Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

History Question
11/25/07 | Bear_Slayer

Posted on 11/25/2007 5:05:15 PM PST by Bear_Slayer

I am researching the phrase

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.

that was used by Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address

Specifically the part "of the people, by the people, for the people."

Is this phrase used anywhere in our constitution or DOI?


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: gettysburg
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 next last

1 posted on 11/25/2007 5:05:15 PM PST by Bear_Slayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Bear_Slayer

To my knowledge, no. But then again, you might want to check my knowledge.


2 posted on 11/25/2007 5:08:31 PM PST by ShadowDancer ("To succeed in life, you need three things: a wishbone, a backbone and a funny bone.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bear_Slayer

Nope. This was Lincoln’s own rhetorical genius. The parallelism of prepositional phrases really emphasizes the stake the American population has in its government.


3 posted on 11/25/2007 5:09:57 PM PST by glennshepard (Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bear_Slayer

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22and+that+government+of+the+people%2C+by+the+people%2C+for+the+people%22&btnG=Google+Search


4 posted on 11/25/2007 5:10:08 PM PST by Jet Jaguar (Who would the terrorists vote for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bear_Slayer
I don't think so. Check out This Link

Will follow the thread.

5 posted on 11/25/2007 5:11:16 PM PST by ImpBill ("America ... Where are you now?" --Greg Adams--Brownsville, TX --On the other Front Line)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bear_Slayer
John Wycliffe, the man who first translated the Bible into English (from Latin to English) said the following: "This Bible is for the government of the people, by the people and for the people.” Source: http://thinkexist.com/quotes/john_wycliffe/
6 posted on 11/25/2007 5:12:43 PM PST by freedom4me (Republicans say government doesn't work. Then they get elected and prove it. --PJ O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maverickusna2009

The idea though is definitely found in our founding documents though? We have a particapatory government at all levels.


7 posted on 11/25/2007 5:13:40 PM PST by Bear_Slayer (When liberty is outlawed only outlaws will have liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Bear_Slayer

Apparently it was just a bunch of meaningless drivel to Lincoln, considering the fact that he was denying a segment of people from exercising their freedom.


8 posted on 11/25/2007 5:14:02 PM PST by Lee'sGhost (Crom! Non-Sequitur = Pee Wee Herman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bear_Slayer

The principle is there but the words are far later in coming.


9 posted on 11/25/2007 5:14:37 PM PST by ShadowDancer ("To succeed in life, you need three things: a wishbone, a backbone and a funny bone.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Bear_Slayer

‘For example, who said “government of the people, by the people, for the people”? Lincoln, right? Well, yes, but Theodore Parker had also said before Lincoln that the “great political idea of America” is “a government of all, for all, and by all.” At the end of the first volume of his Parker biography, Dean Grodzins thus credits Parker with coining the phrase that was immortalized in the Gettysburg Address. But a Hungarian historian I read recently, Steven Bela Vardy, credits Lajos Kossuth, the great Hungarian revolutionary, as Lincoln’s inspiration. In 1852, while touring the United States, Kossuth said democracy was “All for the people, and all by the people. Nothing about the people, without the people,” a construction that Vardy says was “borrowed in a slightly altered form by President Lincoln.” It’s not impossible: Lincoln was a fervent admirer of Kossuth during his tour, as was Parker. But how could such a question really be settled? And how would we set the bounds for the questioning? (Who first started referring to “the people” with a definite article? And how far back in the Western canon can we trace the habit of stringing the prepositions “for,” “by,” and “of” together?) Wouldn’t answering these questions be like trying to figure out who first “said” the blues? ‘

http://modeforcaleb.blogspot.com/2004/11/plagiarism-article.html


10 posted on 11/25/2007 5:18:18 PM PST by BGHater (Lead. The MSG for the 21st Century.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost
The freedom to secede so that they could maintain a system in which they denied some people freedom? There's something recursive about this.

I'm grateful for the Wycliffe discovery, myself, but since I'm Catholic I suppose I should now make some pejorative remark about Wycliffe?

11 posted on 11/25/2007 5:18:32 PM PST by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Bear_Slayer

http://books.google.com/books?id=d6JZryGvfxYC&pg=PA83&lpg=PA83&dq=%22of+the+people+by+the+people+for+the+people%22&source=web&ots=-FNN65gz1R&sig=evH4KMwJcAvsLeizG04CeXkC-b4

Exerpt:

According to a biographer, in the late eighteenth century, playwright-politician Richard Sheridan (1751-1816) belonged to a London group called the Westminster Association for Reform, whose slogan was “Government for the people, through the people, by the people.” In 1794 an English book on America by one Thomas Cooper included this observation about it’s political system: “The government is the government of the people, and for the people.” Variations on this theme were common in nineteenth-century America. Thirty-three years before Abraham Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address, Daniel Webster spoke of “people’s government, made for the people, made by the people and answerable to the people.”


