ABOUT
Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address was a two minute speech that managed to express the Founder’s objective, discuss the collapse of the Union, and establish the importance of putting it back to together again. The speech was Lincoln’s attempt to turn the soldiers who died at Gettysburg into martyrs for liberty and equality.
HISTORY
As the bodies piled higher, the outlook for the Union looked dimmer. Until Gettysburg, the Union army was steadily losing ground, and troops, to the better-organized Confederate Army. The Union victory at Gettysburg, the deadliest battle of the Civil War, turned the Confederate Army on its heels, and triggered the beginning of the decline of the Confederacy.
MY ANALYSIS
The Battle of Gettysburg was a critical crossroad of the Civil War. As is taught in most American history courses, the battle was the military “turning point” of the Civil War. Gettysburg, however, was more than two armies arbitrarily clashing in a Pennsylvania field; it was a battle of ideology, of freedom versus slavery; a battle of states rights versus federal power; and a battle “of the people, by the people, for the people.”
If the battle itself was the physical manifestation of the ideological crisis, then Lincoln’s speech was the manifesto of the Northern side. Troops no longer were sacrificing their lives simply for the preservation of The Union, but in the name of a philosophical and moral cause: “a new birth of freedom.” The speech tells a lot about Lincoln, and even more about the ideas that guided him as a political leader.
Lincoln first looks to the Founders for guidance; the union was not even 100 years old by the Civil War, and the Founders were still fresh. Lincoln called upon the Declaration of Independence for the principles of the founding: “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.” Based on the founding documents, Lincoln is correct. The statement is ambiguous, but being a student of the founders, Lincoln almost certainly still believed in negative liberties, natural rights and Lockean equality, as discussed in my analysis of the Declaration.
The second paragraph then concisely states the crisis: “Now we are in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.” For Lincoln, this war was the most important test for freedom and equality through government. The fruit of the Enlightenment was being challenged, and the battle was ensuing. America, to Lincoln, was not only democracy’s best hope, but also its only hope.
This hope, the preservation of all the great ideals of Western Civilization, was what the Civil War was about. It was an effort to ensure that “these dead shall not have died in vain,” that “this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that the government of the people, for the people and by the people, shall not perish from the earth.” The Civil War was the defining point of American political thought; it marked the point when the United States had to determine whether it would practice what it preached, that “all men are created equal.” In a two-minute address, Lincoln changed the entire nature of the Civil War from sectional tension to an ideological crisis. A speech this important deserves to be etched in marble at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C.
“Ideas have consequences,” says Richard M. Weaver. Certainly they do, and the evil doctrine of slavery would ultimately lose to the greater causes of justice and liberty. The assaults on liberty and limited government are not exclusive to the slavery issue. For Tocqueville, the greatest threat would come in the form of regulatory bodies and an administrative state (not dissimilar to modern progressivism). For progressives, liberty would be threatened by tradition and corporate tyranny. Reagan, in a step similar to Lincoln, asserted that the cold war (and the underlying ideological battle between Communism and self-government) was a moral struggle, and that the Soviet Union was an “Evil Empire.” Among these threats, another is apparent: Islamic-extremism. Whatever is the threat, we must hope that the threats will fall to the greater causes of justice and liberty. As we remember those who sacrificed their lives in the name of liberty and justice, we must remember to continue the legacy and ensure that “these dead have not died in vain.”
For Tomorrow read Wealth by Andrew Carnegie.
“War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war is much worse.”
— John Stuart Mill
1. Sure there are moral ideas behind the document. I never disagreed with that. It was moral reasons why the soldiers fought (and the draft, and the pay). However, just because there is moral ideaology mirrored in the speech doesn’t mean that that’s the point of the speech. It wasn’t. That is my point.
2. Gettysburg wasn’t a moral or a policy speech. It was merely a speech explaining what the bloodbath of the battle was and how we could honor the dead being buried in the cemetrery. In reality it was a funeral eulogy.
3. As I understand what you’re writing, you pretty much concede that I’m right. I didn’t concede anything about the Union losing, I was the one who brought it up!
4. I’m not disagreeing with his intent of choosing this speech. I am merely saying that there are better documents out there, which you also concede.
Sophia,
You mistake what I am arguing. I am saying that Charlie is overemphasizing the idea that the Gettysburg Address was anything other than an attempt to bring meaning to a bloody conflict. Lincoln, in his address, was trying to emphasize why these men gave their lives, which was to preserve a union that is fighting for preservation of the idealogy set forth in 1776, and that the way that we can really honor them is by giving increased devotion to the cause, aka the war.
Lincoln’s policy and moral ideas were set forth in the Emancipation Proclamation. His Gettysburg Address is really more of a pep talk. It is trying to honor the fallen at the bloodiest battle in U.S. history by explaining why these men gave their lives, and convincing those present that the best way to honor them is not the ceremony they are at now, but to rededicate themselves to the defeat of the rebelling south.
I get what you are saying, but I think you are mistaking what I am argueing. I believe you have merits, but in the end I think you are placing to much emphasis on the role the Address plays in its real purpose Lincoln intended it to be.
If that was his morality then why didn’t it apply to the northern states?
The emancipation only freed the slaves in the south…
Morality should be universal, the natural rights/founding/gettysburg address was universal.
No, the Emancipation proclamation only freed the slaves in the rebelling southern states. It did not free the slaves in the border states that remained loyal to the union. The northern states had been slave free to this point since early after the founding.
The Gettysburg Address says exactly this:
“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.”
Lincoln is emphasizing that what we need to do is retake an increased devotion to the cause at hand, preserving a union that lives up to Jefferson’s words. He says things relating to the morals of the war on the northern side, but what I am arguing is that his speech was primarily supposed to act as a motivator/enlightenment to the blood soaked fields of Gettysburg. It wasn’t intended as a universal speech of morality.
Do you think Reagan’s Evil Empire speech was moral or political in nature?
1. It was a dedication speech for a cemetery. Lincoln was trying to give meaning to the bloodbath that was the battle, and the speech was given over a year after the emancipation so it couldn’t have been a background to it!
RESPONSE: Lincoln expressed the moral argument after the emancipation (not a moral document) but before the amendments (all moral documents). Also, if there was a moral foundation to the emancipation, it rested in the principles professed in the declaration.
Touche, your point on chronology is good, but i think the moral ideas of Gettysburg were there before it was actually spoken. Just like John Locke was there before the Declaration.
2. They are both important, I will give you that. Gettysburg did not free slaves in the border states. The constitutional amendments in the post war period did. So it really was not a universal document on moral rights.
RESPONSE: Gettysburg was never intended to be a policy speech, only a moral speech.
3. Wrong. The Emancipation, as I have already said, had no effect on morale. We’ve been over this. It did increase recruiting, but it did nothing to morale. The union was losing the war. It was actually a laughed at gesture by Lincoln at the time.
RESPONSE: The union was losing and needed more troops (you conceded that) and need a morale boost (which it failed to do). The Gettysburg Address was also laughed at by Lincoln’s contemporaries, it was 2 minutes long!
4. Both are important, but like I’ve already said, there are better documents on the Civil War than either.
RESPONSE: yes, but people are too lazy to read these documents (no one actually read Bastiat… they don’t care enough!). The Gettysburg address is 3 half-baked paragraphs. Couger probably thought it was more likely for people to actually read it that way.
Yes, so what?
The Emancipation boosted morale also. And it was a political/wartime move to increase sedition in the south and encourage the black/anti-slavery troops in the union army.
Both measures were pep talks. Thats all well and good, but the philosophical substance was in the Gettysburg Address. That is why it is a better choice for the 15 Things You Must Read Before You Vote section.
No, the emancipation didn’t boost morale so much as it boosted recruitment numbers of abolitionists in the Union army. It had no real role on morale because at that point the union was still losing the war. It had no real way to actually emancipate the slaves in a physical way, hence no morale boost. It was a political move to increase recruitment numbers, not a pep talk. If anything, it was probably laughed at by most people.
I agree there is philisophical talk within the Address, but you still aren’t getting my meaning! I am disagreeing with Charlie’s analysis. That’s all! You continue to misunderstand me. I am merely stating that Charlie misplaces its purpose, not its eventual achievment in history. Do you understand me or not? Its an important thing to read, but eventually there are better things to read before you vote than either document.
Let’s sum this up:
1. The Gettysburg Address is a moral document. It is the backround for the Emancipation Proclamation, the policy corollary
2. Both documents are important:
Emancipation freed slaves in the south, therefore is not moral because it is not universal
Gettysburg was universal, and is therefore the moral apotheosis of lincoln.
3. Both boosted support and morale, and both were motivators for the north
4. Both documents would be good on the list, only with 15 spots he didn’t include both.
Wrong.
1. It was a dedication speech for a cemetery. Lincoln was trying to give meaning to the bloodbath that was the battle, and the speech was given over a year after the emancipation so it couldn’t have been a background to it!
2. They are both important, I will give you that. Gettysburg did not free slaves in the border states. The constitutional amendments in the post war period did. So it really was not a universal document on moral rights.
3. Wrong. The Emancipation, as I have already said, had no effect on morale. We’ve been over this. It did increase recruiting, but it did nothing to morale. The union was losing the war. It was actually a laughed at gesture by Lincoln at the time.
4. Both are important, but like I’ve already said, there are better documents on the Civil War than either.
Kevin,
Not a bad response, but I agree with both you and Charlie. I don’t think that your responses are mutually exclusive.
Charlie outlines the moral basis, you outline the slavery (policy) basis. Charlie is right because Lincoln does establish the war as a moral/ideological war.You are correct in asserting that the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves, but that was a policy implication because of the moral imperative.
Because of the ideas behind the Gettysburg Address, the Emancipation Proclamation Gettysburg happened. Also important is that the E.P. was a political/war move, the real fruits of came with the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments.
My mistake in spelling, I meant “Antietam.”
While I enjoy your analysis of the speech I will disagree with your conclusion. The Emancipation Proclomation was the idealogical turning point in the war in which the aim of the union was not merely preservation of a federal system, but also that of ending slavery, at least in the rebelling south.
Lincoln’s address was merely an attempt at invigorating a war tired antion. At this point, Gettysburg was the bloodiest battle in U.S. history. At the same time the Army of the Cumberland was in a seige surrounded by the Confederate army facing annialation after the disasterous loss at Chickimagua.
Lincoln’s sppech was more of an attempt to first define what the nation was, then to remind why these men died, which was to defend these beliefs outlined in the first paragraph. Then he ends it with the goal of pointing out how we can honor the dead. You overemphasize it as an attempt at pointing out slavery. Lincoln’s speech was really an attempt to give meaning to the seemingly pointless bloodshed made at Gettysburg.
So I think you mistake his Address for the meaning of the Emancipation Proclomation in the wake of Anteitam.