Chapter X Lesson Talks
These lesson talks will be of value to students only after they have diligently studied the contents of this book, particularly the first, second, and sixth chapters, which treat of the means of speech construction and the forms of delivery. It is absolutely necessary that students should have a thorough understanding of inflection, emphasis, apposition, opposition, and the series, in order that they may understand and appreciate the work of this chapter. These talks are intended to exemplify the application of the rules laid down in this book for the guidance of those who seek proficiency in the art of public speaking, but they will help little unless the student has prepared himself to receive them by thoroughly mastering the technique of the art as expounded in the different chapters.
It will be well for the student to mark the speeches given in this chapter according to the instructions given in the lesson talks, as then he will have an object lesson before him that will enable him more readily to grasp the written instructions regarding the series, emphasis, and inflection.
Cuba Must Be Free. On March 24, 1898, Senator John M. Thurston of Nebraska delivered a speech “On the Affairs of Cuba,” from which this extract is taken. While it is but a portion of a speech, being the peroration only, still it is a complete speech in itself, as it conforms to all the requirements of speech construction. Its opening, or statement, consists of the laying down of the facts upon which the argument is to be based, these facts being the legal rights of individuals and states as opposed to the moral rights. The statement ends with the second paragraph. The body, or argument, closes with the fifth paragraph and consists in showing that nations, like individuals, should be governed by high moral motives and not shrink from obligations because they have the legal right to do so; and that in the performance of these obligations force is the only means that can bring about the desired end. The balance of the speech forms the conclusion, and it consists of a summing up of the great events of the world’s history wherein progress was made in man’s struggle for liberty only by the exercise of force.
The opening sentence states the claims of those who oppose intervention in behalf of Cuba by the United States, and sets forth their claims. This forms the base of Senator Thurston’s argument. The second sentence is a qualified acknowledgment of the legal right of the United States to refrain from interfering. In other words, he frankly confesses that there is no legal power that can compel the United States to interfere between Spain and her colony, but clearly shows that he intends to uphold the moral right of that country to intervene, the construction of this sentence, “It may be the naked legal right of the United States to stand thus idly by,” plainly denoting the senator’s opinion.
The second paragraph is devoted to illustrating the legal rights of the individual; the third paragraph, the effects that would flow from an exercise of those rights; the fourth paragraph, an application of the principle to nations that has previously been applied to individuals, and an explanation as to the senator’s conception of the religious doctrine as taught by Christ; the fifth paragraph states the meaning of intervention, force, and war, defines the force that should be used, and makes two strong assertions in the form of indirect questions; the sixth paragraph is devoted to the production of cumulative evidence as to the efficacy of force, and a stirring appeal that this force be exercised. The quotation from “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” is used to emphasize this last point; the seventh paragraph states the position that the senator takes on the question.
“Cuba” and “United States” are contrasted, consequently both require emphasis as well as different inflections, and as the former is affirmative it should be given the falling inflection, and the latter, because it is negative, should be given the rising inflection. The balance of the sentence consists of a concluding series that is out of the ordinary for the reason that the last member of the series forms a series by itself, and it is therefore termed a series within a series. The last sentence of the opening paragraph requires the falling inflection because it is an affirmative statement.
The opening sentence of the second paragraph requires the falling inflection because it is a positive statement. The word “legal” should be emphasized for the reason that it qualifies the word “right,” and by means of emphasis placed on the word “legal” a contrast is immediately suggested with the “moral” right. In the next sentence the word “my” is the important word because it qualifies the word “dog,” and as it states that “it is not my dog,” the word “my” should be given the rising inflection to show its negative quality. If the emphasis and inflection should be placed on the word “dog,” it would then be indicated that the “dog” is not mine but the cat or the horse is. Care must be exercised to place properly both the inflection and the emphasis in order that a correct interpretation may be given. “Mine,” in the next sentence, should be given the rising inflection for the same reason that governs the inflection on the word “dog,” the meaning being that it may be the policeman’s duty to interfere but it is not the speaker’s. The word “my,” in the next phrase, requires the rising inflection for the same reason, the occurrence taking place on premises but not on “my” premises. The conclusion of the paragraph should be given the falling inflection because it is assertive.
“But if I do” is conditional and therefore requires the rising inflection; “I am a coward and a cur” being the concluding clause to the conditional, and being positive, it should have the falling inflection; “live” is contrasted with “die,” and “God knows” is parenthetical. “Dog,” “woman,” and “force” all require the rising inflection because they are negatived, the statement being that “I cannot protect the dog,” “I cannot save the woman,” “without [not employing] force.” The reverse of the form used in the speech, the positive, would be: I can protect the dog, I can save the woman, by exercising force.
“We cannot intervene and save Cuba without the exercise of force” requires the rising inflection because it is a negative statement, “and force means war; war means blood” requires the falling inflection because they are positive. The next sentence requires a like inflection for a like reason. “Liberty” and “humanity” are negatived, and therefore should be giving the rising inflection. The next sentence is a negative one, and all its members require the rising inflection. The sentence that follows is positive, and requires the falling inflection. The phrase “I believe in the doctrine of peace,” is also positive, but as it is qualified by “men must have liberty before there can come abiding peace,” it requires the rising inflection, the qualifying phrase taking the falling inflection because it is assertive.
