NEmilBfr2VOICE$

SIGNIFICANT SPEECHESIN

AMERICAN HISTORY

lB40"l$46

IAMESANDREWSIndiana University

DA/IDZAREFSKYNorthwestern Universitv

>l>llllll

-LongrmonN6w York & LondoD

Crs---.- **'(i.'

-r-- hrhroduction: The Study of_Significant Spe-cfres

UNDERSTANDING OUR PAST

The universe in which- we rive is a universe of words. Much of whatwe know, or think we know, ," ;;;'l;rrned through the words ofothers. Those -"1 ,lg ,";";;;;"t rlu. "tt"*pteJto lead tr to prod,to inspire or to intimidate, to d"f"J uliu._, or attack conventions,

H,: ffi ;" |il, H[r', t,''g",e"," ; ;;. tr,

", "ti o n,',n"i',l""ti o n, or

People rivine together in civilized communities gradually rely lessand less on brute force to direct cornnrlunar efforts JJ rl,#. .rn",learn i nstead to employ

ln.*,"_#';;o".r, of selecti ng, r-t.u "tr

rin g,and adapting language in order to p".ri,rd"*;H;,I;jilin,iilt. ,o"irtgoals' Throughout our history, a-?ti""rr have tried to discern themeaning and mission of this ;;* ;r;il.'we have tried to make senseof the events going on around us and the e*periences we ^ave

shared.we interpret the past, exprain tr-." fr.r..,, and envision the futurethrough lansuase' This ranguag" ir i"r[l".ed into messages desrgned

:ffHf ouipeiceptior,r, ,ti"r?r;;#;;" our betiefs, and direct ourA people without a sense of their past are like a person withamnesia. They do not know where tt JJru"-Ueen or how they gotwhere thev are, and thev are rikeif i"L'"gnrrr.J Jout ir.".. ,r,,",are going next. The speeches setected iJr inclusion in this volume arebut a sample of the messages that forml part of or-rr colrective past.

Jhev help to g-ive rr:.r.ni" of how or,, urlu", and goals have beenformed and refined Tf"{ op"n io, ,i'" ,"ri", of windows in historvthat demonstrate the "trri,", ,rjl;;;;;rr_rses. the strugsles t;give concrete meaning to absttact ia.*

";a ideals, the succ6ises andfailures experienced by those *il;iljl.rd ,r.

Xviii lntroduction

We can see, for example, the relationships between liberty-and

authority as the argumenti of Winthrop and Boucher are pitted against

those olWilliams and Samuel Adams, as Hamilton and Phillips strive

for freedom of the press against arbitrary interference' or as Henry and

Madison debate the nature of ordered government. Thomas fefferson,in his Inaugural Address, lays out the foundations of democratic

gou"rr,-",-,I, and Daniel Webster celebrates the American experience

It B,r'rket Hill. As Sagoyewatha repudiates cultural arrogance' as

Sojourner Truth and Susan B. Anthony demand equality for women

and Frederick Douglass for blacks, the nation is challenged to "live out

the true meaning o? its creed," as Martin Luther King once put it.

iffortr to preserie the great political union that had been forged

through revolution while also preserving basic values may be seen in

the cJmpromising attempts of Webster and Clay and in the collision of

ideas in ih. tp"""h"s of Calhoun, Lincoln, Douglas, and Davis'

Personal and societal responsibilitv for the welfare of all Americans is

viewed differently bv Henr.v George and Russell Conwell, and by

Eugene Debs, rviro proclaims his "kinship with all human beings" in

J".i"ri'g thai "rvhile there is a lower class, I am in it; while there is a

criminaielement, I am of it; while there is a soul in prison, I am not

free." Ancl the ways in which social responsibility may be translated

into action are artrculated by Franklin Roosevelt, Huey Long, John L'

