Gettysburg

Speech By: Abraham Lincoln
Date: November 19, 1863
Location: Gettysburg, Pennsylvania
Occasion: Dedication of National Cemetery

The Bully Pulpit has already covered the Gettysburg Address. But, since it deservedly resides on Time’s list of Top Ten speeches, it is worth another review. Besides, there is always more to say about this magnificent speech - little appreciated, by those who first heard it.

It is important to consider the context of this speech. Obviously, it was part of the dedication ceremony for the new national cemetery, on the site of the largest battle ever fought on the North American continent. But so much more was at stake than that.

President Lincoln was facing re-election in less than a year. No nation in history had ever been able to host a free election amidst a civil war. His prospects for success in that re-election effort seemed dim. He would prevail in that election, but no one listening knew that.

The battle had occurred on Union soil, because the Army of Northern Virginia had the ability to invade, putting Washington itself at risk. With the lense of historical perspective, we know the South would never again be able to invade North. But those in the crowd did not know that.

After the war, it became obvious that Gettysburg was the battle from which the South could never recover. Its losses over those three days of battle had been too severe. But no one on either side yet knew that.

All those uncertainties which plagued those who heard the Gettysburg address, are no longer apparent to us, in the clear light of historical knowledge.

Lincoln not only sought to address these uncertainties, as well as to honor the dead whose final resting place was being dedicated that day, he had the higher object of inspiring his people on to final victory.

For the first two years of the war, Lincoln had steadfastly maintained the issue was over secession - not slavery. In late 1862 Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, which took effect January 1, 1863. By November of that year, Lincoln, speaking at Gettysburg, no longer cast the bitter conflict between the states as a question of union versus secession, but as "a new birth of freedom." In his first sentence he pointed out the nation’s founding had been “dedicated to the proposition that all men are create equal.”

He proceeds with spare, yet masterfully descriptive language. He also uses classic speech techniques such as repetition, particularly in groups of three. “we can not dedicate...we can not consecrate...we can not hallow this ground.”

The phrase “we can not” serves the same purpose as bullets on a sheet of paper do for a reader - it warns of each important point that is about to be made. Notice also he uses “can not” as separate words rather than the more common cannot. The purpose is to make each syllable distinct as part of the emphasis.

As a final trick to capture the audience, Lincoln reverses the repetition technique in the final sentence, placing the repeated word at the end of each thought rather than at the beginning: “- and that government, of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Length (words): 267
Text Posted: Avalon Project - Gettysburg Address

From The Bully Pulpit - Tom

Shameless Hypocrisy

Title: American Slavery
Speech By: Frederick Douglass
Date: July 4, 1852
Location: Rochester, NY
Occasion: Independence Day Celebration

Analysis:
An escaped slave, Douglass left America, then returned to purchase his freedom so he could speak out publicly against slavery, without fear of being returned to bondage under the fugitive slave act. He certainly spoke out this Independence Day, almost nine years before the start of the Civil War.

He begins by involving his audience immediately: “Fellow citizens, pardon me, and allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today?” This simple opening sentence is effective on so many levels. By addressing his “fellow citizens,” he not only creates a shared identification, but establishes the basis on which his entire speech will rest - that he, and they, share the equal station of citizenship.

His next two words, “pardon me,” is a phrase designed to grab the attention of his listeners. “Pardon you?”, they would almost certainly be asking themselves, “Why do we need to pardon you?” In his first four words, Douglass has grabbed his listeners’ attention. He reinforces that by asking: “why am I called upon to speak here today?”

Now that he has their attention, he intends to cast cold water on their celebration. His point - The birth of American freedom, did not bring freedom to all Americans.

“I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary!”, he declares. A marvelous turn of phrase, that. It references the old phrase “beyond the pale,” which means something or someone operating outside agreed standards of decency. But it’s also a thinly-veiled reference to the fact that the only difference between those who have reason to celebrate this day, and those who don’t, is the degree of their skin pigmentation. Were he paler, it would make an immeasurable difference in his freedom to participate in this festive occasion.

He then launches into the point he wants his audience to hear: the rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity, and independence bequeathed by the founders to his listeners, is not shared by the millions still held in chains. He announces that he sees this holiday from a different perspective, “I shall see this day and its popular characteristics from the slave's point of view.”

His audience would have known that he shares this perspective because it is one he has experienced personally, something they have not.

