Text Analysis; Declaration of Sentiments Seneca Falls Convention 1848

Text Analysis 2: The Declaration of Sentiments, Seneca Falls Convention, 1848

1.       What is the author arguing? In this Declaration of Sentiments, the Seneca Falls Convention, the author is arguing for the rights of women. The author is making a voice for women, arguing for the fact that they deserve rights of their own, they deserve the same things that men are entitled too.  The author is arguing that a man and a woman although a different sex, still a human being, and not one is more entitled or important than the other. The author is also NOT arguing that men are necessarily wrong, nor is the author putting them down. Just trying to justify what is right for women as well.

2.       How does the author appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional quality), and ethos (the writers perceived character)?   To start off with, the author appeals to logic by using what I see to be common sense? Where in any document does it say that a man is more important than a woman? Where in any document does it say women should not have rights, simply because they are women? It does. So why must they act like a woman is not entitled to anything? Next, the author appeals to pathos by speaking of things like “He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead”, and “He has taken from her, all her right in property even the wages she earns”. Stuff like that hits deep for a lot of people. Like working a long hard day and not being able to be in charge of any of your money. Be you a man or a woman, it would be upsetting. The author also uses powerful language. Like in the quote above when it says “civilly dead”. Death is a strong analogy, so you know she is no more. And lastly, the author expresses ethos by in the last paragraph saying that women have admission to all the rights and privileges that they deserved, the author is not asking that anything be taken from the men, just simply that women get the same rights. The author is an equal person.

3.       What is the historical significance of this document? This document is significant and important for the fact that, this was written in a time period when women had NO rights, had no voice. It was the beginning of a new world for these women; they were challenging the men that had always belittled them before. It was a brave move. But worth it so that equality could come to them.

4.       Do you find the authors argument convincing? Why or why not? For me this was an easy document for me to read and be convinced by. I think mainly because I am a woman, and I couldn’t imagine myself without rights, or without a voice. But also because it just isn’t right to put one sex above or before another. It’s cruel and immoral to degrade someone no matter what, and therefore I am 100% convinced by this authors argement.

Class Discussion Lead: Going Ahead or Gone to Smash

Class Discussion Lead 2: Going Ahead or Gone to Smash; Entrepreneur Struggles 1830’s

Summary: Back in the 1830’s there was something known as an economic boom, this “boom” gave many the opportunity to progress and grow financially and career wise. It was a time when the economy really jumped out and stood out in good ways. One man benefited from this tremendously, and his success effected many men and women all around. His name was Benjamin Rathbun. Mr. Rathbun took full advantage of this period by taking his business to Buffalo, New York. His business you ask; a brand new hotel. This hotel grew from just a hotel to real estate, building construction, banks, store, transportation, and more. Rathbun took over and employed 1/3 of the area. He ran this whole operation with several people, but mainly his brother Lyman who was the head of financial operations.  From 1830-1835 things really took off for them, but as quickly as they rose, they fell in 1836. The beginning of the end started for Benjamin with “note shaving” (slang for selling IOUs at a discounted price). This caused Rathbun to be forced to take out loans, and large loans at that. But these loans ended up being forgeries, sending Rathbun to prison for 5 years. And his brother high tailed with a load of money. Starting in 1837 and for 5 years after, there would be several other massive business failures, which would force the U.S. to create 2 necessary laws to try to help the economy. The first was, The U.S. Bankruptcy Act of 1841 and second, The Credit Rating. These laws were created to keep things like this from happening again in the future.  In 1843 Benjamin Rathbun was released from jail and went back into the hotel business where he would manage hotels until he passed away.

Question 1: Seeing that our current economy isn’t at the best, do you think our country could benefit from more laws like those created in 1841? How?

Question 2: In the current world today who is similar to Benjamin Rathbun? And why?

