A Rhetorical Review of President Wilson’s Bold but Failed Final Address in Support of the League of Nations
As the leader of the United States throughout the first World War, President Woodrow Wilson had arguably been more tried and tested than any President since Abraham Lincoln. His ambition and determination became as famous as his stubbornness. At the bloody end of the World War, his patience was razor thin. As the U.S. had recently cemented its position as a world-power, President Wilson felt the nation now assumed a responsibility to encourage international peace, stating that “Neutrality is a negative word. It does not express what America ought to feel. We are not trying to keep out of trouble; we are trying to preserve the foundations on which peace may be rebuilt.” The League of Nations was not merely a required response to the first World War, but the pinnacle of President Wilson’s ambitious desire for an international body which could assure such peace and order around the world: The League of Nations was to be the assurance that no further international tragedies could emerge again. The Final Address in Support of the League of Nations was just that: a pleading of President Wilson to the Senators and American citizens for support of this ambitious idea. Within it, he offered both real terms and lofty goals, including both what the League of Nations ought to be and what had been contributed to it already. The speech was thoroughly detailed in its coverage of the League’s current state of affairs. The great significance of the speech is reinforced by the significance of its intentions, its subject, and its orator. With so much resting on its success, and in consideration of all that was entailed by it, President Wilson’s Final Address in Support of the League of Nations is deserving of closer rhetorical analysis.
The Final Address in Support of the League of Nations, also known as the Pueblo Speech, was delivered on September 25th, 1919 in Pueblo, Colorado. While the rather confined interiors of the Pueblo Town Hall within which it was delivered held no more than two hundred in the audience, the speech in whole or in part was published in newspapers throughout the nation. Those in attendance included Pueblo city officials, Colorado Senators and citizens of Pueblo whom President Wilson refers to as “countrymen”. President Wilson was standing upon a small stage no more than two feet tall, with most of the audience seated in front of him. Of course, there were no cameras, and the speech was not recorded. With limits in media technology still considerable at the time, those attending to report on the speech would have been limited to employees of local newspapers. At the time, having speeches published in newspapers was indeed the best means of ensuring its reception to the nation. However, limiting the speech to print meant that most of the nation would never actually hear or witness the speech being given and therefore miss the President’s passion and charisma that can so often make the difference between a good or strong reception. Nevertheless, copies of the speech would be sent to newspapers both locally and internationally. Therefore, while the physical audience was small and locally limited, newspapers would ensure that this speech be brought in front of the eyes of millions of Americans and, just as importantly, dozens of Republican Senators that remained in need of convincing. While President Wilson had proposed the notion of the League of Nations many times before this speech, his ill health meant that this was to be the last public address on the League of Nations that the President would be able to make before the Senate was to vote on it less than two months later. While the ambitions of the League were understood by most, both the Senate and a large portion of the American people remained skeptical as to the success that such an organization could actually have. The speech was as much a summary of the young League in its current state as it was also a pleading to the Senate and American people for their support of it.
The introduction began on a cordial, inviting note: President Wilson formally welcomed those in attendance and expressed his gratitude for their presence. He noted that the variety of dignitaries and American officials he had recently met with, some of which were in attendance, had only reaffirmed his confidence in the theory of the League itself and remarked that “They come from many origins, but they are all shot through with the same principles and desire the same righteous and honest things.” President Wilson used the theme of principle in his introduction and, though he quickly moved on to the main subject, was very adamant about his appreciation for the “men of principle” with whom he had met so far and expected to work with in the future regarding the League. The speech is a very thorough and, at times, meticulous piece on the League of Nation’s status and promises because there are many different individuals, meetings and sub-treaties which have been essential in the League’s formation thus far that President Wilson discusses.
