Rhetorical Analysis Of Edward Everett's The Gettysburg Oration

985 Words2 Pages

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 …show more content…

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

Open Document