American public addresses

Preface

American speeches have always been studied enthusiastically by Americans; not primarily because of their literary value, but because of their satisfying statement of American ideals. The words of Washington, Webster, and Lincoln express the national aspiration in ways that are forever memorable. Their phrases have passed into maxims and into the daily speech of their countrymen. The appeal they make is to the historical imagination, and that appeal is increased when the growth of the ideals presented by these men is traced in the earlier words of such patriots as Henry, Franklin, and Hamilton. It is further strengthened when the opposing ideals as set forth in the words of Douglas and Stephens are well understood. The re-statement of Americanism, made necessary by the outcome of the Civil War, and by the sudden rise of industrialism and the new democracy coincidently with the enlarged sense of world-responsibility that has latterly possessed American thinking, is best found in the words of Phillips, Grady, Cockran, and Angell. These men have put the dominant thought of the age into harmony with the traditional ideals of our republic ; and each has done this in the presence of some "new occasion" that taught "new duties." This book provides a collection of speeches and papers sufficiently extensive to indicate the main line of development.

It happens also that the addresses included in this

iii iv PREFACE

volume illustrate the typical varieties of public speech, — the legislative speech of controversial or expository character, the farewell address, the eulogy, the commemorative and the anniversary oration, the debate, the inaugural address, the public letter, the literary estimate, the after-dinner speech, and the baccalaureate address. The material provided in the introduction and in the notes will indicate clearly the direction which, in the opinion of the editor, the study of these American public addresses should take.

Columbus, Ohio, January 9, 1910.

Table Of Contents

PAGE

Preface iii

Occasions for Speaking vii

Introduction

the possession of a particular class of people exclusively devoted to its cultivation, and more of a staple need of the many. A good reason, this, why every educated person should wish to learn more about it. Carlyle congratulated the English on the fact that they were a nation of poor speakers. He thought that the less talking there was, the greater would be the amount of useful work accomplished. But since some talking is inevitable in order that work may be directed into channels that are worth while, it seems a strange reason for pride in any nation, or in any individual, that the thing is done poorly. Carlyle's friend, Emerson, had a better word for his countrymen, when he wrote that "if there ever was a country where eloquence was a power, it is in the United States. Here is room for every degree of it, on every one of its ascending stages, — that of useful speech in our commercial, manufacturing, railroad, and educational conventions; that of political advice and persuasion on the grandest theatre, reaching, as all good men trust, into a vast future, and so compelling the best thought and noblest administrative ability that the citizen can offer. And here are the services of science, the demands of art, and the lessons of religion, to be brought home to the instant practice of thirty millions of people. Is it not worth the ambition of every generous youth to train and arm his mind with all the resources of knowledge, of method, of grace, and of character, to serve such a constituency ?"

KINDS OF PUBLIC ADDRESS.

In the quotation just given, Emerson suggests a classification of speeches. The principle of his classification is the relative importance of their subject-matter.

His first division includes utterances of immediate practical utility, utterances that deal with affairs and that deal with affairs mainly on the matter-of-fact basis; beginning with commerce, but rising successively to the larger interests involved in manufacturing, in the railroad problem, in education. His second division includes those utterances that touch our political interests. It is higher than the first because here we have to deal not merely with matters of fact, but with matters of national sentiment and aspiration ; consequently there is here offered a broader field for the element of advice and persuasion. His third division includes those utterances that deal with man's most vital interests, speeches of which the end is to render science, art, or religion most serviceable, — to make them a part of the life of every man. Here the field for the element of persuasion is widest. It is clear that Emerson's classification will apply equally well to written discourse and that it covers the field. It is as specific also as a classification of so many species can be made and remain a true classification. It would not be difficult to place any speech in one of Emerson's three divisions.

