the European nations could call our army and navy into their service
at any time they might yield to the temptation to use our resources
to advance their ambitions. As the man who carries a revolver is more
likely than an unarmed man to be drawn into a fight, so the European
nations would be more apt to engage in selfish quarrels if they carried
the fighting power of the United States in their hip pocket. For
their own good, as well as for our protection and for the saving of
civilization, it is well to require a clear and complete statement of
the reasons for the war and of the ends that the belligerents have in
view, before we mingle our blood with theirs upon the battle-field.
Our nation is in an ideal position; it has financial power and moral
prestige; it has disinterestedness of purpose and far-reaching sympathy.
When to these qualifications for leadership independence of action is
added we can render the maximum of service to the world.
It matters not what name is given to the cooperative body; it may be a
League of Nations or an Association of Nations or anything else. The
name is a mere form; the tribunal should be the greatest that has ever
assembled. Our delegates should be chosen by the people _directly_, as
our senators, our congressmen, our governors, and our legislators are,
and as our President virtually is. Representatives chosen to speak for
the American people on such momentous themes as will be discussed in
that body should have their commissions signed by the sovereign voters
themselves. We cannot afford to intrust the selection of these delegates
to the President or to Congress. The members of our delegation should
not be discredited by any flavour of presidential favouritism or by any
taint of Congressional log-rolling.
Delegates, selected by popular vote in districts, would reflect the
sentiment of the entire country, and their power would be enhanced
rather than decreased if they were compelled to seek endorsement of
their views on vital questions at a referendum vote. Their authority to
cast the nation's vote for war ought to be subject to the approval of
the people, expressed at the ballot box. Those who are to furnish the
blood and take upon themselves the burden of war-debts ought to be
consulted before the solemn duties and the sacrifices of war are
required of them.
Our nation can, by its example, teach the world the true meaning of that
democracy which was to be made safe throughout the world. The essence of
democracy is found in the right of the people to have what they want,
and experience shows that the best way to find out what the people want
is to ask them. There is more virtue in the people themselves than can
be found anywhere else; the faults of popular government result chiefly
from the embezzlement of power by representatives of the people--the
people themselves are not often at fault. But, suppose they make
mistakes occasionally: have they not a right to make _their own
mistakes_? Who has a right to make mistakes for them?
The Saviour not only furnished a solution for all of life's problems,
individual and governmental, national and international, but He also
called His followers to the performance of the duties of citizenship:
"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things
that are God's," was the answer that Christ made to those who were
quibbling about the claims of the government under which they lived.
The citizen is a unit of the community in which he lives and a part of
his government. Our government derives its power from the consent of the
governed; what kind of a government would we have if all Christians were
indifferent to its claims? No rule can be laid down for one citizen that
does not apply to all; each citizen, therefore, should bear his share of
the burden if he is to claim his share of the government protection. The
teachings of Christ require that we should respect the rights of others
as well as insist upon the recognition of our own rights. In fact, the
recognition of the rights of others is a higher form of patriotism than
mere insistence upon that which is due us and the spirit of brotherhood
is calculated to create just such a community of interest. Each will
find his security in the safety of all--the welfare of each being the
concern of the whole group.
In a government like ours the Christian is compelled by conscience to
avoid sins of omission as well as sins of commission; he must not only
avoid the doing of evil, but he must not permit wrong-doing by law if
he can prevent it. In other words, the conscientious citizen must
understand the principles of his government, the methods employed by his
government and the policies that come before the government for
adoption or rejection. He is a partner in a very important business--a
stockholder in the greatest of all corporations. If the good people of
the land do not do their duty as citizens they may be sure that bad
people will use the power and instrumentalities of government for their
own advantage and for the injury of the many.
An indifferent Christian? It is impossible. A Christian cannot be
indifferent without betraying a sacred trust. And yet every bad law, and
every bad condition that can be remedied by a good law, proclaims an
indifferent citizenship or a citizenship lacking in virtue, for popular
government is merely a reflection of the character of its active
citizenship.
The charitable view to take of a nation's failure to have the best
government, the best laws and the best administration possible, is not
that the citizenship is lacking in virtue and good intent, but that
it is lacking in information. It is the business of the good citizen,
therefore, to encourage the spread of accurate information--the
dissemination of light--in order that those who "love darkness rather
than light because their deeds are evil" may not be able to work under
cover. No evil can stand long against a united Christian citizenship;
witness how prohibition came as soon as the churches united against the
saloon.
