineness refer to the Ostendorf, Lloyd, Lincoln's Photographs: A Complete Album, Morningside Books, 1998, ISBN 0-89029-087-3. for the complete story, there was a 2004 edition too by the way, I own that copy myself and it is available through "Morningside Books on the web and at quality historicaly oriented bookstores nationwide, We are all seeking the truth and this is simply another piece of the jigsaw-puzzle of the life and death of a great american , Abraham Lincoln....I thank those of you with an open mind to new facts and the courage to look before you condemn me a encyclopedic reporter of a major find wrongly overlooked and , personal attacks made upon me for daring to report on this historical and important find.

(All of this writing here of mine is done in good faith, and with the strict intent of a NPOV edit.)

Let those who are without fear look for themselves, and I dare say that YOU "Lonely Pilgrim", ARE not following NPOV Wiki procedure, by taking a totaly predudical and biased view of which YOU have not even bother to investigate YOURSELF in detail, as I have, and in depth as I have by pouring over the materials available on the Lincoln photograph in question, as the respected life~long Lincoln historian, Lloyd Ostendorf himself did, and his finds, and that of the Bachelder family and their photos they engraved themselves with their own writing, saying it "was John Bachelder himself who took that post mortuem photograph of Lincoln as a study for a later painting", cannot be denied as the facts that they are both historicaly, and in and of it's encyclopedic nature.

In summation I would refer anyone seeking the truth of the matter once more to: Ostendorf, Lloyd, Lincoln's Photographs: A Complete Album, Morningside Books, 1998, ISBN 0-89029-087-3

Thank you for your attention to this very important matter and by the way I never knew about this! (Cathytreks 04:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC))

" Cathytreks's post of 2004/09/23, in which she refers to her own website states that her "exstensive research has found NOTHING to support such a second photograph in fact!"

THIS ABOVE QU0TE of "Lonely Pilgrim" IS ANOTHER SERIES OF LIE'S PUBLISHED BY SOMEONE WHO WAS OBVIOUSLY POSING AS ME TO DISCREDIT THE PHOTOGRAPH FURTHER, AND THE ONGOING RESEARCH ON IT!

AND THIS LIE BELOW!!!(Cathytreks 04:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC))

_______________________________

Note further that Cathytreks is aware of all of these statements, yet continues to vehemently push her agenda.

________________________________

this is all untrue and I never heard of these ATTACKS AND LIES/statements untill just now!, and did not realise there were several persons at work here to discredit both the photograpgh of Lincoln in death, and me as a serious researcher on Lincoln, (RV Norton and his band of unbelievers or coverup artists I sohould say!) never recieved anything from me as we do not agree on the matter in question here, and another or others used my screen name in an attempt to further the lies!

I seek only to have the truth revealed about here on in a npov way. (Cathytreks 03:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC))

And regarding Blaine Houmes The "doctor" who claims to "own" the photograph of Lincoln in death that he lyingly calls a etching, is another perpetrator of the lie's and coverups surrounding this genuine Lincoln photograph!!!, for you see my friends and enemys, the photograph is still very much in the possesion of Bachelders decendants! Ishould know as I live a mere 2 miles from where John B Bachelder is buried in Nottingham N.H. and know his decendants personaly very well, and can, will and do vouch for the authenticity of the Lincoln Death Photograph!

(Cathytreks 04:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC))

Any of you want further proofs in a polite way? I will be happy to talk with any of you on the phone or show you in person what has been covered up and mislead about since Orstendorfs book was printed in 1998, THE LINCOLN DEATH PHOTOGRAPH! (Cathytreks 04:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC))

The photo does not exist

The photo vanished decades ago -- very strange! who would mislay such a valuable item? Answer: a hoaxer. Rjensen 05:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

__________________

I am outraged!

PLEASE STOP EDITING AS A TROLL ON THE REAL LINCOLN DEATH PHOTO ISSUE!

What you say here regarding my insistance on the truth being revealed is a lie against the very truth of the matter I and many others seek to have shown to the world, Sir!

That is a non NPOV look at what my work here has been about! and what you are saying here regarding my insistance on the truth is a lie against the truth of my words and long research regarding this matter, sir!

Fore~ This is not a "one person/insane war of mine" (as some uneducated ones here would try to make my efforts out to be) but instead this effort of mine has always been to reveal the truth about the Bachelder Photograph, and both the genuine and wrongly overlooked nature of it by the unwiilling, and or "thick of skulled" and those who would make a lie of its legitimate nature in spite of many mistatements of the facts sourounding it and its history, sir!

I suggest ANYONE who wants to see the facts of its genuineness refer to the Ostendorf, Lloyd, Lincoln's Photographs: A Complete Album, Morningside Books, 1998, ISBN 0-89029-087-3. for the complete story, there was a 2004 edition too by the way, I own that copy myself and it is available through "Morningside Books on the web and at quality historicaly oriented bookstores nationwide, We are all seeking the truth and this is simply another piece of the jigsaw-puzzle of the life and death of a great american , Abraham Lincoln....I thank those of you with an open mind to new facts and the courage to look before you condemn me a encyclopedic reporter of a major find wrongly overlooked and , personal attacks made upon me for daring to report on this historical and important find!!!

(All of this writing here of mine is done in good faith, and with the strict intent of a NPOV edit.)

Let those who are without fear look for themselves, and I dare to say that you and your alter ego "Looney Pilgrim", are not following NPOV Wiki procedure, by taking a totaly predudical and biased view of which they have not even bother to investigate themselves in detail, as I have viewed the photograph personaly and WILL NOT BE CALL A LIAR BY YOU OR ANYONE ELSE SIR!

The "in depth" research I have done, by pouring over the materials available on the Lincoln photograph in question, as the respected life~long Lincoln historian, Lloyd Ostendorf himself did, and his finds, and that of the Bachelder family and their photos they engraved themselves with their own writing, saying it "was John Bachelder himself who took that post mortem photograph of Lincoln as a study for a later painting", and that cannot be denied as the facts that they are both historicaly, and in and of it's encyclopedic nature!

In summation I would refer anyone seeking the truth of the matter once more to: Ostendorf, Lloyd, Lincoln's Photographs: A Complete Album, Morningside Books, 1998, ISBN 0-89029-087-3

If this continues I shall consider a law suit against you for defamation of character... Sir!

You are not a Lincoln Scholar as I am, and am in fact a multi degree Proffesor, with a Doctorate in History Sir!

I shall be Thankful to you if you would leave off, Sir!

(Cathytreks 17:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC))

The photo does exist, in spite of the coverup here and elsewhere!

Sir or Madame, can you not read?, or see clearly?, I know that the photograph does indeed exist, at long last I have seen it very recently at the residence of one of John B. Bachelders decendants, in Nottingham New Hampshire, where his family once resided.

The only hoax is the cover-up of people such as yourself who are either unwilling, or intentionlly seeking to hide the truth they are afraid to admit to their errors, or are blind!

This image of Lincoln post-mortem gained popularity in the late 1990s, but it is still under debate by many scholars, pro and con.

(Cathytreks 05:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC))

Details....details. Where is the photograph today March 19, 2006: Name the person who has it? What is their phone number so I can call them tomorrow? Rjensen 05:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Rjensen, I would be more than happy to comply with your wishes, I shall call the Badger/Bachelder owner of said photo myself in the morning (LOCAL TIME), so as to clear this up once and for all so that the photograph may be given its proper respect that is long overdue, since 1998, btw I was not meaning to sound disrespectful to you, but am heartsick over the doubters of what is so clearly a photograph of Lincoln taken through a death shroud at the White House on April 16th, 1865.

(Cathytreks 05:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC))

The family's outrage over my ill treatment here has now forced them into an untenible situation, Sir!

They will only co-operate if you can provide them and me ,( as a go between), with your scholarly background in Lincoln via photocopys or letters of your doctorate in his history, or other satisfactory proofs of your proffesional background.

The Bachelder family's (and my outrage) at your outlandish behaviour has now forced us to take steps, Sir.

Good day to you Sir! (Cathytreks 17:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC))

I'm happy to talk to the family. What is the phone number. By the way, does Cathytreks have a degree in history? Rjensen 20:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Another Take on the Lincoln Photo Debate

Let's say the photo is somehow real. So be it. Why is it necessary to put it here for the world to see. That would be like putting JFK's autopsy photos on his page here. It is disgraceful to do such a thing. It may be alright for a book that people can choose to purchase or not; but is irrelevant for an Encylopedic article on Lincoln's life and SAVING THE UNION as such. Let us not get off point here. I see the debate above, fine for a talk page...but my opinion is that Real or Not, it does not belong on this page. It is morbid and wrong to do so. --Northmeister 22:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll on death photo

I have watched this dispute go on for awhile and I have to say that I am quite skeptical that this is an authentic photograph. If you do a Google search, virtually the only references that appear are from the Wikipedia and Talk articles. I did a search through Manhunt by James Swanson, the recently published bestseller about the Lincoln assassination and although it includes photographs, this one does not appear. I also checked Questia.com and none of their online books about Lincoln mention it. Although we in the Wikipedia community sometimes will reference claims that appear in only a single book, I think that when a claim is disputed, the burden of proof becomes heavier and we should await further scholarly corroboration. A few additional reasons why I am skeptical: John Bachelder, who keeps getting cited as a famous photographer, in fact is not well-known in that vocation; he is known as a watercolorist, lithographer, and most importantly, military historian and preservationist. The image does not actually look like a real photograph. And, since Lincoln was shot through the left ear, he seems to have had some pretty impressive plastic surgery prior to this.

