Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

November 19, 1863 Gettysburg, Pennsylvania
11/19.1863 | A. Lincoln

Posted on 11/19/2004 6:43:31 AM PST by Valin

Gettysburg Address

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth upon 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 can not dedicate - we can not consecrate - we can not 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 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, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: abelincoln; gettysburg; gettysburgaddress; history
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-58 last
To: Al Gator
Nice, but please learn how to use an external url.

Puh-lease. It's only 79 kb. The whole point of posting it was to contrast its length with Lincoln's speech since although everybody knows the Gettysburg Address very few have ever seen Everett's speech. A link would not accomplish that. Just scroll down if you don't like it. Sheez.

For comparison, it's the same size as the picture below (79 kb):


41 posted on 11/19/2004 2:01:43 PM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Valin

42 posted on 11/19/2004 7:05:58 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
. . . very few have ever seen Everett's speech.

My grade school teacher made us memorize Everett's speech dang near two-score years ago. Can't wait till I get to middle school.

43 posted on 11/19/2004 7:18:19 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
My grade school teacher made us memorize Everett's speech ...

Whoa!

44 posted on 11/19/2004 7:21:28 PM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: uncitizen

I'm ashamed to admit it but I wouldn't of know it if it were not that I post an "This Day In History" on the FR Canteen and Freeper Foxhole threads.


45 posted on 11/19/2004 8:17:13 PM PST by Valin (Out Of My Mind; Back In Five Minutes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette

Not unlike a certain other President.


46 posted on 11/19/2004 8:18:05 PM PST by Valin (Out Of My Mind; Back In Five Minutes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: OXENinFLA

Thanks!

When the Eagle Cries
Music & Lyrics by Jon Schaffer

Another day just like any other
Out of the blue it turned to horror
How could they?
Why would they?
The innocent suffered hell’s inferno
A senseless act that goes unforgotten
How could they?
They will pay

Chorus
When the eagle cries
Blood will flow
When the eagle cries
For freedom’s fight
When the eagle cries
We love her so
When the eagle cries
We will sacrifice

Out of the ashes came a tempting vengeance
But we are focused, we seek redemption
We are free
We’ll stay free
All they’ve done is make us stronger
The sleeping giant is asleep no longer
If need be
We’ll die free

Chorus
When the eagle cries
Blood will flow
When the eagle cries
For freedom’s fight
When the eagle cries
We love her so
When the eagle cries
We will sacrifice


47 posted on 11/19/2004 8:25:12 PM PST by Valin (Out Of My Mind; Back In Five Minutes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

LMAO

You and your 79K made me fall off my chair.


48 posted on 11/20/2004 4:36:43 AM PST by Al Gator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

Thankfully the People at Gettysburg that day didn't read the speech but listened to it.


49 posted on 11/20/2004 7:00:10 AM PST by Mike Darancette (RICE '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Al Gator
[I]t was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves."

Only if one does not consider Blacks to be people.

50 posted on 11/20/2004 7:20:15 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (NYT Headline: "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of CBS", Fake But Accurate, Experts Say)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

Well stated. The 7 states you mentioned were all part of the historical slave empire of the South and strongly desired expansion the evils of slavery to extend into the western portions of expand nation.

In is absolutely amazing, yet revolting, that today, as America remains under threats of attack by fanatical jihadists, dedicated to our extermination as a civilization, yet there still remains small pockets of hate consumed, die-hard neo-confederates. Any mention of President Lincoln in a pro-Union view point simply enrages neo-confederates and they immediately begin to place a 'Southern spin' on the Civil War, saying 'Lincoln stated the Civil War', plus 'all the South wanted was to be left alone'. You know there is something generational wrong when this element views the likes of John Wilkes Booth and a Confederate General who founded the KKK, as 'Southern heroes'. Yet they say they are conservatives? Not in my book.


51 posted on 11/23/2004 2:44:46 PM PST by M. Espinola (Freedom is never free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: southlake_hoosier
"Sure, all the blue state have the right to secede." What would these states form, if allowed, 'Liberalstan'? or, 'The United Confederacy of Kerry'? As far as one of the other incredible statements, "The Representatives from the Confederate States were ignored..." The Slave Empire did infect control the House & Senate for the overwhelming majority of years until President Lincoln. The South's way of life (death to others) was drawing to a justifiable conclusion and they ripped the nation in two by insurrection & treason, and when their 'lost cause' was defeated, a confederate murdered one of America's greatest leaders. I rest my case on today's spin masters from the neo-confederate movement. The President was shot by a coward, from the back.
52 posted on 11/23/2004 3:15:26 PM PST by M. Espinola (Freedom is never free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: southlake_hoosier
There were problems brewing before Lincoln was even nominated as a candidate. The Representatives from the Confederate States were ignored during the process to even nominate a candidate. Their views and ideals were thrown out by a party they had supported. They felt like they had no other course then to secede.

