Month: July 2024

1861: Lincoln’s “Better Angels”

ESSENTIAL QUESTION

How did Abraham Lincoln use language to discourage Southern secession in his first inaugural address?

CONTEXT

Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) was the 16th President of the United States. Born in a log cabin on the Kentucky frontier, he was self-educated, studied to be a lawyer, and rose in politics, representing Illinois in Congress and eventually becoming a leader in the new Republican Party. National politics in the 1850s and early 1860s were contentious, belligerent, and antagonistic. A moderate Republican, Lincoln was elected president in 1860, even though he did not actively seek the nomination in the South and seven states had seceded from the Union by the time he delivered this inaugural at the US Capitol. Lincoln was assassinated in Washington, D.C., in April, 1865.

TEXT

…I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so…

…It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances….

…The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have referred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this if also they choose, but the Executive as such has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present Government as it came to his hands and to transmit it unimpaired by him to his successor…

…In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to “preserve, protect, and defend it.”

I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

INQUIRY

Why did Lincoln state he would not interfere with the institution of slavery?
Explain Lincoln’s views on secession.
How did Lincoln address Southern citizens?
What was the tone of these excerpts from them 1st Inaugural? How do you know? How did the tone change?
To whom did Lincoln give the responsibility for beginning the Civil War?
What were the “mystic chords of memory”? Why did Lincoln use that metaphor?
What did Lincoln mean in his closing by referring to the “better angels of our nature”?
Lincoln won reelection in 1864, and much had happened in the four years since the 1st Inaugural. Secession had become a fact and after the Emancipation Proclamation the purpose of the Civil War focused on the eradication of slavery. In Lincoln’s 2nd inaugural address (March, 1865) he closed with the words, “With malice toward none with charity for all with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right let us strive on to finish the work we are in to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan ~ to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.” What was the tone of those words? How did that tone differ from the tone of the 1st Inaugural text?

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp

https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/presidents/abraham-lincoln/

https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/-with-malice-toward-none-lincoln-s-second-inaugural.htm

1775: Henry-Liberty or Death!

ESSENTIAL QUESTION

How did Patrick Henry use rhetoric to challenge the Virginia House of Burgesses to embrace the American Revolution?

CONTEXT

Patrick Henry (1736-1799) was born in Hanover County, in the British Colony of Virginia. After an unsuccessful attempt as a merchant, he became a lawyer through self-instruction (at that time lawyers were not required to attend law school). A successful attorney, he was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses (the colonial legislature) where he spoke vehemently against the Stamp Act of 1765. He was elected to the First Continental Congress (1774), strongly urged independence, and helped draft the Virginia Declaration of Rights and the original Virginia Constitution. He served multiple terms as Virginia’s governor and later opposed the US Constitution as written because it implied a strong central government and did not include a Bill of Rights. He was a slaveholder his entire adult life, and although he hoped to see slavery end he had no thoughts about how to bring that about.

As a child Henry heard many preachers as part of The Great Awakening Movement, and he incorporated their rhetorical styles into his addresses, including emotion as well as reason. By 1775 Henry believed that war and American independence were inevitable and he was in contact with many of the Founding Fathers. The House of Burgesses could not officially meet (the governor of Virginia had dissolved it) so the members decided to reconvene on their own. Henry was elected as Hanover County’s delegate to the Second Virginia Convention held in Richmond in March, 1775, where he made this speech. Henry died of stomach cancer at home in 1799.

Henry was known as a speaker but not as a writer; he spoke without notes. This text is taken from Henry’s speech, even though there was no verbatim transcript. It appeared in the first biography of Henry, published in 1817 by William Wirt. Wirt wrote to those who were there and heard Henry’s speech as well as others who knew people who where there, asking for words, tone, and mood. Wirt then compiled his research and published the speech in his biography.

TEXT

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate...

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free– if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

INQUIRY

Henry began his speech by acknowledging his colleagues that did not agree with him. What was the effect of this acknowledgement?
Why did Henry draw the juxtaposition of “freedom or slavery”? How might that have resonated with his audience (most of whom we wealthy landowners and politicians, including slave holders)?
How did Henry characterize the “illusion of hope”? What is a “siren song”?
What guided Henry’s feet? How did he justify his thoughts about the British? Give examples from the text.
What was the effect of Henry’s parallel structure when he said “We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated“?
Why did Henry argue that the Americans must fight?
Describe Henry’s appeals to authority and ethos, including his multiple biblical allusions.
How did Henry argue against those who said that America was not ready to fight the British? What arguments and appeals did he use?
How and why did Henry use the metaphor of chains?
Henry ended the speech with a series of questions. What was the effect?
Henry used antithesis in a famous quote from this speech, “I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death“. What was the effect of putting these two opposites next to each other?
Identify examples of Henry’s uses of both emotion and logic. How did he tie them together in one argument?

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/patrick.asp

https://www.colonialwilliamsburg.org/learn/deep-dives/give-me-liberty-or-give-me-death

1630: Winthrop on “The Hill”

ESSENTIAL QUESTION

How did John Winthrop prepare colonists to emigrate to the Massachusetts Bay Colony?

CONTEXT

John Winthrop (1588-1649) was born into a wealthy merchant family in England and studied to become a lawyer. A deeply religious Puritan, he believed that the English Reformation was in danger from governmental policies, and with other Puritans he emigrated to the New World to escape persecution. In 1630 he arrived as the governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony (the second English colony in the New World, as Plymouth Colony, settled in 1620, was the first). He served as governor of the Colony for most of the period 1630-1649 and upheld a rigid form of Puritan orthodoxy. He kept a journal most of his life, wrote many letters and documents, and is well-known for the lecture, “A Model of Christian Charity,” delivered before his group of emigrants left to face an unknown future in the New World. This text is taken from that lecture.

For 200 years the lecture was forgotten, but in 1839 the Massachusetts Historical Society published it. The work was again forgotten until the 1950s when Cold War historians reinterpreted it as a founding document of American exceptionalism (the idea that America holds a unique place in the world due to its values and systems). Most historians do not believe the original work indicated American exceptionalism, although the lecture has been used for that purpose several times in recent history. Presidents Kennedy, Reagan, and Obama used the “city on a hill” reference in speeches to indicate American exceptionalism and position in the world.

TEXT (original spellings have been modernized for clarity)

…Now the only way to avoid this shipwreck, and to provide for our posterity, is to follow the counsel of Micah, to do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our God. For this end, we must be knit together, in this work, as one man. We most entertain each other in brotherly affection. We must be willing to abridge ourselves of our superfluities, for the supply of other’s necessities. We must uphold a familiar commerce together in all meekness, gentleness, patience, and liberality. We must delight in each other, make other’s conditions our own; rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together, always having before our eyes our commission and community in the work, as members of the same body. So shall we keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace…For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us...

INQUIRY

Why would Winthrop tell the settlers to be “knit together…as one man”? What circumstances might the new settlers face that would require this type of working together?
What would be the result of being “knit together”?
In this speech Winthrop described a covenant between God and the Puritans. How did he describe the covenant?
Winthrop described both group discipline and individual responsibilities. How did he believe these two concepts supported each other?
The city on a hill image is from Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount, found in Matthew 5:14; “Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid.” By using the words of Jesus, Winthrop is using what type(s) of appeal– logos, ethos, pathos, and/or appeal to authority? Justify your response.
How did Winthrop’s use of the image of a city on a hill reflect the Puritan flight from religious persecution?
The Massachusetts Bay Colony centered around what would become the city of Boston. Did the Puritans live up to the image of a city on a hill? Justify your response.
Some modern scholars dispute Winthrop’s authorship of this lecture, even if Winthrop delivered it orally, as two other ministers were also on his voyage. Would this change the message of the text? Why or why not? What is the role of modern speechwriters who compose a speech but do not deliver it?
As governor Winthrop imposed his beliefs that there was no separation between church and state. In later years, two members of the Colony, Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson, were forced to leave the Colony for their religious beliefs. Explain the irony.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

John Winthrop

1851: Sojourner Truth, “A Woman”

ESSENTIAL QUESTION

How did Sojourner Truth weave support for the abolition movement and the women’s rights movement into a single presentation?

CONTEXT

Sojourner Truth (1797-1883) was born Isabella Baumfree, enslaved on a New York estate owned by a Dutch American. After her master ignored the New York anti-slavery law of 1827, she ran away, experienced a religious conversion, and by 1843 was an itinerant minister, changing her name to Sojourner Truth. Involved in the abolition and women’s rights movements of the 1850s, she was invited to speak at the 1851 Women’s Rights Convention in Akron, Ohio. She spoke without notes.

The text below is from the more well-known version of Truth’s speech that she delivered at the Convention, but there were at least two versions published. Marius Robinson (1806-1878), a white abolitionist, minister, and newspaper editor, was in the audience in 1851; he transcribed her speech and printed it in the newspaper Anti Slavery Bugle on June 21, 1851. But the more well-known version was published in 1863 by Frances Gage (1808-1884), a white activist in the abolition, women’s rights, and temperance movements, who had introduced Sojourner Truth at the 1851 Convention. While Gage, who worked with the Union during the Civil War to help freed slaves, maintained Truth’s main ideas, she altered the wording, including a Southern dialect. Gage’s version of the speech appeared in the New York Independent on April 23, 1863.

TEXT (1863 version)

Well, children, where there is so much racket there must be something out of kilter. I think that ‘twixt the negroes of the South and the women at the North, all talking about rights, the white men will be in a fix pretty soon. But what’s all this here talking about?

That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain’t I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain’t I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man – when I could get it – and bear the lash as well! And ain’t I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother’s grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain’t I a woman?

Then they talk about this thing in the head; what’s this they call it? [member of audience whispers, “intellect”] That’s it, honey. What’s that got to do with women’s rights or negroes’ rights? If my cup won’t hold but a pint, and yours holds a quart, wouldn’t you be mean not to let me have my little half measure full?

Then that little man in black there, he says women can’t have as much rights as men, ’cause Christ wasn’t a woman! Where did your Christ come from? Where did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Man had nothing to do with Him.

If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back , and get it right side up again! And now they is asking to do it, the men better let them.

Obliged to you for hearing me, and now old Sojourner ain’t got nothing more to say.

INQUIRY

What is the effect of beginning the speech by asking a question? How might that catch the attention of the audience?
In what ways did Truth compare herself to “other women”? Why did she use these comparisons?
What is the effect of the parallel structure of the speech with the repetition of the phrase, “ain’t I a woman”?
Truth was a member of the abolition movement and the women’s rights movement. Identify her arguments supporting each. How did she weave the arguments together?
We don’t know what Sojourner Truth sounded like, but we do know that her days of slavery were spent in New York. Why might Gage have added Southern dialect to the speech (Gage’s publication was in 1863, during the Civil War)? How might this have influenced the intended audience of the speech in 1863?
Can altering the wording of a speech change its meaning? To compare the two versions of Sojourner Truth’s speech, go to https://www.thesojournertruthproject.com/compare-the-speeches/ Do you believe the meaning of the speech was altered in the 1863 version? If so, how and in what way(s)?
How might the transcripts of the two versions have been influenced by the thoughts and ideas of the people who made the transcriptions? Compare how Robinson and Gage might have viewed the speech differently and why.
Can the meaning of a speech evolve over time? If so, how? Give examples.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

https://www.nps.gov/articles/sojourner-truth.htm

https://www.pbs.org/thisfarbyfaith/people/sojourner_truth.html