How to Master the Spoken Word / Designed as a Self-Instructor for all who would Excel in the Art of Public Speaking

by Edwin Gordon Lawrence

CHAPTER X

LESSON TALKS

These lesson talks will be of value to students only after they have diligently studied the contents of this book, particularly the first, second, and sixth chapters, which treat of the means of speech construction and the forms of delivery. It is absolutely necessary that students should have a thorough understanding of inflection, emphasis, apposition, opposition, and the series, in order that they may understand and appreciate the work of this chapter. These talks are intended to exemplify the application of the rules laid down in this book for the guidance of those who seek proficiency in the art of public speaking, but they will help little unless the student has prepared himself to receive them by thoroughly mastering the technique of the art as expounded in the different chapters.

It will be well for the student to mark the speeches given in this chapter according to the instructions given in the lesson talks, as then he will have an object lesson before him that will enable him more readily to grasp the written instructions regarding the series, emphasis, and inflection.

Cuba Must Be Free. On March 24, 1898, Senator John M. Thurston of Nebraska delivered a speech “On the Affairs of Cuba,” from which this extract is taken. While it is but a portion of a speech, being the peroration only, still it is a complete speech in itself, as it conforms to all the requirements of speech construction. Its opening, or statement, consists of the laying down of the facts upon which the argument is to be based, these facts being the legal rights of individuals and states as opposed to the moral rights. The statement ends with the second paragraph. The body, or argument, closes with the fifth paragraph and consists in showing that nations, like individuals, should be governed by high moral motives and not shrink from obligations because they have the legal right to do so; and that in the performance of these obligations force is the only means that can bring about the desired end. The balance of the speech forms the conclusion, and it consists of a summing up of the great events of the world’s history wherein progress was made in man’s struggle for liberty only by the exercise of force.

The opening sentence states the claims of those who oppose intervention in behalf of Cuba by the United States, and sets forth their claims. This forms the base of Senator Thurston’s argument. The second sentence is a qualified acknowledgment of the legal right of the United States to refrain from interfering. In other words, he frankly confesses that there is no legal power that can compel the United States to interfere between Spain and her colony, but clearly shows that he intends to uphold the moral right of that country to intervene, the construction of this sentence, “It may be the naked legal right of the United States to stand thus idly by,” plainly denoting the senator’s opinion.

The second paragraph is devoted to illustrating the legal rights of the individual; the third paragraph, the effects that would flow from an exercise of those rights; the fourth paragraph, an application of the principle to nations that has previously been applied to individuals, and an explanation as to the senator’s conception of the religious doctrine as taught by Christ; the fifth paragraph states the meaning of intervention, force, and war, defines the force that should be used, and makes two strong assertions in the form of indirect questions; the sixth paragraph is devoted to the production of cumulative evidence as to the efficacy of force, and a stirring appeal that this force be exercised. The quotation from “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” is used to emphasize this last point; the seventh paragraph states the position that the senator takes on the question.

“Cuba” and “United States” are contrasted, consequently both require emphasis as well as different inflections, and as the former is affirmative it should be given the falling inflection, and the latter, because it is negative, should be given the rising inflection. The balance of the sentence consists of a concluding series that is out of the ordinary for the reason that the last member of the series forms a series by itself, and it is therefore termed a series within a series. The last sentence of the opening paragraph requires the falling inflection because it is an affirmative statement.

The opening sentence of the second paragraph requires the falling inflection because it is a positive statement. The word “legal” should be emphasized for the reason that it qualifies the word “right,” and by means of emphasis placed on the word “legal” a contrast is immediately suggested with the “moral” right. In the next sentence the word “my” is the important word because it qualifies the word “dog,” and as it states that “it is not my dog,” the word “my” should be given the rising inflection to show its negative quality. If the emphasis and inflection should be placed on the word “dog,” it would then be indicated that the “dog” is not mine but the cat or the horse is. Care must be exercised to place properly both the inflection and the emphasis in order that a correct interpretation may be given. “Mine,” in the next sentence, should be given the rising inflection for the same reason that governs the inflection on the word “dog,” the meaning being that it may be the policeman’s duty to interfere but it is not the speaker’s. The word “my,” in the next phrase, requires the rising inflection for the same reason, the occurrence taking place on premises but not on “my” premises. The conclusion of the paragraph should be given the falling inflection because it is assertive.

“But if I do” is conditional and therefore requires the rising inflection; “I am a coward and a cur” being the concluding clause to the conditional, and being positive, it should have the falling inflection; “live” is contrasted with “die,” and “God knows” is parenthetical. “Dog,” “woman,” and “force” all require the rising inflection because they are negatived, the statement being that “I cannot protect the dog,” “I cannot save the woman,” “without [not employing] force.” The reverse of the form used in the speech, the positive, would be: I can protect the dog, I can save the woman, by exercising force.

“We cannot intervene and save Cuba without the exercise of force” requires the rising inflection because it is a negative statement, “and force means war; war means blood” requires the falling inflection because they are positive. The next sentence requires a like inflection for a like reason. “Liberty” and “humanity” are negatived, and therefore should be giving the rising inflection. The next sentence is a negative one, and all its members require the rising inflection. The sentence that follows is positive, and requires the falling inflection. The phrase “I believe in the doctrine of peace,” is also positive, but as it is qualified by “men must have liberty before there can come abiding peace,” it requires the rising inflection, the qualifying phrase taking the falling inflection because it is assertive.

The three short opening sentences of the fifth paragraph require the falling inflection because they are positive. “God’s” requires emphasis for the reason that it qualifies “force.” The two questions that follow, being indirect questions, should be given falling inflections.

The sixth paragraph represents a masterly arrangement of concluding series. The first series enumerates three great charters: Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, and the Emancipation Proclamation; the second, three instances where the people struggled against oppression: the storming of the Bastille, the battle of Bunker Hill, and the suffering of the American army at Valley Forge; the third, three battles of the war between the states; the fourth, three Federal generals; the fifth, the results that followed the Civil War. All these are concluding series; therefore, in each series, the first member should be given the falling inflection, the second member the rising inflection, and the third member the falling inflection. If these directions are not clear, review the section on series, in the second chapter. The two sentences that follow the series are positive and require falling inflections. In the first sentence the word “again” requires emphasis because it is important, while in the second, “once more” should be given emphasis for the same reason.

In the quotation, “you” and “me” are contrasted, and there is a double contrast between “He” and “us,” “holy” and “free.” “God,” in the last line of the quotation, requires emphasis because of its importance.

In the last paragraph there is a double opposition between “others,” each time the word is used, and “me,” “hesitate,” “procrastinate” and “negotiation” with “act now,” while “which means delay” is parenthetical. The speech ends with a concluding series.

Transcriber’s Note: The sixth paragraph of the following oration includes a term that many find offensive.

CUBA MUST BE FREE[1]

john m. thurston

Mr. President, there are those who say that the affairs of Cuba are not the affairs of the United States, who insist that we can stand idly by and see that island devastated and depopulated, its business interests destroyed, its commercial intercourse with us cut off, its people starved, degraded, and enslaved. It may be the naked legal right of the United States to stand thus idly by.

I have the legal right to pass along the street and see a helpless dog stamped into the earth under the heels of a ruffian. I can pass by and say that is not my dog. I can sit in my comfortable parlor with my loved ones gathered about me, and through my plate glass window see a fiend outraging a helpless woman nearby, and I can legally say this is no affair of mine—it is not happening on my premises; and I can turn away and take my little ones in my arms, and, with the memory of their sainted mother in my heart, look up to the motto on the wall and read, “God bless our home.”

But if I do, I am a coward and a cur unfit to live, and, God knows, unfit to die. And yet I cannot protect the dog nor save the woman without the exercise of force.

We cannot intervene and save Cuba without the exercise of force, and force means war; war means blood. The lowly Nazarene on the shores of Galilee preached the divine doctrine of love, “Peace on earth, good will toward men.” Not peace on earth at the expense of liberty and humanity. Not good will toward men who despoil, enslave, degrade, and starve to death their fellow men. I believe in the doctrine of Christ. I believe in the doctrine of peace; but, Mr. President, men must have liberty before there can come abiding peace.

Intervention means force. Force means war. War means blood. But it will be God’s force. When has a battle for humanity and liberty ever been won except by force? What barricade of wrong, injustice, and oppression has ever been carried except by force?

Force compelled the signature of unwilling royalty to the great Magna Carta; force put life into the Declaration of Independence and made effective the Emancipation Proclamation; force beat with naked hands upon the iron gateway of the Bastille and made reprisal in one awful hour for centuries of kingly crime; force waved the flag of revolution over Bunker Hill and marked the snows of Valley Forge with blood-stained feet; force held the broken line at Shiloh, climbed the flame-swept hill at Chattanooga, and stormed the clouds on Lookout Heights; force marched with Sherman to the sea, rode with Sheridan in the valley of the Shenandoah, and gave Grant victory at Appomattox; force saved the Union, kept the stars in the flag, made “niggers” men. The time for God’s force has come again. Let the impassioned lips of American patriots once more take up the song:

In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigured you and me;
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
For God is marching on.

