Why the Gettysburg Address is Important to US, TODAY

[Mojo2]

Why the Gettysburg Address is Important to US, TODAY

Special Report: The Gettysburg Address 150th anniversary

Meet the Press examines the significance of President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and its legacy in American history.

Special Report: The Gettysburg Address 150th anniversary - Video on NBCNews.com

>>> short speech. 272 words, to be exact, but it shaped a nation at a perilous time. nbc news correspondent harry smith on assignment for "meet the press" has a special report as we approach the 150th anniversary of the gettysburg address.

>> we're at the evergreen cemetary in gettysburg, pennsylvania. president lincoln delivered the gettysburg address somewhere around here, probably right over there. of lincoln and the speech, the daily cleveland herald said he should not have said less. we do not believe any other man in the same number of words could have said more. gettysburg. a brutal three-day battle of incomprehensible carnage. until gettysburg, robert e. lee thought his army was invincible. when president lincoln spoke here five months later, the war's outcome was anything but certain. "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." the gettysburg address is not so much a speech but a prayer, a reaffirmation of faith. now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. lincoln was speaking to all americans, but his remarks had even greater meaning for african- americans. scott hancock is an historian at gettysburg college.

>> i think for african- americans, the gettysburg address becomes more important over time. african- americans then and since, they understood equality and freedom to be linked and to not just be legal freedom but that it meant the whole ball of wax.

>> the emancipation probable cause -- proclamation had just been signed that january. lincoln had doubled down on the war for independence. the war had come down on his soul. lincoln said, the world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. president lincoln promised there is sanctity of the people who died. we have dedicated that field as the final resting place for those who gave their looifives that the nation might live. and lincoln declares quite plainly that the dead left the living way greith a great responsibili responsibility. that from the dead we give increased motivation for those that gave us that motivation. that we resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under god should have a new birth under freedom.

>> lincoln is giving rhetoric but he's living the reality of it as our americans then, what the cost is of not having freedom equality. we can use things like the gettysburg address and the civil war, what happens here in the battle, to understand what's involved, what we may be called to do at some point and ask the question, are we willing to do that? what are we willing to do to achieve freedom and equality?

>> a new burst of freedom. rink on is invoking a kind of resurrection. he is praying that the war that broke the country in two, a war that will leave more than a half million americans dead is not the end of us but a new beginning, that this nation under god shall have a new birth of freedom and that the government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth. it is a prayer we still pray. for "meet the press," i'm harry smith.

 

[Moonglow]

"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." the gettysburg address is not so much a speech but a prayer, a reaffirmation of faith.

unfortunately what was written and who it was written for originally is illogical to the fact that there was legal slavery in the US by the very men that wrote the passage that all men are created equal. But it does sound good in the propaganda publications.

 

[Mojo2]

"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." the gettysburg address is not so much a speech but a prayer, a reaffirmation of faith.

unfortunately what was written and who it was written for originally is illogical to the fact that there was legal slavery in the US by the very men that wrote the passage that all men are created equal. But it does sound good in the propaganda publications.

I wonder how you manage in this society when every comment I have seen from you is a cross-eyed view of whatever it is we're talking about. I find it hard to imagine how one could exist with your kind of perceptual filters.

 

[gipper]

So very...very true....

Note on the Gettysburg Address

by H.L. Mencken

The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history...the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is poetry, 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 the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.

 

[JWBooth]

freed nary a slave in those areas controlled by the federals

 

[rightwinger]

freed nary a slave in those areas controlled by the federals

13th amendment freed them all

 

[Mojo2]

So very...very true....

Note on the Gettysburg Address

by H.L. Mencken

The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history...the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is poetry, 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 the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.

Well, it might be this is one of the times when it was better that the Federal government, acting on behalf of the entire nation, asserted it's power to PRESERVE the Union. Lincoln felt it was more important than the rebels' right to secede and their right to maintain slavery.

And to make this an exception to the rule that we always support the individual over the government, I feel is just fine.

Life works in that way oft times.

 

[Mojo2]

"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." the gettysburg address is not so much a speech but a prayer, a reaffirmation of faith.

unfortunately what was written and who it was written for originally is illogical to the fact that there was legal slavery in the US by the very men that wrote the passage that all men are created equal. But it does sound good in the propaganda publications.

