On May 22, 1856, Representative Preston Brooks attacked Senator Charles Sumner with a metal-tipped cane, leaving Sumner seriously injured. Brooks received a $300 fine.

The incident started when Senator Sumner, an abolitionist from Massachusetts, went on a two-day rant on the Senate floor after an incident in Kansas.

Sumner made fun of Brooks’ relative, Senator Andrew Butler of South Carolina, who had suffered from a stroke, and he used language that compared the South’s use of slavery to prostitution.

During Sumner’s speech, Senator Stephen Douglas told a colleague, “That damn fool will get himself killed by some other damn fool.”

Brooks had a history of violence—he used the cane because he was hurt in a political duel in 1840.

An irate Representative Brooks sought advice from fellow South Carolina Representative Laurence M. Keitt, who talked Brooks out of a duel, because he believed Sumner wasn’t worthy of the honor.

Instead, Brooks confronted Sumner on a nearly empty Senate floor, as Sumner was stamping copies of his “Crime Against Kansas” speech.

Brooks beat the defenseless Sumner to a pulp as Keitt stood by with a drawn gun.

The incident made heroes of both men in the Northern and Southern press. The New York Times sent a champion bare-knuckles boxer to cover Congress as a reporter. Admirers in the South mailed canes to Brooks and held banquets in his honor.

“We are rejoiced. The only regret we feel is that Mr. Brooks did not employ a slave whip instead of a stick,” said the Richmond (Virginia) Whig, echoing the sentiments of some Southern newspapers.

Sumner survived the attack, but he didn’t return to the Senate for three years. His desk remained empty as a symbol of a divided nation. After his return in 1860, Sumner served in the Senate until his death in 1874.

Brooks was later challenged to a duel by another politician, but backed out at the last moment. Brooks died in 1857 from the croup, after he had been expelled from the House and then re-elected.

Recent Historical Stories

10 fascinating facts about President Ulysses Grant
10 facts about Thomas Jefferson for his 270th birthday
10 interesting birthday facts about James Madison
10 birthday facts about President Andrew Jackson
10 cool Washington facts on George’s real birthday

Grant was the top commander for the Union side in the Civil War and became the 18th president after Andrew Johnson’s disastrous term. Recently, Grant’s eight years in office have been re-evaluated after receiving poor marks for decades.

Scandal in the Grant administration and the battle over Reconstruction led historians to rank him as one of the three worst presidents. But in four of five recent surveys, Grant was placed near the middle of the pack.

Here’s a quick list of 10 key Grant facts that put his career in perspective.

1. Ulysses wasn’t his real first name. Hiram Ulysses Grant was stuck with the name Ulysses S. Grant due to a mistake on his application form to West Point. And as with President Harry S. Truman, the middle initial “S” doesn’t stand for anything. But having the name “U.S.” Grant gained Hiram the nickname “Sam”–as in Uncle Sam–among soldiers.

2. Grant was an average student at West Point. Grant wasn’t great at academics and avoided church services, but he was a skilled horseman. His future battlefield foe, Robert E. Lee, was one of West Point’s greatest students and later its commandant.

3. Grant and Lee served in the army during the Mexican War. Lee was the chief of staff for General Winfield Scott, while Grant served under General Zachary Scott. Both men received high marks from their superiors.

4. Grant and Lee actually met twice at the end of the Civil War. After their famous meeting at Appomattox Courthouse on April 9, 1865, Grant rode out to the Confederate Army the next day, accompanied by a few men, to seek out Lee. The men discussed military matters, and Grant asked Lee to ask all the Confederate armies to lay down their arms. Lee deferred, saying that was a matter for President Lincoln to address.

5. Grant wasn’t a fan of President Andrew Johnson. As a general, Grant was close to President Lincoln. But when Johnson, a former Democrat, became president after Lincoln’s death, the two men eventually became opponents. While Grant was a former Democrat himself, he became aligned with the Radical Republicans.

