What is the author arguing?
By the year of 1833, the
How does the author appeal to logos, pathos, and ethos?
Garrison’s declaration shows an eloquent argument against slavery. He appeals to logos when he states that, “It is piracy to buy or steal a native African, and subject him to servitude. Surely, the sin is as great to enslave an American as an African.” He speaks for his ancestors; they did not have to go through slavery nor where they prohibited from knowledge and religion; they were not bought/sold like a piece of property and beaten by their masters. With his abolitionist newspaper, The Liberator, Garrison gained respect. He showed empathy for those slaves and he worked fiery for their emancipation. He knew that it was against God’s will for a human to own another human.
What is the historical significance /relevance of this document?
The American Anti-Slavery Society was founded for the purpose of fighting for the liberation of slaves. They challenged the issue of slavery with the “Declaration of Sentiments”; this was one of the main arguments towards the abolition of slavery. It became a historical significance ever since they decided to establish this Anti-Slavery Society because they started to work so hard for equal rights and they knew this battle wouldn’t be an easy task, it was the beginning of a long debate of freedom versus slavery. Nowadays we can say that because of this declaration-among many others-we live in nation of equal rights.
Do you find the author’s argument convincing? Why or why not?
The argument is indeed convincing. It is very detailed and self-explanatory and, in addition to this, Garrison used reasonable facts and showed evidence of his own thoughts. It is a logical argument because slavery is not only anti-human but unethical. I do not understand how southern preachers used the Bible to justify slavery because it is wrong to treat a human as property, separating a husband from their wife and a child from their mother, it is simply cruelty.
I agree with you Noemi, in that I also do not understand how southern preachers used the Bible to justify slavery. I am curious to know how they justified that?
ReplyDeleteI think the author made several great arguements throughout, but the one that sticks with me the most is when he states that there is no difference in principle, between the African Slave Trade and American Slavery and that every American, who detains a human being in involuntary bondage is, according to Scripture (Ex.xxi,16,) a manstealer. Basically, my perception of his arguement is that regardless of skin color/race we are all human beings and the only people we 'own' are ourselves and every individual should be entitled that.
Noemi, you did a great job by breaking down the Declaration of Sentiments and summarizing it in a way that everyone can understand. You clearly show that you understand what the text was arguing and the impact that it created.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this declaration played an ideal role in bringing equal rights into our nation. After reading this, I wonder what the country may be like today if the Anti-Slavery Society was never created? I would like to believe that it would have eventually been made no matter what, but who knows?
Kaitlyn, I was also curious as to how southern preachers justified the use of slavery through the Bible, so I looked it up.
Here is a direct quote from the site I read this from, religioustolerance.org. (I am going to put everything I DIDN'T write in brackets, just to make it clear I'm not taking credit for anything.)
[
"The Christian church's main justification of the concept of slavery is based on Genesis 9:25-27. According to the Bible, the worldwide flood had concluded and there were only 8 humans alive on earth: Noah, his wife, their six sons and daughters in law. Noah's son Ham had seen "the nakedness of his father." So, Noah laid a curse -- not on Ham, who was guilty of some type of indiscretion. The sin was transferred to Noah's grandson Canaan. Such transference of sin from a guilty to an innocent person or persons is unusual in the world's religious and secular moral codes. It is normally considered highly unethical. However, it appears in many biblical passages. The curse extended to all of Canaan's descendants:
Genesis 9:25-27: "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japeth live in the tents of Shem and may Canaan be his slave'. "
Christians traditionally believed that Canaan had settled in Africa. The dark skin of Africans became associated with this "curse of Ham." Thus slavery of Africans became religiously justifiable.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav1.htm
]
To be honest, I do not see how that would convince so many people to justify slavery, but I suppose it is possible if you are a religious person and WANT to believe that slavery is right. I personally believe it is wrong that if there is one thing that everyone is entitled to, it is their individuality.
Great job summarizing the reading Noemi. You demonstrated a full knowledge of the text while making it easily understandable. I agree that the declaration as a whole represented an important shift more American citizens began to feel in terms of moral ethics. Mirroring the Separatists and Puritans before sailing to the "New World" or the citizens of Boston before the Revolutionary War, those involved in the Anti-Slavery society were merely the spark that eventually ignited a widespread movement toward freedom of a people.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Alex, I can sort of see how southerners may have come to the conclusion that slavery was just based on those Bible verses, but they failed to observe the context around them. Quoted from http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/genesis/Lesson_7.htm, "Ham, father of Canaan, saw his father naked and told his two brothers outside.....
Ham is identified as the father of Canaan, suggesting that Canaan played a part in these events.
He added "Blessed be Yahweh, God of Shem, let Canaan be his slave! 27May God make a space for Japheth, may he live in the tents of Shem, and let Canaan be his slave!
Noah defined Shem as his heir and the mediator of the covenant God formed with Noah and creation. In that role, Shem became God's high priest in offering sacrifice. Shem will bear the authority of his father and the youngest son, Japheth, will look to Shem as his leader and benefactor, while Canaan will be completely subservient to Shem's authority without any share in the inheritance."
Examining the text above, it reveals that Canaan was not just an innocent bystander, but may have been involved and/or encouraged his father. Therefore, Canaan was being punished by not sharing an inheritance, being a figurative "slave" to the eldest son. No actual slavery was even involved! That being said, these observations were based on a Catholic point of view, and many of the people living in the south at the time were Baptist, Methodist, etc.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"[S]lavery is not only a crime but that it is also condemned by the Bible." As you and some of our classmates have observed, it is amazing how biblical and religious references have always been used to instill fear and control of men. There are times when this logic seems illogical, which may be in the case of southerners, but Garrison’s use of this reference may have been effective to prove his point. He appealed to his audiences’ emotions by stating the inhumane treatments and sufferings of the slaves to achieve, as you said, equality among men “regardless of their skin color.” It is, indeed, with the help of movements such as the American Anti-Slavery Society that we enjoy freedom and equality today.
ReplyDeleteGarrison also pointed out Exodus 21:16, which states that "Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death." How easily those preachers were able to overlook this verse, which came after the account of Canaan that justified their slavery. Garrison is absolutely correct in stating that owning/selling a slave essentially makes Divine power null by shifting the balance of nature.
ReplyDeleteI will say that I disagree when you say that this declaration is the reason all men can be free. Had this document not existed, the movement to end slavery and treat men of color as equals had already begun. The Declaration of Sentiments was literature that merely facilitated the movement.
This declaration is part of the reason all men are now free. I would definitely agree it is not the sole reason as that process had already begun. The author discusses and views the issue from all sides. He provides more than just the view that slavery should be abolished. He is writing to provide the rights to the slaves. What is the purpose of being a free people if you have no rights or protection afterwards? He covers the argument in the view of the government and in Biblical terms. We've already begun talking about how the Southern preachers were able to use scripture to promote slavery. While I don't agree it's of no surprise they were able to conveniently overlook portions of scripture that wouldn't support their side of the argument. Things like that still happen today, as is the nature of man. Kaitlyn brings up a good point that we are only able to own ourselves and every individual should be entitled to that. Comparing the African Slave Trade and American Slavery really drives home the point of the slaves are people too.. At least to me.
ReplyDeleteI believe the author is arguing that no matter what color someone’s skin is should not affect the rights that they receive and that, as posted many times before me, slavery is a sin and intolerable. I have been raised in a Christian background and never once have I been under the influence that slavery is okay in the eyes of God, as Alex posted the verse of Genesis 9:25-27 I have read and reread that verse and nowhere in the verse do I get the slightest impression that slavery is okay or justified. One section of the reading that stuck out to me is where he says “We further believe and affirm—that all persons of color, who possess the qualifications which are demanded of others, ought to be admitted forthwith to the enjoyment of the same privileges, and the exercise of the same prerogatives, as others; and that the paths of preferment, of wealth and of intelligence, should be opened as widely to them as to persons of white complexion. “ In my opinion this just screams equal rights and that slavery is not right, to me this was the selling point to be anti-slavery.
ReplyDeleteI really like the first sentence of Alex’s last paragraph where he says “To be honest, I do not see how that would convince so many people to justify slavery, but I suppose it is possible if you are a religious person and WANT to believe that slavery is right.” For me that sentence is completely true, the only way that one could find any justification of slavery in that verse is if they WANT slavery justification in there and even then one would have to twist a few words or phrases to even come up with anything about slavery justification, in my opinion at least.
I also agree with Kaitlyn that though there are many great arguments in the reading the one that sticks with me the most is where Garrison compares slavery of a African to that of an American.
In my opinion Garrison did a fantastic job of convincing me to be anti-slavery because he made it clear of his opinion and always stayed right to the point. As I said before that little section was the selling point for me