As a whole, the speech is structured in such a way as to first rationally address criticisms of the League, then explain how the League would ideally function and what measures have already been taken with that ideal in mind and then, lastly, a call for support of the League constituting the closing portion of the speech. The organization of the speech is evident in its entirety, and there is a relatively clear progression of agendas that can be made out when reading the speech from start to finish. However, though the President had structured the speech to roughly fit that format, he did continuously return to a few topics throughout the speech. For example, the President would bring up the role of Germany in the World War constantly. The actions of Germany and the resulting war was used consistently in President Wilson’s argument that the nations of the world needed a governing body. Whether the President was addressing criticisms of the League, speaking on the League’s members or detailing specific policies of the League already developed, the use of Germany and their role in the World War was one of the evident patterns used in the speech to make the case for the League. Though not confusing, this aspect of President Wilson’s speech may have been interpreted as tedious by some for its persistence. However, as the central message of the speech is an argument for the United States’ continual involvement in the League of Nations, it is expected that the party considered to be most at fault for the creation of the World War, Germany, be the subject of thorough discussion. After all, the League of Nations itself was, in part, a direct result of World War I and Germany’s unchecked actions. Another theme that the President would repeatedly return to throughout the speech was that of urgency and resolve. While more conceptual than, say, Germany, President Wilson returned to notions of urgency and resolve throughout the speech on enough occasions to consider it a pattern. Whether talking of policies that had been created within the League, new members to the League or the global political theater as it was at that time, the importance of a swift, calculated response in the form of supporting the League of Nations was an absolute pattern to be picked up on by listeners and readers.
‘‘For what purpose? Reflect, my fellow citizens, that the membership of this great League is going to include all the great fighting nations of the world, as well as the weak ones. It is not for the present going to include Germany, but for the time being Germany is not a great fighting country. All the nations that have power that can be mobilized are going to be members of this League, including the United States.’’ -Paragraph Nine of Wilson’s League of Nations Final Address
Finally, the theme of responsibility was found laced into the speech more consistently than any other message: Specifically, President Wilson continually raised the notion that the United States, now a world-power, owed it to the peoples of more vulnerable nations and situations to create a governing body such as the League of Nations that would afford every nation equal say and vote in world diplomacy. It is clear from the speech that President Wilson felt that, if no action was taken, another great war would soon break out again. Demanding action from the United States and other world-powers, he made clear his anger at the enormous loss of life over what he largely believed was the failure of world-powers to simply communicate and delegate properly. President Wilson referred to the World War as “senseless, needless…” and asked his audience to consider the circumstances of its outbreak to better appreciate the consequences of no communal, governing body for the world’s nations. Evidence is plentiful in anecdotal facts on the names of dignitaries, specific policies drafted within the League and other related facts that keep the audience assured of the President’s thorough knowledge of the subject. Specific South African generals are mentioned by name, for example, as are specific clauses within the League, as is a concise description of a recent summit of dignitaries in Paris: President Wilson ensures that his knowledge and grasp of context is clear. While numbers or statistics are largely void from the speech, President Wilson still speaks in terms of quantities at times by using adjectives such as many, several or few, for example, when referring to populations or countries, among other things. Other evidence is provided by simple recollection of the World War and who was involved, who was marginalized, and other broad-based facts that prove again the President’s competence.
The conclusion was, by design, the less wordy and anecdotally reinforced segment of the speech. There was less mention of specific policies, diplomats and countries, and more talk of general ideas and plays off emotion. Up until the conclusion, the speech was largely, in some form, summarizing what the League of Nations was and consisted of at that point in time. The conclusion, conversely, was President Wilson’s belief of what it could be and why it must be continued. The greatest strength of the conclusion is its appeal to the emotional aspect of argument. The pathos within the conclusion was culminated by the logos arguments within the body of the speech and the ethos appeal used in the beginning by drawing on the theme of principle. In spite of a strong structure and organized use of ethos, pathos and logos, this speech and all prior to it still failed to convince the Senate to allow the United States to join the League of Nations. Even worse, the League itself proved entirely incapable of preventing the very global war it was created to guard against just decades later.
The League, though fundamentally a failure, was still an ambitious attempt at creating such world unity and signaled that with more work, such a governing body might possible, if not in different form. This speech, while failing to persuade the Senate, can perhaps only be held so accountable. The League itself was indeed flawed in many respects, but even so, this speech serves as a strong example of persuasive writing and will likely remain one of the most notable Presidential speeches.
‘‘There is one thing that the American people always rise to and extend their hand to, and that is the truth of justice and of liberty and of peace. We have accepted the truth and we are going to be led by it, and it is going to lead us, and through us the world, out into pastures of quietness and peace such as the world never dreamed of before.’’ -Closing Paragraph of Wilson’s League of Nations Address.
