Note: the views presented here are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of the US Department of State or the United States Government. I would like to thank my colleague Aaron W. Marrs for his helpful comments and suggestions.

This compilation of essays originally appeared as individual papers in a symposium on political rhetoric at Texas A&M University in 2002 among lesser-known nineteenth-century US Presidents. The essays demonstrate how written addresses used ceremonial and symbolic rhetoric to sway audiences in ways remarkably similar to speeches delivered in the radio, television, and Internet ages. Before the Rhetorical Presidency is therefore a valuable corrective to Jeffrey Tulis's idea that only “modern,” twentieth-century US Presidents used rhetoric to persuade, convince, and/or influence their audiences. Many of the essays also successfully rescue these Presidents from the obscurity to which they have been unfortunately relegated.

Part one consists of a very illuminating discussion between Mel Laracey, Tulis, and Stephen Lucas about how nineteenth-century Presidents used rhetoric. Laracey criticizes Tulis's theory and argues that American Presidents consciously used newspapers and other written addresses to circulate their policy positions and prescriptions around the country. Tulis, on the other hand, contends that Laracey's essay confirms his argument that ninetenth-century Presidents, with the exception of Andrew Johnson and William McKinley, avoided using modern forms of rhetoric because they believed that the Constitution prohibited them from orally trying to sway voters. Instead, they believed that “forms and formalities in public life” such as written addresses elevated rhetoric (31). Lucas says, however, that both men are correct: Presidents used different forms of rhetoric in the ninetenth century. One can distinguish twentieth-century rhetoric, however, because “the performative dimension of public oral discourse” has become so important (37).

David Zarefsky's and Kathryn Kohrs Campbell's essays on John Tyler and James K. Polk, respectively, are the best of a very good bunch. Tyler, Zarefsky shows, used nationalist rather than sectional rhetoric to push for the annexation of Texas, thereby stressing the commonalities among Americans rather than divisive issues such as slavery. Campbell shows how Polk supervised the publications in the Washington Union newspaper to spread his messages and gain popular support for his policies. Building upon Tyler's example, Polk emphasized that the President represented the will of all the people rather than congressmen and senators who represented sections during the Mexican crisis.

For some unexplained reason, the rhetoric of Chester A. Arthur, the former customs collector and supposed party hack who became President after the assassination of James Garfield and successfully shepherded the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act through Congress, is not examined. This is doubly surprising given that the excellent essays on his predecessors Grant and Hayes highlight the issues of government corruption and failed attempts at civil service reform. Nevertheless, Before the Rhetorical Presidency is an important book that not only contributes to our understanding of nineteenth-century presidential rhetoric but also shows that similarities rather than differences bind all US Presidents when it comes to the art of persuasion.