I would like to take a straw poll on whether to delete these photograph references from the Abraham Lincoln and John B. Bachelder articles. Add your votes below. Hal Jespersen 22:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I agree. There's no confirmation that this is a real photo, and there's no reliable sources. Mattweng
  • Strong Delete I am on vacation, presently on a very shaky dialup and not on my own computer with all my notes, so I can't give at present the full rebuttal I'd like to give to Cathytreks's arguments. But just a few points I'd like to raise:
    • The image simply doesn't look like a photograph, let alone a photograph of someone who's been murdered. That's not even to mention that this poor scan is beneath Wikipedia's standards of quality.
    • Self-serving statements made by an author in his own book (i.e. Ostendorf's claim of what this image is and its provenance) and not supported by any other authority (in fact, strongly contradicted — see the mailing list posts I linked above) are insufficient to meet Wikipedia's standards of verifiability.
    • Ostendorf was not a "Lincoln historian" in the academic sense as Cathytreks claims, but a collector of Lincoln photographs and memorabilia. The 1998 and 2004 printings of his book are not academic releases and lack credibility (unlike the earlier one, released by an academic press with an academic co-author; it did not contain the image in question).
    • Cathytreks claims the photograph is under heavy controversy among "Lincoln experts," yet there's no indication that anyone but us is even debating it, or that anyone but her is making such claims. Ostendorf's work is well known to historians, and I think that if anyone at all had given this image any serious consideration, it would have been all over the news and in every single Lincoln documentary and biography. Yet I've never seen it anywhere but here.
    • For all of Cathytreks's claims of having seen the original image and knowing its owners, she has been unable to provide a shred of proof or even a citation. I find it much more likely that the image is owned by Dr. Blaine Houmes, as he stated in the above-linked posts. I'm sure the matter could be easily resolved by contacting him, though frankly, I consider it already resolved, and don't think it's worth bothering him.
    • Some of Cathytreks recent claims are frankly laughable. Cathy, if you are a doctor of history, what are your credentials? Where did you get your degree? Why have you not edited anything else historical on Wikipedia (but instead a lot of cult sci-fi television shows)? Why do you present such an unacademic attitude and lack of literacy? If you truly are a professor, show us your curriculum vitae. Also, if you live in New Hampshire as you have recently claimed, why have you made previous statements that you live in New Zealand? Why does Google reveal so many hits for you there?
    • In sum, delete. —LonelyPilgrim 03:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Although Lincoln was not shot through the left ear, and whether a photo that would be 141 years old this spring looks like someone who was murdered or not, is not the real point. The photo appears to be bogus for a variety of reasons. I'm sure scientific or forensic photography should have solved this one already, if there was any truth to it. Wikipedia does not need any more Henryk Batutas in it. Dr. Dan 03:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

A WITCH HUNT AND MY SUBSIQUENT HANGING,OVER A BELOVED PRESIDENT, IS OVER.

I have had several views of an old photograph that would clear it up, but some others use my screen name cathitreks or cathy treks or cathytreks , they are NOT me yet why does everybody have it out for me here for trying to show the truth as I believe it to be!?

I only sought the acceptance of my proofs ..........and have miserably failed. I am leaving your cleec (sp)...now sadly for me, yet maybe happily for many here after the latest attacks and smears for me, for what I genuinely believe in., and now some comments about my credentials that do not dignify a reply,

Fine...im leaving the Lincoln page you decide upon, and the narrow mindedness forever, here in what seems to be a ROSE COLOURED Lincoln Candyland only!...But folks, let us never leave the man in our hearts! 

A PERSONAL HERO TO.... ME THAT I LOVE!

            ABRAHAM LINCOLN!


Lincoln in 1847

I'm sadly leaving this place filled with much misunderstanding from many of the wiki "comunity" and withdraw from all of you, those who dont understand my sincere motives over a issue that seems hopeless to show or debate even amounst most of you, im sorry.,... I'm really very sorry, goodbye everybody..... I only sought truth.

I am heartsick over some of your attacks upon a sincere belief regardng the evidence I tried to present, my cousin in N.Z. did post under my name with my blessings as she believed too and tried to help show we were right, sorry you dont agree.

I really wonder what Lincoln would say over it all if he could?....

Somehow I believe he'd be sorry for we who sought the truth as some of the few here did, unlike the sheep who followed the wolves

shalom

....."a couple of misunderstood jewish girl's from both the old and new worlds bow from the stage here forever on this debate."

So...see ya round the galaxy! (Cathytreks 00:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC))

Thank you, Cathy, for respecting the rule of the majority. —LonelyPilgrim 01:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Edits reverted; delete the image?

I've taken the liberty, per the above vote, of reverting edits pertaining to the "Lincoln death photo" from Abraham Lincoln, Abraham Lincoln in popular culture, and John B. Bachelder. I propose that the image should now be deleted, both from Wikipedia and from the Commons. —LonelyPilgrim 02:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

No f-n way, the photo should stand for what ever it is, n let the viewer decide, i found it in whole other section of wiki re: controversial material and hoax's, its kewl!...... Actually the preceeding was written to me by my cousin in N.Z. with my blessings, oh my dear over anxiously enthusiastic cousin! trying to be of 'help" my dear stop!....My dear "cathytreks" clone near auckland, new zealand"! (Cathytreks 16:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC))

Without commenting on the authenticity of the photo, given that the photo was retouched, I'm not sure the public domain tag is valid. The retouched photo is a new work, just as a remastered album or a restored film is, and as such is under copyright I think. Esquizombi 07:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC) You silly person! The photo or etching was retouched 161 years ago and sat in a trunk for 150 years!..it is public domain! (Cathytreks 16:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC))

Please, WP:NPA. My understanding is that it was retouched for the book. If it was retouched at the time it was made, I apologize. Esquizombi 17:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it is I whom should apolojise to you good person!, perhaps you did not read the entire talk on the photograph here in the Talk Section? If you had you would made note from the contemperary statements made at the time, ..."that on the back of the photographs by John B. Bachelder's own neice's or daughters hand+ (over 120 years ago) the facts surounding the immediate events regarding the artist and engraver's involvement with the Lincoln pictures are discussed, incuding the fact that Mathew Brady was there with him, alone with the body for a time, to get a record of his death ..."imperishable!" -Mathew Brady 1871 interview, that plus letters to kin folk at the time. (Cathytreks 18:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC))

Photograph?.....or Very well done Engraving of Lincoln?

