A fun little exercise and a new perspective at Gettysburg

[achilles12604]

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 3&start=40

This thread was started because I suddenly had an idea. I know from a Christian point of view what it is like to try and prove something which to me, make perfect sense and fits in with the facts, but others deny much and sometimes all of what is put forth simply because it is the Christians viewpoint.

So I have devised a devious scheme. Time to switch and see if the non-theists can defend a position which we all know to be true. I (and any other theist who wants to join) can play the atheist/skeptic and the non-theists have to be the apologists for the validity of the event.


ready . . . here is the topic to be proven:

Prove to me that Lincoln actually gave the Gettysburg address.



I'll get you all started.

I see no reason to believe that the GA was ever given. Even if some speech was given by someone near Gettysburg, I am sure it wasn't the speech that history records. My reasons for this follow:

1) There were many of bloody battles during the civil war. Gettysburg wasn't the beginning nor the end of the war. In fact there really wasn't any reason at all for this particular battle to deserve a speech.

2) I find it unlikely that Lincoln would have presented a speech totally unrehearsed and unplanned. Once again there was no reason for this to happen.

3) The North needed to rally its troops after the battle to take advantage of the their first major victory. The idea of such an inspiring speech would have made a great platform for recruiting and inspiring their soldiers.

4) Other than NORTHERN people, who would have been biased in favor of the ideas put forth in this address, there are no witness accounts for this speech.

5) The supposed copies we have of "drafts" of the speech differ in several places and have major inconsistencies.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/gadd/gadrft.html

6) The drafts we have come from different sources both of whom were very pro-north in their ideology and these two drafts do not match with one another, suggesting that there was never an original or correct coy to begin with. After all how hard is it to simply copy from one paper to another?

7) These two drafts and the only two which were written anytime near the event in question and modern scholars aren't even sure if one of them was written before or after this supposed speech was given.

8) There isn't very much evidence that Lincoln was ever at Gettysburg. There are no photos of him there. The only photo which supposedly has ever been found of him there was unidentified until 1952, is very vague and doesn't contain anything in it which can positively identify a location or even a time.

9) Lincoln was all the way in Washington just a couple hours after this speech was supposedly given so combining this fact with the fact that there is not physical evidence he was ever at Gettysburg, I see no reason to conclude that he ever was at Gettysburg, much less that he stopped to give a speech at a battlefield with no significance at the time.

10) The details of the speech are not agreed upon. If Lincoln did write it, and if he was alive to write out other copies later on, shouldn't all this be clear?

http://spider.georgetowncollege.edu/hta ... /page6.htm

11) Why would Lincoln be at this site for hours and only give a speech with barely 230 words total? Shouldn't a president be given the majority of the time to speak? Why would his speech be cut so short given the amount of time he was supposedly there? This inconsistency is illogical and can not be reconciled with the facts.


Based on the fact that there are extreamly limited and fairly untrustworthy copies of this supposed speech until well after it was already circulated by northern conspirators and that the motive for the North to concoct such a scheme is easy to see, I submit that President Lincoln never actually gave this speech in Gettysburg at the time he was supposedly doing so.

It was obviously a giant media propaganda by Northern war hawks and politicians.

[Wyvern]

Prove to me that Lincoln actually gave the Gettysburg address.

I'm assuming you mean other than the fact that we have the copy of the speech that was given written in the hand of Lincoln himself.

1) There were many of bloody battles during the civil war. Gettysburg wasn't the beginning nor the end of the war. In fact there really wasn't any reason at all for this particular battle to deserve a speech.

Other than the fact that this was the first major victory by the north and a moral boost was definately needed at the time.

2) I find it unlikely that Lincoln would have presented a speech totally unrehearsed and unplanned. Once again there was no reason for this to happen.

Of course there was a reason, the north was heavily pressured at the time by the south and they desperately needed a military victory which was delivered at great expense at Gettysburg. You have to remember that at the time Lincolns presidency was not exactly in a strong position and in fact the great repute Lincoln is given is because of the resolve he showed during the civil war.

3) The North needed to rally its troops after the battle to take advantage of the their first major victory. The idea of such an inspiring speech would have made a great platform for recruiting and inspiring their soldiers.

You have to remember that the presidency of the day was not how it is today, Lincoln did not have speech writers plus you should remember that Gettysburg was fought only about an hour away from the northern capital so seeing as such it is not much of a stretch to have him make a speech on the fly right after the victory.

4) Other than NORTHERN people, who would have been biased in favor of the ideas put forth in this address, there are no witness accounts for this speech.