Having faith in the power of truth to win its way when understood,
Christians believe in publicity and are not afraid to call every evil
before the bar of public judgment. Believing in the superhuman wisdom of
Christ, as well as in the saving power of His blood, they are bold to
apply His code of morals to every problem. His is a name that will
increasingly arouse the hosts of righteousness to irresistible attacks
on the brutishness that endangers government, society and civilization.
I am so confident that the Christian citizenship of this country will
prove faithful to every trust and rise to the requirements of every
emergency that I venture to repeat a forecast of our nation's future,
made more than twenty years ago:
I can conceive of a national destiny which meets the responsibilities
of to-day and measures up to the possibilities of to-morrow. Behold
a republic, resting securely upon the mountain of eternal truth--a
republic applying in practice and proclaiming to the world the
self-evident propositions that all men are created equal; that they are
endowed with inalienable rights; that governments are instituted among
men to secure these rights; and that governments derive their just
powers from the consent of the governed. Behold a republic, in which
civil and religious liberty stimulate all to earnest endeavour and in
which the law restrains every hand uplifted for a neighbour's injury--a
republic in which every citizen is a sovereign, but in which no one
cares to wear a crown. Behold a republic, standing erect, while empires
all around are bowed beneath the weight of their own armaments--a
republic whose flag is loved while other flags are only feared. Behold
a republic, increasing in population, in wealth, in strength and in
influence; solving the problems of civilization, and hastening the
coming of an universal brotherhood--a republic which shakes thrones
and dissolves aristocracies by its silent example and gives light and
inspiration to those who sit in darkness. Behold a republic, gradually
but surely becoming the supreme moral factor to the world's progress and
the accepted arbiter of the world's disputes--a republic whose history
like the path of the just--"is as the shining light that shineth more
and more unto the perfect day."
IX
THE SPOKEN WORD
Some have prophesied that with the spread of the newspaper public
speaking would decline--but the prediction has not been fulfilled and
its failure is easily explained. In the first place, the written
page can never be a substitute for the message delivered orally. The
newspaper vastly multiplies the audience but they hear only the echo,
not the speech itself. One cannot write as he speaks because he lacks
the inspiration furnished by an audience. Gladstone has very happily
described the influence exerted by the audience upon the speaker,
an influence which returns to the audience stamped with his own
personality. He says that the speaker draws inspiration from the
audience in the form of mist and pours it back in a flood. It need
hardly be added that this refers to speaking without manuscript, but
reading, while always regrettable, is sometimes necessary--especially
when accuracy is more important than the immediate effect.
In order to secure both accuracy and animation it is well to prepare the
speech in advance and then revise it after delivery.
With increased intelligence a larger percentage of the population are
able to think upon their feet, to take part in public discussions and
to give their community and country the benefit of their conscience and
judgment. The fraternities and labour and commercial organizations have
largely aided in the development of speaking by the exchange of views at
their regular meetings. The extension of popular government naturally
increases public speaking as it brings the masses into closer relation
to the government and makes them more and more a controlling force in
politics.
The newspapers, instead of making the stump unnecessary, often increase
the necessity for face to face communication in order that both sides
may be represented and, sometimes, in order that misrepresentations may
be exposed.
No substitute can be found for the pulpit. Earnestness which finds
expression through the voice cannot be communicated through the printed
page. If we are thrilled by what we read it gives us only a glimpse of
the power of speech to stir the soul. If the spoken word is to continue
to play an important part in the communication of information and in the
compelling of thought it is worth while to consider some of the rules
that contribute to the effectiveness of the pulpit and the platform.
Sometimes I receive a letter from a young man who informs me that he is
a born orator and asks what such an one should do to prepare him for his
life-work. I answer that while an orator must be born like others his
success will not depend on inheritance, neither will a favourable
environment in youth assure it. An ancestor's fame may inspire him to
effort and the associations of the fireside may stimulate, but ability
to speak effectively is an acquirement rather than a gift.
Eloquence may be defined as the speech of one who _knows what he is
talking about_ and _means what he says_--it is _thought on fire_. One
cannot communicate information unless he possesses it. There is quite a
difference in people in this respect; we say of one that he knows more
than he can tell and, of another, that he can tell all he knows, but it
is a reflection upon a man to say that he can tell more than he knows.
The first thing, therefore, is to know the subject. One should know his
subject so well that a question will aid rather than embarrass him. A
question from the audience annoys one only when the speaker is _unable_
to answer it or does not _want_ to answer it. Many a speaker has
been brought into ridicule by a question that revealed his lack of
information on the subject; and a speaker has sometimes been routed by
a question that revealed something he intended to conceal. Before
discussing a subject one should go all around it and view it from every
standpoint, asking and answering all the questions likely to be put by
his opponents. Nothing strengthens a speaker more than to be able
to answer every question put to him. His argument is made much more
forcible because the question focuses attention on the particular point;
a ready answer makes a deeper impression than the speaker could make
by the use of the same language without the benefit of the question to
excite interest in the proposition.
