Wednesday, September 18, 2013

The Language of Abolition

Clearly, these are two drastically different articles.  One is written by a man who is about to die for his crimes.  Another is a legal document that provides a loophole to the fugitive slave law. 

Yes, unfortunately, most legal documents are written in this obscure and difficult style--but why is that?  Why is it so difficult to read them?

What strikes you about John Brown's speech?  Would you have said anything different if you were in his shoes?

11 comments:

  1. I personally really liked his speech. Although I kind of do wish that he had done more for the slaves other than talk to people about the wrongs of slavery I applaud that man. He knew that for being an abolitionist he was going to get killed, but he did not complain.He stood with pride and much dignity and didn't say that he regretted anything he did even though there was a threat to his life. He did not once back down and that is something that I really liked, however it was incredibly risky and probably proved to be his downfall. On another note, trying to understand the legal documents was very difficult, the language was complex and dense. I think the purpose of this is to keep people from knowing their rights/ to keep them from being able to ponder them and come up with loopholes such as the one presented. Imagine, most slaves were illiterate and even if they could read most were only able to read basic things certainly not something as complex as a legal document. Connecting this to AP Euro, priests used to do similar things: they left the bible in latin so that hardly anyone could understand it giving them more power. That is what this document reminds me of.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have never read John Browns speech before and i have never heard of him either. After reading his speech, I agree with Giselle because i really liked it too. I liked it because even though he knew that all of his actions were wrong, he still stood for what he believed in when he said "Let me say one word further. I feel entirely satisfied with the treatment I have received on my trial. Considering all the circumstances, it has been more generous than i expected. But i feel no consciousness of guilt." What strikes me most though is when John says that he feels no guilt, I don't understand how someone could literally just have no feelings at all. In the second reading, i think it is so difficult to understand the writings of legal documents because like we talked about in class, there was no set grammar or spelling in those times and also they wanted to maybe make the legal documents hard to read so that people who could read would have a hard time.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think that most legal documents are written in this style just to get their point across. They need to write like this so that people not only understand what they're trying to say, but to make it clear that what is said needs to be taken seriously. This legal document is split off into sections to discuss different topics. It is difficult to read them because they use weird wording that isn't used a lot. One thing that strikes me about John Browns speech is that he is trying to free slaves, and that he admits it. He also says he feels "satisfied" with the treatment he has received on his trial. This surprised me because most people would not say that they were satisfied with the way that their trial went.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I believe that it is written very weirdly because it would take people even today to read it a couple times to fully understand what they mean. The importance of what they are say need to be a unusual style of writing because then people would not see the importance of it.
    Also, John Browns speech was very moving. he was very polite and and did not do anything wrong and he is being sent to jail for that. he was trying to fight for what truly is right. he never lied and never did anything wrong and always told the truth. He really seemed that he really cared and believed that no one should take the blame. but all the while he was so calm, never to go insane, and yell for something he did not do.

    ReplyDelete
  5. First, I had a really hard time reading the official document of law.. after three readings I keep getting lost in sections, but anyways, I guess their purpose wasto sound authoritative but primarily because the more difficult it was to read, the less people would understand, especially the slaves, or people who could read the basics.
    Second, the speech of John Brown, I find it very interesting, I liked it because he sounded very self confidence, authoritative, and very proud of himself. I admire him way of being so direct, with no fear to say everything he did (all the murders, or committed crimes) and why he did so: to save the slaves. I was surprised by the sentence also that Meghan has said, not only because it once again shows he's proud of what he has done saying he feels no guilt but also because it says he had received very good treatment in his trial, something that no one would ever say, I think.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree with Tina that these documents are written so blandly so that they get their points across quickly and efficatnly. Theyre pretty serious and get straight to the point in the laws so that when people read them they took it seriously, whereas if the laws were written more casually and less intense people would most likely not take them as seriously. What strikes me about johns speech the most is how he is so cavalier about what he did, he comes right out and says it and states his opinion so blankly and obviously infront of anyone, not scared in the slightest of what other people or the judge may say. I really really liked Johns speech overall, especially the way he worded everything and gave examples of why he did what he did. For example when he said how if he had done what he did for the slaves to other people, the men would all be rewarding him instead of punishing him for doing what he did. Which i think was a very good point for him to make, because at that time period not all the people in the room had probably had that thought cross their minds.

