Gettysburg Address: What does it mean to us?

[Bogtrotter07]

Tuesday is the 150th anniversary of the these remarkable words. 278 words, ten sentences, spoken in a few minutes, this summed up the problems among us from the creation of our nation, to the war to the way to move forward. They are as meaningful for us today as they have ever been.

THE GETTYSBURG ADDRESS:​

Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great Civil War, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.
It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Abraham Lincoln ~ November 19, 1863

Maybe they can help us in these times of tremendous political and philosophical divide. I feel the are a call to unity and understanding, never more germane than today. What do you think?

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Great post Bog! Thank you!

 

[NYIrish14]

Grandfather fought at Gettysburg. Got to stand at his regiments statue when me and my family toured the battlefield. Really proud of my heritage. Really unbelievable when you think about it all. So much sacrifice.

 

[connor_in]

In an article that turns politically charged after this segment, I found a great presentation of some of the circumstances surrounding the speech.

GETTYSBURG He almost was not asked to speak. In October 1863, President Abraham Lincoln received the same plain envelope that was sent to hundreds of people, requesting attendance at a dedication of the Soldiers' National Cemetery here. Col. Clark E. Carr, a confidant of several U.S. presidents and a member of the commission that organized the event, later admitted that commissioners scrambled to send a more personal invitation after Lincoln indicated he would attend. Asking Lincoln to deliver a “few appropriate thoughts,” Carr said, was “an afterthought.” You see, the dedication's real headliner was Edward Everett. A former secretary of State, U.S. senator, Massachusetts governor and Harvard president whose nationwide tour helped to save Mt. Vernon as a national shrine, Everett was considered the great orator of his time. When Lincoln arrived, Gettysburg remained raw from the horrific battle that raged here for three days just five months earlier. More than 70,000 Confederate troops engaged 83,000 Federal troops around this crossroads town; the battle claimed more than 50,000 souls and 3,000 horses, and it changed the course of the war in the Union's favor. The bones of dead horses still were strewn over surrounding farmlands; vultures hovered over the landscape, and unburied coffins stood stacked in town. Lincoln had plenty of justifiable, honorable reasons to beg off from the ceremony: His 10-year-old son, Tad, lay sick with a fever in the White House; the war was going poorly out West; he was locked in a budget showdown with Congress; and his re-election bid looked grim against a general he fired for incompetence a year earlier. Yet he came to a place underscored with death, tasked with making sense of it all with “a few appropriate thoughts” that gave meaning to the losses and the unbearable sacrifices. On a brisk, cloudless November day, he stood on the temporary wooden stage after a two-hour speech by Everett, who, by all accounts, enthralled the crowd with his pontificating skills. “Four score and seven years ago,” he began in a squeaky, hard-to-hear voice before a crowd that had gathered from Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia and elsewhere.

Three minutes and 270 words later, he sat down, convinced that he missed his mark. He was wrong.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Grandfather fought at Gettysburg. Got to stand at his regiments statue when me and my family toured the battlefield. Really proud of my heritage. Really unbelievable when you think about it all. So much sacrifice.

Wow. Story that will passed through your family for the rest of time. What regiment was he in?

 

[NYIrish14]

Wow. Story that will passed through your family for the rest of time. What regiment was he in?

NY 124th "Orange Blossoms". He was in the middle of Pickett's charge supposedly. Any of your ancestors veterans as well?

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

NY 124th "Orange Blossoms". He was in the middle of Pickett's charge supposedly. Any of your ancestors veterans as well?

Not that far back. Both grandfathers were in WWII and my dad is a Vietnam Vet.

 

[Irishnuke]

Grandfather fought at Gettysburg. Got to stand at his regiments statue when me and my family toured the battlefield. Really proud of my heritage. Really unbelievable when you think about it all. So much sacrifice.

Wow, how old are you? You must be missing some Greats in front of Grandfather.

