Last Updated 2/4/96
These archived discussions are still open for comment.
To join in write
gettysburg@arthes.com
From: Jeff Wissot <72644.2642@compuserve.com>
Subject: "Lincoln at Gettysburg"
In Lincoln at Gettysburg Garry Wills offers an interesting perspective on history. He does consider his historical approach from a conventional chronological presentation, but often skips from previous events and writings to future ones. In this manner, he provides the reader with two different viewpoints of Lincoln: 1) The sequential evolution of Lincoln's thinking and political positions and 2) Lincoln's remarkable vision of the future, as though he could foresee the unfolding of events in the future. Lincoln's insight to the purpose of preserving the Union, and the very concept of a republican government, can be seen by an evaluation of the Gettysburg Address only if the reader is aware of Lincoln's second inaugural speech. It is as though on November 19, 1863, Lincoln could envision the culmination of the war and the necessary healing process that would follow. In the magnanimous second inaugural, Lincoln spoke, "Let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves..."
Based upon this statement from Lincoln's second inaugural address, in retrospect, let's go back to the Gettysburg Address. Consider this one haunting reference at Gettysburg: "The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract." With, perhaps, the exception of this one phrase, all of Lincoln's references to soldiers were seemingly directed only to Union troops -- "those who here gave their lives," "they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced," "what they did here," "these honored dead."
Did Lincoln pay a very subtle tribute to the Confederate, as well as the Union dead at Gettysburg? "The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here,..."
As Garry Wills so skillfully demonstrates, in contrast to the "real" Gettysburg Address (Edward Everett's two hour oration) Lincoln makes NO use of specific names, nor does he once reference "the enemy," or the constitution, sectionalism, slavery, specific battles, armies, or even the word Gettysburg. Lincoln spoke only in concepts, the spirituality of the nation. His "few appropriate remarks" would ultimately redefine democracy in America, applicable to Americans in Texas, as well as Maine.
I wonder, in this ONE sentence, did Lincoln, perhaps, pay tribute to the great American "struggle" without specific reference to the Union dead? Did Lincoln, so subtly, honor the fallen Americans on BOTH sides of the battlefield in this contest to find America's truth. It is that word "struggle" that causes me to ponder the question -- as if one struggles with his conscience -- the grave internal conflict of a civil war. The "struggle" of a child entering the world is evident in Lincoln's imagery of the birth process, of a "nation conceived in liberty," and having "a new birth of freedom."
It was Lincoln, perhaps alone, who fully appreciated from the onset, that the war was between Americans, and NOT the Union and its "enemy." Lincoln's famous "Greely Letter," his First Inaugural Address, and particularly the magnanimous gestures toward reconciliation in his Second Inaugural Address give rise to my speculation that the Gettysburg Address was the "transitional statement" of his first and second inaugurals.
Presented for your consideration and discussion...
Jeff Wissot
Subject: Re: Lincoln at Gettysburg
Hello GDGers
I much appreciated Jeff Wissot's posting on Garry Wills' book. He said,
>"In Lincoln at Gettysburg, Garry Wills offers an interesting perspective on history. He does consider his historical approach from a conventional chronological presentation, but often skips from previous events and writings to future ones."
Our professional historians will doubtless be able to better comment on Wills' methodology as a historian, but as I read the book, I found myself thinking it read more like a theology than a history. This struck me especially with the careful word by word, "on the one hand on the other hand" exegesis of the few appropriate remarks. Indeed, and in general, the level of scholarship and interest in Lincoln's GBA approaches that done by Biblical scholars. This seemed especially true of Wills' treatment of the visionary aspects of the speech and Lincoln's sceizing the anguished moment to turn the nation towards hope.
I also liked Jeff's material showing how Lincoln was perhaps thinking of a future speech ("A 2nd inaugural? Who knows? Perhaps. Why not?") as he fashioned his remarks.
In all of American letters Lincoln's GBA -- with the possible exception of MLKingJr's "I Have a Dream" speech -- has no peers with respect to interest, ink generated, or ongoing discussion.
It can be said again. It was 11/18/63 that hijacked 7/1-3/63 out of the company of the other great battles and into the realm of the spiritual. Ironic: "The world will little note nor long remember what we say here . "
Subject: Big Abe at the Big Burg
Jef Wissott wrote _
> "The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, >have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract." With, >perhaps, the exception of this one phrase, all of Lincoln's references to >soldiers were seemingly directed only to Union troops -- "those who here gave >their lives," "they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced," "what they >did here," "these honored dead." > >Did Lincoln pay a very subtle tribute to the Confederate, as well as the Union >dead at Gettysburg? "The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here,..."
> Hi, Jeff
I would go a step farther and say that the entire speech was a tribute to the American dead - Union and Confederate, and there was nothing subtle about it. As you say, a look at Lincoln's other Civil War speeches support the contention that Lincoln included the Confederate dead in his funeral oratory at Gettysburg. He bookended the war with sentiments that can only be construed as inclusive of the south.
"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies " - First Inaugural
"With malice toward none and charity toward all." - Second Inaugural
But, more importantly, he included the North in the blame for the war. In one of the most remarkable acts of honesty by any politician Lincoln accepted the complicity of the north in slavery and thus placed the blame for the war equally on the North and South.
"Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom offences cometh'. If we suppose that American slavery is one of those offences which in the providence of God must need come... and that He gives to both North and South this terible war as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from the atributes which the believers in a Living God ascribe to him?" - Second Inaugural.If indeed, the offences "must need come" to both North and South, then it would be consistent for Lincoln to view the dead at Gttysburg not as Confederate and Union, but as the "woe due" God from both sides for those offences. Hence - "those brave men living and dead who fought here have consecrated" the ground literally as payment for these shared offences.
Phillip Paludan in his book on Lincoln's Presidency says that Lincoln always believed that the only way to end slavery was to save the Union and conversely the only way to save the Union was to end slavery. The two were inseperable. Viewing the three speeches in this light, I believe it is proper to conclude that at Gettysburg -as he had done before - Lincoln spoke to reconcile both northerners and southerners because both were necessary to save the Union.
What kind of "new birth of freedom" would exclude southerners (or blacks to extend the remarks)? I am confident that when Abe spoke at Gettysburg he spoke to all Americans, and included all the dead.
Don't misunderstand me. I don't think big Abe had a master plan to follow as he laid together a war time policy that would reconcile the North and South. I think - again as Jeff says - he struggled greatly throughout the war with the concept of revolt by one half this nation. But he allowed the better angels of his nature to overrule his private feelings when he spoke as President. Nowhere did he do this more magnificently nor more importantly than at Gettysburg. The Union was not saved at High Tide July 3, but in the waning afternoon light of November 19.
Has any president ever made a more important speech? Has any world leader?
Could we get some amens from the gallery? Does the Gettysburg Address affect how YOU view America?
Dennis
Subject: Lincoln at Gettysburg
John Schuurman >> I found myself thinking (the Gettysburg Address) read more like a theology than a history.
JW >> Well said. I suspect that if America has a soul, a spirit of the fabric of its people, it may be best expressed in the Gettysburg Address.
Best regards,
Jeffrey L. Wissot, DDS
jblair@roanoke.infi.net (John Blair))
> Has any president ever made a more important speech? Has any world >leader?
This implys that the ACW was more important than the Revolution. Were the speaches and thoughts of Paine, Washington, Adams, etc less important? How about the Federalist from Hamilton, Madison and Jay? And perhaps the most important thinker of them all, my neighbor, Thomas Jefferson. Author of the Declaration of Independence, most of the Virginia Code upon which our constitution was based and prolific writer of letters and journals from subjects as diverse as gardening and, of course, politics. More or less important than Lincoln? Please see what follows.
> Could we get some amens from the gallery? Does the Gettysburg Address >affect how YOU view America?
