THE SPEAKING OF HUBERT H. HUMPHREY IN FAVOR OF

THE 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

Norbert H. Mills

A Dissertation

Submitted to the Graduate School of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

August, 1974

BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY n 586612 .TV

Vzù .'XA\

ABSTRACT

This study attempted to investigate one aspect of the speaking of Hubert H. Humphrey's advocacy for equal rights for minority groups in this country. The study focused on Humphrey's major pub­ lic addresses and Senate speeches regarding the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Eighteen public speeches and numerous Senate statements dating from September 20, 1963 to June 17, 1964 were analyzed.

The study employed an Historical-Descriptive-Critical method of rhetorical analysis. Questions regarding the rhetorical situa­ tion were posited and answers were set forth in succeeding chapters. An attempt was made to determine the types of audiences addressed, the nature of Humphrey's addresses, the major strategies which were employed, and how the Senator argued for the bill.

Analysis revealed that Senator Humphrey addressed public audiences, which were classed as religious, political, educational, commencement, and miscellaneous. Humphrey made a conscious effort to adapt his speeches to each particular audience and carefully worked the idea of civil rights into those speeches not expressly dealing with that issue. Major issues which emerged in the public speeches were contained in the various titles of the Civil Rights Bill. Aside from the strategy of choosing only particular.types of audiences to address, the legislative strategies employed were equal in importance to and dictated what many of the rhetorical strategies would be. The reasoning employed by Senator Humphrey was sound and evolved around a major deductive pattern. Supplementing the deductive pattern were methods of induction including cause-effect, authoritative testimony, and specific instance. 1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study is dedicated to the following persons: To the professors of the Department of Speech at Bowling Green State

University, and in particular to Dr. Raymond Yeager and Dr. John

T. Rickey. They made graduate school a rewarding and even enjoy­ able experience.

To the members of my dissertation committee, which included

Dr. Yeager, Dr. Rickey, Dr. Raymond K. Tucker, Dr. Lois Cheney, and Dr. Bernard Sternsher. Their comments and editorial help in this effort were invaluable.

To my mother, a woman who struggled for four years to get me through undergraduate school at great sacrifice to herself. I hope

I have made her proud of me.

Finally, to my wife Jean and my children Jeffrey, Timothy, and Lisa. They have, for the past two years, gone without many things so that this goal might be realized. I only hope I can repay their kindness and understanding in the years that lie ahead. iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

CHAPTER I

Introduction ...... 1

Humphrey: A Biographical Sketch...... 1

Purpose...... 12

Justification...... 13

Methodology...... 14

Research Procedures...... 17

Review of Literature ...... 18

CHAPTER II--An Overview of the Civil Rights Movement

Major Legislation Prior to 1964 ...... 25

Troubled Times Ahead...... 36

CHAPTER III--Audiences and Audience Adaptation

Nature of Audiences Addressed...... 48

Religious Audiences ...... 52

Political Audiences ...... 54

Educational Audiences ...... 56

College Audiences ...... 58

Miscellaneous Audiences ...... 60

Nature of Senate Audience...... 63

Audience Adaptation...... 64

Public Speeches ...... 64

Senate Speeches...... 68 V

Page

CHAPTER IV--Nature of Messages

Speech Preparation ...... 73

Speech Similarities...... 75

Public Speeches ...... 75 J Senate Speeches ...... 84

Purpose of the Speeches...... 85

Essential Issues and Evidence...... 89

Public Speeches ...... 89

Senate Speeches ...... 98

CHAPTER V--Rhetorical and Legislative Strategies Employed

Strategies in Public Speeches...... Ill

Senate Strategies...... 116

CHAPTER VI--Argumentative Processes

Reasoning in Public Speeches ...... 139

Moral Issue...... 140

Human Dignity Issue ...... 144

Unemployment Issue...... 147

Educational Issue ...... 150

Political Issue ...... 153

Reasoning in Senate Debates...... 155

Title I: Voting Rights...... 157

Title II: . Access to Public Accommodations...... 160

Titles III and IV: Public Facility and School Desegregation...... 163

Title VI: Ending Discrimination in Federal Programs. . 166

Title VII: Equal Employment Opportunity...... 170 Page

CHAPTER VII--Summary and Conclusions

Summary...... 179 L Conclusions ...... 183

Suggestions for Further Study ...... 184

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 186 Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

The political career of Hubert H. Humphrey spans nearly thirty years of contemporary American history. Few men have been more pro­ lific in words uttered or more involved in legislative action. In his four years as mayor of Minneapolis he made an estimated 4,000 speeches, or an average of nearly three a day, counting Sundays.

During his more than fifteen years in the Senate he had introduced nearly 1,500 bills and resolutions--a fantastic total for any man.^

Adlai E. Stevenson III related the significance of Hubert Humphrey on the American political scene.

The story of the 1948 Convention and Hubert Humphrey is now history. Hubert Humphrey left his mark on the Democratic Party; human rights would transcend states' rights. He helped change the course of American history. And that summer he began a friendship with my father which was to last until the end. I don't suppose there was anyone in public life for whom my father had greater respect.2

Humphrey: A Biographical Sketch

Hubert Humphrey was born on May 27, 1911 in Wallace, South Dakota.

His father's ancestors left Wales in 1648 to settle in the new American colonies. Humphrey's great-great-great-grandfather, Elijah Humphrey of 2

Dudley, Massachusetts, served for three years in the Revolutionary

Army. His great-grandfather, a Connecticut Yankee, moved West after the'Civil War to a farm near Union Lakes, Minnesota. His grandfather,

John Humphrey, pioneered in Oregon and later returned to Elk River,

Minnesota, to become an organizer and a Master Farmer in the Grange.

Hubert H. Humphrey, Sr. was born near Albany, Oregon. He broke from the family's farm tradition, becoming a pharmacist and small business- 3 man in South Dakota.

Hubert, Sr. was most certainly the major influence on his son's life. His library was always the best-stocked in town and he passed on his passion for learning to his children. He read them everything from Woodrow Wilson's "Fourteen Points" to the poetry of Henry

Wadsworth Longfellow. In later years Hubert, Jr. commented on his father's influence:

He set high standards. . . . The one fear I've had all my life is that I would disappoint him. . . . My hero is my father. He, above all others, had the greatest influence on my life. My father passed away in November, 1949, but if ever I needed proof of immortality he has given it to me. His mind, his spirit,.his soul are ever present in my daily life. . . .

The Humphreys moved to Doland, South Dakota when Hubert was five years old. While attending high school in Doland, Hubert played foot­ ball and basketball, ran the half-mile in track, acted in school plays, played baritone horn in the school band, was a top debater, and gradu­ ated valedictorian.

No experience moved and shaped Humphrey more than the depression- drought years of 1926-37. In public statements he has said that those 3

years "enriched" him, that they gave him "a certain toughness," "a » sort of patience," and new insights into the endurance and limitations of human beings.5

After graduating from high school in June of 1929, Humphrey decided to enroll at the University of Minnesota. One month after he entered the university, the stock market collapsed and the Depression

followed Wall Street's "Black Thursday." Things were very bad for I the Humphrey family, but Hubert remained in school until March of

1931, when he returned home (now in Huron, South Dakota) to help his father in a newly established drug store. Hubert left Huron just long enough to complete a cram course at the Denver College of Phar­ macy. He returned to Huron in May, 1933 with his pharmacist's license 4

Shortly after this, Hubert met Muriel Buck at a dance at Huron

College. Muriel recalled: "At first I thought he was younger than

I. He was a skinny boy and he kidded and joked so much. . . but he was a very good dancer. . . and he seemed to have so much drive. . . 6 so much he wanted to do." In the summer of 1935, they were engaged.

While traveling in Washington, D. C., with the Huron Boy Scout

Troop in 1935, Humphrey was drawn to the Capitol. He spent long hours wandering in the public galleries of the Senate and House of

Representatives. He was more than prophetic when he wrote back to

Muriel about his stay in Washington, D. C.:

Maybe I seem foolish to have such vain hopes and plans, but, Bucky, I can see how some day, if you and I just apply ourselves and make up our minds to work for bigger things, we can live here in Washington and probably be in government politics or service. I set my aim at Congress. . . 4

The Humphreys were married in September of 1936. In September of

1937, eight years after his first try for a university education,

Humphrey returned to the University of Minnesota. Gaining credit for the hours he had earlier accumulated and taking academic overloads each quarter, he completed the requirements for his degree in two years, majoring in Political Science. He graduated in June of 1939 magna cum laude with a membership in Phi Beta Kappa.

Humphrey, at this stage in his career, eyed a possible teaching career and realized the importance of advanced degrees. He felt that he should acquire at least one advanced degree from a university in a part of the country other than the Midwest, so he accepted a fellowship in Political Science at Louisiana State University. The year at LSU was a difficult one for Humphrey. He found the professors more aloof and formal than those at Minnesota and he felt no rapport with the professor directing his thesis work. On top of all this were contin­ ual financial difficulties.

He received his M.A. degree and the Humphreys moved back to Minne­ sota. In one more year's time he had completed all the course work for his doctorate at the University of Minnesota, but financial difficulties still hounded the Humphreys and work began more and more to take him away from his studies. He was never able to begin writing his doctoral dissertation.

He progressed through a series of jobs with New Deal and wartime agencies in Minnesota, first with the WPA's Workers Education Service, then as State Director for War Production Training, then as Assistant 8 State Director of the War Manpower Commission. 5

His last formal teaching position before entering politics was as

an instructor in the Political Science Department of Macalaster College

in St. Paul. Humphrey still holds the unofficial record for the length

of a single class session. During the spring semester of 1944, he and

his students held a discussion on fascism for five hours and forty min­

utes. It is said that not one student left until the meeting was over.

Humphrey concluded the discussion by saying:

What you do, what each of us does, has an effect on the community, the state, the nation and the world. There is so much to be done, to build for a better life. Whatever your views, don't just be jeering from the bleachers. Get out g and pitch for what you think is the best team. . . .

During the years 1941-43, Humphrey made something of a name for

himself in political circles in Minneapolis. He had a favorable reputa­

tion as a teacher, as an administrator of New Deal programs, and as a good speaker for a five-dollar fee or for no fee. He was considered to be an energetic, honest, bright young man by his associates. Many of his former associates and professors at the University of Minnesota encouraged him to run for a seat in Congress.

In 1943 he got the chance to practice what he had preached during the marathon classroom incident. He was urged by a group of labor leaders to run for Mayor of Minneapolis. He had a difficult time in making the decision but on April 16, 1943, he launched his first public campaign. Only nineteen days before the primary, Humphrey began an all-out campaign that would garner him enough votes to place second out of nine. In the June election he lost to Mayor Kline by less than five thousand votes, an admirable effort for a comparative unknown. 6

The year 1944 marked a milestone in Minnesota politics, and Hubert

Humphrey played a leading role in this development. Humphrey formed

the idea of an alliance or merger of the Democratic and Farmer-Labor

parties in Minnesota. Along with such other leaders as Chairman Frank

Walker of the Farmer-Laborites, Humphrey believed that the split between

these two factions was the primary cause for continued Republican success

in Minnesota. Divided, the Democrats and Farmer-Laborites were ineffec­

tive, but united they would form the counterweight necessary to oust the Republicans.

Humphrey provided the initiative and predominated in the over one hundred meetings needed to bring about the merger. Finally, in

April, 1944, the two parties met in separate conventions and both conventions approved the merger. Thus was formed the even-now domi­ nant party of Minnesota, the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party.

In the spring of 1945, Humphrey again filed for the office of Mayor of Minneapolis. By now he was much better known in the area and had wider support. His campaign theme, second only to an attack on the rackets and corruption, was human rights. Minneapolis of the 1940's was not only a seat of crime but also of racial hatred. Humphrey later put it this way:

It may be a little hard for a person now living in Minneapolis to believe, but that city was then a center of bigotry, with an evil pattern of anti-Semitism. It was so bad that a Jew ,q could not even join the Automobile Association.1

Humphrey defeated the incumbent Kline by 31,114 votes.

Space does not permit a detailed account of Humphrey's record as

Mayor of Minneapolis, but a brief sketch to point out his success should 7

be presented. One of the first things he did as Mayor was to appoint

Ed Ryan as police chief. Ryan began an immediate clamp down on vice

and organized crime in the city. Within a year, crime was considered

to be under control.

The Humphrey administration also established a Mayor's Council on

Human Relations to begin to overcome the widespread bigotry in the city.

Humphrey's idea was to appeal riot only to the citizen's sense of injus- 11 tice but also to his sense of civic pride. He initiated a "community

self-survey" in which citizens, with the help of professional inter­

viewers, made studies of areas of discrimination and tension in Minn­

eapolis. Finally, in January of 1947, the Minneapolis City Council

enacted a strong Fair Employment Practice ordinance, which was the

first municipal FEPC law in the nation. Hubert Humphrey's term as

Mayor of Minneapolis can best be summed up by saying that a variety of community leaders, including conservatives, Republicans, and

businessmen, said without qualification that Humphrey "was the best 12 Mayor Minneapolis ever had."

At the beginning of 1948, Communists controlled the Democratic-

Farmer-Labor Party in Minnesota. Since the 1944 merger, the party had become badly split and disorganized. Hubert Humphrey led the fight to drive the Communists from the party ranks, and in the state elections of 1948 he was successful. The new and "clean" Democratic-

Farmer-Labor Party nominated him for the United States Senate.

1948 was the year the Democratic National Convention was held in

Philadelphia. President Truman faced a definite lack of enthusiasm for his renomination. Internationally, Truman was holding his own. He was 8

conducting a bold fight against communism. It was on domestic issues

that Truman was in trouble. Republicans controlled Congress and had

passed the Taft-Hartley Act, which Truman bitterly opposed. Another

key point of dispute was with the South as the result of Truman's having urged strong civil rights legislation.

When Truman had become President just as the war was ending, he offered the first comprehensive presidential program for civil rights

in our history. In early 1947, he appointed a civil rights committee; in October of that year the committee issued an historic report called

"To Secure These Rights." That report proposed a national FEPC, an anti-lynch law, a civil rights commission and protection for the right . 13 to vote.

Prior to the convention, President Truman had sought to enact a strong civil rights program. Truman stated in his memoirs: "Every

Democratic platform since 1932 has stressed the devotion of our party to the constitutional ideal of civil rights. But what aroused South- 14 erners now was that I meant to put this pledge into practice. . .

Yet, Truman counseled against a detailed platform on civil rights in order to avoid arousing Southern hostility. Therefore, a strong but rather general civil rights statement was adopted by a majority of the Platform Committee.

Hubert H. Humphrey happened to be one of the 119 members of the

Platform Committee. From the start of the convention Humphrey was at odds with other leaders as to what the plank on civil rights should contain. Arguments became so heated that Senator Scott Lucas of 111- 15 inois commented about Humphrey: "Who does that pipsqueak think he is?" 9

Humphrey and Andrew J. Biem-iller, a Wisconsin Congressman, battled

Lucas and other Administration spokesmen over a stronger commitment to

civil rights. In private sessions of the committee Humphrey and

Biemiller denounced the plank draft as a "bunch of generalities" and 16 a "sellout to states' rights over human rights."

Biemiller warned that he would submit a strong plank in a minority report to the convention and would fight out the issue on the floor before the press. Humphrey called a caucus of the Minnesota delega­ tion which instructed him to continue the fight.

Humphrey was asked by Biemiller and others to be the spokesman before the full convention. He was warned he would ruin the Democratic

Party if he brought the issue to the convention floor. He was warned he would kill his own political future. Finally, he turned to his father who told him: "Do what you think is right but try not to do 17 anything that will hurt the party."

The young, liberal, civil rights advocates faced a seemingly insurmountable task. But a small number of men known as the "Northern bosses" joined the liberals in an attempt to secure a strong civil rights plank. Men like John Bailey, Ed Flynn, Ed Kelly, Jake Arvey,

Frank Hague and David Lawrence saw the potential of the civil rights issue among the big-city voters. One by one they agreed to support the Humphrey-Biemiller cause.

So the stage was set for Hubert H. Humphrey to spring into national prominence by delivering what many analysts consider to be his best and shortest political speech. The speech took less than ten minutes to deliver. The basic thrust of the speech was that "all men are created 10

equal." Humphrey emphasized that the time had come "for the Democratic

Party to get out of the shadow of the states' rights and walk forth- 1 fi rightly into the bright sunshine of human rights." In one of the more memorable lines in the speech, Humphrey brushed aside the argument against moving ahead too quickly on the civil rights issue by saying:

"There are those who say to you--we are rushing this issue of civil 19 rights. I say we are a hundred and seventy-two years late."

The final vote for the liberal plank was 651^ for to 582^ against.

Several of the Southern delegates rose to their feet and left the hall.

Later that evening, the convention, on the first ballot, gave Truman

947ig votes for the nomination and Alben Barkley was nominated for the

Vice Presidency.

The implications of the 1948 convention speech were both immediate and far-reaching. Immediate results were a convention victory, a plat­ form commitment, and national prominence for Hubert Humphrey. The longer-lasting impact has perhaps been more dramatic. Humphrey and the civil rights forces had tasted a victory of principle. His success whetted his appetite for future victorires. The Civil Rights movement 20 would benefit from its "Champion" for years to come.

Hubert Humphrey based much of his political philosophy on the New

Deal politics of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Hubert's M.A. thesis at LSU is a rather biased but interesting account of the New Deal Administra­ tion of Roosevelt. Humphrey claimed that the major objective of the

New Deal was to regain economic liberty for the average man (including blacks). He felt that the New Deal stated its position as to the pur­ pose of government in no uncertain terms. He stated: "The legitimate 11

objective of government is to do for the people what needs to be done

but which they cannot by individual effort do at all, or do so well, 21 for themselves."

, Humphrey went to great lengths in his thesis to discuss the con­

cept of liberty. He thought the principle of liberty was pointedly

stated in the French Declaration of the Rights of man and of the Citi­ zen: "Liberty is the right of everyone to do whatever does not injure 22 others." Humphrey concluded that liberty means to the citizen protec­ tion by his government from exploitation. Yet, liberty is a hollow word if privileges are accorded to some that are denied to others.

Humphrey's work on the New Deal reveals a sort of natural-rights thinking. Charles E. Gilbert, in his doctoral dissertation in 1955, pointed this out and related this type of political thought to the

Senator's stance on civil rights. Gilbert asserted:

This kind of natural-rights thinking undoubtedly stands behind his political record in behalf of minorities. Humphrey himself traces his deep commitment to anti-discrimination legislation and his warm attitude toward minority groups to his childhood and his religious training and beliefs. . .; it is not a fetish, it is simply basic.23

Given Humphrey's political philosophy, it is not so difficult to understand why he became the "Champion" of civil rights once he rose to a Senate position in 1948. The work done in this field by Senator

Humphrey from 1948 to 1964 was hard, tedious, and without appreciable results. The Senator, in his book Beyond Civil Rights, indicates that in the late forties and in the early and middle fifties the civil rights forces in the Senate were a very small band. They were lucky to be able 12

to muster twenty-five votes at most, and not all of them were solidly 24 in the civil rights corner.

In the first sessions in which he served, Humphrey introduced

legislation to establish a commission on civil rights, set up a federal

FEPC, outlaw the poll tax in national elections, provide equal access

to means of public interstate travel, protect rights guaranteed by the

Constitution and federal law, and protect the right of political parti- 25 cipation.

An explicit reason why a man would continue the legislative

battle despite poor odds was set forth by Senator Humphrey when he

attempted to answer the old argument, "You can't change men's hearts

by laws." His answer was that the primary function of civil rights

laws was to make real the rights of the black man and not to alter

the psychology of the white man. Another reason for civil rights

legislation was not to change white men's hearts but to change their

behavior. And the last reason was that we can change hearts, in the or long run, by using the law to change experiences.

PURPOSE

The main purpose of this study was to investigate one aspect of Senator Humphrey's advocacy for equal rights for minority groups

in this country. The study focused on Senator Humphrey's major addresses regarding the 1964 Civil Rights Act dating from September 20,

1963, until the time of its passage in the Senate on June 17, 1964.

An attempt was made to determine the types of audiences addressed, the nature of Humphrey's addresses, the major strategies employed by the 13

speaker, and how the Senator argued for the Civil Rights Act in various

situations. i. JUSTIFICATION

Scott and Brock have stated that "the more we know about some hum­

an enterprise, and the more salient it is to our interests, the more

likely we are to feel the critical impulse." This statement would

seem to imply that before we can or do form accurate critical standards

about a situation, we need to have a thorough knowledge of that situ­ ation.

Much has been written in journals, magazines, and newspapers about civil rights and Mr. Humphrey's association with it. However, virtually no scholarly work has been done dealing with the speaking and ultimate influence of Senator Humphrey regarding one of the major pieces of social legislation of our time, namely the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

While it is not the intent here to give the impression that Hubert

Humphrey was or is the only political speaker to advocate equal rights for all citizens, it is generally accepted that he has long been a leader in that area. He and Senator Kuchel of California were to ulti­ mately lead the floor fight in the Senate in favor of the 1964 Civil

Rights Act.

Because of the lack of studies dealing with the specific area in question, because of the social significance of the rhetorical situation, and because of the national stature of the speaker involved, it is felt that this study is warranted. And if for no other reason, it is hoped that this work will draw conclusions which function "primarily to call 14

to the attention of others those characteristics of the original 28 communication which merit their further contemplation."

METHODOLOGY I The basic methodology used in this study is similar to that

employed by John J. Makay in his doctoral dissertation at Purdue

University in 1969. It consists of positing several questions about

the rhetorical situation under consideration and then in succeeding

chapters answering each of the major and secondary questions.

To answer the questions set forth, certain criteria must be

employed. The major focus of the study can be said to be Historical -

Descriptive-Critical in scope and eclectic in nature. What is meant

by "eclectic" in this sense is that no one source of critical standards

will be employed, but any source that is beneficial will be referred to. 29 Campbell suggests three stages in the critical analysis process.

The first of these is called the descriptive stage and is an attempt

to discover and define characteristics that make a discourse or genre

distinctive. Such things as tone (language, attitude, subject matter),

purpose, structure, evidence, strategies, and audience are analyzed.

The second step described by Campbell is the historical-contextual

element. In this step the critic tries to establish why the speaker made the choices of tone, purpose, structure, and strategies employed.

The third step of the critical process described by Campbell is referred

to as the interpretative analysis process. In this stage the critic bases

his decisions on his "intrinsic descriptive analysis and extrinsic analy- 30 sis of the historical-contextual concept." In this step the critic

is allowed to reflect his interests and biases in clear judgmental 15

conclusions.

Lawrence W. Rosenfield has suggested that a three-pronged focus has generally been employed by most traditional speech critics with 31 the foci being source, message, and environment. Rosenfield main­ tains that this "pragmatic" approach treats the message as an effort at persuasion and attempts to assess the "artistic" skill of the speaker in achieving his goals with the audience. It is further asserted that this S-M-E framework is justifiable if "we accept the notion that public address is, literally, discourse addressed to a public by a speaker who is carrying on public business by his act of 32 communication."

The rhetorical acts of Senator Humphrey were public in nature considering the broad social scope of the topic and the fact that the issue would ultimately, if enacted, have a direct influence on the entire American populace. All the speeches were delivered to public gatherings or on the floor of the Senate where it would be made a matter of public record.

Rosenfield concludes his discussion of possible critical foci by stating that the focus adopted by the critic determines what type of questions he will seek answers to.. He states:

Insofar as the critic chooses to relate the rhetorical event to its creator he will ask: How did the message come to be? Is it sympto­ matic of the speaker? What are the capacities of the rhetor as an artist? How does the man shape the message? The critic who regards the message as the initial stimulus in his formula will ask himself a complementary set of questions: How does the message reflect the context? What evidence is there that the message as created 16

was appropriate to the climate in which it was employed? How did the message serve to influence its environment. . . .33

With the foregoing criteria in mind, the following questions will be presented as avenues for investigation regarding the speaking of

Hubert H. Humphrey on the subject of the 1964 Civil Rights act.

1. How has the civil rights issue been developed in this country?

a. What major pieces of legislation preceded the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

b. What was the social climate in the country re­ garding civil rights prior to the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

2. What types of audiences and occasions did Humphrey address during the 1964 Civil Rights Act debate?

a. What procedures did he follow?

b. What was the nature of the audiences addressed?

3. How did Humphrey adapt to the various audiences?

a. How did the speaker adapt to public audiences?

b. How did the speaker adopt to the Senate audience as the debate on the bill progressed?

4. What was the nature of Humphrey's messages in favor of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

a'. What approaches were employed in preparation?

b. Was he systematic or did he use the same basic context?

c. Were the speeches delivered similar in any way?

d. Was the specific purpose always the same?

e. What were the essential issues and how were they evidenced?

5. What major strategies were employed by Humphrey in an attempt to gain passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act? 17

a. What methods, maneuvers, and appeals were used?

b. Why did he use the strategies he used?

c. What are examples of these strategies?

6. How did Humphrey argue for the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

a. What did the bill entail?

b. What titles of the bill were emphasized by Humphrey?

c. What reasoning was employed in development of arguments?

d. How accurate was the reasoning process?

RESEARCH PROCEDURES

Primary sources consulted included Senator Humphrey's private papers and original speech drafts currently on file in the Minnesota

Historical Society and the Senator's Minneapolis office respectively.

Permission for access to these documents was granted to the writer who went to Minneapolis to gather this material. While the private papers could not be duplicated, permission for use was secured and cleared with

Senator Humphrey and the Minnesota Historical Society. Copies of eighteen speeches were made at the Senator's Minneapolis office.

Senator Humphrey also agreed to interviews with the writer but time pressures did not permit this. An attempt was made to acquire in­ formation by taped interview but the information required was unavailable due to passage of time and staff changes. Access to files in Washington

D.C. regarding the topic in question was also granted.

Secondary source material included newspapers, magazines, pamphlets, and books pertinent to the topic. Biographical data about Humphrey was 18

34 found in works by Amrine, Griffith, Martin and Sherrill. Rhetorical

criticism methodologies included such works as those by Campbell, 35 l Thonssen and Baird, and Scott and Brock.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Although much has been written about Hubert H. Humphrey and his

speaking, comparatively few scholarly studies exist and in most of

these civil rights is not the main emphasis.

Ernest Bormann briefly reviewed the 1960 presidential campaign

speaking of Humphrey in the Quarterly Journal of Speech, October 1960.

This article dealt more with the overall speaking and strategies em­

ployed by Humphrey during the campaign and, although the issue of

civil rights was mentioned, no detailed analysis was offered.

In September 1964 Ben Padrow covered the speaking techniques

generally employed by Humphrey in his article "Hubert H. Humphrey:

The Glandular Zephyr," in Today's Speech. This study consisted of a

number of questions presented to Mr. Humphrey regarding such things as

philosophy of speech and speech preparation. No mention was made,

however, of specific speaking situations or of civil rights speeches

in particular.

H. F. Harding, in his article "Presidential Campaign, 1964: A

Political Symposium," which appeared in the December 1964 issue of the Quarterly Journal of Speech, reviewed the speaking techniques of each of the four major candidates in the 1964 presidential campaign.

He found Humphrey to be the most appealing speaker of those mentioned, but again no specifics were set forth regarding significant issues 19

such as civil rights.

Robert L. Scott and Wayne Brockriede discussed the strategies

employed by Humphrey regarding the "Black Power" issue in their

article in Speaker and Gavel of November 1966. The article, entitled

"Hubert Humphrey Faces the 'Black Power' Issue," reviewed the methods

employed by Humphrey in a speech delivered to the 1966 National NAACP

convention. While this study did touch on the overall issue of civil

rights, it did not focus on the specific issue of the 1964 Civil

Rights Act as the present study will attempt to do.

In Today's Speech, September 1966, Phillip K. Tompkins related

Humphrey's thoughts pertinent to persuasion in the study "Hubert

Horatio Humphrey: On Persuasion." The article established Humphrey's

importance as a speaker in contemporary American politics and pointed

out Senator Humphrey's thoughts in relation to such things as audience

identification, redundancy, and sincerity. It helps develop the speak­

ing philosophy of Humphrey but does not deal with specific issues.

One article which was reviewed did deal directly with Humphrey's

involvement with civil rights. In Today's Speech of September 1968,

L. Patrick. Devi in discussed "Hubert H. Humphrey 's 1948 Civil Rights

Speech." The article is an excellent review of the situation leading up to Humphrey's speech delivered to the Democratic National Convention

in Philadelphia in July of 1948. The study also points out the signifi­ cant part played by Hubert Humphrey regarding civil rights in this country.

Three doctoral dissertations cover some aspect of Hubert Humphrey's career and speaking. The earliest was done in 1955 by Charles E. Gilbert 20

at Northwestern University. The unpublished dissertation was entitled

"Problems of a Senator: A Study in Legislative Behavior," and was done

in the Political Science field.. The study is helpful in that it dis­

cusses Humphrey's political philosophy as set forth in his (Humphrey's)

M.A. thesis. Senator Humphrey's personality and behavior are also

dealt with in some detail. Some analysis of Humphrey's philosophy re­

garding human rights is covered and Gilbert does examine the 1948

convention speech and its significance.

One other doctoral study in the Political Science area was written

at Texas Tech University by Walter Lundy Shelley. It dealt with the

voting behavior of Nixon, Humphrey, and Wallace voters in 1968 and offered

very little insight into Senator Humphrey's speaking.

