Tyler Butterworth
English 1100
10/27/2017
Battle of the Confederate Monuments
You have probably seen in the news or heard people screaming “Tear them down! Tear them down!” or “You’re crazy, it’s history!” People across the United States are currently debating the historical significance of confederate related monuments and what exactly they represent about American history. Many ask the questions: Why were these statues created and should they still be standing? On one side of the debate, American citizens support the idea that the monuments represent a part of American history and wish for them to remain standing. Others claim that the monuments are glorifying the people who supported slavery and want to remove those particular monuments. This topic has plenty of pathos as it emotionally touches so many people in so many different ways.
Those who support the statues feel it would make more sense to put the money that would be needed to remove all these monuments and statues into our schools and other areas where it is desperately needed. They also claim that these statues are a part of history and were put up only for that reason. You cannot change history, but you can learn from it. The article by John Davidson called “Why We Should Keep The Confederate Monuments Right Where They Are” is about keeping the statues erect. The author gives his side for why they should stay up and why you should side with him on this very sensitive topic to many. The pathos and logos are plentiful in this article. A prime example of pathos was taken from two quotes in the beginning of the article which stated, “They say we shouldn’t honor a bunch of racists who fought to preserve slavery,” and “This iconoclastic impulse is a mistake.” As you see here Davidson strongly voices his opinion by the words and tone that he uses. You can also conclude from his choice of words that this topic angers him. Depending on the reader's beliefs on this topic, the first quote could be seen either way as pathos or as logos. From the pathos side, you could tell that he was angry and upset that those in contrast to his beliefs, call people like him, racists. From the other perspective, people that want to take the statues and monuments down could see that as a fact that all these people are racists by today’s definition. and are pro slavery which clearly the author was not happy about. Secondly, a portion of the article focuses on logos. One of his factual quotes was “Most of them were built a half-century after the war, as the Civil War generation was beginning to die off. Before the turn of the century, Confederate graves had for the most part not been cared for in federal cemeteries, and erecting a Confederate monument was considered treasonous.” Davidson states facts about the monuments and why they were put up and maintained. He also states that the monument boom was during a terrible time for race relations and mass immigration which makes his argument to preserve the statues, challenging. The author states all his historical information as facts which is characteristics of logos. As noticed, first person is not used in Davidson’s article which reinforces logos as well. Finally, the small ethos placed in this article is telling the reader that John Davidson is a senior writer for this newspaper company. This concludes to the reader that he is a credible source to read from since he has a high reputation there. So if you were to be looking for someone to talk to about this he would be one of the top people to ask.
“We should remove Confederate statues”, written by Michael Dawson, supports the removal of certain monuments. He, as well as others, believe Confederate monuments and statues are strictly a shameless reminder of slavery. Also, he states that the monuments can be seen as a symbol of oppression and people do not want to be reminded of the harsh past every time they walk by a monument. This document is filled with pathos but you have to dig deep to uncover them. The author goes on to compare the confederate flag to the Nazi flag and the killing of all the Jews. Dawson made this comparison because to him slavery correlates to the murdering of millions of Jews. The author then compared facts from Nazi’s to the confederacy. From the articles perspective, there are lots of logos used, but, some are purely opinions. Dawson says that “After all, the Civil War was about a certain kind of States rights: The right to own the bodies of black people. It isn't often that a country will proudly display monuments of the losing side, of the side that committed atrocious acts of human rights abuse, but it seems like America is one of the great exceptions.” This quote is a firm belief from the author which might not necessarily be factual, but reads as though it is. The following quote is another example of an opinionated logo stating “Monuments of human abuse are not freedom of speech nor the grand memories of cherished war glory. They stand to serve as a reminder to African Americans that they have always been treated as second-class citizens in a country that proudly displays it without consequence.” As you can see Michael Dawson is also just as passionate in his opinions as Davidson is. This is illustrated by his use of colorful vocabulary showing hatred towards the opposing side. Not only is he against what the monuments stand for but taking theses statues down will create a more united country without racial division.
Some of the opinions given were in support of taking down certain monuments because of the intimidation and glorification that is associated with them. These individuals believe that even statues of historic figures like Christopher Columbus and George Washington should be removed. Other opinions supported leaving that statues up because they represent an important part of American history that should be used as a teaching tool. George W. Bush said, “A great nation does not hide its history, it faces its flaws and corrects them.” (foxnews.com) Overall it seems obvious that people have strong opinions when it comes to this controversial topic and are not often persuaded differently. Forming an agreement with this topic will be difficult. There are equally strong sources that provide evidence to support both sides of the controversial topic. Also, after reading this paper, you can conclude that there is plenty of pathos and logos throughout both articles. The pathos would come from the writer’s emotions. For example, when Davidson got angry about calling people like himself racists. When both the authors stated their facts about the confederate monuments on why they should be up or down it was the logos.