Watch Live: Congressional Hearing on IRS Scandal

Live Now on TheBlaze Radio: ‘The Buck Sexton Show’

Faith

These Are Abe Lincoln’s 5 Handwritten Versions of the ‘Gettysburg Address’ (Plus: Did He Omit ‘God’ From the Speech?)

Nov. 19, 2012 10:21am Billy Hallowell

Anyone who prepares an outline or a manuscript for a speech knows that it takes intense practice and refining to ensure that the words end up being relayed properly. Considering the importance of Abraham Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address,” it’s no surprise that the nation’s sixteenth president drafted at least two copies of the speech before he finally presented it.

Naturally, the two versions — written in Lincoln’s own hand — differ a bit from one another. However, there are at least three other copies, also penned by the president, that have their own set of differences from the originals. Rather than being composed before his well-known, two-minute talk, these latter drafts were prepared well after the “Gettysburg Address” was uttered. Why? As special requests for the speech came in, Linclon rewrote it with slight variation (after all, copiers didn’t exist, thus minor tweaks were to be expected).

These Are Abraham Lincolns 5 Versions of the Gettysburg Address

Photo Credit: White House

The National Constitution Center has penned a fascinating blog post, providing all five manuscripts (and a sixth version, as printed by the Associated Press in November 1863). In the post, the organization, devoted to studying the U.S. Constitution, showcases the differences between each of Lincoln’s versions (portions in bold show the differences in text between each version).

TheBlaze has placed each into context, providing you with some interesting background surrounding the well-known historical event.

–

The “Nicolay Copy”: The Earliest Known Version of the Address:

This is the first of five drafts of the “Gettysburg Address,” which was delivered at the dedication of a memorial cemetary by Lincoln in November 1863. The National Constitution Center provides more background information about the speech:

Lincoln was invited as guest speaker at the Gettysburg cemetery event as a courtesy, and it wasn’t entirely expected he would attend. The famed orator Edward Everett was the featured speaker.

Lincoln and his staff arrived on the day before the event, and Lincoln compared notes with Everett. The president also worked on his speech that night. [...]

Lincoln was described as looking pale as he rose at the end of the ceremony to speak. Accounts from the time period said he was applauded, and left to go back to Washington.

The first version of the address is noteworthy for a variety of reasons. As the Library of Congress (LOC) notes, “This document is presumed to be the only working, or pre-delivery, draft and is commonly identified as the Nicolay Copy because it was once owned by John George Nicolay, Lincoln’s private secretary.”

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

Read text of the letter, below:

“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon 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 it, as a final resting place for those who died here, that the nation might live. This we may, in all propriety do. 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 hallowed it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here; while it can never forget what they did here.

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.”

–

The “Hay Copy”: The Second Known Version of the Speech:

This second version of the address was given to Lincoln’s secretary John Hay. His descendants then donated it to the LOC in 1916. Like the “Nicolay Draft,” this version is most closely tied to the November 19 speech the president delivered.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

Read the text, below:

“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon 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 here on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives thatthat 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 can never forget what they did here. It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they have, thus far, so nobly carried on. 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 here gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

–

The “Everett” Copy: Written After the November 19 Event:

The third copy of the address, like the other remaining two, was written by Lincoln after he delivered the “Gettysburg Address.” Edward Everett, an famed orator who spoke on November 19 before Lincoln delivered the famous address, later asked the president for a printed version of it. So, well after the event, Lincoln provided the so-called “Everett copy.”

Photo Credit: AP

Read it, below:

“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon 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 herededicated 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 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.”

–

The “Bancroft Copy” and the “Bliss Copy” Versions:

The final two versions, written in Lincoln’s own handwriting, were produced for historian George Bancroft and Col. Alexander Bliss, a union general during the Civil War. You can read the text of these final two speeches on the National Constitution Center’s web site.

The Bliss copy (Photo Credit: White House Historical Association)

–

Did Lincoln Omit “Under God” From the Speech?

