Citation
Ceremonial speaking and the reinforcing of American nationalism in the South, 1875-1890

Material Information

Title:
Ceremonial speaking and the reinforcing of American nationalism in the South, 1875-1890
Creator:
Towns, Walter Stuart, 1939-
Publication Date:
Copyright Date:
1972
Language:
English
Physical Description:
v, 237 leaves. : ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Ceremonies ( jstor )
Civil wars ( jstor )
Death ( jstor )
Oratory ( jstor )
Peace ( jstor )
Political speeches ( jstor )
Reconciliation ( jstor )
Rhetoric ( jstor )
Soldiers ( jstor )
War ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic -- Speech -- UF ( lcsh )
Nationalism -- United States ( lcsh )
Oratory ( lcsh )
Rhetoric ( lcsh )
Speech thesis Ph. D ( lcsh )
City of Jacksonville ( local )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis -- University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 228-235.
Additional Physical Form:
Also available on World Wide Web
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
022769100 ( AlephBibNum )
14050678 ( OCLC )
ADA8646 ( NOTIS )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text











Ceremonial Speaking and the
F'einforcing of American Nationalism
in the South, 1875-1890
















By

WALTER STUART TOWNS


A D!SSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL
FULF;LLf,.IENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY




UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1972













TABLE OF CONTENTS


ABSTRACT .

CHAPTER

ONE

TWO


THREE


FOUR


FIVE


SIX


Page

. iii


INTRODUCTION . . . . ...

HONORING THE DEAD: MEMORIAL DAY
ADDRESSES AND EULOGIES . .

PRESERVING THE PAST: MONUMENT
DEDICATIONS ...........

RENEW1IvNG OLD FRIENDSHIPS: VETERANS'
REUNIONS . . . . . .

PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE: ACADEMIC
CEREMONIES . . . . . .

CONCLUSION: SOME OBSERVATIONS AND
SUGGESTIONS . . . . . .


APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . .

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . .

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . . . . . . .


. 1


S 25


83


S 131


S 169


S 207

S 225

S 228

S 236












Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the
Graduate Council of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

CEREMONIAL SPEAKING AND THE REINFORCING OF
AMERICAN NATIONALISM IN THE SOUTH, 1875-1890

By

Walter Stuart Towns

March, 1972

Chairman: Dr. Donald E. Williams
Major Department: Speech

This historical-descriptive study examines twenty-six post-Civil

War ceremonial speeches delivered by Southerners to Southern audiences

in an attempt to determine the nature of post-war rhetoric of reconciliation.

The study is limited to speeches made in the geographical area of

the Confederate States of America, with primary focus on Virginia, North

Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. An additional limitation is that the

speakers studied were long-time residents of the South and men who were

commonly recognized leaders in their communities. The speakers include

William B. Bate, J.C.C. Black, Matthew Butler, John W. Daniel, Charles

E.R. Drayton, Clement A. Evans, John B. Gordon, Henry W. Grady, John

Temple Graves, Atticus G. Haygood, Moses D. Hoge, W.B.W. Howe,

Thomas J. Jarvis, John Kemper, David M. Key, Evander M. Law, Fitzhugh

Lee, Thomas M. Logan, Samuel McGowan, U.M. Rose, James W. Throck-

morton, and Alfred Moore Waddell.

iii





The ceremonial situations examined included Memorial Day,

eulogy-producing events, monument dedications, veterans' reunions,

and educational occasions such as commencements and alumni meetings.

The major themes discovered are: (1) Both the South and the North

have made major contributions to the nation's heritage. (2) The South

accepts the verdict of the sword and is ready to participate again in the

national life. (3) The model of Northern and Southern leaders as they

practice reconciliation should be followed by all citizens. (4) The politician

is largely to blame for preventing total reunion. (5) There is a bright future

for the reunited nation and the South will play a vital role in that future.

These speakers also attempted to reinforce American nationalism by

appealing to the human values of patriotism, forgiveness, friendship:

cooperation, and responsibility.

Based on this survey some suggestions are made concerning the

nature of speaking which would reaffirm reconciliation. It is suggested that

a speaker ground his premises on those human values most directly related

to a spirit of harmony, such as patriotism or loyalty, forgiveness, friendship,

cooperation, and responsibility. Second, it is suggested that speakers

intensify these values by illustrating them with contemporary examples of

reconciliation taking place. Again, a speaker's strategy could include

helping his audience accept the fact that in a situation calling for reinsti-

tuting harmony, there is generally a "loser" and a "winner. Finally,

the speech could provide specific examples of what the two factions, sections,

or groups have in common -- either goals and purposes or heritage and

tradition.


iv





Reconciliation is not. analogous to a religious philosophy of

"once saved, always saved." Rather, it is a process with no clearly

definable beginning and with no point in time when one is totally

reconciled. It is more accurate to say that the post-Civil War South

was in the process of becoming reconciled to national goals and

purposes -- a process even yet unfinished. This study examines what

these speakers said on the subject of national reunion and suggests

some possible strategies and considerations for contemporary speakers

who would attempt to reconcile antagonistic elements of our national

life.














CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION



Problem, Purpose, and Method

In 1937 Paul H. Buck wrote that by 1895 the "people of the United

States constituted at last a nation integrated in interests and united in

sentiments." He went on to remark that "within a single generation true

peace had come to those who had been at war."1 Assuming there is at

least a degree of truth in these statements, it is unusual that students of

Anieliucdi public address have not seized uJUpo Buli cks eeirences in ai

attempt to discover the function and place of speech-making along this road

to peace and reunion. What was the nature of the post-war rhetoric of

reconciliation? This is the prime motivating question behind the present

study. It is assumed that part of the answer may be found in an examination

of speeches made by Southerners on ceremonial occasions; this speech

situation is the focus for the present investigation.

Rhetorical critics and speech historians have largely overlooked this

major area of research: post-bellum Southern speaking. The field of public

address history and criticism contains a wealth of articles, theses, and



1 Paul H. Buck, The Road to Reunion, 1865-1900 (New York: Random
House, 1937), pp. 310, 320.







dissertations dealing with various aspects of ante-bellum Southern oratory

and orators, but with the end of the Civil War, the door is almost closed

on nineteenth century Southern speechmaking.2 For example, Robert T.

Oliver's survey, History of Public Speaking in America, discusses briefly

the post-war speaking of Henry W. Grady, L.Q.C. Lamar, and Booker T.

Washington, but leaves the bulk of Southern public address of the period

in limbo. The three-volume History and Criticism of American Public Address

contains essays on Edwin A. Alderman, Grady, Lamar, and Washington, but

ignores other post-war Southern speakers and the reconciliation issue. There

have been dissertations on Joseph E. Brown, Benjamin Morgan Palmer, Robert

Love Taylor, J.L.M. Curry, Zebulon B. Vance, and Washington, but with these

studies, the survey of modern criticisms of post-war nineteenth century

3
Southern public address is about complete. Dallas C. Dickey pointed out



2 I have reached this conclusion after investigating Cleary and Haber-
man's Rhetoric and Public Address, A Bibliography, 1947-1961; Knower's
"Index of Graduate Theses, and Auer's "Dissertations in Progress" both of
which appear annually in Speech Monographs. I have also examined the 1971
edition of the Index of The Quarterly Journal of Speech and the various region-
al speech journals as well as the "Bibliography of Speech and Theatre in the
South" which appears each year in The Southern Speech Journal, and Disserta-
tion Abstracts through 1971.

3 V. Littlefield, "An Evaluation of Joseph E. Brown's Invention." Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 1965; W.J. Lewis, "The Public Speak-
ing of J.L.M. Curry." Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida, 1955;
M. Bauer, "Henry Grady, Spokesman for the New South." Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Wisconsin, 1939; W.C. Eubank, "Benjamin Morgan Palmer, A
Southern Divine." Ph.D. Dissertation, Louisiana State University, 1943;
Raymond W. Buchanan, Jr., "The Epideictic Speaking of Robert Love Taylor
Between 1891 and 1906." Ph.D. Dissertation, Louisiana State University,
1970; F.R. Shirley, "The Rhetoric of Zebulon B. Vance: Tarheel Spokesman."
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida, 1959; W.N. Pitts, Jr., "A
Critical Study of Booker T. Washington -as a Speechmaker, With an Analysis
of Seven Selected Speeches." Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Michigan,
1952.








this vacuum in speech research in 1947 when he said, "The speaking of

southerners on the problems of reconstruction is unknown except for that

of a few men such as Grady and Lamar";4 the situation has not been altered

significantly in the intervening two and a half decades. It is hoped that

this dissertation will begin to open the door to this virtually untouched

resource and thereby help fill this gap in American public address history.

It should be pointed out that the reconciliation process had already

begun by 1875. The General Amnesty Act of 1872, L.Q.C. Lamar's "Eulogy

on Charles Sumner, and countless lesser-known events had encouraged the

reunion process beginning practically with the meeting between Grant and

Lee at Appomattox Courthouse. Therefore, for many Southerners, a feeling

of a re-united nation was already part of their life-style, and orators aimed

their rhetoric at reinforcing this spirit of harmony.

To further illustrate the probability that many Southern orators were

facing audiences at least partly reconciled,one simply needs to recall the

statement Patrick Henry made a century before in the Virginia Ratifying Con-

vention of 1788. Henry, and probably many other Southerners, obviously

had an affection for the new concept of America. In a speech opposing the

proposed American Constitution Henry remarked:

I am a lover of the American Union . . The
dissolution of the Union is most abhorrent to
my mind. The first thing I have at heart is



4 Dallas C. Dickey, "Southern Oratory: A Field for Research,"
The Quarterly Journal of Speech, XXXIII (December, 1947), 461.







American liberty; the second thing is American
Union; and I hope the people of Virginia will
endeavor to preserve that Union.5

Henry's strong American sentiment was doubtless still present in many

Southerners in the immediate pre-Civil War years. An example would be

Robert E. Lee's agonizing decision to leave the Unio* with his native state

and to offer his sword to the Confederacy.

In addition, as James L. Golden demonstrates, there were quite a

few Southerners, who, on the very eve of the civil conflict, deplored and

fought against secession. Sam Houston, the hero of Texas Independence,

remarked in an 1850 Senate speech on the Clay Compromise measures:

If I am of the South, can I not recollect the North?
What is our country? It is a nation composed of
parts, East and West, South and North. It is an
entirety. There are no fractions in it. It is a unit,
and I trust it will so remain. 6

The fact that Houston was Governor of Texas in 1861. attests that there wern

a number of Texans who shared his Unionist sentiment. In 1860, Benjamin I

Perry of South Carolina delivered a speech at the National Democratic Con-

vention in Charleston in which he said he came to the meeting as "a Democr

and a Union man, "who was "determined to do all that I could to preserve the

Democratic party and the Union of the States."7



5 Patrick Henry, "Against the Federal Constitution, Virginia Ratify
Convention, Richmond, June 5, 1788. In Ernest J. Wrage and Barnet Basker-
ville, eds., American Forum (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 196C
p. 16.

6 Quoted in James L. Golden, "The Southern Unionists, 1850-1860.
In Waldo W. Braden, ed., Oratory in the Old South, 1828-1860 (Baton Rouge
Louisiana State University Press, 1970), p. 260.

7 Ibid., p. 273.








In sum, the spirit of national harmony was present in the South.

Many Southerners longed for peace between the sections, as many of the

speeches described in this study reflect. The concept of union was dear

to many, and the Southern speaker's task with these auditors was to rein-

force this attitude. A leading Southern historian, C. Vann Woodward,

confirms this deep-seated Americanism when he writes, "The South was

American a long time before it was Southern in any self-conscious or

distinctive way. "

A description of Southern oratory should be productive in illuminating

the reconciliation process; therefore, the major purpose of this dissertation

will be to characterize Southern ceremonial public speaking as it helped

reinforce the reconciliatory attitudes and actions of the post-Civil War

Southerner. An additional purpose of the dissertation project is simply to

locate ceremonial speech texts for the period 1875 to 1890 in which national

harmony was a theme. No student has made such a collection of prime

sources and it is believed this gathering together of speeches is a contri-

bution in itself.

This first chapter will establish the purpose and parameters of the

study. The second through the fifth chapters will describe what these speakers

said to further reconciliation in various ceremonial situations. In other words,

these chapters will discuss the nature of ceremonial speaking which aimed

at the reestablishing of national harmony. The main body of this inquiry will



b C. Venn Woodward, The Burden of Southern History (Baton Rouge:
Louisiana State University Press, 1960), p. 25.








identify the sub-theme: upon which the reconciliation spokesmen focused

in their effort to reconcile Southerners to political exigencies of the time.

That is, these fourchapters will characterize the values which, together,

made up the content of the reconciliation message. The main body of the

study will also describe the rhetorical strategies employed by the leading

reconciliation orators. This feature of the study will give particular

attention to the rhetorical means by which the speakers sought to reinforce

those values associated with the mood of reconciliation. In sum, it will

be the aim of these four chapters to describe both the what and how of

reconciliatory address, as revealed in the practice of these Southern

speakers. The final chapter will characterize, in an over-all way, the

reconciliation message as expressed by these men, and draw any generali-

zations which may be warranted concerning the nature of reconciliation

oratory. It is anticipated that this descriptive study will expand and

thereby improve our understanding of how a group of speakers on ceremonial

occasions dealt with the task of reinstituting national harmony.9




9 Descriptive studies, according to Auer, are designed to serve one
or more of these goals: "ascertaining norms, establishing goals, or develop
ing methods." This study is primarily concerned with determining,through
observation of speech texts, the norm, or status, of ceremonial public
speaking as it dealt with the problem of national harmony in the post-Civil
War South. In addition, description of what these speakers said about
reconciliation will help expand and improve our knowledge of public address
as a social act. J. Jeffery Auer, An Introduction to Research in Speech (New
York: Harper and Brothers, 1959), p. 35.







Geographical and Chronological
Limits of the Study

This survey will be limited to speeches made in the geographical

area of the eleven Confederate States of America.10 Due largely to lack

of available speech texts from some of the states, the primary focus will

be on Virginia, North Carolina,- South Carolina, and Georgia, but will at

the same time include a number of speeches from other Southern states

which will help illustrate and define the Southern strategy of reconciliation

speaking.

A further limitation is that the study will include only those

speakers who were either long-time residents or natives of the South, or

were identified in an integral way with the short-lived Confederacy. In

short, the focus is on those men who had first-hand knowlpdgp of Southern
11
life and values. Yet another limiting factor, by necessity, is that the

study will embrace only those Southern speakers whose speeches have

been recorded and preserved and which are available. The survey is not

concerned just with the nationally famous orators of the post-bellum period

such as Henry W. Grady. It will describe as well addresses presented by

lesser-known men who strove to influence the opinions and values of more

limited areas and groups.



10 The speaking of Southerners in the North has been examined. See
Huber Winton Ellingsworth, "Southern Reconciliation Orators in the North,
1868-1899." Ph.D. Dissertation, Florida State University, 1955.

11 For a definition and discussion of Southern speakers, see Kevin
Kearney, "What's Southern About Southern Oratory? The Southern Speech
Journal, XXXII (Fall, 1966), 19-30.








The limiting dates for this study are 1875 to 1890. Although

these dates may appear to have been chosen arbitrarily, there is a

rationale for limiting the dissertation to this particular time span. In the

first place, political reconstruction was coming to an end in most states

by 1875, although the final settlement was not made in three states (South

Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana) until the celebrated "Compromise of

1877. While the number of Federal troops stationed in the South from 1865

until 1877 were greatly insufficient for their task, 2 their symbolic presence

angered Southerners and made reconciliation efforts more difficult before

their total withdrawal. In fact, one historian believes that for some

Southerners, "military occupation was worse than defeat on the field of

b 13
battle." The process of reconciliation has no clearly defined beginning.

Indeed, much reunion had occurred by 1875; but the various centennial

celebrations for the War of Independence, which began in 1875, can be

seen as one significant milestone in the road to reunion.14 By the following

year, "Northern public opinion was also veering toward sympathy for the

white Southerner,"15 and in 1877, the compromise legislation in the presi-

dential administration of Rutherford B. Hayes touched off a wave of recon:cili

tory efforts such as the President's goodwill trip to the South and his



12 Rembert W. Patrick, The Reconstruction of the Nation (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1967), p. 150.

13 John Hope Franklin, Reconstruction: After the Civil War (Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, 1961), p. 35.

14 Buck, Road to Reunion, p. 139.

15 Patrick, Reconstruction of the Nation, p. 250.








participation in Memorial Day services in Tennessee.16 Even some of

the Northern "bloody shirt" orators, such as Robert G. Ingersoll, who

fanned the flames of sectionalism after the war, began to support

reconciliation by 1877; Southerners such as Lamar, Hill, and John B.

Gordon responded with similar messages.17 Patrick believes that by

1876-1877 "the time for vengeance had passed; the day of understanding

and appreciation had arrived. Former anti-southern journalists shifted

their bias."18 In other words, prior to the mid-1870's feelings were still

so intense between the sections that reconciliatory rhetoric often fell

upon rocky soil. With the ending of political reconstruction, the total

withdrawal of the token forces of occupation and the essential abandonment

of the "Negro question" to Southern solutions, the ground was more fertile

and speakers were able to reinforce the latent feelings of intersectional

peace and harmony. One can suspect that most Americans longed for a true

national reunion after decades of bitterness and bloodshed. Although there

had been, of course, efforts to promote national harmony prior to the end of

political reconstruction, the process toward intersectional peace gained

impetus in the 1875-1877 period; it suggests an appropriate starting point

for this study.



16 Buck, Road to Reunion, p. 107.

17 Ibid., pp. 108-109.

18 Patrick, Reconstruction of the Nation, p. 290.







Fifteen years later, in 1890, the farmer's revolt against the

"Redeemers," the established white conservative order -- reached its

peak. The success in 1890 of the Farmers' Alliance candidates19 reflected

marked agrarian discontent with the men who had controlled the Southern

states since the mid-seventies. With the election of agrarian Benjamin

Ryan Tillman of South Carolina and James S. Hogg of Texas to their states'

governorship in 1890, the Redeemers were overthrown and a new order took

their place. 20 According to Clark and Kirwan, "A political revolution of a

sort took place in the South in the early 1890's as veterans of State legis-

latures and of Congress were replaced by tillers of the soil. "21 The Ocala,

Florida, meeting of the Southern Farmers' Alliance in 1890 formed what was

to be the platform of the soon-to-be-created Populist Party, thus helping

to identify 1890 as a turning-point year in Southern life. To a large degree,

the process of reunion and reconciliation had run its course by 1890; the

South, as a region, was again in the mainstream of national life, participating

in large-scale public deliberation on popular issues. By the time of the

Spanish American War in 1898, the nation was functionally reunited in the



9 Seven Southern states elected Alliance legislatures and forty-
four Alliancemen were elected to the House of Representatives. Theodore
Saloutos, Farmer Movements in the South, 1865-1933 (Lincoln: University
of Nebraska Press, 1964), p. 116.

20 Woodward, Origins of the New South, 1877-1913 (Baton Rouge:
Louisiana State University Press, 1951), p. 204.

21 Thomas D. Clark and Albert D. Kirwan, The South Since
Appomattox, A Century of Regional Change (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1967), p. 69.








face of a common enemy, with the South furnishing many of the nation's

fighting men. Since 1890 marks the beginning of the end for the reconcilia-

tion-oriented leadership of the Southern states, it presents a useful date

with which to terminate this examination of Southern public address.



The Ceremonial Address

Since it is the position of this study that these speakers who pro-

jected the reconciliation message were primarily concerned with reinforcing

the sentiment of American nationalism, the ceremonial speech was selected

as an appropriate type of speech to examine. As shall be demonstrated,

this speech situation is designed to reaffirm values generally held by an

audience. This speech type played a large role in the life of the post-war

South, as, indeed, it did everywhere in the nation until the advent of

nationwide radio, television, and spectator sports. The Memorial Day or

Fourth of July oration, for example, was a community-wide celebration, and

to be selected as the "orator of the day" was a true honor. In nineteenth

century America, the ceremonial occasion served as a focal point for social

fellowship and, as such, as a key factor in reinforcing community values.

These speeches were often printed, thereby enhancing their potential to

reach a wider audience. This wider distribution implied also that a large

and influential segment of the listeners felt them to be important.

For over two thousand years of public speaking theory and criticism

men have written about the ceremonial address. For Aristotle, the epideictic

was one of the three major forms of Athenian public address. The epideictic







speech was presented to groups on special memorial and celebration days

and was designed for praise or blame of a man or institution.22 It is the

position of this study that the epideictic is a species of a larger, more

encompassing type of address to be labeled here the ceremonial. In

America the Boston Massacre and Fourth of July orations, Memorial Day

addresses, funeral sermons, graduation and bacculatreate addresses,

building dedications, Thanksgiving and Election Day sermons, after-dinner

speeches, convention keynote speeches, and presidential inaugural addresses

are examples of a major speaking genre -- the ceremonial -- which became

part of our oral tradition.

What is the basic function of the address presented on certain

ceremonial days in honor of standardized, conventionalized events? It

seems rather obvious that the chief purpose is to confirm, support, reinforce,

and affirm shared community values Or to put it a different way, to reinforce

community cohesiveness. Many writers have commented on this form of

oratory and its social role. For example, Wil A. Linkugel, R.R. Allen, and

Richard L. Johannesen, in their anthology, Contemporary American Speeches,

point out that on certain occasions,



22 Richard Chase, "The Classical Conception of Epideictic,"
The Quarterly Journal of Speech,XLVII (October, 1961), 299. It should be
recalled, however, that Charles Sears Baldwin, in referring to the trans-
lation of the Greek term for this type of oratory, says: "' demonstrative' is
flatly a mistranslation, 'oratory of display' is quite too narrow a translation,
and 'epideictic' is not a translation at all . .. The French equivalent is
discours de circonstance." Ancient Rhetoric and Poetic (Gloucester,
Massachusetts: Peter Smith, 1959), p. 15.




13

speakers address audiences about the values that
both share as members of a common group. The
speeches given in such moments are thus noncon-
troversial for a specific audience. They dohot
urge adoption of new values or rejection of old
values. Rather, they seek to reinforce and re-
vitalize the existing audience values. The speaker
seeks unity of spirit or a re-energizing of effort or
commitment; he tries to inspire, to kindle enthusiasm
or to deepen feelings of awe, respect, and devotion.23

John D. Groppe points out that "social ritual is employed on rather specialized

social occasions, such as a group's formal, public occasions, as a means of

manifesting and achieving solidarity." On these occasions, the speeches

presented "are analogues of the creeds that are recited by congregations in

Christian churches . to manifest the unity of the group. "24 In writing

about Memorial Day and rites such as Armistice and Veterans Day, Lloyd

Warner says they are "rituals of a sacred symbol system which functions

periodically to unify the whole community, with its conflicting symbols and

its opposing, autonomous churches and associations.25

-Samuel R. Johnson, in presenting a critique of the Aristotelian model

of epideictic speaking, asserts that "American epideictic speaking is most

often confirmational." He argues that the speaker's purpose may not be to

praise or blame at all, but may be "to speak for maintenance value."26



23 Wil A. Linkugel, R.R. Allen, and Richard L. Johannesen, Con-
temporary American Speeches, 2nd ed. (Belmont, California: Wadsworth
Publishing Company, 1969), p. 278. Italics supplied.

24 John D. Groppe, "Ritualistic Language," The South Atlantic
Quarterly,LXIX (Winter, 1970), 63.

25 W. Lloyd Warner, American Life, Dream and Reality (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1953), p. 3.

26 Samuel R. Johnson, "The Non-Aristotelian Nature of Samoan
Ceremonial Oratory, Western Speech,XXXIV (Fall, 1970), 273. It should








William J. Brandt observes, however, that the speech of praise --

central to the Aristotelian concept of epideictic -- performs an "important

civic function, for as it praises a person, it reaffirms the "traditional

values upon which such praise was based. It was thus an affirmation of
,, 17
community solidarity. "2

Thus, an important aspect of the ceremonial address is its emphasis

upon community values. The focus is not upon expediency or practicality as

in deliberative, political, policy-making oratory. Nor is the forensic speech

one which centers upon values -- other than the ultimate goal-value of

justice. Here the question is guilt or innocence. But the ceremonial address

is value oriented; it functions to reinforce values. It goes to the very bed

rock of society and employs as its subject matter values that society holds

dear. Indeed, human values must exist before standards of guilt and

innocence can be established and before policy can be determined and action

urged. Ceremonial oratory is, therefore, basically conservative in the best

sense of that word, since it attempts to reaffirm the basic values of a society.



be pointed out, however, that while this student agrees with some of his
conclusions regarding ceremonial speaking, one of Tohnson's contentions,
namely that ceremonial address is "relatively unstructured," is not con-
sidered accurate. Instead, it would appear that ceremonial address is rather
rigidly bound by the situation of the ceremonial event and that audience
expectations play a large role. For further demonstration of the situational
demands on the ceremonial speaker, see Ronald H. Carpenter and Robert V.
Seltzer, "Situational Style and the Rotunda Eulogies," Central States Speech
Journal,XXII (Spring, 1971), 11-15.

27 William J. Brandt, The Rhetoric of Argumentation (Indianapolis:
Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1970), p. 13.








An additional purpose of ceremonial oratory is suggested by

Johnson when he discusses ceremonial address as "oratory of display."

He observes that sometimes the speaker may be addressing the audience

"merely for the satisfaction of the audience and speaker. "28 Brandt also

recognizes this purpose, pointing out that "the oratot who was not partic-

ularly awed by the ceremonial occasion could see in an epideictic oration

a handsome opportunity for personal display."29 Edward P.J. Corbett, in

discussing ceremonial addresses describes it as the "oratory of display, "

in which the speaker is "not so much concerned with persuading an audience

as with pleasing it or inspiring it. "30

J. Richard Chase, in his survey of "The Classic Conception of

Epideictic, "31 shows that Aristotle believed that in epideictic speaking

the audience's "interest is centered upon the speaker's performance." Chase

says this is the focus for, "in epideictic there is no burning issue that

demands a decision. Thus the listener, not caught up in the conflict of

ideas, can better appreciate the artistic efforts of the speaker. Brandt

also makes this distinction, observing that, "members of the audience were

spectators, presumably because they shared the sentiments of the speaker

even before he began. "32



28 Johnson, "Non-Aristotelian Nature," 273.

29 Brandt, Rhetoric of Argumentation, p. 13.

30 Edward P.T. Corbett, Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1965), p. 29.

31 Chase, "Classical Conception," 295, 296.

32 Brandt, Rhetoric of Argumentation, pp. 12--13.








It should be clearly pointed out that the distinctions between'the

three forms of oratory -- deliberative, forensic, and epideictic -- are not

rigid nor mutually exclusive. Writes Corbett:

Ceremonial discourse sometimes shades off into
deliberative discourse, sometimes into judicial.
The ceremonial orator did indeed seem to be more
intent on impressing the audience with the eloquence
of his laudatory efforts than he did in persuading his
audience to adopt a certain course of action. But in
praising a great man, he was suggesting, indirectly
at least, that his audience go and do likewise; and in
thus suggesting a course of action he was moving over
into the realm of deliberative discourse. Likewise,
when he praised or censured a man, he encroached on
the province of judicial discourse, because like the
lawyer in the courtroom he seemed to be engaged in
exonerating or discrediting someone.33

As this passage from Corbett demonstrates, there is much overlapping

of Aristotle's three divisions of the rhetorical act -- perhaps so much th'at

they become practically meaningless.34 For instance, there is the function

of counseling, normally considered the prime aim of the deliberative, policy-

making speech. In the final analysis, the ultimate rationale of all rhetoric

is counseling: helping an audience make decisions based on what the speaker

sees as truth, the best solution to a problem, the best value to be upheld,

or the guilt or innocence, worthiness or unworthiness of a person. Yet in a



33 Corbett, Classical Rhetoric, p. 139.

34 For example, Donald C. Bryant, in his essay, "Rhetoric: Its
Function and Its Scope," says that "any systematic construction of human
phenomena, even Aristotle's, will either leave out something important and
significant or will include a category, however named, which is, in effect,
'miscellaneous.' That I think Aristotle did in discussing the rhetoric of
the ceremonial or epideictic speech." Quarterly Journal of Speech, XXXIX
(December, 1953), 405.







narrower sense than this, there is a counseling dimension of a speech

presented at a ceremonial situation. A hypothetical example should help

make this point clear.

Suppose that a speaker, addressing an audience on Memorial Day,

reinforces the spirit of reunion in an effective manner so that it truly

becomes a meaningful part of the life of a United States Congressman who

was present in the audience. Suppose further that the speaker did not in

any way advocate a policy, state his views on political matters, or do

anything else one might usually consider within the province of a deliber-

ative address. But that Congressman, a week or a month later, recalls

that reunion message and its meaning to him. Because of that speech he

encourages his fellow Congressmen to vote on a certain bill in a way which

will aid in destroying intersectional barriers. That ceremonial speaker,

then, did contribute to the deliberative process -- but did not give a deliber-

ative address as rhetoricians have traditionally thought of it. It is not

within the scope of this study to determine when, or if, this aspect of

ceremonial address occurred. It is simply pointed out as an example of

how the traditional divisions of rhetoric are not mutually exclusive.

Again, ceremonial address can be deliberative -- that is, advice-

giving or counseling -- in yet another situation. The speaker counsels

when he deals with attitudes or opinions held by his auditors which may

be counter to his own point of view or the thesis of his speech. For instance,

when a Southern speaker encouraged his listeners to support the reunion of

the nation, he may have been speaking in the face of deeply held anti-Union

sentiments. Therefore, he is asking his audience to rethink, to deliberate








with themselves, to change this attitude. No vote is taken in a legislative

chamber. Rather, the debate goes on within the listener himself as a result

of our hypothetical speaker's influence on him. Again, this is an aspect of

the ceremonial address with which the present study will not be concerned.

It is simply mentioned as an aspect of the speech type which could, and

probably did, occur.

At any rate, the ceremonial address is basically concerned with first,

reinforcing shared community values and second, with satisfying or enter-

taining an audience with the speaker's display of rhetorical ability. The

first of these functions will be the major focus of this study. It is assumed

that these ceremonial speakers did attempt to reinforce the value goal of

national reunion by calling upon community values such as patriotism,

forgiveness, friendship, and cooperation. This study will attempt to discover

whether, indeed, these speakers did fulfill this value-reinforcing function

of the ceremonial address.

Carroll Arnold, in his study of one of America's greatest ceremonial

speakers, George William Curtis, sums up the genre in this manner:

In general, those who wait upon ceremonial speakers
are drawn from their habitual haunts by a sense of
duty, a personal involvement in the occasion, a
lively curiosity, or -- perhaps most often -- by a
desire to hear a preachment upon the present signi-
ficance of the occasion. And the ceremonial speaker,
freed from the exactions of opposition, from knottily
worded propositions, and from the necessity of
counseling detailed and immediate action, is usually
at liberty to view the celebrated event in its most
symmetrical cosmic attitude. Listener and speaker
are intent upon contemplating together the relation to
the received values honored by all parties. The








celebrants may differ with those outside their bethel,
but differences among themselves are usually excluded
by tacit agreement.

These sanctions of ceremonial address have probably
never been more scrupulously observed in America than
in the late. half of the nineteenth century.35

The body of the study is divided into chapters according to the

various types of important ceremonial occasions under which these speeches

may be grouped: Chapter Two concerns Decoration Day, Memorial Day, and

other eulogy-producing occasions; Chapter Three deals with monument and

statue dedications; Chapter Four discusses Confederate veterans' reunions;

and Chapter Five treats educational occasions such as commencements,

baccalaureates, and alumni gatherings.

The content of these ceremonial speeches which deals with

reconciliation themes, symbols, and values will be described. It is not

the intent of this dissertation to consider ceremonial oratory in general, but

rather to examine how these speakers, on these ceremonial occasions, handled

the theme of national reunion.



Sources and Selection of Speech Texts

It was assumed at the outset of this investigation that public speaking

played some discernible role among the road to reunion in the South. An

attempt was made, therefore, to discover ceremonial speeches which dealt to



35 Carroll C. Arnold, "George William Curtis," in History and
Criticism of American Public Address, Vol. III, ed. by Marie K. Hochmuth
(New York: Longmans, Green and Company, 1955), p. 153. Italics supplied.








some degree with a conciliatory topic: that is, speeches in which the

orator made a direct or a symbolic reference to national reunion, the

causes of disharmony, and solutions to this problem, or a plea for peace

between the North and the South. These speeches were selected because

the speakers attempted to promote good will between the sections.

After consulting^a number of secondary sources describing the

history of the period, the writer compiled a list of speakers who were in

some role or another as public figures. This list was arranged by states,

and a tour of several major Southern historical collections was conducted

in order to locate ceremonial addresses by these men. Speeches were

located in which amity, not emnity, Was an overriding consideration of

the speaker. These speeches are the sources used to describe a portion of

the South's reconciliation speaking.

As pointed out earlier, only those texts of speeches given by South-

erners to Southern audiences, which have been preserved and which have

been found during the research stage, will be utilized in this study. Most

of the speeches examined in this dissertation were printed in pamphlet form

by the speaker himself or by a committee who heard the address and thought

it worthy of recording for a wider audience. 36 The remainder of the speech

texts were found in contemporary newspaper reports of the occasions.



36 Some of the comments regarding the publication of the speeches
are interesting. For example, a committee in writing to Governor Thomas J.
Jarvis of North Carolina requesting permission to publish his speech to the
Society of Alumni at Randolph Macon College felt "assured that happy
results will follow its circulation." Thomas J. Jarvis, Address Delivered
Before the Society of Alumni of Randolph Macon College, June 15, 1881.
(Richmond: Johns and Goolsby, 1881), p. 3.







Admittedly, the bothersome problem of textual authenticity must

be recognized; some of the texts studied probably do not represent a word-

for-word record of what the speaker actually said. For one thing the

speakers may have had a desire to make their speeches "read as well as

possible" when they were published, and second, the possibility for

errors in transcription and printing make it difficult to obtain a verbatim

record of the speeches which were made before the advent of electronic

recorders.37 Doubtless, those speeches which were printed by the speaker

or by a public committee in pamphlet form represent an accurate statement

of the ideational content of the speech. Those speeches discovered in the

public press, however, should be looked upon with some reservation, since

they were often the product of a reporter's memory and his dictation skills.

Probably, however, the basic macrostructure of the content, the ideas

expressed, and the general language used by the speaker is enough similar

to what was verbalized on the platform that these speeches will be useful

in this descriptive study of Southern public speaking.

Studying speeches presented years ago places another burden on the

modern student when one realizes to what a limited extent printed texts

include on-the-spot attempts by the speaker to adapt to his individual audience

and his possible reactions to feedback. For example, the newspaper account

of a speech by John B. Gordon remarks that the orator prefaced his prepared

address by "several minutes impromptu speaking."38 Nowhere in the reports



37 Lester A. Thonssen, A. Craig Baird, and Waldo Braden, Speech
Criticism, 2nd ed. (New York: Ronald Press, 1970), pp. 323-346.

38 Atlanta Constitution (Atlanta, Georgia), April 28, 1887.







of this speech does any hint appear about the content of these impromptu

statements, which doubtless affected the rhetorical situation. If the

critic cannot discover how the speaker might have made immediate adapta-

tions to the audience and social environment, he must neglect consideration

of this potentially important rhetorical tactic.

An additional problem presents itself when one considers the printed

speech text. Speeches are transitory acts. Critics have observed that

there are "many elements of an evanescent sort" present in the speaking

process. These elements are "effective and significant while the speech

is being delivered but irretrievably lost once the speaker leaves the plat-

form. "39 The student and his reader must accept this fact and realize that

not hearing the spoken word and not seeing the gestural language of the

orator nor his physical appearance on the platform, places additional limits

upon the effectiveness of the study.

Most of the speech texts selected for this study, as well as others

which were originally selected but later rejected as either being too repetitious

of other speeches or as not covering the reunion theme in more than just

passing reference, were uncovered during research in the excellent historical

collections at the following University libraries: University of South

Carolina, University of North Carolina (at Chapel Hill), Duke University,

University of Virginia, Louisiana State University, Emory University and

the University of Georgia. Others were selected from the Cossit Library


39 Thonssen, Baird, and Braden, Speech Criticism, p. 9.







in Memphis, Tennessee, and the Little Rock, Arkansas, Public Library,

as well as the Universities of Texas, Houston, Arkansas, Mississippi,

and Florida, and the North Carolina State Library.



Conclusion

Public speaking always grows out of a situational problem in the

speaker's social environment; as Lloyd Bitzer put it, "the situation calls

ii40
the discourse into existence.40 The speaker speaks because he sees --

or thinks he sees -- a problem, or an issue, and has something he wishes

others to hear about it. His discourse may be either appropriate or

inappropriate to that situation. This is for his audience to determine. But

the speaker is compelled by circumstances to respond to what Bitzer calls,

an "exigence," defined as "an imperfection marked by urgency; it is a

defect, an obstacle, something waiting to be done, a thing which is other

than it should be."41 The focus of this study is the exigence of national

disharmony and some of the attempts Southerners made to deal with this

problem.

Study in the field of Southern public address history focusing on the

rhetorical strategy of post-Civil War reconciliation is patently warranted.

At a time in America's history when unity and harmony over national purpose

are practically non-existent for certain segments of our population, when



40 Bitzer, "The Rhetorical Situation," Philosophy and Rhetoric, I
(January, 1968), 2.

41 Ibid., 6.








sectional battles over racial policy echo the debates of the previous

century and when a developing gulf is threatening between those who

would destroy our environment and those who would conserve it, serious

students of communication in American society should focus more

specifically upon research pertaining to reconciliation and national

harmony. Perhaps this study can contribute to this urgent quest by

describing how a group of men, living in the decades following the Civil

War, attempted to mend the spirit of a broken nation.















CHAPTER TWO
HONORING THE DEAD: MEMORIAL DAY ADDRESSES AND EULOGIES


The Civil War ground to a halt in the Spring of 1865. Within a

matter of weeks, Southern women began the practice of honoring their

dead heroes who had fought and died in the "Lost Cause." Indeed this

process had begun in some towns even before the war's end.1 Throughout

the South, springtime flowers were brought to the gravesides as women

attempted to beautify the tombs of the fallen gray-clad soldiers. As the

azealea, wisteria, buttercups, and gardenias bloomed, their blossoms

were brought to the new cemeteries scattered across the Southland --

cemeteries filled with thousands of freshly dug graves. The women of

the South did their share to make the last resting places more elegant

and pleasant that Spring, but they felt more could be done.

Accordingly, the next March, Mrs. Mary Williams of Columbus,

Georgia, wrote a letter to the Columbus Times in behalf of her bereaved

comrades and the men they wished to honor:

The ladies are now and have been for several days
engaged in the sad but pleasant duty of ornamenting
and improving that portion of the city cemetery sacred
to the memory of our gallant Confederate dead, but we



1 Paul S. Buck, The Road to Reunion, 1865-1900 (New York:
.Random House, 1937),p. 120.







feel it is an unfinished work unless a day be set
apart annually for its special attention . .
we can keep alive the memory of the debt we owe
them, by dedicating at least one day in each year
to embellishing their humble graves with flowers . .
and we propose the 26th day of April as the day.2

By 1875 this custom had spread throughout the South, although

there was never any total uniformity in dates. Many localities did adopt

Mrs. Williams' April 26 holiday, but the date varied from town to town.

Certainly there was no uniformity as there was in the North where May 30

was legalized as Memorial Day in 1868 and celebrated as such throughout

that victorious section under the direction of various local posts of the

Grand Army of the Republic.3

An editorial statement in the Atlanta Constitution dated April 22,

1887, explained some of the history of the Confederate memorial observance:

For the past twenty years the people of the South have
been accustomed to gather about the graves of the
heroes of the 'lost cause' on the 26th of April to pay
their tribute . . This beautiful rite was instituted in
Georgia. It was suggested and founded by Mrs. C. H.
Williams of Columbus . . The 26th of April was chosen
because it is the anniversary of the surrender of the last
organized army of the confederacy . . The women of
the South instituted it, and they have constantly maintained
it with loving pride and heroic devotion.4



2 I. W. Avery, The History of the State of Georgia from 1850 to
1881 (New York: Brown and Derby, 1881), p. 715.

3 Buck, Road to Reunion, p. 121.

4 "Shall Memorial Day Be Changed?", Editorial, Atlanta
Constitution (Atlanta, Georgia), April 22, 1887, p. 4.





27

A running controversy in the Constitution over the next few days

gives further insight into the nature of the holiday. The suggestion had

been made to bring the South's celebration into line with the North's

observance of Memorial Day by changing the often-accepted Southern

date of April 26 to May 30 -- which was by the 1880'3 a "national"

holiday. Among the several comments between April 22 and 26 which

appeared in the Constitution there was this notable one from C. H.

Williams, the son of the holiday's founder:

I do not understand how such a change could be
seriously considered for a moment by any one who
comprehends the true tenderly mournful meaning of
our "Memorial Day" . . it is now woven into
the sweet and tender traditions of the south as one
of mourning not of exultation. "Decoration Day" at
the north is celebrated as a day of triumphant exul-
tation over the last expiring gasp of the cause we
seek to mourn for and sanctify in the memory of the
youth of the land.

The editorial writer of the Constitution replied that same day with

the comment that the origin of Confederate Memorial Day "is something

worthy of being remembered with patriotic pride. We owe the day to a

noble southern woman's devotion. "6

Although in due time the South did agree to participate in the

national celebration, April 26 is still Confederate Memorial Day in many

parts of the South.7



5 Letter to the Editor, ibid., April 26, 1887, p. 4.

6 "Suggested by the Day," Editorial, ibid.

7 Confederate Memorial Day is still being observed at various places
in the South. See, for example, the Pensacola (Florida) News Journal,
April 27, 1969, for a brief description of the 1969 observance of the event








In the South, the annual observance was one of the key factors

enabling the "Lost Cause" to achieve potent myth status, by which

several generations of Southerners have lived. If the Lost Cause did

assume a religious character, as two scholars have recently pointed out,8

Confederate Memorial Day (or Decoration Day as it was known in some

places) played a significant role in this process. The Raleigh, North

Carolina, News and Observer clearly expressed in an 1887 editorial the

prevailing sentiment in that region:

Again the 10th of May rolls around and we repair to the
last resting places of those who wore the gray and died
in that patriotic service specially to recall once more
the heroic value of the sleeping army and the virtues of
those who gave up all that made life sweet to go cheerily
to war because it was for home and country. It is a
custom as appropriate as it is touching, and we trust it
-ll alwayss and without breach be observed in our southland9




in that northwest Florida City. See also Herbert F. Birdsey, "Rose Hill
Cemetery -- Macon, Georgia, April 26, 1866 -- April 26, 1966" The
Georgia Review, XXI (Fall, 1967), 370-72.

8 Thomas D. Clark and Albert D. Kirwan, The South Since
Appomattox, A Century of Regional Change (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1967), p. 51.

9 "Memorial Day," Editorial, News and Observer (Raleigh, North
Carolina), May 10, 1887. In her delightful description of Decoration Day,
Margaret Inman Meaders expresses how some in the South needed this
celebration: "The defeated have left to them only the transforming of
grief into glory. Losses can be endured only when wreathed in laurel.
Memories must march to drums; and fears, be beaten down by fifes.
Pride must be reborn before its earlier death can be admitted." "Post-
script to Appomattox: My Grandpa and Decoration Day," The Georgia
Review,XXIV (Fall, 1970), 298-99.







This social phenomenon, heavily steeped in symbolism, is

deserving of careful study. It is important to the present investigation

to report what was said on these annual occasions, and to determine

what role the observance played in the reconciliation process. For

only through this context are we able to understand fully the rhetorical

phenomenon of post-Civil War reconciliation oratory.

A typical Memorial Day ceremony in the South can be characterized

in this way: There was usually a procession of the Confederate veterans

and the women and school children from the center of town to the cemetery

where the bands and choral groups of the locality presented one or two

"appropriate" selections. If held in a hall, the women prepared and

arranged elaborate trappings such as black sashes and drapes, evergreens,

and pictures of the famous deceased such as Robert E. Lee or "Stonewall"

Jackson. The ladies of the community were generally accorded places of

honor both on the platform and in the procession. Prayers were offered

by various clergy members, and there was always the ubiquitous oration,

which was often followed by more prayers and musical selections.

In considering specific celebrations of this event, two speeches

made by the noted Georgia journalist and orator, John Temple Graves,

provide an appropriate starting point. The first of these was delivered at

West Point, Georgia, on April 26, 1876;10 the second was addressed to



10 John Temple Graves, "Memorial Address," Delivered at West
Point, Georgia, April 26, 1876. Text from an undated, newspaper clipping
in John Temple Graves Scrapbook, The South Caroliniana Library, University
of South Carolina.








the Union "Decoration Day" ceremonies in Jacksonville, Florida, on

May 30, 1885.11

The West Point address was one of at least two memorial addresses

Graves made in the two years following the completion of his college work

at the University of Georgia in August, 1875. The other speech was made

in 1877 at LaGrange. Taken together, these two addresses significantly

helped in building Graves' reputation as "the orator of Georgia," as he was

grandly introduced for a speaking engagement at the opening of the 1890

Piedmont Exposition in Atlanta.12 The eulogistic biographical sketch in

A Standard History of Georgia and Georgians says that during his period as

teacher at West Point and La Grange, "he attracted much attention for two

memorial addresses, delivered over the graves of Confederate soldiers."13

The young orator begins his speech14 with a brief statement to the

effect that Memorial Day is the occasion for "grateful memory" of the past



11 Graves, "Union Decoration Day Speech," delivered at Jackson-
ville, Florida, May 30, 1885. Text from an undated, unknown newspaper
clipping in ibid.

12 Atlanta Constitution, October 16, 1890. Clipping in ibid.

13 "John Temple Graves," in Lucian Lamar Knight, A Standard
History of Georgia and Georgians, Vol. VI (Chicago: Lewis Publishing
Company, 1917), p. 2873.

14 The only text found for the La Grange oration is a badly
mutilated copy of a newspaper clipping from which is missing a large
portion of the speech. Therefore, only the earlier West Point address
will be examined. All quotations from the speech are from the text in
Graves Scrapbook.







and a memorial as well to woman's deathless gratitude. He also makes

it clear that "the sorrows, trials, and bitterness of our desolation have

dulled no chord of memory's music. "

After his standard introduction, which points out the significance

of the occasion, Graves moves into a melodramatic portion in which he

paints an emotionally vivid but highly romanticized description of war:

Now we see the glittering sabre gleam in the bouyant
hand and then dash onward to the foe; the grand leaders
calm, serene and dauntless in the jaws of death . .
Then the roar and the rush . death shots falling thick
and fast, like lightning from the mountain cloud . .
Then the slow ambulance and the heated hospital, and
the mangled, bleeding loved ones coming home to linger
or to die.

He perpetuates this mood as he describes the period immediately

after the war:

And after this the calm -- the calm when the storm is
spent and awed nature wonders at the deep repose she
holds. The solemn stillness of despair and desolation
broken only by the miseres /sic/ sighing through the
tall proud pines, with sad soothing to a people mourning
over dead hopes and perished principles in a land strewn
with the salt and ashes of desolation.

The youthful Georgian then turns quickly from the horrors of war

to a glowing tribute to the idealized women of the South who whisper

"comfort to the troubled hearts that droop above these idolized dead."

In a passage more appropriate to his later "New South" advocacy, he

challenges them not only to continue the yearly tribute to the dead, but

also to "work now to build again the land /the Confederates/ died to

save, and make it bloom and blossom like the rose."








Graves makes a smooth transition from the early portion of the

address: "But these are memories and we cannot live in memories for-

ever. There is a clamorous present and an unformed future. We must

live the one and bravely mould the other. "

He then turns to the principal theme of the o-ation, national

reconciliation. He points out that the Southerner still has "a part to

play in our nation's history," that Georgia is still "among the Union of

original states," and that, "we still claim, and justly, the heritage and

honor of American citizens." He urges his listeners to "tear aside this

veil of prejudice and personal feeling" and to "speak peace to the troubled

tides of passion and revenge that sweep upon the surface of our sectional

heart." He feels that Northern "dastardly and designing politicians" have

"fostered and fed the flame of sectional hatred, but that "behind the

prosperous corruption" of these men the South's "Northern brethern"

have hearts "that beat true and pure."

Graves moves ahead with this theme of true peace between the

sections as he urges those Southerners of his generation to "come as brothers

with the clasped hand of brothers, knowing around the common altar of our

common country, no North, no South, no East, no West." He explains that

both sides fought for what they believed, and that had the "political renegades"

left them alone, "they would have clasped hands above the red stream of

their comrades /sic/ blood, and settled there forever the issues of the war. "








He calls for "a sorrowing, regretful sigh about the last home of the

soldier in blue, who fought and died for his belief."

Then Graves almost negates his positive plea for intersectional

harmony by contending that the "truth of history" will vindicate the South

and its role in the preceding "fifteen shadowed years." History, he says,

will compare the principles of these "who are said to have failed, with the

principles of the men who are said to have succeeded": for example,

Jefferson Davis as Secretary of War under President Pierce will be contrasted

with W. W. Belknap, Secretary of War under President Grant. In other

words, the honor and integrity of the lives of Southern leaders are more

lasting than these character attributes as they were reflected by Northern

leaders. This rhetoric of vindication is one of the recurring threads of

Southern oratory for this period and is worthy of a full study itself.

The young Georgian returns to the reconciliation theme, however,

saying, "Now we wish peace and brotherly love . . Oh, we would

plead for peace in this storm lashed motherland!" When the birthday celebra-

tion for the nation's centennial occurs, let the "jubilate of reconciliation

swell out in the grand chant."

Returning to his discussion of Southern principles, Graves urges

his listeners, especially the younger ones, to "remember and cherish

those that have come to you bathed in your fathers' blood. Cling to them,

as the last heritage of a better and a purer day, study them, honor them,

live them out in your lives."







This speech is a curious mixture of reconciliation and vindication;

doubtless, Graves' ex.:reme youth at this point led him to speak cautiously

with reverence for the past (as would be expected by the Memorial Day

audience) and to support staunchly Southern principles (which he never

clearly delineated in any specific way). At the same time, his participation

and membership in a new generation called for him to turn to the future and

urge reconciliation -- if reunion could come without the expense of Southern

tradition and ideals. The following passage illustrates this dichotomy:

God grant that ere my eyes may close forever, I may
see this land which I do love supremely, once again
the sunny South of history, with no gloom of tyranny
or darkness of oppression shrouding her.
When her states shall be sovereign, her people
free, and her liberties disenthralled. When she shall
take her stand co-equal with her brethern of the North
and the wide and measureless chasm which grasping
politicians and thieves have made shall be closed for-
ever by a reunited solidery who weep their mutual dead !
When the time-honored flag of Washington and Jefferson
shall not be foul with the odors of civil rights and race
amalgamation, but with the glorious motto of "Constitutional
Liberty"15 blazing on every fold, it shall sweep triumphant
upon every breeze, in every land, on every sea, fostering
patriotism, awakening freedom and scattering the mists of
tyranny from the world!

Graves' expression of hope for the far distant future, "ere my eyes

may close forever, seems a bit artificial and out of place for a youth of

twenty, but the rest of this passage illustrates the pressures his generation

faced and the major problems they had to deal with: intersectional



15 In the newspaper text found in the Graves Scrapbook, "Consti-
tutional Liberty" has been capitalized and set off by hand in ink with
quotation marks; presumably Graves himself did this.








animosity and racial conflict. It was a plea for the bright future of the

South, but with the North granting many of the South's wishes --

especially in respect to the racial question.

The tone again seems to shift back to the earlier romantic mood as

Graves concludes his address. He thanks the women and once again

gloriously eulogizes the Lost Cause and shows he is aware of and con-

cerned about the expectations of his auditors: "Forgive me if I have made

no florid eulogy above the sweetly sleeping patriot dead. They need no

praise from me where every floweret breathes their fame, and I shrink

from a withered offering." He then concludes with several more romanti-

cized passages and with a stanza from a poem that ends with the hallowed

"name of Lee." Since Robert E. Lee was considered the leading Southern

hero of the War, reference to him was a most appropriate conclusion.

Nine years later, Graves, by this time a prosperous Florida journalist,

participated in a "Decoration Day" celebration in Jacksonville, Florida,

which was sponsored by the Grand Army of the Republic. The scrapbook copy

of this address has a significant note penned across the bottom: "This

speech was one of the most successful of my life." The oration was fairly

brief, in contrast with typical nineteenth century speeches, as, again in

Graves' own words, he spoke "five minutes on the following line." Graves

assessed the event as "a grand affair" in which he spoke to "an immense

concourse of people."16



16 All quotations are from the text in Graves Scrapbook.







The entire address is centered on the theme of reconciliation.

Early in the speech Graves sets the tone by the following clause, "The

Grand Army of the Republic locking arms with the remnant of Confederate

Veterans leads a great host of citizens who sing: 'My Country 'tis of

Thee. "' This skillful juxtaposing of the "Grand Army of the Republic"

with "remnant of the Confederate Veterans" leaves no doubt who was the

victor. Thus, from the beginning, the audience, and the sponsoring organi-

zation, understand clearly who is leading the "great host of citizens."

This represented a marked change from Graves' earlier Confederate

Memorial Day address in which he called for reconciliation only on

Southern terms. Two reasons perhaps can explain this different tone.

First, the North had noticeably capitulated by this time to Southern

demands to "let us settle the race question"; in short, reconciliation, to

the degree that it had occurred, was on Southern terms. So Graves saw

no need to be antagonistic; the South had lost the war, but she had won

the peace.17 In the second place, Graves was doubtless deferring to

the demands of the situation. The G. A. R. was sponsoring the event

at which he was one of the featured speakers; why not bolster its ego --

indeed, could he have performed differently?




17 Woodward writes that in 1877, the North not only withdrew
the remaining Federal troops, they also abandoned the Negro as "a ward
of the nation, gave up trying to guarantee his civil equality, and
acquiesced in "the South's demand that the whole problem be left to the
disposition of the dominant Southern white people." The Strange Career
of Jim Crow, 2nd Rev. Ed. (London: Oxford University Press, 1966),
p. 6.







This entire oration is a prime example of how the rhetorical

situation can drastically shape the nature of a message. The entire

ceremony was oriented toward reconciliation; the resting places of both

Blue and Gray were decorated by the participants. Both Northerners and

their rebel counterparts had a role in the event. Accordingly, Graves'

speech was a total reflection of the occasion and, as such, served to

reinforce the mood generated that day by the rest of the program.

Graves depicts the nation as once again whole: "the bloody

chasm is bridged by Northern heartiness and Southern warmth and mutual

generosity, and the heart of Florida beats at last in loyal unison with the

heart of Maine." The Southern orator points out a number of examples of

reconciliatory efforts on the part of the North in an attempt to illustrate

why the South was ready for this grand day of reconciliation. One of

these occasions was when a Maine regiment sent a memorial to Congress

petitioning for a pension for the "maimed and disabled veterans of the

dead Confederacy." As for Southern evidence that reconciliation had

occurred, Graves cites the fact that the South was sending "sincere and

heartfelt and universal sympathy" to the bedside of the North's great hero

/Grant/, dying in New York."

In concluding, the orator appeals to the whole nation to "chant

the praises of our dead together" and "honor these men simply as soldiers

who fought like lions, who endured like martyrs, and bore the separate

flags of the cause they loved with an heroic faith, a matchless patience, a

splendid patriotism that will live as long as the name of Jackson and





38

the name of Grant." By thus juxtaposing the names of Jackson and Grant,

Graves skillfully implies that the nation is one.

In both of these speeches, one presented by an untested young

man, the other delivered by a respected citizen who had earned a name

for himself, Graves appeals to the traditional Southern value of honor of

the past and paints an optimistic, positive verbal picture of the reunited

nation and its future. He also reflects the Southern respect for womanhood

and the love of a martial spirit. He gaines credibility and audience identity

by urging the listeners to respect and remember the past, then moves to

his advocacy of a reunited nation. Based on these basic strategies, he

builds a reconciliation message which was bound to be appealing to his

auditors.

