Thanks aMorePerfectUnion.
Posted on 11/23/2014 1:51:47 PM PST by aMorePerfectUnion
The Gettysburg Address
November 19, 1863
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate—we cannot consecrate—we cannot hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
I am always amazed at how very short this speech was and how very influential world-wide.
So very like today, the speech garnered partisan reaction, yet has echoed down through the years. What follows is from the Wikipedia article:
"Other public reaction to the speech was divided along partisan lines.[5] The Democratic-leaning Chicago Times observed, "The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly, flat and dishwatery utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States."[62]
"In contrast, the Republican-leaning New York Times was complimentary and printed the speech.[56] In Massachusetts, the Springfield Republican also printed the entire speech, calling it "a perfect gem" that was "deep in feeling, compact in thought and expression, and tasteful and elegant in every word and comma". The Republican predicted that Lincoln's brief remarks would "repay further study as the model speech".[63]
"On the sesquicentennial of the address, The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, formerly the Patriot & Union, retracted its original reaction ("silly remarks" deserving "the veil of oblivion") stating: "Seven score and ten years ago, the forefathers of this media institution brought forth to its audience a judgment so flawed, so tainted by hubris, so lacking in the perspective history would bring, that it cannot remain unaddressed in our archives. ... the Patriot & Union failed to recognize [the speech's] momentous importance, timeless eloquence, and lasting significance. The Patriot-News regrets the error."[64][65]
Enjoy.
Foreign newspapers also criticized Lincoln's remarks. The Times of London commented: "The ceremony [at Gettysburg] was rendered ludicrous by some of the luckless sallies of that poor President Lincoln."[66]
Every semester my speech class is required to memorize it. An excellent example of compact, succinct rhetoric.
A good speech is a short speech
Sadly, we failed in that resolution. Because of that failure, we have a moral obligation to restore government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We owe it to those who went before us and to our children.
Thanks aMorePerfectUnion.
The “Republican-leaning New York Times” - it’s been a while since that was true!
In "A Patriot's History of the United States," Mike Allen and I give extensive coverage to Lincoln, a section that I'm quite proud of.
A bunch of states seceded from the British Union. They were successful. It's not something I would be bringing up at that time, but for whatever reason, nobody seems to have noticed the irony.
You are correct. Over the last 50 years or so, have become a "government of the bureaucrats, by the bureaucrats, and for the bureaucrats."
It almost does not matter which party is in political power, the bureaucracy, or 'permanent government' gains ever more power. Look at what the IRS, EPA, VA, ATF, and countless other alphabet agencies can do to people without the politicians every even knowing or even caring what's going on. And even when the politicians care and try to find out, the bureaucracy stiff arms them.
Government in not our enemy. Big government is our enemy.
Those 'states' were not part and British Union. They were colonies. They had no representatives in London. They had absolutely no say in the policies of Parliament or the British Crown. Their complaints to the British Union were ignored. Their pleadings for just treatment were ignored. Read the Declaration... they listed their reasons and justifications, in detail.
It was not 'secession.' It was a Revolution against 'intolerable oppression.'
No comparison to what happened in 1860-61.
Some thoughts...
I believe the proposition is not whether human beings have been given Rights from God, and whether as a result, government should serve the people rather than the people serving the government. Those, I would call the fundamental, and immediately derivative, premises.
The proposition is whether, left to their own devices, aided by the least totalitarian-structured government design, people will accept the responsibilities that come with those Rights, or reject them for fantasies of non- responsible ease and golden shackles.
The delusion of the Left is that America is like any other country. It's not. Human freedom (and the responsibilities that come with it) are a command from God. If they are rejected, if people morally collapse and embrace cowardice and hypocrisy and cruelty in exchange for favoured-slave status, I believe God will intervene.
In fact, I believe that, if necessary, freedom and responsibility will be imposed upon the human race by God with as much tyrannical violence as is necessary to teach people it is not optional.
That sounds like an oxymoron until you look at what is happening in the world, and in America, and what people are choosing to do with their lives more and more these days.
God is not mocked.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Sounds as though the Declaration of independence says that people have a right to secede.
It was not 'secession.' It was a Revolution against 'intolerable oppression.'
Well if it was "intolerable oppression", why didn't Canada secede too? Apparently they thought it was tolerable. In any case, you are quibbling over word definitions. You want to call it "Revolution" which it was not. The same people were in Charge after the war as were in charge before the war, hence it was *NOT* a revolution it was a war for Independence, which is pretty much the same thing as "secession".
A Revolution is where people who were not in power take over power from people who WERE in power. Our leadership remained pretty much the same before and after the "revolution" so it does not accurately fit the definition of a revolution. The "have nots" did not chase out the "haves", the "haves" were in power before, and the "haves" were in power after.
I will point out that we call it "Independence day", not "Revolution day."
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.
-- Mississippi Declaration of Secession
No, i'm just tired of listening to uniformed people trying to justify the history they WANT to believe in at the expense of an essential principle from this nation's founding.
By the very words of the Declaration of Independence, people have a right to abolish the form of government that they live under and create a new one more to their liking.
There reasons for doing so (even if it was to protect slavery) have nothing to do with their *RIGHT* to do so. When the Colonies seceded from England, they too were all slave states. Every one of them still had legal slavery, so it is rather hypocritical to suggest that because states had legal slavery, they had no right to secede.
Again, ALL THE COLONIES had legal slavery in 1776.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline#1700.E2.80.931800
The Civil war was a disaster for this nation and most especially for the principle of self determination. It is when the Federal Leviathan began, and now it has grown into the massive beast that it is which is currently usurping so many of our rights.
Slavery was doomed anyway. Mechanized farming was just a few decades away, and it would have made slavery unprofitable, and that would have killed it.
On the other hand, the Federal leviathan which was birthed by that conflict is still with us, and growing more powerful with each passing year.
You think the people in Mississippi who wrote that document knew that? (BTW-- mechanized cotton farming did not become profitable until the 1960s not the 1870's or 80's as you imagine. Share croppers were still picking cotton when Kennedy was president.)
The South's cause was not justified under any concept of Natural Law. Their 'institutions' i.e. Slavery, where not under any threat in 1860 other than confining it to their states where it was still legal. The fact is they could not tolerate the Republicans blocking further expansion. It was a mortal threat to them.
The Slave Power understood the economics of slavery. They understood the only reason slavery was profitable to them was because it was a Ponzi Scheme that required continual expansion into new markets. Block expansion of slavery, and they would be ruined.
Then how was the colonies cause justified? They were slave owners too.
Their 'institutions' i.e. Slavery, where not under any threat in 1860 other than confining it to their states where it was still legal.
And here is an admission that the Union was perfectly willing to accommodate slavery. So then, the war was not fought over slavery. Thank you. You've made my point. So then, Why did they go to war with the confederacy?
If not to eradicate slavery, what was their reasons for doing so?
>>>”Then how was the colonies cause justified?”<<<<
They had 27 specific justifications.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness of his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these states
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
Is that question willful ignorance, or just garden variety ignorance?
How many justifications are required before it is acceptable?
I would have thought it only took one. "We don't want to be part of your Union any more."
Are you saying that, in principle, People do not have a right to self determination?
Is that question willful ignorance, or just garden variety ignorance?
I'm not understanding your question. You admitted that slavery could remain legal. Lincoln himself said he would permit slavery to remain legal if the South would just stop fighting. I interpret this as meaning that legal slavery was not the sticking point over which they were fighting.
If you are going to argue the war was fought over slavery, then how can there be any willingness to let it continue?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.