2015: Obama at Selma

ESSENTIAL QUESTION:

How does the First March on Selma reflect the strength of the Civil Rights Movement?

CONTEXT:

On March 7, 1965, the first of a series of three protest marches demanding voting rights for African Americans took place in Selma, Alabama. The three marches were to go from Selma to Montgomery (the capital of Alabama), a 54 miles trek. The marches were organized by non-violent groups and were part of the larger civil rights movement to guarantee voting rights for African Americans, who had been denied voting rights through various means for decades.

On March 7, 1965, the marchers were ordered by local authorities not to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma. The non-violent march continued and police rushed the crowd with batons and tear gas. The march was televised and led to a national call for voting rights legislation. On August 6, 1965, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

On the 50th anniversary of the March, in 2015, President Obama and his family joined many at the same bridge to commemorate the March of 1965. This text is taken from his speech on that occasion.

TEXT:

It is a rare honor in this life to follow one of your heroes. And John Lewis is one of my heroes.

Now, I have to imagine that when a younger John Lewis woke up that morning 50 years ago and made his way to Brown Chapel, heroics were not on his mind. A day like this was not on his mind. Young folks with bedrolls and backpacks were milling about. Veterans of the movement trained newcomers in the tactics of non-violence; the right way to protect yourself when attacked. A doctor described what tear gas does to the body, while marchers scribbled down instructions for contacting their loved ones. The air was thick with doubt, anticipation and fear…

As John noted, there are places and moments in America where this nation’s destiny has been decided. Many are sites of war — Concord and Lexington, Appomattox, Gettysburg. Others are sites that symbolize the daring of America’s character — Independence Hall and Seneca Falls, Kitty Hawk and Cape Canaveral.

Selma is such a place. In one afternoon 50 years ago, so much of our turbulent history — the stain of slavery and anguish of civil war; the yoke of segregation and tyranny of Jim Crow; the death of four little girls in Birmingham; and the dream of a Baptist preacher — all that history met on this bridge.

It was not a clash of armies, but a clash of wills; a contest to determine the true meaning of America…

INQUIRY:

Obama uses the word “hero” in the first sentence. How does this image bring the speech to a personal level?
In the next paragraph, Obama includes both “veterans of the movement” and “young folks.” How does this contribute to the description of the original march? Why is it important to know what types of people were part of the original march?
What is the effect of a doctor describing what tear gas does to the body?
Why were some marchers writing instructions for contracting their loved ones? What does this say about their expectations of the march?
In the next paragraph Obama lists times when “the nation’s destiny has been decided” and “sites that symbolize the daring of America’s character”. How does this contribute to the importance of his subject and how does he connect these events to Selma?
In the second sentence of the fourth paragraph Obama lists elements of American history. What are these elements? Why does he list them this way? How does this explain the significance of the events on the Pettus Bridge?
In the last paragraph Obama deemphasizes the military response but instead emphasizes “a clash of wills.” How does this characterize and emphasize the importance of the Selma March?
For what would you be willing to protest if you believed it could result in physical harm? What are other ways of protesting?

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

https://www.archives.gov/research/african-americans/vote/selma-marches

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/07/remarks-president-50th-anniversary-selma-montgomery-marches

https://www.history.com/articles/selma-montgomery-march

1939: Lou Gehrig leaves Baseball

ESSENTIAL QUESTION

How did Lou Gehrig use language to convey strength and optimism in the face of tragedy?

CONTEXT

Henry Louis Gehrig (1903-1941) was born in New York City and played first base for 17 seasons for the New York Yankees baseball team. He received many awards, was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame, and was the first player to have his uniform number retired by a team. Many consider him one of the best players of the game.

On May 2, 1939, he voluntarily took himself out of the game because an undiagnosed ailment was affecting his play. It was determined that he had amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), a degenerative neuromuscular disease often known as Lou Gehrig’s disease. On July 4, 1939, he delivered the speech from which this text is taken at Yankee Stadium. Gehrig lived less than two years after his diagnosis.

TEXT

Fans, for the past two weeks you have been reading about a bad break I got. Today, I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the earth.

I have been in ballparks for seventeen years and have never received anything but kindness and encouragement from you fans. When you look around, wouldn’t you consider it a privilege to associate yourself which such fine looking men as are standing in uniform in this ballpark today?

Sure I’m lucky.

Who wouldn’t consider it an honor to have known Jacob Ruppert? Also, the builder of baseball’s greatest empire, Ed Barrow? To have spent six years with that wonderful little fellow, Miller Huggins? Then to have spent the next nine years with that outstanding leader, that smart student of psychology, the best manager in baseball today, Joe McCarthy?

Sure I’m lucky.

When the New York Giants, a team you would give your right arm to beat, and vice versa, sends you a gift — that’s something. When everybody down to the groundskeepers and those boys in white coats remember you with trophies — that’s something.

When you have a wonderful mother-in-law who takes sides with you in squabbles with her own daughter — that’s something. When you have a father and a mother who work all their lives so you can have an education and build your body — it’s a blessing When you have a wife who has been a tower of strength and shown more courage than you dreamed existed — that’s the finest I know.

So, I close in saying that I might have been given a bad break, but I’ve got an awful lot to live for.

INQUIRY

What contrast did Gehrig establish in the first two sentences? How did that affect the tone of the speech?
To whom did Gehrig address this speech? How do you know? Why do you think he chose them as his primary audience?
Why did Gehrig choose to deliver the speech in Yankee Stadium?
Gehrig used anaphora, the repetition of a phrase several times within a work. Identify the phrase he repeated. What was the effect of his repetition of this phrase?
Gehrig mentioned several people in this speech–Rupert, Barrow, Huggins, and McCarthy. Research these individuals and determine their relationships to Gehrig. What is the effect of mentioning people by name in a speech?
Investigate the rivalry between the New York Yankees and the New York Giants in the late 1930s. How did that rivalry influence Gehrig’s speech?
Gehrig mentioned his family and their sacrifices. What is the role of family sacrifice for an athlete to achieve greatness?
What is the tone of this speech? How do you know?
In his last sentence, Gehrig set up a clear contrast. What was the contrast? In what ways was it ironic?
The person who survived the longest on record with ALS was Steven Hawking, who lived 55 years after he was diagnosed with a slowly developing form of the disease, but the average survival rate is about 3-5 years. How might knowledge of a life-threatening disease affect your view of life?

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/lougehrigfarewelltobaseball.htm

1845: Douglass’s Narrative

ESSENTIAL QUESTION

How did Frederick Douglass convey the importance of escape for a fugitive slave?

CONTEXT

Frederick Douglass (1817?-1895) was born into slavery in Maryland. As a young boy he was sent to Baltimore to be a house servant, and with the assistance of his master’s wife he learned to read and write. He escaped from slavery in 1838, went to New York City, and soon changed his name to Frederick Douglass. He became an accomplished orator for the abolition movement; he was so accomplished that many doubted he could ever have been a slave. Thus he wrote Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, from which this text is taken, describing his escape. During the Civil War he assisted in recruiting Black soldiers to the Union Army and actively supported freedmen after the War. He died in 1895.

TEXT

…The wretchedness of slavery, and the blessedness of freedom, were perpetually before me. It was life and death with me. But I remained firm, and, according to my resolution, on the third day of September, 1838, I left my chains, and succeeded in reaching New York without the slightest interruption of any kind. How I did so,—what means I adopted,—what direction I travelled, and by what mode of conveyance,—I must leave unexplained…

I have been frequently asked how I felt when I found myself in a free State. I have never been able to answer the question with any satisfaction to myself. It was a moment of the highest excitement I ever experienced. I suppose I felt as one may imagine the unarmed mariner to feel when he is rescued by a friendly man-of-war from the pursuit of a pirate. In writing to a dear friend, immediately after my arrival at New York, I said I felt like one who had escaped a den of hungry lions. This state of mind, however, very soon subsided; and I was again seized with a feeling of great insecurity and loneliness. I was yet liable to be taken back, and subjected to all the tortures of slavery… There I was in the midst of thousands, and yet a perfect stranger; without home and without friends, in the midst of thousands of my own brethren—children of a common Father, and yet I dared not to unfold to any one of them my sad condition. I was afraid to speak to any one for fear of speaking to the wrong one, and thereby falling into the hands of money-loving kidnappers, whose business it was to lie in wait for the panting fugitive, as the ferocious beasts of the forest lie in wait for their prey. The motto which I adopted when I started from slavery was this—“Trust no man!” I saw in every white man an enemy, and in almost every colored man cause for distrust. It was a most painful situation; and, to understand it, one must needs experience it, or imagine himself in similar circumstances. Let him be a fugitive slave in a strange land—a land given up to be the hunting-ground for slaveholders—whose inhabitants are legalized kidnappers—where he is every moment subjected to the terrible liability of being seized upon by his fellowmen, as the hideous crocodile seizes upon his prey!—I say, let him place himself in my situation—without home or friends—without money or credit—wanting shelter, and no one to give it—wanting bread, and no money to buy it,—and at the same time let him feel that he is pursued by merciless men-hunters, and in total darkness as to what to do, where to go, or where to stay,—perfectly helpless both as to the means of defence and means of escape,—in the midst of plenty, yet suffering the terrible gnawings of hunger,—in the midst of houses, yet having no home,—among fellow-men, yet feeling as if in the midst of wild beasts, whose greediness to swallow up the trembling and half-famished fugitive is only equaled by that with which the monsters of the deep swallow up the helpless fish upon which they subsist,—I say, let him be placed in this most trying situation,—the situation in which I was placed,—then, and not till then, will he fully appreciate the hardships of, and know how to sympathize with, the toil-worn and whip-scarred fugitive slave.

Thank Heaven, I remained but a short time in this distressed situation. I was relieved from it by the humane hand of Mr. David Ruggles, whose vigilance, kindness, and perseverance, I shall never forget. I am glad of an opportunity to express, as far as words can, the love and gratitude I bear him. Mr. Ruggles is now afflicted with blindness, and is himself in need of the same kind offices which he was once so forward in the performance of toward others. I had been in New York but a few days, when Mr. Ruggles sought me out, and very kindly took me to his boarding-house at the corner of Church and Lespenard Streets. Mr. Ruggles was then very deeply engaged in … attending to a number of other fugitive slaves, devising ways and means for their successful escape; and, though watched and hemmed in on almost every side, he seemed to be more than a match for his enemies...

INQUIRY

In the first paragraph of this excerpt Douglass drew clear comparisons between slavery and freedom. What terms did he use? How does this affect the comparison?
Why might he clearly have dated the day of his escape? Remember, many thought he was too literate to have ever been a slave.
Why would he have refrained from listing the exact direction and people who helped him escape?
Douglass used two images to convey his immediate feelings of freedom–that of a rescued mariner and that of someone rescued from a den of lions. What power do these images convey? What emotions do they call to mind? Do you see any Biblical references?
Douglass’s written tone quickly changed. Analyze the change in tone, its purpose, and how he accomplished this.
Douglass then went on to describe his distressed condition. He used a series of contrasts with very little punctuation, mainly dashes. What emotion did this convey? How?
What was Mr. Ruggles’s role in New York? How do you know?
What qualities of this written text suggest that Douglass would be a good speaker? Remember, he became a vocal advocate for abolition.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

https://gutenberg.org/files/23/23-h/23-h.htm

1893: Turner’s Frontier

ESSENTIAL QUESTION

Analyze the role of the settlement of the American West in US history.

