Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Abraham Lincoln/archive4

Abraham Lincoln

Nominator(s): ErnestKrause (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC), Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 16th president Abraham Lincoln. It is a co-nomination with Nikkimaria and is the 4th time that this page has been nominated. A previous 2004 FAC nomination of the article was successful though it was delisted a year or two after that. Two further FAC nominations over the years also did not succeed. The current nomination is a significantly trimmed and condensed version of the Lincoln biography which previously had reached over 200Kb in system size, though now significantly condensed in system size. Looking forward to comments and criticisms from editors interested in this president. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who isn't interested in Lincoln?! But what an effort, magisterial, congratualations to all responsible parties! —Fortuna, imperatrix 21:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment: This is a great article! I don’t have enough time to give a full review, but I noticed quite a few images don’t have alt text. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe it’s recommended for every image to have at least some kind of alt text, so adding some would probably be for the best. Nice job overall, however — Crystal Drawers (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One comment: How about including a sentence in "Health and appearance" on what his voice was described as? LittleJerry (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't generally seen such a thing included, unless you think it is particularly noteworthy in this case? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It found it discussed here. I think its important since was a prominent public speaker. LittleJerry (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UC

This is impressive indeed. Some nitpicky comments follow -- I'm not at all qualified to pronounce on the history.

calling for "malice toward none; with charity for all" in his second inaugural address.: with the semicolon, this is slgihtly ungrammatical. Could do "malice toward none" with "charity for all"? However, that starts to look like scare quotes, so this might be an acceptable sacrifice.

Many of the sources for quoting this Inaugural take liberties in including or excluding the punctuation used here. For example, the National Park Service seem to exclude punctuation, while Bartleby's seems to include it. Preferences seem to vary. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of those use a comma? That would solve it nicely. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources prefer commas; Collected Writings of Abr. Lincoln seems to prefer the semicolons. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded this to omit the quote. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of quotations which need to be attributed intext, per MOS:QUOTE: see They settled in an "unbroken forest" in Little Pigeon Creek Community, Indiana. (and here consider MOS:QUOTEPOV) and Thomas and Nancy were members of a Separate Baptist Church, which "condemned profanity, intoxication, gossip, horse racing, and dancing." Most of its members opposed slavery. (to which the same may apply).

Its in Donald, p24; I'll need to confirm. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its referring to the 'Separate Baptists' as a group who opposed these types of conduct. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right -- under the MoS, we need to say that these are Donald's words in the text, not just in the footnote. On the other hand, I think there's a strong argument, especially in the case of the forest, to just paraphrase. I don't think we'd lose much by saying that the Separate Baptists were quite straight-laced people, with religious prohibitions against all of those things. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some paraphrasing and attributing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When Lincoln was a teen, his "father grew more and more to depend on him for the 'farming, grubbing, hoeing, making fences' necessary to keep the family afloat: I think teenager is better than teen in formal writing, though this may be my antediluvian British sensibilities. The quote, however, certainly needs attribution on two levels -- I would be tempted to paraphrase the first but be clear who said "farming, grubbing" etc -- was it Lincoln Sr.?

Its in Donald, p24 and p32; I'll need to confirm. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase does not appear in Donald, however, a previous editor may have found it on an anonymous web search. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we can't attribute the quote at all, it should be reworked into prose, assuming that the facts are verifiable by our sources. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's supported by Donald; I've rephrased. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

another milk sickness outbreak: hyphenate as a compound modifier. I must admit I don't totally understand this -- our article says that milk sickness is caused by drinking milk from a cow that has eaten a poisonous plant -- so presumably doesn't break out in the same way as e.g. flu?

It is a toxin which dairy cows ingest while feeding; the poison (toxin) then can be fatal. Wikipedia linked article for this does not hyphenate as its preference. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't hyphenate "she suffered from milk sickness", but you do hyphenate "there was a milk-sickness outbreak" -- this is a standard if not well-known rule of English grammar. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphenated. The etiology was not understood at the time; settlers considered it analogous to infectious diseases like cholera. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Possibly a bit too far into the weeds to EFN it, but I can see the argument. We've explicitly phrased this as a fear: I don't think we necessarily need to gloss e.g. "fearing that she may be a witch" with an EFN saying that witches don't exist. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham became increasingly distant from Thomas, in part due to his father's lack of interest in education; he would later refuse to attend his father's deathbed or funeral: is it worth giving a sense of how much later this was?

His father dies in 1851; this was a life-long issue for Lincoln. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could we give Ann Rutledge a brief introduction -- how old was she, for example? How did she die?

Born in Kentucky, like Lincoln. Added. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, when I'm asking a question here, I'm doing so on behalf of the reader -- I'm looking for the answer to be clarified in the text (or a reason why we shouldn't clarify it there), rather than necessarily for you to inform me here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest moving the link on "new homestead" to cover the "a", following the MoS guidance (I forget where) for similar piped links.

Indefinite article added. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the leader of ruffians known as the Clary's Grove boys: needs a group of ruffians or similar.

Added. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pace the eponymous article, "Lincoln–Berry General Store" should have an endash, not a hyphen ("Lincoln and Berry", per MOS:DASH).

Ndash added. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be helpful to set out briefly what a Whig was on first mention. Did Lincoln declare any political positions in his first, unsuccessful, campaign?

He was a supported of Henry Clay as a prominent Whig of that time period. Added to text. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but I don't think that quite answers the question -- what did Whigs believe in? Did Lincoln support him because he was a Whig -- which in turn raises the question of why Lincoln was a Whig rather than anything else? We do explain this a bit later on.

