The Declaration of Independence

1.    What is the author arguing?

The authors of the declarations of independence weren’t so much as debating as they were writing a revolutionary statement and the reason behind the statement. The declaration of independence was written to declare the separation from Great Britain. Up until now King George the III was the “tyrant” ruling the American Colonies and according to the authors, he wasn’t a good leader. In the D.O.I (Declaration of Independence), the author lists 27 specific abuses committed by King George III which can be summarized into three basic parts. The first twelve dealt with King Georg III’s dictatorship like rule over the colony because he wouldn’t let them rule themselves but at the same time, he didn’t care about them at all to make laws that would help the people. He did this by hand picking the governors of the colonies, and by presenting a strong military presence in every colony. The next nine talk about how parliament (the British government) was backing up the King in knocking the colonies to the ground and not letting them self rule. The parliament made the colonist pay high taxes, they wouldn’t let them trade with any country therefore making money was nearly impossible. This also made it easier for the government to make things more expensive for the colonist. The last five abuses were about the king’s neglect of the colony. What the king would do is send in his troops to attack the colonist for the simplest of reasons, burn there towns, sink their ships and kill there people. Not only did he do it with his milta, he also would hire foreign private armies to attack the colonist. He would kidnap the colonies young men and would force them into his army which he would later use to attack their own homes. To add to the list, he also refused to help the colonist fight the Indians off. He treated them like a dog he hated but wished to keep on a short leash

(The colonists wanted to separate from Great Britain but were afraid because if they lost the war then they would be in even more trouble but realized they were already in deep waters so they might as well just go for it.)

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

Logos:  This piece of writing was not a rant or a vent on how the colonist felt. It wasn’t them being rebellions or ignorant. They strongly believed that they were being treated unfairly and they had a list of facts to back it up. The DOI begins with

“When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to break up the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal position to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a polite respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

You see here that they come right out and clearly state the purpose of the writing. To separate from Great Britain. The reason shortly follows: “All men are created equal… with certain unalieble rights.” This is probably the most notorious line in American writing. Many people think they were talking about races or religion. They were actually talking about their equality to Great Britain and how they believed that they had the same exact right as any other country to self govern and trade with anyone as they saw fit. They also stated that it isn’t right to separate for just any reason but after quite a few abuses it becomes necessary.

This is proof that they colonist were think logically. They were thinking about what would be better for them and there children’s future

Ethos: The emotion comes from the anger they feel toward the king’s neglect and ruthlessness toward them. They were from Great Britain but treated like out castes. You can especially hear the emotions in this particular paragraph

“We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity; and we have conjured them, by the ties of our common kindred, to disavow these usurpations which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too, have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation, and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.”

Pathos: the writers see only one way out of their misery: “We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation, and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.” The character that the author plays can be compared to a flag. A flag is a representation of a unit, of a team. It is suppose to symbolize what that team stands for. These bent-out-of-shape and abused people decided to raise up a flag before themselves and call themselves free people

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

This is the founding grounds of our great nation. It like the base of a new home that was just laid, everything else that we’ve done these past centuries was laid on this document/base. The declaration of independence is more than just “we-are-free-people” speech. It is the standards of a new country that was being born.

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

After reading the list of abusive, I thought it was more than just convincing. I felt like I was looking through the eyes of the people themselves. How would I feel if my son was kidnapped by the man I call king? Not only is he kidnapped, but he will be ordered to burn out neighboring colony. Things were very personal for these people. They needed a back brace to help them grow and they got one with spikes: one that would only say it was there to help them but would actually hurt them. I also appreciated the very logical argument. It seemed very cool headed, calm, composed and well thought out. I feel like they observed and studied every angle before putting this together.