Whether it came across to some as an unintended or intentional "hoax" or as a real and contemperary photograph of the beloved late 16th President, (by me certainly I am drawn in by it's genuinely sad nature and naturalness of HIS face!).....a real photograph, or maybe just a exstraordinary and remarkable likeness via a well done engraving, by a great artist... done post mortem is not known, but the likeness to Lincoln is uncanny as well as haunting in it's portrayal of him.

Without question the photographer or engraver Bachelder, knew Lincolns face very well...HE WAS THERE the day after with Mathew Brady at Lincolns side, the day after Lincolns assasination, and that cannot be debated..for it is a part of the undisputed history all of us may read about in media and letters, and journals of the period being ~April 16th-17th 1865.

John Badger Bachelder, both an artist and an early photographer, knew his subject well...and while the original photo may have been destroyed, on the order of Stanton, all that may be left is that American Civil War Artist, Engraver & Photographers John B. Bachelders extraordinary undisputed likeness of Abraham Lincoln in Death in that hauntingly sad image.

I have updated the description page of the likeness..thusly.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Lincolnatpeace2.jpg (Cathytreks 18:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC))

I know the authentic history of the lincoln death photo

I have viewed the antique photographs and writtings of Bachelder, I made a appt to see the materials at the NEW HAMPSHIRE HISTORICAL society, in Concord N.H. near the state capitol building, ask for directions...better yet, call or email them.

The Bachelder photos/materials are genuine, and Orstendorf was a true Lincoln Scholar, and writer of several important civil war related books, very important, not a "collector"...He spent his entire life studying Lincoln's life and his subsiquent death! (Cathytreks 15:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC))

A frank assessment

Cathy, let's pretend for a moment that I find this alleged photograph even the least bit credible. The way for you to prove its veracity, and to have it instated at Wikipedia, is not through persistence or insistence, not through empty rhetoric, and not through personal attacks. It is through providing documentation from reliable, scholarly sources. So far you haven't done that. The only source you can cite for your claims is this book by Ostendorf. This presents several problems for us:

  1. It is not a scholarly source. Now, before you get angry, you should understand that "scholarly" is a technical term in the academic world. It means that the source was written and published through an academic apparatus — i.e. written by a scholar, and published by a reputable scholarly press with an editorial board and a system of peer review.
  2. Lloyd Ostendorf was not a scholar. Now again, before you get angry, we are not casting aspersions on either the man or his work. A scholar is someone who has an advanced degree in his field of study. Ostendorf did not. He was not a historian, but an artist and a collector of photographs. He had several honorary doctorates, but that is not the same thing as a bona fide academic degree.
  3. The book, and Ostendorf's claim about this alleged photograph, is not well-documented. So he says there's an inscription on the back. So? Who wrote the inscription? When? How did they know what it was? Where did the image originate? How did Ostendorf come by it? Where specifically is it now? None of these questions are answered in the source. This does not amount to documentable proof, and does not meet Wikipedia's standards of verifiability.

I can anticipate your argument; it's the same one you've had all along. You say you know where the photograph originated (from John B. Bachelder), you know who wrote the inscription (his daughter or niece), and you know where it is now (among Bachelder's descendants). Let's pretend for a moment that I believe you. Your having this knowledge doesn't help us. We can't take your word for it. This is not due to any personal bias; it is official Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia strives for verifiability. This means citable sources. If Ostendorf had satisfactorily documented his claim, it might possibly have been citable; he however did not.

Suppose you were willing to share all the information you claim to have (as you have so far refused to do). Suppose you gave us a proper, specific citation for the current owner of the photograph. Suppose you went and had a better copy made of it, or even had your own picture made holding it. Suppose the owner of the photograph appeared to tell us its tradition and provenance — how it was passed down to him, who made the inscription, and when. Suppose all of this was documented extensively. Then we might personally believe you. But this would still present a fundamental problem for us. Wikipedia, by official policy, accepts no original research. Even if you were to come up with all of this, we couldn't use it. All of what you're purporting to have done and proposing to do amounts at best to original research, and is not acceptable at Wikipedia.

So what can you do? You have two courses of action:

  1. First, you can provide a documented, reliable, scholarly, published source that supports your claim — one that takes this image, answers all of the questions that we all have about it, documents its sources and the provenance of the image, and states with authority that it is what you claim it is.
  2. Alternatively, if you are indeed convinced of your claim, by all means, keep researching. Have your work published in a peer-reviewed academic journal, then come back and tell us about it. Tell the whole world about it. We'd all be overjoyed to find documentable proof of another Lincoln photograph, and we'd instate it in Wikipedia in an instant.

