Will History Repeat Itself? Trump and the Art of Making Horrible Threats

January 6, 2021 Capitol Riot

When world leaders make threats, they usually mean them. The public must heed. Leaders make threats to guide their devoted followers. Donald Trump does this often. Hitler did it before him. Threats polarize the public, which divides itself into strong supporters and meek opponents. Now, since the polarizing leader cares little about the meek opponents, it is the strong supporters who make a difference. We often fear secret conspiracies, but it is the public announcements that should terrify us.

For example, debating against his successor, Joe Biden, in September 2020, Donald Trump specifically alerted a right-wing terrorist group to prepare in case he lost the election:

“Proud Boys, stand back and stand by. But I’ll tell you what, I’ll tell you what: somebody’s got to do something about Antifa and the left because this is not a right-wing problem this is a left-wing.” [sic]  

Threats Prepare for Action

“Stand back and stand by” was a threat that laid the groundwork for action. Leaders, even the cruelest, stupidest, most authoritarian leaders, need support. They need followers who they can mobilize into action. They need soldiers to carry the rifles. They need pilots to drop the bombs. They need angry mobs to crush the opposition. That is why they state their mission coldly, plainly, and bluntly.

Of course, on January 6, 2021 thousands of Capitol rioters followed Trump’s commands. Trump had alerted and guided his supporters. Trump’s comment to the Proud Boys was not an idle threat. It was part of his method. 

 We should never have dismissed his threat. Leaders must instruct their public. Indeed, in December 2020, after losing the election, Trump announced the January 6 riot in advance:

“Big protests in D.C. on January 6. Be there. Will be wild!”

Indeed, as prosecutor Jack Smith recently said about the January 6 riot, this “does not happen” without Trump.

Sadly, the public seemed neither to believe nor care that Trump had threatened to revolt against the election. When January 6 arrived, Congress went blithely along, solemnly counting the electoral votes, oblivious while an angry mob collected outside. Indeed, even today, years later, many people continue to deny the obvious.

Indeed, it was not just the Proud Boys who were ready to “stand back and stand by.” As I write this, a Republican-controlled Congressional subcommittee is holding hearings to rewrite the narrative of January 6. In those hearings, Trump-supporting Congressman Troy Nehls of Texas questioned reports that Capitol Police officers were injured that day. He said it was “Trump haters” who spread such claims. Last week a CBS/YouGov poll found that: “The percentage of Republicans who strongly disapprove of the Jan. 6 attack has dropped more than 20 points since January 2021 — from 51% then to 30% now.” Trump led; his voters followed.  

Trump's Speech of January 6, 2021: A "Firehose of Falsehood"

Trump's Second January 6 Speech Accidentally Spiked MAGA Conspiracy Theories


Does Trump Use Hitler’s Methods?

As I noted in my previous post, Hitler openly threatened the Holocaust in a major speech. 

Hitler Pretended to Be a Prophet, but He Was Really an Evil Führer

Hitler’s supporters trusted him. Did they really expect him to start a devastating war?  Did they really expect him to lead Germany truants? Probably not. But they should have believed his threats. Hitler was, months before the war, telling his supporters that massacres were coming. So, when Hitler told a cheering Reichstag in 1937, two years before the war in Europe, that he intended to abolish individual rights, he meant what he said:

“In the new German legal system which will be in force from now onwards the nation is placed above persons and property.”

Hitler was not just saying awful things, for he was also briefing and guiding his supporters. Totalitarians cannot, after all, work in secret!

Trump Continues to Make Threats

Greenland Town

Trump uses similar methods to propose annexing Greenland. Trump recently told a group of reporters:

“We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security.”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt chimed in:

“Utilizing the U.S. Military is always an option.”

Once again, despite a little public agitation, Trump’s meek opponents fail to take him seriously. A war over Greenland? It seems so incredible! Surely Trump is joking! Maybe Trump is just negotiating by extortion! Maybe he is just ranting!

Even podcaster Jesse Kelly, one of Trump’s most loyal supporters, denied that Trump meant what he said:

“People freaking out about Trump threatening military action for Greenland are all either dumb or lying. This is how he negotiates everything. And he’s been doing so publicly for a [sic] like 50 years now. Carrot and stick. He’s gonna buy it. He was always gonna buy it.”

How naïve! No, a thousand times no. Donald Trump, like all world leaders, leads by communicating. There is no other way to lead! He gives speeches. He makes statements. Those speeches and statements guide his supporters and organize their actions. The fact that he is a leader means that he is not working alone. He is leading other people. Now, Trump might change his mind, or his worried donors might stop him, but no one should ignore him. 

Worse, is our constitutional republic dying? Trump commented, just today, that:

“When you think of it, we shouldn't even have an election.” 

Was he facetious, as his spokesperson later claimed? Was this a joke, or a threat?

Totalitarian Rulers Lead by Threats

Polarization in Steve Bannon's Value Voters Summit Speech 

Trump does not need a majority. No polarizing leader needs a majority. All he needs is to motivate a core group of fanatical supporters. That is what polarization means. So, should we take Trump seriously when he threatens to war against our friends and neighbors? Honestly, we are fools if we do not. Should we take pleasure if his poll numbers drop? Maybe not. Once leaders start to polarize us, what difference do opinion polls make?

Prophecies? Threats? Bloviating? Instructions? Or warnings?  

by William D. Harpine

_______________

Research Note: One finds surprisingly few research studies of Hitler's speaking. I'll mention two of the best. First, Haig A. Bosmajian's 1960 article "The Nazi Speaker's Rhetoric," is a good place to start. Unfortunately, it is behind a paywall, although a good library might be able to find a copy. 

Also, Randall L. Bytwerk's book Bending Spines: The Propagandas of Nazi Germany and the German Democratic Republic delves into the terrifying rhetorical pathology that made Hitler possible. I defy anyone to read this book and not see connections with Trump's rhetorical style.

