1. What is the author arguing?
The author, George Washington, is arguing about one main point throughout his Proclamation. He is speaking in response to the Whiskey Rebellion; the resistance by protestors against the tax on whiskey in the US during the 1790s. His argument is against those who have protested the whiskey tax and acted out violently in response to it. Basically, he argues that the government has executed its powers justly in order to uphold the laws of the Union, by raising a militia force against the violent protesters. He specifically refers to the law which justifies the government’s actions in the third paragraph of his Proclamation:
“And whereas, by a law of the United States entitled "An act to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions," it is enacted that whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed in any state by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings. . .it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations and to cause the laws to be duly executed.”
This passage explains the justification behind the actions which Washington has taken, and is the main support for his argument. He sums up his argument towards the end of his Proclamation. stating:
“And whereas, it is in my judgment necessary under the circumstances of the case to take measures for calling forth the militia in order to suppress the combinations aforesaid, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and I have accordingly determined so to do, feeling the deepest regret for the occasion, but withal the most solemn conviction that the essential interests of the Union demand it”
The President is confident that the government has taken the legal and necessary actions to suppress the violence of the resistance against the whiskey tax, and despite his regret in taking these actions, it was done in the interest of protecting the future of the Union.
2. How does the author appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional quality), and ethos (the writer’s perceived character) with their argument?
Because of the way that the Proclamation is organized, and the language that Washington uses, it is difficult upon a first reading to identify the author’s appeal to pathos and ethos. The logic of Washington’s argument is the main focus of the Proclamation, as he clearly states the events which have occurred with regards to the whiskey tax and the Whiskey Rebellion, and goes on to logically justify the government’s actions in response. The Proclamation almost reads like a legal document which is stating the chronological order of events and necessary actions in a clear and concise manner.
Upon closer analysis, Washington’s appeal to pathos and ethos can be subtly identified. The pathos, or emotional quality of his argument can be seen in his responses to the violent resistance of the whiskey tax protesters. He describes some of these actions in his first passage:
“. . .by actually injuring and destroying the property of persons who were understood to have so complied; by inflicting cruel and humiliating punishments upon private citizens for no other cause than that of appearing to be the friends of the laws; by intercepting the public officers on the highways, abusing, assaulting, and otherwise ill treating them; by going into their houses in the night, gaining admittance by force, taking away their papers, and committing other outrages. . .”
This response shows Washington’s sympathy towards those who were the victims of the violent resistance against the whiskey tax. It appeals to emotion, as it also seems to provoke sympathy from the audience by including the detail of the violent actions. This passage can also be seen as an example of Washington appealing to ethos, or his own perceived character, by representing himself as a sympathetic man, and also one who is against unwarranted violence against others, especially those who attempt to uphold the law. Throughout the Proclamation, Washington’s voice comes through as a strong and honest one, and he speaks as a man whose number one priority and concern is the future of his nation and the effectiveness of the government in protecting it.
3. What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?
“A Proclamation of the Whiskey Rebellion” was written by George Washington in August of 1794. It is a response to the violent resistance against the tax on whiskey, which had been created by Alexander Hamilton as a part of his plan to help reduce the national debt. Protestors in Pennsylvania refused to pay the tax, and acted out violently when the U.S. Marshall came to collect in July of 1794. Tax collector George John Neville was a victim of this violence, as his home was openly attacked. In response to this incident, President Washington sent peace commissioners to Pennsylvania, and raised a militia force, in order to uphold the law and restore order.
4. Do you find the author’s argument convincing? Why or why not?
I find Washington’s argument very convincing, due to the authority with which he delivers his Proclamation. It reads as more of a statement than an argument, as he clearly explains his own reaction to the events of the Whiskey Rebellion, and justifies that the government was right in responding to the situation in the way that it did. He is convincing in provoking sympathy for those who were victims of violence simply because they were attempting to uphold and enforce the laws of the Union. It is clear that he is truly concerned for the future of the nation, and has extreme faith in the strength of the U.S. government, and does a convincing job of conveying this.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
CDL- France, England, and Women's Rights in the 1790's
Amy Rochier- CDL: France, England, and Women’s Rights in the 1790’s
Before the 1790’s there was little discussion about the rights of women in America. Ideas began coming to light in France about the concept of “the female citizen” between 1789 and 1793. The wave of French feminism was effective in creating some significant social changes which allowed women to gain some of the rights to which they had previously been denied. One example was the change to inheritance laws, which made it so that daughters were as equally entitled to a patriarch’s divided estate as sons were. Women in France spoke about equality between men and women, like Olympe de Gouges, who stated that, “all women are born free and remain equal to men in rights.” These groundbreaking feminist ideas made their way to England. Mary Wollstonecraft was an English woman who supported women’s rights and continued the growing trend in her own country, by publishing a book, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, which sparked quite the reaction in America. The book provoked many responses and debates, and inspired other women to begin thinking about the potential for their own social equality. Male responses in America were mixed, as some men supported the movement towards female equality while others had a difficult time taking it seriously and accepting it. For a period in America, the discussion of women’s rights was quieted down by the controversy surrounding the radicalism of French feminism and the “unconventional” personal life of Mary Wollstonecraft. The discussion resurfaced, however, in the 1830s and 1840s, but the movement during the 1790s had resulted in a sort of victory, as it allowed for progress towards the concept of women’s formal education.
