If Presidents in this modern Era, would write their own speeches, it would help to illuminate their intellect, exposing their communication skills. So many today are given high praise, for something they didn't think, or initiate, so maybe we should give credit where credit is due, to that lowely, (25) years old speech writer. I have read letters from soldiers from the battlefield, writing home to loved ones, with the most articulated prose, in a sense poetic. Roosevelt, Lincoln, with so many others, down thru the ages, wrote from the heart, using their constructive abilities, to express themselves. Their ability to communicate, inspired the masses, we, don't bare witness to much of that today, do we?
Reading through some of the comments on this page, and noting the present state of politics in our nation, it is quite clear the Civil War is not over. And that is deeply regretable.
Take the Federal government position with Texas trying to protect its border. Does not Texas have a right to protect against invasion? Why should the Federal government sue Texas to prevent it from invasion? This is a very concerning issue.
@@animemanganet I have no problem with states enforcing their sovereignity up to a point. But international borders should be protected by the federal government. We could have a discussion as to whether or not they are doing a good job on that score.
Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain on Memorial Day 1884 and to his former troops. "“Now, I think the cause of that war lay in a political question. And that was as to the nature of our political union, and the form of government. ….The question left unsettled as to the nature of our government, was one of political supremacy, of what is called sovereignty…… I do not think that many went ion the war with the motive, distinctly and directly to overthrow slavery by force of arms. The destruction of slavery was more than we dreamed of. The attempt of the South to carry slavery into the free territory of the US made it a burning question. But the American Congress in 1861, by unanimous vote declared that neither the Federal government nor the people had the right to legislate upon or interfere with slavery in any of the slave holding states of the Union. No….we did not assume when we took the field and the sea in the country’s defense that we were going to settle by force a moral question which had baffled all the wisdom and the patriotism of our fathers……No, we did not take up arms for the conscious purpose of fighting slavery down: but God, in his providence ……..allowed it swept aside …” I'll take those who were there over the rehashing and politically expedient rhetoric of later narrators.
Amen. It speaks volumes when men like General William Tecumseh Sherman, who's by all a war criminal, had more respect for the South post-war because he despises the propaganda song "Marching Through Georgia", due to it painting the South as evil slavers and the North as Liberators.
And yet, by declaring it's independence, the South effectively renounced any further claim to western territories or the attempt to spread slavery to those regions. So neither the defense of slavery, for slavery was not challenged, nor it's spread, for plantation agriculture was not viable outside of east Texas, were the motivation for seceding from the union, but to avoid a Republican administration which had financed John Brown, who had attempted a genocide of white southerners, and stated so explicitly.
The cause of the war and what the soldiers thought they fighting for are two entirely different things. I think that's almost always the case, isn't it?
@@charlesbynum Indeed. The units were locally drawn.....brothers and cousins in the same unit. Home town... I think most wars are fought by men fighting for something different then the cause of the politicians. In the book "Rebel Soldier Front and Rear", a personal account by a CSA vet, he stated that 3 out of 4 soldiers, on either side, did not care a "red cent" about the N___gro. (after the war, there was a lot of intermingling between the soldiers on each side as they worked their way home) I can provide the quote from the book for those who don't believe.
@@cinaedmacseamas2978www.masshist.org/features/boston-abolitionists/john-brown#:~:text=The%20%22Secret%20Six%22%2C%20a,Smith%2C%20and%20George%20Luther%20Stearns. John Brown was financed by a private group of abolutionists (who were very likely Republican supporters too). . If you are aware of any evidence that the "Republican administration " aided him, I'd like to see it. In fact, the first Republican administration didn't commence until after John Brown was executed. Thanks for listening.
Interesting too, that Teddy's mother was from Roswell, Georgia and whose brothers were officers in the Confederate navy. Teddy visited Bulloch Hall just a year later in 1905, giving a speech extolling his Southern heritage.
@@bjohnson515 "Victors"? Roosevelt was the POTUS, he proudly proclaimed himself to be Half Southern among other things. The speech is actually 3 speeches given at different venues in Roswell Georgia on his 1905 speaking tour of the South. You can find summaries on the Theodore Roosevelt Center website. The speeches weren't recorded word for word, everyone didn't have a camera in their pocket in 1905. That doesn't mean any victors edited anything.
