The author, Abraham Lincoln, is arguing for a few things in his first address. The most important thing he is fighting for is the Unity of the States. He believes that secession will make things harder and not easier in the future for the South, and that it is impossible to secede because the States cannot physically separate from eachother. He discusses slavery and fugitive slave laws from a legal point of view, constantly referring to the Constitution and he points out that slavery is not clearly defined or regulated in the Constitution. His goal was to walk the fine line between the North and South, while indicating to the South that even though is a Republican President he is not trying to forcibly eradicate slavery in the current slaveholding states. President Lincoln let both sides know that it is easier to work together as friends than to make peace as enemies, and that since the Constitution isn’t clear it could be amended.
President Lincoln’s greateast appeal was through logos and ethos, to me pathos was clearly not as strong. In his speech he used ethos in the beginning, stating that he was a Republican president but that didn’t mean Southern property was in danger. He also requited himself saying, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” He wanted to portray himself as a bi-partisan ready for peace and negotiation not war. He confirms his character again by saying his job is clearly to work towards preservation of the Union , “You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it.” Through these he tries to show himself as a caring, trustworthy, honest man.
His logical arguments were apparent throughout his entire speech. There are many examples regarding the argument against secession. Here is one where he used the geography of the Union, “We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them.” Another example of his logical brilliance is when he discusses secession and the constitution. He states that the South wants to seceded because they believe their constitutional rights have not been upheld but he continues to point out that the Constitution does not clearly address slavery. He also uses the legal aspects of a contract to show that secession is legally invalid.
Though I believe pathos was not as strong as his ethos and logos, it was still apparent. His conclusion was clearly directed at an emotional and patriotic audience. In Lincoln’s argument against secession he argues that relying on Christianity and god will lead them in the right direction, and that the “Almighty Ruler of Nations” will pick a side and that side will be victorious.
This Document is very important. It is Abraham Lincoln’s first address to the Nation as president during a time when he received zero Electoral College votes from the South. At this time eight states had already seceded and civil war seemed imminent. In this speech Lincoln was trying to hold the Union together without enraging either side because the country was very fragile at that point.
I do find Lincoln’s arguments very convincing. I am a very logical person and all of his arguments appealed to the logical side of people, so they won me over. It does not make sense to fight your neighbors as enemies when you can make peace as friends. His speech must not have been very effective though, seeing as by April the war had already broken out.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI thought you did a great job on this TA. My favorite part in this address is Lincoln's ethos appeal. Like you said, in the beginning of his address, he quotes the constitution and previous speeches he has made, showing he is a noble, honorable, reliable man. I love that, without directly saying it, he displays a very ethical and patriotic president.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you that pathos was not as evident as the other two. However, thinking like Lincoln, I would assume any act of emotion other than overall patriotism could have dangerous consequences. So perhaps, Lincoln intentionally did not use an emotional appeal. At this time in history, he was in a very dangerous position--he was facing responsibility for either the collapse or the unification of the Union. Showing passion for either side could rip the already loose threads of the nation apart.
He did have one very obvious ethos appeal. His closing paragraph draws nostalgia and patriotism. With "the mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land" he touches on the sense of pride many associated with their country and the honoring of soldiers who fought for the independence. This was brilliant, seeing as many people were veterans or had family members participate in the war. However, unfortunately (like you said), his speech was clearly not enough to keep the nation unified.
Looking from the view of a southerner, they were very adamant that if slavery did not expand, it could never flourish. So when Lincoln declared he had no intention "to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists," as a slaveowner, I would not accept this as adequate. The key words being "where it exists" suggests the expansion of slavery would not be supported by the president. Also, his ambiguous stance on slavery in the territories would enrage me because he had been clear about his intentions when first joining the Republican party. ("his credo was opposition to 'the extension of slavery' (p.499)).
Great job analyzing the document Uche. Abraham Lincoln was a logical man, and unlike many other men in politics at the time, he did not attempt to "play games" and tailor his speech to appeal to one side or another. As you said, he addresses the audience with only the straightforward facts, and quotes the Constitution at various points to affirm his claims.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that compared to his logic and overall character, his emotional quality was downplayed. It did not disappear though, as evident in not only the sincere way he ended his address, but by the fact that through his reassurances that the Union was still and will always be regulated by its citizens (found at various moments in the address), he cares deeply about the people.
As I stated in the first paragraph, Lincoln was a person of intellect and it clearly shows through during his speech. In addition to the examples you gave, he also states (after quoting a portion of the Constitution about returning fugitive slaves) that "In any law upon this subject ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not in any case surrendered as a slave?". Lincoln is asking a rhetorical question; should a man who is a legal citizen of a free state be unwillingly taken away from his home? Later he predicts that if the South seceded, "The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other."
He also states at many points throughout his inaugural address his views on government issues and the country. Just as you've mentioned, he wanted to express that he was a friend to both parties, demonstrated in his promise to not interfere with Southern institutions and that he will do his duty to the country; "The power confided in me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts...".
Lincoln delivered a speech that was powerful, and filled with promises that the country would remain fair to both regions' institutions. He addressed the many flaws in South's argument for secession, and had many points on how the Union had in the past been tolerant of the happenings in the South. Unfortunately, southerners had already made up their mind, and declared war a month later.
Lincoln’s speech was showing his support towards the North, yet it was also towards the Southern states which had seceded from the Union about his intent and policies for the Confederate States of America. He said he has taken an oath to protect the United States Constitution, which shows that the laws were executed in all states. When he mentioned slavery, he said, “no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so” The quote about a husband and wife also stuck out to me as I read it, as it shows that we cannot do anything to physical separate the nation, so we must find a way to resolve it. President Lincoln also promised that there would be no use of force against the South.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you as President Lincoln used more logos and ethos, and I also agree with Blake, that Lincoln probably intentionally avoided ethos in his speech. If Lincoln used more emotion in his speech, I believe it would have been less effective. His logical arguments and use of the Constitution and past speeches give this speech a larger backbone.
The last paragraph also struck out to me as it showed the ethos side of his speech. You can see his desperate plea for avoid nation conflict. “We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies”.
Lincoln seemed to be a very intellectual, honest and patriotic president. He used a more delicate approach discussing issues in the South although he was most feared and hated in those states. I believe his main point in his speech was to bring the whole nation as a whole and unify us once again. To me, this speech was also very convincing. It’s a shame that this did not prevent the war. There was already so much tension that such a powerful inaugural address had no power over it.