Chapter IX: The Modern Orators (1)

The need of orators is as great today as when John Hampden spoke against the exactions of Charles I, James Otis argued against writs of assistance, or Daniel Webster expounded the Constitution of his country. The need is here, but where are the orators? Questions of great moment now confront America and the world, but there is no Demosthenes to arouse men to the necessity of action, no Cicero to drive out the traitor Injustice, no Patrick Henry to consolidate the forces of Liberty. The power of the newspaper is great, and today it is doing noble work for progress; but this power can be used, and is being used, for evil as well as for good. A subsidized press is as dangerous as a Catiline or an Aeschines, and government by newspapers is as tyrannous as was the rule of Nero, Louis XI, or George III. The questions of the tariff, the trusts, finance, religion, education, and civic justice are burning, vital ones that closely affect the well-being of man on earth and his preparation for a larger existence in a hopeful spiritual future, and they should be plainly and honestly presented, clearly discussed, and justly settled. These results cannot be reached through papers that are owned by the great financiers and trust magnates, and where the complaints and demands of the people receive scant consideration. Wherein, then, lie the hopes of the masses? In the power of the spoken word. All great reforms, through all ages, have been brought about by the voiced thoughts of men who not only knew their rights but had the courage that gave them the ability to enforce them. A band of noble missionaries should be created, composed of men and women who not only have ideas concerning the questions of today but who know how to express those ideas by word of mouth.

The eighteenth century produced oratorical giants that were undoubtedly equal in many cases to the orators of Greece and Rome in their palmiest days. Such men as the Earl of Chatham, Charles James Fox, Henry Grattan, Lord Brougham, Thomas Erskine, and William C. Plunket of Great Britain, and James Otis, Samuel Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry, and Richard Henry Lee of America, compare favorably with any group of ancient orators existing within a like period of time; while in behalf of the nineteenth century, America boasts of Pinckney, Prentiss, Wirt, Clay, Calhoun, Everett, Choate, Phillips, Lincoln, and Webster, and Great Britain points to Gladstone, Cobden, Curran, O'Connell, and Bright. The great rhetorician Burke is not placed among the foremost orators for the reason that he was a great constructor of speeches but not equally great in the art of delivery. His speeches are masterpieces of composition, and live today as such, but he was a poor speaker, and consequently should not be called an orator, because an orator, in the true sense of the word, is primarily a speaker, whereas Burke's genius consisted of his masterly logic and his marvellous power of composition.

Today, America has many beautiful writers and clever constructors of speeches, but not one really great orator. Theodore Roosevelt and William J. Bryan are two representatives of the best this country can offer in the way of orators, but neither of them measures up to the standard of Edward Everett, Wendell Phillips, or Daniel Webster. The main reason for the dearth of real orators is the lack of training in the art of delivery. Much attention is given to gaining a knowledge of the matter that is to be spoken, but little consideration is given to the delivery of that matter to the listener after once it has been gathered by the speaker. It is unfortunate that men like John Mitchell and Dr. Washington Gladden, who are standing up so nobly for the rights of labor, should be poorly equipped as speakers. Both these men possess noble thoughts which read impressively, but, when spoken, lack much force and power, on account of the poor delivery.

This point can be illustrated further by citing the manner and delivery of two men well known to the public of today--Andrew Carnegie and John H. Finley. Both have done considerable public speaking, and one is the president of a college.

On a night in 1911, the members of the Young Men's Bible Class of the Fifth Avenue Baptist Church of New York were addressed by these gentlemen. Both were at a considerable disadvantage from the fact that they had been invited to address a "Young Men's Bible Class," and as they naturally concluded the class would be composed of young men, they arranged their speeches accordingly; consequently, their plans of address were upset on finding that the majority of the class was composed of men close to the half-century mark, and many beyond it; or, as Mr. Carnegie wittily stated it, "with parts in their hair a lot wider than my own."

However, no exception could be taken to the matter of either speaker, although both changed their themes on finding the audience more matured in years than they had expected, and both had to pocket their notes on the subjects upon which they had intended to talk, and to speak extemporaneously. Both speakers cleverly switched to matters upon which they were thoroughly informed--Mr. Carnegie narrating events in his busy and influential life, and Dr. Finley discussing how to get the most benefit out of a twenty-four hour day. The matter of both was good, but the manner was unsatisfactory. Mr. Carnegie talked in a pleasant, conversational way which would have been most enjoyable had it not been that his delivery was slow. His utterance was often so slow as to mar the expressive force of his good language. He also leaned on the reading desk in front of him, not because he needed physical support, he looked strong and rugged on the eve of his seventy-sixth birthday, but from the force of a bad habit.

He was perfectly at home before the audience, spoke in clear tones, at times with considerable force, particularly when quoting from Rev. John Home's tragedy of "Douglas," was winning in manner, took immediate hold of his audience, was witty in appropriate places, and would have been altogether delightful but for length and attitude. Mr. Carnegie was perfectly at home while facing the audience, and had his delivery equaled his matter, the speech would have been a most happy and effective one.

From Dr. Finley, because of his being President of the College of the City of New York, one might reasonably expect much in the way of delivery, but on this occasion the assembly received less than from the other speaker. He stood on the platform awkwardly, hands in pockets most of the time, and seldom did he utter a really smooth sentence, but separated his words in a manner to irritate the audience. He would say, for instance, "We--have--been--progressing--upward--and--onward--for--millions--of--years--," as though he had only one word in his mind at a time, whereas the learned President's head was full of grand and glorious thoughts that only needed to be spoken in phrases and sentences, instead of single words, in order to make him a most instructive and entertaining speaker. Dr. Finley's matter was well arranged, his diction excellent, but his delivery was unfortunate.

The orators of old, with few exceptions, studied the art of delivery as faithfully as they studied rhetoric, as did the British and American orators of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, but the public speakers of the twentieth century sadly neglect this most important part of the speaker's art. Dr. Arthur T. Hadley, President of Yale University, is an able and learned man whose compositions are chaste and effective but whose delivery mars the force of his matter. He looks down on the floor immediately in front of him, instead of sweeping his glance over his audience, awkwardly swings his arms, and speaks his lines as though he were wound up and compelled to utter his matter within the given time. This is said with all respect to the famous educator, but his style of delivery should be avoided. Educators, more than most professional men, should be entertaining and convincing speakers, but, as a rule, they are woefully deficient in the qualities necessary to the making of orators. They, of all men, should set an example to the generation that is soon to take up the duties of life, and if college presidents improved their delivery, a long step would be taken toward making them oratorical beacons for the guidance of their students.

William J. Bryan, one of the best orators, if not the best, of today, owes his success mainly to his delivery. It is not so much what he says but how he says it that makes him a successful speaker. He possesses a rich, strong, and flexible voice that adds greatly to the effectiveness of his matter, and his speeches invariably sound better than they read. He will hold an audience absolutely in hand, sway it at his will, and force it against its inclination momentarily to agree with him, even though, after mature deliberation, his reasoning may be disputed and his conclusions rejected. Mr. Bryan's power lies not in the beauty or force of his composition but in his mastery over the spoken word.

Theodore Roosevelt, contrary to the views of many, is, in the opinion of the author, an orator. He is not merely a speaker, because his speeches possess him as much as he possesses his speeches. He impresses an audience by his sincerity, convinces it by his reasoning, and persuades it by his earnestness. His matter reads as well as it sounds, thus demonstrating his ability as a rhetorician, his manner is graceful and forceful, and the general feeling, after listening to one of his addresses, is that a master has spoken. The author has heard Mr. Roosevelt many times during the past twenty years, and the improvement in his delivery is marked. There was a time when everything was sacrificed to force, he would snap his jaws and try to drive the voice through his clenched teeth, but now his enunciation is clear, and his entire delivery delightful. This shows the good that is to be derived from a speaker considering his manner as well as his matter.

Joseph H. Choate and W. Bourke Cockran are excellent examples of effective speakers of a decade or so ago, the former having been the most alluring and convincing in both his matter and his manner, and the latter entrancing and powerful in diction and delivery.

Forensic oratory has almost ceased to exist, while pulpit oratory is rarely to be found. This is a sad state of affairs, and requires immediate attention if the art of all arts is to be saved from extinction. The two essentials most missing in our public speakers are constructive skill and effective delivery--some lacking in one and some in the other--and the author asserts that great orators will not arise until both these essentials are found in the one man. Two thousand years ago Cicero, discoursing on oratory, said:

And why need I add any remarks of delivery itself, which is
to be ordered by action of body, by gesture, by look, and
by modulation and variation of the voice, the great power
of which, alone and in itself, the comparatively trivial
art of actors and the stage proves; on which though all
bestow their utmost labor to form their look, voice, and
gesture, who knows not how few there are, and have ever
been, to whom we can attend with patience? . . . In those
arts in which it is not indispensable usefulness that is
sought, but liberal amusement for the mind, how nicely, how
almost fastidiously, do we judge? For there are no suits or
controversies which can force men, though they may tolerate
indifferent orators in the forum, to endure also bad actors
upon the stage. The orator, therefore, must take the most
studious precaution not merely to satisfy those whom he
necessarily must satisfy, but to seem worthy of admiration
to those who are at liberty to judge disinterestedly.

