1. What is the author arguing?
The author is attempting to persuade the House to fight the British off in order to claim complete independence from England. At the time England had their armies and navy watching over the colonist to make sure they follow and live by the standards set up by England. The author states that there will never be a better time to fight than now because if they wait any longer there will be guards “stationed at every home.” The author believes that they will never have the freedom they are hungry for until they drive the British out of America
2. How does the author appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional quality), and ethos (the writer’s perceived character) with their argument?
Henrys logic was that if they didn’t win their freedom now they would never get it. He believed that if they waited any longer to try to obtain it, it will be too late. However, Henry was much more skilled at using emotions to prove his point than logic. For example, in the very first paragraph he states,
“Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings. [Rm1] “
He uses such passionate expressions, saying should I keep silent when my country needs me most. I cheat it in its most desperate time. I dishonor my country and God by holding back. You can almost feel his passion and desire for freedom throughout the whole speech.
Henry was a lawyer and was known for being a great speaker. Also historians say that he was being extremely polite while giving this speech always addressing the president as sir and the members of the house as gentlemen. I can only imagine what kind of effect this had on the members. He was passionate but never overstepping his bounds and doing all this with all the respect he could give
3. What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?
Henry’s speech convinced the members of the house that the best move was to fight and so they did. If it wasn’t for Henrys encouraging and impassioning words, it could be very possible that the USA wouldn’t be as it is today if it would ever be the USA.
4. Do you find the author’s argument convincing? Why or why not?
Yes and no. no because the written speech said little about the pros and cons of fighting. It was a one sided argument. Yes because I understand that this isn’t the actual speech. This document was put together after the death of Patrick by a journalist who pieced it together by talking to various member of the House that heard the speech. I also understand that maybe the pros and cons were discussed just they weren’t written down in this document or are found elsewhere. Other than that he had a convincing argument mainly because I felt his passion through his word choice. There were times were I could imagine how his blood boiled at the thought of his freedom being just inches out of his reach. I am most impressed at the respect he showed. Though his words were sharp and piercing, I can imagine him saying it in a very calm fashion, assuring the audience through the peace and passion expressed through his words that this was truly there last option
[Rm1]I love our heart after freedom and im gunna give my opinion right now, respectfully because if I stay scilent now, I would be betraying my country. We don’t have much time to waste, we need to defend our country n honor God
I really liked your view of whether the argument was convincing. At first read, I took the speech as a very stand-up and courageous thing to be doing/saying so I had a lot of respect, but after reading you analysis I began to think of it more of a guy with strong opinions venting. I still agree that he had an extremely important message and obviously had a convincing way of saying things because of where we are today, but at least from the reading we had, I feel he could have accomplished what he said in an even more convincing way that provided the men of the board with new reasoing rather than a cheerleader to sway their decision.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all I would like to say that I thought you did an excellent job in this TA. I think you and Sanderson both make good points when thinking of this speech. What I personally think is that he didn't really need to speak about the pros and cons of going to war, if you were to consider his audience than they all knew the factors and the risks. I do have to disagree with Sanderson, while I do think that his speech could come off as "cheery" I don't think that there would have been a better way to sway the people. If someone was talking to you with passion and comparing liberty to death than I think that, that would be the most influential way to sway my opinions regarding anything, seeing that much passion come from a person who is controlled while doing it seems to me to be the most effective way, and it must have been because they decided to fight.
ReplyDeleteI feel that he did an excellent job at illustrating to the House how at how much worse the living situations would get if they didn't act now against the British. I think if he was not such a good speaker, I think the House would have just stayed in compliance. I too wonder what state would we be in if the colonists had decided not to fight. Very good TA in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a really good point Daellis. I forgot to mention how I felt the way he described the "opportunity" is here and now. I think that, this particular argument had the most merit. Henry did a great job as using this as one of his main point of his argument.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your Text Analysis and I think you did a really good job. I like how you talk about if Henry didn't encourage the house to fight that America wouldn't be the way it is today.And he was a very well spoken and all around nice man. I agree with Sanderson being that you wrote a very good argument and i was convinced as well.
ReplyDeleteWow! after reading the selection the first thing i think is how much power and emotion was in his words. Each sentence carries so much meaning! He never stops questioning which i think really reflects how he believes that they deserve to be heard and answered!
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, i feel like so many questions would make me think he its just filling his speech with fluff. Also, i think the speech's purpose is more to convince rather than to inform. He uses himself as a motivator saying things like
"I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House.".
he does leave out the cons of war! The people would have been more motivated by his passion rather than knowing it would be most beneficial to fight. He also describes alot of extreme opinions/ideas
"I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings."
" Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house?"
"...as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?"
The colonists weren't quite slaves to the British, nor was it in sight that the British would send guards. These types of sentences would have put ideas in the peoples heads, firing them up!
Good TA :) ! i like the pictures.
PS: i like how he says "Mr. President" hohoho
A job well done with your TA. I really loved this selection. At first I was reading it to myself but then i started to read it out loud. I started to read it with meaning and emotion. Patrick Henry's speech did a very good job convincing the House to go to war. My favorite part of his speech was when he said,
ReplyDeleteIf we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!
In order for them to become free from the British they had to go to war before it was too late and the British invade their homes first. I agree with Sam that he didn't need to talk about the pros and cons. He should have only talked about the pros.
First I have to say that I really appreciate all of the historical background that you provided about this document. It helped me to get a better sense of the speaker, Patrick Henry, as a man who was brave enough to stand up in front of the men of the House and speak out strongly for what he believed for the future of his country. It is not surprising that Henry was a lawyer, because I read the speech as being incredibly persuasive and effective. It is eloquently written, and I like that you pointed out how much passion is behind Henry's words. Just from reading the speech, I almost get goosebumps from the power of his words, so it is hard to imagine how those who were present when the actual speech was delivered could have been unaffected by its emotion and determination. You're right in saying that Henry's argument was one-sided, in that the only position he takes is that fighting the British is the only way to gain independence from England. However, it is clear that the reason for the one-sidedness of his argument is due to the fact that he feels so strongly that it is the absolute only option, that it is unnecessary to bring up any other options, or point out the possible risks involved in going to war. I like how you mention that you can sense some restraint in Henry's words, even though they have such an impact: "There were times were I could imagine how his blood boiled at the thought of his freedom being just inches out of his reach. I am most impressed at the respect he showed" (Ruth Megido). I also got this same feeling as I read further into the speech. It is hard to imagine how he did not get so caught up in his passion for his country that he didn't scream his words out at the top of his lungs. All in all, a very moving and significant speech for our country, and an interesting and effective TA of the document :)
ReplyDelete