Engber

1 Ariela Engber Paul Minifee RWS 500 14 May 2012 Evoking Commitment While logic may intuitively be the most vital component of an argument, humans - by nature - are largely influenced by their emotions, which are many times illogical. Knowing this, rhetors tailor their arguments to evoke emotions from those resistant to their ideas, as those who will not hear must be made to feel(Persuasion). Abolitionists Lydia Child, Angelina Grimke and Jermain Loguen all strategically employ this tactic, questioning their audiences values so that they are made to feel. Lydia Child champions for the abolition of slavery in her book An Appeal in Favor of That Class of Americans Called Africans, blatantly accusing Northerners of fostering prejudice so that they must join her to prove that they are not selfish and corruptive, but rather they are - like her - intelligent and moral. Angelina Grimke constructs her argument similarly in her letters to Harriet Beecher, attempting to sway the opinions of her secondary audience the Christian women of the North - by contrasting abolitionists righteous commitment with Beechers ignorant insincerity. In his speech I Wont Obey the Fugitive Slave Law, Loguen attempts to generate commitment from his secondary audience, questioning the liberty, masculinity, and character of the white men of Syracuse by demonstrating the strength of his own convictions and devotion to faith. Evoking an emotional response from their audiences, each rhetor seeks to provoke their audience into commitment by presenting an ultimatum: join proudly and embrace what is moral, or face being negatively associated with the opposition.

Engber 2 In choosing between right and wrong, positive and negative, good and evil, two opposing concepts are presented but there is only one viable choice. Jacqueline Bacon explains that this strategy of polarizing two ideas or arguments is often used to persuade marginalized groups, as used by rhetors to divide individuals into the committed and uncommitted,(Bacon, 57). In order for division to occur, rhetors must evoke a strong negative emotional response on token issues, using harsh language and negative association to make their audience commit to a side. Lydia Child, Angelina Grimke and Jermain Loguen present their audiences with ultimatums, emotionally involving them by questioning their values, beliefs and content of their character. Lydia Child, female rhetor and abolitionist, makes it clear that there is no moral ambiguity when it comes to the institution of slavery, as it clearly poses a threat to the entire American public. According to Patricia Heaman, in Childs book - An Appeal in Favor of That Class of Americans Called Africans - Child provides her readers with factual evidence of the corrupting effects of slavery on the political and moral principles on which the United States was founded,(175). By constructing her argument in this way, Child is able to evoke a defensive response, questioning her audiences morality and intelligence to evoke commitment to the abolition of prejudice and slavery. Child uses polarization, portraying those who choose not to take action as prejudice, corruptive and unintelligent as opposed to those who choose to join her in standing for what is right, forcing her Northern audience to commit to her, or knowingly embrace their own prejudice. Child questions her Northern audiences commitment to the abolition of slavery, bluntly expressing that if the free states wished to cherish the system of slavery for ever, they could not take a more direct course than they do now,(195). By using the word if, Child polarizes

Engber 3 her argument, giving her readers the option to either continue to cherish the system of slavery, or prove that they are committed to its abolition like they say they are. She uses the word cherish because it implies total support and devotion, disallowing her Northern audience to be passive bystanders in making their decision. Child polarizes her argument even further, describing the threat to society posed by people who are prejudice: the influence they unconsciously exert over children early infuses into their innocent minds the same strong feelings of contempt,(196). Making an emotional appeal, Child gives her audience the choice to corrupt the minds of innocent children with their prejudice by filling them with contempt, or join with her in eliminating prejudice. Bruce Mills reveals that this emotional appeal was typical of Childs writing, as she often portrayed slavery as a threat to women and children and thus the domestic welfare of the nation, (262). Child attempts to rally support from her audience by questioning their commitment, inviting them to prove their intelligence and morality by joining her. After providing a solution that would lessen the extent of slavery in the North equal employment opportunities - Child claims: All of this can be done. It merely required an earnest wish to overcome a prejudice,(207). In stating that slavery can be abolished it just requires an earnest wish, Child implies that the North has not yet demonstrated their commitment to the abolition of slavery. She then gives them a reason to commit, expressing that: prejudice of all kinds have their strongest holds in the minds of the vulgar and the ignorant,(207). Child negatively associates the implications of not joining with her, using harsh language to describe those who are prejudice as vulgar and ignorant. This implicitly conveys that those who are intelligent are opposed to prejudice. Through the use of negative association and polarization, Child