The only dissertation in the Speech field appeared in 1968 by Patrick

L. Devlin. The study is a compilation of the speaking principles of

Humphrey, followed by an analysis of how the speaker applied the prin­

ciples in actual practice. It contains a very thorough projection of

Humphrey's use of invention, organization, delivery, and style. The

survey covers all types of speaking and is quite general in that regard.

Few specific applications of practices to particular issues are evident,

however.

Three Masters theses also exist with regard to Humphrey. The first of these was written by George C. Peters in 1961 at the University of

South Dakota. The study dealt with Humphrey's campaign for National

Convention delegates in South Dakota in 1959-1960, and offered no in- 36 sight into the Senator's speaking abilities.

Two theses have been written in the Speech field. The first, in 21

1962 by James A. Benson at Purdue University, the second, by Katherine

A. Tippens in 1964 at the Universijy of South Dakota. Both studies dealt with the 1960 Presidential Primary Campaign and offered minimal 37 input regarding the overall civil rights issues.

In summary, it can be said that although studies do exist re­ garding Hubert H. Humphrey, they are quite minimal in number within the Speech field. Little has been done in those studies regarding the public speaking campaign and Senate debate dealing with the Civil

Rights Act of 1964. Hopefully, the present study will add insight into that particular area. 22

FOOTNOTES

Robert Sherrill and Harvey W. Ernst, The Drugstore Liberal

(New York: 1968), p. 11. 2 Adlai E. Stevenson, III, in introduction to A Man for All

People: Hubert H. Humphrey, by Ralph G. Martin (New York: 1968),

p. i. 3 Winthrop Griffith, Humphrey: A Candid Biography (New York:

1965), pp. 34-35. 4 Ibid., p. 43. $ Ibid., p. 51.

Ralph G. Martin, A Man for All People: Hubert H. Humphrey

(New York: 1968), p. 6. 7 Griffith, p. 59.

8 Ibid., p. 73.

9 Ibid., p. 74.

Hubert H. Humphrey, Beyond Civil Rights: A New Day of Equality

(New York: 1968), p. 23. 11 Ibid., p. 24.

12 Griffith, p. 124.

13 Humphrey, p. 20. 14 L. Patrick Devlin, "Hubert H. Humphrey's 1948 Civil Rights

Speech," Today's Speech (September, 1968), p. 43. 15 Griffith, p. 151.

16 Ibid., p. 152.

17 Ibid., p. 153. 23

18 Hubert H. Humphrey, Address on Civil Rights, delivered before

the Democratic National Convention at Philadelphia, Pa., July 14, 1948. 19 Ibid. 20 Devlin, p. 46. 21 Hubert H. Humphrey, The Political Philosophy of the New Deal

(Baton Rouge: 1970), p. 47. 22 Ibid., p. 81. 23 Charles E. Gilbert, "Problems of a Senator: A Study of Legis­

lative Behavior"(unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University,

1955), p. 69. 24 Humphrey, Beyond Civil Rights, pp. 66-67. 25 Ibid., p. 64. 26 Ibid., p. 16. 27 Robert L. Scott and Bernard L. Brock, Methods of Rhetorical

Criticism: A Twentieth Century Perspective (New York: 1972), p. 4. 28 ' Lawrence W. Rosenfield, "The Anatomy of Critical Discourse,"

Speech Monographs (March, 1968), p. 61. 29 Karlyn K. Campbell, Critiques of Contemporary Rhetoric (Belmont,

California: 1972), p. 14. 30 Ibid., p. 21. 31 Rosenfield, p. 60. 32 Ibid.

33 Ibid., p. 65. 34 See Michael Amrine, This Is Humphrey: The Story of a Senator

(New York: 1968); Winthrop Griffith, Humphrey, A Candid Biography

(New York: 1965); Ralph G. Martin, A Man for All People: Hubert H. 24

Humphrey (New York: 1968); and Robert Sherrill, The Drugstore Liberal

(New York: 1968). 35 See Karlyn K. Campbell, Critiques of Contemporary Rhetoric

(Belmont, California: 1972); Lester Thonssen and A. Craig Baird,

Speech Criticism (New York: 1948); and Robert L. Scott and Bernard

L. Brock,Methods of Rhetorical Criticism: A Twentieth Century

Perspective (New York: 1972).

George C. Peters, "The Humphrey Campaign for South Dakota's

National Convention Delegates, 1959-1960," unpublished Master's thesis,

University of South Dakota, 1961. 07 James A. Benson, "An Analysis of Selected Speeches by Hubert

H. Humphrey During the Wisconsin Presidential Primary, 1960," unpub­ lished Master's thesis, Purdue University, 1962; and Katherine A.

Tippens, "A Rhetorical Analysis of Selected Speeches Delivered by

Hubert H. Humphrey During the 1960 Democratic Presidential Primary

Campaign," unpublished Master's Thesis, University of South Dakota,

1964. CHAPTER II

AN OVERVIEW OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

Major Legislation Prior to 1964

It seems difficult to believe that in the third quarter of the twentieth century, in an enlightened democratic society, race should determine the outcome of an individual's quest for equality before the law. Yet, as Henry J. Abraham has stated, theory does not neces­ sarily govern practice. Although we have made great strides toward the egalitarian goals of the Negro, both under law and in the mores of society, racial discrimination is still our weak point.1

Abraham also asserts that the Delcaration of Independence stip­ ulated that "all men are created equal" but, in the words of George 2 Orwell, "some men are created more equal than others." Section Two of Article One of the Constitution clearly recognized the existence of slavery in America. Section Nine of Article One made it possible to stop the "migration or importation" of slaves after 1808, but only if Congress chose to do so. Abraham concludes that it was not until the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 that the white- supremacy concept inherent in Article One was removed from the Con­ stitution.

At the close of the Civil War, Congress took steps to insure the protection of the Negro. The Thirteenth Amendment, ratified on December 26

18, 1865, abolished slavery in America. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 made it illegal to deprive a person of any right secured by the Act regardless of race, color, or previous servitude. The Fourteenth

Amendment, passed in 1868, prohibited state action which would deprive 3 any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

On March 30, 1870, came the Fifteenth Amendment, which prohibited denial of the vote because of race or color. Congress amended this statute in 1874, broadening its scope to include "the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities, secured or protected by the 4 Constitution and Laws of the United States."

The Emancipation Proclamation and the three aforementioned Civil

War Amendments were intended to better the lot of the Negro by ending the federal silence on the protection of civil rights, which had been left entirely in the hands of the several states. Yet, despite these measures, neither the myth of white supremacy nor the fact of color prejudice was wiped out.

It can be argued that advancements were made. During the Recon­ struction period, for example, twenty-two Southern Negroes went to

Congress and two from Mississippi became U.S. Senators. It is also true that in the ten years following the passage of the Thirteenth

Amendment, Congress enacted several major civil rights statutes such as the Anti Ku Klux Kian Act of 1871 and the Public Accommodation Act of 1875. But the South proved equal to the challenge of restoring the 5 status quo ante. Abraham pointed out how this challenge was met:

By 1910, for example, every former Confederate state had succeeded in disfranchising the Negro either by state statute—e.g., the 'white 27

primary1 and the 'grandfather clause‘--by state constitutional amendment, or withfithe aid of certain U.S. Supreme Court cases. 1. The first of the Supreme Court cases referred to by Mr. Abraham was the Slaughterhouse Cases of 1873, which ironically, did not even involve Negroes in the litigation. The decision, nonetheless, hurt the Negro cause significantly. The main point of the decision was that there must be a careful distinction between the "privileges and immunities" of United States citizens and state citizens:

. . . that the only privileges attaching to national citizenship were those that 'owe their existence to the Federal Government, its Nation­ al character, its Constitution or-its laws'; that, in effect, a citizen of a state derived his 'privileges and immunities' from state citizenship, a thing quite distinct from federal citizenship rights. . . J

In effect, the Court refused to take a hard stand on the issue of

Federal as opposed to State authority.

In an attempt to offset this decision by the Supreme Court, Con­ gress in 1875 enacted a Civil Rights Bill, the purpose of which was to insure that the services and privileges of inns, public conveyances, theaters, and other public accommodations or amusements were made without distinction between various races or creeds. This particular act was generally interpreted as an action directed against discrimina- 8 tion by private individuals.

Following the precedent established in the Slaughterhouse Cases, the Supreme Court was reluctant to challenge states' rights and so in

1883 declared the Civil Rights Act of 1875 unconstitutional. The Court's opinion, delivered by Justice Bradley, stated that the statute could not 28

be justified under the Fourteenth Amendment because that amendment was directed only against action by states and not against action by pri­ vate individuals; nor could the act be justified under the Thirteenth

Amendment, for the denial of equality of access to places of public accommodation did not subject persons to slavery or involuntary servitude.

In brief, the decision was interpreted as meaning that the pro­ tection of the rights of people to equality in treatment in use of hotels, restaurants, common carriers, and other public accommodations was a matter which rested exclusively with the individual states. Thus, whites in the Southern states were able to continue discriminatory prac­ tices against blacks.

In enforcing the various post-Civil War amendments and statutes of Congress, the Supreme Court, from 1866 to approximately 1937, con­ strued them in a manner which enforced a separation between Negroes and whites. The earlier traditional view of the courts was that racial segregation in public educational facilities was constitutional provided that equal facilities were made available to both races. "The germ of this doctrine dates back to least as far as 1877, in which year the Supreme Court gave it utterance in the form of a dictum in the case 10 of Hall vs. de Cuir."

In succeeding years, the Court continued to support this interpre­ tation and in 1889 in the case of Cummings vs. Richmond County Board of

Education, a case which on its facts appeared to be within the scope of the Fourtheenth Amendment, evaded the issue on procedural grounds.

Finally, in the famous Plessy vs. Ferguson case of 1896, the Court once 29

more restated the concept of the doctrine of "separate but equal" facilities. This doctrine was to remain as the guiding principle until reversed in 1954 in the Public School Segregation Cases.

Because of the decisions rendered in these and other cases by the Supreme Court, a system of segregation known as the "Jim Crow" system developed in this nation. "The Negro alone has faced a whole structure of exclusion by law, not only from residential areas and social clubs, but from schools, theaters, restaurants, railroad cars, 12 political party primary elections."

According to C. Vann Woodward, the period of history that gave rise to the "Jim Crow" system of segregation has been wrapped in a good deal of obscurity. In referring to the origin of the term "Jim

Crow," Woodward related:

The origin of the term 'Jim Crow' applied to Negroes is lost in obscurity. Thomas D. Rice wrote a song and dance called 'Jim Crow' in 1832, and the term had become an adjective by 1838. The first example of 'Jim Crow law' listed by the Dictionary of American English is dated 1904. But the expression was used by writers in the 1890's. . . .13

Senator Hubert Humphrey maintained that the Jim Crow system of segregation was a relatively new system which was invented and imposed after the Civil War and Reconstruction. It would seem that Humphrey's conclusion was predicated on the assumption that the decisions handed down by the Supreme Court prior to and during the 1890's were directly responsible for the development of Jim Crow segregation.

Humphrey also pointed to the time around the turn of the century as being not only the time of reimposition of subjugation, but also the period that saw a great increase in the number of lynchings. "The 30

white-mob lynchings of Negroes became almost an institution, tolerated

if not actively encouraged, by many respectable white leaders.

It was inevitable that a Negro reaction to the Jim Crow pattern

of segregation would materialize. Riots were a common occurrence and

in 1908, after a particularly bloody riot in Springfield, Illinois,

humanitarin whites,led by Mary Ovington and Oswald Garrison Villard,

formed a new organization to help combat racial discrimination. They

joined forces with a group of black intellectuals headed by W. E. B.

Du Bois in a meeting held at Niagara Falls, Canada (the American side

was segregated) and created the organization known as the National

Association for the Advancement of Colored People. The NAACP's main

emphasis has been the law. As early as 1915 the organization began

to champion and win cases in the courts of the land.

Gains began to be made slowly by the civil rights forces. One

significant and far-reaching gain came about in 1926 from a revolu­

tionary Supreme Court decision in the Gitlow vs. People of New York

case (268 U.S. 652). The Court held that the "liberty" which the

Fourteenth Amendment forbids the states to deny without due process

of law included freedom of the press protected by the First Amendment.

Later cases held that this "liberty" also included freedom of speech, 15 assembly and religion. At last the Supreme Court began to uphold at least the basic freedoms of people of all races.

Additional steps forward were achieved in 1939 with the activity of the Civil Rights Section in the Justice Department. This group devoted its time to the enforcement of the anti-peonage laws, the laws protecting citizens' right to vote in federal elections, and laws 31

punishing such crimes as police brutality and official participation 16 in lynchings. The Civil Rights Section of the Justice Department

was established by executive order of President Roosevelt.

The onset of World War II brought the issue of discrimination

even more to the surface, particularly in regard to employment, in

that Negroes were not going to passively accept racism at home in

the industries (government) that were making weapons to fight racism 17 abroad. Government officials urged that discriminatory practices

cease, but these pleas were rejected. One head of a large aircraft

corporation under government contract stated in the Spring of 1941:

"Regardless of their training as aircraft workers, we will not employ 18 Negroes. . . . It is against company policy." The general organizer

of a large union said: "Organized labor has been called upon to make

many sacrifices for defense and has made them gladly; this /admission — 19 of Negroes to the union/ is asking too much."

In protest of such statements, Negro leaders,headed by A. Philip

Randolph,began to organize the first mass march on Washington, which

was to take place on July 1, 1941. As the number of anticipated

marchers rose to 100,000, President Roosevelt was prompted to issue

his second executive order dealing with civil rights. On June 25, 1941,

Roosevelt issued Executive Order 8802, which established the wartime FEPC

and banned racial discrimination in defense plants.

The Committee on Fair Employment Practices was limited in that it

could deal only with matters involving federal contracts. Some progress was made, however, in the area of discriminatory employment practices,

but Congress abolished the Committee in 1946, thus wiping out many 32

advances. The end of the war brought about increasing pressure for

federal control over racial discrimination as witnessed by the fact

that the House of Representatives in 1946 and 1950 tried to establish

a permanent FEPC, but the bills were rejected by the Senate in each

case. Further evidence of increased pressure can be seen in the fact

that the House of Representatives saw fit in 1945, 1947, and 1949 to

outlaw the poll tax. These measures were also rejected by the Senate.

What President Roosevelt had begun with respect to equal employ­ ment in federal projects in 1941, President Truman tried to expand upon

to include equal access to public accommodations. In 1947 the report of the President's Committee on Civil Rights (To Secure These Rights)

and in 1948 the report of the National Committee on Segregation in the

Nation's Capital (Segregation in Washington) called for the enactment of legislation by Congress that would guarantee equal access to places 20 of public accommodation regardless of race, color, or national origins.

These reports were followed by general congressional inaction.

In 1948, President Truman continued to push for broader anti-dis­ crimination policies, this time in the form of a widely backed Selective

Service Act to help eliminate discrimination in the armed forces. When

Congress refused to back this provision, Truman issued an executive order that specifically banned "separate but equal" recruiting, training, and service in the armed forces. 21

Shortly before the issuance of the executive order on the Selective

Service Act, Truman had issued an executive order establishing a Fair

Employment Board to oversee established Administration policy. It stated that in the future all federal jobs were to be distributed without regard 33

to race, color, religion, or national origin. This provision was made

even stronger when in 1951 President Truman created the Committee on

Government Contract Compliance requiring any business holding govern­ ment contracts not only to pledge but to follow bona fide fair employ­ ment policies and practices.

During this same general time period advances were also being made

in the legal area. In January of 1948, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that Oklahoma must provide professional legal education for Negroes not only equal to that available for white students but also at the same time

(Sipuel vs. Board of Education, 331 U.S. 631, 1948)♦ This ruling was fortified by two other rulings in 1950 (Sweatt vs. Painter, 339 U.S.

629, 1950; and McLaurin vs. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637, 1950).

These cases had the effect of whittling away at the "separate but equal" concept and forced many southern states into the dilemma of having to provide better educational facilities or integrate existing facilities.

• Governor Dewey of New York also became somewhat of a leader in educational advancements when he signed the Quinn-011iffe Act of 1948 for the State of New York. Under this act;

It is hereby declared to be the policy of the State ¿New York/ that the American ideal of equality of opportunity requires that students, otherwise qualified, be admitted to educational institutions without regard to race, color, religion, creed or national origin. . . .

On the following year, New Jersey and Massachusetts followed the example set by New York with even stronger educational legislation, although the laws of those two states did exclude the "distinctly private" institutions

It has been said that law itself is an educational device. "No 34

facts play a more important part in the creation of public opinion 23 than laws themselves." If this statement made by Mr. Carr in Civil

Rights in America was meant as a positive sign, it may also serve as

a negative sign. A prime example would be the situation in the Dis­

trict of Columbia. As recently as February of 1950, the United States

Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, upheld the laws of

Congress which provided for the separation of the races in the Washing­

ton, D.C. schools. In August of that same year, a municipal court

judge dismissed two charges of discrimination in a Washington restaurant

on the grounds that no anti-discrimination laws were operative in Wash­

ington, D.C. It becomes apparent that though advances had been made

legally by 1950, there were areas that seemed unaffected.

Probably the single most significant Supreme Court action in

regard to civil rights in this country was set forth in the 1954

Brown vs. Board of Education decision. On May 17 of that year, the

Court chose to revise the doctrine of "separate but equal" as estab­ lished in the 1896 Plessy vs. Ferguson case. The attack came in the field of public education on the grounds that separate facilities are

"inherently unequal" and that the very concept of "separate but equal" in matters of race violates the "equal protection of the laws" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and (on the federal level) the "due process 24 of law" clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The implication of the ruling was that any publicly authorized or publicly racial segregation would, in the future, be unconstitutional.

This decision was to illuminate an interesting aspect of our system of government. While the Court was able to reflect the socio-political 35

realities of the times, and could serve as the conscience of the land,

the political process included much more. Many states followed the

ruling without question, but there was also much absolute refusal to

obey. Negroes, demanding their constitutional rights, began to react

in a more organized manner, and demonstrations such as the Montgomery

bus boycott began to gain national attention. Conflict and violence

began to spread adross much of the South.

President Eisenhower attempted to stay out of the battle and did

so until 1957, when he finally intervened against action taken by

Arkansas Governor Orville Faubus. Faubus had called out the National

Guard to prevent duly scheduled federal court ordered public school

desegregation in Little Rock. Disorder erupted and great violence

spread around the Little Rock area. In an attempt to restore order,

Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard. This action

marked a profound shift in federal policy dealing with the civil rights

problem.

Five years later, 1962, President Kennedy was to send 25,000 fed­

eral troops to Mississippi to help overcome opposition. On this occasion, Governor Ross R. Barnett was refusing to comply with a federal court order allowing Negro James Meredith to enroll at the University of

Mississippi. Eight months later, Kennedy was to use federal troops again,

this time in Alabama. .Governor George C. Wallace defied a court order that admitted Negroes Vivian Malone and James Hood to the University of

Alabama. The "barring of the door" stand taken by Wallace was to thrust him into national prominence. 36

Troubled Times Ahead

During the troubled times of the late 1950's, additional steps

were taken in the area of civil rights. President Eisenhower sub­

mitted, and Congress passed, the Civil Rights Act of 1957. This

measure was the first such Act passed by Congress since Reconstruc­

tion times. The final version was watered down, but it did contain

some significant provisions: 1) it created the United States Commis­

sion on Civil Rights; 2) it transformed the rather small and weak Civil

Rights Section of the Department of Justice into a Civil Rights Divi­

sion headed by an Assistant Attorney General; and 3) it authorized the

federal government to obtain federal civil injunctions against actual

or threatened interference with the right to vote and to pay costs of

litigation—and this could be done without first exhausting state 25 remedies.

The Civil Rights Act of 1960 promised to be even more far reach­

ing than the 1957 measure in that it undertook to guard the Negro's

right to vote freely and without suffering arbitrary discriminatory

practices. The Act authorized federal district courts to appoint

"voting referees," who were to enroll all qualified voters for all

state and federal elections where voting rights had been denied in

the past.

Militant Negro leaders still felt that things were moving too slowly in the area of civil rights. The demonstrations that had begun in 1955 with the bus boycott in Montgomery continued and their number increased. The number of people involved in the civil rights protests 37

in Southern cities alone reached nearly 75,000 from February 1,1960 to March 27, 1961. Arrests in the South totaled over 3,500 during the same period.

In response to the growing unrest the federal government continued to strive for greater civil rights enforcement. A memorandum appearing in the private papers of Hubert H. Humphrey summarized advancements made from January of 1961 through December 13, 1962. Eleven major items were listed, including such measures as: 1) An executive order calling for the prohibition of discriminatory practices in the sale or leasing of housing supported by federal monies such as VA and FHA loans. Violation would result in the loss of further governmental monies; 2) Steps taken to hire additional Negroes in government jobs.

There had been a thirty-three per cent increase in the number of

Negroes employed; 3) More rigorous prosecution by the Justice Depart­ ment of cases involving voting rights and other areas of discrimination;

4)' A Defense Department directive eliminating segregation in Army and

Air Force reserves; 5) Congress' passing an anti-poll tax amendment;

6) The awarding of NDEA and NSF summer institute grants only to those institutions where discriminatory practices were not evident; 7) The government's refusal any longer to contract for space (offices, etc.) unless all facilities in the rented facility were open to all employ­ ees regardless of race; and 8) The State Department's positive programs to help enhance the image of Negro diplomats in the eyes of foreign . • 27 nations.

Despite these advancements, the year 1963 saw the peak of visible public protest movements. The summer of 1963 was to become known as the 38

"long hot summer." In April of that year massive demonstrations took place in Birmingham, Alabama. What happened was well documented by all the major newspapers and magazines in the country. Many thousands took part and hundreds were arrested. As the violence, including sever­ al bomb blasts, increased, President Kennedy sent 3,000 federal troops 28 into the area in an attempt to restore peace. In the two months following the uneasy Birmingham "truce," nearly 800 racial demonstrations took place in cities and towns all over the nation. The culmination of these demonstrations was the massive freedom march on Washington, D.C. in which 200,000 persons participated.

Any attempt to chronicle all the events that look place during the year 1963 would be impossible here, but a look at random news stories should give an indication of the type of social climate in which the nation found itself.

Two of the major developments that arose out of the demonstrations in the South were of police brutality and the Negroes' resolve to stand united. This determination was emphasized by James Farmer, national director of the Congress of Racial Equality, in response to an attack by dogs on a young minister leading a voters' registration drive in

Greenwood, Mississippi:

When that dog's fangs sank into the ankle of the young minister, they also sank into the hearts of the Negroes of Greenwood. Bullets no longer frighten them and dogs don't scare them. That sort of courage can't be defeated.29

As indicated earlier, Birmingham, Alabama was the seat of the-most widespread violence. The New York Times reported on May 7 and May 8 that thousands of Negroes were taking part in the demonstrations and that on 39

May 6, 1,000 demonstrators had been arrested. Police and fire officials

reacted to the demonstrations with high-pressure water hoses and an 30 1 armored car.

In an attempt to stop the violence in Birmingham, many of the

city's businessmen pledged to desegregate lunch counters and other

store facilities and to abolish discriminatory employment practices.

The attitude of the pro-segregation forces is exemplified in the

following statement:

The city's lame-duck Mayor denounced them ¿Birmingham businessmen/ as 'a bunch of quisling, gutless traitors.' Governor Wallace of Alabama has been almost equally condemnatory. Even the moderate new Birm­ ingham administration, headed by Mayor-elect Boutwell, does not consider itself bound by the agreement. Most shocking of all was the declaration of Safety Commissioner Eugene (Bull) Conner that he was sorry an associate of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., hospitalized after being hit by a jet from a high-pressure hose, had not been carried off in a hearse, instead of an ambulance.31

The demonstrations and violence continued unabated into June of

1963. Random reports show that police in Jackson, Mississippi jailed

600 Negro children, some of elementary school age, for marching into 32 the downtown shopping area. Governor Wallace,as noted above, refused to obey a court order to allow desegregation at the University of oo Alabama. Southern politicians were accused of the June 12 slaying 04 of Negro leader Medgar Evers, and racial violence resumed in

Cambridge, Maryland only thirty-two hours after the Maryland National Guard had left the community.35

On June 30, 1963, the N.A.A.C.P. attributed the growing racial problems to what it called the Administration's failure to press for 40

Congressional passage of a strong civil rights bill. In a report entitled The March to Freedom, the N.A.A.C.P. predicted an intensifi­ cation of the problems and stated:

, As the centennial of the Emancipation Proclamation neared, Negroes throughout the country grew increas­ ingly restive and resentful of the century-long delay in the fulfillment of the promises of Lincoln's historic document.36

In a televised conference on June 11, 1963, President Kennedy announced that he would seek civil rights legislation in the 88th

Congress. While this statement undoubtedly raised hope in the hearts of many Negro leaders, the President's statement was not widely accepted in the South. Regarding President Kennedy's proposal for civil rights legislation, Senator Russell B. Long of Louisiana vowed vigorous opposi­ tion. He commented: "I expect to fight that proposition until hell freezes over. Then I propose to start fighting on the ice." Senator

George Smathers announced that he would filibuster against the overall legislation.

On August 28, 1963, the greatest assembly of people ever to come together for the redress of grievances in this country marched on

Washington, D.C. in a peaceful, orderly manner. Most of the marchers were black, but they were joined by an ever-growing number of whites.

The object of the march is summed up in the following statement:

One hundred years and 240 days after Abraham Lincoln enjoined the emancipated slaves to 'abstain from all violence' and 'labor faith­ fully for reasonable wages,' this vast throng proclaimed in march and song and through the speeches of their leaders that they were still waiting for the freedom and the jobs.38

Less than three weeks after the march on Washington, a bomb shattered 41

a Negro church in Birmingham during Sunday school services, killing

four Negro girls and setting off a rash of new racial violence. In

the rioting that followed, two Negro boys were shot to death. The

bombing had been the twenty-first such incident in Birmingham since

1955.

As the demonstrations and riots continued to receive national news coverage, the nation became increasingly aware of the Negroes' determination to better their civil rights. After police broke up two anti-segregation rallies in Orangeburg, South Carolina, local police official Captain M. W. Whetstone stated: "It looks like the people are determined." He predicted that the city's racial situa- 39 tion "is going to get worse before it gets better."

Additional evidence of the Negroes' determination came on Decem­ ber 15, 1963 in Atlanta, Georgia. More than 2,500 Negroes marched on that day to protest Atlanta's failure totally to desegregate schools.

They assembled in a small part in downtown Atlanta and heard Dr. Martin

Luther King, Jr., warn the white community thaf'there will be neither peace nor tranquility"in the city until discrimination was ended. He added: "The cancer of segregation cannot be cured by the vaseline of gradualism or the sedative of tokenism.

By the time these words were uttered the frequency of demonstra­ tions had greatly decreased, but they had not disappeared entirely from the social scene. Demonstrations were to continue sporadically for the next several months. In fact, the violence in Cleveland in early April, 1964 and the plans of the Congress of Racial Equality to block traffic at the opening of the New York World's Fair prompted 42

Senator Humphrey and Senator Kuchel to issue a statement declaring that

these developments were having a detrimental affect on the Senate debate

on civil rights. The joint statement read: "Civil wrongs do not bring

civil rights. Civil disobedience does not bring equal protection under the laws. Disorder does not bring law and order."^

Massive demonstrations for the most part had ended, but the idea of

the massive boycott was used to draw attention to continued segregation

practices. On February 11, 1964, 26,400 students in the Cincinnati

school system boycotted classes at the request of CORE and the N.A.A.

C.P. to emphasize the fact that de facto segregation still existed in

the public schools and that Negro teachers were not employed in equal proportion to the Negro population of Cincinnati. Boycotts were also called for Chicago on February 25 and Boston on February 26, 1964.

Nor was the Supreme Court inactive during these months. Decisions having to do with civil rights were being handed down at a rapid rate.

In January of 1964, the Supreme Court stated that it would decide the long-disputed case of the Prince Edward County, Virginia schools. The case had arisen when the schools had been closed nearly five years earlier in an attempt to avoid desegregation. In another decision rendered on January 6, 1964 the Court decided unanimously and summarily to affirm a three-judge District Court decision striking down a Louisi­ ana law requiring segregation at sports events and entertainments open 43 to the public.

The first six months of 1964 also saw the Congress of the United

States locked in one of the most protracted and socially significant debates in its history. These debates, of course, involved the 1964 43

Civil Rights Act. Nor should it be forgotten that 1964 was a presiden­

tial election year. What was the mood of the American populace as these

two important events materialized? What effect would the mood of the

people have on the outcome of the two events? Without too much hind­

sight, it can be said that the state of mind of the people would have

an important bearing on the outcome of the Civil Rights Act and the

national election.

In an attempt to determine what the mood of the citizens was re­

garding civil rights, U.S. News and World Report conducted a national

survey which appeared on March 30, 1964. The consensus was that civil

rights was an election issue that would grow in importance as the months passed. The following quotations are a cross-sample of opinions from the North:

From a mechanical engineer in Chelmsford, Massachusetts: "The election will center sixty per cent on civil rights and forty per cent on other domestic and foreign issues."

An editor in Indianapolis: "... many people are con­ cerned over the possibility of racial demonstrations in the spring."

A sales executive in Kansas City: "A lot of people are irritated by the agitation. I think the Negroes have gone too far in some cases, but over all they've made gains they're entitled to."44

In the South, opinions varied concerning the Negro problem. A fre­ quently voiced opinion was that the Negroes were pushing too hard for their goals:

A lawyer in Charlotte, North Carolina: "The minority interests are over-ruling the majority."