 

[palinurus]

I remember hearing a speaker once, who said that an eyewitness at Gettysburg wrote that, when Lincoln spoke the last words of the speech, he put the emphasis -- not on the "of" "by" and "for" in the "of the people, by the people, for the people" construction (which is the way most modern speakers and actors say them) -- but on the word "people," in each utterance of those phrases (i.e., of the people, by the people, for the people"). When you consider that Lincoln, through this speech, is really articulating the broader meaning of the battle, and thus the war, as a defense of democracy, this makes much more sense.

Lincoln saw the war as a test -- he says so ("testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, can long endure") -- of whether a republican democracy could sustain in the face of internal disagreements. If the South wins and secedes, Lincoln believed, it will mean that governments "so dedicated" could not "endure" because every strong disagreement could end in a nullification of the law the state disliked or even (as it had in the war) dissolution of the "union" into a group of loosely associated bodies, each going its own way whenever it wished.

Republican democracy, among all other forms of government, seeks to promote the "people" as the center of political life over monarchies or czars or dictators or other potentates. But it was a fledgling concept and was watched closely, and the failure of the concept -- in the form of a permanent dissolution of the United States -- would mean an end to the experiment -- a failure of the "test" so to speak -- and kings and the tyrants would say, "see, it doesn't work; stay with what is safe, even though you will be my subjects."

This is why the speech matters: because it expressed what Lincoln believed: that that battle and, perhaps with it, that war, would establish the principle that "the people," having freely chosen to form a government that would make them, not subjects, but free men, would be able to maintain that form of government. And by their example, they would prove that democracy worked, and thus, secure the idea that the blessings of liberty are meant for mankind as a whole.

 

[Irish#1]

NY 124th "Orange Blossoms". He was in the middle of Pickett's charge supposedly. Any of your ancestors veterans as well?

Pickett's charge is probably the one battle that saved Gettysburg for the Union. Interesting note. Lee's advanced troops actually got to Gettysburg before the Union and had actually manned the high ground. They saw some Union troops and miscalculated the size thinking it was an entire regiment when it wasn't. They left, went back and reported to Lee. Many believe if they would have stayed, the South would have won at Gettysburg.

 

[NYIrish14]

Wow, how old are you? You must be missing some Greats in front of Grandfather.

I'm 23, so I'm obviously missing a couple haha

 

[Irishnuke]

I'm 23, so I'm obviously missing a couple haha

I kept trying to do the math in my head and there was no way it was working unless you were at least 100. Makes more sense now. I wonder if Bogs or Dshans knew your great (x?) Grandpa?

 

[Rhode Irish]

I kept trying to do the math in my head and there was no way it was working unless you were at least 100. Makes more sense now. I wonder if Bogs or Dshans knew your great (x?) Grandpa?

I was thinking the same thing.

 

[connor_in]

There is a place (souvenir shop) in Gettysburg that has a huge table of the battlefield and they play an audio recording of the timeliness of the battle with lights directed to highlight the region being talked about. It was a great way to see the whole battle explained and played out as you saw (without moving pieces) the battle develop innits entirety.

 

[IrishLion]

There is a place (souvenir shop) in Gettysburg that has a huge table of the battlefield and they play an audio recording of the timeliness of the battle with lights directed to highlight the region being talked about. It was a great way to see the whole battle explained and played out as you saw (without moving pieces) the battle develop innits entirety.

Took a trip to Gettysburg and Washington DC with my school for our 8th-grade class trip in 2003. We went somewhere that did this exact same thing, so I assume it was the same place (kind of stadium seating looking down at the table?). Very cool, and the trip made me appreciate history more than I thought I would. We did a haunted Gettysburg tour too that was pretty cool. I've wanted to go back ever since, just haven't gotten around to it.

 

[dshans]

I wonder if Bogs or Dshans knew your great (x?) Grandpa

I can't speak for Bogs, but my grandfolks didn't step foot on Ellis Island until 20 or so years after the war between the states.

I may be as old as dirt, but it's relatively young dirt. Erosion and all that jazz.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I kept trying to do the math in my head and there was no way it was working unless you were at least 100. Makes more sense now. I wonder if Bogs or Dshans knew your great (x?) Grandpa?

