If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(PennLive)   Not news: Paper prints retraction. News: For article from the 1800s. Fark: Calling the Gettysburg address "silly remarks"   (pennlive.com) divider line 29
    More: Amusing, documents, paper print, utterances  
•       •       •

1997 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Nov 2013 at 7:41 AM (36 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



29 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-11-15 07:21:12 AM
Tomorrow:  "Perhaps we were a tad hasty on calling the Compromise of 1850 a blueprint for national unity."

Next Week:  "Turns out it wasn't Spanish saboteurs that blew up the  Maine.  Our bad."
 
2013-11-15 07:28:49 AM
In retrospect, our assertion that Alaric's forces could  never penetrate as far as Rome, may have been incorrect.  We regret any inconvenience this may have caused.

--If you are going to retract historically, go all out.
 
2013-11-15 07:44:28 AM
Meh. A lot of papers at the time dismissed the speech. Edward Everett was the rock star speaker that day.
 
2013-11-15 07:47:26 AM
So the "a republic, not a democracy" crowd existed even in 1863?
 
2013-11-15 07:49:52 AM
OH, so they are saying the president was WRONG when he said "The world will little note, not long remember what we say here today"???!!
 
2013-11-15 07:52:16 AM
Too little too late. We demand to know when you first realized that the Gettysburg Address wasn't a silly remark. We want answers. Millions of children had to learn at least the preamble. That makes the Gettysburg Address the defining school assignment for all sixth graders everywhere.

I'm going to personally hold up all business until my office gets answers. We are not going to let you sweep this under the rug!

Harry Freakstorm: I'm back and slightly more sober. Say, what was Lindsey Graham doing at my computer?
 
2013-11-15 07:52:57 AM
Now that Lincoln is a democrat criticizing anything he did is unacceptable.


Makes liberal logic.
 
2013-11-15 07:53:11 AM
Remember this well. Come back in 50 years.
 
2013-11-15 07:55:05 AM
Slow news day?
 
2013-11-15 07:58:07 AM
Secretary of State William H. Seward's Gettysburg Address

I thank my God that I believe this strife is going to end in the removal of that evil which ought to have been removed by deliberate councils and peaceful means. . . And I thank him for the hope that when that cause is removed, simply by the operation of abolishing it, as the origin and agent of the treason that is without justification and without parallel, we shall thenceforth be united, be only one country, having only one hope, one ambition, and one destiny.
When we part to-morrow night, let us remember that we owe it to our country and to mankind that this war shall have for its conclusion the establishing of the principle of democratic government;-the simple principle that whatever party, whatever portion of the community, prevails by constitutional suffrage in an election, that party is to be respected and maintained in power, until it shall give place, on another trial and another verdict, to a different portion of the people. If you do not do this, you are drifting at once and irresistibly to the very verge of universal, cheerless, and hopeless anarchy. But with that principle this government of ours - the purest, the best, the wisest, and the happiest in the world - must be, and, so far as we are concerned, practically will be, immortal.
 
2013-11-15 08:01:09 AM
Senator's Edward Everett Gettysburg Oration:
(too long to paste. See at http://www.civilwarhome.com/everettgettysburg.
I have to admit, if you have insomnia -- it will be a great sleep aid.
 
2013-11-15 08:05:42 AM
Hello, President Lincoln, what we do for you today?

Well, I have a silly talk and I'd like funding for it.

Well, let's hear the preamble, shall we?

Certainly, ahem. "Four 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."

Why that's not silly at all. I'm British and four score and seven years ago, you kicked our arse and I still find that sentence rather stirring. Silly would have been "Yonder back some years. We did stuff."

Why, that's more silly. But I'm addressing the nation after a great battle. Possibly the turning point of the war. I can't go up there and say "Yonder back..." Why Fox Telegraph News would have a field day. their young reporter Bill O' Reilly would chew me up!

Yes. You see Mr. Lincoln, the very real problem is one of money. I'm afraid that the Ministry of Silly Talks is no longer getting the kind of support it needs. You see there's Defense, Social Security, Health, Housing, Education, Silly Talks ... they're all supposed to get the same. But last year, the Government spent less on the Ministry of Silly Talks than it did on National Defense! Now we get £348,000,000 a year, which is supposed to be spent on all our available products.

Well, that's just silly.

Yes. I'm afraid it is.
(Sergeant Major enters the room)Enough. Enough already! This skit make no sense. The President of the United States seeking funding from a British Ministry? You sir, Mr. President, please go on to Gettyburg and deliver your speech. Don't listen to this drivel here.

Lincoln: Yes agree,

Cleese: You know I was an Army officer in the Confuse a Cat skit.
 
2013-11-15 08:05:53 AM
Typical of retractions:  they're always late and buried.

Like the abolition of slavery (1865) which was only ratified by Mississippi 148 years late (Whoops! We forgot!). They never did admit it was man-thieving and thus both illegal and sinful, but they did get around to abolishing it, about a century and a half after Russia abolished serfdom (1861).

Quick to err, slow to admit error, even slower to apologize. It's the same everywhere. Black people are still joking about when they're going to be getting their promised 40 acres and a mule.

My theory is that they'll get retribution when every single White American has a slave ancestor and can claim a big juicy piece of the pie. You've still got a bit of a wait. Only half of you claim to have Cherikee ancestors. The number of white people who claim African ancestors is surprisingly small considering an estimate in the 1950s put it at one quarter of the white populaton of the USA.
 