A banker in Oklahoma City: "Right-thinking people here believe the colored have been mistreated and should have increased opportunities. But they are not ready to give everything all at once." 44

A city commissioner in Waco, Texas: "The colored people are only hurting themselves with this 'we want it all now' attitude."

An Atlanta banker: "I'm a segregationist. I'm not planning to mix socially with any Negroes. But we've , got to give some."45

Regardless of the opinions expressed, the important thing to remember is that people were at last beginning to comment on the civil rights issue. The relative complacency that once had marked the social and political scene was being replaced by varying degrees of concern for the civil rights problem. The debate in the Senate that was waged for the passage of a strong civil rights measure was to receive more nation­ al news coverage than most major legislative measures in the nation's history.

A major problem for the civil rights forces in the Senate, led by

Senators Humphrey and Kuchel, would be to determine the tenor of the

American mind on a national scale and secure passage of a bill that was strong and yet satisfactory to a majority of the people both black and white.

Part of the present work will concern itself with how Senator

Humphrey, in particular, and the civil rights forces in general, chose to deal with this particular problem and how and whether the strategies employed were successful. Emphasis will be placed on eighteen public speeches delivered by Senator Humphrey and the speaking done on the floor of the Senate. 45

FOOTNOTES

Henry J. Abraham, Freedom and the Court: Civil Rights and

Liberties in the United States (New York: 1972), p. 288. 2 Ibid., p. 292.

J Alison Reppy, Civil Rights in the United States (New York:

1951), pp. 124-125. 4 Ibid. 6 Abraham, p. 294.

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid., pp. 299-300. o Robert K. Carr (ed.), Civil Rights in America (Philadelphia:

1951), p. 47. 9 Ibid-

10 Reppy, p. 134.

11 Ibid., p. 135.

13 Hubert H. Humphrey, Beyond Civil Rights: A New Day of Equality

(New York: 1968), p. 14. 1 C. Vann Woodward, The Strange Career of Jim Crow (New York:

1966), p. 7.

14 Humphrey, p. 18. 15 Carr, p. 1.

16 Ibid., p. 2.

17 Humphrey, p. 26.

18 Ibid. 19 Ibid., p. 27. 46

20 Carr, p. 47. 21 Abraham, p. 296.

22 Carr, p. 42.

23 Ibid., p. 17.

24 Abraham, p. 298. 25 Ibid., pp. 321-322. 26 Ibid. 27 ' Hubert H. Humphrey, Private Papers on Civil Rights (Minnesota

Historical Society, St. Paul), memorandum by Lee C. White, December 13,

1962. Hereafter this collection is cited as HHH Private Papers. 28 Abraham, pp. 344-345. 29 The New York Times, April 7, 1963, p. 57, col. 3.

30 The New York Times, May 7, 1963, p. 1, col. 4; and May 8, 1963, p. 1, col. 7. 31 The New York Times, May 11, 1963, p. 24, col. 1. 32 The New York Times, June 1, 1963, p. 1, col. 2. 33 The New York Times, June 2, 1963, p. 1, col. 4.

34 The New York Times, June 16, 1963, p. 1, col. 5.

35 The New York Times, July 10, 1963, p. 19, col. 1.

36 The New York Times, June 30, 1963, p. 40, col. l: 37 The New York Times, July 14, 1963, p. 47, col. 4.

38 The New York Times, August 29, 1963, p. 1, col. 8. 39 The New YorkT imes, October 1, 1963, p. 22, col. 3.

40 The New YorkT imes, December 16, 1963, p. 17, col. 3.

41 The New York Times, April 16, 1964, p. 1, col. 4. 42 The New York Times, February 12, 1964, p. 25, col. 5. 47

43 The New York Times, January 6, 1964, p. 1, col. 1, and p. 20,

col. 4. 44 "Mood of America in Election Year," U.S. News and World Report,

March 30, 1964, p. 70. 45 U-S. News and World Report, March 30, 1964, p. 70. CHAPTER III

AUDIENCES AND AUDIENCE ADAPTATION

NATURE OF AUDIENCES ADDRESSED

Rhetoricians have for centuries agreed to the basic concept of audience analysis. If a speaker is to have any measure of success, he must be aware of the nature of the audience he is addressing.

The analysis of an audience is designed to furnish the speaker with the information he will need to adapt his information to a particu­ lar group. "This is a purely investigative undertaking which the speaker conducts prior to his talk, and upon the data of which he relies for guidance in composing the speech."^

Due to the nature of twentieth century political speaking, this procedure is not always possible for the rhetor. Speech writers and staff members are often called upon to make basic determinations of audience make-up. Also, because of the number of speeches they give and their rigorous work schedules, political speakers do not have the time to make detailed audience analyses. For these reasons, the pol­ itical speaker can be at an obvious disadvantage in not having full information about the nature and mood of a particular audience. He does, however, have an alternative. He may, and in many cases does, choose the audiences before which he is to speak, thus mitigating, to 49

an extent, the possibility of speaking before a neutral or hostile

group.

This technique of audience preference was apparently used by

Senator Humphrey in the developing of his speaking campaign involv­

ing the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The reason for this process of

selecting speaking engagements, although not stated, was implied in

a memorandum by Senator Humphrey. He stated (in reference to being

named floor manager for the Civil Rights Bill):

This assignment was one that I appreciated, and yet one that I realized would test me in every way. I had to make up my mind as to my mental attitude and how I would conduct myself .... I truly did think through what I wanted to do and how I wanted to act. I proceeded to cancel a number of engagements that were on my calendar. I insisted on being on the floor of the Senate. . . .2

The implication of this statement is that the Senator felt a compel­

ling need to be on the Senate floor and therefore had to reduce and

be selective of the number and type of his speaking engagements.

This decision presented Senator Humphrey with at least a minor

tactical problem. By reducing the number of his public speaking engagements, he was also reducing the possibility for public exposure to the bill. Strategic steps, which will be dealt with later, were taken to gain public exposure, but the nature of the public audiences addressed by the Senator was most likely dictated by his decision to stay close to the Senate floor. In order to gain as wide acceptance as possible, Humphrey chose those audiences more predisposed to his stand on the issue of civil rights.

The procedures Senator Humphrey employed in his choice of 50

audiences have been outlined by Theodore Clevenger, Jr. Clevenger has

stated that if a speaker's object is to spread information about an

idea or program, he may want to consider who is in the most strategic

position to pass the information on to others. "By tailoring a

message for key groups he may be able to multiply his own efforts 3 through the amplifying effects of these secondary communications."

Clevenger further suggests that if the speaker's object is to foster

the adoption of a new idea:

... he may find it possible to economize his efforts and reduce the likelihood of mobilizing an opposition by speaking first to people who are more likely to be favorable or openminded . toward changes of the sort he wishes to propose.

An investigation of the public speeches delivered by Senator

Humphrey regarding civil rights (excluding public appearances of an in­

terview-type nature) reveals that he did approach audiences that might

be termed "key groups" and that these groups were basically sympathetic

to the civil rights cause.

Lloyd F. Bitzer has asserted that rhetoric is essentially related

to a particular situation. In "The Rhetorical Situation," Bitzer fur­

ther asserts that a work of rhetoric is pragmatic; it functions to 5 produce some change; it performs some task. Bitzer introduces the

term "exigence" and defines it as "a defect, an obstacle, something g waiting to be done, a thing which is other than it should be." It

is Bitzer's contention that in any rhetorical situation there will

be at least one and perhaps more exigencies which will have a control­

ling effect on the situation. These exigencies will, in fact, specify

the audience to be addressed and the change to be effected. In other 51

words, a work of rhetoric comes about because of a particular situa­

tion, arising from an exigence (problem), which will determine, by

its very nature, what will be said and to whom.

Although it seems that certain exceptions might exist concerning

Bitzer's theory, it can be applied to the speaking of Hubert H. Humphrey

in regard to civil rights. As Senator Humphrey saw the issue, certain

problems existed within the basic framework of civil rights. An analy­

sis of the speeches in question reveals that these perceived problems

included such things as a basic moral inadequacy on the part of American

society regarding civil rights,economic problems stemming from racial

discrimination, educational inequality, and certain foreign-political

aspects. These "exigencies" would dictate (if a degree of success was to

be obtained) that certain influential groups be approached in an effort

to clarify and confront the overall problem. Senator Humphrey chose to

approach selected audiences in an effort to focus on various problem

areas of the overall issue.

Wayne Brockriede has stated that "to understand or predict the

attitudinal interaction in a rhetorical situation one must know whether

its central idea falls within the participants' latitude of acceptance, rejection, or noncommitment."7 An early study by Charles H. Woolbert

indicated that "certain groups give allegiance to specific customs, 8 taboos, rituals, ceremonies, traditions, and beliefs." In reference to this sought-after "allegiance," Auer determined that a "common ground" should be established, indicating that:

. . . regardless of other differences, for example, the speaker and his audience believe in the same 'way of life,' worship the same God, revere the 52

same flag, and share the same praiseworthy desire to solve their problems rationally and with justice for all.9

This writer maintains that Senator Humphrey did attempt to find

the common ground referred to by Auer and that the audiences sharing

areas of interest can be classified into five categories: 1) religious

audiences; 2) political audiences; 3) educational audiences; 4) college

audiences; and 5) miscellaneous audiences.

Religious Audiences

In an attempt to clarify the role of religious groups in the fight

for civil rights, Humphrey addressed a total of three religiously

affiliated conferences. The first of these was the Lutheran Brother­

hood League, at which Humphrey was honored with the Lutheran Brother­

hood Distinguished Service award. The address was delivered on April

6, 1964 in Miami, Florida. It can be concluded that since Humphrey was the guest of honor, the assembled group was, for the most part,

in sympathy with his efforts regarding the civil rights issue and this was one of the reasons for his being honored.

The second speech delivered to a religious group was presented before the annual convention of the American Jewish Congress. It was delivered on April 18, 1964 in Miami Beach, Florida. The speaker stated in the opening of the speech that he felt he could not speak to a more friendly group about the topic, freedom and dignity both at home and throughout the world. Although the object of this par­ ticular chapter is not to discuss strategy, an interesting point becomes evident. In the Miami Beach address Humphrey correlated 53

the plight of Jews in Russia with the plight of the Negro in America.

He pointed out an existing problem (exigence) that was evident and found a common ground upon which to develop his point that freedom and human dignity were the right of every man. The audience would have little trouble identifying with the concepts being set forth.

The last speech given directly to a religious group was delivered to the American Baptist Convention in Atlantic City, New Jersey on May

20, 1964. By the time this speech was delivered, religious groups from all over the nation had been directly and indirectly involved in bringing pressure to bear for the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

Humphrey could safely assume that he was in friendly territory for this speech. The weaker was quick to enhance his credibility further when he stated (in regard to the Civil Rights Bill): "The fight was waged by you and other religious bodies during the past few months and it has been magnificent. Again, a common ground for discus­ sion was quickly established.

The major thrust of each of these three speeches was to estab­ lish the moral issue which became so significant in developing the pro- civil rights stand. The speaker repeatedly stated that the civil rights issue rested on moral ground and was one that needed the help and leadership of the nation's religious leaders. The exigence (moral issue of man's dignity.and freedom) clearly dictated that groups such as those approached should be presented with their responsibility regarding the issue. 54

Political Audiences

The second major category of speeches was those given before political affiliated groups. All four of the speeches in this classification were delivered before partisan audiences. The first was addressed to the Western States Democratic Conference in Salt

Lake City, Utah on September 20, 1963. The political tone of the occasion was evident in the opening remarks. Humphrey said about

Barry Goldwater: "Barry, we have just one thing in common. I was 11 not elected in 1960. You are not going to be elected in 1964."

The speaker then went on to establish the common problem areas that concerned those present. The speech dealt with the growth of our economy,civil rights, and a national security policy. With an election closing in on them, all these issues would seem important to the group gathered before the speaker.

The second speech of a political nature was given on February

22, 1964 before the California Democratic Club Convention in Long

Beach. In this particular speech, Humphrey called for a strong policy stand regarding the Civil Rights Bill and mentioned policy that had existed since 1948 under Presidents Truman, Kennedy, and

Johnson. Yet, although the speech was delivered to a partisan group, Humphrey did call for bi-partisan support for the bill.

The speaker set forth problems (exigencies) that would be common and noteworthy for a politically oriented audience.

The third speech of a quasi-political nature was delivered before a gathering of Americans for Democratic Action, an organization 55

which Humphrey had been affiliated with for many years. The speech was delivered in Pittsburgh on March 7, 1964. The speaker must have

felt that he was among friends because he skipped the usual glowing

introductory remarks and got right to the issue. The opening line of the talk was: "I want to emphasize civil rights tonight because, 12 frankly, it is a subject that is uppermost in my mind these days."

In this particular speech the moral issue of civil rights was reit­ erated, but the bulk of the address focused on the economic impact of discrimination. The speaker, recognizing the liberal background and philosophy of the organization, chose to expand upon an important, but not so highly publicized, aspect of the civil rights issue--the economic-hardships placed upon Negroes by the "citizenship gap" in this country.

The last political speech was given before the Democratic County

Committee of New York County on May 14, 1964. The audience consisted of the leading Democrats of New York and could be considered a highly partisan group. The speech made a general appeal for those leaders present to continue to lead the fight for civil rights. Because of the partisan nature of the group, the speaker apparently felt at liberty to attack those who were opposed to the bill more strongly than usual. He stated, for example:

It is certainly clear that many peddlers of panic have been roaming the country. By voice and by pen they seek to exploit the inner fears of decent Americans. There is not a section of the bill they have not lied about or dis­ torted. 13 56

Educational Audiences

The third general classification of speeches fell under the

category of education. Senator Humphrey had always emphasized the

importance of good education to a democratic society. In the devel­

opment of the civil rights issue, educational inequality was a

major concern. The primary point made by Humphrey was that denial

of educational opportunity led directly to the denial of the social and cultural resources necessary for personal growth and citizenship.

In an attempt to relate the importance of this aspect of the

problem, Humphrey delivered four speeches to educational groups.

The first was delivered to the American Council of Education on

October 4, 1963. Senator Humphrey used this opportunity to set forth his ideas on the relevant aspects of legislation surrounding the civil rights issue, and he also related how educational ine­ quality led to economic inequality (exigencies). The audience

(educational leaders from around the country) would obviously be vitally concerned about legislation that would affect their pro­ fession. Even educators from the South would be interested in hearing about legislation that could affect federal assistance to their school districts. One comment by the speaker which perhaps emphasized the expectation that the audience would be made up of people from all over the country dealt with the idea that educa­ tional inequality hampered white children as well as black (less affluent rural areas were mentioned as an example).

The second address delivered to an educational affiliated 57

group took place in Los Angeles, California on December 8, 1963.

The occasion was a dinner for the Fund for Adult Education. This

particular speech did not emphasize the civil rights issue as much

as the others, but reference was made to it in connection with other

issues being mentioned. Little can be determined about the make-up of this particular audience. They were obviously concerned adults who were interested in the place of adult education in our society and the direct governmental associations with adult education in this country. The major point of the speech was that the American legislative processes were not keeping pace with technological advances. Humphrey emphasized slow-downs and delays and related these problems directly to outmoded laws and rules. He used as a prime example the Senate filibuster which was being used against the Civil Rights Bill. As stated earlier, the occasion for the speech was to foster adult education. Keeping this in mind, plus the fact that the speech was delivered in the West, and that "ordinarily men meet together in a yielding frame of mind,"1^ one can assume that this particular audience, if not sympathetic, was at least neutral.

On February 18, 1964, Senator Humphrey presented a speech to the American Association of School Administrators in Atlantic City,

New Jersey. Keeping in mind Humphrey's liberal attitudes toward legislation for the betterment of education in this country and also remembering the considerable relative importance Humphrey had placed, on education in the earlier educational speeches, one can assume that the speaker felt this was an important opportunity to 58

to express his attitudes. Aside from Southern factions, the make-up

of the audience could be considered to be either in favor of, or

neutral toward, Humphrey's points. One other point that would tend

to ensure a certain degree of latitude for the speaker was the fact

that he had been asked to address the group assembled about the

issues facing the Congress in 1964. Certainly, the issue of civil rights could not be overlooked.

The last speech delivered to an educational group was delivered by telephone to the Florida State Teachers Association on April 24,

1964. The speech was presented via telephone because pressing Senate business kept Senator Humphrey in Washington. The speech was occasioned by Humphrey's having been cited by the organization for his outstand­ ing work in the cause of elevating human dignity (directly related to his work on the Civil Rights Bill). With these points in mind, it could be surmised that the group to which the speech was presented was friendly toward Humphrey and his goals.

College Audiences

Senator Humphrey always displayed affection for college students and their thoughts. This affection can be traced back to his early days of teaching at Macalester College in St. Paul and also to the basic importance he always placed on education. During the Senate debate on the civil rights issue, he spoke before three commence­ ment ceremonies.

The first of these addresses took place at Johns Hopkins Univer­ sity in Baltimore, Maryland on January 17, 1964. The audience was 59

was made up of students, professors, parents, and friends. The mood of the audience cannot be ascertained with certainty. It should be L remembered, however, that some of the worst rioting in 1963 had taken place in Cambridge, Maryland. It can be assumed that Senator

Humphrey did not know the exact state of mind of the audience or the reaction he would receive. This probably did not bother the Senator because he liked to adjust to an audience once a speech had begun.

He put it this way:

I do not take great pains to 'analyze' an audience beforehand. I do, of course, understand before­ hand the basic details and characteristics of my audience. My analysis of an audience is usually more of an instinctive reaction to their mood and their response to my first words.15

Attesting to the assumptions that this audience might be more neutral on a continuum of attitudes, the speech was quite conciliatory in tone and placed blame for the previous year's events on the North as well as the South. This particular address also contained most of the problems (exigencies) that Humphrey discussed during the civil rights debates.

The second commencement address was delivered at the College of

St. Teresa, in Winona, Minnesota on May 30, 1964. In many ways, this was probably the most friendly audience Humphrey confronted in his civil rights speaking. He was in his home state and speaking in an area of that state which had long supported him. The speech was delivered at an institution that he had helped more than once during his tenure of office. The occasion of speaking at a religious insti­ tution (the College of St. Teresa is a Catholic institution) offered 60

the speaker the opportunity to set forth the moral exigence once more.

By the time this speech was delivered, the Catholic Church was on

record as supporting the civil rights legislation being proposed in

Congress.

The last commencement speech given during the time in question

was delivered at Fisk University in Nashville, Tennessee on June 1,

1964. Fisk, an all-Negro school, offered Senator Humphrey a friendly

atmosphere; although it cannot be assumed that Humphrey was held in

good favor by all blacks, certainly a majority of the less militant,

better educated Negroes, such as those in■■ attendance, supported and

applauded his efforts. The major exigence stressed by the speaker

was that there would be no overnight change. The struggle would,

in fact, continue for many years and young people such as themselves

(the graduating class) would need to be the leaders in the continuing

struggle. Humphrey also emphasized that education and training were

the watchwords for success in these endeavors.

Miscellaneous Audiences

The last group of public speeches can be classified as general in nature and consists of speeches given to four rather diverse audiences.

The first of these was delivered before the National Association for

Mental Health on November 21, 1963 in Washington, D.C. The text of the speech did not set forth the civil rights issue but the speaker did so indirectly. If the speech was not intended as an address strictly advocating civil rights then, in that respect, the speaker assumed that the audience would probably not be predisposed about 61

that particular issue. Instead, the speaker set forth as his theme

the importance of good mental health, not only for individuals, but

for whole nations as well. Humphrey obviously geared the text of the

speech to the audience in attendance.

The civil rights issue was cleverly worked into the address in

the following manner; in reference to American society Humphrey said

that we should consider the mental anguish caused by poverty, depri­

vation and discrimination. Senator Humphrey stated:

Psychiatry tells us: Give a child or a man or a woman room to grow, to develop the fulfill himself. We are not giving the tenth of America represented by our Negro citizens the 'room* to make their fullest contributions to our democracy.16

So, the speaker not only dealt with the exigence of the audience, namely, the importance of good mental health, but he also extended that concept to the realm of civil rights in such a fashion as to confront openly as few people as possible.

The next address to fall into the miscellaneous classification was given in New York City on March 15, 1964 on the occasion of the

Four Freedom Awards dinner. Humphrey was to receive this award for his work in helping to foster the ideas of the four freedoms: free­ dom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.I? Those in-attendance would be there to pay tribute to

Humphrey and the ideals he stood for. Recognizing that the audience supported the four freedoms set forth by the organization, Humphrey took the opportunity to extend the concept to include a fifth free- dom--the freedom of human dignity. The speaker probably felt sure 62

that the audience could not support certain basic freedoms for men

and deny a fifth basic freedom. Humphrey implied this when he stated:

"But perhaps there is another goal--one that might be called a Fifth

Freedom, which should be embraced by all who seek to push outward the bonds of liberty."18

It is unclear at the time of this writing just how Senator

Humphrey's speech to the National Farmers Union Convention was pre­ sented. The speech was delivered in St. Paul, Minnesota on March 18,

1964, but the Senator was not in attendance. The address was either read by someone in the auditorium or was presented via some other medium.

Being from an agricultural state (Minnesota), Senator Humphrey had long been associated with farm groups and what they stood for.

This audience could be said to be friendly toward Humphrey because of his long and close affiliation with the National Farmers Union.

The preponderance of the speech dealt with the problems of the farmer and how the Johnson Administration had striven to meet those problems. The speaker must have felt that the audience would be at least somewhat inclined toward his civil rights policies because he took occasion to make a direct appeal for help in this area.

Referring to the legislative struggle then taking place in Washington, he stated:

I need your help. This is a tremendous task and it can not be accomplished in Washington. We in the Nation's Capital can go through the procedures of passing the Civil Rights Bill, but it will be passed only if there is a great national consensus for it, a great national spirit that demands that the Congress of the United States fulfill at long last its respons­ ibilities to the American people.19 63

The last speech of a public nature was presented on April 5,

1964 in Boston, Massachusetts before the Greek Independence Day

Celebration. Certain references in the speech lead the writer to

conclude that Humphrey was very much aware of the make-up of the

audience confronting him. Direct reference to Mrs. Malcolm Peabody

(mother of the then Governor of Massachusetts) having been arrested

in St. Augustine, Florida clearly established the link between high

ranking supporters of the Greek Independence group and the civil

rights issue. Throughout the speech the Senator referred to promi­

nent people of Massachusetts who supported the Greek Independence

Day and who also supported the civil rights legislation then being

debated in Washington. Notes written on the pages of the text of

the speech indicate that many of those named were in attendance at

the time the speech was presented.

NATURE OF SENATE AUDIENCE

Audience analysis posed many difficult problems for Senator

Humphrey in presenting the bill and arguing for its passage. The

make-up of the members of this audience was very complex to say the

least. Senator Humphrey knew that many members of the Senate were

in favor of civil rights legislation, but he was also aware of the

problems of party ties, constituencies, and other pressures that

could influence the Congressmen involved in the protracted debates.

The audience in the Senate could be said to consist of three groups:

1) those in favor of civil rights legislation (both Democrat and

Republican); 2) those opposed to civil rights legislation (Southern 64

Congressmen led by Senator Strom Thurmmund); and 3) those who were

uncommitted (primarily partisan Republicans). A significant concern

of Senator Humphrey during the debates surrounding the Civil Rights

Bill was the question of how to handle the various segments of the

Senate audience during an important legislative process. More of

that will be discussed in a later chapter on strategies employed

by the speaker during the debates in the Senate. It can be noted

here, however, that Senator Humphrey knew he would have to appeal

to the uncommitted partisan Republicans in order to mount the bi­

partisan effort which was needed to gain cloture on the bill.

AUDIENCE ADAPTATION

Perusal of the eighteen public speeches given by Senator Humphrey regarding civil rights indicates that audience adaptation was an import ant aspect of audience analysis. Phillip K. Tompkins, in his article

"Hubert Horatio Humphrey: On Persuasion," indicated that although

Humphrey may not have been acquainted with Kenneth Burke's theory of identification, he did seem to practice a related technique to which he (Humphrey) gave the same designation. Tompkins quoted Humphrey as having said:

I try to use simple language; and if possible tie my speech to some of the history of the community in which I am speaking, or to some event that is well known. This is what we call audience identification.20

Public Speeches

In each of the eighteen speeches studies here, an obvious attempt 65

was made by the speaker to identify with either the community, an

event in question, or the reason for the gathering of the group

before which the speech was delivered. It should also be noted that

in each of the speeches in question the language was simple, concise,

and easy to understand. Aside from certain specific references, the

language could have been used interchangeably from speech to speech

without sacrificing clarity or meaning. C. David Mortensen has

indicated why this type of procedure can be so important to the

communication process. He claimed that there is a tendency to

avoid complex or alternate meanings:

Each cue fits into a particular thought category in an either-or, black-white form of organization, usually with a minimum of conflict involved in the process of decision making. At low levels of information proces­ sing, persons ignore discriminations and subtle distinctions in favor of highly personalized, compartmentalized rules of thought. . . .21

Mortensen went on to say that when information processing moved to

higher, more complex levels of integration, there tended to be more

of an ambivalent, noncommittal attitude on the part of audiences.

If Senator Humphrey was after commitment, according to Mortensen, he was correct in keeping his speeches at a low level of information processing in order to insure the black-white type of polarization he was after.

Selected segments from speeches in each of the categories previously cited should illustrate the audience adaptation process of the speaker. In regard to religious organizations, the speaker always identified directly with the group being addressed. In his 66

speech before the Lutheran Brotherhood organization he began this way:

I deeply appreciate the honor of receiving the Lutheran Brotherhood Distinguished Service award. This great fraternal insurance organization has no peers, and few equals in the development of brotherhood, and spiritual and social solidarity of human beings. I know of no higher service. I am proud to be a member.

In beginning the speech in this manner, the speaker immediately identi­

fied with the organization and the reason for the gathering. He worked

in the theme of the speech (freedom of dignity) by indicating that

freedom and dignity of man flourished, as nowhere else, within the re­

ligious organizations of America. He stated his purpose in the

following way:

Freedom and dignity--or as I prefer to put it the freedom of dignity—is what I want to talk about. Religious organizations and the churches in America are the custodians of that dignity because it is God-given.23

Characteristic of the political organization speeches was always

a reference to the fact that Humphrey was speaking before a group of

Democrats. This type of statement was always very straight-forward

and pointed. The following excerpt from the speech to the Democratic

County Committee of New York serves as an example:

Friends and fellow Democrats. . . there's nothing I like better than being with you in New York tonight. These days in Washington, I'm continually torn between duty and desire— and it's a rare night when desire wins.24

Equally apparent in each of the political speeches was the fact that

Humphrey always made reference to past and present leaders of the

Democratic party. This was probably done in an attempt to keep before

the various audiences the idea that the Democratic party had, for 67

years, been committed to the civil rights issue.

A strong appeal was made to educational groups to indicate to them their role in the civil rights battle and why the educators played such an important part in breaking down the various barriers which held Negroes back. The significance of education was related in this manner: "The Negro had never had equality of opportunity in education. That is the largest single root of the difficulty 25 he is in, and the hardship he has in getting out of it."

In each of the three college addresses, a direct reference was made to the fact that a collegiate audience was being addressed. In each instance the speaker also stated directly or implied that the members of the audience were to be the leaders of the nation in years to come and that they had to meet a moral and intellectual challenge. The speaker was, in effect, calling for a re-ordering of the society in which the members of the audiences found them­ selves. An example of this type of theme and tone was found in the opening remarks to the graduating class of the College of St.

Teresa:

I am honored to speak to this graduating class. I am also more than a little envious of you, because you are beginning your adult lives in what I believe will be one of the great con­ structive and exciting eras in human history. . . . The goals we seek are somewhat distant on the horizon, but they are visible.26

The four speeches listed under the category of "miscellaneous audiences" are a little more difficult to deal with regarding audience adaptation but certain characteristics are evident. As in the other classes of speeches, direct reference to the occasion of the speech 68

was always made. The speaker was very careful to establish his credibility by pointing out the importance of the group before which he was speaking and how the particular group could aid in the passage of a strong piece of civil rights legislation. The following statements are typical of the general audience speeches:

In this season traditionally given over to the counting of our national blessings, we should be particularly grateful that there is a National Association of Mental Health. Thanks, in large part, to the work of this great voluntary health agency, hundreds of thousands of Americans have been freed from despair and degradation, from the age-old tradition of inhuman confinement and brutal treatment of the mentally ill. This is Emancipation and freedom.27

Senate Speeches

Probably the greatest adjustments to an audience came in the presentation of the civil rights case to the Senate. Not only was the usual Senate protocol to be considered, but this situation in­ volved actual confrontation through open debate on the Senate floor.

Political, regional, and personal considerations had to be taken into account. In an effort to preserve an air of dignity in the

Senate debates, Humphrey was particularly careful that the debates not become too bitter or contentious. He recalled:

I had made up my mind early that I would keep my patience. I would not lose my temper and that if I could do nothing else, I would try to preserve a reasonable degree of good nature and fair play in the Senate.28

Senator Humphrey knew that without bi-partisan support for the bill, cloture could not be gained for a vote on the bill. Therefore, certain 69

compromises needed to be worked out and certain strategies needed to be followed in order to maintain and strengthen the bi-partisan sup­ port needed. More on this point will appear later in the chapter dealing with strategies.