On May 9, 1879, Alfred Moore Waddell attended a Memorial Day

celebration at New Bern, North Carolina, and delivered "a most scholarly,

beautiful and appropriate address" which "for good taste and ability, has

been rarely equaled and never surpassed by any similar oration in this city. "18

This speechl9 was presented less than a year after Waddell had been

defeated as the incumbent in a race for Congress. Although his defeat



18 Newbernian (New Bern, North Carolina), May 17, 1879.

19 Alfred Moore Waddell, "Memorial Day Address," delivered at
New Bern, North Carolina, May 9, 1879. Text from an undated, unknown
newspaper clipping in Waddell's Papers, Southern Historical Collection,
The University of North Carolina Library, Chapel Hill.




39

had been at least partially caused by a mass circulation of an 1865 speech

he had made advocating limited Negro suffrage,20 the foregoing statement

by a local newswriter reflects that Waddell's credibility was indeed still

strong. According to the newspaper report, "upwards of two thousand

persons" attended the ceremonies. 21

The program itself fit well the demands of the occasion. There was

a choir "composed of many of the best voices in the city" as well as a band

for accompaniment. The first number was "a well known requiem" written

by a North Carolinian, Mrs. Mary Bayard Clarke, "The Guard Around the

Tomb." This piece was followed by "an appropriate prayer" by the Reverend

L. C. Vass of the First Presbyterian Church and another hymn, "Cover Them

Over With Flowers."22

After the mood was thus appropriately created, the Honorable Mr.

Waddell delivered his address.23 It is fitting that this speech is the last

to be considered in this survey of the Memorial Day orations, for the speaker

begins the message with a description of all that he sees a Memorial Day

address as being. His introduction discusses so well what this study bears



20 A. R. Newsome, "Alfred Moore Waddell," Dictionary of American
Biography, XIX, edited by Dumas Malone (New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons, 1936), p. 300.

21 Newbernian, May 17, 1879.

22 Ibid.

23 All the quotations used here are from the newspaper text in
Waddell's Papers.







out concerning the occasion, that it is worth repeating in full:

Ladies of the Memorial Association:

It is customary on these occasions for those who perform
the duty assigned to me today, to paint, as best they may,
that picture of the past on which Southern eyes will always
gaze with admiration, and before which, Scuthern hearts
will always throb with mingled pride and sorrow. They try
to portray in vivid colors the heroism, the splendid courage,
the patient toil and suffering, the unselfish patriotism and
the sublime devotion of our countrymen whc died in an
unequal struggle for the preservation of what they believed
to be the sacred inheritance of constitutional liberty
bequeathed to them by their fathers. The tribute is just,
the service is proper, though mortal tongue may vainly
strive to form in fitting words the thoughts which such an
occasion and such a theme inspire. The season too, is
meet, for it is redolent of hope and promise. Not beneath
withered branches swaying in the winter wind, and admidst
dead leaves strewed upon the naked earth shall such services
be held; but in the tender spring-time, when to the music of
soft winds, odorous with the breath of flowers and gladdened
by the songs of birds, transfigured nature makes manifest the
miracle of the resurrection. Amidst such surroundings we meet
today in this silent city to do honor to the memory of our dead.

After thus sketching what the Memorial Day oration and the ceremonies

should be, Waddell announces he will break the mold: "I am here, not as a

mere eulogist, but as one of the survivors of the war, who, instructed by its

lessons and by the experience of the fourteen years that have elapsed since

its close, deems it wiser to speak more of other things than of our love and

veneration for the memory of our dead kinsmen and friends. He then enhances

his credibility by pointing out that he had given Memorial Day speeches in

other North Carolina cities, in the nation's capital, and "in a Northern city

at the request of thousands of those who confronted us in battle during the

war." He thus presents himself as not only a survivor of the war, but also as

one who has participated actively in public service after the battles were over.








Waddell believes that "war has generally been the precursor of

every advance in civilization"; he develops this idea at some length and

it serves as the major premise for all that follows in the address. The

next major point growing out of his basic assumption is that through the

destruction of slavery the South "reaped a threefold advantage." In the

first place, the South was "relieved of what was an incubus upon us,

and . a reproach in the eyes of other nations." Secondly, the section

has "secured the inestimable benefits of free labor," and, finally, the

defeated nation "returned to /its/ position in the Union, with largely

increased political power, there to remain."24

Then, proceeding on his guiding assumption, Waddell makes the

point that had the Confederacy won the war, the victory would "have been

disastrous to us eventually." He then declares that "our dead died not in

vain" -- a sentiment which doubtless the Ladies of the Memorial Association

were expecting to hear. Because of "their heroic valor and patient fortitude,"

compromise was impossible; thereby those "extreme measures /war and

emancipation/, the inevitable reaction of which must produce the ultimate

prosperity of the South, were brought upon the section.

The orator again reminds his listeners of his basicpoint of view,

that "war has generally been the precursor of every advance in civilization."



24 Some historians have argued, however, that the post-war South
accepted a "humbler position in the government of the nation than the
Old South would have been content to accept." They cite as evidence the
fact that from 1865 to 1968 the South furnished only 14 of 133 cabinet
members and only 7 of 31 Supreme Court Justices. Clark and Kirwan, South
Since Appomattox, p. 52.








The energies released by war "are subsequently directed to the acts of

peace, which thus receive a new impulse and are promoted accordingly."

Therefore, the South's recuperative powers are great and will help the

defeated states meet the responsibilities of the present. He reinforces

a feeling of oneness with the victor by asserting that there are currently

few in the South who would "advocate the separate independence for

which we fought. Again exemplifying the spirit of vindication so often

present in these addresses, Waddell points out that the South's principles

have not changed but simply that "circumstances are entirely different. "

Waddell's second major premise is that civil liberty must be

preserved at all costs and in a government where "law is supreme over

all." Here the orator moves into the reconciliation theme by expressing

his view that these civil liberties are the common interest of every American

citizen. In order to preserve them, the citizens must struggle against

"party and sectional animosity, based upon inherited prejudice and stimulated

by personal ambition." He continues to develop this theme and encourages

all to realize the value in the "union of co-equal states under the consti-

tution" and the laws made under its jurisdiction. He states his hope that

the union will live and "be perpetual." This sentiment is echoed, he says,

from the "earth which holds these ashes," from "where soldiers sleep," and

from "the graves of our forefathers."

Waddell concludes by invoking the last words of Stonewall Jackson --

"Let us cross over the river" -- and by praying for the future peace of "our

Israel."







Memorial Day being what it was -- an occasion to recall the sacri-

fices of life offered up in war with a bitter enemy -- it is surprising that

there was any reconciliatory rhetoric at all. But as we have seen in these

three examples, some Southerners saw this situation as an opportunity to

express their feelings of sectional peace. For the other 364 days of the

year, we can imagine that many, due to the bitterness and animosity still

present in their localities, were compelled to mute their desire for harmony.

But in the quiet cemetery on a day dedicated to honoring the dead, sentiments

bespeaking intersectional peace were not out of place; those whose hearts

were touched by the occasion and surroundings would be susceptible to

oratorical pleas that the sectional hostility which caused the war and which

was further generated by the struggle itself could be at last laid to rest.

The Memorial Day observances provided a natural platform for the speakers

to express their ideas concerning respect for Southern traditions and honor

for Confederate heroes. Once they had convinced their audience that they

were true to the South, they could make their appeals for intersectional

peace and harmony.

Doubtless the sanctity of womanhood in the South contributed greatly

to the success of Memorial Day and the orations delivered for the occasion.

The women, by and large, founded, organized, and sustained the occasion

through their local Memorial Associations. The men doubtless felt that their

support of the services would reflect their honor and respect for the women

of the South. And, of course, their support of the ceremonies would be one

way in which they could compensate for having lost the war. Their humiliation






over their defeat on the battlefields was indeed strong,25 especially after the

glorious send-offs they had received from the hometown women in 1861. The

Confederate soldier felt he owed the Southern woman a great debt; Memorial

Day gave him an opportunity to repay it in part. As one newspaper writer

expressed it, the Memorial services were to be respected because of the

woman's place in it:

In the gentle light of Spring, with the deep blue
heavens above, fair women gather around the
graves on the anniversary of the death of the
Confederacy and cover them with choicest
flowers . . Monuments of stone or bronze are
naught compared to the beautiful ceremony of decor-
ating the mounds over the remains of the heroes who
were buried in the gray . . Then let us gather in
our quiet cemetery tomorrow, and aid the devoted
women of our city and country in paying respect to
the dead of the Lost Cause. 26

Clement Eaton and other Southern historians have demonstrated that

in the immediate post-war years it was the women who felt the most bitterly

toward the despised Yankee.27 In many cases, the soldier was ready to



25 Richard M. Weaver, The Southern Tradition at Bay, A History of
Postbellum Thought, edited by George Core and M. E. Bradford (New York:
Arlington House, 1968), p. 117-8.

26 "Memorial Day," Daily Chronicle and Sentinel (Augusta, Georgia),
April 25, 1875. Women in the South have continued to be in the vanguard of
efforts to praise, recapture, and relive the past. A contemporary example is
the mid-twentieth century historical preservation movement which has perhaps
reached its apex in Savannah, Georgia. As a 1971 article points out, "Women,
in fact, have been a driving force behind Savannah's renaissance. As a young
male restorationist notes: 'They aren't twittering old ladies in tennis shoes.
They use their brains, they work and they've got clout.'" "Saving Savannah,"
Life, May 7, 1971, p. 58.

27 Clement Eaton, The Waning of the Old South Civilization, 1860-
1880's, Mercer University Lamar Memorial Lectures, No. 10 (Athens: Uni-
versity of Georgia Press, 1968), p. 117.







forgive and forget, but the women were hardly so forgiving. This fact tells

us much about demands levied upon the reconciliatory orator, especially

when the occasion at which he spoke was sponsored by local women and

he had been invited by them to participate.

Graves and Waidell were both effective in their attempts to meet

the demands of the situation. By rooting their remarks on reconciliation in

a rhetoric of "vindication" (i.e., the South and her "principles" were right),

these two speakers were able to make their audience more receptive to their

ideas of reconciliation and reunion. By referring to the glories of war to a

people who were traditionally martial in spirit, they could strengthen their

line of argument that intersectional peace was right and good. Through both

these considerations, the speakers were starting with premises already held

by their auditors and moving from them into ideas which were perhaps not

quite so readily acceptable.

In addition, both speakers imbued much of their messages with

sentiments likely to be compelling for the women in their audiences who

- had planned the ceremonies. For instance, Graves on several occasions

praised the women for their role in helping honor the Southern dead. Both

Graves and Waddell recognized that the South had a great resource in her

women, and in general both heaped praise on Southern womanhood and the

chivalric code. Waddell, for example, identified with the sentiments of the

women in his audience by praising them, by asserting that God had ordained

the South's defeat, and by praising the dead and affirming that what they

died for was good.





46

A form of ceremonial address closely related to the Memorial Day

speech which praised the entire body of dead soldiers was the eulogy given

in honor of a single departed citizen. The eulogy has been a part of

Western rhetorical history and theory for twenty-five centuries, but perhaps

nowhere did it exist as a more refined, artistic type of utterance than it did

in the Southern states during the late nineteenth century. The eulogistic

occasion called for an address which exalted the departed as a man of

honor and principle. Facing no small task in discovering ample reason to

pay homage to some of those who had died, the orator of the day considered

carefully how he could discuss the deceased in the best possible light. The

dead who were commemorated had usually participated in the war effort, and

there would have been little or no way to avoid discussing their military

exploits and contributions. Yet, in speaking of their wartime experiences,

the eulogist would have violated the audience's expectations and taboos to

rekindle sectional animosity. The listeners wished to hear of the heroic

aspects of warfare -- their romantic, daring knight with his dashing cavalier

attitudes about war. They did not wish to recall the intersectional hatred

and bitterness that caused the conflict. Therefore, the eulogy afforded an

ideal opportunity to focus on the message of reconciliation.

One of the first post-war deaths of a national figure, which served to

reinforce the reconciliation spirit, was that of President James A. Garfield in

September, 1881. After many weeks of suffering the agony inflicted by the

assassin's bullet, Garfield died in New Jersey. His struggle to avoid death

had been accompanied and followed by the deep concern of the nations of







the world; when he lost the battle, the world grieved. In the South, many

memorial services were held, two of which featured eulogistic sermons

worthy of consideration.

The first eulogy to be examined here was delivered by the Right

Reverend William Bell White Howe, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of

South Carolina, at Grace Church, Charleston, on September 26, 1881.28

The Sunday service represented a combined effort of all the Episcopal

Churches of Charleston; the attendance was described as "very large."29

Bishop Howe begins the oration by pointing out that although the

President of the United States and the Governor of South Carolina had pro-

claimed a day of mourning for the late President, the South Carolinians

were fulfilling "no reluctant but a ready obedience." He then devotes some

time to a discussion of how amazing had been the sympathy demonstrated

around the world for Garfield's months of suffering. It is not the world-wide

attention shown Garfield that is so wonderful to Howe, but the "sympathy for

him in these Southern States, especially the sympathy of this state."

He then tries to determine why it is that the South felt a "very deep

and profound" sympathy over the assassination. He points out that it was not

only Garfield's long and brave effort to live nor yet our respect for his early



28 Right Reverend W. B. W. Howe, Address on the Death of Presi-
dent Garfield (Charleston, South Carolina: The News and Courier Book
Presses, 1881). All the quotations from this speech are from this published
copy found at the University of South Carolina Library.

29 "Garfield's Death," The News and Courier (Charleston, South
Carolina), September 27, 1881.






struggle for education and his climb to the Presidency, but rather, it is

the simple fact that "he was the President of the United States." This

fact alone causes the Southerner to recognize once again that he is a

member of a "body of which /the President/ is the he.d." The long months

of agony suffered by Garfield caused the South to realize, according to the

speaker, that "the United States is one Nation, that we of the South are a

part of that Nation, and that in the death of President Garfield our head was

destroyed, and that we the body were smitten in him."

Reverend Howe then turns from this discussion of why the South was

in sympathy with Garfield -- because he was the American President -- to a

rather lengthy, and,in this critic's judgment, an unnecessary and tasteless

idea in the context of the eulogy for Garfield. He contends that the South

was right in the late Civil War and that "the North was wrong in her inter-

pretation of the fundamental principles of the Constitution. He feels that

the South accepts the defeat and that indeed, the war opened "a new chapter

in American history /in which/ . the future of his growing country may

have its meridian come to birth in great part out of the pangs and travail of

the late war. He makes the statement that the South accepts defeat, but

holds fast to her "former convictions. He cites as evidence the fact that

the South regards those issues which divided the nation as now settled and

its "profound sympathy for our late President based . on the recognition

of the unity of the country, and of him as its legitimate head." If the South

truly did accept the decision of the war, then it could no longer hold fast to

its former convictions which the war had supposedly settled. At any rate,







Bishop Howe's assertion that the South saw the nation to be unified over

the sadness of Garfield's death doubtless served to reinforce that belief,

nascent though it might have been.

The eulogist concludes the assassination shows that "we need .

more reverence for our laws and those in authority." He reflects his

American nativistic fear of foreign-inspired anarchy when he says that

"these lawless disorders in the Old World," such as the murder of the

Russian Emperor, will "find their way to this side of the Atlantic."

Apparently Howe felt some concern that he had not spoken as his

audience had expected him to speak, for he observes, "If I have spoken

today in a way not cdutomary to our pulpit, the occasion which bring us

together will answer as my excuse." Obviously the Bishop believed his

congregation did not like to hear politics from the pulpit: "Because a man

is a clergyman, he is none the less a citizen, but interested equally with

the layman in all that appertains to the welfare and the prosperity of the

country in which he lives." He then cites the Biblical examples of Christ

and St. Paul, who were interested in the political dimension of life..

Near the end of the sermon, Howe repeats his earlier statement that

Southerners were "conscientious in our struggles and in our convictions."

This time he says that "God decided against us." If the South is to be just

to its "living children and in humble submission to the will of God," it must

move into the future, and solve such issues as the Southern race problem and

also the national civil service problem, which had caused the death of

Garfield.







What was Bishop Howe's main purpose in speaking that day to

the assembled Episcopalians of Charleston? Was he merely trying to

pay tribute to the slain President? Or was he concerned with an idea

more fundamental and important? As one observation, Howe is quite

forceful in his statements concerning the role of the President -- the

leader of all the nation. .Very early in his sermon he is careful to assert

that the sympathy shown in the South for Garfield is deep and widespread.

He is equally concerned to express his belief that the President is

ordained by God: that his authority to rule comes from God. These and

other statements regarding the grief and sympathy of the entire nation,

the concern of the American citizen, his repeated use of the phrase "the

Nation, and his description of the "mass of voters," all lead one to

believe that the Bishop's major goal was to express his belief in inter-

sectional reconciliation. He obviously wanted to believe, and hoped his

auditors would believe, that the animosity of past years had died during

the months that Garfield suffered. It does not appear, however, that

Howe was truly convinced himself; perhaps, as he reinforces the belief

in the efficacy of reconciliation several times in the minds of his listeners,

he was similarly reinforcing it in his own mind. He is deeply concerned

about strengthening his listener's feeling for intersectional peace; this

student believes that through the clarity of his message and the positive

repetition of the reconciliation theme, Bishop Howe effectively achieved

this major goal.

Howe is obviously very much concerned about conforming to the

expectations or demands of his specific rhetorical situation. In addition,







he is trying to make his parishioners see that he does have the right to

speak to them about political matters. Yet he is not too sure how they will

respond to this "meddling" in politics. Therefore, he shows that other

great names in the Church had also been so concerned. Thus, a second

purpose -- and one that is important at least to Howe -- is to perform in

the manner congruous with the set expectation of his audience within

their situation. The Bishop shows an admirable awareness of the nature

of his audience, but it can be argued that at points he is overly negative

in his approach. Possibly he is unsure of his leadership of his people

at this particular point in time. There is good reason for Howe to be

concerned that he live up to his auditors' expectations. For the preceding

decade, the Bishop had been deeply involved in a major battle within his

diocese regarding the role of the Negro in the Episcopal Church. Howe,

who was liberal in the matter, was charged by some "with the desire to

ignore racial lines in the church and break down social barriers. "30

Doubtless he was constantly taking care to stay out of troubled waters as

much as possible since this issue was causing so much disharmony within

his state; this speech is a fine example of his concern. He is obviously

aware of the need to consider the expectations and concerns of his auditors,

and such awareness is essential if speech communication is to be effective.



30 Albert Sidney Thomas, A Historical Account of the Protestant
Episcopal Church in South Carolina, 1820-1957 (Columbia: R.L. Bryan,
1957), p. 84. For a full explanation of this struggle, see Thomas,
pp. 88-100.







On October 5, 1881, Atticus G. Haygood delivered a memorial

sermon on Garfield to the newly enrolled students at Emory College, near

Atlanta.31 Obviously, Haygood, the president of Emory, saw the occasion

as one in which he could teach the new students some moral lessons drawn

from the life and death of Garfield; in fact, part of the subtitle reads, "an

incentive to the young men of the Nation. This speech constitutes a good

example of a lecturing style in which most of the supporting materials are

presented in the terms of the speaker's authority and credibility and out of

his personal knowledge and conviction.

Haygood praises the fact that the whole world was aware of Gar-

field's condition each morning "before breakfast" due to the "progress of

the art and inventions of our time." In comparison, he points out that

"when President Harrison died, it was six weeks before the fact was known

in every county east of the Mississippi River. All the world not only

knew of Garfield's suffering, but sympathized with him and his family.

The preacher asserts that he believes every Christian man, woman, and

child were praying to the "good God to spare his life." The impressive

facts of Garfield's funeral "illustrate in reality what we teach in theory --

the brotherhood of the human race."

Although the nation, indeed the world, was praying for the wounded

man, Haygood believes that these prayers were lacking in confession of our



31 Atticus G. Haygood, "Garfield's Memory," Text found in Haygood's
Papers, Emory University Library, Atlanta, Georgia. All quotations are from
this copy. Italics supplied.







common guilt in the killing of Garfield. He expresse;3 his belief that the

assassination "was but the final expression of the rancorous hates, that

have disgraced and dishonored our politics for at least three decades of

bitter years." Later, he remarks, "there is perhaps nothing in the history

of any people that contains so much unmitigated hate and prejudice as the

literature of American politics for a generation past."

Haygood then denounces the excesses of the American political

party battles and the spoils system -- which, to some degree, had led to

the death of Garfield. The President's murder was not only the "final

expression of rancorous hates" between the North and South, but also the

"final expression of the bitterness and prejudice of our politics and of the

greed for office that amounts almost to a national mania." It is at this

point that Haygood turns to his most explicitly moralistic, lecturing style,

"Let us remember, /he says/ it is as murderous to stab a reputation as a

body; it is as devilish to destroy a man's fame by slander as it is to take

his life by shot, or steel, or poison."

The college president then abruptly moves into a discussion of

whether the prayers of the nation were answered. He believes they were,

since Garfield's family was given "great grace" and was "sustained beyond

the power of human fortitude or sympathy." In addition, the prolonging of

the President's life gave time for his successor to become better equipped

for the Presidency and the nation better prepared for a change in administra-

tion. But the chief reason Haygood believes the prayers were answered was

that this long period of suffering brought the nation together as it "had not







been brought together in fifty years." He remarks, "There is more genuine

brotherhood and true national sentiment in the masses of the American people

today than there has been in the last half century." Indeed, Haygood asserts

that Garfield on his death bed had done "more to heal the bleeding wounds

of his country than all others have done since the horrid war began." From

Haygood's point of view, "It was worth dying for to have done such a work."

Turning from this reconciliation theme, Haygood goes to "other

aspects of this man's career." In the first place, he points out, in the

grandest Horatio Alger tradition, Garfield's climb from a "widow's son in

poverty" to the White House is possible only in the United States. His

college career is viewed as an example to be followed by all those students

who wish to raise themselves out of poverty. And, finally the nation

sympathized, not just because Garfield was President, although that

contributed a partial explanation, but also because his personal character

was to be admired and because he was a Christian.

To Haygood, Garfield was "in himself a large expression of the true

American idea of this government." That idea involves several principles

and the speaker mentions three "of the corner-stones": "the perpetual union

of these States," "an unsectional administration of the government," and "a

fair chance and equal justice for all men of every race."

The preacher concludes by pointing out "some duties and principles of

supreme importance" which Garfield's life and death exemplified and which all

add to Haygood's call for national peace. First, "Let us have done with

abuse, and lying, and fraud, and violence, in our politics." Secondly, "We







. should cultivate a true.spirit of national brotherhood." Again he

observes, "to hand down to our children bitterness of a quarrel . is

treason to the country. And, finally, "We owe a dui:y to President

Arthur. His position is difficult, his burden heavy . . We owe him

respect, patience, a fair trial, honest support, and our fervent prayers,

that he may have divine grace and help for the duties of his great office."

Haygood goes on to say: "We cannot afford to return to the old bitter and

savage way; we cannot forget either our own interest in a good government

or the world's stake in this best and greatest of all Republics that ever

flourished or fell. "

At the time Haygood delivered this sermon, he was approaching the

peak of his fame and prestige. His widely hailed "New South" sermon had

been presented the Fall before; his triumphant Northern speaking tour of the

past Winter was over; a Northern banker had donated a large sum to Emory

College because of Haygood's leadership; he was within six months of being

elected Bishop of the Methodist Church (an honor he declined until 1890); and

-- a year later -- he would be appointed General Agent for the John Slater Fund,

which was established by the Northern textile manufacturer for the benefit

of Southern Negro education. He had been the highly successful president

of Emory College since 1875 and had strengthened immensely its sagging

fortunes. As his leading biographer states, "From the summer of 1880 on,

Dr. Haygood's exuberant self-confidence marked him as an extraordinary

man . .. Major credit for this transformation was obviously attributed to

successful management of Emory College during the difficult years before






32
1879.32 Not only had he rescued Emory from financial and enrollment

trouble,33 he had brought a "new seriousness"34 to the Oxford campus.

The students held Dr. Haygood in high regard and they especially liked

to hear him preach.35

This particular speech is obviously designed to instruct and inspire

Haygood's young charges. The pervasive tone of the college president's

address is quite dogmatic, however, and relies heavily on his own personal

credibility to support much of what he says. At other times, his rhetorical

support lies within the auditors themselves as he reinforces ideas which they

doubtless already have. Again, he uses Biblical proof for some of his asser-

tions. But he does not go deeply into elaborate proofs in the development of

his main ideas. Obviously he is confident that his listeners picture him as

a man who can be trusted and believed. This assumption would seem reason-

able, for, as Mann points out in his biography of Haygood, "to all Georgia

Methodists, the pulpit at Oxford . was thought to be, verily, a holy

place.36 Combine this feeling of mystique and awe with Haygood's high

ethos in the eyes of the students and faculty at Emory, and Haygood could

well be expected to lecture in a rather authoritarian manner, and be excused

for it -- indeed, to be highly successful.



32 Harold W. Mann, Atticus Greene Haygood (Athens: University of
Georgia Press, 1965), p. 110.

33 Ibid., pp. 94-5.

34 Ibid., pp. 100-101.

35 Ibid., p. 102.

36 Ibid., p. 19.







Both Howe and Haygood show that Garfield personified the

American ideal: a poor boy raising himself to the White House. As Haygood

puts it, his career "was not and is not possible in any country in the world

but ours . . A country is worth loving and dying for in which such a

career as Garfield's is possible." Howe points out "how he struggled with

poverty and hardships in behalf of mental culture, and how he overcame and

at length rose to the highest office of the State, and then, just as he reached

the summit to which there is no beyond for the American citizen /was killed/. "

Both speakers thus show that this American dream is worth support and

pursuit by their Southern auditors. Garfield, a Northerner, is held up as a

model to follow in the Horatio Alger tradition -- a rhetorical strategy which

doubtless enhanced these speakers' reconciliation effort.

These two ministers also claimed that Garfield's suffering brought

the nation together as one, and that the South lost her President since Gar-

field was, in Haygood's words, "the President of the whole nation." Both

men believed that Garfield would have been just to the South and that --

again to use Haygood's words -- "his administration would tend to restore

the lost brotherhood of our people." In sum, both Howe and Haygood skill-

fully used this national period of mourning as an occasion to call for

national harmony.

On August 7, 1885, the victorious Union General, Ulysses Simpson

Grant, died and many in the South mourned his death. Across the Southland --

in Atlanta, Savannah, Charleston, Knoxville, and in many other Southern

cities and towns -- businesses closed, flags were at mourning height, and bells







tolled. In many of the cities, the Negro churches and Negro militia

organizations held special services and parades. In the capital of the

Confederacy, the Richmond Howitzers fired cannon on the half hour from

sunrise to sunset and the Phil Karney Post of the Grand Army of the

Republic sponsored an honorary burial service for the deceased President.

In Lynchburg, Virginia, all the city offices, banks and a few business

houses were closed in respect and at Pensacola, Florida, bells tolled

from noon until 2:00 p.m. on the eighth of August.37

One of the most impressive services was held at the Methodist

Church in Chattanooga, Tennessee, on Saturday, August 8. The service

was dominated by the reconciliation theme, with each member of the local

G. A. R. being accompanied side-by-side in the procession by an ex-
38
Confederate soldier. The crowd was quite large, with every seat and

all standing room in the church filled, and with "hundreds" standing out-

side the doors.39 Four speakers were included in the ceremonies: two

former Federals, Reverend T. C. Warner and Major C. D. McGuffey, and

two reconstructed Confederates, David M. Key and Reverend J.M. Bachman.40

Reverend Warner delivered a "deeply solemn and impressive" speech during



37 This account of Southern services for General Grant is from The
Daily Register (Columbia, South Carolina), August 9, 1885, p. 1.

38 Ibid.

39 "Services for Grant," Sunday Times (Chattanooga, Tennessee),
August 9, 1885, p. 1.

40 Daily Register.







which tears fell freely from all eyes." He pleaded to God for the "new

made grave /to/ mark a period to all bickering, /and/ sectional prejudices."

Again, he hoped that God would "keep us all an indivisible and a united

people for all time to come."41

This former Yankee Chaplain was followed by David M. Key of

Tennessee, the Postmaster General in President Hayes' administration,

who delivered a brief address which "was listened to with marked attention

throughout"42 and which the second Union speaker, Major McGuffey,

appraised as "eloquent. "43

Judge Key begins the address in a highly personal way by referring

to the honor bestowed upon him by the committee which chose him to repre-

sent the Confederates. He then expresses his awareness of the "delicacy

and embarrassment of the position . and the great danger of saying

something inappropriate to the purposes . or . of giving utterance

to some idea of sentiment contrary to the opinions and feelings of the body

of our people whose representative I am deputed to be."44 He goes on to

say that he is "anxious not to wound or offend."

Key says that although this particular service cannot escape the

"sight and presence" of "our late struggle," he trusts "the time has come



41 Sunday Times.

42 Ibid.

43 Ibid.

44 David M. Key, "Memorial to General Grant," in ibid. All the
quotations from this speech have been taken from this source.








when we can offer . our prejudices and animosities as an unclean

sacrifice . upon the altars of patriotism and religion." The Tennessean

then uses the oft-expressed story of Grant's letter to General Buckner

which observed that the differences between the sections would have been

solved, had the soldiers who had fought the war been left alone to solve

them in their own way. Key believes that those who would prevent recon-

ciliation are those whc "did not seek or find opportunities for heroic

achievement on one side or the other." If one were to look for a person

"who wallows and revels in the bitterness and hates of the past," it would

be seen, once he is found, that his name "was upon no muster roll, or if it

was, the roll tells of no deeds of valor he performed or wounds he endured."

But those who fought for "great principles" on either side were "prepared to

stand by the decision" of arms.

The speaker moves next into his basic theme, that "The South did

not place a proper estimate upon the character, abilities and services of

General Grant . /but now/ they see the man and appreciate and honor

him." He uses two brief analogies -- one of a boy being chastized by his

mother and the other of a man losing a fight. From the analogies he

concludes: it will take time for both the boy and the man to get over their

resentment toward those persons who defeated them.

The former Confederate is careful to point out two examples of

Grant's magnaminity: his not claiming the horses of Southern soldiers after

Appomattox, and his interposition to prevent the arrest of General Robert E.

Lee. Then Key goes on to the ultimate expression of reconciliation:








He /Grant/ believed in the justice of the cause he
had espoused . and for myself, though I zealously
and honestly opposed him and his cause until the end
of the struggle, I am free to say here and now, as I
have said heretofore that it was best for us, for the
South, that General Grant and his cause triumphed, and
there are many, very many thousands of as gallant men
as periled their lives to the Southern cause who are of
the same opinion.

Key then tempers this statement somewhat, pointing out that Grant

could not have fought for any other force than the Union Army, having been

a citizen and a native of free states; according to the "Southern theory of

the powers of the general and State governments," he "would have been a

traitor to both had he joined the South." He then goes on to contend that

Grant should be honored by the South because of "his success over a

powerful and gallant foe." The future will praise Grant even more, contends

Key, "when the smoke of the strife in which he engaged shall have lifted and

the passions and prejudices of our times have been forgotten."

Key concludes by praising Grant: "The brightest star has fallen

from our nation's firmament, but the story of its lustre and beauty shall

live as long as history and song shall last."

At some point in the speech -- apparently after his formal presentation

had closed -- Key told two stories from his own personal experience with

Grant which reflect the dead General's kind feelings toward Southerners, his

compassion for others, and his modesty. Although it is impossible to tell

from the newspaper report at what point in the speech the speaker told these

stories, it is obvious that they effectively supplemented his very personal







introduction and related well with the tone of reconciliation and sectional

harmony which Key was careful to create and sustain in his message.

This speech is a skillful adaptation to the difficult situation. Key

is in an awkward position as he acknowledges early in the address and, as

he says, he is "anxious not to wound or offend." His words reflect that

there are some "unreconstructed" rebels in the audience who have no love

or respect for Grant; after all, as he put it, Grant "had triumphed over the

principles they held sacred." What could he say that would temper their

feelings against Grant, pay the dead General honor and respect, and yet

not build a barrier between himself and his rebel auditors?

His prestige as the Southerner who was an integral part of the bargain

of 1877 -- Hayes agreed to appoint him as a cabinet member -- gave him a

certain aura of respect. As we have seen, his speech is diplomatic and

courteous, as warranted by the situation. By pointing out in the first

moments of the address that he does not wish to "wound or offend," Key lets

his audience know that he does not intend to stir up animosities, but rather

will speak for intersectional peace. He, like many other post-war speakers

who wished to advocate reunion, placed the blame for reconstruction and

disharmony on politicians and not on the general citizen on both sides who

had "risked his honor and his life." He asks Northerners in his audience

to accept the fact of human nature that the South only recently is coming to

"place a proper estimate" on the life of Grant, and thereby excuses the South

for not honoring Grant as it should have. By showing specific examples of

how magnanimous Grant was, Key leads the Southerners in his audience to

see virtue in a Northern hero. He says that in all of Grant's military and








civil dealings with the South he was "kindly and generous to his Southern

opponents when he had the opportunity." Therefore, the South could have

no reason to dislike him or to fail to honor him. If the South could respect

Grant, progress toward reconciliation could be made. Key devotes most of

his speech to this strategy: showing the South how fine a man Grant really

was. In support of this approach, Key uses some personal experiences he

had with Grant, thus giving a deeper sense of credibility to his remarks.

His speech surely helped to bridge the chasm between the Northerners and

Southerners present in his audience by instilling respect for the late Presi-

dent and victorious Union commander.

In the closing year of the 1880s Jefferson Davis, the only

President of the Confederate States of Anierica.died at his home on the

Mississippi Gulf Coast. Although Davis had been maligned by Northerner

and Southerner alike, his death brought waves of sorrow across Dixie. It

appeared almost that his fellow Southerners wished to do penitence for the

harsh feelings they had felt toward their President who had failed. The

North's treatment of Davis after the war, while admittedly not harsh, had

strengthened in some Southerners their hatred for the North45 and added to

the need for reconciliation. Southern sympathy abounded for Davis, and at

the same time the death of the CSA President opened the floodgates for a

new surge of the reconciliation spirit, as reflected and encouraged in two

selected speeches.


45 Eaton, Waning of Old South, p. 119.







The first was given in Richmond, Virginia, by Reverend Moses

Drury Hoge on December 11, 1889,46 and the other was presented two

days later in Little Rock, Arkansas, by Judge U.M. Rose.47 The first

was delivered to an audience in the Second Presbyterian Church of Rich-

mond and the second in a more secular setting, the Hall of the Arkansas

House of Representatives. These speeches were not selected because

of any significant degree of representativeness; they are being discussed

here simply because they are the only texts of eulogies for Davis that were

found. They will reflect, however, what was said in two separate states

with presumably different type auditors: the one, the heartland of the

Confederacy; the other, a "border state."

In the former capital of the Confederacy, sorrow ran deeply. The

Second Presbyterian Church, a congregation "of great influence in the

Presbyterian Church of the United States, 48 was "crowded from floor to

dome, and hundreds of people stood in the aisles and around the doors,

such was their eagerness to hear the address"49 at this memorial service.



46 Reverend Moses D. Hoge, "Address on Jefferson Davis," delivered
in Richmond, Virginia, December 11, 1889. Text of speech printed in The
Central Presbyterian-Supplement N.D., N.P. Copy in Alderman Library,
University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

47 U.M. Rose, "Memorial Address on the Life, Character and Public
Services of Jefferson Davis," delivered in Little Rock, Arkansas, December 13,
1889. Text in U.M. Rose, Addresses of U.M. Rose, With a Brief Memoir by
George B. Rose. Ed. by George B. Rose (Chicago: George I. Jones, 1914).

48 Joseph D. Eggleston, "Moses Drury Hoge," Dictionary of
American Biography, IX, Ed. by Dumas Malone (New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1932), p. 121.

49 The Central Presbyterian-Supplement.









Hoge had come to this church as its first pastor in 1E45, two years after

he had finished his academic program at Virginia's Union Theological

Seminary, and had remained with the church until his death in 1899. His

great ethos lent additional power to this service for Davis, and,due to the

location, the prestige of the church, and the close relationship of the

pastor to Davis himself during the war years, this simple ceremony in

Richmond was doubtless second in importance only to the actual funeral

itself in New Orleans. Hoge was at the peak of his fame in 1889, having

made one of the principal addresses at the London Alliance of Reformed

Churches in 1889 and was one of the leading speakers at the Boston meeting

of the Evangelical Alliance for the United States in 1889. The following year

he was "proclaimed the first citizen of Richmond by the people of Richmond,

regardless of race or creed."50

Reverend Hoge begins his address by an astute introduction which

relates him in a very personal way to President Davis. He says that he

heard Davis' first speech to the people of Richmond, heard his inaugural

address, had ridden horseback with him "along the lines of fortification

which guarded the city, "had experiences of his courtesy in his house and

in his office, and was with Davis after the evacuation of Richmond. All

these experiences "enabled me to learn the personal traits which characterized

him as a man, as well as the official and public acts which marked his admin-

istration. "


50 Eggleston, "Hoge,", pp. 121-22.








After thus relating himself closely to Davis, Hoge moves into the

major reconciliatory discussion in the oration, describing how it is the

duty of the minister

to soften asperities, to reconcile antagonistic elements,
to plead for mutual forbearance, to urge such devotion
to the common weal as to bring all the people, North,
South, East and West, into harmonious relations with
each other, so as to combine all the resources of the
entire country into unity of effort for the welfare of the
whole.

He then says that "there are no geographical boundaries to the

qualities which constitute noble manhood," so there should be many in

states outside the South "who will be in sympathy with the eulogies which

will be pronounced to-day."

This address could well have been titled, "Statesman for Our Time,"

for this topic is what the minister spends much of his time discussing: "The

qualities and attributes which constitute the patriot statesman." In the

first place, the eulogist observes, we need men "who are profound students

of History, philosophy, and ethics /emphasis his/." He uses as examples

the founding fathers, and he brings them before the audience through rhetorical

questions which require the listener to think with the speaker in order to

reach the conclusion. For example, Hoge says, "Who wrote the Declaration

of Independence and the Constitution . . ? Who built up our system of

Jurisprudence?" For centuries, the rhetorical question has been thought of

as a useful tactical tool for the speaker, and Reverend Hoge employs them

most effectively in this address. Secondly, he contends, the country now

needs men who can "lead public opinion . instead of waiting to ascertain







the popular drift. And in the third place, the statesmen of the day should

be men of unquestioned integrity.

In this rather lengthy discussion of the qualities and attributes

needed in our legislative leaders, Hoge is making a subtle, but forceful

criticism of the composition of the current Congress, with its domination

of business-oriented men. He attempts to demonstrate that the nation

needs leaders with more than merely this business-industrial background,

and implies that Congress is less effective because its members are too

exclusively oriented to the world of finance and industry. He handles his

criticism so skillfully, however, that the leading railroad magnate or

Congressman could hardly take exception. For example, as Hoge develops

this portion of his speech, he admits that commercial background is useful

and necessary for some of our legislators; others need training in history,

philosophy and ethics either along with or in lieu of their business training.

He then implies that our representatives should be similar to men like

Burke, Fox, Chatham, and Peel, or men with the attributes of Jefferson,

Madison, or Washington. Holding up these ideals could serve to inspire

our delegates, while at the same time subtly reminding them that they did

not fit this mold. Still holding up an ideal to the business-oriented Congress

and political leadership, Hoge says the statesman must have the "courage

and the ability to lead public opinion in ways that are right, instead of

waiting to ascertain the popular drift, no matter how base, that he may

servilely follow it." Again presenting the ideal political leader as a man of







integrity with "untarnished honor, incorruptible honesty, and the courage

to do right at any hazard, Hoge establishes an inspiring goal with which

few Congressmen could disagree.

The preacher closes by a summary statement that if we "duly heed"

these lessons, "this solemnity . will be a preparation for the time when

we shall follow our departed chief. He then pronounces a benediction

statement and the services close with the singing of a hymn and a benedic-

tion by one of the other ministers present.

This speech by Reverend Hoge is a masterpiece of nineteenth-century

public address. Its organization is tightly knit; smooth transitions make it

easy to follow and his clear word choice promotes "instant intelligibility."

His method of forcing his audience to think actively along with the speaker

not only makes the address more communicative, but also reflects the

preacher's respect for the intelligence of his listeners. This address is,

in addition, one of the less sentimental of all the eulogies surveyed for

this paper and was one of those speeches oriented less to flights of

stylistic fancy. Thus Hoge demonstrates his basic respect for the sensi-

bilities of his listeners. In this appraisal of Davis, Hoge is quite realistic,

choosing those aspects of Davis' life about which he can talk with honesty

and sincerity -- a tone which is often missing from late nineteenth-century

southern eulogies. In focusing on Davis' exemplary character, Hoge is

able to draw moral lessons aimed at bettering the lives of the listeners

while at the same time paying homage to Davis.







The Presbyterian minister begins his speech with one of the better

introductions of all those dealt with in the present study. He skillfully

relates himself to Davis and enhances his credibility in the minds of his

listeners, but without appearing too egotistical as relates to his relation-

ship with the deceased Confederate President. With his own outstanding

war record in the minds of his auditors,51 his brief recounting of his role

in the hostilities in concert with Davis would truly have made his own

prestige grow, thus solidly enhancing his ethos.

In addition, Hoge reveals his sensitivity to the memorial situation

by counselling against an acrimonious attitude and saying that he expects

the "outlying congregations to feel and act in sympathy with what is now

passing in the sad but queenly city which guards the gates of the Mississippi."

He must take care not to praise the departed Confederate Chieftain too

lavishly, in order not to offend the feelings of those who had little respect

for Davis' conduct of the war (that is, those Southerners who had opposed

Davis and doubtless came to the memorial service out of a sense of duty,

not respect). At the same time, however, Hoge must paint a glowing picture

of Davis' life in order to satisfy those who loved and respected Davis and

all he stood for. Perhaps of all the speeches examined for this dissertation,

this one best illustrates the passage in Pericles' celebrated Funeral Oration



1 Ibid., p. 121. Hoge's war record included serving as Chaplain
at Richmond where he preached to the Confederate soldiers at least twice a
week. In addition, and more spectacularly, he ran the Union blockade from
Charleston to go to England for Bibles and other religious books for the
Southern soldier. His mission was successful for he brought back 10,000
Bibles, 50,000 Testaments, and 250,000 printed portions of the Scriptures.







in which the Athenian laments:

And I could have wished that the reputation of many
brave men were not to be imperilled in the mouth of
a single individual, to stand or fall according as he
spoke well or ill. For it is hard to speak properly
upon a subject where it is even difficult to convince
your hearers that you are speaking the truth. On the
one hand, the friend who is familiar with every fact
of the story may think that some point has not been
set forth with that fullness which he wishes and knows
it to deserve; on the other, he who is a stranger to the
matter may be led by envy to suspect exaggeration if
he hears anything above his own nature. For men can
endure to hear others praised only so long as they can
severally persuade themselves of their own ability to
equal the actions recounted: when this point is passed,
envy comes in and with it incredibility.52

The eulogy is indeed a difficult speech assignment, but Hoge

fulfilled it well.

One writer says that Hoge "madp careful and thorough special nrppa-

ration for every discourse";53 it is not difficult to imagine that he took

special caution in his choice of examples and his wording of ideas for this

important message. Its impact and acclaim was such that the address was

printed as a special supplement to The Central Presbyterian church newspaper.

Only at one time early in the eulogy does Hoge directly appeal to

the spirit of reunion. In this extended passage, the eulogist reminds the



52 Pericles. "Funeral Oration." Thucydides: The History of the
Peloponnesian War, translated by Richard Crawley. The Great Books of
the Western World, VI (Chicago: The University of Chicago, 1956),
p. 396.

53 Walter W. Moore, "Moses Drury Hoge," Library of Southern
Literature, VI, edited by Edwin A. Alderman (Atlanta, Georgia: Martin
and Hoyt, 1910), p. 2438.







congregation that "political harrangues and discussions calculated to

excite sectional animosities are utterly inappropriate to the hour. Hoge

also hopes that

there will be many in the Northern and Western states
who will be in sympathy with the eulogies which will
be pronounced today by the speakers who hold up to
view those characteristics of their dead chieftain which
have always commanded the admiration of right-minded
and right-hearted men in all lands and in all centuries.

He then asserts that soon "the question will not relate so much to

the color of the uniform, blue or gray, as to the character of the men who

wore it. "

Although the statements just quoted represent the extent of his

overtly reconciliatory rhetoric, Hoge still creates an implied theme of

national unity throughout the address. Two examples can be given. As a

first consideration, Hoge describes the total character of the ideal states-

man, and suggests that this ideal leader is to be best recognized by his

service to an entire nation -- not to a narrow interest group or to a local

region. Secondly, the minister mentions Davis' life in service to the nation

as West Point cadet, Mexican War Hero, and United States Senator.

In both his direct and indirect appeals to national reunion, Hoge is

effective. On the one hand, he appeals directly to the highly respected

American values of fairness and justice. Facing the question of sectionalism

squarely, he simply expects the nation to act as though it were reconciled,

forcefully telling his audience -- and the North -- that it should be. In the

second place, Hoge's rhetorical appeals to national unity, showing as they

do Davis' service to the nation, refer to an attitude or opinion that would be

hard, if not impossible, for his auditor to reject.







At the same time, in the "western" state of Arkansas, Judge U.M.

Rose delivered that state's official memorial oration for President Davis.54

Judge Rose begins his address by discussing the inevitability of death and

the difficulty of making valid judgments about a man's. life so soon after

his death. He declares, "We live too near the thrilling events, the

tremendous concussions, the strife, the passion, the crash and the conflict

of the period in which /Davis/ played a principal part. After continuing in

this vein briefly, Rose then says that regardless of what history will write

about Davis' actions and his mistakes "he has been made the scapegoat

for many sins that should be laid at the doors of others."

After this rather lengthy and rambling introduction, the Judge moves

into a long rationalization and justification for the South's entering into

secession and civil conflict. He lays the blame for slavery in the South on

the Spaniards who first advised that Negroes could be imported and on the

"good Puritan brethern of New England /who/, with many a prayer and never

a misgiving, fitted out their ships for the African coast." He does not believe

that slavery was "the direct cause of the war," but he points out that it "had

made a very visible line of distinction between Northern and Southern parts

of our country. Rose says that the national leaders from the Founding Fathers

until the Civil War saw the unharmoniouss development of the North and the

South," and some -- like Calhoun and Clay -- tried to find answers. Yet

underlying it all was the "deeply seated ground for apprehension .. in the



54 Rose, "Address on Davis." All quotations are from the text
cited in Rose, Addresses.






fact that no definite remedy had been provided . if any State . .

should attempt, in their sovereign capacity, to withdraw from the Federal

Union." He then points out that the Constitution is subject to "a great

variety of interpretations," but that coercion of a state is directly counter

to the Declaration of Independence. Rose then goes to Southerners --

Jefferson and Jackson -- as well as Northern sources -- Webster and

Hamilton -- to substantiate this interpretation. None of these leaders of

public opinion felt, according to Rose, that a state could be coerced into

remaining within the Union. Concluding this line of thought, Judge Rose

points out that the "first threat of secession came from New England during

the War of 1812, and not from any part of the South."

Rose justifies his remarks in this vein, which are surely inappropri-

ate to the occasion, observing that if anyone is to judge properly the career

of Davis, these are the facts required to understand fully the situation. He

says that now "the Union is a perpetual one," but that when Davis was

President of the Confederacy, this was not a fact, and was made a part of

the fundamental law only "by the final determination of a resort to arms from

which there is no appeal. This extended justification for secession does

not seem to fit the memorial occasion, since it was a man, not a fact of

history, that was being commemorated.

Still not dealing directly with Davis, the eulogist registers an

expression of pride that the Civil War was fought. Rose sees the war as

having been necessary to settle the issues between North and South. Finally

he shifts to reconciliation, praising the North for the lenityy and moderation







exhibited by the conquerors in the hour of triumph, which he thinks "is

unexampled in history. His praise of the North is honest and forthright,

and obviously a well-thought-out statement; in part, he says, "This /the

lenity of the North/ is a fact that should be borne in mind; for if we would

have justice done to ourselves, we must do justice to others." He continues

this reconciliatory strain by praising the warriors on both sides for their

lofty minds, pure hearts, and undaunted courage.

Approximately one-half of his memorial had dealt with the difficulty

of determining the verdict of history, a vindication and justification of the

South, praise of those who fought and especially of Northern magniminity,

and praise of the war itself. Rose then turns in the last half of the address

to a eulogy of Davis. The speaker first presents a brief summary in glowing

terms of Davis' political and military career. He then discusses how Davis

had fared after the defeat of the South and how well Davis had endured all

the attacks and the reverses of his ill fortune. Rose praises President

Lincoln and Horace Greeley as examples of Northern leaders who had great

"magnaminity of feeling" toward Davis and his fallen comrades.

Rose defends Davis against the slurs aimed at him; for example, the

charge that he appropriated the funds of the Confederacy for his own use.

Yet he speaks only in generalities and does not mention any specific charges.

He then defends Davis' personality saying, in effect, that for those who knew

him well, Davis was kind of heart, genial of disposition, and cheerful of

demeanor. He points out that after the Civil War, some of his former

Northern comrades in the Black Hawk War visited him in the South, thus







expressing their love and devotion to Davis regardless of what time and

the war had produced. This example of how the spirit of reunion had been

illustrated in a specific case certainly helped to vivify and make real

Rose's expression of the spirit of reconciliation.

Judge Rose closes the address with a romantic description of Davis'

last year:

How full of memories must his mind have been, as he
trod the shores of that southern gulf that broke in har-
monious sounds by his secluded home! Perhaps to him,
as to many others, that complaining sea, extending far
beyond the reach of human vision, containing in its
sombre depths so many mysteries forever un-explained,
presented the emblem of that wise eternity upon whose
echoless shore are hushed all the sounds of human
strife. Or perhaps when the tempest spread its black
wings over the angry waves, it recalled the stormy
scenes in which his life had been so largely spent; and
it may be that in the succeeding calm that brooded on
the quiet waters he perceived the type of that peace
that awaits the tired mariner when the uncertain voyage
of life is over.

And finally, Rose observes, "The chieftain, whose strange career

is so deeply impressed on the page of history, having received God's great

amnesty, has entered upon that last repose which shall never more be

disturbed by the voice of praise or blame."

The Arkansan's address on Davis was not as reconciliatory as one

might have expected in a state which had felt a strong Union sentiment before

and during the war. There was, however, a slight emphasis on reunion by

Rose, as some of these quoted remarks demonstrate. Yet Rose was at last

able to express an appeal for national harmony, as indicated in the following

passage from a Memorial Day address:







The once hostile soldiers whose tombs fair hands will
deck with impartial flowers today, rest here upon their
arms by the great and silent river of death, with no
vestige of human passion or pride to divide them in
their unbroken slumber. 55

In this eulogy, Rose effectively pictured the reconciliation sentiment

as it developed in Davis' own life.

If in the early period of his retirement he sometimes
grieved his friends by public expressions that recalled
too vividly the bitterness of the past, the feelings of
which these were the evidence find no trace in the book
in which he recorded his mature judgment of the decisive
events in which he played such a prominent part.
Reconciled with the irrevocable past, he was able
to perceive that our great Civil War had worked out
many beneficial results, and that the future might
open up to the United American people such an immense
field of usefulness and prosperity as would dim even
the brightness of their own past.

This process of mellowing apparently happened to many in the post-war

South, and,doubtless, Rose's description of how it affected Davis' life

helped his auditors believe it could happen to them. Or if it had already

happened, his words could serve to reinforce this reconciliatory attitude.

Still other eulogies found a secure place in the literature of the

post-war South. One by John W. Daniel of Virginia on the dead Confederate

President was a classic and highly reconciliatory.56 In this two-hour oration,

Daniel expressed many thoughts on reconciliation. For one, the North and



55 Rose, "Confederate Dead," N.D., N.P., Anthologized in Rose,
Addresses.

56 John W. Daniel, Oration on the Life, Services and Character of
Jefferson Davis. Delivered in Richmond, Virginia, January 15, 1890.
(Richmond: J.H. O'Bannon, 1890).








the South are, in truth, "nearly, if not quite, identical," in that both

support "racial integrity, they "thirst for power and broad empire," and,

among other things, they have a "love of confederated union." In addition,

by a skillful juxtaposing of Washington with Hamilton, Jefferson with

Adams, and Madison with Franklin, the orator shows that both sections

have contributed great leaders for the good of the whole nation. Senator

Daniel also stresses the South's role in the Revolutionary War in an attempt

to demonstrate the affirmative answer to the rhetorical question, "Did the

South love the Union?" A difficult task for a post-war Southerner was to

praise Lincoln and call his assassination "a most infamous and unhappy

deed." Yet Daniel attempts to do this in his eulogy on Lincoln's former

enemy. The "Lame Lion of Lynchburg" includes in his remarks on Davis

the following reconciliatory passage which could serve as the model of all

similar statements surveyed in this study:

As we are not of the North, but of the South, and are
now alike all Americans both of and for the Union,
bound up in its destinies, contributing to its support,
and seeking its welfare, I feel that as he was the hero
in war who fought the bravest, so he is the hero now
who puts the past in the truest light, does justice to
all and knows no foe but him who revives the hates of
a bygone generation.
If we lost by war a southern union of thirteen States,
we have yet a common part in a continental union of
forty-two, to which our fathers gave their blood, and
upon which they shed their blessings, and a people who
could survive four years of such experience as we had
in 1861-65 can work out their own salvation on any
spot on earth that God intended for man's habitation.
We are, in fact, in our father's home, and it should be,
as it is, our highest aim to develop its magnificent
possibilities and make it the happiest dwelling place
of the children of men.







Only one month earlier, in Atlanta, John Temple Graves delivered

a eulogy on Henry Grady,57 which contains a passage that has lived to the

present day. In fact, it is engraved upon the Grady statue in Atlanta as a

summation tribute to the Georgia journalist and orator. Graves' "gem of

oratory" was "received with the wildest outburst of enthusiasm by an

audience which packed the opera house from pit to gallery, and at its close

the speaker received an ovation which lasted for several minutes."58 This

response seems rather inappropriate for a memorial service, but apparently

this particular oration prompted this reaction. The sentence that has lived

on in stone is at the end of a passage describing Grady's role in the post-war

reconciliation process. It begins, "It is marvelous past all telling how he

caught the heart of the country in the fervid glow of his own!, and ends,
59
"When he died, he was literally loving a nation into peace."9


Conclusion

As has been pointed out in this survey of the Memorial Day address

and the eulogy for departed Americans, this type of speech situation served

on these occasions to reinforce Southern feelings about national reconciliation.

An editorial writer in the Daily Phoenix of Columbia, South Carolina, stated

in 1875 that,



57 John Temple Graves, "Eulogy of Henry W. Grady." Delivered in
Atlanta, Georgia, December 28, 1890. In Knight, A Standard History of
Georgia and Georgians, III. pp. 1608-11.

58 Ibid., p. 1608.

59 Ibid., p. 1609.








The addresses delivered on the occasion of the late
decoration days in the North and portions of the South,
exhibited a most fraternal and conciliatory spirit --
one worthy to characterize like commemorations here-
after. 60

The Southern memorialist speaker -- at least in these 'speeches examined

here -- attempted to promote intersectional peace. What were his basic

themes?

In the first place, he spoke of respect for war. Waddell was the

most blatantly enamored by war, but all the speakers left the impression

that they saw war as a natural, normal part of the life of man. Second,

they all implied that much could be learned from the lives of other men --

that all citizens should study the lives of national heroes and attempt to

emulate their virtues and to profit from their mistakes. The student of

heroes could see reflected courage, fortitude, integrity, and the leading

Southern value -- honor -- in the lives of those being eulogized.

A third theme operative in these speeches was the unanimous

positive, optimistic view of the future. All these orators featured forecasts

that the coming decades would be years of peace and prosperity with the

South once again taking a leading part in shaping the destiny of a great

nation.

Closely related, of course, was the fourth basic premise: reconcilia-

tion is in the best interest of the South. According to the speakers, the

South has and will continue to assist the rest of the nation as America fulfills

her destiny. The people of the North respected us for going to war to fight


60 The Daily Phoenix (Columbia, S.C.), June 5, 1875.







for our principles; they, too, fought for what they believed was right.

If it were up to the soldiers, and not the politicians, reconciliation would

have occurred in the Spring of 1865. But in spite of political machinations,

the Nation is becoming one again.

