Obama won’t attend 150th anniversary commemoration of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address in Pa


#1

Washington Post:

Obama won’t attend 150th anniversary commemoration of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address in Pa.

GETTYSBURG, Pa. — President Barack Obama’s affinity for Abraham Lincoln was on display through his political rise, but he won’t be on hand in a few weeks to mark one of the 16th president’s signature moments. Obama will not be among the throng in Pennsylvania on Nov. 19 to commemorate the 150th anniversary of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, the National Park Service said Wednesday.
Like Lincoln, Obama came to national prominence through the politics of Illinois, where they both once served in the Legislature.

Obama began his presidential campaign in Springfield, Ill., a town with deep ties to Lincoln; traced Lincoln’s 1861 train route in coming to Washington and even took the oath of office on Lincoln’s Bible.
For months, planners had held out hope that Obama would be at Soldier’s National Cemetery for the reading of the famous oration, first delivered on Nov. 19, 1863, more than four months after the Civil War’s pivotal battle. More than 3,500 Union soldiers killed in the Battle of Gettysburg are buried there.
Instead, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell will represent the administration, sharing keynote speaker status with historian James McPherson. Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett also plans to attend the ceremony.

No disrespect to Mr Jewell but the Sec'y of Interior but sending him just show how little the Administration cares.
Perhaps it's because it's because Pres. Obama the secularist is uncomfortable with Lincoln's philosophy.

Though Lincoln was a racist by modern standards (he would not grant blacks full rights of citizenship) he never doubted they were full human beings with the right to "keep the fruits of the labor earned by the sweat of their brow" and "No one stamped with the image of the Creator was born to be trampled and imbruted." [parapgrasing here, I don't have the quotes in front of me]


#2

[quote="didymus, post:1, topic:344946"]
Washington Post:

No disrespect to Mr Jewell but the Sec'y of Interior but sending him just show how little the Administration cares.
Perhaps it's because it's because Pres. Obama the secularist is uncomfortable with Lincoln's philosophy.

Though Lincoln was a racist by modern standards (he would not grant blacks full rights of citizenship) he never doubted they were full human beings with the right to "keep the fruits of the labor earned by the sweat of their brow" and "No one stamped with the image of the Creator was born to be trampled and imbruted." [parapgrasing here, I don't have the quotes in front of me]

[/quote]

This is pretty sad. Even the worst politicians in India at least pay lip service to Gandhi or Nehru, regardless of their actions. I presume this is because Lincoln was Republican. :(


#3

Is this an event that every president has attended? If not, I’m honestly not sure why his non-attendance would be of such importance.

Generally, I guess I’m more the type of person to ask, “why *is *the president wasting his time at this or that event instead of working?” than “why isn’t the president at that event?” The presidency of the US is not (yet?) the position of a figurehead, so the primary purpose of the office is not participation in ceremonies. Call me unsentimental, but this is a non-issue for me.


#4

You don't know what other factors may be involved in the decision. Security, for example.


#5

I agree. He’s probably busy golfing.


#6

[quote="HoneyBea, post:5, topic:344946"]
I agree. He's probably busy golfing.

[/quote]

Precisely. Maybe just got a new set of irons he wants to try out before the snow starts coming in. Can you expect a guy to let that new Taylor Made set just sit in his bag until Spring comes around?


#7

[quote="Raskolnikov, post:3, topic:344946"]
Is this an event that every president has attended? If not, I'm honestly not sure why his non-attendance would be of such importance.

Generally, I guess I'm more the type of person to ask, "why is *the president wasting his time at this or that event instead of working?" than "why *isn't the president at that event?" The presidency of the US is not (yet?) the position of a figurehead, so the primary purpose of the office is not participation in ceremonies. Call me unsentimental, but this is a non-issue for me.

[/quote]

Because this year marks the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg, and thus the Gettysburg Address. There were over 50,000 casualties in three days of fighting. (Over 3,000 horses and mules also died.) Just think about these numbers! Thousands shedding their blood for their country. It does not matter when or where it happened: veterans have earned honor. That the President did not attend this historic event is shameful. Absolutely no excuse for this. :mad: They might have died 150 years ago, but these men (and some women) were still veterans and deserve our respect! It is hallowed ground. :highprayer:


#8

This is the 150th Anniversary. This isn't just some annual re-enactment. This is a historical milestone and deserves the attendance of the President. Unfortunately President Kennedy decided to go to Dallas instead of the 100th Anniversary. Considering his status as the first black President that he has used for political gain and all his missed opportunities to heal the racial divide, he could have made up so much ground instead of continuing his polarization for political gain. Just a shame.


#9

As someone who has visited Gettysburg over 100 times I can tell you the the President attending would turn an already crazy day into a traffic nightmare. Besides, who would want their speech compared to the Gettysburg Address?
There have been dozens of these celebrations over the past few years and there will be many more over the next two years.....plenty of opportunities.