Questions:
What were the main causes for the “long incubation period” of the discussion of women’s rights in the US?
Why was the idea of having rights to a formal education so important to women who supported feminist ideas? How could having a formal education give women a better sense of equality?
Before the 1790’s there was little discussion about the rights of women in America. Ideas began coming to light in France about the concept of “the female citizen” between 1789 and 1793. The wave of French feminism was effective in creating some significant social changes which allowed women to gain some of the rights to which they had previously been denied. One example was the change to inheritance laws, which made it so that daughters were as equally entitled to a patriarch’s divided estate as sons were. Women in France spoke about equality between men and women, like Olympe de Gouges, who stated that, “all women are born free and remain equal to men in rights.” These groundbreaking feminist ideas made their way to England. Mary Wollstonecraft was an English woman who supported women’s rights and continued the growing trend in her own country, by publishing a book, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, which sparked quite the reaction in America. The book provoked many responses and debates, and inspired other women to begin thinking about the potential for their own social equality. Male responses in America were mixed, as some men supported the movement towards female equality while others had a difficult time taking it seriously and accepting it. For a period in America, the discussion of women’s rights was quieted down by the controversy surrounding the radicalism of French feminism and the “unconventional” personal life of Mary Wollstonecraft. The discussion resurfaced, however, in the 1830s and 1840s, but the movement during the 1790s had resulted in a sort of victory, as it allowed for progress towards the concept of women’s formal education.
Questions:
What were the main causes for the “long incubation period” of the discussion of women’s rights in the US?
Why was the idea of having rights to a formal education so important to women who supported feminist ideas? How could having a formal education give women a better sense of equality?
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Text Analysis: "The Crisis" by Thomas Paine, Dec. 23, 1776
1. What is the author arguing?
The author, Thomas Paine, is makes several arguments throughout this document, however there are three main arguments that I feel drive his essay. The first of these is the argument that the particular crisis which he is describing is that, despite claiming its independence, America is still in the position of being like a "slave" to Britain. "Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER" and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth." (Paine, paragraph 1). He feels that America's duty now is to conquer the tyranny of Britain, and though it is not an easy fight, the things that are worth fighting for the most are never easy to obtain. He follows this argument up by mentioning that he feels America would most likely be in a better position had it declared independence from Britain sooner. His second main argument in the essay is that the Middle colonies have a high presence of supporters of the Tory political faction, or "Tories," as he refers to them, and that this is why the middle colonies have been made the "seat of war" by Britain. Tories were the British loyalists who inhabited the British colonies of North America and supported the Crown during the Revolutionary War. He makes his feelings about Tories very clear when he states: "Every Tory is a coward; for servile, slavish, self-interested fear is the foundation of Toryism; and a man under such influence, though he may be cruel, never can be brave." (Paine, paragraph 7). The third main argument which I identified in "The Crisis" is that the war must be fought, and that Americas soldiers must be the victors, in order to solidify American independence. He states that American did not prepare for war early on because they did not feel the need to fight, and as a result did not assemble an army. Now that they are in a position where they must protect their independence, he calls out to all people in all states to ban together and help in the fight, because he states: "better have too much force than too little, when so great an object is at stake." (Paine, paragraph 11). Overall it is clear, Paine feels America's only choice to uphold her freedom is to fight for it, and if she remains strong and endures, this will inevitably be achieved.
2. How does the author appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional quality), and ethos (the writer’s perceived character) with their argument?
Paine was a powerful writer, and in "The Crisis" he does a particularly effective job of using all three concepts of logos, pathos, and ethos to clearly explain his argument. He does this while at the same time reaching out to those he is speaking to in order to evoke the audience's emotions by expressing his own passionate opinions regarding America's current situation. His appeal to logos, or the logic of his arguments, can be found throughout the essay, as he does a good job of clearly organizing and explaining each point he brings up. One example of this is in the closing paragraph of his essay: "I thank God, that I fear not. I see no real cause for fear. I know our situation well, and can see the way out of it." Paine is so confident and assuring that the situation is clear and obvious, and the solution is even clearer. America must defend herself, because it is the logical thing to do.