> >Dennis
> > > Interesting that you should ask this question now. I'm just finishing Foote's 2n volume and as I read the Gettysburg battle, interlaced with the fall of Vicksburg (July 4), the fall of Port Hudson (July 9) and Helena (July 4), I kept thinking about our nation's birthday, just what our nation is and the line from the song "The Night they drove ol' Dixie down". The night they drove Ol' Dixie down was, in my opinion, July 3, 1863. Let me preface the following by saying unashamedly that I am a Virginian and I think I understand Lee very well when he said he could not raise a hand against his state. Virginia for me is a place almost magical in its attraction. I love her.
Having said that, I now say that if I had lived in a border state in 1860 and if I believed then as I do now, I would be a Union man. If I were a Virginian and went to war under the influence of sentiment, I would have fought for Virginia. Lincoln's pre-war arguments for Union are for me irresistable. But back to the point. I believe that under Lincoln's leadership and guided by his genious for argument and logic our nation was born. Until after the war, or arguably, until the night they drove ol' dixie down, the phrase "United States" was taken in the plural. Now, we are singular in every sense of the word. The July 4th that we have celebrated for 220 years has never for me been our real birthday. The Constitution was ratified on Sept 17, 1787. I've always considered that to be our country's true birthday. I'm rethinking that now, in part because of the battles mentioned above and because of Lincoln's address. Yes, indeed, it has caused me to re-examine the way I think about the United States of America.
This is very much off topic for a Gettysburg disscussion group but something else that has caused me to re-examine my attitudes about my country is something that I heard on the radio. The comentator was talking about how many splinter groups we now have. Men, women, white, black, brown, red, yellow, streight, gay, liberal, conservative, etc, etc, etc almost ad nausium. He said in efect that he would like to see the United States re-united. That haunts me. Are we comming unglued (disunited)? Thanks to Rush Limbaugh for forcing me to think hard along these lines.
John
Subject: Lincoln at Gettysburg
Dennis >> the entire speech was a tribute to the American dead - Union and Confederate, and there was nothing subtle about it.
JW >> From a 1995 perspective, I might be somewhat persuaded. But "these honored dead," at the Union cemetery (CSA soldiers were NOT interred there) definitely referred solely to Union soldiers. "That these dead shall not have died in vain," might, in a stretch, be so construed if one felt that the dead of BOTH sides had been struggling to discover America's truth. But in 1863, Lincoln certainly recognized the necessity to be sutbtle in his remarks at Gettysburg, lest he incite the Northern Democratic Press to (outright) accuse him of treason. Remember, he was in the midst of a terrible war!
Dennis >> If indeed, the offences "must need come" to both North and South, then it would be consistent for Lincoln to view the dead at Gttysburg not as Confederate and Union, but as the "woe due" God from both sides for those offences. Hence - "those brave men living and dead who fought here have consecrated" the ground literally as payment for these shared offences.
JW >> Note the spirituality of so many of Lincoln's speeches, including the quotes you referenced, as John Schuurman so keenly mentioned in he reply. Hence, no mention of slavery in this 1863 speech to commemorate a battlefield cemetery. Considering the draft riots, Lincoln rose far above the hostilities at Gettysburg to a higher plane.
Best regards,
Jeffrey L. Wissot, DDS
Subject: Lincoln and Religion At Gettysburg
Good morning,
I got up early to do some of my school work, but wanted to share a quick question that John and Jeff's posts bought up. It seems that at Gettysburg religious beliefs are more closely tied to the battlefield than at any other field I have visited. Not because the field is diferent from say Shiloh or Manassas, but because this religious theme was nutured as the field was memorialized.
I will prepare a longer post on Lincoln and Everett's role in laying the foundation for this religious conection later, but this morning I just would like to ask others for their feelings about the relationship of the field to religious beliefs and for examples of how this theme was nutured by survivors and other preservationists of the field. What monuments in particular have religious icons or themes? (Does the new Masonic tribute to Armistead carry on a religious tradition in the sense of brotherhood/sisterhood as the prime tenet of most religions?)
Also, does this mean anything beyond the field? Does it say anyting about why we needed to remember the battle in this way? Is it used cover up or give meaning to bloody battle of this field?
Review John Schurman and Terry Moyer's posts on the religious aspect of memorials in the "Field and Monument" file on the web site for an articulation of this.
. Take Care
Dennis
Subject: Re: Lincoln at Gettysburg
>John Schuurman >> I found myself thinking (the Gettysburg Address) read more >like a theology than a history.
> >JW >> Well said. I suspect that if America has a soul, a spirit of the fabric of its people, it may be best expressed in the Gettysburg Address.
> >Best regards,
> >Jeffrey L. Wissot, DDS
> > Now THAT's an interesting idea for a thread. What best expresses the spirit of our people. The Bill of Rights? The Declaration of Independance? Lincoln at Gettysgurg? Patrick Henry's "give me liberty or give me death" speach? Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speach? Or something other than a speach? The event in recent history of which I am most proud, and which I think expresses our character if not our spirit, is our withdrawal from the gulf after desert Storm. Consider. Was there ever a time in history when a conquering nation could have possesed the single most important resourse in the world and didn't take advantage of that fact? How many nations in history, both ancient and modern, have had the dream of controlling the world. In the Gulf, we could have. Thank god we chose not to. I think that says a lot about us.
My appologies to the purists in the group who may object to my wondering so far from the Gettysburg topic.
Let's not forget that Lincoln was a deep religious skeptic, very possibly an atheist (see Edmund Wilson, "Patriotic Gore"). Washington, Jefferson, and many of the Founders were also children of the Enlightenment and so comparably skeptical of religion (at least "revealed" religion with its supernaturalism). Jefferson, e.g., was for much of his life at best a Deist, who accepted Christianity only as an ethical system. Benjamin Franklin (remember his success in French intellectual circles--the world of Voltaire) was very probably an atheist outright, as were many serous political intellectuals.
Of course, in that these people were active politicians, none of them was eager to go public with a crusade against traditional religion. Lincoln, in particular, knew how important religious language and imagery was to successful rhetoric. That's a measure of his political genius. But to make him into a pious believer is an incredible distortion.
In other words, if fundamentalist-conservatives really took "original intent" seriously, they'd have to go out of busines or move to a country with genuinely theocratic traditions.
Sorry for the speechifying, but intellectual history needs to be done as honestly as military.
Norm Levitt
PS: I think, if you read JL Chamberlain carefully, you'll find that in his maturity, he was just as much a skeptic as Lincoln or Jefferson. The situation is even clearer for, say, Sheridan. Moreover, as far as one can tell from his memoirs, Grant seems indifferent to the claims of conventional religion as well.
Subject: Lincoln/Religion/Gburg
Norm writes>>>>>
>Lincoln, in particular, knew how important religious language and imagery was to >successful rhetoric. That's a measure of his political genius. But to >make him into a pious believer is an incredible distortion.
>but intellectual history needs to be done as
>honestly as military.
Hello, Norm and everyone else on a spirited Sunday!
What better day to discuss the religiosity of the 18th century
fathers and the the 19th century midwives (midhusbands?)of America.
To characterize Lincoln as an aetheist as Wilson does, narrowly
defines the complex character of Lincoln as is too often done. I prefer
Reinold Niebur's characterization of Lincoln as the greatest theologian of
the war years. Atheist are steadfast in their views. Theologians -
especially agnostic theologians - question to find meaning. Lincoln's words
and actions demonstrate that he was - like most 19th century Americans -
religious, unless defined very narrowly.
If you wish to define piety narrowly as blind obeissance to a detached
God, count Abe out. But the religion of Lincoln was a pious belief that
there was a hand stretched out over the nation and that His will would be
done. Lincoln was not alone in this belief. It permeated the nation.
The North believed that it was on a religious crusdae. Political
and religious goals became one. To serve God was to save te Union and
vice-versa. A good source for the religious impact on northerners during the
war is Phillip Paludan's _A People's Contest_ (Harper Row, 1988). Chapter
14, "the Coming of The Lord" does an excellent job of tracing Lincoln's
religious struggles within the context of the national revival.
I find it difficult to see the religious imagery of Second
Inaugural and Gettysburg Address as merely successful attempts to impart
religious imagery into political speeches. Stripped of this imagery, there
is no substance to these speeches. Witout the religious foundation, they are
hollow words. What evidence is there, that these words were indeed
disingenuous?
As far as Gettysburg, I believe much the same. If we ignore the
religious influences of the speeches on November 19 and on the
memorialization of the field then we will miss the true import of the battle
on our nation then and its legacy now.
Telling any history "honestly" does not mean interpreting history
cynically. We may disagree on the above, but it is a distortion to
characterize a disagreement as a distortion. :-)
Take Care,
Dennis
On Lincoln's religion:
I don't think he was a hypocrite or a faker. But he couched his moral
insights in language that would reach a population that was, in most
respects, quite sincere in its religion. That is not necessarily the
language he would have chosen as a private man and a philosopher. To
what extent the latter persona might be called "religious" is
debatable, but IMHO Wilson was rather close to the truth. This isn't
cynicism but a recognition of the complexity of human opinion, and of
the indispensible guile of politics.
Norm Levitt
Subject: Lincoln's Private Philosphy
Norm wrote...
>I don't think he (Lincoln) was a hypocrite or a faker. But he couched his
moral
>insights in language that would reach a population that was, in most
>respects, quite sincere in its religion. That is not necessarily the
>language he would have chosen as a private man and a philosopher
Actually Lincoln's private philosophy and thinking seems to match
that of his public addresses. This meditation below was written for himself
shortly after hearing of the defeat at Second Bull Run in August of 1862.
Compare this private meditation to the Second Inaugural some 18 months ahead.
"The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to
act in accordance with the will of God. Both _may_ be, and one _must_ be
wrong. God can not be _for_, and _against_ the same thing at the same time.
In the present Civil War it is quite possible that God's purpose is
something different from the purpose of either party - and yet the human
instrumentalities, working just as they do, are the best adaptation to
effect his purpose. I am almost ready to say that this is probably true -
that God wills this contest, and wills that it shall not end yet. By his
mere quiet power, on the minds of the now contestants, He could have _saved_
or _destroyed_ the Union without a human contest. Yet the contest began.
And having begun He could give the final victory to either side any day. Yet
the contest proceeds."
Take Care
Dennis
Subject: Lincoln's Meditation
About that little piece of Lincolniana you posted: It can be read
ironically, you know. I'm not saying that it has to be. But I can
easily envisage Voltaire writing something very much like it.
The question of Lincoln's private beliefs are intriguing to me--and I
suspect it will never be resolved unambiguously.
Norm
John Blair >> Now THAT's an interesting idea for a thread. What best
expresses the spirit of our people. The Bill of Rights? The Declaration of
Independance? Lincoln at Gettysgurg? Patrick Henry's "give me liberty or give me
death" speach? Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speach?
JW >> You certainly struck a chord in my thinking. The four faces on Mount
Rushmore are but a few of the people who have contributed to this American
spirit to which you refer.
If someone were to ask my "religion," I could proudly say it is "American."
John >> My apologies to the purists in the group who may object to my
wondering so far from the Gettysburg topic.
JW >> Are not your comments as meaningful as anything accomplished with a
musket?
Jeff Wissot
To: "Civil War, Gettysburg"
Dennis >> Also, does this mean anything beyond the field? Does it say anyting
about why we needed to remember the battle in this way? Is it used cover up or
give meaning to bloody battle of this field?
JW >> Since religious beliefs weigh heavily on both sides of battle lines, I
suspect that anyone who offers his life in combat for causes of humanity,
ascribes to beliefs on a higher plane. Of course, without the intervention of
Divine Providence (battlefield results are hardly acceptable evidence
Such is the "spirituality" of Gettysburg, as demonstrated by Americans from
Maine to Texas. It transcends all culture, ethnicity, race or religion in
nobility. Lincoln's "few appropriate remarks," offers us the most reverent
insight.
Perhaps that was Lincoln's unique greatness, to rise ABOVE religion, to an even
higher plane of spirituality.
Jeff Wissot
From: jschuu@ix.netcom.com (John Schuurman )
Subject: Lincoln's Faith
G'day G'burgers,
I wandered into my office this morning (Monday) and thought I'd have a
look at the weekend's mail. Whew! What a wealth of material.
I was especially glad for the exchange between Norm and Dennis
regarding the sincerity of Lincoln's faith. What I did miss was a post
by Wilson. I perhaps deleted it by accident. Is it possible to have it
sent privately?
My Great Books Discussion Group read selected Lincoln letters and
speeches last year. We found ourselves divided along the lines we have
seen in this discussion:
It is true, you cannot get far in trying to separate the man from his
career. "Politician" is an appropriate filter through which all his
stuff must pass. The man was no gilded saint. But when his public and
private character and his words have all been duly processed, there
still remains a mountain of evidence that his faith was genuine. The
wealth of biblical allusions, the countless references to providence,
the many anecdotes regarding his personal piety (absent of any reason
for artifice), not to mention the indelible faith nurture he received
at the knee of Nancy Hanks, all witness to someone who did in fact
practice what he preached. It would be impossible to keep such an
elaborate ruse going during those hyper-critical times.
I think the consistency of the testimony of a private moment like his
letter to Mrs. Bixby and a public moment like the 2nd Inaugural Address
give credence: he really believed it.
Sincerely
To begin the discussion of Gary Will's Lincoln At Gettysburg,
These thoughts relating to the Prologue, are offered.
Prologue - Business in Gettysburg - a detailing of the events that bought
Lincoln to Gettusburg.
Politics seems to have been the overriding reason for the gathering
at Gettysburg. Linoln saw the invitation as a great opportunity to use the
pulpit over the dead to hammer home his ideological belief about America.
The local politicans saw it as a chance to gain points in the bitter local
political scene, almost dooming the cemetery.
The myths of Lincoln being snubbed and of writing the address on an
envelope, on the train etc. are false. There is indeed a photograph of
Lincoln at Gettysburg and it is on the Lincoln at Gettysburg Discussion page.
Getting a room at Gettysburg was a hard then as it is now. Wills asked
the governor if he would like to share a bed with Abe. Curtin declined and
slipped into the night. The cemetery architect, Saunders slept sitting up on
a sofa ; Everett's daughter sacked out with two other women and broke the
bed down in the middle of the night.
(Make your muster reservations early!)
Lincoln's young secretarys - Joh Hay and John Nicolay spent the
night cruising the local bars polling the political mood - yeah right!
Everett gave a great speech that the crowd loved. Lincoln gave
exactly the type of speech he intended and was not concerned about whether
it would "scour" or not as Ward "Shelby Foote" Lamon loved to tell.
Wills' main thesis is that in this speech, Lincoln replaced the
Constiution with the more egalitarian Declaration of Independence and
changed the course of this nation forever.
The last came up in discussion here before. What is the founding
documentof this country, The Declaration or the Constitution?
Feel free to add to these or introduce other questions from the book
or other sources. If you get a chance to look at Everett's speech on the
web site, I would like to hear your reactions.
Dennis
Greetings Denis and All:
Excellant overview of Prologue...two points surprise me in Wills Prologue...
That he introduces Lincoln's feelings for Meade (altho downplayed somewhat)
right from the get go...
Secondly that Wills made the choice of SW over CW...unless I am
under-informed I would have estimated that more up to date editing is not
always the most advantageous... and weighted the CW as more appropriate.
Opinions solicited here ....!!
All this said Wills does a very, very credible job of portrial of his subject
and he deserves his Prize...
SW=Speeches and writings
Ed....
On Mon, 15 Jan 1996, Dennis Lawrence wrote:
>
> The last came up in discussion here before. What is the founding
> documentof this country, The Declaration or the Constitution?
On this issue, I have some thoughts. The Declaration (DI) I have always
taken as the founding document of the American spirit or ideal. The
Constitution (USC) I have always taken as the founding document of the
American government. The latter often does not live up to the former,
but one's actual life and existence rarely live up to one's ideals, and
this historically has been more so for nations than for individuals.
So I guess I am going to sit on the fence and say that =both= documents
are important as founding documents of the war.
Jim Epperson
Dennis said:
The point as it relates to Gettysburg is that it is the Civil War that
changes United States from plural to singular. Therefor, it is the Civil
War that created the singular country called The United States of America.
