NEmilBfr2

VOICE$
SIGNIFICANT SPEECHES
IN
AMERICAN HISTORY
lB40"l$46

IAMESANDREWS
Indiana University

DA/IDZAREFSKY
Northwestern Universitv

>l>
lll
lll
-
Longrmon
N6w York & LondoD

'(i.' Crs---.- **
-r-- hrhroduction:
Significant
The Study of_
Spe-cfres

UNDERSTANDING OUR PAST

The universe in which- we rive
is a universe of words. Much
we know, or think we know, of what
others. Those
," ;;;'l;rrned through the words of
-"1 ,lg ,";";;;;"t rlu. lead tr
to inspire or to intimidate, to to prod,
d"f"J uliu._,"tt"*pteJto
or attack conventions,
t,''g",e"," ; ;;.
H,: ffi
People
;" |il, H[r', tr,
", "ti
o n,',n"i',l""ti o n, or
rivine together in civilized communities
and less on brute force to direct gradually rely less
cornnrlunar efforts JJ rl,#. .rn",
learn i nstead to employ
and adapting language in ln.*,"_#';;o".r, of selecti ng, r-t.u rin g,
order to p".ri,rd"*;H;,I;jilin,iilt. "tr
goals' Throughout our history, ,o"irt
meaning and mission of this ;;*
a-?ti""rr have tried to discern the
of the events going on around
;r;il.'we have tried to make sense
us and the e*periences we
we interpret the past, exprain tr-." shared.
through lansuase' This ranguag" fr.r..,, and envision the future
^ave
ir i"r[l".ed into messages desrgned
ouipeiceptior,r, ,ti"r?r;;#;;"
:ffHf our betiefs, and direct our
A people without a sense of their past
amnesia. They do not know are like a person with
where tt JJru"-Ueen or how
where thev are, and thev are rikeif they got
are going next. The speeches
i"L'"gnrrr.J Jout ir.".. ,r,,",
setected iJr inclusion in this
but a sample of the messages volume are
that forml part of or-rr colrective
help to g-ive rr:.r.ni" of how past.
Jhev or,, urlu", and goals have been
formed and refined Tf"{ op"n io,
that demonstrate the
,i'" ,"ri", of windows in historv
give concrete meaning"trri,",
,rjl;;;;;rr_rses. the strugsles t;
to absttact ia.* ideals, the
failures experienced by those succ6ises and
*il;iljl.rd";a ,r.
Xviii lntroduction

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

authority as the argumenti of Winthrop and Boucher are pitted against
strive
those olWilliams and Samuel Adams, as Hamilton and Phillips
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 and contemplated actions in the light of our own past.
'stud"i.,gvalues
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 o, ,{1anr1ca33a lq8nos sraleads aql .,\\oq
alercardde
o1 ur8aq louuBr "n*oy
auo .uorlua11" .1",pr_..r1 rleql peurBJJ
Surssard,suogenlls^a1:1"u", rlll^r pec'l leqi stualqord
sa^Jesueql punoJ sa'essatu
asaql pasoduroo or{,.$ sra>1eads aql
oJ suortnlos
ln8 .srualqord .,(re-rodrualuoc
"tJi:t:lj"y tEr{t sanlB^ aqt ot luJod urc puE srepBol
lrerodrualuoc arrdsur uec o8e Buol ua'nr8 saqcaadg .JnJco
ur Surpas alerpauur or{l p_uo.{aq suorlecrldrur X"q+ qrrq^
pue spadde [BSJJArun
a^Eq op puu urc saqcaacls
ler{l enrl sr lI .}xaluoJ }Brll pue+srapun
Jsnrx auo ,1r purls.repun o1 .pue .srncao r{JIr{^\
^
tsulueerr sll sa{Bl tt"?:jt:.y*^ ll .r, 1*ri.ro" aql ur
suol]ru -ro 's8urlaa; 'slqFnoql
eq1 Suqcarrp :j-':"1t[Jo :o ureldxa
raleads eql l'rJl 1:i auosa'uer
^qslue^a;o ^ul "rurn-g,r,
ro rells ol saqsr,rl
e ol"asuodsar ur ua,rr' ,"q"rrog
txetuoC cgrcad5 "J"
B ulq+l^\ ue^rC s1 qcaadg y.1