Lewis, and william Allen white. 'fhe role of the emerging American

colossus on the world stage is portrayed through the views of Beveridge

and Theodore Roosevelt iompeting with Bryan and Wilson, and finds

expression again before world war II in the words of Franklin

Roosevelt, Charles Lindbergh, and Wendell Willkie'The careful study of speeches of the p'ast teaches us that rhetorical

sllccess is usually .rot tottl, nor is it immediate, nor does it restrlt in

the ultimate and final solution to problems. Public discourse is a part

of the continuous process of promoting and accommodating to

change.Iinderstanding this process helps us to understand and ludge our

present values and contemplated actions in the light of our own past.'stud"i.,g

the process can do more, howpver. As we study significant

,p"""h"i, *. t"r, also begin to learn and appreciate how rhetoric has

been employed as ideas aie sifted and sorted in the eternal search for

rvhat is best. In short, the study of speeches cau enhance our own

ability to respond critically to persuasion'

RESPONDING CRITICALLY

Rhetorical criticism, like any other intellectual discipline, ca,n be

approached from a variety of perspectives, and, again as with any other

saJuerpne "n*oy

o, ,{1anr1ca33a lq8nos sraleads aql .,\\oq alercarddeo1 ur8aq louuBr auo .uorlua11" .1",pr_..r1 rleql peurBJJ leqi stualqordSurssard,suogenlls^a1:1"u", rlll^r pec'l sa^Jesueql punoJ sa'essatuasaql pasoduroo or{,.$ sra>1eads aql ln8 .srualqord .,(re-rodrualuocoJ suortnlos

"tJi:t:lj"y tEr{t sanlB^ aqt ot luJod urc puE srepBollrerodrualuoc arrdsur uec o8e Buol ua'nr8 saqcaadg .JnJco X"q+ qrrq^ur Surpas alerpauur or{l p_uo.{aq suorlecrldrur pue spadde [BSJJAruna^Eq op puu urc saqcaacls ler{l enrl sr lI .}xaluoJ }Brll pue+srapun

^ Jsnrx auo ,1r purls.repun o1 .pue .srncao ll r{JIr{^\ .r, 1*ri.ro" aql urtsulueerr sll sa{Bl tt"?:jt:.y*^ :j-':"1t[Jo suol]ru -ro 's8urlaa; 'slqFnoqleq1 Suqcarrp

^q 1:i auos ^ul "rurn-g,r, :o ureldxa ro rells ol saqsr,rlraleads eql l'rJl slue^a;o a'uer e ol"asuodsar ur ua,rr'

"J" ,"q"rrog

txetuoC cgrcad5 B ulq+l^\ ue^rC s1 qcaadg y.1

'srolJBJasoql Japrsuoc ,rlou sn leT .lurlnrcs JEaq leqj uorlBnJrs JBJrJolaqJ aqlur SJUBITEAUJ ulEUaJ erB aJeql 'rone, 1q3*u auo qceo-rdd' ro poqralulerrluc ra^atrqlA

:?l::gr :1t11ecppc puodsar o1 Auro8 sr aqs ro eqJI pu'+srapun pue ale8qsanu, 1,rapn1, "q1

1rn*_."rqi :rroir"rt*iq,nn..'asr..r\l€qJo aq ol punoJ lnq .1q8r:

lq-Anoqf r*o 1 rlclq^l'1ca{qns luelrodur uo uela .uonrrdo ej

r o u o rr B rur or,,,, ",* "

q iq _,!:,;;

q ; H i:; ;j ::H"?l " I;lTf ?: ff :,

j:1,:a^Br{ I '3uo1 panrl Furneq . . .,,''Uop.ra^uo3

JEuorln}qsuoC aql;o sale8alap eql ol ara..r .{aql ," ",lr' E ol pesserppE JJa. r se aq lq8ruull{uBrd ururu{uag raqdosolrqd pue uercqrJod pp_l""xl7f

"q,lu ,p-,o^aqJ 'rri8[ ]uaralJrp e u, ac,raptn" "qt

a.r^"rn'uodn ,J""r,i"flrn" ^",,t{l r./t\ pel ueserd uaq.,n^ quaru'pni su1,fipour ro Eurpu'}srapu n Eur'reluao1 uado aq o1 s,{e..u1e:ryr" ,.{i ,a.odrip'rpntrlt' l'rrtrrr "