Senator Humphrey apparently chose the audiences for his public speeches quite carefully. These choices were predicated upon the various issues of the civil rights issue that the Senator felt it was important to expound publicly. The speaker also made a conscious effort to adapt to each of the audiences he addressed by attempting to clarify the particular role each of the audiences played in the civil rights issue. He tried to identify with each group and what they stood for. Keeping in mind that meanings and concepts are in people and not in the words expressed by and to them, it would seem that Senator Humphrey made a significant effort to try to establish commonly shared meanings with the audiences he addressed. 70

FOOTNOTES

* Lester Thonssen and A. Craig Baird, Speech Criticism: The

Development of Standards For Rhetorical Appraisal (New York: 1948), p. 361. 2 Hubert H. Humphrey, Papers on Civil Rights (In Minnesota

Historical Society, St. Paul), memorandum regarding background, procedures, tactics, and strategies of the Civil Rights Bill of

1964, Summer, 1964. Hereafter this collection is cited as HHH,

Private Papers. 3 Theodore Clevenger, Jr., Audience Analysis (New York: 1966), p. 33. 4 Ibid. 5 Lloyd F. Bitzer, "The Rhetorical Situation," Philosophy and

Rhetoric (January, 1968), pp. 3-4. ' 6 Ibid.

7 Wayne Brockriede, "Dimensions of the Concept of Rhetoric,"

Quarterly Journal of Speech (February, 1968), pp. 4-5. 3 Charles H. Woolbert, "The Audience," Psychological Monographs

(June, 1916), p. 40. $ J. Jeffery Auer, "The Persuasive Speaker and His Audience,"

The Rhetoric of Our Times, edited by J. Jeffery Auer (New York:

1969), p. 258. *0 Opinion expressed by HubertH. Humphrey in an address ("Courage to Love") at the American Baptist Convention in Atlantic City, New

Jersey, May 20, 1964. Hereafter all speeches referred to were delivered 71

by Hubert H. Humphrey unless otherwise specified. 11 Address delivered at the Western States Democratic Conference,

September 20, 1963. 12 Address delivered to the American's for Democratic Action,

March 7, 1964. 13 Address delivered to the Democratic County Committee of New

York County, May 14, 1964. 14 Woolbert, p. 39. 15 Ben Padrow, "Hubert H. Humphrey: The Glandular Zephyr,"

Today's Speech (September, 1964), p. 3. 1 fi Address delivered to the National Association for Mental

Health, November 21, 1963.

These were the "Four Freedoms" as listed by Senator Humphrey

in the opening remarks of the address given before the Four Freedoms

Award Dinner, March 15, 1964.

18 Ibid. 19 Address delivered to the National Farmers Union Convention,

March 18, 1964. 20 Phillip K. Tompkins, "Hubert Horatio Humphrey: On Persuasion,"

Today's Speech (September, 1966), p. 17.

21 C. David Mortensen, Communication: The Study of Human Inter­ action (New York: 1972), pp. 73-74. 22 Address delivered to the Lutheran Brotherhood Award ceremonies,

April 6, 1964.

23 ITbki-d^. 72

• 24 Address delivered to the Democratic County Committee of New

York County, May 14, 1964. 25 Address delivered to the American Council of Education,

October 4, 1964. 26 Address delivered to the graduating class of the College of

St. Teresa, May 30, 1964. 27 Address delivered to the National Association of Mental Health,

November 21, 1963. 28 HHH, Private Papers, memorandum regarding background proce­ dures, tactics, and strategies of the Civil Rights Bill of 1964,

Summer, 1964. CHAPTER IV

NATURE OF MESSAGES

SPEECH PREPARATION

According to Patrick Devlin, Senator Humphrey wrote most of his own speeches during his earlier years in politics, but a per­ sonal staff was added during the Senatorial years.1 Each assist­ ant had his own sphere of responsibility regarding subject matter, but for major addresses there was an overlapping of input. Devlin also concluded that Humphrey often spoke extemporaneously and that he often was presented with material in an oral or written form p and then digested the material with a minimum of notes.

Speech manuscripts were apparently prepared in two ways. The more important speeches delivered by the Senator were given his close personal attention in a "line for line" type of preparation, with polishing being done by a group of staff members in the 3 Senator's presence. Speeches of this type were said to include major policy speeches and speeches to influential audiences.

Devlin also concluded that speeches which had received the Senator's personal attention in preparation were also delivered with very little deviation from the text.

The speeches in which Humphrey did not take an active part in 74

writing were usually prepared by a staff assistant who was assigned 4 to a particular area of concern. Speeches of this nature were often edited by Senator Humphrey prior to their delivery. The editing appeared as notes and comments made in the margins of the original 5 speech drafts.

A possibly inconsistency in the Devlin analysis is that the public speeches he considers could be classified as major addresses delivered to significantly important audiences; yet the speech texts showed a large number of marginal notes and changes made by the

Senator. However, if one considers the fact that the speaker was obviously pressed for time during the period in question, it seems safe to assume that the speeches were prepared by staff members and that Senator Humphrey adapted them to his liking. This would tend to support the Devlin finding.

It can be concluded, then, that Senator Humphrey did not per­ sonally prepare the public speeches under consideration, He did alter the speeches to meet his needs and in all likelihood did not adhere strictly to the scripts but at times spoke extemporaneously.

The writer feels, however, that the speaker did adhere quite closely to the manuscripts when relating the specific main points of each of the public speeches.

It should be assumed that, because of the nature of the speech setting forth the affirmative case for civil rights proponents on the Senate floor (each point was carefully supported by citations of evidence), Senator Humphrey was instrumental in its development.

In this way he would be as familiar as possible with each of its com­ ponent parts. One can also conclude that he followed the text of the 75

speech very closely.

When asked what his approach to speech preparation was, Senator

Humphrey replied:

, The necessary components to build a speech are: 1. A full and detailed understanding of the facts. 2. A thorough understanding of the particular audience to be addressed. 3. A deep and thorough belief in what one is saying.6

A detailed reading of the speeches on civil rights revealed that the

speaker did have a full understanding of the facts in the case.

Chapter III of this study also revealed that the speaker was very

much aware of the nature and types of audiences he addressed. Fin­

ally, Senator Humphrey's consistent stand regarding civil rights and

the content of the speeches revealed his very deep commitment to the

issue. In short, Senator Humphrey was consistent with his own stated

philosophy of speech preparation.

SPEECH SIMILARITIES

Public Speeches

One of the most pronounced characteristics of Senator Humphrey's speeches was his ability clearly to set forth the intent of each speech

This was usually done by a direct statement in the introduction. For example, he stated to the Western States Democratic Conference:

"Ladies and gentlemen, I come out here not to talk to you about the right wing. . . but about the right way!"? Following this statement the speaker discussed what he considered to be the great issues facing the Democratic party and how they should be approached.

In a speech directly concerning the civil rights issue, Senator 76

Humphrey began with this statement:

I want to emphasize civil rights tonight because, frankly, it is a subject that is uppermost in my mind these days. As you know I am the floor leader in the Senate for the Administration's civil rights bi 11--the most significant legislation to come before Congress in our lifetime and the most challenging assignment of my legislative career. . . .8

After this direct opening comment, Humphrey spent the remainder of the speech discussing the importance of the Civil Rights Bill and its economic implications.

At the American Baptist Convention the Senator began his speech in the following manner: "I come to you today with good news. We are improving the Civil Rights Bill and we will pass it. . . and we are going to pass it soon. This will complete the first step in a 9 long, difficult struggle." The speaker then proceeded to inform the audience of the status of the bill and how they had helped in its improvement.

One further example should be sufficient to point’out the sim­ ilarity of the beginnings of each speech. In a commencement address at Fisk University Senator Humphrey began the speech thusly:

President Wright, members of the Board of Trustees, members of the 1964 graduating class of Fisk University, ladies and gentlemen. It is a high honor to come to Fisk Univer­ sity, which has played so eminent a role in the intellectual and moral life of the South and of our Nation. . . .10

After this opening statement, Humphrey continued to express to the graduating class the significant role and challenge which faced the commencement class in regard to carrying on the part that Fisk 77

graduates had played in the past.

Wayland M. Parrish has stated that "the most persuasive speaker

is he who most effectively directs his appeal to the basic interests, desires, wants, instincts, and emotions of his hearers."11 It should

be concluded that Senator Humphrey made every attempt to employ this

approach by making direct appeals and by immediately relating to the

audience before whom he spoke.

Another characteristic of the public speeches of the Senator

was the manner in which he was able to work the idea of civil rights

into the address even though that was not the stated purpose of the

speech. Some aspect of the theme of the speech was usually employed

to work in the civil rights idea. A good example would be the speech

delivered to the Fund for the Republic gathering in Los Angeles on

December 8, 1963. The stated purpose of the speech was to discuss

the nature of the legislative process in the face of changes taking

place in the American populace. One of the points made was that there was often a slow-down in legislation. Humphrey took this opportunity

to use the filibuster as a prime example (the filibuster was expected

to be employed against the civil rights forces). He commented:

The technique of guerrilla warfare in the Congress is also very effective. But with the passage of the Civil Rights bill by the House we are going to bring the opposition to a pitched head-on battle in the Senate--the goal of every anti- guerrilla commander. We expect to win that pitched battle--filibuster or no filibuster. . . .

In a speech prepared for the 1964 National Farmers Union Conven­ tion, Senator Humphrey used the civil rights issue as an excuse for not being able to be present to deliver the speech. Even though the 78

bulk of the speech dealt with farm issues and policy, Humphrey was

able to mention the civil rights debate. He excused his not being

present by saying:

Now why is it not possible for me to be with you today? Well, I'm sure you've read in the press, or you've heard on radio or television that I have been appointed as the floor leader for the Civil Rights Bill. The Civil Rights Bill is to me the most important legislative program before the Congress of the United States in the last one hundred years. . . .^

In his remarks before the National Association for Mental

Health, the Senator moved very deftly from the concept of meager

government funding for mental health to the implied parallel of

civil rights. He was speaking directly to the problem of mental

health, but it was possible to see the connection with civil rights.

He said:

Here again, short-sighted, self-styled 'economy advocates' have 'wasted a dollar to save a penny.' Rather than saving money, such false economy will have succeeded in continuing one of the most shocking and indefensible wastes in the world— the waste of human lives.14

To make the point more vivid, the speaker later commented:

Psychiatry tells us: Give a child or a man or a woman room-room to grow, to develop, to fulfill himself. We are not giving the tenth of America represented by our Negro citizens the 'room' to make their fullest contributions to our democracy.15

The speaker concluded his argument by stating that civil rights, like mental health, had no easy solutions but that constructive work in the area had to continue to insure America's growth.

The speeches were also similar in that certain points were made from speech to speech. For example, Humphrey made a concerted 79

effort to make the civil rights issue a moral issue. To emphasize

this point he mentioned a "moral issue" in all but one of the

eighteen public speeches dealing with civil rights. The idea of

human dignity appeared in thirteen of the speeches; employment was

stressed in eight addresses; education was discussed in nine of the

speeches; and the political aspects of civil rights were developed

to certain degrees in eight speeches. It should be noted that argu­

ments were not necessarily extended but merely repeated for different

audiences.

Besides the issues which were repeatedly emphasized by the

speaker, there also appeared to be rather extensive use of slogans.

Bormann pointed to Humphrey's use of slogans during the 1960 Presi­

dential campaign, claiming that they were used to appeal to the 1 fi desires for peace, security, money, and justice. This technique

also marked his civil rights speaking. Senator Humphrey often

referred to the "moral issue" surrounding the civil rights debate.

He also used the idea of a slogan in stating that there was a

citizenship gap in this nation. His definition of the citizenship

gap was "the gap between the promise and fulfillment of the Constitu­

tion and the gap between the promise and the fulfillment of our great

17 free enterprise system."

Another example of the use of a slogan was the Senator's cita­ tion in several of the speeches of his own speech on civil rights in 1948, when he had used the phrase that people must "walk out of the shadows of states rights and walk forthrightly into the bright

18 sunshine of human rights." 80

Generally speaking, Humphrey did not make extensive use of

quoted material in the eighteen public speeches which dealt with

civil rights. There were some literary references spaced throughout

the texts, however. In the speech delivered at the College of St.

Teresa, the speaker quoted extensively from the Mater et Magistra of Pope John XXIII. Shakespeare was quoted in the Four Freedoms

Awards speech and Dick Gregory was paraphrased in the commencement address at Johns Hopkins University. One Biblical reference was used, although a specific source was not cited. Senator Humphrey used the Golden Rule to help exemplify what civil rights legislation was attempting to do: "To do unto others as you would have them do 19 unto you."

The two sources cited most frequently were John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. One or the other of the two Presidents was quoted in seven of the public speeches. Representative of the type of quotation used is one taken from the speech for the Greek Inde­ pendence Day celebration. Quoting directly from the words of the late President Kennedy regarding civil rights, Humphrey stated:

The words he said then apply just as strongly today: 'This is one country. It has become one country because all of us and all the people who came here had an equal chance to develop their talents. We cannot say to 10 per cent of the population that you can't have that right; that your child­ ren can't have the chance to develop whatever talents they have. . . .'20

Senator Humphrey quoted President Johnson to emphasize the point that if something was not done in the area of civil rights, the Negro revolution would continue to sweep the nation: 81

President Lyndon B. Johnson pointed this out clearly in one of his most eloquent addresses at a Memorial Day gathering at Gettysburg last year. The President said, 'In this hour, it is not our respective races which are at stake--it is , our nation. Let those who care for their country come forward, North and South, white and Negro, to lead the way through this moment of challenge and decision. . . .21

Referring to the responsibility of political leaders in the fight

for civil rights, Senator Humphrey commented: "It is the kind of

responsibility President Kennedy spoke about in his memorable

Inaugural Address when he said, 'I do not shrink from responsibility

--I welcome it.'"

Only one of the public speeches made extensive use of figures or statistical data--the address given before the Americans for

Democratic Action in Pittsburgh on March 7, 1964. In this speech, data from the Census Bureau were cited but there was some confusion in determining which years were being cited. The prime source appeared to be the 1960 Census Report, but the speaker also referred to figures for the year 1962 (no direct source specified). The evidence extracted dealt with such things as income, housing, employment and education.

While it is not the intent here to give the impression that the content of the public speeches delivered by Senator Humphrey was devoid of what could be termed "evidence," the speeches were not laden with great amounts of evidence. This could perhaps be attributed to the nature of the topic in that the speaker pushed the moral issue to such an extent, but a more precise reason, which probably applies, was set forth by Hillbruner when he said: 82

While generalizations are omnipresent in poli­ tical speeches, specifics are often missing. There are various reasons for this absence. Perhaps the paramount one is that the appeal of specifics is often too small, individual, and, hence, hardly universal. When the political orator makes saintly references to God, country, or Constitution, ... he is using broad, general, abstract terms often more for their emotional tone and impact than for intellectual erudition.23

It seems safe to conclude that, because of the nature of the audiences addressed by Humphrey, he felt the need to appeal more to the emotions and existing attitudes than to introduce extensive evidence. Baird has indicated that this technique is the mark of an able speaker in that "he analyzes their basic drives, needs, atti­ tudes, sentiments, habits, and bases his arguments upon appeals related to these."2^ This would summarize the approach used by

Humphrey in the public speeches delivered regarding the civil rights issue.

The last point to be made about similarities in the speeches was related to the conclusions. It seemed characteristic for the speaker either to call for some direct course of action or to remind the listeners of the part they played in whatever it was that the speech had emphasized. For example, in his speech to the American

Association of School Administrators, the speaker closed with a very pointed comment which pertained directly to the basic idea related in the speech: "The development of 'brainpower' must be the chief national product of America and from here on out Education must 25 become America's chief national objective."

Another instance in which the Senator used the conclusion to call for direct action was in the address to the American Jewish 83

Congress. After drawing a parallel between what was happening to

Jews in Russia and the plight of the Negro in this country, Humphrey

stated:

This government of ours and the American people should speak up for freedom wherever freedom does not exist. We should speak up for human dignity wherever people are victims of indignity and of humiliation. We should be doing all we can to disarm the world of its prejudice and bigotry as well as its weapons. . . .26

In a speech to a partisan audience at the Democratic Club Con­

vention in Long Beach, California, Senator Humphrey again used a

direct appeal for action. He called for partisan support for all

Democratic policies and programs, including civil rights.

One last example will show the technique employed by the speaker

in an attempt to establish the importance of the members of a partic­ ular audience to the overall message of the speech. The address delivered to the National Farmers Union Convention did not emphasize the civil rights issue, but Humphrey did take the opportunity to mention it. The general theme of progress, as related to civil rights, was carried to finality in the conclusion of the speech. The Senator stated:

And I'm proud to be associated in a spirit of philosophy with the National Farmers Union because you look to the future. Your eyes are on the stars and you plan for the better life, and you work for it and you pray for it. People who do that make a great contribution to freedom and democracy. Thank you.27

A final comment should be made about similarities of the public speeches—in two instances essentially the same speech was delivered.

The two speeches in question (Four Freedoms and Lutheran Brotherhood

BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 84

Award) were the same except for minor differences in the introduction

and conclusions. The major points and the substructure of the two i addresses were almost identical in.all other respects?

Senate Speeches

The major speech delivered by Humphrey in the Senate was similar

to the public speeches in that each of the issues mentioned in the

public speeches was covered and expanded upon in the Senate speech.

Many of the moral points argued in the public speeches were reem­ phasized in the Senate address and some of the same evidence was used.

The Senate speech was somewhat different in nature in that it took on the definite structure of an affirmative case for a debate.

The speech was, in fact, referred to by the speaker as the affirma­ tive case. The organization of the speech was very precise and easy to follow because the arguments were set forth title by title. Be­ cause of the concept of the burden of proof which exists in debate,

Senator Humphrey must have felt the definite need for more evidence.

The Senate speech was a much longer speech than the others, and it cited considerably more evidence. Many more references were made to specific sources. Probably the most notable of these sources was the vast number of Supreme Court cases which were cited to help establish the precedent needed to show the constitutionality of the various titles of the bill. ATso, much evidence was presented to show that segrega­ tion did actually exist to the degree that the proponents of the bill claimed. In short, the issues, although perhaps no more clearly stated ■ I than in the public speeches, were much more soundly established. 85

PURPOSES OF THE SPEECHES

Although the stated purposes of each of the public speeches did not always clearly point to the issue of civil rights, in all I but four of the speeches, the purpose could be aligned with some aspect of civil rights. It was pointed out in Chapter III that the speaker took the opportunity to set forth the various important aspects of the civil rights issue by selecting the specific audience he wished to address. In this way he could approach such aspects as education, the moral issue, the political issue, and the role of college students in the civil rights struggle. In other words, the purpose of fourteen of the speeches was to stress some particular aspect of the civil rights question to which the audience would be most responsive (e.g., the moral issue in addressing religious groups).

In the four speeches which did not directly set forth some aspect of civil rights as the major thrust of the speech, the speaker was still able to work the issue into the speech either directly or by implication. It should also be pointed out that three of the four speeches under consideration were delivered in

1963 before the Civil Rights Bill was actually debated in Congress.

This might also help explain the lack of a specific purpose directly involving civil rights.

Of the speeches considered here, the first was delivered to the Western States Democratic Conference before an obviously par­ tisan audience. The speaker stated the purpose of the speech in 86

this way: "Ladies and gentlemen, I have come out here not to talk

about the right wing. . . but about the right way." As he saw it, I there were three great issues which faced America at that time:

1) expansion and growth of our economy; 2) the guaranteeing of

equal opportunity and civil rights for all people; and 3) the

designing of a national security policy in a framework of peace.

After stating what the issues were, the speaker averred that

the solution of these three great issues was the challenge facing

the Democratic party. With civil rights being listed as one of the

issues, it was easy enough for Humphrey to move into that area of

concern. Civil rights was discussed on seven pages of the twenty- one page discourse, with major emphasis being given to the President's

civil rights program. Humphrey offered an explanation of the need

and intent of the program, stating at one point: "It is the life—

the spirit—and the heart of the constitutional guarantees of equal

rights, equal opportunity and equal privileges and immunities."

After a cursory review of the importance of the pending civil rights bill, Humphrey moved on to the last major point of the speech, that of security.

While civil rights was an integral part of this speech, it was not the only concern of the Senator. The reason for the rather superficial handling of the issue was probably due to the fact that the speech was delivered to an audience which was familiar with the policies then being proposed by President Kennedy.

The second address which did not deal with civil rights directly and exclusively was presented to the National Association for Mental 87

Health. The address was twenty-three pages in length and civil rights was referred to pointedly on just one page. After moving from advances that had been made in the area of mental illness and what the speaker chose to call the lessened paranoic attitude of the Soviet leadership,

Humphrey arrived at the point where he felt we should consider the building of an even better society in America, an undertaking which called for a reduction of those things which caused frustration, poverty, humiliation, and discrimination. He concluded:

We cannot expect almost twenty million Americans to be contented with living for the most part in the filth of slums, or with being denied the jobs their brains and skills qualify them for, denied the respect and equal treatment they deserve from their fellow citizens.28

Much of the rest of the speech dealt with mistakes made by the American people in dealing with the frustrations caused by the problems just alluded to. Humphrey also emphasized the fact that these problems were not just related to civil rights but also to the aged and unem­ ployed of all races.

In his "Fund for the Republic" speech, Senator Humphrey attempted to relate what he considered to be significant legislative problems facing the Congress. His express purpose was to discuss specific changes in Congressional organization in response to the changing nature of

American society.

No extensive analysis of issues pertaining to civil rights was offered. Instead, indirect references were developed. Such problem areas as education, urban renewal, and economic status were mentioned but no direct statements about civil rights per se were made. 88

In only one instance was a civil rights issue elaborated to any

extent. When commenting on the need for changing certain rules in

Congress so that small minorities could not frustrate the will of

the majority, Humphrey used the civil rights situation as a case in

point. Humphrey was obviously referring to the filibuster and other

techniques employed to thwart decision-making in Congress. In this

same context, Humphrey also stated that there was a need for greater

numbers of staff members so that the Senators could more accurately

judge the feelings of constituents regarding such issues as civil

rights. Expressing a separate but related thought, Senator Humphrey

said that because of many of the outmoded rules in Congress, frustra­

tions arose which in turn led to a negative view of Executive proposals

(e.g., the Civil Rights Bill).

Senator Humphrey raised the question of civil rights in his speech

to the National Farmers Union Convention by stating that it was because

of the civil rights debate then going on in Congress that he was not

able to be there to address them. Humphrey took the opportunity to

\ mention that a citizenship gap existed and that there was a need for

a great national consensus supporting the proposed measure on civil

rights.

The Senator called for general support and praised the farm

organization for its progressive programs. The audience was left

to draw the logical connection between the progress referred to and

the civil rights issue. After this rather brief comment about human

rights, the speaker moved to points more directly in accord with the

reason for the gathering and talked about various farm problems which 89

were of concern to those present.

ESSENTIAL ISSUES AND EVIDENCE

Public Speeches

The main point set forth by Senator Humphrey in the public

speeches was that civil rights was a moral issue that could not be

overlooked. This moral issue, as stated earlier, was mentioned in

all but one of the speeches presented to public gatherings. Because

of the nature of the argument, there was an implied feeling that the

beliefs of a Christian nation, which undoubtedly existed, should be

applied to the situation.

Evidence, as the term applies here, generally refers to any pq attempt on the part of the speaker to support a proposition.

Humphrey made few references to specific sources of evidence concerning

the moral issue. He seemed to rely more on his own personal credibility

(expert knowledge and experience) to support his ideas. He apparently

assumed that the audiences in question would agree that the problem had moral aspects. This may or may not have been the case for indivi­ dual members of the audiences, but keeping in mind that the audiences were chosen by the speaker because of their make-up, one may conclude that Humphrey was probably correct in his assumption.

An example of the Senator's referring to his own experience regarding the question appeared in his speech to the graduating class at Johns Hopkins University. Humphrey referred directly to his stand on civil rights in 1948: 90

The great moral issues involved in the civil rights struggle today are not very different from those of 1948. I am proud to have been among those in 1948 who fought for a strong position on the civil rights issue in the Democratic National Convention. And I am proud ■ to have been among those in the Senate who ad­ vocated a strong national commitment to the advancement of equal opportunity for all.30

These passages dealing with Humphrey's past experience in the civil

rights area were an obvious attempt to further the personal ethos of

the speaker. And as A. Craig Baird has pointed out, "the effective 31 speaker has mental range and consistency of principles." The

Senator clearly wished to establish the consistency of his position which he did extremely well in the public speeches.

Senator Humphrey occasionally referred to the programs of

Presidents Kennedy and Johnson in an attempt to establish a link between what their Administrations had advocated and what he was advocating. The unstated conclusion to be drawn in these cases was that the programs of the two men had been based on the goals of the founding fathers. In one such instance, Humphrey drew a parallel* between civil rights and the American Revolution:

We have a great opportunity to make the dreams and the ideals of John F. Kennedy a reality. We have a moral duty to help the American Negro in his struggle for equal rights because his goals are our goals--his goals are the same goals our founding fathers sought during the American Revolution. . . .32

Humphrey referred to the founding fathers in his speech to the

Florida State Teachers Association. In this instance, the factor-of religion was added. The speaker implied that our national heritage should remind us that we were children of God. He claimed that this 91

nation was founded on the principle that all men were created equal.

He concluded on the moral note: . i. Dignity simply means recognizing this quality in every man, drawing upon its present values, and having faith in its future development. To respect the dignity of our fellow man ... to respect it, share it, be enriched by it. . . is the highest law we can obey.33

In his speeches about the moral implications of the civil rights

bill, Senator Humphrey used broadly certain terms such as "freedom,"

"moral issue," "prejudice," and "bigotry." The connotations of these

terms are important and could be classified as a part of the evidence employed by the speaker.

Weaver has stated that terms can usually be classified as either

"God-terms," which have a good connotation, or as "Devil-terms," which

94 have a bad connotation. According to Weaver, the term "progress" is the one term which in our day carries with it the greatest blessing, while the most unfavorable term is probably "prejudice." Weaver also indicated the term "freedom" was the most charismatic term of our age; charismatic meaning that we tend to accept the hypothesis that their (an audience's) context proceeds out of a will that the term 35 shall mean something.

If we accept what Weaver has said as being true, then we also come to realize that many of the terms employed by Hubert Humphrey were either "God-terms" or "Devil-terms," depending upon the predis­ position of the members of the audience. Recalling once more that the

Senator chose the audiences before which he spoke, we conclude that these terms conveyed the exact meaning desired by the speaker.

The second major issue set forth in the public speeches by Senator 92

Humphrey was what he called "human dignity" or the "citizenship gap"

which was evident in the country. Aside from the fact that the pre­

vious discussion about "God-terms" might apply to these terms, evi­

dence supporting the issue was adduced in a number of ways.

One manner of support was a simple definition that was set

forth by the speaker. There were a few instances when the Senator

made a simple plea to correct the "citizenship gap" which had devel­

oped in this country. He defined it as "the gap between the promise

and the fulfillment of our Constitution and the Emancipation Proclam- 36 ation." In this case, Humphrey seemed to rely upon his personal ethos to win acceptance of the definition.

The concept of the "citizenship gap" was made more vivid by use of an illustration in an attempt to emphasize the idea that the

"Four Freedoms" we so often talk about would have little meaning to a Black child who had always been told to stay in his place.

The advocate continued:

And what place? The bottom of the scale, the worst of everything. The lowest, the last, the shoddiest, the back of the bus, the worst of the tenements, the most crowded school. Never mind if the child has the potential of a George Washington Carver, a Ralph Bunche, a William Hastie, a Robert Weaver, a Marion Anderson, a Carl Rowan, a General Benjamin Davis, or a Martin Luther King. I ask you, how long are 20 million Americans supposed to take all this?37

To impress upon his listeners the idea of human dignity, Humphrey used various quotations from religious sources. These were not great in number, but those chosen were quite effective. In one rather lengthy citation, words of Jesus Christ and Martin Luther were used for emphasis: 93

The moral value of human dignity is a basic tenet of all our religions. Jesus said simply, 'When your brother asks you for bread, ye do not give him a stone.' I am sure these words have never left our conscience. Yet, we have all muddled, compromised, and ignored some of the complexities of our common life in the vain hope that the tough issues will go away. But the issue of human dignity is not going away. We are faced today with the same kind of decision Martin Luther had at the Diet of Worms. I think we need his capacity to say, 'Here I stand. I can do no more. God help me.'38

One other religious source was cited to support the issue of

human dignity, the encyclical Pacem in Terris of Pope John XXIII.

Humphrey made a general call for action on the part of the citizenry

and concluded by saying that what America sought had been best stated

by the Pope:

Pope John emphasized that 'racial discrimination can in no way be justified' and he added: 'For, if a man becomes conscious of his rights, he must become equally aware of his duties. Thus he who possesses certain rights has likewise the duty to claim those rights as marks of his dignity, while all others have the obligation to acknowledge those rights and respect them.'39

Equal employment was to become a hot issue in the Senate debate,

but the Senator, although he did make it an issue, did not dwell upon

this subject to any great extent in the public speeches. The writer

concluded that Humphrey felt there was no urgent need to expand on the

employment issue because everyone was already aware of the problem;

that the evidence was set forth for him in the newspapers across the

nation.

Nevertheless, certain forms of support regarding equal employment did appear in the speeches. For example, Senator Humphrey relied upon

his position and expert knowledge to emphasize the fact that he, and 94

other leading Democrats, were aware of the unemployment problem. He

stated that, "We are doing well. But we can do better. A fifth of

our own people cannot be permitted to live in poverty.