How many modern orators measure up to this standard set by the ancient master? The author knows of none.

_How is one to obtain an effective delivery?_

By close observation, hard study, and diligent practice. The student should observe his delivery, note the defects in breathing, voice production, articulation, inflection, and emphasis, and correct them; he should be sure to understand all he aims to explain, see all he desires others to see, and believe all he aims to make others believe. No speaker whose delivery is poor will be able to hold, convince, and persuade an audience, and unless he can do these three things he should refrain from speaking, as no man possesses a valid commission publicly to address his fellows unless he has a message to communicate and knows how to deliver it.

EXAMPLES OF MODERN ORATORY

PATRICK HENRY LIBERTY OR DEATH[1] (1775)

No man thinks more highly than I do of patriotism, as well
as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just
addressed the house. But different men often see the same
subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will
not be thought disrespectful of those gentlemen, if,
entertaining as I do, opinions of a character very opposite
to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and
without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question
before the house is one of awful moment to this country.
For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than the
question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the
magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the
debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive
at truth, and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold
to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at
such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should
consider myself as guilty of treason toward my country, and
of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which
I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the
illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a
painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till
she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise
men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty?
Are we disposed to be of the number of those, who, having
eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which
so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part,
whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to
know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for
it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that
is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of
the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish
to know what there has been in the conduct of the British
Ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with
which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and
the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our
petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it
will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to
be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious
reception of our petition comports with those warlike
preparations which cover our waters and darken our land.
Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and
reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be
reconciled that force must be called in to win back our
love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the
implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to
which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, What means this
martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to
submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive
for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the
world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and
armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they
can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and
rivet upon us those chains which the British Ministry have
been so long forging. And, what have we to oppose to them?
Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for
the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the
subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every
light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain.
Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What
terms shall we find, which have not already been exhausted?
Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer.
Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert
the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we
have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated
ourselves before the throne, and have implored its
interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the
Ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted:
our remonstrances have produced additional violence and
insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we
have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the
throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the
fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer
any room for hope. If we wish to be free--if we mean to
preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which
we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to
abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long
engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to
abandon, until the glorious object of our contest shall be
obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight!
An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is
left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so
formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger?
Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when
we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be
stationed in every home? Shall we gather strength by
irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of
effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and
hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies
shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak, if
we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature
hath placed in our power. Three millions of people armed in
the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that
which we possess, are invincible by any force which our
enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight
our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over
the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to
fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the
strong alone, it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.
Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough
to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the
contest. There is no retreat, but in submission and
slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard
on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it
come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may
cry, peace, peace--but there is no peace. The war is
actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north
will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our
brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle?
What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is
life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the
price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I
know not what course others may take; but as for me, give
me liberty or give me death!

DANIEL WEBSTER ON THE CLAY COMPROMISE[2] (Known as "The Seventh of March Speech," 1850)

Slavery did exist in the states before the adoption of this
Constitution, and at that time. Let us, therefore, consider
for a moment what was the state of sentiment, North and
South, in regard to slavery--in regard to slavery at the
time this Constitution was adopted. A remarkable change has
taken place since; but what did the wise and great men of
all parts of the country think of slavery then? In what
estimation did they hold it at the time when this
Constitution was adopted? It will be found, sir, if we will
carry ourselves by historical research back to that day,
and ascertain men's opinions by authentic records still
existing among us, that there was no diversity of opinion
between the North and the South upon the subject of
slavery. It will be found that both parts of the country
held it equally an evil, a moral and political evil. It
will not be found that, either at the North or at the
South, there was much, though there was some, invective
against slavery as inhuman and cruel.

The great ground of objection to it was political; that it
weakened the social fabric; that, taking the place of free
labor, society became less strong and labor less
productive; and therefore we find from all the eminent men
of the time and clearest expression of their opinion that
slavery is an evil. They ascribed its existence here, not
without truth, and not without some acerbity of temper and
force of language, to the injurious policy of the mother
country, who, to favor the navigator, had entailed these
evils upon the Colonies.

