During my college days at Yale Wendell Phillips, William Lloyd Garrison,
and Henry Ward Beecher were frequent lecturers, and generally
on the slavery question. I have heard most of the great orators
of the world, but none of them produced such an immediate and
lasting effect upon their audience as Wendell Phillips. He was
the finest type of a cultured New Englander. He was the recipient
of the best education possible in his time and with independent
means which enabled him to pursue his studies and career. Besides,
he was one of the handsomest men I ever saw upon the platform,
and in his inspired moments met one's imaginative conception
of a Greek god.
Phillips rarely made a gesture or spoke above the conversational,
but his musical voice reached the remotest comers of the hall.
The eager audience, fearful of losing a word, would bend forward
with open mouths as well as attentive ears. It was always a
hostile audience at the beginning of Mr. Phillips's address, but
before the end he swayed them to applause, tears, or laughter,
as a skilled performer upon a perfect instrument. His subject
was nearly always slavery, his views very extreme and for immediate
abolition, but at that time he had a very small following.
Nevertheless, his speeches, especially because of the riots and
controversies they caused, set people thinking, and largely
increased the hostility to slavery, especially to its extension.
I met Mr. Phillips one evening, after a lecture, at the house of
Professor Goodrich. He was most courtly and considerate to students
and invited questions. While I was charmed, even captivated, by
his eloquence, I had at that time very little sympathy with his
views. I said to him: "Mr. Phillips, your attack to-night upon
Caleb Cushing, one of the most eminent and able public men in
the country, was very vitriolic and most destructive of character
and reputation. It seems so foreign to all I know of you that,
if you will pardon me, I would like to know why you did it." He
answered: "I have found that people, as a rule, are not interested
in principles or their discussions. They are so absorbed in their
personal affairs that they do very little thinking upon matters
outside their business or vocation. They embody a principle in
some public man in whom they have faith, and so that man stands
for a great body of truth or falsehood, and may be exceedingly
dangerous because a large following connects the measure with
the man, and, therefore, if I can destroy the man who represents a
vicious principle I have destroyed the principle." It did not strike
me favorably at the time, nor does it now. Nevertheless, in politics
and in the battles of politics it represents a dynamic truth.
The perfect preparation of a speech was, in Wendell Phillip's
view, that one in which the mental operations were assisted in
no way by outside aid. Only two or three times in his life did
he prepare with pen and paper an address, and he felt that these
speeches were the poorest of his efforts. He was constantly
studying the art of oratory. In his daily walks or in his library
metaphors and similes were suggested, which he tucked away in
his memory, and he even studied action as he watched the muscular
movements of men whom he saw in public places. He believed that
a perfect speech could be prepared only after intense mental
concentration. Of course the mind must first be fortified by such
reading as provided facts. Having thus saturated his mind with
information, he would frequently lie extended for hours upon his
sofa, with eyes closed, making mental arrangements for the address.
In fact, he used to write his speeches mentally, as Victor Hugo
is said to have written some of his poems. A speech thus prepared,
Phillips thought, was always at the command of the speaker. It
might vary upon every delivery, and could be altered to meet
emergencies with the audience, but would always be practically
the same.
This method of preparation explains what has been a mystery to
many persons. The several reports of Phillips's lecture on
"The Lost Arts" differ in phraseology and even in arrangement.
Mr. Phillips did not read his speeches in print, and, therefore,
never revised one. He was firmly of the belief that the printed
thought and the spoken thought should be expressed in different
form, and that the master of one form could not be the master
of the other.
I met many young men like myself in the canvass of 1856, and also
made many acquaintances of great value in after-life. It was
difficult for the older stump speakers to change the addresses
they had been delivering for years, so that the young orators,
with their fresh enthusiasm, their intense earnestness and undoubting
faith, were more popular with the audiences, who were keenly alive
to the issues raised then by the new Republican party.
The Republican party was composed of Whigs and anti-slavery
Democrats. In this first campaign the old-timers among the Whigs
and the Democrats could not get over their long antagonism and
distrusted each other. The young men, whether their ancestry was
Democratic or Whig, were the amalgam which rapidly fused all
elements, so that the party presented a united front in the campaign
four years afterwards when Mr. Lincoln was elected.
In the course of that campaign I had as fellow speakers many times
on the platform statesmen of national reputation. These gentlemen,
with few exceptions, made heavy, ponderous, and platitudinous
speeches. If they ever had possessed humor they were afraid of it.