To demonstrate the economic plight of Black people in this

country, Humphrey quoted Dick Gregory and a Negro girl's response

to the question of what her life's ambition was:

It was the Negro comedian Dick Gregory who said, 'It doesn't matter much if you can sit at a lunch counter if you don't have a dime for a cup of coffee.' This problem also is illustrated by the words of a little Negro girl who was asked on a tele­ vision show what her life ambition was. Do you know what she said? She said, 'I want to marry a man with a job.'41

While this support was quite graphic in nature, it should be remembered

that some might have questioned the Gregory quotation as a biased source

and no reference was made at all to which television program the little

girl had appeared on or when she had made the statement. In an argu­

mentative sense, this had the effect of lessening the impact of the

supportive material.

One speech did use statistical information to show the inequality

in job opportunities and pay. Senator Humphrey quoted material from

the 1960 Census Report in order to indicate the number of Blacks 42 employed at the time of the Census. The report was four years old

at the time of the speech, but the speaker gave the impression that

the facts were at least as bad in 1964, as in 1960. The facts showed

that fully 40 per cent of the lowest paying jobs were held by Negroes.

The facts also established that even in the low paying jobs, the Negro earned less than a white man in the same position. Figures showed that 95

Blacks, in the same jobs as whites, generally earned about $2,000 a year less than whites.

Humphrey continued to cite the 1960 Census Report to show that in one area of employment the gap had been closed somewhat. Figures were introduced to prove that in the area of clerical work earnings compared more favorably. The reason for this was that a large portion of Negro clerical workers were hired by the Federal Government, where there was no discrimination. Even there, however, the earnings for the

Negro were less than for the white.

This evidence was presented in the address to the Americans for

Democratic Action gathering, and was the most definitive employed in the development of the equal opportunity issue. The figures were quoted from a reputable source and, if anything, were an understate­ ment rather than an overstatement of the facts.

"The Negro has never had equality of opportunity in education.

That is the largest single root of the difficulty he is in, and the hardship he has in getting out of it."^3 These words by Humphrey emphasize the importance he placed on the relationship of education to civil rights. He was referring to the dilemma of the need for education and the Negro's inability to acquire it. The Senator relied more on his personal ethos and experience than on any other type of evidence. Most of the speeches which emphasized education were given before audiences of educators and the need for what we might call

"hard core" evidence was minimal.

A common technique employed in support of the educational theme was to speak of it in progressive terms. Few would take issue with 96

the importance of education, so the idea was to stress the importance of good education for all people of the nation. For example, when addressing the graduating class at Fisk University, Humphrey argued for education in the following manner:

Education and training. Training and education. These are the watchwords. We must invest and invest again in bringing the finest of education to those who need it most, to those whose early lives have been blighted by a heritage of indif­ ference and discrimination and poverty. What­ ever the cost, it will be less than the cost of not making such an investment. And whatever the cost, it must be paid.44

One literary allusion was used as evidence for the educational issue. The speaker cited H. G. Wells as having said that "mankind was caught in a race between 'education and catastrophe . Humphrey then went on to say that education had become the fundamental battle­ ground of the war on poverty. In such a manner, he was able to link education to poverty and thus make the appeal even broader in scope.

One speech did contain statistical data. As was the case with the employment issue, the speech to the Americans for Democratic

Action employed data collected by such agencies as the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. Humphrey cited a 69 per cent rate of

Negroes, in New York City, not finishing high school. He also pointed out that even though a Negro may have finished four years of college, a white man with an eighth grade education would make more money in a lifetime. The main point of this argument was summed up when the

Senator quoted a report by the President's Council of Economic Advisors which stated, "that racial bias in this country is costing between 13 and 17 billion dollars a year in increases in our Gross National 97

46 Product." If Negroes were paid on an equal basis with whites, there would be more money in the economy. ) The last major issue which Senator Humphrey presented dealt with the international impact of the civil rights movement. Again, because of his high political stature, Humphrey relied mainly upon his personal experience and knowledge to support his contention. At one point, he successfully set forth a dilemma which would arise if we did not change our policy at home:

And internationally it's imperative that we come to the world with clean hands. How, I ask, can a nation that denies or ignores the rights of its colored citizens continue to be the leader of a world that is more than half colored? Our role of world leadership demands that we set an example for the world, an example of respect for human dignity, of equal rights for all its citizens and first class citizenship for all Americans.47

This same theme was extended in the address to the American

Jewish Congress. Senator Humphrey argued that the great discrimina­ tion and degradation imposed upon Russian Jews was intolerable. But, he concluded:

We will be in a much better position to con­ demn assaults on human dignity and freedom abroad when we have put our own house in order, when we have made our Constitutional guarantees living realities for all our citizens.48

Humphrey did feel that progress was being made which improved our international image. He pointed to such things as the "Freedom

March" on Washington as a living example that America was trying to correct the problem of race relations. He asserted that this demon­ strated to the world that America was not trying to hide the issue.

He concluded: "Nobody is asking us to be perfect. They are only 98

49 asking us to be honest, to shed the mask of hypocrisy."

•Regarding the issues and evidence employed in their support in the public speeches delivered by Hubert Humphrey, it can be stated that the situation was approached as goal-oriented with a barrier I (Southern opposition) being present. Otis M. Walter has indicated that in urging an audience to achieve a certain goal, the speaker should argue that: 1) the goal will produce benefits for those involved (Negroes); 2) the goal is deserved by the members of the audience (in this case a segment of the audience); and 3) that the goal will produce benefits for those with whom the audience is CA identified (the American nation).

Walter further asserted that in overcoming the barrier impeding attainment of the goal, the speaker should argue that: 1) the goal is worth achieving; 2) the barrier is unjust; and 3) the barrier works to the advantage of our enemies (international scene).

The arguments and evidence employed by Senator Humphrey seemed to be designed to accord with the techniques specified by Walter.

Humphrey was after a goal and had to combat the barrier which con­ fronted him. In an effort to do so, he appealed to the predisposi­ tions of each of his audiences and relied heavily upon his own credibility for support.

Senate Speeches

Senator Humphrey opened the Senate debate on the Civil Rights

Bill on Monday, March 30, 1964. In a three-hour speech he outlined the basic case for the civil rights advocates. The Senator began his 99

speech by refuting the idea that the extended argument on the part

of the proponents of the bill might be termed a filibuster. He I completely denied this allegation:

Mr. President, this is the very antithesis of a filibuster, because a filibuster is designed to prevent a decision by affirmative action. We intend to seek a decision by the Senate. . . .

Humphrey continued the speech by turning directly to Title I,

which dealt with voting rights. Previous voting laws were briefly

outlined and the speaker described the double standard that had

existed for qualification to vote. Several examples were cited to

point out that this type of practice did exist in the South.

Humphrey then outlined exactly what Title I would do in this regard.

Several Supreme Court cases were listed as evidence in antici­

pation of the constitutional arguments his opponents might raise.

And he concluded his discussion of the first point by indicating how

the voting privileges guaranteed under Title I pertained only to

Federal elections.

The speaker then took up Title II, which he considered one of the most important parts of the bill. Title II dealt with discrim­

ination in places of public accommodation. The basic argument set forth was that being turned away from public places was one of the grestest injustices done to the American Negro. It had been, for years, a frustrating and humiliating practice.

The Senator produced considerable evidence to help prove his point. He cited examples where blacks were still turned away from cer­ tain establishments: 100

It is heartbreaking to compare these two guide­ books ¿comparing white and black guidebooks for motoring across the country/", the one for families with dogs, and the other for Negroes. In Augusta, Ga., for example, there are five hotels and motels that will take dogs, and only one where a Negro can go with confidence. In Columbus, Ga., there are six places for dogs, and none for Negroes. In Charleston, S.C., there are 10 places where a dog can stay, and none for a Negro.53

Humphrey used as his last major argument for Title II the fact

that 30 states already had some form of public accommodation law,

thus setting a precedent to be followed. He concluded his argument

by stating that the legal theory which supported Title II was firmly

rooted in our common law heritage. He quoted Blackstone:

A man may justify entering into an inn or public house, without the leave of the owner first spec­ ifically asked; because when a man professes the keeping of such inn or house, he thereby gives a general license to any person to enter his doors. 4

Titles III and IV both dealt with powers of the Attorney General

to sue in regard to practices of desegregation relating primarily to matters of education. Humphrey used the famous Brown vs. Board of

Education case as precedent (extensive use of precedent was made by

Humphrey throughout the speech). His main contention was that the

intent of this Supreme Court decision was to guarantee the integra­ tion of schoolsiin the country. He pointed out, however, that states like Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina and South Carolina had enrolled less than one per cent of all Negro pupils in biracial districts in desegregated schools. Then, in an attempt really to drive the point home, he specified his source as the

Southern Education Reporting Service. 101

The speaker next attacked the concept of "separate but equal."

He maintained that this was not the case at all. He again produced considerable data to prove his claim. He cited differences in teacher pay, class size, and annual expenditures per pupil.

In closing, Humphrey answered the argument that litigation already existed in the courts for dealing with discrimination in schools. It was admitted that the process existed, but it was argued that the astronomical cost was a deciding factor. Humphrey asserted that the average litigation cost in 1964 was between $50,000 and

$100,000. Thus, he concluded, it was necessary for the Attorney

General to have the power to prosecute in cases of educational dis­ crimination.

Title V called for extending the life of the Civil Rights

Commission and granting to it the power to act as a clearinghouse for civil rights information. Senator Humphrey merely outlined what this provision of the bill called for. No opposition was expected to

Title V.

Title VI was concerned with federally assisted programs. Humphrey's main contention dealt with the basic principle contained within the following clause:

No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.55

The argument was fully developed when the speaker asserted that

HEW reports for 1962 showed that many Southern states had received large sums of federal monies for public education, and yet those same 102

Southern states had had few, if any, black students attending school

with whites. The inference Humphrey would have us draw was that,

because of discriminatory practices in the South, blacks were being

denied the benefits of the federal funds most probably being spent

largely for the white schools.

Humphrey concluded the argument by offering a compromise to the

South. He conceded that the states could not change procedures over­

night. He agreed that the courts would be justified in accepting

"reasonable" plans for gradual desegregation while the states contin­

ued to receive federal funds.

Equal employment opportunity was contained in Title VII. This human right was one Humphrey had been fighting for since 1945, when he became Mayor of Minneapolis. The speaker contended that no civil rights legislation would be complete unless this particular problem was dealt with. After all, "what good does it do a Negro to be able 56 to- eat in a fine restaurant if he cannot afford to pay the bill?"

Following this statement, several figures were offered to show how whites had the better paying jobs. U.S. Bureau of Census statis­ tics were used to establish the lifetime earning power of white and black males. The figures revealed that white males were well ahead in every category.

To solidify the overall argument, Humphrey turned to a list of

25 states where Fair Employment Practices were already law. He con­ tended that the title was not unconstitutional because where a state law did exist, the state would be given a chance to operate under that law. If it did not, then federal intervention could come about. 103

The remaining four titles of the bill were given token develop­

ment in the speech primarily because they dealt with operational

matters and would not be highly controversial. Senator Humphrey

outlined what each title would basically do and gave a brief rationale

forxthe title.

Title VIII referred to voting statistics and required the Secretary

of Commerce to conduct surveys regarding the extent to which people

were registered to vote. Title IX provided for appeal from Federal

courts remanding any civil rights case to the State Court from which

it was removed. Title X would establish a Community Relations Service

to assist local communities and individuals in the voluntary adjust­

ment of disputes. Title XI contained the customary miscellaneous

provisions--a savings clause, a provision against preemption of

consistent state legislation, an authorization of appropriations,

and a separability clause providing that the rest of the Act would be unaffected if any portion were invalidated.

One additional point should be made regarding types of support employed by the speaker. As the debate progressed in the Senate, 57 Humphrey relied heavily on explanation as a form of evidence. A very brief example of the type of explanations employed was an attempt to clarify the intent of Title VII of the bill:

What the bill does, as was pointed out so ably earlier today_ by the_distinguished Senator from New Jersey /Mr. Case/ and the distinguished senior Senator from Pennsylvania /Mr. Clarjc/, is simply to make it an illegal practice to use race as a factor in denying employment. It provides that men and women shall be employed on the basis of their qualifications, not as Catholic citizens, not as Protestant citizens, not as Jewish citi­ zens, not as colored citizens, but as citizens of the United States.58 104

In commenting on the lengthy address, one can say that it con­

tained a detailed account of the case the civil rights people would make. The speech was clear and concise; it was dotted with numerous citations from Supreme Court cases and, overall, evidence presented was plentiful. 105

FOOTNOTES

* L. Patrick Devlin, "Hubert H. Humphrey: His Speaking

Principles and Practices in Campaign and General Audience Speaking

to 1966" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Wayne State University,

1968), p. 94.

Ibid., p. 95. 3 Ibid., pp. 95-96.

4 Ibid., p. 97.

5 Ibid., pp. 97-98.

6 Ben Padrow, "Hubert H. Humphrey: The Glandular Zephyr," Today's

Speech (September, 1964), p. 3. 7 Address to the Western States Democratic Conference, September

20, 1963. Q Address to the Americans for Democratic Action, March 7, 1964. 9 Address to the American Baptist Convention, May 20, 1964. 10 Address to the graduating class of Fisk University, June 1, 1964. H Wayland M. Parrish, "The Study of Speeches," Speech Criticism:

Methods and Materials, edited by William A. Linsley (Dubuque, Iowa:

1968), p. 88. 12 Address to the Fund for the Republic Dinner, December 8, 1963. 13 Address to the National Farmers Union Convention, March 18,

1964. 14 Address to the National Association for Mental Health, November

21, 1963. 15 Ibid. 106

15 Emest Bormann, "Presidential Campaign 1960: A Symposium,"

Quarterly Journal of Speech (October, 1960), p. 240. ^7 Address to the Americans for Democratic Action, March 7, 1964.

18 Address to the California Democratic Club Convention, February

22, 1964. 19 Address to the American Baptist Convention, May 20, 1964. ?n Address to the Greek Independence Day Celebration, April 5,

1964. 21 Address to the Lutheran Brotherhood Award gathering, April 6,

1964.

00 Address to the California Democratic County Convention,

February 22, 1964. 23 Anthony Hillbruner, Critical Dimensions: The Art of Public

Address Criticism (New York: 1968), p. 145. 24 A. Craig Baird, "The Study of Speeches," Speech Criticism:

Methods and Materials, edited by William A. Linsley (Dubuque, Iowa:

1968), p. 50. 25 Address to the American Association of School Administrators,

February 8, 1964. 25 Address to the American Jewish Congress Convention, April 18,

1964. 27 Address to the National Farmers Union Convention, March 18,

1964. 28 Address to the National Association for Mental Health,

December 8, 1963. 107

Erwin P. Bettinghaus, The Nature of Proof (New York: 1972),

p. 52. 30 Address to the graduating class of Johns Hopkins University,

January 17, 1964.

Baird, "The Study of Speeches," Speech Criticism, p. 48. 32 c Address to the Greek Independence Day Celebration, April 5,

1964. 33 Address to the Florida State Teachers Association, April 24,

1964. 34 Richard Weaver, The Ethics of Rhetoric (Chicago: 1970), pp.

212-223. 35 Ibid., p. 228. 3fi Address to the American Association of School Administrators,

February 18, 1964. 3? Address to the Four Freedoms Award Dinner, March 15, 1964.

38 Address to the Lutheran Brotherhood Award gathering, April 6,

1964. 39 Address to the Democratic County Committee of New York County,

May 14, 1964. 40 Address to the California Democratic Club Convention, February

22, 1964. 41 Address to the American Baptist Convention, May 20, 1964.

42 Address to the Americans for Democratic Action, March 7, 1964. 43 Address to the American Council of Education, October 4, 1963. 44 Address to the graduating class of Fisk University, June 1, 1964.

45 Address to the Florida State Teachers Association, April 24, 1964. 108

Address to the Americans for Democratic Action, March 7, 1964. 47 Address to the graduating class of Johns Hopkins University,

January 17, 1964. 48 Address to the American Jewish Congress Convention, April 18,

1964. 49 Address to the American Council of Education, October 4, 1964. 50 Otis M. Walter, "Toward An Analysis of Motivation," Quarterly

Journal of Speech (October, 1955), p. 274. 51 Ibid., p. 275.

52 U.S., Congressional Record, 88th Congress, 2nd Session (1964),

Vol. 110, Part 5, p. 6528. 53 Ibid., p. 6532.

54 Ibid., p. 6539.

55 Ibid., p. 6543.

56 Ibid., p. 6547. 57 See for example U.S., Congressional Record, 88th Congress, 2nd

Session (1964), Vol. 110, Part 7, p. 9767; Part 9, pp. 11846-11848; and

Part 10, pp. 12702-12728. 5b U.S., Congressional Record, 88th Congress, 2nd Session (1964),

Vol. 110, Part 10, p. 13088. CHAPTER V

RHETORICAL AND LEGISLATIVE STRATEGIES EMPLOYED

Senator Humphrey was to recall in a 1964 memorandum that prior to the trouble in Birmingham, Alabama, the Kennedy Administration had not presented a civil rights program other than a leprosy bill.

After the trouble had become national in scope, the President had

Attorney General Robert Kennedy begin discussing such legislation with Humphrey, Senator Mansfield, and such Republicans as Senators

Dirksen, Kuchel, Keating and Javits. Several meetings took place but no real program came into being until May, when the President decided that a comprehensive program of civil rights should be sought.

Part of the strategy of Hubert Humphrey became apparent imme­ diately. He urged the President to call for a broad, comprehensive program. Humphrey argued that "the leadership for civil rights had to either take place in the White House or it was going to take ? place on the streets." Humphrey further commented:

I urged the President to take command, to be the moral leader, to recall time after time urging that his message go all the way, includ­ ing voting rights, school desegregation, public accommodations, FEP, the cut-off of Federal funds where discrimination exists and the rights of the Attorney General to move into court and protect the rights of the American citizens.3 110

Finally a commitment to go ahead was made and a unified effort for passage of such legislation was undertaken.

With the strong backing of President Kennedy, civil rights proponents began to draw up the strategic plans for the long, hard fight which was ahead. Civil rights legislation had been intro­ duced before but the forces for such legislation had always been out-maneuvered and thwarted in their efforts. Humphrey was deter­ mined that that would not be the case again.

Clevenger has stated that "communication strategy means clar­ ifying one's purposes in speaking and setting up a course of action 4 calculated to fulfill those purposes." Clevenger continued that although the concept may seem very simple, it can be made more diffi­ cult by the introduction of several factors which could merit consid­ eration. Moreover, he concluded, a speaker should take into account the way in which he perceives the total communication process, which in turn may depend upon his view of society, himself, and the nature 5 of mankind. Add to this statement Woolbert's assertion that "members of deliberative bodies feel the necessity of proving that they are 6 deliberative," and the full scope of the strategies employed by

Hubert H. Humphrey becomes evident.

Not only did Humphrey concern himself with the Congress, which would eventually vote on the legislation, but he felt that a national consensus must be reached in order to insure passage. His basic belief in the "natural rights" of man was paramount in determining how he approached the moral issue of civil rights. Humphrey felt that this "natural rights" concept was also inherent in the political Ill

structure of the nation. In a letter sent to a constituent in 1948,

the Senator stated:

I appreciate your expression of opinion but I must say that I, of course, cannot agree with all that you have said. I find plenty of evi­ dence in American political thought, American philosophy, American history and constitutional law for the program of civil rights which I placed before the convention. Anyone who reads the Preamble to the Constitution will find that it surely embodies the spirit of equality and social justice. . . J

Although this opinion was expressed years before the time in question,

Humphrey's stand on the issue was to remain constant.

STRATEGIES IN PUBLIC SPEECHES

Humphrey felt that in an attempt to meet the accelerating crisis

over civil rights, executive action should include a series of infor­

mal meetings, sometimes off-the-record, with a variety of religious

and professional leaders from all areas of the country. "These meet­

ings would be called on the assumption that the current civil rights

crisis touches every American family regardless of geographical loca­

tion or racial origin. . . .

Extending this idea, Senator Humphrey also spoke on several

occasions to public audiences, the make-up of which was discussed

in Chapter III. The writer maintains that a significant portion

of the strategy employed by Senator Humphrey related directly to

how these public audiences were dealt with.

The single most important area of concern was the choice of

the audiences to be addressed. As indicated in Chapter III, Senator

Humphrey had to be on the floor of the Senate, and, because of this, 112

chose to limit the number of his public engagements. In an effort to

disseminate information on the up-coming civil rights bill, he chose

occasions to speak where the audience would be friendly to his con­

tentions. Senator Humphrey, himself, indicated which groups he felt

were important. In a speech delivered in New York City on March 15,

1964, he referred to a growing consensus among the American people.

"I feel the stirrings in the churches, among business groups, educa­

tors, the great voluntary organizations--not alone in the Negro groups 9 themselves."

The significance of this statement is that, with minor excep­

tions, the groups referred to by the Senator were the exact groups

he chose to address during the period leading up to the vote on the

Civil Rights Bill in the Senate. Aside from certain speeches to

partisan audiences, Humphrey addressed himself to groups of leaders

in religion, education, and voluntary organizations (usually at the

State or National level).

Humphrey's need to be close to the Senate floor determined the

strategy of addressing selected audiences as the best way to dissem­

inate the message of civil rights. By confronting the leaders of

each of the groups mentioned, Humphrey had a good chance to acquire wide acceptance of his proposals. If those who were influential

in organizations could be won over, pressure could be funneled from

the top down to gain further support.

It can also be inferred that the nature of the audiences corres­ ponded to the aspects of the problem which Senator Humphrey wanted to expound. In other words, the nature of the problem determined the 113

audiences. In an attempt to set forth the moral issue, for example,

Humphrey chose to speak to such groups as the Lutheran Brotherhood

organization, the American Jewish Congress, and the American Baptist

Convention. Humphrey also spoke at the College of St. Teresa, thus

enhancing the ecumenical spirit of the appeal.

To insure strong support for the educational measures he would

call for, he addressed such groups as the American Council of Educa­

tion, the American Association of School Administrators, and the

Florida State Teachers Association.

Unemployment, because of its appeal to all people, was empha­

sized to a number of audiences of varying make-up. The speaker chose

to equate jobs with human dignity in an attempt to make the appeal

even more universal.

Nor did the speaker overlook the political importance of the

civil rights issue. In an attempt to minimize civil rights as an

election issue in 1964, Humphrey emphasized the impact that the

civil rights issue would have on our world standing if deficiencies were

not corrected. He often referred to the hypocrisy of many of America's

actions. He emphasized that we could not be a world leader if we con­

demned subjugation while we subjugated our own citizens at home.

Senator Humphrey also chose to employ a number of terms and

slogans which would have either a positive or negative connotative

impact on his listeners. Such terms as "progress," "dignity," and

"freedom" were often used to argue his points. As indicated in

Chapter IV, these terms do have a definite effect on the audience.

Each of the major and minor arguments set forth by Humphrey 114

directly referred to the contents of the major titles of the Civil

Rights Bill. His public speaking was an obvious attempt to place the

importance of each of the issues in perspective. Because of this

attempt, the speeches contained what many people might refer to as

redundant statements. Redundancy, however, was an important aspect

of the speaking philosophy of Humphrey. The Senator stated:

It is necessary to get a central theme and develop it, redesign it, mold it, redevelop it, and in other words to repeat it again with variations. Education is essentially saturation and persuasion is frequently repe­ titious pronouncement.10

This statement indicates that redundancy was an integral part of

Humphrey's strategy. The basic issues of morality, human dignity,

education, equal employment opportunities, and political importance were all discussed with variations, from speech to speech.

In relating specific areas of concern to certain audiences,

Humphrey was using the strategy of identification. Scott and 11 Brockriede claim that this strategy has been employed by Humphrey.

Analysis of the public speeches in question leads this writer to agree.

Herbert C. Kelman has said that identification "can be said to occur when an individual adopts behavior derived from another person or a group because this behavior is associated with a satisfying self- defining relationship to this person or group." Humphrey was playing on the role relationships which the members of the particular audiences saw for themselves. The appeals he used were related specifically to the roles that the audiences perceived themselves as functioning in.

Burkean terms would refer to this as the concept of consubstantiality. 115

Burke states that "two persons may be identified in terms of some 13 principle that they share in common . . . ."

Humphrey was attempting to establish a common ground between

himself and his audiences. Perelman has stated: "Every technique

promoting the communion of the speaker with his audience will decrease

the opposition between them--an opposition which is harmful when the 14 task of the speaker is to persuade."

Humphrey was also the acknowledged leader of the civil rights

forces and because of this, along with his long history of civil

rights efforts, carried a high credibility rating before each of the

audiences addressed. He made extensive use of his personal ethos and

expert knowledge as evidence supporting the points in the speeches.

The speaker was attempting to achieve what could be called intern­ alization by the audience of the civil rights planks. Kelman has asserted that "to the extent that the agent's power is based on his 15 credibility,influence will tend to take the form of internalization."

Internalization occurs when a person accepts influence because the influence is congruent with his value system.15 The content of the individual behavior which the influence calls for becomes intrinsic­ ally rewarding. The influence helps solve a problem or injustice that goes against the listener's values.

Because of the high degree of credibility he enjoyed, because of his astuteness in audience selection, and because of his ability to establish a common ground between himself and the audiences he addressed,

Hubert Humphrey undoubtedly did bring about a greater degree of intern­ alization of the ideas that he and his audiences shared. It should be 116

concluded that this particular strategy was appropriate and success­

ful for the speaker. L SENATE STRATEGIES

By March of 1964, the stage was set for one of the most historic

debates ever to take place in the Congress of the United States.

Support had been growing in Congress for the civil rights forces and

in a televised conference on June 11, 1963, President Kennedy announced

that he would seek civil rights legislation in the 88th Congress. In

the Senate, S. 1937 was introduced by Senator Humphrey. More import­

ant, however, was H.R. 7152, which was reported out with bipartisan

support by the House Judiciary Committee. H.R. 7152 was introduced

by Congressman Cellar (D., N.Y.) on June 10, 1963, as the Adminis­

tration's omnibus civil rights bill.

The introduction of H.R. 7152 initiated debate in the House of

Representatives and Senate that would last for months. According to

the records, the measure was considered and debated by the House

Judiciary Committee for seven days, by the House for six days, by the Rules Committee for seven days, and by the Senate for eighty- three days. The debate in the Senate lasted 534 hours, one minute and thirty-seven seconds.17

Stephen Bailey, in his book Congress Makes a Law, states that the concept of the public interest is one of the most elusive in the vocab­ ulary of democratic politics. He asserts that terms like liberty, justice, freedom, and equality are the symbols of democratic govern­ ment, but like all symbols they can become too emotion charged and thus militate against proper perspective. ‘People often become more 117

platitudinous than sensible. Bailey states that it is obvious that

the public has no right in a democracy to expect unanimity about the

"public interest" character of any particular legislative proposal.

The disagreement of honest minds about what is best for the country

IO is the priceless condition of democracy. His comments apply to the

debate over the civil rights bill.

The civil rights forces, led by Senator Humphrey and Senator

Kuchel (R., Calif.), expected a long, tough fight on the 1964 civil

rights proposal. They had often been frustrated in the past and were

determined to come out on the credit side of the ledger this time.

It was felt that they had been defeated in past efforts because of

a lack of organization, and by an unwarranted use of the filibuster

by Southern factions. Humphrey commented:

Were it not for the filibuster ¿unlimited debate/" we could probably have had for some years now a federal FEPC and maybe even some kind of an open­ housing law. . . . The filibuster has given a recalcitrant minority excessive power, and made the legislation we have passed come later and in weaker form than it would otherwise have been.19

According to Bailey, in preparing a bill on any controversial

national issue, one ought to employ certain governing rules of strat­

egy. By far the most important is that a bill must be made to appeal to the widest group of supporters, and the breadth of support a bill

can generate in Congress is often in direct ratio to its viability as . ! 20 a symbol.

This strategic rule was not overlooked by the Humphrey forces.

Wide radio and television coverage was given to what the bill pro­ posed to do. Humphrey later commented: 118

We determined early not to let the Southerners occupy the press, so in the early opening days, starting with March 9 on the motion to take up, we proceeded to debate the Southerners. We took the offensive and were able to get good press. . . .21

The proponents of the bill took the floor of the Senate with the intro­

ductory speech by Humphrey and held the floor for some twelve days while they explained the bill title by title and section by section.

The only real news coming out of the Senate regarding civil rights was of a favorable nature. Positive press coverage was established

in that only the arguments in favor of civil rights predominated press releases because this was all there was to report.

It was also decided early that the symbol of justice and equal­ ity would be drummed at the public, and religious groups were invited to play a large role in supporting the measure. This was probably the single most important piece of strategy employed by Humphrey.

The civil rights issue was made a moral issue in the minds of the nation. Commenting on the planning of this strategy, Humphrey stated:

We met early in March with the representatives of the three faiths--Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish in my office. We selected the date of April 28 at that time for the Inter-faith Civil Rights convocation to be held at Georgetown University. This plan was worked out almost two months in advance. . . . Close contact was maintained at all times with the clergy.22

Members of the clergy were encouraged to go to Washington and call upon their Senators. Humphrey met with their leaders over a hundred times himself. Most of these meetings took place at the

Capitol, where the presence of the groups could be noted by the press. 119

After the passage of the bill, Humphrey reiterated the importance of the religious groups: "I have said a number of times, and I repeat it now, that without the clergy, we couldn't have possibly passed 23 this bill. They were very helpful."

Thus, the strategy of stressing the moral issue in Humphrey's public speeches becomes even more paramount. And, by all accounts, the work of the clergy was quite decisive in the outcome. The following detailed account taken from the work of James Sundquist best summarizes the frustration felt by the Southern Senators:

. . . 'Washington has not seen such a gigantic and well-organized lobby since the legislative days of Volstead and the Prohibition amendment,' complained Georgia's Senator Russell early in the debate. 'Groups of ministers from all over the nation arrive in relays . . . .' Three months later he compared 'the philosophy of coercion by the men of the cloth' to the doctrines of the Spanish inquisition and observed, 'We have seen cardinals, bishops, elders, stated clerks, common preachers, priests, and rabbis come to Washington to press for passage of the bill. They have sought to make its passage a great moral issue . . . .'24

Many people, particularly Southerners, felt that the great pressure being exerted by church groups was improper. This judgment was answered with the argument that such activity was not political activity in the sense that Washington normally understood political activity. The stand of the churches was summarized in an editorial in America magazine:

. . . 'We're representing so many million people in our denomination' .... 'This is moral leadership speaking.' They /church­ men/ don't appeal to the political interests of the peoples' elected representatives; they speak to their consciences.2b 120

Following the disruptive acts of black protests in various parts

of the nation during 1963, the Humphrey forces turned to the business

community to help avert future violence. Businessmen began to lead

the way in an effort to curb violence and establish rapport with seg­ ments of the black community. There was, of course, a direct economic

interest involved which concerned the business community. Humphrey had for months, emphasized the significance of economic equality for

Negroes as being an asset to the business world. The more money

Negroes had, the more they could spend. Leaders such as Everett H.

Erlick, Vice-President of American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres,

Inc., Robert H. Knight of the New York law firm of Shearmen and

Sterling, and James H. Merritt, Executive Vice-President of the

National Association of Chain Drug stores were some of the men who became involved in the civil rights issue.25

The second strategy set forth by Bailey was that co-sponsorship is important in garnering rival-party support. If the measure can be made bipartisan in nature, it has a greater chance of being accepted. A letter found in Humphrey's private papers showed that the feeling of bipartisanship was not prevalent early in the struggle.

The letter, from Senator Joseph S. Clark (Dem., Pa.) dated March 14,

1963 specified that it was a compilation of decisions which had been reached on March 12 in Senator Humphrey's office. Among the import­ ant items were statements to the effect that the Administration's civil rights bill would be sponsored only by Democrats and that no 27 Republican co-sponsorship would be asked for any Administration bills.

By June 18 of the same year, however, the importance of bipartisan 121

support was being emphasized. In a memorandum dated June 18, 1963,

John Stewart, a member of Humphrey's staff, reported that the results of a meeting with high Democratic party members dictated that Senators

Humphrey and Kuchel would work together to introduce the entire admin- istration bill. The memorandum also indicated that complete commun­ ication should be maintained between leaders of both parties.

Senator Humphrey later commented in his book, Beyond Civil Rights, about the bipartisanship strategy:

We knew, of course, that it had to be bipartisan. Senator Kuchel of California was the Republican floor leader for this bill, and he and I worked together as partners throughout those months. We had no significant disagreements, and some­ times the two of us would stand together against the Senate leaders of both parties. . . .29

It should be concluded, then, that sometime between March 12 and

June 18 of 1963, the civil rights forces in the Democratic party felt compelled to seek a bipartisan bill. This was obviously done to secure additional support for the measure so that cloture might eventually be called for and secured.

A third piece of strategy mentioned by Bailey, which is closely related to the idea of co-sponsorship, is unification of support.

The image of solidarity within the pro-civil rights forces was needed. To accomplish this end, efforts were made to bring Repub­ lican leader Everett Dirksen to the side of the civil rights propo­ nents.

A major part of the delicate negotiations carried on during the months of debate concerned Senator Dirksen's proposed changes in the bill the House had passed. Humphrey made every effort to 122

involve Dirksen in what was transpiring. Humphrey said:

I knew that it was impossible to pass a Civil Rights Bill because we couldn't possibly get cloture without Dirksen and his help. There­ fore, every effort was made to involve him. With few exceptions, I visited with Senator Dirksen every day, encouraging him to take a more prominent role, asking him what changes he wanted to propose, urging him to call meetings and discuss his changes. . . .30

Humphrey also attempted to give Dirksen as much credit as possible for advancements made during the debates. In an interview taped for television stations in Minnesota, North Dakota, and South

Dakota, Humphrey made the following statement:

And now, this year he plays a very important role in what we expect will be the passage of the most comprehensive civil rights bill ever presented to Congress. Now, Everett, you have really been mixing the dough, so-to-speak, you have been baking well—on this civil rights bill ... .31

Evidence shows that Senator Humphrey took several steps to try to establish Senator Dirksen as the pivotal figure in the civil rights legislation. Often this was done much to the consternation of Humphrey supporters. An unidentified Humphrey staff member sum­ marized the relationship between Humphrey and Dirksen-with some cynicism when he concluded:

Humphrey has been playing up very strongly the line t'hat this is an opportunity for Dirksen to be thé great man of the United States, the man of the hour, the man who serves the Civil Rights Bill. This line has been played by Humphrey on Meet The Press, by numerous conversations with journalists; Humphrey instigated Roscoe Drummond's recené article in the Herald Tribune Syndicate pointing up that Dirksen had an opportunity¡for greatness in the pending civil rights debaté. In short,4 it appears that Dirksen is beginning'to a » 123

swallow the 'Great Man' hook and when it is fully digested we will have ourselves a Civil Rights Bill.32

An interesting aspect of the informal negotiations that went on

between the Humphrey.and Dirksen forces was that most of the decisions

were made in informal ad hoc sessions. Although no issue was made of it,

one could question the authority of these groups operating in this way.

The ad hoc groups met without the benefit of hearings and with no

statutory or legal authority at all. The conversations on the House

side were very similar in nature but the participants were all members

of the Judiciary Committee and were, in a sense, an ad hoc subcommittee

of the Judiciary Committee.33 Ultimately, both the Senate and the

House accepted the bill which was set forth and the matter was never

raised.

Other efforts to keep the civil rights forces unified and organized included the publishing of a daily Senate newssheet. The

purpose of the newssheet was to summarize each day's activities and to keep the civil rights forces informed as to what was happening on the Senate floor. It was also used as a device to help assure that a quorum was present at all times. Names of Senators who missed quorum calls were published in the newsletter.

A significant strategy used by the Humphrey-Kuchel forces was to maintain a quorum.- Duty rosters were drawn up and each Senator had a specific time during which it was his responsibility to be on the floor. If for some reason he couldn't be present at the • appointed time, it was his responsibility to secure a replacement for himself. 124

It was important to have a quorum present, because Senate rules

permitted each Senator the privilege of making no more than two

speeches on any motion brought up for a bill. This meant that the

Squthern forces, in trying to prevent the bill from being brought up,

had to use up their quota of speeches, thus yielding the floor to the

bill. The only way they could stop the proponents of the bill was by

catching the Humphrey forces short on a, quorum call. That would force

an adjournment, and require the bill to be reintroduced and thus allow 34 each Southerner the right to make two more speeches each.

The quorum system also had another important bearing on bringing

about the cloture vote. Focusing attention on the quorum system made

the public aware of which Senators were present and which weren't.

Newspapers, magazines and periodicals kept constant watch on those

in attendance. The quorum idea became very important and in order

to be present, Senators had to cancel many engagements. Once the.

filibuster got underway, it meant that they were away from their

homes and other important Senate business. This strategy turned out

to be quite effective in helping break the filibuster of the South­

erners. Senator Humphrey did all in his power to maintain the quorum

and was quoted as having said to his Senate colleagues: "Just give or me your body--your presence."

Humphrey also requested that Senators send newsletters to their constituents in an attempt to keep the populace apprised of what was happening in Washington. This also helped to emphasize to the people that time was being wasted in Washington because of the Southern fili­ buster. Senator Humphrey could never really understand why the 125

Southern forces did not change their tactics. He stated:

The heavy barrage of newsletters going out from Senators pointed out that this filibuster was wasting time and the refusal of Senators to do any voting except in one or two instances on minor amendments contributed to the situation. Frankly, I was rather surprised at the Souther­ ners' tactics. I never could quite understand why they didn't let us vote more often because they had so many amendments in. If they had done so, they could have insisted that the legislative process was working. ... It seemed to me that they lost their sense of direction and really had Tittle or no plan other than what they used to have when filibusters succeeded.36

It cannot be denied that the pro-civil rights forces' strategy was one of the most important in the Senate debates. The Southerners were caught unprepared and could not counter the tactics being used against them. The filibuster, which had been used so many times in the past to thwart civil rights action, was now being used by the

Humphrey forces in an attempt to bring about a cloture vote which would almost guarantee passage of the Civil Rights Bill.

One last device was used to insure unified support and maintain the desired bipartisan image. Responsibility for defending the vari­ ous sections of the bill was divided up among the Senators. It was expressly stated by Humphrey that this was done to "broaden the involvement and the credit."3?

Most Republican proponents of the bill cooperated to the fullest extent and the bipartisan nature of each issue was also emphasized.

On only two occasions was Humphrey disappointed with the actions of

Republicans. He commented: 126

The Republicans set up early a team of captains headed by Senator Kuchel, who was my co-partner. We emphasized the bipartisan, non-partisan nature of this struggle and indeed, that is exactly what it was, is, and will continue to be. Regrettably, one or two of the Republicans were not too deeply * committed, in fact, opposed to certain sections. I r§Ter to Hruska and Cotton. Neither of them was willing to stay with their duties and asked to be relieved later on. However, men like Scott, Keating, Javits, Kuchel, Allott, and Cooper were good and helpful ... .38

During the debate the bipartisan team of captains assigned

responsibility for each title led additional,full discussion on their

respective titles. These captains included:

Senator Hart and Senator Keating on Title I (voting rights); Senator Magnuson and Senator Hruska on Title II (public accommodations); Senator Morse and Senator Javits on Title III (public facilities and Attorney General's powers); Senator Douglas and Senator Cooper on Title IV (school desegregation); Senator Long of Missouri and Senator Scott on Title V (Civil Rights Com­ mission); Senator Pastore and Senator Cotton on Title VI (federally assisted programs); Senator . Clark and Senator Case on Title VII (equal employ­ ment opportunity); Senator Dodd for the Democrats on Titles VIII through XI.39

One of the major reasons cited for the success of the 1964 Civil

Rights Act was the tremendous organization and unification found with­

in the forces for civil rights. The opponents of the measure simply

found themselves on the wrong side of a national moral issue, being out-gunned and out-maneuvered by the Humphrey forces.

A fourth piece of necessary strategy for the passage of a national bill is to arouse public interest and educate the electorate. Accord­ ing to Bailey in Congress Makes A Law, every possible device should be used to gain this end. As has already been noted, the Humphrey forces 127

were very successful in making the civil rights issue a national con­

cern. A brief summary of their actions shows that they took the offensive early to insure positive press coverage (which they got);

Senators were encouraged to deliver speeches on radio and television; newsletters were sent home to constituents in an effort to keep them abreast of events in Washington. In short, the legal, philosophical, arid moral framework of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill received wide national coverage by the media.

Another major item of strategy involved draft revisions and amendments to the bill. Bailey explains that it is extremely important to broaden the overall appeal of a bill by deleting ambig­ uous and/or highly controversial sections. It was reported in U.S.

News and World Report that:

The civil rights bill now is taking the shape in which it is most likely to pass the Senate. That shape is considerably different from the bill that passed the House. It is being changed by a package of some fifty or more compromise amendments.40

Negro leaders were correct in saying that any compromise bill, however strong, would not meet the just demands of Negroes for their place in American society. But Negro leaders, along with the civil rights proponents in the Congress, were also astute. They all real­ ized that certain practical measures are needed in a democratic society. A compromise, despite its limitations, would establish certain lines from which the fight could be continued in the future.4^

The compromise in question centered around the negotiations with

Senator Dirksen over several amendments he proposed. As already indi­ cated, Humphrey realized the necessity of having Dirksen on the side 128

of the civil rights forces in order to bring about the cloture vote.

Humphrey kept up friendly contact with Dirksen, promising that cer­

tain changes would be made. On the other hand, Humphrey also empha­

sized that certain amendments were not acceptable.

Senator Humphrey offered an explanation for the large number of

changes, noting that the original House package had consisted of

fifty-five printed pages and the revised Senate version seventy-four

pages. He stated that "this additional language resulted from our

desire to remove certain ambiguities and uncertanties which existed 42 in the House text."

By and large, the amendments, which were agreed to on the sixty-

fourth day of debate, were designed primarily to win over reluctant

40 Republicans and make possible cloture in the Senate. The amend­ ments were generally conceded to have done little damage to the bill,

and in some cases, as noted by Humphrey above, actually improved the bill. The problem confronting Humphrey was one of selling the amend­ ments to Northern Democrats. When the terms of the compromise were publicly announced, Humphrey remarked to an aide: ;"I feel like some­ one who is going down a ski jump for the first time. After you're five feet down all you can do is hope that you don't land on your head."44

Humphrey obviously landed on his feet regarding the compromise measures worked out with Dirksen because the amendments were accepted and the votes needed for cloture were finally secured. The long hours of informal negotiations had paid off for the civil rights advocates.

In the years prior to 1964, the civil rights forces had been 129

thwarted in their attempts at legislation by the Southerners' use of

the filibuster. In 1964, the basic strategy was to employ a quasi­

filibuster against the Southern forces and create a backlog of busi­

ness in other areas. While this strategy was developed in conjunction

with the quorum strategy, it could be viewed as a separate strategy

in that the pro-civil rights forces planned to use as much time as

they could in presenting their own case. Humphrey was hopeful about

what the outcome of such an approach would be:

Our plan, of course, was to try to make the growing annoyance with the filibuster work to our advantage—towards a vote for cloture, instead of toward compromise on the content of the bi 11.45

Senator Humphrey opened the debate with a three-hour address which

outlined the basic case for the civil rights bill. Senator Kuchel then

followed the Humphrey speech with a rather lengthy address of his own.

Each day thereafter a member of the team of pro-civil rights captains

took a title of the bill and discussed it thoroughly. When the bill

had finally been presented to the satisfaction of the civil rights advocates, twelve days had been consumed. The plan was to let the

Southerners then talk on and on until outside pressure to pursue other matters became so great that a vote on cloture could be passed.

In April of 1964, Newsweek reported what the strategy appeared to be:

Till that showdown, the Humphrey-Kuchel forces must gradually tighten the screws, drawing out daily sessions until they run around the clock —while the backlog of business grows and the time for campaigning in political 1964 gets urgently short.46

The Humphrey-Kuchel forces held off any effort to enact cloture until they felt certain they could win (until Dirksen was brought into 130

the fold). Finally, on June 10, 1964, after the longest filibuster in history, a vote was taken. Seventy-one votes (four more than needed) were counted for cloture and debate was ended. The strategy to use the filibuster against the filibuster had been successful. On

June 19, 1964, the Senate passed the revised 1964 Civil Rights Bill and sent it back to the House for approval. In an almost unprece­ dented move, the House, after only one hour of debate, approved the

Senate version of the bill without change by a vote of 289 to 126.

President Johnson signed the measure into law on July 2, 1964.

Aside from the speaking strategies which were employed by

Senator Humphrey in his fight to secure a civil rights bill, one overriding fact became apparent. As pointed out by Stephen Bailey, there seem to be certain basic steps of strategy which need to be taken in order to secure passage of any major piece of controver­ sial legislation. Hubert Humphrey was certain that this requirement was met and this, in turn, brought about the passage of the 1964

Civil Rights Bill. The legislative strategies which were used were as important as the speaking strategies employed by Humphrey. 131

FOOTNOTES

1 »■ HHH, Private Papers, memorandum regarding the background,

procedures, tactics, and strategies used in the 1964 Civil Rights

Act, Summer, 1964. 2 Ibid.

3 Ibid. 4 Theodore Clevenger, Jr., Audience Analysis (New York: 1966), p. 24. $ Ibid. g Charles H. Woolbert, "The Audience," Psychological Monographs

(June, 1916), pp. 40-41. ? HHH, Private Papers, letter from Hubert H. Humphrey to Mr. A. M.

Joyce, South St. Paul, Minnesota, July 28, 1948. o HHH, Private Papers, memorandum to Senator Humphrey from staff assistant John Stewart, no date, g Address to the Four Freedoms Awards Dinner, March 15, 1964. 15 Phillip K. Tompkins, "Hubert Horatio Humphrey: On Persua­ sion," Today's Speech (September, 1964), p. 18. H Robert L. Scott and Wayne Brockriede, "Hubert Humphrey Faces the 'Black Power' Issue," Speaker and Gavel (No ember, 1966), p. 12. 12 Herbert C. Kelman, "Process of Opinion Change," Foundations of

Communication Theory, edited by Ke neth K. Sereno and C. David Mortensen

(New York: 1970), p. 269. 13 Kenneth Burke, Rhetoric of Motives (New York: 1950), p. 21. 132

14 ch. Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric: A_

Treatise on Argumentation (London: 1969), p. 321. 15 , Kelman, p. 275. , 16 Ibid., pp. 271-272.

17 Legislative History of Titles VII and XI of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964 (Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office: 1964), p. 11. 18 Stephen K. Bailey, Congress Makes a Law (New York: 1950), p. IX. 19 Hubert H. Humphrey, Beyond Civil Rights: A New Day of

Equality (New York: 1968), p. 68.

20 Bailey, p. 46. 21 HHH, Private Papers, memorandum regarding the background, procedures, tactics, and strategies used in the 1964 Civil Rights

Act, Summer, 1964. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid. 24 James Sundquist, "Building the Great Society: The Case of

Equal Rights," America Since 1945, edited by Robert D. Marcus and

David Burner (New York: 1972), pp. 195-196. 35 "clerical Lobbyists," America (May 9, 1964), p. 624.

36 "Smoothing a Way for Rights Law," Business Week (June 20, 1964), p. 32. 27 HHH, Private Papers, letter to Hubert H. Humphrey from Joseph

S. Clark, March 14, 1963. 133

pp HHH, Private Papers, memorandum from John Stewart, June 18,

1963. 29 1 Humphrey, Beyond Civil Rights, p. 84. on HHH, Private Papers, memorandum regarding the background,

procedures, tactics, and strategies used in the 1964 Civil Rights

Act, Summer, 1964. 31 HHH, Private Papers, memorandum from the office of Hubert H.

Humphrey, June 1, 1964. 32 HHH, Private Papers, memorandum regarding thoughts on the

Civil Rights Bill, April 21, 1964, author unknown. 33 HHH, Private Papers, notes on the Civil Rights Bill, May 19,

1964, author unknown. 34 Murray Kempton, "The Senate: Mr. Humphrey's Conquering

Hosts," New Republic (April 4, 1964), p. 7. 35 Kenneth Crawford, "Filibuster Buster," Newsweek (March 16,

1964), p. 38. 36 HHH, Private Papers, memorandum regarding the background,

procedures, tactics, and strategies used in the 1964 Civil Rights

Act, Summer, 1964. 37 Humphrey, Beyond Civil Rights, p. 89. 33 HHH, Private Papers, memorandum regarding the background,

procedures, tactics, and strategies used in the 1964 Civil Rights

Act, Summer, 1964. 39 U.S., Congressional Record, 88th Congress, 2nd Session (1964),

Vol. 110, Part 5, p. 6528. 134

40 "The changes in the Civil Rights Bill," U.S. News and World

Report (June 1, 1964), p. 46. 41 "Civil Rights Now," The Christian Century (November 13, 1963), p. 1391. 42 Legislative History of Titles VII and XI, p. 3008. 43 "Dirksen Amendments," New Republic (June 6, 1964), p. 3. 44 HHH, Private Papers, pamphlet prepared by the United Auto

Workers, Masterful Day-In and Pay-Out Perseverence, no date, p. 3. 45 Humphrey, Beyond Civil Rights, p. 91. 45 "Cracking the Whip for Civil Rights," Newsweek (April 13,

1964), p. 31. CHAPTER VI

ARGUMENTATIVE PROCESSES

Chapter IV of this study identified the basic issues involved

in the Civil Rights Act and pointed out how Senator Humphrey adduced

evidence for the issues. The second constituent of logical proof is argument or reasoning.1 Hillbruner has indicated that facts (evi­

dence) do not speak for themselves. Evidence is only one part of 2 the logical process, and reasoning is the other. Reasoning is the

process which enables one to make any conclusions.

The main purpose of argument is to lead to a fixation of belief or attitude on the part of the audience toward one's point of view.

Certain expositional techniques are requisite to clarity and good , j' 3 I- argumentative development. Definition and example are very import­ ant aspects of exposition. Both contain the power of illustration and of sharpening verbal focus. Basically, we should; consider whether the exposition clarifies the ideas.

Senator Humphrey's use of both definition and example in his speaking on the civil rights issue became increasingly evident in the Senate debates. Humphrey felt the need to explain and clar- i ' ify through the- use of numerous examples. Much of the argument used by Humphrey after his initial speech took the form of explana- J f } tion* with direct reference being made to the various; sections of ■ 136

the draft of the Civil Rights Bill.

One of the major arguments set forth by Senator Humphrey dealt 4 with what Weaver has termed the "nature of the thing," or quite

simply, the way things were or are. Weaver referred to argument from genus as being a part of argument from definition. He used

President Lincoln's refusal to hedge on the slavery issue as an example of arguing from genus (definition) in that Lincoln had ar­ gued the slavery question from the basic definition of what a man was. Senator Humphrey argued in the same way when he asserted that Negroes were men and thus entitled to the rights afforded to other men in our society. Argument by definition became a very important part of the overall reasoning employed by Humphrey.

Traditionally, methods of reasoning have been classified as either deductive or inductive. Although this writer feels that maintaining a complete dichotomy between the two classifications is extremely difficult, these two general categories were adhered to as closely as possible.

Induction usually means moving from particulars to a general conclusion while deduction means moving from general truths to a 5 particular conclusion. Makay and Brown have stated:

Inductive reasoning is often divided into processes involving reasoning from cause to effect, specific instances, authoritative testimony, and analogy; while deductive reasoning takes the form of the enthymeme, which is a deductive argument based on probability.6

In regard to the process of induction, causal reasoning will be those arguments which establish links between particulars "by 137

noting the impact or influence of one event upon another."? Argument from specific instance tries to arrive at a general conclusion by 8 examining particular cases or events. Argument from authority means that the speaker tries to establish a link between the point under 9 consideration and what the authority says about the issue. Analogi­ cal reasoning tries to establish a relationship and comparison between objects under consideration.

In regard to deduction, because enthymemes were used by Senator

Humphrey in the development of his arguments, a definition will be offered here. Aristotle first used the term enthymeme when he called them the "substance of rhetorical persuasion" in his Rhetoric. Since that time, the exact meaning of the term enthymeme has been contro­ versial and still remains imprecisely defined. For this study, the definition set forth by Bitzer will be employed. He said:

The enthymeme is a syllogism based on probabili­ ties, signs, and examples, whose function is rhetorical persuasion. Its successful construc­ tion is accomplished through the joint efforts of speaker and audience, and this is its essen­ tial character.il

The Bitzer definition implies that an enthymeme occurs when a speaker uses an argument about which the audience has some preconceived notion.

The speaker does not present an entire argument in syllogistic form, but more likely allows the audience to fill in one of the premises from its own cognitions. In other words, the members of the audience complete the argument for the speaker based on their own experiences and thoughts.

Makay and Brown have indicated that anyone about to engage in the reasoning process should be aware of the nature of perception 138

and how it can affect the reasoning process of each person. It is

claimed that:

An individual does not respond to the real world but to his perception of it. People try to establish and maintain consistent relationships between their knowledge, or cognitions, and their outward behavior or actions.12

This writer has concluded that Senator Humphrey was very much

aware of the nature of perception and skillfully employed evidence

and reasoning accordingly. He was careful to select materials that

developed and extended concepts that were consistent with the basic

principles of this nation's Constitution, moral values, and idea of

fair play. Makay and Brown conclude:

When you offer a line of reasoning you believe to represent reality, a person will respond according to his perception of your expression, which means the information will be filtered, associated with past experience, placed in the priority context of a value system, and organ­ ized in some cognitive fashion.12

By basing his arguments on such broad perspectives as the nature of

man and moral obligations of man to man (regardless of color of skin),

Humphrey was able successfully to sense and respond to the audiences'

perceptions of his arguments. Generally speaking, for the audiences

in question, Humphrey's reasoning processes were appropriate and meaningful.

In looking at the argumentative processes of Hubert H. Humphrey regarding the civil rights issue, one can identify a basic deductive syllogism which outlined his case. From a schematic arrangement of the traditional categorical syllogism, the following premises emerged:

1) Major premise: The Declaration of Independence of the United 139

States says that all men are created equal; 2) Minor premise: The

Negro is a man; and 3) Conclusion: Therefore, the Negro should be

afforded the same basic freedoms as all men.

Evident in the basic development of this deductive stand were many examples of inductive reasoning which will be dealt with later

in this chapter. The most widely used forms of inductive reasoning were causal reasoning, reasoning from specific example or instance, and reasoning from authority.

REASONING IN PUBLIC SPEECHES

Karl Wallace has said that there appear to be certain general categories of values that help us decide whether our decisions are good or bad, right or wrong. "There appear to be three all-embracing classes—the desirable, the obligatory, and the admirable or praise- 14 worthy, and their opposites."

Senator Humphrey, in the development of his stand on civil rights, made a direct appeal to each of these three classes. Not only did he argue that the Civil Rights Bill was desirable for many reasons, he also contended that the nation was obligated, because of the Constitution and the natural rights of man, to guarantee equal rights to Negroes. The Senator further argued that action such as the Civil Rights Bill would be praiseworthy in the eyes of the world powers. He felt we could not dictate policy to such countries as

Russia without first getting our own house in order. 140

Moral Issue

As stated previously, Senator Humphrey chose to emphasize the moral nature of the civil rights struggle. This emphasis was appar- I ent in all but one of the public speeches delivered during the time

in question. The main thrust of the reasoning process for this issue was inductive in pattern and took the form of reasoning from authority.

Early in the campaign, he emphasized the point that what was being sought after in the Civil Rights Bill was nothing new. He used as his authority the Constitution. No explicit passage was mentioned but the basic political and social philosophy was hinted at. He said: "Here I would emphasize, that we are not making new law. We are only implementing the fundamental law of the land. We are only freeing to operate, the basic moral law on which this nation 15 was founded." By referring to the Constitution and what it stood for, Humphrey was appealing to that class of values which Wallace has labeled "obligatory." It would be difficult to refute Senator

Humphrey's stand by trying to refute what the Constitution meant to most people. Keeping in mind that this was delivered to a friendly audience, one can conclude that the argument was succinct and diffi­ cult for Southern opposition to overcome.

Senator Humphrey also relied upon himself as a source of author­ ity. In his speech at Johns Hopkins University, the Senator equated the 1964 Civil Rights Bill with the situation in 1948 when Humphrey first made the national scene with his stand for civil rights at the

National Democratic Convention. He said: "The great moral issues in the civil rights struggle today are not very different from those 141

of 1948.Humphrey continued by stating that he had been in the

lead in that fight and was proud still to be a leader in the struggle

for civil rights. When one considers that Humphrey's stance on the

civil rights issue had remained virtually constant from 1948 to 1964,

the idea of using himself as an authority becomes more reasonable.

His ideas and policy stands regarding civil rights were well known

around the country.

A very important aspect of the reasoning that Humphrey used to

develop the moral issue rested on the fact that the United States was

a Christian nation. If this were the case, we could not deny God-

given rights to the Negro. This line of reasoning would imply that men who did not treat the Negro with equal dignity were, in fact, not

acting as good Christians. It was an argument designed to play on

the conscience of the American populace.

In developing this argument, Humphrey made reference to the highest law we could obey, namely the "Golden Rule." He indicated that our Judeo-Christian heritage should remind us we are all child­ ren of God. Another reference to the Constitution established the fact that our nation had been founded on the principle that all men were created equal and that recognizing this equality would carry out the intent of the "Golden Rule," namely, to "do unto others as 17 we would have them do unto us."

Senator Humphrey also used quotations from Jesus and Martin

Luther in developing the moral issue. The speaker indicated that the moral value of human dignity was a basic tenet of our religions.

He said: "Jesus said simply, 'When your brother asks you for bread, 142

18 ye do not give him a stone.'" Humphrey extended the argument by

stating that he was sure these words had never left the conscience

of those present. Yet, the concept of dignity had become muddled

and compromised. He concluded by saying that the issue would not

go away, however, and that American society was faced with the same

type of decision Martin Luther had to make at the Diet of Worms.

"I think we need his capacity to say, 'Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me'."19

The previous quotations were delivered to a religious audience

which would agree with the basic moral tone of the content. But

even on a national scale, such references would have the influence

of forcing many people to do some serious soul-searching.

Although Senator Humphrey did not condone the violent protests

which were so frequent in 1963, he did argue that he could under­

stand why the Negro would react in such a manner. Causal reason­

ing was employed to develop the argument that the Negro would no

longer stand for moral degradation. Humphrey pointed to the cause

for the Negro revolt by stating:

What kind of people do we think Negroes are? Do we think that their children can grow up, reading history books with the insprirational messages of Jefferson and Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson and still be content to act like serfs? Do we think that Negro parents will swallow their pride another 5 years, another 10 years, while their children continue to be denied equal opportunity ... .20

Humphrey concluded that the net effect of all the humiliation suffered by Negroes over the years was that they were fed up and 143

demanded freedom now. As pointed out earlier, this argument was not

an attempt to promote violence but simply an explanation of why

Negroes were reacting the way they were.

