President Lincoln gave his Gettysburg Address on November 19, 1863, 149 years ago today. Of course, the occasion was to dedicate a cemetery of the battlefield at the scene of the greatest carnage in American history.
On that particular morning, a great ceremony was held at the scene. A very famous orator, Mr. Edward Everett gave the main speech that day before the assembled crowd which included numerous dignitaries; his speech went on for hours. He was followed by Mr. Lincoln, who spoke for a couple of minutes.
The newspapers reported that Mr. Lincoln’s speech was either wonderful or terrible, depending upon whether or not the newspaper support Republicans or Democrats, but one thing is clear: All these years later, only historians are familiar with Mr. Everett; everyone has heard Mr. Lincoln’s remarks. Mr. Lincoln, in his brief statement pulled a nation together, pointed it forward and gave his people a reason to carry on.
It is interesting to note the contrast between the wordy Mr. Everett, his flowery language and speaker’s tricks and the simple and direct Mr. Lincoln. Maybe all of us should learn to measure our words more carefully, speak to the point and always to speak the truth.
Here is Mr. Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address in full. Do take a second to read it and to reflect on its meaning…
“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.”
Life Project Blog 
the civil war was not fought for slavery. it was fought for the states right to seceed from the union. the southern states seceeded because of slavery and the increasing power and intrusion of the federal government in the affairs of the states, but in lincoln’s first inaugural he stated that if he could hold the union together and still keep slavery, he would keep slavery. the emancipation declaration only included the slavery in the southern states and exempted the northern states and territories still loyal to Union. even though there was ‘less’ slavery in those places, there still existed slavery there as well as the south.
after having studied recently the abuses of civil rights and his many overt violations of the constitution and separations of power during his presidency including the suspension of habeus corpus… i can no longer see lincoln as a ‘great’ president but a ‘progressive’ dictator. sorry if this isn’t what you wanted as a comment forthe article.
-mike
Thanks Mike, you’ve brought up some valid historical points. I’m not quite sure I’d call Mr. Lincoln a “progressive” since the 1860’s are a little early for the term, but he certainly found ways to stretch “inherent powers”!
you are right, the ‘progressive era’ of american politics came into it’s own not until the first decade of the 1900’s, but i said progressive due to the ‘seeds’ that later ‘came to fruit’ and picked up by TR on the Republican side and WW on the Democrat side.
he didn’t stretch anything, he ‘assurmed’ powers not delegated to the president by theconstitution, ‘usurped’ others that were only delegated to the Supreme Court and Congress, and ‘denied’ and violated those rights delegated to the individual citizens under that same Constitution that he took an oath to protect and defend.
he was way worse in practice than either George W Bush or our current President Obama.
just my opinion, but i believe some history reseach will bear me out here. thanks again for the opportunity to contribute.
-mike
Well Mike, I’d have to say that you are pretty much right on target in the final analysis. “Inherent powers” was the way that Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Seward tried to justify some of the more outrageous actions that were taken. As for me, I believe that Mr. Lincoln was a good man, a man who wanted none of the problems that he had to deal with… but a very strong man who believed in what he was trying to do the preserve the Union. Obviously this has all been debated for more than a century. Here’s a point that I think you might appreciate: Given the crisis that Mr. Lincoln faced when he took office, he, a good man, took draconian measures and in many ways trampled the very Constitution he had sworn to uphold… for the purpose of upholding it. Imagine what someone might do who is not basically a good man with a contrived “crisis”… particularly when that person doesn’t care all that much for the Constitution to begin with! Elections can have sad consequences…
“Elections have sad consequences”… amen brother. amen.
-mike