Actually there are a number of eyewitness accounts, all you need to do is look to the newspapers of the time. Saying that this speech did not occur simply because there were no southerner accounts is ridiculous, not to mention many of the papers of the time were anything but pro administration.

5) The supposed copies we have of "drafts" of the speech differ in several places and have major inconsistencies.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/gadd/gadrft.html

Hence the term draft and not final copy, you need to remember they did not have white out at the time

6) The drafts we have come from different sources both of whom were very pro-north in their ideology and these two drafts do not match with one another, suggesting that there was never an original or correct coy to begin with. After all how hard is it to simply copy from one paper to another?

Lets see you are the president and you are going to make a major speech, you don't have any one to transcribe your versions of your speech or even make any corrections thereof. Without a modern copying machine making a copy means you take along with you to a combat zone one more noncombatant whose only purpose is to write down and correct what you say who additionally is a female for who generally great efforts were expended to protect them which considering the great peril the north was under probably was not available

7) These two drafts and the only two which were written anytime near the event in question and modern scholars aren't even sure if one of them was written before or after this supposed speech was given.

Alrighty, even if you assume that the original of the speech no longer exists all this states is that copies were obtained and retained from the reporters who were on site at the time of the speech.

9) Lincoln was all the way in Washington just a couple hours after this speech was supposedly given so combining this fact with the fact that there is not physical evidence he was ever at Gettysburg, I see no reason to conclude that he ever was at Gettysburg, much less that he stopped to give a speech at a battlefield with no significance at the time.

Strangely enough Gettysburg is only a few hours away from Washington, and strangely enough this gives more than enough time for someone to write a short speech, especially when the occassion is important although possibly transitory, much like a military victory which would give weight to your position and thus put your enemies in the national papers at a disadvantage. You really need to understand that the conflict was by no means popular.

10) The details of the speech are not agreed upon. If Lincoln did write it, and if he was alive to write out other copies later on, shouldn't all this be clear?

As earlier stated initial; copies may have been written by him, otherwise later copies would have been printed by his secretary or any newspapers that were there.

11) Why would Lincoln be at this site for hours and only give a speech with barely 230 words total? Shouldn't a president be given the majority of the time to speak? Why would his speech be cut so short given the amount of time he was supposedly there? This inconsistency is illogical and can not be reconciled with the facts.

Yes and I'm sure if given the time the speech would have been much longer,given how long the speechs of the time tended to be however the speech was given directly after a military action with little time to prepare and just as modern day leaders when they go to battlefields mostly they look around and make a canned speech about bravery and courage, it should be noted that Lincoln bothered to write something with some meat to it.

Based on the fact that there are extreamly limited and fairly untrustworthy copies of this supposed speech until well after it was already circulated by northern conspirators and that the motive for the North to concoct such a scheme is easy to see, I submit that President Lincoln never actually gave this speech in Gettysburg at the time he was supposedly doing so.

Granted for the most part this was a media event on the other hand it can not be disputed that Lincoln was at the site at the time noted, especially when it is independant newspapers that do so.

It was obviously a giant media propaganda by Northern war hawks and politicians.

I find it amazing you call this a northern propaganda campaign when it is obvious that the entire secession was brought about by the south. Considering that the south had by far the better generals(especially Lee)who were trained entirely by the north(West Point being in New York)this seems more than a bit disingenuous.

[achilles12604]

Prove to me that Lincoln actually gave the Gettysburg address.

I'm assuming you mean other than the fact that we have the copy of the speech that was given written in the hand of Lincoln himself.

Your sure that he was in fact the one that penned it? How do you know that? There are only two copies that are even close to the actual time frames and only one of those two is thought to have been written before the supposed speech took place.

Besides this, the copies we have arn't consistent with each other, so how much can you really trust them?

1) There were many of bloody battles during the civil war. Gettysburg wasn't the beginning nor the end of the war. In fact there really wasn't any reason at all for this particular battle to deserve a speech.

Other than the fact that this was the first major victory by the north and a moral boost was definately needed at the time.

Exactly. This was one of my points. The Northern Commanders needed something inspirational to get more troops. Hence, they came up with this speech idea and presented it supposedly after their first great victory. The motive to forge this speech was definatly there They needed it as you pointed out.

2) I find it unlikely that Lincoln would have presented a speech totally unrehearsed and unplanned. Once again there was no reason for this to happen.

Of course there was a reason, the north was heavily pressured at the time by the south and they desperately needed a military victory which was delivered at great expense at Gettysburg. You have to remember that at the time Lincolns presidency was not exactly in a strong position and in fact the great repute Lincoln is given is because of the resolve he showed during the civil war.

