TA on a Letter to an English Abolitionist - Gracea Hilsen

What is the author arguing?

         The author is arguing that without slavery, our Nation will fall apart, or would’ve fallen apart. He states numerous times that it is the cornerstone of our foundation; it is what is holding us together. To support his argument he says that God, Jesus, and the Decibels’ all like slavery, and encourage it. He argues that in the bible it states that slavery is a good thing. Then it goes on to say that men can never be truly equal, but that if the slaves were smarter they wouldn’t want to be freed because in his eyes, they are treated fairly and well taken care of. He just really doesn’t like the abolitionists.

How does the author appeal to Logos, Pathos, and Ethos in their document?

         I hate to say it, but some of his arguments are very well thought through and he is a great writer. He uses logos through his arguments like that his slaves are treated better than a lot of the people in Britain at the time which in many cases was probably true. Great Britain had a lot of child labor and just miserable workers while over in America, he says that the slave children were given light work, all of them were fed well, housed, and he would never punish them to the point of being unable to work because, logically, why would you damage your prized horse? He also uses the argument that slavery is what built this country up, it is what supports our economy, and that they consume 50% of Americas population so it is far too great of a risk to change their role or purpose so dramatically so fast. He uses ethos through the way he talks about his slaves. He says that yes, slave owners have raped their slaves but he argues that this happens everywhere, including the north and it doesn't happen just to slaves. He takes every accusation and throws it back in their face calling them a hypocrite. He also says that their slaves have better lives than a lot of the poor people living in the north. A lot of the poor people didn't have homes and died of starvation and so I guess it makes the reader feel like “oh, hmm, maybe this slavery is an okay thing after all.” He also brings God into it a few times, and I know that must’ve hit a lot of people hard because he says that the slave owners are doing what God wants them to do. They are being responsible for him, for the community, that they have this power because God wants them to have it. Lastly, the author uses Ethos by pretty much saying that they as slave holders never ask anything from anyone else never bother anyone else, so why are you asking this of them? Then he goes to conclude that they are far too smart and educated to be tricked out of having their divine right of owning their property, meaning the slaves.

What is the historical significance of this piece?

           It is important because from this piece we can understand how the South could’ve believed so strongly in slavery that they felt it was an issue worth going to war over. Before reading this, I had no idea why they wanted to keep slavery so badly. From school, we’ve always been taught that slavery is so bad and of course, it was terrible, but you can feel the passion coming from this writer and how much he truly believed that there were so many benefits that came out of slavery. I mean, I only thought they just wanted to continue to make money or that they were too lazy to farm their own land but it was a whole different culture the way these people were raised. And this document perfectly presents that.

Do you find the authors argument convincing? Why or why not?

           This part is funny because I think the author is a great writer, he definitely had some good points, but of course I will not agree with him that slavery should stay around. Maybe at the time I might’ve agreed with him but his main problem was that he thinks he understands compassion but he doesn’t. No one should ever be deprived of liberty or free will, but for the time and situation, I would’ve agreed with probably 40% of all of his arguments.