A classification on an entirely different principle was made by Aristotle. His principle of classification is the attitude of the audience toward the speech. Audiences, he says, are either judges of things done in the past, as are legal judges and juries ; or they are judges of things proposed for the future, as are legislative or political assemblies; or they are judges of the speech itself considered merely as a w^ork of art. Hence Aristotle classifies oratory as (1) judicial, or the oratory of the bar, the aim of which is the securing or protecting of personal rights by convincing and persuading judges and juries; (2) deliberative, or the oratory before conventions, assemblies, legislatures, and public meetings, political, religious, commercial, or educational; and (3) epideictic, or the oratory of display, now more frequently called occasional oratory, under which heading modern writers who follow Aristotle have put practically all secular speaking that is not easily classified as judicial or deliberative, — the eulogy, the anniversary address, the dedicatory address, the popular lecture, the commencement address, the after-dinner speech, etc. To all this it is necessary to add (4) pulpit oratory, a species that has appeared since Aristotle wrote. The mere statement of this classification reveals its remoteness from modern life and its insufficiency as a classification of the multifarious public speaking of our day. The basis of the Aristotelian division is the mental attitude of the audience. But the psychology of audiences is not so simple a matter as this four-fold division assumes it to be. Emerson once called attention to the undoubted fact that every audience is composed of many audiences; that the speaker finds himself addressing now one, now another, of these lesser audiences ; that very rarely, if ever, may a homogeneous state of mind be presumed in all listeners; that the very same listener may be successively in several mental attitudes during the same address. The principle by which orations are to be classified cannot, then, be a principle based solely upon a homogeneous state of mind which probably does not exist. It is clear, too, that the state of mind appealed to by a deliberative oration may be, perversely enough, that which this classification assigns exclusively to judicial oratory. Modern pulpit oratory, also, may be, and often is, judicial or deliberative in spirit; it may look either to the past or to the future. The epideictic was thought

INTKODUCTION 3

by the Greeks to be best illustrated in the eulogy and the invective; but surely it is not just to regard these as forms of display and to judge them solely by artistic considerations. Even the modern oratorical contest, which is most often accused of being purely epideictic, rejects as inadequate this basis of judgment and demands a judgment based upon the value of the thought as well as upon the style and the delivery. In spite of all this, the psychological fact on which Aristotle based his classification remains true, — that a speaker must consider his audience and must try to adapt his material to what he supposes the mental state of a majority of his listeners to be. The ideal standard of speech thus becomes not mere self-expression, for self-expression implies no thought of the audience; but rather selt-communication, which implies a constant effort to carry our ideas over to those who listen to us. This ideal standard we owe to Aristotle.

A third classification divides spoken discourse, as written discourse is usually " divided, into descriptive, narrative, expository, and argumentative. The principle of division here is the rhetorical process employed. This classification makes no attempt to describe a eulogy, or a sermon, or a speech at the bar, or an after-dinner speech, or any other kind of speech, as a distinct species having a quality of its own that no other species possesses. It assumes that the vital characteristic of any utterance is not indicated by its popular class label. It assumes that eulogies, sermons, and the rest, differ so widely in variety and method, that no class characteristic that is at once useful and true can be found for each of them. But every speech may be examined for its rhetorical process, and this examination will show the fundamental types of oral discourse. This classification, too, is imperfect; for a speech that is descriptive may use, as accessory to its purpose, narration, exposition, or argument, as it needs ; and so with the others. The truth is that we must keep in mind all three of the systems of classification when studying any speech, — Emerson's, Aristotle's, and that of the rhetoricians, — if we would arrive at anything like a complete judgment; for (1) we must think of the importance of the subject-matter as Emerson thought of it; (2) we must think of the speech as an effort at communication with a certain audience, as Aristotle thought of it; and (3) we must think of the effectiveness of the process employed, as the rhetoricians enjoin.

THE ORAL QUALITY.

