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of madness and distraction which gave them birth: but which, as soon as the spurs of the occasion were blunted, were repealed and execrated even by Parliaments which (little as I may think of the present) ought not be compared with it—Parliaments sitting in the darkness of former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.