Then shouldn't the speech have been a grand occasion full of pomp and circumstance? Why should they have chosen to perform such a small and impromptu ceremony if it was so deseratly needed and Lincoln was actually there and was actually giving such an important speech? It doesn't make sense that it would be so small. Now if it were forged, this would make sense because they would have been unable to make up some big occasion. More evidence that it was not really a speech given by Lincoln. It should have been a grand occasion, but it wasn't. Why?

3) The North needed to rally its troops after the battle to take advantage of the their first major victory. The idea of such an inspiring speech would have made a great platform for recruiting and inspiring their soldiers.

You have to remember that the presidency of the day was not how it is today, Lincoln did not have speech writers plus you should remember that Gettysburg was fought only about an hour away from the northern capital so seeing as such it is not much of a stretch to have him make a speech on the fly right after the victory.

So again why make it such a short and small thing if it was so vastly important and ciritcal to rally support for the SURVIVAL of the nation? Also, Lincoln did have writers and secretaries. Their names were John Nicolay and John Hay. Why didn't these men assist Lincoln with this monumentous occasion? They didn't even seem aware of the speech until after it was already in circulation. Strange that the presidents private secretaries were caught so unaware if this actually happened as history records.

4) Other than NORTHERN people, who would have been biased in favor of the ideas put forth in this address, there are no witness accounts for this speech.

Actually there are a number of eyewitness accounts, all you need to do is look to the newspapers of the time. Saying that this speech did not occur simply because there were no southerner accounts is ridiculous, not to mention many of the papers of the time were anything but pro administration.

Ok . . . Who printed these papers? The north. Who's side gained by this being printed? The north and their army. The fact that this was put in the paper does not prove it happened. Saddam printed all sorts of Propaganda the he was winning the war in Iraq. Hitler used propaganda to further his rise to power. Stalin . . . It happened all the time. Why is this any different? It seems exactly the same as Saddam's take on his war and Hitler's take on his. Yet did they print truth or fiction?

What about those who were opposed to the unity of the nation? Nothing. no mention. Strange huh?

5) The supposed copies we have of "drafts" of the speech differ in several places and have major inconsistencies.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/gadd/gadrft.html

Hence the term draft and not final copy, you need to remember they did not have white out at the time

Yea. They must have had a lot of changes to make in order to make this plausible. What I find interesting is that the drafts changed AFTER the speech was supposedly given. This wouldn't make sense if the speech was really given like history says. Yet the drafts that came after the timeframe of the supposed speech were different that his supposed "read copy".

6) The drafts we have come from different sources both of whom were very pro-north in their ideology and these two drafts do not match with one another, suggesting that there was never an original or correct coy to begin with. After all how hard is it to simply copy from one paper to another?

Lets see you are the president and you are going to make a major speech, you don't have any one to transcribe your versions of your speech or even make any corrections thereof. Without a modern copying machine making a copy means you take along with you to a combat zone one more noncombatant whose only purpose is to write down and correct what you say who additionally is a female for who generally great efforts were expended to protect them which considering the great peril the north was under probably was not available

But the president did have people to transcribe. We arn't talking about Jesus time after all. He had his personal secretaries. Two of them. And they didn't have to copy thousands of words or hundreds of pages. 230 words. Is that so hard to copy . . . AFTER THE FACT EVEN? They wern't under any pressure after the fact were they? But even then, there were discrepancies.

7) These two drafts and the only two which were written anytime near the event in question and modern scholars aren't even sure if one of them was written before or after this supposed speech was given.

Alrighty, even if you assume that the original of the speech no longer exists all this states is that copies were obtained and retained from the reporters who were on site at the time of the speech.

Except that these reporters could have very easily been fed this story from another source as I pointed out above. I am also not commenting on the papers renditions of the supposed speech but on the copies that Lincoln himself supposedly authored. These two pieces of paper do not agree, so how on earth can we be sure that what the reporters wrote down would be anywere near accurate, and this is assuming that they were there and wern't fed this story by a well meaning political war hawk as so often happens in history. After all, history is written by the victors, however they wish it to read.

So you have two problems.

1) Even if some speech was given which isn't likely, how can we trust the reporters (who didn't even have tape recorders and thus had to remember what happened), when the "originals" don't even agree?

2) We still have not established that this entire thing wasn't made up by a well meaning Northern sympathizer and passed on to the media to spread a very inspirational story designed to stir up the North, conveniently right when it needed it. Suspicious at the least.