Whatever their classification, most successful speeches have one marked characteristic in common. Even when reduced to print, they appeal primarily not to the eye but to the ear. The attentive reader feels called upon in imagination to hear a speech as he reads it. If his mind is active he images also the speaker, the audience, the occasion; and is impelled to find out as much as possible about the feelings that ruled the hearts of men when it was delivered. He is ready to make concessions to cover the loss which the spoken sentence may suffer wlien printed. The last paragraph of Stephens's speech on Secession (p. 172) for instance, contains faults that were doubtless overlooked by those listeners who shared the speaker's feelings. Speech has an excellence of its own, entirely apart from its literary quality. Moreover, in the leisure of reading, we often tr.ke pleasure in a certain subtlety and fineness of statement ; we like to make our own inferences ; we accept mere hints of what we arc expected to think, and we have time to suspend reading, if need be, in order to make sure of our ground. In spoken discourse, there is no time for this. The speaker must move forward to his conclusion by a simple plan and a directness of statement that leaves no doubts pending. A speech may have all of the literary virtues and may yet fail for lack of simplicity of structure and the easy intelligibility which comes from direct idiomatic statement. Having these latter, together with energy and insight into the meaning of the occasion, a speech will be effective, though it lack grace, suggestiveness, refinement, and even strict grammatical accuracy. We prize in a speech certain of the qualities of good conversation, — unpretentiousness, short and pointed phrasing — but not its waywardness; in a speech we look for the straight-forward march to partial and complete conclusions. These characteristics of speech, which may be called the oral (or, equally well, the aural) quality, are forced upon the speaker by the immediate presence of his audience. Some writers, too, are keenly conscious, while composing, of those whom they are addressing; they hear each sentence as they put it on paper. Their writing is essentially oral although it may never be spoken. Many an open letter or newspaper editorial, sometimes even a state paper, has this oral quality. Some spoken discourses lack it; they are essays rather than speeches, addressed to the eye rather than to the ear.

FASHIONS IN PUBLIC ADDRESS.

While the notion of addressing a specific audience, with its resultant (the cultivation of the oral quality) has persisted since the days of Aristotle, and is, indeed, the explanation of the present ideal of public speech, — effective self-communication, — it is equally true that

G INTRODUCTION

fashions have changed in this as in the other arts. The essential worth and dignity of the old classical oratory cannot be questioned; yet its manner would by many be accounted mannerism today. For instance, public taste at the present time is somewhat intolerant of any but the most indirect and carefully disguised attempts at emotional appeal. We want the facts: the facts, we think, carry their own appeal; having the facts, we think that we know how to feel about them. Hence arises the greater share of the intellectual element in the speeches of today as compared with those of former times; and the more scrupulous regard for accuracy of statement. Hence, too, has come about the gradual abandonment of certain fashions that were once prevalent, and the adoption of new fashions. It was once the fashion, for example, for a young lawyer addressing a jury to refer humbly to his youth and inexperience, or to eulogize the jury system. It was once the fashion for a skillful speaker to apologize for a pretended lack of skill. It was once the fashion always to emphasize the importance of the subject, even though every one appreciated its importance. These things were not insincerities ; they were the conventions of the moment ; they were expected. It is the fashion today to do none of these things, to take much for granted, and (whether intrinsically a good fashion or not) to get speedily to the essential point to be presented, with very little preliminary or introductory matter. The fear of delay, the fear of over-formality, which prevails among speakers today, while generally wholesome, is doubtless the cause of a certain abruptness, nervousness, and undue haste, that are often noticeable in contemporary speaking. We have rid ourselves of indirection, and of tardiness in taking hold of our theme; but we have sacrificed something of ease and grace in the process. To be always relentlessly business-like, direct, and practical in speech, may itself, at some future time, be criticised as a mannerism of the present age. There is, however, in modern speeches, a nicer adjustment of the time-element to the importance of the message. Economy of time has become a paramount consideration. Speakers today usually know, beforehand, how much time they are expected to occupy, and govern themselves accordingly.

METHODS.