There’s an interesting debate surrounding whether Lincoln actually included “God” in the delivery of the “Gettysburg Address.” In the Nicolay and Hay versions — the two that preceded the event — there is no mention of the Almighty. It wasn’t until the Everett version, which was produced after the address, that “under God” was added into the transcript.

On the National Constitution Center’s blog, Scott Bomboy claims that we will never truly know if Lincoln uttered the Lord’s name during the speech, as it was not recorded. However, he also notes that numerous accounts — based on the AP version of the speech which was transcribed and published at the time — corroborate the fact that Lincoln did, indeed, use the words “under God” in his final delivery.

A look at the AP text, as published nearly 150 years ago, seems to provide the answer (see bold):

“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. [Applause] 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 general battle-field of that war; we are met to dedicate a portion of it as the final resting place of 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 cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. [Applause] The world will note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. [Applause]. It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work that they have thus far so nobly carried on. [Applause]. It is rather for us here 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 here gave the last full measure of devotion. That we here highly resolve that the dead shall not have died in vain. [Applause] That the nation shall, under God, have a new birth of freedom, and that the Government of the people, by the people and for the people, shall not perish from the earth. [Long applause. Three cheers given for the President of the United States and the Governors of the States….”

To view all five versions, click here.

(H/T: Constitution Daily)

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (66)

Robert Hawk
Posted on November 23, 2012 at 10:07am
Personally I have never liked Lincoln that much. He appears to have been a believer in philosophia doctrine, which started it rampage in the late 1700s and became well founded in the 1800s. This is most likely the reason why the word “God” is absent from Lincoln’s speech. Lincoln could have ended the strife between the seceding states by peaceful means and brought the country together. Instead he chose to use the power of the United States to force the seceding states into submission. Lincoln was more like Mau than the wisdom of George Washington.

That aggression by the United States against its own in 1860s, has never died and lives on even until this day. Its even interesting to discover that the states who chose secession, are today the most prosperous among the nation. Its further interesting to understand, we are right back where we started almost 150 years prior, as the now Marxist administered United States, makes its final push to force its tyrannical dominion onto the sovereign states and the people. Lincoln and Obama are much the same in that respect. If the nation erupts into civil war this time, and its close, it won’t be as the civil war of 1860s, it will instead be as it was in Ireland when they battled the British for decades for their freedom.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Isis79
Posted on November 20, 2012 at 1:28pm
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

Abraham Lincoln September 18, 1858

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- GroverCleveland
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 11:28pm
  Now read Lincoln’s Second Inaugural.
  
  Report this comment
- Robert Hawk
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 10:27am
  It is written in our Fathers word in the first chapter of Genesis, that he created all races on the 6th day and that he said they were all “Very Good”. He did not disseminate one from the other as being Very Good. We are all our Fathers children, that we will always have in common, no matter our outward appearance. That said, our Father has stated “kind after kind” and he was specific about the tribes of Israel not mixing with the Canaanites, which indicates to me its his will that we keep things as he created them.
  
  Report this comment
TROONORTH
Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:24am
Are all you people on ‘crack’?

Do you not understand that when the south left the union, every citizen became a non-American? How could Lincoln invade his own country and kill his own people when they had declared themselves non-Americans?

Do you not understand that he used every means legal or otherwise to protect the union and that sometimes the means are justified by the ends? Do you think that every war fought by America was just and legal? We in Canada don’t and that is why we threw you out in 1812.

You may hate Lincoln but he is responsible for the growth of the United States into the great nation that sent men to the moon and defeated the ‘evil empire’. And if he had failed? There would be two much smaller and weaker nations where one now stands preoccupied with each other. There would probably have be a man named Adolf running things in Europe and we would all have been living like it was 1934.

Count your blessings. And here is news for some of you southern bigots; the civil war is over – you lost. And as a bonus – Lee was not a great general. He was a very, very, lucky one.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Stoneez
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 4:38pm
  You are an idiot pal, pure and simple. You don’t qualify to even make a response on this subject. What in the hell has Canada ever done but remain neutral mostly, and coat-tail riders exclusively. You sir are the bigot. The only reason you can say anything here is because you are free enough to do so. This country, as a whole was the first to end slavery. You coward, drink the very blood of freedom that your country did not spill. So just say “Thank You” and be on your merry way!
  
