15 Forgotten Speeches That Could Have Changed History

John Adams’ Silent Stand Against Slavery

Picture this: one of America’s founding fathers sitting in those stuffy Philadelphia meeting rooms, knowing that slavery was morally wrong but keeping his mouth shut. Many of the framers harbored moral qualms about slavery. Some, including Benjamin Franklin (a former slaveholder) and Alexander Hamilton (who was born in a slave colony in the British West Indies) became members of anti-slavery societies. We moderns and post-moderns can debate all we want, but the case is that the Convention came very close to abolishing slavery. Its acceptance of the “peculiar institution” was an anomaly of epic proportions.

Adams had privately drafted arguments against slavery that were far more radical than anything voiced in public during the Constitutional debates. The delegates argued over a section of the draft Constitution which forbade the United States Congress from banning or taxing the slave trade. After an extensive and passionate debate over the slave trade, the delegates were unable to come to a resolution. If Adams had turned his private convictions into a powerful public speech, America’s original sin might have been confronted head-on rather than kicked down the road for future generations to pay for in blood.

Sojourner Truth’s Original Voice, Stripped of Distortion

Here’s something that’ll blow your mind – the “Ain’t I a Woman?” speech you learned about in school isn’t really what Sojourner Truth said. The original, on the left, was delivered by Sojourner and transcribed by Marius Robinson, a journalist, who was in the audience at the Woman’s Rights Convention in Akron, Ohio on May 29, 1851. While Frances Gage changed most of Sojourner’s words and falsely attributed a southern slave dialect to Sojourner’s 1863 version, it is clear the origin of Gage’s speech comes from Sojourner’s original 1851 speech.

The real Truth spoke with a Dutch accent, not the stereotypical Southern slave dialect that was imposed on her words twelve years later. Truth is said to have prided herself on her spoken English, and she was born and raised in New York state, speaking only Jersey Dutch until the age of 9. In an 1851 issue of the Kalamazoo Daily Telegraph, an article states that Truth prided herself on “fairly correct English, which is in all senses a foreign tongue to her. . .. People who report her often exaggerate her expressions, putting in to her mouth the most marked southern dialect, which Sojourner feels is rather taking an unfair advantage of her”

If her authentic voice – sharp, uncompromising, and intersectional before that word existed – had been preserved and amplified, the women’s rights movement might have developed a more nuanced understanding of race and gender from the very beginning.

Chief Joseph’s Appeal to Lincoln’s Legacy

When Chief Joseph met with President Hayes in Washington D.C. in 1879, his speeches contained references to Lincoln that were recorded but never widely publicized. In 1879, Chief Joseph went to Washington, D.C., to meet with President Rutherford Hayes and plead the case of his people. The Nez Perce leader had crafted arguments that directly challenged American hypocrisy by invoking the Great Emancipator’s promise of equality.

Too many misinterpretations have been made; too many misunderstandings have come up between the white men and the Indians. If the white man wants to live in peace with the Indian he can live in peace. There need be no trouble. Treat all men alike. Give them the same laws. Give them all an even chance to live and grow. Joseph’s speeches during this visit were passionate appeals that drew explicit connections between the broken promises made to Native Americans and Lincoln’s vision of a nation where all men are created equal.

Had these speeches received the attention they deserved, they might have sparked a national conversation about Indigenous rights that could have prevented decades of further injustice. Instead, they gathered dust in government archives while policies of forced assimilation and land theft continued unabated.

William Jennings Bryan’s Forgotten Anti-Imperial Crusade

Everyone remembers Bryan’s “Cross of Gold” speech, but his 1900 address against American imperialism was equally powerful and far more prescient. Fresh from America’s victory in the Spanish-American War, the nation was drunk on expansionist fever, but Bryan saw the dangers lurking beneath the surface. His speech warned that empire-building would corrupt American democracy from within, turning the nation into the very thing the founders had rebelled against.

Bryan argued that imperialism would militarize American society, create a permanent war economy, and undermine the principles of self-governance that made America unique. He predicted that foreign adventures would drain the treasury, create new enemies, and distract from domestic problems that needed attention. The speech was met with polite applause but was quickly overshadowed by Theodore Roosevelt’s muscular nationalism.

If Bryan’s anti-imperialist message had resonated with the American public, the entire trajectory of the 20th century might have been different. No Philippines occupation, no pattern of intervention in Latin America, no military-industrial complex. America might have remained the beacon of democracy it claimed to be rather than becoming the global hegemon it actually became.

Eugene Debs and the Price of Speaking Truth

On June 16, 1918, Eugene Debs walked up to a bandstand in Canton, Ohio, knowing full well his words might land him in prison. On a sultry afternoon in 1918, the tall, lanky Hoosier walked up the bandstand’s steps and surveyed the growing crowd gathered in Nimisilla Park in Canton, Ohio, on Sunday, June 16. Debs, rightly concerned that he might run afoul of the government’s crackdown on antiwar protests, believed that his speech was tempered with sufficient restraint to avoid charges of sedition, but he miscalculated.

I realize that, in speaking to you this afternoon, there are certain limitations placed upon the right of free speech. I must be exceedingly careful, prudent, as to what I say, and even more careful and prudent as to how I say it. I would rather a thousand times be a free soul in jail than to be a sycophant and coward in the streets. When news of Debs’s speech reached federal prosecutor Edwin Wertz at the U.S. District Court in Cleveland, plans were placed in motion to arrest and indict Debs on charges of sedition under the act. Two weeks later, on June 30, as Debs traveled through Cleveland to another speaking engagement, he was arrested and escorted to jail.

On April 12, 1919, the Supreme Court confirmed the court’s verdict and Debs was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. In December 1921, President Warren G. Harding commuted Debs’s sentence to time served, and he was released. Had America embraced rather than criminalized Debs’ message about free speech during wartime, the country might have avoided the paranoia and repression that would characterize so much of the century ahead.

Emma Goldman’s Prophetic Feminism

In 1906, Emma Goldman delivered a speech that was so far ahead of its time that even suffragists couldn’t handle it. “The Tragedy of Women’s Emancipation” argued that winning the vote wouldn’t be enough – women needed to free themselves from internalized oppression and society’s expectations about femininity itself. She warned that political equality without psychological liberation would create only the illusion of progress.

Goldman predicted that women would use their newfound political power to support the same patriarchal systems that had oppressed them, just with different faces. She argued that true emancipation required rejecting marriage as ownership, challenging gender roles, and embracing sexuality as natural rather than shameful. Her speech was too radical for mainstream suffragists who were trying to appear respectable and non-threatening.

If Goldman’s ideas had been embraced rather than marginalized, the women’s movement might have achieved deeper transformation rather than just surface-level political gains. Instead of taking nearly a century to rediscover these insights, feminism could have started with a more sophisticated understanding of how oppression works.

FDR’s Vision of Economic Rights

In his 1944 State of the Union address, Franklin Roosevelt proposed something revolutionary: a Second Bill of Rights that would guarantee economic security to all Americans. He called for the right to a job, healthcare, education, housing, and protection from old age and sickness. This wasn’t just campaign rhetoric – Roosevelt saw these economic rights as essential to human dignity and democracy’s survival.

The speech came at a moment when it might have actually happened. America was winning the war, the economy was humming, and there was genuine optimism about what government could accomplish. Roosevelt argued that political rights meant nothing without economic security, that freedom from want was just as important as freedom of speech. He envisioned an America where no one would face financial ruin due to illness or unemployment.

But Roosevelt died before he could push the idea through Congress, and his successors lacked both the vision and political will to make it happen. If the Second Bill of Rights had been enacted, America today might look more like Scandinavia than the economically stratified society it has become. Healthcare would be a right, not a privilege, and economic inequality wouldn’t be the defining issue of our time.

Henry Wallace’s Vision of Global Equality

As FDR’s Vice President, Henry Wallace delivered “The Century of the Common Man” in 1942, outlining a radically different vision for America’s role in the post-war world. Instead of becoming a global empire, Wallace wanted America to lead by example, promoting economic justice and racial equality both at home and abroad. He envisioned a world where technology and prosperity would be shared rather than hoarded by wealthy nations.

Wallace’s speech called for an end to colonialism, economic cooperation instead of competition, and genuine democracy rather than the facade of it. He believed America’s mission was to help other nations develop economically rather than keeping them dependent. The speech was initially well-received, but as the Cold War took shape, Wallace’s internationalist idealism was branded as naive and dangerous.

When Wallace was dropped from the 1944 ticket in favor of Harry Truman, America chose military dominance over moral leadership. If Wallace had become president instead of Truman, there might have been no Cold War, no nuclear arms race, no proxy wars in developing nations. The American Century might have been truly about lifting up the common man rather than enriching American corporations.

Paul Robeson’s Silenced Internationalism

Paul Robeson’s 1949 speech to the Paris Peace Congress was a powerful call for international solidarity that cost him his career. The famous actor and singer declared that American racism made it impossible for Black Americans to fight against any nation that supported human equality. His words were twisted by the press and used to destroy his reputation, but the original speech was actually a sophisticated analysis of American hypocrisy.

Robeson argued that America couldn’t claim to be fighting for freedom abroad while denying it to millions at home. He connected the struggles of colonized peoples around the world with the civil rights movement, arguing that racism was a global system that needed to be challenged internationally. His speech came at the height of McCarthyism, when such ideas were considered treasonous.

The government’s persecution of Robeson – his passport was revoked, concerts were canceled, he was blacklisted from Hollywood – sent a chilling message to other civil rights leaders. If Robeson’s internationalist approach had been embraced rather than suppressed, the civil rights movement might have maintained stronger connections with anti-colonial movements around the world, creating a more powerful challenge to global white supremacy.

Eisenhower’s Unheeded Warning About Corporate Power

Everyone knows about Eisenhower’s warning about the “military-industrial complex,” but the original draft of his farewell address was much more specific about the dangers of corporate influence over democracy. Early versions named specific companies and detailed how defense contractors were corrupting the political process. The final speech was significantly toned down to avoid offending powerful interests.

Eisenhower had wanted to warn Americans that democracy itself was at risk from the concentration of economic and military power in the hands of a few corporations. He understood that permanent war mobilization would warp American society, creating vested interests in conflict and militarization. His unused draft contained specific recommendations for preventing corporate capture of government.

If Eisenhower had delivered his original, more forceful warning, Americans might have been better prepared to resist the military-corporate complex that has dominated politics ever since. Instead of accepting endless war as normal, citizens might have demanded accountability and transparency from defense contractors who profit from conflict.

Malcolm X’s Censored Militancy

“The Ballot or the Bullet” is remembered as one of Malcolm X’s most important speeches, but portions of it were censored or self-censored to avoid government retaliation. The complete version contained more explicit connections between the American civil rights struggle and anti-colonial movements in Africa and Asia. Malcolm argued that Black Americans were part of a global majority fighting against white minority rule.

The uncensored speech detailed specific strategies for international pressure on the United States, including appeals to the United Nations and coordination with newly independent African nations. Malcolm wanted to internationalize the civil rights struggle, arguing that racism in America was part of a global system that needed to be challenged on multiple fronts simultaneously.

If Malcolm’s full vision had been implemented rather than suppressed, the civil rights movement might have maintained stronger international connections and achieved more fundamental change. Instead of focusing solely on integration into existing systems, the movement might have challenged those systems more directly.

RFK’s Moment of Grace in Indianapolis

On the night Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated, Robert F. Kennedy delivered an impromptu speech in Indianapolis that many consider one of the greatest in American history. Speaking to a predominantly Black audience who hadn’t yet heard the news, Kennedy announced King’s death and spoke from the heart about grief, violence, and the possibility of healing racial divisions through understanding rather than hatred.

Kennedy’s speech helped prevent riots in Indianapolis while other cities burned. He quoted Aeschylus, shared his own pain from his brother’s assassination, and called for Americans to move beyond the cycle of violence and hatred that was tearing the country apart. The speech demonstrated Kennedy’s unique ability to connect with both Black and white audiences, urban and rural voters.

If Kennedy had lived to become president, his ability to bridge racial divides might have prevented the political polarization that has defined American politics ever since. His assassination two months later eliminated perhaps the only political leader who could have united the coalition needed for meaningful racial progress without triggering a white backlash.

Shirley Chisholm’s Intersectional Politics

When Shirley Chisholm ran for president in 1972, her campaign speeches outlined an intersectional approach to politics that wouldn’t become mainstream for decades. As the first Black woman to seek the presidency, Chisholm faced discrimination from both racist and sexist quarters, but she refused to choose between her identities or moderate her message to appeal to either group exclusively.

Chisholm’s “Unbought and Unbossed” speeches connected issues that were typically treated separately – racial justice, women’s rights, economic inequality, and anti-war activism. She argued that all forms of oppression were connected and that true liberation required addressing them simultaneously rather than in sequence. Her campaign was dismissed as symbolic rather than serious.

If Chisholm’s intersectional message had been taken seriously in 1972, American politics might have evolved differently. Instead of identity-based movements competing for attention and resources, there might have been broader coalitions working for systematic change. The Democratic Party might have avoided the fragmentation that has weakened its effectiveness.

Jimmy Carter’s Call for Moral Renewal

Carter’s 1979 “Crisis of Confidence” speech, mockingly dubbed the “malaise” speech by critics, was actually a profound diagnosis of America’s spiritual and moral problems. Carter argued that Americans had become too focused on material consumption and individual success, losing sight of the common purpose and shared values that made democracy possible. He called for a renewed commitment to conservation, community, and moral leadership.

The speech was initially well-received by the public, but political opponents successfully reframed it as defeatist and un-American. Carter’s call for limits on consumption and growth was particularly unpopular with business interests who preferred Ronald Reagan’s message of unlimited expansion and individual freedom from social responsibility.

If Americans had embraced Carter’s call for moral renewal and sustainable development, the country might have avoided the extreme inequality and environmental destruction that followed. Instead of the greed-is-good ethos of the 1980s, America might have developed a more balanced approach to progress that considered long-term consequences rather than short-term profits.

Barbara Jordan’s Constitutional Vision

Barbara Jordan’s 1976 Democratic National Convention keynote was groundbreaking as the first delivered by a Black woman, but the portions cut for time contained her most radical ideas about expanding democracy and constitutional interpretation. Jordan envisioned a Constitution that would truly include all Americans, not just as an aspiration but as a practical reality requiring systemic change.

The undelivered portions of Jordan’s speech outlined specific reforms needed to make democracy more inclusive – campaign finance reform, voting rights expansion, and judicial appointments that reflected America’s diversity. She argued that the Constitution was a living document that needed to evolve with changing understandings of human dignity and equality.

If Jordan’s complete vision had been aired and embraced, American politics might have taken a more inclusive direction in the late 1970s. Instead of the conservative backlash that followed, there might have been sustained progress toward the “more perfect union” that Jordan eloquently described.