1. What is the author arguing?
Thomas Paine
is arguing that the rule of England’s
regality is a fallacy, is easily corruptible, and needs to be replaced with a
republican government for the good of American inhabitants.
2. How does the author appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional
quality), and ethos (the writer’s
perceived character) with their argument?
Thomas Paine
appeals to logos with his statements “Why should one man, by accident of birth,
claim extensive power over others” and “A king might be foolish or wicked”. This
logic helped create our nation’s government, a system that is made for the
people and by the people. This way we all have a fair say in the matters of
state and country and we are not bound by the law’s of a line of blood but by a
bond of liberty.
His appeal to
pathos resides in his avid fervor for republican government to replace the
monarchy. He believed that “Rulers” were only representatives of the people and
to make sure that our rulers are people we as a people believe in, he wanted
the government to rely on constant elections to create the most fulfilling
democracy. He believes in free government, liberty, and urges others to follow
suit.
His appeal to
ethos is in his writing style. His words are chosen carefully and are pinpoint
precise in delivering his message. His character is poise, intellectual, and
serious but also comical. In his statement “… an ass for a lion” he insulted
the British King directly for all to hear, something many Americans wanted to
do at the time.
3. What is the historical
significance/relevance of this document?
This document
was a major start for American Independence. It lead to many people challenging
the crown and by the document’s informative and by its slightly comical nature,
it spread its influence like a wildfire, to many a man, woman, and child.
4. Do you find the author’s argument
convincing? Why or why not?
I find Thomas Paine’s argument very convincing because we
should be allowed to control and rectify our problems, and nobody should have
the power handed to them because of family blood or creed. His argument was for
a government for the people and by the people and that we should be able to
govern ourselves and no one man would have absolute power over the populace.
This was to stop the tyranny, corruption, and overall apathy the American
settlers had to endure from England’s
rule. In the end everybody should have a voice and that is what Thomas Paine
was fighting for, and this is why I agree with him.
Your analysis was pretty good. During that time period mostly everyone wanted to stay loyal to Britain because they had this sense of obligation towards them, they still believed that Britain was there "mother land". However Paine was arguing that notion by listing all the terrible thing Britain has done to the colonies he showed the people that Britain had the interest of Britain alone in it's heart and not the colonies. Paine believed that the only way America could have peace was to separate it self from the corruption that had plagued Europe and Britain, basically he wanted America to gain its independence even if it meant war he truly believed that through independence peace could be restored to America.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your analysis. I think Thomas Paine makes his argument very clear when he says “The period of debate is closed. Arms, as the last resource, decides the contest . . . ” The colonies have tried all options to maintain the relationship with Britain but it does not make “sense” anymore and lists all the reasons. His argument is ethically appealing because he tries to address all sides of the issue or argument, which shows that he is well-informed, trustworthy, and credible. He points to the argument about America flourishing due to Britain, America receiving military protection, and Britain being the “parent country.” As you point, he says “why should one man . . . claim extensive power over others.” I find this argument convincing but what about the colonists “extensive power over” the Africans and native Indians.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your analysis. I think it was well written and highlighted the key topics of the article. I believe that it helped show the Colonial people how Great Britain was no longer viable, and how the King wanted to take away our freedoms and rights. like everyone else stated people did want to remain a part of great britain because after all for most of the colonists that was their homeland, but war was inevitable and we had to choose our side and fight for our lands so that we could be free of corruption. Overall I feel like Thomas Paines argument was very clear and cleverly written, and i believe it helped open a lot of eyes to the kings real intentions with the colonies.
ReplyDelete