Rearrange sentence order; state relation to Clay toward top of paragraph. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why not bring this bit up to the first mention of the Whigs -- Their party favored economic modernization in banking, tariffs to fund internal improvements such as railroads, and urbanization? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and the part about Lincoln describing himself as "an old line Whig, a disciple of Henry Clay" LittleJerry (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both added to top of section there. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice comments. I'll see if the Donald citations are informative for one or two of these items. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's do a few more:

Lincoln denounced the "mobocratic spirit ... now abroad in the land", indirectly attacking Stephen Douglas, the Democratic Party, and anti-abolitionism: I think we need to explain the connection here.

Rephrased. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

though the duel ultimately did not take place, "the affair embarrassed Lincoln terribly".: another quotation that needs to be paraphrased or attributed. I would strongly recommend a thorough pass-through for these.

Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am still seeing a few in the early sections:

In his Springfield practice, Lincoln handled "virtually every kind of business that could come before a prairie lawyer".
He partnered for several years with Stephen T. Logan and, in 1844, began his practice with William Herndon, a "studious young man".
He insisted that morality required opposition to slavery and rejected any "groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong".: here I assume we're quoting Lincoln, but should, at least in the footnote, clarify when and in what context he he said or wrote this. Ditto, later, Lincoln's philosophy on court nominations was that "we cannot ask a man what he will do, and if we should, and he should answer us, we should despise him for it. Therefore we must take a man whose opinions are known..

There are two more in the section on his appearance. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amended. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln not only pulled off his strategy of gaining the nomination in 1846, but also won the election: pulled off is a bit informal, and this is hardly a strategy -- we just mean that he got what he wanted, surely? It was hardly some strategic masterplan to fail to get it in 1843, at least as we've presented it.

Rephrased. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

dropped the bill when it eluded Whig support: eluded is a curious metaphor here, and in any case I think MOS:IDIOM applies -- failed to attract support from the wider Whig party? After all, it had at least two Whigs supporting it.

Amended. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln spoke against the Mexican–American War: a date would help here.

Dates for war added: (April 25, 1846 – February 2, 1848). ErnestKrause (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He supported the Wilmot Proviso: ditto.

Added. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln emphasized his opposition to Polk by drafting and introducing his Spot Resolutions.: these are lc in the article by the same name. It might help to use the name of "spot" after we've explained the significance of the "spot" in question.

Current text states it as: "Polk insisted that Mexican soldiers had begun the war by "invading the territory of the State of Texas ... and shedding the blood of our citizens on our own soil"; Lincoln demanded that Polk tell Congress the exact spot, "implying that this spot was actually Mexican soil". His approach cost Lincoln political support in his district, and newspapers derisively nicknamed him "spotty Lincoln"", in 1847. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reordered. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

appointed Commissioner of the United States General Land Office: lc commissioner per the ever-fun MOS:PEOPLETITLES.

Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a riverboat man: I'm a bit lost here. In what sense was Lincoln a "riverboat man"?

Reword with his patent in riverboats first, followed by his law case preferences. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln demanded that Polk tell Congress the exact spot, "implying that this spot was actually Mexican soil".: I'm sorry to keep beating this drum, but here it sounds like Lincoln said these words; they're MacPherson's, I think.

I'll take another look at it. Lincoln's situation appears to have resulted from what he thought was a rhetorical flourish which the press did not like. I'll try to amend it. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has been reworded. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From 1853 to 1860, one of his largest clients was the Illinois Central Railroad.: what exactly do we mean by "one of his largest"? Do we mean that it took up most of Lincoln's time, or that it was one of the "biggest" clients he represented -- in which case, it sounds like we're being needlessly cautious in our phrasing?

Lincoln was dedicated to them to the point of their owing him very large legal fees, for which he needed to file suit against them to eventually recover. ErnestKrause (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endash in "Wade–Davis Bill".

Added ndash. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He called the Declaration of Independence, which found "self-evident" that all men are created equal and have an "unalienable" right to liberty: I would rework this per MOS:QUOTEPOV.

Alter wording, and keep 'sheet anchor' as unique to Lincoln. ErnestKrause (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We still have the very scare-quote-y quote marks: He called the Declaration of Independence, which found "self-evident" that all men are created equal and have an "unalienable" right to liberty, the "sheet anchor" of republicanism, at a time when the Constitution, which "tolerated slavery", was the focus of most political discourse. "Tolerated slavery" is a particularly problematic example, but all except "sheet anchor" need to go under QUOTEPOV. -- UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've made that change here [1], though another editor who liked the quotes returned them into the text. Any preference as to which you prefer? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see a read of MOS:QUOTEPOV that allows the quotation marks as written. You could rewrite the sentence to include more substantial quotation from the DoI, explicitly framed as quotation. Or, you could just knock the quote marks off and keep the wording: there's clearly no question of copyvio here and "the Declaration of Independence says that all men have an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" or similar is a perfectly respectable paraphrase.

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've inserted your words with reference to QUOTEPOV in the edit history comment field. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presidents' Day has the apostrophe after the s: there's several of them.

Changed. Only the last one was in genitive form; the others were just plural references to multiple presidents. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The failure of the Peace Conference of 1861 signaled that legislative compromise was impossible: I think this is a matter of opinion (albeit well-justified scholarly opinion), and needs to be couched as such.