    ReplyDelete
  7. What I first assumed about the difficulty of reading the legal document was that it was complicated to prevent the uneducated and illiterate masses from understanding the laws. Though when I finally began to understand what the document was saying, it was obvious that it was not the law makers intention to keep only the educated aware of the law. Most likely they worded the document so confusingly to prevent any loopholes, because their real concern was allowing any runaway slaves to be captured and returned to the South. For example, if an officer was to arrest an escaped slave, he would be fined or even jailed. Or if a public official issued a warrant for the arrest of a runaway slave, he would be impeached.
    What was the most appalling was that he did not own up to the many murders that he committed. Even though he was killing slave owners for the sake of abolitionism, violence is not the answer, the only solution is diplomacy. This is similar to how Obama wanted to bomb Syria after its government used chemical weapons on its people. More violence and bloodshed would only prolong the suffering of the Syrian people, only diplomacy would bring them peace.
    If I were in John Brown's shoes, I would not use the bible to justify murder and treason as he did, and I would acknowledge my wrongdoings.

    ReplyDelete
  8. These documents are written like this to get their point across. It's really difficult to read the legal document because the sentences are extremely long and I had to reread it multiple times just to understand what it was saying. Also, legal documents have to be written very carefully and detailed.

    After reading John Brown's speech, it's surprising that he seems so calm. Obviously, I don't know whether or not he was actually calm but from reading his speech, it seems like he was. Also, he didn't beat around the bush, but instead just said what he needed to say. He wasn't asking for pity. What's even more surprising is that he basically thanks the court for the treatment of his trial, because it's a lot more generous than he thought it would be. His introduction to his speech was also interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Legal documents, i feel are often written in a way that would prevent the lesser educated people from being fully able to comprehend them. In a way, they are direct and to the point but they are important official documents and documents of that nature should be written like that. Legal documents have to be specific and state what is meant. They're shouldn't be any confusion as to what is meant, once deciphered for its advanced grammar that is.

    John Brown's speech was interesting because facing the punishment he was at the time, he was calm and he acknowledged what he had done and denied nothing. He seemed content with what he had done because he did it for a cause that he believed in. It was surprising though, that he ended up thanking the court for an honest trial.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Back in the 19th century, when legal documents were written, the people who wrote the legal documents did not want the masses(uneducated) to participate in politics and therefore prevented them from comprehending laws. Plus, when legal documents are written, a lot of thinking and experiance has gone prior to writing the document, but if they re-write the document in a standard form in which everybody can understand, there is a great possibility that they might miss some details, which is not acceptable in labeling laws.

    John Brown's speech was very impressive and interesting. Even though he knew how he was going to be executed for what he had done, he stated his moral thoughts and went after what is right rather than being self-interested. If i were in his shoes, I don't know if i could do the same thing as him. I would but the situation would be really hard for me to act like him. Because if i were John Brown, I would probably have a little hope about how he might not get executed if he denied abolition, however, John Brown, by admiting his morals and thoughts, has lost any kind of hope for survival.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It's not a coincidence that legal documents were written in such a manner. These loophole laws provided fugitive slaves with basically a shelter. Due to their already low literacy rates and average mental capacity no fugitive slave handed this document would be able to understand what it was saying. Honestly, if i were one of them i would think i was in trouble. They also have to cover every contingency so they get extremely specific and use big uncommon words to specify these particular instances.

    He died a martyr. If i were in his shoes id be in a pretty content and pleased state of mind knowing that my life went to something meaningful.

    ReplyDelete