1. What is the author arguing?
The author is arguing, well technically Woodrow Wilson. Wilson argued that the United States should be put into the League of Nations. League of Nations would be beneficial because it would preserve the liberty and peace of the world.
2. How does the author appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional quality), and ethos (the writer’s perceived character) with their argument?
Wilson appeals to logic by explaining Article X. Article X "provides that every member of the League covenants to respect and preserve the territorial integrity..." And Article X would show how all nations would abide by it. Wilson then appeals pathos by talking about something more personal that is relatable to many people. It is how many soldiers die in war and families lose loved ones because of that. (pg 333). He says that those mothers of the soldiers really believe that their sons did a great deed. Wilson is the one that order those men over seas and they died. He appealed ethos when he talked about his own personal stories. The one that stood out to me the most was Decoration Day and talking to the French mothers. He stood at the cemetary staring at all the graves that belonged to American Soldiers. And the French mothers put flowers on the American Soldier's graves as if it was their own son. Then Wilson says, "I wish that the thought that comes out of those graves could penetrate their conciousness." All in all, Wilson not only cared about just the American's, he cared about everyone too. He cared for all the other nations. He knew that the League of Nations wouldn't make it war-free, but it's better to have a high chance of no war than no chance at all.
3. What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?
This document shows historical significance because Woodrow Wilson explains why he thinks that the United States should be apart of the League of Nations and why Turkey, Austria, Bulgaria, and Hungary should all join forces and make peace so there could be less war and they could easily solve problems just by talking it out.
4. Do you find the author’s argument convincing? Why or why not?
I found it very convincing because he put's a lot of thought in it. His words make it sound like he cares. He knows how to grab the attention of the audience with his words. He uses these metaphoric examples to make you think of ideas in different ways. One of my favorite examples he used was the last paragraph of page 350 where he described the settlement to a "house of cards". And how if you didn't have everyone united, the house of cards would collapse. Even on the last paragraph of page 351, he says, "blown away like bubbles". It's as if he uses humor to convince you.
Thank you for your post. I enjoyed reading it. I one hundred percent agree with what you said about how his argument was very convincing because it really sincerely felt like he really did care and that he really was for peace and no war. The simile that he uses on the last paragraph is a nice way to end the speech. I really liked the fact that Wilson said during his speech that they could welcome Germany "into the family" and it could and would reopen militarism and imperialism. I also like how he mentioned that only a peace-loving nation like the one that he is defining would be able to provide an end to the war and a peaceful place.
ReplyDeleteThank you for this post. I really liked reading about your thoughts on this article. I agree with what you have written. I like that Wilson tried to unite all of those countries together because like the article says, if they do not work together than the Convenant cannot work and will "fall down like a house of cards." Unity is needed to make sure that a war will not happen that could damage the countries as bad as that war did.
ReplyDeleteNice job on the summary. Your answer to number one is straight forward and has the main points of Wilson's argument. Number two and three are great, and I like the way the quotes were used in number two. For number four I would agree with you on being convinced by Wilson's argument. The ways he gets his point across is very interesting. You already pointed out the main technique from this article; the one where he uses the metaphoric examples. His confident and stubborn attitude also convinced many Americans, not only in the article but also in the speech. Although his idea of bringing the nations together using the League of Nations was great, he couldn't get majority of the USA to agree. Great TA and good luck on the next one.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read something like this it makes me wonder if the speech, or publication is aimed at a certain demographic or at the people in the whole. It seems like some of these ideas might have been too developed for a commoner of the time. Or maybe I am wrong? I believe that there are references for the less educated "simple american" in here as well. Like the bit about the house of cards, or driving out of town before you swear so you might settle down. These things are all great ideas but after reading it I almost feel like Wilson dumbs his words and ideas down some of the time. If this WAS his goal than he did great. Appeal to the masses.. why not?
ReplyDeleteGreat job on your analysis, I enjoyed reading this. I also found the argument very convincing since Wilson`s tone and choice of words shows how much he cares about the League of Nations, and how he believes that the League will bring peace to the world and end the wars between the nations. Even though this may not guarantee that there will be no more war, I feel that Wilson is trying to help keep as much peace as possible by taking a step in the right direction for the next generations to come. However, I personally enjoyed when Wilson quoted what others had said “We have heard that we might be at a disadvantage in the League of Nations”, as well as his response to this, “Well, whoever told you that either was deliberately falsifying or he had not read the Covenant…” and then states the facts, “Article X provides that every member of the League of Covenants to respect and preserve the territorial integrity and existing political independence of every other member of the League as against the external aggression”. This just shows me how much he cared about proving that this was the right choice in terms of peace between the nations. I also found the example where he described the settlement to a “house of cards” very interesting as well. But at the same time, I enjoyed his example he gave at the end of his speech about his friends and swearing. I think he was trying to tell us that instead of just losing tempers and going to war, we need to give each other time to cool off, and by being a part of the League of Nations, the treaty will be better to have than not to have as a protection against more war.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your analysis; it was thorough and was very descriptive. In Woodrow Wilsons address it was quite cleaver of him to start out by identifying his audience and their different views and making it seem that they all come together with the same principles and goals that the rest of the world wants and he opens the address by giving compliments and respect to the people so that they will receive his message with an open mind. When Woodrow Wilson discusses the peace treaty with Germany it seems that he tries to build up the people to explain how things could have been different if the League of Nations were all ready in place. I really thought his speech was full of emotion and respect and he gave many examples to get across that the League of Nations was about being a mediator and that all nations wanted peace. I also thought it was respectful how he used the Idea that he mother's who lost their loved ones in the war didn't blame him but this was a way to show that their lives weren't lost in vain but as the breaking point for world peace. I felt that his speech was full of respect and very convincing but unfortunately not convincing enough, but I feel that it laid the ground work for later years.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with your ethos of Wilson. His words gives you a good sense of his feeling towards the war and the after math of the war. He seems to appreciate all the men who fought for the freedom of the world. It's touching that women who have no connections to the fallen American soldiers felt strongly enough to adopt their graves as one of their own sons. He is tactful in clearing misconceptions of the treaty and in a way calls out those falsely interpreting the treaty. Wilson's speech gives good reason for waiting to enter war, by basically saying a little patience can give you a clear reason not to go to war. That even though this is not a absolute resolution, it gives a nation reason for pause and compromise. The argument Wilson makes is very convincing, and heart-lifting. That the only power that can stop war is the power of the people.
ReplyDelete