Of
Lincoln’s short address at Gettysburg in late 1863, the president’s
secretary John G. Nicolay said “it was revised [for later publication].”
Ward Lamon, intimate friend of Lincoln and his US Marshal for the
District of Columbia; Historian Shepherd of Baltimore; W.H. Cunningham
of the Montgomery (Missouri) Star, who all sat immediately behind
Lincoln at Gettysburg, agreed and publicly stated that the speech later
published was not the one delivered by Lincoln that day. In addition,
both Edward Everett and Seward expressed disappointment and there was no
applause for Lincoln. (See: Abraham Lincoln & Jefferson Davis: Two
Presidents, C.E. Gilbert & Tom Hudson, Naylor Company, 1973)
Bernhard Thuersam, www.Circa1865.org The Great American Political Divide
Silly Remarks and Stoney Silence at Gettysburg
“On
November 19, 1863, the State of Pennsylvania decided to dedicate the
cemetery at Gettysburg. They sent the President of the United States an
invitation which went out to many other dignitaries as a matter of
courtesy. Pennsylvania had already made arrangements for that
dedication.
The
address was to be delivered by the foremost orator of the day, Edward
Everett, President of Harvard, former Governor of Pennsylvania, and
former Ambassador to the Court of St. James. In his 70th
year Mr. Everett was a handsome man and a brilliant figure on the
platform. The authorities of Pennsylvania gave him two months in which
to prepare his address.
Meanwhile
the President . . . was looking at this printed circular and thought
that maybe he should go, even if only to sit and bow his head for the
men and boys from both sides who were buried there.
When
the President notified the committee that he would like to come, they
were upset. They knew that protocol demanded that the President speak at
such a function, and they were worried lest he spoil the effect of
Everett’s address. As politely as they knew how they notified the
President that Mr. Everett was to make the major address and that he
(the President) would be called upon to “say a few words.”
When
Everett was introduced, he bowed low to the President, then stood in
silence before a crowd of 15,000 people that stretched far out to the
limits of the cemetery field. Mr. Everett began low: “Overlooking these
broad fields now reposing from the labors of the waning year, the mighty
Alleghenies dimly towering before us, the graves of our brethren
beneath our feet . . .” He then gave an outline of the causes of the
Civil War, and described the terrible three-day battle at Gettysburg. He
spoke for one hour and 57 minutes, closing with a peroration from
Pericles: “The whole earth is a sepulcher of illustrious men.”
Then
came the President’s turn to speak. He fumbled for his steel-rimmed
glasses, put his high stove-pipe hat on the floor beside his chair, and
took out a wrinkled piece of paper . . .
On
the way back to Washington he said that his speech was a flat failure.
He had not expected to get the cheers that Everett had received, but he
certainly expected a little more than the stony silence that had greeted
his remarks.
The
next few days came the newspaper stories of the event. The Patriot, a
local paper at nearby Harrisburg said: “The President acted without
sense . . . so let us pass over his silly remarks.” “The cheek of every
American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly, flat utterances
of the President.”
The correspondent for the London Times wrote: “Anything more dull and commonplace it would not be easy to reproduce.”
(The
Press Panned Lincoln, But . . ., Harry Golden, Democratic Digest,
Clayton Fritchey, editor, Democratic National Committee, December 1953,
(reprinted from the Carolina Israelite, Charlotte, NC) excerpts pp.
28-29)
"But let us not forget that it is oratory, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it! Put it into the cold words of everyday! The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination — “that government of the people, by the people, for the people,” should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i. e., of the people of the States? The Confederates went into battle an absolutely free people; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and vote of the rest of the country—and for nearly twenty years that vote was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely any freedom at all. Am I the first American to note the fundamental nonsensicality of the Gettysburg address? If so, I plead my aesthetic joy in it in amelioration of the sacrilege."
ReplyDeleteH.L. Mencken, 1922
http://faithandheritage.com/2012/07/h-l-mencken-on-abraham-lincoln-and-the-gettysburg-address/
A favorite of mine and close to the top. Thanks.
DeleteHi Brock,
Delete"10-4!!!"
skybill
:)
DeleteYes Siree. Lincoln and various leaders around the world realize most common folks react positively to "inspirational rather than logical" rhetoric. That's a major lesson in the snake oil sales manual, politician's version.
ReplyDeleteThat's a major lesson in the snake oil sales manual, politician's version.
DeleteIndeed.
Fascinating how the reporting of events are bent to meet an agenda; today's propaganda outlets are the natural extension of a political war and the destruction of the responses to Lincoln's speech is a good example. Mencken has a mature and reasoned reaction to the WBTS but his and others' are scrubbed by the government re-education system.
ReplyDeletetoday's propaganda outlets are the natural extension of a political war and the destruction of the responses to Lincoln's speech is a good example.
DeleteAll falls in place.
And I should not fail to damn Julia Ward Howe's delusional glorification of oppression set to music.
ReplyDelete:) Don't remind me!
Delete