@@tonymiller8826 Yep. The victors control the narrative. And Teddy's speech about being Southern is nicely tucked away in his library. I would invite the author of this history series to give his Southern speech equal treatment. And because he hasnt, my point holds.
@@bjohnson515 This has nothing to do with anyone being a Victor. You could have found this just a quickly as I did. Information if freer today than it ever has been. You prefer to sit back and complain after you find out you're really just ignorant of something and blame it on some mysterious boogie man of a "Victor". Nobody cared about beating anyone, the war was long over, reconstruction had mostly happened. Roosevelt was speaking in the Southern USA not the CSA... He was technically the "victor" so you're claiming he censored himself? No, you're just ignorant.
@@tonymiller8826 Its a question of what is presented. How many times have you heard the Gettysburg address vs Jefferson Davis' inaugural? Name calling is childish and a sign you are frustrated.
You do an amazing job of capturing moments in time by digging through soldiers letters and other individual accounts taken from personal experiences of those involved. I am grateful for the amount of research you do. I feel connected to the individuals because you bring them to life in a way that history books for the most part don’t. Thank you!
I am thoroughly enjoying this series. It is always interesting to hear how our national understanding of history changes; sadly, often not for the better.
Ron I just read about the Shelton Massacre in January 1863 in North Carolina! Do you know about this massacre and could you do a video on this incident? I never heard about this incident until yesterday! I would like to know more about this story! Thank you for your great work!
CSA Brigadier General Edward Porter Alexander 1902 comments on the lost cause “Whose vision is now so dull that he does not recognize the blessing it is to himself and to his children to live in an undivided country? Who would to-day relegate his own State to the position it would hold in the world were it declared a sovereign, as are the States of Central and South America? To ask these questions is to answer them. And the answer is the acknowledgment that it was best for the South that the cause was 'lost.' The right to secede, the stake for which we fought so desperately, were it now offered us as a gift, we would reject as we would a proposition of suicide.” CSA Brigadier General Edward Porter Alexander 1902 from The Confederate Veteran pg 4
Yes his memoirs are worth a read very honest in them as well We also have him to thank for that horrendous artillery barrage at Gettysburg being almost entirely overshot LOL He was just a kid of 27 or 28 at the time and seemed more concerned about his torn uniorm pants than anything else
It's sad that on today's university campuses these great American philosopher leaders are viewed in such a negative and intellectually shallow light due solely to their race. Their spirit and the spirit of MLK Jr. are dying in our so-called institutes of higher learning.
Upon hearing and reading speeches of men who have made several hints about manifest destiny I give pause to consider what a divided America would have meant for world history. Would a divided America have been able to able to deal with the expansion of fascism ? Or would it only have emboldened those regimes to take the same path earlier and with more vigor instead? When contemplating those factors Manifest Destiny seems to have its place.
I would like to interject into this discussion the intentional manufacturing of views, causes and emotions of this war. To wit, in 1958 the US Navy named a nuclear submarine after R E Lee. 60 years later, they tear his statues down. What changed? Did the facts of history change or was the zeitgeist twisted to the nouveau politically correct version of the WBTS?
Let us keep in mind the words of Union Major General George Thomas. General Thomas is both a southerner and a primary Union source. In his 1868 Department report to General U.S. Grant, General stated : “[T]he greatest efforts made by the defeated insurgents since the close of the war have been to promulgate the idea that the cause of liberty, justice, humanity, equality, and all the calendar of the virtues of freedom, suffered violence and wrong when the effort for southern independence failed. This is, of course, intended as a species of political cant, whereby the crime of treason might be covered with a counterfeit varnish of patriotism, so that the precipitators of the rebellion might go down in history hand in hand with the defenders of the government, thus wiping out with their own hands their own stains; a species of self-forgiveness amazing in its effrontery, when it is considered that life and property-justly forfeited by the laws of the country, of war, and of nations, through the magnanimity of the government and people-was not exacted from them. - M.G. George Henry Thomas, November 1868 Published in the Sacramento Daily Union 4 December 1868 Respectfully, W.S.
There are those here that believe tariffs were not an important issue. They call it part of what they call the 'Lost Cause" post war myth. Remarkable that the casual observer of the 21st Century considers themselves more astute to the issues of that day than those who lived the era. "...The taxing power of the Government, and its duty growing out of the exercise of that power, in view of the constitutional grant, present questions which, in my judgement, are not surpassed in importance by any ever agitated in an American Congress. I at once acknowledge the vast magnitude and importance of the questions growing out of African slavery as it exists in some of the States of our Union. I am satisfied that upon its adjustment and final settlement the fate of the Government depends, and properly depends. Yet no question connected with the Government can be of more interest or importance than those growing out of the bill under consideration [Morrill Tariff]..." Speech of Rep. G.S. Houston of Alabama, in the House of Representatives, May 8, 1860 Now the question is not whether they were correct to believe the importance of the issue but whether THEY THOUGHT it an important issue. It is clear that it was.
I have asked and have not received a cogent answer - What is the difference between 13 colonies declaring their independence in 1776 and 11 states declaring there independence in 1860?
While I love your channel there are things for first time i won't say disagree but differ ! in 1904 there were racial issues not just with people of color ! There was still were hate toward Catholics (Italians,Polish ,Irish ), so much so That KKK was reborn and had bigger membership in North then in South people tend not to mention that or try out right to aviod that fact ! Not to mention the Asian hate that was on going since Pres, Grant till 1904 and on going . And we won't even start with Native Americans ! As Historian you address all not selected ones ! Aagain I am not saying you are wrong but you selected 1 group wrong where in 1904 there were many ! Difference is how those who overcame and adopted and yet some failed to to do ! And even in 1904 can you name country or nation that was or even bettter ? Answer is No !
The Gettysburg address is full of flaws... The victors write the history books.. 1. Four Score and Seven Years Ago was not the point of the creation of a nation. It was the Declaration of Independence. It was the separation of the colonies from Great Britain. No government was established, and even the first form, the Articles of Confederation, made clear the sovereignty of the States. 2. Our Fathers Brought fourth on this continent a new nation As expressed by the Articles of Confederation in 1781, it was NOT a nation, but a league of sovereign States. Any creation of a nation developed from a force of arms in the war between the States. There is no mention of nation in the Constitution, there are still no nationally tallied votes, and Lincoln in his first inaugural used the word nation not once, but Union over 20 times. 3. Conceived in Liberty...dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Slavery existed in every State at the time of Constitutional ratification. 4. Today we are engaged in a great "civil war". A civil war is a war in which one group attempts to overthrow the current form or rule of government. The South sought a peaceful withdrawl from a previous agreement. VA RI and NY all contained language in their ratifications of the Constitution that they reserved the right to leave, to retake powers delegated to the federal experiment. When VA attempted to do so, they were invaded by the Union army. 5. Testing whether that a nation....can long endure. Again, the South was not attempting to destroy the Union of States from which they departed any more than the colonies attempted to destroy Great Britain. As Jefferson Davis said, "refusing to live beneath a coercive federal government did not mean the failure of self government rather it was a confirmation and enthronement of self government." 6. A final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live That "nation", the remaining northern States, was not in danger of ceasing to exist. Its eradication was not the objective of the South, though Lincoln shaded his comments to suggest such. 7. And the government of the People, by the People and for the People shall not perish from this earth. Why did Lincoln suggest that democracy would perish if the Southern States seceded? Democracy and willful allegiances rather than coerced allegiances are more democratic in nature...coercion is not democratic.
The Gettysburg address was written by the same person who held a seance in the White House. When you look at the faces of Lincoln and Sherman you can clearly see who they follow spiritually and it isn’t the God who created the universe.
The Cival War was about POWER AND MONEY Abraham Lincoln was a Authoritarian Tyrant who illegally invaded the CSA to further enrich the Northern Bankers and business as they had enriched themselves off of Southern Agriculture for the 70 years before the war started.
As was the privilege of the rich in the 1860’s, TR’s father, Theodore Sr. was able to hire a substitute to serve for him in the Union Army during the war. TR, who considered his father the greatest man he’d ever known, spent the rest of his life making up for that “embarrassment”.
@@neilpemberton5523 I doubt you have learned history from anything other than a narrative fed to you by people like you. Funny note: I kicked a guy out of my hotel for stealing breakfast. His name was Pemberton.
In my view this country never did unify - the Confederacy just became the Republican party - tea party - and maga - we are still and have always been at odds
Are race relations better today than they were in 1905 or even 1965? Are organizations like Black Lives Matter making a positive difference or are people like Candice Owens?
If Presidents in this modern Era, would write their own speeches, it would help to illuminate their intellect, exposing their communication skills. So many today are given high praise, for something they didn't think, or initiate, so maybe we should give credit where credit is due, to that lowely, (25) years old speech writer. I have read letters from soldiers from the battlefield, writing home to loved ones, with the most articulated prose, in a sense poetic. Roosevelt, Lincoln, with so many others, down thru the ages, wrote from the heart, using their constructive abilities, to express themselves. Their ability to communicate, inspired the masses, we, don't bare witness to much of that today, do we?
You find the best stories and share . Thank you
Reading through some of the comments on this page, and noting the present state of politics in our nation, it is quite clear the Civil War is not over. And that is deeply regretable.
Take the Federal government position with Texas trying to protect its border. Does not Texas have a right to protect against invasion? Why should the Federal government sue Texas to prevent it from invasion? This is a very concerning issue.
@@animemanganet I have no problem with states enforcing their sovereignity up to a point. But international borders should be protected by the federal government. We could have a discussion as to whether or not they are doing a good job on that score.
THe problem began when the Federal Government didn't enforce it's own lawns; so the states have no choice but to do it, themselves.@@animemanganet
The fed isn’t protecting its citizens on our southern border at all . Wake up out there.
The Civil War is over. A Civil War is always a possibility.
Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain on Memorial Day 1884 and to his former troops.
"“Now, I think the cause of that war lay in a political question. And that was as to the nature of our political union, and the form of government. ….The question left unsettled as to the nature of our government, was one of political supremacy, of what is called sovereignty……
I do not think that many went ion the war with the motive, distinctly and directly to overthrow slavery by force of arms. The destruction of slavery was more than we dreamed of. The attempt of the South to carry slavery into the free territory of the US made it a burning question. But the American Congress in 1861, by unanimous vote declared that neither the Federal government nor the people had the right to legislate upon or interfere with slavery in any of the slave holding states of the Union.
No….we did not assume when we took the field and the sea in the country’s defense that we were going to settle by force a moral question which had baffled all the wisdom and the patriotism of our fathers……No, we did not take up arms for the conscious purpose of fighting slavery down: but God, in his providence ……..allowed it swept aside …”
I'll take those who were there over the rehashing and politically expedient rhetoric of later narrators.
Amen. It speaks volumes when men like General William Tecumseh Sherman, who's by all a war criminal, had more respect for the South post-war because he despises the propaganda song "Marching Through Georgia", due to it painting the South as evil slavers and the North as Liberators.
And yet, by declaring it's independence, the South effectively renounced any further claim to western territories or the attempt to spread slavery to those regions.
So neither the defense of slavery, for slavery was not challenged, nor it's spread, for plantation agriculture was not viable outside of east Texas, were the motivation for seceding from the union, but to avoid a Republican administration which had financed John Brown, who had attempted a genocide of white southerners, and stated so explicitly.
The cause of the war and what the soldiers thought they fighting for are two entirely different things. I think that's almost always the case, isn't it?
@@charlesbynum
Indeed. The units were locally drawn.....brothers and cousins in the same unit. Home town...
I think most wars are fought by men fighting for something different then the cause of the politicians.
In the book "Rebel Soldier Front and Rear", a personal account by a CSA vet, he stated that 3 out of 4 soldiers, on either side, did not care a "red cent" about the N___gro. (after the war, there was a lot of intermingling between the soldiers on each side as they worked their way home)
I can provide the quote from the book for those who don't believe.
@@cinaedmacseamas2978www.masshist.org/features/boston-abolitionists/john-brown#:~:text=The%20%22Secret%20Six%22%2C%20a,Smith%2C%20and%20George%20Luther%20Stearns.
John Brown was financed by a private group of abolutionists (who were very likely Republican supporters too). . If you are aware of any evidence that the "Republican administration " aided him, I'd like to see it. In fact, the first Republican administration didn't commence until after John Brown was executed. Thanks for listening.
Interesting too, that Teddy's mother was from Roswell, Georgia and whose brothers were officers in the Confederate navy. Teddy visited Bulloch Hall just a year later in 1905, giving a speech extolling his Southern heritage.
Where is that speech?
Omitted from history by the victors who edit history.
@@bjohnson515 "Victors"? Roosevelt was the POTUS, he proudly proclaimed himself to be Half Southern among other things. The speech is actually 3 speeches given at different venues in Roswell Georgia on his 1905 speaking tour of the South. You can find summaries on the Theodore Roosevelt Center website. The speeches weren't recorded word for word, everyone didn't have a camera in their pocket in 1905. That doesn't mean any victors edited anything.
@@tonymiller8826 Yep. The victors control the narrative. And Teddy's speech about being Southern is nicely tucked away in his library. I would invite the author of this history series to give his Southern speech equal treatment. And because he hasnt, my point holds.
@@bjohnson515 This has nothing to do with anyone being a Victor. You could have found this just a quickly as I did. Information if freer today than it ever has been. You prefer to sit back and complain after you find out you're really just ignorant of something and blame it on some mysterious boogie man of a "Victor". Nobody cared about beating anyone, the war was long over, reconstruction had mostly happened. Roosevelt was speaking in the Southern USA not the CSA... He was technically the "victor" so you're claiming he censored himself? No, you're just ignorant.
@@tonymiller8826 Its a question of what is presented. How many times have you heard the Gettysburg address vs Jefferson Davis' inaugural? Name calling is childish and a sign you are frustrated.
",,,where slavery no longer mocks the boast of freedom...." best line
You do an amazing job of capturing moments in time by digging through soldiers letters and other individual accounts taken from personal experiences of those involved. I am grateful for the amount of research you do. I feel connected to the individuals because you bring them to life in a way that history books for the most part don’t. Thank you!
Love this series!
Very good to learn. Thank you.
It is interesting to note the verbosity of this speech. This was a time when American presidents still wrote their own stuff...
I'm guessing you are saying that you find his speech eloquent and compelling, and not verbose?
He was always a bit up his own arsche.
As if you lived then and knew how that compared to everyone else.@@beachcomber1able
@@Doo_Doo_Patrol Verbosity - the quality of using more words than needed; wordiness.
very interesting & an excellent analysis (& we sure wouldn't ever hear a speech like that today☹️) thanks for posting!👍🇺🇸
I am thoroughly enjoying this series. It is always interesting to hear how our national understanding of history changes; sadly, often not for the better.
You do a marvelous job of “putting meat on the bones” of our history. Well done and keep up the good work.
Ron I just read about the Shelton Massacre in January 1863 in North Carolina! Do you know about this massacre and could you do a video on this incident? I never heard about this incident until yesterday! I would like to know more about this story! Thank you for your great work!
CSA Brigadier General Edward Porter Alexander 1902 comments on the lost cause
“Whose vision is now so dull that he does not recognize the blessing it is to himself and to his children to live in an undivided country? Who would to-day relegate his own State to the position it would hold in the world were it declared a sovereign, as are the States
of Central and South America? To ask these questions is to answer them. And the answer is the acknowledgment that it was best for the South that the cause was 'lost.' The right to secede, the stake for which we fought so desperately, were it now offered us as a gift, we would reject as we would a proposition of suicide.”
CSA Brigadier General Edward Porter Alexander 1902 from The Confederate Veteran pg 4
A most worthy gentlemen indeed.
Brilliantly said great post 🇬🇧🏴🇺🇸
Yes his memoirs are worth a read very honest in them as well We also have him to thank for that horrendous artillery barrage at Gettysburg being almost entirely overshot LOL He was just a kid of 27 or 28 at the time and seemed more concerned about his torn uniorm pants than anything else
He must have been smoking pot.
Theodore Roosevelt was a TRUE AMERICAN HEROE!
It's sad that on today's university campuses these great American philosopher leaders are viewed in such a negative and intellectually shallow light due solely to their race.
Their spirit and the spirit of MLK Jr. are dying in our so-called institutes of higher learning.
if u want to know about the meaning of civil war think about who we are not allowed to criticize
I wonder if the platform he spoke from was roughly in the same place as the Gettysburg Address platform. This is a great recollection.
You can lead horse to water, but you can't make him think.
Pretty clear what Roosevelt thought the war was about.
I like the derby over the top hat
Me too. I just can't uderstand the purpose of the Top Hat. It is too much hat.
Upon hearing and reading speeches of men who have made several hints about manifest destiny I give pause to consider what a divided America would have meant for world history. Would a divided America have been able to able to deal with the expansion of fascism ? Or would it only have emboldened those regimes to take the same path earlier and with more vigor instead? When contemplating those factors Manifest Destiny seems to have its place.
Yes those hallowed words.
"OLD RUFES NEEDED NOW!"
"Two Bee Reeplaced bye Metell"
Not coincidentally, all three war veterans!
I would like to interject into this discussion the intentional manufacturing of views, causes and emotions of this war.
To wit, in 1958 the US Navy named a nuclear submarine after R E Lee. 60 years later, they tear his statues down. What changed?
Did the facts of history change or was the zeitgeist twisted to the nouveau politically correct version of the WBTS?
Let us keep in mind the words of Union Major General George Thomas. General Thomas is both a southerner and a primary Union source. In his 1868 Department report to General U.S. Grant, General stated :
“[T]he greatest efforts made by the defeated insurgents since the close of the war have been to promulgate the idea that the cause of liberty, justice, humanity, equality, and all the calendar of the virtues of freedom, suffered violence and wrong when the effort for southern independence failed.
This is, of course, intended as a species of political cant, whereby the crime of treason might be covered with a counterfeit varnish of patriotism, so that the precipitators of the rebellion might go down in history hand in hand with the defenders of the government, thus wiping out with their own hands their own stains; a species of self-forgiveness amazing in its effrontery, when it is considered that life and property-justly forfeited by the laws of the country, of war, and of nations, through the magnanimity of the government and people-was not exacted from them.
- M.G. George Henry Thomas, November 1868
Published in the Sacramento Daily Union 4 December 1868
Respectfully, W.S.
No wonder he fought for the wrong side
One of countries great unsung military leaders and a true patriot.
@@panthercreek60 Wrong side? Someone like you is exactly who General Thomas is referring to in the above passage.
@@charlesmartin1121
Which is why he was on the wrong side. He totally misrepresented his chosen enemy
@@panthercreek60 How?
It sounds like a Celtic vs Anglo-Saxon war that has dragged on for centuries
Teddy Roosevelt, the third best President of the United States, after George Washington an Abraham Lincoln.
Hmm, maybe, but he was the most badass.
There are those here that believe tariffs were not an important issue.
They call it part of what they call the 'Lost Cause" post war myth.
Remarkable that the casual observer of the 21st Century considers themselves more astute to the issues of that day than those who lived the era.
"...The taxing power of the Government, and its duty growing out of the exercise of that power, in view of the constitutional grant, present questions which, in my judgement, are not surpassed in importance by any ever agitated in an American Congress. I at once acknowledge the vast magnitude and importance of the questions growing out of African slavery as it exists in some of the States of our Union. I am satisfied that upon its adjustment and final settlement the fate of the Government depends, and properly depends. Yet no question connected with the Government can be of more interest or importance than those growing out of the bill under consideration [Morrill Tariff]..."
Speech of Rep. G.S. Houston of Alabama, in the House of Representatives, May 8, 1860
Now the question is not whether they were correct to believe the importance of the issue but whether THEY THOUGHT it an important issue. It is clear that it was.
Are we just lucky that the Union won that (F)ing war
Roosevelt correctly called our Nation a "Republic".
I have asked and have not received a cogent answer - What is the difference between 13 colonies declaring their independence in 1776 and 11 states declaring there independence in 1860?
No politically correct answer. They can only talk around it. There is no difference
One of those attempts failed. There’s one difference. I’m sure you can come up with more.
Thats one hell of a Yankee speech. I have a few disagreements with Ole teddy lol
Agree!
…”stern insistence on the supremacy of NATIONAL law.” I don’t think a strong centralized government is what the founding fathers had in mind.