Maybe you'd have an easier time imagining a new Constitution being approved today by members of the right which guaranteed the rights of all LGBT in principle even though they might not do anything about changing the present laws right away!

I say that shows a lot of character and integrity.

Slavery was a tough thing to give up.

Why? Slavery meant a lower manpower cost for producers. A cost that figured into the price of goods and some services. They were like any good business people. Why increase your fixed expenses unless you have to?

And, with whatever qualms the slave owners might originally have felt about the institution aside, these businessmen looked at things as they were...as they stood.

Slavery existed. Slavery was a necessary component of doing business and being profitable.

So, that was that.

And in that case the Republican did right by the Blacks.

Just as we would and do today.

 

[gipper]

So very...very true....

Note on the Gettysburg Address

by H.L. Mencken

The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history...the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is poetry, 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 the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.

Well, it might be this is one of the times when it was better that the Federal government, acting on behalf of the entire nation, asserted it's power to PRESERVE the Union. Lincoln felt it was more important than the rebels' right to secede and their right to maintain slavery.

And to make this an exception to the rule that we always support the individual over the government, I feel is just fine.

Life works in that way oft times.

So it is better that Lincoln had the power to war on fellow Americans, resulting in the deaths of over 800,000, unimaginable suffering, and destruction of nearly half the nation, because Lincoln THOUGHT it best to use unlimited power to preserve the Union. I think not.

Kill and destroy half the Union to save the Union...makes no sense. And this is to say nothing of Lincoln not possessing the Constitutional authority to do what he did.

He was our first president to completely ignore the Constitution, but he was not the last. He forever changed our nation, which is rapidly becoming a police state Kleptocracy.

 

[Mojo2]

So very...very true....

Well, it might be this is one of the times when it was better that the Federal government, acting on behalf of the entire nation, asserted it's power to PRESERVE the Union. Lincoln felt it was more important than the rebels' right to secede and their right to maintain slavery.

And to make this an exception to the rule that we always support the individual over the government, I feel is just fine.

Life works in that way oft times.

So it is better that Lincoln had the power to war on fellow Americans, resulting in the deaths of over 800,000, unimaginable suffering, and destruction of nearly half the nation, because Lincoln THOUGHT it best to use unlimited power to preserve the Union. I think not.

Kill and destroy half the Union to save the Union...makes no sense. And this is to say nothing of Lincoln not possessing the Constitutional authority to do what he did.

He was our first president to completely ignore the Constitution, but he was not the last. He forever changed our nation, which is rapidly becoming a police state Kleptocracy.

Of course you'd feel the way you do.

You HATE America and everything it stands for, do you not?

 

[oldfart]

So very...very true....

Note on the Gettysburg Address

by H.L. Mencken

The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history...the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is poetry, 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 the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.

Mencken was wrong; displaying an ignorance of Lincoln, the Union soldier, and the art of rhetoric. No wonder Mencken is being rapidly forgotten while Lincoln scholarship is experiencing a robust explosion rarely seen in historiography!

 

[gipper]

Well, it might be this is one of the times when it was better that the Federal government, acting on behalf of the entire nation, asserted it's power to PRESERVE the Union. Lincoln felt it was more important than the rebels' right to secede and their right to maintain slavery.

And to make this an exception to the rule that we always support the individual over the government, I feel is just fine.

Life works in that way oft times.

So it is better that Lincoln had the power to war on fellow Americans, resulting in the deaths of over 800,000, unimaginable suffering, and destruction of nearly half the nation, because Lincoln THOUGHT it best to use unlimited power to preserve the Union. I think not.

Kill and destroy half the Union to save the Union...makes no sense. And this is to say nothing of Lincoln not possessing the Constitutional authority to do what he did.

He was our first president to completely ignore the Constitution, but he was not the last. He forever changed our nation, which is rapidly becoming a police state Kleptocracy.

Of course you'd feel the way you do.

You HATE America and everything it stands for, do you not?

Foolishness.

 

[gipper]

So very...very true....

Note on the Gettysburg Address

by H.L. Mencken

The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history...the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is poetry, 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 the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.