6. Grant was the youngest president elected at the time. The former general was 46 years old and never held elected office when he took office in 1869. His inexperience would be a factor in a tumultuous eight-year term in the midst of Reconstruction.

7. Grant tried to annex the Dominican Republic to the U.S. The president wanted the Dominican Republic in the Union for several reasons: as a military base, as a sanctuary for freed slaves, and as a market for U.S. goods. The treaty was approved by the Dominicans, but stalled in the Senate. Grant’s fight with Senator Charles Sumner divided the Republican party.

8. Grant’s two terms in office had lots of drama. As president, Grant’s terms in office were a roller coaster. In addition to the fight over the Dominican Republic, Grant had to grapple with corruption, numerous scandals within his own administration, an economic disaster (the Panic of 1873), the 15th Amendment, Reconstruction, the Ku Klux Klan, and the threat of war with Great Britain and Spain.

9. Grant was a gifted writer. After leaving the presidency, Grant became ill and was financially destitute. His memoirs, written as he was dying from throat cancer, show a clear, concise style, and his autobiography is considered among the best, if not the best, written by a president.

10. OK, so who is really buried in Grant’s tomb? That’s a trick question. Grant and his wife, Julia, are interred inside the tomb, but their crypt is above ground. It is the largest mausoleum in North America.

More Presidential Birthday Facts

10 facts about Thomas Jefferson for his 270th birthday

10 interesting birthday facts about James Madison

10 birthday facts about President Andrew Jackson

10 cool Washington facts on George’s real birthday

Lafayette Sabine Foster

Booth’s full plot included killing Lincoln, Vice President Andrew Johnson, and Secretary of State William Seward. General Ulysses Grant was another possible target. But only two attacks took place on April 14, 1865, with Seward surviving an assassination attempt and Lincoln suffering from Booth’s single gunshot.

According to the rules of presidential succession in 1865, only Vice President Johnson, and not Seward or Grant, was in line to replace Lincoln if he died. If Johnson had died, an acting president would be appointed until a special election could be held to elect a new president (and not a vice president).

The acting president would have been the president pro tempore of the Senate, Lafayette Sabine Foster of Connecticut.

The Presidential Succession Act of 1792 controlled how the president was replaced if he died in office, quit, or was unable to perform his duties.

The act was changed in 1886 and 1947 to deal with different scenarios. The 20th Amendment addressed what happens if a president-elect can’t take office, and the 25th Amendment cleared up the succession of a new vice president and what happens when a president is temporarily unable to perform his or her duties.

Back in 1865, Booth had convinced George Atzerodt, an acquaintance, to kill Johnson by setting a trap at the Kirkwood House hotel where the vice president lived. However, Atzerodt lost his nerve and didn’t attempt to kill the vice president, even though he had a rented room above Johnson’s and a loaded gun was found in the room.

If Atzerodt or another assailant had succeeded, Senator Foster would have been acting president until March 4, 1866. And if Foster wasn’t available, Speaker of the House Schuyler Colfax would have been next, and last, in line to succeed Lincoln and Johnson.

A special election would have taken place in November 1865, with the Electoral College convening in December 1865, and the presidential inauguration being held on March 4, 1866, with the new president serving out Lincoln’s term.

The person charged with the official notification of the states to start the special election process was the secretary of state. Luckily, William Seward survived an attack by assassin Lewis Powell.

If Seward had died,  that power may have devolved on the assistant secretary of state, who could perform the duties as an acting secretary of state until a new president named a replacement who was confirmed by the Senate.

The assistant secretary of state on April 15, 1865, was Frederick W. Seward, the son of William Seward. Frederick Seward was also seriously injured defending his father during Powell’s assassination attempt. (He would recover after Powell pistol-whipped him.)

From what we know about Lafayette Sabine Foster, he was a conservative Republican who was named as the president pro tempore of the Senate about a month before Lincoln’s death. Foster only remained in the Senate for another two years, failing in a re-election attempt. He was later a judge in his home state until his death in 1880.