It is not a pleasant speech, but it is undeniably powerful. “I will use the severest language I can command,” he promises. He does not disappoint.

He then proceeds to examine the arguments used to justify slavery, and dispenses with each in neat fashion.

Is the slave a man? “That point is conceded already,” he notes. He points to southern laws which prohibit teaching slaves to read and write. Such statutes are not needed for dogs or cattle or any of the other animal species extant.

Members of his race engage in all the professions other races do, and live in traditional family units. And above all, they engage in “confessing and worshipping the Christian God, and looking hopefully for life and immortality beyond the grave.” This argument indeed is above all. For, while an animal may have a concept of mortality, it does not ask if there is an after-life, or how the world came to be. This ability, only humans possess.

Then he poses the rhetorical question - is a man entitled to liberty? It’s a question which has been already answered for him. It is, in fact, the entire premise of the document his audience has gathered to celebrate. The Declaration of Independence itself proclaims men - “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Who can celebrate such a document, and simultaneously dispute its basic premise?

His next to last paragraph is a triumph of the orator’s art:
“What to the American slave is your Fourth of July? I answer, a day that reveals to him more than all other days of the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mock; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are to him mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy - a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation of the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of these United States at this very hour.”

His final verdict on an American nation which continues to sanction slavery is damning: in “shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.”

This is a wonderful speech, about a not-so-wonderful time in our history. That it belongs in Time’s Top Ten Speeches is no more subject to dispute, than the premise that all humans are entitled to liberty.

Text Posted: The History Place
Length Words: 1817

From The Bully Pulpit - Tom

Give Me Liberty

Title: Give Me Liberty
Speech By: Patrick Henry
Date: March 23, 1775
Location: St. John’s Church - Richmond, Virginia
Occasion: Resolution to arm the militia

Analysis:
One of the problems with this, like Socrates’ Apology, is that they were actually recorded long after the speaker’s demise. Plato is the actual author of Apology. There was no court reporter to take it all down verbatim. One can easily imagine Plato and a group of fellow philosophers musing after all was over, goblets of wine in hand, “Boy, that Socrates sure gave one hell of a last speech. We ought to write that down. Do you remember what he said exactly?”

This, Henry’s most famous speech, was reconstructed from listeners’ memories 15 years after his death - and 40 years after he gave it!

That could well explain such seemingly prescient phrases as: “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!” With the battle of Lexington and Concord still a month away, it’s either a remarkably accurate prediction, or, perhaps, a case of convenient memory.

Still, there is no doubt Henry was one of the most powerful speakers of his time. There is also little doubt this speech was memorable enough to make a lasting impression on those who heard it.

It is a speech rich in classical allusions - “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.” Can you see Henry as the successor to Diogenes? This time, not seeking an honest man, but the lessons of experience, and meeting with far greater success.

It is equally rich in Biblical allusions - “Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss.” In so doing, he was addressing his audience in terms with which they were intimately familiar. In other words, he was establishing that vital element by which to capture the attention of his listeners, audience identification.

He also resorts to one of the other elements that make an effective speech - repetition of one word to help his audience follow the points he wants to make. In this case “We” is the operative word. “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.”

Later, he resorts to the same device using a different word - “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 has placed in our power.”

Finally, he concludes with a stirring call to action - “Forbid it, Almighty God! -- I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

It is a rallying cry virtually every American schoolchild can recite. That stirring conclusion alone makes this speech worthy of inclusion in the Top Ten speeches of all time.

Text Posted: National Center for Public Policy Research
Words: 1018

From The Bully Pulpit - Tom

Apology - Socrates

Speech By: Socrates
Title: Apology
Date: 399 B.C.
Location: Athens
Occasion: Trial for “corrupting youth”

Analysis:
Can a speech be successful - even if it fails at its goal? That is the conundrum posed by Apology.

On trial for “corrupting youth,” Socrates addressed the men of the Athens jury in his own defense.

It is a long speech, over 11,400 words. He probably would have spoken for at least three hours. Then again, when you are on trial for your life, I suspect you want to make as effective an argument as possible. You probably also want to take as much time as possible.

It is also in three parts - a defense against the charges lodged against him; the argument for an appropriate penalty once the jury had rendered a guilty verdict; and, finally, his parting words once the death penalty had been pronounced.

