Talk:Religious views of Abraham Lincoln/Archive 1

Archive 1

Brooklyn woman

Rev. Mr. Willets The Rev. Mr. Willers, of Brooklyn, N.Y., is credited with the following statement concerning Lincoln's reputed conversion. The information it contains was obtained, it is said, from a lady of Mr. Willets's acquaintance who met Lincoln in Washington: "The President, it seemed, had been much impressed with the devotion and earnestness of purpose manifested by the lady, and on one occasion, after she had discharged the object of her visit, he said to her: "Mrs. ----, I have formed a high opinion of your Christian character, and now, as we are alone, I have a mind to ask you to give me, in brief, your idea of what constitutes a true religious experience.' The lady replied at some length, stating that, in her judgment, it consisted of a conviction of one's own sinfulness and weakness, and personal need of a Savior for strength and support; that views of mere doctrine might and would differ, but when one was really brought to feel his need of divine help, and to seek the aid of the Holy Spirit for strength and guidance, it was satisfactory evidence of his having been born again. This was the substance of her reply. When she had concluded, Mr. Lincoln was very thoughtful for a few moments. He at length said, very earnestly, 'If what you have told me is really a correct view of this great subject, I think I can say with sincerity that I hope I am a Christian'" (Anecdotes of Lincoln, pp, 166, 167).

This is hardly a conversion!!! --JimWae 09:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It is worth remebering that folks then & now have remarkable difficulty distinguishing deism from Xty & easily interpret belief in God as belief in Jesus. Gurley never claimed a conversion -- only the possibility of one in the future --- or perhaps only his hope for such a possibility --JimWae 09:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Gurley and the Brooklyn Woman

When you write "Gurley never claimed a conversion" you seem to be ignoring Gurley's description of Lincoln in 1863: viz., "his [Lincoln's] heart was changed, and that he loved the Savior."

Whether we're talking about the 19th century, the 20th, the 21st, or the 11th... those words are a clear claim of a conversion. "Love of the Savior" is simply not Deism in any generation.

The reference to the Brooklyn Woman is found at the following location--

J.A. Reed, "The Later Life and Religious Sentiments of Abraham Lincoln," Scribner's Monthly; Jul 1873; VOL. VI., No. 3.; pg. 340, citing Francis Bicknell Carpenter, Six Months in the White House.

Here is the whole paragraph:

Mr. [Francis Bicknell] Carpenter, author of Six Months in the White House, whose intimacy with Mr. Lincoln gives importance to his testimony, says that "he believed Mr. Lincoln to be a sincere Christian," and among other proofs of it gives another well-authenticated admission (made by Mr. Lincoln to an estimable lady of Brooklyn, laboring in the Christian Commission) of a change of heart, and of his intention at some suitable opportunity to make a profession of religion.

If you wish to read the original claim made by Carpenter, the book is available online for a small fee: http://www.ebookmall.com/ebook/135539-ebook.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hilltoppers (talk • contribs) 09:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

• If it is "well-authenticated", perhaps there is a name or an original source? --JimWae 18:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Free - but from Brooklyn?
• http://varuna.grainger.uiuc.edu/oca/lincoln/innerlifeofabrah00carprich/innerlifeofabrah00carprich_djvu.txt

The Rev. Mr. Willets, of Brooklyn, gave me an account of a conversation with Mr. Lincoln, on the part of a lady of his acquaintance, connected with the "Christian Commission," who in the pros- ecution of her duties had several interviews with him. The President, it seemed, had been much impressed with the devotion and earnestness of purpose manifested by the lady, and on one occa- sion, after she had discharged the object of her visit, he said to her : " Mrs. , I have formed a high opinion of your Christian character, and now, as we are alone, I have a mind to ask you to give me, in brief, your idea of what constitutes a true religious experience." The lady replied at some length, stating that, in her judgment, it consisted of a conviction of one's own sinfulness and weak- ness, and personal need of the Saviour for strength and support ; that views of mere doctrine might and would differ, but when one was really brought to feel his need of Divine help, and to seek the aid of the Holy Spirit for strength and guidance, it was satisfactory evidence of his having been born again. This was the substance of her reply. When she had concluded, Mr. Lincoln was very thought- ful for a few moments. He at length said, very earnestly, " If what you have told me is really a correct view of this great subject, I think I can say with sincerity, that I hope I am a Christian. I had lived," he continued, " until my boy Willie died, without realizing fully these things. That blow overwhelmed me. It showed me my weak- ness as I had never felt it before, and if I can take what you have stated as a test, I think I can safely say that I know something of that change of which you speak ; and I will further add, that it has been my intention for some time, at a suitable opportu- nity, to make a public religious profession."

Lincoln's reply upon presentation of a Bible

According to http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=lincoln;rgn=div1;view=text;idno=lincoln7;node=lincoln7%3A1184;cc=lincoln - Lincoln did not WRITE a reply - this is one newspaper's account of what he said - other papers reporting somewhat differently --JimWae 04:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=lincoln;cc=lincoln;type=simple;rgn=div1;q1=September%207%2C%201864;view=text;subview=detail;sort=occur;idno=lincoln7;node=lincoln7%3A1184

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/faithquotes.htm

http://www.thelincolnlog.org/search.php?dd=7&mm=0&yyyy=1864

http://www.stg.brown.edu/projects/lincoln/month.php?yyyy=1864&mm=9

http://www.2thinkforums.org/phorum3/read.php?f=1&i=10810&t=10796&v=f

September 7, 1864

This occasion would seem fitting for a lengthy response to the address which you have just made. I would make one, if prepared; but I am not. I would promise to respond in writing, had not experience taught me that business will not allow me to do so. I can only now say, as I have often before said, it has always been a sentiment with me that all mankind should be free. So far as able, within my sphere, I have always acted as I believed to be right and just; and I have done all I could for the good of mankind generally. In letters and documents sent from this office I have expressed myself better than I now can. In regard to this Great Book, I have but to say, it is the best gift God has given to man.

All the good the Saviour gave to the world was communicated through this book. But for it we could not know right from wrong. All things most desirable for man's welfare, here and hereafter, are to be found portrayed in it. To you I return my most sincere thanks for the very elegant copy of the great Book of God which you present.

Annotation

[1] Washington Daily Morning Chronicle, September 8, 1864. Reports in the New York Tribune and Baltimore Sun are less complete. On July 6, 1864, R. Stockett Mathews of Baltimore wrote Lincoln asking him to name the day when he could receive the committee representing the loyal colored men of Baltimore who wished to present him with a Bible. No reply seems to have been made. On August 26, James W. Tyson wrote Lincoln further, and on August 31, Mathews wrote again: ``I have the honour of requesting you to refer to the letter which was addressed to you by myself at the instance of a Committee of Colored Men of this City, and to beg that you will give me an answer to it, at your earliest convenience. I have taken it for granted that your Excellency's multifarious and harassing engagements since July 7th ult. have caused you to overlook the fact, that the colored people are quite as eager to present to you the very handsome expression of their gratitude which they have prepared---as they were to get it up---and I also venture to suggest . . . that its early presentation will be productive of some good in a public sense---independently of the profound gratification which these grateful people will feel in knowing that their superb Bible is at last in the hands for which it was designed. (DLC-RTL).

The Bible, now in the Fisk University Library, Nashville, Tennessee, is inscribed

``To Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, the Friend of Universal Freedom, from the Loyal Colored People of Baltimore, as a token of respect and Gratitude. Baltimore, 4th July 1864. The Chronicle account of the presentation is as follows:

---

``Yesterday afternoon a Bible was presented, on behalf of the loyal colored residents of Baltimore, by Revs. A. W. Wayman, S. W. Chase, and W. H. Brown, and Mr. William H. Francis, to President Lincoln. The members of the committee were introduced by Mr. S. Mathews, of Maryland, and individually welcomed by the President. This ceremony having been concluded, Rev. S. W. Chase addressed the President as follows:

`` `MR. PRESIDENT: The loyal colored people of Baltimore have entrusted us with authority to present this Bible as a testimonial of their appreciation of your humane conduct towards the people of our race. While all others of this nation are offering their tribute of respect to you, we cannot omit suitable manifestation of ours. Since our incorporation into the American family we have been true and loyal, and we are now ready to aid in defending the country, to be armed and trained in military matters, in order to assist in protecting and defending the star-spangled banner.