12 posted on 11/25/2007 5:20:58 PM PST by snippy_about_it (Fall in --> The FReeper Foxhole. America's History. America's Soul. WWPD (what would Patton do))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

” . . so that they could maintain a system in which they denied some people freedom?”

Well, sort of. Slavery was the system that the U.S maintained before, during and for awhile, after the WBTS. But if the goal for the South had been to simple maintain that system for themselves they would have simply remained in the Union.


13 posted on 11/25/2007 5:22:07 PM PST by Lee'sGhost (Crom! Non-Sequitur = Pee Wee Herman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost

No, actually, without expansion of slavery into new states, slavery would have been extinguished politically. This is why a Republican President was unacceptable to the South.


14 posted on 11/25/2007 5:27:30 PM PST by dinoparty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: dinoparty

You’ll have to show me a reference on that.


15 posted on 11/25/2007 5:29:16 PM PST by Lee'sGhost (Crom! Non-Sequitur = Pee Wee Herman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost
Apparently it was just a bunch of meaningless drivel to Lincoln, considering the fact that he was denying a segment of people from exercising their freedom.

And that segment you're talking about rebelled in order to ensure that one-third of their population couldn't exercise any freedom at all. So talk about the pot calling the kettle 'grimy arse'.

16 posted on 11/25/2007 5:35:13 PM PST by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost
But if the goal for the South had been to simple maintain that system for themselves they would have simply remained in the Union.

Ah, but they couldn't protect slave imports or guarantee that slavery was expanded to the territories or that no state could outlaw slavery like the confederate constitution did. So it was half a loaf under the real Constitution or the whole loaf under the confederate one. Why is it surprising they chose rebellion?

17 posted on 11/25/2007 5:37:21 PM PST by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

So, according to your statement, we must conclude there were no slaves in the north and slavery would have been brought to an end by Lincoln had there been no secession. Damn. I missed that in my history classes.


18 posted on 11/25/2007 5:39:06 PM PST by Lee'sGhost (Crom! Non-Sequitur = Pee Wee Herman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

There is nothing to say that they would not have been able to keep the whole loaf they already possessed. And there was no reason for them to believe that they could not take their marbles and go home.

And, of course, they did not choose rebellion. They chose secession. But you knew that already.


19 posted on 11/25/2007 5:43:54 PM PST by Lee'sGhost (Crom! Non-Sequitur = Pee Wee Herman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost
You’ll have to show me a reference on that.

Try reading the declarations of the causes of secession or the speeches of the secession commissioners. Link

20 posted on 11/25/2007 5:44:26 PM PST by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

LOL! How about going to this link and seeing where no such thing was going to happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search


21 posted on 11/25/2007 5:47:07 PM PST by Lee'sGhost (Crom! Non-Sequitur = Pee Wee Herman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost
So, according to your statement, we must conclude there were no slaves in the north and slavery would have been brought to an end by Lincoln had there been no secession. Damn. I missed that in my history classes.

I can't speak for what you did or did not pay attention to in your history classes, and your conclusion that there were no slaves in the North is about as accurate are the rest of your posts tend to be. But you did criticize Lincoln claiming that he was denying a segment of the population their 'freedom', did you not? So I'd say that it's the height hypocrisy on your part to criticize Lincoln for his alleged denial of freedom of a people who were dead set to ensure one-third of their population never saw any freedom themselves.

22 posted on 11/25/2007 5:48:42 PM PST by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

And I’m simply saying that if it is indeed hypocritical, then we have to conclude that Lincoln share that hypocrisy. Slavery existed in the north. Lincoln did nothing to do away with that slavery. A fact of history that makes all of your babbling just that — babble.


23 posted on 11/25/2007 5:51:53 PM PST by Lee'sGhost (Crom! Non-Sequitur = Pee Wee Herman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost
There is nothing to say that they would not have been able to keep the whole loaf they already possessed.

There was a whole political party out to whittle away at that loaf, and they had just won the White House. The Republicans were opposed to the expansion of slavery into the territories, and would no doubt have challenged the Dred Scott decision on that part of the ruling as soon as they possibly could have . The Republicans would have done their best to end slavery in the territories, allowed states to grant run-away slaves basic legal protections, and no doubt would have tried to end slavery in D.C. All actions that the slave-holding states were bitterly opposed to.