But until you can do either of these things, I'm afraid there's nothing more we can do here. Your continued insistence, your repeated reverts, your ongoing harping over the same empty rhetoric, and now your personal attacks, are not accomplishing anything positive. They are undermining the integrity of these articles, they are disrupting Wikipedia, and they are annoying us. Please desist. —LonelyPilgrim 19:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

LonelyPilgrim...It looks like the forces of evil have won temperarily over the forces of good for now, I shall make no further encyclopeadia contributions though I know Bachelder's story as well or better than anyone here, nor shall I attempt to "prove" the Lincoln death photo to those here as there are many with eyes who refuse to see the truth, so I am already doing work along the lines of what you suggested above ...in a positive way.

Thank you for your kindness and when the photo and its story are reinstated as they will be someday, there will humble crow pie aplenty for those who mocked and ridiculed my sincere efforts for the truth to be known and shown to the world....your not one of them, and I am greatful for your nice way of putting things without putting me off as some/most would do. (Cathytreks 15:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC))

Gender

I think this article should at least mention that the Weekly World News suggests Abe may have been a woman. I don't know how true it is, but it deserves mentioning. TylerNi7 16:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

An article in a tabloid newspaper about something so demonstrably false has no place in an encyclopedia. Abraham Lincoln was a biological male who fathered four sons. The WWN article already has a section on the recurring subject of past and current presidents, so if anything this pseudofactoid should be mentioned in the WWN article. (I feel sort of dirty for even taking this suggestion seriously.) --Stephen Deken 20:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Somebody who seriously "doesn't know how true" an item like that, in a publication like that, is, has no business contributing anything to an encyclopedia. No doubt TylerNi7's statement was tongue in cheek. -EDM 00:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
If Abe was a woman, how could he be Bat Boy's father? - Nunh-huh 00:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
A quick [Google site search of Snopes] shows many urban legends about Lincoln, but I didn't see one suggesting he was a woman, so I don't think it's even notable as a legend.
I haven't looked hard, but the main Lincoln article doesn't seem say anything about the numerous legends that have attached themselves to the man, and we should probably have something about them somewhere if we don't already. One of my elementary school teachers read us a story that asserted that Lincoln personally invented the practice of frying bacon long enough to turn it crispy; I am not joking, but I've never seen this mentioned anywhere. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
If Lincoln were a woman, that would put his relationship with Joshua Fry Speed in a new light. Unless Speed were a woman, too, of course. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Presidential limousine

The Lincoln automobile is also named after him and, ironically, has been used as the official automobile of the President of the U.S. for over a century.

I removed the bolded portion. The Lincoln car company was founded in 1917, so they can't have been supplying automobiles for over a century. The current Presidential limousine is a Cadillac, and both Lincoln and Cadillac have been supplying the official vehicles for years, apparently. [8] [9] [10] [11] -EDM 22:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The Signed Letter

Yes the story is correct. Lincoln wrote out his pledge, letting no one read it. He sealed it in an envelope and all the cabinet signed the outside, After the election he released it. Rjensen 19:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed text

I removed the following:

All historians agree that Lincoln had a lasting influence on American political values and social institutions. He redefined republicanism, democracy and the meaning of the nation. He destroyed secessionism and greatly weakened states rights.

Except this isn't true. What "social institutions" did Lincoln meaningfully change? Slavery was abolished as a consequence of the war, not because Lincoln willed it. I guess in a weasel sense this is true, the argument being: Lincoln influenced the emancipation proclamation, the emancipation proclamation influenced social institutions, but this is weaker causation than the sentence implies. My old teacher, who was a student of David Donald at Harvard, argued that Lincoln did not fundamentally alter American values. In Lincoln's speeches, he appeals to traditional concepts of the constitution; he does not "redefine" the constitution, which implies he believed it meant something it previously was not thought to mean. Also, Lincoln IN NO WAY weakened states' rights. State spending increased during the war. Anyway, the old paragraph was more accurate:

Some historians also argue that Lincoln had a lasting influence on U.S. political and social institutions. The most important may have been setting the precedent for greater centralization of powers in the federal government and a weakening of the powers of the individual state governments.
This claim, however, is disputed as the federal government largely reverted to its former weakness after Reconstruction and the modern administrative state would only emerge with the New Deal some seventy years later.
The claim is true. Social Institutions: He was the most important person by far in abolishing slavery (thru both Proclamation and 13th). He also had impact on millions in terms homestead laws and pacific Railroads. Did he weaken states rights? Yes, the states forever lost any notion of being able to secede, or to protect any peculiar institution. He totally reversed Virginia and Kty resolutions. He did not limit how much states could spend. He ordered governors around in the South and Border states--that was utterly unthinkable in 1869. Listen to the supporters of states rights bemoan all the damage Lincoln did to their cause! Even today you hear that.

