In 1861 near the beginning of the Civil War, Wendell Phillips—a white abolitionist—delivered a speech in which he glorified the achievements of a Haitian general named Toussaint-Louverture. During this time, the Northerners—which were Phillips’ audience—debated whether or not African Americans should be given the opportunity to serve in the military. For the purpose of gaining support to allow African Americans to be in the military, Phillips used Toussaint-Louverture and his accomplishments as a means to imply that African Americans have the ability—like Toussaint-Louverture—to be superior to whites during a war. He even compares Toussaint-Louverture to legendary figures such as Napoleon and Washington, claiming that Toussaint was far more exceptional as a leader. Considering the audience of this speech were pro-abolition, they would most likely admire Toussaint-Louverture as an effective leader and would support Philips’ viewpoint on allowing African Americans to serve in the military.
Phillips uses many strategies in his speech to draw in support for his purpose. The most effective strategy would be Phillips’ use of comparison between Toussaint-Louverture and other historical leaders. In the beginning of the speech, Phillips gives us an idea that a story of a leader can best be told by his or her people. For example he says, “If I stood here tonight to tell the story of Napoleon, I should take it from the lips of Frenchmen…Were I here to tell you the story of Washington, I should take it from you” (1-5). From these examples, he shifts to the biography of Toussaint-Louverture, where he states that this leader’s story was built reluctantly from the testimonies of Toussaint’s enemies. The fact that his own enemies were one of the sources of the accounts of his achievements gives us a notion that Toussaint was a very powerful leader compared to Washington and Napoleon; considering these leaders’ anecdotes weren’t given by their rivals. This significant distinction heightens the importance of Toussaint-Louverture and his achievements for the audience.
Phillips doesn’t stop the comparison here though. He continues up to an extent where he begins to point out the flaws of historical leaders such as Washington, and uses that as leverage to establish Toussaint-Louverture as more superior. In his speech he says, “I would call him Washington, but the great Virginian held slaves. [The author then gives us an example of Toussaint’s feat in the following sentence]. This man risked his empire rather than permit the slave-trade in the humblest village of his dominions.” (28-33). Realizing that their own country’s father has more flaws compared to an obscure African American general creates both a sense of shame in the audience and respect for Toussaint. This in turn creates a higher consideration for allowing African Americans to serve in the military.
Phillips uses many strategies in his speech to draw in support for his purpose. The most effective strategy would be Phillips’ use of comparison between Toussaint-Louverture and other historical leaders. In the beginning of the speech, Phillips gives us an idea that a story of a leader can best be told by his or her people. For example he says, “If I stood here tonight to tell the story of Napoleon, I should take it from the lips of Frenchmen…Were I here to tell you the story of Washington, I should take it from you” (1-5). From these examples, he shifts to the biography of Toussaint-Louverture, where he states that this leader’s story was built reluctantly from the testimonies of Toussaint’s enemies. The fact that his own enemies were one of the sources of the accounts of his achievements gives us a notion that Toussaint was a very powerful leader compared to Washington and Napoleon; considering these leaders’ anecdotes weren’t given by their rivals. This significant distinction heightens the importance of Toussaint-Louverture and his achievements for the audience.
Phillips doesn’t stop the comparison here though. He continues up to an extent where he begins to point out the flaws of historical leaders such as Washington, and uses that as leverage to establish Toussaint-Louverture as more superior. In his speech he says, “I would call him Washington, but the great Virginian held slaves. [The author then gives us an example of Toussaint’s feat in the following sentence]. This man risked his empire rather than permit the slave-trade in the humblest village of his dominions.” (28-33). Realizing that their own country’s father has more flaws compared to an obscure African American general creates both a sense of shame in the audience and respect for Toussaint. This in turn creates a higher consideration for allowing African Americans to serve in the military.
Below is a link to the speech:
ending paragraph of speech:
You think me the fanatic, for you read history, not with your eyes but with your prejudices. But fifty years hence, when Truth gets a hearing, the Muse of history will put Phocion for the Greek, Brutus for the Roman, Hampden for England, Fayette for France, choose Washington as the bright consummate flower of our earlier civilization, then, dipping her pen in the sunlight, will write in the clear blue, above them all, the name of the soldier, the statesman, the martyr, TOUSSAINT L'OUVERTURE.
Other Historical Novels and Film:
A Time for Titans by Vina Delmar
Lydia Bailey by Kenneth Roberts
Toussaint L'Ouverture film
You think me the fanatic, for you read history, not with your eyes but with your prejudices. But fifty years hence, when Truth gets a hearing, the Muse of history will put Phocion for the Greek, Brutus for the Roman, Hampden for England, Fayette for France, choose Washington as the bright consummate flower of our earlier civilization, then, dipping her pen in the sunlight, will write in the clear blue, above them all, the name of the soldier, the statesman, the martyr, TOUSSAINT L'OUVERTURE.
Other Historical Novels and Film:
A Time for Titans by Vina Delmar
Lydia Bailey by Kenneth Roberts
Toussaint L'Ouverture film