Remember that in the begining of the war it was the states, North and South,
who equipped their troops. "Their troops" that is, the troops of the
various states. Remember, too, that in 18th and 19th century parlance the
word "state" was used as we use the word "country" or "nation" today.
It seems plain to me that Lincoln's address and most of his other writtings,
because they didnot berate the south, help to bring us together after the
war. I might be on thin ice here as I'm sure it can be argued that only the
intellectuals would have given much attention to the Address after the war.
Everybody else was busy building a "new" country, that is a new nation.
If credit is to be given to the war for playing a major role in creating our
country, then what date would you choose? The turning point was arguably
Gettysburg and we could start some flame wars by suggesting Vicksburg. So
let me suggest a turning point in time rather than defining the turning
point with a single battle. How 'bout July 4 since that's when Vicksburg
was first occupied thus cutting the Confederacy in half; and it's also when
Lee withdrew from Gettysburg with his army so damaged that it never again
was a real threat to the Army of the Potomac. The night they drove ol Dixie
down was the night of July 3rd and 4th. The war was over. It's just that
the fighting hadn't stopped yet.
Still groping for what's on topic and what's not
In a message dated 96-01-15 18:58:46 EST, you write:
John...
Does not Lincoln say many times over that to berate the South would be to
acknowledge that the South is succeeding, and he never validates that they
have a right to do this...and this would apply to all issues and claims made
by the CSA...to
acknowledge them (either agree or disagree) is acknowledging that they had a
right to seek self government...and He diametrically opposed anyones opinion
that anyone had a right to seperate from the whole....
Pls feel free to respond as I am sure this is a contested point.
I agree with your statements of the "new nation" as well as Jim's statements.
Oh and those not off fighting were still busy burying the fallen soldiers on
the perimeter of the GB Address crowd...
Best..
Being somewhat of a political junkie I would like to approach this issue from a
purely political standpoint.
Lets look at the situation at hand-after 3 years of bloody fighting no end is in
sight to the war. Even Horace Greely has gone from "Onward to Richmond" to "Let
the Wayward Sisters go" . Lincoln is facing serious challenges in the 1864
election. In light of all this he goes to Gettysburg to give a speech that he
knows(due to the already public fascination with the "Battle of Gettysburg")
will get wide coverage.
He gives the speech and as Willis points out he submits the proposition that the
basic building block of our country is "all men are created equal". As Wills
points out Lincoln is embracing the Declaration of Independence-not the
Constitution as espousing the idea upon which our country is based on. From a
political standpoint one must ask why?
Surely the reason was not to emphasize the importance of the UNION remaining
intact. Were this true " the Constitutions "We the people of the United States,
in order to form a more perfect union"... would have served his purpose much
better than the Declarations " That all men are created equal"
I would agree with Wills that the only conceivable reason that Lincoln embraces
the Declaration is to work the slavery issue into the equation. The Constitution
after all not only condones slavery but makes it a constitutional right!
Of course then the political junkie in me asks why? Why would Lincoln want to
bring up the issue of slavery with the election fast approaching. it would not
appear to be in an effort to solidify his base-by 1863 his anti-slavery,
abolition credentials are well established. In fact the issue has the potential
to do him more harm than good (witness the NY Draft riots and the negative
editorials written after his speech.
I would submit that the reason Lincoln works slavery into the equation is not so
much domestic policy but foreign policy. I think the Gettysburg Address , in
additions to being a moving eulogy for those who died there ,was a not so subtle
reminder to Britain that to support the South was to support slavery. In fact I
think there is ample evidence that if not for the issue of slavery Britain would
have recognized the South as an independent nation. As McPherson notes in his
"Battle Cry of Freedom" the first southern commissioner to Britain reported back
"the public mind here is entirely opposed to the Government of the Confederate
States of America on the question of slavery....the sincerity and universality
of this feeling embarrass the government in dealing with the question of our
recognition".
Thus I submit from a political standpoint it was necessary for Lincoln to frame
the war as a struggle for equality of all man(as from a political standpoint it
was important for the South the frame the war in terms of "states rights") As
long as Britain perceived the war as a struggle over slavery the chances of
their entering on the side of the South is very small. Obviously the war goes
much better for the North if Britain stays out and obviously the better the war
goes the better lincoln chance of reelection.
Dennis wrote...
I did some research about 12 or 10 years ago to estimate the impact
our Declaration of Independence had on its intended audience, the
established Nations of Europe.
After a reasonable amount of digging, I came up empty handed. I
just couldn't find any references to the D of I theme or to the document
itself.
About 8 years ago, I met a respected Historian of the Federalist era
( Forest McDonald of Alabama) and asked him for other nation's reaction to
the expression of a system of beliefs that I, as many of you, hold quite
dear. He told me that after being written in Philadelphia, the Declaration
of Independence was soon forgotten here at home, and it was pretty much
ignored as a political statement or even as a trite piece of paper in
Europe. He told me (although he may have been 1/4 joking) that after 1776,
the next sigificant reference to the D of I was in the South Carolina
Ordanence of Sessession.
(Don't you just hate people when the quote your words to prove
you're wrong!)
I agree that Lincoln reserrected the D of I for his Gettysburg
Address, and I think that I agree that he wanted to see some revolutionary
fervor and changes as well. Certainly, the nation could never be the same
after Gettysburg, the Wilderness, Spottsylvania, Cold Harbor, and Pettersburg.
Anyone else with any hard facts, opinions, or feelings about this,
please share them with us, or E-MAIL me personally.
John Leo
Brother Bob serves up a full plate. I'll start here....
Where I disagree with you and Wills on this point is that Lincoln
had been saying this for years. The idea that he chose Gettysburg to shift
the basis of the country from the Constitution to the Declaration flies in
the face of this.
Here is a more pragmatic reason why I think you and Wills have over
worked this shifting of the baisis of the Union from the Constitution to the
Declaration issue.
Lincoln was a Constitutionalist. (Don't throw habeas corpus at me
yet.) It didn't matter a tinkers damn if he brainwashed the whole country
into thinking the Declaration was the baisis of the country - until the
Constitution said so, he would not act against slavery. Yes, he thought the
Declaration to be more egalitarian - as Jim says the soul of the country -
but this was ideological, not political.
I agree with the assertion that the event at Gettysburg served the
Republicans political agenda as well as winning the ideological war, but
they are two separate issues.
Earlier I said that Lincoln's speech had none of the smuggness of
Pericles or Everett. Maybe smuggness is too strong a word, but Lincoln
certainly held the Union's implicit "equality" phrase out for all to admire.
Dennis
I'm interested in a slightly different question. Lincoln's speech tells us,
if nothing else, that Lincoln was a master of the spoken word. Perhaps the
best parts of the book are Wills' dissection of Lincoln's construction of the
speech: his use of Greco-Roman speech patterns and biblical construction.
It's easy to think of Lincoln as an uneducated, self-made man, which of
course he was. He was also a highly literate, well-read man who had given
himself what amounted to a classical education.
Mr. Lincoln loved to read Shakespeare, in his spare time. This
also aided his prose.
Steve Cassel
I apologise for not having read Wills' book. He probably makes this
point.
Bob Lawrence said:
>Being somewhat of a political junkie I would like to approach this issue from a
>purely political standpoint.
. . .
>I would submit that the reason Lincoln works slavery into the equation is
not so
>much domestic policy but foreign policy.
Knowing that Lincoln composed the Address very carefully, when he said
"The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here;
while it can never forget what they did here" it's likely that he _was_
speaking
to a wider audience.
Kerry Webb
If you will look at Roy Basler's collection of Lincoln's works, you will see
that the D of I was the foundation of most of his ideas about politics, etc.
I remember reading some historian's analysis of this, but I can't quote the
source.
From: jschuu@ix.netcom.com (John Schuurman )
Wills is after big fish here. He means to show us that the nation had a
"born again" experience as a result of Lincoln's words. It is like the
Phoenix arising from the ash heap. From out of the still fetid air and
with god only knows what was rotting under the feet, arising out of a
poisoned place devestated by an inconclusive battle, new life emerges
from the old. A new thing, that retells the past and gives a radical
new direction to the future, has begun. Wills is giving us resurrection
talk here.