  Report this comment
- GroverCleveland
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 5:45pm
  Stoneez: This was not the first nation to end slavery. In fact it was among the last.
  
  Report this comment
- TROONORTH
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 10:38pm
  Good one Stoneez. Can’t argue fact so you call names. England abolished slavery ( along with what is now Canada) long before America. Or did you conveniently forget that the underground railroad ended in Ontario Canada?
  
  As far as riding on American coat tails is concerned ask the survivors of Katrina who the first troops on the ground with aid were and ask New York who is putting the lights back on right now; that’s right, CANADIAN linemen who do not leave the field just because of a little snow storm. And ask your guys in Afghanistan whose troops they prefer to stand with ( that would be the troops with the red maple leaf on theishoulderer flashes).
  
  Stoneez it is one thing to be ignorant. It is quite another to publicly display that fact. You have done so with alarming clarity.
  
  Report this comment
GroverCleveland
Posted on November 20, 2012 at 1:12am
A lot has been said about the fact that the Civil War began in 1861, while the Emancipation Proclamation dates to 1863. Emancipation as a war aim, it’s true, was not something Lincoln wanted to contemplate until he had to. Lincoln and loyal northerners were fighting to preserve the union, not end slavery. But as the war dragged on, Lincoln understood that only total war would suppress the rebellion. That meant burning fields, burning cities, and taking from the south its labor supply. Hence the 1863 proclamation. A lot of unwarranted inferences are being made in these posts, and they contain a lot of patently false claims–such as the claim that Lincoln and Grant kept slaves, and held them until 1865. This is not true. Neither man owned slaves. Prior to the war, Grant, a veteran of the Mexican war, was trying to live as a humble shop-keeper in Illinois. His was not a slave-holding family. Lincoln was personally averse to the institution from a young age. His family was also humble. He was a child of the soil. He worked, he fought as a soldier, he taught himself law, and he rose to prominence as a public servant–all without the aid of slaves to pick his crops and shine his boots. Do you people know when you’re lying, or is it just something you all do reflexively?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- GilbertAcct
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:02am
  Grover… who said the following?…
  
  “I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary.”
  
  “I cannot make it better known than it already is, that I favor colonization.”
  
  “The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people.”
  
  “I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man.”
  
  “I thought that in your struggle for the Union, to whatever extent the negroes should cease helping the enemy, to that extent it weakened the enemy in his resistance to you. Do you think differently? I thought that whatever negroes can be got to do as soldiers, leaves just so much less for white soldiers to do, in saving the Union.”
  
  Report this comment
- GroverCleveland
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 11:16am
  These appear to be Lincoln’s words. And so? Lincoln is not revered for his equalitarianism with regard to race. He is remembered for preserving the union. He appeared to favor colonization, that is true, because slavery or no slavery he was not by any means confident that black and white could live together as equals. Such were the prejudices of his time. However none of this lends credibility to the view–expressed throughout these ugly posts–that Lincoln was some dirty tyrant, or some (of all things) Marxist dupe. After his election, and by their own paranoid reasoning, states began to secede. The right to do so was by no means established, and it certainly spelled disaster for the U.S. as it was known at the time. Lincoln firmly said no, as his predecessors had done (1861 was not the first secessionist crisis), and once fire-breathing South Carolinians fired the first shot, the fate of the South was sealed. Lincoln said many times and in many ways that he would preserve the union at any cost. This his administration and the federal army eventually did. My point is that I fail to see this so-called tyranny. Habeas Corpus had been suspended before, and was suspended afterward. Total war has been pursued by the U.S. to achieve its war aims in other times and in other places (Japan, Europe, Vietnam). My question is: why do Southerners pretend to view Lincoln with such hatred, when all he in fact was doing was fulfilling his oath of office?
  
  Report this comment
- GilbertAcct
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 12:00pm
  Grover… you said, “Lincoln was personally averse to the institution from a young age.” I proved that wrong with Lincoln’s own words. You’ve now made several arguments which I can also prove wrong… the most notable being, “when all he in fact was doing was fulfilling his oath of office.”
  
