In the
proclamation, the president of the united states is arguing that the farmers of
Pennsylvania that took up arms against the government officials in an attempt
to collect excise tax on whiskey be brought to justice. He then calls out the
militia, a force of about 15,000 to march on Pennsylvania. This is the first
account of our government calling on the militia or military, and more over the
first test of power of our new federal government. But in the end the rebel
farmers disbanded before the militia could get there, and about a dozen people
were arrested, and later released on pardons.
The
president, George Washington, appeals to logos, pathos and ethos by showing
that logically we need to have reprecautions for people actions, something that
will set an example for the rebel farmers. The emotional quality is then layed
out with the examples he gives of the rebels attacking government officials,
and by this they were creating an act of treason. Washingtons character is un
paralleled and completely upright by his presidential actions that result in
him leading the malitia into battle himself as commander and chief.
The
historical significance of this document is that it is the first and I believe
only time we see a president leading troops into battle, but also that the
government had the means and ability to stop any acts of violence on its laws.
Also this issue created support for the new democratic republican party which
the political parties that we are familiar with today.
I did find the Washington’s argument convincing. With the
proclamation we were successful in our attempts to make a national military to
protect the interests of our government. Also that Washington was passionate
about the use of force against the people who would so ardently oppose our
countries laws and policies. We see that Washington was successful in his
attempt to disband the rebel forces, although the whiskey tax remained very
difficult to collect and farmers still refused to pay. Not only did the president create a
force as big as the one used to fight the british, he also was very
compassionate in offering pardons to the rebels. We see that George Washington
was a true patriot and very reasonable man.
When reading your work I had thought that you had done a great job. I had really liked when you had said “I did find the Washington’s argument convincing. With the proclamation we were successful in our attempts to make a national military to protect the interests of our government”, cause I myself had felt the same way. In my eyes I had thought that the author argument is against those who have protested the whiskey tax and acted out violently in response to it. Basically, he argues that the government has executed its powers justly in order to uphold the laws of the Union, by raising a militia force against the violent protesters. He specifically refers to the law which justifies the government’s actions in the third paragraph of his Proclamation: but over all I had thought that you had done a great job, and I very much enjoyed reading your paper and had agreed and understood every claim that you had made.
ReplyDeleteSincerely, Nasra Muhidin
Wonderful analysis. I think you are correct in that this was the first time the new government of the United States called out the militia. I felt that he was trying to get control of a violent situation but find myself wondering what alternatives he had to resolve the issues at hand. Maybe I missed it but nowhere in this text did I see that he had acknowledged the issues that the people had with this tax. He acknowledged that they were meeting in opposition of the tax but never mentioned what exactly that opposition was. If perhaps he had met with a representative to resolve the issues maybe John Neville wouldn’t have had his house attacked. That said I feel declaring those who refused to pay the tax as traitors is a bit heavy handed. Instead maybe having them pay with time as opposed to money might have gotten a less violent reaction. That said I feel that you put thought into your analysis and interpretation.
ReplyDeleteI really like the part in your analysis where you said you felt it was important because it was the only time a president has led into battle because that got me thinking about if the president is the commanding chief of our armed forces how come they dont lead into battle. Also I think you nailed the pathos,ethos,logos because in your description of how George Washington felt about the farmers and what they were doing
ReplyDeleteI thought you did a great job analyzing the text. As things became consistent with criminal intentions, it was time for the president to protect the innocent. A great example of that in the document said "And whereas, it is my judgment necessary under the circumstances of the case to take measures calling forth the militia in order to suppress the combinations aforesaid and to cause the laws to be duly executed." This was said with such heart; it was time for the president to move forward and take action. I agree with your breakdown of logos, that people need to have punishment for committing crimes. The fact that the president was identifying what needed to be done and said it with such passion was incredible and for the first time. Excellent post, keep up the good work!
ReplyDelete