Talk:Gettysburg Address/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents


Do we need not ONE, but TWO versions of the source text in this article? RickK 05:43, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think an annotated version of the differences between the speech as given and as traditionally known is useful, but I think the annotation should be relegated to a less prominent place in the article. Also, the casual tone ("What Lincoln really said contrasted to what you heard in school") is I think, inappropriate. orthogonal 05:49, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have made some changes for greater clarity and to emphasize that the changes were made by Lincoln himslf and do not change the substance of the speech. JHCC 19:44, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm not saying what I did is perfect. If it changes, I won't stomp my foot and scream; a different format may be better. That was really an initial draft, and thinking about it now, the casual tone should have been avoided. But I'm gone until Sunday.-- user:dino

According to this site (http://lilt.ilstu.edu/drjclassics/texts/pericles/gettysburg.htm), it's the revised version at the Lincoln Memorial --SeanO 13:02, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

Gettysburg Address

Good article but it contains errors and contradictions. For a start, I'm sure the President never said "but but"......Captain Beefart

Rendered?

I'm sorry but I don't understand this bit:

"Lincoln's actual speech follows (broken into paragraphs for clarity), rendered in Lincoln's high-pitched, western twang:"

How and where is it so rendered? For it to say that in the article, I would expect to be able to hear a soundfile of someone impersonating Lincoln or maybe (which Heaven forfend!) see an attempt to write down his pronunciation. But what follows is not actually "rendered" in anything other than italic text. If what was perhaps meant was a comment on his voice, how it sounded when he made the sppech, then maybe this could be made clearer, but I find the wording quoted above a bit confusing. Any chance of a change please? Oh and btw it is a brilliant article! Nevilley 07:50, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

well fixed, thanks. Nevilley 00:44, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Wrong?

I'm not sure it's appropriate to use the words "wrong" and "incorrect" to describe the revised version. It was revised by Lincoln, after all, and it appears on the Lincoln Memorial. Not only that, but the semantic differences are not huge. The "incorrect" type labels give the article a (unintentional, I'm sure) sneering tone.

1789?

Shouldn't it be the Constitution of 1787?

True, a sticky point. At United States Constitution we see that it was completed in 1787, but the new government came into existence on March 4, 1789. dino 03:53, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Factual errors?

According to The Library of Congress site on the Gettysburg Address, there is still "considerable scholarly debate" over which version of the speech Lincoln really gave. It includes transcripts of the Nicolay and Hay drafts (the two earliest), comparing them and giving the story of the two. This article really needs to either be rewritten to reflect the fact that Lincoln's exact words are still unclear, or else refute that claim somehow.

Also, there are more than just two versions of the speech. This site has scans of several different versions of the speech scanned in, though without transcripts. I couldn't tell at first glance which version is presented here on Wikipedia as Lincoln's true version but it should be given its official name (Hay Draft, Nicolay Draft, etc.), as should the second "incorrect" version. Not only would this be more official and correct, but it would also get rid of the need for awkward references to "The often-quoted, revised version of the speech" etc.

For these two reasons, I am including the {{Disputed}} tag on this page. The two pages listed above are very reputable and give information contradictory to that presented here on WP. I'm going to try to help fix these up but I really don't have much time (I'm leaving for two years in a week) so I might have to leave it for others. I really hope this article gets fixed up as the Gettysburg Address is a very famous speech and also has a very interesting (and obviously complicated) story behind it. - biggins (talk) 23:57, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

where from?

I'm just wondering how the "original" version of the (according to the article partly improvised) speech should have passed down to us; I don't suppose it's been taped. Are there any eye-witness reports? -Zar alex 09:59, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

History

Article needs more information about how the speech became as famous as it is now if it was not received so warmly following its initial delivery. --Lowellian 07:18, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)


What is going on -- truly strange language

From where came language like "Now we are engaged in a great world war, testing whether that island ... " come from? This type of nonsense seems to go way back in the history, and I don't have the time right now to figure it out.

Any takers?

dino 20:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Charles Hale transcript

When the article discusses the various versions, it seems like Charles Hale's report should be given note as to being very close to what was the actual words that day. The article says he "had notebook and pencil, and as Lincoln spoke very slowly, Mr. Hale was positive that he caught every word. He took down what he declared was the exact language of Lincoln’s address, and his declaration was as good as the oath of a court stenographer. His associates confirmed his testimony, which was received, as it deserved to be at its face value."

Why isn't Mr. Hale's version given in the article? Are there parts of it which calls it into question as far as being accurate?

First round of Peer Review updates have been made

I made numerous stylistic and formatting changes to the article, based largely on comments received via the Peer Review process. BartBenjamin 21:04, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)

it is not "a great civil war" it is "the great civil war"... and make sure civil war is CAPITALIZED!!!!!!!! good job smart ones!!!!!!!!

Spelling of "battle field"

What I wrote:

I reverted your spelling correction of "battle-field" because that is how Lincoln spelled it. I recall seeing this specifically referenced in a discussion of how the English language and spelling evolves over time. I, unfortunately, do not own an original manuscript of the Gettysburg Address to verify this, though the fact that it was originally transcribed with the hyphen would tend to back my sometimes faulty memory. The modern spelling is used in the text of the article, of course, but Lincoln's spelling should be used in the transcription of the document itself. Thanks. -- Kbh3rd 04:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

To which BartBenjamin replied:

Thanks for the feedback on the Gettysburg Address article. Actually, page 1 of the Bliss document is referenced by a footnote in the article, which directs readers to http://www.papersofabrahamlincoln.org/images/GABliss1.jpg. By examining that page, you'll notice that in Lincoln's own hand, the word either reads "battlefield" or "battle field" depending on how you interpret his handwriting. However, it definitely does not read "battle-field." Bart 15:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Based on that, I changed the spelling in the transcribed document in the article to "battle field". Surely this isn't the first time this has been looked at in 140+ years, so someone with access to more authoritative research please correct if needed. Below is the word clipped from that document. How do other manuscripts read? (Looking at that, it sure looks like "battle-field" to me.) -- Kbh3rd 16:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I now see how you could interpret the baseline mark as a hyphen. Perhaps it is ... perhaps it's not. I don't know. In any event, the word still means what we today spell out as "battlefield," so perhaps it's a moot point. This may simply be an example of the how certain words were spelled in the mid 19th Century vs. today. Any scholars of mid 19th Century etymology out there? Bart 03:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a hyphen to me, and the "e" in script would need a trailing line in that position to avoid being confused with "o". The near-gap after the downstroke of the "e" could be due to the pen moving up a little during the circular stroke. (SEWilco 05:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC))
I have no comment on how battlefied was/is/should be spelled - but, to my eyes, that clearly is a hyphen. The tail of the e curls up and the pen was then lifted to create a dash before continuing with field. 139.163.138.14 22:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

See how Lincoln typically wrote "e" at the end of the word, finishing with a pronounced hook. He did not do that to "e" in the middle of words, as also illustrated by this example. In the disputed sample, it definitely appears that he penned the word "battle" with his terminal "e", added a (rather low) hyphen, and then the word "field". --Kbh3rdtalk 03:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Very old discussions have been removed

I've removed the discussion points on issues related to very old versions of this page. It was becoming too difficult to separate recent comments with irrelevant old ones. By the way, according to Wikipedia style, are you supposed to post new talking points at the bottom of the page or at the top? From the way old pages are chronologically sorted (or lack thereof), it appears that there's little agreement among users. Bart 03:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

There's no rule, but generally new stuff goes at the bottom. See: Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Layout. And thanks for cleaning up! Kaisershatner 13:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Whoops, I should also have pointed out that typically we don't delete old posts - archive them instead. [[1]]

I'll restore it from the old versions, though, don't worry about it. Kaisershatner 16:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Tracking down the drafts

This article has lots of well-sourced and interesting items about the history of the drafts. Might be worth including; no time for it right this minute but I didn't want to lose track of it: http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/24.2/johnson.html Kaisershatner 16:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

FAC checklist

Time for another peer review? Kaisershatner 16:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It should exemplify our very best work, representing Wikipedia's unique qualities on the Internet

We incorporate images, hyperlinks to related history/Lincoln subjects, audiolinks, etc. Kaisershatner 16:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It should be well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable.