  Don’t have time at the moment, but thank you for the response. I enjoy such debates.
  
  Report this comment
- GroverCleveland
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 12:53pm
  By his own account, as a young Kentuckian Lincoln was repulsed by slavery. This revulsion he never lost. Did he think blacks his equals? No. Did he believe that Americans protected under the rubric of the constitution were white, male and Christian? Probably. None of this matters. He saw it as his duty to reject the right of rebellion, to preserve the union as it stood before his inauguration, and to do so at nearly any cost. The lies propagated on this website with regard to the Civil War, and Lincoln, and politicians on both sides, and populations in both North and South, are simply ridiculous. That the states under rebellion were not fighting to protect slavery, for example, is patently and demonstrably false. ALL the Southern rhetoric leading up to the war was in defense of slavery. Southern politicians, and powerful southern planters, all swore: we will keep our slaves, and we will fight for the right to do so. This idea of some general defense of “states’ rights” is absurd. Apart from slavery, what “rights” did southerners enjoy that were essentially different from or antithetical to the rights of northerners? The answer of course is none at all. The issue over which the south chose war was the right to hold black slaves. Nothing more and nothing less. Upon Lincoln’s election, southern paranoia rose to its highest pitch, and induced fire-eaters in S.C. and other states of the cotton south to opt for separation–and therefore, war.
  
  Report this comment
GoodOldREBEL
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 8:51pm
Freedom at the end of a bayonet is no different that living in a Gold Cage.

A number of states wanted to leave the goverment that was stealing from them and Lincoln sent an army to the South so that the goverment could keep stealing from the South. If Jeff Davis had turned the Armies of the South loose in 1862 the North wouldn’t have stood a chance to survive. However Davis didn’t want to be the aggressor. Lincoln however didn’t hold the same ideas and started a war that was unnecessary. And the South had to only finish ratifing the orginal 13 Amendment (Ghost Admentment) which protected slavery in the Southern States. Instead they left because they were paying 80% of the taxes that the Federal Goverment was taking in and spending it mostly to improve conditions in the Northern States.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- GroverCleveland
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:11pm
  The Southern states began to secede because of their own paranoia: they were terrified the new Republican administration would come after their slaves. Some of Lincoln’s past rhetoric may have justified these fears (his “House Divided” speech of 1858, for example). But the silly idea that Jefferson Davis “didn’t want to be the aggressor” is–I’m sorry–just stupid. The first shots of the civil war were fired by southern loyalists. The southern occupation of federal property gave the administration no choice but to raise an army and respond with force. There was no right of rebellion. That issue had been laid to rest by President Andrew Jackson in his response to South Carolina’s claims that it could respond with force to federal attempts to enforce tariffs within that state (during the so-called nullification crisis of 1832). Then Vice-President John C. Calhoun tried to claim that states possessed the right to ignore federal law, and go their own way. He was put down handily by Jackson at the time, but the Southern hubris lived on. What the cotton south wanted, all along, was the right to live as aristocrats, on the unpaid labor of their slaves, and not to pay taxes on their ill-gotten wealth. At the time, they were not ashamed of this. Today, southerners seem to feel the need to deny the truth of it.
  
  Report this comment
Marine25
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 7:12pm
Now you’re purging Lincoln from the party? Is Teddy next? Eisenhauer? Reagan? Those Presidents were far too liberal for you new “conservatives”. If only the tea party and the neo-cons had been around in 1859 we could have run Preston Brooks.
If The Blaze represents the base of conservatism, the GOP is in more trouble than they know.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Cuthalu
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 9:49pm
  Lincoln was a tyrant and there is not getting around that fact.
  
  Report this comment
- Jadedfate
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 10:17pm
  Yeah read some of the real history about Lincoln..he violated the constitution left and right, arrested those that disagreed with him, including a supreme court justice(the Chief Justice if I recall right) and various other things. He also wrote that if he could save the union without ending slavery he would..it very much was not his priority. He’s the beginning of the trend of ignoring the constitution whenever it suits your purpose. The Ends never Justify the Means.
  