According to his obituary, Foster was “a prominent figure in congressional life, as a clear and forcible debater upon great public questions, and as an unsurpassed presiding officer in the Senate, that he was most widely known and will be best remembered.”

Foster also was cited for being above the politics that led to his Senate defeat in 1866.

“He was no seeker after popularity, certainly he never descended to any truckling arts to secure it, and probably to some extent he lost favor by the high tone of both his character and bearing, and by the selectness of his friendships,” the obituary said.

A New York Times article from 1875 sheds some more light on Foster’s loss of his Senate seat. The Republicans picked another nominee at a caucus in 1866, and Foster signaled his agreement to run as a rival candidate supported by Connecticut’s Democrats. Foster dropped out at the last moment to accept a judge’s position in the state.

The Times article said Foster remained bitter about losing his Senate seat.

“He does not appear to be have ever recovered from the disappointment of his defeat in 1866,” the article stated.

And what would have happened in the special presidential election of November 1865? The Republican Party was already split between its Radical and Moderate wings.

General Grant may have run for president as a compromise candidate, but other prominent Republicans included Seward, Colfax, Thaddeus Stevens, and Benjamin Wade.

The Democrats were also divided and had been badly beaten in the 1864 presidential campaign. Former New York Governor Horatio Seymour, the eventual 1868 nominee, was a key player in the party, as was George H. Pendleton, the 1864 vice presidential nominee. General Winfield Scott Hancock had presidential ambitions in later years, and he had personally supervised the executions in the Lincoln assassination case.

The former Confederate states wouldn’t have been involved, since they weren’t readmitted to the union.

Benjamin Wade replaced Foster as Senate president pro tempore in 1867 and nearly became acting president in 1868, when President Johnson avoided removal from office by one vote in a Senate trial.

Scott Bomboy is the editor-in-chief of the National Constitution Center.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories

Tax Day trivia: Why do we have the IRS?

10 facts about Thomas Jefferson for his 270th birthday

Postal Service hints at bailout in delaying Saturday service cuts

Do you have a constitutional right to free broadcast TV?

On March 11, 1861, delegates from the newly formed Confederate States of America agreed on their own constitution. And much of it mirrored the Constitution of the United States as it existed at the time.

In 1860, there were more than 9 million people, including 3 million slaves, living in the states and territories that would leave the Union, compared with 22 million people outside those areas.

The Confederate Congress meets.

The document was drawn up and approved just a week after Abraham Lincoln became president of the United States. There were seven southern states that had seceded at the time, and a total of 13 would eventually sign the Confederate constitution.

At first glance, much of the Confederate document was taken directly from the U.S. Constitution.

Link: Read Confederate Constitution

But there were several passages related to slavery that were much different. The Confederate version used the word “slaves,” unlike the U.S. Constitution. One article banned any Confederate state from making slavery illegal. Another ensured that slave owners could travel between Confederate states with their slaves.

The Confederate constitution also accounted for slaves as three-fifths of a state’s population (like the U.S. Constitution did at the time), and it required that any new territory acquired by the nation allow slavery.

In other ways, the Confederate constitution was closer to the Articles of Confederation, which preceded the U.S. Constitution–it was focused on states’ rights.

The Confederate preamble begins, “We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character…”

The U.S. Constitution starts with the more familiar, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union…”

Confederate states had the ability to impeach federal officials, collect more taxes, and make treaties with each other under certain circumstances. They could also create lines of credit.

When it came to elected officials, the Confederate constitution limited the president to one, six-year term in office in a person’s lifetime. The vice president didn’t have term limits.

The president also had use of the line-item veto in budget matters.

Senators and representatives served under circumstances that were very similar to rules in the U.S. Constitution.

It also had a Bill of Rights, lumped together with rules about Congress. (Most of the rights in the U.S. Constitution’s original Bill of Rights were incorporated.)

One additional right stated that the government couldn’t impair “the right of property in negro slaves” to owners.