Engber 4 polarizes her argument to present her Northern audience with only one viable choice; join her and abolish the evils of prejudice. In her letters to Harriet Beecher, a Northern woman and self-proclaimed abolitionist, Angelina Grimke responds to Beechers assessment of womens role as abolitionists. She seeks to sever to tie between Beecher and abolition, polarizing the real abolitionists against Beecher in hopes that the women of the North - Beechers followers - will reevaluate their commitment and defend their claimed devotion to abolition. They are given a choice: remain associated with Beecher as selfish and fraudulent abolitionists, or join with her and prove their altruistic morality. Grimke polarizes herself against Beecher in her first letter by defining the beliefs held by real abolitionists, proving a division in their fundamental principles. She explains that she will prove a distinction between the groups by compare the principles of the women of the North to see how far they correspond with the principles held by Abolitionists,(4). By explaining her intention, she condescendingly implies that the distinction between the groups is blatantly obvious, and that anyone who does not see this difference is ignorant. She then defines the principles of abolitionists, simplifying them to further demonstrate Beechers ignorance. She then presents Beechers argument, comparing them only to conclude: thou hast only confirmed my opinion of the difference which I had believed to exist between Abolitionists and their opponents,(6). By acknowledging Beechers argument as confirmation of her opinion of the difference between the Northern women and abolitionists, Grimke proves that Beecher is not an abolitionist, and further, that she does not even understand the fundamental principles it takes to be an abolitionist. By differentiating Beechers beliefs from abolitionists,

Engber 5 Grimke forces the women of the North to assess their own values to evaluate where their commitment lies. Grimkes exposes Beechers true intentions, accusing her of claiming to be an abolitionist out of self-interest. Grimke describes those who agree with Beecher as anxious to avoid the appearance of evil-very desirous of retaining the fair character of enemies to slavery,(6). By describing Beecher as attempting to avoid the appearance of evil, Grimke exposes Beechers insincierity and selfishness, hinting that this abolitionist faade is masking her underlying evil. Further, by describing the fair character of enemies to slavery, Grimke polarizes the altruistic intentions of abolitionists against those who hold insinceire beliefs. Katherine Henry explains that: in her writings Grimke suggests that the elements of domesticity are themselves merely show, designed to conceal the terrors of slavery,(36). Through polarization, Grimke gives the women of the North the choice to join with those who nare sinceirly committed, or with Beecher who is only committed out of self-interest. Grimke further divides Beechers from abolitionists by appealing to the Christian values of the women of the North, claiming: As well might Saul have declared, that he held similar vies with Stephen,(6). Grimkes biblical reference to the stoning of Stephen assimilates the real abolitionists with Stephen - who sacrificed himself for his beliefs and Beecher with Saul - who took part in Stephens death, portraying abolitionists as selfless martyers while conversely painting Beecher as a villain. This strategy allows Beecher to demonstrate a clear contrast between the abolitionists sincerity and Beechers hypocrisy, the abolitionists self-exposure and Beechers self-concealment,(Henry, 338). As Saul eventually finds his way and converts to Christianity, Grimke presents the women of the North with the opportunity for redemption, encouraging them to join her and prove their sincere commitment to the abolition of slavery.