  Report this comment
- trski617
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 12:03am
  Yes, Lincoln was a tyrant. His list of abuses is long. Because of him we went from being these united states to the United States.
  
  Report this comment
thesouthwasrght
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 3:50pm
So glad to see that many other people are learned regarding the vile filth that was “our” 16th POTUS. I would honestly ike to sit down w/ GB and ask him what it is about the man, who was Obama on steroids, that makes him so wonderful?

My great-great grandaddy marched w/ the 63rd Ga Vol Inf, was captured at the Battle of Kennesaw Mtn, and died in internment in lovely Camp Douglas. He was a Georgia dirt farmer w/ a wife and 5 kids. Hardly an evil oppressor of slaves. Yet he was murdered by a federal government that well had the means to provide for the boys they captured. And Glenn praises these people? Amazing.

Another footnote on that heathen lincoln, Karl Marx was the biggest pen-pal fan of his “war for the people”. Let that sink in, Glenn. Love ya’ but man do you need some work here.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- GoodOldREBEL
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 8:56pm
  Dude sounds like you get your history from the Guardians of the Truth and protectors of our Southern Honor – Your Brother in Arms SCV
  
  Report this comment
Dscriptboy
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 2:24pm
I don’t understand why you liberal whack-jammies remain in the United States. You are so filled with hate. Your father in hell must be pleased.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SimpleTruths
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 3:47pm
  Because we are the majority, that’s why.
  
  Report this comment
- Anonymous T. Irrelevant
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 4:20pm
  A-hahahahahaha, keep dreaming, keep dreaming.
  
  Report this comment
- SimpleTruths
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 5:02pm
  Maybe you had your head stuck up one of your conservative hero’s butt but in case you didn’t notice we just had an election that soundly defeated your wacky ideas.
  
  Report this comment
- darkknight91
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 7:44pm
  Yes, it’s true. The Dependocrats won the election. More free stuff coming your way. Forget December 25. Everyday is Christmas in Obamaville.
  
  Report this comment
- Jadedfate
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 10:19pm
  Anyone calling themselves a conservative in the manner that the wish to preserve and respect the Constitution, should really disavow much of what Lincoln did. He violated it many times.
  
  Report this comment
louie louie
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 1:50pm
I’ve never read such hatred of Lincoln in comments before. He saved the union and put this country on the path to becoming the greatest country on earth. Is there anyone, outside of Robert E. Lee, that you guys don’t hate?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- GilbertAcct
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 2:38pm
  He saved the Union by destroying freedom. He stomped all over the declaration of independence and constitution. You must have quite an opinion of yourself if you claim to believe you know how the world would be if Lincoln hadn’t crushed the secessionist movement. The country became the greatest in spite of Lincoln the Tyrant, not because of him.
  
  Take a look at what Hitler thought of Lincoln… Hitler expressed both his support for Lincoln’s war and his unwavering opposition to the cause of states’ rights and political decentralization (which, as a dictator seeking absolute power, he naturally sought to overturn in Germany). Hitler even adopted Lincoln’s fanciful retelling of American history in which the states were creatures of the Union rather than vice versa.
  
  If you are in favor of states’ rights, then you cannot view Lincoln as a good guy.
  
  Report this comment
- All Pro
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 5:31pm
  He was put into power by the railroad he worked for as a lawyer. He was a liar and a murderer. The great emancipator never freed even one single slave. He wiped his but with the constitution and waged a vicious military police action against a sovereign nation without a congressional decree of war. Lincolns war wasn’t about freeing the slaves. They started shooting at each other in1861. Lincoln wrote the emancipation proclamation in 1863. Do the math. What were they fighting over? It wasn’t slavery because the emancipation proclamation only ended slavery in the confederacy. We are were we are because of what Lincoln did. He didn’t save us, he doomed us.
  