'srolJBJ
asoql Japrsuoc ,rlou sn
leT .lurlnrcs JEaq leqj uorlBnJrs
ur SJUBITEAUJ ulEUaJ erB aJeql 'rone, JBJrJolaqJ aql
1q3*u auo qceo-rdd' ro poqralu
lerrluc ra^atrqlA puodsar o1 Auro8 sr aqs ro eq
:?l::gr 1,rapn1,
JI pu'+srapun pue ale8qsanu, :1t11ecppc
1rn*_."rqi :rroir"rt*iq,nn
..'asr..r\l€qJo aq ol punoJ"q1 lnq .1q8r: lq-Anoqf r*o 1 rlclq^l
'1ca{qns luelrodur uo uela .uonrrdo ej
r o u o rr B rur or,,,,
",* "
a^Br{ I '3uo1
q iq q ; H i:;
;j ::H"?l " I;lTf ?: ff :, j:1,:
Furneq . . .,,''Uop.ra^uo3
panrl_,!:,;;
;o sale8alap eql ol ara..r .{aql ," JEuorln}qsuoC aql
E ol pesserppE
ull{uBrd ururu{uag raqdosolrqd pue ",lr' JJa. r se aq lq8ru
uercqrJod pp_l""xl7f ,p-,o^
aqJ 'rri8[ ]uaralJrp e u, ac,raptn" "q,lu
a.r^"rn'uodn ,J""r,i"flrn"
t{l r./t\ pel ueserd uaq.,n^ quaru'pni "qt
su1,fipour ro Eurpu'}srapu n Eur'relua ^",,
o1 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
eql ol se sluau8p_nl_quau8pnf saqcua-r qpo^
"ql 1u
aqs ro aH .slJurelur
rerp r{rnr't\ rpr'r rxaruoc aLJl pue qcaadr aqr lxel
aq UBJ sE r{cntu s€ uT"l Jo rxer aq+ rnoqe peureeJ
s{eas crlrrJ a_q_plno..r\ ."pn1q1"
qcns SurdoJa^ep ul .ol .r"
pr-rog,ri puu Eurpuetsrapun "q1 sarerqua
l'ql auo _i::_*p"l
sl apnlllr' J'rrlrrr y r5;a-,'a,.r, qctqm
oi
pul{ eqr-+ou-sl .asrnorJo ,terl1 .Eurq1.{ue "pniq1" lBrr]rrr
,.--__ l:
'lJnBJ spurl 'surelduroc q1,^ p"gr,1"s lou sr
oq,r auo qlr^ ,,[r,1rr",, sr or{,r\ auoaruos
ol Pual a^ '8upll:,yl uoururor u1l.."pn1q1" alenba
JBJrlrrc,, B sr IBIIA\

.,i11:".1i_,r,"0","u,'?#,";$'_r"i,,1,T:1;i,f;:;"",:J,,fl
pue epnlrllB Jeclllrc_B Fuqenqlnc iq :H:i,;;l:"*l
^q xllecrtr-rc saqcaads3o lprrls aql
.f:^:i|-t^ti esrnocsrp.rrf^l:o
'ssalaqu,^aN 'arnl'ru ,{aq1 l" 1l"pn1', a',!,,r,r,u"q aqt roJ alqrssod sr
sr ,"",rlnu pu'-ser}allqns ro-J uoqerca:dde \ l
aql puu uorlecqsrqdos dolanap sreuorJrpurcl
s1r .aurlclrcsrp
IEnlcallalur