The three short opening sentences of the fifth paragraph require the falling inflection because they are positive. “God’s” requires emphasis for the reason that it qualifies “force.” The two questions that follow, being indirect questions, should be given falling inflections.
The sixth paragraph represents a masterly arrangement of concluding series. The first series enumerates three great charters: Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, and the Emancipation Proclamation; the second, three instances where the people struggled against oppression: the storming of the Bastille, the battle of Bunker Hill, and the suffering of the American army at Valley Forge; the third, three battles of the war between the states; the fourth, three Federal generals; the fifth, the results that followed the Civil War. All these are concluding series; therefore, in each series, the first member should be given the falling inflection, the second member the rising inflection, and the third member the falling inflection. If these directions are not clear, review the section on series, in the second chapter. The two sentences that follow the series are positive and require falling inflections. In the first sentence the word “again” requires emphasis because it is important, while in the second, “once more” should be given emphasis for the same reason.
In the quotation, “you” and “me” are contrasted, and there is a double contrast between “He” and “us,” “holy” and “free.” “God,” in the last line of the quotation, requires emphasis because of its importance.
In the last paragraph there is a double opposition between “others,” each time the word is used, and “me,” “hesitate,” “procrastinate” and “negotiation” with “act now,” while “which means delay” is parenthetical. The speech ends with a concluding series.
Mr. President, there are those who say that the affairs of Cuba are not the affairs of the United States, who insist that we can stand idly by and see that island devastated and depopulated, its business interests destroyed, its commercial intercourse with us cut off, its people starved, degraded, and enslaved. It may be the naked legal right of the United States to stand thus idly by.
I have the legal right to pass along the street and see a helpless dog stamped into the earth under the heels of a ruffian. I can pass by and say that is not my dog. I can sit in my comfortable parlor with my loved ones gathered about me, and through my plate glass window see a fiend outraging a helpless woman nearby, and I can legally say this is no affair of mine—it is not happening on my premises; and I can turn away and take my little ones in my arms, and, with the memory of their sainted mother in my heart, look up to the motto on the wall and read, “God bless our home.”
But if I do, I am a coward and a cur unfit to live, and, God knows, unfit to die. And yet I cannot protect the dog nor save the woman without the exercise of force.
We cannot intervene and save Cuba without the exercise of force, and force means war; war means blood. The lowly Nazarene on the shores of Galilee preached the divine doctrine of love, “Peace on earth, good will toward men.” Not peace on earth at the expense of liberty and humanity. Not good will toward men who despoil, enslave, degrade, and starve to death their fellow men. I believe in the doctrine of Christ. I believe in the doctrine of peace; but, Mr. President, men must have liberty before there can come abiding peace.
Intervention means force. Force means war. War means blood. But it will be God’s force. When has a battle for humanity and liberty ever been won except by force? What barricade of wrong, injustice, and oppression has ever been carried except by force?
Force compelled the signature of unwilling royalty to the great Magna Carta; force put life into the Declaration of Independence and made effective the Emancipation Proclamation; force beat with naked hands upon the iron gateway of the Bastille and made reprisal in one awful hour for centuries of kingly crime; force waved the flag of revolution over Bunker Hill and marked the snows of Valley Forge with blood-stained feet; force held the broken line at Shiloh, climbed the flame-swept hill at Chattanooga, and stormed the clouds on Lookout Heights; force marched with Sherman to the sea, rode with Sheridan in the valley of the Shenandoah, and gave Grant victory at Appomattox; force saved the Union, kept the stars in the flag, made “niggers” men. The time for God’s force has come again. Let the impassioned lips of American patriots once more take up the song:
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigured you and me;
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
For God is marching on.
Others may hesitate, others may procrastinate, others may plead for further diplomatic negotiation, which means delay, but for me, I am ready to act now, and for my action I am ready to answer to my conscience, my country, and my God.
Evidence and Precedents in Law. Here is an example of argumentative oratory, an extract from a speech by Thomas Erskine, that will repay careful consideration.
The opening statement, “Before you can adjudge a fact, you must believe it,” is positive, and demands the falling inflection; “not suspect it, or imagine it, or fancy it” are all negatived and require the rising inflection; “but believe it” is positive and must be given the falling inflection, and the balance of the sentence is negative and requires the rising inflection throughout. The question that follows is an indirect one and should be given the falling inflection. “Neither more nor less” are negatived and therefore both “more” and “less” require the rising inflection; “justice” should be given the falling inflection because it completes a positive statement; the balance of the sentence should receive the same inflection for the same reason. “As they are settled by law, and adopted in its general administration” is parenthetical; the main idea, “the rules of evidence are not to be overruled or tampered with” is negative, consequently the negatived words “overruled” and “tampered” should receive the rising inflection. The passage that follows, ending with the word “life,” is a concluding series of four members, and all members except the next to the last, “in the truth of history,” receive the falling inflection, the exception requiring the rising inflection; “and whoever ventures rashly to depart from them” is, in its spirit, conditional, and for that reason should be given the rising inflection; the balance is assertive and requires the falling inflection; a contrast should be shown between “God” and “man.”
Let the student work out the balance of the speech.