The Meaning of the Gettysburg Address

[LincolnMan]

I just started reading This Mighty Scourge by our Forum's own Dr. McPherson-so maybe I'm premature in talking about it-but the very first chapter deals with this subject-why the Civil War happened-what it was primarily about. So far, it is outstanding.

[Claudine]

For me, McPhersons "Battle Cry of Freedom" is the standard work as an introduction to the topic. Maddie, I highly recommend it. Mr. McPherson gives an extensive description and profound analyses of why decades of negotiation did not work out, why war became inevitable.

[MaddieM]

(08-26-2012 08:26 AM)Gene C Wrote:  Idealogies cost thousands of people their lives, but what is the cost if we have no ideals?

If you have ever read the book of Judges, you read of a period of chaos and turmoil. The reason for this is summed up in the last passage of the book 21:25, "In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit." The book tells what happens to a people when they loose direction, purpose, ideals, and reject the source of their moral direction (God).

Yes, but I feel personally that such ideals should not come at so great a cost in lives. The pushing of one person's ideals can be the subjugation of another. History has shown us this. What one holds dear, another experiences as something completely different. Surely the common ideal is life and love and do as you would be done by. Sadly, our world is far from ideal and never will be until we become more spiritual within ourselves as individuals, not as a collective dictated to by dogma.

Just my thoughts.

[Craig Hipkins]

(08-26-2012 10:27 AM)william l. richter Wrote:  The American Civil War was fought to promote Union, Freedom, and Equality. At least that is what one learns in public schools, and even colleges and universities. But that is only partially true. What the war really was all about was raw political power--about which white people would rule the United States. It was the successful attempt to take the political imperium from the Southern agrarian, slaveholding aristocracy that governed this nation until the most terrible of all American wars, and transfer it to the industrial, shipping magnates of the North, who have run it since. Which is one reason the war produced a reborn Union, but only a technical Freedom, and little Equality, legacies that haunt the United States even today.

William, You make some real good points. I don't believe that I ever thought about it in that way before. The north had lost it's own Agrarian rebellion back in 1787 during the now forgotten Shay's Rebellion. I believe that the seeds of the southern struggle for independence arose from this. I guess one could even argue that the idealogy of the American Revolution (at least to the small subsistence farmer of the day) was destroyed forever after this failed challenge to the government.

Craig

[Thomas Thorne]

You guys are too beardian-Charles Beard-for me. I don't think regular people in 1861 were conscious that this was a struggle between old agrarian and new industrial elites. If they thought so,recruiting offices would have been empty.

South and North both shared the same idea that Blacks were inferior and needed to be in a subordinate condition. The South could not imagine how that subordination could be maintained without slavery. The peaceful alternative of miscegenation was mixed with the awful specter of race war,slave insurrection and John Browns.

The Beardian thesis would be more plausible if the Northern reaction to Ft Sumter had been good riddance. People could have reasoned that without the South they could get all the economic goodies blocked by the South:homesteads,railroads,tariffs and land grant colleges.

But the northern reaction to Sumter was not cool and calculating. It was hot and expressed a fear very different than the fear expressed by their Southern brethren. Northerners had taken the Union for granted and did not realize its value until faced by the threat of its dissolution. In their hearts they contemplated that once the genie of secession was out of the bottle there would be no end to the process and the United States would wind up like the European state system with its eternal conflicts and despotisms.
Tom

[Bill Richter]

Tom, et al.

I think that calling my statement Beardian is too limiting. The North and South did know that this was a political power struggle.

The South had been in charge of the US Government from the beginning when President Washington and Sec of St Jefferson apportioned the numbers of representatives in the House of Reps giving the South two extra because of rounding off the figures in 1789. The appointments of all presidents except for the two Adamses favored people living in the DC MD and VA, all slaveholding areas. This was known during the Nullification Crisis from 1828 to 1833. This was known when Northern reps complained of the Slave Power Conspiracy that dominated the Federal government from 1820 to 1860.

I would prefer to call it a problem between people who were in favor of loose construction of the Constitution (we call it a living Constitution today) and strict construction of the Constitution (people we call originalists today).

This was a problem that came up during Washington's first administration in Alexander Hamilton's economic program, funding and assumption, and the bank of the US.

It was manifested primarily in internal improvements (bridges, roads, canals, and later railroads) in the early 1800s.

It was the assumption behind Henry Clay's American System of 1824, and part of the Whig party platforms from then to 1860.

It was part of Abraham Lincoln's adulation of Clay and his not joining the Republican party until it adopted Clay's program in the mid-1850s and making it part of the party's first platforms in 1856 and 1860.

It was a part of why Lincoln felt it necessary to move slowly against slavery in the Civil War. His actual program was not the Emancipation Proc but his plan of Dec 1862, that called for a gradual ending of slavery by 1912, in his annual message of that year.

When we look at Thomas DiLorenzo's, The Real Lincoln, this is what he is talking about. But to dismiss DiLorenzo as a Libertarian is to miss his Real Lincoln and to read his newer stuff which is much weaker and damages his original argument--because he is a Libertarian there.

As usual, I refer you all to my Sic Semper Tyrannis, chapter I, for a fuller discussion of this topic, of Masters, Bradford, Bennett, DiLorenzo, and others. (I know, I should be abashed to market my own junk writings. . . . But I am a shameless self-promoter).

Both sides knew what the stakes were, or their leaders did. The average guy went to war with his neighbors, regardless of how we see the issues 150 years later. And wars do settle things--look at our own Civil War. Then reread what I wrote a couple of days ago again and see if does not make more sense in a non-Beardian sort of way.

