And the war came.” (Lincoln) The intention was to allow the nation to realize that the war began because both parties showed disapproval towards the idea of the war and did not want the war to begin but would not let the idea die and accepted the war. As stated in Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution “I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.” (Page 30 McPherson) Abraham Lincoln was fighting for slavery to end due to the reason that it is inhumane and he was fighting for racial
One of Martin Luther’s greatest heroes, Hus was a Roman Catholic priest turned protestant theologian who lived in Bohemia at the turn of the fifteenth century. During his preaching commitment at Bethlehem Chapel in Prague, he began to seriously study the Bible. His study led him to believe that much of what went on in the church was unbiblical and in need of reform. Hus then began in earnest to preach the truth and inerrancy of the Scriptures, while teaching that ultimate authority belonged only to God, not to a pope or earthly ruler. He was greatly influenced by Wycliffe’s writings, and shared the truths contained therein with the Bohemian church.
Those were things they were fighting for. The Second thing that I will look at is logos. Logos means persuading people by the use of logic. He used antitheses by saying: ‘we have come to dedicate a portion of this field’ and ‘but larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground’. These two quotes emphasize how noble these soldiers’ actions were.’ But in a large sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground’ is also parallelism.
He uses examples like “We cannot dedicate - we cannot consecrate - we cannot hallow this ground.” He uses these choice of words to get out to people that these men in the war of Gettysburg should not have died for no reason. That they died for this country, to help make it free
Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president of the United States of America gave his 2nd inaugural address a month before the intense civil war’s end. In this address to the Union, he provides strong facts while also giving them the actual examples of the crime the confederates has committed. He is staggering the audience while also surprising them with a short speech rather than a lengthy one. In this speech, he uses several rhetorical strategies like his manipulation of diction, tone, and syntax in order to achieve his purpose. Lincoln’s use of diction is very informative, he uses uniquely uses big words which he mixes with quotes, imagery and other things to strengthen his statements.
“There were many cheers and many tears as this noble address was concluded” (White, 2014). The indication that the speech had a powerful impact on Lincoln’s audience is important to the assertion that he was moderate and neutral in his demeanor and actions toward the South as is shows the reaction that the audience had to what was being said and how it was said. It would have been easy to take the podium and point fingers where may would have agreed blame belonged. However, Lincoln took the opportunity to deliver a graceful yet direct address that seems to had drawn many people in his audience back to a state of consideration and emotion. If nothing else was accomplished by Lincoln’s second Inaugural Address, it gave the American public a glimpse of the sort of strength that Lincoln strove for America to achieve during his
3. THE STYLISTIC DEVICES IN BARACH H. OBAMA SECOND INAUGURAL SPEECH 3.1. Stylistic peculiarities of metaphors in the speech As it was mentioned previously, metaphor is the most frequent stylistic device in politicians’ speeches which has the main purpose – to convince the audience. Barack Obama’s speech is a perfect example of using metaphors in order to persuade and achieve the particular goals. He have used several metaphors of family.
McNamara believes that is because of the human nature that war can’t end any time soon even taking in conceteration that we are all rational creatures, by our actions and decissions we show that rationality has limits. McNamara says he believes his words would appear powerless especially to othose who donot understand the concept of war and also misunderstand him since human are naturaly war-like. He futher tells us that he knew that if at that time he had spoken of it, he would have been damned and if he didnot he would have still been damned but he will prefer to be damned if he does not. In conclusion we can say that the Fog of War is a set of lessons that McNamara has experience toward his working period and its shows us that when it comes to war human are not rational in any aspect and that the list mistake or wrong decission might lead to a nuclear war or a global war
He starts by analyzing the past, saying that if any mistakes were made, they “have none to blame but ourselves” (IN TEXT). However, he counters this with the idea that they cannot change the past, but embrace its effects and move on. Next, he appeals to the logic of his Puritan beliefs. Paine says that he believes that “God Almighty will not give up a people to military destruction” (IN TEXT). This gives the reader a sturdy base to place their hope, which he later increases by calling the king out for his murderous and unethical actions, and claims that the king has no grounds to seek support or solace from
The slave holder Haley rationalizing these separations by keeping them secret while they were happening so as not to cause a scene. He considered it is more humane if there is no screaming and crying (7-8). He avoids thinking of the aftermath math of these separations (7-8). The heartbreak of having your family torn apart. Of a wife not seeing her husband.
The indigenous people wanted to coexist in peace, as Red Jacket stated, “‘You have got our country but are not satisfied; you want to force your religion upon us…. Brothers … we only want to enjoy our own,’” but the settlers did not want that. Even after the Indian removal act had been declared unconstitutional by Congress, Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren did not enforce the law. This was a time in history when checks and balances was not
Southerners in 1861 in South Carolina had seceded from the Union and did not want a Union Fort in the South. Fighting broke out when the Union soldiers refused to surrender Fort Sumter. Initially President Abraham Lincoln wanted to believe that the reason for war was that the North was fighting to save the Union and not to free slaves. Yes, the Civil War was initially about slavery. However, the President and the Confederates tried unsuccessfully to portray that slavery was not the main cause of conflict and that is wasn’t the primary cause of the Civil War.
The negative opinions were affecting certain people, such as the ones that were put under pressure by doing all the work. This whole situation caused controversy and anger feelings. Even though there wouldn’t be an agreement because of those who accepted slavery to happen and a war would end up happening the government could have ended it by agreeing with the northern states, and instead of seeing those who fought for their rights being killed they should have just set laws favoring all citizens, and not letting violence happen and creating a bigger problem. There were ways to solve a situation like this instead of choosing violence. The civil war could have been prevented if there was union, but instead of choosing other ways they decided to divide and have opposing sides that only caused
Mainly, Reconstruction was unsucessful because of South and North disagreement on the slavery isssue. Firstly, after Emancipation Proclamation was announced, Southern States started to prevent African-Americans from leaving the plantation and moving west, thus creating the black codes. These black codes were several restrictions on African-Americans like voting or serving on juries. Those black codes were a way of Southern states showing their disagreement with the North which showed opposement to the Reconstruction. Secondly, the Radical Republicans were determined not to let Johnson control Reconstruction.
It was a compromise between the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists in 1791. Apparently the Anti-Federalists thought that with the Constitution, they wouldn’t have any individual liberties. Unfortunately the Federalists didn’t see the problem with the Constitution. This is where compromise comes in. After the Federalists and Anti-Federalists discussed their ideas, each side gave up something they wanted in order to get something they did want.