I've amplified the wording, though the Donald book is the main cite for this: "The failure of the Peace Conference of 1861 to attract the attendance of seven of the Confederate states in rebellion signaled that legislative compromise was impossible". ErnestKrause (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The citation isn't the issue. It's still a matter of opinion/analysis -- it's clearly not a fact that there was literally zero probability of avoiding the ACW by a political solution. We can say that historians consider there to have been no chance of such a solution, that Donald thinks it was impossible, or anything similar -- all of those are potentially facts. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:32, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing wording to "not practical". It is Donald who is the one who is counting the states who participate and those which do not. He uses it to draw his own conclusion as a reliable source. If you have a different reliable source who is not in agreement with him, then I could bring it into the text. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying is the problem. If an acknowledged food expert says "Ham sandwiches taste better than cheese ones", we don't have licence to print "Ham sandwiches taste better than cheese ones" on Wikipedia -- it's a matter of opinion or judgement, not fact. We do have licence to say "the food expert Charles McChef has described ham sandwiches as tastier than cheese ones", or similar. The same applies here -- a matter of historical judgement, like "Germany was responsible for the First World War", "George Washington was the greatest US president", or "the Civil War could not have been peacefully averted after 1861", can only ever be presented as a judgement or opinion, never as a fact, regardless of where it's printed. WP:V is the policy here -- a statement that isn't falsifiable isn't verifiable either -- as explained in WP:OPINION. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding wording to attribute viewpoint to Donald with citation. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the selection and use of his cabinet Lincoln employed the strengths of his rivals in a manner that emboldened his presidency: I'm not totally sure what this means, in concrete terms -- particularly between the bolded part and the rest.

Emboldened his presidency by choosing the most competent rather than most compliant candidates for the cabinet. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Goodwin described the group in her biography of Lincoln as a Team of Rivals.: as we're using the term rather than the title, lc and Roman type.

Added as requested. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Democrat Stephen Johnson Field, a previous California Supreme Court justice, provided geographic and political balance: I think we need to say that the others were from the east.

They were from Ohio, Iowa and Illinois. Added. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln appointed his Treasury Secretary: is Treasury Secretary the formal title -- not Secretary of the Treasury? In any case, lc the title per MOS:PEOPLETITLES, and in Lincoln appointed his Treasury Secretary, Salmon P. Chase, to replace Taney as Chief Justice ("chief justice").

Change to lower case. Correct title is secretary of the treasury. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln believed Chase was an able jurist who would support Reconstruction legislation and that his appointment would unite the Republican Party: we've jumped ahead here: a year would be helpful, but we also need to be clear what Reconstruction was, and that Lincoln believed the end of the Civil War to be imminent.

There is distinction of Reconstruction after Lincoln in office, and during Lincoln in office. The current version deals only with the start of 1865, and the end of 1864 somewhat. I'll check the wording for emphasis. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given all that prose, what does the table of Supreme Court justices add to the article?

The emphasis is on the number of appointments Lincoln had in his short time in office. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but we get that number and the rough dates (though see my comments above) in the preceding paragraph of text, so my question is: what does the table add that we don't already have there? It's very visually prominent, so takes a lot of the reader's attention: I think we need to justify spending our metaphorical capital in that way. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trying it without the table. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In early April 1861, Major Robert Anderson, commander of Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina, advised that he was nearly out of food. After considerable debate, Lincoln decided to send provisions; according to Michael Burlingame, he "could not be sure that his decision would precipitate a war, though he had good reason to believe that it might".: I think we need to be a bit clearer as to why this would precipitate a war, which may perhaps be the same question as "why was the fort out of food?"

I'll re-examine the wording. The provision of supplies from the North to South Carolina was seen as explicitly prevocational, interpreted by So. Carolina as an act of war/declaration of war. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Fort Sumter attack rallied the North to defend the nation: is this quite NPoV?

This is Burlingame's ascription of Northern sentiments at the time as cited there. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikivoice, we need to maintain NPoV even when our sources don't. It would be perfectly fine to say that public opinion in the North considered military action against the South a matter of defending the nation. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing wording. Now stating 'public opinion'. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

allowing arrests without charges: without charge is the usual term, I think.

Without formal charges. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: when you want to say that the police detained people but they were not charged with a crime, you say "they were arrested without charge" (cf. "detained without trial", "taken without permission", etc, which are all singular even when there are multiple denied trials etc). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Er, are you sure about this? "Without formal charges" seems to be quite common in legal sources (eg). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ngrams shows a 3:1 preference for "without charge", but on further looking around there are indeed good sources using charges, so this is editor's discretion. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the Copperhead leader Clement L. Vallandigham: what was a Copperhead?

In the party politics of Lincoln's day it is defined in the current article as: "Copperheads (anti-war Democrats) criticized Lincoln for refusing to compromise on slavery; the Radical Republicans (who demanded harsh treatment against secession) criticized him for moving too slowly in abolishing slavery". ErnestKrause (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but not for another two paragraphs, and on the other side of a section break. As usual, I'm not asking this because I haven't looked it up, but because there's a gap in the explanation we're presenting to the reader. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He's now added as the anti-war Democrat who's a Copperhead. Copperhead is also linked. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

any compromise alienated factions on both sides of the aisle: MOS:CLICHE.

It is meant as a reflection of the complicated party politics surrounding Lincoln. His VP was a cross-party appointment as a War Democrat, alongside Lincoln's Radical Republican friends. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but there are non-clichéd ways to say that in plain language: "factions in both political parties", for instance. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:38, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Using your wording. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On August 6, 1861, Lincoln signed the Confiscation Act of 1861,: I would cut to "the Confiscation Act", since we just said it was 1861.