[HerbS]

Wild Bill,No one says it better than you can! Your theory on DiLorenzo"Holds Water".By the way-How have you been? Always remember that I have read-"Sic Semper Tryannis"and"The Last Confederate Heroes"-those books do make sense!

[Gene C]

(08-27-2012 11:32 PM)Thomas Thorne Wrote:  Northerners had taken the Union for granted and did not realize its value until faced by the threat of its dissolution. In their hearts they contemplated that once the genie of secession was out of the bottle there would be no end to the process and the United States would wind up like the European state system with its eternal conflicts and despotisms.
Tom

Tom's right. Listen to motivatonal speaker Andy Andrews talk about Joshua Chamberlain and the "Butterfly Effect" At the end of his talk he brings up exactly what Tom has mentioned

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57I2EECFz...re=related

[Gene C]

(08-26-2012 10:27 AM)william l. richter Wrote:  It was the successful attempt to take the political imperium from the Southern agrarian, slaveholding aristocracy that governed this nation until the most terrible of all American wars, and transfer it to the industrial, shipping magnates of the North, who have run it since.

It all makes sense now! Otto Eisenschiml was wrong. It wasn't Stanton who was behind the assassination, it was ......
..... Recent documents (of coarse they were found in an old barn, and are barely legible) attributed to ....details. Fortunately by .....ist and historian Ray Neff, the author has been able to .......and being able to decifer water soaked, bird dropping stained, ........ewed leters and diaries to unravel a story more complicated than the plot to the Maltese Falcon.

This message will self destruct in the next 10 hours (10AM eastern standardd time)

...10 hours later....... Oopps!

Sorry about that Roger, I'll clean up the mess

[Thomas Thorne]

I hope Gene's last statement does not mean that if he or any member of his I.M force are killed or captured. the secretary will disavow any knowledge.

Wild Bill,who is a delightful duelist, overstates the significance of the sectional, constitutional and economic issues involved. They have always been with us but Civil War broke out only in 1861 because of the differing fears of South and North I previously mentioned.

I don't think we can reduce antebellum political history to a sectional struggle for supremacy. The first two American political party systems saw the winners of almost all presidential elections have majorities in both North and South which in a strange way anticipated Calhoun's 1850 concurrent majority theory. At the same time the need to win in both sections prevented the political parties from being too extreme on the one issue that politicians believed would destroy the country-slavery.

Only the rise of the super sectional anti slavery Republican Party and the effective split of the democracy into hostile Northern and Southern factions in 1860 over slavery destroyed the previous equilibrium.

Again we have always had conflicts over the nature of the constitution and differences over economic policy but only in 1861 did Civil War break out. We should discuss these aspects in later posts.
Tom

[Bill Richter]

When the issues led to a war that cost this nation between 600,000 to 700,000 casualties how can one overstate those issues?

[Thomas Thorne]

(08-29-2012 06:11 AM)william l. richter Wrote:  When the issues led to a war that cost this nation between 600,000 to 700,000 casualties how can one overstate those issues?

Can we do a counter-factual that might illuminate the issue of civil war causation?

Suppose that there was a political consensus in the 1850's that recognized that the slavery issue threatened the destruction of the nation. To avoid catastrophe the Missouri Compromise line and principle are extended to the Pacific. Apart from a handful of eccentric abolitionists and flamboyant Southron fire eaters, no American seriously seeking political office dares challenge it.

The consequences:no Kansas-Nebraska Act and no Republican party,no bleeding Kansas,no Dred Scott decision,no fear that the Slave Power would make slavery national or fear that a sectional party would incite slave insurrections and would use the executive powers of the presidency to undermine the peculiar institution.

Under this alternate history, I believe the American Civil War of 1861 would be the creation of imaginative 21th century science fiction writers.

But let us alter our counter-factual speculation with an additional twist. Let us suppose the only big issue of the 1860 presidential election was the economic policies of the Whig party and its chosen presidential candidate, Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln and the Whigs call for the full implementation of Henry Clay's American System. This includes high tariffs, internal improvements,a transcontinental railroad, homesteads in areas north of the Missouri Compromise line and land grant colleges. Perhaps they would call for the establishment of a central banking system.

Lincoln and his party are swept into power. Would the South have seceded?

We can not know for sure but the results of prior and future elections give me confidence to answer "no."

I will discuss this aspect of the question in future posts.
Tom

[ninabeth13]

To me, the Gettysburg Address is primarily about making sense of death and tragedy. I think the most important theme of the speech is: Those boys did not die for nothing.

I am the screenwriter of a new movie, "Saving Lincoln," coming to theaters soon. A major theme of our movie is Lincoln's inner turmoil over the unprecedented carnage of the Civil War. He desperately needed to believe - and to convince the people - that it wasn't all in vain.

[JMadonna]

(08-26-2012 10:27 AM)william l. richter Wrote:  The American Civil War was fought to promote Union, Freedom, and Equality. At least that is what one learns in public schools, and even colleges and universities. But that is only partially true. What the war really was all about was raw political power--about which white people would rule the United States. It was the successful attempt to take the political imperium from the Southern agrarian, slaveholding aristocracy that governed this nation until the most terrible of all American wars, and transfer it to the industrial, shipping magnates of the North, who have run it since. Which is one reason the war produced a reborn Union, but only a technical Freedom, and little Equality, legacies that haunt the United States even today.

Great stuff Bill!
I'm working on a Buchanan piece right now and I just might borrow some of this prose.

Jerry

[HerbS]

ninabeth13--You are right.For more insight google-Henry Villard's memoirs of Lincoln.Villard was a reporter with Lincoln the entire war!Also,there is a great book called"The Inner Lincoln".