CONTEXT

Frederick Jackson Turner (1861-1932) was born into a middle class family in Wisconsin. Well-educated, he earned his Ph.D. in history from Johns Hopkins University in 1890, and by 1910 he was considered one of the most influential historians in America. In his research, essays, and lectures he emphasized the importance of the frontier in forming the American character. When the US Superintendent of the Census reported in 1890 that there were no unsettled areas left in the western US, Turner considered this the close of a major historical movement. Although his theories received criticism and became unpopular in the 1960s, his ideas were not forgotten and influenced the development of environmental history.

His most well known theory is his “Frontier Thesis,” explained in a essay he first presented to the American Historical Association at the World’s Fair in Chicago, Illinois, in 1893. It was later incorporated into his book The Frontier in American History (1920) and has been reprinted many times. He explained how the frontier shaped America relative to democracy and violence; the clash of “civilization” and “savagery” led to the development of a new type of American, one who was a strong individual. As settlers moved west they left more of the Eastern US culture behind and developed new ways of doing things to solve problems created by the new environment. His ideas contributed to the ideas of American exceptionalism. This text is from the Frontier Thesis.

TEXT

...From the time the mountains rose between the pioneer and the seaboard, a new order of Americanism arose. The West and the East began to get out of touch of each other. The settlements from the sea to the mountains kept connection with the rear and had a certain solidarity. But the over-mountain men grew more and more independent. The East took a narrow view of American advance, and nearly lost these men. Kentucky and Tennessee history bears abundant witness to the truth of this statement. The East began to try to hedge and limit westward expansion….The frontier promoted the formation of a composite nationality for the American people….the advance of the frontier decreased our dependence on England….the frontier created a demand for merchants….

The result is that, to the frontier, the American intellect owes its striking characteristics. That coarseness and strength combined with acuteness and inquisitiveness, that practical, inventive turn of mind, quick to find expedients, that masterful grasp of material things, lacking in the artistic but powerful to effect great ends, that restless, nervous energy,, that dominant individualism, working for good and for evil,, and withal that buoyancy and exuberance which comes with freedom–these are the traits of the frontier, or traits called out elsewhere because of the existence of the frontier.

For a moment, at the frontier, the bonds of custom are broken and unrestraint is triumphant….The stubborn American environment is there with its imperious summons to accept its conditions; the inherited ways of doing things are also there; and yet, in spite of environment, and in spite of custom, each frontier did indeed furnish anew field of opportunity, a gate of escape from the bondage of the past; and freshness, and confidence, and scorn for older society, impatience of its restraints and its ideas, and indifference to its lessons, have accompanied the fronter….And now,…the frontier has gone, and with its going has closed the first period of American history.

INQUIRY

Turner’s Frontier Thesis was considered controversial in 1893. Before then, historians focused on religious freedoms, slavery, nationalism, or other ideas as the core elements of American history. What element(s) of his Thesis do you find most interesting? Why?
American exceptionalism is often defined as the idea that America is a unique and perhaps morally superior country due to ideological or historical reasons. Compare Turner’s Thesis with the idea of American exceptionalism. Is his logic sound? Why/why not? Give examples.
Wyoming first gave women the right to vote in 1869, followed by several other western states. Yet women did not receive the right to vote nationally until 1920. How might this support or refute Turner’s Thesis?
Turner’s critics stated that he did not consider all cultures, including Blacks and Native Americans, in his analysis. Does he specifically exclude them? What is the effect of him speaking in broad generalities?
How did some of Turner’s ideas make their ways into Hollywood movies, especially the Westerns of the 1950s and 1960s? Give examples. Do you see the ideas in more recent movies or videos? Support your response with examples.
Develop two arguments, one supporting and one refuting Turner’s Thesis.
Do you agree that the close of the frontier in 1890 marked the end of the “first period of American history”? Why or why not?

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

https://www.wisconsinhistory.org/Records/Article/CS13829

https://www.wisconsinhistory.org/Records/Article/CS1676

1776: John Adams & July 4

ESSENTIAL QUESTION

How did John Adams convey the complex emotions he felt at the adoption of American Independence in 1776?

CONTEXT

John Adams (1735-1826) was an American statesman, diplomat, writer, and second president of the United States. A founding father, he helped guide the idea of American Independence through the Second Continental Congress. Later, during the American Revolution, he was a senior diplomat in Europe and served as George Washington’s Vice President. He died of a heart attack on July 4, 1826, the 50th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence (which was also the death date of Thomas Jefferson).

John and his wife Abigail spent many years apart due to his political responsibilities, and they wrote each other letters often. This text is from a letter John wrote to Abigail in July of 1776 while he attended the Second Continental Congress in Philadelphia. Congress signed the Lee Resolution (Richard Henry Lee was a delegate from Virginia) on July 2; the Resolution contained three elements–separation from the British Crown, a plan for a confederation of the colonies, and a call to pursue foreign alliances. After much discussion, on July 4 Congress voted on and approved with amendments the report from a Committee of Five delegates (Adams was a member of the Committee) tasked with writing a declaration to explain the Colonies’ bid for freedom. By the next day, the Declaration of Independence was printed and began to be distributed (only print technology was available). On August 2, 1776, most delegates signed the Declaration and it became official.

TEXT

But the Day is past. The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America.—I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.

You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not.—I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States.—Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Days Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not.

INQUIRY

What is an epocha? What implication did Adams make by using that term?
Why did Adams recognize July 2?
Why did Adams use the term, “day of deliverance”? Deliverance from what?
Identify Adams’s appeals to ethos and authority.
How did Adams describe what he sees as future “anniversary” festivals? Do you believe his prediction has come true? Give examples.
Why did Adams insert the statement, “I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure…”?
Adams shifted the tone of this letter twice in this excerpt. Identify those shifts and how they were accomplished.
What emotions did Adams convey in this letter?
This excerpt is from many letters that John Adams wrote his wife Abigail–actually he wrote her two letters on July 3, 1776, the date of this letter. The earlier letter from July 3 stated, in part, …Yesterday the greatest Question was decided, which ever was debated in America, and a greater perhaps, never was or will be decided among Men. A Resolution was passed without one dissenting Colony “that these united Colonies, are, and of right ought to be free and independent States, and as such, they have, and of Right ought to have full Power to make War, conclude Peace, establish Commerce, and to do all the other Acts and Things, which other States may rightfully do.” You will see in a few days a Declaration setting forth the Causes, which have impell’d Us to this mighty Revolution, and the Reasons which will justify it, in the Sight of God and Man. A Plan of Confederation will be taken up in a few days... How might this correspondence have led to confusion about the date of American Independence?
Why was the actual date of American Independence important? Is it important today? Why or why not?

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

“John Adams to Abigail Adams, 3 July 1776,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/04-02-02-0016. [Original source: The Adams Papers, Adams Family Correspondence, vol. 2, June 1776 – March 1778, ed. L. H. Butterfield. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963, pp. 29–33.]

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/04-02-02-0016

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

1986: Reagan & the Challenger

ESSENTIAL QUESTION

How did President Reagan use language to encourage a mourning American public to focus on the future?

CONTEXT

The US Space Shuttle program (1981-2011) employed a partially reusable spacecraft for flights to conduct research while in orbit as well as to deploy scientific, military, and sometimes commercial payloads. The program was run by NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and each shuttle included a crew as well as equipment. Five shuttles were built, and the Challenger was the second one constructed. The January 1986 mission was the 10th of the Challenger orbiter and the 25th of the Space Shuttle fleet. This mission was scheduled to deploy a communication satellite, to study Haley’s Comet, and to initiate the new “Teacher in Space” program. The shuttle launch was widely televised and seen in classrooms across the US. This photograph from the NASA Photograph Collection shows the shuttle prior to launch.

But the Challenger exploded and broke apart 73 seconds into its flight and fell 46,000 feet into the Atlantic Ocean. Seven astronauts, including a civilian classroom teacher, died. The Shuttle Program was grounded for 30 months while an official investigation progressed, resulting in significant changes. The Shuttle Program was retired in 2011.

Although President Ronald Reagan had been scheduled to deliver his State of the Union Address on January 28, 1986, he postponed it and instead addressed the nation about the Challenger disaster. This text is taken from his speech.

The Challenger exploded 73 seconds into flight.

TEXT

Ladies and gentlemen,… Today is a day for mourning and remembering… This is truly a national loss.

Nineteen years ago, almost to the day, we lost three astronauts in a terrible accident on the ground. But we’ve never lost an astronaut in flight; we’ve never had a tragedy like this. And perhaps we’ve forgotten the courage it took for the crew of the shuttle. But they, the Challenger Seven, were aware of the dangers, but overcame them and did their jobs brilliantly. We mourn seven heroes: Michael Smith, Dick Scobee, Judith Resnik, Ronald McNair, Ellison Onizuka, Gregory Jarvis, and Christa McAuliffe. We mourn their loss as a nation together.

For the families of the seven, we cannot bear, as you do, the full impact of this tragedy. But we feel the loss, and we’re thinking about you so very much. Your loved ones were daring and brave, and they had that special grace, that special spirit that says, “Give me a challenge, and I’ll meet it with joy.” They had a hunger to explore the universe and discover its truths. They wished to serve, and they did. They served all of us. We’ve grown used to wonders in this century. It’s hard to dazzle us. But for 25 years the United States space program has been doing just that. We’ve grown used to the idea of space, and perhaps we forget that we’ve only just begun. We’re still pioneers. They, the members of the Challenger crew, were pioneers.

And I want to say something to the schoolchildren of America who were watching the live coverage of the shuttle’s takeoff. I know it is hard to understand, but sometimes painful things like this happen. It’s all part of the process of exploration and discovery. It’s all part of taking a chance and expanding man’s horizons. The future doesn’t belong to the fainthearted; it belongs to the brave. The Challenger crew was pulling us into the future, and we’ll continue to follow them.

I’ve always had great faith in and respect for our space program, and what happened today does nothing to diminish it. We don’t hide our space program. We don’t keep secrets and cover things up. We do it all up front and in public. That’s the way freedom is, and we wouldn’t change it for a minute. We’ll continue our quest in space. There will be more shuttle flights and more shuttle crews and, yes, more volunteers, more civilians, more teachers in space. Nothing ends here; our hopes and our journeys continue…

The crew of the space shuttle Challenger honored us by the manner in which they lived their lives. We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them, this morning, as they prepared for their journey and waved goodbye and “slipped the surly bonds of earth” to “touch the face of God.”

INQUIRY

What was Reagan’s tone in the beginning of the speech? How did Reagan set the tone of his speech in the first paragraph? Why was it important to set the tone early?
Reagan alluded to a previous space disaster on the ground (the Apollo I fire). Why? What is the effect of the mention of this January 1967 disaster?
In what way did Reagan distinguish the Challenger tragedy as different from previous disasters in the space program?
How did Reagan personalize the tragedy, enabling the American public to identify with the people they may not have known personally?
What is the effect of Reagan’s use of the word “courage”? of “challenge”?
Why did Reagan use the image of pioneers?
Reagan spoke directly to school children. What message was he trying to convey?
How did Reagan characterize the future of the space program?
By the end of the speech Reagan’s tone has shifted. How? How did he accomplish this shift?
In his last sentence Reagan quoted from the poem “High Flight” by John Gillespie Magee, Jr. Magee was a 19-year-old American who volunteered with the Royal Canadian Air Force in 1940, before the US had entered WWII. He was sent to the United Kingdom where he flew a Spitfire over hostile territory in Europe but was killed in a training exercise December 11, 1941. How do these quotes convey the imagery of flight? Why are they appropriate here, even though Magee never experienced space flight?

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/speech/address-nation-explosion-space-shuttle-challenger

https://www.nasa.gov/challenger-sts-51l-accident