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
Its interesting the way you co-ordinated the authors main issue against slavery in the 1833 declaration, which is to create equality for all men regardless of the color of their skin.
ReplyDeleteFreedom is a right that every human being should enjoy and to subject slaves to anything short of this is inhumane, criminal and needs to be stopped. Its not just unfair , but its difficult to comprehend how these slave masters will be truly living happily when they brutally mistreat their fellow human beings. Talk of somebody not having empathy nor a heart, thats what these slave owners embodied. The emotional appeal by the authour about how a nation whose tenets is founded on freedom can outrightly abuse the very principle it upholds is morally wrong and unconstitutional. Where is freedom found and how an it be justified when one sixth of the country is enslaved , beaten, and held against their own will?
Permit me to further support your ideas with these information:
In one of his famous quotes, twenty six year old William Lloyd Garrison, an unequalled slavery activist of his time, Liberator newspaper founder, and editor to mention but a few, took anti-slavery issue to a height of unprecedented proportion and determined to draw a line in the sand as history calls on him to be part of what we celebrate today as freedom. His passion to advocate the immediate end to slavery can be summed up in this quote where he drew a parallel between a man whose house is on fire to a glimpse of what slavery looks like “On this subject, I do not wish to think, or speak, or write with moderation. NO! NO! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm, tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher, tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen- but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present” ( Roark p. 345).
Rising above the fray of what his critics have said, Garrison went above and beyond to lead the declaration of sentiment s in 1833 against slavery. He argued that slavery is a sin and unlawful, and wondered why a nation built on the very fabrics of freedom will fail to rise up to this moment and abolish slavery. He went further to relate that by supporting slavery, it makes the law unconstitutional, and reminded us that in our declaration of independence we believed , that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The right to enjoy liberty, the right to your own body, and the products of your labor is therefore inalienable, and that any American citizen who holds another man in involuntary bondage against their will just because of the color of their skin, is a man stealer (Exodus 21 vs. 16). He maintained that all slaves should be set free outrightly and that their holders deserve not to be compensated because slavery is a crime and slaves are not commodities to be sold. He challenged congress to act within the bounds of the constitution and abolish slavery. He pledged to keep this anti-slavery society movement going in every city in the land through every medium that will help project their declaration and pursuit of freedom for all men.
I cannot help but salute the courage that Garrison and his supporters had for standing up to be a voice to those slaves for cannot defend themselves. He paved the way for true freedom, for even my present generation. Perhaps if not for their bravery, I being an African woman may have been stolen snatched from the life and family I knew and sold into slavery like those who have gone before me. Talk about being your brother’s keeper, and loving your neighbor as yourself, they not only spoke about it, but they lived it out.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don’t believe it is freedom that the author is arguing about as compared to equality and how hypocritical the government was during that time. He speaks about how the south argued to count slaves as population, but refused to give them civil rights thus causing the government to introduce the 3/5 law. Where every slave counted as 3/5 of an actual person like they were not human enough to count as a whole person.
ReplyDeleteIn the second to last paragraph the author starts to point out all facts about how mistreated the people were. “They are now living under a pledge of their tremendous physical force, to fasten the galling fetters of tyranny upon the limbs of millions in the southern States; they are liable to be called at any moment to suppress a general insurrection of the slabs; they authorize the slave owner to vote for three-fifths of his slaves as property, and thus enable him to perpetuate his oppression; they support a standing army at the South for its protection; and they seize the slave, who has escaped into their territories, and send him back to be tortured by an enraged master or brutal driver.” All of what he had just stated was fact. And I agree by him explain the brutal treatments and seemingly or truthfully hopelessness the slaves have to deal with pulls on my heart strings. He also backed up his/her claim by mention William Lloyd Garrison. Garrison was a credible souse since he had his own newspaper.
I agree that it was daring for this author to be speaking out against slavery especially at this time period. Speaking out against the slave holders was dangerous, but the fact that he poured so much emotion and conviction into his writing was something to be accounted for.
The author’s stance was not only convincing, but inspiring. He not only used pathos to convince people of the moral wrongness of slavery but used facts to point out how terribly horrid slavery is. He called people, who were using religion to support their slavery claim, out. He pointed out that no matter how you word it the Africans, even though they have a different color skin, are still God’s creatures. It says in the Bible to love one another and there they were not only abusing each other, but trying to use Gods name to justify themselves.
I agree with Thalia. Though the author did mention how freedom should be given to slaves, the entire article was based around how hypocritical and unfair the government was being to slaves. He believed that EVERYONE should be treated equal. And that means giving slaves the same rights that white people had. At this point the slaves weren't even considered people. They were objects to people and, like Thalia mentioned, only 3/5 of a person.
ReplyDeleteThe author took a lot of risks writing an article like this. A majority of people felt differently than him and the fact that he called all those people out, was very daring. Saying that Americans were "man-stealers" and calling out religious people by using scripture to prove they were wrong. How could any religious person arguing against the bible saying that you should love thy neighbor as yourself and that all men are God's creatures, even the different colored ones.
This article is very convincing because the author uses real facts instead of just stating his opinion. Every argument he makes is backed up by facts and reliable sources. And he also states it in a way that makes people who read it feel. He uses emotion, truth and passion to get his point across to all different types of people.