But knowledge is of little use to the speaker without earnestness.
Persuasive speech is from heart to heart, not from mind to mind. It is
difficult for a speaker to deceive his audience as to his own feelings;
it takes a trained actor to make an imaginary thing seem real. Nearly
two thousand years ago one of the Latin poets expressed this thought
when he said, "If you would draw tears from others' eyes, yourself the
signs of grief must show."
If one is master of an important subject and feels that he has a message
that must be delivered he will not lack a hearing. As there are always
important subjects before the country for settlement there will always
be oratory. In order to speak eloquently on one subject a man need not
be well informed on a large number of subjects, although information on
all subjects is of value. One who can in a general way discuss a large
number of subjects may be entirely outclassed by one who knows but one
subject but knows it well and _feels_ it.
The pulpit has developed many great orators because it furnishes the
largest subject with which one can deal. The preacher who knows the
Bible and feels that every human being needs the message that the Bible
contains cannot fail to reach the hearts of his hearers. Dr. E. Benjamin
Andrews, once the President of Brown University and later Chancellor
of Nebraska University, told me of a sermon that he heard Jasper, the
coloured preacher of Richmond, deliver late in life on an anniversary
occasion. Jasper claimed nothing for himself but attributed his long
pastorate and whatever influence he had to the fact that he preached
from only one book--the Bible.
When I was in college I heard a visitor draw a contrast between Cicero
and Demosthenes. I am not sure that it is fair to Cicero but it brings
out an important distinction. As I recall it, the speaker said, "When
Cicero spake the people said, 'How well Cicero speaks'; when Demosthenes
spake his hearers cried, 'Let us go against Philip.'" One impressed
himself upon his audience while the other impressed his subject. It need
hardly be said that in all effective oratory the speaker succeeds in
proportion as he can make his hearers forget him in their absorption
in the subject that he presents. I may add that there is a practical
advantage in the speaker's diverting attention from himself. There is
only one of him and he would soon become monotonous if he continually
thrust himself forward; but, as subjects are innumerable, he can give
infinite variety to his speech by putting the emphasis upon the theme.
It is better that the audience, when it breaks up, should gather into
groups and discuss what the speaker said than to go away saying, "What a
delightful speech it was," and yet not remember the things said. Whether
the statements made are true or not it does no harm to have them
challenged; if some dispute what has been said and others defend the
speaker it is certain that thought has been aroused, and thinking leads
to truth. That is why freedom of speech is so essential in a republic;
it is the only process by which truth can be separated from error and
made to stand forth in all its strength. We should, therefore, invite
discussion.
While acquaintance with the subject and heartfelt interest in it are the
first essentials of convincing speech, there are other qualities that
greatly strengthen discourse. First among these I would put _clearness
of statement_. Jefferson declared in the Declaration of Independence
that _certain_ truths are self-evident. It is a very conservative
statement of an important fact; it could be made stronger: _all truth is
self-evident_. The best service one can render a truth, therefore, is to
state it so clearly that it can be understood. This does not mean that
every self-evident truth will be immediately accepted because there are
many things that interfere with the acceptance of truth.
First, let us consider depth of conviction. Some people take their
convictions more seriously than others. In India I heard a missionary
speak of another person as having "no opinions--nothing but
convictions"; while one of the enemies of Gladstone described him as
being the only person he ever knew who "could improvise the convictions
of a lifetime." Depth of conviction gives great force to an individual
when he is going in the right direction, but he is difficult to change
if he is going in the wrong direction. When I visited the Hermitage for
the first time they told me of an old coloured man, formerly a slave of
Jackson's, who survived his master many years. He was, of course, an
object of interest and many questions were asked in regard to Jackson's
characteristics. One visitor inquired of him if he thought Andrew
Jackson went to heaven. He quickly responded, "If he sot his head that
way, he did."
Prejudice also delays the spread of truth. People sometimes brace
themselves against arguments. If I may be pardoned a personal
illustration I will cite a case of political prejudice that came under
my own observation. I was speaking in a town in western Nebraska, an
out-of-the-way place that I had seldom visited. A friend heard a man
say, "Well, I never heard him and I thought I would come and see what he
has to say." And then, with a determined look upon his face he added,
"But he will not convince me." Political prejudice is not so hard to
overcome as race prejudice and race prejudice is not so deep-seated as
religious prejudice; but prejudice of any kind, whether it be personal,
political, race, or religious, seriously interferes with the progress of
truth.
