BRIEF OF THE ARGUMENT ON COERCION OF DELINQUENT

STATES.

INTRODUCTION.

1. My purpose is to discuss certain arguments advanced yesterday (p. 44, 1. 1).

2. It is inconsistent to assert that the old Confederation needs many material amendments and at the same time to deny that its defects are the cause of our political weakness (p. 44, 1. 10). Instead of trying to amend the old Confederation, we should abolish it entirely and adopt the new constitution.

DISCUSSION.

A. The radical vice of the old Confederation is that the laws of the Union apply only to States in their corporate capacity (p. 44, 1. 15). For

I. Each state has the constitutional right to resist

a law of Congress (p. 45, 1. 1).

II. The states have used the right of resistance with disastrous results (p. 45, 1. 2). For

a. They have embarrassed the Central Gov

ernment by taking different courses. For 1. A state has executed the requisitions of Congress only if favorable to its own interests (p. 45, 1.9). 2. A state has disregarded the requisitions of Congress if unfavorable to its own interests (p. 45, 1. 10). b. They have been remiss in duty even under the pressure of a common danger (p. 45, 1. 12). For

III. The states will not respond to requisitions in time of security (p. 45, 1. 28). For

a. There is no incentive to exertion (p. 45, 1. 25). For

1. When danger is distant its impression is weak (p. 45, 1. 28).

2. When danger affects only our neighbors, we will not provide against it (p. 45, 1. 29).

B. The remedy is to adopt the new constitution enabling the national laws to operate on individual states (p. 46, 1. 27). For

I. The proposal to coerce delinquent states is absurd (p. 45, 1. 33). For

a. Attempted coercion would result in civil war (p. 46, 1. 3). For

1. It sets states that pay at war with states that will not pay (p. 46,

1. 8).

b. It means either a Federal Standing Army to enforce requisitions on delinquent states or a central government without money (p. 46, 1. 23). For

1. No state would ever suffer Congress to use it as an instrument of

coercion against another state (p. 46, 1. 20).

II. The proposal to take the old Federation as the basis of a system is impossible (p. 46, 1. 33). For

a.

To entrust the sword and purse without restriction to a single chamber would establish a despotism (p. 47, 1. 3). For 1. Unlimited power over taxation and a standing army is too great for a single chamber to exercise (p. 47, 1. 15). For

Adopt the new Constitution (p. 47, 1. 22).

A comparison of these two plans discloses the greater freedom of the expository address. Webster is in complete control of his material; he divides it as he will, for the subject and the occasion do not rigidly prescribe what points he shall take up. There is no logical proposition to impose requirements upon him in the matter of division, subdivision, and proof. To be sure we may reduce the whole address to the form of a syllogism if we wish:

Major Premise. All true patriots who have made sacrifices that their country might furnish to the world. an illustrious example of freedom, good government and prosperity, should be gratefully honored by their countrymen.

Minor Premise. The heroes of the American Revolution have made sacrifices that their country might, etc.

Conclusion. The heroes of the American Revolution should be gratefully honored by their countrymen.

Nothing is gained, however, by applying this strict logical test to an address the chief aim of which is not to prove a proposition, but to deepen feeling and to increase appreciation. To treat it as we treat an argumentative discourse is to reduce it to a string of plati tudes, and to miss all that gives it distinction.

It is to be noted, however, that while Webster is free

to select what topics he wishes, we find no waywardness or eccentricity in the selection. The topics are eminently appropriate to the subject and the occasion; each is distinct from the others; each follows the preceding topic naturally. As we pass from one to the next we are made to feel their relationship. In some cases it is a relationship of similarity or contrast; the apostrophe to the survivors (C) suggests the tribute to the patriotic dead (D) and this in turn suggests the address to the living (E). In other cases it is a relationship of cause and effect; the eulogy of LaFayette (G) follows as a natural effect of the facts cited just before under (F); the apostrophe to the survivors (C) is the natural effect of the recital of the mighty events referred to under (B); the improvement in the world (H) is the effect of the diffusion of knowledge and community of ideas (H-I); the difference between the Revolution in America and in Europe (H-II) is accounted for by a recital of causes (H-II a-b). In still other cases it is a relationship neither of similarity and contrast nor of cause and effect, but ideas follow one another because they are felt to be in contiguity, that is near to one another, either near in time, as in the narrative portions, or near in thought. The influence of world opinion upon arbitrary governments (H-III) is near in thought to the preceding topic, the desire for popular government everywhere; the case of Greece suggests the case of the states of South America (IV). Thus it is easy to account for the position of each topic in the discussion and to find a reason why it is where we find it.

We notice also the use of climax in the arrangement of the divisions. The first climax is reached at p. 91, 1. 29; the second at p. 96, 1. 23; the third at the close of the eulogy of LaFayette, p. 102, 1. 7; the fourth at p. 108,

1. 33; the last in the conclusion of the speech. The general arrangement is in accordance with the usual principles of cause and effect, similarity and contrast, and contiguity.

Turning now to the brief of Hamilton's argumentative address* we see that the arrangement is necessarily by the method of cause and effect. The two divisions (A and B) read as reasons for the main propositions, and every subdivision reads as a reason for the division of next higher rank. Every statement in the brief is a complete sentence. Accordingly we have propositions of one rank supporting propositions of a higher rank. The main divisions are simple and natural and distinct; first the vice of the old Confederation; secondly, the cure proposed for this vice. These two divisions are inevitable. No matter who should have attempted to argue this question he would have been logically compelled by the proposition to take up the same two points that Hamilton took up, the evil and the remedy. It is true of all argumentative discourse that the proposition logically demands of the speaker attention to certain essential divisions that are implied in the proposition itself. In an expository discourse, the speaker makes his own theme and rules it throughout; in the argumentative discourse the proposition rules the speaker and compels him to conform to its logical demands.

In the argumentative discourse the divisions are the chief points at issue and taken together they must completely cover the field of dispute. Hence the need that they should include attention to all possible proposals that can reasonably be offered on the subject. We

The method used in this brief is but one of several good methods of brief-drawing. The syllogistic method may be used equally well.