I can't judge my/our writing objectively, but at least the grammar and spelling are correct. I think we are comprehensive - almost every detail I can conceive of has been touched upon in the article, although potentially consider: * more info on Wills or "the committee?" * expand the contemporary reactions section w/more citations from newspapers?

"factually accurate": this article is very well cited, IMO. "neutral" means that an article is uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) - the only potential area for NPOV probs would be the "textual analysis" section but even that is a stretch. I revised this section a bit, should be clearly npov if not wholly comprehensive. Kaisershatner 19:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

"stable" means that an article does not change significantly from day to day (apart from improvements in response to reviewers' comments) and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars; - remains to be seen. This article is not the subject of an edit war, and seems unlikely to be. Kaisershatner 15:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Style manual

It should comply with the standards set out in the style manual and relevant WikiProjects. These include having: (a) a succinct lead section that summarizes the entire topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections; (YES) (b) a proper system of hierarchical headings; and (YES) (c) a substantial, but not overwhelmingly large, table of contents (YES)

It should have images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status; however, including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article. (YES, lost of PD images)

It should be of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail; it should use summary style to cover sub-topics that are treated in greater detail in any "daughter" articles. (YES, IMO).

Only known photo caption

I reverted the changes by an anon user, which were unsourced, and suggested Brady took the photo himself, something contradicted by the sourced info I found (I may be wrong). The change should be supported by a reference in any case. Finally, I think the caption was too long even if correct (the WP:FAC article suggests "succinct" captions. See also: (Wikipedia:Cite sources) Thanks, Kaisershatner 17:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Under God

I reverted the edit which removed "under God" as the transcription in the article clearly puports to be the "Bliss Copy" which doues read "under God". This article is well enough referenced that people need not doubt it. But if any one need I will find the link from over at Wikisource that shows a digital copy in Lincolns own handwriting.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 01:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Chicago "Sun-Times"

The section entitled "contemporary sources and reaction" must be incorrect in its attribution of a quotation to the Chicago Sun-Times. I deduce this from the fact that the Sun-Times, at least according to its Wikipedia entry, was not formed (by merger) until the mid-20th century. The merger was between the Chicago Sun and the Chicago Daily Times. Perhaps the quote actually belongs to one of the precursor papers. Somebody should look into this. Respectfully, Hydriotaphia 06:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, having looked into it myself, here is what I've found.

  • NPR's quiz show Wait Wait Don't Tell Me attributes it to "The Chicago Times" (N.B.: not the Chicago Daily Times).[2]
  • So does a student essay awarded a prize by the National Endowment for the Humanities and posted at the NEH's website.[3]
  • So does the website of the Gettysburg National Battlefield Museum.[4]
  • So does the Rare and Manuscript Collection at the Cornell University Library.[5]

It seems fair to conclude that a paper called The Chicago Times wrote the sentence attributed in the current version of the article to The Chicago Sun-Times. Unless I hear an objection, I will correct the mistake in the next 24 hours or so. Hydriotaphia 06:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Protection

User Bart Benjamin has suggested protecting the page for the duration of the stint on the home page. It is an option worth seriously considering. Capitalistroadster 02:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. There were at least 20 reverts that I saw. It is unacceptable to subject readers to so much vandalism to such a high profile page. Soft protection should be lifted after this page falls off the main page. --mav 22:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Featured articles on the main page should not be semi-protected for extended durations of time, if at all: see User:Raul654/protection. In any case, it's been nearly half an hour since semi-protection, so I'm going to take the liberty of unprotecting it. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

"Cannot" and "can not"

These mean different things. In most cases "can not" is a mis-spelling, because what people really mean is "cannot".

