1. What is the author arguing? Overall the author is arguing that slavery is wrong, but more specifically that Congress should outlaw the ability of slaves to be traded across borders of non-slave states. Also calling upon the people to be proactive against the slave trade.
2. How does the author appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional quality), and ethos (the writer’s perceived character) with their argument? The author appeals to logos by citing that if the slave owners were only to set their slaves free and use them as paid workers instead, that their production would go up. Also by targeting part of the argument towards Congress can show some sort of appeal to a layman's logic. For the emotional argument the author tries to really sell the idea of slaves being people and just how wrong it is to treat another human in such a way. Appealing to the people the author uses a couple religious references.
3. What is the historical significance/relevance of this document? It comes from a influential abolitionist writer, at a time when anti-slavery views were starting to become very popular.
4. Do you find the author’s argument convincing? Why or why not? I personally find this incredibly convincing. Even putting myself in the shoes of an early American, I find it hard to argue against any point. The author touches on nearly every angle, legal, moral, and religious. All of which are at the top of my decision affecting variables. Perhaps the only way I would be against this is if I were a slave holder.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that the overall message states slavery is wrong. I think the message does go a little deeper in that the author also discusses the rights and liberties of the slaves. As much as I can agree with the content of this document it really would depend what side you belong too. I agree because that's the side that I'm on and what I 'want' to believe.. However assuming I were on the other side of the fence I would 'want' to believe the other side.. If you chose to think of the slaves as property I'm sure it would be easy for someone to dismiss this article as obsolete.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that the authors arguements were very convincing. If I could put myself in the shoes of an American living at that time I would have agreed with his viewpoint after reading only his moral and legal arguements. The religous angle would have been the finishing touch. I also agree with Tiara, if one was a slave holder during that time period they might disagree with the authors arguement because they were concerned only with money and their monetary gains, or they truly believed that people with dark complexions are inferior.
ReplyDelete