Woodrow Wilson's speech Final Address in Support of the League of Nations - Term Paper Example

?Persuasive Dis Analysis of Woodrow Wilson's speech, "Final Address in Support of the League of Nations" Persuasive dis s have long been analyzed by many researchers and scholars as these have changed the life and destiny of many people. While persuasive discourses is generally understood as a type of discourse that ‘attempts to effect persuasion’ Tannen widens the meaning of persuasion to “the attempt or intention of one participant to change the behavior, feelings, intentions or viewpoint of another by communicative means.”1 Analyzing Woodrow Wilson’s final address in support of the League of Nations one can find that the speaker makes a number of conscious efforts to persuade his audience to change their attitudes and perspective towards the formation of the new League of Nations. Woodrow Wilson resorts to both explicitly stated arguments and implied arguments to convince his audience. One can read between the lines and find historical evidence to most of the arguments and promptings of the President. At times, one can also notice the deliberate attempts of the speaker to give vent to emotional appeals. The delivery of the speech follows a specific pattern of a persuasive discourse: Woodrow Wilson not only tries to justify the provisions in article ten and eleven of the covenant but he also offers practical solutions for the resentment of the opposing senators. It can thus be noticed that Woodrow Wilson's speech, "Final Address in Support of the League of Nations” is quite persuasive in nature and this paper seeks to make a critical analysis of the speech as an effective piece of persuasive discourse. A critical analysis of Woodrow Wilson’s speech as a persuasive discourse necessitates an in-depth understanding of the various aspects of a persuasive speech. Persuasive speeches are governed by both communicative intentions and persuasive intentions and the ultimate goal of such a discourse is to exert favorable responses in the minds of the audience. Any persuasive speech aims at “influencing values, ideas, beliefs and attitudes of the audience” and as such persuasive speeches try “to convince people to come a different idea, attitude and belief, react to something, consider doing things they were previously unwilling to do.”2 All throughout the speech Woodrow Wilson’s attempts to persuade a target audience are clearly evident. He repeatedly addresses the audience as “fellow countrymen” and “my fellow citizens.” In the very beginning of the speech itself he tries to make a rapport with the audience by explicitly stating that they are not far from him. Towards the second paragraph of his speech Woodrow Wilson introduces the issue of League of Nations by emphasizing that there are ‘organized propaganda against the League of Nations’ and that there are men who “have been busy creating an absolutely false impression of what the treaty of peace and the Covenant of the League of Nations contain and mean.”3 He goes on to purport that it is people who are sympathetic towards certain bodies of foreign nations who protest against the treaty. Wilson also takes conscious efforts to adapt the content of the speech to the ideas, attitudes and values of the audience. He was quite aware that many of the senators and the Americans regarded the treaty as a mere settlement with Germany. He purports: “It is not merely a settlement with Germany; it is a readjustment of those great injustices which underlie the whole structure of European and Asiatic society.”4 He also argues that the treaty is the people’s treaty and that there are several treaties to follow the same line as that of League of Nations. Historical evidences show that Woodrow Wilson toured the whole nation in order to turn the American public opinion in favor of the League of Nations. He paid great value to the settlements agreed at the Paris Peace Conference and it was a very difficult task for him to convince the U.S. Congress and get their approval for the treaty of League of Nations. Even though his final address (as President) in support of the League in Pueblo, CO., on 25 September 1919 was persuasive enough it was quite unfortunate that the treaty of League was rejected by the Congress. Even though the majority of the senators agreed to the formation of the treaty it failed to receive a two thirds majority in the U.S congress. However, one cannot regard Wilson’s speech was completely unsuccessful. In fact, it was Wilson’s attempts that culminated in the formation of the League of Nations even though United States did not become a member nation. In this respect, it is worthwhile to discuss Edwards’ observations on the rhetorical fights over the League of Nations. Analyzing Wilson’s speech Edwards observes that “the president made persuasive arguments, but did not do enough to sway his audiences they should pressure their Senators to pass the League treaty” and that researchers such as Hogan and Andrews (1995) has pointed out that “Wilson‘s rhetoric was dismissive and uncompromising to the reservations of the League‘s opponents.”5 There are also many who believe that it was Wilson’s inability to compromise that made it impossible for the U.S Congress to offer consent for the league. There are many others who believe that it was Wilson’s defective rhetorical choices that prevented him from gaining public support towards the league. As pointed out by Dorsey, even though “Wilson relied on civil religious discourse to influence audiences to pressure their Senators to support the League of Nations” he “failed to mix the secular and the spiritual in his rhetoric, which is required for civil religious arguments to succeed.”6 A close analysis of the speech also shows that the discourse was particularly directed towards the Senate and so the speech could not stir the minds of the common public. His speech met with strong opposition from the Republican politicians William E Borah and Henry Cabot Lodge and Wilson was unwilling to make any sort of compromises. Historical evidences show that it was because the Republicans favored the theory of Isolationism whereby they wanted to remain an independent nation which does not interfere in the affairs of other nations. Similarly, the American general public opinion was against risking American economy and the lives of its soldiers in foreign soils. However, it is history that the foreign policy of the United States in the future deviated itself from isolationism and in a way it was Woodrow Wilson’s far reaching vision that suited the foreign policy of the nation the most. In his speech in support of the League of Nations one can find many instances where Wilson makes conscious efforts to break this theory of isolationism that governed the republican Senate members. It can be seen that Wilson’s persuasive discourse appeals both to the rational and emotional faculty of the audience. He refers to the large number of young Americans who fought and died in France and exhorts the Senators to join hands together to preserve international peace. Similarly, he warns them of the number of young children who would die each year during wars if the League of Nations could not be established. The President tries to boost the morale of all American citizens when he underlines the fact that Americans have a pivotal role in shaping the human history and in ensuring the peace of the world. Similarly, Wilson’s speech makes it clear that “the League of Nations was founded according to the American principles of self-government, open discussion and arbitration instead of war, a universal boycott of an offending nation, disarmament, rehabilitation of oppressed peoples, no annexations but trusteeships, abolition of forced labor especially of women and children, rejection of secret treaties, protection of dependent peoples, high standards of labor, the Red Cross, international regulation of drugs and alcohol, and prohibition of arms sales.”7 It is essential to analyze the specific features of Wilson’s speech to identify how effective a persuasive discourse was his final address in support of the League of Nations. In this respect, it is worthwhile to analyze Monroe's motivational sequence with regard to persuasive speeches. For Monroe persuasive speeches attract the “attention of the audience to some problem that needs solution”; prove ‘the need for improvements and changes of a situation’ by offering effective testimonies that seem to be revolutionary, promising, and positive; display ‘a new workable solution to the problem’; visualize the practical benefits of the new solution and motivate ‘the audience to act according to your plan.’8 Analyzing the overall structure of the speech one can see that Wilson’s oration consists of introducing the issue of League of nations by referring to the ‘organized propaganda’ against it, emphasizing the role and significance of the League, enumerating the advantages of forming the league of nations, explaining the structure of the League and reinstating that the League of Nations can form no policy without the consent of the United States, clarifying the provisions over article ten and eleven, dealing with the consequences of rejecting the League, and at the end of the speech asking his audiences to make a significant choice whether to accept or reject the covenant of the League of nations. It can thus be understood that the President’s address is so carefully crafted to get the desired outcomes and all throughout the speech the conviction and sincerity of the speaker can be traced. Woodrow Wilson’s speech is abundant with explicitly stated arguments whereby he wants to make his audience think in favor of the treaty and covenant. First of all, he argues that the League of Nations is not just a settlement with Germany. On the other hand, he conceives the treaty as “a readjustment of those great injustices which underlie the whole structure of European and Asiatic society.”9 He goes on to purport that the treaty can act as an international tribunal that monitors international unrest and guards the global world against another dreadful World War. In his speech president Wilson offers a long explanation of why the international community has united together under the League of Nations. For him, the member nations in the League of Nations “will never use their power against one another for aggression; that they never will impair the territorial integrity of a neighbor” and “that they never will interfere with the political independence of a neighbor.”10 In this part of the speech president Wilson tries to elaborate on the various benefits of the treaty as he is well aware that this is the only way he can get into the minds of his audience. He goes on to argue that each member nation of the League hereafter will abide by the principles of the treaty and that even when differences arise they will never resort to war first. Instead, he postulates strongly that such differences will be brought before the League of Nations first as a ‘matter of controversy to arbitration’ and the Council of the League of Nations would act as a third party that verifies all the documents and facts. All such disputes will be under the consideration of the Council for the next six months for the Council to offer a judicious advice on the issue. After this stipulated period of six months the member nations are not supposed to go to war for another three months. The intention of the speaker and these explicitly stated arguments are quite persuasive in nature. Wilson wants his Senators to outweigh the benefits of the League of Nations rather than highlighting its disadvantages for the United States. However, being an effective public speaker, Wilson never fails to address the resentments of the Republican Senators who were opposing the treaty. Towards the rest part of his speech Wilson addresses all those issues raised by the Republicans against the League of Nations. Wilson raises a number of rhetorical questions to silence the anti-League of Nations propaganda made by the Republican senators. The President then goes on to enumerate the structure of the League of Nations’ council which acts as its governing body and he makes it clear that without the unanimous vote of the council (of which the United States will be an integral part) no active policy of the League can be ratified. The rhetorical question asked by Wilson, “Does it not evidently follow that the League of Nations can adopt no policy whatever without the consent of the United States?” in this respect, is quite significant.11 On the other hand, it is also quite evident that the United Nation cannot take any individual decisions or frame any active policies without the consent of the other members in the Council comprised of Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan. In his persuasive discourse, Wilson also undermines the possibility of any of the five speaking parts in the assembly namely India, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, and Australia overriding ‘the voice and purpose of the United States.’12 Wilson never forgets to emphasise that it is in ‘the equality of self-governing peoples’, an