Added. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln's war strategy had two priorities: ensuring that Washington was well-defended and conducting an aggressive war effort for a prompt, decisive victory: no hyphen. The following footnote says "however", but I don't see a prediction of victory in 90 days as opposite to this.

No hyphen. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UndercoverClassicist, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not at this stage; in an ideal world I'd wait for Hog Farm before moving too far forward with this one. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to finish my review this evening. Hog Farm _Talk 18:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HF

I intend to do a full review; I just won't have as much time onwiki as I would like for several days due to a sudden real-life work project. I have an open Civil War-related FAC myself that could use comments either positive or negative, but of course I intend there to be no pressure to review that one. Hog Farm _Talk 01:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Noah Haynes Swayne, a prominent corporate lawyer, who replaced John McLean after the latter's death in April 1861." - this is a sentence fragment

Copy edit correction. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the Early Union military strategy, there really ought to be some reference to the Anaconda Plan - while Scott's proposal was never formally adopted, the general ideas became key elements of the northern war plans.

Added. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, the Union blockade should be linked in the body and not just the lead

Not in current version of lede or body. Possibly it could be added as part of the Anaconda Plan edit you mention above. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

" General Henry Halleck, " - For American Civil War topics, you need to be very careful with the use of the term "General". The South had a formal, specific rank known as "General" that was a four-star rank; there was no equivalent rank for the North (the highest was Grant's late war three-star rank), but it's still a bit problematic to use that term for Union officers because of the specific terminological meaning on the other side. Halleck was a Major General. The later reference to "General Robert E. Lee" by contrast is accurate

Amend to Major General. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is still "General Zachary Taylor", "General Don Carlos Buell", and a few others. If you're going to be using it as a generic term like in "General Pope" I don't think it should be capitalized as it is not a proper title. Hog Farm _Talk 16:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amended. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"For his edification Lincoln relied on a book by his chief of staff General Henry Halleck, Elements of Military Art and Science." - Halleck did not have an appointment as a chief of staff until 1864; he had a departmental command out west first in Missouri and adjacent areas and then into Tennessee/Mississippi from which he was called east to become the General in Chief in July 1862.

Its Major General now. Attention in the article goes quickly to George B. McClellan next. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that we are erroneously calling Halleck a "chief of staff" in a time period where he was not anybody's chief of staff. Hog Farm _Talk 16:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amended. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Link RMS Trent?

Linked. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:45, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"as did his position that no troops were needed to defend Washington." - I don't have the source and page number in front of me right now, but McClellan wasn't stating that no troops were needed to defend Washington. Rather, it was a dispute over how many troops were needed as well as the quality of troops McClellan left (and McClellan's creative accounting as to how many troops he had left to defend the capital)

Adding his participation in the allocation of troops for Washington. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The appointments were both politically neutral and adroit on Lincoln's part" - I think "adroit" here should be attributed to a source, given the degree of a debacle that the Burnside appointment ended up being

Lincoln replaced Buell with William Rosecrans and McClellan with Ambrose Burnside as both being politically neutral. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Hooker was routed by Lee at the Battle of Chancellorsville in May," - Chancellorsville was not a rout in the proper military sense, as Hooker retreated on his own volition and in a reasonably orderly manner

Change to 'heavy casualties inflicted by Lee." ErnestKrause (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When discussing the battles of the war, there is a definite skew towards the eastern battles - we get a mention by name of all of the major eastern fights from 1st Bull Run through the Overland campaign, and yet no mention of the critical capture of New Orleans, and the only reference to Shiloh is in a description of Grant's past victories?

Current emphasis in article is on Lincoln as Commander in Chief in relation to McClellan and the to Grant. Capture of New Orleans might be possible to add here. Vicksburg is usually cited as the related key victory. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I gather that this was why you added a mention of New Orleans when discussing the Thanksgiving holiday. However, the implication is that the capture of New Orleans, which took place in the spring of 1862, strongly influenced Lincoln's decision to proclaim a Thanksgiving holiday, which he did in late 1863. Does the cited source (Donald) say this? If not I am skeptical. Perhaps the mention of New Orleans should be moved forward to a place that is chronologically more appropriate. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the chronology there; auspicious events leading to Lincoln's proclamation. Its New Orleans on the way to Vicksburg. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be mentioned that Lincoln's reason to hold off on issuing the Emancipation Proclamation was to wait until after a battlefield victory, which ended up being Antietam?

It was used to buttress his announcement of the Proclamation. Added. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

" In July, the Confiscation Act of 1862 was enacted,[193] freeing slaves "within any place occupied by rebel forces and afterwards occupied by the forces of the United States"." - this reads as if it was a general emancipation of slaves in occupied regions, but it only allowed for confiscation in certain situations

The current wording in the article is: "In July, the Confiscation Act of 1862 was enacted,[194] freeing slaves "within any place occupied by rebel forces and afterwards occupied by the forces of the United States"." Add more? (The linked article states it as: "The Confiscation Act was enacted on July 17, 1862.[3] The defining characteristic of the act was that it called for court proceedings for seizure of land and property from disloyal citizens (supporters of the Confederacy) in the South as well as the emancipation of their slaves that came under Union control.[1] "). ErnestKrause (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to be clear that this allowed for only targeted seizure, not a general freeing of the slaves in those areas as the current phrasing implies. Hog Farm _Talk 20:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amended. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really due weight for two whole paragraphs on the Dakota War? I'm not overly familiar with Lincoln's Native American policy, but surely there was more to it than just sending Pope against the Sioux