  • "Cannot" is the simple opposite of "can". It unambiguously excludes a certain option.
    • I can live for a day without food, but I cannot live for a month without food.
  • "Can not" is a much more ambiguous expression, and one that is almost always best avoided. It means the speaker can choose not to do a certain action; but the decision hasn't been made yet and the option of doing it remains.
    • I can not respond to your absurd claims; or, I can choose to tell you what I really think of them. When I've made my mind up, you'll be the first to know.

I raise this here because the "official" text we have for the Gettysburg Address has 3 instances of "can not", and I really wonder if that’s accurate:

  • But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground.

The Hay Copy shows this is the way Lincoln himself spelled the words, so it seems to have this stamp of authority. But the NY Times article from 20 November spells all of them as "cannot". Given that this was an oral address, the transcribers of the spoken words have a duty to report them without misspellings or grammatical errors. I believe the NY Times got it right. Surely Lincoln intended the meaning of "cannot" described above. That he mis-spelled this when he wrote out the Hay Copy shows his humanity, but I don’t believe we have to perpetuate his spelling errors, particularly in such a hallowed set of words as this. JackofOz 04:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you've simply discovered that common usage of that era often spelled out "cannot" as "can not." All five versions of the Gettysburg Address have Lincoln spelling out that phrase as "can not." Perhaps, as you point out, it is grammatically incorrect today, but since history records it as such, I tend to support its literal transcription. Bart 06:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
William Safire has "cannot" in the version in his anthology of great speeches in history "Lend Me Your Ears". The version inscribed on the walls at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., also has "cannot". JackofOz 07:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Which spelling is best to use is beyond my knowledge. However if we change the spelling to "cannot", you can no longer claim that what is on the page is the Bliss Copy. Perhaps you can say here is a modern transcription, or that this is speech as it is commonly written today. But if you want to say it is the Bliss Copy please keep it accurate. If any one is interested s:Talk:Gettysburg Address at Wikisource as links to directly to a scan of each copy in Lincoln's own handwriting. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

. . . and within the footnotes of the article are external links to scanned pages of all five versions. Bart 20:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I mean no disrespect to any of the copies, which are genuine historical documents in their own right. Of course they must remain unchanged. However, they are different in essence from a true transcript of what Lincoln actually said on the day. Let me use an analogy. The word "dedicate" appears in the same sentence. If Lincoln had mistakenly spelled it as "dedacate" in all the handwritten copies, would this mean that a transcript of the spoken speech would have to include the "dedacate" spelling? I would say certainly not. Nobody, not even Lincoln, gets to decide unilaterally what is correct spelling and what is not. What I may write on a piece of paper is for my own private consumption and I can make up my own rules, shorthand, symbols or whatever else is meaningful to me; but what others report me as saying when I read that speech out aloud is another thing entirely, and the transcriber is not free to use spellings, grammar or punctuation that diverge from the accepted norms. It must be as faithful and accurate as possible to what was said. Spelling "cannot" as "can not" was a very common error back then and continues to be today; it should always be corrected. We should make the point that the 5 copies are all different from each other in some detail or other; and that none of them is precisely the same as the transcript of the actual speech. We could even provide exhaustive details of all the differences if anybody has enough time or interest. JackofOz 01:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you. In fact at Wikisource I led the article with the version on the Lincoln Memorial, because it is easier to read. I just mean to point out this line Of these versions the Bliss version has become the standard text. It is the only version to which Lincoln affixed his signature, and the last he is known to have written: (Gettysburg Adress here) It implies the Bliss copy is what follows and should be changed if the text is changed to a grammacticly correct transcription. BTW most the differences between copies are either capitolization and word order. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 02:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Long lost audio recollections of an actual eyewitness

I was suprised that Rathvon's audio recollections were not already noted in this article. But, actually, NPR only has "part of the story" on Rathvon. William R. Rathvon is the only known eyewitness of both Lincoln's arrival at Gettysburg and his address itself to have left an audio recording of his recollections.

