Criticism and Compliments (for Nov. 19, 1863 "few brief remarks): PA Center for the Book web article-posting

from Pennsylvania Center for the Book PSU dot-edu (online article): The length and content of the speech contrasted sharply with that of Everett, and the audience did not seem to know how to respond. Amid the muted reaction, Lincoln reportedly returned to his seat and told his bodyguard, "That speech won't scour. It is a flat failure." Some historians, however, dismiss that account as myth, citing the bodyguard's reputation for inaccuracies. Regardless, the reactions were undeniably mixed. Some were stunned by the "inappropriate" brevity. Historian Garry Wills wrote that "myth tells of a poor photographer making leisurely arrangements to take Lincoln's picture, expecting him to be there for some time." Everett, however, was impressed, sending Lincoln a note the next day. "I should be glad," he wrote, "if I should flatter myself that I came as close in the central idea of the occasion, in two hours, as you did in two minutes." Newspapers, which at the time generally catered to certain political audiences, portrayed the event in different lights. Some harped on the brevity. Others remarked on the elegance and heartfelt emotion of the carefully chosen words. The Chicago Tribune, for example, lauded Lincoln's address, saying, "The dedicatory remarks by President Lincoln will live among the annals of man." Cross-town rival the Chicago Times took another tack, saying, "The cheeks of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly, flat, and dishwatery utterances." Abraham LincolnBoth the criticisms and compliments revolved around the differences in style between Everett and Lincoln. Everett was a master of changing the tone of his voice to suit his needs. Lincoln, on the others hand, had a high, Kentucky accent that was quite unlike how his voice is portrayed in popular culture today. What he lacked in voice modulation, he made up for in carrying power and audibility. His delivery was emphatic, drawing interruptive applause five times. The content of the rhetoric diverged as much as the speaking styles. "Everett succeeded with his audience by being thoroughly immersed in the details of the event he was celebrating," Garry Wills writes in Lincoln at Gettysburg. "Lincoln eschews all local emphasis. His speech hovers far above the carnage." Lincoln never even mentioned slavery or sides. He went beyond the historical circumstances to a higher plane, evoking the ideals of equality promoted in the Declaration of Independence. Although Lincoln was not as outspoken for true racial equality as some of his contemporaries, he realized the necessity of guaranteeing basic levels of self-governance and self-possession. Equality, he reasoned, could not be denied if the United States were to live by its founding principles. Each newspaper's take on this reasoning certainly influenced how its coverage. The publications also offered varying accounts of what exactly Lincoln said. Civil War historian Gabor Boritt compiled 30 pages of discrepancies for his book The Gettysburg Gospel. Most of the differences are small and understandable; some of them occurred because of reporters' impatience. The Centralia Sentinel, for example, recorded the "Four Score and seven years ago" introduction as simply "Ninety years ago." Some newspapers inserted religious spin and additions. Although Lincoln had indeed grown more religious and the Gettysburg Address contained some Biblical allusions, he relied much more heavily on lawyerly speech, according to Garry Wills. The speech was more classical than it was religious. . . http://pabook.libraries.psu.edu/palitmap/GettysburgAddress.html •Wills, Garry. Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words That Remade America. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1992.