He begins with a classic orator’s device - to downplay his own eloquence: “But many as their falsehoods were, there was one of them which quite amazed me; -- I mean when they told you to be upon your guard, and not to let yourselves be deceived by the force of my eloquence. They ought to have been ashamed of saying this, because they were sure to be detected as soon as I opened my lips and displayed my deficiency;”

We see the same technique today, in modern political campaigns. Before two candidates meet to debate, for instance, the handlers for both sides down-play their own candidate’s abilities - in hopes of not only making that candidate look better by being able to surpass lowered expectations, but also, if something goes horribly wrong, by being able to say “we said this wasn’t our forte.” Sort of like damage control, before there even is any damage.

There is a strong note of condescension which runs through the speech. “He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing.” This is not the wisest approach for addressing any audience, but to listeners who hold the power of life or death, it is truly unwise.

So, did he not care? Was he too set in his ways to change? Or, maybe, he had simply grown tone deaf to the way his examination of people made them feel? Perhaps his devotion to his philosophical pursuits left him no recourse.

It is from this speech that we derive one of the fundamental tenets of his philosophy - “that the life which is unexamined is not worth living.” That’s a rather broad statement. While it may be true of Socrates, or Plato, who recorded it for posterity, or even you and I, is it really true of every human being? Is no one’s life worth living unless subjected to the scrutiny which appeals to Socrates?

It’s an uncomfortable pronouncement - at least for me.

Quite likely, it was a lifetime of such pronouncements which decided his fate, when the sentence of death was pronounced on him by the jury.

So, was this a successful speech that failed to accomplish its goal? People still study it, more than 2,400 years later. Maybe therein lies the answer.

Length (words): 11,414

Text Posted: Athenaeum Reading Room

From The Bully Pulpit - Tom

Supreme Colleagues

Speech By: Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg
Title:  Lighter Side of Life at the United States Supreme Court
Date: March 13, 2009
Location: New England Law, Boston
Length (words): 1756

In the wake of President Obama’s public excoriation of the Supreme Court during his State of the Union speech, Chief Justice Roberts waited until this week to issue his own very public reply. In a speech before the University at Alabama law school, Roberts answered a question about that moment from one of the students.

What he apparently found troubling was not the President taking issue with the opinion, “I have no problems with that.” Said the Chief Justice. “On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum.”

Intrigued, I went to the Supreme Court Web site, to see if I could find the speech itself posted. It wasn’t. Hopefully it will be in the near future. However, I did find posted there a delightful little talk by Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, at New England Law.

Entitled The Lighter Side of Life at the United States Supreme Court, it is a generous and revealing glimpse into how the court operates, both in legal and social terms. By generous, I mean Justice Ginsburg generously shares her insight into the collegial workings of the court, with her audience.

By generous, I also mean she is generous towards her colleagues on the court, even those who do not share her own legal philosophy. In talking about the fact there are sometimes “sharp differences” over certain issues on the court, she offers this observation: “But through it all, we remain good friends, people who respect each other, and genuinely enjoy each other’s company. In recent terms, we have even managed to agree, unanimously, some 30 to 40 percent of the time. That contrasts with the Court’s 5-4 splits, which last term accounted for about 16 percent of the Court’s decisions. Our mutual respect is only momentarily touched, in most instances, by our sometimes strong disagreements on what the law is.” That unanimous agreement, 40 percent of the time, is something you seldom read about in the press. And it's actually quite remarkable, given the nine strong personalities, each with their own opinion, who occupy the Supreme Court's bench.

She goes on to add this important note about how she and her colleagues view their function: “All of us appreciate that the institution we serve is far more important than the particular individuals who compose the Court’s bench at any given time.”

While any Supreme Court Justice is likely to enjoy the rapt attention of any law school audience, her speech pays due attention to the essentials of a good speech. She engages her audience. “My aim is to describe not the Court’s heavy work, but the lighter side of life in our Marble Palace.”

She also avoids the “Ninth letter syndrome,” using "I" only 17 times, less than one percent of the time, while using the collective “we” and “our” almost twice that often. She is obviously working hard to establish a shared identification with her audience. This is an especially critical consideration in this case. When listening to a Supreme Court Justice speak, even a room full of lawyers must know that few, if any of them, will ever even be considered for elevation to such high station.

That Justice Ginsburg successfully navigates this chasm between her audience and herself, with grace, and a touch of gentle humor, is much to her credit. And, perhaps, her speech writer’s.