The Confederate Congress operated in a similar fashion to the United States. But the Confederate Congress couldn’t pass legislation about amendments. That role was reserved for the states.

Cabinet members could also answer questions on the floor of Congress.

The Supreme Court system was also very similar to the one used by the United States. But it was never formed during the Civil War because of the government’s instability.

The Confederate Congress met for six sessions during the war. Political parties didn’t form in the Confederacy, but there were political factions in the electorate.

Jefferson Davis, a former U.S. senator, served as the Confederate president.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories

White House tours end today as sequester casualty

Evidence suggests Thurmond 24-hour filibuster record is debatable

First proposed gun control laws coming from Senate

Rand Paul’s filibuster in historical terms

Watch the live stream here (beginning at 7 p.m. EST).

Join Pulitzer Prize-winning author Isabel Wilkerson, scholar Dr. Khalil Muhammad, and historians Dr. Eric Foner and Dr. Jim Downs for an in-depth exploration of the Emancipation Proclamation within the turbulent contexts of the Civil War, Reconstruction, the Jim Crow era, and the Great Migration. Plus, singer Kevin Maynor will perform an excerpt from Ulysses Kay’s final opera Frederick Douglass in partnership with Selected Shorts on WNYC 93.9 FM.

The event is co-moderated by award-winning writer Carl Hancock Rux and Robin Morris, Director of National Programs at the National Constitution Center.

“Lincoln” makes clear that the compromise to pass the 13th Amendment meant that while slavery was abolished, slaves including those who served in the Union Army were not granted citizenship.

According to New York Times commentator David Brooks, Lincoln to achieve his goals, “feels compelled to ignore court decisions, dole out patronage, play legalistic games, deceive his supporters… The movie shows a character-building trajectory, common among great politicians, which you might call the trajectory from the Gettysburg Address to the Second Inaugural.” And therein lies the film’s failing to demarcate Lincoln’s diametric journey between his two 13th Amendment.

Two days before his first inauguration in March 4, 1961, Lincoln and the Republicans passed a proposed 13th Amendment, which enshrined slavery by prohibiting Congress from abolishing or interfering with state-allowed slavery. (Today it is known as the Corwin Amendment.}

Thomas Corwin, an Ohio Republican Congressman and Lincoln supported, drafted the amendment. In his First Inaugural, Lincoln referenced the 13th Amendment’s support for slavery by stating, “I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

Lincoln’s election on November 6, 1860, was the first presidential campaign that had sectional parties and where the president and vice president were not from the North and the other from the South.  Lincoln’s running mate, Hannibal Hamlin, was from Maine.  Lincoln received 39.8 percent of the popular vote, almost all of which came from the North and he garnered no electoral votes from border or southern states.

Neither Lincoln nor the Republican platform called for the abolition of slavery, but rather accepted slavery where it then existed. They proposed eliminating slavery in the territories irrespective of whether sanctioned by the state legislature or by popular vote.  For most, that opposition was based on the belief that it was unfair for white laborers to compete with slaves and businessmen to compete with slaveholders.

Lincoln’s election alarmed the South and it was exacerbated when he didn’t have anyone on his transition team from the South and held no meetings with Southern leadership.  Lincoln’s federal experience was 10 years earlier, and he had made no longstanding Southern friends during his one term in Congress.  In December 1860, South Carolina seceded.

Thereafter and having receiving no assurances from Lincoln, by February 1861, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas seceded and with South Carolina formed the Confederate States of America. President James Buchanan and others undertook efforts including a proposed constitutional convention and national plebiscite, the Crittenden Compromise and a Peace Convention to keep the Union together.  Lincoln and the Republicans failed to support those initiatives.

Lincoln remained in Springfield, Illinois prior to his travel to and arrival in the capitol on February 23, nine days prior to the March 4th inauguration. Lincoln had little military and no combat experience.