Although the entire essay is full of emotional passages, there are a few specific sections which stood out to me in this way. One example of Paine appealing to pathos in his essay is the section in which he discusses the happy country which America is and has the potential to be, and that war is inevitable to achieve this happiness. "America will never be happy till she gets clear of foreign dominion. Wars, without ceasing, will break out till that period arrives, and the continent must in the end be conqueror; for though the flame of liberty may sometimes cease to shine, the coal can never expire." Speaking of the happiness of the country appeals to the idea of emotional equality, and that every American has the right to, along with life and liberty, the ;pursuit of happiness. This idea of being happy, and living in a "happy America" obviously evokes the emotion of hope, and the vision for a bright future.
Because the entire essay is written by Paine from his first person perspective, it includes a great deal of hints towards ethos, or Paine's perceived character. He expresses himself as a man who wants what he assumes every American wants - the simple freedom to live in a country which is not bound to any tyrant nation. He also expresses perceived character by speaking directly to the audience. He writes as if he is speaking as a friend: "Quitting this class of men, I turn with the warm ardor of a friend to those who have nobly stood, and are yet determined to stand the matter out." This displays Paine's personal respect to those who are in the fight with him.
3. What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?
The historical significance of this document is that it was written on December 23, 1776 by Thomas Paine, and was the first pamphlet in a pro-revolutionary pamphlet series called "The American Crisis." It was read aloud to the soldiers who fought under George Washington in order to inspire them to fight for their country. It was relevant in that it was written during the American Revolution to encourage Americans to remain strong in the fight for freedom.
4. Do you find the author’s argument convincing? Why or why not?
I find Paine's arguments incredibly convincing because of how powerfully he writes them. He makes bold statements about the strength of America and the weakness and cowardly nature of the British, and speaks as an American man who simply wants what every American wants. He is convincing in his self-assuredness, as he discusses the nature of America's fight as if it is clear and obvious what the outcome will be, as long as America shows determination and doesn't back down. If a pamphlet of this nature were being read today, I think that it would be very effective in causing people to stop and think about what it actually means to be a united country that is banned together to fight for the simple right of being its own nation.
The author, Thomas Paine, is makes several arguments throughout this document, however there are three main arguments that I feel drive his essay. The first of these is the argument that the particular crisis which he is describing is that, despite claiming its independence, America is still in the position of being like a "slave" to Britain. "Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER" and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth." (Paine, paragraph 1). He feels that America's duty now is to conquer the tyranny of Britain, and though it is not an easy fight, the things that are worth fighting for the most are never easy to obtain. He follows this argument up by mentioning that he feels America would most likely be in a better position had it declared independence from Britain sooner. His second main argument in the essay is that the Middle colonies have a high presence of supporters of the Tory political faction, or "Tories," as he refers to them, and that this is why the middle colonies have been made the "seat of war" by Britain. Tories were the British loyalists who inhabited the British colonies of North America and supported the Crown during the Revolutionary War. He makes his feelings about Tories very clear when he states: "Every Tory is a coward; for servile, slavish, self-interested fear is the foundation of Toryism; and a man under such influence, though he may be cruel, never can be brave." (Paine, paragraph 7). The third main argument which I identified in "The Crisis" is that the war must be fought, and that Americas soldiers must be the victors, in order to solidify American independence. He states that American did not prepare for war early on because they did not feel the need to fight, and as a result did not assemble an army. Now that they are in a position where they must protect their independence, he calls out to all people in all states to ban together and help in the fight, because he states: "better have too much force than too little, when so great an object is at stake." (Paine, paragraph 11). Overall it is clear, Paine feels America's only choice to uphold her freedom is to fight for it, and if she remains strong and endures, this will inevitably be achieved.
2. How does the author appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional quality), and ethos (the writer’s perceived character) with their argument?
Paine was a powerful writer, and in "The Crisis" he does a particularly effective job of using all three concepts of logos, pathos, and ethos to clearly explain his argument. He does this while at the same time reaching out to those he is speaking to in order to evoke the audience's emotions by expressing his own passionate opinions regarding America's current situation. His appeal to logos, or the logic of his arguments, can be found throughout the essay, as he does a good job of clearly organizing and explaining each point he brings up. One example of this is in the closing paragraph of his essay: "I thank God, that I fear not. I see no real cause for fear. I know our situation well, and can see the way out of it." Paine is so confident and assuring that the situation is clear and obvious, and the solution is even clearer. America must defend herself, because it is the logical thing to do.
Although the entire essay is full of emotional passages, there are a few specific sections which stood out to me in this way. One example of Paine appealing to pathos in his essay is the section in which he discusses the happy country which America is and has the potential to be, and that war is inevitable to achieve this happiness. "America will never be happy till she gets clear of foreign dominion. Wars, without ceasing, will break out till that period arrives, and the continent must in the end be conqueror; for though the flame of liberty may sometimes cease to shine, the coal can never expire." Speaking of the happiness of the country appeals to the idea of emotional equality, and that every American has the right to, along with life and liberty, the ;pursuit of happiness. This idea of being happy, and living in a "happy America" obviously evokes the emotion of hope, and the vision for a bright future.
Because the entire essay is written by Paine from his first person perspective, it includes a great deal of hints towards ethos, or Paine's perceived character. He expresses himself as a man who wants what he assumes every American wants - the simple freedom to live in a country which is not bound to any tyrant nation. He also expresses perceived character by speaking directly to the audience. He writes as if he is speaking as a friend: "Quitting this class of men, I turn with the warm ardor of a friend to those who have nobly stood, and are yet determined to stand the matter out." This displays Paine's personal respect to those who are in the fight with him.
3. What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?
The historical significance of this document is that it was written on December 23, 1776 by Thomas Paine, and was the first pamphlet in a pro-revolutionary pamphlet series called "The American Crisis." It was read aloud to the soldiers who fought under George Washington in order to inspire them to fight for their country. It was relevant in that it was written during the American Revolution to encourage Americans to remain strong in the fight for freedom.
4. Do you find the author’s argument convincing? Why or why not?
I find Paine's arguments incredibly convincing because of how powerfully he writes them. He makes bold statements about the strength of America and the weakness and cowardly nature of the British, and speaks as an American man who simply wants what every American wants. He is convincing in his self-assuredness, as he discusses the nature of America's fight as if it is clear and obvious what the outcome will be, as long as America shows determination and doesn't back down. If a pamphlet of this nature were being read today, I think that it would be very effective in causing people to stop and think about what it actually means to be a united country that is banned together to fight for the simple right of being its own nation.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
CDL- How Long Did the Seven Years' War Last in Indian Country?
This reading discusses the details of the historical question: what is the actual length of time the Seven Years’ War could really be said to have lasted for the Indians? The end of the war between France and Britain in the 1760s by no means marked the beginning of peace times for the Indians. Overall, the Indians of the Ohio Valley and Great Lakes region spent almost sixty years fighting to protect their lands and their way of life. The Indians fought throughout the 1760s and 1770s, as well as during the battles which continued through The American Revolution, and on up until the end of the War of 1812. One of the crucial reasons behind why the Indians felt they must continue to fight and protect their tribes, was the lack of physical gifts and treaties offered to the Indians by the British. In Indian culture, gifts represented the solidifying of important relationships, and symbolized respect and honor. One British military leader, Major General Jeffery Amherst, thought that frequently exchanging gifts with the Indians showed weakness, and was a sign of paying homage to a people who he thought inferior to the British. This kind of thinking, along with a Delaware Indian leader Neolin’s spiritual message to the Indians to strengthen and uphold their cultural ways, led to warfare in 1763 during Pontiac’s Rebellion. This was the start of a long period of continued fighting between the Indians and the British.
Questions
1) If Major General Jeffery Amherst had felt differently about the exchange of physical gifts with the Indians, and had made more of an effort to establish an honorable relationship with the Indians through gift exchange, would this have ended the warfare much earlier on, and perhaps prevented Pontiac’s Rebellion from ever happening?
2) What does it reveal about the Indians of the Ohio Valley and Great Lakes region that the exchange of gifts was such a crucial part of their culture and belief system, that they would take offense to the lack of gifts being offered, or to the discarding of the gifts the Indians themselves offered to British military leaders?
3) What is the significance of General Amherst’s decision to finally offer up a “gift” of two blankets and a handkerchief which may have been infected with smallpox to the Delaware Indians?
Questions
1) If Major General Jeffery Amherst had felt differently about the exchange of physical gifts with the Indians, and had made more of an effort to establish an honorable relationship with the Indians through gift exchange, would this have ended the warfare much earlier on, and perhaps prevented Pontiac’s Rebellion from ever happening?
2) What does it reveal about the Indians of the Ohio Valley and Great Lakes region that the exchange of gifts was such a crucial part of their culture and belief system, that they would take offense to the lack of gifts being offered, or to the discarding of the gifts the Indians themselves offered to British military leaders?
3) What is the significance of General Amherst’s decision to finally offer up a “gift” of two blankets and a handkerchief which may have been infected with smallpox to the Delaware Indians?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)