Did he change American POLITICAL values? Yes. Overall values? Probably not, but hey, the GOP still insists it reflects Lincoln's values and the Democrats say they are even MORE Lincolnian. Lincoln redefined republicanism and democracy-- he defined a new birth that was as important as the one four score and seven years ago (1776). that's the Gettysburg address. It ended the notion that there were separate states that voluntarily joined a union-of-convenience. Instead the US became for the first time a strong central state. He redefined democracy in terms "of the people etc" that remains the basis of our philosophy about voting rights. Did the federal government revert afterwards?? Oh no: the federal courts (filled with Lincoln appointees) became far more powerful and stayed that way (and they still are).

Lincoln did nothing on the homestead laws and Pacific Railroad-- those were all measures which Congress worked on independently. Lincoln just signed them. Remember the nullification crisis? When Jackson abandoned states' rights with his nullification proclamation, THAT was the death of the VA and KY resolutions, not the Civil War. Supporters of states' rights bemoan the New Deal, certainly NOT the Civil War (unless they are Confederate sympathizers). It is important to note that the U.S. did NOT become a centralized country after the Civil War; only the New Deal began the administrative state. The federal courts did not become more powerful as a result of Lincoln. The Gettysburg Address did not redefine democracy in terms "of the people," the Greeks defined democracy that way 1000 years ago. Finally, just because various parties invoke Lincoln rhetorically today, does not mean he actually changed political values in 1865. It is important to note that you guys are trying to rationalize the sentimental modern perception of Lincoln as some sort of transformative figure. As Americans we have an emotional attachment to Lincoln. This article should not represent that emotional legacy as some sort of historical fact. Please Don't BlockPlease Don't Block


Without Lincoln: no end to slavery. No redefinition of democracy as the main aim of American political values. No powerful Federal government, --maybe several different federal governments. No vision to transform the world. Unless he gets elected No Repuiblican Congress, hence no national banks or homestead laws or high tariffs. He proved democracy can work in wartime and can change the entire social-economic system. He proved you can make "all men are equal" an actual guiding principle of government. That's amazing achievement. Maybe somebody else gets the credit? Hardly. The historians are right: he made an enormous difference. It is NOT true that the New Deal began the Administrative state: Lincoln did. He ruled the conquered South with an iron hand (that is the parts his armies had liberated, which was about half). He made the decision to liberate the slaves, not somebody else. Rjensen 14:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Not all historians would agree with that, in fact I think few would. You are projecting the agency of the Republican Party on to one person. Please Don't BlockPlease Don't Block
Oh I think I know most the of the historians in the field and yes they do agree with that. Evidence: there is more scholarship on Lincoln than any other person in American histroy (and he probably is matched only by Napoleon). Try it this way: Why do YOU think historians have spent so much time and energy on Abe? Rjensen 16:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I will prove my claims in the following way. Also, David Donald's thesis is essentially what I have been arguing: Lincoln did not make as much of a difference as people think.
1.Democracy was the main aim of American political values prior to Lincoln; read Andrew Jackson's Bank Veto message if you have doubts.
2.As for your claim that Lincoln started the administrative state: what traditional state functions did the federal government assume during Lincoln's presidency? Name one. The power to wage war was never lodged in the states, and that is the power you are referring to.
3. Your statement that "he proved democracy can work during wartime" is question-begging; how would you prove democracy "can work during wartime" as a universal proposition? Democracy can work during wartime in some contexts and obviously cannot in others. (For example, during wartime it is often incovenient to have legislatures making policy; World War II Britain was essentially an "elective despotism").
4. Your statement that "he proved you can make equality a guiding principle of government" is a platitude. If you mean to imply that Lincoln made the advancement of blacks a "guiding principle" of his government, you are wrong; the policy of the Union Army was basically to re-enslave blacks up until Reconstruction.
Jackson did a lot for democracy too. But he vetoed things and Lincoln created new things. Lincoln's war goivernors ran all the political, economic & military affairs in their states. Treasury agents decided who could and who could not ship cotton (in places that was the main crop). Democracy works in America in wartime. The Brits, as you note, decided not to hold elections in WW1 and WW2. The Canadians and Australians followed the US in WW1, NOT mother-country. Maybe equality is a platitude today; it was not a platitude in 1860. Lincoln made that difference. It is absolutely false to say Union policy was to re-enslave the blacks! By 1864 Lincoln was demanding the vote in deep south (for Black veterans) --an astonishing development. Lincoln's policy was to permanently free all the blacks, and he did so. It wasn't Lee who did it!Rjensen 10:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Question

Just curious as to why there isn't actually a section (apart from in the introduction) that deals with the large number of criticisms levelled against Lincoln?

The topic is covered in depth in the Copperheads (politics) article. Rjensen 03:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

References

Don't tell me every single one of those books and websites was used as a source for this article. It seems to me people are conflating "references" with "further reading". The neoconfederate criticism subsection especially seems suspect, considering every one of the books and websites listed in it are by the same author. Johnleemk | Talk 03:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I confess I have used every one of the books listed. I have used most but not all the websites. As for neoconfederate publications, please add some more if you have them. (footnote: I did not contribue to the section on Lincoln in art and popular culture and have NOT read those items) Rjensen 04:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Expanding the RNC section?