;aror,r.raqlrng'uorlceual arnley rage ,,{Juo_uorJJB Jo sasJnoc pepuauluocer

Jo ruopsr,r aq1 ,raleads aql lo ,{cualadruoc-aql .qcaads "ql 1u qpo^eql ol se sluau8p_nl_quau8pnf saqcua-r aqs ro aH .slJurelur

lxelrerp r{rnr't\ rpr'r rxaruoc aLJl pue qcaadr aqr Jo rxer aq+ rnoqe peureeJaq UBJ sE r{cntu s€ uT"l .ol

s{eas crlrrJ a_q_plno..r\ "q1

."pn1q1" .r"qcns SurdoJa^ep ul _i::_*p"l pr-rog,ri puu Eurpuetsrapun sarerqual'ql auo sl apnlllr' J'rrlrrr y r5;a-,'a,.r, qctqm oi

"pniq1" lBrr]rrr,.--__ l: pul{ eqr-+ou-sl .asrnorJo ,terl1 .Eurq1.{ue q1,^ p"gr,1"s lou sr'lJnBJ spurl 'surelduroc oq,r auo qlr^ ,,[r,1rr",, sr or{,r\ auoaruos alenbaol Pual a^ '8upll:,yl uoururor u1l.."pn1q1" JBJrlrrc,, B sr IBIIA\

.,i11:".1i_,r,"0","u,'?#,";$'_r"i,,1,T:1;i,f;:;"",:J,,fl :H:i,;;l:"*l^q

pue epnlrllB Jeclllrc_B Fuqenqlnc iq xllecrtr-rc saqcaads3o lprrls aql.f:^:i|-t^ti esrnocsrp.rrf^l:o l" 1l"pn1',

a',!,,r,r,u"q aqt roJ alqrssod sr l'ssalaqu,^aN 'arnl'ru ,{aq1 sr ,"",rlnu pu'-ser}allqns ro-J uoqerca:dde \aql puu uorlecqsrqdos dolanap sreuorJrpurcl s1r .aurlclrcsrp IEnlcallalur

4x

Introduction

without understanding the situation as they viewed it, and theconstraints and opportunities it presented.

It is because the situation in which rhetoric occurs is a maiordeterminant of what will be said and how it will be said that thespeeches in this volume are preceded by brief introductions thatprovide for the reader the broad outlines of context. How, forexample, could the reader begin to understand fames Otis's speechagainst the Writs of Assistance if he or she did not know what theWrits were, or why Boston merchants would be upset by them, or whythe government would want to institute them? Relevant eventssurrounding the murder of Lovejoy, the content of the precedingspeech, and the nature of the abolitionist movement are all contextualfactors important in fostering an understanding of Wendell Phillips'smessage. It is essential to have some knowledge of the forces at workto divide the nation in order to understand the speeches of Clay andWebster, Socialist opposition to World War I to comprehend Debs'splea, the impact of the Great Depression to fathom FranklinRoosevelt's call to action.

In all cases, then, studying speeches in order to respond criticallyto them requires an understanding of the events and ideas thatsurround the speeches and interact with them. Ideas and events, ofcourse, need to be made meaningful by real, living speakers who facereal, living audiences to be persuaded. The questions of whatmotivated and influenced the speaker and what forces were at work ontheir audiences lead us to the next two factors that the critical readerwill consider.

2. The Ethos of the Speaker Will Play a

Significant Role in Determining the Effectivenessof the Speech

When an audience has trust and confidence in a speaker, whenlisteners respect that speaker, they are more likely to respond favorablyto his or her message. Throughout the development of rhetoricaltheory, students of persuasion have recognized the potency of personalappeal. The classical term used to describe the force of the speaker'spersonality on the imagination and action of the audience is ethos.The early Greek and Roman theorists thought of ethos as essentiallyrelated to the character of the speaker: the proposals and policies of agood person would be likely to carry more weight with an audiencethan would those of one rvho was disreputable. As theory developed,howel,er, scholars began to realize that the "true" nature of a man orwoman might or might not be perceived by listeners. A speaker'sethical position is filtered through the screen of an audience'sperception of the speaker's character or motives.