`` `Towards you, sir, our hearts will ever be warm with gratitude. We come to present to you this copy of the Holy Scriptures, as a token of respect for your active participation in furtherance of the cause of the emancipation of our race. This great event will be a matter of history. Hereafter, when our children shall ask what mean these tokens, they will be told of your worthy deeds, and will rise up and call you blessed.

`` `The loyal colored people of this country everywhere will remember you at the Throne of Divine Grace. May the King Eternal, an all-wise. Providence protect and keep you, and when you pass from this world to that of eternity, may you be borne to the bosom of your Saviour and your God.'

---

There is some doubt regarding whether Lincoln's reply appeared in newspapers. The original newspapers might only have carried the last part (between the ---s) until about two months later, a version of his remarks on the occasion referred to, made its appearance. --JimWae 06:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Why doubt?

On what grounds do you doubt that the reply was in the Washington Daily Morning Chronicle on September 8, 1864?? Have you gone back to the microfilm and discovered it not to be there?? The prima facie evidence is that it is there. I don't think Dr. Basler (editor of Lincoln's Collected Works) would have fabricated the report. Is that your claim? If you are going to attack the scholarship of Lincoln's Collected Works, you really need to have some evidence. Until then, the citation to the Sept. 8, 1864 Washington Daily Morning Chronicle is, in fact, a legitimate primary source citation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hilltoppers (talk • contribs) 16:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

• The Chronicle account of the presentation is as follows...(see above) There is nothing in "what follows" concerning Lincoln's words. The supposed reply did not start appearing until some 2 months later - and from an source unknown --JimWae 03:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• I am not claiming he fabricated it. It was in circulation & he did not suspect it, so he included it. See the text above, which specifies just what was in that paper that day - also see http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_5.html#4.3 --JimWae 04:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• And I have a source for that paper that day - see above - it does not mention a single word by Lincoln. You have misidentified the paper & mistakenly said he actually wrote it --JimWae 08:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The Lincoln quote was, in fact, in the newspaper on September 8, 1864; you can either check the microfilm yourself, or see the available compelling evidence that is available through the Library of Congress online at: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mal:@field(DOCID+@lit(d3610100))

• Alexander M Jenkins was an Illinois newspaperman/businessman, one-time Illinois lieutenant governor, who died in 1864. From what I can tell we still do not clearly have a source for the name of the paper (several have been said to be the source of the fullest quote) & do not know exactly what was in the first article. Several quotes & reprints omit some of the sentences. Yes, I would like to see any facsimile of the article. Most of the links above became defunct just minutes after I first found them (a couple of weeks ago)--JimWae 02:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is a reference to the quote in question from a book with an 1895 copyright: Abraham Lincoln's Speeches. Seems to me that some are just perturbed that there is evidence of a public display of religious conviction by such a prominent U.S. president. The word "reportedly," as contained in the wiki article, reflects this and immediately caught my eye as being out of place. How many other Wikipedia articles with similar quotes get this kind of treatment? 68.60.64.237 03:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• And here is (perhaps) the entire reply http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1091 - Since there is nothing written by Lincoln for this (unlike most Lincoln quotes) what I am requesting is more details on the source. --JimWae 04:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

--

--

"A change to show some contemporary dispute w/Lincoln's reply upon presentation of a Bible?"

--- I am an inexperienced user (tell me if I am exhibiting some inappropriate behavior). I suggest the following addition: "In response to the reported speech in Maryland Lincoln's former partner the Hon. William H. Herndon remarked "I am aware of the fraud committed on Mr. Lincoln in reporting some insane remarks supposed to have been made by him, in 1864, on the presentation of a Bible to him by the colored people of Baltimore. No sane man ever uttered such folly, and no sane man will ever believe it. Reference:"Six Historic Americans: Abraham Lincoln". Retrieved 2011-01-02."