Senator Humphrey also relied on reasoning from effect to cause

by tracing what he felt was the cause of an imperfect society. In

his speech to the National Association for Mental Health, the Senator

referred to our society as an "imperfect, and for many millions of

our people, frustrating and soul-searing society of poverty, depriv-

ation, discrimination, and humiliation." He felt that the cause

of this "sickness" within our society could be traced to the fact

that we were not giving "the tenth of America represented by our

Negro citizens the 'room' to make their fullest contributions to

our democracy." He concluded that we could not expect twenty

million Americans to remain contented while living in slums and

being ill-treated.

"Keeping in mind that the concept of causation presupposes an 23 interaction of phenomena," the reasoning process employed in this

instance stands up under scrutiny. If it could be assumed that the

Negro was being denied certain rights and privileges, and all evi­ dence seemed to point that way on a national scale, then it was perfectly reasonable to conclude that, sooner or later, he would rebel against this discrimination and demand his God-given and

Constitutional rights.

Senator Humphrey also employed enthymemes in his arguments.

One that appeared in the political speeches was the statement, "I believe in the cause of civil rights because it is right morally 144

04 and it is right politically.1 This statement relied on Humphrey's

being accepted as an authority on civil rights, and an assumption on

the part of Humphrey that the members of the audience were well versed

on the moral issue. For the political speeches in question, both of

these points should be conceded to the speaker. He was an accepted

authority on the civil rights issue and the members of the audience

were undoubtedly aware of the arguments set forth by Humphrey regard­

ing the moral issue.

The members of the audiences, being of the same political party,

would also consider such major legislation as the Civil Rights Bill to

be very important politically. Even though the bill was pushed in a

bi-partisan way, it was the Democrats who controlled the White House.

A bill of the scope and importance of the Civil Rights Bill could be considered a major political triumph. Few Democrats would disagree with the enthymematic reasoning employed in this instance.

Human Dignity Issue

Although the moral issue and the issue of human dignity did overlap to a great extent, it was possible to treat them separately.

One of the major thrusts of argument set forth in the development of the human dignity issue was in the form of a deductive enthymeme.

The argument consisted of the following statement:

The preservation and elevation of human dignity is the base for every other individual and social value. Every human being deserves to be treated with dignity, for every individual is a person of infinite worth.25 145

If one recalls that Humphrey had been developing this type of

argument over the months previous to the delivery of the speeches

in question, and if one can assume a basic moral nature in a Christ­

ian society, then the argument had merit. In a logical sense, any

Christian would be hard pressed to deny that the proper recognition

of individual dignity was a paramount value for any person or

society to have.

This type of appeal was used extensively in arguing the human

dignity issue. It was effective in that it focused on some very

basic concepts of Christianity and democracy as extolled in the

United States. The argument was so effective, in fact, that it was never answered by opponents of the bill throughout the entire debate.

Senator Humphrey used causal reasoning to establish the point that dignity involved pride in one's self, one's family, and one's country. He stated that pride was being denied to the Negro because

"society finds it easy to forget those who lack means and have been denied respect to the point they have no self-respect." This cause, denial of respect, had the effect of crushing the spark that makes a man a human being.

The argument was extended by causation when Humphrey stated that many of our domestic attitudes were obsolete carry-overs from the 18th and 19th Centuries. "Then, the concepts of 'class,' 'elite,' and 'breeding' were the vogue. To a large extent they still are."27

The effect of this outdated class structure was shame and humiliation being forced upon the Negro population. The unstated conclusion was 146

that this was an undesirable and immoral state of affairs.

No evidence was offered in support of these contentions but it

is assumed that the speaker felt the audience was attuned enough

to the existing state of affairs in the nation to realize that

concepts such as "class" and "elite" still did exist. It would

be quite easy to recall from the newspapers the various forms

of evidence that pointed to this type of thing.

"Citizenship gap" was a term which Senator Humphrey often

used. It was developed as part of the overall issue of human

dignity. The general conclusion set forth by Humphrey was that

the gap which existed between the white citizen and the Negro

citizen needed to be closed. Humphrey argued by authority to establish this point. He quoted John F. Kennedy about the basic democratic philosophy on which this nation was founded. He commented:

I want to read to you the words of our late President Kennedy when he addressed the nation on civil rights last June, 1963. The words he said then apply just as strongly today: 'This is one country. It has become one country be­ cause all of us and all the people who came ..here had an equal chance to develop their talents. 'We cannot say to 10 per cent of the popula­ tion that you can't have that right; that your children can't have the chance to develop what­ ever talents they have; ... .'28

The speaker concluded that America had a great opportunity (by pass­ ing the Civil Rights Bill) to make the dreams and ideals of John

Kennedy a reality.

The quotation from Kennedy was most appropriate not only because he was a popular leader, but also because it dealt with the basic 147

Christian and democratic philosophy propounded by Humphrey in other

speeches. Most Christian Americans would have to agree with the

philosophy contained within the statement.

Unemployment Issue

Senator Humphrey saw unemployment as a major cause for the un­

rest within the Negro community of the nation. He contended that much of the unemployment was due to discrimination in hiring prac­ tices. But he also linked unemployment to other causes; for example,

he stated: "overlaying all of these /national problem^/ and exacer­ bating the tensions are the problems of persistent unemployment-- caused by automation, increased efficiency of workers, and wholesale changes in raw material production . . . ." This could be inter­ preted as an attempt on Humphrey's part to placate those employers across the nation who did hire Negroes and might take afront at the claim that all unemployment was the result of discriminatory practices.

During his speech to the Democratic Club Convention of California,

Humphrey reasoned in a deductive manner by stating the generally held truth (at least among Democrats) that under existing Democratic leadership the nation had just witnessed one of the longest periods of sustained economic growth in its history. He then pointed out that there was still unemployment and poverty in the midst of unpre­ cedented plenty. While these facts were not documented, they were so widely understood that they could not be refuted. The speaker.was leading up to the specific conclusion that we had to and could do better in the area of unemployment, not only for the Negro, but for 148

all people.

This argument was effective in two ways. First, if it were true

that unemployment was a problem, members of the party in power would

want to do all they could to bring glory to their party by solving

the problem. On the other hand, if there were those who felt that

the problem of unemployment was rather insignificant, they would

most likely not object to making a good situation better by provid­

ing even more stringent laws regarding employment. The two-pronged

thrust of the argument would appear to have appeased a majority of

those present, most of whom were likely to vote for the Civil Rights

Bill anyway because of party philosophy and party ties.

Inductive reasoning was employed by Humphrey in an effort to

convey the idea that the civil rights issue was more than just a legal

issue. He expressed the idea (generally accepted by many Americans)

that to most Negroes the issue of civil rights was tied directly to the

problem of employment. Humphrey stated that "for all too many Negroes

the most immediate problem is finding a job that pays him enough money 30 to feed, clothe and house his family." Humphrey reasoned that pointing out this fact should be sufficient to convince the American people that laws alone could not solve the problem. The continuing unemployment problem had even prompted Dick Gregory to comment on its (unemployment's) influence. Humphrey paraphrased the statement:

It's fine and dandy to have strong civil rights laws on the books and all that, but to paraphrase one of comedian Dick Gregory's best lines—it doesn't mean a heck of a lot that you can sit at a lunch counter if you don't have a dime for the cup of coffee.31 149

The specific effect of unemployment on the plight of Negroes showed

that the civil rights issue had to be viewed as more than just a legal

issue; it was very much a moral, political, and even international

issue.

In his speech to the Americans for Democratic Action, Humphrey

outlined a basic causal argument while using U.S. Census Bureau

figures for evidence. The Senator claimed that the figures showed

that due to discrimination and lack of education (cause), the Negro

was the poorest of the poor (effect).

Figures were presented pointing out that white people earned

nearly twice as much as Negroes on an average income basis. The

speaker conceded that some improvement had been realized in the

area of housing, but he noted that the 1960 Census had "still shown

that only two out of five Negro families lived in sound structures with hot and cold running water, a bath or shower, and a flush 32 toilet."

When citing specific figures on employment, Humphrey chose to show where inequality existed, even when Negroes did have jobs.

The Senator presented figures for unskilled, semi-skilled, skilled, and clerical or white-collar positions held by the Negro. In every instance, the salary for the Negro was nearly cut in half when com­ pared to the white man's salary for a comparable job. The one area where the figures were close to being proportionally equal was in the U.S. Postal Service. The speaker concluded that this was be­ cause there were no discriminatory practices in the hiring of U.S.

Government employees. 150

At first glance, this line of reasoning by Senator Humphrey

could be said to be tenuous in nature. It is an unwarranted assump-

tion that all these figures could be the direct result only of

discrimination and poor education for blacks. However, when it is

remembered that the figures represented a cross-section of the pop­

ulation, they assume new meaning and a clearer causal link becomes

evident. There is a greater probability for discrimination and

poor education acting as influencing factors on the national level

in that a greater segment of the Negro population was included in

the survey.

Educational Issue

Senator Humphrey felt that education was one of the key factors

surrounding inequality for Negroes. The basic contention was set

forth in the enthymematic statement: "Education, which has become

a necessity for all, must be made a reality for all. We can do it. 33 We have the means."

This statement was the major underlying thread running through

the entire education argument. In a nation so education-oriented,

the statements "We can do it. We have the means" are statements which would be generally accepted. America had, for many decades, prided herself on her,educational system..

To emphasize the importance of education in America, Humphrey pointed to a number of immediate tasks that were facing the nation.

Among them were the securing of full civil rights for our citizens, eradicating poverty, expanding the economy, letting automation work 151

for us instead of against us, and rebuilding cities. Because all of

these things were desirable in nature, the speaker rightly felt that

these tasks would be met by the American people. He concluded that

the best way to meet these challenges was through better education.

Assuming that one takes advantage of one's education, this line of

reasoning was valid especially to the audience before which it was

delivered—the American Association of School Administrators.

"The Negro has never had equality of opportunity in education.

That is the largest single root of the difficulty he is in, and the 34 hardship he has in getting out of it." Senator Humphrey used

causal reasoning to very good effect in expanding this argument.

It was claimed that inequality of opportunity caused economic

deprivation. Humphrey felt that evidence showed an individual who was denied equal opportunity in education was also denied the

opportunity to acquire economic, social and cultural resources which were necessary for full citizenship and growth.

To support this contention, Humphrey turned to the generally accepted truth that the Negro suffered about twice as much unem­ ployment as the rest of the population. Yet, because of discrim­

ination in education, he had not been given an opportunity to get the necessary training. This point was enhanced by the speaker's reference to the well known "separate but equal" philosophy of education that had existed in the South. Humphrey had, in other speeches, shown where the "separate but equal" concept was a mis­ nomer. Federal monies, for example, had not been spent equitably on a per capita basis between whites and blacks in many sections 152

of the country.

I The effect of this inequality in education was a trap for the

Negro. High unemployment and low income were caused by a lack of education, which was caused by discriminatory practices. The overall result was stated as follows: "Economically, socially, culturally, educationally, the bad results snowball and reinforce one another. 35 Economists like to talk about the ‘multiplier effect1.'1

The preceding argument was related very well to the idea of human dignity. Humphrey maintained that human dignity could be elevated for the Negro if he had an equal chance at education. In this respect, he issued a direct challenge to the educators of the country. When speaking of the school children who would become tomorrow's citizens, he stated: "Their dignity—and its elevation

—are in your hands.

The Senator next set forth an argument which any teacher or parent would have difficulty refuting. He indicated that children come to the educational scene (be it formal or informal) with a remarkable capacity for trust and a tremendous passion for learning.

He continued: «

If we return trust for trust, if we encourage a child's wonder and challenge it with our own, if we accept what is offered in the spirit with which it is given . . . then we shall develop in them that knowledge which is wisdom and under- g? standing and which is a base for strong character.

Humphrey concluded that education was an essential ingredient in the fight against prejudice, bigotry and hatred. If equal educational opportunities were afforded the Negro, gains would become evident. 153

Economic inequality was linked directly to the educational

issue when the speaker pointed out that even a Negro who had finished

four years of college could expect to earn about $185,000 during his

lifetime, while a whiteman with only an eighth-grade education would

earn $191,000. Senator Humphrey quoted a report by the Senate

Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. The rather startling conclu­

sion reached by Humphrey and supported by the President's Council of

Economic Advisers, was that because of unequal pay to Negroes, the

country was losing between thirteen and seventeen billion dollars

a year from our Gross National Product.

Political Issue

Although Senator Humphrey did not attempt to make partisan gain from the civil rights issue during its debate, he did point out that the struggle for civil rights was of political importance internation­ ally. The main focus of this issue was summed up by Humphrey when he reasoned from authority by using President Johnson's words:

I do believe that President Johnson is profoundly correct in linking our war on poverty at home with 'doing our share* in the world. He has been right to identify the cause of achieving Civil Rights at home, with our responsibility to seek justice and freedom for all peoples abroad. If we cannot respond to the brother we see at home, we will never be truly aware of the brothers we do not see overseas.38

Humphrey was hinting at the apparent hypocritical practice of dictat­ ing one thing to our friends overseas while doing another thing at- home. This position would not place us in a very good light inter­ nationally. 154

Developing this argument, Humphrey questioned how a nation that

denied or ignored the rights of its colored citizens could continue

to be a leader in a world that was more than half colored. The obvious

conclusion was that we could not. Senator Humphrey concluded: "Our

role of world leadership demands that we set an example for the world,

an example of respect for human dignity, of equal rights for all its 39 citizens . . . ."

The speaker cited specific examples to point out where our image

had been hurt abroad. "Bombings of churches in Birmingham that take

the lives of little children do more damage to American leadership in

Asia, Africa, and Latin America than all the Communist propaganda put together."40 Humphrey concluded that if this nation were to fall, it

would not be to an outside power, but to the bitterness and hatred

generated within the country itself. Our role as a world power would

crumble from within as our actions at home were observed by the other

nations of the world. Even though Asian, African, and Latin American

nations might continue to accept various forms of foreign aid, there

would, in all probability, be a basic distrust of the American Govern­

ment because of the way colored people were treated at home.

While it could not be expected that the average "man on the

street" would have knowledge of the international impact of such

actions as Birmingham, by the nature of his Senate position, Humphrey was in a position to have knowledge of such an impact, and he used

this credibility to his advantage.

Senator Humphrey made a final appeal as to the importance of our

civil rights problem when he spoke to the American Jewish Congress in 155

Miami Beach. On this occasion he compared the problems of the Jews

in Russia, to the problems of the Negro in this country. In developing

this argument, Humphrey relied on a form of extended or projected

causality. He claimed that our government had a long history of

precedents for speaking out against oppression in the world. The

speaker stated that we had made such protests in various ways over

the years. Although no specific examples were used, even a minimal

knowledge of American history would show the statement to be true.

Senator Humphrey continued by saying that we needed to speak up for

our kind of revolution (for human dignity and freedom) at home, but:

We will be in a much better position to condemn assaults on human dignity and freedom abroad when we have put our own house in order, when we have made our Constitutional guarantees living reali­ ties for all our citizens.41

This line of reasoning very poignantly related the real position

of American hypocrisy regarding the very foundation upon which this

country was founded. The argument became more telling with the inser­

tion of the idea that we had long opposed oppression of people in

other nations while condoning it in our own back yard. The interna­

tional implications for civil rights legislation were very clearly outlined.

REASONING IN SENATE DEBATES

Robert P. Newman has stated that when a person offers a reason for adoption or rejection of a policy proposal, one is required to 42 justify three kinds of statements: 1) a directional statement in which judgments about goals, objectives, ends, values, etc., are set 156

forth; 2) a positional statement about the extent to which one is

currently achieving the goals or objectives; and 3) a prediction

statement about what needs to be done in order to achieve the desired

goals.

A review of the speaking done by Hubert Humphrey during the

Senate debates on civil rights showed that each of the types of

statements referred to by Newman were used by the speaker. The one possible exception might be the prediction statement since

Humphrey had to concede that passing the Civil Rights Bill would not be the final step in the struggle for equality. He did main­ tain that it would be a significant first step because even if the bill did not change people's hearts, it would provide the Negro with the legal framework from which to carry on the struggle.

In the introduction to his speech before the Senate, Humphrey outlined the purpose of the civil rights legislation by referring to the Constitution of the United States as his authority. He quoted I directly from the preamble and concluded that the objectives of jus­ tice, domestic tranquillity, and promoting the general welfare of the nation were the exact objectives of the Civil Rights Bill. He also referred to a passage from Matthew and concluded that (as in the public speeches): "If I were to capsule what we are trying to do 43 in this legislation, it is to fulfill the Golden Rule." After these introductory remarks, he turned to the specific titles con­ tained in the bill. 157

Title I_: Voting Rights

Senator Humphrey quoted the 15th amendment to the Constitution

as the basis for his argument about voting rights: "The right of

citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged

by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or 44 previous condition of servitude." Yet, Humphrey claimed, this

right had been denied to the Negro citizens of our nation for years.

In support of this charge the speaker offered several sets of figures

showing that Negroes had not been permitted to register for voting.

All the cases outlined were from the South,-and although no source

was cited, because of his reputation for usually providing well

documented arguments, the Senator enjoyed credibility.

Humphrey then outlined previous voting laws, stating the pur­

poses of the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts. The main result of

these two acts had been to show where and how the Negro was still

being discriminated against in regard to voting. The Senator noted

that all the ensuing evidence consisted of testimony which had been

accepted in court or of conclusions drawn from studies done by either the Civil Rights Commission or the Department of Justice.

In trying to establish the need for Title I, Humphrey claimed that a double standard existed whereby, in many Southern counties, voting officials applied one set of standards for white applicants and another set of standards for Negroes. Senator Humphrey cited several examples in support of this contention and then used expo­ sition to clarify how Title I would eliminate the problem. The need argument was supported by the statement that it was the practice in 158

many Southern counties to reject Negro applicants by irrelevantly

strict judgment of answers. Illustrations were used to show, for example, that a Negro lady was turned down for registration because she> had claimed her color was "Negro" as opposed to "brown" or

"black."

Following this evidence, expository comments showed how the title would take care of the problems. Title I would, for example, require that where literacy tests were called for by the states, a record must be kept in order to prevent oral tests which could not later be checked in court.

One of the major complaints on the part of Southern Senators dealt with the constitutionality of Title I. Senator Humphrey felt that this criticism was unjustified since the title dealt only with the election of Federal officials, and he argued that it was a mis­ take to believe that the States had the right to determine voting practices for Federal elections. In support of this contention,

Humphrey cited eleven Supreme Court decisions which supported his view.

The question arose as to whether or not Title I should apply in elections where Federal and State elections were held on the same ballot. Humphrey answered by stating:

Nothing in Title I prevents it from a mechanical separation of the registration and election pro­ cess into distinct State and Federal components. Therefore the States will be free to set up a procedure solely for the election of State officials.45

This approach put the Southern opposition in an unusual position.

The title clearly stated how the question at issue could be handled. 159

The obvious point was that if the States chose to have separate elec­ tions, there would be more expense and time involved. The argument was developed in such a manner.as to bring about voluntary compliance with the title.

In later debate, the weakness of the Southern position was apparent as Humphrey, using his excellent refutational skills, made the Southern forces look rather bad. One such instance was an exchange between Senator Humphrey and Senator Thurmond of South Carolina. The first issue was over the power of the States to fix voter qualifications

Thurmond claimed that the States had the power to do so. Humphrey did not argue that particular point but extended the argument to the idea of uniformity of voter qualifications within a particular state:

I am not arguing about that ¿States' power/. The point is, however, that if we fix the qualifications and they are not uniform in terms of application to the citizenry, under the 14th amendment and under the 15th amendment, but particularly under the 14th amendment, those qualifications would be unconsti­ tutional; is that not correct?46

The debate continued with Thurmond admitting that the 14th amendment was part of the Constitution but questioning its constitu­ tionality. To this Humphrey replied that Thurmond had the right to introduce an amendment to repeal the 14th amendment. Thurmond replied that the Supreme Court refused to consider the legality of the 14th amendment and therefore* trying to repeal it would be fruitless.

Humphrey concluded that there really was no question of legality and that apparently South Carolinians had felt the same way at the time' of its passage:

I am happy to tell the Senator from South Carolina that the 14th amendment became a part of the Con­ stitution on ratification of it by the Legislature 160

of South Carolina as the 28th State of the 37 States in the Union at that time.47

In short, a well documented need for Title I was established and considerable exposition was offered in clarification as to how the title would meet the established need. The major arguments posed by members of the opposition were met and successfully refuted.

The development of the basic arguments for the voting issue clearly revealed the debate experience and techniques of Senator Humphrey.

Title II: Access to Public Accommodations

In establishing the need for Title II, Humphrey began the arguments by using President Kennedy as an authoritative source.

He quoted Kennedy as having said that nothing was more rightfully resented than being denied access to public facilities such as restaurants, hotels and recreational areas.

To emphasize the point that discrimination did exist in regard to public facilities, Senator Humphrey drew from two guidebooks put out by the American Automobile Association. The books contained information about motel accommodations where dogs were permitted and where Negroes were permitted. The figures showed that, in the

South, more motels were available to people with dogs than were available to Negro families. Also cited was evidence compiled by the Senate Committee on Commerce which indicated that for a black family wishing to travel from Washington, D.C., to Miami, the aver­ age distance between places where they could expect to find sleeping accommodations was 141 miles. 161

Humphrey introduced this part of the argument as being the moral

aspect of the debate. He once again referred to the "Golden Rule" of

"do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Further figures

were offered to show the real extent of segregation regarding public

accommodations. The speaker followed his infrequent but noticeable

practice of not citing the source, but the implication was that the

information was readily available.

After successfully establishing the need for Title II of the

bill, Senator Humphrey went into great detail to explain the working

parts of the bill and to answer questions and arguments against the

title. One of the major concerns of the opposition was a provision

which required that services such as a barber shop, which was an

integral part of a larger establishment covered under the title,

would also be covered by the title. Southerners felt that this

provision was unfair and would also apply to other businesses

under a common roof.

Humphrey replied that it should follow that if a service, such

as hotel, was required under the law not to discriminate, this should

apply to all the services offered by the hotel. He also pointed out

that where a business was under a common roof but did not qualify as a

public accommodation, the title would not apply to that business. The

Senator also went to great length in explaining other exceptions to

the title and which qualifications had to be met in order to be exempt

from the law.

Some concern was raised about the powers of the Attorney General with respect to enforcement of the public accommodations section. It 162

was felt by Southern factions that the Attorney General would use his

power indiscriminately. Humphrey used exposition to point out that

built-in safeguards would prohibit this. The speaker emphasized that

voluntary compliance was what the bill fostered and if this was done,

as it should be according to the Constitution, there would be no need

for intervention on the part of the Attorney General. If the Attorney

General saw a need to institute suit against a party for alleged dis- f crimination, the bill required that State and local officials be

notified first so that they might apply State or local regulations

in solving the problem. The expository material offered by Humphrey

clearly indicated the safeguards inherent in the bill.

As in the case of the previous title, the constitutionality of

Title II was based on provisions in the Constitution itself, as well as

many Supreme Court cases which helped establish precedent. The prime

source of authority for enforcement of this title was the Interstate

Commerce Clause, and Humphrey cited six Supreme Court decisions which

supported the concept that the Interstate Commerce clause did extend

beyond the regulation of interstate carriers themselves. It covered

all businesses affecting interstate travel and thus, in this case,

public accommodations.

Senator Humphrey concluded his arguments in favor of Title II

by emphasizing that the legal theory supporting enactment of the

title could be found in the nation's common law heritage. He cited cases dating as far back as 1450 and quoted from the court's decisions

in the case of Lane Vs. Cotton (1701): 163

Wherever any subject take upon himself a public trust for the benefit of his fellow subjects, he is eo ipso bound to serve the subject in all things that are within the reach and comprehension of such an office, under pain of action against him .... If an innkeeper refuse to entertain a guest, when his house is not full, an action will lie against him.48

Titles III and IV; ,Public Facility and School Desegregation

The speaker chose to discuss Titles III and IV together since

both dealt with desegregation of publicly owned facilities. These

titles allowed the Attorney General to bring suit where evidence of discrimination existed in regard to schools and other public places

such as parks, playgrounds, libraries and other facilities owned and operated by State or local government units.

The provisions created nothing new so far as law was concerned but merely gave power of enforcement to the Attorney General. To establish the need for such enforcement, Senator Humphrey enumerated several specific instances where, even ten years after the famous { Brown vs. Board of Education decision, many Southern states were not desegregating schools. He said:

Yet the sad fact is that in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina less than 1 per cent of all Negro pupils in biracial districts are enrolled in desegregated schools. Other percentages are: Florida, 1.53; Tennessee, 2.71; Texas, 4.29; Virginia, 1.57. For the South as a whole the percentage is 1.06. Source: Southern Education Reporting Service, Statistical Summary of School Segregation and Desegregation, 1963-64.49

Not only were the figures revealing but by quoting a Southern source 164

Humphrey placed Southern supporters of continued desegregation in an

unfavorable light.

To offset the argument that Negroes could rely on private liti­

gation to gain their rights, the speaker again reasoned from specific

example. This time he recalled a rather famous case, which he called

the "New Orleans School" case. The crux of the argument was that due

to delays and other court and school board strategies, the litigation

had taken seven years to complete, and then only after considerable

expense. To point out further the defiance of the South toward deseg­

regation policies, the Senator noted that even after the Supreme

Court had ordered the New Orleans school board to desegregate, the

State attorney general obtained, in Louisiana courts, an injunction

forbidding compliance with the Federal court order. The evidence

showed quite clearly that many attempts had been made to evade or

ignore Federal statutes regarding desegregation.

Senator Humphrey implied that the South tried to rationalize

segregation practices under the "separate but equal" concept. As he

had done in the public speeches, the Senator introduced vast quanti­

ties of evidence to refute this idea. He pointed to discrepencies

in class sizes,high school accreditation, and amounts of money spent per capita on white and Negro students. In each case, the Negro student held the disadvantaged position. Humphrey concluded that if the figures were accurate, and again he cited Southern sources, it had to be conceded that separate was not equal. The argument was extremely well developed and supported by evidence.

Senator Humphrey argued for the desegregation of public facilities 165

primarily in a deductive enthymematic manner. Most of the points made

for school desegregation also applied to public facilities as well.

The speaker chose not to repeat many of the same issues but moved on with the idea that the listeners would recall the necessary evidence.

A typical example was:

It is almost unthinkable to me that a citizen should have to spend 3 years in litigation and take a case to the U.S. Supreme Court, at a cost of thousands of dollars, in order to be able to walk in a city park that he helped pay for; to play on a city golf course that he helped pay for; to enter a city art museum that he helped pay for ... .50

Thei mpact of this line of reasoning came from the notion that, in a democratic society, any man who pays his share to society should be allowed the privileges of that society insofar as they are of a public nature. It would be totally inconsistent with democratic principles to make a man pay for something he could not benefit from.

It might be argued that a large portion of the Negro populace did not pay taxes because of being on welfare (a fact not established), but the beauty of Humphrey's argument lies in the fact that this could also be said of whites who, even though on welfare, still enjoyed public facilities denied to blacks. If one extends this argument further, it also enhanced the point about education raised by Humphrey earlier: the poorly educated could not acquire jobs and thus would have to be placed on welfare. The overall causal connection of each of the major points covered by Senator Humphrey became clear.

As the debate on Title IV continued, Southern factions became concerned that the title meant that complete integration was necessary. 166

This, they claimed, would be almost impossible to accomplish. Pro­

ponents of the bill argued that Title IV did not guarantee integra­

tion. Senator Humphrey cited as the authority on this issue a

ruling handed down by a Federal Court of Appeals in a case in Gary,

Indiana. That ruling claimed that while the Constitution declares

segregation to be unconstitutional, it does not require integration

in all cases. Humphrey concluded: "In Briggs vs. Elliott (EDSC),

132 F. Supp. 776,777, the Court said: 'The Constitution, in other

words, does not require integration. It merely forbids discrimina­ tion'."51

While this interpretation undoubtedly afforded little comfort

for the Southern forces, it did, nevertheless, point out that the bill,

from a legal standpoint, was not attempting to force complete integra-

ti on.

Title VI_: Ending Discrimination ini Federal Programs

Senator Humphrey began the argument for Title VI by using an expository statement which outlined the basic intent of the title.

Briefly, it stated that one should not be discriminated against in a Federally supported program. Humphrey used a deductive enthymeme to emphasize the point. He stated: "If anyone can be against that, he can be against Mother's Day. How can one justify discrimination co in the use of Federal funds and Federal programs?"

The conclusion he would have the audience draw was that use of

Federal funds for discrimination could not be justified. Since

Senators are sworn to uphold the Constitution and what it represents, 167 r

this line of reasoning was logical and could not be refuted.

The speaker continued to build the need issue by establishing

the fact that in many Southern states there was a great deal of dis­

criminatory practice in areas funded by the Federal Government.

Humphrey quoted from a 1962 report of the Department of Health,

Education, and Welfare which indicated how much money certain states

such as Alabama, South Carolina, and Virginia had received from the

Federal Government in public school assistance. The amount ran into

millions of dollars for each state. Senator Humphrey then pointed out

that each of the states in question had a very poor record regarding

desegregation policies and concluded that Federal monies were being

spent in these states to perpetuate segregation. All this was,

according to Humphrey, in violation of the Constitution.

Senator Humphrey also used specific examples to show where this

type of practice was also evident in the area of medical assistance,

and even in the field of agriculture where certain states maintained

racially-segregated offices for agricultural extension.