John


#10

[quote="NeedsMercy, post:7, topic:344946"]
Because this year marks the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg, and thus the Gettysburg Address. There were over 50,000 casualties in three days of fighting. (Over 3,000 horses and mules also died.) Just think about these numbers! Thousands shedding their blood for their country. It does not matter when or where it happened: veterans have earned honor. That the President did not attend this historic event is shameful. Absolutely no excuse for this. :mad: They might have died 150 years ago, but these men (and some women) were still veterans and deserve our respect! It is hallowed ground. :highprayer:

[/quote]

Agreed!
Obama is the anti-Lincoln. President Lincoln did everything he could to hold our country together and to do what was right for the people. Obama is very divisive and likes to set one group against the other.


#11

[quote="oldcelt, post:9, topic:344946"]
As someone who has visited Gettysburg over 100 times I can tell you the the President attending would turn an already crazy day into a traffic nightmare. Besides, who would want their speech compared to the Gettysburg Address?
There have been dozens of these celebrations over the past few years and there will be many more over the next two years.....plenty of opportunities.

John

[/quote]

Meh.
There was a horse & buggy traffic jam when Pres. Lincoln went. Pres. Obama at least has the option of helicoptering in.
As for being busy or security concerns -- who was busier or faced a greater threat of assassination, Lincoln or Obama?


#12

Security is a major problem.You have thousands of re-enactors there all carryingy rifles supposedly loaded with blanks


#13

[quote="Raskolnikov, post:3, topic:344946"]
Is this an event that every president has attended? If not, I'm honestly not sure why his non-attendance would be of such importance.

Generally, I guess I'm more the type of person to ask, "why is *the president wasting his time at this or that event instead of working?" than "why *isn't the president at that event?" The presidency of the US is not (yet?) the position of a figurehead, so the primary purpose of the office is not participation in ceremonies. Call me unsentimental, but this is a non-issue for me.

[/quote]

maybe not yearly, but this is the 150th anniversary of one of the biggest speeches in American history.


#14

[quote="estesbob, post:12, topic:344946"]
Security is a major problem.You have thousands of re-enactors there all carryingy rifles supposedly loaded with blanks

[/quote]

Indeed....most of whom also carry live rounds. Pretty hard to shake down that many people and if they said no weapons at the ceremonies you would hear the screams in Pittsburgh.

It is a sound idea.


#15

[quote="jediliz, post:13, topic:344946"]
maybe not yearly, but this is the 150th anniversary of one of the biggest speeches in American history.

[/quote]

It is unworkable from a security standpoint.If you have ever been to a Remembrance day ceremony you would know why


#16

[quote="estesbob, post:15, topic:344946"]
It is unworkable from a security standpoint.If you have ever been to a Remembrance day ceremony you would know why

[/quote]

Maybe that's it, but a very long line of former presidents did it.

As a person dedicated to "fundamentally transforming" this country, I don't know that American traditions mean a whole lot to Obama. After all, if the man is dedicated to changing the meaning of something as fundamental as marriage, what could a former battlefield in Pennsylvania really mean to him?


#17

[quote="Ridgerunner, post:16, topic:344946"]
Maybe that's it, but a very long line of former presidents did it.

As a person dedicated to "fundamentally transforming" this country, I don't know that American traditions mean a whole lot to Obama. After all, if the man is dedicated to changing the meaning of something as fundamental as marriage, what could a former battlefield in Pennsylvania really mean to him?

[/quote]

Which presidents spoke there ?


#18

[quote="estesbob, post:17, topic:344946"]
Which presidents spoke there ?

[/quote]

Don't know. Just heard it.:)

Saw an article that said 24 of them have, but I couldn't copy the site. I did see that FDR did and LBJ did.


#19

[quote="Ridgerunner, post:18, topic:344946"]
Don't know. Just heard it.:)

Saw an article that said 24 of them have, but I couldn't copy the site. I did see that FDR did and LBJ did.

[/quote]

Here's an article from the Washington Times:
washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/31/obama-no-show-gettysburg-150th-anniversary-fete/?page=all

"Twenty-four presidents have visited Gettysburg since the summer of 1863, when the town gained its notoriety after the bloody three-day battle that turned the tide of the Civil War.

By rejecting the invitation, the president has personally offended some in the Keystone State.

Writing for the Patriot News, journalist Donald Gilliland called Mr. Obama’s decision “nothing less than a profile in cowardice.”


#20

[quote="livnlern, post:19, topic:344946"]
Here's an article from the Washington Times:
washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/31/obama-no-show-gettysburg-150th-anniversary-fete/?page=all

"Twenty-four presidents have visited Gettysburg since the summer of 1863, when the town gained its notoriety after the bloody three-day battle that turned the tide of the Civil War.

By rejecting the invitation, the president has personally offended some in the Keystone State.

Writing for the Patriot News, journalist Donald Gilliland called Mr. Obama’s decision “nothing less than a profile in cowardice.”

[/quote]

There is a huge difference between visiting Gettysburg and speaking there.Eisenhauer lived there. Im with Obama on this one.Huge logistical and security issues.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.