During the presidential campaign and transition, Lincoln didn’t receive a formal military briefing.  When he arrived for the inauguration, there were 15,000 men in the Army with 14,000 west of the Mississippi River engaged in border disputes and Indian skirmishes.  President Buchanan deployed the remaining 1,000 troops to Washington to help ensure a peaceful inaugural and to protect Lincoln.

Lincoln recognized that the situation was worse than he had thought.  He was faced with three alternatives:  undertake to peacefully bring the Confederate states back into the Union; recognize the Confederate States of America as a separate nation; or oppose their secession at the end of a barrel.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories

Pot luck? States push Obama for legal marijuana ruling
Constitution Check: Should gay Americans be afraid of the Supreme Court?
The 14th Amendment’s possible role in raising the debt ceiling

The Commanding General of the Army was Lt. General Winfred Scott, the hero of the Mexican-American War.  General Scott believed that to win a war with the then-seven Confederate states that it would take 300,000 men, two to three years of hard fighting and $250 million, when the annual national budget was of similar size.

In response to the alternatives, Lincoln and the Republicans threw their support for a 13th Amendment, which would constitutionally enshrine slavery in states allowing that servitude.  On March 2, the proposed 13th Amendment was passed as a joint resolution.  Each chamber provided the required two-thirds majority with the Senate under the leadership of Republican New York Senator and Lincoln adviser William Seward passing the amendment by 24 to 12, and the House by 133 to 65.

Ohio and Maryland’s legislatures ratified the amendment and Illinois’ state constitutional convention did the same. Had the Civil War not intervened, the proposed 13th Amendment would likely have been ratified by the required three-quarters of the states.

Four years later Lincoln, who had been reluctant to sign an Emancipation Proclamation and who had rescinded a Union general’s order freeing slaves seized from a slaveholder’s plantation, championed a 13th Amendment that eradicated slavery.

With the winning of the war and his assassination, Lincoln took on heroic mythology. It became unpopular to examine what appeared to counter the Great Emancipator.  Why the 1865 13th Amendment and 100 years later, Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts did not bring African -American equality is elucidated by revealing the trajectory of Lincoln.

Malcolm Lazin is the Founder and Executive Director of the Equality Forum.

Slaves in Virginia in the 1670s. Source: Wikimedia Commons.

Throughout 2012, we’ll be celebrating the 225th anniversary of the Constitution. But the Constitution drafted and signed in 1787 was just the beginning–since then, “We the People” have amended the Constitution 27 times.

Today we celebrate the anniversary of the 13th Amendment (ratified December 6, 1865). Here’s what you need to know:

WHAT IT DOES

The 13th Amendment abolished slavery in the United States.

WHY IT WAS ADDED

The delegates at the Constitutional Convention wrestled with the issue of slavery. Southern delegates had threatened to leave the convention if slavery was in jeopardy, while other delegates were opposed, or at least hesitant, to enshrine the “peculiar institution” in the Constitution.

In the end, the delegates compromised:

• Article I, Section 2, allowed three-fifths of the number of slaves to be included in population counts that determined taxation and representation.
• Article I, Section 9, prevented the importation of slaves from being banned until the year 1808.
• Article IV, Section 2, required that slaves escaping to another state be returned to their prior state.

The fact that the delegates avoided using the word slavery reflects their discomfort with the topic. The Constitution variously refers to slaves as “all other Persons,” “Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit,” and “Person[s] held to Service or Labour in one State.”

Ultimately, the Constitution managed to delay, but not resolve, the problems of slavery. Tensions about slavery and states’ rights culminated in the ultimate constitutional crisis, the Civil War.

Related Story: The case of the missing 13th Amendment to the Constitution

During the war, President Abraham Lincoln had issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which ordered the freedom of slaves in Confederate states. To solidify the freedom of all slaves, a constitutional amendment was needed. (Abraham Lincoln’s pursuit of the 13th Amendment is thoroughly explored in the recent film Lincoln.)