While I love your channel there are things for first time i won't say disagree but differ ! in 1904 there were racial issues not just with people of color ! There was still were hate toward Catholics (Italians,Polish ,Irish ), so much so That KKK was reborn and had bigger membership in North then in South people tend not to mention that or try out right to aviod that fact ! Not to mention the Asian hate that was on going since Pres, Grant till 1904 and on going . And we won't even start with Native Americans ! As Historian you address all not selected ones ! Aagain I am not saying you are wrong but you selected 1 group wrong where in 1904 there were many ! Difference is how those who overcame and adopted and yet some failed to to do ! And even in 1904 can you name country or nation that was or even bettter ? Answer is No !
The Gettysburg address is full of flaws...
The victors write the history books..
1. Four Score and Seven Years Ago was not the point of the creation of a nation. It was the Declaration of Independence. It was the separation of the colonies from Great Britain. No government was established, and even the first form, the Articles of Confederation, made clear the sovereignty of the States.
2. Our Fathers Brought fourth on this continent a new nation As expressed by the Articles of Confederation in 1781, it was NOT a nation, but a league of sovereign States. Any creation of a nation developed from a force of arms in the war between the States. There is no mention of nation in the Constitution, there are still no nationally tallied votes, and Lincoln in his first inaugural used the word nation not once, but Union over 20 times.
3. Conceived in Liberty...dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Slavery existed in every State at the time of Constitutional ratification.
4. Today we are engaged in a great "civil war". A civil war is a war in which one group attempts to overthrow the current form or rule of government. The South sought a peaceful withdrawl from a previous agreement. VA RI and NY all contained language in their ratifications of the Constitution that they reserved the right to leave, to retake powers delegated to the federal experiment. When VA attempted to do so, they were invaded by the Union army.
5. Testing whether that a nation....can long endure. Again, the South was not attempting to destroy the Union of States from which they departed any more than the colonies attempted to destroy Great Britain. As Jefferson Davis said, "refusing to live beneath a coercive federal government did not mean the failure of self government rather it was a confirmation and enthronement of self government."
6. A final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live That "nation", the remaining northern States, was not in danger of ceasing to exist. Its eradication was not the objective of the South, though Lincoln shaded his comments to suggest such.
7. And the government of the People, by the People and for the People shall not perish from this earth. Why did Lincoln suggest that democracy would perish if the Southern States seceded? Democracy and willful allegiances rather than coerced allegiances are more democratic in nature...coercion is not democratic.
The Gettysburg address was written by the same person who held a seance in the White House. When you look at the faces of Lincoln and Sherman you can clearly see who they follow spiritually and it isn’t the God who created the universe.
Careful, the FBI, DOJ, CIA and DHS may come looking for you as your analysis portends insurrection don'cha know
Very well stated.
The Cival War was about POWER AND MONEY Abraham Lincoln was a Authoritarian Tyrant who illegally invaded the CSA to further enrich the Northern Bankers and business as they had enriched themselves off of Southern Agriculture for the 70 years before the war started.
I remember reading the Gettysburg Address in grade school and thought it was all bullshit at the time.
I'm sorry, but the older I get, the less I like either Teddy or Franklin Roosevelt.
TR’s father paid the $300 “replacement fee” and sent some poor man in his place, and his sons felt humiliation about that fact.
As was the privilege of the rich in the 1860’s, TR’s father, Theodore Sr. was able to hire a substitute to serve for him in the Union Army during the war. TR, who considered his father the greatest man he’d ever known, spent the rest of his life making up for that “embarrassment”.
The Southern cause was among the most deplorable In history.
Learn history.
I assume you mean United States history.
User probably would have said so, but still wrong in any case.@@commonleadership48
@TalibanSymphonyOrchestra I learned your version of history. It was full of falsehoods.
@@neilpemberton5523 I doubt you have learned history from anything other than a narrative fed to you by people like you. Funny note: I kicked a guy out of my hotel for stealing breakfast. His name was Pemberton.
I will take the word of the hundreds of thousands of African American soldiers who fought on the side of the U.S.A to extinguish slavery.
What about the word of the black soldiers who fought for the Confederacy, and by the way the Africans were not Americans at that point.
In my view this country never did unify - the Confederacy just became the Republican party - tea party - and maga - we are still and have always been at odds
You need to study the Civil War. The Confederacy was a Democrat stronghold. Lincoln was the first Republican President.
Another guy who doesn't have a clue.
Are race relations better today than they were in 1905 or even 1965?
Are organizations like Black Lives Matter making a positive difference or are people like Candice Owens?