Talk:Thaddeus Stevens

message: I've taken out the following sentence because I don't know what it means, it is bizarre, and incomplete.
 At another time, while delivering a speech to the Senate and noticing one of his opponents entering the chambers, paused and stated that he would wait for the Senator from <state> to slink to his chair and stick to it only by the ooze coming out of his body.
skywriter 06:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one said that lesbianism is weird, you banned troll. -- Jibal (talk) 07:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

text: Evidence has been provided that period people believed she and Stephens were engaged in a long-term sexual relationship, so the first part of the sentence needs to be removed. So far, no evidence has been provided that Lydia Hamilton Smith was sexually attracted to women, let alone more attracted to them than to men. Copying a famous person's style is not evidence of one's sexual preferences; I suspect few Elvis impersonators were sexually attracted to him. To use this copying as proof of Ms. Smith's sexual tastes is original research, not evidence. Edward321 (talk) 03:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

text: The fact is that Smith's sexuality (and the fact that she hid behind normal expectations that she was Stephens's mistress) is talked about widely at scholarly conferences.  Unfortunately these proceedings don't always get into print, which creates a problem for challenging the dominant narrative.  It is  unfortunate that a filmmaker decided to dramatize something without talking to scholar who study this.  So his version will remain until the things get into print, but this will happen.  Smith was FAR more than a simple bedmate to a congressman.Critic11 (talk) 12:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Smith was more than a bedmate to a congressman, but this has nothing to with whether she slept with Stephens, a woman, or no one at all.  The important policy is Wikipedia:Verifiability. What you believe is fact is your opinion. If your view is supported by a significant portion of current scholarship, it should start appearing in reliable sources. At that point it should be mentioned along with other reliable sources that disagree, allowing the reader to form their own conclusions. Edward321 (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

text:  Yes that's what I just said above, if you read it.  You are clearly not in the academic community or you would know for how many years things are discussed at conferences that take years to appear in print.  THe outrage among African American scholars about Spielberg's film among scholars is legendary but won't ever appear in print.  Critic11 (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You've never been to a scholarly conference and are not a member of any academic community, you banned troll. -- Jibal (talk) 07:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of one sentence

message: "He largely set the course of Reconstruction. He wanted to begin to rebuild the South, using military power to force the South to recognize the equality of Freedmen. When President Johnson resisted, Stevens proposed and passed the resolution for the impeachment of Andrew Johnson in 1868."
The impeachment of Johnson was a bit more complex and this gives the wrong impression, Johnson was impeached for violating the "Tenure of Office Act" or something like that. The act was passed because he was interfering with reconstruction and the R. Republicans wanted an excuse to throw him out, however, he didn't actually fire a cabinet member and violate the act until, I believe, about a year had passed and his term had almost ended.
The article gives the impression of.
Johnson: "Haha! I have sent the generals who enforced your reconstruction laws to Montana congress, what ho!"
Thaddeus: "Thwarting our reconstruction!" *gasp* "I move to impeach him."
Congress: "So moved."
Senate: "Impeachment should not be a political weapon!"
Johnson: "Maybe next time Thaddeus!"
Thaddeus: "NOOOOOOOOOOOO!"
vs.
Johnson's an ass -> Tenure of Office to Protect the last R.R. cabinet member -> a year passes -> Stanton barricades his office for two months -> Move to impeach.
:::- This post is actually pretty good, if a bit theatrical. PLEASE sign your posts. and, whoever you are, you GOTTA see Lincoln (2012 film). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  I feel this is a bit vague. 

message: The article's lead states "Historians' views of Stevens have swung sharply since his death as interpretations of Reconstruction have changed.", but then fails to document the swing back into favour Stevens has enjoyed among at least some historians in the last two generations. Wouldn't it be natural to have a bit about that, especially after talk on "The Birth of a Nation" (whose viewpoint is hardly current!)? Feketekave (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What a bunch of nonsense. -- Jibal (talk) 07:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