And there was no reason for them to believe that they could not take their marbles and go home.

And they might have done just that had they not turned to armed rebellion to further their cause.

And, of course, they did not choose rebellion. They chose secession. But you knew that already.

As it turns out the path that they chose for secession was illegal. But you knew that already, too.

24 posted on 11/25/2007 5:54:44 PM PST by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

“There was a whole political party out to whittle away at that loaf, and they had just won the White House.”

Of course, Lincoln said there were no such intentions, so I guess you are making him out to be a liar, too. And you’re on HIS side.

Thanks for playing. But once again you have sunk into round robin babble. Go ahead and have the baby last word. If it’s anything more relevant than nanananabooboo I’ll be shocked.


25 posted on 11/25/2007 5:59:07 PM PST by Lee'sGhost (Crom! Non-Sequitur = Pee Wee Herman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost
And I’m simply saying that if it is indeed hypocritical, then we have to conclude that Lincoln share that hypocrisy.

The quote in question that started this thread was accurate, we did enjoy a government of, by, and for the people as the Taney court defined them. One of Lincoln's goals was to expand that base of people to those that Taney said could never be citizens. And your claim that Lincoln was out to deny any segment their freedoms was inaccurate to begin with.

Slavery existed in the north. Lincoln did nothing to do away with that slavery.

No, just pushed for passage and ratification of the 13th Amendment.

A fact of history that makes all of your babbling just that — babble.

Your version of history perhaps, which often bears little resemblance to actual history.

26 posted on 11/25/2007 6:00:00 PM PST by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost
Of course, Lincoln said there were no such intentions, so I guess you are making him out to be a liar, too. And you’re on HIS side.

You really need to read up on the subject some time. What Lincoln said in his first inaugural was, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." He said nothing about the territories. If there is a liar in this discussion it isn't Lincoln and it sure isn't me.

Thanks for playing. But once again you have sunk into round robin babble. Go ahead and have the baby last word. If it’s anything more relevant than nanananabooboo I’ll be shocked.

And if you were ever to post anything relevant to begin with I'd be shocked.

27 posted on 11/25/2007 6:05:44 PM PST by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost
Re the extinction of slavery w/o expansion, you might have a look at the speeches Robert Toombs and others made in support of disunion during the period of secession deliberations. Toombs crossed swords with ex-Whig Alexander Stephens during the Georgia secession debates -- you might look at both their comments for references to the fear that Lincoln and the Republicans planned to multiply the number of pro-Abolitionist States of the Union, in order to corner the South and abolish slavery by constitutional amendment, or through other political devices.

In support of such apprehensions, see Lincoln's initiative that thrust statehood on Nevada, and his conniving at the (unconstitutional) partition of Virginia.

28 posted on 11/25/2007 6:08:53 PM PST by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: freedom4me

Latin into English? Not Greek and Hebrew? I know there was a Latin Vulgate Bible, but did Wycliffe take a shortcut?


29 posted on 11/25/2007 6:12:37 PM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (NYT Headline: Protocols of the Learned Elders of CBS: Fake but Accurate, Experts Say)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; Lee'sGhost

LOL. That was good.


30 posted on 11/25/2007 6:14:26 PM PST by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

You really need to keep up. My point was about the states, not the territories.


31 posted on 11/25/2007 6:22:36 PM PST by Lee'sGhost (Crom! Non-Sequitur = Pee Wee Herman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Age of Reason

Yeah. Except for my post #23 blowing it out of the water.


32 posted on 11/25/2007 6:25:05 PM PST by Lee'sGhost (Crom! Non-Sequitur = Pee Wee Herman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost
You really need to keep up. My point was about the states, not the territories.

You had a point?

33 posted on 11/25/2007 6:25:19 PM PST by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
In support of such apprehensions, see Lincoln's initiative that thrust statehood on Nevada...

Please elaborate on how Lincoln 'thrust statehood' on Nevada. This should be good.

34 posted on 11/25/2007 6:28:03 PM PST by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

LOL. Sorry. I can’t post in Crayola.


35 posted on 11/25/2007 6:28:57 PM PST by Lee'sGhost (Crom! Non-Sequitur = Pee Wee Herman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost
Yeah. Except for my post #23 blowing it out of the water.

ROTFLMAO!!! Still a legend in your own mind, I see.

