The Permanency of Empire
wendell phillips
I appeal to history! Tell me, thou reverend chronicler of the grave, can all the wealth of a universal commerce, can all the achievements of successful heroisms, or all the establishments of this world’s wisdom, secure to empire the permanency of its possessions? Alas! Troy thought so once; yet the land of Priam lives only in song! Thebes thought so once; yet her hundred gates have crumbled, and her very tombs are but as the dust they were vainly intended to commemorate. So thought Palmyra—where is she? So thought the countries of Demosthenes and the Spartan; yet Leonidas is trampled by the timid slave, and Athens insulted by the servile, mindless, and enervate Ottoman. In his hurried march, Time has but looked at their imagined immortality, and all its vanities, from the palace to the tomb, have, with their ruins, erased the very impression of his footsteps. The days of their glory are as if they had never been; and the island that was then a speck, rude and neglected in the barren ocean, now rivals the ubiquity of their commerce, the glory of their arms, the fame of their philosophy, the eloquence of their Senate, and the inspiration of their bards. Who shall say, then, contemplating the past, that England, proud and potent as she appears, may not, one day, be what Athens is, and the young America yet soar to be what Athens was! Who shall say that, when the European column shall have mouldered, and the night of barbarism obscured its very ruins, that mighty continent may not emerge from the horizon to rule, for its time, sovereign of the ascendant!
Judicial Injustices. The next extract, from a powerful speech delivered by Senator Charles Sumner in September, 1854, is an excellent example of cumulative oratory. He asserts that he has no superstitious reverence for judicial proceedings, and then states his reasons, which he piles one upon another until the sum reaches such proportions as to utterly disarm any successful opposition to his statement, or even an attempt at opposition. This form of delivery is wonderfully effective, just as the opinion of a counselor-at-law would be when re-enforced by numerous decisions of the highest courts in the land. Only two means of attacking this style of oratory remain to the opposition, one being to impeach the authorities, the other to attack the application of them. Both these modes, however, are exceedingly dangerous to the objector when his opponent is a keen lawyer, an able speaker, and a learned man, such as was Charles Sumner.
The word “judges” takes the rising inflection because of the incompleteness of the thought, “in much respect” being necessary to complete the sense, and this takes the falling inflection because of the completeness, and the intervening thought “and especially the Supreme Court of the Country” must be given parenthetically on account of its being an interjected remark; the words “judicial proceedings” take the falling inflection because they finish a positive thought, and “superstitious reverence” the rising, as the Senator means to express this thought negatively, as he does not possess any superstitious reverence for judicial proceedings. “Judges” and “men” are in apposition and for that reason take the same inflection, and as the statement is positive, the falling inflection must be used. The “worst crimes” and “sanction” require emphasis because they are important, and the sentence takes the falling inflection because it is positive. “Martyrs” and “patriots” require the rising inflection because they depend on “summons them to judgment” to complete the sense, and “crying from the ground” must be given parenthetically for the reason that it is interjected.
“Judicial tribunal” being the thing arraigned, requires emphasis whenever used in the speech. “Socrates” requires emphasis, and “hemlock” takes the falling inflection on account of the completion of the thought, “Saviour” is emphatic, and “Jerusalem” and “cross” take the falling inflection on account of completion of thought. The next line commences a concluding series which continues to the end of the paragraph. “Against the testimony and entreaties of her father,” “in the name of the Old Religion,” “amidst the shrieks and agonies of its victims,” “in solemn denial of the great truth he had disclosed,” are all interjected remarks and therefore must be rendered parenthetically. All these parenthetical thoughts are complete in themselves, and consequently require the falling inflection. “Not” is emphatic, and the falling inflection is given “sun” because it expresses a contradiction.
The first phrase of the next paragraph requires the falling inflection, and the words “hesitate” and “unpitying,” being negatived, require the rising. The close of the paragraph requires the falling inflection.
The next paragraph is a concluding series. “Surrounded by all the forms of law,” “after deliberate argument,” “in defiance of justice and humanity,” “with Jeffreys on the bench,” are all interjected remarks, complete in themselves, and require the falling inflection and parenthetical expression to each. “Queen” and “Sir Thomas More” require opposite inflections for the reason they are used to mark two distinct points in the despotic career of Henry the Eighth, just as one would say “from the first to the last,” “Latimer, Ridley, and John Rogers” constitute a concluding series. “Justice” and “humanity” in the parenthetical clause are contrasted, and consequently given the opposite inflections, and “even” and “innocent women” require emphasis on account of their importance.
The last paragraph is a concluding series, “surrounded by all the forms of law” is an interjected complete thought, and therefore must be expressed parenthetically and given the falling inflection, and “our,” in both instances when used in this paragraph, requires emphasis and the falling inflection; while “unutterable” should take the rising inflection on account of its negative quality; the voice falling in conclusion on “Fugitive Slave Bill,” because the final thought is a positive one.