Search

God and Gettysburg

Nothing is sacred, as it were – not even the facts of American history, not even the words spoken by Abraham Lincoln at the most solemn ceremony of our nation's history.

It is rather for us, the living, we here be dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that, from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here, gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth.

Deeply moving – but, I thought, something isn't right. Did you notice what had been omitted? What's missing is Lincoln's description of the United States as a nation under God. What Lincoln actually said at Gettysburg was: "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom." The American Constitution Society had omitted Lincoln's reference to the United States as a nation under God from the address he gave at the dedication of the burial ground at Gettysburg.

At the time, staring at the text, I wondered whether it was an innocent, inadvertent error – a typo, perhaps. It seemed more likely, though, that here is the apex of the secularist ideology that has attained a status not unlike that of religious orthodoxy among liberal legal scholars and political activists. Nothing is sacred, as it were – not even the facts of American history, not even the words spoken by Abraham Lincoln at the most solemn ceremony of our nation's history.

When, from 2000 to 2004, the atheist Michael Newdow was challenging in court the inclusion of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, he and his supporters pointed out that the words were not in the original pledge created in the 1920s. They were added by Congress in the 1950s in the midst of the Cold War, in response to a campaign led by the Catholic men's organization the Knights of Columbus. The words were introduced into the pledge to highlight the profound difference between the United States, whose political system is founded on the theistic proposition that all men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights," and the atheistic premises of Soviet Marxism.

But the Great Emancipator’s characterization of the United States as a nation under God appears to undermine the strict separationism that the American Constitution Society wishes to promote. What to do?

Newdow has cycled back into the news in recent months with a new case that was appealed to the Supreme Court in March 2010, but what he and his supporters have avoided mentioning is that the pledge's words under God were not pulled from a sermon by Billy Graham or a papal encyclical. They were taken from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. The pledge, as amended, simply quotes one of our nation's founding texts.

This fact is more than a little inconvenient for those who hold that government must be neutral not only among competing traditions of religious faith, but between religion and atheism – or, as it is sometimes put, "between religion and irreligion." The constitutional basis for their claim is the Religion Clause of the First Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Their evidence for the claim that these words were intended to forbid such things as descriptions of America as a nation "under God" in official government documents is that the founders (allegedly) sought this "strict separation" of church and state.

But this puts the American Constitution Society in a sticky position. In assembling their pamphlet, they were eager to include Lincoln as a founder – the author of one of America's founding documents, the Gettysburg Address. But the Great Emancipator's characterization of the United States as a nation under God appears to undermine the strict separationism that the American Constitution Society wishes to promote. What to do?

The answer they hit on was simply to make Lincoln's inconvenient words disappear. Now you are thinking: How did they imagine they could get away with it? The Gettysburg Address is the opposite of an obscure document. Millions of Americans can recite it by heart.

Well, here the plot thickens. First, the society knows that it gets a certain level of immunity because its liberal secularist viewpoint is overwhelmingly the viewpoint of American legal academics and, indeed, academics generally. Even if the society were to be exposed, it would not be treated the way, say, the conservative Federalist Society would be treated if caught altering historical documents for ideological reasons. Second, the Society knew that in a pinch it could muddy the waters by asserting that, in fact, five copies of the Gettysburg Address in Lincoln's hand exist, and two of them do not include the words "under God."

But that won't wash. The two drafts not containing the words are known as the Nicolay draft and the Hay draft. They are held in the Library of Congress. The other three, all containing the words, are known as the Everett, Bancroft, and Bliss copies. The Everett copy is held in the Illinois State Historical Society Library in Springfield. The Bancroft is in the Kroch Library at Cornell University. The Bliss is on display at the White House.

The Bliss copy is generally regarded as the authoritative one, mainly because it is the last – and the only one to which Lincoln actually attached his signature. The Nicolay draft is thought to be the earliest. It gets its name from the custodian of Lincoln's papers. The Hay draft was found among John Hay's papers about forty years after Lincoln's death. It seems to have the greatest number of deviations from the other drafts and from what Lincoln is known to have said at Gettysburg. The Everett copy was sent to Edward Everett by Lincoln at Everett's request in 1864. (Everett was the famed orator who was actually the main speaker at the ceremony at Gettysburg the day Lincoln spoke.) The Bancroft copy got its name because Lincoln produced it for George Bancroft, a historian and secretary of the Navy. The Bliss copy is named for the publisher Alexander Bliss – Bancroft's stepson.

Of course, none of these copies is actually the Gettysburg Address. The Gettysburg Address is the set of words actually spoken by Lincoln at Gettysburg. And, as it happens, we know what those words are. (The Bliss copy nearly perfectly reproduces them.) Three entirely independent reporters, including a reporter for the Associated Press, telegraphed their transcriptions of Lincoln's remarks to their editors immediately after the president spoke. All three transcriptions include the words "under God," and no contemporaneous report omits them. There isn't really room for equivocation or evasion: Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address – one of the founding texts of the American republic – expressly characterizes the United States as a nation under God.

I am clearly not the first to notice the omission. The version of the pamphlet now available as a PDF download on the American Constitution Society's website has been amended to introduce the words "The Hay Draft," albeit with no explanation of its meaning, as a subtitle for the Gettysburg Address. This is clearly a tail-covering maneuver, yet, in its way, it makes the Society's intellectual dishonesty even more manifest. It is now impossible to suppose that the Society's presentation of the Hay Draft as the actual Gettysburg Address was an innocent error – the product, one might otherwise have thought, of a summer intern's overly hasty internet search for the text of Lincoln's remarks at Gettysburg. It is now certain that the Society's decision to exclude the words from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address was a cold and deliberate one.

The omission of the words "under God" in a document characterized as a founding text by a liberal legal advocacy organization in the context of our contemporary debates over the role of religion in American public life and the meaning of the Constitution's provisions pertaining to religion is just too convenient. We now have positive evidence that they know exactly what they are doing, and, to achieve the result they want, they are willing to violate scholarly consensus, common sense, and the memorization of generations
of schoolchildren.

Perhaps the American Constitution Society can provide some evidence to show that they did not have an ideological purpose in omitting words that, if included in a founding text, are so damaging to liberal orthodoxy on church–state issues. If so, we can look forward to a correction of the pamphlet's text and on the society's website and in the next edition. We might then send the pamphlet, with the American Constitution Society's imprimatur, to the Supreme Court for its consideration when Michael Newdow's current case, or one like it, reaches the justices.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This article is reprinted with permission from First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life.

First Things is published by The Institute on Religion and Public Life, an interreligious, nonpartisan research and education institute whose purpose is to advance a religiously informed public philosophy for the ordering of society.

To subscribe to First Things call 1-877-905-9920 or go here.

THE AUTHOR

Copyright © 2011 First Things