9) Lincoln was all the way in Washington just a couple hours after this speech was supposedly given so combining this fact with the fact that there is not physical evidence he was ever at Gettysburg, I see no reason to conclude that he ever was at Gettysburg, much less that he stopped to give a speech at a battlefield with no significance at the time.

Strangely enough Gettysburg is only a few hours away from Washington, and strangely enough this gives more than enough time for someone to write a short speech, especially when the occassion is important although possibly transitory, much like a military victory which would give weight to your position and thus put your enemies in the national papers at a disadvantage. You really need to understand that the conflict was by no means popular.

So Lincoln had to sneak in this speech without telling anyone even his private secretaries, because the papers and the media were all against him. But after the speech the papers suddenly changed their minds and published his supposed speech and made it extreamly famous?

Now who is coming up with conspiracies? Why would the media change their minds so quickly and completely on this subject if they were dead set against it before this supposed speech? It must have been a whopper!

10) The details of the speech are not agreed upon. If Lincoln did write it, and if he was alive to write out other copies later on, shouldn't all this be clear?

As earlier stated initial; copies may have been written by him, otherwise later copies would have been printed by his secretary or any newspapers that were there.

But as I pointed out earlier, the "originals" don't even agree. If one person can not duplicate 230 words accurately with the other copy in hand, why should we trust what some reporter might have heard, correctly or incorrectly? This isn't like the NT where there were hundreds of thousands of words. there were about 230 words. Not that hard, unless the real writer of this propaganda didn't write all the copies but translated the ideas to other propaganda minded inividuals who wrote out a copy of their own and then gave it to the papers in order to further the cause they believed in religiously. After all you yourself said it was "unpopular" what better way to recruit support that a PR campaign?

11) Why would Lincoln be at this site for hours and only give a speech with barely 230 words total? Shouldn't a president be given the majority of the time to speak? Why would his speech be cut so short given the amount of time he was supposedly there? This inconsistency is illogical and can not be reconciled with the facts.

Yes and I'm sure if given the time the speech would have been much longer,given how long the speechs of the time tended to be however the speech was given directly after a military action with little time to prepare and just as modern day leaders when they go to battlefields mostly they look around and make a canned speech about bravery and courage, it should be noted that Lincoln bothered to write something with some meat to it.

Wait a second. The battle was over July 3. His supposed speech was given Nov 19!

How on earth can you claim . . .

the speech was given directly after a military action with little time to prepare and just as modern day leaders when they go to battlefields mostly they look around and make a canned speech about bravery and courage,

It isn't like he gave it the next day!! Care to change your story or are you leaving that to the propagandists writings Lincolns speeches for him?

Based on the fact that there are extreamly limited and fairly untrustworthy copies of this supposed speech until well after it was already circulated by northern conspirators and that the motive for the North to concoct such a scheme is easy to see, I submit that President Lincoln never actually gave this speech in Gettysburg at the time he was supposedly doing so.

Granted for the most part this was a media event on the other hand it can not be disputed that Lincoln was at the site at the time noted, especially when it is independant newspapers that do so.

Here is a question for you. If this supposed speech was so improptu and had to be written on the fly, how did the media get enough reporters there to document this occasion? How did they know about it if his speech had to be written so hastely? This whole thing doesn't add up. I suggest that several things don't make logical sense .. .

1) If this speech was written in a hurried fashion such that even his private secretaries had to get copies AFTER the fact, how come he was able to wait months before thinking of doing his presentation?

2) If Lincoln really did write this speech, how come the "originals" dont match up? He wasn't hurried obviously.

3) If this speech was such an improptu occasion, how did the media get there and even if they were there (assuming there was a there), how do we know they recorded his words accurately? After all we don't even know which copy to compare their reports to for accuracy.

4) What about the south? No word at all? Not even a rebuttal?

There are still tons of holes. I still say the the most logical series of events is that some well meaning politicians or generals (someone high up), who felt very strongly about this war, invented this speech and began to circulate it in a PR campaign to recruit new support for his conflict. I see nothing which connects Lincoln to the speech or Gettysburg. Here's an idea. The two "original" copies came from his private secretaries, but they were not exactly the same. What if those secretaries were in fact the authors and inventors of this propaganda? then they fed the story to the papers. Supporting this is the fact that there were no pictures in the papers. If the reporters were there for over 3 hours, why didn't they take a picture?

Answer: They wern't there. they were given this story after the fact by individuals high up in the white house who told them that Lincoln gave this speech and if they wanted a scoop they could write about the occasion. Lincoln was never there and probably was very surprised to see his "speech" in the papers later. Case closed.