Humphrey set forth four more reasons why legislation of the type

in question was needed. First, he pointed to certain past legislative

acts which he felt were bad statutes. He claimed that such acts as the

Hi 11-Burton Act of 1946 and the Morrill Act of 1890 had been passed

when the "separate but equal" concept still prevailed. He concluded

since this concept was now questioned, the statutes were, in all

likelihood, unconstitutional. Secondly, the Senator reasoned that

in many instances, Federal agencies already had the power to withhold

funds where discrimination was evident but that the present legislation 168

would eliminate any doubts about this prerogative. Next, Humphrey

claimed that some Federal agencies, for whatever reason, had seemed

reluctant to act on discrimination questions. Title VI would force

this action and thus guarantee equal rights to all. Lastly, Senator

Humphrey felt that the present legislation would provide a stronger

base upon which to deal with discrimination. He referred to the

so-called Powell amendment, which was designed to prevent discrim­

ination in certain programs and claimed that Title VI would have

wider scope.

Considerable exposition was offered in order to explain the

real intent of the title. The Senator claimed that the purpose of

the title was not to cut off Federal funds, which would not be con­

sistent with the Federal assistance statute, but simply to make sure

that Federal funds were not used to support racial discrimination.

In support of this statement, Humphrey referred to the exact text of the bill which pointed out eight safeguards which would make complete cut-off of funds difficult for the agency in question.

Some concern .was raised as to the extent to which such Federal agencies as Social Security, Veteran's Compensation, and civil ser­ vice retirement programs would be affected. Humphrey listed two reasons why these programs would not be affected. He stated:

Contrary to assertions that have been made, Title VI will have no practical effect on such programs, for two reasons. First, the Federal Government does not engage in racial discrimi­ nation in determining eligibility for and paying out benefits under such programs. . . . Second, Title VI would not authorize the withholding of any of these direct payments on the ground that 169

the recipient engages in racial discrimination in connection with his business or other acti­ vities. 53

The conclusion implied by Humphrey was that it would be contrary to government policy to discriminate against private citizens in deter­ mining who should receive payment from the agencies involved on the basis of those citizens' business practices. The only funds that could be withheld would be in connection with payments to a business enterprise which discriminated against people.

Senator Humphrey reasoned from specific example in trying to establish the fact that the Federal authority contained in Title VI was nothing new. He stated: "Most agencies extending Federal assist­ ance now have authority to refuse or terminate assistance for failure to comply with a variety of requirements imposed by statute or by 54 administration action." He did, however, offer only two examples where this was the case. Unless one were aware of other agencies which exercised the same authority, this could be viewed as a pos­ sible weakness in the argument.

Humphrey used causal reasoning in establishing the point that

Title VI was a moderate approach to the problem. He used the example of the Supreme Court decision which had recognized that immediate change would be impossible. This argument was extended by claiming that, although Title VI did require Federal agencies to effectuate non-discrimination policies, it permitted a great deal of discretion in their actions, thus guaranteeing the principle of gradual change regarding school desegregation as outlined by the Supreme Court.

The positive effects would be an assurance that those poorer school 170

districts and poorer school children who needed assistance would

continue to receive help, regardless of discriminatory practices.

Title VII: Equal Employment Opportunity s

The basic claim set forth in the arguments for Title VII was that the Negro was the principal victim of discrimination in employ­ ment. Statistics were quoted from such sources as the Department of

Labor and the Bureau of the Census which pointed out differences in pay and desirability of jobs. The figures set forth were the same figures which had been used in the development of the unemployment issue in the public speeches.

Humphrey claimed that the situation was better in some areas such as employment in Federal, State and local government, but he contended that, overall, progress was on the decline. "In 1947 the nonwhite unemployment rate was only 65 per cent higher than the white 55 rate; in 1962 it was 124 per cent higher." The speaker was careful to point out that the figures did not reflect an increase in discrim­ inatory practices, but, rather, that automation had been eating away at the unskilled and semi-skilled job market, while the Negro had been excluded from training for other jobs. So, the unemployment issue was related back to the problem of education and training.

This dilemma was succinctly summarized by Humphrey:

It profits little to attempt to calculate how much the disparity in employment opportunities for whites and for nonwhites is ascribable to outright discrim­ ination in employment, how much to discrimination in education, how much to discrimination in the present, and how much to the legacy of discrimination in the past. The problem is before us and its solution calls for action, not explanations.66 171

The constitutional basis for Title VII was the commerce clause which has been discussed previously. In an attempt to extend the idea of precedent for fair employment practices, the speaker turned to the fact that twenty-five states already had FEP legislation.

Humphrey pointed out how Title VII would place no new obligations on employers or unions in those states where the FEP laws already existed. The list of twenty-five states was entered into the

Congressional Record as evidence.

It was logical that an argument would follow claiming that, if

FEP laws already existed in twenty-five states, there was no need for

Federal legislation. Humphrey relied on causal reasoning to point out the fallacy of this argument: 1) the State laws were unequal in coverage and effectiveness; 2) States had experienced difficulty in dealing with large, multiphased operations; and 3) twenty-five states did not have general legislation in the area of FEP, among them, all the Southern States with large Negro populations. There­ fore, it could not be concluded that existing FEP laws were adequate.

One last major argument developed over Title VII. This involved the possible development of a quota system in order to achieve a cer­ tain racial balance. Humphrey attacked this issue in two ways.

First, he used reverse argument by pointing out that the title was designed to prohibit discrimination and the concept of a quota system would, in effect, be discriminatory in that it tried to force a racial balance. He concluded by stating that the intent of the title was to encourage hiring on the basis of ability and qualifications only. This would apply to whites as well as blacks. 172

The second line of attack was aimed against Senator Robertson of Virginia. Robertson had claimed that the title would evolve into a quota system. Humphrey turned to the wording of the title and challenged Robertson to produce the language from which one could infer that a quota system would develop. Senator Humphrey asked:

Can the Senator point out any place in the language of the bill that calls for quotas or a percentage of employees based upon race, creed, color, or national origin? The Senator can say, 'Yes, but what is discrimination?' It is like my asking the Senator about atomic energy, and he replies, 'Yes, but how about ice cream cones?' Really, it is a non sequitur. The Senator is a man of logic and reason. We will get around to a definition of 'discrimination.1 But what about percentages and quotas?57

The obvious answer to Humphrey's questions was that the title contained no wording about quotas or percentages of groups to be employed. It did not answer the argument in regard to the possi­ bility of quota systems developing after enactment of the bill, but, legally speaking, Humphrey was correct when he claimed that the wording of the title contained no reference to quotas or per­ centage systems.

The remaining titles of the Civil Rights Bill were not covered to any extent by Senator Humphrey. He did give brief expository comments about what each title was designed to accomplish. These titles were expanded upon by the various captains of the proponents of the bill as the debates proceeded.

In summary, Hubert H. Humphrey presented a well reasoned case for the 1964 Civil Rights Bill. The arguments were developed in both a deductive and inductive manner. The preponderance of reasoning was 173

of an inductive nature with causal, authoritative, and specific instance being the types employed most often. Some enthymematic reasoning was developed, with the speaker relying upon predisposed, ideas within the minds of the audience in question. In general, the arguments were well supported by evidence and developed to a logical conclusion. 174

FOOTNOTES

Lester Thonssen and A. Craig Baird, Speech Criticism: The

Development of Standards for Rhetorical Appraisal (New York: 1948),

p. 344.

Anthony Hillbruner, Critical Dimensions: The Art of Public

Address Criticism (New York: 1968), pp. 17-18. 3 Thonssen and Baird, pp. 344-345. 4 Richard Weaver, The Ethics of Rhetoric (Chicago: 1970), p. 86. 5 Thonssen and Baird, pp. 346-348.

John J. Makay and William R. Brown, The Rhetorical Dialogue:

Contemporary Concepts and Cases (Dubuque, Iowa: 1972), p. 283. ? Thonssen and Baird, p. 348.

8 Ibid.

Ibid., p. 349. 10 Ibid. 11 Lloyd F. Bitzer, "Aristotle's Enthymeme Revisited," Quarterly

Journal of Speech (December, 1959), p. 408. 12 Makay and Brown, p. 268. 13 Ibid., p. 269.

14 Karl Wallace, "The Substance of Rhetoric: Good Reasons," The

Rhetoric of Our Times (New York: 1969), p. 283. 15 Address to the American Council of Education, Washington, D.C.,

October 4, 1963. 1 fi ° Address to the graduating class of Johns Hopkins University,

Baltimore, Maryland, January 17, 1964. 175

17 Address to the Florida State Teachers Association, from

Washington, D.C., April 24, 1964. 18 Address to the Lutheran Brotherhood Award Dinner, Miami,

Florida, April 6, 1964.

19 Ibid. 20 Address to the Four Freedoms Award Dinner, New York City, New

York, March 15, 1964. 21 Address to the National Association for Mental Health,

Washington, D.C., November 21, 1963. 22 Ibid. 23 Thonssen and Baird, p. 348.

24 Address to the Americans for Democratic Action, Pittsburgh,

Pennsylvania, March 7, 1964. pc Address to the Democratic County Committee of New York County,

May 14, 1964. 25 Address to the Four Freedoms Award Dinner, New York City, New

York, March 15, 1964. 27 Ibid.

28 Address to the Greek Independence Day Celebration, Boston,

Massachusetts, April 5, 1964. 29 Address to the Fund for the Republic Dinner, Los Angeles,

California, December 8, 1963. 30 Address to the graduating class of Johns Hopkins University,

Baltimore, Maryland, January 17, 1964. 31 Ibid. 176

32 Address to the Americans for Democratic Action, Pittsburgh.

Pennsylvania, March 7, 1964. 33 Address to the California Democratic Club Convention, Long

Beach, California, February 22, 1964. 34 Address to the American Council of Education, Washington,

D.C., October 4, 1963. 35 Ibid.

36 Address to the Florida State Teachers Association, from

Washington, D.C., April 24, 1964. 37 Ibid.

38 Address to the graduating class of the College of St. Teresa.

Winona, Minnesota, May 30, 1964. 39 Address to the graduating class of Johns Hopkins University,

Baltimore, Maryland, January 17, 1964. 40 Address to the Western States Democratic Conference, Salt

Lake City, Utah, September 20, 1963. 41 Address to the Annual Convention of the American Jewish Congress,

Miami Beach, Florida, April 18, 1964. 42 Robert P. Newman, "Ours Just to Reason Why," Western Speech

(Winter, 1969), p. 4. 43 u.S., Congressional Record, 88th Congress, 2nd Session (1964),

Vol. 110, Part 5, p. 6529.

44 Ibid, 45 Ibid. p. 6531.

46 Ibid. p. 6661. 47 Ibid. p. 6662. 177

48 Ibid., p. 6539.

50 Ibid., p. 6542.

51 U.S., Congressional Record, 88th Congress, 2nd Session (1964),

Vol. 110, Part 10, p. 13821. 52 U.S., Congressional Record, Vol. 110, Part 5, p. 6543. 53 Ibid., p. 6544.

54 Ibid., p. 6546. 55 Ibid., p.6547. 56 Ibid., p. 6548. ry ' U.S., Congressional Record, 88th Congress, 2nd Session (1964),

Vol. 110, Part 6, p. 7419. CHAPTER VII

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was considered a

personal triumph for Hubert H. Humphrey. He had been a proponent

of such legislation since his mayoralty days in Minneapolis. His

stand on civil rights had remained consistent during the nineteen

years prior to the affirmative vote for cloture in June of 1964.

Although certain gains had been made in the area of civil

rights from 1945 to 1964, discrimination was still very much evi­

dent on the American social scene. The early 1960's saw the emerg­

ence of protests and riots as a means of gaining equality. Violence

bred violence and 1963 saw the peak of the protest movement. In an

attempt to reestablish order in the nation, President John F. Kennedy,

upon the urging of such men as Hubert H. Humphrey and other political

leaders, called for Federal legislation to establish equal rights for all American citizens.

Because of his philosophy regarding civil rights, Hubert H.

Humphrey was the obvious and ideal choice to act as Senate leader for the proponents of the Civil Rights Bill. Pro-civil rights forces had been frustrated for years in their attempts to enact civil rights legislation. Very careful and detailed plans were made in the hope that proper legislation would be passed. Those efforts were fruitful 179

and passage of the bill came in June of 1964 after nearly six months

of Senate debate. This study attempted to analyze and evaluate the

speaking techniques and strategies employed by Senator Humphrey dur­

ing: the campaign to secure passage of the bill.

SUMMARY

The first area of investigation dealt with Senator Humphrey's

audience analysis and audience adaptation. He carefully selected the

public audiences before which he spoke in an attempt to gain support

for the bill. Eighteen public speeches were given and in each case

a friendly audience was confronted. In each instance a common ground

of interest was established by equating the specific issues of the

civil rights question with a prior attitudinal commitment on the part

of the audience. This technique was employed to full advantage and

specific types of audiences could be identified. Public speeches were delivered before religious audiences, political audiences, edu­ cational audiences, college audiences, and miscellaneous audiences.

The speeches under consideration were prepared by members of the Senator's staff. Marginal notes indicated that Humphrey took certain steps to revise the speeches, adapting them to the particular audience being addressed. A conscious effort was made to adapt the attitudinal and emotional make-up of each of the audiences.

The construction of the speeches revealed certain identifying similarities. For example, the purpose of each speech was always • clearly stated. Senator Humphrey was very careful about how the civil rights issue was brought into the speech. Regardless of the 180

specific purpose, the civil rights issue was connected in some manner

to each speech and certain key points emerged as issues that were

woven into each of the addresses. The major arguments which became

apparent in the public speeches were what Humphrey called the moral

issue, the idea of human dignity, the importance of education to

civil rights, unemployment, and certain international implications.

Each item which was emphasized in the public speeches was con­

tained in the various titles of the Civil Rights Bill. During his presentation of the affirmative case in the Senate, Humphrey reestab­ lished and extended the major arguments which were outlined in the public speeches. In all probability, Senator Humphrey worked very closely with his staff members in the preparation of the Senate speech. The speeches given on the floor of the Senate made more extensive use of quoted material and specific citations. A tech­ nique which was employed in both the public speeches and the Senate debate was the Senator's referring to himself as a source of author­ ity. Because of his knowledge and considerable background in civil rights, this technique was used to good advantage. Senator Humphrey's skill and knowledge of debating techniques became apparent in the debates on the floor of the Senate. The construction of the speeches became argument oriented and constant reference was made to sources in an effort to establish precedent for each of the titles of the

Civil Rights Bill. His refutational skills were such that they took on an almost Socratic cross-examination style. He forced questions upon his opponents which could be answered in only one way, the way

Humphrey wanted them to be answered. 181

Most authorities agree that passage of the Civil Rights Bill was,

to a great extent, linked to the strategies employed by the Humphrey

forces during the struggle. Success for Humphrey in 1964 can be

correlated with the extensive and careful organization of the civil

rights advocates.

The major strategic considerations with respect to the public

speeches were the careful choosing of the audiences to be addressed

and the use of certain terms which had a positive or negative connota­

tion for the audiences. In regard to the first consideration, Senator

Humphrey's choice of audiences was determined by two considerations.

He felt that he had to remain close to the Senate floor as debate on

the bill progressed. Because of this, he needed to be certain that

the audiences he did speak to understood the bill and were influential

in their particular societal spheres.

As for phraseology, by using certain terms such as "freedom,"

"dignity," "discrimination," and "prejudice," Humphrey was able to

relate to the value constructs of the audiences. It should be remembered that Humphrey chose the audiences before which he spoke so he could be reasonably sure of the types of terms and slogans which would appeal to each group.

As pointed out in Chapter V, Bailey has outlined certain strate­ gic steps that need to be followed in order to gain passage of a controversial piece of national legislation. The first of these steps called for gaining wide appeal for the legislation. In an effort to establish this appeal, the Humphrey forces employed public speeches, radio and television coverage and wide coverage in newspapers 182

and news magazines. The second piece of strategy emphasized by

Bailey called for co-sponsorship of the bill. While early strat­

egies did not call for co-sponsorship, it soon became apparent

that co-sponsorship was a necessity. The bill was, therefore, co­

sponsored by Senator Humphrey (a Democrat) and Senator Kuchel (a

Republican). Close ties were maintained between the two men and

the bi-partisan spirit needed to gain passage was established and

perpetuated. In an effort to achieve unified support for the bill

(the third strategy pointed out by Bailey), the Humphrey forces

set up very rigid rules to be followed during the course of the

Senate debates. Among these rules was the responsibility of main­

taining a quorum at all times. This countered efforts on the part

of Southerners to raise the issue of no quorum and force debate on the issue to be reinstituted, thereby allowing Southern spokesmen

a new quota of speeches. This Southern strategy at a filibuster attempt was successfully blocked.

The fourth strategy outlined by Bailey dealt with educating the electorate. Part of this strategy was set forth in Humphrey's public speeches. Each of the public speeches was an effort to edu­ cate the public as to what civil rights meant and why it was import­ ant to the United States. In this way, the public was informed that the advocates believed the civil rights issue was primarily a moral issue. In an attempt to establish this point, the clergy were appealed to throughout the debates and they had a profound effect on the outcome of the legislation. The lobbying done by the clergy in

Washington was credited by Humphrey as one of the important factors 183

in bringing about passage of the bill.

The last strategy mentioned by Bailey had to do with amendments.

The Humphrey forces realized that they were going to have to concede

something in return for support. Senator Humphrey stated from the

first that Senator Dirksen would need to be in the fold in order to

gain cloture. An all-out effort was launched to convince Dirksen

of the importance of the bill and of his role in the legislative pro­

cess. Dirksen was given every consideration, to the extent that many

of Humphrey's staff felt that Humphrey conceded too much to the

Dirksen camp. Senator Humphrey was willing to share the spotlight

in order to gain the votes needed for cloture. This technique worked

and after many informal meetings, the Dirksen amendments were agreed

to and cloture was guaranteed.

CONCLUSIONS

It must be concluded that the legislative strategies used by

Humphrey were a significant factor in the efforts to gain passage

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These strategies dictated whom

the advocates of civil rights would speak to and the manner in which they would speak. The overall legislative strategies brought

great pressures to bear on Southern opponents which they could not overcome.

An analysis of the argumentative processes of Senator Humphrey revealed that the speaker reasoned in both a deductive and an inductive manner. The overall reasoning behind the civil rights legislation can be stated in the form of a categorical syllogism. The schematic outline 184

is as follows: 1) Major premise: The Declaration of Independence of the United States says that all men are created equal; 2) Minor premise: The Negro is a man; and 3) Conclusion: Therefore, the

Negro should be afforded the same basic freedoms as all men.

In the development of the arguments, Humphrey appealed to concepts whose realization he considered to be praiseworthy, obli­ gatory, and desirable for the Negro and the nation in general. In pursuing this line of reasoning, the speaker relied upon enthymematic reasoning by appealing to preconceived notions in the minds of the members of the audiences. This was particularly effective in the public speeches.

Senator Humphrey also used a great deal of induction in the form of causal connection, authoritative testimony, and specific instance or example. In each case, the reasoning was based upon sound causal connection, proper authorities, or sufficient and/or telling examples. Although sources of citations were not always given, particularly in the public speeches, there was a sufficient amount of data upon which Humphrey based his conclusions. In gen­ eral, the reasoning was sound and drew logical conclusions which were not adequately refuted by the opposition.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Perusal of Senator Humphrey's files in Minneapolis revealed vol­ umes of speeches which the Senator has delivered over the years.

There would seem to be no limit to the possible avenues one might use to approach the study of the speaking of Senator Humphrey. 185

Studies have been done on his speaking techniques to general audiences and on certain aspects of the 1960 primary campaign, but aside from these, little scholarly work exists. One might, for example, investi­ gate Humphrey's speaking techniques while he served as Mayor of

Minneapolis. At this time he was still writing his own speeches and a comparison might be done with his later speaking techniques. Little has been doneon Humphrey's speaking while he served as Vice-President.

A follow-up study to this study could investigate Humphrey's speaking on civil rights since the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This writer feels that there is a definite need for study on the impact of the legislative process on the actual speaking approach employed by speakers (Humphrey in other areas of concern) when advocating major controversial legislation. In short, aside from the many different aspects of the speaking of Hubert H. Humphrey which could be studied, there exists a broad spectrum of legislative speaking and procedures which warrants further investigation. 186

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Books

Abraham, Henry J. Freedom and the Court: Civil Rights and Liberties in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1972.

Amrine, Michael. This Is Humphrey: The Story of a Senator. New York: Doubleday and Company, 1960.

Auer, J. Jeffery (ed.). The Rhetoric of Our Times. New York: Appieton-Century-Crofts, 1969.

Bailey, Stephen K. Congress Makes a Law. New York: Columbia Press, 1950.

Bettinghaus, Erwin P. The Nature of Proof. New York: Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1972.

Burke, Kenneth. Rhetoric of Motives. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1950.

Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs. Critiques of Contemporary Rhetoric. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1972.

Carr, Robert K. (ed.). Civil Rights in America. Philadelphia: The American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1951.

Clevenger, Theodore, Jr. Audience Analysis. New York: Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1966.

Griffith, Winthrop. Humphrey: A Candid Biography. New York: William Morrow and Company, 1965.

Hillbruner, Anthony. Critical Dimensions: The Art of Public Address Criticism. New York: Random House, 1968.

Humphrey, Hubert H. Beyond Civil Rights: A New Day of Equality. New York: Random House, 1968.

_____ . The Political Philosophy of the New Deal. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1970.

Legislative History of Titles VII and XI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964.

Linsley, William A. (ed.). Speech Criticism: Methods and Materials. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers, 1968. 187

Makay, John J. and William R. Brown. The Rhetorical Dialogue: Contemporary Concepts and Cases. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers, 1972.

Marcus, Robert D. and David Burner. America Since 1945. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1972.

Martin, Ralph G. A Man for All People: Hubert H. Humphrey. New York: Grosset and Dunlap, 1968.

Mortensen, C. David. Communication: The Study of Human Interaction. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1972.

Perelman, Ch. and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969.

Repsy, Alison. Civil Rights in the United States. New York: Central Book Company, Inc., 1951.

Scott, Robert L. and Bernard L. Brock. Methods of Rhetorical Criticism A Twentieth Century Perspective. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1972.

Sereno, Kenneth K. and C. David Mortensen (ed.), Foundations of Communication Theory. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1970.

Sherrill, Robert and Henry W. Ernst. The Drugstore Liberal. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1968.

Stevenson, Adlai E. III. Introduction to A Man for All People: Hubert H. Humphrey by Ralph G. Martin. New York: Grosset and Dunlap, 1968.

Thonssen, Lester and A. Craig Baird. Speech Criticism: The Develop­ ment of Standards for Rhetorical Appraisal. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1948.

Weaver, Richard. The Ethics of Rhetoric. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1970.

Woodward, C. Vann. The Strange Career of Jim Crow. New York: Oxford University Press, 1966.

2. Periodicals

Bitzer, Lloyd F. "Aristotle's Enthymeme Revisited," Quarterly Journal of Speech, December, 1959, pp. 399-408. 188

Bitzer, Lloyd F. "The Rhetorical Situation," Philosophy and Rhetoric, January, 1968, pp. 1-14.

Bormann, Ernest. "Presidential Campaign 1960: A Symposium," Quarterly Journal of Speech, October, 1960, p. 240.

Brockriede, Wayne. "Dimensions of the Concept of Rhetoric," Quarterly ' Journal of Speech, February, 1968, pp. 1-12.

"Civil Rights Now," The Christian Century, November 13, 1963, pp. 1391-1392.

"Clerical Lobbyists," America, May 9, 1964, p. 624.

"Cracking the Whip for Civil Rights," Newsweek, April 13, 1964, pp. 26- 32.

Crawford, Kenneth. "Filibuster Buster," Newsweek, March 16, 1964, p. 38.

Devlin, Patrick L. "Hubert H. Humphrey's 1948 Civil Rights Speech," Today's Speech, September, 1968, pp. 43-47.

"Dirksen Amendments," New Republic, June 6, 1964, pp. 3-4.

Funk, Alfred A. "Logical and Emotional Proofs: A Counter-View," Speech Teacher, September, 1968, pp. 210-216.

Harding, Harold F. "Presidential Campaign, 1964: A Political Symposium," Quarterly Journal of Speech, December, 1964, pp. 409-414.

Kempton, Murray. "The Senate: Mr. Humphrey's Conquering Hosts," New Republic, April 4, 1964, pp. 6-8.

"Mood of America in Election Year," U.S. News and World Report, March 30, 1964, pp. 68-73.

Newman, Robert P. "Ours Just To Reason Why," Western Speech, Winter, 1969, pp. 2-9.

Padrow, Ben. "Hubert H. Humphrey: The Glandular Zephyr," Today's Speech, September, 1964, pp. 2-3.

Scott, Robert L. and Wayne Brockriede. "Hubert H. Humphrey Faces the 'Black Power' Issue," Speaker and Gavel, November, 1966, pp. 11-17.

"Smoothing a Way for Rights Law," Business Week, June 20, 1964, p. 32.

"The Changes in the Civil Rights Bill," U.S. News and World Report, June 1, 1964, pp. 46-47. 189

The New York Times, April 7, 1963.

The New York Times, May 7, 1963.

The New York Times, May 8, 1963.

The New York Times, May 11, 1963.

The New York Times, June 1, 1963.

The New York Times, June 2, 1963.

The New York Times, June 16, 1963.

The New York Times, June 30, 1963.

The New York Times, July 10, 1963.

The New York Times, July 14, 1963.

The New York Times, August 29, 1963.

The New York Times, October 1, 1963.

The New York Times, December 16, 1963.

The New York Times, January 6, 1964.

The New York Times, February 12, 1963.

The New York Times, April 16, 1964.

Tompkins, Phillip K. "Hubert Horatio Humphrey: On Persuasion," Today's Speech, September, 1966, pp. 17-18.

Walter, Otis M. "Toward An Analysis of Motivation," Quarterly Journal of Speech, October, 1955, pp. 271-278.

Woolbert, Charles H. "The Audience," Psychological Monographs, June, 1916, pp. 37-54.

3. Government Documents

United States Congress, Senate. Congressional Record. Proceeding and Debates of the 88th Congress, Second Session, Vol. 110, Part 5, Washington.

_____ . Congressional Record. Proceeding and Debates of the 88th Congress, Second Session, Vol. 110, Part 7, Washington.

_____ . Congressional Record. Proceeding and Debates of the 88th Congress, Second Session, Vol. 110, Part 9, Washington.

_____ . Congressional Record. Proceeding and Debates of the 88th Congress, Second Session, Vol. 110, Part 10, Washington. 190

4. Unpublished Materials

Benson, James A. "An Analysis of Selected Speeches by Hubert H. Humphrey During the Wisconsin Presidential Primary, 1960." Unpublished Master's thesis, Purdue University, 1962.

Devlin, Patrick L. "Hubert H. Humphrey: His Speaking Principles and Practices in Campaign and General Audience Speaking to 1966." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Wayne State Univer­ sity, 1968.

Gilbert, Charles E. "Problems of a Senator: A Study of Legislative Behavior." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Northwestern University, 1955.

Humphrey, Hubert H. Private Papers on Civil Rights. Minnesota Historical Society. St. Paul, Minnesota.

Peters, George C. "The Humphrey Campaign for South Dakota's National Convention Delegates, 1959-1960." Unpublished Master's thesis, University of South Dakota, 1961.

Shelley, Walter Lundy. "Political Profiles of the Nixon, Humphrey and Wallace Voters in the Texas Panhandle, 1968: A Study in Voting Behavior." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Texas Tech University, 1972.

Tippens, Katherine A. "A Rhetorical Analysis of Selected Speeches Delivered by Hubert H. Humphrey During the 1960 Democratic Presi­ dential Primary Campaign." Unpublished Master's thesis, University of South Dakota, 1964.

5. Public Speeches

Manuscripts of the following speeches are on file in Senator Humphrey's office, Room 462, Federal Courts Building, 110 South Fourth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Humphrey, Hubert H. Address on Civil Rights to the Democratic National Convention, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, July 16, 1948.

_____ . Address to the Western States Democratic Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, September 20, 1963.

_____ . Address to the American Council of Education, Washington, D.C.: October 4, 1963.

____ Address to the National Association for Mental Health, Washington, D.C., November 21, 1963. 191

Humphrey, Hubert H. Address to the Fund for The Republic, Los Angeles, California, December 8, 1963.

_____ . Address to the graduating class of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, January 17, 1964.

_____ . Address to the American Association of School Administrators, Atlantic City, New Jersey, February 18, 1964.

_____ . Address to the California Democratic Club Convention, Long Beach, California, February 22, 1964.

_____ . Address to the Americans for Democratic Action, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, March 7, 1964.

_____ . Address to the Four Freedoms Awards Dinner, New York City, New York, March 15, 1964,

_____ . Address to the National Farmers Union Convention, St. Paul, Minnesota, March 18, 1964.

_____ . Address to the Greek Independence Day Celebration, Boston, Massachusetts, April 5, 1964.

____ . Address to the Lutheran Brotherhood Awards Dinner, Miami, Florida, April 6,1964.

_____ . Address to the Florida State Teachers Association, delivered by telephone from Washington, D.C., April 24, 1964.

' . Address to the Democratic County Committee of New York County, May 14, 1964.

_____ . Address to the American Baptist Convention, Atlantic City, New Jersey, May 20, 1964.

_____ . Address to the graduating class of the College of St. Teresa, Winona, Minnesota, May 30, 1964.

_____ . Address to the graduating class of Risk University, Nashville, Tennessee, June 1, 1964.

K» *