In the 1833 Declaration of Sentiments, the American Anti-Slavery Society is arguing that slavery is a sin and a horrible crime. The cruel slave owners torture the people they enslave: they abuse them, starve them and take these people away from their families while the hopeless slave cannot do anything about it for they have no legal protection whatsoever. Slaves are treated so horribly, and simply because they were born with a different skin color than white people. Slaves are not property but they are people who make up 1/6 of Americans, and by being an American person they should be granted with the same rights as any other American person including being educated, making money and obtaining legal protection. The American Anti- Slavery Society also argues that when a slave owner frees a slave, they shouldn’t be rewarded for it because they caused the oppression and suffering of the slave in the first place and slavery in the free states (without government interference in the slave states) should be completely abolished (escapees in the free states cannot be sent back to their slave owners, etc.).
2. How does the author appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional quality), and ethos (the writer’s perceived character) with their argument?
Logos: Logos means the logical reasoning used in a writing. “That every American citizen, who detains a human being in involuntary bondage as his property, is, according to Scripture, (Ex, xxi, 16,) a man stealer,” and “…really enjoy no constitutional or legal protection…” show logical reasoning where the author made religious references, thus showing logos.
Pathos: Pathos is the emotional tones of the writing. The author appeals to pathos in the text when he wrote: “For the crime of having a dark complexion, they suffer the pangs of hunger, the infliction of stripes and the ignominy of servitude. They are kept in a heathenish darkness by laws expressly enacted to make their instruction a criminal offence,” because it makes the reader feel empathy for the slaves by describing their experiences in a more dramatic way
.Ethos: Ethos is the credibility of the author. Ethos is shown by the fact that the Declaration of Sentiments was written by William Lloyd Garrison - who is the author of the praised abolitionist newspaper, The Liberator, and the leader of the American Anti-Slavery Society, which proves that this declaration is legitimate and credible because the author is a well-known abolitionist who knows what he’s talking about.
3. What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?The Declaration of Sentiments is one of the many anti-slavery movements which contributed a big part in the abolition of slavery. It broadcasted to many slave owners in America that slavery was against the bible and it was wrong in many ways. This moved many slave owners and more slaves were freed. Nowadays, slavery is 100% illegal (although many jobs make people feel otherwise) but if the Declaration of Sentiments didn’t exist, slavery might be legal today.
4. Do you find the author’s argument convincing? Why or why not?
The authors argument was convincing. The author didn’t provide just his opinion, but gave many detailed reasons as to why slavery should be abolished by explaining the hardships and suffering of the slaves, such as when the author states: “But those, for whose emancipation we are striving…are recognized by law, and treated by their fellow-beings, as brute beasts; are plundered daily…really enjoy no constitutional or legal protection…and are ruthlessly torn asunder-- the tender babe from the arms of its frantic mother-- the heartbroken wife from her weeping husband-- at the caprice or pleasure of irresponsible tyrants.” The author also states that by freeing the slaves, no slave or slave owner is harmed where it is written “…it is not wronging the master it is righting the slave…” and “ it would not amputate a limb or break a bone of the slaves” therefore making it very convincing to pro and anti- slavery peoples that the abolition of slavery would be a very good thing to do. “…the guilt of its oppression is unequalled by any other on the face of the earth; and, therefore, that is bound to repent instantly, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free…Therefore we believe and affirm-- that there is no difference, in principle, between the African slave trade and American slavery;” and “…man cannot hold property in man…because slavery is a crime…” speaks very ethically which make it more convincing to the audience that slavery should be abolished.
Not to question the intentions of Mr. Garrison by any stretch of the imagination, but I’ve had a couple of “what if” scenarios that have popped into my head after reading the document. The American Anti-Slavery Society argued that slavery was condemned by the bible; however what if the bible made no mention to slavery at all (meaning neither side could use the bible to argue against one another)? There are multiple references of religious stature in the text and on page 212 (of the reading) this excerpt, “That all those laws which are now in force, admitting the right of slavery, are therefore, before God, utterly null and void; being an audacious usurpation of the Divine prerogative, a daring infringement on the law of nature, a base overthrow of the very foundations of the social compact, a complete extinction of all the relations, endearments and obligations of mankind, and a presumptuous transgression of all the holy commandments; and that therefore they ought instantly to be abrogated.” The ending of that excerpt is making some very bold statements. I would even say that it questions slave-holders right to live, as holding slaves as described by Garrison is a “…complete extinction of all the relations, endearments and obligations of mankind, and a presumptuous transgression of all the holy commandments…”
ReplyDeleteThat said, I still feel slavery would have been abolished, however if not for the use and reference of the bible (as seen in this document), it may have been harder and it may have taken longer for people to truly believe in the abolishment of slavery. Religious beliefs were certainly strong back then (not that they aren’t now, but they were certainly strong back then), and when it says you are essentially breaking the rules that God has laid down, it’s making some very strong judgments about the people who think otherwise about slavery.