It was obviously a giant media propaganda by Northern war hawks and politicians.

I find it amazing you call this a northern propaganda campaign when it is obvious that the entire secession was brought about by the south. Considering that the south had by far the better generals(especially Lee)who were trained entirely by the north(West Point being in New York)this seems more than a bit disingenuous.

Propaganda to aid the north was presented by the South? I think you may be confused. The south started the war yes, but this has zero t do with this supposed "gettysburg address." Apples and shovels.

[Confused]

While I like the format you have used and the concept you have for this thread is ingenius, the basic fallacy is that history has this recorded by multiple sources with nothing to gain by recording it. The sources weren't trying to gain favor or devotion by recording this data. You pick a few "discrepancies" to question the overall accuracy. To prove he gave the address is as easy as looking at unbiased historical records to validate it. If one can validate the accuracy of the records, and the records are consistent between the sources, it is considered valid. That gives reliable proof.

[achilles12604]

While I like the format you have used and the concept you have for this thread is ingenius, the basic fallacy is that history has this recorded by multiple sources with nothing to gain by recording it. The sources weren't trying to gain favor or devotion by recording this data. You pick a few "discrepancies" to question the overall accuracy. To prove he gave the address is as easy as looking at unbiased historical records to validate it. If one can validate the accuracy of the records, and the records are consistent between the sources, it is considered valid. That gives reliable proof.

One point I disagree with, and I did so in the thread and so far my one opponent agrees with me on this point at least, is that the north did have a great deal to gain from this information being publicized. Hence the cause had a motive and the rest is history (so to speak). Multiple sources can all be wrong. Ask Saddam's people or Stalin's or the Jew's under hitler. Just because miltiple sources report on something does not necessitate that it is true. The question is what was the motive for the publication and as I have shown and others agreed, that there was a strong motive to begin propaganda. The rest simply followed in suit.

You say

To prove he gave the address is as easy as looking at unbiased historical records to validate it.

True unless those records were wrong to begin with. Then you make my point. . .

If one can validate the accuracy of the records, and the records are consistent between the sources, it is considered valid. That gives reliable proof.

As I have shown the newspaper are lacking any picture of this occasion even though cameras existed. This is one strike against their validity. Then they primary sources DO NOT AGREE. They are not consistent. That is two strikes. All I need is one more and they are out. Considering that this event is undisputed historical fact, this is amazing.

thank you for outlining my frustrations. Now back to changing history. Yee HAW!!

:2gun:

[McCulloch]

Prove to me that Lincoln actually gave the Gettysburg address.

It does not matter if Loncoln actually gave the Gettysburg address. Historians weighing the evidence have concluded that it is most likely that he did, but as you point out, there are other less likely possibilities.

[achilles12604]

Prove to me that Lincoln actually gave the Gettysburg address.

It does not matter if Loncoln actually gave the Gettysburg address. Historians weighing the evidence have concluded that it is most likely that he did, but as you point out, there are other less likely possibilities.

Wet Blanket . . .

I guess you get my point. Hopefully others will as well but it still a fun exercise in debate and it does have ramifications as to what is a fair arguement. So I'll continue if anyone still thinks that this speech actually did happen as history describes.

[achilles12604]

Is that it then . . . No one thinks they can defend a ligitament historical event?

Or is that the skeptics are so used to just being able to "doubt away" ligitament arguements, that they fear being on the defensive side of the ball?


24 hours. A few dozen views but no more replies. Can anyone prove that Lincoln did in fact give this speech just as history records?

[Goat]

Is that it then . . . No one thinks they can defend a ligitament historical event?

Or is that the skeptics are so used to just being able to "doubt away" ligitament arguements, that they fear being on the defensive side of the ball?


24 hours. A few dozen views but no more replies. Can anyone prove that Lincoln did in fact give this speech just as history records?

I could, fairly easily.

However, I consider your arguement to be totally irrelavent. You already were given the various methods one would figure that out, and you arbitrarily rejected them already.

So, why bother?

[achilles12604]

Is that it then . . . No one thinks they can defend a ligitament historical event?

Or is that the skeptics are so used to just being able to "doubt away" ligitament arguements, that they fear being on the defensive side of the ball?


24 hours. A few dozen views but no more replies. Can anyone prove that Lincoln did in fact give this speech just as history records?

I could, fairly easily.

However, I consider your arguement to be totally irrelavent. You already were given the various methods one would figure that out, and you arbitrarily rejected them already.

So, why bother?

By all means go through my points and show where my logic fails. Also keep in mind the usual arguements used against apologists. You might see a few similarities.