Whatever you thought of Long's politics or personality, you couldn't deny that the guy was a master of rhetoric. He could size up a crowd in moments, never used notes, and had a virtually photographic memory when it came to his speeches. And as any orator worth their salt could tell you, you won't get far in speechifying if you can't utilize the Big Three of persuasion: pathos, ethos, and logos.

Pathos

As an avowed populist, Long had a decided preference for the emotional appeals of pathos. What's better to motivate the irritable mob than some good old fashioned rabble-rousing, emotionally charged invective, and great jokes? What made Long's emotional appeals so effective was his ability to weave an emotional narrative without resorting to full-blown hamminess. And when he did go full William Shatner on you, you knew it. Here's one sentence, in full, from when Long addresses the idea of government as a religion.

It is a kind of religion people have read of when women, in the name of religion, would take their infant babes and throw them into the burning flame, where they would be instantly devoured by the all-consuming fire, in days gone by; and there probably are some people of the world even today, who, in the name of religion, throw their own babes to destruction; but in the name of our good government, people today are seeing their own children hungry, tired, half-naked, lifting their tear-dimmed eyes into the sad faces of their fathers and mothers, who cannot give them food and clothing they both need, and which is necessary to sustain them, and that goes on day after day, and night after night, when day gets into darkness and blackness, knowing those children would arise in the morning without being fed, and probably go to bed at night without being fed. (71)

Long's talking about the hard times that people are struggling with and how the government they so fervently believe in has failed them. He evokes mothers burning their infant children rather than allowing them to suffer such hardship as what was then the average American's daily fare. He invokes the poor, teary-eyed children desperately looking for solace from helpless mothers and fathers who want nothing more than to feed their poor, ill-clothed, underfed babies.

Yeah. Long had the pathos stuff down cold.

Logos

It wasn't just about emotional power, though. Long was an expert in using statistics in his speeches that would add an extra reason-based logos oomph to his already powerful voice. At key points in his speech, he drops impactful (if somewhat exaggerated) numbers on his listeners: he states that over "45 times the entire money supply of the United States" is held in debt by the American People (37), and later goes on to state that "about 10 men dominate the means of activity in at least 85 percent of the activities that you own" (45). He also quotes from the foundational documents of the U.S. to bolster his case, and if that's not enough, he quotes from the ancient Greek philosophers.

Dropping names and citing statistics is a way of telling his audience, "don't just take my word for it." He even accuses his opponents of doing that: ipsi dixit—roughly translated as "because I said so." If you were a poor farmer with limited understanding of things like base rates or how to lie with statistics, you'd have no reason to doubt Long's numbers. Since his listeners probably admired the founding fathers and had at least heard of Socrates and Plato, that would also add to the impression that this Huey Long guy was making a pretty airtight argument.

Ethos

Long was extremely gifted in getting an audience to truly believe him. This was a matter of ethos, of demonstrating the trustworthiness of his character by constant references to the Bible. Even though he insisted he wasn't claiming to be a saint, you can still read between the lines. By talking so much about the founding fathers, he was also inviting comparisons to their love of freedom and justice. And of course, you have to be a smart and educated person to know about Socrates and Plato.

All the statistics in the speech also did the double-duty of conferring some serious cred on Long. After all, a guy who could throw out numbers like that had to be pretty smart, right?

Even Long's opponents—who hated his guts and spoke daily of shooting him just to be rid of him—would go to see him speak just for the sheer show of it. It really can't be overstated; even his most bitter rivals would concede that he was perhaps the most effective public speaker in the history of the nation—hyperbole that Huey Long would no doubt love.