Abraham Lincoln – from "Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1865" and "The Gettysburg Address"

Abraham Lincoln's "Second Inaugural Address" was a speech that made history. His writing, however, doesn't follow many of the traits that make a realist writing realist. There are a few better genres to place it under, rather than realism. He makes many refrences to God and His divine power. He basically says that the slaves were freed only because he allowed it. Many pieces of literature from early America, specifically Puritian writing, had themes of piousness and references to God. All of the references to God and his power are not very common in realism, which mostly shifted away from things that could not be proved by science. This was, in one way, how this speech is partially a Puritian writing. He does write as if there were a higher power controlling our lives, which is particular to realism. Specifically this is a trait that is more naturalist, but this couldn't very well be considered a true naturalist writing. His great dream of emanicapition for slaves and returning our nation into one both came true. This fact that what he was writing about could come true is another realist trait. There could even be undertones of romanticism in his speech. His view of the furture for America is somewhat romanticized.
Although still not completely an example of realism, Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address" is more realist than his "Second Inaugural Address." It has some naturalist traits because Lincoln mentions the fate of the soldiers that died at the battle of Gettysburg, and even that fate played a role in the battle. He makes mention of the historical beginnings of America, which could be viewed as a naturalist trait. Regionalism is also apparent here. He talks much about the particular are that the battle was fought in, and makes specif mention of the grounds where it took place. Lincoln writes that the speech that he makes will be soon forgotten, and also that the events that took place at Gettysburg would never be forgotten. Obviously he was wrong about the former.
These should not be considered realist speeches. Although there are characteristics of realism, mentioned above, there are too many other styles of writing present for it to be purely realism. The shortness of his speech did not leave room for there to be much anyalsis of his writing style.
Although not totally realsist works, the language that he writes in is a characteristic of realism and regionalism. His words are not flowery or fancy, but he still manages to pack a powerful message in the words he uses. He didn't need any of the fancy language that some use to get his point across, and people still loved him for what he did. So although they were not purely realist works, there are definitely many realist undertones in the way he writes. He prefered to use the simple style of writing, and this allowed many less than educated to know what he was saying. He considered those who couldn't read or write very well. This was one of the many reasons he was loved by so many people.