Summary
Lyndon B. Johnson's "The Great Society Speech" argues that America must move beyond material prosperity to build a society that "promotes best the moral and intellectual development of man." Johnson frames this as a continuation of the founding principle that all men "are endowed with certain inalienable rights," which he calls the "programme of our political existence." He insists that true peace is not merely the absence of conflict but a "peace founded upon harmonious co-operation, mutual benefit, and good-will to all men," secured by "an inflexible vindication of the majesty of the people." The speech warns that the nation stands at a "turning-point" where it must either achieve greatness through reform or face "decay, disease, and death." A reader takes away Johnson's urgent call to expand "popular education" and equal rights as the foundation for a just society, arguing that the Republic "must be great or it must die."
Key concepts
- Programme of our political existence — The principle of equal rights derived from the Declaration of Independence, which Johnson calls the "most progressive" and "most conservative" foundation for American institutions.
- Peace-programme of the Union party — A vision of peace won by force, maintained by vindicating popular sovereignty, and fortified by "the greatest reform of our century" based on justice.
- Free labor society — A social organization resting on equal rights, where security comes from "a general system of popular education" that fits all for intelligent exercise of rights.
- Turning-point of your development — The moment Johnson identifies as the final decision point for the nation, where the peace being struggled for will either lay the foundation for future greatness or "seeds of decay."
- Identity of our highest interests — The idea that from equality of rights springs a common cause, where subverting a neighbor's rights strikes a dangerous blow at one's own rights.
From the book
PHILADEPHIA: J. B. LIPPINCOTT & CO. 1865. Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1865, by CARL SCHURZ, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the District of Wisconsin. This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1931. This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works . Public domain Public domain false false← Preface Speeches of Carl Schurz by Carl Schurz I. The Irrepressible Conflict II. Political Morals → 474148 Speeches of Carl Schurz — I. The Irrepressible Conflict Carl Schurz SPEECHES OF CARL SCHURZ. I. THE IRREPRESSIBLE CONFLICT. SPEECH DELIVERED AT MECHANICS' HALL, CHICAGO, ON THE…
Popular questions readers ask
- Schurz introduces "the logic of things and events" as an "overruling fatality" that determines the destiny of nations. How would you explain this concept to a modern audience, distinct from simple cause-and-effect, and what implications does it have for the perceived power of democratic government?
- Schurz warns that a democratic system "cannot bear a direct contradiction between political principles on the one and social institutions on the other side." Based on the historical context of his 1858 speech, what specific contradiction do you believe he was alluding to, and how did it demonstrate his concept of "the logic of things and events"?
- If "the logic of things and events" truly stands "above the power of majorities and governments," what role, if any, does Schurz suggest human effort, debate, or political leaders can play in influencing or averting "irrepressible conflicts"?
- Schurz claims that deep-seated inconsistencies "will overshadow all other issues" and become the "only legitimate line of distinction between parties." Can you identify a contemporary societal issue that appears to fit this description, and what makes it similarly "irrepressible" according to Schurz's framework?
- Schurz posits that "clear knowledge" of the connection between "cause and effect, between principle and fact" is the "only safe foundation for political wisdom." What specific methods or types of analysis would a political leader need to employ to gain this "clear knowledge" and apply it effectively, thereby avoiding an "overruling fatality"?