There is no better source about polarization than the masterful study, The Rhetoric of Agitation and Control, by John W. Bowers, Donovan J. Ochs, Richard J. Jensen, and David P. Schulz.

On Trump's persuasive methods, Demagogue for President: The Rhetorical Genius of Donald Trump by Jennifer Mercieca is worth a careful look.

Copyright 2026 by William D. Harpine

Image of January 6 Capitol riot, by TapTheForwardAssist, 

Creative Commons License, via Wikimedia Commons

Image of Greenland town: Buiobuione, 

Creative Commons license, via Wikimedia Commons

Hitler Pretended to Be a Prophet, but He Was Really an Evil Führer

Reichstag in Ruins after WWII

 
I’ve been a prophet in my life very often and was mostly laughed at.” 

So said Adolf Hitler to the Reichstag on January 30, 1939. Was Hitler a prophet, as he claimed, or was he a tyrant organizing the Holocaust? Was Hitler’s speech a prophecy, or a warning? For he followed the path of all dictators, using speech to guide his foolish supporters—a path that want-to-be tyrants still follow today. He laid out his conspiracy theory, blaming Jews, not himself, for the coming war, and urged his supporters to unify. None of this was secret. To organize Germany for conflict, Hitler told his country exactly what to expect. Did the world heed his warning? No, sadly, not really. Do we, today, remember his warning? Of course not. 

Given the strong support that German Christians gave to Nazism, it is no accident that Hitler called himself a prophet. We think that a prophet predicts the future. However, someone who shapes the future would not be a prophet, but a leader – maybe a führer. To carry out his schemes, Hitler shaped the future. He identified an enemy and told his supporters how to meet the threat. That enemy did not need to be real. A conspiracy theory would do just fine.

Hitler, the Harbinger of the Modern Christian Right, Gave His Inaugural Speech

    

The Conspiracy Theory

Anyway, to pursue his theme of prophecy, Hitler needed to identify an enemy. He continued:  

“At the time of my struggle for power, it was primarily the Jewish people who only accepted my prophecies with laughter.” 

Prophecies? More like warnings. Hitler was not predicting the future; he was shaping it. Indeed, in this terrifying oration, with world war only months in the future, Hitler bluntly announced – prophesized – his plan to murder Jews en masse. He said: 

“Today I want to be a prophet again: If international financial Jewry in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the peoples once again into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth and thus the victory of Judaism, but annihilation the Jewish race in Europe.” [italics added] 

As he spoke, Hitler blamed Judaism for the coming world war:

“I believe that if the Jewish international press and propaganda laws were to be stopped, the understanding between the peoples would be established very quickly. Only these elements are constantly hoping for a war. But I believe in a long peace.”

And, as Hitler continued to rant against Jews:

“International Jewry may hope to achieve satisfaction in their vindictiveness and greed for profit, but that they represent the monstrous slander that can be done to a great and peace-loving people.”

So, Hitler predicted the coming war (that was his prophecy) and blamed it on Jews. 


The Plan

Holocaust Memorial, Albania

Now, why would he speak so boldly? First, leaders need popular support. Hitler could not murder six million Jews by himself. He needed to inspire countless thousands of men to fire the rifles and run the gas chambers. Second, he needed tell his followers his goals and ambitions. Otherwise, how could they act on their leader’s behalf? They needed guidance! Hitler always knew that public speaking was a leader’s most potent tool, and he had mastered the art. After all, a dictator can only lead if enough people are willing to follow. Dictators do not only rule by spreading fear, but also by persuading. 

Truly, Hitler, who we today consider to personify evil, did not became a dictator by himself. Nor could he wreak evil by himself. No, he became Chancellor of Germany by winning an election and building a coalition. Once in power, he transformed German government into a personality cult. As he did so, he publicly announced the evil that he planned.  

So, when he spread his conspiracy theory (“international financial Jewry”) and blamed the victims for his own wickedness (“plunging the peoples once again into a world war”), Hitler used his speech to set the philosophical and political stage for genocide. Nazis needed enemies! Only in a twisted sense would we call this prophecy.  Hitler’s underlying argument, his implied enthymeme, was that he prophesized war and strove to make his prophecy come true.  

Adolf Hitler's Speech in the Berlin Sportpalast: God and Power

The Lesson Forgotten

Hamburg after WWII Bombing

Yet, expecting him to help the economy (for a while, he did!), Hitler’s short-sighted supporters worried little. Instead of being chastened, they were inspired. History teaches the result. Mass murder. A brutal war. Seven short years in the future, Germany would be reduced to a pile of smoking rubble. 

Now, Hitler did not really state a prophecy. What he in fact did was to lead his deluded followers. Indeed, in this speech Hitler called for the “disciplined and obedient popular community.” Germany and the world should have heard a warning.

Hitler was briefing his enthusiastic faction. Germany was no poverty-stricken nest of ignorance. No, Germany in 1939 was a center of religion, philosophy, art, and music. The great philosopher Martin Heidegger and the musician Herbert von Karajan threw their arts behind Hitler’s cause. Almost all religious leaders acquiesced; indeed, many threw themselves behind him. Religious martyrs like Dietrich Bonhoeffer were few. If Nazism could arise in Germany, it could arise anywhere. It could arise in the United States of America. Do not ever think that it cannot. Perhaps it is arising today. Are there similarities today? 

"Peace for Our Time?" Neville Chamberlain's Speech about Appeasement

Leaders need supporters, and leaders guide them by speaking to them. When they issue prophecies, we must hear warnings. When they state their seamy values, we must hear plans. When they say things that seem too awful to believe, we need to believe them all the more. Will people listen? Will people learn to listen?  

by William D. Harpine

_________

Research Notes:  

The prophets of Hebrew Scripture were not soothsayers so much as they were moral guides. They warned kings and citizens of impending danger, urging them to reform. This higher road of prophecy is the topic of James Darsey’s prize-winning book, The Prophetic Tradition and Radical Rhetoric in America.  