Amazingly, he couches this epicenter moment in terms of larceny but
notice how quickly he moves from stealth to regeneration:
"Everyone in that vast throng of thousands was having his or her
intellectual pocket picked. The crowd departed with a new thing in its
ideological luggage, that new constitution Lincoln had substituted for
the one they brought there with them. They walked off, from those
curving graves on the hillside, under a changed sky, into a different
America." (38)
What a piece of work this book is. But it is good to be more cautious
than Wills. Can so much really be said about so little? I would like to
believe that there truly are such once a tri-centennial seminal events
in which the tumblers of the great lock fall into place and something
all together other than what we ever knew comes breaking through. But
materialists and realists that we are, can words and ideas re
ally do that?
Wills suggests it is so. "The Civil War =is=, to most Americans, what
Lincoln wanted it to =mean.= Words had to complete the work of the
guns." (38)
What made Gettysburg (in Wills' terms read "America") what it is today?
Guns or words?
John Schuurman
Wills is an interesting writer, but one must treat him with
considerable caution as an historian. His "Lincoln" is a prop for
some of his own meditations on the ethical foundations of our
political system.
The G'burg address was certainly a well thought out and meticulously
crafted political speech, designed to take advantage of the symbolic
value alreadyu attached to the battle. Lincoln meanat to have the
thing widely reprinted and read, and remembered as well--that's one of
tghe reasons for its brevity. His aim, obviously, is to keep alive
the flame of patriotism that will see the war through to its
conclusion. The symbolism of the address is chosen accordingly.
Let's remember who the address appeals to--the (white) population of
the North whose support of the war is conditioned on certain notions
of patriotism and a certain sense of what is at stake for them as well
as the country. When Lincoln wonders whether a nation like this "can
long endure" he's saying something of direct concern to listeners and
readers. On the surface, one might say, as the copperheads did, that
it would be just as well to let the slave states go and to continue
civic and poliatical life in a republic thus purified. The reason
thata won't wash for Lincoln and most of the North is the very real
fear that the rump Union that would exist post-secession is a state in
considerable danger--from a powerful new rival on the continent, as
well as from old enemies like the English and French.
The stress on government "of the people, by the people, and for the
people" plays on the widespread sense that in the ante-bellum period,
the slave South had drifted away from the egalitarianism (among
whites!!) of the foundations of the republic, and into an oligarchy or
plutocracy. Many Northerners were convinced that the planter
ascendency had turned the South into a feudal society, where the bulk
of the white population (never mind the slaves!!) had been forced into
a position of ignorance and dependency on their wealthy overlords.
Thus, the secession is seen not as a manifestation of the (Southern)
popular will but as the work of a cabal that monopolizes the organs
of political discourse and power. Hence, the "new birth of freedom" is
not so much a matter of justice for the blacks, as it is the
re-institution of the ideals of '76 among the Southern yeomanry,
thereby perpetuating the already existing politcal freedom of the more
democratic North.
This is not to say that this view of Southern white opinion was
accurate, merely that it was prevalent among the people whom Lincoln
was trying to reach. [Of course, there was an element of truth to
it: in those areas of the South where the planter aristocracy had
never established itself--chiefly in the Appalachian
highlands--loyalist sentiment ran high and gave the Confederate
government a good deal of trouble.]
It also hardly needs saying that Lincoln chose his words in a way
that would appeal as well to outright abolitionists, who were free to
put another construction on them.
The Address is a masterpiece because it is a masterpiece of practical
political rhetoric. It should not, however, be confused with a
seminar paper in political philosophy. This is the besetting sin of
the Wills book.
Norm Levitt
I've always had something of a love/hate relationship with
Wills' work. I love the concept, because I would love to believe
that words have the power to change the world. However, the more
cynical part of myself--by far the larger part--can never read
Lincoln@GB w/o feeling that Wills is pushing it just a little too
far....giving Lincoln too much credit.
I know, I know, heresy. That's my point. Just as there is a
Lee hagiography, so is there a Lincoln hagiography. Like last week
when we were discussing Lee's motives for invasion, we had to blast
through literally decades of myth and supposition to get to the
evidence. I don't think Wills made that effort.
Two specific criticisms:
Some things I would be interested in pursing,
a) How did Lincoln's words at GB compare to his deeds as
Commander in Chief, etc.
b) How did people at the time percieve the speech? (And I'm
not talking about the average Joe going "ho-hum" over his
morning coffee-and-paper. I'm talking about the
professional critics. What, you think ours is the only
generation to have pundits?)
c) What evidence do we have that this was, as Wills claims,
something of a national epiphany?
Reading the comments from everyone has been most interested. I
made myself read all of the comments before I spent much time
thinking about what I was going to say, which is unusual for me. I
can say that, after reading the book, and reading everyone's
comment, I now look at the address in a new light. In keeping up
with the political spin, can we not look at Lincoln's comments as
the words of a lame duck politician? Lets face it, the Union cause
was not looking very good at that point. I think an argument can
be made that Lincoln probably figured that he was not going to be
reelected, that the mood of the country was peace at the price of a
divided nation, and that whoever was elected in 64 would try to
make peace with the south as soon as possible.
In looking at his words again, it is interesting to note that not
once does he say victory. He called it a struggle. Further, he
says that the dead did not die in vain. Why would he say those
words? They seem so out of place NOW, since we have the benefit of
knowing the outcome of the war. But he did not know the outcome.
Perhaps one can make the claim that (1) Lincoln was preparing the
combatants for the possibility of two nations, one dedicated to the
concept of freedom for all and the other continuing the "particular
institution" and (2) if he could not win an actual victory, at
least he could claim a moral one, a victory consecrated by the
actions of those that fell.
Finally, one last question. When he said, "the world will little
note, nor long remember, what we say here..." was he really saying,
that the world will not remember him, and his actions and motives
in prosecuting the war, if the cause of one nation failed?
On Tue, 16 Jan 1996 19:49:03 -0600, you wrote:
<> I think this is all nonsense. I have yet to read a critique of this
<>book that does not fault this section of it. IMHO , Wills wanted to catch
<>the public's attention with the hyperbole of his claims. The _Atlantic
<>Monthly had a full cover of Lincoln holding lightning bolts in one hand
<>and the Declaration in another. The public bit big time on this ploy.
I agree that Wills got carried away BUT the Declaration vs. the Constitution is a
major issue. It was before Lincoln and it remains so today. I see this issue
debated in other newsgroups, usually in reference to church/state relations and
abortion.(the discussion of either of which would destroy this group in about 5
seconds!) Of the two documents the Constitution is definitely the more secular.
I still believe Lincoln use of the Declaration was not only to solidify his base
of support but also to frame the debate over the war in such a manner as to
preclude Britain's entry. I don't think he picked anyone's pocket but he for sure
put a lot of votes in his pocket and kept Britain out of the war.
lawrence@arthes.com
Is it possible that Wills, the Liberal, is using Lincoln to justify his
biases by highlighting the D of I? If you think of the D of I as the liberal
strain in American political thought, and the Constitution as the
conservative strain (checks and balances, etc.), then perhaps Wills' agenda
becomes a little clearer. Fact is Lincoln wrote and talked about the
Constitution, and used it to deny he intended to strike slavery, about as much
or more than he utilized the D of I. Thus once again, as so often in
American politics, an ideologue uses Lincoln as his Trojan horse. How does
that strike you-all?
Heather writes about Wills.......
>THE HISTORICAL: My biggest gripe w/ Wills is that he puts
> the Address is every context except the one that counts:
> Lincoln's. He ties it to Transcendentalism, to the Greek
> Revival, to Pericles and the Founding Dads...yet he gives
> comparatively little space to Lincoln's own comments,
> pre or post Address.
Norm writes....
>It (GA) should not, however, be confused with a
>seminar paper in political philosophy. This is the besetting sin of
>the Wills book.
John writes.....
>But it is good to be more cautious
>than Wills. Can so much really be said about so little? I would like to
>believe that there truly are such once a tri-centennial seminal events
>in which the tumblers of the great lock fall into place and something
>all together other than what we ever knew comes breaking through. But
>materialists and realists that we are, can words and ideas re
>ally do that?
I think this is a common strand running through the posts so far -
Wills has overreached his hand in claiming too much for the Address.
I don't know how Wills thinks that Lincoln performed "an open air
sleight of hand" that "picked the intellectual pocket of everyone at
Gettysburg" or that Lincoln "launched a clever assault on the Constitution"
to "perpetuate a giant swindle" thereby "betraying the instrument he was worn
to defend." Especially after he himself acknowledges that Lincoln had urged
the adoption of the Declaration as early as 1854! (p. 89).
Wills say that modern day original intent people like Ed Meese and
Robert Bork think equality as a _national_ commitment has been "sneaked
into the Constitution" ; Wills says it was done by Lincoln (146). They are
stymied in their efforts to persuade the majority of the republic to this
belief because big Abe has moved the goal post on them.
I think this is all nonsense. I have yet to read a critique of this
book that does not fault this section of it. IMHO , Wills wanted to catch
the public's attention with the hyperbole of his claims. The _Atlantic
Monthly had a full cover of Lincoln holding lightning bolts in one hand
and the Declaration in another. The public bit big time on this ploy.
Too bad, the rest of the book's excellence is diminished by this theme.
To Heather and John's related questions about how Lincoln acted as
commander and chief in relation to the GA and whether words or actions made
America what it is:
I think Lincoln's actions are quite consistent w/ the Address -
Chapter Three deals with the social consistency of his policies, and
militarily, he acted to "preserve and defend the Constitution of the United
States." (at least as he read it :-)
I think that all of our actions are meaningless until we find the
words to give meaning to them. THAT was the purpose of Lincoln, Everett and
Pericles.
Dennis
BTW Lincoln thought Sickles was one helluva a guy!
Bob Witt writes....
>I think an argument can
>be made that Lincoln probably figured that he was not going to be
>reelected, that the mood of the country was peace at the price of a
>divided nation, and that whoever was elected in 64 would try to
>make peace with the south as soon as possible.
Here is what David Herbert Donald says about this in his new bio on Lincoln :
Everett, by the way did not stress what Donald claims Lincoln had
expected. Everett stressed the differences in values between the
secessionist leaders and the Union leaders. When Lincoln told Everett at the
end of that speech, "I am more than gratified, I am grateful to you," he may
have been expressing his pleasant surprise that Everett had set the table
for him.
Dennis
Dennis, you make a good point. Usually, everyone looks at Antietam
as the turning point for the REASON for fighting the war. I
disagree. Antietam gave Lincoln the victory he needed to abolish
slavery in the south, but truly did not chart the course.
Gettysburg, and his address, was his opportunity to say "it is
either one nation with no slaves, operating under one dominant set
of laws, or two nations, one with slaves and one without. And if
good men are going to give their lives for a cause, it might as
well be the good cause rather than a mere compromise."
I had a prof, more years ago than I care to admit, who would
dismiss some of the more hare-brained arguments of his students with
the line, "Interesting, if true." I've tried twice now to read Wills'
book. I might say the same thing of it, if I had found it interesting.
My wife and I were discussing the Wills book and she was reminded of
something in Hegel which she pulled out and which I offer here. If Wills
can reach back in time to make his comments, perhaps Hegel, from his
"Introduction to the Philosophy of History", may be allowed to reach
forward to comment on Wills' argument:
"Trite" seems to be the operative word.
>"Interesting, if true." I've tried twice now to read Wills'
>book. I might say the same thing of it, if I had found it interesting.
Hi, Dave - and spouse!
I guess we have something in common. You gave up on Wills after
twice attempting it - I gave up on the Hegel quote after twice reading it!
I have been bashing Wills around a bit on his flawed thesis of
Lincoln's Constitutional swindle, but otherwise I think it is a fine book. I
think his analysis of the 19th century Greek revival and its influence on
the time and the speeches- which is what I guess the Hegel triteness was
about - is well done.
If you ever try it a third time, you might agree. Then again, maybe
not. Wills certainly can rub people the wrong way. He has rubbed both
Donald and Paludan the wrong way as they carefully refute his thesis without
mentioning his name in their biographies of Lincoln. Still, Paludan at
least recognizes it as a great work. He thinks the transcendentalist stand
is more debatable than the Declaration strand.
I haven't gotten too deeply into Donald's bio yet. ( I always skip
to the Gettysburg part and read it first!) What is your take on it?
BTW - You said about Porter Alexander what I couldn't articulate. He
just didn't get done what Lee said was needed to be done before the assault
could succeed. If you get any incoming - I'll be on your flank. Trust me!
Dennis
Footnote #8 to the Prologue in Gary Wills _Lincoln At Gettysburg_:
"(Kathleen Georg) Harrison's important essay on file in Gettysburg
should be published: "This Grand National Enterprise" (1982)
Several posters spoke about the national and international political
implications to the Gettysburg Address. Kathy Georg-Harrison's essay covers
the local politics that threatened the existence of the cemetery and grew
into an association to preserve the battlefield.
Two Gettysburg Republican politicians David Wills and David
McConaughy wrangled over the location and design of the proposed National
Cemetery during the summer and fall of 1863. Wills was the official agent
of Republican Pennsylvania Governor Andrew Curtin in plotting out the new
cemetery, but McConaughy acted peremptorily in acquiring the land where the
National Cemetery stands today. He refused to relinquish it until certain
promises were made to protect and refurbish the Evergreen Cemetery of which
he was president of the board. Wills refused to negotiate and instead sought
to place the cemetery approximately in the area of the Angle!
The below excerpts are from above mentioned file in GBNMP. Like Wills, I
too wish this were published and made generally available.
" Indeed, the Wills-McConaughy relationship must have been a
cool one prior to these negotiations of a soldier's cemetery...
while both were Republicans, they rarely sat on any committees
together. Both were prominent in civic and political affairs,
but neither belonged to the same civic organizations or crusades
as the other... McConaughy especial reveled in controversy...
He was hypersensitive, reacting immediately and paranoically to
any critique of himself or his causes. The struggling new
Evergreen Cemetery, just established some ten years before the
battle was especially close to McConaughy's heart.... It would
have been a necessarily hard blow for the Evergreen Cemetery
Association to have suffered the destruction of its fencing,
shrubbery and some of the tombstones. It is therefore apparent
why McConaughy was trying so hard to establish a connecting
soldiers' cemetery beside his private cemetery all in one
enclosure" ( 26)
"Curtin... apparently cabled or wrote Wills inquiring about
the nine acres offered by McConaughy.... Wills informed Curtin
that the 'land referred to is not the same I have been
negotiating for'" ( 26).
"On August 10, Wills was able to inform the governor that he
had "bought the ten acres of land on the left center .."The
general area of the left center might include Ziegler's Grove,
the Brien Farm, the Leister Farm, or perhaps the Frey Farm" KGH-
GNE -28). "(map p. 26).
A number of Gettysburg's prominent citizens signed a circular to the
Governor who applied pressure to Wills to seal the deal with McConaughy.
'...Mr. Wills finally agreed to accept the more eligible
site adjoining the cemetery, if we could guaranty a full and
unconditional title to the state'(KGH - GNE -34).
"With the conclusion of the sale for the soldiers' cemetery
now behind him, McConaughy went on to other projects...'I now
propose the patriotic citizens of Pennsylvania to unite with me
in the tenure of the sacred grounds of this battlefield at their
actual cost...It is also suggested that an association be formed
and an act of incorporation from our State Legislature, granting
powers similar to those of our Monument Association.' (August 19,
1863) This circular put into words the expression of July 25
letter he had addressed to Governor Curtin, but this time he
sought support for his ideas from his neighbors...
" His eccentric and parochial character, and his inability to
secure for himself the designation of Curtin's sate agent all
conspired to relegate David McConaughy to virtual anonymity,
while elevating other who had less influence on the final
characteristics of the finished products."
Dennis
Thanks to Terry Moyer who procured this document for me two years ago.
