Home / War / The Real Gettysburg Address
Print Friendly and PDF

The Real Gettysburg Address

Written by Gary North on November 21, 2013

The recent publication of the original draft of the Gettysburg Address has attracted considerable attention. Lincoln’s subsequent revisions received wider publicity.

The original text gives us greater insight into the thinking of the Great Emancipator.

Print Friendly and PDF

Posting Policy:
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

22 thoughts on “The Real Gettysburg Address

  1. The fact of the matter is that Lincoln was a tyrant. He is responsible for the deaths of over 600,000 American soldiers plus many civilians! He was the one president to start the "imperial presidency" and in doing so scraping the constitutional restraints on Federal power over the States and individual liberty. This made it easier for the tyrants to follow; i.e. Roosevelt, Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson, Clinton and Obama.

  2. Patrick Duffy says:

    Agree with First_one. Lincoln didn't emancipate anybody. Furthermore, didn't God say to the Children of Israel that they could take slaves of the nations that they were to displace when they took the promised land? Why? Because those nations were an ABOMINATION to God and his laws, and their slavery/captivity was a WITNESS and a PUNISHMENT for their iniquities. Therefore, slavery is NOT the great evil that this world has labeled it. God also put the Children of Israel into 400 years of slavery in Egypt to FULFILL HIS PURPOSE. Is he evil for sanctioning that slavery? WHO THE HELL WAS LINCOLN to make such a judgement? And then wage a war to supposedly right this wrong? Lincoln set the stage for the tyrant federalists system that we have today that ENSLAVES the American people to the FEDERAL INCOME TAX, which was for "reparations'. Now if that's not slavery, I don't know what is, so PLEASE do not tell me Lincoln was anything but a tyrant that killed nearly a million southerners, most of which never held a single slave.

  3. I will disagree with First_one and Patrick Duffy. The south alone was responsible for 600,000 deaths, trying to maintain a corrupt and evil system. Duffy argues in favor of slavery, a thin argument which contradicts Jesus's injunction to treat others as you wish to be treated. He can cite the OT and I the NT. I might say that the deaths of southerners were necessary to atone for slavery, but I am not so sure that is a sound argument, since such judgements must be in God's hands alone. The fact of the deaths would at least raise suspicion that God had taken vengeance.

  4. See my reply below, I welcome dialog

  5. See my reply below; I welcome dialog

  6. If Sherman was an agent of God’s wrath against God’s people, because they advocated a lawful elimination of racial slavery, then what will happen to God’s people if they continue to advocate a lawful elimination of abortion?

    First_One is arguing sanctions. What are legitimate tools of reform?

  7. uhh, sorry to pop your little bubble, but the South did NOT secede over the issue of slavery. No, it was a far larger issue, one that remains today, that of state sovereignty. Do your homeework, the South was under terrible economic stress due directly to the unjust tariffs imposed by the more poiltically powerful North, strangling the economy of the South. The technological advances of the Industrial Revolution were fast obsoleting the entire system of slavery, and the South knew it, and were working toward a reasonable and viable solution. It was the economics, and some politics, that pushed the South to secede. Lincoln violated his oath of office in commanding troops to INVADE the South. Rmember, the Constitution precludes using military force to enforce civil laws, or to bring militarty action against any state, or its people. IN fact, per the definition of "treason" in the Constituion (the ONLY crime named and defined in that document) Lincoln committed treason in attacking the South. Strong evidence exists to show that the so-called "firing on Fort Sumpter", the "excuse" for the invasion itself, was a false flag operation, deliberately set up to provoke that firing to "justify" the retaliatory invasion. In any case, had Lincoln's military stopped after stabilising that situation, the rest of the War of Northern Aggression never would have taken place. But no, that opened the door, much like Iraq opened the door to Afghanistan, Libya, nearly in Syria…… and Vietnam opened the way into Cambodia and Burma…..

    And, don't forget in uour strange calculus, that slavery as an institution was BEGUN by the moslem slavers promiting the invading and capture of villages and tribes in Africa by PAYING high prices for the hordes of locals ruonded up, marched for hundreds of miles, and sold to the moslem buyers….. who then sold them to the slavers. Had not these rotten excuses of humanity started the process by buying thousands of slaves to resell, the rest never could have happened. This does not justify the rest……
    Then, consider how "resonstruction" was foisted upon the defeated and destroyed South: corrupt and greedy northern operatives descended upon the wasteland of the South and IMPOSED all menner of new rules, laws, patterns…. the "emancipation" itself was a travesty. Millions of slaves instantly "freed"….. forcibly removed from their homes and occupations, forced into the streets, no marketable skills, no organisation, no order, no means of subsistence, no direction, nowhere to even sleep at night… further devastating what little of production remained in the South. NO OPTION was afforded for a slave owner to free his people, begin to pay them wages for their labour, and maintain his own operations. No, the sudden mandated removal (they HAD to leave their plantations/homes/work) drove home the final blow destroying what remained of the South.

    And HOW did this all come about? Lincoln the tyrant overthrew Federal law and order, installing his own form of government.. and opening the door to the utter tyranny under which we all suffer today. States ARE sovereign at law, yet FedGov overpowers, meddles, controls, limits, subjugates, mandates, at every level. Only a few carefully chosen powers were given FedGov. ALL the others, unless prohibited to the States by the Constituion, are returned to the States, or to the People. Consider Federal management of law enforcement, education, healthcare, business, firearms, alcohol, safety standards, polution and "environmenta;" standards, and the list goes on ad nauseum…… ALL issues pertaining to the STATES, and not FedGov. Lincoln initiated this massive shift in power. And he's a "hero"> Not in MY book. Nor is he the "emancipator" of the slaves. He and his thinking have enslaved far more than he freed.

  8. There's no evidence slavery was withering away – the price of a slave kept rising until the Civil War. On the other hand, the "poor" South was clearly gearing up for war and had they attacked the North early enough they might have actually won. Oh and Fort Sumter? Oh yeah the South was innocent because they were "goaded". Sure.

  9. Tonico has written a concise and masterful synopsis of what actually happened. Lincoln used the slavery issue only to stir up support for the war he was losing until 1863. In fact, in his earlier speeches and writings he always supported slavery. His Inlaws were slaveholders and his brother in laws were Confederate officers. He was the first of a long line of presidents who were controlled by the big money interests who realized how much money could be made by creating war. Of course, this continues today by both political parties. South Carolina send envoy after envoy to Lincoln to remove the troops from Fort Sumpter. Lincoln refused to see them and in fact by the time the Carolinians opened fire the troops themselves had requested to be moved out. A group of Southerners send a boat load of food to the Sumpter troops that Lincoln had trapped ther, as many knew or were acquainted with them by virtue of the mere fact that the troops visited the mainland on a regular basis.The Federals had refused to send any food to their own and the troops inside the fort were starving, hence the removal request. Two weeks after the shelling more envoys were send to Lincoln to try to resolve the issue, again he refused to see them. So please tell me who wanted the war but the big money interests who owned the "traitor to the Constitution" Lincoln,whom they owned body and soul.

  10. very well explained tionico… the war was never about slavery itself, but rather the north disrupting the rapid growth of the south's economy, and its threat to surpass the north and become the new center of influence… and, the north, from a practical standpoint had slaves of their own, the irish immigrants, a large percentage of whom would starve each year, with no concern, outrage or compassion from the more civilized north (what a crock), a symptom rarely witness in the slaves of the south… rewriting history has become a favorite pastime of politicians…

  11. By about 1890 all of the southern and central America countries declared slavery to be illegal, without a war. Slavery was becoming a very poor way of business.

  12. Lincoln was no tyrant. He was a brave and honest man who struggled to find a solution to the great moral crisis of his day. He agonized over the extraordinary measures he took to deal with the country's problems, but once he decided on a course of action he was resolute and unwavering. Above all else, he wanted to preserve the union because he believed in his heart that an all-wise and all-knowing Providence was behind the founding of the United States of America. Love him or hate him, he was the Churchill of the 19th century.

  13. No one talks about the CURSE that started it all. The NEGRO!

    Now the CURSE is upon US again with another negro. A SODOMITE NEGRO! Nothing more reprehensible to God but sodomites.

    You guys think the Civil War was bad. Wait to you see what’s in store for you from this descendants of the FURST CURSE!

  14. It certainly wasn't withering away in the U.S.A./C.S.A.

  15. You are quite right, sir. And those tariffs on the southern states REMAINED in effect until WW-II. The whole sorry story is told by one Confederate soldier who was captured by the Union Army. When asked why he was fighting them he said, "Because YOU are here."
    More North Carolinian's were killed or maimed than from any other state in the south. And most of them were Piedmont or Mountain boys. Only the coastal sections of NC had any "plantations" and the numbers of slaves could be counted in the dozens. The Tarheels fought because strangers were shooting at them..

  16. Tionico- I agree with you.

    I'm trying to understand if Westerner's support for unlawful acts of violence to end slavery is consistently applied to other issues. If Westerner believes God brought harm to Christians in the South, because they advocated due process, then does Westerner advocate lawless violence today, to right present evils, as the only way of escaping future wrath?