F U

But my sons have a half a dozen ancestors that fought at Gettysburg, including three Kansas brothers the Dows, one of whom is a great-great to the kids. We also have a French-Irish mix from Canada that fought with the NY 69th Regiment. They were the original Irish Brigade. Not much left of him though. (Information to trace back.)

I can't speak for Bogs, but my grandfolks didn't step foot on Ellis Island until 20 or so years after the war between the states.

I may be as old as dirt, but it's relatively young dirt. Erosion and all that jazz.

I was at a jazz festival and my feet got dirty . . .

The main part of what became my family came over and were so poor they couldn't get into the country. So they entered at Presque Isle. The coffins of a quarter of them that set out are still buried there. From that point it was poverty and disease. If I am to believe stories, some were so bad off that they came across the Canadian/US border to enlist and fight because the living conditions were so much better. Most were original famine survivors, so they spent roughly 1850 to 1875 in Canada. Then they rowed across the Detroit River. Lived on a farm next to a widower named Ford and his son, who's mother came over on the boats from Ireland with them. But the Fords were Presbyterian and my family, good God fearing Catholics. Much of my family went to work for the boy, years later, he turned out to be pretty successful.

 

[Domina Nostra]

I remember hearing a speaker once, who said that an eyewitness at Gettysburg wrote that, when Lincoln spoke the last words of the speech, he put the emphasis -- not on the "of" "by" and "for" in the "of the people, by the people, for the people" construction (which is the way most modern speakers and actors say them) -- but on the word "people," in each utterance of those phrases (i.e., of the people, by the people, for the people"). When you consider that Lincoln, through this speech, is really articulating the broader meaning of the battle, and thus the war, as a defense of democracy, this makes much more sense.

Lincoln saw the war as a test -- he says so ("testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, can long endure") -- of whether a republican democracy could sustain in the face of internal disagreements. If the South wins and secedes, Lincoln believed, it will mean that governments "so dedicated" could not "endure" because every strong disagreement could end in a nullification of the law the state disliked or even (as it had in the war) dissolution of the "union" into a group of loosely associated bodies, each going its own way whenever it wished.

Republican democracy, among all other forms of government, seeks to promote the "people" as the center of political life over monarchies or czars or dictators or other potentates. But it was a fledgling concept and was watched closely, and the failure of the concept -- in the form of a permanent dissolution of the United States -- would mean an end to the experiment -- a failure of the "test" so to speak -- and kings and the tyrants would say, "see, it doesn't work; stay with what is safe, even though you will be my subjects."

This is why the speech matters: because it expressed what Lincoln believed: that that battle and, perhaps with it, that war, would establish the principle that "the people," having freely chosen to form a government that would make them, not subjects, but free men, would be able to maintain that form of government. And by their example, they would prove that democracy worked, and thus, secure the idea that the blessings of liberty are meant for mankind as a whole.

Why was America's secession from Great Britain justified, but the Southern states secession from the Union was not, if the guiding principle is self-government?

Did the union soldiers think they were fighting to free all slaves and ensure their political equality? Was that the same thing as preserving the union? Would the citizens in the North have been willing to preserve the union with some slave states?

Would secession be justified if, say, Hawaii wanted to secede now? It has no history of slavery, and was originally land governed by an indigenous people. Why can't Hawaiian people decide that, whatever their ancestors may have thought, they wanted their independence? Why is membership in the union seen as the only way to ensure "republican" government? Why do certain generations get to enter into perpetually binding contracts which control the destiny of all future generations?

 

[Green Mountains]

From my reading of history.... Lincoln's address was deemed a failure by those in attendence. Edward Everett spoke for over an hour (that's what the great orator's did at the time), Lincoln for 3 minutes. Newspaper accounts panned the speech (northern newspaper men hated Lincoln).

It wasn't until the Gettysbury Address was printed in full in northern newspapers that people understood the impact of his words. Everyone realized that Lincoln's brevity was a perfect fit for time. He couldn't have said anymore in 10,000 words than he said in 270 words. It may have turned election of 1864, for the first time Lincoln was seen as a man of vision.

If you want a fascinating read of Gettysburg, read "Killer Angels" by Michael Shaara. It's historical fiction, but is absolutely true to the events. It may be the best book I've ever read.

