Lincoln and revisions...

[TruthSeeker]

from this week's commentary:

This is from one of the first two original drafts he made. Many months later, he wrote out new copies in which "under God" does appear, and those references have of course been seized upon as "legitimate," while the originals are ignored...


Given that the same person wrote and edited the drafts, I do not think the addition of "under God" should be regarded as suspicious. In my experience, later drafts are edited to more clearly convey the author's meaning, to correct an oversite or suggest an evolution in thinking. As such, it seems to me that Mr. Lincoln may have made the addition of "under God" because that is exactly what he meant to say.

Could someone explain why the earlier draft is more "legitimate" than the later one given that the same individual wrote each one?

[Diezel]

One thing you left out....

Later revisions, as evidenced by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, can also be a collection of comprimises enacted in order to push whatever agenda the document wants to push to a wider audience.

That is the piece I think Randi is trying to highlight. If it is true or not, we do not know at this time and probably never will. (We would have to find other writings by Lincoln stating what those comprimses were and why they were instituted, like we have for the above mentioned documents.)

[TruthSeeker]

Originally posted by Diezel
One thing you left out....

Later revisions, as evidenced by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, can also be a collection of comprimises enacted in order to push whatever agenda the document wants to push to a wider audience.

That is the piece I think Randi is trying to highlight. If it is true or not, we do not know at this time and probably never will. (We would have to find other writings by Lincoln stating what those comprimses were and why they were instituted, like we have for the above mentioned documents.)

Yes, of course, that is another possibility.

[Chad Noles]

Diezel wrote: Later revisions, as evidenced by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, can also be a collection of comprimises enacted in order to push whatever agenda the document wants to push to a wider audience.

It also can be speculation that it is the case with the Lincoln situation.I'm not sure there was a valid point to the arguement if it was original or not,as we will probably never know.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by Chad Noles
Diezel wrote:

It also can be speculation that it is the case with the Lincoln situation.I'm not sure there was a valid point to the arguement if it was original or not,as we will probably never know.

I freely admitted this in the orignal post you quoted:

If it is true or not, we do not know at this time and probably never will.

Without supporting evidence, he is leading the reader to conclusion that may not be valid. But notice I say "leading". He never states that Lincoln's final edition was a comprimise. It very well could have been his true intentions to put in "under God" and just forgot it in the first draft.

This is a case where the author is putting up a piece of evidence and leading a person to a conclusion, without stating the conclusion, because the author knows that conclusion is not proven by the evidence either.

We would slam any believer for doing this and we shouldn't give him a pass for it either.

The only thing that can be said definitivly is that Lincoln wrote an early draft that did not include "under God" and his final version did.

What we don't know, with the evidence available to us, is why the final version was changed.

[Chad Noles]

I agree with your sumation.I don't think that Randi's comment was worth making as it seems to be open ended.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by Chad Noles
I agree with your sumation.I don't think that Randi's comment was worth making as it seems to be open ended.

Exactly. And I will take it a step further - I disagree with his comment, because of the way he made it. I don't want to use the term intellectually dishonest, that is way to harsh, but it was "not playing nice". If we are to take the intellectual and moral high road of honest debate, we cannot sink to the tactics used by our opponnents.

But maybe I am just blowing it up farther than I should. :D

[Chad Noles]

I'm not sure you are taking it too far.Critical thinking requires objective reasoning applied equally to arguements we agree with,and ones we don't agree with.Far too often,we seem to excuse the "reasoning" in matters we are agreement with,yet lambaste opinions we don't agree with.This may be due to our human nature,but it is intellectually dishonest.

[CERDIP]

Originally posted by Diezel


The only thing that can be said definitivly is that Lincoln wrote an early draft that did not include "under God" and his final version did.


Actually, he wrote two drafts that do not include the 'under god' phrase, one before his speech, and one shortly after.

See <a href=http://www.downstreetmagazine.com/archives/V1N8/puzzle/monthspzl.htm>here</a>.

[swellman]

Originally posted by Chad Noles
I'm not sure you are taking it too far.Critical thinking requires objective reasoning applied equally to arguements we agree with,and ones we don't agree with.Far too often,we seem to excuse the "reasoning" in matters we are agreement with,yet lambaste opinions we don't agree with.This may be due to our human nature,but it is intellectually dishonest.

Can we have this posted as a sticky on the top of the P&CE/H forum? It's an excellent summation of something many folks over there seem to have forgotten.

Sorry to hijack the thread...

[Bearguin]

I'll wade in here as I'm in the middle of a debate about the "Under God" on a different forum.

I will not refer people to Randi's page on this topic because I think what he has done is intellectually dishonest. For the same reasons Diezel has stated.

[Chad Noles]

Swellman,thanks for the acknowledgement thought it's not up to me what they post as a "sticky" at PC&E/H.:)

[DrMatt]

Originally posted by Diezel


I freely admitted this in the orignal post you quoted:


Without supporting evidence, he is leading the reader to conclusion that may not be valid.

Lincoln was pretty cagey about religion--he apparently gave the impression of siding with Thomas Paine at times. If you're famliar with Lincoln's biography, the evidence is there in abundance--but Lincoln himself left things ambiguous, seemingly as a way to capture the political "Center". There are a number of lessons in Lincoln's way of doing things which I think the Republican party needs to re-learn. :)

[MemeHacker]

Scholars disagree over whether the Nicolay copy, referred to as the "first draft," was actually the reading copy Lincoln held at Gettysburg on November 19, 1863. Some believe that the delivery text has been lost, because some of the words and phrases of the Nicolay copy do not match contemporary transcriptions of Lincoln’s original speech. The words "under God," for example, are missing from the phrase "that this nation [under God] shall have a new birth of freedom...." Other word and punctuation variations also appear.
http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/gettysburg/good_cause/five_copies.htm

Here's a link to a pic of the 11/20/1863 NYT article which includes the speech in it's enitirety and includes the words "under god":
http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/gettysburg/ideas_more/reactions_p1_pic.htm

[Dr. Popalot]

Who cares what Lincoln said, wrote or believed regarding the Gettysburg Addres? Lincoln was a crafty politician like many today and would say what he thought the voters wanted to hear. Wether Lincoln said or not does not justify/santificy the use of the phrase "under god" in the pledge of allegence. The supporters of its use/constituationality try to present an argument that past US presidents used this term and it is therefore what the founding fathers intended. This is a week argument. There are numerous occurances where George Washington could have but never proclaimed his faith, particulary on his dying bed. If we are to believe that this country is "under god" then the seperation of church and state is meaningless (or blasphemous if you are a believer).

Compelling childern to render homage to a piece of cloth is a waste of time and borders on a religious ceremony.