There is also coverage of Native Americans in the George Washing article at George Washington in the French and Indian War which exceeds two paragraphs. In comparison of Lincoln to Washington then its seems like due weight for comparing presidents. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we were presenting a broad treatment of Lincoln's Native American policy, then this would definitely be proper weighting. Except we're taking a single incident and treating it like it's the end-all-be-all of his Indian policies. We're told that Lincoln wanted to reform the government's policies towards the Native Americans; but not given any details of this. Do the sources say what Lincoln's response to the Sand Creek massacre were? The issue is that we're taking one incident and conflating it with Lincoln's whole Native American policy. Hog Farm _Talk 16:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Native American issues during his presidency receive relatively little weighting in biographies of Lincoln, and the emphasis is heavily on the events in Minnesota (eg in Burlingame). I have reworked the section to give more context. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think we should stick to what is mentioned in Lincoln books/papers. I recommend using Green's book as a source for Lincoln's Indian policy. As well as the Sand Creek Massacre. LittleJerry (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Link for Michael Green: [2]. HF appears to being saying that due weight has already been met for this topic. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick look, I think the section is much better now. Hog Farm _Talk 23:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the Lieber Code mentioned in with the Dakota War? What I've read that discusses the Lieber Code does not mention it in relation to the Dakota War

Military conduct as it applies or does not apply to Native Americans appears to fit this context; discussion of proper military conduct. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it's misleading to the reader to contrast the Lieber Code to previous things that had nothing to do with the creation of the Lieber Code; we're basically trying to draw a comparison that isn't made in any source I've seen. And if the source you're citing here is making the comparison, you should be making that clearer. And was the Lieber Code actually applied to combat with the Native Americans? Again, see Sand Creek massacre. Hog Farm _Talk 16:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you are presenting this as NOR, based on a possible false analogy. The Lieber Code could receive much attention for its discussion of military ethics as applied to conflicts with Confederate soldiers; though its made more difficult when applying its principles to Native Americans because of their differing customs of warfare intergenerationally. The text from the article there states that the starting point can be stated as for possible adaptation: "To resolve the lack of military authority in the 1806 Articles of War, Commanding General of the Union Army Halleck commissioned Professor Lieber to write military laws specific to the modern warfare of the American Civil War. For the Union Army's management and disposal of irregular fighters (guerrillas, spies, saboteurs, et al.), Lieber wrote the tract of military law Guerilla Parties Considered with Reference to the Laws and Usages of War (1862), which disallowed a soldier's POW-status to Confederate guerrillas and irregular fighters with three functional disqualifications: (i) guerrillas do not wear the army uniform of a belligerent party to the war; (ii) guerrillas have no formal chain of command, like a regular army unit; and (iii) guerrillas cannot take prisoners, as could an army unit". ErnestKrause (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the stuff about the Homestead and railway acts awkwardly tacked on to the end of the discussion of reconstruction?

The article emphasis is more oriented to him as wartime president, rather than as having legislative initiatives; the 13th Amendment seems to receive due weight in the article, and the two acts you mention are presented as receiving a little less attention. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These really belong elsewhere; I'd be inclined to move this to the fiscal matters section, as these are at their base economic policies, and have nothing to do with Reconstruction. Hog Farm _Talk 16:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those Acts now moved to Economics section. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow later; this is from the material I'm the best read in. Hog Farm _Talk 02:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice comments. Looking forward to more comments when you have time to add them. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hog Farm: Short note to ask if there are any more edits which could be brought into the article to help gain your support for it. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll complete the review once I have spare time, which is a bit unpredictable for me right now. Hog Farm _Talk 20:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the most accurate in the infobox to call him a non-combatant for the Black Hawk War? He didn't see combat, but non-combatant at least in the modern sense is a specific term that refers to medics and chaplains and the like
Amended. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"though Lincoln prevailed with the party in limiting Hardin to one term" - it's unclear to me what exactly this is trying to say. Did Lincoln actively work to only allow Hardin one term? Is "the party" here meant to be a reference to the party mechanism or to the voters?
Yes and the party convention voters - do you have any suggestions on wording would clarify that? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll need to read the underlying source and then come up with a suggested phrasing. Hog Farm _Talk 00:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've rephrased, see what you think. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This makes much more sense. Hog Farm _Talk 00:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"and was awaiting ratification by the required three-fourths of the states when Lincoln took office, whereupon Southern states began to secede" - I'm not a fan of this phrasing as all of the states either seceded before Lincoln took office or after Fort Sumter and the call for 75,000 volunteers; no states seceded just because of Lincoln's inauguration
Amended. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How come David Davis isn't linked?
Now linked. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
" allowing the targeted seizure of slaves "within any place occupied by rebel forces and afterwards occupied by the forces of the United States"." - I still think we succinctly need to state in what cases targeted seizure was allowed

