"The world will little note...": the failed speech that became famous

November 19 marked the 150th Anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's delivery of the Gettysburg Address. 51,112 men died in the battle of Gettysburg - to put that in perspective, it is not far off from the 58,209 American military personnel who died over the course of the entire Vietnam Conflict, and actually exceeds the number of battle deaths in Vietnam - 47,424. Thus Lincoln said in his brief speech, "The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here; but it can never forget what they did here." 

His comments were certainly appropriate, but were they accurate? Indeed, it may seem that the result is somewhat the reverse of Lincoln's statement : the world remembers what was said at Gettysburg, but few remember what was done there. My purpose here is not, however, to critique historic illiteracy, or how blood-bought freedom is so often taken for granted, but rather to note just how serious Lincoln was when he said "The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here..." 

The people of Lincoln's time would never have dreamed that his address would ever be found worthy of recognition, especially of the sort requiring a 150th Anniversary complete with recitals, memorial services, and re-enactment fan-fare. The rhetorical masterpiece celebrated by thousands two days ago was, to be blunt, a disaster. 

The main speaker at the Gettysburg event on 19 November, 1863, was not even the President, but the aged and ailing orator Edward Everett. Everett spoke for over two hours on the unusually hot day in an address littered by occasional errors, trip-ups, and gaffes. At the conclusion of Everett's monologue, it was Lincoln's turn. Amanda Foreman, in her excellent volume, A World on Fire: An Epic History of Two Nations Divided, tells the rest:

The audience steeled itself for another long speech, not knowing that Lincoln had been asked by the organizers to be short and concise. The two-minute address was over so quickly that the photographer did not have time to focus his lens, and many among the 15,000 listeners had not yet settled down. Lincoln himself believed that his words had fallen flat. Several newspapers criticized him for failing to live up to the occasion. Antonio Gallenga, a temporary correspondent for The Times, thought that Lincoln's speech had been a total failure. English readers were told that the 'imposing ceremony' was 'rendered ludicrous by some of the luckless sallies of that poor President Lincoln'. (Foreman, A World on Fire (London: Penguin, 2011), 563).

But there was one man who recognized the short address for what it would become: the expert (and likely exhausted) Everett:

He congratulated Lincoln, confessing that he wished he had come 'as near to the central idea of the occasion, in two hours, as you did in two minutes'." Everett realized that Lincoln had captured the essential nature of the war. In a mere 272 words, the President had defined the moral purpose of the country's existence - democracy, freedom, equality - not only for the mourners at Gettysburg but for every subsequent generation of the American people. (ibid., 563). 

Anyone engaged in public speaking can learn a number of lessons in clarity, and (where appropriate) brevity from the story of Lincoln's address, especially in a world with a low attention span (I confess that I have much growth to do in this area as a pastor-teacher). Surely at the top of the list is ensuring that our message does actually have a message, that the narcissistically self-perceived brilliance of our minds does not add needlessly to that message, and that our manner and method does not obscure the message. From a critical perspective, we might come to be regarded as "too simple." But simple is not necessarily stupid. Simplicity is often what speaks most meaningfully and memorably, and therefore it has great power. 

I would highly recommend Amanda Foreman's "A World on Fire: An Epic History of Two Nations Divided". The war is intriguingly viewed primarily through the lens of British politics and participants, and the book is characterized by academic detail and critical integrity. http://www.amazon.co.uk/World-Fire-History-Nations-Divided/dp/0141040580