1. What
is the author arguing?
In
the excerpt from Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, he argues that independence from
Britain is the only solution, and proposes a template for government
organization.
2.
How does the author appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional
quality), and ethos (the writer’s
perceived character) with their argument?
Paine
uses a combination of appeals to Pathos and logos in an attempt to render his
argument undeniable. He uses metaphors followed by concrete examples to
solidify his argument. For example, Paine presents that reasoning to remain tied
to Britain because America has flourished so far under British rule is similar
to arguing that “because a child has thrived upon milk, that it is never to
have meat.” This argument appeals to our emotion and logic because of course
everyone knows and has experienced the transition from mother’s milk to solid
foods and it would indeed be silly to think that because milk is good for a
child that it should only consume milk as an adult too. Another assertion
Thomas Paine makes is that it is absurd for an island to rule an entire
continent. This is likely intended to appeal to our logic because as humans we
naturally tend to believe that the power of government should reflect the size
of the land which it is ruling. He further solidifies this argument by
asserting that this is likely why Britain has so many enemies. Further, Paine argues
that while some may believe allegiance is owed to Britain as they are the
parent country, that this makes Britain’s actions all the more appalling as “Even
brutes do not devour their young, nor savages make war upon their families” He
solidifies this argument by adding later that America would surely have fewer
enemies if it cut ties with Britain because its current enemies are such because of their ties with Britain.
Further, because his argument is a call to action, his appeal to ethos is
reliant primarily on his appeal to logic, and by showing his experience. He
notes that he remembers when the British lifted that Stamp act, only a few
years later, enforced new taxes. Also, he states “I am not induced by motives
of pride, party, or resentment to espouse the doctrine of separation and
independance; I am clearly, positively, and conscientiously persuaded that it
is the true interest of this continent to be so;” This presents to the readers
that he is arguing from a rational position, and has no underlying motives so
as to gain their trust. Overall, there are many different examples that could
be cited, but the above stood out to me the most, and I felt were the most
effective in making the argument.
3.
What is the historical
significance/relevance of this document?
This pamphlet
is significant because it presented the idea of separating from Britain- an
idea that at the time, many colonists were divided over. It lead to the
American revolution which gave our country its independence, and has had much
influence on the ideals and shaping of our country’s character.
4.
Do you find the author’s
argument convincing? Why or why not?
I
found Paine’s argument very convincing. It called upon my pride as an American,
and I feel that it would have been equally effective on the colonists. His use of metaphors was probably the device that I found most effective. His
argument was very logical, and he used specific examples to provide evidence
and support.
Lauren,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, you have done an excellent job outlining what this excerpt from Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" is all about. I thought you hit the nail on the head in regards to the argument he was posing and the details that made it effective.
In my opinion, what made Paine's argument so clear and powerful was his unrelenting, strong use of language. You already mentioned it, but one of my favorite sections is when he relates Britain to being a parent. He says, "But Britain is the parent country, say some. Then the more shame upon her conduct. Even brutes do not devour their young, nor savages make war upon their families; wherefore the assertion, if true, turns to her reproach; but it happens not to be true, or only partly so, and the phrase parent or mother country hath been jesuitically adopted by the king and his parasites, with a low papistical design of gaining an unfair bias on the credulous weakness of our minds." At the time, this was likely an incredibly shocking statement - especially for the majority of those who still felt loyalty toward Britain. However, by pursuing this analogy of a parent figure, Paine appeals to the reader's emotions. Any person would be incensed at finding out that a parent was harming his/her child in any way. Then how much more so would the thought of a whole country harming another incense the general public?
Another aspect of that same section that I felt was powerful was the phrase "weakness of our minds". By implying that Britain was taking advantage of Americans and playing on their "weaknesses", this would also stir up emotion in the reader. No one likes to be told they are unintelligent or weak in anyway. Thus, this would stir up anger/bitterness in people and work to inspire them to go against Britain. It was absolutely brilliant of Paine to play on people's natural sense of self-pride. He also does this further on in the document. He states, "But the king you will say has a negative in England; the people there can make no laws without his consent. In point of right and good order, there is something very ridiculous, that a youth of twenty-one (which hath often happened) shall say to several millions of people, older and wiser than himself, I forbid this or that act of yours to be law." Again, the people's sense of self-pride would come into action. People would likely be indignant about the idea of a mere 21 year-old making decisions for them. Once again, Paine appeals to the reader's emotions in order to get them onto his side. I think that history shows us he was very effective. Just as you said, this was one of the moving forces toward the American Revolution and a change in people's thinking in general.