University of Kentucky UKnowledge Social History History 1979 The People's Voice: The Orator in American Society Barnet Baskerville University of Washington - Seattle Campus Click here to let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Thanks to the University of Kentucky Libraries and the University Press of Kentucky, this book is freely available to current faculty, students, and staff at the University of Kentucky. Find other University of Kentucky Books at uknowledge.uky.edu/upk. For more information, please contact UKnowledge at [email protected]. Recommended Citation Baskerville, Barnet, "The People's Voice: The Orator in American Society" (1979). Social History. 3. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/upk_social_history/3 THE PEOPLE'S VOICE This page intentionally left blank THE PEOPLE'S VOICE The Orator in American Socie9' BARNET BASKERVILLE THE UNIVERSITY PRESS OF KENTUCKY UBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING IN PUBUCATION DATA Baskerville, Barner. The people's voice. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Oratory- United Stares- History. I. Tide. PN4055.U5B33 815'.01 79-4001 ISBN 978-0-8131-5113-7 Copyright© 1979 by The University Press of Kentucky Scholarly publisher for the Commonwealth, serving Berea College, Centre College of Kentucky, Eastern Kentucky University, The Filson Club, Georgetown College, Kentucky Historical Society, Kentucky State University, Morehead Stare University, Murray State University, Northern Kentucky University, Transylvania University, University of Kentucky, University of Louisville, and Western Kentucky University. Editorial and Sales Offices: Lexington, Kentucky 40506 For Laura and &b, and especially for Jo This page intentionally left blank CONTENTS Introduction· 1 1 I The Revolutionary Period: The Orator as Hero 7 2 I The Golden Age: Oratory as Artistic Expression 32 3 I The Brazen Age: Obfuscation and Diversion 88 4 I The Speak-out Age: America Finds Her Voice Again 115 5 I The Twenties: Oratory Becomes Public Speaking 140 6 I The Roosevelt Era: Tumultuous Polemics 171 7 I The Contemporary Scene: The Decline of Eloquence 199 Epilogue 236 Notes 241 Index 253 This page intentionally left blank Some observations on a form of effort which has absorbed a good deal of the talent of the nation, seem properly to belong to an account of its intellectual ltfe. JAMES BRYCE, "American Oratory," in The American Commonwealth This page intentionally left blank INTRODUCTION To be a perfect and consummate orator is to possess the highest faculty given to men. SENATOR GEORGE F. HOAR Whin a man has something to say an' don't know how to say it, he says it pretty well. Whin he has some­ thing to say, an knows how to say it, he makes a gr-reat speech. But whin he has nawthin' to say, an' has a lot iv wur-ruds that come with a black coat, he's an orator. "Mr. Dooley" (FINLEY PETER DUNNE) The words oratory and eloquence are not frequently on the ·tongues of contemporary Americans. For some the terms have an amusingly archaic sound, like methinks or eftsoons. In our time one seldom accuses a politician of oratory without humorous or de­ rogatory intent; a public man, finding himself referred to in the newspapers as an "orator," is probably justified in regarding the characterization as pejorative. When Senator Margaret Chase Smith spoke out courageously against abuse of congressional im­ munity during the McCarthy era, she began her now famous "Dec­ laration of Conscience" with these words: "I speak as simply as possible because the issue is too great to be obscured by elo­ quence."1 No one mistook her meaning. The subject, she was say­ ing, is too serious for wordy obfuscation. A century earlier, Senator Smith's statement would have puz­ zled an American political audience. Then eloquence was a quality universally admired and zealously coveted. Speakers might fall short in practice, but the ideal was always there- beckoning with rich personal satisfactions and public rewards. American journals published with remarkable frequency articles entitled simply "Oratory" or "Eloquence." In 1851, just one hundred years before Senator Smith's steadfast refusal to resort to eloquence, a popular journal declared that "eloquence ... is beyond all question the 2 INTRODUCTION greatest exertion of the human mind. It requires for its conception a combination of the most exalted faculties; for its execution, a union of the most extraordinary powers."2 At about the same time America's distinguished man of letters Ralph Waldo Emerson, who earlier had written of his "passionate love for the strains of elo­ quence," was delighting audiences with his lecture on "Eloquence," which he defined as "the power to translate a truth into language perfectly intelligible to the person to whom you speak" - a con­ ception in striking contrast to that implied by Senator Smith. What may appear to be a mere change in usage actually suggests a significant change in attitude. The current widespread distrust of the political speaker, the frequently expressed contempt for "mere rhetoric," may cause us to forget that throughout the greater part of our history as a nation the orator was chief among American folk heroes. In the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries our coun­ trymen engaged in spirited discussions of what was the most eloquent speech ever given and who was the greatest orator of this or some other nation in much the same way as twentieth-century Americans argue about the most skillfully executed double play, the most exciting runback of a kickoff, or whether Joe Louis could have knocked out Muhammad Ali. Oratory was an integral part of all great celebrations. The arrival of a great orator in town was a splendid occasion, and his speech the subject of comment for days afterward. Debates among congressional giants packed the galleries of Senate and House, and legends clustered about the chief partici­ pants. And after the Civil War, although contemporary orators were seldom lionized in the same way, writers and speakers re­ peated and supplemented the old legends, recollected with pride the heroes of a former day, and confidently predicted the immi­ nence of another golden age. It has frequently been asserted that Americans have tradition­ ally displayed a keen appetite for oratory. Wendell Phillips con­ tended that as soon as a Yankee baby could sit up in his cradle, he called the nursery to order and proceeded to address the house. "If there ever was a country where eloquence was a power," Emerson exclaimed in one of his lectures on the subject, "it is the United States." "The American people have always been ardent admirers of genuinely great oratory," said Warren C. Shaw in introducing his History of American Oratory in 1928. The theme is reiterated end- Introduction 3 lessly by essayists, biographers, historians, and especially by an­ thologists of speeches, who predictably introduce their collections with such statements as: "The love of oratory is inherent in Ameri­ cans," or "In no other country have orators and oratory played so conspicuous a part in shaping public affairs, as in America." It is this latter theme, the part played by oratory in shaping public affairs, that has occupied greatest attention in the past. The error of many enthusiastic commentators on oratory has been that they have dwelt unduly upon the influence of the orator, picturing him as a cosmic traffic cop, standing at the crossroads of history, directing the flow of events. Historians, often aware of more po­ tent influences, have sometimes tended to underplay the role of rhetoric in public affairs. Striking evidence of the influence of indi­ vidual orators can undoubtedly be found; Hitler, Mussolini, Chur­ chill, and Roosevelt are perhaps the most obvious recent examples. But the study of oratory is more than a study of influence. The orator is at once engine and mirror; not only can he provide the impetus toward what he feels should be, he can also reflect (often unconsciously) what is. Since his success at persuasion depends in part upon an accurate assessment of existing states of mind, he gives expression directly or indirectly to ideas and attitudes preva­ lent at the time. The conception of speeches as vehicles of ideas current in soci­ ety is of course not a new one. Subjects repeatedly taken to the public platform and discussed in the public forum are presumably matters of interest to both speaker and audience; hence biog­ raphers and historians have long regarded speeches as indexes to the mind of the audience as well as of the speaker. A history of the Civil War period without reference to the speeches of Abraham Lincoln is as inconceivable as an account of America's late nineteenth-century adventure in imperialism which ignores the speeches of Albert ]. Beveridge, William Jennings Bryan, and Theodore Roosevelt. Indeed, speeches (and pamphlets, their writ­ ten equivalents) are the chief sources of insight into certain periods of the American past. John Adams's familiar words, spoken in 1816, "I would have these orations collected and printed in vol­ umes, and then write the history of the last forty-five years in com­ mentaries upon them," may have overstated the case, but a modern American historian, Daniel Boors tin, has observed, "We can find 4 INTRODUCTION few nations whose oratory can bring the student so close to their history." In the spirit of John Adams, Boorstin suggests that it would be possible to compile a complete American history which would present "the substance of what is now taught in our public school courses in history" through a series of well-chosen public speeches.3 The present volume advances the thesis that societal values and attitudes are reflected not only in what the speaker says but also in how he says it- not only in the ideas and arguments to be found in speeches of the past but in the methods and practices of representa­ tive speakers and in the role and status accorded speakers by the listening public.