The crowd, however, would invariably desert the statesman for
the speaker who could give them amusement with instruction. The
elder statesmen said by way of advice: "While the people want
to be amused, they have no faith in a man or woman with wit or
anecdote. When it comes to the election of men to conduct public
affairs, they invariably prefer serious men." There is no doubt
that a reputation for wit has seriously impaired the prospects
of many of the ablest men in the country.
The only exception to this rule was Abraham Lincoln. But when
he ran for president the first time he was comparatively unknown
outside his State of Illinois. The campaign managers in their
literature put forward only his serious speeches, which were very
remarkable, especially the one he delivered in Cooper Union,
New York, which deeply impressed the thoughtful men of the East.
He could safely tell stories and jokes after he had demonstrated
his greatness as president. Then the people regarded his
story-telling as the necessary relief and relaxation of an
overburdened and overworked public servant. But before he had
demonstrated his genius as an executive, they would probably have
regarded these same traits as evidences of frivolity, unfitting
the possessor for great and grave responsibilities.
I had a very interesting talk on the subject with General Garfield,
when he was running for president. He very kindly said to me:
"You have every qualification for success in public life; you might
get anywhere and to the highest places except for your humor.
I know its great value to a speaker before an audience, but it is
dangerous at the polls. When I began in politics, soon after
graduation, I found I had a keen sense of humor, and that made
me the most sought-after of all our neighborhood speakers, but
I also soon discovered it was seriously impairing the public
opinion of me for responsible positions, so I decided to cut it
out. It was very difficult, but I have succeeded so thoroughly
that I can no longer tell a story or appreciate the point of one
when it is told to me. Had I followed my natural bent I should
not now be the candidate of my party for President of the
United States."
The reason so few men are humorists is that they are very shy of
humor. My own observations in studying the lives and works of
our public men demonstrate how thoroughly committed to this idea
they have been. There is not a joke, nor a mot, nor a scintilla
of humor irradiating the Revolutionary statesmen. There is a
stilted dignity about their utterances which shows that they were
always posing in heroic attitudes. If they lived and moved in
family, social, and club life, as we understand it, the gloom of
their companionship accounts for the enjoyment which their
contemporaries took in the three hours' sermons then common from
the pulpit.
As we leave the period of Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, and
the Adamses, we find no humor in the next generation. The only
relief from the tedium of argument and exhaustless logic is found
in the savage sarcasm of John Randolph, which was neither wit
nor humor.
A witty illustration or an apt story will accomplish more than
columns of argument. The old-time audience demanded a speech
of not less than two hours' duration and expected three. The
audience of to-day grows restive after the first hour, and is
better pleased with forty minutes. It prefers epigrams to arguments
and humor to rhetoric. It is still true, however, that the press
presents to readers from a speaker who indulges in humor only
the funny part of his effort, and he is in serious danger of
receiving no credit for ability in the discussion of great questions,
no matter how conspicuous that ability may be. The question is
always presented to a frequent speaker whether he shall win the
applause of the audience and lose the flattering opinion of the
critics, or bore his audience and be complimented by readers
for wisdom.
When I look back over sixty-five years on the platform in public
speaking, and the success of different methods before audiences,
political, literary, business, or a legislative committee, or a
legislature itself, and especially when I consider my own pleasure
in the efforts, the results and compensations have been far greater
than the attainment of any office. For, after all, a man might
be dull and a bore to himself and others for a lifetime and have
the reputation of being a serious thinker and a solid citizen,
and yet never reach the presidency.
It was always a delight to listen to George W. Curtis. He was
a finished orator of the classic type, but not of the Demosthenian
order. His fine personal appearance, his well-modulated and
far-reaching voice, and his refined manner at once won the favor
of his audience. He was a splendid type of the scholar in politics.
In preparing a speech he took as much pains as he did with a
volume which he was about to publish.
I accepted under great pressure the invitation to deliver the
oration at the unveiling of the Bartholdi Statue of Liberty in
New York harbor, because the time was so short, only a few days.
Mr. Curtis said to me afterwards: "I was very much surprised that
you accepted that invitation. I declined it because there was only
a month left before the unveiling. I invariably refuse an invitation
for an important address unless I can have three months. I take
one month to look up authorities and carefully prepare it and then
lay it on the shelf for a month. During that period, while you
are paying no attention to the matter, your mind is unconsciously
at work upon it. When you resume correcting your manuscript you
find that in many things about which you thought well you have
changed your mind. Leisurely corrections and additions will
perfect the address."
As my orations and speeches have always been the by-product of
spare evenings and Sundays taken from an intensely active and busy
life, if I had followed any of these examples my twelve volumes of
speeches would never have seen the light of day.
