Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Gettysburg Address
Archives ^ | November 19,1863 | Abraham Lincoln

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.


TOPICS: History; Military/Veterans; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: gettysburg; godsgravesglyphs; greatestpresident; lincoln
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-70 next last
To: DiogenesLamp
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?

I'll allow James Madison to answer that.

I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.


21 posted on 11/25/2014 10:40:43 AM PST by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
I interpret this as meaning that legal slavery was not the sticking point over which they were fighting.

The expansion of slavery was why the South took up arms. Preserving the Union was why the North took up arms.

22 posted on 11/25/2014 10:44:57 AM PST by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
The expansion of slavery was why the South took up arms. Preserving the Union was why the North took up arms.

By what natural law principle was it necessary to preserve the Union? Why must a wife be forced to stay with her husband if she doesn't wish to do so?

23 posted on 11/25/2014 10:49:34 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
I'll allow James Madison to answer that.

...But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression...

Madison is saying that it's okay if you are facing intolerable oppression. So who gets to decide if their oppression is intolerable?

Obviously King George did not think the Colonies were intolerably oppressed. For that matter, neither did the third of the population that constituted the British loyalists. Neither did the populations of Canada.

It would appear that if we follow the example of the founders, it is they who decided the oppression was intolerable, while obviously the King disagreed.

So who gets to decide? The people who want out, or the people who want to keep them in?

24 posted on 11/25/2014 10:58:34 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
By what natural law principle was it necessary to preserve the Union? Why must a wife be forced to stay with her husband if she doesn't wish to do so?

Ever hear of divorce court? She does not just get to declare the marriage contract over via unilateral secession.

25 posted on 11/25/2014 11:37:41 AM PST by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
Ever hear of divorce court? She does not just get to declare the marriage contract over via unilateral secession.

Didn't we? Didn't we inform the King that we no longer wished to be part of Britain? Again, how is this different from American Independence from England?

I think you will concede that any man can leave this country and become a member of another. Why then cannot many such people?

26 posted on 11/25/2014 11:46:36 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Obviously King George did not think the Colonies were intolerably oppressed.

It's pretty obvious King George didn't give a damn what the Colonies thought. That's the way tyrants operate.

27 posted on 11/25/2014 12:25:18 PM PST by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
I think you will concede that any man can leave this country and become a member of another. Why then cannot many such people?

They can... leave the country that is. Go anywhere you wish. But the land remains with the United States.

28 posted on 11/25/2014 12:27:55 PM PST by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Didn't we inform the King that we no longer wished to be part of Britain? Again, how is this different from American Independence from England?

And the King said no way. We had to win a long, bitter war to make it a reality.

29 posted on 11/25/2014 12:29:58 PM PST by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

The north went to war to save the union and in the process freed the slaves. The south went to war to save slavery and in the process lost everything.


30 posted on 11/25/2014 1:45:04 PM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
And the King said no way. We had to win a long, bitter war to make it a reality.

And this argument simplifies to "Might makes right", which is, I believe, an accurate assessment of what happened.

King George had the power necessary to win. What he lacked was the will to do so. So our great founding, rather than being a matter of principles in which we claim to believe, simply comes down to a matter of a lack of will power on the part of the British Chief executive.

Had Lincoln been in charge, we would all still be singing "God Save the King."

31 posted on 11/25/2014 1:46:44 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion

32 posted on 11/25/2014 1:48:43 PM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
The north went to war to save the union and in the process freed the slaves.

I have no argument with this claim. It accurately states the Union objectives at the beginning of the war.

However, why didn't the Southern states have just as much right to their independence as did the colonies from Britain? Again, the declaration of Independence (our founding document) recognizes the right of people to abolish one from of government and create another to their liking.

--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.

33 posted on 11/25/2014 1:51:21 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
They can... leave the country that is. Go anywhere you wish. But the land remains with the United States.

Is it not their land?

34 posted on 11/25/2014 1:52:39 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Didn't we? Didn't we inform the King that we no longer wished to be part of Britain? Again, how is this different from American Independence from England?

For years the colonialists sought equity with the crown. It was only after our efforts were met with the edge of a sword that we rebelled. And we clearly rebelled against the authority of the crown. Those who stood did so in full knowledge that failure meant death.

I think you will concede that any man can leave this country and become a member of another. Why then cannot many such people?

It wasn't so much what the insurrectionists did as how they did it. Antagonistic, belligerent "secession" was their first course of action, not their last resort. Violent confrontation was their preferred method of communication. Theft of armaments, treasuries, and well anything that wasn't nailed down (and a lot that was) was their modus operandi. The rebellion demanded a response.

35 posted on 11/25/2014 1:54:13 PM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Because they had signed on to an agreement that tied their fortunes to the Union, an agreement which has no provision for withdrawal.


36 posted on 11/25/2014 1:54:23 PM PST by Benito Cereno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Again, the declaration of Independence (our founding document) recognizes the right of people to abolish one from of government and create another to their liking.

Yes, our founding documents recognize the natural right of rebellion. And the Founding Fathers recognized the difference between annoyances and intolerable oppression. The south suffered no intolerable oppression. Although they were perfectly within their prerogative to seek dissolution they had no right to do so unilaterally.

37 posted on 11/25/2014 1:59:12 PM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
For years the colonialists sought equity with the crown. It was only after our efforts were met with the edge of a sword that we rebelled. And we clearly rebelled against the authority of the crown. Those who stood did so in full knowledge that failure meant death.

Yes they did. It is only by divine providence that events worked out to produce the longshot victory which occurred for our side.

It wasn't so much what the insurrectionists did as how they did it. Antagonistic, belligerent "secession" was their first course of action, not their last resort. Violent confrontation was their preferred method of communication. Theft of armaments, treasuries, and well anything that wasn't nailed down (and a lot that was) was their modus operandi. The rebellion demanded a response.

And this is actually a reasonable position given the facts. They picked a fight when they shouldn't have. Had they just minded their own business, they would likely have been left alone.

I have a friend (Black, and a History major) that is convinced Lincoln deliberately egged them into attacking Ft. Sumter. He praises Lincoln for his genius in doing so.

I think history would have certainly worked out differently if they hadn't risen to the bait.

But it's still Ironic that Lincoln chose to use the Declaration of Independence after a battle fought to prevent Independence.

38 posted on 11/25/2014 2:25:10 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Benito Cereno
Because they had signed on to an agreement that tied their fortunes to the Union, an agreement which has no provision for withdrawal.

The Declaration of Independence argues that 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." is a fundamental right. Can you sign your fundamental rights away? Isn't that a little like slavery?

I will point out also that the British Colonists were expected (required by law) to show perpetual allegiance to the King. We see how that turned out.

39 posted on 11/25/2014 2:31:15 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Because they had signed on to an agreement that tied their fortunes to the Union, an agreement which has no provision for withdrawal.

If the US Constitution had had a roach motel clause saying once states entered the union they cant get out then it would never have been ratified. The converse is also true.

40 posted on 11/25/2014 2:34:53 PM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-70 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson