Tag: rhetorical devices

1962: JFK and Cuba

ESSENTIAL QUESTION:

In what ways can diplomacy be more effective that physical force?

CONTEXT:

In 1962 the US and the USSR (Soviet Union) were embroiled in the Cold War, a period of intense global tension lasting from 1947 until 1991. Born in the aftermath of World War II amid different views of the future of the world, the US and the Soviet Union (and their respective allies) were intense enemies. Although actual military conflict did not break out as part of the Cold War, competition was keen in several areas. The US wished to contain the spread of Soviet Communism to other countries, and each side developed nuclear weapons with a MAD philosophy. MAD, or mutually assured destruction, meant that each side wanted to develop enough weapons to discourage the other side from firing on them first: if the Soviets fired on the US, the US could retaliate with enough fire power to destroy the Soviet Union. Each side competed to build the first rockets and capsules into space, not only to explore but also to use them to supplement military strategy. The Soviet section of the German capitol of Berlin (from the end of WWII) was walled off from the rest of Berlin (the famous Berlin Wall). Years later the Cold War finally deescalated with the fall of Soviet regimes in the late 1980s, the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

But in 1962 the Cold War had escalated to a flash point, and war between the US and the Soviet Union seemed imminent. On October 14, 1962, an American spy plane photographed nuclear missile launch sites being built in Cuba. Cuba is an island only 90 miles south of Florida, and nuclear missiles launched from there could easily reach the US, Canada, Mexico, and areas throughout the Caribbean. While US President John Kennedy’s military advisors strongly recommended a military response, Kennedy, known as JFK, (1917-1963) chose another course of action. On October 22 he announced the threat to America and his plans to install a blockade around Cuba to prevent any additional construction. However, a blockade is legally an act of war, so Kennedy labeled his action a “quarantine.” While the Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev initially refused to remove the weapons and an American pilot was shot down by Cuban soldiers, on October 28 a diplomatic resolution was reached whereby the Soviets removed the missiles from Cuba and the US promised not to invade Cuba and removed missiles they had stationed in Turkey. In addition, a direct line of communication was established between the US and USSR to prevent future misunderstandings.

This text is taken from JFK’s speech to the American people announcing the Crisis. broadcasted on radio and television on October 22, 1962.

TEXT:

This government, as promised, has maintained the closest surveillance of the Soviet military buildup
on the island of Cuba. Within the past week, unmistakable evidence has established the fact that a
series of offensive missile sites is now in preparation on that imprisoned island. The purpose of these
bases can be none other than to provide a nuclear strike capability against the Western Hemisphere...

Acting, therefore, in the defense of our own security and of the entire Western Hemisphere, and under the authority entrusted to me by the Constitution as endorsed by the resolution of the Congress, I have directed that the following initial steps be taken immediately:


To halt this offensive buildup, a strict quarantine on all offensive military equipment under shipment to Cuba is being initiated. All ships of any kind bound for Cuba from whatever nation and port will, if found to contain cargoes of offensive weapons, be turned back. This quarantine will be extended, if needed, to other types of cargo and carriers. We are not at this time, however, denying the necessities of life as the Soviets attempted to do in their Berlin blockade of 1948…

It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union.

Under the Charter of the United Nations, we are asking tonight that an emergency meeting of the Security Council be convoked without delay to take action against this latest Soviet threat to world peace. Our resolution will call for the prompt dismantling and withdrawal of all offensive weapons in Cuba, under the supervision of U.N. observers, before the quarantine can be lifted.

I call upon Chairman Khrushchev to halt and eliminate this clandestine, reckless, and provocative threat to world peace and to stable relations between our two nations. I call upon him further to abandon this course of world domination, and to join in an historic effort to end the perilous arms race and to transform the history of man. He has an opportunity now to move the world back from the abyss of destruction — by returning to his government’s own words that it had no need to station missiles outside its own territory, and withdrawing these weapons from Cuba — by refraining from any action which will widen or deepen the present crisis — and then by participating in a search for peaceful and permanent solutions. …

My fellow citizens: let no one doubt that this is a difficult and dangerous effort on which we have set out. No one can foresee precisely what course it will take or what costs or casualties will be incurred.
Many months in which both our patience and our will will be tested — months in which many threats
and denunciations will keep us aware of our dangers. But the greatest danger of all would be to do
nothing. …

Our goal is not the victory of might, but the vindication of right — not peace at the expense of freedom, but both peace and freedom, here in this hemisphere, and we hope, around the world. God
willing, that goal will be achieved.

INQUIRY:

  1. Kennedy used several adjectives in the first paragraph. What is the effect of “closest” surveillance and “unmistakable” evidence? How does this set the tone of the speech?
  2. In Kennedy’s argument how did he affirm the purpose of the Soviet weapons? What phrase did he use?
  3. How did JFK define his quarantine? What items would be prevented from continuing on to Cuba?
  4. Why did JFK reference the Berlin Blockade of 1948? (For more information on that blockade, see https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/berlin-airlift )
  5. According to JFK, what will be the response of the US should any of the Soviet missiles be launched?
  6. Why did JFK call for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council? What type of appeal is this (ethos, pathos, logos)?
  7. What did JFK ask Khrushchev to do? Characterize his options as presented by Kennedy.
  8. Why did JFK warn the American people that this would be a “difficult and dangerous” effort? Remember, WWII had ended only 17 years before this speech.
  9. What did JFK clearly state as America’s goal in this crisis? Based on this goal, why do you believe he chose a non-military response first?
  10. Identify the tone of this speech. Does it change? If so, where and how do you know?
  11. Research EXCOMM, JFK’s 12-member advisory committee. What was their role in the Crisis?
  12. Do you believe JFK’s goal had been achieved? Why or why not?

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1961-1968/cuban-missile-crisis

https://microsites.jfklibrary.org/cmc/

https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/historic-speeches/address-during-the-cuban-missile-crisis

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

  1. 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?
  2. Why might he clearly have dated the day of his escape? Remember, many thought he was too literate to have ever been a slave.
  3. Why would he have refrained from listing the exact direction and people who helped him escape?
  4. 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?
  5. Douglass’s written tone quickly changed. Analyze the change in tone, its purpose, and how he accomplished this.
  6. 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?
  7. What was Mr. Ruggles’s role in New York? How do you know?
  8. 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

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

  1. Henry began his speech by acknowledging his colleagues that did not agree with him. What was the effect of this acknowledgement?
  2. 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)?
  3. How did Henry characterize the “illusion of hope”? What is a “siren song”?
  4. What guided Henry’s feet? How did he justify his thoughts about the British? Give examples from the text.
  5. What was the effect of Henry’s parallel structure when he said “We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated“?
  6. Why did Henry argue that the Americans must fight?
  7. Describe Henry’s appeals to authority and ethos, including his multiple biblical allusions.
  8. How did Henry argue against those who said that America was not ready to fight the British? What arguments and appeals did he use?
  9. How and why did Henry use the metaphor of chains?
  10. Henry ended the speech with a series of questions. What was the effect?
  11. 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?
  12. 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

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

  1. What is the effect of beginning the speech by asking a question? How might that catch the attention of the audience?
  2. In what ways did Truth compare herself to “other women”? Why did she use these comparisons?
  3. What is the effect of the parallel structure of the speech with the repetition of the phrase, “ain’t I a woman”?
  4. 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?
  5. 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?
  6. 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)?
  7. 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.
  8. 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

  1. 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?
  2. 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?
  3. In what way did Reagan distinguish the Challenger tragedy as different from previous disasters in the space program?
  4. How did Reagan personalize the tragedy, enabling the American public to identify with the people they may not have known personally?
  5. What is the effect of Reagan’s use of the word “courage”? of “challenge”?
  6. Why did Reagan use the image of pioneers?
  7. Reagan spoke directly to school children. What message was he trying to convey?
  8. How did Reagan characterize the future of the space program?
  9. By the end of the speech Reagan’s tone has shifted. How? How did he accomplish this shift?
  10. 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

1863: Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address

ESSENTIAL QUESTION

How and why does President Abraham Lincoln tie the Battle of Gettysburg to the American Revolution?

CONTEXT

It was a short speech. Only 10 sentences. It was over so fast, photographers did not get a chance to capture an image of the President speaking at the site of the carnage–fifty thousand dead, wounded, or missing–that was the battle of Gettysburg (July 1-3, 1863). The battle was seen as a Union victory, and yet both the Confederate and Union generals-in-chief offered their resignations after the battle (neither of which was accepted). After a Commission was established to organize proper burials, it was felt that a dramatic oration, common at the time, was necessary, and the Commission’s choice was Edward Everett, a well-loved orator who had spoken at other battlefields, including Bunker Hill. Everett agreed to be the speaker at the dedication of this new national cemetery, and later federal officials, including President Lincoln, were invited to join the Commission’s program. But Everett would be the headliner–Lincoln’s short address would follow. After Everett’s two hour speech on November 19, 1863, in front of approximately 20,000 spectators, Lincoln rose and spoke for three minutes.

TEXT

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate–we cannot consecrate–we cannot hallow–this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us, the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so noble advanced.

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us–that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, but the people, fore the people shall not perish from the earth.

INQUIRY

  1. Lincoln does not specifically mention specific military units, slavery, Gettysburg, or Pennsylvania. Why do you believe he focused more on generalities? What was the effect?
  2. What is the difference between describing an event and interpreting an event?
  3. What does Lincoln mean by “a new birth of freedom”?
  4. An allusion is an expression designed to call something to mind without specifically saying it. In what ways does Lincoln allude to the American Revolution? What is the effect?
  5. What is the tone (Lincoln’s attitude toward the subject) of this speech? How does Lincoln create that tone? What does he ask his audience to do?
  6. What is the mood (the attitude Lincoln wishes to create in his audience) of this speech? How does Lincoln create that mood? In what ways are the tone and mood of this speech related?
  7. To whom is Lincoln addressing the speech–the Union, the Confederacy, or both? Defend your answer.
  8. How and why does Lincoln connect Gettysburg to the American Revolution?
  9. Although Lincoln says that “the world will little note nor long remember what we say here…” and yet we do remember the words. Why do you believe these words have endured?
  10. In what ways can the past influence our lives today?

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Wills, Gary. Lincoln at Gettysburg The Words that Remade America. 1992. Copyright Literary Research, Inc.

1933: FDR and “Fear Itself”

ESSENTIAL QUESTION

In his First Inaugural Address, how did President Franklin Roosevelt use language to rally Americans to focus on a positive future rather than the bleak present reality?

CONTEXT

It was 1933 and America was in crisis, the most dangerous time, some said, since the American Revolution. In October, 1929, the US Stock Market crashed, bringing on the worse economic depression in American history. 25% of the workforce, one in four men, were unemployed at a time when there was no unemployment insurance of any kind. American productivity was only 1/3 of what it had been in early 1929. Many farmers lost their land and homes due to a drastic drop in prices. Factories shut down. Mines were abandoned. Banks closed. People were starving. Families split up to go elsewhere to look for work, but often there was no work to find. People looked to the federal government for help, but President Hoover’s policies did not address the problems of the nation.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882-1945) won the presidential election in 1932 and immediately set about not only changing the American mindset but also changing the American future. This excerpt is from his first Inaugural Address given on March 4, 1933, at the US Capitol.

TEXT

…This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So first of all let me assert me firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself,–nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days…

…Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits. These dark days will be worth all they cost is if they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to ourselves and to our fellowmen…Our greatest primary task is to put people to work…

,..If I read the temper of our people correctly we now realize as we have never realized before our interdependence on each other: that we cannot merely take but we must give as well: that if we are to go forward we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline, because without such discipline no progress is made, no leadership becomes effective…

INQUIRY

  1. Why does FDR focus on speaking “the truth”? What does this imply about the behavior of the previous President’s administration?
  2. What does “endure” mean? What is the effect of using this verb in this circumstance?
  3. FDR uses the verbs, “endure”, “revive”, and “proper” in that order. How does this define his plans for his administration?
  4. One of the most well-known quotations from this speech is “…the only thing we have to fear is fear itself…” What does that mean?
  5. According to FDR, what is the effect of this fear? What might be the importance of FDR using the verb “paralyze”, considering that he had been disabled with polio since 1921 when he was 39 years old?
  6. Describe the partnership between the government and the public that FDR is calling upon.
  7. What will the role of work be in the days to come? Why is it important that people work rather than simply be given money or materials?
  8. Identify at least three examples of contrasts in this excerpt. Explain the effects of each example.
  9. FDR uses the image of a “trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline.” What is the effect of this image?
  10. Describe an example in your life that required hard work but from which you gained “the joy of achievement…[or] the thrill of creative effort”.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/froos1.asp

1910: TR “In the Arena”

ESSENTIAL QUESTION

Which is more important–honest, hard-won effort, or easy success?

CONTEXT

Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919) was the 26th US President, serving from 1901-1909. He became President upon the assassination of President William McKinley and later won a term on his own. Previously he served as the governor of New York and was a leader in the Republican Party.

Born in New York, TR, as he was often known, was a sickly child and worked hard to build himself up physically. He attended Harvard College, served in the Spanish-American War, and became an active naturalist, conservationist, author, statesman, and explorer. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1906.

After returning from an 11-month African safari in 1910, he and his wife embarked on an extended tour of Europe. As a world-wide celebrity, he received many invitations while on the trip, including one to speak at the Sorbonne in Paris. This text is excerpted from his speech made there on April 23, 1910, entitled “Citizenship in a Republic.” It is often referred to as “The Man in the Arena” speech.

TEXT

…Let the man of learning, the man of lettered leisure, beware of that queer [strange] and cheap temptation to pose to himself and to others as a cynic, as the man who has outgrown emotions and beliefs, the man to whom good and evil are as one. The poorest way to face life is to face it with a sneer. There are many men who feel a kind of twisted pride in cynicism; there are many who confine themselves to criticism of the way others do what they themselves dare not even attempt. There is no more unhealthy being, no man less worthy of respect, than he who either really holds, or feigns to hold, an attitude of sneering disbelief toward all that is great and lofty, whether in achievement or in that noble effort which, even if it fails, comes second to achievement. A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticize work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life’s realities—all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority, but of weakness. They mark the men unfit to bear their part painfully in the stern strife of living, who seek, in the affectation of contempt for the achievement of others, to hide from others and from themselves their own weakness. The role is easy; there is none easier, save only the role of the man who sneers alike at both criticism and performance.

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat...

INQUIRY

  1. In 1912, while giving a speech in an unsuccessful run for a third term as president, Roosevelt was shot in the chest in an assassination attempt from 12 feet away. The bullet passed through his steel eyeglass case and a 50-page handwritten copy of his speech, before it lodged in his chest muscle. Roosevelt proceeded to deliver a 90-minute speech with blood seeping into his shirt. Doctors later determined that the best course was to leave the bullet in his chest as it had not punctured his lung, and TR carried the bullet the rest of his life. He returned to the campaign trail two weeks later. How does this event provide an example of Roosevelt’s “man in the arena”?
  2. In 1913, after losing the presidential election of 1912, Roosevelt left on an expedition to explore to its source the “River of Doubt” in the Brazilian Rainforest. While on the expedition Roosevelt suffered a leg wound which progressed into a life-threatening sickness. Roosevelt lost 50 pounds but survived the expedition. In what ways did this expedition provide an example of his “man in the arena” philosophy?
  3. How does TR define a “cynic”?
  4. According to TR, what are the signs of cynicism? Why should it be avoided?
  5. How can one avoid the cynical attitudes TR describes?
  6. How does TR describe the man in the arena? What images and verbs does he use? What are the effects of his word choice?
  7. How does TR compare success and attempts?
  8. Do you agree with TR’s ideas about success and honest effort? Why or why not? Give examples.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/address-the-sorbonne-paris-france-citizenship-republic

https://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.org/Learn-About-TR/TR-Encyclopedia/Culture-and-Society/Man-in-the-Arena.aspx

The River of Doubt: Theodore Roosevelt’s Darkest Journey by Candice Millard (published 2006)

1588: Elizabeth I at Tilbury

ESSENTIAL QUESTION

In a time when women were considered the weaker sex and secondary citizens, how does Queen Elizabeth I of England convince her male troops to prepare for a foreign invasion?

CONTEXT

Queen of England during it’s Golden Age, Elizabeth I (1533-1603) was the second daughter of King Henry VIII. Never married, she was relatively tolerant in religious affairs and cautious in foreign affairs, successfully fending off multiple demands that she marry to produce an heir to the throne. She became known as the “Virgin Queen”, and her reign saw the rise of William Shakespeare, Christopher Marlowe, Francis Drake, and Sir Walter Raleigh, as well as the British defeat of the Spanish Armada, at the time considered the strongest navy afloat.

On July 12, 1588, a large Spanish fleet set sail for the English coast, intent upon invasion. English militia mustered to defend the southern coast, and the commander invited Elizabeth to inspect her troops. Wearing a white velvet gown under a breast plate with a steel helmet, she addressed her forces. Excerpts from her speech, made August 9, 1588, are below. Note how she uses language to convey her message.

TEXT

My Loving People

We have been persuaded by some that are careful of our safety to take heed how we commit ourselves to armed multitudes, for fear of treachery. But I assure you, I do not desire to live to distrust my faithful and loving people.

Let tyrants fear, I have always so behaved myself that, under God, I have placed my chiefest strength and safeguard in the loyal hearts and good-will of my subjects; and there fore I am come amongst you as you see, at this time, not for my recreation and disport, but being resolved, in the midst and heat of the battle, to live and die amongst you all; to lay down for my God, and for my kingdom, and my people, my honour and my blood, even in the dust.

I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too, and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm: to which rather than any dishonour shall grow by me, I myself will take up arms, I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder to every one of your virtues in the field…

INQUIRY (Cite from the text where you found your response)

  1. Most of the militia have probably never seen the Queen in person. How does she establish an emotional connection with them? What phrases does she use?
  2. What does Elizabeth state is her purpose in addressing the troops? What connection is she making?
  3. Why does Elizabeth contrast her body with her heart and stomach? What is the effect?
  4. Why does Elizabeth infer back to her ancestors when she says “a King of England too”? What appeal is she making? (Remember, Elizabeth’s father was King Henry VIII and her grandfather King Henry VII)
  5. What imagery does Elizabeth use to convey her commitment to England?
  6. How does Elizabeth work to inspire commitment in the militia?
  7. Identify at least one appeal to logic in the speech.
  8. What is Elizabeth’s tone in this speech? Identify specific phrases that convey her tone.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/queen-elizabeth-speech-troops-tilbury