text: In the early 20th century, Lost Cause mythology dominated, which was extremely sympathetic to the Confederacy and white supremacy in general. Northern Democrats also weren’t necessarily left wing, Grover Cleaveland was conservative for instance, other Democrats tended towards populism. Wilson had progressive views but also heavily supported segregation. It wasn’t really until FDR that the association between Democrats and the left took root, although it would literally take until 2010 for the last vestiges of the conservatives Dixiecrats to finally be removed from the coalition. The truth is that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans were very left wing in that period, it was an extremely reactionary era full of the horrors of Jim Crow and lynching in the south and Lost Cause apologetics and anti-immigrant hysteria, eugenics, and white supremacy everywhere else. Things started slowly swinging back after FDR, but of course he was always reluctant to sink his political capital into it and he always maintained his awkward coalition with the southern Democrats.2601:140:8900:61D0:C147:DC02:18DD:C878 (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swing 

message: The house of representatives records do not support the claim that Thaddeus Stevens was one of the two representatives that voted against the Crittenden resolution. It infact says that nays where Mr. Henry C. Burnett Mr. John W. Reid.
see  http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:1:./temp/~ammem_YmeZ::@@@mdb=mcc,gottscho,detr,nfor,wpa,aap,cwar,bbpix,cowellbib,calbkbib,consrvbib,bdsbib,dag,fsaall,gmd,pan,vv,presp,varstg,suffrg,nawbib,horyd,wtc,toddbib,mgw,ncr,ngp,musdibib,hlaw,papr,lhbumbib,rbpebib,lbcoll,alad,hh,aaodyssey,magbell,bbc,dcm,raelbib,runyon,dukesm,lomaxbib,mtj,gottlieb,aep,qlt,coolbib,fpnas,aasm,denn,relpet,amss,aaeo,mff,afc911bib,mjm,mnwp,rbcmillerbib,molden,ww2map,mfdipbib,afcnyebib,klpmap,hawp,omhbib,rbaapcbib,mal,ncpsbib,ncpm,lhbprbib,ftvbib,afcreed,aipn,cwband,flwpabib,wpapos,cmns,psbib,pin,coplandbib,cola,tccc,curt,mharendt,lhbcbbib,eaa,haybib,mesnbib,fine,cwnyhs,svybib,mmorse,afcwwgbib,mymhiwebib,uncall,afcwip,mtaft,manz,llstbib,fawbib,berl,fmuever,cdn,upboverbib,mussm,cic,afcpearl,awh,awhbib,sgp,wright,lhbtnbib,afcesnbib,hurstonbib,mreynoldsbib,spaldingbib,sgproto,scsmbib,afccalbib,mamcol DJW2tone (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crittenden-Johnson Resolution 

message: I attended the Thaddeus Stevens Elementary School at Broad and Spring Garden Streets in Philadelphia, PA, in the late 1940s.  It was built in 1926 as the Thaddeus Stevens School of Practice, a teacher training school.  When I attended, it was a magnet school with a city-wide attendance zone.  It later was a neighborhood school.  In 1975 the school was closed and the building used for offices.  The school board sold the building in 2005.  It is on the National Register of Historic Buildings.32.178.147.140 (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See Thaddeus Stevens School of Observation and add documented material if you can.  Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Thaddeus Stevens Elementary School

message: Hi all, in the course of starting to make the footnotes in this article more consistent, I discovered that Stevensandsmith.org is no longer an available online source. It appears to have been taken over by a local historical society and the content presumably referenced by the link has been removed by the new group. Since there are other sources cited, I am inclined to remove the stevensandsmith.org citations. However, since an accurate characterization of Smith and Stevens relationship has been the source of discussion (presumably because of that Spielberg movie), it seemed prudent to post fair warning here in order see what other interested parties can locate. My proposal for now is simply to remove the references since they are un-useful but that may re-open the worm can of the various statements that they help support. Comments welcome and alternative approaches encouraged!
Dictioneer (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Content can still be referenced thanks to The Internet Archive.  Here is their bit on Thaddeus Stevens. Here is what they have on Lydia Hamilton Smith. Edward321 (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Thanks, I've updated the references to go to the archived page. Dictioneer (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  One of the references has become unsourced 

