Posted on 11/15/2013 11:16:55 AM PST by nickcarraway
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.
We write today in reconsideration of The Gettysburg Address, delivered by then-President Abraham Lincoln in the midst of the greatest conflict seen on American soil. Our predecessors, perhaps under the influence of partisanship, or of strong drink, as was common in the profession at the time, called President Lincolns words silly remarks, deserving a veil of oblivion, apparently believing it an indifferent and altogether ordinary message, unremarkable in eloquence and uninspiring in its brevity.
CONNECT WITH US
On Twitter or Facebook:
Like PennLive on Facebook
And check out our mobile site by visiting PennLive.com from any mobile browser.
In the fullness of time, we have come to a different conclusion. No mere utterance, then or now, could do justice to the soaring heights of language Mr. Lincoln reached that day. By todays words alone, we cannot exalt, we cannot hallow, we cannot venerate this sacred text, for a grateful nation long ago came to view those words with reverence, without guidance from this chagrined member of the mainstream media.
The world will little note nor long remember our emendation of this institutions record but we must do as conscience demands:
donmeaker, post #19: "If it was learned that Lee actually made a slave of his own child, then his face should be chiseled off Stone Mountain.
That kind of example would be one to show the nature of 'honor' in the worst kind of tyrant."
onedoug, post #20: "And that has to do with what I wrote how?"
Answer: so, you would join the cause of slavery, FRiend?
Yes sir.
So, you would fight & die in defense of Southern slavery?
It boggles my mind how any lover of freedom could ever consider slavery acceptable.
I already answered you.
Have a great life.
My, aren’t you a peach. Slavery is, was, and always will be an abomination, and yet you would willingly lay down your life for it. Despicable.
” you would willingly lay down your life for it.”
Liar, and you know damned well he wouldn’t but you just want to bash the South. Fact is, you sound just like a liberal that claims the US has no right to exist because she once had slavery.
Would you order people who didn’t want to die in defense of slavery shot?
NO ONE, on any of these threads, has ever said they would fight for slavery. What you liberals do is lie and put words in their mouths. If they say they would have fought for the South for any reason you people claim they would fight for slavery.
We’re not as stupid as liberals think we are.
“Would you order people who didnt want to die in defense of slavery shot?”
Back at you: Would you order people shot who defended States’ rights?
“tragedy of damned slavery which led to that horrible war”
Slavery wasn’t the only issue of the time. In fact, Lincoln himself said the war was not about slavery. Read his inaugural address.
Of course the genes flowed the other way too, but white women who had children by black men routinely had their babies killed.
So southern slavery depended not only on theft, kidnapping, rape and torture, but also outright murder.
What a wonderful system you support. /sarc
So what is the other issue? Tariffs were low, being written by the south. US fort construction was mostly in the south.
The south had run the whole country for years. What could they complain about? That people didn’t love them enough?
That isn’t what I said, but what you will.
You have to understand how much the early law talked about “property”.
Rights - all kinds of rights - had to do with the concept of “property”.
In early publications, like “Forms of Action at Common Law”, the most prevalent theme is “property”, it’s ownership and control, acquisition, sale, etc.
So much so that the word “trespass” isn’t just a singular term meaning someone walked into your front yard. All sorts of rights could have “trespass” committed against them. People today are astounded that a wife might sue her husbands mistress for alienation of affection, but it fits into the idea of rights themselves being “property” under the laws that existed then.
And make no mistake.
The Constitution was composed and adopted under precisely those ideas.
Sorry, I don't "get" it.
How could I ever be in some position of authority in a Slave Power state, such that I might order army deserters shot?
It makes no sense, so maybe I'm taking your question wrong?
I just think the question ‘would you shoot others that disagreed with you?’ is a better question than ‘who do you support?”
The war wasn’t about slavery for the Union. It was about slavery for the insurrection.
Well then... as you well know, I support the war to destroy the Slave Power.
As for how many northern soldiers were ever shot for desertion, I don't know of any.
Indeed, executions of any kind, for whatever reasons, in either army, were pretty rare as I understand it.
This is in stark contrast to, let's pick the old Soviet example: in WWII Communists assigned whole battalions to follow their main force and shoot any soldiers they caught running away from battle.
Nothing like that is ever recorded in American history, and rightly so.
Does that answer your question?
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.