This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Abraham Lincoln is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indiana Historical Society, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indiana Historical Society-related articles and topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indiana Historical SocietyWikipedia:GLAM/Indiana Historical SocietyTemplate:WikiProject Indiana Historical SocietyIndiana Historical Society
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
On April 26 at 23:47 I replaced a sentence that cites sfn|Dirck|2009|p=382. The problem is that no book by Dirck is listed in the articles "Sources." Dirck published a book -- Lincoln the Lawyer -- in 2009, but it has far less than 382 pages, and searching for the quote at Google Books didn't help. Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Reviews are sometimes tricky if it's a scholarly debate happening in real time. ..... Best would be to find a source that discusses the scholarly debate......as in Dirck says so and so and DiLorenzo says so and so. I assume you're referring to the quote? Full quote = "Few Civil War scholars take Bennett or DiLorenzo seriously, pointing to their narrow political agendas and faulty research. But their arguments do seem to have made inroads into the general public. While Lincoln's good standing among most Americans as a defender of racial equality and freedom remains intact, it would be fair to suggest that, in some quarters at least, his reputation on that score is ambivalent - more so perhaps than at any time since his death" Moxy🍁01:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas J. DiLorenzo’s book The Real Lincoln presents a revisionist critique, arguing that Lincoln was less the Great Emancipator and more the evil architect of a centralized, powerful national government. DiLorenzo contends that Lincoln’s primary motivation for waging the Civil War was not the abolition of slavery, but the old Hamiltonian-Whig scheme consolidation of federal power and the advancement of a high-tariff economic agenda rooted in mercantilism and Clay's American System. There are a couple of favorable reviews in libertarian magazines. There are no favorable reviews I have seen in any scholarly journal--instead there is very strong attacks on bad research. Multiple scholars cite DiLorenzo’s false "facts", gross misuse of sources, and bad documentation. These sloppy undergraduate errors undermine the book’s credibility. Examples include misdating events to the wrong year, misattributing quotations to the wrong person, and inventing conclusions not supported by the cited sources. DiLorenzo repeatedly distorts Lincoln’s words and actions, sometimes attributing to Lincoln views he explicitly rejected. He omits crucial context that would challenge his thesis. His favorite gambit is to attribute to Lincoln the words of others whom Lincoln actually criticized. DiLorenzo is simply unaware of the broader political and moral world in which Lincoln operated. Right wing historians are split. Thomas L. Krannawitter in the pro-Trump conservative Claremont Review of Books (spring 2002) rejects DiLorenzo and puts it bluntly: "But if DiLorenzo’s message is old hat, the incompetence of the messenger is surely unprecedented. The book is a compendium of misquotations, out-of-context quotations, and wrongly attributed quotations—one howler after another, yet none of it funny....With malice towards all and charity towards none of Lincoln's principles and actions, The Real Lincoln is the latest attempt to finish the job so ignobly begun by John Wilkes Booth in April 1865." Rjensen (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Someone created a script error in the Emancipation Proclamation section. I have not been able to figure out when it was introduced, by who, or how to fix it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
