Abraham Lincoln was arguing that he had indication of making changes to slavery of which it already existed, or to any laws that existed before him, but I believe his whole purpose was to keep the U.S together as a whole. He makes it clear that the North and South to follow the Constitutional law without violence or war. President Lincoln was coming in at a difficult time, he not only had to deal with slaves, but the North and South being divided by war and violence. He had genuine intentions to make the United States a better place for every American. Lincoln meant business, which I believe made him a great president. He had every intention of making things better and he did.
2. How does the other appeal to logos, pathos, and ethos with their arguments?
He was making it clear that he didn’t want to change laws, but to govern the law. You can since his urgency on making things right. Pathos and ethos is what it sounds like. Its makes since that he wants to get things in order to help the nation. He didn’t want to make any drastic changes, because that probably would have made a negative impact for then a positive.
3. What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?
I think he was giving a blue print of what he wanted to do as president. He was laying the foundation down for change. Not everyone would agree of course, but he was off to a good start.
4. Do you find the authors argument convincing? Why or why not?
Very convincing, he believed in the constitution. Even though the South reneged, he had all the good attentions of setting them straight. People will eventually do what they want. I think it was written well and he made great points.