Just to get this started here, I feel the original sentence was fine as its not saying they don't know the exact count because it is unknown but because of the bench seating in the balcony section means more or less could have possible sat there. So they still would have had an idea that the approximately 1,700 was correct. Ping Donner60, EEng and 2601:807:8100:D910:E15C:5934:3A41:68BC. NZFC(talk)03:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
The old wording of approximately 1,700 was fine, though I've made that some 1,700 since I think flows more smoothly and better communicates the uncertainty. I think we're all on the same page except for our rogue IP. I wouldn't be surprised if there are scholarly sources discussing this in detail, but for now the NPS is quite good enough. The IP's concern seems to be that the modern capacity is only 700, but back in the day people were allowed to stuff themselves anywhere they could in the space, which of course can't happen now. EEng03:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Ping NZ Footballs Conscience, EEng and 2601:807:8100:D910:E15C:5934:3A41:68BC. I agree with the previous two comments. The IP may have been trying to interpret the source but the edit appeared to negate the 1,700 significantly and possibly to negate the fact that Hail to the Chief was played and the audience rose in applause. There is no doubt that happened. The modern seating arrangement is quite different from the seating at the time. The NPS source simply says the exact count may never be known because of the uncertain count of the bench seating. But this could even be read to mean the count was slightly higher. The comprehensive report on the restoration of Ford's Theater can be found at https://archive.org/stream/restorationoffor00olsz#page/n11/mode/2up. Page 37: Seating capacity of the first floor was "about 602." Page 39: Dress circle seated "about 422". Seating capacity of the family circle was "about 600". Page 43: Describes the boxes but does not give an exact seat count, probably because it could vary. Photo on page 42 shows the very different types of chairs used at the time which were quite different than the movie theater type chairs used today. In fact, as an aside, the original type chairs were used for some time after the theater was restored but were not so closely placed to each other; still the capacity was somewhat higher in the late 1960s/early 1970s than it is today. Donner60 (talk) 04:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you both for your comments, it appears IP isn't going to say or do anything more but it's good that we have this discussion here for future reference. NZFC(talk)05:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Laura Keene's account
17 April 1865 New York Herald
The article says that Laura Keene cradled Lincoln's head in her lap in the box. Does anybody know from what eyewitness accounts that comes from? I just want to clarify that I mean from the original witness accounts, not from the numerous books and articles about the assassination, ie who actually said that happened and was it contemporary or written years later? Did Dr. Leale mention it in his accounts? I ask because the account Laura Keene gave in an interview to the New York Herald a couple of days later doesn't mention this happening at all. Keene says she brought water to the box and then tried to console Mary Lincoln. As far as I know the Herald interview is the only account given by Keene herself, and being printed a few days later is also contemporary. Libertybison (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Lamon and Crooks’ accounts
This article mentions the famous dream Lincoln was said to have had of his own assassination; however, some respected historians have cited internal inconsistencies and external evidence regarding Lamon's account that lead them to question its veracity. Lamon stated that the incident had occurred only a few days prior to the assassination, yet within Lincoln's monologue he related at one point that the dream occurred "the other night" and also "about ten days ago." It’s also been pointed out that although Lincoln stated in the account that on the night of the dream he "had been up waiting for important dispatches from the front," during the period of March 24 to April 9, records show he had in fact had been at the front, rather than in the White House. There is also records and eyewitness evidence saying that Lincoln and Lamon did not see each other in those weeks. In addition, there was no contemporaneous account of the dream following the assassination. No one mentioned it in the voluminous writings of the period, not Mary Lincoln, Lamon, anyone else at the supposed telling of the dream, or anyone to whom those who heard it may have relayed it.
Additionally, the article contradicts itself at one point by saying “Mary Lincoln developed a headache and was inclined to stay home, but Lincoln told her he must attend because newspapers had announced that he would,” but then says “bodyguard, William H. Crook, advised him not to go, but Lincoln said he had promised his wife.”
So basically in one version, Lincoln didn't want to go to Ford's Theater that night (April 14th), but Mary Lincoln insisted. In this scenario, Mary becomes the scapegoat for the murder (like she had enough to deal with already!). In another version, Mary didn't really want to go but Lincoln felt that they must go as it had been published in the paper that they would be attending. Lincoln didn't want to let the public down. Thus, in this scenario, Lincoln was killed giving his complete "all" to the public-even though he wanted to stay home that evening. I'm sure there are other variations of what happened.