 

[Domina Nostra]

From my reading of history.... Lincoln's address was deemed a failure by those in attendence. Edward Everett spoke for over an hour (that's what the great orator's did at the time), Lincoln for 3 minutes. Newspaper accounts panned the speech (northern newspaper men hated Lincoln).

It wasn't until the Gettysbury Address was printed in full in northern newspapers that people understood the impact of his words. Everyone realized that Lincoln's brevity was a perfect fit for time. He couldn't have said anymore in 10,000 words than he said in 270 words. It may have turned election of 1864, for the first time Lincoln was seen as a man of vision.

If you want a fascinating read of Gettysburg, read "Killer Angels" by Michael Shaara. It's historical fiction, but is absolutely true to the events. It may be the best book I've ever read.

Agreed. Killer Angels is an amazing book.

It seems to me that if you get into the contemporary accounts. Mr. Lincoln's speech just didn't really make a huge impression one way or another. I don't think it even recieved coverage in most newspapers.

As far as the election, President Lincoln was running against a union general who half-heartedly opposed the war by wanting to end it quickly. Lincoln was coming off some military victories. Most people seem to think that those victories are what was really important, especially considering his opposition. It seems unlikely to me that people would have suddenly rallied to Lincoln's side in the middle of a protracted war because he became a visionary. I think that would be disconcerting, if anything, if you even took it at face value. The Emancipation Proclamation, for example, hardly seems visionary. Slaves were only freed in the confederate states. They were fighting to preserve the Union, and they wer hopeful that they could actually accomplish that under Lincoln's leadership.

I think the greater importance of the speech was actually that it became part of the official American narrative. In other words, future generations read American history through it, whether or not that was warranted. From what I have read, Mr. Lincoln set out to recast the war in larger, more visionary terms, and the address was part of that effort. Once again, it is unclear that any of the actual soldiers understood themselves as fighting for the things Lincoln was talkinga about. It is also unclear that the drafters of the Declaration of Independence, understood themselves as writing a manifesto on the equality of all men, including slaves.

Here is a good article. It also goes into a little about where the language like "four score and seven years ago" came from:

Gettysburg Gospel | The American Conservative

 

[Irish#1]

From my reading of history.... Lincoln's address was deemed a failure by those in attendence. Edward Everett spoke for over an hour (that's what the great orator's did at the time), Lincoln for 3 minutes. Newspaper accounts panned the speech (northern newspaper men hated Lincoln).

It wasn't until the Gettysbury Address was printed in full in northern newspapers that people understood the impact of his words. Everyone realized that Lincoln's brevity was a perfect fit for time. He couldn't have said anymore in 10,000 words than he said in 270 words. It may have turned election of 1864, for the first time Lincoln was seen as a man of vision.

If you want a fascinating read of Gettysburg, read "Killer Angels" by Michael Shaara. It's historical fiction, but is absolutely true to the events. It may be the best book I've ever read.

Read the trilogy "Gods and Generals, Killer Angels and The Last Full Measure". They ended up being a collaboration between father and son "Jeffery" after Michael died. All three are great and highly recommended.

As far as the South succeeding, there are some that say the right to own slaves wasn't the reason for the Civil War, but rather the right for each state to make those decisions was the basis and that slavery happened to be one of those issues.

I'm not a super Civil War buff, but I do find it to be the most fascinating time in our history and have read about a dozen books, mostly about General Lee and the South. I've visited Andersonville a couple of times (very sobering experience) and Gettysburg is on my list to visit. If Lee would have had the resources that the Union generals had, we'd all be singing Dixie right now. The man in my opinion was the greatest general in U.S. history.

 

[ACamp1900]

Read the trilogy "Gods and Generals, Killer Angels and The Last Full Measure". They ended up being a collaboration between father and son "Jeffery" after Michael died. All three are great and highly recommended.

As far as the South succeeding, there are some that say the right to own slaves wasn't the reason for the Civil War, but rather the right for each state to make those decisions was the basis and that slavery happened to be one of those issues.

I'm not a super Civil War buff, but I do find it to be the most fascinating time in our history and have read about a dozen books, mostly about General Lee and the South. I've visited Andersonville a couple of times (very sobering experience) and Gettysburg is on my list to visit. If Lee would have had the resources that the Union generals had, we'd all be singing Dixie right now. The man in my opinion was the greatest general in U.S. history.

Love Civil War stuff... just recently read the G&G triology... different, but highly enjoyable... really wish they had completed the film trilogoy... maybe one day.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

There is a place (souvenir shop) in Gettysburg that has a huge table of the battlefield and they play an audio recording of the timeliness of the battle with lights directed to highlight the region being talked about. It was a great way to see the whole battle explained and played out as you saw (without moving pieces) the battle develop innits entirety.

I saw it, or its predecessor in 1965, believe it or not!

 

[connor_in]

Took a trip to Gettysburg and Washington DC with my school for our 8th-grade class trip in 2003. We went somewhere that did this exact same thing, so I assume it was the same place (kind of stadium seating looking down at the table?). Very cool, and the trip made me appreciate history more than I thought I would. We did a haunted Gettysburg tour too that was pretty cool. I've wanted to go back ever since, just haven't gotten around to it.

I saw it, or its predecessor in 1965, believe it or not!

Yes, Lion, that sounds like the right place.

I believe the guy who runs the place said that it was originally a display at the official museum on the grounds, but they decided to get rid of it in a remodel and he was able to get ahold of it and set it up at his shop. So I am guessing the Bog-meister probably saw it at the official museum back in the (1965) day.

 

[Irish#1]

]I saw it, or its predecessor in 1965, believe it or not[/B]!

Oh, I believe you! lol

 

[palinurus]

Why was America's secession from Great Britain justified, but the Southern states secession from the Union was not, if the guiding principle is self-government?

Did the union soldiers think they were fighting to free all slaves and ensure their political equality? Was that the same thing as preserving the union? Would the citizens in the North have been willing to preserve the union with some slave states?

Would secession be justified if, say, Hawaii wanted to secede now? It has no history of slavery, and was originally land governed by an indigenous people. Why can't Hawaiian people decide that, whatever their ancestors may have thought, they wanted their independence? Why is membership in the union seen as the only way to ensure "republican" government? Why do certain generations get to enter into perpetually binding contracts which control the destiny of all future generations?

Good points, but the issue of the legitimacy of the secession has to do with what you are seceding from, doesn't it?

Seceding from, or more accurately, revolting against, the Crown in 1776 was appropriate; that government was "of the Crown, by the Crown, for the Crown" -- the people were subjects, not citizens.

As to the South/Confederacy, the issue comes down to why they wanted to split. Would South Carolinians suggest that the government they were leaving was no longer "of, by and for the people"? It might well have been a government on the path to repudiating the slavery that South Carolina wanted to maintain, or at least be able to maintain, but was it no longer of, by and for the people?

I think the Union still was, at that time. It expressed the will of the people as a whole in free elections, which is a necessary, but not sufficient, basis of legitimacy, and it didn't suppress the right of minority elements to speak or live freely, or encumber their personal or economic or religious liberty, except inasmuch as those minority elements sought use their freedom to enslave others. When the government unduly limits individual liberty, though, it ceases to be "of and by the people," though I guess the Crown or the dictator or the corporatist fascist can always argue he's acting "for the people."

Depending how you see democracy and the girth and reach of the federal government today and its effects, on that basis, I suppose one can argue that Americans today have a better moral right to secession than did the Confederate states, but that's a different subject for a different thread.

 

[Domina Nostra]

Good points, but the issue of the legitimacy of the secession has to do with what you are seceding from, doesn't it?

Seceding from, or more accurately, revolting against, the Crown in 1776 was appropriate; that government was "of the Crown, by the Crown, for the Crown" -- the people were subjects, not citizens.

As to the South/Confederacy, the issue comes down to why they wanted to split. Would South Carolinians suggest that the government they were leaving was no longer "of, by and for the people"? It might well have been a government on the path to repudiating the slavery that South Carolina wanted to maintain, or at least be able to maintain, but was it no longer of, by and for the people?

I think the Union still was, at that time. It expressed the will of the people as a whole in free elections, which is a necessary, but not sufficient, basis of legitimacy, and it didn't suppress the right of minority elements to speak or live freely, or encumber their personal or economic or religious liberty, except inasmuch as those minority elements sought use their freedom to enslave others. When the government unduly limits individual liberty, though, it ceases to be "of and by the people," though I guess the Crown or the dictator or the corporatist fascist can always argue he's acting "for the people."

Depending how you see democracy and the girth and reach of the federal government today and its effects, on that basis, I suppose one can argue that Americans today have a better moral right to secession than did the Confederate states, but that's a different subject for a different thread.

It's a very good point that no one has ever justified our revolution without a cause. It is an interesting thought that if all the same thing had happened, but we wre represented in Parliament, it would have been fine.

But deciding when a government crosses the line from being "appropriate" to surpassing its legitimate role (not just legitimate authority--there is a big difference) is the million dollar question, don't you think? Who get's to decide that? The people that feel they are not being unfairly treated, or the people in charge? Why? That's the big question, right?

Where is it written in stone that 51% of the people should get to rule over the other 49%, no matter what, for eternity, as long as they aren't egrigiously violating fundamental rights as they define them? I thought their was supposed to be some kind of social contract? How big a segment of the population do you have to be before that is unfair? If China, say, took over Korea it could permanently out-vote them-- is that fair? Why do people have to bind themselves to other people, in other places, with divergent interests for all time?

If you go back and look, King George was far, far, far from an absolute monarch-- Parliament and others had lots of Power--and GB was not some kind of tyranical overlord. Think about the Boston Masacre and the subsequent trial in which John Adams had to defend those British troops. It turned out that the troops had only opened fire because the mob had started throwing stones, all but two were aquitted and the other tow were guilty of manslaughter. But if you listened to Samuel Adams, the British soldiers were an arm of the tyranical King... If John Adams hadn't taken a big risk and stood up for them so skilfully, that might have ended up being one more bullet point on the Declaration of Independence. we all know that the taxes they were arguing about were small. We all know the colonists did some crazy stuff themselves, like tarring and feathering people. On closer inspection, the whole issue is a lot more complicated than it first appears.

The South thought it had a legitimate cause, though, and they would not have said it was just a matter of slavery; 75% of Southerners did not have slaves afterall (everyone agrees slavery is at the heart of the civil war, so don't think I am arguing that it is irrelevant). First off, slavery was expressly contemplated in the Constitution. It was part of the agreement that created the Union. That's a big deal. The South would not have entered on different terms. Second, the North and the South were drifting apart on all kinds of issues. One of which was tarrifs. The North wanted tarrifs to protect their goods from foreign competition, and to pay for infastructure projects. The fund for the tarrifs were seen as intended to help Northern industry. The South, however, was agrarian and sold unfinished goods, often to England. When the finished goods were ready, they had to by them from the North at inflated prices, because the tarrifs crushed foreign competition. That results in a long terms steady transfer of funds from the South to the North.

Moreover, the North was not united in trying to free slaves or in giving people from Africa equal staus under the law, and it was far from considering them equal socially. Lincoln thought they were inherently inferior and wanted to send them back to Africa. The war was fought to preserve the Union, plain and simple. That is one of the issues that makes the Gettysburg Address a little ahistorical.

 

[Green Mountains]

For many in the south, the war was all about State's rights. The Union was simply that, a union of equal States. The United States of America was not a strong federal government. It was an association of States.

Robert E Lee was offered the head of the Union army by Winfield Scott. He declined as he later stated, the hardest decision of his life. He loved the USA and his army. But he simply couldn't fight against "my Virginia" (his words). As a northern, I believe Lee is an absolute American hero. His cause wasn't about slavery. It was about his commitment to his country and to his State. Virginia won the battle for Lee's heart.

To this day, there are still many States rights issues in Congress and with the Supreme Court. Our Constitution is full of States rights vs. Federal rights issues. The founders weren't fully on the same page....Jefferson was all about States rights, while Adams believed in a stronger Federal government.