The text states that as military expansion by the United States progressed, that the assertion of emancipation would be simultaneously granted to any former slaves encountered during the expansion. The geographic expansion of the marching troops as they claimed territory would assert freedom to any slaves encountered on such claimed territory. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The nuance that you're failing to catch is that the Confiscation Act of 1862 only applied to those disloyal to the United States which was NOT held to be all of those in the Confederacy. Lincoln's government considered some within the seceded states to still be loyal to the Union - cf Lincoln's constant concern for the Unionists of East Tennessee. Hog Farm _Talk 14:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article for Confiscation Act of 1862 definition can be modified if you can make suggestion for an alternate to the one currently there stating: "This law specifically targeted the seizure of property of any Confederate military officer, Confederate public office holder, persons who have taken an oath of allegiance to the Confederacy or any citizen of a loyal Union state who has given aid or support to any of the aforementioned traitors to the United States of America." I'll change the sibling article also if needed. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think all we need to do here is to indicate briefly in Lincoln's article that this act allowed for the targeted seizure of slaves for those disloyal to the United States. We can't quote ""within any place occupied by rebel forces and afterwards occupied by the forces of the United States"." without making it clear this isn't a general emancipation proclamation and it's weird to say it was a targeted seizure without indicating who it was targeting. Hog Farm _Talk 00:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amended. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This change will work. Hog Farm _Talk 00:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Senator Willard Saulsbury Sr. criticized the proclamation, stating that it "would light their author to dishonor through all future generations"." - I don't believe this was only after the private Cabinet introduction - it seems a bit odd to place this criticism earlier in the timeline than it actually would have occurred. My impression was that this was not a public matter until the preliminary draft - am I wrong about that?

The source presents Saulsbury as directly rebutting the president in terms of the timeline for this statement. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Hog Farm _Talk 20:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've just now noticed that we have an infobox note discussing Lincoln's re-enlistment at a lower rank in the Black Hawk War, but this isn't mentioned in the article body so this isn't actually sourced anywhere. Hog Farm _Talk 00:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cited. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Lincoln's war strategy had two priorities: ensuring that Washington was well defended and conducting an aggressive war effort for a prompt, decisive victory" with "Major Northern newspapers, however, predicted victory within 90 days" as the endnote - why the "however"? While there were certainly those who expected a long war from the get-go, that wasn't the prevailing view and the Union was raising a bunch of 90-day volunteers in '61. I don't really see the sentence and the endnote as contrasting enough to warrant a "however"

Dropping 'however'. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Rhea, Gordon (2001). The Battle of Cold Harbor. U.S. National Park Service and Eastern National. ISBN 1888213701." - citation information is wrong. Those NPS/Eastern National guides usually aren't 400 pages long (Amazon and Worldcat both say 60 pages for that ISBN). I can confirm that the statistics are generally found on page 393 of a different Cold Harbor book by Rhea that I have a copy of in my personal library. The citation information for that copy is "Rhea, Gordon C. (2002). Cold Harbor: Grant and Lee, May 26–June 3, 1864. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana State University Press. ISBN 0-8071-2803-1". So is this supposed to be the LSU book (which is part of Rhea' well-regarded series on the Overland Campaign) or is this information also found in the NPS/Eastern National guide and the pagination is just wrong? Assuming the LSU Rhea work is meant, I'm not seeing where the 7,600 Union killed is coming from - it's not on that page of Rhea and while I was able to find those pages of Young on the Wikipedia Library, those pages only cover Confederate losses

That's correct when you state it was 2002 and not 2001; Rhea wrote of that battle separately in both 2001 and 2002. The Correct one is in the article now. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So that just leaves where the 7,600 Union killed is coming from. Hog Farm _Talk 15:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was a CWW in answer to another editor requesting more details about Grant's related campaigns. If that specific statistic is not in the citation, then it can be removed since the other statistics in the CWW have been verified. Nikkimaria can also take a second look. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what CWW means in this context, but even though another editor requests some further detail you still need to provide a real source that supports it. Hog Farm _Talk 20:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Confederate forces triumphing at the Battle of Mansfield, the Battle of Cold Harbor, the Battle of Brices Cross Roads, the Battle of Kennesaw Mountain and the Battle of the Crater damaged Lincoln's re-election prospects, and many Republicans feared defeat; Lincoln rejected pressure for a peace settlement" - can you please provide the quote for this? I brought up the Wikipedia Library copy of this ANB entry and I'm not seeing where any of these battles are mentioned by name

Each of the battles in that section were added individually and are blue linked; the relevant date of the battle is listed in the selected article. They all verify as in the correct time frame and as Union setbacks. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's original research to come up with a list of those on your own and determine those are the most significant. For instances, why link Battle of Mansfield rather than the greater Red River campaign? I suspect you'll probably find more references in the literature to the latter. But we can't pick and choose examples without a source for a FA. Hog Farm _Talk 14:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source being used states the Lincoln was concerned with the Union setbacks during the time period specified. I'll add that these were examples and not an exhaustive list. Its possible to find another source for an exhaustive list if needed. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then just state that Lincoln was concerned with Union setbacks, unless you want to utilize a source that identifies some as particularly important. We shouldn't be making value judgments of which ones must be the most important without backing that with a source, and we certainly don't need an exhaustive list. Hog Farm _Talk 15:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does this edit summary mean that Donald lists these battles? If so, then why don't you just cite Donald in there too? Hog Farm _Talk 15:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That edit summary from me was overly concise, combining two separate cite sources. The statistics are not in Donald, which only contains the Lincoln quotation in that sentence. The list of battles as I'm recalling was a CWW from the request from another reviewing editor (Nick-D below) below who requested more detail on that campaign. Nikkimaria can decide how best to describe this since its not in Donald. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The list is like the one used in the Wikipedia article for 1864 United States presidential election in the section for 'General election'. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but we still can't be basically indirectly using another wikipedia page as a source. Hog Farm _Talk 15:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure the publisher for Murrin is "Clark Baxter"? I'm seeing several things that say Thomson Wadsworth for that book.