When people ignore clear warnings like Hitler’s, this may be due to a psychological or persuasion concept called the incredulity effect. When the speaker says something more extreme than the audience expects, people may mentally process it by thinking, maybe, “a great Christian leader like Hitler would never mean that.” They might even think, “he was being sarcastic,” “he is exaggerating,” “he is being metaphorical,” or whatever. Listeners can deny it at the moment they hear it: “a great Christian leader like Hitler would never say that.” Our sense of reality runs from us easily. 

Copyright © 2026 by William D. Harpine

Image of Reichstag:

No. 5 Army Film and Photo Section, Army Film and Photographic Unit

Charles Henry Hewitt, Imperial War Museum, public domain

Image of Holocaust Memorial, Albania:

Bdx, Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication., via Wikimedia Commons

Image of Hamburg, Crown Copyright, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Trump's Second January 6 Speech Accidentally Spiked MAGA Conspiracy Theories

The US Capitol on January 6th

“I know how you feel,” said President Donald J. Trump to the defeated crowd of rioters.

Today is the anniversary of the most shameful day in American history: January 6, 2021, when a horde of screaming, violent lunatics attacked the United States Capitol to stop the election count and certification of the votes that resulted in Joe Biden becoming the next president. Hours later, as the riot neared its unsuccessful end,
Trump emerged from hiding and briefly urged the ignorant insurgents to give up and go home. History has largely ignored that speech. Yet, we should not ignore it, for Trump’s own words devastated the ludicrous conspiracy theories, including his own conspiracy theories, which would soon follow.

Today, I make one simple point: Trump’s short speech totally refuted the leading January 6 conspiracy theories. Indeed, he refuted some of his own subsequent conspiracy theories. In fact, he noted - indeed, proudly admired - that the January 6 crowd insurrected against the United States on his own behalf, and he blessed them. They were not Democrats disguised as MAGA Republicans. They were not Antifa. They were not federal agents leading a “fedsurrection.” 

The bizarre conspiracy theories spread in violation of all reason. It is time to put them down, not by quoting the mainstream media (which conspiracy theorists never trust), nor by checking facts (since, after all, conspiracy theories hold facts in contempt), but by quoting Trump’s exact words. Trump’s own statements destroyed the conspiracy theories.

Yes, January 6 conspiracy theories spread from the outset, angrily endorsed by top Republicans. Several Republican members of Congress, including Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Ron Johnson specifically questioned whether federal officials supported the January 6 riot, presumably to make Trump look bad. My own senator, Ted Cruz, said, “A lot of Americans are concerned that the federal government deliberately encouraged illegal and violent conduct on Jan. 6.”  Representative Clay Higgins claimed that FBI agents were in the crowd, “inside the Capitol dressed as Trump supporters.” Social media pundits regularly castigate Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi for enabling the riot. Indeed, years later, Trump himself blamed the riot on Pelosi. 

These absurd accusations resist endless refutation, but can they survive Trump’s own words? I don’t see how! So, let us remember Trump’s concluding speech that day! Let us look at his exact words. 

First, in his mercifully brief but despicable speech, Trump not only identified with the conspiracy theorists but shared their suffering:

“I know your pain, I know you're hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election and everyone knows it, especially the other side.”

Trump continued by lying that “this was a fraudulent election.”

Second, Trump praised the rioters:

“We love you. You're very special. You've seen what happens. You see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil.”

Trump would never have praised Antifa, nor would he have praised FBI agents who supposedly rioted against him. He praised the crowd because he knew they were his people. No other motive could explain his speech. 

Finally, Trump, identified with the rioters’ false anger but acknowledged that the riot had been defeated and the protestors needed to go home:

“But you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great people in law and order. We don't want anybody hurt.”

Finally, once again sympathizing with the rioters, Trump told them:

“I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.”

Donald J. Trump

Now, the people who falsely believe that the 2020 election was stolen will never learn, will never change, and will never accept reality. I can’t help them. Let us, nevertheless, notice that Trump himself knew that the rioters were on his side. Trump admired them. Trump said that he admired them. He said he loved them!

So, the rioters were not a hidden cabal of Nancy Pelosi supporters. Trump would never have loved them. This was not a cabal of federal agents who defied Trump’s authority as their president and demonstrated against his electoral defeat. Trump would not have loved them, either. These were Trump’s people, and Trump acknowledged them, and Trump shared their pain. Period.

To believe that the rioters were anyone other than Trump’s most fanatical supporters defies, not just logic, not just facts, but Trump’s own heartfelt words. Trump and his supporters can, and do, spread other lies to justify January 6, but this particular set of falsehoods collapses under Trump’s own language.

This was lucky for the cause of truth. In his brief, lie-filled speech, Trump could, ironically, not resist speaking from his true, albeit foul, heart. He loved the rioters, empathized with their fears, and sympathized with their goals. As it happens, confirmed liar that he was, Trump still could not resist telling the one central truth.

To overcome conspiracy theories poses a great challenge. Conspiracy theorists ignore fact-checkers and cling to their make-believe world like a seamy security blanket. They sneer at anyone who might question their narrative. They cannot, however, conceivably question the words of Donald Trump himself. By momentarily stating the truth, Trump dissipated an entire set of conspiracy theories. All we need to do is to remember what Trump said on that shameful day. From speech, a hidden truth. “We love you,” Trump said. “I know how you feel.” 

Trump's First Speech of January 6, 2021: A "Firehose of Falsehood"

Liz Cheney and the Firehose of Truth: Using the Republicans' Text Messages Against Them

by William D. Harpine

_____________________

For my other posts about January 6 rhetoric, search for "January 6" in the box at right.

Follow-up: After I posted this, I saw that the White House published a note that, indeed, repeated the same conspiracy theories that Trump carelessly discredited in his second January 6 speech. How shameless, and oh, how easily people forget! 

Copyright © 2026 by William D. Harpine

Official 2025 Inaugural Portrait of Donald J. Trump, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Image of January 6 Capitol riot, by TapTheForwardAssist, Creative Commons License, via Wikimedia Commons

Lincoln’s Cooper Union Speech Turned the Tables on the Slavers

Abraham Lincoln

“What is the frame of government under which we live?”

Future President Abraham Lincoln asked that question during his speech of February 27, 1860, at New York City’s Cooper Union. Speaking like the skilled lawyer he was, Lincoln turned the tables against the slave states’ claim that they, and they alone, stood for the United States’ constitutional traditions. Thus, he skillfully used the conservatives’ own argument against them. Surprisingly, Lincoln presented himself as the true conservative in the slavery debate.

Slave owners had claimed that the federal government had no authority to restrict the spread of slavery to new territories. Lincoln, in contrast, wished to prevent the spread of slavery to new territories. In this speech, Lincoln used the historical record to show that tradition supported his view, not the slavers’ views. Sadly, even though Lincoln established that his opponents’ beliefs supported his position, not their own, the slavery dispute stubbornly resisted even Lincoln’s powerful logic.


Turning the Tables, Step #1

Beginning this magnificent speech, Lincoln insisted that he would speak from tradition:

“The facts with which I shall deal this e7vening are mainly old and familiar; nor is there anything new in the general use I shall make of them.”

Far from using the more radical abolitionists’ blood-curdling language, Lincoln emphasized the traditional: “old and familiar;” “nor is there anything new.”

Continuing, Lincoln endorsed the traditional perspective. He quoted the pro-slavery argument of his erstwhile political opponent, Illinois’ pro-slavery United States Senator Stephen Douglas:

“In his speech last autumn, at Columbus, Ohio, as reported in ‘The New-York Times,’ Senator Douglas said:

“‘Our fathers, when they framed the Government under which we live, understood this question just as well, and even better, than we do now.’”

Douglas had framed the argument as a return to the principles of “our fathers.” Lincoln pounced on Douglas’ view that “our fathers” understood the traditions better than anyone. This enabled Lincoln to turn Douglas’ argument against him:

“I fully indorse this, and I adopt it as a text for this discourse. I so adopt it because it furnishes a precise and an agreed starting point for a discussion between Republicans and that wing of the Democracy headed by Senator Douglas. It simply leaves the inquiry: ‘What was the understanding those fathers had of the question mentioned?’”

When turning the tables, the speaker accepts the opponent’s premise and uses it to prove the opposite conclusion. The argument’s power came from the fact that Douglas had handed Lincoln his argument. Lincoln did not say that tradition was wrong, nor did he say that we need to create new and progressive ideas. Instead, he co-opted Douglas' proud claim as “a text for this discourse.” Once he proved his point, neither Douglas nor any other advocate of slavery could refute Lincoln’s premise. After all, it was their own premise!

Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address: “The Better Angels of Our Nature”

Turning the Tables, Step #2

Lincoln reframed the slavery debate by setting the debate as a dispute over what the tradition was rather than making an argument for change. Lincoln did not ask whether the founders of our Republic were wrong to endorse slavery. No! That would reject the constitutional tradition, which did accept slavery. Instead, Lincoln contended that southern secessionists misunderstood the traditions. That might sound tricky, but Lincoln cited the historical record. Mocking Douglas, Lincoln asked:

“What is the question which, according to the text, those fathers understood ‘just as well, and even better than we do now?’

“It is this: Does the proper division of local from federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, forbid our Federal Government  to control as to slavery in our Federal Territories?”

Thus, Lincoln sidestepped the question of states’ rights. For secessionists took their legal framework from the notion of states’ rights, as embodied in the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States Constitution. In contrast, Lincoln pointed that the Constitution did not provide for territorial rights. Making a close, lawyerly distinction, Lincoln reminded his audience that territorial rights were not states’ rights. If more states were admitted to the union, the principle of states’ rights might give them the legal privilege to choose whether they would, or would not, permit slavery. If they were merely territories, however, Lincoln assigned that right to Congress. Furthermore, as we shall see, he drew that conclusion from tradition—indeed, repeating Douglas’ exact words, “our fathers.”

Cooper Union, Foundation Building

Turning the Tables, Step #3

So, to demonstrate that the nation’s founders supported his view, while turning Douglas’ premise against him, Lincoln examined the historical record. Again, if one wants to be traditional, where could one turn, if not to history? Lincoln cited the historical fact that in 1784, before the Constitution was adopted, three men who would later serve in the Constitutional Convention voted to withhold slavery from the Northwest Territory. Lincoln also cited a 1789 law, the very first law passed under the new constitution, which prohibited slavery in the Northwest Territory. The bill’s author was, in fact, Thomas Fitzsimmons, who had served in the Constitutional Convention. The bill was then passed into law with unanimous consent, in a Congress that, as Lincoln explained, included fully sixteen members of the Constitutional Convention.

Thus, Lincoln concluded from historical events that the very same people who wrote the Constitution felt were willing to prohibit slavery in a territory:

“This shows that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, properly forbade Congress to prohibit slavery in the federal territory.”