4x
Introduction

without understanding the situation as they viewed it, and the

constraints and opportunities it presented.
It is because the situation in which rhetoric occurs is a maior
determinant of what will be said and how it will be said that the
speeches in this volume are preceded by brief introductions that
provide for the reader the broad outlines of context. How, for
example, could the reader begin to understand fames Otis's speech
against the Writs of Assistance if he or she did not know what the
Writs were, or why Boston merchants would be upset by them, or why
the government would want to institute them? Relevant events
surrounding the murder of Lovejoy, the content of the preceding
speech, and the nature of the abolitionist movement are all contextual
factors important in fostering an understanding of Wendell Phillips's
message. It is essential to have some knowledge of the forces at work
to divide the nation in order to understand the speeches of Clay and
Webster, Socialist opposition to World War I to comprehend Debs's
plea, the impact of the Great Depression to fathom Franklin
Roosevelt's call to action.
In all cases, then, studying speeches in order to respond critically
to them requires an understanding of the events and ideas that
surround the speeches and interact with them. Ideas and events, of
course, need to be made meaningful by real, living speakers who face
real, living audiences to be persuaded. The questions of what
motivated and influenced the speaker and what forces were at work on
their audiences lead us to the next two factors that the critical reader
will consider.
2. The Ethos of the Speaker Will Play a
Significant Role in Determining the Effectiveness
of the Speech
When an audience has trust and confidence in a speaker, when
listeners respect that speaker, they are more likely to respond favorably
to his or her message. Throughout the development of rhetorical
theory, students of persuasion have recognized the potency of personal
appeal. The classical term used to describe the force of the speaker's
personality on the imagination and action of the audience is ethos.
The early Greek and Roman theorists thought of ethos as essentially
related to the character of the speaker: the proposals and policies of a
good person would be likely to carry more weight with an audience
than would those of one rvho was disreputable. As theory developed,
howel,er, scholars began to realize that the "true" nature of a man or
woman might or might not be perceived by listeners. A speaker's
ethical position is filtered through the screen of an audience's
perception of the speaker's character or motives.
Ethos, then, is not synonymous with ethics. The way the audience I
views the character of the speaker, the audience's assessmeni of the I
 speaker's intelrigence, the audience's judgment
of
sincerity-these are the ingredients oi a speaker,s the speaker,s
ethos. It follows that
ethos can be either positive or n.g"tiu",
a.p.nJing.;;;';,
the determination..J-ohn- Brown, rZt-.*"*ple, making
was hated and reviled as
a dangerous incendiary by many
of those who heard his finar words in
that Virginia courtroom, tut to others-he ,", ;;;r;d'^;r;';"rr'
whose soul went marching on. F'ranklin
D. Roosevelt was seen as a
savior by many out_of_work, desperate people
poverty and hopelessness; at the same
,rff.r_g tl;igonies of
time, ',that *r, i.-ir," white
House" was bitterly resented by those
*ho ,r, r,r--"r'"'rrar"rr
demagogue, a "traitor to his class.'i
So' in order to understand fully the persuasive
given speech, the criticar student potential df any
must identiiy ;ir; irr;;]ry.d by the
speaker's ethos, seeking to discover
what assets and liabilities that
speaker brings to or criates. in- the
rp.rking situation. Interieent
understandine of the speech a"-rni,
which and thi *avr in'whicrrlir. rp"rt"r "orria"rrti"."i ii"'i"*,.n,,o
exproits his or rrer ethos in
the speech itself-the possiftesouicei'Jf
influ.n"e imbedded in the
speaker's identification with- audiencer,
nature of appeals made to the audence iort, urf*r, l"J,fr"
"r,J
speaker s good judgment and sincerity.
Tn.t
'
"pp"",
i" il-r.roate the
be apparent_given the discussion
of context and of the
"^^^lT,l":l.
spear(er's ethos-that an understanding of tt. nrtrr.
rs essential to an understanding-of Jii,.ruai"n".
the-speech, thrt , critoa-l irrponr"
to the speech is.possibre o"tv tir*n-o;;i",
, of
those who are the recipients of the "r"rr;;;;;h;;sion
,p.rk.r,, persuasive efforts

3. The Nature of the Audience presents

Challenges and Opportunities for the
Sp""f.",
Since the aim of any speech is to get a
desired response from some
audience, a knowledgeof who thri"riience
is and how the speaker
takes account of the audience is basic
speech' The critic must know the specific
i;;l;x ;;;""ir,r", #"
audience to whom the
speech 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
understanding them, and the crrtic.uho *ishes "r.
p.rtir,*lio
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"t
that his audience was made up of forionlrns
proud of their
Revolutionary heritage was a crucial factor
in shaping frirlpp"rf
.
When Booker T. Waihington ,poke in
AUrnt", his awareness of the
reaction 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 simply