The 13th Amendment was the first of three “Reconstruction amendments” passed after the Civil War. The 14th Amendment defined U.S. citizenship, including former slaves. The 15th Amendment said no one could be denied the right to vote based on “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

Nearly a century after it was created, the Constitution finally drew closer to the self-evident truth set forth in the Declaration of Independence–that “all men are created equal.”

WORD-FOR-WORD

Celebrate the 225th anniversary of the Constitution and civic holidays and milestones throughout the year! Download the National Constitution Center’s 2012 civic calendar here.

Holly Munson is a programs coordinator at the National Constitution Center and the assistant editor of Constitution Daily.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories

Jeb Bush to become chairman of National Constitution Center
Is John Boehner becoming the face of the fiscal cliff?
Tea Party leader’s sudden decision to quit and the fiscal cliff
The case of the missing 13th amendment to the Constitution

The libertarian politician made the comments on his official House website.

The latest secession controversy was started by a series of petitions on a White House website called We the People. They asked the Obama administration to comment on the possible secession of Texas, Louisiana, and other states after the president defeated Mitt Romney earlier this month.

The Texas petition received about 115,000 online signatures as of Tuesday morning, with a number of people not living in Texas signing up.

Paul’s comments were picked up on political websites on Monday night.

“While I wouldn’t hold my breath on Texas actually seceding, I believe these petitions raise a lot of worthwhile questions about the nature of our union,” Paul said.

“Many think the question of secession was settled by our Civil War. On the contrary; the principles of self-governance and voluntary association are at the core of our founding.  Clearly Thomas Jefferson believed secession was proper, albeit as a last resort,” he added.

“Keep in mind that the first and third paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence expressly contemplate the dissolution of a political union when the underlying government becomes tyrannical. Do we have a ‘government without limitation of powers’ yet? The Federal government kept the Union together through violence and force in the Civil War, but did might really make right?” Paul added.

Legally, there is little evidence that any secessionist movement would have a chance of winning a legal challenge.

Constitution Daily contributor Lyle Denniston outlined the issue last week for us.

“No state, however frustrated some of its citizens may be with the present state of government in America, is going to be able to leave the Union and go its own way. That is one of the most firmly settled issues on the meaning of the Constitution,” Denniston said.

The issue was settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Texas v. White in 1869, and the only theoretical path to secession would be the passage of a constitutional amendment.

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia confirmed that opinion in 2006, when he responded to a letter from a screenwriter, who was writing a fictional story about Maine dumping the U.S. to join Canada.

“To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, “one Nation, indivisible.”) Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit,” Scalia said.

Paul didn’t bring up the issue of slavery in the Civil War on his official House website, but he has discussed it in the past.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories

America’s first president was apparent grave robbery victim
Did Abraham Lincoln omit God from the Gettysburg Address?
50 shades of Abraham Lincoln

In 2007, Paul told “Meet The Press” said that the North should have bought the slaves living in the South and freed them, rather than pursue a war.

“Every other country in the world got rid of slavery without a Civil War,” Paul told Tim Russert.

In another undated video on YouTube, Paul told an audience that slavery was an important factor in the Civil War, but not the biggest reason the conflict was fought.

“It really wasn’t the issue of why the war was fought in my estimation,” he said.

Paul said that Abraham Lincoln, like Alexander Hamilton, believed that central government should benefit the industrial base in the North, along with a central banking system.

“When they saw this opportunity, they used the issue of slavery to precipitate the war and literally cancel out the whole concept of individual choice,” he said.

No one will really know for sure, since audio of the event wasn’t recorded. That technology was another two score years away in the future.

But there are at least nine versions of the Gettysburg Address from the time period, with some in Lincoln’s handwriting. All are slightly different, and not all accounts agree that Lincoln mentioned God during the 270-word, two-minute speech.

Lincoln was invited as guest speaker at the Gettysburg cemetery event as a courtesy, and it wasn’t entirely expected he would attend. The famed orator Edward Everett was the featured speaker.