Curiously juxtaposed with this strong reconciliation spirit, was the

aura of vindication which permeated these addresses. To a man, these

speakers asserted clearly and strongly that the South was right in her beliefs

and that her battles for "constitutional liberty" were all in the best interests

of her people and the entire nation. In fact, they asserted that history was

already showing the correctness of the Southern position; they never made

clear, however, how this process was happening. The speakers urged their

listeners to hold fast to their true principles and to always believe that the

dead who fell in "The War" did not die in vain.

These speeches honoring the dead -- whether a single figure like

Garfield or Grant or the mass of Southern war dead -- all served to unify

the diverse feelings within a local community and to focus attention upon

a common goal: national harmony. W. Lloyd Warner writes that "the

ceremonial calendar of American society" is designed through Memorial Day,

the Fourth of July, Thanksgiving and other days, to "allow Americans to

express common sentiments about themselves and share their feelings with

others on set days pre-established by the society for this very purpose. "

He accurately describes the purpose of Memorial Day and by implication,

the Memorial Address, when he writes that this ceremonial calendar "functions

to draw all people together to emphasize their similarities and common







heritage; to minimize their differences; and to contribute to their thinking,

feeling, and acting alike"(italics mine). 61

Since these ceremonial days are designed, partly at least, for

unification of a community, the speaker selected for that occasion would

be most concerned to chose his topic and purpose for speaking with the aim

of unity foremost in his mind. He would not be expected to be radically

controversial, but, rather to speak about themes and topics to reinforce

the beliefs the audience already had. His purpose would be to intensify

belief; he probably would not try to create a new and possibly controversial

cluster of opinions.

In these speeches surveyed in this chapter, the speakers were

attempting to intensify belief in the need for and value of national harmony.

By relating the facts that the South had made significant contributions to

the nation and that it would continue to do so, the speakers were able to

encourage their auditors to feel that reunion was desirable. In addition,

the speakers asserted over and over that the nation was one again -- that

- sectionalism was dead. By the power of repetition, this belief was intensi-

fied, but the speakers failed to really make this assertion come alive by

clear and vivid examples of where this act of reunion had occurred. Only



61W. Lloyd Warner, American Life, Dream and Reality (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1953), p. 2. The importance of Memorial Day,
historically and in the mid-twentieth century, is described by Conrad Cherry
in "Two American Sacred Ceremonies: Their Implications for the Study of
Religion in America," American Quarterly,XXI (Winter, 1969), 739-754.
Cherry sums up the ceremony as "an American sacred ceremony, a religious
ritual, a modern cult of the dead." 741.







in a few cases did a speaker give a specific example of an act of recon-

ciliation. This lack of intense vivification through example was a major

rhetorical weakness; the speakers too often spoke in vague and generalized

terms to be as effective as possible in their attempts to reinforce belief.

In terms of the basic premises expressed, these speakers all met well the

demands of their situations, for all of the basic themes mentioned earlier

were already held by the audiences they faced. In terms, however, of

support for those premises, these speakers, with a few exceptions, fell

short of what their hearers needed for as full intensification as was possible.

John Temple Graves well stated the major reconciliatory thrust of

these speeches: "So while we love our dead and revere our trampled

principles, we must not forget that we have yet a life to live, a part to play

in our nation's history."62 The six speakers surveyed in this chapter did

what they could to make the defeated South reconcile herself to the North.

The next chapter will deal with those memorial speakers who addressed

ceremonies devoted to dedicating monuments to the Confederate dead.



62 Graves, "Memorial Address," West Point, Georgia, April 26,
1876.














CHAPTER THREE
PRESERVING THE PAST: MONUMENT DEDICATIONS


Closely related to the eulogy and the Memorial Day addresses are

the orations delivered at the innumerable monument dedications that the

South loved so well in the decades after the war. Literally every community

below Mason and Dixon's line supported a fund-raising drive (usually

sponsored by a Ladies Memorial Association) for statues of varying size

and configuration. If the local town or county could not boast of a real

hero, they dedicated the monument to the "Confederacy, or the "Boys in

Gray, or the "Private Soldier." Each dedication ceremony involved the

same essential ingredients: a parade through the city streets to the site,

several brief welcoming addresses by local notables, some musical selec-

tions "appropriate to the occasion, a poem or two read by the local town

laureate, and the ever-present oration; finally the cover was lifted from the

monument and the memorial stood as a granite symbol of the Lost Cause. A

casual drive through any Southern state today from Virginia to Texas will

show these monuments still exhibited in places of honor and surrounded by

well-kept greens.

For the purposes of this study, we shall examine six speeches made

in Virginia and Georgia from 1875 to 1889. The first five were given in

honor of individual heroes and at the dedication of monuments to these







specific Southern leaders: Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson, Robert E. Lee,

and Benjamin H. Hill. The last two were presented at" monuments honoring

the Confederate dead, in general.

In 1875 the last vestiges of Republican rule were ending in the

South. Former Confederate leaders who had been kep': out of leadership

positions by the Fourteenth Amendment had been covered by a general

amnesty bill passed by Congress in 1872, and they had begun to assume

their pre-war posts in their respective states. Whites began more overtly

to control the Negro through various "red-shirt" and other white-supremacy

groups and by 1875 the Negro was fast becoming an economic ward of his

former master. The conservatives had assumed control of all the Southern

statehouses except Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina; these were to

fall to conservative Southerners in the months following Rutherford Hayes'

election to the Presidency and the "Compromise of 1877."

In national politics, the Democratic Party had captured the House of

Representatives in 1875 and the scandals of the Grant regime forecast a

possible Democratic win in 1876. Northerners were beginning to forget the

Negro and were starting to believe that the South should control her own

state governments. Civil service reform was drawing the attention of northern

reformers. Since Southerners were becoming staunch supporters of industrial-

ization and commerce, Northern businessmen began to look to the South as a

target for their investments. Northern writers and editors urged their readers

to forget the bloody past and to link hands over the sectional chasm.



1 Rembert W. Patrick, The Reconstruction of the Nation (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1967), pp. 249-50.








Although most of the Southern states had been "redeemed" by the

mid-1870 s, the Southern economy, transportation, agriculture, education,

and social system were still in a shambles. As late as 1880, "visitors

reported the South crushed, wretched, and still licking its wounds. "

Reconciliation was not easily encouraged in a land which saw itself as

having been ravaged by its conquerors.

The first of these orations to be considered is a bit atypical of the

group, due to the fact that it is an introductory address and not the main

"oration of the day, but it has such strong overtones of reconciliation

spirit that it should be described. In October, 1875, the Commonwealth of

Virginia unveiled a statue to its hero of Manassas and Malvern Hill: Thomas J.

"Stonewall" Jackson. Governor John Kemper inaugurated the Richmond

celebration with a short speech of welcome and introduction.3 In this

address, we find the usual combination of Southern arrogance and pride

mingled with an apparently genuine call for intersectional reconciliation.

Kemper hopes that the life of Jackson "speaks to our fellow-citizens of the

North, and, reviving no animosities of the bloody past, commands their

respect for the valor, manhood, integrity and honor of the people of whom

this Christian warrior was a representative type." He then asserts that

Jackson's old comrades will not "prove recreant to the parole and contract



2 Ibid., p. 243.

3 John Kemper, "Address at the Unveiling of Jackson's Statue,"
Richmond, Virginia, October 26, 1875. Text in the Columbia, South
Carolina Register, October 31, 1875.







of honor which binds them . to the constitution and the union of the

States." At this point, the Governor says, "Let the spirit and design with

which we erect this memorial today admonish our whole country that the

actual reconciliation of the States must come, and, so far as honorably in

us lies, shall come." He does, however, qualify this reconciliatory

attitude by remarking that the "equal hour and equal liberties of each

section shall be acknowledged, vindicated and maintained by both." In

other words, the South will be reconciled on her terms. Kemper concludes

the address with a plea that the statue of Jackson

endure as a symbol of the respect which both the
sections will accord to the illustrious dead of each,
signifying that while differing as to the past, each
will assert its manhood, its rectitude and honor, and
both will equally and jointly strive to consolidate
the liberty and the peace, the strength and the glory
of a common and indissoluble country.

Most of this brief welcoming address was focused on the theme of national

harmony as these selected passages indicate.

Kemper's welcoming address was not aimed at the Northerner in his

audience, apparently, so much as it was designed for the former Confederate.

His tone is one of insistence; there is little of a compromising nature in this

address. For example, he insists that the North accept Jackson's life as a

model for all to follow; no reasons are given why they should. Again, the

Governor insists that both sections must be treated as equals in the nation's

councils. For the Southerners in the 1875 audience, this "no-compromise"

attitude was probably commendable. Kemper does not try to persuade them

to accept the verdict of the sword and be reconciled, he simply asserts








that the South was willing to be reunited if it could be done on her terms.

He bases his contentions not on extensive persuasive appeals, but,

rather, on the force of his ethos and authority. Governor Kemper does,

however, set a tone of reconciliation for the occasion by mentioning the

urgent need for reunion and by asserting to his audience that the South

was ready for it. He uses the life of Jackson as a reminder that the South

will honor its defeat and parole. Jackson's "knightly and incorruptible

fidelity to each engagement of duty, should be a model for the Southerner.

The main orator of the day, Moses Hoge, approached the reconciliation

theme in a more subtle and persuasive manner, but still Hoge was aided by

Kemper's having introduced the theme of reconciliation.

These brief introductory remarks set the stage most appropriately

for the ceremonies which followed and for the major address of the day

presented by Richmond's great Presbyterian pastor, Moses Drury Hoge. One

biographical sketch of Hoge expresses the belief that this speech at

Jackson's statue was "perhaps the noblest oration of his later life."4

According to the Charleston, South Carolina, newspaper accounts of the

ceremonies, the event was the "most imposing pageant ever seen"5 in

Richmond. A recent history of Virginia in the post-war years included this

description of the ceremonies:



4 Edwin A. Alderman and Joel Chandler Harris, eds., Library of
Southern Literature, VI (Atlanta: Martin and Hoyt Co., 1910), p. 2439.

5 "Jackson's Statue," The News and Courier (Charleston, South
Carolina), October 27, 1875.








With 40,000 people watching the Jackson procession
which was two to three miles long, even the Negroes
wanted to be included. Moses D. Hogue /sic/, the
rector of St. Paul's was the feature orator in Capital
Square, and Jones describes the group on the speaker's
stand as a 'who's who' of Virginia Confederate and
political leadership. Fireworks at night were followed
by a reception for Mrs. Jackson in the governor's
mansion.

Dr. Hoge's popularity was demonstrated by the fact that he was "greeted

with much enthusiasm by the immense assemblage."7 Apparently he did

not disappoint his auditors, as the "oration was frequently interrupted

with enthusiastic applause."

The Richmond religious leader had been unanimously elected

moderator of the Presbyterian General Assembly in 1875. His fame and

prestige had spread accordingly beyond the bounds of his native Virginia;

this feature of his ethos was appropriate for these ceremonies, as was

his devotion to the Confederate cause and his blockade-running trip to

England during the Civil War to obtain Bibles for Confederate soldiers.

The audience contained many visitors from across the nation as well as

several Englishmen -- indeed, the statue was a gift from the Mother

Country and had been created by an English sculptor.



6 Alien W. Moger, Virginia: Bourbonism to Byrd, 1870-1925
(Charlottesville: The University Press of Virginia, 1968), p. 26.

7 "Jackson's Statue," News and Courier.

8 Ibid.

9 Joseph D. Eggleston, "Moses Drury Hoge," Dictionary of American
Biography, IX, Ed. by Dumas Malone (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons,
1932), p. 121.








Often the eulogistic biographical sketches found in the various

works on Southern leaders are not particularly useful for the student of

Southern culture. In the case of Hoge, however, one biographer gives an

interesting clue about his rhetorical strategy, as he remarks, "Dr. Hoge,

then, was not only an crator but a teacher . .. He never for a moment

relinquished or lowered his conception of the teaching function of the

ministry."10 That this minister felt himself essentially a teacher is quite

apparent in this address at Jackson's monument. It is obvious that his

major purpose is to answer the question, "Why was General Jackson so

cherished and honored by citizens of this and other nations?" In answering

this query, Hoge intends to demonstrate that Jackson's life is a model

worthy of imitation. By describing Jackson's virtues as a paradigm for the

Christian, Southern gentleman, Hoge can easily fulfill his concept of the

ministry's teaching function. And in relation to this study, as we shall

see, Hoge used Jackson's life as illustrative material as he tries to enhance

a reconciliatory mood in the minds of his listeners. 11

In this speech, Hoge employs five reconciliatory themes: 1) We

are patterning ourselves after the ancient Greeks who met together with their

enemies during their festivals and promoted harmony; 2) Jackson's life serves

as a model for us as we begin to become reconciled with the North; 3) The



10 Alderman and Harris, Library of Southern Literature, p. 2438.

11 Rev. Moses D. Hoge, "Oration of the Inauguration of the
Jackson Statue," Presented at Richmond, Virginia, October 26, 1875.
Copy located at Duke University Library.







South respects the outcome of the sword; 4) National pride is and should

be present in the South; and 5) The South's self-interest demands that the

nation become reunited.

The first of these reconciliation themes is introduced early in the

address when Hoge says:

More impressive is this assemblage of citizens and
representatives from all parts of our own and of
foreign lands, than ever gathered on the banks of the
ancient Alpheus at one of the solemnities which united
the men of all of the Grecian States and attracted
strangers from the most distant countries. There was
indeed one pleasing feature in the old Hellenic festi-
vals. The entire territory around Olympia was conse-
crated to peace during their celebration, and there
even enemies might meet as friends and brothers, and
in harmony rejoice in their ancestral glories and
national renown.

This comparison to the ideal of the ancient Greek state was doubtless quite

meaningful to the Southern audience assembled in Richmond. The pre-war

Southern culture had been based in part on the ideal of the Greek democracy,12

and if an orator pointed out that the Greeks could refrain from hatred of their

enemies, then the Southerners should be able to do likewise.

The fact that there were Northerners present in the audience provided

support for this theme and gave rhetorical meaning to the comparison. When

Hoge refers in this analogy to the ancient Greeks meeting to "rejoice in their

ancestral glories and national renown," he prepares his listeners for the



12 See Anthony Hillbruner, "Inequality, The Great Chain of Being,and
Ante-Bellum Southern Oratory, "The Southern Speech Journal, XXV (Spring,
1960), pp. 172-89.







reunion message he returns to later in the speech: the important role

played by the South in the nation's history and the Southerners' pride

in that contribution.

The second major reunion motif used by the Presbyterian minister

was closely related to the subject of his oration and the person in whose

honor the ceremony was being held: "Stonewall" Jackson. At several

points in the address, Hoge uses Jackson as a model or focal point for

his reconciliation message. His most obvious and explicit reference to

this theme comes early in the speech:

We assert no monopoly in the glory of that leader. It
was his happy lot to command, even while he lived,
the respect and admiration of right-minded and right-
hearted men in every part of this land, and in all
lands. It is now his rare distinction to receive the
homage of those who most differed with him on the
questions which lately rent this republic in twain
from ocean to ocean. From the North, and from the
South, from the East, and from the West, men have
gathered on these grounds today, widely divergent in
their views on social, political, and religious topics,
and yet they find in the attraction which concentrates
their regard upon one name, a place where their hearts
unexpectedly touch each other and beat in strange
unison.

A few minutes later, Hoge briefly asserts, with no proof or explana-

tion, that Jackson, "would have cheerfully laid down his life to avert the

disruption" of the Union and the war which followed. Since the listener

heard no supporting testimony, either from Jackson himself, or any of his

cohorts, he would have to accept this assertion on Hoge's authority. If

Jackson himself loved the Union, the auditor would perhaps see that the

Union was, after all, not such an enemy.







Then late in the speech, the orator of the day returns to this theme

when he praises the Governor of Virginia and implies again that Jackson is

revered and honored by people outside his own Southland -- even in the

North:

Your Excellency did well to make the path broad
which leads through these capitol grounds to this
statue, for it will be trodden by the feet of all
who visit this city, whether they come from the
banks of the Hudson, the Mississippi, or the
Sacramento; whether from the Tiber, the Rhine, or
the Danube.

If a Confederate General could be this well-respected and admired by those

who did not sympathize with his section -- indeed, those who had fought

against him -- then this fact would be a powerful example of magnanimity

on the part of the victors in the civil struggle. Should not the Southerner

return that good will? That was the implication of Hoge's message. In

addition, given the widespread, eulogistic esteem with which Southerners

held Jackson, indeed, most Confederate Generals, Hoge's use of Jackson

as a symbol of reconciliation would be an effective rhetorical tactic.

A third important approach Hoge uses in his efforts to promote

intersectional understanding and rapport centers around his contention that

the South accepts the verdict rendered by the sword. At the first point in

the speech where he discusses this theme, the speaker focuses on the

attitude of the Confederate soldier after the war. The veterans:

laid down their arms at its close and mingled again
with their fellow-citizens, distinguished from the
rest only by their superior reverence for law, their
patient industry, their avoidance of all that might
cause needless irritation and provoke new humilia-
tions, and their readiness to regard as friends in








peace, those whom they had so recently resisted
as enemies in war.

Doubtless, most in his audience had worn the gray, and thus, Hoge was

speaking directly to them and appealing explicitly to their pride and honor --

two values held in great esteem by Southerners.

He then moves from the specific Confederate soldier to the general

Southern public as he asserts that the "people" of the South followed the

lead of their soldiers:

Defeat came, and they accepted it, with its conse-
quences, just as they would have accepted victory
with its fruits. They have sworn to maintain the
government as it is now constituted. They will not
attempt again to assert their views of state
sovereignty by an appeal to the sword.

Hoge, in the next breath, turns back to the warrior, as he says:

None feel this obligation to be more binding than the
soldiers of the late Confederate armies. A soldier's
parole is a sacred thing, and the men who are willing
to die for a principle in time of war, are the men of all
others most likely to maintain their personal honor in
time of peace.

In other words, the South will not again challenge the North on the field of

battle.

As is so typical in these messages aimed at national unity, Hoge

appeals to national pride. In this fourth conciliatory theme, the minister

refers first to the American revolution in a manner calculated to stir

national patriotism in the hearts of his listeners:

Such a crisis was the Revolution of 1776, when thirteen
thinly-settled and widely-separated colonies dared to
offer the gage of battle to the greatest military and naval
power on the globe.







The story of that struggle is the most familiar in
American annals. After innumerable reverses, and
incredible sufferings and sacrifices, our fathers
came forth from the ordeal victorious.

This appeal to Southern pride in the exploits of the Revolutionary War

heroes served the purpose of creating a feeling of national pride in the

minds of those Virginians who recalled the deeds of their own Patrick

Henry, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington. In fact, Hoge makes

explicit the connection between these national heroes and the new statue

of Jackson which will join the group of monuments in Richmond honoring

the South's Revolutionary War heroes. This portion of his message

comparing the Southern states and the Civil War with the English colonies

and the Revolutionary War, and the Revolutionary heroes with the Southern

Confederacy's heroes, is a masterful rhetorical stroke and' surely appealed

to the varied audience which witnessed the dedication.

A few moments later, the Virginian asserts very quickly, and with

no elaboration, the role played by his native state in helping to create the

very Union she was later forced to fight. He declares, again with no

evidence to support his contention, that Virginia had hoped to preserve

the Union "which she had assisted in forming, and to whose glory she had

made such contributions." He makes it appear that Virginia had withdrawn

from the Union only as a last resort. He assumes that because of the

State's significant role in the early national history of the country, the love

of Union was still present in the hearts and minds of her citizens.








The final mediatory motif which Hoge uses is sectional self-

interest:

I speak not for myself, but for the South, when I
say it is our interest, our duty and determination
to maintain the Union, and to make every possible
contribution to its prosperity and glory, if all the
states which compose it will unite in making it such
a Union as our fathers framed, and in enthroning
above it not a Caesar, but the Constitution in its
old supremacy.

He goes on quickly to assert:

If ever these states are welded together in one great
fraternal, enduring Union, with one heart pulsating
through the entire frame as the tides throb through
the bosom of the sea, it will be when they all stand
on the same level, with such a jealous regard for
each other's rights that when the interest or honor of
one is assailed, all the rest feeling the wound, even
as the body feels the pain inflicted on one of its
members, will kindle with just resentment at the out-
rage, because an injury done to a part is not only a
wrong but an indignity offered to the whole.

Once more turning to the usually eulogistic and therefore not very

helpful Southern biographical sketches, one can find interesting verbal

pictures of Hoge in the pulpit or on the podium. Since the words used to

describe his voice and appearance are heavily connotative, not much can

be gained other than realizing what some of his contemporaries thought

about him. To the student of public speaking in the 1970's, these descrip-

tions have little meaning. For instance, this sentence is typical:

It was a voice in a million -- flexible, magnetic,
thrilling, clear as a clarion; by turns tranquil and
soothing, strenuous and stirring, as the speaker
willed; now mellow as a cathedral bell heard in
the twilight, now ringing like a trumpet, or rolling
through the building like melodious thunder, with




Full Text

PAGE 1

Ceremonial Speaking and the Reinforcing of American Nationalism in the South, 1875-1890 By WALTER STUART TOWNS A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1972

PAGE 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT iii CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1 TWO HONORING THE DEAD: MEMORIAL DAY ADDRESSES AND EULOGIES 25 THREE PRESERVING THE PAST: MONUMENT DEDICATIONS 83 FOUR RENEVvING OLD FRIENDSHIPS: VETERANS' REUNIONS 131 FIVE PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE: ACADEMIC CEREMONIES 169 SIX CONCLUSION: SOME OBSERVATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 207 APPENDIX 225 BIBLIOGRAPHY 228 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 236 11

PAGE 3

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy CEREMONIAL SPEAKING AND THE REINFORCING OF AMERICAN NATIONALISM IN THE SOUTH, 187Ji-1890 By Walter Stuart Towns March, 1972 Chairman: Dr. Donald E. Williams Major Department: Speech This historical-descriptive study examines twenty-six post-Civil War ceremonial speeches delivered by Southerners to Southern audiences in an attempt to determine the nature of post-war rhetoric of reconciliation. The study is limited to speeches made in the geographical area of the Confederate States of America, with primary focus on Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. An additional limitation is that the speakers studied were long-time residents of the South and men who were commonly recognized leaders in their communities. The speakers include William B. Bate, J.C.C. Black, Matthew Butler, John W. Daniel, Charles E.R. Drayton, Clement A. Evans, John B. Gordon, Henry W. Grady, John Temple Graves, Atticus G. Haygood, Moses D. Hoge, W.B.W. Howe, Thomas J. Jarvis, John Kemper, David M. Key, Evander M. Law, Fitzhugh Lee, Thomas M. Logan, Samuel McGowan, U.M. Rose, James W. Throckmorton, and Alfred Moore Waddell. iii

PAGE 4

The ceremonial situations examined included Memorial Day, eulogy-producing events, monument dedications, veterans' reunions, and educational occasions such as commencements and alumni meetings. The major themes discovered are: (1) Both th= South and the North have made major contributions to the nation's heritage. (2) The South accepts the verdict of the sword and is ready to participate again in the national life. (3) The model of Northern and Southern leaders as they practice reconciliation should be followed by all citizens. (4) The politician is largely to blame for preventing total reunion. (5) There is a bright future for the reunited nation and the South will play a vital role in that future. These speakers also attempted to reinforce American nationalism by appealing to the human values of patriotism, forgiveness, friendship, cooperation, and responsibility. Based on this survey some suggestions are made concerning the nature of speaking which would reaffirm reconciliation. It is suggested that a speaker ground his premises on those human values most directly related to a spirit of harmony, such as patriotism or loyalty, forgiveness, friendship, cooperation, and responsibility. Second, it is suggested that speakers intensify these values by illustrating them with contemporary examples of reconciliation taking place. Again, a speaker's strategy could include helping his audience accept the fact that in a situation calling for reinstituting harmony, there is generally a "loser" and a "winner." Finally, the speech could pro\dde specific examples of what the two factions, sections, or groups have in common — either goals and purposes or heritage and tradition. iv

PAGE 5

Reconciliation is not analogous to a religious philosophy of "once saved, always saved." Rather, it is a process with no clearly definable beginning and with no point in time when one is totally reconciled. It is more accurate to say that the post-Civil War South was in the process of becoming reconciled to national goals and purposes — a process even yet unfinished. This study examines what these speakers said on the subject of national reunion and suggests some possible strategies and considerations for contemporary speakers who would attempt to reconcile antagonistic elements of our national life. V

PAGE 6

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Problem, Purpose, and Method In 1937 Paul H. Buck wrote that by 1895 the "people of the United States constituted at last a nation integrated in interests and united in sentiments." He went on to remark that "within a single generation true peace had come to those who had been at war." Assuming there is at least a degree of truth in these statements, it is unusual that students of Ameiiuaii public address have not seized uvun Buck's rcicieni^es xn an attempt to discover the function and place of speech-making along this road to peace and reunion. What was the nature of the p ost-war rhetoric of reconciliation ? This is the prime motivating question behind the present study. It is assumed that part of the answer may be found in an examination of speeches made by Southerners on ceremonial occasions; this speech situation is the focus for the present investigation. Rhetorical critics and speech historians have largely overlooked this major area of research: post-bellum Southern speaking. The field of public address history and criticism contains a wealth of articles, theses, and 1 Paul H. Buck, The Road to Reunion, 1865-1900 (New York: Random House, 1937), pp. 310, 320.

PAGE 7

dissertations dealing with various aspects of ante-btallum Southern oratory and orators, but with the end of the Civil War, the door is almost closed on nineteenth century Southern speechmaking. For sxample, Robert T. Oliver's survey, History of Public Speaking in Ameri(::a, discusses briefly the post-war speaking of Henry W. Grady, L.Q.C. lamar, and Booker T. Washington, but leaves the bulk of Southern public address of the period in limbo. The threevolume History and Criticism of American Public Address contains essays on Edwin A. Alderman, Grady, Lamar, and Washington, but Ignores other post-war Southern speakers and the reconciliation issue. There have been dissertations on Joseph E. Brown, Benjamin Morgan Palmer, Robert Love Taylor, J.L.M. Curry, Zebulon B. Vance, and Washington, but with these studies, the survey of modern criticisms of post-war nineteenth century 3 Southern public address is about complete. Dallas C. Dickey pointed out 2 I have reached this conclusion after investigating Cleary and Haberman's Rhetoric and Public Address, A Bibliography, 1947-1961; Knower's "Index of Graduate Theses, " and Auer's "Dissertations in Progress" both of which appear annually in Speech Monographs . I have also examined the 1971 edition of the Index of The Quarterly Journal of Speec h and the various regional speech journals as well as the "Bibliography of Speech and Theatre in the South" which appears each year in The Southern Speech Journal, and Disserta tion Abstracts through 1971 . ^ V. Littlefield, "An Evaluation of Joseph E. Brown's Invention." Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 1965; W.J. Lewis, "The Public Speaking of J.L.M. Curry." Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida , 1955; M. Bauer, "Henry Grady, Spokesman for the New South. " Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1939; W.C. Eubank, "Benjamin Morgan Palmer, A Southern Divine. " Ph.D. Dissertation, Louisiana State University, 1943; Raymond W. Buchanan, Jr., "The Epideictic Speaking of Robert Love Taylor Between 1891 and 1906," Ph.D. Dissertation, Louisiana State University, 1970; F.R. Shirley, "The Rhetoric of Zebulon B. Vance: Tarheel Spokesman." Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida , 1959; V/.N. Pitts, Jr., "A Critical Study of Booker T. Washington -as a Speechmaker, With an Analysis of Seven Selected Speeches. " Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Michigan, 1952.

PAGE 8

this vacuum in speech research in 1947 when he said, "The speaking of southerners on the problems of reconstruction is unknown except for that of a few men such as Grady and Lamar"; the situation has not been altered significantly in the intervening two and a half decades. It is hoped that this dissertation will begin to open the door to this virtually untouched resource and thereby help fill this gap in American public address history. It should be pointed out that the reconciliation process had already begun by 1875. The General Amnesty Act of 1872, L.Q.C. Lamar's "Eulogy on Charles Sumner," and countless lesser-known events had encouraged the reunion process beginning practically with the meeting between Grant and Lee at Appomattox Courthouse. Therefore, for many Southerners, a feeling of a re-united nation was already part of their life-style, and orators aimed their rhetoric at reinforcing this spirit of harmony. To further illustrate the probability that many Southern orators were facing audiences at least partly reconciled, one simply needs to recall the statement Patrick Henry made a century before in the Virginia Ratifying Convention of 1788. Henry, and probably many other Southerners, obviously had an affection for the new concept of America. In a speech opposing the proposed American Constitution Henry remarked: I am a lover of the American Union .... The dissolution of the Union is most abhorrent to my mind. The first thing I have at heart is 4 Dallas C. Dickey, "Southern Oratory: A Field for Research, The Quarterly Journal of Speech , XXXIII (December, 1947), 461.

PAGE 9

American liberty; the second thing is American Union; and I hope the people of Virginia yvill endeavor to preserve that Union. Henry's strong American sentiment was doubtless still present in many Southerners in the immediate pre-Civil War years. An example would be Robert E, Lee's agonizing decision to leave the Union with his native state and to offer his sword to the Confederacy. In addition, as James L. Golden demonstrates, there were quite a few Southerners, who, on the very eve of the civil conflict, deplored and fought against secession. Sam Houston, the hero of Texas Independence, remarked in an 1850 Senate speech on the Clay Compromise measures: If I am of the South, can I not recollect the North? What is our country? It is a nation composed of parts. East and West, South and North. It is an entiicty. Tiiere are no xractions in il. il is g uhil, and I trust it will so remain.^ The fact that Houston was Governor of Texas in 1861 attests that there were a number of Texans who shared his Unionist sentiment. In 1860, Benjamin F Perry of South Carolina delivered a speech at the National Democratic Convention in Charleston in which he said he came to the meeting as "a Democn and a Union man, "who was "determined to do all that I could to preserve the 7 Democratic party and the Union of the States. " 5 Patrick Henry, "Against the Federal Constitution," Virginia Ratify] Convention, Richmond, June 5, 1788. In Ernest J. V/rage and Barnet Baskerville, eds. , American Forum (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1960 p. 16. 6 Quoted in James L. Golden, "The Southern Unionists, 1850-1860. In Waldo W, Braden, ed . , Oratory in the Old South, 1828-1860 (Baton Rouge Louisiana State University Press, 1970), p. 260. 7 Ibid. , p. 273.

PAGE 10

In sum, the spirit of national harmony was p/esent in the South. Many Southerners longed for peace between the sections, as many of the speeches described in this study reflect. The concept of union was dear to many, and the Southern speaker's task with these auditors was to reinforce this attitude. A leading Southern historian, C. Vann Woodward, confirms this deep-seated Americanism when he v/rites, "The South was American a long time before it was Southern in any self-conscious or distinctive way. "^ A description of Southern oratory should be productive in illuminating the reconciliation process; therefore, the major purpose of this dissertation will be to characterize Southern ceremonial public speaking as it helped reinforce the reconciliatory attitudes and actions of the post-Civil War Southerner. An additional purpose of the dissertation project is simply to locate ceremonial speech texts for the period 1S75 to 18S0 in which national harmony was a theme. No student has made such a collection of primie sources and it is believed this gathering together of speeches is a contribution in itself. This first chapter will establish the purpose and parameters of the study.The second through the fifth chapters will describe what these speakers said to further reconciliation in various ceremonial situations. In other words, these charter? will discuss the nature of ceremonial speaking which aim.ed at the reestablishing of national harmony. The main body of this inquiry v/ill ^ C. Venn Woodward, The Burden of Southern History (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 19 60), p. 25.

PAGE 11

identify the sub-theme:5 upon which the recx>nciliation spokesmen focused in their effort to reconcile Southerners to political exigencies of the time. That is, these four chapters will characterize the values which, together, made up the content of the reconciliation message. The main body of the study will also describe the rhetorical strategies employed by the leading reconciliation orators. This feature of the study will give particular attention to the rhetorical means by which the speakers sought to reinforce those values associated with the mood of reconciliation. In sum, it will be the aim of these four chapters to describe both the what and how of re conciliatory address, as revealed in the practice of these Southern speakers. The final chapter will characterize, in an over-all way, the reconciliation message as expressed by these men, and draw any generalizations which may be warranted concerning the nature of reconciliation oratory. It is anticipated that this descriptive study will expand and thereby improve our understanding of how a group of speakers on ceremonial occasions dealt with the task of reinstituting national harmony. 9 Descriptive studies, according to Auer, are designed to serve one or more of these goals: "ascertaining norms, establishing goals, or develop ing methods." This study is primarily concerned with determining, through observation of speech texts, the norm, or status, of ceremonial public speaking as it dealt with the problem of national harmony in the post-Civil War South. In addition, description of what these speakers said about reconciliation will help expand and improve our knowledge of public address as a social act. J. JefferyAuer, An Introduction to Research in Speech (New York: Harper and Brothers , 1959), p. 35.

PAGE 12

Geocraphical and Chronological Limits of the Study This survey will be limited to speeches made in the geographical area of the eleven Confederate States of America .'-' Due largely to lack of available speech te:cts from some of the states, the primary focus will be on Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, but will at the same time include a number of speeches from other Southern states which will help illustrate and define the Southern strategy of reconciliation speaking. A further limitation is that the study will include only those speakers who were either long-time residents or natives of the South, or were identified in an integral way with the short-lived Confederacy. In short, the fnous is on those men who had first-hand knowledge nf Southprn life and values. Yet another limiting factor, by necessity, is that the study will embrace only those Southern speakers whose speeches have been recorded and preserved and which are available. The survey is not concerned just with the nationally famous orators of the post-bellum period such as Henry W. Grady. It will describe as well addresses presented by lesser-known men who strove to influence the opinions and values of more limited areas and groups. 10 The speaking of Southerners in the North has been examined. See Huber Winton Ellingsworth, "Southern Reconciliation Orators in the North, 1868-1899." Ph.D. Dissertation, Florida State University, 1955. ^^ For a definition and discussion of Southern speakers, see Kevin Kearney, "What's Southern About Southern Oratory?" The Southern Speech Journal , X)0(II (Fall, 1966), 19-30.

PAGE 13

8 The limiting dates for this study are 1875 to 1890. Although these dates may appear to have been chosen arbitrarily, there is a rationale for limiting the dissertation to this particular time span. In the first place, political reconstruction was coming to an end in most states by 1875, although the final settlement was not made in three states (South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana) until the celebrated "Compromise of 1877. " While the number of Federal troops stationed in the South from 1855 until 1877 were greatly insufficient for their task,^ their symbolic presence angered Southerners and made reconciliation efforts more difficult before their total withdrawal. In fact, one historian believes that for some Southerners, "military occupation was worse than defeat on the field of 13 battle." The process of reconciliation has no clearly defined beginning. Indeed, much reunion had occurred by 1875; but the various centennial celebrations for the War of Independence, which began in 18 75, can be seen as one significant milestone in the road to reunion. By the following year, "Northern public opinion was also veering toward sympathy for the white Southerner," ^ and in 1877, the compromise legislation in the presidential administration of Rutherford B. Hayes touched off a wave of recon;cili. tory efforts such as the President's goodwill trip to the South and his ^f^^Rembert W. Patrick, The Reconstruction of the Natio n (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), p. 150. 13 John Hope Franklin, Reconstruction: After the Civil War (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 19 61), p. 35. 14 Buck, Road to Reunion , p. 139. 1^ Patrick, Reconstruction of the Nation, p. 250.

PAGE 14

participation in Memorial Day services in Tennessee. ^ Even some of the Northern "bloody shirt" orators, such as Robert G. Ingersoll, who fanned the flames of sectionalism after the war, began to support reconciliation by 1877; Southerners such as Lamar, Hill, and John B. 17 Gordon responded with similar messages. Patrick iDelieves that by 1876-1877 "the time for vengeance had passed; the day of understanding and appreciation had arrived. Former anti-southern journalists shifted their bias."-^^ In other words, prior to the mid-1870's feelings were still so intense between the sections that reconciliatory rhetoric often fell upon rocky soil. With the ending of political reconstruction, the total withdrawal of the token forces of occupation and the essential abandonment of the "Negro question" to Southern solutions, the ground was more fertile and speakers were able to reinforce the latent feelings of intersectional peace and harmony. One can suspect that most Americans longed for a true national reunion after decades of bitterness and bloodshed. Although there had been, of course, efforts to promote national harmony prior to the end of political reconstruction, the process toward intersectional peace gained impetus in the 1875-1877 period; it suggests an appropriate starting point for this study. 16 Buck, Road to Reunion , p. 107. ^^ Ibid. , pp. 108-109. 18 Patrick, Reconstruction of the Nation, p. 290,

PAGE 15

10 Fifteen years later, in 1890, the farmer's revolt against the "Redeemers," the established white conservative order — reached its peak. The success in 1890 of the Farmers' Alliance candidates'^ reflected marked agrarian discontent with the men who had controlled the Southern states since the mid-seventies. With the election of agrarian Benjamin Ryan Tillman of South Carolina and James S. Hogg of Texas to their states' governorship in 1890, the Redeemers were overthrown and a new order took their place. 20 According to Clark and Kirwan, "A political revolution of a sort took place in the South in the early 1890's as veterans of State legislatures and of Congress were replaced by tillers of the soil. "^^ The Ocala, Florida, meeting of the Southern Farmers' Alliance in 1890 formed what was to be the platform of the soon-to-be-created Populist Party, thus helping to identify 1890 as a turning-point year in Southern life. To a large degree, the process of reunion and reconciliation had run its course by 1890; the South, as a region, was again in the mainstream of national life, participating in large-scale public deliberation on popular issues. By the time of the Spanish American War in 1898, the nation was functionally reunited in the '^Seven Southern states elected Alliance legislatures and fortyfour Alliancemen were elected to the House of Representatives. Theodore Saloutos, Farmer Movements in the South, 18651933 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1964), p. 116. 20 Woodward, Origins of the New South, 1877-1913 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1951), p. 204. 21 Thomas D. Clark and Albert D. Kirwan, The South Since Appomattox, A Century of Regional Change (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), p. 69.

PAGE 16

11 face of a common enemy, with the South furnishing many of the nation's fighting men. Since 1890 marks the beginning of the end for the reconciliation-oriented leadership of the Southern states, it presents a useful date with which to terminate this examination of Southern public address. The Ceremonial Address Since it is the position of this study that these speakers who projected the reconciliation message were primarily concerned with reinforcing the sentiment of American nationalism, the ceremonial speech was selected as an appropriate type of speech to examine. As shall be demonstrated, this speech situation is designed to reaffirm values generally held by an audience. This speech type played a large role in the life of the post-war South, as, indeed, it did everywhere in the nation until the advent of nationwide radio, television, and spectator sports. The Memorial Day or Fourth of July oration, for example, was a communitywide celebration, and to be selected as the "orator of the day" was a true honor. In nineteenth century America , the ceremonial occasion served as a focal point for social fellowship and, as such, as a key factor in reinforcing community values. These speeches v/ere often printed, thereby enhancing their potential to reach a wider audience. This wider distribution implied also that a large and influential segment of the listeners felt them to be important. For over two thousand years of public speaking theory and criticism men have written about the ceremonial address. For Aristotle, the epideictic was one of the three major forms of Athenian public address. The epideictic

PAGE 17

12 speech was presented to groups on special memorial and celebration days and was designed for praise or blame of a man or institution.^^ It is the position of this study that the epideictic is a species of a larger, more encompassing type of address to be labeled here the ceremonial. In America the Boston Massacre and Fourth of July orations, Memorial Day addresses, funeral sermons, graduation and bacculaureate addresses, building dedications. Thanksgiving and Election Day sermons, after-dinner speeches, convention keynote speeches, and presidential inaugural addresses are examples of a major speaking genre — the ceremonial -which became part of our oral tradition. What is the basic function of the address presented on certain ceremonial days in honor of standardized, conventionalized events? It seems rather obvious that the chief purpose is to confirm, support, reinforce, and affirm shared community values . Or to put it a different way, to reinforce community cohesiveness . Many writers have commented on this form of oratory and its social role. For example, Wil A, Linkugel, R.R. Allen, and Richard L. Johannesen, in their anthology. Contemporary American Speeches, point out that on certain occasions. 2^J. Richard Chase, "The Classical Conception of Epideictic," The Quarterly Journal of Speech ,XLVII (October, 1961), 299. It should be recalled, however, that Charles Sears Baldwin, in referring to the translation of the Greek term for this type of oratory, says: '" demonstrative' is flatly a mistranslation, 'oratory of display' is quite too narrow a translation, and 'epideictic' is not a translation at all ... . The French equivalent is discours de circonstance. " Ancient Rhetoric and Poetic (Gloucester, Massachusetts: Peter Smith, 1959), p. 15.

PAGE 18

13 speakers address audiences about the values that both share as members of a common group. The speeches given in such moments are thus noncontroversial for a specific audience. They dO' not urge adoption of new values or rejection of old values. Rather, they seek to reinforce and re vitalize the existing audience values. The speaker ; seeks unity of spirit or a re-energizing of effort or commitmert; he tries to inspire, to kindle enthusiasm or to deepen feelings of awe, respect, and devotion. '^'^ John D. Groppe points out that "social ritual is employed on rather specialized social occasions, such as a group's formal, public occasions, as a means of manifesting and achieving solidarity." On these occasions, the speeches presented "are analogues of the creeds that are recited by congregations in Christian churches ... to manifest the unity of the group. "24 in writing about Memorial Day and rites such as Armistice and Veterans Day, Lloyd Warner says they are "rituals of a sacred symbol system which functions periodically to unify the whole community, with its conflicting symbols and 25 its opposing, autonomous churches and associations." Samuel R. Johnson, in presenting a critique of the Aristotelian model of epideictic speaking, asserts that "American epideictic speaking is most often confirmational. " He argues that the speaker's purpose may not be to 9 c praise or blame at all, but may be "to speak for maintenance value." 23 Wil A. Linkugel, R.R. Allen, and Richard L. Johannesen, Contemporary American Speeches , 2nd ed. (Belmont, California: Wads worth Publishing Company, 1969), p. 278. Italics supplied. 24 John D. Groppe, "Ritualistic Language," The South Atlantic Quarterly , LXIX (Winter, 1970), 63. 25 w. Lloyd Warner, American Life, Dream and Reality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953), p. 3. 26 Samuel R. Johnson, "The Non-Aristotelian Nature of Samoan Ceremonial Oratory," Western Speech,XXXIV (Fall, 1970), 273. It should

PAGE 19

14 William J. Brandt observes, however, that the speech of praise — central to the Aristotelian concept of epideictic — performs an "important civic function," for as it praises a person, it reaffirms the "traditional values upon which such praise was based. It was thus an affirmation of community solidarity."^ Thus, an important aspect of the ceremonial address is its emphasis upon community values. The focus is not upon expediency or practicality as in deliberative, political, policy-making oratory. Nor is the forensic speech one which centers upon values -other than the ultimate goal-value of justice. Here the question is guilt or innocence. But the ceremonial address is value oriented; it functions to reinforce values. It goes to the very bed rock of society and employs as its subject matter values that society holds dear. Indeed, human values must exist before standards of guilt and innocence can be established and before policy can be determined and action urged. Ceremonial oratory is, therefore, basically conservative in the best sense of that word, since it attempts to reaffirm the basic values of a society. be pointed out, however, that while this student agrees with some of his conclusions regarding ceremonial speaking, one of Johnson's contentions, namely that ceremonial address is "relatively unstructured," is not considered accurate. Instead, it would appear that ceremonial address is rather rigidly bound by the situation of the ceremonial event and that audience expectations play a large role. For further demonstration of the situational demands on the ceremonial speaker, see Ronald H. Carpenter and Robert V. Seltzer, "Situational Style and the Rotunda Eulogies," Central States Speech Journal, XXII (Spring, 1971), 11-15. 27 William J. Brandt, The Rhetoric of Argumentation (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1970), p. 13.

PAGE 20

15 An additional purpose of ceremonial oratory ij; suggested by Johnson when he discusses ceremonial address as "oratory of display." He observes that sometimes the speaker may be addressing the audience "merely for the satisfaction of the audience and speaker. " Brandt also recognizes this purpose, pointing out that "the oratoi who was not particularly awed by the ceremonial occasion could see in an epideictic oration 29 a handsome opportunity for personal display." Edward P.J. Corbett, in discussing ceremonial addresses describes it as the "oratory of display, " in which the speaker is "not so much concerned with persuading an audience on as with pleasing it or inspiring it. """^ J. Richard Chase, in his survey of "The Classic Conception of Epideictic, "^^ shows that Aristotle believed that in epideictic speaking the audience's "interest is centered upon the speaker's performance." Chase says this is the focus for, "in epideictic there is no burning issue that demands a decision. Thus the listener, not caught up in the conflict of ideas, can better appreciate the artistic efforts of the speaker. " Brandt also makes this distinction, observing that, "members of the audience were spectators, presumably because they shared the sentiments of the speaker even before he began. "^^ 28 Johnson, "Non-Aristotelian Nature, " 273. 29 Brandt, Rhetoric of Argumentation , p. 13. 30 Edward P.J. Corbett, Classical Rhetoric for the Modem Student (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965), p. 29. 31 Chase, "Classical Conception, " 295, 296. 32 Brandt, Rhetoric of Argum.entation , pp. 12--13.

PAGE 21

16 It should be clearly pointed out that the distinctions between the three forms of oratory — deliberative, forensic, and epideictic — are not rigid nor mutually exclusive. Writes Corbett: Ceremonial discourse sometimes shades off into deliberative discourse, sometimes into judicial. The ceremonial orator did indeed seem to be more intent on impressing the audience with the eloquence of his laudatory efforts than he did in persuading his audience to adopt a certain course of action. But in praising a great man, he was suggesting, indirectly at least, that his audience go and do likewise; and in thus suggesting a course of action he was moving over into the realm of deliberative discourse. Likewise, when he praised or censured a man, he encroached on the province of judicial discourse, because like the lawyer in the courtroom he seemed to be engaged in exonerating or discrediting someone. ^^ As this passage from Corbett demonstrates, there is mmch overlapping of Aiislotle' s Liuee divlsioiis of the rhetorical act -perhaps so rnucri triGt 34 they become practically meaningless. For instance, there is the function of counseling, normally considered the prime aim of the deliberative, policy• making speech. In the final analysis, the ultimate rationale of all rhetoric is counseling: helping an audience make decisions based on what the speaker sees as truth, the best solution to a problem, the best value to be upheld, or the guilt or innocence, worthiness or unworthiness of a person. Yet in a >^ Corbett, Classical Rhetoric, p. 139. ^^ For example, Donald C. Bryant, in his essay, "Rhetoric: Its Function and Its Scope," says that "any systematic construction of human phenomena, even Aristotle's, will either leave out something important and significant or will include a category, however named, which is, in effect, 'miscellaneous.' That I think Aristotle did in discussing the rhetoric of the ceremonial or epideictic speech." Quarterly Journal of Speech , XXXIX (December, 1953), 405.

PAGE 22

17 narrower sense than this, there is a counseling dimension of a speech presented at a ceremonial situation. A hypothetical example should help make this point clear. Suppose that a speaker, addressing an audience on Memorial Day, reinforces the spirit of reunion in an effective manner so that it truly becomes a rqeaningful part of the life of a United States Congressman who was present in the audience. Suppose further that the speaker did not in any way advocate a policy, state his views on political matters, or do anything else one might usually consider within the province of a deliberative address. But that Congressman, a week or a month later, recalls that reunion message and its meaning to him. Because of that speech he encourages his fellow Congressmen to vote on a certain bill in a way which will aid in destroying inters ectional barriers. That ceremonial speaker, then, did contribute to the deliberative process — but did not give a deliberative address as rhetoricians have traditionally thought of it. It is not within the scope of this study to determine when, or if, this aspect of ceremonial address occurred. It is simply pointed out as an example of how the traditional divisions of rhetoric are not mutually exclusive. Again, ceremonial address can be deliberative — that is, advicegiving or counseling — in yet another situation. The speaker counsels when he deals with attitudes or opinions held by his auditors which may be counter to his own point of view or the thesis of his speech. For instance, when a Southern speaker encouraged his listeners to support the reunion of the nation, he may have been speaking in the face of deeply held anti-Union sentiments. Therefore, he is asking his audience to rethink, to deliberate

PAGE 23

18 with themselves, to change this attitude. No vote is taken in a legislative chamber. Rather, the debate goes on within the listener himself es a result of our hypothetical speaker's influence on him. Again, this is an aspect of the ceremonial address with which the present study will not be concerned. It is simply mentioned as an aspect of the speech type which could, and probably did, occur. At any rate, the ceremonial address is basically concerned with first, reinforcing shared community values and second, with satisfying or entertaining an audience with the speaker's display of rhetorical ability. The first of these functions will be the major focus of this study. It is assumed that these ceremonial speakers did attempt to reinforce the value goal of national reunion by calling upon community values such as p_atriotism, forgiveness , friendship, and cooperation . This study will attempt to discover whether, indeed, these speakers did fulfill this value-reinforcing function of the ceremonial address. Carroll Arnold, in his study of one of America's greatest ceremonial speakers, George William Curtis, sums up the genre in this manner: In general, those who wait upon ceremonial speakers are drawn from their habitual haunts by a sense of duty, a personal involvement in the occasion, a lively curiosity, or -perhaps most often — by a desire to hear a preachment upon the present significance of the occasion. And the ceremonial speaker, freed from the exactions of opposition, from knottily worded propositions, and from the necessity of counseling detailed and immediate action, is usually at liberty to view the celebrated event in its most symmetrical cosmic attitude. Listener and speaker are intent upon contemplating together the relation to the received values honored by all parties. The

PAGE 24

19 celebrants may differ with those outside their bethel, but differences among themselves are usually excluded by tacit agreement. These sanctions of ceremonial address have probably never been more scrupulously observed in America than in the late: half of the nineteenth century. ^5 The body of the study is divided into chapters according to the various types of important ceremonial occasions under which these speeches may be grouped: Chap:er Two concerns Decoration Day, Memorial Day, and other eulogy -producing occasions; Chapter Three deals with monument and statue dedications; Chapter Four discusses Confederate veterans' reunions; and Chapter Five treats educational occasions such as commencements, baccalaureates, and alumni gatherings. The content of these ceremonial speeches which deals with reconciliation themes, symbols, and values will be described. It is not the intent of this dissertation to consider ceremonial oratory in general, but rather to examine how these speakers, on these ceremonial occasions, handled the theme of national reunion. Sources and Selection of Speech Texts It was assumed at the outset of this investigation that public speaking played some discernible role among the road to reunion in the South. An attempt was made, therefore, to discover ceremonial speeches which dealt to 35 Carroll C. Arnold, "George William Curtis," in History and Criticism of American Public Address , Vol, III, ed . by Marie K. Hochmuth (New York: Longmans, Green and Company, 1955), p. 153. Italics supplied.

PAGE 25

20 some degree with a conciliatory topic: that is, speeches in which the orator made a direct or a symbolic reference to national reunion, the causes of disharmony, and solutions to this problem, or a plea for peace between the North and the South. These speeches w(3re selected because the speakers attempted to promote good will between the sections . After consulting a number of secondary sources describing the history of the period, the writer compiled a list of speakers who were in some role or another as public figures. This list was arranged by states, and a tour of several major Southern historical collections was conducted in order to locate ceremonial addresses by these men. Speeches were located in which amity, not emnity, was an overriding consideration of the speaker. These speeches are the sources used to describe a portion of the South' s reconciliation speaking. As pointed out earlier, only those texts of speeches given by South-: erners to Southern audiences, which have been preserved and which have been found during the research stage, will be utilized in this study. Most of the speeches examined in this dissertation were printed in pamphlet form by the speaker himself or by a committee who heard the address and thought it worthy of recording for a wider audience. 36 The remainder of the speech texts were found in contemporary newspaper reports of the occasions. 36 Some of the comments regarding the publication of the speeches are interesting. For example, a committee in writing to Governor Thomas J. Jarvis of North Carolina requesting permission to publish his speech to the Society of Alumni at Randolph Macon College felt "assured that happy results will follow its circulation." Thomas J. Jarvis, A ddress Delivered Before the Society of Alumni of Randolph Macon College, June 15, 1881. (Richmond: Johns and Goolsby, 1381), p. 3.

PAGE 26

21 Admittedly, the bothersome problem of textual authenticity must be recognized; some of the texts studied probably do not represent a wordfor-word record of what the speaker actually said. For one thing the speakers may have had a desire to make their speeches "read as well as possible" when they were published, and second, the possibility for errors in transcription and printing make it difficult to obtain a verbatim record of the speeches which were made before the advent of electronic recorders. 37 Doubtless, those speeches which were printed by the speaker or by a public committee in pamphlet form represent an accurate statement of the ideational content of the speech. Those speeches discovered in the public press, however, should be looked upon with some reservation, since they were often the product of a reporter's memory and his dictation skills. Probably, however, the basic macrostructure of the content, the ideas expressed, and the general language used by the speaker is enough similar to what was verbalized on the platform that these speeches will be useful in this descriptive study of Southern public speaking. Studying speeches presented years ago places another burden on the modern student when one realizes to what a limited extent printed texts include on-the-spot attempts by the speaker to adapt to his individual audience and his possible reactions to feedback. For example, the newspaper account of a speech by John B. Gordon remarks that the orator prefaced his prepared address by "several minutes impromptu speaking. "^^ Nowhere in the reports 37 Lester A. Thonssen, A. Craig Baird, and Waldo Braden, Speech Criticism , 2nd ed. (New York: Ronald Press, 1970), pp. 323-346. 38 Atlanta Constitution (Atlanta, Georgia), April 28, 1887.

PAGE 27

22 of this speech does anv hint appear about the content of these impromptu statements, which doubtless affected the rhetorical situation. If the critic cannot discover how the speaker might have made immediate adaptations to the audience and social environment, he mus.t neglect consideration of this potentially important rhetorical tactic. An additional problem presents itself when one considers the printed speech text. Speeches are transitory acts. Critics have observed that there are "many elemer.ts of an evanescent sort" present in the speaking process. These elements are "effective and significant while the speech is being delivered but irretrievably lost once the speaker leaves the platform. "35 The student and his reader must accept this fact and realize that not hearing the spoken word and not seeing the gestural language of the orator nor his physical appearance on the platform, places additional limits upon the effectiveness of the study. Most of the speech texts selected for this study, as well as others which were originally selected but later rejected as either being too repetitious of other speeches or as not covering the reunion theme in more than just passing reference, were uncovered during research in the excellent historical collections at the following University libraries: University of South Carolina, University of North Carolina (at Chapel Hill), Duke University, University of Virginia, Louisiana State University, Emory University and the University of Georgia. Others were selected from the Cos sit Library 39 Thonssen, Baird, and Braden, Speech Criticism, p. 9.

PAGE 28

23 in Memphis, Tennessee, and the Little Rock, Arkansas, Public Library, as well as the Universities of Texas, Houston, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Florida, and the North Carolina State Library. Conclusion Public speakinc always grows out of a situational problem in the speaker's social environment; as Lloyd Bitzer put it, "the situation calls 40 the discourse into existence." The speaker speaks because he sees — or thinks he sees — a problem, or an issue, and has something he wishes others to hear about it. His discourse may be either appropriate or inappropriate to that situation. This is for his audience to determine. But the speaker is compelled by circumstances to respond to what Bitzer calls, an "exigence," defined as "an imperfection marked by urgency; it is a defect, an obstacle, something waiting to be done, a thing which is other than it should be. " The focus of this study is the exigence of national disharmony and some of the attempts Southerners made to deal with this problem . Study in the field of Southern public address history focusing on the rhetorical strategy of post-Civil War reconciliation is patently warranted. At a time in America's history when unity and harmony over national purpose are practically non-existent for certain segments of our population, when 40 Bitzer, "The Rhetorical Situation," Philosophy and Rhetoric, I (January, 1968), 2. 4i Ibid., 6.

PAGE 29

24 sectional battles over racial policy echo the debates of the previous century and when a developing gulf is threatening between those who would destroy our environment and those who would conserve it, serious students of communication in American society shoulc focus more specifically upon research pertaining to reconciliation and national harmony. Perhaps this study can contribute to this urgent quest by describing how a group of m.en, living in the decades following the Civil War, attempted to mend the spirit of a broken nation.