those seated in front of a speaker when a speech is delivered. Even
before the advent of the mass media as we know them today, the
words of speakers could be widely disseminated. The speeches of many
of the speakers in this volume were fully reported in the press or edited
and published as pamphlets. The speeches of the 1930's and 1940's
were carried by radio throughout the country. A full understanding of
any speech cannot be achieved if the critic neglects the unseen
listeners and readers-the sometimes nebulous, difficult to delineate
audience, who, to varying degrees and in varying ways, receives,
attends, acts. The Declaration on Taking up Arms in 1775, for
example, had to consider the newly forming Continental Army to
whom it was addressed, but it could not forget that the declaration
would also be read and judged by Americans-conservative to
radical-who knew the revolutionary war clouds were gathering; nor
could the reactions of the British government be ignored. Theodore
Roosevelt's call for a strenuous national ]ife was not meant onlv for the
businessmen gathered to hear him; the American people, not in
agreement as to whether the united States should ernbrace or reject its
new imperial role, were also potential targets of 'fR's persuasion.
Charles Lindbergh did not address only the enthusiastic supporters
who rallied in Madison Square Garden to declare their adherence to
America First; his was clearly an effort to rally all the American people
to the cause of isolationisnr.
As one begins to describe and understand an audience, one begins
to see relationships between that audience and the speaker. The
speaker hopes to direct and influence an audience; the audience, in
turn, exerts a strong influence on the speaker's goals and choices.
From a careful study of relationships, something of the speaker's
perceptions and values, as compared and contrasted with the
audience's, may begin to emerge. Who, for example, are the
audience's heroes and who are their devils? To what extent are such
friends and enemies shared rvith the speaker? In what ways do the
speaker's appeals indicate a clear understanding of the audience
members' r"rltimate goals, social or political backgrounds, special
interests, fearful concerns, emotional atiachments, and cherished
values? A student's understanding of the audience will help that
student respond criticalll, to the speaker's efforts to urove iirt"n"rr.

4. The Interaction Between the Speaker and the

Audience Within a Specific Context Focuses on a
Particular Message
Given an understanding of the forces at work shaping the entire
rl'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 prrrpose
within that situation. particurai attention shourd b" p;il;ihe
way the
speaker argues, how he or she organizes the ideas
material of the speech, and the speaker's style. ""Jrrpp"rti"g
Argumegt "Reason" is a term that has strong value qualities.
who
would want to be thought of as unreasonabre?-Rati.,"l
goo.d, irrationality is bad. But reason itserf -gu-".,t i,
is ,,ot a"firLd, nor is
it always clear when gne is being reasonable. ""r,rl,
At the root of the difficulty in dealing with reason is the
commonly held notion that reason is absJlute, ,orJr.i.,g-lr,at
foilows
a set of immutable rules as in formal logic. Reaso"
however, is influenced and determined iy at least
l" ,nEtol,"
two critical iuctors
and relative factors: the assumptions of the audienc.
foundation of argument in pro-babilitv.
,"Jlh;'
First consider the assumptions oi the audiences. Because
an
audience is necessarily limited and bound by th" i;"
,;ilo""
wlich it exists, the historical and cultural context ;i;;;;;;il',,,ryi'
influence considerations of reasonableness. In our
American culture, for exampre, a widely h.rJ, ;;;'rrr.Lip,io.
"oni",'po.r.v i,
that representative democracy is a good, even the best,
form Lf
government ever devised. A speaker holding
this assumption, and
deriving arguments from it, would be thought ,"uro,rrbi.-
one could
build a logical argument against policies r."a"r, tr."ir"rgnt t"
demonstrate that democratic principles were "ni being ,rUu..t.J]A
counterargument might try to prove that the rp.rk"r',
evidence did not
substantiate the claim th-at democracy was in danger,
or that the
speaker's conclusions did not flow lojicalry f..;
However, it is unlikely that a counteiargument u,ould
fi; ;. i.,..1.g,,n.,."tr.
holcl
that the basic assumption was illogical; ih. ,t.ong positive
curt.ral
value of democracy is so great thatlew would even"think
to Jrrrt"''g" it,
nor would most audiences be prepared to entertain
such a
challenge.
Yet in 1789 such an assumption was not uni'ersally
held. Much of
the debate at the constitutio'ai convention centered
on ways to hold
democracy in check' The subsequent controversy
over ratificatron
demonstrates 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
arguments might be built lny given time, assunptlons upon which
with co'fidence at oih.. pe.iods, prouid" a
firm logical foundatio_n only to the extent that they'rn.rr'
cultural system out of which they grow.
*iirrlr"
Much of what might be calred agitative or radical rhetoric
attacks
basic assumptions and may shock or"upset many
audiences. Thc
assumption that the Declaration of Independce was
meant to include
xxlv Introduction