--Danielkjenkins (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC) ... --

"He began to contemplate spiritual matters in a new and profound light"

There is now a source for withdrawing into himself - but claiming access to what he contemplated requires much more than other person's opinion - a diary entry or something. Further, "contemplating spiritual matters" was something he had done "profoundly" most of his life --JimWae 04:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"reevaluate God's will regarding what needed to be done to achieve victory"

Should Wikipedia be attributing thoughts to people based on what others surmise? Had he not re-evaluated what needed to be done to achieve victory before? Did Lincoln decide that God wanted him to do something else first, and then he would let the war end? --JimWae 05:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Yes, I do love Jesus"

Another entry in the memory book The Lincoln Memorial Album—Immortelles attributed to An Illinois clergyman (unnamed; most entries in the memory book are attributed by name) reads

"When I left Springfield I asked the people to pray for me. I was not a Christian. When I buried my son, the severest trial of my life, I was not a Christian. But when I went to Gettysburg and saw the graves of thousands of our soldiers, I then and there consecrated myself to Christ. Yes, I do love Jesus."[28]

---

• http://www.rootsweb.com/~iabenton/history/1878/deaf_dumb.htm
• http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mal:@field(DOCID+@lit(d3943600))
  • Talbot was the principal of a school in Iowa City
  • his letter mentions reports in the religious press - but still no specific source in any press is established at that date - though it is clear that "something must have appeared somwewhere"
  • the part of the article that deals with this mentions proofs - it proves there must have been an earlier source, but still that source has not been found - so saying Barton search was not thorough enough is unfair - the source STILL has not been found
  • There is no record of any reply by Lincoln to Talbot

---

Proposed replacement for the 3 paragraphs that presently follow in the article:

This has been portrayed to have been Lincoln's "reply" to this unnamed Illinois clergyman when asked if he loved Jesus. The earliest source found to the story in which Lincoln is alleged to have said to an unnamed Illinois minister, "I do love Jesus" is in a sermon preached in the Baptist Church of Oshkosh, Wisconsin, April 19, 1865, by Rev. W.W. Whitcomb, which was published in the Oshkosh Northwestern, April 21, 1865"[ref]. A December 21, 1864 letter to Lincoln from a Mr. Benjamin Talbot of Iowa does make reference to an appearance in the religious press of Lincoln saying "I do love Jesus".[ref] There is no known reply to this letter, nor does any other quoted text other than "do love Jesus" appear in it; also unclear is if this is the same occasion and addressed to an Illinois clergyman.

--JimWae (talk) 05:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputing the 1834 "Essay"

Harvey Lee Ross also discounts Herndon's 1834 Paine’s style essay on page 52 of his book "Lincoln's First Years in Illinois." Ross writes, "Now I have good reason to believe that Mr. Herndon drew largely on his imagination for this story. I believe it to be without foundation. As I have before stated, my business as a mail carrier required me to be in Lincoln’s store and post office a part of four days in each week to have the mail changed, and at the same time I stopped at the same tavern with Mr. Lincoln…If there had been any discussion or writing of the sort alluded to by Mr. Herndon I certainly would have known it. Mr. Herndon was then sixteen years old and lived at Springfield twenty miles away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.201.160 (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The quotation of Mentor Graham, disputing the existence of a Paine-style essay by Lincoln containing a critique of Christianity, is provided within the reference cited in the article. It can be found here: http://books.google.com/books?id=SY6rNGoNaI0C&printsec=titlepage#PPA32,M1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilltoppers (talk • contribs) 13:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• The text is not available there. I have reinserted the request for a quote & a name--JimWae (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The quote of Mentor Graham is RIGHT THERE on page 32 of the citation given (http://books.google.com/books?id=SY6rNGoNaI0C&printsec=titlepage#PPA32,M1); I'm not going to be able to come to your house and read it for you. Lincoln lived in Graham's house at the time the alleged "essay" was written. He is at least as reputable a source as Herndon (the secondary source for the "Paine-like essay" claim). Herndon was just a boy of 15 when the alleged "essay" was written.