Lincoln's nomination at the 1860 RNC seems like it should demand more attention than it does in the article. He employed brilliant strategists, far more so than even Seward who was operating under Thurlow Weed, did not make the same mistakes as some of the other nominees (Seward leaving the US for 8 months prior to the convention, Chase not attenting the New York City Cooper Union addresses, and dozens of other semi-coincidences that led to his nomination over the other three (Seward, Chase, Bates, noteably). Further, there should be some mention of Lincoln striving to be a second ballot nominee, accepting that the majority would first chose Seward, but that moderate Republicans weren't sure who the runner up to Seward would be--whom they would primarily vote for come the second ballot. I would write this, and I am willing to, but I'm not sure if this is the right forum for it (possibly the 1860 RNC entry). Mike Murray 07:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

John Wilkes Booth

Of course, John Wilkes Booth did not say "Hasta la vista, Abie", as it would have been an anachronism, but it would have been cool if he did. — JIP | Talk 21:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

... gotcha? --Golbez 21:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
You're next, Chester A. Arthur!130.113.75.47 03:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It's Booth not Boothe! Dr. Dan 03:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Breaking up the article

When I went to do some editing on the article a few minutes ago, I found that it was 78k, and I got the message about that being longer than preferred. I set about doing some work to break up the article into seperate articles, such as the one on his early life.
JesseG 22:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

  • That message comes with anything over 32K - which this article will never be. It is a remnant of older software, I believe. Also, it is not enough to just leave a link to say Lincoln's early life - people need some detail to decide if they are going to click on the link. Few people would want to read 7 different articles on 7 parts of someone's life. --JimWae 23:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Please read the link that accompanies that message Wikipedia:Article size - which includes the message "No need for haste". Get some support for specific intentions & your work will survive longer. Also see Wikipedia:How to break up a page --JimWae 23:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Why don't you try letting me finish my work first instead of going in and zapping it all away right away?
JesseG 23:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to seek mediation for this.
JesseG 23:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "Why don't you"... present your plan first!?! There have been many POV edits to this article & a major overhaul of the entire article should be discussed a bit first. Have you even noticed that 3 different people have already tried to get you to slow down? I see 0 edits by you, going back to August & beyond. I was surprised to see you are NOT a newbee --JimWae 23:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I oppose breaking off entire sections of the subject's life into different articles. We should have one comprehensive biography. Separate articles would be approriate for longer treatments of special topics, but the material should be summarized in tihs article too. -Will Beback 00:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Me too. For all the above good reasons NOT to break up this balanced article, which I believe is the appropriate length for Mr. Lincoln. Sfahey 02:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

re recent deletions on lincoln and slavery

1. although perhaps they needed watering down, i don't think the sentences justified being deleted

2. the most controversial statement ("This move remains one of the great seizures of private property by the federal government.") in this section was inexplicably left in. Sfahey 22:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln

Grammar

"Abraham Lincoln (February 12, 1809 – April 15, 1865), sometimes called Abe Lincoln and dicknamed Honest Abe..."

Shouldn't it be nicknamed?

67.129.137.94 23:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC) CAME

debate on Introduction

Lincoln intro

We seem to disagree. Why would his overseeing the war belong in intro (without even making clear he was president at the time & not a genreal) - while context for the assassination (something sorely omitted in most articles) be omitted? Lincoln's assassination was not like that of Kennedy - Lincoln's was clearly linked to a plot and to events of his presidency. The JFK article gives context to his asassination, even though it is less clear that the act was anything more than senseless. While other assassinations were committed by apparently deranged people, Lincoln's can be "understood" as part of the Civil War. I see no reason to delete this.--JimWae 04:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

    • I agree the assassination plot should be in the article. But not in the summary because the summary is what Lincoln himself did. As for the war effort: he selected all the generals and approved (or changed) their strategies; he was in charge of fundings, diplomacy, and politics, he picked all cabinet members and other senior officials, he took personal charge of emancipation and reconstrcution policies. That pretty much puts him in charge of the war effort, don't you think? Rjensen 04:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Where did I even suggest otherwise re being in charge? Biographies (and their intros) are also about the significance of people's lives, not just what they did. Using your argument, the intro would not even mention the assassination. Mentioning the plot also "gives a hook" to the reader --JimWae 05:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Many people just read the intro so it must tell what they need to know. The fact that he was assassinated is important only because it shaped attitudes and Reconstruction policies. As for the hook bit, there are 100+ fascinating things about his life, which people can discover by reading the article. Rjensen 05:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

And why is his managing the war "more intro-worthy"? Leave out the plot & you leave out any hook at all. --JimWae 05:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

it was a big and important war. foget the hook: this is an encyclopedia. Rjensen 05:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You have trivialized the introduction --JimWae 06:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

