On 24 September 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower addressed the nation—
His topic: ongoing obstruction of justice at Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas.
Note: I recommend that you watch the video in its entirety before continuing to read.
What I find notable about his remarks, and what I plan to focus on here, is his manner of speaking.
Eisenhower’s introduction is rhetorically powerful yet subdued. He quickly observes his presence in the “house of Lincoln, of Jackson, and of Wilson”, subtly signaling the position he shares with those three men and popular idols: President of the United States of America.
He then discloses the emotions he feels, reflected in his tone of voice: sadness and firmness.
Finally, he establishes the frame of his argument, after which point he qualifies but never relinquishes:
I intend to pursue this course until the orders of the federal court at Little Rock can be executed without unlawful interference.
Within a span of sixty seconds, Eisenhower has touched upon his credibility as president, his recognition of the gravity of the moment, and the basis of his actions in the rule of law: ethos, pathos, and logos.
The speech proceeds, painstakingly, to inform the public of the past and present facts, outlining the situation whereby mobs in Little Rock are now subverting the judicial branch. The Supreme Court, three years earlier, had declared “compulsory school segregration” unconstitutional. Despite an instituted plan by the Little Rock school board and ample time to begin implementing it, orders from the United States court in Little Rock to do so had been “frustrated.”
Local authorities being unable to curb the violence and uphold the law, Eisenhower declares “the President’s responsibility is inescapable.” As such, he issued an executive order directing “troops under federal authority” to enforce the court’s ruling.
Eisenhower dismisses any possible concern about the ruling itself:
Our personal opinions about the decision have no bearing on the matter of enforcement; the responsibility and authority of the Supreme Court … are very clear.
What any spectator hears in this section, but especially a spectator born or raised in the American spirit such as you or I, is a president unyielding in his sense of duty to defend the Constitution and to maintain law and order. He notes “many communities in our southern states” who were compliant and saw no similar violence erupt.
The majority of Eisenhower’s descriptions of his actions include an accompanying dependent clause indicating its lawfulness. Never does the President let up on that reasoning—
Proper and sensible observance of the law then demanded their respectful obedience with the nation has a right to expect from all its people.
and—
The very basis of our individual rights and freedoms rests upon the certainty that the President and the executive branch of government will support and ensure … the decisions of the federal courts.
Let me pause there. I quote this section at such length because it strikes at the heart of the Little Rock crisis and beyond.
The United States has known many unjust laws, rules, and regulations. By all means, although we strive otherwise, that may continue to be the case. Such laws do not necessarily deserve defense.
However, in our system of government affirming the sole sovereignty of the people, in which the people speak through representative bodies to record their will as sovereigns, the law is the basis of legitimacy for democratic rule. The term “rule of law” is not a misnomer.
If any law can be openly flouted, whether your political beliefs support or oppose the disobedience, the foundation of democratic rule itself is weakened.
Unfortunately, in modern times, it can feel somewhat rote to hear politicians proclaim similar sentiments, but the lens of history is often clarifying.
Eisenhower only coyly alludes to his military service by means of his “great personal privilege to spend in our Southland tours of duty,” but the audience in 1957 would’ve immediately grasped what that meant.
As Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force, Eisenhower was among the highest-ranked military individuals [1] in the European theater of World War II responsible for cleaning up the explosive mess across the continent that had once been (temporarily) democracy in Germany. He avows “the cornerstone of our liberties”:
We are a nation in which laws, not men, are supreme.
All this is to say that both locutor and listener had reason in 1957 to be wary of the demonstrators in Little Rock beyond ordinary civic identity and to, in the words of another President, put the foot down firmly.
Although the President is no stranger in this speech to harsh language, denigrating “demagogic extremists” and “agitators” who seek to defy the law and “bring it into disrepute”, his tenor is ultimately reconciliatory and careful.
He isolates no perpetrator by name although someone like Orval Faubus would’ve already made an impression on the public. He details how and why federal troops are being used: “pursuant to law solely for the purpose of preventing interference with the orders of the court.” He even clarifies:
… the maintenance of peace and order in each our states are strictly local affairs and the federal government does not interfere except in very special cases …
He defends the dignity of the entire South. He reminds the country of their common enemy, communism, and appeals to the American public to consider “the harm that is being done to the prestige and influence … of our nation and the world.”
Eisenhower closes with the graceful suggestion that the “immediate end [of] all interference with the law” will remove the “blot upon the fair name and high honor of our nation”.
Lastly, a unifying transition into a verse we are all familiar with:
… [restore] the image of America and of all its parts as one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Good night and thank you very much.
Rhetorical analysis aside, I reiterate that I find President Eisenhower’s manner of speaking most notable. I am impressed by the oratorical tact displayed despite his speaking for fewer than 13 minutes.
The President speaks eloquently yet homely. The message contained within his prepared words is austere and unmistakable. His argument advances mostly linearly and with a steady cadence. He exudes deference toward the sanctity of his office while intuiting how best to fulfill its duty.
Lastly, he proffers a due respect and candor toward all, understanding that many Americans, particularly in the South, would have felt distrustful of federal military action on domestic soil and/or differently about the underlying subject matter (i.e. desegregation).
What is right or wrong is rarely easy to discern on absolute terms. Every executive leader in a country as large and as important as the United States at some point will have to render judgments that deeply affect people’s lives, up to and including offending their way of life and/or physical harm. The burden of this certain responsibility is often underappreciated.
Discretion and probity are valued qualities because they are rare, not common. Eisenhower took action as he concluded the moment demanded and turned to face the nation resolutely. To do so may seem straightforward for a political topic as universally agreed upon (nowadays) as racial integration and for a justification as robust as the rule of law, but there are other examples less glamorous [2]. In and of itself, such accountability is worthy of every American’s praise.
Unfortunately, Dwight Eisenhower is no longer the President of the United States and 67 years have passed. Accountability is no longer the virtue du jour.
As the title of this post might indicate, I originally envisioned this post to include a secondary analysis and an explicit contrast to JD Vance’s comments at the Munich Security Conference. Due to yesterday’s events, I do not feel the need to go so far.
I will keep it short and roundabout this time around: the contempt is painfully obvious with which this administration regards all perspectives and organized politics outside of their structure. In their view, the United States of America and its hard-earned power is not a ship of state to be guided; it is a bludgeon to be wielded and swung.
The difference between something like Eisenhower’s Little Rock address and anything coming out of this administration is stark—between statesmen who effectively command language and those who effectively weaponize it; leaders who use rhetoric and those who abuse it.
Recent overtures made by officials and supporters to a third term, kingship, unsavory arm gestures, etc. may therefore be only symptoms of something sicker.
It remains to be seen whether this President and this executive branch intend to fully abide by the decisions of the judiciary and solemnly support the execution of laws passed by the legislature. Thus far, we’ve seen reluctance but not rebellion.
As always, I shall stay optimistic. The house still stands that was the “house of Lincoln, of Jackson, and of Wilson,” among 41 others [3]. Nonetheless, I wonder when the mystic chords of memory will be again touched by the better angels of our nature.
We must not be enemies; we must not make enemies. I mourn what we’ve lost.
[1] You may safely take this characterization with a grain of salt, but he may have been, in fact, the highest military individual in the chain of command of the European theater. My understanding is that Commander-in-chief Franklin D. Roosevelt was a civilian, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff functioned as a coordinating committee. Of course, that might also just be spectacularly wrong.
[2] Jimmy Carter’s “Crisis of Confidence” speech should also be considered of this genre.
[3] 45 actual presidents (47 presidential tenures minus 2 for nonconsecutive terms) minus 3 for the gentlemen named minus 1 since George Washington did not occupy the White House.