Rhetorical Analysis Of Edward Everett's The Gettysburg Oration

For centuries, it has always been an individual's responsibility to address the aftermath of major events. Thus, on November 19, 1863, in the aftermath of the Battle of Gettysburg, Edward Everett stood upon the bloody field in front of representatives from all over the United States, to give the speech that provides this sense of purpose; henceforth, "The Gettysburg Oration" entitled this speech. The Battle of Gettysburg was the largest battle fought in the Civil War. This decisive battle, horrid in its nature, was fought between the United States of America and the Confederate States of America. Both sides were not only fighting for their lives, but for their ideas, as well. There are a few people who would look back at this battle as a victory

for the Union. This is mostly due to its toll that it had taken upon both parties in the battle; however, Everett was a politician and orator: experienced in the art of public speaking. Therefore, he implores language that catches the attention of each listener. Everett achieves his purpose of reminding the Southern states of their role in the Union, while additionally, ensuring the future of the Union by utilizing rhetorical questions and allusions.

By reaffirming the rights and privileges of the South through the use of rhetorical questions, Everett describes the intended role that the South plays in the whole of the government. As he expresses his concern for the legitimacy of the South's reason for rebellion against the Union, he queries, "What would have been thought of the Whigs of 1688, if they had themselves composed the cabinet of James II, and been the advisors of the measures and the promoters of the policy which drove him into exile?" (Everett par. 39). Everett's hypothetical world creates a situation where the Whigs, a political party of England, who, in reality, opposes the monarchy, would have supported King James II for political power. Once they had that power, they would withdraw their support for James. This would lead to the monarch's exile. By being skeptical, Everett elucidates the South's rebellion relative to the Union: the rebellion is unjust and "treasonous" (Everett par. 40). Furthermore, after mocking the South's claim to "reserved rights," he questions those said "rights," exclaiming, "O, but the 'reserved rights!' And what of the reserved rights?" (Everett par. 44). Speaking of a state's individual power, Everett does not recognize the legitimacy of the states' reserved rights, when the rights in question, give the power for a state to secede, of which is not valid according to the federal government. Therefore, the reason for secession, being the reserved rights of the states, is absurd or "simple nonsense" (Everett par. 44). Ultimately, the purpose of the rhetorical questions is to point out the flaws in the South's argument.

Everett's attempt to reassure the listeners of the necessity for the Union's existence and its future utilizes allusions to compare the past events of similar circumstances in relation to present events.

To proceed, he compares the circumstances of previous battles to the situation at hand. For instance, he relates, "The struggle of the last two days resembled in many respects the Battle of Waterloo; and if, in the evening of the third day, General Meade, like the Duke of Wellington, had had the assistance of a powerful auxiliary army to take up the pursuits, the rout of the rebels would have been as complete as that of Napoleon" (Everett par. 34). As Everett considers the Battle of Waterloo relative to the Battle of Gettysburg, he ties in the advantage that General Meade possessed to the advantage that the Duke of Wellington possessed. Both of them have a great force that can oppose the invading enemy, contextually, the South. Through this comparison, Everett suggests that given these similar circumstances, the outcomes are to be similar, as well. Subsequently, he describes a uniform situation to that of the Union, by comparing it to Europe. In accordance to Italy, he alludes, "In Italy, on the breaking up of the Roman Empire, society might be said to be resolved into its original elements -- into hostile atoms, whose only movement was that of mutual repulsion . . . As the hostile cities were grouped into states under stable governments; the lingering traditions of the

ancient animosities gradually died away . . ." (Everett par. 54). In this one of many examples, Everett delineates the reliability that each state has upon each other and the Union as a whole, when under a staunch government. Thus, by emphasizing its assertive force and political strength, he justifies the necessity for a unified nation. The states, to which he refers, have been weak in the beginning; however, once they banded together, they became a prominent force. Overall, the allusions present the underlying need for the Union as it stands, and ensure its existence in the future.

Throughout his oration, Everett's use of rhetorical questions and allusions supports his purpose of reminding the Southern states of their role in the Union, while simultaneously, ensuring the future of the Union. He subsides the South's argument for secession by pointing out its flaws, and by questioning its logic. At the same time, he analyzes its importance for a better understanding of the argument. To continue, he explains the exigency of the Union and its impactful future by comparing the circumstances and context of past events to the one that presents itself during this time. By the end of the extensive speech, Everett informs the necessity of the battle and its impact on the future, while he reminds the South of its role in the Union. Afterwards, President Lincoln summarizes the situation in a similar, but simpler, manner. Even so, the greatest speeches given during the Civil War are incomplete without the mention of Edward Everett's speech, and remains as one of the most detailed and impactful speeches of the era.