PAGE 30

CHAPTER TWO HONORING THE DEAD: MEMORIAL DAY ADDRESSES AND EULOGIES The Civil War ground to a halt in the Spring of 1865. Within a matter of weeks. Southern women began the practice of honoring their dead heroes who had fought and died in the "Lost Cause. " Indeed this process had begun in some towns even before the war's end.-^ Throughout the South, springtime flowers were brought to the gravesides as women attempted to beautify the tombs of the fallen gray-clad soldiers. As the azealea, wisteria, buttercups, and gardenias bloomed, their blossoms were brought to the new cemeteries scattered across the Southland -cemeteries filled with thousands of freshly dug graves. The women of the South did their share to make the last resting places more elegant and pleasant that Spring, but they felt more could be done. Accordingly, the next March, Mrs. Mary Williams of Columbus, Georgia, wrote a letter to the Columbus Times in behalf of her bereaved comrades and the men they wished to honor: The ladies are now and have been for several days engaged in the sad but pleasant duty of ornamenting and improving that portion of the city cemetery sacred to the memory of our gallant Confederate dead, but we 1 Paul S. Buck, The Road to Reunion, 1865-1900 (New York: Random House, 1937), p. 120. 25

PAGE 31

26 feel it is an unfinished work unless a day be set apart annually for its special attention .... we can keep alive the memory of the debt we owe them, by dedicating at least one day in each year to embellishing their humble graves with flowers .... and we propose the 2 6th day of April as the day.^ By 1875 this custom had spread throughout the South, although there was never any total uniformity in dates. Many localities did adopt Mrs. Williams' April 2 6 holiday, but the date varied from town to town. Certainly there was no uniformity as there was in the North where May 30 was legalized as Memorial Day in 1868 and celebrated as such throughout that victorious section under the direction of various local posts of the 3 Grand Army of the Republic. An editorial statement in the Atlanta Constitution dated April 22, 1887, pyplained some of the history nf the Confederate memorial observance: For the past twenty years the people of the South have been accustomed to gather about the graves of the heroes of the 'lost cause' on the 26th of April to pay their tribute .... This beautiful rite was instituted in Georgia. It was suggested and founded by Mrs. C. H. Williams of Columbus .... The 26th of April was chosen because it is the anniversary of the surrender of the last organized army of the confederacy .... The women of the South instituted it, and they have constantly maintained it with loving pride and heroic devotion.^ 2 I. W. Avery, The History of the State of Georgia from 1850 to 1881 (New York: Brown and Derby, 1881), p. 715. ^ Buck, Road to Reunion , p. 121. ^ "Shall Memorial Day Be Changed?", Editorial, Atlanta Constitution (Atlanta, Georgia), April 22, 1887, p. 4.

PAGE 32

27 A running controversy in the Constitution over the next few days gives further insight into the nature of the holiday. The suggestion had been made to bring the South 's celebration into line with the North's observance of Memorial Day by changing the often-accepted Southern date of April 26 to May 30 ~ which was by the 1880' 3 a "national" holiday. Among the several comments between April 22 and 26 which appeared in the Constitution , there was this notable one from C. H. Williams, the son of the holiday's founder: I do not understand how such a change could be seriously considered for a moment by any one who comprehends the true tenderly mournful meaning of our "Memorial Day" .... it is now woven into the sweet and tender traditions of the south as one of mourning not of exultation. "Decoration Day" at the north is celebrated as a day of triumphant exultation over the last expiring gasp of the cause we seek to mourn for and sanctify in the m.em.ory of the youth of the land. The editorial writer of the Constitution replied that same day with the comment that the origin of Confederate Memorial Day "is something worthy of being remembered with patriotic pride. We owe the day to a noble southern woman's devotion. "^ Although in due time the South did agree to participate in the national celebration, April 26 is still Confederate Memorial Day in many parts of the South. ^ ^ Letter to the Editor, ibid . , April 26, 1887, p. 4. 6 "Suggested by the Day, " Editorial, ibid. 7 Confederate Memorial Day is still being observed at various places in the South. See, for example, the Pensacola (Florida) News Journal, April 27, 1969, for a brief description of the 1969 observance of the event

PAGE 33

28 In the South, the annual observance was one of the key factors enabling the "Lost CauHe" to achieve potent myth status, by which several generations of r>outherners have lived. If the Lost Cause did g assume a religious character, as two scholars have recently pointed out. Confederate Memorial Day (or Decoration Day as it was known in some places) played a significant role in this process. The Raleigh, North Carolina, Nev/s and Observer clearly expressed in an 1887 editorial the prevailing sentiment in that region: Again the lOth of May rolls around and we repair to the last resting places of those who wore the gray and died in that patriotic service specially to recall once more the heroic value of the sleeping army and the virtues of those who gave up all that made life sweet to go cheerily to war because it was for home and countr^^. It is a custom as appropriate as it is touching, and we trust it will slwa'^'S and v-rithout breach be observed in our southland.. in that northwest Florida City. See also Herbert F. Birdsey, "Rose Hill Cemetery -Macon, Georgia, April 26, 1866 — April 26, 1966" The Georgia Review, XXI (Fall, 1967), 370-72. 8 Thomas D. Clark and Albert D. Kirwan, The South Since Appomattox, A Century of Regional Change (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), p. 51. 9 "Memorial Day," Editorial, News and Observer (Raleigh, North Carolina), May 10, 1887, In her delightful description of Decoration Day, Margaret Inman Meaders expresses how some in the South needed this celebration: "The defeated have left to them only the transforming of grief into glory. Losses can be endured only when wreathed in laurel. Memories must march to drums; and fears, be beaten down by fifes. Pride must be reborn before its earlier death can be admitted." "Postscript to Appomattox: My Grandpa and Decoration Day," The Georgia Revlew,XXIV (Fall, 1970), 298-99.

PAGE 34

29 This social phenomenon, heavily steeped in symbolism, is deserving of careful study. It is important to the present investigation to report what was said on these annual occasions, and to determine what role the observance played in the reconciliation process. For only through this context are we able to understand fully the rhetorical phenomenon of post-Civil War reconciliation oratory. A typical Memorial Day ceremony in the South can be characterized in this way: There was usually a procession of the Confederate veterans and the women and school children from the center of town to the cemetery where the bands and choral groups of the locality presented one or two "appropriate" selections. If held in a hall, the women prepared and arranged elaborate trappings such as black sashes and drapes, evergreens, and pictures of the famous deceased such as Robert E. Lee or "Stonewall" Jackson. The ladies of the community were generally accorded places of honor both on the platform and in the procession. Prayers were offered by various clergy members, and there was always the ubiquitous oration, which was often followed by more prayers and musical selections. In considering specific celebrations of this event, two speeches made by the noted Georgia journalist and orator, John Temple Graves, provide an appropriate starting point. The first of these was delivered at West Point, Georgia, on April 26, 1876;-'-Q the second was addressed to 10 John Temple Graves, "Memorial Address," Delivered at West Point, Georgia, April 26, 1876. Text from an undated, newspaper clipping in Joh n Te mple Graves Scr apbook, The South Caroliniana Library', University of South Carolina .

PAGE 35

30 the Union "Decoration Day" ceremonies in Jacksonville, Florida, on May 30, 1885.^^ The West Point address was one of at least two memorial addresses Graves made in the two years following the completion of his college work at the University of Georgia in August, 1875. The other speech was made in 1877 at LaGrange. Taken together, these two addresses significantly helped in building Graves' reputation as "the orator of Georgia," as he was grandly introduced for a speaking engagement at the opening of the 1890 Piedmont Exposition in Atlanta. ^^ r^^ie eulogistic biographical sketch in A Standard History of Georgia and Georgians says that during his period as teacher at West Point and La Grange, "he attracted much attention for two 1 13 memorial addresses, delivered over the graves of Confederate soldiers." The young orator begins his speech"'^ with a brief statement to the effect that Memorial Day is the occasion for "grateful memory" of the past 11 Graves, "Union Decoration Day Speech," delivered at Jacksonville, Florida, May 30, 1885. Text from an undated, unknown newspaper clipping in ibid . 12 Atlanta Constitution, October 16, 1890. Clipping in ibid. 13 "John Temple Graves, " in Lucian Lamar Knight, A Standard History of Georgia and Georgians , Vol. VI (Chicago: Lewis Publishing Company, 1917), p. 2873. '^^ The only text found for the La Grange oration is a badly mutilated copy of a newspaper clipping from which is missing a large portion of the speech. Therefore, only the earlier West Point address will be examined. All quotations from the speech are from the text in Graves Sera pbook .

PAGE 36

31 and a memorial as well to woman's deathless gratitude. He also makes it clear that "the sorrows, trials, and bitterness of our desolation have dulled no chord of memory's music. " After his standard introduction, which points out the significance of the occasion. Graves moves into a melodramatic portion in which he paints an emotionally vivid but highly romanticized description of war: Now we see the glittering sabre gleam in the bouyant hand and then dash onward to the foe; the grand leaders calm, serene; and dauntless in the jaws of death .... Then the roar and the rush . . . death shots falling thick and fast, like lightning from the mountain cloud .... Then the slow ambulance and the heated hospital, and the mangled, bleeding loved ones coming home to linger or to die. He perpetuates this mood as he describes the period immediately after the war: And after this the calm — the calm when the storm is spent and awed nature wonders at the deep repose she holds. The solemn stillness_of despair and desolation broken only by the miseres / sic/ sighing through the tall proud pines, with sad soothing to a people mourning over dead hopes and perished principles in a land strewn with the salt and ashes of desolation. The youthful Georgian then turns quickly from the horrors of war to a glowing tribute to the idealized women of the South who whisper "comfort to the troubled hearts that droop above these idolized dead." In a passage more appropriate to his later "New South" advocacy, he challenges them not only to continue the yearly tribute to the dead, but also to "work now to build again the land /the Confederates^/ died to save, and make it bloom and blossom like the rose."

PAGE 37

32 Graves makes a smooth transition from the early portion of the address: "But these are memories and we cannot liv3 in memories forever. There is a clamorous present and an unformed future. We must live the one and bravely mould the other. " He then turns to the principal theme of the oration, national reconciliation. He points out that the Southerner still has "a part to play in our nation's history," that Georgia is still "among the Union of original states," and that, "we still claim, and justly, the heritage and honor of American citizens." He urges his listeners to "tear aside this veil of prejudice and personal feeling" and to "speak peace to the troubled tides of passion and revenge that sweep upon the surface of our sectional heart." He feels that Northern "dastardly and designing politicans" have "fostered and fed the flame of sectional hatred, " but that "behind the prosperous corruption" of these men the South' s "Northern brethern" have hearts "that beat true and pure." Graves moves ahead with this theme of true peace between the sections as he urges those Southerners of his generation to "come as brothers with the clasped hand of brothers, knowing around the common altar of our common country, no North, no South, no East, no West." He explains that both sides fought for what they believed, and that had the "political renegades" left them alone, "they would have clasped hands above the red stream of their comrades /sic/ blood, and settled there forever the issues of the war. "

PAGE 38

33 He calls for "a sorrowing, regretful sigh about the last home of the soldier in blue, who fought and died for his belief. " Then Graves almost negates his positive plea for intersectional harmony by contending that the "truth of history" will vindicate the South and its role in the preceding "fifteen shadowed years." History, he says, will compare the principles of these "who are said to have failed, with the principles of the men who are said to have succeeded": for example, Jefferson Davis as Secretary of War under President Pierce will be contrasted with W. W. Belknap, Secretary of War under President Grant. In other words, the honor and integrity of the lives of Southern leaders are more lasting than these character attributes as they were reflected by Northern leaders. This rhetoric of vindication is one of the recurring threads of Southern oratory for this period and is worthy of a full study itself. The young Georgian returns to the reconciliation theme, however, saying, "Now we wish peace and brotherly love .... Oh, we would plead for peace in this storm lashed motherland!" When the birthday celebration for the nation's centennial occurs, let the "jubilate of reconciliation swell out in the grand chant. " Returning to his discussion of Southern principles. Graves urges his listeners, especially the younger ones, to "remember and cherish those that have come to you bathed in your fathers' blood. Cling to them, as the last heritage of a better and a purer day, study them, honor them, live them out in your lives . "

PAGE 39

34 This speech is a curious mixture of reconciliation and vindication; doubtless. Graves' ex:reme youth at this point led him to speak cautiously with reverence for the past (as would be expected by the Memorial Day audience) and to support staunchly Southern principles (which he never clearly delineated in any specific way). At the same time, his participation and membership in a new generation called for him to turn to the future and urge reconciliation — if reunion could come without the expense of Southern tradition and ideals. The following passage illustrates this dichotomy: God grant that ere my eyes may close forever, I may see this land which I do love supremely, once again the sunny South of history, with no gloom of tyranny or darkness of oppression shrouding her. When her states shall be sovereign, her people free, and her liberties disenthralled. When she shall take her stand co-equal with her brethern of the North and the wide and measureless chasm which grasping politicians and thieves have made shall be closed forever by a reunited solidery who weep their mutual dead ! When the time-honored flag of Washington and Jefferson shall not be foul with the odors of civil rights and race amalgamation, but with the glorious motto of "Constitutional Liberty" '^ blazing on every fold, it shall sweep triumphant upon every breeze, in every land, on every sea, fostering patriotism, awakening freedom and scattering the mists of tyranny from the world ! Graves' expression of hope for the far distant future, "ere my eyes may close forever, " seems a bit artificial and out of place for a youth of twenty, but the rest of this passage illustrates the pressures his generation faced and the major problems they had to deal with: intersectional 15 In the newspaper text found in the Graves Scrapbook , "Constitutional Liberty" has been capitalized and set off by hand in ink with quotation marks; presumably Graves himself did this.

PAGE 40

35 animosity and racial conflict. It was a plea for the bright future of the South, but with the North granting many of the South's wishes — especially in respect to the racial question. The tone again seems to shift back to the earlier romantic mood as Graves concludes his address. He thanks the women and once again gloriously eulogizes the Lost Cause and shows he is aware of and concerned about the expectations of his auditors: "Forgive me if I have made no florid eulogy abov3 the sweetly sleeping patriot dead. They need no praise from me where every floweret breathes their fame, and I shrink from a withered offering." He then concludes with several more romanticized passages and with a stanza from a poem that ends with the hallowed "name of Lee." Since Robert E. Lee was considered the leading Southern hero of the War, reference to him was a most appropriate conclusion. Nine years later, Graves, by this time a prosperous Florida journalist, participated in a "Decoration Day" celebration in Jacksonville, Florida, which was sponsored by the Grand Army of the Republic. The scrapbook copy of this address has a significant note penned across the bottom: "This speech was one of the most successful of my life. " The oration was fairly brief, in contrast with typical nineteenth century speeches, as, again in Graves' own words, he spoke "five minutes on the following line." Graves assessed the event as "a grand affair" in which he spoke to "an immense concourse of people. " 16 All quotations are from the text in Graves Scrapbook.

PAGE 41

36 The entire address is centered on the theme of reconciliation. Early in the speech Graves sets the tone by the following clause, "The Grand Army of the Republic locking arms with the remnant of Confederate Veterans leads a great host of citizens who sing: 'My Country 'tis of Thee. '" This skillful juxtaposing of the "Grand Army of the Republic" with " remnant of the Confederate Veterans" leaves no doubt who was the victor. Thus, from the beginning, the audience, and the sponsoring organization, understand clearly who is leading the "great host of citizens." This represented a marked change from Graves' earlier Confederate Memorial Day address in which he called for reconciliation only on Southern terms. Two reasons perhaps can explain this different tone. First, the North had noticeably capitulated by this time to Southern demands to "let us settle the race question"; in short, reconciliation, to the degree that it had occurred, was on Southern terms. So Graves saw no need to be antagonistic; the South had lost the war, but she had won 1 7 the peace. In the second place. Graves was doubtless deferring to the demands of the situation. The G. A. R. was sponsoring the event at which he was one of the featured speakers; why not bolster its ego — indeed, could he have performed differently? 17 Woodward writes that in 1877, the North not only withdrew the remaining Federal troops, they also abandoned the Negro as "a ward of the nation, " gave up trying to guarantee his civil equality, and acquiesced in "the South' s demand that the whole problem be left to the disposition of the dominant Southern white people." The Strange Career of Jim Crow , 2nd Rev. Ed. (London: Oxford University Press, 1966), p. 6.

PAGE 42

37 This entire oration is a prime example of how the rhetorical situation can drastically shape the nature of a message. The entire ceremony was oriented toward reconciliation; the resting places of both Blue and Gray were decorated by the participants. Both Northerners and their rebel counterparts had a role in the event. Accordingly, Graves' speech was a total reflection of the occasion and, as such, served to reinforce the mood generated that day by the rest of the program. Graves depicts the nation as once again whole: "the bloody chasm is bridged by Northern heartiness and Southern warmth and mutual generosity, and the heart of Florida beats at last in loyal unison with the heart of Maine. " The Southern orator points out a number of examples of reconciliatory efforts on the part of the North in an attempt to illustrate why the South was ready for this grand day of reconciliation. One of these occasions was when a Maine regiment sent a memorial to Congress petitioning for a pension for the "maimed and disabled veterans of the dead Confederacy." As for Southern evidence that reconciliation had occurred. Graves cites the fact that the South was sending "sincere and heartfelt and universal sympathy" to the bedside of the North's great hero /Grant/, dying in New York." In concluding, the orator appeals to the whole nation to "chant the praises of our dead together" and "honor these men simply as soldiers who fought like lions, who endured like martyrs, and bore the separate flags of the cause they loved with an heroic faith, a matchless patience, a splendid patriotism that will live as long as the name of Jackson and

PAGE 43

38 the name of Grant. " By thus juxtaposing the names of Jackson and Grant, Graves skillfully implies that the nation is one. In both of these speeches, one presented by an untested young man, the other delivered by a respected citizen who had earned a name for himself. Graves appeals to the traditional Southern value of honor of the past and paints an optimistic, positive verbal picture of the reunited nation and its future. He also reflects the Southern respect for womanhood and the love of a martial spirit. He gaines credibility and audience identity by urging the listeners to respect and remember the past, then moves to his advocacy of a reunited nation. Based on these basic strategies, he builds a reconciliation message which was bound to be appealing to his auditors . On May 9, 1879, Alfred Moore Waddell attended a Memorial Day celebration at New Bern, North Carolina, and delivered "a most scholarly, beautiful and appropriate address" which "for good taste and ability, has been rarely equaled and never surpassed by any similar oration in this city."!^ This speech ^ was presented less than a year after Waddell had been defeated as the incumbent in a race for Congress. Although his defeat 18 Newbernian (Nev/ Bern, North Carolina), May 17, 1879. 19 Alfred Moore Waddell, "Memorial Day Address," delivered at New Bern, North Carolina, May 9, 1879. Text from an undated, unknown newspaper clipping in Waddell' s Papers , Southern Historical Collection, The University of North Carolina Library, Chapel Hill.

PAGE 44

39 had been at least partia.!,ly caused by a mass circulation of an 1865 speech he had made advocating limited Negro suffrage, '-' the foregoing statement by a local newswriter reflects that Waddell's credibility was indeed still strong. According to the newspaper report, "upwards of two thousand 21 persons" attended the ceremonies. The program itself fit well the demands of the occasion. There was a choir "composed of many of the best voices in the city" as well as a band for accompaniment. The first number was "a well known requiem" written by a North Carolinian, Mrs. Mary Bayard Clarke, "The Guard Around the Tomb." This piece was followed by "an appropriate prayer" by the Reverend L. C. Vass of the First Presbyterian Church and another hymn, "Cover Them Over With Flowers. "^^ After the mood was thus appropriately created, the Honorable Mr. Waddell delivered his address. ^^ It is fitting that this speech is the last to be considered in this survey of the Memorial Day orations, for the speaker begins the message with a description of all that he sees a Memorial Day address as being. His introduction discusses so well what this study bears 20 A. R. Newsome, "Alfred Moore Waddell," Dictionary of American Biography , XIX, edited by Dumas Malone (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1936), p. 300. ^^ Newbernian , May 17, 1879. 22 Ibid . ^^ All the quotations used here are from the newspaper text in Waddell's Papers .

PAGE 45

40 out concerning the occasion, that it is worth repeatincj in full: Ladies of the Memorial Association: It is customary on these occasions for those who perform the duty assigned to me today, to paint, as best they may, that picture of the past on which Southern eyes will always gaze with admiration, and before which, Scuthern hearts will always throb with mingled pride and sorrow. They try to portray in vivid colors the heroism, the splendid courage, the patient toil and suffering, the unselfish patriotism and the sublime devotion of our countrymen who died in an unequal struggle for the preservation of what they believed to be the sacred inheritance of constitutional liberty bequeathed to them by their fathers. The tribute is just, the service is proper, though mortal tongue may vainly strive to form in fitting words the thoughts which such an occasion and such a theme inspire. The season too, is meet, for it is redolent of hope and promise. Not beneath withered branches swaying in the winter wind, and admidst dead leaves strewed upon the naked earth shall such services be held; but in the tender spring-time, when to the music of soft winds, odorous with the breath of flowers and gladdened by the songs of birds, transfigured nature makes manifest the miracle of the resurrection. Amidst such surroundings we meet today in this silent city to do honor to the memory of our dead. After thus sketching what the Memorial Day oration and the ceremonies should be, Waddell announces he will break the mold: "I am here, not as a mere eulogist, but as one of the survivors of the war, who, instructed by its lessons and by the experience of the fourteen years that have elapsed since its close, deems it wiser to speak more of other things than of our love and veneration for the memory of our dead kinsmen and friends. " He then enhances his credibility by pointing out that he had given Memorial Day speeches in other North Carolina cities, in the nation's capital, and "in a Northern city at the request of thousands of those who confronted us in battle during the war. " He thus presents himself as not only a survivor of the war, but also as one who has participated actively in public service after the battles were over.

PAGE 46

41 Waddell believes that " war has generally been the precursor of every advance in civilization"; he develops this idea at some length and it serves as the major premise for all that follows in the address. The next major point growing out of his basic assumption is that through the destruction of slavery the South "reaped a threefold advantage." In the first place, the South was "relieved of what was an incubus upon us, and ... a reproach in the eyes of other nations." Secondly, the section has "secured the inestimable benefits of free labor," and, finally, the defeated nation "returned to /it_s/ position in the Union, with largely increased political power, there to remain. "^"^ Then, proceeding on his guiding assumption, Waddell makes the point that had the Confederacy won the war, the victory would "have been disastrous to us eventually." He then declares that "our dead died not in vain" — a sentiment which doubtless the Ladies of the Memorial Association were expecting to hear. Because of "their heroic valor and patient fortitude,' compromise was impossible; thereby those "extreme measures /war and emancipation/, the inevitable reaction of which must produce the ultimate prosperity of the South, " were brought upon the section. The orator again reminds his listeners of his basic point of view, that "war has generally been the precursor of every advance in civilization." '^^ Some historians have argued, however, that the post-war South accepted a "humbler position in the government of the nation than the Old South would have been content to accept." They cite as evidence the fact that from 1855 to 19 68 the South furnished only 14 of 133 cabinet members and only 7 of 31 Supreme Court Justices. Clark and Kirwan, South Since Appomattox, p. 52.

PAGE 47

42 The energies released by war "are subsequently directed to the acts of peace, which thus receive a new impulse and are promoted accordingly." Therefore, the South' s recuperative powers are great and will help the defeated states meet the responsibilities of the present. He reinforces a feeling of oneness with the victor by asserting that there are currently few in the South who would "advocate the separate independence for which we fought. " Again exemplifying the spirit of vindication so often present in these addresses, Waddell points out that the South' s principles have not changed but simply that "circumstances are entirely different. " Waddell's second major premise is that civil liberty must be preserved at all costs and in a government where "law is supreme over all." Here the orator moves into the reconciliation theme by expressing his view that these civil liberties are the common interest of every American citizen. In order to preserve them, the citizens must struggle against "party and sectional animosity, based upon inherited prejudice and stimulated by personal ambition." He continues to develop this theme and encourages all to realize the value in the "union of co-equal states under the constitution" and the laws made under its jurisdiction. He states his hope that the union will live and "be perpetual." This sentiment is echoed, he says, from the "earth which holds these ashes," from "where soldiers sleep," and from "the graves of our forefathers," Waddell concludes by invoking the last words of Stonewall Jackson — "Let us cross over the river" — and by praying for the future peace of "our Israel."

PAGE 48

43 Memorial Day being what it was — an occasion to recall the sacrifices of life offered up in war with a bitter enemy -it is surprising that there was any reconciliatory rhetoric at all. But as we have seen in these three examples, some Southerners saw this situation as an opportunity to express their feelings of sectional peace. For the other 364 days of the year, we can imagine that many, due to the bitterness and animosity still present in their localities, were compelled to mute their desire for harmony. But in the quiet cemetery on a day dedicated to honoring the dead, sentiments bespeaking intersectional peace were not out of place; those whose hearts were touched by the occasion and surroundings would be susceptible to oratorical pleas that the sectional hostility which caused the war and which was further generated by the struggle itself could be at last laid to rest. The Memorial Day observances provided a natural platform for the speakers to express their ideas concerning respect for Southern traditions and honor for Confederate heroes. Once they had convinced their audience that they were true to the South, they could make their appeals for intersectional peace and harmony. Doubtless the sanctity of womanhood in the South contributed greatly to the success of Memorial Day and the orations delivered for the occasion. The women, by and large, founded, organized, and sustained the occasion through their local Memorial Associations. The men doubtless felt that their support of the services would reflect their honor and respect for the women of the South. And, of course, their support of the ceremonies v/ould bo one way in which they could compensate for having lost the war. Their humiliaiion

PAGE 49

44 over their defeat on the battlefields was indeed strong, ^ especially after the glorious send-offs they had received from the hometown women in 1861. The Confederate soldier felt he owed the Southern woman a great debt; Memorial Day gave him an opportunity to repay it in part. As one newspaper writer expressed it, the Memorial services were to be respected because of the woman's place in it: In the gentle light of Spring, with the deep blue heavens above, fair women gather around the graves on the anniversary of the death of the Confederacy and cover them with choicest flowers .... Monuments of stone or bronze are naught compared to the beautiful ceremony of decorating the mounds over the remains of the heroes who were buried in the gray .... Then let us gather in our quiet cemetery tomorrow, and aid the devoted women of our city and country in paying respect to the dead of the Lost Cause. 26 Clement Eaton and other Soutnem historians have aemonstrated that in the immediate post-war years it was the women who felt the most bitterly toward the despised Yankee. ^^ In many cases, the soldier was ready to 25 Richard M. Weaver, The Southern Tradition at Bay, A History of Postbellum Thought, edited by George Core and M. E. Bradford (New York: Arlington House, 1968), p. 117-8. 26 "Memorial Day," Daily Chronicle and Sentinel (Augusta, Georgia), April 25, 1875. Women in the South have continued to be in the vanguard of efforts to praise, recapture, and relive the past. A contemporary example is the mid-twentieth century historical preservation movement which has perhaps reached its apex in Savannah, Georgia. As a 1971 article points out, "Women, in fact, have been a driving force behind Savannah's renaissance. As a young male restorationist notes: 'They aren't twittering old ladies in tennis shoes. They use their brains, they work and they've got clout,'" "Saving Savannah," Life, May 7, 1971, p. 58. 2 7 Clement Eaton, The Waning of the Old South Civilization, 1860^880's , Mercer University Lamar Memorial Lectures, No. 10 (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1968), p. 117:

PAGE 50

45 forgive and forget, but the women were hardly so forgiving. This fact tells us much about demands levied upon the re conciliatory orator, especially when the occasion at which he spoke was sponsored by local women and he had been invited by them to participate. Graves and Waddell were both effective in their attempts to meet the demands of the situation. By rooting their remarks on reconciliation in a rhetoric of "vindication" (i.e. , the South and her "principles" were right), these two speakers were able to make their audience more receptive to their ideas of reconciliation and reunion. By referring to the glories of war to a people who were traditionally martial in spirit, they could strengthen their line of argument that intersectional peace was right and good. Through both these considerations, the speakers were starting with premises already held by their auditors and moving from them into ideas which were perhaps not quite so readily acceptable. In addition, both speakers imbued much of their messages with sentiments likely to be compelling for the women in their audiences who had planned the ceremonies. For instance. Graves on several occasions praised the women for their role in helping honor the Southern dead. Both Graves and Waddell recognized that the South had a great resource in her women, and in general both heaped praise on Southern womanhood and the chivalric code. Waddell, for example, identified with the sentiments of the women in his audience by praising them., by asserting that God had ordained the South' s defeat, and by praising the dead and affirming that what they died for was good.

PAGE 51

46 A form of ceremonial address closely related to the Memorial Day speech which praised the entire body of dead soldiers was the eulogy given in honor of a single departed citizen. The eulogy has been a part of Western rhetorical history and theory for twenty-five centuries, but perhaps nowhere did it exist as a more refined, artistic type of utterance than it did in the Southern states during the late nineteenth century. The eulogistic occasion called for an address which exalted the departed as a man of honor and principle. Facing no small task in discovering ample reason to pay homage to some of those who had died, the orator of the day considered carefully how he could discuss the deceased in the best possible light. The dead who were commemorated had usually participated in the war effort, and there would have been little or no way to avoid discussing their military exploits and contributions. Yet, in speaking of their wartime experiences, the eulogist would have violated the audience's expectations and taboos to rekindle sectional animosity. The listeners wished to hear of the heroic aspects of warfare -their romantic, daring knight with his dashing cavalier attitudes about war. They did not wish to recall the intersectional hatred and bitterness that caused the conflict. Therefore, the eulogy afforded an ideal opportunity to focus on the message of reconciliation. One of the first post-war deaths of a national figure, which served to reinforce the reconciliation spirit, was that of President James A. Garfield in September, 1881. After many weeks of suffering the agony inflicted by the assassin's bullet, Garfield died in New Jersey. His struggle to avoid death had been accompanied and followed by the deep concern of the nations of

PAGE 52

47 the world; when he lost the battle, the world grieved. In the South, many memorial services were held, two of which featured eulogistic sermons worthy of consideration. The first eulogy to be examined here was delivered by the Right Reverend William Bell White Howe, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, at Grace Church, Charleston, on September 26, 1881. The Sunday service represented a combined effort of all the Episcopal 29 Churches of Charleston; the attendance was described as "very large." Bishop Howe begins the oration by pointing out that although the President of the United States and the Governor of South Carolina had proclaimed a day of mourning for the late President, the South Carolinians were fulfilling "no reluctant but a ready obedience." He then devotes some time to a discussion of how amazing had been the sympathy demonstrated around the world for Garfield's months of suffering. It is not the world-wide attention shown Garfield that is so wonderful to Howe, but the "sympathy for him in these Southern States, especially the sympathy of this state. " He then tries to determine why it is that the South felt a "very deep and profound" sympathy over the assassination. He points out that it was not only Garfield's long and brave effort to live nor yet our respect for his early 28 Right Reverend W. B. W. Howe, Address on the Death of President Garfield (Charleston, South Carolina: The News and Courier Book Presses, 1881). All the quotations from this speech are from this published copy found at the University of South Carolina Library. 29 "Garfield's Death," The News and Courier (Charleston, South Carolina), September 27, 1881.

PAGE 53

48 struggle for education and his climb to the Presidency, but rather, it is the simple fact that "he was the President of the United States." This fact alone causes the Southerner to recognize once again that he is a member of a "body of which /the President? is the head. " The long months of agony suffered by Garfield caused the South to realize, according to the speaker, that "the United States is one Nation, that we of the South are a part of that Nation, and that in the death of President Garfield our head was destroyed, and that we the body were smitten in him. " Reverend Howe then turns from this discussion of why the South was in sympathy with Garfield — because he was the American President — to a rather lengthy, and,in this critic's judgment, an unnecessary and tasteless idea in the context of the eulogy for Garfield. He contends that the South was right in the late Civil War and that "the North was wrong in her interpretation of the fundamental principles of the Constitution. " He feels that the South accepts the defeat and that indeed, the war opened "a new chapter in American history' /in whicji? ... the future of his growing country may have its meridian come to birth in great part out of the pangs and travail of the late war. " He makes the statement that the South accepts defeat, but holds fast to her "former convictions. " He cites as evidence the fact that the South regards those issues which divided the nation as now settled and its "profound sympathy for our late President based ... on the recognition of the unity of the country, and of him as its legitimate head." If the South truly did accept the decision of the war, then it could no longer hold fast to its former convictions which the war had supposedly settled. At any rate.

PAGE 54

49 Bishop Howe's assertion that the South saw the nation to be unified over the sadness of Garfield's death doubtless served to reinforce that belief, nascent though it might have been. The eulogist concludes the assassination shows that "we need . . . more reverence for our laws and those in authority." He reflects his American nativistic fear of foreign-inspired anarchy when he says that "these lawless disorders in the Old World, " such as the murder of the Russian Emperor, will "find their way to this side of the Atlantic." Apparently Howe felt some concern that he had not spoken as his audience had expected him to speak, for he observes, "If I have spoken today in a way not customary to our pulpit, the occasion which bring us together will answer as my excuse." Obviously the Bishop believed his congregation did not like to hear politics from the pulpit: "Because a man is a clergyman, he is none the less a citizen, but interested equally with the layman in all that appertains to the welfare and the prosperity of the country in which he lives." He then cites the Biblical examples of Christ and St. Paul, who were interested in the political dimension of life. Near the end of the sermon, Howe repeats his earlier statement that Southerners were "conscientious in our struggles and in our convictions." This time he says that "God decided against us. " If the South is to be just to its "living children and in humble submission to the will of God," it must move into the future, and solve such issues as the Southern race problem and also the national civil service problem, which had caused the death of Garfield.

PAGE 55

50 What was Bishop Howe's main purpose in speaking that day to the assembled Episcopalians of Charleston? Was he merely trying to pay tribute to the slain President? Or was he concerned with an idea more fundamental and important? As one observation, Howe is quite forceful in his statements concerning the role of the President — the leader of all the nation. .Very early in his sermon he is careful to assert that the sympathy shown in the South for Garfield is deep and widespread. He is equally concerned to express his belief that the President is ordained by God: that his authority to rule comes from God. These and other statements regarding the grief and sympathy of the entire nation, the concern of the American citizen, his repeated use of the phrase "the Nation," and his description of the "mass of voters," all lead one to believe that the Bishop's major goal was to express his belief in intersectional reconciliation. He obviously wanted to believe, and hoped his auditors would believe, that the animosity of past years had died during the months that Garfield suffered. It does not appear, however, that Howe was truly convinced himself; perhaps, as he reinforces the belief in the efficacy of reconciliation several times in the minds of his listeners, he was similarly reinforcing it in his own mind. He is deeply concerned about strengthening his listener's feeling for intersectional peace; this student believes that through the clarity of his message and the positive repetition of the reconciliation theme, Bishop Howe effectively achieved this major goal. Howe is obviously very much concerned about conforming to the expectations or demands of his specific rhetorical situation. In addition.

PAGE 56

51 he is trying to make his parishioners see that he does have the right to speak to them about political matters. Yet he is not :oo sure how they will respond to this "meddling" in politics. Therefore, he shows that other great names in the Church had also been so concerned. Thus, a second purpose — and one that is important at least to Howe — is to perform in the manner congruous with the set expectation of his audience within their situation. The Bishop shows an admirable awareness of the nature of his audience, but it can be argued that at points he is overly negative in his approach. Possibly he is unsure of his leadership of his people at this particular point in time. There is good reason for Howe to be concerned that he live up to his auditors' expectations. For the preceding decade, the Bishop had been deeply involved in a major battle within his diocese regarding the role of the Negro in the Episcopal Church. Howe, who was liberal in the matter, was charged by some ''with the desire to 30 ignore racial lines in the church and break down social barriers, " Doubtless he was constantly taking care to stay out of troubled waters as much as possible since this issue was causing so much disharmony within his state; this speech is a fine example of his concern. He is obviously aware of the need to consider the expectations and concerns of his auditors, and such awareness is essential if speech communication is to be effective. 30 Albert Sidney Thomas, A Historical Account of the Protestant Episcopal Church in South Carolina, 1820-1957 (Columbia: R.L. Bryan, 1957), p. 84. For a full explanation of this struggle, see Thomas, pp. 88-100.

PAGE 57

52 On October 5, 1881, Atticus G. Haygood delivered a memorial sermon on Garfield to the newly enrolled students at Emory College, near ' Atlanta. " Obviously, Haygood, the president of Emory, saw the occasion as one in which he could teach the new students some moral lessons drawn from the life and death of Garfield; in fact, part of the subtitle reads, "an incentive to the young men of the Nation." This speech constitutes a good example of a lecturing style in which most of the supporting materials are presented in the terms of the speaker's authority and credibility and out of his personal knov/ledge and conviction. Haygood praises the fact that the whole world was aware of Garfield's condition each morning "before breakfast" due to the "progress of the art and inventions of our time. " In comparison, he points out that "when President Harrison died, it was six weeks before the fact was known in every county east of the Mississippi River. " AH the world not only knew of Garfield's suffering, but sympathized with him and his family. The preacher asserts that he believes every Christian man, woman, and child were praying to the "good God to spare his life." The impressive facts of Garfield's funeral "illustrate in reality what we teach in theory — the brotherhood of the human race. " Although the nation, indeed the world, was praying for the wounded man, Haygood believes that these prayers were lacking in confession of our 31^tticus G. Haygood, "Garfield's Memory," Text found in Haygood's Papers > Emory University Library, Atlanta, Georgia. All quotations are from this copy. Italics supplied.

PAGE 58

53 common guilt in the killing of Garfield. He expresse 3 his belief that the assassination "was but the final expression of the rancorous hates, that have disgraced and dishonored our politics for at least three decades of bitter years. " Later, he remarks, "there is perhaps rothing in the history of any people that contains so much unmitigated hate and prejudice as the literature of American politics for a generation past." Haygood then denounces the excesses of the American political party battles and the spoils system — which, to some degree, had led to the death of Garfield. The President's murder was not only the "final expression of rancorous hates" between the North and South, but also the "final expression of the bitterness and prejudice of our politics and of the greed for office that amounts almost to a national mania." It is at this point that Haygood turns to his most explicitly moralistic, lecturing style, "Let us remember, /he say_s/ it is as murderous to stab a reputation as a body; it is as devilish to destroy a man's fame by slander as it is to take his life by shot, or steel, or poison." The college president then abruptly moves into a discussion of whether the prayers of the nation were answered. He believes they were, since Garfield's family was given "great grace" and was "sustained beyond the power of human fortitude or sympathy. " In addition, the prolonging of the President's life gave time for his successor to become better equipped for the Presidency and the nation better prepared for a change in administration. But the chief reason Haygood believes the prayers were answered was that this long period of suffering brought the nation together as it "had not

PAGE 59

54 been brought together in fifty years." He remarks, "There is more genuine brotherhood and true national sentiment in the masses of the American people today than there has been in the last half century." Indeed, Haygood asserts that Garfield on his deeith bed had done "more to heal the bleeding wounds of his country than all others have done since the horrid war began." From Haygood's point of view, "It was worth dying for to have done such a work. " Turning from this reconciliation theme, Haygood goes to "other aspects of this man's career." In the first place, he points out, in the grandest Horatio Alger tradition, Garfield's climb from a "widow's son in poverty" to the White Plouse is possible only in the United States. His college career is viewed as an example to be followed by all those students who wish to raise themselves out of poverty. And, finally the nation sympathized, not just because Garfield was President, although that contributed a partial explanation, but also because his personal character was to be admired and because he was a Christian. To Haygood, Garfield was "in himself a large expression of the true American idea of this government." That idea involves several principles and the speaker mentions three "of the corner-stones": "the perpetual union of these States," "an unsectional administration of the government," and "a fair chance and equal justice for all men of every race. " The preacher concludes by pointing out "some duties and principles of supreme importance" which Garfield's life and death exemplified and which all add to Haygood's call for national peace. First, "Let us have done with abuse, and lying, and fraud, and violence, in our politics." Secondly, "We

PAGE 60

55 should cultivate a true^pirit of national brotherhood. " Again he observes, "to hand down to our children bitterness of a quarrel ... is treason to the country." And, finally, "We owe a du'.y to President Arthur. His position is difficult, his burden heavy .... We owe him respect, patience, a fair trial, honest support, and our fervent prayers, that he may have divine grace and help for the duties of his great office. " Haygood goes on to say: "We cannot afford to return to the old bitter and savage way; we cannot forget either our own interest in a good government or the world's stake in this best and greatest of all Republics that ever flourished or fell. " At the time Haygood delivered this sermon, he was approaching the peak of his fame and prestige. His widely hailed "New South" sermon had been presented the Fall before; his triumphant Northern speaking tour of the past Winter was over; a Northern banker had donated a large sum to Emory College because of Haygood' s leadership; he was within six months of being elected Bishop of the Methodist Church (an honor he declined until 1890); and — a year later — he would be appointed General Agent for the John Slater Fund, which was established by the Northern textile manufacturer for the benefit of Southern Negro education. He had been the highly successful president of Emory College since 1875 and had strengthened immensely its sagging fortunes. As his leading biographer states, "From the summer of 1880 on. Dr. Haygood' s exuberant self-confidence marked him as an extraordinary man .... Major credit for this transformation was obviously attributed to successful management of Emory College during the difficult years before

PAGE 61

56 32 1879." Not only had he rescued Emory from financal and enrollment trouble, he had brought a "new seriousness"^^ to the Oxford campus. The students held Dr. Haygood in high regard and they especially liked " to hear him preach. This particular speech is obviously designed to instruct and inspire Haygood's young charges. The pervasive tone of the college president's address is quite dogmatic, however, and relies heavily on his own personal credibility to support much of what he says. At other times, his rhetorical support lies within the auditors themselves as he reinforces ideas which they doubtless already have. Again, he uses Biblical proof for some of his assertions. But he does not go deeply into elaborate proofs in the development of his main ideas. Obviously he is confident that his listeners picture him as a man who can be trusted and believed. This assumption would seem reasonable, for, as Mann points out in his biography of Haygood, "to all Georgia Methodists, the pulpit at Oxford . . .was thought to be, verily, a holy place. " Combine this feeling of mystique and awe with Haygood's high gthos in the eyes of the students and faculty at Emory, and Haygood could well be expected to lecture in a rather authoritarian manner, and be excused for it — indeed, to be highly successful. 32 Harold W. Mann, Atticus Greene Haygood (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1965), p. 110. 33 Ibid. , pp. 94-5. 34 Ibid. , pp. 100-101. 35 Ibid. , p. 102. 36 Ibid. , p. 19.

PAGE 62

57 Both Howe and Haygood show that Garfield personified the American ideal: a poor boy raising himself to the White House. As Haygood puts it, his career "was not and is not possible in any country in the world but ours .... A country is worth loving and dying for in which such a career as Garfield's is possible." Howe points out "how he struggled with poverty and hardships in behalf of mental culture, and how he overcame and at length rose to the highest office of the State, and then, just as he reached the summit to which there is no beyond for the American citizen /was killed/." Both speakers thus show that this American dream is worth support and pursuit by their Southern auditors. Garfield, a Northerner, is held up as a model to follow in the Horatio Alger tradition — a rhetorical strategy which doubtless enhanced these speakers' reconciliation effort. These two ministers also claimed that Garfield's suffering brought the nation together as one, and that the South lost her President since Garfield was, in Haygood's words, "the President of the whole nation." Both men believed that Garfield would have been just to the South and that — again to use Haygood's words — "his administration would tend to restore the lost brotherhood of our people. " In sum, both Howe and Haygood skillfully used this national period of mourning as an occasion to call for national harmony. On August 7, 1885, the victorious Union General, Ulysses Simpson Grant, died and many in the South mourned his death. Across the Southland — in Atlanta, Savannah, Charleston, Knoxville, and in m.any other Southern cities and towns — businesses closed, flags were at mourning height, and bells

PAGE 63

58 tolled. In many of the cities, the Negro churches and Negro militia organizations held special services and parades. In the capital of the Confederacy, the Richmond Howitzers fired cannon on the half hour from sunrise to sunset and the Phil Kamey Post of the Grand Army of the Republic sponsored an honorary burial service for the deceased President. In Lynchburg, Virginia, all the city offices, banks and a few business houses were closed in respect and at Pensacola, Florida, bells tolled o 7 from noon until 2:00 p.m. on the eighth of August. ' One of the most impressive services was held at the Methodist Church in Chattanooga, Tennessee, on Saturday, August 8. The service was dominated by the reconciliation theme, with each member of the local G. A. R. being accompanied side-by-side in the procession by an ex38 Confederate soldier. The crowd was quite large, with every seat and all standing room in the church filled, and with "hundreds" standing outside the doors. Four speakers were included in the ceremonies: two former Federals, Reverend T. C. Warner and Major C. D. McGuffey, and two reconstructed Confederates, David M. Key and Reverend J.M. Bachman, Reverend Warner delivered a "deeply solemn and impressive" speech during 40 37 This account of Southern services for General Grant is from The Daily Register (Columbia, South Carolina), August 9, 1885, p. 1. 38 Ibid. 39 "Services for Grant," Sunday Times (Chattanooga, Tennessee), August 9, 1885, p. 1. ^^ Daily Register.

PAGE 64

59 which tears fell freely from all eyes." He pleaded to God for the "new made grave /to/ mark a period to all bickeririg, /and/ sectional prejudices. Again, he hoped that God would "keep us all an indivisible and a united people for all time to come."^ This former Yankee Chaplain was followed by David M, Key of Tennessee, the Postmaster General in President Hayes' administration, who delivered a brief address which "was listened to with marked attention throughout"42 and which the second Union speaker. Major McGuffey, appraised as "eloquent. "^3 Judge Key begins the address in a highly personal way by referring to the honor bestowed upon him by the committee which chose him to represent the Confederates. He then expresses his awareness of the "delicacy and embarrassment of the position . . . and the great danger of saying something inappropriate to the purposes ... or ... of giving utterance to some idea of sentiment contrary to the opinions and feelings of the body of our people whose representative I am deputed to be."^^ He goes on to say that he is "anxious not to wound or offend. " Key says that although this particular service cannot escape the "sight and presence" of "our late struggle," he trusts "the time has come 41 Sunday Times 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid. 44 David M. Key, "Memorial to General Grant," in ibid. All the quotations from this speech have been taken from this source.

PAGE 65

60 when we can offer . . . our prejudices and animosities as an unclean sacrifice . . . upon the altars of patriotism and religion. " The Tennessean then uses the oft-expressed story of Grant's letter to General Buckner which observed that the differences between the sections would have been solved, had the soldiers who had fought the war been left alone to solve them in their own way. Key believes that those who would prevent reconciliation are those whc "did not seek or find opportunities for heroic achievement on one side or the other. " If one were to look for a person "who wallows and revels in the bitterness and hates of the past," it would be seen, once he is found, that his name "was upon no muster roll, or if it was, the roll tells of no deeds of valor he performed or wounds he endured." But those who fought for "great principles" on either side were "prepared to stand by the decision" of arms. The speaker moves aext into his basic theme, that "The South did not place a proper estimate upon the character, abilities and services of General Grant . . . /but now/ they see the man and appreciate and honor him. " He uses two brief analogies — one of a boy being chastized by his mother and the other of a man losing a fight. From the analogies he concludes: it will take time for both the boy and the man to get over their resentment toward those persons who defeated them. The former Confederate is careful to point out two examples of Grant's magnaminity: his not claiming the horses of Southern soldiers after Appomattox, and his interposition to prevent the arrest of General Robert E. Lee. Then Key goes on to the ultimate expression of reconciliation:

PAGE 66

61 He /Grant/ believed in the justice of the cause he had espoused . . . and for myself, though I zealously and honestly opposed him and his cause until the end of the struggle, I am free to say here and now, as I have said heretofore that it was best for us, for the South, that General Grant and his cause triumphed, and there are many, very many thousands of as gallant men as periled their lives to the Southern cause who are of the same opinion. Key then tempers this statement somewhat, pointing out that Grant could not have fought for any other force than the Union Army, having been a citizen and a native of free states; according to the "Southern theory of the powers of the general and State governments," he "would have been a traitor to both had he joined the South." He then goes on to contend that Grant should be honored by the South because of "his success over a powerful and gallant foe." The future will praise Grant even more, contends Key, "when the smoke of the strife in which he engaged shall have lifted and the passions and prejudices of our times have been forgotten." Key concludes by praising Grant: "The brightest star has fallen from our nation's firmament, but the story of its lustre and beauty shall live as long as history and song shall last." At some point in the speech -apparently after his formal presentation had closed — Key told two stories from his own personal experience with Grant which reflect the dead General's kind feelings toward Southerners, his compassion for others, and his modesty. Although it is impossible to tell from the newspaper report at what point in the speech the speaker told these stories, it is obvious that they effectively supplemented his very personal

PAGE 67

62 introduction and related well with the tone of reconciliation and sectional hannony which Key was careful to create and sustain in his message. This speech is a skillful adaptation to the difficult situation. Key is in an awkward position as he acknowledges early in the address and, as he says, he is "anxious not to wound or offend." His words reflect that there are some "unreconstructed" rebels in the audience who have no love or respect for Grant; after all, as he put it. Grant "had triumphed over the principles they held sacred." What could he say that would temper their feelings against Grant, pay the dead General honor and respect, and yet not build a barrier between himself and his rebel auditors? His prestige as the Southerner who was an integral part of the bargain of 1877 — Hayes agreed to appoint him as a cabinet member — gave him a certain aura of respect. As we have seen, his speech is diplomatic and courteous, as warranted by the situation. By pointing out in the first moments of the address that he does not wish to "wound or offend," Key lets his audience know that he does not intend to stir up animosities, but rather will speak for intersectional peace. He, like many other post-war speakers who wished to advocate reunion, placed the blame for reconstruction and disharmony on politicians and not on the general citizen on both sides who had "risked his honor and his life." He asks Northerners in his audience to accept the fact of human nature that the South only recently is coming to "place a proper estimate" on the life of Grant, and thereby excuses the South for not honoring Grant as it should have. By showing specific examples of how magnanimous Grant was. Key leads the Southerners in his audience to see virtue in a Northern hero. He says that in all of Grant's military and

PAGE 68

63 civil dealings with the South he was "kindly and generous to his Southern opponents when he had the opportunity." Therefore, the South could have no reason to dislike him or to fail to honor him. If the South could respect Grant, progress toward reconciliation could be made. Key devotes most of his speech to this stra:egy: showing the South how fine a man Grant really was. In support of this approach, Key uses some personal experiences he had with Grant, thus giving a deeper sense of credibility to his remarks. His speech surely helped to bridge the chasm between the Northerners and Southerners present in his audience by instilling respect for the late President and victorious Union commander. In the closing year of the 1880s Jefferson Davis, the only President of the Confederate States of America,. died at his home on the Mississippi Gulf Coast. Although Davis had been maligned by Northerner and Southerner alike, his death brought waves of sorrow across Dixie. It appeared almost that his fellow Southerners wished to do penitence for the harsh feelings they had felt toward their President who had failed. The North's treatment of Davis after the war, while admittedly not harsh, had strengthened in some Southerners their hatred for the North and added to the need for reconciliation. Southern sympathy abounded for Davis, and at the same time the death of the CSA President opened the floodgates for a new surge of the reconciliation spirit, as reflected and encouraged in two selected speeches. 45 Eaton, Waning of Old South, p. 119

PAGE 69

64 The first was given in Richmond, Virginia, by Reverend Moses Drury Hoge on December 11, 1889, "^^ and the other was presented two 47 days later in Little Rock, Arkansas, by Judge U.M, Rose. The first was delivered to an audience in the Second Presbyterian Church of Richmond and the second in a more secular setting, the Hall of the Arkansas House of Representatives. These speeches were not selected because of any significant degree of representativeness; they are being discussed here simply because they are the only texts of eulogies for Davis that were found. They will reflect, however, what was said in two separate states with presumably different type auditors; the one, the heartland of the Confederacy; the other, a "border state." In the former capital of the Confederacy, sorrow ran deeply. The Second Presbyterian Church, a congregation "of great influence in the Presbyterian Church of the United States, "^° was "crowded from floor to dome, and hundreds of people stood in the aisles and around the doors, 49 such was their eagerness to hear the address" at this memorial service. 46 Reverend Moses D. Hoge, "Address on Jefferson Davis," delivered in Richmond, Virginia, December 11, 1889. Text of speech printed in The Central Presbyterian-Supplement N.D., N.P. Copy in Alderman Library, University of Virginia, Charlottesville. 47 U.M. Rose, "Memorial Address on the Life, Character and Public Services of Jefferson Davis," delivered in Little Rock, Arkansas, December 13, 1889. Text in U.M. Rose, Addresses of U.M. Rose, With a Brief Memoir by George B. Rose. Ed. by George B. Rose (Chicago: George I. Jones, 1914). 48 Joseph D. Eggleston, "Moses Drury Hoge," Dictionary of American Biography , IX, Ed. by Dumas Malone (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1932), p. 121. 49 The Central Presbyterian-Supplement.

PAGE 70

65 Hoge had come to this church as its first pastor in If 45, two years after he had finished his academic program at Virginia's Union Theological Seminary, and had remained with the church until his death in 1899. His great ethos lent additional power to this service for Davis, and, due to the location, the prestige of the church, and the close rc'lationship of the pastor to Davis himself during the war years, this simple ceremony in Richmond was doubtless second in importance only tci the actual funeral itself in New Orleans. Hoge was at the peak of his fame in 1889, having made one of the principal addresses at the London Alliance of Reformed Churches in 1889 and was one of the leading speakers at the Boston meeting of the Evangelical Alliance for the United States in 1389. The following year he was "proclaimed the first citizen of Richmond by the people of Richmond, regardless of race or creed. "^'-' Reverend Hoge begins his address by an astute introduction which relates him in a very personal way to President Davis. He says that he heard Davis' first speech to the people of Richmond, heard his inaugural address, had ridden horseback with him "along the lines of fortification which guarded the city, " "had experiences of his courtesy in his house and in his office, " and was with Davis after the evacuation of Richmond. All these experiences "enabled me to learn the personal traits which characterized him as a man, as well as the official and public acts which marked his administration." 50 Eggleston, "Hoge,", pp. 121-22.

PAGE 71

66 After thus relating himself closely to Davis, Hoge moves into the major re conciliatory discussion in the oration, describing how it is the duty of the minister to soften asperities, to reconcile antagonistic elements, to plead for rautual forbearance, to urge such devotion to the common weal as to bring all the people, North, South, East and West, into harmonious relations with each other, so as to combine all the resources of the entire country into unity of effort for the welfare of the whole . He then says that "there are no geographical boundaries to the qualities which constitute noble manhood," so there should be many in states outside the South "who will be in sympathy with the eulogies which will be pronounced to-day." This address could well have been titled, "Statesman for Our Time, " for this topic is what the minister spends much of his time discussing: "The qualities and attributes which constitute the patriot statesman." In the first place, the eulogist observes, we need men "who are profound students of History, philosophy , and ethics /emphasis his/." He uses as examples the founding fathers, and he brings them before the audience through rhetorical questions which require the listener to think with the speaker in order to reach the conclusion. For example, Hoge says, "AA/ho wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution . . . . ? Who built up our system of Jurisprudence?" For centuries, the rhetorical question has been thought of as a useful tactical tool for the speaker, and Reverend Hoge employs them most effectively in this address. Secondly, he contends, the country now needs men who can "lead public opinion . . . instead of waiting to ascertain

PAGE 72

67 the popular drift. " And in the third place, the statesmen of the day should be men of unquestioned integrity. In this rather lengthy discussion of the qualities and attributes needed in our legislati\e leaders, Hoge is making a subtle, but forceful criticism of the composition of the current Congress, with its domination of business-oriented men. He attempts to demonstrate that the nation needs leaders with more than merely this business-industrial background, and implies that Congress is less effective because its members are too exclusively oriented to the world of finance and industry. He handles his criticism so skillfully, however, that the leading railroad magnate or Congressman could hardly take exception. For example, as Hoge develops this portion of his speech, he admits that commercial background is useful and necessary for some of our legislators; others need training in history, philosophy and ethics either along with or in lieu of their business training. He then implies that our representatives should be similar to men like Burke, Fox, Chatham, and Peel, or men with the attributes of Jefferson, Madison, or Washington. Holding up these ideals could serve to inspire our delegates, while at the same time subtly reminding them that they did not fit this mold. Still holding up an ideal to the business-oriented Congress and political leadership, Hoge says the statesman must have the "courage and the ability to lead public opinion in ways that are right, instead of waiting to ascertain the popular drift, no matter how base, that he may servilely follow it." Again presenting the ideal political leader as a man of

PAGE 73

68 integrity with "untarnisshed honor, incorruptible honesty, and the courage to do right at any hazard, " Hoge establishes an inspiring goal with which few Congressmen could disagree. The preacher closes by a summary statement that if we "duly heed" these lessons, "this solemnity . , . will be a preparation for the time when we shall follow our departed chief. " He then pronounces a benediction statement and the services close with the singing of a hymn and a benediction by one of the other ministers present. This speech by Reverend Hoge is a masterpiece of nineteenth-century public address. Its organization is tightly knit; smooth transitions make it easy to follow and his clear word choice promotes "instant intelligibility." His method of forcing his audience to think actively along with the speaker not only makes the address more communicative, but also reflects the preacher's respect for the intelligence of his listeners. This address is, in addition, one of the less sentimental of all the eulogies surveyed for this paper and was one of those speeches oriented less to flights of stylistic fancy. Thus Hoge demonstrates his basic respect for the sensibilities of his listeners. In this appraisal of Davis, Hoge is quite realistic, choosing those aspects of Davis' life about which he can talk with honesty and sincerity -a tone which is often missing from late nineteenth-century southern eulogies. In focusing on Davis' exemplary character, Hoge is able to draw moral lessons aimed at bettering the lives of the listeners while at the same time paying homage to Davis.