By all accounts, the Lincoln's seemed to have been in a good mood, so I am a little surprised to hear someone state that the president didn't want to attend the play, although I'm sure being tired is a good enough reason. Why the belief in Abe's hesitancy to attend? The source for this is William H. Crook. Crook wrote that Lincoln said, "It has been advertised that we will be there, and I cannot disappoint the people. Otherwise I would not go. I do not want to go." This is on p. 67 of Crook's book entitled Through Five Administrations.
I must add, however, that several highly respected historians do not regard Crook as a reliable source. Among these folks are Ed Steers and William Hanchett. Crook's reminisces have been studied and are regarded as not trustworthy. For example, Crook says Lincoln was depressed that day and had promised his wife they would go, but this contradicts the other accounts which describe Lincoln being cheerful that day; it’s like how the article included Crook's observation that Lincoln said "goodbye" instead of "goodnight." Did Lincoln really say "goodbye?" if so, can we really attach that much meaning to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.203.22 (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Booth’s condition
The article mentions how Lincoln’s appearance changed as he died. Should we do the same for Booth using sources from the Boston Corbett article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.200.125 (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Some sources I found that could be added for the "assassination" section on the Abraham Lincoln page. These have mentioned by some respected sources, and even a few historians. It is used on some articles.
“As he died his breathing grew quieter, his face more calm.[1] According to some accounts, at his last drawn breath, on the morning after the assassination, he smiled broadly and then expired.[2][3][4][5][6] Historians, most notably author Lee Davis have emphasized Lincoln's peaceful appearance when and after he died: "It was the first time in four years, probably, that a peaceful expression crossed his face."[7] Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Lincoln Administration, Maunsell Bradhurst Field wrote, "I had never seen upon the President's face an expression more genial and pleasing."[4][8] The President's secretary, John Hay, described it as "a look of unspeakable peace came upon his worn features".[9]“
^Abel, E. Lawrence (2015). A Finger in Lincoln's Brain: What Modern Science Reveals about Lincoln, His Assassination, and Its Aftermath. ABC-CLIO. Chapter 14.
^"President Lincoln's Thoughts on April 14, 1865". When he finally gave up the struggle for life at 7:22 A.M., his face was fixed in a smile, according to one bedside witness, treasury official, a smile that seemed almost an effort of life. Lincoln has passed on smoothly and contentedly, his facial expression suggesting that inner peace that prevailed as his final state of mind.
^Assassinations That Changed The World, History Channel
I just noticed that this article (great job by the way, it deserves a gold star) mentions the dream Lincoln was said to have had of his own assassination; however, some respected historians have cited internal inconsistencies and external evidence regarding Lamon's account that lead them to question its veracity. Lamon stated that the incident had occurred only a few days prior to the assassination, yet within Lincoln's monologue he related at one point that the dream occurred "the other night" and also "about ten days ago." It’s also been pointed out that although Lincoln stated in the account that on the night of the dream he "had been up waiting for important dispatches from the front," during the period of March 24 to April 9, records show he had in fact had been at the front, rather than in the White House. There is also records and eyewitness evidence saying that Lincoln and Lamon did not see each other in those weeks. In addition, there was no contemporaneous account of the dream following the assassination. No one mentioned it in the voluminous writings of the period, not Mary Lincoln, Lamon, anyone else at the supposed telling of the dream, or anyone to whom those who heard it may have relayed it.
Additionally, the article contradicts itself at one point by saying “Mary Lincoln developed a headache and was inclined to stay home, but Lincoln told her he must attend because newspapers had announced that he would,” but then says “bodyguard, William H. Crook, advised him not to go, but Lincoln said he had promised his wife.” So basically in one version, Lincoln didn't want to go to Ford's Theater that night (April 14th), but Mary Lincoln insisted. In this scenario, Mary becomes the scapegoat for the murder (like she had enough to deal with already!). In another version, Mary didn't really want to go but Lincoln felt that they must go as it had been published in the paper that they would be attending. Lincoln didn't want to let the public down. Thus, in this scenario, Lincoln was killed giving his complete "all" to the public-even though he wanted to stay home that evening. I'm sure there are other variations of what happened.
By all accounts, the Lincoln's seemed to have been in a good mood, so I am a little surprised to hear someone state that the president didn't want to attend the play, although I'm sure being tired is a good enough reason. Why the belief in Abe's hesitancy to attend? The source for this is William H. Crook. Crook wrote that Lincoln said, "It has been advertised that we will be there, and I cannot disappoint the people. Otherwise I would not go. I do not want to go." This is on p. 67 of Crook's book entitled Through Five Administrations.
I must add, however, that several highly respected historians do not regard Crook as a reliable source. Among these folks are Ed Steers and William Hanchett. Crook's reminisces have been studied and are regarded as not trustworthy. For example, Crook says Lincoln was depressed that day and had promised his wife they would go, but this contradicts the other accounts which describe Lincoln being cheerful that day; even the article has deleted included Crook's observation that Lincoln said "goodbye" instead of "goodnight." Did Lincoln really say "goodbye?" if so, can we really attach that much meaning to it?
17 April 1865 New York Herald
The article additionally says that Laura Keene cradled Lincoln's head in her lap in the box. Does anybody know from what eyewitness accounts that comes from? I just want to clarify that I mean from the original witness accounts, not from the numerous books and articles about the assassination, ie who actually said that happened and was it contemporary or written years later? Did Leale mention it in his accounts? I ask because the account Laura Keene gave in an interview to the New York Herald a couple of days later doesn't mention this happening at all. Keene says she brought water to the box and then tried to console Mary Lincoln. As far as I know the Herald interview is the only account given by Keene herself, and being printed a few days later is also contemporary.
In addition, Booth was shot in the neck, not the back of the head:
“The cause of death was a gun shot wound in the neck – the ball entering just behind the sterno-cleido muscle – 2 ½ inches above the clavicle – passing through the bony bridge of fourth and fifth cervical vertebrae – severing the spinal chord and passing out through the body of the sterno-cleido of right side, 3 inches above the clavicle.
Paralysis of the entire body was immediate, and all the horrors of consciousness of suffering and death must have been present to the assassin during the two hours he lingered.” – Surgeon General Joseph K. Barnes, in his report to Secretary of War Edwin Stanton after performing the autopsy on Booth.213.107.67.245 (talk) 07:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Request for minor addition regarding Ulysses S. Grant's emotional reaction
Hey hi,
I was hoping we could add the following statement and bibliographic source which was brought directly from Ulyesses S. Grant's Wikipedia article where it is mentioned that Grant was profoundly affected and upset about Lincoln's assassination and became emotional; I was thinking that we could add it in the "Reactions" section, right in the line where Grant calls Lincoln "incontestably the greatest man I ever knew", the line reads as follows:
Ulysses S. Grant called Lincoln "incontestably the greatest man I ever knew."[13]:747
And perhaps it could be edited to read as follows:
Ulysses S. Grant called Lincoln "incontestably the greatest man I ever knew"[13]:747 and he stood alone during his funeral while weeping openly.[1]
It's gonna look much better as it informs (the main goal obviously of this encyclopedia) while at the same time providing some extra emotional depth and reveals the human dimension of Lincoln's death: he was not just a public historic figure who appears in some coins but a human being who had loved ones and knew people who loved him back and were terribly affected by his death, something which is a little more significative to non-Americans like myself (a Mexican who lives in Mexico and has never lived in the United States); on top of that the source is trustworthy and has the advantage of being available publicly for preview via Google Books (the link for which has been included in the source) which would allow the readers to consult said source to read this passage or any other part about the American Civil War and President Grant's life and work. Besides of the practial reasons I believe it will just look awesome, really.
Thanks in advance and have a great day.
--177.227.43.209 (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
This issue should have been discussed here on the article talkpage, after my reversion to President, rather than changed immediately to president, but let's discuss the issue here. On the talkpage.
My understanding of MOS:JOBTITLES is that when the capitalization is referring to a specific person, in this case, President Abraham Lincoln, that capitalization is preferred, per
When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the Queen, not the queen (referring to Elizabeth II)
I've never seen it that way with "president". Even elsewhere in this article "the president" appears in lowercase. Suppose it were the president of a company, a school board, or for that matter the local Elks Lodge: by that logic, he or she would be "the President". Joefromrandb (talk) 04:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
The below exchange is from my Talk page back in July about a series of edits that took place in this article at the time. I had intended to post a copy of the exchange to the article talk page for reference and because it turned up interesting information about the hunt for Booth, but I forgot to do it at the time. So, I'm doing it now. Libertybison (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
The Abraham Lincoln article mentions it ("Secretary of War Stanton had issued orders that Booth be taken alive, so Corbett was initially arrested for court martial") and I found a book reference mentioning the same thing: "Conger himself verified that the orders from Stanton had been to take Booth alive if possible". It seems to me that this is indeed what the orders were, and the initial arrest of Corbett was for this precise reason. You reverted the edit and it now says "Corbett was initially arrested for disobeying orders but was later released", so which orders exactly are these, if not "the orders from Stanton […] to take Booth alive"?
The Boston Corbett article goes into more details about these orders:
Corbett claimed that he saw Booth aim his carbine, prompting him to shoot Booth with his Colt revolver despite Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton's orders that Booth be captured alive.
Lt. Colonel Everton Conger initially thought Booth had shot himself. After realizing Booth had been shot by someone else, Conger and Lt. Doherty asked which officer had shot Booth. Corbett stepped forward and admitted he was the shooter. When asked why he had violated orders, Corbett replied, "Providence directed me".
When questioned by Edwin Stanton about Booth's capture and shooting, both Doherty and Corbett agreed that Corbett had, in fact, disobeyed orders not to shoot.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nffwp (talk • contribs) 00:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Nffwp, Sorry for the delay in reply. Here's the source cited in your book reference, William Reuter's 1958 book The King Can Do No Wrong pages 49-50. Reuter based his book's account on a 1916 interview of Conger which he rediscovered. Here's a newspaper story for more background if your interested. Here's a quote of the relevant part-
Conger had instructed his men to take Booth and Herold alive if possible in order for the fugitives to stand trial in Washington. Secretary Stanton had so instructed Conger at the start of the expedition.
So, if Conger's memory from half a century later is accurate, then I guess Stanton really could've given him those instructions. Either way, Lt. Col. Conger gave the order to the soldiers, including Corbett, who were duty bound to obey. However, now seeing what the original source said, I want to point out that the orders said "if possible". Meaning that the soldiers could fire in self-defense. Which is what Corbett claimed, if you believe him, in his testimony. Libertybison (talk) 08:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Bill O'Reilly
Footnote 89 cites a book by Bill O'Reilly. I suggest that this be replaced by a book by a historian. I would say the same thing if a book by a liberal television personality were cited to support a historical statementMaurice Magnus (talk) 11:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC).
Recent edits have added more images, the article now has 5 galleries instead of its previous 2. A guideline to keep in mind is MOS:PERTINENCE which states "not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting". Are all the images presently in the article necessary? Let's discuss. Shearonink (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
@Shearonink You can revert if you don't like! My reasoning was that if we're here to educate and help people know the basics on this topic, and most people learn well from images. Ergo, more is more. Also, because of Lincoln's centrality to the most important events in 19th-century U.S. history, there are a lot of images *available*. That's not the case with many aspects of history, so I figure let's enjoy the abundance.
Which leads to the issue of crowding. This high-traffic article will always attracts new editors and "new" images, with resulting text sandwiches, and sometimes conflicting sizes and alignments, which ends up visually distracting in its own right. The gallery format keeps images readily accessible, in uniform heights, standardized for people on different platforms (mobile, large screens, and who may not use Wikipedia logged in so have a TOC in the sidebar, etc.), and provides a more easily findable/editable venue for both adding and removing images in the future.
Finally, I've probably just watched too many true-crime documentaries, but when I'm mentally exploring something like a man's murder, I find it helpful to have access to images that help me situate myself in a now-inaccessible place and time, to contextualize other written or oral testimony.
Jengod Well...yes, more is more but to my mind more isn't always an improvement, "more" isn't necessarily better. WP:NOT's sub-policy of WP:INDISCRIMINATE says that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" along with WP:NOTREPOSITORY's "Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of photographs". So sure images are useful and can be explanatory but I don't think readers of this article need *all* of the present images in order to understand Lincoln's assassination, for instance the following:
Actor reads line, Artist's fanciful depiction of Booth's escape, Diagram of the auditorium and President's box (Harper's Weekly, 1865), Diagram of key locations (The Terrible Tragedy at Washington, 1865)
Along with too many images possibly overwhelming the article text, some of the images' are not presently placed with text they are illustrating. For instance, if the rocking chair image is to be included it should probably be placed alongside the text about the chair, at the moment it is in a gallery with the images of Booth's Deringer, that 1865 diagram of the theater (which is out of scale), and an 1865 diagram (more of a sketch really) showing how Ford's Theater was across the street from the Petersen's Boarding House and that there was an alley behind the Theater building...
Booth's "carte de visite" image could perhaps be alongside the text about his calling card...after all, he did present one of these cards right before he entered the Presidential Box and shot Lincoln.
I am going to do some editing on the present images sometime this next week. Perhaps that will be an improvement. If it all is or isn't, let's discuss. Shearonink (talk)
Cool. I prefer an additive style but thats just personal preference. If I was deleting, I would start with:
Leale
Actually basically every individual portrait except Lincoln and Booth actually -- people can find out what they look like on their various bio pages
I think the purported diagram of Booth at the inaugural is embarrassing and needs about a billion cites if not an article. Booth being at the Capitol is well attested but its entirely unclear to me that thats his little face up there.
Washington's ghost hugging dead Lincoln is way too Victorian for my taste and I imagine there are other images that could convey the country in mourning.
Jengod - Take a look at the present version. I think it retains many of the recent images while preserving the flow of the article text. I do really like the image of that humble rocking chair... Shearonink (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
@Shearonink fantastic work. Much more balanced, great flow, educates the reader who doesn't even actually read and just looks at the pictures. I switched the alignments in the shooting section so that the chair and the gun both face "in" drawing the reader's eye into the text. Two more thoughts:
This is a bit idiosyncratic and possibly against some style guideline but would it make sense to move the painting of the Last Hours of Abraham Lincoln to the top of the death section, center it, and make it huge, like 400px? It conveys a lot of atmosphere and communicates a lot of important detail that I think making it a suitable "umbrella" image for the entire section would be a reasonable decision. Just a thought.
The map of Booth's escape and the wanted poster are two different widths on my screen. (I only access via mobile but toggle between desktop and mobile versions.) since they're close together the width difference looks a tad awkward. Not sure the solution but just wanted to mention it since I'm never sure how other people are seeing things.
I actually like the Hermann Faber sketch that was made from life better. The Last Hours painting isn't all that representative of reality since it pictures everyone who came into that bedroom as if they were all present at the same time...Lol, at least FORTY-TWO people that I counted...I've been in that room and it is tiny so it's not really representative of the verifiable facts. Here's the sketch: Sketch done from life of Lincoln's deathbed. I'm going to try and see if I can fit that in instead of the "Last Hours" image. Shearonink (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Jengod My present iteration isn't quite right, I can't get the code for the efn correct Real Life is interfering will try to come back later today and fix things. Shearonink (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Real life is so annoying/demanding that way! I think adding the sketch from life sounds brilliant. No worries. jengod (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Lincoln was shot in the head and I have no idea what you mean by His body was not able to be recovered. His body in its coffin made a long trip by train before being buried in Springfield, Illinois. Cullen328 (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Photos used to illustrate this article are now out of sequence with the corresponding text. Just an FYI to other editors - over the next few days I am going to attempt to bring everything into agreement with each other, which might necessitate putting some of the images on the left of the article's text, etc. Before any reverts of my edits let's discuss them here please. Thanks. Shearonink (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
removed text about other targets / ticket rejections
another editor has removed my edit about other targets and people rejecting the tickets. can we have group consensus on if what i said was worthy of being presented in this article or should be modified or removed entirely NotQualified (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for the note! Binksternet (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
,_National_Museum_of_Health_and_Medicine._(5297867189).jpg)