1. What is the author arguing?
In order to understand the speech in which President Wilson pleas to the American people to support the League of Nations, I believe some history must be taken into account: After World War I, Wilson traveled to Paris to partake in the "Peace Conference" at which the powers of the world discussed post-war bargaining, treaties, and boundary disputes. Wilson compromised on many of the "Fourteen Points" that Americans believed he would accomplish, however, he did pass an agreement that stated all powerful countries would form a group that would provide "collective security and order" for the world at large (Roark 810). After coming home to a society made up of a mixing pot of nationalities, Wilson discovered many in the United States were infuriated with the proposals he agreed to while at the Paris Peace Conference; he did not stand true to his "Fourteen Points", and he took freedoms away from nations that were once home to US citizens. Wilson therefore spent 1919, touring the nation in order to build support in the Senate for their upcoming vote on the issue of whether the US would join the upcoming League of Nations. Wilson believed the League of Nations could rectify all wrongdoing he may have done at the Peace Treaty, and he felt it important to explain to the US citizens the necessity of joining the League in order to maintain peace, freedom, and independence for all nations on a world-wide scale.
2. How does the author appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional quality), and ethos (the writer's perceived character) with their argument?
President Wilson is one of the most emotionally driven speakers I have ever studied. The League of Nations speech appeals to the readers' pathos by his ability to make his argument relateable to all. Wilson's desperate plea to support the dead soldiers' mission by not allowing their sacrafice for freedom to go to waste, clearly hits home to all Americans. Wilson then goes on to appeal to our logos by explaining why a united front by all powerful nations is necessary; it will stop unnecessary and impassioned warfare from taking place because all problems will be faced by all countries, and therefore will not be hidden, ignored, or have rash decisions be made. Wilson's moral fiber is seen throughout this speech in that he clearly wants to make his dream of an end to all wars a reality. I believe Wilson conveyed his message to the people effectively, as his speech appeals to the heart and mind of the reader.
3. What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?
President Wilson's crusade toured him throughout the country, and shortly after giving this speech, he suffered a debilitating stroke that left him bed-bound. To his dismay, the Senate did not pass his bill, and the United States did not join the peace efforts of the League of Nations. It is hard to say whether the US's presence would have stopped the bloodshed of the upcoming WWII, however, it is clear that without the support of the United States, the League was not all it could have been.
4. Do you find the author's argument convincing? Why or why not?
I think the speech itself is very well written, and is clearly an earnest plea from a man who sees the importance in the League. After compromising away many of the "Fourteen Points" that Wilson went to Paris to ensure, I think it is likely that the citizens of the United States ran out of trust in Wilson's idealistic view of the future. As a reader of his speech today, I do believe his argument is convincing because he foresaw another world war without the League initiating cooperation and respect by all powers of the world- and clearly, his foresight was not incorrect.
I completely agree with you on the point that Woodrow Wilson definitely hit home with the emotional pleas of his speech. The picture that he paints for his audience of the cemetery near Paris and the little French women who cared for the graves of the American soldiers like it was their sons lying there pulls at the heartstrings of any listener. Especially parents who lost their son(s) in the war would probably be convinced to vote for the League of Nations. Wilson has superb skill to appeal to the pathos and logos of the people and he showed us this with his points on fighting for those dead soldiers in France. He also didnt forget to include in his speech the punishment of Germany. Wilson made sure to start off his speech with soemthing the whole audience wanted to hear. Paragraph three on page 330 says, "It is a very severe settlement with Germany, but there is not anything in it that she did not earn..." I think that once Wilson let the people know how Germany was being punished because of the war, that earned him many votes as well.
ReplyDeleteWoodrow Wilson knew what he needed to do on this tour and that was to convince the people that the League of Nations was indeed a benefit to all Americans. He needed the people's votes so he definitely made sure to say the truth but in the way they wanted to hear it. He knew who his words would be heard by so he made sure that it would earn him the votes. Like you said, he effectively layed out his speech that appealed to both the mind and heart of the listener or reader.
I also have to agree that the image of the French women tending to the graves of the American soldiers is very touching. Especially if one of those graves was your son or father or husband or brother. But, I actually found this speech less emotional than the War Address, 1917. I think President Wilson relied more on logos by trying to ‘sell’ this treaty to the American public and even more on ethos because it almost seems like what he is trying to ‘sell’ this time around is his dignity. I cannot help but compare the two speeches. In the War Address, 1917 he worked hard to convince the American people of their own good character by supporting the war. In Defense of the League of Nations, 1919 he works hard to convince the American people of HIS good character by asking them to embrace the League of Nations. His ’14 points’ were beat down and the only points he talks about are Article X and XI. This speech appears to be more the desperate cry from a man who has had to make deep concessions and then try to sell it to his people.
ReplyDeleteI think this speech is Woodrow Wilson at his best. His combination of facts and they way he incorporates emotion into his argument. Using the past events of war as fact he pulls forth emotions of fear that history might repeat itself if the action isn't taken of forming a League. Saying that by not forming a League, it would be an injustice to the people and that lives lost in the previous war might be in vain.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Wilson was convincing, I think that if the U.S. had joined with the League of Nations the outcome that we know of as todays world might have been different. America might not have become the super power that it is today if it had gone into allience with the league. Because we are now part of the United Nations, I think congress was just waiting for the right time for America to step in, a time and place for everything.