Ethos, then, is not synonymous with ethics. The way the audienceviews the character of the speaker, the audience's assessmeni of the

I

I

speaker's intelrigence, the audience's judgment of the speaker,ssincerity-these are the ingredients oi a speaker,s ethos. It follows thatethos can be either positive or n.g"tiu", a.p.nJing.;;;';, makingthe determination..J-ohn- Brown, rZt-.*"*ple, was hated and reviled asa dangerous incendiary by many of those who heard his finar words inthat Virginia courtroom, tut to others-he ,", ;;;r;d'^;r;';"rr'whose soul went marching on. F'ranklin D. Roosevelt was seen as asavior by many out_of_work, desperate people ,rff.r_g tl;igonies ofpoverty and hopelessness; at the same time, ',that *r, i.-ir," whiteHouse" was bitterly resented by those *ho ,r, r,r--"r'"'rrar"rrdemagogue, a "traitor to his class.'i

So' in order to understand fully the persuasive potential df anygiven speech, the criticar student must identiiy ;ir; irr;;]ry.d by thespeaker's ethos, seeking to discover what assets and liabilities thatspeaker brings to or criates. in- the rp.rking situation. Interieentunderstandine of the speech a"-rni, "orria"rrti"."i ii"'i"*,.n, ,owhich and thi *avr in'whicrrlir. rp"rt"r exproits his or rrer ethos inthe speech itself-the possiftesouicei'Jf influ.n"e imbedded in thespeaker's identification with- audiencer, iort, "r,J

urf*r, l"J,fr"nature of appeals made to the audence Tn.t "pp"",

i" il-r.roate thespeaker s good judgment and sincerity. '

"^^^lT,l":l. be apparent_given the discussion of context and of thespear(er's ethos-that an understanding of tt. nrtrr. Jii,.ruai"n".rs essential to an understanding-of the-speech, thrt , critoa-l irrponr"to the speech is.possibre o"tv tir*n-o;;i", , "r"rr;;;;;h;;sion ofthose who are the recipients of the ,p.rk.r,, persuasive efforts

3. The Nature of the Audience presentsChallenges and Opportunities for the Sp""f.",

Since the aim of any speech is to get a desired response from someaudience, a knowledgeof who thri"riience is and how the speakertakes account of the audience is basic i;;l;x ;;;""ir,r", #"speech' The critic must know the specific audience to whom thespeech is addressed Wlrldo they io? Why are they gathered--together? What kinds. of aims do [hey have? peopl. *to frr_audiences have a variety of characteristics that

"r. p.rtir,*lio

understanding them, and the crrtic.uho *ishes to ;"";rt*;t;"audience for a speech needs to focus on thor. .1._.r,* anrir*f.. ,difference in the rhetoricar situation. wtr"n wendeil irriii,pr,'i",example addressed a pubric meeting in Faneu' Hrt i" g;sio'n,'the rr"tthat his audience was made up of forionlrns proud of theirRevolutionary heritage was a crucial factor in shaping frirlpp"rf .When Booker T. Waihington ,poke in AUrnt", his awareness of thereaction of the white audience members who were not ,*Jl;-listening to a black speaker -rd;; ;;iir;ence in his message.

XXII Introduction

'I'he audience for a speech, however, may be broader than simplythose seated in front of a speaker when a speech is delivered. Evenbefore the advent of the mass media as we know them today, thewords of speakers could be widely disseminated. The speeches of manyof the speakers in this volume were fully reported in the press or editedand published as pamphlets. The speeches of the 1930's and 1940'swere carried by radio throughout the country. A full understanding ofany speech cannot be achieved if the critic neglects the unseenlisteners and readers-the sometimes nebulous, difficult to delineateaudience, who, to varying degrees and in varying ways, receives,attends, acts. The Declaration on Taking up Arms in 1775, forexample, had to consider the newly forming Continental Army towhom it was addressed, but it could not forget that the declarationwould also be read and judged by Americans-conservative toradical-who knew the revolutionary war clouds were gathering; norcould the reactions of the British government be ignored. TheodoreRoosevelt's call for a strenuous national ]ife was not meant onlv for thebusinessmen gathered to hear him; the American people, not inagreement as to whether the united States should ernbrace or reject itsnew imperial role, were also potential targets of 'fR's persuasion.Charles Lindbergh did not address only the enthusiastic supporterswho rallied in Madison Square Garden to declare their adherence toAmerica First; his was clearly an effort to rally all the American peopleto the cause of isolationisnr.

