Text Analysis -- Resolution of the Stamp Act Congress, October 19th, 1765
1. What is the author arguing?
The author is arguing that the colonists don’t deserve to be taxed by the British crown. The author wants the parliament to repeal the stamp act because they don’t deserve to be taxed without representation.
2. How does the author appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional quality), and ethos (the writer’s perceived character) with their argument?
The author writes in a calm manner. His words are very polite but also very direct. He writes in a humble manner, complimenting the Parliament and the British crown, although he is upset about the taxes. He emphasizes the colonist’s loyalty and respect to the crown, and how it’s not right for them to be taxed when they have no say in it. The author believes that the colonists are their own people and not property of the British any longer despite any lingering ties they may have. In between the compliments and polite words, the author lists the things he is not happy with. Basically
1. The colonists deeply respect the British
2. The colonists can’t be represented in the Parliament
3. It is unreasonable for the British to impose taxes on them when the colonists are no longer a part of Britain.
3. What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?
The historical significance of this document is that it shows America’s split with Europe. This document shows that the American colonists are taking initiative to become their own country with their own rights and liberties. Also, they acknowledge that they are no longer a part of Europe, which I think is significant, because they were still struggling for complete independence.
4. Do you find the author’s argument convincing? Why or why not?
I find the authors argument very convincing! I think mainly because the author remained so calm, and didn’t write a paper filled with angry remarks. He maintains a high level of respect while arguing his point. This makes him seem more informed of the situation and makes him sound more convincing to me. Also, I don’t think it was fair that they were being taxed because they are a separate entity and the British can’t act so superior and take their money. The colonists have their own government and rules, the British can’t continue to be in charge of them.
posted by Julie at
5:20:00 PM
6 Comments:
I got the same feelings from the text as you did. This was a tricky situation. The colonists wanted to be independent of Britain but at the same time, still wanted the benefits of being British. The representation in Parliament, I thought was a funny concept. It was as if, "you have virtual representation so that means you are obligated to pay tax like any other British citizen."
This was an exciting period to read about. You can just feel the pressure rising and know a revolution is on the horizon.
You're right on about the split between America and Europe. It seemed as if they wanted American lives with British protection.
Lastly, the tone of this text reminded me of the captain of a ship or something along those lines. He was calm and direct and although he was very respectful of Parliament, he was definitely moving towards a complete separation.
Nice analysis, Julie.
Hi Julie, I enjoyed your analysis and agreed with you on many points you spoke of. Even though the the cost of the stamp act was not a large amount it was the principle to the colonists and they took offense because England was trying to force the colonies to be taxed without any ok's or approvals from the colonial legislatures! Basically this would be opening a pathway for future taxation in the future. I agree this document was well written and extremely eloquent. The facts were clearly stated and humble as well. Since the colonists had no representatives in parliment they were angry becaise they had no say so on how the taxes would be raised or even spent. So to be taxed without their consent was upsetting to them. I enjoyed that your analysis was to the point and clear to read. Great job!
Like Anna said i too had the same feelings from the ext as you did. I too felt the colonist wanted independence. After the war they were told to pay for it and therefore the taxes came up such as the stamp act, the sugar act e.t.c. I would probably have gone insane if everything were taxed back then. But as you read you can feel how sad it was heartbreaking it was for the colonists. The tone of the text was good and convincing. I also think that it was not right to tax them after all like you said they are a separate entity.
Overall you did a great job! Nice analysis!!
Hi Julie! I liked your take on this text and I agree whole heartedly that this argument was a convincing one because of the tone in which it was written, I think that because the author was able to stay calm and maintain the position in a well written manner and in a forcible tone that it is very easy to agree with the points made. The points being basically that if the colonists are going to be taxed, they have a right to see how those monies are spent. I thought the point made "that the people of these colonies are not, and from their local circumstances cannot be, represented in the House of Commons in Great-Britain." was very poignent because it drives home the matter that the colonists were never going to be able to have any representation under British rule because of their geographical location, things are different and were always going to be so, so to have Great Britain taxing them was truly unfair.
Very nice text analysis. It really seemed unfair that they were being taxed without their consent when they respected the British Crown. I agree with you about the author's tone, he was very calm and polite. I think that righting a calm and polite letter or argument makes the reader more understanding of the situation and it makes them think about their actions they have taken or will take. When i was reading the text i couldn't really understand it so i tried reading out loud and i started laughing at myself. I kind of sounded funny because i was trying to do a British accent as well. Overall I think that this text is a job well done.
Julie, I agree with you that the primary objective of this document was to persued the British government to repel what the colonists saw as unconstitutional taxations. Furthermore, I think on the atomic level, the author was basically insinuating the soverignity of the colonies. He acknowledges that they are "within the kingdom of Great Britian" but maintains that they can not be represented in the House of Commons thus are exempt from taxes constitutionally imposed by Great Britain. Furthermore, I think another underlying issue was the idea of free versus not free seemed to permeate the mindset of many of the colonist. In the text (Roake et al.,) explains that up until the 17th century, the common tradition in British politics was was governments duty to protect the individual rights and liberties of all people. Thus, the Stamp Act to them represented a government that was failing to protect their liberty.
I do agree with the argument put forth by the author, however, the lasting impression I got throughout this document was ambiguity. I felt as if the colonies were conflicted with their role and allegiance to the British government. I think although they continually praise the Parliment and King alike, they still want the independent rights of a sovereign state. Its a difficult predicament they find themselves in. I think they have be too afraid to publically relinquish their ties to Great Britain but they want the right to do as they please, of course, within the judicatory of their elected state laws.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home