July 19, 2013

FINEST HOUR 126, SPRING 2005,

BY BETSY FOSTER

Ms. Foster, of Virginia Beach, Virginia, graduated summa cum laude in May 2004 from Hillsdale College, Hillsdale, Michigan, with a political science major and a Spanish minor.

====================

2024 International Churchill Conference

Join us for the 41st International Churchill Conference. London | October 2024
More

Life is full of decisions. Sometimes they are black and white, but more often they must be made in the realm of probability. This requires prudence, the statesman’s virtue: a knowledge of things that might change. It is the practical wisdom that allows the statesman to act justly amidst changing circumstances.1 He must know the ends for which he acts; he must see the details in their true proportion;2 then he must choose a means appropriate to those ends.

Churchill possessed that rare set of gifts which are necessary to high statesmanship. His politics were immediately practical, and connected to the swirling details of policy; but they were oriented toward the ultimate ends of government, to justice, freedom, and limited government through the consent of the governed.

Having grasped this practical wisdom, Churchill sought to apply it to his maiden speech, at the age of twenty-six, in the House of Commons on 18 February 1901. Through the tools of rhetoric, Churchill sought to persuade his audience to conclude the South African War in a manner appropriate to the ends of free government.

Churchill began his address by seeking to discredit the arguments of the previous speaker, David Lloyd George, who, choosing not to move a moderate amendment, gave an “animated, even violent” speech about the question: the best method for handling postwar South Africa (My Early Life 366). Young Winston opened by contrasting the “bitterness” of Lloyd George s speech and the “mild and moderate tone” of his amendment.

In the second sentence of his address, Churchill used the word “mild” twice and a form of the word “moderate” five times. The repetition and alliteration of the “m” sound in “mild” and “moderate” gave this sentence a calm and soothing feeling, in contrast to the emotion of Lloyd George’s speech. It emphasized the contrast between the amendment that went unmoved, and the speech he thought might have gone unsaid.

Churchill succinctly summarized his complaint: “It has been suggested to me that it might perhaps have been better, upon the whole, if the hon. Member, instead of making his violent speech without moving his moderate amendment, had moved his moderate amendment without making his violent speech.”

The House cheered.

By admitting that he did not come up with this rejoinder on his own, Churchill showed respect for his fellow Members of Parliament and sought to gain their respect in return. It also allowed Churchill to criticize Lloyd George indirectly and to point out that others agreed with his assessment. The phrase’s a-b-b-a construction, a literary technique called chiasmus, stressed the contrast between the Amendment’s moderation and the speech’s bitterness. The “speech” and its bitterness surrounded the “Amendment,” which stood calmly in the center of the phrase.

After criticizing the remarks of Lloyd George, Churchill then sought to establish his ethos—his character—and to affirm liberty:

I would not complain of any remarks of the hon. Member were I called upon to do so. In my opinion, based upon the experience of the most famous men whose names have adorned the records of the House, no national emergency short, let us say, of the actual invasion of this country itself ought in any way to restrict or prevent the entire freedom of Parliamentary discussion.

In this manner, Churchill sought to establish his character as above the pettiness of silencing his enemies. A statesman already, young Winston understood that a democracy presupposes the free exchange of ideas. He did not force his opinions. Instead, he showed his humility and recognized that he was speaking “in my opinion.” This strengthened his argument because it allowed his audience to engage in self-discovery and to draw its own conclusions, a rhetorical technique called enthymeme.3

Churchill also demonstrated his respect for his elders by mentioning “the experience of the most famous men.” As a new Member, he prudently recognized his place and sought to give deference to those senior to himself. Additionally, this allowed him another subtle criticism of Lloyd George, implying that Lloyd George was not one of those “famous men.”

Next, Churchill defined the situation, seeking to show the details of the debate in their true proportion and to articulate the question at hand:

So far as I have been able to make out the difference between the Government and the Opposition on this question is that whereas His Majesty’s Government propose that when hostilities are brought to a conclusion there shall be an interval of civil government before full representative rights are extended to the peoples of these countries, on the other hand the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the Opposition believes that these representative institutions will be more quickly obtained if the military government be prolonged as a temporary measure and no interval of civil government be interposed.

Churchill understood the big picture. Despite the emotionalism of Lloyd George’s address, and the disagreement between the Opposition and Government, both sides desired the establishment of a representative government in South Africa. Their disagreement centered on the best course to accomplish this goal. Churchill revealed a humble ethos and respect for his elders by requesting that Lloyd George correct him if he misrepresented his views: “I hope I am not misinterpreting the right hon. Gentleman in any way. If I am, I trust he will not hesitate to correct me, because I should be very sorry in any way to misstate his views.”

