bunyon:

Edward Everett. Former Congressman, former U.S. Senator, President of Harvard University.

Everett's gig was to travel around the country giving ceremonial speeches. He was chosen to give the "Funeral Oration" so to speak.

Lincoln was invited as an AFTERTHOUGHT.

"Bob, think we should invite the President?"

"What? The President of the Rotary? Why bother?"

"No. The President of the United States. This WAS a pretty big battle."

"Gee, I don't know. We are pretty tight for time as it is. And that guy Everett tends to ramble. Folks will be looking to get home."

"Well, we tell him to keep it short. A few remarks and then it's on to the pie and cider."

"Fine. I just hope he leaves that loon of his wife back home."

"Fine. I just hope he leaves that loon of his wife back home."

Heh. They probably could have gotten Lincoln for the actual battle had they pitched it with that benefit.

Good stuff. Thanks for the info.

"Who was the featured speaker at Gettysburg?"

I gave up and looked it up. It wasn't the governor of PA; actually it was a fairly major celebrity. No, not Tim Robbins.

bunyon:

I doubt it. By all accounts Lincoln loved his wife very much. Despite the fact that she spent them into poverty, reguarly met with seers/mystics/assorted crackpots, and would have emotional fits that scared the wits out of the White House staff.

Kind of an early day Nancy Reagan. :)

Part of Rice's success in New York was probably the matchups. He owned Ron Guidry (.360 with six HR in 75 AB). He hit .706 against Rudy May (12-for-17, albeit without a home run). He hit well against Lyle, John, Holtzman, Shane Rawley. Loved those Yankee left-handers.

How do these things end up in totally different threads.

FWIW I have coached debate for decades.

I participated in, and later coached, debate in Pittsburgh in the 70s. There was a sea change in debate tactics that occurred about that time, which facilitated my decision to get out of coaching debate. Debaters were being taught to take a "shotgun" approach; rather than being responsive to their opponents' arguments, they simply got up there and read as many different pieces of evidence as they could in support of their own position, only occasionally refuting an opponent's counter argument. What we got was kind of like what we get during so-called "debates" between political candidates, which isn't (IMO) real debate, because all each side is interested in doing is presenting its own position. There were rarely real "touch points" between the two sides. I hope that's changed.

-- MWE

Interesting post, Mike. But can you blame it on the debate coaches, or is it more a combination of junkyard dog politics (which predates the 70's by quite a bit) and the two most godawful words in the English language---"entertainment values." In any case you sure ain't seeing no more Lincoln-Douglas debates.

Mike:

It has changed. The Cross-Ex area had its "down" period. And I do think some of that was regional. The upper Midwest (WI, MN, Northern IL) wasn't as affected. But I certainly know the period of which you speak. Going to major tournaments out East were an eye-opener.

Andy:

I don't know what your background is in the subject but politics had nothing to do with the change in tactics. It was the case of one team that had extraordinary success with that approach and others being poor imitations. The originators were VERY good debators who could present evidence and rebuttals with astonishing rapidity and fluency. The second generation were just speed drill practitioners. And as Mike pointed out, it was not very productive.

The legacy of the Lincoln-Douglas debate still lives. The time periods are not comparable (who could sit and listen to any one person talk for several hours and NOT be married to them?). But the format exists and thrives.

I know I and the young people I coach work hard to honor that legacy.

Sincerely,

HW

But can you blame it on the debate coaches, or is it more a combination of junkyard dog politics (which predates the 70's by quite a bit) and the two most godawful words in the English language---"entertainment values."

I wasn't talking about political debates, but debates between high schoolers; I used the political debates mostly for a style comparison. I can't speak to how political debates have evolved (you're probably correct in that regard), but HS debating changed because it was a lot easier on both the coaches and the debaters; they could focus on collecting as much evidence as possible in support of their own positions rather than having to adapt to positions taken by their opponents. When I was judging such a debate, I always wanted to stand up and say "Aren't you guys LISTENING to each other??"

We had a couple of big tournaments each year for which the finals were judged by a panel of judges (usually three, sometimes five, and seven on occasion). When I was assigned to judge a final round, I was often the "1" in a 2-1, 4-1, and (once) a 6-1 decision.

-- MWE

bye bye byyyyyye