message: "Since the leading candidate in opposition to President John Quincy Adams, former Tennessee senator Andrew Jackson, was a Mason who mocked opponents of the group, Anti-Masonry became closely associated with opposition to Jackson, and to his policies once he was elected president in 1828."
Anybody care to clarify this "sentence"? I would, but I refuse to participate because I don't wish to waste my time with clarifying anything since I am sure it will be reversed. I have had enough of that bullshit.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by W1 m2 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the issue.  I'm working on renovating the article, and perhaps everything is not up to snuff yet, but if you think it could be phrased better, go ahead.  I'm an admin, I doubt anyone will revert it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence is slightly long, but nothing out of the ordinary.  I'm grammatically-challenged but shouldn't it be "former Tennessee Senator Andrew Jackson"?  BTW, i've contributed a couple photos here and will likely be going out to Lancaster again soon, maybe to a couple of museums.  Are there any photos that would be useful?  Still trying to find that stuffed eagle in Philadelphia.  Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Make that 3 photos plus uploading the LH Smith photo, plus a QR code in Congressional Cemetery that only 10 people have scanned in a full year.  There is a reconstructed iron furnace near Gettysburg, but it looks too reconstructed even for Stevens's taste.  Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Images are a great need, there are a few in the Library of Congress and National Archives. I'm not sure what is on offer in Lancaster but I'm not inclined to be picky. And please weigh in at any time on the text.  I'm not sure I've captured Stevens the man.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And I think the lower case is consistent with what people want, as it is not actually being used as a title "former Tennessee senator".--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Jackson was indeed a former senator but everyone called him "General" Rjensen (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is all this? 

message: I think there's a natural upper limit on the optimum length for this sort of  topic -- it's now about 15,000 words and that's on the high side for what students are likely to read. So I recommend that when new material is added that old less useful material be trimmed. Stevens is a very important person, so losing readers would be a disservice. Rjensen (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  I'm concerned everyone's coming here after seeing Lincoln and his biographers didn't realize there would be so much interest in the 13th Amendment.  I'm wondering if it should be made to stand out more.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Removal of the school material seems to be contentious. Perhaps this should be discussed before anyone gets into 3RR territory. BusterD (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I can go either way on the school.  I thought it ended the section nicely, and also gave a reason for only talking about this one school rather than the dozen-odd, some with articles, some not, which were mentioned in the old version of the article.  I wanted to give a reason to limit it to these two schools, one was founded by his legacy, the other important because Amy went there.  But the article is long, and strictly speaking this has limited relevance to Stevens as a person.  Whatever people think is fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: For my part, I consider the story about the subject's cultural resonance (and a president's appreciation of that resonance). I'd like to hear why a user reverted the deletion. BusterD (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Carter picked the nearest all-black school to the White House for Amy--the oldest one in DC was of course downtown.  The name of the school hardly played a role. So it's a very minor bit of info about Stevens...close to trivia. Rjensen (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree; it was a significant and deliberate decision to send Amy to a public school and the school chosen was considered with an eye to academics.  I think it needs to stay.  I am also not at all concerned about length.  "Students" are not the only people who read these articles, this isn't a kiddie topic.  Compared to something like my recent FA on a not-political figure, this article isn't even close to too long.   Montanabw(talk) 21:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: university students are the main audience for this topic--and their eyes glaze over...or more likely they find a shorter article to do a paper on. The more little items get included the less important the Big Things appear. Rjensen (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this your opinion only? Do you have some special insight as to who reads Wikipedia articles? How do you know that? Where would someone get such metadata? As to university students eyes glassing over, I'll concede you have more knowledge on this subject than most of us. BusterD (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

text: How do I get info? For student use I talk & listen to about 100 k12 and college teachers & librarians every year. (my next talk on Wikipedia usage is next month in England; I gave a talk in Missouri in April). I also have consulted with teachers in the Wiki Foundation Education Committee & as an "ambassador" i advise college teachers on how to get students involved in Wiki editing. I've edited paper encyclopedias & can say this article is written and sourced for university level students (& advanced high schools too). Kids without that background would be baffled because it covers pretty sophisticated topics based on serious scholarships about politics & Reconstruction.  As for post-college level readers, alas few people have any metadata -- the research on Wikipedia is largely about us editors so we know little about our readers in general & even less about readers of specific articles like this one. Rjensen (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: the idea that Amy went to that school because of its name is ridiculous and is a good way to convince teachers that Wikipedia is stupid and not to be used. Rjensen (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that implication's coming from the Foner quote.  If I removed that, would the rest pass?  I intend to do additional cutting, especially in the Pennsylvania sections.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I didn't see that quote as implying in the least that this was the "reason," it was more Foner noting the serindipity of history.  I rather liked that quote, and Foner is a pretty respectable source, but if it tones down the drama to remove it, I can live with that.  Montanabw(talk) 03:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting too long? 

