Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Honest Abe
For years, I've been using the Gettysburg Address as part of my unit on the persuasive essay. It's hard to top, and it works nicely with some of the other texts I use: the Declaration of Independence, "Self-Reliance," "Resistance to Civil Authority," and "Letter From Birmingham Jail." It's even short enough that I can read it to the class, removing all those problems about the students not having read the text.
It's a wonderful bit of writing, and I long ago stopped believing that nonsense about Lincoln having scribbled it out on the train on his way to the ceremony. This is a polished text by a master, not an improvised (or divinely inspired) first draft. I did, however, accept the myth that the newspapers, the next day, considered Lincoln's remarks as just an unmemorable footnote to Edward Everett's oration. I even mentioned it in class, along with a very brief precis of Gary Wills's argument, drawn from dimly remembered reviews of his Lincoln at Gettysburg.
But now I've read that book, and I'm going to have to change my approach. For one thing, a lot of newspapers got the text (or a text; there's some dispute over exactly what Lincoln said that day) from the Associated Press. For another, many of those newspapers recognized it immediately as a significant statement.
My basic premise, that Lincoln used the occasion to redefine both the war and the nature of the republic, still holds, although now I've got a better idea of what was really involved. I also now have a better idea of how the idea of the occasion came about (there was no previous national cemetery, after all). I also have a sense of the relationship between the two major speeches of the day, Everett's and Lincoln's, and what happened to our memory of Everett as an orator.
In fact, that style of oration was a way of recreating the historical moment. Everett specialized in battle stories, telling them on the spot (as at Gettysburg) as a way of making sense of the action and explaining their importance. (The record doesn't seem to show whether he really understood Gettysburg as the turning point in the war; he may have.) Lincoln explained the importance of the war (changing the importance of it; what does he say in the speech about slavery?) and of America. It was a masterful performance by both men, even if we only remember one of them.
The book is also a masterful performance by Wills. It isn't easy to write a book about less than a page, without overwhelming the original text. But Wills recognizes his job and does it well. He provides context as well as analysis, knowing that most of us don't really have the history at the tips of our fingers.
dmh
It's a wonderful bit of writing, and I long ago stopped believing that nonsense about Lincoln having scribbled it out on the train on his way to the ceremony. This is a polished text by a master, not an improvised (or divinely inspired) first draft. I did, however, accept the myth that the newspapers, the next day, considered Lincoln's remarks as just an unmemorable footnote to Edward Everett's oration. I even mentioned it in class, along with a very brief precis of Gary Wills's argument, drawn from dimly remembered reviews of his Lincoln at Gettysburg.
But now I've read that book, and I'm going to have to change my approach. For one thing, a lot of newspapers got the text (or a text; there's some dispute over exactly what Lincoln said that day) from the Associated Press. For another, many of those newspapers recognized it immediately as a significant statement.
My basic premise, that Lincoln used the occasion to redefine both the war and the nature of the republic, still holds, although now I've got a better idea of what was really involved. I also now have a better idea of how the idea of the occasion came about (there was no previous national cemetery, after all). I also have a sense of the relationship between the two major speeches of the day, Everett's and Lincoln's, and what happened to our memory of Everett as an orator.
In fact, that style of oration was a way of recreating the historical moment. Everett specialized in battle stories, telling them on the spot (as at Gettysburg) as a way of making sense of the action and explaining their importance. (The record doesn't seem to show whether he really understood Gettysburg as the turning point in the war; he may have.) Lincoln explained the importance of the war (changing the importance of it; what does he say in the speech about slavery?) and of America. It was a masterful performance by both men, even if we only remember one of them.
The book is also a masterful performance by Wills. It isn't easy to write a book about less than a page, without overwhelming the original text. But Wills recognizes his job and does it well. He provides context as well as analysis, knowing that most of us don't really have the history at the tips of our fingers.
dmh