The most radical Southerners walked out of the Democrat convention when it was clear that they wouldn't win. But it wasn't clear that Southerners would lose out, either. It took a 2/3 vote of the delegates to pick a nominee, so whoever was picked would have had to pass muster with the South, and if those delegates had remained, some compromise acceptable to all would probably have been reached.

But the militant "fire eaters" were already thinking of secession and looking for a way to provoke it. These were agitators and politicians with a vision of wresting power for themselves and getting their own country -- one might say, their own empire, since there were dreams of extending the power of the slave states Southwards into the Caribbean, Mexico, or Central America.

They weren't just ordinary citizens and little guys who woke up when Lincoln was elected, felt threatened and decided to leave. They were an elite looking for a country to run. And they were as arrogant and domineering as any governing elite, the sort of people you'd probably hate if they were running things.

And yes, Lincoln tore the Constitution to shreds. Hundred of thousands of people were killed, and many more injured because if his dictatorship. Even to this day we all live with problems brought about by this man's legacy.

Whatever Lincoln did to keep the union together was temporary, and it's hard to see what permanent damage the Constitution sustained from his actions. To be sure, looking back on things, if we knew the cost, we might well have said just let things slide. But then we'd have to put up with the consequences of that decision (or non-decision). If our country were divided into two hostile nations in cold war, or a variety of smaller countries inimical to each other; if we had race war or an apartheid regime or anarchic conditions or a long-term dictatorship in part of the country we'd have to live with that, and we'd blame Lincoln for not being firmer in 1861.

There is always middle ground between two different views. Lincoln should have at least tried to mend this. No, it would not have been easy. It might not have even been solved during his Presidency.

The middle ground was to be found by working through the system. When one faction decides to simply pull out and set its own terms, it makes it hard to work things out. After the secessionists seized and destroyed property, formed their own national government, called for an army, and fired on US troops, it was hard for them to say, "We come in peace." Indeed, it's possible that they thought decisive and aggressive action would induce more states to join the rebellion. At that point it was hard to come to terms. Governments don't like to be backed into corners or have demands dictated to them, and they'll do almost anything to avoid that fate. Americans are slow to anger, but once they get aroused it's hard to hold them back. Southern leaders ought to have recognized that, and they might have if they'd thought about things before lashing out, but they didn't.

The winning side in a war gets blamed for all that happened afterwards. Thus people can pile all their hope that things might have turned out differently on the losers. But a lot of what went wrong can be traced back to the secession itself. The "Old Republic" ended at Sumter and whatever came later was necessarily going to be different. While we certainly ought to sympathize with the great losses people endured then, it's not at all clear that all the destruction can be laid at Lincoln's door or that the result was the worst possible. It's certainly possible that we'd be less happy and less free had the other side won. Indeed, things might have turned out far worse than they did.

53 posted on 11/23/2004 3:43:03 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

Your statement is so true "by the Grace of God, Lincoln preserved instead of allowing this land to devolve into a Balkanized hell-hole."


54 posted on 11/23/2004 8:33:57 PM PST by M. Espinola (Freedom is never free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
I agree with your overview on DiLoranzo and would also state this guy is really a neo-confederate bigot who would have favoured a 'southern victory' including all the evils. His vicious no-stop attacks against President Lincoln, 'Radical Republicans' or 'black" Republicans' (GOP members which to identified with emancipation) 'Bostonian Abolitionists', 'Yankee invaders' and 'Federal/Yankee Reconstruction' not being necessary! This pre-1865 mindset is so typical of those within the Southern secessionist movement, which today is a mask for die-hard segregationists. The leading neo-confederate media love to quote 'the (so-called) 'Northerner' DiLoranzo, thinking since he adds credence to their 'lost cause and can not be technically branded as just another 'Deep South rabble-rouser, longing for 'the good old days' of Jim Crow. Most Americans are not even cognizant that an organized neo-confederate movement even exists. The reason may be the majority of adherents live in very rural areas of such states as South Carolina, Alabama & Mississippi, states which made America look backward & hate consumed overseas, during the civil rights movement.------------------------------------------------- Where is the American flag?
55 posted on 11/24/2004 2:45:26 PM PST by M. Espinola (Freedom is never free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: veronica
I am fascinated by Lincoln.

Would you like to open his mail?

56 posted on 12/02/2004 12:09:55 PM PST by SJackson ( Bush is as free as a bird, He is only accountable to history and God, Ra'anan Gissin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Valin
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 gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain

BTTT.

I wonder what today's MSM would have said. They would have told Lincoln to cut and run. They would have screamed for the head of his "Secretary of Defense." They would have demanded that we do exactly what Lincoln said we could not do - dishonor the dead by forgetting the cause for which they died.

Then the cause was democracy in America. Now it is democracy in Iraq. Far fewer men have died in Iraq than did at Gettysburg.

Shalom.