Mencken was wrong; displaying an ignorance of Lincoln, the Union soldier, and the art of rhetoric. No wonder Mencken is being rapidly forgotten while Lincoln scholarship is experiencing a robust explosion rarely seen in historiography!

And more foolishness...or...rather ignorance.

 

[oldfart]

So very...very true....

Mencken was wrong; displaying an ignorance of Lincoln, the Union soldier, and the art of rhetoric. No wonder Mencken is being rapidly forgotten while Lincoln scholarship is experiencing a robust explosion rarely seen in historiography!

And more foolishness...or...rather ignorance.

Saving all your good Mencken zingers for his great comeback? Perhaps you teach literature at a third-rate college?

 

[Mojo2]

So it is better that Lincoln had the power to war on fellow Americans, resulting in the deaths of over 800,000, unimaginable suffering, and destruction of nearly half the nation, because Lincoln THOUGHT it best to use unlimited power to preserve the Union. I think not.

Kill and destroy half the Union to save the Union...makes no sense. And this is to say nothing of Lincoln not possessing the Constitutional authority to do what he did.

He was our first president to completely ignore the Constitution, but he was not the last. He forever changed our nation, which is rapidly becoming a police state Kleptocracy.

Of course you'd feel the way you do.

You HATE America and everything it stands for, do you not?

Foolishness.

Are you saying you hate the United States because of it's foolishness?

Don't be shy.

Say what you feel.

 

[legaleagle_45]

freed nary a slave in those areas controlled by the federals

13th amendment freed them all

Fun fact

The 13th is the only ratified Constitutional Amendment that bears the signature of the President. Lincoln signed the amendment on Feb 1, 1865 (it came out of Congress in January of 1865).

 

[legaleagle_45]

So it is better that Lincoln had the power to war on fellow Americans, resulting in the deaths of over 800,000, unimaginable suffering, and destruction of nearly half the nation, because Lincoln THOUGHT it best to use unlimited power to preserve the Union. I think not.

It was best to preserve the Union and the alternative would have been worse... much worse.

Kill and destroy half the Union to save the Union...makes no sense. And this is to say nothing of Lincoln not possessing the Constitutional authority to do what he did.

He did have constitutional authority to to preserve the union at least SCOTUS said so. Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869)(finding secession unconstitutional an illegal). Now his little dust up with habeas corpus is another issue entirely. See, ex parte Milligan. .

He was our first president to completely ignore the Constitution, but he was not the last. He forever changed our nation, which is rapidly becoming a police state Kleptocracy.

Some would point to John Adams and the Alien and Sedition Acts, other would point to Jefferson's unauthorized Louisiana Purchase and the use of War Powers unauthorized by Congress to battle the Barbary Pirates.

 

[gipper]

Of course you'd feel the way you do.

You HATE America and everything it stands for, do you not?

Foolishness.

Are you saying you hate the United States because of it's foolishness?

Don't be shy.

Say what you feel.

I do not say what I FEEL...you do. Rather than THINK, you espouse your FEELINGS.

Mencken is considered one of the greatest thinkers of his time. Many great THINKERS agree with Mencken's view of Dishonest Abe....sadly you like many, have been duped by the Lincoln Myth and have become a Lincoln cultist.

I love America...or should I say I love what it once stood for...
- individual liberty
- rule of law
- free market capitalism
- limited government...

all things Lincoln disdained and ignored. Sadly...small minds are unable to comprehend.

 

[gipper]

So it is better that Lincoln had the power to war on fellow Americans, resulting in the deaths of over 800,000, unimaginable suffering, and destruction of nearly half the nation, because Lincoln THOUGHT it best to use unlimited power to preserve the Union. I think not.

It was best to preserve the Union and the alternative would have been worse... much worse.

Kill and destroy half the Union to save the Union...makes no sense. And this is to say nothing of Lincoln not possessing the Constitutional authority to do what he did.

He did have constitutional authority to to preserve the union at least SCOTUS said so. Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869)(finding secession unconstitutional an illegal). Now his little dust up with habeas corpus is another issue entirely. See, ex parte Milligan. .

He was our first president to completely ignore the Constitution, but he was not the last. He forever changed our nation, which is rapidly becoming a police state Kleptocracy.