2013-11-15 08:26:29 AM
Yes,  biased newspapers existed 150 years ago.   The Harrisburg Patriot news didn't even print what Lincoln said.    They just labeled it silly and went on to criticize.

So they were basically the MSNBC of the 1860's.

Slanted journalism....not new


/that paper is still slanted today
 
2013-11-15 08:30:04 AM

BolshyGreatYarblocks: So the "a republic, not a democracy" crowd existed even in 1863?


There is nothing new under the sun.

Every time I hear a politician give a 40 minute speech I feel compelled to remind people the Gettysburg address didn't even last 2 minutes.
 
2013-11-15 08:34:03 AM

Crewmannumber6: Every time I hear a politician give a 40 minute speech I feel compelled to remind people the Gettysburg address didn't even last 2 minutes.


And William Henry Harrison's not knowing when to STFU resulted in history's shortest presidency.
 
2013-11-15 08:36:56 AM
Mr. Antony, admittedly a good friend of Consul J. Caesar, used bombastic and none-too-suggestive aspersions on Messrs. Brutus and Cassius in the guise of a funeral oration...
 
2013-11-15 08:37:46 AM
 
2013-11-15 08:40:08 AM
So this actually puts them ahead of the curve for most of the mainstream media that have yet to admit southeast Asia did in fact fall in what could be best described as a domino effect and cocaine, while not a narcotic, is extremely addictive. Really looking forward to them also apologizing for President Hussein and how being a community organizer and serving a partial term as a state legislator and a partial term as a federal legislator isn't sufficient and adequate preparation for the office of president.
 
2013-11-15 08:49:38 AM

brantgoose: Typical of retractions:  they're always late and buried.

Like the abolition of slavery (1865) which was only ratified by Mississippi 148 years late (Whoops! We forgot!). They never did admit it was man-thieving and thus both illegal and sinful, but they did get around to abolishing it, about a century and a half after Russia abolished serfdom (1861).

Quick to err, slow to admit error, even slower to apologize. It's the same everywhere. Black people are still joking about when they're going to be getting their promised 40 acres and a mule.

My theory is that they'll get retribution when every single White American has a slave ancestor and can claim a big juicy piece of the pie. You've still got a bit of a wait. Only half of you claim to have Cherikee ancestors. The number of white people who claim African ancestors is surprisingly small considering an estimate in the 1950s put it at one quarter of the white populaton of the USA.


Not that anyone gives a damn about racism against Asians, but until 2007, IIRC, it was technically illegal for Asians to own land in Florida.
 
2013-11-15 08:51:35 AM

Crewmannumber6: BolshyGreatYarblocks: So the "a republic, not a democracy" crowd existed even in 1863?

There is nothing new under the sun.


We are a republic.

OscarTamerz: So this actually puts them ahead of the curve for most of the mainstream media that have yet to admit southeast Asia did in fact fall in what could be best described as a domino effect and cocaine, while not a narcotic, is extremely addictive. Really looking forward to them also apologizing for President Hussein and how being a community organizer and serving a partial term as a state legislator and a partial term as a federal legislator isn't sufficient and adequate preparation for the office of president.


I like the restraint you showed here by not adding "such as" or "whatnot".  Give it a 6/10.
 
2013-11-15 09:01:25 AM
cyberfaust.files.wordpress.com

Not publishing a retraction for 150 years? That's just silly. Right then, carry on!
 
2013-11-15 09:53:06 AM

OtherLittleGuy: The New York Times is not impressed


49-year-old retraction vs a 150-year-old retraction? Those snooty Times reporters.
 
2013-11-15 12:40:04 PM
Did anyone bother to read either the full original criticism of the speech, or the retraction?

Their criticism revolved around using the dedication of a cemetery for political gain, and focused on larger questions of, is such a terrible war worth waging?

The retraction is immeasurably trite, and completely ignores the larger context of the original editorial.
 
2013-11-15 02:27:56 PM

Ennuipoet: In retrospect, our assertion that Alaric's forces could  never penetrate as far as Rome, may have been incorrect.  We regret any inconvenience this may have caused.

--If you are going to retract historically, go all out.


In retrospect, eating the apple when God said not to do it, may have been the wrong decision. We regret any inconvenience this may have caused.
 
2013-11-15 08:00:13 PM
My hometown newspaper has been publishing what they wrote 150 years ago... here is an example of their high standards of journalism. And if that doesn't deserve a retraction, this certainly does.
 
2013-11-15 09:08:09 PM
Lincoln, Lincoln, I've been thinking,
what the hell have you been drinking?
Is is water? Is it wine?
Holy Fark, it's turpentine!
 
2013-11-15 09:16:14 PM

OnlyM3: Now that Lincoln is a democrat criticizing anything he did is unacceptable.


Makes liberal logic.


Yeah, that's pretty bad... during Lincoln's time the Southern Democrats were the wealthy anti-government plantation owners who tried to secede from the Union.

http://xkcd.com/1127/large/

Somehow the Democrats morphed into something quite different afterwards.
 
2013-11-15 10:49:04 PM

M AGRIPPA L F COS TERTIVM SCRIBIT: My hometown newspaper has been publishing what they wrote 150 years ago... here is an example of their high standards of journalism. And if that doesn't deserve a retraction, this certainly does.


The Covington (we're practically neighbors, by fark standards) paper started doing 75 or 100 years, I don't think they were printing 150 years ago to have that back archive. My parents saved a few recent clippings that showed just how skewed things in the paper were 100 years ago, and none of them were as painful to read as those two links.
 
Displayed 29 of 29 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report