message: The article is looking really good. Neither of the big two bios was available in the library (and Thaddeus Stevens and the Fight for Negro Rights sadly didn't amount to much). We were hoping to add a little more info on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Fourteenth Amendment, the Second Freedmen's Bureau Bill (the one that actually passed, in July), the Southern Homestead Act, and maybe other significant legislative items in 1866. This was a huge year for Congress, with Stevens seemingly right in the middle of it. There oughta be at very minimum equal coverage between the fizzled Impeachment and a whole year's worth of nation-altering legislation. Maybe someone has access to these books and can add a little more detail from this period? We can also try to hunt down some articles. groupuscule (talk) 11:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am hesitant.  We had such material in the article, but if you review the suggested cuts at the peer review, due to length, it was suggested they be cut.  I do, of course, have the two bios you mention, Brodie and Trefousse, though I am away from home until Monday night.  I would like to nominate the article for FAC, but really do not wish to until everyone is on board with it.  If you feel you need more time with it, then I will nominate the Stone Mountain half dollar.  My numismatic articles have been slow to pass, so this would delay the Stevens nomination probably three or four weeks.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, we're not trying to be the monkeywrench here. And know little about the FA process. We'll check out the peer review and try and make changes with some finality tonight. Do you have any thoughts about this issue of weighting, between 1866 legislation & impeachment proceedings? Shalom, groupuscule (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I favor facts that help the reader put the subject matter in context. I  assume that the reader really doesn't know that much about 1866 and that the significance of Stevens's actions might be lost on him. Stevens's views seem pretty mainstream today but they were shockingly radical in his time especially before a segment of the Republican Party came around to him. Rights of minorities confiscating lands from losers of war  or interfering with state sovereignty these position were very startling in their time. If you want to put more about the bills that's fine but even though they were harsh on the south they did not go far enough for Stevens Try to make that clear.Wehwalt (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I wanted to pop by and note that I had no particular issues with the material that was cut, but it was chopped more to keep the peace, IMHO.  Either way, Wehwalt makes a good point that anything added needs to educate the reader and avoid a WP:UNDUE issue.  Adding a lot of new material this late can mess things up.  Perhaps review the diffs of what was there previously and see if anything new can improve upon what was cut.  Otherwise, leave it out, perhaps.  Montanabw(talk) 20:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

text: due to real life issues I'm unable to focus on this for likely a few days so I will look at it when I can still editing but only marginal stuffWehwalt (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible additions 

message: "Thaddeus was born with a club foot, at the time seen as a judgment from God for secret parental sin—and his older brother was born with the condition in both feet." 
This reads as if this was a widely accepted medical view of that date,  rather than a widespread superstition.  The reason is that you have given a time factor ("at that date") rather than locating the belief within a culture or religious community.  The words "at that time" need replacing with something else, perhaps relating more closely to his family's religious beliefs. 
Amandajm (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There weren't a lot of proclaimed atheists in rural Vermont at that time, I suspect.  Do you have language that you propose, based on the source?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Accepted wisdom

message: I tried cleaning up Lydia Hamilton Smith's page yesterday, which brought up a problem on both their pages. The original version said Stevens died with Smith and his two nephews at his bedside, and initially I assumed they were the two nephews he raised. However, when I looked at Stevens' article, it turns out that one of the nephews they jointly raised (and who had operated Caledonia Forge) died during the battle of Chickamauga. Since the other man's name was Simon Stevens, either he was another nephew, or (to my 20th century viewpoint) someone Stevens adopted for inheritance or other personal purposes. Any clarifications? I have no time to access the written sources listed, nor consult genealogical sources, much less Stevens' will and subsequent legal controversy. Also, I thought about adding something to this page about the Stevens society meeting at his grave annually near his date of death, but didn't quickly see how that fit in, nor consult the Edgar Allen Poe page to see its treatment of a similar situation.Jweaver28 (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Simon Stevens was not a relation.  Let me look into it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Either it's a typo or the intent was to refer to Simon.  I've clarified.  Thank you for catching that.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stevens' relations 

