There are five known manuscripts of the Gettysburg Address in Lincoln’s hand, which differ in several details. The written documents also differ from contemporary newspaper reprints of the speech. Maybe we should say that didn’t happen either?
While we’re at it, Stephens lived two decades after the speech was first published. Did he ever disavow it, or deny he said those words?
When I finally actually paid attention to what was being said in the Gettysburg address, I realized the massive level of chutzpah required to make the Declaration of Independence about *STOPPING* independence.
Lincoln absolutely flipped the meaning of the Declaration of Independence, and his double talk should meet the envy of any conman in history.
To make the thing about the very opposite of what it was, is a level of deception that should put him in the record books as world's greatest liar!
For awhile I thought I was the only one who noticed that his speech was about stopping an effort to gain independence, but I found out later that others have noticed the same thing. One of the best write ups i've seen on the topic was by H.L. Mencken.
"But let us not forget that it is oratory, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it! Put it into the cold words of everyday! The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination — “that government of the people, by the people, for the people,” should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i. e., of the people of the States? The Confederates went into battle an absolutely free people; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and vote of the rest of the country—and for nearly twenty years that vote was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely any freedom at all. Am I the first American to note the fundamental nonsensicality of the Gettysburg address? If so, I plead my aesthetic joy in it in amelioration of the sacrilege."
Since you brought up this "did he ever disavow it", I ask you to apply the same standard to the Constitutional ratification statement of Virginia, of New York, and of Rhode Island, all which explicitly say they can resume their former powers.
Here is Virginia's as an example.
"WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will:"
Did any of the founders disavow those statements? Did Congress refuse to accept their conditional ratifications?
The answer is "no, they did not." Therefore, following SoCal Pubbie's logic, the fact that they did not disavow those statements would appear to prove those statements were true and accurate.
Just trying to make you live up to your own set of standards.