Declaration of Independence

What is the Author arguing?

The arguments made in the Declaration of Independence can be interpreted as being taxation without representation and the fact that this practice was tyrannical. Americans felt they were not being represented in the British government and they resented the fact that they were being taxed without their consent.  Another argument can be made that those that signed the document believed that all men were created equal by God and when born, were born with certain unalienable rights, those of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  They believed that the governments were created to protect these rights and see them secure but the British government were in fact trying to take the rights away instead of protect them.

How does the author appeal to logos, pathos and ethos with their argument?

The author appeals to logic in the arguments made in that the issues he makes are made in a completely calm and rational manner, he didn't rant and rave about what needed to be done hysterically, he was professional and respectufl.  The emotional quality in the argument comes from the words and how they are spoken.  The imagery that is presented paints a picture for the Americans wanting to get out from British rule and allowed them to understand what he was saying as well as rise up and take control of their land.  The writer's perceived character of the argument is kind of muddeled because it was re-worked mainly by Thomas Jefferson because of the relatively unkown status in the community of the original writer.  I think though that the perceived character of the document as a whole can be seen in the words as having great character and the ability to use the words as a weapon instead of violence.

What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?

The significance of this document is that it basically gave women and those of different races later down the road in history a voice.  It says all men are created equal and now women are treated the same as men and all races are equal.  Without the presence of civil rights mentioned,  those rights may not have come in to light and the world would be completely different.  It gave voice to American colonists and led them to revolt against Britain and become their own world.

Do you find the author's argument convincing?  why or why not?

I definately do find the arguments convincing.  I think among many different reasons this document was the basic groundwork for civil rights and for the recognition of ALL people's unalienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  I think that because this document was signed and presented it began to pave the way for those of different races and for females to be heard in our nation and continues to do so today.

Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death ~ Patrick Henry March 23, 1775

1. What is the author arguing?

Patrick Henry states it himself in the first paragraph of his speech, he is arguing simply between freedom or slavery.  He is arguing for his fellow colonists to take up arms and fight against the British.  He wants them to fight for their freedom of speech and  for the right to be out from under British rules and regulations.  Henry argues that they have done all they could to prevent the oncoming war but to no avail and that the war is coming to them.

2.  How does the author appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional quality), and ethos (the writer's perceived character) with their argument?

Henry appeals to the logos (logic) of the colonists with his argument by at first arguing that they (the colonists) have already tried to go about non-violent ways of appealing to the British for the freedoms they believe they should have been afforded anyway.  He warns the people that Great Britain has amassed their navies and armies, not for any enemies they have elsewhere, but for the Americans. He says they have "odne everything that could be done to avert te storm" but have been ignored by the Parliament. Patrick Henry uses pathos (emotional quality) in his argument that can be felt as it is read.  The last paragraph in and of itself I think proves his emotional quality in this argument 

"It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter.  Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace.  The war is actually begun!  The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms!  Our brethren are already in the field!  Why stand here idle?  What is it that gentlemen wish?  What would they have?  Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?  Forbid it, Almighty God!  I know not what the course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

I cannot imagine being in that room and not being moved not only by the speech, but by that paragraph alone, Virginia actually joined the Revolutionary war because of  Patrick Henry's speech.  I think that is proof enough about Henry's pathos (emotional quality) of his argument.  He uses ethos (the writer's perceived character) in his argument I think by standing up in front of the House and letting everyone know that no matter the consequence of his words and just his actions of standing and speaking out against the British, he wanted everyone to know his opinions and urges them to see what he sees and to hear what he hears and to not be lulled into the false sense of security that Great Britain wants them to feel but to look out with their own eyes and see that war is coming.

3.  What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?

The historical significance/relevance of this document is that it was a fight for the freedom of speech.  Also for the right to take up arms against those that meant them harm.  Patrick Henry was telling the Americans to stand up and fight against the government that was pulling their liberties away, I think that to have that proven historically is very significant and relevant because it gives people knowledge that if it has to be done again, they can do it.

4.  Do you find the author's argument convincing?  Why or why not?

I most definately find Patrick Henry's argument convincing.  I can't imagine having lived during a time when the law that rules and regulates our land and actions across an ocean.  I think that Henry was able to convince the American's to take up arms and fight for what they believe in when their pleas for a non-violent way were rebuked because they were past trying and were tired of having their liberties taken away.  He paints a vivid picture with his imagery especially when he says "There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged!  Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come."  That line itself has me imagining the people of the time feeling as if their hands were bound by the British and they had no choice but to fight because the British in essence brought the war to them and gave them no other option.