The whole interest of the South became connected, more or
less, with the extension of slavery. If we look back to the
history of the commerce of this country in the early years
of this government, what were our exports? Cotton was
hardly, or but to a very limited extent, known. In 1791 the
first parcel of cotton of the growth of the United States
was exported, and amounted only to 19,200 pounds. It has
gone on increasing rapidly, until the whole crop may now,
perhaps, in a season of great product and high prices,
amount to a hundred millions of dollars. In the years I
have mentioned, there was more of wax, more of indigo, more
of rice, more of almost every article of export from the
South, than of cotton. When Mr. Jay negotiated the treaty
of 1794 with England, it is evident from the Twelfth
Article of the Treaty, which was suspended by the Senate,
that he did not know that cotton was exported at all from
the United States.

Mr. President, in the excited times in which we live, there
is found to exist a state of crimination and recrimination
between the North and the South. There are lists of
grievances produced by each; and these grievances, real or
supposed, alienate the minds of one portion of the country
from the other, exasperate the feelings, and subdue the
sense of fraternal affection, patriotic love, and mutual
regard. I shall bestow a little attention, sir, upon those
various grievances existing on the one side and on the
other. I begin with complaints of the South. I will not
answer, further than I have, the general statements of the
honorable senator from South Carolina, that the North has
prospered at the expense of the South in consequence of the
manner of administering the government, in the collection
of its revenues, and so forth. These are disputed topics,
and I have no inclination to enter into them.

But I will allude to other complaints of the South, and
especially to one which has, in my opinion, just
foundation, and that is, that there has been found at the
North, among individuals and among legislators, a
disinclination to perform fully their constitutional duties
in regard to the return of persons bound to service who
have escaped into the free States. In that respect, the
South, in my judgment, is right, and the North is wrong.
Every member of every Northern Legislature is bound by
oath, like every other officer in the country, to support
the Constitution of the United States; and the article of
the Constitution which says to these states that they shall
deliver up fugitives from service, is as binding in honor
and conscience as any other article. No man fulfils his
duty in any legislature who sets himself to find excuses,
evasions, escapes from this constitutional obligation. I
have always thought that the Constitution addressed itself
to the legislatures of the states or the states themselves.
It says that those persons escaping to other states "shall
be delivered up," and I confess I have always been of the
opinion that it was an injunction upon the states
themselves. When it is said that a person escaping into
another state, and coming therefore within the jurisdiction
of that state, shall be delivered up, it seems to me the
import of the clause is, that the state itself, in
obedience to the Constitution, shall cause him to be
delivered up. That is my judgment. I have always
entertained that opinion, and I entertain it now.

Then, sir, there are abolition societies, of which I am
unwilling to speak, but in regard to which I have very
clear notions and opinions. I do not think them useful. I
think their operations for the last twenty years have
produced nothing good or valuable. At the same time, I
believe thousands of their members to be honest and good
men, perfectly well-meaning men. They have excited
feelings; they think they must do something for the cause
of liberty; and, in their sphere of action, they do not see
what else they can do than to contribute to an abolition
press, or an abolition society, or to pay an abolition
lecturer.

I do not mean to impute gross motives even to the leaders
of these societies, but I am not blind to the consequences
of their proceedings. I can not but see what mischief their
interference with the South has produced. And is it not
plain to every man? Let any gentleman who entertains doubts
on this point, recur to the debates in the Virginia House
of Delegates in 1832, and he will see with what freedom a
proposition made by Mr. Jefferson Randolph, for the gradual
abolition of slavery was discussed in that body. Every one
spoke of slavery, as he thought; very ignominious and
disparaging names and epithets were applied to it. The
debates in the House of Delegates on that occasion, I
believe were all published. They were read by every colored
man who could read, and to those who could not read, those
debates were read by others. At that time Virginia was not
unwilling or afraid to discuss this question, and to let
that part of her population know as much of the discussion
as they could learn.

That was in 1832. As has been said by the honorable member
from South Carolina, these abolition societies commenced
their course of action in 1835. It is said, I do not know
how true it may be, that they sent incendiary publications
into the slave states; at any rate, they attempted to
arouse, and did arouse, a very strong feeling; in other
words, they created great agitation in the North against
southern slavery. Well, what was the result? The bonds of
the slaves were bound more firmly than before; their rivets
were more strongly fastened. Public opinion, which in
Virginia had begun to be exhibited against slavery, and was
opening out for the discussion of the question, drew back
and shut itself up in its castle. I wish to know whether
anybody in Virginia can now talk openly, as Mr. Randolph,
Governor McDowell, and others talked in 1832, and sent
their remarks to the press. We all know the fact, and we
all know the cause; and everything that these agitating
people have done has been, not to enlarge, but to restrain,
not to act free, but to bind faster, the slave population
of the South.

