Little 1 Becky Little Mrs.

Delguercio English II/1 4 November 2013 Henrys Successful Use of Rhetoric Patrick Henrys speech, Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death! and Thomas Paines short work, The Crisis, both serve the same purpose as to persuade the audience against the wrongdoings of Britain in hopes of gaining liberty for their country. However, Paine lacks the convincing techniques and formality that Henry presents, reducing the quality of his overall argument. Patrick Henry provides a more effective argument because of his use of logos, pathos, and consistent use of rhetorical questions. In his speech, Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death! Henry uses logos with logic and reasoning in explaining what efforts have been already put forth against the British crown. He also extends out in saying what needs to be done to reach the ultimate resolution. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament (Henry 1). He gives specifics on what actions and precautions have already been made as well as explaining new options and ideas as to what needs to be done next. The process of logical thinking shown by Henry expresses his extreme concern on the issue. Thomas Paine on the other hand, in The Crisis, is vaguer in his logic towards the situation and does not identify the actual cause or the specific outcome. my own simple opinion is, that had it been eight months earlier, it would have been much better. We did not make proper use of last winter,

Little 2 neither could we, while we were in a dependent state. However, the fault, if it were one, was all our own; we have none to blame but ourselves (Paine 1). His statements seem unclear and flawed because they raise several questions and do not provide the reasoning necessary to prove his point. Paines logic is inaccurate compared to Henry who has a clear way of getting his view across. Moreover, Henry draws in his audience and manipulates their emotions with pathos by emphasizing his stance. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable and let it come! (Henry 2). Telling people that there is no option besides submission and slavery is harsh, considering the time period where slaves were still a major part of daily life. He is able to grab the audiences attention because no one wants to think about being controlled and governed with such terrible treatment and conditions of life. Nevertheless, Paine uses a weaker emotional appeal by stating that people need a push and a strong reason in order to fight against Britain as if they do not have one already. Not a man lives on the continent but fully believes that a separation must some time or other finally take place, and a generous parent should have said, If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace; and this single reflection, well applied, is sufficient enough to awaken every man to duty (Paine 1). There is no enthusiasm in his example, unlike how Henry encompasses his eagerness over the topic. Paine is loosely saying that this should be reason enough to get people to fight, implying that it is something that we should get to eventually instead of insisting that this task is essential to gain their own freedom. Henry is more influential in his disputation than Paine who utilizes only basic elements of emotion.

Little 3 Likewise, Henrys steady use of rhetorical questions offers a direct question addressing each problem being faced regarding the usage of the military. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? (Henry 2). Speaking to the entire group, he indicates that they cannot just sit back and hope for the current strategies and failings to change, initiative needs to be taken in order to change them. This causes the audience to engage in thinking about the problem at hand. Considering this, Paine speaks only for himself in his usage of rhetorical questions, decreasing the success of his proposal because the purposes of the questions are not aimed specifically at the crowd. Not all the treasures of the world, so far as I believe, could have induced me to support an offensive war, for I think it murder; but if a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it, and to bind me in all cases whatsoever to his absolute will, am I to suffer it? (Paine 2). He is hinting that he will not take offensive action until attacked first, seemingly not going to take the initiative to protect himself until absolutely vital. Paines application of rhetorical questions does not prove his points as well as Henrys because of inconsiderate accusations. In final analysis, Patrick Henry proves to be more effective in his speech, Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death! In Thomas Paines piece, The Crisis, he lacks several key parts that Henry clearly presents in terms of being more successful. Henry displays a much more effective argument because of logos in his logic and ability to reason, pathos with the enhanced application of emotions, and unfailing use of rhetorical questions which aids to his purpose.

Little 4 Works Cited Henry, Patrick. Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death!. The Norton Anthology of American Literature. Ed. Nina Bayn. New York: Norton. 1-2. Print. Paine, Thomas. The Crisis. The Norton Anthology of American Literature. Ed. Nina Bayn. New York: Norton. 1-3. Print.