The issue of states rights was addressed in the laying out of the cemetery.
Excerpted from Kathy Georg-Harrison's "This Grand National Enterprise" on file at GNMP.
Bob Witt writes....
>I think an argument can
>be made that Lincoln probably figured that he was not going to be
>reelected, that the mood of the country was peace at the price of a
>divided nation, and that whoever was elected in 64 would try to
>make peace with the south as soon as possible.
Here is what David Herbert Donald says about this in his new bio on Lincoln :
I would have to agree with Bob Witt and Donald that one of the purposes of the Address was to counter the above movement.
Everett, by the way did not stress what Donald claims Lincoln had expected. Everett stressed the differences in values between the secessionist leaders and the Union leaders. When Lincoln told Donald at the end of that speech, "I am more than gratified, I am grateful to you," he may have been expressing his pleasant surprise that Everett had set the table for him.
Dennis
Is it possible that Wills, the Liberal, is using Lincoln to justify his
biases by highlighting the D of I? If you think of the D of I as the liberal
strain in American political thought, and the Constitution as the
conservative strain (checks and balances, etc.), then perhaps Wills' agenda
becomes a little clearer. Fact is Lincoln wrote and talked about the
Constitution, and used it to deny he intended to strike slavery, about as much
or more than he utilized the D of I. Thus once again, as so often in
American politics, an ideologue uses Lincoln as his Trojan horse. How does
that strike you-all?
Mr. Lincoln loved to read Shakespeare, in his spare time. This
also aided his prose.
At 01:16 AM 1/16/96 -0500, you wrote:
Dennis,
My apologies for the obscurity of my argument and of the quote from
Hegel. The whole argument Wills made involving Greek revivalism struck
me as so pretentious and so much of a reach that he lost me right there.
My wife informs me that there is a good possibility that Lincoln was
influenced by that revivalist movement and perhaps she's right. At any
rate, Hegel, writing forty-odd years before Lincoln, reacted against the
same revivalist movement in Europe. Crudely summarized, he defines three
types of societies: Oriental, in which one man is free and all others are
enslaved; Graeco-Roman, in which some are free and the rest enslaved; and
Germanic, in which all are free.
David Wieck
To David Wieck, re Hegel:
Just remember that Hegel's favorite student was Augustus Roebling,
whose son, Washington Roebling, an aide to Warren, played a key role
in getting O'Rorke's 140th NY to LRT in time to save the crumbling
flank of the 16th Mich.
He also built the Brooklyn Bridge.
Norm Levitt
Food for thought over the weekend from Chapters One and Two in Gary
Wills' _Lincoln At Gettysburg_:
1) NATIONALISM V STATES' RIGHTS -
David Wills, proposed that the soldiers be placed by rank in
companies, regiments, etc. without regard to state. David McConaughy
proposed placing the soldiers to rest within areas dedicated to their
particular state without regard to rank.
Kathy Georg-Harrison comments...
"Even while the war waged on to determine the supremacy of the
national government over the states, the union representatives still
supported their own provincial attitudes, wishing that the soldier dead of
each respective state be segregated from those of another" (KGH - GNE-40-41).
a) Is the cemetery an ironic monument to states supremacy over the
national idea expressed by Lincoln and fought for by the Union troops?
b) Is the laying out of the dead by rank an contradiction to the
egalitarian theme of Lincoln's speech?
c) Was the Gettysburg dedication, then, the first indication that
class and state supremacy would reign supreme no matter how the war turned out?
2) GREEK REVIVALISM -
Wills says "America as a second Athens was an idea whose time had
come in the 19th cenury" (42).
a) Was there a misconception by nineteenth century Americans of
what Greek culture represented? Was it a purposeful distortion by men like
Everett? Lincoln?
b) How would the Greek ideal fuel Union sentiments for the war and
the ideals expressed by Lincoln?
c) Was the Gettysburg dedication, then, an effort to "spin" the
public's attitude to continue to support an increasingly unpopular war by
use of this theme?
c) Is Wills guilty of an overreading of the effect the Greek revival
had on the Everett and Lincoln text? On the country?
3) CULT OF DEATH -
Wills again "The dedication of Gettysburg must, therefore, be seen
in its cultural context, as part of the nineteenth century's fascination
with death in general and with cemeteries in particular" (71).
a) How are the deaths of so many men justified? How does the Greek
revivalism help to justify this?
b)How did the physical existence and design of cemeteries of the
day reflect the cult of death?
c) Did Lincoln use Americans' attitude toward a "nurturing" death
to make the carnage necessary to fight for the ideals he expressed acceptable?
d) Does Wills' accurately assess the attitude toward death in
19th century America. Are his extensions of this theme to transcendentalism
and Greek revival valid?
Dennis
On Sat, 20 Jan 1996, Dennis Lawrence wrote: (among other things)
> 2) GREEK REVIVALISM -
>
> Wills says "America as a second Athens was an idea whose time had
> come in the 19th century" (42).
>
> a) Was there a misconception by nineteenth century Americans of
> what Greek culture represented? Was it a purposeful distortion by men like
> Everett? Lincoln?
>
> b) How would the Greek ideal fuel Union sentiments for the war and
> the ideals expressed by Lincoln?
>
> C) Was the Gettysburg dedication, then, an effort to "spin" the
> public's attitude to continue to support an increasingly unpopular war by
> use of this theme?
>
> c) Is Wills guilty of an overreading of the effect the Greek revival
> had on the Everett and Lincoln text? On the country?
>
The parallels between the war in question and the Greeks' Peloponesian
War deserve consideration. People of closely similar but never the less
distinct (Ionians vs. Dorans) fight in a war where one is a decidedly
commercial, naval power and the other a continental power. Athens struggles
to maintain an empire while Lacedaemon fights to prevent Athenian
hegemony in the Mediterranean. Athens was a city state noticed for it's
influx and acceptance of immigrants while Lacedaemon was a less open
society with a class system (Spartans/Freemen/Helots) Ironic how Athens
sought to promote "democracy" via the sword, and oligarcial Lacedaemon
sought to protect itself against "imperialism". The democratic ideals
found in the Constitution came more from vogue Neoclasssic political
thought in Europe than the Greeks. I have a hard time relating Greek
revival tendencies given the opposite ideals of Romanticism found early
on in the war (Napoleon).
Colby Cowherd
FOR TOM DESJARDINS.....(or SCOTT HARTWIG):
A number of our GDG members recently read Garry Wills' "Lincoln At
Gettysburg". As a result, readers have been left with at least two
unanswered questions, that I will address to you:
Appendix II, page 208-209, (1992 edition), mentions that Kathy Georg
Harrison proved the site of the Gettysburg Address as being near the Brown
vault in Evergreen Cemetery and not at the site of the Soldiers' National
Monument......"Over the years, Harrison has convinced skeptics at the
National Park Service, and a new marker has been authorized to indicate,
from the Park Service side of the fence, that the stand was raised on the
Evergreen side. Funding problems have stalled this plan, but most Park
Service guides correct the current markers' information."
Question 1: Has the marker for the "Brown vault site" yet been
funded and placed?
Question 2: Has there been any progress in the Park's attempt to
have a PERMANENT exhibit of the Gettysburg Address?
Thanks in advance for sharing your answers with us.
Eileen Murphy
Regarding placement of Lincoln's feet during address:
Most of the credit for investigation of this issue goes to Bill
Frassanito whose new book EARLY PHOTOGRAPHY AT GETTYSBURG explores
this in detail. Bill convinced Kathy Harrison of his evidence. It
is not a monument, but rather a wayside marker at the Soldiers'
National Monument which points the visitor to the other side of
the iron fence into the Evergreen Cemetery. Fras's book will
enlighten you more than we can.
If only Lincoln had an e-mail address...4Score@Gettysburg
Tom Desjardin
From: Norman Levitt
From: lawrence (Dennis Lawrence) Meditation on the Divine Will, September, 1862
The above is from Don E. Fehrenbacher's edition of _Abraham Lincoln:
A Documentary Portrait Through His Speeches and Writings_ (Stanford 1977).