The choice of the words “very sorry” reflected Churchill’s belief that simple words are usually best. As he stated in his early essay, “The Scaffolding of Rhetoric” (i7// 94:15): “All the speeches of great English rhetoricians…display an uniform preference for short homely words of common usage—so long as such words can fully express their thoughts and feelings.” Greatness does not come through complicated words; rather, it comes through choosing the word that most effectively conveys the speaker’s meaning.

After defining the controversy, Churchill reminded his audience of the reason for the Boer War because he recognized that the ends should determine the means.4

It seems to me that when the war is over we ought not to forget the original object with which we undertook the negotiations [to extend the franchise] which led to the war. If I may lay down anything I would ask the House to establish the principle that they ought not to extend any representative institutions to the people of the Transvaal until such time as the population has regained its ordinary level.

Britain entered the Boer War in part because of the liberal principle of extending the franchise. Churchill reminded his audience of this because he believed liberal principles should govern future decisions as well. He used the expression “ought not” twice because it carried a sense of moral duty and obligation. In this manner, Churchill appealed to an authority higher than himself for such action. For him, it was not just a question of one policy versus another; it was about principle and the underlying values.

The young MP suggested allowing the population to regain “its ordinary level” because “during the few weeks before the outbreak of the war every train was crowded with British subjects who were endeavouring to escape from the approaching conflict.” As a statesman, he prudently identified this flight as a significant event that should be taken into account when making future decisions. Not all little events matter, but events that are part of the great chain of causation matter a lot.’

Churchill then persuasively argued that the appropriate course of action would be the establishment of an interim civil government. He did not force this perspective upon the House but rather urged it “to consider which form of government—civil government or military government—is most likely to be conducive to the restoration of the banished prosperity of the country and most likely to encourage the return of the population now scattered far and wide.”

Churchill provided his audience an invitation to join him—to support his policy proposal instead of debating it—because he sought consensus rather than compromise. For him it was not a win/lose situation, but an opportunity to pursue the best course, to the betterment of all. In the quotation above, he repeated the phrase “most likely to” to give the sentence parallelism, making the oral argument easier to follow. It also gave the sentence rhythm.5

The reference to “banished prosperity” and the scattered population indirectly called to the audience’s mind two key components that the new government should have: commercialism and consent. In this way, Churchill implied that the only correct answer to the question would be civil government, for only a civil government could promote liberal principles.

After alluding to the correct course of action, Churchill directly stated his belief that Parliament should establish a civil government, not military rule:

I do not hesitate to say that as long as you have anything like direct military government there will be no revival of trade, no return of the Uitlander population, no influx of immigrants from other parts of the world—nothing but despair and discontent on the part of the Boer population, and growing resentment on the part of our own British settlers. If there was a system of civil government on the other hand, which I think we have an absolute moral right to establish…As soon as it is known that there is in the Transvaal a government under which property and liberty are secure, so soon as it is known that in these countries one can live freely and safely, there would be a rush of immigrants from all parts of the world to develop the country and to profit by the great revival of trade. (67-68)

It is interesting that Churchill here switched to the authoritative “I do not hesitate to say” when previously he had consistently couched his assertions in phrases such as “I think.”7 This revealed the strength and absolute certainty of his conviction that a military government would be the wrong course of action, and it marked the climax of his speech.8

The repetition of the word “no” in this first sentence, a literary technique called anaphora, emphasized the negative results of a military government. Churchill further brought attention to this list of negatives by deleting the conjunction “and,” a literary technique called asyndeton. This gave the list a sense of rapid succession and forcefulness.

The alliteration of the harsh “d” in “despair” and “discontent” also contributed to the negative picture of life under military rule. Churchill’s depiction of military rule starkly contrasted his picture of life under civil government. When discussing civil government, Churchill appealed to a higher authority, asserting that the House had “an absolute moral right to establish” it.

The reference to morals brought back the earlier idea of the ethical thought; ethics belong to the group, while morals belong to an individual. Churchill then emphasized the rapidity of positive effects of such a government through anaphora: “as soon as it is known…so soon as it is known.” He repeated the specific democratic ideals that would come from such rule: “property and liberty are secure” and “one can live freely and safely.” Churchill desired his audience to conclude that a civil government was the only appropriate course of action, for a civil government would be in accordance with the ends of liberty.

The speaker also sought to persuade his audience that the more “immediate necessities of the situation” should be in accordance with liberty. He appealed to “general consensus”—consent being a democratic principle— to argue for moderate treatment of the Boers: “I take it that there is pretty general consensus of opinion in the House that it ought to be made easy and honourable for the Boers to surrender, and painful and perilous for them to continue in the field.” The sputtering “p” of “painful and perilous” allowed one to imagine the painful sputtering of bullets if the Boers continued to fight. The word “ought” appealed again to Britain’s duty, establishing the basis for action on authority higher than Churchill’s.

Next, Churchill proceeded to define the rights that Parliament should promise the Boers: “a flail guarantee for the security of their property and religion, an assurance of equal rights, [and] a promise of representative institutions.” He explicitly outlined these democratic rights to remind his audience of the ends of government. He did not desire, however, to force rights on the Boer people: “Of course, we can only promise, and it rests with the Boers whether they will accept our conditions.” Although Churchill was an ambitious man, he knew a limited, democratic government depended upon the consent of the ruled. Churchill’s consistent action based upon this recognition was one part of his greatness.

Despite the importance Churchill placed on liberty, he also prudently recognized that liberty is impossible without defense and security. Until the end of the Boer War, therefore, he advocated the strongest military force possible. On other occasions, Churchill proposed limiting military spending so that individuals could use their resources for private investment,9 but during war, Churchill did not endorse such economy: “The country does not want to count the cost of economy until it is won.”

Furthermore, he advocated not only maintaining the current force of 250,000 in South Africa but also increasing it, so that an overwhelming force could achieve the end of victory, peace, and liberty sooner: “I shall always indulge the hope that…the Secretary of State for War will…increas[e] it [the Army] by a regular monthly quota of 2,000 or 3,000 men so that the Boers will be compelled, with ever diminishing resources, to make head against ever increasing difficulties, and will not only be exposed to the beating of the waves, but to the force of the rising tide.”

To strengthen his point, Churchill used an apt metaphor. He compared the current troops to waves beating the shore, and a rapidly increasing military force to a rising tide. Members of Parliament would have been very familiar with such an image because Britain is an island. Just as the waves gradually wear away the shore, so the current military force would eventually achieve victory. A rising tide of forces, however, would achieve victory far more quickly, for it would be an unstoppable, sudden, overwhelming force, hitting the shore, i.e., the Boer Army, all at once.10

After presenting his policy proposals, Churchill employed the rhetorical technique of inoculation to preempt the arguments of his opponents. He acknowledged that some may “stigmatise this war as a war of greed,” but felt bound “to repudiate that pleasant suggestion.” That which was pleasing was irrelevant. What mattered was the good, what one “ought” to do.

He pointed out that capitalists who gambled on the war for financial gain “made an uncommonly bad bargain.” The war, he argued, was owed not to greed but to duty: “With the mass of the nation, with the whole people of the country, this war from beginning to end has only been a war of duty….I do not find it possible on reflection to accuse the general policy which led to the war, we have no cause to be ashamed of anything that has passed during the war, nor have we any right to be doleful and lugubrious.”

Churchill invoked patriotism, appealing to pathos, emotion, in this section of the speech. He desired that Parliament join the “whole people of the country” to support the war; he sought consensus. He believed the war was a “duty,” an ethical obligation, and that his audience should eschew any feelings of remorse.

Young Winston concluded with a reference to his father, Lord Randolph Churchill: “I cannot sit down without saying how very grateful I am for the kindness and patience with which the House has heard me, and which have been extended to me, I well know, not on my own account, but because of a splendid memory which many hon. Members still preserve.”

He wisely chose to save this reference until the end of his speech. Thus he was able to build up his own ethos and gain respect apart from his father. Mentioning Lord Randolph at the end of his speech, however, strengthened the existing argument by adding the force of his father’s ethos. The conclusion also allowed him again to show humility and respect for the other older statesmen who listened to the address. Finally, this appeal invoked the pathos of sympathy, for Winston who was now serving where his dead father had once served.

The maiden speech revealed the youthful politician’s understanding of statesmanship. The statesman must understand the ends and then choose a means appropriate to those ends. The ends are determined by the ethical obligations of society, for values are the foundation to any policy decision within the state.

Churchill wisely understood that a means inconsistent with liberty could not be used properly in the endeavor to promote and establish liberty in South Africa. He used the forum of Parliament to argue these ideas before his peers. He knew that in a democracy he could not force his ideas upon others. So he deftly and prudently used rhetoric to build consensus for his opinions As he wrote in “The Scaffolding of Rhetoric:” “Of all the talents bestowed upon men, none is so precious as the gift of oratory. He who enjoys it wields a power more durable than that of a great king.”

====================

WORK CITED

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics. Trans, and ed. Roger Crisp. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2000. 

—, Politics. Trans. Lord Carnes. Chicago: Chicago UP, 1984.

Churchill, Winston S., “Army Reform.” Winston S. Churchill: His Complete Speeches, 1897-1963, 8 vols. Edited by Robert Rhodes James. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1974. 1:76-86.

—, “The Maiden Speech.” Complete Speeches 1:65-70.

—, My Early Life: A Roving Commission. London: Thornton Butterworth, 1930. New edition, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996.

—, “Painting as a Pastime.” Thoughts and Adventures. London: Thornton Butterworth, 1932: 305-20.

—, “The Scaffolding of Rhetoric.” In Finest Hour 94, Spring 1997, 14-17.

—, The World Crisis: 1911-1914. New York: Scribner, 1963.

ENDNOTES

1. In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle noted, “The sphere of prudence…is that which is variable” (193).

2. Churchill recognized the importance of seeing things in their true proportion in “Painting as a Pastime”: “When we look at the larger Turners…and observe that they are all done in one piece and represent one single second of time, and that every innumerable detail, however small, however distant, however subordinate, is set forth naturally and in its true proportion and relation, without effort, without failure, we must feel in presence of an intellectual manifestation the equal in quality and intensity of the finest achievements of warlike action, of forensic argument, or of scientific or philosophical adjudication” (236).

3. Churchill consistently interwove enthymemes and comments of humility into his speech. Instead of forcing his opinion upon his audience, he allowed his audience to draw its own conclusions. He used expressions such as “It seems to me,” “If I may lay down anything I would ask,” “I think,” “I earnestly hope,” and “If I may judge by own experiences.” These enthymemes were based upon logos—reason—as well as ethos—character.

4. The distinction between the great and the bad general is that the great general acts both to secure the immediate good of victory and to preserve by the manner of victory the higher and ultimate ends of the polity, preserving life; while the bad general merely acts to secure victory without regard for the loss of life. As Churchill wrote in the vol. I of The World Crisis, “The greater the general, the more he contributes in manoeuvre, the less he demands in slaughter” (21). Similarly, the great politician acts in accordance with the ends.

5. Churchill expressed this in vol. I of The World Crisis: “Along the chain of commanding causation even the smallest events are vital. It is these which should be studied and pondered over; for in them is revealed the profound significance of human choice and the sublime responsibility of men” (18).

6. Churchill praised rhythm in his “Scaffolding of Rhetoric”: “The sentences of the orator when he appeals to his art become long, rolling and sonorous. The peculiar balance of the phrases produces a cadence which resembles blank verse rather than prose” (819).

7. Shortly after this, Churchill returned to his more humble stance, remarking, “It is not for me to criticise the proposals which come from such a distinguished authority as the Leader of the Opposition” (68).

8. See “The Scaffolding of Rhetoric”: “The climax of oratory is reached by a rapid succession of waves of sound and vivid pictures… .A series of facts is brought forward all pointing in a common direction. The end appears in view before it is reached. The crowd anticipates the conclusion and the last words fall amid a thunder of assent” (819).

9. Churchill decried the increase in military spending in his “Army Reform” speech on 13 May 1901: “I hold it unwise to have no regard to the fact that in this reform we are diverting national resources from their proper channels of development….I am pleading the cause of economy….we are spending too much money on armaments, and so impair our industries” (81). This is not inconsistency but rather a prudential understanding that changing circumstances require different policies. As Aristotle noted in Book VII of the Politics, “The good lawgiver’s] enactments will not be always the same.”

10. Churchill noted the power of analogies in “The Scaffolding of Rhetoric”: “Whether they [arguments by analogy] translate an established truth into simple language or whether they adventurously aspire to reveal the unknown, they are among the most formidable weapons of the rhetorician. The effect upon the most cultivated audience is electrical” (820). 

 

A tribute, join us

#thinkchurchill

Subscribe

WANT MORE?

Get the Churchill Bulletin delivered to your inbox once a month.