Just as a side note I also found this quote on the same page (212) to be very fascinating: “Because immediate and general emancipation would only destroy nominal, not real property, it would not amputate a limb or break a bone of the slaves, but by infusing motives into their breasts, would make them doubly valuable to the masters as free laborers; and…” What I can draw from that is Mr. Garrison is implying that if the slaves were to work as free-laborers, that they would be more willing to work and be more efficient as a general worker rather than a forced worker. I thought this was interesting simply from the standpoint that I’m not quite sure how that would have worked out if the freeing of slaves was immediate. Would people that were previously slaves before the abolishment, come back to work for their previous owners? Or would they run with their family members/friends to distant cities in order to “escape” their previous lives?
Not to sound bland but I thought both of those quotes were very interesting to read, and it certainly got me thinking about alternate scenarios that could (or couldn’t) have happened.
I really liked how you summarized all the arguments in the declaration in the first part of your work. I would like to add, though, that aside from Garrison's arguments about the emancipation of the slaves and the equality of black and white people in America, he also acknowledged that their cause is a continuation of what their fathers have started—freedom. He compared their cause to that of their fathers’, and concludes that their cause is not different from their fathers’ in terms of “purity of motive, in earnestness of zeal, in decision of purpose, in intrepidity of action, in steadfastness of faith, [and] in sincerity of spirit.” When compared, their fathers’ grievances were insignificant “in comparison with the wrongs and sufferings of those for whom [they] plead [for].”
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you said that he used religion to stress some points. In a society comprised of immigrants who escaped religious and civic oppression, he appealed to his audience using religious logic, and he used the horrific sufferings of slaves as examples to arouse emotions in his appeal. He maintains that their fathers were “never slaves—never bought and sold like cattle,” and that they were never treated like “brute beasts;” on the other hand, the slaves they are trying to have emancipated are stripped of their rights as human beings, regarded as properties, and are maltreated because of their color.
Based on the writing, I believe the author to be a God-fearing, law-abiding compassionate man who fought against enslavement using the mighty pen. He viewed the (then) laws pertaining to enslavement, as“…audacious usurpation of the Divine prerogative.” Their cause, the endeavor to have equality among men and enjoy human rights, is one of the many things that make America a great nation. Movements, such as the American Anti-Slave Society, paved the way for us to have the freedom and equality we enjoy. They have provided us with valid arguments—denying anyone of their rights and choice is wrong in the eyes of both men and God. No man should be a property of another and we should all be equal.
The fact that Garrison didn't just preach about what he was trying to accomplish but instead provided examples and really related the issue to the causation of freedom I would assume struck home with a lot of people. I have no doubt there were many publications regarding this same issue. However the key points highlighted by both of you is what makes this one of the important and memorable ones. Men like Garrison are examples of why I'm able to say I'm American and say it with pride.
ReplyDeleteSlaves were depicted as inhuman. Garrison mentions "Our founding fathers were not slaves- they weren't bought and sold like cattle." This supports how civilization back then, viewed African-Americans as empty laborers who's life purpose was to work. I also agree with Lora's addition that the founding fathers sailed overseas to America for freedom of all men, which includes African-Americans.
ReplyDeleteGarrison spoke in very eloquent descriptions which held the audience in a sense of awe. The descriptions drove audiences through the everyday toils, struggles, worries, and disbeliefs of slaves. They brought the audience (White people in particular) into the life of a slave. Garrison presented all the injustice tortures, unfair decisions and all the other unequal treatment blacks face everyday due to the concept that slaves aren't human. These situations Garrison presents appeal to pathos.