I actually had heard of the audio recording before NPR and have cassette tape copy from a friend who used to sell them on the internet. On one side is a lecture on the subject of Christian Science and on the other side, almost incidentaly, is his recollections of Lincoln.

Who was William R. Rathvon? For more details, just click on the link as I decided to investigate the man in detail and from church and geneological records, I was able to piece together the article I wrote. While I had known about his church work for over 30 years, so modest was he, that I didn't hear about his recording his memories of hearing Lincoln speak at Gettysburg until about 1995. Here's some of the facts I found out. Rathvon was successful Colorado businessman and an accomplished public lecturer who had been raised in Lancaster Pennsylvania. His mother and her entire family were from Gettysburg, where she had met and married his father, Horace Rathvon in 1842, who was attending the Lutheran Seminary in Gettysburg. Parts of the battle were fought on his uncle's farms and Gen Ewell had his headquarters in his uncles' farm house for a time. He spent his summers with his mother's brothers and sisters and his grandmother who lived on the farms around Gettysburg. After graduating from college in Lancaster and heading west to become successful in business, Rathvon ended up, of all places, as a practitioner, teachder, lecturer on Christian Science and as Church treasurer, in 1911 in its headquarters in Boston, Massachusetts and finally from 1918 until his death in 1939, as a member of its Board of Directors. He and his wife, Ella S. Rathvon, had served on the staff of the founder of that religion, Mary Baker Eddy. By the 1930s that Church had radio broadcasts of its religious services and religious radio shows. As a public lecturer and one of the five top people in that church, Rathvon would have had execellent access to the top quality recording devices of his time. In fact, Mr. Rathvon's reminiscences were recorded on February 12, 1938 at the Boston studios of radio station WRUL. Hence the quality of the 78rpm record. The term "long lost," really doesn't apply, as the Rathvon audio recollections have been known by an extremely small circle of individuals ever since he made them in 1938. To Rathvon, they were actually incidental to what he felt were his more important church-work responsibilities. I suspect that he made them simply for historical posterity as he, himself never promoted them, or even promoted the idea that he had made them nor sold them per my source. This kind of ties into the fact that he died the following year, 1939. Since he was a church-authorized teacher of Christian Science, he had an association of students to whom he gave an annual address. As is the case of these teachers, their association usually survives them. Indeed, after Rathvon died in 1939, his association made and distributed copies of this recording for many years. I doubt very much that he even realized that they were unique a he, as an adult, saw men such as Lincoln's personal secretary, John Hay, a Secretary of State under McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt. IN order that all this information not be lost, I'll write an article on him ASAP. For more information on him, there are three sources, The Longyear Historical Society in Boston, Massachusetts, which was started by Mary Beecher Longyear, noted philanthropist, who helped finance the extension of the Braille system and the publication of the first Braille Bible. She founded her society in 1923 to preserve historical information on the founder of Christian Science, Mary Baker Eddy and her students and her church as well. That institution has archives opened to the public and an entire section devoted to such people as Rathvon and others who were instrumental in the early years of the Christian Science church. See http://www.longyear.org for more info. The second source would be the Mary Baker Eddy Library for the Betterment of Humanity in Boston MA. It has extensive archives, but unlike Longyear holds the "keys" the the actual archives of Mary Baker Eddy's church which is third source for materials on Rathvon. The majority of those archival materials are also shared with the Library except materials deemed to not be open to the public such as private church correspondence between Mary Baker Eddy and her Board of Directors, which she specifically excluded from publication. More than anyone wanted to know, but now you know. Bottom line, Rathvon was some totally unknown garden variety swindler who either imagined or concocted some tall tale about having seen ole honest Abe at Gettsburg. The whole story is fairly transparent but has been buried until NPR got a copy of the recording and aired it in the 1990s.

As a Christian Scientist and a amateur church historian, I had known about Rathvon for more than 30 years. But I didn't hear about this recording until the early 1990s. David Keyston, the founder of the web site http://www.christianscience.org first put the recordomg on line on his web site. I no longer see the downloadable recording at that site.