The Murrin book is up to its seventh edition, and the 4th edition matches with the 2006 publication date which was published by Belmont, CA : Thomson Wadsworth. Updating. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's through the second pass for me. Hog Farm _Talk 00:22, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now as the nominator is apparently willfully adding things that aren't found in the citations in response to requests for further detail per this. It's also concerning that apparently they were citing page 393 of Rhea but then adding a long citation to a book that was only 60 pages long; this appears to have been yanked straight from Overland Campaign without actually verifying the content to the book as it would have been obvious that the Eastern National guide wasn't the correct book - compare what was added to this article with this revision of the Overland Campaign article. I don't trust the sourcing at this point. @FAC coordinators: Hog Farm _Talk 20:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to either Rhea book, but I've confirmed the numbers of deaths using another source, now cited. I've also removed the battle list and done some additional spotchecking. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have great respect for all that Nikkimaria has done for the featured article process, so I don't really want this to be how the review ends. ErnestKrause - What parts of the article have you copied over from other wikipedia articles without verifying, and what all has been added without a source? I have found that a lot of times, even what's sourced in a wikipedia article can't be trusted. My very first GA (Battle of Wilson's Creek) back in 2020 I had trusted pre-existing sourced content, but then later found out that a lot of what was there wasn't supported by those sources, and I had to do a top-to-bottom rewrite. I also had a bunch of requests for additional background information at the FACs of Battle of Arkansas Post (1863), but instead of copying stuff over without checking, I spent a lot of time with a 900 page book (Welcher). I would expect that something like Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era would be the first place to look for background material, not wikipedia articles. Hog Farm _Talk 02:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BL

Our description of the Gettysburg Address is now this:

Lincoln spoke at the dedication of the Gettysburg battlefield cemetery on November 19, 1863. In 272 words, taking only three minutes, Lincoln asserted that the nation was "conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal", and that the deaths of the "brave men ... who struggled here" would not be in vain, but that the nation "shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth".

I am aware that this summary has gone through several changes, and one editor said, "There is no reason to reduce the number of quotations." But in its present form, there are just too many quotations. Ironically, we then say The Address became the most quoted speech in American history. Sure enough! I am not sure how to fix this, but there must be a way. Note that we have an article about the Gettysburg Address. Bruce leverett (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have reduced the quotes. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jon698

Every state in the Early Life section is wikilinked except for Virginia, which is also the first usage of Virginia in the article.

Linked. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could "They had three children: Sarah, Abraham, and Thomas, who died as an infant." be changed to "They had three children: Sarah, Abraham, and Thomas; Thomas died as an infant."

Amended. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could "Overcoming financial challenges, Thomas in 1827 obtained clear title to 80 acres (32 ha) in Little Pigeon Creek Community." be changed to place the "in 1827" at the end of the sentence?

...in 1827. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could "nine-year-old Abraham" be changed to use 9 so that it is consistent with the other ages that use numbers in the sentence?

Arabic 9. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could the wikilink Slave market be added to the "where he first witnessed slave markets" part?

Linked. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could a comma be added before but in "He was elected the captain of his militia company but did not see combat"

Add comma. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the first wikilink of the Democratic Party from its second mention to its first mention in this edit

It should be the first instance in the main body. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could "John J. Hardin was the successful candidate" have successful changed to winning?

Winning. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could this photograph be added to the "U.S. House of Representatives (1847–1849)" section? Besides being a depiction of Lincoln during that time, it is also the earliest known photograph of him so it is rather important.

Article is somewhat generous with images already; could it maybe replace one of the others. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilink the only mentions of Salmon Chase and First Battle of Bull Run Jon698 (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Link them. Salmon P. Chase is already linked in the Personnel section and in the Cabinet infobox. First Bull Run is already linked in McClellan section as "Bull Run" as piped. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to more comments when you might have time for them. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ErnestKrause: I have finished looking at the article and cannot find any issues that have not been brought up by other users. I have nothing left to critique or oppose in this article. Jon698 (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D

I'm most familiar with Lincoln's role in the Civil War, so I'll focus on those sections of the article:

" Lincoln won the 1860 presidential election, but the South viewed his election as a threat to slavery, and Southern states began seceding to form the Confederate States of America." - this (in the lead) essentially attributes the Civil War solely to Lincoln's election, which is a considerable over-simplification: tensions between the slave and non-slave states had been increasing since independence and fighting was underway long before the election (Bleeding Kansas, etc)

Both states rights and slavery threatened. Adding them together into the lede. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Lincoln closely supervised the strategy and tactics in the war effort, including the selection of generals, and implemented a naval blockade of Southern ports." - I'd suggest making this the second sentence of the para, as it explains the rest of the para. The para could also be strengthened by tweaks to the first two sentences to stress how strongly dedicated Lincoln was to restoring the union through winning the war.

Alteration of sequence of sentences in lede. It should be more clear now. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"As states sent regiments south" - specify that these were northern states

Northern states now. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Commander-in-Chief' section seems miss-titled

This is the president's official title in relation to the military as used in that section, and the section after that which uses the phrase: "He responded to the unprecedented political and military crisis as commander-in-chief by exercising unprecedented authority." Is there an alternate suggestion? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Early Union military strategy' section would benefit from material discussing Lincoln's focus on winning the war. Historians often note that he was much clearer eyed on this that most of his ministers and senior generals, who had a tendency towards half measures while Lincoln accepted from an early stage that the union could only be restored through victory and this would mean tough fighting.