Some would point to John Adams and the Alien and Sedition Acts, other would point to Jefferson's unauthorized Louisiana Purchase and the use of War Powers unauthorized by Congress to battle the Barbary Pirates.

Killing and destroying something to save it, is illogical.

To conclude that Lincoln's murderous rampage was BETTER than the alternative, is not to think and is not only illogical, but unprovable.

The Constitution does NOT allow any POTUS the authority to war on fellow Americans. It does clearly state that any POTUS who does this, is committing treason.

The War of Northern Aggression was a failure of leadership, like most wars. Lincoln waged total war purely for nefarious reasons...to impose federal government dictates...in essence it was about collecting taxes to fund the central government, which he made clear in his first inaugural.

 

[paperview]

So it is better that Lincoln had the power to war on fellow Americans, resulting in the deaths of over 800,000, unimaginable suffering, and destruction of nearly half the nation, because Lincoln THOUGHT it best to use unlimited power to preserve the Union. I think not.

It was best to preserve the Union and the alternative would have been worse... much worse.



He did have constitutional authority to to preserve the union at least SCOTUS said so. Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869)(finding secession unconstitutional an illegal). Now his little dust up with habeas corpus is another issue entirely. See, ex parte Milligan. .

He was our first president to completely ignore the Constitution, but he was not the last. He forever changed our nation, which is rapidly becoming a police state Kleptocracy.

Some would point to John Adams and the Alien and Sedition Acts, other would point to Jefferson's unauthorized Louisiana Purchase and the use of War Powers unauthorized by Congress to battle the Barbary Pirates.

...

The Constitution does NOT allow any POTUS the authority to war on fellow Americans. It does clearly state that any POTUS who does this, is committing treason.
...

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

Now before you chime in (which you will) that power is given to Congress, and Congress alone, note this:

Congress has the power to declare war, but the president has the power to wage war.

This may confuse people, but it is an important use of words. It is absolutely true the President has the power to wage war.

To which I direct you to An Historical and Constitutional Analysis on this power, well laid out in its simplicity, addressing primarily the accompanying power to suspend habeas corpus.

If the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus arises from a war power, it arises from a power to wage, rather than a power to declare, war. The power to raise armies is subject to the same analysis; Congress raises armies, but the president commands them. The power to support armies is broader, but the reference to appropriations makes it clear that the support power is the power to provide money and materiel, not a power to wage war.

The rebels instigated the war, fired the first shots (In January, 1861) and seized forts, ships and even a US Mint and stole the gold. Lincoln was required to act and his power as Commander in Chief provided for it.

On July 4, Lincoln delivered a message to the special session of Congress.:
"we have a case of rebellion, and the public safety does require...

See that message at the link. More analysis:

The nature of the war power was explored in the Prize Cases.[32] On April 19 and April 27, 1861, Lincoln imposed blockades of Southern ports. [33] His action was challenged on the grounds that the South was not a recognized combatant and that Congress had not declared war. In upholding the blockades, the Supreme Court brushed technicalities aside. For purposes of international law, a war in fact is a war in law, and "it is not necessary to constitute war that both parties should be ... sovereign states.


A war may exist when one of the belligerents claims sovereign rights as against the other."[34] The absence of a congressional declaration of war was irrelevant, for while a declaration of war might be necessary to start a war, the president had the power as well as a duty to respond to a war forced upon the United States, whether by rebellion or invasion and whether or not Congress had acted. The blockades were legitimate means of waging the war.


Under the doctrine of the Prize Cases, the president's war power is an amalgam of a military power to command forces and an executive power to wage war, whether declared or forced upon the United States by hostile forces; his executive power includes recourse to means needed to achieve the end.


Suspension of habeas corpus is a constitutionally created weapon that can be used in, and only in, civil war and invasion. The president can wage war against rebels and invaders without a congressional declaration of war. It would be an absurd reading of the Constitution to conclude that the president needs congressional authority to deploy a constitutional weapon designed specifically for use in wars that the president can wage without congressional authority.


Lincoln recognized the combined executive/military source of his war power, and he used that power to explain and justify his conduct. In his message to the special session of Congress...

Read the rest here: Lincoln's Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus: An Historical and Constitutional Analysis