FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Frauds of the Gettysburg Address

by KIRKPATRICK SALE

Tomorrow is the 150th anniversary of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, perhaps the most famous speech in American history, and a towering example of how that never-truthful man used fraud and deception to promote the dangerous and ultimately destructive causes of his Presidency. His language was so eloquent, and the speech so short, that few people then or now were aware of the three monstrous frauds he perpetrated.

First, what Lincoln did at Gettysburg was to create a brand new purpose for the war that the North was fighting against the Confederacy. No longer was it to be for the preservation of the union, as he had declared many times in the previous two years, nor for the restoration of forts and armories and customhouses, as he declared in his declaration of war, but now it was to be for the banners of equality and liberty that he has unfurled eleven months earlier in the cause of black emancipation.

He began his transformation of purpose with a distortion of history that claimed that the United States had been committed to equality and liberty in its original form and the present conflict was to preserve a nation “so conceived and so dedicated.” For this purpose he had to invent the notion that the nation began “four score and seven years ago”—that would be 1776—which is rank and utter nonsense. There was no nation when the colonies issued a Declaration of Independence to explain their rebellion and there didn’t become one until the Constitution was ratified thirteen years later.

Moreover, that Constitution, and the nation that it created, had nothing to do with being “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal,” a complete absurdity, for in fact it makes no mention of equality at all—and indeed explicitly endorses the institution of slavery, permits the slave trade for another two decades, and demands the return of fugitive slaves.

The preamble does make a slight passing reference to “secure the blessings of liberty,” though of course not for the black population, and nowhere in the document are there any articles or enumerated powers relating to liberty in any guise. Indeed the aristocratic Founding Fathers would have thought the idea of governmental machinery dedicated to liberty, much less equality, would be ludicrous—neither of them can be legislated—and they had no intention of setting up a nation that would try to achieve those undefinable and unachievable goals.

Second, furthering his distortion, Lincoln declared that the cause for which the Union soldiers “gave their last full measure of devotion” was “a new birth of freedom,” when we can be sure that this was the farthest thing from their minds, since no one had ever suggested before that was why they were fighting and dying. They certainly weren’t fighting for the freedom of the North, since that was never threatened. They were obviously not fighting for the freedom of the South, since that is precisely what they were against. They were not even fighting for a new birth of freedom for the slaves of the South, since that too had not previously been declared a cause for the war, not even after the publication of the Emancipation Proclamation back in January. They were presumably fighting for the Union, or because they had been ordered to, but they were all white men and they had no notion of giving their lives for a world of free blacks.

Third, as for the idea with which Lincoln ended his speech—that ours was a government of, by, and for the people—I’m afraid that too would have seemed a peculiar idea to the Fathers. The government they created was very careful to limit the powers of “the people,” making sure that the senior house, the Senate, was not to be elected by the general populace, of whom they tended to have a very dim view, but by the state legislatures. And even the voters for the House of Representatives were limited according to state regulations, in which a majority of the states had various property requirements, as they did for candidates to the Electoral College.

We may get some idea of how the Fathers regarded “the people” from an 1813 letter that Jefferson, one of the most democratically inclined crafters of the Constitution, wrote to John Adams. He hoped, he said, that “the natural aristocracy” of this country, of which he considered himself a part, “may safely and advantageously reserve to themselves wholesome control over their public affairs,” and hoped that “the mobs of great cities” and “the class of artificers as the panderers of vice” never have a say in those matters. Government was certainly not, and not meant to be, of or by the people, though it was surely for them, as any natural aristocracy would provide.

An entirely fraudulent address, then, that Abraham Lincoln created, and especially important because it served not only to give the war a new direction and purpose (and a new high moral ground from which to unsheathe a “terrible swift sword” against the South) but also in a sense to give the nation that he was hoping to create, which was to be centralized and Washington-centered as never before, a central purpose. I suspect few with any knowledge of the intervening 150 years would think it wise to have set this land on a course for 150 years of trying to achieve equality, an impossible abstract that requires an ever-more-powerful government to try to accomplish, and to do so by depending not on the states but on an amorphous thing called “the people.”

Of course that didn’t stop Obama from proclaiming exactly that as the goal of his second term. But as we know, his goal was not really equality but a continued expansion of an already bloated government.