As I added to the article, Rathvon, was a nine year old boy when he saw Lincoln at Gettsburg became a gifted public lecturer and director of the Christian Science church. He made an excellent quality 78rpm disk recording in 1938 including his reading the address, itself. A copy wound up at National Public Radio during a their "Quest for Sound" project in the early 90s. Thet often air them around Linclon's birthday. To listen, click here [6]. Even after move than half a century, Rathvon's audio recollections remain a moving testimony to Lincoln's transcendent effect on his fellow countrymen and the love which so many ardent unionists held for him. SimonATL

Spelling of "battle-field"

I changed the spelling of battle field to battle-field because that mark after the "e" shure looks like a hyphen to me.

see... Image:C:\My Documents\My Pictures\GBA-battlefield.jpg


--ZASHBOT 04:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)ZASHBOT

Oration

Hey, is it necessary to have the beginning/end of Everett's oration if we have it in wikisource? -RadSkat3 17:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Necessary - maybe not. I happen to think it provides a nice contrast with the simplicity and general tone of Lincoln's words. The overblown rhetorical droning of Everett is clear from the opening and closing. Just my two cents. Kaisershatner 02:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, okay, not bad, not bad. I agree. It does sound like something we would today fall asleep at, BUT, then again we now live in a world of decreased attention spans and TV and video games. Back then, they would read whole 500-page books at a time- nowadays, some people might fall asleep at Lincoln's speech- even if it were in comtemporary language... but you're right, you're right. -RadSkat3 17:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Facing Everett

I have swapped Everett over to the left side of the article so that he "faces into" the text, as per WP:MOS#Pictures. And I must say that I am impressed, even moved, by this article - an excellent example of Wikipedia in action. --Jumbo 20:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Popular "Culture"

Again, we have a valuable Wikipedia article ending in a section that refers to U.S. popular so-called culture. Such sections greatly demean Wikipedia. A reference to an adolescent movie has no place in an article such as this. If a rap "singer" jabbered about Lincoln's Address, would we have to read about it here? If a Saturday morning cartoon showed Lincoln delivering the speech, should we mention it?Lestrade 18:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Rebuttal to H. L. Mencken's criticism

Certainly, however, one can point out the obvious difference between the right of personal self-determination and the right of communal self-governance. Arguably, the Union soldiers fought for the former, while the Confederates fought for the latter.

Not to put too fine a point on it, aren't we just editorializing here? Has anyone we could actually source pointed this out? JRM · Talk 20:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

We are editorializing. I've removed the above statement. I think Mencken's quote can stand on its own without us trying to defuse it on the reader's behalf. If the rebuttal to Mencken's point is notable enough, there will be a source for this than an aside in a Wikipedia article. JRM · Talk 18:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I think we should take out the Mencken quote entirely. First, it's not really a criticism of the speech; it's a criticism of the Union cause couched as criticism of the speech. Any Confederate partisan would agree with Mencken. Second, Mencken wasn't a Lincoln scholar. Why is his opinion about the speech worth noting here? I think in this case, we need not just a reference that Mencken said this, but also a reference that someone notable has taken notice of this quote when talking about the Gettysburg address. --Allen 03:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey Alan. I can see your points and it does make a lot of sense. We might improve the article by cutting this altogether, but one reason I have always liked it is that the article is otherwise unabashedly complimentary. What I liked about the Mencken quotation is that however misdirected, it is at least a criticism of the speech and provokes the reader to consider whether there is an element of hypocrisy in the Address. (There isn't, in my view, for the reasons you have noted and for those stated in the rebuttal, but at least it might stimulate the reader to think about this question). Does that make it worth keeping? Maybe not? Kaisershatner 13:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the line about Confederates wanting to govern their slaves is definitely out of place. It's not a neutral phrasing, at any rate. It's downright sullen. It also ignores the larger context of the war, which really was about whether the federal gov't would have primacy over the states on issues such as (but not limited to) slavery.