One of the greatest orators of his generation, and I might say of
ours, was Robert G. Ingersoll. I was privileged to meet
Colonel Ingersoll many times, and on several occasions to be
a speaker on the same platform. The zenith of his fame was reached
by his "plumed-knight" speech, nominating James G. Blaine for
president at the national Republican convention in 1876. It was
the testimony of all the delegates that if the vote could have
been taken immediately at the conclusion of the speech, Mr. Blaine
would have been elected.
Colonel Ingersoll carried off the oratorical honors that campaign
in a series of speeches, covering the whole country. I say a
series of speeches; he really had but one, which was the most
effective campaign address I ever heard, but which he delivered
over and over again, and every time with phenomenal success,
a success the like of which I have never known. He delivered it
to an immense audience in New York, and swept them off their feet.
He repeated this triumph the next day at an open-air meeting in
Wall Street, and again the next day at a great gathering in
New Jersey. The newspapers printed the speech in full every day
after its delivery, as if it had been a new and first utterance
of the great orator.
I spoke with him several times when he was one of the speakers
after an important dinner. It was a rare treat to hear him. The
effort apparently was impromptu, and that added to its effect upon
his auditors. That it was thoroughly prepared I found by hearing
it several times, always unchanged and always producing the same
thrilling effect.
He spoke one night at Cooper Institute at a celebration by the
colored people of Mr. Lincoln's proclamation emancipating them
from slavery. As usual he was master of the occasion and of his
audience. He was then delivering a series of addresses attacking
the Bible. His mind was full of that subject, and apparently he
could not help assailing the faith of the negroes by asking, if
there was a God of justice and mercy, why did he leave them so
long in slavery or permit them ever to be slaves.
To an emotional audience like the one before him it was a most
dangerous attack upon faith. I was so fond of the colonel and
such an intense admirer of him, I hated to controvert him, but
felt it was necessary to do so. The religious fervor which is so
intense with the colored people, made it comparatively easy to
restore their faith, if it had been weakened, and to bring them
to a recognition of the fact that their blessings had all come
from God.
Probably the most brilliant speaker of the period immediately
preceding the Civil War was Thomas Corwin, of Ohio. We have
on the platform in these times no speaker of his type. He had
remarkable influence whenever he participated in debate in the
House of Representatives. On the stump or hustings he would draw
audiences away from Henry Clay or any of the famous speakers of
the time. I sometimes wonder if our more experienced and more
generally educated audiences of to-day would be swayed by Corwin's
methods. He had to the highest degree every element of effective
speech. He could put his audience in tears or hilarious laughter,
or arouse cheers. He told more stories and told them better than
any one else, and indulged freely in what is called Fourth of July
exaggeration. He would relieve a logical presentation which was
superb and unanswerable by a rhetorical flight of fancy, or by
infectious humor. Near the close of his life he spoke near
New York, and his great reputation drew to the meeting the
representatives of the metropolitan press. He swept the audience
off their feet, but the comment of the journals was very critical
and unfavorable, both of the speech and the orator. It was an
illustration of what I have often met with: of a speech which was
exactly the right thing for the occasion and crowd, but lost its
effect in publication. Corwin's humor barred his path to great
office, and he saw many ordinary men advance ahead of him.
The most potent factor in the destruction of his enemies and
buttressing his own cause was his inimitable wit and humor. In
broad statesmanship, solid requirements, and effective eloquence,
he stood above the successful mediocrity of his time--the Buchanans
and the Polks, the Franklin Pierces and the Winfield Scotts--like
a star of the first magnitude above the Milky Way. But in later
years he thought the failure to reach the supreme recognition to
which he was entitled was due to his humor having created the
impression in the minds of his countrymen that he was not a serious
person.
Wayne MacVeagh was a very interesting and original speaker. He
had a finished and cultured style and a very attractive delivery.
He was past master of sarcasm as well as of burning eloquence on
patriotic themes. When I was a freshman at Yale he was a senior.
I heard him very often at our debating society, the Linonian, where
he gave promise of his future success. His father-in-law was
Simon Cameron, secretary of war, and he was one of the party which
went with Mr. Lincoln to Gettysburg and heard Lincoln's famous
address. He told me that it did not produce much impression at
the time, and it was long after before the country woke up to its
surpassing excellence, and he did not believe the story still
current that Mr. Lincoln wrote it on an envelope while on the train
to Gettysburg.