• Also not available is the Freeport Weekly Journal, December 7, 1864. Do you at least have a source that says it appears there?--JimWae (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you are quite unfamiliar with the conventions and procedures of academic scholarship. The citation Freeport Weekly Journal, December 7, 1864, is a legitimate scholarly citation. The newspaper still exists in microfilm in various libraries across the country.

You seem to want to raise the level of scholarly citation to something like, "it's not a legitimate source unless I get to see a PDF scan of the source." But that's just not the way scholarship works. You need to read a few scholarly books. Citations are given in the footnotes. If you wish to contest the legitimacy of the citation, the burden is upon you to provide a PDF scan which shows that the writer was being dishonest with his citation. You can't nullify a citation simply by claiming that the writer didn't provide you with a photocopy of every one of his sources.

The "I do love Jesus" quotation is found in the December 7, 1864 newspaper. I've seen it. It's in my research notes. I'm not going to run back to the microfilm and create a PDF for you. The same can be said about Lincoln's address about the Bible which is found in the Washington Daily Morning Chronicle on September 7, 1864. It's right there.

What's most telling about your complaints in this regard is that you almost entirely rely on tertiary sources for your claims (example, you prove that Lincoln wrote an Paine-like essay by citing Michael Nelson, who cites William Herndon, who cites Lincoln). This is not even a secondary source citation--it's tertiary. And then you turn around and have the audacity to criticize PRIMARY sources.

Are you willing to live up to the very bar you wish to set: to provide a PDF of a primary source for every claim you make? If so, most of the material that contradicts Lincoln's Christianity on this site would have to be discarded. Most of it is based on the highly biased writing of the likes of Remsburg and Boller. It's this simple: Barton and Boller were wrong when they claimed there was no source for the "I do love Jesus" quote prior to Lincoln's death. Just plain wrong. The Talbot letter is proof enough, even if you don't care to go to the archives to see the newspaper. (see http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mal:@field(DOCID+@lit(d3943600))

Do you think that the Library of Congress is in some kind of conspiracy to fabricate original sources to this effect?

Man, take a graduate class or two on historiography, research, and historical method. Proper academic citations have been provided for you. You can't erase them just because you don't like them. If you want to contest them, go down to your local university, call up the microfilm, make your own PDF, and post it to this page to prove that my citation is bogus. Until then, I have provided a proper, scholarly, and academic citation.

Is this an actual Lincoln quote?

"In regard to this Great Book), I have but to say, it is the best gift God has given to man. All the good the Savior gave to the world was communicated through this book."

Abraham Lincoln, September 7, 1864

Seems like that should settle the debate, but I don't know if this is an authentic quote or not. -- LightSpectra (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=lincoln;cc=lincoln;type=simple;rgn=div1;q1=Saviour;singlegenre=All;view=text;subview=detail;sort=occur;idno=lincoln7;node=lincoln7%3A1184. First line, second paragraph, as documented in the "Collected works of Abraham Lincoln" at UMich.edu.

Include entire text of Lincoln's declaration of July 31, 1846?

Maybe we should include the whole text of his 1846 letter, since it's really quite brief, and it's apparently the only fully public general explanation of his beliefs which he ever made. Also, some of the quotes from this statement might be slightly misleading when presented out of context (as they currently are); in particular, the sentence "I do not think I could myself be brought to support a man for office whom I knew to be an open enemy of, or scoffer at, religion" takes on a slightly different connotation when understood in the context of the immediately following sentence... AnonMoos (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Lincoln on his own beliefs