Mr. President, I should much prefer to have heard from
every member on this floor declarations of opinion that
this Union could never be dissolved, than the declaration
of opinion by anybody, that in any case, under the pressure
of any circumstances, such a dissolution was possible. I
hear with distress and anguish the word "secession"
especially when it falls from the lips of those who are
patriotic, and known to the country, and known all over the
world for their political services. Secession! peaceable
secession! Sir, your eyes and mine are never destined to
see that miracle. The dismemberment of this vast country
without convulsion! The breaking up of the foundations of
the great deep without ruffling the surface! Who is so
foolish--I beg everybody's pardon--as to expect to see any
such thing?

Sir, he who sees these states now revolving in harmony
around a common center, and expects to see them quit their
places and fly off without convulsion, may look the next
hour to see the heavenly bodies rush from their spheres,
and jostle against each other in the realms of space,
without causing the crush of the universe. There can be no
such thing as a peaceable secession. Peaceable secession is
an utter impossibility. Is the great Constitution under
which we live, covering this whole country, is it to be
thawed and melted away by secession, as the snows on the
mountains melt under the influence of a vernal sun,
disappear almost unobserved, and run off? No, sir! No, sir!
I will not state what might produce the disruption of the
Union; but sir, I see, as plainly as I see the sun in
heaven, what the disruption itself must produce; I see that
it must produce war, and such a war as I will not describe,
_in its twofold character._

Peaceable secession! peaceable secession! The concurrent
agreement of all the members of this great Republic to
separate! A voluntary separation, with alimony on one side
and on the other. Why, what would be the result? Where is
the line to be drawn? What states are to secede? What is to
remain American? What am I to be? An American no longer? Am
I to become a sectional man, a local man, a separatist,
with no country in common with the gentlemen who sit around
me here, or who fill the other House of Congress? Heaven
forbid! Where is the flag of the Republic to remain? Where
is the eagle still to tower?--or is he to cower, and
shrink, and fall to the ground?

Why, sir, our ancestors--our fathers and our grandfathers,
those of them that are yet living among us, with prolonged
lives--would rebuke and reproach us; and our children and
our grandchildren would cry out shame upon us, if we, of
this generation, would dishonor these ensigns of the power
of the government and the harmony of that Union, which is
every day felt among us with so much joy and gratitude.
What is to become of the army? What is to become of the
navy? What is to become of the public lands? How is any one
of the thirty states to defend itself?

Sir, we could not sit down here today, and draw a line of
separation that would satisfy any five men in the country.
There are natural causes that would keep and tie us
together; and there are social and domestic relations which
we could not break if we would, and which we should not if
we could.

Sir, nobody can look over the face of this country, at the
present moment, nobody can see where its population is the
most dense and growing, without being ready to admit, and
compelled to admit, that ere long the strength of America
will be in the valley of the Mississippi. Well, now, sir, I
beg to inquire what the wildest enthusiast has to say on
the possibility of cutting that river in two, and leaving
free states at its source and on its branches, and slave
states down near its mouth, each forming a separate
government? Pray, sir, let me say to the people of this
country, that these things are worthy of their pondering
and of their consideration. Here, sir, are five millions of
freemen in the free states north of the river Ohio.

Can anybody suppose that this population can be severed, by
a line that divides them from the territory of a foreign
and alien government, down somewhere, the Lord knows where,
upon the lower banks of the Mississippi? What would become
of Missouri? Will she join the _arrondissement_ of the
slave states? Shall the man from the Yellowstone and the
Platte be connected, in the new Republic, with the man who
lives on the southern extremity of the Cape of Florida?
Sir, I am ashamed to pursue this line of remark. I dislike
it; I have an utter disgust for it. I would rather hear of
natural blasts and mildews, war, pestilence, and famine,
than to hear gentlemen talk of secession. To break up this
great government! to dismember this glorious country! to
astonish Europe with an act of folly such as Europe for two
centuries has never beheld in any government or any people!
No, sir! no, sir! There will be no secession! Gentlemen are
not serious when they talk of secession.

And now, Mr. President, instead of speaking of the
possibility or utility of secession, instead of dwelling in
these caverns of darkness, instead of groping with those
ideas so full of all that is horrid and horrible, let us
come out into the light of day; let us enjoy the fresh air
of liberty and union; let us cherish those hopes which
belong to us; let us devote ourselves to those great
objects that are fit for our consideration and our action;
let us raise our conceptions to the magnitude and the
importance of the duties that devolve upon us; let our
comprehension be as broad as the country for which we act,
our aspirations as high as its certain destiny; let us not
be pigmies in a case that calls for men. Never did there
devolve on any generation of men higher trusts than now
devolve upon us, for the preservation of this Constitution,
and the harmony and peace of all who are destined to live
under it. Let us make our generation one of the strongest
and brightest links in that golden chain, which is
destined, I fondly believe, to grapple the people of all
the states to this Constitution for ages to come.

We have a great, popular, constitutional government,
guarded by law and by judicature, and defended by the whole
affections of the people. No monarchic throne presses these
states together; no iron chain of military power encircles
them; they live and stand upon a government popular in its
form, representative in its character, founded upon
principles of equality, and so constructed, we hope, as to
last forever. In all its history it has been beneficent; it
has trodden no man's liberty; it has crushed no state. Its
daily respiration is liberty and patriotism; its yet
youthful veins are full of enterprise, courage, and
honorable love of glory and renown. Large before, the
country has now, by recent events, become vastly larger.
This Republic now extends, with a vast breadth, across the
whole continent. The two great seas of the world wash the
one and the other shore. We realize, on a mighty scale, the
beautiful description of the ornamental edging of the
buckler of Achilles--

Now the broad shield complete, the artist crowned
With his last hand, and poured the ocean round:
In living silver seemed the waves to roll,
And beat the buckler's verge, and bound the whole.

ROBERT YOUNG HAYNE ON THE FOOTE REVOLUTION[3] (1830)

When the gentleman from Massachusetts adopts and reiterates
the old charge of weakness as resulting from slavery, I
must be permitted to call for the proof of those blighting
effects which he ascribes to its influence. I suspect that
when the subject is closely examined, it will be found that
there is not much force even in the plausible objection of
the want of physical power in slave-holding states. The
power of a country is compounded of its population and its
wealth, and in modern times, where, from the very form and
structure of society, by far the greater portion of the
people must, even during the continuance of the most
desolating wars, be employed in the cultivation of the soil
and other peaceful pursuits, it may be well doubted whether
slave-holding states, by reason of the superior value of
their productions, are not able to maintain a number of
troops in the field fully equal to what could be supported
by states with a larger white population, but not possessed
of equal resources.

* * * * * * *

There is a spirit which, like the father of evil, is
constantly "walking to and fro." It is the spirit of false
philanthropy. The persons whom it possesses do not indeed
throw themselves into the flames, but they are employed in
lighting up the torches of discord throughout the
community. Their first principle of action is to leave
their own affairs, and neglect their own duties, to
regulate the affairs and duties of others. Theirs is the
task to feed the hungry and clothe the naked of other
lands, while they thrust the naked, famished, and shivering
beggar from their own doors--to instruct the heathen while
their own children want the bread of life.

When this spirit infuses itself into the bosom of a
statesman (if one so possessed can be called a statesman),
it converts him at once into a visionary enthusiast. Then
it is that he indulges in golden dreams of national
greatness and prosperity. He discovers that "liberty is
power," and, not content with vast schemes of improvement
at home which it would bankrupt the treasury of the world
to execute, he flies to foreign lands to fulfil obligations
to "the human race," by inculcating the principles of
"political and religious liberty," and promoting the
"general welfare" of the whole human race. It is a spirit
which has long been busy with the slaves of the South and
is even now displaying itself in vain efforts to drive the
government from its wise policy in relation to the Indians.
It is this spirit which has filled the land with thousands
of wild and visionary projects which can have no effect but
to waste the energies and dissipate the resources of the
country. It is the spirit of which the aspiring politician
dexterously avails himself when, by inscribing on his
banner the magical words, Liberty and Philanthropy, he
draws to his support that class of persons who are ready to
bow down at the very name of their idols.

But, sir, whatever difference of opinion may exist as to
the effect of slavery on national wealth and prosperity, if
we may trust to experience, there can be no doubt that it
has never yet produced any injurious effect on individual
or national character. Look through the whole history of
the country from the commencement of the Revolution down to
the present hour; where are there to be found brighter
examples of intellectual and moral greatness than have been
exhibited by the sons of the South? From the Father of his
Country down to the distinguished chieftain who has been
elevated by a grateful people to the highest office in
their gift, the interval is filled up by a long line of
orators, of statesmen, and of heroes, justly entitled to
rank among the ornaments of their country, and the
benefactors of mankind. Look at "the Old Dominion," great
and magnanimous Virginia, "whose jewels are her sons." Is
there any State in this Union which has contributed so much
to the honor and welfare of the country? Sir, I will yield
the whole question--I will acknowledge the fatal effects of
slavery upon character, if any one can say that for noble
disinterestedness, ardent love of country, exalted virtue,
and a pure and holy devotion to liberty, the people of the
southern states have ever been surpassed by any in the
world.