What would you say were AL's 5 to 10 most important doings? That's what should go in an intro. Rjensen 06:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Reconstruction started with Lincoln and was well underway when he died. Likewise abolition. the conspiracy is not nearly as important as what he accomplished Rjensen 06:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

certainly not " selecting senior civilian officials, supervising patronage and party affairs". The introduction was concise - now it focusses on his conduct of the war - something hardly anyone remembers him for --JimWae 06:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that no effort should be made in an encyclopedia to capture the reader's interest early on? That is precisely one of the purposes of having an intro at all. I have other things to do than argue with someone who just repeats himself & does not address my points --JimWae 06:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

yes the job of the introduction is to say what wass most important. I reject the idea that this encyclopedia should jazz up articles to attract readers who might otherwise watch TV. Lincoln ran the war effort and that's very important. As for public opinion, go to any bookstore like Borders and count the hundreds--even thousands-- of books on display about the Civil War. That certainly proves a demand for info on the civil war. Rjensen 07:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying leave out his management of the war - I kept it in a version you reverted within a minute. I am saying you are going into it in too much depth for the intro (and now you even have details on civilian appointments & patronage) & the plot is AT LEAST as good a candidate for brief inclusion in the intro. Following your argument that only what he did belongs in the intro, his assassination would not be in the intro at all. There is no such rule here nor in any literature --JimWae 08:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

why are you so smitten by the plot theme? Rjensen 08:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Why are you trying to make this about personalities? Run out of points to make? --JimWae 08:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

because you seem less interested in the big issues and instead focused on conspiracy. Evryone to their own taste but an encyclopedia has to focus on big issues. Which is what I tried to list in the intro. There are of course 100 other topics covered in the article. The challenge it to pick the 5-10 most important ones. Rjensen 08:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess then, within your complete grasp of the big issues, you do not include plots to assassinate presidents & the cabinet, but do include civilian appointments and patronage --JimWae 08:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

this is a biography of what LINCOLN did, not what the Confederates did. Rjensen 08:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Using that argument, the assasination would be entirely excluded. Fantabulous! It is an article about his life - both what he did and what happened to him - and his legacy. Your resistance suggests you want suppression of information. Most people are not aware that there was a plot. Introducing it early gives the reader motivation to read on. Talking about patronage & civilian appointments is not going to interest the reader - nor are they major topics --JimWae 19:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Is he any relation to Revolutionary War General Benjamin Lincoln?

24.199.134.34 21:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Please Add External Link to audio recollections of the Only Known Gettysburg Address Eye Witness - William V. Rathvon

William V. Rathvon's eyewitness audio recollections and reading of the address at NPR.org at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1045619

Discussion I added Rathvon's audio recollections to the Gettysburg Address article and was suprised that they were not already noted in that article. But, actually, NPR only has "part of the story" on Rathvon. William V. Rathvon is the only known eyewitness of both Lincoln's arrival at Gettysburg and his address itself to have left an audio recording of his recollections.

I actually had heard of the audio recording before NPR and have cassette tape copy from a friend who used to sell them on the internet. On one side is a lecture on the subject of Christian Science and on the other side, almost incidentaly, is his recollections of Lincoln.

Who was William V. Rathvon? He was successful Colorado businessman and an accomplished public lecturer. He ended up, of all places, as treasurer, in 1918 of the Christian Science Church in Boston Massachussets in 1918 and a member of its Board of Directors. He and his wife, Ella S. Rathvon, had served on the staff of the founder of that religion, Mary Baker Eddy. By the 1930s that Church had radio broadcasts of its religious services and religious radio shows. As a public lecturer and one of the five top people in that church, Rathvon would have had execellent access to the top quality recording devices of his time. Hence the quality of the 78rpm record. The term "long lost," really doesn't apply, as the Rathvon audio recollections have been known by an extremely small circle of individuals ever since he made them in 1938. To Rathvon, they were actually incidental to what he felt were his more important church-work responsibilities. I suspect that he made them simply for historical posterity as he never promoted them, or even promoted the idea that he had made them nor sold them per my source. I doubt very much that he even realized that they were unique a he, as an adult, saw men such as Lincoln's personal secretary, John Hay, a Secretary of State under McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt.

More information on this recording might be available by contacting the Mary Baker Eddy Library for the Betterment of Humanity in Boston, MA as they have extensive archival information on Mary Baker Eddy, the Christian Science church, and, of course, all of its key individuals such as Rathvon, who, as a personal student of Mary Baker Eddy, a church treasurer and church director, certainly would have been. As a Christian Scientist and a amateur church historian, I had known about Rathvon for more than 30 years. But I didn't hear about this recording until the early 1990s. David Keyston, the founder of the web site http://www.christianscience.org first put the tape on line on his web site. If anyone would like a copy in MP3 format they can email me at SimonATL@yahoo.com as Keyston said I could share it with whomever I liked. I no longer see the recording at that site. SimonATL 15:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

As I added to the article, Rathvon, was a nine year old boy when he saw Lincoln at Gettsburg became a gifted public lecturer and director of the Christian Science church. He made an excellent quality 78rpm disk recording in 1938 including his reading the address, itself. A copy wound up at National Public Radio during a their "Quest for Sound" project in the late 90s. Thet often air them around Linclon's birthday. To listen, click here [6]. Even after move than half a century, Rathvon's audio recollections remain a moving testimony to Lincoln's transcending effect on his fellow countrymen and the love which so many ardent unionists held for him. SimonATL 15:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abraham_Lincoln/Archive_2&oldid=1136491678"