Not only do oratorical fashions change from age to age, but at any given moment there are marked differences of method. Among the Greeks, for instance, most of the orators and teachers insisted upon elevation of thought and sentiment, with diction to match, as essential to a good speech; but then, as now, there were successful speakers who, like Andocides, professed a contempt for the rules of rhetoric and for any serious study of the art which they themselves practised; who paid little attention to arranging their material in an orderly way; who relied on a fund of good stories to help them in times of need ; and who advised speakers to trust to their native gifts, and to the inspiration of the occasion. There were some, like Hyperides, who advocated a conversational manner, the plainest of plain speech, and a large use of colloquialism, in opposition to those who advised the cultivation of a more dignified, stately, or highly ornate diction. Some studied the art of the public actors in order to learn "the outer signs of eloquence" and thus cultivated a theatrical manner of speaking; others, disdaining this as shallow trickery, studied the art of being artless. There were those, however, who advocated the sound principle that tlie cultivation of the "inner spirit," — the systematic and prolonged education of the mind and heart, the achievement of a strong character, — should precede and accompany the study of the "outer signs." Many followed ^schines in practising written composition assiduously and in studying general literature and philosoph}^, as essential elements in the education of a speaker.

Demosthenes, the greatest of Greek orators, illustrated the value of unremitting and purposeful labor. In order to overcome defects of voice, articulation, breathing, and physical manner, he imposed upon himself arduous exercises through a series of years; he watched the ways of the actors and of other professional speakers, and imitated them in those points which seemed appropriate to his own personality and temperament. He gave seven years of his life to practising written composition and to studies in history, law, and statesmanship. Believing that he could win no lasting success without worthy thinking, he endeavored in all of his studies to find out what was fundamentally right and not merely what was expedient, in order that, throughout his life, he might habitually and unconsciously apply the highest test to every question that he might be called upon to discuss. In thus devoting himself primarily to gaining sound knowledge and to developing moral earnestness, while steadily learning, through practice and a study of models, the approved modes of speech that were suitable to himself as an individual, he set for all time the example of a sound method of training for effective self-communication on any subject of discussion ; a method involving first, adequate knowledge of the facts to ])e discussed ; secondly, the ability and the disposition to apply principles of right and wrong to tlie facts as ascertained; thirdly, attention to the best way of presenting the matter. The Greek and Latin writers on public speaking devoted a great deal of discussion to the first and second of these points. Later writers have said less about these, devoting their attention almost exclusively to the art of presentation ; but always assuming the preeminent importance of knowledge and sincerity.

THE PARTS OF A DISCOURSE.

The usual division of any discourse is into (1) introduction (see pp. 10-14), (2) discussion (pp. 14-30), and (3) conclusion (pp. 30-31). These terms suggest little more than beginning, middle, end. The ancient writers enumerated the following as parts of an address : introduction, the narration or exposition, the proposition, the confirmation, the refutation, the conclusion; and some added the excursus or digression. This minuter division is still useful as indicating certain elements that enter or may enter into the make-up of a speech, certain functions to be performed, or, for good reason, to be consciously left unperformed. In most argumentative discourses, for example, a formal narration or exposition of facts as a separate part, preliminary to the proposition and the confirmation or proof, is unnecessary : yet the element of narration or exposition will appear at any stage of the discourse as needed. Likewise proof and refutation may or may not constitute the main body of a discourse : in a discourse that is essentially narrative or expository, argument may be ab<^ent altogether, while in others there is nothing but argument. The proposition, or, if there be no proposition, the subject, can hardly be considered a part of discourse, yet its enumeration with the parts points clearly to the need

«f some unifying element in every discourse ; and indeed the excursus, or the digression, an element now almost universally condemned as lacking all excuse for being, was originally offered in answer to the human need of relief from too strict an adherence to the logic of the subject and as an opportunity for the speaker to unburden his mind on any matter that logic would exclude from his discourse. We shall adopt as parts of discourse the introduction, the discussion, and the conclusion ; and, in the treatment of each, we shall ask what elements may properly enter into its make-up.

