Text Analysis: The Preface to The Frame of Government of Pennsylvania, 1682

1. What is the author arguing?

The author, William Penn, is arguing the Biblical justification and necessity of an organized government with a set of laws for two reasons: “first, to terrify evil doers: secondly, to cherish those that do well…” as stated in the preface of his work “The Frame of Government of Pennsylvania, 1682

2. How does the author appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional quality), and ethos (the writer’s perceived character) with their argument?

Penn makes his case most predominantly with appeal to logos. The first instance of this appeal to logic is when Penn states that God appointed man to rule His world, and qualified them with skill, power and integrity to do so, but because sin is among them, laws must be present to not only protect the good, but to punish the bad. He cites the Apostle saying “’ The law (says he) was added because of transgression: ‘In another place, ‘Knowing that the law was not made for the righteous man; but for the disobedient and ungodly, for sinners, for unholy and prophane, for murderers, for wlloremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, and for man-stealers, for lyers, for perjured persons.’” With this Penn claims it is logical and justified that the people have a divine right to government. Another instance of appeal to logos is a distinction he makes between the three prevalent types of government: “Any government is free to the people under it (whatever be the frame) where the laws rule, and the people are a party to those laws, and more than this is tyranny, oligarchy, or confusion.” With this he is arguing that this commonality between the three governments is key to bringing those with differing preferences together.  Another instance of appeal to logos is when Penn addresses the matter of why good people should need good laws. He states, “good men will never want good laws, nor suffer ill ones.” He goes on to say in summary that corrupt people prefer laws similar to themselves; therefore, they must have good laws to prevent corruption.  This makes it logical that because evil is present, good laws are needed because they would essentially only apply to the “loose and depraved people.”

I found very little appeal to emotion in this excerpt. This may have been intentional as it was intended to be a political document and therefore emotion could have been purposely omitted. However, it may be argued that his choice of including the Apostle’s excerpt which describes that law is necessary for sinners. This excerpt describes these people with strong language such as unholy, prophane, murderers, liars and perjured person. Including this text with such strong language may have assisted in convincing those that believed a government should not be necessary if they intended to be good people that there is evil, and these laws would serve to protect them from the evil.

Lastly, Penn makes his appeal to ethos through his appeal to logos, and by listing the reasons he does not specify a certain type of government. His strong case for logic makes it easy for the audience to believe that he is credible on the topic which he is speaking.

3. What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?

The historical significance of this document is the impact it has had on the development of democracy in America as well as the world. Because of this document, and its implementation, people could come to America and experience liberty. Something not granted equally in many other parts of the world.  

4. Do you find the author’s argument convincing? Why or why not?

I did find the authors argument convincing mostly due to the logical sense that it makes.

It makes sense that, while I may personally intend to live and not infringe on others’ rights, others may not resist that temptation so well, nor am I immune to temptation. Therefore, a government and laws must be necessary.

CDL - Why Did English Colonists Consider Themselves Superior Indians and Africans?

The aritcle's main focus is to examine the language colonists used to describe the Natives, Blacks and themselves to try to determine if racism in America was rooted in the early seventeenth century Chesapeake. Primarily, the Natives were referred to by the colonists as Indians, the term originating from the days of Columbus.  The next most common term used to refer to the natives was "savages". In 1625, One English colonist described the natives as being "so bad a people, having little of humanitie but shape, ignorant of Civilitie, of Arts, of Religion;... more wild and and unmanly than that unmanned wild countrey, which they range rather than inhabit". However, some colonists did admire aspects of the natives including the way they "care[d] for family members and their simple, independent way of life in apparent harmony with nature. While the colonists found the Indian's way of living very un-English, color was never something they attributed to their savagery. In fact, the colonists considered the Indians white, never "red", and referred to their skin tone as tanned, and tawny. Neither of these terms have negative conotations, although pale skin was in fashion because tanned skin represented hard labor such as in fields.
Africans were a different story. In contrast to the Indians, the African's skin color was what struck the English colonists most rather than their un-English ways. Literally, black connoted many things negative, and was defined in the dictionary with words such as "dirty, foul, and having dark of deadly purposes". In contrast to white which represented purity, beauty and goodness which the English identified themselves as. Because the colonists identified as white, free, and English, everything the Africans were not, they viewed themselves as superior. Overall, Indians's contrasting style of living to the English and the parallels of the meaning of black and white with the skin color of the English and Africans, and along with the presence of slavery and English's ideas of social hierarchy caused the English to consider themselves superior to the Indians and Africans.

Why did the English colonists struggle so much to maintain posistive and productive relationships with the Indians?

The article states that the English colonists were struck most prominently by the skin color of the Africans, and never that they were uncivilized, or savages, as they referred to the Indians. Why do you think they were unable to distinguish between behavioral characteristics, which would determine if some one was capable of being "civilized", and physical characterisics?

CDL American Tobacco and European Consumers

In the article we get a feel for how and why tobacco use became so popular in Europe despite King James’ campaign against its use. It started out being imported, in generally small crops, over to Europe around 1600 where it was sold for a fairly high price. Due to growing demand and popularity, by 1700 the price decreased significantly as the development of the crop growing process became more efficient and the amount of tobacco imported to Europe increased.  In addition, we get an idea of the settings in which tobacco was used and became a part of everyday life. The text explains that people would gather in a smoking club, smoke at the dinner table and even in bed, and that doctors endorsed the substance.

We get a sense of King James’ strong dislike of tobacco. He describes the foul smell and the negative side effects, but given the massive extent of the popularity of tobacco in Europe, why do you think he was unable to over look the negative aspects as the majority of the population did? Do you think there could be political reasons? Why or Why not?

The article states that the use of tobacco created an industry for tobacco-related paraphernalia. Why do you think this is significant to European history? To American History?