57 posted on 12/23/2004 8:31:13 AM PST by ArGee (After 517, the abolition of man is complete)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ArGee

They would have screamed for the head of his "Secretary of Defense."

Edwin M Stanton
1814-1869
http://home.ix.netcom.com/~rilydia/stanton.html

(snip)
With the new administration of President Lincoln came a new cabinet. Edwin Stanton stepped aside but was eager to serve the new president in whatever capacity he was called on do to. Incompetence by Secretary of War Simeon Camerom lead Lincoln to look for another Secretary of War, strong urging by Treasury Secretary Chase and Secretary of State William Seward secured the position for Stanton. Although it meant giving up his private practice and a salary of nearly fifty thousand dollars a year, Stanton accepted the post and a salary of eight thousand dollars on January 20,1862 as his patriotic duty.

Immediately Stanton went to work cleaning the graft and favoritism of state contacts from the War Department. He required bids for all contracts to be in writing and with competitive bidding with loyal suppliers. One of the first important changes he made was to have the telegraph office moved to the War Department where he would know the news from the battlefield before anyone else. Even Lincoln had to go to the War office to get the news.

With allegations that Stanton failed to provide adequate medical care and sufficient weapons for the Armies, Stanton enemies pressed for his removal from the cabinet in the summer of 1862.

One of the issues Stanton refused to commit himself to was the fate of the Negroes. In his heart he agreed with the only member of the cabinet who though that the Negro question should not be avoided. The radial republican Chase insisted that it was senseless to combat a rebellion while upholding the evil that had caused it. Stanton again played a duel role while he sided with Chase he had to side with the majority North opinion if he were to get the needed supplies and men he needed. Winning the war was the single most important cause to Stanton as well as for Lincoln and this common desire bonded the two men close.

On July 17, 1862 Lincoln signed into the law a second Confiscation Act which declared all fugitive, captured and abandoned slaves free and the act allowed the president to employ the Negroes in the suppression of the rebellion. Stanton recommended using Negro troops as fighting men but Lincoln did not think the time was right. So without the knowledge of the president Stanton allowed Union General David Hunter to arm Negroes on the agreement that Hunter would take the responsibility if questioned by Congress. Which he was and he did. Stanton went so far in denying knowledge of Hunter’s actions that he would not authorize pay for the black soldiers

Lincoln reconsidered the need for enlistment of black troops in the Union Army in January 1863, as a military necessity and the logical consequence of emancipation. The issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation and the allowance of Negro troops wiped out the major differences between Lincoln and Stanton. Negroes rushed to the join the Union Army in such force that Stanton had to create the Bureau pf Colored Troops in the war department. The secretary of war fixed the salaries of the colored troops at ten dollars a month with three dollars paid in clothing. The same white soldiers were paid thirteen dollars and clothing.

Congress provided for a national draft in March of 1863. The conscription act was be administered by a military office, a Provost Marshal General of the Army, a separate bureau of the War Department. Unsuccessfully Stanton protested one feature of the enrollment act of 1863. It was not appealed until a year later. The act provided men to obtain an exemption for the draft by paying three hundred dollars commutation or furnishing a substitute.

The draft riots of July in New York were mildly condoned by Governor Seymour. He justified his attitude towards the riots and his opposition to the conscription act on the grounds it was unconstitutional. Lincoln said he could not wait for the Supreme Court to decide the legality of the act, the war needed men.

With the fall elections rapidly approaching the Republicans were worried about the slow progress of the war and the internal strife within the Cabinet since the resignation of the Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase had been accepted. Many people felt that if Lincoln were to replace his Secretary of War he would improve his chances at re-election. Lincoln in order to satisfy the radical republicans still hurting at Chase’s dismissal sacrificed Post master Montgomery Blair, Stanton’s enemy in the cabinet. The radicals concluded that Lincoln was their lone hope. The Democrats nominated General McClellan. Their platform called for immediate cessation of the war and a negotiated peace on the ‘basis of the Federal Union of the States’. Lincoln with his new vice presidential running mate Governor Andrew Johnson of Tennessee won decisively with 2,203,831 votes to McClellan’s 1,797,019.

The death of Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney left open a position in the Supreme Court in October. Stanton had secretly desired the position of Chief Justice. Many supporters of Stanton urged the President to consider him to the Judgeship but Lincoln needed Stanton in the War Department. It was Grant fears of another Secretary of War that convinced Lincoln to keep Stanton in the War department and nominate Salmon P. Chase as Chief Justice.

With the fall of Richmond Stanton tended his resignation as he had told Chase he would do as soon as Richmond fell and Lee surrendered. Lincoln refused and Stanton reluctantly agreed to stay on for awhile longer, although he longed for a long rest after the numerous illnesses he had suffered during the last year of the war.


58 posted on 12/23/2004 9:05:04 AM PST by Valin (Out Of My Mind; Back In Five Minutes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-58 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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