PAGE 74

69 The Presbyterian minister begins his speech with one of the better introductions of all those dealt with in the present study. He skillfully relates himself to Da\T.s and enhances his credibility in the minds of his listeners, but without appearing too egotistical as relates to his relationship with the deceased Confederate President. With his own outstanding war record in the minds of his auditors, his brief recounting of his role in the hostilities in concert with Davis would truly have made his own prestige grow, thus solidly enhancing his ethos . In addition, Hoge reveals his sensitivity to the memorial situation by counselling against an acrimonious attitude and saying that he expects the "outlying congregations to feel and act in sympathy with wliat is now passing in the sad but queenly city which guards the gates of the Mississippi, He must take care not to praise the departed Confederate Chieftain too lavishly, in order not to offend the feelings of those who had little respect for Davis' conduct of the war (that is, those Southerners who had opposed Davis and doubtless came to the memorial service out of a sense of duty, not respect). At the same time, however, Hoge must paint a glowing picture of Davis' life in order to satisfy those who loved and respected Davis and all he stood for. Perhaps of all the speeches examined for this dissertation, this one best illustrates the passage in Pericles' celebrated Funeral Oration 5^ Ibid. , p. 121. Hoge's war record included serving as Chaplain at Richmond where he preached to the Confederate soldiers at least twice a week. In addition, and more spectacularly, he ran the Union blockade from Charleston to go to England for Bibles and other religious books for the Southern soldier. His mission was successful for he brought back 10,000 Bibles, 50,000 Testam.ents, and 250,000 printed portions of the Scriptures.

PAGE 75

70 in which the Athenian laments: And I could have wished that the reputation of manybrave men were not to be imperilled in the mouth of a single individual, to stand or fall according as he spoke well or ill. For it is hard to speak properly upon a subject where it is even difficult to convince your hearers that you are speaking the truth. On the one hand, the friend who is familiar with every fact of the story may think that some point has not been set forth with that fullness which he wishes and knows it to deserve; on the other, he who is a stranger to the matter may be led by envy to suspect exaggeration if he hears anything above his own nature. For men can endure to hear others praised only so long as they can severally persuade themselves of their own ability to equal the actions recounted: when this point is passed, envy comes in and with it incredibility. ^^ The eulogy is indeed a difficult speech assignment, but Hoge fulfilled it well. One writer says that Hoge "mad^ nareful and thnrough =;ner;ial nrpparation for every discourse"; it is not difficult to imagine that he took special caution in his choice of examples and his wording of ideas for this important message. Its impact and acclaim was such that the address was printed as a special supplement to The Central Presbyterian church newspaper. Only at one time early in the eulogy does Hoge directly appeal to the spirit of reunion. In this extended passage, the eulogist reminds the 52 Pericles. "Funeral Oration. " Thucydides: The History of the Peloponnesian War, translated by Richard Crawley. The Great Books of the Western World , VI (Chicago: The University of Chicago, 1956), p. 396. ^3 Walter W. Moore, "Moses Drury Hoge, " Library of Southern Literature , VI, edited by Edwin A. Alderman (Atlanta, Georgia: Martin and Hoyt, 1910), p. 2438.

PAGE 76

71 congregation that "political harrangues and discussions calculated to excite sectional animosities are utterly inappropriate to the hour. " Hoge also hopes that there will be many in the Northern and Western states who will be in sympathy with the eulogies which will be pronounced today by the speakers who hold up to view those characteristics of their dead chieftain which have always commanded the admiration of right-minded and right-hearted men in all lands and in all centuries. He then asserts that soon "the question will not relate so much to the color of the uniform, blue or gray, as to the character of the men who wore it . " Although the statements just quoted represent the extent of his overtly reconciliatory rhetoric, Hoge still creates an implied theme of national unity throughout the address. Two examples can be given. As a first consideration, Hoge describes the total character of the ideal statesman, and suggests that this ideal leader is to be best recognized by his service to an entire nation — not to a narrow interest group or to a local region. Secondly, the minister mentions Davis' life in service to the nation as West Point cadet, Mexican War Hero, and United States Senator. In both his direct and indirect appeals to national reunion, Hoge is effective. On the one hand, he appeals directly to the highly respected American values of fairness and justice. Facing the question of sectionalism squarely, he simply expects the nation to act as though it were reconciled, forcefully telling his audience — and the North — that it should be. In the second place, Hoge's rhetorical appeals to national unity, showing as they do Davis' service to the nation, refer to an attitude or opinion that would be hard, if not impossible, for his auditor to reject.

PAGE 77

72 At the same time, in the "western" state of Arkansas, Judge U.M. Rose delivered that state's official memorial oration for President Davis. ^ Judge Rose begins his address by discussing the inevitability of death and the difficulty of making valid judgments about a man's life so soon after his death. He declares, "We live too near the thrilling events, the tremendous concussions, the strife, the passion, the crash and the conflict of the period in which /Davis/ played a principal part. " After continuing in this vein briefly. Rose then says that regardless of what history will write about Davis' actions and his mistakes "he has been made the scapegoat for many sins that should be laid at the doors of others." After this rather lengthy and rambling introduction, the Judge moves into a long rationalization and justification for the South' s entering into secession and civil conflict. He lays the blame for slavery in the South on the Spaniards who first advised that Negroes could be imported and on the "good Puritan brethern of New England /who/, with many a prayer and never a misgiving, fitted out their ships for the African coast." He does not believe that slavery was "the direct cause of the war," but he points out that it "had made a very visible line of distinction between Northern and Southern parts of our country. " Rose says that the national leaders from the Founding Fathers until the Civil War saw the "unharmonious development of the North and the South," and some — like Calhoun and Clay -tried to find answers. Yet underlying it all was the "deeply seated ground for apprehension ... in the 54 Rose, "Address on Davis." All quotations are from the text cited in Rose, Addresses.

PAGE 78

73 fact that no definite renedy had been provided ... if any State . . . should attempt, in their sovereign capacity, to withdraw from the Federal Union." He then points out that the Constitution is subject to "a great " variety of interpretations," but that coercion of a state is directly counter to the Declaration of Independence. Rose then goes to Southerners — Jefferson and Jackson — as well as Northern sources — Webster and Hamilton — to substantiate this interpretation. None of these leaders of public opinion felt, according to Rose, that a state could be coerced into remaining within the Union. Concluding this line of thought. Judge Rose points out that the "first threat of secession came from New England during the War of 1812, and not from any part of the South." Rose justifies his remarks in this vein, which are surely inappropriate to the occasion, observing that if anyone is to judge properly the career of Davis, these are the facts required to understand fully the situation. He says that now "the Union is a perpetual one," but that when Davis was President of the Confederacy, this was not a fact, and was made a part of the fundamental law only "by the final determination of a resort to arms from which there is no appeal. " This extended justification for secession does not seem to fit the memorial occasion, since it was a man, not a fact of history, that was being commemorated. Still not dealing directly with Davis, the eulogist registers an expression of pride that the Civil War was fought. Rose sees the war as having been necessary to settle the issues between North and South. Finally he shifts to reconciliation, praising the North for the "lenity and moderation

PAGE 79

74 exhibited by the conquerors in the hour of triumph, " \/hich he thinks "is unexampled in history. " His praise of the North is honest and forthright, and obviously a well-thought-out statement; in part, he says, "This /the lenity of the North/ is a fact that should be borne in mind; for if we would have justice done to ourselves, we must do justice to others." He continues this reconciliatory strain by praising the warriors on both sides for their lofty minds, pure hearts, and undaunted courage. Approximately one-half of his memorial had dealt with the difficulty of determining the verdict of history, a vindication and justification of the South, praise of those who fought and especially of Northern magniminity, and praise of the war itself. Rose then turns in the last half of the address to a eulogy of Davis. The speaker first presents a brief summary in glowing terms of Davis' political and military career. He then discusses how Davis had fared after the defeat of the South and how well Davis had endured all the attacks and the reverses of his ill fortune. Rose praises President Lincoln and Horace Greeley as examples of Northern leaders who had great "magnaminity of feeling" toward Davis and his fallen comrades. Rose defends Davis against the slurs aimed at him; for example, the charge that he appropriated the funds of the Confederacy for his own use. Yet he speaks only in generalities and does not mention any specific charges. He then defends Davis' personality saying, in effect, that for those who knew him well, Davis was kind of heart, genial of disposition, and cheerful of demeanor. He points out that after the Ci\dl War, some of his former Northern comrades in the Black Hawk War visited him in the South, thus

PAGE 80

75 expressing their love and devotion to Davis regardless of what time and the war had produced. This example of how the spirit of reunion had been illustrated in a specific case certainly helped to viviiy and make real Rose's expression of the spirit of reconciliation. Judge Rose closes the address with a romantic description of Davis' last year: How full of memories must his mind have been, as he trod the shores of that southern gulf that broke in harmonious sounds by his secluded home! Perhaps to him, as to many others, that complaining sea, extending far beyond the reach of human vision, containing in its sombre depths so many mysteries forever un-explained, presented the emblem of that wise eternity upon whose echoless shore are hushed all the sounds of human strife. Or perhaps when the tempest spread its black wings over the angry waves, it recalled the stormy scenes in which his life had been so largely spent; and it may be that in the succeeding calm that brooded on the quiet waters he perceived the type of that peace that awaits the tired mariner when the uncertain voyage of life is over. And finally. Rose observes, "The chieftain, whose strange career is so deeply impressed on the page of history, having received God's great amnesty, has entered upon that last repose which shall never more be disturbed by the voice of praise or blame. " The Arkansan's address on Davis was not as reconciliatory as one might have expected in a state which had felt a strong Union sentiment before and during the war. There was, however, a slight emphasis on reunion by Rose, as some of these quoted remarks demonstrate. Yet Rose was at last able to express an appeal for national harmony, as indicated in the following passage from a Memorial Day address:

PAGE 81

76 The once hostile soldiers whose tombs fair hands will deck with impartial flowers today, rest here upon their arms by the great and silent river of death, with no vestige of human passion or pride to divide them in their unbroken slumber, ^^ In this eulogy. Rose effectively pictured the reconciliation sentiment as it developed in Davis' own life. If in the early period of his retirement he sometimes grieved his friends by public expressions that recalled too vividly the bitterness of the past, the feelings of which these were the evidence find no trace in the book in which he recorded his mature judgment of the decisive events in which he played such a prominent part. Reconciled with the irrevocable past, he was able to perceive that our great Civil War had worked out many beneficial results, and that the future might open up to the United American people such an immense field of usefulness and prosperity as would dim even the brightness of their own past. This process of mellowing apparently happened to many in the post-war South, and, doubtless , Rose's description of how it affected Davis' life helped his auditors believe it could happen to them. Or if it had already happened, his words could serve to reinforce this reconciliatory attitude. Still other eulogies found a secure place in the literature of the post-war South. One by John W. Daniel of Virginia on the dead Confederate President was a classic and highly reconciliatory.^" In this two-hour oration, Daniel expressed many thoughts on reconciliation. For one, the North and 55 Rose, "Confederate Dead, " N.D., N.P., Anthologized in Rose, Addresses . 56 John W. Daniel, Oration on the Life, Services and Character of Jefferson Davis . Delivered in Richmond, Virginia, January 15, 1890. (Richmond: J.H. O'Bannon, 1890).

PAGE 82

77 the South are, in truth, "nearly, if not quite, identical," in that both support "racial integrity," they "thirst for power and broad empire," and, among other things, they have a "love of confederated union. " In addition, by a skillful juxtaposing of Washington with Hamilton, Jefferson with Adams, and Madison with Franklin, the orator shows that both sections have contributed great leaders for the good of the whole nation. Senator Daniel also stresses the South' s role in the Revolutionary War in an attempt to demonstrate the affirmative answer to the rhetorical question, "Did the South love the Union?" A difficult task for a post-war Southerner was to praise Lincoln and call his assassination "a most infamous and unhappy deed." Yet Daniel attempts to do this in his eulogy on Lincoln's former enemy. The "Lame Lion of Lynchburg" includes in his remarks on Davis the following reconciliatory passage which could serve as the model of all similar statements surveyed in this study: As we are not of the North, but of the South, and are now alike all Americans both of and for the Union, bound up in its destinies, contributing to its support, and seeking its welfare, I feel that as he was the hero in war who fought the bravest, so he is the hero now who puts the past in the truest light, does justice to all and knows no foe but him who revives the hates of a bygone generation. If we lost by war a southern union of thirteen States, we have yet a common part in a continental union of forty-two, to which our fathers gave their blood, and upon which they shed their blessings, and a people who could survive four years of such experience as we had in 1861-65 can work out their own salvation on any spot on earth that God intended for man's habitation. We are, in fact, in our father's home, and it should be, as it is, our highest aim to develop its magnificent possibilities and make it the happiest dwelling place of the children of men.

PAGE 83

78 Only one month earlier, in Atlanta, John Temple Graves delivered c n a eulogy on Henry Grady, which contains a passage that has lived to the present day. In fact, it is engraved upon the Grady statue in Atlanta as a summation tribute to the Georgia journalist and orator. Graves' "gem of oratory" was "received with the wildest outburst of emthusiasm by an audience which packed the opera house from pit to gallery, and at its close the speaker received an ovation which lasted for several minutes. "^° This response seems rather inappropriate for a memorial service, but apparently this particular oration prompted this reaction. The sentence that has lived on in stone is at the end of a passage describing Grady's role in the post-war reconciliation process. It begins, "It is marvelous past all telling how he caught the heart of the country in the fervid glow of his own ! , " and ends, "V\/hen he died, he was literally loving a nation into peace." Conclusion As has been pointed out in this survey of the Memorial Day address and the eulogy for departed Americans, this type of speech situation served on these occasions to reinforce Southern feelings about national reconciliation. An editorial writer in the Daily Phoenix of Columbia , South Carolina, stated in 1875 that. 57 John Temple Graves, "Eulogy of Henry W. Grady. " Delivered in Atlanta, Georgia, December 28, 1890. In Knight, A Standard History of Georgia and Georgians , III. pp. 1608-11. 58 Ibid. , p. 1608. 59 Ibid. , p. 1609.

PAGE 84

79 The addresses delivered on the occasion of the late decoration days in the North and portions of the South, exhibited a nnost fraternal and conciliatory spirit — one worthy to characterize like commemorations hereafter. 60 The Southern memorialist speaker — at least in these speeches examined here — attempted to promote inters ectional peace. What were his basic themes? In the first place, he spoke of respect for war. Waddell was the most blatantly enamored by war, but all the speakers left the impression that they saw war as a natural, normal part of the life of man. Second, they all implied that much could be learned from the lives of other men — that all citizens should study the lives of national heroes and attempt to emulate their virtues and to profit from their mistakes. The student of heroes could see reflected courage, fortitude, integrity, and the leading Southern value — honor — in the lives of those being eulogized. A third theme operative in these speeches was the unanimous positive, optimistic view of the future. All these orators featured forecasts that the coming decades would be years of peace and prosperity with the South once again taking a leading part in shaping the destiny of a great nation. Closely related, of course, was the fourth basic premise: reconciliation is in the best interest of the South. According to the speakers, the South has and will continue to assist the rest of the nation as America fulfills her destiny. The people of the North respected us for going to war to fight 60 The Daily Phoenix (Columbia, S.C.), June 5 , 1875.

PAGE 85

80 for our principles; they, too, fought for what they beli(5ved was right. If it were up to the soldiers, and not the politicians, rsconciliation would have occurred in the Spring of 1865. But in spite of political machinations, the Nation is becoming one again. Curiously juxtaposed with this strong reconciliation spirit, was the aura of vindication which permeated these addresses. To a man, these speakers asserted clearly and strongly that the South was right in her beliefs and that her battles for "constitutional liberty" were all in the best interests of her people and the entire nation. In fact, they asserted that history was already showing the correctness of the Southern position; they never made clear, however, how this process was happening. The speakers urged their listeners to hold fast to their true principles and to always believe that the dead who fell in "The War" did not die in vain. These speeches honoring the dead — whether a single figure like Garfield or Grant or the mass of Southern war dead — all served to unify the diverse feelings within a local community and to focus attention upon a common goal: national harmony. W. Lloyd Warner writes that "the ceremonial calendar of American society" is designed through Memorial Day, the Fourth of July, Thanksgiving and other days, to "allow Americans to express common sentiments about themselves and share their feelings with others on set days pre-established by the society for this very purpose. " He accurately describes the purpose of Memorial Day and by implication, the Memorial Address, when he writes that this ceremonial calendar "functions to draw all people together to emphasize their similarities and common

PAGE 86

81 heritage ; to minimize t heir differences; and to contribute to their thinking , feeling , and acting alik e"(italics mine). *^^ Since these ceremonial days are designed, partly at least, for unification of a community, the speaker selected for that occasion would be most concerned to chose his topic and purpose for speaking with the aim of unity foremost in his mind. He would not be expected to be radically controversial, but, rather to speak about themes and topics to reinforce the beliefs the audience already had. His purpose would be to intensify belief; he probably would not try to create a new and possibly controversial cluster of opinions. In these speeches surveyed in this chapter, the speakers were attempting to intensify belief in the need for and value of national harmony. By relating the facts that the South had made significant contributions to the nation and that it would continue to do so, the speakers were able to encourage their auditors to feel that reunion was desirable. In addition, the speakers asserted over and over that the nation was one again — that sectionalism was dead. By the power of repetition, this belief was intensified, but the speakers failed to really make this assertion come alive by clear and vivid examples of where this act of reunion had occurred. Only 61 W. Lloyd Warner, American Life, Dream and Reality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953), p. 2. The importance of Memorial Day, historically and in the mid-twentieth century, is described by Conrad Cherry in "Two American Sacred Ceremonies: Their Implications for the Study of Religion in America, " American Quarterly , XXI (Winter, 1969), 739-754. Cherry sums up the ceremony as "an American sacred ceremony, a religious ritual, a modern cult of the dead." 741.

PAGE 87

82 in a few cases did a speaker give a specific example of an act of reconciliation. This lack of intense vivification through example was a major rhetorical weakness; the speakers too often spoke in vague and generalized terms to be as effective as possible in their attempts to reinforce belief. In terms of the basic premises expressed, these speakers all met well the demands of their situations, for all of the basic themes mentioned earlier were already held by th.2 audiences they faced. In terms, however, of support for those premises, these speakers, with a few exceptions, fell short of what their hearers needed for as full intensification as was possible. John Temple Graves well stated the major re conciliatory thrust of these speeches: "So while we love our dead and revere our trampled principles, we must not forget that we have yet a life to live, a part to play in our nation's history. "^^ The six speakers surveyed in this chapter did what they could to make the defeated South reconcile herself to the North. The next chapter will deal with those memorial speakers who addressed ceremonies devoted to dedicating monuments to the Confederate dead. 62 Graves, "Memorial Address, " West Point, Georgia, April 26, 1876.

PAGE 88

CHAPTER THREE PRESERVING THE PAST: MONUMENT DEDICATIONS Closely related to the eulogy and the Memorial Day addresses are the orations delivered at the innumerable monument dedications that the South loved so well in the decades after the war. Literally every community below Mason and Dixon's line supported a fund-raising drive (usually sponsored by a Ladies Memorial Association) for statues of varying size and configuration. If the local town or county could not boast of a real hero, they dedicated the monument to the "Confederacy, " or the "Boys in Gray, " or the "Private Soldier. " Each dedication ceremony involved the same essential ingredients: a parade through the city streets to the site, several brief welcoming addresses by local notables, some musical selections "appropriate to the occasion, " a poem or two read by the local town laureate, and the ever-present oration; finally the cover was lifted from the monument and the memorial stood as a granite symbol of the Lost Cause. A casual drive through any Southern state today from Virginia to Texas will show these monuments still exhibited in places of honor and surrounded by well-kept greens. For the purposes of this study, we shall examine six speeches made in Virginia and Georgia from 1875 to 1889. The first five were given in honor of individual heroes and at the dedication of monuments to these 83

PAGE 89

84 specific Southern leaders: Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson, Robert E. Lee, and Benjamin H. Hill. The last two were presented a.; monuments honoring the Confederate dead, in general. In 1875 the last vestiges of Republican rule were ending in the South. Former Confederate leaders who had been kep; out of leadership positions by the Fourteenth Amendment had been cove -ed by a general amnesty bill passed by Congress in 1872, and they hcid begun to assume their pre-war posts in their respective states. Whites began more overtly to control the Negro through various "redshirt" and other v/hitesupremacy groups and by 1875 the Negro was fast becoming an economic ward of his former master. The conservatives had assumed control of all the Southern statehouses except Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina; these were to fall to conservative Southerners in the months following Rutherford Hayes' election to the Presidency and the "Compromise of 1877." In national politics, the Democratic Party had captured the House of Representatives in 1875 and the scandals of the Grant regime forecast a possible Democratic win in 1876. Northerners were beginning to forget the Negro and were starting to believe that the South should control her own state governments. Civil service reform was drawing the attention of northern reformers. Since Southerners were becoming staunch supporters of industrialization and commerce. Northern businessmen began to look to the South as a target for their Investments. Northern writers and editors urged their readers to forget the bloody past and to link hands over the sectional chasm. 1 Rembert W. Patrick, The Reconstruction of the Nation (New York; Oxford University Press, 1967), pp. 249-50.

PAGE 90

85 Although most of the Southern states had been "redeemed" by the mid-1870 s, the Southern economy, transportation, agriculture, education, and social system were still in a shambles. As late as 1880, "visitors 2 reported the South crushed, wretched, and still licking its wounds." Reconciliation was not easily encouraged in a land which saw itself as having been ravaged by its conquerors. The first of these orations to be considered is a bit atypical of the group, due to the fact that it is an introductory address and not the main "oration of the day, " but it has such strong overtones of reconciliation spirit that it should be described. In October, 1875, the Commonwealth of Virginia unveiled a statue to its hero of Manassas and Malvern Hill: Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson. Governor John Kemper inaugurated the Richmond celebration with a short speech of welcome and introduction. In this address, we find the usual combination of Southern arrogance and pride mingled with an apparently genuine call for intersectional reconciliation. Kemper hopes that the life of Jackson "speaks to our fellow-citizens of the North, and, reviving no animosities of the bloody past, commands their respect for the valor, manhood, integrity and honor of the people of whom this Christian warrior was a representative type." He then asserts that Jackson's old comrades will not "prove recreant to the parole and contract 2 Ibid. , p. 243. ^ John Kemper, "Address at the Unveiling of Jackson's Statue," Richmond, Virginia, October 26, 1875. Text in the Columbia, South Carolina Register, October 31, 1875.

PAGE 91

86 of honor which binds them ... to the constitution a id the union of the States. " At this point, the Governor says, "Let the .spirit and design with which we erect this memorial today admonish our whc le country that the actual reconciliation of the States must come, and, so far as honorably in us lies, shall come." He does, however, qualify this reconciliatory attitude by remarking that the "equal hour and equal Jiberties of each section shall be acknowledged, vindicated and maintained by both." In other words, the South will be reconciled on her terms. Kemper concludes the address with a plea that the statue of Jackson endure as a symbol of the respect which both the sections will accord to the illustrious dead of each, signifying that while differing as to the past, each will assert its manhood, its rectitude and honor, and both will equally and jointly strive to consolidate the liberty and the peace, the strength and the glory of a common and indissoluble country. Most of this brief welcoming address was focused on the theme of national harmony as these selected passages indicate. Kemper's welcoming address was not aimed at the Northerner in his audience, apparently, so much as it was designed for the former Confederate. His tone is one of insistence; there is little of a compromising nature in this address. For example, he insists that the North accept Jackson's life as a model for all to follow; no reasons are given why they should. Again, the Governor insists that both sections must be treated as equals in the nation's councils. For the Southerners in the 1875 audience, this "no-compromise" attitude was probably commendable. Kemper does not try to persuade them to accept the verdict of the sword and be reconciled, he simply asserts

PAGE 92

87 that the South was willing to be reunited if it could he done on her terms. He bases his contentions not on extensive persuasive appeals, but, rather, on the force of his ethos and authority. Governor Kemper does, however, set a tone of reconciliation for the occasion by mentioning the urgent need for reunion and by asserting to his audience that the South was ready for it. He uses the life of Jackson as a reminder that the South will honor its defeat and parole. Jackson's "knightly and incorruptible fidelity to each engagement of duty, " should be a model for the Southerner. The main orator of the day, Moses Hoge, approached the reconciliation theme in a more subtle and persuasive manner, but still Hoge was aided by Kemper's having introduced the theme of reconciliation. These brief introductory remarks set the stage most appropriately for the ceremonies which followed and for the major address of the day presented by Richmond's great Presbyterian pastor, Moses Drury Hoge. One biographical sketch of Hoge expresses the belief that this speech at Jackson's statue was "perhaps the noblest oration of his later life."^ According to the Charleston, South Carolina, newspaper accounts of the ceremonies, the event was the "most imposing pageant ever seen" in Richmond. A recent history of Virginia in the post-war years included this description of the ceremonies: 4 Edwin A. Alderman and Joel Chandler Harris, eds, , Library of Southern Literature, VI (Atlanta: Martin and Hoyt Co., 1910), p. 2439. 5 "Jackson's Statue," The News and Courier (Charleston, South Carolina), October 27, 1875.

PAGE 93

88 With 40,000 people watching the Jackson procession which was two to three miles long, even th£ Negroes wanted to be included. Moses D. Hogue /sic/, the rector of St. Paul's was the feature orator in Capital Square, and Jones describes the group on the speaker's stand as a "who's who' of Virginia Confederate and political leadership. Fireworks at night were followed by a reception for Mrs. Jackson in the governor's mansion. Dr. Hoge's popularity was demonstrated by the fact that he was "greeted 7 with much enthusiasm by the immense assemblage." Apparently he did not disappoint his auditors, as the "oration was frequently interrupted with enthusiastic applause." The Richmond religious leader had been unanimously elected moderator of the Presbyterian General Assembly in 1875. His fame and prestige had spread accordingly beyond the bounds of his native Virginia; this feature of his ethos was appropriate for these ceremonies, as was his devotion to the Confederate cause and his blockade-running trip to England during the Civil War to obtain Bibles for Confederate soldiers. The audience contained many visitors from across the nation as well as several Englishmen — indeed, the statue was a gift from the Mother Country and had been created by an English sculptor. 6 Allen W, Moger, Virginia: Bourbonism to Byrd , 1870-1925 (Charlottesville: The University Press of Virginia , 1968), p. 26. 7 "Jackson's Statue," News and Courier. 8 Ibid. ^ Joseph D. Eggleston, "Moses Drury Hoge," Dictionary of American Biograph y, IX, Ed. by Dumas Malone (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1932). p. 121.

PAGE 94

89 Often the eulogistic biographical sketches found in the various works on Southern leadfjrs are not particularly useful for the student of Southern culture. In ths case of Hoge, however, one biographer gives an interesting clue about his rhetorical strategy, as he remarks, "Dr. Hoge, then, was not only an crator but a teacher .... He never for a moment relinquished or lowered his conception of the teaching function of the ministry. "^^ That this minister felt himself essentially a teacher is quite apparent in this address at Jackson's monument. It is obvious that his major purpose is to answer the question, "Why was General Jackson so cherished and honored by citizens of this and other nations?" In answering this query, Hoge intends to demonstrate that Jackson's life is a model worthy of imitation. By describing Jackson's virtues as a paradigm for the Christian, Southern gentleman, Hoge can easily fulfill his concept of the ministry's teaching function. And in relation to this study, as we shall see, Hoge used Jackson's life as illustrative material as he tries to enhance a reconciliatory mood in the minds of his listeners. •' In this speech, Hoge employs five reconciliatory themes: 1) We are patterning ourselves after the ancient Greeks who met together with their enemies during their festivals and promoted harmony; 2) Jackson's life serves as a model for us as we begin to become reconciled with the North; 3) The 10 Alderman and Harris, Li brary of Southern Literature, p. 2438. 11 Rev. Moses D. Hoge, "Oration of the Inauguration of the Jackson Statue," Presented at Richmond, Virginia, October 26, 1875. Copy located at Duke University Library.

PAGE 95

90 South respects the outcome of the sword; 4) National pride is and should be present in the South; and 5) The South' s self-interest demands that the nation become reunited. The first of these reconciliation themes is introduced early in the address when Hoge says: More impressive is this assemblage of citizens and representatives from all parts of our own and of foreign lands, than ever gathered on the banks of the ancient Alpheus at one of the solemnities which united the men of all of the Grecian States and attracted strangers from the most distant countries. There was indeed one pleasing feature in the old Hellenic festivals. The entire territory around Olympia was consecrated to peace during their celebration, and there even enemies might meet as friends and brothers, and in harmony rejoice in their ancestral glories and national renown. This cc^parison to the ideal of the anci'=nt Grpek state was doubtless quite meaningful to the Southern audience assembled in Richmond. The pre-war Southern culture had been based in part on the ideal of the Greek democracy , -"^ and if an orator pointed out that the Greeks could refrain from hatred of their enemies, then the Southerners should be able to do likewise. The fact that there were Northerners present in the audience provided support for this theme and gave rhetorical meaning to the comparison. When Hoge refers in this analogy to the ancient Greeks meeting to "rejoice in their ancestral glories and national renown," he prepares his listeners for the 12 See Anthony Hillbruner, "Inequality, The Great Chain of Being, and Ante-Bellum Southern Oratory , " The Southern Speech Journal , XXV (Spring, 1960), pp. 172-89.

PAGE 96

91 reunion message he returns to later in the speech: the important role played by the South in the nation's history and the Southerners' pride in that contribution. The second major reunion motif used by the Presbyterian minister was closely related to the subject of his oration and the person in whose honor the ceremony was being held: "Stonewall" Jackson. At several points in the address, Hoge uses Jackson as a model or focal point for his reconciliation message. His most obvious and explicit reference to this theme comes early in the speech: We assert no monopoly in the glory of that leader. It was his happy lot to command, even while he lived, the respect and admiration of right-minded and righthearted men in every part of this land, and in all lands. It is nov\7 his rare distinction to receive the V ^ . f J.1 — , — , i_ „ . r-->J-; -C-C„ 1 -.-4 -1.11-.'t— ~ y~ ^^-, ^ llOliiayc; Oi Lliooc Vvilo jliwot uiiici. t-o v»j.lji iij.Iii wii i-jn^ questions which lately rent this republic in twain from ocean to ocean. From the North, and from the South, from the East, and from the West, men have gathered on these grounds today, widely divergent in their views on social, political, and religious topics, and yet they find in the attraction which concentrates their regard upon one name, a place where their hearts unexpectedly touch each other and beat in strange unison. A few minutes later, Hoge briefly asserts, with no proof or explanation, that Jackson, "would have cheerfully laid down his life to avert the disruption" of the Union and the war which followed. Since the listener heard no supporting testimony, either from Jackson himself, or any of his cohorts, he would have to accept this assertion on Hoge's authority. If Jackson himself loved the Union, the auditor would perhaps see that the Union was, after all, not such an enemy.

PAGE 97

92 Then late in the speech, the orator of the day returns to this theme when he praises the Governor of Virginia and implies again that Jackson is revered and honored by people outside his own Southland — even in the North: Your Excellercy did well to make the path broad which leads through these capitol grounds to this statue, for it will be trodden by the feet of all who visit this city, whether they come from the banks of the Hudson, the Mississippi, or the Sacramento; whether from the Tiber, the Rhine, or the Danube. If a Confederate General could be this well-respected and admired by those who did not sympathize with his section -indeed, those who had fought against him — then this fact would be a powerful example of magnanimity on the part of the victors in the civil struggle. Should not the Southerner return that good will? That was the implication of Hoge's message. In addition, given the widespread, eulogistic esteem with which Southerners held Jackson, indeed, most Confederate Generals, Hoge's use of Jackson as a symbol of reconciliation would be an effective rhetorical tactic. A third important approach Hoge uses in his efforts to promote intersectional understanding and rapport centers around his contention that the South accepts the verdict rendered by the sword. At the first point in the speech where he discusses this theme, the speaker focuses on the attitude of the Confederate soldier after the war. The veterans: laid down their arms at its close and mingled again with their fellow-citizens, distinguished from the rest only by their superior reverence for law, their patient industry, their avoidance of all that might cause needless irritation and provoke new humiliations, and their readiness to regard as friends in

PAGE 98

93 peace, those whom they had so recently resisted as enemies in war. Doubtless, most in his audience had worn the gray, and thus, Hoge was speaking directly to them and appealing explicitly to their pride and honor two values held in great esteem by Southerners. He then moves from the specific Confederate soldier to the general Southern public as he asserts that the "people" of the South followed the lead of their soldiers: Defeat came, and they accepted it, with its consequences, just as they would have accepted victory with its fruits. They have sworn to maintain the government as it is now constituted. They will not attempt again to assert their views of state sovereignty by an appeal to the sword. Hoge, in the next breath, turns back to the warrior, as he says: None feel this obligation to be more binding than the soldiers of the late Confederate armies. A soldier's parole is a sacred thing, and the men who are willing to die for a principle in time of war, are the men of all others most likely to maintain their personal honor in time of peace. In other words, the South will not again challenge the North on the field of battle. As is so typical in these messages aimed at national unity, Hoge appeals to national pride. In this fourth conciliatory theme, the minister refers first to the American revolution in a manner calculated to stir national patriotism in the hearts of his listeners: Such a crisis was the Revolution of 1776, when thirteen thinlysettled and widely-separated colonies dared to offer the gage of battle to the greatest military and naval power on the globe .

PAGE 99

94 The story of that struggle is the most familiar in American annals. After innumerable reverses, and incredible sufferings and sacrifices, our lathers came forth from the ordeal victorious. This appeal to Southern pride in the exploits of the Revolutionary War heroes served the purpose of creating a feeling of national pride in the minds of those Virginians who recalled the deeds of their own Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington. Ir fact, Hoge makes explicit the connection between these national heroes and the new statue of Jackson which will join the group of monuments in Richmond honoring the South' s Revolutionary War heroes. This portion of his message comparing the Southern states and the Civil War with the English colonies and the Revolutionary War, and the Revolutionary heroes v^^ith the Southern Confederacy's heroes, is a masterful rhetoricoj. stroke onG sureiy appeuj.eG to the varied audience which witnessed the dedication. A few moments later, the Virginian asserts very quickly, and with no elaboration, the role played by his native state in helping to create the very Union she was later forced to fight. He declares, again with no evidence to support his contention, that Virginia had hoped to preserve the Union "which she had assisted in forming, and to whose glory she had made such contributions." He makes it appear that Virginia had withdrawn from the Union only as a last resort. He assumes that because of the State's significant role in the early national history of the country, the love of Union was still present in the hearts and minds of her citizens.

PAGE 100

95 The final mediatory motif which Hoge uses is sectional selfinterest: I speak not for myself, but for the South, when I say it is our interest, our duty and determination to maintain the Union, and to make every possible contribution to its prosperity and glory, if all the states which compose it will unite in making it such a Union as our fathers framed, and in enthroning above it not a Caesar, but the Constitution in its old supremacy. He goes on quickly to assert: If ever these states are welded together in one great fraternal, enduring Union, with one heart pulsating through the entire frame as the tides throb through the bosom of the sea, it will be when they all stand on the same level, with such a jealous regard for each other's rights that when the interest or honor of one is assailed, all the rest feeling the wound, even Rs the body feels the pain inflicted or. one of its members, will kindle with just resentment at the outrage, because an injury done to a part is not only a wrong but an indignity offered to the whole. Once more turning to the usually eulogistic and therefore not very helpful Southern biographical sketches, one can find interesting verbal pictures of Hoge in the pulpit or on the podium. Since the words used to describe his voice and appearance are heavily connotative, not much can be gained other than realizing what some of his contemporaries thought about him. To the student of public speaking in the 1970's, these descriptions have little meaning. For instance, this sentence is typical: It was a voice in a million -flexible, magnetic, thrilling, clear as a clarion; by turns tranquil and soothing, strenuous and stirring, as the speaker willed; now mellow as a cathedral bell heard in the twilight, now ringing like a trumpet, or rolling through the building like melodious thunder, with

PAGE 101

96 an occasional impassioned crash like alillery, accompanied by a resounding stamp of his foot on the floor, but never unpleasant or overstrained; no one ever heard him scream or tear his throat. '^ Again, when describing his appearance the same writ Br uses similarly connotative language: WTien he rose in the pulpit, tall, straight, slender, sinewy, commanding, with something vital and electric in his resolute attitudes and movements, yet singularly deliberate; and with swarthy grave, intellectual face and almost melancholy eyes, surveyed the people in front of him, no one3 needed to be told that there stood a master of assemblies . ^^ Not knowing really v/hat is meant by an "intellectual face," for instance, one can do little more today than agree in an uncritical manner with another contemporary of Hoge who wrote that the minister was, "Always captivating . one of the South's most popular pulpit orators. " Dr. Moses Hoge was uniquely qualified to speak at the unveiling of "Stonewall" Jackson's statue. During the war the Confederate commander had come into Richmond on at least one occasion specifically to hear Hoge preach and had welcomed the Presbyterian leader into the Stonewall Brigade camp near the capital city to hold Sunday afternoon services. Jackson had a high regard for Hoge as is demonstrated by the fact that he gave the preacher authority which enabled Hoge "to pass at pleasure from 13 Alderman and Harris, Li brary of Southern Literature , p. 2436. 14 Ibid. 15 Thomas E. Watson, ed. , The South in the Building of the Nation , IX (Richmond: The Southern Historical Publication Society, 1909), p. 141.

PAGE 102

97 Richmond to any part of my command"; Jackson's chi(5f biographer calls this privilege "an unusual pass." Doubtless Hoge had earned the respect and admiration of the devout Jackson at least in part through his preaching. It was, therefore, altogether fitting that Hoge dedicate this statue. This address at Jackson's memorial should be considered as a "speech to inspire" or a "speech to stimulate." In 1875 the South was still nursing the economic, social, psychological, aid physical wounds suffered in the "War of the Rebellion. " Hoge was facing an audience whose general outlook was undoubtedly pessimistic and negative about its current situation and uncertain about its future. In this speech, Hoge's basic message is a positive, uplifting, forward-looking affirmation of the great future of the South and of the nation. After praising the role of the founding fathers in the American Revolution, the orator proclaims, "But this day we inaugurate a new era." Throughout the address, Hoge's words create an optimistic tone which reinforces his reconciliatory message. Early in the speech, he implies the future well-being of the South when he says his section accepts the Jackson statue as a "pleasing omen for the future that the rebuilding of our shattered fortunes should be aided by the descendants of the men who laid the foundations of this commonwealth." He implies a bright and long future for the nation as he refers to the "peaceful relations which we trust will ever exist between Great Britain and the confederated empire formed by the United States of America. " 16 Lenoir Chambers, Stonewall Jackson, II (New York: William Morrow and Company, 1959), p. 97.

PAGE 103

98 By presenting Jackson's life as a positive, decisive model, Hoge continues his optimistic tone. He describes how Jackson's determination and spirit triumphed over his early years of ill-health and privation; this fact illustrates that the South, too, can triumph over the adversity resulting from its wartime losses. The minister then describes Jackson's great military genius and, finally, his strong piety and religiousness. All of this lengthy description of Jackson is handled in an optimistic and positive manner as it paints a verbal picture of "Stonewall" as a strong, decisive, dynamic figure who triumphed over his problems and weaknesses. Hoge points out that one can see in Jackson's life illustration of the fact that what is good does not always succeed merely by virtue of its goodness. He says that this is the greatest lesson to be learned from a study of the Confederate general, thereby suggesting that the South can take solace for its defeats in this fact of life. The speaker continues his positive affirmation of hope for the South throughout his address until at the end he says, "I look forward to the future with more of hope than of despondency," and he uses the testimony of George V/ashington, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, and Jackson as his conclusion. Jackson's words are the most forward-looking of the group, and, appropriately, Hoge closes with them: And last, it is Jackson's clear ringing tone to which we listen: 'What is life without honor? Degradation is worse than death. We must think of the living and of those who are to come after us, and see that by God's blessing we transmit to them the freedom we have enjoyed.' Heaven! Hear the prayers of our dead, immortal hero !

PAGE 104

99 By positively affirming throughout his speech that the future is hopeful and that national reunion should and would come to pass, Hoge promotes his reconciliatory message and speaks effectively to his Richmond audience . Robert E. Lee was the great Southern folk hero of the Civil War. Although his armies were crushed by the might of Yankee forces, the grayclad veterans revered Lee. Many monuments in the defeated Confederacy were dedicated to him, and the University where he served as president for five years changed its name to honor him and furnished a mausoleum for his body. At the unveiling of this tomb, in June, 1883, John Warwick 17 Daniel, the "Lame Lion of Lynchburg, " delivered the oration of the day. According to the official account, Daniel "for three hours held his audience /of some 8,000 to 10,000 peopl^/ by the spell of his eloquence, moving it 1 8 now to applause, and now to tears, " Jefferson Davis had been asked to deliver an address on Lee's military career, with Daniel to speak on "General Lee's life and character as a citizen and civilian." Davis' advancing years and precarious health, however, forced him to decline the invitation and "to Major Daniel was committed the whole of the splendid +u ..19 theme. 17 John W. Daniel, Oration at the Inauguration of the Mausoleum and the Unveiling of the Recumbent Figure of General Robert Edward Lee at Washington and Lee Universit y (Richmond: West, Johnston and Co., 1883). 18 W. Allan, Historical Sketch of the Lee Memorial Association (Richmond: West, Johnston and Co , , 1883), p. 17. 19 "Ceremonies Connected with the Inauguration of the Mausoleum and the Unveiling of the Recumbent Figure of General Robert Edward Lee, " N.P. , N.D., p. 12.

PAGE 105

100 Daniel was a life-long resident of Lynchburg, Virginia, where he was born in 1842. He studied at Gessner Harrison's classical school, enlisted as a private in the Southern Army and rose to the rank of major before being wounded in the Wilderness campaign. '-' This injury forced him onto crutches for the rest of his life and "embalms his fidelity to the Lost Cause. "21 This fidelity helped elect him to the United States Congress in 1884 and to the Senate the following year. Clement Eaton, the Southern historian, remarks in a recent book: The loyalty of Southerners to the Confederate leaders and heroes continued to be a powerful force in Southern politics until the twentieth century. Sir George Campbell noted in 1878 that Southerners voted for one-armed and one-legged Confederate veterans for office as a means of providing them with some sort of pension. ^ 2 Doubtless this reaction worked in Congressman Daniel's behalf also. Daniel develops four major lines of approach to his re conciliatory rhetoric in this speech at Lexington. The first is the orator's use of Lee's life as a springboard for his discussion of reunion. The second tactic is to praise the North for its various military and civil accomplishments. Then Daniel uses Northern testimony in praise of the Confederate armies, especially in their charge at Gettysburg, and in praise of Lee himself. And, 20 C.C. Pearson, "John Warwick Daniel," Dictionary of American Biography , V, Ed. by Allen Johnson and Dumas Malone (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1930), p. 68. 21 Alderman and Harris, Library of Southern Literature, p. 108. 22 Clement Eaton, The Waning of the Old South Civilization, 1860 1880's, Mercer University Lamar Memorial Lectures, No. 10 (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1968), p. 166.

PAGE 106

101 finally. Senator Daniel asserts that the South supports the Union and has no intention of trying again to disrupt the normal functioning of the national government. The reconciliation theme Daniel uses more than any other in this address centers around the subject of his oration: General Lee. In the first moments of the speech, Daniel points out the contribution made by Lee's family to the nation's history. The Confederate chief was the son of the renowned "light Horse Harry Lee," who was the devoted friend and compatriot of Washington in the revolutionary struggle . . . descended indeed from a long line of illustrious progenitors, whose names are written on the brightest scrolls of English and American history, from the conquest of the Norman at Hastings, to the triumph of the Continentals at Yorktown. Daniel movp?; imTnediately into the next point relatpH tn this theme, nameiy, that Lee had carved for himself a fine and notable career in the service of the United States Army, as "he had already established his own martial fame at Vera Cruz, Cerro Gordo, Contrera , Cherubusco, Mo lino del Ray, Chepultepec and Mexico, and had proved how little he depended upon any merit but his own. " Senator Daniel further develops the idea that Lee was a firm and patriotic American as reflected in this extended passage: Colonel Lee was emphatically a Union man; and Virginia, to the crisis of disolution, was a Union State. He loved the Union with a soldier's ardent loyalty to the Government he served, and with a patriot's faith and hope in the institutions of his countr^^. His ancestors had been among the most distinguished and revered of its founders; his own life from youth upward had been spent and his blood shed in its service, and two of his sens, following his footsteps, held commissions in the army.

PAGE 107

102 He was born in the same county, and descended from the same strains of English blood from which Washington sprang, and was_united in marriage with Mary Custis, the daughter of his /Washington's^/ adopted son .... He had been withdrawn by his military occupations from scenes calculated to irritate or chill his kindly feelings toward the people of the North; and on the contrary — in camp, and field, and social circle -he had formed many ties of friendship with its most esteemed soldiers and citizens .... Years of his professional life he had spent in Northern communities, and, always a close observer of men and things, he well understood the vast resources of that section, and the hardy, industrious, and resolute character of its people; and he justly weighted their strength as a military power. When men spoke of how easily the South would repel invasion he said: "You forget that we are all Americans . . , . " Every bias of his judgment, as every tendency of his history, filled him with yearning and aspiration for the peace of his country and the perpetuity of the Union. Still following this train of thought, Daniel next uses an effective rhctcx'-ical tactic v/hich he employs throughout this address with telling effect: the use of Lee's own words to demonstrate and support the point Daniel wishes to make. In this case, he quotes at length from a letter Lee wrote to one of his sons in January, 1861: As an American citizen, I take great pride in my country, her prosperity and institutions, and would defend any State if her rights were invaded. But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation Daniel has, in Lee, a perfect illustrative model for his theme of national reconciliation, and the speaker uses the model well and on several occasions, as this passage demonstrates: Lee thoroughly understood and thoroughly accepted the situation. He realized fully that the war had settled, settled forever, the peculiar issues which had embroiled

PAGE 108

103 it; but he knew also that only time could dissipate its rankling passions and restore freedom; and hence it was he taught that "Silence and patience on the part of the South was Lhe true course" -silence because it was vain to speak when prejudice ran too high for our late enemies to listen -patience, because it was the duty of the hour to labor for recuperation and wait for reconciliation .... Thus was he reviled and harrassed, yet never a word of bitterness escaped him; but, on the contrary, cnly counsels of foreberance, patience and diligent attention to works of restoration. Senator Daniel then completes this theme by quoting a series of five of Lee's own recorciliation statements. This passage is typical of these series of quotations: Lee had said that, "All good citizens must unite in honest efforts to obliterate the effects of war, and to restore the blessings of peace. They must not abandon their country, but go to work and build up its prosperity." And again, "It should be the object of all to avoid controversy, to allay passion, and give scope to every kindly feeling." Much later in this long oration, Daniel returns to Lee as a model for reconciliation as he tells three short anecdotes concerning the Confederate commander. In the first story, Lee supposedly sent the widow of the Federal General, Philip Kearney, the dead General's horse and sword. Later, after Lincoln was shot, Lee said the assassination was "a crime previously unknown to the country, and one that must be deprecated by every American. " And finally, Lee was reputed to have given a former Union soldier some money to help him after the war. Lee said about the incident: "That is one of our old soldiers who is in necessitous circumstances. He fought on the other side, but we must not remember that against him now. "

PAGE 109

104 Then a few moments later. Senator Daniel concludes this avenue of reconciliation with a lengthy section of his speech in which he discusses Lee's forgiveness. Among other things, Daniel says: Lee had nothing in common with the little minds that know not how to forgive. His was the land that had been invaded; his the people who were cut down, ravaged and ruijied^ his the home that was torn away and spoliated /sic/; his was the cause that perished. He was the General discrowned of his mighty place, and he the citizen disfranchised. Yet Lee forgave, and counselled all to forgive and forget. Also in this portion of the address Daniel tells two "human interest" stories of events in Lee's post-war life that illustrates Lee's forgiving nature. One of these narratives describes when the devout Lee chastized a minister for denouncing the North from the pulpit and not preaching the law of "Love your enemies, ble^s them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which dispitefully use you. " According to the story, Lee continued: I have fought against the people of the North because I believed they were seeking to v^^rest from the South her dearest rights. But I have never cherished toward them bitter or vindictive feelings, and have never seen the day when I did not pray for them. The second of the stories refers to a time when Lee read a poem about loving one's enemies, which had been written by a "Mahomedan /sic/ , the Poet of Shiraz, the immortal Hafiz"; Lee questions his listeners: "Ought not we, who profess to be governed by the principles of Christianity, rise at least to the standard of this Mahomedan /sic / poet, and learn to forgive our enemies? "

PAGE 110

105 Daniel also uses praise of the North as a prominent reconciliation tactic throughout the speech. For example, very early in the address, indeed, in the first moments of his introduction, the orator praises the nation's capital and the city of Washington as he describes it this way: "the splendid avenues and . . . gleaming spires of Washington; and over all, the great white dome of the National Capital looms up against the eastern sky, like a glory in the air." His next attempt to glorify the North comes when he talks about the power and might of the victorious section: On the other hand stands the foremost and most powerful Republic of the earth, rich in all that handiwork can fashion or that gold can buy. It is thickly populated. Its regular army, and its myriad volunteers, rush to do its bidding. Its navy rides the Western seas in undisputed sway. Its treasury teems with the sinews of wai , and its arsenals with weapons. And the world is open to lend cheer and aid and comfort. Daniel carries this praise a step further a short time later when he exalts the Northern soldier and his bravery and power. He contrasts the weak and ill-pro vided-for Southern troops with the might of the Union armies; calls them "sturdy foe"; and says they were "generously provided with the richest stores and most approved arms and munitions of war. " Then, in the waning moments of his address, Daniel returns to this theme as he remarks that Lee fought "against the greatest nation of modern history, armed with steam and electricity, and all the appliances of modern science." This extensive praise of the Northern military machine must have been galling to some of the old Confederate veterans, but apparently Daniel believed it to be a valid topic ~ he repeated it several times in the speech, as these excerpts show.

PAGE 111

106 Daniel's third vheme of reconciliation utilizes Northern praise of Southern military forcei; and fighting capabilities. He introduces this approach early in the speech by pointing out that Northern troops were fully aware of the valor and skill of the Southerners who made the charge at Gettysburg. Major Daniel says that the charge was so characterized by brave design and dauntless execution that friend and foe alike burst into irrepressible praise of the great commander who directed and of the valorous men who made it. Again, the orator returns to this topic when he tells this story of Lee after the war: When he reached the fallen Capital of the dead Confederacy, and rode through its ashes and paling fires to his home, a body of Federal soldiers there, catching a glimpse of his noble countenance, lifted their hats and cheered; and as the great actor in the bloody drama stepped behind the scenes, and the curtain fell upon the tragic stage of the secession war, the last sounds that greeted his ears were the generous salutations of respect from those against whom he had wielded his knightly sword. Then, very late in the address, Daniel once more repeats this idea as he says: The men who wrested victory from his little band, stood wonder-stricken and abashed when they saw how few were those who dared oppose them, and generous admiration burst into spontaneous tribute to the splendid leader who bore defeat with the quiet resignation of a hero. This theme of Northern praise for Southern heroes and military exploits must have been a useful one for Daniel. The Southern audience which heard Daniel must have felt a sense of magnanimity toward their former enemies.

PAGE 112

107 If the Yankee soldier could praise the valor and heroism of their enemies, the Southerners must have been compelled, to some degree, to return the praise. The fourth theme Daniel uses to encourage reconciliation is mentioned only once in the speech, but the speaker is quite clear and explicit in his statement: "We have not a thought or fancy or desire to undo the perpetuity of the Union. For any man to pretend to think otherwise is proclamation of his falsehood, or his folly." Major Daniel asserts this Southern intention with no supporting or clarifying materials, so one simply has to accept his words through the force of his authority and credibility. But this assertion reinforces his theme throughout the speech that the Union is strong and mighty and should be and will be accepted and supported by Southerners even though they had recently fought against it. Although this speech — like most surveyed in this study -was not presented with the sole or even primary purpose of speaking to reconcile the sections, there are portions of the address which reflect a mediatory spirit. Since the major reason for the oration was to eulogize General Lee, Daniel makes efficient use of Lee's life as a model for reconciliation. This theme is his most obvious — and effective — reconciliatory tactic. He points out that both Lee and his family had made valuable contributions to the security and government of the entire nation and that Lee himself was staunchly and emphatically a Union man; his love for the Union was overcome only by his love and loyalty for Virginia. In addition, Lee had counseled and demonstrated through both word and deed his interest in national reunion.

