Posted on 05/25/2008 11:08:45 PM PDT by ashok
Lincoln understands the Civil War to be the most significant war. The question is whether people can govern themselves or not, "whether any nation so conceived can long endure." Is any attempt at democracy doomed to failure, since majority/minority divergences mean one group may always be slighted to the point of war? You can see all throughout this speech Lincoln's refusal to talk about the Civil War in particular terms: there is no mention of Gettysburg, no mention of the number dead, no mention of the Confederacy or slavery or the battle itself or even the fact this is America. Something far more significant, encompassing all of mankind, transpired at Gettysburg.
Lincoln & Jefferson are agreed on the universal significance of the American enterprise, but there is divergence. This nation was "conceived in Liberty" & "dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." "Conceived" implies that maybe not all governments are conceived such, that maybe Jefferson's notion that all governments derive their right from the consent of the governed is false. "Dedicated to the proposition" again implies a defect in Jefferson's formulation. For Jefferson, that all men are created equal is a matter of knowledge. It is self-evident truth.
But a "proposition" is something that has to be proved true or false. It is not necessarily true. To be dedicated to a proposition is a matter of belief. To be an American is to believe all men are created equal, to work to make that a truth as best one can.
(Excerpt) Read more at inrethinking.blogspot.com ...
Welcome to Free Republic. We have a VERY long way to go to be anywhere near as bad as Daily Kos, DU, HuffingtonPost, or the like. The only main disagreement that I see right now is the argument over holding one’s nose to vote for John McCain or “standing on principle” by voting third party, write-in or abstaining. Sure, there are some religious disagreements, since we have Protestants, LDS, Catholics, Jews, atheists and others here, but that’s been ongoing since before we left the caves, and promises to continue forever...
Go away newbie. Take your lecture with you.
The Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg died to extinguish self government, not only for the people of the southern states but for the northern and western states as well. And the driving principle behind the American Revolution was not equality. It was liberty. The two are opposing political objectives.
Interesting article, but I think the author over-analyzes Lincoln’s words. The meaning of the middle part is not that only God can hallow ground, but that words and ceremony pale in comparison to the actions of those who fought. Remember, this was a short speech written on the back of an envelope. Lincoln was an elequoent man, but also staightforward. I doubt he was making the kind of esoteric points suggested by the author.
Of course Southerners considered it a fight over their right to self-governance. The thing is, both views were right.
You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. Marxists and Political Islam (Sharia law is the centrality) exclude all others from any legitimacy whatsoever, and eschew the American Union as illegitimate. Islam has been at war with the world perpetually since the 600s, and recently with the entire West, including, ultimately its Marxist elements. These entities are not American, nor can they be according to your comments regarding propositions and beliefs. Lincoln did not conceive of Marxism or Islamic contest, although he was aware of our early conflict with Islam from the beginning. Islam is micromanaged forced submission, slavery with no escape and close doctrirnal similarities with Western originated socialist ‘isms’ (and actual ties with Nazism during and after WWII). These are the only serious enemies of the civilizational miracle realized by the efforts of the American founders and later, Lincoln himself, and, they are at publicly declared war with us. Welcoming Sharia banking, other Sharia practice and Marxism into American culture is a big mistake, and can undo what was wrought so artfully in the past. I do not sense a strong Lincolnesque defense of the union, the American Union from either of our political parties. I hear free trade, globalism, irrelevance of nation-states, rumors of North American expandable Unions, redefinition of marriage, dissolution of property (Kelo)..etc. Where is a new Lincoln? Where is a Lincoln to defend the Union today? Lincoln would have protected the nation from Trojan horses. I think Lincoln would not welcome and treat with respect Marxism and Political Islam as the West is actually doing, while mildly objecting to the terrorist jihadist functions of Islam. We have not yet decided to really go to war against Islam even as it declares itself openly against the West.
The Gettysburg Address is a wonderful reaffirmation of the idea of America, and it welcomes all who can agree with what it means, represents. In the war we are in now, first a recognition and identification of the enemy must be clearly defined, and the Gettysburg address must be remembered and brought to the fore. Who will do it and protect the nation from those who would enslave it? It is forgotten and little taught that the Confederacy believed any skin color could be enslaved...the Union fought so white and yellow and red skinned peoples, themselves, would not be enslaved as most commonly, blacks were. Islamic slavery, still practiced today, although officially outlawed in Saudi Arabia, is the essence of Sharia law...and, it is quietly taught in the over 1200 mosques in the US, 900 of them Saudi funded....its slavery recognizes all skin colors as fair game also. Why do we welcome this? I do not think the founders and Lincoln would have welcomed Marxism and Islam. They are quite un-American and inconsistent with freedom.
Lincoln corresponded with Karl Marx and was at least willing to use Marxist rhetoric when it suited him. In defending his tariff he described transportation costs as "lost labor", a purely Marxist conception.
Marx wrote a column for the New York Tribune and defended Lincoln's war as a means to consolidate power into one central government, a step Marx saw as a necessary one on the road to socialism.
Karl Marx wrote one letter to Lincoln in 1865. Is there any evidence that Lincoln ever wrote to Karl Marx? The latter would also be necessary to constitute "corresponding".
BTW what state do you come from?
Goodbye.
Could you elaborate?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "
When someone writes, “to remind us all”, “to inspire reflection”, its a dead give away that they really don’t understand what they’re writing about at all.
Remind and inspire sounds good though. But considering the quality of the article a phrase you might want to practice is, “Crispy or extra crispy”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.