Narrowness of vision often obstructs acceptance of truth. One must be
made to feel interested in the subject before he will listen to that
which is said about it. Aristotle has suggested a means by which each
one can measure himself. "If he is interested in himself only he is
very small; if he is interested in his family he is larger; if he is
interested in his community he is larger still." Thus he grows in size
as his sympathies expand--the largest person being the one whose heart
takes in the whole world. In proportion as we can enlarge the horizon of
the hearer we can increase the number of subjects to which he will give
attention. The minister has an advantage in that he deals with the one
subject about which all mankind thinks. The soul yearns for God: it is
man's highest aspiration and his most enduring concern. When one's
heart is changed--when he is born again--he listens to, understands and
accepts arguments that he rejected before.
Selfish interest is one of the most common obstructions to the advance
of truth. Very often this difficulty can be overcome by showing that
the party is mistaken as to the effect of the proposed measure upon his
interests. Fortunately in matters of government a large majority of the
people have interests on the same side and the real task is to make this
plain. Where there is a real opposing interest, argument is of little
use unless it can be shown that the public welfare outweighs the
personal interest--that is, that a public interest is large enough to
swallow up the interest that is private and personal.
Whenever one refuses to admit such a self-evident truth, for instance,
as that it is wrong to steal, don't argue with him--search him; the
reason may be found in his pocket.
Next to clearness of statement, I would put conciseness--the condensing
of much into a few words. This is a great asset to a speaker. The
moulder of public opinion does not manufacture opinion; he simply puts
it into form so that it can be remembered and repeated; just as my
father used bullet-moulds to make bullets when he was about to go
squirrel hunting. The moulds did not create the lead, they simply put
it into effective form. Jefferson was the greatest moulder of public
opinion in the early days of this country. He did not create Democratic
sentiment; he simply took the aspirations that had nestled in the
hearts of men from time immemorial and put them into appropriate and
epigrammatic language, so that the nation thought his thoughts after
him, as the world is now doing. The proverbs of Solomon are priceless
for the same reason; they are full of wisdom--wisdom so expressed that
it can be easily comprehended.
When I was a boy my father would call me in from work a little before
noon, read to me from Proverbs and comment on the sayings of the Wise
Man. After his death (when I was twenty) I recalled his fondness for
Proverbs and read the thirty-one chapters through each month for a year.
I was increasingly impressed with their beauty and strength. I have used
many of them in speeches. The one I have most frequently used in the
advocacy of reforms reads: "A prudent man foreseeth the evil and hideth
himself; but the simple pass on, and are punished."
I have often used a story to illustrate how much can be said in a few
words. A man said to another, "Do you drink?" The man to whom the
question was addressed, replied rather indignantly, "That is my
business, sir." "Have you any other business?" asked the first man. The
story is not only valuable as an illustration of brevity but it has a
moral side; if a man drinks much he soon has no other business.
In this connection I will speak of the words to be employed. Our use of
big words increases from infancy to the day of graduation. I think it is
safe to say that with nearly all of us the maximum is reached on the day
when we leave school. We use more big words that day than we have
ever used before or will ever use again. When we go from college into
every-day life and begin to deal with our fellowmen we drop the big words
because we are more interested in making people understand us than we
are in parading our learning. The more earnest one is the smaller the
words used. If a young man used big words to assure his sweetheart of
his affection she would never understand him, but the word love has but
one syllable, just as the words life, faith, hope, home, food, and work
are one-syllable words. Remember that nearly every audience is made up
of people who differ in the amount of book learning they have received.
If you speak only to those best educated you will speak over the heads
of those less educated. A story is told on a great scientist who made
two holes in the back fence and showed them to his wife, explaining that
the big hole was for the cat and the small hole for the kitten. "But
cannot the kitten go through the same hole as the cat?" inquired his
wife. If you use little words you can reach not only the least learned,
but the most learned as well.
Illustration is one of the most potent forms of argument; we understand
new things by comparing them with what we know. Christ was a master of
illustrations--the master. No one of whom history tells us has ever used
the illustration as effectively as He. He took the objects of every-day
life and made them mirrors which reflected truth. His parables give us a
wide range of illustration--the Sower going forth to sow, the Wheat and
the Tares, the Prodigal Son, the Wise and Foolish Virgins--in fact, all
the illustrations that He used might be cited to prove the power of this
form of argument.