Analysis of Ethos in Frederick Douglass's "What to a Slave is the Fourth of July?" (oration, delivered in Corinthian Hall, Rochester, July 5, 1852)

     In the first three paragraphs, Douglass appears- and is- very modest. In paragraph one, he says "The little experience I have had... avails me nothing on the present occaion." Douglass is apologizing in advance for any errors he may have in his oration. (A good man knows he is not perfect.) Although this may seem a paradox, it is the law of humans. Douglass recognizes this and maintains a modest disposition. This raises his ethos because it shows him to be aware that he has faults. In the third paragraph Douglass says, "That I am here to-day is, to me, a matter of astonishment as well as gratitude." With the word "astonishment" he humbles himself farther; he was surprised that he was asked to speak at such an important event. With the word "gratitude" he is bowing before his audience, thanking them. This shows humility because Douglass did not appear to be conceited, selfish, arrogant, or the like. A modest man has greater ethos: Is a man with no confidence in himself humble? No, since he considers himself worthless he spends his timr and energy trying to "prove himself" to the people surrounding him. He says good things about himself, brags, exaggerates his accomplishments. This shows him to be arrogant to those he is trying to impress. Douglass does the opposite: He plays down his accomplishments. This shows he does not need to boast to win the approval of his listeners. A modest man is a confident man. Which would a listener be more likely to have faith in: a man with confidence or a man without confidence? If one is secure in himself, others may be secure in him too. With modesty, Douglass is building trust from his audience. A man who can lure his listeners in with such an honest tactic is one of great ethos.
     In paragraph six, Douglass alluded to Thomas Paine with "... tried men's souls," and in paragraph seven alluded to Patrick Henry with "They petitioned and remonstrated." This shows Douglass to be well-read, which makes the audience have more confidence in him. An audience is more likely to trust an educated, clever man than an ignorant one. To be able to accurately and spontaneously quote and use literature is the mark of a clever man. Although a clever man is not guaranteed to be ethical, this quality raises a listener's confidence in him.
     In the sixth paragraph, Douglass says, "To side with the right, against the wrong, with the weak against the strong, and with the oppressed against the oppressor! here lies the merit, and the one which, of all others, seems unfashionable in our day." With this Douglass is encouraging his audience to stand up for what is right, even if it is placing oneself in the minority. He realizes more people than not of the day joined the "wrong," the "oppressor," the "strong," because it was the easier path. Douglass is not only saying "Stand uo for what is right," he is manifesting that statement by giving the speech. This raises his ethos: An ethical man not only "talks the talk," but he also "walks the walk." It is easy to tell someone what is right, but to actually do it is much more difficult. Douglass remains strong and presents his ethos by supporting abolition in middle nineteenth-century America. He publicly denounces slavery. For a black man to do that was risky. Douglass risked his life for what he believed; that is an indication- a strong indication- of ethos.

Analysis on Revision of Jefferson's Declaration of Independence

     In the second paragraph of the original document, Jefferson says "... and such is now the necessity which constrains them to expunge their former systems of government." Expunge means to erase completely- so completely that one cannot tell there was something once there. When one is angry, he wants to destroy the ties to whatever or whoever angered him, but, in the reality of world politics, one cannot do this. By using the word "expunge," Jefferson was telling the British Crown that he wanted nothing to do with the former government that had oppressed the colonies. Truthfully, though, Jefferson wanted to change the Parliamentary system of government to suit the new states. He used hyperbole because he was angry. (One tends to exaggerate when he is angry.) So, in order to be truthful or tactful, the committee substituted the word "alter" for "expunge." The revised document says "... and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of governemnt," meaning the colonists planned to change the former system of government- not obliterate it.
     Later in the second paragraph Jefferson said, "The history of the present king of Great Britain is a history of unremitting injuries and usurpations...." In his anger, he felt as though the king were constantly, continuously, and unabatingly harming the colonies. Literally that could not be the case; in order for "unremitting" to be correctly used here, the king would have had to be constantly harming the colonies. That was not the case, but Jefferson, in his anger, felt it to be so. A more realistic and truthful word was subsituted, and the document now reads, "The history of the present king of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations." Although the king did not continusly harm the colonies, he did so continually. "Repeated injuries" shows less anger and emotion than "unremitting injuries." One with a broken arm thinks only of the unabating pain, while there was but one incident that caused the break. Such is so with Jefferson and the British Crown.
     Beginning in the twenty-third line of the secong paragraph, Jefferson said, "The history of the present king of Great Britain is a history of unremitting injuries and usurpations, among which appears no solitary fact to contradict the uniform tenor of the rest but all have in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states." When one is angry, he dares his opposition to show him where he is wrong. This is what Jefferson did: The phrase "among which appears no solitary fact to contradict the uniform tenor of the rest" shows he was angry with the British Crown. He was saying, "There is nothing you can find that will disprove what I am saying." If this were so, would he say this? Only if he were angry. At a calm, peaceful moment Jefferson would have thought to not include that phrase because it is a sign of dishonesty to say outright, "I'm right!" after making a statement. But Jefferson was angry- he wrote this in a fury, thinking what he was saying would increase others' confidence in his previous statements. That would not. (It would do the opposite.) So, the committee removed the phrase, allowing Jefferson's statement to stand unqualified.