Declaration of Independence
What is the author arguing?
The authors of this declaration are arguing several points; the main point being all men are created equal, by God the creator, and should therefore have freedoms to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It also argues the King of England is no longer a suitable tyrant over the colonies and the people deserve the right to elect the representatives who will govern them, and when they feel the elected officials no longer have the interest of the people, they should have the right to oust them and elect new ones. Along with that argument, one is being made for a complete separation from England and total independence by way of privatizing the colonies in to self governing states.
How does the author appeal to logos, pathos, and ethos with his argument?
The declaration starts out very logically. All are created equal so all should be equal. It is not right to have one ruler over many kingdoms especially when that ruler has done nothing but suppress and take advantage of the people. Every man should have the individual right to seek security for his future. Emotional quality is brought to the declaration by more than 20 examples of what the King has done to hurt the colonists and their communities. It is difficult to interpret the character of the writer. The declaration was written mostly by Thomas Jefferson with help from Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Robert Livingston, and Roger Sherman. After the first draft was complete, it went before congress for final changes and approval.
What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?
It gave the people of the colonies something they had never experienced before: the right to revolt against their own government. The declaration condemned the abuse of power the king exercised and was an example for other nations to follow. When the colonists were finally fed up with the taxation by the British, the Declaration of Independence gave them the right to go to war against England.
Do you find the author’s argument convincing? Why or why not?
I absolutely find it convincing. It was what everyone had wanted (in one way or another) since the first settlers stepped foot on the New World soil: freedom. People fled poverty, religious persecution, and many other things in the hopes to start anew in America. What they found was a British government who still controlled the colonists and even the taking of freedoms from those native to the land. What confuses me is how the slaves didn’t seem to be counted as people created by God, just like the colonists. It was nearly 100 years until Lincoln drew up the Emancipation Proclamation (1863) freeing the slaves.