Kirkpatrick Sale is the author of After Eden: The Evolution of Human Domination and eleven other books.  This essay is adapted from Sale’s recent book: Emancipation Hell: the Tragedy Wrought by the Emancipation Proclamation. He is the director of the Middlebury Institute.

Kirkpatrick Sale is the author of twelve books over fifty years and lives in Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina.

More articles by:
June 29, 2016
Diana Johnstone
European Unification Divides Europeans: How Forcing People Together Tears Them Apart
Andrew Smolski
To My Less-Evilism Haters: A Rejoinder to Halle and Chomsky
David Rosen
Birth-Control Wars: Two Centuries of Struggle
Sheldon Richman
Brexit: What Kind of Dependence Now?
Yves Engler
“Canadian” Corporate Capitalism
Lawrence Davidson
Return to the Gilded Age: Paul Ryan’s Deregulated Dystopia
Priti Gulati Cox
All That Glitters is Fearsome: Whatever Happens, Don’t Blame Jill Stein
Franklin Lamb
About the Accusation that Syrian and Russian Troops are Looting Palmyra
Binoy Kampmark
Texas, Abortion and the US Supreme Court
Anhvinh Doanvo
Justice Thomas’s Abortion Dissent Tolerates Discrimination
Victor Grossman
Brexit Pro and Con: the View From Germany
Manuel E. Yepe
Brazil: the Southern Giant Will Have to Fight
Rivera Sun
The Nonviolent History of American Independence
Adjoa Agyeiwaa
Is Western Aid Destroying Nigeria’s Future?
Jesse Jackson
What Clinton Should Learn From Brexit
Mel Gurtov
Is Brexit the End of the World?
June 28, 2016
Jonathan Cook
The Neoliberal Prison: Brexit Hysteria and the Liberal Mind
Paul Street
Bernie, Bakken, and Electoral Delusion: Letting Rich Guys Ruin Iowa and the World
Anthony DiMaggio
Fatally Flawed: the Bi-Partisan Travesty of American Health Care Reform
Mike King
The “Free State of Jones” in Trump’s America: Freedom Beyond White Imagination
Antonis Vradis
Stop Shedding Tears for the EU Monster: Brexit, the View From the Peloponnese
Omar Kassem
The End of the Atlantic Project: Slamming the Brakes on the Neoliberal Order
Binoy Kampmark
Brexit and the Neoliberal Revolt Against Jeremy Corbyn
Doug Johnson Hatlem
Alabama Democratic Primary Proves New York Times’ Nate Cohn Wrong about Exit Polling
Ruth Hopkins
Save Bear Butte: Mecca of the Lakota
Celestino Gusmao
Time to End Impunity for Suharto’’s Crimes in Indonesia and Timor-Leste
Thomas Knapp
SCOTUS: Amply Serving Law Enforcement’s Interests versus Society’s
Manuel E. Yepe
Capitalism is the Opposite of Democracy
Winslow Myers
Up Against the Wall
Chris Ernesto
Bernie’s “Political Revolution” = Vote for Clinton and the Neocons
Stephanie Van Hook
The Time for Silence is Over
Ajamu Nangwaya
Toronto’s Bathhouse Raids: Racialized, Queer Solidarity and Police Violence
June 27, 2016
Robin Hahnel
Brexit: Establishment Freak Out
James Bradley
Omar’s Motive
Gregory Wilpert – Michael Hudson
How Western Military Interventions Shaped the Brexit Vote
Leonard Peltier
41 Years Since Jumping Bull (But 500 Years of Trauma)
Rev. William Alberts
Orlando: the Latest Victim of Radicalizing American Imperialism
Patrick Cockburn
Brexiteers Have Much in Common With Arab Spring Protesters
Franklin Lamb
How 100 Syrians, 200 Russians and 11 Dogs Out-Witted ISIS and Saved Palmyra
John Grant
Omar Mateen: The Answers are All Around Us
Dean Baker
In the Wake of Brexit Will the EU Finally Turn Away From Austerity?
Ralph Nader
The IRS and the Self-Minimization of Congressman Jason Chaffetz
Johan Galtung
Goodbye UK, Goodbye Great Britain: What Next?
Martha Pskowski
Detained in Dilley: Deportation and Asylum in Texas
Binoy Kampmark
Headaches of Empire: Brexit’s Effect on the United States
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail