Well, well; we appear to be equally convinced about opposite propositions.
I am surprised by your position. Namely, that "People, in general, were not more articulate then. …. Far fewer people were educated enough to even speak correctly."
Perhaps my meaning is not clear to you. Let me try to make several observations on what I mean. In the mid 19th century, there were No TV, no radio. There was a much greater use of an oral tradition. Much more storytelling and storylistening by people of all ranks and stations. The word had a much greater power. It carried the expression of an inner thought. People had more quiet to be in touch with their own minds. There was more opportunity for actually talking and real conversations.
Sure there is much more schooling today. But you have to measure real expression, articulateness; and not the multiplication of literate people immersed in a culture where much that is said is sadly regurgitated. Minds today are much more passive and submissive to frameworks set by others.
What is your image of mid 19th century America such that you would dispute this?
BTW, there was a post in the last week on freerepublic which I think is on point with our controversy. See how George Orwell talks about the lacks and limitations of modern speech. Loss of imagination, precision and concreteness. This really makes my point. Take a look at this. Here is the URL: It was entitled Politics and the English Language and was written in 1946.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/918841/posts also see this excerpt from an article called Education in the Internet Age
which was posted on freereublic on 6-2-2003:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/922061/postsIt is always easy to sanctify the past and downgrade the present and that has been done in every age and culture. Nineteenth century America was a land of little culture outside a few Eastern cities. In the South the majority of the poor were illiterate and the prevelence of illiteracy and lack of culture in general makes true eloquence and articulate speech difficult if not impossible for the vast majority of the population.
Prior to the spread of public education only the wealthy had any education to speak of. To think that there were very many Daniel Websters, John C. Calhouns, Hamiltons or Lincolns is simply mistaken.
Stories mumbled around a fire at night is not the same as articulate speech. To me articulate speech is correct or at least poetic speech. Incorrect speech can be articulate but it is the rare speaker who can pull that off. And some people can babble incessently without saying a thing worth hearing.
Rhetoric, the proper use of speech, was once a serious study for those who were formally educated and its disappearance as a subject of study does not help today's talkers but only a small percentage of the population of the past was exposed to it anyway.
As regards the oral tradition and the ability to have more conversational encounters that may be true however, it certainly is also true that I have all those I desire. Having a limited cultural background cannot make one's conversations MORE interesting rather the opposite.