As one begins to describe and understand an audience, one beginsto see relationships between that audience and the speaker. Thespeaker hopes to direct and influence an audience; the audience, inturn, exerts a strong influence on the speaker's goals and choices.From a careful study of relationships, something of the speaker'sperceptions and values, as compared and contrasted with theaudience's, may begin to emerge. Who, for example, are theaudience's heroes and who are their devils? To what extent are suchfriends and enemies shared rvith the speaker? In what ways do thespeaker's appeals indicate a clear understanding of the audiencemembers' r"rltimate goals, social or political backgrounds, specialinterests, fearful concerns, emotional atiachments, and cherishedvalues? A student's understanding of the audience will help thatstudent respond criticalll, to the speaker's efforts to urove iirt"n"rr.

4. The Interaction Between the Speaker and theAudience Within a Specific Context Focuses on a

Particular Message

Given an understanding of the forces at work shaping the entirerl'retorical situation, students, as they study the speeches themselves,should direct their critical attention to the wavs in which certairr

XXiii

features. of the speech-work together to promote the speaker's prrrposewithin that situation. particurai attention shourd b" p;il;ihe way thespeaker argues, how he or she organizes the ideas ""Jrrpp"rti"gmaterial of the speech, and the speaker's style.

Argumegt "Reason" is a term that has strong value qualities. whowould want to be thought of as unreasonabre?-Rati.,"l -gu-".,t i,goo.d, irrationality is bad. But reason itserf is ,,ot ""r,rl,

a"firLd, nor isit always clear when gne is being reasonable.At the root of the difficulty in dealing with reason is the

commonly held notion that reason is absJlute, ,orJr.i.,g-lr,at foilowsa set of immutable rules as in formal logic. Reaso" l" ,nEtol,"however, is influenced and determined iy at least two critical iuctorsand relative factors: the assumptions of the audienc. ,"Jlh;'foundation of argument in pro-babilitv.

First consider the assumptions oi the audiences. Because anaudience is necessarily limited and bound by th" i;" ,;ilo"" i'wlich it exists, the historical and cultural context ;i;;;;;;il',,,ryinfluence considerations of reasonableness. In our

"oni",'po.r.vAmerican culture, for exampre, a widely h.rJ, ;;;'rrr.Lip,io. i,that representative democracy is a good, even the best, form Lfgovernment ever devised. A speaker holding this assumption, andderiving arguments from it, would be thought ,"uro,rrbi.- one couldbuild a logical argument against policies "ni r."a"r, tr."ir"rgnt t"demonstrate that democratic principles were being ,rUu..t.J]A

counterargument might try to prove that the rp.rk"r', evidence did notsubstantiate the claim th-at democracy was in danger, or that thespeaker's conclusions did not flow lojicalry f..; fi; ;. i.,..1.g,,n.,."tr.However, it is unlikely that a counteiargument u,ould holclthat the basic assumption was illogical; ih. ,t.ong positive curt.ralvalue of democracy is so great thatlew would even"think to Jrrrt"''g" it,nor would most audiences be prepared to entertain such achallenge.

Yet in 1789 such an assumption was not uni'ersally held. Much ofthe debate at the constitutio'ai convention centered on ways to holddemocracy in check' The subsequent controversy over ratificatrondemonstrates the alarm in some quarters trrat the new co"rtii"trr"yr.qlq actually undermine demociacy. In other words, tt*-rrrur,,p'o.,held by an audience.rr lny given time, assunptlons upon whicharguments might be built with co'fidence at oih.. pe.iods, prouid" afirm logical foundatio_n only to the extent that they'rn.rr' *iirrlr"cultural system out of which they grow.