As you also state later in the article when you mention McClellan, Lincoln was certainly frustrated with McClellan on this issue in particular. I've strengthened some of the wording on this already as stated in answer to your McClellan comments below. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"It was clear from the outset that bipartisan support was essential to success" - I'm sceptical about this claim, which doesn't seem to reflect the consensus in the literature I've read.

Although Lincoln is usually identified as a moderate Republican, he was not averse to accepting support from the War Democrats as well; definitely both sides of the aisle on this issue. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Lincoln selected civilian generals from varied political and ethnic backgrounds "to secure their and their constituents' support for the war effort and ensure that the war became a national struggle"" - I'd suggest noting that this was at the outset of the war. As it continued, he increasingly favoured generals with a record of success, who were usually the professional soldiers.

Stating now that it was early in the war. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Early in the war, he created defenses " - is the "he" here Lincoln or McClellan?

It was McClellan. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

" McClellan spent months planning his Virginia Peninsula Campaign" - this and the subsequent text is a bit confusing: the issue is that McClennan was (incredibly) excessively cautious, which led to campaign to move slowly and become bogged down. It ended with McClennan being thrown back by an inferior force due to becoming spooked.

Adding excessive caution as a point of frustration to Lincoln. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"On July 22, 1862, Lincoln reviewed a draft of the Emancipation Proclamation with his cabinet. ... Buttressed by news of the recent failed Southern offensive at Antietam, on September 22, 1862, Lincoln issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation." - you should note that Lincoln chose to delay this proclamation as he wanted it to follow a major Union military victory so it wasn't seen as a response to defeats.

Wording adapted to assert Union victory claimed after southern failed assault at Antietam. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "Promoting Grant" section is a bit under-developed. A point that historians usually note is that Grant was the first senior leader who was fully aligned with Lincoln's understanding of how the war needed to be fought, and that Lincoln was greatly relieved when Grant pushed forward after difficult battles where the previous generals would have retreated. This led Lincoln to become less hands on in directing the armies as he trusted Grant. The material on the campaign that led to the fall of Richmond should also be fleshed out a bit more.

I've added a short expansion of the multiple engagements in the Overland Campaign leading to the fall of Richmond. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Grant's bloody stalemates" - without edits as suggested above, it's not clear what this refers to.

Now listing some of the examples. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Victories at Atlanta and in the Shenandoah Valley turned public opinion" - say when these occured

September and October, as now added. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"A month later, on April 9, Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox" - this should be fleshed out a bit to note that there were other surrenders as the confederacy collapsed (the fact that the Confederacy ceased to exist also isn't explicitly noted at present)

Now amended to state that this signaled a series of surrenders which ended in June, after Appomattox. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has objected for his own reasons to the amended edit which I added here: [3]. His claim appears to be not to elaborate of the conclusion of the war but only about Lincoln. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That para looks good to me. Nick-D (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two paragraph-length quotes from Foner seem excessive, and the second one lacks a source. Nick-D (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cites added. This is already a shortened version. Maybe shorten further or delete one of the cites? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that Lincoln is one of the most written about people of all time, so two paras from a single historian seems hard to justify. Nick-D (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its been condensed further. Foner was a professor at Columbia University and the quote seems authoritative. If you think it should be further trimmed, then maybe list here the part that works from your viewpoint. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Foner was a professor at Columbia University and the quote seems authoritative: without wishing to speak for Nick, I'm sure similar credentials could be offered for dozens (at least) of respected academics who have written about Lincoln. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:16, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Foner isn't just any professor- he's definitely one of the most widely read and respected scholars (and probably the single most read/respected living scholar) on the Reconstruction Era. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but there are any number of other eminent historians of this era in US history. Nick-D (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice set of comments about the war. Looking forward to more comments when time allows for you to add more. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments:

Only the first sentence of the para starting with "In surveys of U.S. scholars ranking presidents since 1948" seems necessary - the other sentences just repeat this.

The three opinions are kept together from Gallop, The Federalist Society, and the Leo book about the presidency to avoid a show a favoritism to any one of them. If any of them are shown to be flawed, they can be deleted. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Memorials and commemorations' section is just a listing of memorials and some of the things named after him: surely there are sources that discuss this thematically. It also doesn't discuss how Lincoln has been discussed on film and how this has changed over time; for instance, the people behind Lincoln (film) were partly motivated by wanting to portray Lincoln as a politician who got things done, at times in distasteful ways, rather than a superhuman figure. Nick-D (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "Film, drama, and fiction" section of the Wikipedia article for Cultural depictions of Abraham Lincoln is very large; its difficult to avoid looking overly selective in choices made and applied to that section. Doris Goodwin's book was used for the Daniel Day Lewis version of the film, done with high acclaim. Her book is mentioned in the Presidency section of the article mentioning her book Team of Rivals. Its possible to mention something like Spielberg's film version, though it might be overly selective to do this. Let me know what you think after you see the Cultural depictions of Abraham Lincoln Wikipedia article which I just linked. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Currently added as an Academy Award winning film. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nick-D: Just a short note to ask if there are any more edits which could be brought into the article to help gain your support for it. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just on the last point, I'm very doubtful that there aren't sources that thematically discuss how Lincoln has been portrayed in novels and films that can be drawn on instead of just nominating some examples. The point I was making by noting the film Lincoln is that it's an example of a project that sought to portray Lincoln in a different way to how he is usually depicted, so there should be material discussing the broader topic. Nick-D (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworked the section to incorporate thematic analysis. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikki. That material looks good, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Great work to Ernest and everyone else involved. Nick-D (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]