The war, the Civil War, was stated over taxes. Slavery was a subtitle to the whole event and in our era of revisionist history, the Civil War has been relabled as the war to free slaves. Numerous documents in the Library of Congress, numerous news articles of the time, letters, etc... all show this will little room for argument. It is is notible to read the Emancipation Proclamation word for word as it does not relate to freeing slaves of the United States, but is a call for slaves of the south to be free. As well there were many free blacks in the south during this time (same sources note this), some of which fought against the North (although their compulsion to do so could be questioned, no differently than that of any other race individual in the Confederate Army).

Content and themes section

Hi; I'm not against moving the content & themes section upward, although I think I prefer it in its previous location, but it should not go before the actual text of the address. It may be more important than the history of the five drafts but the analysis of the themes ought not to precede the primary source material, imo. Kaisershatner 19:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Lincoln's revised opinion

Lincoln himself, over time, revised his opinion of "my little speech."

OK, and in what way did he revise it? The context does not make it at all clear. - furrykef (Talk at me) 08:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Such a statement, with no explanation whatsoever, should not have been there in the first place. I have removed that sentence altogether. Thanks for noticing it and bringing it to our attention. Bart 20:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No idea what this means:

In the Five Manuscript section: "Lincoln's search resulted in the discovery of a handwritten copy of the Gettysburg Address among the bound papers of John Hay—a copy now known as the "Hay Draft", which differed from the version published by John Nicolay in 1894 in the paper used, number of words per line, number of lines, and editorial revisions in Lincoln's hand."

Starting at the dash, the sentance stops making much sense. Can someone clarify the article? TheHYPO 09:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Clarified. HTH Kaisershatner 15:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Gettysburg and McPherson

I've been ruminating over the recent changes to the introduction. On the one hand, it is fitting and proper (ha!) that we should cite our assertion that the GA is one of the most important, etc. speeches. And if we're going to use a citation, McPherson is a pretty good choice, given his stature as a historian and Civil War expert. But I am vaguely bothered by placing his name so prominently up there in the article. Next to Lincoln, he doesn't rate a mention by name. Maybe the solution is to keep the McPherson citation but move it all into a footnote? This way we cite our assertion but also keep the intro about Lincoln and his speech, without slamming readers over the head with the name of McPherson. After all, thousands of prominent people have a view of the GA. I bet JFK or Teddy Roosevelt have said things about it, etc. Why single out McPherson in this way? Kaisershatner 15:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Under God

Hilltoppers, thanks for your well-sourced additions. I cut them down, however, but my reasoning is as follows: (Your edit here).

Statements like

  • "that the Address lacked these two words is unsupportable."
  • Barton's view that Hale's "declaration was as good as the oath of a court stenographer. His associates confirmed his testimony, which was received, as it deserved to be at its face value." (a matter of opinion)
  • Lincoln was asked "to send them transcripts of what he said at Gettysburg. In each of those transcripts, written in the hand of Lincoln himself, the words “under God” are present." We don't know they were transcripts, and Lincoln edited them in other ways as well. Maybe he was improving on his spoken words, maybe not.
  • "In light of the collective reports of the eyewitnesses, the text of the Nicolay copy is irrelevant." This is your opinion.
  • The stenographic journalists at Gettysburg whose independent corroboration of what Lincoln said makes it beyond dispute." Your opinion, again. Better to present the facts: (several independent stenos report he said it. You draw your own conclusions.)
  • "In order for anyone to attempt to argue that Lincoln did not utter the words “under God” at Gettysburg, one must provide evidence..." Let's not tell people what they must do to attempt to make an argument.
  • "The bottom line is that Lincoln did, in fact, say "under God" in his address at Gettysburg in spite of the fact that his manuscript may not have included those words." The bottom line is that if it were so clear, there wouldn't be any need to have a paragraph about it. Again, better just to present the (compelling) evidence and let the reader decide what the bottom line is.
  • Case in point: Martin Luther King, Jr...is not Abraham Lincoln. Are you arguing that King improvised, so clearly Lincoln might have? I don't need the King example to imagine Lincoln doing it.

