There seems to be a trend in our Neoclassicism packet from passages directed at enemy audiences towards passages directed at nationalist audiences. We just finished going over Franklin's witty satire of Britain's policy towards her American colonies, which was in fact intended for a British audience. The passage that we just finished reading, by Patrick Henry, appears to me to be directed at a neutral audience. Finally, if I recall correctly from history class last year, both Jefferson and Paine wrote their major works of the time with a nationalist audience in mind.
Going back to "Give me Liberty or give me Death!", I was struck by its differences with Benjamin Franklin's letter from only two years before. While Franklin leaves open the possibility of reconciliation, Henry insists that war is inevitable. While Franklin attempts to connect with a foreign audience, Henry speaks to colonists who still want to pursue diplomatic solutions. His argument is that history has shown that the British have no interest in reconciliation, and hoping that this will change is foolish. Of course, he does not say it quite like that, as he does not want to offend or scare away people neutral to the Revolutionary cause. In fact, his very first sentence assures his audience of his respect for those who do not support the war.
A central theme of Henry's speech is hope. His audience has hope that reconciliation is possible, and little or no hope that the colonists can win a war with Britain. The speech attempts to convince these people that just the opposite is true. Henry presents an emotional appeal to the people in each case, using words with strong affective connotations. Finally, he ends with a line derived from an Aristotelian two-valued orientation that also serves as the title of the speech. I thought that this was similar to President Bush's famous words "You're either for us or against us". Although the context of each respective statement is different, both politicians use the same device in an appeal to neutrals.
5 comments:
While I too initially believed that this speech was intended for a neutral audience, I now think it may be for one that is nationalistic. Going over the types of propaganda that Mr. Lazarow gave us at the start of the unit, neutral propaganda was intended for those who had yet to make a decision about which "side" to join. In this sense, it may be neutral because the person being addressed has to choose between reconciliation and war. However, the propaganda applied is very strong and decisive; the neutral group is normally convinced with gentle propaganda seeingas they are between two weighty decisions. In addition, Henry makes it clear that "the war is actually begun" and that there is already no chance for reconciliation. Perhaps the choice is between intervention and non-internvention?
I feel that a stronger case can be made for a nationalist audience. As mentioned earlier, the propaganda employed is passionate and almost violent. The listeners (House of Burgesses) already shared the sentiment of a nation (America), but had to be convinced whether or not they were going to stand back and let their fellow colonists die or fight alongside them in the war that was quickly unfolding.
Hi, it's Jasmine.
I agree with Ian - I think that Henry's speech is directed towards a nationalist audience. He clearly tries to inspire his audience to take action. He states, "We must fight!" (and he repeats it). He provides an image of a future destroyed by inaction, one with a British soldier in every house. By instilling fear of a future bereft of liberty, Henry stirs up the Nationalists. Unlike Franklin, who offered no solutions and named no specific wrongs, Henry specifically mentions the "tyrannical" Parliament and the "fool of the throne" - King George III. He also refers to the colonists' petitions to the king that were repeatedly rejected. By referring to specific examples, he makes the issue personal. Since the Nationalists already agreed with him, his speech easily inspired his audience to fight back against Britain. Supposedly, after Henry was finished making his speech, his audience jumped up and cried, "To arms! To arms!" I don't think a neutral audience would have been so quickly influenced.
I do agree that the speech has some Aristotelian aspects. Even the title, "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" provides 2 absolute choices with no alternatives. At the end of the speech, Henry also states that the war is inevitable. He implies that the colonists will either lose or win the battle. Peace is not an option, and there are no other alternatives. Thus, he forces his audience to choose war (because reconciliation is impossible).
Hey, it's Erin. I agree with Jasmine, I think the piece is directed for a nationalist audience because he gives them something to do and someone to do it to. Patrick Henry's speech reminded me a bit of Edward's "Sinners in the Hands of An Angry God" because he used fear to motivate his audience, describing what he feels will happen to them if they don't fight (using imagery, like "our chains are forged").
While I agree with the previous commenters that a nationalist audience is a target of Patrick Henry's Give me Liberty or Give me Death, there is no evidence to state that an neutral audience was not another intended audience. In fact, much of what henry says is both applicable to neutrals and nationalists.
However, one facet of the discussion specifically panders to neutrals. Henry coats his speech in a facade of logic. He first establishes the "logical" causes for war, then draws a "logical" conclusion that the armies and navies Britain is gathering are intended to make them slaves. (The validity of this is of course in doubt) Thoroughout the entirety of the speech, Henry continues to specifically makes seemingly logos-based arguments, creating an ideal neoclassic argument for war. The question that now arises is that if the speech was intended for nationalists alone, then why is there such a plethora of logical argument intended to convince the audience found in the speech. Nationalists don't need to be convinced, but they need to whipped up into a frenzy (which Henry successfully does). On the other hand, neutrals must convinced that your cause is correct. The logical arguments are clearly intended to reassure allies (partially) and more importantly to convince neutrals that the war has already begun and to try to cling to reconciliation is grave error. As Brendan correctly states, this is only two years after Ben Franklin was writing for reconciliation, and although the situation had become worse, most still opposed revolution.
The purpose of this speech is in short to convince those in power (ie House of Burgesses) that were neutral into supporting all out revolution and also to whip up those already convinced into a frenzy. Henry cleverly incorporates both, pandering to nationalists while not frightening neutrals away. Since the Revolution did occur, it is clear that his rhetoric worked
One other thing to note is that Edwards' sermon similar to Patrick Henry's in that it also had a dual intention. Firstly, it was intended to convert the somewhat faithful puritans into hard-line religious fanatics (convince neutrals) and second to whip existing hard-line religious fanatics (geared towards nationals). Edwards, like Henry, understands that to simply frenzy those listening is good, but to add new members to the fold and then preach to them ensures not only that you have a strong following but also a consistently growing one.
Post a Comment