  Report this comment
- rebelpride37
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 9:46pm
  Lincoln was the most tyrannical president this country has known, he has the blood of 650,000 americans on his hands not counting thousands of innocent civilians, there is a special place in hell for lincoln and his cronies, I wish the libs would quit trying to glorify him
  
  Report this comment
- rebelpride37
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 10:30pm
  Lincoln was the most tyrannical president this country has known, he is responsible for the deaths of 650,000 Americans as well as the deaths of hundreds of thousands civilians, there is a special place in hell for lincoln, right next to hitler. So the liberal media need to quit defending him and making him sound like a great president, he wasn’t, he was a marxist at heart and knew the country couldn’t survive without revenues from the South. God Bless the South and our Southern Hero’s!!!
  
  Report this comment
twbranch
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 1:34pm
I sure wish others had the same attitude as most of you. I despise lincoln. It ****** me off when I hear Beck call lincoln the best president that this nation ever had. Any man who would invade and kill his own people is a tyrant just like Obamass. Everytime I say Lincoln was socialist people react as if I called God the devil or something. I am from the south and I know the truths by going to libraries in my state and reading up on the civil war. Unfortunately my family didn’t come here until after the war was over but I do feel apart of it because I have friends who had family fight in the war and they didnt’ fight to keep slaves they fought to keep the north out of there states.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Zombee
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 1:16pm
Abraham Lincoln should without a doubt be named America’s greatest war criminal. His war of invasion not only killed over 600,000 innocent Americans but it was obvious from his earlier speeches that he had previously advocated the prevalent constitutional right of democratic, state by state secession. Lincoln’s War effectively overthrew the existing decentralized, limited federal government that had existed and governed well in the US since established by America’s founding fathers. Lincoln bastardized a respected federal government with limited powers into a dictatorial, uncontrollable Washington federal empire that we as a nation suffer with to this day.

Lincoln’s war against the Confederacy and Southern civilians, was all for money, company profits and government tariff revenues. A simple case of political pay back in return for the Northeastern manufacturing interests that supported the Republican Party and his campaign for the presidency.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- twbranch
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 1:28pm
  Agreed! He started liberalism in this country and in fact was this nations first socialist in my opinion. I am sure Chris Matthews will that this is a racist remark and I should be banned from the internet!
  
  Report this comment
- CatholicCat
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 2:59pm
  Ironically he was also this nations first Republican president.
  
  Report this comment
longknifed
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 1:03pm
I don’t think many of you understand how evil Lincoln was because you keep following swindler Beck like a dog follows a ham sandwich. You can’t be for Israel and against Lincoln and against big government. Neocons have spun your minds into nonsense.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Tex Expatriate
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:56pm
It doesn’t matter how wonderful Lincoln’s address reads, the fact of the matter is that Lincoln prosecuted a war against fellow Americans who had organized together under a duly-constituted Constitutional Confederation. Lincoln didn’t orisecyte that war to preserve a union or “free the slaves.” He did it to impose a central government on certain Americans who objected to tyranny, and for the purpose of preserving the economic contribution of the southern people. Lincoln was America’s second tryrant, after King George. Barack Obama is doing fair to compete with Lincoln, but it will be hard to best a man who launched a war on other Americans. Unless Barack does it, too.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Budrow
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 2:41pm
  “orisecyte” WHAT the hell does that word mean?
  
  Report this comment
- theaton
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 3:38pm
  Budrow,
  
  Move your right hand one key to the left on the keyboard and type prosecute. You end up with orisecyte.
  
  Report this comment
PhantomsPhorever
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:53pm
Abe was the highest paid lawyer of his time. He once sued one of the largest railroads for the right to charge the unheard of fee of $5,000 for his services. He was told to sue them by one of the RR officials named W.T. Sherman; a fellow genocidal madman. Lincoln married Mary Todd because of her family’s extreme wealth and political power. They were slave holders and held around 150 slaves until 1965. So this means that Abe was a slave holder the same way Lee and Washington were slave holders. Their slaves all came to them from the rich women they married. In those days the husband was legal owner to everything his wife inherited. In addition U.S. Grant kept his slaves until 1865.