PAGE 113

108 And finally, Daniel was able to show that Lee was not at all vindictive toward the North. Throughout the speech, Daniel, in developing this approach to reconciliation, often uses Lee's own words as support in picturing the General as a model for the reunion message. Probablymuch of what he uses as illustrative material was commonplace to the post-war Southerner. Daniel's expert use of the material, though, would reinforce this common knowledge and make it more believable. If the South' s greatest hero could counsel reconciliation, the former Confederate would be hard-pressed not to extend the hand of intersectional peace. Daniel's praise for Northern industrial and military might help give the Southerner reasons for his defeat, and, at the same time, develop a sense of pride in his entire country. When the orator called the North "the greatest nation of modern history, " his listeners had to realize that the North was part of the Union, too; enemies at one time, but brought back together by the verdict of the sword. There were two major ways by which Daniel enhanced his rhetorical effectiveness in this speech. One technique was by addressing himself to the traditional Southern belief in a code of chivalry and the other method was by utilizing the Southern love for warfare and the martial spirit. Daniel capitalized on the Southern code of chivalry and interest in knighthood by several times referring to the Confederate commander's "knightly" attributes: appearance, leadership ability, and honor. For example, Lee, his officers, and men, "formed a fellowship as noble as that which bound the Knights of the Round Table to Arthur. " After describing Lee's uniform and his appearance

PAGE 114

109 on Traveler, "the gray warhorse,,, " Daniel sums up Lee: "he looked every inch the true knight — the grand, invincible champion of a great principle." Daniel's strategy of appealing to this deep-rooted Southern traditional belief in chivalry could only gain for the speaker an attentive and appreciative audience which would listen with favor to his address — especially those passages of reconciliation which used Lee as their focal point. The orator also enhanced his rhetorical impact by generally vocalizing a romantic picture of warfare -a strategy which must have struck a responsive cord in his Southern audience. He especially glorifies war when speaking of Lee's military exploits as this passage reflects: Then follows the boldest and grandest assault of modern war — the charge upon the Federal centre entrenched on the heights of Gettysburg — a chaige thai weii-nigh ended the war with "a clap of thunder,' and was so characterized by brave design and dauntless execution that friend and foe alike burst into irrepressible praise of the great commander who directed it and of the valorous men who made it. Between these two strategies of audience identification and the awe with which General Lee was held, Daniel doubtless did hold his audience enthralled "by the spell of his eloquence." On May 1, 1886, James C.C. Black, an Augusta, Georgia, lawyer and politican, delivered the Atlanta oration at the unveiling of Benjamin Harvey Hill's statue. Black had served in the Confederate Army, rising through the ranks from private to major. After the War, he studied law in Augusta, was admitted to the bar, and served as a member of the 53rd and

PAGE 115

no 54th Congresses. He declined to run for re-election and spent the rest of his life as a distinguished lawyer, civic worker, and ceremonial 23 orator. Benjamin Harvey Hill was an outstanding Georgia leader of the Civil War era. Born in Jasper County in 1823, he led a distinguished life as a lawyer, planter, and politician in the pre-war years. As the South moved toward the conflict, Hill counseled against secession as an active member of the Georgia state secession convention. When his state left the Union, however, Hill left with it and became a staunch Confederate. He was elected to the Confederate Congress where he served as a vigorous supporter of President Jefferson Davis; the Mississippian reflected his awareness of Hill's support by attending this dedication of Hill's statue. After the war. Hill urged his fellow Georgians to reject the Reconstruction Acts, but by 1870 he saw that further Southern resistance was futile; he changed his stand and counseled reconciliation and moderate feelings toward the North. "* After being elected to the United States House of Representatives and to the national Senate, he died of tongue cancer in August, 1882.^^ 23 "Memorial Exercises of Augusta Bar Association in Honor of J.C.C. Black." N.P., N.D., pp. 5-7. ^^"Benjamin H. Hill," The Story of Georgia, Biographical Volume (New York: The American Historical Society, Inc., 1938), p. 717. 25 Alderman and Harris, Library of Southern Literature, VI, p. 2390

PAGE 116

Ill Some of Black's contemporaries believed that this address at Hill's statue was the "masterpiece" of his entire speaking career; certainly there was consensus that it was "one of his great orations. " Both Henry Grady and Jefferson Davis were present ir the audience; Davis remarked that, "This oration is the grandest of the kind to which I have 27 ever listened. " The rest of the audience received the address with the same sort of judgment: "The speech began and proceeded to the close with unprecedented enthusiasm on the part of the vast assemblage; every noble period being punctuated with wild applause. "^^ A large crowd had gathered to pay tribute to Hill and to listen to the ever-present address; some estimated the audience to be as large as 25,000.^^ There is basically only one major reconciliation theme in this address by Black: the fact that Hill's life was a model of devotion to country and that all men should follow this example. ^"^ The orator of the day returns to this topic several times in the address. Early in the speech, he casually mentions that the meeting to honor Hill should serve to "move 26 Ibid. , p. 16, 2^" Ibid, 28 Ibid. 29 Newspaper clipping, Augusta Evening News (Augusta, Georgia), May 1, 1886. Found in J.C.C. Black, Scrap Books , Southern Historical Collection, University of North Carolina. ^° J.C.C, Black, "Address at the Unveiling of the Hill Statue," delivered at Atlanta, Georgia, May 1, 1886. Text found in the Southern Historical Collection, University of North Carolina.

PAGE 117

112 us with the higher purposes of devotion to our State and country that /Hiir^/ life and character inspire. " Black next mentions this theme in an extended passage in which he discusses Hill's knowledge and philosophy of the national and state system of government. Black asserts that, "Not only as a son of Georgia and the South does he merit the tribute of our highest praise, but as a citizen of the Republic. He was a profound student of our system of government." Black states that not even Daniel Webster had a deeper knowledge nor a more intense love of the Union than did Hill. With the underlying principles of that Union he was familiar. To him the American Union was not the territory over which the flag floated and the laws were administered. It was a system of government embracing a general government for general purposes, and local governments for ]oca] purposes, each like the spheres in the heavens, to be confined to its own orbit, and neither could invade the domain of the other without chaos and ruin. In the solution of all problems, in the discussion of all questions, he looked to the Constitution .... He regarded the American system of government as the wisest ever devised by the wisdom of men, guided by a beneficent Providence which seemed to have chosen them for the highest achievements of the race. Black went on in this passage to refer extensively to the love Hill had for the national flag, no doubt in reference to the speech Hill had made in 1876 on the occasion of receiving an American flag in Atlanta from a delegation of Ohio businessm.en and tourists. In fact. Black paraphrased some of those remarks in this portion of his speech as evidence of Senator Hill's love for the Union and the national government, and its symbols.

PAGE 118

113 The orator next continues this theme of reconciliation by saying how Hill had "rejoiced" at the restoration of the South and his state of Georgia to the Union. "No mariner tossed through long nights on unchosen and tempestuous seas ever hailed the day of return to tranquil port more gladly than he hailed the day of restoration of the States. " His final reference to Hill as a worthy model of reconciliation and intersectional harmony came just moments later as he stated that after the war Hill, "devoted all the powers of his great mind, and all the impulses of his patriotic heart, to the reestablishment of that cordial respect and good feeling between the sections upon which alone our American system, more than all others, depends for permanent union and peace, " In saying that there was this single major theme of national harmony in this speech, no implication is made that it was devoid of any other reconciliatory rhetoric. Black briefly mentions several other ideas which could easily be interpreted as pleas for unity. For example, he uses one of the more traditional nationalistic appeals when he asks the rhetorical question, "It is asked what she /the South/ had added to the glories of the Republic?" He then catalogs the traditional notations, such as Thomas Jefferson's writing the Declaration of Independence, George Washington's military and civil leadership, James Madison as Father of the Constitution, John Marshall's role as the founder of our system of jurisprudence. He also includes Virginia's contribution of the Ohio Territory and the purchase of Louisiana by Jefferson. All of these achievements are designed to remind the audience of the prominent part played in the nation's history by the South and Southerners and to imply: "We can and must continue that great tradition. "

PAGE 119

114 In addition, Black asserts that the Southern soldier returned to their homes like true cavaliers, willing to acknowledge their defeat, abide in good faith the terms of the surrender, accept all the legitimate results of the issue, respect the prowess of those who had conquered, and resume their relations to the government with all the duties those relations imposed. Soon thereafter, the orator praises Lincoln and Webster to his Southern audience, then says: We are willing to forget; we this day proclaim and bind it by the highest sanction — the sacred obligation of Southern honor — that we have forgotten all of the past that should not be cherished. We stand in the way of no true progress. We freely pledge our hearts and hands to everything that will promiote the prosperity and glory of our country. And finally. Black in the waning moments of his address urges his listeners to be loyal to the nation: Citizens of the Republic, love your system of government, study and venerate the Constitution, cherish the Union, oppose all sectionalism, promote the weal and maintain the honor of the Republic. Again, as with the Lee and Jackson statue speeches discussed in this chapter, we have a speech whose primary purpose is to eulogize a well-liked leader of the Southern Confederacy. In this address though, there are strong overtones of a message of concern for intersectional reconciliation; most of which centers around the life of Hill as a fit model for the reunion spirit. Black asserts that Hill "opposed the secession of the State"; although he was "loyal to Georgia and the South," he "rejoiced" at the restoration of the South. In describing Hill, Black says:

PAGE 120

115 No son driven by fortunes he could not control from the paternal roof, ever left that roof with sadder parting than he left the Union, or returned from the storms without to shelter of home with wilder transport of joy than he felt when the South was again admitted to 'our father's house.' The orator obviously hopes that his listeners will be as happy as Hill was to see the South and Georgia return fully to the national union of States. Only twice does Black assert strongly and openly that the South was reconciled. First, when he talks of the Confederate soldiers who accepted "the legitimate results" of the war, and then, when he says, "We are willing to forget. " He does, however, by use of Hill's example and through use of the traditional, "What has the South contributed to the Nation" thpme imply that the nation was again one. In addition, he uses specific illustrations of national heroes and symbols — for example, Washington's Monument which had been dedicated the year before, the Bunker Hill Monument, Lincoln, Webster, the national capital and the statues there -to suggest that the war had solved the issues that divided the sections and that the nation's wounds were healed. There were many towns and counties in the South which could not boast of a hero like Lee, Jackson, or Hill, to whom a monument could be raised. But even the smallest village had lost men in the civil struggle and all citizens could recall the days when their young men had marched off to war. To the soldier, the suffering of field and camp, prison and hospital, was still a real and vivid memory. And in most communities of the post-war

PAGE 121

116 South, there were empty sleeves and patched eyes to remind the people of the conflict. So it was a common task for many Southern villages to collect money to erect a monument to the Boys in Gray. One of the first communities to sponsor a memorial monument was Augusta, Georgia, the headquarters city for the Confederate Survivors Association. After a bitter campaign concerning the best location for the monument, the citizens of Augusta voted to place it at the corner of Broad and Mcintosh Street. Some had wanted to erect it in the city cemetery, but the center of the city was selected. As was the custom, the Ladies Memorial Association raised funds for the project. On April 13, 1875, the officers of the Association met to lay the first bricks of the foundation: About half-past three o'clock the ladies met at the site of the proposed monument, and going down into the excavation made for the foundation — where the ground was prepared, with brick and mortar at hand -took off their gloves and prepared themselves for work. It was indeed a novel sight to the large number of spectators to see the ladies, with delicate, ungloved hands, laying brick and handling the trowel, but it was a holy duty they performed — one most appropriate to the occasion and the object — that of rearing a shaft of marble in memory of the brave men who fought and died for a cause they considered just. 31 The brick-laying ceremony was not all that the city did that Spring to commemorate the dead and consecrate the column. On Confederate Memorial Day, April 26, they dedicated the cornerstone of the memorial and 31 "The Hero Dead," Daily Chronicle and Sentinel (Augusta, Georgia), April 27, 1875, p. 3.

PAGE 122

117 had the usual procession, ceremony, and oration. The city merchants closed their shops at one o'clock, and "the streets soon after one began to be thronged with volunteers in uniform, members of societies, with badges, and citizens generally. Everything wore a holiday appearance . . . . Never before in the history of Augusta was there such a universal outpouring of the people known. "^2, Another observer wrote, "The street was packed and jammed, whilst every window and housetop, from pavement to roof, contained as many as it could hold. It was not only a sea of upturned faces, but a wall of faces on either side. "^^ In the procession that marched to the site of the monument were many groups from the area such as the Augusta Independent Volunteer Battalion, the Augusta Police Force "in full and beautiful grey uniform, " the Medical Society, city and county clergy and officials, along with the officers of the Ladies Memorial Association. One writer was most effusive in his description of the parade: "The procession and the music eclipsed anything ever witnessed in Georgia since the dawn of civilization upon its soil!"'^'^ Once at the site, a prayer was offered, an anthem was sung by the choir, a selection by Mozart was played by — of all groups — the Eighteenth United States Army Band stationed in Columbia, South Carolina, and the cornerstone was lowered into position. It was then dedicated by a Masonic 32 Ibid,, p. 4. 33 Ibid. , p. 6, 3'^ Ibid. , p. 4,

PAGE 123

118 ceremony with Grand Master C.E. Lewis pouring wheat, wine, and oil upon it, "assisted by the grand dignitaries and members of the Masonic 35 order. " Part of the cornerstone ritual was the emplacement of certain memorial items, such as the rolls of city and county officers, lists of church memberships, rolls of the local societies such as the Georgia Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Hebrew Benevolent Society, the rolls of local schools, and of course. Confederate memorabilia such as postage stamps, money, a Confederate flag, lists of Confederate dead and rolls of various Georgia military units. After the conclusion of the oration and another prayer, the procession reformed and marched to the cemetei'y for the annual decoration of the graves. The orator of the day, Clement A, Evans, had enjoyed a varied and laudatory career before arriving in Augusta for these events. Born in Stewart County, Georgia, in 1836, he was admitted to legal practice before his nineteenth birthday; at twenty-two he was elected judge of the county court and four years later served as state senator. In 1860, he was one of the Georgia electors for the Southern Democratic Breckinridge and Lane presidential ticket. After Lincoln was elected President, Evans favored Southern secession, but only upon the condition that all the states withdraw together as a unified group. Although the Southern states failed to achieve this cohesive action, Evans participated courageously in the struggle. He 35 Ibid., p. 7. 36 Ibid., pp. 7-8,

PAGE 124

119 commanded a brigade, then a division in Gordon's Corps in the Army of Northern Virginia, and was wounded five times. After Appomattox, the General turned from the saddle to the pulpit and became a preacher in the North Georgia Methodist Conference where he remained for twenty-seven years. Although he "cheerfully accepted the verdict" of war, he assisted in organizing the United Confederate Veterans Association and served in several positions of responsibility in that body, including a term as its Commander-in-Chief. In keeping with his military background and record. General Evans edited a twelve-volume work. The Confederate Military History. He was also a businessman, as he organized the successful Augusta Real Estate and Improvement Company and the Augusta Summerville Land Company; in addition to these business ventures he was a trustee of three colleges and managed the finances of the Preachers Aid Association.^^ It is difficult to isolate specific themes of reconciliation rhetoric op in this brief address. ^° There are, however, scattered references throughout the speech which can be seen as contributing to a spirit of national reunion. The first of these statements occurs in the opening moments of the introduction: In the mind of the people of all these United States there is a national reverence for popular rights, a deeply seated faith in the old maxims of our Government, and withal a respect for valor and virtue which 3 7 "General Element Anselm Evans," History of Georgia , II (Chicago: S.J. Clarke Publishing Co., 1926), pp. 555-558. 38 Ceremonies in Augusta, Georgia, Laying the Cornerstone of the Confederate Monument April 26, 1875 (Augusta, Georgia: Chronicle and Constitutionalist Job Printing Establishment, 1878).

PAGE 125

120 are not extinguished, and cannot be much longer repressed, '.'he long dispute between the Northern and Southern sections as such, which began in earnest fifty years ago, which had its four years reaping on fields of_fra_ternal carnage, and its ten years aftermatter /sic / of crimination, distrust and misrule, is, I fervently hope, practically drawing to a close. We at least are here to-day from all parts of the Nation — Confederates and Federals — native and foreign born, with our sons and daughters, to say with united voice, 'let sectional strife cease!' This assertion of a positive tone of reunion and national harmony is mentioned again at several points in the address, as when a short time later, Evans urges his listeners: But let us do nothing fellow-citizens, to keep alive the passions of war. To study its lessons is prudence; to profit by its teachings is wisdom; but to stir up the old animosities is madness. The voice of this monument will not be for v/ar, but peace. Then Evans asks his listeners to believe that the Old Confederacy has expired. "We have buried it. We do not intend to exhume its remains. We were utterly defeated, and we dismiss our resentments .... we take with the true hand of Southern honor the staff that holds the flag of stars and stripes." There is, however, no proof offered in support of this contention. The final approach Evans takes to the reconciliation theme is to say that both North and South unite in paying tribute to the courage and bloodshed of the other side in the conflict. He especially refers to Northern praise of Southern troops after the war was over. For example: A Federal officer of high rank exclaimed in a public address before an appreciative Northern audience: 'That army of Northern Virginia ! Who can help looking back upon them now with feelings half fraternal!

PAGE 126

121 Reduced to dire extremity at times, yet alv/ays ready to fight, and knowing well hov/ to make a ueld illustrious !' Men distinguished as statesmen and as military men on the other Atlantic shore have taken up the pen to record their high estimate of Confederate valor, fortitude and skill .... We have not asked the Federal soldier or citizen to say that our secession was right. Fair difference of opinion may be indululged on that question. But we hear with fraternal gladness the tributes which they pay to the honesty of our motives and the valor of our troops. And again: I respond with truest feeling to-day to the fraternal words of General Bartlett, of Massachusetts, spoken on the 19th of this April, at the Centennial celebration of the first battle of the old revolution. Referring to the Southern soldiers, he said: 'As an American, I am proud of the men who bravely met and repulsed them there !' The oration was well received by both the immediate audience and the nation at large. The Augusta Daily Chronicle aud Seiitinel contained a number of statements from other papers, both North and South, about the address, including this assessment from the New York Tribune : Whatever the politicans may be about, it is very clear that the soldiers of the late war were drawing nearer together .... When such words as those of General Evans are received with favor by an audience of exConfederates , we can have no fear that the people of the South have not resumed their devotion to the flag and their loyalty to the Union. ^^ An article in the Southern Christian Advocate echoed this positive sentiment as it stated: "The press speaks in highest temas of praise of the address delivered at Augusta, Georgia, on Memorial Day, by our esteemed brother . 39 "Memorial Day in Augusta , " Daily Chronicle and Sentinel (Augusta, Georgia), April 30, 1875, p. 2.

PAGE 127

122 The address is instinct with patriotic ardor. "^^ An Aagusta account the day after the address indicated that the speech v/as "frequently interrupted by applause", here is at least some indication of the impression the speech made on the immediate audience. The occasion for this speech had a certain aura of reunion spirit even before Evans rose to speak. The official account of the proceeding, for instance, said about the presence of the Eighteenth United States Infantry Band: One of the most striking features of the day was the appearance of the splendid band .... It was as novel as it was beautiful to see a portion of the regular army paying tribute to the dead of armies they had fought. It was but another token of that era of sincere peace and friendship upon which the whole country is now rapidly entering when the anirnosities engend'Sred by the strife are to be indeed forgotten, and the heroism, devotion and patriotism of all only remembered. '^^ Evans early expressed his own positive faith in this new era when he reminded his audience that all parts of the nation were represented in the ceremonies to honor the Confederate dead and that this coming together of former enemies called out for intersectional peace. By recalling the recent centennial ceremonies at the Bunker Hill Monument and at Lexington and Concord, Evans reinforced his contention that the nation was indeed reunited. 40 "Rev. C.A. Evans," ibid. , May 5, 1875, p. 2 41 "The Hero Dead," ibid. , p. 4. 4 2 Ceremonies in Augusta, p . 5 .

PAGE 128

123 General Evans also uses the monument itself as a symbol for reunion "The voice of this monument will not be for war, but peace .... The monument itself will say to us that the Confederacy has expired. " By referring to the very reason for his speech and the gathering, he reinforces the desire he expresses for national harmony and subtly tells his listeners that their Confederate dead would themselves wish that peace would come to the warring sections. The Robert E. Lee Camp of the Confederate Veterans, located in Alexandria, Virginia, dedicated a monument to the Confederate dead of that city in May, 1889. Captain R.T. Daniel presented the monument to the R. E. Lee Camp; Governor Fitzhugh Lee, who received the memorial in behalf of the organization, then proceeded to deliver the oration of the day. Fitzhugh Lee was well qualified to present this oration in reception of the memorial to the soldiers of the late Confederacy. A nephew of Robert E. Lee, the Governor had served in the gray uniform as an outstanding calvalry commander on many battlefields with his uncle. A few years after this address, he wrote a "full length biography that reveals his high regard for the general /Lee/ as a military leader. "^^ A recent assessment of Governor Lee ranks him among Virginians as "next to Daniel /John W_^/ in 45 popular favor among the Confederate heroes in public life." 53~Fitzhugh Lee, "Oration at the Unveiling of the Monument to the Confederate Dead. " (Alexandria, Virginia: No pub., 1889). ^4 Fitzhugh Lee, General Lee . Introduction by Philip Van Doren Stern (New York: Fawcett Publications , 1961), p. vii. 45 Moger, Virginia: Bourbonism to Byrd , p. 96.

PAGE 129

124 Although much of the speech is devoted to a review of some of the great battles of history: Thermopylae, Waterloo, and the charge of the Light Brigade at Balaklava and to Governor Lee's comparison of the bravery of those soldiers with the Confederate trooper at Gettysburg; the orator does attempt to reinforce some reconciliatory feelings. His major concern in this regard is simply to speak as though the nation is once again whole — a united country, with all the States working together in unison for the good of the whole — a sentiment which, by 1889, was no doubt more true than had it been uttered a decade and a half earlier. In this address, the reunion message is epitomized in this passage very early in the speech: To-day Federal and Confederate soldiers are citizens of one country. Over their head flies one flag, and a common destiny is revealed to both as the curtain rises on the future and exhibits to the gaze of the world 60,000,000 people living in peace and equally interested in all that pertains to the common glory of the American republic. Lee then goes on to point out that he believes it is right for the North to honor "the devotion to the Union of the States by Federal soldiers" and that, celebrations in the South by southern soldiers in honor of the memory of those who died in the defence of their States, their homes, and their people should be equally recognized as the merited tribute to their valor, and in no sense inconsistent with all the responsibilities and duties that now devolve upon States and individuals with equal force . A bit later, the speaker refers to the centennial commemoration which had been held the preceding day in New York City, "the greatest city of this great country"; without going into any detail, he calls it a "magnificent

PAGE 130

125 demonstration, " Then he tells how the world gathered to pay tribute to the first great American, George Washington, and how, of course, Robert E. Lee was related to him and how he had been bom in the same county as Washington. He goes through the typical description of his uncle's prewar service to the nation and his agonizing decision to join with his native state in the Civil War. All this is designed to show the connection of the Confederacy's great hero with the great national hero in an effort to reinforce Southern pride in the contributions Southerners had made to the nation. General Lee then makes his last attempt at a reconciliatory rhetoric as he says: God grant the time may speedily come when the survivors of the contending armies of the war between the States may everywhere recognize that the conscience which Washington call 'celestial fire' guided the motives of the soldiers of each army, whether they fought for the blue, or died in defence of the gray, and even as the flags of England and America entwined in loving embrace to commemorate the renown of the great Washington, so may every section of what is now a common countn/, remembering the valor and the heroism of the soldiers who fought upon either side from 1861 to 1865, be able to exclaim, 'They were American soldiers, and were splendid illustrations of American prowess. ' Rejoice with me that the smoke of battle has vanished and the roar of hostile guns is no longer heard. Although this dedicatory oration is extremely martial in its themes and scope, Governor Lee does reinforce a feeling of national unity as these quotations reflect. He obviously believes that the nation is once again whole and that both sections are in harmony on national purpose and future. So nowhere does he bother to strongly support or clearly illustrate his contention that the nation's wounds and scars are healed. He does, however, distinctly imply that the reunion process is complete; this assertion doubtless

PAGE 131

126 was given credibility by his listeners due to his ethos as Governor and a former General as well as through his relationship with the great Confederate commander. The dedication of monuments to war heroes throughout the South for many decades following the Civil War was an important feature of Southern culture. For a community to recall the sacrifices made for war and the passions engendered by bloodshed would seem a barrier to the reconciliation spirit. But as the dedicatory orators pointed out, men since time immemorial have praised in earthworks, stone, song, and word the deeds of their forebearers. The South, fully aware of the past, profoundly steeped in tradition, and passionately devoted to family and locality, could hardly do less, and, as we have seen, this memorial occasion was used to promote intersectional reunion. This lengthy quotation from an Augusta, Georgia, editorial sums up much of the South' s feeling about her Confederate monuments and their role in rememberance of the past and reunion for the future: But yesterday this sentiment of which we have spoken took appropriate and enduring shape in the beginning of the erection of a monument which will remain to future ages a witness to the valor of Southern men and the devotion of Southern women .... This memorial shaft bears testimony in their behalf — is a protest to God and man of the righteousness of their cause and the purity of their motives .... It is a vindication as well as a rememberance. It is put in our most public throughfare that it may be a landmark in our city; that it may be seen by every eye; that it may speak to the world of a cause crushed but not disgraced, of a people vanquished but not dishonored. It commemorates the courage, the chivalry, the devotion of the dead and it bears testimony to the justice of their cause. There will be no shame for the children of the conquered. They will point with pride to this lofty column and say 'so honored the South her heroes.'

PAGE 132

127 In years to come the proudest patent of nobility will lie in the words 'my father fought for freecom in the ranks of the Confederate Army. ' As it was fitting that it should be it was an occasion from which every evil passion was eliminated. There were tears and honors for the slain without bitterness or hatred for the slayers. The hearts which thrilled under the rememberances of past glories and of surviving griefs contained no feelings of resentment or of hostility for those who robbed us of our loved ones, who crushed our dearest hopes, who blighted our fondest aspirations .... We did not meet to swear hatred and vengeance upon the tombs of Southern soldiers; but rather to declare to the North that while we honor and lament our dead we cherish no malice for the living. We said to them 'here, across the graves of our sons and brothers, we extend to you the hand of peace and reconciliation. You believed in the justice of your cause, and battled for what we deemed the right. The God of Battles gave to you the victory. Let us, then, forget the enmities of the past, let us once more be friends and struggle together for the prosperity and gluiy ol our common country. '^^ With this abiding interest in the remembrance of things past, and the desire to once more see a united nation, it is easy to understand v/hy the public address at the commemoration of these numberless monuments played a vital role in the shaping of Southern attitudes and values. Indeed, this ceremonial occasion has to be seen as one of the most important observances in the culture of the post-war South, The ceremonies and oration served to glorify the Lost Cause and give it almost mythical status, while, at the same time, helped to create or reinforce a positive spirit of national reunion. 46 "Memorial Day," Daily Chronicle and Sentinel (Augusta, Georgia), April 27, 1875, p. 2.

PAGE 133

128 The monument ceremonies provided an opportunity for the speaker to encourage his audience to forget the pettiness, hatred, and strife of decades of sectional bitterness. All citizens could forget their differences and come together to talk of their pleasant memories of the past and their harmonious plans for the future. For, like the eulogy, words which v/ould rekindle the sectional spirit would be most inappropriate to the dedicatory circumstances. The occasion would have lent itself easily to the reaffirmation of intersectional peace. This was one occasion of public life where discord and argumentation were not in order. These speeches examined in this chapter contain four basic reconciliation themes: First, that the South will honor the judgment of the sword. That is, the North does not need to fear that the "South would rise again"; the war settled the matter of secession. Second, the South has given much to the nation — she is proud of that fact, and she will continue to contribute to the national well-being. Third, there is a positive affirmation that the reconciliation process was an accomplished fact; reunion was a reality. The orators who used this theme expressed their belief that there is a nation-wide feeling of faith in a re-united America; national patriotism and national pride are alive and well throughout the country and especially in the South, And, finally, the speakers said, "Let us follow the reconciliation example set for us by our wartime leaders, especially Lee, Hill, and Jackson. "

PAGE 134

129 In each of the six speeches examined in this chapter, the traditional Southern value of honor^^ is emphasized. Each spealcer, in some way, focuses on this value to reinforce his contention regarding reunion. Kemper, Hoge, Black, and Evans all stress that Southern sold:.ers and citizens accept the verdict of the sword and say, in effect, that our £,olemn honor is at stake; if we try to return to sectional warfare, we will be tarnishing our personal, state, and regional honor. Lee expresses chis idea of honor as he claims both sections fought well enough to deserve each other's praise. Daniel carries this rhetorical approach even farther, as much of his speech stresses the values inherent in the Southern code of chivalry and honor, and the Southern respect for a standard of knighthood, as embodied in General Robert E. Lee. This rhetorical method — relying on the value of honor as a support for reunion — was effective for the Southern auditors who traditionally had placed such strong importance on this value. A second effective rhetorical strategy employed by all six speakers involves a focus on Southern pride. Each of the speakers who spoke at a monument honoring a specific hero, of course, stresses his section's pride in that person and his contributions to the nation. In addition to this approach Hoge and Black's use of this idea emphasizes the South' s contribution to the nation. In addition to this approach, Hoge and Black's use of 47 As both Eaton and Weaver have pointed out, the Southerner, both common folk and planter, developed a sense of honor which served as one of the major bases for his life-style. See Eaton, Waning of the Old South , pp. 4, 30, 50-1, 53 and Richard M. Weaver, The Southern Tradition at Bay, A History of Postbellum Thought (New Rochelle,' New York: Arlington House, 1968), pp. 47, 59-72.

PAGE 135

130 this idea emphasizes the South 's contribution as a section to the nation's historical development. Daniel and Evans turn to Northern praise of Southern fighting ability to support and develop this idea. In all cases, this effective appeal to Southern pride was related to. an implication that the nation was unified and therefore helped to support this cal] for reconciliation. This chapter and the preceding one have discussed Southern speakers' strategy of reconciliation in speech situations in which the dead were memorialized and the memories of the past perpetuated in honor of the dead. V/e shall now turn to a Southern ceremonial situation in which the past was honored, but in terms of the living survivors of the war: the veterans' reunions. From what we have seen, it was claimed that the Southern (and Northern) soldiers were the first to forgive and forget. How did the speakers at the annual reunions reinforce this feeling of intersectional harmony?

PAGE 136

CHAPTER FOUR RENEWING OLD FRIENDSHIPS: VETERANS ' REUNIONS In the early years after the War Between the States, the Confederate veteran was content to nurse his wounds, rebuild his land and his economy, and learn how to live in the new and somewhat different order of things. His structure of racial relationships was different; his labor supply was no longer as much under his direct control; his ego was sharply deflated; his role in the nation's capital was sharply curtailed; and his economy was in ruins. He had left home in the Spring of 1861 expecting the easy and quick defeat of the Northern invading armies; he came back home in the Spring of 1865 defeated and discouraged. After having expected to win an easy war — indeed, after having staked all that he had on the outcome — it was difficult to face the bleak future of defeat and despair. After the grief and pain had become a bit less vivid, the gray-clad soldiers began to gather together to share old memories and to tell war stories as veterans have done since time immemorial. At first, these "reunions" were informal and unstructured, but as the years passed, most of the Confederate military units began to organize, elect officers, and hold regularly scheduled annual meetings. At each of these events, parades and ceremony were the order of the day; the veterans would gather from v/here they had limped home after the surrender and there would be business meetings, 131

PAGE 137

132 election of officers, campfires, barbeques, reminiscences, and the usual oration by a leading Southern military figure. These veterans' assemblies gained national attention in the last two decades of the century, and became a major avenue for the expression of conciliatory sentiment. As so many of the orators declared in great detail, the veteran was willing to let bygones be bygones; according to these speakers, if the soldiers could have controlled the matter, peace and sectional harmony v/ould have come with the last shot of the last battle. According to Paul Buck, who has v/ritten the most thorough study of the reconciliation process to date, the "spirit of good will which permeated every aspect of American life during the eighties received its deepest and sincerest expression from the aging veterans who once had borne the heat of battle. "1 Little of a scholarly nature has been v/ritten about these reunions, but apparently they were a major event in post-war Southern life.^ Woodward believes that the Confederate cult did not gain a religious cast until the movement was taken over by Southern Womanhood with the form.ation of the United Daughters of the Confederacy in 1895. There is, however, ample evidence that the veterans' organizations were responsible for major support ^aul H. Buck, The Road to Reunion, 1865-1900 (New York: Random House, 1937), p. 245. 2 Jbid. , pp. 245-272. 3 C. Vann Woodward, Origins of the Mew South, 1877-1913 (Baton Rouge; Louisiana State University Press, 1951). p. 156.

PAGE 138

133 of the numerous Ladies Memorial Associations mentioned in the previous chapter and also, for much of the glorification of the Lost Cause. In spite of the fact that there was much sentiment for the "old days" expressed in these meetings, there are many indications that these same soldiers' reunions strengthened and reinforced, and in some cases, no doubt, created the spirit of rapprochement. Many of the speakers, such as Robert Dabney and Charles C. Jones, Jr. , did, indeed, laud the Old South and speak with religious fervor for the return of the prewar conditions, but many others looked to the future of the South and its role in a re-united America. As Eaton has written recently, the "Confederate veterans as the years passed, transformed the crass realities of war into something noble and glorious. For them and their descendants the lost cause passed into the realm of emotion and myth." This analysis should go a step further and say that to a significant degree, through these reunions, the nation's wounds were slowly healed and that perhaps these events were the most important catalysts in the reconciliation process. At any rate, the importance of these ceremonial occasions cannot be overlooked by those wishing to understand the myths and the realities by which the South has lived in the post-war century. Charles C. Jones, Jr. , a leading late nineteenth -century Georgia historian, and long-time president of the Augusta , Georgia, Confederate Survivors Association, described his organization in this way: 4 Clement Eaton, The Waning of the Old South Civilization, 1860 I880's , Mercer University Lamar Memorial Lectures, No. 10 (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1968), p. 109.

PAGE 139

134 The Confederate Survivors Association consists of Confederate veterans. Every man who served under the Southern colors is admissible on being vouched for by two comrades and giving in his rank and command. Quarterly meetings are held, and on the 26th of April each year, Memorial Day, the Association has its annual meeting, and after the transaction of business drinks in silence and standing a toast to the Confederate dead. At the funeral of each member, a detail, and sometimes the whole association, attends with a warworn, tattered, and smoke-grimed stand of Confederate colors. The maimed members, those who have lost arm or leg, are the color guard. ^ A further example of the purpose and scope of these various veterans organizations is described in the charter of the Robert E. Lee Camp of the Confederate Veterans, Alexandria, Virginia: ... to perpetuate the memories of their fallen comrades, and to minister, as far as practicable, to the wants of those who were permanently disabled in the service, to preserve and maintain that sentiment of fraternity born of hardships and dangers shared in the march, the bivouac and the battlefield. It is proposed not to prolong the animosities engendered by the war, but to extend to their late adversaries, on every fitting occasion, courtesies which are always proper between soldiers, and which in their case a common citizenship demands at their hands. They propose to avoid everything which partakes of partizanship in religion and politics, but at the same time they will lend their aid to the maintenance of law and the preservation of order, ^ A large order for a voluntary association, but one which it typically tried to fill in the years before the turn of the century. By the late 1890 s death was claiming more members of these groups than they were recruiting and the 5 Charles C. Jones, Jr. Memorial History of Georgia (Spartanburg, S.C.: Reprint Company of Spartanburg, 1966), pp. 297-298. ^ Ceremonies and Speeches at the Dedication of the Monument to the Confederate Dead (Alexandria, Virginia, no pub., 1889), p. 3,

PAGE 140

135 membership figures began to drop. But at their height, the veterans' organizations in Dixie were viable and formidable obstacles to intersectional animosity and disharmony. There must have been some concern by some citizens, however, that these reunions would generate and rekindle intersectional bitterness. As noted just above, the Robert E. Lee Camp felt compelled to state explicitly that their meetings would not "prolong the animosities engendered by the war." General Samuel McGowan speaks in this same vein at the reunion of Orr's Rifles in Walhalla, South Carolina, in July, 1875, when he remarks that, "This reunion of old soldiers is not intended, and we must not allow 7 it to have the effect of rekindling again the old fires of strife. " In somewhat the same manner. Governor John B. Gordon says in the opening remarks of his 1887 address before the Confederate Survivors' Association in Augusta, Georgia: In discussing this subject I shall indulge in no criticisms of other sections. If I know the spirit of this people, or my own, we love our country -our whole country — because it is our country. We would strengthen and not weaken the bonds of cordial respect and fraternity that bind it together in a perpetual union of free and equal states. McGowan describes what he sees as the typical reunion and its function: ^Samuel McGowan, "Address at the Reunion of Orr's Rifles," delivered at Walhalla, South Carolina, July 21, 1875. Text from The Daily Phoenix (Columbia, South Carolina), July 25, 1875. ° John B, Gordon, Address Delivered Before the Confederate Survivors' Association , Augusta, Georgia, April 26, 1887 (Augusta, Georgia: Chronicle Publishing Company, 1887).

PAGE 141

136 Let us in peace and in quiet, without malice or hatred to any, hold sweet converse one with another, talk over the past with all its hopes and fears, joys and sorrows; recount the stories of the bivouac and the camp-fire, and as we pass, drop a silent tear over the sweet memory of some comrade whom we buried on the battlefield, and recall the long marches and bloody battles in which we suffered and struggled, hungered and toiled, and fought and bled together. This reunion of Orr's Rifles apparently fulfilled its orator's expectations, for the Charleston newspaper editorialized: The reunion of the Survivor's of Orr's Rifles was everything that the most ardent Confederate and patriotic citizen could wish -no bitterness, no discontent, only a loving pride in the soldiers who fell, a fond recollection of the days that are past, and a fixed determination to be as true to their new allegiance as these brave riflemen were to the cause of the South. Not only were the veterans' reunions not designed to stir up hatred and bitterness, the veterans themselves were in the forefront of the drive for reconciliation. According to McGowan, "It is not the soldier who has smelt gunpowder, but the selfish politican, who wishes to perpetuate strife betv/een the parties to the late contest." Then, in reference to Horace Greely's "bloody chasm", he says, "If the difficulties between the sections had been left to the soldiers at Appomattox, the 'bloody chasm' would have been crossed at once by an improvised pontoon bridge, the work of both armies. " Indeed, the veterans had already done much to alleviate the strains and hateful memories of the war. General Evander M. Law of South Carolina, ^I'Orr's Rifles Reunion" The News and Courier (Charleston, South Carolina), July 24, 1875.

PAGE 142

137 in an 1890 address at Richmond to the annual reunion of the Army of Northern Virginia, praises General Granti Ulysses S. Grant, the Union hero and President, was never greater in all his eventful career than when, with the destinies of the two armies in his hands , he reconstructed the Union by the terms given at Appomattox. A reconstruction which, if allowed to stand, would have quickly healed the wounds of war, and left no bloody chasm to be bridged by the devilish devices of pestilent politicians . General Thomas Logan asserts to the reunion celebration of the Hampton Legion in 1875 that: The soldiers, as well of the North as of the South, have prepared the way for reconciliation. Their policy has been 'forget, forgive, conclude and be agreed, ' and if it had been left to them, the animosities of the war would long since have been buried ._ The liberal sentiments of Bartlett /a Union genera_l/ and others Vv'ould have restored amity and good feeling, and the whole country would have thus received new impetus in its career of progress and prosperity. Although in 1875, General Logan could only say that the veterans had "prepared the way for reconciliation," within a decade, orators were more positive in their assertions that the nation was one again. Charles E.R. Drayton, in a brief address before the 1885 reunion of the Washington Light Infantry, of Charleston, South Carolina, assumes that the country was united when he says: TTTEvander Mclvor Law, The Confederate Revolution, An Address Delivered Before the Association of the Army of Northern Virginia, Ri chmond, May 28, 1890 (Richmond: Wm . Ellis Jones, 1890). 11 Thomas M. Logan, "The Future of the South," delivered at Columbia, South Carolina, July 31, 1875. Text from Daily Phoenix , July 2 2-23, 1875.

PAGE 143

138 My fellow-countrymen, the day we celebrate is one around which clusters of the affectionate gratitude of more than fifty millions of American freemen. To-day we commemorate the one hundred and fifty-third birthday of the most remarkable man whose name is written upon the tablets of history . . . Such days as the one we celebrate are the national altars of the great American Republic. "^ Drayton goes on to assert that "an era of good feeling and fraternal patriotism has at last dawned upon the people of this great Republic." Two years later. General Gordon assumed that the Union was restored when he linked the funeral ceremonies held for President Grant with the celebration held in Montgomery, Alabama, for President Davis. This reconciliation emphasis was not unusual for Governor Gordon, for he was considered a leader of the reconciliation movement. As early as 1875 he was speaking in northern Mississippi at Holly Springs in a manner which was described by a Southern reporter as "conservative, breathing a spirit 13 of reconciliation and good feeling and eulogizing Federal soldiers. " Governor, Senator, railroad magnate, military hero, and a man of unusually attractive features, Gordon became a "popular idol in the South and the incarnation of the Lost Cause in the North." One of the biographical sketches of Gordon quotes the New York Times as characterizing the •''^ Charles E.R. Drayton, Address to the Washington Light Infantry , delivered at Charleston, South Carolina, February' 22, 1885. (n.p., n.d.). Printed text located in The South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina . ^3 The Columbia Register (Columbia, South Carolina), September 8, 1875. ^^ Woodward, Origins of the New South, p. 17.

PAGE 144

139 Georgian as "the ablest man of the South in the House of Congress," His fame and respect vere also strong in the South, for when the United Confederate Veterans organization was formed in 1890 the General was 1 c elected the Commander and he retained that post until his death in 1904. In October, 1887, Gordon went to Ohio to support the Democratic Party candidate for Governor, Thomas Powell, against the charges of bloody shirt oratory which had been leveled by J.B. Foraker and John Sherman, Ohio Republican leaders. In a November 1 speech at Cleveland, the Georgian says: I am profoundly impressed with the conviction that the sooner the barriers which divide Ohio and Georgia are broken down, the better for your interests and mine. I have sometimes thought that I would be willing to see one more war, that we might march under the stars and stripes, shoulder to shoulder, against a common foe. If I could call the lightning down tonight, I would blast forever this horrible feeling of sectional hate. ^7 Long a figure of national renown for his reconciliation sentiments, Gordon was most sincere when in 1887 he linked the North's great hero with the South' s former President in a statement which takes for granted the oneness of the Nation: It was my melancholy pleasure to take part in the funeral honors paid to the North's greatest hero. rr"ML^g^^^_Qgn. John Brown Gordon," The Story of Georgia, Bio graphical Volume (New York: The American Historical Society, Inc., 1938), p. 559. 16 Ibid. ^^ Huber W. Ellingsworth, "The Ohio Raid of General John B. Gordon," The Southern Speech Journal, XXI (Winter, 1955), p. 125.

PAGE 145

140 General U.S. Grant. Every soldier and citizen who took part in that greatest pageant of modern times; every child who, with loving hands, placed flowers upon his bier; and every stone that shall hereafter be placed in the monument to his memory, will but add to northern manhood and northern character. So on the other hand the almost equally great demonstration in the South one year ago, over the living president of the dead Confederacy, was potential in the formation of southern character. Every bonfire that blazed on the streets of Montgomery; every cannon shot that shook its hills; every rocket that flew on fiery wing through the midnight air; every teardrop that stole down the cheeks of patriotic southern women, was a contribution to the self-respect, the character, and the manhood of southern youth. In this passage we also see an example of Gordon's rhetoric which led Richard M. Weaver to remark about the Georgian: "John B. Gordon also belongs to the group which never outlived a disposition to see the war as a contest of chivalry. " ° He goes on to say that with Gordon, one finds "himself back in the heroic age. Every leader is a knight, brave, true, magnanimous; every woman is a high-souled heroine, devoting herself to her lord and comforting him in his hardships . "'^ These traits of chivalry and manhood and the usual Southern respect for womanhood find rich expression in this speech made by Gordon in Augusta, Georgia, April 26, 1887, at the ninth annual reunion of the Confederate Survivors' Association. Undoubtedly, by identifying so heavily with these traditional Southern values for support, Gordon's rhetoric was well-received by his audience. 18 Weaver, The Southern Tradition at Bay, A History of Postbellum Thought, edited by George Core and M.C. Bradford. (New York: Arlington House, 1968), p. 202. ^^ Ibid . , p. 203.

PAGE 146

141 James Webb Throckmorton, former Texas Go\''ernor and a Brigadier General in the Civil War, also implies that the nation was reunited in a June 27, 1889, address to a reunion of Hood's soldiers in Waco, Texas. Throckmorton had studied both law and medicine in Kentucky before coming to Texas in 1841. He served as a surgeon in the Mexican War and practiced both legal and medical science in Texas before entering into a political career. Elected to the Texas House of Representatives in 1851, he served until 1856 when he was elected to the Texas Senate, a post he held until 1861. He was a member of the Texas Secession Convention, and although he voted against secession, after war began he served as an officer in the Confederate Army. In 1864 he became a General in the Texas Militia and served as a commander on the Northwest border of Texas. After the end of hostilities, Throckmorton was a delegate and the presiding officer in the reconstruction government created by President Andrew Johnson. He was easily elected Governor in 1866 by a four to one margin, but was removed from office by General Sheridan the following year and resumed his law practice in Collin County, Texas. The Governor's political role lapsed until 1875 when he was elected to the United States House of Representatives. He served in Washington for four years, then 21 returned for two more terms in 1883. He died in McKinney, Texas, in 1894. ^0 James Webb Throckmorton, "Speech Delivered at Re-Union of Hood's Soldiers" Waco, Texas, June 27, 1889 (N.P., N.D.). 2 1 The biographical sketch is drawn from: Walter B. Moore, "James Webb Throckmorton" Nev/s (Dallas, Texas), May 11, 1963; "James Webb Throckmorton" Wlio Was Who in A merica, Historical Volume, 1607-1896 (Chicago: A.N. Marquis Company, 1963), p. 530.

PAGE 147

142 Although most of his 1889 speech is comprised of tedious summary accounts of General Robert E. Lee's battles against overwhelming odds and references to the actions of Hood's Brigade in these battles, there are portions devoted to the reconciliation message. Most of this reunion oratoryis based on Throckmorton's assumption that the nation is once again reunited. The orator points out that there are soldiers present in the audience who fought on both sides in the Civil War and that also present are those who had fought in the war of Texas Independence and in the Mexican War. He asserts, "It is fit and proper that the soldiers of all our wars should meet and mingling together commemorate the deeds of their comrades in arms. " He goes on to say: We are American citizens; we are descendants of the heroes and statesmen who won our independence and established a government dedicated to human liberty. We all share alike in the fame won at Bunker Hill and Yorktown, at Lundy's Lane and New Orleans, at the Alamo and San Jacinto, at Buena Vista and Chapultapec; and we are justly proud of the renown won by the heroes who fought at Shiloh, Manassas, at the Wilderness and Gettysburg, regardless of the banner under which they fought. The soldiers of the civil war who wore the blue fought for the supremacy of the Union. Those who wore the gray fought for their firesides and for principles dear to the American heart -implanted there by the fathers of the Republic. In a fine rhetorical stroke which helps to affirm the reunion spirit, Throckmorton links both Lee and Grant as he says that both these men, and their officers and soldiers, will occupy as brilliant a page in the military annals of the world as any whose deeds are recorded there. Their splendid achievements belong to the history of our common country, and are not surpassed, if equaled,

PAGE 148

143 by those of any people, ancient or modern, and are the heritage of a common people whether won under the stars and stripes or the stars and bars. As has been said on another occasion, the memories that cluster around the deeds of the soldiers of the civil war, the living as well as the dead, should teach us that we are one people -that we cannot and should not be divided. The orator then favorably compares Pickett's charge and Hood's attack at Gettysburg — "the daring achievements of any age our county" — with the "valor of the stern warriors who saved the Federal army from defeat on that field of death and glory, " Again, this linking of the bravery of both armies would serve to create an aura of national unity: both armies were American, and both were courageous. By applauding both Northern and Southern pride in the armed valor of each side, he hoped to move his auditors to accept his basic reconciliation premise that re-union is best for all the nation's people. If he could show them that both sides were brave, then they would be more likely to feel as brothers. Texas was still frontier country in 1889 and a place where the auditors could be expected to prize highly the individualistic frontier virtues of courage and valor. Throckmorton appealed skillfully to those values and, therefore, deepened the reconciliation spirit in his listeners. Throckmorton's entire reconciliation message strikes a thoroughly positive, optimistic attitude about the re-uniting process. He simply assumes, in 1889, that it has occurred and that all his listeners are not only aware of the fact, but rejoice in it. For the Texan, the nation was one; the war proved "we are one people — that we cannot and should not be divided." General E.M, Law, in his Richmond address the following year, also uses this common assertion that "the heroism of both victor and vanquished

PAGE 149

144 will be claimed as the cDmmon heritage of the American people." Law goes on to ODnclude that he hopes "every section might unite in a spirit of loyal brotherhood to meet every danger that threatens, in any and every part of our wide domain. " He urges nation-wide support of the original constitution, that is, a states' rights approach for government. Law pledges that the states of the South stood ready to carry the nation's "banner triumphantly through every peril." The printed text claims that the orator was "frequently applauded during his address, and at its close he was warmly congratulated by many of those who heard him," so Law's message must have been effective for his audience. In addition, a member of the Association, Reverend Dr. J.J. William Jones, moved that the group officially thank General Law and that they request a copy of his address so that it might be published. Doubtless that public expression of confidence aided in strengthening the audience's apparently positive reception of the speech. Returning to the former Texas Governor, we hear his claim, "The dark clouds of war have rolled away; the bitterness of the strife engendered by the war, and the wounds inflicted by it have been assuaged. " He then points out that the Southern soldiers who died on Northern battlefields and in Northern prisons and hospitals have their graves tended by the widows of the Northern men who died in the South, and "the graves of Northern soldiers who lie buried in the South are tenderly cared for by the fair women whose homes they invaded. " General Throckmorton then closes this passage of reunion rhetoric by calling on God to extend the virtues of "charity and

PAGE 150

145 forgiveness" until they pervade the "heart of every fair woman and manly breast throughout the length and breadth of our glorious country; even until there shall not be a sorehead in the South, or a scurvy partisan in the North, to mar the harmony and beauty of a united and prosperous country." One reason that these orators claimed that the nation was again reunited lies in the assertion made by Drayton that Anglo-Saxons are magnanimous. As he expresses it to the Washington Light Infantry: On the field of carnage, the Anglo-Saxon may rend and destroy with the ferocity of the wild beast, but when the struggle is ended and the sword returned to its scabbard, and the dead are buried, and the tents are silently folded away reason asserts her empire, and he becomes the most magnanimous and conservative of the whole human family. You have helped to make this demonstration clear in the midst of all the splendid moral and material accomplishments of this prolific century. Drayton,alone of all the veterans' reunion speakers surveyed in this chapter, believed the Union is stronger because the war had purged the nation of its problems. He had begun his 1885 address by reinforcing a spirit of national pride and unity of intersectional feeling as he stressed the entire nation's respect for Washington. "Such days as the one we celebrate are the national altars of the great American Republic. " Drayton then remarks: We can all meet together on this memorable day to kindle anew the fires of patriotism, and thank God that we are American citizens; thank God that the fires of civil war are extinguished; that sectional strife and animosities are flitting av/ay before the steady tramp of a progressive and expansive patriotism, that impels the Northman and the Southron to clasp hands in bonds of brotherly sympathy 'neath the folds of a starry banner, representing a Union made dearer and more precious by the fierce struggles and sufferings of the past — a Union purged of the curse of slavery, an indestructible Union of co-equal States.

PAGE 151

146 Surely this theme, almost an Old Testament pronouncement, had a strong appeal to the strongly religious Southerner. Although this speech is unusually short, Drayton expresses his conviction that peace had occurred between the sections and that Southerners could fully and convincingly support the cause of national unity. Indeed, that is his basic theme. He gains support for it through praise of his audience, the Washington Light Infantry, and their role in promoting harmony by participating in the Revolutionary War Centennial celebrations in the North and by praising the Southerner George Washington, who had done so much for the nation. If the auditors rejected reconciliation, according to Drayton, they would be rejecting what V/ashington himself stood for: national unity. And doubtless, Washington was second possibly only to Lee in the hearts of post-bellum Charlestonians . Shoil; though they are, Drayton's remarks, through his use of the rhetorical strategy of audience praise and by presenting Washington as a model to follow, contribute their share to mending the split nation. Another common theme employed by three of the reunion speakers -McGowan, Gordon, and Throckmorton -is a simple and direct plea to their listeners to adopt a stance of national harmony and trust which will bridge the intersectional chasm. As early as 1875 — and in the heart of the Confederacy at that — General McGowan urges the Orr's Rifles at Walhalla, South Carolina: Let every one who was a good soldier in the past do his best, as a good citizen in the future, to create kind and fraternal relations between the sections, and to maintain that mutual respect, which alone can make

PAGE 152

147 the condition of the South, as a part of the Government, tolerable to a defeated, but proud and highspirited people . Twelve years later, in Augusta, Georgia, Gordon uses this same approach as he advocates to the Confederate Survivors: Wedded inseparably to the constitutional rights of the States, let us cultivate, by all legitimate means, a broad nationality embracing the whole union of States. Here hangs above us the flag of that union. Let us honor it as the emblem of freedom, of equality, and unity -remembering that there is not a star on its blue field which is not made brighter by light reEected from the southern skies — not a white line in its folds but what is made whiter and purer by the South' s incorruptible record — not one of its crimson stripes that is not deeper and richer from southern blood shed in its defense in all of the wars with foreign powers. Out in the frontier state of the Confederacy, General Throckmorton counsels the some course of action to Hood's Brigade at V/aco, Texas m 1889: May we not invoke the veterans of our entire country, the survivors of all our wars, and our people everywhere, in the name of the living as well as the dead — in this our day of peace and prosperity — to renew upon the altars of our country eternal devotion and loyalty to its institutions, and supplicate the aid and blessings of heaven that we, and those to come after us, shall preserve our liberty, 'the Union of the States, now and forever one and inseparable.' Although all of the speeches discussed in this chapter are replete with passages designed to encourage and reinforce intersectional reconciliation, one stands above the others in this regard. From a rhetorically artistic point of view, the address General Thomas Muldrup Logan made to the reunion of the Hampton Legion in Parker's Hall, Columbia, South Carolina, on July 21, 1875, is perhaps the best of this group of reunion orations, and

PAGE 153

148 thus deserves a closer inspection. Logan, who had been the South's youngest general officer, was born in Charleston and educated at South Carolina College before moving to Richmond, Virginia, after the war where 22 he became a wealthy and influential lawyer and railroad executive. The newspaper reports of the speech were not as glowing as they so often were on occasions such as this one, but the reporters did remark that the speech was "highly spoken of by all who heard it, "23 and that the ?A address was "well-considered." In spite of newspaper assertions that the reunion was to have "no political significance, "2^ it is difficult today to accept this statement in view of the fact that Wade Hampton, the commander of the Legion, was busily engaged in 1875 organizing his campaign to "redeem" South Carolina from the Republican rule which it had been under for the past ten years . His "Red Shirts" were formed with a strong nucleus of former Confederate soldiers, many of whom doubtless spent much time at this reunion discussing South Carolina politics, Negro intimidation tactics, and plotting the overthrow of the Radical regime. The Red Shirts and Rifle Clubs harrassed the political meetings of South Carolina Republicans in the crucial election of 1876;^" 22 Robert Douthat Meade, "Thomas Muldrup Logan," Dictionary of American Biography , XI, edited by Dumas Malone (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1933), pp. 367-368. 23 "Hampton's Legion" Daily Phoenix , July 23, 1875. 24 "Hampton's Legion" News and Courier , July 22, 1875. 25 "Hampton's Legion" Ibid., July 19, 1875. 26 Rembert W. Patrick, T he Reconstruction of the Nation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), p. 253.

PAGE 154

149 their campaign of Negro intimidation and "force without violence" was so successful that Hampton was elected to the Governorship of the state. ^ This veterans' reunion could not have been devoid of political overtones. In this context, it is somewhat surprising that this oration by Logan contains as much reconciliation sentiment as it does. It is Logan's belief that man should be basically hopeful and optimistic about life; this is the mood projected in the introduction and sustained through the entire speech. This feeling of hope supports his reconciliation message because much of what he is saying sustains the image that the Nation is reunited and that the sections have bridged the "bloody chasm." He says that the reunion of the Legion is being held mainly for the purpose of honoring the past, but reminds his listeners that, at the same time, they must look confidently to the future and prepare for it as a part of a reunited country. Logan's first main point in the body of the speech consists of an analogy that some "eminent writer on social science" has devised between the body politic and animal organisms; this analogy is referred to at several points in the address, and contributes significally to the speaker's reconciliation message, as it describes metaphorically how Logan sees the nation's development after the War Between the States. The simple, according to the analogy, always tends to become complex, the small becomes large, the 27 Thomas D. Clark and Albert D. Kirwan, The South Since Appomattox, A Century of Regional Change (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), p. 47.