message: The infobox reports Lydia Hamilton Smith as his domestic partner, although the article body is much more hesitant on this topic. Shouldn't there be some kind of "debated" flag in the infobox, perhaps with a link to the relevant section of the article? I'm hesitant to add it myself, since I'm unsure about the formatting, and this is a featured article. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smith relationship 

message: I found this page to be very informative. The article was unbiased and showed the different viewpoints that historians have had of Stevens. One thing I did notice in the footnotes was that both the biography  by Brodie and another one by Trefousse were cited frequently. It seemed as there was an over reliance on both sources however, I did see that several other sources were used. I would agree that this is a good page and I can see why it was rated highly.  Fparra247 (talk) 06:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that.  The two biographies you mention are the most recent full-length biographies.  Earlier ones are a bit questionable, as you will have seen in the final section of the article.  If there were more modern bios ... but even his prominent role in Lincoln only seems to have gone so far.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review of Page 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Thaddeus Stevens. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/HMAN-112/html/HMAN-112-pg99.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140316183615/http://www.columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/1607-1640.pdf to http://www.columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/1607-1640.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150610203113/http://www.columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/1501-1550.pdf to http://www.columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/1501-1550.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.house.gov/pitts/press/commentary/020425c-stevens.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Thaddeus Stevens. 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/20140325173644/http://digitalcommons.buffalostate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1094&context=neha to http://digitalcommons.buffalostate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1094&context=neha
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What's "Metzger" stand for, or just a typo for "Meltzer"?--Jarodalien (talk) 08:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, "Trefouse", typo for "Trefousse"?--Jarodalien (talk) 08:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: .Yes, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I got a little bit confuse on this part: "When Congress returned in December, Stevens maintained his criticism of Lincoln's policies, calling them "flagrant usurpations, deserving the condemnation of the community"", which policies? The Emancipation Proclamation his just "quickly adopted ... for use in his successful re-election campaign" and "radical pleadings to issue", or "Lincoln's plans to colonize freed slaves abroad"?--Jarodalien (talk) 04:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The text from Donald is "Radicals, on the other hand, blamed Lincoln for moving too slowly against slavery and his failure to understand that the entire social system of the South must be reorganized before the disloyal states could be readmitted to the Union. In the heated debates of this session of Congress, Republicans, when not attacking each other, now openly turned their guns on the White House. Thaddeus Stevens, the unquestioned leader of the Radical Republicans in the House of Representatives, dismissed all Lincoln’s actions since the beginning of the war as 'flagrant usurpations, deserving the condemnation of the community' and insisted that the President adopt his theory that the South should be treated like a conquered province.".--Wehwalt (talk) 04:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: So is actually he and the radicals oppose Lincoln's policies in general because the president is not radical enough. Normally I would see the term of "flagrant usurpations" as someone have taking something, inculding property, power or even people (salves in this era) by force, illegally & openly, doesn't care how others will react at all like emperors or chairman Mao in China, but OK if that what's Mr. Stevens said back then.--Jarodalien (talk) 04:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. When I think of flagrant usurpations during the Civil War, I would think of the suspensions of civil liberties, but Donald says that these were opposed by the Conservative Republicans, as contrasted with the Radicals like Stevens. I agree that Stevens felt the usurpation was in Lincoln not following the mood in Congress, but moving at his own pace on slavery.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

text: Not sure, so I've switched to another source.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Also can't found a source with a last name like "Du Bois".--Jarodalien (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Restored.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

text: Abner, son #3 (Thaddeus himself being #2).--Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.--Jarodalien (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  small issues 

message: Under "Bibliography," the article by Jean V. Berlin has a link to Jstor, which costs money. I found a free PDF of it, and added it after the Jstor link. The problem is that I created a footnote, and clicking on the URL in the footnote doesn't open up the PDF; rather, one must copy and paste the URL into an address bar to open the PDF. I tried putting brackets around the URL, but that didn't help. Can someone do this the right way, please?Maurice Magnus (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a URL? All I see is a local file location.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  linking a pdf