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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The emancipation only freed the slaves in the south…

Morality should be universal, the natural rights/founding/gettysburg address was universal.