Speech to a White Audience, Chief Joseph, 1879

What is the author arguing?

Chief Joseph, is letting everyone know why he and his people decided to fight against the "White Man". He is trying to explain that, just like in our different cultures, we are taught the right and wrongs, and our faith and beliefs. That is what Chief Joseph is trying to do, he was taught too. He says that as his dad before him did, learned to treat other men how you would like to be treated. The Indian people were used and their homes were taken away and loved ones.

How does the author appeal to logos, pathos, and ethos with their argument?

Chief Joseph appeals to the audience, and us readers, to logos by telling us that how the "White Man", has treated him and his people and that he is honorable to his people and their beliefs and laws. By pathos, Chief Joseph refers to his neighbors, and others as his friends. He respects and honors his peoples views and beliefs. By ethos, he explains that he is pretty much doing what he was taught by his father, and his father before him. He stays by what he was taught and he honors his family and people by staying by what he believes.

What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?

The historical significance and/or relevance if this document is that it is more documentation to the facts that not all of the Indian people's wanted to fight for blood and that they are doing what is being done to them. Chief Joseph, like other chiefs and tribes, need to defend themselves against enemies or to those who threaten their lives and families.

Do you find the author's argument convincing? Why or Why Not?

I do find Chief Joseph's argument very convincing. We all know from History books and History classes. We all learned about this but some things were/are left out to make it seem, to a point, that we did it for the good of our people. We all need to think that is what every other culture, nation, tribe, and country is trying to do, to do the best for them and theirs. When we get hurt or someone invades us we respond by doing the same thing and we do other things back. It is a never ending story of power and survival of the fittest, and we have all come to, a little bit, a stand point and to continue to do what we do and to help improve our home's, life's, and our country.

What did the KKK Really Want?

This was an interesting article to read, it stated that the Ku Klux Klan was founded by six Confederate veterans from Pu;aski, Tennessee in 1866. The Klan was made for young men to have a social club and to have fun. They used rituals and oaths from a college fraternity, but then it took a wild turn and they focused on more seriuos matters. They went from pulling pranks and jokes on other members and went to cruel behavior to anything and anyone who viewed different as themselves. They would threaten and even kill politicians, mostly Replubicans, and Black men. The Klan would talk to a few Planters and would hear things and they would talk and hurt slaves for doing almost anything. The Ku Klux Klan dressed themselves in any type of robe possible, the white robes where from the 20th century, and go out and terrorize people and they did it for being against free labor, political democracy, and civil equality. The Klan also would be out by election podiums and they would scare, mostly the Black community, away from voting. They also burned down schools just because they did not believe that the black community should be "Smarter", and that they should not be able to have and education because of few of the members in the Klan, and in the south were not that well educated.

Q1: If the Ku Klux Klan never was founded, do you think it would take our nation, as long as it did, to have an African American President?

Q2: After reading this article, has it changed your personal opinion about the Klan because it just didn't go after the Black Community?

The Right to Fight: Black Soldiers in the Civil War

This discussed how Black Men wanted to be able to enter the War without permission. They wanted to be able to enroll themselves into any department in helping our country. In February of 1863 the 54th Massachusetts Colored Regiment opened its recruiting office, and a man named James Henry Gooding enlisted. Gooding wanted more and new recruits but Black men earned less than White men did and many Black men sis not want to leave their families for so little in wages. Gooding believed that by fighting it gave Blacks, the chance to destroy the "foul aspersion that they were not men." At first Black men were enlisted to do the "Dirty Jobs", like manual labor then to be enlisted to fight in the war. Gooding wrote to President Abraham Lincoln himself asking for equal pay for the Black Soldiers and in June of 1864 Black soldiers were paid the same wages as the White Soldiers. All in all, this is about how Black Soldiers, with the help of James Henry Gooding, fought for our country and for equalness for becoming Soldiers and not doing just the manual labor that they were first told to do, and getting paid the same as White Soldiers.

Q1: If the Black Soldiers were never given the ability to have the same wages as the White Soldiers, do you think that they would have left the army?

Q2: If James Henry Gooding, never wrote to President Lincoln, do you think that it would have had the same outcome?

Declaration of Sentiments : Anti-Slavery Society, 1833

 

What is the author arguing? 

William Lloyd Garrison is arguing that slavery is not only wrong but immoral, and evil. He maintains that no man has the right to enslave or imbrute his brother and that in principle there is no difference between American Slavery and the African Slave Trade. He refers to the bible often to show and remind people that it is not in God's words that anyone should be used as a product, and that any American citizen who detained a human being, involuntary bondage as his property, according to Scripture is, a man stealer. He states that slaves should be protected by the law and to be set free. 

How does the author appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional quality), and ethos (the writer's perceived character) with their arguments? 

I think that William Lloyd Garrison is quite reasonable to the point that many thought the same as him, but not everyone. Compared to these days looking back or reading about our Histories that Slavery, among many other things, were wrong and immoral. Some people, in today's world, still think that there was nothing wrong with Slavery because it was the American way back then and many wealthy families had more than enough slaves because they had the money to buy them. Garrison seemed very determined and had empathy because he knew that owning another human being was very wrong and not in God's word, and seemed to really care about those that were victims, and those who were not, and wanted it to stop. 

What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?  

Garrison founded the New England Anti - Slavery Society after he co - founded the American Anti - Slavery Society. "The Liberator", was fully supported by the Boston Female Anti - Slavery Society which greatly helped make the Female Anti - Slavery network stronger throughout the Northeast. This document is more proof of William Lloyd Garrison's work and word to put an end to slavery. It is more proof that he stood by his word and proceeded to help slaves around the world and it paid off, eventually, after many years of hard work and determination. William Lloyd Garrison, was and still is, one of the most important contributors to the Suffrage Movement. 

Do you find the author's argument convincing? Why or Why Not? 

Yes, absolutely. I find William Lloyd Garrison's argument convincing because I believe the same thing. To have the determination and courage to try and make a big and major difference in any society is a great deal and he did it with help from others that believed the same things as him. I believe that no person, male or female, should be anyone’s property or treated in a way that is very immoral and wrong, and I am glad that times have changed and a lot more countries, societies, cultures, and nations have stayed to the laws that everyone is equal in anything and I hope that this never changes.