Others may hesitate, others may procrastinate, others may plead for further diplomatic negotiation, which means delay, but for me, I am ready to act now, and for my action I am ready to answer to my conscience, my country, and my God.

Evidence and Precedents in Law. Here is an example of argumentative oratory, an extract from a speech by Thomas Erskine, that will repay careful consideration.

The opening statement, “Before you can adjudge a fact, you must believe it,” is positive, and demands the falling inflection; “not suspect it, or imagine it, or fancy it” are all negatived and require the rising inflection; “but believe it” is positive and must be given the falling inflection, and the balance of the sentence is negative and requires the rising inflection throughout. The question that follows is an indirect one and should be given the falling inflection. “Neither more nor less” are negatived and therefore both “more” and “less” require the rising inflection; “justice” should be given the falling inflection because it completes a positive statement; the balance of the sentence should receive the same inflection for the same reason. “As they are settled by law, and adopted in its general administration” is parenthetical; the main idea, “the rules of evidence are not to be overruled or tampered with” is negative, consequently the negatived words “overruled” and “tampered” should receive the rising inflection. The passage that follows, ending with the word “life,” is a concluding series of four members, and all members except the next to the last, “in the truth of history,” receive the falling inflection, the exception requiring the rising inflection; “and whoever ventures rashly to depart from them” is, in its spirit, conditional, and for that reason should be given the rising inflection; the balance is assertive and requires the falling inflection; a contrast should be shown between “God” and “man.”

Let the student work out the balance of the speech.

EVIDENCE AND PRECEDENTS IN LAW

thomas erskine

Before you can adjudge a fact, you must believe it—not suspect it, or imagine it, or fancy it, but believe it—and it is impossible to impress the human mind with such a reasonable and certain belief, as is necessary to be impressed, before a Christian man can adjudge his neighbor to the smallest penalty, much less to the pains of death, without having such evidence as a reasonable mind will accept of as the infallible test of truth. And what is that evidence? Neither more nor less than that which the Constitution has established in the courts for the general administration of justice; namely, that the evidence convince the jury, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the criminal intention, constituting the crime, existed in the mind of the man upon trial, and was the mainspring of his conduct. The rules of evidence, as they are settled by law, and adopted in its general administration, are not to be overruled or tampered with. They are found in the charities of religion—in the philosophy of nature—in the truth of history—and in the experience of common life; and whoever ventures rashly to depart from them, let him remember that it will be meted to him in the same measure, and that both God and man will judge him according.

These are arguments addressed to your reasons and your consciences; not to be shaken in upright minds by any precedent—for no precedents can sanctify injustice; if they could, every human right would long ago have been extinct upon the earth. If the state trials in bad times are to be searched for precedents, what murders may you not commit—what law of humanity may you not trample upon—what rule of justice may you not violate—and what maxim of wise policy may you not abrogate and confound? If precedents in bad times are to be implicitly followed, why should we have heard any evidence at all? You might have convicted without any evidence; for many have been so convicted—and, in this manner, murdered—even by acts of Parliament. If precedents in bad times are to be followed, why should the Lords and Commons have investigated these charges, and the Crown have put them into this course of judicial trial? since, without such a trial, and even after an acquittal upon me, they might have attained all the prisoners by act of Parliament: they did so in the case of Lord Strafford.

There are precedents, therefore, for all such things, but such precedents as could not for a moment survive the times of madness and distraction which gave them birth: but which, as soon as the spurs of the occasion were blunted, were repealed and execrated even by Parliaments which (little as I may think of the present) ought not be compared with it—Parliaments sitting in the darkness of former times—in the night of freedom—before the principles of government were developed, and before the constitution became fixed. The last of these precedents, and all the proceedings upon it, were ordered to be taken off the file and burnt, so the intent that the same might no longer be visible to after ages; an order dictated, no doubt, by a pious tenderness for national honor, and meant as a charitable covering for the crimes of our fathers. But it was a sin against posterity—it was a treason against society; for, instead of commanding them to be burnt, they should rather have directed them to be blazoned in large characters upon the walls of our Courts of Justice, that, like the characters deciphered by the prophet of God to the Eastern tyrant, they might enlarge and blacken in your sights, to terrify you from acts of injustice.

The Permanency of Empire. This extract opens with an earnest appeal which requires the falling inflection. The question that follows it is a direct one, consequently all its members require the rising inflection. From the exclamation “Alas” to the end of the sentence, all is positive, therefore the falling inflection should be used throughout. The next question is an indirect one and requires the falling inflection. “So thought the countries of Demosthenes and the Spartan” is a positive thought and should be given the falling inflection. Then comes a triple opposition, “Leonidas” being contrasted with “Athens,” “trampled” with “insulted,” and “slave” with “Ottoman.” The three words qualifying “Ottoman” constitute a commencing series, and for this reason “servile” and “mindless” should be given the falling inflection, and “enervate” the rising. The next sentence is a positive one and the falling inflection should be given the word “footsteps,” which closes it; “from the palace to the tomb” and “with their ruins” are both parenthetical, and there is a contrast between “palace” and “tomb.” The phrase ending with “as if they had never been” is conditional and requires the rising inflection; the balance of the sentence contains a parenthetical clause, “rude and neglected in the barren ocean,” and a double contrast, the last of the four members of which is a concluding series, the contrasts being “then” with “now,” “speck” with the concluding series “the ubiquity of their commerce, the glory of their arms, the fame of their philosophy, the eloquence of their Senate and the inspiration of their bards.” There is a double opposition between “England” and “America,” and “Athens is” with “Athens was”; “contemplating the past,” “proud and potent as she appears,” “then,” and “one day” are parenthetical; the conclusion of the extract consists of a parenthesis, “for its time,” and a double contrast, “Europe” being contrasted with “that mighty continent” (America), and “shall have mouldered, and the night of barbarism obscured its very ruins” with “emerge from the horizon to rule sovereign of the ascendant.”

THE PERMANENCY OF EMPIRE

wendell phillips

I appeal to history! Tell me, thou reverend chronicler of the grave, can all the wealth of a universal commerce, can all the achievements of successful heroisms, or all the establishments of this world’s wisdom, secure to empire the permanency of its possessions? Alas! Troy thought so once; yet the land of Priam lives only in song! Thebes thought so once; yet her hundred gates have crumbled, and her very tombs are but as the dust they were vainly intended to commemorate. So thought Palmyra—where is she? So thought the countries of Demosthenes and the Spartan; yet Leonidas is trampled by the timid slave, and Athens insulted by the servile, mindless, and enervate Ottoman. In his hurried march, Time has but looked at their imagined immortality, and all its vanities, from the palace to the tomb, have, with their ruins, erased the very impression of his footsteps. The days of their glory are as if they had never been; and the island that was then a speck, rude and neglected in the barren ocean, now rivals the ubiquity of their commerce, the glory of their arms, the fame of their philosophy, the eloquence of their Senate, and the inspiration of their bards. Who shall say, then, contemplating the past, that England, proud and potent as she appears, may not, one day, be what Athens is, and the young America yet soar to be what Athens was! Who shall say that, when the European column shall have mouldered, and the night of barbarism obscured its very ruins, that mighty continent may not emerge from the horizon to rule, for its time, sovereign of the ascendant!

Judicial Injustices. The next extract, from a powerful speech delivered by Senator Charles Sumner in September, 1854, is an excellent example of cumulative oratory. He asserts that he has no superstitious reverence for judicial proceedings, and then states his reasons, which he piles one upon another until the sum reaches such proportions as to utterly disarm any successful opposition to his statement, or even an attempt at opposition. This form of delivery is wonderfully effective, just as the opinion of a counselor-at-law would be when re-enforced by numerous decisions of the highest courts in the land. Only two means of attacking this style of oratory remain to the opposition, one being to impeach the authorities, the other to attack the application of them. Both these modes, however, are exceedingly dangerous to the objector when his opponent is a keen lawyer, an able speaker, and a learned man, such as was Charles Sumner.

The word “judges” takes the rising inflection because of the incompleteness of the thought, “in much respect” being necessary to complete the sense, and this takes the falling inflection because of the completeness, and the intervening thought “and especially the Supreme Court of the Country” must be given parenthetically on account of its being an interjected remark; the words “judicial proceedings” take the falling inflection because they finish a positive thought, and “superstitious reverence” the rising, as the Senator means to express this thought negatively, as he does not possess any superstitious reverence for judicial proceedings. “Judges” and “men” are in apposition and for that reason take the same inflection, and as the statement is positive, the falling inflection must be used. The “worst crimes” and “sanction” require emphasis because they are important, and the sentence takes the falling inflection because it is positive. “Martyrs” and “patriots” require the rising inflection because they depend on “summons them to judgment” to complete the sense, and “crying from the ground” must be given parenthetically for the reason that it is interjected.

“Judicial tribunal” being the thing arraigned, requires emphasis whenever used in the speech. “Socrates” requires emphasis, and “hemlock” takes the falling inflection on account of the completion of the thought, “Saviour” is emphatic, and “Jerusalem” and “cross” take the falling inflection on account of completion of thought. The next line commences a concluding series which continues to the end of the paragraph. “Against the testimony and entreaties of her father,” “in the name of the Old Religion,” “amidst the shrieks and agonies of its victims,” “in solemn denial of the great truth he had disclosed,” are all interjected remarks and therefore must be rendered parenthetically. All these parenthetical thoughts are complete in themselves, and consequently require the falling inflection. “Not” is emphatic, and the falling inflection is given “sun” because it expresses a contradiction.

The first phrase of the next paragraph requires the falling inflection, and the words “hesitate” and “unpitying,” being negatived, require the rising. The close of the paragraph requires the falling inflection.

The next paragraph is a concluding series. “Surrounded by all the forms of law,” “after deliberate argument,” “in defiance of justice and humanity,” “with Jeffreys on the bench,” are all interjected remarks, complete in themselves, and require the falling inflection and parenthetical expression to each. “Queen” and “Sir Thomas More” require opposite inflections for the reason they are used to mark two distinct points in the despotic career of Henry the Eighth, just as one would say “from the first to the last,” “Latimer, Ridley, and John Rogers” constitute a concluding series. “Justice” and “humanity” in the parenthetical clause are contrasted, and consequently given the opposite inflections, and “even” and “innocent women” require emphasis on account of their importance.

The last paragraph is a concluding series, “surrounded by all the forms of law” is an interjected complete thought, and therefore must be expressed parenthetically and given the falling inflection, and “our,” in both instances when used in this paragraph, requires emphasis and the falling inflection; while “unutterable” should take the rising inflection on account of its negative quality; the voice falling in conclusion on “Fugitive Slave Bill,” because the final thought is a positive one.

JUDICIAL INJUSTICES

charles sumner

I hold judges, and especially the Supreme Court of the country, in much respect, but I am too familiar with the history of judicial proceedings to regard them with any superstitious reverence. Judges are but men, and in all ages have shown a full share of human frailty. Alas! alas! the worst crimes of history have been perpetrated under their sanction. The blood of martyrs and of patriots, crying from the ground, summons them to judgment.

It was a judicial tribunal which condemned Socrates to drink the fatal hemlock, and which pushed the Saviour barefoot over the pavements of Jerusalem, bending beneath his cross. It was a judicial tribunal which, against the testimony and entreaties of her father, surrendered the fair Virginia as a slave; which arrested the teachings of the great Apostle to the Gentiles and sent him in bonds from Judea to Rome; which, in the name of the Old Religion, adjudged the Saints and Fathers of the Christian Church to death in all its most dreadful forms; and which afterwards, in the name of the New Religion, enforced the tortures of the Inquisition, amidst the shrieks and agonies of its victims, while it compelled Galileo to declare, in solemn denial of the great truth he had disclosed, that the earth did not move round the sun.

It was a judicial tribunal which in France during the long reign of her monarchs lent itself to be the instrument of every tyranny, as during the brief Reign of Terror it did not hesitate to stand forth the unpitying accessory of the unpitying guillotine.

It was a judicial tribunal in England, surrounded by all the forms of law, which sanctioned every despotic caprice of Henry the Eighth, from the unjust divorce of his queen to the beheading of Sir Thomas More; which lighted the fires of persecution that glowed at Oxford and Smithfield over the cinders of Latimer, Ridley, and John Rogers; which, after deliberate argument, upheld the fatal tyranny of Ship-Money, against the patriot resistance of Hampden; which, in defiance of justice and humanity, sent Sidney and Russell to the block; which persistently enforced the laws of Conformity that our Puritan Fathers persistently refused to obey; and which afterwards, with Jeffreys on the bench, crimsoned the page of English history with massacre and murder—even with the blood of innocent women.

Ay, Sir, and it was a judicial tribunal, in our country, surrounded by all the forms of law, which hung the witches at Salem; which affirmed the constitutionality of the Stamp-Act which it admonished “jurors and the people” to obey; and which now in our day, lent its sanction to the unutterable atrocity of the Fugitive Slave Bill.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] This extract is from a speech delivered in the United States Senate, March 21, 1898.