Head scratching over the Gettysburg Apology
In the editorial about President Abraham Lincoln’s speech delivered Nov. 19, 1863, in Gettysburg, the Patriot & Union failed to recognize its momentous importance, timeless eloquence, and lasting significance. The Patriot-News regrets the error.
Last week the Harrisburg Patriot-News printed the above apology, quasi-retracting a 150 year-old editorial that dismissed Abraham Lincoln’s iconic Gettysburg Address as “silly remarks.” Having read the apology, the original editorial, and the inside story behind the retraction, I am still unsure how to feel about it. However, I think it should have been handled differently.
It irked me initially, and still does in a way. There is obviously a lot of institutional guilt at play here, and it seems the paper is making amends (playfully) for being on the “wrong side” of history. But does a bad review of the Gettysburg Address require an apology? Hmm…
Apologizing for the contemporaneous opinion of a past editorial team feels like an overstep; I feel more respect should have been paid to history and the context and emotion with which the original editorial was written. I think it was a poor decision by the current editorial team to sanctimoniously judge their predecessors’ opinion of a speech that has since gained mythical reverence. It seems to be a gutless concession to current perception, especially when measured against the 1863 editorial: the writers wrote what they thought, the embarrassment and guilt of future generations be damned.
History has judged the speech differently than the Patriot & Union did. Part of me wants to say, “So what? I do not see the point of apologizing just because we think differently of the speech today.” But another part does not want to give our predecessors a free pass just because they lived in a different era, especially in regards to slavery. The 1863 editorial does seem to question the importance of emancipation, and lines like “return to the wise doctrines of the Fathers, to the pleadings of Christianity, to the compromises of the Constitution” seem to pine for the antebellum status quo. No apology or retraction can polish over that, which is why I am reluctant to overlook those aspects of the editorial but give the 1863 writers a break for “lacking in the perspective history would bring.” It seems contradictory. But last week’s editorial apologized for the criticism of Lincoln’s speech, not the condemnation of a war that would end slavery — a sad oversight on the Patriot-News’ part.
Further confusing me is the fact the apology, according to Deputy Opinion Editor Matthew Zencey, is not a “serious retraction.” Instead, “it was more a way of using the 150th anniversary to say, with a wink, ‘Gee, can you believe what rock heads ran this outfit 150 years ago?’” Part of me wonders if I am taking this too seriously, if I should just relax and laugh it off. But another part feels that this is not something to jest about. Is it akin to April Fools Day faux news stories? Not really. The lack of earnestness seems to damage the paper’s reputation and create an equally embarrassing stain on its editorial history.
The apology seems to set a bad precedent, too. Will newspapers now retract, tongue-in-cheek, all editorials and endorsements when history proves them wrong in hindsight? “Oops! We were on the wrong side of history. We apologize for lacking the perspective history would bring.”
Hmm…
I think the whole thing should have been handled differently. Instead of printing a quasi-retraction in jest, I think the paper should have written another editorial, acknowledging the 1863 criticism and offering a different opinion about the Gettysburg Address.