36 posted on 11/25/2007 6:28:59 PM PST by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost
LOL. Sorry. I can’t post in Crayola.

So...we're supposed to cut you some slack because you're operating under a handicap? Even operating in an unfamiliar medium you should try and make some sense.

37 posted on 11/25/2007 6:30:56 PM PST by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Ahhh . . great come back. And thus the origin of my tag line.


38 posted on 11/25/2007 6:32:24 PM PST by Lee'sGhost (Crom! Non-Sequitur = Pee Wee Herman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost
Ahhh . . great come back. And thus the origin of my tag line.

You're one of the few people I know of proud to be a PeeWee Herman fanatic. No accounting for taste, I guess. Perhaps someday you'll turn to more mature sources.

39 posted on 11/25/2007 6:34:16 PM PST by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

You’re the Pee Wee fanatic. You’re the one who insisted I use that cut line. Thanks, by the way. You know yourself much better than I do.


40 posted on 11/25/2007 6:38:20 PM PST by Lee'sGhost (Crom! Non-Sequitur = Pee Wee Herman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost
You’re the Pee Wee fanatic. You’re the one who insisted I use that cut line.

It is true. You do make shit up as you go along.

41 posted on 11/25/2007 6:40:02 PM PST by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

I can’t tell you why he did this. He is called the Morningstar of the Reformation—the first glimmer of light. Once he put the Bible into the hands of the people, England was never the same. It was William Tyndale who later translated the Bible from the original languages.


42 posted on 11/25/2007 6:40:47 PM PST by freedom4me (Republicans say government doesn't work. Then they get elected and prove it. --PJ O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

If that was true that would mean I made you up.


43 posted on 11/25/2007 6:40:51 PM PST by Lee'sGhost (Crom! Non-Sequitur = Pee Wee Herman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost
If that was true that would mean I made you up.

So you're suggesting I'm your imaginary friend?

44 posted on 11/25/2007 6:43:38 PM PST by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

No, I’m applying your logic. If I made up “shit” that means I made you up. Your words, not mine.

Better put some ice on that.


45 posted on 11/25/2007 6:45:20 PM PST by Lee'sGhost (Crom! Non-Sequitur = Pee Wee Herman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Bear_Slayer

President Lincoln, a Republican, coined the phrase “ government of the people, by the people, for the people”. The modern democRat party prefers the phrase “the people of the government, by the government, and for the governement”.


46 posted on 11/25/2007 6:47:30 PM PST by gitmo (From now on, ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost

Actually it was Lincoln’s contention that it was the intent of the founding fathers that slavery was to be put on the path to eventual extinction. Lincoln wanted to get back to that notion by prohibiting the expansion of slavery into the territories and limiting the institution to where it already existed.
In the 1850’s The South began aggitating for the renewal of International Slave trade( something that had been prohibited since the early 1800’s) and for territorial expansion south which would be more accomodating economically for slavery. There was an ongoing debate and plan for the acquisiton of Cuba, for example.

My source for the above comes from a multi-volume series entititled “Ordeal of the Union” by Allan Nevins.


47 posted on 11/25/2007 6:53:04 PM PST by PaulZe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: freedom4me

“Everyone” who was educated in Europe at that time knew Latin and Greek, not so much Hebrew. Wycliffe probably knew written Latin as well as he did written English. Actually, he probably saw more written Latin than English.


48 posted on 11/25/2007 7:46:18 PM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (NYT Headline: Protocols of the Learned Elders of CBS: Fake but Accurate, Experts Say)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
...since I'm Catholic I suppose I should now make some pejorative remark about Wycliffe?
Ha, ha. Well, for sure, FEW Americans ever thought that a Catholic could ever BE an American until recently! Most Catholics were hated by true Americans all the way until the 1960s! It was thought your allegiance could never be to the country because your Pope ruled all.
49 posted on 11/25/2007 8:10:38 PM PST by Mobile Vulgus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mobile Vulgus
Yeah, I guess electing JFK, the shining exemplar of my religion (The role of Mother Theresa to be played by Marilyn Monroe or other doxy to be named later), to the presidency kind of shifted the "true American" spectrum some .... And then, I'm a convert, though I'm not quite sure how the figgers into the question. "From Klansman to Papist"! Hmm maybe a book deal? An appearance on the Toady, I mean Today, Show? The View? On second thought, forget it.

You get that my post was about the silliness (IMHO) of using everything that might be a reference to Lincoln as an excuse to re-fight the Woah buhtween the States?

50 posted on 11/26/2007 3:46:48 AM PST by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson