The Gettysburg Address---By Abraham Lincoln

[patriot2980]

POSTER'S NOTE: It is in my honest opinion, that the reverence that many Americans hold for Abraham Lincoln is greatly misplaced. In my opinion, Mr Lincoln did much damage the rights of the individual states, and very well have started the snowball effect of the bureaucratic "big government".
I simply post this as a historical document for educational purpose.
__________________________________________________ ______

THE GETTYSBURG ADDRESS

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 battle-field 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, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

[fruit loop]

Lincoln started the dismantling of the Constitution.

That war was NOT a "civil war." The southern states, by majority vote of their citizens, voted to leave the Union and form a new government. Lincoln's war was therefore an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation.

I'm disgusted to see someone from North Carolina quote this speech.

[patriot2980]

Lincoln started the dismantling of the Constitution.

That war was NOT a "civil war." The southern states, by majority vote of their citizens, voted to leave the Union and form a new government. Lincoln's war was therefore an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation.

I'm disgusted to see someone from North Carolina quote this speech.

I'll have you know , I have no love whatsoever for Lincoln, I simply posted this as a historical reference. This is the Library, where you post such articles. I never said I agreed with him.
Lincoln was in fact the beginning of the end of state's rights.
I never disputed that. I was merely posting this due to it historical signifigance.
You disgust me for not even asking me why I posted it to begin with.
Haow dare you pass judgement upon me and question my loyalty as a citizen of the occupied Confederacy?

[fruit loop]

Oops.

I am terribly sorry for misunderstanding, which I definitely did. Deo Vindice, sir, and please excuse me. I have a crow in the fryer.

[patriot2980]

apology accepted.

[fruit loop]

I wish you good day, sir.

[Dahlia]

The film God's and Generals was awesome. Living in "the North" I do believe we did not get the full truth (imagine that) in our high school or college. Looking and learning more on my own now, I can say, indeed, there certainly is alot of "revisions" and half-truths in history. Anyhow, I would assume that anyone who saw God's and Generals must have loved the fine acting of Robert Duvall and the gentleman who portrayed Stonewall Jackson. That movie moved me deeply, made me think differently..It was great and Ted Turner did one thing right by making that film!

[fruit loop]

TNT has optioned the last book in the series, "The Last Full Measure" for a miniseries. Robert Duvall is supposed to come back to play General Lee, and Stephen Lang (Pickett in "Gettysburg", Jackson in "Gods and Generals") is going to play General John Gordon.

[Dahlia]

The casting in Gods and Generals was excellent and it really is one of the best movies ever..It was hardly ever out in theateres up here except a few and only a few weeks. I bought my own copy to teach my children from..They are in Grade School, and we've watched it and taught them with it...It is amazing to me that Ted Turner funded that whole deal from my understanding. I think that he did a good deed by doing that...He must be a southerner himself...I am watching Gettysburg right now, and, I miss seeing Lang and Duvall in the casting of this one, and also Jeff Daniels not in this one.
Anyhow, do many sentiments run still in the South that they are "occupied"? Up here in the "North" I would imagine most here don't really understand in their hearts about that war in the same way as anyone who lives and grew up in any of the southern states. Anyhow, this may belong elsewhere? Is there a book "Gods and Generals"? I would like to get a copy. I still think there is a different element of genteel-ness that is not up here.
Thx for the posts and the information. I had never read the Gettysburg Address until now. Always something to learn.

[Ren]

Abraham Lincoln (spit) was not only a Constitution shredding warmonger, but he was also a hypocrite.

"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable and most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit.

Abraham Lincoln
January 12, 1848

[Dahlia]

I need a "real" history lesson. So, I had heard that the emancipation of slavery was already underway before the civil war, and that, the civil war was more about state's sovreign (spelling probably wrong) rights. So, South wanted to cede from the Union mainly to economic and state rights issues? Again, up "North" I am sure we are taught a very different "view". Any books to suggest reading on this that outline this?
Thanks.

[Agent Iron]

I like:
The South was right
The real Abraham Lincoln
States Rights and the Union
The South Under Siege
Facts and Falsehoods

I am forgeting many more.

History is skewed. There is a whole new world out there for you when you start to mine good literature on civil war history. You will learn that Lincoln had no use for slaves, and wanted to send them all back to Africa. You will likely not call it the civil war, but the war of Northern Agression. At least I do....and I am from the North.

It is interesting history accounting the darkest period for our nation...at least maybe until now.
AI

[Dahlia]

thank you for the list..I will start self-informing...

[Ren]

when you get through with studying the war, then start looking into the "reconstruction" of the South.

Then your eyes will be opened even more...

[patriot2980]

I'll agree Lincoln was the beginning of the end of the rights of the states and the people.
It's a shame John Wilkes Boothe didn't do what he did a lot sooner.
It might've saved the Confederacy and in turn the freedoms of the American People.
Like I said before, I posted this only for it's historical signifigance.

[cfskellyvt]

...and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, HAS perish from the earth.
If the south did succeed from the Union, which is plausible. Then there is very little difference in the use of government troops to overthrow a sovereign nation as then as it is today.

So what do you put the odds of succession of any of the states today? Oh, that's right, The president stated in the State of the Union address that the the state of the Union was STRONG!

[Josh G]

It is so refreshing to see a reasonable discussion of Lincoln. The Lincoln myth is so damaging. Most thinking people can look at the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights, and then consider what we have today, and readily admit that we aren't even close to what was intended. When confronted with the question of "well, what happened?" the usual response is "well, incrementalism, little by little, the Founder's protective measures against central government tyranny was eroded." Which sounds reasonable at first. But then if that person has actually studied how the Founders knew that central government power had to be physically taken away and physically kept in the hands of the sovereign States by actually constructing a form of government that did not allow the people to simply vote away their independence, that person then is faced with the inconvenient truth that the form of government established by the Founders could only be uprooted by actual force of arms, violent revolution. And, alas, that is what happened. The original form of government established by the Constitution was a puny powerless central government, with the Constitution itself an instrument of the States' power over it. Like an inverted pyramid. The 14th Amendment, as lovely as it sounded at the time, converted the Constitution into an instrument for the All Powerful Central Government to lord over the States, and reversed the pyramid of power. (No comment on the history of the inscription on the obverse of the Great Seal...don't want to end up in the root cellar, mere coincidences, nothing to see here.)

Cheers,

[Lamo60]

I am reading Shelby Foote's Trilogy "The Civil War" and wondering how accurate this is based on some of the information posted above?

[Josh G]

Shelby Foote is one of the many well known Lincoln worshipers. Just google "Shelby Foote Lincoln Apologists" or even "Lincoln Apologists" alone.

Of all of the presidents, Lincoln has arguably had the most impact on this country since its founding and the present way things are, next to FDR, so for better of for worse, we are directed to praise them for it every President's day. The winners write the history.

On Lincoln history, I'm not suggesting that you stop reading Footes' masterpiece. But when you are done, pick up two short books by Thomas Dilorenzi; The Real Lincoln, and Lincoln unmasked. He has excellent bibliographies for further reading as well. Along the way, the following brief paper does a nice job of identifying some of the problems with "scholarship" and "bias."

http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/ostrowksi.pdf

For some, "Lincoln saved the Union and ended Slavery," and it doesn't matter what the evidence may be, because to mess with that belief, is to mess with many other layers of belief, and that would make Reality way too sticky to deal with.

But, if you are one that wants to find out the truth, read on, and discern.

[Lamo60]

Thank you Josh for the recommendations, the link was a very interesting read. I have a few layers to go through myself with regard to perceived/taught verse actual history. Thanks again

[crazyyankee]

Ok, I love a good fight, :razz: but I don't think I will get it here:-D. It seems most agree with me already.

You can blame Lincoln for being the start of the violation of the Constitution. While it may not neccassarily be totally true, he was the biggest violator of the time. It wasn't till FDR that someone beat him for that title.

Just for starters Lincoln had arrest warrants issued for the Justices of the Supreme court, even though they weren't carried out, they were signed and issued! The reason for this is because they disagreed with him.
He issued more Executive Directives (called Executive Orders today) then all other presidents combined up to his time. Executive Directives/Orders can be Constitutional, but for the most part are not.

The Emancipation Proclomation freed no one! It only said that the slaves were free if they were in Confederate held territory. If they were in Union held territory, they were still slaves..
Although it was a great political move on Lincolns part, becasue it kept France and Britain out of the war. They had already been suppling the South with materials, guns etc..

Yes I know my tag line says I'm a Union re-enactor. But I do have uniforms for both sides and you need both sides to have a battle. I also love being in command of a Comapny of soldiers and love the smell of blackpowder.. I love history, right, wrong, it doesn't matter I like knowing the history..

You know how it is, Some days it's good to be king:twisted:

[bobn]

...So, I had heard that the emancipation of slavery was already underway before the civil war, and that, the civil war was more about state's sovreign (spelling probably wrong) rights. So, South wanted to cede from the Union mainly to economic and state rights issues?...

Fair warning:

I believe the following: There can be no such thing as the "right" to hold slaves. People are not property, and never could have been property under any righteous law, and anyone arguing differently will have nothing but grief from me.


If you look at the reasons stated for the secession of four of the states here (http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html) , you find that the only state's "right" involved is the "right" to own black people.

South Carolina scurrilously quotes the parts of the Declaration of Independence which it finds convenient, thusly:

A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."

They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government."However, they strangely missed the parts of the Declaration of Independence that read like so:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
South Carolina then goes on to say:

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." ...
The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States...
But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution...
Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation...So South Carolina makes a legal case based on the infringement of their "right" to own other human beings.

Texas says, after complaining some about issues both related and not related to slavery:

When we advert to the course of individual non-slave-holding States, and that a majority of their citizens, our grievances assume far greater magnitude...
The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, ...
We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations;...Georgia says:

For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery...The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party...[ then they list some economic complaints, but continue:

...A similar provision of the Constitution requires them to surrender fugitives from labor. This provision and the one last referred to were our main inducements for confederating with the Northern States...
We have their convenants, we have their oaths to keep and observe it, but the unfortunate claimant, even accompanied by a Federal officer with the mandate of the highest judicial authority in his hands, is everywhere met with fraud, with force, and with legislative enactments to elude, to resist, and defeat him. Claimants are murdered with impunity; officers of the law are beaten by frantic mobs instigated by inflammatory appeals from persons holding the highest public employment in these States, and supported by legislation in conflict with the clearest provisions of the Constitution, and even the ordinary principles of humanity...Again, the state's "right" involved is the "right" to own black people, and to retrieve them from free states. Legally, by the letter of the constitution, they might have a point. But has ever a point rested on a more loathesome foundation?

Mississippi at least comes right to the point:

...Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world...

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.
It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst....
There is nothing in any of this here to lead one to actually believe that "the emancipation of slavery was already underway before the civil war".

One might argue the "the civil war was more about state's sovreign (spelling probably wrong) rights" - but we come back to my original statement of my beliefs, raising the question: "States's rights to do what?"

Once again:

They might have a (legalistic) point. But has ever a point rested on a more loathesome foundation?

I say no.

I will concede that it is a separate argument as to whether the Union had the right to overcome the secession by force, and whether other actions taken by a war-time president damaged the constitution. It seems to me that there are valid arguments that the CSA could have been left alone.

But let us have no illusions as to what the CSA was about. It was about the ownership of human beings.