Continuing, Lincoln cited the vote of Rufus King, who participated in the Constitutional Convention, to prohibit slavery in Missouri. Lincoln did acknowledge that Charles Pinckney voted against such a prohibition. Still, summing up several cases, Lincoln used the historical record to show that twenty-three of the thirty-nine participants in the Constitutional Convention had, at one time or another, voted to prohibit slavery in one territory or another. In a long, argumentative sentence, Lincoln was now ready to deride Douglas’ claim that the "fathers” of our Republic “understood this question just as well, and even better, than we do now:”

“Here, then, we have twenty-three out of our thirty-nine fathers ‘who framed the government under which we live,’ who have, upon their official responsibility and their corporal oaths, acted upon the very question which the text affirms they ‘understood just as well, and even better than we do now;’ and twenty-one of them—a clear majority of the whole ‘thirty-nine’ — so acting upon it as to make them guilty of gross political impropriety and willful perjury, if, in their understanding, any proper division between local and federal authority, or anything in the Constitution they had made themselves, and sworn to support, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the federal territories.”

Again, Lincoln quoted Douglas exact words: “understood just as well, and even better than we do now.” Having found that a slim, but real, majority of the Constitution’s framers explicitly supported his position, Lincoln concluded, with more than a little sarcasm:

“Thus the twenty-one acted; and, as actions speak louder than words, so actions, under such responsibility, speak still louder.”

By that point, Lincoln had taken the same premise that Douglas praised— to revere “our fathers— and turned it to his own purposes.   

Turning Tradition against the Traditionalists

Lincoln craftily avoided picturing himself as a reformer, a radical, or even a liberal. No, he spoke as the true traditionalist. Marshaling fact after fact from the historical record, argument after argument from tradition, Lincoln had cited, not only the Constitution’s text, but the actions of the men who wrote it: the “fathers” who Douglas had cited as the ultimate constitutional authorities.

Lincoln’s proposals were, by the standards of the time, moderate. He did not, in this particular speech, protest against slavery. He did not ask the slave states to free their slaves. Lincoln’s consistent argument during his run for the presidency, and, indeed, during the early years of his administration, was that slavery should not spread, while the existing institution should be left alone. He had earlier prophesied in his “House Divided” speech that the United States would eventually become either slave or free, but he had always held short of abolitionism. Unlike Frederick Douglass or William Lloyd Garrison, who opposed slavery in all forms, and who were, at the time, considered to be dangerous radicals, Lincoln stood in the middle.

One Searing Phrase: Abraham Lincoln’s “House Divided” Speech

Frederick Douglass’ 1852 Fourth of July Speech and the Christian Right 

Instead of sounding radical, Lincoln argued like an attorney proving his case in court, or a debater who crushed his opponents’ case with a deluge of facts. On the one hand, the Cooper Union speech may have contributed to Lincoln’s nomination by the Republican Party and his subsequent election to the presidency. Newspapers published the speech’s text, while the Republican Party distributed it in pamphlets and flyers. On the other hand, Lincoln's carefully reasoned arguments could never soothe white Southerners’ fears. Despite his many assurances that he would leave southern slavery alone, South Carolina shelled Fort Sumter barely six weeks after Lincoln took office in 1861.

Red Cloud's Cooper Union Speech

Indeed, although Lincoln utterly and masterfully turned the tables against the South’s philosophical and historical argument, his speech proved nothing so much as the sad fact that logic can fail to persuade people. Yes, Lincoln made a powerful argument that tradition upheld his legal position and proved that the facts contradicted Douglas’ argument from tradition. Unfortunately, by 1860, the United States had fractured beyond repair. Lincoln’s Cooper Union speech had pummeled the slavers’ philosophical and legal niceties into logical rubble. The nation lurched into the Civil War anyway.

“What is the frame of government under which we live?” Given the turmoil of the Trump years, I am not certain that we have answered that question, even today. 

by William D. Harpine 

____________


Research Note: Communication scholars Michael C. Leff and Gerald P. Mohrmann published a detailed analysis of Lincoln’s Cooper Union speech. Large libraries can probably find a copy for you. Their article, which is considered a masterpiece in the neo-Aristotelian theory of rhetoric, suggests that the speech was a major factor in Lincoln’s successful election.

Even more remarkably, in his book The Ethics of Rhetoric, conservative scholar Richard Weaver develops the surprising view that Abraham Lincoln was a true conservative. Weaver reasoned that, although Lincoln spoke for progressive ideas, he rested his arguments on fundamental definitions and moral attitudes. Anyone who wants to understand Lincoln in particular, or, more broadly, rhetoric’s ethical foundations, should study Weaver’s book. For that matter, anyone who wants to be a conservative should ignore Ayn Rand and the soulless politicians, and instead carefully ponder Weaver’s uplifting insights.

Historical Note: The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art is a small but renowned university in lower Manhattan. Business magnate Peter Cooper provided a massive endowment that enables students to attend at either free or greatly discounted tuition. Lincoln was the most renowned of the many prominent speakers who have appeared in the famous Great Hall in the basement of Cooper Union’s Foundation Building. 

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image of Abraham Lincoln, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Image of Cooper Union Foundation Building, Eden, Janine and Jim, Creative Commons License

American Presidents and the Rhetoric of Virtue

William McKinley

“We hope that all who are represented here may be moved to higher and nobler effort for their own and the world's good.”

– President William McKinley, Buffalo, New York, September 5, 1901

As the nation’s political and symbolic leaders, United States presidents have long encouraged public virtue. Until this week, that is, when virtue seems to get lost in the muck, as President Donald Trump posted a bizarre video that depicts him as a fighter pilot, wearing a royal crown, divebombing peaceful demonstrators with his own fecal matter.

Trump’s disgusting video, which his political movement has solidly supported, invites us to put aside the day’s horrors, the unspeakable disgrace, the indelible contempt that Trump has brought to our nation, and to remember that American presidents have regularly urged their fellow citizens to live virtuous lives, to follow the honorable course, and to do right by one another. For one of the President’s traditional roles is to bring out our best. And this is exactly what previous presidents have undertaken – over, over, and over. Until now. Let us not wallow in disgust and Trump’s infantile behavior. Let us, instead, remember uplifting rhetoric’s long tradition. Let us remember history’s finest lessons! We can begin with our first president.

