Fore score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
November 19, 1863
The question posed before all Americans in the first half of the 21st Century is whether or not to preserve the Union spoken of by Lincoln. To make perfectly clear what that Union consisted of Lincoln clarified in the Gettysburg Address that the Union of consisted of a Constitutional Republic under the democratically empowered direction and control of an independent and self reliant people.
Such a vision was at odds with the slave society Lincoln and the Union Army fought against as it was with the monarchy’s and feudal societies of the centuries proceeding it, and is still at odds with the central-control top down government so attractive to a large percentage of the US population.
Defending such a Union consist of the same struggle today as it did in Lincolns time. There is always a segment of human society (through conceit and hubris) that considers itself better then everyone else and as such are “booted and spurred” to be the leaders.
Most often this tendency will appear in those of great wealth or with intellectual accomplishments as well as those gifted with charisma who’s dynamic personality naturally draws to positions of leadership and influence. All these may be admirable qualities but in the American system they do not make anyone better (in a political sense) than anyone else. And, that every citizen has a right to the free exercise of their Inalienable Rights as defined in the Declaration of Independence.
Is the Union worth defending?
Showing what is being offered as an alternative is the mission of this website. As well we are going to highlight where the confusion and disinformation is coming from about the nature of the US Constitutional Republic, and why such disinformation requires raw force to propagate and enact.
Whether a government of, by, and for the people (in fact not just in rhetoric) continues and grows in the United States is the mission objective of all who seek to answer the question of why this Union is definitely worth defending and how best to accomplish this task.
Speech on the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence
July 5, 1926
About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern.
But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final.
If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final.
If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final.
No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions.
If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people.
Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.