It is an unobtrusively annotated selection of Lincoln's writings from
1832-1866. A good place to start tracing the origins of the philosophy of
the Gettysburg Address.
From: Norman Levitt
From: Jeff Wissot <72644.2642@compuserve.com>
From: Jeff Wissot <72644.2642@compuserve.com>
I'm with the latter group here and along with Dennis would ask what
evidence is there -- other than "he was a politician and we all know
what they are like" -- that all of Lincoln's God-talk was insincere? A
spotty relationship with the organized church and an acquaintance with
Robert Ingersol do not an atheist make.
John Schuurman
From: lawrence (Dennis Lawrence)
From: ENordfors@aol.com
CW=The Collected works of A. Lincoln
My two cents
From: "James F. Epperson"
> Wills' main thesis is that in this speech, Lincoln replaced the
> Constiution with the more egalitarian Declaration of Independence and
> changed the course of this nation forever.
From: jblair@roanoke.infi.net (John Blair)
Wills' main thesis is that in this speech, Lincoln replaced the
Constiution with the more egalitarian Declaration of Independence and
changed the course of this nation forever.
Mortimer J. Adler argues that there are three founding documents. They are:
the Declaration of Independance, The Constitution and Lincoln's Gettysburg
Address. He is the one who convinced me that the 4th of July is not our
birthday, but rather Sept 17, 1787, the day the Constitution was ratified.
Now Jim Epperson points out what should be obvious but I must admit I
sometimes miss the obvious. Jim reminds us that we are several nations. A
nation of ideals, a nation of government, and may I add a nation of laws, a
nation possessed of a certain culture, a unique history etc, etc, etc. We
can never agree on what our founding document is until we can agree on what
we are. Can we define a moment, rather than a document, that makes us a
nation no matter how you define "nation"?
John Blair
From: ENordfors@aol.com
>It seems plain to me that Lincoln's address and most of his other writtings,
>because they didnot berate the south, help to bring us together after the
>war. I might be on thin ice here as I'm sure it can be argued that only the
>intellectuals would have given much attention to the Address after the war.
>Everybody else was busy building a "new" country, that is a new nation.
I am sending this to the GDG to make sure my view is somewhat in line with
Will's...
Ed..
From: lawrence@appsmiths.com (Robert W Lawrence)
From: "John A. Leo"
>
> The last came up in discussion here before. What is the founding
>documentof this country, The Declaration or the Constitution?
From: lawrence (Dennis Lawrence)
>He gives the speech and as Willis points out he submits the proposition
that the
>basic building block of our country is "all men are created equal". As Wills
>points out Lincoln is embracing the Declaration of Independence-not the
>Constitution as espousing the idea upon which our country is based on. From a
>political standpoint one must ask why?
From: MattR78@aol.com
From : Steve Cassells
From: k.webb@nla.gov.au (Kerry Webb)
From: MattR78@aol.com
From: Norman Levitt
From: "Heather Peake"
Heather
Flame Away,
From: BobHW@gnn.com (Bob Witt)
From: lawrence@appsmiths.com (Robert W Lawrence)
From: MattR78@aol.com
From: Lawrence (Dennis Lawrence)
From: lawrence (Dennis Lawrence)n he drafted the Gettysburg Address, he did not know for certain
what Edward Everett would say, but he could safely predict that this
conservative former Whig would stress the ties of common origin, language,
belief, and law shared by Southerners and Northerners and appeal for a
speedy restoration of the Union under the Constitution. Everett's oratory
could give another push to the conservative call for a return to the "Union
as it was," with all constitutional guarantees of state sovereignty, states
rights, and even state control over domestic institutions, such as slavery.
(p 462-463)
I would have to agree with Bob Wit and Donald that one of the
purposes of the Address was to counter the above movement.
From: BobHW@gnn.com (Bob Witt)
From: ajackson@oyez.law.upenn.edu (Anita Jackson-Wieck)
David Wieck
From: ajackson@oyez.law.upenn.edu (Anita Jackson-Wieck)"Rulers, statesmen, and nations are told that they ought to learn
from the experience of history. Yet what experience and history teach us
is this, that nations and governments have never learned anything from
history, nor acted in accordance with the lessons to be derived from it.
Each era has such particular circumstances, such individual situations,
that decisions can only be made from within the era itself. In the press
of world events, there is no help to be had from general principles, nor
from the memory of similar conditions in former times - for a pale memory
has no force against the vitality and freedom of the present. In this
respect, nothing is more trite than the repeated appeal to Greek and
Roman examples... No difference could be greater than that between the
nature of those ancient peoples and our own time."
David Wieck
From: lawrence (Dennis Lawrence)
> David Wieck
Brother Bob worships the ground Porter Alexander walked on.
From: lawrence@tyrell.net (Dennis Lawrence)" The 'peculiar relations' between two Republican
attorneys in a small county seat determined the very origins and
fate of the Soldiers' National Cemetery and cause the exertion of
political muscle from the state governor himself to
satisfactorily resolve the purchase of the most suitable site"
(KGH -GNE - 34 -36)."
He had already purchased or obtained letters of agreement
for such battle sites as East Cemetery Hill (Raffensperger's
Hill) Little Round Top (Granite Spur), and Culp's Hill (which he
mistakenly called Wolf's Hill) Within weeks he had also acquired
McKnights' Hill, where Stevens' Fifth Maine Battery and part of
Wadsworth had built entrenchments...His own 'Gettysburg
Battlefield Memorial project' had cost McConaughy $3074... these
were the largest purchase he had ever made himself...
Before many days had elapsed,... he was answered twenty-six
Gettysburg gentlemen all supportive of his idea"
(KGH -GNE -37-38).
From: lawrence@tyrell.net (Dennis Lawrence)Before a month had elapsed, Wills would again address
Governor Cannon and inform him of the proposed date set for the
dedicatory ceremonies for the Soldiers' National Cemetery. In
that later letter he had to reverse his stand on the arrangement
of the bodies, informing Cannon that the Cemetery was being laid
off in lots for each state 'in accordance with the desires of
many of the states." (October 13, 1863) Even while the war waged
on to determine the supremacy of the national government over the
states, the union representatives still supported their own
provincial attitudes, wishing that the soldier dead of each
respective state be segregated from those of another"
(KGH - GNE -40-41).
From: lawrence@tyrell.net (Dennis Lawrence) "When he drafted the Gettysburg Address, he did not know for certain what Edward Everett would say, but he could safely predict that this conservative former Whig would stress the ties of common origin, language, belief, and law shared by Southerners and Northerners and appeal for a speedy restoration of the Union under the Constitution. Everett's oratory could give another push to the conservative call for a return to the "Union as it was," with all constitutional guarantees of state sovereignty, states rights, and even state control over domestic institutions, such as slavery.
(p 462-463)
From: MattR78@aol.com
From: STEVEN CASSEL
Steve Cassel
>I'm interested in a slightly different question. Lincoln's speech tells us,
>if nothing else, that Lincoln was a master of the spoken word. Perhaps the
>best parts of the book are Wills' dissection of Lincoln's construction of the
>speech: his use of Greco-Roman speech patterns and biblical construction.
> It's easy to think of Lincoln as an uneducated, self-made man, which of
>course he was. He was also a highly literate, well-read man who had given
>himself what amounted to a classical education.
From: ajackson@oyez.law.upenn.edu (Anita Jackson-Wieck)
In reaching back to the Greeks, I think Wills was, at least
implicitly, seeking to associate Lincoln with that paradigm of human
wisdom - the Golden Age of Athens which, Hegel argued, was hardly a
democracy at all. When Wills launched into his argument I think he fell
into the same trap that the revivalists did, but which Lincoln did not,
if he ever even considered it, which I doubt.
I can see I am drifting into murky waters here and best head for
shore. No more Hegel quotes, I swear on Sickles' good leg.
From: Norman Levitt
From: lawrence (Dennis Lawrence)
From: Colby Allen Cowherd
St. John's College
Annapolis, Maryland
From: ATWF68A@prodigy.com (MS EILEEN M MURPHY)
Manassas, VA
From: Scott_Hartwig@NPS.gov
GNMP
End of file