It is a speech heavy on the human side of the court, far less on the legal. I hope you will read, and, enjoy it, as I did.

And, if you want to know even more about how the court works, from the perspective of an insider, I highly recommend Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s book - The Supreme Court.

Text Posted: Supreme Court Web Site 

From The Bully Pulpit - Tom

Top Ten Speeches?

Time magazine recently posted its list of the Top 10 Speeches of all time. All are great speeches, or at least on great topics.

But I have a couple of observations - it is very Euro-American centric, with a heavy emphasis on the "American" part of that equation. Now, to be completely honest, I doubt I could name, under pain of torture, a great speech given by a leader in Asia, Africa, South America or Australia, and hold precious little hope for Antarctica. Even in “Eight Below” the speeches were given elsewhere. But I’m certain some great speeches must have been given elsewhere.

Were I to look for an Asian speech, for example, I’d start with Sun Tzu. But having read The Art of War, no examples come immediately to mind. (Note to self - go back and read The Art of War again.)

However, that is not to fault the list which Time has complied. All but one, in my estimation, are great speeches, that anyone even remotely interested in history should be familiar with.

We start with Socrates’ Apology in 399 B.C., then wait almost 22 centuries before the next on the list - Patrick Henry in 1775. I’m quite sure that other great speeches were delivered in the intervening years, but one of the great problems that must be considered is recording and distribution. Fully half the speeches on our list are recorded electronically. Thus they belong to the 20th century. Come to think of it - we are now nearly a tenth of the way through the 21st - and no suggestion I could offer would supplant any on this list. Time to get cracking, speech writers!

All right - as for the one speech I would take issue with. When great speeches come to mind, Lyndon Johnson is not in the first rank. Even given how just, and great, and difficult a cause it was, to propel the Voting Rights Act through a reluctant Congress, if I were to cite the one Johnson speech that truly had an impact on me, it was the March 1968 speech which concluded with the announcement that he would not be a candidate for re-election that Fall. I can remember to this day, turning to my Father and saying in disbelief: “Did he just say what I thought he said?” And Dad’s stunned reply, “I’m not sure, but I think so.”

The full list follows, and I think we should examine each individually. Say, one a week for the next ten weeks?

From The Bully Pulpit - Tom

• Socrates - Apology, 399 B.C.
• Patrick Henry - Give Me Liberty, Or Give Me Death, 1775
• Frederick Douglass - The Hypocrisy of American Slavery, 1852
• Abraham Lincoln - Gettysburg Address, 1863
• Susan B. Anthony - Women's Rights to the Suffrage, 1873
• Winston Churchill - Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat, 1940
• John F. Kennedy - Inaugural Address, 1961
• Martin Luther King - I Have a Dream, 1963
• Lyndon B. Johnson - The American Promise, 1965
• Ronald Reagan - Remarks at the Brandenburg Gate, 1987

Best Thing Since Footlights?

We’ve all seen it - A winner at the Academy Award ceremonies, gold statuette clutched firmly in hand, suddenly possessed of the urge to thank, by name, every individual in their Blackberry.

Academy Award speeches can turn an evening of unparalleled success into a dismal failure. Just consider James Cameron as he picked up his third Oscar for Titanic, Sally Field’s second Best Actress award, or Sacheen Littlefeather’s only Academy Award speech.

Sometimes it’s not so much a case of saying something wrong, as saying too much - going on interminably until being drowned out by the exit music. According to Movie Tribune, Bill Mechanic, Co-producer for the Oscars, informs the nominees that the long thank you speeches they deliver are “the single-most hated thing about the show.”

This year, Entertainment Daily reports, the “speeches will end on a high note,” thanks to an innovation dubbed the “thank you cam.” After a short speech on stage, the winners will be able to go back stage and make a second speech which can be sent to family, friends, and posted on the internet.

The winners will then be able to talk as long as they want. But nobody will be forced to unwillingly endure a soliloquy, that droned on a scene or two long.

It just may be the best innovation in the entertainment industry since footlights.

We’ll know for sure a week from now.

Title: I’d like to thank ....
Speech By: Numerous award winners
Date: March 7, 2010
Location: Kodak Theatre
Occasion: 82nd Academy Awards Presentation
Video Posted: Live - ABC
Length: 45 seconds (We hope)

From The Bully Pulpit - Tom