1. What is the author arguing?
In the Alien act the author is trying to argue that the president
has the right to deport any resident
alien considered dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States. Also
the president has the power to apprehend and deport resident aliens (males
fourteen and up) if their home countries were at war with the United States.
While “good behaved” aliens could stay in the country if the Sate premets,
The Sedition act provided the punishment of persons conspiring to oppose or obstruct measures of the federal government and for the punishment of some writings critical of the government. However if one can give justification for his writing to a jury and found not guilty than his off the hook.
2. How does the author appeal to logos (logic), pathos
(emotional quality), and ethos (the writer’s perceived character) with their
argument?
Alien act
Logos- I think the whole document was quite logical in a twisted way. It states that if America was at war with a hostile nation than we should have the right to detain and deport any civilian who was affiliated with that nation and that has presented a clear danger to America if not than the state can decided if the civilian can stay in the country.
Logos- I think the whole document was quite logical in a twisted way. It states that if America was at war with a hostile nation than we should have the right to detain and deport any civilian who was affiliated with that nation and that has presented a clear danger to America if not than the state can decided if the civilian can stay in the country.
·
Pathos-
The author uses pathos by describing that this “aliens” could be very dangerous
to the public well-being, he reuses words
like enemies and hostile to emphasis that we should be afraid of them.
·
Ethos- The author seemed somewhat paranoid .
Reading the document it felt like if we didn’t get rid of this “aliens” than it
would be the end of America.
Sedition act
·
Logos-
The author uses logic by saying “impede
the operation of any law of the United States” by saying this it’s basically
saying that there going against your country and everything it stands for.
·
Pathos-
They use emotional quality by saying that it is plain out wrong to
insult a government official instead they should be seen as hero’s for serving their
country.
·
Ethos- The
author seemed argent , they wanted government officials to be seen as hero’s or
celebrities.
3. What is the historical significance/relevance of this
document?
Both documents felt like we were taking a step back. The constitution
promised freedom and equality while this documents restricted some of those
rights by preventing freedom of speech, press, and the right to life. It looked more and more like a monarchy than a
democrat government, I guess in some way it showed us that we had to work
harder to protect this rights.
4. Do you find the author’s argument convincing? Why or why
not?
No, If you think about it these documents want against
everything the founding Father fought
for. They restricted freedom and spread fear amongst the population. If this laws
were still valid today it would be like living in modern day China were
everything you do could be seen by the government and you couldn’t say anything
about it because you would be “Criticizing” the government.
I liked your analysis on these texts. I agree with you, these documents don’t really seem what America is about in our Founding Fathers eyes. And these documents make the meaning of the Constitution meaningless because these acts had restrictions. Plus, I liked how you mentioned it sounded like a monarchy and like China because it does sound like it, and it doesn’t even sound anything like democracy. Definitely, this shows us we had a long way to go to ensure the rights were protected. I thought you did a great job in analyzing the text, and I agree with what you said.
ReplyDeleteLike you, I find the Alien and Seditions Acts quite chilling when we think of the present-day democratic freedoms we enjoy today. Interestingly enough, our current immigration laws still allow for aliens and non-citizens to be held and/or removed for reasons not entirely unlike those in the Alien Act. (Guantanamo Bay detainees may be a good example.)
ReplyDeleteLooking back in a historical perspective, I think the authors and implementers of these acts were reacting to both real an perceived threats and observations: the potential for civil war; the realization that the united nature of the colonies was connected by thin threads and there was great potential for the colonies to break apart rather strengthen their bonds; and threats from other outside sources.
That said, again, it is very chilling that dissenters could not even write about policies they did not agree without the possibility of defending themselves in court because of the Sedition Act.
Also, I think reading about these acts now helps to put more of a spotlight on the fact that early on in politics, our country did NOT allow for every "regular" person to participate in politics or governance, nor were they deemed to have the qualities or abilities that permit good decision-making for the masses (e.g., only property owners and "free" men were eligible to hold office, etc.). I am glad that those opinions have changed considerably over time.
I appreciate your observations and analysis - you made some very good points.
After reading your analysis I agree with your outlook on the Alien and Sedition Act. Congress was scared and not sure what to do, so they put into place these act that was "conflicted with the Bill of Rights." Congress didn't really take in to consideration of the people when trying to protect them. I also agree with your logic views also congress was confused and not sure in what they where doing and if was right for the people. When on man took the stand to make peace congress was still not happy with that decision and made a fuss. I also don't agree with the author's argument they had lost the vision of our founding fathers, and if we where still under these acts we the people would feel trapped. This analysis was great and put into prospective for how the world has changed and we the people have a lot more say as to what we run this country.
ReplyDeleteI thought you did a fantastic job breaking down the text and critically thinking of the presented acts. Like you, I agree with what you are saying about the logic of the document. It is unusual that if any nation was at war with America then the American government has the right to detain and persons that originated from that nation. What I also found interesting was the amount of money the punishments held. Talking about two thousand dollars back in that time frame would have been nearly impossible for any average worker to come up with. I thought it was great that you pointed out "taking a step back" because the constitution did promise freedom and equality. While reading these documents it did feel like the government was trying to spread fear, something that the founding fathers would not approve of. Excellent job on the analysis, keep up the good work!
ReplyDelete