Domina stated above about absolute majority rule. That's not how our federal government works. That's the power of the electoral college when electing a President - other wise, California, Texas, and New York would elect every President. It's the reason that the House has delegates based upon population while the Senate has 2 delegates per state regardless of population. It's why Supreme Court Justices are appointed, not elected. As a Vermonter, I'm actually over-represented in congress (too bad none of our elected officials are on the same page as me).

Our founders thought of a lot of different issues which makes are representative democracy strong, but sometimes incredibly ineffective. The framers created a country which allowed us to survive a civil war. When people talk about how "bad" politics is today, I remind them that there was a time when Americans were killing one another in the name of their cause. It makes today seem a little less dire.

As a side note, Arlington National Cemetery was Lee family property before the war. It had been owned by George Washington Curtis, Mary Lee's father who was George Washington's step-grandson. It was simply taken by the US government after Lee left the Union to head the Army of Northern Virginia.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I wrote this in another thread;

So in North America cheap slaves were brought over to work for free for the economic advantage of a few. Then something happened. Economic supply and demand took over. The market forces from the economy that made kidnapping human beings and brutally forcing them into slavery as laborers, negated the effect of that process. Before the Civil War the cost of slave ownership increased dramatically. With no war, the system would have become obsolete anyway. Good thing that didn't happen, our only salvation may be that with this evil, we recognized the immorality before we lost the expediency and obsoleted the institution.

What made Abraham Lincoln a great man first was he recognized evil and stood up against it, even when it was against everything he ever learned growing up, and against strong popular sentiment at the time in both the North and the South. And he was such an early powerful force in its abolition.

Robert E. Lee? He was an efficient killing machine, he was good at what he knew, he was of most misguided moral direction. He was a killer angel. He was not a great man. Not to insult anyone. He picked an easy answer to a hard question. He never once publicly condemned slavery, but he privately despised it;

General Lee never sanctioned or condoned slavery. Upon inheriting slaves from his deceased father-in-law, Lee freed them. And according to historians, [Stonewall] Jackson enjoyed a familial relationship with those few slaves that were in his home. In addition, unlike Abraham Lincoln and U.S. Grant, there is no record of either Lee or Jackson ever speaking disparagingly of the black race.

My argument is then complete. Lincoln had to work to come to the moral position, then he gave everything, "every last measure . . ." to see the 13th amendment ratified less than three months before his death. Lee was in a moral position to come to this conclusion without half the effort and could have avoided rivers of blood shed on those battlefields.

Lee wrote that he did not expect necessarily at the outset to win a military victory as much as postpone a defeat. And he realized he would accomplish this through sacrificing great numbers of men (on both side) to this end. This is the second immorality of this man. In an offensive war, he had no intention of ending it in the least costly manner possible. In fact, he saw great carnage as his means to an appropriate end. It is no mistake that they made his back yard a cemetery for the war dead. Now I do think that Robert E. Lee was one of the greatest Military minds that graduated from West Point. And I think he was a wonderful leader for the Confederacy, and had I been a member of that army I would have been delighted and assured to have him in command. I just don't think he was a great man in the moral sense of an Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln, then showed the highest character, tenacity, and insistence at following this moral path. Did he attempt to frame the war as a battle over slavery? Yes. And if he hadn't, and hadn't taken overwhelming steps to end slavery when he did, this country would have lost any argument for moral superiority in that or any other time.

With just over 270 words, Lincoln framed the birth of this nation, gave it a superior moral purpose and then served to rally the country and set forth a path for the future.

As far as Federalism, States Rights, secessionism, and the whole rest of the political partisans, reading from the Declaration of Independence, through the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the founding fathers as delegates of colonies created one government in a blood oath a covenant (to cast their lot and live or die together) to create a country of ideals greater than ever before. To liken the relationship of the Eastern seabord of North America under Imperial Colonial English rule, to a grievance, (economically based with no justifiable moral or legal grounds for its continuation) is conflation that precludes intelligent discussion.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

...the founding fathers as delegates of colonies created one government in a blood oath a covenant (to cast their lot and live or die together) to create a country of ideals greater than ever before...

Easy there Vin Diesel.