The senator from Massachusetts tells us that the tariff is
not an eastern measure, and treats it as if the East had no
interest in it. The senator from Missouri insists it is not
a western measure, and that it has done no good to the
West. The South comes in, and in the most earnest manner
represents to you that this measure, which we are told "is
of no value to the East or the West" is "utterly
destructive of our interests." We represent to you that it
has spread ruin and devastation through the land and
prostrated our hopes in the dust. We solemnly declare that
we believe the system to be wholly unconstitutional and a
violation of the compact between the states and the Union;
and our brethren turn a deaf ear to our complaints, and
refuse to relieve us from a system "which not enriches
them, but makes us poor indeed." Good God! Mr. President,
has it come to this? Do gentlemen hold the feelings and
wishes of their brethren at so cheap a rate that they
refuse to gratify them at so small a price? Do gentlemen
value so lightly the peace and harmony of the country that
they will not yield a measure of this description to the
affectionate entreaties and earnest remonstrances of their
friends? Do gentlemen estimate the value of the Union at so
low a price that they will not even make one effort to bind
the states together with the cords of affection? And has it
come to this? Is this the spirit in which this government
is to be administered? If so, let me tell, gentlemen, the
seeds of dissolution are already sown, and our children
will reap the bitter fruit.

What, sir, was the conduct of the South during the
Revolution? Sir, I honor New England for her conduct in
that glorious struggle. But great as is the praise which
belongs to her I think at least equal honor is due to the
South. They espoused the quarrel of their brethren with a
generous zeal which did not suffer them to stop to
calculate their interest in the dispute. Favorites of the
mother country, possessed of neither ships nor seamen to
create a commercial rivalship, they might have found in
their situation a guaranty that their trade would be
forever fostered and protected by Great Britain. But
trampling on all consideration either of interest or of
safety, they rushed into the conflict and fighting for
principle, periled all in the sacred cause of freedom.
Never was there exhibited in the history of the world
higher examples of noble daring, dreadful suffering, and
heroic endurance than by the Whigs of Carolina during the
Revolution. The whole state, from the mountains to the sea,
was overrun by an overwhelming force of the enemy. The
fruits of industry perished on the spot where they were
produced, or were consumed by the foe. The "plains of
Carolina" drank up the most precious blood of her citizens!
Black and smoking ruins marked the places which had been
the habitations of her children! Driven from their homes
into the gloomy and almost impenetrable swamps, even there
the spirit of liberty survived, and South Carolina
(sustained by the example of her Sumpters and her Marions)
proved by her conduct that though the soil might be
overrun, the spirit of her people was invincible.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN THE "HOUSE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF" SPEECH[4] (1858)

If we could first know where we are, and whither we are
tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do
it, we are now far into the fifth year since a policy was
initiated with the avowed object, and confident promise, of
putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of
that policy, that agitation not only has not ceased, but
has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease
until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A house
divided against itself can not stand." I believe this
government can not endure permanently half slave and half
free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not
expect the house to fall; but I do expect that it will
cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all
the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the
further spread of it, and place it where the public mind
shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of
ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward
till it shall become alike lawful in all the states, old as
well as new, North as well as South. Have we no tendency to
the latter condition? Let any one who doubts carefully
contemplate that now almost complete legal
combination-piece of machinery, so to speak--compounded of
the Nebraska doctrine and the Dred Scott decision.

Put this and that together, and we have another nice little
niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with another
Supreme Court decision, declaring that the Constitution of
the United States does not permit a state to exclude
slavery from its limits. And this may especially be
expected if the doctrine of "care not whether slavery be
voted down or voted up," shall gain upon the public mind
sufficiently to give promise that such a decision can be
maintained when made.

Such a decision is all that slavery now lacks of being
alike lawful in all the states. Welcome or unwelcome, such
decision is probably coming, and will soon be upon us,
unless the power of the present political dynasty shall be
met and overthrown. We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming
that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making
their state free, and we shall awake to the reality,
instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave
state. To meet and overthrow that dynasty is the work
before all those who would prevent that consummation. That
is what we have to do. How can we best do it?

There are those who denounce us openly to their own friends
and yet whisper to us softly that Senator Douglas is the
aptest instrument there is with which to effect that
object. They wish us to infer all, from the fact that he
now has a little quarrel with the present head of the
dynasty; and that he has regularly voted with us on a
single point, upon which he and we have never differed.
They remind us that he is a great man and that the largest
of us are very small ones. Let this be granted. "But a
living dog is better than a dead lion." Judge Douglas, if
not a dead lion, for this work, is at least a caged and
toothless one.