    If Westerner believes that Christ's injunction to treat others as we wish to be treated translates to support for men to be violent without limit to achieve an end, then does Westerner advocate violence to end all other forms of evil?

  17. it was being driven by the profits involved. BUT… larger landowners were well aware that the advances in mechanical implements were rapidly rendering slaves obsolete. Slaves were "property" and had to be fed, housed, clothed, and kept healthy, else the "investment" was lost. All this cost money whether the slaves did any work or not. In the North, the Irish, Italian, Polish, Russian, immiegrrants were often kept as slaves… except that no one "owned' then, thus no obligation to care for them as were the slaves in the south. Read some contemporary accounts of the "ruling class' and their assessment of the situation. Further, when the North came in with their forced "reconstruction" they regarded, and treated, the former slaves (now emancipated, no home, resources, skills, etc) just as they did the unemployed immigrants in the North… left them to fend for themselves. No wonder they became hated…… how were they to eat? It also had the side "benefit" of bankrupting many of the producers in the south….

  18. Now you mention Fort Sumpter, I've a couple things to bring back to your remembrance. First, recall that, prior to Lincoln, there WAS no standing army, no US Army, as there was stargint with his reign. Second, Fort Sumpter was an isand fort in Charleson Harbor, to protect shipping in and out of that port. Third, LIncoln had ordered naval forces to blockade the Southern ports to assure the North's illegal and unconstitutional tariffs were being collected. To assist in this filthy piece of tyranny, the Fort, the property of and under the control of the state of South Caroiina, was occupied by Union forces…. the first attack ever on any State by FedGov or any other political subdivision. (recall the definition of "treason" defined in the Constitution). Fourth, the State Militia, lawfully constituted, fired upon that fort to retake it. SO– did that firing to retake what was rightfully that of South Carolina the "match that lit the war", or was the unlawful assault on sovereign state territory by the Union forces that match? YOU decide… and so, fifth, here we have a very early example of federal "spin" on an event.. and Lincoln made the most of it in the northern press, conveniently neglecting to provide the details of how it was those Union forces came to be in the position whence they COULD be fired upon. Let's se, now… Union seizes sovereign state territory illegally. State launches mission to retake their usurped sovereign territory. Union spins incident to portray South Caronilna as the aggresor, INVASION, NOW!!!!.

    Hmm… seems we have seen similar tactics of late… CIA supplies poison gas to Syrian rebels. Syrian rebels accidentally discharge some. People die. Obama screams and hollers "HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION", we must GO TO WAR ON SYRIA. Thankfully, enough of the truth leaked out in time to defuse that, other nations made some moves, Obama was aced and could not convince enough to approve… so left it all to rot….. no, we've never seen anything like that before…… no wonder the kinyun likes that Lincoln guy so much.

  19. Can sure tell you are an OBAMA supporter. It is amazing that people quickly forget that it was the Africans that sold their own people into slavery and that it was the REPUBLICANS that freed them. Most were owned by DEMOCRATS!! Lincoln was the greatest President that this country has ever seen It was unfortunate that a Civil War had to be fought between brothers here on American soil, but that would likely happen with greater force if states today tru=y to secede.

  20. If Blacks are so consumed with their "hero" Lincoln, who was responsible for the brutal deaths of over half a million white men, where are the thank you's? I'm not familiar with any appreciation from blacks for all these deaths. No memorials, thank you letters, etc. Isn't it time for blacks to thank us, instead of chasting us, for the scrafice these men made?

    Something we'll never get! Time to DEMAND one from the black community!

  21. I agree, Lincoln certainly was no great president. He was one of the worst violaters of the Constitution who ever held office. He took it on himself to make war on the South without congressional approval, which finally came 3 months later, He threw most of Maryland's legislative body in jail without due process of law, jailed hundreds of Newspaper editors and thousands of war protestors in the North, Declared martial law and suspended Habeus Corpusl. Lincoln had no love for the black slaves but planned to round them all up and ship them to designated colonies outside the U.S.. He was against blacks having equality with whites and wanted to draft a law making slavery perpetual in the states where it already existed. Lincoln drove the South back into the union at gun point and forced some to rewrite their state constiutions in order to be readmitted back into the union, but stated beforehand the southern states were still part of the union. Not to mention, several of his high ranking generals in the union army were participants of the failed communist revolution in Europe in 1848 who managed to escape to America.

  22. kalamawashington says:

    That argument, that the South "had" to secede, is the same logic that is used in the "fighting words" laws. NO ONE can "make" you do something. You choose to do something, and then take the consequences, good or bad. In this case, the consequences were bad for the rebelling South.