Skip to comments.History Question
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?
To my knowledge, no. But then again, you might want to check my knowledge.
Nope. This was Lincoln’s own rhetorical genius. The parallelism of prepositional phrases really emphasizes the stake the American population has in its government.
Will follow the thread.
The idea though is definitely found in our founding documents though? We have a particapatory government at all levels.
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.
The principle is there but the words are far later in coming.
‘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? ‘
I'm grateful for the Wycliffe discovery, myself, but since I'm Catholic I suppose I should now make some pejorative remark about Wycliffe?
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.”
” . . 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.
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.
You’ll have to show me a reference on that.
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'.
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?
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.
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.
Try reading the declarations of the causes of secession or the speeches of the secession commissioners. Link
LOL! How about going to this link and seeing where no such thing was going to happen.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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 its anything more relevant than nanananabooboo Ill be shocked.
And if you were ever to post anything relevant to begin with I'd be shocked.
In support of such apprehensions, see Lincoln's initiative that thrust statehood on Nevada, and his conniving at the (unconstitutional) partition of Virginia.
Latin into English? Not Greek and Hebrew? I know there was a Latin Vulgate Bible, but did Wycliffe take a shortcut?
LOL. That was good.
You really need to keep up. My point was about the states, not the territories.
Yeah. Except for my post #23 blowing it out of the water.
You had a point?
Please elaborate on how Lincoln 'thrust statehood' on Nevada. This should be good.
LOL. Sorry. I can’t post in Crayola.
ROTFLMAO!!! Still a legend in your own mind, I see.
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.
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.
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.
It is true. You do make shit up as you go along.
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.
If that was true that would mean I made you up.
So you're suggesting I'm your imaginary friend?
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.
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”.
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.
“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.
...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.
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?