I am reverting this section again -- I am the third different editor to revert this. The material added is original research. User Protostan is making his independent judgement that a single fragment of Lincoln's writing that was NEVER publicly spoken is somehow signficant to his actual views on religion throughout his life. The article is already filled with secondary sources interpreting Lincoln's beliefs -- this section, lacking any interpretation by a reliable secondary source, adds nothing to the article. Protostan's insistence on readding this material despite a clear consensus opposing it -- a pattern he is also repeating at the man Abraham Lincoln article -- is nothing but edit warring. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you are counting something other than the reverts of my current revision which to date only you have seen fit to revert. and the book I cited remains a source. --Protostan (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This [1] and this [2] are the other reverts of your material by two other editors. Neither of the two links you have provided offer any interpretation of material that argues that these are things Lincoln believed for any significant time (if at all) in his life. More importantly, the text as you have added it merely presents three random statements that no reliable secondary source has linked to Lincoln's general religious beliefs (the subject of the article).Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you are confused, they asked for a secondary source/scholar and I reciprocated. --Protostan (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No confusion on my part. You stated in your edit, "Lincoln's private writing show that he believed ..." and you then list, out of its proper context, a few items mentioned in a fragment of Lincoln's writings. The secondary source DOES NOT relate the fragment to any spiritual beliefs of Lincoln -- instead (page 47) it simply relates it to Lincoln's impressions of Niagara Falls. Rather than calling it a religious experience, the author notes that Lincoln looked at it from the prespective of "a scientist, a philosopher, and ... a naturalist." Your source does not support your claim. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well now that we've established that you were mistaken about the number of reversions you now need to contemplate that religion is a form of philosophy. --Protostan (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-responsive. Your task is to show that your alleged source supports your edit. You have failed to do so. Despite your denials three editors have reverted your edits for the same reason -- lack of support by a reliable secondary source. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This article does not reflect modern scholarship

It is full of original research and very old fashioned interpretation and citations and relies far too little on the latest scholarship. (I suspect it is based on an old pamphlet somewhere). For example, Guelzo and Carwardine get only one sentence each and there is only a half-sentence on the Second Inaugural. Rjensen (talk) 04:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Is the 1870 mentally-unstable Mary Todd Lincoln a reliable source?

If the article quotes her, it needs to mention her mental instability. See Jason Emerson (June/July 2006). "The Madness of Mary Lincoln". American Heritage. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) --Javaweb (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Javaweb

Recently-found Herndon letter describing Lincoln's religious beliefs

A letter by Herndon, Springfield, Ill., February 4, 1866, to Edward McPherson, Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives is available. --Javaweb (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

The condensed reports are timid. If I ever get time I will write out fully and publish. Mr. Lincoln’s religion is too well known to me to allow of even a shadow of a doubt; he is or was a Theist & a Rationalist, denying all extraordinary - supernatural inspiration or revelation. At one time in his life, to say the least, he was an elevated Pantheist, doubting the immortality of the soul as the Christian world understands that term. He believed that the soul lost its identity and was immortal as a force. Subsequent to this he rose to the belief of a God, and this is all the change he ever underwent. I speak knowing what I say. He was a noble men- a good great man for all this. My own ideas of God- his attributes - man, his destiny, & the relations of the two, are tinged with Mr. Lincoln’s religion. I cannot, for the poor life of me, see why men dodge the sacred truth of things. In my poor lectures I stick to the truth and bide my time. I love Mr. Lincoln dearly, almost worship him, but that can’t blind me. He’s the purest politician I ever saw, and the justest man. I am scribbling- that’s the word- away on a life of Mr. Lincoln- gathering known- authentic & true facts of him. Excuse the liberties I have taken with you- hope you won’t have a fight with Johnson. Is he turning out a fool - a Tyler? He must go with God if he wants to be a living and vital power.

— Herndon

--Javaweb (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

I posted the letter a week ago and it was deleted. I think it would be a welcome addition to the page since Herndon was Lincoln's close friend and his other work, most notably his biography on Lincoln, give good insight into Lincoln's character.

Churchillreader (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

the letter was NOT "recently found" -- it was recently sold but historians have known and used its contents for over 50 years. Rjensen (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Should we include it in the article though?Churchillreader (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

yes it's legit and Lincoln certainly did talk about religion to Herndon a lot (he did not discuss theology with Mary). Rjensen (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

In any case, is the crazy, soon-to-be-institutionalized Mary Todd Lincoln a reliable source? See Jason Emerson (June/July 2006). "The Madness of Mary Lincoln". American Heritage. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) If the article quotes Mary, it needs to mention her mental instability. I would add this but I don't know a good way to phrase it. --Javaweb (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

"Theologically" statement

The body of the article suggests that this sentence in the lead:

"Theologically Lincoln did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, the Atonement, the infallibility of the Bible, miracles, or heaven or hell."

cannot be stated nearly so absolutely, considering references including quotes from Lincoln himself ("...our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens"). The statement appears to be a reference to Noll as made later in the article, but that statement itself should be sourced. Hipgnostic (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

good point-- I'll add the Noll reference. As for " beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens" that is how American politicians talk when they do not believe in the divinity of Christ, or in heaven. Rjensen (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that cannot be stated categorically in this particular case. Hipgnostic (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

you can state categorically that "beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens" ignored the main tenents of orthodox Christianity. A Moslem could say it too. Rjensen (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, perhaps; an avowed Christian might use those same words. My point is, what can be positively sourced for this article? "Lincoln never expressed" is similarly challenging to defend without either combing through the entire body of his spoken and written word or attributing to some source. I vote for the latter; however in the case of the Noll reference, the source ("Lincoln's friend Jesse Fell") is recorded as saying "the president 'seldom communicated' [as opposed to "never expressed"] his views on religion, and he went on to suggest that those views were not orthodox" on the points you mentioned, though worded differently.

I would suggest referencing Noll's more general statement in the lead, but adding the more specific reference to Fell later in the article and referencing it literally. Hipgnostic (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

thousands of scholars have combed every word that Lincoln is known or is alleged to have said. In those days of the Second Great Awakening an avowed Christian used a very different vocabulary and talked a great deal about Jesus. Lincoln knew all that--he grew up in a religious family and ran for Congress against the leader Methodist preacher of the west (Cartwright). Yet he always avoided the evangelical language. Rjensen (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily disagreeing with your assertions in principle - again, am more concerned about the specificity of a reference appropriate to an encyclopedic article. My personal opinion: the Fell quote stands more strongly on its own. Hipgnostic (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

good point but Wiki demands we use reliable secondary sources (Noll) rather than primary sources (Fell).Rjensen (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Noted; my compromise was to quote Noll quoting Fell. Hipgnostic (talk) 01:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I see you've modified my conditional "may have never" in the lead to an absolute "never." I'm still uncomfortable with negative absolutes - even when sourced - since they effectively require the one making the assertion to prove that something never occurred. Much easier to source a positive instance of something that *did* occur. Since your statement corresponds to the Noll statement in the "Early Life" section, it can stand, but I would still prefer to see it attributed to a primary source. My 2 cents. Hipgnostic (talk) 06:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

negative absolutes. In history that means that thousands of researchers scouring every lead for 150 years never found it. The day someone finds the evidence we can change the article. History is not quite about what happened, but rather it's about what we know happened. Rjensen (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

At issue here is "a clear profession of standard Christian beliefs." Setting aside the differences among Christians that might alone call that statement into question, I would agree with you that Lincoln never, to my knowledge, embraced anything like the full scope of principles set forth in the Apostles' or Nicene Creeds. Others, however - like some of those contributing to this talk page on Lincoln's use of the term "Saviour" or his response (perhaps) to the receipt of a Bible - might disagree, hence the very controversy alluded to at the opening of the lead. However at this point, I'd say let's leave it as is and see if any other voices wish to weigh in. Hipgnostic (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Deism

The biographers agree that Lincoln read a lot of deism in his New Salem days (Paine, Voltaire, Volney). Hendon says Lincoln wrote a manuscript arguing Jesus was not God and the Bible was not inspired--but a political friend burned so it would not damage Lincoln. See Hendon's biography Rjensen (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Which is already covered far better in the long-existing Early years section with:

Lincoln was said to be an admirer of the deist author Thomas Paine, and it has been reported that in 1834 he wrote a manuscript essay challenging orthodox Christianity modeled on Paine's book The Age of Reason, which a friend supposedly burned to protect him from ridicule. James Adams labeled Lincoln "a deist." According to biographer Rev. William Barton, Lincoln likely had written an essay something of this character, but it was not likely that it was burned in such a manner.

than in the new section with

Lincoln enjoyed reading the works of deists such as Thomas Paine. He subsequently wrote his own article about deism. However after charges of infidelity almost cost him a congress bid, he has since kept his deistic views private.

Also, regarding this source, there's a scarcity of info about AL EVER speaking in public about Paine or deism - and he probably was quiet about his view long before they "almost cost him a congress bid" --JimWae (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

AL spoke in private about Deism, says Herndon, but in small towns word gets around. Indeed he wrote a unorthodox manuscript that he read aloud and talked about publishing it as a pamphlet. His friends said it would cost him the election (to the legislature?) so one of them destroyed the manuscript Rjensen (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Placement of Deism

Placing "deism" at the head of the article, even before discussion of Lincoln's childhood and early years is intellectually dishonest, as if to say Lincoln's flirtations with Deism were the most important aspects of his religious views. They belong in the section on his early life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilltoppers (talk • contribs) 16:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

"Opposing Views by People Closest to Lincoln"

I've deleted this section for now, for two reasons:

• It's out of order; all of this material should be in the "after assassination" section according to the current chronological structure.
• It largely duplicates material already present in that section anyway.

I also question the prominence given to that material, which comes across as WP:OR. If you look at the articles on Ward Hill Lamon and William H. Herndon, both give a different picture of the two biographies than the glowing endorsement I deleted. In any case I don't think we should be taking the position of recommending these works above others based on some-editor-here's assessment of their proximity to Lincoln. That's up to more recent biographers and historians to assess. If I've deleted material which isn't duplicated, then it ought to be incorporated in the appropriate chronological section; and maybe we need to reorganize the whole thing again so that two assessment sections are raised up a bit higher in the structure. I think it would make sense to make the whole chronology up to his death one section with subsections of what we have now; and then the other sections could remain at the topmost level and perhaps be given clearer section titles which make clear that they aren't biographical narrative. Mangoe (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I see 3 chronological sections: Early life, During Presidency & Bereavement, After Assassination--JimWae (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

After assassination, Lincoln's religious views were not, how shall put it, manifested in the present. That section is all people talking about his views after he died. Mangoe (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course. The biographical section has 2 main chronological sections. After the assassination has 2 (or 3) chronological sections - beginning with post-assassination statments by those who had talked to AL, perhaps a middle (@1890-@1965), and then modern. --JimWae (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Problem quote removed

I have removed the quote from the supposed letter to Judge Wakefield because it is likely not genuine. It apparently originates in a book first published in 1906 and has no other provenance (see Boller, Jr., Paul F.; George, John H. (1989). They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, and Misleading Attributions. Oxford University Press. p. 93. Retrieved 2012-11-19.). Please do not add Lincoln quotes which cannot be cited to editions of his works and letters. Mangoe (talk) 13:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Lincoln and Darwin

Via Google News I came across a blog post from the Discovery Institute challenging a portion of this article stating that Lincoln was an advocate of Darwin, and indeed yesterday an IP editor deleted the paragraph entirely. Reading into the sources, it seems that they do have a point; the sources do not claim that Lincoln was a big reader of Darwin—in fact it says Lincoln found Darwin difficult to follow—but that Lincoln did read another work discussing evolution, and was persuaded by that work. Therefore, I've restored and re-edited the graf in such a way that includes what seems to be a fair summary of Lincoln's views, based on these works from his era. WWB (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Little Pigeon "Primitive Baptist" Church of Christ

Little Pigeon is a Primitive Baptist Church, a faction of Baptists following the historic Predestinarian doctrines of the old Particular Baptists. It still exists today, in Lincoln Park, with much of his family buried in the cemetery beside the church building. It is a shame the association with the Primitives isn't reflected in the title of Little Pigeon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.73.175.6 (talk) 03:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Religious views of Abraham Lincoln. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613034008/http://positiveatheism.org/hist/steinlinc.htm to http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/steinlinc.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Englis

Story 49.146.223.138 (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Lincoln and Jesus

Please consider this. " Lincoln was a Christian, but his Christian faith was not in conformity with the institutional Christianity of his time. He was a follower of Jesus in the sense that he loved God and humanity. Lincoln believed that t he Hay of Jesus v-ras infinitely larger and more meaningful than the example exhibited by the church." Hosein (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)