McKinley's Last Speech: Inclusive, Rational, Persuasive

 

George Washington

George Washington immediately set his new nation’s moral tone. In his First Inaugural Address, he offered his fellow citizens principles of honor and moral behavior. Indeed, Washington took it for granted that, despite their policy disagreements, the opposing political movements would all forever agree on basic principles: honor, freedom, and justice. He further asserted that only good and moral people could enjoy free government and command the world’s admiration: 

“… the foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality, and the preeminence of free government be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its citizens and command the respect of the world.”

The Father of Our Country continued:

“… there is no truth more thoroughly established than that there exists in the economy and course of nature an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness.”

A population that forgets virtue has forsaken happiness! Words to ponder indeed. The Father of Our Country set the tone, and Abraham Lincoln, who was perhaps, our greatest president, continued it while facing the most trying circumstances.


Abraham Lincoln

Abraham Lincoln

Even during the trials of the American Civil War, a violent struggle like no other that our nation has experienced, the President of the United States urged reconciliation, forgiveness, and mutual respect.

Abraham Lincoln, who preserved the Union, was perhaps the most elegant speaker our nation has ever produced. And maybe the wisest. Let us consider the words that concluded his Second Inaugural Address in 1865. He gave that speech at the end of the Civil War, a time when grief, hatred, and bloody horror spread across the entire land, when few households had not lost a husband, son, or brother, and urged the warring parties to unite with forgiveness and kindness:

“With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.”

“With malice toward none!” Not just victory, but “a just, and a lasting peace.”

Did the reunited nation fully live up to Lincoln’s plea? Of course not. A disgruntled Southerner soon shot Lincoln dead. As the years passed, the nation was wracked by the Ku Klux Klan, Jim Crow laws, racial segregation, the myth of the Lost Cause, and the violent oppression of civil rights.

Abraham Lincoln and the Definition of “Liberty:” A Lesson for Our Time

Nevertheless, Lincoln urged the nation to do what was right, to live virtuously, and to overcome our differences. We would all – all of us – have been better off if we had lived by his rules. Lincoln tried, almost with his dying breath, to put the United States on the right path.


John F. Kennedy

John Kennedy was, in his own way, as eloquent as Lincoln. Like Washington and Lincoln, he encouraged patriotism and selflessness. In his Inaugural Address, Kennedy stated a model of virtue and citizenship that should inspire every American patriot:

“Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”

Not only did he urge Americans to “ask what you can do for your country,” but, recognizing that national power brings moral obligations, Kennedy encouraged the entire world to work for freedom and justice:

“My fellow citizens of the world, ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”

(That, by the way, was my mother’s favorite passage from Kennedy’s great speech.) A decorated veteran of World War II, Kennedy knew that the United States led the free world and that other nations looked to us for an example.

John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address: A Call to Service


Ronald Reagan

John Kennedy was not the last president to express moral sentiments as the leader of the free world! Speaking to the United Nations General Assembly

Reagan at the UN

in New York City, Ronald Reagan reminded the assembled world leaders of the “fellowship of the human race.” He praised the human spirit:

“The responsibility of this assembly -- the peaceful resolution of disputes between peoples and nations -- can be discharged successfully only if we recognize the great common ground upon which we all stand: our fellowship as members of the human race, our oneness as inhabitants of this planet, our place as representatives of billions of our countrymen whose fondest hope remains the end to war and to the repression of the human spirit.”

Reagan perfectly well understood the traumas of human history, the injustices that people have wreaked upon one another. Nevertheless, he urged the United Nations to look past those horrors to create a better world:

“Yes, the deeds of infamy or injustice are all recorded, but what shines out from the pages of history is the daring of the dreamers and the deeds of the builders and the doers.”

Dreamers and builders and doers! Can we live by Reagan’s wisdom? That was in the old days, of course, when American leadership was unquestioned. 

The Lesson to Remember!

For the lesson that Reagan, and many other presidents, have taught is a lesson in rhetorical leadership.

Of course, I could go on. In his Second Inaugural Address, President William McKinley, a heartfelt conservative, told the nation to move past party loyalty: “There are some national questions in the solution of which patriotism should exclude partisanship.” Alas, McKinley’s simple lesson seems to have vanished in the mists. A century later, President Barack Obama reminded the United States that, “In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned.” 

Yes, greatness must indeed be earned. Boasting and bragging make no one great. Sadly, we now seem to live in an era in which people mock virtue. We now live in an era when the current President of the United States celebrates the vilest behavior imaginable. Now, yes, the reader might respond that not all presidents have been virtuous people. The reader might remark that the United States has not always done right. That’s not the point: we all have faults. The most important thing is that, recognizing their role as leaders, American presidents have consistently spoken to guide the nation onto a right path.

Leadership is not all about power, cruelty, and violence. The most powerful leadership is moral leadership. The most powerful leadership comes when we inspire ourselves and others to be our best, to strive for excellence, to live lives of compassion, justice, and, yes, virtue. The most powerful leadership is to guide people on the right path.

The most disturbing part of Donald Trump’s disgusting doggy-doo video is not just that he published it, for nothing that Trump does surprises me. No, the most disturbing part is that his leading supporters not only tolerate, but excuse and even celebrate Trump as he leads the United States into depravity. Yes, leaders can move us down, just as they can move us up.

Still, all is not lost. Our forebears still guide us. We can still act “with malice toward none.” We can still remember to “ask what you can do for your country.” High school history students across the country were taught those lessons. Our presidents’ wise speeches laid down our moral principles. Let us remember them. Let us try to live by them. For true conservativism comes from true traditions, and a proud line of American presidents have handed those traditions down to us. Let us live by them.

by William D. Harpine

Copyright 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image of William McKinley, public domain, Library of Congress  

Image of Abraham Lincoln, public domain, Library of Congress

Image of Ronald Reagan, Public Domain, Ronald Reagan Library

Red Cloud's Cooper Union Speech

Red Cloud, c. 1877

“The Good Spirit made us both.” So said Oglala Lakota Chief Red Cloud, speaking at New York City’s Cooper Union on June 16, 1870. In this famous address, Red Cloud established the common humanity that his people shared with the white people. To show that common humanity while also revealing the resultant injustices, Red Cloud used the classic rhetorical device of parallel language structures. 

Red Cloud's simple but powerful language compared and contrasted the two populations. Indeed, one encounters few if any speakers in the American rhetorical tradition who equaled Red Cloud’s simple eloquence. It was an eloquence of connecting power. His parallel words made his thoughts echo off one another. His parallel language established the greatness and yet the injustice of our common humanity.

For, indeed, common humanity was Red Cloud’s theme. “God Almighty has made us all,” Red Cloud said, “and He is here to bless what I have to say to you today.”

As he began by delivering this speech’s most famous passage, Red Cloud compared and contrasted how the white people had received many advantages, while his own people had few and were declining:

“When God Almighty made you he made you all white and clothed you. When He made us He made us with red skins and poor. When you first came we were very many, and you were few; now you are many, and we are getting very few, and we are poor.”

God’s creation creates a frame for that entire passage. That framing helps Red Cloud compare the incidental and meaningless accident of skin color against the contrasting groups’ economic and social status: “you all white and clothed you… us with red skins and poor.” The parallel phrasing contrasted the two groups: “made you… made us.” The repeated phrases linked two opposing thoughts. Red Cloud followed this with a further contrast, still keeping the structures parallel: “now you are many, and we are getting very few.” He concluded the passage, pointing out that his people remained poor. As usual, the rich and powerful overwhelmed the poor – a seemingly

Cooper Union, NYC

inevitable consequence of what we proudly call civilization. 

Then, to establish his credibility, Red Cloud reminded the audience that, “I am a representative of the original American race, the first people of this continent.” Continuing, Red Cloud contrasted the advantages that civilization had given to the white people against his own’s peoples’ struggles:

“The Great Spirit made us poor and ignorant; made you rich and wise and more skillful in things which we know nothing about. The Great Father, the Good Father in Heaven, made you all to eat tame game and us to eat wild game.” 

Again, still sounding fatalistic, Red Cloud continued to compare and contrast. “Poor and ignorant,” he said, contrasted with “rich and wise.” God, “the Good Father,” created the world for the white people to eat tame game and the Lakota to eat wild game. By repeating “game” instead of “meat,” Red Cloud reminded his audience that the cows, chickens, and pigs that white people raised on farms were, after all, just animals that had been tamed. If he had said, “You eat farm stock, while we hunt for food,” the literal meaning would remain, but, without the parallel language, the commonality would have vanished. 

After reviewing the various injustices and broken treaties, Red Cloud made a moral plea:

“I want you to help me get what is right and just.”

Still using parallel language to powerful advantage, Red Cloud pled, not for riches or power, but for justice:

“Look at me. I am poor and naked, but I am the Chief of the Nation. We do not want riches, but we want our children trained and brought up properly. We look to you for your sympathy. Riches will do us no good. We cannot take away into the other world anything we have here. We want to have peace and love.”

As we reflect on that plea, we see more contrasts: Red Cloud was “poor and naked,” but he was also “the Chief of the Nation.” And what did he ask for? He spurned greed, instead pleading for the next generation: “do not want riches, but want our children trained.” Comparing the idleness of wealth against the benefits of doing things the right way! His language followed a familiar pattern, “Not the one, but the other.” Contrasting! Red Cloud showed the power of bringing up children precisely by contrasting that virtue against riches. The comparison and contrast created a plea that inspired just because it was more reasonable.

As he concluded, Red Cloud reinforced his key point, which was that different peoples can still understand and trust one another:

“I am glad I have come here. You belong in the East and I belong in the West. And I am glad that I have come here and that we could understand one another.”

The white people belong in one place, and he belonged in another. “You belong...I belong.” Another comparison and contrast. Yet, as I read those words from so long ago, I could not help but to think of the old Christian hymn, “In Christ there is no East or West.” And as I reflect on that, I, for one, question whether we are ever wise to relegate fellow humanity to different places, fates, or advantages.

Eloquent language is not just beautiful. No! Far from it! Eloquent language makes us think. By comparing and contrasting, Red Cloud gave his audience a chance to slow down and think a little bit. I, for one, am thinking a little bit today. For today, October 13, 2025, some Americans are celebrating Indigenous Peoples Day, while others celebrate Columbus Day. Do we celebrate the conquered, or the conqueror? I hope that thinking about Red Cloud’s powerful, eloquent speech helps all of us reflect on this day of memory.

by William D. Harpine   

_____________

Historical Note: Red Cloud lived a long life and was renowned both as a military and political leader of his people. He converted to Christianity and was renowned for helping his dispossessed population as they adjusted to life on reservations. For people who want to learn a little more about Red Cloud’s life, here is a brief biography.

Theoretical Note: The ancient rhetorical theorists called Red Cloud’s technique “syncrisis,” which means that the speaker compared and contrasted two things by using parallel language structures. It is an excellent speaking technique that slows people down and helps them think. 

People who examine Native American speeches need to be aware that many of the speech texts that have come down to us are of questionable accuracy, as they were often revised to convey a white editor’s version or impression of what the speaker should have said. In contrast, Red Cloud’s speech at Cooper Union appears to be the product of a shorthand record, and therefore probably comes close to what he actually said.

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image of Red Cloud, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Image of Cooper Union: David Shankbone, GNU Free Documentation License, via Wikimedia Commons 

Lawrence Wong's Commemorative Speech: Inspiring People with Personal Stories

Lawrence Wong

“As we learn from history, let us always look ahead to the future and move forward for the common good.”

Such was the lesson taught by Lawrence Wong, Singapore’s Minister for Culture, Community and Youth, speaking at a ceremony on August 27, 2015 to commemorate the 70^th anniversary of the end of World War II. 

To commemorate Singapore’s liberation, Wong wisely looked back at the past and toward the future. After all, we learn from the past. We also understand that individual people experienced every heroic act and every brutal event. We know that each scintilla of hope exists only because a human being carries it. By shining forth the examples of people from the past and present, Wong served the highest value of commemoration. It was not his purpose to lecture people about events they already knew; no, his purpose was to inspire--to teach by relating personal stories. 

World War II, history’s most awful war, created suffering and heroism that defy human understanding. The island of Singapore, which was a British colony at the time, suffered Japanese invasion and occupation. After a few months of fighting, the Japanese captured Singapore’s massive seaport and solidified their control of the region’s sea lanes. The Japanese occupation was notably cruel. More than 30,000 captured Allied troops eventually died in Japanese captivity.  

To emphasize history's lessons, Wong cited personal stories from the past and present. By bringing up his family’s war experience, praising a war hero, and then praising a young student who looked to the future, Wong gave a speech that exemplified the epideictic genre. Epideictic oratory, that is, ceremonial speaking that honors people for their past accomplishments, uses examples to inspire our future actions.

Lessons from the Past

Speaking from the same room in Singapore’s National Gallery where Lord Mountbatten accepted Japan’s 1945 surrender in the Southwest Pacific, Wong began with stories of wartime suffering.

“It was my late grandfather, who would share with us stories of the Occupation – the food shortages, the illnesses they suffered, and also the lives lost, including that of his brother, my granduncle. He was rounded up with several young men in the village by soldiers then, late at night, and they never returned.”

 Continuing, Wong pointed out how important it is to remember the past:

“So we rely on memories like these, as well as the accounts we have just heard from people like Major Singh and Professor Thumboo. We remember the past in this dark and difficult period of our history.”

Those personal stories carried emotional meaning that would have eluded dry historical summaries. In addition, Wong recognized the sacrifices of the heroes who fought for Singapore’s freedom. Toward that end, the event’s organizers had gathered survivors to sit in the front row for the ceremony. Wong told the story of one Singaporean war hero: 

“One example is Captain Ho Weng Toh, who is 95 this year, and is here with us today. Captain Ho trained in the States with the US Army Air Force, and became a pilot with the Chinese-American bomber squadron known as the ‘Flying Tigers’. They were based in the Shanxi province in China, fighting against the Japanese forces then.”

As Wong continued, he explained that Captain Ho was a symbol of the “countless others” who “inspired us through their actions.” Bringing the point to a climax, Wong emphasized that, “We owe them a debt of gratitude that cannot be repaid”

Wong then asked the veterans to stand for applause.

Lessons for the Future

We wisely revisit the past so we can learn lessons and do better in the future. That is why, after praising the heroes of the past, Wong underlined that the occupation taught Singapore to gain strength and compassion: 

“The common experience of Occupation strengthened the people's mettle. It shaped their resolve to ensure that their children should never suffer in the same way. It catalyzed the building of our nation and forged a common identity out of a community of diverse immigrants.”

To emphasize the future, Wong introduced a 17-year-old student, Jamie Ng. He credited her with introducing the idea for the 70^th anniversary commemoration. Drawing from her experience and wisdom, Wong taught a lesson of peace and friendship: 

“Jamie has a keen interest in World War II history, and I understand her grandparents experienced the war. She shared with us that the most important thing her World War II studies have taught her is the need to prevent war, and to preserve harmony, understanding and friendship between nations.”

So, Wong moved from lamenting the war’s horrors, to praising the past’s heroes, and finally to the values that can guide Singapore’s future.

"A New Era:" General Douglas' MacArthur's Speech on the USS Missouri

George W. Bush on 9/11: A Message of Unity; Have We Forgotten?

The Lesson Learned

Wong advised the audience to learn from history and to move toward the time ahead, standing up for one’s values along the way. Good advice for any commemoration: 

“So as we learn from history, let us always look ahead to the future and move forward for the common good. Let us be a people that keeps faith with our past; a nation that stands up for its values; a Singapore that we will always be proud to call home.”

Wong’s approach was vastly more potent than a dry, academic recital of statistics. He could have remarked that perhaps 50 million people died in World War II. He could have stated how many thousands of Singaporeans died during the war, or how many starved, or how many were brutally murdered by Japanese forces. Mere statistics, however, rarely move the human heart. No, it is personal stories that move the heart. Thus, Wong wisely chose to emphasize the personal. His stories of his grandfather, Captain Ho Weng Toh, and student Jamie Ng touched the soul as well as the mind.

by William D. Harpine

___________

P.S. Lawrence Wong has since assumed office as the Prime Minister of Singapore. He is a member of Singapore’s People’s Action Party, the centrist regime that exercises Singapore’s government. Given Singapore’s de facto one-party rule, Freedom House rates Singapore at 48/100, “Partly Free,” as compared with the United States, 84/100 (“Free”) or Canada, 97/100 (“Free”). Finland rates 100/100, so the rest of us have room to improve. 

Research Note: For readers who want to know more about the often-underestimated genre of epideictic rhetoric, Professor Dale Sullivan wrote a terrific article on the topic. More ambitious readers might look at the relevant sections of The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation, by Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. I have been lucky enough to publish a few pieces about epideictic rhetoric; click on the ribbon link above for William D. Harpine's Publications.

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image of Lawrence Wong: United States Department of Defense, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons