Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Abraham Lincoln, Speeches

--Both of these speeches are famous examples of American political oratory. Coming as they do at the end of the term, it's hard not to look at them through the lens of earlier material we've studied, so why not do it?

--Compare Lincoln's speeches and their vision of the collective bond or identity of the American nation with those of Winthrop's "A Modell of Christian Charity," Danforth's "Errand in the Wilderness," Jefferson's "Declaration" or Madison's "Federalist Letter #10."

--We have studied a range of romantic political rhetoric, including abolitionist and women's rights discourse. How do Lincoln's speeches fit (or not) with the spirit or forms of romantic reformist discourse?

11 comments:

  1. Both Abraham Lincoln and Samuel Danforth clearly had ideas and plans for what direction they wanted the country to move in. However, both men used very different styles to deliver these messages to the public. Danforth relied heavily on religion when he expressed his opinions about the country. He used the religious beliefs of the people to guide his words. He knew that his audience had a great familiarity with the Bible and used that to his advantage. Lincoln, on the other hand, was not in the same position to speak like Danforth. Lincoln had to lead an entire country and his words would spread much further than Danforth’s. Lincoln’s words were more inspiring and hopeful. Lincoln was trying to bring a divided country together whereas Danforth was simply trying to address the problems he saw. However, both men do use their words in an attempt to inspire the public. They both had visions for the future and tried their best to get there.

    ~Shannon Durington

    ReplyDelete
  2. Lincoln's speeches fit in the fact that they are all speaking about reform and the effort of making all human beings equal. Whether they are discussing women's rights, anti-slavery, or reform of the country, they are all speaking for a cause. They are also all similar in the fact that they are very straightforward and to the point. It did not take Lincoln long to get his point across and Americans knew exactly what he was advocating for. This is the same for the women's rights and anti-slavery literature (all but Douglass' Narrative) we read earlier. They did not beat around the bush, they got fairly emotional and let people know how they felt. The backdrop of the Gettysburg Address helped Lincoln achieve this emotional appeal. He did not need to bring a whole lot of emotion into his words, the location seemed to be enough to convey how involved the people he was speaking to really were in the war.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lincoln's speeches fit in with romantic reformist discourse in that the main appeal is an emotional one, but his goals are strikingly different. In my opinion, calling for unity is not the same as political reform. Perhaps this is misguided, but I was taught that Lincoln never directly admitted that the Union had seceded. Therefore, though he pleads for the conflict to come to and end and for peace to be restored, he does not call for reform. His emotional appeal is honest and sincere, but removed. He has just as much to lose as any other person in the nation at the time, probably even more, but the language he uses doesn't seem to have the same passion behind them to carry the message to the opposing side. It is too calm.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I thought that Lincoln's speeches seemed to fit in with the other political writings we have read this semester. All of these writings have used various persuasive techniques to get across their points and I feel that Lincoln's speeches are no different. All of the political writings we have covered have looked closely at a cause that the writer is advocating for: anti-slavery, women's rights, reform, etc. Lincoln's speeches are concerned with the unity of the nation and the restoration of peace. While this message isn't the same as the other things we have read, it definitely fits in to the idea of a cause centered writing and therefor fits in well with the rest of our readings.

    ReplyDelete
  5. When considering comparisons between seminal examples of American oratory and politically significant texts, to borrow the syntax of Marshall McLuhan, I find that the audience is the message. The early Puritan examples, such as Winthrop’s “A Modell of Christian Charitie” and Danforth’s “Errand into the Wilderness” articulate a theme that singles out their respective listeners, all sharing a common belief in a particular strand of Christian theology, as specially ordained by God as his supplicants and adherents in this the temporal realm.

    The Declaration addresses a broader audience, literally, as it was a written document intended for repeated publication and dissemination throughout the American colonies and Anglophone world in general, and consequently concerns itself with different objectives. The author and his text do not appeal to a system of religious beliefs beyond their allusive usefulness as vague rhetorical byproducts of the shared Anglican traditions of an audience occupying a full spectrum of religious piety. Instead, Jefferson bases his logos on the Lockean concepts of natural law, a secular cousin to the Judeo-Christian belief system and having emerged in the 18th century as the ontologically foundational basis for English Common Law. It was through this rationalist premise that the Declaration’s arguments were able to win over its readers from disparate denominational and even in some cases, class backgrounds whom were nevertheless all invested in particular shared interests of state.

    Building on this political evolution, we see that Madison’s Federalist No. 10 establishes a narrower audience than the previous political document, as it now presupposes its readers to accept the inviolability of the system of governance established by the Constitution, a belief system that effectively supplants the Puritanical one in order to establish a large community of diversified interests. It is within this framework that the ideas behind the Gettysburg Address also reside; yet the speech draws upon all of these preceding documents so far mentioned for inspiration. It subtly parallels Danforth’s jeremiad in its invocation of an idealized predecessor, and claims the premise of Winthrop’s speech for its own while supplanting the idealized Puritan community with that of the society most perfectly conforming to the Lockean ideas upon which the Constitution is established. Yet more fundamentally, Lincoln’s address harkens even farther back by means of his execution of syntax, which mirrors the triplicate-clause cadence of the King James Bible. It is a form that has manifested itself in the most well wrought of documents found in the English language, a medium of expressing the most transcendent of ideas in the pithiest of phrasing.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mike Flachs

    Samuel Danforth, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Abraham Lincoln all gave birth to these speeches at critical moments in the young nation’s (continent in Danforth’s case) life. Each with their own hopes of the direction in which the nation would further grow. Danforth appears to be first and foremost centered on the role of religion and its implication in a new land. All four of these speeches seem to appeal to an idea of American exclusivity; meaning that in some way America, as a nation, is special and distinct from all other nations of the world. Danforth’s recognition comes in his acknowledgement of the Puritans as new nation of Israel in that they were now God’s chosen people, meant to settle the wilderness and build a new utopian society. Jefferson also appealed to this idea by the mere fact that he authored “The Declaration of Independence”; meaning, the idea of rebellion against the world’s most powerful nation in a world in which no colony has ever forcefully separated itself from their mother country takes a little bit of arrogance (in this case, the same “American exclusivity” I mentioned earlier).

    Whether it is Danforth, Lincoln, Jefferson, or Madison all of these speeches are marked by a striving for betterment of the nation. Danforth hopes that the new colony can serve as a “city on a hill” for what he sees as a corrupt Europe, Jefferson longs for a land free of tyranny and free to (almost) all people, Madison argues for a more efficient form of centralized government in an effort to benefit the larger public, and Lincoln yearns to reunite the nation and heal the wounds of a long and bloody war. In all senses, each and every one of these speeches longs to leave the country a better place than what they found it in order that future generations can prosper and live freely on American soil.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Lincoln's speeches are similar and fit well with other political writings we have read this semester. The speeches are centered on a particular cause or movement focusing on an emotional appeal for action and change. Lincoln speaks of unity of a nation and bringing the nation back towards peace to America to put an end to the civil war. The back drop of a large bloody battle at Gettysburg heightens the emotional context and a strong want for peace and unity not blood shed. The speeches are all centered on bettering America in one way or another and focused on the country moving forward into the future.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Like the other speeches, Lincoln calls for reform in a way that inspires pride in national identity and unity. The Gettysburg Address clearly references and alludes to the Declaration of Independence, and the efforts of Jefferson and his compatriots. Lincoln's speeches, however, deal with unity in a different way. Where as the Declaration was conveniently ambiguous in regard to slavery and the equality of those who were not white or male, Lincoln specifically calls for equality and care among everyone, with further elaboration of what "everyone" means. Still, the wishful sentiments of Lincoln's second inaugural speech may have been appreciated more in feeling than in actual practice. Racism and inequality are still major issues today, and the last part of Lincoln's speech reminded me a little of one part of Obama's speech the other evening. Obama clearly stated that the war we've been waging is not against Islam, but terrorism. Despite this statement anti-Muslim sentiments still run rampant across the nation. I'm sure Lincoln's intentions were more inclusive than the founding fathers', but was his inaugural speech really effective at persuading fellow Americans to change their points of view?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Reading Lincoln's speeches caused a little bit a of deja vu for me. Lincoln was very direct with his purpose for the speeches and used his speeches to appeal to his audience's emotions, which many writers of the romanticism movement did. Lincoln played off America's strong patriotism and love for our country and used that as a tool to stress unity.

    The Gettysburg Address mirrors works like the Federalists papers and Jefferson's "Declaration" because these were all important founders of our country striving to improve our nation and unify them under one cause, whether it be deciding the structure of government or asking Americans to recognize equality. I think without these speeches and writings our country would be in a very different place than it is today.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The greatest difference that we see with Lincoln, as compared to others from the abolitionist movement or women's rights, is that he is not directly affected by the cause. He serves as an outsider to a movement and by supporting the minority he becomes part of an even smaller party. In relation to this, he seems to be trying to unite the white abolitionists, rather than rally the slaves. Even though he takes the role of an outsider to the cause, he becomes one of its greatest figures.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Comparing Lincoln's orations to the federalist paper #10, the main difference I noticed is Lincoln attempts to unify the nation with his speeches ("this nation, under god, shall have a new birth of freedom...government of the people, by the people, for the people"[Lincoln 1635]), and Madison tries to fend off that idea of popular rule because of the dangers a faction can cause. He claims "Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people" (Madison Federalist Paper #10).
    Lincoln is trying to unify the people under one banner, an idea the Madison would have preferred to keep from happening through republican values.

    ReplyDelete