Much of what might be calred agitative or radical rhetoric attacksbasic assumptions and may shock or"upset many audiences. Thcassumption that the Declaration of Independce was meant to include

xxlv Introduction

blacks or women, for example, was one that many American audiencesin the past could not accept, and arguments based on such an

assumption would have seemed "illogical" to them. The basic point is

simply this: knowledge, perspective, and attitude shape assumptionsand outlook. All these factors may cause audiences to define andperceive reason in different ways. One of the traps rvaiting for thecritical reader of speeches is the "contemporary perspective" trap,wherein the reader acts as if he or she were the audience addressed

and thus accepts as perfectly reasonable (or reiects as patentlyunreasonable) an argument that would have affected the actuallisteners of the tinie quite differently.

Rhetorical logic is firmly' based on the concept of probability. Werarely argue about certainties. We might disagree about the date ofWoodrow Wilson's death, but rve can settle that disagreement with an

encyclopedia. It is a different matter when we debate the lasting values

of the League of Nations experiment tl-rat Wilson supported so

strorrgly. Such an issue raises questions dealing r.vith the probable

reasons for and consequences of certain international actions. Much ofwhat occurs in public discourse is esser-rtially prediction. WhenBeveridge, Theodore Roosevelt, and Bryan argued over Americanpolicy in Asia, they urged particular courses of action because of whatthey believed would be the consequences of such courses.

In responding critically, the student seeks to ascertain the logicalrelationships in the speech, uncovering assumptions in order tounderstand the common ground held by the speaker and his or heraudience as rvell as the divergences that suggest potential roadblocks tosuccessful communication. T'he critic will investigate the nature of theevidence used and its relationship to the generalizations made by thespeaker, lloping to uncover the consistency of the reasoning and thejustification for ihe conclusions the speaker reaches.

Organization A speech is not a random relation of information.Order is created by the speaker within the limitations imposed. Time,space, and physical setting create limitations that might influenceorganization. Certainly the nature of the audience and the situationmay suggest relatronships that call for certain organizational patterns.A speech such as the one given by Wendell Phillips, who had to dealr.vith tl're attacks b1' the attorne"v general of Massachusetts on themurdered Lovejoy, or that of Sojourner Truth, who was responding totl-re anti-feminist argurnents of hostile clergymen, would naturally be

organized in a fashion imposed by the very fact that the message was a

rebuttal to rvhat had immediately preceded it. Lincoln, in acceptingthe nomination for the Senate, sau' the need to employ a

chronological pattern in his House Divided speech, since he wished toargue from events of the past to proiect the future.

Introduction XXV

Earlier, the essential role of purpose was discttssed. Purpose,which defines the relationship between the speaker and the audience,also influences organization. Each idea that is developed may be testedby the comparison of its intent with the purpose of the speech. Anidea that does not further the purpose does not belong in a speech.Ideas are, in turn, supported by material that must pass a similar test:

evidence that does not make the idea more believable does not belongin a supporting position. Thus the basic pattern of a speech is

determined by the intertwir-ring relationships among purpose, ideas,

and supporting material.Responding critically to organization, the students rvill examine

the relationships between the pattern of arrangement and the speaker'sand audience's ideas and assumptions, locating and identifying theimportant ideas in the speech. An examination of those ideas will give

additional evidence about the speaker's motives and goals. Patterningmight further suggest the primacy of ideas within a given setting.

The critic then proceeds to assess the degree to which the speaker

has adjusted his or her organization to the needs of the setting and theaudience. Within the imposed limits, the speaker has been compelledto manage ideas; the critic attempts to understand hou'the speaker l-ras

done this and to judge the intellectual skill with which he or she has

balanced purpose, ideas, and evidence.

Style Style is a difficult concept with which to deal. Scholars inmany disciplines have long sought a definitive description of style andits distinction from content, but the issue is complex. There are,however, some basic ideas about style that are important and useful tothe critical student of public speeches.