How can he oppose the advance of slavery? He does not care
anything about it. His avowed mission is impressing the
"public heart" to care nothing about it. A leading Douglas
Democratic newspaper thinks Douglas's superior talent will
be needed to resist the revival of the African slave-trade.
Does Douglas believe an effort to revive that trade is
approaching? He has not said so. Does he really think so?
But if it is, how can he resist it? For years he has
labored to prove it is a sacred right of white men to take
negro slaves into the new territories. Can he possibly show
that it is less a sacred right to buy them where they can
be bought cheapest? And unquestionably they can be bought
cheaper in Africa than in Virginia.

He has done all in his power to reduce the whole question
of slavery to one of a mere right of property; and as such,
how can he oppose the foreign slave-trade? How can he
refuse that trade in that "property" shall be "perfectly
free," unless he does it as a protection to the home
production? And as the home producers will probably ask the
protection, he will be wholly without a ground of
opposition.

Senator Douglas holds, we know, that a man may rightfully
be wiser today than he was yesterday--that he may
rightfully change when he finds himself wrong. But can we,
for that reason run ahead, and infer that he will make any
particular change, of which he himself has given no
intimation? Can we safely base our action upon any such
vague inference? Now, as ever, I wish not to misrepresent
Judge Douglas's position, question his motives, or do aught
that can be personally offensive to him. Whenever, if ever,
he and we can come together on principle, so that our cause
may have assistance from his great ability, I hope to have
interposed no adventitious obstacle. But, clearly, he is
not now with us--he does not pretend to be, he does not
promise ever to be.

Our cause, then, must be entrusted to, and conducted by,
its own undoubted friends--those whose hands are free,
whose hearts are in the work--who do care for the result.
Two years ago the Republicans of the nation mustered over
thirteen hundred thousand strong. We did this under the
single impulse of resistance to a common danger. With every
external circumstance against us, of strange, discordant,
and even hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds,
and formed and fought the battle through, under the
constant hot fire of a disciplined, proud, and pampered
enemy. Did we brave all then, to falter now?--now, when
that same energy is wavering, dissevered, and belligerent!
The result is not doubtful. We shall not fail--if we stand
firm, we shall not fail. Wise counsels may accelerate, or
mistakes delay it; but, sooner or later, the victory is
sure to come.

ON LEAVING SPRINGFIELD[5]

My friends, no one, not in my situation, can appreciate my
feeling of sadness at this parting. To this place and the
kindness of this people I owe everything. Here I have lived
a quarter of a century and have passed from a young to an
old man. Here my children have been born and one is buried.

I now leave, not knowing when or whether ever I may return,
with a task before me greater than that which rested upon
Washington. Without the assistance of that Divine Being who
ever attended him I can not succeed. With that assistance I
can not fail.

Trusting in Him who can go with me and remain with you and
be everywhere for good, let us confidently hope that all
will yet be well. To His care commending you, as I hope in
your prayers you will commend me, I bid you an affectionate
farewell.

WENDELL PHILLIPS ON THE MURDER OF LOVEJOY[6] (1837)

A comparison has been drawn between the events of the
Revolution and the tragedy at Alton. We have heard it
stated here in Faneuil Hall, that Great Britain had a right
to tax the Colonies; and we have heard the mob at Alton,
the drunken murderers of Lovejoy, compared to those patriot
fathers who threw the tea overboard! Fellow citizens, is
this Faneuil Hall doctrine? The mob at Alton were met to
wrest from a citizen his just rights--met to resist the
laws. We have been told that our fathers did the same; and
the glorious mantle of Revolutionary precedent has been
thrown over the mobs of our day. To make out their title to
such defense the gentleman says that the British Parliament
had a right to tax these Colonies.

It is manifest that, without this, his parallel falls to
the ground; for Lovejoy had stationed himself within
constitutional bulwarks. He was not only defending the
freedom of the press, but he was under his own roof, in
arms with the sanction of the civil authority. The men who
assailed him went against and over the laws. The mob, as
the gentleman terms it--mob, forsooth! certainly we sons of
the tea-spillers are a marvelously patient generation!--the
"orderly mob" which assembled in the Old South to destroy
the tea were met to resist, not the laws, but illegal
exactions! Shame on the American who calls the tea tax and
Stamp Act laws! Our fathers resisted not the king's
prerogative, but the king's usurpation. To find any other
account, you must read our Revolutionary history upside
down. Our state archives are loaded with arguments of John
Adams to prove the taxes laid by the British Parliament
unconstitutional--beyond its power. It was not till this
was made out that the men of New England rushed to arms.
The arguments of the Council-chamber and the House of
Representatives preceded and sanctioned the contest.