Lincoln and his staff arrived on the day before the event, and Lincoln compared notes with Everett. The president also worked on his speech that night.

Only one picture of Lincoln at the Gettysburg ceremony exists, taken well before his speech. Everett spoke first, for about two hours, in the tradition of the day.

Lincoln was described as looking pale as he rose at the end of the ceremony to speak.

Accounts from the time period said he was applauded, then left to go back to Washington.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories

50 shades of Abraham Lincoln
Who said it: Lincoln or Franklin?
Read six different versions of the Gettysburg Address

Historians are still debating where the event took place on the Gettysburg battlefield.

The Gettysburg Address itself is not in question. The Associated Press and three newspapers transcribed the remarks for publication. Lincoln gave his draft copy and a copy written right after the speech to his secretaries.

In later days, Lincoln wrote out three other copies as mementos, giving us a total of nine versions of the speech. All nine are different.

The gist of all the versions is the same, and all the versions contain the quotes widely taught in history class.

However, the first two versions, in Lincoln’s own handwriting, omit the mention of God in the conclusion.

“The nation, 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,” Lincoln wrote in his first two versions. Later versions added the word “under God” so that the sentence reads, “the nation, under God, shall …”

The inclusion of God in the speech is perhaps the most significant difference among the versions. The fifth version of the speech, which was signed and dated by Lincoln, was considered the “final” version and included “under God” in its last sentence.

But is that what Lincoln actually said on the battlefield?

In “The Collected Works Of Abraham Lincoln: Volume 7,” the dispute seems to be settled.

The Associated Press report of the speech, written by Joseph Gilbert, along with reports from newspapers in Philadelphia and Chicago, all agree that Lincoln said “under God” as his speech concluded.

In that book’s footnotes, it’s explained that the Philadelphia Inquirer and Chicago Tribune had the words in its independent accounts.

“These papers corroborate Gilbert’s version, however, in having the phrase ‘under God,’ which Lincoln must have used for the first time as he spoke,” the book says.

It also appears that Lincoln used the Associated Press version as a reference point when he wrote out the third, fourth, and fifth versions.

A fourth printed version, from the Boston Advertiser, shows that Lincoln used the words “under God” as the address concluded.

In an interesting historical twist, Lincoln’s fourth version of the address, called the Bancroft copy, was rejected by a book publisher who wanted it in 1864.

George Bancroft was a historian who asked Lincoln to write down a version for a compilation, but Lincoln wrote on both sides of the paper, which made it unusable.

In March 1864, Lincoln’s office received a letter from an official named John Kennedy to explain that the Bancroft copy wouldn’t fit into the proposed volume.

Scott Bomboy is the editor-in-chief of the National Constitution Center.

Key differences among the first four versions are in bold face type.

Nicolay copy

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon 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 it, as a final resting place for those who died here, that the nation might live. This we may, in all propriety do. 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 hallowed it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here; while it can never forget what they did here.

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 the nation, 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.

Hay copy

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon 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 here on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it 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 can never forget what they did here. It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they have, thus far, so nobly carried on. 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 here gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Everett copy

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon 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 here 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.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories

50 shades of Abraham Lincoln
Who said it: Lincoln or Franklin?
Constitution Check: Can Texas get constitutional permission to leave the Union?
Current Petraeus affair has nothing on nation’s first sex scandal

Bancroft copy

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.

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 here 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.

Bliss copy

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.

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 here 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.

AP Version

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. [Applause] 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 general battle-field of that war; we are met to dedicate a portion of it as the final resting place of 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 cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. [Applause] The world will note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. [Applause]. It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work that they have thus far so nobly carried on. [Applause]. It is rather for us here 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 here gave the last full measure of devotion. That we here highly resolve that the dead shall not have died in vain. [Applause] That the nation shall, under God, have a new birth of freedom, and that the Government of the people, by the people and for the people, shall not perish from the earth. [Long applause. Three cheers given for the President of the United States and the Governors of the States….”