Abe was most likely at the very least bi-sexual. It is no secret he lived with another man above his family’s store even after he had clear means to be on his own. His letters to his “friend” Joshua Speed are a matter of public knowledge.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
thegreatcarnac
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:32pm
Abe was a tyrant.The laws he broke and the people he ruined in the north because they questioned the legitimacy of the war, ….were many and were terrible. He also had questionable morals. He had a man-friend when he was younger whom he wrote letters to up to the time he married which could be construed romantic letters. Many thought he was AC/DC. Behind his back….generals and congressmen called him ‘lilac Lincoln’ which was an euphemism for ‘gay Lincoln’. He believed in seances and his wife was a great fan of trying to contact the dead, especially where their small son died. His armies burned the south and if Sherman and Grant were alive today they would be charged with war crimes. Piss on Lincoln. The only reason Lincoln is suddenly in movies again is because the powers that be are getting the movie makers on board with trying to unite and completely divided country which will never unite again.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- thegreatcarnac
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:45pm
  a completely divide country…..not ‘and completely divided country’. My fingers and my mind do not match sometimes..lol
  
  Report this comment
- Red Meat
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:51pm
  Lincoln=Anti-Christ.
  
  Report this comment
VaARNG_Guardsman
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:11pm
God save the South. (From the liberals, communists, and democrats).

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- thegreatcarnac
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:20pm
  Amen!
  
  Report this comment
- Small_Al
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:20pm
  God save us all from Liberals. Read fresh political commentary at: http://smallcraftadvisorychronicles.blogspot.com
  
  Report this comment
TheVolleyballGod
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:09pm
Just think back then they sailed the seas using wind power and great big sails.. it would have cost the government nothing in fuel cost to have corrected the ugly sin of slavery and shipped any victim of slavery who wanted to go back to home sweet home in Africa.,, very possibly 93% of them would have left the other 7% would have voted for Romney

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
longknifed
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:04pm
Unbelievable how this brutal dictator is recognized as a patriot. It’s bloodthirsty tyrants like Lincoln that made Americans secede from Great Britain in the first place. He didn’t launch that war of abomination to free the slaves – war started in 1861. emancipation proclamation 1863. Try and spin it revisionists.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
THX-1138
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 11:58am
Hey Blinkin!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
schroeder123
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 11:34am
He was a lawyer. I don’t know if that is a good thing. But he did learn all about law and the Constitution.
Maybe he was good for the time. But he sure set into motion a hatred that is felt to this day.

America first, where your from is second.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
GilbertAcct
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 11:17am
If you think Abe wasn’t in favor of slavery, or that the Civil War was about slavery, you need to learn some real history.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/denson6.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/kantor/kantor6.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/miller5.html

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
chucksue351
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 11:13am
power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
KidCharlemagne
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 11:05am
Lincoln liked to incorporate the word ‘liberty’ into his speeches a lot…..however, he didn’t actually believe in it:

—————————
“Francis Key Howard (1826 – 1872) was the grandson of Francis Scott Key and Revolutionary War colonel John Eager Howard. Howard was the editor of the Baltimore Exchange, a Baltimore newspaper sympathetic to the Southern cause. He was arrested on September 13, 1861 by U.S. major general Nathaniel Prentice Banks on the direct orders of general George B. McClellan enforcing the policy of President Abraham Lincoln. The basis for his arrest was for writing a critical editorial in his newspaper of Lincoln’s suspension of the writ of habeas corpus,”
Lincoln’s “Star-Strangled” Banner

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 10:43am
Lincoln was a tyrant. Read the emancipation proclamation again. It legalized slavery in border states. He arrested and tried journalists in the North for what they wrote on the war and tried them in military tribunals. He sent troops to arrest Maryland legislators when they voted in opposition to his wishes. He encouraged a W. VA to secede from VA but then didn’t want the south to secede? Union troops burned, raped, pillaged, and stole all through the south. The man payed little heed to the constitution.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DZ-015
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 11:38am
  The Emancipation Proclamation did not legalize slavery in the border states. It simply allowed the practice to continue in those states not in rebellion. While it did not purport to affect those occupied portions of states in rebellion, slaves were generally de facto emancipated by union forces in those areas. West Virginia was admitted to the union in 1863 after adopting an abolition constitution. Maryland, Missouri, and Tennessee all abolished slavery before the civil war ended. After the war ended, slavery was abolished by the occupying forces in the remaining ten former Confederate states. It was not until the December, 1865 ratification of the 13th Amendment that slavery was abolished in Kentucky and Delaware.
  
