Although "The Crisis," by Thomas Paine and Patrick Henry's "Speech in the Virginia Convention," are both persuasive, Patrick Henry's is more due to its compelling rhetoric and to the point analysis.
When reading, "The Crisis," by Thomas Paine, I felt as if I came across many conflicting arguments. For example he states that God won't leave men to die by war. This is just inherently false, men die all the time in war. He later says in the speech that on every side of war there is never a more just side than the other. That conflicts when he calls upon everyone to support the Americans. How can he say the Americans have a just cause when he just said that isn't possible in war? That argument also conflicts with the last portion of his speech when he says there is no clear winner of reasoning in any war. Overall it was a read I didn't agree with and was confused about. Patrick Henry's speech was completely different. He starts out with a big claim that his thesis of his argument is freedom vs slavery, which drew me in. He always defends his cause as just, basically saying it's a bad idea to start a war with happy, smart, and compliant people. Henry also states the american's previous actions against Europe's injustices of which, no repercussions have been made. It also always helps to gain support from people by stating that God's on his side. The last line of his speech, "Give me liberty or give me death!" is so rhetorically powerful that it resonates within the listener. That is a quote that I remembered well more than any line in "The Crisis."
Words: 283
