Posted on 11/19/2018 9:27:11 AM PST by harpygoddess
Everyone has posted the speech itself (and it's included here), but the background information is also interesting - not only the situation in America at the time, but also the extent to which the structure of the speech mimics (draws from?) Thucydides' account of Pericles' 430 B.C funeral oration at the end of the first year of the Peloponnesian War.
Today is the anniversary of President Lincoln's delivery of his few "brief remarks" at the dedication of the new national cemetery at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, only four or so months after the great Civil War battle there that emerged as "the high-water mark of the Confederacy."
At the time, the final issue of the war was still in some doubt, and Lincoln received second billing to a lengthy speech by Dr. Edward Everett, then president of Harvard University and reputedly America's greatest orator.
Everyone's familiar with the Gettysburg Address - didn't we all have to memorize it in grammar school? But in these troubled times, its mere 272 words remain well worth reading again.
Lincoln was not nuts. He was quite brilliant and methodical, and I believe he was quite right about the threat the Southern Confederacy posed to the existing Union.
If the South had been allowed to remain independent, it would have eventually captured, through economic interest, most of the states in the existing Union. The Confederacy eventually had 11 states, and if a state of war hadn't developed, it would have eventually had the Union slave states, otherwise known as the "border states" join it.
The European money and goods that would have flooded the Southern markets would have eventually found their way to the Midwest and the further western territories by way of the Mississippi river and to other northern states along the porous border over which it would be impossible to guard against smuggling.
Over time, the Confederacy would have become more powerful than the Northern Union, and it was precisely because Lincoln and his New York backers could see this that he needed a war to stop it from happening.
The New York/Washington DC axis has ever since protected it's power jealously. The media systems in New York and Washington exists to maintain that power by controlling what people hear on the public airwaves.
And oddly enough, means the very opposite of what the Declaration of Independence said.
bkmk
Did we not secede from the United Kingdom?
The men didn't die to free anybody. They died to enslave those who would not submit to the control of the Washington DC/New York power cartel.
The "Establishment" run this nation, and they don't care about anything but their own power and control.
There is no such requirement in the US Constitution. Claiming that there is is just projecting one's own personal opinion onto the Constitution. This is "Penumbra" sort of stuff, and it all depends upon who is visualizing the "Penumbra" they want.
This time, it’s not slaves that would be freed it would be the American people would be freed from Liberalism and the Corporate Owned media that props it up.
That "Corporate owned media" is by an large controlled out of New York. The media is a tool to keep the Washington DC spending cartel pumping money through the pockets of the men who control the media systems.
The Media supports liberalism, because liberal policies keep the US government money pumping through all the right hands.
The Civil War is what established this New York/Washington DC power cartel, and they have been controlling the nation ever since.
The “Slave Establishment” run the Southern nation, and they don’t care about anything but their own power, wealth and control.
Once their people had voted for independence, the fort became the property of the people who lived there. Yes, they wanted to impose their will on their property in the south, especially since it controlled the entrance to their harbor, and could easily scare away their shipping and trade just by threatening to fire cannons at the shipping.
It wasn't just about appearance. Allowing a hostile force to continue to occupy the fort would have had real world economic consequences for the people of Charleston, as well as undermining respect for the government of which they had chosen to be a part.
There may be truth to that. I've long suggested that they would likely have become the same thing as New York. Anyone that acquires that level of wealth and power tends to turn despotic and aristocratic. I think that is plain old human nature.
But the "this other group is just as bad" is not much of an argument when it is pointed out how bad one group is.
How about we don't have any groups that are bad? Can we get there from here?
Once the Castro Government replaced the Batista Government in Cuba, the naval base at Guantanamo Bay became the property of Cuba. Especially since it controlled the entrance to the best natural harbor in Cuba.
It wasn’t just about appearance. Allowing a hostile force to continue to occupy the base would have had real world economic consequences for the people of Cuba, as well as undermining respect for the government of which they had created.
That desire for power, wealth, and control on the part of the Southern Slaveocracy was the motivator to secede from the Union.
I've covered this before. If you were referring to Morro Castle, you would have similar circumstances. Havana was the major port. Guantanamo bay was not.
Guns of Castle Morrow overlooking Havana Harbor.
Apart from that, we had the Fort by Treaty with a foreign government. In a divorce, people keep the property that was theirs before the marriage.
Their reasons for leaving are immaterial to why an invasion force was sent into their homeland. Presumably Lincoln would recognize *NO* reason for leaving as being legitimate. He would send an invasion force no matter what their reason was.
Why do you focus on their reasons, when Lincoln's argument is that seceding is illegal regardless of the reason?
Am I wrong about this? Is there some reason for which seceding would have been okay in Lincoln's mind?
Said nothing about Moro Castle. Guantanmo Bay is the only protected harbor in Cuba. Better than Havana. Our naval base there prevents the current Cuban Government from using the harbor for their economic interests. Why shouldn’t they fire on it and cause it’s garrison to surrender. After all it is their property. The land upon which Fort Sumter was built was granted in perpetuity to the Federal Government by the State of South Carolina Legislature. Just because the government changed does not automatically abrogate the pact made by both parties years earlier. Just as the change in the Cuban government does not abrogate the treaty both parties signed years before.
No you didn't, but if you are going to make an accurate comparison of what Sumter was to Charleston, you have to accurately compare it to what Castle Moro was to Havana.
Just because the government changed does not automatically abrogate the pact made by both parties years earlier.
It does when that change is acquiring Independence from one of the parties. Even Lincoln said that people are entitled to the land upon which they live.
They fought against GB as a UNION. Adding to that Union was considered noble and keeping it together was Lincoln's sacred duty. He made that abundantly clear.
So you have read Lincoln’s mind and divined that that he would have sent an invasion force no matter what their reason was. Good for you. I lack that power unfortunately. I cannot read minds, particularly of dead people.
Let me know what you see Jefferson Davis doing if Lincoln had not tried to reinforce Sumter. Which Federal property would he have chosen to fire on.
“It does when that change is acquiring Independence from one of the parties. Even Lincoln said that people are entitled to the land upon which they live.”
Castro claimed he had won independence from the domination of the Capitalist in Washington DC. So that declaration would have been sufficient reason to fire the Naval base at Guantanamo. South Carolina claimed they had won independence from the domination of the New York/Washington DC axis. That gave them the right to fire on Fort Sumter.
In this case only the soldiers of the United States Army lived on Fort Sumter. South Carolina had given up title to the property to the United States.
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.