blacks or women, for example, was one that many American audiences
in 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 assumptions
and outlook. All these factors may cause audiences to define and
perceive reason in different ways. One of the traps rvaiting for the
critical 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 patently
unreasonable) an argument that would have affected the actual
listeners of the tinie quite differently.
Rhetorical logic is firmly' based on the concept of probability. We
rarely argue about certainties. We might disagree about the date of
Woodrow 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 of
what occurs in public discourse is esser-rtially prediction. When
Beveridge, Theodore Roosevelt, and Bryan argued over American
policy in Asia, they urged particular courses of action because of what
they believed would be the consequences of such courses.
In responding critically, the student seeks to ascertain the logical
relationships in the speech, uncovering assumptions in order to
understand the common ground held by the speaker and his or her
audience as rvell as the divergences that suggest potential roadblocks to
successful communication. T'he critic will investigate the nature of the
evidence used and its relationship to the generalizations made by the
speaker, lloping to uncover the consistency of the reasoning and the
justification 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 influence
organization. Certainly the nature of the audience and the situation
may suggest relatronships that call for certain organizational patterns.
A speech such as the one given by Wendell Phillips, who had to deal
r.vith tl're attacks b1' the attorne"v general of Massachusetts on the
murdered Lovejoy, or that of Sojourner Truth, who was responding to
tl-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 accepting
the nomination for the Senate, sau' the need to employ a
chronological pattern in his House Divided speech, since he wished to
argue 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 tested
by the comparison of its intent with the purpose of the speech. An
idea 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 belong
in 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's
and audience's ideas and assumptions, locating and identifying the
important ideas in the speech. An examination of those ideas will give
additional evidence about the speaker's motives and goals. Patterning
might 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 the
audience. Within the imposed limits, the speaker has been compelled
to 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 in

many disciplines have long sought a definitive description of style and
its distinction from content, but the issue is complex. There are,
however, some basic ideas about style that are important and useful to
the 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 both
reflective of and influencing thought. The words we choose indrcate
the way rve perceive and feel about much that is around us. In public
discourse 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 with
Lindbergh's portrayal of them as Americans who put their orvn country
first.
Language, then, is not only means but substance as well. A
speaker's style is essentially a culmination of other rhetorical factors,
for it indicates much about the speaker's view of the audience and
situation, about how the audience identifies with the topic, and about
how the audience identifies with the speaker. All language has some
emotive content that varies in intensity according to the audience and
rcKyi Introduction

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

so that nentioning a "camp" would produce.different a
",iif. ""p".i""ce
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,
has on
and these vaiues are reflected in the in'rpact that language
listeners. "Free enterprise" is probabl-v a positive concept for most l
A-".i.",'rr, and the use of the term is likelv to produce positiv'e c
reactions, 'uvhereas "socialisrn" can have the reverse impact.
T'he I,
iikely as not to be t
arguments of Eugene Debs, for example,,were as
could be labeled "socialist" or he
dilmissed out of hand because they c

hin'rself a "IJolshevik." T

Languagemayacttrallyfunctioninplaceofotl.rerevidence.For S

e*ample, on. see, in tle words of Theodore Roosevelt' the

"r.,
compiete reiection of those rvho would argue that the-United
States
the Philippines. TR alludes to the
;h;"lJ not control t6e affairs of
;J,ffl..rlt problems" that confront the country i' the Philippi'es and
th"" for solving thern in "the proper rvay"' arguing largely
"tg*t
i-frr"."fr,fr" use of laignage to contrast-his proposal with the ideas of
in the
the alti-inperialists: "Ii is cowardl,v to shrink from solving them
proper *"y; fut solved thev rnust be' if not by us then bV
l9T"
itror'rg", ,'tot" manfui race; if we are too weak, too selfish' or too
fooliJh to"rt.l
solve thern some bolder and abler people must undertake
the
firm in the greatness of my
,oiutiot,. Personally, I am too a believer
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
by
,5;;i.rf disgraceful nature of ihe "ignoble alternative" proposed the speaker
those rvho disagree with Roosevelt; the language relieves
from the ,'t"""rrity of grappling with the specific arguments of his
opponents.
Thethoughtfulcriticcandiscernfromacloseinvestigationof
ideas. From a
style the ,p."[".', values and the netrvork of his or her
the critic, in effect, hypothesizes a.whole
sperker's larlguag" choice
,nlorld u,"r" tliat helps the critic understand the speaker's motivations
consistently
and ultimate aims. L"rrg.rrg" choices that a speaker makes
;;;i; irdicate that spea"ker's belief in the efficacy of such a choice;
the critic to make inferences concerning the
,'rotir-rg these choices leads
the and its world view. Essentially'
speak!.'s perception of audience
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
context of
soeeches would hope to answer by carefully considering
the
 Introduction XXVII

the speech, the role played by the speaker, the nature of the
audiences, 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 and
challenging. Ways of answering them might vary; different critical
methods might be employed. Nevertheless, these questions will help
the critic begin to understand how rhetoric works and will enhance the
critic's appreciation of how our society has developed as he or she
makes a rhetorical examination of significant issues that affected and
still affect our collective lives.