1. What is the author arguing?
In his speech, the author, Woodrow
Wilson, urges that the United States join the League of Nations. He goes on to clear
misconceptions about the League of Nations, explain the benefits and securities
that it provides, and he finishes off by invoking the image of fallen soldiers,
reminding his fellow countrymen of the purpose for which so many of them laid down
their lives. He argues that joining the League of Nations will help prevent feature
wars and thus that is what the United States should do.
2. How does the author appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional
quality), and ethos (the writer’s perceived character) with their argument?
President Wilson often used
emotional qualities (pathos) to make his message more powerful. He strategically
began his speech by praising his countrymen before going on to correct their misconceptions
about the League of Nations. People are often more willing to listen and agree
after being complimented.
As he explains the treaties that
had been made with Germany and other countries, he states that their purpose was
to put the governments in the hands of its people, to bring about justice and liberation.
He calls it a “people’s treaty”. These words and phrases are reminiscent of the
core ideas that the United States was founded on so they were a great way to
win his countrymen’s favor.
Later in his speech he mentions
weeping mothers, who had lost their sons in the war, telling him “God bless
you, Mr. President.” He responds to this message by being confused about why
they would say that to him, and stating ways that he was at fault. Then he
explains the reason; he intended to make the most out of the sacrifice their
sons made. By initially responding to praise by pointing out his mistakes he
shows how he was humble. By stating that the mothers of fallen soldiers were on
his side, he gave his opposition the sense that they were not only arguing with
the president, but also with the sad mothers of their country’s brave soldiers.
Many people also may have wanted to take the mothers’ side out of sympathy for
their loss.
President Wilson mentioned his
visit to France and how some of the women there had “adopted” some of the
fallen soldiers and put flowers on their graves every day. He said they were “mothers
of those dear ghosts”. This showed that the people of the countries the U.S.
helped were grateful and they also understood the sacrifice. It made the foreigners
seem more like the American people and the similarities gave more reason to
support one another by joining the League of Nations. I’m guessing that some of
the U.S. citizens may have been against the League of Nations because they didn’t
want foreigners pushing their different ways of doing things onto them. By
showing the similarities it may have reduced some of those fears.
The
president also used logic (logos) to support his arguments. He explains the
ways that the League would regulate its members to minimize violence. One way was that before starting a war,
members would be required to let the League of Nations’ council first consider
the facts. This could take 6 months. If
they still wanted to war, they would be required to wait an additional 3
months. This gave 9 months to “cool down” and resolve tensions.
The League
of Nations would also prevent wars by being a jury that would detour wrong
doing. They would be setting a moral example. If a nation knew what they were
doing would be perceived as wrong, they would be less likely to do it in front
of the League of Nations.
President
Wilson used ethos (his perceived character) throughout his speech to appeal to
his fellow countrymen. He made it clear that he was for the people by
mentioning ways that people would be liberated and governments would be put
into their hands. He showed that he was the kind of person who cared about the
masses. When mentioning the weeping mothers he even took the fault for the war,
which showed his willingness to take responsibility. He mentioned what the fallen
soldiers fought for and showed that he shared the same goals. Overall, he
painted himself in a favorable light.
3. What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?
Even though the United States never
joined the League of Nations, this speech surely must have impacted some to
think about making stronger alliances, to prevent conflicts. This speech also elaborated
on some of the benefits of the League of Nations, and may have cleared up some
misconceptions. It is significant because of how passionate it was.
4. Do you find the author’s argument convincing? Why or why not?
I found
Woodrow Wilson’s argument very convincing because of all the emotion that was
in it. It brought up powerful subjects like justice, liberty, weeping mothers,
and fallen soldiers. He had logical reasons why and how the League of Nations
would reduce wars. He used subjects that a lot of people would agree on, like
putting the governments in the peoples’ hands, to help them board his train of
thought. The speech may not have covered many of the reasons why people were against
joining the League of Nations, but it gave powerful reasons for joining it.
“Why, my fellow citizens, should they pray God to bless me?
I advised the Congress of the United States to create the situation that lead
to the death of their sons. I ordered their sons overseas. I consented to their
sons being put in the most difficult part of the battle line, where death was
certain…” Defense of the League of Nations, 1919 pg. 333
In his speech, President Wilson
mentioned that he was at fault for the death of the mothers’ sons. Did this
hurt his image more then it may have helped it, admitting fault and taking responsibility?
“The most certain way that you can prove that a man is
mistaken is by letting all his neighbors know what he thinks, by letting all
his neighbors discuss what he thinks, and if he is in the wrong you will notice
that he will stay at home, he will not walk on the street. He will be afraid of
the eyes of his neighbors.” Defense of the League of Nations, 1919 pg. 331
Does this idea suppress the ideas
of the minority; say for example a smaller country with slightly different ideas?
Will they be too afraid to state their opinions and will they thus loose some
of their liberty?