underlying principle of the United States that the treaty is built.13 For him, every American can be proud of the treaty as it is proposed by an American. All these explicitly stated arguments are most likely to affect any audience as they are all senators who upheld the sovereignty of United States as an independent nation. Wilson’s arguments then are focussed on the two controversial provisions in the treaty-article ten and eleven. One should bear in mind that the Republicans opposed the League of Nations mainly because they misunderstood these two articles as limiting the sovereignty of the United States as an independent nation. Wilson speaks about the need to revolutionize international law and explains that both the articles are aimed at preserving international peace and security whereas the league does not have any right to interfere in the internal affairs of any nation including the United States. While article ten asks each member state “to respect and preserve the territorial integrity and existing political independence of every other member of the league as against external aggression” article eleven guarantees the ‘the territorial integrity or the political independence’ of each of the member nations.14 The President also makes it clear that the council ‘cannot advice without the vote of the United States.’15 To win the favour of his audience the President also confides that his words at the meeting in fact echoed ‘the moral judgement of the United States’ rather than his own personal judgement16. Here the attempt of the speaker is to persuade the audience to think that the League of Nations is for their common good and welfare. Similarly, the reference to Theodore Roosevelt’s speech regarding the need to have a common international tribunal adds more credential to Wilson’s own speech. One can also find a number of implied arguments when one reads between the lines of his persuasive speech. For instance, when Wilson mentions speaks about the perceived disadvantages in the League of Nations he sarcastic ally comments: “Well, whoever told you that either was deliberately falsifying or he had not read the Covenant of the League of Nations.”17 The implied meaning is that it is the Republican senators under Senator Henry Cabot Lodge who deliberately falsified about the treaty and that such opponents of the league are quite unaware of the actual provisions in the Covenant of the League of Nations. Similarly, when the president challenges that there is not even a single gentleman who dares to establish that the interests of the United States are not safeguarded in the treaty the implied argument points towards the organized propaganda against the League of Nations pointed out in the beginning of the speech. In the same way when the president states that the treaty is not merely a settlement with Germany the political undercurrents and the intolerance towards Germany as a nation are implied. Similarly, when Wilson states that the covenant is ‘a tested American document’ the implied argument is that the treaty is quite favourable and beneficial to the nation18. One can also find instances in the speech where Wilson deliberately tries to stir the emotional appeal of the audience. He narrates the episodes of mothers who lost their sons in France in the battlefield who showered him God’s blessings. Even though it was the president who ordered their sons Wilson postulates that they did so because they believed “that their sons saved the liberty of the world” and he exhorts the senators to pay for their sacrifice in the form of the peace treaty he has proposed.19 The narrative style of Woodrow Wilson also deserves attention in this regard. He uses a number of metaphors and imageries in his speech and one can also notice instances of alliteration and assonance in his speech which provides a rhythmic quality to his persuasive discourse. For instance, the use of metaphor in “any man who carries a hyphen about with him carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of this Republic whenever he gets ready” adds to the style of his speech20. Similarly, the employment of imageries such as the League of Nations “will fall down like a house of cards” unless governments stand united and “other things have been blown away like bubbles “etc contribute to the mental pictures in his speech.21 The images of mothers who lost their sons weeping are quite poignant. Similarly instances of alliteration and assonance that contribute to the rhythm of speech are evident in such utterances as “there is nothing in the other contentions with regard to the League of Nations, but there is something in article ten that you ought to realize and ought to accept or reject.”22 Thus, it can be stated that the emotional appeals and stylistic features of the speech has made Wilson’s delivery of the speech quite appealing to any group of audience. Conclusions To conclude it can be observed that even though Woodrow Wilson’s Final Address in Support of the League of Nations failed to serve its persuasive purpose in the senate a close analysis of the speech reveals that it has got all the features of an effective persuasive discourse. That is why this speech has become one of the best hundred speeches in the history of the United States. Similarly, there have been many debates, discussions and scholarly works on the president’s speech. Above all, Wilson’s vision of collective security in the form of the League of Nations became one of the cornerstones of American foreign policy and it is to President Wilson’s credit that the League of Nations later turned out to be the model for the United Nations in the long run. It has rightly been pointed out by Hogan when the author observes that “after World War II Wilson’s vision of American internationalism became his greatest legacy-a legacy that not only shaped cold war policies but that also continues to influence American foreign policy to this day.”23 Thus, historical evidences prove beyond any doubt that Wilson was right in his vision. Thus, there are many historians who believe that if Wilson had won the League of Nations debate there would not have been a Second World War There are others who hold that it was Woodrow Wilson who ultimately won the League of Nations debate as “Wilsonian” approach to foreign affairs” and “Wilsonian internationalism has come to define the American diplomatic tradition” today.24 Thus, Woodrow Wilson’s Final Address in Support of the League of Nations can be categorized as one of the most effective persuasive discourses of all time in the history of the United States. Read More