Certainly the most crucial element of style in public discourse is

the use of language. Some have assurned that language "clothes"ideas-that language is a kind of decoration added to thought. It is

more fruitful, however, to appreciate the nature of language as bothreflective of and influencing thought. The words we choose indrcatethe way rve perceive and feel about much that is around us. In publicdiscourse language gives significant clues as to how the speaker sees

him or herself and his or her opponents. Contrast, for example,Wendell Wilkie's depiction of the isolationists as defeatists withLindbergh's portrayal of them as Americans who put their orvn countryfirst.

Language, then, is not only means but substance as well. Aspeaker's style is essentially a culmination of other rhetorical factors,for it indicates much about the speaker's view of the audience andsituation, about how the audience identifies with the topic, and abouthow the audience identifies with the speaker. All language has someemotive content that varies in intensity according to the audience and

rcKyi Introduction

the situation. Tire semantic value of words, for example, could.varv

",iif. ""p".i""ce so that nentioning a "camp" would produce.different

reactions in the woman who remembers with pleasure a -childhood

;;;"r*" from the reactions produced in the |ewish refugee who

spent years in a German concentration camp'

Furthermore, our culture establishes and develops celtain values,

and these vaiues are reflected in the in'rpact that language has on

listeners. "Free enterprise" is probabl-v a positive concept for most

A-".i.",'rr, and the use of the term is likelv to produce positiv'e

reactions, 'uvhereas "socialisrn" can have the reverse impact. T'he

arguments of Eugene Debs, for example,,were as iikely as not to be

dilmissed out of hand because they could be labeled "socialist" or he

hin'rself a "IJolshevik."Languagemayacttrallyfunctioninplaceofotl.rerevidence.For

e*ample, on. "r.,

see, in tle words of Theodore Roosevelt' the

compiete reiection of those rvho would argue that the-United States

;h;"lJ not control t6e affairs of the Philippines. TR alludes to the;J,ffl..rlt problems" that confront the country i' the Philippi'es and

th"" "tg*t for solving thern in "the proper rvay"' arguing largely

i-frr"."fr,fr" use of laignage to contrast-his proposal with the ideas of

the alti-inperialists: "Ii is cowardl,v to shrink from solving them in the

proper *"y; fut solved thev rnust be' if not by us then bV l9T"itror'rg",

"rt.l ,'tot" manfui race; if we are too weak, too selfish' or too

fooliJh to solve thern some bolder and abler people must undertake the

,oiutiot,. Personally, I am too firm a believer in the greatness of my

countrv and the power of my countrymen to admit for one moment

that we shall evei be driven io the ignoble alternative." Here, clearly,

i, i""g"rg" deepl.u- steeped in negative values that suggests the

,5;;i.rf disgraceful nature of ihe "ignoble alternative" proposed by

those rvho disagree with Roosevelt; the language relieves the speaker

from the ,'t"""rrity of grappling with the specific arguments of his

opponents.Thethoughtfulcriticcandiscernfromacloseinvestigationof

style the ,p."[".', values and the netrvork of his or her ideas. From a

sperker's larlguag" choice the critic, in effect, hypothesizes a.whole

,nlorld u,"r" tliat helps the critic understand the speaker's motivations

and ultimate aims. L"rrg.rrg" choices that a speaker makes consistently

;;;i; irdicate that spea"ker's belief in the efficacy of such a choice;

,'rotir-rg these choices leads the critic to make inferences concerning the

speak!.'s perception of the audience and its world view. Essentially'

iie critic ,"r."ir", for the forces-motivations and emotions-at work

through the language.I; ,r-*rrf, tllre a.e three questions that the student of

soeeches would hope to answer by carefully considering the context of

tla

lc

I,

tc

T

S

Introduction XXVII

the speech, the role played by the speaker, the nature of theaudiences, and the rhetorical choices exhibited in the text.

What was the speaker trying to accomplisl'r in the speech?

In what ways did the speaker attempt to accomplish the task set

out?How well did the speaker do in accomplishing this task?

These questions, although apparently simple, are complex andchallenging. Ways of answering them might vary; different criticalmethods might be employed. Nevertheless, these questions will helpthe critic begin to understand how rhetoric works and will enhance thecritic's appreciation of how our society has developed as he or she

makes a rhetorical examination of significant issues that affected andstill affect our collective lives.