Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Lincoln's Gettysburg Address - 150 years ago today!


150 YEARS AGO TODAY, words that helped shape a nation: "...we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — 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." - President Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- 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.
Abraham Lincoln
November 19, 1863

31 comments:

NewGuy said...

Oh-Oh!

He said "God"!

Can he do that?

Probably not in today's world.

Anonymous said...

Probably not in Watauga County Schools

Sarkazein said...

Some TV liberals are trying to say he didn't say "God" in his address. Why?

WataugaCitizen said...

Because in the original drafts of the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln did not have the words "under God" written.

President Obama read a few days ago from the original draft that was given to John Nicolay "It is rather for us, the living, we here be dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that, from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here, gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve these dead shall not have died in vain; that the nation, 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.”

This unknown to conservatives history lesson is what caused you all to flip out.

Anonymous said...

So, you are suggesting we discount his actual address and substitute a version he didn't actually use?

It's always nice to gain additional insight into liberal thinking.

Thanks for sharing.

Sarkazein said...

WC- And still the question is "why" are liberals so dead set on ending this country's relationship with G_d?

Happily Married said...

Sark -

Liberals are not dead set on ending the country's relationship with God. God is great and should be celebrated in churches and communities and in the home. God has no place in schools or government because you cannot force any religion on anyone. There is no "War on God". His followers need some work.

I would also say that a President making a speech and including his thankfulness of God is a reflection of his personal faith - not a government dictum. this was a speech - not a prayer.

Sarkazein said...

Happy- Interesting how you have written that you are not a liberal yet you claim to speak for them.

"Liberals are not dead set on ending..." - Happy

More deception.

Happily Married said...

Sark,

You big Ol hypocrite, me generalizing liberals' intents is not different than you generalizing liberals' intent. Are you a liberal?
No deception here - try again. This time maybe something of merit worth talking about instead of a personal attack.

Sarkazein said...

Happy- I proudly state I am a Libertarian/Conservative. I write in defense of libertarianism and conservatism.
You on the other-hand have denied you are a liberal yet you rush to the defense of liberalism and write that you can speak for all liberals.
Discern the difference. The inability to discern is a Liberal characteristic, but at least try. More proof you lied when you wrote you were/are not a liberal. You are a liberal, be proud and not so ashamed of it. Perhaps you will grow out of it as many do. Perhaps when you actually experience Obamacare you will have an epiphany.

Sarkazein said...

Sark,

You big Ol hypocrite, me generalizing liberals' intents is not different than you generalizing liberals' intent. Are you a liberal?
No deception here - try again. This time maybe something of merit worth talking about instead of a personal attack.

guy faulkes said...

Sark, you should cut HM some slack. I would not want to claim to be a liberal either. I would be ashamed also, even if I was one.

Happily Married said...

Sark,

As so eloquently stated by USSRY, calling you a hypocrite is not a personal attack as it is the plain truth. You expressed an assumed intent of liberals. When I expressed an assumed intent of liberals - you called me a liberal and deceptive. What is the difference? I have - for the upteenth time - expressed that I have liberal leaning and some libertarian leanings. Does that make me libertarian/liberal? I never wrote that I can speak for all liberals. Not accepting a single label is entirely different from being ashamed of something. Is there a topic here anyone would like to talk about or are you just going to continue to attack liberals and anyone you can stick with the label? Labels are one of the big problems with the country. The only people interested in labeling others are those looking to denigrate or bully. Same with the "illegal alien" issue. Slapping that kind of label on anyone of Hispanic dissent along with the negative connotations is why people advocating for common decency are looking for the change. This is inline with many other historically problematic labels that decent society has tried to overcome - spic, wetback, n***er, fag, etc. Congratulations, you people haven't learned a thing in centuries of oppression - still trying to come up with the next group of people to oppress. Please note that I do not deny that some people are classified as illegal aliens. The problem is the connotation and the willingness to label anyone of Hispanic decent as such - it smacks of oppression.

guy faulkes said...

Drex, as you have never taken a conservative approach on any subject on this blog, to the best of my knowledge, it is logical to assume you are a liberal. This makes your comment about being a conservative be hypocritical from all the evidence mailable.

You comment on illegal aliens is typical. It has been stated many times that illegal aliens are of all races and nationalities. You conveniently forget that little fact. Your opinion is that of a leftist and wrong.

To tell the truth, it is hard to tell what you think about anything as you always return to your fixation about gay marriage. No matter what subject is being discussed, you beat this horse again. There is a line from Shakespeare that says "The lady doth protest to much, methinks". Your use of the gay marriage issue to defend any liberal stance on any issue certainly does not convience people that you are not a liberal.

You imitate this subject so much that it is starting to make me wonder. Are you trying to convince yourself?

In my opinion, Sark did not attack you. He made a logical conclusion from the facts at hand.

Sarkazein said...

Happy- GuyFaulkes is right. I should cut you some slack. Now I've pushed you to agreeing with USSRogerYoung. Perhaps you could put a handicapped tag on your comments and Blogger could come up with a special comment box for you.
You could write " I am a girl " after your comments so no one will "bully" you by challenging you. Perhaps I can just call you the "L-word" instead of liberal.

Sarkazein said...

"This is inline with many other historically problematic labels that decent society has tried to overcome - spic, wetback, n***er, fag, etc."- Happy

"This is inline with many other historically problematic labels that decent society has tried to overcome - spic, wetback, n***er, fag, Liberal etc.

Sarkazein said...

Better yet-- LIB***L

Happily Married said...

Sark,

Thanks for proving my point

Guy,

Yes illegal aliens can be of other heritage - but you and I both know the issue is with the Hispanic heritage stereotypes and profiling. So I am not wrong - especially given that it was an opinion.

Society is slowly evolving to recognize the problems with names, labels, denigration, and bullying. Seems like Sark enjoys being the bully and does not hesitate to insinuate weakness in handicapped and women - typical of what is rightfully going the way of the do-do - or at least relegated to those less evolved.

Sarkazein said...

Happy- I will give you the last word.

NewGuy said...

I haven't been following this discussion but I did catch HM's last post and it got me to thinking....

Do liberals REALLY believe that opposition to illegal immigration is because of some anti-hispanic prejudice?

I am sure that some does exist, but I am pretty confidant that the conservatives I know are more focused on the illegality of the entry and not the race/ethnicity of the offenders. Speaking just for myself I oppose any and all illegal immigration. I have no more issue with Hispanic immigrants than with Canadians, Asians, Europeans, or any other.


guy faulkes said...

No, HM, the issue is with the criminals of all races and nationalities that illegally enter the country,

Any anti Hispanic connotation is strictly your own. This may be another example of your protesting to much as it indicates you have a racist state of mind.

Sarkazein said...

Senator Ted Cruz and Dr Ben Carson would draw a HUGE percentage of the Conservative vote if the elections were held today. I would be happy with either one. Yet Conservatives are bigots. Liberal thinking is so shallow it is hard to see how they can even find the polls on election day much less come up with a picture ID. If Cruz or Carson turns out to be an illegal alien, then he will lose support from the right.
Palin is hugely popular with Conservatives. Yet liberals call Conservatives anti-woman. But they don't call MSNBC's Bashere (SP don't care) anti-grass roots to governor to VP candidate to task for his disgusting remarks.
Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Democratus Rex said...

Well, you should start building that fence on the Canadian border.

guy faulkes said...

"Well, you should start building that fence on the Canadian border."

You finally posted something we can agree on. However, deportation would work better than a fence.

Democratus Rex said...

"However, deportation would work better than a fence."

How would that work exactly?

guy faulkes said...

You catch them , which would be easy to do. You send them back. You pass immigration reform that adds severe penlites tha include $10,000 fines per illegal alien for those that aide, abet, and hire them. These laws would also include misprisionment with work at hard labor for any illegal alien caught the second time. This labor includes growing their own food and paying for their own incarceration.

At the same time legal immigration should be examined to streamline the process fro those that we wish to allow to immigrate.

You should not have to ask, Drex. This has been discussed countless time.

Happily Married said...

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/23/opinion/navarrette-arizona-immigration-law/

Guy - You give me entirely too much credit. This is not my idea that immigration issues are racist or that profiling occurs. I do not have a racist state of mind. The fact is your specious effort to say it is about immigration of all walks is a typical conservative device of deflection - "Voter ID is about voter fraud" - when no voter fraud exists. "Abortion Clinic reform is about protecting the health and safety of the patients" - pure BS to greatly limit NC ability to have abortions - I think only one clinic now complies with the strict regs. Why can't you simply be honest about why you hate immigrants so much? You seem to indicate its because they are criminals. Have you ever gotten a speeding ticket? Are you not a criminal? As stated earlier - no empathy. BTW - I believe having an ID to vote should be required - just not for the same reasons - so your assertion that I have never taken a conservative approach is also wrong. I also believe it is a good thing to do away with straight party ballots. Guy - you are just all kinds of wrong today.

Sarkazein said...

A fence would keep the Canadians out. They wouldn't have the initiative of the people defeating our fence on the southern border. Canadians aren't going to climb or tunnel. Too much like work.

guy faulkes said...

No, I never have been given a speeding ticket, HM. What does that have to do with anything? I did get a ticket for a rolling stop at a stop sign once.

So you really think all crime is of equal severity? If so, why are there felonies and misdemeanors that have varying degrees of punishment?

Illegal immigrants escalate other more severe crimes They fill up our prisons, deal drugs, form violent gangs, use our resources that should go to help our own disadvantaged, and steal our jobs.

Some of them are very good people that teach Sunday School and contribute to the community. It does not change the fact they are criminals that are here illegally and for which the proper course of action is to deport them. If this group so desires, they can immigrate legally and there is no problem.

Certainly there is voter fraud. you just do not recognize it because you approve of the end result of this fraud as is evidenced by your previous posts on many threads.

Abortion is murder, although presently it is legalized murder. One day this will rank with slavery as a matter of national shame.

I do not hate anyone. Following the rule of law does not indicate hate. Neither does changing the rule of law. After all, the laws that your side is whining about being changed were equally suitable to the charge of being motivated by hate.

Sarkazein said...

Happy wrote- "Have you ever gotten a speeding ticket? Are you not a criminal? "

WOW!

Sarkazein said...

Happy's last comment about criminals should go in the "special" comment box.