1. The Introduction. The work of the introduction is to provide all that is needed by way of preliminary information and in order to secure a favorable disposition towards the ideas that are to follow in tlie discussion. Ancient writers, however, restricted the introduction to the work of gaining the active good will of the audience. They assigned to another part of the discourse the work of giving preliminaiy information. The chief function of the introduction, they thought, is to overcome hostility in the mind of the audience, should hostility exist; to win attention, and to create an interest in the subject, leaving no hearer in a state of indifference. One of the best recommendations of Aristotle may be stated thus: the way to gain good will is to show good will. This is precisely what we find in the complimentary reference of Henry's opening lines (p. 33), in Franklin's second sentence (p. 39), and in Grady's second paragraph (p. 242). In all of those instances, too, the speaker feels that he is encountering those who think differently from liimself about the matter under discussion, and he establis^hes favorable relations by expressing the respect and good will that he feels. But in general, good will is made ap])arent in modern speeclies more

INTEODUCTION H

often in the tone and spirit of the opening than in any direct statement.

A second method of gaining good will is the appeal, direct or indirect, to community of interest, or to class or party spirit. The tacit assumption in this appeal is that because speaker and audience are of the same nationality, church, political party, school, club, social class, trade, profession, or other occupation, enjoy the same intellectual pursuits, or even the same sports, they will be inclined to agree in all matters. Evidences of this kind of appeal appear in Eranklin's identification of himself with his colleagues (p. 37). He does not divide the convention into two parties, the one wishing for prayers, the other never thinking of such a thing; he does not assume a greater piety than his colleagues possess; all have been alike forgetful. He classifies himself with his audience. Webster, eulogizing Washington, naturally touches the chord of patriotism; and at the outset of the Monument Address (p. 87) he voices the common feeling as he conceives it. His second paragraph (p. 87) is devoted exclusively to the patriotic note. Phillips, also, (p. 209) emphasizes class spirit when he attributes a distinctive characteristic to American scholarship. Cockran's first sentence (p. 255) imputes to all of his hearers a common admiration for the work of the Constitution-builders.

While showing good will, however, while seeking to identify himself with his audience, the speaker must not surrender any of his convictions or any of his self-respect. As Aristotle long ago pointed out, a speaker commends himself chiefly by his good judgment and reasonableness, by his reliance on his own worth and the worth of his message. But modern taste forbids him to assert his good qualities. A speaker's reasonableness, his worth, his virtue, or strength, declare themselves in his treatment of his theme. The personal introduction in political or other controversy, however, is still common, and, indeed, is unavoidable when the speaker has been made the object of criticism and thus has himself become part of the matter at issue. It occurs frequently in the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and in the campaign speeches of rival candidates for office it is always to be expected. It is used with a fine reticence in Washington's Farewell Address (p. 48) and with solemn effectiveness in Lincoln's Independence Hall address (p. 174). But, excepting instances of obvious necessity, like those just named, the personal introduction will not often suggest itself in these days as an easy or appropriate method of beginning.

Closely related to the personal introduction, and often employed in connection with it, is the introduction based upon the importance of the subject. This is illustrated in the first paragraph on page 33 ; but it is to be noted that Henry used it, ostensibly, as the excuse or reason for his abrupt and plain manner of speech. As a general rule in modern addresses the importance of the subject is a thing to be assumed rather than directly asserted. The importance of the subject is either selfevident at the outset or is to be made evident by the whole discourse. It should be recognized by the audience as a result of the speech, rather tlian declared by the speaker at the beginning.

Probably the easiest and most economical introductions are those which are based on some pertinent remark that has been made by another. An introduction of this kind seems to continue a discussion already begun in people's minds, and offers a point of departure either in harmony with the quoted sentiment or in

INTKODUCTION 13

contrast with it. The introduction by anecdote belongs to this class. The Grady Speech (p. 242) illustrates well both of these varieties of beginning.

Whatever the subject matter chosen for the introduction it must, in order to suit the modern taste, bear close relevance to the theme of the discourse. The irrelevant introduction advocated by some, practised by many, may be attractive in itself, but it arouses expectations that are destined not to be fulfilled, and its final effect, when it is recalled by a hearer, is to diminish the total influence of the speech. Nowhere is there greater danger, than in the introduction, of violating unity of tone. If the introduction is keyed at too high an elevation of thought or feeling or is too finely finished, the speaker may later find himself unable to maintain the level on which he started and the decline to a lower level is sure to be disappointing. Speakers of experience are usually wary of this danger and prefer to begin on a level from which it will not be difficult to rise as the essential parts of the discourse are taken up. The summit of an inclined plane is not a good point of departure in any discourse. Among the best exemplars of moderation and restraint in introducing a discourse, was Wendell Phillips, a fact the more striking since moderation and restraint were characteristic only of his manner, and not at all of his thinking. Those who listened to him for the first time, aware of his great fame, might experience some disappointment of their high expectations for a little while after he had begun to speak; it was all so unassuming, quite on the conversational level; but the temporary disappointment served only to put them in readiness to rise with the speaker to the higher levels of his discourse as he reached these. On the other hand, the splendid introductions of Webster must have put many of his first hearers in fear that no man, however great, could begin on so high a plane and maintain himself there for long.

The usual advice to the inexperienced is to prepare the introduction after the body of the discourse has been written. The advice is sound if understood as a warning against a pretentious, a trite, or a far-fetched introduction, or against one that for any reason is out of tune with the prevailing note of the discourse. The further advice that if an appropriate introduction has not suggested itself by the time the body of the discourse is completed, all attempt at introduction should be given up, is also sound. Earlier writers on oratory provided for this very contingency by naming one of their varieties of introduction "the abrupt beginning." To this advice may be added the reminder, contained in a word of Walter Bagehot's, that excepting in times of great excitement an audience begins to listen in a decidedly "factish" frame of mind. At the outset it prefers the particular rather than the general, facts rather than principles, the specific instance rather than the universal truth, the intellectual rather than the emotional.

2. The Discussion. The main body of an address mcludes one or more of the following elements: (1) a division or partition of the subject, (2) definition, (3) narration, description, or exposition, (4) proofs and refutation. The order in which these tilings appear in an address is determined by the nature of the address. One or more of them may in many cases be omitted altogether. Attention to the first will always be necessary.

(1) The division or partition of the material is not often formally announced in the finished address, as was once the custom. When it is so announced it is usually accounted a part of the introduction. Yet it is with the organization of the body of the discourse that the partition is concerned; and, in any event, there must be in the preparation of a discussion a division or partition of the material with a view to orderly presentation. Waiving the question whether the partition is at the end of the introduction or at the beginning of the discussion, we may say that the best division is the simplest and most natural, with each part distinct from the others, yet with all the parts standing in intelligible relationship to one another and to the main idea. In spoken more than in written discourse, the plan must be perfectly clear, because the hearer has no time to think back over the speech in order to consider relationships of ideas. He is occupied with the passing word. One test of a speech is the possibility of reproducing its plan in an obviously consecutive outline. In a speech that is mainly argumentative like Hamilton's (p. 44) such an outline will reveal a debatable proposition followed by arguments supporting it, each in its logical place, and each, when necessary, supported by subordinate arguments. In an address of the expository class, like Webster's on The Bunker Hill Monument (p. 87) there is no debatable proposition; there is only a broad general subject certain aspects of which the speaker chooses to explain; there is perhaps only an occasion, requiring a voice to express its dominant mood. The plan of such a discourse will show the chief ideas in their relationship; but will fail to reproduce what is most characteristic and valuable in the speech, the element of personality, the emotional uplift. It is likely, therefore, to be much less satisfactory as a graphic representation of the speech, than the brief of an argumentative address. A study of the following outline of Webster's speech and the brief of Hamilton's argument, in connection with the addresses themselves, will illustrate all of these points.