Both “A Memorial Discourse” by Henry Highland Garnet and “Second Inaugural Address” by Abraham Lincoln seek to attain the outcome of peace, by highlighting the issues that needs to be addressed and eradicated.

In doing so, Lincoln uses the notion of the common God to highlight the similarities between people of different skins. Seeing that “both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God” (1374), where’s the justification in discriminating against one another? He uses the method of reconciliation, to allow members of the public to identify within themselves that they are in fact of no difference to the party they’re fighting against.  What they are so bent on overpowering, is merely the lives of people who are in every aspect, a human being just like them.

Though Garnet presents a similar argument to Lincoln, he goes a step further in illustrating the exact thing that is necessary in order for the abolishment of the war. He portrays this idea in a very objective manner. Slavery must be put to an end, as peace will only be attainable “when all unjust and heavy burdens [are] removed from every man in the land” (1376). Garnet thereby makes known the exact problem that has to be addressed.

Personally, I feel that 19^th century readers will be more comfortable with Lincoln’s argument. The notion of a common God is something that the people will be able to better relate to, as some individuals may feel threatened by the direct manner in which Garnet specifies exactly what is necessary for peace to be achieved.

However, despite the differences in both of their approach, it is clear that ultimately, they fulfilled their purpose. Though it is unclear whether this is the exact piece of work that successfully changed the mindset of the people, we know that it definitely has a role in contributing towards the peace and unification of the United States.