MacVeagh became one of the leaders of the American bar and was
at one time attorney-general of the United States. He was successful
as a diplomat as minister to Turkey and to Italy.
I heard him on many occasions and spoke with him on many after-dinner
platforms. As an after-dinner speaker he was always at his best
if some one attacked him, because he had a very quick temper. He
got off on me a witticism which had considerable vogue at the time.
When I was elected president of the New York Central Railroad,
the Yale Association of New York gave me a dinner. It was largely
attended by distinguished Yale graduates from different parts of
the country. MacVeagh was one of the speakers. In the course of
his speech he said: "I was alarmed when I found that our friend
Chauncey had been elected president of the most unpopular railroad
there is in the country. But rest assured, my friends, that he
will change the situation, and before his administration is closed
make it the most popular of our railroad corporations, because
he will bring the stock within the reach of the poorest citizen
of the land." The stock was then at the lowest point in its history
on account of its life-and-death fight with the West Shore Railroad,
and so, of course, the reverse of my friend MacVeagh's prediction
was not difficult.
One of the greatest and most remarkable orators of his time was
Henry Ward Beecher. I never met his equal in readiness and
versatility. His vitality was infectious. He was a big, healthy,
vigorous man with the physique of an athlete, and his intellectual
fire and vigor corresponded with his physical strength. There
seemed to be no limit to his ideas, anecdotes, illustrations, and
incidents. He had a fervid imagination and wonderful power of
assimilation and reproduction and the most observant of eyes. He
was drawing material constantly from the forests, the flowers,
the gardens, and the domestic animals in the fields and in the
house, and using them most effectively in his sermons and speeches.
An intimate friend of mine, a country doctor and great admirer of
Mr. Beecher, became a subscriber to the weekly paper in which was
printed his Sunday sermon, and carefully guarded a file of them
which he made. He not only wanted to read the sermons of his
favorite preacher, but he believed him to have infinite variety,
and was constantly examining the efforts of his idol to see if
he could not find an illustration, anecdote, or idea repeated.
Mr. Beecher seemed to be teeming with ideas all the time, almost
to the point of bursting. While most orators are relying upon
their libraries and their commonplace book, and their friends for
material, he apparently found more in every twenty-four hours than
he could use. His sermons every Sunday appeared in the press.
He lectured frequently; several times a week he delivered
after-dinner speeches, and during such intervals as he had he
made popular addresses, spoke at meetings on municipal and general
reform, and on patriotic occasions. One of the most effective,
and for the time one of the most eloquent addresses I ever heard
in my life was the one he delivered at the funeral of Horace Greeley.
When the sentiment in England in favor of the the South in our
Civil War seemed to be growing to a point where Great Britain
might recognize the Southern Confederacy, Mr. Lincoln asked
Mr. Beecher to go over and present the Union side. Those speeches
of Mr. Beecher, a stranger in a strange country, to hostile
audiences, were probably as extraordinary an evidence of oratorical
power as was ever known. He captured audiences, he overcame
the hostility of persistent disturbers of the meetings, and with
his ready wit overwhelmed the heckler.
At one of the great meetings, when the sentiment was rapidly
changing from hostility to favor, a man arose and asked Mr. Beecher:
"If you people of the North are so strong and your cause is so
good, why after all these years of fighting have you not licked
the South?" Mr. Beecher's instant and most audacious reply was:
"If the Southerners were Englishmen we would have licked them."
With the English love of fair play, the retort was accepted with cheers.
While other orators were preparing, he seemed to be seeking
occasions for talking and drawing from an overflowing reservoir.
Frequently he would spend an hour with a crowd of admirers, just
talking to them on any subject which might be uppermost in his
mind. I knew an authoress who was always present at these
gatherings, who took copious notes and reproduced them with great
fidelity. There were circles of Beecher worshippers in many towns
and in many States. This authoress used to come to New Haven
in my senior year at Yale, and in a circle of Beecher admirers,
which I was permitted to attend, would reproduce these informal
talks of Mr. Beecher. He was the most ready orator, and with his
almost feminine sympathies and emotional nature would add immensely
to his formal speech by ideas which would occur to him in the heat
of delivery, or with comment upon conversations which he had heard
on the way to church or meeting.
I happened to be on a train with him on an all-day journey, and
he never ceased talking in the most interesting and effective way,
and pouring out from his rich and inexhaustible stores with
remarkable lucidity and eloquence his views upon current topics,
as well as upon recent literature, art, and world movements.
Beecher's famous trial on charges made by Theodore Tilton against
him on relations with Tilton's wife engrossed the attention of the
world. The charge was a shock to the religious and moral sense
of countless millions of people. When the trial was over the
public was practically convinced of Mr. Beecher's innocence. The
jury, however, disagreed, a few holding out against him. The case
was never again brought to trial. The trial lasted six months.
One evening when I was in Peekskill I went from our old homestead
into the crowded part of the village, to be with old friends.
I saw there a large crowd and also the village military and fire
companies. I asked what it was all about, and was informed that
the whole town was going out to Mr. Beecher's house, which was
about one and one-half miles from the village, to join in a
demonstration for his vindication. I took step with one of the
companies to which I belonged when I was a boy, and marched out
with the crowd.
The president of the village and leading citizens, one after
another, mounted the platform, which was the piazza of Mr. Beecher's
house, and expressed their confidence in him and the confidence
of his neighbors, the villagers. Then Mr. Beecher said to me:
"You were born in this town and are known all over the country.
If you feel like saying something it would travel far." Of course,
I was very glad of the opportunity because I believed in him.
In the course of my speech I told a story which had wonderful
vogue. I said: "Mr. Lincoln told me of an experience he had in
his early practice when he was defending a man who had been
accused of a vicious assault upon a neighbor. There were no
witnesses, and under the laws of evidence at that time the accused
could not testify. So the complainant had it all his own way.
The only opportunity Mr. Lincoln had to help his client was to
break down the accuser on a cross-examination. Mr. Lincoln said
he saw that the accuser was a boastful and bumptious man, and so
asked him: 'How much ground was there over which you and my client
fought?' The witness answered proudly: 'Six acres, Mr. Lincoln.'
'Well,' said Lincoln, 'don't you think this was a mighty small
crop of fight to raise on such a large farm?' Mr. Lincoln said
the judge laughed and so did the district attorney and the jury,
and his client was acquitted."
The appositeness was in the six acres of ground of the Lincoln
trial and of the six months of the Beecher trial. As this was a
new story of Lincoln's, which had never been printed, and as it
related to the trial of the most famous of preachers on the worst
of charges that could be made against a preacher, the story was
printed all over the country, and from friends and consular agents
who sent me clippings I found was copied in almost every country
in the world.
Mr. Beecher was one of the few preachers who was both most effective
in the pulpit and, if possible, more eloquent upon the platform.
When there was a moral issue involved he would address political
audiences. In one campaign his speeches were more widely printed
than those of any of the senators, members of the House, or
governors who spoke. I remember one illustration of his about
his dog, Noble, barking for hours at the hole from which a squirrel
had departed, and was enjoying the music sitting calmly in the
crotch of a tree. The illustration caught the fancy of the country
and turned the laugh upon the opposition.
Hugh J. Hastings, at one time editor and proprietor of the
Albany Knickerbocker, and subsequently of the New York Commercial
Advertiser, was full of valuable reminiscences. He began life
in journalism as a very young man under Thurlow Weed. This
association made him a Whig. Very few Irishmen belonged to that
party. Hastings was a born politician and organized an Irish Whig
club. He told me that he worshipped Daniel Webster.
Webster, he said, once stopped over at Albany while passing through
the State, and became a guest of one of Albany's leading citizens
and its most generous host and entertainer. The gentleman gave
in Webster's honor a large dinner at which were present all the
notables of the capital.
Hastings organized a procession which grew to enormous proportions
by the time it reached the residence where Mr. Webster was dining.
When the guests came out, it was evident, according to Hastings,
that they had been dining too well. This was not singular, because
then no dinner was perfect in Albany unless there were thirteen
courses and thirteen different kinds of wine, and the whole closed
up with the famous Regency rum, which had been secured by Albany
bon-vivants before the insurrection in the West Indies had stopped
its manufacture. There was a kick in it which, if there had been
no other brands preceding, was fatal to all except the strongest
heads. I tested its powers myself when I was in office in Albany
fifty-odd years ago.
Hastings said that when Webster began his speech he was as near
his idol as possible and stood right in front of him. When the
statesman made a gesture to emphasize a sentence he lost his hold
on the balustrade and pitched forward. The young Irishman was
equal to the occasion, and interposed an athletic arm, which
prevented Mr. Webster from falling, and held him until he had
finished his address. The fact that he could continue his address
under such conditions increased, if that was possible, the admiration
of young Hastings. Webster was one of the few men who, when drunk
all over, had a sober head.
The speech was very effective, not only to that audience, but,
as reported, all over the country. Hastings was sent for and
escorted to the dining-room, where the guests had reassembled.
Webster grasped him by the hand, and in his most Jovian way
exclaimed: "Young man, you prevented me from disgracing myself.
I thank you and will never forget you." Hastings reported his
feelings as such that if he had died that night he had received
of life all it had which was worth living for.
I do not know what were Mr. Webster's drinking habits, but the
popular reports in regard to them had a very injurious effect upon
young men and especially young lawyers. It was the universal
conversation that Webster was unable to do his best work and have
his mind at its highest efficiency except under the influence of
copious drafts of brandy. Many a young lawyer believing this
drank to excess, not because he loved alcohol, but because he
believed its use might make him a second Webster.
Having lived in that atmosphere, I tried the experiment myself.
Happily for me, I discovered how utterly false it is. I tried
the hard liquors, brandy, whiskey, and gin, and then the wines.
I found that all had a depressing and deadening effect upon the
mind, but that there was a certain exhilaration, though not a
healthy one, in champagne. I also discovered, and found the same
was true with every one else, that the mind works best and produces
the more satisfactory results without any alcohol whatever.
I doubt if any speaker, unless he has become dependent upon
stimulants, can use them before making an important effort without
having his mental machinery more or less clogged. I know it is
reported that Addison, whose English has been the model of succeeding
generations, in writing his best essays wore the carpet out while
walking between sentences from the sideboard where the brandy
was to his writing-table. But they had heroic constitutions and
iron-clad digestive apparatus in those times, which have not been
transmitted to their descendants.
I heard another story of Webster from Horace F. Clarke, a famous
lawyer of New York, and a great friend of his. Mr. Clarke said
that he had a case involving very large interests before the
chancellor. He discovered that Mr. Webster was at the Astor House,
and called upon him. Mr. Webster told him that his public and
professional engagements were overwhelming, and that it was
impossible for him to take up anything new. Clarke put a thousand
dollars on the table and pleaded with Mr. Webster to accept a
retainer. Clarke said that Webster looked longingly at the money,
saying: "Young man, you cannot imagine, and I have no words which
can express how much I need that money, but it is impossible.
However, let me see your brief." Webster read it over and then
said to Clarke: "You will not win on that brief, but if you will
incorporate this, I think your case is all right." Clarke said
that when he presented the brief and made his argument before
the chancellor, the chancellor decided in his favor, wholly on
the suggestion made by Mr. Webster. An eminent lawyer told me
that studying Mr. Webster's arguments before the Supreme Court
and the decisions made in those cases he discovered very often
that the opinion of the court followed the reasoning of this
marvellous advocate.
Henry J. Raymond told me the following story of Mr. William H. Seward.
He said that one morning a messenger came to his office (Raymond
at that time was editor of the New York Times) and said that
Mr. Seward was at the Astor House and wanted to see me. When I
arrived Mr. Seward said: "I am on my way to my home at Auburn,
where I am expected to deliver a speech for the whole country in
explanation and defense of our administration. [Johnson was
president.] When I am ready I will wire you, and then send me
one of your best reporters." About two weeks afterwards Mr. Raymond
received this cryptic telegram from Mr. Seward: "Send me the man
of whom I spoke."
When the reporter returned he said to Mr. Raymond: "When I arrived
at Auburn I expected that a great meeting had been advertised, but
there were no handbills, notices, or anything in the local papers,
so I went up to Mr. Seward's house. He said to me: 'I am very
glad to see you. Have you your pencil and note-book? If so, we
will make a speech.' After the dictation Mr. Seward said: 'Please
write that out on every third line, so as to leave room for
corrections, and bring it back to me in the morning.' When I gave
the copy to Mr. Seward, he took it and kept it during the day,
and when I returned in the evening the vacant space had been
filled with corrections and new matter. Mr. Seward said to me:
'Now make me a clean copy as corrected.' When I returned with
the corrected copy he remarked: 'I think you and I made a very
poor speech. Let us try it again.' The same process was repeated
a second time, and this corrected copy of the speech was delivered
in part to a few friends who were called into Mr. Seward's library
for the occasion. The next morning these headlines appeared in
all the leading papers in the country: 'GREAT SPEECH ON BEHALF
OF THE ADMINISTRATION BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE AT A BIG MASS
MEETING AT AUBURN, N. Y.'"
In the career of a statesman a phrase will often make or unmake
his future. In the height of the slavery excitement and while
the enforcement of the fugitive-slave law was arousing the greatest
indignation in the North, Mr. Seward delivered a speech at
Rochester, N. Y., which stirred the country. In that speech,
while paying due deference to the Constitution and the laws, he
very solemnly declared that "there is a higher law." Mr. Seward
sometimes called attention to his position by an oracular utterance
which he left the people to interpret. This phrase, "the higher
law," became of first-class importance, both in Congress, in the
press, and on the platform. On the one side, it was denounced as
treason and anarchy. On the other side, it was the call of
conscience and of the New Testament's teaching of the rights of
man. It was one of the causes of his defeat for the presidency.
Senator Henry Wilson, of Massachusetts, afterwards vice-president,
was in great demand. He was clear in his historical statements
and emphatic in his expression of views. If he had any apprehension
of humor he never showed it in his speeches. His career had been
very picturesque from unskilled laborer to the Senate and the
vice-presidency. The impression he gave was of an example of
American opportunity, and he was more impressive and influential
by his personality and history than by what he said.
One of the most picturesque and popular stump speakers was
Daniel S. Dickinson. He had been a United States senator and
party leader, and was a national figure. His venerable appearance
gave force to his oratory. He seemed to be of great age, but was
remarkably vigorous. His speeches were made up of epigrams which
were quotable and effective. He jumped rapidly from argument to
anecdote and was vitriolic in attack.
I had an interesting experience with Mr. Dickinson when running
for secretary of state in 1863. The drawing card for that year,
and the most sought-after and popular for campaign speaking, was
Governor Andrew, of Massachusetts. He had a series of appointments
in New York State, but on account of some emergency cancelled them
all. The national and State committees selected me to fill his
appointments. The most unsatisfactory and disagreeable job in
the world is to meet the appointments of a popular speaker. The
expectations of the audience have been aroused to a degree by
propaganda advertising the genius and accomplishments of the
expected speaker. The substitute cannot meet those expectations,
and an angry crowd holds him responsible for their disappointment.
When I left the train at the station I was in the midst of a
mass-meeting of several counties at Deposit, N. Y. A large
committee, profusely decorated with campaign badges, were on the
platform to welcome the distinguished war governor of Massachusetts.
I did not meet physically their expectations of an impressive
statesman of dignified presence, wearing a Prince Albert suit
and a top hat. I had been long campaigning, my soft hat was
disreputable, and I had added a large shawl to my campaigning
equipment. Besides that, I was only twenty-eight and looked much
younger. The committee expected at least sixty. Finally the
chairman rushed up to me and said: "You were on the train. Did
you see Governor Andrew, of Massachusetts?" I answered him:
"Governor Andrew is not coming; he has cancelled all his engagements,
and I have been sent to take his place." The chairman gasped and
then exclaimed: "My God!" He very excitedly summoned his fellow
members of the committee and said to them: "Gentlemen, Governor
Andrew is not coming, but the State committee has sent THIS,"
pointing to me. I was the party candidate as secretary of state,
and at the head of the ticket, but nobody asked me who I was, nor
did I tell them. I was left severely alone.
Some time after, the chairman of the committee came to me and
said: "Young fellow, we won't be hard on you, but the State
committee has done this once before. We were promised a very
popular speaker well known among us, but in his place they sent
the damnedest fool who ever stood before an audience. However,
we have sent to Binghamton for Daniel S. Dickinson, and he will
be here in a short time and save our big mass-meeting."
Mr. Dickinson came and delivered a typical speech; every sentence
was a bombshell and its explosion very effective. He had the
privilege of age, and told a story which I would not have dared
to tell, the audience being half women. He said: "Those
constitutional lawyers, who are proclaiming that all Mr. Lincoln's
acts are unconstitutional, don't know any law. They remind me
of a doctor we have up in Binghamton, who has a large practice
because of his fine appearance, his big words, and gold-headed
cane. He was called to see a young lad who was sitting on his
grandmother's lap. After looking at the boy's tongue and feeling
his pulse, he rested his head in deep thought for a while on his
gold-headed cane and then said: 'Madam, this boy has such
difficulties with the epiglottis and such inflamed larynx that
we will have to apply phlebotomy.' The old lady clasped the boy
frantically to her bosom and cried: 'For heaven's sake, doctor,
what on earth can ail the boy that you are going to put all that
on his bottom?'"
Mr. Dickinson introduced me as the head of the State ticket. My
speech proved a success, and the chairman paid me the handsome
compliment of saying: "We are glad they sent you instead of
Governor Andrew."
One of the most effective of our campaign speakers was General Bruce,
of Syracuse, N. Y. The general had practically only one speech,
which was full of picturesque illustrations, striking anecdotes,
and highly wrought-up periods of patriotic exaltation. He delivered
this speech, with necessary variations, through many campaigns.
I was with the general, who was Canal commissioner when I was
secretary of state, on our official tour on the Canal.
One night the general said to me: "Mr. Blank, who has a great
reputation, is speaking in a neighboring town, and I am going to
hear him." He came back enraged and unhappy. In telling me about
it, he said: "That infernal thief delivered my speech word for
word, and better than I can do it myself. I am too old to get up
another one, and, as I love to speak, I am very unhappy."
This illustrated one of the accidents to which a campaign speaker
is liable. The man who stole the general's speech afterwards
played the same trick on me. He came into our State from New England
with a great reputation. He was a very fine elocutionist, of
excellent presence and manner, but utterly incapable of original
thought. He could not prepare a speech of any kind. However,
he had a phenomenal memory. He could listen to a speech made
by another and repeat it perfectly. His attractive appearance,
good voice, and fine elocution made the speech a great success.
Several orators told me that when they found their efforts a failure
they asked for the cause, and discovered that this man had delivered
their speeches a few nights before, and the audience, of course,
thought the last speaker was a fraud and a thief.
General Bruce told me a good campaign story of Senator James W. Nye,
of Nevada. Nye was a prominent lawyer of western New York, and
the most eloquent and witty member of the bar of that section,
and also the most popular campaign speaker. He moved to Nevada
and so impressed the people of that young State that he was elected
United States senator. In the Senate he became a notable figure.
Nye and General Bruce were sent by the national committee to
canvass New England. Nye had become senatorial in his oratory,
with much more dignity and elevation of style than before. He
began his first speech at Bridgeport, Conn., in this way: "Fellow
citizens, I have come three thousand miles from my mountain home,
three thousand feet above the level of the sea, to discuss with
you these vital questions for the safety of our republic." The
next night, at New Haven, he said: "I have come from my mountain
home, five thousand feet above the level of the sea, to discuss
with you these vital questions of the safety of our republic."
Bruce interrupted him, saying: "Why, senator, it was only three
thousand feet last night." Nye turned savagely on Bruce: "Bruce,
you go to the devil!" Resuming with the audience, he remarked
very impressively: "As I was saying, fellow citizens, I have
come from my mountain home, ten thousand feet above the level
of the sea, to, etc."
A story which illustrates and enforces the argument helps a political
speech, and it is often the only part of the speech which is
remembered. I have often heard people say to me: "I heard you
speak thirty, forty, or fifty years ago, and this is the story
you told." Sometimes, however, the story may prove a boomerang
in the most unexpected way.
For many years, when I spoke in northern New York I was always
met at the Syracuse station by a superintendent of the Lackawanna
Railroad with a special train filled with friends. He carried
me up to my destination and brought me back in the morning. It
was his great day of the year, and during the trip he was full
of reminiscences, and mainly of the confidences reposed in him
by the president of the road, my old and valued friend, Samuel Sloan.
One fall he failed to appear, and there was no special train to
meet me. I was told by friends that the reason was his wife had
died and he was in mourning. The morning after the meeting I
started to call upon him, but was informed that he was very hostile
and would not see me. I was not going to lose an old friend like
that and went up to his office. As soon as I entered, he said:
"Go away, I don't want to see you again." I appealed to him,
saying: "I cannot lose so good a friend as you. If there is
anything I have done or said, I will do everything in my power
to make it right." He turned on me sharply and with great emotion
told this story: "My wife and I lived in loving harmony for over
thirty years, and when she died recently I was heartbroken. The
whole town was sympathetic; most of the business houses closed
during the hour of the funeral. I had arranged to have ministers
whom my wife admired, and with them selected passages of scriptures
and hymns to which she was devoted. A new minister in town was
invited by the others to participate, and without my knowledge.
I looked over the congregation, all Mary's friends. I listened
to the services, which Mary herself would have chosen, and said
to Mary's spirit, which I knew to be hovering about: 'We are all
paying you a loving tribute.' Then the new minister had for his
part the announcement and reading of a hymn. At the last Republican
convention at Saratoga, in order to illustrate the condition of
the Democratic party, you told a story about a boy walking among
the children's graves in the old cemetery at Peekskill, eating
green apples and whistling 'Nearer, my God, to Thee.' The new
minister gave that hymn, 'Nearer, my God, to Thee.' Your story
came up in my mind, and I burst out laughing. I disgraced myself,
insulted the memory of Mary, and I never want to see you again."