Otherwise, good work on adding some source material about a facet of this speech that may have been under-emphasized by the article. Kaisershatner 14:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

On the same topic, the section in question contains the following: "Some have suggested that the Address as delivered lacked these works" with the following reference http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/lincoln.htm
However when you go to the referenced website, this is based entirely on the omission of "under God" from a written draft. Since there is nothing at the website that attributes any individual saying that the words were not said, the claim that "some have suggested" is not supported, and I have removed it. I should also note that Boritt’s recent “The Gettysburg Gospel” addresses the various drafts and transcriptions of the speech; he makes no mention of historians claiming the words were not said, but states that the words were added by Lincoln when he actually delivered the speech. There does not appear to be an actual controversy. The fact that the words were not in two drafts is covered without the addition of the questionable "some have suggested". Tom (North Shoreman) 17:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Under God: "there does not appear to be an actual controversy"... I wish

KaiserShatner,

I wish what you said were true that "there does not appear to be an actual controversy" over whether Lincoln said "under God" at Gettysburg.

I don't think that any serious objective scholarly historian would consider it controversial. However, among a number of ideological propandists with atheist agendas, the argument is being made that Lincoln did not utter those words. This is obviously a result of the wild controversy surrounding these two words which has gone all the way to the Supreme Court. If the Newdow faction can provide an argument that Lincoln didn't say those words at Gettysburg, they feel their case may be stronger.

For example, Cliff Walker, an editor of Positive Atheism magazine, claims that Lincoln only inserted the words "under God" in a later draft at the prompting of either Everett, Bliss, or Bancroft. Walker writes the Lincoln had "written out a script of the speech for somebody (I don't have my library fully unpacked to provide the name) and honored that individual's request to make it say 'this nation under God...'" see http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml8448.htm

Walker claims that the addition of "under God" was a forgery: "this is precisely what I propose the (alleged) forgers were trying to place into Lincoln's mouth: lip-service to God!" http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml8448.htm

Bloggers with James Randi's skeptical Educational Foundation, also claim that the question remains in dispute: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=11448

Steve Krulick, a politician from New York State, has argued online that

"Maybe he [Lincoln] just coughed and it SOUNDED like 'under God'!... It's possible he never said it, and the words were a later interpolation!" see http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.war.us-revolution/msg/29303d00772acf68

Their biggest argument seems to be the missing words in the Nicolay manuscript, which is why I find the MLK Jr. "I have a dream" manuscript relevant. Although a reasonable person like you may not need the MLK example to see that speakers often divert from the text, unfortunately not everyone sees as clearly as you do.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilltoppers (talk • contribs)

Hilltoppers, it was actually User:Tom (North Shoreman) who wrote about the controversy above, but I see where you are coming from and your edits are at least a step in the right direction. Kaisershatner 15:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is it locked?

Is it because of Southern zealots vandalizing the article, or is there an editorial dispute? Childe Roland of Gilead 09:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Was the speech written by Lincoln's speech writer?

The entire article is written as if Lincoln authored the speech himself. Not knowing the history of speech writing, that would be an amazing assertion if applied to a speech as for back as one delivered from FDR. Harburg 21:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

 ????

It's not clear if that quote is the beginning of the address? Or the end? The whole thing? There is simply no explanation!--345Kai 08:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Number of words

The second paragraph says 269 words, further down it says 272. My word processor has 271 based on the text contained in the article. I can understand the answer being 272 (battle field vs battle-field) but I don't know where 269 comes from. In any case, the article should at least be internally consistent. Which figure should be used? Rpeh 08:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think a word count is among the speech's least interesting attributes (particularly if the exact wording of the speech is disputed, as it says at the top of the article). I removed it altogether. If the point is that Lincoln provided a model of concise plain speaking, then can someone please find a reference to that effect and add it? --RobertG ♬ talk 08:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)