  Report this comment
- Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 11:53am
  @015,
  
  The Patriot Act doesn’t trump the 4th amendment either, it just allows it to be ignored. So if your point is that “legalized” is the wrong word then so be it. However, if you were a slave in the border states I’m guessing that hearing what Abe said you might just as well say it’s legal.
  
  Report this comment
- DZ-015
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 1:33pm
  Rothbardian: The Patriot Act was a real law which does raise serious constitutional questions. The Emancipation Proclamation was nothing more than a toothless executive order issued for purely political purposes. Nevertheless, it was amazingly effective in that it forestalled British and French recognition of the Confederacy. Both had already abolished slavery in their empires; therefore, they were reluctant to intervene in a conflict in which abolition had been made a cause by the side they opposed for mere economic reasons. Without European intervention, the Southern cause was doomed. The Emancipation Proclamation also set in motion the process which culminated in the passage and ratification of the 13th Amendment which had real legal effect. Lincoln did not allow his crises go to waste, and some of his actions were of shaky constitutionality. Nevertheless, he was in the ground before the radical Republicans bypassed Andrew Johnson to impose the abomination of Reconstruction. It, more that the Civil War itself, led to problems it took another century to address, and which are still the subject of controversy today, viz, the Voting Rights act and reparations.
  
  Report this comment
soybomb315_II
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 10:35am
I have come to the conclusion that Lincoln was probably not Christian….Research it

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- qpwillie
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 10:45am
  @soybomb315_II
  Actually, reading leftist blogs can’t really be called research in the sense of finding and verifying the facts. They are designed to convince you of their point of view to further their agenda.
  
  Report this comment
- GilbertAcct
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 10:46am
  I wouldn’t be surprised. He was also a tyrant. About 700,000 Americans died on his watch to obliterate the 10th amendment.
  
  Report this comment
- TeresaJ
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 11:16am
  A lot of people try to say that about Thomas Jefferson too, despite all evidence to the contrary, included him calling himself a Christian.
  
  “Christian” is a pretty broad term. You do not have to belong to a particuliar denomination, or even go to church, to be considered a Christian. By definition, it means to follow the teachings of Christ. Even within different denominations, what that means gets debated.
  
  I tend to agree with this Jefferson statement, “It is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read.” Quibbling over how “Christian” the founders were is to bury your head in the sand. The fact is they were religious with Christian backgrounds, and lived their lives within the guidelines of Christian moral teachings.
  
  Report this comment
- trolltrainer
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 11:41am
  Many, many people have called themselves, and have even believed that they are Christian but are really not. Many others have been true born-again Christians that many have tried to claim were not. The simple fact is only ONE person knows who is truly a Christian and who is not…That someone is Jesus Christ.
  
  But it is a silly…stupid argument that atheists try to engage Christians in thinking that they are proving something. And Christians are usually stupid enough to play the game. The fact is it really does not matter to any of us if the words “under God” were included in this speech, if Lincoln…or Jefferson, Franklin, Payne, or anyone else is a Christian or not, or whether this country can be called a “Christian” nation either now or in the past.
  
  Nations cannot be “Christian.” PEOPLE are Christian. Luckily for us we are not bound to a corporate belief in God. Jesus Christ gave Himself as an atonement for our individual sin. He paid the price for each of us, but it is our personal decision to accept that payment in our behalf. Whether anyone else is a Christian does not affect my salvation one way or the other. Did Lincoln accept it? You can argue this point for the rest of US history, only Christ knows!
  
  Report this comment
- SovereignSoul
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:14pm
  But, he was a Republican.
  
  Report this comment
- topper4125
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 1:12pm
  @SovereignSoul he was a “new” republican, not belonging to the same party as Jefferson. To have the party of Lincoln using the same name as the party of Jefferson is equatable to Mondern day Liberals proclaim that they are for Liberty.
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.