PAGE 155

150 organism moves from a state of independence to a state of dependence. Logan carries the comparison a step further by saying the arteries and veins of an animal are similar in function to the telegraph lines of the country. Logan urges his audience to keep this analogy in mind as he develops his speech because he believes it is an apt illustration. The speaker then asserts that the American nation has grown by oo these inevitable natural laws into a "vast social organism. "^° No longer is the country a mere aggregation of states, but is "so far advanced in its growth as a national body politic . . . that unity is a necessity of its further development. " The inevitable laws of nature decreed that the Confederacy could not have won the Civil War and were the deciding factors in the North's victory, regardless how hard others may look elsewhere to find the answer to the South' s defeat. The South has now "accepted the result, and there is now nothing surer in the political world, than that this country will continue in the future a united nation. " Due to the recent development of the network of veins and arteries (the American railroad system) and the nerves of the organism (the telegraph) the nation is now governable from coast to coast. Previously, one of the major objections to a federal type of government was that the vast reaches of the continent prevented effective, efficient government. Now, says Logan, these barriers 28 In his study of "Science and Symbol in the Turner Frontier Hypothesis," William Coleman states that in the nineteenth century "no metaphor was so striking or so compelling as the image of the social organism ..." American Historical Review, LXXII (October, 1956), p. 25

PAGE 156

151 have been removed by progress. "The future is not for State, but for national development, and we /the South/ recognize the fact." Next, Logan pj'oclaims his belief in the future destiny of a strong and united nation. Compared to the states of Europe,, the United States is in a far better position for rapid growth and development. For one thing, this country does not drain its resources by maintaining a large standing army as do the nations of Europe. Again, this nation is superior because of our "mixture of blood of different nations of the same race. " This trait or national characteristic, is supposed to produce "vigor, energy, and vitality"; how this process occurs his audience is not told. Because of these factors, as well as climate, soil, and location, "a vast empire is in process of formation. " Throughout this early part of the speech, Logan is creating a positive, optimistic mood which will motivate his listeners to accept the fact that they are a part of a powerful, free, and independent nation. He is attempting, and with success, to instill a sense of pride in the United States and a feeling that both sections can work together to achieve greatness. General Logan then moves from this discussion of the unified nation's optimistic future to a major topic of his speech: the future of the Southern region. First, he asks the question, "What effect will the overthrow of our social and industrial system /i.e. , slavery/ have upon our region?" Although he does not depict the outcome as being clear, in keeping with his generally positive tone, he believes that progress will result from the new system. "An unprejudiced consideration of the subject unquestion-

PAGE 157

152 ably justified the opinion, that our capacity for progress has been increased, and that the present opportunities for developing our resources are greater than are /sic/ possible under the old regime. " Surprisingly, for a native Southerner and former Confederate General speaking in 1875 to an audience of basically unredeemed South Carolina rebels, Logan admits that, "The material resources of the South had been developed to a very limited extent, as compared with her population and wealth, hence we have always been, in this respect, the most helpless and dependent people of the civilized world. " He even goes a step further to admit that the North's "rapid increase of population and general diffusion of wealth" was a characteristic of the Northern section that should be envied and copied by the defeated Confederacy. In fact, Logan implies at several points that the South' s best interests financially will be served by the section's becoming reconciled and adopting a more materialistic approach to life . Since the South has been through fifteen years of turmoil and suffering, Logan reminds his audience, her people "appreciate now the importance of developing all our resources, and will no doubt, realize the necessity of Labor in all its forms as the means of material success, but also to honor it as an essential condition of social progress." If the South will recognize the important factor of work in the economy, then she should gain her "full share of prosperity. " If Bertelson is accurate in his assessment of the "Lazy South, "29 Logan and other "New South" advocates who called for the 29 David Bertelson, The Lazy South (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967).

PAGE 158

153 Southern people to adopt the industrialized ways of the North were flying in the face of a cultural tradition in which leisure was a meaningful expression of a way of life. In other words, they were denying one of the essences of what was Southern about the South. Whether the auditor would realize it or not is another question, but Logan was clearly out of step with the accepted cultural mores of his society. He is, however, clear and forceful in his admonition concerning work; in his attempt to make this point vivid for his listeners, Logan uses the Biblical testimony, "By the sweat of thy brow thou shalt earn thy bread. " In an obvious attempt to identify with his audience's values and background, Logan next discusses how difficult it is for the older citizen to adapt to a changing society and to the evils perpetrated upon the South by the Reconstruction governments. For Logan, "The sorrows and horrors of war were exceeded by the evils of reconstruction." Even though South Carolina is still under Republican rule and, therefore, the "misrule" is vivid and current to the listener, it is difficult to see how the "excesses" of Reconstruction could be worse than the evils of total warfare practiced by the combatants in the civil struggle. But for Logan and his South Carolina audience, this view of Reconstruction was real and the "myth" by which they and succeeding generations of Southerners lived. At any rate, the newspaper assertion that this reunion was to be non-political can be easily refuted by this portion and by later sections of the speech in which the orator describes and attacks the unjust rule of the Republican Party control of the state government. Although this passage seems to indicate

PAGE 159

154 an "anti-reconciliation" bent, in fact, it probably helped to reunite for it gave the Southerners in the audience a scapegoat for their problems: the Radical Republicans. As Logan later expressed it, the evils of the era were placed at the feet of the leadership of the Republican Party. These scheming politicians wanted to perpetuate themselves in power and therefore achieve their political salvation by capitalizing on the emotions stirred by war. Logan .is almost vicious in his attack on these men — although he does not call them by name: The reconstruction measures, it is true, were not only oppressive and tyrannical — conceived in hate and born in iniquity -but they resulted from a gross and unscrupulous abuse of power by a radical faction, whose legislation was a disgrace to American people, claiming, as they do, to teach and lead the world in the art of free government. We should not_j_ however, hold the people responsible /emphasis hi_s/. This attack on the Republicans not only serves to identify Logan more closely with the values of his audience, it also helps to overcome any audience dissatisfaction he might have created when he asserted that the demise of slavery was doubtless good for the South and that the South needed to follow the lead of the North in developing industry and commerce. After this attack on the Republican Party Radicals, General Logan returns to his analogy as he observes that the national government has "become consolidated." But he cautions that one must remember, with the growth and development of the country, there was necessarily the usual change from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous, from the simple to the complex, from the weak and purely Federal republic of the past, to the strong and powerful nation of to-day; but this was only in accordance with the law of progress itself , and arose from the necessity of the case, in the growth of the 'social organism. '

PAGE 160

155 In order to settle the fears of those auditors who would feel that stronger federal government weakens local govemraent, Logan asserts that there is "no real incompatibility between the two." In fact, che "present revulsion against the centralizing policy of the Republican party will result in the recognition of all constitutional restrictions, and check any tendency to further consolidation. " Change in the organism also produces opposite changes through reaction. Logan believes that this reaction has occurred in our process of national development. "Corrective and hannonizing agencies have been developed, which supply adequate counteracting influences; and I hesitate not to affirm that the equilibrium will be preserved , and the resultant be real progress, " In other words, the South will be able to maintain and even increase her power in the national councils, because her beliefs in local government and constitutional checks and balances upon the power of the central government will be upheld by this natural reaction. The next step in the speech is to describe what these "corrective and harmonizing agencies" are. In the first place, there has been increased influence of public opinion over governmental policy and action which has occurred due to the "new media" of the telegraph and the i-ailroad, "those two great adjuncts to the printing press in diffusing knowledge." Not only do they spread knowledge more broadly, they also "bring the citizens of all sections into direct and immediate com.munication with each other, if not into personal conference." In short, public opinion has become more consolidated at the same time that government has become more amalgamated.

PAGE 161

156 While the railroads and telegraph have united public opinion, the national press has become more free and responsive to the needs of the people. This evolution has increased their influence on the citizens' well-being. In the beginning of the nation's press history, the papers were forced to "become the organ of some party, individual, or particular interest, " but in the decade of the 1870's Logan sees them as "independent pecuniarily, as well as in principle." Thus, we can see that "while the vast patronag'e and power / o_f/ the national Government wDuld have been regarded formerly as inevitably subversive of our institutions, yet we have no such apprehensions, because an active, fearless and powerful independent press is now always ready (and is able) to attack and expose corruption." Next the orator moves into a discussion of how the ordeals of reconstruction were overcome even while the South was out of power in Washington. He says the North has always desired an increase of wealth and population and an ever-stronger central government, while the "Southern people have always been conservative — opposing every encroachment of national authority, and thus exerted a restraining influence of the centralizing tendency of the North. " If the equilibrium between the two sections had existed after the war, the Congress would have eventually evolved a system in which both sections could have been protected. The North could have had a government strong enough to protect its financial institutions and wealth; and at the same time the South could have had its full local rights and its individual freedom. With the absence of the South in the decision-making councils of state, however, this equilibrium was temporarily destroyed. "But

PAGE 162

157 the dangers were at las'.t appreciated by the North, and the reaction of public opinion became so great as, even in Massachusetts, to hurl the Republican party from power. The South is now again on a footing of equality . . . her conservative influence will be available and may be relied on. " What the nation now needs most of all, according to Logan, is for the South at long last to acquire the habits of thrift and energy possessed 30 by the North. With iihese traits she would build up her cities, and "in short, develop as rapidly as possible all her material resources." North of the MasonDixon line, the people should "check any further tendency to centralization, whether in the executive, legislative or judicial department." In summary, "While we /the South/ should study more the science and art of wealth, they /the North/ should study more the science and art of government." Doubtless this passage in which Logan instructs the North as to its conduct was received enthusiastically by the Confederate veterans assembled in Columbia. Although Logan has introduced his theme of reconciliation at various points in the oration, notably in his basic contention that this nation is on the verge of greatness with both sections striving together toward this end. 30 As Richard M. Weaver points out in his insightful study of the post-war South, "Only when it became plain, as it did in the course of the war that inefficiency was a luxury that had to be paid for in pains and in failure, was there serious impatience with it. Later, the more farsighted Southerners were to hope that Reconstruction, with its discipline of poverty and hardship, would root out this expensive habit." Southern Tradition at Bay, pp. 240-241,

PAGE 163

158 and through the use of his extended "social organism" analogy which implies that the nation is again united, he now develops a lengthy portion devoted entirel/ to the reunion message. In this year of centennial observances, the nation is offering on the altar of union the sacrifices of prejudice. Logan, in an appropriate and effective reference to a timely, current topic, believes that the celebrations will "restore reunion in feeling as well as in form. " General McGowan and Charles Drayton also refer to the national centennial celebrations as lending support to the reunion of the country; so apparently this is a common theme for speakers who wished to speak of reconciliation. Logan is careful to say that "permanent reconciliation and true friendship must be based upon mutual respect and equality . " He then moves into a lengthy discussion of the fact that both sides in the recent armed conflict must recognize what each section "has accomplished for the common good." The North, with its emphasis upon wealth and industry, has contributed most to the "physical world" of material development, while the South has been much more concerned with the "moral world," that is, with the development of "true manhood, of broad and pure statesmanship and high public character. " Continuing with this theme, Logan pleads for the South to be proud of the contributions made by the North to the nation's well-being. In addition, the Southerner must not be ashamed at the South' s lack of physical wealth but to be proud of what the South had created and given to the nation. This demand that the South be proud of what it had contributed was a significant and valuable point for Logan to make to the South Carolinians. The

PAGE 164

159 South had been defeated in the forum and had been crushed on the battlefield: the two areas of its cultural life in which it had seen itself as standing supreme. Add to these defeats, the humiliation of ten years of "carpet-bag misrule" and one can easily see that the South' s self-esteem was weak. For Logan to attempt to rebuild that self-concept is a worthwhile but difficult task. A defeated, pessimistic, and almost paranoic attitude was a strong legacy to the Civil War and Reconstruction years; to assauge this would be conducive to the realization of reconciliation. The speaker illustrates what the South had rendered to the nation by mentioning famous names of the early national period: Jefferson, Madison, Marshall, Laurens, Rutledge, Pinckney, and, of course, Washington. In addition, he points out that the South has great "valor and heroism" which will be available to the nation in time of future need. He does not illustrate that valor and heroism, but simply assumes that his listeners know it exists and can supply their own examples. In addition, not only has the South given Washington to the nation and the world, she has also given the "exalted and majestic character of her Lee as personifying and embodying her highest aspirations. " As Logan continues his extended plea for reconciliation, he admonishes the nation and reminds the South that we should beware of overlooking the value of moral worth. There is something to be cultivated by our people far more important than physical progress, without which no national prosperity can be real or permanent ... in the name of a common country's welfare, we should, in these later days of worldly progress, all unite in urging the importance of cultivating and cherishing a high moral tone — purity as well as force of public character.

PAGE 165

160 Still following this discussion of the South's contribution and the pride it should compel, Logan next shows how the Southern armies in the war stressed the individualism of the private soldier, and how the "use of temporary and hastily-constructed earth-works in the field, to supply the deficiency of numbers, was another equally striking feature of our Confederate tactics." Still another Southern contribution was the fact, according to General Logan, that the war effort made by the South will be recorded on the pages of history as "a people's protest against interference. " Although this part of the speech text is confusing and poorly unified, Logan makes the point that the issue upon which the South went to war was secession, "and the arbitrament of the sword decided against it. " But the principle for which the South fought was "social self-government." The North condemned the issue of secession, and against the principle of self-government they raised the equal principle of loyalty and allegiance. Logan claims that both sides cherish the principles of freedom (self-government) and loyalty, and both now see that the issue of secession is dead. These two basic principles -freedom and allegiance -have furnished the "basis for that enlarged spirit of reconciliation which now pervades the countiy. " Logan concludes the address with a lengthy discussion on the greatest leaders of the Confederate cause: Lee and Jackson. He also includes General Wade Hampton in that list, as would be appropriate for the occasion, but he does not defend or elaborate on that judgment. Doubtless Hampton played an important role as a cavalry leader in the war, but one would

PAGE 166

161 be hard pressed to defend his leadership above that of Forrest or Stuart, for example. Most of these concluding remarks are saved for a eulogy of Lee, which ends: "May his grand character as a bright example, a shining light, bless his countrymen to remotest generations." There is some question about textual authenticity at this point, as the text seems to end rather abruptly. Perhaps this was indeed the end of the speech, but it seems more likely that the newspaper account of the address stops before the actual oration was concluded. (No other account of the speech has been found.) 1 General Logan extensively develops the idea that the South has been able from the beginning of the nation's history to contribute to the welfare of the United States. This strategy helps build a mood of reconciliation for his listeners -or, at least, makes them more receptive to the reunion message. In the first place, by encouraging his listeners to understand what the South has done in the past for the nation and to ask them to agree that the South has indeed made these contributions, Logan presents a base for future Southern leadership. To be sure, there were members of the Hampton Legion who could not care less what the South could give to the nation in the decades to come. But if they were made to see how their section had already devoted much time and effort to the nation's history, they might be induced to make further contributions of time and effort in the future. In the second place, by making his listeners aware of what the South had done, Logan could perhaps open the rebel mind to what the North

PAGE 167

162 had been able to furnish the nation. By spending much more time discussing what the South had done, Logan makes it appear that the Southern states had rendered the greater service to the nation. Through this appeal to Southern pride, the defeated Confederate could be more willing to accept the fact that the North had also made some contribution to American culture; therefore, he would have to admit that both sections had something to offer the country. In addition, much what the South had contributed were concepts such as "true manhood," "broad and pure statemsmanship, " and "high public character." After Logan had reminded the audience that they possessed these particular personality traits, the listeners could hardly do less than forgive and forget and allow themselves and their region to become reconciled with the victor. A Charleston reporter evaluated the speech in words which today appear accurate and appropriate when he wrote that the address "is emphatic in its advocacy of reconciliation and reunion; inspiring and hopeful in its 3 1 faith in the future of the South"; he could have added "and the nation. " Through his appeals to Southern pride and past results of Southern contributions, Logan created an atmosphere conducive to future Southern participation in national life and strongly reinforced a feeling for fraternal harmony between the sections. If enough Southerners could have proclaimed along with Logan, "The war prejudices are at last buried, the bloody chasm is finally bridged, and all the dark clouds that lowered over us have entirely disappeared from 31"Hampton's Legion" News and Courier, July 24, 1875

PAGE 168

163 our political sky, " the animosities which have lingered into the midtwentieth century might have been lessened. This speech occasion was perhaps the most difficult of any surveyed in this study, given the audience and the time.. But by skillfully using an extended analogy which implied by its very nature that the nation was one law, by giving the listeners a scapegoat for the troubles, by showing how important the South had been for the nation's history and for its future and by always presenting an optimistic and positive view of the nation's prospects, Logan met the demands of the situation. It would be useful to compare the two speakers who addressed veterans' reunions in 1875, General Logan and General McGowan, in an effort to determine their unique characteristics as speakers. Both speeches were given in the twilight years of the reconstruction effort in the South and both delivered in what was probably the most unredeemed state in the former Confederacy, South Carolina. These two former Generals were speaking essentially to the same type of audience, a group of former rebel soldiers, and at the same type of occasion, the reunion of a former unit of the Confederate forces. What is different about their speeches? McGowan is obviously the more pessimistic in his outlook on life and the Southern past. He says that the old soldier has nothing left except his memories. Pessimistically, he reminds his listeners that the former Confederate has to fend for himself because his government was defeated. He is also quite past-oriented in his address. He recalls the bivouac and the battlefield on which his comrades lived and died for their cause, and seems to be honestly sad at the death of his friends and fellow-warriors.

PAGE 169

164 While his mood is essentially past-oriented and pessimistic, McGowan is at the same time the more realistic of the two speakers concerning the status of reconciliation. McGowan's rhetorical strategy of looking back to the past and at the same looking forward to the future and saying that peace was on its way for the former soldiers on both sides of the chasm is more realistic and honest. By calling up the images and feelings of the past in great detail and length, he doubtless identifies closely with the audience and is thereby effective. Logan is more optimistic in his overview of the South and is more willing to overlook the real sectional problems which still existed at the time he gives this speech. In terms of the ultimate value of the two speeches to the listeners who heard them, Logan's speech, focusing as it did on the potential future of the South and the nation, and his ability to point out specific areas with which the South had to deal in order to meet that potential fit the needs of the audience more adequately than does the address by McGowan. The audience did not need to be reminded of its past and current problems as McGowan does so forcefully and pessimistically; the listeners needed to have their spirit boosted in 1875 before they could consider reunion, and Logan achieved this purpose effectively. In addition, Logan is more skillful rhetorically in that his extended analogy which described the social development of the country toward a stronger and more unified nation strongly suggests the theme of reconciliation and its inevitability. In comparing the two addresses by McGowan and Logan presented in 1875 with the two speeches delivered in 1889 and 1890 by Throckmorton

PAGE 170

165 and Law, one finds a substitution of timely reconcilietion themes. In 1875, both orators stress the importance of the 1876 Centennial celebrations in the reconciliation process. For the observance of the nation's anniversary would help foster national unity. By 1889-1890, this theme had been dropped, at least Throckmorton and Law did not use it, but they, too, express an idea timely to their period: praise of General Grant. The early speakers avoid this praise — apparently the war memories were still too vivid, but the speakers in the later years, after Grant had served as the nation's civil, as well as military leader, praised his contributions, and, above all, his magnanimity to his defeated foe. All four speeches have a common reconciliation theme: there is good to be said for both North and South. Both sections have contributed and will continue to contribute to the good of the nation. Both sections have just claim to valorous men and great soldiers. This appeal to sectional pride was an effective tactic for the Southern reconciliation orator. If he could lead his audience to believe in him by praising the glories of Southern contributions to the nation's history, then he could more easily lead them to recognize the same virtues in the North -often by stating that the people of both sections came from the same Anglo-Saxon stock. And if the listeners accepted those Northern virtues, then they would be more likely to feel harmony and unity with those who "weren't so different after all." There is ample evidence that there was much anti-Union sentiment still to be overcome in the South during the 1875-1890 period of this study. Time and again, concerning these soldiers' reunions, newspaper editorialists

PAGE 171

166 and platform speakers made statements such as: "/The reunion/ is not designed to keep up any hostile feeling between the sections of the country. It is to be rather a family gathering of people who honor each other, and meet again to renew and keep bright the memories always dear to soldiers . "'^'^ It could well be that without reunions such as these. Memorial Day celebrations, and other civic and social events which provided an opportunity for reconciliation oratory, the divided nation would have remained divided permanently. It was, however, occasions such as these reunions and the other situations described in this study which provided a natural and a national platform for the expression of fraternal spirit. Apparently some of these veterans' reunions presented an audience situation in which the listeners expected appeals for reconciliation. For example, the newspaper account of General McGowan's address quoted verbatim only those portions of the speech which focused sharply on the reunion theme. It merely summarized the rest of the oration by saying that the speaker discussed the Orr's Rifles' action in the war and read some official reports and accounts of the battles in which the unit was involved. No doubt the fact that the newspaper chose to publish only the orator's words about the reconciliation process reflects that the desire for intersectional peace was important to the listeners who heard the speech and for the newspaper's readers, and that they expected him to speak on that subject. 32 Ibid. , July 19, 1875.

PAGE 172

167 There is no question that these events made a deep and abiding impression on the towns and cities where they were held. An example which is typical of these reunions and similar occasions in the post-war South is the reunion of the Confederate Survivors' Association in Augusta, Georgia, on Memorial Day, 1887, at which Governor Gordon was the featured speaker. According to the newspaper account. The celebration of Memorial Day this year will certainly be on a grand scale, the Survivors' and Ladies' Associations having entered into the moveme nt with great earnestness and in thorough accord. All the railroads have arranged reduced rates, and thousands of visitors will be in the city . A committee asked all of the town's stores to close for the day. The newspaper editorialized: "It is but right that our business men should accede, for Apni 26ih is now really the only holiday inio which the city enters with any extent. "^^ This statement surely says much about the social life of a small Southern community in the closing decades of the nineteenth century . All of the orators surveyed in this chapter agree that reunion should occur. But they disagree on whether it had already happened, whether it was still in the process of fruition, or whether reconciliation was still in the distant future. Doubtless this difference of opinion was based largely upon the different observations of their communities and section made by the various speakers. Whatever the reason, this non-agreement is an example 33 "Memorial Day" Augusta Chronicle (Augusta,Georgia) , April 22, 1887.

PAGE 173

168 of how matters of public concern so often do not have clearly defined answers or interpretations. So far this study has dealt with observances which are essentially military-oriented: Memorial Day (or Decoration) Day, Monument Dedications, and Veterans' Reunions. We shall now turn to a ceremony with a different focus: the educational situation.

PAGE 174

CHAPTER FIVE PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE: ACADEMIC CEREMONIES We turn now to an examination of a wholly different speaking situation. The academic ceremony was not oriented toward emotional battlefield and military exploits as were the Memoriel Day celebrations, war monument dedications , and veterans' reunions, but, rather was centered in environments of intellectual training and in the considerations of the future role of youth. One might suspect that in the decades after the war the orator's admonitions to the young graduate would include attempts to promote inters ectional reconciliation. And so they did. In this chapter, we shall consider six speeches delivered in Virginia, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Georgia, from 1881 to 1889. These addresses were presented at college and academy cornerstone-laying and buildingdedicating ceremonies, literary society meetings , alumni reunions , and general convocations. The first of these speeches to be examined was delivered at Emory College, Oxford, Georgia, on June 8, 1881, by the College President, Atticus G. Haygood. The occasion itself was most conducive to reconciliation oratory, as the New York railroad magnate and financier George I. Seney, 1 Atticus G. Haygood, "Seney Hall," An Address by Atticus G. Haygood, delivered June 8, 1881 at Emory College, Oxford, Georgia. 169

PAGE 175

170 had donated some $50,i)00 to Emory College for the erection of a new building. Seney had designated Emory College and Weslyan Female College (Emory's "sister" school) at Macon, Georgia, as the recepients of $100,000 due partly to the appreciation and interest created by Haygood in his 1880 "New South" Thanksgiving sermon. Haygood, through that address, became an aclcnowledged Southern spokesman for the New South and national reunion. ^ So the generous gift by a Northern industrialist to a pair of Georgia institutions of higher learning created at atmosphere in which Haygood could eloquently advocate intersectional peace. Although there is some evidence that Seney' s gift was motivated by a desire to obtain a charter for his Georgia railroad extension,'^ President Haygood used the occasion of the cornerstone-laying to praise the North and call for tme harmony. Haygood was used to making pleas for national unity. For example, in May, 1880, he served as a delegate to the Northern Methodist Church's General Conference in Cincinnati where he addressed the Conference with a speech in which he said, "The different sections . . . are being brought close together by steam and electricity. May they be brought together in affection also." Again, in his famous Thanksgiving sermon, he advocated national peace: 2 As an indication of Haygood'^ leadership in this respect, Henry Grady once remarked that he "lighted /hi_s/ torch at Haygood' s flame, " Elam F. Dempsey, Atticus G reene Haygood (Nashville: Partheon Press , 1940), p. 6, 3 Harold W. Mann, Atticus Greene Haygood (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1965), pp. 138-142. 4 Ibid. , p. 133.

PAGE 176

171 We are to do the work of today, looking forward and not backward. We have no divine call to stand eternal guard by the grave of dead issues. Here certainly we may say, "Let the dead bury their dead.'^ Apparently Haygood made an impressive appearance while speaking. One biographer says of him : Though not an orator in the usually accepted sense of that terra, men listened to him with fixed and undivided attention .... Simple and natural on the platform as on the street, a man of few gestures, utterly devoid of that disgusting mannerism so characteristic of those who would supply in attitudes what they lack in thought, he spoke with directness and force to human hearts and human consciences. ° Another writer describes the Methodist minister this way: He was low in stature and stocky in build. In manner he was cordial, quietly self-confident, and gave the impression of having unusual stores of reserve power. He strove after simplicity and clearness in public 7 speech and in his writings.' This 1881 event was plagued by "heavy and continuous rain," but the "college chapel was filled with an appreciative audience." An anthem composed for the occasion was enjoyed, two hymns were sung. Dr. Means gave a "full, strong, eloquent" prayer, there were "appropriate selections from the Old and New Testaments" read to the audience, and Haygood 5 Haygood, The New South , edited by Judson C. Ward (Atlanta: Emory University Library, 1950), pp. 11-12. 6 W.H. Crogman, "He Became the Golden Clasp," A Memorial Tribute to Bishop Atticus G. Haygood (N.P.: The Advisory Council of Clark College, 189 6), p. 10. '7 "Atticus G. Haygood," Dictionary of American Biography , VHI , edited by Dumas Malone (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1932), p. 453.

PAGE 177

172 presented his speech. A newspaper reporter evaluated the oration in this manner: "The noble, patriotic sentiments of this admirable paper thrilled the hearts of every lover of Christian education in that interested audience. " After a positive, optimistic, forward-looking discussion of the future use of the new building and the aims of education at Emory, Haygood moves into the next major portion of the speech: his message of reconciliation and his call for a better South. In an assertive section entitled "Peace and Brotherhood" Haygood says: We enter now upon a 'new era'. We are getting away from the horrid war that drenched our land in the blood of her best and bravest sons. The sea, so long swept by storms of passion, is not yet at rest, but the fury of its tossing waves is spent. This much we may be sure of -we are passing out of the era of hate and prejudice. Deep down in the hearts of the people, are undercurrents of sentiment that seek Christian broiherhood, and long for peace. God grant our better instincts m.ay have their satisfaction! He who seeks to perpetuate the hates of the war, and of the years that followed it, is a traitor to his country. We can commit no folly so mad as to spend our whole lives hating each other. We can commit no civil crime of greater magnitude than to hand down to our children the bitterness of a quarrel which they did not begin, and for which they are not responsible. Haygood seems to believe that his position and his credibility are enough to sustain the dogmatic nature of these words. Apparently he considers his high ethos an effective persuasive tool. Next he proclaims a ringing call for a new and better South in the post-reconstruction years. "God has given us a good country, " declares 8 "Seney Hall," Daily Constitution (Atlanta), June 10, 1881

PAGE 178

173 Haygood. The climate and soil are the best to be found and Haygood says that: If we do not make it the finest country in America, the fault is ours. Nature has given us every advantage; Providence gives us every opportunity. We have not yet made the South such a country, very far from it. But we can do it. Not by croaking, complaining, whining over what we have lost and suffered but by industry, economy, righteousness. These virtues will win. These positive, future-oriented remarks pervade the entire address and set the tone of Haygood' s rhetoric. The minister's next re conciliatory expression comes when he reads a telegram from Seney which in itself is reconciliatory. Seney telegraphed some businessmen in Atlanta on May 26, 1881: "The Empire State of the North dccires tc join the Empire State of the South in developing its Ruilroods, Commerce and Manufacturers, and in building a fraternity that shall never die." Haygood then calls on his listeners to "make fitting response to this true national sentiment of a man who loves God and his whole country, " After urging that the church become more business-like and saying that, "there are good qualities and characteristics in our Southern civilization that we should preserve, " Haygood again praises Emory's northern benefactor. Although "he lives a thousand miles away, he belongs to a people with whom we have had conflicts long and bitter"; he has sent "on his own motion and unsolicited . . . Methodists and people of Georgia and of the South, these gifts, because he wanted to help you, and because he loves you. " Again he quotes from Seney's own words: '"I believe that my friends here approve what I have done. But if any of them should ask me,

PAGE 179

174 'Why did you not give this money to your own people? , ' my answer is they also are my people; we are our people. '" Haygood closes then with these words, "Let us plant ourselves squarely on this platform of good sense and Christian brotherhood. On any other platform, we perish, and ought to perish. Hatred tears down, love build up; hatred 5e£;troys, love creates." In this address at Emory, Haygood, through his skillful strategy of praising a Northerner who saw fit to help the South a.ad Georgia, makes a clear call for intersectional pea ce. If a Yankee industrialist could give so much to help the South, should not the South repay h:.m by helping to heal the wounds of sectionalism? Granted, the situation created the theme, but Haygood created from it a speech which effectively supported national harmony. The college President seemed very much at home in this academic setting. His word choice and organization, such as it appears in the written text, is that of a clear, direct, simple lecture to his students. He praises the history, founders, and contributions of his school and thus reinforces pride in the college. His tone is quite dogmatic and authoritarian — much in keeping, one suspects, with the typical lecturing tone of many nineteenth century professors. Also in keeping with the educational situation, Haygood stresses the value of scholarship as this passage indicates: /We mus_t/ provide for our children more perfect educational adjustments and facilities than we ourselves have enjoyed. Only thus can we make our fitting contribution to the progress of the race; if we are to save our posterity from lapsing into barbarism, if civilization is to grow into larger and better things, from age to age, then each generation m.ust transmit

PAGE 180

175 t6 the next some increment in culture and worthy life that it did not inherit, but something of its own won by its own efforts. This appeal to educational values fit the situation well and gave further support to his address. A similar building dedication occurred at Franklin, Tennessee, on October 5, 1889, when General William B. Bate delivered an address at q the dedication of the "Battle-Ground Academy." The ceremonies were appropriately elaborate, with the Perkins Rifles and drum corps leading a parade from the railroad depot to the Academy. There was a prayer and several speeches in addition to Bate's oration. After the exercises the 2000 people in attendance ate barbeque on the Academy grounds. ^'^ The reporter for the Nashville Daily American wrote that Bate's speech was "fiequeuLly inteirupted by buists of applause."The lollowiny dciy he wrote that the "speech was listened to with great interest, and inspired the enthusiasm that always greets the utterances of the distinguished orator. "^2 General Bate had a useful career of public service to the state of Tennessee. He was born in 1826 and was a life-long resident of the Volunteer State. He had served as a Lieutenant in the Mexican War. Early in his career he published "an intensely democratic" weekly newspaper. 9 William B. Bate "Battle-Ground Academy." Delivered at Franklin, Tennessee, Octobers, 1889. 10 "Battle Field Academy," Nashville Banner, October 7, 1889. 11 "Battle Field Academy," The Daily American (Nashville), October 6, 1889. 12 Ibid., October 7, 1889.

PAGE 181

176 The Tenth Legion, in Sumner County and was elected to the state legislature at the age of twenty-three. He graduated from Cumberland University Law School in 1852 and began practice in Gallatin, where he was elected attorney-general for a three-county district in 1854; he held this post until 1860. On the eve of the war. Bate was a "strong state-sovereignty man and a supporter of secession." Early in the Civil War, at Shiloh, his leg was shattered but he remained in the Confederate service where he was twice again wounded. Refusing to run for war-time Governor, he was made Brigadier-General and was considered by some second only to Nathan Bedford Forrest as Tennessee's leading general officer. After the War, Bate returned to the practice of law in Nashville and resumed his interest in Tennessee politics. He was elected Governor in 1882 and served two terms before being elected to the United States Senate in 1886. He remained in the nation's upper house until his death in 1905, During this post-war period. Bate was also 13 "in demand at various gatherings, as orator of the day," In a sense, this speech is similar to the orations discussed in the third chapter, the addresses at monument dedications, for Bate sees the newlyformed Battle-Ground Academy as "an educational monument, so to speak — in memory of that battle which occurred years ago on this spot. " 13 This biographical sketch of Governor Bate has been taken from the following sources: "William Brimage Bate," Dictionary of American Biography, II, pp. 42-43; Park Marshall, A Life of V /i lllam B, Bate (Nashville: The Cumberland Press, 1908); and Robert H. White, ed. , Messages of the Governors of Tennessee, 1883-1899 , VII, (Nashville, The Tennessee Historical Commission, 1967), pp. 1-3.

PAGE 182

177 And much of what he says probably would have been said at a military monument dedication in Franklin. An additional example of the similarity lies in the fact that nowhere in the printed program containing the oration, nor in the newspaper accounts, is Bate referred to in any way except as General Bate. By 1889, he had been both Governor and Senator; surely one would think at least one of these titles would have been used. Apparently, however, the military significance of the situation was an overriding consideration, and Bate reflects the martial overtones of the meeting in his address. Bate established a sense of common ground with his listeners in the beginning of the speech by praising the foresight and wisdom of the citizens of Franklin in establishing the school and expresses his hope that the school vdll bring a greater and brighter future for the area and its people. After a lengthy, disjointed, and irrelevant discourse on the need for a common universal langauge. Bate jumps into a brief discussion of how important the study of science is to the young scholar. He then expresses his feeling that the site of the new Academy is "better adapted to the acquisition of a high order of educational attainment," than any other place he had known. The orator describes the "consecrated spot" with these words: In the heart of the most beautiful of countries, populated by a citizenry noted for high character, culture, Christian devotion and hospitality; scenery that is variegated and inspiring, with forest and field, with hill and dale and river; and, added to all this, a renowned battlefield to inspire patriotism and valor as it lends an aroma to the page of histor/.

PAGE 183

178 After rambling through quite a lengthy and disorganized portion of his speech. General Bate next enters into a detailed eulogy of a local citizen: Lieutenant Matthew F. Maury, the world-renowned oceanographic pioneer. Not only does he use Maury as an example of scholarship which the students of the Battle-Ground Academy should emulate, Bates also uses the man's reputation as a subtle reconciliation strategy. Through his strong and direct appeal to local pride in one of their own people. Bate can Indirectly encourage a reconciliatory sentim.ent by implying that a "local boy" was able to contribute so much to the nations' benefit and reputation. Bate thereby uses Maury as an example of not only scholarly attainments, but also as an example of unselfish service to the nation's good. He hopes that his listeners will follow this model in both areas of life: scholarship -appropriate for this educational situation — and patriotic service — relevant to his theme of reunion. Then the former Governor uses a more obvious reconciliation theme: 'Tis over now, and you and I, and all of us. North and South, are at peace, and rejoice that it is so. Time, the great healer, has been pouring balm upon the sounds, and they are healing. Scars are graduadually wearing away, and most naturally under the curative influence of intercourse -commercial, social, and political -may eventually disappear 'as does the path of the eagle in the air, or the track of the ship in the sea.' He continues this call for reunion by comparing the American Civil War to the English War of the Roses and concludes this reconciliatory thrust with these words in reference to the house of York and Lancaster: And, when the strife between them was ended, the perfume of the bruised rose -the sweeter for its misfortunes -went into the blood of its tv\?in and

PAGE 184

179 gave it increased beauty and redolence, and with a united strength built up modern England, one of the most powerful nations known to the history of man. And though we may have, as the house of York, found a Bosworth field, yet the victors so keenly felt the point of our lance that they rejoice, as we do, that the conflict is ended, and that we are a united people, with one destiny and one flag, and ready alike with our late foes to defend it. Bate then rambles through an expression of pride in the effort made by the Confederate Armies in face of overwhelming odds and in the changes wrought in the South by the Confederate veteran in the post-war years. In this same portion of the speech. Bate employs at length the time-worn reconciliation theme used so often by Southern speakers: the contributions made by the South to the Revolutionary War. Then General Bate describes in minute detail the battle of Franklin which was fought upon the spot where the new Academy was being built. Throughout this description. Bate extolls the glories of war and he urges the young student to turn from his Virgil and Herodotus to look upon the very ground where a battle has been fought which was just as grand as any described in days of old. This theme is very much in keeping with the military orientation of the day's ceremonies and the surroundings. The oration includes much which was reconciliatory in nature. His major message for intersectional peace was, one suspects, rather outmoded and trite to the Southern audience of 1889. If the speeches examined in this study are truly representative, doubtless Southerners had heard enough about Southern contributions to the Revolutionary War and the early national period. But his discussion of the career and contributions of Lieutenant Maury was a

PAGE 185

180 new and a fresh approach -one admirably suited to ;he audience and occasion. Granted, it was an implied, subtle tack toward conciliation, nevertheless, his auditors doubtless felt a vividness and reality because of this illustration. Bate's primary supporting material is drawn fi'omboth military history and classical literature — both admirably suited to the situation. He also stresses the value of education, especially science and language study, and urges his listeners to make the most of their educational opportunity. These illustrations help to make his speech appropriate for the setting and thus contribute to his effectiveness. Much of the impact of his message — re conciliatory or educational — is doubtless lost, hov/ever, due to Bate's rambling organizational format which is the chief rhetorical weakness in the address. Turning a different type of educational gathering, we shall examine two speeches made to college literary societies. The first of the pair was delivered by Senator Matthew C. Butler before the literary societies of 14 Wofford College in Spartanburg, South Carolina, on June 15, 1886. Butler had been born in Greenville, South Carolina, in 1836, where as a youngster, he attended the male academy. In 1848 he went with his father to Fort Gibson in Indian Territory where his father served as agent to the Cherokees until his death in 1850. Young Matthew returned to South Carolina where he lived with his uncle, A. P. Butler, at Edgefield. 14 Matthew C. Butler, T he Constitution' , Address delivered at Wofford College, Spartanburg, South Carolina , June 15, 1886. (Washington, D.C.: R,0. Polkinhorn, 1886).

PAGE 186

181 He entered South Carolina College as a junicr in 1856, but did not remain to finish his senior year, as he was admitted to the bar in 1857. He was elected to the South Carolina legislature in 1860 but resigned the following year to become a Captain in the Edgefield Company of Cavalry. By the War's end he had lost his right foot at Brandy Station and attained the rank of Major General, thus becoming a genuine hero in the eyes of his future audiences and constituents. After the v/ar, General Butler returned to the practice of law in Edgefield. Elected to the state assembly he worked for several fusion tickets, and in 1876 turned wholeheartedly to support of the straight Democratic Party. In that year he was elected by the Democratic legislature to the United States Senate. The South Carolina Republican "legislature" was meeting in competition also, and they elected D.T. Corbin as their Senator. The Senate, however, voted to seat Butler, and he took his place in 1877 where he remained for three terms. It was said that during those years, he was "instinctively friendly and wholly free from inflamatory rhetoric, /and/ he did much to reconciliate more stubborn Northern sentiment concerning the South." He lost his Senate seat to Benjamin R. Tillman in the Populist revolt of 1894.^^ Butler titles his address, "The Constitution," and tells his audience that the speech will focus on an exposition of the basic law of the American nation. He states that "among the first and highest duties of an American 15 "Matthew Calbraith Butler," Dictionary of American Biography , HI, pp. 363-64.

PAGE 187

182 citizen is to acquaint himself with the system of government under which he lives." He believes that all citizens should "acquire a reasonable familiarity with the controlling features and operations of his Government, so that he may exercise his responsibility with intelligence." Butler goes so far as to compare the national constitution to the Bible: "/The/ written constitution, . . . contains the gospel of his political salvation, as the Bible does of his religious belief and hope." Thus, the South Carolinian intends to examine the federal constitution and see what its basic tenents are and what dangers lurk in the shadows of anarchism to destroy its perfection. To us today, it might seem that this is a rather trite subject to discuss to graduating college students, and apparently Butler feels this concern, too, as he remarks, "I trust, young gentlemen, you will not write me down as an old fogy for discussing this proposition in an elementary way. It is as full of significance and as vital a question now as when the Constitution was first adopted." Of course, by focusing on the American Constitution as he does, Butler implies a national wholeness which subtly enhances a reconciliation sentiment in his auditors. Senator Butler lists and discusses the first three articles of the document which outline the duties and responsibilities of the three branches of government. He urges his young listeners to "bear these distinctions constantly in mind -keep them separate and distinct, each within its own sphere. " He points out that if one of the branches interferes with the operation of another, then "confusion must follow. "

PAGE 188

183 The next major point in his exposition is that the officers of the government from the President down to Constable are all servants of the people. "He is charged with a trust. He has no more power than that conferred upon him by the people. Not a whit more than the humblest citizen. The office is not his. It belongs to the peoDle." The orator admits that "these are very trite observations made in passing, but they are worthy of being remembered, and repeated over and over and over again. " To Butler, the "perpetuity of Republican institutions and the preservation of constitutional freedom" depends upon our always recalling them and observing them. Next, Butler turns to a discussion of the dangers to which the American form of government is heir. "The greatest strains to which popular government in this country has ever been subjected have arisen in determining the Presidential succession." He cites three examples out of recent United States history: the election of Lincoln, the crisis of the 1876 election between Hayes and Tilden, and the matter of Garfield's assassination in 1881. He vaguely asserts that the best way to counter this weakness is to study carefully the Constitution and its statements about the "enforcement and exaction of official responsibility and obedience to law as it is fixed" in that document. Butler then points out that the original seven Articles of the Constitution are, along with the first twelve amendments, "intact and undisturbed," by Civil War and are as vitally important to the well-being of the defeated as well as to the victors. In fact, the speaker believes that the "weak,

PAGE 189

184 /the Soutli/ the minority, are especially the wards of the lav/ and should never relax in jealous watchfulness of its rigid execution." Senator Butler moves next into a description of how complex the federal government has become, with the "vast volume of business transacted by the hundred and odd thousand office-holders of the Government." He then takes each of tlie departments of the national government: Treasury, Interior, Post Office, Justice, State, War, and Navy, and illustrates some of the major duties each has in the operations of the nation. In short, ours is "the most complex system of human Government." Butler is quick to assert, however, that none of these agencies "have one vestige of power except that conferred by law /and/ . . . the law may be changed, modified, or repealed as the people direct." In other words, no matter how large the operations of the system become, the people still have control over it through their elected representatives. In a reference to the labor unrest of the decade of the eighties and Garrison's abolition crusade, Butler asserts: He who proclaims or has proclaimed 'the Constitution is a league with the devil and a covenant with hell' is an ally of the Anarchists and the apostle of despotism. He preaches the gospel of dynamite and the terrors of the sword, the licentiousness of chaos and the iron hand of unrestrained force. He who sneers at the Constitution as a useless obsoletism paves the way for the rule of unbridled majorities and the planting upon the ruins of a limited constitutional republic the reckless experiment of a parliamentary government uncontrolled by any power save the will of a majority. He believes that the laws of nature regarding the centrifugal forces of the planets in their orbits should apply to the creation of a government.

PAGE 190

185 In other words, he holds that the states should operate in their own sphere and the Federal government in its own realm and that the force should be centrifugal, not centripetal. In short, Butler sees the Constitution as a states rights document and believes that this aspect of it to be a priceless lesson to be learned and followed and safeguarded by his young auditors. He asserts in his concluding remarks that we should never forget that "the truest loyalty to the Union is best illustrated by the most zealous regard for the glory and grandeur of the separate States. " This is one of his most important premises in the speech as he is essentially attempting to show what he considers the proper interpretation of the Constitution to be, i.e. , a states' rights interpretation. Butler fails to bring this point past the level of an unproved, generalized assertion, and thus, it is one of the major weaknesses of the address. It is difficult to isolate specific, overt themes of reconciliation in Senator Butler's speech, for there are few. The South Carolinian's address is, however, filled with an implied premise which should have contributed to an intersectional reconciliatory reaction from the audience. Since Butler time and again praises the Constitution and the Founding Fathers for their genius in writing it, he is calling for support of that document. If the young Southerners to whom he was speaking followed his request to study carefully and safeguard the basic rights of the Constitution, then they would have to go a step further and support the government and the union which the Constitution was designed to organize and control. By saying that it is the responsibility of all citizens to know the Constitution, it would be hard for

PAGE 191

186 a young graduate not to at least consider support and study of it. And in speaking of citizen responsibility, Butler was referring to the responsibility to the national at well as the state governments. Also, by putting the Constitution on an equal footing with the Holy Word, the orator was endowing it with an aui'a that the heavily religious South would be hard pressed to ignore. Another way in which Butler engenders a feeling of reconciliation is by pointing out that the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments, enacted by a Radical Republican Congress, were "none the less binding upon us all." Since these amendments were generally hated and largely ignored in the South, one may suspect that it took some degree of courage to urge his listeners to follow and support them. It would have been a simple matter to have left them out entirely from his discussion, but he chose not to do so. Through his strongly states' rights interpretation of the Constitution, Butler doubtless encouraged some in his audience to support his reasoning and accept his plea to revere the Constitution. In addition, he called for the strictest interpretation possible of the document and invoked the name of a fellow-Southerner and strict-constructionist, Thomas Jefferson, "the most sagacious and far-seeing disciple of civil liberty and the world has ever produced. " Butler employs the emotion of pride in this address as he praises the Founding Fathers and the Constitution as almost being inspired by God; by his praise of Jefferson as a strict constructionist; and by his praise for

PAGE 192

187 the efficiency and strength of the various federal departments. His pride in the greatness of the Constitution is obvious and clear: "the best plan ever discovered for the governing of mankind." His concluding remarks stress this feeling of pride. Now that slavery is gone, an institution which kept the sections apart — an institution by the way, which was not an unmixed evil — the people of the country will become more and more homogeneous in thought, in habit, _in custom and in purposes as the years rolls /sic/ on, and if we are true to the teaching of the fathers and preserve the Constitution as they transmitted it to us, as we shall develop a civilization greater than any that has ever blessed the human race. This address to the literary societies at Wofford College must be evaluated as being effective as a message reinforcing reconciliation. Through his clear and simple language and organizational pattern, Butler doubtless communicated easily with his young listeners. His strong ^^hos which would have come in part from his position as a United States Senator must have made a favorable impression on the graduates. And his overall message was a clear and well-organized lecture on Constitutional law and history — doubtless a speech form well-known by the auditors. By appealing to national and sectional pride and by urging support of the United States Constitution, the speaker implicitly called for a reconciliatory attitude toward the national union itself. And through his tactic of appealing to the traditional Southern faith in states rights and a strict construction of the Constitution, Butler must have v/on a sympathetic hearing and made an impact for reconciliation on his audience.

PAGE 193

188 Of all the speakers surveyed in this study, Henry W. Grady was probably the most well-known and well-respected in both the North and 1 Pi the South. For several years prior to his famous New England Society speech in 1886, Grady had been speaking throughout his section and editorializing in the peges of the Atlanta Constitution about the future of the "New South. " As a necessary corollary to this New South message, he had been promoting, also, national harmony and reunion. His speech in New York City propelled him to the forefront of the group of Southerners who called for an industrialization of the South, a close commercial tie with the North and East, a Southern solution to the racial question, and a diversification of Southern agriculture. Before his \intimely death in 1889, Grady spoke and wrote many times on these themes. The speech we shall consider here was given to the Literary Societies of the University of Virginia in June, 1889 — less than six months before he died. 17 The young editor entitled this address, "Against Centralization," and it is basically an appeal for the South to stand fast against the centralizing tendencies of the national government and the consolidation of ^6 Francis Pendleton Gaines, Southern Oratory: A Study in Idealism (University, Alabama: University of Alabama Press, 1946), p , 5 7 . ^^ Henry W. Grady, "Against Centralization, " Address delivered before the Literary Societies of the University of Virginia, June 15, 1889. (N.P,, N.D.) Text found at Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.

PAGE 194

189 financial power in the hands of a few. Throughout the oration, however, Grady promotes national reunion, sometimes subtly and through implication, at other points directly. In sum, this oration is an unqualified reconciliation speech by the South' s leading spokesman for harmony. Early in the speech Grady demonstrates why his fame as an orator had spread across the land, as his introduction creates easily a sense of identity and a common ground between himself, his audience, and his surroundings. He praises the year that he spent at the University of Virginia and the learning he gained there, and thanks the school for inviting him back to speak. In addition, he recalls some of the old days as a student and some of the experiences he and his fellow students enjoyed. He then claims not to have a "studied oration" to present to the audience, "but from a loving heart I shall speak to you this morning in comradely sympathy of that which concerns us." And, finally, as he concludes his introductory remarks he fits himself into his Virginia surroundings: For the first time in man's responsibility I speak in Virginia to Virginia. Beyond its ancient glories that made it matchless among States, its later martyrdom has made it the Mecca of my people. It was on these hills that our fathers gave new and deeper meaning to heroism, and advanced the world in honor! It is in these valleys that our dead lie sleeping. Out there is Appomattox, where on every ragged gray cap the Lord God Almighty laid the sword of His imperishable knighthood. Beyond is Petersburg, where he whose name I bear, and who was prince to me among men, dropped his stainless sword and yielded up his stainless life. Dear to me, sir, are the people among whom my father died — sacred to me, sir, the soil that drank his precious blood. From a heart stirred by these emotions and sobered by these memories, let me speak to you today, my countrymen -and God give me wisdom to speak aright and the words wherewithal to challenge and hold your attention.

PAGE 195

190 Through these appeals to Virginia's role in the war, tlie honor of family and of the South, and by his plea to God to guide his address, doubtless Grady created a feeling of identity with his Virginia audience. Moving into the main body of the address, Grady describes the condition of the Republic as he says, "The fixed stars are fading from the sky, and we grope in uncertain light. Strange shapes have come with the night. Established ways are lost -new roads perplex, and widening fields stretch beyond the sight." The church "is besieged from without and betrayed from within." The courts are threatened by the "rioter's torch" and by anarchists. Government is too partisan and "the prey of spoilsmen. " Cities are swollen, the rich live in splendor and "squalor crouches in the home. " But amid all these and other problems, the American heart beats undismayed and the "citizen of the Republic . . . calmly awaits the full disclosures of the day. " Who will lead the nation out of this morass of uncertain times which Grady has portrayed? In keeping with the audience and the educational occasion, the orator sees the future in the hands of the students he is addressing. In his words, "The university is the training camp of the future. The scholar the champion of the coming years." The hand is nothing -but the brain everything. " As proof he reflects how science butchers a hog in Chicago, draws Boston within three hours of New York, renews the famished soil, routs her viewless bondsmen from the electric center of the earth, and then turns to watch the new Icarus as mounting in his flight to the sun he darkens the burnished ceiling of the sky with the shadow of his wing.

PAGE 196

191 He asserts that "Learning is supreme and you are its prophets." It is up to the college man to grapple with the nation's problems and to solve them for the good of all mankind. Grady calls for the "manifest destiny" of America as he observes: This government carries the hopes of the human race. Blot out the beacon that lights the portals of this Republic and the world is adrift again. But save the Republic; establish the light of its beacon over the troubled waters, and one by one the nations of the earth shall drop anchor and be at rest in the harbor of universal liberty. After having thus alerted his young charges that he sees dangers ahead for the nation, but that he sees his audience as among the leaders who will solve the problems, Grady becomes more specific when he leads into the major premise of the address. He remarks: "Let one who loves this Republic as he loves his life, and whose heart is thrilled with the majesty of its mission, speak to you now of the dangers that threaten its peace and prosperity, and the means by which they may be honorably averted." For the Atlanta editor: The unmistakable danger that threatens free government in America, is the increasing tendency to concentrate in the Federal Government powers and privileges that should be left with the States, and to create powers that neither the State nor Federal government should have. He then describes that this tendency has developed as the "legacy of the war." The "splendor," "opulence," "strength," "patronage," and "powers" of a strong Federal government offer something for everyone and thus there was really a natural consolidation which was almost inevitable; these

PAGE 197

192 sentiments are similar in nature to the feelings expressed by General Logan in the speech to the Hampton Legion Reunion discussed earlier. Grady claims that the nation is seeing "paternalism run mad." He expresses it as "The centrifugal force of our system is weakened, the centripetal force is increased, and the revolving spheres are veering inward from their orbits." There is a necessary corollary to this phenomenon of increased Federal government, Grady calls it the "consolidatioi of capital." He then presents several concrete examples of the people being hurt by certain industrialists exploiting the goods necessary for life, such as wheat and pork. Grady uses an interesting example to illustrate what he sees happening: We have read of the robber barons of the Rhine v/ho from their castles sent a shot across the bow of every passing craft, and descending as hawks from the crags, tore and robbed and plundered the voyagers until their greed was glutted, or the strength of their victims spent. He asks, "Shall this shame of Europe against which the world revolted, shall it be repeated in this free country?" The orator believes that when the Founding Fathers, especially Jefferson, outlawed primogeniture they provided for the good of the nation, but this concept is being reinstated by the large corporations. The captains of industry are "the eldest sons of the Republic for v*/hom the feudal right of primogeniture is revived, and who inherit its estate to the impoverishment of their brothers. "

PAGE 198

193 What is the remedy for this pessimistic picture Grady has painted? "To exalt the hearthstone, to strengthen the home — to build up the individual — to magnify and defend the principle of local selfgovernment." He urges his listeners to "Exalt the citizen. As the State is the unit of government, he is the unit of the State. Teach him that his home is his castle and his sovereignty rests beneath his hat. " In addition, Grady wants the Virginia graduates to "Go out, determined to magnify the community in which your lot is cast . . . . Make every village and cross-roads as far as may be sovereign to its own wants .... Preserve the straight and simple homogeneity of our people .... Honor and emulate the virtues and the faith of your forefathers. " Grady concludes on a positive and optimistic note as he says, "And the Republic will endure." In fact, Grady sees "the vision of this Republic" chief among the federation of English-speaking people — plenty streaming from its borders, and light from its mountain tops — working out its mission under God's approving eye, until the dark continents are opened — and the highways of earth established, and the shadows lifted, — and the jargon of the nations stilled and the perplexities of Babel straightened — and under one language, one liberty, and one God, all the nations of the world hearkening to the American drum-beat and girding up their loins, shall march amid the breaking of the millennial into the paths of righteousness and of peace! As this passage reflects, Grady thinks of the nation as reunited into one great and glorious example for the world to follow. Throughout the address, the famed orator weaves a theme of intersectional "peace and prosperity. " By stating early in the speech that the students he is addressing will be the "heralds of this coming day," Grady implies that the nation's

PAGE 199

194 future is to be full and exciting for all the nation's people — not just one section. In fact the Southern citizen holds the key to the continued well-being of the coun'iry; if the country is to survive, the Southerner, with his ideals of locaj self-government, will help it. survive. Time and again, Grady refers to "this Republic," "this vast Republic," "sons of the Republic" or "this free Republic," in a manner calculated to reinforce his point that nation's wounds were indeed healed and "the Republic" one again. Much of the speech is oriented toward what will make the country greater and stronger, thus reinforcing Grady's feeling that America's intersectional rivalry was dead. He calls on the South to uphold its values, and by so doing, she will uphold the nation. This love /of family and country/ shall not be pent up or provincial. The home should be consecrated to humanity, and from its roof-tree should fly the flag of the Republic. Every simple fruit gathered there — every sacrifice endured, and every victory won, should bring better joy and inspiration in the knowledge that it will deepen the glory of our Republic and widen the harvest of humanity! Be not like the peasant of France who hates the Paris he cannot comprehend -but emulate the example of your fathers in the South, who, holding to the sovereignty of the States, yet gave to the Republic its chief glory of statesmanship, and under Jackson at New Orleans, and Taylor and Scott in Mexico, saved it twice from the storm of war. Although the nation, "Your Republic, " is "menaced with great dangers," Grady calls on his listeners to "defend her, as you would defend the most precious concerns of your own life. " He wishes to be perfectly clear that he is "no pessimist as to this Republic, for I always bet on

PAGE 200

195 sunshine in America. " He goes on to express a theme common in American oratory since St. Augustine and Jamestown: God is on our side — who can be against us ? I know that my country has reached the point of perilous greatness, and that strange forces not to be measured or comprehended are hurrying her to heights ihat dazzle and blind all mortal eyes — but I know that beyond the utter-most glory is enthroned the Lord God Almighty, and that when the hour of her trial has come He will lift up His everlasting gates and bend down above her in mercy and m love. For with her He has surely lodged the ark of His covenant with the sons of men. Emerson wisely said, 'Our whole history looks like the last effort by Divine Providence in behalf of the human race.' And the Republic will endure. By setting up problems for the nation on the one hand, and showing what he sees as solutions to them, Grady implies:; what be ste^"e? em.phatically in this passage, "The Republic will endure." He shows how Southerners can continue their long historical tradition of contribution to the nation in its time of need, thus implying again, that th'e Republic will endure. In these ways, Grady's conservative rhetoric contributes to the sentiment for a reunited nation. Turning now from these two speeches presented to literary societies of undergraduate students, we shall examine an address delivered by Governor Thomas Jordan Jarvis on June 15, 1881, to the Society of Alumni of 1 8 Randolph Macon College, Ashland, Virginia. Jarvis was himself a graduate 18 Thomas J. Jarvis, Address Delivered Before the Society of Alumni of Randolph Macon College (Richmond: Johns and Goolsby, 1881).

PAGE 201

196 of Randolph Macon, having received a B.A. in 1860 and an M.A. in 1861. When the war began he enlisted, became a Captain two years later and was permanently disabled at Drewry's Bluff. After the war he opened a store and began to read law; he became a licensed advocate in 1867. In 1868 he was elected to the lower house in his native state of North Carolina and was elected speaker of the House in 1870. Six years later he was elected Lieutenant Governor; Governor Vance resigned in 1879 and Jarvis became the state's chief executive. The following year he was elected to a full term. After his term was over. President Cleveland appointed the North Carolinian Minister to Brazil, where he served until 1889. In 1898 he was appointed to fill a one-year vacancy in the United States Senate. His biographical sketch in Dictionary of American Biography describes him with these words: "As a man he was plain and unassuming, thoroughly human, and had sound though not brilliant abilities. Tall and engagingly ugly, he was an impressive figure." Not knowing just what "engagingly ugly" means, the twentieth century student can only accept this description uncritically. At any rate, Jarvis was an important figure in post-war North Carolina politics. This speech was received well by its auditors. A committee of three representing the Society of Alumni was delegated to get a copy of the speech from Governor Jarvis so that it might be published. In their letter to Jarvis, the committee wrote: 19 "Thomas Jordan Jarvis," Dictionary of American Biography , IX, pp. 623-24.

PAGE 202

197 Emanating from one occupying the highest position to the gift of a great Commonwealth, and so eminently conservative, conciliatory and patriotic in its utterances, we feel assured that happy results will follow its circulation. '-' Jarvis begins his address with a fairly lengthy but standard introduction in which he tries to create a common bond between himself and his audience. He reminisces about the days at Randolph Macon when he was a student and of the people he knew during those years. Jarvis appeals to some Civil War sentiment as he tries to enhance his ethos in this first section when he describes a "class reunion" of himself and four members of the Society of Alumni. All five were badly disabled by the war: for between the five there brought together on that Sunday afternoon, there was a strange, sad bond of sympathetic union: two were permanently disabled in their right arms and from the shoulders of the other three, there dangled three empty sleeves. After this extended introduction, Jarvis turns to his first major theme. He says he will spend the remainder of his time "with some practical remiarks intended more particularly for those who are about to be enrolled among the Alumni. " He then develops an analogy of the boys about to go out into the "waves of the wide sea. " Among other things, he urges them to follow the beacon-lights of "those who have gone before us, " in order to avoid the shoals of life. Jarvis declares that he hopes the new graduates will take as their motto "I serve," because "service has been the natural condition of man" 20 Thomas J. Jarvis, Address,

PAGE 203

198 since time immemorial. "It is universal in its application, and its obligation ends only with the grave .... It is the condition of success." Then Jarvis discusses a related idea which was important to the future growth and prosperity of the South: "All honest labor is honorable . . . the successful farmer, merchant or mechanic is the equal of the successful lawyer, doctor or politician. " For the 1881 graduate of Randolph Macon, this assertion doubtless was somewhat of a jolt. It can be guessed that many of the young men intended to enter the professions and doubtless felt uncomfortable at the admonition of the orator: "Neither turn your back upon manual labor or those who are engaged in it," Next Jarvis lists six rules of life for the young graduate. First, their service must be done with "energy and determination." Second, "it must be done bravely." Third, it must be "straightforward and direct." Fourth, their service must be honest and legal. Fifth, "it must be continued until the work is done. " And sixth, it must be performed "solely in the interest of the party for whom the service is rendered." This address is a typical "advice to young men" lecture. Jarvis, like many of the Chautauqua speakers and public lecturers of this era followed a format of "you do this and you shall succeed" — much in the Horatio Alger and Russell Conwell tradition. For example, he admonishes his listeners: "Never be idle. Be always at work — never out of service. " Again, he says, "Incentive to all service is the hope of reward .... A few suggestions as to how this service should be performed may not prove amiss." After listing these suggestions, Jarvis says, "They are the simple

PAGE 204

199 rules that should govern in the every-day transactions of live. " Not only does he tell the young men how to live, he issues, "A word of advice to the young ladies present .... do not marry a lazy man. He is not worth marrying." This theme of advice-giving doubtless meets the situational expectations of his listeners — certainly advice is even today one of the staples of graduation-oriented addresses. Thus meeting the expectations of his audience, Jarvis has set the stage for his reunion message. The final section of the address is oriented toward the reconciliation theme. Jarvis' major point urging reconciliation is that the college graduate owes his country service. Perhaps not as a professional government worker or politican, but at least as an intelligent voter and well-informed citizen. Jarvis asserts, "there is no service in which you can engage, save that of your Creator, more sacred than that of your country. " He urges his listeners to "discard every other consideration from that service but the interest of your country." As examples of when Southern men have contributed greatly to the nation's welfare, Jarvis cites the 1775 Mecklenburg, North Carolina, Declaration of Independence, Jefferson's writing of the national Declaration of Independence, the battle of Yorktown, and the writing of the United States Constitution. All of these examples, of course, are Southern in nature, thus following the pattern we have seen in the preceding chapters of calling for reunion on the grounds that the South and the Southern citizen have already given much to the nation and should continue to do so. The orator blames the postponement of reconciliation, typically, upon those who "prostituted public service." Jarvis, is, however.

PAGE 205

200 optimistic about the cuirent situation and the future prospects for intersectional peace as he remarks, "But thank heaven! the clouds are disappearing, the sun of fraternal harmony once more begins to shine upon us, and the men who have so long delayed his blessed coming are one by one passing away." Then Jarvis employs one of the most useful of his reconciliation themes: the Centennial of the American Revolutionary War. Doubtless this appeal was well-worn in the 1875-1876 period, but here at Ashland in 1881, Jarvis gives it a new and timely twist: He discusses the centennial celebrations for the end of the war, rather than the earlier celebrations for the Declaration of Independence and the early battles of the war. Jarvis says: I pray God that this great Centennial year will be the end of all strife in this land of ours. As this year one hundred years ago was the end of the struggle for freedom, may this year be the end of our stmggle for reconciliation; and, as from the bloody plains of Yorktown in 1781, the sun of liberty rose to shed his beneficent rays for all time to come upon free America, so, in 1881, from these fields, may the sun of absolute and everlastingly reconciled brotherhood rise, never again to be dimmed while time shall last. Yes, my friends, as the people gather from the North and from the South, from the East and from the West, and meet upon that sacred soil, may the spirit of a hundred years ago fall upon them and bind them together in bonds of love and confidence that can never be rent asunder. And when they leave that hallowed ground, may that spirit go with them, and abide with them, and all the people, forevermore. The orator concludes his plea for reconciliation by strongly declaring that he believes his wish will be granted: "That such will be the case 1 verily believe. I have an abiding faith in the people."

PAGE 206

201 Jarvis calls on his listeners to serve most the cause of God as the "Creator of all things and the Ruler of all things. " He urges, "Let nothing shake your faith in the Christian religion, or keep you from obeying its teachings and walking in its ways." After continuing in this vein for a few moments, the Governor concludes by reaffirming the ties established with the college: Wherever we go, let us remember our dear old Alma Mater's eyes are upon us, watching over us with tender and affectionate solicitude. And in return it is our high and loyal duty to render glad service, worthy of such a mother, to keep her fair name untarnished, her bright record unstained. In this address to the Society of Alumni, Governor Jarvis was successful in one of the most important tasks befoi^e a speaker: establishing a common bond between himself and lisLeneis, Lhis cuiiunun ground helped him, in turn, communicate more easily his message of reunion. Jarvis created this bridge by skillfully relating names and places of by-gone Randolph-Macon years. In addition, he called the students to follow those who had gone before and sketched out some guidelines gleaned from his observations of life; all of which would be difficult to refute. After gaining audience assent, he then delivered a message of reconciliation and reunion which would also be difficult to counter since to do so would be to reject the Southern contributions the orator mentioned. From a careful reading of this address, one can see to some degree how Jarvis' political career was so successful, and why he was an able leader. In this speech, he is direct, personable, and speaks "to the point." A biographical sketch of the Governor

PAGE 207

202 uses words such as "responsible," "successful," "aggressive," and "an advocate. "21 These personal leadership characteristics are evident in this 1881 address and contributed to an effective message of reconciliation. Once again, the Richmond minister, Moses D. Hoge, returns to our discussion of reconciliatory public speeches. On June 15, 1886, Hoge spoke to a general convocation at Washington and Lee University, Lexington, Virginia, on the subject. The Memories, Hopes and Duties of the Hour .'^'^ This entire address appeals to patriotic pride in America and, like Hoge's other messages of reunion, assumes that America's days of sectionalism are over — the bloody shirt orators stilled. The Presbyterian leader praises the founder of the nation and demonstrates that the same spirit which animated the struggle for independence and adopted a Republican form of government was responsible for founding and fostering the older colleges in Virginia — notably Washington and Lee. Students at the two Valley of Virginia Schools, Hampden-Sidney College and Liberty Hall (Washington and Lee) fought in the Revolutionary War as well as the Civil War; they realized that liberty could be won with the sword, but could be maintained only with education. ^ Dictionary of American Biography , IX, p. 524. 22 Moses D. Hoge, The Memories, Hopes and Duties of the Hour Address delivered at Washington and Lee University, Lexington, Virginia, June 15, 1886. (Richmond: Whittet and Shepperson, 1886).

PAGE 208

203 Hoge claims that America is the greatest Republic known to man; he compares this nation with European countries and points out how they are adapting to our model. As further proof of this contention Hoge shows that no nation had ever lasted so long with such prosperity and that no country had ever recovered so quickly and so completely from such a devastating Civil War. Although much of the address reflects Hoge's belief in a reunited America as demonstrated by his repeated patriotic appeals to national pride, his most overt reconciliatory message is saved for the waning moments of his address. As he recounts briefly the history of the "Augusta Academy" which became "Liberty Hall," later known as Washington College, then finally as Washington and Lee, Hoge declares that George Washington himself accompanied a "generous bequest to the college" with a wish that it be a school "of the purest patriotism, around which the men of the North and South could rally in the spirit of fraternal devotion to the glory of a common country." He then asserts that Washington's "fostering care" led the "Society of Cincinnati" — a group of influential Revolutionary War officers — to make a "large donation, "as well as that which led "men of public spirit in Boston and other northern cities, in the early days of its history, to make a contribution of t 700. " Nor did Washington's influence stop there. His interest in the school, according to Hoge, prompted the happy plan of holding a centennial meeting of the city of Philadelphia to organize an effort for the larger endowment of the University. This meeting was made successful beyond anticipation by the attendance of representative citizens from all parts of the country, without regard to political associations.

PAGE 209

204 Hoge lists many leading Northern citizens who participated in this national financial drive for the school. Among others on his list were Charles Francis Adams and George Hoar of Massachusetts, William Evarts and Samuel Tilden of New York, and T.A. Hendricks of Indiana. To Hoge, a no "less significant fact" about this drive was that the "great journals of the North" such a s the Herald , Tribune, Post, and Times of New York , as well as others in eloquent editorials commended the effort to secure a larger endowment, because the influence of such united action would have in reconciling all sections of the country by honoring together their Revolutional ancestors, rekindling around one altar the patriotism to which all the States owe their common origin, and thus realizing the hopes of Washington for a united and happy country. Hoge then remarks that these successful appeals ^or n^tioral support of a Southern university are some of the demonstrations of a restored fraternity which give a stern and just rebuke to those who would perpetuate alienation between the North and the South, and who propose to conduct coming presidential campaigns under the leadership of candidates who persist in waving the bloody rag, unmentionable here, but branded by its own vulgar name as the basest of banners, -symbol of sectional hatred and strife — while we, instead of this, declare it to be our intention to unfurl to all the winds of heaven the flag emblazoned with the stars which glitter to the names of thirty-eight sovereign States, all leagued and linked together for the defence of the rights of each, and for the perpetuation of the common glory of a united and indissoluble republic. This address — subtitled "A Historic Discourse" — was ostensibly an historical account of V/ashington and Lee University presented during graduation week by a noted Virginian. Hoge not only fulfills the purpose he

PAGE 210

205 was asked to honor, he uses the occasion to appeal to national as well as regional and local pride to reinforce a reconciliatory sentiment. By selecting examples from the school's history which demonstrate relationships between the school and the nation and national heroes such as Washington, the minister is able to easily reinforce a national pride and thereby contribute to intersectional reunion. Specifically denouncing the "bloody shirt" leadership of political parties, Hoge skillfully counters that political scapegoat with his assertion that the South — and, by implication right-thinking men everywhere — would stand behind a different symbol: the national flag. By this time, it should be evident that there is scant fresh and original rhetorical invention going on in the process of reconciliation rhetoric of the post-war South. The themes, methods of support, indeed, even word choice, are remarkably similar as we examine addresses made at different speech occasions. As Daniel Boorstin has observed, "The public speech, whether sermon, commencement address, or whistle-stop campaign talk is a public affirmation that the listeners share a common discourse and a common body of values." The speeches examined in this chapter certainly reflect this common, shared discourse. There is little new originality as the common themes of (1) the South' s economic future depends on reconciliation (Haygood); (2) the South has always contributed heavily to the glory of the entire nation (Bate, Butler and Jarvis); (3) the South has an 23 Daniel J, Boorstin, T he Americans: The Colonial Experience (New York: Random House, 1958), p. 10.

PAGE 211

206 inherent patriotic pride in the nation (all the speakers); and (4) the slow arrival of intersectional peace is due to the politician not the general citizen (Haygood, Jarvis, and Hoge) are all themes which were used throughout this period by many of these speakers. In addition, all these orators presented a positive and optimistic view of the future of a reunited nation -surely with this much repetition of "a common discourse and a common body of values," the Southern audience grew to accept the speakers' claims that the nation was reconciled.

PAGE 212

CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSION: SOME OBSERVATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS In this final chapter, we shall characterize the reconciliation message, method, and strategy discovered in these speeches, suggest some directions for contemporary reconciliation speaking, and point out possible avenues for further study which were prompted by this research project. The Reconciliation Message: Themes, Symbols, and Values The reconciliation theme used by more of these speakers than any other was the assertion that the nation is one again -that reunion is here, that we are a reunited, reconciled country after the fire and sword experiences of war. The South had chosen this final arbiter and had lost; now the former Confederacy was back in the Union, a permanent part of a reunited people. Twenty out of the twentysix speeches, or seventyseven percent, included this topic in some manner. The second most frequently used theme was the claim that the South has made significant contributions to the nation and would continue to do so in the future. Those speakers, twelve out of the twenty-six, or forty-six percent, who stressed this idea invariably proclaimed that the South would be rejecting much of its past if it did not continue to contribute to the nation's well-being. 207

PAGE 213

208 Thirty-eight percent of the speeches included the common theme of the reconciliatory model. That is, these orators urged their audiences to follow the example of national harmony and forgiveness as set by Lee, Hill, Garfield, Grant, or Lincoln, as well as by the typical soldier on both sides who counseled and practiced forgiveness. A similar number of speeches pointed to a scapegoat which allegedly hindered the achievement of total national harmony: the scheming politicans who prevented reunion for their own selfish and opportunistic reasons. Inevitably these speakers would assert that the common people and the former soldiers all longed for the peace that the politicians were keeping from them. As could be expected, many of these speeches -thirtyfive percent — strongly proclaimed the bright future of the nation and of the South within that nation. Three additional themes were used by these reunion orators. Praise for the victorious Northern armies and soldiers was used in thirty-one percent of the addresses; nineteen percent included expositions about the nation's problems as seen by the speaker, with the implication that they could be and would be solved by a common and united citizenry. And finally, twelve percent of the speeches praised the North's contributions to the nation's history and well-being. Wlien we examine the use of these various themes relative to the various types of ceremony, we find that the assertion that the nation is now reunited was the leading reconciliatory theme in all four ceremonial situations. In the Memorial Day and eulogy-producing situations, sixty-three percent of the speeches proclaimed that the nation was once again whole.

PAGE 214

209 When monuments were being dedicated, sixty-six percent of the speeches included this topic. The most popular occasion for this subject, however, was the veterans' reunion when all six of the speakers recited this claim, closely followed by the educational situations when eighty-three percent of the speeches included this bold assertion. The table on page 210 shows the five most frequently used themes in each speech category. A chronological analysis of the various themes shows a rather common use of the several topics throughout the period 1875-1890. The only major variations concern (1) the "scapegoat" theme, and (2) the "brightfuture-of-thenation" theme. In 1875-1876, sixty-six percent of the six speeches made in those two years sought to identify the scapegoat for the lack of harmony. By 1889-1890, however, only one out of the seven addresses given included this theme. Apparently by this time, the reconciliation process was reasonably far advanced and the orators did not see a need to fix any blame for any lack of national harmony or for any roadblocks to unity. Again, in the years 1875-1876, eighty-three percent of the speeches proclaimed the "bright-future-of-the-nation" and of the South within the nation. By the last two years of the study, however, only one speaker alluded to this idea. Going beyond these reconciliation themes, let us look at another part of the reunion message: the use of symbols to reinforce national harmony. The speeches of this investigation are replete with examples of symbols to vivify the abstraction of reconciliation. The national symbols of the flag, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the President,

PAGE 215

u T3 210 Percent of Speeches Theme Which Include the Theme 1. Nation-is-reunited 63% en (D m 1. iNiaiion-is-reuniLeu oo/o CD Is 2. Scapegoat 38% >, gj^ ^ 3. Reconciliatory model 25% "d c 4. Solve-nation's-problems 25% o ro £ ^Si 5. Our-nation-has-a-bright-future 25% o 1. Nation-is-reunited 66% -iH +J .H w 2. Reconciliatory model 66% X! 0) (D u^ '"' S 3. Southern contributions to nation 50% -t-j 1-. C X) 0) X! S < 4. Praise of Northern armies 50% c 5; 5. Our-nation-ha s-3-bright-fut'jre 33?i. 1. Nation-is-reunited 100% w w 2. Southern contributions to nation 66% -co ^ C Xi 2 2 3. Scapegoat 66% (U ^ J-" C (D 5 > --H 4. Praise of Northern armies 50% c f^ 5. Reconciliatory model 50% 1 . Nation-is-reunited 83% ^ 2. Southern contributions to nation 66% ro U5 C (U •2 w 3. Scapegoat 50% B -o 4. Solve nation's problems 50% 'o 5. Our-nation-has-a-bright-future 50% TABLE ONE: PERCENTAGE OF THEME USE

PAGE 216

211 heroes of the Revolutionary War and the early national period all supported the reunion message since they gave tangible evidence of the nation's heritage and beliefs. In addition, the visible, concrete symbols of monuments, unified grave decoration ceremonies, and "arm-in-arm" parades, were referred to as tangible evidence that the nation was one.. Some of the ceremonies surveyed here used other overtly symbolic actions such as actually burying a hatchet or spiking a cannon to help demonstrate national solidarity. After Horace Greely used the "bloody Chasm" phrase in the 1872 Presidential campaign, these speakers occasionally used that symbol in their reinforcement of reunion sentiment. What were the sources for these examples and symbols used to make reunion real for their listeners? The prime source was American history: the Revolutionary and early national period. Many of these speakers compared their Confederate movement to the American Revolution; the only real difference they saw was that theirs had failed while the other had succeeded. A second major source of reconciliatory symbols was biographical : the lives of men like Lee and Grant who advocated national harmony in the post-war years. A third source, although not as widely used, was contemporary or recent events : those times and places where a reconciliatory event had occurred, such as a Blue-Gray reunion or a Revolutionary War Centennial celebration. It was demonstrated in Chapter One that the ceremonial address is Intended primarily to reaffirm shared community values and that this concern of the ceremonial orator would be the major focus of this study. It is

PAGE 217

212 important therefore to inquire: What were the values expressed in these speeches which would bear directly on the reconciliation message? It was suggested that it would seem reasonable to assume that patriotism , forgiveness , friendship , and cooperation would be discussed by these speakers in order to give meaning to their reunion message. The survey and description of these orations in the previous chapters seem to support this assumption. All four of these values were used by these speakers, although, as Table Two demonstrates, patriotism was appealed to much more extensively. In addition, it was found that they relied significantly on duty or honor , perhaps because of the important position of this value in the traditional Southern hierarchy of values. Percent of Speeches Value Which Include the Value 'o Duty/Honor 65% Patriotism 54% Forgiveness 23% Friendship 19% Cooperation 12% 'o TABLE TWO: PERCENTAGE OF VALUE USE

PAGE 218

213 As is evident in Table Two, these speakers relied heavily on a human value which traditionally had been strong in the South: the concept of duty or honor. ^ Many of the speakers surveyed here called upon their ancestors who had died in the war, or to their section. This responsibility was usually described as the Southerners' duty to be true to the Union which, they argued, had been made stronger by the "test of the sword." John Temple Graves expressed it this way: We must tear aside this veil of prejudice and personal feelings. We must soar to higher realms of reason. We must speak peace to the troubled tides of passion and revenge that swept upon the surface of our sectional heart. We must peer through and beyond the subtle, treacherous web that dastardly and designing politicans weave, to the echoing hearts of our Northern breathren that beat true and pure behind the prosperous corruption oi iheir representdiiveb . '^ At the Jackson statue unveiling, Moses Hoge said simply, " it is our interest, our duty, and determination to maintain the Union, and to make every possible 3 contribution to its prosperity and glory." 1 Clement Eaton and Richard M. Weaver are two historians who have commented upon the important role of honor, duty, and chivalry in the code of the Southern gentleman. See, for example, Eaton, The Wanin g of the Old South Civilization, 1860's-1880' s , Mercer University Lamar Memorial Lectures", No. 10 (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1968), pp. 45 and 53; Weaver, The Southern Tradition at Bay, A History of Postbellum Thought , edited by George Core and M. E. Bradford (New York: Arlington House, 1968) p. 47. ^ John Temple Graves, "Memorial Address, " delivered at West Point, Georgia, April 26, 1876. 3 Hoge, "Oration at the Inauguration of the Jackson Statue," delivered at Richmond, Virginia, October 26,1875.

PAGE 219

214 In the oration presented by John W. Daniel at the mausoleum for Robert E. Lee the value of duty was frequently invoked. During the entire early portion of the speech, Daniel discussed fully how Lee's sense of duty forced him to fight for the Southern forces. He is not only justifying Lee's course of action, he is also reinforcing the feeling of duty and its role in Lee's own life. Then later in the speech, Daniel cites Lee's own words to show that the duty a man has to himself and his country may lead him to a course of action that he would not have wished: True patriotism /said Lee/ sometimes requires of men to act exactly contrary at one period to that which it does at another, and the motive that impels them, the desire to do right, is precisely the same. The circumstances which govern their actions change and their conduct must conform to the new order of things.'^ J.C.C. Black, in his oration at the B.H. Hill statue in Atlanta, used the following words in his description of the duty of the Southerners after the war: Our Southern soldiers returned to their desolated homes like true cavaliers, willing to acknowledge their defeat, abide in good faith the terms of the surrender, accept all the legitimate results of the issue, respect the prowess of those who had conquered, and resume their relations to the government with all the duties those relations imposed. 4 John W. Daniel, Oration at the Inauguration of the Mausoleum and the Unveiling of the Recumbent Figure of General Robert Edward Lee at Washington and Lee University (Richmond, Virginia: West, Johnston and Company, 1883). ^ James C. C. Black, "Address at the Unveiling of the Hill Statue," delivered at Atlanta, Georgia, May 1, 1886.

PAGE 220

215 The second-most-used value was the appeal to patriotism or national loyalty. Perhaps John Temple Graves, Thomas M. Logan, and Henry Grady were the most patriotic of all the speakers surveyed here. Graves, in his Memorial Day address at West Point, Georgia, reminded his listeners: "We cannot fail to know that we are and ought to be numbered among the Union of original States. We still claim, and justly, the heritage and honor of American citizens. " A different tack was taken by General Logan at the reunion of the Hampton Legion when he points out that "It requires neither prophet to foretell, nor oracle to pronounce, that there is a great future for the 7 United States .... Truly, a vast empire is in process of formation." Perhaps Henry Grady was the most patriotic of this group of speakers for he speaks of the American mission to the world. He looks to a future when "under one language, one liberty, and one God, all the --nations of the world harkening to the American drum-beat and girding up their loins shall march amid the breaking of the millennial dawn into the o ""paths of righteousness and of peace!" Although his speech warns against the dangers of a strong central government, he is outspoken in his appeal to a country unified under the South's principles of state sovereignty. 6 Graves, "Memorial Address. " 7 Thomas M. Logan, "The Future of the South," delivered at Columbia, South Carolina, July 21, 1875. 8 Henry W. Grady, "Against Centralization," delivered at University of Virginia, June 15, 1889.

PAGE 221

216 A third important value appealed to by these speakers was forgiveness . Perhaps John W. Daniel's oration on Lee is the best example of the use of this value , Because he had such a subject as Lee, who tried after the war to be as forgiving as possible, Daniel built much of his address around this value. Time and again, he used Lee's own words and actions to suggest a model of the forgiving spirit. For example, after the war, Lee was "reviled and harrassed, yet never a word of bitterness escaped him; but, on the contrary, only counsels of forbearance, patience and diligent attention to works of restoration. " Daniel used Lee's own testimony to make this clear: "It should be the object of all to avoid controversy, to allay passion, and give scope to every kindly feeling." And again, "It is wisest not to keep open the sores of war, but to follow the example of those nations who have endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered. " Late in the address, Daniel devoted an entire section to discussing this concept of forgiveness and how it applied to Lee's own life. He began by saying: Lee had nothing in common with the little minds that know not how to forgive. His was the land that had been invaded; his the people who were cut down . . .; his was the cause that perished. He was the General discrowned of his mighty place, and he the citizen disfranchised. Yet Lee Q forgave, and counselled all to forgive and forget. Another value often expressed by these reconciliation speakers is that of friendship. For example, Haygood, in his eulogy on Garfield, advocated 9 Daniel, Oration at Figure of Lee.

PAGE 222

217 that the American citizen "should cultivate a true spirit of national brotherhood. To say and do things simply to irritate or injur<2 an opponent is mean, and unworthy a civilized, to say nothing of a Christian man." Thomas Logan phrased the appeal in this way: "Our feelings, as well as our interest, already incline us to strengthen and c;ement the bonds of real union, by cultivating feelings of good will and friendship." One of the clearest and most explicit declarations of inter sectional friendship came from Thomas Jarvis in his Randolph Macon address: I pray God that this great Centennial year will be the end of all strife in this land of ours. As this year one hundred years ago was the end of the struggle for freedom, may this year be the end of our struggle for reconciliation; and, as from the bloody plains of Yorktown in 1781, the sun of liberty rose to shed his beneficent rays for all time to come upon free America, so, in 1881, fiom these fields, may the sun of an absolute and everlastingly reconciled brotherhood rise, never again to be dimmed while time shall last. Yes, my friends, as the people gather from the North and from the South, from the East and from the West, and meet upon that sacred soil, may the spirit of an hundred years ago fall upon them, and bind them together in bonds of love and confidence that can never be rent asunder. And when they leave that hallowed ground, may that spirit go with them, and abide with them, and all the people, forevermore . ' ^ 10 Atticus G. Haygood, "Garfield's Memory," delivered at Emory College, Oxford, Georgia, October 5, 1881. 11 Logan, "Future of the South." 1^ Thomas J. Jarvis, Address Delivered Before Society of Alumni of Randolph Macon College (Richmond: Johns and Goolsby, 18 81).

PAGE 223

218 Finally, the value of cooperation was used by some of these reconciliation orators in appealing to national reunion. Throckmorton pointed to a specific example of cooperation: The graves of Southern soldiers that died from wounds and disease in Northern prisons and hospitals are strewn with flowers by the wives and daughters of brave men who fell upon the battlefields of the South, and the graves of Northern soldiers who lie buried in the South are tenderly cared for by the fair women whose homes they invaded. ^^ Atticus G. Haygood, in the dedication speech for the new building at Emory College was also able to illustrate the spirit of cooperation with an actual example. In referring to George Seney, who had donated the money for the building, Haygood said: He lives a thousand miles away; he belongs to a people with whom we have had conflicts long and bitter .... And yet, on his own motion and unsolicited, he has sent you, Methodists and people of Georgia, these gifts, because he wanted to help you, and because he loves you. And our people have received these gifts as gratefully as they are bestowed magnanimously. '•'^ John Temple Graves, at the Union Decoration Day in Jacksonville, Florida, presented a number of concrete examples of intersectional cooperation: We recall with glowing memories that a generous regiment of Maine sent to Congress a memorial for the pension of the maimed and disabled veterans of the dead Confederacy. We remember that a gallant regiment of New York started those ringing 13 James W. Throckmorton, "Speech Delivered at Re-Union of Hood's Soldiers," delivered at Waco, Texas, June 27, 1889. ^^ Haygood, "Seney Hall," delivered at Emory College, Oxford, Georgia, June 8, 1881.

PAGE 224

219 cheers for Fitzhugh Lee in the great procession of the 4th of Morch. We can never forget, while memory lasts, that cultured, classic and chivalric Boston poured the rich tribute of flowers and welcome words in the lap of Stonewall Jackson's widow. These deeds have stirred the Southern heart, and we have tried to give back an answering throb in the sincere and heartfelt and universal sympathy that we have sent to the bedside of the North's great hero, dying in New York. 15 Perhaps the most direct expression of the value of national cooperation came from Moses Hoge in his address at Washington and Lee College when he explained at length the national drive to raise funds for that school. Washington /wished/ that it should be a school . . . of the purest patriotism, around which the men of the North and South could rally in the spirit of fraternal devotion to the glory of a common country .... It was this that constrained men of public spirit in Boston and other northern cities ... to make a contribution of L 700 . . . . It was this that suggested the happy plan of holding a centennial meeting in the city of Philadelphia to organize an effort for the larger endowment of the University. This meeting was made successful beyond anticipation by the attendance of representative citizens from all parts of the country, without regard to political associations. It was fitly held in Independence Hall, and the spirit of the assembly was worthy of the place, of the occasion, and of the men who composed it. Hoge then listed many of the outstanding men of the North and South who 1 fi cooperated in this financial campaign for the Southern school. l^Graves, "Union Decoration Day Speech," delivered at Jacksonville, Florida, May 30, 1885. 16 Moses D. Hoge, The Memories, Hopes and Duties of the Hour, delivered at Washington and Lee University, Lexington, Virginia, June 15, 1886 (Richmond, Virginia: Whittet and Shapperson, 1886).

PAGE 225

220 Suggestions for Reconiliatory Speaking This study of a set of historical speeches seems to show that a speaker faced with a similar rhetorical situation might have several alternative strategies he could employ. First, he must ground his speech in those human values which are most closely related to this goal. For the speakers surveyed in this study, these values were: (1) national patriotism (which could be translated in a contemporary setting as group espirit de corps or group loyalty) , (2) forgiveness for wrongs committed or supposedly committed. (3) friendship for people in the opposition section (or group faction) , (4) cooperation of both sections (or factions) toward national (or group) goals and achievements, and (5) responsibility and duty of all citizens (or group members) to strive for harmony if the national (or group) goals are to be met. Second, he must intensify these values for his listeners by illustrating them with contemporary examples of reconciliation being realized. Some of the speakers in this postCivil War period gave detailed illustrations of North and South actively working together to promote harmony and to destroy intersectional barriers. In addition, this "visualization process" should take the form of realistic r ev/ards which would serve to reinforce the message. For example, picturing for the audience what will be the positive, tangible benefits for them and their section (or group) if reconciliation does occur. -^^ rr As Erwin Bettinghaus points out, a reward is needed, if a speaker wishes to reinforce a response. Persuasive Communication (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968), pp. 56-58.

PAGE 226

221 General Thomas Logan pointed out, for instance, that had the sentiments of soldiers been followed nationwide, "the whole country would have thus received new impetus in its career of progress and prosperity." He went on to say that if reunion fully occurs, "We will, then, unquestionably have on this continent a great country, inhabited by a great people. "'•^ If a speaker is able to relate the values of reconciliation to the audience in such a way that his listeners can see clearly the benefits to be gained, then he will be achieving his rhetorical goal of reinforcing harmony and reunion. Third, the reconciliation speaker must help his audience accept the fact that in a situation calling for reunion, there is generally a "loser" and a "winner." In spite of America's claim to be a nation of compromise, most argumentative situations provide for a winner and a loser in some sense. For a state of reconciliation to occur, the loser must accept his loss. In this post-war situation, the South at least claimed, again and again, to have accepted the verdict of the sword. This proclamation of acceptance doubtless helped to speed the reconciliation process for both Southerner and Northerner. Fourth, the speech and the speech situation itself should provide specific examples of what the two groups or factions have in common — their common heritage and tradition perhaps, as these speakers described, or their common goals and purposes. These examples could be non-verbal as well as verbal such as the paintings of revered national heroes which were placed on the stage at a veteran's reunion, or crossed battle flags 18 Logan, "Future of the South.

PAGE 227

222 from two units meeting together in peace which had opposed each other in war, or the national flag or other visible symbols of group harmony and unity. Further Studies Suggested Based on the investigation of this topic, further research possibilities should be suggested for students who wish to explore related topics in the area of post-Civil War Southern public address. The following are five major areas of possible research: First, the attempts at reconciliatory speaking prior to the starting point of this study — 1875 — should be examined. Obviously some reunion sentiment had been created prior to the end of political reconstruction. What was the nature of the public SDeakinq in the South which attempted to create and shape this early post-war reunion sentiment? Perhaps part of this early conciliatory speaking occurred in the United States Congress. Therefore, a future study of reconciliatory rhetoric should include speaking by the Southern Congressman and Senator in the national legislative halls. After all, that is where the legislation was enacted which provided for the end of Congressional reconstruction and for general amnesty to the South. What did Southerners do in their Congressional speeches to hasten that reunion spirit? Another focus could be the speaking in the South by Northerners — especially educators, industrialists, and philanthropists, as well as politicians and soldiers. Did Northerners handle the reunion message any differently than did Southern speakers? An additional topic is the relationship of the Negro question and the movement

PAGE 228

223 toward national harmony. The present study suggests that the race question, and the North's response to it, probably helped the South become reconciled more than any one single factor. Further exploration of this topic would help shed light on both Southern race rela:ions and reconciliation. A final area of investigation would be the rhetoric of those Southern speakers such as Charles C. Jones, Jr. of Georgia, and Robert Dabney of Virginia, who were not reconciled to the North after the war. How did they attempt to convince their listeners that reconciliation was not good and that the South should stay armed against Northern aggression — figuratively, at least? An additional research need is to make some of these reconciliation speeches more available to students of public address. These speeches do shed light on Southern public communication and values and should, therefore, be more accessible rather than scattered through a number of libraries in pamphlet form or newspaper accounts. Conclusion The ceremonial speakers examined in this study did attempt to reinforce the attitude of national reunion. There can be little doubt that Southerners after the war did feel a sentiment of national harmony. David M. Potter expresses it well when he writes that "one of the truly diagnostic, perennial features of the South has been the obsessive impulse of its people" to be both "Southerners and Americans. " Potter demonstrates that "Southern loyalties to the Union were never really obliterated but rather

PAGE 229

224 were eclipsed by other loyalties, with which, for a tine, they conflicted. "-^9 These speakers did attempt to intensify those loyalties to the Union. Reconciliation is not analogous to a religious philosophy of "once saved, always saved." Rather, it is a process with no clearly definable beginning and with no point in time when one is totally reconciled. It is more accurate to say that the post-Civil War South was in the process of becoming reconciled to national goals and purposes -a process even yet unfinished. In spite of the end of Congressional reconstruction, the granting of general amnesty to Southerners, and other symbols of national reunion, the speakers surveyed here felt a need to further reinforce the sentiment of reconciliation. This study has described what these men said on the subject of national reunion and has suggested some possible rhetorical strategies and considerations for contemporary speakers who would attempt to reconcile antagonistic elements of our national life. 19 David M. Potter, The South and the Sectional Conflict (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1968), pp. 30-31, 78-79, italics his.

PAGE 230

APPENDIX In order to facilitate research by other students of Southern public speaking, the following grouping is made of speeches used in this study. The listing includes the speech, where it was delivered, the date, and where a copy of the text may be found. It is organized according to the occasions upon which the speeches were made. Memorial Day Addresses and Eulogies Graves, John Temple. "Memorial Address . " West Point, Georgia. April 2b, 1876. University of South Carolina. . "Union Decoration Day Speech." Jacksonville, Florida. May 30, 1885. University of South Carolina . Haygood, Atticus G. "Garfield's Memory. " Oxford, Georgia . Octobers, 1881. Emory University. Hoge, Moses D. "Address on Jefferson Davis." Richmond, Virginia. December 11, 1889. University of Virginia. Howe William B.W. "Address on the Death of President Garfield." Charleston, South Carolina. September 26 , 1881 . University of South Carolina. Key, David M. "Memorial to General Grant. " Chattanooga, Tennessee. August 8, 1885. Sunday Times (Chattanooga) , August 9, 1885. Rose, U.M. "Memorial Address on the Life, Character and Public Services of Jefferson Davis." Little Rock, Arkansas. December 13, 1889. Little Rock Public Library. Waddell, Alfred M. "Memorial Day Address." New Bern, North Carolina. May 9, 1879. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 225

PAGE 231

226 Monument Dedication Speeches Black, James C.C. "Address at the Unveiling of the Hill Statue." Atlanta, Georgia. Mayl, 1886. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Daniel, John W. "Oration at the Inauguration of the Mausoleum and the Unveiling of the Recumbent Figure of General Robert Edward Lee at Washington and Lee University." Lexington, Virginia. June 28, 1883. Emory University. Evans, Clement A. "Address at the Laying of the Cornerstone of the Confederate Monument. " Augusta, Georgia. April 26, 1875. University of Georgia . Hoge, Moses D. "Oration at the Inauguration of the Jackson Statue. " Richmond, Virginia. October 26, 1875. Duke University. Kemper, John. "Address at the Unveiling of Jackson's Statue," Richm.ond, Virginia. October 26, 1875. University of South Carolina . Lee, Fitzhugh. "Oration at the Unveiling of the Monument to the Confederate Dead." Alexandria, Virginia. May 24, 1889. University of Virginia. Veterans' Reunion Addresses Drayton, Charles E.R. "Address to the Washington Light Infantry." Charleston, South Carolina. February 22, 1885. University of South Carolina. Gordon, John B. "Address Delivered Before the Confederate Survivor's Association." Augusta, Georgia. April 26, 1887. University of Florida . Law, Evander M. "The Confederate Revolution. " Richmond, Virginia. May 28, 1890. Louisiana State University. Logan, Thomas M. "The Future of the South." Columbia, South Carolina. July 21, 1875. University of South Carolina. McGowan, Samuel. "Address at the Reunion of Orr's Rifles." Walhalla, South Carolina. July 21, 1875. University of South Carolina. Throckmorton, James Webb. "Speech Delivered at ReUnion of Hood's Soldiers." Waco, Texas. June 27, 1889. University of Texas .

PAGE 232

227 Edu cational Addresses Bate William B. "Address at the Dedication of the Bottle-Ground Academy. " Franklin, Tennessee. October 5, 1889 . Duke University. Butler, Matthew C. "The Constitution." Spartanburg , South Carolina . June 15, 1886. University of South Carolina. Grady, Henry W. "Against Centralization. " Charlottesville, Virginia. June 25, 1889. Emory University. Haygood, Atticus G. "SeneyHall." Oxford , Georgia . June 8, 1881. Duke University. Hoge, Moses D. "The Memories, Hopes and Duties of the Hour." Lexington, Virginia. June 15, 1886. University of Virginia. Jarvls, Thomas J. "Address Delivered Before the Society of Alumni of ' Randolph Macon College." Ashland, Virginia. June 15, 1881. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

PAGE 233

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Alderman, Edwin A. and Harris, Joel Chandler, eds. Library of Southern Literature, Vol. VI. Atlanta: Martin and Hoyt Co., 1910. Allan, W. Historical Sketch of the Lee Memorial Association . Richmond, Virginia: West, Johnston and Co . , 1883. American Historical Society, The. The Story of Georgia, Biographical Volume . New York: The American Historical Society, 1938. Avery, I.W. The History of the State of Georgia from 1850 to 1881 . New York: Brown and Derby, 1881. Arnold; narroU C , "George W.i ]liam Curtis." His'i'ory and Criticism of American Public Address , Vol. III. Edited by Marie K. Hockmuth. New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1955. Auer, J. Jeffery. An Introduction to Research in Speech. New York; Harper and Brother, 1959. Baker, Virgil L. and Eubanks, Ralph T. Speech in Personal and Public Affairs . New York: David McKay, 1965. Baldwin, Charles Sears. Ancient Rhetoric and Poetic. Gloucester, Massachusetts: Peter Smith, 1959. Bertelson, David. The Lazy South . New York: Oxford University Press, 1967. Boorstin, Daniel J. The Americans: The Colonial Experience. New York: Random House, 1958. Brandt, V/illiam J. The Rhetoric of Argumentation . Indianapolis: BobbsMerrlll, 1970. Buck, Paul H. The Road to Reunion, 1865-1900 . New York: Random House, 1937. 228

PAGE 234

229 Chambers, Lenoir. Storewall Jackson, Vol, II. New York: William Morrow, 1959. Glark,, T-homas D. and Kirwan, Albert D. The South Since Appomattox , A Century of Regional Change. New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 1967. Conway, Alan. The Reconstruction of Georgia . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1956. Corbett, Edward P.J. C lassical Rhetoric for the Modern Student . New York: Oxford University Press, 19 65. Crogman, W.H. "He Became the Golden Clasp. " A Memorial Tribute to Bishop Atticus G. Haygood. N.P.: The Advisory Council of Clark College, 1896. Dempsey, Elam F. Atticus Green Haygood, Centennial Edition, 1839-1939 . Nashville: Partheon Press, 1940. Eaton, Clement. The Waning of the Old South Civilization, 18601880' s . Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1968. Franklin. Tohn Hooe. Reconstruction: After the Civil War. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. Gaines, Francis Pendleton. Southern Oratory: A Study in Idealism . University, Alabama: University of Alabama Press, 1946. Golden, James L. "The Southern Unionists, 1850-1850." Oratory in the Old South, 1828-1860 . Edited by Waldo W. Braden. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1970. , and Corbett, Edward P.J., eds. The Rhetoric of Blair, Campbell, and Whately. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968. History of Georgia , Vol. II. Chicago: S.J. Clarke Publishing Co., 1925. Johnson, Allen, ed. Dictionary of American Biography, Vol. III. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 19 29. ^, and Malone, Dumas, eds. Dictionary of American Biography, Vol. V. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1930. Jones, Charles C, Jr. Memorial History of Georgia. Spartanburg, South Carolina: Reprint Company of Spartanburg, 19 66.

PAGE 235

230 Lee, Fitzhugh. Genera.. Lee. New York: Fawcett Publications, 1961. Knight, Lucian Lamar, ' John Temple Graves. " A Standard History of Georgia and Georgians , Vol. VI. Chicago: Lewis Publishing Company, 1917. Linkugel, V\^il A. , Allen, R.R. , and Johannesen, Richard L. , eds. Contemporary American Speeches, 2nd ed. Belmont, California: Wads worth, 1969. Malone, Dumas, ed. Dictionary of American Biography, Vols., IX, XI. XIX. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1932, 1933, 1936. Mann, Harold W. Atticus Greene Haygood . Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1965. Marshall, Park. A Life of Vl^illiam B. Bate . Nashville, Tennessee: The Cumberla nd Pre s s , 1908. Moger, Allen W. Virginia: Bourbonism to Byrd, 1870-1925 . Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1968. Moore, Walter W. "Moses Drury Hoge. " Library of Southern Literature , Vol. VI. Edited by Edwin A. Alderman. Atlanta: ^4r>rt^^ »^^^^\ Moyt. 1910. Patrick, Rembert W. T he Reconstruction of the Nation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1967. Saloutos, Theodore. Farmer Movements in the South, 1865-1933 . Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1964. Thomas, Albert Sidney. A Historical Account of the Protestant Episcopal Church in South Carolina, 1820-1957 . Columbia, South Carolina: R.L. Bryan, 1957. Thonssen, Lester A. , Baird, A. Craig, and Braden, Waldo W. Speech Criticism, 2nd ed. New York: Ronald Press, 1970. "Throckmorton, James Webb," Who Was Who in America Historical Volume , 1607-1896 . Chicago: A.N. Marquis, 1963. Warner, W. Lloyd. American Life, Dream and Reality . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953. Watson, Thomas E. , ed. The South in the Building of the Nation, Vol. IX. Richmond, Virginia: The Southern Historical Publication Society, 1909.

PAGE 236

231 Weaver, Richard M. The Southern T radition at Bay, A History of Post bellum Thought. Edited by George Core and M.E. Bradford. NewRochelle, New York: Arlington House , 1968. White, Robert H. , ed. Messages of the Go vernor s of Tennessee 1883^ 1899 . Nashville: The Tennessee Historical Commission, 1967 . Woodward, C. Vann. The Burden of Southern History. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1960. . Origins of the New South, 1877-1913. Vol. IX of A Histo' rv of the South. Edited by W.H. Stephenson and^E. Merton Coulter. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1951. The Strange Career of Tim Crow. 2nd rev. ed. London: Oxford University Press, 19 66. Journal Articles Birdsey, Herbert F. "Rose Hill Cemetery Macon, Georgia, April 26 1866Apiil26, 19GG." The Georgia Rcvic-vV, .^.x y.o^i, ^-^w,---• Bitzer, Lloyd F. "The Rhetorical Situation. " Philosophy and Rhetoric, I (Jaauary, 1968), 1-14. Bryant, Donald C. "Rhetoric: Its Function and Its Scope. " The Quarterly Journal of Speech , XXXK (December, 1953), 401-24. Carpenter, Ronald H. and Robert V. Seltzer. "Situational Style and the Rotunda Eulogies." Central States Speech Journal, XXII (Spring, 1971), 11-15. Chase, J. Richard. "The Classical Conception of Epideictic." The Quarterly ' Journal of Speech , XLVII (October, 1961), 293-300. Cherry Conrad. "Two American Sacred Ceremonies: Their Implications for ' the Study of Religion in America." American Quarterly, XXI (Winter, 1969), 739-54. Coleman, William. "Science and Symbol in the Turner Frontier Hypothesis. " American Historical Review , LXXH (October, 1966), 22-49. Dickey, Dallas C. "Southern Oratory: A Field for Research." The Quarterly Journal of Speech , XXXIII (December, 1947), 45 8-63.

PAGE 237

232 Ellingsworth, Huber W. "The Ohio Raid of General John B. Gordon." The Southern Speech Journal, XXI (Winter, 1955), 120-5. Groppe, John D. "Ritualistic Language. " The South Atlantic Quarterly, LXIX (Winter, 1970), 58-67. Hillbruner, Anthony. "Inequality, The Great Chain of Being, and AnteBellum Southern Oratory." The Southern Speech Journal, XXV (Spring, 1960), 172-89. Johnson, Samuel R. "The Non-Aristotelian Nature of Samoan Ceremonial Oratory." Western Speech, XXXIV (Fall, 1970), 262-73. Kearney, Kevin. "V\mat's Southern About Southern Oratory? " The Southern Speech Journal , XXXII (Fall, 1966), 19-30. Meaders, Margaret Inman. "Postscript to Appomattox: My Grandpa and Decoration Day." The Georgia Review , XXIV (Fall, 1970), 297-304, "Saving Savannah." Life Magazine , May 7, 1971, pp. 48-58. Newspapers Atlanta Constitution , April 22, 26, 28, 1887; October 16, 1890. Atlanta Daily Constitution, June 10, 1881. Augusta, Georgia, Chronicle, April 22, 1887, Augusta, Georgia, Daily Chronicle and Sentinel , April 25, 27, 30, May 5, 1875. Augusta, Georgia, Evening News , May 1, 1886. Charleston, South Carolina, News and Courier, July 19, 22, 24, October 27, 1875; September 27, 1881. Chattanooga, Tennessee, Sunday Times, August 9, 1885. Columbia, South Carolina, Columbia Register , September 8, 1875. Columbia, South Carolina, Daily Phoenix, June 5, July 21, 22, 23, 25, 1875, Columbia, South Carolina, Daily Register , August 9, 1885. Dallas, Texas, News, May 11, 1963.

PAGE 238

233 Nashville, Tennessee, _Banner, October?, 1889. Nashville, Tennessee, Daily American, October 6, 7, 1889. New Bern, North Carolina, Newbernian, May 17, 1879. Pensacola, norida. News Journal , April 27, 1969. Raleigh, North Carolina, ilew£.andObserver^ May 10, 1887. Speeches Bate, William B. "Battle-Ground Academy . " Delivered at Franklin, Tennessee, October 5, 1889. Black, J.C.C. "Address at the Unveiling of the Hill Statue." Delivered at Atlanta, Georgia, May 1, 1886. Butler Matthew C. The_Constitutioii. Delivered at Wof ford College, ' slZ.n^ur,,-^^^^^^r^^^^^^l--15, 1886. Washington, D.C.: R.O. Polkinhorn, 1885. Daniel John W. Oration_aiiheJnaugi^^ -^Tw^Yd^^^^ ^^rrnd Lee University. Richmond, Virginia: West, Johnston, and Company, 1883. Oration on thP T.ife. Services and Cha_ra cteToIIeffe£So^ Virginia: J.H. O'Bannon, 1890. Drayton, Charles E.R. "Address to the Washington Light Infantry. " Delivered at Charleston, South Carolina, February 22, 1885. Evans, Clement A. Ceremome^inMigu^^ of the ConiediililMi^Wnt, AprTl^eTIi^^TTug^ , Georgia a;7S^^^Ial^"^^;d^^titutionarist Job Printing Establishment, 1878. Gordon, JohnB. Addres.LDgI^vered Before th^Confed|rat^|i^^^ Association. Delivered at Augusta, Georgia, April 26, 188/. Augusta, Georgia: Chronicle Publishing Company, 188/ . Grady, Henry W. "Against Centralization. " Delivered at University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, June 25, 1889.

PAGE 239

234 Graves, John Temple. "Eulogy of Henry W. Grady." A Standard History of Georgia and Georgians Vol. III. Edited by Lucian Lamar Knight. Chicago: Lewis Publishing Company, 1917. . "Memorial Address. " Delivered at West Point, Georgia, April 26, 1876. "Union Decoration Day Speech." D3livered at Jacksonville, Florida, May 30, 1885. Haygood, Atticus G. "Garfield's Memory." Delivered at Emory College, Oxford, Georgia, Octobers, 1881. . The New South. Delivered at Emory College, Oxford, Georgia, November 25, 1880. Edited by Judson C. Ward. Atlanta: Emory University Library, 1950. . "Seney Hall." Delivered at Emory College, Oxford, Georgia, June 8, 1881. Henry, Patrick. "Against the Federal Constitution." Delivered to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, Richmond, Virginia, June 5, 1788. American Forum . Edited by Ernest J. Wrage and Barnet Baskerville, Seattle: University of Washington Press , 1960. Hoge, Reverend Moses D. "Address on Jefferson Davis." Delivered at Richmond, Virginia, December 11, 1889. , The Memories, Hopes and Duties of the Hour. Delivered at Washington and Lee University, Lexington, Virginia, June 15, 1886. Richmond, Virginia: Whittet and Shepperson, 1886. . "Oration at the Inauguration of the Jackson Statue. " Delivered at Richmond, Virginia, October 26, 1875. Howe, Right Reverend W.B.W. Address on the Death of President Garfield. Delivered at Charleston, South Carolina, September 26, 1881. Charleston, South Carolina: News and Courier Book Presses, 1881 Jarvis, Thomas J. Address Delivered Before the Society of Alumni of Randolph Macon College . Delivered at Ashland, Virginia, June 15, 1881. Richmond, Virginia: Johns and Goolsby, 1881. Kemper, John. "Address at the Unveiling of Jackson's Statue." Delivered at Richmond, Virginia, October 26, 1875. Key, David M. "Memorial to General Grant." Delivered at Chattanooga, Tennessee, August 8, 1885.

PAGE 240

235 Law, Evander M» The Confederate Revolution. Delivered at Richmond, Virginia, May 28, 189Q. Richmond, Virginia: Wm. Ellis Jones, 1890. tee, Fitzhugh. "Oration at the Unveiling of the Monument to the Confederate Dead." Delivered at Alexandria, Virginia, May 24, 1889. Logan, Thomas M. "The Future of the South." Delivered at Columbia, South Carolina, July 21, 1875. McGowan, Samuel. "Address at the Reunion of Orr's Rifles." Delivered at Walhalla, South Carolina, July 21, 1875. Rose, U.M. "Memorial Address on the Life, Character and Public Services of Jefferson Davis." Delivered in Little Rock, Arkansas, December 13, 1889. Text in U.M. Rose, Addresses of U.M. Rose, V/ith a Brief Memoir by George B. Rose . Edited by George B. Rose. Chicago: George I. Jones, 1914. Throckmorton, James Webb. "Speech Delivered at Re-Union of Hood's Soldiers." Delivered at Waco, Texas, June 27, 1889. Waddell, Alfred Moore. "Memorial Day Address ." Delivered at New Bern, Koi LIi Cdioliiid , Mdy S, I87S. Dissertations Ellingsworth, Huber Winton. "Southern Reconciliation Orators in the North, 1868-1899." Ph.D. Dissertation, Florida State University, 1955.

PAGE 241

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Walter Stuart Towns was born November 6, 1939, at Fort Worth, Texas, In May, 1957, he was graduated from Forrest City, Arkansas, High School. In June, 1961, he received the degree of Bachelor of Arts with a major in speech from the University of Arkansas. In August, 1962, he received the degree of Master of Arts with a major in Speech from the University of Florida. From 1962 until 1964 he served as a Lieutenant in the United States Army with duty stations at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and Fort Sam Hcucton, Texas. Follov/ing his complctiorx of active duty, he was an Instructor in Speech and Coordinator of the Basic Speech Program at the University of Arkansas from 1964 until 1966. In the summer of 1966 he served as Coordinator of Language Arts of the Northwest Arkansas Supplemental Education Center. In September, 1966, he enrolled in the Speech Department at University of Florida to pursue the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. In January, 1968, he became an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Communication Arts at the University of West Florida in Pensacola. Walter Stuart Towns is married to the former Helen Ruth Smith of Little Rock, Arkansas, and is the father of a son, Stuart Grant Towns. He 236

PAGE 242

237 is a member and former editor of the Florida Speech Communication Association; a member, and Secretary of the Speech Education Interest Group, of the Southern Speech Communication Association; a member of the Speech Communication Association; and a member of the Consulting Faculty of the United States Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

PAGE 243

I certify that 1 have read this study and that in my opinion it conforniS to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Donald E. Willie Professor of Spe'ech I certify that J have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is -^-^*7 >-^^v^i_i^uv, ill ^^^^i^^ mi^ v_i i_n.j -Lj. Ly , uo U i_(j.ocic;i LU Lxuil J.i.^1 Lilt: UCyiWfci of Doctor of Philosophy. Paul Moore Professor of Speech I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in -scope cjnd quality, on a dissertation for the degree of Doctor Ox Philosophy, RoWalt? TI . Carpon' Associate Professor of Speech

PAGE 244

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Michael Cornett Assistant Professor of Speech I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it confomis to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. ft^A Seldon Henry \^ Assistant Professor of History This dissertation was submitted to the Department of Speech in the College of Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, March, 1972. Dean, Graduate School