Engber 6 Though he was born into slavery, Jermain Loguen escaped to become a notable bishop and abolitionist, using the power of speech to unite people against the system of slavery. Paul Minifee explains that Loguen made it his mission to mobilize agitators in order to reinforce group unity, reinvigorate morale, and reify the groups goal of the complete manumission of slaves,(59). This attempt to unify people against slavery can be seen clearly when Loguens speaks out against a law decreeing the eviction of black people from the city of Syracuse. Though he was directly addressing the mayor, his words were intended for a broader audience: the white men of Syracuse. Loguen uses polarization so that his audience must join with him, or choose to accept being stripped of their manhood. Loguen questions the values of the men of Syracuse, attempting to evoke defensiveness and guilt to gain their commitment. He poses a rhetorical question: Did I think so meanly of you-did I suppose the people of Syracuse, strong as they are in numbers and love of liberty-or did I believe their love of liberty was so selfish, unmanly and unchristianas to see me torn from my home and family, and hurled back to bondage,(224). Though his speech is directed at you the mayor - Loguen directly involves his secondary audience the men of Syracuse by discussing an ideal they proudly identify with; their love of liberty. He answers his own question when he claims: did I think so meanly of you, I could never come to live with you,(225). By testifying to Syracuses love of liberty, he expresses his confidence that the men of Syracuse are not selfish, unmanly and unchristian and therefore, will not allow him to be hurled back to bondage. In this way, Loguen forces them to join with him to avoid being responsible for his eviction and to prove their manhood, their faith, and their love of liberty. Loguen further polarizes the choice between action and inaction, using harsh language to question the masculinity of the audience. He boldly declares that the law will cause white

Engber 7 men to live in dishonorable submission, demasculating anyone who chooses not to take a moral stance by allowing this law to pass (225). Jacqueline Bacon describes this tactic, explaining how African American abolitionists use of harsh language was used to judge audience members or to overemphasize their ostensibly degraded behavior,(57). Loguen continues, giving the men of Syracuse the opportunity to prove their manhood when he calls them to action: they must give their physical as well as intellectual powers to the defense of human rights. Through use of self-example, Loguen demonstrates his own convictions and commitments to set an example for the men of Syracuse. He speaks to his own morality and convictions, proclaiming: I receive my freedom from Heaven, and with it came the command to defend my title to it,(225). Loguen sets an example for the men of Syracuse, embodying morality and masculinity by defending his beliefs and answering to god alone. Paul Minifee explains this tactic of self-proclaimed righteousness: Loguen and his true friends employed their bodies as rhetorical symbols to argue, extra-verbally, that the humanity of blacks was worth dying for, (62). By demonstrating the strength of his convictions, Loguen polarizes the option to join him in defending the rights of the disenfranchised against the demasculating choice to passively allow the law to pass. To generate commitment to the abolition of slavery, rhetors Lydia Child, Angelina Grimke and Jermain Loguen each present their audience with an ultimatum, polarizing their arguments to guide people in making the right decision. They question the values of their audience to evoke their emotions, inviting people to prove the content of their character by committing to their cause.

Engber 8 Works Cited Bacon, Jacqueline. The Humblest May Stand Forth: Rhetoric, Empowerment, and Abolition. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2002. 57-58. Google Scholar. Web. 21 April 2012. Calloway, Carolyn R. Group Cohesiveness in the Black Panther Party. Journal of Black Studies, 8.1 (1977): 55-74. JSTOR. Web. 22 April 2012. Henry, Katherine. Rhetoric of Exposure. American Quarterly, 49.2 (1997): 328-55. JSOR. Web. 22 April 2012. Heaman, Patricia B. An Appeal in Favor of That Class of Americans Called Africans by Lydia Maria Child; Review. The Society of Multi-Ethnic Literature of the United States, 24.3(1999): 175-79. JSTOR. Web. 22 April 2012. Mills, Bruce. Lydia Maria Child the Endings to Harriet Jacobs's Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl. American Literature, 64.2 (1992): 255-72. JSTOR. Web. 22 April 2012. Minifee, Paul A. Roots of Black Rhetoric: African Methodist Episcopal Zions Pioneering Preacher-Politicians. Diss U of Texas, 2008. Web. 21 April 2012. Persuasion. Quoteland.com, n.p., n.d. Web. 21 April 2012.