Class Lead Discussion: Transatlantic Abolition

Class Lead Discussion: Transatlantic Abolition

Summary:
Many people believe that abolitionism came around first in the 1830’s, but little did they know, abolitionism came around way back in the late 1700’s. Not all abolition movements and gestures were as big as the one of the 1830’s, they were things as simple as a song or a story, but it made an impact nonetheless. Back in 1783 there was a religious group known as the Quakers, and they were very anti-slave trade. They really opened people’s eyes to anti-slavery and got things going after America lost in the imperial war. In fact if you ask me, they were actually the first group to really spark this abolition. In fact, they met with London and had the first petition that requested that our Parliament abolish slave trade. They grew at a steady rate and became quite powerful. They inspired many to follow in their footsteps. In 1787 the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade was formed. This group took many different approaches. They gathered many signatures and even drew graphic pictures of the harsh slave ships to really get people’s attention. That’s how the Societe des Amis des Noris came about. This group was founded in France and believed in the same things that the Quakers did. Groups like this began to form all around, creating anti-slave trade groups and really creating a voice that would soon make a difference. In 1807 Parliament banned slave ships and a year later so did the U.S. drastically reducing the slave trade that had been happening. Slowly but surely this movement became even more drastic. In the 1820s the women came forth, they too took a stand and made a voice, collecting 1.3 million signatures for their petition, and in 1833 the Abolition of Slavery Act was put into effect, it “freed all slave children under age 6 and gradually phased out slavery for everyone older during a four year apprenticeship”. But it didn’t stop there; this led to even greater change. In 1840 abolitionists from America and Brittan came together for convention for anti slavery. All that the British had done was starting to inspire the people of America. But would America follow suit?

Question 1:
While reading I see that the Quakers took a lot of action, do you think without them slave trade would have lasted for even longer than it did?

Question 2:
As we read this section, we can see that the Quakers were a religious group, but the others were not, do you think we ended slave trade for the wrong reasons, like politics and money?

Text Analysis: Declaration of Sentiments: American Anti Slavery 1833

Text Analysis: Declaration of Sentiments, American Anti-Slavery Society, 1833

1.

What is the author arguing? In the Declaration of Sentiments the Anti- Slavery Society 1833 the authors is arguing against slavery. He is arguing that is there is no real equality when it comes to slavery. He believes that slaves should be free. Nobody should be held captive as a slave. It’s inhumane. That even though some people believe in slavery and practice it, it’s not right. He even says that “to be tortured and by an enraged master or brutal driver…is criminal and full of danger. It must be broken up”. He also hints that our founding fathers and leaders were never slaves, and just because someone is African or African American doesn’t mean it’s ok to enslave them or trade them. So why is it ok to do to some people and not to others? It’s not, it’s not ok to submit someone to slave trade or slavery is what the author is arguing.

2.

How does the author appeal to logos, pathos and ethos with their argument? The author appeals to logos with his natural reasoning and what I believe to be common sense. He speaks on the Declaration of Independence and how slavery and slave trade goes against everything it says. He uses logic very well. Considering our founding fathers wanted to make this a free country and so forth yet they enslaved people and beat and tortured them. That doesn’t sound like a nation of freedom if you ask me. Next he appealed to pathos with really strong emotional connection. To me, talking about someone being beaten and hit and tortured and starved of food and freedomputs knots in my stomach. And when the author makes references to those types of things, it makes me feel sickened and saddened that people had to endure those harsh things while those doing it to them lived a privileged life. It wasn’tfair. Lastly the author appeals to ethos by showing that he really is trying to be a person of equality. He really does want things to be fair. He showed his fairness and equal personality by writing this in the first place, by making his voice heard and by standing up for what is right.

3.

What is the historical significance of this document? The historical significance of this document was that this was the beginning of the end. This was the start of something powerful. He wrote this document during a time that slavery and slave trade were at its highest. This was taking charge and starting action. This was the start of a movement that many would begin to follow, that would lead to change and make a huge difference in society.

4.

Do you feel the author’s argument was convincing? Why or why not? While reading this I found it convincing and correct for many reasons. First off, I am biracial. My mother is white and my father is black. Often the subject of slavery and slave trade makes me angry and saddened for my ancestors. To know that somewhere down my family line slavery was present.  But aside from the racial factor, it’s so wrong to force people to do your dirty work and then abuse and mistreat them, for no reason other than the fact that they were African. They were literally being used and abused, and there is no way that doing that to people can be justified. And for those reasons I did find what the author was saying to be true and convincing